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 (14100)	7/8/1998 10:22:00 PM
From: Larry Macklin	Respond to of 20681

AL you say that the expert has 4 labs. this is true. the only problem is that he only has results from one of them and that lab is non-certified. The fact that this expert happens to like them does not make them a certified lab. We have absolutely no idea what results the other labs will come up with. I would love to see good results from COC ore from the two international labs but you are talking like its already been done. It hasn't! We can't just " let him hire and judge the labs". Labs must be certified or their results are not given the same weight. That is the whole reason for certification. I will let the others answer for themselves. One more thing. I just do not understand why people like you refuse to use your real names. What are you afraid of? Mark,bob,KIM,henry, and I have all used our real names. You know who you are talking to. Give us the same the courtesy. I personally find it hard to give anyone who hides behind a fake name any credibility at all!!!!

To: Al C who wrote (14100)	7/8/1998 10:53:00 PM
From: mark silvers	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 20681

AL Lets see if we can answer some of your statements <<Well, now they've subjected it to a recognized expert, and multiple labs (4), for multiple metals, with multiple types of assays, covering hundreds of samples! By contrast, the "home team" is still trying to get multiple labs to do a single metal, and maybe not having consistent success with even a single lab and a single metal. IF this current evaluation works, we're far ahead in the race with J/L; we must see!>> First of all, you have no released numbers as of yet. Secondly, you are using uncertified labs with ore that Austin said was COC. but wouldnt answer if it had stayed under strict COC control the whole time. Secondly, this is testing that is only taking place now. there was a unwilingness earlier to take place under strict control and supervision, and even this testing lacks those controls. <<"As for uneconomical?" Ledoux and Norton have both estimated breakeven at 0.06-0.08 oz./ton. >> I dont know where you got those numbers, I have heard estimates at lower levels than that. Am I supposed to take the word of someone who wont even reveal who they are? Would our knowing your name, compromise your arguments? <<"Abrogating contractual agreements with J/L": These were honored after initial threats, and outcrys from shareholders.>> If they were honored, how were they abrogated? Your assumption that it management was coerced by shareholders is your opinion, not a fact. Again, if they didnt really want to, they wouldnt have. Also, if the ill will is so bad, why are J/L still around? As you said they are without current obligation? It cant be that bad, if they' re still here. <<"As for CPM, I spoke with Jeff Cristian": After the current expertise was brought in?>> I told you what he said, which was that black box technology such as J/L will never bring in institutions. You're response is a pathetic, "after they were brought in"? I guess you know you cant argue with that one. FWIW, I talked to them before., I dont see how that affects the veracity of his statements. <<"Walters family": Kemp was right there, on location, but made no move to disclose this conflict despite being both a Naxos director and at that time Naxos' legal counsel.>> You are trying to blame Matt Walters suppossed breach of fiduciary responsibility on Sid????? Do I even have to argue that logic? It is so childish and asinine, my only response, Nyah, nyah, I'm right and you're wrong! More inane logic.... <<, that's a big part of the problem: they went off half (or zero) cocked, to spend a half million of our precious dollars (raised entirely by selling and diluting our shares) on an ongoing drilling program, plus another million-plus for assaying--all before getting the assay methodology figured out, >> But it was okay to negotiate a deal that cost twenty times as much for J/L when that wasnt even close to resembling having any methodology figured out. Puhlease!!!!!!!!! <<There's no conspiracy to put J/L ahead of anything else, just to give it fair chance (it's not under option anymore), and to be evaluated and negotiated for, >> By your own admission that is happening now. You have stated it is being bankrolled and being tested. If it wasnt J/L would have moved on. You are right there is no conspiracy, but it is form the other side. As you have stated J/L is being paid for and tested, so it is being considered. that is what you are asking for. <<Stick to the truth, kid. >> It is almost funny that some unnamed illogical poster could even dream of calling Kim a liar. the man has more respect on this thread than you could ever hope to garner. <<What's happened is unprofessional beyond coment.>> That is true. When J/L was in its hey day, rumors and leaks were the name of the game. Rumors flew about exactly what would happen in a few days time. That has changed dramatically now,. Now we have all these rumors of what is going to happen with J/L about reports that havent been completed, with labs that havent finished testing. Is this more of the same? mark

To: Al C who wrote (14100)	7/9/1998 6:46:00 AM
From: Henry Volquardsen	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 20681

