Dear Sinister,

SLI has received no royalty payout for the Cueva Blanca (CB) to my knowledge, and to state that ,is very misleading. And I didn,t and don,t cry about royalties, for the most part, they are projections, and the possibility of net smelter royalties ever coming to fruition for any small company, takes years, if they ever do come to fruition. For any investor to ever consider a net smelter royalty in their immediate decision to invest, is totally ridiculous, unless a property has a proven resource and is close to going into production. A net smelter royalty in any news release of any junior explorer is irrelevant to the investor and is only put there as perhaps disclosure of an agreement, or perhaps to even window dress a news release. Have you seen any benefits from the net smelter royalty of the Jales Graliera gold property that we had a few years back, that was let go? Did you know it had 100,000 ounces of gold and over 400,000 ounces of silver described as measured and indicated? What value did SLI shareholders receive for this property? http://www.metalsnews.com/Metals+News/MetalsNews/MarketWire/NEWS48781/St+Elias+Mines+Ltd+Update+on+the+JalesGralheira+Gold+Property+Portugal.htm

http://www.infomine.com/index/pr/Pa745143.PDF

I am not sure why you are referring to the sale of CB as "fair and equitable"? If you see the practise of a company selling off its most valuable mining assets first, and not being prudent about spending and organization before hand, then you are taking a biased perspective, and are totally not considering shareholders best interests of a company. If you had a job and you had to take a cut in wages, say your job required a car, would you sell your car to try to replace the lost revenue? This is the logic of your thinking, and I don,t wish to discredit you, only identify the problems with your thought and perhaps the condoning of past management exercise. There appears great illusion and a disconnect with you, for what is best for the company AND its shareholders.

As for the PP, I have no problem with raising funds for the company going forward, providing that they take in consideration of existing shareholders and not blatantly be a display of disrespect towards the shareholders. A rights offering may be acceptable, providing that a proportionate status quo is set with the greatest amount of 55% or more, going to the Green Team shareholders. After the proposed PP last year, that came conspicuously on time with the first sign of disgruntled shareholders ready to take action to protect themselves from what blatantly appeared as reckless spending and other grave concerns, that would have diluted them immensly, all trust was lost in management. To my knowledge, even some shareholders asked to participate in the PP and was denied. In connection to PP,s, I asked last year to participate in an IGD PP, I was told it was full, when it finally got announced, I find out that only a very small portion of it ever got full, if I remember correctly, perhaps only about 20% of it got actually filled. So the long and short of it is, why were shareholders denied access into PP,s , if they were not full? For any company to reject shareholders offers to help with a PP, strongly suggests incompetence on managements part and also taking the ability away from the company to raise the maximum funds. Also, the company was offered $90,000 just a couple months ago by the Green Team, to secure Peruvian properties, among other things, I have seen no news saying that it was accepted by current SLI management, so I take that as a sign that again management deprived shareholders and the company of this revenue at a badly needed time for it. Its management thats depriving this company from the required funds to move forward, not the shareholders.

The shareholders spoke and reminded management of the ridiculous travel expenditures among other things that seem liked red flags, it appears it was ignored. The millions spent on travel the last 3 years is most likely uncomparible to any exploration company, don,t cry to shareholders if there is not enough money in the treasury, they definitely did not spend it.

I suggest you look up the definition of "hypocricy" and take an unbiased perspective. Also, I suggest you take the time today to compare the travel expenditures of IGD and SLI for the last couple of years.

thank you