Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
Geometallurgical Characterization of
Zinkgruvans New Orebodies for Their
Flotation Properties
Abstract
Depletion of existing orebodies forces the mining industry to have a better understanding on new
orebodies in order to have an economical beneficiation. Therefore, traditional evaluation and
forecasting methods are now being supported by more detailed studies using more advanced
techniques. Mineralogical studies give essential data on the deposit but methods applied are
expensive and very time consuming. Geometallurgical characterization techniques provide cheaper
and faster outcomes and if properly applied also information which directly evaluates the
processing properties of the samples. However, generally accepted geometallurgical
characterization techniques are available only for few mineral processing areas. Importantly, for
floatation such a technique does not exist.
In this study, recently discovered Zinkgruvan lead-zinc orebodies were investigated majorly by
automated mineralogy and laboratory batch flotation tests in order to characterize the ore type of
Zinkgruvan and forecast the future production.
Mineralogical studies showed that, recently found orebodies shows similarity in mineral liberation
compared to the ores currently in production. However, significant differences exist in modal
mineralogy and zinc and iron content of sphalerite.
A series of batch flotation test were used to evaluate the behavior of main ore minerals: sphalerite
and galena. Obtained data was used to create floatability component models that were further
applied in simulation by HSC Chemistry 7.1 to give forecast of grades and recoveries in full scale
production.
According to simulations three new orebodies will have recovery and concentrate quality
challenges in the current plant flowsheet and chemical regime. These challenges are related to poor
activation of sphalerite which is most probably due to higher Fe mineral content of new orebodies
compared to currently processed Reference ore.
A geometallurgical characterization technique for Zinkgruvan type lead-zinc ore deposits was
developed. The test enables characterization of any new ore type fast and with low costs. The test
can measure in a case of low zinc recovery if the problem is due to collector deficiency, flotation
residence time, degree of liberation, poor activation of sphalerite or presence of zinc oxide minerals
such as gahnite.
Keywords: Zinkgruvan, zinc lead sulphide flotation, geometallurgy, automated mineralogy,
flotation kinetics, process simulation
Acknowledgements
I would like to express my deepest gratitude to my supervisor in Lule University of Technology,
Professor Pertti Lamberg, for sharing his immense knowledge and keeping me on the right path by
his guidance throughout the study. It has been a great pleasure working with you and learning from
you. I would also like to send my greatest appreciation to my supervisor in Zinkgruvan, Mr. Anders
Gustafsson, for his continuous support and attention during this study. Without their persistent help
it would not be possible to complete this thesis.
I also would like to thank to Pierre Henri Koch, Hassna Aitahmed-Ali and Maria Sinche Gonzalez
for always being there and for valuable contributions on the thesis. Your support kept me motivated
against the challenges many times during this study.
Additionally, my sincere gratitude to Lundin Mining Zinkgruvan AB members for providing me
the opportunity and to EMerald academic & coordination staff and Professor Dee Bradshaw for
helping me to be a part of this programme and this particular study.
The help I have received for the experimental work and the analysis from Bertil Plsson, Ulf
Nordstrm, Pelle Carlsson, Cecilia Lund, Martin Simonsson, Viktor Lishchuk, Abdul Mwanga,
Ufuk Okumus and Mustafa Erde Bilir is also highly appreciated. Their valuable contributions has
increased the level of this study.
Finally, I am deeply grateful to my family, especially to my parents Mustafa Kol, Leyla Erdogan
Uray, Yusuf Uray and my lovely friends either far away or next to me for their encouragement and
endless support. Without you on my side, nothing would be meaningful.
ii
Table of Contents
Abstract ........................................................................................................................................................................... i
Acknowledgements ........................................................................................................................................................ ii
List of Figures ................................................................................................................................................................ v
List of Tables ............................................................................................................................................................... vii
1.
2.
Introduction ........................................................................................................................................................... 1
1.1
1.2
1.3
1.4
Limitations .................................................................................................................................................... 3
2.1.2
2.1.3
2.1.4
Entrainment .............................................................................................................................................. 8
2.1.5
2.1.6
2.2
2.3
2.3.1
Grindability ............................................................................................................................................ 11
2.3.2
2.3.3
2.3.4
2.4
3.
Zinkgruvan AB ........................................................................................................................................... 16
2.4.1
2.4.2
2.4.3
2.4.4
3.1.1
3.1.2
3.1.3
Sample preparation for particle size distribution and grindability studies ............................................. 27
3.1.4
3.2
Methods ...................................................................................................................................................... 29
3.2.1
Mineralogy ............................................................................................................................................. 29
3.2.2
3.2.3
Grindability ............................................................................................................................................ 33
iii
4.
3.2.4
3.2.5
3.2.6
QA / QC procedures ............................................................................................................................... 39
Results ................................................................................................................................................................. 40
4.1
Mineralogy ................................................................................................................................................. 40
4.1.1
4.1.2
4.1.3
Mineral Liberation.................................................................................................................................. 44
4.2
4.3
Grindability................................................................................................................................................. 48
4.3.1
4.3.2
4.4
Flotation ...................................................................................................................................................... 50
4.4.1
4.4.2
4.5
4.5.1
4.5.2
4.5.3
4.5.4
4.6
4.6.1
Recipe..................................................................................................................................................... 67
4.6.2
Result Analysis....................................................................................................................................... 68
4.7
QA / QC results .......................................................................................................................................... 69
4.7.1
Sampling ................................................................................................................................................ 69
4.7.2
5.
Discussions .......................................................................................................................................................... 70
6.
Conclusions ......................................................................................................................................................... 72
7.
Recommendations ............................................................................................................................................... 74
8.
References ........................................................................................................................................................... 74
9.
Appendices .......................................................................................................................................................... 77
iv
List of Figures
Figure 1. Scope of the study; methods and objectives ................................................................................................... 3
Figure 2. Flotation principle illustration (acquired from http://global.britannica.com) ................................................. 4
Figure 3. Sodium Oleate Structure (acquired from (Wills & Nappier-Munn 2006) ...................................................... 6
Figure 4. MIBC dosage vs. D32 (Finch et al. 2008) ....................................................................................................... 7
Figure 5. Simple Bjerrum Diagram (Palsson 2014 ) ...................................................................................................... 8
Figure 6. Wet sieving set (on the left and, Cilas laser diffraction (on the right) equipment used for the experiments in
LTU. ............................................................................................................................................................................. 13
Figure 7. Laser diffraction working principle, a simplified illustration (Anon n.d.) ................................................... 14
Figure 8. A) XRF-EDS working principle illustration (Anon n.d.) B)Generalized electron-specimen interactions (Anon
n.d.) .............................................................................................................................................................................. 16
Figure 9. Location of the Zinkgruvan Deposit (acquired from Zinkgruvan Technical Report 2013) .......................... 17
Figure 10. Local geology of Zinkgruvan Mine (acquired from Zinkgruvan Technical Report 2012) ......................... 19
Figure 11. 3-D section of the Zinkgruvan Mine on 2012 (acquired from Zinkgruvan Technical Report 2013) .......... 20
Figure 12.A. Sphalerite particle with very fine galena, chalcopyrite and dyscrasite inclusions B. Fully liberated galena,
sphalerite and pyrrhotite particles ................................................................................................................................ 21
Figure 13. Bulk rougher, scavenger and cleaner flotation stages in the plant .............................................................. 23
Figure 14. Separation flotation and lead cleaning stages in the plant .......................................................................... 24
Figure 15. Crushing- screening procedure in the LTU laboratory ............................................................................... 25
Figure 16. Plant sections during site visit and sampled streams .................................................................................. 26
Figure 17 A) Struers Polishing Equipment B) Molded and engraved samples C) Carbon coater ................................ 28
Figure 18. A) Brightness & Contrast adjustments for grey levels. B) Particle and background adjustments by
MorphoCut, Smoothing and Threshold tools on Inca Mineral software. ..................................................................... 29
Figure 19. A) Selected points on a single Sph-Gn locked particle B) Spectrum 1- Galena peaks. C) Spectrum 2Sphalerite Peaks ........................................................................................................................................................... 30
Figure 20. A Phase view for a single field examined SEM work. B) Single particle data view with particle components
and sizes. ...................................................................................................................................................................... 31
Figure 21. 1102 PSD result evaluation ......................................................................................................................... 33
Figure 22. Grinding times vs PSD plot for Reference.................................................................................................. 34
Figure 23. Laboratory flotation setup ........................................................................................................................... 35
Figure 24. Rougher-scavenger flotation kinetics laboratory test flowsheet ................................................................. 36
Figure 25. Three component flotation kinetics model fit for Reference galena mineral .............................................. 37
Figure 26. Open circuit batch flotation flowsheet ........................................................................................................ 38
Figure 27. Iron content frequency for sphalerite mineral in different orebody samples .............................................. 40
Figure 28. Modal Mineralogy of orebody samples ...................................................................................................... 42
Figure 29. Examples of wrong identifications on SEM for A) Franklinite in Reference B)Gahnite in Borta Bakom C)
Zincite in Mellanby ...................................................................................................................................................... 43
vi
List of Tables
Table 1. Several plant stream and product zinc-lead grade and recoveries .................................................................. 24
Table 2. Bulk samples used throughout the study ........................................................................................................ 25
Table 3. Mineral Setup- Selected, Found and Combined Minerals .............................................................................. 31
Table 4. Element Mineral Conversion for Back Calculated Mellanby Feed ................................................................ 37
Table 5. Feed sample preparation QA/QC samples ..................................................................................................... 39
Table 6.Chemical analysis sample preparation QA/QC samples ................................................................................. 39
Table 7. Flotation test composite error detection ......................................................................................................... 40
Table 8. Limiting cumulative values for iron content of sphalerite ............................................................................. 41
Table 9. Average Zn and Fe content of Sphalerite of Different Orebody samples ...................................................... 41
Table 10. Modal Mineralogy of orebody samples ....................................................................................................... 41
Table 11. Comparison of XRF and SEM analysis ....................................................................................................... 43
Table 12. Proportion of Zinc in Gahnite for Savsjon and Mellanby ............................................................................ 44
Table 13. Laser diffraction particle size passing results for plant stream samples ....................................................... 48
Table 14. 10 minutes grinding results comparison with 1102 plant feed ..................................................................... 49
Table 15. GCT test results for Different orebody samples Bond Work Index determination ...................................... 50
Table 16. Feed vs. Back calculated feed analysis results ............................................................................................. 50
Table 17. Gathered mineralogical finding for sphalerite collection problem examination .......................................... 53
Table 18. Sphalerite experimental cumulative sphalerite recovery results and different kinetic model properties ..... 58
Table 19. Kinetic Properties of Orebody samples ........................................................................................................ 60
Table 20. Kinetic Properties of Plant Samples in Bulk and Separation Flotation ........................................................ 60
Table 21. QAQC Sampling Results ............................................................................................................................. 69
Table 22. Chemical analysis results and kinetic properties for Savsjon repeats .......................................................... 70
vii
1. Introduction
1.1 Statement of the Problem
Increasing demands on the metals and minerals and decrease in the ore grade and quality has
created a need for better understanding the processing characteristics of the orebodies.
