C.H.

Once again I think we are in agreement not only on the notion that it makes no sense to hire experts at significant expense and then disregard them, but also that the question then becomes did they in fact follow the Quantec Drill plan and did they drill outside the anomalous zones.

I am the first to admit that I am not qualified to make a definitive statement in that regard and other than Quantec and SLI Staff nobody would be close enough to the project to be able to opine on the subject with any authority. So I called Kevin Killin at Quantec.

While we had a lengthy conversation...the conversation can be distilled to 3 main points relevant to our current discussion.

1. Quantec's drill plan had not been followed

2. SLI attempted to target very few, if any anomalous zones and that entire cores had not been assayed so it cannot be determined if any results from any anomalous zones are contained in the NR's

3. Contrary to statements made by Lori to shareholders that SLI had been in contact with Quantec and specifically Kevin Killin on a daily basis fine tuning and fine tuning the drill program...he or Quantec had not been contacted in any capacity "In well over a year"

It certainly is true and worth bringing up that the NR's did state they were systematically testing high priority targets identified by the Titan survey...that's why it's curious at best... if one is to believe Kevin Killin at Quantec...why SLI did not target high priority targets identified by Quantec and their expertise. It is entirely possible that the statement made in the NR refers to high priority targets identified by SLI Employees or others based on their interpretation of the Quantec data. In that case...the question would clearly be who on SLI staff would be more capable than Kevin Killin (P. Geo.): Vice President, Geophysical Interpretation Group. Principal Geophysicist at Quantec to interpret the data and provide ongoing analysis and direction?

I do agree that the mis-direction, subversion and confusion is troubling at best and I would go so far as criminal at worst...and I think anyone who has the best interest of the company in mind wouldn't accept this type of conduct in the decision making and leadership of the company...I would suggest however, that the "purpose" of the misdirection and such is what is the critical element...not the conduct itself. I may be putting words into your mouth but I get the impression that you may feel that the purpose of the misdirection and such is to cover up/delay the inevitability that the Tesoro is not an economically minable property...I'd be curious of your rationale if that is in fact your thought.... if I have put words in your mouth I do apologize...in that case I'd be very interested in what you feel is the purpose of the misdirection and your rationale?

On a side note to the entire forum and it's readers...

I feel it is a VERY important distinction for all shareholders to remember that the decisions made by management and its staff only determine whether a deposit, that if it in fact exists will be discovered...not if the deposit exists....only mother nature determines that.

S.