Document: TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM Project: INNOVAT Case Study … · CASE STUDY – 10,000t/d HEAP...

INNOVAT MINERAL PROCESS SOLUTIONS LIMITED

760 Brant St., Suite 405C, Burlington ON, L7R 4B8, Canada Tel 905-333-7133 Fax 905-333-9336

www.vatleach.com

INN14-CS-001 Sept 30, 2014

Document: TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM

Project: INNOVAT Case Study – 10,000 t/d Heap Leach – Panama

This memorandum presents an economic comparison based on a 10,000 t/d heap leach operation

located in Latin America. All assumptions, equipment layouts, mining, and costing, for the

purposes of this comparison, have been accepted from the pre-feasibility base case and have not

been adjusted except as required to implement a Continuous Vat Leaching (CVL) based process.

INNOVAT was directly engaged in engineering activities related to the project from 2007

through 2013, including bulk pilot plant testing, and believes that the cost estimates associated

with the implementation of Continuous Vat Leaching have been conservatively estimated, and

that potentially significant savings in both processing, and material handling can be realized with

modification to the base case.

1.0 INTRODUCTION

Three economic analyses are presented in this memo, two of which have been prepared by

INNOVAT, and one of which was presented as a heap leach, prefeasibility study by the owner.

All costing where possible has been carried forward, or based on the base case. The models are

as follows:

• Base case: 10,000t/d Heap Leach Facility (unadjusted)

• Direct Comparison: 10,000t/d Continuous Vat Leaching

• Alternate: 5,000t/d Continuous Vat Leaching

The following considerations were used when evaluating the alternate methods:

• Maintain design criteria of the original project plan

• Use direct cost from original project plan where feasible

CASE STUDY – 10,000t/d HEAP LEACH COMPARISON – INN14CS 2


• Use unit cost from original project plan where direct cost is not feasible

2.0 BASIS OF COMPARISON

INNOVAT has not modified the flow sheets in any way beyond addition of components which

are required for Continuous Vat Leaching, and removal of components related specifically to

Heap Leaching.

The mining and material handling process has been unmodified for the 10,000t/d Continuous Vat

Leach case, and modified only as a result of the reduction in processing rate for the 5,000t/d

CVL case.

The crushing circuit has been modified as a result of the Continuous Vat Leaching process feed

size requirement of -6mm. In order to use the primary and secondary crusher from the base case,

an additional tertiary, and quaternary crushing stage have been added to both of the CVL

scenarios. The cost of this inclusion has been captured in both the CAPEX and OPEX within the

comparison. It is expected that a crushing circuit designed specifically to reduce the particle size

from ROM to -6mm would require three stages and have a small cost savings over the crushing

circuit utilized in this comparison.

The CVL facility has been placed near the base of the proposed heap leach facility, and receives

ore from the crushed ore stockpile. No modification has been made to the material handling /

conveyor system as presented in the base case. The CVL is expected to discharge the material to

a tailings pile which has been modelled to occupy the space currently designed for the heap leach

facility. The costing associated with this tailings pile has been developed based on a

combination of the costs reported for the heap leach facility, and the costs reported for the waste

rock dump.

3.0 COMPARISON OF COSTS

3.1 PRE-PRODUCTION CAPITAL EXPENDITURE - PROCESS

In the case of the 10,000t/d CVL system, cost reductions associated with the centralization of the

process were included and amounted primarily to a minor reduction in the cost of the reagent



system. The pre-production direct cost comparison between the base case and 10,000t/d CVL

case excluding Area 30 – Heap Leach & Solution Handling, and Area 60 – Detoxification,

produces a difference of 0.33% capital expense. If we look at only Area 30 and 60, the

preproduction cost of the CVL scenario represents a 50% cost premium over the base case. It is

important to note however, that this cost premium is almost completely offset in year one during

the heap leach expansion. The difference between the total process & infrastructure capital cost

(pre-production) between the base case and 10,000t/d CVL case is a 12.4% increase in capital

cost.

In the case of the 5,000t/d CVL system, direct cost of associated equipment was reduced as a

result of the 50% reduction in processing rate. The aggregate reduction in direct cost associated

with this throughput reduction is 20.8%, excluding Area 30 – Heap Leach & Solution Handling,

and Area 60 – Detoxification. The capital cost difference associated with Area 30 & 60 is 9.2%

in favour of the 5,000t/d CVL case. Further savings occur following year one, where leach pad

expansion must occur with the base case. The difference between the total process &

infrastructure capital cost (pre-production) between the base case and 5,000t/d CVL case is a

19.4% decrease in capital cost.

3.2 PRE-PRODUCTION CAPITAL EXPENDITURE – MINING

As the mining schedule and mining method were not modified, the mining costs have been

carried directly for the 10,000t/d case, and reduced only by decreasing the number of required

haul trucks in the 5,000t/d case. The 10,000t/d CVL case shares a common mining capital

expenditure throughout life of mine in comparison to the base case, whereas the 5,000t/d case

includes a capital savings of 19.6% as the equipment requirement for 5,000t/d has decreased with

respect to the base case.

3.3 OPERATING EXPENSE - MINING

Mining costs have not been modified for the 10,000t/d comparison as the mining and material

handling process has not been altered. Additional mining cost was included in the 5,000t/d case

owing to the reduced equipment efficiency. This increase over the mine life amounts to a mining

operating cost increase of 6.9%.



3.4 OPERATING EXPENSE – PROCESS LABOUR

Process labour has been adjusted based on the removal of all of the tasks specifically associated

with the heap leach, offset by the workers required for continuous vat leaching. The main

difference is the removal of the piping crew which accounts for 10% of the process staff. In

comparison to the base case, the 10,000t/d CVL case total life of mine (LOM) process labour

expenditure is reduced by 12%. In comparison to the 5,000t/d CVL case, the total LOM process

labour expenditure increases by 62% exclusively as a result of an additional 6 years of operation.

It is expected that optimization of the project for a 5,000t/d operation would reduce this process

labour expense to a more comparable level.

3.5 OPERATING EXPENSE - PROCESSING

Processing cost was modified primarily to account for the switch from heap leaching to CVL. A

minor cost savings in the case of 10,000t/d of 3.8% over LOM is expected. This savings is

attributed to a reduction in power consumption, use of hydrated lime, and removal of heap

specific expenses. A similar savings is expected in the 5,000t/d case, with a 1.6% reduction in

total processing cost.

3.6 OPERATING EXPENSE - LABORATORY

Laboratory costs were reduced in both cases primarily by a reduction in the number of samples

taken. Given the rapid leach characteristics of the ore within the vat, and the ability of the

system to tolerate feed variation, the number of samples has been reduced. In the case of 10,000

t/d, this equates to 75 solids assays, and 125 solution assays per day. This results in a savings

over the base case of 19.4% and 33.9% for the 10,000t/d and 5,000t/d comparison respectively.

3.7 OPERATING EXPENSE – SERVICES & SUPPORT

Services and Support costs have not been affected by the change in processing method and

therefore the 10,000t/d CVL case cost remains identical to the base case. In comparison to the

5,000t/d CVL case, the LOM cost has increased 15.7% as a result of yearly expenditures

occurring for an additional 6 years.



