RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:CYANIDE now banned in Costa Rica, is Newlox next?Okay, I'll quickly bite.
As stated before, they are exploring alternatives to cyanidation, including DMSO and OAR, but this has always been a CIL setup. Know what you're getting into when investing in a company. It has been a modified CIL process the entire time and it will continue to be so until such time that a viable alternative has been commercialized. Take a moment and understand the process flow next time. Cyanide is toxic and yes bad for the environment, but also a great deal easier to remediate than mercury contamination particularly on the small scale. You very clearly do not understand the extreme hazard mercury bioaccumulation has not only on the environment and food chain but also the local communities that reside in these areas. Mercury is more than just difficult to clean up once it has contaminated the food chain.
Now I know you've been having trouble finding bits of information here and there. I recommend Google. A quick search of "Newlox OAR" brought me directly to the part of the company's subsidiary website that does in fact reference OAR. No need to look for it, I wouldn't want to stress you, you can find it here:
https://www.newlox.tech/
Not good enough? Subsidiary you say? Ok, you got me. I did have to click to page 3 of the news releases on the parent company website for the first reference to OAR, that's probably too deep for diligent investors, and then on page 4, oh boy would you look at that, "Newlox R&D Achieves Up To 100% Gold Recovery Using Organic Aqua Regia". Here's the link, you know, for a reference to OAR on the company website and literature:
https://newloxgold.com/newlox-rd-achieves-up-to-100-gold-recovery-using-organic-aqua-regia/
Also, while we're on the topic of looking for 'hard-to-find' information, take a quick look at:
https://newloxgold.com/environmental-reclamation/
where you'll find a process flow chart providing a broad overview of how the plant operates. What did you think the carbon loading tank was for if not a CIL process? I mean, did you just think the gold was extracted with good intentions?
As for the viability of the alternatives to cyanidation in gold recovery, that's why companies do research and success is never guaranteed; it's not commerically viable until it is. The more important focus here is that alternatives ARE being researched and research is funded by, wait for it, money! You know the kind you get from remediating mercury-contaminated tailings and collecting the gold left behind so you can fund that research and one day, hopefully, have an eco-friendly and commercially viable extraction process that doesn't include the use of cyanide.
Honestly, even the initial thrust of your first post was sloppy. Did you even read the sources you posted? It's funny because if you had read the news article in the Costa Rica Times in its entirety about the moratorium on open-pit cyanide-leaching where you cited the paragraph in your first post, you would have found just two paragraphs down that the legislation allows for continued artisanal mining activities. This is likely another reason why the permits were issued, that the plants are fully permitted, and now up and running in full compliance with local regulation.
But the real "most important issue" here is you haven't provided any evidence that the company was actually "irresponsibly representing itself as an eco-froendly mining company using safe alternatives to cyanide" at all. That's a bit of fact-finding I'd like to see from you. Bring that to the table if you want to win an argument and watch me eat my hat.
In fact, the only evidence I see is about someone who didn't understand the investment they were getting into, has just enough knowledge in chemistry to be incompetent, and now apparently has an axe to grind the other way.
I await your response, hat in hand.