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: mark silvers who wrote (12285)	4/24/1998 5:14:00 PM
From: soxan	Respond to of 20681

To All I beleive the most important factor in todays release is the fact we have 2 coc holes 1 mile apart with good concentrations of gold to 300 feet.What else needs to be said? Plenty of additional info to come,soon enough.I'm thrilled just thinking about that mile in between these 2 holes,how much tonage could that be? Probably concentrated with some avg. of the 2 holes? My opinion is our stock price will start to creep up, even with what some are calling not great numbers.Lets not forget the platinum!!! soxan

To: mark silvers who wrote (12285)	4/24/1998 7:21:00 PM
From: W.F. Schwertley	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 20681

Mark, I only used the 0' to 150' samples for easy comparison purposes. The PR from 1/96 used samples down to only 140' whereas today's went down to 310'. Thus, I could compare more on a one to one basis by limiting my comparison to 150'. Second, the two richest depths must be removed from today's average because they came from the 3/12/98 PR. They were included in today's PR to boost the average IMO. This analysis was to show the oz/ton difference between the 1/96 and today's PR. Beside the above, what I'm trying to convey is that we have two different assays from Ladoux for hole #4 (today's and one from 3/12/98). If you average the 3/12/98 numbers they come to .164 oz/ton. If you average today's press release numbers, leaving out the 3/12/98 numbers, you get .035. Same hole, same assay company, but much smaller numbers this time as compared to the 3/12/98 PR (78% difference). I am concerned because today's numbers are more in sink with RMG's 3/12/98 numbers. If you recall, they were 2 or more times lower than Ladoux's numbers for the same samples. I thought RMG was going to increase there numbers by using the same techniques Ladoux uses, but it appears that Ladoux is lowering their's instead. I need a drink, fortunately it's happy hour! WFS