The Southern African Institute of Mining and Metallurgy

Percolation Leaching: The status globally and in Southern Africa 2011

L W John

FINANCIAL RISK REDUCTION VIA HYBRID HEAP LEACHING

L W John

BIOMET Engineering

Abstract

The financial and operational benefits of operating a hybrid process involving a heap leach and
agitated leaching compared to a standalone agitated leach processes, are analysed using multi-
dimensional modelling. Comparisons of base and precious metal hybrid heap leach operations are
discussed as well as the various options for each. The discussion includes aspects on the relative
financial risks and strengths of a hybrid process versus standalone heap leaching or agitated
leaching.

1. Introduction

Heap leaching can be applied to almost all leachable ores but is typically suited to low grade
deposits of fully oxidised gold ores or oxidised and sulphide base metal deposits. The allure of heap
leaching is simply that is constitutes one of the lowest CAPEX mineral processing options available.
However heap leaching has proven to be risky with many failed or non viable heap leaching
operations around the world (Kappes 1979).

Heap leaching often looks too good on paper based on metallurgical testwork and this is why heap
leach projects have readily found finance but not often metallurgical success. The number one
problem associated with heap leaching is undoubtedly percolation problems. Percolation problems
over the years have been dealt with successfully and unsuccessfully with a range of remedy’s
including agglomeration, physical turning over of pads (excavator), variation of heap height and
heap stacking / construction methods.

This paper details the benefits of a hybrid operation in which the fines in a typical crushed product of
a heap leach feed, are removed and treated separately via agitated leach. This screening, de-sanding,
washing is collectively referred to herein as de-sliming. There exist situations where heap leach is
the only practical option and those where milling and Agitated Leach are the only option. The hybrid
option proposed herein is only suitable to an ore that theoretically could be heap leached.

2. The Art of Process Selection – To Hybridise or Not

The aspect of conceptualising a processing option to give the best financial returns for a project is a
complex consideration of unit mineral processing options, associated CAPEX, OPEX and a
compromise between all these and the recovery of a saleable product. This is the art of a skilled
engineer who is required to produce a process flowsheet which provides the best financial returns
with least process and financial risk.

Page 313
The Southern African Institute of Mining and Metallurgy
Percolation Leaching: The status globally and in Southern Africa 2011
L W John

This is not an easy call by any sense of the imagination and one must consider many processing
possibilities and then make experienced assumptions to then estimate the financial return of each
option. This is an iterative process which is very much aided by modern computing. Multivariable
sensitivity analysis provides the engineer with information to test assumptions and design criteria
and thus determine the risk of certain metallurgical / engineering assumptions, OPEX and CAPEX
estimates.

Hybrid operations that work synergistically together and achieve higher respective recoveries or
lowest unit costs, from variable ore types obviously make sense. A common example in South
America is copper sulphide flotation / smelter operations that produce sulphuric acid to be used in
the acid leaching of the associated low grade oxide ores and thus also produce copper via SXEW.
2.1. Background; To Mill or not to Mill...or to Heap Leach

In this study we will consider a heap leach operation that has its process risk reduced by removal of
the sands and slimes prior to heap leaching. Comparative studies on the financial returns between
heap leach and Agitated Leach are not new. At the joint AIME/AusIMM Symposium "World Gold
'91", Peter Philip presented a paper "To Mill or to Leach?" in which he evaluated the decision of
Newmont to build the No. 3 mill at Carlin. His conclusion was that the mill recovery was over-
estimated and the heap leach recovery underestimated, and thus the decision to go with milling may
have been incorrect.

A review (Kappes, 1998) concluded that for a "typical" Nevada type oxidised gold ore body with an
ore grade of 2.0 grams gold per tonne, the mill recovery would have to be at least 31 percentage
points higher than the heap leach recovery to achieve the same return on investment - and this is
very seldom the case. A silver heap leach operation at Potosi, Bolivia, showed the same recovery in
both heap and agitated leach testwork. The silver ore however leached very slowly and a residence
time of up to 4 days was required in an agitated leach plant which would require considerable
CAPEX. Although the heap leach took several months to achieve the same recovery, the economics
clearly favoured the heap leach option.

