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 (8307)	1/19/1998 3:53:00 PM
From: Tom Frederick	Respond to of 20681

Mark, to expand on your point, I wonder how many on the IPM thread would have the same skeptical and cautious response to IPM had they issued a press release announcing a first round coc test certified at 1.7 opt? Do you suppose those folks would be trembling and scared and less sure than every as to the validity of the claims of the company? I think not. I believe that Naxos shareholders as a whole has a self imposed doubt all tied to the now obvious unfair attacks from a number of entities. We have spent a large percentage of our time (over the last 7 years) fending off the attacks and convincing ourselves we are NOT crazy for hanging in with Naxos. In some way we have forgotten what has been accomplished. Naxos has provided many assays over the last few years, as a very astute poster put on just recently to remind us, and all indications are that there IS precious metal all over the playa. Naxos has survived rigourous testing requirements to come up with some of the most fantastic PROVEN COC and certified results of any mining company to date. (There are others but very few). In terms of assay and correlated recovery, it is highly UNLIKELY that any company can show over an ounce per ton and NOT recover very economically. As I understand it, the method involves most mechanical processes and can be scaled up easily and efficiently. There is still much work to be done but consider the following. If the drill proven level for the mining community and investors is a drill hole density of about every 75 feet, what that translates to is that it is fair to assume that in between the spaces between drill holes 75 feet apart the same general material exists. Extending that concept, lets be even LESS generous with Naxos and assume that only 50 feet around each hole (lets assume a 50 ft square) has the same material found in a hole. Knowing that approximately a cubic yard of dirt is about a ton, that would mean that (oh no, now I have to do some math!) a sqaure 50 feet on each side around each drill hole would represent "proven" reserves around each hole or 23,074 tons down to 250 feet around each hole. Assuming we can reproduce the 1.7 at the check labs, that would mean that around each hole tested top to bottom with around that average, Naxos will prove another 39,225 ounces of gold according to industry standards. Even at only $200 per ounce, that is another $7.8 Million in gold alone with each hole tested top to bottom. We all know that there will much more than gold found so start multiplying that $7.8 with each hole but you can see that making this a commercially viable operation is not difficult at all. With only a hundred holes drilled, and similar results, the reserve estimate would be $780 Million plus the other metals found. Yes there is much work to be done, but the math tells me that we are on our way, assuming proof from more testing. Regards, Tom F. P.S. I was really, really careful with my math this time I swear!

To: mark silvers who wrote (8307)	1/19/1998 10:51:00 PM
From: J.L. Turner	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 20681

Mark, Never could resist a perhaps.So, perhaps we can justify your faith.Any personal attacks that "straggle" out are strictly in jest.Homogenity!Refer to post 8271. CARLO'S COLOSSAL EXTENSION!On 6 holes to a depth of 140 ft.Carlos would have us believe naxos has 30000 acres of homogeneous material.Hype?Appropriate sample size?Sure there arn't any Paleochannels? Ps Jarard:not to lament we can always find some salesman to don his tutu and dance the night away. J.L.T.

To: mark silvers who wrote (8307)	1/20/1998 1:21:00 AM
From: Larry Brubaker	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 20681

<<Where does the overwhelming proof reside? Is it in assays from multiple labs? Certified platinum numbers? Or is it in results from the pilot plant?>> Mark: The answer to that would differ among the different dirts. Because Naxos has by far the highest market cap of the dirts right now, I would demand the highest level of proof to invest in them. It would take pilot plant results that convinced me that the Johnson process works and would be economical at a commercial scale, and probably some further drill results as well to get a better idea of the size of the resource. Currently, if I were going to put some money in any of the dirts, Maxam Gold is the one I would be leaning toward. They claim they will have a 1,000 ton per day plant in operation in April. They have announced fire assay (albeit non-COC) of between .05 and > 1 opt, and recovery of as much as 5opt. Their market cap is about 1/10th of Naxos. Therefore, (assuming Maxam's claims are true), one could realize a 10-bagger in Maxam from here and their market cap would be about the current market cap of Naxos. If Maxam had a market cap the size of Naxos', then I would demand a similar level of proof that I would currently demand to invest in Naxos. Thus, the level of proof I would require would vary with the company, the size of its market cap, the richness of its ore, the size of its holdings, and my trust in its management.

To: mark silvers who wrote (8307)	1/20/1998 12:45:00 PM
From: Bear Down	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 20681

Hello Mark, You guys post way too many to read. Glad I found this one. For me I think the proof would be in a comparative analysis of identical dirt assayed with and without Johsnon methodology. I almost thought the last release had that until I reread it and realized that portion #1 was Johnson fire assay and not standard fire assay. Funny thing is when I had assumed it was standard fire assay my question would have been "why all the talk about J/L if we can get 1.72 opt with fire assay?" Since I think a comparative analysis like I would like to see won't be released anytime soon, I will look for the proof in the pilot plant. If I can see FL dirt going in, and 3 OPT of gold coming out, I will be the first to congradulate all of "the believers"