Mark, to add to your comments, additionally none of the fundamentals have changed. Naxos is moving ahead with the drilling permits, recovery permits, adding 4 labs for testing, etc.. No company would continue to spend this money unless, in addition to what has been published, they had sufficient information to convince the board that this was a wise thing to do. IPM at their peak wasn't spending money having 5 labs test their material at the same time. This is a very costly thing to do and a company would only move ahead with such a plan if results, hard information, justified it.
The last time this thread got so nervous, we were waiting for COC AND certified numbers from Ledoux. There was heavy speculation that testing was not going well and the stock continued its slip from the $10 high down to the $6 to $7 range. What happened? Ledoux released GREAT numbers from .95 to 2.5 opt on gold. But the delay was enough reason to start up the rumour mill that things were going bad...again.
There is no real information, not rumour or innuendo, real information that is contrary to the ongoing development of the testing of the ore at FL. And that testing has already shown unusually high levels of PM's.
The property is still there. The gold is still there. The other PGM's are still there. Naxos is on a path to prove up the property and the viability of recovery. They haven't even set up the recovery equipment yet so how can people even form a negative opinion about recovery levels vs. assay. As I understand it, recovery can often improve from the assay results. (primarily because in the baking process for assay some metal is often lost in the ovens and since the assay procedure uses such small amounts of material it can have a disproportionate affect while in recovery in bulk, the same problem does not happen to the same degree)
If Naxos had moved from the last round of results averaging at 1.7 opt on gold alone, straight to the recovery plant, wouldn't we assume that those tests proved enough gold to warrant recovery testing? So why because we have 5 labs following in the steps of Ledoux do we assume that maybe there is a problem? Could they need time to get up to speed just as Ledoux did? Sure, why not. After Ledoux had sufficient time to perfect the Johnson method, they came up with 1.7 avg opt on gold. And they wanted to retest the .95 result because they felt they could improve it. Which also implies that there is a learning curve for the Johnson method that once learned shows steadily improved results of the PM content. Why wouldn't this be true for new labs as well?
Let Naxos do its job. The next release will come when it is complete. In the meantime, if we look at the test results and Naxos' progress toward proving the property and NOT the current price, better decisions will be made.
If someone has a hard time believing .95, 1.7 and 2.5 opt then that is another issue. But my opinion is you can't prove what isn't there. In fact, I would be happy with any consistant numbers from the new labs because as with Ledoux, the higher concentrations will ultimately reveal themselves as they perfect the method just as they did with Ledoux.
For anyone who got into this thinking it would be a smooth ride to wealth, you bought the wrong stock. If you got into this because you believe the story and the real test results and will ride it out to the end, hang on, you will be well rewarded for sticking it out (IMO).
Regards,
Tom F. |
