Richard: As a card-carrying Maxam skeptic, I have to ask some questions about Maxam's explanations for their recent problems. I hope you don't mind <VBG>.
<<The first was the COC reported in press release 05/15/98. There was a screw up with the instrumentation, all the values were bogus.>>
So we are to believe that all of the 100s of assays reported to us WITHOUT COC were just fine. It wasn't until they did a COC test that all of the sudden the instrumentation went haywire? Seems a little difficult to believe.
<<The next problem was the ore taken for the bulk assay. It was one of the worst areas of metal concentration on the whole property, you couldn't find a worst ore area.>>
For months now, we were led to believe that Maxam had an excellent handle on the vagaries of their ore. Remember the very detailed map showing the hotspots in color on the website? Plus, all of these 100s of assays on their ore, but then they just happen to select the worst area of concentration for a bulk test? Seems a little difficult to believe.
<<Next comes the reason why Maxam can't do anymore large bulk testing at the location they had the poor result. The consultant that was doing the testing wasn't going to get the required air quality permit. They weren't about to get a permit just for Maxam's work. They would have to qualify their whole operation while Maxam was only a small part of their activities>>
Maxam's PR's and President's Messages led us to believe that Maxam had built a 10-tpd pilot plant, not that they were renting space at a consultant's facility. At any rate, even if this new explanation is correct, nobody realized they were going to have to get an air quality permit for testing? Also, is this statement to suggest that while Maxam is a small part of the consultant's activities, it is the ONLY part of these activities which required an air quality permit? Seems a little difficult to believe.
More Maxam mumbo jumbo, IMO. |
