Bluespruce: To answer your question about the reluctance to ask questions: I had four questions ready but I found I could not question or even vote as there was some kind of a screw up with my right to vote or ask questions because I am an non registered /beneficial shareholder and I think I was given a bum steer by my broker. I will call them this morning and ask a few more questions. If I don't get some straight answeres I will engage a lawyer. My package came late, as did that of many shareholders, and I only had Tuesday to respond. (One person I talked to had only some of the shares he owned listed on his proxy). There is a disconnect here somewhere, either with the company or the various brokers. I may be in the wrong, if there is a right or wrong, but I intend to find out.

Now, to the questions: I spoke to Mr. Hanson at the end of the meeting. He was very cordial, very warm, smiled a great deal - he'd make a great politician!!!. I asked if the NOT board intended to spin off parts of FWR (should their takeover succeed - I was careful not to use the word "HOSTILE"). He said he thought he had explained that NOT's focus was on the ROF'S nickle, copper, palladium,platinum and silver discoveries. He may have mentioned cromite. However, he did not mention gold and as FWR has a nice gold property in Clarence Stream in New Brunswick I got his drift that it would go the way of Windfall.

I asked if "grassroots" First Nations had been anyway involved in the selection of the Advisory First Nations Council. He said the Company (NOT) had engaged the council to do the leg work, so to speak. He did not answer my direct question, just gave me a politicians answer, to which I concluded, NO. ( Someone posted on this board that having input from all the small communities was imperitive). And I say one community could stop a development in its tracks. However, NOT has made the endeavour, as Mr. Hanson said:"to free up the company to get on with development". That's a start.

These last questions I did not get to ask directly but they were explained in the address.

I had a question about the takeover. If posters here listen to the webcast you will hear he - Mr. Hanson - say it was "friendly". I couldn't see any point in beating that dead horse. I believe Mr. Watson the CEO of FWR. All posters have the right to believe whom they choose, so make up your own minds without pressure from other posters who are very vocal about believing Hanson. He's personable. I was impressed by his delivery. BUT he is at the mercy of his board. Enough said.

MR. Hanson did show the Hemlo triangle - three headframes, three mines - and said amalgamation of the ROF (with NOT at the helm)? was a necessity in terms of cost reduction. On that point I beg to differ. I believe some cost studies of Community amalgamations, forced by the government, have proven to be more costly not less costly. I fought against amalgamation in a couple of areas. Please don't ask me to back up this statement with proof. If you want proof do your own digging. But just ask yourself how easy it would for three households to get along if they build one house for all to live in, to save costs,

The fourth question I had was to do with development and production: Was it the Company's intention to follow through to production. Did they need the FWR takeover for viability? I didn't get to ask the question but I surmised from Mr. Hanson's talk that it was full steam ahead.

One by one, two by two or all together the ROF is a very exciting development.

I think both Mr. Hanson and Mr. Watson are extremely capable men. I do sincerely hope they will agree or agree to disagree with finesse.

I hold both NOT and FWR shares as well as others in the ROF.

Respectfully submitted,

Gleegee.