This study will show that due to the higher CAPEX cost of a copper acid leach, CCD, SXEW plant
relative to a gold CIP plant the figure is shown by this study to be around 43 percentage points
difference. That is a copper oxide agitated leach process needs to have a recovery of 43 percentage
points higher than a heap leach of the same ore to achieve the same financial returns. In most cases
the difference between heap leach recovery in a well run operation and agitated leach recovery is
less than 20 percentage points.
2.2. Options Considered

Three processing options compared herein are as follows:

1. A heap leach operation in which 100% of the ore is agglomerated and heap leached;
2. A milling and agitated leach in which 100% of the ore is milled, leached and washed via
CCD;
3. A hybrid leach operation in which the finest 20% of the ore is removed and leached (with or
without milling) and the coarse 80% is heap leached;

All options have SXEW plants producing copper cathode and a precipitation plant to produce cobalt
carbonate. The first two options both have strengths and weaknesses. A hybrid process aims to
remove the weaknesses and combine the strengths of heap leaching and agitated leaching.

Page 314
 The Southern African Institute of Mining and Metallurgy
Percolation Leaching: The status globally and in Southern Africa 2011
L W John

2.2.1. Process Option Flow Block Diagrams

Oxide & Mixed Oxide & Mixed

Ore Ore

Milling & Crush & Acid

Thickening Agglomeration

HGRAF
Acid Agitn Leaching HG Solvent Counter Current
& CCD1 Extraction Heap Leach
HGPLS
HGPLS RAF
LGPLS
CCD’s LG Solvent Electro-Winning LG Solvent HG Solvent
Extraction Extraction Extraction
LGRAF
LGRAF

Neutralisation Cobalt Plant Cobalt Plant Electro-Winning

Tailings Cobalt LME A Copper Cobalt LME A Copper

(Neutral) Carbonate Cathode Carbonate Cathode

Figure 1. Agitation Leach 100% Figure 2. Heap Leach 100%

Oxide & Mixed

Ore

+/- Milling & Fines Crush & Screen Coarse Agglomeration Acid
Thickening
20% 80%

Acid Agitation ILS Counter Current

Leaching heap leach

ILS HGPLS RAF

Tailings LG Solvent HG Solvent

(Acidic) Extraction Extraction

Dilution / Wash LGRAF

Water
Cobalt Plant Electro-
LGSX
Winning
Bleed

Cobalt LME A Copper

Carbonate Cathode

Figure 3. Heap Leach 80% with Agitation Leach 20%

Page 315
The Southern African Institute of Mining and Metallurgy
Percolation Leaching: The status globally and in Southern Africa 2011
L W John

2.3. Strengths of Heap Leaching

A standalone heap leach project includes the following strengths:

• Lowest CAPEX option;

• Lowest OPEX option;
• Fastest option to positive cash flow / short construction;
• Ability to process very low grade ores up to high grade concentrates;
• Ability to process minerals that have a leach time longer than 24 hrs such as coarse gold,
silver, chrysocolla, cuprite, chalcite, native copper etc;
• Robust to changes in mineralogy as the mine develops deeper or to other deposits;
• Revegetation of used heaps easier and used heaps are more geo-mechanically stable;
• Robust to unstable / problematic electrical power supply;
• Upgrade of name plate processing often only requires crushing plant upgrade or duplication.
2.4. Weaknesses of Heap Leaching

The weaknesses of a standalone heap leach project include the following:

• Often lower recoveries than agitated leach – governed by liberation and mineralogy;
• Less control of metallurgical parameters – poor and slow feedback to any changes made;
• Problems difficult to rectify;
• Slower cashflow during commissioning (but over all faster);
• Percolation problems can develop if not initially designed for;
• CAPEX increases as annual expected rainfall increases and with a decrease in lift height.
2.5. Strengths of Milling and Agitated Leaching

A standalone agitated leach project with CCD’s or CIP inherently has the following strengths:

• Highly suited to un-oxidised gold mineralisation which require milling for liberation;
• Better metallurgical control with quick definite feedback on variables changed;
• Generally lower lixivant consumption per unit metal produced;
• Better control of preg-robbing minerals and thus higher recoveries of metals such as cobalt
and gold which can be precipitated or robbed from leach solutions;
2.6. Weaknesses of Milling and Agitated Leaching

The weaknesses of a standalone agitated leach with CCD’s or CIP are as follows:

• Highest CAPEX option of any process options;

