Jim is super busy I suspect. He was talkative last week in my initial call tracking him down. They are aware of concerns. Just a transition thing I suspect. As I said before I feel that they have the metals there. I have seen viens in volcanics, and the dirt around it abutting and touching on my own claims far far away DID SFA out small mini majic numbers. Hundreds of miles away, but a flow is a flow. A Butte is a BEAUT! An ASH is not an ash tray.
Now, a old Marriah Guy lives in Massachusetts about an hour from me, and I have a summary part that I will place from that OLD 1992 file that was going arround to the OLD STOCKHOLDERS and may of been in the Old NRs that Guildmark looked at to decide to mergew into Marriah...as you all KNOW I AM A LARGE Private Placement Holder for over 2 years until i declarred a sale ( at the top, I might say!) ( But that is just investing 101- no hard feelings guys!)( OK, i-202 or 303...LOL) HERE GOES, I hope I am not doing anything wrong I have had this part of the disk UNOPENED UNTILLL TODAY in my desk drawer here for months under my new Celeron P-2 machine since i brought it in here( now, what near a year old and 87 % full in the GIGs DRIVES! C Drive and D Drive! ). RE: I hope it is OK, I will BLOCK out with XXXs any name BUT I will not TOUCH any number ( mill run NOT Registered AZ State Seals are any mention that I see in my today read )
HERE GOES:
( Tim, it just might be the Silicas, LOL:)
Summary of Results and Main Process Parameters
Bulk Sampling and Column Flotation Tests -- Merrill Crater Deposit
The statistics from the bulk sampling test, as shown in XXXXXXX X's report of November 23, 1992, are summarized in the table on the next page. The Notes immediately below the table point out a couple of discrepancies in that report, and the assumptions made in trying to analyze the data. The discussion of Concentration and Refining Results reflects figures which were reported subsequent to the date of Mr. X's report. Although not articulated, it's assumed that short tons are used.
The combined data raise a number of questions about the procedures used, and the measurements taken. Among them:
1. The concentration ratios shown, versus the final weight of concentrate produced. Dividing the tonnage of each sample by the concentration ratio gives an implied weight of concentrate from that sample:
Concentration Implied Weight
Sample No. Sample Size Ratio Shown of Concentrate
#1 21 tons (42,000 lb.) 3,035 to 1 13.839 lb.
#2 24 tons (48,000 lb.) 1,995 to 1 24.060 lb.
#3 20 tons (40,000 lb.) 811 to 1 49.322 lb.
#4 25 tons (50,000 lb.) 364 to 1 137.363 lb.
#5 24 tons (48,000 lb.) 2,190 to 1 21.918 lb.
Implied Total Weight of Concentrate Produced: 246.502 lb.
The sum of these calculations is substantially more than the total of 104 pounds of concentrate reported. This would suggest that some of the tails were re-concentrated -- most likely those of Samples #3 and #4, since the tails from those samples were several times richer than the raw ore in Samples #1 and #2. This is not discussed in the report.
2. The wide range in the raw ore assays raises questions about the adequacy of the sampling process used, whether the head ore assay figure for each sample is a reliable "average" for that lot, and how the assays for each lot can be reconciled with the reported totals. The simple arithmetic of multiplying the head ore assay for each sample times its tonnage results in a greater total number of implied ounces contained:
Head Ore Implied Ounces
Sample No. Sample Size Assay of Gold Contained
#1 21 tons 0.05 oz./ton 1.05
#2 24 tons 0.11 oz./ton 2.64
#3 20 tons 0.66 oz./ton 13.20
#4 25 tons 1.44 oz./ton 36.00
#5 24 tons 0.142 oz./ton 3.41
Implied Total Ounces of Gold Contained 56.30
The question here is: How does one reconcile the 56+ ounces implied above with the 16.188 ounce figure obtained when multiplying the total tonnage (114 tons) by the "average" assay of 0.142? For example, if the assay for Sample #4 is a valid average for that 25-ton lot, it implies that this 25 tons alone contained more than twice as much gold as the 16.188 ounce figure reported for the entire 114 tons. Again, how can this be reconciled?
3. In the same vein, the richness of the head ore assays on Samples #3 and #4, versus the extreme leanness of Sample #1, raises questions of how the overall "average" (0.142) for the 114-ton lot was derived; and which set of figures is valid -- the indicated "average" assay for each sample, or the indicated "average" for the entire 114 tons. They cannot both be valid, because they simply don't reconcile.
The basic question is: "What are the explanations for these apparent arithmetic discrepancies?" These questions are not addressed in X's report, but hopefully he can provide clarification. ..>>
The Date is 1992
Chucka 1999 will be all our years! OK, maybe 2,000 but we will show movement in 1999, I hope. Notice that date Nov 23, 1992 that was a Lucky 7 Years Ago! My My My. Lots of mines have that name! TO THE DAY- TODAY! Very APPRO, No??? ?
P.S.- Disclosure- None, no seen need, now; maybe in the future, afterall- I call folks! LOL
P.P.S.- Repeat after me: "The METAL IS THERE...The METAL IS THERE...The METAL IS THERE...or in 1992 The METAL WAS THERE...The METAL "IS" THERE...The METAL WAS THERE...or The METAL NEEDS TO BE TWEEKED SOME AGAIN IN THERE... " ; YES??? ?
P.P.P.S.- Of special note is the BULK SIZE they did early on. Big. |
