Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
This research paper presents a comparative analysis of a non-cyanide gold leaching technologies implemented in the small-scale mining community of Itogon Benguet against a potential gold recovery method with Free Cyanide decontamination and Sodium Cyanide recovery system. The study evaluates the failed CLINN GEM facility and the successful REVIVE SSMB project, focusing on technology readiness and acceptance, operational efficiency, and community engagement. The results demonstrate that the failure of the CLINN GEM facility was attributed to its low community acceptance, high operating costs, and complexity, hindering its practicality and scalability. In contrast, the REVIVE SSMB project achieved exceptional results through an alternative gold ore leaching process using Cyanidation CIP method, driven by strong community engagement, cost-effectiveness, sustainable wastewater/tailings discharge management system and simplified operation approach even for the recovery of gold from complex and low-grade Au ore from the locality. For a viability assessment, a stochastic model for the technology feasibility and project optional valuation under diverse uncertainty consideration for community adoption and expansion presentable to potential investors or for the option right to accept and manage the technology as demonstrated. This research simulated the viability of the REVIVE SSMB approach with a high predictability using Monte Carlo Model through Real Option Analysis; and under the worst-case scenario at 50th percentile (median) 74.53% recovery was achieved. Repeatedly with a similar 50th percentile simulation under an optimized condition with pulp density of 44- 50% and 3kg per ton of activated carbon loading during flotation yielded a gold recovery of 91%. Hence, it is arguably viable, coupling with the 98 to 99% free cyanide decontamination rate and the 55% NaCN recovery successful discharge management system under the REVIVE SSMB 6 months project model.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Edike et al. (2024) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: