Excellent observations Mols!

One has to wonder why Lori made two companys, SLI and IGD and tried for 3, Havillah. My reasoning for looking at the disadvantages of having 2 companies would far outweigh the advantages from an investor point of view.

From my perspective;

1) We have seen SLI over the years, gathering up great properties, and at least 3 of those properties, the Peruvian ones, having immense potential. This company, SLI, has been trading on the Exchange since 1997, but was formerly a company called 3887 Investments Ltd that was incorporated in 1994.

So, we see, about 16 years of SLI trading as a company, in that time frame, I don,t believe management ever proved up a property to sell. We see many times in historic news releases, the clear intent by management to prove up reserves over the years, but all they ever did was prove up a measly 4400 ounces. I didn,t take the time to see how many dollars per ounce the managements exploration expertise could be measured at, but I know its huge, and would not be appreciable to compare it with more competent companies.

Over the years, there seems to be many stock options issued to management, as well as fees, leases , salaries and God knows what else, to management. By looking at this type of track record, it suggests that management may have been very comfortable just buying and selling their stock options/shares and collecting a salary and fees on top. This typically suggests that shareholders interest is not in mind, whereas proving up resources to create value in the company, appears to never have been done. If you look at the amount of money that SLI has raised over the years, (and this relates to the formula mentioned above) to the actual proven reserves, it amounts to really nothing. There has no been no value created, when lots of cash has been there and the high potential properties, to capitalize upon. I will add here also, the strongest shareholder base I have ever seen.

The blatant disregard that management has had for shareholders concerns in the last couple years, is not a surprise, if you put yourself in managements shoes. Management had everything, a very strong stock price that enabled much money to be made on the way up, and the opportunity to make money on any decline. They even had salary coming in as well from the company. Their jobs were secure with a healthy pay cheque coming regardless if anything was ever proven up or not. Last Oct, the CEO got her montly salary increased from $5000 per month, to $7500, that came at a time when the treasury was languishing greatly, and the future need for cash to the treasury would be a known by any management. This pay hike, also came at a time when most Venture juniors, as well as most Senior minings were scaling back spending and conserving cash so that their companies could weather the little financial storm that was on the horizon. This storm was known by everyone in the industry and prudent actions were being taken in advance of it by everyone, except perhaps SLI, where contrary actions were obvious, spend.

I believe the track record of management does not depict a prove resource and sell scheme, and seems that many opportunites were always cut short, of ever returning compound value. Unless a miracle happens, there won,t be much of a resource figured for Tesoro out of recent past explo work either, it can,t possibly be. Because the whole drill plan wasn,t really constructed as to prove up a resource, it neglected to prove up the knowns and just went poking holes all over the place, something that does not make sense and that falls in line with proper procedure .

So, you see a distinct pattern here, the recent sale of the Cueva Blanca was the most extravagant display in the shuffle of properties, nothing ever being proven.IGD announced a drill program that was never done that could have proven up further value for the Cueva Blanca property and the historical resource estimat could have been proven as well, adding great value. Any prudent and competent management, proves up a property, sells it, makes a lump of cash, and moves on to the next property to do the same thing. Management makes money for themselves and shareholders by selling the proven value.

Then you see Intigold (IGD) start up, money raised and Beaverdell taken from SLI and more or less given to IGD over the course of time. We also saw, and see attempts perhaps for IGD to get more of SLI,s properties. SLI shareholders never gets any considerable value by optioning these properties to IGD, because it appears IGD never proves anything up either. We see news releases about IGD going to do this and going to do that, but little to no results ever appear. Two quick examples, 1)we haven,t seen samples from Beaverdell for about 3 years now, they were doing a sampling program, but no results released? 2) We have only seen a small sampling program done on Chance E, that probably cost no more than $5000 to do, with 3 little results being highlighted in a news release, while news releases announcing work programs, seem to suggest a much more agressive and extensive program.

It is in my opinion, that the only ones that ever benefitted by having two companies, that enjoyed interest in the same properties, were management. I will say that perhaps it was a huge disadvantage for shareholders and not in their best interests to have a non arms length company, run by the same management, because there seems to be a lack of incentive to prove anything up, and perhaps the money and properties all being in just one company, would have been more beneficial to shareholders.

If IGD was sharing an office with SLI for several years, why was it not paying its applicable portion of rent and office expenses? If SLI shareholders burdened this weight on their treasury, how is that in the best interests of SLI shareholders?

Its all a game, and so many other Venture stocks play these games as well, taking years and years, to prove a wee bit, when it can be done many multiples quicker. We have/had, 3 amazing Peruvian properties, with little to nothing proven up on them in many years, in which it could have been done, adding value to the shareholders investment, instead of taking it away.

So, in closing, I consider the actions by management as being selfish and perhaps greedy over the years by not adding any value in the line of increased resource to the company, which would have been reflected in the shareprice. We paid for management to create value for us, look what they have done. There should be no salaries allowed to be paid in Venture exploration stocks for this very reason, whereas, if management has shareholders best interests in mind, they will add value, get the stock price up, and make money off their options, which is their reward. Venture stocks that have proven a reasonable resource and has created considerable value, then can readily show that a salary is warranted. Its management like ours that helps give the Venture a bad name and causes investors to not support companies in the Venture, which in turn hurt other competent companies that are sitting on potential deposits.

IMO