Comparative risk profile of Direct CIP, CIP + RIP, and Flotation + Concentrate Leach for a 3.0 g/t historical tailings project in a $4,300+/oz gold price environment.
| Risk Dimension | Direct CIP | CIP + RIP | Flotation + Leach |
|---|---|---|---|
| Metallurgical recovery risk |
HIGH Recovery capped by preg-robbing and carbon fouling; difficult to push beyond 40–55% on this material. |
MED RIP mitigates preg-robbing and improves kinetics; recovery 65–75% but still constrained by full-mass leach. |
LOW Flotation concentrates sulphides, reduces preg-robbing, and enables UFG + ILR; recovery 80–85%+ is realistic. |
| Reagent cost risk (leaching agent, lime, detox) |
HIGH 100% of the mass is exposed to leaching agent and detox; costs scale linearly with throughput. |
MED Same full-mass leach, but better adsorption efficiency reduces some losses; still structurally reagent-intensive. |
LOW Only 5–15% of the mass enters the leaching agent circuit; bulk of tailings is cyanide-free. |
| TSF / long-term environmental liability |
HIGH Full-mass cyanide-bearing TSF; highest long-term monitoring and bonding requirements. |
HIGH Same mass balance as CIP; resin does not change the cyanide TSF footprint. |
LOW Only a minor fraction of tails carries cyanide; smaller lined facility and lower closure liability. |
| Capital intensity & financing risk (initial) |
LOW Lowest initial CAPEX; simplest to finance and build quickly. |
MED Incremental CAPEX to retrofit RIP; typically funded from CIP cash flow if phased correctly. |
HIGH Highest upfront CAPEX for flotation, UFG, and associated infrastructure if built from day one. |
| Operational complexity |
LOW Well-understood CIP technology; operating complexity is modest but sensitive to ore variability. |
MED Additional resin handling, screening, and elution complexity; still manageable with proper training. |
MED Flotation + UFG + ILR require more sophisticated process control and skilled operators. |
| Gold price downside risk |
MED Fast payback at $4,300+/oz, but operating costs are high; margins compress rapidly if prices fall. |
MED Better recovery helps, but still carries full-mass reagent burden. |
LOW Lowest unit operating cost and highest recovery; best positioned to withstand a lower gold price environment. |
| Execution risk (phasing & expansion) |
LOW Straightforward to execute as Phase 1; small, well-defined scope. |
MED Retrofit of RIP onto existing CIP requires planning but is technically well defined. |
MED If built after cash flow, flotation execution risk is mitigated by stronger balance sheet and real operating data. |
| Strategic / ESG risk |
HIGH Large cyanide TSF and tailings risk may face stakeholder and permitting pressure over time. |
HIGH Resin improves metallurgy but not ESG footprint; TSF profile unchanged from CIP. |
LOW Smaller cyanide footprint, smaller TSF liability, and stronger ESG positioning for long-term operation. |
| Value leakage risk (forgone upside) |
HIGH Stopping at CIP leaves a large portion of the resource unrecovered at current gold prices. |
MED RIP recovers more value but still leaves upside on the table relative to flotation. |
LOW Flotation + leach captures the most metal and NPV; lowest long-term value leakage. |
In a $4,300+/oz environment, **Direct CIP** offers the lowest entry risk and fastest cash generation, **CIP + RIP** reduces metallurgical risk and improves recovery, and **Flotation + Concentrate Leach** ultimately delivers the lowest long-term risk and highest value. The phased strategy is designed to move the project progressively from the low-entry-risk quadrant toward the low-long-term-risk quadrant.