# Extracting Gold from Seawater



## Anonymous

Folks, I realize that this topic has probably been discussed before but I could not find good threads when searching for it here. Also, I realize that many people will instinctively say that it is "uneconomical" to extract gold from seawater, but I believe my situation may make it economical, so please hear me out.

I am an Electrical Engineer and I have developed a way to pump seawater using renewable energy - specifically using the waves themselves to power my pump. The primary purpose of the pumped seawater is to power the hydroturbines on shore to generate electricity. I already have engineering designs made up for a 3-5MW power plant using this method.

This power plant will pump a total of about 3-5 cubic meters/second of seawater. After powering the hydroturbines, I have to discharge this amount of sea water back to the sea - UNLESS, I can make use of it for further economic gain.

The best idea I am considering is to extract gold and other precious metals from this existing seawater flow.

Many people said that gold extraction is uneconomical because of the amount of sea water one has to pump to shore. The energy involved in pumping so much seawater would make it uneconomical. But what if, the pumping cost is zero, I am already pumping for my hydroturbine using renewable energy, I can deliver this amount of seawater flow for free. All of a sudden, the energy equation becomes favorable, probably leading to a favorable economic situation.

Knowing this fact, how would one go about in building a contraption to extract gold from this amount of seawater flow (5m3/s)? 

I was thinking of using some electrolysis method using carbon anodes to extract the gold. Can anybody suggest a better method? Even if you don't have all the details, it would help me further in my research. 

I appreciate any and all inputs. I may be an electrical engineer, but I am ignorant of any methods (electrolysis or otherwise) for extracting gold from seawater. 

If an economical method can be adapted to my power plants, this would be huge economically and I would be willing to partner with companies and individuals in bringing this to full market penetration. I plan to build about 300 power plant just here in the Philippines alone, so this could be huge.

Jojo


----------



## Geo

This has been discussed, several times and summarily shot down each time. We even had a couple of members that had schematics for the process. No matter what the design, no matter the conveyance, the cost of producing gold from sea water will always outweigh the profit. The largest component of sea water is sodium chloride next to water. It's the sodium chloride that holds the gold suspended, well at least the chlorine part. We have had some that could surely be called kook's and/or scoundrels that tried to sell plans for extracting gold from seawater. 

Please research and try to figure it out. I doubt anyone here can help you as we use tried and true methods to obtain and refine gold. Just one word of warning, the first time you mention needing a partner or financial aid to get this working with a huge payout, you will be removed from the forum. On this forum, the moderators do a good job of protecting readers from their own gullibility.


----------



## Anonymous

Geo said:


> This has been discussed, several times and summarily shot down each time. We even had a couple of members that had schematics for the process. No matter what the design, no matter the conveyance, the cost of producing gold from sea water will always outweigh the profit. The largest component of sea water is sodium chloride next to water. It's the sodium chloride that holds the gold suspended, well at least the chlorine part. We have had some that could surely be called kook's and/or scoundrels that tried to sell plans for extracting gold from seawater.
> 
> Please research and try to figure it out. I doubt anyone here can help you as we use tried and true methods to obtain and refine gold. Just one word of warning, the first time you mention needing a partner or financial aid to get this working with a huge payout, you will be removed from the forum. On this forum, the moderators do a good job of protecting readers from their own gullibility.




Thanks for the HELPFUL comments.

BTW, I am not asking for money, I have money. I am asking for a partner with the know how to do this. I will provide the seed capital to build it. I am not asking for MONEY.

Why is it that people always read wicked ulterior motives to honest questions. If you represent the kind of people in this forum and your attitude is typical of member's attitudes here, then by all means, ask the moderator to ban me.

Jojo


----------



## Geo

Jojo Iznart said:


> Thanks for the HELPFUL comments.
> 
> BTW, I am not asking for money, I have money. I am asking for a partner with the know how to do this. I will provide the seed capital to build it. I am not asking for MONEY.
> 
> Why is it that people always read wicked ulterior motives to honest questions. If you represent the kind of people in this forum and your attitude is typical of member's attitudes here, then by all means, ask the moderator to ban me.
> 
> Jojo



I apologize for making it seem I was being rude, that was not my intention. If I had the address I would have you contact Dr. Poe as he had some ideas about the same thing. Personally, I don't know how to get into contact with him. Gold from river water and well water and ocean water is not something that anyone (left) on the forum has any experience in. I doubt you will find someone here that can help you out. 

As far as the forum, you will never find a more helpful and generous group of people anywhere on the planet. I hope that you can stay around and learn more about the way gold in solution acts and why it is so difficult to extract.

By the way, a very wise man here on the forum has a great saying "money never goes looking for people, it's always the other way around". Please try and keep in mind that gold tends to bring out the worst in people.


----------



## patnor1011

0.004 ppb
Good luck.


----------



## eastky

No disrespect intended. If you have the money to build power plants. You have the money to hire a company to develop this idea for you. There are all kinds of companies willing to spend your money for you on a fruitless idea such as this.

Oh I see you want someone to design and build with their money. If the idea was feasible it would already be happening.

Forget the gold recovery thing and look at desalination of ocean water for drinking and irrigation.

Setup up a desalination plant on the West Coast of the USA and you could be a Billionaire many times over.


----------



## solar_plasma

You want to produce electricity, you could sell high and want to waste it for some cents of gold instead?


----------



## Anonymous

solar_plasma said:


> You want to produce electricity, you could sell high and want to waste it for some cents of gold instead?



I am trying to determine if it is feasible. If it is not, I will not do it. 

But so far, no one actually has any useful comment about the process and the technologies yet are so assuredly convinced that it is not feasible or economic. How did we all end up being so close-minded?

Has anyone here actually looked at the economics and not simply relying on old hearsay and anecdotal urban myths about some people's comments from decades ago? Has anyone studied the energy balance and the economics in detail here? That is the kind of person that would be useful in this discussion, not the instinctive knee-jerk reactions I have received so far.


Jojo


----------



## FrugalRefiner

Jojo,

It may seem like people are giving you knee-jerk reactions, but it's because they have read the previous posts on the subject. Try a search for the words gold from seawater to get you started.

It has been tried before, and not just on a small scale. Up till now, it has been unsuccessful. That's not to say someone may not discover a way in the future, but so far, no one has cracked the riddle.

Dave


----------



## solar_plasma

patnor1011 said:


> 0.004 ppb
> Good luck.



:!: and 35 000 000 ppb NaCl


----------



## g_axelsson

Jojo Iznart said:


> But so far, no one actually has any useful comment about the process and the technologies yet are so assuredly convinced that it is not feasible or economic. How did we all end up being so close-minded?
> 
> Has anyone here actually looked at the economics and not simply relying on old hearsay and anecdotal urban myths about some people's comments from decades ago? Has anyone studied the energy balance and the economics in detail here? That is the kind of person that would be useful in this discussion, not the instinctive knee-jerk reactions I have received so far.
> 
> 
> Jojo


Look at what Patnor said above...


patnor1011 said:


> 0.004 ppb
> Good luck.


That's 0.004 / 1000000000 or 4 mg gold per 1000 m3, 1g per 250.000 m3.
Let's say for arguments sake that there were an easy electrolytic method that didn't required any additives to the solution. For an electrolytic method to work you need to pass all the solution in close proximity of the electrodes, gold ions don't jump across water to attach to an electrode. The ions need time to migrate to the electrode. So how big would this facility have to be? Without calculating, just looking at the numbers... 250.000 m3 for the gold value of $36 minus any running costs (personnel, electricity, service...) and the loss of power production in your power plant. I'm sure you know the importance of not hindering the flow of water in a hydro power plant. How much gold would you need to justify a drop in productivity and how much water would that represent?

But a chemical solution then, you say. Well, that's no go either. How much chemicals do you need to treat the water to create the environment to precipitate gold? And even if you would do it the gold would come down so fine it would take forever to settle, probably literary since it would probably make a colloidal solution.

It didn't take much to do a reality check, just run the numbers and then you will find out that gold from seawater is a pipe dream. Any gold from seawater in the near future will come as a byproduct from other processes. Lithium for example exists in concentrations four million times higher than gold and represents a value of 8000 times the value of gold but still there is no "mining" of the seawater for lithium. (Three salt lakes are mined for lithium, I wonder what concentration of gold they have there... http://chemwiki.ucdavis.edu/Inorganic_Chemistry/Descriptive_Chemistry/s-Block_Elements/Group__1%3A_The_Alkali_Metals/Chemistry_of_Lithium#Extraction_from_Saltwater ).

Sea water is also a huge mess with a lot biological stuff and almost any atoms you can imagine.
http://www.reefkeeping.com/issues/2005-11/rhf/index.php#4

Göran


----------



## Harold_V

Jojo Iznart said:


> Why is it that people always read wicked ulterior motives to honest questions.


It's called a reality check. History has revealed the probability of success in a venture such as you have suggested. A healthy dose of skepticism is required in order for wise decisions to be made. 



> If you represent the kind of people in this forum and your attitude is typical of member's attitudes here, then by all means, ask the moderator to ban me.
> 
> Jojo



Try to keep a good attitude, as, should you not, that, alone, will be reason enough to ban you from this board. 

We are men of science, and tend to have an open mind to subjects which have proven to be scientific in nature. We are not prone to pursuing pie in the sky dreams. That's not to suggest that what you have proposed qualifies, but you have been presented with enough information to consider to determine if your desired plan is realistic, or not. To this point in time, it is not realistic. Perhaps you will be the one to change that. None of us can say. 

One of those who responded is a physicist, and well respected for his contributions to this board. That you don't like his comments is no reason to kill the messenger. 

To this point in time, no one has cracked the code to extraction of gold from sea water. If for no other reason, it becomes cost prohibitive, exceeding the value of the gold recovered. 

Piping sea water to land for extraction isn't required. If there was a method of extraction, floating factories would be employed, just as they are employed for the recovery of desirable elements such as bromine, yet it is not being done. Consider that in your investigation. 

