OK, so using 50 tpd throughput, average 1.25 g/t au and 22 g/t ag, one gets $60/ton, or $3000/day. Rounding down for the considerations you mentioned, say $2800/day. I don't know what it costs them to keep the lights on, but it's got to be at least close to that.

So the key in the most recent new is, which of those samples gave the truest picture of what's in the piles? If it's (1) or (2), pull the plug and go home. If (3), they may make a go of it...

Tbooth - If you care to show the technique for using the PR to calculate throughput, I'd certainly like to see it. TIA

Izlp9 - Why are you QUIBBLING?

Grams, ounces, pounds, tons.... what DIFFERENCE does that make?

Paidmyway.... I don't have any position at the moment, but I'm fascinated by this story, and especially interested in your thoughts about the joint venture setup.

Could you take a moment and just lay out in a few bullet points just how you see the relationship working?

TIA

$180k in gold/silver by 12/31?

What am I missing? That doesn't seem very good...

Assuming 14-1, and assuming 100% purity, then dore has market value of around $470k.

So less than that, depending on purity of dore.

Am I missing something? That sure doesn't seem like very much for the processing time it represents...

""pure gold and silver that needs to be separated""

Who said it was pure? Dore bars are just a step in the process. Purity can vary enormously. Maybe you've got 50 lbs of gold, maybe you've got 2 lbs. I don't know, and neither do you....

Oryx - Those are "bonanza" grades, for sure. It brings into question, though, the claims about SFMI having 2 oz/ton in their ore piles. The unweighted average of the mines you listed was about 2.3 oz/ton. I don't think it's unreasonable to assume that a mine averaging 2.3 oz/ton is going to, at the low end, process ore down to 1 oz/ton or lower.

Which makes it unlikely, to me, that SFMI has anything like 2 oz/ton in piles that they did not consider worthy of processing. Not that that objection, by itself, would be sufficient argument against owning the stock. I think anything down to 1/4 oz/ton is quite workable....

What's all this about a 43-101?

A NI 43-101 is a Canadian document required for Canadian companies. Why would SFMI get one?

Sorry, not $600/ton... more like $400 (1/4 oz gold for $340 and 2.5 oz silver for $60).

So 800,000 tons at $400/ton w/b........ $320m

1/4 oz/ton is pretty good, really. That's a little over 8 grams per metric tonne, and there are big miners who consider 1 gram/tonne in the ground to be commercial. having it already out in big piles just makes it that much easier.

Say they have that 1/4 oz/ton, and 10 times as much silver. That's $600 per ton.

So how many tons do they have?

Well yeah, that is what "IR" usually means, but after I read this

"SFMI too cheap should be trading higher bid/ask those getting shares here getting a deal of deals. GOLD IS GOLD! GOT MINE? GET YOURS.SFMI"

I just wanted to make sure. I found it hard to believe that an IR person for an even remotely reputable company would post that kind of thing. I keep wanting to like this stock, and the company keeps making it hard to...

IR?

OK.... depends on what is meant by "significant". There are mines out there producing 2000 times as much Copper as Gold, but, since Gold is almost 5000 times as valuable as Copper, they are considered "gold mines". Since Copper and Lead are so cheap, their proportion of the VALUE of what's going to the smelter may not be significant, but their proportion of the VOLUME might be.

re concentrate grades...

Just exercising my ignorance here, but it seems to me that they would not want to fine-tune the concentrator to the point where it's spitting out only gold and silver. Silver is not that much denser than copper or zinc (10.5 vs 9 and 7, as I recall), and it's somewhat LESS dense than lead. Does the ore not contain copper or lead?

If they are so picky that they aren't picking up copper, and are somehow avoiding lead (if it's even there in the first place), then they'd probably be losing some silver.

Seems like it would be better to adjust their tolerances so they get all the silver and pick up some base metals, too, then let the smelter sort it all out. After all, how much more expensive would it be to smelt a gold-silver-copper mixture than to smelt a pure gold-silver mixture?

Concentrate is 100% gold and silver?

Given how small the amount is, I wonder if someone couldn't "squeeze" them in?

Besides, they've been holding this stuff for a long time. Why ship it now if the smelter hasn't told them they're ready to go?

Why are we even talking about this? Why can't the company spell it out?

If they don't release the smelter results as soon as they have them (and also clarify today's awful NR i/r/t the number of >>elapsed<< days required to accumulate that 508 pounds), then it will be a matter of outright stock manipulation.

The question is, >>how<< are they manipulating the stock? If they're withholding bad news, then they are keeping the price from going to .02, and if they are withholding good news, then they must be doing that so that they, or friends can get more cheap shares.

I certainly hope they do the right thing, and release the results immediately, which should be in the next week....

508 pounds in 491 hours

Whatever time period that 491 hours was spread out over, what matters is

1) the rate per hour
and
2) the grades

For those who witnessed the mill in action, did it look like they were producing about one pound per hour? If you assume concentrate is 10% gold (that's low, isn't it?), then one pound would be about 1/2 cup....

Rocket - I think it's ambiguous. I don't think it makes sense that they would be running 24/7 right at the start, so equating 491 hours to 20 days just doesn't seem right.

They MIGHT be trying to say that the 491 hours represents 20 days' full-capacity production, and they may have reached full production since then, or intend to reach it in the future.

491 hours since May 17 is about 3 hours per day, or about 4 hours per weekday, which may be more the norm for a startup operation.

They REALLY should be more clear in their release. If the 491 hours is production-to-date, and they are trying to obfuscate that (I say "if". I have no opinion one way or the other.) then it's hardly an encouraging sign.

