Al C
Regarding J/L you say
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!
Are these certified? Has the material been under chain of custody? If they have excellent results why don't they release them? If J/L had verifiable numbers Naxos would snap it up. And if not Naxos there are no shortage of 'dirts' that would snap it up. Why hasn't J/L released the results of these multiple labs? Is Austin developing shyness? Or was it just bed time like it was with another question?
"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.
Uh, yea? If the assay reports are higher than that then they are economical. So how can you say it is uneconomical? And FWIW I had heard early on that Ledoux had speculated that it might be breakevem at .06 or lower not .06-.08. Norton has apparently indicated it is lower than that.
"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.
You haven't answered the question. What specific contractural agreements with J/L were abrogated? Not exercising the option is not abrogated an agreement. It is not exercising an option.
"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.
Puhleese! Yes Sid should have done something about this earlier. But it was Jimmy John who defended Matt against a lot of pressure from people to do something about the situation. We have no way of knowing what his legal counsel to Jimmy was but he and the board had been unable to do anything about Matt until the confrontation with Jimmy. Having to confront the Chairman and President of the company is a much bigger deal than dealing with one sleazoid sneak. But Sid can be questioned on this subject. But it is a much bigger question regarding the ethics of the J/L partnership that set this up.
"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.
Nonsense. There is no such bad-will policy. J/L has been recieving full support in pursuing their research.
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,
As has already been stated the previous multiple ounce results were the result of poor sampling methodology. They were never able to get consistency. There is also no current information that the new J/L process is getting multiple ounce. We only have rumours from the usual suspects.
In regards the pretreatment for conventional assay you make the following statements
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. That is not breakeven, it is economical. Using the .06 (which I have already pointed out is what Ledoux has indicated) and assays for the levels that are .1 opt, you get a cost of production of $200 an ounce. That is economical.
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.
If it is a conventional version of J/L then J/L is clearly not patentable so the option should never be exercised. Also if it is a knock off why is it so much cheaper?
BTW Kim is sticking to the truth. Unless you were part of the phone conversation between Kim and Carl Campbell how do you know what was said?
The object here is to make money, and the politics--and poltical actors--have to be TOTALLY swept out.
I totally agree with this. We need to get rid of all the self serving actors. Although I have expressed concerns about J/L those concerns are more about the businessmen there. Dr Johnson is a credible individual and I do hope he has success with his process as an enhancement technique. I still feel strongly that we need to go with the conventional technique as the front line and Dr Johnson as part of the recovery analysis. My major question about J/L revolves around his association with Austin Lett and Matt Walters. I have serious questions about the ethics of what they did and will always make me suspicious in any dealings with them. |
