ICP-OES is a quantitative measurement technique. I have personally prepared and submitted hundreds of samples for ICP-OES in my carrier. Unlike the mining industry, my experience is with a broad range of industrial compounds for a variety of applications (aerospace/semiconductor/optical coatings...). I have always used material standards for quality control purposes. I was happy to hear that NOT implemented a similar program for their work.

In the many years that I have relied on ICP analysis I have never encountered an issue with bad results due to calibracition. Failures in the analysis always led back to issues surrounding sample preparation. This had nothing to do with sloppy workmanship but rather understanding chemical interactions of the materials during acid solution treatment (Nitric Acid- 10% solution in our case). Once these issues are understood it’s relatively easy to engineer a sample preparation process. I believe that anyone running ICP analysis for the mining industry is well versed in how to properly prepare solutions for ICP analysis.

Looking back at my previous work with analytical labs I have to say that I was fortunate to have a senior member of the facility (PhD) monitoring each and every lab result we submitted. I can only remember two instances where I was contacted by the various labs letting me know that the system had failed calibration. Calibration was performed before running any of our samples in the system.

When I now read the last news release I’m troubled by the following paragraphs.

"SGS determined that, during the base metals analysis over the 10 day period when the samples were first analysed, two breaches to SGS's global analytical quality control program had occurred. The first was related to the choice of certified reference material used to monitor the overall quality of the base metal analyses and the second was related to an ICP-OES calibration error. Both errors were human in nature and were not caught by subsequent QC monitoring and data reviewers. In response to this issue, SGS has reengineered the Toronto Lab Quality System as follows:

- The choice of certified reference material is now made by a senior laboratory staff member on a sample-batch basis. SGS has also issued stricter data acceptance criteria and now sample batches are rejected if the contained certified reference material is not suitable in matrix and concentration level when compared to the client samples.

- The calibration protocols for the ICP-OES group are also changed to increase the frequency of the calibration verification. This will improve the calibration monitoring process and prevent undetected calibration failures."

The second paragraph is particularly troubling. I’m not going to say anything that may slander the parties involved but this statement certainly makes you think. The last paragraph is intended to pacify those who have no experience or technical understanding for this process. I suggest that this lab take a close look at what modern manufacturing facilities are doing to reduce product non-compliance issues.

I’m glad to be a shareholder in a company that believes in QC/QA programs.

rosehill