Two significant things have happened Since Jan 10th.

1. 2 Directors resigned and 3 new Directors are appointed

2. Results released in two seperate new releases.

Lets put our feet in managements shoes for a moment...lets consider the news in hand PRIOR to the release and our options as management on how shall we release it to the public.

Directors Resign = Potentially BAD

High Profile Directors Appointed = Potentially GOOD

Directors Resign + High Profile Directors Appointed = Potentially NEUTRAL to GOOD

...In releasing this news, management chose to release it in a sequence that would have the most potentially negative impact. BAD, then a day of trading, then GOOD...rather than a single NR that simply could have stated...

We would sincerely like to thank our two outgoing directors who have resigned today for thier contributions to the SLI family over the many years. To our loyal shareholders we are very pleased to announce the appointment of 3 new high profile Directors...blah, blah, blah. One sentence announcing the outgoing directors would have been lost in the many paragraphs of sloberring over the greatness of the new directors.

I could have written that release in an hour...so could many of the other shareholders...I do understand that not everyone is adept at this type of writing which is fine...but if the preservation of 100 million in market cap were at stake...I think that justifies the hiring of a PR firm to write the releases.

--------------------------

The 2 results releases.

DATA within NR + 11 hole locations in MIDDLE of anomoly = VERY BAD

DATA within NR + 11 hole locations within PERIMETER of anomoly = BAD - VERY BAD

DATA within NR + 11 hole locations INSIDE & OUTSIDE anomoly = GOOD - NEUTRAL - BAD

DATA within NR + 11 hole locations in OUTSIDE PERIMETER of anomoly = GOOD - VERY GOOD

DATA within NR + 11 hole locations in my BACK YARD = EXCELLENT

...Once again the release of these results were done in the most potentially damaging fashion by making vague nonsensical statements pertaining to location when locations could have easily been provided.

With all due respect to Investor Relations and shareholders who have been relaying secondhand information to the boards...if the locations were in fact on the perimeter...and the location of the drills are clearly SO critical in determining if the results are in fact GOOD or BAD...this should ONLY be released to the public through a definitive news release without exception.

For those that have pointed towards the statement in the NR....

"Drilling to date has focused on testing the Quantec Titan 24 geophysical targets primarily surrounding and within the large "ovoid" chargeability anomaly at Zona Central."

....as an indication that the drills were perimeter focused...the words "...surrounding and within...." suggest otherwise...It states drilling was done BOTH primarily surrounding AND primarily within...this is a nonsensical contradictory statement that CANNOT be interpreted EITHER WAY as there is no way to know what it was meant to convey.

I would contend that...if the NR's in question were handled (even spun) properly in an effort to protect company image and market cap...the shareholder discord and the shareholders shaken confidence in the 'facts', the management, and the SP...would be in far less disarray.

I remain holding my position despite what I consider gross communication failures as I do feel the geology still suggests the potential when I read between the lines.

My frustration comes from the simple fact that we HAVE TO read between the lines and suffer the massive hit to our equity due to poor information handling.

Just one man's opinion,

S.