Harold


----------



## Anonymous

g_axelsson said:


> Jojo Iznart said:
> 
> 
> 
> But so far, no one actually has any useful comment about the process and the technologies yet are so assuredly convinced that it is not feasible or economic. How did we all end up being so close-minded?
> 
> Has anyone here actually looked at the economics and not simply relying on old hearsay and anecdotal urban myths about some people's comments from decades ago? Has anyone studied the energy balance and the economics in detail here? That is the kind of person that would be useful in this discussion, not the instinctive knee-jerk reactions I have received so far.
> 
> 
> Jojo
> 
> 
> 
> Look at what Patnor said above...
> 
> 
> patnor1011 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 0.004 ppb
> Good luck.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's 0.004 / 1000000000 or 4 mg gold per 1000 m3, 1g per 250.000 m3.
> Let's say for arguments sake that there were an easy electrolytic method that didn't required any additives to the solution. For an electrolytic method to work you need to pass all the solution in close proximity of the electrodes, gold ions don't jump across water to attach to an electrode. The ions need time to migrate to the electrode. So how big would this facility have to be? Without calculating, just looking at the numbers... 250.000 m3 for the gold value of $36 minus any running costs (personnel, electricity, service...) and the loss of power production in your power plant. I'm sure you know the importance of not hindering the flow of water in a hydro power plant. How much gold would you need to justify a drop in productivity and how much water would that represent?
> 
> But a chemical solution then, you say. Well, that's no go either. How much chemicals do you need to treat the water to create the environment to precipitate gold? And even if you would do it the gold would come down so fine it would take forever to settle, probably literary since it would probably make a colloidal solution.
> 
> It didn't take much to do a reality check, just run the numbers and then you will find out that gold from seawater is a pipe dream. Any gold from seawater in the near future will come as a byproduct from other processes. Lithium for example exists in concentrations four million times higher than gold and represents a value of 8000 times the value of gold but still there is no "mining" of the seawater for lithium. (Three salt lakes are mined for lithium, I wonder what concentration of gold they have there... http://chemwiki.ucdavis.edu/Inorganic_Chemistry/Descriptive_Chemistry/s-Block_Elements/Group__1%3A_The_Alkali_Metals/Chemistry_of_Lithium#Extraction_from_Saltwater ).
> 
> Sea water is also a huge mess with a lot biological stuff and almost any atoms you can imagine.
> http://www.reefkeeping.com/issues/2005-11/rhf/index.php#4
> 
> Göran
Click to expand...


A few points:

1. I will be running 5m3/s of seawater... so that means running flow total of 432000 m3/day. Assuming for now that I have a method of extracting 100% of the gold in it, this amount of water would contain 43.2 grams of gold worth $1628 in today's prices. Not chump change by any means.

2. Since water flow is free cost, the only other big energy item would be the electrolysis energy to be inputted. Does anyone know how much energy an electrolyzer will consume? I guess this is the most critical parameter that I don't know before I can decide if the method is feasible or not.

3. The infrastructure seems not to prohibitive or expensive according to my initial analysis. I would require a few pipe channels to divert the flow. In the channels would be the electrodes. As seawater flows in this pipe channel, the electrodes should capture the gold ions. It seems to me that the channels can be pvc piping with carbon electrodes installed regularly along its length. This would allow ample chance to capture the gold ions as it flows along the pvc piping channels.

4. Human labor in the Philippines cost approx $4-$5/day. It would not be expensive to hire a person to periodically and routinely collect the gold accumulations on the electrodes. One person full time should be sufficient for this task. No other maintenance costs is expensive.

5. The remaining high cost item would be the electrolysis energy needed. Do you have any idea how much this will cost?


Jojo


----------



## Anonymous

g_axelsson said:


> That's 0.004 / 1000000000 or 4 mg gold per 1000 m3, 1g per 250.000 m3.
> Göran



I believe there is an error in your figure above.

I believe there is 4mg of gold/ton of water or 4mg/m3 NOT 4mg/1000m3.


Jojo


----------



## Anonymous

Harold_V said:


> Jojo Iznart said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why is it that people always read wicked ulterior motives to honest questions.
> 
> 
> 
> It's called a reality check. History has revealed the probability of success in a venture such as you have suggested. A healthy dose of skepticism is required in order for wise decisions to be made.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you represent the kind of people in this forum and your attitude is typical of member's attitudes here, then by all means, ask the moderator to ban me.
> 
> Jojo
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Try to keep a good attitude, as, should you not, that, alone, will be reason enough to ban you from this board.
> 
> We are men of science, and tend to have an open mind to subjects which have proven to be scientific in nature. We are not prone to pursuing pie in the sky dreams. That's not to suggest that what you have proposed qualifies, but you have been presented with enough information to consider to determine if your desired plan is realistic, or not. To this point in time, it is not realistic. Perhaps you will be the one to change that. None of us can say.
> 
> One of those who responded is a physicist, and well respected for his contributions to this board. That you don't like his comments is no reason to kill the messenger.
> 
> To this point in time, no one has cracked the code to extraction of gold from sea water. If for no other reason, it becomes cost prohibitive, exceeding the value of the gold recovered.
> 
> Piping sea water to land for extraction isn't required. If there was a method of extraction, floating factories would be employed, just as they are employed for the recovery of desirable elements such as bromine, yet it is not being done. Consider that in your investigation.
> 
> Harold
Click to expand...



Harold,

If my attitude offends you so much, then by all means ban me. That is not a wish on my part but simply to point out how ridiculous the responses to my question has been. I have spent a considerable amount of time googling the internet for economic information regarding this, but have not found anything useful. That included searches on this forum.

Thus far, in over a dozen responses, only Goran has given an answer that resembles some semblance of usefulness. It seems that people's reactions has had a tone of rudeness in it.

All I was hoping for was for people to tell me why it is not economical; hopefully backed by math. Not the knee-jerk reactions that I have received so far.


Jojo


----------



## FrugalRefiner

Jojo Iznart said:


> Thus far, in over a dozen responses, only Goran has given an answer that resembles some semblance of usefulness. It seems that people's reactions has had a tone of rudeness in it.


I suggested some search terms I tested before posting. How was I rude?

Dave


----------



## Anonymous

FrugalRefiner said:


> Jojo Iznart said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thus far, in over a dozen responses, only Goran has given an answer that resembles some semblance of usefulness. It seems that people's reactions has had a tone of rudeness in it.
> 
> 
> 
> I suggested some search terms I tested before posting. How was I rude?
> 
> Dave
Click to expand...


I searched this forum before I posted, and searched it again using your suggested keywords. They all failed to return useful information. If you have a specific thread in mind that you feel I missed and you consider informative, please link it - I'd appreciate it.

Like I said, all I've seen are people expressing their opinion that it is "not economical". I have not seen any good calculations.


Jojo


----------



## Anonymous

Hold up and take a step back here and a deep breath guys.

The whole tone of this thread was started with an unfortunately termed post by Geo - for which he has apologised like the stand up guy that he is. Jojo take your foot off the gas and don't assume everyone is out to have a go at you. We're not. 

Some of the lads here have already made some good observations and Frugal's advice to use the search facility was excellent. The search facility here is sometimes a little clunky so play around with terms you use but rest assured, there's a lot to learn here. Don't get yourself banned over a misunderstanding, there's far more to offer.


----------



## goldsilverpro

Is this useful?

First of all, where are you getting your numbers? When Nazi Germany was looking for money, they investigated gold in seawater. Fritz Haber, a top Nazi chemist that won the Nobel prize in Chemistry in 1918, went around the world collecting seawater samples. All in all, he analyzed 5000 samples and determined the the gold concentration to be an average of .008 mg/ton, about 125 times less than the .001g/ton they expected. At .008mg/ton (.0088mg/m3), your 432,000 gallons would only contain about 3.8g of gold. On the internet, there are lots of different numbers concerning the gold concentration in seawater. Although it was a long time ago and the equipment wasn't as good, I would consider the Haber number more valid than the others.

________________________________________________________________

If you have a gold plating solution that contains 1 tr.oz. of gold per gallon, the plating efficiency will be close to 100%. Assuming the gold has a valence of +3, 100% would be 2.449 grams of gold depositing on the cathode per amp, per hour.

As the gold concentration approaches zero, the efficiency also approaches zero. To be reduced on the cathode, the gold ion must be in intimate contact with the cathode. As the population of gold ions decreases, there are not enough gold ions in contact with the cathode, at any given time, to consume all of the amperage that's being applied. The excess amperage has to do something. It might split water or react with other chemicals in the seawater. When the gold is down to, say, 0.01g/l, the efficiency might be down to, say, 2%, and that might be conservative. In other words, only 2% of the amperage is depositing gold and 98% is doing something else. It would take 50 times more amperage to deposit a gram of gold from a 2% efficient solution than it would from a 100% efficient solution.

At a seawater concentration of .0088mg/m3, that would be .0000000088g/l. At that concentration, the efficiency would be almost non-existent. I would not be surprised if it was as low as one millionth of 1%. If so, it would take 100,000,000 amps for 1 hour to get the same 2.449g.

I've been plating gold, in one form or another, since 1966. When recovering gold by electrolysis, I usually was able to analyze the final effluent by AA. I have never seen a solution that was totally barren of gold after extended electrolysis. There was always at least .001g/l of gold remaining. If it wouldn't plate out at that level, it surely wouldn't plate out of a solution 113,000 times weaker.


----------



## rickbb

I've thought on this and the only thing that I believe would make it even remotely economically possible is to set up a business selling clean fresh drinking water from a desalination plant using a high volume RO system. 

Let the water business pay your bills.

Take the waste salt from the RO and separate out the NaCL and sell that. Then you have the left over salts of which one will be gold, (among many, many others).

If you make enough money on making clean drinking water for someplace that needs it, like people who live in a desert, or south west America, then you "may" have a chance at getting some gold.

But it's a 99.99% certainty that any attempt to focus only on gold from sea water is an economic failure from the get go. It will have to be as a by-product of some other money making venture. Companies make a good profit on just producing sea salt and they don't even try to isolate out any of the other salts. They just let the sun evaporate the water off and scoop up the salt and sell it as 99% pure salt.

I've often wondered if there was a way of making the RO membrane with exact enough size holes to let different size ions of the various metal salts be sorted as they are filtered from water. Then you could have a tap for clean water, a tap for table salt, a tap for iron salt, a tap for gold, etc.

Ok, enough silly dreaming, back to planet earth.


----------



## g_axelsson

Jojo Iznart said:


> g_axelsson said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's 0.004 / 1000000000 or 4 mg gold per 1000 m3, 1g per 250.000 m3.
> Göran
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I believe there is an error in your figure above.
> 
> I believe there is 4mg of gold/ton of water or 4mg/m3 NOT 4mg/1000m3.
> 
> 
> Jojo
Click to expand...

You may believe whatever you want, but here on this forum we appreciate references. Especially when we presents different numbers from previous writers.

0.004 ppb = 0.004 / 1.000.000.000
1.000 ton = 1.000 m3 water = 1000 * 1.000.000 gram = 1.000.000.000 grams
0.004 ppb = 0.004 g / 1000 m3
(actually the density of seawater is not 1 kg/dm3)

Anyhow, there is an error in the numbers above, at least if I believe one of the sources I quoted above. Au concentration is 39 pg/L in sea water = 0.039 ppb and 10 times bigger than patnors numbers.
I'm doing the calculation again with the new numbers, Au concentration is 39 pg/L and 432000 m3 seawater / day.

