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 (10186)	3/15/1998 6:30:00 PM
From: Larry Brubaker	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 20681

Mr. Brasington: One sample in the same 25 foot depth of the same hole has a hot spot and another sample from the same 25 foot depth of the same hole does not? Is that what you're suggesting? If so, I don't know how Naxos could ever calculate the value of Franklin Lake without taking millions of samples.

To: Kim W. Brasington who wrote (10186)	3/15/1998 6:36:00 PM
From: Chuca Marsh	Respond to of 20681

I hear that Glacial lakes from the Great Meltdown contributed to the refractory-complex-salts-encapsulated ores. Today I just finished an overlay on a current Triple A Road map with a map I have of the Glacial Lakes of OLD. Bastow ( area then) had a lake such as was in the Great Basin, with the Largest being in the Salt Lake Area of Utah which all puddled for eons after draining torrants down south over Arizona and Mexico. Thusa, I think FL has BOTH. Just my opinion, based upon the Great Basin Gold Discovery Theory of July 6, 1996- Mr Bob Barefoot. Chuca

To: Kim W. Brasington who wrote (10186)	3/16/1998 12:34:00 AM
From: Steve Skapik	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 20681

Kim, I have been long on Naxos for a number of years and remain so. Over the last few years I feel that I have learned much and gained better perspective reading this thread. During that time there have been a number of posters that I have gained respect for and that have helped me on this up and down journey. I have always been very pleased to see your posts both before and after you became the "official" internet rep. for Naxos :). However, I was troubled by your recent post regarding the discrepancies in assay results between the Dec. 97 and March 98 releases. After re-reviewing these reports I find it more than difficult to accept that mere chance variation in samples can explain the large differences in results. If there were just one or two values maybe but the most recent release included 29 different oz/Ton numbers (which might even be averages of multiple tests). For all of them to be so much lower and at least relatively consistent seems a mathematical impossibility. I agree with Larry that we need a better explanation, or at least a better list of possible or probable causes for these differences in the results. Can you please explain any other differences between the two sets of tests done at Ledoux? Were the procedures the same? Please use little words like: yes they were identical or no, the preparation was different in that .... or no, there was different personnel involved Regards, Steve PS: Because so much of the Naxos story is involved with assay and recovery methodology it seems that future PR's should more clearly state what method is used for each test. Not any proprietary info or pages of explanation just enough for somebody to understand the implications of the release. It may all be more than I can understand but that's the beauty of this thread. As long as somebody can translate the info to people like me (& stoopid) then its OK, if not what is the point of the release?