imo it is all about the vanadium, eventhough co. reps' are very...

imo it is all about the vanadium, eventhough co. reps' are very hesitant to agree with this. I have always been led to understand that the U tenements are equally as good/valuable - but those statements have imo been made solely to justify sharing the vanadium value with all of those hand-me-down beneficiaries from AUL, CABE etc.

Questions to ponder on:

1. If the U tenements were so good, they would have sold them to a co. wih deep pockets for cash, not shares.
2. If the U temements were so good, we would have seen a deal shortly after the take overs
3. If the U tenements were so good, why have the AUL/CABE folks been selling their shares?
4. If the U tenements were so good, why would the directors not have demanded some measurable evaluation/testing to justify their decision to the YRR holders?

For sale: Lots of Uranium temements;

If I was on the board, I would want to flick all the U tenements and sell them off (would we get our money back - I think not....). The sale proceeds would be used to fund the Vanadium project which has absolutely massive potential right now.

Surely the directors would have wanted to justify to us, the dilution of our YRR shares. They appear to have had no intention to do so.

Would the YRR sp be higher right now, if we had not have bought AUL/CABE? Of course! Less stock on issue, and no rubbish tenements.

We do however need to look ahead now, and as I still see thevanadium as a no-brainer, I hope that they will properly manage the development of it.

If however the directors do pull out that rabbit from left field, and prove that the U tenements are indeed worth a lot more than we paid for it, I will be happily surprised.

Holding and hoping (maybe dreaming)