text: Sensor-based ore sorting is in comparison to other coarse particle separation technologies relatively cheap. While the costs for the equipment itself are relatively high in capital expenditure and operating costs, the absence of extensive infrastructure in a system results in operating costs that are to be compared to jigging. The specific costs are very much depending on the average particle size of the feed and on the ease of the separation. Coarser particles imply higher capacity and thus less costs. Detailed costing can be conducted after the mini-bulk stage in the technical feasibility evaluation.
  Prejudice against waste rejection with sensor-based sorting widely spread, that the loss of valuables, thus the recovery penalty of this process, supersedes the potential downstream cost savings and is therefore economically not viable. It must be noted that for waste rejection the aim for the separation with sensor-based ore sorting must be put onto maximum recovery, which means that only low grade or barren waste is rejected because the financial feasibility is very much sensitive to that factor. Nevertheless, through the rejection of waste before comminution and concentration steps, recovery can be often increased in the downstream process, meaning that the overall recovery is equal or even higher than the one in the base case, meaning that instead of losing product, additional product can be produced, which adds the additional revenue to the cost savings on the positive side in the cash flow.
  If the rejected material is replaced with additional higher grade material, the main economic benefit unfolds through the additional production. It implies, that in conjunction with sensor-based ore sorting, the capacity of the crushing station is increased, to allow for the additional mass-flow that is subsequently taken out by the sensor-based ore sorters as waste.