Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Hi- - yes- won't accept user name and password and if try to reset password says can't find email address to send new password- but if try to make new account says email address that says can't find- is already in use. Circular screw up.
An admirable outlook. I hope you're right.
But- why bother? A futile and unrewarding task. (To moderate the criticism-that is.)
Not much to say of late. It is supposed to be, after all, a quiet period. That means not much news- though that doesn't seem to be much of an impediment for some. Here's to hoping for and expecting much good news in the coming year. In any case- best wishes to all for a healthy and prosperous new year!
Agreed. We all know it will take the actual drilling and results before we get the move we're waiting for. Until then, all this up and down with anticipation and then the inevitable sag are just the preliminaries. The main event is yet to come.
To me, it's simple really. We need drilling. There can be no advance without it. And if this provides the funding to make it possible, then it's worth it. If a better deal or funding comes along- great. But in the meantime- we need to begin drilling. If drilling is successful, then whatever dilution occurs will be more than overcome. Without this funding for drilling- we may not have dilution- but, 100% of nothing is still nothing. (I won't be surprised if someone quotes that out of context.) So, if this is currently the best path forward, then so be it. If it leads to successful drilling- we will all benefit. If drilling is unsuccessful- which I sincerely doubt- then- it really doesn't matter what the dilution effect is- since then we are looking at a fraction of nothing. Here's to successful drilling! It looks like it is about to become a reality.
I'm sure you must know that just because the Exchange is located in London, it doesn't mean that it is keeping track only of copper "on the Exchange" or in their basement. It is a measure of world wide copper inventory estimates. For obvious reasons, this will be my only response to your post.
This appears to be an appropriate response not only to the interviews, but also to the announcement of the "quiet period", and what it might mean, especially in light of the stated plans to begin drilling in January.
We are certainly looking at a dramatic increase in the tempo of information releases from the company. It includes print media, the Web, as well as not one, but two recorded interviews with JB. The content is significant and includes repeated and consistent references to a January drill start date. This and the updates giving detailed information on even the smallest sequential steps required to proceed all suggest that the means (the intent has always been there) is there to meet that January start date target.
Glad to see you're reading the Agoracom LBSR board. You may find it informative- and even educational.
Yes. Thank you. Important information isn't always necessarily considered "material". It is a judgement as to when that threshold is crossed. Hopefully, it will be crossed soon as things progress. I am quite certain, for example, that there would be a PR when drilling begins. But would that please some, or, as usual, be yet another target for criticism? I expect we will have the opportunity to see fairly soon.
What makes this most recent update all the more interesting and positive, in addition to the very positive geological information and the very specific time line- is the absence of the usual "pending funding" caveat. I agree with Gem that the fact that this was put out as an update instead of a PR suggests that this is important information, rather than a promotional "trick". Where the "promotion" comes in is when the anticipated positive drilling results are reported.This is "promotion" of the best kind. Success will raise the PPS and attract further funding. Starting small like this has been advocated by many of us for a long time. JB has accepted this approach in his strategic pivot to planning for smaller scale surface mining. But I believe he has hesitated to begin actual drilling until the probability of success for this one shot was high enough. The most recent geologic data has now brought us to that point. Hence, the process leading to actual drilling has begun. I look forward to what will hopefully be a successful campaign.
I haven't posted here recently- since- what's the point. Simply going round and round about nonsense. But with today's news- posted on Agoracom- it is certainly worth noting. This is not a surprise. It's what we've been anticipating for months and even years. The slow and methodical exploration is showing the way. The targets have been identified and the actual process leading to drilling is beginning. We are at a long awaited threshold. The news is excellent. There will be more to come.
And Thank You!
As am I. I guess I am following Bank's sage and "sincere" advice. I've been quiet recently, not too interested in contributing to this ongoing "discussion", such as it has been, of late. But I certainly haven't been inactive. Timing is really the only question for LBSR, IMO.
You make excellent sense and heartily agree. Refreshing change of pace.
