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 : Global Platinum & Gold (GPGI) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Zeev Hed who wrote (5670)	4/10/1998 1:10:00 AM
From: Larry Brubaker	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 14226

<<Having said that, unless the sample that I was given a year ago is not representative, I measured with X-ray fluorescence 110 PPM of AU in it and am still at a loss understanding the COC results.>> Zeev: There are not many people on the internet whose word I take at face value but you are one. If you say you measured 110 PPM, I believe that is true. To my simple math (assuming a ton equals 2,000 lbs, which I think in mining is a little off), 110 PPM = ~3.5 opt. The same thing has bothered me about the "bonanza" PR. Why would the results be so much lower than previous claims. Some have attributed this to the fact the lower assay did not use GPGI's "proprietary catalyst," (whatever that means). Am I correct in assuming your X-Ray flouresence measurement did not involve GPGI's "proprietary catalyst?" Is it possible that X-Ray flouresence could measure values almost 10-fold greater than a more standard fire assay? What other possible explanations are there besides the obvious one that your sample was non-representative? Were you allowed to scoop your sample at random from the ore pile, or was it already waiting for you?

To: Zeev Hed who wrote (5670)	4/10/1998 1:40:00 PM
From: Ed Fishbaine	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 14226

Zeev, A couple of points 1. It takes only a fraction of 1 ton of copper to process 1 ton of ore. The exact quantity I do not have at hand. Also, the copper used in the electroplating process is recycled. Hence costs for copper are basically not a significant factor in overall costs. 2. It is true that there is a disconnect between the Brian Russell COC and 110 ppm you found. This remains to be resolved. I believe, but cannot prove, that it has to do with the method Iseman used in processing the material Brian Russell sent him. Russell Twiford has always claimed that standard methods do not adequately demonstrate the quantity of goodies in the ore. It remains for him to prove this. We will know before much longer. However, even with 13 grams per ton (and I really believe this is a low ball figure and that the more typical figure for this method of testing will be in the 18-20 gram per ton range) the deposits are economic by a considerable margin. Remember that Brian Russell stated that in South Africa, with deep deposits 6 grams per ton is profitable. Ed