See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/43523662

The Treatment of the Carmack’s Copper-Gold Ore by Acid Leaching and

Cyanide Leaching with SART Recovery of Copper and Cyanide from Barren
Cyanide Solution

Article · January 2008

Source: OAI

CITATIONS READS

8 788

5 authors, including:

Bé Wassink Jianming Lu
University of British Columbia - Vancouver University of British Columbia - Vancouver
29 PUBLICATIONS 451 CITATIONS 36 PUBLICATIONS 674 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

James Vaughan David Bruce Dreisinger

The University of Queensland University of British Columbia - Vancouver
114 PUBLICATIONS 1,294 CITATIONS 258 PUBLICATIONS 5,924 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Mercury in the Bayer process View project

Processing of high silica bauxite View project

All content following this page was uploaded by James Vaughan on 20 June 2016.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 TREATMENT OF THE CARMACKS COPPER-GOLD ORE BY ACID LEACHING AND CYANIDE
LEACHING WITH SART RECOVERY OF COPPER AND CYANIDE FROM BARREN CYANIDE
SOLUTION

David Dreisinger1, James Vaughan1, Jianming Lu1, Berend Wassink1 and Paul West-Sells2

1
Univ. of British Columbia, Dept. of Materials Eng., 309-6350 Stores Road, Vancouver, B.C., Canada, V6T 1Z4
2
Western Copper Corporation, 2050-1111 West Georgia Street, Vancouver, B.C., Canada V6E 4M3

ABSTRACT
Western Copper’s Carmacks copper-gold deposit in the Yukon Territory, Canada contains copper and gold values.
The copper mineralization is oxidized and acid soluble, and the gold is free milling and may be extracted by
cyanidation. The current treatment plan is to recover the copper by heap leaching, and SX/EW. The challenge of this
deposit is to be able to economically extract the remaining gold. In this work, a series of tests were conducted to
process a mineral sample for copper extraction by acid column leaching followed by cyanidation for gold extraction.
The barren gold solution was then treated by the SART process (sulfidization, acidification, recycle, thickening) for
copper recovery as copper sulfide and cyanide recycle. The results of this work were very encouraging with 65%
direct copper extraction with acid and 76-82% Au extraction from the copper leach residue by cyanidation.
Approximately 21-27% of the copper was co-extracted in cyanidation. SART treatment of the cyanide solution (after
carbon adsorption) recovered greater than 95% of the copper as a synthetic copper sulfide precipitate. Additionally, a
significant portion of the molybdenum in the ore also leached and was precipitated in the SART process. After
filtration and re-neutralization, the recovered cyanide solution was suitable for recycle.

INTRODUCTION
The Carmacks copper-gold deposit contains acid soluble copper mineralization and cyanide leachable gold. One
potential flowsheet for treating the mineralization at Carmacks begins with acid heap leaching followed by SX-EW
recovery of copper. The acid heap leach residue is then neutralized and leached with cyanide. The cyanide heap
leaching process will inevitably lead to additional copper extraction. For example, the reaction between copper oxide
and cyanide can be represented as;

2CuO + 7NaCN + H 2 O = 2Na 2 Cu(CN) 3 + 2NaOH + NaCNO (1)

The reaction between residual copper oxide and sodium cyanide leads to soluble copper-cyanide species and some
cyanide degradation products such as sodium cyanate. The cost of the cyanide consumed in this process is significant
and the potential value of the copper, if it could be recovered, would also be significant.
SART (Sulfidization, Acidification, Recycling, Thickening) is a process that uses a source of sulfide ion to
precipitate copper as copper sulfide and converts the bound cyanide to free cyanide for recycle (MacPhail et al 1998,
Barter et al, 2001).
The SART process has basically two chemical steps – sulfidization/acidification and re-neutralization. The re-
neutralization may be performed directly on the acidified solution (after copper sulfide filtration) or may be linked to a
volatilization step. In either case, the chemistry of re-neutralization is identical.

