Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Where the highways ends in BC.
At the Mt. Junior Gold Summit. Line going down ridge is a hose that leads to a Keg of Corona @ Casey's Bar.
Pumping Units that keep beer flow to mountain top steady.
Note Wildcats in Background Guarding Pump.
Does that big highway on the left connect up with this one? Apparently our hitchhiker has been waiting for a ride there for several weeks.
HWY 103 NORTH -- NOTE HITCHHIKER ON LOWER RIGHT
hmmmmmmm.......
Where has the gold below been documented?
Bear in mind that the Tarale vein does not count as it is not gold over width below. It is a metre wide quartz vein.
The company announced (Bre-X like) that it had several samples of 2 grams in the bags of the bulk channel sample.) They wanted to give the impression that the channels were pervasively mineralized. Why did they not just assay them all, instead of letting out the specious information to give the impression that they were all mineralized? I would say they were being disingenuous exploration-wise. The sample were taken in May, 4 months ago. Surely this is time enough for assays to be returned.
EC<:-}
The 1.7 billion tons refers to the size of a really large porphyry in Chile, found in 1907 I believe, the Chuquicamata. When one wonders whether or not a particular porphyry is capable of being brought into production one must compare it to something the Guggenheims mined or are mining, or something with economic viability already. Most of the stuff being mined is near the porphyry square law size and grade, 500 million tons of 0.5 grams gold and 0.5% copper. Today that is US $23.38 rock. To mine that profitably you absolutely must be able to predict 20 years political stability and freedom from government intrasingence and economic stability too. A number of things can be attached to this or flow from this. Money repatriation guarantees, access to a stable and cheap power grid, port facilities, easy to grind and blast ore, stable pit walls at low dilution, relatively low taxes, good currency convertibility, no excessive environmental activism or punitive gov't regs, no rebellious groups in the area etc..
If you look at the list of large porphyry deposits and find the number that are not being mined you realize that there are a few more factors than size and even grade that are operative. Even the Chinese have quite a few large porphyries that they are not exploiting. The Russians left one in the Kushinguras (Himalayas) that had 7 million metric tonnes of contained copper! Too isolated etc.. No infrastructure. There was one large one in Chiles that almost did not get exploited because of power cost considerations.
So when you go into the Phillipines, a country where mining companies have been in and out of over the last 20 years, with very low political stability, high banditry in the hinterlands, and so so infrastructure, you have to have a richer situation. One that you can afford to pay bribes on too, as that area is as corrupt as any you will come across. A
Swedish company walked away from an orebody with a mill on it that ran 1% copper and .10 ozs gold just sitting there in the late 80's, as they could not guarantee that when they flew the gold out of the mine site that the plane would get there safely. It frequently got shot at by rebels. I believe the ore ran 20 to 50 million tons or more open pit. One group I know tried to revamp it but investor interest was nil. The had budgeted 10% for bribes. The people who had their fingers in the pie were very hard to deal with too.
Anything that SUR finds there has to so tasty that BHP cannot wait to get into it given all possible adverse circumstances.
Or it has to be so high grade that SUR can do something with it right away. That is smallish and highish. I don't know. Their previous high grade pits did not go anywhere. They talked about mining them, but I guess there were difficulties.
At one mine in the Phillipines there was an article in the popular press not too long ago about a mine superintendent that went to work every day with a machine gun. It is a different area to work in.
Of course 500 feet wide of 0.10 oz's per ton is spectacular. And SUR has found high grade in the system. But will it hold up in drilling? The whole South Pacific is notorious for stuff that looks good on the surface but does not go down. We saw that in many Indonesian gold-silver plays in the past. High grade veins that can be stretched over wider widths by sampling but drill to narrow zones that need underground mining. I am not saying that will universally be the case here, but it remains to be seen what the down dip character of the body really is. Laterites and other oxidized zones have ways to concentrating gold on the surface, and beneath it the same values are absent.
Then there is metallurgy too. I note that SUR says they saw chalco but there were no chalco assays?
EC<:-}
To put the thing plainly I did not seek out this forum to promote anything, nor do I shy away from saying anything about any companies I know about. Somebody without permission posted a private email to them, and I sought to defend the position as fair. In retrospect I can see I was baited, and I should know better.
I post my opinion, and others post theirs. They have the companies they support and others may differ. That is the market. It is fairly demeaning to see people here trying to recover what they perceived as lost ground in such a childish way as attacking credibility etc.. from the get go. Nobody has dealt with the issues brought up, might I add in a private email in a fair and knowledgeable way. It is all sales talk. Propaganda.
