The Southern African Institute of Mining and Metallurgy - 14aug11

Percolation Leaching: The status globally and in Southern Africa 2011

Matthew Stewart, Daniel Kappes

SART for Copper Control in Cyanide Heap Leaching

Matthew Stewart
Daniel Kappes
Kappes, Cassiday & Associates
14 August 2011

ABSTRACT
Copper cyanide is a common component of cyanide-treatable precious metal ores.
Copper level in production heaps can be predicted from laboratory column tests, but the
exact correlation is not necessarily intuitive. Generally heap leach operators like to keep
copper levels in solution below 300-500 ppm and may note problems with gold
recovery and cyanide consumption when copper concentrations exceed this amount.
There are several methods of copper removal from cyanide solutions including ionexchange; direct electrowinning; Acidification, Volatilization and Recovery AVR); and
sulfide precipitation such as the Sulfidization, Acidification, Recycling, and Thickening
process (SART). SART involves acidification with addition of soluble sulfide,
separation of the resulting copper sulfide precipitate, and addition of lime to reestablish
alkalinity prior to returning the solution to the leaching process, recovering both copper
and cyanide as valuable products. In principle SART is very simple. Yet some SART
plants which have been built may have been unnecessarily complex. This paper
explores the basics of SART and makes the case for a simple plant design as applied to
the heap leaching circuit.
1.

Introduction

Many current precious-metal heap leach operations do not require control of copper in
the leach solution. Historically many copper-laden precious metal deposits were
dismissed as economically and technically unattractive but with the significant increase
in precious metal prices in recent years, it is now more common to consider such
deposits. Consequently, there are now several projects which have installed systems to
control copper levels in the cyanide leach process. The most common of these is the
SART process. Without SART or some other system of copper removal, field process
solutions will stabilize at substantially higher copper content than laboratory tests
would indicate, leading to a variety of economic issues.

Page 1

The Southern African Institute of Mining and Metallurgy - 14aug11

Percolation Leaching: The status globally and in Southern Africa 2011
Matthew Stewart, Daniel Kappes

2.

Issues with Copper in Precious Metal Ores

The presence of cyanide-leachable copper in a large enough amount in a gold-bearing

ore can be significantly detrimental to the economics of a gold project for several
reasons:
-

Copper, when dissolved with adequate free cyanide at the typical heapleach/mill operating pH of 10-11, predominantly forms the Cu(CN)32- complex,
and will bind at least 2.3 kg of sodium cyanide for every kg Cu leached. This
use of cyanide reduces gold leaching rate and represents a significant
consumption and inventory of cyanide in the leach circuit. The strategy of
using a very low level of free cyanide may result in selective leaching of gold
from some ores. However, if free cyanide is low enough or non-existent, the
Cu(CN)2- complex or insoluble CuCN may form, and gold may not leach at all.

Copper affects accurate free/ or gold leachable cyanide concentration analysis,

complicating accurate cyanide dosing and cyanide control.

Copper competes with gold for adsorption on activated carbon in the normal
adsorption/stripping circuit, particularly at low cyanide concentrations relative
to copper (e.g. CN/Cu ratios of <4) [Fleming and Nicol 1984]. This can
effectively reduce the gold loading capacity of the carbon, increasing the plant
size and carbon inventory and thus the cost of the adsorption circuit.

Copper-loaded carbon can also result in significant copper reporting to dor bars
along with gold and silver, increasing refining costs.

The copper-bound cyanide inventory in the heap can create environmental

issues with heap closure that may require more extensive washing and possibly
even cyanide destruction treatment, adding significant back-end cost to the
project.