Step 1. Acidification in the presence of NaSH

For Copper

2 Na 2 Cu (CN ) 3 + 2.5 H 2 SO4 + NaSH → Cu 2 S ( s ) + 2.5 Na 2 SO4 + 6 HCN ( aq ) (2)

For Free Cyanide

NaCN + 0.5 H 2 SO4 → 0.5 Na 2 SO4 + HCN ( aq ) (3)

Step 2a. Re-neutralization

HCN ( aq ) + NaOH ( aq ) → NaCN ( aq ) + H 2 O (4)

Step 2b. Volatilization/Re-neutralization

Volatilization
 HCN ( aq ) ⎯⎯→ HCN ( g )
air
(5)

Re-neutralization

HCN ( g ) + NaOH ( aq ) → NaCN ( aq ) + H 2O (6)

The copper sulfide product is thickened and recovered as a saleable product while the cyanide (NaCN) is recycled
to the gold leach operation. Figure 1 illustrates the complete flowsheet for recovery of copper and gold from the
Carmacks ore.
The purpose of this study was to investigate the extraction of copper and gold from the Carmacks mineralization
and to test the recovery of copper and recycle of cyanide using the SART process.

Carmacks Cu-Au Ore

Acid Copper
Acid Heap Leaching Cu SX-EW
Cathode

Water
Heap Washing

Cyanide and Lime Cyanide Heap Gold

Carbon In Solution
Leaching

Recycle Bleed
Cyanide Solution

Sulfide, Acid SART Copper Copper Sulfide Precipitate

and Base Recovery

Figure 1. Simplified Block Flowsheet for Carmacks Copper and Gold Recovery by Acid Heap Leaching, Cyanide
Heap Leaching and SART

EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

The experimental program was carried out in three distinct phases. First, a sample of Carmacks mineralization
was subjected to acid column leaching. Second, the acid leached material was cyanide leached. Third, solutions from
cyanide leaching were treated by SART. This SART testing was also extended to synthetic solutions and to solutions
generated at a separate lab where Western Copper was also conducting testwork on the cyanide leaching of various
samples.

Acid Leaching of the Carmacks Sample

Carmacks ore was received in a 20 L pail. Ore was poured into a cone and flattened. This was split in half. One
half was further split into ~2/3 + 1/3. The 2/3 portion (8.55 kg) was again poured into a cone and flattened and split in
half. One half was further cut in two. One half + 1/4 was combined and used for leaching. The ore sample for leaching
was 6.45 kg. The remainder was sent for assay (2.1 kg). The ore was leached using up-flow of solution in a 4 inch
column. Table 1 below summarizes the particle size of the ore sample leached. The P80 of the ore was approximately
0.65 inches.
The ore was leached at pH 1.2 and 15 L/ m2/hr using an “upflow” column arrangement. An “upflow” column
arrangement was used to rapidly leach the ore without significantly altering the particle size as would occur in a bottle
roll test. The leach was stopped after 333 hr. The column was drained by gravity (24 hr). Wash water (9.68 L) was
added at the same flow rate and by upflow. This was cut short (3 d total) as it appeared that insufficient copper had
been leached. A second leach was then started by adding a fresh acid solution (18 L). The total leach solution volume
during the second leach was estimated at 19.7 L. The second leach duration was 282 h. A second wash (with fresh
water) was performed for 5 days. Final leached, washed ore was air dried in a fume hood. Solids sampled for assay by
coning, flattening and taking out a slice. Dried solids were passed on to cyanidation testing.
Table 1. Particle size distribution of the ore sample.

