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: Kurt R. who wrote (9962)	3/13/1998 1:54:00 PM
From: Doug Meetmer	Respond to of 20681

Kim commented on that yesterday. I am interpreting it to mean that Johnson did not in any way come in direct contact with the samples. He provided some sort of protocol to the labs instructing THEM what to do, although the extent of this is still unclear.

To: Kurt R. who wrote (9962)	3/13/1998 1:55:00 PM
From: jlallen	Respond to of 20681

Kurt: It was pre-treated. JLA

To: Kurt R. who wrote (9962)	3/13/1998 1:57:00 PM
From: W.F. Schwertley	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 20681

Kurt, Yes, the samples were pre-treated using the Johnson/Lett method. This means that yesterday's assay numbers were the very best that they could muster. It also means that if the samples had been tested without first being pre-treated, the assay results would have been similar to those found in other DDs IMO. The standard lead fire assay procedure was used after the pre-treatment and was simply the assay procedure used to detect the amounts of AU in the pre-treated samples. Nothing more. WFS