• High OPEX and high energy consumption;
• Lower recoveries from slow leaching minerals which require larger residence times (coarse
gold, silver, chrysocolla, cuprite, chalcite, native copper etc);
• Higher grade cut-off limit governed by cost of communition liberation / higher energy inputs;
• Longest lead time in construction and often commissioning;
• Sensitive to power supply problems and often overly instrumented;
• Upgrade of name plate capacity capital intensive – often a second complete train;

Page 316
The Southern African Institute of Mining and Metallurgy
Percolation Leaching: The status globally and in Southern Africa 2011
L W John

2.7. Strengths of a Hybrid Leach Operation: Heap Leach + Agitated Leach

The predominate benefit of a hybrid leach is that due to significantly improved percolation, the 80%
of ore heap leached achieves a higher recovery than 100% heap leach and the 20% milled and
leached also achieves an equal or higher recovery than 100% agitated leach. Other benefits include:

• IRR is equal to or better than 100% heap leach but has a lower process and financial risk;
• Prorate CAPEX is much less than 100% agitation due to much lower or nil milling
requirements and possible elimination of CCD’s in copper leach;
• De-sliming of the ore greatly reduces the risk of heap leach to a much greater extent than
agglomeration can reduce risk.
• Higher lifts are possible and thus reducing the project footprint, labour costs and CAPEX;
• Eliminates percolation problems, channelling and macro particles and thus improves
metallurgical recovery on the heap leach and over all recovery;
• An ore grade upgrade in the fines is often achieved thus resulting in lower unit costs of the
agitated leach train;
• Gravity recovery of native metals from the fines / crusher dust improves over all recovery;
• Phased implementation easy – stockpile fines initially whilst heap leach commissioned;
• Very suited to a low grade deposit with a few high grade lenses which can then be milled as
required with the bulk of the fines;
2.7.1. Specific Strengths of a Hybrid Leach for Alkaline or Acidic Leaching

The hybrid operations of alkaline leaching and acidic leaching have different strengths as
summarised in Table 1.

Gold / Silver Copper / Cobalt / Nickel / Zinc

• Free / coarse gold can be removed from the
fines post screening and prior to leaching;
• Elimination of costly cement agglomeration
– especially remote operations;
• Far superior oxygenation of heap leach;
• Can operate at lower solution tenors / high
percolation rates that reducing any ‘preg’
robbing effects;
• Higher lift heights improving PLS tenors;
• Inherently caters for a range of minerals,
with long leach times, competent sulphides,
native copper etc being heap leached and
oxide fines being agitation leached;
• Very much suited to transitional ores as
short leaching oxides in the fines and long
leaching native metals and sulphides are
both catered for;
• Very suitable for biological leaching where
control of pH and forced aeration for ferric
generation may be required.
• Leach train can be simplified to eliminate
CCD’s and neutralisation – acidic tailings
on or next to heap leach;
• Better control of GAC and metal
precipitation such as Co, Fe, Mn;

Table 1. Summarised Strengths of Alkaline and Acidic Hybrid Leaching

Page 317
The Southern African Institute of Mining and Metallurgy
Percolation Leaching: The status globally and in Southern Africa 2011
L W John

2.8. Agglomerations versus De-sliming

Whilst agglomeration can be very successful on some ores, it is not successful on all. The added cost
of cement binder in a gold heap leach can be considerable especially in remote operations where the
transport cost of cement is prohibitive. The stability of the agglomerate under successive lifts can
also be a problem with ores containing a high fines or clay content. The successive lifts will cause
compaction and thus blind off those older lifts for continued leaching.

De-sliming and a hybrid leach process should be strongly considered where:

• The fines are much lower OR much higher grade than the bulk ore;
• The ore has a high clay content;
• The ore has native metal in the fines;
• The ore has a high lixivant unit consumption rate (high GLC or GAC);
• Multiple lifts are required and the ore has a long leach cycle;

De-sliming eliminates heap leach risk to a degree far greater than can be relied upon by
agglomeration and in doing so increases overall recovery and financial returns via several
mechanisms as described in the following sections.
2.9. Mineralised Waste Heap Leaching to Pay for Stripping

Consider also a high grade open cast oxide resource with a high strip ratio. As is often the case with
both copper and gold, the ‘waste’ rock is actually low grade ore or ‘mineralised waste’. If the milling
operation is designed for the high grade ore and the mineralised waste is de-slimed and heap leached
then even if the heap leach operation breaks even it at least pays for the mining costs of ‘waste’. The
effective strip ratio of the high grade ore is reduced and the overall financials of the project are
greatly improved. The fines from mineralised waste may also show a higher grade than the bulk
mineralised waste grade and thus benefit the milling agitated leach operation as well.
2.10. Tonnage Leached Benefits of a Hybrid Operation

