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 : Naxos Resources (NAXOF) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Kim W. Brasington who wrote (7483)	12/18/1997 1:41:00 AM
From: Larry Brubaker	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 20681

Kim: IPM told its investors that it had a process which could recover about .8 opt AU and PGM's. However, when it came time for Behre Dohlbear and then Bateman to "certify" these numbers, Behre Dohlbear said almost nothing, and Bateman refused to release the recovery numbers because it said IPM's process was "noncommercial." This leaves open the possibility that Bateman could also recover similar numbers as IPM's claim, but refused to certify them because they were generated by a lab process which would be uneconomic to scale up to production levels. GPGI, which purportedly has even richer ore than the recent numbers mentioned by Ledoux and Naxos, also apparently has problems in recovering anything more than tiny amounts of metal at a time with its process. What I wonder about the Johnson-Lett process is whether anything is known about how this process can perform at a commercial scale? Has any testing been done with samples larger than laboratory sizes, or does such testing commence with the pilot plant? It seems that having a laboratory "certify" numbers, rather than an engineering firm, leaves open the possibility that what is being certified is a laboratory process which may or may not be possible to scale up to commercial levels. Any comments?