Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

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) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Laser who wrote (7629)	9/26/1998 7:47:00 PM
From: d:oug	Respond to of 14226

Laser, to me I see reasons to buy GPGI. I currently hold none. I have seen this situation many times. You can take the smartest and the brightest and most capable scientist, engineers, technicians and gifted ones with no formal education, and if you take away from them the ability to keep a log and document step by step what is being done, along with results and observations, then the end result will be success that is not reproducable, and then chaos, and then all those very good workers will all look like dummies, along with their supervisors and bosses. The good news I see here is that someone(s) connected with GPGI are aware of this possibility and are now going to investagate if this is indeed what has happened. I predict that this is what happened, and if so the pressure from top down caused those actually pushing buttons and pulling levers and changing stuff, are not at fault. If this is true, then all we have here is a simple problem that can be solved quickly by all those workers going back to a knowned state and start somewhat over. And the good news is that all knowledge was not lost, and even new hind-sight and "if I could do it over" or "if I knew that before" will have the effect of making an even better end result. One of the posts had the following. <<< Based on my conversations with McKay I believe the problem is the personnel. This can be corrected and forms the basis of my optimism. >>> In my opinion the personnel, as in workers, are not at fault because each worker reports to someone, and on up until the top person that is either senior scientist or engineer is there to oversee the operation. This top person can "work off the top of his head" or manage thru "walking around", which to me don't work, or this person can control all thru knowing that certain rules and regulations are followed. As the saying so, the buck stops here, which I'am sure all people know what this means, except me. To me this is a bad hic-up, GPGI is good, and that other place called Sabrina or something, sees GPGI sending it crap and junk. Top personnel at GPGI learned a hard lesson, and they should say so and apoligy to shareholders and "move on". Doug

To: Laser who wrote (7629)	9/26/1998 11:29:00 PM
From: Ed Fishbaine	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 14226

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