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: Larry Brubaker who wrote (10466)	3/18/1998 11:09:00 AM
From: mark silvers	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 20681

Larry Rub the sleep out of your eyes. COC is mentioned very clearly in the first paragraph. COC was not performed by Johnson or Hewlett either:-) Instead they opted for a more reputable method of going with a uninvolved third party. LOL Mark

To: Larry Brubaker who wrote (10466)	3/18/1998 11:18:00 AM
From: Henry Volquardsen	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 20681

Larry, re chain of custody this is from the second paragraph The material was drilled under the supervision of Behre Dolbear and turned over to Colorado Mineral Research Institute (CMRI) for processing under chain of custody. CMRI under chain of custody then forwarded these samples to Ledoux & Company. I don't have a direct answer to your second question. But I have posted in the past that I have frequently heard the maxim "Each deposit is a complex geological puzzle that needs to be solved individually". My guess, and this is just a guess, is that with all the labs involved and all the top flight chemists who have been fiddling with this that someone finally cracked the puzzle. It is still not a standard ore and it just took time to figure the right grinding and flux. Your third question is a good one. It has been my growing impression that the Johnson-Lett process is a work in progress and not as fully developed as we once believed. This does not at all imply that it does not add value, it appears that it does. But additional work an research may be needed to optimize it. Henry FBDR!!! TSGD PS I apologize for leaving you off the list of acceptable skeptics. <G> I read your stuff as well.

To: Larry Brubaker who wrote (10466)	3/18/1998 12:07:00 PM
From: Tom Frederick	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 20681

Mr Brubaker, Good questions one and all. As I understand it, they were absolutely COC, and certified. This is all the same material with new splits all from BD and all testing done by the labs identified. The time lag for release is a question for Naxos management, but it sure would have been great to see these numbers long ago. As far as the Johnson method, I think a .5 vs. a .2 is about a 2 1/2 times increase which is quite significant, but it is yet not consistent. It still needs work, but it shows clearly that the JL method CAN have a significant impact on results. Remember, you can't assay what isn't there. You CANT have a result of .5 or a 3.0 unless the PM was there. Frustrating and confusing yes, but not misleading. Regards, Tom F. P.S. don't worry , the skeptics will come.

To: Larry Brubaker who wrote (10466)	3/19/1998 1:36:00 AM
From: sh	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 20681

I'm exhausted from my regular day job but I'm on a roll. Larry, are you crazy or what? How can you claim salting here? If it wasn't for the fact that your are simply expressing an opinion (one that seems to be in jest), you can be in deep trouble under the good old U.S.A.'s defamation laws. Yeah, yeah, IPM burned the hell out of you, but how long are you going to dwell on that. We have no objection to critics on this thread. Besides contributing to a substantive discussion, they also make life more adventurous by tossing wild claims about the great fraud being perpetrated on us. You are one that I have more respect for than the average naysayer (e.g. Mazzerella ?sp). However, cool it down. To claim fraud based on tenuous facts is inexcusable. You have the prerogative to keep it up, but you lose credibility with each such wild claim. sh