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: Neal davidson who wrote (16631)	10/9/1998 2:32:00 PM
From: Tom Frederick	Respond to of 20681

Neal, While I agree with your logic, I think we are not talking about the same point. I wont speak for Larry but what I meant anyway was that either FL had the PM's or not. It was never going to be a "well they sort of have PM's". Considering the size of the deposit, in the several billion ton range, whatever concentration of PM's there were, it was going to be huge. The relative climb of the stock was almost irrelevant in the sense that, once it got to say...$150, who would hold on for higher prices? Even so, the whole SFA stage was really, in my understanding of it, just a TESTING option to get more institutional support and once they were in recovery more "black box" technology would be reintroduced to find out if the non standard testing methods could be valuable as a recovery method as well. By the way, anyone have any thoughts as to the nice runnup today? On no news? But then again, that's how Naxos has always behaved! Tom F.

To: Neal davidson who wrote (16631)	10/9/1998 3:04:00 PM
From: Tom Frederick	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 20681

Neal, after some more thought I would like to clarify one point. While the ore itself was either going to prove PM's ore not, I can see more to the point regarding the level of RISK involved, was tied to testing. Certainly after so many years of SFA never having be effective and suddenly having Ledoux come up with repeatable numbers, the level of RISK involved appeared to drop dramatically. And I would concede that there were many who invested in Naxos or increased their position or even decided not to sell, based on those SFA results. So I will concede that your point as it relates to an investments level of risk is a valid one. SFA would have put Naxos on the map quickly. While "black box" with insufficient verification would have been a risk right up till recovery. Tom