The Molybdenum Discussion Board 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 : The Molybdenum Discussion Board

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next

To: Belgie24 who wrote (3151)	3/7/2008 9:31:37 PM
From: hubris33	Read Replies (2) of 3267

Hi Belgie24, Oops you caught me! I think you meant to say "up to" 4.75% Mo material. Yep! I goofed! I did mean to say "up to." Thanks for keeping me straight! Somewhere I read that in the past GPXM had processed ore with that concentration - not that they normally produce that level of concentration. I suspect during start up the plant got all kinds of different head grades fed to it at one time or another. Perhaps also some smart engineer tested the recovery on batch of different concentrations to see what the plant was capable of? I wonder where 4.75% head grade fits into the efficiency curve? The optimum level seems lower to me, perhaps between 2% and 3%. I'll take a steady 2%! Anything better looks like it would be icing on the cake. That 2% would be great, especially if they maintain it when they get to 200 tpd. When you were on the tour did you get a feel for what was the bottleneck of the plant? Will an upgrade to 200 tpd of processing capacity require 1 or 2 pieces of equipment or will require a whole new second train? Sound like there are quite a few knowledgeable people monitoring this board! Thanks for all of the input and help! Cheers, H3

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next