Join today and have your say! It’s FREE!

Become a member today, It's free!

We will not release or resell your information to third parties without your permission.
Please Try Again
{{ error }}
By providing my email, I consent to receiving investment related electronic messages from Stockhouse.

or

Sign In

Please Try Again
{{ error }}
Password Hint : {{passwordHint}}
Forgot Password?

or

Please Try Again {{ error }}

Send my password

SUCCESS
An email was sent with password retrieval instructions. Please go to the link in the email message to retrieve your password.

Become a member today, It's free!

We will not release or resell your information to third parties without your permission.

Douglas Lake Minerals Inc DLKM



GREY:DLKM - Post by User

Comment by Public_Heelon Jan 04, 2009 1:15am
209 Views
Post# 15680509

RE: RE: How I get 0.02 - Toby

RE: RE: How I get 0.02 - Toby
  

70.5 grams per 1000 kg of concentrate (tonne)

6000 kg of concentrate contains 70.5 * 6 = 423 grams gold.

**** But there wasn't 6000 kg of concentrate. There was 5.1 kg of concentrate.

       The NR could not have been clearer.

       "The 127 samples were collected from areas of known mineralization by Douglas Lake's field crews. Each sample consisted of 150 kg of mineralized host sediments which varied from sands to conglomerates and gravels. These samples produced a total concentrate weight (dry) of 5.1 kg through processing in the field. "

*** Look again at that last sentence. The ENTIRE 19.2 tonnes (127 samples of 150 kg each) produced 5.1 kg
     of concentrate. To remove all doubt, they even redundantly said "total". Thus, the 5.1 kg represent the 19.2
     tonnes. Substitute 5.1 for 6000 in your calculation, and you get the true number.

     There simply is no way they were saying anything different.

     The ONE cause for doubt/hope in all this is if the 5.1 kg only retained a fraction of the gold from the original
     19.2 tonnes. We don't know exactly how one "concentrates" 19.2 tonnes down to 5.1 kg, which would require
     removing 99.73% of the original material. Do they have a machine that can do that, w/o losing a lot of gold
     that would be captured by a real mining process? Keep in mind that, in order to get to the 0.1 g/t figure that I have
     seen posted as necessary for viability in an alluvial deposit, the 'concentration" process would have to be losing
     80% of the gold.

     and Urban... don't feed me a lot of crap about  "all due respect" and then accuse me of spreading confusion.
     I have said the same thing, over and over, and posted the same numbers and calculations, over and over.
     Show me where either my calculations, or the assumptions on which they are based, are wrong, or I'll have
     to conclude, with all DUE respect, that  you're just a shill for the company.

<< Previous
Bullboard Posts
Next >>