Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Page 2 • • <br />Dr. James A. Pendleton <br />August 5, 1992 <br />You also raised the question of whether BMR intends to continue <br />using Core Laboratories and suggested that it would be <br />inappropriate to consider Core for the third party analytical <br />laboratory if BMR was to continue utilizing Core €or its <br />analyses. As you know, BMR commenced using Core over he past <br />few months in an effort to improve the reliabil ty and <br />consistency of the analyses. This decision was made after <br />comparison testing and interviews of lab personnel and <br />independent experts regarding the experience of various <br />laboratories in conducting cyanide analyses in the co~text of <br />chemical matrices commonly found in mining operation The <br />results of the comparison tests, which were shared w th your <br />office, reflected wide discrepancies in the results, many of <br />which were obvious errors in analysis and/or reportin BMR <br />selected Core as a result of its determination that re had <br />the capability, the demonstrated history and the exp rienced <br />staff necessary to provide consistent and accurate cyanide <br />analyses for the conditions at the mine site, and for this <br />reason, BMR intends to continue to utilize Core for itsongoing <br />analytical testing needs. <br />BMR disagrees with your suggestion that it wo ld be <br />inappropriate to designate Core as the third party la~ under <br />such circumstances. BMR believes that the critical i sue in <br />the selection of a laboratory is the experience and cap bility <br />of the laboratory to produce accurate and consistent r sults. <br />In this regard, Core is an independent certified esting <br />laboratory with no interest in the outcome of its a alyses <br />other than their validity. More importantly, Co a has <br />demonstrated its capability to produce consistent and r liable <br />results and is a well known Colorado facility. Howe er, in <br />response to the concerns set forth in your letter, w would <br />propose that all samples obtained in the third party s mpling <br />program be coded by the sampler and delivered to the lab ratory <br />in a manner in which the source of the samples is not k own to <br />the laboratory. BMR is concerned about the selection of the <br />laboratory, particularly in light of past lab ratory <br />consistency problems and looks forward to discussing the matter <br />with you further prior to a final resolution. <br />Development of a Third Party Contract <br />BMR concurs that the appropriate contractual approch to <br />providing for independent sampling and analysis at the S n Luis <br />facility is through the negotiation of a third party co tract. <br />BMR will provide your office with a draft contract for review <br />by this Friday, August 7. As noted in its adequacy re~ponse, <br />BMR believes that the negotiations should be conducted with the <br />