Forum Topics GG8 GG8 Mulwarrie Met: 93% recoveries

Pinned straw:

Last edited 2 months ago

24th November 2025: Mulwarrie Met Results and Drilling Commenced.PDF

I mentioned here somewhere recently about the importance of Met Work - Metallurgical Test Work to determine recoveries using the proposed milling process - with project developers - especially in terms of helping them (and us) to try to work out future milling costs.

The Met work shows how effective their planned milling process is likely to be, and one of the biggest things to look for is their recoveries, which means the percentage of gold that their process successfully extracts vs how much gold there was in the ore to start with. The higher the recovery percentage, the less gold goes through the process and into their tailings without being recovered. Obviously you want the highest possible recovery, and anything over 90% is considered good, and 98 to 99% is considered excellent.

The main reason why most mills never achieve 100% recoveries (and are usually never designed to) is that the additional costs to build a mill capable of getting those 1, 2 or 3 extra percentage points of gold out of the ore often becomes prohibitively expensive, i.e. it usually doesn't make commercial sense to build a mill that is consistently capable of extracting 100% of the gold out of the ore, especially when the company is building their first plant (gold mill) and they don't yet have any cashflow from production - they have to find a happy medium where they get the vast majority of the gold out of the ore at a reasonably cost.

Plants (mills) are often designed with space around the plant to enable additional processes to be added later to either increase the mill's annual throughput rate and/or increase gold recoveries. This would typically be considered after the plant has been built, commissioned and ramped up to full nameplate capacity.

Today, GG8 said:

ed4c72f74b99afe167180e63607c46f72d4e6c.jpeg

Source: First page of today's Mulwarrie Met Results and Drilling Commenced.PDF announcement from GG8.

To save time, rather than typing out my own understanding of the Average Gravity Recovery (44.5%) vs the overall average gold recovery (93%), I've asked Goggle AI to explain it - Google said:

Average gravity recovery is a component of the total average recovery in a gold project, representing the gold recovered specifically through gravity separation techniques, while total recovery includes both gravity and other methods like cyanidation. Metallurgical testwork establishes the total recovery percentage, which is then broken down into the contribution from each recovery method to understand the overall process efficiency. 

How it fits together

  • Total Average Recovery: This is the overall percentage of gold recovered from the ore, encompassing all recovery methods used in the processing plant.
  • Average Gravity Recovery: This is a subset of the total recovery, quantifying the gold recovered by gravity concentration alone, such as using a gravity shaker table or centrifugal concentrator.
  • The relationship: Total Recovery = Gravity Recovery + Other Recovery Methods (e.g., cyanidation).
  • Purpose in testwork: Developers use metallurgical testwork to determine both the total recovery and the contribution of each stage. This allows them to:
  • Optimize the plant design.
  • Understand the process efficiency.
  • Identify opportunities for improvement.
  • Perform economic evaluations. 

Example

  • A project's metallurgical testwork might show a total average recovery of 93%, with an average gravity recovery of 44.5%. The remaining 48.5% (being 93% minus 44.5%) is recovered through other means. 


--- end of Google text ---

I've changed the numbers in the example to reflect GG8's numbers above so the example applies to today's announcement.

In general, the more gold that can be recovered by the gravity circuit, the less chemicals are required for the other processes such as cyanidation, and the less chemicals required, the lower the costs are likely to be. Gravity recoveries can also help to inform the size that the other parts of the plant need to be, i.e. how large the cyanide leaching circuit (such as CIL / carbon-in-leach) and associated plant needs to be - to extract gold from the remaining ore pulp after the gravity circuit.

So it's good to see that there isn't anything nasty or concerning in this Met Work update for GG8's Mulwarrie gold project.

That's one more hurdle they've crossed on the way to Mulwarrie becoming a profitable gold producing operation.

The additional drilling at Mulwarrie is also welcome news: 1 RC (reverse circulation) rig and 1 DD (diamond drilling) rig have re-commenced the next phase of resource growth drilling at Mulwarrie, initially targeting along strike to the south and at depth from previous intercepts.

So what they are seeking to do here is to test for extensions to the deposit both to the south of and also below their known mineralisation. In this way they can potentially keep growing the deposit (in terms of indicated gold) in every direction that hasn't already been closed off by previous drilling hitting no gold.

And remember - Mulwarrie is just one of 4 gold projects that GG8 own (3 of those in WA, one in Canada), and they're currently predominantly focused on 2 of those 4, being Mulwarrie and Comet Vale, because those two are their most promising projects at this point in time.

3812925d6344c731ef44b0cd2348ae19df30d3.jpeg

Both are close to existing mills that are owned and operated by experienced gold producing companies like Ora Banda (OBM), Norton Gold Fields, Evolution (EVN) and Genesis (GMD).

Disc: Held. 1.2%. Smaller company, no cashflow yet, so in the cashburn phase where they are spending money to prove up these deposits, so much higher risk than an established producer, so much lower weighting and held in my real money speccy portfolio only.

tomsmithidg
Added 2 months ago

@Bear77 , so do these results have any material bearing on your valuation of 77 cents or timeline?

9

Bear77
Added 2 months ago

No @tomsmithidg - no change - however in my case I'm not providing a high conviction valuation, more of a price target that I think they can get to, and once gold starts running again and GG8 keep finding more gold at both Mulwarrie and Comet Vale they could easily double their market cap from here, which would be around that mark - 75 to 77 cps.

