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: Tom Frederick who wrote (17602)	1/27/1999 2:15:00 PM
From: mark silvers	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 20681

Tommy-boy, It is my opinion that this whole issue can not really be resolved to anyone's satisfction at this point in time. There is to much suspicion, history, and heightened emotion, for anyone to do anything but hold fast to the tenuous opinions they already hold. The veracity of Naxos' claims will neither be proven nor disproven by a few obscure releases. The good news is that the point at which Naxos shareholders will feel either extreme jubilation or deep despair may just be fairly close at hand. Theoretically (and I say that because emotionally I cant allow myself any more room for disappointment) naxos will be firing up a demo plant within a months time. Shortly after that, they will hopefully be able to run some kinds of production audit. When that happens, we will at least have a very good indication of where we stand on our investment. Mark

To: Tom Frederick who wrote (17602)	1/27/1999 3:27:00 PM
From: Ron	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 20681

Tom, note this site bc-mining-house.com and its defination of SFA. Note that no specific amounts of additatives are defined ( yet this is STD?) also note that atomic absorption is an acceptable measurement method. Point is all these folks that keep referring to SFA have no idea as to the inconsistency inherent in the std method, so amounts of additives etc do not by defination lead to something NON STD.

To: Tom Frederick who wrote (17602)	1/27/1999 4:48:00 PM
From: Tim Hall	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 20681

Tom, <<<The "certification" is a fairly strict and precise term. It depends on who is at the facility, watching the test, handling material, etc. to actually qualify as "certified". Unbiased verification of a process is the goal.>>> Actually, certification depends more on which state the assay is being performed in. In New Mexico there are no requirements for assayers. Anybody can open a lab in their garage and do assays. They can certify the assay results but do not have any official authority other than their word. In Arizona, assayers have to be registered. When they certify results they have a seal issued by the State with which they may seal their certification. However, being registered with the state does not guarantee competence. I am not sure about CA, NV, or UT. I did a white pages search, yellow pages search, and looked through several supplier guides for the mining industry and I can find no NWA other than the one I mentioned before. Without knowing where the lab is located and who the assayer is, there is no way to ascertain if the lab can even certify other than by their own word. Tim