[nrj]

I want to emphasize the fact that I have not visited this company’s Utah mining project and that the values noted above have been reported to me from sources I believe to be reliable. But as noted above, the 100,000 ton “reserve” number is not 43-101 compliant. And in fact, as of this writing, the company has only a letter of intent and does not yet own the property. We have been burned once before on a mining project that was “supposed to be acquired” and then when due diligence work failed to verify the merits of the project, shareholders were burned in the process. So caution is warranted. However, in addition to the letters of intent to acquire various uranium properties, this company does have tow silver gold mining prospects, which in our opinion by themselves may justify the company’s current share price.

Regarding the Firefly project, it is my understanding that the numbers quoted above are based on prior records dating back to the time when production last took place on the property. As far as I am aware, no feasibility studies have been carried out recently. But what we stated above regarding the possible economics of that project we do believe to be true and if it is true, this company’s shares should rise considerably on the basis of the Firefly Project alone.

Because mining is such a risky business and because it just makes good sense to diversify your investment holdings, we want to emphasize once again our strong recommendation that you not allocate more than 5% of your investment portfolio to any one stock, including Northwestern. If this stock turns out to be a “home run,” as we hope and believe it can, a 5% allocation will provide a meaningful boost to your overall portfolio. On the other hand, if things turn out not to evolve as planned, but head south instead, a 5% allocation in your portfolio will not destroy you. You can gamble if you want, but we don’t want to play a role in encouraging you to do so.