For once I have to partially agree with you in observing that some old timer "longs" are now trying their best to lower the pps so they can reenter at a lower price. I must say I am taking advantage of these lower prices as well. So there's nothing wrong with wanting a lower buy-in price, except that it obviously makes any stated negative assessment, remark or opinion suspect. Especially when there is an attempt to inflate one's credibility by trying to impress everyone with one's acumen by describing that a big profit was earned by selling at .15- when it was publicly stated that the position was closed at .03. Such fake handwringing should be seen for what it is.
Well- congratulations on not only being a pretend geologist, but also a pretend public policy lawyer. Quite a pretend achievement! You have set out some testimony. But as earlier in the day- of interest- but not pertinent. We are not discussing Kris Hefton's company- we are discussing LBSR. And despite your bluster- the circumstances of one company is not necessarily the circumstances of another. It all depends on the the specifics and the details. Yes- he probably does know what he is talking about in discussing his company. But I doubt if he knows very much about LBSR. (Maybe he does- but here he is discussing his own company's situation.) And- it is true- I don't know everything about what I am discussing. But the point is- neither do you. Despite your assertions, one situation is not necessarily applicable to another. Now- unless someone is really grasping at anything- anything- to howl about- (is that possible?)- the prudent thing would be to wait and see as the situation evolves. The details, as they apply to LBSR, will become evident. At this juncture- that is not the case. And just because the circumstances are similar- it does not at all mean that they are the same- nor is the outcome likely to be the same.
You did a good job of reviewing the "Valid Rights Rule". Unfortunately you ignored the pertinent clause- namely- "The withdrawal does not prohibit . . . new projects that could be approved on claims." So, although a very nice recitation, it is actually quite irrelevant.
Now- based on past history, I know where this is going. And I don't intend to spend the rest of the morning bantering back and forth and encouraging your twisting and squirming. It is actually my fault that I responded in the first place. I won't compound the error.
Quote:
"LBSR's Super Pipe Dream claims that fall under the Salazar 20 year moratorium can not get permitted.
They are not grandfathered in as is being claimed. Only mines or claims that had proven mineral resources on the date of the moratorium are grandfathered."
From the 10-K
Nearly 1 million acres of land managed by the BLM and the Forest Service were segregated in July 2009 by the Secretary of Interior. The executive order has resulted in the withdrawal of an area of the Arizona Strip from mining in particular, and the moratorium now is instated for the next 20 years. However, the moratorium permits existing claims and mines to continue as before, including our North Pipes lode mining claims.
Press Release U.S. Department of the Interior
Secretary Salazar Announces Decision to Withdraw Public Lands near Grand Canyon from New Mining Claims
Allows for monitoring to determine impact of uranium mining on vital watershed
01/09/2012
Contact: Adam Fetcher, (DOI) 202-208-6416
WASHINGTON – Secretary of the Interior Ken Salazar today announced his decision to protect the iconic Grand Canyon and its vital watershed from the potential adverse effects of additional uranium and other hardrock mining on over 1 million acres of federal land for the next 20 years.
Secretary Salazar’s decision will provide adequate time for monitoring to inform future land use decisions in this treasured area, while allowing currently approved mining operations to continue as well as new operations on valid existing mining claims.
“A withdrawal is the right approach for this priceless American landscape,” Salazar said. “People from all over the country and around the world come to visit the Grand Canyon. Numerous American Indian tribes regard this magnificent icon as a sacred place and millions of people in the Colorado River Basin depend on the river for drinking water, irrigation, industrial and environmental use. We have been entrusted to care for and protect our precious environmental and cultural resources, and we have chosen a responsible path that makes sense for this and future generations.”
The Public Land Order to withdraw these acres for 20 years from new mining claims and sites under the 1872 Mining Law, subject to valid existing rights, is authorized by the Federal Land Policy and Management Act. A Record of Decision was signed by the Secretary today during a ceremony held at the National Geographic Museum in Washington, D.C.
The withdrawal does not prohibit previously approved uranium mining, new projects that could be approved on claims and sites with valid existing rights. The withdrawal would allow other natural resource development in the area, including mineral leasing, geothermal leasing and mineral materials sales, to the extent consistent with the applicable land use plans. Approximately 3,200 mining claims are currently located in the withdrawal area.
