"What if LBSR took at offer and then informed other potential investors that the CA term has been changed to three years? Would that not set up some competition and and some urgency to any entity interested to bargain in good faith? I'd love to hear opinions, even ones that explain why I am a jackass for throwing this out there."

RS, a jackass? Certainly not. What you ask is quite appropriate for a public message board.

In summary, let me offer my opinion that the company is acting appropriately in regards to CAs, and if we start contemplating hypothetical changes to that stance (to favor finding a partner sooner), we add risk to losing Hay Mountain (and more) with each "what if".

You present two hypotheticals extending from risk one (that LBSR take a 3-year CA) in hopes that that will generate more and/or a better offers, risk two, ...all while assuming LBSR will be able to retain control over Hay Mountain (and contemplated future claims) inside of the next three years, which regards for what happens after that.

To me, that's pretty close to an all or nothing bet, when a CA (or two, or three, or more) includes no guarantees that a partner will come forward anyway.

If so, is the risk worth it? Isn't it more likely that insisting on a 10-CA will generate more serious offers over less serious ones? Then, is it really possible that making a 3-year CA, will stimulate some other party to come forward with a CA under the same or better terms. If so, what happens with the 3-year CA, if others offer 3+ years? Will having multiple short-term CAs really increase the odds of getting a partner?

Besides, and IMO, sharing data on Hay Mountain, could very well induce others to file claims of lands JB has in mind for future acquisition in the Hay Mountain area. Do we want that?

Think about Caldera Theory and you may conclude that Hay Mountain is only a small part of a very much larger story, one worth securing long into the future (albeit a long-to-unfold larger story).

Again, all in my opinion.

VP