Comparative Analysis

CAPEX Comparison

Direct CIP requires large-scale leach and adsorption tank farms, extensive cyanide handling infrastructure, and a fully lined cyanide TSF. These elements drive capital intensity significantly higher than flotation-based flowsheets.

Flotation + Concentrate Leach, by contrast, requires:

• Smaller tankage
• A compact UFG circuit
• A small CIL/ILR system
• Minimal cyanide storage
• No cyanide-bearing TSF for the bulk tailings

This results in a materially lower initial capital requirement.

OPEX Comparison

Direct CIP incurs high reagent consumption because cyanide and lime must be added to the entire mass flow. Power consumption is also elevated due to the need to agitate large volumes of slurry.

Flotation reduces OPEX by:

• Treating only 5–15% of the mass in the high-cost circuit
• Reducing cyanide consumption by 70–90%
• Lowering detoxification costs
• Reducing power consumption in leaching and agitation

The result is a structurally lower cost per ounce.

Sensitivity Analysis

Direct CIP is highly sensitive to:

• Cyanide price
• Lime price
• Power tariffs
• Carbon attrition losses
• Preg-robbing intensity

Flotation + Concentrate Leach is more resilient because the high-cost reagents are applied only to a small mass fraction.

Interactive Comparison Table

Category Direct CIP Flotation + Leach Details
CAPEX High Moderate Expand
CIP requires large tank farms, cyanide TSF, and extensive detox circuits. Flotation requires smaller equipment and no cyanide-bearing TSF.
OPEX High Low Expand
CIP consumes cyanide and lime across the entire mass. Flotation reduces reagent consumption by treating only the concentrate.
Recovery 40–55% 80–85%+ Expand
CIP suffers from preg-robbing and encapsulation. Flotation isolates sulfides and enables UFG + intensive leaching.
Environmental High cyanide footprint Low cyanide footprint Expand
CIP requires a cyanide-bearing TSF. Flotation keeps cyanide in a small, controlled circuit.