SI
SI
discoversearch

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 : International Precious Metals (IPMCF) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Alan Vennix who wrote (26369)11/15/1997 4:47:00 AM
From: Bob Jagow  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 35569
 
Had to dig, Alan, but guess you refer to my "average 0.046 Au from
COC chloride-leach samples" reported in the '96 10-K had some weasel words re COC (although it was claimed to be in the data filed with AZ authorities)"

I think they have failed to clarify their fire assay (will allow your 'FA' here and revert later my funnymental analysis usage :)), but have trouble with "I think it important to differentiate between the two [types of] tests as far as actual numbers are concerned."
Though many here want to spin that 0.08 FA could be/would be consistent with 0.25 recoveries, it is hard for me to swallow in that they certainly had to calibrate/determine the accuracy of the FA procedure, presumably by addition of known amounts of gold.
Were it the case that head ore containing 0.25 opt Au consistently assayed as 0.08 opt, methinks it would be incumbent upon them to so state. What thinks thee, Furry, wrt this?

The results BTW are usually in the other direction--Busang used CN- leach because, [according to Morgan Stanley] they claimed the samples were too coarse (inhomogeneous) for the small FA sample-size. In any case, they, as others, sought and were happy that lab leaching recovered 90+% relative to the FA results.

Did BTW expect congratulations for my call that the PP announcement would accompany the [lousy] assay report :-)

SureDidCallItBob