<<Lew - I'm a little confused by this statement...>>
Caveat: this is in apples n oranges, as I understand it, but I'm not a scientist. However, even among the PhD's I've interviewed over the last year I get dissagreements and different schools of thought on many things regarding metalurgy/mining.
<<One metalurgist told me there are "concentrate fire assays" well known at many labs>>
<I was under the impression that whatever lab is doing the work would use the assay developed/specified by IPM over the past several months and not one of their own.>
Read my previous post about IPM on a "dual track" verification program. These are separate.
The last IPM PR, and the numbers we are anxiously awaiting are from the _recovery_ track. End product from running the recovery process on bulk samples/batches (large amounts, kilos) of ore. If you were at the AGM, the display in the case showed this end product (concentrate) which looks like lead pencil dust.
This must then be analyized for content, and IPM has not to my knowledge been developing an in house method for that. To analyize concentrat (end product, annode sludge etc.) one must either refine (chemically strip out) the individual metals, or fire assay the concentrate looking for the metals. Also, I believe this analysis must be done someplace(s) of the auditors choice, not IPMs.
As for the "IPM" fire assay spoken about at the AGM. That is specifically for assaying small samples (grams) of _ore_, raw out of the ground dirt, for the purpose of proving resource/reserves. At the AGM, we were told they had just been presented (from a vendor I suppose) with a fire assay that look very promising. I assume they've been working on it since. If they achieve (have achieved?)it, it will have to be:
1. Highly specialized, to mitigate the complexity/masking/interference inherient in the micro-fine/refractory ore that have made off-the-shelf assays fail or read inconssistantly.
2. Easy and conventional enough to get a mainstream, mass production assay lab to be able to learn it and reproduce it expertly, so they will be willing to stick their necks out adopting/reporting with it.
IMO, with most labs it is teaching an old dog new tricks, and balancing 1 and 2 is a challenge.
But again, what we are waiting for currently, because the last PR left no room for doubt that the goods were shipped off, and results must be coming back, was for _concentrate_, end-product of an audit of the recovery process, first track, of the verification program. The state of IPMs second track fire assay work is a mystery to me at this point.
Lew Green |
