<<They have told him what they found>>
Let me cut through the subtext. I would guess they told Thall what he wanted to hear: no au or pt. at Black Rock. Thall has now brought his due diligence up to the level of Nyal Niemuth.
Bill, I believe all this subtext is regarding the desire to "test" IPM dirt privately. I now have a much clearer understanding of this then when it came up on Thall's thread months ago. The PM's at black rock are in a complex mineralization and does not easily assay -- that is precisely what makes this thing so controversial!
Bear in mind there are no fences, the area is immense and right off the Interstate and if it were this simple it would have been staked or bought out hundreds of times over before IPM. Any "off-the-shelf" fire assay or the atomic spectrometry etc... you've talked about will yield results no different than Kilborn or Azbom got in 1994. IPM would not have gone through all this hell if it were otherwise. Certainly, Cap Guardian or any of IPM's institutional holders, some with staff scientists, would not have failed to consider this if it was plausible.
Now if you "cat" wants to drill several representative holes to some _depth_ and then concentrate, according to Dr. Shaw, kitty will find some measurable gold -- I believe free gold. Also, one can AA (atomic absorption) the leachate -- so if Thall can experiment with Cloride leaches for a year or so, he might be able to re-create IPMs earlier .046. Then again, he could get together with Zeev and try to recreate the current system, and maybe in a few years they can give us the definative answer.
I believe the problem for walking in the door at any commercial lab with IPM dirt is due to the extremely microfine and complex nature of the mineralization -- and my research is also revealing the possibility of certain PGE's masking results when interacting with Au. Below is a link regarding this and the whole problem with commercial fire assays:
techstocks.com
Bear in mind the fact that IPM announced a fire assay is no small feat! It has taken years to find one that is repeatable. I think Mr. Furlong writing "standard" may have been misinterpreted. I asked Eli and he agreed, that what was meant was a unique but repeatable fire assay, using conventional technology -- nothing exotic. It is not however the "standard" off the shelf assay the Canadian exchanges insist everyone must use. As I understand it, IPMs will involve a _specific_ mix of just the right fluxes, as well as temperatures and materials. These careful parameters overcome the difficulties in the mineralization, and I am told it is not too hard for other labs to be taught to repeat -- hence it will become a "standard fire assay" for IPM, and acceptable to BD etc...
So if your feline friend wants to dig a bit deeper, I am afraid he has his work cut out for him. Me, I'm gonna continue to sit back and enjoy my hard earned equilibrium, and give IPM a chance to make the case.
Lew Green |