Nearly all copper oxide minerals show significant solubility in cyanide [Marsden and
House 1992, Hedley and Tabachnick 1958]. Many sulfide copper minerals also show
significant solubility, although less so than with the oxides. The overall cyanide soluble
copper fraction of a particular ore is best estimated through bottle roll and/or column
test work, as the exact mineralogical composition cannot be conveniently determined.
In an operating cyanide heap leach, copper slowly leaches from old ore on the heap, and
unchecked can build up in solution to levels that begin to affect gold recovery and
cyanide consumption, in turn affecting project economics. While each operation varies,
a good general guideline is that if lab work indicates that field process solutions will
stabilize higher than 500 ppm copper, gold recovery might be affected and copper
control should be considered. Without some form of copper removal or treatment, the
copper concentration in a typical heap leach process solution (grams copper per litre) as
a rule of thumb will build up to between three and six times the amount of leached
copper (in grams per tonne ore) as determined in long-term laboratory column leach
tests. This means that low-grade gold ores (especially those below 1 g/tonne Au)
showing as little as 100 g/tonne leachable copper might be in need of copper treatment.
Page 2

The Southern African Institute of Mining and Metallurgy - 14aug11

Percolation Leaching: The status globally and in Southern Africa 2011
Matthew Stewart, Daniel Kappes

The problem of slow continuing copper leaching is compounded when multiple lifts are
placed on the heap (as is usually the case). Lower lifts contribute to the copper load and
consume free cyanide. It is possible to install impermeable liners on top of old lifts, but
this is expensive, technically difficult, and usually results in reduced overall gold
recovery.
The additional cost of cyanide (assuming $2.50/kg) attributed to dissolving copper (at
an average 2.5 kg NaCN/kg Cu) at a level of 200 ppm, for example, would be $1.25 per
tonne ore. To look at this another way, if this 200 ppm cyanide-leachable copper was
present in an ore with a recovery of 0.5 g/tonne gold, the cash-cost of the copper-bound
cyanide consumption alone would be $78/oz Au (it takes about 62 tonnes of ore to
produce one ounce of gold at this recovery).
This illustrated cost does not include the cost of cyanide destruction, which if no
copper/cyanide recovery treatment is proposed, may be required for some projects at
high copper concentrations. As a rule of thumb the cost of cyanide destruction is
roughly equal to the cost of purchased cyanide, so the above costs would effectively be
doubled if cyanide destruction is required.
For proper heap design for cyanide leaching of copper-bearing gold ores, it is necessary
to run long term column tests (60 to 180 days) at two or three different cyanide and/or
pH levels. The relationships between gold-silver-copper recoveries, cyanide levels, and
leach times will be different for each ore body. Since gold-copper types of ore bodies
tend to be emplaced in large acidic volcanic systems, ore characteristics can be variable
and more than one sample may need to be tested. It is important that the test program
be comprehensive and defined early in the project evaluation process.
3.

General Methods of Copper Removal from Cyanide Solutions

Several methods have been proposed to treat copper in precious metal cyanide
solutions, detailed descriptions of which can be found elsewhere [Marsden and House
1992, Botz and Acar, MacPhail and Fleming 1998, Fleming 1995, Barter 2001, Ford
2008, Guzman, Briggs and Kidby 1990]. Some of the more established or piloted
methods include the Acidification-Volatilization-Recovery (AVR) method,
electrowinning, and sulfide precipitation (e.g. MNR and SART). Ion-exchange
processes (e.g. AuGMENT and Vitrokele) can be used as pre-concentration steps in
combination with these recovery methods. Table 1 below provides a brief description
of these processes.

Page 3

The Southern African Institute of Mining and Metallurgy - 14aug11

Percolation Leaching: The status globally and in Southern Africa 2011
Matthew Stewart, Daniel Kappes

Table 1. Some piloted or established methods of recovering copper and/or cyanide

from copper cyanide streams.
ProcessName

Stateof
Technology

ProcessDescription
InfluentisacidifiedtopH<2inaerationtowertodissociatefree,WAD,andstrongcyanide
complexestometalionsandliberategaseousHCN;HCNrecoveredasconcentratedNaCNin
adsorptiontowerbycontactwithcaustic/lime;Metalionsremovedashydroxideprecipitates.

