I believe JB has always described numbers of holes and depths in terms of what they find, such that adjustments will be made as needed, that while up to 10 holes averaging 1,000 feet each is a goal, it is not THE goal - depths and numbers of holes will be adjusted as warranted.  

There is a possibility that the whole program will be cut short with poor results, assuming any drilling at all.  More to my anticipations, good returns could mean an expanded program and additional financing/drilling at higher share prices based on good, very good, or even bonanza-grade returns.  In other words, non-stop drilling.

Hope this helps.

VP

"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."

I AM LOOKING FOWARD TO THAT!

"Just to be clear: I still have my shares and I still think this will happen at some point."

I never doubted that, and regret if I seemed to have suggested otherwise. 

Cheers,

VP

Thanks, HKipp.  I've always appreciated your well reasoned and thoughtful posts. 

"And even the $ 1 million 10 hole plan is cutting back from the $2 million originally hoped for before drilling was to begin."

I could be wrong, but my sense was that earlier efforts at the privare offering were sufficient to have reduced the need (at the time of that news) to "just" another million.  That being the case, nothing has been abbreviated from earlier plans in terms of the scope of work.

VP

"Generally people who drive a hard bargain are either looking for suckers, or know what they have."

In this case, should another party sign a cofidentiality agreement (CA), they give up nothing.  There is no bargain, only a promise to keep quite about what they see, should they choose to take a look.  There is nothing in a CA requiring they do so, or if the do what level of scrutiny will be devoted (i.e., 5 minutes, 5 days, or 100). 

As a 5-year CA costs an interested party no more than a 2-year CA, and does not include a promise that any level of DD will be done with it, why on earth would any claims holder risk losing prospective future claims by doing a 2-year agreement?  And I don't care what some nameless persons in Vancouver or Denver have to say about it.  Why don't they come here and post their arguments themselves?

No matter how many times you repeat your opinion that LBSR is being too "rigid" in issisting upon a 5-year confidentiality agreement, I will respond with my opinion that you are wrong.  5-years is typical.  Offers of 2-years come from sharks.

Had the company opened it books two+ years ago to such an agreement, potential claims JB had/has in mind could well now be in other hands, and Hay Mountain drilling would be just where it is today, waiting on funds.

Understandable, and thanks for that.  The offending post has been removed, and Lvargas got his answer..., sort of.

BTW, with gold looking good, and other metals seeming to improve on what looks like alternate days lately, chances for financing drilling have to be improving, don'cha think?

VP