3.8 OPERATING EXPENSE – G & A

G&A costs have not been modified in the case of the 10,000t/d comparison. The G&A costs

have been carried directly. For the 5,000t/d case, the yearly expenditure has been reduced to

accommodate the changes required for a 50% reduction in processing, with the total G&A

expenditure increasing by 74%. This is one area where significant additional savings can be

realized in the 5,000t/d case, as yearly costs from the base case have been extended over 12

years, resulting in much higher total expense per category. It is expected that these costs can be

reduced by virtue of the smaller plant, or distributed over the project life resulting in a more

accurate G&A cost comparison.

3.9 MONITORING/RECLAMATION & CLOSURE

The total cost of monitoring/reclamation & closure has not been adjusted in any way. This

activity is expected to take place following leaching and as such has been moved where required

to begin at the end of leaching activity. It should be noted that reclamation on an ongoing basis

can take place with either CVL scenario.

3.10 OTHER TAXES

The calculation of other taxes is done using the same formula as applied to the base case. The

total tax expenditure does not vary significantly between cases.

3.11 TRANSPORT, INSURANCE, REFINING

The same formula for determining the total cost of this category has been used across all cases.

Since the CVL installation has a higher total recovery, the total cost over the life of the project

has increased, but remains the same on a per ounce basis.

3.12 ONGOING CAPITAL EXPENDITURE

Mining capital expenditure on an ongoing basis remains unchanged in the 10,000t/d CVL case in

comparison to the base case. Closure cost is expected to reduce significantly, as the tailings pile

does not require the same treatment as the heap leach facility at project completion. In addition,



costs related to heap leach pad expansions have been modified to reflect tailings dump

expansion. The tailings area as designed for the CVL will undergo identical pad expansions, but

these expansions will consist only of appropriate clearing, and placement of a geotextile, more

closely resembling the preparation of the existing WRD site. The combined savings from

adjustment of the leach pad expansions, and reduction in closure requirements results in a

savings of approximately $12,950,644 LOM.

A similar savings is realized in the 5,000t/d CVL comparison. At this scale, $12,669,875 is

saved LOM on ongoing expenditures as a result of the transition from heap leach to tailings pile.

4.0 SUMMARY OF COMPARISON

A summary of the key financial parameters is shown in Table 1. Here you can see that the

10,000t/d CVL case offers superior economics in comparison to the base case, and that while the

average cost per ounce of gold is 7% higher in the 5,000t/d case, the overall economics are better

thanks to the reduced capital expenditure both initially and ongoing. In all cases the NPV of the

CVL installation betters the base case, which is aided by the short leach duration, which leads to

a rapid realization of gold production. A complete cash flow analysis for each case is attached in

the Appendix.

Table 1 - Key Financial Parameters

Base Case Heap Leach (10,000t/d)

CVL Case

(10,000t/d)

CVL Case

(5,000t/d)

Mine Life 5.3 year 5.3 year 11.1 year

CAPEX (Pre-Production) $ 117 093 032 $ 129 531 835 $ 94 342 955

After-tax IRR 33.7% 47.1% 36.5%

Operating Years to Payback (5%) 2.2 1.42 2.13

After Tax NPV of Project Cash Flow

At 0% Discount Rate $ 152 011 800 $ 195 372 180 $ 191 045 234

At 5% Discount Rate $ 109 789 300 $ 148 918 522 $ 128 788 489

At 10% Discount Rate $ 77 822 500 $ 113 266 205 $ 86 976 345



Base Case Heap Leach (10,000t/d)

CVL Case

(10,000t/d)

CVL Case

(5,000t/d)

At 15% Discount Rate $ 53 275 200 $ 85 487 409 $ 57 993 134

Average cash cost per oz $ 402 $ 359 $ 430

Cost per oz (including Capital) $ 981 $ 905 $ 865

5.0 APPENDIX

APPENDIX – 10,000t/d HEAP LEACH COMPARISON – INN14CS A


10,000 t/d – Heap Leach (Base Case)

APPENDIX – 10,000t/d HEAP LEACH COMPARISON – INN14CS B


10,000t/d – Continuous Vat Leaching

APPENDIX – 10,000t/d HEAP LEACH COMPARISON – INN14CS C


5,000t/d – Continuous Vat Leaching


760 Brant St., Suite 405C, Burlington ON, L7R 4B8, Canada Tel 905-333-7133 Fax 905-333-9336

www.vatleach.com

INN14-CS-001DC Sept 30, 2014

Document: Design Criteria

Project: INNOVAT Case Study – 10,000 t/d Heap Leach – Panama

The following document has been duplicated from the original pre-feasibility study and

presented as the basis for this comparison. Major modifications required for the implementation

of CVL have been highlighted green.

1.0 INTRODUCTION

The following criteria are developed to support the compilation of the pre-feasibility study for

the Cerro Quema gold heap leach project. Cerro Quema is located approximately 45 kilometers

directly southwest of the town of Chitre and 75 km by road. The average ore processing rate will

be 3.6 million tons per year. Annual metal production will be approximately 79,800 oz

equivalent Au. Open pit mining, crushing, conveyor stacking, heap leaching, metal recovery in a

carbon adsorption/desorption/recovery circuit and all associated infrastructure are included in the

study. Doré bars will be exported from the project site.

2.0 STANDARD UNITS AND ABBREVIATIONS

All costs are in United States dollars. Units of measurement are metric. Only common and

standard abbreviations were used wherever possible. A list of abbreviations used is as follows:

Distances/Speed: mm – millimeter

cm – centimeter

m – meter

km – kilometer

km/h – kilometer per hour

INNOVAT – 10,000t/d HEAP LEACH CASE STUDY – INN14-CS 2


Asl or ASL – Above Sea level

Areas/Flux Rate: m2 or sqm – square meter

ha – hectare

km2 – square kilometer

l/h/m2 – liters per hour per square meter

m3/h/m2 – cubic meters per hour per square meter

Weights/Rates: oz – troy ounces

Koz – 1,000 troy ounces

g – grams

kg – kilograms

T or t or tm – ton (1000 kg)

Kt – 1,000 tonnes

Mt – 1,000,000 tonnes

kg/d – kilograms per day

g/d – grams per day

oz/day – troy ounces per day

Time: min – minute

h or hr – hour

op hr – operating hour

d – day

yr – year

Volume/Flow: m3 or cu m – cubic meter

m3/h – cubic meters per hour

l/min – liter per minute

Nm3/h – normal cubic meters per hour

Am3/h – actual cubic meters per hour

bv or BV – bed volume

Assay/Grade: gpt or g/ tm or gms/ tm – grams per tonne



ppm – parts per million

ppb - parts per billion

Other: TPD or tpd – tonnes per day

kWh – kilowatt hour

kWh/ tm – kilowatt hour per metric ton

Au – gold

Ag – silver

Hg – mercury

Cu – copper

WAD CN – weak acid dissociable cyanide

NaCN – sodium cyanide

US$ or $ - United States dollar

Kg/ tm – kilograms per metric ton

kPa – kilopascal

mm Hg – mm mercury

°C – degrees centigrade

kV – kilovolts

kVa – power, kilovolt ampere

MVa – power, megavolt ampere

MBTUs – million British thermal units

MJ/h – million joules per hour

S.G. – specific gravity

avg – average

P80 – 80% passing

P50 – 50% passing

Aspect ratio – tank’s ratio of height to diameter

MW – megawatt

kW – kilowatt



ROM – run of mine

Bulk Density – tm/m3, mass divided by volume

WMF – waste management facility

PRO – Pershimco

3.0 INFORMATION SOURCE CODES

CODE SOURCE

A Assumed Data

B Calculated

C Client Provided

E (Consultant)

