31 Table 1: Comparison of cost and value drivers for each mining method In-Line Recovery (ILR) In-Mine Recovery (IMR) Combined ILR + IMR Cases Summary • Allows lower-grade material to be rejected early, improving feed quality and reducing downstream processing loads. • Targets enhanced metal recovery without hauling material to surface, reducing haulage, crushing, and grinding requirements. • Offers the most comprehensive approach to in-place upgrading and recovery Cost Implications • Requires capital investment in mobile or localised sorting units, mechanical cutting, and advanced grade control systems. • Requires leach systems, containment measures, pumping infrastructure, and process control systems. • Moderate OPEX uplift for reagents and monitoring. • Highest CAPEX among variants due to combined systems (cutting/sorting + leaching). Value Drivers • Reduces mass flow to the plant. • Increases head grade and plant efficiency. • Improves scheduling flexibility and reduces waste handling. • Unlocks value from marginal ore zones. • Reduces need for surface processing capacity. • Improves overall metal recovery from the resource. • Maximised recovery and upgraded feed. • Reduced ROM haulage and processing. • Enhanced NPV through grade uplift and recovery gains. Trade-Offs • Added capital complexity. • Returns are dependent on sorting performance and orebody heterogeneity. • Higher upfront capex than ILR, but greater recovery potential. • Operational complexity increases with stope size and geometry. • Technically intensive with increased infrastructure requirements. • Success depends on effective coordination between selective mining, sorting, and leaching processes. The key challenge is therefore not only the maturity of individual technologies, but their integration into real mine evaluation frameworks. ISR remains the desirable low-footprint end state because it eliminates rock movement, but its feasibility is constrained by deposit-specific
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTM0Mzk2