39*10-12 * 432000 * 1000 = 17 mg Au / day = 68 cents/day

... and that's enough knee jerk reaction from me for today. Was that so hard? :mrgreen: 



Jojo Iznart said:


> 1. I will be running 5m3/s of seawater... so that means running flow total of 432000 m3/day. Assuming for now that I have a method of extracting 100% of the gold in it, this amount of water would contain 43.2 grams of gold worth $1628 in today's prices. Not chump change by any means.


Could you please show the calculation and not only some numbers.

Spoke too early... according to (which I think is a reputable source) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gold#Seawater


Wikipedia said:


> The world's oceans contain gold. Measured concentrations of gold in the Atlantic and Northeast Pacific are 50–150 fmol/L or 10–30 parts per 1,000,000,000,000,000 quadrillion (about 10–30 g/km3). In general, gold concentrations for south Atlantic and central Pacific samples are the same (~50 fmol/L) but less certain. Mediterranean deep waters contain slightly higher concentrations of gold (100–150 fmol/L) attributed to wind-blown dust and/or rivers. At 10 parts per quadrillion the Earth's oceans would hold 15,000 tonnes of gold.[78] These figures are three orders of magnitude less than reported in the literature prior to 1988, indicating contamination problems with the earlier data.


That would be 10-30 g/km3 (1 km3 = 1000*1000*1000 m3 => 10-30 ng / m3 = 10-30 pg/liter. Seems my numbers above are a bit optimistic.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=brNX4xqlXJE (texted in Swedish for my convenience! :lol: )

Butcher, early measurements got higher numbers for the concentration because of contamination. Measuring levels this low isn't easy.

Göran


----------



## Anonymous

rickbb said:


> I've thought on this and the only thing that I believe would make it even remotely economically possible is to set up a business selling clean fresh drinking water from a desalination plant using a high volume RO system.
> 
> Let the water business pay your bills.
> 
> Take the waste salt from the RO and separate out the NaCL and sell that. Then you have the left over salts of which one will be gold, (among many, many others).
> 
> If you make enough money on making clean drinking water for someplace that needs it, like people who live in a desert, or south west America, then you "may" have a chance at getting some gold.
> 
> But it's a 99.99% certainty that any attempt to focus only on gold from sea water is an economic failure from the get go. It will have to be as a by-product of some other money making venture. Companies make a good profit on just producing sea salt and they don't even try to isolate out any of the other salts. They just let the sun evaporate the water off and scoop up the salt and sell it as 99% pure salt.
> 
> I've often wondered if there was a way of making the RO membrane with exact enough size holes to let different size ions of the various metal salts be sorted as they are filtered from water. Then you could have a tap for clean water, a tap for table salt, a tap for iron salt, a tap for gold, etc.
> 
> Ok, enough silly dreaming, back to planet earth.



Yes, I've studied your RO desalination proposal but came away concluding that it is not feasible economically.

First, my wave-powered pumps does not output nearly the 700-900psi needed for proper seawater desalination using RO.
Thus, my other option is to generate electricity which I can sell. Selling the electricity is more profitable than using it to build an RO water business.

Second, gold extraction is indeed a "by product", as I am simply trying to find use of my available 5m3/s of seawater flow. I am hoping the the electrolyser energy would be minimal. That is what I am asking here. If gold extraction is not feasible, I may use the water flow to build a lobster farm or a pearl oyster farm. It seems to be that I owe to find a use for this free water flow.

Jojo


----------



## Geo

If the post included any of Poe's rantings, it all may have been deleted. 

If I came to you and asked you a question, and you gave me an answer I thought was rude, I would still thank you for taking the time to give me an answer. You can tell a lot of someone's character when you give them an answer they don't want to hear. You have decided already that it can be done and all you need is to know how to do it. Would you believe that we do know what you need and that it's common knowledge among us and we have decided that we're just not going to tell you. If I give you an answer to a question, it will be honest, it will be to the point, it will be to the best of my knowledge but it will not be in malice. You give yourself too much credit. You come here asking questions and then bad mouth the people that respond to you is no way to make friends here. But hey, it's none of my business.


----------



## Anonymous

g_axelsson said:


> Jojo Iznart said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> g_axelsson said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's 0.004 / 1000000000 or 4 mg gold per 1000 m3, 1g per 250.000 m3.
> Göran
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I believe there is an error in your figure above.
> 
> I believe there is 4mg of gold/ton of water or 4mg/m3 NOT 4mg/1000m3.
> 
> 
> Jojo
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You may believe whatever you want, but here on this forum we appreciate references. Especially when we presents different numbers from previous writers.
> 
> 0.004 ppb = 0.004 / 1.000.000.000
> 1.000 ton = 1.000 m3 water = 1000 * 1.000.000 gram = 1.000.000.000 grams
> 0.004 ppb = 0.004 g / 1000 m3
> (actually the density of seawater is not 1 kg/dm3)
> 
> Anyhow, there is an error in the numbers above, at least if I believe one of the sources I quoted above. Au concentration is 39 pg/L in sea water = 0.039 ppb and 10 times bigger than patnors numbers.
> I'm doing the calculation again with the new numbers, Au concentration is 39 pg/L and 432000 m3 seawater / day.
> 
> 39*10-12 * 432000 * 1000 = 17 mg Au / day = 68 cents/day
> 
> ... and that's enough knee jerk reaction from me for today. Was that so hard? :mrgreen:
> 
> 
> 
> Jojo Iznart said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1. I will be running 5m3/s of seawater... so that means running flow total of 432000 m3/day. Assuming for now that I have a method of extracting 100% of the gold in it, this amount of water would contain 43.2 grams of gold worth $1628 in today's prices. Not chump change by any means.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Could you please show the calculation and not only some numbers.
> 
> Spoke too early... according to (which I think is a reputable source) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gold#Seawater
> 
> 
> Wikipedia said:
> 
> 
> 
> The world's oceans contain gold. Measured concentrations of gold in the Atlantic and Northeast Pacific are 50–150 fmol/L or 10–30 parts per 1,000,000,000,000,000 quadrillion (about 10–30 g/km3). In general, gold concentrations for south Atlantic and central Pacific samples are the same (~50 fmol/L) but less certain. Mediterranean deep waters contain slightly higher concentrations of gold (100–150 fmol/L) attributed to wind-blown dust and/or rivers. At 10 parts per quadrillion the Earth's oceans would hold 15,000 tonnes of gold.[78] These figures are three orders of magnitude less than reported in the literature prior to 1988, indicating contamination problems with the earlier data.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That would be 10-30 g/km3 (1 km3 = 1000*1000*1000 m3 => 10-30 ng / m3 = 10-30 pg/liter. Seems my numbers above are a bit optimistic.
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=brNX4xqlXJE (texted in Swedish for my convenience! :lol: )
> 
> Butcher, early measurements got higher numbers for the concentration because of contamination. Measuring levels this low isn't easy.
> 
> Göran
Click to expand...


The figures I was working with is .1mg/ton to 2mg/ton gold concentration.

Hence: 5m3/s = 5*60*60*24 = 432,000 m3/day of seawater flow.
I used .1mg/ton or .1mg/m3 gold concentration, hence .1*432,000m3/day=43,200mg/day of gold or 43.2g/day of gold.

Todays gold price is $37.7/g. Hence, the amount is 37.7*43.2=$1628/day


Jojo


----------



## Anonymous

Geo said:


> If the post included any of Poe's rantings, it all may have been deleted.
> 
> If I came to you and asked you a question, and you gave me an answer I thought was rude, I would still thank you for taking the time to give me an answer. You can tell a lot of someone's character when you give them an answer they don't want to hear. You have decided already that it can be done and all you need is to know how to do it. Would you believe that we do know what you need and that it's common knowledge among us and we have decided that we're just not going to tell you. If I give you an answer to a question, it will be honest, it will be to the point, it will be to the best of my knowledge but it will not be in malice. You give yourself too much credit. You come here asking questions and then bad mouth the people that respond to you is no way to make friends here. But hey, it's none of my business.



My friend, the rudeness I found in your answer was not your answer, but your suggestion that I was here asking for a partner, iow, asking for money. It is not in good taste to jump to this conclusion before you have totally understood one's motives in his posts. In some countries, that is not just rude, but considered an outright insult that demands a swift response.

But this will be my last response on this issue.


Jojo


----------



## Anonymous

goldsilverpro said:


> Is this useful?
> 
> First of all, where are you getting your numbers? When Nazi Germany was looking for money, they investigated gold in seawater. Fritz Haber, a top Nazi chemist that won the Nobel prize in Chemistry in 1918, went around the world collecting seawater samples. All in all, he analyzed 5000 samples and determined the the gold concentration to be an average of .008 mg/ton, about 125 times less than the .001g/ton they expected. At .008mg/ton (.0088mg/m3), your 432,000 gallons would only contain about 3.8g of gold. On the internet, there are lots of different numbers concerning the gold concentration in seawater. Although it was a long time ago and the equipment wasn't as good, I would consider the Haber number more valid than the others.
> 
> ________________________________________________________________
> 
> If you have a gold plating solution that contains 1 tr.oz. of gold per gallon, the plating efficiency will be close to 100%. Assuming the gold has a valence of +3, 100% would be 2.449 grams of gold depositing on the cathode per amp, per hour.
> 
> As the gold concentration approaches zero, the efficiency also approaches zero. To be reduced on the cathode, the gold ion must be in intimate contact with the cathode. As the population of gold ions decreases, there are not enough gold ions in contact with the cathode, at any given time, to consume all of the amperage that's being applied. The excess amperage has to do something. It might split water or react with other chemicals in the seawater. When the gold is down to, say, 0.01g/l, the efficiency might be down to, say, 2%, and that might be conservative. In other words, only 2% of the amperage is depositing gold and 98% is doing something else. It would take 50 times more amperage to deposit a gram of gold from a 2% efficient solution than it would from a 100% efficient solution.
> 
> At a seawater concentration of .0088mg/m3, that would be .0000000088g/l. At that concentration, the efficiency would be almost non-existent. I would not be surprised if it was as low as one millionth of 1%. If so, it would take 100,000,000 amps for 1 hour to get the same 2.449g.
> 
> I've been plating gold, in one form or another, since 1966. When recovering gold by electrolysis, I usually was able to analyze the final effluent by AA. I have never seen a solution that was totally barren of gold after extended electrolysis. There was always at least .001g/l of gold remaining. If it wouldn't plate out at that level, it surely wouldn't plate out of a solution 113,000 times weaker.



Please elaborate on why you think it would take 100,000,000 amps for 1 hour.

I was thinking that I would apply <1.5volts to prevent electrolyzing the water. At these voltage level, only the metals would accumulate on the electrodes. Am I wrong in this assumption?

