LETTERS TO THE EDITOR THE WETHERSTONES GOLD MINING COMPANY

Otago Daily Times, Issue 21734, 27 August 1932, Page 12

LETTERS TO THE EDITOR

THE WETHERSTONES GOLD MINING COMPANY

TO THE EDITOR.

Sir, —Kindly allow me to ask a few questions regarding the proposed new gold mining company at Wetherstones. The low cost of recovery puzzles me for, although I have been interested in mining for years, I do not remember any company claiming such low costs of treatment as 8s per cubic yard. I understand that a cubic yard of this cement is estimated to weigh one' ton and a-half. The cost per ton. therefore, is 5s 4d. This seems extraordinarily low compared with the costs of other companies. Noticing the report of the Blackwater Mines, Ltd., I took the trouble to compare the costs. The tonnage crushed was 3582 for 1887 fine ounces of gold, valued at £BOI6, and tae working expenses were £5465. This is a yield of £2 4s per ton approximately. Working expenses averaged £1 10s per ton approximately. How does it happen that the Wetherstones Company can get its costs so low? It seems hard to understand, for amongst miners it is known that an efficient Mines Department makes available to all mine owners information regarding the latest developments in the gold-producing industry. It can hardly be claimed that any one company has any monopoly of special knowledge or special methods. Turning to the prices of the assets to be acquired, I notice that Industries, Ltd., claims to have spent over £BOOO in testing and developing the Golden Crescent property, and, as far as I can judge from the prospectus, this company is asking £II,OOO for its contribution of assets. Another point I have heard raised is this: Industries’ Ltd., tried out a crusher to pulverise this cement and it is said in Lawrence that this crusher pi’oved unsuitable for the work and was withdrawn. This crusher was supposed to have cost between £2OOO and £3OOO. If this be correct about this machine, is it one of the assets to be purchased for £II,OOO? —I am, etc., August 19. Old-Timer.

[A copy of the above letter was submitted to the company’s engineer. He draws attention to the fact that the Tuapeka conglomerate is a cemented gravel, most of it comparatively soft—so soft, indeed, that in an open face it is amenable to ordinary hydraulic sluicing, by which method it has been treated for matiy years past in the Wetherstones and Waitahuna districts. It is easily broken by blasting underground into a loose sandy gravel, and as such is very suitable for immediate treatment and recovery of its gold content by the ordinary sluice box method. To compare the cost of mining this gravel with that of the hard quartz at the Blackwater or any other quartz mine is absurd, as the conditions are entirely different. The recovery of- gold from the usual quartz ore is an expensive operation, as it means costly crushing, grinding, and sliming, usually followed by the cyanide treatment. The estimated all-in cost of 8s per cubic yard for the cement is based on the results of work actually done in the recent experimental operations, and it is anticipated that even this figure will be reduced in practice. Further, in the event of open cast mining being undertaken, the engineer reports that the cost of treatment will then be measured, not in shillings, but in pence per cubic yard. The statements in the last paragraph of the letter are not in accordance with fact. The crusher was found to be suitable with a very large capacity. It is still in position. It becomes the property of the new company and will be available in the event of the large open cast method of mining being introduced. One passage was deleted by us from the above letter as the information sought in it is provided in the prospectus. —Ed. O.D.T.]