There have been many opinions expressed about today's news release. Some are skeptical, some are downright hostile, whereas others are more re-assurred. As for myself, I feel like I have been through a meat grinder, but I have a feeling that the worst is over and things will get better.

Many will accuse me of pumping, or being overly optimistic, but here are some key considerations that I think should be given air time. Before I begin, I am very aware of the amount of money some people have lost on this play, but this is past now. What is important, for those that still hold shares, are the decisions that investors make moving forward and the information that we base these decision upon. Since I am a strong believer in Snowfield, I'd like to present the strong points and leave the negative issues to those that are more adept at this.

Here goes:

Snowfield seems to have identified the possible cause of the problem. No doubt this has been helped along by the experience of Jennifer Burgess, who apparently encountered the same problem while working for Shear Minerals. The action plan described today should tell us once and for all if there are diamonds within this batch of the bulk sample. However, it will not tell us whether or not there will be diamonds in the batch at De Beers.

The setting of the initial minimum size to 1.4mm in the process had the effect of totally eliminating smaller stones from the batch. So, it should have been no surprise that there were no small stones, we could not have expected any from the start. The re-test will hopefully put this to rights.

Communications with De Beers will be very close over the coming days and this will give their forthcoming sampling program every chance of being successful. A lot has been learned in the past week and this will be put into practice at De Beers. They have the technology and experience to deal will an issue like hematite.

Snowfield has chosen to drill the Mud Lake deposit to get a better understanding of the kimberlite sills. Some say that this is long overdue, but I am nonetheless very happy that this work has begun. It could not be in better hands than Jennifer Burgess who has a proven track record.

Analysis of the kimberlite indicator minerals have proven that there is a good chance that Mud Lake and other kimberlites on SNo's property are diamondiferous. These indicators are know to exist in the diamond stability field. If these are present, there is a good chance that diamonds are at Mud lake and in the surrounding area.

The present bulk sampling test is focussed upon a very small section of the kimberlite and comes from the top sill. It could be that the top sill itself is not uniform in its diamond content. Also, the other sills have been proven to contain diamonds. Indeed, more diamonds were found in the lower sill than elsewhere. This is a major cause for optimism, in my opinion. The drilling now underway will tell us more and I feel confident that the future drill cores will repeat the successful ones that were reported in 2006.

The Snowfield team now knows that it cannot follow the magnetic signatures of the geology on-site. The nature of the kimberlite and surrounding rock has given them false targets. The team has realized this and the drilling now follows the trail of the indicator minerals. For me, this greatly increases the chance of them finding more kimberlite. Again the prowess of Jennifer Burgess will be put to great use and she has an exemplary track record of finding kimberlite.

We know that the Mud lake deposit covers an area of at least 34 acres and is open in three directions. If each of the three sills are the same size, this represents 102 acres of kimberlite on-plan. We have only drilled a few square inches of holes and removed a tiny portion of it. There is a good chance that we'll find more diamonds in the expanse of the deposit. So, even if we find nothing in the bulk sample, we have more than a 100 acres of kimberlite left to explore.

I have been told that sills of kimberlite in the same deposit can vary to a large degree with respect to their diamond content. One pulse of kimberlite during an eruption could bring with it a hoard of diamonds, whereas subsequent pulses that lay down additional sills could be totally barren of diamonds. So, we have a very incomplete picture of the Mud Lake kimberlite, if we take this current bulk sample from the top sill as our only evidence.

Lastly, management has learned a lot more about their deposit in the past few days. Much more, I suspect, than at any time leading up to the release of the SRC results. In spite of the unpleasant surprise, I feel more confident that the Snowfield management will be stronger than before and even more determined to move this play forward. Many on this board and elsewhere have criticised management, but in my experience, it often takes an upset like this to really set things on a path to greater success. No matter what business you are in.

I have taken a major haircut and today I bought more shares. It may sounds strange to many, but the risks of this play diminish as the company progresses through the twist and turns that science and mother nature has hurled at it. Nothing much has changed. It is still a highly speculative play, but it still has the fundamentals of being a great one.

I am here for the long haul.

Good luck to all.....peterjr