Top Banner
7/23/2019 159742-N-RE-302_R0 (Trade Off Study HPGR vs SAG Economic Comparision Casale) http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/159742-n-re-302r0-trade-off-study-hpgr-vs-sag-economic-comparision-casale 1/35 COMPAÑÍA MINERA CASALE PROJECT Nº 159742 CERRO CASALE PROJECT PRE-FEASIBILITY/FEASIBILITY STUDY TRADE-OFF STUDY REPORT 159742-N-RE-32 FOR !"PR #S$ SA" ECONOMIC COMPARISON Prepared by AMEC I%&'(%)&*+%), C.*,' S$A.  Approved by Discipline Lead/Manager  Pierre Lacombe (PL) Project Engineer Ian Orord (!M) Engineering Manager "obert  o Ab#rto ("A) Project Manager Pa#l Mc"ae ($%) &lient Mi'e !elson (M!) R'0$ B I' +( D)&' R'0**+% D)&' A66(+0'  A IO Internal revie Dec *+ ,- Dec *+ ,- PL , IO Iss#ed or #se eb. + , Dec. 0+ , &lient1s &omments2
35

159742-N-RE-302_R0 (Trade Off Study HPGR vs SAG Economic Comparision Casale)

Feb 18, 2018

Download

Documents

panchoscribd50
Welcome message from author
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
Page 1: 159742-N-RE-302_R0 (Trade Off Study HPGR vs SAG Economic Comparision Casale)

7/23/2019 159742-N-RE-302_R0 (Trade Off Study HPGR vs SAG Economic Comparision Casale)

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/159742-n-re-302r0-trade-off-study-hpgr-vs-sag-economic-comparision-casale 1/35

COMPAÑÍA MINERA CASALE

PROJECT Nº 159742

CERRO CASALE PROJECT

PRE-FEASIBILITY/FEASIBILITY STUDY

TRADE-OFF STUDY REPORT

Nº 159742-N-RE-32

FOR

!"PR #S$ SA" ECONOMIC COMPARISON

Prepared by

AMEC I%&'(%)&*+%), C.*,' S$A.

 Approved by

Discipline Lead/Manager   Pi e rr e Lac o m be (PL)

Project Engineer I an O ro r d (!M)Engineering Manager " obe rt o A b # rt o ("A)Project Manager P a#l M c " ae ($%)&lient Mi ' e ! e lson (M!)

R'0$ B I' +( D)&'R'0**+%

D)&'A66(+0'

 A IO Internal revie Dec *+ ,- Dec *+ ,- PL, IO Iss#ed or #se eb. + , Dec. 0+ ,

&lient1s &omments2

Page 2: 159742-N-RE-302_R0 (Trade Off Study HPGR vs SAG Economic Comparision Casale)

7/23/2019 159742-N-RE-302_R0 (Trade Off Study HPGR vs SAG Economic Comparision Casale)

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/159742-n-re-302r0-trade-off-study-hpgr-vs-sag-economic-comparision-casale 2/35

3-456!6"E67, 8P9" :O% "ev ,.doc P;9E O 73

T A B L E O F C O N T E N T

P A " E

1$ SUMMARY$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ 3

2$ LIST OF ABBRE#IATIONS AND UNITS$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ 4

3$ INTRODUCTION$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ 5

4$ STUDY OBJECTI#ES SCOPE AND DELI#ERABLES$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ 85. Objectives .............................................................................................................. *5. %cope and <attery Limits ....................................................................................... *5.7 Deliverables ........................................................................................................... 4

5$ TEC!NICAL DESCRIPTION$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ 73. :ec=nical <ac'gro#nd ........................................................................................... 43. Design <asis .......................................................................................................... 0

3.7 Available Inormation............................................................................................ ,3.5 8P9" :estor' and %im#lation "es#lts ............................................................. ,3.3 >$%imMet %im#lations and Mass balance calc#lations .......................................

8$ CAPITAL COST ESTIMATE $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ 12

7$ OPERATIN" COST ESTIMATE $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ 13

$ NET PRESENT #ALUE AND PAYBAC: ANALYSIS$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ 15

9$ CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ 17

1$ REFERENCES$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ 1

APPENDICES

 Appendi? A E@#ipment Lists Appendi?< &apital &ost Estimates Appendi? &Operating &ost Estimates Appendi? DDraings

 Appendi? E &alc#lations Appendi? Mass <alance

Page 3: 159742-N-RE-302_R0 (Trade Off Study HPGR vs SAG Economic Comparision Casale)

7/23/2019 159742-N-RE-302_R0 (Trade Off Study HPGR vs SAG Economic Comparision Casale)

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/159742-n-re-302r0-trade-off-study-hpgr-vs-sag-economic-comparision-casale 3/35

3-456!6"E67, 8P9" :O% "ev ,.doc P;9E 77 O 73

1$ SUMMARY

:=is report presents t=e res#lts o an #pdated trade6o st#dy cond#cted by AME&

 Americas Ltd to compare t=e relative merits o a %A9 mill6based (t=e alternative)vers#s a 8P9"6based (t=e base case) grinding circ#it conig#ration or t=e &erro&asale project. :=e project considers t=e treatment o ore+ at a rate o *,+,,, tpd+t=ro#g= a processing plant recovering gold and copper val#es.

:=e 8P9" base case =as been developed at easibility (%) level+ it= t=e incl#sion o some o t=e major material =andling capital cost red#ction items identiied in t=e %6stage b#t prior to considering t=e eect o t=e grind siBe target red#ction later implemented. :=e related design deliverables orm t=e basis o t=e operating andcapital cost estimates presented in t=is report. or t=e %A9 alternative+ t=e siBing o t=e commin#tion e@#ipment as revised rom t=e earlier preeasibility (P%) stage

assessment to relect adj#stment made since t=en to t=e poer re@#irement. <asedon t=ese+ t=e major e@#ipment re@#irements ere revised+ along it= t=eir e?pectedoperating and capital cost re@#irements.

:=e res#lts o t=e c#rrent st#dy reconirm t=e concl#sion reac=ed at t=e concl#sion o t=e P%+ namely t=at t=e =ig=er poer eiciency associated it= t=e 8P9" circ#ittranslates into a signiicant inancial advantage compared to t=e %A<&6< circ#it+re@#ired to establis= a %A96based commin#tion circ#it+ despite its =ig=er capitale?pendit#re. :able . is preseinting t=e o#tcome o t=e inancial analysis.

T ); , ' 1 $ 1 E <+% + =* < A % ) , * C + = 6) (* %> ! P "R - B )' 0 $  S A "- B ) ' C *( < *&

!PC Disco#nted , (FM) 4,.4!PC Disco#nted 3 (FM) 77.,%imple Paybac' (years)   5.4I"" () 2 .0

:=e positive o#tcome o t=e inancial analysis+ avo#ring t=e 8P9"6based circ#it+ isbro#g=t by an e?pected red#ction o t=e overall commin#tion section operating costsby F,.0,3/t+ or F5*.3M per year+ set against t=e additional capital e?pendit#re o F.-M. 9rinding media and liners cons#mption dierences acco#nt or appro?imately F,.35/t o t=is red#ction =ile poer savings acco#nt or an additional

F,.34/t. :=ese savings are partially oset by smaller increases in labo#r (F,.,7/t)+liners (F,.7/t) and maintenance materials and spares costs (F,.3/t). Additionalconveyors+ eeders and associated civil or's acco#nt or t=e b#l' o t=e capital costdierence beteen t=e to commin#tion circ#it conig#rations.

:=e ris's associated it= t=e adoption o a 8P9"6based commin#tion circ#it aredeemed as manageable and+ to some e?tent+ less da#nting t=an or a circ#it it= %A9mills. Most o t=e ris's associated it= t=e 8P9" circ#it relates to potential materials

Page 4: 159742-N-RE-302_R0 (Trade Off Study HPGR vs SAG Economic Comparision Casale)

7/23/2019 159742-N-RE-302_R0 (Trade Off Study HPGR vs SAG Economic Comparision Casale)

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/159742-n-re-302r0-trade-off-study-hpgr-vs-sag-economic-comparision-casale 4/35

3-456!6"E67, 8P9" :O% "ev ,.doc P;9E 55 O 73

=andling iss#es and d#st prod#ction. :=ese can be mitigated t=ro#g= ade@#atedesign eat#res. %c=ed#le delays d#e to casting problems+ long lead and installationtimes+ and saety iss#es d#ring maintenance are some o t=e 'non ris's associatedit= a %A96based circ#it t=at o#ld be eliminated by t=e selection o t=e 8P9" ro#te.

:=e 8P9" circ#it is t=ereore reconirmed by t=e c#rrent st#dy #pdate as t=e preerredapproac= or t=e commin#tion circ#it design at &erro &asale.

2$ LIST OF ABBRE#IATIONS AND UNITS

%A9 %emi6A#togeno#s 9rinding

8P9" 8ig= Press#re 9rinding "olls

!PC !et Present Cal#e

I"" Internal "ate o "et#rnP% Preeasibility %t#dy

% easibility %t#dy

% easibility %t#dy pdate

t/d Dry metric tonnes per day

F nited %tates o America Dollar  

'G= $iloatt =o#r 

'G=/t $iloatt =o#r per tonne

M Million

OPEH Operating e?pendit#re

&APEH &apital e?pendit#re

&%% &losed side setting

%A<&6< %A9 mill+ open6circ#ited pebble cr#s=ing and ball mill conig#ration

P0, %creen apert#re siBe t=ro#g= =ic= 0, o t=e material passes

:0, :ranser siBe (0, passing t=is siBe)

mm millimetre

micron One t=o#sandt= o a millimetre

c/ complete it=

/ nderlo

O/ Overlo

/% ndersiBe

O/% OversiBe

v/v vol#me per vol#me proportion

/ eig=t per eig=t proportion

g/t grams per tonne

Page 5: 159742-N-RE-302_R0 (Trade Off Study HPGR vs SAG Economic Comparision Casale)

7/23/2019 159742-N-RE-302_R0 (Trade Off Study HPGR vs SAG Economic Comparision Casale)

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/159742-n-re-302r0-trade-off-study-hpgr-vs-sag-economic-comparision-casale 5/35

3-456!6"E67, 8P9" :O% "ev ,.doc P;9E 33 O 73

!/m/m !eton orce per s@#are meter per meter lengt= o 8P9" roll

ts/m7/= tonnes second per c#bic meter per =o#r (speciic t=ro#g=p#t or 8P9")

3$ INTRODUCTION

 AME& as irst re@#ested at t=e concl#sion o t=e P%+ by t=e &ompania Minera&asale (&M&)+ to perorm a trade6o st#dy comparing t=e relative merits o t=esealternative grinding circ#it conig#rations+ it= a vie to select t=e most appropriateconig#ration or incl#sion in t=e los=eet o t=e proposed &erro &asale Mill at t=e %stage.