In the proposed hybrid operation all the fines are leached via agitation and the resulting heap leach
then has close to ideal percolation. As a result, over 98% of the ore is actually leached as opposed to
an agglomerated heap leach in which only ~85% of the ore is actually leached due to localised
compaction, channelling, micro flooded internal bottlenecks, and irrigation patterns. In some badly
constructed heaps the author has observed, less than 50% of the ore actually leached and this is a
major factor of poor heap leach recoveries – simply that only a fraction of the tonnage placed on pad
is actually leached at all. The common error is to think that all ore is leached but the metallurgical
recovery / chemistry is poor.

Agitated leaching inherently leaches >99% of the tonnage and gives higher recoveries due to greater
liberation resulting from milling. These two factors combined typically give a better and faster
recovery compared to the much longer cycle times of the heap leach.

Page 318
The Southern African Institute of Mining and Metallurgy
Percolation Leaching: The status globally and in Southern Africa 2011
L W John

2.11. Fines Upgrade

Where there is an ore grade bias to the fines, which often happens in copper oxide ores where the
fines will run a grade of 1.5 to 3 times that of the bulk ore, the hybrid process is far superior as it will
produce 30 to 60% of the production from the agitated leach of 20% of the ore (+/- milling) at a
much lower unit OPEX and unit CAPEX cost than if all the ore was milled and agitation leached.

In some cases, with base or precious metal ores, the fines are lower grade than the bulk ore and it
may be decided to simply stockpile the fines for future processing or only process via a gravity plant.
2.12. High Gangue Lixivant Consumption (GLC) Ores

In cases of copper oxide ores with a high Gauge Acid Consumption (GAC), agglomeration with
concentrated acid may not prove successful or economic due to the quantities of acid required. For
example Sanyati Copper heap leach which had a GAC of > 250kg/t @ pH 1.2 and typical nickel
laterite ores which have a GAC of >400kg/t. In such cases, de-sliming is a better option than
agglomeration with concentrated acid in order to operate the heap leach at a higher pH and thus
reduce the ultimate GAC.

A de-slimed heap leach can be operated at a higher pH due to the higher percolation rates and thus
lower lixivant (acid) concentrations required. Low percolation rates require a higher acid
concentration to overcome macro particle or band leaching effects.

Pre-acidification or agglomeration of the ore is still achieved but using diluted acid / RAF or lower
rate of concentrated acid. The fines removed then can be leached at a well controlled moderate pH to
avoid high GAC.

Similarly in alkaline leaching the GLC and pH of the stacked ores can be better controlled in a de-
slimed heap leach. Preg robbing characteristics of an ore can also be better managed due to the
higher percolation rates (lower tenors) and more consistent metallurgical control of a de-slimed heap
leach.
2.13. Acidic Tailings versus CCD’s and Neutralisation

In the hybrid leach option the project is already designed to cope with the annual wet season as well
as 1 in 100 or 1 in 500 year rainfall events. Thus deposition of acidic tailings, direct from the
agitated leaching of the 20% slimes component of the ore, can be thus easily accommodated. The
concept of elimination of CCD’s is based on the dilution of the leached slurry post agitation leach
and prior to tailings deposition using Raffinate (RAF) or BLS. This reduces the metal tenors to
minimise metal loss to the retained solution by the residues. The heap leach operation produces and
can accommodate the large volumes of dilute solutions required for and resulting from this washing
of tailings all of which would be passed through the heap leach process before returning to
extraction.

This process is not as efficient as a CCD train of thickeners but has a much higher financial return
and has been well commercialised at smaller operations. Tailings could also be deposited on top of
spent heap leach cells that are formed into ‘turkey nest’ dams. This provides drainage and thus stable
tailings as well as immediate and future (from rainfall) solution recovery.

Page 319
 The Southern African Institute of Mining and Metallurgy
Percolation Leaching: The status globally and in Southern Africa 2011
L W John

Figure 4. A Typical Layout of a Hybrid Heap Leach with Counter Current Leaching.

