Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

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 : Manhattan Minerals (MAN.T) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Elizabeth Andrews who wrote (2577)	6/25/1999 12:16:00 PM
From: Claude Cormier	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 4504

Hello Elizabeth, I discussed with a professional on the metallurgical issues you raised about Tambo Grande an we agree the jury may be out on some details with MAN. MAN has a potential reserve- whether or not the metallurgy is good etc will be answered by the feasibility. They have more than enough to justify a feasibility study. More importantly, they probably have another massive sulfide lens in at least one of those gravity anomalies. Some issues you raised are valid but in no way red flags, they are simply normal situations that occur in all VMS deposits. That is why mining companies spend dollars on exploration and feasibility study. << Second, I read the disclosure with respect to past metallurgy and it was not positive at all and raised several big red flags for me. For example, the preliminary metallurgical testing undertaken by BRGM indicated fine grained pyrite. As you know most fine grained sulfide systems are usually more expensive to process. It usually means that all the sulfides in the system are fined grained and this usually complicates things. >> MAN has to do it's own drilling to further define the nature of the ore. I would be very surprised if all of the ore was fine-grained pyrite. Even so, that only means a longer crushing time, or an extra crusher. How much more is that going to cost. It will come out in the feasibility. Grinding 20 years ago was a nightmare. That is why BGRM reaches those conclusions that may seems negative. Nowadays technology make this a less important issue. Many operation are working at 20 microns or below, Brunswick, Louvicourt, Westmin, Red Dog.. <<In addition, the chalcopyrite occurs within pyrite grains and intergranularly. It also occurs as exsolution blebs in the sphalerite.>> I would find it surprising if pyrite occured as exsolution blebs in the sphalerite- it can not exsolve in sphalerite; it is physically and chemically impossible. One of the most common exsolution textures in nature is chalcopyrite exsolved in sphalerite. It occurs in almost every massive sulfide mine in the world. Intergranular: I hope so- where else would it be in a massive sulfide? Sure there are chalcopyrite rich areas in VMS deposits, but the main thing is that every VMS has lots of pyrite. <<Fourth, additional tests were done....and these showed that finer grinding (about 20 microns) would be necessary for good recovery of metal values by differential floatation. Now what does "good recovery" mean? >> Again, I already answered on the grinding size... BGRM did not do this in 1980 and you know why... the technology for it was simply not good enough. MAN's current opinion is that much higher recoveries than 80% will be attained.. There preliminary work get them to a probable total operating cost near the $12 figure per ton. With a metal content of $46 per ton at current metal prices (and that is not counting the gold), there seems to be some good reasons for optimism here. A recovery rate of 80% would probably be enough...but again they think they gonna get a lot more. <<Fifth, they did polished thin section work so they must have some idea of the what the mineral relationships are within the gangue, don't you think? >> This is a VMS deposit. There is more metal than gangue. You are trying to find a grain of salt in a jar of jelly beans. <<And this BS about not assaying for gold, well that's the last straw. I can just see the scientist looking at the thin sections and saying, jeez that kind of looks like gold but since they haven't assayed for it>> Com'on, Eliz... you know very well that in 1979...miners were not looking for anything below 8-10 g/t gold. Heap leaching was not a working technology back then. Beside, in VMS deposits, I would find it funny if they say they saw any gold in the thin sections. You can even not see gold in the thin sections for big gold mines. <<Sixth, there's going to be more than one concentrate as well and the mineralisation mix looks like it changes quite dramatically through the pile>> This is why they are doing a feasibility. They will find out. Even if they need two separate circuits, it doens't mean it will not be economic. Time will tell. As for the the mineralization mix, I suggest you continue your DD and look at the cross sections on their site or powerpoint demo. The 3 different types of ore are well separated and defined. In other word, very easy mining via bulk sampling methods. In short, Eliz, you raised the exact same metallurgical issues that are continously raised in VSM deposits. I suggest you look at the big picture. MAN owns properties that have the potential to host a major belt of VMS deposits. They have one already under intensive exploration and looking for the next one which may be discovered in the few weeks ahead. The tonnages and grades of TG-1 are world class and shows potential to increase in size. MAN's is managed by extremely reputable and experienced people. They have immense support on the Canadian market place as this is a story investors have been watching and waiting for since 1993-94. You are going against the odds. And you need luck, IMVHO, a lot of it.