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 (10190)	3/15/1998 6:49:00 PM
From: jlallen	Respond to of 20681

Kim B. Good post. That's what we needed to hear. I think you've answered the question on the COC issue. Thanks. JLA

To: Kim W. Brasington who wrote (10190)	3/15/1998 7:09:00 PM
From: Timmy O'Toole	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 20681

>> After CMRI processes the material it is sent out to the testing >> labs under seal. Then Behre Dolbear's role of performing chain of custody duty is irrelevant. Clearly, Behre Dolbear can only guarantee chain of custody from drilling to arrival at CMRI. After that CMRI was responsible for sealing and delivery of processed material to Ledoux. So, folks, forget about the validity of Behre Dolbear chain of custody. It doesn't mean a thing because another third party (CMRI) handled the samples.

To: Kim W. Brasington who wrote (10190)	3/15/1998 7:28:00 PM
From: Timmy O'Toole	Respond to of 20681

>> Wherever the samples are sent, then the receiving parties have to >> inspect the containers and ascertain to their good judgement that >> the seals have not been broken and that the samples have not been >> tampered with. If it appears that the seals have been broken, then >> it is the obligation of the receiving party to reject the samples. >> If the seals are not broken, then the receiving party will take the >> COC samples under their custody, signing for the material. Did Ledoux reject the samples that were retrieved from the supervised drill hole at the Franklin lake property on September 17, 1996? The Naxos website does not have the press releases prior to December 20, 1996. The question is, did Naxos release certified or uncertified numbers from Ledoux for the samples taken on September 17, 1996? In the December 20, 1996 press release Ledoux states the following: "Clearly, the line of custody for the samples that were retrieved from the supervised drill hole at the Franklin Lake property on September 17, 1996 was compromised. A proper line of custody requires a unique identification for seals so that the recipient can verify the integrity of same, and all parties who handle said samples must be identified along with the material. These two criteria were not fulfilled. We are not questioning the integrity of the people involved, just the lack of professionalism in maintaining a proper line of custody for said samples. The word "sealed" is misused throughout the report, as it would relate to chain or line of custody - no official seals were used." This was AFTER the ASE got involved. Why did it require the ASE to make a big stink before Ledoux finally admitted the samples they received had a chain of custody that was compromised?