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: Jan A. Van Hummel who wrote (11235)	3/29/1998 10:50:00 AM
From: Jerry in Omaha	Respond to of 20681

Mr. Van Hummel; <<Not wanting to contribute to clutter the scene any further I have refrained from posting anything that would contribute to an idle, polemical discussion about nothing.>> And, sir, you have done an outstanding job by reminding us why we all so frequently tune in here. Thank you sir, for the single best analysis I have seen on this thread. For one, I totally agree with your view of Naxos' situation. I have every reason to believe that the beleaguered Sid Kemp, and the other persons shaping our destiny, also agree with you both in principle and plan. A huge event in the history of this company has transpired in the last two weeks and the now shock wave has been felt here. I'll not varnish over the truth, milk has been spilt and people are crying over it. What's past is past and the only people who could possibly gain from any dwelling on it will be lawyers. And I hope that never happens. Right now we have too much of a future to consider, IMO. I have been assured, and I believe, that Sid Kemp is working hard for us and is fully conscious of his transition role. The most difficult part of recent events was that first big step, when, once taken, reversal of course becomes impossible. Mr. Van Hummel has done us all a tremendous service by outlining for us the clearest exposition of the current state of affairs and the logical direction of our immediate efforts. Let's have more postings like his so that I can post less of my odes to the obvious here. Stressful times can produce outstanding efforts and I clearly have been seeing that lately. My thanks to you all. Jerard P

To: Jan A. Van Hummel who wrote (11235)	3/29/1998 12:08:00 PM
From: scorpion	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 20681

To All, If conventional methods would produce 0.148 oz/ton and the J/L method would produce say 2.5 oz/ton,is it possible to first use the conventional method to get the easy gold, then use the J/L method on the same dirt to recover the remaining 2.352 oz/ton ? It seems to me that 2.352 times the current gold price,minus the $100 per ton would be profitable.The cost of bringing the dirt to the process has already been absorbed profitably through the conventional method. I'm new to this and trying to understand it. If this is a stupid question just say so and I'll crawl back under my rock. Thanx TC