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 (12738)	5/11/1998 12:39:00 PM
From: Henry Volquardsen	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 20681

Mark, How many drill holes are covered in this report? And how widely spaced? I would be very interested in Kim's comment on this. Henry

To: mark silvers who wrote (12738)	5/11/1998 1:32:00 PM
From: Carlo	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 20681

About the holes drilled in the past. I made this point months ago, but there seemed little interest in discussion. Those that are squeamish about this stock, should review the old data, and its striking resemblance to what has been recently reported. I requested to Kim B. to dig up the info and put it on the Naxos Web page.

To: mark silvers who wrote (12738)	5/11/1998 6:01:00 PM
From: ShoppinTheNet	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 20681

ON TOPIC! Hi Mark! "1. Should these numbers count as legitimate COC, certified numbers?" NO they can not be if they are not COC. "2. If they cant be counted towards a resource statement, should they be viewed as a potential indicator for future tests results?" You are free to use these numbers in your assesment of the value of Naxos or FL.

To: mark silvers who wrote (12738)	5/12/1998 5:38:00 PM
From: jlallen	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 20681

Mark: Regarding your post yesterday IMO, the past results should not be discounted if presented in conjunction with the newer results. Collectively they could be persuasive evidence that a lot of prior non-COC work was on target. However, also JMO, in light of Bre-X, no one (institutions and potential financial partners) will give any weight to non-COC results. Its just too risky. The 68 hole program would be a good step to take toward proving out this resource. I'm frustrated that we don't have all five BD holes yet but I'm willing to accept another statement on this thread that those results are probably considered tainted by the old management involvement. When we'll see new results is anybody's guess. Hope it won't be too long. JLA