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: Carlo who wrote (19081)	5/11/1999 9:28:00 AM
From: Tom Frederick	Respond to of 20681

Carlo, Ledoux, has spent the last 100 years building a reputation in the mining industry as a company with high standards and unquestioned integrity. Ledoux took on this project with full knowledge of all past activities and the problems with the past assays. Either they were fining metal or they weren't. Tests say they were finding metal and they have said they stand behind all tests prior to the "accident". A company like this can get out of a contract by simply saying "sorry guys, we can't find anything worth while in your ore" The WORST thing they could do to get out of a project is with sloppy adherance to protocol risking their own reputation as a reliable lab. It is my opinion that after a LOOONNNGGGGG time working on solving this problem, management, above Paul Blumberg, said "Paul, you can keep playing with this, but you have to get our best people off of it to work on our key clients." So the scene is set for less experienced people working on highly experimental methods. The odds for a screw up rise dramatically. Carlo, there were many mistakes, and if you ask people who spend time in the mining business you'll find out that this is an industry riddled with missed deadlines, broken equipment, bad breaks, etc. etc. It's the nature of the beast. But too many times we want desperately to find the nefarious needs and complicated behind-the-scenes events that explain our problems instead of looking at things for what they are. Tom F.

To: Carlo who wrote (19081)	5/11/1999 9:40:00 AM
From: Jerry in Omaha	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 20681

Mr. Carlo, <<Don't you think that this is all mysteriously related? For business reasons someone high up at Ledoux probably said "it's time to ditch Naxos. Figure out how to do it.">> So you're suggesting Naxos was sandbagged by Ledoux? I agree it would have been the simplest of things to do, premature opening of COC containers, work zone contamination, and then, without so much as, "So long and thanks for all the cash," Ledoux is distant smoke on a receding horizon. I've posted to the thread the fact that Ledoux's involvement with Franklin Lake goes back at least as far as the early 1960s. I for one would love to read a precis of all the information Ledoux has collected on Franklin Lake during their long involvement. I never have received from anyone in the company anywhere near a satisfactory explanation of the events surrounding Ledoux's hasty departure from the scene. I have not been able to establish any conclusive cause and effect relationship leading to such an abrupt drastic reversal in events and positions. The consequences of "lab contamination" at Ledoux should have led to re-testing not a terminal disconnection from life support. This mystery is compounded by Ledoux's apparent willingness to stand by earlier numbers. (Unless Carlo, as you have suggested, the possible COC tampering was just another sandbagging "accident" just waiting to happen.) I do know one thing, however. It will take a C-5 full of cash and an army of attorneys to put all the puzzle pieces together. Jerard P