I agree with you about the science. The indicator minerals (green garnets, etc.) said that significant diamonds should be in the vicinity. The Mudlake kimberlite is diamondiferous and I too expected to see better results.

I remember the rumour about the dynamite. What evidence is available that says the dynamite was too close to the diamonds and caused the problem you describe? Why would an experienced, international company like Dyno make such a basic mistake?

Lawsuits can be very expensive and time consuming. How is suing Dyno going to help SNO? What are they trying to get from Dyno? Why hasn't SNO released any news about their intentions in this case? Do they expect Dyno to come back and try again? Would the money and time that SNO will spend be better spent on developing some other part of the business like exploring their Simpson Island Uranium claims.

SNO doesn't keep their shareholders well informed about anything they are doing. I hope this isn't just another attempt to generate some interest with a good story. I need more than a good story to rekindle my faith in this company.

Having said this, I still believe a viable deposit exists somewhere in the vicinity. The science says so but whether SNO has the money and/or expertise to find it is another story. Times are tough, money is tight.

Time will tell and I wish them luck, I believe they will need all they can get.

BGT