Geometallurgy is filling this need by combining geological and mineral processing information to
enable more efficient and economical beneficiation of the ore.
Zinkgruvan is a zinc-lead-silver ore deposit located in south-central Sweden. Exploitation of the
ore by underground mining and production of the concentrate in the beneficiation plant by flotation
method have been conducted by Lundin Mining since 2004.
Ongoing exploration work parallel with production on the field has ended up with the expansion
of the resources by discovery of new orebodies. These new orebodies show differences from the
one in production.
Due to the lack of knowledge and prior studies on these recently found orebodies, it is not known
if the current beneficiation setup would be suitable to treat these orebodies efficiently. In order to
make a production forecast and to be prepared for possible upcoming challenges with these
orebodies, a comprehensive study should be made for their floatability properties through
representative samples.
includes spatial variation in modal composition and mineral textures. The processing behavior of
different minerals and particle types can be determined by the particle tracing technique ((Lamberg
& Vianna 2007). In this study both mineralogical and proxy approaches were used.
1.4 Limitations
Due to unexpectedly different results from bulk flotation stage of new orebody samples, and time
limitation, the kinetic modeling and forecasting could not be made for the Zn-Pb separation
flotation of new orebody samples.
2. Literature Survey
2.1 Froth Flotation Theory
2.1.1 General remarks
Flotation is a very common concentrating method in the mining industry mostly due to its
versatility and ability for beneficiation of naturally complex or low grade deposits in great
tonnages. Flotation was patented on 1906 and the application has become more and more popular
since then. Currently the method is widely used for complex sulphide ores, platinum group
elements, nickel - gold bearing sulphides, metal oxides and non-metallic ores such as phosphates
and coal (Wills & Nappier-Munn 2006).
The flotation process is very complex and far from being completely understood. It includes three
phases (solid, liquid, gas) which interacts in many internal sub processes. Basically, the solid
particles in a pulp are introduced to an environment (flotation cell) in which they are exposed to
dispersed air bubbles. The particles which attach to the bubbles are carried to the surface whereas
the others sink (Figure 2). The attachment of the particles with bubbles is mainly dependent on the
surface properties of particles, so called wettability. Particles which are wetted, (hydrophilic) tend
to stay and sink in the pulp whereas the particles which are not wetted (hydrophobic) tend to attach
to the bubbles and carried to the surface by them. The objective is to reach different surface
properties for gangue and valuable minerals in the ore in order to separate them (Palsson 2014).
3
(1)
where, P is the mineral floatability, Sb is the bubble surface area flux and Rf is the froth phase
recovery.
There are several different techniques introduced for the determination of the mineral floatability
(P) component of the flotation rate constant. One of the methods is the floatability distribution
method where different particle types have their specific flotation rates according to their size,
shape, degree of liberation and reagent coverage. In order to determine a particular k or its
distribution, different shapes have been assigned including gamma, rectangular or normal
distributions. However, this method is adversely criticized for having the restriction on flexibility
(Welsby et al. 2010).
Another widely accepted method is floatability component method (FCM) (Harris 1997 and
Runge 1997, 2001). According to this method, stream property i.e. floatability (P) is defined with
different floatability components (i.e. kfast-floating, kslow-floating and knon-floating). Major difference of the
approach is that in the latter particles which have the physical resemblance can be grouped together.
Additionally, it is assumed that the assigned property of a particular floatability component (i.e.
fast floating chalcopyrite) does not vary during the flotation circuit. This approach is only
applicable if the pulp chemistry is fixed, i.e. there is no severe oxidation, change in chemical regime
(reagents) or regrinding in the circuit. By making nodal analysis on the units these groups of
particles can be tracked and the mass fractions from one stream to another can be determined. The
relative equations for this approach can be seen below for batch (plug flow) and continuous
(perfectly mixed environment) operations in equations 2 and 3 respectively (Welsby et al. 2010)
= (1 exp( ))
= (
)
1 +
(2)
(3)
where, t represents the batch flotation time, Ri the batch cell recovery, mi the mass fraction, and ki
the floatability rate constant for the floatability component i.
2.1.3 Flotation Reagents
Bubble-particle attachment and consequently froth flotation of the minerals are dependent on the
hydrophobicity, i.e. wettability. Some of the minerals can be found as naturally hydrophobic
whereas most of them are found as hydrophilic. In order to create the desired pulp conditions and
the polarity between gangue and valuable mineral surface properties, several supportive reagents
are used. Reagents are commonly classified in three groups: collectors, frothers and modifiers.
i.
Collectors
Collectors are organic compounds which include a varying length of carbon chains with a polar
end. These reagents attaches to the mineral with their polar ends and the carbon chain at the other
end renders the hydrophobic surface.(Figure 3) In other words, the adsorption of the collectors by
mineral surfaces produces an insoluble compound which provides a water-repellent surface. Length
5
of the carbon chain determines the strength of the adsorption and relatively the selectivity of the
separation (Wills & Nappier-Munn 2006).
Figure 3. Sodium Oleate Structure (acquired from (Wills & Nappier-Munn 2006)
Collectors are classified as non-ionic (e.g. pine oil) and ionic, whereas ionic collectors are also
classified in two groups of anion active (e.g. xanthates) and cation active (e.g. amines) collectors.
Type of the collector used in the process, varies according to the target minerals surface properties.
Industrial dosage of the reagent can vary from ten gram per ton to several hundreds. This variance
can be due to carbon chain length, mineral assemblage or fineness of the feed size. Over dosage of
the collectors decreases the selectivity of the process by adsorbing unwanted mineral surfaces in
addition to the target minerals. On the other hand, under dosage of the collector leads to so called
collector starvation and decreases the recovery of the process (Palsson 2014).
ii.
Frothers
Similar with collectors, frother structure is also a combination of non-polar (hydrophobic) and polar
(hydrophilic) parts. This mixed polarity leads a decrease in surface tension of the pulp and allows
to produce smaller size bubbles (D32), more stable froth during froth flotation (Finch et al. 2008).
As it was introduced in Eq. 1, bubble surface area flux (Sb) is one of the parameters for flotation
rate constant determination whereas Sb, itself was defined as in the following equation 4 (Gorain
et al. 1999).
=
6
32
(4)
where Jg is volumetric air rate per unit cell cross sectional area (dependent on air flowrate and cell
dimensions) and D32 (Sauter mean bubble size) whichis dependent on frother dosage and unit
specific parameters (i.e. impeller speed, air flux)(Finch et al. 2008). Relation between a selected
frother dosage (MIBC) and D32 is introduced in the Figure 4 below.
As it can be understood, low dosage of frother usage may lead to big bubble size and unstable froth
which consequently decrease the recovery. On the other hand, excessive frother usage should also
be avoided since the frothers have an influence on collectors which may causes a selectivity
problem in the process (Palsson 2014). Additionally, too stable froth creates problems in the plants
such as froth build-up on thickening stage or decrease in the further process transport efficiency
(Wills & Nappier-Munn 2006).
iii.
Modifiers
Modifiers are additional supportive reagents for efficient froth flotation and they are sub-grouped
as activators, depressants and pH regulators. Activators are generally soluble salts which are used
to alter the target mineral surface and increase the intensity of the collectors (e.g. CuSO4,). On the
contrary, depressants are used to hold down a mineral by altering its surface to hydrophilic (e.g.
