Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

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) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Lawrence Brierley who wrote (19499)	7/18/1999 5:11:00 PM
From: Larry Macklin	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 20681

Mr. Brierley, You make some valid points however naxos has one major problem that i do not see a way out of. There is no one associated with this company that can actually get the job done. This includes current management and the current board. It also includes you and the Father Gregory group. None of you truely know enough about mining, desert dirts, or runing a company to take Naxos from where it is at to a point of success. None of you know how to evaluate any of the processes that have been put in front of naxos in the past or will be presented to Naxos in the future. Therefore, we are all basicly screwed!!! It is because of this that i now advocate giving control of the company to Father Gregory IF he can raise significant funds to keep the company going. It is obvious that he has no idea what he is doing and that his methods and motives are questionable but maybe if he can put cash into the company we might get very lucky and stumble onto something out of dumb luck. The current management team doesn't have any resources left to study any available plans. I don't really buy into the lithium stuff but even if i thought it had merit i don't see how naxos could properly pursue lithium without a bunch of cash. Naxos needs cash. If father gregory can raise the cash then we should give him control of the company and hope for a miracle..by hook or by crook. Larry Macklin

To: Lawrence Brierley who wrote (19499)	7/18/1999 8:37:00 PM
From: mark silvers	Respond to of 20681

Dr. Brierly, Two things. 1. You make it appear that pursuing lithium and gold can not happen simultaneously. Do you know that to be a fact? Why is that not possible? If it is possible to do both simultaneously, why wouldn't you pursue anything that could add value, no matter how incremently? 2. The problem with going back to Lett, Johnson, Jimmy. Blumberg, Groves, whatever, is that we have been down that road for over a decade. It got us nowhere. Why travel in circles, covering the same old ground. We got to ten bucks, but that was because of error, malicious or otherwise. That won't happen again. Mark

To: Lawrence Brierley who wrote (19499)	7/19/1999 10:31:00 AM
From: Tom Frederick	Respond to of 20681

Mr. Brierley, Your post sprinkles grains of truth in with implication and assumption. It is true that our stock has had a steady decline from our old highs. However, the implication is that the old highs were by some stroke of great management. The old highs had very little to do with material advancement so much as intentional hype of modest success. It is true that heap leach took quite a bit of empirical data to get the mining community to accept it as a method of recovery. However, you imply that current management does not have the vision to pursue a difficult course. In fact, the current pilot plant is attempting to do what the industry says can't be done, but what current management believes is possible, which is recovery PM's from the desert clay. The work that Great Lakes is currently doing is to clarify an agreed upon proper use of the key chemicals which they bring to the formula. It is true that Father Gregory would likely change direction, but that implies that any direction is better than where we are going. Well, if J/L is the direction, I can't say that the performance of MGAU is where we need to go. We still have never been given a clear, concise plan as to what Father Gregory WOULD do. How much money will he bring to the table through his supporters? What exact approach will be pursued with this money? Assay? Recovery? If recovery, which method? One thing that is clearly different with new management is that there are virtually no leaks of information. Great Lakes must have had some success if they are still working with FL ore. They are likely much more along the lines of a Ledoux, that once there is clearly a failure to produce a result, the project is terminated. Does anyone know for sure, one way or another, if Great Lakes is having any success? I don't think so. And so we assume this must be bad. The only reason Naxos is down to the bottom of its funds is because Bob Gardner inherited a bleeding pig financially. He changed direction to recovery and pursued the best, most promising recovery method he had seen to date, built a pilot plant to test it, did bench tests first to verify it was a reasonable direction and moved forward. All of this costs money, but, as opposed to more endless assay test, I believe it was the most prudent approach. Had Mr. Gardner inherited control PRE Ledoux, he would have a very nice budget indeed. Lacking that budget, he is spending the remaining funds as wisely as possible. And he has gotten Great Lakes to work for free to recommend optimal use of their chemicals. I don't see how else Mr. Gardner could have spent the money to achieve the final goal of proving if there are recoverable metals at FL. Could a crack team of specialists gottent the job done better a long time ago? Sure. But we never had a crack team of specialists. Whenever anyone invested in this over the last 9 years, they invested in a rag tag team of "doing the best we can" people. The addition of Martin Blake, under the management of Bob Gardner, was one of the best additions, professionally, that the company ever had. So no one can complain about the lack of professionals, as if any of the management teams we have had got rid of some great people to replace them with poor choices. I don't know any of the board members and can't comment on their qualifications, but anyone willing to help guide this leaking ship should at least be given the courtesy of our support assuming their is some logic to their approach. We don't agree on direction mainly because you, or anyone from the Father Gregory camp, have never told us which direction you would choose if given control. How about you explain that first, then we can all decide who has the position worth supporting. Tom F.

To: Lawrence Brierley who wrote (19499)	7/27/1999 5:40:00 PM
From: Paul Salber	Respond to of 20681

Could the Naxos director or directors be held liable for this ??? Mr. Brierley, You stated in your message.... "..... 1] The board as it was previously constituted was dysfunctional. Members such as myself who were perceived to be in the "Father Gregory" camp were not given information about policy and fund-raising activities, even when we pointedly asked for this. ...." It seems as if this type of behavior could and should result in legal action against the director or directors responsible. No matter what your opinion or which "side" you are perceived to be on, no legitimate business can be run in this manner. Could you share the name(s) of the individual(s) guilty of such actions ? Thanks.. Paul