{"id":7315,"date":"2026-11-04T11:47:58","date_gmt":"2026-11-04T03:47:58","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.huameicarbon.com\/?p=7315"},"modified":"2026-11-04T11:47:58","modified_gmt":"2026-11-04T03:47:58","slug":"52-tons-hmgold-7000-peru-gold-cip-recovery-case-study","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.huameicarbon.com\/pt\/52-tons-hmgold-7000-peru-gold-cip-recovery-case-study\/","title":{"rendered":"52 Tons HMGOLD\u21227000 to Peru: CIP Recovery from 93.5% to 97.3%"},"content":{"rendered":"

A gold mine in La Libertad, Peru \u2014 processing 3,000 tons of ore per day through a CIP circuit \u2014 was losing 8\u201310% of its carbon inventory every elution cycle. The old carbon had a ball-pan hardness of just 94%. Recovery had dropped from 96% to 93.5%, and the operation was bleeding gold into tailings. After switching to HMGOLD\u21227000 (iodine \u22651,100 mg\/g, hardness \u226599%, 6\u00d712 mesh), carbon loss dropped to 2.5\u20133% per cycle, recovery climbed to 97.3%, and the mine recovered an extra ~320 grams of gold per day \u2014 approximately $24,000 in additional daily revenue at the time of reporting. This is how that project came together.<\/p>\n

The Problem: 94% Hardness Carbon Was Destroying Recovery<\/h2>\n

The mine's CIP circuit ran six adsorption tanks in series. The carbon they were using \u2014 a generic coconut shell product from a Southeast Asian supplier \u2014 was specified at 94% ball-pan hardness. On paper, 94% sounds fine. In a 3,000 tpd CIP circuit, it's not.<\/p>\n

Here's what was happening:<\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
Metric<\/th>\nBefore (Old Carbon)<\/th>\nTarget<\/th>\n<\/tr>\n
Ball-pan hardness<\/td>\n94%<\/td>\n\u226598%<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Carbon loss per elution<\/td>\n8\u201310%<\/td>\n<3%<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Gold recovery rate<\/td>\n93.5% (declining)<\/td>\n\u226596%<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Fine carbon in tailings<\/td>\nVisible on screens<\/td>\nMinimal<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Elution cycles before replacement<\/td>\n30\u201340 cycles<\/td>\n50+ cycles<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n

The mechanism is straightforward: every time carbon goes through the elution kiln and gets pumped back into the adsorption circuit, the granules collide with each other, the ore slurry, and the inter-stage screens. Low-hardness carbon breaks down into fines. Those fines are too small to be retained by the screens \u2014 they pass through and end up in tailings, carrying adsorbed gold with them.<\/p>\n

At 8\u201310% loss per cycle, the mine was replacing its entire carbon inventory roughly every 10\u201312 cycles. That's not just a carbon cost problem \u2014 it's a gold loss problem. Every kilogram of carbon fines leaving the circuit carries gold that will never be recovered.<\/p>\n

\"Coconut<\/h2>\n

Why Hardness Matters More Than Iodine Number in High-Throughput CIP<\/h2>\n

Most buyers ask about iodine number first. It makes sense \u2014 iodine number indicates adsorption capacity, and higher numbers mean faster gold loading. But in a high-tonnage CIP circuit like this one, hardness is the controlling parameter<\/strong>.<\/p>\n

Here's the math that convinced this buyer:<\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
Scenario<\/th>\n94% Hardness<\/th>\n99% Hardness<\/th>\n<\/tr>\n
Starting carbon inventory<\/td>\n52 toneladas<\/td>\n52 toneladas<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Loss per elution cycle<\/td>\n9% (midpoint)<\/td>\n2.75% (midpoint)<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Carbon lost per cycle<\/td>\n4.68 tons<\/td>\n1.43 tons<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Cycles to lose 50% inventory<\/td>\n~7 cycles<\/td>\n~24 cycles<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n

*Based on 26 elution cycles\/year (biweekly), FOB carbon price ~$1,800\/ton for gold-grade coconut shell GAC.<\/em><\/p>\n

The carbon replacement cost difference alone is ~$145,000\/year. Add the gold recovery improvement (from 93.5% to 97.3% on 3,000 tpd of ore), and the economics become overwhelming.<\/p>\n

