Kathy,

Thanks for posting the document.

I`m sure some of the questions that I had are answered by that document. However, there are things that jumped out at me as I briefly read through it.

1. The agreement between Xact Resources and Progressive Bioactive is as important to the evaluation of this deal as is the agreement between Nanopierce and Xact. Exactly what is defined in that agreement?

2. Nanopierce`s partner in this venture contributed no cash. None! For all we know, their $1,500,000 could be $100,000 in tangible assets, and $1,400,000 in goodwill. What is defined in the agreement isn`t good enough.

3. The language regarding the exclusion of liability of one member for the actions of the other member. That may be normal agreement language, but, it sure would be convenient to have in their in the event that surprises are discovered later.

I`m still bothered by what happened with the Brunetti deal, and I really don`t like what I have heard about this deal so far. Sure, the mechanics of the partnership are all defined; but, there is nothing that gives me any confidence that this only a mechanism to facilitate paying officers salaries.

When there is real revenue that flows into Nanopierce`s books and gives Nanopierce`s shareholders something to get excited about, I will be the first to admit that my opinion was wrong. There are too many things that don`t make sense, and I sure wouldn`t gamble a penny without knowing the exact details of the deal between Xact and Progressive.

I know I may not be in the majority here with my opinion. I just don`t want to see anyone else make a decision about investing their money until they have looked long and hard at this deal and Nanopierce`s history.

Jeff