AVR(Acidification,
Volatilization,
Recovery)

Commercial

Pros:Cantreatsolutions orpulps(Cyanisorb);Recoversconcentratedcyanide,amenabletoboth
millandheapleachmakeup;Removesmetalsfromsolution,includingspecifictoxicssuchas
arsenic,antimony, andalsosolublesulfurspecies.
Cons:Relativelyhighcapitalcosts,potentialissueswithgypsum scalinginadsorptiontower;
InfluentacidifiedtopH<3toremoveCuasCuCN.CuCNfilteredandcollected,HCN
regeneratedasNaCNbyaddinglimeorcaustic.

Acidification,Copper
CyanidePrecipitation

Piloted

Pros:Simple;highcopperremovalispossible;partialcyaniderecovered.
Cons: CuCNdifficulttodewater/filter, andproductlikelydifficulttosell;maximum possibleCN
recoveryonly about65%;acidandLime/causticconsumptionhigh.

SulfidePrecipitation:
1)MNRProcess
2)SART(Sulfidation, Commercial
Acidification,
Recycling,Thickening).

Influentstreatedwithacidandchemicalsulphidetoprecipitatecoppersulphide,followedby1)
DirectfiltrationorcollectionofprecipitateinMNR processor2)thickeningandthenfiltration
ofprecipitateinSART.Inbothprocesses,theeffluentisreactedwith limeorcausticto
regeneratecyanide.
Pros:SARTdemonstratedcommercially,simpleprocess,relativelylowcapitalandoperating
costs;Recoverscopperandalsosilver(ifpresent)asasalableproduct,andalsorecovers
cyanide(>95% ispossible).Effluentcanbereturneddirectlytoheapleachingprocess.
Cons: Canonlytreatcleansolutions;NaSHreagentfairlyexpensive.Copperproductmay
havevariablevaluedependingonpurity andcompositionassulfideioncanprecipitateother
metals(e.g.Zn,Pb)andcontainlessdesirableanions(e.g.CN,SCN).
DuPontprocess copperbearingsolutionelectrowonindividedcelltoproduce coppermetal
andliberatefreecyanideatthecathode;ionselectivemembranepreventsCNoxidationat
anode

Electrowinning

Piloted

Pros:Simpleprocess;copperisrecoveredashighvaluemetalandcyanideisrecovered.
Cons: Poorefficiencyatlowmetalconcentrations,thereforeapplicabilityislimitedformost
heapleachsolutionswithoutapreconcentrationstep. Forhighextractionratesofcopper
typicallyasecondaryscavengingprocessforcopper isrequired.

IonExchange
1)AuGMENT, Piloted
2)Vitrokele

Preconcentration processesforcopper adsorptionofWAD/freecyanidesontostrongbase

resinforpreconcentrationofcoppercyanide,followedbyelutionandmetalrecovery;1)
AuGMENTusescommercially availableresinwithacombinationofAVRandElectrowinning
processtorecover copperandcyanide;2)Vitrokeleusesaproprietaryresinin combinationwith
AVR(andMNR/SART isfeasible)
Pros:1)highvaluecopperproduct,plusCNrecovered,bothathighrecoveryrates;2)metaland
cyanidecanberecoveredathighrates,although metalsmay notbesalableviaAVR
Cons: 1,2)relativelycomplexprocesses,relatedtocomplexelutionregenerationprofiles
requiredforcosteffectiveoperation

Of the above processes, SART is most commonly encountered in operations, and will
be discussed in the following sections.

Page 4

The Southern African Institute of Mining and Metallurgy - 14aug11

Percolation Leaching: The status globally and in Southern Africa 2011
Matthew Stewart, Daniel Kappes

4.

SART Process for Copper Removal

4.1.