Tyler Retained Cumulative

mesh % % passing
1" 1.1 98.9
3/4" 6.2 92.7
1/2" 28.4 64.3
3/8" 11.6 52.7
1/4" 13 39.7
4 3.7 36.0
6 4.4 31.6
10 10 21.6
20 4.2 17.4
28 3.9 13.5
35 3 10.5
48 3.4 7.1
100 5.6 1.5
150 0.5 1
200 0.4 0.6
270 0.3 0.3
325 0.1 0.2
400 0.1 0.1
-400 0.1

The original ore sample was 0.78% Cu and 0.415 g/t Au. The acid leaching procedure extracted 63% of the
copper to leave a residue of 0.34% Cu, indicating that copper extraction was not complete. The gold assay of the leach
residue was 0.335 g/t. Clearly this is lower than the feed. The only explanation for this is a “nugget” effect in the
sample as no gold was extracted into solution during the acid leach.

Cyanidation of the Acid Leach Residue

Two cyanidation tests were carried out using a bottle roll apparatus. The cyanidation conditions were either 0.25
or 0.50 g/L NaCN and pH 10.5 (with lime) and a 7 day contact time. A 1200 g sample of washed residue from the acid
copper leaching test was mixed with 2.4 L of solution.

Test 1 (0.25 g/L NaCN) yielded 76% Au extraction, 21.8% Cu extraction and addition of 1.99 kg/t of NaCN and
7.45 kg/t CaO.

Test 2 (0.5 g/L NaCN) yielded 81.7% Au extraction, 27.2% Cu extraction and addition of 3.36 kg/t of NaCN and
7.1 kg/t of CaO.

Approximately 2 L of solution was collected from each of Test 1 and Test 2. A volume of 1 L of each solution
was subjected to activated carbon adsorption of gold. A single contact at 4.7 g of carbon per L was affected for 24 h.
The final solution analyses from the cyanidation and carbon adsorption experiments are shown in Table 2. The total
copper in solution ranged from 357 to 426 mg/L after cyanidation. This copper would be expected to be present as
Na2Cu(CN)3 and thus would be a major cause of cyanide consumption. In contrast, levels of iron, nickel and zinc are
all relatively low and would not be significant sources of cyanide consumption. Note that significant cyanate and some
thiocyanate are also present. Cyanate increases slightly through the carbon adsorption process probably due to the
catalytic oxidation of cyanide in the presence of activated carbon. Finally, it should be noted that molybdenum is
leached at high pH in cyanide solutions.
The use of carbon adsorption was reasonably effective at removing gold and silver from solution. Very little
copper was loaded on the carbon during carbon adsorption (1-3.5%).
These solutions were then forwarded to SART testing.