If only metals would accumulate, I don't think the current would be that high - I am assuming it would be a few amps, maybe even less. Am I wrong in making this assumption? (Note that I am saying this not as a challenge to your knowledge, but as an honest genuine question. I really don't know how much current is needed.)

Jojo


----------



## g_axelsson

Jojo Iznart said:


> The figures I was working with is .1mg/ton to 2mg/ton gold concentration


Where did you find that? I suggest you find a more reliably source.

Göran


----------



## Anonymous

g_axelsson said:


> Jojo Iznart said:
> 
> 
> 
> The figures I was working with is .1mg/ton to 2mg/ton gold concentration
> 
> 
> 
> Where did you find that? I suggest you find a more reliably source.
> 
> Göran
Click to expand...


This site among others quote this figure. Are you saying it is wrong? 

http://www.wisegeek.org/can-gold-be-extracted-from-seawater.htm

If indeed the concentration is 1000 times less than this figure, then my plans are dead. It does not become economical.


Jojo


----------



## FrugalRefiner

Jojo Iznart said:


> FrugalRefiner said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jojo Iznart said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thus far, in over a dozen responses, only Goran has given an answer that resembles some semblance of usefulness. It seems that people's reactions has had a tone of rudeness in it.
> 
> 
> 
> I suggested some search terms I tested before posting. How was I rude?
> 
> Dave
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I searched this forum before I posted, and searched it again using your suggested keywords. They all failed to return useful information. If you have a specific thread in mind that you feel I missed and you consider informative, please link it - I'd appreciate it.
> 
> Like I said, all I've seen are people expressing their opinion that it is "not economical". I have not seen any good calculations.
> 
> 
> Jojo
Click to expand...

I'm sorry I couldn't have been more help. I still don't believe I was rude.  

Dave


----------



## mls26cwru

i could be wrong, some of the conversions are off.... ppm concentrations are for weights, not volumes (which makes the numbers all the smaller) which the original poster claimed his flow rates are... a mole of gold takes up less volume than a mole of water. from my calculations, (using .004 ppb from google) it would take nearly ~5.25 days of running the given flowrate of 5m3/s @ 100% extraction efficiency to extract 1 gram of gold.

6.02E+23	= 1 mole of atoms

4.00E-12	=# moles of au atoms in 1 mole of water @ .004ppb (.004parts au/1,000,000,000 parts of water)
196.97	= mass of 1 mole Au in grams
7.88E-10	= grams au in a mole of seawater

18 = volume of a mole of water (cm3) (Volume = 1 (density) * 18 (molar mass of water, or weight)
2.28E+10	= cm3 of water needed for 1 gram of gold (18/7.88E+10)
2.28E+06	= m3 of water needed (2.28E+10/10000)

4.57E+05	seconds needed to pump enough water to recover 1 gram of gold (2.28E+6 / 5m3/s)
1.27E+02	hours needed to pump water (4.57E+5/3600s)
5.29E+00	days needed to pump enough water for 1 g of gold @ 5m3/s flowrate (1.27E+2 / 24hrs)

seems like a long time for one gram of Au. someone correct me if im wrong... my math skills are a bit rusty


----------



## RikkiRicardo

Hi Jojo Iznart

Hi i would like to see some pictures of your hydro turbine plant or is this just a prototype ?
back in July August 2014 this is what you had. You say at this time you have a plant running.
(I am already pumping for my hydroturbine using renewable energy)
please don't get me wrong I'm asking this for reason, that i find this a interesting topic if you have already a working system this is great now
what i see that you are trying to take something to get extra income and that is great.
so i feel that people would need to see how this works so that a plan maybe looked into how to this can be done.
what we would be looking at is a system that can collect all adsorbing mineral ions from the sea here is a list that i found.
So it would not be just the gold that i would go after. So this is why i would like to know if you have a working system.


In the Philippines there is a very strong current so that is good.

RikkiRicardo


----------



## g_axelsson

Jojo Iznart said:


> g_axelsson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jojo Iznart said:
> 
> 
> 
> The figures I was working with is .1mg/ton to 2mg/ton gold concentration
> 
> 
> 
> Where did you find that? I suggest you find a more reliably source.
> 
> Göran
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This site among others quote this figure. Are you saying it is wrong?
> 
> http://www.wisegeek.org/can-gold-be-extracted-from-seawater.htm
> 
> If indeed the concentration is 1000 times less than this figure, then my plans are dead. It does not become economical.
> 
> 
> Jojo
Click to expand...

I've given you two sources so far... here are a few more.
http://oceanservice.noaa.gov/facts/gold.html "Each liter of seawater contains, on average, about 13 billionths of a gram of gold." 
http://www.hindawi.com/journals/isrn/2012/705142/ " Gold occurs at very low natural contents, about 4 ng g−1 in rocks, 1 ng g−1 in soils, and 0.05 ng mL−1 in sea water."

Even that wise geek writes "on average 0.0000000006%" = 0.000 000 000 006 = 6x10-12
With 1000*1000 grams of water per m3 it gives 0.000 006 g/m3 which is 6 microgram Au / cubic meter, not 0.1-2 milligram. That wisegeek had some problems with the numbers too.

I suggest you do the math yourself.

Göran


----------



## Long Shot

Well this has been one "interesting" thread. Accusations of ill manners, disregard for wisdom, failure to acknowledge what is known and communicated, demonstrations of mathematical fortitude, applying extreme optimism in regards to "ore" grade all to support something that has been proved uneconomical and it seems although no is the answer, no just won't do. Jojo - I am just a newb and I am not an engineer or rocket scientist. What I do know is that there are people on this forum that know way more about gold recovery and refining than you and I will ever know. When someone like GSP gives you the response he did and tells you you need extreme amperage to do what you are proposing, with the raw material the way it is (volume and concentration), I think you should believe him. As he stated, since 1966, I don't know how old you were but I was four then. One can learn a lot in school but experience is THE great teacher. Your ambition is noble but I think the secret will not be found out trying to mine the wisdom of gold refiners, it will be found when you can economically get all of the NaCl (and others) out of the seawater before you try to recover any gold. That would be the major accomplishment in itself. The wealth of the future will be in potable water, it has been going on for awhile. I believe someone said earlier on that if you can build a huge, economical desalination plant on the coast you would be a billionaire several times over. Gold is nice but you can't drink it. At the moment you can acquire anything you want if you have much gold but if there is no water to drink you die in short order.


----------



## Anonymous

g_axelsson said:


> Jojo Iznart said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> g_axelsson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jojo Iznart said:
> 
> 
> 
> The figures I was working with is .1mg/ton to 2mg/ton gold concentration
> 
> 
> 
> Where did you find that? I suggest you find a more reliably source.
> 
> Göran
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This site among others quote this figure. Are you saying it is wrong?
> 
> http://www.wisegeek.org/can-gold-be-extracted-from-seawater.htm
> 
> If indeed the concentration is 1000 times less than this figure, then my plans are dead. It does not become economical.
> 
> 
> Jojo
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I've given you two sources so far... here are a few more.
> http://oceanservice.noaa.gov/facts/gold.html "Each liter of seawater contains, on average, about 13 billionths of a gram of gold."
> http://www.hindawi.com/journals/isrn/2012/705142/ " Gold occurs at very low natural contents, about 4 ng g−1 in rocks, 1 ng g−1 in soils, and 0.05 ng mL−1 in sea water."
> 
> Even that wise geek writes "on average 0.0000000006%" = 0.000 000 000 006 = 6x10-12
> With 1000*1000 grams of water per m3 it gives 0.000 006 g/m3 which is 6 microgram Au / cubic meter, not 0.1-2 milligram. That wisegeek had some problems with the numbers too.
> 
> I suggest you do the math yourself.
> 
> Göran
Click to expand...


My friend, I appreciate your answers to me. I am in no wise trying to argue just because I am argumentative.

I believe it boils down to the original assumptions. You say the concentration is .006mg/m3, I am working from .1mg/m3 figure. If your figure is correct, extraction would be uneconomical. If my figure is correct, extraction would probably border on being favorable considering the water flow is free.

I have read that concentrations in the western pacific area, (the area of my interest) is higher than other oceanic locations. I believe this has something to do with the volcanoes in our Pacific Rim of Fire area where the Philippines is. 

Is it possible that my figures are correct due to this. If it is, would you acknowledge that extraction might be feasible?

Jojo


----------



## nickvc

Jojo Iznart said:


> g_axelsson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jojo Iznart said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> g_axelsson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jojo Iznart said:
> 
> 
> 
> The figures I was working with is .1mg/ton to 2mg/ton gold concentration
> 
> 
> 
> Where did you find that? I suggest you find a more reliably source.
> 
> Göran
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This site among others quote this figure. Are you saying it is wrong?
> 
> http://www.wisegeek.org/can-gold-be-extracted-from-seawater.htm
> 
> If indeed the concentration is 1000 times less than this figure, then my plans are dead. It does not become economical.
> 
> 
> Jojo
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I've given you two sources so far... here are a few more.
> http://oceanservice.noaa.gov/facts/gold.html "Each liter of seawater contains, on average, about 13 billionths of a gram of gold."
> http://www.hindawi.com/journals/isrn/2012/705142/ " Gold occurs at very low natural contents, about 4 ng g−1 in rocks, 1 ng g−1 in soils, and 0.05 ng mL−1 in sea water."
> 
> Even that wise geek writes "on average 0.0000000006%" = 0.000 000 000 006 = 6x10-12
> With 1000*1000 grams of water per m3 it gives 0.000 006 g/m3 which is 6 microgram Au / cubic meter, not 0.1-2 milligram. That wisegeek had some problems with the numbers too.
> 
> I suggest you do the math yourself.
> 
> Göran
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My friend, I appreciate your answers to me. I am in no wise trying to argue just because I am argumentative.
> 
> I believe it boils down to the original assumptions. You say the concentration is .006mg/m3, I am working from .1mg/m3 figure. If your figure is correct, extraction would be uneconomical. If my figure is correct, extraction would probably border on being favorable considering the water flow is free.
> 
> I have read that concentrations in the western pacific area, (the area of my interest) is higher than other oceanic locations. I believe this has something to do with the volcanoes in our Pacific Rim of Fire area where the Philippines is.
> 
> Is it possible that my figures are correct due to this. If it is, would you acknowledge that extraction might be feasible?
> 
> Jojo
Click to expand...


Jojo there is only one way to find out the answer to that and it's to have some samples assayed, I doubt there are many places who could get an accurate answer and the cost will not be cheap but of you really want to proceed with this it's the first vital step to prove economic feasibility.


----------



## Harold_V

Jojo Iznart said:


> Harold,
> 
> If my attitude offends you so much, then by all means ban me.


