I guess my first question about a proposed 20-1 rollback, would be why?

A similar question arises with a proposed name change of the company, why?

If we examine the ludicrous arguments made for doing a rollback in any stock, really they contain no merit and are actually a form of concealment and not in the best interests of any shareholders, as is a name change, a form of concealment.

Its quite absurd for one to accept the argument that a higher stock price, as a result of a rollback, intices larger investors/institutions. The very interests, and what may be called the prudent ones, will and can invest, no matter what the stock price. When you really look at the ideology of prudent sophisticated investors, such as institutions, the main reason they invest, is to make money off the trading and their actual interest into what the company assets may evolve into, is mostly never considered to any great initial degree. In reality, it doesn,t matter if the stock is at .01 or $10.00, if any institute thinks they can make money, they will invest.

After the track record for SLI that the BOD have created in the last 2 years, I don,t believe it would matter if the company did a 1000-1 rollback, in theory, it would not intice nor substantiate new investors of a so called professional proportion. There has been no promotional efforts in the last 2 years of this investment, only what appear to investors as demoting efforts on the BOD,s part. Having said this, and upon examination, there is no justification of a rollback in this respect. Furthermore, the BOD have successfully seemed to distance several possible sources of property promotions from the scene as well, distancing the Cueva Blanca, letting parts of the Carmi Moly lapse, not reporting any Gold Summit work yet and also by limiting the presentation of Tesoro results (the 4 mentioned properties offered perhaps the most promising and prolific chances of substantial news). In all reality at this time, exactly what ace does Lori have left to haul out of her back pocket to intice big investors? None. So if the current BOD is trying to justify a roll back under this guise, it certainly contains no merit, nor ethics as far as investors are concerned.

So then, why does the current BOD wish to do a roll back? Perhaps the stock needed to be reverse split in order to maintain its listing with the Exchange? If this were the case, under disclosure provisions, this would have had to be specified in a news release to investors upon initial mention. Where we have seen no mention of this being a case for a rollback, then that is not the reason. If by some chance it may be the reason, then either the company or the Exchange may be concealing factual and pertinent investment material that may be considered perhaps misleading and may be disabling investors from further making reasonable investment decisions. If by any chance, that a news release is put out shortly specifying that a proposed rollback is a requisite of the Exchange, I then would question the dynamics involving the trading that put the stock at such a low price, and would also entertain all the individual components that have contributed to the stock price demise. Don,t forget, that this is a tightly held stock and there have been assigned PO,s and/MM,s (market makers) to this stock for at least several years, with documented trades on digital recorders. IIROC has been alerted on several occasions where blatant manipulation appeared to have occurred in the trading of this stock to the downside. To sum up, how could the Exchange really require the company to do a roll back to stay listed, when the Exchanges regulator, IIROC, has not released any public report on its investigation into the seeminly stock manipulation? To conceal a type of information such as this from investors, would certainly not be in the investors best interests and contrary to several Exchange Policies.

If we look at what value a stock split may add to a company, after considering some of the above, how can it possibly add any value? If anything, the attributed costs will only further burden the company and even put shareholders at more risk, where the treasury is dangerously low now. So, because of even this one point, how is a stock split valuable to shareholders interests? Is a BOD that would even consider a roll back at a precarious time as such, a competent and experienced BOD with the shareholders interests at heart and in mind? If the answer to that is no, then why is such a BOD allowed to remain in control of thousands investors investment and make decisions that are apparently not in the investors best interests? And where are the regulatory bodies that insure and assure the protection of investors in this market? Do they speak with a forked tongue?

Usually after a reverse stock split, a stock will continue to decline.It will also become automatically a small short target, whereas the presumption is always made that a stock continues dropping after a reverse split. What this could do to us investors, is to see our investment further decline by drastic proportions, while one lucky shorter makes a few quick bucks as the stock implodes, walking away jingling the change in their pockets, laughing at their easy fortune. I guess if someone wanted shares, this would present a great buying opportunity, if anyone submitted to the pressure that a reverse stock split usually creates on investors. A reverse stock split is an excellent way for any management to get a controlling interest in a company, by letting selling pressure after a reverse split, shake out many shares.

If we look at the amount of shares outstanding now, around 120 million, a roll back would leave 6 million shares outstanding. What benefit would this be to a PP or future option grants to executive and/or company employees? Well, as far as I can see, the maximum amount of shares that could be issued in a PP is 50%, which would equate to a PP of 3 million shares, or a 33% position of the total company. A stock option plan, unless a shareholder approval for an increase was obtained, would allow 10% of the issued shares, or around 600,000 shares. Its a little more complicated than this and past grants would have to be taken into consideration to perhaps arrive at a concrete futuristic number. I could see an opening where control of the company may be obtained by the current BOD if a strategic plan was in place. Lets face it, the current BOD appears vengeful of us and its actions of the last 2 years blatantly evidence this. I believe a proposed reverse split only would benefit the current BOD to this extent, to gain control of the company, at the expense of the shareholders.

In all rationale, 120 million shares outstanding means nothing, some company,s out there have 3 times that much and are still doing well. Any company that proposes something like this, especially perhaps in our unique situation, only suggests to me that the current BOD may only be interested in living off the option grants and trading the stock for the next several years, instead of proving up and selling properties. I say this because if a company was serious about creating shareholder value, they would work at creating that value and perhaps not take a stance that blatantly appears that the stock is being positioned for years of trading. This displays to me that current management lacks confidence that they are able to create value anytime soon and are selfishly trying to secure a future income for themselves. This scenario of non confidence that the BOD have created for the public to see, appears to me to have been orchestrated by several "not in the shareholders best interests "actions.

As for the name change, it should never be allowed in any trading company. In all reality, a name change helps conceal important information from future investors that is pertinent to proper due dilligence and research of any investment. A name change is a break or severance in a paper trail that makes it extremely difficult for an investor to perform historical backgrounds on management individuals and historical company information. We are experiencing now, much very important historical information disappearing, and upon a name change, if all this information is gone, it will decrease value in this company considerably. The best option, and less costly, is to keep the name St Elias Mines Ltd and all its historic information which does contain incredible value.

IMO

thank you

rick