Platinum from Pluto
You have to make the decisions on what to do tomorrow, not the people who post , you the reader. I will not try to make that decision for you. I will tell you that the recipe given is Scissors is not a real one. I made it up, there is no Mrs. Sharpe, there is no "Canadian Hunters Handbook". Imagine that. Distrust me if you wish.
That is the crux of the situation, who do you trust here. If the trust you place in a person or company is misplaced, only you can decide to withdraw your trust and support. If you have been reading my posts then you know I don't think you have any reason to trust this company. You can believe what you want. A casual reading of the companies press would lead one to believe that .04 had been verified, the company has maintained for several months that they had a "verified assay" method. If you are an owner of this stock, you have to decide what is the truth. You are trapped here as Mr. Wetterau pointed out in a rehash of company bylaws.
exchange2000.com
It turns out that the company has no "verified fire assay". You can believe me or not, just go look it up. Bateman is in the clear here. Bateman has clearly stated that they have not examined anything which is economic.
They have a laboratory scale method rather than a recovery process. The difference between the two is that a recovery process can be scaled up to a commercial system.
Whatever they are doing in the trailer, it isn't economic, they told you so...
<<But since the recovery method is considered by Bateman to be non-commercial, they believed the amounts were not relevant.>>
Bateman says they are using the "nominated recovery process" and it is not economic. Bateman has not been associated with "fire assays" in any fashion.
The "derived fire assay" was announced, then shot down, Behre Dolbear wouldn't verify it, they are of course, the auditors. You can presume your "modified fire assay" has been verified if you want, you can presume it is real or not. The lab that "verified" recovery of metal using the "modified fire assay" did not "verify the assay", that was the auditors job and I only need to point out this :
<<Yes we did; however, the assay procedure announced in June did not withstand the rigors of third party review.>>
So the "modified assay" used by the lab to "verify" the recovery of metals is "unverified". If you can find anything in the company literature to point out that a "verified fire assay" is available, please let me know.
All that is required to change the meaning of a statement is the changing of a single word...listen.
Phrasing used by your company.
<<Independent verification by the modified fire assay procedures confirms gold and silver at Black Rock,...>>
Rephrased by Graystone to tell a lie
<<Independent verification of the modified fire assay procedures confirms gold and silver at Black Rock, ...>>
Don't you love the English language.
Some more
"In achieving the ability to assay Black Rock material".
The company is claiming (again) that they have achieved something of a milestone. This milestone is very similar to other milestones that the company has claimed to reach. The only problem with this scenario is that they go on the record here a few days later with this:
<<Yes we did; however, the assay procedure announced in June did not
withstand the rigors of third party review.>>
So the assay announced in June did not pass the independent verification program. Is anyone going to "verify" the modified fire assay, "likley" not.
What IPM(CF) said
<<IPM now has a procedure that allows for the determination of a head
grade..>>
<<Yes we did; however, the assay procedure announced (whenever) did not withstand the rigors of third party review.>>
How long will you allow this to go on.
Now to do a calculation of "ore resource" you must have a "verified fire assay", not verification of the presence of metals using a "modified fire assay". If this is all a little confusing, don't worry it is meant to be. No one will sign off on any "assay" because the assays are "derived" from the recovery process and the recovery process is "uneconomic". The statement that they will assay 2100 samples is likely true, it is your money, if you think they are telling the truth when they say the are calculating an "ore resource", that is not my problem. They can't do it.
Chuca Marsh, The Northern Miner
exchange2000.com
Chuca, when the Northern Miner comes out, please show us where it mentions that a "verified (put anything here) assay" is available. You might also look for platinum Numbers, Bateman was going to test platinum numbers and they said
What did Bateman tell you ?
<<But since the recovery method is considered by Bateman to be non-commercial, they believed the amounts were not relevant.>>
Keep in mind the role Behre Dolbear plays here in regards to platinum.
<<IPM wishes to state clearly that it has neither retained nor requested Behre Dolbear to have any involvement with PGMs-nor does it intend to do so.>>
If any platinum numbers are reported, they won't be Batemans, will they ?
If any platinum numbers are reported, they won't be Behre Dolbears, will they ?
Who is left ?
That leaves IPM(CF) to report on the platinums, I wonder what they will believe to be a "reasonably outrageous" claim. I wonder if they believe it to be true, I would if I had bylaws like the ones described by Wetterau.
They will "likely" be achieved by using an "unverified assay procedure" "modifed" from a "derived fire assay" which didn't withstand "verification". The uneconomic "recovery process" is "likely" involved with all material that has been "assayed" so far.
I believe there is lots of platinum on Pluto and if we don't consider the cost of getting there, the grades look very good.
Quoting the writer of an Internet Newsletter.
As we mentioned before, whether or not we cover this company or any other should not determine their success. If they require us to achieve this, then you need to seriously re-evaluate your investment decision and objectives.
The fishermen have very good nets, they planned it that way.
On a final note, remember that sentiment does not have to be mushy, it just has to be real. This was posted to the thread the day before the BIG RELEASE, I believe it.
exchange2000.com |
