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: Paul Salber who wrote (18449)	4/6/1999 10:43:00 AM
From: Tom Frederick	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 20681

Paul, At this point in time, Naxos as in investment for anyone should be considered an all or nothing proposition. And in that scenario, either liquidate now or hold till it's over. There is no middle ground. The directors have chosen a course and nothing is going to change that course of action. So grumbling about the direction they chose is, at best, useless. So here is what you have to go on... Bob Gardners letter of Dec 23, 98 clarifies many key points. First, J/L proved nothing on FL ore. Second, Venezuela is a dead issue Third, Dekka, while apparently on the right track, was stopped Fourth, Naxos opened the gates to any takers who wanted to play with the ore. Fifth, Fire assay, or assays by themselves, in general were realized to have no value in improving the stock price Sixth, Recovery was key, with assay providing supporting documentation Seventh, Northwest analytical showed, for the first time, real recovery on COC ore of .26 Au opt and this process was going to additional labs to verify the validity. Following this letter, Press Release #99-1 showed results on fire assay analyzed by Atomic absorption with values from .19 to .26 and a blank showing, thank God, nothing. This was on COC ore, but as Naxos considered this research, they did not push for certification. Their intention was to have these results verified by a referee lab. In the history of the company we have not had ANY recovery numbers. Now at least we have recovery and assays that MATCH! But Naxos was careful not to hype up the results. They were very matter of fact and even low key emphasizing the need to have results verified. Now, do you suppose between the recovery mentioned on Dec. 23, the assay release of Jan 22 of 99', the appointment of Martin Blake in February and the completion of the pilot plant on March 18 they did any work on repeating any of these tests at all? Or do you suppose that they have been sitting on their hands? I don't have any more information than you do, but with the wording and intentions outlined in both the assay and recovery announcements it seemed clear that Naxos was not taking these things at face value. Therefor, I personally believe that Naxos likely has supporting information to justify the building of the pilot plant. Otherwise why not just keep testing? Why spend money on this pilot plant with this format if they don't believe they have a chance of success? Could it be a complete shot in the dark? Could be, but with the new board made up of shareholders just like you and me, who also want to see some kind of return on their investment, I would say it's not likely they approved this direction unless they were given some good reasons to do so. However, having said that, no one can know for sure if it will work until they do it. I have been in Naxos for over 4 years now. I have no intention of giving up on it now. We have had too many tests which show metal in that ore for me to believe nothing is there. The only real question is if there is a method of recovery that actually works economically, and if there is an assay which can provide a quick method of determining the ore body size. Recent tests seem to imply that might have both, but only time will tell. I hope we all are rewarded for our patience. Tom F.

To: Paul Salber who wrote (18449)	4/6/1999 12:01:00 PM
From: Henry Volquardsen	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 20681

Paul, Fwiw I agree with almost everything in that post. The one possible exception is the comment about current management fiddling as it crumbles. You may be right but I'm not sure yet. It is possible current management is trying to make their best shot at Franklin Lake with their current limited resources. They don't appear to be operating in the same rumour and fantasy drenched manner of the past. You may, however, be right. I do agree with your characterization of previous management. Henry