HOG,

I,m not sure of what your saying. This agreement is/can be a contract that is easily terminated IF it is written that way, which I assume it is. The only value that can be added to SLI under this agreement is as follows;

Cueva Blanca Property Agreement

Under the terms of the letter agreement, Intigold can acquire a 60% carried interest in the Property (subject to a 1.5% NSR) in consideration of:

(a) making cash payments of $200,000 to St. Elias over a two-year period;
(b) issuing 1,000,000 common shares in the capital of Intigold to St. Elias; and
(c) incurring $1,500,000 in exploration expenditures on the Property over a three-year period.

In addition, Intigold shall have the right to purchase one-half of the 1.5% NSR from St. Elias for the sum of $1,500,000 thereby reducing the NSR payable to from 1.5% to 0.75%.

This is only an option agreement that gives IGD the option to earn a 60% carried interest in this property. A property sale is not written this way and is a different document altogether. This is more or less, a lease agreement.

I agree, from the option deal, what you said we will get, we will get. This will most likely have little effect on the sp for the duration of the agreement unless something significant is released in relation to the exploration of this property.

If, the entire 100% interest in this property was to be sold to IGD by SLI, THEN THINGS CHANGE. As shareholders we have the right to our share of the proceeds of the sale. If the proceeds are in the order of a small amount, SLI may wish to keep the funds in their treasury for future operating. If the amount of sale outweighs the current debt position of the company, the company may be obligated to release some of these proceeds to its shareholders. If the amount is large enough, it may require a shareholder vote.

There are limitations and obligations involved here with the company. You start getting into accounting regs, TSX regs and Revenue Canada regs. This is where it becomes very accomodating to have top knotch lawyers and accountants.

Maybe I shoudn,t have put FMV (fair market value) in my post. This was sort of used by me to try to get an evaluation point across. To show that the sale price could not be ridiculously low and that somewhere along the road, we shareholders could/wouyld have input into what would be a fair value. Legally SLI management cannot give our properties away for nothing if shareholders disapprove. This could be challenged and is part of the mechanism of shareholder security.

IMO