TO MARK SILVERS (14059),
"Much of the problem to date has been the J/L team's unwillingness to subject their technology to proper testing."
Well, now they've subjected it to a recognized expert, and multiple labs (4), for multiple metals, with multiple types of assays, covering hundreds of samples! By contrast, the "home team" is still trying to get multiple labs to do a single metal, and maybe not having consistent success with even a single lab and a single metal. IF this current evaluation works, we're far ahead in the race with J/L; we must see!
"As for uneconomical?" Ledoux and Norton have both estimated breakeven at 0.06-0.08 oz./ton. Do the math. At $300/oz., 0.07 x $300 = $2l/ton realized, which means grinding and roasting must be around $20/ton.
"Abrogating contractual agreements with J/L": These were honored after initial threats, and outcrys from shareholders. The intent was nevertheless accomplished, bad will with the not-now-optioned J-L.
"As for CPM, I spoke with Jeff Cristian": After the current expertise was brought in?
"Walters family": Kemp was right there, on location, but made no move to disclose this conflict despite being both a Naxos director and at that time Naxos' legal counsel. One of the charges by the Alberta Securities Commission is failure to disclose bad news; this was never disclosed, not even now; it just dribbled out on the internet! BAD!
HENRY VOLQUARDSEN (14060),
"How can you postulate J/L is economical?" I didn't; I just don't want them taken out of the race prematurely by a bad-will policy against this un-optioned technology, conducted under the table and out of sight of shareholders. FYI, $300/oz. current selling price x X oz./ton -$200/oz. est. cost would make 0.67 oz./ton breakeven. So, let's see what the numbers are. Multiple oz./ton would be dramatically profitable, and also instantly high-volume output relative to ore processed (although Norton wouldn't have the ego trip of moving 100,000 tons/day of our 5-10 years out in the distant future). Bare in mind this process goes for multiple metals right up front, helping it over the hurdle. (To be fair, so might Norton's, throwing in the one assay of PGMs that Ledoux gave them, which could double the 0.07 oz./ton gold--but they're not going for this part of the prize, now.)
"Clarify what is special about this (Norton) pretreatment?"
(a) it's estimated cost is 0.06-0.08 oz./ton (Ledoux; Norton); i.e., $18-$24/ton; i.e., breakeven at current grades in that range.
(b) it came from conventionalizing the J/L patents, which had been shown them on good faith; no attribution has been given to date; I'm trying to stop short of calling it a knock-off, but this is part of the problem requiring different parties to negotiate an agreement.
(c) it being conventional, and this being nonconventional ore, its repeatability by the same lab and replicatability by other labs are fraught with heartbreaks--which may be happening now. They tried to blame the inconsistency on the "nugget effect" and asserted this is not homogeneous ore--excuses I suppose they can pull out again, if they come a cropper applying this conventional effort to the nonconventional problem.
KEN BRAZINGTON (14061)
"Mr. Campbell told me personally over the phone that he's resigning to "strengthen the Board with additional mining talent"
Stick to the truth, kid. Your're reading verbatem the News Release. Carl did not write that release, and did not say that to you.
"If Naxos is so opposed to ANY new technology, why are they (funding it)?"
It's how they're doing it: first threatening to renege, then paying it.
LARRY MACKLIN (14074)
"He has chosen to use non-certified labs in the U.S."
You hire the expert to do the refereeing, and let him hire and judge the labs. He's using 4 labs, I believe, which is what we want! Let's not quibble if we can start getting the work done! If he was hired as the referee, and was there inspecting the labs, that's what he's for! I believe the 2 international labs are world class by anyone's measure, and that's one more than Naxos has to date. Let's just get progress!
LIONEL HUNGER (14060):
"Now the hopes are pinned on an ex-employee of Mintek...why not Mintek, the organization?" They are one of the labs; and the "ex-employee" is world-recognized and from the top at Mintek.
BOB GOLDSTEIN (EARLIER POST),
"Back in April, some 2 1/2 months ago, there were high expectations of a 'steady stream of numbers resulting from a fully scheduled and coordinated drilling program' would take place."
Bob, that's a big part of the problem: they went off half (or zero) cocked, to spend a half million of our precious dollars (raised entirely by selling and diluting our shares) on an ongoing drilling program, plus another million-plus for assaying--all before getting the assay methodology figured out, let alone a network of labs that can replicate it. They're spending money--our shares--like it's water, always thinking there's more. Campbell resigned in protest to this irresponsibility, plus the hostility to new technology input, notwithstanding what Kim Brazington attributes to Campbell's reasons.
The hope is that they will stop, once they realize they haven't got the multiple labs and the consistently repeatable results from the same lab. But at the first sign of disappointments, they announced an ACCELERATION of the drill program! Let's get back to being lean and mean, rather than paying all these $60,000/year salaries out of OUR shares, to stock promotors (which still outnumber real employees).
TO ALL,
There's no conspiracy to put J/L ahead of anything else, just to give it fair chance (it's not under option anymore), and to be evaluated and negotiated for, if of merit, by a fair party (Kemp is biased one way, John the other way, according to Carl's letter, so get Fred to represent us independently). The object here is to make money, and the politics--and poltical actors--have to be TOTALLY swept out.
What's happened is unprofessional beyond coment. Did anyone ever see the movie, "The Court Marshall of BIlly Mitchell," in which he had to sink a battleship with an airplane before the Navy court marshall would exorerate him for advocating moving beyond battleships to using airplanes in war? We're not the Navy, gentlemen, we're out to make money, so let's be businesslike and do it!
AL C.
|
