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: KRosenfeld who wrote (19258)	6/2/1999 6:52:00 AM
From: Henry Volquardsen	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 20681

ditto

To: KRosenfeld who wrote (19258)	6/2/1999 8:29:00 AM
From: Richard Mazzarella	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 20681

KR, <<precious metals in FL that can be gotten to economically>> None of the desert dirts have proof. However, Gardner put out a letter where he says that he has more than one process to recover metal from FL. Why be concerned about process if there aren't metals? To fail based solely on wishful thinking is death. Naxos said they would report on the results of their pilot plant this month. They should have already reported seeing recovery of metals irrespective of quantity to help their stock. I'm concerned they haven't done that, no recovery at all? My main concern hasn't been if there are metals, but only the economics for a potentially difficult mineralization. I can speculate that if Naxos is realizing recovery it could reported at any time to support the stock and fend off that idiot priest, but they still may require more time to determine optimal economics. Just reporting metal on the table would juice speculation for the stock IMO. This may allow a short term paper play with the verdict out for the long term until more is learned, my speculation.

To: KRosenfeld who wrote (19258)	6/2/1999 9:33:00 AM
From: Tom Frederick	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 20681

Ken, You address two completely different issues in your post. 1) Are there precious metals at FL? 2) Can they be recovered economically? As far as question 1 goes, if you take the ASE at their word that JJ put out misleading statements, why don't you take the President of the ASE for his word that "he had no doubt that there was gold at FL"? You can't have it both ways. There have been many reports from a variety of sources some COC, some not, some certified, some not, but all pointing to some level of precious metals at FL. Even Ledoux has continued to stand behind the previous results showing gold, platinum, etc. outside of the last round which were "contaminated". You would have to say an awful lot of people with reputations at stake all coordinated with Naxos to create that biggest, most elaborate scam around to conclude that they were all lying. As far as the second point goes, here is where you are on solid ground. This is the $60 million question. And that is what the pilot plant is supposed to prove to us once and for all. The answers to both questions can be mutually exclusive. We may have PM's but they may NOT be recoverable. We may have PM's and they may be recoverable with marginal profit. We may have PM's and they may be extremely profitable to recover. The answer to this question of profitable recovery is the contribution of Great Lakes. They are playing with the ore to determine the optimal mix of chemicals to ensure maximum recovery of PM's out of the ore. And there is no sense running the plant until the proper levels of all elements in the process is determined. Great Lakes has the patent on the chemicals related to the bromine leach method. So they know better than anyone how to optimize their use. AND they are doing this work for FREE! This is very smart business. We each have our own opinions regarding the likelyhood of success for Naxos. But I personally don't believe a credible case can be made to say that there are no PM's at FL in the face of dozens and dozens of assay reports, many from perfectly reputable firms, that say otherwise. Tom F.