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: Mellofellow who wrote (5337)	8/18/1998 8:22:00 AM
From: Richard Mazzarella	Respond to of 11603

Mello, thanks for your post. Your experience has been reported to these dirt threads before as typical for more conventional ores. However, experiments with the desert sands shows that recovery always exceeds assay. Some like Joe Champion suggest that the ore is being transmuted atomically, the transmutation coming from mechanical and/or chemical energy for very small samples that can't be scaled up. I reject that hypothesis and believe a simpler model. I understand that much of the precious metals are finely divided in the refractory ore lattice, maybe even in solution. GPGI desert sand ore is so highly bound that GPGI has to smelt the ore at very high temperature to have the precious metals diffuse into copper as collector. Normal SFAs fluxing and collecting with lead or silver occur at too low a temperature for metal bead collection. Maxam ore is a little simpler than GPGI's in that there is more of a placer component and grinding experiment results I have seen show increased assay with increased milling, maximizing with wet mechanical grinding and ultrasonic commutation. I agree with you that batch leaching may be higher cost than simple heap leaching, but that higher cost would be offset by simple screening concentration and recovery of other "mined elements". I also anxiously await recovery testing cost determination. I'm not sure Maxam's method will even be batch, Hewlett has patented a continuous method to process. I can post the patent reference if you would like. Again thanks for your post, I appreciate your experience and always look forward to learn. Notice that when posts are civil, so can be replies.

To: Mellofellow who wrote (5337)	8/18/1998 8:31:00 AM
From: Chuca Marsh	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 11603

<<<...I have material that leached at .45ozpt and fired at 1.88ozpt, with those kind of numbers I had no reason to go back and leached the material.. ..>> I have two areas that hace similar CONTRARY indications..Strange...a reverse parallel contrary indicators. One with One OPT Leach Plasma (DCP) at SFA 0.03 OPT AU and one at ...similar but different due to technique at another. ( Bpb, We talked in detail about that on the Bus Trip when I sat next to you -across I should say. Strange you got a high of 1.86 and I got a high about that on what I have-had been saying,,,selective ( thus, missrepresentative sample basis) sampling basis of 1.77 OPT AU Recovered Free Milling from a NEWTECH Extraction Mill Run Process. See, I can be civil also. Our leach of that area came in at 0.30 OPT DCP and neighbors came in at (as per MGAU PR last couple weeks) at 0.67 OPT AU. I used DCPlasma for my .30 numbers. That is basically a pre leach as per specs I gave you for that outfit in Nevada...any chance that is the same outfit you are talking about? M.R. & A. L. inc? For a couple calls Dale said in the way past that DCP is not equal to recovery in any fixed percentage that is now known- this is the TWEEK. A tweek in time. Now. Saves a dime or a dollar, hotspots are his apparent key- and YOURS and MINE. Did we talk MINE just now? Chuca