Huamei's Recommendation: HMGOLD\u21227000<\/h2>\n

After reviewing the mine's circuit design, ore characteristics, and operating conditions, we recommended HMGOLD\u21227000<\/a> \u2014 not the higher-grade HMGOLD\u21227500 or PLUS. Here's why:<\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
Par\u00e2metro<\/th>\nHMGOLD\u21227000<\/th>\nOld Carbon<\/th>\nWhy It Matters<\/th>\n<\/tr>\n
N\u00famero de iodo<\/td>\n\u22651,100 mg\/g<\/td>\n~1,000 mg\/g<\/td>\nFaster gold loading in the first 2\u20133 tanks<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Ball-Pan Hardness<\/td>\n\u226599%<\/td>\n94%<\/td>\nDramatically reduces carbon fines and gold loss<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Conte\u00fado de cinzas<\/td>\n\u22643%<\/td>\n~5%<\/td>\nLess inert material, more active carbon surface<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Umidade<\/td>\n\u22645%<\/td>\n~6%<\/td>\nLess water weight per bag<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Mesh Size<\/td>\n6\u00d712<\/td>\n6\u00d712<\/td>\nStandard CIP sizing \u2014 no screen modifications needed<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n

Why not HMGOLD\u21227500 or PLUS?<\/strong> The mine's ore grade and circuit throughput didn't justify the premium. HMGOLD\u21227000's \u22651,100 mg\/g iodine number was more than sufficient for this operation, and the \u226599% hardness \u2014 actually higher than both HMGOLD\u21227500 (\u226598.5%) and PLUS (\u226598%) \u2014 was the priority for solving their carbon loss problem. We recommended the grade that solved the specific problem, not the most expensive option.<\/p>\n

Shipment: 52 Tons in 4 \u00d7 20ft Containers to Callao<\/h2>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
Item<\/th>\nDetails<\/th>\n<\/tr>\n
Produto<\/td>\nHMGOLD\u21227000 Coconut Shell Activated Carbon<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Quantity<\/td>\n52 tons (4 \u00d7 13 tons per 20ft container)<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Embalagem<\/td>\n25 kg woven bags on pallets<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Destination Port<\/td>\nCallao, Peru<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Origin Port<\/td>\nXiamen, China<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Transit Time<\/td>\n~15 days (sea freight)<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Documentation<\/td>\nCOA per container, MSDS, phytosanitary certificate<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n

Each 20ft container was loaded with 13 tons \u2014 the standard loading capacity for 25 kg bags on pallets in a 20ft dry container. The mine requested COA testing for each container lot, including iodine number, hardness, ash, moisture, and particle size distribution. All four lots tested above spec.<\/p>\n

Results After 6 Months<\/h2>\n

The mine ran HMGOLD\u21227000 through their full CIP circuit for six months before reporting back. The numbers:<\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
Metric<\/th>\nBefore (Old Carbon)<\/th>\nAfter 6 Months (HMGOLD\u21227000)<\/th>\nChange<\/th>\n<\/tr>\n
Gold recovery rate<\/td>\n93.5%<\/td>\n97.3%<\/td>\n+3.8 percentage<\/p>\n

points<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

Carbon loss per elution<\/td>\n8\u201310%<\/td>\n2.5\u20133%<\/td>\nReduced by ~70%<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Additional gold<\/p>\n

recovered\/day<\/td>\n

Baseline<\/td>\n+~320 grams<\/td>\n~$24,000\/day<\/p>\n

additional revenue<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

Carbon inventory stability<\/td>\nFull replacement<\/p>\n

every 10\u201312 cycles<\/td>\n

Stable with top-up only<\/td>\nReplacement cost<\/p>\n

down ~70%<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

Fine carbon in tailings<\/td>\nVisible on inter-<\/p>\n

stage screens<\/td>\n

Minimal<\/td>\nSignificant reduction<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n

The 3.8-point recovery improvement came from two sources: (1) less gold leaving the circuit on carbon fines, and (2) higher iodine number providing better adsorption kinetics in the lead tanks. The mine estimated the combined impact at roughly 320 grams of additional gold recovered per day across their 3,000 tpd throughput \u2014 approximately $24,000 per day in additional revenue<\/strong> based on the gold price at the time of reporting. That's from a carbon change that cost under $100,000.<\/p>\n

