669 upgrade ratios and ore sorting recovery compared to XRT, while for zinc and silver the parameters are lower, and for molybdenum only a marginal improvement is observed. Table 1 – Sorting Parameters: Mass Pull and Upgrade Technology Mass Pull (%) Upgrade Cu Upgrade Zn Upgrade Ag Upgrade Mo XRT 40.80 1.71 2.16 2.01 1.06 XRF 39.20 1.59 1.83 1.57 1.24 Table 2 - Sorting Parameters: Sorting Recovery Technology Recovery Cu (%) Recovery Zn (%) Recovery Ag (%) Recovery Mo (%) XRT 69.80 88.20 82.00 43.10 XRF 82.00 71.80 61.40 48.40 5.2 Implementation Investment To implement the sorting process, a plant is required, with investment divided into direct costs, sorter equipment, crushers, conveyors, screens, installation, infrastructure, and civil works, indirect costs, a percentage of direct costs, including technical studies, pre-commissioning, commissioning, services, freight, duties, among others, and other costs, scaling, contingency, sustaining CAPEX, and studies depending on the project stage. This cost curve was developed based on information from studies conducted for the implementation of ore sorting plants, and the estimation applied scaling criteria according to plant size. Figure 4 - Processed Tonne vs Investment Cost Relationship (CAPEX) 5.3 Operating Costs The estimation of operating costs for ore sorting processing is based on two main processes, material handling and processing in the ore sorting plant. Accordingly, the costs associated with these items are detailed based on trade-offs from various studies. Material handling cost: This is primarily subdivided into loading, hauling, services, and supervision costs, with loading being the most significant component, representing approximately 60% of the total material handling cost. For the calculation of hauling cost, an average haul distance value associated with the feeding and transport of ore sorting plant products, preconcentrate and waste, has been considered.
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTM0Mzk2