:=e concl#sions o t=is earlier st#dy (doc#ment 3-456!6"E6,7) =aving indicatedt=at a 8P9"6based circ#it o#ld be t=e most economical option to p#rs#e+ it as

implemented or detailing in t=e s#bse@#ent %6stage o t=e st#dy. At t=e end o t=eP%+ t=e dierential capital cost as estimated at some F4*M+ avo#ring t=e %A96based circ#it+ b#t an OPEH savings o F.,0/t as alloing a ast paybac'. :=e P%6level %A9 circ#it &APEH and OPEH ere #sed or t=e base case =ile scoping6levelestimates ere prepared to establis= t=e 8P9"6based relevant costs.

Git= t=e establis=ed 8P9" circ#it OPEH and &APEH+ at %6level+ &M& e?pressed are@#irement to revisit t=e earlier concl#sion by incorporating t=e act#aliBed costs or t=e major inp#ts and consider t=e details made available at %+ vers#s t=e #pdatedval#es pegged or t=e %A96based option+ earlier developed at P%6level. :=is reportpresents t=e res#lts o t=is act#aliBed trade6o st#dy and orms part o t=e &erro

&asale easibility %t#dy.

!o additional relevant data as provided rom t=e ,,- testor' campaigns or siBingt=e %A9 mill circ#it+ besides a conirmation t=at t=e earlier *.- 'G=/t or <MGi asapplied to t=e design ore is apparently a valid average. Only t=e incrementalt=ro#g=p#t demand+ o *, 't/d instead o 3, 't/d in t=e earlier st#dy+ as acco#ntedor in resiBing t=e commin#tion e@#ipment. !evert=eless+ t=e %A9 mill circ#it design isdeemed aggressive+ it= nearly all t=e installed %A9 and ball milling poer re@#ired toprocess t=e re@#ired t=ro#g=p#t+ calling as ell or a relatively coarse transer siBe(:0,) beteen t=e to circ#its only deemed ac=ievable by t=e adoption o a %A<&6<circ#it conig#ration (cr#s=ed pebbles ed to close6circ#ited screen+ it= prod#ctmoving into ball mill). Evidence rom benc=mar'ed data are pointing to a idepossible range o speciic %A9 energy re@#irement at t=e lo Ab indicated or t=edesign ore+ made #p o t=e Jear 63 mine o#tp#t. :=is is p#s=ing or a re@#iredconirmation o t=e %A9 poer re@#irements t=ro#g= pilot planting o a representativesample.

 AME& consolidated t=e vario#s so#rces o inormation and prod#ced design criteria+los=eets+ process lo diagrams+ mass balances and easibility level capital andoperating cost estimates or t=e 8P9" alternative (see %ections *+ 4 and t=e

Page 6: 159742-N-RE-302_R0 (Trade Off Study HPGR vs SAG Economic Comparision Casale)

7/23/2019 159742-N-RE-302_R0 (Trade Off Study HPGR vs SAG Economic Comparision Casale)

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/159742-n-re-302r0-trade-off-study-hpgr-vs-sag-economic-comparision-casale 6/35

3-456!6"E67, 8P9" :O% "ev ,.doc P;9E ** O 73

 Appendices or details)+ as part o t=e % deliverables pac'age. %#c= deliverables+or t=e %A9 alternative ere #pdated rom t=e earlier P% level. :=e comparison isbased on t=e re@#irements to deliver a lotation eed prod#ct at a P0, o 3, Km and anominal rate o *, 't/d it= t=e design ore deined as representative o t=e Jear 63ore type mi?t#re. :=e 3, Km #sed earlier as retained or t=is #pdate+ despite t=eselection o a iner target o , Km late in t=e ,,- easibility %t#dy stage+ since s#c=a selection as applied to t=e %A96based option o#ld =ave called or a o#rt= %A9 millto be added+ and a revision o t=e n#mber+ and a possible conig#rationrearrangement+ o t=e accompanying pebble cr#s=ing and ball milling circ#its. :=is int#rn o#ld =ave re@#ired a complete reassessment o t=e e?pected &APEH cost or t=is option.

:=e aorementioned inormation as #sed to estimate and compare t=e dierentialinancial indicators or t=e to alternative los=eets (see %ection 0).

4$ STUDY OBJECTI#ES SCOPE AND DELI#ERABLES

4$1 O;?'<&*0'

:=e primary objective o t=is st#dy #pdate as to present a balanced and #nbiasedcomparison o t=e relative merits o a 8P9"6based grinding circ#it+ as developed to%6level+ vers#s t=e alternate scenario developed earlier or t=e P% involving aconventional %A<&6< circ#it. :=is comparison is meant to provide conirmation+ it=t=e additional design and costing details and acc#racy provided at t=e concl#sion o t=e %+ to allo decision ma'ers to gain #ll conidence in t=e earlier selection o t=e

grinding circ#it or &erro &asale+ calling or t=e incl#sion o 8P9".

4$2 S<+6' )% B)&&'( L*=*&

:=e scope o t=e st#dy as to generate s#icient design data to allo a basiccomparison o t=e economics o t=e to los=eets. :=e list o deliverables belos#mmariBes t=e scope assigned to AME&.

:=e battery limits or t=is trade6o st#dy are2

• pstream 2 &oarse ore stoc'pile eed conveyor 

Donstream 2 <all mill cyclone overlos to lotation

:=e "OM cr#s=ing operation is identical or bot= t=e %A<&6< and 8P9" los=eets+it= t=e e?ception o a ider coarse ore stoc'pile stac'ing conveyor+ as re@#ired or t=e 8P9"6based circ#it to deal it= sporadic bypassing o a tertiary cr#s=ing circ#itstream. %imilarly t=e lotation los=eets are identical+ it= bot= grinding circ#itsre@#ested to generate a prod#ct it= a P0, o 3, microns+ at a similar sl#rry densityreac=ing t=e ro#g=ing lotation section+ and at t=e same nominal t=ro#g=p#t capability

Page 7: 159742-N-RE-302_R0 (Trade Off Study HPGR vs SAG Economic Comparision Casale)

7/23/2019 159742-N-RE-302_R0 (Trade Off Study HPGR vs SAG Economic Comparision Casale)

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/159742-n-re-302r0-trade-off-study-hpgr-vs-sag-economic-comparision-casale 7/35

3-456!6"E67, 8P9" :O% "ev ,.doc P;9E 44 O 73

o *,+,,, t/d. In t=e case o t=e %A96based circ#it+ t=e #tiliBation o t=e availableball mill poer contingency e?isting #nder t=e 8P9"6based option+ is #sed #p topermit a coarsening o t=e transer siBe rom t=e %A9 mills and limit t=eir poer demand.

4$3 D',*0'();,'

:rade6O %t#dy deliverables are2

• Earlier :rade6O st#dy report (doc#ment 3-456!6"E6,7)

• % Design &riteria (doc#ment 3-456!6D&63)

• % Process lo Diagrams it= mass balance data

• %coping PD or %A96based circ#it

• Dierential e@#ipment list c/ indicated siBing o all main e@#ipment• Operating cost estimate

• &apital cost estimate

• inancial analysis

• :rade6O st#dy report (t=is doc#ment 3-456!6"E67,)

5$ TEC!NICAL DESCRIPTION

5$1 T'<.%*<), B)<@>(+%

ig#re 3.6 belo s=os a concept#al bloc' diagram or t=e %A<&6< and8P9" based grinding circ#its considered or t=e &erro &asale Mill.

Page 8: 159742-N-RE-302_R0 (Trade Off Study HPGR vs SAG Economic Comparision Casale)

7/23/2019 159742-N-RE-302_R0 (Trade Off Study HPGR vs SAG Economic Comparision Casale)

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/159742-n-re-302r0-trade-off-study-hpgr-vs-sag-economic-comparision-casale 8/35

Pebble cr#s=er 

/%iBe

O/%iBe

  / %i Be %creen

3-456!6"E67, 8P9" :O% "ev ,.doc P;9E 00 O 73

F * > ( ' 5 $1 - 1 C +%<'6 & ),  B , +<@ D * ) > ( )= +( " (* % * %> C* ( < *& A ,& ' ( %) &* 0 '

S A BC- B C * (< *& ! P "R C * (< * &

&oarse Ore %toc'pile &oarse Ore %toc'pile

%A9 Mill Dry %creen %econdaryO/%iBe &r#s=er 

/%iBe

%creen O/%iBe 8P9"

Get %creenO/%iBe

/%iBe

&yclones <all Mills &yclones <all Mills/lo /lo

O/lo to lotation O/lo to lotation

In t=e %A<&6< conig#ration+ t=e added pebble cr#s=ing step complementst=e %A9 mill grinding poer in providing compression cr#s=ing o t=e so6called critical siBe material+ =ic= o#ld ot=erise b#ild #p in t=e %A9 mill.:=e cr#s=ed pebble stream does not ret#rn to t=e %A9 mill b#t insteadproceeds to a screening stage to allo or recycling o t=e coarse raction o t=e pebble stream. :=e ine raction proceeds to t=e ball milling circ#it. :=isarrangement allos or a coarser transer siBe to be obtained+ despite apossble tendency or t=e ore to generate a limited @#antity o inis=edprod#ct t=ro#g= %A9 milling only.

5$2 D'*>% B)*

:=e detailed design criteria doc#ments or bot= grinding alternatives =ave

been p#blis=ed separately (3-456!6D&6,, or t=e base case %A<&6<circ#it+ and 3-456!6D&6, or t=e 8P9" alternative). :able 3.6s#mmariBes and compares t=e 'ey design ass#mptions and data or bot=scenarios.

