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: knight who wrote (10743)	3/20/1998 4:50:00 PM
From: mark silvers	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 20681

Knight, I was under the impression that it was two holes, I will have to go back and check.. Mark

To: knight who wrote (10743)	3/20/1998 5:21:00 PM
From: Henry Volquardsen	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 20681

knight, table one on the March 18 press release indicates .163 to .236 opt on ore not treated with the Johnson-Lett process. It was ground to 80% minus 200 mesh. This material was all from hole #5. The Jan 13 report was also on hole #5 and that is where we saw the 1.66 opt on stage one that caused us to speculate about free gold. Subsequently we had a release on March 12 which was on material from holes 4 and 5. There was an asteriked comment on a 2.435 opt (the only high number) that stated this may be unreliable due to small sample size. This made me wonder if the result on Jan 13 report might have also been due to small sample size. In subsequent discussions with numerous people, including some not related to the company, I got the impression that on this type of deposit it is not uncommon to find very small 'hot spots' and to get an accurate picture you need to take more than one sample from an area being tested, in fact many, and average them. This may have been the reason for all the trouble with consistency earlier. I believe that figuring this out may be one of the recent developments that has allowed the testing to speed up. I have a question in my mind regarding the March 12 numbers may have also been on untreated ore. That is not clear to me. So yes we appear to have results from only one hole and a lot more work needs to be done but I don't believe that is inconsistent with saying Meanwhile we have good numbers on at least some untreated ore. It is 'some' and it is 'good'. ;) BTW I would love if Kim or someone who actually knows what they are talking about would comment on my speculation. Henry 'Inspector Closeau' Volquardsen