Global Platinum & Gold (GPGI) 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 : Global Platinum & Gold (GPGI)

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next

To: Randall E. Brubaker who wrote (7762)	10/3/1998 10:51:00 AM
From: Zeev Hed	Read Replies (2) of 14226

I think that the thread is 'making too much" of the 15 tons vs the 50 tons. There is no critical change in process (like going from batch to continuous) required, most of the equipment is capable of handling the tripling in capacity without much increase in fixed costs (except some additional columns and possibly smelting furnaces), thus the benefit of spreading the fixed costs on three times as much production is a wise step, IMHO. I am more worried about problems incurred from admixing different batches in the process so that follow up on a given process stream may become more difficult, and thus the opportunity of finding what are the critical parameters that determine the efficiency of extraction could be lost. Since i think that the smelting process is the one in which most variability could occur, and thus might have the greater impact on efficiency of extraction, I think that "following each smelting batch", through the process has a chance of uncovering the best smelting conditions. Just my two cents, but I am sure that Mike knows about this since he had a lot of experience in molten metals situations (and thus in slag solvating powers variations as well). Zeev

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next