Cyanide (NaCN)). Both of these reagents are simply used to increase the hydrophobicity difference
between minerals in order to increase selectivity and collector efficiency (Palsson 2014).
The pH regulators (e.g. H2SO4, NaOH) are used in order to change the alkalinity of the pulp which
is substantial for the surface property charges, adsorption of the collectors on mineral surface and
reagent concentration. Solubility of metal-collector salts are presented in so called Bjerrum
diagram as metal ion concentration versus hydroxide ion concentrate (in pH) as in Figure 5.
According to this determination, intersection of solubility products of metal hydroxide line (45
line) and solubility products for compounds which do not release hydrogen or hydroxide ions
(horizontal lines) called critical pH. In higher pH conditions of critical points metal hydroxide stays
stable and consequently mineral is hydrophilic. On the other hand, in the lower pH conditions
collector adsorption of the metal surface can be achieved which renders the mineral surface to
hydrophobic. By following this information, pH of the pulp can be adjusted to activate or depress
a certain mineral surface (Palsson 2014).
7
2.1.4 Entrainment
Besides true flotation via bubble attachment, particles can be carried to the concentrate by the water
phase, i.e. entrainment. Since there is no chemical selectivity for entrainment, both gangue and
valuables experience this phenomenon. Water recovery is the major affecting factor since the
particles are carried in the medium. Additionally, several studies show that, pulp density, particle
size and density, air flow rate and froth properties such as height, structure or retention time are
also affective on entrainment (Wang et al. 2015). In order to make a direct estimation of
entrainment, following equation 5 has been introduced.
=
(5)
where is the flow due to entrainment, is the classification function and is the mass to
water ratio for component i. is the water flow to concentrate (Runge 2010).
2.1.5 Laboratory Scale Batch Flotation
Laboratory batch flotation testing is fairly cheap and powerful tool for the estimation of flotation
response of an ore. It can be used for many purposes such as plant design, improvement of a current
plant setup or estimating the outcomes of variability in the plant feed as aimed in this particular
study (Runge 2010).
8
Laboratory flotation testing can be made in a number of different laboratory scale flotation cells.
In addition to flotation cell and the ore material, test requires reagents, pH, Eh and temperature
measurement equipment, notepad to keep record of the minutes of the test and a timer.
There are several laboratory flotation cells which allow adjusting the equipment parameters like
impeller speed and aeration rate. For such equipment proper adjustment should be made and for
the equipment which do not allow the adjustment, standard values for these parameters should be
measured (Runge 2010).
The tests normally begin by grinding the ore for appropriate time in order to reach the desired
mineral liberation and particle size distribution. Grinding is followed by washing down the ground
pulp material into the flotation cell. Pulp solids percentage is one of the effective parameters for
the tests. Low percentage solids tend to give better separation efficiency. However, planned or
existing plant conditions should be considered for the determination of this value. A range of 3035 % solids is commonly chosen for laboratory tests. In order to reach identical test conditions, the
pulp volume should also be adjusted by marking a fixed pulp level on the cell. Relatively with the
pulp level, froth thickness during the procedure can also be fixed (Runge 2010).
After washing the pulp into the flotation cell and adjusting the pulp level, the impeller is turned on
and the test continues by the conditioning stage. Required reagents in proper dosages are added.
Condition stage is followed by flotation stage. The aeration is turned on and built froth is scraped
on top of the cell into a bowl. A typical test for the determination of the flotation rate constants is
to collect several concentrate in fixed time periods. Collected concentrates are weighed as wet and
also as dry after filtering and drying. Concentrates and tail are prepared for chemical analysis. This
includes splitting and milling. After the chemical analysis of each sample is received, mass balance,
individual recoveries, selectivity information and more can be gathered and presented. Finally
kinetic constants are determined by model fitting (Runge 2010).
2.1.6 Scaling Up to Full-Scale Flotation
Since the flotation constant is not only dependent on the pulp properties but also to the unit
parameters as mentioned before; following the determination of floatability components parameter
values for minerals with laboratory batch flotation tests, a correction should be made for full scale
by the consideration of Sb and Rf parameters. This correction is called scale up factor (C) which
represents the difference in unit parameter kinetics of laboratory and full scale flotation procedure.
Generally the scale up factor is determined by conducting hot flotation which indicates the
critical stream collection from the plant followed with immediate laboratory scale batch flotation
tests. However, several studies with similar objective also has been successfully made without
conducting a circuit survey, but only with series of laboratory batch studies followed by the
determination of scale up factor by the estimation on experience or existing plant conditions. The
scale-up factor is introduced in the equation 6 below (Runge et al. 1997).
=
(6)
2+
()
+ () = () +
2+
()
[2+ ]
=
= 1011
[2+ ]
(7)
Another important aspect to mention is the effect of iron content in sphalerite which may cause an
activation inefficiency problem for the mineral. Normally, already existing heavy metal ions in the
pulp or in the cases of copper activation, the substitution of zinc and heavy metal salts occurs.
However, studies show that the increase of iron content in sphalerite limits this reaction and
consequently increases the solubility of metal xanthates (Boulton et al. 2005).
In both cases, i.e. selective and bulk flotation option, sphalerite needs to be depressed at one stage
while galena is floated. For this purpose, there are several zinc depressants available. Cyanide is
very commonly used and highly selective depressant. It not only depresses zinc sulphide, but also
iron sulphides and possibly present copper sulphides. However, it has two major disadvantages of
being very toxic and expensive. Therefore, other reagents are getting more and more common
including zinc sulphate (ZnSO4) and sodium bisulphite (NaHSO3) as sphalerite depressant (Wills
& Nappier-Munn 2006).
Zinc-lead sulphide deposits usually contains iron sulphides (e.g. pyrite, pyrrhotite (Fe(1-x)S)).
Presence of these minerals may cause problem with especially sphalerite floatation since the
adsorption and solubility levels of zinc and iron xanthates are very similar. Therefore, in two stage
separation, galena is floated first while the other sulphides are depressed. After this process, for the
separation of iron and zinc sulphides by depressing iron, there are also several other methods which
are applied. The most common method is to increase the conditioning pH to highly alkaline level.
This causes formation of a ferric hydroxide layer on the iron surface which prevents the iron surface
from getting activated by exchange reaction of copper or other heavy metal ions (Boulton et al.
2001).
used for ball mills, Bond rod mill test for rod mills, JK drop weight test for AG and SAG
mills)(Bailey et al. 2009).
Bond ball mill test is a widely used grindability determination method for industrial ball mills. It
generally requires over 15 kg representative sample and includes several cycles of grinding and
sieving to simulate the circulation load in the industrial scale (Ahmadi & Shahsavari 2009). On the
other hand, a recent study by Mwanga (2014) shows success on determination of BWI by a
geometallurgical comminution test (GCT). According to this method, by applying a smaller set of
grinding experiments using a small scale laboratory ball mill and application of introduced
calibration factors on BWI equation, grindability characterization can be made. Additionally, for
the application of the tests only around 200 grams (<-3.35 mm) sample is needed. Introduced
calibrated equation can be seen in the equation 8 below (Mwanga 2014).
1 2 3 4 10 (
1
1
)
80 80
(8)
where,
BWI = Estimated Bond Work Index
E = measured specific energy in the small mill after efficiency calibration (kwh/ton)
P80= Product d80 (m)
F80 = Feed d80 (m)
k = 1.63 (scale factor for Bond to small all mill)
Ef1 = 1.3 (correction factor for dry grinding)
Ef2 = 1.842 (Correction factor for efficient diameter
Ef3 = 0.835 (Ball mill efficient factor)
Ef4 = 0.95 (Efficient factor of fineness
12
Figure 6. Wet sieving set (on the left and, Cilas laser diffraction (on the right) equipment used for the experiments in LTU.
i.
Sieving
Sieving is the most common method for particle size analysis. It is a very useful technique
considering its very straight forward application and relatively low costs. Sieving can be done at
dry or wet conditions and by wet screening down to 10 m particle size can be analyzed. Basically
for sieving, a set of screens in ratio of 2 for aperture sizes is constructed and the material is fed
starting from the coarsest mesh size sieve to the finest one. At the end of the procedure, retained
materials for each sieve are weighed and recorded.
There are several ways to present the collected information from sieving. Most commonly, the
results are constructed as cumulative passing or cumulative retained amounts against screen
aperture sizes in a linear-log diagram in order to derive a certain proportion of undersize material
such as 80% passing size (d80). However, this method does not provide an overall particle size
distribution. For that purpose, often the full distribution is described as a function and one of such
is Rosin-Rammler (RR) equation (Rosin and Rammler, 1934). The equation gives full size
distribution and commonly a good fit between measured and model fitted distribution can be
received (Wills & Napier-Munn 2005). General expression of RR distribution function can be seen
in equation 9 below (Macas-Garca et al. 2004)
ln{ [1 ()]} =
(9)
where, () is the distribution function with is the particle size (mm), is the mean particle size
(mm) and m is a constant represents the spread of particles.
i.