SART Testing of the Solutions from Cyanidation of the Acid Leach Residue
The solutions from the cyanidation of the acid leach residue were treated at various pH’s and stoichiometric
additions of sulfide as Na2S. SART testing was conducted in a 1 L resin kettle with pH and ORP monitoring. Eight
experiments were completed at pH of 4 and 5 with ~ 110 and 120% addition of sulfide for each of the two tests. The
sulfide was added as soluble Na2S and the pH then lowered to the target value using concentrated H2SO4. After 15
minutes of contact, the solid precipitate of copper was recovered from solution and dried, weighed and analyzed. The
filtrate was then treated with NaOH to raise the pH to 11 in order to convert all HCN back to NaCN. Tables 3-4
summarize the main results of the SART testing on cyanide solutions from Carmacks ore leaching. All SART tests
were performed at ambient temperature.
The SART procedure was highly effective at recovery of copper from the cyanide leach solutions with copper
precipitation efficiencies of greater than 97% and in some cases producing final solutions of less than 1 mg/L residual
copper (Table 3). The copper recovery results were all similar for the 110 and 120 % stoichiometric sulfide additions.
The recovery of cyanide from Test 1 solutions (cyanidation at 0.25 g/L NaCN of the acid leach residue) lowered the
net cyanide consumption to the range of 0.41-0.45 kg NaCN/t for SART treatment of the cyanide leach solution. For
SART treatment of the CIS barrens, the net cyanide consumption rose slightly to 0.53-0.54 kg NaCN/t. Comparing the
results for recovery of cyanide from Test 2 solutions (cyanidation at 0.50 g/L NaCN of the acid leach residue), the
cyanide consumptions rose to 0.87-0.90 kg NaCN/t for SART treatment of the cyanide leach solution and 0.98 to 0.99
kg NaCN/t for SART treatment of the CIS barrens. The reproducibility of the net cyanide consumption calculations
was pleasing for the two tests at variable excess sulfide.
The consumption of reagents for SART (in addition to the Na2S added for copper recovery) followed an expected
pattern. The consumption of acid increased with lower pH for SART, higher stoichiometric sulfide addition and with
higher overall NaCN in solution. Acid consumptions were as low as 1.84 kg H2SO4/t acid leached residue for Test 1
CIS barren solutions at 698 mg/L NaCN in solution after SART and 109% stoichiometric sulfide addition at pH 5
(SART test 7) and as high as about 3.3 kg H2SO4/t acid leached residue for Test 2 solutions at pH 4 and high sulfide
addition (SART tests 2 and 6). The NaOH consumption followed a similar pattern with values of 1.3 to 1.4 kg NaOH
per t for the Test 1 solutions and 1.9 to 2.1 kg NaOH per t for the Test 2 solutions.
The copper content of the SART precipitates ranged from 69 to 75% copper (Table 4) compared with pure Cu2S
precipitates with a theoretical analysis of 80% copper. Gold was very slightly precipitated in SART 1-4 experiments
from the cyanide leach solutions giving precipitate concentrations of 3-13 g Au/t. Gold was not detected in precipitates
from SART 5-8 due to prior removal of gold from solutions with CIS treatment. Silver was quantitatively precipitated
under all SART conditions. The results for molybdenum indicate that under all SART conditions, molybdenum was
precipitated, resulting in precipitate levels of around 1% Mo. Presumably this result is due to the sulfidization of
molybdate according to the following reaction. It is also possible that molybdenum is present as a cyanide complex
(Mo(CN)84-).

Na 2 MoO4 + 4 H 2 SO4 + 3 Na S → MoS ( s ) + S + 4 Na 2 SO4 + 4 H O (7)

2 2 2

The co-precipitation of molybdenum with copper under SART conditions may lead to recovery of an important
by-product in the recycle of cyanide from barren cyanide solutions. It is possible that by tailoring the sulfidization
conditions, a separate molybdenum rich precipitate could be recovered. This deserves further investigation.
The precipitation of cobalt, iron and zinc is also noted in the results of Table 4.

SART Testing Using H2S Gas

A further series of experiments were run using hydrogen sulfide as an alternative to sodium sulfide. The purpose
of these tests was to demonstrate that an “on-site” biogenic hydrogen sulfide generator could be used to supply a
source of sulfide for copper recovery and cyanide recycle. Biogenic sulfide has been previously identified as a
potential sulfide source for SART (Adams and Lawrence, 2007).
The experiment set-up is shown in Figure 2 with the sequence of reagent additions shown in Figure 3. The
experiments were performed at room temperature (20 +/- 2 ºC) in a sealed vessel with a slight overpressure maintained
using nitrogen gas. The off-gas from the sulfidization was bubbled at low flow rate through a NaOH scrubber (1 M
NaOH). The sulfide source for these experiments was H2S(g) at 9.9 % H2S by volume with the remainder being N2(g).
The ORP was measured with respect to a Ag/AgCl electrode and prior to each experiment the measured potential was
checked with respect to a solution of known potential. It was noticed that following an experiment the measured ORP
was low with respect to a solution of known ORP. It was found that exposing the probe to a cyanide solution
effectively cleaned the probe returning the reading to what was expected. The pH meter was calibrated at pH 4 and 7.
The solution was purged with N2(g) for 20 minutes prior to the experiment. The sulfide was added first using a
gas syringe. The pH was then adjusted to 4 by the addition of 1 N H2SO4. Solution filtration of cloudy solution was
carried out using Whatman® 42 Ashless Paper filters in a pressure filter. Similarily, the sulfide precipitate was filtered
using a Nyaflo™ nylon membrane filter (0.45 µm). When intermittent samples were taken, Fisherbrand® nylon
syringe filters were employed (0.2 µm). Copper concentration in solution was determined using atomic absorption
spectrometry.
A total of six experiments were performed. Two experiments were performed on synthetic solution and four on
solutions received from a parallel test program on cyanide leaching of acid leach residues conducted by Western
Copper at a local Vancouver laboratory. The results are summarized in Tables 5-6 and Figures 4-6. The removal of
copper from solution was excellent (less than 10 mg/L at pH 4 with sufficient sulfide) in each case and demonstrated
that hydrogen sulfide gas could be substituted for sodium sulfide (or sodium bisulfide) in the SART procedure.
Figures 4 and 5 illustrate the evolution of slurry potential as a function of pH with a list of “regions” of chemical
behaviour, in Table 5. The SART conditions create very reducing potentials due to excess sulfide in solution.
Table 2. Solution Analysis from Cyanidation of the Acid Copper Leach Residue and Carbon-In-Solution (CIS) Tests.

