Ann: NSW Mineral Exploration and Investment Prese, page-7

re: Ann: NSW Mineral Exploration and Investme... I believe a pretty good question should be: Should CAP ditch their other projects (Nickel, Tungsten, Gold) and focus on Hughenden/Hawsons developments more?

In Hawsons and Hughenden, if CAP hold onto both of these assets and can get both onto production then CAP will be an huge multi-bagger over the long-term. However despite Hawsons being free-carried at the present time (assuming the JV holds up), a lot of expenditure will be required on CAP's behalf towards Hughenden especially.

It's easy to argue there could be value in these other assets, but let's face it- it's easy to argue that there could be value for any tenement targeting any mineral!

I wonder if Nick could possibly be trying to develop a resource (Nickel, Tungsten, Gold etc) at some of these locations and flog them off to the highest bidder to make some profits?

I suppose in a time like this (With the Hughenden JORC been delayed a few months and Hawsons in the stalemate position that it is at the moment), CAP could feel that they should direct their energy to other prospects, but unless these other prospects are in the company's long-term plans then one should ask why they're even pursued at the present time? (with a very full plate at the moment).

On CAP's website it says that the company's ambition is to "Discover through exploration or acquisition a profitable mine to develop a cash flow to further grow the company.

If a mine were to be developed from CAP's inventory of current tenements, then that would require a lot of money and I would assume not be up and running for another 2+ years (depending on many factors obviously).

If CAP were to acquire a producing mine on the other hand, then that could put the company in huge financial restraints at a time when the company could be facing huge costs in getting Hughenden up and running.

In my opinion CAP's got 2 premier assets and doesn't really need the distractions of other mineral opportunities. Not only could it be distracting for the company, but it could also be distracting for Investors, seeing the company talk about the billion dollar Hawsons project one minute, then shortly after talk about a small gold tenement some-where else.

I know production from Hawsons or Hughenden is a very long time away, however with eggs in two baskets (coal and iron), it's a safe bet that either asset could be selling the respective resource (coal and iron) at strong future prices. (what are the odds of both iron and coal dropping sharply over the next 10 years).

SDL has proven that you don't need a short-term producing asset to get the market's attention, you just need solid plans on bringing it to production!

Stick with the focus on Hawsons and Hughenden I'd say. There's an insanely large amount of money coming CAP's way if both these assets turn out right.

Not a big fan of CAP's management to be honest (judging by recent advertising and lack of advertising... Hawsons), however considering CAP's market cap, it certainly owns 2 beastly high potential assets.

And for the record I believe CAP's 20% free carry Hawson's JV is worth much more than CAP spending $13 million (and wasting a lot of time) to buy back 100% of Hawson's rights.

The free-carried agreement to an expensive iron-ore mine should be under-estimated. I hope the BMG scenario turns out well, and that the management can actually relay what's happening in regards to BMG.

Best of luck.