Figure 4 shows a typical layout for a hybrid heap leach operation incorporating screening and
agitated leaching of slimes, counter current heap leaching with accommodating ponds, a raffinate /
BLS pond that is designed for a 1:100 year rainfall event ( Raw Water / emergency pond not shown).

3. Modelling the Hybrid Operation

The Financial Model was created in BioMet’s Dynamic Project Software (DPS) for the three process
options. The CAPEX and OPEX estimates were drawn from actual Cu / Co projects in the DRC and
thus have a high level of confidence. The variables in the variation from 100% heap leach to 100%
agitated leach were modelled and very few of the variables have a linear relationship but are
complex and often interrelated to other variables. Recovery versus ore grade versus fines content
relationships are incorporated into the model as well as other complex relationships between
variables.
3.1. Base Case Process Variables – All Options

Table 2. Base Case Process Variables For All Options

Base Case Process Variables for all Options Modelled

Type
Location
ROM ore processing
Life of Mine / Reserves
Stripping Ratio Waste : Ore
Ore Grade
Ore Type
Gangue Acid Consumption
Fines content of ore (assumed)
Size of Crushing Plant
Size of HG and LG SX plants
Size of EW plant
Size of Cobalt plant
Copper SXEW with Cobalt pptn
Katanga, DRC
tpm 125,000 tpm
15 years / 22.5 Mt
2.5 : 1
1.50% Cu / 0.15% Co
70% oxides, 30% transition
kg/t 30 avg.
~20% of ore is minus 1 mm after crushing (often finer)
Same size for all
Sized to suit the respective copper production;
Sized to suit the respective copper production;
Sized to suit the respective cobalt production;

Page 320
 The Southern African Institute of Mining and Metallurgy
Percolation Leaching: The status globally and in Southern Africa 2011
L W John

3.2. Base Case Financial Variables – All Options

Table 3. Base Case Financial Variables For All Options

Base Case Financial Variables for all Options Modelled

Copper Cathode Price USD/t $6000
Cobalt in Carbonate USD/DMMT $10000
Mining Costs Typical for Katanga
Reagent Costs Typical for Katanga
Operational Costs Modelled for each individual process step
Royalty Government 5%
Interest on Finance % pa. 10%
Income Tax on Net Profits 20%

3.3. Base Case Process Variables – Respective Options

Table 4. Base Case Process Variables for Respective Options

Base Case Variables for Process Options Considered

Heap 80/20 Agitated
Variable
Leach Hybrid Leach Leach
Final communition size (p80) 12mm 12mm 0.150mm
75% heap leach /
Copper Recovery 65% 95% agitated leach 95%
50% heap leach /
Cobalt Recovery 40% 70% agitated leach 70%
300 heap leach /
Leach period (days) 300 0.17 agitated leach 0.17
Crushing Yes Yes Yes
Agglomeration Yes Yes /Acid Mixing No
Milling No Yes (20% fines) Yes (100%)
Screening / Classification No Yes Yes
Agitated Leach No Yes (20%) Yes (100%)
CCD’s No No Yes
Tailings neutralisation No No – Acidic Tails Yes
Fines grade bias NA No upgrade NA

Page 321
 The Southern African Institute of Mining and Metallurgy
Percolation Leaching: The status globally and in Southern Africa 2011
L W John

3.4. Base Case Financial Model Outputs for Respective Options

Table 5. Base Case Financial Model Outputs for Respective Options

Base Case Financial Model Outputs

Heap 80/20 Agitated
Financial Variable (Base Case)
Leach Hybrid Leach Leach
CAPEX USD $126 M $150 M $277 M
Unit CAPEX USD / tpa Cu cathode $7,183 $7,080 $10,782
Net Revenue USD $1,323 M $1,619 M $1,947 M
OPEX Gross LOM USD $732 M $744 M $1,082 M
Unit OPEX USD / t ore $32.51 $33.08 $48.09
Unit OPEX USD / t Cu cathode $3,335 $2,791 $3,375
Net Cash Flow USD $352 M $554 M $423 M
Payback Period (months) 46 37 68
NPV (15% discount) USD $77 M $148 M $29 M
IRR 25% 30% 17%

3.5. Sensitivity Analysis

The main purpose of the sensitivity analysis is to thoroughly interrogate the assumptions made be
they process or financial. The first variables to interrogate are CAPEX and OPEX. Table 6 shows the
generated Data Table for one of the possible hybrid leach Option sensitivity interrogation.

