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: W.F. Schwertley who wrote (12282)	4/24/1998 4:43:00 PM
From: Tom Frederick	Respond to of 20681

Mr. Schwertley, does the phrase "overkill" mean anything to you? I really believe you are treating two holes like a representation of a property. What the two holes tell us is that SFA indicates significant gold to depth on two holes about a mile apart on a flat desert property. THAT indicates that it is HIGHLY likely that in between these holes there is also some grade, yet to be determined, of gold and probably PGM's as well. There is much work to be done and Naxos is poised to begin that work (68 hole program in about a 3/4 mile square right in the area of the tight grid) and THAT will tell us what we need to know to start analyzing down to the decimals as to the real value of the playa. It is little or no value to determine % differences as if it represents the ore body or a trend based on two holes a mile apart. Stick to what we know. There is gold, it exists down to 300 feet at least and that represents a huge amount (of shear total ounces) even at low concentrations. The other metals in the ore need to be tested and verified, but multiple metals in every ton point directly at economic recovery. Tom F.

To: W.F. Schwertley who wrote (12282)	4/24/1998 4:45:00 PM
From: mark silvers	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 20681

WFS First things first. Why do you break the hole up from 0-150 ft? Is there some significance to overall value at those depths? Second, why must the two richest depths be removed from the average? Do you think that they are not relevant to overall valuation for the property? Why must the old numbers be removed, they are part of the makeup of the entire hole, and should be considered as such. When all is said and done, people will put a valuation on the entire hole, they wont split it into two parts because the results were released in two parts. That is how the market will look at it, IMO. Mark

To: W.F. Schwertley who wrote (12282)	4/24/1998 4:54:00 PM
From: scott w. smilen	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 20681

W.F., Mark, Henry, et al., clearly, these numbers are less than prior releases, albeit for a different site. Even the presence of platinum is tempered by the fact that the totals with platinum at hole #4 are still less than the previous numbers for gold only at hole #5. The major concern for me, however, is that these are numbers coming from Ledoux, which for whatever reason, reported higher numbers than the other labs previously for the same material (if memory serves). Now, that RMG appears to be taking over, as described in the release, I'm wondering what kind of numbers we are subsequently going to see. Any thoughts are welcome. Scott