A search of the Ministry of Mines Withdrawal Orders from January 8 2007 shows that Sage had a similar size area lapse at that time. A check of the claim abstracts from the two claims #3007398 and #3007399 seems to indicate that the claims lapsed even though there was work in the bank. They were allowed a releif from forfeiture for the claims in 2007.

It appears that the same administrative error by Sage which allowed these claims to lapse in 2007 is what happened to the claim 1140877 in June of 2009. There was lots of work in the bank and the person responsible did not apply it to the claim. Sage appears to have allowed this to happen twice. I wonder if the same person was involved both times.

The press release announcing the sale of the rest of the Kerr project to Sheltered Oak appears to indicate that there are no payments required for 1 year.

Strictly as a guess, might it be possible that Sage has sold Kerrs on paper so as to avoid being sued by their investors for making the same mistake twice on the same project. The paper sale gives the perception of something $ back from the project which would appease the investors. When and if Sheltered Oak re acquires the key claims, all thats needed to be done is to withdraw the sale of the project and we are back in business. Can anyone find out who is responsible for taking care of putting the work on the claims and if it was the same person both times?

Too early to tell what Sages motives are but maybe we should be giving them credit for smart foot work rather than wondering about a questionable business decision.

Here is a tidbit to ponder upon. A check of the leased claims(colored purple) on the claim maps indicates that GOLDCORP owns numerous of these leases tied right on to the Kerrs property. Wouldn't it be nice............................?

H.M.