General Process

The SART process recovers copper (and other metals such as silver and zinc) as a
sulfide precipitate, separates the precipitate from solution, and recovers cyanide through
re-neutralization of the effluent. The neutralized solution is recycled to the leaching
process.
SART process chemistry is in essence simple and is summarized by the following
reactions:
Sulfidation and Acidification:
2 Cu(CN)32-(aq) + S2-(aq) Cu2S(s) + 6 CN-(aq)

significantly complete at a pH < 5.0

Neutralization:
2 HCN(aq) + Ca(OH)2 Ca(CN)2(aq) + 2H2O
The conventional SART process flowsheet is presented in Figure 1. It is thought by the
authors that this traditional approach has resulted in the construction of some SART
plants which may have been more complex or expensive than is necessary. The SART
LITE flowsheet is presented as a possible alternative to the conventional SART circuit
in Figure 2. The properly engineered flowsheet needs to fit each specific project so it is
recognized that some combination of the two flowsheets might be appropriate in some
cases.
Vent to
Atmosphere

Solution
from Heap
H2SO4

Lime

NaSH

Lime

Reactors and Cu2S Thickener Ventilation to Scrubber

Flocculant

Flocculant

Copper
Reactor

Neutralization
Reactor

Gypsum Thickener

Copper Sulfide Thickener

Thickener Underflow Recycle

Gypsum
Pond/Disposal

Filter Feed
Tank

Filtrate

Cu2 SFilter

Cu2StoDrying(Optional)
andPackaging

SART Effluent
Recycle to Heap

Figure 1. Conventional SART Process Flowsheet.

Page 5

HCN,
H2 S
Gas
Scrubber

The Southern African Institute of Mining and Metallurgy - 14aug11

Percolation Leaching: The status globally and in Southern Africa 2011
Matthew Stewart, Daniel Kappes
Vent to
Atmosphere

Solution
from Heap
H2SO4

NaOH

NaSH

HCN,
H2S

Ventilation to Scrubber

Gas
Scrubber

Flocculant

Lime

Copper Reaction Section

Cu 2S
Thickener

Flocculant
Re-Neutralization Section

NaOH

Filtrate

Effluent to Barren
Pond

Cu2SFilter
Cu2StoDrying(Optional)
andPackaging

Figure 2. Modified SART LITE Process Flowsheet.

4.2.

SART Plant Unit Operations

This section will examine some aspects of SART plant design and suggest areas where
the design might be simplified and the capital costs reduced. Where equipment design
or flow rate examples are used for illustration, we use the basis of a 20000 tonne/day
heap leach containing 200 ppm copper cyanide and 100 ppm free cyanide, treated 100%
through SART.
Copper Reactor.
Heap leach solution is typically at a pH of 9.5-11.0. Incoming solution is reacted in a
tank to which sulphuric acid is added to maintain a pH of 4.0 to 4.5. NaSH is added to
precipitate copper mostly as chalcocite (Cu2S). The stoichiometric requirement for
NaSH is 0.44 kg NaSH/kg Cu in the effluent (or 0.09 kg NaSH per m3 in our example).
Typically a slight excess of NaSH is applied to account for other consumers (e.g. silver,
oxygen, zinc). Under controlled conditions typical for the SART process gold will not
precipitate, but a large percentage of silver will co-precipitate as silver sulfide with the
copper sulfide.
Lab tests were run to evaluate the copper reactor activities and indicated the
following:
- It does not seem to matter to the reaction or to the physical nature of the
precipitate if the NaSH is added to an alkaline solution which is then acidified,
or vice versa;
- With effective mixing, the reactions take place within a few seconds once the
appropriate pH is achieved.
- NaSH reagent is expensive and excess NaSH reacts with cyanide, so the best
practice is to use about 95% of the required NaSH and accept a small amount of
copper recycle to process.
Page 6

The Southern African Institute of Mining and Metallurgy - 14aug11

Percolation Leaching: The status globally and in Southern Africa 2011
Matthew Stewart, Daniel Kappes

More dilute Cu feeds produce more finely divided precipitate with poorer
settling properties.

