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: Al C who wrote (14058)	7/7/1998 9:06:00 PM
From: mark silvers	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 20681

AL C First of all, much of what you say is heresay. I have personally talked to Sid on a few occasions and he is more than willing to consider the J/L technology or any other technology that may profit naxos. His opinion is that any black box technology should be worked on in the background and not in the forefront of operations. If Sid wanted to really get rid of johnson it would be very easy. He would just say goodbye. If Johnson felt that he was being so mistreated, he would have an easy out, he would just say goodbye. There are no contractual obligtions on either side to stay. So why are they still around? Because it fits the needs of both sides. Anyone who was at the roadshow last year, remembers Johnson saying that he felt 30-40% of the earths surface was loaded with microfine gold. He stood right up and said it. He intimated that many properties were richer than FL. I believe he even owns or has some connection to some proerties that Matt Walters said was just as rich as FL. With no contractual obligation to naxos, why is he still here? WHY? because he knows FL is THE property, and he is getting his research bankrolled by naxos. If SID wanted him out, he would just say goodbye and AL Johnson would be free to attrit the other 1/3 of the earth's surface. Much of the problem to date has been caused by the J/L teams unwillingness to subject their technology to proper testing. How many times in the past have all of us heard that Johnson has the process down after a little refining? Ten? Fifteen? According to Carl, that "refinement" is still under way and was "premature" the other times. Yes, I know, this time is different. As for uneconomical? What do you base this on? Please elaborate. I do remember Johnson saying at the roadshow that his process would cost over 200 bucks an ounce to process. That is the uneconomical process. Please dont talk to me about multiple ounces. I spoke to Carl myself the other day, and he told me that he was not a believer in multiple ounces either. Those were sampling erors due to sampling size and a failure to clean the attriter inbetween tests, is my understanding. As for CPM, I spoke to Jeff Christian myself(along with Larry and Neal) and he emphatically said that he wouldnt touch naxos as long as they used a black box process and mentioned the J/L process by name. I have witnesses to that. As far as abrogating contractual agreements with J/L. Are you saying that they deserve a third of the company for a process that has yet to prove that it works and may be nothing more than a offhsoot of micromilling? Are you kidding? If they honored that contract, it would be the largest travesty in naxos' history. What do you think of J/L sellling partial ownership of the process to the Walters family, and then negotiating their blockbuster contract with Matt involved in the negotiations, supposedly negotiating in the shareholders interest? That is my understadning of what happened. They must have all been laughing at us on that one........

To: Al C who wrote (14058)	7/7/1998 10:11:00 PM
From: Henry Volquardsen	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 20681

AL C Thank you for posting Carl's letter. I strongly disagree with your characterization of the companies hostility to Dr Johnson or to certain statements by both you and Mr Campbell. Clearly the company is not hostile to Dr Johnson as they continue to fully fund his research and provide him with ore. But please be specific as to your charges. What contractural obligation have they threatened to abrogate? I have been told they have provided ore to Johnson and they have paid his bills. Please enlighten us me on specifics of where there have not down this so I can verify that I was lied to? I was working on this response to you when Mark's response was posted. I agree with all of what he has said and will not repeat his specifics but will add a few comments and questions. As Mark pointed out, with even Carl saying the multiple ounce results J/L was showing just a few months ago were due to sampling errors and Dr Johnson himself having indicated a cost of @$200 a ton, how can you postulate that J/L is economical? Has the process changed so radically in just few months that the cost has been dramatically reduced? And if so how is it possible that it has been tested sufficiently in just a few months to be considered more stable now? To be clear, as I have stated before I am not anti Dr J. I think the process holds promise as an enhancement technique. Naxos, despite yours and Carl's comments to the contrary, is continuing to support research into J/L for just this reason. Carl states If a lead-fire assay is successful it is only because of special pretreatment of the sample or other modifications that tend to be subtle and easily reversible, causing great difficulty for assayers. The pretreatment is a simple grinding to 200 mesh and roasting for 30 minutes at 350 degrees. Since these are fairly common pretreatments could either you or Carl please clarify for me what is special about this pretreatment? Since it is clear that Sid and the rest of management continue to support the J/L research and have done nothing to discourage it I have to wonder who is behind the ongoing efforts to force J/L back into a preeminent position with Naxos? Who would gain from J/L becoming the main focus? Well there is Matt Walters who's family owns a major equity stake in the J/L partnership. Have there been any past allegations of improper conduct on Matt's part? Was Matt consistently believed to be at the heart of all the wild rumours regarding J/L results? Did the ridiculous leaks stop when Matt left the firm? Was there concern that Matt actively discouraged any information that showed an alternative to the J/L process? A process in which he had a major personal interest in. I would be very interested if some of the lawyers on this thread would opine as to wether any of these questions, if answered affirmatively, would suggest any legal questions? There is also Barry Downs. He has a great many of his followers invested in a number of desert dirts. Most of them are now trading for pennies. Would it help him if someone, anyone, could show some progress on finding a key to the puzzle. Anyone with a clear and sole interest in Naxos will readily recognize that the only way Naxos will attain the credibility to move forward is with an emphasis on a conventional deposit. J/L hopefully has application to enhance recovery and is worth pursuing. But it most be as part of the recovery analysis and mine feasibility. The market will ignore it if used to calculated reserves. As much as the J/L vested interests would like to believe otherwise that is cold brutal reality. BTW I have spoken to Carl in the past and respect him. I believe he is wrong in this regard and anyone who grants him their proxy is mistaken.

