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: W.F. Schwertley who wrote (9824)	3/12/1998 4:08:00 PM
From: Tom Frederick	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 20681

Mr. Schwertley, I think Kim is best prepared to answer your question on profitable recovery, but I will say that any property with a .o7 or better average is considered to be viable. If you add to that, what would currently be considered the worlds largest deposit by far, it is highly likely to get plenty of interest from many serious mining concerns and investors. The current "worlds largest" I believe is estimated to have around 85 million ounces and is considered "collosal". The OPT at this property is at around .08? Please help he out here Kim. Again, if we can show even a .15 or .2 AND have a deposit of 150 to 450 MILLION ounces, it won't take a genius to want to work very hard at making this economic. Besides, like I have already posted, once we get into recovery, the real total potential can be explored and realized. Regards, Tom F.

To: W.F. Schwertley who wrote (9824)	3/12/1998 4:13:00 PM
From: Stoopid	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 20681

3 x 3 3/8 @ 1:10 p.m.

To: W.F. Schwertley who wrote (9824)	3/12/1998 4:33:00 PM
From: Jan A. Van Hummel	Respond to of 20681

WFS What is unclear is whether the results are based on samples of the FL field as is or were specially prepared following the JL methodology. If only a standard lead fire assay was employed on the dirt, these are excellent results. Many mines have to make do with 0.05 to 0.10 or even less at times. If these are the results of specially prepared samples following the various JL stages, then there may be a problem. First, the cost of recovery is significantly higher. Second, earlier released results showed in excess of 2 opt, so a considerable discrepancy. Perhaps Kim can clearly state that these results were on samples that did not go through the various JL stages of preparation. What is remarkable is the downplaying of Pt and Pd as being traces. Again it follows here that this is likely determined using standard assaying methods. Will wait to see what further clarification is given. JMHO Jan