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 (8329)	1/20/1998 2:34:00 PM
From: Tom Frederick	Respond to of 20681

Mark, I understand that the ASSAY itself is a standard lead fire assay and it is only the preperation of the material that identifies this as a "Johnson" method. Therefor, the results should be considered completely legit with all industry standards for assay being adhered to with this method. Again, it is important that it is generally believed that assay does represent recoverable numbers to a great degree and if there is any varience, it is the possibility that recovery will find higher opt. The real variable is the cost of recovery in relation to the assay amount. In other words, if an assay shows .2 or .3, then the cost of removal of overburden, building of roads, electric lines to the site etc. all come into play to determine economic recovery. In our case, there is NO overburden, we HAVE roads, electric is there, and the opt numbers are unusually high. (1.7 opt vs. .2 to .3 avg for US properties) I also heard that we should NOT expect numbers from the check labs this week. More likely next week. (At least it's not in 2 weeks!) Last number I got was $6 1/8 to $6 5/8 (back to a 1/2 pt spread). Regards, Tom F.

To: mark silvers who wrote (8329)	1/20/1998 3:34:00 PM
From: Bear Down	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 20681

If it is a standard FA then I have to wonder why a "special process" is sought. If FL returns values of 1.72 OPT by SFA then why should anybody doubt its potential. I was under the impression that SFA had previously returned negligble amounts of PM's

To: mark silvers who wrote (8329)	1/20/1998 9:47:00 PM
From: sh	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 20681

Mark, I'm almost certain that it is not a standard lead fire assay. I was told that it was a "slightly" modified lead fire assay. Not sure how but apparently this is a Johnson invention. Note that the prior release of uncertified numbers made it clear that a standard fire assay was used then. The recent release just says lead fire assay. I'm not sure if the results other than the first mentioned in the recent release involved a modified lead fire assay too (as opposed to a standard one). sh