I see that you prefer to retain your attitude---
That's a ponderous chip you bear on your shoulder. Might be a good idea to set it down. 

For the record, your attitude did not offend me, as my comments were intended to provide guidance in the behavior that is acceptable on this board, but it is doing so now. One more smart remark from you and you will, indeed, be banned. We have no room for those who can't control their mouths on this board. 

Care to give it another try, with manners?

Harold


----------



## justinhcase

nickvc said:


> Jojo Iznart said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> g_axelsson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jojo Iznart said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> g_axelsson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jojo Iznart said:
> 
> 
> 
> The figures I was working with is .1mg/ton to 2mg/ton gold concentration
> 
> 
> 
> Where did you find that? I suggest you find a more reliably source.
> 
> Göran
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This site among others quote this figure. Are you saying it is wrong?
> 
> http://www.wisegeek.org/can-gold-be-extracted-from-seawater.htm
> 
> If indeed the concentration is 1000 times less than this figure, then my plans are dead. It does not become economical.
> 
> 
> Jojo
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I've given you two sources so far... here are a few more.
> http://oceanservice.noaa.gov/facts/gold.html "Each liter of seawater contains, on average, about 13 billionths of a gram of gold."
> http://www.hindawi.com/journals/isrn/2012/705142/ " Gold occurs at very low natural contents, about 4 ng g−1 in rocks, 1 ng g−1 in soils, and 0.05 ng mL−1 in sea water."
> 
> Even that wise geek writes "on average 0.0000000006%" = 0.000 000 000 006 = 6x10-12
> With 1000*1000 grams of water per m3 it gives 0.000 006 g/m3 which is 6 microgram Au / cubic meter, not 0.1-2 milligram. That wisegeek had some problems with the numbers too.
> 
> I suggest you do the math yourself.
> 
> Göran
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My friend, I appreciate your answers to me. I am in no wise trying to argue just because I am argumentative.
> 
> I believe it boils down to the original assumptions. You say the concentration is .006mg/m3, I am working from .1mg/m3 figure. If your figure is correct, extraction would be uneconomical. If my figure is correct, extraction would probably border on being favorable considering the water flow is free.
> 
> I have read that concentrations in the western pacific area, (the area of my interest) is higher than other oceanic locations. I believe this has something to do with the volcanoes in our Pacific Rim of Fire area where the Philippines is.
> 
> Is it possible that my figures are correct due to this. If it is, would you acknowledge that extraction might be feasible?
> 
> Jojo
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Jojo there is only one way to find out the answer to that and it's to have some samples assayed, I doubt there are many places who could get an accurate answer and the cost will not be cheap but of you really want to proceed with this it's the first vital step to prove economic feasibility.
Click to expand...

Surely the point would be to find out just how much you your self could recover from a given sample.
It is always good to compare your own result's against other peoples finding's.
But the result's some one get's from a mass gas spectrometer has very little baring on what you can recover.
Particularly when we are looking at such a dilute source,even an error of a point or two (which you will find most analytical lab's will hide away deep with in there contract to cover there ass as to liability for errant results) will put your results off by a mile.
There is some nice activity coming in from dredging the sea floor in some place's
So although Au from the water may be impossible Au from a good quality remote dredger working the sea floor may be feasible.


----------



## Harold_V

FrugalRefiner said:


> I'm sorry I couldn't have been more help. I still don't believe I was rude.
> 
> Dave


Our mister jojo is about to get an education in how one should behave. I've had it with his unkind and less than deserved remarks towards the readers on this board. 

One further unkind remark to ANYONE and he's history. A negative response of any kind is all it will take now. We have no need for his nonsense, keeping the board off balance. 

Harold.


----------



## patnor1011

If you trawl net for references and then decide to work with the highest possible variable then you are dreaming. 
Who is the person behind wisegeek article numbers? You should find answer to this question before you will start believing to those numbers. If you fail to acknowledge even lower numbers presented all around on internet and simply choose to work with high ones you just found somewhere - that is called dreaming. If you spend just few minutes on that site you will see button "suggest edits" that will show you that those numbers are not definite, there is not much to add to this thought. Maybe just on thing, internet is full of crap, to find something solid take a lot of time and effort. If you choose to believe somebody on internet you make sure you have a very good reason and you make sure you will try to verify whatever he/she said. If you do not believe to the people who offered their thoughts you can try to prove them wrong but do not try to accuse them of rudeness or malice just because their thought do not correspond with your ideas or dreams.

People who decide to work with highest numbers around and ignore low numbers which can be verified (hence Germany attempt) will have hard time to succeed.

0.004ppb as I said before. What is so hard to understand here?

Zillions of studies and opinions about why it is not feasible idea. If you do not agree, then by all means prove them all wrong. There are many theoretical things which simply cant be put in practice, cost is one of factors here.

You did not asked if there is gold or if that can be extracted. Yes to both, there is gold and can be extracted. But only if you do have a lot of money to spend.

I do not understand why do you accuse people of rudeness if they just present their opinion to question you asked. If someone do not share you dream how is that you consider it rude?


----------



## justinhcase

patnor1011 said:


> If you trawl net for references and then decide to work with the highest possible variable then you are dreaming.
> Who is the person behind wisegeek article numbers? You should find answer to this question before you will start believing to those numbers.
> If you spend just few minutes on that site you will see button "suggest edits" that will show you that those numbers are not definite, there is not much to add to this thought.
> 
> People who decide to work with highest numbers around and ignore low numbers which can be verified (hence Germany attempt) will have hard time to succeed.
> 
> 0.004ppb as I said before. What is so hard to understand here?


I call them aspirational refiners.
there is quite a majority of them in operation :lol:


----------



## Anonymous

Harold_V said:


> Jojo Iznart said:
> 
> 
> 
> Harold,
> 
> If my attitude offends you so much, then by all means ban me.
> 
> 
> 
> I see that you prefer to retain your attitude---
> That's a ponderous chip you bear on your shoulder. Might be a good idea to set it down.
> 
> For the record, your attitude did not offend me, as my comments were intended to provide guidance in the behavior that is acceptable on this board, but it is doing so now. One more smart remark from you and you will, indeed, be banned. We have no room for those who can't control their mouths on this board.
> 
> Care to give it another try, with manners?
> 
> Harold
Click to expand...


My friend, if the first response I get is a rude insult, and you turn it around accusing me of rudeness, then by all means, ban me. So, my attitude is unacceptable and yet Geo's outward insult is?

Yeah, don't bother, I'm out of here. I don't have any use for a bunch of elitist arrogant pretenders anyways. Very few have actually attempted to help. The rest are noise complaining about how "rudely" I reacted to an insult with the corresponding knee-jerk nonsense. 

Just curious, how many here have actually attempted, even at a lab scale, to extract Gold from seawater? If you have not done it, that means you have not looked at the economics yourself. And yet, you are so convinced you are right based on what "others" have posted. Talk about a herd sheep-like mentality.



Sayonara. (just go ahead and delete my email from your database, OK?)


----------



## patnor1011

Jojo Iznart said:


> Harold_V said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jojo Iznart said:
> 
> 
> 
> Harold,
> 
> If my attitude offends you so much, then by all means ban me.
> 
> 
> 
> I see that you prefer to retain your attitude---
> That's a ponderous chip you bear on your shoulder. Might be a good idea to set it down.
> 
> For the record, your attitude did not offend me, as my comments were intended to provide guidance in the behavior that is acceptable on this board, but it is doing so now. One more smart remark from you and you will, indeed, be banned. We have no room for those who can't control their mouths on this board.
> 
> Care to give it another try, with manners?
> 
> Harold
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My friend, if the first response I get is a rude insult, and you turn it around accusing me of rudeness, then by all means, ban me. So, my attitude is unacceptable and yet Geo's outward insult is?
> 
> Yeah, don't bother, I'm out of here. I don't have any use for a bunch of elitist arrogant pretenders anyways. Very few have actually attempted to help. The rest are noise complaining about how "rudely" I reacted to an insult with the corresponding knee-jerk nonsense.
> 
> Just curious, how many here have actually attempted, even at a lab scale, to extract Gold from seawater? If you have not done it, that means you have not looked at the economics yourself. And yet, you are so convinced you are right based on what "others" have posted. Talk about a herd sheep-like mentality.
> 
> 
> 
> Sayonara. (just go ahead and delete my email from your database, OK?)
Click to expand...


Point is you did not either yet you do want to convince us your numbers from somewhere in internet are holy grail. What makes you so convinced based on numbers from one obscure article? Isn't that blind sheep mentality? 
All you do is come here asking for free lunch. You are either dreaming or got gold fever my friend, I have seen many like you. They always come with attitude, convinced about their own truth, get angry and then go back from where they came from.
You should get together with dr Poe, I am sure both of you will have a lot in common.


----------



## patnor1011

Jojo Iznart said:


> Folks, I realize that this topic has probably been discussed before but I could not find good threads when searching for it here. Also, I realize that many people will instinctively say that it is "uneconomical" to extract gold from seawater, but I believe my situation may make it economical, so please hear me out.
> 
> I am an Electrical Engineer and I have developed a way to pump seawater using renewable energy - specifically using the waves themselves to power my pump. The primary purpose of the pumped seawater is to power the hydroturbines on shore to generate electricity. I already have engineering designs made up for a 3-5MW power plant using this method.
> 
> This power plant will pump a total of about 3-5 cubic meters/second of seawater. After powering the hydroturbines, I have to discharge this amount of sea water back to the sea - UNLESS, I can make use of it for further economic gain.
> 
> The best idea I am considering is to extract gold and other precious metals from this existing seawater flow.
> 
> Many people said that gold extraction is uneconomical because of the amount of sea water one has to pump to shore. The energy involved in pumping so much seawater would make it uneconomical. But what if, the pumping cost is zero, I am already pumping for my hydroturbine using renewable energy, I can deliver this amount of seawater flow for free. All of a sudden, the energy equation becomes favorable, probably leading to a favorable economic situation.
> 
> Knowing this fact, how would one go about in building a contraption to extract gold from this amount of seawater flow (5m3/s)?
> 
> I was thinking of using some electrolysis method using carbon anodes to extract the gold. Can anybody suggest a better method? Even if you don't have all the details, it would help me further in my research.
> 
> I appreciate any and all inputs. I may be an electrical engineer, but I am ignorant of any methods (electrolysis or otherwise) for extracting gold from seawater.
> 
> *If* an economical method can be adapted to my power plants, this would be huge economically and I would be willing to partner with companies and individuals in bringing this to full market penetration. I plan to build about 300 power plant just here in the Philippines alone, so this could be huge.
> 
> Jojo


----------



## g_axelsson

Jojo Iznart said:


> My friend, I appreciate your answers to me. I am in no wise trying to argue just because I am argumentative.
> 
> I believe it boils down to the original assumptions. You say the concentration is .006mg/m3, I am working from .1mg/m3 figure. If your figure is correct, extraction would be uneconomical. If my figure is correct, extraction would probably border on being favorable considering the water flow is free.
> 
> I have read that concentrations in the western pacific area, (the area of my interest) is higher than other oceanic locations. I believe this has something to do with the volcanoes in our Pacific Rim of Fire area where the Philippines is.
> 
> Is it possible that my figures are correct due to this. If it is, would you acknowledge that extraction might be feasible?
> 
> Jojo


I give up... several members and me too have given you the numbers, made the calculations and given several arguments to why it is not feasible to extract gold from seawater *economically* and still you cling to your one number that is off by a factor of 1000 from every other source, including their own numbers.

