race to the finish line, page-16

Stoops,

if what you are advocating was true, then don't you think management of CUX would be promoting it

more so given the significant world wide supply shortfall in many rare earths that presently exists

.... stop and think about this!!

++++++++++++++++

also there is a reason, leading industry analyst Carolyn Dennis on The Critical Metals Report | May 2, 2012

http://www.mining.com/2012/05/02/rare-earths-miners-race-to-the-finish-line-carolyn-dennis/

to assess rare earth distribution uses the following formula ....

sums up the grades of the critical elements neodymium, praseodymium, dysprosium, terbium, europium and yttrium.

divide that by the sum of the grades of cerium and lanthanum.

It's because there is an over supply of
cerium and lanthanum.

CUX grades are 56% in cerium and lanthanum

Using her formula then ...

for CUX

14.93 neodymium
4.24 praseodymium
2.11 dysprosium
0.37 terbium
0.01 europium
12.90 yttrium
34.56 Total

38.63 cerium
18.07 lanthanum
56.70 Total

60.96% (34.56 divided by 56.70)

(These numbers were obtained from page 7 of the following CUX presetation:- http://stocknessmonster.com/news-item?S=CUX&E=ASX&N=590235 )

This means that the more valuable critical rare earths are in the minority in the CUX resource - and represent only about 61% of the equilivant cerium and lanthanum present

It's definately not a good resource using this measure

I am here to tell the truth - and will back up what I put up with links to reference sources

Now the >35% TREO you are referring to - I assume you are thaking that from page 6 of the same presentation

http://stocknessmonster.com/news-item?S=CUX&E=ASX&N=590235

It appears to me you are taking this out of context, because if you have a look, they are actually state the following

The mineralisation is readily upgradeable to high grades of contained TREO in "concentrate" (>35% TREO) by physical low cost methods:- low process risk

Now the key word you appear to be continually overlook is the word "concentrate"

To produce a concentrate you need a construct a concentrator - they are heading down the same path as NTU but

1. their grades are not as good

2. they appear to be a year or so behind NTU with their metallurgical studies

Other projects will get off the ground before this one - NTU's for starters

The numbers for NTU based on the assessment used by Carolyn Dennis on The Critical Metals Report | May 2, 2012

http://www.mining.com/2012/05/02/rare-earths-miners-race-to-the-finish-line-carolyn-dennis/

to assess rare earth distribution ....

sums up the grades of the critical elements neodymium, praseodymium, dysprosium, terbium, europium and yttrium.

divide that by the sum of the grades of cerium and lanthanum.

for NTU:-

1.3 neodymium
0.2 praseodymium
11.2 dysprosium
1.3 terbium
0.4 europium
62.1 yttrium
76.5 total

1.2 cerium
0.4 lanthanum
1.6 Total

4781% (76.5 divided by 1.6)

refer to page 11, for the source of these numbers

http://stocknessmonster.com/news-item?S=NTU&E=ASX&N=587953

Now what this is telling us is that NTU has 4781% more of the critical rare earths as compared to the sum of the cerium and lanthanum

There is no comparison between CUX and NTU - CUX has too much cerium and lanthanum and I predict will never make it into production as a result

+++++++++++++++++

Stoops you need to be more responsible in what you post, because people have real money on the line and that is what is at risk here