In the SART LITE flowsheet, the copper reaction tank has been eliminated. The
reactions can take place in the pipe between the process feed pump and the copper
thickener, where the large volume of solution will serve to smooth out any
concentration gradients.
Copper Sulfide Thickener.
The copper sulfide formed is very fine and forms very quickly. Recycle of seed
crystals does not appear to result in larger crystal growth. Recycle of thickener sludge
along with flocculent and/or coagulant addition does result in the formation of flocs
which settle at least ten times the rate of the unconditioned raw precipitate at dilute
copper concentrations (e.g. <200 ppm Cu). The settling issue of unconditioned raw
precipitate, and thus the need for recycle and proper flocculent addition, becomes
increasingly significant with decreasing Cu concentration in the feed. In general,
underflow recycle and flocculent addition are critical design features necessary for
economical thickener design.
The operating conditions of the copper sulfide thickener are different from those of a
typical mineral plant thickener where ore slurries are thickened. In the SART copper
sulfide thickener, the slurry contains only 0.1 to 1.0% solids (including the recycled
copper sludge). The incoming stream can be introduced above the settled bed, and
separates quickly from the densified solids. A small-diameter, tall thickener (high
density thickener) will likely be more economic than a traditional thickener, and a
design based on de-entrainment to create a thin clear overflow will be more economical
than a traditional design based on solids settling velocity. This is important because
this thickener must be constructed of corrosion-resistant materials, and must be covered
to capture HCN. The deep cone of a high rate thickener is also important for inventory
control and densification of the small amount of copper sulfide produced.
Therefore in the SART LITE flowsheet we have replaced the conventional thickener
with a small diameter, high-density thickener.
Copper Sulfide Neutralization.
A relatively small volume of copper sulfide slurry comes from the bottom of the
thickener about 6 - 7 m3 per day of a 40% solids slurry from a heap leach processing
20,000 tonnes of ore per day, for example. The slurry should be conditioned (made
alkaline to pH 10) with the addition of lime or caustic on its way to the product filters.
This is an important step since there is always free or combined cyanide in the
precipitate, and filter operations usually result in discharge of air as the cake is dried. If
the cake was left acidic, the air would contain dangerously high levels of HCN. The
neutralization reaction is rapid and can be done in the pipe leading from the thickeners
to the filters. NaOH is the preferred neutralization reagent, since lime would introduce
a sulfate precipitate, thus lowering the value of the concentrate. There is no need for a
separate filter feed tank, since the thickeners provide a large reservoir of thickened
sulfide pulp.

Page 7

The Southern African Institute of Mining and Metallurgy - 14aug11

Percolation Leaching: The status globally and in Southern Africa 2011
Matthew Stewart, Daniel Kappes

Lime Neutralization Reactor.

In the traditional SART circuit, a stirred tank is included in which lime is added to the
acidic copper-free solution. This is a traditional mineral industry approach, but a tank
may not be needed in all cases. Modern in-line pH controls and peristaltic metering
pumps permit accurate addition and mixing to ensure the slurry is at a pH of 10.5 or
higher. The reaction is rapid and can be done in a pipeline. Therefore in the SART
LITE flowsheet we have eliminated this tank. In our example about 0.50 kg lime per m3
is required for neutralization.
Gypsum Thickener.
In traditional SART plants a gypsum thickener is included in the flowsheet to account
for the fact that some gypsum may form during the neutralization process (as both
calcium and sulphate ions are introduced by acid and lime additions). The gypsum
thickener has been eliminated from the SART LITE flowsheet, and although it may be
appropriate to include in some flowsheets, its inclusion should not be automatically
assumed. The level of lime added following copper recovery is not enough to create a
saturated solution of gypsum. While in most cases the solutions are already saturated,
the gypsum supersaturates very easily and comes out of solution very slowly. One
question to ask is: will enough of the gypsum behave itself and stay in the thickener,
or does the thickener simply provide a random place where some of the gypsum
collects? A more appropriate place to collect gypsum may be in the pregnant or barren
ponds, where it has time to crystallize and settle. The ponds are normally quite large
and the volume of gypsum created over several years of operation can be collected there
without a significant pond capacity increase.
Flowsheets which may permit elimination of the gypsum thickener include:
a) Intercept pregnant solution off the heap in a tank, process this solution through
SART, and discharge to the pregnant pond. Gypsum will settle out along with the
normal sludge which collects in the pond, and the clear solution can be processed
through carbon columns (or Merrill Crowe) as usual for gold extraction;
b) Process pregnant solution via SART on its way to the carbon columns, use antiscalant in large enough dosages to prevent gypsum precipitation onto the carbon;
c) Process barren solution after carbon columns via SART and use the barren pond as
the settling reservoir for the gypsum;
and, the most interesting but (so far) least evaluated d) Process pregnant solution through SART, but leave it acidic as it goes through the
carbon columns. Then raise the solution pH to the alkaline side and discharge it to the
barren pond. Carbon gold loading is known to be significantly higher in acidic than in
alkaline solutions. Additional research is needed to validate the overall practical
loading/stripping process in such a condition.