We do proper 43-101's on the properties conducted by independent engineers with decades of experience in the particular mine environment and metal.
162,000 ounces of 16 grams AU was inferred for one property.
My advice to the supporters of the SUR play is to deal with issues brought up in a fair and balanced way, and not become like attack dogs on the mailman.
If you could discuss the points calmly and rationally it would do a lot more to support your cause. Needless wild accusations and vicious ad hominem tends to make more intelligent readers come to the conclusion that you fear some kind of weakness to the situation or suspect that there may be holes in the data, or troubles with the play/area/company. Otherwise why protest so violently?
All I said was that the sample could be misleading. This is possible and can only be refuted by propert sampling and drilling.
What ensues when you bait and attack, "credibility" is that people tend to take one side or another passionately. Causes and points tend to get exagerrated unecessarily and people might be forced into panicing one way or another. At this point panic can only be on the sell side. You won't shore up buying by this technique.
What loses credibility fast too is a play that is one sided like a stock house puff forum, where all other sides are given the run. Nobody with a room temperature IQ will put up with that sort of stuff for very long.
Right now the market is thin all over and support I will admit is easily shaken.
The problem with this last news announcement is that it is really a channel sample. They could get away with running it all together by calling it a bulk sample. It is cheating on the promotional side. It may not have been intentional to do so, but especially in oxidized tropical environments it should be carefully guarded against.
EC<:-}
I don't know. The lawyer for the brokerage was supposed to approve the IPO and he went on holidays without telling anyone.
EC<:-}
Just got back from trailer park heaven.
http://www.australiagift.com/scrotum_shop/scrotum_legends.htm
A Bald Kangaroo
EC<:-}
I think, for the most part, ECharter's comments have been addressed in a proper and gentlemanly manner and have been found to be lacking in substance
Well, I would not go that far. What has not been proved is the assertion that the mini-bulk channels in fact run in a uniform fashion across 487 feet.
Do you feel that has been proved, ubiquitous quartz minerals notwithstanding?
I don't know too many geologists who would when confronted with 500 feet of cross section of a formation would say "Hey! lets make these itty bitty samples all one big sample! Let's throw it all in on pot and see what comes out!, Waddya say?"
I would expect they would get fired for that.
On the other hand being lionized in an investor forum would be a distinct possibility too.
I find most of what Blair says about seeing mineral across the whole formation or finding low grade uniform mineral for certain sections of indefinite width in other areas unconvincing.
The visual assay has all too often been found to be specious in the past. That is why God invented channel sampling and bade geologists to divide these sample up according to the rock formations encountered in the section.
I believe you will find it in Deuteronomy.
EC<:-}
God liked to sometimes take St. Peter's place and interview new candidates for Heaven. One time he met three men recently arrived. Being of an inquisitive nature God asked the first, "What is your IQ?"
"190", replied the man.
"Excellent", responded God, "I will look forward to an eternity discussing with you politics, philosophy and man's place in the universe! Come right in!"
God turned to the second man and again inquired, "What is your IQ?"
"150" responded the subject.
God: "Fascinating", I will relish discussing science and technology with you for all time"
He looked deep into the eyes of the third man.
"And your IQ, son", queried God.
"Uh, 75 I guess", was the answer.
God: "So, how's the market?"
EC<:-}
True, true, I wonder why it trades so thin for such a large discovery?
Do you think that this is the market in general, or is some weakness in the stock perceived? I know golds are making a comeback, but for such a large imputed discovery you would think that it would hold better attention.
I see Pinnacle Mines is up to 500,000 by now today and they have also received some notice from myself whereby their stretching of the results, indisputable in this case, was alleged.
I guess where people actually fully know they got 50 feet of one ounce, that this makes up for it.
EC<:-}
Isn't stockhouse where this great way of driving a stock price started?
I am confused.
Volume light, 29K, down a penny. hmnmm.. seemed to have peaked a day before the news. Is this common?
EC<:-}
I have got a lot of this attitude to questioning results rightfully, since 1996 on SI. The motivation of the miffed is that they would like to see the stock go higher and they think I am cold water on that, so they bait, and overstate what I did say in order to make my opinion look blacker and more condemnable than it is. I ran into so much of it over really lugubrious promotions that on occasion the anti sentiment reached epic proportions. And to set the record straight, I did not call anyone a liar here. Let's not go too far. I did say promotional. But what of it?
