Jacki, Thanks for your efforts to pry some info loose from the BOD, and sharing that response with us. There is one phrase in one sentence of this response they sent to you that intrigues me. Here is the sentence:

"As a whole the Board has numerous University degrees and Professional designations, exceptional experience in global mining and mineral exploration, international capital markets experience and most importantly regulatory prudence."

The phrase used at the end is what intrigues me: "the Board has . . . most importantly regulatory prudence." This language was chosen purposely, I believe, to convey a sense of, not merely a high level of academic knowledge, on the part of the BOD, but a type of uncanny wisdom that few can possess.

Notice that they don't say, "the Board has an intimate understanding and is thoroughly familiar with the regulatory requirements, and is totally transparent and forthcoming in complying not only with the letter of the law, but the spirit of the law, in this regard."

The term 'prudence' conveys a sense of discretion and personal choice as to how one is going to act or respond to conditions or, in this case, 'regulations'. Although this response is very cordial in tone, if you look it over closely, it still provides no specifics.

Maybe the closest they get to telling us something specific is when they say: "News from these programs will be released when they are compiled and material to the operation of the projects and your company."

From this statement, it seems apparent that the BOD has taken a position that they are going to interpret the regulations requiring timely releases of new material information as to mean that they cannot be "material to the operation of the projects" until they "are compiled".

Basically, what they are saying is, we are not going to provide you with regular news of assays, because we have, in our "regulatory prudence" determined that such news is not material until we've compiled the assay results from however many drill intercepts we deem "prudent" before we deem it to be "material information" that we are required to release.

But because they, "most importantly" have "regulatory prudence", which few but the most enlightened possess, we are to simply trust them during a time when so much CEO corruption is in the news almost daily, and we are not to expect them to be more transparent with providing timely news releases of assays.

Are 100 drill intercepts a sufficient number for compilation of data to be released? Or is it 150 drill intercepts, or 200? I would love to be able to trust these guys, but with the track record of the group that sponsored this change of leadership, and with all the backroom, secret, and corrupt deals that have been perpetrated against shareholders in the news on a regular basis - it is somewhat unnerving to blindly accept that the secrecy is not because of anything wrong going on, but is necessary in their "regulatory prudence", and we simply have to trust them.

If the BOD had "prudence", you would think that with all the corruption scandals in the papers, they would be sensitive to shareholders raised concerns about their own Directors and Officers, and that they would attempt to "throw us a bone" once in awhile, to show that they are in fact making progress and getting some timely assays, and allay such concerns.