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.

Strategies & Market Trends : 2026 TeoTwawKi ... 2032 Darkest Interregnum -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: TobagoJack who wrote (92685)	7/20/2012 6:17:13 AM
From: Logain Ablar	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 217753

Hi TJ: JMO - this is the type of hands on exercise that is ideal for the children in development of knowledge / work. I know both are young but it is never too early. We all know Murphy's law so good luck. A couple of geologists on the boards you can pick brains of which can help. Tim

To: TobagoJack who wrote (92685)	7/21/2012 10:09:50 AM
From: Amark$p	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 217753

In general, cash costs are much less for oxide gold ore than sulfide gold ore. Believe most of the added cash cost for sulfide ore is related to ore processing/extracting the gold out of rock. Sulfide rock traps the gold particles more than oxide and thus sulfide rock has to undergo additional processes to get the gold out of the rock. When a gold miner has both oxide and sulfide ores, they generally produce the oxide first, because of lower cash costs and capex. In general, there is lower recovery rate with sulfide ore and a tradeoff between added capex and recovery rate.