Table 6. Hybrid Leach Option; IRR vs. Copper Price with OPEX varied (Shaded cell: Base
Case)

Copper Price USD/t

IRR
$2,000 $4,000 $6,000 $8,000 $10,000 OPEX
130% -28% -2% 23% 38% 52% +30%
115% -11% 8% 26% 41% 55% +15%
OPEX

100% -14% 8% 30% 45% 59% Base Case

85% 2% 18% 34% 48% 62% -15%
70% 7% 22% 37% 52% 66% -30%

Page 322
The Southern African Institute of Mining and Metallurgy
Percolation Leaching: The status globally and in Southern Africa 2011
L W John

Converted to Plots as follows:

Figure 5. (a), (b) & (c) IRR vs Copper Price with OPEX varied from Base Case.

The medium sensitivity observed above to a change in the OPEX is to be expected. Comparing the
range of breakeven (IRR=0%) copper prices to real project figures gives a degree of confidence that
the model inputs are in the right ball park. With USD inflation resulting in an increase in metal price
one would compare the 130% of base case OPEX to a higher metal price for a realistic estimate of
Project IRR in that case. i.e. USD10,000/t and 130% OPEX

Figure 6. (a), (b) & (c) IRR vs Copper Price with CAPEX varied from Base Case.

The medium sensitivity observed above to a change in the CAPEX is to be expected as a change in
CAPEX directly affects the NPV / IRR. The divergent nature of the sensitivity is indicative of faster
project returns resulting from a lower CAPEX and vice versa.

Figure 7. (a), (b) & (c) IRR vs. Copper Price with Recovery varied from Base Case.

Page 323
The Southern African Institute of Mining and Metallurgy
Percolation Leaching: The status globally and in Southern Africa 2011
L W John

The high sensitivity observed in the heap leach model is typical of a heap leach operation however
the sensitivity of the agitated leach option to agitated leach recovery is not much lower. This is due
to the low grade used in the Base Case. The change of the cut-off grades (IRR=0%) is indicative of
the different processing options and respective recoveries.

If the Base case grade is increased to 2.75% Cu, the following sensitivities result:

Figure 8.(a), (b) & (c) IRR vs Cu Price with Recovery varied with an Ore Grade of 2.75% Cu.

The increase in ore grade decreases the sensitivity in all cases simply due to the resulting additional
revenue and fixed mining costs. (Note that the CAPEX in this model is related to copper production
and thus these outputs were based upon higher respective CAPEX as a result of larger SXEW
plants). An IRR of 30% is achieved at an ore grade of 2.75% and a copper price of $5700, $5000 and
$8400 per tonne for the heap leach, hybrid leach & agitated leach options respectively. Even at an
ore grade apparently suitable for milling and leaching, heap leach options show a higher rate of
return on investment.

Figure 9. IRR vs Ore Grade for the three options Heap Leach, Hybrid Leach & Agitated
Leach.

Page 324
The Southern African Institute of Mining and Metallurgy
Percolation Leaching: The status globally and in Southern Africa 2011
L W John

The hybrid leach option shows a higher return on investment over a range of ore grades but notably
has a lower cut off grade which is indicative of lower unit production costs, higher recovery and
lower risk compared with the heap leach option. Now looking at how the returns increase although
the CAPEX also varies versus the degree of hybridisation i.e. the % of ore being milled and agitation
leached.

AgL HyL HpL

Figure 10. IRR vs Ore Fraction to Heap Leach vs. CAPEX with Heap Leach Recovery Varied

Figure 10 shows the change in IRR with the degree of ore milling agitated leach as opposed to heap
leach. The Base Case (Hybrid Leach) is 80% Ore to heap leach and 20% Milled / Agitated Leach.
This sensitivity analysis clearly shows the decrease in risk achieved with the hybridisation of heap
leach with agitated leach. The decrease in risk is notably sharper with lower heap leach recoveries
which provides a greater reason to choose the hybrid leach processing route. Note the curves come
together at IRR = 17% when ore to heap leach = 0%, being the base case of the agitated leach
scenario and at 65% heap leach recovery and 100% to the heap leach the IRR is 25% (See Table 5.
Base Case Financial Model Outputs for Respective Options).
3.6. Recoveries at Equal Financial Returns

The question of what is the worst case recovery of the heap leach or hybrid leach options in which
the financial returns (IRR) equals that of the agitated leach option was next addressed. The BioMet
DPS models were interrogated to give equal financial returns using all Base Case variables excepting
the recoveries for heap leach and hybrid leach which were reduced until the respective IRR equalled
that of the agitated leach model at Base Case. Table 7 summaries the model outputs showing that
heap leach copper recoveries of 54% and 47% in the heap leach and hybrid leach options
respectively give the same financial return as a copper recovery of 95% in the agitated leach option.