Page 9: 159742-N-RE-302_R0 (Trade Off Study HPGR vs SAG Economic Comparision Casale)

7/23/2019 159742-N-RE-302_R0 (Trade Off Study HPGR vs SAG Economic Comparision Casale)

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/159742-n-re-302r0-trade-off-study-hpgr-vs-sag-economic-comparision-casale 9/35

T ); , ' 5 $ 2 - 1 : ' D ' * > % C ( *& ' ( * )

D'*>% E,'='%& U%*&

SABC-B

O6&*+%

B)' C)'

!P"R:=ro#g=p#t t/d *,+,,, *,+,,,

Primary cr#s=ing circ#it prod#ct P0, (mm) 3, 3,

Primary cr#s=ing circ#it prod#cttop siBe

mm 5, 5,

Design ore blend Jear63 composite

Overall circ#it grinding #tiliBation - -

%econdary cr#s=er circ#it#tiliBation

na 03

>$:ec= A?b ore =ardnessparameter  -. na

>$:ec= ta abrasivenessparameter 

,.7 ,.7

Estimated <all Mill Gor' Inde? 'G=/t *.-5 *.,-

Design impact cr#s=ing or'inde?

'G=/t 5.* 5.*

%creening eiciency (ass#med) -, -,

lotation eed P0, microns 3, 3,

&yclone overlo sl#rry density / 75 75

!ote2. :=e initial base case sim#lations made #se o t=e 0, mm primary cr#s=er prod#ct. Later iterations it= t=e retained 8P9" circ#it in % adopted 3, mm b#t no comparable sim#lationdata or t=e %A<&6< circ#it ere generated.

:=e secondary cr#s=ing circ#it or t=e alternative+ as per t=e pebble cr#s=ingcirc#it #nder t=e base case+ is e?pected to r#n only 03 o t=e time. :ocompensate or t=is loer #tiliBation+ compared to t=e rest o t=eserespective circ#it1s components+ an additional pebble cr#s=er+ s=ared by allt=ree %A9 grinding lines+ =as been incl#ded in t=e %A<&6< design =ile anintermediate cr#s=ed ore stoc'pile =as been incl#ded in t=e 8P9" circ#it

design.

Per :able 3.6+ t=e ball mill or' inde? or t=e 8P9" circ#it is e?pected tobe 3 loer t=an t=at o t=e %A9 mill6based circ#it+ per t=e testor'cond#cted by Polysi#s =ic= s=oed val#es o #p to - (beore adj#stmentor dierential 0, and P0, beteen tests). :=is red#ction is attrib#ted tot=e so6called micro crac'ing eect+ res#lting rom t=e =ig= stressesimparted on t=e material passing t=ro#g= t=e 8P9" rolls.

Page 10: 159742-N-RE-302_R0 (Trade Off Study HPGR vs SAG Economic Comparision Casale)

7/23/2019 159742-N-RE-302_R0 (Trade Off Study HPGR vs SAG Economic Comparision Casale)

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/159742-n-re-302r0-trade-off-study-hpgr-vs-sag-economic-comparision-casale 10/35

5$3 A0)*,);,' I%+(=)&*+%

 All inormation pertaining to t=e %A<&6<+ as t=e base case carried in t=e

Preeasibility %t#dy+ is available in separate doc#ments not d#plicated in t=isreport. G=ere relevant+ t=e %A<&6< data is s=on to allo direct comparisonit= t=e relevant alternate case #nder st#dy.

or t=e 8P9" option+ t=e deliverables prepared #p to t=e point =ere t=edecision as made to decrease t=e lotation eed P0,+ rom t=e prior 3, Kmto t=e revised , Km val#e+ ere t=e basis or t=e estimates.

5$4 !P"R T'&+(@ )% S*=,)&*+% R',&

Drill core samples ere provided to Polysi#s to test t=e amenity o t=e ore to

8P9" cr#s=ing. :=e samples tested by Polysi#s incl#ded a Jear to 3blend composite sample as ell as an additional si? individ#al ore typesamples. :=e objectives o t=e tests ere to generate data re@#ired or e@#ipment siBing+ cost estimates and to assess ris's pertaining to t=evariability o t=e orebody N.

%ome o t=e 'ey metrics and indings rom t=ese tests are2

• Liner ear rates increase it= an increase in eed moist#re content.:=e implication is t=at t=e los=eet design and e@#ipment siBings=o#ld aim at minimiBing 8P9" eed moist#re+ e.g. t=ro#g= longer 

et screens to ens#re better drainage.•  At a 5 moist#re content t=e A:GAL abrasion test yielded a ear 

rate o * g/t or t=e composite sample. :=is is classiied by Polysi#sas a lo to medi#m abrasiveness ore response.

• Meas#red ear rates ere all in t=e medi#m abrasiveness range it=minimal variability beteen t=e individ#al ore types.

• :=e speciic energy inp#t at t=e optim#m grinding orce as .0 'G=/t

•  A speciic t=ro#g=p#t (m6dot) o , ts/m7/= as meas#red at t=eoptim#m grinding conditions.

• Loc'ed cycle cr#s=ing tests s=oed t=at t=ere o#ld be no b#ild6#p o 

a =arder component in closed circ#it operation d#e to preerentialcr#s=ing o soter constit#ents.

• %creening tests cond#cted it= t=e "E9"O prod#ct revealed t=at t=ecompacted ca'es disagglomerate easily d#ring et screening.

• <ond test res#lts indicate t=at a 8P9" prod#ct o#ld re@#ire - lesspoer in t=e s#bse@#ent ball mill to grind a 6* mm eed don to 3micron compared to a cr#s=er prod#ced 6* mm eed. :=econirmatory Labmill test proced#re yielded a smaller dierence.

Page 11: 159742-N-RE-302_R0 (Trade Off Study HPGR vs SAG Economic Comparision Casale)

7/23/2019 159742-N-RE-302_R0 (Trade Off Study HPGR vs SAG Economic Comparision Casale)

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/159742-n-re-302r0-trade-off-study-hpgr-vs-sag-economic-comparision-casale 11/35

 AME& adopted 3 as a reasonably conservative estimate or t=ee?pected poer red#ction.

:ests cond#cted on t=e seven samples indicated only minor dierences in process parameters.

Polysi#s cond#cted sim#lations based on t=eir testing o t=e composites andon proprietary scale6#p actors. %ome o t=e 'ey sim#lation o#tp#ts are2

•  A tertiary 8P9" circ#it prod#ct o 6* mm can be prod#ced #sing eit=er ive large .* ? .43 m rolls or si? .5 ? .4 m rolls. &ost and ease o operation dictate t=e latter+ i.e. to parallel #nits or eac= o t=e t=reeidentical grinding lines+ it= one 8P9" dedicated to eeding eac= oneo t=e si? ball mills.

•  At a nominal rolls speed o .53 m/s t=is conig#ration ill r#n atappro?imately -, o t=e ma?im#m speed providing an estimated *contingency on t=ro#g=p#t.

•  At a -, 8P9" #tiliBation and an estimated average circ#lating loado 3 #sing a c#t siBe on t=e et screen o , mm+ t=e nominal eedto eac= 8P9" ill be +0*5 t/=+ re@#iring 7+37, 'G o motor poer+incl#ding mec=anical losses. :=e #se o to +43, 'G variable speeddrives per 8P9" #nit ill allo or minor variability in bot= t=ro#g=p#tand ore =ardness.

5$5 J:S*=M'& S*=,)&*+% )% M) ;),)%<' <),<,)&*+%

:able 3.36 compares 'ey parameters obtained rom sim#lations+ it= anadj#stment or t=e revised *, 't/d t=ro#g=p#t. G=ere t=ere are minor dierences beteen t=e mass balance and sim#lations+ t=e mass balanceres#lts ta'es precedence as t=is is t=e basis or t=e cost estimate.

Page 12: 159742-N-RE-302_R0 (Trade Off Study HPGR vs SAG Economic Comparision Casale)

7/23/2019 159742-N-RE-302_R0 (Trade Off Study HPGR vs SAG Economic Comparision Casale)

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/159742-n-re-302r0-trade-off-study-hpgr-vs-sag-economic-comparision-casale 12/35

T ); , ' 5 $ 5 - 1 S* = , ) &* + % )% M ) B ) , )%<' ! *>. ,* > . &

E,'='%& U%*&

B)'

C)'SABC-B

!P"RO6&*+%

!#mber o %A9 Mills (5,1 ? 51) ea. 7 ,

!#mber o 8P9"1s (.5 ? .4 m) ea. , *

!#mber o cone cr#s=ers ea. 5 0

!#mber o <all Mills (*1 ? 551) ea. * *

Pebble/:ertiary &r#s=ers &irc. Load *3 03

%econdary/Pebble &r#s=ers &%% mm 7 73

Dry %creen <ottom Dec' Apert#re mm 7 53

%ec./Pebble &r#s=ers Prod#ct P0, mm .3 74

%A9 Disc=arge %creen Apert#re mm - !/A

Pebble/ Get %creens Dec' Apert#re mm , ,

8P9" &irc#it &irc#lating Load !/A 3

<all Mill &irc#it eed :0, mm 0.4 3.-

<all Mill %peed critical 40 40

<all Mill <all &=arge v/v 7 0

8$ CAPITAL COST ESTIMATE

:=e capital cost estimate or t=e base case is relecting t=e detailed cost estimateprepared or t=e Preeasibility %t#dy.

or t=e alternate circ#it+ t=e &APEH estimate is t=e o#tcome o t=e % drat stage. Inbot= cases+ t=e major mec=anical e@#ipment is costed rom b#dgetary @#otes+ or inde?ed or dierential siBe rom recent @#otes or similar e@#ipment. Material ta'e6osere eval#ated on t=e basis o t=e plant area topograp=y and t=e general plant layo#tprepared or t=is p#rpose. :=e precision o eac= estimate varies in relation it= t=e levelo st#dy reac=ed it= eit=er one (/63 or P%+ /63 or % drat)

:=e res#lting dierential &APEH estimate is presented in :ables *6 belo. !ote t=atindirect cost elements incl#ding EP&M+ initial ills+ vendor representatives+ and Oner1scost are acco#nted or by a * actor as s=on in :able *6. :=is val#e represents=al o t=e overall 7 bac'6calc#lated rom t=e overall % &APEH estimate+ relecting

Page 13: 159742-N-RE-302_R0 (Trade Off Study HPGR vs SAG Economic Comparision Casale)

7/23/2019 159742-N-RE-302_R0 (Trade Off Study HPGR vs SAG Economic Comparision Casale)

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/159742-n-re-302r0-trade-off-study-hpgr-vs-sag-economic-comparision-casale 13/35

T+&), D*'('%&*),CAPE M/

BS C+'   DISCIPLINE %A<&6< 8P9", Eart=or's   0. -.*

/, &oncrete ., 5,.