To: Al C who wrote (14058)	7/7/1998 11:08:00 PM
From: Kim W. Brasington	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 20681

Sir: I believe in the interest of all shareholders that the comments of both yourself and Mr. Campbell need to be addressed. 1) Mr. Campbell told me personally over the phone, that he was resigning, to: "strengthen the Board with additional mining talent." I will take Mr. Campbell's word at face value. 2) If Naxos is so opposed to ANY new technology why are they: A. Paying for the assay labs doing the J/L assaying? (to date: $33,000). B. Paying the metallurgical consultant for his efforts? C. Remaining in daily contact with this same consultant? D. Looking at another process besides the J/L process? 3) This drill program, done with hollow stem augur drilling methodology, is being done to provide Naxos with COC material to expand the knowledge of how much is at Franklin Lake. Kleinfelder, Sanguinetti and Director John Goth are in approval of this approach. Many of the financial institutions that Naxos has talked with believe that this is the proper way to develop inferred resources, and consequently credibility within the institutional realm - your opinion is that it is "unsound". You are free to express your opinion, Sir. 4) Mr. Campbell states that the J/L process was introduced to Naxos "prematurely". Perhaps Mr. Campbell would like to comment on this present J/L technology concerning it's characteristics - is it the same one that was introduced to Naxos, or has it become a completely new entity? Whatever the response, the proof is that Naxos is working with J/L and paying for the process. I believe that this is indicative of Naxos' interest in the possibilities. 5) Naxos wants COC third party confirmation of this process. Naxos has not received the report nor the assays yet. Have you received this report? Naxos paid for this report. If you have not received this report then you are operating from hearsay. If you and Mr. Campbell have received information other than in an orderly and legal manner from Naxos who is paying for this report, then you draw your own conclusions. 6) Naxos has stated that it is taking a dual approach to unlocking the metallurgy of Franklin Lake. In the forefront will be conventional technology. Unconventional technology has not gained Naxos as large an audience as the conventional has. Major gold producers lead with the conventional and relegate the unconventional to R&D, UNTIL IT CAN BE PROVEN. This is where Naxos stands. 7) Naxos also believes highly in the capabilities of this metallurgical consultant - this is why they have paid him and are staying in contact with him. Kim W.

To: Al C who wrote (14058)	7/9/1998 2:41:00 AM
From: Jim Lucky	Respond to of 20681

Just curious how many Naxonians here have considered that the pricing of stock options for the directors, in mindful fairness to the longs here of which I am one, should be priced only after this J/L report is released and/or more numbers are released to the street. It is hard to believe that management has nothing to tell us since June 11th, despite probable delays. It would be a blatant insult to loyal shareholders for a company release on July 27th, as well as suspect. I remain hopeful for a significant release sometime before the AGM on July 25th. It is the proper way to treat shareholders who have remained so long. My apologies if this point has been covered. I haven't been reading this thread much because of all the personal chit-chat that had been going on and it became too time consuming, maybe things are better now. Thought this might be a LUCKY week since Saturday is 7/11, hmmmmmm, well the weeks not over. Had enough of these hard days(ways). Jim Lucky $$$