Whether it’s a scam or not is another matter.
The base idea – that the wastes of the last generation (or, in Romania, three generations ago perhaps) of metal extraction technology are worth going over with this generation’s – yes, that works. Whether anything else in the story does, well, mebbe.
But what’s horribly obvious is that the reporter doesn’t understand the basics here.
Two industry sources explained to me that while most industrial waste possesses about 4% metal, the percentage in metal concentrate is at least 30. If the mining residue at Cuprom was typical industrial waste, then in order to become true metal concentrate it would have been necessary to undertake a lengthy process of refining and crushing, then mixing this material within considerable quantities of pure gold or copper. Only then could the magic 30% threshold be crossed. Otherwise, Roy Pitchford, a Zimbabwean mining executive, told me, Boldor was “just sending waste”.
No, copper concentrate might well be 30% Cu as the definition of what is usually traded. But there’s no strict dividing line between waste and concentrate.
Now the shipment sat on a quay in Hong Kong. It was colossal – more than 2,700 tonnes packed into 123 shipping containers – and, in addition to allegedly being worthless, Chinese authorities claimed that it contained toxic quantities of arsenic and cadmium, two chemicals often found in mining waste.
They’re not chemicals, they’re elements.
No, I know, trivia. But indicative of the way the reporter just doesn’t understand the basics of the business nor economics behind it.
As to whether it’s a scam? Sure…..
The Discovery channel has some programmes about gold miners going over the spoils of previous miners and getting good results. As the technology now is way better than the technology of yesteryear, its not surprising that better results occur.
Oh, and the reporter doesn’t know anything about physics and chemistry either. The weight is more than the that number of containers can carry, and the inability to differentiate between elements and chemicals.
What definition of “chemical” are you using here? A compound? So why do we have the phrase “chemical compound” then? In contrast to “chemical element”. Is nitrogen a chemical or an element? (Hint: it’s both, as is cadmium, asrenic, etc.)
Dave Turin’s Lost Mines is the TV show SadButMadLad is thinking about.
The old-timers had picks and shovels, and now we have big mechanical excavators and washplants. That makes it feasible- but not guaranteed- to do well on the stuff the old-timers missed.
It’s only partially that. A much bigger influence now is that our understanding of chemistry is better. So the waste or spoil piles of old efforts can be reprocessed economically. Gold is the most obvious one. We’d now say that 1 to 2 g gold per tonne was worth processing. 100 years ago that was waste to be rejected. Heck, 50 years ago.
@SadButMadLad,
You beat me to it. I’m addicted to those series. Sometimes, however, it seems to me that their technologies still allow some gold to escape, and therefore it is possible that at some time in the future there could be a third reworking.
Also, didn’t miners once throw away platinum, as for them it had no value?
it contained toxic quantities of arsenic and cadmium
This is also journalist wibble without proper context, that ‘toxic quantity’ varies rather upon whether the arsenic is going in the sea or my sandwich.
De Beers started reprocessing waste from old diamond mines in at least the 1980’s. More advanced recovery techniques found more diamonds and add in the newish requirement for industrial diamonds made it a no brainer.
When that metals trade turned out to be an order of magnitude more profitable than our blogger had calculated, does that mean spot moved in a way that simple supply and demand dynamics couldn’t predict? And how much waste was involved?
《that ‘toxic quantity’ varies rather upon whether the arsenic is going in the sea or my sandwich.》
No seafood (or seaweed) sandwiches for you?
《The weight is more than the that number of containers can carry》
2700/123 = 22 tons per container
《A 20 ft open top container has a maximum load of approximately 28 metric tons, while the 40 ft open top container can hold up to 30 metric tons.》
《 tonne: another term for metric ton.》
No you can’t challenge SadButMadLad’s maths. I was looking at Yank specs.
《 tonne: another term for metric ton.》
I can remember when tonne was pronounced tunny just to distinguish it from the ton.
Film some of those shows up around Dawson city in the Yukon which is an interesting place to visit as they have preserved a lot of the old buildings. I got to visit during the winter and the summer which are 2 very different experiences.