Laser,
The fact that adjustments have to be made frequently to the processing at this early stage in the evolution of a standard procedure is not surprising or unusual. You seem to want a finished process right off.
Actually, a reliable method has not been demonstrated and this I refer to in an earlier post where I indicated that R&D activity has been intermixed with production, a terrible error. IMO shipments 1 and 2, which yielded returns from Sabin slightly better than the assays at the mill, was pure chance. But, and this is important, it did demonstrate not reliability, but the presence and recoverability of pgms. Then, again by chance, shipments 3 and 4 fell far short of the assays at the mill. This is the failure to operate with a systematic and regulated procedure at the mill. Again, this is why I fault the mill personnel (although one may certainly wonder why this was allowed to go on).
Further, you are justified in quoting from the web site release of 9/10 which refers to assays showing profound increases in the quantity of metal present in the resin. While this statement was true it was based on faulty sampling IMO, which I also referred to in an earlier post when I wrote of the inadequate records and sampling errors.
There is no doubt that bad mistakes and deficiencies in management have occurred. This I stipulate to you, therefore there is no point in further belaboring the issue. Let it rest and as you accurately state, we should await the results of McKays efforts.
Regards, Ed |
