The grave concerns for SLI shareholders that arise from IGD actions are;

1) While IGD has several options on SLI properties that were in effect long before TTAGIT, money should have been spent there first. As a result of a PP being done exclusively, or so it appears, for TTAGIT, while committments and obligations bound by contract for these option agreements are left unfulfilled, raises eyebrows. There would have been little problem as long as option obligations were met before proceeding with a leap of faith on another venture, contrary to mining. By this being done, and still an open PP on the table, it appears that IGD will be unable to fulfill its total obligations to SLI. It appears that management of SLI has extended and changed option agreements as a result.

2) Whereas IGD and SLI are arms length companies, the SLI shareholders interest in IGD through shares that SLI holds of IGD, may have been put in jeopardy and may raise a question of accountability. The accountability issue could extend into the BOD because of thier approval of such actions. Where SLI holds about a million shares of IGD, and if IGD has problems raising cash because of the TTAGIT venture, SLI investers stand to lose the value of the IGD shares off its balance sheet.

3) Not only the loss to SLI investors that may occur as a result of IGD not being able to fulfill option obligations, but the negative aspect of not advancing these properties cause area for concern. Had these properties been advanced by IGD in the last year for SLI, it would have contributed value to SLI,s current sp, and caused less pressure on SLI shareholders. Apparently IGD had the cash to advance these properties, but why was it not done, and where did that cash go?

4) Many SLI shareholders also hold IGD shares. I believe the main reasons for this are that most are well aware of the potential for the properties that SLI has optioned to IGD to advance for us. Much historical data from these such properties, that is accessable on the SLI site, portrays this, not to mention the recent interest by Beanaventura of the Cueva Blanca property. We were led to believe that IGD would be commencing and immediately starting work on these ventures several times, via news releases, only to see the similar news release months later stating the same thing.

5) The appearance of Lori buying shares on the open market while an existing PP is not closed for IGD, raises concerns in a best interest for shareholders sort of way. By Lori buying shares of IGD on the open maket, this money she is using is not going into the treasury to help support advancing SLI properties, at a time when extension of option agreements, suggests that IGD needs money. It could be viewed as a selfish act of trying to get more of a voting control of IGD. This also cause concerns in a way that may suggest that she forgets IGD is a public company and not a private one. To attempt control of a company this way may suggest disregard for what a public trading company should be and the definition of one.

IMO