Larry,
I respect your opinion and have previously posted my gratitude for information and analysis you have shared on the thread, but I have serious misgivings about present management.
The arguments between the two competing groups seem to have crystallized into each claiming the other side will pursue exclusively either SFA or J/L technology. I think that I can speak for most shareholders when I tell you that I am bitterly disappointed that SFA seems to be running into the same consistency problems that plagued J/L a few months ago. All who have a financial stake in this company are presumably less concerned with the method which is ultimately found to be successful, as with whether success is achieved with any technique at all! I agree completely with Neal that no director should have a conflict of interest in making the decision about whether a given technique is favoured, but I would feel a lot more comfortable with a Board, and especially a president who personally have a lot on the line if this company fails.
Mssrs Kemp and Gordon have no meaningful financial stake in this company. They have had ample opportunity over the years to accumulate a position in the company with all of the options that have passed through their hands, but have elected to sell. I raise this issue not to disparage them. They have a right to do what they have done, and personal reasons may have dictated this course of action. However, their lack of shares necessarily diminishes their incentive to see this company succeed. If Naxos collapses they lose some prestige and go back to their day jobs living happily ever after. If they have a personal antagonism for someone in the company management, they would have a lot less interest in reaching some sort of working condominium with that person or group than would a director whose net wealth stood to take a major hit in the event of failure. They would also have less incentive to swallow their pride and alter course if they are wrong.
Naxos needs in management some who bring specific mining skills and experience. Apart from these individuals I want as directors ONLY THOSE WHO WILL SHARE THE PAIN if we fail.
On another note, I have before stated that consistency in assaying FL clay by any method may be a chimera. Rand's suggested shift in emphasis to recovery from drilling and assay may be the only path to success if this soil is so capricious. In the years I have been following Naxos there have been too many good labs finding good results on the same samples from which others recover little or nothing, to be very optimistic that one day they will all concur perfectly. Perhaps this is the curse of Franklin Lake.
Let me close by wishing you all well, and to all in management who monitor this thread, please do us the service of being open minded about all potential options for treatment of that clay.
Just the best,
Lawrence |
