Extracting Gold from Seawater

[g_axelsson]

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

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:

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

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]

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]

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

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:

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

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

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

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]

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

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

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]

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

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

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]

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

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

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

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]

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

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

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

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

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]

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

 

[Justincase]

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

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

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

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

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.

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]

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?

 

[Justincase]

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: