THOUGHTS - If solid solution nickel is hard to detect, how much is missed at the lab
if only partial digestion is practiced on the Wellgreen vs other peers who
perform full assay digestion ? Same goes with only using half cores of
hole vs entire core full columb = representing the full
One could counter...
But the nickel is in solid solution, most of it would bond with the
4 part acid right ?
Just one slight hurdle.
Hydrofluric acid is the only acid that can dissolve silicates.
Labs use 4 part, Aqua regia.
Solid solution nickel is - locked inside the silicates.
Needs full dissolution of silicates to, liberate.
Which segways...
MET tests that enact practical predictive entitlement,
would they be predicting an extractive computer outcome inwhich their
particular extraction process cannot handle solid solution nickel silicates ?
Would this not create a several negatives ?
Lack of detection on 2 parts - difficulties with solid solution - partial digestion
These partial results would certainly be used by MET personel,
inwhich then apply another reducer - practical entitlement.
Anyone else come across other nickel juniors with
practical entitlement or.... no iron credit ?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A 1.8% nickel con is far easier to create than a 12% nickel con.
Perhaps far less penalties due to it's nature of being moreso
closer to a high grade nickel ore inwhich would have an inherant
value of several other minerals.
Meaning - if one purched a nickel ore consisting of 1.8%
it's hailed as high grade which includes all other minerals.
Therefore, producing a 1.8% grade nickel con with orher mineral
content might be dismissed and no penalty attached and forces
an iron credit inwhich iron acts as a payable.
Does it make sense to go through the pains of,
poor lab detection, then practical entitlement, then
the added costs of extractive eq only to be discounted on
the 12% concentrate produced due to, impurities ?
If one reversed the extraction process,
targeted plats + gold at the first phase
they have a smart extraction process creating higher PGM's
which would elevate the NVP exponentially.
Whom ever designed the extraction to include PGM's with
the concentrate has greatly devalued the Shaw project.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Within the 1989 PFS
It mentions each concentrate tonne created
= 1 oz of silver is captured.
Not that i like the 12% concentrate, i'll use it to make an example.
12%
~ 0.26%
46 tonnes to create 12% concentrate ( not factoring recovery % )
436,000,000 tonnes
~ 46 tonnes
= 9,478,260 silver oz
x $10 profit
= $ 94,782,600.00 usd
Nearly $100 million ( supposing silver were also in the silicates )
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
SOLUTION MINING
In the 1989 PFS,
It mentions the values of solid metals and solubilized metals
in the surrounding rivers, creeks of Wellgreen.
Two forms of minerals.
High watershed run off in July.
Low watershed flows in, winter.
Nontheless, there's several watersheds
With significantly elevated minerals in the water.
Solid form + Dolution form.
Nickel, 300 ml per liter.
= 300 grams per cubic meter
= 300 oer cubic meter of water flow.
.Indide the mine,
similar metals in water exist.
Using just 1 watershed ( there are several )
Supposing the measurements are
3m wide creek x 1 meter deep.
With a flow rate of, 3 - cubic meter ever 2 seconds.
Every Minute
3 x 30
= 90 cubic meters of mineralized water
Every Hour
90 x 60
= 5400 cubics
Every Day
5400 x 24 hrs
= 129,600 cubics
Every Year
129,600 x 365 days
= 47,304,000 cubics
x 300 grams of nickel
= 14,191,200,000 billion grams
~ 454 ( gram conversion to pounds )
= 31,258,149 million pounds / yr
x $8.50 / lb
= $265,694,266 million usd / year. ( hypothetical )
Solution mining.
Electrolysis.
Keep in mind, the Quill / Klan area is an elevated system
that runs for hundreds of km's.
It's discharching lots of minerals from this extensive system
into the watersheds surrounding Shaw.
Break ground, or solution mine with significant cost reductions ?
21st Century mining.
Less enviro impact.
Actually cleans water at same time.
Could run turbines capture power while capturing water to mine.
Many turbines need the water to pass into large cylender pipes
to accelerate speed of water to move turbines.
Discharched water after power capture could be routed for
processing.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Anyone figure out where there could be extra tonnage
in the Wellgreen ?
I've practically laid it out in recent posts.
Just have to connect the dots.
Maybe i'll have to give a few more hints...?
Will the junior revise pfs and apply phase 1 bulk con percentages ?
Hello.
Cheers...