F Geotechnical Data

I Industry Standard

K (Consultant)

M Metallurgical Testwork Data

O (Consultant)

G (Consultant)

P (Consultant)

L Vendor Data

4.0 DESIGN CRITERIA

4.1 GENERAL SITE CONDITIONS

Code Rev

Location

Country Panama C A



Coordinates Lat 7°33’39.18”N

Long 80°30’59.19”W

UTM 834,554N, 552,918E

E A

Nearest Metropolitan Area

Chitre C A

Nearest Major City Panama City C A

Province Los Santos C A

Port Colon, Balboa A A

Elevation 200 to 950 masl G B

Meteorology

Climate

Barometic Pressure, kPa 90.4 to 97.8 B A

Temperature Range, °C 20.0 to 28.5 (25.5 Avg) K A

Average Minimum, °C 20.4 K A

Average Maximum, °C 28.5 K A

Rainfall Average Annual, mm 1,853 G A

Wet Season May to November G A

Average Wet Season, mm/month 303 G B

Extreme Wet Year, mm/month 333 G A

Dry Season December to April G A

Average Dry Season, mm 151 G A

Extreme Wet Year, mm 2,538 G A

Extreme Dry Year, mm 1,247 G A

100-year, 24-hour Storm, mm 269.4 O A

Evaporation Annual Pan, mm 991 G B

Prevailing Wind Direction North, Northwest K A

Design Wind Speed TBD K A



General

Seismic Zone Intensity: 8.1

Acceleration 0.2g

(2005 Report)

O A

Power Incoming 34.5 kV, 3ph, 60Hz I B

Generation 480 V, 3ph, 60Hz A A

Distribution 34.5 kV, 3ph, 60Hz I B

Medium Voltage 4,160 V, 3ph, 60Hz A A

Low Voltage 480 V, 3ph, 60Hz A A

Control Voltage 110 V, 3ph, 60Hz A A

Power Requirements

Max Attached Power (kW) 5499 B B

Max Power Consumption (MWh/a) 23.1 to 25.5 B B

Max Power Cons. (kWh/tm ore) 5.2 to 5.9 B B

Water Source Ground Water A A

Water Quality Assumed non-potable A A

Fuel Diesel A A

Emergency Backup Power Spare Gen, Lights, Pumps K A

4.2 MINING

General

Base Case Mineable Reserve

Production Schedule 360 days/yr

7 days/wk

20 hrs/day

2 shifts/day

10 hr/shift

P A



Production Rate 3.6 million tm ore per yr

10,000 tm ore per day

C A

Life of Mine, Years 6.94 C A

Average Grade 0.77 gpt Au P B

Ratio, Ag / Au 1.1 M B

Ore Types La Pava

Quema

Quemita

La Mesita

C A

In Situ Bulk Density 2.2 (dry) P A

Moisture Content, wt% 4 to 6% K B

Strip Ratio, Average 0.72 P B

4.3 CRUSHING

General ALL TONS ARE DRY TONS

Production Schedule 360 days/yr

7 days/wk

24 hrs/day

2 shifts/day

12 hr/shift

A A

Overall System Availability 75% A A

Production Rate 10,000 tpd Average

556 tph Design

C A

Conveyor Design 20% more than Crushing Design A A

Conveyor Speed 2 m/s max A A

ROM Ore Bulk Density 1.6 tm/m3 A A

ROM Moisture 4 to 6% K B

ROM Moisture, Average 5.5% G B

ROM Size P80 of 500mm

P50 190mm

A B



Final Crushed Ore Product Size P80 6.5mm A A

No. of Crushing Stages 4 V A

Crusher Work Index, kWh/mt (average)

Design 6.7 A A

LP-LTR 4.92 M A

LPE-LTR 5.27 M A

LPW-HTG 5.66 M A

QMP-TR 6.7 M A

Abrasion Index, Ai

Design 0.2 A A

LP-LTR 0.0715 M A

LPE-LTR 0.2624 M A

LPW-HTG 0.2071 M A

QMP-TR 0.1721 M A

Ore SG 2.38 C A

Dust Supression System

Type Foggers at dust sources A A

Control Manual via valves A A

Water Source Clean raw water tank A A

Pressure Source Gravity C B

Primary Crushing

ROM Stockpile Capacity (tons) 20,000 A A

Haul Truck Size Cat 773 or equivalent A A

ROM Feed Bin 100 tm K A

Bin Feed Method Truck Dump or Loader Feed K A

Front End Loader Size Cat 988 or equivalent A A

Oversize Protection Stationary Grizzly K A

Opening on Grizzly, mm 500 K A



Rock Breaker Permanent, Hydraulic K A

Feeder Type Apron K A

Feeder Size 1219mm (48”) A A

Arrangement Vibrating Grizzly, Oversize Feeds, Primary Jaw

V B

Vibrating Grizzly 900mm Openings V B

Primary Crusher Type

Jaw V B

Size 1,200 x 800 V B

Primary Crusher CSS 132 mm V B

Magnet

Cross-Belt Magnet Yes K A

Cross-Belt Magnet, Type Self Cleaning K A

Cross-Belt Magnet, Location Primary Crusher Discharge Conveyor

K A

Metal Detector Yes K A

Metal Detector, Location Primary Crusher Transfer Conveyor

K A

Secondary Crushing

Arrangement Primary crushed rock feeds a bin, belt feeder feeds a

secondary screen, screen oversize feeds secondary

crusher

V B

Bin Size, time 15 minutes A A

Bin Size, tons 139 tm B A

Bin Size, m3 87 B A

Feeder Type Belt V A

Belt Width 2,000 mm V A

Secondary Screen Vibrating Double Deck V B

Secondary Screen Size 5m x 1.8m, 110mm, 70mm V B

Crusher Type Cone V B



Number 1 V B

Secondary CSS 38mm V B

Tertiary Crushing (CVL ONLY)

Arrangement Secondary crushed rock feeds a bin, belt feeder feeds a

tertiary screen, screen oversize feeds tertiary crusher

V B



Bin Size, m3 87 B A



Tertiary Screen Vibrating Double Deck V B

Tertiary Screen Size 5m x 1.8m V B

Crusher Type Cone V B

Number 1 V B

Tertiary CSS 12.5mm V B

Quaternary Crushing (CVL ONLY)

