“From the older graphics we've seen, and by comparison to others I've looked at from Geotech over other of their work areas, this looks to be more solidly supportive of what we've been expecting, if not very much better than that.  I am no expert in this area, of course, but I am now even more anxiously looking forward to the balance of these reports than I was earlier.” 

https://agoracom.com/ir/libertystar/forums/discussion/topics/734960-new-tweet-regarding-geochem-report/messages/2253032#message

After reviewing the three new documents, I see no reason to change my earlier observation as noted above. In another message, I even mentioned that the anomaly appears to have a greater volume than previously anticipated. This appears to have been affirmed, meaning very much more tonnage if we have a proven ore body. 

1. In regards to the latest geochem report, I see it only as redundant. Geochem helps us separate within a target the elephant – a possible economic anomaly – from elephant poop – a non-economic anomaly.  In this case, we are more likely to find an elephant than elephant poop. However, as valuable as some of us believe it to be, geochem is still not widely accepted in an industry that prefers to see surface samples and/or drilling.

2. The latest report from Geotech, I feel, reaffirms my initial observation reported above. We have a remotely identified anomaly having the appropriate associations with geochem

3. Geoscience/Alan King's report is more of the same, much of which comes directly from 1 and 2 above.

In my considered opinion, then, and while reminding readers that I have no credentialed expertise in mining (or any of the earth sciences), I agree with Alan R, King's conclusions in his points 8 and 9 about drilling. Let's do it! 

My only concerns remain in BGs focus on trying to draw in a major producer as a partner for a blind, or mostly blind target. There are certainly more prospective partners (and larger bettors) to be found among junior producers/explorers than from among the majors. 

At least we now have what appears to be 43-101 compliant analyses where we did not earlier (in recent months). 

VP in AZ 

P.S. The purpose of any independent analysis is to present the evidence and lead the reader to a knowledgeable conclusion which should agree with that of the report writer.   In this regard, I think all three reports are well done, at least in so far as I can follow the science within each of them.