“The withdrawal maintains the pace of hardrock mining, particularly uranium, near the Grand Canyon,” said Bureau of Land Management Director Bob Abbey, “but also gives the Department a chance to monitor the impacts associated with uranium mining in this area. It preserves the ability of future decision-makers to make thoughtful decisions about managing this area of national environmental and cultural significance based on the best information available.”
During the withdrawal period, the BLM projects that up to 11 uranium mines, including four that are currently approved, could still be developed based on valid pre-existing rights – meaning the jobs supported by mining in the area would increase or remain flat as compared to the current level, according to the BLM’s analysis. By comparison, during the 1980s, nine uranium mines were developed on these lands and five were mined out. Without the withdrawal, there could be 30 uranium mines in the area over the next 20 years, including the four that are currently approved, with as many as six operating at one time, the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) estimates.
The withdrawn area includes 355,874 acres of U.S. Forest Service land on the Kaibab National Forest; 626,678 acres of Bureau of Land Management lands; and 23,993 acres of split estate – where surface lands are held by other owners while subsurface minerals are owned by the federal government. The affected lands, all in the vicinity of the Grand Canyon or Grand Canyon National Park, are located in Mohave and Coconino Counties of Northern Arizona.
As per this official DOI document- there is no requirement for "proven mineral resources".
This makes quite clear who has a problem with veracity.
No further comment is required.
I wouldn't make that assumption. Most of us don't generally even bother responding to you or your colleague's nonsense.
Wow. What a go around with these characters. By the way- that great PM picture- one of your best yet!
Like I said- they were correct in one small respect. And one only. That continues to be so.
This is an excellent report! It looks like we are actually moving towards a deal, proceeding with the next logical steps. Of course, to those so disposed, anything short of a signed deal in hand- which was not expected- (and even that would certainly be insufficient)- is fodder for complaint.
I wouldn't be quite so smug, if I were you. The egg on your face will only be harder to remove. Losers are often those who think the history book is written, when, in reality, the type hasn't even been set. It's just a little too soon to talk about history books. In fact, the only real history we know of is that of 5 years ago where LBSR ran up 1000 fold- that is- if you want to talk about history. The fact is- we don't know what happened in Manila- and we don't know what is happening with NPSP. It is true that if nothing comes of these efforts, the pps will go yet lower. It will continue to do so until a deal is announced or imminent. But, although some of this selling is undoubtedly unfortunate retail panic selling, the vast majority has been financier dumping, as Eli kindly demonstrated. It is not accurate to say that they- mining experts such as they are- are "giving up" on LBSR. They couldn't care less what is happening with the company. They will sell at any time and at any price- since they have a locked in guaranteed profit mechanism- the result of disadvantageous financing deals made out of necessity, not inattention or stupidity.
The only cure for that is huge buying volume- which again- history has shown us has happened with LBSR. That will quickly chew up these dumpable shares and then some. But, obviously, that requires a change in dynamic. I believe that will occur when we finally hear about what is happening on the various deal making fronts. I don't expect that to be today. And I don't know when- but I expect it to be fairly soon. And then we will see how history will be written.
I guess we'll see soon enough, Banks. We'll see.
Knowing from whence it came, I don't think anyone would take the statement about "Briscoe quitting" seriously. Otherwise it would be quite objectionable to make such a statement as if it were fact- which,of course, it isn't.
A third reason for no NR today is not wanting to put out good news on Thurs or Friday. I believe this is most likely. Also, if a deal is in the works, working on the deal might be a higher priority than putting out an NR.
We all know there are many shares to be dumped by the financiers. When a deal is announced, these will be gobbled up quickly in a surge of buying volume. We've seen this before. Until then, it is no news flash that this dumping will be pushing down the pps. (I notice, though, that you still didn't answer my question as to how you know there are insiders and "people close to Briscoe" dumping shares.)
Really? How so?
