My post seems to be stirring up some discussions and debate, I am glad to see my post is gaining some traction and attention as it should since our CEO is addressing these questions directly.

CuuVenturer is correct. This was a written exchange rather an over the phone discussion. I prefer it that way for the fact it provides evidence that the individual proclaiming the statements is not lieing or misconstruing the facts. As Nadir would say people could have phone conversations with management and may misinterprete their words or even have a misunderstanding of facts. Email exchange is just cleaner.

When I emailed Greg I got no answers inwhich I could not really infer any positive or negative notations as Nadir addressed, he was right. So I contacted Elmer, the CEO of Copper Fox.

My last post was me asking some relevant questions, and the answers were direct reply's from Elmer. They were not quotes or me interpreting his answers. Elmer wrote those replies.

If you guys want my opinion on his replies to my questions I can do that. To address Prospekt, I was asking about a production decision inwhich he explains will be based on economics. I firmly believe that the drill results will be good based on empirical evidence and the 1 to 1 correlation in drilling of chargeability anomaly. Now a production decision will be based on economics as Elmer states so read the answer to question 3 again which gave me some peace of mind regarding a "positive" production decision. Remember these are Elmer's words not mine.

In regards to Foxroller, the fact that she heard something about a Phase 2 could be right as in question 6 instead of telling me 10,000 metres as the news release announced, he says I need to check with Teck to get the final numbers. Now I could be wrong and I have no proof but that indicates to me they may have drilled beyond 10,000 metres inwhich a phase 2 could have been incorporated into the drilling plans.

Elmer is bound to particular regulatory laws and can not disclose certain information so some questions were not answered respectfully. In the end, we need to look at the overall picture, and not focus on the Phase 2 plan. I think there were 5 revealing answers which were 3,5,6, the other 6,7.

Thanks