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: mark silvers who wrote (6205)	12/3/1997 2:52:00 PM
From: sh	Respond to of 20681

Mark, I fully agree with you on all points. sh

To: mark silvers who wrote (6205)	12/3/1997 4:08:00 PM
From: Jan A. Van Hummel	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 20681

Valuation of Naxos Its my humble opinion that at this stage to try and put a value on Naxos is an exercise in futility. However good the results found are: - we don't know yet the extend of the presence of PM in the Lake - we don't know what the recovery rate of the PM present will be - we don't know what the operating cost will be - we don't know where gold prices will be over the next n years. The value of Naxos will be a function of the size of proven reserves, the size of probable reserves, the quantity that can be recovered annually and the cost of doing so. If the total deposit can be depleted in say 25 years, it will have a greater value than if it will take 50 years, and so on. The COC results will give a good indication of what is out there in spots where samples were taken. It will also help to assess how much room there will be between the cost of extracting the PMs at Franklin than at other, competing mines. The next step would be to delineate the field, which would give us the very first inkling about the total size of the potential deposit. Any numbers thrown out now are pure conjecture. That is not to say that this can not be a significant field. The initial first stage COC results are extremely good and hold the promise for great returns, but that is as far as it can get, at least for now. To HL You are trying to feast on the wrong crowd. The process has come to the point where too many entities have much at stake. Maybe I am naive, but I refuse to believe that with so many different entities involved one would want to continue to perpetrate a deliberate scam for every one to see. Mind you, Ledoux has little to gain but everything to lose in this process. If you think there livelihood hinges solely on the Naxos results you better get yourself educated about the broad ranges of services that Ledoux and the likes (SGS, D.C. Griffith, etc.) provide to the mining, metallurgical and other industries that rely on quality control on the global movement of their raw materials. A faux pas by Ledoux can severely damage their reputation. These surveyors/assayers will have seen any trick in the book and I doubt that they will be easily bamboozled. Anyhow, this is the way I see it. Let the news release come and we will get to see the tip of the iceberg. Jan