Mr Dazza, I would like to comment on your suggestions.I will number your suggestions and I will lable mine alphabetically.

1)Firstly, Quantec did a job for SLI, SLI paid them for the work, they sent management / geologists a report, and SLI management / geologists could do with that report as they wish. So the fact that Quantec had not heard from SLI in over a year has no relevance. Everything that SLI needed was in that report. EVERYTHING.

a) I agree that everything SLI needed was in that report, a child could have used the drill plan that was supplied by Quantec, he only had to know how to use a GPS and tell the geo,s where to drill.Nevertheless, it may suggest that SLI didn,t have to consult Quantec because everything was as the drill team expected it to be and had no questions.

2)Why would SLI not use that report. After all they paid for it and models where created from that report. From what I understand, it was not Quantec that created those 3D models, but some other company compiled it from Quantec data.

b) It doesn,t appear that Quantec created the 3D models of the anomalies because it doesn,t appear to correspond with their original data released in the tech report. Whoever did create them seems to have positioning different to Quantecs as well as sizes. From what I can tell by looking at the Quantec slides, that only go down to 750m or so, for us, there may be more anomalies and the 3 biggest ones portrayed in the 3D images may actually be larger.

3)It has been stated over and over again, that the drill targets where from the data taken from the quantec report. Remember that model was not created by quantec, so if the drill holes DO NOT correspond with the 3D model its because that model was not a true reflection of the data. And maybe that is why Quantec does not produce those 3D models for their clients. Who knows.

c) When we analyse things, we use the Quantec data and not the 3D image that is layed under the drill plan. We know that the holes are not corresponding very well with the Quantec recommended drill holes either.

4)And then again that model could be extreamly accurate, but what you all forget is that we are dealing with a NARROW VEIN system. YES a NARROW vein system. When a drill intersects a NARROW vein it give you a very short length result. And then it intersects another vein giving another short length result.

d) The whole idea of drilling here was to define an open pit bulk tonnage target, which meant getting info on the wide alteration/shear zones. We know the veins are narrow, but not much different than other huge deposits that have the disseminated gold in the host rock/silicified zones as well as the veins. The targeting of narrow veins on this property is alright, it adds to the resource, but if there is no mineralization inbetween long distances of veins, you don,t continue this practice when there are many wider gold zones on the property. As Lori said before, we already know we can mine veins on the property economically because we have did it, and at probably a 35% less gold price than today, I might add. So, we have identified vein clusters and wide spread disseminated gold at surface, correlate that with the geophysics, and thats what you target.There are massive sulfides there and we are not seeing any in the drills where they should be going through the high chargeabilty signatures that Quantec shows. So, there has to be much to come in the line of news yet, or you can throw all historical data and Quantec out the window and wonder how this mirical happened.

5)It would be very nice to drill down a vein and get great results, but from what I hear, that is ilegal in terms of 43-101.

e) There is no use for them to drill downdip a narrow vein, unless there is accompanying mineralization wide enough to be proven up a zone, like a 2m wide at surface mineralized dyke, for instance, or a confirmation on a consistent grade running to depth. And, as far as I know, its not illegal as long as its specified in a release that it is a down dip test of mineralization.

6)I have spoke to someone on the ground, and they have said that they extensivly used the Quantec Data. Why would they not.

f) I am glad to hear they are extensively using the Quantec data, this verifies its accuracy and tells us it must be reliable.

7)I would like to know where youall heard that they didnt use the Quantec data.

g) We didn,t say they didn,t use the data.

IMO