sinbob,

Nice comparison. That other company actually doesn't sound bad, but SFMI sounds even better. You're right- the key to SFMI is the prospect of near term revenue flow based on the unprocessed ore laying around. SFMI would be a buy even if this were the only asset they had! Let's do some more back of the napkin calculating:

There are over 300,000 tons of unprocessed ore piled around, for which assays so far have found an "average grade of 5.1 grams/ton Au and 72.7grams/ton Ag".

At $1000/oz Au and $16/oz Ag, that's approximately (1000x5/31 + 16x72/31) = $198/ton. For 300k tons, that's almost $60 million! For a company valued at less than $5 million. Of course there will be expenses- something under $2M to get the mill up and running, and operating and hauling and smelter expenses- but these surely will be minimal compared to per ton costs of other mining companies- the ore is already mined! So SFMI should generate a quite respectable revenue stream before they even start to mine those 4M gold equivalent oz. Certainly enough to cover capex, operating costs, and even a share buyback program (and might I suggest even a dividend?). And with infrastructure in place and existing mines needing only dewatering and rehab, per ounce costs of mining at the reported historic grades should be among the cheapest around- meaning that 4M gold equivalent ounces should net at least half their $4B worth. $2B divided by ~150M shares is $13/share potential net revenue over time! And that's before any more drilling and inevitable discoveries and increase in reserves...

Sounds too good to be true...

spiny