I prepared this information for some folks over on one of the RB boards but I thought some of the old DD followers over here might find it interesting. Sorry for the length.
Tim
I received a document today from the Bureau of Land Management. The title is:
Validity Examination of Six Mining Claims within the West Half of Section 14
T. 23 S., R. 63 E., Mount Diablo Meridian, Clark County, Nevada
The document is about «? thick so I am going to share what I consider to be the pertinent parts. If you wish to verify, you can contact Michael F. Dwyer at the Las Vegas BLM office.
SUMMARY
Burrett Clay and Matthew Shumaker were asked to investigate the validity of the Mijo 16 unpatented association placer mining claim, located in Section 14, T. 23 S., R.63 E. Mount Diablo Meridian, in Clark County, Nevada. The claimant, reported to us as Ian Matheson, was said to be removing common variety mineral material from the mining claim, and selling it. Matheson asserted that the mineral material was ?tailings? from his gold and silver operation. Matheson stated that, although gold was the metal of his primary interest, the material on the claim also contains platinum and related elements in very high concentrations. (First paragraph from page i.)
We(the BLM) had samples analyzed at three laboratories of Matheson?s preference. Those were White Technologies (White), in St. George, Utah, Complex Metals Research (Complex Metals), in Hurricane, Utah and Metallurgical Research and Assay Laboratory (MRAL), in Henderson, Nevada. In addition, we selected Legend and Chemex, in Reno, Nevada, and Bondar-Clegg in Vancouver, British Columbia.
The costs of assaying at White, Complex Metals, and MRAL was significantly higher than at labs normally used by the larger mining industry. Matheson attributed the additional cost to the exceptional experience of the assayers, and the individual attention that they gave to each sample. The conditions at each laboratory belied Matheson?s description. The labs ranged from cluttered in the case of MRAL, to cluttered with unsafe practices at White, to filthy at Complex Metals.
Each suite of samples that we submitted to each laboratory contained at least two blanks. All but one suite included a standard or known reference material. For samples submitted to White, Complex Metals, MRAL, and Legend, one blank was clearly marked and identified as a blank, and at least one sample from one or both of our yards, at our homes in central Arizona, was labeled as an actual Mijo group sample.
White, Complex Metals and MRAL reported that the blanks we had marked as blanks were barren of precious metals. However, for the blanks that we had labeled as actual samples, they reported very high values for precious metals. Standard and known reference materials were submitted to Complex Metals and MRAL. Their reported results did not even come close to the standard values, and there was no discernable pattern to the resulting concentration scatter. The samples that we submitted to Complex Metals were tampered with by the addition of precious metals while in the possession and control of the assayer, Jerry C. Henderson. We determined that White Technologies, Complex Metals and MRAL had reported unreliable results, so we disregarded them in our economic analysis.
Legend, Chemex, and Bondar-Clegg reported that the blanks marked as blanks were barren, and that the blanks marked as actual samples were also barren. We submitted standard and known reference materials to Legend, Chemex, and Bondar-Clegg. Their reported results were within an acceptable analysis range. We determined that the results reported by Legen, Chemex, and Bondar-Clegg were reliable, and they were used in our economic analysis.
The values of platinum and related metals that were reported to us by Matheson and his preferred assayers could not be verified. Results from traditional laboratories, including Bondar-Clegg using their nickel sulfide collector fire assay, indicated the presence of platinum group elements in concentrations no greater than the average crustal abundance of these elements. (Page ii)
Metallurgical Research and Analysis Laboratory (MRAL), Henderson, Nevada.
On May 13, 1999, we hand-delivered three samples to MRAL. These consisted of three five-gallon buckets filled with mineral matter screened to minus ¬ inch. The samples were numbered 13,14, and 15 (Attachment 11B-1). We had collected samples 13,14, and 15 earlier that morning. Sample 13 had been collected on the boundary between Mijo 16 and Mijo 17. Samples 14 and 15 were collected on the Mijo 17 and Mijo 16 respectively.
While samples 14 and 15 were being collected, Shumaker replaced Sample 13 with a complex blank, which consisted of a five gallon bucket of screened mineral matter that had been collected from his yard at his home in central Arizona. This was identical to complex blank material submitted to all other assayers under different sample numbers and blank material that was labeled by MRAL as B-1. (Paragraphs 6 & 7, page 35) Shumaker marked the bucket containing this complex blank as being Sample 13. The actual Sample 13 remains in locked storage at NTC.
We also submitted plainly-identified standards and blanks at the same time (Attachment 11B-1). The blank that we used was a split of the material from Shumaker?s yard, identical to what we submitted as Sample 13, except that we first pulverized this split in the NTC lab. One standard, which was labeled by MRAL as ?13(S-1) consisted of Nevada Bureau of Mines Standard No. 2b. The second standard was a known obtained fro Robin McCulloch, Staff Mining Engineer at the Montana Bureau of Mines and Geology. The standard consisted of Stillwater Mining Company?s platinum and palladium mill concentrates, with the company?s assay data. The concentrates contain primarily palladium, secondary platinum, with minor gold and rhodium. Stillwater uses this material as a standard in their mill process control. (Paragraphs 1 & 2, page 36.)
Although cluttered, conditions at MRAL were not as disorganized as at White Technologies or as at Complex Metals. Storage of reagents was informal. In the wet laboratory area, all exposed metal had rusted, probably due to airborne acid mist. Although MRAL personnel asserted that they had crushing and grinding apparatus, we did not see any during our visit. What appeared to be their Direct Coupled Plasma (DCP) Arc instrument (Photo L-47) was housed in a dusty office, adjacent to the main reception area.
The technique used during initial screening was sloppy. Cleaning the screen and wooden collection pan between samples consisted of tapping it against the concrete floor. The collection pan typically retained material from the previous sample (Photo L-48). Cross contamination occurred. In addition, material was frequently spilled onto the floor, and put back into the collection pan by hand. Not all spilled material was accounted for in final weights. The technique used to feed the wilfley table was similarly sloppy. The wetted material was scooped into the hopper either by hand, or using a ceramic bowl (Photo 43). Lost spillage was common (Photo 44). We did not witness weighing out of assay charges and reagents, so we cannot comment on the techniques and equipment used. However, the lab technique that we witnessed was poor, sloppy, and careless. Cross-contamination and loss of material were routine.
MRAL reported blank samples as high grade material when they were labeled as Mijo group samples, and as barren when they were identified as blanks. MRAL?s reported results fro the standards were also incorrect. They reported the gold concentration in NBMG standard 2b as 0.78 ounces per ton in one assay, and then as 1.92 ounces per ton in another. Neither were correct, and both were too high. NBMG reports gold concentration in standard 2b as 0.220 ounces per ton, plus or minus 0.008 ounces per ton. We had hoped for better accuracy on the analysis of the Stillwater Mining Company?s Pt and Pd mill concentrates. MRAL reported zero platinum, where they should have found 17.2 ounces per ton. Even allowing for poor lab technique and inaccuracy, some platinum should have been reported. On the other hand, MRAL reported 96.68 ounces per ton of palladium when they should have found 58.5 ounces per ton. Even adding the MBMG standard values for platinum and palladium together still does not produce 96.68 ounces per ton. (Page 38)
The poor lab technique and wildly incorrect results for blanks and standards cause all the results reported by MRAL to be suspect. They must be disregarded for this examination. The problems that we found cast considerable doubt on any assays reported by this laboratory. We believe that results reported by MRAL, Donald Jordan, or the staff of MRAL should not be accepted at face value by the BLM for any purpose, and that independent analysis of verifiable samples by an unrelated, competent lab must be required. (Paragraph 1, page 39) |