\"huamei<\/h2>\n

Reorder: 56 Tons in 2 \u00d7 40ft Containers<\/h2>\n

Based on the six-month results, the mine placed a reorder for 56 tons \u2014 this time in two 40ft high-cube containers (28 tons each) instead of four 20ft containers. The switch to 40ft containers reduced per-ton shipping cost by approximately 15%.<\/p>\n

The reorder also included a request to pre-screen the carbon to tighten the 6\u00d712 mesh distribution \u2014 minimizing the fraction of particles near the upper and lower size limits. This is a detail that experienced gold mine operators pay attention to: tighter particle size distribution means more uniform flow through the carbon bed and more consistent gold loading across all tanks.<\/p>\n

What This Case Tells You About Choosing CIP Carbon<\/h2>\n

If you're running a CIP or CIL gold circuit and evaluating carbon suppliers, this project highlights three things:<\/p>\n

    \n
  1. Hardness is not optional.<\/strong> In circuits processing more than 1,000 tpd, anything below 97% ball-pan hardness will cost you in carbon loss and gold recovery. The 5-point difference between 94% and 99% hardness translated to a 70% reduction in carbon loss per cycle.<\/li>\n
  2. The cheapest carbon is rarely the cheapest option.<\/strong> The old carbon was priced lower per ton, but the mine was replacing inventory 3\u00d7 faster and losing gold to tailings. Total cost of ownership \u2014 including carbon replacement and gold loss \u2014 favored the higher-spec product by a wide margin.<\/li>\n
  3. Match the grade to the circuit, not the brochure.<\/strong> We recommended HMGOLD\u21227000, not the top-tier PLUS, because this mine's specific problem was hardness, not adsorption capacity. Over-specifying wastes money; under-specifying loses gold.<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

    Perguntas Mais Frequentes<\/h2>\n

    What causes high carbon loss in CIP gold circuits?<\/h3>\n

    The primary cause is low ball-pan hardness<\/strong> \u2014 carbon with hardness below 97% breaks down rapidly during elution, screening, and inter-stage pumping in CIP circuits. Secondary causes include oversized or undersized particles (poor mesh distribution), excessive pumping velocity, and thermal shock during kiln regeneration. In this Peru case, upgrading from 94% to 99% hardness reduced carbon loss from 8\u201310% to 2.5\u20133% per elution cycle.<\/p>\n

    How much activated carbon does a CIP gold mine need?<\/h3>\n

    A typical CIP circuit carries 10\u201320 kg of carbon per ton of ore processed per day<\/strong>. For a 3,000 tpd operation, that's 30\u201360 tons of carbon in the circuit at any time. Initial loading for this Peru mine was 52 tons. The exact quantity depends on the number of adsorption stages, tank volume, carbon concentration, and residence time.<\/p>\n

    What is the difference between HMGOLD\u21227000 and HMGOLD\u21227500?<\/h3>\n

    HMGOLD\u21227000 has an iodine number \u22651,100 mg\/g with \u226599% ball-pan hardness. HMGOLD\u21227500 has a higher iodine number (\u22651,150 mg\/g) but slightly lower hardness specification (\u226598.5%). For circuits where carbon durability is the priority<\/strong> (high-throughput CIP), HMGOLD\u21227000 is often the better choice. For CIL circuits where faster adsorption kinetics matter more, HMGOLD\u21227500 may be preferred. See the full HMGOLD\u2122 product comparison<\/a>.<\/p>\n

    Can I test HMGOLD\u2122 carbon before ordering a full container?<\/h3>\n

    Yes. We provide sample quantities (25\u201350 kg)<\/strong> for lab-scale gold adsorption testing (R-value and K-value tests). Many buyers run a 1\u20132 ton trial lot in a single adsorption tank before committing to a full circuit change. Minimum production order is 10 tons (one 20ft container).<\/p>\n

    How long does it take to ship activated carbon from China to Peru?<\/h3>\n

    Sea freight from Xiamen or Ningde port to Callao typically takes 30\u201340 days<\/strong>. Production lead time is 15\u201325 days for standard grades, so total door-to-door is approximately 45\u201365 days from order confirmation. We can also arrange CIF Callao pricing if needed.<\/p>\n

    Evaluating carbon options for your CIP or CIL circuit? Send us your current carbon specs and circuit conditions \u2014 we'll recommend the right HMGOLD\u2122 grade and provide a quote:<\/p>\n