A reverse split is not likely, in my opinion, and I believe JB said he would not do that again. Besides, such only comes about when a company is dealing with a broker to underwrite a new issuance of shares. This happens because it is commonly held that having fewer shares is better than having more. However, this in reality is something that benefits the securities firms because they often get fees and participation in the deal. Cut them out of the process, and a reverse split is not necessary.

How can they be cut out of the process? By selling shares directly to a major invest or investors, or by bringing in a partner. Going with the first example will allow project advancements sufficient to bring better terms from a partner. I think this best describes where we are now, looking for an investor (if we don't already have one or more in the wings).

While LBSR may need further dililution, and perhaps shareholder approval to issue shares beyond the current limit, I can't see the need for more than a few hundred million shares. With 100+ billion dollar potential, that level of dilution is not a big deal, certainly not nearly on the level of even a 1 for 2 reverse split, and also somewhat inconsequential if LBSR can keep more than, say, 10 percent of the Hay Mountain project.

...time will tell.