7, %tr#ct#ral %teel   50./ 3*.55,  Arc=itect#ral   3.3 .7

3, Mec=anical 735.7 5.4

*, Piping   /7.5 /*./

4, Electrical   *0. 55.4

0, Instr#mentation   //.3 /4.7

T+&), D*('<& C)6' 851$1 747$4

Indirect costs (* o direct) ,5. -.*

&ontingency (,.*)   *-., 4-./

CAPE *%<,*%> I%*('<& )% C+%&*%>'%< 24$3 948$3

D*'('%<' !P"R O6&*+% - SA" O6&*+%   121$9

t=e act t=at not all t=e indirect costs are variable and only =al co#ld t=#s be savedt=ro#g= a red#ction o t=e project &APEH.

 A ,.* contingency as also added+ per t=e average level calc#lated rom t=e % Drat&APEH estimate.

T);,' 8-1 D*'('%&*), C)6*&), C+& E&*=)&' ; D*<*6,*%' G B)' C)' 0$ !P"R-B)'

:able *6 indicates t=at t=e %A96based scenario o#ld re@#ire a &APEH o#tlayF.-M loer t=an t=e estimation prepared or t=e 8P9"6based circ#it. :able *6 alsoindicates t=at a large portion o t=is incremental e?pendit#re is associated it= t=emec=anical components and str#ct#ral steel costs associated it= t=e 8P9"6basedcirc#it+ partly compensated by =ig=er electrical gear costs or t=e %A96based option.

:=e circ#its donstream o t=e ball milling section are pres#med e@#ivalent in t=eir design or bot= conig#rations eval#ated. :=ey only dier in t=e #tiliBed ball millingpoer base.

&apital cost details are presented in Appendi? <.

7$ OPERATIN" COST ESTIMATE

Detailed operating cost calc#lations are presented in Appendi? &. :able 46 belos#mmariBes t=e poer cons#mption elements+ as e?tracted rom t=e e@#ipment list it=load actors assigned to individ#al e@#ipment+ per Appendi? A6 and A6.

Page 14: 159742-N-RE-302_R0 (Trade Off Study HPGR vs SAG Economic Comparision Casale)

7/23/2019 159742-N-RE-302_R0 (Trade Off Study HPGR vs SAG Economic Comparision Casale)

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/159742-n-re-302r0-trade-off-study-hpgr-vs-sag-economic-comparision-casale 14/35

T ); , ' 7 - 1 S 6' < ** < P + ' ( C +% = 6 &* +% <+ % = ' @ . /& + ( '. ''

I& ' =

A ,& ' ( %) &* 0 '

S A B C - B !P " R%A9 Mill 0.0 6

Pebble/%econdary &one &r#s=ers ,.57 ,.*3

8P9" 6 .-

<all Mills .*7 .77

 Ancillary E@#ipment .73 .50

T+&), 23$22 17$37

!otes2

. sing indication t=at .3 times t=e net pebble cr#s=er energy (i.e. e?cl#ding poer cons#mption or no6load and transmission losses) e@#ates t=e %A9 mill poer red#ction+ t=e e@#ivalent %A9 only circ#itspeciic poer cons#mption o#ld be -. 'G=/t.

. %peciic poer cons#mption based on test res#lt data indicating .0 'G=/t o 8P9" eed and 33circ#lating load rom et screens =en operated at a c#t6o siBe o , mm.

:able 46 s=os an e?pected red#ction o t=e speciic poer cons#mption o nearly 3or t=e 8P9"6based+ vers#s t=e %A96based circ#it. :=e most signiicant dierence=ig=lig=ted by :able 46 is t=e 3.47 'G=/t poer cons#mption dierence beteen t=eto centerpiece major e@#ipment items (%A9 mill vs. 8P9"). Ancillary e@#ipmentpoer is =ig=er or t=e 8P9" conig#ration as t=is type o circ#it contains moreconveyors and eeders t=an t=e simpler %A<&6< circ#it.

:able 46 belo s#mmariBes all major cost elements or t=e to conig#rations.

T ); , ' 7 - 2 O 6' ( ) &* %> C + & S = = ) (

SABC !P"R D*'('%<'/& /& /& H 0$ SA

Poer .44 .4,7 ,.345 3.9rinding and &r#s=ing Liners ,.*5 ,.7-, 6,.* 654.*9rinding Media .0- ,.437 ,.37* 5.*Operating and "epair %#pplies ,.70 ,.5*4 6,.5- 65*.0

Direct and &ontract Labor ,.,04 ,.4 6,.,7, 675.T+&), 4$235 3$429 $5 19$

Per t=e details on t=e OPEH derivation provided in Appendi? &+ it is noted t=at2

• :=e poer cost as estimated at a price o %F,.,-,/'G= or electricity

Page 15: 159742-N-RE-302_R0 (Trade Off Study HPGR vs SAG Economic Comparision Casale)

7/23/2019 159742-N-RE-302_R0 (Trade Off Study HPGR vs SAG Economic Comparision Casale)

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/159742-n-re-302r0-trade-off-study-hpgr-vs-sag-economic-comparision-casale 15/35

• :=e cost or spares and maintenance materials or t=e %A96based circ#it is derivedby applying a actor o 5.3 to t=e &APEH elements representing e@#ipment(mec=anical+ electrical)+ piping+ instr#mentation and b#l' elements e?posed to ear or damage (lig=t steel+ pipes/cables and associated rac's and s#pports+ b#ildingall panels). :=e res#lting val#e (F0.3M) is t=e yearly e?penses re@#ired to cover maintenance spares and materials costs+ e?cl#sive o manpoer.

• or t=e 8P9"6based option+ t=e maintenance spares and materials costs erederived rom a irst6principles approac=+ =ere every piece o e@#ipment asbro'en don into its vario#s main elements and a replacement re@#ency and priceas assigned to eac= o t=em. :=e res#lting s#m o all t=ese individ#al amo#nts+pl#s percentages to cover maintenance o b#l' items s#c= as s#pports+ cabling andinstr#mentation (mostly costed as lots in t=e &APEH derivation)+ yields t=e yearlyb#dget o F*.-M indicated. :=e details o t=is derivation are o#nd in doc#ment

3-456!6DE67,.

• Labor costs are based on t=e b#rdened ages indicated by &M&.

:able 46 indicates t=at t=e 8P9" circ#it is e?pected to be - c=eaper to operate andmaintain t=an t=e e@#ivalent %A<&6< base case circ#it. :=is is attrib#ted to t=esigniicant poer cons#mption advantage oered by t=e 8P9" circ#it+ at 0.- 'G=/t+vers#s 3. 'G=/t re@#ired by t=e %A<&6< circ#it+ incl#ding motor eiciency andtransormation/transmission losses.

<esides t=e poer cost+ t=e majority o t=e remaining cost dierential beteen t=ecirc#its lies in t=e dierence beteen ball ear costs o .-F/t or t=e %A96basedcirc#it+ vers#s t=e 8P9"6based circ#it1s ,.43 F/t.

I t=e costs related to t=e maintenance spares and materials+ liners+ &M&1s on andcontract#al manpoer involved in maintenance activities are tallied toget=er as anoverall maintenance cost+ t=e s#ms compared are F,.-*/t and F,.**/t+ or t=e 8P9" vs.%A<&6< circ#its+ respectively.

$ NET PRESENT #ALUE AND PAYBAC: ANALYSIS

:able 0. presents t=e =ig=lig=ts o t=e inancial analysis perormed.

Page 16: 159742-N-RE-302_R0 (Trade Off Study HPGR vs SAG Economic Comparision Casale)

7/23/2019 159742-N-RE-302_R0 (Trade Off Study HPGR vs SAG Economic Comparision Casale)

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/159742-n-re-302r0-trade-off-study-hpgr-vs-sag-economic-comparision-casale 16/35

   N   P   #      5   H   /  -   M   D

T ); , ' $ 1 C + = 6) ( ) &* 0 ' E <+%+ =* < P ) ( ) = ' & ' (

!PC Disco#nted , (FM) 4,.4!PC Disco#nted 3 (FM) 77.,%imple Paybac' (years)   5.4I"" () 2 .0

Detailed cas= lo inormation is presented in Appendi? E. :=e analysis is based on t=eolloing ass#mptions2

• 8al o t=e constr#ction capital e?pendit#re is inc#rred to years prior to t=e irstprod#ction it= t=e rest divided e@#ally beteen t=e year beore prod#ction startsand t=e irst year o prod#ction

• Inlation and or'ing capital dierential eects are ass#med to be negligible• Interest earned or paid on c#m#lative cas=lo is not considered•  All o t=e initial capital ill =ave been ritten o by mine clos#re

ig#re 0. presents t=e sensitivity o t=e indicated !PC(3) to c=anges to t=e 8P9"circ#it1s main cost drivers.