Laser Diffraction
Laser diffraction is a common method for particle size analysis and it is useful especially for very
fine particle sizes (<20 m). In this method, a small amount of the material (down to 0.2 grams
depending on particle size) is sampled and silted up with distilled water. The main principle is to
13
subject the dispersed particles to the laser beam and measure the angular variation intensity of the
scattered light for each particle. For modeling of the PSD of a particular sample Mie theory or
Fraunhofer approximation can be used. Mie theory is the most reliable method for this purpose;
however it requires the knowledge on refractive index of the particles which defines how a
material refracts light (Anon n.d.) Therefore, for the cases with an unknown index, Fraunhofer
approximation is used for fast and less complex size property evaluations on a particular material.
A simplified illustration of the laser diffraction equipment working principle can be seen in Figure
7. (Anon n.d.)
14
As beneficiation methods are applied in order to separate valuable minerals from gangue minerals,
it is essential to determine the modal mineralogy of samples. Basically, three techniques can be
used: electron microscope based automated mineralogy (e.g. Burrows et al., 2007; Fandrich et al.,
2007), quantitative X-ray diffraction (Gonzalez et al. 2003; Parian & Lamberg 2013) or elementto-mineral conversion ((Whiten 2007; Lund et al. 2013). In this study element-to-mineral
conversion was used. This conversion can be represented by the following equation (Eq. 10).
=
(10)
where, A is the matrix of a particular minerals chemical composition which can be determined
by microprobe analysis or by using mostly occurring mineral data, x represents the unknown
vector of mineral composition in the sample, and b is the element weights which has been
determined by one of the previously mentioned analyses (Whiten 2007). In the case of
overdetermined (i.e. more elements than minerals) or non-negative least squares solution then
solution for x is searched by minimizing the residual (R) as described in Eq. 11 (Lund 2013).
= [ ]
(11)
15
Figure 8. A) XRF-EDS working principle illustration (Anon n.d.) B)Generalized electron-specimen interactions (Anon n.d.)
Analysis on such equipment can be made on drill-cores, slags or ground sample i.e. particulate
materials as in this study. For the analysis of particulate material, approximately 2-3 grams of
sample is needed to be prepared by a certain procedure. These samples can also be used for optical
microscopy studies. In particulate materials the analysis is commonly made on size fractions since
in bulk samples material can be classified by segregation or due to large variation in the particle
size, single magnification to be selected is a compromise and wont give good result either in coarse
or fine particle sizes.
2.4 Zinkgruvan AB
2.4.1 General remarks
Large scale mining in the Zinkgruvan zinc-lead-silver deposit was started on 1857 and has
continued since then. Lundin Mining Corporation has owned the production rights of the deposit
since 2004. The mine site is located in south-central Sweden (Figure 9) and includes an
underground mine, processing plant, infrastructure and tailings disposal. Recently, an enclosed
separate copper rich orebody was found and is now beneficiated by a separate line in the process
plant (Malmstrm et al. 2009).
Three different underground mining methods are utilized in the mine which are; transverse bench
and fill, double sub level mining and a modified Avoca mining method. These mining methods
were selected after the increased size of mined out areas. Due to the stability problems in the mine,
mining methods were changed and also paste backfill system was installed to the process plant
(Owen & Meyer 2013).
Currently mill throughput is around 1.2 million ton per year with a production of around 82 kt zinc,
30 kt lead and 4 kt copper. In addition to the two existing transportation shafts to the main levels
of 800 and 950 m, a ramp from the surface to 350 m depth was also built in 2010 in order to ease
the transportation of the equipment. While transportation of the lead and zinc concentrates are made
by trucks around 100 km away to the nearest port of Otterbacken where it is shipped to several
different smelters in Europe (Owen & Meyer 2013).
16
Figure 9. Location of the Zinkgruvan Deposit (acquired from Zinkgruvan Technical Report 2013)
Proterozoic age Bergslagen greenstone belt (1.90 to 1.88 Ga) consists of a number of iron and base
metal ore deposits and it is also the source of the mineralization in Zinkgruvan which is located at
the south west corner of the belt. The supracrustal rock consists of three groups: metavolcanic
group, metavolcano-sedimentary group which hosts most of the Zn-Pb-Ag mineralization and
metasedimentary group from lower to higher stratigraphic position. Up to 10 km thick felsic
metavolcanic successions dominates these supracrustal rocks (Owen & Meyer 2013).
17
During the Svecofennian orogeny in the Bergslagen greestone belt, firstly the intrusion into the
mentioned supracrustal rocks occurred as the I-type (igneous) granitoids which was followed by
further intrusion of S-type (sedimentary) plutons and dikes. Lastly, a large volume granitic stock
was intruded after orogeny causing a local folding on the area (1.73 Ga) (Hedstrom et al. 1989).
Relatively incompetent supracrustal rocks were folded in repeated deformation during the orogeny.
Large scale block movements which are caused by brittle fracturing of NNE fault systems such as
Knalla fault deformed and separated the ore zones. Hundreds of meter movement along these 1.53
Ga years old fault systems was occurred (Malmstrm et al. 2009). Local geology map of
Zinkgruvan is shown in Figure 10 (Owen & Meyer 2013).
Due to tectonics and intrusions, stratigraphy was overturned and the stratigraphic footwall has
become structural hanging wall. Below, the lithology of the deposit was presented starting from
the stratigraphic footwall (oldest age) to the stratigraphic hanging wall (youngest age) (Owen &
Meyer 2013)
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
Massive orebodies of lead and zinc sulphide are in well banded stratiform layers of 5 to 25 meter
thickness. The whole ore deposit is around 5 km long with down to 1.5 km depth. Due to the
previously mentioned structural activity which resulted with the movement of the blocks along the
Knalla fault, the deposit is divided into two domains which are called Nygruvan and Knallagruvan.
Two parallel horizons separated by 3 to 8 meter gneissic metatuffite are formed in Nygruvan. On
the other hand, in the Knalla part of the deposit, which contains all the new type of ores in the
interest of the study additionally with so called Burkland and Cecilia, there are up to four parallel
horizons but in narrower widths compared to Nygruvan.
18
Figure 10. Local geology of Zinkgruvan Mine (acquired from Zinkgruvan Technical Report 2012)
ii.
The resource estimation done in 2012 is contained in the National Instrument 43-101 technical
report of 2013. The study was made by Lundin Mining and audited by WAI. Orebody modeling
was mainly made using 3D block modeling except some minor orebodies and early stage resource
evaluations. By the time the feasibility study was prepared, two of the new orebodies of this
thesis (Mellanby and Savsjon) were evaluated. Therefore, the resource estimation method for these
orebodies was polygonal method whereas for the third new orebody of the study (Borta Bakom)
the method used was block modeling.
Cut-off grade for the mineralization was 3.8 % Zn for zinc-lead-silver orebodies and 1% Cu for
copper orebodies. Block modeling was constructed with 10m-5m-10m blocks with the additional
sub-blocking preference of 1/16. Mostly, ordinary kriging was used for the grade estimation
processes except several orebodies including Borta Bakom which show poor structured continuity.
A simplified illustration of 3-D section of the mine from 2012 can be seen in Figure 11(Owen &
Meyer 2013).According to the results of the estimation on 2012 total resources are 14.5 Mt and 6
19
Mt for zinc-lead-silver and copper orebodies respectively. Zinc-lead-silver and copper total
reserves were also estimated as 10 Mt at 9.0% Zn, 4.0 % Pb and 86 ppm Ag; and 4Mt at 2.2% Cu
and 32 ppm Ag, respectively.
Figure 11. 3-D section of the Zinkgruvan Mine on 2012 (acquired from Zinkgruvan Technical Report 2013)
20
Figure 12.A. Sphalerite particle with very fine galena, chalcopyrite and dyscrasite inclusions B. Fully liberated galena,
sphalerite and pyrrhotite particles
The major gangue minerals in the deposit are quartz (SiO2), orthoclase (k-feldspar, KAlSi3O8) and
biotite (K(Mg,Fe2+)3AlSi3O10(OH,F)2). According to a recent study (Liipo, 2011) on its mode of
b. b
occurrence; silica is mainly carried by k-feldspar (52 %) and quartz (30 %). Despite the
considerably good degree of liberation conditions, half of the silicate presence in the concentrates
B
was claimed to be due to insufficient liberation whereas the other half was considered to be
liberated and due to entrainment (Liipo 2011).
2.4.4 Beneficiation of the ore
b.
There are two separate circuits for zinc-lead-silver and copper ore in Zinkgruvan process plant.
During the plant visit and sampling collection, due to the lack of copper ore, copper comminution
circuit was used for additional lead-zinc-silver ore production whereas the flotation circuit for
copper ore was shut down. However, this temporary situation was already changed back to normal
application right after the plant visit. Therefore, since the copper ore and the beneficiation circuit
is out of scope of the study, this circuit will not be introduced in detail in this study.
i.
Drilled and blasted ore and waste material is primarily crushed at underground to -250 mm and
hoisted to the surface with 20 tons skips. Capacity of this primary crusher is approximately 300
tons per hour.
Crushed ore material is screened using a double deck screen and three sizes are generated. Crusher
fines (-15 mm) and lump material for autogenous grinding media (+ 90 mm) are directly sent to
AG mill, with the ratio of 70 % to 30 %, respectively. Intermediate size fraction is partly sent to
cone crusher and recirculated back to the double deck screen. This stream is instantaneously
adjustable and the amount sent to cone crusher can be changed according to the mill conditions at
the time.
ii.
