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: Richard Mazzarella who wrote (15895)	8/27/1998 9:28:00 AM
From: Tom Frederick	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 20681

It would seem whichever direction they choose or offer the shareholders, it all starts with what Brian Russel has to say about the J/L testing. That will tell shareholders if we have a methodology that has already been scrutinized worth looking into and applying to the FL property. If J/L is of little or no value, then any efforts at working on FL are back to square one. Possibly revisiting some of the old Dr. Groves, Ray Steele, etc etc. methods. Next, we need to understand WHAT new properties will be considered, where they are (hopefully not in the back woods on Indonesia) and what metals they are going to focus on. Then we will need to understand the size and scope of the operations, how long to profitability, etc. so that we can get a clear picture as to the feasibility of Naxos changing direction into a "mining" company vs. exploration company. While the letter didn't offer final answers on anything regarding FL or Ledoux, it was at least an attempt to keep in touch with the shareholders. And it also put out in the open the issue of selling off non essential assets. There are no final decisions or results regarding FL ore to talk about so I don't believe we have any reason to complain about lack on specific content. Let's see what the answers are on the above issues. Then we can make some clear decisions. My view, not to beat a dead horse here, is that if Brian comes back with a positive opinion on the J/L method, FL rises out of the flames as a very viable, potentially very large PM deposit. If he doesn't, FL fades back to a "possibly rich PM deposit" until some method of testing is arrived at that can reliably indicate what is in that complex ore. Either way, it doesn't seem to be a bad idea at all to have some other properties providing cash flow to either continue funding the J/L work or offer a refuge for shareholder value extending well into the future or as long as the projected life of those properties may be. Tom F.

To: Richard Mazzarella who wrote (15895)	8/27/1998 9:36:00 AM
From: Henry Volquardsen	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 20681

Richard, In order to address these differing views, we are considering various options for the restructuring of Naxos Resources (USA) Ltd. to facilitate the independent development of the Franklin Lake project. We believe those investors who came into the Company on the basis of the potential of Franklin Lake should have the right to continue that investment. In addition, we want to be in a position to attract new investors into the Company based on the technical ability of management to develop other more conventional mining projects. Naxos is continuing with its due diligence on a number of potential properties in association with the CPM Group. To these ends, we are continuing to develop a plan that addresses the interests of each shareholder group. I don't know Richard, that implies something more definitive than an LLC as a partly owned sub. FWIW I'm not advocating either approach or even implying that the company has even decided on one. Just trying to infer what the above statement might mean. Henry