F *> ( ' - 1 F * %)% < * ), S '% * &* 0 *& A %) , * + !P " R M ) * % D (* 0 ' (

NP#5H S'%*&*0*&

3,,53,

5,,

73,

7,,

3,

,,

3,

,,

3,

6

67, 63 6, 63 6, 63 , 3 , 3 , 3 7,

#)(*)&*+% +% !P"R ;)' <+& -H

&APEH O/A Maint Liners Energy Maint %pares/Mat

Page 17: 159742-N-RE-302_R0 (Trade Off Study HPGR vs SAG Economic Comparision Casale)

7/23/2019 159742-N-RE-302_R0 (Trade Off Study HPGR vs SAG Economic Comparision Casale)

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/159742-n-re-302r0-trade-off-study-hpgr-vs-sag-economic-comparision-casale 17/35

9$ CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

:=e 8P9" circ#it oers an estimated ,.0,3 F/t operating cost saving+ compared to t=e

%A<&6< circ#it. 8oever+ t=is is oset by an estimated F.-M in additional capitale?pendit#re re@#ired or t=e 8P9"6based circ#it. :=e comparative inancial analysisindicates an #ndisco#nted cas=lo dierential o F4,.4M+ or F77.,M in avor o t=e8P9" based circ#it at a 3 disco#nt rate. :=e I"" or t=is comparative scenario is.0. :=e simple paybac' period+ i.e. t=e d#ration re@#ired to pay bac' t=e additional&APEH #sing t=e OPEH saving+ is 5.4 years.

On t=is basis+ t=e inancial beneits o adopting a circ#it comprising 8P9" asreplacement to t=e %A9 milling step or developing t=e &erro &asale processing plantdesign criteria =as been reconirmed.

 AME& is o t=e opinion t=at t=e intangible opport#nities oered by t=e 8P9" circ#it alsoovers=ado t=e ris's associated it= t=is circ#it+ s#c= as2

• :=e %A9 circ#it is simple and proven. :=e 8P9" circ#it is more comple?+ it=signiicantly more e@#ipment. :=#s+ t=ere is more t=at can go rong t=ro#g=imbalances beteen e@#ipment or circ#it capacities in a 8P9" circ#it.

• :=e et and dry screening sections do not incl#de any bac'#p #nits+ per circ#it.:=e loss o one screen =ile in operation o#ld red#ce t=e t=ro#g=p#t potentialo t=e circ#it.

• 8P9" circ#its contain additional e@#ipment (screens+ c=#tes+ bins+ eeders andconveyors) =ic= demand additional maintenance reso#rces (personnel+ capitaland normal spares+ are=o#sing loor space+ administrative processes+ etc.)

• %econdary cr#s=ing and 8P9" demands e?cellent tramp metal detection andremoval to protect st#ds. Eective tramp metal detection on slo moving eedersposes many design problems and t=e scale o t=e &erro &asale operation ille?acerbate t=is c=allenge.

• %A9 circ#its can accommodate clayey ore constit#ents easily. &lay in t=e 8P9"circ#it ill ca#se b#ild6#p at material transer points+ c=#te bloc'ages+ conveyor scraper/cleaning iss#es+ red#ced 8P9" t=ro#g=p#t and increased ear d#e toincreased eed moist#re content+ incomplete disagglomeration o la'es+ etc.9eological reports on t=e &erro &asale orebody indicates t=at t=ere are minimalclayey constit#ents in t=e orebody+ alt=o#g= t=e composite prepared or testor'to em#late t=e early mine o#tp#t+ mostly composed o diorite+ =ad almost .3clay6li'e minerals. It s=o#ld be noted t=at even small localiBed incl#sions in t=is

massive orebody co#ld rea' =avoc to t=e 8P9"6based circ#it t=ro#g=p#tcapability.

•  A 8P9" circ#it demands additional d#st s#ppression+ containment ande?traction systems. D#st generation represents bot= a cost as ell as potentialenvironmental and =ealt= ris'.

 A more complete list o pros and cons as p#blis=ed it= t=e earlier :O% completed att=e preeasibility stage (doc#ment 3-456!6"E6,7).

Page 18: 159742-N-RE-302_R0 (Trade Off Study HPGR vs SAG Economic Comparision Casale)

7/23/2019 159742-N-RE-302_R0 (Trade Off Study HPGR vs SAG Economic Comparision Casale)

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/159742-n-re-302r0-trade-off-study-hpgr-vs-sag-economic-comparision-casale 18/35

Most o t=e ris's listed or t=e 8P9" circ#it can be controlled at t=e design staget=ro#g= incl#sion o appropriate ris' mitigation meas#res and operating strategies in t=elos=eet.

:=e 8P9"6based circ#it is t=ereore recommended to be t=e preerred commin#tionapproac= carried or t=e easibility st#dy los=eet.

1$ REFERENCES

. <#rc=ardt+ EgbertQ 8ig= Press#re 9rinding+ %creening R 9rindability :ests on a9old/&opper Ore or t=e &erro &asale Project o $inross/<arric' carried o#t at t=ePolysi#s "esearc= &entre inal :est "eportQ 3 >#ne ,,0. (see Appendi? 6 o P%

doc#ment 3-456!6"E6,7)

. &ontract %#pport %ervicesQ inal report to $inross 9old "es#lts o &erro &asaleProposed &ommin#tion &irc#it 8P9" vs. %A<&6< easibility %im#lation %t#dyQ -%eptember ,,0. (see Appendi? 6 o P% doc#ment 3-456!6"E6,7)

Page 19: 159742-N-RE-302_R0 (Trade Off Study HPGR vs SAG Economic Comparision Casale)

7/23/2019 159742-N-RE-302_R0 (Trade Off Study HPGR vs SAG Economic Comparision Casale)

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/159742-n-re-302r0-trade-off-study-hpgr-vs-sag-economic-comparision-casale 19/35

A PP END I A E U I P MEN T L IS TS

A 6 6'% * A - 1 !P " R - B )' C *( < * & E * 6 = ' % & L * & F SU- , ' 0 ' ,

.

Page 20: 159742-N-RE-302_R0 (Trade Off Study HPGR vs SAG Economic Comparision Casale)

7/23/2019 159742-N-RE-302_R0 (Trade Off Study HPGR vs SAG Economic Comparision Casale)

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/159742-n-re-302r0-trade-off-study-hpgr-vs-sag-economic-comparision-casale 20/35

A 6 6'% * A - 2 S A B C - B - B )' C * ( < *& E * 6 = '%& L * & 6 ) & ' P F S-, ' 0 ' ,

3-456!6"E67, 8P9" :O% "ev ,.doc P;9E , O 73

Page 21: 159742-N-RE-302_R0 (Trade Off Study HPGR vs SAG Economic Comparision Casale)

7/23/2019 159742-N-RE-302_R0 (Trade Off Study HPGR vs SAG Economic Comparision Casale)

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/159742-n-re-302r0-trade-off-study-hpgr-vs-sag-economic-comparision-casale 21/35

3-456!6"E67, 8P9" :O% "ev ,.doc P 9E O

A PP END I B C A P I T A L C O S T ES T I M A T E S

A 6 6'% * B - 1 C A P E ' & *= ) & ' G S A " M*, , C* ( < *& S <'%) (* + A  ? & ' ( += P F S -

, ' 0 ' ,

Page 22: 159742-N-RE-302_R0 (Trade Off Study HPGR vs SAG Economic Comparision Casale)

7/23/2019 159742-N-RE-302_R0 (Trade Off Study HPGR vs SAG Economic Comparision Casale)

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/159742-n-re-302r0-trade-off-study-hpgr-vs-sag-economic-comparision-casale 22/35

3-456!6"E67, 8P9" :O% "ev ,.doc P 9E O

A 6 6'% * B - 2 P ( ' ,* = *%) ( A  ? &' P F S -, ' 0 ' , C A PE ' &*= ) & ' G S A " M*, ,C *( < *& S <'%) ( * +

Page 23: 159742-N-RE-302_R0 (Trade Off Study HPGR vs SAG Economic Comparision Casale)

7/23/2019 159742-N-RE-302_R0 (Trade Off Study HPGR vs SAG Economic Comparision Casale)

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/159742-n-re-302r0-trade-off-study-hpgr-vs-sag-economic-comparision-casale 23/35

A PP END I C O PE R A T I N " C O S T ES T I M A T E S

T ); , ' C - 1 S A BC - B " ( *% *% > L * % ' E * 6 = ' % & )% P + ' ( C+% = 6 & *+ % L * &

:=e dra actor represents t=e raction o installed poer being cons#med =en t=e e@#ipment is r#nning normally. :=ecirc#it #tiliBation actor acco#nts or all dontime incl#ding intermittent #sage e.g. s#mp p#mps =ic= is #sed only =en

spillage occ#rs. :ransmission and transormer losses are ass#med to be less or =ig= voltage s#pply.

3-456!6"E67, 8P9" :O% "ev ,.doc P ;9E 7 O 73

Page 24: 159742-N-RE-302_R0 (Trade Off Study HPGR vs SAG Economic Comparision Casale)

7/23/2019 159742-N-RE-302_R0 (Trade Off Study HPGR vs SAG Economic Comparision Casale)

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/159742-n-re-302r0-trade-off-study-hpgr-vs-sag-economic-comparision-casale 24/35

A(') E*6='%& D'<( *6&*+%I%&$

KO6$

K

U%*& P+'( F)<&+( A0'$ C+%=

I%&),,' D() D()%@ F)<&+( @

M+&+( E $/T()% 

C*(<*& T()%=$U&*, L+'

U%*& T@

75, %toc'pile "eclaim eeder - * 0, ,.03 *0 ,.- .,5 *3 75 :!!EL "E&LAIM D%: &OLLE&:O" 7 7 04 ,.03 3- ,.- .,5 3

