RESPONSE TO SHAREHOLDERS
Q&A WEBSITE
July 20, 2007

Further to our commitment to answer shareholders questions, we continue this week with answering the most commonly asked questions, in no particular order.

Q) Will there soon be an opportunity for the broad market to learn about Medinah's progress through major media press release?
A) We are contracted with a media company to commence a professional informational program at the appropriate time.

Q) How are you going to handle the shorts? How is the short position affecting the JV and negotiations?
A) Shorts are a natural function of any market and are much more regulated than previously. Nowadays, if you sell a stock, you must deliver or buy back in. Shorts do not affect joint ventures and negotiations, as Medinah negotiations do not involve any percentage or stock interest in the company.

Q) Could you please outline some of the parameters that have been given to interested parties?
A) The parameters of the proposed agreements with the various interested parties are in accordance with generally accepted industry norms, but cannot be publicly discussed at this time.

Q) It appears based on shareholder updates that Juan is meeting with representatives from more than a dozen major companies, developing contracts, acting as tour guide on numerous trips to the Alto, and going back and forth to Southern Chile to be part of the Madre De Dios project. We know he has many other obligations such his pear plantations etc. He sounds like a very busy man indeed. What assistance, if any, is Juan getting to accomplish these tasks? Does he have administrative and secretarial support? Does he any warm bodies at all helping him with closing a deal? If not, what can be done, if any thing, to get Juan the assistance he needs to accomplish his tasks as quickly as possible?
A) Juan José Quijano works timelessly for Medinah and has numerous backup resources to cover his many operations. His resource pool and many years experience as an attorney, mining property owner and vendor allows him to function efficiently at the level of serious negotiations with the majors.

Q) The company has made reference to a acquiring a 9% interest in a in a project in the southern gold fields of Chile. Is this a free-carried interest? Did the company have to pay for it? If not, how/why did they obtain this interest?
A) Medinah received its interest in 9% of a Southern gold field project of Chile, as reported, as compensation for past assistance during the evaluations and development of the property. Medinah is not obligated to contribute financially.

Q) Management and the Board of Directors are pleased to announce that Bruce Turner, World renowned mining executive and business consultant, and board director of several publicly traded companies has elected to become even more actively involved with Medinah Minerals, Inc. Mr. Turner will take on a very prominent role as an Advisory Board Member to Medinah s Management and the Board of Directors. Mr. Turner will assume an integral role in assisting Medinah s President, Juan José Quijano Fernández, with funding matters, contractual negotiations, finalization of infrastructure issues, and joint venturing implementations relative to the Alto de Lipangue property. Is Bruce Turner no longer involved with Medinah? If not, why did he leave?
A) Mr. Turner was instrumental in introducing Medinah to several potential Joint Venture partners and recommending certain areas of expansion and development on the Alto de Lipangue property. Subsequently, Mr. Turner acquired his own venture in Chile and is now actively developing his mining properties.

Q) If MDMN is dealing with 12 majors and is extremely close to a JV, why "discussions with investment bankers"?
A) During the past 2 years, several investment-banking groups have expressed an interest in Medinah. As company policy, we decided that a Joint Venture agreement with a reputable major mining company was preferable to Medinah. However, it is comforting that we do attract the attention of financial institutions interested in our property and our company.

Q) How much money has MDMN and CDCH spent on the property? Does both companies plan on spending more to prove up the property and if no please explain? What make MDMN property different from any other claim with your 17 drills does it show a considerable find?
A) From the date of the original acquisition of the Alto de Lipangue properties, Medinah and its associates have expended in excess of $15 million on the properties. This includes road building and surface access, trenching, staking and surveying, extensive IP surveys and other geological services, property service and maintenance, diamond drilling of 25 holes, percussion drilling, assaying and numerous professional geology evaluations. As this property is very extensive and the drilling to date has indicated a significant ore body open in all directions and to depth, considerable additional work must be done to delineate the total property potential.

Q) Is the company going to reply to the letter from Russell Godwin dated July 17, 2007?
A) On July 17, 2007 Russell Godwin, past President, Secretary and Director of Medinah, sent a letter to Management of Medinah Minerals, Inc. and Cerro Dorado, Inc. stating in part that he is an Executor of the Estate of Gordon House and that he has been given the debts supposedly owed by Medinah to House. No documentation accompanied the letter.

Godwin states that because Medinah has not paid all alleged debts to Gordon House, the January 15, 2001 report by House on the Alto de Lipangue claims is proprietary and that Godwin now withdraws approvals for Medinah to use these documents. He further says that Medinah is not entitled to make any deals with third parties using any information gained from these documents and that third parties must be notified that they are not permitted to use this information.

Legal Counsel is of the opinion that the letter has no force or effect in law. Gordon House, at the times in question, was a Director, Officer and employee of the Company. He was not an independent consultant, which is fully disclosed in his reports, and therefore any work done for the Company is owned by the Company and not Gordon House. There are no proprietary rights. As well, House provided written permission to use any reports he provided prior to and including January 2001 and it cannot be revoked 6 years later by a third party.

All debts purportedly owed to Gordon House were discussed with him on many occasions by Company CEO, Les Price. The present recorded and agreed amount on Company records is $33,541.91. In 2005, when he was very ill, Gordon advised that the debts were not an issue and that the Company should complete a major deal on the properties before paying any debt owed. This portion of the debt is not disputed and will be paid to the Estate at a mutually agreed-upon time. A Director’s Resolution signed by House and Godwin covers this issue and prescribes a simple 10% interest charge be applied.

At the May 17, 2004 AGM, all matters of debt were addressed and the Shareholders gave instruction for their handling. Unanimous consent of over 200 million voting shares instructed the new Board of Directors to deal with the debts of the company, as they have. As the outgoing Board of Directors, Godwin and House had the opportunity to openly deal with any debt claims that they had at that time and before the Shareholders. They did not. Of further confusion was their statement in that meeting that they had held several Directors’ meetings but had never, during their entire tenure, spoken with their third Director, Juan José Quijano Fernández. This may bring into question, why Godwin has never presented the Company with legal documentation for his claims of debts. One has to wonder which Directors were selected to approve which agreements.

Godwin is claiming about $150,000 to be paid to him for the House inheritance. No valid contract, approved invoices or other accounting documentation been provided by Godwin to explain or ratify this claim despite repeated requests from the Company. There is no record in the Company files of this debt being owed and it is the Company’s position that this claim is without merit.

The Company intends at the time of funding via a major agreement on the properties, to pay to the Estate of Gordon House all legitimate debts of record along with the previously agreed 10% simple interest calculation.

Management of Medinah is suspect of the intent of this demand letter as, almost as soon as the Company received the letter, it was posted on the Internet. Calls came into the office immediately from outraged Shareholders, some of whom understand U.S. law and the full meaning of non-proprietary.