The more I think of Tyna,s resignation, the more interesting this becomes for me. Lets look at an old profile the company had for Tyna;

Tina Whyte

Corporate Secretary

Tina Whyte, Corporate Secretary, has over 20 years experience in the corporate securities industry, primarily in mining and resource development. Her expertise extends to continuous disclosure and corporate governance-related matters.

http://agoracom.com/ir/steliasmines/management

In the above profile, you will notice the expertise mentioned that extends to disclosure and corporate goverance, 2 very important attributes for one to have. Also with this designation, comes a considerable degree of accountability and responsibility. So, could it be that these two obligations mentioned in the previous sentence, have come into play with SLI somehow? Could what we shareholders consider as a poor disclosure policy, be coming to rest on Tyna,s shoulders? Why would anyone resign as a director on their accord when its a very simple job and reward options are worth it in most companies? Could Tyna be becoming a scapegoat for some degree of responsibility or accountability by the rest of the BOD? If so, I would gladly stand up for Tyna and lend my support should she need help if she has been singled out.

Perhaps Tyna has made the choice on her own, to abandon her position with the company, but the reasons are the most important that are attached to this choice of hers. And, if the reasons somehow affect the shareholders directly, then perhaps she may be looking for support? If you are being singled out Tyna, don,t let this happen to you, being alone, you can come over to the shareholders side and this support may help you get through any negative outcomes that may arise. Sometimes amends can be made by the right choices, and an understanding can be derived from clearing a conscience, not saying this is the case here, only offering should this be in the present picture.

I see no reprimands by authorities, suggesting that any wrong doing has been done, so I will have to assume her resignation is one of her own choice. If there is anything she would like to say to shareholders, it would be respected in the course of fudiciary duty and perhaps even a degree of amnesty could be established as a result? Perhaps even an explanation why there appears to be a considerable size leach pad on the Tesorro, would open a door in this direction, or at least confirmation if there was one there or not.

I should remind everyone again, we are definitely not defeated by the recent court decision, and that illusion should be seen as it is. It is only another battle and not the war.

I don,t believe this company will go bankrupt, if it did, it would open the doors up for an audit. By me not seeing any revenue stream implimented in the financials from any gold sold under any subsidiaries names, but perhaps expenditures, it leaves room for many questions by me. We have seen in an article where it is mentioned that gold has been sold to China, as well as a couple other countries, including Canada, I believe, without going back and checking at this moment. But, that all has to be documented somewhere, I would like to see it, as a shareholder, am I not privy to any subsidiary revenue streams connected to my interest? A stock listed in Ontario falls under these stipulations, to inform investors upon inquiry, it should apply in B.C., and should be implimented under disclosure and transparency practises. For ex and hypothetically speaking; if there is a leach pad on the Tesorro that could hold 10,000 ton of ore at 7 g/t gold, that equates to roughly 2000 ounces. At $1000 per ounce net, that would equate to $2,000,000. If you allow a reasonable amount of time for leaching, say 2 months, but I will add this can be done much quicker depending in composition of the ore, you could haul $12,000,000 worth of gold off the property per year, at a consistent rate such as this. To take this further, during the crushing process before it gets to the leach pad, we have evidence that there are bonanza shoots and high grade pods of gold on the property, this visible and higher grade doesn,t reach the leach pad, so would be processed out before, and this amount of gold, or dollars worth, would have to be added on top of the hypothetical $12,000,000 annual figure.

So hypothetically, if there is a considerable bank account in Minera Santa Elisa,s name, there would be no need for a PP at this time. I understand, that it may be a requirement of the Peruvian government, for any subsidiaries mining in Peru, to have a seperate bank account set up for mineral revenues only, where a record is kept on the dollar figure of gross production dollars.

And, if there was small scale production going on on the property, why shut down all work and disrupt a badly needed revenue stream to our treasury? I wonder if IR would answer any of these questions if we called?

All above is mere speculation, opinion and thoughts, I am not incinuating nor implying anything, just a matter of discussion.