Page 325
 The Southern African Institute of Mining and Metallurgy
Percolation Leaching: The status globally and in Southern Africa 2011
L W John

Table 7. Recoveries Required to Give Equal Financial Returns as per Agitated Leach Base
Case (IRR=17%)

Base Case Financial Model Outputs

Heap 80/20 Agitated
Financial Variable (Base Case)
Leach Hybrid Leach Leach
Copper Recovery (solved for HpL & HyL) 54% 47% HpL / 95% AgL 95%
Cobalt Recovery (solved for HpL & HyL) 34% 27% HpL / 70% AgL 70%

CAPEX USD $116 M $129 M $277 M

Unit CAPEX USD / tpa Cu cathode $7,848 $8,411 $10,782
Net Revenue USD $1,094 M $1,138 M $1,947 M
OPEX Gross LOM USD $723 M $726 M $1,082 M
Unit OPEX USD / t ore $32.12 $32.25 $48.09
Unit OPEX USD / t Cu cathode $3,947 $3,810 $3,375
Net Cash Flow USD $185 M $204 M $423 M
Payback Period (months) 68 68 68
NPV (15% discount) USD $13 M $14 M $29 M
IRR (solved for HpL & HyL) 17% 17% 17%

4. Alternative Scenario’s

Up to this point the base case considered has been quite conservative. A more realistic scenario was
modelled with the following variables:

• Base Case variables used except;

• Ore Grade is increased to 2.0% Cu and a fines upgrade factor of 2 resulting in the 20% of
slimes to the agitated leach being 4.0% Cu and the ore to heap leach being 1.5% Cu.
• A copper price of USD8000 / t was used.

Table 8. Summarises the financial model outputs at for this scenario.

Realistic Case Financial Model Outputs

2.0% Cu ore with fines upgrade and Copper Price USD8000 / t
80/20 Hybrid Agitated
Financial Variable (Base Case) Heap Leach
Leach Leach
CAPEX USD $152 M $176 M $300 M
Unit CAPEX USD / tpa Cu cathode $5,996 $5,994 $8,712
Net Revenue USD $2,547 M $3,102 M $3,440 M

Page 326
 The Southern African Institute of Mining and Metallurgy
Percolation Leaching: The status globally and in Southern Africa 2011
L W John

OPEX Gross LOM USD $757 M $775 M $1,110 M

Unit OPEX USD / t ore $33.65 $34.46 $49.35
Unit OPEX USD / t Cu cathode $2,337 $1,971 $2,544
Net Cash Flow USD $1,286 M $1,691 M $1,574 M
Payback Period (months) 18 16 27
NPV (15% discount) USD $451 M $606 M $494 M
IRR 56% 62% 39%

Table 8. Financial Outputs for a Realistic Scenario of 2.0% Cu ore and Cu price of USD8000/t

4.1. Upgrading an Existing Agitated Leach Operation

Figure 4 shows a typical Counter Current heap leach layout that could be used in a hybrid leach
operation or added to an existing agitated leach operation. With the increase in base and precious
metal prices a significant option exists for existing open cast mill agitated leach operations to
increase production by treating lower grade ores and mineralised waste via heap leach and thus
increasing the grade of the ore to the milling operation by changing the cut off grades to the
respective operations.

For example take an existing mine such as the Base Case agitated leach option used herein. To
achieve a mill feed grade of 1.5% Cu the grade controllers and miners will mine all ore from a cut-
off of 0.5% Cu upwards. This is dictated by the ore body characteristics. Adding a heap leach
operation and mining two grades of ore now allows grade control to be more selective and send only
ore with a cut of 1% to the mill. This results in a higher grade but lower tonnage to the mill. The
overall mined tonnage is increased to counter this and thus the mill is fed with 2% ore.

