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: Henry Volquardsen who wrote (14191)	7/11/1998 11:48:00 AM
From: Carlo	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 20681

I agree with the notion of not signing 1/3rd of the company away for J/L. We can still sign a deal that is a "pay for performance" type. Let's say we pay J/L a royalty that comprises a percentage of the profit above manufacturing costs. This is a pretty common way to pay for technology. Of course J/L will demand money up front (perhaps shares), but the ridiculous quantity of 10M shares is too hard to swallow without any performance demonstrated. I strongly doubt, at this juncture, that Campbell advocates giving J/L 10 M shares. The deal, no doubt needs to be renegotiated, and for all we know, that may already be going on. Perhaps we could feel a little more comfortable with Mr Campbell if he would tell us thread people his current stance with regards to J/L payment. I am also concerned that leaving the reigns of this technology development, and or conventional mine development, to an attorney who is embroiled in a personal power struggle is not good for Naxos. On the other hand I am not real interested in giving Jimmy 10 M more shares of voting rights either. I am glad the time constraint on the earlier J/L contract expired. We should pay J/L money as he helps us make money, not before.

To: Henry Volquardsen who wrote (14191)	7/12/1998 5:35:00 PM
From: Lionel Hungar	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 20681

Well I'm back after spending a few days in the SI crowbar hotel for god knows what. Why did the stock crash when Naxos decided to pursue the conventional process? I'll tell you why. Naxos has pursued the conventional route many times before with no success. Now suddenly there is a breakthrough? LH

To: Henry Volquardsen who wrote (14191)	7/14/1998 1:04:00 AM
From: GlobalMarine	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 20681

Henry: Thanks for the feedback re J/L. I just received an AGM package today; I didn't get one when they were first sent out and had to call Naxos last week to get one sent. Hmm, I wonder about that... Can anyone comment on the following: 1) I could be wrong but didn't Jimmy John used to have millions of shares? The Proxy Cicular shows him with only 891,622 shares plus warrants. 2) The share position table shows that Sidney Kemp, our Prez, has a mere 6000 shares, and both John Goth and Ian Gordon have zip. They may or may not have options, but the lack of share position here isn't impressive. The other board nominess have lots of shares, however. 3) Hole RC-5, located at the south end of the playa where the water flow gets partially dammed by the little mountain (Eagle Mountain or something, it's called, I think), shows pretty nice values, 0.1 to 0.2 oz/ton gold. Pretty respectable, isn't it? And there some platinum assay results on RC-4, whcih show platinum at about half the grade of gold or so. Heck, forget the ore at the center and northern end of the playa...doesn't the south end of the playa seems rather appealing, grade-wise? 4) $40K to $50K in annual automobile expenses? At $0.35 a km, that's 114,000 km travelled. Did management drive to work from Vancouver to Franklin Lake every day? Yes, I'm being facetious here. 5) JV equity income is $108K; could this by any chance have something to do with the plant in South America? 6) Could the $168K writedown of license agreement represent the JL agreement? Any responses welcome. Cheers!