Grinding
21
The grinding circuit in Zinkgruvan plant starts with 6.5 meter to 8.0 meter size AG mill with two
1600kW drivers for the zinc-lead-silver ore. The AG mill is run in a closed circuit with 250 mm
hydrocylones and the target cyclone overflow d80 is 110 to 120 m.
Except the AG mill grinding circuit there are additionally two intermediate regrinding mills. First
one is for the regrinding of scavenger concentrates and cleaner tailings and it is a 3.5 meter to 3.8
meter size ball mill with 400 kW motor. Target grinding size (d80) of this mill is around 60 m.
(Gustafsson pers. comm. 2015)
Secondary intermediate regrinding mill is for the cyclone of the Pb-Zn separation circuit and it is
a 2.4 meter to 3.6 meter size ball mill with 400 kW motor. Target grinding size (d80) of this mill is
approximately 30 m (Anon 2010).
iii.
Froth Flotation
In the plant, beneficiation of the zinc-lead-silver ore is made by four stage flotation. In stage one,
bulk rougher-scavenger flotation is performed by two banks of Outotec OK 38 (SR1-2) and
followed by six Metso RCS 40 m3 (SR3-8) flotation cells. Before this stage pH of the slurry is
adjusted to 8.0 8.20 by using sulfuric acid (H2SO4). As a collector, Sodium Iso-Propyl Xanthate
(SIPX) (25g/t) and as a frother, NasFroth (48 g/t) is used. Previously, for sphalerite activation
purposes, copper sulphate (CuSO4) was also used. However, it is not used in the circuit anymore
since sphalerite in the process is already activated into some extent possibly due to autogenous
grinding application and low iron content of the ore as it was suggested by Wills (2006). In other
words, generation of heavy metal ions by autogenous grinding and pulp chemistry conditions which
is also a results of low iron content of the ore believed to be leading a high recovery sphalerite
flotation without the usage of activator.
First two stages of plant flotation is illustrated in Figure 13. In the rougher-scavenger flotation the
first four cells are used as rougher flotation units and the concentrate is sent to the cleaning stage,
whereas the other four cells are used as scavengers and the concentrate is sent to first regrinding
unit and then back to the rougher flotation. Scavenger tail is sent to the tailings pond or the paste
plant.
In stage two, cleaning of the bulk concentrate is made in four stages with six Metso RCS 15 m3
flotation cells and Outotec OK 16 m3 flotation cells (SF1-8). Again the addition of collector and
frother is made during the cleaning stages. The cleaned bulk concentrate is sent to the next stage
whereas the tail of the first cleaning stage is combined with scavenger concentrate and sent first to
regrinding and then back to rougher flotation. Cleaner tails from each stage is sent in the previous
stages.
22
Figure 13. Bulk rougher, scavenger and cleaner flotation stages in the plant
Separation flotation and lead cleaning flotation circuits are illustrated in Figure 14. Third stage in
the flotation circuit is the separation of bulk concentrate to galena and sphalerite concentrates using
six Metso RCS 15 m3 flotation cells (PR1-6). By using Sodium Bisulfite (NaHSO3) as zinc
depressant (320 g /t), and by adding more collector and frother, the lead is floated whereas the zinc
is collected as tailing and directly sent to dewatering as final concentrate.
Floated lead concentrate is lastly sent to the fourth and last stage of the flotation circuit which is
lead cleaning. This stage includes three cleaning steps and is conducted by four Metso RCS 15m 3
flotation cells, followed by a JELE cell (PF1-4, JELE). Final concentrate of this circuit is sent to
dewatering and then taken as final lead concentrate whereas the cleaner tails are sent back to the
previous cleaning step.
23
Figure 14. Separation flotation and lead cleaning stages in the plant
A Courier on-line analysis system is used to monitor several streams. In addition laboratory
analysis is used for daily samples collected by the staff. In Table 1 below, for the sampling period
(Jan 29th 11.30-14.00) feed, concentrate and tailings tonnages and grades with relative recoveries
(simple flowsheet solid mass balance) are given. Assays are from the Courier on-line analyzer.
Table 1. Several plant stream and product zinc-lead grade and recoveries
Stream
Zn %
Pb %
Zn Rec%
Pb Rec%
Feed
145.00
100.00
7.43
3.38
100.00
100.00
Bulk Concentrate
23.24
16.02
42.96
19.36
92.71
91.86
Zinc Concentrate
17.58
12.12
55.18
2.67
90.08
9.57
Lead Concentrate
5.66
3.90
5.01
71.23
2.63
82.30
121.76
83.98
0.64
0.33
7.29
8.14
Tailings
iv.
The final lead concentrate is initially sent to a 7 m diameter thickener and then pressure filtered
before it is sent to lead stockpile with approximately, 6 % moisture content. The final zinc
concentrate on the other hand is initially sent to a 15 m diameter thickener and followed by pressure
filter and stockpiled with 9-10 % moisture content.
A part of the tailings is sent to tailings pond and the rest to the paste fill plant where it is dewatered
by a 10.5 m diameter thickener followed by disc filter. Later, by cement addition (2-4%) to the
dewatered material, the paste is pumped back to underground (Owen & Meyer 2013).
24
Size
Reference(Burkland-Nygruvan blend)
50.00
-15 mm
Savsjon* (Knallagruvan)
80.00
-10 cm
Mellanby (Knallagruvan)
60.00
-10 cm
60.00
-10 cm
* Savsjon orebody is classified in three parts in resource estimation. Orebody sample received for the study represents only the part
called Savjon West.
From all the orebody samples a small portion (approx. 1.5 kg) was reserved as back up sample and
for other possible studies. The rest of the material was crushed and necessary amount for the
experiments of this study was split into 1 kg bags. Laboratory scale jaw crusher wth adjusted
closed site setting (CSS) of approximately 5mm was used for size reduction of the material.
Crushing was made within close circuit of 3.35 mm screen. Crushing-screening procedure was
repeated until majority of the sample (approx. 99%) size were reduced below 3.35 (Figure 15).
Following this procedure, a splitter unit was used in order to create 1 kg representative samples for
each orebody. All the mentioned solid samples can be seen in Appendix 1.
25
Figure 16. Plant sections during site visit and sampled streams
Considering scope of the thesis, four stage flotation circuit was decided to be examined and
simulated individually. As the initial plan, four main units which are; bulk rougher-scavenger
flotation (SR1-8), bulk cleaner flotation (SF1-8) separation flotation (PR1-6) and lead cleaning
flotation (PF1-4 + JELE) (Figure 16) were planned to be examined individually and the relative
streams were sampled in order to gain knowledge on the internal feed-product properties. These
four main streams are introduced below with corresponding names.
1 AGM cyclone O/F- Rougher-Scavenger flotation feed (P-1101, 1102)
26
and considering the desired concentration parameter of 100 to 130 on Cilas software, 0.30 to 0.50
g samples were split and used for the analysis.
3.1.4 Sample preparation for mineralogical studies
Mineralogical studies on automated mineralogy with IncaMineral and optical microscopy requires
specifically prepared polished sections. In order to prepare these samples, initially, the material of
interest was split to 2 to 3 grams. This material was then molded with epoxy and let to harden for
48 hours. After the hardening, the samples were subjected into several stages of grinding and
polishing procedure using Struers semi-automated polishing equipment shown in Figure 17.
Following the polishing procedure, the samples became suitable for optical microscopy studies.
However, for the SEM-EDS procedures on Inca Mineral, these samples were additionally carbon
coated. Molded and engraved samples, and carbon coating equipment can also be seen in Figure
17 below.
Figure 17 A) Struers Polishing Equipment B) Molded and engraved samples C) Carbon coater
According to the initial mineralogical study plan, following five size fractions from each four
orebody samples were decided to be prepared: 20-38 m, 38-53 m, 53-75 m, 75-106 m and
106-150 m. These samples were split and prepared from 10 minute laboratory rod mill grinding
28
product of wet sieved fractions. In total twenty (20) samples were prepared for this part of the
study. All the mineralogical study samples can be seen in Appendix 1.
3.2 Methods
Based on objectives of the study shown in Figure 1, methodologies described in following six sub
chapters.
3.2.1 Mineralogy
i.
Experimental
For the mineralogical study of the feed samples 10 minute ground and sieved samples for each
orebody (R-T2; M-T2; S-T2; BB-T2) were used. From the sieved and reserved product, five
different size fractions for each sample were prepared with 2 to 3 gram material. The samples were
initially examined on optical microscopy for mineral identification and preliminary estimate on
mineral liberation and association.
Following the optical microscopy study, samples were carbon coated and analyzed by SEM based
automated mineralogy. In this Zeiss Merlin scanning electron microscope equipped with Oxford
EDS detector and INCAMineral software at Lule University of Technology was used.
During each SEM run 4 samples were examined. Prior to each run, experimental setup was made
on INCAMineral softwares Feature module. Depending on the fineness of the sample, proper
magnification was selected. Calibration of the contrast and brightness was made in order to create
a proper grey level variance between different minerals and by using several tools such as morpho
cut and smoothing touching particle problem was tried to be minimized (Figure 18).
