highper wrote:There is more than one way to skin a cat. Newmont is now working with a technology  that could well alter your perception considerably.

Direct cyanidation of ground run of mine (“ROM”) mineralized material and flotation concentrates was indicated to be unsuccessful.

 


https://www.globalminingreview.com/handling-processing/22122020/dst-announces-licensing-agreement-with-newmont-corp/

DST's CLEVR ProcessTM provides mining companies with an alternative to the conventional methods of extracting gold with cyanide. The toxicity of cyanide and the environmental challenges related to this reagent are well documented. The method used by DST uses no cyanide, produces no toxic liquid or gaseous effluent, and the solid residues are inert, stable and non-acid generating.


DST has been in ongoing discussions and technology review with Newmont regarding its CLEVR gold extraction process to evaluate and quantify its applicability on projects selected by Newmont. Following a successful test work programme in 1Q20, Newmont expressed its interest towards the execution of a technology transfer licensing agreement allowing Newmont to conduct laboratory CLEVR leaching tests in its technical facilities in Englewood, Colorado, US.

https://dundeetechnologies.com/clevr-process

 


thanks highper.  As with all of my Goldstorm analysis I compare results to 43-101 reports from Seabridge (KSM).  They've done much more work during the many years of developing their deposits, resulting in the PEA Update of April 30, 2020.

It seems they have a similar environment to Goldstorm in some ways, but more complicated by the need to extract multiple minerals (Gold, silver, moly, copper) at acceptable concentrations while dealing with possible smelter penalties, which might require the need to perhaps blend ore from multiple deposits during the mining process.  There is also the fact that a great deal of the KSM resources will need to be extracted using underground/block cave methods.  Goldstorm will likely not have some of those issues, at least not to the same extent.

The Seabridge PEA tested options that have not been evaluated yet for Goldstorm.  For example, I didn't see any reference to tests that would produce dore (might yield better results in a gold-dominant environment? - I'm open to more input on that from folks who know more than I do).  Either way, the recommendations in the Goldstorm report clearly show the need for more testing and are not anywhere near the final outcome.

I also note that the stock price of Seabridge is undervalued relative to the amount of AuEq that has been documented at KSM.  As with Teuton, my sense is that the Seabridge stock price will appreciate quickly when a firm deal comes through and immediately reflect the specifics of the deal, not questions related to the tunnel, the metallurgy, or any other details that the mine operator will have to worry about for the next generation after the deal is signed.

Do your own DD.  GLTA.  Doug