Naxos Resources (NAXOF) Message Board

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Gold/Mining/Energy : Naxos Resources (NAXOF)

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next

To: Al C who wrote (14058)	7/7/1998 10:11:00 PM
From: Henry Volquardsen	Read Replies (1) of 20681

AL C Thank you for posting Carl's letter. I strongly disagree with your characterization of the companies hostility to Dr Johnson or to certain statements by both you and Mr Campbell. Clearly the company is not hostile to Dr Johnson as they continue to fully fund his research and provide him with ore. But please be specific as to your charges. What contractural obligation have they threatened to abrogate? I have been told they have provided ore to Johnson and they have paid his bills. Please enlighten us me on specifics of where there have not down this so I can verify that I was lied to? I was working on this response to you when Mark's response was posted. I agree with all of what he has said and will not repeat his specifics but will add a few comments and questions. As Mark pointed out, with even Carl saying the multiple ounce results J/L was showing just a few months ago were due to sampling errors and Dr Johnson himself having indicated a cost of @$200 a ton, how can you postulate that J/L is economical? Has the process changed so radically in just few months that the cost has been dramatically reduced? And if so how is it possible that it has been tested sufficiently in just a few months to be considered more stable now? To be clear, as I have stated before I am not anti Dr J. I think the process holds promise as an enhancement technique. Naxos, despite yours and Carl's comments to the contrary, is continuing to support research into J/L for just this reason. Carl states If a lead-fire assay is successful it is only because of special pretreatment of the sample or other modifications that tend to be subtle and easily reversible, causing great difficulty for assayers. The pretreatment is a simple grinding to 200 mesh and roasting for 30 minutes at 350 degrees. Since these are fairly common pretreatments could either you or Carl please clarify for me what is special about this pretreatment? Since it is clear that Sid and the rest of management continue to support the J/L research and have done nothing to discourage it I have to wonder who is behind the ongoing efforts to force J/L back into a preeminent position with Naxos? Who would gain from J/L becoming the main focus? Well there is Matt Walters who's family owns a major equity stake in the J/L partnership. Have there been any past allegations of improper conduct on Matt's part? Was Matt consistently believed to be at the heart of all the wild rumours regarding J/L results? Did the ridiculous leaks stop when Matt left the firm? Was there concern that Matt actively discouraged any information that showed an alternative to the J/L process? A process in which he had a major personal interest in. I would be very interested if some of the lawyers on this thread would opine as to wether any of these questions, if answered affirmatively, would suggest any legal questions? There is also Barry Downs. He has a great many of his followers invested in a number of desert dirts. Most of them are now trading for pennies. Would it help him if someone, anyone, could show some progress on finding a key to the puzzle. Anyone with a clear and sole interest in Naxos will readily recognize that the only way Naxos will attain the credibility to move forward is with an emphasis on a conventional deposit. J/L hopefully has application to enhance recovery and is worth pursuing. But it most be as part of the recovery analysis and mine feasibility. The market will ignore it if used to calculated reserves. As much as the J/L vested interests would like to believe otherwise that is cold brutal reality. BTW I have spoken to Carl in the past and respect him. I believe he is wrong in this regard and anyone who grants him their proxy is mistaken.

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next