Figure 18. A) Brightness & Contrast adjustments for grey levels. B) Particle and background adjustments by MorphoCut,
Smoothing and Threshold tools on Inca Mineral software.
After completing the proper adjustment and experimental setup, the software randomly chooses a
set of fields to analyze over each sample. In order to finish the whole run in 10 to 12 hours (for
four samples), a time limit of approximately 3 hours for each individual sample was used. Analysis
went through tens of randomly chosen fields on every sample. In each field 200 to 500 particles
29
were measured depending on the chosen magnification level during the setup. At the end of the
analysis a raw dataset for each individual sample which includes four to eight thousand particles
in total was received.
Besides automated runs, samples were also analyzed using Point analysis module of the INCA
software. This was made to ensure right mineral identification and to gain information on chemical
composition of minerals (Figure 19).
Figure 19. A) Selected points on a single Sph-Gn locked particle B) Spectrum 1- Galena peaks. C) Spectrum 2- Sphalerite Peaks
ii.
Received raw dataset cannot be evaluated without data processing since it includes chemical
composition of grains by EDS yet mineral identifications are missing. Therefore, the raw data was
initially processed by Grain Classifier V.1.9 (Parian 2015). Each dataset and previously prepared
mineral setup file were introduced to the software in order to make the chemical composition
mineral match for each individual grain in the dataset. After this initial processing mineral counts,
weight percentages and average chemical compositions can be received. In addition, this converted
data can then be used for further data processing on Grain Analyzer and HSC 7.1 software.
Except for liberation analysis the results of the INCAMineral runs were used to study the variation
in the chemical composition of sphalerite. For this study, mineral setup file was reorganized
including sixteen (16) different sphalerite with varying Fe:Zn ratio. Distribution in the composition
as well as mean and average composition of sphalerite were calculated from this analysis.
iii.
Classified INCAMineral data including identified mineral phases was evaluated in Inca Minerals
Grain Analyzer software. By conducting a short investigation on this software, a general idea can
be achieved on the mineralogy and existence of certain possible drawbacks such as touching
particle or edge effect could be observed if there is any. As an example to the Grain an individual
field and particle investigation can be seen in Figure 20.
30
Figure 20. A Phase view for a single field examined SEM work. B) Single particle data view with particle components and sizes.
Additionally, this software was used together with Grain classifier software, in order to detect
possible other existing minerals in the ore such as zinc oxides which were not introduced in
standard mineral setup.
iv.
In HSC 7.1 Geo module, the INCAMineral data was further processed for acquiring quantitative
mineralogical information on fractional and bulk level. The data report includes modal mineralogy,
calculated elemental compositions and liberation distribution. Prior to the mentioned data
processing on HSC 7.1 the list of minerals was simplified by combining minerals with similar
properties in flotation (Table 3).
Table 3. Mineral Setup- Selected, Found and Combined Minerals
Min ID
Mineral
Groups
Mineral
Abbr.
Properties
Combined Minerals
14098*
Sphalerite*
Sp
NA
14021
Galena
Gn
NA
52
Chalcopyrite
Ccp
Cubanite
69
Pyrrhotite
Po
6971
Magnetite
Mgt
5.3 % Ti, 2.3 % Al, 0.1 % Cr, 0.3 % Mn, 1.7 % Mg,
60.5 % Fe
53
Quartz
Qtz
NA
6303
Orthoclase
Or
Plagioclase, Zircon
6493
Actinolite
Act
9695
Biotite
Bt
17.0 % Si, 2.6 % Ti, 7.5 % Al, 13.8 % Fe, 0.3 % Mn,
7.4 % Mg, 0.2 % Na, 8.3 % K, 38.6 % O, 0.2 % Cl
214
Calcite
Cal
*Sphalerite elemental content was introduced individually for each orebody sample according to the mineral classification results.
All identified minerals on SEM can be seen under combined minerals column in Table 3. In order
to have more representable results and efficient study, most of the abundant minerals were
combined under 10 major mineral groups. These groups were named according to the most
31
abundant mineral of the group. In addition, from many different property minerals in the mineral
database of HSC 7.1 given property minerals were chosen considering the background knowledge
on the deposit.
Following the procedures of data collection, classification and data processing size fraction data of
each orebody sample was combined using HSC. 7.1 to a single stream. Oversized particles, due to
particle touching, were filtered. Mass distributions of each size fractions input was also taken from
the wet screening results. The processing of the liberation data continued in HSC 7.1 by binning
of the particle data. In this part of the data processing, liberated, binary, tertiary and more complex
particles were grouped in narrow liberation classes. Lastly, the missing fractions of >20 m and
150 212 m were extrapolated with the tool of the software. Finally, combined data was examined
and tables and graphs of mode of occurrence, liberation degrees and modal mineralogy were
prepared.
3.2.2 Investigation of critical plant streams
In order to gain knowledge on the current plant conditions for each section certain streams were
selected for chemical and PSD analysis. Chemical analysis results of all collected plant samples
(P-1102, 2102, 3102, 4102, 5202, 7101, 8101) were used for a 4 section simple mass balancing of
the circuit using the Simulation module of HSC 7.1. These results gave background information
for evaluating laboratory flotation and simulation results.
Particle size analysis of floatation feed and product streams for different sections were made. These
results were used in grindability part of the study and for the calibration of laboratory tests grinding
time. (P-1102, 5202)
In addition, several other collected plant stream samples PSDs were determined in order to observe
the intermediate grinding effect on the circuit. For that purpose, bulk cleaner feed, separation
flotation feed, lead cleaner feed and concentrate products samples were used (P- 2012, 3102, 4102,
7101, 8101).
All the samples were wet sieved in order to plot a time vs cumulative passing size curve. Ground
product PSDs were also modeled by using Rosin-Rammler method. Lastly, for the selected
grinding time, laser diffraction equipment (Cilas) was used for reconciliation of the size distribution
analysis. As an example to this procedure, P-1102 results from linear-log reading, Cilas-laser
diffraction technique and RR size distribution methods can be seen in the Figure 21 below.
32
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
50% Pass
80% Pass
Lin-Log Reading
Cilas-Laser Dff
90% Pass
RR
3.2.3 Grindability
i.
For the flotation tests appropriate laboratory grinding time had to be determined. Commonly, for
this kind of flotation studies, three approaches are used. First method is to apply same grinding
time to different samples. However, since the particle size distributions of feed is very effective on
flotation performance as explained previously, further analyzed methods would be more
appropriate. As a second method, reaching similar particle size distribution for different type of
ores can be applied. Lastly, as the third method, application of grinding that reaches similar degree
of liberation can also be applied. Since third method requires the background knowledge of
liberation conditions of each different orebody sample, which was unknown at the beginning of the
study, the second approach; i.e. similar PSD was used for all the orebody samples.
Basically, three of each crushed-split solid samples of 1kg (R-T1, T2, T3; M-T1, T2, T3; S-T1,
T2, T3; BB-T1, T2, T3) were ground for 5, 10 and 15 minutes with stainless steel laboratory scale
rod mil. Selection of the times were done based on previous works where 10-11 minute grinding
time was detected to be fitting with plant conditions (d80 = 100-110 m). All the grinding
procedures were made in near 60 % solid conditions by addition of approximately 650 ml water.
Selection of the rod mill was made according to the previous studies which showed the laboratory
scale rod mill provides similar product PSD with industrial scale closed circuit grinding conditions.
Additionally, stainless steel mill and rod selection was made since the plant utilizes an AG mill for
grinding.
33
After grinding each orebody sample with three different times, results were compared in a linearlog plot and additionally by laser diffraction and RR methods as introduced before. As an example
to comparison plots, three times ground Reference and fresh flotation feed stream (1102) are shown
in Figure 22.
Plant Flotation Feed vs Different Grinding Times for Reference
100.00%
90.00%
80.00%
Cum % Pass.
70.00%
60.00%
50.00%
40.00%
30.00%
20.00%
10.00%
0.00%
10
100
1000
10 min
5 min
15 min
ii.
The Bond ball mill index was determined for each orebody sample. For this purpose, GCT method
was used. Even, the Zinkgruvan plant utilizes an AG mill and a ball mill BWI index would not
represent an actual forecast of the industrial scale, grindability index was used for comparing the
orebody samples. The tests were made with approximately 220 g crushed samples (<3.35 mm).
Each sample was ground by a small scale laboratory ball mill in 5 stages of 2, 3, 5, 7, 8 minutes
within dry grinding conditions. After each grinding stage the energy spent was recorded and the
relative product was dry sieved.
After finishing the experiment, by using the gathered screening results, d80 values for the feed and
five individual products were estimated. Recorded energy spend values were calibrated according
to the ball mill efficiency models.(Mwanga, pers. comm. 2015) Considering the BWI equation
square roots of each d80 value was calculated. After these calculations, efficient energy spent vs.
size reduction for cumulative grinding times of 2, 5, 10, 17 and 25 minutes was plotted for each
sample. Lastly, the calibration factor for this particular ball mill (Equation 7) was applied to all
results and the work index values were reported.
