RE: gallium story - juniorI am aware of that testing that yielded the excellent recovery rates, but until I have seen data from a pilot program I will remain conservative in my estimates. It is encouraging to see that some evidence of 90% recovery efficiency has been documented, but a pilot program will actually develop a recovery process and test the results under simulated operating conditions, which is different from what can be demonstrated in a lab. Some people may not understand the difference so let me just make this specific example:
What if the lab testing reached the high recovery rates by subjecting the ore feed to extremely fine crushing, and then to a vat leach process that took several weeks to arrive at the highest recovery rate? In the real world, it MAY be determined that the extra cost to grind the ore to that extent, and the extra time to treat it, could end up costing more than the additional gallium yield. Perhaps by subjecting the ore to a less-intensive recovery circuit they could generate 75% efficiency, but save a great deal of the processing costs. Economically, it would make far more sense to go with a cheaper option even if it means lower net recovery, since Cordero is a large enough deposit that will probably remain in production for 10-20 years. Mine planners will usually put more emphasis on operating margins when they make a decision on the processing options.
I just post the above info as a hypothetical scenario. I do not know how the ore will behave under various conventional processing options. Therefore I choose to be conservative in my outlook until I have a study that has done that work. If we do get a proven 90% recovery rate that is economic, then how much more exciting will the story be? I would rather enjoy the luxury of being bullish with a lower rate and then discover that we are even further along on the value curve when the real data is reported.
cheers!
COACH247