Error? What error? Maybe I missed something, but I saw no error. What I think I saw was SEC asking for a clarification on something. That does not mean there was an error. Someone had a question, and the best way to answer it was to withdraw and re issue the S-1.

Look, among other things, and long ago, I used to help people estimate casualty loss deductions for income tax purposes. Sometimes in doing estimates within a gray area of the law, I would have to counsel clients that their claim of loss could be denied by an auditor based on what he/she had for breakfast or whether or not he/she had an argument with their spouse as they left for the office that morning.

I'm not saying LBSR did anything within a gray area. I am merely pointing out that different reviewers will have different ideas on what's acceptable. Besides, sometimes these people, particularly in government, feel they have to find things to question to justify their jobs.

And , lawyers will tell you that "generating paper" has it's purposes, beyond just serving the needs of the client. So it is with the SEC, lawyers and auditors that they are.

By the way, I think the change has been made and accepted, so your concern in this regard has no bearing on "bridge loan and current projects".

But please correct me if I am wrong, and thanks in advance for that.

VP