34
Experimental Setup
Determination of the flotation kinetics for each orebody sample was another sub objective of the
study. In this part of the study, a laboratory scale Wemco cell (2.5 liters) was used in fixed aeration
rate and impeller speed conditions. The complete laboratory flotation setup can be seen in the
Figure 23.
The test flowsheet can be seen in Figure 24. Each kinetics test was started by grinding, either for
ensuring fresh particle surfaces (45 seconds) or by utilizing determined grinding time (10 minutes)
for the crushed bulk samples. The ground material was washed down into the flotation cell and
required amount of water was added in order to reach around 30% solid. As mentioned previously,
in order to be able to conduct identical flotation test conditions, one of the necessities is to have
similar froth thickness and relatively similar pulp height in the cell. By using a 2.5 liter flotation
cell for 1kg sample, considering the similar density and volume values of the solid material, the
added water should be also similar and at a rate of 70 % of the pulp by weight (2.2-2.3 liters
including grinding water).
After pulping, the tests continued with the conditioning of the pulp prior to flotation. It was planned
to make the laboratory flotation tests in the conditions of fitting pH and reagent dosages which
applied in the plant since the objective is to make a forecast for current plant conditions. Therefore,
during the conditioning stage of each flotation test, initially the pH of the pulp was adjusted to 8.00
by using sulfuric acid (4%). In rougher-scavenger flotation kinetics, 25 g/t SIPX (2.5% by weight
conc.) and 20 g /ton NasFroth (100% conc.) were added into the cell during the conditioning stage.
35
Total conditioning time was five minutes, with three minutes for the collector and the rest two
minutes for the frother. After conditioning, aeration was turned on and the collection of a
concentrate began for 0.5, 1, 2, 4 and 8 minutes (cumulative time). After the collection of these
first five concentrates, aeration was turned back off and a secondary conditioning of 1.5 - 2 minutes
was made by addition of 13 g /ton SIPX. Also pH adjustment to reach around 8.00 value was done
by using sulfuric acid again. After this step, one last concentrate of 8 more minutes (16 minutes
flotation time in total) was taken and the test was finalized. All seven products (including tailings)
were weighed, filtered and 30-50 g of material was split and sent to Zinkgruvan for chemical
analysis by XRF.
ii.
For the rougher-scavenger kinetics one sample for each orebody were used (4). In addition to these
four tests two other tests of previously collected plant samples (P-1102, 5202) were made for
comparison and calibration (2).
Two repeat tests (2) were done for the quality assurance & quality control (QA/QC) purposes. This
subject will be described more detailed in section 3.2.6 QA / QC procedures.
iii.
In order to have an indication on the separation flotation kinetics for current plant conditions, one
more test by using collected plant sample of separation flotation feed (P-3101) (1) was made.
3.2.5 Kinetic Modeling, Simulation and Production Forecast
In the final stage of the study, by using HSC 7.1 Sim module and collected data, simulations were
done to have production forecasts for each new orebody sample. The results were evaluated against
mineralogical analyses.
i.
Chemical analyses of the products were done with XRF technique. For kinetic models it is decided
to use following 5 mineral classes: sphalerite, galena, chalcopyrite, pyrrhotite (as combined iron
sulphides) and non sulphide gangue (NSG).
36
According to this plan, Zn %, Pb % and Cu % results were converted to sphalerite, galena and
chalcopyrite minerals, respectively by using corresponding elemental composition of each mineral.
Individual zinc content of sphalerite was used for each orebody sample. For galena and
chalcopyrite stoichiometric mineral compositions were used for all samples.
Residual sulphur was used to calculate iron sulphides represented by pyrrhotite (60.14 % Fe 39.86
% S). Lastly, NSG mineral class was calculated by summing up the sum of minerals to 100% In
the Table 4 below, element and converted mineral values for back calculated Mellanby feed sample
are given.
Table 4. Element Mineral Conversion for Back Calculated Mellanby Feed
Sample
Elements
ii.
Minerals
Zn %
Pb %
Cu %
S%
Sph %
Gn %
Ccp %
Po%
NSG %
6.557
1.494
0.0332
4.461
11.00
1.73
0.0958
1.448
85.7
For kinetic modeling cumulative mineral recovery values of the five mineral classes were
introduced to the responding flowsheet in the Sim module of HSC 7.1 (Figure 24). For flotation
kinetic determination (model fitting), floatability component method with three components of fast,
slow and non-floating was selected.
From the calculation results by using, time versus cumulative recovery results for mentioned five
mineral group kinetic properties was modeled individually. As an example, Reference, galena
flotation kinetics model fit and result kinetic and mass component values are presented in Figure
25.
Figure 25. Three component flotation kinetics model fit for Reference galena mineral
iii.
The simulation results were first checked against experimental results using similar flotation circuit
and flotation times as in the laboratory test (Figure 24).
37
In order to conduct this study, Particles tool was used in HSC 7.1 Sim software. Mineral setup and
assemblage were defined considering the mineralogical study results. However, instead of using
ten mineral classes as in mineralogical study, five mineral classes used in model fitting were used.
Chemical composition of mineral classes and kinetic properties were introduced to the software.
Once the mineral property description was complete, units of the flowsheet was also introduced.
Kinetic mass components for each mineral were defined in conditioning model and kinetic speed
values were defined in flotation cell models. Since, froth recovery Rf and bubble area flux Sb
parameters were undetermined, they were fixed as 1. In these conditions, floatation kinetics
became independent from the unit specific properties and only dependent to particle properties (P)
for each orebody sample. (See Eq. 1)
Simulation results of this setup was compared with the initial experimental results for galena and
sphalerite mineral groups. Variation between experimental and modeling results cumulative
recoveries were calculated.
iv.
Following the determination and checking of flotation kinetics the simulation flowsheet was
reorganized according to the plant conditions for bulk rougher, scavenger, cleaner and selective
sphalerite-galena flotation (Figure 26). For this part different kinetic properties were used for bulk
flotation and selective flotation with the assumption of conservation of kinetic properties within
these stages.
38
As it was mentioned earlier, since the galena- sphalerite separation stage kinetics for new orebody
samples could not be acquired, kinetics of sphalerite-galena separation was taken from the plant
mass balance.
v.
After evaluating the simulation results from full closed circuit, circuit was converted into closed,
and kinetic definition was changed for continuous model (see eq. 2, 3). Simulation results were
compared with actual recovery grade data acquired from the plant.
3.2.6 QA / QC procedures
Several quality assurance and quality control procedure were applied during the study. The aim
was to measure and, if possible, improve the quality of the experimental results.
These activities can be examined in two major topics.
i.
Sampling procedures
Sample Name
QA/QC Sample 1
QA /QC Sample 2
M-T2-1
M-T1-1
M-T3-1
ii.
Source
Sample Name
QA/QC Sample 1
QA/QC Sample 2
M-T2-1
M-T2-2
M-T2-3
Secondary QA/QC rougher-scavenger flotation test for the detection of composite error was made
with Savsjon as two repeats (Table 7) Products were analyzed and standard deviation of grades and
recoveries were determined.
39
Purpose
Source
Test Name
Sample Name
Flotation Kinetics
S2
S-T7
S-T7-C1;C2;C3;C4;C5;C6;T
QA/QC 1
S3
S-T5
S-T5-C1;C2;C3;C4;C5;C6;T
QA/QC 2
S4
S-T8
S-T8-C1;C2;C3;C4;C5;C6;T
4. Results
4.1 Mineralogy
Five size fractions from each orebody feed sample were examined for mineralogy. Results are
summarized in following sub chapters.
4.1.1 Iron content analysis of Sphalerite
Literature study indicated that increasing iron content of the sphalerite mineral affects the
floatability negatively. The results of the analyses which were made to investigate sphalerite
zinc/iron content of different orebody samples are presented in the Figure 27, Table 8, Table 9.
Iron content of the sphalerite increases in the following order: Reference, Borta Bakom, Savsjon
and Mellanby. Borta Bakom shows similarity with Reference and Savsjon shows similarity with
Mellanby. However, none of the orebody samples, including Borta Bakom has as low as or lower
content of iron in sphalerite as in the Reference.
Reference
25.00%
Borta Bakom
Weight %
20.00%
Savsjon
Mellanby
15.00%
2 per. Mov.
Avg.
(Reference)
2 per. Mov.
Avg. (Borta
Bakom)
2 per. Mov.
Avg. (Savsjon)
10.00%
5.00%
0.00%
0
10
11
12
13
14
15
Iron Content %
Figure 27. Iron content frequency for sphalerite mineral in different orebody samples
40
2 per. Mov.
Avg. (Mellanby)
This may lead to a sphalerite activation problem related with collector bonding. Eventually, this
phenomena can cause recovery problems for sphalerite in all three orebody samples, especially in
Mellanby and Savsjon.
Table 8. Limiting cumulative values for iron content of sphalerite
Orebody
>5 % Fe
>7 % Fe
>9 % Fe
>11 % Fe
> 13 % Fe
Reference
58.39%
26.95%
8.83%
3.18%
1.55%
Borta Bakom
69.25%
38.88%
11.24%
4.26%
2.17%
Savsjon
90.36%
61.92%
24.08%
5.68%
2.40%
Mellanby
91.48%
61.70%
22.29%
6.03%
2.95%
Another problem which can be expected according to these results is the lower zinc and higher iron
content in zinc concentrates for Savsjon and Mellanby which may decrease the value of the
concentrate. However, in order to understand real impact of this problem further analysis should
be done on zinc concentrates.