You are absolutely right. I did not call the company. I don't intend to. In fact I have not called any companies since 1997 that I know of. I used to call Bre-X now and then, but the correction of that impulse is to the betterment of the character.
Company news releases are supposed to be complete and self explanatory. You should not need to ask too many questions unless you are curious about the nature of the geology or what the company plans to do. What they candidly think. They are also supposed to be up to CIM standards which surprisingly to many geologists have not changed much in 40 years. You can get old tomes on the engineering regs back to 1955 and you will find that they say things much like the regulators want today. What has changed substantially is that the term potential ore no longer has a place of any meaning in reports.
Now in this case they are in a grey area because the "bulk sampled". But it is a misnomer. They did a large channel sample across the structure in 340 KG lots. The individual lots should have been individually assayed and tested. They were not. The reason for this interpretation is that the sample may gfive a false impression (because it was a cross section), of the grade of the entire body fairly. No doubt it did do that. As well, the sample probably was contaminated with oxidized enriched material from erosion. They could not help this much, but they should have stated it would be anomalously high.
You may have to call the company. But it won't do you much good. Try getting a mineralogical education and wandering the bush for 30 years sampling orebodies and you will find there is less and less to inquire about.
Whatever the problems with the bulk samples, the drilling will tell the tale. I hope they don't grind that all up and just report the 146 metres.
EC<:-}
Same here. But I am doing it with considerably more geological and analytical experience than most posters. Most don't appreciate questions, that on SI over the last ten years I was arch infamous for, but time and trouble have proved me right if not 100% of the time, darn near.
SUR's own information indicates that it is the wider qtz veins that run and the veinlets do not. It is apparent from the high grade grabs that the values are not pervasive and low grade across wide widths.
What is most important here is that the company has not made an effort to establish the values in each sector in their sampling, preferring instead to spread it over the entire width. This is patently a breach of 43-101 regs.
That is all there is to it.
The answer that the mineralization does not appear to be controlled by one or two veins is completely disengenuous.
Because something has not been established, and at a glance, which is useless as an arbiter, may not be true, does not prove the opposite case. (i.e. the opposite case is that pervasive mineralization may be assumed, as concentration is not proved)
In other words you need proof that the negative assumption ,(which all too often is the geological truth), is not true. You cannot just assume the Pollyanna Porphyry case. This is a heinous misinterpretation of geological scope or license.
EC<:-}
So I said that?
Really.
And I said somebody salted it with Angolan diamonds?
Dear, dear.
I know you just said I said that, but can you find the quote?
What was said was all said by "the other side" who quite stupidly needed a scapegoat for their troubles with a stalled out stock. So they attacked me. Just like all the blowhards attacked me when I pointed out the weaknesses of their favourite position.
Let me straighten you competely out. If you want to insult me, then tell the truth. It should be adequate. But let's not gild the lily.
Never in print or otherwise have I ever said that Windpsear was salted. Never. Not in your wildest dreams. Some lying dworts like to imagine I did and said so widely, as they had it in for me and this seemed like a good handle on the axe. But I did not say it.
I also never said Windspear was not feasible. Nowhere in print.
What I did say two years before the first hole was drilled there by Turner, is where the source of the boulders was. I told Turner in print before drill hole one that a dyke running across the lake on the west was the source and it would run about 1 carat per ton. That was on my website. At the time Turner was drilling on the east side of the lake in some other structure.
That is a matter of record. Every single person who took the Canadian Mining Newsletter should know that if they read it and remembered what I said. Many did not.
Them's the facts. I knew where "Windspear" was a year or more before Turner did. And he owned the company. And I knew it was a discovery even before a single hole was drilled on the east too. Now should I tell you how I knew that? Or are some things better left unsaid.
And I knew where Fipke found his mine and how and why. It was written he would find it in 1954. By the GSC. Karl Forbes could confirm that but he is dead.
There is more to this business than you know. A hell of lot more. And much of it is better left unsaid.
I was the only newsletter writer to recommend Winspear from when the first fuel drums flew into the property. This you have to know is before the drilling even started. So somebody had to know something. And I continued to follow it for two years, before the smart crowd caught on. And by then they are all geniuses who knew fucking everything and I am evil. Good god.
So when the company ran out of steam and made a few mistakes, I let on that it was their swan song. And it was. They had to sell out, because they were not competent to develop it. I could see that. Why blame me for their failure?
