AFF Member Stock Discussion

[Quickstatus]

C79

Sounds like they also use XRay fluorescence similar to the technology that XRF sells.
Which Gold miner are they servicing? Any service agreements?

 

[cove]

They were at 1.7 million samples analyzed a couple of months ago. Yes probably still worth a look as they have signed some of the largest companies to use their machines.

 

[Quickstatus]

How are they different to XRF (the company)

 

[RooFlyer]

What do you think of Chrysos which is C79. We hold it and we are up a chunk on it. Drill hole analysis machines are going ok.

Not commenting on the company rather the technical.

Different focus than hand-held XRF - designed for installations, such as mine sites. Can't use for 'on the spot' field analysis.

Uses crushed (homogenised) samples, so that's good. I'm surprised that it looks like fine gravel in the video, not powder. If you are going to crush it, the finer should be the better .

Their pitch is that its a replacement for fire assay. Well, maybe in that FA uses lead cupellation but I never actually heard this as a concern but no doubt standards now higher. The other main gold assay technique is solution atomic adsorption EDIT: absorption (AA) - that's what most labs use for gold assays!! This technique is much more complicated than AA.

Their claim 'Quantitative results in as little as 2 minutes' ignores any sample prep required (crushing, splitting, putting into their little containers, disposal).

I am surprised at their claimed analysis range - 0.01 g/t Au to 35,000 g/t Au. or 0.01 ppm to 3.5% gold. The lower figure is pretty amazing for a non-powder sample, but its higher than AA, which measures to parts per billion.

To me it sounds like a nuclear can-opener (an overly complex solution to a problem). But good on 'em fir innovating. I'd like to see their claimed advantage over AA analysis, especially wrt cost.

Which Gold miner are they servicing? Any service agreements?

There are strong testimonials from Ravenswood Gold.

 

[RooFlyer]

PS their claim that their technique is "non destructive", so you preserve the sample is a bit obtuse. Yes, in fire assay you destroy the sample but its only maybe 30grams of finely crushed sample (I don't remember) which would have been split off from the larger 500g, kilo or more gravel sample. That remains; and if its from drill core, the entire other half of the core should remain whole.

I think everything said in the Ravenswood clip is true; but putting an AA lab on site would have solved their problems in the same way, I think. UNLESS AA isn't good at high grades like you will get from a met plant. That might be it - fire assay def good for high grade samples; AA can handle high grades, but you have to keep diluting the sample which would take time.

@cove - non of this nay-says the potential for the company; the technique must have some advantages I haven't considered. Its probably the sample grade issue.

 

[moa999]

I am troubled by Tesla and Qantas prices both going up on their bad news.

All on expectations.
Tesla sales were down but above consensus expectations.
Initial blowback on Qantas breach seems limited, this might change.

Agreed on CBA.

 

[moa999]

And as a reminder for markets always go up.. well it might be true eventually but you don't want to buy at the top.