Research reviewed 8 November 2026 · 3 June / Q3 2026 sources
A recovery percentage turns contained copper into a recovered quantity. Increasing that percentage in a spreadsheet is straightforward. Establishing that a process can sustain the result at a particular site is a different task.
BHP’s June 2026 innovation account describes computational screening followed by laboratory testing. Freeport’s Q3 filing describes leach development and an updated 2027 output target. Both show the importance of process improvement; neither supplies a recovery coefficient that can be transferred into another orebody.
Percentage points are not relative output
At unchanged throughput and grade, moving from 70% recovery to 75% is a five-percentage-point improvement. Recovered output rises by approximately 7.1% relative to the base. Confusing those measures can distort a project brief even before costs enter the discussion.
Our recovery tool keeps both measures visible. It also reports an ore-equivalent comparison at the original grade and recovery. That comparison is arithmetic: it does not prove that mining, milling or capital expenditure can be avoided.
What an investment case still needs
Representative samples, mineralogical variation, residence time, reagent consumption, temperature, water balance and impurity behaviour should inform the next stage. Laboratory results require an explicit path through test work, demonstration and operating validation. Changes to waste streams, permits, safety or infrastructure cannot be captured by the recovery percentage alone.
For a useful sensitivity, hold the basis constant, change one assumption and record the remaining constraints. Then test the case with the technical and operating teams. A model becomes more valuable when it makes missing evidence visible rather than disguising it with a precise result.