"The problem this company has had for a couple years now is strictly execution on marketing and deal making."
I respectfully disagree. It appears to me that every reasonable effort has been made to make a deal. Perhaps marketing could be better, perhaps not, but truly effective marketing requires a sizable investment. If more money is spent on marketing, then it takes away from planning and development. It is important to have everything ready to go.
"And I don't care about more claims in Utah, nor North Pipes, which we got rid of 95% of our claims because again of a failed deal. If we have the golden goose at Hay, we should put as much money as possible to drill arguably the only property that can save this stock."
Again, I disagree. Hay Mountain, while immensely important, is not everything. It IS the most important prospect at the moment, but any sane CEO and BOD is looking a few years ahead, not just for the next month. The fact is that claims elsewhere will add value over the longer term...especially if HM ends up diluted with a JV. Those arrangements could add substantially to the overall profit and PPS. I am very much interested in what comes of Utah, and the land grab is quite relevant for a variety of reasons. As shareholders, we should all care about this. And, while much of NP was sold off, a still-substantial portion remains. If it becomes necessary to let go of the rest in order to pay the bills, then OF COURSE we should let it go, but unless that need arises, why not keep it? Updating our nuclear arsenal, which I fully support, will certainly add some demand. Others have also discussed the broader uranium market likely going up very soon. To just ignore or not care about ALL sources of revenue because of Hay Mountain isn't a very wise way to look at this, in my opinion.
As to "leaving Trump out of it", as well as other political figures, that is just absurd. I don't even like Trump, so let me get that out of the way. The reality is that Obama and his administration have made things immeasurably more difficult for this sector, whether because of Dodd/Frank, a hyper-aggressive and partisan EPA and Interior Department, or using the Antiquities Act to steal land wherever he can to prevent it's use, how can that NOT be a critical factor? If I were a large investor, why would I throw millions or even hundreds of thousands of dollars at something with those people trying to destroy my investment? They are likely still waiting until after Inauguration Day to commit funds because this nut still has his foot on the gas pedal trying to wreck as many things as he can in the mining and energy sectors.
You seem to think that a CEO can just wave a magic wand, no matter how many inherent obstacles, and declare that a deal shall be done and drilling shall begin. The last eight years have been an example of "country risk" as I've heard others call it, and that will likely be greatly diminshed on January 21. Seeing the damage that Obama has done and is currently doing, and the way some people try to excuse it, never ceases to amaze me. I didn't vote for Trump or Clinton (went Independent this time), but I'm beginning to have a sense of optimism based on the cabinet picks for EPA, Energy, and Labor. I'm not as sure about Interior, but it will be a MUCH friendlier environment for business in general, and perhaps especially for mining and energy, and that will lead to funding sources opening up as changes become real rather than merely hoped for.
Best wishes for LBSR in the new year.
