Page 2 of the current MD&A dated October 25, 2012 (poor grammar theirs, not mine):

“As at August 31, 2012 we had approximately $3.28 million of working capital, [which is, we believe, is insufficient to fund our planned exploration expenditures for the current fiscal year in Peru]. Hence, if the opportunity arises we may raise additional capital through one or more equity financings to fund future activity or to expand our fiscal 2013 exploration program.”

Page 9 of the current MD&A dated October 25, 2012, under “Schedule for Exploration and Development Expenditures August 31, 2012”:

Total scheduled drilling expenditures for 2013 across ALL properties, $1,291.

Unless I’ve missed it, I have not seen a detailed exploration plan for the Tesoro or any of our properties in or around the announcement for the latest PP (dated October 22, 2012) that would necessitate raising the kind of capital they are looking for. What kind of business asks for $10 million without making it clear in specific terms what they are going to do with the money?

More questions about this poorly written document: according to the above statement from page 2, $3.28 million is "insufficient to fund our planned exploration expenditures for the current fiscal year”. Now does “current” mean 2012? The document was released on October 26, 2012 so to me, “current fiscal year” would mean 2012.

Well if the “current fiscal year" is 2012, then the “planned” total expenditures in that statement must mean the money for the 20,000 meter drilling program that was only just over half completed ("we drilled 43 holes totaling 12,740 meters" page 2 of MD&A) plus any other exploration. Based on our numbers in the treasury in October of 2011, this doesn't seem correct however as evidenced by: 1) this quote, taken from the corporate update released October 19, 2011 saying "St. Elias recently completed a $4,500,000 private placement giving the Company approximately $9,200,000 in the treasury. St. Elias is well-positioned to weather the current market conditions and continue with the advancement of our existing gold projects", and 2) we haven’t done (or at least I don’t recall seeing) much in the way of exploration on any of our other properties in 2012. So what happened to the $4 plus million differential between the $9.2 million we had in Oct of 2011 and the $5,215,934 (page 9 of the MD&A Oct 26, 2012) we spent in 2012.

OR, does “current fiscal year” in fact mean fiscal 2013 which doesn’t begin until 1 January, 2013? Then, the above statement from page 2: “As at August 31, 2012 we had approximately $3.28 million of working capital” would mean we currently have $3.28 million which makes sense based on the math ($9.2 million minus approx $5.2 million). Now if this is the case, according to page 9 of the MD&A, we have scheduled $362,717 for exploration in 2013 across all our properties, including a whopping $1,291 for drilling on the Tesoro. It seems to me that $3.28 million is more than plenty to “fund our planned exploration expenditures for the current fiscal year in Peru” considering $40,679 of the $362,717 seems to be for exploration and development of our “other” properties in Canada (again, all this information is taken from page 2 and page 9 of the MD&A dated October 25, 2012). So now the question becomes: “what do we need an additional $10 million for when we're only planning on $362,717 worth of exploration in 2013?” In my opinion, the possibilities are frankly quite scary given what has been spent (read wasted) by management on non-mining related ventures in the past.

Now if we had a well written and detailed drilling plan for the Tesoro outlining how we were going after deep targets in accordance with the high-resistivity areas identified in the previous Quantec analysis, and how we had identified new targets based on those holes that proved to be “of economic interest” (see Tesoro section of “Property Review” on page 2 of MD&A), and that we were going to drill more than 12,740 meters on a 2,000 hectare property and in fact drill enough holes to either prove the property of shelf it and move on, then I could understand why we would need $10 million on top of our existing $3.28 million to get that work going. However, if we did have this type of plan, and it was announced in a professional manner by professional management, we probably wouldn’t be sitting at 14 cents / share looking to dilute the existing share base by such an astronomical amount in the first place because our share price would still be stable and we wouldn’t have lost all the investors who thought they were investing in a mining stock and not a three ring fashion show and social media circus/train wreck.

I'm not an expert in interpreting these documents so please correct me if I've made an error in any of my interpretations. I’m only looking for answers regarding where my investment has gone in this very confusing, very unprofessional, very embarrassing, and potentially very expensive situation I’ve found myself in.