Hello Fasfoot, nice article even though the content is way over my head. Chemistry and my brain never became friends during my school years.

Anyway, here's a diffent angle.Maybe you can help me understand.

On Yahoo, Coldfoot suggests that Kinross Gold pretty much kicked "this stuff"(antimony) to the side of the road because of arsenic content, environmental issues and the lack of a justifiable investment opportunity. Am I wrong to construe from his comments that this stuff is everywhere in abundance and really not of the value being place on it by Silverado?

On the other hand, Silverado supporters seem to position the antimony find (Nolan Creek, other sites?) as almost some kind of "strike it rich" type of discovery.

Honestly, how can there be such a disparity of opinion when the exploration and mining studies seem to be based on science, and various degrees of expertise. For me, the risk/reward opportunities control my investment decisions and when I consider these diametrically opposed positions I don't see how an investor can draw any honest conclusions.

May Silverado management could speak to these disparate points of view and maybe board members could contribute to an honest and dispassionate discussion.

The truth shall set you free.................................