Jim - Thanks for sharing your discussion with IR today. It sounds like they (you) have clarified the question that some have asked (and some have presumed was answered) re: were the methods used to get the 1/12 results the same as the methods used to get the 3/12 results. And NAXIS is saying, yes, those procedures were the same, it was apples to apples. And that the J/L process is still a work in progress, hence the varying results.
A work in progress, even by someone as experienced with the process as Ledoux, who, on Hole 5 from 150 -175' got 1.72 in the 1/12/98 release and then got 0.082 on the same sample of the same section of the same hole using the same assay methods on 3/12. Only variable would be that the latter sample was pre-processed by CMRI, but apparently Dr. J was monitoring their work.
Although I was hoping that wasn't the answer, I was guessing that it was. I appreciate the straightforwardness of NAXOS and IR on this point. I also feel if Jim or I have misinterpreted NAXOS IR and this situation, that Kim or someone from NAXOS should straighten us out ASAP as to me this is a pivotal point.
It makes me conclude that this ore/process is very difficult to deal with (much more than I had assumed), but, as others have said, if it was there once via assay, it really is there, even though subsequent assay may not show it.
To me, that says all the other numbers in this survey may be much greater than we are feeling, we just need to go back to the lab, so to speak. Like Mark, I guess I'm starting to feel better about all this myself. And If PJ's banker friends like it, that's not a bad thing. Hope everyone has a nice weekend.
Carl Schrock |
