Replies to post #42565 on Mexus Gold US (MXSG)

[T-Hawk]

Thank you. Yes that helps.

Too bad the tidbit about he 45-day delay for the first shipment is SOP according to Sipi's terms wasn't pointed out until after the fact. While a significant detail in this short-term, I'll conceed that is a minor detail in the larger picture.

I can understand the need for 3rd party analysis if SIPI was going to advance pay on the first shipment, but since it wasn't I'm not sure why it would be necessary. I had actually wondered if Mexus did the assessment just to protect itself and verify amounts before sending to SIPI. Either way I don't dislike that it was done, just would have appreciated the context on why it was done. I also wasn't sure if the company name on the letter head was Ceasar's or if it was a bona fide 3rd party.

In my opinion, Mexus would have been well served to explain the assay analysis on the carbon filters was done by an independent 3rd party lab. That, to me, would be the most positive take-away from this PR. The rest is a big nothing burger and slight dissapointment that payment will be delayed for at least 45 days.

[gitreal]

My guess is the third party analysis was required by Sipi. It was performed by Laboratorio Technologico de Metalurgia in Hermosilo, Sonora, Mexico. If gitreal will forgive my cardinal sin of averaging the assay numbers, it looks to me like the ratio of gold to silver is about 1.8.

That's not a third party analysis....because it was not samples collected by a third party. That lab report (missing chain of custody paperwork, by the way) was for samples collected by Mexus (CL - Cesar Lemas?), submitted to a lab of their choosing. There is no description from Mexus of what the samples really are of. And no description of how the samples were collected, nor any QA/QC description.

Not sure what the purpose of that sampling was. The refiner certainly is not going to pay based on samples collected and analyzed that way. They'll pay based on how much gold and silver are recovered.

Average away.....you don't need my permission. If the material being sampled was homogenous, and IF the sampling was done in a representative way (which we'll never know), there is no reason that averaging of that material is not valid. Unlike the averaging of assays from select intervals without weighted averaging from holes thousands of feet apart on different geological structures....that is a completely different scenario.

[OJSIMPSON2017]

Nice research, but it's much easier to just accuse PT of lying.