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: Kim W. Brasington who wrote (10126)	3/15/1998 12:20:00 AM
From: Missy Link	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 20681

Kim, can you tell us anything about the other lab. Since the numbers indicate we can be in the range of either a low yield to an adequate yield mine, what is the next step to some consistent numbers. Is the number difference due to one lab being much more familiar with the process? Wasn't there to be a report from a total of four labs? What happened to the other two labs reports? As always, I look forward to hearing from you.

To: Kim W. Brasington who wrote (10126)	3/15/1998 12:52:00 AM
From: Wayland	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 20681

Dear Kim, I am surprised to hear that .1 is considered low yield. BreX number, as I recalled, was around .08 opt. and the price shot up. Could you clarify? Thank you. Wayland

To: Kim W. Brasington who wrote (10126)	3/15/1998 7:34:00 AM
From: Kurt R.	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 20681

Kim, good to hear from you. I appreciate your general explanations about how things work in the mining industry. If I may, I would like to reiterate a few questions that were previously posted. The company uses different terms when referring to the assay method. Here is a selection from the recent releases: August 29, 1997: "standard fire assay" Jaunuary 12, 1998: "lead fire assay" March 12, 1998" "standard lead fire assay procedure, provided by Dr. Al Johnson" A few questions are in place: 1. Are these different testing procedures? If not, why doesn't the company adhere to one and the same terminology? 2. In the most recently published results, were the samples treated with the J/L process, partially treated or not treated at all? There has been quite some speculation on the thread, but no clear word from Naxos. 3. The results released on 1-12-98 show an average gold content of 1,72 opt in a sample from hole 5, depth range 150' - 175'. By contrast, the most recent results for the very same intersection show a gold concentration of 0.082 from the very same lab! This is a deviation by factor 20!!! What happened? Does the company see any need to explain this? 4. What is the current status of negotiations between Naxos and J/L? What is the expected time frame to reach a final decision? 5. What are the company's concrete plans, if any, to improve PR and communications with its share holders? A clarification of these matters will be greatly appreciated. Kurt