Share
20,020 Posts.
lightbulb Created with Sketch. 870
clock Created with Sketch. 20/09/20
11:22
Share
Originally posted by ainsleym:
↑
The missing piece in this jigsaw as others have noted is the quantification of the partial extraction using the new assay method. To provide some indication of this the new assay method needs to be compared with earlier smelted results which produce the gold buttons. The smelting recovery test results on previous samples were around 200-300gm/t. There is the no denying this grade as its tangible physical gold that has been extracted. So the question is if we ran the new assay method on the same samples that produced the gold buttons ( assuming there is some remaining) then what will the new assay method show. Its the only way we have currently of comparing apples to apples. The recent announcement on the new assay method was on a different sample so we really dont know what the true grade of that sample is, we only know the assay method is showing about 7 gm/t. We need both the assay result and the smelted extraction result on the same sample and from that we can draw some conclusions going forward as to the likely true grades based on the degree to which the new assay method is under calling the true grade. Nontheless, I'm happy with 7gm/t , just be nice to know by how much this understates the true grade
Expand
My thoughts exactly. I suspect the old bulk samples were all consumed in the test extraction process. Luckily it seems the previous drill cores were split and can be assayed now. The other issue is that hardly any of the Ag, Pt or Pd (assuming it was there in the first place) was picked up by the assay method.
