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: Dr. JMJ who wrote (9326)	2/27/1998 3:43:00 PM
From: SER	Respond to of 20681

Dr. JMJ I spoke to someone from Naxos and was told that they are waiting for all four labs before they release the next report. They said it should be out sometime next week and that this report should end any speculation about Naxos. All we can do is wait. SER

To: Dr. JMJ who wrote (9326)	2/27/1998 3:50:00 PM
From: Tom Frederick	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 20681

Dr. J., I think that one hit the rim. If as Kim pointed out, the goal of Naxos is to put together one very impressive release instead of a few smaller ones, it is a good strategy. The reason I would also offer for waiting for all labs is if Naxos does get high results as have already been certified, the market will be more likely to believe it if those numbers are seen from two holes, 12 sections, 4 labs and 48 numbers as opposed to one lab and 3 numbers. In other words, there has already been somewhat guarded response to high numbers because after all, they were only 3 numbers from 2 samples. If 48 numbers from 4 labs and two holes almost a half mile apart all come in close in range, the high numbers become more believable. It is not credible to me that Naxos can show COC certified results of 1.7 opt avg and then come up with low numbers. The gold would not likely disappear since the last tests. In your opinion, do you think the last tests were accurate and representative of the property and what you really mean is simply that the testing needs more time? Or do you think that last tests were a fluke and the "real" testing will show low numbers? This is an honest and serious question, not a dig at all. I am trying to get a feel for what the posters here think at this point in time, based on all the latest testing, about the reality of PM's, the likelyhood of cost effective recovery, etc.. Respectfully Tom F.