You were the one I was going to message about that event that really frustrated me about LBSR. I wanted to get an objective but optimistic (possibly) opinion on it. For some reason, I thought I also had an email for you, but I couldn't find it.

The story is not one I can post, although I did once try to send a PM to someone here to get that person's opinion. And remember, I am not a basher. It is just that this specific event--not just an opinion--was related to me and I perceive it as being one example of how LBSR could be rigid in its negotiating. And that strengthens my perception that LBSR IS turning away opportunities with the insistance on the long CA. This company will not be around in five years if some sort of agreement and drilling program is not started well before then. Some time if we meet in person, I'd be able to tell the story, but that would probably mean (in a good way) that it would not matter anymore. Just to be clear: I still have my shares and I still think this will happen at some point.

 I have been harder on the company lately and also questioning the lack of progress. That is because someone in the mining business in Vancouver and Denver related a story that, to me, was another piece of evidence that LBSR is being too rigid in its negotiating. Maybe having expectations that are too high. JB's expectations are understandable; I also think the company's potential at HM is world-class. But is he being too demanding. This is not related to my opinions on the length of the CA that the company is requiring, but after I heard this story, it made me feel like this rigid (to me), uncompromising requirement characterized the whole picture of LBSR negotiating. I had also considered becoming an ex-poster here because I am not really comfortable in the role of negative poster and someone who rains on the parade. But I still think there is a good chance that eventually something good will happen.

I agree. And will LBSR again end any possibility of even a LOI ebfore it begins by insisting on a long CA. As for Trump--and I am dead serious about this--I think one scenario is that he will make the price of gold skyrocket because he will create such a mess. Again the US Army infantry informal saying: DO SOMETHING.

W may never know what might have happened if the NDA was a little bit shorter.  Not allowing a potential partner to see the info we don't get to see kills the deal right away. On the other hand, if LBSR agreed to a two-year NDA deal, that leads to a signed agreement of some type. Which leads to a news release. Which increases awareness, possibly raises share price a little bit, and maybe even creates urgency on other interested parties. And again, what is the point of a long term NDA when the company might not be around by then?  It just seems that the potential of a signed NDA far outweighs any negatives. Maybe someone can correct me on details here, but I think the US Amry infantry has an informal slogan: Do SOMETHING.

Although I have had the same thoughts as Gold Man, I will give them a pass on the putting in their own money idea for the reasons you noted. However I sometimes wonder if the demands of LBSR are too rigid in looking for a JV partner. I know most people diagree with me when I suggest the Comfidentiality Agreement term be shortened. But it seems to close some doors immediately. I get the long-term thinking, but the company will not even be around in three years if we don't have some activity before then. And just the signing of a CA might be news that triggers other events. I wish I could be a fly on the wall in any meetings with prospective parties to see what the holdup is, considering that I agree that one million is not a lot of money.