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: Tim Hall who wrote (8552)	11/14/1998 9:07:00 AM
From: Chuca Marsh	Respond to of 14226

I thought this was interesting- out of less than 5,000 mines in Arizona over / about 3,000 mines are in the two counties that GPGOI has claims in Maricopa( 915 mines )( number of Maps=11) and Yavapai( 1,948 mines)( number of Maps=12): admmr.state.az.us COUNTY MINE MAP SERIES Number County Number of maps Number of Mines Price CM-1 Apache 18 353 $15.00 CM-2 Cochise 9 698 10.00 CM-3 Coconino 28 594 20.00 CM-4 Gila 9 731 10.00 CM-5 Graham/ Greenlee 12 516 15.00 CM-6 La Paz/ Yuma 15 583 15.00 CM-7 Maricopa 11 915 15.00 CM-8 Mohave 20 1,411 25.00 CM-9 Navajo 17 232 15.00 CM-10 Pima/ Santa Cruz 14 1,487 20.00 CM-11 Pinal 9 1,024 15.00 CM-12 Yavapai 12 1,948 20.00 The County Mine Map series consists of sets of 20" x 24" maps showing the locations of mines, prospects, quarries, and processing mills and plants. They are plotted on Arizona Department of Transportation base maps (scale 1" = 2 miles) by the Department's Arizona Mineral Industry Location System (AzMILS) number. Each map set includes a geographically sorted mine index that lists AzMILS number, primary mine name, alternate names, a file reference, topographic quadrangle name, township, range, section, quarter section, and up to 7 commodities. Over 10,400 locations cover the entire series of 12 sets for Arizona's 15 counties. Prices for each county set are given in the preceding table. Chuca P.S.- Real nice site.

To: Tim Hall who wrote (8552)	11/14/1998 12:08:00 PM
From: J.E.Currie	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 14226

Discussion of Fire Assaying's purported problems Fire assaying is a series of chemical steps that takes advantage of the precious metal's chemical behavior. Those who claim they have non-fire assayable gold are saying they have a substance that chemically does not behave like gold. Arguments used to explain why fire assay is not applicable to their "Colloidal" or "Micron" gold generally fall into one of the three categories discussed below. "The particles are so small they vaporize and so are not in the button." 1850° is below the melting point of gold. Even if the temperature goes above 1850° the vapor pressure of gold is small. so very little is lost. H2O, for example, has vapor pressure 6 orders of magnitude higher. "Small particles of gold float on the surface of water so they float on the slag." This ignores the process that goes on. It is not dependent on gravity. The PbO2, now Pb, dissolves the gold. It is the Pb that collects at the bottom of the crucible. "Interfering elements mask the gold." The London Mint ran an assay of 1000 mg tellurium, 1 g Au, 25 g Pb and skipped the fusion step! Even so the "worst" they could do was to lose about half the gold. These conditions are highly unlikely in a rock sample. What about the platinum group metals? These, if present, report with the gold in the bead. Tim, I am a neophyte, however when I read that the Agency concludes that because: "The London Mint ran an assay of 1000 mg tellurium, 1 g Au, 25 g Pb and skipped the fusion step" AND therefore determined that----------------------->>>> Conclusion Fire assaying, in use for thousands of years, still stands the test of time. Unless there is more to the London Mints research, this is flawed as there are oh so many elements which must be tested before the above hypothesis is true. Any and all serious comments are welcome. jec Go Badgers

To: Tim Hall who wrote (8552)	11/14/1998 2:00:00 PM
From: Scott Wheeler	Respond to of 14226

<< 2. Conduct studies of the economic problems of prospectors and operators of small mines for the purpose of assisting in their solution and investigate their properties to assist in development.>> I wonder what "studies" have been conducted and in what ways have the "assisted" Global and other small operations? If there are no such "studies", I wonder how the AZ taxpayers feel about paying for s/t they are not getting? Or perhaps you'll get assistance if you a) are not looking for PGMs, and b) are using conventional (Dept-approved) extraction methods?

To: Tim Hall who wrote (8552)	11/16/1998 10:31:00 PM
From: JACK R. SMITH JR.	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 14226

Tim, My suggestion would be to get yourself up to speed on the recovery of PGM's from microcluster desposits which are repslendent in Aridzona! I predict that you would be much more employable. Adherence to the present convention has been profitable in the past, but perhaps you are missing a greater opportunity. All this has been dismissed as a "scam concept", but so was "heap leaching" in the beginning! The hard cold fact is that either it is, or is not valid! If you think some putrid effort at surpressing the (in my small mind) inevitable will succeed, perhaps you truly do need continuing education in your field of endeavor. I have to do it in mine, and so should you! I am not such a hard guy, go and do your "microcluster reasearch", and then reapply. If you simply disavow their existence, then you need not apply! Tough employer, Jack! Master of Nothing!!