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: Tim Hall who wrote (17611)	1/27/1999 5:03:00 PM
From: Tom Frederick	Respond to of 20681

Mr. Hall, What you say may be true in a "legal" sense within state borders, but as we have learned, along with many other junior mining companies, is that the industry as a whole has a very clear understanding of what is certified and what is not. In the case of Golden Eagle, they had a property in South America at which they were claiming a "worlds largest" deposit of gold based on hundreds of assays done by their own lab. Well, the SEC came down hard on them because they didn't meet some basic, well accepted parameters of proof of the accuracy of their assays. You can be sure that Barrick has ONE set of criteria is wants when searching for properties for exploration or purchase. You can bet that AngloGold doesn't take a lesser level of proof in New Mexico than it does in Indonesia just because of some unique state laws. So while there may be some loopholes within some state, or country for that matter, to operate a business and call something "certified", the reality is that you still have to prove it to the market as a whole, and the market is quite clear about what parameters of "certification" are worth their weight in... well...Gold I guess! Tom F.