EC<:-}
In the absence of info as to the grade of sections of the wider interval, with high grade samples and veins being indicated, and with the company's admission that the background veinlets do not run well, I am betting that there are one or two richer veins that contributed to 80% of the gold, leaving the rest of the formation very low grade (sub one half gram). If 18 feet ran 60 grams and the 460 other feet ran 0.5 grams, then the whole thing would run about 3 grams.
Of course 18 feet of 60 grams is very good, but they probably did not want to find that.
In geology you bet the negative, not the positive, unless proven otherwise. You drill at the bet, but don't bet on what you cannot know.
EC<:-}
http://www.wildcatresources.ca
In the 1500's Georgius Agricola wrote a treatise on mining called De Re Metallica. One TSX firm takes its name from that tome. In it there is a section on the area in which a person may choose to make a mining investigation. Agricola avers that if there be a tyrant who rules that local area, that all caution should be applied to ventures there. I quote:
Now a miner before he begins to mine the veins, must consider seven things, namely:- the situation, the conditions, the water, the roads, the climate, the right of ownership, and the neighbours,
The miner should make a careful and thorough investigation concerning the lord of the locality, whether he be just, and a good man, or a tyrant, for the latter oppresses men by force of authority and siezes their possessions for himself; but the former governs justly and lawfully and serves the common good
-- De Re Metallica 1556
Some may view the move towards cancelling "underperforming permits" as a clearing of the house, but others may view those who lose land in this action as unfortunate in that the conditions for production may be unfavourable through no main fault of the land holder.
EC<:-}
http://www.wildcatresources.ca
Handles, a polymath of free discourse feels that if one dissents about people who promote a stock, however reasoned a fashion, that one is a "basher" and subject to banning from a thread.
This sort idea and similar practices found their greatest prevalence and exercise in such free societies and Rome and Germany in the 1930's. It is refreshing that such free exchange of opinion is now defended by like minds in today's world.
EC<:-}
In the 1500's Georgius Agricola wrote a treatise on mining called De Re Metallica. One TSX firm takes its name from that tome. In it there is a section on the area in which a person may choose to make a mining investigation. Agricola avers that if there be a tyrant who rules that local area, that all caution should be applied to ventures there. I quote:
Now a miner before he begins to mine the veins, must consider seven things, namely:- the situation, the conditions, the water, the roads, the climate, the right of ownership, and the neighbours,
The miner should make a careful and thorough investigation concerning the lord of the locality, whether he be just, and a good man, or a tyrant, for the latter oppresses men by force of authority and siezes their possessions for himself; but the former governs justly and lawfully and serves the common good
-- De Re Metallica 1556
Some may view the move towards cancelling "underperforming permits" as a clearing of the house, but others may view those who lose land in this action as unfortunate in that the conditions for production may be unfavourable through no main fault of the land holder.
EC<:-}
The point being is that you should know now that they do, not later when it is "proven".
EC<:-}
Thank you, thank you very much.
EC<:-}
It is never as big as the anomaly.
So I said that?
Really.
And I said somebody salted it with Angolan diamonds?
Dear, dear.
I know you just said I said that, but can you find the quote?
What was said was all said by "the other side" who quite stupidly needed a scapegoat for their troubles with a stalled out stock. So they attacked me. Just like all the blowhards attacked me when I pointed out the weaknesses of their favourite position.
Let me straighten you competely out. If you want to insult me, then tell the truth. It should be adequate. But let's not gild the lily.
Never in print or otherwise have I ever said that Windpsear was salted. Never. Not in your wildest dreams. Some lying dworts like to imagine I did and said so widely, as they had it in for me and this seemed like a good handle on the axe. But I did not say it.
I also never said Windspear was not feasible. Nowhere in print.
What I did say two years before the first hole was drilled there by Turner, is where the source of the boulders was. I told Turner in print before drill hole one that a dyke running across the lake on the west was the source and it would run about 1 carat per ton. That was on my website. At the time Turner was drilling on the east side of the lake in some other structure.
That is a matter of record. Every single person who took the Canadian Mining Newsletter should know that if they read it and remembered what I said. Many did not.
Them's the facts. I knew where "Windspear" was a year or more before Turner did. And he owned the company. And I knew it was a discovery even before a single hole was drilled on the east too. Now should I tell you how I knew that? Or are some things better left unsaid.
And I knew where Fipke found his mine and how and why. It was written he would find it in 1954. By the GSC. Karl Forbes could confirm that but he is dead.
There is more to this business than you know. A hell of lot more. And much of it is better left unsaid.
