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: Qone0 who wrote (1591)	9/2/1999 10:59:00 AM
From: Jeffrey S. Mitchell	Respond to of 2392

OK, how about this: To: Ga Bard who wrote (1457) From: Tim Hall Wednesday, Sep 1 1999 11:36AM ET Reply #1481 of 1592 Gary, This information is from U.S. Bureau of Mines Information Ciruclar 9143 "Bureau of Mines Cost Estimating System Handbook" These are cost models and although they are over ten years old, they are still valid for comparison. Mining (100 ton per day, Shrinkage stoping, Adit Entry) Production Development $7.39/ton Mining of Ore $30.58/ton Mine Haulage $ .65/ton Mine Plant Operations $5.86/ton Administration $7.44/ton Total Operating $51.92/ton It won't matter what milling process is used, these mining costs will be the same. Flotation Mill (100 Tpd, 1 product) Comminution(crushing and grinding) $6.29/ton Flotation $4.29/ton Solid-liquid separation $5.37/ton General Operations $3.64/ton Administration $2.32/ton Total $21.91/ton The Haber process will have all of these same costs except for flotation. Instead of placing the ore in vats where the flotation takes place, Haber will place the ore in vats where it will be leached. The Haber process will also require the extra step where the gold is recovered from solution using Merril-Crowe or carbon columns. Everything else will be the same. If we assume that the Haber Process can be accomplished for 1/2 the cost of the Flotation process, the total cost would be $19.76/ton or a cost reduction of 10% in the milling process. If you look at the combined cost of mining and milling the total cost will be $71.68/ton, or a reduction of 3% due to the Haber process. With gold at $250 per ounce, the operation will need a grade of .29oz/ton just to break even. Also these costs don't include allowances for reclamtion, or the costs of capital and they have not been adjusted for inflation over the past 10 plus years. The Haber process would probably be more competative against a heap leaching operation but that is not the kind of test that is going to take place at SMM. Also the ore at SMM is completely different from the ore encountered in the big heap leaching operations. Tim ===== Rober, ""These people have a very different opinion on how well the chemicals neutralize the cyanide. mineralpolicy.org./"" ""Tim, Have your ever heard of a truck carrying cyanide to a mine running off a bridge and dumping 2 tons of cyanide into a river?"" The people you reference don't give two hoots about the environment. Their basic goal is to stop all mining on public land. They can't stand the thought of anyone like OREX making money from public land. They only use the enviroenment to suck people in. They turn out more propoganda than any of the long or shorts following this stock. Robert, Have your ever heard of a truck carrying cyanide to a plastic plant running off a bridge and dumping 2 tons of cyanide into a river? Cyanide is biodegradable. If some were to be dumped into a river accidentally, it would be devastating in the immediate area but would neutralize itself fairly quickly. Do you have any idea how much gasoline gets dumped into rivers from tanker truck accidents? Do you think we should ban cars or gasoline because of this? Tim ===== To: Ga Bard who wrote (1495) From: Richard Mazzarella Wednesday, Sep 1 1999 1:31PM ET Reply #1498 of 1592 Gary, <<Gas evaporates. Water evaprorates.>> So does lacquer thinner, but you violate EPA rules doing so. I suspect that the intent of any leach is to recover as much as possible and neutralize the remainder for environmental reasons. BTW there are a number of other environmentally safe leaches. IMO if Haber has anything it has to be the low cost spread, or there's not much value. Tim sandbagging us and having a little fun. Don't over react. ===== To: Ga Bard who wrote (1483) From: Zeev Hed Wednesday, Sep 1 1999 4:46PM ET Reply #1531 of 1592 GB, you must differentiate between fraud and self delusion. Jensen from GPGI is as honest as they come (at least that was my impression, beware talking to CEO <VBG>), yet for years he has been self deluding himself that GPGI's processes extract Au and PGM cost effectively. I believe that it is quite possible that you have here a very similar phenomenon. After all, Haber is pretty good at self delusion, he sacrificed some 20 or 40 years of his life to come up with these processes and to date, not a single one has been proven to be commercial. Zeev ===== To: Ga Bard who wrote (1495) From: Zeev Hed Wednesday, Sep 1 1999 4:53PM ET Reply #1532 of 1592 GB careful with those compounds that evaporate, Mercury (an element used in the past for extracting gold) evaporates, so do all the HFC (nasty little Ozone layer eaters), and the list of substances that evaporate but are nasty is quite large. What is the active ingredient that cost only $8/ton of processed ore? By the way, I asked here, in hope of getting a response, and since you talk to the company often, maybe you know, what is ORXX' burn rate and how much cash do they have on hand. If they do not have green stuff (you always need some green before it turns to yellow), how do they intend to get their hand on some? Most companies do that by trying to get a "resource valuation" on the basis of which they can borrow or otherwise find the funds. What are ORXX plans in the field of financing? Zeev =====