<< that the Hassy material was not included in any of the assays >>
Ed & Richard...I don't know whether Hassy material was omitted from the samples/tests or not, but both MM and RJ seemed to say (by phone) that the point was to make comparisons of ALL properties to determine
a) the ores with the highest precious metals concentrations, and
b) the ores that best lend themselves to extraction.
Whether Hassy was among them is still not clear, but the arithmetic might be a clue: 12 samples = three properties x four samples each?
I plotted the twelve assays (x four elements) using the X-axis as opt and the Y-axis as the non-continuous (categorical - sample #) dimension. The patterns were encouraging, because the consistency of the across-sample variability [that is to say the elements' values go up and down in tight formation together across samples] really jumped right out at me, suggesting that
a) the within-sample differences between the elements are consistent (and low) and thus
b) these ores appear to have similar proportions of elements if not amounts of them. [Problem is, the differences between samples could be attributable to actual sampling variation (true differences between the ores) or sampling/assaying error, or a combination and I'm not sure how they will determine which - however, with numbers so high for all of these samples, it tends to make one's shoulders shrug with unconcern!].
I hope the press release will answer the above and other questions tomorrow. Here is my list:
1) Was it 4 x 3 = 12? [i.e., was Hassy included?]
2) Where are the best numbers? Most variability? Optimum mix of these?
3) When were the samples pulled [or] how did we get these values so quickly, e.g., rhodium [or perhaps no metal was ever produced, just AA or other measure used]? Were these determined by a contract lab? [If so am guessing that they were done at the Iseman Lab using a "wet" method, where one sample can be used very efficiently to show several different element constituents]. Was the electrowinning done in-house?
4) What variables were held constant, e.g., mesh size, fluxes used in smelts, etc.? What variables [e.g., "makeshift analytical equipment"] could not be held constant and could be sources of mystery variance? [BTW, I am not asking for proprietary secrets here, only for what can be discussed aloud.]
5) Can you give us some idea of the different mineralizations and their differences, and your opinion as to their implications for ease/difficulty of extraction? E.g., iron at OG - how difficult will this be to remove [sorry, this may be well-understood by other posters, but this bear of small brain knows it not].
6) I'm a little puzzled by (seemingly) aggressive March timetable to production. How is it that Global/MM can conduct sixteen tests in less than two weeks and then make a significant company course correction? If Global could not meet timetables (or consistently send goodie-laden shipments) before, and the pulp-resin approach is only in tests, how can it be assured that 3/31 shipments can be met? [In other words, from whence flows all this confidence?].
7) What about AZDEQ? Has Global decided to shift from a zero-emissions program? If so, what is the timetable for that - doesn't production depend on meeting their requirements?
8) Sorry if I am dense on this point but - are these planned shipments to consist of pregnant pulp-resin? What size of shipments are we talking about initially, growing to what future size(s) following what sort of timetable?
9) Where are the eight samples from that were sent to the contract concentrator firm? [am I correct in assuming they are WC and OG?] - and are they tied to (can they be correlated with) eight of the twelve just reported on (or if they are not, why not?).
10) Can you give us some idea of what financing proposals are being entertained presently and what the timetable is for that?
TIA for all the above.
Scott |
