Well BOW, first off, she can,t use the excuse of labs being backed up as the reason for not getting these results out. This has been a very terrible year for juniors in regards to raising cash and even trying to move projects forward, consisting of mineral sampling of their properties. Most of these juniors saw their sp,s hit from Jan on and the more responsible ones that had little cash tightened up their budgets to a point where some juniors went into hibernation. With the withdrawal from getting samples assayed by these companies, the labs were freed up considerably. The majors even took defensive stances of restructuring in an act to reserve cash.

http://www.northernminer.com/news/juniors-get-creative-as-cash-dwindles/1001595812/

Also, if you look at the corresponding Quantec slides for that area, its the bottom portion of that hole which should be more mineralized with sulphides, in which we know that gold accompanies the sulphides there. There is high resitivity in the depth range mentioned and quite possibly disseminated gold could be in this intercept, but most likely at low grade. There is a thick area of overburden there approx 30m thick or more before you hit the bedrock that may be mineralized enough to be economic providing there is higher grade veins in close proximity, of which there very may well be. I should mention, that by looking at the geophysics though, that this hole may have been situated at the ends of 2 structures where mineralization would probably be the lowest at this depth of 60m to 170m, between the C-1 AND A-4 areas. Contrary to most structures of mineralization on the property, this possible low grade dissemination would run SW to NE following a little valley underneath the overburden. The geophysics supports this theory.

It was stated at the Calgary meeting in March this year that we had 9 million in the treasury, by Lori, and as we recently saw in the circular or NR, that figure had fallen to around 3 million by Aug end. Thats a hefty decline, considering we had many prepaid expenses. Nevertheless, the point I am trying to make is that where did that money go? The Vilcoro set there with all permitting in place and could be drill ready, a little mention months back that geo,s were on the property, resulted in no news from there yet, in which a million dollar drill program could have easily been instituted to help with support to our sp and advance that high potential property. We stopped drilling Tesoro the end of May and there was plenty of time to drill Vilcoro and have results from there out now. I have seen some juniors announce drilling and start pouring their first drill assays out in 5 weeks from inception. A 1 Million dollar budget could drill a lot of shallow holes at the high end cost of $150 a meter, ie, a 200m hole = $30,000, but where drilling slowed down with many companies this year, a $100 per meter price could most likely have been negotiated. To take this a step further, 100m holes would most likely have sufficed for the Vilcoro for an initial drill program, proving up a near surface portion of the property easily.

In the matter of the upcoming drilling on our Cueva Blanca property in Peru, right beside Candente,s big copper deposit, that has been optioned out to IGD (Intigold) an announcement in the form of an NR was made on April 30th, which states;

[The Companies have initiated field studies in the Cueva Blanca area in preparation for diamond drilling. At this time, it is anticipated that very little field work will be required prior to mobilizing drilling equipment and crews to the site. The initial drilling targets include the Cruz vein, the Cruz breccia bodies as well as the Bi-Hg quartz manto zone. The economic targets at the property are gold and silver.

The Companies have recently been approached by Compania de Minas Buenaventura (NYSE-BVN) to conduct a review of the property. The Companies are taking this into consideration.]

In this release of April 30th, it doesn,t mention the requirement of permits before proceeding to drill,in a subsequent release on the same matter on June 6th, it DOES mention required permits and permissions. ON May 9th, i made this post;

http://agoracom.com/ir/steliasmines/forums/discussion/topics/531460-access-agreement/messages/1680254#message

Now by not disclosing in the April 30 th release that permits may be required, is that a misleading statement? And, as you see, its been over 6 months and we don,t even know if we have permits in place, is this a competent act on managements part? Also I would like to mention that by observing the companies NR,s on the website, the June 6th NR does not appear on the side menu when you click on June2012, you have to go through the NR pages under news to find it on the site, odd?

On another note, while researching, I came across the NR for when Lloyd Brewer, Lori,s husband or partner, resigned as a director on April 26 2012. If my calculations are right, he would have made 6 directors on SLI board, but I think the number was set at 5 directors and may have required shareholder approval to increase that number. At Nov 2011 AGM, I believe the number of directors voted on was set a 5 directors. If this is the case, from Jan 2012 on, Lloyd should not have been a director. And also, if I am not mistaken, under TSX policy, I don,t believe anyone reprimanded can stand as a director unless they have TSX approval. If the TSX gave approval for Lloyd to stand as director, it still wouldn,t negate the fact that the BOD could not be comprised of 6 directors, I don,t know, but if this is the case, who on the TSX gave their written approval of this? If all this above paragraph is true, in which I don,t know at this time, does it question professionalism from more than one party?

All in my opinion