Page 8

The Southern African Institute of Mining and Metallurgy - 14aug11

Percolation Leaching: The status globally and in Southern Africa 2011
Matthew Stewart, Daniel Kappes

Gas Scrubbing & Plant Safety.

Both SART and SART LITE contain a gas scrubber. It is a common misconception
that HCN will rapidly gas out of an acidified cyanide solution, but in fact hydrogen
cyanide is infinitely soluble in water. Therefore, the tank vent system and the scrubber
need to be designed only to ensure a slight negative pressure in the appropriate vessels.
In the case of SART the scrubber is venting two reaction tanks and one thickener,
whereas in SART LITE it is venting only the (smaller diameter) thickener. With proper
design of the thickener, the volume of exhaust air needed for scrubbing HCN is very
small (probably 200 CFM, or 400 cu m/hr). A small vent fan and small packed
scrubber (1800 mm diameter, 5000 mm high) will provide adequate security for our
example SART LITE plant.
It is important to not trivialize the dangers posed by an acidified cyanide solution.
Regardless of the amount of ventilation, enclosed freeboard spaces in all vessels should
be considered very hazardous. The plant (or the operators) should be fitted with HCN
monitors with alarms, and procedures for loss-of-power events and maintenance events
need to be rigorously designed and implemented.
Control of Reagent Feeds.
The major areas of chemical control within the SART plant are:
- pH reduction from alkaline conditions to acidic using sulphuric acid. The operating
pH range is 4.0-4.5. Excursions above this range reduce copper precipitation, and
excursions below this range can increase precipitation of gold and form undesirable
copper precipitates such as CuCN and CuSCN.
- Copper precipitation with NaSH. Control of this reagent is very important. NaSH is
expensive, and excess NaSH will consume free cyanide to form thiocyanate. The best
control philosophy seems to be to use a slight deficiency of NaSH so the discharge of
the SART plant still contains a minor amount of copper. Commercial instantaneous online analyzers for copper (including cuprous ion) are limited. Fortunately, in most heap
leach solutions the copper concentration fed to SART will be fairly consistent as it is
averaged over a large volume of solution, so off-line analysis of Cu for NaSH control
maybe is satisfactory in some of these cases.
- pH adjustment to alkaline upon solution discharge using lime. The only important
consideration in this control is to achieve a pH above 10.5 to fix the regenerated
cyanide.
- Flocculent and de-scalant usage. Flocculent will be used in the copper sulfide
thickener, and de-scalant may be used at more than one point in the process. These can
be evaluated in the lab prior to plant design, but the final use will be determined once
the plant is in operation.
- Sodium hydroxide for neutralizing copper sulfide precipitate at a pH of about 10. This
control is mainly for safety purposes. Residual cyanide in the copper sulfide sludge fed
to the filter presses is very small and will cause minimal if any re-dissolution of copper.

