Hi Rick, this is what I thought also, but I have a couple of nagging questions:
On April 17, 1996, IPM reported on the chloride leach tests that gave them .046. These were the "March 1996" chloride leach numbers.
In November 1996, IPM reported on its new recovery process, which gave them .25 opt. In their December 19, 1996 PR, IPM stated that the .046--.25 discrepency was attributable to the improved recovery process. It appeared that a fire assay had not yet been developed that gave similar numbers as the November 1996 process (a point that created great controversy, as we know).
In May 1996, IPM reported that bulk tests using the November 1996 process had no degradation in recovery. Still no fire assay, however.
On June 24 1997, IPM reported that: (1) AuRIC had recovered .3 opt gold and significant quantities of other precious metals, from concentrate derived from the November 1996 process, and (2) IPM also reported that AuRIC had run a fire assay on samples collected 500 metres from the holes that had resulted in these excellent recoveries, and that the assay numbers came close to the recovery numbers. IPM thus reported that it appeared to have a repeatable fire assay.
Now, in November 1997, it turns out that the fire assay is not sufficiently consistent, and the November 1996 recovery process is "not economic." IPM has, however, reported that it has a modified fire assay that is evidently sufficiently consistent to allow them to clear out their sample backlog.
In its FAQ, to demonstrate the consistency of the modified fire assay, IPM compares the numbers from the modified fire assay to the numbers obtained from the March 1996 chloride leach method. But, as described above, the March 1996 numbers were discounted by IPM in favor of the November 1996 recovery process that yielded the much higher numbers. Does this mean those higher recovery numbers are no longer valid? Or, if the AuRIC fire assay was wrong, were the numbers obtained from the November 1996 process wrong as well? And if those numbers were wrong, how was it that IPM and AuRIC were able to actually recover gold in those quantities (remember "gold in hand")?
All intelligent responses are invited
Regards, Otter. |
