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: ShoppinTheNet who wrote (10518)	3/18/1998 4:08:00 PM
From: Richard Mazzarella	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 20681

SK, not completely true. I am also an scientist inventor and dream "why not"? I do own desert dirt's. <VBG> I speculated about your comment on the difference in lab results. I had speculated that the reason was because of a more complex procedure to do the assay (i.e. JL). Any good lab should be able to follow a procedure with standard reagents and achieve a similar result. The difference should have never been reported because it said the results couldn't be relied on. I would have been fired bring that deviation to my management without understanding the reasons. That's why I speculated about preprocessing with JL. The head ore results reported today were duplicated (same lab) and the correlation is excellent IMO. One can argue COC etc., but those numbers look pretty good to me. The numbers also suggest that the company may not need the high price process expected before. The new numbers (0.2 vs. 3.0) could also have been a problem for the cost of recovery per ton reported on this thread before. Interesting on how conveniently people ignored that aspect. Different perspectives add to the information content. I like almost everybody on this thread, especially Mark. He just doesn't know it. <VBG>