TODAY'S DISCOVERY, TOMORROW'S FUTURE

Creating shareholder wealth by advancing gold projects through the exploration and mine development cycle.

Free
Message: Re: grams/ton vs. gram*meters - tau and spiny
6
Oct 03, 2008 02:11PM
1
Oct 03, 2008 02:51PM

Yes, per my "oops" post, I left out the 2.6t/cubic meter factor when figuring the grams of gold you get out. Sorry about that.

The figures on the charts from Kodiak (.pdf) are for a normalized 1 meter thickness. That means you can mutiply each cubic meter by 2.6 to get the grams of gold at the mill.

That is, there is 1m thickness to the equivalent vein. But if you mine out a cubic meter at a given location, you get 2.6 tons of ore instead of one, so you get 2.6 times the g*m grade.

So if you have a g*m grade of 25, for the 1 x 1 x 1 meter cube at the cross-section rock face, you get 25 x 2.6 = 65 grams of gold, or 2.1 ounces.

However, you have to discount that of course by a factor for empty areas you have to end up mining, and areas that you can't mine for geotechnical and mine engineering reasons. For example you could multiply by 2.6 and divide by 5 or 10. Calculate all the tons first and your average grade, and then adjust at the end.

Spiny - also true that you wouldn't want to mine out huge areas of low grade. For that reason low grades are typically thrown out of the calculation, as if the rock was empty of gold at a low grade location. Maher is taking that into account.

Here I was thinking I was helping the situation, and my errors and typos muddied the waters a bit. Sorry about that / c

Share
New Message
Please login to post a reply