Page 9

The Southern African Institute of Mining and Metallurgy - 14aug11

Percolation Leaching: The status globally and in Southern Africa 2011
Matthew Stewart, Daniel Kappes

- Sodium hydroxide for HCN gas scrubbing.

5.

SART Plant Economics

5.1.

SART Estimated Operating Costs

For illustrative purposes, a breakdown of SART plant operating costs is provided

below. In this example the design is based on an arbitrary 20000 m3/day influent (833
m3/hr) containing 200 ppm Cu and 100 ppm free NaCN, which is the same basis for
which the design considerations in Section 4 were treated (i.e. a medium sized heap
leach of 20000 tonnes/day containing 200 g Cu/tonne ore leached, treated 100%
through the SART circuit).

SARTPlantEstimatedOperatingCosts
Labor,9%
OtherReagents/
Consumables,2.7%

Maintenance&
Spares,9%

SulfuricAcid,16%

Power,13%
NaSH,27%
Caustic,7%
Lime,17%

Basis:

TotalOperatingCost/m3:

1000 cu.m./hrfeed
200ppmCuinfeed
100ppmfreeNaCNinfeed

$0.45

Figure 3. Breakdown estimate of SART Plant Operating Costs.

Reagent costs used are $1.00/kg NaSH, $0.125/kg acid, and $0.15/kg lime, assuming
average transportation costs (i.e. reasonably good access to site). Power cost assumed
$0.10/kWh. Labor costs reflect a fairly high amount of plant automation (automatic
control of reagents and flows) and thus minimal staffing.
As shown in Figure 3, total cost of the SART treatment in our example is US$0.45 per
m3. At 200 ppm copper recovered, (200 grams Cu / m3), the plant breaks even at a net
realization cost (for copper in the precip) of about US$3.60 per kg copper (which
includes a $1/kg transport-smelting-refining charge for the Cu) with no credit given to
cyanide recovery.

Page 10

The Southern African Institute of Mining and Metallurgy - 14aug11

Percolation Leaching: The status globally and in Southern Africa 2011
Matthew Stewart, Daniel Kappes

In terms of cyanide saved, at a price of $2.50/kg NaCN, the plant in our example needs
only to recover about 50% of the influent copper-bound cyanide to cover operating
costs. A properly designed SART plant should routinely recover 80-95% of copperbound cyanide.
With high prices for copper ($7/kg assumed in this case) and costs for cyanide in recent
times, a SART plant may actually be an ancillary profit center for a project.
Table 2 illustrates the potential savings/benefits of SART in different terms of cash-cost
of Au produced, at different copper grades at a gold grade of 0.5 g/tonne on a recovered
basis, using the same assumptions as above (for a 1 g/tonne Au grade the costs would
simply be halved).
Table 2. Estimated credit through SART in terms of cash-cost of Au produced.
RecoveredGold RecoveredCopper
(g/tonne)
(g/tonne)
100
0.5
200
500

SARTOperating
CostPlusTSR*
(perounceAu)
$26
$40
$80

CyanideSavings** CopperRevenue
(perounceAu)
(perounceAu)
$29
$41
$57
$82
$179
$206

NetSARTCredit***
(perounceAu)
$44
$100
$306

*TSRTransport/Smelting/Refiningat$1/kgCu
**Assumes80%cyaniderecoveryinSART
***CreditversusnoSARTtreatmentofore

5.2.

SART Estimated Capital Costs

For illustrative purposes, a breakdown of a SART plant capital costs is also provided.
This breakdown is based on the same general assumptions as for estimating the
operating costs. A 1000 m3/hr plant is assumed. Costing is estimated from a general
equipment list that reflects a standard SART plant design. The costs do not include
any infrastructure requirements such as water, power supply, etc.

Page 11

The Southern African Institute of Mining and Metallurgy - 14aug11

Percolation Leaching: The status globally and in Southern Africa 2011
Matthew Stewart, Daniel Kappes

SARTPlantEstimatedCapitalCosts
HCNScrubbingSystem
2.7%

Reagents&Utilities,
9%

CopperReactorStage,
15%
GypsumThickening,
19%

NeutralizationReactor
Stage,7%

CopperThickening,
39%

CopperFiltration,8%

Basison %oftotalmechanicalequipmentcost(tanks,pumps,
drives,blowers,etc.)

