<<Bateman only said Auric's deal is crap, period. They did not say we can do better>>
(all is IMO, speculation, conjecture to the best of my knowledge...)
Dennis if you are refering to the "deal" only (which assumes the process or assay worked fine) then with one peek at our market cap we obviously know who was mistaken.
If you are refering to the efficacy of AuRic's fire assay, Bateman has said nothing of the kind, that I know of or can find evidence of. IPM abandoned the AuRic assay I believe in late September, and reported nothing. After the PR, in responce to outcry from SI and shareholders about "the AuRic assay"... We got two pieces of information: Ron Struthers reported it worked fine, only problem was "too expensive"... and IPMs FAQ, belatedly disclosed it didn't pass muster with 3rd party review. Which is interesting. Which 3rd party? When? Certainly not BD or Bateman's review -- wouldn't that require immediete disclosure? And I don't think they review assays. Could it be a lab's review? Which lab? Mountain States?
Now, that would be interesting, as I know from my research at the time that Mr. Altinay from AuRic was allowed to only spend only _two_ days teaching his assay to this lab which possibly didn't even have the proper equipment and type of ovens to run it. I believe subsequently the low number assay from the PR was worked on frantically by Mountain States w/IPM for nearly sixty days... And in fact, the PR assay work was run by Mountain States in IPMs house lab -- I assume because of the more suitible ovens. I believe this was done by Mountain States metalurgist Mr. Hightower, an expert in gravity and concentration not fire assaying.
This whole sequence of events if acurate, once again defies logic to me.
There is no evidence that Bateman developed the assay in the PR, and from people I know who have interviewed them I'd say it is doubtful.
Bear in mind there are TWO issues being discussed here. Assay and Revovery process. They are quite different.
LG |