Test Solution Analysis (mg/L)

WAD NaCN CNO NH3 SCN Stot Au Ag Cu
Test 1 CN Leach Solution 558 84 1.09 26 340 0.22 1.21 357
CIS Barren Solution 577 108 4.4 29 330 0.02 <0.01 321
Test 2 CN Leach Solution 927 100 2.89 35 320 0.25 1.51 426
CIS Barren Solution 873 138 3.14 35 310 0.02 <0.01 406
Mo Ca Fe Hg Ni Na Zn
Test 1 CN Leach Solution 5.6 401 4.14 0.3 0.61 230 0.21
CIS Barren Solution 8.66 268.1 <0.03 <0.05 <0.02 350 0.44
Test 2 CN Leach Solution 7.1 307.9 9.07 0.49 0.92 356 0.61
CIS Barren Solution 7.76 226.3 3.9 <0.05 <0.02 567 0.95

Table 3. SART Test Results for Copper and Cyanide. Note that consumptions of NaCN, H2SO4 and NaOH are calculated per tonne of acid leach residue. The [NaCN] total in
solution after SART is used to calculate the net NaCN consumption for the combined cyanide leach and SART procedure (i.e. NaCN added minus NaCN present after SART).

CN
SART Tes CIS pH Na2S Add. [Cu] in [Cu] after Cu [NaCN] (total) Net NaCN H2SO4 NaOH
Test t feed SART removal after SART cons. cons. cons.
(% Stoich,) mg/L mg/L % mg/L kg/t kg/t kg/t
1 1 No 4 118 357 2.85 99.1 731 0.41 2.29 -
2 2 No 4 115 426 4.95 98.7 1140 0.87 3.33 1.99
3 1 No 5 107 357 7.6 97.8 731 0.45 2.20 1.33
4 2 No 5 115 426 6.5 98.4 1121 0.90 3.29 2.09
5 1 Yes 4 119 321 0.62 99.8 690 0.54 2.14 1.44
6 2 Yes 4 111 406 1.2 99.7 1086 0.99 3.37 2.13
7 1 Yes 5 109 321 6.7 97.6 698 0.53 1.84 1.30
8 2 Yes 5 109 406 5.9 98.4 1103 0.98 2.94 2.02
 Table 4. SART Solution and Solid Analyses

