ORXX - Orex Gold Mines Corporation Message Board

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 : ORXX - Orex Gold Mines Corporation

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next

To: Tim Hall who wrote (1454)	9/1/1999 3:41:00 AM
From: Ga Bard	Read Replies (1) of 2392

Tim, According the reports on HGP they state clearly that they found increased gold recoveries in a shorter period of time when comparing the new lixiviant vs cyanide leaching. Plus the reagent costs were much lower with the HGP reagents versus the cost of conventional cyanidation. Not to mention the costs with the cyanide system were an order of magnitude greater than those with the HGP system. Time and time again in all the reports it stated clearly the ores responded much faster under the new HGP lixiviant system compared to conventional cyanidation. Also the reports state the testwork also investigated whether or not conventional gold capturing means can be used in order to recover the gold from solution. Now I see where gold can be recaptured in both Merrill-Crowe and carbon plus it was determined that both systems could be used in order to gather the gold from the leached ore. .Are you familiar with these two systems? Are not these the same systems used with cynaide? Would that also be a savings if this technology is already established and use for cyanide? Also the savings was calculated for HGP around $7.00 - $8.00 per ounce where the cyanide cost is $9 - $10 per ounce. Does this reduction in cost of 12% to 30% per ounce make the HGP definitely cost effective? Not to mention the HGP (Haber Gold Process) has an 85% to 100% survival rate. So is this good for the Acute Aquatic Toxicity test of the HGP Spent Solution? It appears that the HGP also saves on set up and installation since it does not require any exotic equipment or hardware, nor pose unusual engineering problems in the design or fabrication of a commercial plant. Would this also be another cost savings? Even the cost for the chemicals used are significantly less stringent than those practiced for cyanide. This should simplify waste disposal. Is this also not a cost reduction in the over all picture? In the recover HGP extracted 99 percent of the gold from a low-grade ore and 93 percent of the gold in a high-grade plus the leach time was completed in 6 hours. Is this not a cost-effective scenario as compared to cyanide? Is Cyanide this effective and timely?  GB

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next