QUESTION
G’day Ian, thank you for the past e-mails on this subject. Please provide the testwork details you compiled from your testing at your mine.
ANSWER
My results from my gold mine are anecdotal, over 10 years and I have not written them up, sorry. I have performed hundreds of tests for other people as well.
QUESTION
You may ask why do I not consider a leaching method for this material? It is primarily due to not wishing to increase the capital cost of the Project, & due to the mode of operation, a fixed plant / transportation of the primary feed materials will render the Project to be uneconomic.
ANSWER
Yes….I understand this. I use WTs for the same reason.
QUESTION
We have revised our table size requirements from the 8 US Ton size to the 1.0 UST. This 1.0 UST size will handle about 650 Kg. of feed / hour, but if closely sized feed ie. minus 1.0 mm., will it handle, [without decreasing gold recovery ], up to 1.0 Metric Tonnes / hour ??
ANSWER
I am a conservative guy…..and err on the side of suggesting that you should count more on 650kgs per hour.
QUESTION
Ian, we may seem pedantic about the details we are requesting from you & Action Mining Services for the choice of your WT, but we anticipate a thrifty operation, to survive the wide fluctuations in the market gold price as is being experienced particularly now, with a high degree of uncertainty of where the bottom price may be in this current cycle.
ANSWER
I perfectly understand. I am “in the same boat”. Best to send me a sample to run over my M8. Only a few kgs to 19 kgs is ok to get a reasonable idea. If you can wash a ‘tail’ of gold in a gold pan/dish using your material, then the M8 should work well.
Do your cons/heavies contain any Magnetics? The M8 will work better with any Mags removed.
Please note that nothing beats good ‘classification’…..good close screening, that is. If your gold is fine, then ensure that you screen off as much ‘non gold’ over size as you can. This helps separate/concentrate your gold on an M8!
Hope this helps,
Regards,
Ian
|
|
