# Lab Report Interpretation Chlorine + CIP Process



## MidasTouch (Jun 19, 2011)

As this is my first post, I want to thank the members and administrators of this forum. The value of the information contained herein cannot possibly be overstated. I’ve read Hoke and purchased products from Lazersteve’s web site to perform Stennous tests. I’ve also taken visible gold baring black sands from my prospecting trips and using a HCL-CL process extracted gold from those concentrates. That achievement was 100% the result of this forum and its members. Thank you.

Now to the quandary. I have hydrothermal mineralized ore on my property. It is a red clay ore (pictures below.) This ore, based on numerous assays, contains gold and some PGMs. I’m told by geologists it is considered a polymetallic complex ore because of the trace amounts of rare earths and the other metals it contains. 



Based on my successes with the HCL-CL process I’ve decided to test process my own ore. I’m undertaking this effort in part to prove to me it can be done and in part so if I decide to move forward with a professional partner I’ll have a hands on understanding of the processes.

Thankfully, I have a bit of direction since a lab that performed one of the assays went a step farther and worked on some extraction processes. One of the more successful processes was a Chlorine + Carbon in Pulp process. This process (described in the report below) seems to be something I should be able to duplicate. If someone could help me understand what this report is detailing with the goal of copying their process; e.g. what does “Strength or Reagents = Saturated,” “Pulp Density = 10%,” “Column/VAT test = VAT,” and for that matter what is “Carbon in Pulp” in this context? What is the significance of using an acid/base = HCL/NaCL vs using sodium hypochlorite? Most importantly does this report even contain enough information for me to try to duplicate or is it best to start from scratch? If starting from scratch does anyone have any insights in dealing with this type of ore?


Any advice and input is greatly appreciated.
-MT


----------



## Reno Chris (Jun 22, 2011)

There is only a limited amount of information on the paper you offered. I understand why you might wish to delete your personal information, but I wonder why you cut off the name of the assayer. There are plenty of charlatain assayers around - not knowing who did it, I cant tell you if your test was legitimate or not. Significant amounts of mixed gold and PGMs in the same ore is highly unusual - enough to automatically raise questions. Carbon in pulp (CIP) is a normal process for cyanide gold extraction, its very unusual for assaying. Free chlorine extraction methods are also unusual in assaying. In a carbon in pulp extraction, the materials are mixed or rolled with chunks of activated carbon mixed into the slurry. At the end of the extraction the carbon is separated from the slurry by screening as the carbon is much larger than the fine ore in the slurry. Pulp density 10% means that by weight, the slurry was 90% water and reagents, with 10% ore. Vat leaching is also a commercial extraction method, not used in assaying. The normal equivalent assay method would be called a bottle roll, where a bottle containing slurry is rolled on rollers - as the bottle rolls, the slurry is stirred. 

Strangely, the assay reports a high tails assay, but gives no information whatsoever about where that result came from. 

Assuming the assay is legitimate (which I am not fully sure it is) you got a 25% recovery on gold from the leaching process, which is very poor. You would not want to duplicate that. 

Who did your assay work? The report and the results seem quite odd. In fact, dubious would be an even better description.


----------



## MidasTouch (Jun 23, 2011)

Thank you Reno for your response.

The lab did perform several assays on various samples I provided to them from around the property. They used an assay process, to quote their report, “With respect to the analysis, the samples of head ore, the concentrates and the tailings were treated by a procedure partially developed by the U.S. Bureau of Mines, (RI 8480 and Technical Progress Report 120) using CEM Corporation’s specially built Microwave model MDS-81D.” Additionally, I have the complete analytical procedures used for the assays if that would be helpful to post.

The lab report I posted was not the assay test, which after rereading my post and the lab’s report layout I can certainly understand how one might get the impression it was; but rather, it was their testing results to determine possible PM extraction methods that I may implement. They tested: Leaching Procedures (Bromine, Chlorine, Thiourea, Ammonium Thiosulfate), gravity concentration, and 4 different flotation methods/chemistries. Of those, a floatation test had the best recovery rate - 91%. In summary, they would run an extraction test then test the concentrates and the tailings with their assay process to determine how effective their extraction method was.

Because of my relatively limited knowledge, I decided to try to duplicate their Chlorine process because it seemed to be straight forward and because of this forum there is a wealth of information regarding that process. At a minimum I would simply like to see a stennous test come back positive based on something I did. Beyond that I would like to establish a baseline for recovery from my efforts and then work to improve that result and of course increase the scale.
I hope that helped clarify my quandary. 
Thank you again for your help,
-MT


----------



## Reno Chris (Jun 23, 2011)

I did some research on RI 8480 - and I'm not sure that would be a good method for testing your ore. I'm not sure its even applicable to your ore. That report mentions nothing about testing for precious metals. See:
http://www.osti.gov/energycitations/product.biblio.jsp?osti_id=6742697



> *a procedure partially developed by the U.S. Bureau of Mines*


Often "special" assay techniques are another thing that raises red flags. Most reputable assayers use industry standard methods. 

I did ask only one question: Who did your assay work? 
Perhaps you didnt notice my question, but I am curious to know. 

As far as their treatments, The leach process results were so poor, you would not want to duplicate them, but to adopt something that produces better results. They did not supply enough information to really even duplicate the test if you wanted. A mixture of HCl and NaCl does not yield free chlorine and would not disolve gold or platinum. Some part of what they did was left out of the repoort. To do better with your extraction, may mean starting from scratch or using one of the other methods in the testing report.


