I see that the thought is to downsize the directors to 4 from the initial 5. This may save a few dollars, but not a good thing imo, it leaves any deciding vote in the face of a stalemate at the discretion of the chair, I believe, without checking the rules. This is undemocratic whereas it creates a bias to any decision making by the BOD, I even question the legality in the near future of public traded companies to have an odd number of directors on any board, to prevent any deadlock situations and assure smooth operations for shareholders. They may be an assigned arbitrator to allow this type of structure to work efficiently, but then again, it may come with a small cost as well, so I would rather see an odd number for the BOD, and never an even number.

I do say that the intention of small scale mining may sustain a conservative company,s treasury, if handled prudently. The fact that small scale mining is even considered, shows it is economical and viable, or the little amount of money in the treasury would not be sacrificed on this, but would rather be put to better use by assigning it to exploration work. I remember a source saying awhile back that mining equipment we had in Peru was being sold for pennies on the dollar, I never verified if it was true, but felt the source was credible. Nevertheless, perhaps it wasn,t sold, or there is enough money to repurchase some small machinery, that wouldn,t really amount to much anyway. As we have seen in a rumour post I put on about a week ago, the informales in 2005 were bringing around $50,000 worth of gold off the property per month, by pick and shovel.

A pink rose, to the lady.