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: kenneth w. calligar who wrote (14383)	7/17/1998 12:13:00 PM
From: Cascade Berry	Respond to of 20681

Information item...yesterday's Vancouver Sun had an article regarding resumption of Alberta Securities Commission investigation regarding Naxos. Welcome to the wonderful world of the Jimmy John promotion. Been there, done that. End of dead cat bounce. Next life to begin now.

To: kenneth w. calligar who wrote (14383)	7/17/1998 12:35:00 PM
From: kenneth w. calligar	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 20681

All: The following may be of some anecdotal interest. This is an excerpt from a letter dated April 4, 1995. (three years ago) The letterhead is "Ledoux & Company". Some of the words are not completely clear as I have a fax of a fax. P.S. I put this out for your information, Please don't shoot the messenger. "We spent the week of March 13 evaluating analytical procedures for maximizing Naxos material at Death Valley Junction prospect. We analyzed 45 combinations of soil, some treated with the H2/O2 torch, others assayed as is.... We did the fusion at 1600 degrees C....The gold result on this fusion showed 0.242 Oz/ton gold, while the silver showed 0.346 Oz/ton. The lead sulfate was filtered off and ignited, fused and cupelled. The resulting button showed only silver of 0.36 Oz/ton. Thus the total silver would be 0 .706 Oz/ton.... This preliminary experiment confirms that gold is present in the soil in commercial quantities. We have to develop a methodology which is applicable to this material and which can be easily verified by other laboratories...."

To: kenneth w. calligar who wrote (14383)	7/17/1998 12:56:00 PM
From: Henry Volquardsen	Respond to of 20681

Ken, I agree with the spirit of the post but disagree with some of the specifics. I'll try and number them so we can use it as a reference if we continue this line of discussion. 1 We are not assuming Ledoux has been wrong. In the press release it says that Ledoux & Company stated that they determined that a problem with their assaying of the Naxos material eisted... So it appear that Ledoux is admitting an error. 2 I wouldn't characterize management as having run from lab to lab. Seeking check labs is a normal practice and this is all management was doing. 3 Yes Ledoux has worked with this ore a long time. I have been told that Paul Blumberg met with the advisory committee and told them their process worked. When Rocky Mountain couldn't duplicate the results they issued a statement to the company saying that Rocky Mountain was performing the process incorrectly. As early as this week Blumberg was apparently making statements that he stood behind his numbers. Then on wednesday he pulls an Emily Litella, 'never mind'. 4 Ledoux has a very strong reputation. They have repeatedly endorsed their results. Based on their endorsement and reputation the company pursued an extensive and expensive drill program. I believe in the world of junior mining companies that was a reasonable course of action. Ledoux's apparent opens major questions about their credibility and opens them to legal action, imo. 5 It was appropriate for the company to pursue check labs. When the check labs were unable to duplicate the results they worked with Ledoux to resolve the problem. When the problem persisted management had no choice, imo, but to up the ante and get confirmation. If they had not and persisted with the drill program despite the warning they received from the labs that would have been the high risk tactic. In fact it would have been actionable, imo. 6 You are right about the standards and blanks. Ledoux was hitting those spot on. They were also hitting them spot on this week and getting only trace mineralization on the other material. Very curious and I do not not know the answer. I guess it is possible that this particular sample may have had no metal, as much a long shot as that may be. I have really been scratching my head about this. The only thing I can point to is the statement by Ledoux quoted in point 1. 7 Sid did not pursue SFA to the exclusion of the J/L method. They were continuing to fund J/L research despite what certain people would like us to believe. It is also worth remembering that the J/L method was inconsistent. Of course that was based on analysis by Ledoux. You say both processes should have been pursued contemporaniously. I believe they were. Earlier this week I posted that if Ledoux repudiated their numbers it would be a big problem for them but that it would be cold comfort for us because we would get trashed. I do not question managements decision to pursue conventional assaying on the basis of Ledoux's recommendation, Ledoux was credible enough to justify that. I believe the company should look into leagal action against Ledoux. And as I pointed out above I do not believe the company abandoned J/L despite the contention of some. I am keeping my fingers crossed for what Brian Russell has to say.