Folks,
I read Bru's blog last night...very carefully, but waited until this morning for things to simmer down before I write my comments.

1. The entire article is a heap of praise to FMS, Gary and Gordon Chiu. The praise is so unconditional that it would probably make Gary blush. Too much of a good thing may not be good at all. He writes well, but a one-sided story without any constructive critiques would not come across as a well-balanced report which is based on solid analysis, or evidence. At least, it would be a better read if the volume of the praise is tuned down a few notches.

2. Paragraph 2: "Dr. Chiu reported to us that our raw, unprocessed graphite was much better in quality than the best processed laboratory on the market today". This is a BIG claim. In the scientific community, this sort of finding's got to be written up and published in reputable journals for review and scrutiny by other scientists, not a casual announcement without any support. Show the findings that the raw stuff from Lac Knife is actually so, by measurement and analysis. Lac Knife deposit has a good grade of 17%, but there are a lot of stuff that need to be demonstrated, e.g. flake quality for graphene production, properties such as conductance and storage capability, etc, before such a claim can be made. Otherwise, this would be just a hollow claim.

3. End of Paragraph 2": Since Dr. Chiu has reached a point where the graphene can be produced directly from the graphite ore....". This is a claim (or opinion) without any proof. In fact Dr. Chiu has NOT shown that he has reached that point. Again, where is the evidence in scientific publication?

4. Claims in Quebec: Perhaps, due to a good rapport with Gary, somehow the blog writer managed to get the claim maps from FMS. We should give him credit for that. On the other hand, one could raise the question on Gary's judgment in his decision to give this privileged information to a blog writer instead of having it published in an NR, or on FMS website. The same thing can be said for the pictures that the blog writer published in his previous post. Why not published these on the website. Gary's action could be considered as unequal treatment of shareholders in dishing out information that could be considered as "material". Remember the blog writer is a shareholder, why was he given a competitive edge than other shareholders. If so, the blog writer should have been considered as insider who would be subjected to the TSX rules.

5. Basic information such as drill maps, and core shack where drill cores are kept: These are considered as information of interest to shareholders. We would feel more confortable seeing row and row of cores neatly arranged on trays in a well kept location. We would expect to see these proofs on FMS website rather than through a blog.

6. Disclosure: Even though the blog writer did not receive any compensation (presumably we are talking about money changing hands here). The fact that privileged information supplied by the company for the writing of his own blog could be considered as "compensation". The same could be said about the company-paid travel costs paid for the writer's Lac Knife trip.
goldhunter