I have been through information with a fine toothed comb and offer 
the following critique on what appears to be conflicting reporting:

1) Terminology -  I would suggest that irrespective of any proviso for
further review of existing geological reports by a third party, the
use of the term "Reserves" does not fall within the acceptable
approved guidelines and as such should not be used. Based on the
limited and conflicting information presented the term "Mineral
Potential" is more appropriate. At the best the term "Mineral
Resource" may be applicable provided that it is justified by
acceptable sampling over the entire area in question.

2). Areas - there is a conflict in the values reported:

    i.   200 sq km - Equivalent to 32 perimeters (Sharifi May 20/99)
    ii.  231 sq km - 37 perimeters (PR of May 27/99)
    iii. 321 sq km - 50 perimeters (PR of May 27/99 - attributed to
         "one of the reports".)

Based on the PR of May 27/99, one can only assume that the report in
question covered a larger area or greater number of perimeters than
was obtained by ABFG and as such the quoted range of value of $US
274,560,000 to $US 2,745,600,000 is not in a true context.

3) Thickness of sapphire bearing ground - there is a conflict in
reported values:

   i.   1 to 8 m (Sharifi - May 20/99)
   ii.  By back calculating Sharifi values given a volume of 60
        million cubic metres and an area of 200 square metres
        would indicate an average thickness of some 3.3 metres was 
        pertinent to his calculation. (May 20/99)
   iii. 2 m is quoted as average statistic in report. (PR - May
        27/99) but 1 m is used in calculation.

4) Volumes - there is a conflict in reported volumes of sapphire
bearing volumes:

   i.  60,000,000 cubic metres (Sharifi - May 20/97)
   ii. 3,120,000 to 31,200,000 cubic metres based on the use of
       only one metre thickness. (PR - May 27/99)

Since the area quoted from the report was larger than that  given by
Sharifi (or reported in the actual PR) one can only conclude that
different thicknesses of sapphire bearing ground has been used and/or
that the estimated percentage of sapphire bearing ground that has been
applied to the total area is different.

5) Grades - there is a conflict in the grades (grams/cubic metre)
reported.

   i.   15 to 80 g/m3 (Sharifi - May 20/99)
   ii.  By back calculating from Sharifi's stated valuation and using 
        his stated volume and his pessimistic selling price of 80 
        cents/gram for raw stones, a grade of 125 g/m3 would be 
        required to arrive at his stated value of $US6 billion.
   iii. 15 to 80 g/m3 was also  reported from exploration. (PR -
        May 27/99)
   iv.  44 g/m3 was actually used as an average in the excerpt from a 
        geological report. (PR - May 20/99)

By comparison the grades reported from mining are:

   i.  32 g/m3 (PR - May 27/99)
   ii. 12 g/m3 to 57g/m3 and 28 g/m3 to 48 g/m3  for each mine per 
       report. (PR - May 27/99)

Sklar on May 27/99 stated that we have currently taken 80 to 100
kilograms of sapphires (from site M4). No time frame was offered and
this could have been in the last week or over the last two year
period.This information is thus of no use for any assessment.

6) Selling price of raw gemstones - there is a discrepancy of values:

   i.   80 UScents/gram to $US100/gram. (Sharifi - May 20/99)
   ii.  81 UScents/gram to $US100/gram per report. (PR - May 27/99)
   iii. By back calculation a value of $US2/gram was used in 
        estimating for the report (PR - May 27/99)
   iv.  $2 to $100/gram. (Sklar - May 27/99)

7) Stated "Reserve" Values - there is inconsistency in stated values
which is not surprising given the inconsistency of other major
components used in the calculation:

   i.   $US6 billion. (Sharifi - May 20/99)
   ii.  $US274 million to $US2.745 billion per report and assumed for
        a larger area. (PR - May 27/99)
   iii. Up to $2.7 billion maximum based on the "production records" 
        that we have. (Sklar - May 27/98) The phrase production
        records is emphasised as there was no mention of exploration 
        records. If production records from mines on portions of only 
        two or at the most three perimeters have been used to project 
        over 37 perimeters, then the whole validity of any evaluation 
        is questionable.

This inconsistency is further complicated by reference to the dialogue
between Skar and Kelner on May 20/99. After Sharifi had outlined the
basis for the $US6 billion value, Kelner referred to reports shown him
that gave a value of $US 274 million to $US2.7 billion in one
particular area. Sklar's response was that Kelly, that is one
area...we are talking about the whole 200 square kilometres. This is
in direct contradiction with the PR of May 27/99 which in fact gives
those same values for a larger area of 312 square kilometres or 50
perimeters.