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 (8562)	1/26/1998 10:08:00 AM
From: Tom Frederick	Respond to of 20681

Mark, (this is a medium cup O' coffee post) I don't necessarily believe that Naxos would have to choose any one path at all on this deposit. At least not for some time. IF( and until Naxos gives us the word on free gold at the property it is still an if) Naxos were to test and prove up free gold there would be yet another value to determine in addition to the already tested drill holes. (a previous poster mentioned only five holes drilled but we know that Naxos has drilled over 200 holes NON COC with lots of very promising test results NON Certified, but there is plenty to go on from their perspective) And even that decision to spend any time on it at all would depend on test results to determine the relative concentrations vs. the 2 opt and better results already reported. If I were in a position to decide on how to proceed, I would certainly continue on ALL paths of discovery until one path proved to be overwhelmingly more profitable than the other, and that it was loosing me money to pursue both. It would seem we are a long way from that point and there is much work still to be done. To add a smidgen of analysis, based on the great explanations of the nature of the deposit by Mr. Christopher and Mr. Pearson, I would assume that the more FREE type of gold would be in places where it did not react or interact with the clay for as long a period of time. Therefor, I would assume that the free gold, if it is there in volume would be closer to the surface. Knowing that the property has a geologic profile that implies bedrock begins around 2,000 to 3,000 feet, it would seem logical that there is a much larger deposit potential going deeper and deeper. Said another way, it would make sense to me that if this deposit was created over millions of years from river flow wash out and volcanic activity, the material under ground, and under pressure for millions of years would react and be affected by the surrounding material (the clay) the most and conversly, the material that would be less affected would be in either protected flow areas with less clay underground or in areas closer to the surface that contain less water and less clay. Of course this is all my own speculation, but the result for me would be that it would not be prudent to take any one path until enough testing was done to imply that spending any energy on one path would detract from the success of the other. Case in point, for may years, gold miners in Colorado punched holes into the mountains looking for the shiny gold stuff and kept running into this dull silver looking material. Without ever trying to find out just what this silvery stuff was, they assumed it was worth much less than the gold they were so desperately looking for. When the gold mines played out a very smart man came through the canyons and bought up all these "played out" mines for a song along with all the "worthless" tailings. Well that man ended up being one of the richest nickle miners in history. Who'd a thunk it! Well that's enough to chew on for one post. Regards, Tom F. P.S. I hope you didn't lose too much on Green Bay. What a Game!

To: mark silvers who wrote (8562)	1/26/1998 5:01:00 PM
From: GlobalMarine	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 20681

<<Do not confuse the share price of a stock with the reality of the situation.>> The price of any stock generally discounts all information that is available on a company, and the market price is never wrong. If you want to buy, you buy at the offer, and if you want to sell, you sell at the bid, and THAT is reality. I could be wrong, but it appears you are defining the "reality of the situation" to be what is commonly known as fundamentals. Technicians tend to call the same funnymentals because prices tend NOT to reflect known (i.e. widely available to the public) fundamentals as the latter represent old news and come out after the fact. For instance, Naxos blasted off from a buck to about $6 before the first Johnson-process press release was issued to the public. If one traded on technicals, one would have bought in near the lows of last year and made a truckload of money. If one traded on known fundamentals, one may not have bought in until after the first press release. It is for this reason that investors in speculative investments tend to pay close attention to the stock price to provide clues as to what is taking place behind the scenes. Rand