The low grade ore which is a grade of 1.0% Cu down to a cut-off of 0.2% Cu and an average grade
of 0.5% is crushed and de-slimed and the coarse material heap leached. The slimes are also fed to the
mill but are running at a grade of 1.5% and thus do not dilute the feed grade much. The resulting
benefits include:

• Increase of reserves from a cutoff of 0.5% to an economic cut-off of 0.2% thus probably
doubling tonnages and life of mine;
o As this low grade ore was previously treated as waste – the effective strip ratio is
reduced = Reduced waste mining costs;
o Increased mine life;
• 25% increase in Cu production from the mill due to processing higher grade ore
• 25 to 50% additional production from heap leach.
• 3% additional recovery from tailings if deposited acidic on old heap leach cells also resulting
in a saving on neutralisation.

It can be reasoned that the hybridisation of such an operation reduces risk on several fronts –
metallurgical, mining and financial.

Page 327
The Southern African Institute of Mining and Metallurgy
Percolation Leaching: The status globally and in Southern Africa 2011
L W John

5. Conclusion

The benefits of de-sliming an ore prior to heap leaching have been summarised and it can be safely
concluded that a higher recovery can be achieved compared to an ore of the same grade with fines
heap leached with or without agglomeration. The option to process the separated fines via milling
and agitation leach improves the economics of the process option. The combination of these
conventional process routes as a hybrid process clearly outperforms either standalone heap leach or
agitation due to overcoming the inherent weaknesses and improving on the inherent strengths of both
conventional processing routes.

The sensitivity analysis shows that regardless of errors in assumptions in grade, recovery or metal
price the proposed hybrid process is the most financially and metallurgically robust option an
engineer could consider for a suitable ore type. The hybrid option also provides metallurgical and
mining flexibility with the ability to process high and low grade ores and benefit from gravity
recovery of native metals as well as any upgrade that may occur in the fines separation.

Where risk mitigation is a high priority such as in politically less stable countries, a hybrid leach
process can provide a faster project at a lower CAPEX and lower OPEX. A high proportion of
agitated leach projects could benefit from hybridisation with heap leach leaching in order to increase
reserves and life of mine as well as lowering unit costs and providing process flexibility in times of
lower metal prices, electricity shortages and changing mineralogy. Similarly almost all heap leach
projects can benefit from hybridisation with agitated leaching to mitigate problems associated with
fines and or reduce agglomeration costs.

Heap leaching has often been looked upon as the poor cousin to agitated leaching. This study shows
that this is not the case and in fact a hybridisation of both results in a better financial return at a
lower risk.

6. References

Kappes, D.W., (1979) Precious Metals heap leaching, Simple - Why Not Successful?, A Talk for
Presentation to the Northwest Mining Association, Kappes, Cassiday and Associates, Nevada.

Kappes, D.W., (1998) heap leach or Mill? Economic Considerations in a Period of Stable Gold
Prices, Presentation at Randol.

Philip, T.P., To Mill or to Leach?, (1991) AIME/AusIMM Symposium "World Gold '91", Cairns,
Australia.

Mastermine Pvt Ltd and Mackay and Schnellmann Ltd, (1992) Feasibility Study – Sanyati Oxide
Project.

Page 328
The Southern African Institute of Mining and Metallurgy
Percolation Leaching: The status globally and in Southern Africa 2011
L W John

The Author

Lee John, Chairman and Principal Engineer, BioMetallurgical (Engineering) and Globe and
Phoenix Gold Mining Company (Mining company)

Managing Director and Principle Engineer of BioMetallurgical since 1999 and involved in the
design, construction, commissioning and operation of numerous Copper, Cobalt, Nickel, Gold &
Antimony projects throughout Southern Africa. Owner of Zimbabwean mining houses; ‘Homestake
Mining’ & ‘Globe and Phoenix Gold Mining Company’, producer of Gold and Antimony as well as
‘Zimbabwe Nickel Company’, producer of Copper and Nickel. In 2008/9 undertook an emergency
short contract as General Manager of Ruashi Mining in the DRC to finish construction,
commissioning and rectify problems of the 45,000 tpa Cu / Co project. 1990 to 2000 worked in
projects and operations over three continents in positions of Lead Engineer up to Mine Manager
involved in design, construction, commissioning, operation and management.

Page 329
The Southern African Institute of Mining and Metallurgy
Percolation Leaching: The status globally and in Southern Africa 2011
L W John

Page 330