Starcore Reports on Its Silver Project
Original announcement by tmx on
- Company
- Starcore International Mines Ltd.
- Ticker
- SAM
- Exchange
- TSX
- Region
- Queretaro, Mexico
- Primary commodity
- Silver
- Secondary commodities
- Gold, Copper, Lead, Zinc, Selenium, Iron ore
- Document categories
- Metallurgy
- Extracted
- 2026-09-12 23:18:28 UTC
Analysis by Minestarters Atlas
Minestarters Atlas analysis
Summary
Starcore has reported metallurgical test results for its Tortilla Project in Mexico, demonstrating that the use of granular activated carbon (CIL process) significantly enhances silver and gold recoveries. After 72 hours, silver recovery reached 84.75% and gold recovery reached 79.85% using the CIL method.
Reasoning: Metallurgical testwork demonstrates that CIL processing significantly improves silver and gold recoveries, de-risking the processing route for the Tortilla Project.
Positive factors
- Significant recovery enhancement with CIL process
- High silver head grade in metallurgical samples
- Qualified Person sign-off provided
Negative factors
- Standard leaching recoveries are relatively low
Facts used in scoring: 4
Classification and evidence
Mill Routeneutral
Processing via mill or concentrator (CIL, CIP, tank leach, flotation).
Why it applies: The document states the mineral can be effectively processed using the CIL (carbon-in-leach) process.
Evidence · text
“demonstrates that the mineral can be effectively processed using the CIL (carbon-in-leach) process.”
QA/QC Disclosedpositive · Story-specific tag
Release includes QA/QC disclosure — certified lab, QP sign-off, or stated methods (blanks, standards, duplicates).
Why it applies: The release names a Qualified Person (Salvador Garcia) who prepared the technical information.
Evidence · text
“Salvador Garcia, B. Eng., a director of the Company and Chief Operating Officer, is the Company's qualified person on the project”
Single Domain Onlynegative
Testing limited to one composite or domain — representativeness not established.
Why it applies: only one composite was tested
Extracted facts
Stored fact records: 4. Some facts used in scoring do not have a stored record.
Metallurgical Results (4)
Standard Leaching + granular activated carbonTORTILLA Project · goldRecovery: 79.85 %Head Grade: 2.15Head Grade Unit: gr/tonView all detailsHide details
Identity
- Project
- TORTILLA Project
- Commodity
- gold
- Region
- mexico
- Reported Region
- Queretaro, Mexico
- Ticker
- SAM
Test Work
- Program Status
- preliminary
- Test Type
- Standard Leaching + granular activated carbon
- Processing Route
- Standard Leaching + granular activated carbon
- Sample
- Metallurgical test head grade sample
- Leach Time
- 72 hours
Recovery
- Recovery
- 79.85 %
- Recovery Basis
- actual_test
- Head Grade
- 2.15
- Head Grade Unit
- gr/ton
Review
- Needs Review
- No
- Historical
- No
Dates
- Event date
- 2025-07-14T00:00:00.000Z
Reasoning: 79.85% recovery with CIL is strong for gold.
Positive factors
- High recovery for gold using CIL
Evidence · text
“Leaching with granular activated carbon significantly enhanced gold recoveries, increasing to 79.85%”
Tags used in scoring
Low Recoverynegative
Recovery below the weak band for the commodity and processing route.
Why it applies: 79.85% is below the weak band (80%)
Standard Leaching + granular activated carbonTORTILLA Project · silverRecovery: 84.75 %Head Grade: 968.33Head Grade Unit: gr/tonView all detailsHide details
Identity
- Project
- TORTILLA Project
- Commodity
- silver
- Region
- mexico
- Reported Region
- Queretaro, Mexico
- Ticker
- SAM
Test Work
- Program Status
- preliminary
- Test Type
- Standard Leaching + granular activated carbon
- Processing Route
- Standard Leaching + granular activated carbon
- Sample
- Metallurgical test head grade sample
- Leach Time
- 72 hours
Recovery
- Recovery
- 84.75 %
- Recovery Basis
- actual_test
- Head Grade
- 968.33
- Head Grade Unit
- gr/ton
Review
- Needs Review
- No
- Historical
- No
Dates
- Event date
- 2025-07-14T00:00:00.000Z
Reasoning: 84.75% silver recovery is strong.
Positive factors
- High silver recovery with CIL
Evidence · text
“while silver recoveries rose to 84.75%”
Standard LeachingTORTILLA Project · goldRecovery: 56.25 %Head Grade: 2.15Head Grade Unit: gr/tonView all detailsHide details
Identity
- Project
- TORTILLA Project
- Commodity
- gold
- Region
- mexico
- Reported Region
- Queretaro, Mexico
- Ticker
- SAM
Test Work
- Program Status
- preliminary
- Test Type
- Standard Leaching
- Processing Route
- Standard Leaching
- Sample
- Metallurgical test head grade sample
- Leach Time
- 72 hours
Recovery
- Recovery
- 56.25 %
- Recovery Basis
- actual_test
- Head Grade
- 2.15
- Head Grade Unit
- gr/ton
Review
- Needs Review
- No
- Historical
- No
Dates
- Event date
- 2025-07-14T00:00:00.000Z
Reasoning: 56.25% gold recovery via standard leaching is relatively low.
Negative factors
- Low recovery with standard leaching
Evidence · text
“indicated a recovery of 56.25% for gold”
Tags used in scoring
Low Recoverynegative
Recovery below the weak band for the commodity and processing route.
Why it applies: 56.25% is below the weak band (80%)
Standard LeachingTORTILLA Project · silverRecovery: 78.23 %Head Grade: 968.33Head Grade Unit: gr/tonView all detailsHide details
Identity
- Project
- TORTILLA Project
- Commodity
- silver
- Region
- mexico
- Reported Region
- Queretaro, Mexico
- Ticker
- SAM
Test Work
- Program Status
- preliminary
- Test Type
- Standard Leaching
- Processing Route
- Standard Leaching
- Sample
- Metallurgical test head grade sample
- Leach Time
- 72 hours
Recovery
- Recovery
- 78.23 %
- Recovery Basis
- actual_test
- Head Grade
- 968.33
- Head Grade Unit
- gr/ton
Review
- Needs Review
- No
- Historical
- No
Dates
- Event date
- 2025-07-14T00:00:00.000Z
Reasoning: 78.23% silver recovery is moderate.
Evidence · text
“and 78.23% for silver.”
How Atlas produces this analysis
Minestarters Atlas uses automated extraction to summarize mining announcements, identify reported measurements, and classify supporting evidence. Sentiment reflects the extracted narrative and classification rules; it is an interpretation, not a reported measurement. Evidence quotes and context are provided where available. Missing data, low-confidence results, and review flags indicate limitations. Check the original publisher announcement before relying on an interpretation.