worry about survival, page-24

Hi Hastenbrucke,

Thanks for your kind comments but I hope you learned from your own research which was initiated from my posts, because that is what I requested.

May I be presumptuous to go over a few points about CUX with you and to garner your comments.

Here are 10 points why I invested in and continue to be invested in CUX:

1. 'Maps' on another forum Post #: 9217650 how a number of rare earth companies have not faired well over the past 12mths. He gave the figures as:

lyc 50%
aru 53%
has 59%
cux 60%
alk 60%
ntu 63%
pek 65%
mcp 81%

I believe that shows the challenges to the industry not just CUX as some have asserted.

That said, CUX's partner PUC would appear to be the exception, which is up nearly 30% in the past 12 mths from 7 cents to 9 cents.

2. As I pointed out in Post # 9219098, Alessandra Bruno and Tracy Weslosky certianly rate CUX and have questioned the wisdom of Jack Lifton's list.

3. CUX has a massive resource. CUX's JORC defined indicated and inferred resource of 235,000 tonnes of TREO was defined from under 1% of the alluvial fan areas (1).

That can be extrapolated to 235,000 x 100 = 23,500,000 tonnes TREO

4. 17% of CUX's resource are HREO (2). From the extrapolated figure, 23,500,000, that is ~4,000,000 tonnes HREO.

That @ 1.92% Dy2O2 (CUX Prospectus 29th Oct 12) gives an estimation 76,800 tonnes of Dy2O2 alone.

Now to assist to make a comparision:

a) NTU only has a JORC Resource of 10,500 tonnes TREO.
b) HAS has a JORC Resource of ~141,000 tonnes TREO of which 65,250 tonnes is HREO and 6,733 tonnes Dy2O2.

In the HAS presentation it is stated that 140 Tpa of Dy2O2 is 10% of the world supply. Taking it to the rediculously extreme, a 70% recovery of the estimate of 76,800 tonnes would supply the current world demand of Dy2O2 for over 350 years.

I would suggest that Charlie Creek can only be descibed as a massive rare earth resource on any comparision.

5. The Charlie Creek resource is contained in Monazite and Xenotime.

In Alessandra Bruno's article, titled "LYNAS Finally…almost… Free from SMSL Group, Lifton Survivor List Spurs Debate", it was stated:

".. Xenotime processing has advanced considerably in recent years and it has been generally recognized as one of the most economically efficient minerals for rare earth production, the others being monazite and bastnaesite."

In other words IMHO, Charlie Creek's resource is in the good stuff.

6. The experienced management has a lot of skin in CUX. Take for instance Geoff Eupene who at the time of the prospectus lodged on the 29th of October 2012 held 5.87% of the company.

7. IMHO because of topology of Charlie Creek i.e it is spread out over 2000 sq. kilometres increased scales of economies can easily be achieved. Therefore, the difference between marginal cost and marginal profit can be increased with output for potentially very large outputs of the Charlie Creek resource. So much so, IMHO, the limit of production for CUX will not be limited by the physical constraints of resource but only what rare earths the market can absorb.

An example of this is shown by the reduction of estimated costs when the proposed output of Charlie Creek is increased from 12 MTpa to 18 MTpa.

If the total amount of alluvium containing TREO is estimated as 800MT x 100 = 80,000 tonnes then 18MTpa would give a mine life of over 4,400 years (3).

It is understandable that some shareholders of other rare earth companies would be concerned with this aspect of CUX. because as output increases costs per tonne will then reduce. This is a luxury most rare earth resources do not have.

If CUX is economical at very low levels of production ie. 18MTpa, then when the scales of economies are increased and costs reduced how will other resources compete? They won't unless their costs are also very low.

8. The management has highlighted in the prospectus lodged on the 29th of October 2012 p 24 that

"Most competing projects are hard rock and have higher cost structure because:
- Complex minerology requires complex processing
- REO refinery is larger and more costly because refinery input is lower grade.

9. The size of CUX's resource will give purchasers a security of supply for centuries not just decades.

10. As CUX's resource is in a politically stable and economically open society being Australia.

Let's see what the scoping study provides and whether it will attract a farmin partner. I don't believe this study is totally make or break as with increased scales of economy the cost of exploitation should be reduced.

Putting it simply, I would prefer to be in CUX than a number of other rare earth companies and I believe so would, if they were honest, the downrampers of CUX.

Let me know what you think.

If a downramper wishes me to reply they will be sadly disappointed because I feel it is not worth my time to reply to them.

Cheers,

Stoops.


















(1) Pages 6 and 12 on http://www.crosslanduranium.com.au/uploads/resources/CUX_Presentation_Strategic_Metals_and_REE_20_Feb_13.pdf
(2) Ibid Page 9
(3) Ibid Page 6