Arrangement Tertiary crushed rock feeds a bin, belt feeder feeds a

quaternary screen, screen oversize feeds quaternary

crusher

V B



Bin Size, m3 87 B A



Quaternary Screen Vibrating Double Deck V B

Quaternary Screen Size 5m x 1.8m V B

Crusher Type VSI V B



Number 1 V B

Product Size 6.5mm V B

Crushed Ore Stockpile

Type Uncovered stockpile C A

Shape Conical K A

Angle of Repose 37 K A

Angle of Reclaim 55 K A

Crushed Ore Bulk Density 1.5 K A

Live Capacity, h 12 C A

Live Capacity, tons 5,285 B A

Total Capacity, h 61.5 B A

Total Capacity, tons 25,615 B A

4.4 CRUSHED ORE RECLAIM

Stockpile Reclaim

Arrangement Subterranean Reclaim Conveyor Fed by Two Feeders

K A

Type Corrugated Metal Pipe K A

Construction Buried in fill K A

Feeders, Type

Variable Speed, Belt K A

Feeders, Drive

Electric K A

Feeders, Quantity

2 K A

4.5 LIME ADDITION, AGGLOMERATION & CONVEYING

Time Period Years One through Five K B



Arrangement Lime addition to belt, emergency feeder for cement

K B

Lime Pebble Lime to Belt K B

Binder, Emergency Only Portland Type II Cement K B

Lime Addition Rate, nomical 1.6 kg/tm M A

Lime Addition Rate, design 20 kg/tm M A

Cement Addition Rate, nominal (emerg. feeder) 0 kg/tm M B

Cement Addition Rate, design (emerg. feeder) 2.0 kg/tm M B

Time Period Year Six K B

Arrangement Drum fed by reclaim conveyor, discharging to transfer conveyor then portable

conveyors

K B

Type Drum Agglomerator K B

Binder Portland Type II Cement K A

Cement Addition Rate, nominal 10 kg/tm M A

Cement Addition Rate, design 20 kg/tm M A

Agglomerated Ore Moisture, nominal 7% M A

Agglomerated Ore Moisture, design 13% M A

Agglomeration Solution Barren Solution K A

Agglomeartion Solution Addition Points At Agglomeration Drum K A

Agglomerated Ore Bulk Density, range 1.3 to 1.7 tm/m3 M A

Agglomerated Ore Bulk Density, average 1.5 tm/m3 M A

4.6 HEAP CONSTRUCTION

Stacking Rate 10,000 tm day C A

Type Mobile grasshopper conveyors which feed a horizontal index conveyor that feeds a radial

stacker. Covered with inspection ports

A A

Width 904 mm (36”) K A



Stacker Type Radial w/5m extendable stinger, operates on top of lift

being constructed

K A

Stacker Length, m 35 - 40 K A

Lift Heights 8m O A

Number of Lifts 9 to 10 G B

Setback Between Lifts 10m G B

Angle of Repose 37° A A

Stacking Width 80m (avg) A A

Stacking Angle (Stacker Pivoting Angle) 150° K A

Surface Preparation After Stacking Cross Rip with LGP dozer K A

Crushed Ore Stacked Density, tm/m3 1.5 A A

Maximum Heap Height Above Liner, m 75 A A

4.7 LEACH PAD

Type Multiple lift, single use pad I A

Capacity, tm 20,000,000 G B

Construction Multiple phase construction A A

Liner System Composite liner consisting of 2mm geomembrane liner over

a 300mm compacted

I A

Overliner 700mm deep over plastic liner, drainage layer above liner in place density 1.75 tonnes/m

3,

rainage layer above liner hydraulic conductivity – faster

than 1.0 x 10-2

cm/sec

G B

Sides Slopes (>100m from toe) 2:1 G B

Side Slopes (<100m from toe) 3:1 G B

4.8 HEAP OPERATION

Ore Feed Rate 10,000 tpd C A



Leaching Cycles 70 days K A

No. of Leach Cycles 1 K A

Leach System Availability 95% A A

Leaching Schedule 365 days/yr

24 hours/day

A A

Tons Under Leach 70,000 B A

Active Leach Area 58,333m2 B A

Solution Application Method Drip tubes and sprinklers K A

Solution Application Rate, nominal 10 L/hr/m2 K A

Solution Application Rate, design 12 L/hr/m2 K A

Total Solution Applied 1.4 t soln/tm ore B A

Gold Recovery, average LOM 85.8% (92.8%) CVL B B

Average Gold Recovered, kg/day 6.71 B B

Average Pregnant Solution Grade 0.51 ppm Au B A

Average Barren Solution Grade 0.02 ppm At B A

Silver Recovery, average LOM 12% M B

Average Silver Recovered, kg/day 1.06 B B

Nominal Pressure for Sprinklers, kPa 138 (14m, 20psi) I A

Design Pressure for Sprinklers, kPa 207 (21m, 30psi) I A

Pump Availability, % 95 A A

Barren Soltuion NaCN Grade, g/L 0.25 (250ppm) A A

24-hr Drain Down, m3 14,000 K A

24-hour Drawin Down, L/tm 1,400 B A

Retained Moisture, % 8.2 M A

Retained Solution, L/tm 89 B A

4.9 SOLUTION STORAGE

General



Storage Type A A

Pregnant Solution Pond

Barren Solution Tank

Excess Solution Pond

Leak Detection / Collection 2 leak detection systems, between and beneath liners

I A

Pregnant Pond

Liner, double lined, both Preg and Excess 2mm Geomembrane upper liner and 1.5mm secondary liner with geonet in-between

over 300mm of compacted clay

G B

Volume Sizing Basis 24 hour draindown

2 year, 24-hour storm event

110% barren tank volume

A B

Pond Depth, m 10 G B

Pond Side Slopes 2:1 G B

Pond Volume, m3

49,200 G B

Pond Footprint Area, m2

9,600 G B

Pregnant Pond Pump

Type Submersible in Pregnant Pond K A

Number of Pumps 2 (1op, 1 stndby) K A

Design Flow Rate, m3/hr 578 (nominal), 695 (design) B A

Head, m 30 A A

Barren Solution Tank

Quantity 1 K A

Configuration Cylindrical, flat-bottom, open top

K A

Volume, minutes 45 A A

Volume, m3 525 B A

Aspect Ratio, H:D 1:1 (8.8m x 8.8m) A A

Operating freeboard, meters 0.3 K A



Barren Heap Leach Pumps (Phase 1)

Type Horizontal Split Case A A

Number of Pumps 1 operating, 1 ready spare A A

Design Flow Rate, m3/hr 583 (nom), 700 (des) B A

Head, m 135 A B

Barren Heap Leach Booster Pumps (Phase 2)

Type Horizontal Split Case A A

Number of Pumps 1 operating, 1 ready spare A A

Design Flow Rate, m3/hr 583 (nom), 700 (des) B A

Head, m TBD A A

Agglomeration Barren Pump

Type Centrifugal A A

Number of Pumps 2 (1 op, 1 stndby) A A

Nominal Flow Rate, m3/hr 8.0 B B

Design Flow Rate, m3/hr 60.6 B A

Head, m 160 B B

Process Solution Pump

Process Uses Carbon transfer, fill tanks K A

Type Horizontal centrifugal A A

Number of Pumps 2 (1 op, 1 stndby) A A

Design Flow Rate, m3/hr 55 B B

Head, m 60 A A

Excess Pond

Liner Same as preg pond A A

Volume Sizing Basis 24 hr draindown

25 year, 24-hr storm less 2 year, 24 hr storm event

Average fluid accumulation in the Event Pond

G B



Pond Depth 20 G B

Pond Side Slopes 2:1 G B

Volume, m3 260,100 G B

Footprint Area, m

2

24,520 G B

Water Evaporation Methods Floating Evaporators in Pond A B

Water to be Evaporated, m3/h 25 B B

Water Evaporation, % of sprayed 10 A A

Excess Pond Pump

Type Submersible in Excess pond K A

Number of Pumps 2 (1 op, 1 stndby) K A

Design Factor 1.2 A A

Nominal Flow Rate, m3/hr 79 B B

Design Flow Rate, m3/hr 300 A B

Head, m 30 A A

Evaporation System

Type Floating Evaporators K B

Number of Evaporators 8 K B

Nominal Evaporation Rate, m3/hr 22 B B

Design Evaporation Rate, m3/hr 25 K B

Evaporation Rate per unit, m3/hr 3.1 B B

4.10 HEAP LEACH RECOVERY CIRCUIT

General

Recovery Plant Type Activated Carbon Adsorption – Desorption Recovery

K A

Operating Schedule Two, 12hr shifts per day, 365 days per year

A A

Operating Availability 95% A A



Other Roofed acid wash, elution & carbon regeneration area. Closed, secure area for

