1) i thought there may have been some indication of an estimate of the resource in this report, that is not the case as Hog explained in his post that this is not the intent of this report.

2) all of the land claims there are registered in our 100% owned subsidiary Minerva Santa Elisa

3)the independent geo did his own samples and it seems his grades were slightly higher or the same as SLI, s.

4)our last new claim was granted on Aug 9th/2010, looks like we started to stake in Feb.

5)it is mentioned that 3 soil samples were taken from, I beleive North of the anomoly, that contained anomolous gold grades of 1.1g/t-3.6g/t, i thought this grade was excellent for a soil sample.

6)the geo states that the main mineralized corridor is 200m wide by 6.5 km long, this is my understanding of this and i think in comparrison to the old 43-101 , this is saying that this structure is much bigger

7) the geo states that it appears SEVERAL TIME EVENTS occured here, my take on this is, that where he says this is a mesothermal system, it has been active a few times and would appear that gold was deposited more than once during these events. If that is the case, it would verify the assumption that mineralization should run deep.

8) i was under the assumption from our land package release that our new property was all connected circumferencing our present property, this doesnt appear to be the case in this report. From the report, it shows a couple separated claims to the north and south, but most likely ALONG TREND. I would like to get some clarification from Murry on this.

9)for me, by reading between the lines, i can see where management has been working quietly and professionally behind the scenes for us to secure our position at the Tesoro.

10) i glanced at the 2d imagery and it does look impressive, there are an awful lot of targets fairly close together and may hint connection at depth from one main source. I, like Hog, intend to look at the images more over the weekend. The 3d images are not included in this report, too bad, they may have added great substance. The 2d images more or less only show down to 750m or so, and i am under the impression that we may see a little deeper with the 3d model.

These are just some of my observations of the report and may stand to be corrected or reintrepeted.