"all of which are in very early stages and subject to executed confidentiality agreements."

This could mean:

1. No agreements have been signed yet; continued discussion requires it;
2. At least one confidentiality agreement has been signed;
3. More than one confidentiality agreement has been signed.

Which, I wonder?

I think this means choice #1: no agreements have been signed. Would be good to hear that I'm wrong about this.

I understand the reasons for requiring an agreement covering many years, and that such an agreement is not easily gotten. The agreement must be written to prevent unscrupulous parties from signing a short-term agreement, getting all the info available, doing nothing, letting the agreement expire, and then taking action. Or, even passing the info through a layer of screens so that, mysteriously, previously unknown parties are acting "as if" they had the info, but no trail can be found between the signers and the new actors. New claims would be staked exactly where LBSR's info indicates. When the agreement is over, the signer somehow seems to end up in control of the new claims, relying on the fact that proving anything dishonest happened will be expensive in time and money.

It's good to know that there are inquiries and discussion. I presume a lot of the discussion is about why a long agreement is necessary. I can't see a reasonable way around this. Stick to it and the right party will sign.

Please dis-ambiguate the statement about "executed confidentiality agreements." Clarity builds trust.