It's got nothing to do with Skol, I asked a question to see if he/she could contribute to the thread. I also asked for other inputs from the same question from others. All I got from you was a google link and a claim of how simple it is. I'm not interested in extraction methods that work with already known simple mineralisation types, because clearly, as the company have already stated, this is not a 'normal' mineralisation. If they can't do 'standard' assays, whats the chances of 'standard' extraction? You're the expert apparently, so you tell me.
It's really not that simple, and as a geologist, you'd know it's not that simple - so are you really a geologist? Or just a google warrior.
I have my doubts, given the assumptions (that you call facts) you have so 'conservatively' put out. None of the geo's I work with make any assumptions like yours and consider them fact. Or is it that have access to information that no one else does?.
Either way, you perceive your opinion as fact, any newbie with no experience it the exploration/mining game would read your posts like they're hand on heart truth, even though there is no public confirmation from the company to support your claims. "630,000,000t" of ore... given they haven't drilled, might as well add a few more 0's at the end. What's the difference.
"Obviously they're not going to use a process that involves a 33 day leach. They got 360g/t after 18 days of leaching followed by routine fire assay and they're continuing to optimise the process."
Obviously? how do we know that? Information available tells us otherwise - 14/18/33 days just for assays. At this point, we have no evidence to support your claim, yet again. "Continuing to optimise the process" tells me the current process isn't viable or economically scalable. What does it tell you? That doesn't mean they won't find a process that works, but again, with the information available.... there's many assumptions being put in place in the absence of fact.
Expand
