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: Millracer who wrote (9900)	3/13/1998 9:11:00 AM
From: mark silvers	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 20681

Mill There is one serious flaw in your calculations. The cost numbers that had previously been thrown around are $100/ton, not $100/oz. That is a large difference. The questions become, How much free gold is present? What are the true(not estimated) costs of recovery? How much improvement will refinements in the process bring? What kind of improvements will recovery numbers bring over assay numbers?And, where are the hot and cold spots on the property, and how prevalent are they? The answers to these questions will be mostly answered by the pilot plant(we had all assumed that the PP was the important milestone anyway)The rest will be answered by further assays and the upcoming report from the South Africans. The one thing to remember is that the prior certified numbers are no less valid then they were. Those are CERTIFIED numbers from LeDoux. They were done under COC. YOu unequivocally can NOT assay more metals than are present in the ore. you CAN assay less. Something to ponder on...... Mark

To: Millracer who wrote (9900)	3/13/1998 9:45:00 AM
From: Tom Frederick	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 20681

Millracer, I take personal responsibility for my jaunts into "many zero's" land and your analysis is a very fair and reasonable one. I feel that based on past results from Ledoux more in the 1+ opt on gold alone AND knowing that there will certainly be other metals proven, the numbers you calculate, while very reasonable, could also be quickly eclipsed on paper anyway. You also bring up a good point which is the "discounted" price we are more likely to see as investors. Here is my guess. As more and more proof is exposed on the real content of the property (which I believe is moving over to the fast lane now) more and more investors will be watching and waiting for the right moment to dive in. Anyone who wants to be in precious metals will be able to afford to NOT own a part of anything billed as the "world's largest" deposit. How much information that will take? Who knows, but at least it will be the 200+ hole program and recovery. Again, your analysis is a very realistic one but I believe the numbers will improve and once recovery begins, we will find the true numbers closer to the last Ledoux results in the 1+ range as opposed to the .1 range which would move your $500 value to $5,000 ON GOLD ALONE and then with a 10% value, we still end up at a discounted $500 ON GOLD ALONE. This ride in long from over. Regards, Tom F.

To: Millracer who wrote (9900)	3/13/1998 10:37:00 AM
From: knight	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 20681

Millracer, I can't see how we can estimate reserves and share value based on assays from 2 holes, 1 mile apart. The fact that the playa is not the same throughout should be evident by the numbers issued yesterday and those released on Jan 12/98. If there is this much difference, we cannot assume there is 1 to 3 billion tons grading x ounces of gold per ton throughout the entire playa. Much more infill drilling is required before reserves can be established. Results from the pilot plant are also required from a much larger operation than the 1000 lb./day now being proposed. I'm not trying to rain on anyones parade, but Naxos has a lot of work ahead before being recognized by the mainstream mining community and the resulting financial rewards thereof. Just MHO.