If Ora Banda has a sniff because they want to get Mulwarrie's ore for their Davyhurst Mill, then GG8 could easily go higher than my 77 cent PT. There's more than one way to win with GG8 - through M&A or else if they go it alone and either build a mill or get their ore toll treated at a nearby mill. And of course there's also multiple ways to lose, but that's the risk at the smaller end - much higher risk, but these companies can multi-bag in a short amount of time also - just look at Forrestania (FRS) - who were trading at below one cent in January and early Feb this year and are now 28 cents/share. They've risen +3400% (gone 34 x) from their year low of $0.008.

And I like GG8 better than FRS, but that's for a variety of reasons including that FRS have already had that massive run and GG8 haven't, yet. I also know GG8 a lot better and I like their management, especially their technical director Simon Lawson and their CEO, Charles Hughes. The big difference is that FRS have just bought an old gold mill from HRZ (the Lake Johnston mill, as announced on 18th November) and they (FRS) have been quite active with other M&A as well, and the market likes their momentum. They are also cashed up after their very recent CR to raise another $35m. FRS are building something decent out of next to nothing in virtually no time at all, and the market likes those sort of stories. It's how Raleigh Finlayson used to operate in the Saracen days, lots of wheeling and dealing, and providing excellent shareholder returns without paying dividends, and Ral's been doing it all again with Genesis (GMD, which I also hold). FRS are very, very tiny compared to GMD, but people are always trying to pick the next growth story.

I like GG8 because I like their land (tenements), the grades of gold they are discovering, and their projects' proximity to operating mills owned by other much larger companies. And I like their management. And I also like their regular shareholder communications. They don't keep us in the dark - they keep everybody informed about what they are doing, and what they are doing is mostly drilling, and they are regularly sharing those assay results from all of that drilling, and it continues to be good news.

Today was an important step because it confirmed what most people had already assumed which was that their Mulwarrie gold is easy to extract from the ore and doesn't require a more expensive mill. Mulwarrie only requires a conventional mill with a Gravity Circuit and a Carbon-In-Leach (CIL) circuit without any pre-treatment circuits like ultra-fine grinding, pressure oxidation, roasting, or biooxidation to liberate gold from locked or carbonaceous minerals. That sort of stuff is often needed for refractory ore, and Mulwarrie and Comet Vale don't seem to have much of that, which is a good thing!

A sample from the Lakeview prospect at Comet Vale showed a high total recovery of 97.5% with a significant portion recovered within a short time frame, indicating the gold is not strongly locked within refractory minerals. While the specific refractory content for the broader Comet Vale or Mulwarrie deposits is not detailed, the initial results point toward a very favorable metallurgy for processing that ore.

So, yeah, nah, no change to my investment thesis @tomsmithidg - GG8 is still travelling along nicely. No land-mines yet.

Additional: And on the timeline, no, they don't really have a timeline in place yet because they're still early stage, not yet at the study stage (SS, PFS, FS) however it's just good to see stuff like Met Work that needs to be done, getting done, and crossed off the list. Both Comet Vale and Mulwarrie are at the Mineral Resource Estimate (MRE) update stage, where GG8 are drilling around their known mineralisation wherever their deposits are still open, to find more gold and grow the projects' respective MREs, and they will announce a series of new larger MREs for each project as they grow those MREs significantly.

At some point they'll have found enough gold to announce a scoping or pre-feasibility study (SS / PFS) and once we get to the PFS stage we will usually have some sort of indicative timeline through to production. Realistically, if they were to build their own mill, I wouldn't expect gold production from GG8 before 2028 or 2029, so that's what I mean about early stage. However, you don't have to stick with them all the way through to gold production to make a really good return out of them. They can go through a number of positive re-rates by the market between now and then - including the phases described by the Lassonde Curve. (see here: https://miningexplained.com/the-lassonde-curve/). ...which also describes periods in which a project developer that is transitioning towards becoming a producer may often have a falling share price - often during the study phases, then they garner more interest again once the mill is in the build phase, commissioning, ramp-up, operational improvements, etc. Once in full production the share price may then reflect the movements in the underlying commodity unless the company continues to find more good grades of fresh (new) metal (gold in this case).

Point being if they get things right and find plenty more gold there can be significant upside irrespective of how long it takes them to get into production.

I have shared here previously that I personally view GG8 as an explorer who loves the hunt and the drilling, and I personally think they'd be quite happy to prove up these deposits and then sell them off to an established gold producer who wants to increase their own reserves, and then keep doing that and moving on to their next project. Rinse and Repeat. The natural owner of Mulwarrie is probably Ora Banda just because of where Mulwarrie is in relation to Ora Banda's Davyhurst mill, and Comet Vale could become an attractive M&A opportunity for a number of producers once the full extent of the gold mineralisation there becomes clearer. So with GG8, M&A wouldn't surprise me at all, however I'm holding them on the basis that I believe they can take one or both of these two projects through to production themselves if nobody acquires them. But that doesn't mean that I will necessarily hold them all the way through to gold production. It depends on what happens between now and then.

12

tomsmithidg
Added 2 months ago

Thanks @Bear77 , awesome detail as always.

8