B,

Yeah, I've noticed gump seems to play both sides. He's obviously pretty knowledgable, and some posters have actually gotten some quite good information out of him by asking good questions. He's a bit negative on SFMI, though, claiming that the mill is too small and they haven't done an adequate job assaying the tailings to make sure they will be worthwhile processing. Neither stance is "wrong"- I agree that the mill is small, but it's plenty big enough to generate enough revenue to fund everything, including expanding the mill or building a bigger one. Assuming the grades in the tailings are anywhere near what is indicated by the historical documents and data and present day assays and surveys, of course. Which brings us to gump's second criticism, and one which other bashers have also used. Any reasonable person would look at the available information, and conclude that there is plenty left in the tailings and unprocessed ore, not to mention the mines. Obviously some deep pocket investors have been impressed enough to fund the company to startup. But since SFMI hasn't done the large (and in SFMI's case, unnecessary) amount of work required to legally claim any specific amount of reserves, their filings have to state that they have "no proven reserves". OK by me, I'm convinced that the unproven reserves are plenty big enough. Back to gump- he's not a typical basher, and does provide some good info- you just have to evaluate and confirm what he says rather than just accept it. The same as any info you get on a message board, really.

spiny.