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: Ron who wrote (17609)	1/27/1999 3:52:00 PM
From: Tom Frederick	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 20681

Ron, thanks for the link. I have understood that also. In conversation with Mr. Brasington, he explained that there are multiple extraction metals, multiple methods of measurement, etc. all adding up to several hundred variations that can be considered "SFA". As long as the lab works within the parameters of those extraction metals and measurement standards, it all comes under SFA. However, additional issues of who is present, who handles the ore, who directs the methodology, is it hands-on or paper instructions, all of these can complicate the ability to call something "certified". And with the history of Naxos, I am thinking that NWA would not likely be willing to even have that information published if they had no degree of confidence in the fundamentals of the testing itself. I have not yet spoken to IR to clarify this issue. Maybe Kim could help out here? Tom F.

To: Ron who wrote (17609)	1/28/1999 8:15:00 AM
From: Chuca Marsh	Respond to of 20681

Now, lets be preparred to compare and contrast the Number 2 world producer state ( Nevada ) with some grouping of SFA low grade alluvial placer numbers in large bulk tonnages which we call the Carlin Trend as -after all we are all looking at making economic a new Carlin Stlye Mineralization! SEE : mining-technology.com SFDnumbers in Nevada from 0.03 OPT AU to 0.41 as a high number here...much lower than the average ( VBG) that I was showing the misses recently on the MGAU PR...when I said looks like a HALF OUNCE PER TON AVERAGE...she says ..oops I see some 0.25 so the average may not be .50 OPT! I said ...better look at all the numbers near point 6 ! VVBG...she smiled and ...she agreed with me. Half an ounce per ton is better ...by a factor of 40...than the Mininum Economic Standard of 0.03 OPT AU. Of that we must key into...we want MORE than 0.03...that is the goal of all these dirts...everything else is bonus money! Show us yes...and show us numbers and backups to make us comfortable. Good Morning Ron, top of the day to you. It is the weekend that will make us smile, I trust. Your seat vacancy will not be in vain. I trust. Just so Mike uses his shoe and pounds on the Table as in the Fifties ..."We will bury you!" That United Nations speach is still shown on TV sometimes..."Trust but verrify" is a much better Russian saying! Dosvaldonya - Ha...I can't spell it! Anadamher( an old local bread here that was the best DAM BREAD made by Anna- May J & L make good bread with that recipee ), and J & L better not dam bar take a doggie bag home with too much leftovers or the existing shareholders will be questioning! As here....a lesson was taught...but not ...followed thru...every deposite is different I think the Complex Ores of one area and the Non Complex ( should I say less complex ) of another...will be the test ...not a SFA ...but a Bulk Recovery test....a bench test will lead to a Pilot Plant...IMHO...if a working Pilot Plant was availbale here that just demonstrated the testing metyhods...things would be different now. Time will see if the J & L stuff is Bench Tested up to Pilot Plant Level. It starts with a bench run and we all await such here and there ( MG ) and everywhere- The (US ) OTHERS! And checks with SFAs - that is the ticket to sucess...that will be what all will wait for. Chuca