"Please refer to release December 15, 2019. With the addition of those referenced ASLD MEPs, we are in a more secure position now than we have been for years regarding both access that does not rely on private lands and surface area needed to support future mine support facilities."
Having a "more secure position" is not the same as saying, "We have no blocks to accessing Hay Mountain with personnel and equipment". You leave the question open.
"Interesting this important question wasn’t asked a long time ago."
Why? Are you asking shareholders to hold questions that they could have thought of "a long time ago means?"
"Regarding your reference to topographic, ecological, and archeological limitations, the Company is aware of the complexities of mine development and regulatory requirements (esp. archeological surveys) and will comply with all as necessary."
Of course. I was not telling you anything, only offering the reasoning behind my question. Not sure how I wrote could have been construed as meaning anything else?
"Contractual information will be part of the annual report (SEC Form 10K) for the fiscal year ending Jan 31, 2020."
Thank you. Could that not be answered ahead of the year-end report? Could that not have been reported with his "engagement"?
"The ZTEM 3D interpretive work was handled by Geotech Ltd., overseen by chief geophysicist Jean Legault. The 3D integrated model, which includes biogeochemical, geophysical (ZTEM) and geological mapping information was performed by Alan King of Geoscience North in Toronto, Canada. Perhaps it is Alan King you are referring to as a “consultant.”
No, I was referring to a presentation from a link/tweet that I can not find now - a few weeks ago. It is of no matter at present anyway as that information has been superseded by the most recent reports. Thank you.
"There appears to be a continuing misconception about what an NI 43-101 report is."
I am under no misconceptions. However, the most recent reports make the issue mute. Thank you.
"Continued efforts to impugn his character and professional qualification by association with allegations of illegal activity in any jurisdiction in which he chooses to reside is undeserving of a response. Dr. Wilson is no more deserving of being smeared by association with his place of residence than is a resident of, for example, Phoenix, which suffers from the among the highest violent crime rates in the US among similarly sized cities, dramatically exceeding the national average for well over the past twenty years."
You twist my words. I accept Dr. Wilson's education and experience as presented. I am not and will not suggest any relationship between where Dr. Wilson chooses to live and his character. I am, however, suggesting that where he is living may give pause to prospective LBSR partners should their DD uncover this.
And trying to compared rates of violent crime in Phoenix (population 1.7 million, 4 million in the metro area) to grave financial misdoings on an island of 17,000 people is, to say the least, not a well-considered retort.
"There will be no further response in this regard."
Well, then, I guess it is too late to ask for the third time why Dr. Wilson listed himself as a hydrologist upon entry to Anguilla. None-the-less, I thank you for replying to what you clearly view as distasteful questions.
VP, not residing in Phoenix.
P.S. Thank you, Tracy.
