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 : ORXX - Orex Gold Mines Corporation -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Tim Hall who wrote (1454)	9/1/1999 12:40:00 AM
From: Ga Bard	Respond to of 2392

Oh Ok ... that makes since ... so this is when they begin mining. but really I do not understand the mining and how it differs from milling. There is a lot I do not understand. Don Tried to explain to me today about how they recover the gold once it is disolved in the solution ... but apparently it is some chemical process. Only way I can relate this is in the closed loop of an mechanical cooling system of evaporation to condensation using brine. What is the difference because they are not looking to mine right away but mill ore. ALso it the HGP works as it does in the lab is milling not more profitable that mining? Could they not make more money just milling the ore than in mining and milling? Reason I ask this is because if they begin milling then maybe a lot of the small mom and pop mines can begin production again if the process can prove at least a 16% savings in cost. Instant revenues might be in the milling. :-) GB

To: Tim Hall who wrote (1454)	9/1/1999 3:41:00 AM
From: Ga Bard	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to 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