Some of those presentations are very convincing. Like ore sorting improving many metrics, including allowing a lower cut-off grade, and higher mine recovery.
It sounded like in 1 case, they were detecting the bad bits, to remove deleterious elements and reduce throughput, to allow for a smaller plant size. But NVA would be detecting the good bits, again, to reduce throughput and raise the grade.
So what is the probability that the 588kg ore sorting sample will translate equally well to 10MTPA+?
It seemed effective in the sample run. X-ray detecting fine - able to detect arsenopyrite veins.
And ale to toss the bits with no veins present.
Samples were from regular ore -
Eg. scenario 4. Rejecting approximately half of the mass, but only losing 10% of the gold. Increasing the grade from 0.3-0.4g/t to 1.3g/t.
That seems like a worthwhile sacrifice. 10% of the gold, to get up to a decent grade (3-4x the original low grade). A financial analysis would tell them what sacrifice level is optimal.
And according to the SS, with low OPEX costs for the sorting, though a fair CAPEX (10%+ of the total CAPEX).
So how does Fort Knox work around the low grades? Sounds like they use Heap Leach for that.
Maybe ore sorting is the more modern (superior?) technology, but Fort Knox would have little reason to change after already getting the heap leach running smoothly.
NVA Price at posting:
67.0¢ Sentiment: Buy Disclosure: Held
A personalised tool to help users track selected stocks. Delivering real-time notifications on price updates, announcements, and performance stats on each to help make informed investment decisions.
(20min delay)