OK I will accept your figures but I think you are...

OK I will accept your figures but I think you are underestimating them.

Why would you scan the whole USA?   The barrier to large scale imaging has always been the 'stitching' together of the images, this is one area that SFI have cracked, so now capture and delivery is faster and a doable thing.   Why do it at all, Agriculture is a major user of satellite tech and the likes of federal and state EPA/depts to monitor land use that has up to date images would be the economic factor to capture it.  Once captured, users would then grow as they now have access to more detailed data than via Sat.  You would also start seeing the likes of Google etc looking at the next level of detail as well.

As to why scan monthly...  I accept that during winter you may not be able to get a clear sky for running a scan so maybe instead of 12 make it 9.   But if you are going to offer the ability to see events as they change, then you must scan with reasonable frequency, this is a major differentiator to the current aerial photography where it is years old.  Satellites give you more frequency but not to the same detail and the 'stitching together still takes time.   So I would stand by a multiple of the 750,000.

Yeah I looked at the agreement and the restriction to new customers and wondered why  you would sign up to that.... But I believe with the SFI tech on board EV will have an attractive product that will attract new customers, maybe that's why EA is moving now.  Why would EA even look to buy out SFI if their product is sub-standard?  Why would the buy them if EA's current tech is good enough to satisfy the market?  Simple answer is that EA knows they must move now or Nearview will capture the market, there is value to EA in SFI that they can't get elsewhere at present.  This has not been included in the value of SFI, indeed it was specifically excluded by KPMG. 

I will agree that the current management have signed up to a dumb deals, commercialisation and revenue streams driving the 'at any cost' motivation to sign up a client irrespective of what that means in the future.   The fact that ownership of EA is with investment companies means that sloppy management were always going to be fleeced by EA.    

So whilst I think the future revenue is higher than your estimates I also think they are probably lower than mine,  so somewhere in the middle?  Maybe around $15M per year @ .20c per share???