Last week I made the following comment in my post:

I will answer the question in a following post as to whether I believe there is gold on the property or not.

We were informed in a news release dated July 3rd:

Vancouver, B.C. / TNW-ACCESSWIRE / July 3, 2014 / St. Elias Mines Ltd. (SLI-TSX-V) announces that the Company was not in a position to pay the vigencias (annual fees due to the Peruvian government) required to keep its Peruvian properties in good standing and, as a result, the claims comprising the Tesoro and Vilcoro properties have lapsed

According to Ingemmet, the vigencias were paid prior to this news release, so I am assuming that the CEO was not aware that they had been paid, or she would not have put out the NR.

Vilcoro 1 ,Vilcoro 2 , and Chance G were recorded as being paid on June 26th, and Chance 1 was recorded as paid on June 30.

I can only imagine the shock when the company was informed that indeed some of these properties did not lapse. This news release followed:

Vancouver, B.C. / TNW-ACCESSWIRE / July 7, 2014 / St. Elias Mines Ltd. (SLI-TSX-V) wishes to correct the News Release, dated July 3, 2014, which stated that all Peruvian properties have been allowed to lapse. Actually, vigencias (annual fees) and penalties have been paid to preserve VILCORO 1 & 2 (600 hectares), CHANCE 1 (1000 hectares), and CHANCE G (100 hectares), which cover the main gold showings on the Company's properties in Peru. All other claims that constitute the previous VILCORO and TESORO projects have been allowed to lapse.

A week ago, I found a link, but for some reason it is no longer available. Anyone that reads my posts knows that I provide a link for verification, so now unfortunately I can’t make my post.

But…. hypothetically speaking….who would pay these vigencias, especially after the report from the “unqualified person” saying that the Tesoro is not currently economically viable:

Vancouver, B.C. / TNW-ACCESSWIRE / March 26, 2014 / St. Elias Mines Ltd.

Mr. Krause has also concluded, through his investigations, that, in his view, the Tesoro Property is not currently economically viable to put into production due to the logistical hurdles, required capital costs, proximity to nearest water source and fundamentally the narrow vein nature of the Tesoro gold veins. The narrow vein nature, 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.

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.

Hypothetically speaking, if a “qualified person”, maybe even someone that has worked on the Tesoro, let’s say someone like John Brophy, paid the vigencias on the property, that would suggest to me that Mr. Krauses report may not be accurate.….hypothetically speaking that is.