Al C Regarding J/L you say Well, now they've subjected it to a recognized expert, and multiple labs (4), for multiple metals, with multiple types of assays, covering hundreds of samples! Are these certified? Has the material been under chain of custody? If they have excellent results why don't they release them? If J/L had verifiable numbers Naxos would snap it up. And if not Naxos there are no shortage of 'dirts' that would snap it up. Why hasn't J/L released the results of these multiple labs? Is Austin developing shyness? Or was it just bed time like it was with another question? "As for uneconomical?" Ledoux and Norton have both estimated breakeven at 0.06-0.08 oz./ton. Do the math. At $300/oz., 0.07 x $300 = $2l/ton realized, which means grinding and roasting must be around $20/ton. Uh, yea? If the assay reports are higher than that then they are economical. So how can you say it is uneconomical? And FWIW I had heard early on that Ledoux had speculated that it might be breakevem at .06 or lower not .06-.08. Norton has apparently indicated it is lower than that. "Abrogating contractual agreements with J/L": These were honored after initial threats, and outcrys from shareholders. The intent was nevertheless accomplished, bad will with the not-now-optioned J-L. You haven't answered the question. What specific contractural agreements with J/L were abrogated? Not exercising the option is not abrogated an agreement. It is not exercising an option. "Walters family": Kemp was right there, on location, but made no move to disclose this conflict despite being both a Naxos director and at that time Naxos' legal counsel. Puhleese! Yes Sid should have done something about this earlier. But it was Jimmy John who defended Matt against a lot of pressure from people to do something about the situation. We have no way of knowing what his legal counsel to Jimmy was but he and the board had been unable to do anything about Matt until the confrontation with Jimmy. Having to confront the Chairman and President of the company is a much bigger deal than dealing with one sleazoid sneak. But Sid can be questioned on this subject. But it is a much bigger question regarding the ethics of the J/L partnership that set this up. "How can you postulate J/L is economical?" I didn't; I just don't want them taken out of the race prematurely by a bad-will policy against this un-optioned technology, conducted under the table and out of sight of shareholders. Nonsense. There is no such bad-will policy. J/L has been recieving full support in pursuing their research. FYI, $300/oz. current selling price x X oz./ton -$200/oz. est. cost would make 0.67 oz./ton breakeven. So, let's see what the numbers are. Multiple oz./ton would be dramatically profitable, As has already been stated the previous multiple ounce results were the result of poor sampling methodology. They were never able to get consistency. There is also no current information that the new J/L process is getting multiple ounce. We only have rumours from the usual suspects. In regards the pretreatment for conventional assay you make the following statements it's estimated cost is 0.06-0.08 oz./ton (Ledoux; Norton); i.e., $18-$24/ton; i.e., breakeven at current grades in that range. That is not breakeven, it is economical. Using the .06 (which I have already pointed out is what Ledoux has indicated) and assays for the levels that are .1 opt, you get a cost of production of $200 an ounce. That is economical. it came from conventionalizing the J/L patents, which had been shown them on good faith; no attribution has been given to date; I'm trying to stop short of calling it a knock-off, but this is part of the problem requiring different parties to negotiate an agreement. If it is a conventional version of J/L then J/L is clearly not patentable so the option should never be exercised. Also if it is a knock off why is it so much cheaper? BTW Kim is sticking to the truth. Unless you were part of the phone conversation between Kim and Carl Campbell how do you know what was said? The object here is to make money, and the politics--and poltical actors--have to be TOTALLY swept out. I totally agree with this. We need to get rid of all the self serving actors. Although I have expressed concerns about J/L those concerns are more about the businessmen there. Dr Johnson is a credible individual and I do hope he has success with his process as an enhancement technique. I still feel strongly that we need to go with the conventional technique as the front line and Dr Johnson as part of the recovery analysis. My major question about J/L revolves around his association with Austin Lett and Matt Walters. I have serious questions about the ethics of what they did and will always make me suspicious in any dealings with them.

To: Al C who wrote (14100)	7/9/1998 10:06:00 AM
From: Herman	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 20681

When do you expect the report on the J/L process? How will the report be disseminated to shareholders? Will shareholders have time to vote their proxies accordingly? Who "owns" the report? After the report is released, probably to Naxos management, since they are now paying for it, do you expect any internal delays with getting the results out? I for one, fully understand that any report on the Johnson/Lett process will only be the first step of a long process of verification. Naxos now has completed the drilling of the 40 hole program. There is a tremendous amount of ore to be tested. Do you see any eventual hold-up? The real question that I am looking to have answered is this-- If the a favorable report issued by this individual, who everyone believes to be a credible source, verified by 3-4 recognized labs, how will current management proceed? Will they enter into an agreement with J/L immediately, based on further testing of course, or will they hold off on any decision until the annual meeting? I know that it is difficult to predict responses to questions and results that haven't been put on the table yet. But we need to ask the questions regardless. Herman