electrowinning, refinery and mercury retort

K A

Adsorption Section

Flow Rate

Average 605m3/hr G B

Design 695m3/hr B A

Pregnant Solution Grade (Average) 0.47ppm Au B B

Barren Solution Grade (Average) 0.02ppm Au B A

Average Gold Recovered to Carbon, kg/day 6.62 B B

Gold Recovery through CIC +95% A A

Carbon Loading, Loaded Carbon g Au per ton carbon

4,000 A A

Carbon Loading, Barren Carbon g Au per ton carbon

70 A A

Specific Adsorption Flow Rate 61 m3/hr/m

2 (nominal),

73 m3/hr/m

2 (maximum)

K A

Carbon Columns

Type Open Top, Up Flow Cascade K A

Number of Trains 1 K A

Number of Columns/Train 5 (in series) K A

Column Diameter, m 3.8 B A

Column Height, m 3.8 A A

Carbon Capacity per Column (tons) 5 B A

Carbon Depth, m 0.9 B A

Step-down between Columns, m 1.1 (minimum) K A

Column Material of Construction Carbon Steel (1/2” wear plate in carbon zone)

K A

Distribution Plates & Bubble Capes Stainless Steel K A



Inter-column Flow Control Method Adjustable Dart Valves, minimum air entrainment

system

K A

Carbon Advance Pumps

Type Screw (Hydrostal or similar) K A

Number of Pumps 1 K A

Pump Design Flow Rate (m3/hr) 35 K A

Head, m 20 A A

Carbon % Solids by Volume 20 A A

Carbon Transfer Time, minutes 28 B A

Carbon Advance Rate to Elution, average, tons/day 1.73 B A

Carbon Safety Screen

Type Vibratory K A

Quantity 1 K A

Screen Retention Size, Mesh 100 K A

Incoming Solution, % solids by volume

<2 K A

Solution Samplers

Type Wire K A

Quantity 2 – feed & tail K A

Carbon Columns Area Sump Pump

Pump Type Vertical Sump K A

Design Flow Rate, m3/hr 40 A A

Head, m 25 A A

Acid Wash Section

Type Hydrochloric Acid K A

Number of Acid Wash Vessels 1 K A

Carbon Capacity per Vessel (tons) 2.5 A A

Freeboard Over Carbon Bed, m 1 K A



Height:Diameter Ratio 5:1 (preferred) K A

Acid Wash Vessel Material of Construction Steel, FRP lined or similar based on vendor recommendation

K A

Design Acid Solution Flow Rate 2 bed volumes/hr K A

Acid Wash Temperature Ambient K A

Acid Wash Carbon Screens PVC Cylindrical K A

Inlet Screen, Qty (minimum) 2 (in vessel) K A

Inlet Screen Mesh Size 20 K A

Outlet Screen, Qty 1 (outside vessel) K A

Outlet Screen Mesh Size 20 K A

Wash Schedule Every Elution Cycle K A

Washes per Week / vessel 4.8 (average), 7 (max) B A

Acid Wash Time, hrs 4 A A

Acid Storage Tank

Type Tote K A

Volume (working), m3 1 I A

Material of Construction Polyethylene I A

Acid Mix Tank

Qty 1 K A

Volume (working), m3 6.9 A A

Material of Construction Polyethylene or FRP A A

Acid Wash Pump

Pump Type Magnetic drive, seal-less K A

Design Factor 2 K A

Nominal Flow Rate, m3/hr 10 B A

Design Flow Rate, m3/hr 20 B A

Head, m 20 A A



Quantity, installed / operating / standby

1/1/0 K A

Acid Transfer Pump

Pump Type Magnetic drive, seal-less K A

Design Flow Rate, m3/hr 0.2 A A

Head, m 20 K A

Acid Area Sump Pump

Pump Type Vertical Sump, FRP K A


Head, m 25 A A

Spent Acid Neutralization

Type Caustic Soda rinse A A

Caustic Concentration, % by weight 25 A A

Caustic Addition Point To acid mix tank (spent solution after raw water rinse). Caustic neutralization solution to be circulated using the acid

wash pump)

A A

Design Solution Flow Rate 2 bed volumes/hr K A

End Neutralization pH 7 - 8 K A

Carbon Advance Pump



Pump Design Flow Rate, m3/hr 35 A A

Head, m 20 A A



Desorption Section

Type Pressure Zadra A A

Number of Elution Columns 1 K A



Carbon Capacity per Elution Column (tons) 2.5 B A

Freeboard Over Carbon Bed, m 1 K A

Height : Diameter Ratio 5:1 K A

Elution Column Material of Construction 316L Stainless Steel K A

Elution Column Insulation 50mm (minimum) R14 waterproof w/stainless steel

cladding

K A

Eluate Solution Flow Rate, bed volumes/h 2 K A

Eluate Solution Flow Rate, Design / Nominal, m3/hr 10.0/13.3 B A

Elution Temperature, °C (max) 135 K A

Elution Design Pressure 690 kPa (100psig) K A

Pressure Relief Valve Yes K A

Elution Vessel Carbon Screens 316SS Johnson K A

Inlet Screen, Qty (minimum) 2 (in vessel) K A

Inlet Screen Mesh Size 35 K A

Outlet Screen, Qty 2 (outside vessel) K A

Outlet Screen Mesh Size 28 K A

Stripped Carbon Grade, g/t 70 A A

Stripping Schedule, Weeks per Year 52 A A

Strip Availability 75% A A

Elutions per Week 4.8 B A

Elution Time, hrs 18 A A

Cycle Time, hrs 24 B A

Eluant Storage Tank

Arrangement Closed top, vented K A

Quantity 1 K A

Type Barren K A

Volume (working), h 4 A A

Volume (working), m3 40 B A



Aspect Ratio, D:H 1:1 K A

Freeboard, m 0.3 K A

Material of Construction Carbon Steeel K A

Tank Insultaion 50mm (minimum) R14 waterproof w/stainless steel

cladding

K A

Working Temperature, °C 75 K A

Barren Eluant Pump

Pump Type Horizontal Centrifugal, seal-less

K A

Pump Duty Pump from Barren Tank to Strip

K A

Quantity 1 K A

Nominal Flow Rate, m3/hr 10.0 B A


Head, m 65 A A

Operating Temperature, °C 75 (normal), 85 (max) K A

Elution Drain Pump

Pump Type Horizontal Centrifugal, seal-less

K A

Quantity 1 K A


Head, m 20 A A

Carbon Advance

Method Pressure in Strip Vessel Used to Move Carbon

K A

Elution Area Sump Pump



Head, m 25 A A

Boiler



Type Diesel C A

Style Firetube V A

Quantity 1 V A

Service Elution circuit K A

Minimum Boiler Sizing Requirement (Startup)

