nar reedy creek was really poor most mines wore getting only 1 ounce per ton that's only 31 grams of gold for every 1000kgs of rock moved/crushed not worth the effort Kinglake and diamond ck mines wore much richer but had water problems going deep. and in the creeks around Panton hill they wore finding up to 20oz nuggets.
Mt Disappointment
- Thread starter Goldenbrown
- Start date
Help Support Prospecting Australia:
- Status
1 oz/tonne is very good grade - most ore has been mined at lower grade in Victoria. One reads 3-4 oz per tonne but they were tiny tonnages. Reedy Ck was much better than Kinglake and even Diamond Ck produced less. It is a different scene to be operating a hard-rock mine to being a prospector. Fosterville and Costerville were the highest grade mines in Australia last quarter, at about 1 oz and 0.35 oz/tonne. Another way to look at it is that each tonne of rock produces $1500 of gold - most mines produce at around $1000 to $1200 per tonne mining cost. Fosterville has produced more than $2 billion in gold since about 1990.
goldierocks said:
some mines near Kinglake wore on more than 40oz to the ton that's way richer and most of diamond creek mines wore going about 80 to 90oz per ton its in the records. the mines at Bendigo wore richer again than Fosterville most of Bendigo mines wore well into the 150oz per ton mark high grade ore im talking about not the low grade stuff witch is really rich hence why Bendigo had shafts sunk down to 1 to 2km down over a 20km square area they didn't dig that much for nothing.
- Joined
- May 9, 2014
- Messages
- 163
- Reaction score
- 1,810
Ewan1987 said:
Curious to know from a DELWP person why it seems a blind eye is turned to prospecting in creeks on the exempt list
jamiealdridge said:
here's more info
and link to other creeks you CAN'T prospect in http://earthresources.vic.gov.au/ea...ess-rules/list-of-exempted-rivers-and-streams
so im guessing from the top of the mountains all the way down to Tallarook you can't put a pan or sluice that's a long stretch of creek but Tyack has so many unfilled holes there its not funny its so flogged yet the same creek is on the exempt list ???
ken2m
Ken
jamiealdridge said:
It all comes into the interpretation of the exempt list, the creeks and rivers on the list are "exempt from occupation for mining purposes" which which in my interpretation means that you can't build a miners shack close to your claim ie: to occupy the land. However it is up to you as to how you read the gazette (6th May 1914) but also note that I don't prospect in water supply rivers, or in reference areas as I consider that to be grossly inconsiderate. Metal detecting in these areas providing you are not in the river would be ok no matter how you take the gazette data. Ken.
ken2m said:
should apply for the whole aspects of prospecting not just what people think they can or can't do if its exempt creek you can't dig in it simple metal detecting is the same its just slightly different because there is only so many chains old measurement of public land part of the creek both sides of the creek don't quote me but I think its roughly 5 or 10 chains witch in meters is around 10 to 15m both sides of the creek bank that is classed as part of that creek. so say if I was to metal detect about 3 meters away from a creek bank that is on the exempt list I would technically be still in the boundary of that creek and unless I had a miners right anything I found belongs to the crown.
But if your more than that distance from the stream bank and the exempted stream is within a National Park were No Prospecting is allowed you would be breaking the law as well? 
Always in the eye of the perceiver so we can each be comparing apples and oranges. Not trying to mislead, but what makes you happy depends on whether you are a hungry 1800s miner or using a metal detector or talking about mine production over the life of company mines that produced more than a few thousand ounces. We compile Victorian historical mining stats that are used by the Vic government, so I am giving accurate info. Something that only produced 200 oz in total but as coarse lumps almost at surface can be great with a detector if you can get an ounce or few at surface there now (i,e, it is the coarseness of the lumps of gold make it great too). The hungry miner was delighted with a few bucketfulls going pounds of gold per tonne (or even per bucket) from reefs that ultimately only produced a few thousand ounces - eg Swedish Reef at Christmas Hills, Royal Standard near Woods Point. Have to greatly disagree re Diamond Creek - the main mine produced a total of only about 50,000 oz from memory despite mining to 960 feet depth at the only significant mine (Diamond Creek/Union), the one north from town was tiny and the one on the hill south from the main mine, west of the creek, was negligible (I used to explore them all as a kid). At 80 to 90 ounces per tonne 50,000 ounces is not many tonnes of ore, but it was still working when I was a kid - average grade was more like one ounce.Hunting the yellow said:
ts of mines produced around ten ounces per tonne or more in outcrop when first discovered, over a few tonnes of ore (probably because gold concentrates at surface during weathering ot the veins) but average grade rapidly declined as tonnes increased above less than a hundred tonnes of ore (the main Diamond Creek mine would not have averaged one oz/tonne from memory). Mines that produced averages of 4 oz/tonne over a thousand tonnes of ore were very rare anywhere in Victoria (I know perhaps 15 or so). Yes Bendigo on average was far richer than Fosterville USED to be (Bendigo averaged over an ounce per tonne and produced around 850 tonne of gold from its hard-rock mines), but as mentioned Fosterville and Costerfield were the highest grade mines in Australia last quarter (I monitor this) - Fosterville is becoming getting higher grade as it goes deeper and of course Bendigo is dead as a door-nail now (probably forever, given the cost or de-watering it again). Yes, Bendigo was the 11th largest producing goldfield in the world up to the 1950s (no longer anything like that) but was not by any means the highest grade goldfoeld in even Victoria (the Long Tunnel at Walhalla was the highest grade single LARGE mine, averaging a bit under 2 oz/tonne). Grade is different to tonnage - they mined tens of millions of tonnes of ore at Bendigo to get all those ounces. Kinglake was quite insignificant from miniscule mines at Captains Creek, Mt Robertson etc. - but still produced some nuggety gold from them. Tailings dumps around the state first produced typically max 5 gramme per tonne on retreatment although this declined to a gram on further re-treatment (some were re-treated four times) - there have been some tiny dumps that produced up to over an ounce per tonne on initial re-treatment but that was because the ore was full of sulphides that oxidised a bit over a hundred years (eg Costerfield) and freed the gold - but production was miniscule. The reason production was miniscule was that they could not extract the gold and most of it ended up in the tailings so the mines soon when broke (so high grade tailings did not necessarily reflect the high grade of the ore but their inability to extract it). I have been involved in evaluating and re-treating mining dumps. For gold detecting, fields with lots of small, high-grade veins mined and historically coarser gold are probably best - it would not matter a lot what the average grade of the significant mines was on those fields (hence apples versus oranges).20xwater said:
That Creek called Reedy Creek is also known as Dabyminga Creek on some maps as yes its on the exempted list.
It flows north via Tyaak (on the Broadford-Strath Ck road) towards Tallarook. west of the main granite range. Richest in its headwaters near the tiny settlement of Reedy Creek. but I got a lot of fine gold on its flats just south of that Strath Creek road.
I have seen it marked on topographic maps.
- Joined
- Jan 13, 2018
- Messages
- 155
- Reaction score
- 356
Hi 20x, thats how its named on my map.
20xwater, I am not sure what you need. If you look on the map I sent, you will see Reedy Creek road after you go 8 km east of Broadford. Turn south on it. From memory there is a sign says Tyaa kon the Broadford-Strath Creek road (don't go there as it is a few hundred metres north off the road) - I can't remember if there is also a sign on the creek as well, but once you get 8 km frpm Broadford you are in its valley (it would be immediately east of the Reedy Creek turnoff on the Broadford-Strath Creek road). Tyaak is also on Reedy (Dabyminga) Creek.Reedy Creek Road goes south along the creek itself.
- Status
