Graystone, so Barrick and Newmont and Anglogold, go into a property, set up a mill and start producing gold. Is that it? I think you are being incredibly obtuse on this. (Uh, oh. Sounds like that scene from Shawshank redemption) Any of these companies has to first do a geologic test. Then do some drilling. Then do some testing. Then try multiple methods of testing to see which flux and extraction metal combos work best. Then they drill some more, expand the drilling and start experimenting with what recovery mix works best to extract the most ore.
Is this not easy to understand? Why do you feel it is a dramatic negative that Naxos is moving along a rational reasonable path? As Henry pointed out, no one is cheering the long time it took for a bunch of non mining people to figure this out. What we are cheering is that we are finally on the right path and finally getting great numbers with standard testing.
Personally I think it was a big mistake to work on recovery so soon. It created an unrealistic expectation long before it was necessary to finalize. Now we feel cheated because it might change. But the fact is that things are moving ahead NOW in a logical way.
Isn't that what is most relevant at this point? Where we are NOW?
I would like to ask you the same question Mr Hoax hasn't yet answered, If Naxos continues to produce good solid numbers over the next 5 BD holes and similar numbers on the extended drill program, will that add any credibility in your eyes? What will it take to happen NOW with Naxos to change your opinion? If it is an official announcement of ONE single recovery method, I think you will be disappointed for awhile. Like I already said, if they can get certified numbers as high as 2.5 opt, they deserve some time to test as many methods as they want to figure out maximum recovery. But in the meantime, standard testing implies with scientific logic, that standard recovery will work as well.
Thank you in advance for your response.
Tom F. |