70-80 hp V A

Temperature Rating, °C (max) 182 V A

Heat Output, MJ/hr (MBTU/h) 2,505 (2.375) V A

Turn-down Ration, minimum 6:1 V A

Circulation Rate, m3/hr (max) 40 V A

Pressure Drop at Max Circ. Rate, kPa

68.9 V A

Hot Water Recirculation Pump

Type Horizontal Centrifugal K A

Design Flow Rate, m3/hr 40 V A

Operating Temperature, °C 182 V A

Heat Exchangers

Type Shell and Plate K A

Number 1 K A

Material of Construction 304SS V A

Primary (Boiler)

Hot-Side Inlet Temperature, °C

160 V A

Cold-side Inlet Temperature, °C

95 K A

Cold-side Outlet Temperature, °C

Maximized K A

Hot/Cold Solution Flow Rate, m

3/hr

40/13.3 B A

Design Pressure, kPa 1378 V A

Secondary (Heat Recovery)



Delta Temperature exchanged, °C

55 K A

Hot/Cold Solution Flow Rate, m

3/hr

13.3 B A


Qty 2 V A

Tertiary (Cool Down)

Hot-side Outlet Temperature, °C

75 K A

Cold-side Inlet Temperature, °C

20 A A

Hot Solution Flow Rate, m

3/hr

13.3 B A

Cold Solution Flow Rate, m

3/hr

TBD V A


Eluant Solution Samplers

Type Wire K A

Quantity 2 K A

Electrowinning Section

Electrowinning Cells

Type Mild Steel Wool in Baskets K A

Number of Cells 2 K A

Arrangement Parallel K A

Cell Volume, m3 0.9 V A

Solution Flow Rate / Cell, m3/hr 6.7 B A

Solution Temperature, °C 80-95 K A

Au Recovery per Pass Through Cell

60% A A

Cathode Type Mild Steel Wool in Basket K A

Cathodes per Cell 9 V A



Anode Type Perforated/Solid SS Plate K A

Anodes per Cell 10 V A

Exhaust Gas Flow Rate / Cell, Nm

3/hr

1700 V A

Steel Wool Consumed, kg/wk 10 A A

Rectifiers

Type Thyristor (SCR) K A

Qty 1 per cell K A

Rectifier Rating 100% @ 40C I A

Ampere Rating 1200 V A

Operating Voltage 0-6VDC K A

Electrowinning Cell Exhaust Fan

Quantity 1 for both cells A A

Fan Type Blower A A

Flow Rate, Nm3/hr 3400 V A

Pressure Required, mmHg 7.46 V A

Barren Eluant Return Pump

Quantity 1 K A

Pump Type Horizontal Centrifugal K A

Nominal Flow Rate, m3/hr 10.0 B A


Head, m 20 A A

Operating Temperature, °C 75 (norm), 85 (max) K A

Electrowinning Area Sump Pump



Head, m 25 A A

Pressure Washer



Pressure Washer Duty Clean Anodes and Cells K A

Refinery Section

Mercury Retort

Type Electric K A

Operation Pans loaded into retort, 16 to 20 h retort cycle

K A

Arrangement Vacuum pump pulls air through retort, condenser, mercury

collector, secondary condenser, sulfonated carbon

bed, stand alone chiller for cooling water

K A

Energy Requirement, MJ/hr (MBTU’s)

950 (0.9) V A

Retort Volume, m3

0.14-0.16 V A

Retort Pan Size, m3

0.064 V A

Precipitate Dry Hg, avg kg/d (retort feed)

1.45 B A

Precipitate Dry Hg, avg kg/d (retort product)

0.010 I A

Mercury Production, kg/day (Design)