SART Stream Volume or Mass Analysis (mg/L for solution, % for Cu and S or g/t for solids)
(L or g) SCN Au Ag Cu Mo Co Fe Na Zn
1 Feed Soln 0.45 26 0.22 1.21 357 5.6 0.13 4.14 230 0.21
SART Soln 0.486 31 0.15 <0.01 2.85 0.25 <0.01 <0.03 1083 0.08
Prec. 0.2101 12.6 748 75.1 11981 21 420 1632 523
2 Feed Soln 0.45 35 0.25 1.51 426 7.1 0.13 9.07 356 0.61
SART Soln 0.488 40 0.20 <0.01 4.95 0.25 <0.01 2.65 1247 <0.01
Prec. 0.2617 3.68 546 72.4 11000 9 1075 1696 1172
3 Feed Soln 0.45 26 0.22 1.21 357 5.6 0.13 4.14 230 0.21
SART Soln 0.475 30 0.18 <0.01 7.6 0.25 <0.01 <0.03 1083 0.08
Prec. 0.2119 3.86 1855 75.1 15117 8 473 1909 474
4 Feed Soln 0.45 35 0.25 1.51 426 7.1 0.13 9.07 356 0.61
SART Soln 0.488 42 0.27 <0.01 6.5 0.35 <0.01 3.35 1253 0.09
Prec. 0.2617 4.74 432 72.3 11000 7 444 2040 1082
5 Feed Soln 0.45 29 0.02 <0.01 321 8.66 <0.01 <0.03 350 0.44
SART Soln 0.473 36 <0.01 0.62 0.16 <0.01 <0.03 840 <0.01
Prec. 0.2025 <0.01 65 71.3 15117 12 754 2272 510
6 Feed Soln 0.45 35 0.02 <0.01 406 7.76 <0.01 3.9 567 0.95
SART Soln 0.485 38 1.22 0.29 <0.01 2.82 1209 0.05
Prec. 0.2476 <0.01 77 70.7 11200 11 1059 2216 1082
7 Feed Soln 0.45 29 0.02 <0.01 321 8.66 <0.01 <0.03 350 0.44
SART Soln 0.473 32 <0.01 6.7 0.42 <0.01 <0.03 804 <0.01
Prec. 0.1887 <0.01 41 69.7 15700 9 397 1824 445
8 Feed Soln 0.45 35 0.02 <0.01 406 7.76 <0.01 3.9 567 0.95
SART Soln 0.478 39 <0.01 5.9 0.37 <0.01 3.16 1225 <0.01
Prec. 0.4880 <0.01 48 69.2 10200 6 668 1965 1062
Figure 2. Sulfidization experimental set-up.

Leach solution
pH ~= 11

Filtration (if cloudy)

Sample taken (clear solution)

Sulfide added
pH adjusted to 4

pH = 4 slurry, dark colour

Filtration (Cu2S removed)

Filtrate adjusted to pH 11 using 20 wt.% lime slurry

Filtration to remove gypsum precipitate

Sample taken

Figure 3. Experimental flowsheet.

 Table 5. Description of the E-pH regions during sulfidization in Figure 4

Region Comments Reactions

H2S(g) Æ H2S(aq)
I Addition of H2S(g) - -
H2S(aq) + OH Æ H2O + HS
- -2
II Addition of H2SO4(aq) H2SO4(aq) + 2OH Æ H2O + SO4
Addition of H2SO4(aq) -2
2Cu(CN)3 + 3H2SO4(aq) + 2H2S(aq) Æ 2Cu2S(s) +
III Buffering effect as copper is -2
6HCN(aq) + 2SO4
sulfidized
IV Addition of H2SO4(aq) -

Synthetic Solution, Test 1

Synthetic Solution, Test 2
-50
Region IV Region III Region II Region I

-150
E, mV vs. Ag/AgCl

-250

-350

-450

-550
3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
pH
Figure 4. E-pH measurements during the sulfidization of copper using synthetic solution

Column Leach, Test 1

-50
Column Leach, Test 2
Column Leach, Test 3
-150 Column Leach, Test 4
E, mV vs. Ag/AgCl

-250

-350

-450

-550
3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
pH
Figure 5. E-pH measurements during the sulfidization of copper using column leach solutions from local Vancouver
laboratory
 400

300
Cu in Solution, ppm

200

100

0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
% Stoichiometric H2S Added (1 H2S : 2 Cu)

Figure 6. Copper in solution as a function of H2S added using the synthetic solution (Test 1). 100% stoichiometric
H2S was added at pH 11, 108% and 118% were added as a supplement at pH 4.

