This was posted on that "other" board in response to Toby's questions:

Toby,

It's too bad you haven't gotten a response to your questions. Most of us here who have talked to or dealt with SFMI management (including some of those who unlike me have been able to meet management and visit the site) are quite satisfied with the present situation. I probably can't answer all your questions, but let me try to address at least some of the issues you raise.

It's my impression from others that Goldcorp Holdings and SFMI were formed separately at the suggestion of the Chinese who were involved initially. There might be more information in previous postings. Quilliam et al. hold lots of shares in both, and both are publicly traded. If indeed you thought that GH was going to "steal" SFMI, then you should invest in GH. If the intent were for GH to take over SFMI, then I doubt that GH would have been set up as a public company.

SFMI will use a water milling process, not a chemical leach process. More detail is in previous posts and also I think in at least one company release. The separated material will be sent out for refining. I haven't seen details as to who it will be sent to.

I'm not sure who the counterparties are to the debt, but (if I remember correctly) the mill building funding was done in return for an agreement to sell a percentage of the gold at a discount to pay off the debt. Sort of a hedge, if you will, that indicates quite a bit of confidence on the part of the financier. The mill equipment itself is paid for. I also think that Quilliam et al. have foregone (or at least delayed) at least some compensation in order to make sure the operation gets up and running.

If I remember correctly I think a nephew or something was involved in some boiler room operation in Canada. He's an IT guy maybe involved in the webcam setup. I think he may not actually be on the payroll. This was discussed in posts a while back, which probably contain more information than I remember.

A couple more thoughts regarding some other concerns you seem to have:

Quilliam has stated he will turn over operations to qualified mining personnel when appropriate. The recent hire of an ex-Barrick employee as mill manager is a good sign.

As far as delays, much of the delay in uplisting was waiting for FINRA to do their part after SFMI submitted the paperwork. The delay in starting milling was due to a significant misstep. SFMI originally started putting together a mill on rented property in town, but due to a number of reasons that didn't work out, and the process was stopped just short of completion. SFMI has now bought property near the mines and is completing construction of a mill there. This resulted in a delay of over a year, but the end result will be significant reductions in costs of transporting the ore and more control over operations. Permitting in an isolated area should also be easier in case they decide to upgrade the mill. I know SFMI has overpromised and been too optimistic in their expected timelines, but they appear to be on track to produce revenue in the near future- more than enough to fund the costs of getting the mines operating again. So progress has been slow if you go by their optimistic predictions, but actually quite fast for a startup.

There is talk of other assays showing much higher grades than the ones you questioned. Certainly, the "processing" done on the original ore which consisted of separating out chunks with visible ore to be hauled down the mountain by mule must have left behind quite a bit of good stuff. Cutoff grades of 2 oz/t Au have been quoted for what was hauled down. There is an old report from the Idaho bureau of mines (available for ~$20) that has been extensively quoted in previous posts. If it is to be believed, there is an awful lot of high grade material (multiple millions of ounces Au equivalent) left on and in the mountain. Historic grades and quantities are unquestioned, and quite impressive. Even if you use only 6 g/t as the grade, the 3-500,000 tons of material sitting around above ground will produce a lot of revenue- and at minimal cost, since there will only be hauling and processing costs, no mining costs involved.

Again, it certainly would have been better for you to get answers from the company. Much of what I have mentioned, though, is available either in SFMI's news releases, on their website, or from sources such as the Idaho bureau of mines report or other historic sources. While I appreciate your desire to have your questions answered in writing, you might have better luck starting out with a phone call first. This stock, like many others, is plagued with a few tenacious deprecators (I avoided the "b" word), and your list of questions might have seemed a bit overly aggressive coming out of the blue. I hope you get enough answers to reconsider putting this stock in your newsletter.

Regards,

oryx