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 : Maxam Gold Corp. OBB:MXAM -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: go4it who wrote (4364)	5/17/1998 10:51:00 PM
From: GlobalMarine	Respond to of 11603

Many thanks for the write-up, Charles. On the plus side, the COC recovery tests involved 750 pounds each, which suggests that the process may scale up (no proof yet that the recovery process scales up economically...perhaps this is why Maxam is having an engineering report on the process done). On the minus side, with COC leach numbers that won't fire assay, the uninitiated may not buy stock in Maxam yet, the basic notion for them being that if it doesn't fire assay, it probably doesn't exist. Also, given that RC drilling yields twice the grade of the 0.05 oz.ton gold from auger drilling, perhaps one would have expected 0.1 oz/ton gold or more from the COC recovery test, since the samples were dug (thereby eliminating any chance of losses from drilling) and recovery grades are supposed to exceed those of fire assay. However, given the very high platinum grade and interference from iridium causing a nil fire assay result when past fire assays showed gold, it may be the case that the samples were taken from an area previously untested.

To: go4it who wrote (4364)	5/17/1998 11:29:00 PM
From: Richard Mazzarella	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 11603

Charles, thanks for confirming what Chuca phoned in to Bob earlier. Was there any discussion on why the COC couldn't fire assay what Maxam has fire assayed so easily before? Also, was there any explanation on why the PGMs assays are now very different than what Maxam assayed before? What a can of worms.

To: go4it who wrote (4364)	5/23/1998 9:04:00 PM
From: Chuca Marsh	Respond to of 11603

Here is part of what CB found at the LINK: remco.com The resin used varies with the application but for this example we use a weak acid chelated resin, used for Copper, Nickel, and Lead recovery. This resin is used in the sodium form. A metal ion is exchanged for a sodium ion in a similar fashion to a home water softener. For example, a Copper ion is captured when it passes through the column and is exchanged for two Sodiums. This is because the chemical valence of Copper is 2, Sodium 1, therefore, 1 Copper = 2 Sodium when exchanged. As you can see, we are not de-ionizing (DI) the water but exchanging one ion (ion exchange) for another. The advantage of this process is that you only capture what you need to remove from solution and not what you are premitted to let pass. As the exchange process continues, the resin slowly fills up with metal. The point at which regeneration is required is determined by monitoring the stream after is has passed through the lead (first) column and before is reaches the lag (second) column. Rising metal levels here indicate the lead column is exhausted and requires regeneration. The operator pushes a button which initiates the microprocessor to begin the regeneration cycle. The complete cycle is simple to describe, but involves a number of valves, timed cycles, and switching.