All,Long time no post....It's been an interesting few months...

All,

Long time no post....

It's been an interesting few months since last posting. Just flicking through some of the posts and catching up on discussion one thing I've noticed is that at present there seems to be a significant amount of "angst" at recent events.

Funnily enough, the tone of posts also closely follows shareprice movement, whereby an increase in shareprice = an increase in positive/praise posts, and a decrease in shareprice = an increase in negative/hate posts. All this shows is emotional (and illogical) investing.

One of the first things that came to mind was this image from investsmart.com.au. It's an excellent way to sum up the sentiment being displayed here (if you don't believe me - read a few posts from the drilling of Johnstone through to where we are now):

First things first, CTP is an exploration company and exploration companies are foremost characterised by VOLATILITY and RISK. This volatility does not affect long term investors as much, however each person here is responsible for their own decision to invest in the company and should have spent the time researching and understanding the risks before committing.

For those who are frustrated with dilution, this was one of the utmost risks from listing, clearly the company needed large amounts of capital to achieve its stated objectives and with no producing assets dilution was a certainty given the nature of exploration. It happens with 99% of juniors so is no surprise but at least CTP are getting very promising results!

For those concerned about drilling results, in my opinion, the baseline fundamentals of the company have not changed. If anything the company's case for exploration in the area is significantly stronger than it was 12 months ago and is slowly but surely being de-risked. Not one well to date has failed to demonstrate some form of hydrocarbon occurrence and by looking at their exploration to date we have had the following results.

Blamore - 15m residual column and 140m of net coal (seams >1m)

Simpson- oil shows and 6m of net coal (seams >1m)

Ooraminna - 25m gas column flowing at 150mscf/d

Johnstone -128m oil shows

CBM - all wells successful witl all intersecting significant seams

Surprise - results TBC.

Although no wells above have been a commercial find, the results above consistently indicate a high level of potential. Keep in mind, the company is exploring in one of the most under explored, complex and isolated onshore basins in the world which takes time. There are over 200 prospects and leads in this package and each well drilled will provide invaluable information and controls for future exploration and drilling. Having seen firms of all sizes such as OSH, ARC (BRU), WPL, HZN, ROC etc all drill back to back wells with not even an ounce of hydrocarbon shows, adds confidence that CTP are on track. In my opinion it will only be a matter of time until a commercial discovery is made. It would be strange that a basin the size of the Amadeus would only have two significant reservoirs formed with the ability for production! (ie Mereenie and Palm Valley)

My main concern to date over activities has been the competence of the drilling crew. Blamore, Ooraminna and Johnstone all suffered some form of issue and/or delay whether technical or due to poor organisational skills of the drilling contractor. Every day of delay costs tens of thousands of dollars of shareholder money and unfortunately it is very difficult to claim liquidated damages from these drilling firms. In all honesty it has been a comedy of drilling errors and unfortunately due to market conditions this is one problem I cannot see this changing in the near future. The company should be looking to secure the services of other providers with newer rigs and competent crew, though unfortunately both of these are sparse!

On another note, regarding the posts around the SMI GTL Conference in London, CTP would have been invited to present at this event by the organiser. Given presentations will be made by representatives engaged by companies such as Shell, BP and other GTL technology firms the event is worthwhile for exposure and increased knowledge. The forum includes economic, technology and financial/financing strategies for GTL and one of the topics relates to monetisation of stranded gas. Updates on the progress of Pearl will also be given which I'd find quite interesting. The full programme can be accessed from SMI for those that are interested. http://www.smi-online.co.uk/events/overview.asp?is=5&ref=3456

One thing I picked up in relation to yesterdays announcement outlining the SMI presentation is that there are now approximately 8000 holders on the register. This is a significant amount of people for an exploration firm of this nature. Not long ago this figure was only 3000 and I understand JH was spending alot of time responding to shareholder enquiries as it was. Now with 8000 I could not imagine the time this is consuming of his. If just 1 holder out of every 500 emailed or called JH asking for information every day that's 16 emails and/or phonecalls to respond to (over 100 per week).

Based on my own experience, with the amount and nature of enquiries he may be getting it would not surprise me if JH is spending 2-3 hours of his day (in and out of normal working hours) responding to queries.

Is this really where his time should be spent? I don't think so.

I know I'd much prefer he spend that 2-3 hours developing the business! JH will only disclose what can be found in ASX announcements or found in the public domain. So unless it's critical why not let him get on with the job, rely on ASX announcements and spend time doing reseach, It's unfair to the company and most other shareholders to expect him to spend time regurgitating information which can be found in public.

CTP in my opinion gives out more information than the regular ASX listed exploration firm with the MD himself responding to emails and phone calls, releasing and providing detailed technical papers/data, providing daily drilling updates (most companies do not do this), consistently updating Top 20's etc etc. I'd assume alot of queries are made to the company based on needing to know "everythings ok", however there are other ways to do this ie: DYOR. Try give the man a break!