75 %A9 MILL EED &O!CEJO" 7 7 7, ,.03 4 ,.- .,5 *

75 !EG O"E <EL: %&ALE 7 7 ,.03 ,.- .,5

75 A:OMA:I& %A9 MILL <ALL &8A"9I!9 %J%:EM 7 7 7 ,.03 7 ,.,* .,5 , 5 %A9 MILL 7 7 ,+00, ,.-- ,+*4 ,.- ., -+5- 3

5 %A9 MILL L<E !I: 7 7 5-7 ,.03 5- ,.-7 .,5 5,*

5 %A9 MILL MO:O" &OOLI!9 !I: 7 7 750 ,.03 -* ,.-7 .,5 0*

5 %A9 MILL DI%&8A"9E %&"EE! * 7 ,, ,.03 03 ,.,0 .,5 4

5 %A9 OCE"8EAD &"A!E , ,.03 0 ,.- .,5 0

5 >I< &"A!E O" %A9 LI!E"% 7 7 0 ,.03 * ,.,0 .,5 5 %A9 MILL LI!E" 8A!DLE" 43 ,.-, *0 ,. .,5 0

5 %A9 MILL POGE"ED EED &8:E :"A!%PO":E" , ,.-, , ,., .,5 ,

5 &O!CEJO" S* 6 %A9 MILL %&"EE! OCE"%ITE &O!CEJO" * ,.03 7 ,.- .,5 5

5 E"IET :JPE MOCI!9 <EL: MA9!E: 3 ,.03 7 ,.- .,5

5 <EL: %&ALE ,.03 ,.- .,5

5 &O!CEJO" S- 6 %A9 MILL %&"EE! OCE"%ITE &O!CEJO" * ,.03 7 ,.- .,5 5

5 OCE"%ITE "E&J&LE GEI98:OME:E" ,.03 ,.- .,5

5 ME:AL DE:E&:O" ,.03 ,.- .,5

5 %8::LE &O!CEJO" S, 7 ,.03 4 ,.- .,5 *

5 PE<<LE &"%8E" <EL: EEDE" 3 5 5, ,.03 75 ,.03 .,5 7,

5 PE<<LE &O!E &"%8E" 3 5 453 ,.05 *0 ,.03 .,5 33*

5 PE<<LE &O!E &"%8E" L<E 3 5 7, ,.03 -* ,.0* .,5 43 5 &O!CEJO" S3 6 &"%8ED PE<<LE DI%&8A"9E &O!CEJO" *3 ,.03 33 ,.- .,5 3

5 &O!E &"%8E" DI%&8A"9E %&"EE! 3- ,.03 3, ,.- .,5 50

5 &"%8ED PE<<LE% EED PMP<OH  A9I:A:O" 43 ,.03 *5 ,.- .,5 *

5 &"%8ED PE<<LE EED PMP 7 7 3, ,.03 7 ,.- .,5 ,5

5 PE<<LE &"%8E" A"EA OCE"8EAD &"A!E 33 ,.03 54 ,.,3 .,5

57 &J&LO!E EED PMP * * +,5 ,.0* +450 ,.- .,5 +*43

57 <ALL MILL * * *+,,, ,.-37 3+50 ,.- .,5 5+*, 0

57 <ALL MILL L<E !I: * * 70, ,.-3 7* ,.-7 .,5 73,

57 <ALL MILL MO:O" &OOLI!9 !I: * * ,.03 7 ,.-7 .,5 7 Lig=ting 3 ,.-3 - ,.-3 .,5 0 8eat and ventilation systems 7+,,, ,.-3 +03, ,.* .,5 +40

18T+&),

3-456!6"E67, 8P9" :O% "ev ,.doc P;9E 5 O 73

Page 25: 159742-N-RE-302_R0 (Trade Off Study HPGR vs SAG Economic Comparision Casale)

7/23/2019 159742-N-RE-302_R0 (Trade Off Study HPGR vs SAG Economic Comparision Casale)

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/159742-n-re-302r0-trade-off-study-hpgr-vs-sag-economic-comparision-casale 25/35

T ); , ' C - 2 !P " R " ( * % * % > L * % ' E * 6 = ' % & ) % P + ' ( C+% = 6 &* + % L * &

:=e actors applied =ave t=e same meaning as in :able &6.

3-456!6"E67, 8P9" :O% "ev ,.doc P;9E 3 O 73

Page 26: 159742-N-RE-302_R0 (Trade Off Study HPGR vs SAG Economic Comparision Casale)

7/23/2019 159742-N-RE-302_R0 (Trade Off Study HPGR vs SAG Economic Comparision Casale)

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/159742-n-re-302r0-trade-off-study-hpgr-vs-sag-economic-comparision-casale 26/35

A(') E*6='%& D'<(*6&*+%I%&$

KO6$K

U%*& P+'(    F)<&+( A0'$ C+%=6&*+%

I%&),,' D() D()%@ F)<&+( @

C*(<*& T()% T()%=$U&*, L+'

U%*& T+&),@ @

75 %:O&$PILE "E&LAIM AP"O! EEDE" S   43 ,.0   */ ,.-5   .,5 *, *,75 %:O&$PILE "E&LAIM AP"O! EEDE" S

%:O&$PILE "E&LAIM AP"O! EEDE" S5%:O&$PILE "E&LAIM AP"O! EEDE" S3"E&LAIM &O!CEJO" S"E&LAIM &O!CEJO" S!EG O"E <EL: %&ALE S!EG O"E <EL: %&ALE S:!!EL "E&LAIM D%: &OLLE&:O" S:!!EL "E&LAIM D%: &OLLE&:O" SPLA!: AI" &OMP"E%%O"%EL &LEA!I!9 <EL: MA9!E: S%EL &LEA!I!9 <EL: MA9!E: S%E&O!DA"J &"%8I!9 <I! S EED :"IPPE" &O!CEJO"%E&O!DA"J &"%8I!9 <I! S EED :"IPPE" &O!CEJO"%EL &LEA!I!9 <EL: MA9!E: S60ME:AL DE:E&:O" S60%E&O!DA"J &"%8E" EED <EL: EEDE" S60&O!E &"%8E"&O!E &"%8E" L<E !I:%E&O!DA"J &"%8I!9 DI%&8A"9E &O!CEJO" S%E&O!DA"J &"%8I!9 DI%&8A"9E &O!CEJO" S<EL: %&ALE<EL: %&ALE%E&O!DA"J &"%8E" D%: &OLLE&:O"%E&O!DA"J &"%8I!9 %MP PMP%E&O!DA"J &"%8I!9 <ILDI!9 OCE"8EAD &"A!EDICE"9I!9 PA! EEDE" SDICE"9I!9 PA! EEDE" SDICE"9I!9 PA! EEDE" S7DICE"9I!9 PA! EEDE" S5&O!CEJO" %AMPLE"&O!CEJO" %AMPLE"D"J <A!A!A %&"EE! SD"J <A!A!A %&"EE! SD"J <A!A!A %&"EE! S7D"J <A!A!A %&"EE! S5

43 ,.0   */ ,.-5   .,5 *, *,

75  43 ,.0   */ ,.-5   .,5 *, *,

75   43 ,.0   */ ,.-5   .,5 *, *,

75   0, ,.05 3 ,.-5   .,5 5- 5-75   0, ,.05 3 ,.-5   .,5 5- 5-75   / ,.03   ,.-*   .,5

75   / ,.03   ,.-*   .,5

75   04 ,.07 33 ,.-3   .,5 35 3575   04 ,.07 33 ,.-3   .,5 35 3575   *, ,.33   00 ,.-   .,5 05 05

75   3 ,.03   7 ,.-   .,5 / /

75   3 ,.03   7 ,.-   .,5 / /

75   0, ,.0 5* ,.-5   .,5 57 5775   0, ,.0 5* ,.-5   .,5 57 5775   0 0 0 ,.07   * ,.-   .,5 * 50

75   0 0 / ,.07   ,.-   .,5 ,

75   0 0 43 ,.0*   *3 ,.03   .,5 34 53475   0 0 453 ,.4- 3-, ,.03   .,5 3// 5+4-75   0 0 -, ,.04   40 ,.-   .,5 43 *,,75   +*0, ,.0 +730 ,.-5   .,5 +77, +77,75   +*0, ,.0 +7* ,.-5   .,5 +77 +7775   / ,.07   ,.-*   .,5

75   / ,.07   ,.-*   .,5

75   04 ,.03 3- ,.-   .,5 3/ 375   43 ,.*3   5- ,.-   .,5 54 54

75-   -4 ,.03   0/ ,.-   .,5 4- 4-

75-   43 ,.0   * ,.00   .,5 3* 3*

73   43 ,.0   * ,.00   .,5 3* 3*

73   43 ,.0   * ,.00   .,5 3* 3*

73   43 ,.0   * ,.00   .,5 3* 3*

73   0 ,.03   * ,.,   .,5 , ,

73   0 ,.03   * ,.,   .,5 , ,

73   43 ,.03   *5 ,.-   .,5 * *

73   43 ,.03   *5 ,.-   .,5 * *

73   43 ,.03   *5 ,.-   .,5 * *

73   43 ,.03   *5 ,.-   .,5 * *

3-456!6"E67, 8P9" :O% "ev ,.doc P;9E * O 73

Page 27: 159742-N-RE-302_R0 (Trade Off Study HPGR vs SAG Economic Comparision Casale)

7/23/2019 159742-N-RE-302_R0 (Trade Off Study HPGR vs SAG Economic Comparision Casale)

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/159742-n-re-302r0-trade-off-study-hpgr-vs-sag-economic-comparision-casale 27/35

A(') E*6='%& D'<(*6&*+%I%&$

KO6$

K

U%*& P+'( F)<&+( A0'$ C+%=6&*+%

I%&),,' D() D()%@ F)<&+( @

C*(<*& T()% T()%=$U&*, L+'

U%*& T+&),@ @

73 D"J %&"EE! !DE"%ITE &O!CEJO" S

D"J %&"EE! !DE"%ITE &O!CEJO" S

<EL: %&ALE S

<EL: %&ALE S

%EL &LEA!I!9 <EL: MA9!E:

%EL &LEA!I!9 <EL: MA9!E:D"J %&"EE! D%: &OLLE&:O"

D"J %&"EE! %MP PMP

D"J %&"EE! OCE"8EAD &"A!E S

D"J %&"EE! OCE"8EAD &"A!E S

PLA!: AI" &OMP"E%%O"

ME:AL DE:E&:O" S6*

8P9" EED <EL: EEDE" S6*

8P9" S MO:O" &OOLI!9

8P9"

8P9" S 8JD"ALI& D"ICE8P9" S L<E

8P9" DI%&8A"9E &O!CEJO" S

8P9" DI%&8A"9E &O!CEJO" S

I!E %:O&$PILE EED &O!CEJO" S

8P9" EEDE" OCE"8EAD &"A!E

:E":IA"J &"%8I!9 D%: &OLLE&:O"

8P9" %MP PMP

%EL &LEA!I!9 <EL: MA9!E:

%EL &LEA!I!9 <EL: MA9!E:

8P9" EEDE" OCE"8EAD &"A!E

8P9" EEDE" OCE"8EAD &"A!E

8P9" EEDE" OCE"8EAD &"A!E

:E":IA"J &"%8E" DI%&8A"9E P"OD&: %AMPLE"