1.44 B A

Retort Capacity, dry kg/wk 127 B A

Retort Capacity, dry kg/d 18.2 B A

Retort Capacity, wet kg/day 26.0 A A

Retort feed bulk density (wet), tm/m3 1.0 A A

Smelting Furnace

Type Tilting Crucible K A

Metal Production, kg Au+Ag/wk 117 B A

Heat Output, MJ/hr (MBTU’s) 949 (0.9) V A

Primary Heat Source Diesel K A

Furnace Working Capacity, l 79 V A

Melts per Week 4 A A



Pour Method System Cascading Mold K A

Bag House Dust Collector

Furnace exhaust gas handling rate, Nm

3/hr

18,700 V A

Furnace exhaust gas pressure, kPa 3 V A

Flux Mixer

Type Portable electric cement mixer K A

Slag Crusher TBD K A

Carbon Regeneration Section

Carbon Regeneration Kiln Dewatering Screen

Type Vibrating K A

Screen Material Stainless Steel K A

Carbon Regeneration Kiln

Type Horizontal Rotary w/feed hopper and pre-drier, Diesel

K A

Heat Output, MJ/hr (MBTU/hr) 739 (0.7) B A

Throughput Rate, kg/hr 45 B A

Feed Hopper Capacity, tons (m3) 2.5 (5) B A

Retention Time at Temperature, minimum

10 min @ 750 °C A A

Carbon Moisture, % Pre-drier 50 A A

Carbon Moisture, % to Kiln 20 A A

Carbon Regeneration Schedule ~60% assuming 1.7 tpd advance

A A

Regeneration Kiln Off-Gas Scrubber

Type None A A

Carbon Quench Tank

Type Slope Bottom K A

Storage Capacity, tm Carbon 2.5 B A

Tank Volume required, m3 (min) 5 B A



Additional Freeboard, m 0.3 A A

Agitated? No K A

Carbon Transfer Pump



Pump Design Flow Rate (m3/hr) 35 A A

Head, m 20 A A



Regen/New Carbon Dewatering Screen

Type Vibrating K A

Screen Material Stainless Steel K A

Mesh Size 65 K A

Regen/New Carbon Storage Tank

Type Cylindrical, cone bottom 45° K A

Storage Capacity, tm Carbon 1.5 B A

Tank Volume Required, m3 3 B A


Agitated? No K A

Carbon Handling

New Carbon Attritioning Tank


Capacity, t Carbon 1 K A

Tank Volume Required, m3 2.1 B A


Agitated? Yes K A

Carbon Attritioning Agitator

Type Top mount / fixed speed K A



Batch Size, tm Carbon 1 K A

SG of Solution and Carbon 1.2 B A

Carbon Fines Tank


Tank Volume Required, m3 70 B A

Additional Freeboard, m 0.3 K A

Agitated? No K A

Carbon Fines Filter Press

Type Recessed Plate K A

Volume Sufficient for 1 week of fines collection on average

A A

Carbon Fines Filter Press Feed Pump

Pump Type Air Pump A A


Head, m 80 A A

4.11 CYANIDE NEUTRALIZATION (DETOX)

General

Stream to be treated Excess solution A A

Method Air/SO2 A A

Capacity, m3/hr (Design/Nominal) 250/300 K B

CN In, ppm WAD (Design/Nominal) 100/25 A A

CN Concentration Out, ppm Total 0.2 C A

Retention Time, minutes total 60 A A

Sodium Metabisulfite Dosing 8.2 g Na2S2O5/g WAD CN I A

Copper Sulfate Dose 1.2 g CuSO4*5H2O/g WAD CN I A

Air Required 4.7 m3/h/m3 tank volume A A

Scavenger Carbon Columns



Type Upflow K B

Number of Trains 1 K A

Number of Columns/Train 2 (Series) K A


Column Diameter, m 2.5 B B

Column Height, m 2.5 B B

Carbon Capacity per Column (tons) 2.0 B B

Column Material of Construction Carbon Steel K A

Distribution Plates & Bubble Caps Stainless Steel K A

Loading Efficiency 80% at average solution grade with normally active carbon

A A

Carbon Safety Screen

Type Vibratory K A

Quantity 1 K A

Screen Retention Size, Mesh 100 K A

Incoming Solution, % solids by volume

<2 K A

Detox Tanks

Quantity 2 K A

Tank Volume, m3 (working) per tank 150 B B

Aspect Ratio, H:D (working) 1 : 1 A A

Freeboard, m 0.3 A A

Dimensions, Overall, dia x h, m 5.9 x 5.9 B B

Material of Construction Carbon Steel K A

Agitated? Yes K A

Detox Tank Agitators

Type Single axial flow impeller K A



4.12 REAGENTS AND CONSUMABLES

Lime (Silo Use Years One through Five)

Lime Consumption, kg/tm (nominal) 1.6 K B

Lime Consumption, kg/tm (design) 18 M B

Addition Point Dry fed onto conveyor K A

Addition Method Screw feeder from silo onto belt, controlled by

weightometer

K A

Consumption, kg per day, nominal/design

16,000/180,000 B B

Consumption, kg per h, nominal/design

889/10,000 B B

Type Pebble Lime K B

Form Bulk delivery, pneumatic unload to silo

A A

Bulk Density, tm/m3 1.0 I B

Lime Truck Size, tm ~20 (TBC by Vendor) A A

Selected Silo Size, tm (m3) 91 (91) B B

Selected Silo Size, days 5.7 B B

Cement (Emergency Feeder)

Cement Consumption, kg/tm (nominal)

0 K B

Cement Consumption, kg/tm (design)

2 M B

Addition Point Dry fed onto conveyor K B

Addition Method Screw feeder from sack onto bel, controlled manually

K B


0/26,688 B B


0/1,112 B B

Type Portland Type II Cement K A

Form Delivered in Super Sacks A B



Sack Size 1.5 tm bag A B


Delivery Truck Size, tm ~20 (TBC by Vendor) A B

Cement (Silo use Year Six)

Cement Consumption, kg/tm (nominal)

10 K A

Cement Consumption, kg/tm (design)

20 M A

Addition Point Dry fed onto conveyor K A

Addition Method Screw feeder from silo onto belt, controlled by

weightometer

K A


100,000/200,000 B B


5,556/11,111 B B

Type Portland Type II K A

Form Bulk delivery, pneumatic unload to silo

A A


Delivery Truck Size, tm ~20 (TBC by Vendor) A A

Selected Silo Size, truckloads 5 K A

Selected Silo Size, tm (m3) 100 (91) B B

Selected Silo Size, days 1 B A

Sodium Cyanide (Heap Leach)

Specific Gravity 1.60 P A

Bulk Density, tm/m3 0.75 to 0.90 A A

Consumption, kg/t 0.25 M A

Consumption, kg/d, nominal 2,500 B A

Form Briquettes A A

Container Configuration Solid in Bulk Bags A A



Container size, kg 1,000 A A

Reagent Storage Capacity, days 21 K A

Dissolution Method Agitated Mix Tank K A

Cyanide Mix Tank

Configuration Cylindrical, flat bottom covered tank, vented

K A

Mix Capacity, tm NaCN 1 K A

Specific Gravity of 25% solution 1.13 I A

Aspect Ratio, H:D 1:1 K A


Additional Freeboard, m 1.0 K A

Agitated? Yes K A

Cyanide Transfer Pumps

Pump Type Seal-less Horizontal centrifugal K A


Head, m 20 A A

Solution SG 1.13 I A


2 / 1 / 1 K A

Cyanide Storage Tank

Configuration Cylindrical, flat bottom covered tank, vented

K A

Storage Capacity, tm NaCN 3 C A


Tank Capacity, days 1.2 B A




Agitated? No K A



Cyanide Metering Pumps – Barren

Locations NaCN area to Barren Tank K A

Pump Metering K A

Variable Speed Yes K A


Nominal Flow, L/min 6.1 B A

Design Flow, L/min 9.2 B A

Design Head, m 25 A A


2/1/1 K A

Cyanide Metering Pumps – Strip Circuit

Locations NaCN area to Eluate Storage Tank

K A

Pump Metering K A



Nominal Flow, m3/hr 0.003 B B

Design Flow, m3/hr 0.85 B A



2/1/1 K A

Cyanide Metering Pumps - CIC

Locations NaCN area to CIC K A

Pump Metering K A



Nominal Flow, m3/hr 0.25 B A

Design Flow, m3/hr 0.37 B A





2/1/1 K A

Cyanide Area Sump Pump



Head, m 25 A A

Antiscalant (as required)

Type Ashland or equivalent K A

Form Liquid I A

Container 1 m3 Tote Bins I A

Average Addition Rate 6 ppm K A

Addition Points Barren and pregnant pump suctions

K A

Specific Gravity, solution 1.0 A A

Consumption total, kg/tm nominal 0.02 B A

Consumption total, L/d nominal 184 B A

Antiscalant Metering Pumps

Type Diaphragm K A


Addition Method Individual pumps for each addition point

K A

Design Factor 2 A A

Nominal Flow, mL/min 58 B A

Design Flow, mL/min 117 B A

Antiscalant dosing range, ppm 6 to 12 B A

Design Head, m 10 B A


2 / 2 / 0 K A

Caustic Soda (NaOH)

Consumption, kg/tm NaOH 0.01 A A



Consumption, kg/d NaOH, nominal 100 A A

Form Pearls or Flakes V A

Container Configuration Bags V A

Caustic Mix / Storage Tank

Configuration Cylindrical, flat bottom covered tank

K A

Mix Capacity, tm NaOH 1.05 A A

Mix Concentration, % by weight 25 K A

Tank Capacity, days 10 B A

Aspect Ratio, H:D 1:1 A A

Tank volume required, m3 (working) 3.5 B A


Agitated? Yes, during mixing K A

Caustic Mix Tank Agitator


Caustic Transfer / Metering Pumps

Pump Type Horizontal centrifugal A A



Addition Points Cyanide mixing, eluent storage tanks & acid wash

K A


1 / 1 / 0 K A

Carbon

Type Coconut Shell K A

Size, Initial Startup 6 x 16 mesh K A

Size, Makeup 6 x 12 mesh K A

Consumption, kg/tm/strip 30 A A

Consumption, kg/d, nominal 51 B B



Container configuration Bulk bags V A

Container size, kg 500 I A

Hydrochloric Acid

Delivered Concentration, % by weight

30 A A

Consumption, L/day, nominal 36 A A

Delivery Container Configuration 1 m3 Tote bins or bulk A A

Acid Wash Concentration, % by weight

4 A A

Fluxes

Flux ratio, kg flux/kg Au+Ag 2:1 K A

Flux mix,% 100

Silica 25 A A

Borax 40 A A

Fluorspar 0 A A

Niter 20 A A

Soda Ash 15 A A

Flux Reagent Requirements, kg/d nominal

Silica 8.4 B A

Borax 13.4 B A

Fluorspar 0.0 B A

Niter 6.7 B A

Soda Ash 5.0 B A

Total 33.5 B A

Container Size, kg 25 or 50kg Bags A A

Storage Capacity, days 75 K A

Sodium Metabisulfite (Detox)