There is a reason that none of us have even tried to extract gold. We do the math first to see what is feasible. There are so many sources of gold, some economically, some not. Do the math and decide what to pursuit. Sometimes we do it just for fun or to learn a new technique but we don't get blinded by an irrational love for gold.

I will give you a final answer on your last question.

No and No.

Göran


----------



## kurtak

Jojo Iznart said:


> 5. The remaining high cost item would be the electrolysis energy needed. Do you have any idea how much this will cost?
> 
> 
> Jojo



Jojo 

the amount of energy has more value as energy sent down the line & out to the power grid then the value of the gold recovered if that energy was used to try to recover the gold --- its that simple

I believe that is what the others are trying to tell you - these guys are "tops" in their field - this has been discussed here before & they have crunched the numbers - they know what they are talking about

Getting mad because you are not hearing the answer you want to hear is not going to change the facts --- it is only going to result in your being banned --- & you have been warned of this by the man that has the authority to do it --- so you can ether cool your jets & stick around & learn something form these guys that are "tops" in their fields - or find your self gone & still wondering "what if" with no one to help with the answers

Kurt


----------



## goldsilverpro

Jojo Iznart said:


> goldsilverpro said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is this useful?
> 
> First of all, where are you getting your numbers? When Nazi Germany was looking for money, they investigated gold in seawater. Fritz Haber, a top Nazi chemist that won the Nobel prize in Chemistry in 1918, went around the world collecting seawater samples. All in all, he analyzed 5000 samples and determined the the gold concentration to be an average of .008 mg/ton, about 125 times less than the .001g/ton they expected. At .008mg/ton (.0088mg/m3), your 432,000 gallons would only contain about 3.8g of gold. On the internet, there are lots of different numbers concerning the gold concentration in seawater. Although it was a long time ago and the equipment wasn't as good, I would consider the Haber number more valid than the others.
> 
> ________________________________________________________________
> 
> If you have a gold plating solution that contains 1 tr.oz. of gold per gallon, the plating efficiency will be close to 100%. Assuming the gold has a valence of +3, 100% would be 2.449 grams of gold depositing on the cathode per amp, per hour.
> 
> As the gold concentration approaches zero, the efficiency also approaches zero. To be reduced on the cathode, the gold ion must be in intimate contact with the cathode. As the population of gold ions decreases, there are not enough gold ions in contact with the cathode, at any given time, to consume all of the amperage that's being applied. The excess amperage has to do something. It might split water or react with other chemicals in the seawater. When the gold is down to, say, 0.01g/l, the efficiency might be down to, say, 2%, and that might be conservative. In other words, only 2% of the amperage is depositing gold and 98% is doing something else. It would take 50 times more amperage to deposit a gram of gold from a 2% efficient solution than it would from a 100% efficient solution.
> 
> At a seawater concentration of .0088mg/m3, that would be .0000000088g/l. At that concentration, the efficiency would be almost non-existent. I would not be surprised if it was as low as one millionth of 1%. If so, it would take 100,000,000 amps for 1 hour to get the same 2.449g.
> 
> I've been plating gold, in one form or another, since 1966. When recovering gold by electrolysis, I usually was able to analyze the final effluent by AA. I have never seen a solution that was totally barren of gold after extended electrolysis. There was always at least .001g/l of gold remaining. If it wouldn't plate out at that level, it surely wouldn't plate out of a solution 113,000 times weaker.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Please elaborate on why you think it would take 100,000,000 amps for 1 hour.
> 
> I was thinking that I would apply <1.5volts to prevent electrolyzing the water. At these voltage level, only the metals would accumulate on the electrodes. Am I wrong in this assumption?
> 
> If only metals would accumulate, I don't think the current would be that high - I am assuming it would be a few amps, maybe even less. Am I wrong in making this assumption? (Note that I am saying this not as a challenge to your knowledge, but as an honest genuine question. I really don't know how much current is needed.)
> 
> Jojo
Click to expand...


The amperage is what deposits the gold. According to Faraday's law, applying 1 amp for 1 hour will deposit 2.449g of valence 3 gold, at 100% efficiency. Five amps for 3 hours will deposit 5 X 3 X 2.449 = 36.735g at 100% efficiency. If the efficiency is, say, only .01%, 5A for 3 hours will deposit 36.735 X .0001 = .003675g. The whole point of my post was the "efficiency". The lower the efficiency, the higher the amperage will be needed to deposit the same amount of gold.

To deposit the gold as metal, the gold ions must essentially be touching the cathode (or at least be in the cathode film layer, which is microscopically thin). Any gold ion that does not touch the cathode will not deposit. Also, if the seawater is flowing through the system at great speeds, very few gold ions will make contact. This, along with the very low gold concentration, will result in *extremely* low efficiency. It would take extremely large amounts of amperage to deposit very small amounts of gold.

All I have written so far assumes a solution of gold only. With the 60, or more, other things that are in saltwater, who knows what would happen? It would surely make the situation worse. And we haven't even discussed filtration yet.

All in all, I doubt if any of the gold would deposit. If it does, it would probably be immeasurable.


----------



## butcher

First, I wish to comment on my friend Patnor's postings as of late, Pat I am very impressed at how well your English has improved, I have always learned a lot from you. 

JoJo,
Like most new miners to gold, what you seem to have is gold fever, it is a terrible disease, it can make a man lose reality, seeking, working and dreaming, himself to the poor house, blinding him to reality, or the truth, that he does not wish to see, by his blindness of that yellow glow of the metal.

There is some gold dissolved in the ocean, but trying to remove it from the water is a challenge that will be not be economically feasible, that fact has been proven.

You have been given some very good reasons why, and some very good suggestions, the forum members have tried to be helpful and polite, and have given you several good reasons why what your trying to do is just impossible, you cannot extract gold economically from the ocean, this is not to say you could not get a little gold as a byproduct from mining some other commodity from the water like salt and bromine and recovering the metals as a byproduct.

You need to spend some time studying and experimenting with electrolysis, and the subject you are asking about, to be able to understand why you have been getting the answers you have, and spend some time studying recovery of metals from solutions using the electrolytic methods, then go back and read GSP's post to understand what he is saying, basically unless you concentrated the gold in the solution, what you propose cannot be done economically, and the way you seem to be describing how you wish to do it, it cannot be done at all.

I do not see where you have done any study on this subject, you may have gotten the idea and read a few pages on the internet (much of which is misinformation), but you have not studied this subject to understand the nuts and bolts of it.
I have to admit I have not studied enough of how to recover gold from ocean water, but I have studied enough of the subjects, around this, and the of recovery of gold, to see the futility in trying to recover gold from this source, unless it was a byproduct of some other mineral recovery of the salts of the ocean, to purify those salts.

Just because there is gold in a mountain or in the ocean does not mean mining for it would be worthwhile.

Many a prospectors and miner have been scammed, and cheated, (many more than have been successful), because of their blindness of the gold fever, they wish to believe what they want, even sometimes when the truth is clearly visible they do not see it, or wish to see it, they cannot see past the golden glass over their eyes, they hold off on their dream the gold is there and they are the ones who will retrieve it, until they die a poor man with that gold fever never wanting to see the truth.


----------



## justinhcase

Is it possible the sea has acted just like any other solution and dropped all it's value to the bottom.
We did spend rather a lot of time in the 40's filling it with hundred's of metric tun's of steel,which is still there and slowly degrading so why any one would expect it to have any thing more than our own waste is amazing.
I would like to see data from samples from earlier dates(may be able to use thing's like sea salt used for embalming and mummification.),it would have no real value but it would be interesting to see what impact we had had..


----------



## Harold_V

Jojo Iznart said:


> My friend,


You got that wrong, too. I am not your friend, nor would I choose you as one. You are also no longer a registered member of this board.

I found it strange that unless readers agreed with his every point, they were rude. 

Armed with that thought, I have concluded that he didn't come here for information, he came here for confirmation, which is something that must be earned through performance. Anything that did not agree with his assumptions was rejected. I am finished with allowing him to keep the board off balance. 

Harold


----------



## subhajit_waugh

Sea water contains about 0.1-2 mg/tonne of gold dissolved in water (average 1 mg/tonne). But considering the amount of seawater available, it is a really huge goldmine! Theoretically fine, but problems were practical (which prevented profitable extraction till now). This can however become possible with the old electrolysis technique, with the only difference that the voltage difference between the electrodes must be maintained slightly less than the minimum potential difference required for electrolysis of water (yes, there is a minimum pot. difference, say 1.23 volts, below which water won't be hydrolyzed. But since gold lies below hydrogen in electrochemical series, it will get deposited on the cathode!). Since it is impractical to pump millions of gallons of water, it is more practical to move the electrodes over vast regions of oceans. This process can be made much more profitable by another simple process (which I explain later).

With a slight modification, the propellers of ships can be designed to form the electrodes! Each of the 3 blades will be a stack of 3 blades (like a sandwich) with the sandwiched blade maintained +ve and the other two forming cathode (of course they won't be touching each other. There will be a gap of a few cm between each blade, supported by rubber/cork). The tilt of each blades will be much less than conventional propeller, so that it makes much more revolution per advancement, and hence scan the volume of water more effectively. It is practical to make each blade 1.7 meter in length, so that cross sectional area of circle formed on revolution of blades will be 10 meter square. This will scan 10 tonne of water per 1 meter moved by the ship. Considering that efficiency of extraction is only 0.1 mg/tonne, it comes to 1 mg/meter of distance covered (or 1 gram per k.m. or 1 k.g gold per 1000 k.m.) So, this may not be profitable if ship is designed only for gold hunt. But it can be a real bonus for commercial ships which has to cover thousands of k.m. anyway.
This process can be made much more profitable by another simple process.
Consider this practical concept: there are 3 primary ways of separating U235 from U238. Forget the diffusion & centrifugal processes. 3rd method: You shine a laser light of exactly matching wavelength to selectively excite U235 (it is easy nowadays, since we wave Cu vapor laser & dye-lasers for fine tuning) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_vapor_laser_isotope_separation
PLAN: Just like a Sodium vapor lamp, or Copper vapor lamp/laser (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copper_vapor_laser) it is possible to make a gold vapor lamp, which will selectively excite Au ions, thus requiring even lesser voltage (I believe it will be lesser than the critical voltage which starts breaking H2O into Hydrogen & oxygen). This process/step is critical because as the concentration of ions (Au in this case) start decreasing, the voltage required to extract starts increasing. But selective excitation should help a lot. And besides, it will help to dissociate (charge) neutral covalently bonded gold-monohydroxide.
[Let me explain and elaborate about the gold vapor light. It can be built using same technique as that of a copper vapor lamp. Actually, copper vapor laser is one of the few lasers that can be home built! 
Since using pure gold vapor lamp is difficult to construct, because of the extremely high temperature, necessary to create gold vapor, therefore, gold halides, like gold chloride or gold bromide or gold iodide may be substituted, since they form vapors at much lower temperatures]


----------



## jimdoc

Are you friends with the welder guy?