I was the only newsletter writer to recommend Winspear from when the first fuel drums flew into the property. This you have to know is before the drilling even started. So somebody had to know something. And I continued to follow it for two years, before the smart crowd caught on. And by then they are all geniuses who knew fucking everything and I am evil. Good god.
So when the company ran out of steam and made a few mistakes, I let on that it was their swan song. And it was. They had to sell out, because they were not competent to develop it. I could see that. Why blame me for their failure?
EC<:-}
Drilling is only for people who cannot see through rock like you can.
EC<:-}
I have got a lot of this attitude to questioning results rightfully, since 1996 on SI. The motivation of the miffed is that they would like to see the stock go higher and they think I am cold water on that, so they bait, and overstate what I did say in order to make my opinion look blacker and more condemnable than it is. I ran into so much of it over really lugubrious promotions that on occasion the anti sentiment reached epic proportions. And to set the record straight, I did not call anyone a liar here. Let's not go too far. I did say promotional. But what of it?
You are absolutely right. I did not call the company. I don't intend to. In fact I have not called any companies since 1997 that I know of. I used to call Bre-X now and then, but the correction of that impulse is to the betterment of the character.
Company news releases are supposed to be complete and self explanatory. You should not need to ask too many questions unless you are curious about the nature of the geology or what the company plans to do. What they candidly think. They are also supposed to be up to CIM standards which surprisingly to many geologists have not changed much in 40 years. You can get old tomes on the engineering regs back to 1955 and you will find that they say things much like the regulators want today. What has changed substantially is that the term potential ore no longer has a place of any meaning in reports.
Now in this case they are in a grey area because the "bulk sampled". But it is a misnomer. They did a large channel sample across the structure in 340 KG lots. The individual lots should have been individually assayed and tested. They were not. The reason for this interpretation is that the sample may gfive a false impression (because it was a cross section), of the grade of the entire body fairly. No doubt it did do that. As well, the sample probably was contaminated with oxidized enriched material from erosion. They could not help this much, but they should have stated it would be anomalously high.
You may have to call the company. But it won't do you much good. Try getting a mineralogical education and wandering the bush for 30 years sampling orebodies and you will find there is less and less to inquire about.
Whatever the problems with the bulk samples, the drilling will tell the tale. I hope they don't grind that all up and just report the 146 metres.
EC<:-}
Wake me up when it gets to Chuquicamata size.
(17 billion tons +)
At 478 feet wide and 1000 feet deep that is 80 miles long.
hmmmm.... do you think?
EC<:-}
At 478 feet wide, and 1000 feet deep and 6000 feet long it would be @ 0.4 grams AU, 3 million ounce gold and if 0.5% copper 3 billion lbs copper.
http://www3.sympatico.ca/echarters/porcu.htm
I should know better than to sound like the voice of reason amongst the irrationally exuberant.
Gawdo knows we need a market.
EC<:-}
There are two reasons or three for being cautious about 3 grams across 478 feet. Of course it is spectacular if it is true. But where have you ever heard of these kind of widths carrying that sort of value before? Sheridan once declared 2 something grams of Pd over 1400 feet in width and nobody believed him at all. Most porphyries average about 1 to 0.5 grams gold over their widths and perhaps 1% copper to 0.5% copper. That is what 99.99% of the buggers average and that is why you perk up when it is outside that range.
The other thing is as he says the zone is oxidized to 100 metres. OK. Is it? Would you see much chalco if it were heavily oxidized to that depth? Number one question. OK, so if it is, what about the residual gold in the channels from the oxide layer above? And what about the higher grade Qtz veins? Can you get rid of the gold that would fall into the cracks? No. Can you estimate the contribution of the higher grade wider veins? Yes. Why didn't they? Good question.
What this leads to is what is the drilling going to run? Want a prediction? How about 0.4 grams across the intersection!
Let's wait and see. In all these oxide thingies you want to wait for the drilling.
EC<:-}
Same here. But I am doing it with considerably more geological and analytical experience than most posters. Most don't appreciate questions, that on SI over the last ten years I was arch infamous for, but time and trouble have proved me right if not 100% of the time, darn near.
SUR's own information indicates that it is the wider qtz veins that run and the veinlets do not. It is apparent from the high grade grabs that the values are not pervasive and low grade across wide widths.
What is most important here is that the company has not made an effort to establish the values in each sector in their sampling, preferring instead to spread it over the entire width. This is patently a breach of 43-101 regs.
That is all there is to it.
