Global Platinum & Gold (GPGI) Message Board

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Gold/Mining/Energy : Global Platinum & Gold (GPGI)

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next

To: Zeev Hed who wrote (5670)	4/10/1998 1:10:00 AM
From: Larry Brubaker	Read Replies (2) of 14226

<<Having said that, unless the sample that I was given a year ago is not representative, I measured with X-ray fluorescence 110 PPM of AU in it and am still at a loss understanding the COC results.>> Zeev: There are not many people on the internet whose word I take at face value but you are one. If you say you measured 110 PPM, I believe that is true. To my simple math (assuming a ton equals 2,000 lbs, which I think in mining is a little off), 110 PPM = ~3.5 opt. The same thing has bothered me about the "bonanza" PR. Why would the results be so much lower than previous claims. Some have attributed this to the fact the lower assay did not use GPGI's "proprietary catalyst," (whatever that means). Am I correct in assuming your X-Ray flouresence measurement did not involve GPGI's "proprietary catalyst?" Is it possible that X-Ray flouresence could measure values almost 10-fold greater than a more standard fire assay? What other possible explanations are there besides the obvious one that your sample was non-representative? Were you allowed to scoop your sample at random from the ore pile, or was it already waiting for you?

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next