Direct CIP Optimization Strategies

Analyzing proven measures to improve Carbon-in-Pulp performance on refractory ores, and understanding why structural limitations persist compared to Flotation circuits.

The Structural Reality

Before exploring specific optimizations, it is crucial to understand the "Investor-Grade" reality. Direct CIP processes face inherent structural disadvantages compared to modern Flotation + CIP flowsheets.

While Direct CIP treats 100% of the ore mass, Flotation concentrates gold into just 5-15% of the mass. This fundamental difference dictates the limits of any optimization strategy.

Key Comparison Metrics:

  • ⚠ Mass Leached: CIP (100%) vs. Flotation (5-15%)
  • ☠ Leaching Agent Footprint: Large (CIP) vs. Reduced (Flotation)
  • 📉 Carbon Risk: Preg-robbing leads to loss in CIP; Flotation removes carbon first.

Performance Profile Comparison

Comparison of qualitative structural advantages.

Optimization Measures Console

Explore the 9 proven interventions. Select a measure from the list to view detailed benefits, limitations, and operational variants. These are the levers available to metallurgists to squeeze maximum efficiency out of a Direct CIP plant.

Select Intervention

Select a Measure

Optimization Strategy
⚙️

Why it works

Select a measure from the left to see details.

Benefit vs. Limitation Trade-off

Metallurgical Insight

Select an item to view specific metallurgical insights.

Cumulative Impact Simulator

Experiment by enabling different optimization measures below. Watch how the Estimated Process Efficiency improves.

Notice that even with all 9 measures active (the "Optimized CIP" scenario), the efficiency struggles to match the "Flotation + CIP" baseline due to the mass-transfer penalties.