The answer that the mineralization does not appear to be controlled by one or two veins is completely disengenuous.
Because something has not been established, and at a glance, which is useless as an arbiter, may not be true, does not prove the opposite case. (i.e. the opposite case is that pervasive mineralization may be assumed, as concentration is not proved)
In other words you need proof that the negative assumption ,(which all too often is the geological truth), is not true. You cannot just assume the Pollyanna Porphyry case. This is a heinous misinterpretation of geological scope or license.
EC<:-}
It clarifies nothing.
Clearly Rennie J. Blair does not understand or wish to understand the 43-101F regulations in Canada.
What would clarify the assertion that the whole mass was uniformly mineralized is sampling that shows what sections are mineralized and what are not. The nature of SE Asian porphyries notwithstanding
The rest is pure unmitigated sales talk from a promoter.
EC<:-}
heh heh..
you can put your money where your mouth is.
There is no extra charge ...
And if it were drawn to the TSX's overworked attention, I am sure you would find out that the Bulk sample does indeed contravene 43-101
And as exploration unfold, if the company is honest enough to show the breakdown, I am sure that the bulk of the values are indeed in a smallish central zone.
EC<:-}
I did not say 60 grams over 460 feet, I said 60 grams over 18 feet, spread by the sampling process over 460 feet and diluted, which may have happened here.
What is bad about it is that it is illegal by the National Instrument 43-101 to report it in this way, if indeed that is what happened. In effect the bulk sample does this, while it may not be intentional.
On the other hand, perhaps it was.
EC<:-]
In the absence of info as to the grade of sections of the wider interval, with high grade samples and veins being indicated, and with the company's admission that the background veinlets do not run well, I am betting that there are one or two richer veins that contributed to 80% of the gold, leaving the rest of the formation very low grade (sub one half gram). If 18 feet ran 60 grams and the 460 other feet ran 0.5 grams, then the whole thing would run about 3 grams.
Of course 18 feet of 60 grams is very good, but they probably did not want to find that.
In geology you bet the negative, not the positive, unless proven otherwise. You drill at the bet, but don't bet on what you cannot know.
EC<:-}
They Otter know better.
Rained Out Wild Anomaly Waits by the River
.. Un till ...
they can't weasel out of this one.
Hope they don't come up snake eyes.
Another Wild Anomaly Waits for More Rain
Fresh is a common word to use to mean non-oxidized rock below the weathered layer. It is a geo's term.
The one thing I fear from the high grade samples and the low grade bulk is that the zone is spread artificially (by combining the bulk into one one mass) over a wide area, where in reality it may be one narrow richer zone.
And yes, that is commonly why an oxidized sample is higher grade than a fresh rock sample. But the very high differential is suspiciouser still. Sounds like some of those samples were as they say "selected".
Them's the breaks.
My bet is that the entire zone is not pervasively mineralized with gold.
EC<:-}
That fellow with the musket is Axl Rose on his Use Your Illusion tour.
Axl in the Wilderness, Seeking the Lost Chord
This company is in serious danger of washing away all its gold. What are they going to do when they hit the rapids on the Manitoba border? I have been on that river. It can be deceptive. The current picks up slowly and the trees come closer to the banks. You hear a far off rushing sound that you come to ignore after while. It is hard to tell if it's the wind or not. The current becomes faster and faster until it is hard to paddle back against it. You round a bend.. and it's over the falls.
Someone had better warn them. First it was animals in their tillage. Then they are booming along this swollen river picking up land by the minute. They are living far too dangerously IMHO.
EC<:-}
I have some extremely high tech of mining machinery that needs no fuel and has no moving parts.
All you do is grab one end of this amazing implement (there are different models, Advancetechpick, Advancetechhammer, and
Advancetechhoe) and drop it on the rocks. As long as it drops on the rock, some reduction is taking place. Some models have sharp ends and some have flat.
When the rocks are suitably smashed you throw it all in nearby river using a simple, again, no fuel, one wheel dump with convenient handles.
When the dull broken rock is washed away, the shiny metal is sucked out with a wet shop vac, and chucked in a nearby fire with some limestone. You can dig the metal out of the ashes, knock the slag off and sell it to smiths.
This is mining.
Costs? Practically zero.
Patents pending.
Highest costs, least efficient part of milling is grinding. Only 1% efficient. Find a way to raise that to 10% efficiency (possibly by emphasizing tension breakage) and you would save billions and billions each year in NA alone.
Even explosives are more efficient than grinding. True story.
EC<:-}