400

300
Cu in Solution, ppm

200

100

0
4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
pH

Figure 7.. Copper in solution as a function of pH using the synthetic solution (Test 2).

Table 6. Acid consumption and cyanide and copper concentrations for SART experiments with hydrogen sulfide gas.

Synthetic Synthetic Column Column Column Column

Solution Test Solution Leach Leach Test Leach Leach
1 Test 2 Test 1 2 Test 3 Test 4
Initial Solution Mass, g 1100 500 462 440 584 389
Initial [Cu], mg/L 400 400 59 100 118 149
mL of 9.9 vol.% H2S(g) Added 1000 410 60 90 140 120
Acid Consumed
1.02 1.00 0.34 0.54 0.50 0.62
g-H2SO4/kg-solution
Final [Cu], mg/L 2 7 6 21 5 9
 Figure 6 shows the requirement for at least stoichiometric addition of sulfide to ensure near-complete removal of
copper from solution. The results of Figure 7 show how the removal of copper from solution as sulfide require low pH
conditions for effective copper removal. A minimum pH of 5 is required in the present case and there is little benefit in
reducing pH much below 5. In fact, as was noted in the earlier work (Table 3) thata higher reagent consumption in
acid and base would be required at lower SART pH with no associated copper or cyanide recovery benefit.

CONCLUSIONS

This work confirmed that a process flowsheet with the steps of; acid leaching of copper, cyanide leaching of
cyanide and SART recovery of copper/recycle of cyanide could be used for the Carmacks ore.
The acid leaching results indicated an incomplete extraction of about 63% for copper. The washed acid leach
residue was then amenable to cyanide leaching for extractions of up to 81.7% Au (highest of the two tests). Copper was
also extracted during cyanidation.
The precipitation of copper via SART was first confirmed on synthetic and column leach solutions using sodium
sulfide and acid addition, followed by hydrogen sulfide gas and acid addition. In each case, very low terminal
concentrations of copper in solution were noted at pH of 4-5.
The net consumption of cyanide during cyanidation of the acid leached Carmacks ore varied from 0.40 to 0.99 kg
NaCN/t for cyanidation at 0.25 and 0.5 g/L NaCN initial. A part of the increase in the cyanide consumption was due to
higher copper concentrations in the leachate (0.357 versus 0.426 g/L Cu). The SART process removed copper to less
than 10 mg/L residual in solution. The cyanide that was associated with copper would then be available for return to
cyanidation, resulting in an overall reduction in net cyanide consumption.
The SART process was shown to effectively precipitate molybdenum from solution into a mixed copper-
molybdenum sulfide precipitate. There may be future scope for exploring selective precipitation of molybdenum away
from copper.
The basic process elements worked as expected. It is recommended that followup and pilot plant work be
conducted to fully demonstrate the feasibility of this flowsheet for exploitation of the Carmacks copper-gold deposit.

REFERENCES

Adams, M., R. Lawrence. 2007, Biogenic sulphide for cyanide recycle and copper recovery in gold-copper ore
processing, Precious Metals 07, Brisbane Australia – pre-publication copy.

Barter, J., G. Lane, D. Mitchell, R. Kelson, R. Dunne, C. Trang and D.B. Dreisinger, 2001. Cyanide management by
SART. In: T.M.S. Courtney Young, Editor, Cyanide: social, industrial and economic aspects, Minerals and Metals
Society, Warrendale, pp. 549–562.

MacPhail, P.K., C.A. Fleming and K.W. Sarbutt, 1998. Cyanide recovery by the SART process for the Lobo-Marte
project, Chile, Proc. Randol Gold and Silver Forum, Randol Intl., Golden, Co., pp. 319–323.

View publication stats