This is an excellent update, and I look forward to reading it in more detail when I have an opportunity. 

Like you, DShamen, I am glad that a civil discussion, even disagreement, can occur here.  While we disagree about he significance of the other claims, including Utah, and about the effect of the political environment as a whole, we certainly agree on wanting the drilling to occur ASAP.  This pressure is the source of frustration boiling over, even amongst LBSR stalwarts. 

Thank you for correcting me on one thing, since I did misspeak.  We didn't sell off part of NP, but had to let that portion, the larger portion, go.  The remaining portion is still significant enough to hold on to, though, in my opinion, money permitting.  Since we can only see what financial activity and status were as of a few months ago at any given time, I don't think we can accurately say what funds are on hand.  I just trust this group of people to make the right decisions, and I think they generally have up to this point.

Thanks for a good discussion,

Wesley

"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.

Thank you Mr. Briscoe for your excellent response. 

I take from your response that the claims you are interested in are not in the same area as Bears Ears, but in a geographically similar area that was not affected by this land grab. 

"The uranium projects we have been looking at are in the same geologic environment that exists in the Bears Ears national monument. In addition, there is coal potential, roll front copper deposits, perhaps roll front silver/gold and carbonaceous fertilizer of a particular type which is sold at a very high price."

Regardless, it is way past time to legislatively curtail the Antiquities Act that allows radical leftists to steal vast areas of private and state land (and waters) on a whim.  Not only is it really Constitutionally questionable on it's face (no Federal authority in the Constitution for this sort of activity), but the way it is done can be viewed as a violation of the "Takings" clause of the constitution.

Yesterday our over-reaching federal government decided to grab yet more land from the state of Utah.  Mr. Briscoe has said before that there are possible arrangements or outright claims that could be made in Utah for LBSR.  Does this land grab affect any of these possiblilies, and if so,does it make it merely more difficult or in fact impossible to proceed in that direction?

Thanks,

Wesley

Am I missing something, Steven?  The last I knew, LBSR still held multiple claims from NPSP, I think around 7.  Granted, this is pretty much a moot point with uranium prices where they are and where they are likely to remain for some time, but I think we still hold them.  Has this changed?