You're not alone. And you're not crazy. I'm not telling anyone what to do. But I will say that this is the time to be buying- which I am.
Thanks. Just stating facts. And waiting along with everyone else.
Thanks for carefully delineating just how honest and committed JB is. The fact that the company is paying a modest rental fee to be doing it's business out of JB's home is entirely appropriate (it is space taken from his private abode). And this practice has saved the company considerable operating expenses, since, as I recollect, this practice began when they moved out of offices for which they were paying much more rent to save money.
As for the deferred salary- did you notice the word- Unpaid? It is not a conflict of interest to be paid a reasonable salary as CEO. It is unreasonable to expect a CEO to continue to serve, despite not being paid. Yet he has done so. His back pay as well as compensation based on stock options will only come with success, unlike CEOs of many other companies. Isn't it terrific to have such a devoted CEO and one who is maximally motivated to succeed in his own interest.
As for the JABA properties- once again- you have kindly emphasized just how committed and devoted JB is. These ESB, WC properties- and I believe Hay Mountain as well, were essentially gifts to the company. It is entirely appropriate for the company to pay rental fees, since some day we all may benefit from these properties. JB has essentially granted assets to LBSR which may eventually yield profit through sale or production. The fact that he will also benefit is also entirely appropriate. The fact that they haven't yielded profit as yet is what being an exploration company is all about. We are all here (mostly), in anticipation of future profits.
To call these conflicts, implying impropriety or wrong doing is beyond stupid. Actually, a thank you to JB is what is in order.
Your welcome. But just stating what should be- and probably is obvious to most.
I posted my comments before reading your post- and agree completely. And, of course, it is equally ludicrous to imply that the trip to Manila was somehow a "fun junket". The decision to go was not taken lightly. I don't think a grueling 20 hour plane ride, a relatively brief meeting in a conference room in Manila and a turnaround second 20 hour return trip all in a few days-(with no time scheduled in for "sight seeing") is anyone's idea of a good time. I, for one, am grateful for the effort- and of course- wish for success.
It is great news that JB chose to pass up the PDAC conference, which he has attended in the past! To do so supports the idea that it was felt that there is a high probability of concluding a deal in Manila. What is likely to be more productive- continuing to deal with investors who have already expressed an interest in LBSR and actually organized an meeting in their home country- at their invitation, or- attending a large conference where you are one among numerous clamoring voices, essentially "cold calling" potential investors? I'd go with the former. It's really ludicrous to suggest otherwise. And by the way- it is also a plus that one of the organizers is a motivated shareholder and one who obviously has close connections with the other parties in Manila. As stated before, it is just the kind of "inside game" that leads to deals.
Thanks for that. The rising POU is probably the most important news of the day. If it enables the NPSP deal, I believe everything else, including HM, will follow- regardless of what happened in Manila.
It is striking just how quickly some are eagerly out of the gate to almost gleefully proclaim failure even before we have any information. They pretend to have what would have to be inside information or, have special powers to foretell the future based on flawed logic. Unfortunately, it is certainly possible that the meetings in Manila will come to naught. But, based on new circumstances and factors- instead of simply saying that because past efforts were unsuccessful this one automatically will be as well- it is possible that there could be a very positive outcome. The point is- lets wait and see.
I share your good feelings as well- and not just as automatic knee jerk optimism. The involvement of Messrs. Doria is especially intriguing. I don't know if they are are related- but they certainly likely are. And with Mr. Alfonso Doria being a mining engineer from the Philippines, "a long time supporter and major shareholder", obviously we have not only a strong advocate, but one with a vested interest and one who also obviously has connections with the other invitees. It seems unlikely that he/they- would have orchestrated such an elaborate event without a high expectation of a positive outcome for themselves and by extension- LBSR. It seems that there is more than a receptive audience. The Naseba presentations were many steps beyond "cold calling", as the attendees were vetted and supposedly had the ability and some expressed interest in investing. But this meeting seems like it goes beyond that- to a "clubby", cozy kind of insider grouping with investors who know each other and may even be related- and at least one of whom already has some skin in the game. Just the kind of setting where deals are made.