----------



## Reno Chris (Jun 23, 2011)

Here is the thing – after talking with our friend MidasTouch, I found that the principal assayer was a Mr. Greg Iseman of Iseman Consulting. I did a little research on the internet and found that Mr. Iseman has been associated with a group calling themselves “20th Century alchemists”. They believe the microwave Mr. Iseman uses transmutes metals. I also found a note that: Greg Iseman (of "Iseman Consulting") had long been involved in unconventional and unlicensed analytical work in Arizona. That commentor noted that a buddy told him he saw a TV news report where they described Gregory J. Iseman as an alchemist. I also found that Mr. Iseman was associated with a Utah securities fraud “ponzi” type case where his inaccurate and overstated assays had been used to dupe hapless investors out of their money.

These are not the things you would find associated with a reputable assay firm. They are the things you would expect to hear about someone who is a fraud. 

The analytical proceedures offered by Mr. Iseman are very vague - they merely state the names of the techniques he used - they do not discribe the methods at all. 

Before wasting any more time on this, I'd suggest you take everything you have from Mr. Iseman and put it in the trash can (or recycle bin) and simply forget you ever saw that information, because it is bogus and means nothing. 

Then go to a reputable assay firm and get real assay numbers. You need to know what you really have before you make decisions about treatment methods that will work with your ore.

I apologize that the above message will sound harsh. However, fraudulent assayers have been duping folks out of their money for centuries - I've seen it happen many times.


----------



## nickvc (Jun 24, 2011)

Mining, ores and minerals I find fascinating but im very unlikely to ever be involved with any off them, but I'm pleased to see we seem to be developing a good collection of sensible and knowledgeable members here on the forum.

Well caught Reno Chris 8)


----------



## shadybear (Jun 24, 2011)

Maybe we need to find one of those transmuting microwaves
sounds like something everyone could use :lol:


----------



## goldsilverpro (Jun 24, 2011)

Good job, Reno Chris.

Way back, I was well acquainted with the victims of at least 3 different alchemy schemes and have heard of several others over the years. All were based on claims that conventional assays and extraction processes wouldn't work on certain types of materials. In each case, the crooks had convinced the victims that they had secretly developed methods to convert the "immature" PMs in the material to "fully mature" PMs, so they could be extracted. This is an ancient con. There is even an old name for it in the German language.

(1) One involved the fines from a gravel operation. A group of investors in my hometown lost a lot of money on this one.
(2) This was the saddest case. A guy had invested his life savings, $50K in the 60s, on a process that claimed to extract large amounts of Ag and Au from a certain well water in Arizona. The crooks added magic chemicals to the water and, presto, Au and/or Ag would precipitate before the man's eyes.
(3) This one was very elaborate and the investors lost $millions. The crooks had "developed" an elaborate flux mixture (contained about 20-30 ingredients) that would extract huge amounts of "immature" PMs from a specific ore body. The yields weren't expressed in oz/ton. They were expressed in % (like 18.1% Pt, 15.3% Au, etc.). The flux included PMs, since "like begats like." Therefore, the flux was very expensive and they needed $millions to get started.

In the latter 2 cases, I tried to convince people that it was a con. However, this fell on deaf ears. They had already sunk big money into this and didn't want to even consider the possibility that they had lost it.

Beware!


----------



## Reno Chris (Jun 24, 2011)

I've had a number of folks tell me they had assays of ore that had high gold and high PGM values - evey time on further research the assays turn out to be phoney. Problem is, the chemistry of the gold and platinum are so different they are almost never associated geologically. Usually gold is found in acidic rocks (an excess of silica) and platinum is found in basic rocks (with a lack of silica). There are platinum ores with traces of gold, rarely gold ores with tiny traces of PGMs, and base metal ores with traces of both. Rarely there are a very, very few ores with significant amounts of both gold and platinum. I know of thousands of mines - I know two, both in the same district, which have high base metal values with significant gold and platinum. So just off the bat if someone tells you they have assays with high gold and significant platinum, there is about a 98% chance the assays are bogus - just because of the geology and chemistry of the two metals (fraudulent assayers don't normally bother to study geology - and usually their prey does not know better).

Stories about precious metal bearing well waters are just about as close to 100 percent fraud as you can get. The waters that form gold deposits are hot and under high pressure - its only at those conditions that hydrogen sulfide will react with gold and form a soluble bi-sulfide. One temperatures cool or the pressure is released, the gold bearing chemicals decompose, dropping their gold. Stream and near surface well waters cant carry anything but tiny, tiny traces of gold (like parts per trillion).

So many con artists are simply not very creative - its pretty much all been done before.


----------



## MidasTouch (Jun 28, 2011)

Thank you all very much for your help and input. It’s greatly appreciated.

Thankfully I have a few other assays which do show only gold at resonable levels, i.e. no PGMS, and are from certified labs. Iseman’s efforts were partially for Assaying, which always showed far better than anyone else’s (now I know why), and primarily for determining extraction methods… Seems that was a waste, live and learn…

My plan going forward is to have the ore re-assayed, just to make sure, and then find a certified lab to research commercial extraction methods, then if all goes well start a small scale operation… However, shadybear, if you get a lead on one of those ‘transmuting microwaves’, please do let me know – it could save an awful lot of effort! :lol: 

I'll keep you all updated on my efforts with the hope of helping someone else.
Thanks again,

-MT


----------