:E":IA"J &"%8E" DI%&8A"9E P"OD&: %AMPLE"

<A!A!A %&"EE! S6GE: %&"EE! OCE"8EAD &"A!E

I!E %:O&$PILE D%: &OLLE&:O" S

I!E %:O&$PILE D%: &OLLE&:O" S

I!E %:O&$PILE A"EA %MP PMP

I!E %:O&$PILE A"EA %MP PMP

PLA!: AI" &OMP"E%%O"

GE: %&"EE! EED &O!CEJO" S6

GE: %&"EE! O/% DI%&8A"9E &O!CEJO" S

GE: %&"EE! O/% DI%&8A"9E &O!CEJO" S

GE: %&"EE! O/% DI%&8A"9E &O!CEJO" S DI%&8A"9E MO

GE: %&"EE! O/% DI%&8A"9E &O!CEJO" S DI%&8A"9E MO

733 ,.0- 7* ,.-3 .,5 77 77

73   733 ,.0- 7* ,.-3 .,5 77 77

73   ,.07 ,.-* .,5

73   ,.07 ,.-* .,5

73   3 ,.07 ,.- .,5

73   3 ,.07 ,.- .,5 73   04 ,.03 3- ,.-5 .,5 3* 3*

73   53 ,.*3 - ,.- .,5 0 0

73   -4 ,.03 0 ,. .,5 , ,

73   -4 ,.33 0 ,. .,5 , ,

73   *, ,.03 7* ,.- .,5 7, 7,

73   * * ,.07 ,.- .,5 4

73   * * 43 ,.03 *5 ,.- .,5 * 7*4

73   * * 3 ,.04 7 ,.- .,5 7 43

73   * * 3+3,, ,.43 5+, ,.- .,5 7+053 7+,*0

73   * * 3, ,.04 55 ,.- .,5 5 3,

73   * * 33 ,.04 50 ,.- .,5 5* 43

73   +*0, ,.0* +553 ,.-5 .,5 +53 +53

73   +*0, ,.0* +553 ,.-5 .,5 +53 +53

73   +, ,.0* -*7 ,.- .,5 -7 -7

73   * ,.03 3 ,.- .,5 3, 3,

73   04 ,.03 3- ,.-* .,5 3- 3-

73   - ,.33 , ,.- .,5 , ,

73   3 ,.07 ,.- .,5

73   3 ,.07 ,.- .,5

73  * ,.07 3 ,. .,5 3 3

73   * ,.07 3 ,. .,5 3 3

73   0 ,.07 ,* ,. .,5

73   0 ,.07 * ,., .,5 , ,

73   0 ,.07 * ,., .,5 , ,

73   -, ,.07 43 ,.- .,5 4 03-

73   -4 ,.07 0 ,. .,5 0 0

73   04 ,.03 3- ,.-* .,5 3- 3-

73   04 ,.03 3- ,.-* .,5 3- 3-

73   - ,.*3 ,.- .,5

73   - ,.*3 ,.- .,5

73   *, ,.33 00 ,.- .,5 05 05

73   , ,.04 -* ,.-5 .,5 -5 +5

73   733 ,.05 -0 ,.-5 .,5 - -

73   733 ,.05 -0 ,.-5 .,5 - -

73   7 ,.03 7 ,. .,5 , ,

73   7 ,.03 7 ,. .,5 , ,

3-456!6"E67, 8P9" :O% "ev ,.doc P;9E 4 O 73

Page 28: 159742-N-RE-302_R0 (Trade Off Study HPGR vs SAG Economic Comparision Casale)

7/23/2019 159742-N-RE-302_R0 (Trade Off Study HPGR vs SAG Economic Comparision Casale)

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/159742-n-re-302r0-trade-off-study-hpgr-vs-sag-economic-comparision-casale 28/35

A(') E*6='%& D'<(*6&*+%

I%&$

K

O6$

K

U%*& P+'( F)<&+( A0'$ C+%=

I%&),,' D() D()%

@ F)<&+( @C*(<*& T()% T()%=$

U&*, L+'U%*&@

73 :"A!%E" &O!CEJO" S

:"A!%E" &O!CEJO" S

<EL: %&ALE S6

&J&LO!E EED PMP S

&J&LO!E EED PMP S

&J&LO!E EED PMP S7

&J&LO!E EED PMP S5

&J&LO!E EED PMP S3

&J&LO!E EED PMP S*

<ALL MILL S MO:O" &OOLI!9 !I: S

<ALL MILL S L<E !I:

<ALL MILL S

<ALL MILL S MO:O" &OOLI!9 !I: S

<ALL MILL S L<E !I:

<ALL MILL S

<ALL MILL S 7 MO:O" &OOLI!9 !I: S7

<ALL MILL S7 L<E !I:

<ALL MILL S7

<ALL MILL S 5 MO:O" &OOLI!9 !I: S5

<ALL MILL S5 L<E !I:

<ALL MILL S5<ALL MILL S 3 MO:O" &OOLI!9 !I: S3

<ALL MILL S3 L<E !I:

<ALL MILL S3

<ALL MILL S * MO:O" &OOLI!9 !I: S3

<ALL MILL S* L<E !I:

<ALL MILL S*

0, ,.07 7 ,.- .,5 7

73   0, ,.07 7 ,.- .,5 7

73-   ,.07 ,.-* .,5 73-   +7,* ,.4* --7 ,.- .,5 -3

73-   +7,* ,.4* --7 ,.- .,5 -3

73-   +7,* ,.4* --7 ,.- .,5 -3

73-   +7,* ,.4* --7 ,.- .,5 -3

73-   +7,* ,.4* --7 ,.- .,5 -3

73-   +7,* ,.4* --7 ,.- .,5 -3

73-   ,.03 - ,.-7 .,5 0

73-   70, ,.03 77 ,.-7 .,5 77

73-   *+,,, ,.0 +-*, ,.- .,5 +5,

73-   ,.03 - ,.-7 .,5 0

73-   70, ,.03 77 ,.-7 .,5 77

73-   *+,,, ,.0 +-*, ,.- .,5 +5,

73-   ,.03 - ,.-7 .,5 0

73-   70, ,.03 77 ,.-7 .,5 77

73-   *+,,, ,.0 +-*, ,.- .,5 +5,

7*   ,.03 - ,.-7 .,5 0

7*   70, ,.03 77 ,.-7 .,5 77

7*   *+,,, ,.0 +-*, ,.- .,5 +5, 7*   ,.03 - ,.-7 .,5 0

7*   70, ,.03 77 ,.-7 .,5 77

7*   *+,,, ,.0 +-*, ,.- .,5 +5,

7*   ,.03 - ,.-7 .,5 0

7*   70, ,.03 77 ,.-7 .,5 77

7*   *+,,, ,.0 +-*, ,.- .,5 +5, Lig=ting 43 ,.-3 4 ,.-4 .,- 43 8eat and ventilation systems +0,, ,.-3 +4, ,.* .,- +3

1T+&),

3-456!6"E67, 8P9" :O% "ev ,.doc P;9E 0 O 73

Page 29: 159742-N-RE-302_R0 (Trade Off Study HPGR vs SAG Economic Comparision Casale)

7/23/2019 159742-N-RE-302_R0 (Trade Off Study HPGR vs SAG Economic Comparision Casale)

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/159742-n-re-302r0-trade-off-study-hpgr-vs-sag-economic-comparision-casale 29/35

3-456!6"E67, 8P9" :O% "ev ,.doc P 9E -- O

T ); , ' C - 3 C + = 6 ) (*  + % + ')( C + &

%peciic Gear rate

Energy (per replacement re@.) Price &ost

E*6='%& D'<(*6&*+%   'G=/t 'g/'G= g/t F/'g F/ton

!P"R

%ec. &r#s=er MP ,,, ,.*, ,.,7 7.4 5.,0* ,.,3*:ert. 8P9" 6 .5 D ? .4 G (m) .- ,.*,<all Mill 6 4.-m D ? 7.5m L ( * ? 55 t ) .77 ,.,,7 7.0 .77* ,.,45

$39SABC

%A9 Mill 6 .-m D ? *.4m L ( 5, ? t 0.0 ,.,,0 *4.7 .77* ,.34Pebble &r#s=er MP ,,, ,.73 ,.,4 3.- 5.,0* ,.,5<all Mill 6 4.-m D ? 7.5m L ( * ? 55 t ) .*7 ,.,,7 73.5 .77* ,.,07

$284

" ( * % * % > M ' *) C+ % = 6 &* + %%peciicEnergy Gear rate Price &ost

E*6='%& D'<(*6&*+% 'G=/t 'g/'G= g/t F/'g F/ton

!P"R

<all Mill 6 4.-m D ? 7.5m L ( * ? 55 t ) .77 ,.,4, 4-.4 ,.-3 ,.437$753

SABC

%A9 Mill 6 .-m D ? 4.55m L ( 5, ? 5.5 0.0 ,.,53 7-0.3 .- ,.53,<all Mill 6 4.-m D ? 7.5m L ( * ? 55 t ) .*7 ,.,4, 00., ,.-3 ,.07-

1$29

:=e 8P9" based ear cost o ,.* E#ro/tonne as s#pplied by t=e vendor based ontestor' cond#cted and proprietary scale6#p actors calling or a roll lie o *.,,,=o#rs. :=is as adj#sted or an estimated ear lie o 3+7,, =o#rs+ per benc=mar'ingo &erro Cerde1s operations and acco#nting or roll speed and eed moist#redierentials

 All ot=er liner ear rates are based on replacement re@#ency benc=mar's.

:=e empirical <ond correlation beteen steel mass loss per 'G= and t=e abrasioninde?+ Ai+ determined d#ring t=e ,,, easibility %t#dy+ as #sed to derive t=egrinding media cons#mption. :o compensate or advances in materials andman#act#ring processes since t=e elaboration o t=e original <ond empiricale@#ations+ a credit o 7, o t=e calc#lated val#e as applied.

