InvestorsHub Logo

tpecj

09/27/15 12:58 PM

#157094 RE: leifsmith #157091

At least u put forth reasonable positions, as opposed to the name callers and conspiracy theorist, no comparison to FCX who has a past, present and future of pulling ore out of the ground, as in comparison with LBSR who doesn't even have 1oz of proven reserves of ANYTHING, just hope and promises

mstoneinv

09/27/15 3:40 PM

#157102 RE: leifsmith #157091

Competent geologists know what "valid existing rights" are in mining claims.

Competent geologists know that claims on moratorium land must have "valid existing rights".

Competent geologists know that a valuable mineral discovery had to have been made for a claim to have "valid existing rights".

Competent geologists know what is required to prove a valuable mineral discovery.

Briscoe is either staggering incompetent not to know all the above, claiming the Super Pipe Dream claims had "valid existing rights" and could get permits for exploration and mining.

Or he does know all the above and is not honest, by telling shareholders that a deal with an inventor for those claims could bring in millions of dollars in as soon as 6 months. Oh, this whole thing was carnival barked just when a whole lot of toxic debt deals were coming due for conversion. How about that? A lots of duped investors poured lots new money into the stock, thinking this deal would stop the dilution by making the company self-sufficient. They were defrauded out of that money.

I have posted the hard, pertinent BLM law and regulations and Forest Service regulations. I have posted federal court rulings. AND NO ONE, NOT YOU CERTAINLY, HAVE BEEN ABLE TO REFUTE ANY OF THAT AND SHOW HOW THE CLAIMS COULD BE PERMITTED!

After I exposed the whole Mueller deal as a sham, impossible, over 200 claims that supposedly were worth millions get dumped for ZERO dollars. If the Mueller deal was possible, LBSR would have given the claims to Mueller for free, in return for getting a future royalty payment. BUT, NO, WE DID NOT SEE THAT NOW DID WE, PROVING THEY WERE WORTHLESS!

gitreal

09/27/15 7:42 PM

#157107 RE: leifsmith #157091

Copper in traces is common. But copper in the percentage exhibited by that sample is not.

Nonsense. I could take you to a hundred different locales in Arizona where you could collect a sample or use a Niton and get a 5 or 10 percent copper result. Or 20%, or even more. Doesn't mean there is a minable copper orebody. Just means that you have identified some pretty green rocks.