Technical Appendix

This appendix provides a structured comparison of reagent consumption, tankage requirements, environmental footprint, metallurgical performance, and capital profile across the three flowsheet pathways under consideration: Direct CIP, CIP + RIP, and Flotation + Concentrate Leach.

A. Reagent Consumption (Directional Comparison)

Parameter	Direct CIP	CIP + RIP	Flotation + Leach
Non-cyanide Leaching Agent	Very high (100% mass)	High (100% mass)	Very low (5–15% mass)
Lime	High	High	Low
Oxygen / Air	High	High	Moderate
Detox Reagents	Very high	Very high	Low
Resin/Carbon	Carbon losses significant	Resin losses minimal	Minimal (only in concentrate leach)

B. Tankage Requirements

Component	Direct CIP	CIP + RIP	Flotation + Leach
Leach Tanks	Largest (full mass)	Same as CIP	Small (only concentrate)
Adsorption Train	6–8 CIP tanks	4–6 RIP contactors	2–4 CIL/ILR tanks
Detox	Full mass detox	Full mass detox	Small detox circuit
UFG	None	None	Required (small scale)

C. TSF Footprint & Environmental Load

Parameter	Direct CIP	CIP + RIP	Flotation + Leach
Cyanide-bearing Tails	100% of mass	100% of mass	5–15% of mass
TSF Lining Requirement	Full	Full	Partial
Long-term Liability	Highest	High	Lowest
Bonding Requirement	Highest	High	Low

D. Metallurgical Performance

Metric	Direct CIP	CIP + RIP	Flotation + Leach
Recovery	40–55%	65–75%	80–85%+
Preg-robbing Sensitivity	Very high	Low	Very low
Fouling Sensitivity	High	Low	Very low
Kinetics	Moderate	Fast	Very fast (UFG + ILR)

E. Capital Profile

Category	Direct CIP	CIP + RIP	Flotation + Leach
Initial CAPEX	Lowest	Low–moderate	Highest
Upgrade CAPEX	Moderate (to RIP)	Moderate (to flotation)	None
Operating Cost	High	Moderate	Lowest