----------



## g_axelsson

A pipe dream.

Göran


----------



## niks neims

Sorry for the off-topic, but since this thread is unlikely to ever be taken seriously maybe it is ok.... 

Reading this thread just made me really really sad again that Harold is gone... :/... And it is not the first time... 

So what is the deal guys, it was really bugging me and after doing a tiny bit of research i understand there was a little unpleasantnes back in 2016 over few sensitive questions... But what happened? Did he just got mad and left? Did Noxx fire him? I understand he is still alive and well (dawkins willing!), eaven keeping online presence at other forums, just not coming here? Was there ever attempt to get him back? Where do things stand? 


The reason i am asking is because while lurking forum these few last weeks, reading stickied, referenced, old threads it was impossible not to feel harolds presence  and i grew very acustomed to it... Many times just reading some users post i could feel in my gut - you just wait buddy, when Harold reads what crap you are spewing- and shure enough, few posts down the line there he was, magnificent in his just fury, armed with dictionary and phrases fit for a poet... For me, as a non-native english speaker almost each his post was a treat to read... Not to mention his handling of unruly members... Some of these dramas rivaled TV shows in terms of excitement... 

Shure he was a little set in his ways, and you could tell, in real life he is a bit of an asshole (Who isnt?), and sometimes, maybe just maybe there was a hint of absolute power corrupting him, maaaaaybe a little megalomania (dude, please dont Ban me, if you ever come back, you know...) 

But from my point of view i can truly say, as a moderator he was as effective as unique, and could be one of few great persons that made this forum so succesfull... Regarding his moderating abilities maybe eaven the top person... Of course he was also one of the best Regarding his skill as a refiner and willingness to share his knowledge also, but there is some steep competition there... Not going to mention anyone, u guys know Who you are, not trying to suck up (well just to harold )... 

So I guess what i am wondering is, if i get `the feels` every time i see some old posts of harolds just from studying forum history... How do you, regular guys, feel knowing he is no longer part of this forums life? And i cant help but feel a little bit nostalgic as if with his passing this forum has lost something very beautiful and irreplaceble.... 

You know... No homo...


----------



## jimdoc

Harold said he may check in on the forum some day.
My guess is that will be if and when he is damn good and ready to.
I would say we all miss him, but I guess there are some that don't.
I don't know what happened. There are a few mysteries here on the forum.
Maybe this forum was a habit that had him just losing his time, with no real gain.
He is getting things done. Priorities change all the time, for everybody.


----------



## butcher

Harold was one of a kind.

It is my belief we would not have the forum, or its values we do today, if it was not for him.
The monkeys would have ran the zoo, I feel many of us learned more than just refining metals from him, I did anyway.

I emailed him recently, He was doing good enjoying life.


----------



## justinhcase

jimdoc said:


> Harold said he may check in on the forum some day.
> My guess is that will be if and when he is damn good and ready to.


May be he already has.
It seems to have become quite fashionable to change one's I.D.
I would think it would be quite amusing for him just to observe.


----------



## 4metals

Harold is not the type to change his ID and just lurk in the wings. He is still a moderator with all of the powers and privileges that come with being a moderator (believe me the list is short!). He is well respected here, as he should be, and there is nothing being done to inhibit his return. His absence is, to the best of my knowledge, voluntary on his part.


----------



## jimdoc

4metals said:


> Harold is not the type to change his ID and just lurk in the wings.



I agree 100%


----------



## justinhcase

it is an old tradition.
Even Napoleon was rumored to dress as a private and walk amongst his troop's so he could better understand their moral.
Old habits die very hard if some one has logged on every day for years they will lightly still log on even if they do not feel comfortable to post.


----------



## anachronism

Nope

Harold's not built that way.


----------



## Palladium

Their comes a point when the teacher realizes he has taught his pupils and taught them well! 
It is then time for the master to move on to the next set of challenges and pupils that awaits him. Harold is off sharing his knowledge so that it may be utilized and passed on for future generation to come just like he has left his mark on the forum as the gentleman above elegantly stated. It gives him purpose and through that purpose he gains strength to continue forward with meaning in his life.


----------



## butcher

I find wisdom in them thar southern words Palladium,


----------



## Topher_osAUrus

Palladium said:


> Their comes a point when the teacher realizes he has taught his pupils and taught them well!
> It is then time for the master to move on to the next set of challenges and pupils that awaits him. Harold is off sharing his knowledge so that it may be utilized and passed on for future generation to come just like he has left his mark on the forum as the gentleman above elegantly stated. It gives him purpose and through that purpose he gains strength to continue forward with meaning in his life.





butcher said:


> I find wisdom in them thar southern words Palladium,



Hear-here!
-to the gentlemen's club!


----------



## jimdoc

Wasting your time spammer.


----------



## 4metals

He's gone


----------



## archeonist

One last thing about extracting gold from seawater. The amount of gold per volume of seawater is so low that you need a huge part of energy to extract a tiny bit of gold. This energy is far more worth than the gold you extract. Even when you produced the energy by solar cells, you would be far beter of selling your energy.


----------



## jimdoc

4metals said:


> He's gone



You got to get rid of his links, that is is only reason for posting here.


----------



## Grelko

...


----------



## savusol

I love the question. and I like that you addressed the energy needs up front. I dont think you were looking for an economic analys but an academic" is it possible" and how.
the availability of an energy source interacting with the resources of the ocean opens up all kinds of possibilities,


----------



## rickbb

When you buy "sea salt" you are buying evaporated sea water. It's sold as 98% pure salt. That other 2% contains all that gold, along with just about every other mineral/metal known to mankind.

Just purify that sea salt to 100%, put the leftover 2% on sale on eBay as "gold bearing salts for recovery", sit back and rake in the money. :G


----------



## butcher

You would have to compete with the other selling their goods for gold recovery, but if you got the going price of gold in the scrap that on some of those public sales on eBay do well it is just highway robbery...

How many have lost money trying, or with some type of a scam?

Do not forget about all of that gold in our well water, I remember someone talking about seeing the gold in their coffee cup.

I would forget getting gold out of the water or salts, I would concentrate on mining the beach sands and ocean bottom.
We should be looking for mining claims and deep-sea mining if we want gold from our waters.


----------



## FrugalRefiner

butcher said:


> Do not forget about all of that gold in our well water, I remember someone talking about seeing the gold in their coffee cup.


Ahhh…, Dr. Poe. :evil: 

Dave


----------



## nickvc

Correct me if I’m wrong but I’d assumed that the gold in the seas would be dissolved because of the chlorine in sea water, hence the difficulty in recovering it, so it would not make sense to try to catch any particulates as gold been dense would sink to the bottom to be slowly dissolved by the chlorine and action of tides.


----------



## Yggdrasil

The main question is economics.

Most likely it would be more concentrated in sea salt, so it should be easier to get to it there.
As a by product from some other process... maybe? 
Lithium Magnesium and more are extracted from sea salt already I think.

It may or may not be possible in the future, using the same method they used to exctract Uranium from seawater.
This link gives nice pics 
https://newatlas.com/nuclear-uranium-seawater-fibers/55033/
but there are plenty other links out there.

So it may be just to get the right polymer in the right design and then plenty of time 
But then again I guess Gold is cheap comparing to Uranium.


----------



## butcher

Gold in the ocean as coins are not dissolved by the seawater, too much of any extent that I know of...

Gold in nature is dissolved and accumulated through hydrothermal processes, of volcanoes, and the movement of earthquakes or plate movement and gold is also accumulated through gravity separation of river and streams and beach sands (which is normally derived from load veins of gold accumulated and deposited from the plate movement and mountain building and deterioration process.


We have more volcanic activity, continental and oceanic plate activity under our ocean floors that we do on land, there is more potential for gold to be on the bottom...

Much of the gold mined on land came from the ocean beds and plates, as the plates of the coast slid upon each other like dominos converging and colliding upon each other the hot hydrothermal fluids flowing through cracks deep in Earth’s crust with high temperatures and pressures the gold is dissolved and deposits in veins or pockets, some scientist believe almost instantly in an earthquake.

https://www.livescience.com/27953-earthquakes-make-gold.html
https://www.disclose.tv/underwater-gold-mining-seabed-mining-robots-310762


----------



## Maysam

Could you please tell me why should I accept the


g_axelsson said:


> I give up... several members and me too have given you the numbers, made the calculations and given several arguments to why it is not feasible to extract gold from seawater *economically* and still you cling to your one number that is off by a factor of 1000 from every other source, including their own numbers.
> 
> There is a reason that none of us have even tried to extract gold. We do the math first to see what is feasible. There are so many sources of gold, some economically, some not. Do the math and decide what to pursuit. Sometimes we do it just for fun or to learn a new technique but we don't get blinded by an irrational love for gold.
> 
> I will give you a final answer on your last question.
> 
> No and No.
> 
> Göran


Why do you keep resisting on that number?? And why don't you analyze it by yourself?? Who said it is 00,4 ppb?? Those ancient researches don't even match with one another! However it must be a secret to all people. By the way check pubchem site for the real number


----------



## Maysam

nickvc said:


> Correct me if I’m wrong but I’d assumed that the gold in the seas would be dissolved because of the chlorine in sea water, hence the difficulty in recovering it, so it would not make sense to try to catch any particulates as gold been dense would sink to the bottom to be slowly dissolved by the chlorine and action of tides.


It is dissolved and exists as an ion.


----------



## Elemental

Maysam said:


> Could you please tell me why should I accept the
> 
> Why do you keep resisting on that number?? And why don't you analyze it by yourself?? Who said it is 00,4 ppb?? Those ancient researches don't even match with one another! However it must be a secret to all people. By the way check pubchem site for the real number


"Why are you this much pessimistic? If you are professional, you must see that the stone is wet and there is no shine of mica on them!"

