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: Kim W. Brasington who wrote (7437)	12/17/1997 9:30:00 AM
From: Henry Volquardsen	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 20681

Kim, Not to speak for Michael but I think he has been getting at a specific test of the Johnson/Lett methodology, not of Franklin Lakes itself. We know standard fire assay shows low numbers. What I believe he is suggesting is the following as a test of J/L. Take a sample of the deposit and divide it into two piles. Take one pile an conduct a standard fire assay. Take the other pile and put it through the J/L process. Since but piles would have come from very close proximity and could be deemed identical any significant variance in pgm values would be attributable to the J/L process. This would be a good test of whether it is actually the process which is responsible for releasing the higher values. I understand that part of Ledoux's contract was to evaluate the Johnson/Lett process. I would guess they came up with some tests to see if it was the process or if it was already in the dirt. I suspect that the company might be reluctant to show these results because the first have of the test would show the low standard fire assay numbers and lead to confusion. But I find Michael's question very interesting and would be interested in hearing at some point what type of testing did in connection with analyzing the J/L process itself and not specifically Franklin Lake. Henry

To: Kim W. Brasington who wrote (7437)	12/17/1997 11:09:00 AM
From: Bear Down	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 20681

That still doesn't answer the question. Why not take one sample, split it in half, and test it side by side. One half with J/L, one half without. I don't really think comparing a sample to one assayed 6 or 8 months ago relevant. If Naxos wantss increased credibility for their process then let Ledoux do simoultaneous testing on a split sample. If the "process" gives the anticipated results "side by side" a standard fire assay that can't give those results , there would no longer be a question in what caused the difference. No one would be able to say "salting". Everyone would realize the difference was J/L. No questions whatsoever. At least if they did have a question it sure wouldn't be with Naxos or J/L.