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: HungryLion who wrote (6628)	12/8/1997 8:27:00 AM
From: Henry Volquardsen	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 20681

HL, thank you very much for posting this release. It helps answer some of the questions YOU keep asking. You repeatedly ask what is taking so long. To quote from the release you just posted "Due to current controversy involving Naxos and their previously reported assay results, Behre Dolbear intends to proceed deliberately and with rigorous controls which either meet or exceed standards of the mining industry, US securities exchanges, and any other regulatory body associated with this project." The key phrase here is "intends to proceed deliberately and with rigorous controls". In other words they intend to take their time and do it right. As the release points out the scope of their actions are wide ranging. Including "an extensive geological evaluation of the Franklin Lake property to determine the proper drilling equipment in order to reduce cross contamination". The release also states "the samples (will be) tested under the supervision of Paul Blumberg and Behre Dolbear. Several methodologies will be used to test the sample material; namely, a proprietary recovery process, Naxos' fire assay process, and standard fire assay." This clearly states that several methodologies, including a propietary process provided by Naxos, would be used for testing. The combination of the these two items clearly indicate why this is taking so long. Any concerns that the recent explanations were just excuses concocted to cover up bad results has put to rest. The potential for such delay can clearly be seen in the origional press release from April 28 so they are not a recent invention. Thank you very much for posting this. You've put me at ease. BTW it is intereting to note that this press release also mentions samples being sent to other labs."Check samples will be sent to other laboratories.