Yes, I did mean May 1997 for that PR, thanks.
I understand a "recovery process" to involve two concepts, what you get when its over, and what it cost you to get that. As far as I know, IPM has never stated what the costs of its process would be, presumably because they didn't know. They did, however, state what they thought the outcome would be: .25 on head grade ore that had yielded much lower using te chloride leach method, see the December 19 1996 PR.
Now IPM sez that bateman sez this method is not economic. I assumed this meant they have enough of a handle on the costs to know it will be too expensive, even with .25 opt in some locations. I did not think this meant the previous recovery numbers were wrong, because IPM did not say they were in the November 14 PR.
Now that IPM is referring back to the March 1996 .046 chloride leach numbers as a benchmark, however, I fear that the November 1996 recoveries have been debunked. The rejection of the AuRIC fire assay, which confirmed numbers derived from the November 1996 process, is not making me feel any better. If IPM has reason to know that its previous reported recoveries are WRONG, as opposed to NON-ECONOMIC, the company has an obligation to come out and say so.
If the November 1996 numbers are out the window because they were wrong, then we are truly back to .046, and it is not simply a question of where on BRX Bateman got their samples from. I do not want IPM to wait until it comes up with another recovery process before it answers that question.
Regards, Otter |