Maysam, you've been on the forum for less than a day and this is the second post I've found where you're attacking a Mod/Admin. What is your deal? Also, if you have a complaint about someone's fact's here, it's on *you *to prove it wrong with some sort of *documentation, citation, research, etc*. Telling other people to "go look it up" is a logical fallacy argument and doesn't help anyone. 

Elemental


----------



## galenrog

Thus far, there is no method capable of economically recovering gold from seawater.

Perhaps, in the future, an individual or group, with people much more clever than I, will come up with something. Right now, nothing. 

Time for more coffee.


----------



## orvi

Maysam said:


> Could you please tell me why should I accept the
> 
> Why do you keep resisting on that number?? And why don't you analyze it by yourself?? Who said it is 00,4 ppb?? Those ancient researches don't even match with one another! However it must be a secret to all people. By the way check pubchem site for the real number


we do rely on research done before, because it would take immense effort to validate all things by ourselves. i dont have access to measure picogram quantities of gold in the whatever quantity of water. some folks had the right equipment and recieved the numbers we have. and there wasn´t one, there were many of them 
i dont think that me or you can do better in analysis of such a low concentration of element. researchers didn´t have equivalent samples, and if you look to the numbers given here, you will see vast difference in concentration, depending on location. previously described (higher) numbers were questioned in terms of contamination. how do you asses no contamination from the enviroment, transportation or instruments alone, regarding nearly everything inside the machines is made of metal ?
use search engine. most of the research you think of had been done before.









Gold in seawater


A suite of seawater samples has been analyzed for Au by inductively coupled plasma quadrupole mass spectroscopy (ICPMS). The recently developed method…




www.sciencedirect.com












How Much Gold Is in the Ocean?


Gold exists in the ocean, but at very dilute concentrations – estimated to be on the order of parts per trillion.




www.thoughtco.com









ShieldSquare Captcha







iopscience.iop.org





there is even a patent claiming process of extraction of gold from seawater, altough from 1901. and when you read first like 50 lines, it become obvious that this is complete nonsense 



US679215A - Method of extracting gold from sea-water. - Google Patents



more research reveal some older data:








Concentration of gold in natural waters


The purpose of this paper is to investigate the amount of gold present in natural waters. One hundred and thirty-two natural water samples were collec…




www.sciencedirect.com





recent advantage of usin MOF (metal-organic frameworks) with built polymeric substances inside the cavities, capable to adsorb, encage and chemicaly selectively reduce Au3+ to nanoparticles of gold. this may be the future of wastewater and seawater goldmining, if there would be some anywhere in the future:



https://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/jacs.8b09555


----------



## cejohnsonsr1

I can't believe this is still a thing. Gold in sea water is in its atomic state. It's not bound to the salt or anything else if I remember correctly. The problem is that there are probably no more than half a dozen atoms of gold in any cubic yard of sea water. On a planetary scale, yes, that's a lot of gold. As a practical matter, it's impossible to process enough water in a day to produce a gram of gold and even if you could the cost would be exponentially beyond prohibitive.


----------



## Maysam

Elemental said:


> "Why are you this much pessimistic? If you are professional, you must see that the stone is wet and there is no shine of mica on them!"
> 
> Maysam, you've been on the forum for less than a day and this is the second post I've found where you're attacking a Mod/Admin. What is your deal? Also, if you have a complaint about someone's fact's here, it's on *you *to prove it wrong with some sort of *documentation, citation, research, etc*. Telling other people to "go look it up" is a logical fallacy argument and doesn't help





orvi said:


> we do rely on research done before, because it would take immense effort to validate all things by ourselves. i dont have access to measure picogram quantities of gold in the whatever quantity of water. some folks had the right equipment and recieved the numbers we have. and there wasn´t one, there were many of them
> i dont think that me or you can do better in analysis of such a low concentration of element. researchers didn´t have equivalent samples, and if you look to the numbers given here, you will see vast difference in concentration, depending on location. previously described (higher) numbers were questioned in terms of contamination. how do you asses no contamination from the enviroment, transportation or instruments alone, regarding nearly everything inside the machines is made of metal ?
> use search engine. most of the research you think of had been done before.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gold in seawater
> 
> 
> A suite of seawater samples has been analyzed for Au by inductively coupled plasma quadrupole mass spectroscopy (ICPMS). The recently developed method…
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.sciencedirect.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How Much Gold Is in the Ocean?
> 
> 
> Gold exists in the ocean, but at very dilute concentrations – estimated to be on the order of parts per trillion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.thoughtco.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ShieldSquare Captcha
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> iopscience.iop.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> there is even a patent claiming process of extraction of gold from seawater, altough from 1901. and when you read first like 50 lines, it become obvious that this is complete nonsense
> 
> 
> 
> US679215A - Method of extracting gold from sea-water. - Google Patents
> 
> 
> 
> more research reveal some older data:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Concentration of gold in natural waters
> 
> 
> The purpose of this paper is to investigate the amount of gold present in natural waters. One hundred and thirty-two natural water samples were collec…
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.sciencedirect.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> recent advantage of usin MOF (metal-organic frameworks) with built polymeric substances inside the cavities, capable to adsorb, encage and chemicaly selectively reduce Au3+ to nanoparticles of gold. this may be the future of wastewater and seawater goldmining, if there would be some anywhere in the future:
> 
> 
> 
> https://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/jacs.8b09555


Hi Orvi.
I have qout for myself that is "NO ONE IS NEVER HONEST ABOUT GOLD".


----------



## Riteturn

Read: https://pubs.acs.org/doi/pdf/10.1021/jacs.8b09555 
It's highly complex tech to get detectable amounts and municipal sewage is a much better source than sea water.


----------



## Maysam

Riteturn said:


> Read: https://pubs.acs.org/doi/pdf/10.1021/jacs.8b09555
> It's highly complex tech to get detectable amounts and municipal sewage is a much better


Hi,
It might be possible with MOFs.


----------



## orvi

Maysam said:


> Hi,
> It might be possible with MOFs, only if you can produce very low price Fe-BTC/Pppda MOF and leave it in the sea water for periods of time to exract gold. According to the experience in the article you can calculate amount of gold obtained in one week using 1 ton of MOF for example. But the most important limit I found during my studies was high conc metals like sodium or so, because MOF can extract 99% of gold, on the other hand it extracts about a few hundredth percent of sodium for example. The matter is that for example 0,01% of thousands ppm will overtake 99% of a few ppb gold.
> Finally tere is a problem with sewage, that is we have nano particles and not dissolved gold. So it is mor difficult to dissolve and extract it.


i put my hands off of this. it could be done, in the paper from JACS they elaborated it and get the actual gold from the seawater. for me, that is a proof it can be done and it is the end of the story


----------



## Maysam

I don't know how, but I'm sure you can do whatever the he he he you want. Just don't give up. Good luck


----------



## butcher

Yes, but why would I want to spend my life trying to get a grain of gold from a few million tons of saltwater, when I could just go and pick it up a few ounces of gold easily from the sands of the beach, then I could spend my time working on something useful, like growing wings on my back and flying to the moon for a little vacation.


----------



## Maysam

butcher said:


> Yes, but why would I want to spend my life trying to get a grain of gold from a few million tons of saltwater, when I could just go and pick it up a few ounces of gold easily from the sands of the beach, then I could spend my time working on something useful, like growing wings on my back and flying to the moon for a little vacation.


Hi Butcher,
can you give us more information about gold in sand of beaches?


----------



## Martijn

On beaches in areas where gold is found in rock and in rivers, you can likely also find it in the beach sand. 
Googled for alaska beach gold and first hit: 


When someone makes a statement and you are not sure if it's true, or you don't understand it, do your own research!!! Not that we're unwilling to answer, but doing your own research will let it sink in better. 
You will have more questions answered than you could have come up with. Dive in. Google it. There are tons of scientific papers on most subjects. Yes! sugar really is soluble in water, but not because I say so.


----------



## galenrog

A general internet search of the terms “beach mining gold” will give thousands of results. You will have to sift through the fluff and nonsense found with any internet search, but there will be plenty left to chew on. 

Time for more coffee.


----------



## butcher

Gold in those mountains likes to travel and is broken down by the weather ice, and snow, and along with ole man nature, and his friend gravity carries the gold down the mountains along with the big rocks and boulders.

These fellers are all washed down the rivers, slowly in summer and roaring along during the cold winters, these boulders grind their way to being small round rocks and then to sands.

The soft gold banged up in its travel, decides to change its rough character, as it is carried along with the rush of the white water and moving mountains of grinding rock and stone.

If not trapped in a pocket, or crack in the crust of the earth, the gold making its way down to the bottom of the pile, not finding a pocket to hide in, or some inside bend to take a rest on, in its journey makes its way to the ocean with all the rock and rolling stones and fine sands.

Where it strolls along on the bottom of the river's bed, possibly coming to rest on the solid stone bedrock or in the clays of the previously ground up stone unless finding a pocket hole to hide in, or someplace to sit behind a big boulder, not gound to dust yet but a bit rounder resting in its journey toward the salted waters of the world.

Once finding itself in the ocean not as ions but as atoms with all of its trusty electrons as an elemental form of the metal gold, these large clusters of gold atoms still joined together is tossed around by the moving waters

The moon always making waves in the blue of the nights washes the gold up onto the beaches and carries the sands back and forth, the heavies in the group gather together and make hot spots along a beach to rest, and that is where you can go to the beach and pan for gold found along with natures natural sluice box, where the black sands and gold accumulate. Where the heavy black iron sands and heavy gold does not like to move around as easily as the white silica and quartz sands do.

Where the ole men, like me, listening to the sounds of the smashing watery waves and smelling the fish and kale, like to find a few nice shells, like to go out and sit at the beach and pan or sluice working to collect the gold, just to trade it for a bigger motor or pump or for a bigger sluice box, or shovel so we can collect more gold.

Just so we can watch it lose electrons in our lab solutions as gold ions, in order to separate the silver copper and others precipitating it out in order to make the gold purer and more shining, just to so we can rebury the gold in some other hole, till we need a little bread on that rainy day around the corner.

Now better yet, learn yourself a little knowledge about the old ancient rivers, here in those old days of the dinosaur, the ancient river beds now sitting on top of the old mountains, way up high above our modern-day river beds, those giant mountains not washed to the beaches yet, follow those round rocks sitting on top of the big hills in order to find your self some gold, packed in the conglomerates and in the ancient river bed on top of the majestic mountain.

There is gold, in them their mountains, and in those ancient river beds of round rock on top of the hills, down under the gravel of rivers and accumulated in the oceans washed up in the beach sands, you just need to learn where and learn to how to pan it out.


----------