Anyway, as a final thought I noticed alot of interest/discussion around the coal, some saying it's a waste of time others suggesting a JORC compliant resource would be useful. I agree with the latter and in my opinion it will only be a matter of time until a partner is committed, particularly as the resource base is continually being proven and discussions have been ongoing with numerous parties. Although it costs money to drill a resource with no near term monetisation through extraction, drilling is required to bring in partners to expedite the process. The company can also attain significant cash inflows from JV inputs.

In my opinion, the main reason CTP has not yet found a partner is due to the isolation of the site. Should this have been closer to an export market (ie within 500km) they would have secured a partner some time ago. Another contributor is the type of coal encountered which has excellent thermal properties but is not ideal for coking.

However for starters, to compare the Pedirka coals to other thermal coals, at say 6000 kcal/kg or 22-25 MJ/kg the energy content and summary properties are as good as (and often better) than many producing mines:

To better demonstrate this, below is a comparison of certain coal properties to different producing thermal coal mines located throughout QLD:

Due to the logistical and thus economic conditions to get these thermal coals to market, as the company has stated they are considering numerous ways to monetise this resource. This includes UCG, GTL/GTF, and mining + beneficiation. I've previously discussed GTL/CSG on the threads, but not beneficiation.

Beneficiation of the coal has the potential to add a significant value added product from this stranded resource. Notably, if the company can remove volatiles, moisture and ash, they are able to reduce the coal to a much more concentrated energy form which would significantly enhance the economics of resource. (There are a also a range of other factors to consider when assessing coal for a specific purpose/beneficiation process such as its ash fusion temperatures under deformation/sphere/hemisphere/flow, grindability (HGI), abrasion, crucible swelling number, vitrinite, coke strength after reaction etc etc).

There are numerous technologies to undertake this beneficiation process with one of the world's leading technologies here in our backyard, created by CSIRO but patented and implemented by a firm called White Energy Company (WEC).

For an example of this technology WEC provides a simple but informative video on their website which can be viewed at the below link.

http://www.whiteenergyco.com/about-us/corporate-video/index.php

Should the beneficiation/briquetting work (and it's highly possible it will through WEC or another process), below is a quick analysis on coal mining and beneficiation opportunities.

The mining scenario shown here is based on extraction, beneficiation and transportation via rail and loading at port of Darwin for shipping to the Asian market. There are other options such as CLP and CSP which could be more economically attractive, but bulk haulage assessment will suffice for now.

The chart below demonstrates a highly speculative value should the company move down the path of bulk freighting coal in the range from 2 million to 30 million net tonnes per annum. As can be seen there are two kicks in the valuation due to economies of scale, largely revolving around transportation.

Importantly NO capex payback has been factored in for beneficiation facilities which will have considerable upfront costs. No capex payback assumption has also been made for transportation augmentation costs which will include construction of rail passing and loading loops, on site loading facilities and modifications to port loading facilities etc.

Clearly there will also be a significant variation in any feasibility analysis when undertaking rail design optimisation such as additional engines, wagons/lengths of train, alignment and shipping to name a few. For this purpose I have kept it simple and applied the standard 4 foot 8 1/2 inch gauge used in the NT and an average train length of 1.8km, standard wagons and axial load, and anticipated rail transportation costs modelled against other eastern and western seaboard freighters.

As stated earlier augmentation and infrastructure will be required. However, never know, if the coals are fit for purpose CTP may even find themselves in a very strong logistical position as a supplier for Iron Boomerang as the proposed line runs past the Pedirka. The project itself seems more realistic as time goes on. This project feasibility is well overdue IMHO (at least 20 years).

http://www.eastwestlineparks.com.au/media/Iron%20Boomerang%20-%20May%202010%20_English_.pdf

The chart below demonstrates CTP's potential coal tonnages which I have posted here before and is based around various announcements made to the market. Basically all this chart does is present a picture which is easy to reference on average thickness against delineated acreage. Acreage is shown on the RHS legend in sq km.

Anyway, this post has become significantly larger than I intended so must run. As a final note, the above info is provided for general information/thought purposes only and is in my opinion only. There are a SIGNIFICANT amount of unknowns, and clearly it is impossible to calculate accurate figures or pre-empt events so far away from the event (it's sometimes impossible to calculate close to the event aswell!).

Behind any chart there is a large amount of data/variables which feed into these calculations, which of late has changed on frequent basis.

In my opinion CTP is a long term investment and short term fluctuations in the share price will not impact this longer term outlook. The biggest concern to holders is the time taken towards a commercial discovery, as the additional time and requirement for exploration funds leads to dilution. However this is all part of the exploration game and is not uncommon with any resource play. Should the company find success (and I personally believe they're not far off), the ballgame will change significantly. Approximaetly 8000 people are invested in this company and I'm sure many others are on the sidelines. IMO so far they're doing a pretty good job getting there as the consistent discovery advice demonstrates, it's just a matter of time.

R/

Sav