Figure 4. Breakdown estimate of SART plant capital costs.

As can be seen from Figure 4, almost 40% of the total mechanical equipment cost
comes from the copper thickener alone (tank, rake, associated pumps and equipment),
and about 60% of the total cost is from the two thickeners together. This points out that
proper copper thickener design and careful consideration to gypsum disposition (e.g.
determining if the gypsum thickener is even necessary) are keys to optimizing the plant
cost.
When considering the traditional SART flowsheet, an installed turnkey SART plant at
the 1000 m3/hr size might be expected to cost somewhere between $750 and $1500 per
daily m3 treated. A SART LITE plant would cost about 65% of a traditional SART
plant. It might not be possible to incorporate all the cost savings of a SART LITE
plant, of course, but keeping an open mind to a value-oriented engineering approach
to the design could in some cases result in a better overall project than to simply follow
the conventional approach.
REFERENCES
Barter, J. Cyanide Management by SART. Cyanide: Social, Industrial and Economic
Aspects, TMS 2001.
Botz, M., Acar, S. Copper Precipitation and Cyanide Recovery Pilot Testing for
Newmont Yanacocha Project. SME Preprint 07-036 Littleton, CO.
Botz, M., Parodi, G. Removal of Copper from Cyanide Leach Solutions. Copper
Hydromet Roundtable, 1997, pp217-219.

Page 12

The Southern African Institute of Mining and Metallurgy - 14aug11

Percolation Leaching: The status globally and in Southern Africa 2011
Matthew Stewart, Daniel Kappes

Briggs, A. and Kidby, D. (1990). Cyanide recovery using Vitrokele technology:

projected economic analysis. Randol Gold Forum 90, Squaw Valley,1990 pp. 325-328
Dai, X, Breuer, P. Modeling the equilibrium loading of gold onto activated carbon from
complex cyanide solutions. Journal of Min.&Metall. Proc., Vol 27, No. 4, Nov 2010
Dai, X. A mechanistic model of the equilibrium adsorption of copper cyanide species
onto activated carbon. Hydrometallurgy, vol 101, 2010 pp99-107.
Davidson, R.J. The use of activated carbon for the recovery of gold and silver from
gold-plant solutions. J. S. Afr.Inst.Min.Metal., vol.79, no.10. 1979 pp281-297.
Fleming, C., Nicol, M. The adsorption of gold cyanide onto activated carbon. III.
Factors influencing the rate of loading and the equilibrium capacity. J. S.
Afr.Inst.Min.Metal., vol.84, no.4. 1984 pp85-93.
Fleming, C. A., Grot, W. G., and Thorpe, J. A. Hydrometallurgical extraction process,
United States Patent 5,411,575, 1995
Ford, K., et al, Paper 36: Application of the SART Process to heap leaching of goldcopper ores at Maricunga, Chile presented at the 40th Annual Meeting of the Canadian
Mineral Processors, 2008.
Guzman, G. SART/AVR Circuit Design and Operation at Yanacocha Gold Mill.
(www.yanacocha.com)
Hedley, N., Tabachnick H. Chemistry of cyanidation. Mineral Dressing Notes 23, New
York: American Cyanamid Company 1958.
H. Krienbhl, J. Kleimann. Determination of sulfide in mining leachates. Metrohm AG
http://products.metrohm.com
Kappes, D. Precious Metal Heap Leach Design and Practice. www.kcareno.com
MacPhail, P., Fleming, C. Cyanide Recovery by the SART Process for the Lobo-Marte
Project, Chile. Randol Gold and Silver Forum 1998.
Marsden, J., House, I. The Chemistry of Gold Extraction. Ellis Horwood Ltd.,
Chicheseter, England, 2005.

Page 13