Interesting...

So you suggest that the shareholders of this company enter into a 51% majority JV with a group of people they don't trust. Then you suggest a few sentences later that it would not be a deal that the company would entertain anyway as they would not relinquish control to "an inexperienced team". Then you suggest shareholders accept 49% control and allow business as usual.

So your idea is to take the time and effort to create a shell company, raise capital to fund the the shell, enter into a minority agreement with SLI, and then fund SLI with the Shell company's capital and allow current management to do with it as they see fit.

So tell me how on gods green earth does this solve the ACTUAL concern of the majority of shareholders that current management has proven to be incapable of running this company successfully.

Regarding your notion that raising money would be somehow miraculous shows how disconnected you are from reality. Do you actually believe that Lori would be the only one capable of raising money to fund SLI? That is simply ludicrous.

It is beyond arrogant to think that this has anything to do with hurting Lori...do many people not like Lori, I'd say that is fair to say, but with all due respect she is not that important and needs to get over herself if she thinks this is about her and not shareholders hard earned money.

This has everything to do with a public company called St. Elias Mines, that's it, that's all.

A company that has been run poorly and a large majority shareholder base that would like to see new faces take this company forward for the sole purpose of saving the company and our investments. This is normal in business practice...when a company is failing, management is replaced...is it really so hard to understand this particular desire of the shareholders?...is it really that much of a stretch to consider change based on performance of the company and managements decisions?

If you want to view it as something more than it is feel free...but company performance, strategies and actions are usually what CEO's and Presidents are judged on when they face their annual performance reviews by the BOD. Somehow this company cares little about the performance and capabilities of its management team...which incidentally is why the BOD should be removed as well...again not an unreasonable thought considering.

S.