"What about the dividend and/or buy back program?"

I hope that's not a serious question. But if it is, I'd just say that this company is not remotely in condition to do either, and will not be for a long time. One would hope that, if they actually have any spare change, they would use it for development.

"Will this puppy see $0.30 again?"

I certainly hope so.

We got a puff piece like that just before the SHM. A poorly done regurgitation of the company's own marketing materials done by a paid-to-write "analyst" with a simply awful track record.

That's what convinced me to bail. I typed in sell orders like my fingers were on fire.

Thanks for the laugh...

Ever heard of Survivor Bias?

It's a matter of how anecdotal evidence can be very misleading. You ask someone who made a killing in a rebounding stock how he did it, and he says something silly like "I waited until there was blood in the streets".

Of course, tons of people who buy when there is blood in the streets just end up contributing to the gory mess. People bought WCOM when it was at $6, LEH at $30, GM at $10, C at $5... etc etc. In all cases, there was blood in the streets.... AND ABOUT TO BE A WHOLE LOT MORE.

The reason silly sayings like "buy when there's blood in the streets" survive is because you only talk to the winners. You don't even want to talk to the losers... it makes bad press and it's discouraging. And if you do want to talk to them they don't want to talk to you. Hence.... Survivor Bias.

He said they are working on the Sinker PLAN...

Not the TUNNEL. The part of the PLAN pertaining to the tunnel.

""For those who have no skin in the game I ask the same question again. Why are you here? ""

I'm interested, too. Almost fascinated. This stock may go to zero, which will be fascinating to watch. It may also go to the moon, which will also be fascinating.

I also like to "keep in touch", in case something actually happens that will convince me to add to my position.

Oh brother... now we have even a staunch defender of SFMI talking about "clowns in yellow suits". I am more confused than ever. Now all I need is for Paidmyway to say that .14 really is an attractive price, after all....

""People see what they want to see and believe what they want to believe. ""

All I see is confusion and uncertainty. Maybe that's what I WANT to see, but I doubt it...

Got it.... Not sure why I asked, actually. If you say your findings agree with SFMI's statements (and I'm sure you have done so more than once), then there's no reason to be more specific.

GSFL - You went to the trouble and expense of doing a test, so you certainly have a right to keep it to yourself. Still, can't you at least tell us why you are keeping it to yourself?

What's holding it down? (you ask)

One big thing is that an awful lot of shares were bought at much lower prices, like two cents. 14 cents per share may not seem like much of a profit, except when it's 700% of what you paid, and you've got a million shares.

Another big thing is that the company is taking a "trust us" approach regarding their production. They claim to have produced a lot of gold-in-concentrate, but haven't taken it to a smelter to realize the revenue (or even find out what the grades are). Some people trust the company, some don't, and some don't know what to believe.

Obviously, it's a major concern that SFMI's property, which they say has so much potential, has been ignored by the majors (and the minors, for that matter). The guys who are fully-staffed with experienced geologists have given it a pass. I've never read one of them saying why, but the fact that they have is a concern.

Then there's the question of operating expenses. Some here believe that the company is either spending much more than they claim, and/or they are paying workers with stock.

For myself, I bought a ton of shares in the runup to the annual meeting a few weeks back. On the morning of the meeting, a puff piece was published by a paid-to-pump "analyst". I'm told it was not the company itself that paid for the piece, but the fact that ANYONE paid for it, that it came out the day of the meeting, and that it was the ONLY press that came out that day (nothing from the company itself) was a grave concern to me. I've never seen something like that happen and not seen the stock in question suffer. The "analyst" actually put all his past recommendations on his website, and nearly all did disastrously afterwards. Anyway, when I saw that I immediately dumped all my shares that my profits hadn't already paid for. Still waiting and watching re buying back in.

As for the positive case, Oryx does a particularly good job of setting it out...

GermanShepherd - I'd agree with some of that, but I don't think it outbalances the negatives of buybacks, primarily the need to use whatever money they have for development.

But back to my question... have you ever seen a company in anything like SFMI's situation buying back shares?

Let's stop this buyback nonsense. Unless someone can name a company in remotely similar circumstances to SFMI that has bought back shares, of course.

Also, even if it were remotely plausible that they'd buy back shares, why would a shareholder want them to? Buying back shares is an implicit admission that the company has nothing better to do with the money. If SFMI has the prospects that people here hope they have, they should be spending every cent on development.

It has also been reported here that they are using stock to supplement the Dollars they're paying workers.

What to believe, what to believe....

Silver Falcon - One huge hole in your argument is that, if they are using stock to help pay their bills (that's "if" they are, which seems not unlikely and is anecdotally supported), then they really OUGHT to care what the sp is.

In fact, if they have knowledge they could release as news which would raise the sp, they pretty much have an obligation to shareholders to do so. Otherwise, they are literally throwing away our money when they pay bills with unnecessarily cheap stock.

Good grief, I'm too old to still be learning stuff like that :(

"Actually a gallon of water weighs 8.33lb"

Gold price is meaningless.

If you own, or are thinking of owning, this stock, all you want to know is, is this company a fraud?

If they aren't a fraud, you want to own the stock, and the price of gold cannot change that reality.

If they are a fraud, the stock is 100% overvalued, and the price of gold cannot change that reality, either.

I can hardly believe that this conversation is being held on this board.

Anyway, a gallon of water weighs 8.0 pounds. Gold has a specific gravity of 19.3, therefore a gallon of gold weighs 154.4 pounds.