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: Graystone who wrote (11119)	3/27/1998 1:11:00 PM
From: Henry Volquardsen	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 20681

Graystone, You make a couple of interesting points that I would like to address. First you imply that Naxos has dumped the Johnson-Lett process. That is not true. Naxos is still working on the process with Dr Johnson and the process still holds out potential for enhancing yields on the Franklin Lake property. So that is not at all a dead end. You state we do not have a viable recovery process. I disagree. The most recent release showed results from hole #5 on untreated ore. Now I agree this is much to small a sample to state a conclusive opinion that such results exist throughtout the playa. But these results were in the area of .2 opt. This is sufficient to use standard industry extraction techniques if such numbers hold up throughout the deposit. I understand that that is still a big info but that is exactly why more extensive drilling is needed. A question has been asked elsewhere that if the deposit could show such results in response to standard techniques why wasn't this available in the previous 10 years. This is a valid question. The reason as I understand it is that due to the nature of the deposit it has to be drilled in a specific way and a specific grinding technique used. This apparently is pretty standard knowledge in the mining industry. Up until recently Naxos did not hire a lot of mining professionals. The 10 year delay was because guys like us were trying to figure this out (that's a bit unfair but so what). Now that we have started employing the radical concept of hiring mining professionals we are actually learning these things. I put this in the category of 'Doh!' The importance of this is not that it says the J-L process is irrelevant. What it does is provide a baseline for Naxos (assuming of course additional drill holes show similar results). The Johnson-Lett process is far from being irrelevant. But it is also no longer the only shot for Naxos. I think it is more fair to consider it in the category of a process that can enhance yields on specific types of deposits. It is no secret that similar types of processes are used on tailings elsewhere in the mining industry. You asked in a previous post whether people not invested in Naxos were safer than those who were. Obvious answer is that of course people not invested in Naxos are safer. But you can say that about any stock. Not investing is always safer than investing. But the rewards are lower and investing is all about making the right risk reward judgements. Naxos is still a very risky stock. But it also has significant potential. Both factors should be part of anyone's decision making process.

To: Graystone who wrote (11119)	3/27/1998 2:21:00 PM
From: Tom Frederick	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 20681

Mr. Graystone, you lost me on that one. What is the point of getting BD to do the drilling providing absolute COC material, properly drilled for the first time, and then get Ledoux and CMRI to produce absolute undeniable certified results using well established industry standard procedures? Gee, I don't know. Let me think. No wait, it'll come to me....uhhhhhhhhh. Oh yeah, ABSOLUTELY CLEAR INDUSTRY STANDARD TESTING TO PROVE GOLD AT FRANKLIN LAKE! Yes, they need to show how much ore there is and the extended drilling program will do that. Yes they need to establish WHICH recovery method will produce maximum results. But not having that done yet is hardly a reason to be so down on Naxos. We have seen certified numbers as high as 2.5 on COC. Why wouldn't you wait to test a variety of methods that will get as close to the real total ore content before "announcing" any method? As I have already said, many properties make their runs on stock price in the drilling stage IF they can show INDUSTRY STANDARD TESTING OF MATERIAL. So help he out here. You said "I don't think they should be drilling anything, what is the point, a whole lot of numbers that mean nothing to go with all the claims that have meant nothing." You might as well tell that to Barrick, Anglogold, Newmont, IPM, and on and on. This is how they have been doing it for decades. Tom F.