Here are my thoughts for what it is worth.

Note: Not sure if this is worth noting, but the wording is very odd considering Mr. Krauses position as a Director of SLI.

"St. Elias Mines Ltd. has received a report reviewing its complete Peruvian operation"

It implies it was conducted by an independent outside party which is clearly not the case….It should have read something like...

"St. Elias Mines Ltd. has conducted a review of its entire Peruvian operations"

____________

The company directed Robert Krause, a geologist with extensive international experience as a mine geologist in narrow-vein mining and an independent director of St. Elias, to assist the board in determining the viability of its Peruvian operations.

Note: Having a geologist within the company conduct an initial viability assessment in itself is not necessarily a bad idea even if they are not a "qualified person". The fact that it was not done years ago, the fact that the company "accepts the interpretation" and plans to moves the company forward without first verifying the assessment by a qualified person...is absurd.

"Tesoro Property is not currently economically viable to put into production"

Note: The information that the NR states as the foundation for the assessment has been known by the company for years... why then was this viability analysis not done years ago and the conclusions reached when the company was still a well-funded viable entity?

"the logistical hurdles"

Note: The information that the NR states as the foundation for the assessment has been known by the company for years... why then was this viability analysis not done years ago and the conclusions reached when the company was still a well-funded viable entity?

"required capital costs"

Note: funding is only a relevant variable if the company intended to put the property into production...which they concluded they don't...as they state it is not economically viable....so funding as a reason for not putting something into production that is not economical(which this report is clearly stating) is completely nonsensical and defies all logic.

The only reason I can see they have included this notion is to try and place failure on the inability to raise funds and fill PP's, which has been blamed on shareholder unrest in the past...which of course is also nonsensical and holds no water.

proximity to nearest water source

Note: The information that the NR states as the foundation for the assessment has been known by the company for years... why then was this viability analysis not done years ago and the conclusions reached when the company was still a well-funded viable entity?

"fundamentally the narrow vein nature of the Tesoro gold veins"

Note: The information that the NR states as the foundation for the assessment has been known by the company for years... why then was this viability analysis not done years ago and the conclusions reached when the company was still a well-funded viable entity?

"The narrow vein nature"

Note: The information that the NR states as the foundation for the assessment has been known by the company for years... why then was this viability analysis not done years ago and the conclusions reached when the company was still a well-funded viable entity?

the amount of tonnes that can be mined per shift considering the mining costs per tonne, milling costs per tonne (contract milling vs. building a mill) and the potential gross tonnes of this deposit indicate that the Tesoro Gold Project is not economically viable.

Note: The information that the NR states as the foundation for the assessment has been known by the company for years... why then was this viability analysis not done years ago and the conclusions reached when the company was still a well-funded viable entity?

The Board of Directors is disappointed by the results of Mr. Krause's review of its Peruvian operations but accepts the interpretation and plans to move the Company forward.

Note: How can the company accept the interpretations of an admitted "non-qualified person"as gospel and base its future on that interpretation. Considering how destructive this conclusion is and clearly will be in the market, the ONLY logical response from management in an effort to protect the strength of the company would be to vehemently deny and not accept Mr. Krauses conclusions until at the very least a "qualified person" verify his findings...and that is if this information is even released publicly.

There is absolutely no logical reason to release this "grenade" to the public at this time, and there is no legal responsibility to do so because of Mr. Krauses lack of credentials as a "qualified person"

In addition, Mr. Krause recommends that the Company engage the services of a "qualified person" as defined in National Instrument 43-101 - Standards of Disclosure for Mineral Projects, to evaluate his investigations and conclusions as he is not a "qualified person" as defined in NI 43-101 and he is a Director of the Company.

Note: Why would you wait years before conducting a viability study, and then when you do…send a non-qualified internal person to do so….then when the findings you've comissioned are destructive…release the information in a NR when you have no legal obligation to do so…while it may in fact be illegal to do so knowing clearly the predictable effect that announcing discontinued development of the Tesoro(its flagship) would be catastrophic to the company. Once agian defying all logical actions of a CEO who has the best interests of the company in mind.

S.