Page 30: 159742-N-RE-302_R0 (Trade Off Study HPGR vs SAG Economic Comparision Casale)

7/23/2019 159742-N-RE-302_R0 (Trade Off Study HPGR vs SAG Economic Comparision Casale)

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/159742-n-re-302r0-trade-off-study-hpgr-vs-sag-economic-comparision-casale 30/35

3-456!6"E67, 8P9" :O% "ev ,.doc P 9E 7,7, O

T ); , ' C - 4 C + = 6 ) (*  + % + O 6 ' ( ) &* %> )% M ) *% & '%)%<' S 66 ,* ' C + &

Estimated ann#al maintenance spares and s#pplies cost (FM) 0.3 *.-&APEH e?cl. Eart=or's+ &ivil and Installation costs 415$2 417$ o e@#ipment &APEH e@#ivalent ,.,53 ,.,*3

(F/t) $32 $487

:able &65 s#mmariBes t=e calc#lation o t=e estimated ann#al s#pplies and sparescosts. :=e &APEH applicable to t=e commin#tion section+ e?cl#ding non6earable civilelements (concrete+ eart=moving and constr#ction) ere obtained rom :able <6 or t=e %A96based circ#it. or t=e 8P9"6based circ#it+ t=e val#e obtained rom t=e % isbased on applying a irst6principles approac= to t=e derivation o t=e ann#al b#dget or maintenance spares and materials.

T ); , ' C - 5 C + = 6 ) (*  + % + E & *= ) & ' L);+( C + &

B( 4'%'4 SABC-B <*(<*& !P"R <*(<*&),)( 6'(    E=6,+'' C+& C+& /&+%   K C+& C+& /&+

A(')   '=6,+''  /)%%=  /&   E=6,+''  /)%%=  /&

Operations :

Operator (9rinding/8P9") 57+7 5 47+00 ,.,,7, 5 47+00 ,.,,

Operator (%ec. &r#s=ing R %creening) 57+7 , , ,.,,,, 5 47+00 ,.,,

8elper 6 Operations 7+303 0 *,+*44 ,.,,53 7-+,* ,.,,

Operator (Get %creens R &onveyors) 57+7 , , ,.,,,, 5 47+00 ,.,,Maintenance :

Maintenance Planner 03+*3 03+*3 ,.,,3 .77 5+37 ,.,,

Maintenance :ec=nician 54+5 54+5 ,.,,,0 .77 *7+0 ,.,,

Instr#mentation :ec=nician 54+5 .77 ,+*5- ,.,,- 7 5+*7 ,.,,

Millrig=t/Gelder/<oilerma'er 54+5 7.77 *7+0 ,.,,- 5 +70+,0 ,.,

8elpers 6 maintenance 7+303 *.*4 4+7 ,.,,70 , 73+054 ,.,,

Electrician 54+5 5.*4 +-- ,.,,70 4 77+-50 ,.,,

&ontractors 7+3,+4*3 ,.,3*7 7+*4*+-4* ,.,*

Metallurgy :

8elpers6Metall#rgy 7+303 .77 57+55* ,.,,,0 *3+*- ,.,,

:otal 3+,5+*47   $973   *+4*0+34   $11

!otes2

• It as ass#med t=at t=e maintenance and metall#rgy cres assigned to t=egrinding area o#ld be appro?imately one t=ird o t=e total plant strengt=.

•  Additional metall#rgical =elpers are b#dgeted or t=e 8P9" as t=e or'load ise?pected to increase disproportionately it= t=e additional belt c#ts and gradinganalysis re@#ired or t=e additional conveyors and screens.

• &ontractors costs ere estimated in detail or t=e base case ,,- easibility %t#dyand is estimated at F7.*0 M/a. :=e e@#ivalent ig#re or t=e %A<& circ#it+ at t=e,,- Preeasibility level+ as F7.3 M/a.

Page 31: 159742-N-RE-302_R0 (Trade Off Study HPGR vs SAG Economic Comparision Casale)

7/23/2019 159742-N-RE-302_R0 (Trade Off Study HPGR vs SAG Economic Comparision Casale)

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/159742-n-re-302r0-trade-off-study-hpgr-vs-sag-economic-comparision-casale 31/35

3-456!6"E67, 8P9" :O% "ev ,.doc P 9E 77 O

A PP END I D D R A I N " S

S A "- B )' O 6 &* +% P ( + <' F , + D * )> ( ) =

Page 32: 159742-N-RE-302_R0 (Trade Off Study HPGR vs SAG Economic Comparision Casale)

7/23/2019 159742-N-RE-302_R0 (Trade Off Study HPGR vs SAG Economic Comparision Casale)

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/159742-n-re-302r0-trade-off-study-hpgr-vs-sag-economic-comparision-casale 32/35

3-456!6"E67, 8P9" :O% "ev ,.doc P 9E 77 O

A PP END I E C A L C U L A T IO N S

E - 1$  S A " P + '( )% S *' C ) , < , ) &*+%

%A9 &irc#it 8P9" &irc#it   &omments

:otal %peciic Poer or &ommin#tion P% '/t -.503 7.3 50

P% Ore :onnage tpd (&alendar) 3,+,,, 3,,,, ,,

% pdated Ore :onnage tpd (&alendar) *,+,,, *,+,,, ,,

t/op =r 4+5* 4+5*

P% operating -, -,

% Operating - -

:otal Poer or &ommin#tion P% '=/d 7+,7+7 +,-+*35 50

'G=/op =r 7-+5-4 -7+-*3

:otal Poer or &ommin#tion % '=/d 7+35+0-3 +745+74- 50

'G=/op =r 3-+*5 ,4+0-5

Dierence 4 4

8P9" circ#it et screen c#t siBe mm ,

8P9" circ#it &L .33

B),, M*,,

Mill Diameter m 4.- 4.- ,,

Mill Lengt= m 7.5 7.5 ,,

%peciic Poer P% 'G/t .- -.040 5

Micr6crac'ing &redit P% 3 ,3

Particle %iBe ines &redit P% .*, .*,

Micr6crac'ing &redit % 3.,, ,3

Particle %iBe ines &redit % , ,.,, ,,

Drive :rain Eiciency (9irt= gear to pinion) ,.-43 ,.-43 .3 loss or girt= gear to pinion drive system

losses.

Poer Di or 0, P% 6., --

Poer Di or 0, % .5 ,

0, P% mm *.5, 7.0 *0

microns *+5,, 7+0,,

0, % mm -.0 3.- *3 , mm c#t siBe at et screen or 8P9"

microns -+0, 3+-7,

P0, P% microns 3, 3,

P0, % microns 3, 3,

%peciic Poer % 'G/t   . ,

<M Gi P% 'G=/tonne *.-5 *.-5 ,,

<M Gi % 'G=/tonne *.-5 *.-5 ,, <ac' calc#lated rom E@. List Poer to

ens#re #sing same basis or calc#ations

beteen %A9 option and 8P9" option.

G P% 'G/t 7.4* 7.45 ,,

G % 'G/t . .*7 ,5

G % it= energy credits and drive train e    'G/t   .57 .77

<all Mill Poer P% 'G=/d +*57+,,* +574+35 5

'G=/op =r 4*+,*3 **+35,

<all Mill Poer % 'G/d +,,+,33 +07+,-

'G=/op =r -+500 0+3

'G/mill 3+50 7+*0*

<all Mill Poer &ons#mption 'G=/t .* .7

!#mber o Mills eac= * *

*

Page 33: 159742-N-RE-302_R0 (Trade Off Study HPGR vs SAG Economic Comparision Casale)

7/23/2019 159742-N-RE-302_R0 (Trade Off Study HPGR vs SAG Economic Comparision Casale)

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/159742-n-re-302r0-trade-off-study-hpgr-vs-sag-economic-comparision-casale 33/35

%A9 &irc#it 8P9" &irc#it &omments

%A9 &irc#it

Poer or %A9 &irc#it 'G=/d +3,5+05,

"atio o poer %A92Pebble &r#s=er P% 0.74

Percentage o !et Poer or Pebble &r#s=er .3 consider 3, 'G o no load as gross+ 0

drive losses or cr#s=er+ .3 or %A9

Percentage o Poer or Pebble &r#s=er % .3

!et poer or pebble cr#s=er % 'G=/d 74+0,4

'G=/op =r +4

!#mber o pebble cr#s=ers % eac= 5

!et poer per pebble cr#s=er % 'G 509ross pebble cr#s=er poer % 'G *0 incl#de no6load poer and drive losses o 0

!et Pebble &r#s=er Poer &ons#mption 'G=/t ,.5

Poer or %A9 Mill % 'G=/d +5,+7 . ta'ing credit or net cr#s=ing poer at .3 'G

%A9/'G cr#s=er 

:otal %A9 poer demand 'G=/op =r *7+047

!#mber o %A9 Mills % #nits 7

Poer per %A9 Mill % 'G -+300

'G=/op =r +- 0+33 =p installed motor 

'G=/t 0.0 -.5 'G=/t it= pebble cr#s=er poer converted

to %A9 e@#ivalent

"atio o %A9 Mill Poer !e vs. P% .

N' M*,, D*)='&'(    = 12$19   ,3

& 4$ Limit Ma?im#m Diameter to 5, t ma?im#m.

N' M*,, L'%>&.   = 7$32   ,-

& 24$2

3-456!6"E67, 8P9" :O% "ev ,.doc P;9E 77 O 73

Page 34: 159742-N-RE-302_R0 (Trade Off Study HPGR vs SAG Economic Comparision Casale)

7/23/2019 159742-N-RE-302_R0 (Trade Off Study HPGR vs SAG Economic Comparision Casale)

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/159742-n-re-302r0-trade-off-study-hpgr-vs-sag-economic-comparision-casale 34/35

E - 2$  F * %)%< *),  A %) , *

3-456!6"E67, 8P9" :O% "ev ,.doc P;9E 75 O 73

Page 35: 159742-N-RE-302_R0 (Trade Off Study HPGR vs SAG Economic Comparision Casale)

7/23/2019 159742-N-RE-302_R0 (Trade Off Study HPGR vs SAG Economic Comparision Casale)

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/159742-n-re-302r0-trade-off-study-hpgr-vs-sag-economic-comparision-casale 35/35

A PP END I F M ) B, )%<'

M ' & ) ,,  ( > * < ) , B ) ,)%<' G D ' * >%