Hello Tin Man.

BlueBird has his own offhand manner of expression, which he’s not about to change. It is what it is. Nonetheless, taken as given, what he has to say is worth taking note. I know from talking with him that only one thing works, giving his sparse words your rapt and patient understanding. You’ll benefit, as I do, by reading between the lines, more than usual.

His latest short message about the high degree of research delaying the upcoming PR Report is a case in point. Of course, it makes Fancamp’s message all the more compelling if the Shareholders, and the PR people working for us, fully understand the outstanding facts about our assets, before reciting them to our targeted institutions. As BlueBird told us, in his own fashion, the upcoming Fancamp Presentation probably will turn out to be excellent; because it is not being rushed to press. As he expressed it, “They are doing more research before releasing their report.”

As for me, I welcome, wholeheartedly, the new focus. However, from past experience, I can’t help but keep my high degree of caution and scepticism. To me, important, beyond the report itself, is how diligently the recipients of the report are followed-up. I’m already well-acquainted with the Fancamp properties and the other assets we own. Also, I think I have a good idea of what to expect, so far as what the report’s general appearance will be.

I look forward to reading it and am confident that it will be to my liking because the facts, concerning our hard assets, are to my liking. My concern centers on the low regard management itself always exhibits toward its own successes.

For example, the shares we previously issued through Marquest, as part of several of their funds, didn’t even reveal the name of our company to the investor. The offering memoranda only described the investment as being “a tax shelter” with a defined “dissolution date.” Marquest warned that what it was offering was nothing better than a “BLIND POOL” of mineral exploration companies. Our entire history of dealings with Marquest evidences lack-of-attention total and absolute and blundering as-bad-as-it-gets.

Do we know into whose hands our past reports to investors went? I have little confidence that we do. Are we regularly following-up with those people (who we probably don’t even know anymore)? I doubt it.

Follow-up is key. More than the statistics associated with measuring our assets, at this point in time, I’m more interested in the statistics of investor-relationship-building and the statistics of how well and how often and how many times we’re following-up with our new found institutional friends.

Our margin for error grows narrower and narrower, as does the patience of every shareholder who ever expressed an opinion here. Who, amongst us, does not want to know (nor think we have the right to know) how many conversations with investors Fancamp had today? Who, amongst us, thinks that kind of information does not have its own kind of great value? Who, amongst us, thinks it’s a good idea to discard investor contact information and allow the interest of potential investors to grow cold and be forgotten?