Consumption, kg Na2S2O5 per t ore 0.24 B A



Consumption, kg Na2S2O5/day (Nom/Des)

2,388/11,461 B A


Sodium Metabisulfite solution SG (estimate)

1.20 A A

Container Configuration Super Sacks K A

Container Size, kg 1000 A A

Form Granules or Flake I A

Specific Gravity, tm/m3 1.43 I A

Bulk Density, tm/m3 1.2 I A

Storage Capacity, days 7 A A

Sodium Metabisulfite Mix Tank


K A

Material of Construction PE K A

Mix Capacity, tm Na2S2O5 1 A B

Specific gravity of 20% Solution 1.20 A A

Tank Capacity, days 0.4 B B


Tank Volume Required, m3 4.2 B B

Additional Freeboard, m 0.3 B A

Agitated? Yes K A

Sodium Metabisulfite Mix Tank Agitator


Sodium Metabisulfite Transfer Pumps

Pump Type Peristaltic K A



Head, m 20 A A



Solution SG 1.2 A A


2 / 1 / 1 K A

Sodium Metabisulfite Storage Tank


K A


Storage capacity, tm Na2S2O5 2 A B

Specific gravity of 20% solution 1.2 A A



Tank Volume required, m3 8.3 B B


Agitated? No K A

Sodium Metabisulfite Metering Pump



Nominal Flow, L/min 6.9 B B

Design Flow, L/min 33.2 B B

Head, m 20 A A


2/1/1 K A

Copper Sulfate (Detox)

Consumption, kg CuSO4·5H2O per tm ore

0.004 B A

Consumption, kg CuSO4·5H2O/d (Nom/Des)

38/183 B A


Copper Sulfate solution SG (estimate)

1.146 I A

Container Configuration Super Sacks K A



Container Size, kg 1000 A A

Form Granules or Flake V A



Storage Capacity, days 7 A A

Copper Sulfate Mix Tank


K A


Mix Capacity, tm CuSO4 1 A A




Tank volume required, m3 3.5 B A


Agitated? Yes K A

Copper Sulfate Mix Tank Agitator

Type Single axial flow impeller

Copper Sulfate Transfer Pumps




Head, m 20 A A



2 / 1 / 1 K A

Copper Sulfate Storage Tank


K A



Material of Construction LHDPE K A

Storage Capacity, tm CuSO4 1.5 A A


Tank Capacity, days 39 B B


Tank volume required, m3 5.2 B A


Agitated? No K A

Copper Sulfate Metering Pump



Nominal Flow Rate, L/min 0.1 B B

Design Flow Rate, L/min 0.4 B B



2/1/1 K A

Hydrated Lime (Detox)

Consumption, kg Ca(OH)2 per tm ore

0.06 I A

Consumption, kg Ca(OH)2/d (Nom/Des)

581/2789 B A


Hydrated Lime Solution SG (estimate)

1.071 B A

Container Configuration Super Sacks V A

Container Size, kg 1000 V A

Form Powder I A



Storage Capacity, days 7 K A



Hydrated Lime Mix Tank


A A

Material of Construction PE A A

Mix Capacity, tm Ca(OH)2 1 A A

Specific Gravity of 25% solution 1.071 B A

Tank Capacity, hours 6 A A


Tank volume required, m3 5.4 A A


Agitated? Yes A A

Hydrated Lime Mix Tank Agitator

Type Single axial flow impeller

Hydrated Lime Metering Pump

Pump Type Peristaltic A A

Variable Speed Yes A A

Nominal Flow Rate, L/min 3.1 B A

Design Flow Rate, L/min 15.1 B A



2/1/1 A A

Detox Reagent Area Sump Pump



Head, m 25 A A

4.13 UTILITIES

Raw Water

Source Wells C A



Consumption, m3/day (Nom/Des) 0 / 15.9 V B

Raw/Fire Water Tank (Crushing)

Tank Volume, m3 762 A A


Freeboard, m 0.3 A A

Dimensions, HxD, m 10 x 10 A A

Material of Construction Carbon Steel A A

Raw Water to Lab and Truck Shop

Purpose Make up water to shop and sanitary

Maximum Flow, m3/hr 22 B B

Available Head, m 57 B B

Raw Water Distribution

Purpose Raw water make up, Truck fill, Sanitary uses at Admin

Building

A B

Type Gravity A B

Design Truck Fill Flow Rate, m3/hr 60 P B

Design Flow Sanitary Uses, m3/hr 10.2 B B

Design Flow, m3/hr 70.2 B B

Crusher Water Spray

Purpose Feed Water to Dust Control A B

Type Gravity A B


Design Head, m 90 K B

Fire Water Distribution

Type Gravity C B

Design Flow Rate, m3/hr 366 B B

Head, m 57 (minimum) B B



Portable Water

Source Bottled water C A

Air

Agglomeration Air Compressor B

Quantity 1 V A

Design Flow, Actual m3/hr Vendor Recommendation V A

Design Discharge Pressure, kPa Vendor Recommendation V A

Type Vendor Recommendation V A

ADR Air Compressor In ADR Package

Quantity 1 V A

Design Flow, Actual m3/hr Vendor Recommendation V A


Type Vendor Recommendation V A

Instrument Air Dryer In ADR Package

Design Flow, m3/hr Vendor Recommendation V A


Detox Air Compressor

Type Rotary Compressor K

Consumption 4.7 Nm3/h/m3 tank volume I B

Consumption, Nm3/h 1,410 B B

Pressure, kPa 689 kPa I A


3 / 2 / 1 K B

Fuels

Diesel Fuel Dispensing System A A

Tank Volume, m3 100 A A

Specific Gravity of Fuel Oil 0.875 I A

Design Flow, L/h TBD A A



Fuel Oil Day Tanks

Number of Tanks 2 A A

Location ADR, Emergency Generator A A

ADR Tank Volume, m3 15 A A

Tank Diameter x Length, m 1.91 x 4.86 A A

Emergency Generator Tank Volume, m

3

5 A A

Tank Diameter x Length, m 1.36 x 3.45 A A

Sanitary

System Type

Process & Mine Areas Septic C A

Document: TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM Project: INNOVAT Case Study … · CASE STUDY – 10,000t/d HEAP...

Documents

Transcript of Document: TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM Project: INNOVAT Case Study … · CASE STUDY – 10,000t/d HEAP...