Overall, the NovaCell™ obtained a 67% copper recovery at a mass pull of 9%. This copper recovery is comparable to the elutriation-type CPF (67% vs 65%) however, the mass pull was significantly lower for the NovaCell™ (9% vs 25%). A comparison flowsheet of the two different CPF technologies is shown in ¡Error! No se encuentra el origen de la referencia. and ¡Error! No se encuentra el origen de la referencia.. The downstream impact is significant, while both technologies achieve comparable copper recovery, the NovaCell™ achieves a three-fold reduction in product mass pull compared to the elutriation-type CPF (3% vs 10%). This demonstrates the significant downstream benefits of the NovaCell™, particularly in reducing the need for capital-intensive modifications to cleaner flowsheets and additional regrind mill power. Figure 17 – Flowsheet using the NovaCell™ to treat the deslimed rougher tails stream Figure 18 – Flowsheet using elutriation-type CPF to treat the deslimed rougher tails stream The potential benefit of the NovaCell™ in treating the full rougher tail stream was evaluated by testing the original sample without desliming. This sample was significantly finer, with a P80 of 100µm and ~66% of the feed being below 53 µm. The head grade of the sample was 0.08% Cu. The samples were analyzed on a size-by-size basis, with the results presented in ¡Error! No se encuentra el origen de la referencia.. Table 6 – Feed distribution and NovaCell™ recovery for rougher tails without desliming Particle Size (µm) Feed Distribution NovaCellTM Recovery Tails
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTM0Mzk2