Table 9. Average Zn and Fe content of Sphalerite of Different Orebody samples
Orebody
Zn* %
Fe** %
Reference
61.65
5.49
Borta Bakom
60.83
6.31
Mellanby
59.60
7.54
Savsjon
59.54
7.60
* Zinc content values are back calculated from determined iron contents.
** Iron content values are determined as mean values from this study. Main purpose is to introduce differences between
orebody samples. They should not be taken as absolute values.
General Results
Bulk modal mineralogy for each orebody sample which was calculated from size fractions is given
in Table 10. Significant differences between the samples are highlighted. Iron sulphides content is
higher in studied orebody samples than in the Reference; especially in Savsjon. Iron sulphides can
have two major detrimental effect in flotation. Firstly, despite the lower kinetic values of iron
sulphides, they still float and therefore, decrease sphalerite and galena grade in concentrates.
Connected with the collection problem these minerals also can cause collector starvation for target
minerals since they also can adsorb the collector.
Table 10. Modal Mineralogy of orebody samples
Ore Body
Sp %
Gn %
Po %
Mgt %
Ccp %
Qtz %
Cal %
Ort %
Act %
Bt %
Reference
19.48
7.29
0.88
0.45
0.14
19.91
2.73
20.66
16.94
11.51
Borta Bakom
13.16
4.58
1.36
0.54
0.07
25.48
0.82
24.18
18.87
10.94
Mellanby
13.66
2.28
1.13
2.33
0.03
21.98
2.73
22.31
21.34
12.20
Savsjon
22.68
5.81
3.50
0.18
0.21
8.03
2.52
26.61
20.43
10.04
41
Mellanby has significantly higher content of iron oxides (mostly magnetite) compared to other
samples. Both iron oxide and sulphides also can cause undesired pulp chemistry conditions (Eh)
and this can effect collector adsorption of target minerals up to some extent.
Borta Bakom has lower carbonate mineral grades. This should have a positive effect on flotation
performance since some of carbonate group minerals are naturally hydrophobic and can cause
contamination of concentrate. Additionally they can partially adsorb the collector. However, the
difference is not that significant. Another advantage of low carbonates in Borta Bakom is the lower
initial pH of the pulp which would decrease the sulfuric acid consumption partly. Savsjon has lower
quartz content but this should not have any influence in flotation. Variation in quartz grade can
effect on grindability.
The grades of the main target minerals; sphalerite and galena; are illustrated in Figure 28.
Reference and Savsjon have higher sphalerite grade (19.5 %, 22.7 % respectively); whereas Borta
Bakom and Mellanby has lower grades (13.2 %, 13.7 % respectively). For galena on the other hand,
Reference has the highest grade (7.29 %) followed by Savsjon (5.81 %), Borta Bakom (4.58 %)
and Mellanby (2.28 %). Especially Mellanby has very low galena grade comparing with Reference.
Mineral Content %
25.00
Sp %
20.00
15.00
10.00
Gn %
5.00
0.00
Reference
Borta Bakom
Mellanby
Savsjon
Orebody
Figure 28. Modal Mineralogy of orebody samples
For quality control back calculated chemical composition from modal analysis is compared to
chemical assays by XRF in Table 11. Back calculated composition from automated mineralogy
shows higher Pb, Zn, S and Fe grades than actual analyses. This can be due to two reasons. Either
samples have been segregated in sample preparation due to high density difference of minerals or
mineral identification has failed. Since the reconciliation of mineral identification with used
42
software setup on Point ID module was made, the second reasons is not plausible. Therefore, it is
believed that samples have segregated in sample preparation and this must be considered when
making conclusions on mineralogical analyses.
Table 11. Comparison of XRF and SEM analysis
Orebody
Reference OT- ZG- Chemical Analysis
Fe %
4.28
S%
5.30
Pb %
4.03
Zn %
8.94
5.22
7.80
6.29
11.51
4.68
4.71
3.02
6.49
5.16
5.52
3.95
7.73
5.88
4.76
1.76
7.29
6.66
5.26
1.97
7.89
4.86
7.59
3.32
10.52
7.27
9.71
5.01
13.09
i.
It is known that Zinkgruvan deposit includes gahnite (ZnAl2O4) in several previously found
orebodies as a secondary zinc carrier. Gahnite and other possible zinc oxides are expected to be
majorly hydrophilic and end up to tailing in flotation conditions used. Therefore, the presence of
several different zinc oxide minerals was double checked.
Automated mineralogy identified gahnite, franklinite (ZnFe2O4) and zincite (ZnO) in trace amounts
in all orebody samples. However, when examining these grains in detail, it was found that zincite
and franklinite were only found due to wrong identification on SEM analysis on particle edges due
to edge effect (Figure 29) and no positive identified grains were found for these two minerals.
Figure 29. Examples of wrong identifications on SEM for A) Franklinite in Reference B)Gahnite in Borta Bakom C) Zincite in
Mellanby
Gahnite was also similarly found as wrong identifications in several particles for Borta Bakom and
Reference samples. However, most of the gahnite which was found in Savsjon and Mellanby
samples were actually positive identifications. In order to estimate the gahnite grade in Savsjon
and Mellanby, highest gahnite grade fractions in each orebody sample was used. (Table 12). It is
seen that even with this worst case scenario approach, gahnite can carry maximum 3% of total zinc
in Mellanby and 1% in Savsjon. In bulk sample calculation, (i.e. av. of five size fractions) zinc
element carried by gahnite was found as 1.5 % and 0.5 % for Mellanby and Savsjon respectively.
43
Savsjon
Av Sphalerite
Grade %
20.90
Zinc Carried by
Sphalerite %
12.12
Highest Observed
Gahnite Grade %
0.37
Zinc Carried
by Gahnite %
0.13
Zinc
Total
12.25
Zn in Gahnite /
Zn Total
1.06%
Mellanby
13.80
8.00
0.68
0.24
8.24
2.89%
Orebody
70%
60%
Ternary with Sp
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
Others
0%
Borta Bakom
Mellanby
Reference
Savsjon
44
It can be expected that Savsjon would have either higher non-floating mass component (loss of
galena) or slow floating mass component which would end up with contamination of concentrate.
Based on galena liberation information Mellanby and Borta Bakom are expected to have faster
kinetics for galena compared to Savsjon and Reference.
In comparison with galena, sphalerite liberation degree for all orebody samples is higher (Figure
31.) Additionally, the differences between the orebody samples are less significant for sphalerite.
For all orebody samples, fully liberated sphalerite amount is between 80 85 %. Fully liberated
and galena binary totals for sphalerite is around 90 % for Borta Bakom, Reference and Savsjon
whereas it is less than 85 % for Mellanby.
90%
80%
Binary with Gn
70%
60%
50%
Binary with Po
40%
30%
Binary with NSG
20%
10%
Others
0%
Borta Bakom
Mellanby
Reference
Savsjon
Figure 32. Current simple 4 section mass balance of the plant sections
Particle size distributions for bulk rougher feed section streams is shown in Figure 33. The fresh
feed (1102) is much coarser (P80 = 100 um) than the reground (5202) and the bulk rougher
concentrate (i.e. cleaner feed, 2102). The difference between fresh feed and floated product
believed to be due to both regrinding procedure and size selectivity of flotation procedure itself.
Size selectivity of the flotation process can be explained with three major reasons. Firstly, target
minerals of flotation process (metal sulphides) due to their structural properties are more brittle
than gangue minerals. Therefore, the particle size of the target minerals reporting to the rougher
concentrate is believed to be finer than that of the gangue minerals.
Second major reason is related with the kinetic properties of minerals in flotation. It is known that
liberated particles tend to float faster than the particles which are locked with gangues. Considering
a standard liberation degree for a particular material, finer size materials are expected to have
higher liberation degrees. Therefore, fully liberated higher kinetic degree particles are normally
expected to float during rougher stage whereas non-liberated (lower kinetic value particles) are
expected to float in scavenger stage of flotation or report to tailings. This reason also explains the
difference between P-5202 and P-2012 streams. It can be seen that (Figure 33), even with the
regrinding procedure it was subjected to; P-5202 still has less fines (-20 m) than P-2102 which
indicates that scavenger float has higher PSD than rougher float.
Third and last possible reason can be entrapment which is the bubble attachment stability
problem which occurs on coarse particles due to their large size. However, normally in industrial
scale, this problem occurs on ignorable levels, since the grinding procedure is adjusted in order to
avoid this kind of recovery affecting problems. Therefore, the last reason is not believed to be
effective as first two others.
46
80.00%
70.00%
60.00%
50.00%
40.00%
30.00%
20.00%
10
100
1000
5202-Reground Feed
2102-Cleaner Feed
Since the tailing stream of the plant was not sampled, the effect of the flotation process size
selectivity could not be evaluated. However, considering the reground stream conditions, (low solid
recovery (Figure 32) and PSD) size selectivity of flotation process believed to have much higher
effect than regrinding process.
Another section of interest for particle size distribution analysis was separation flotation section
with feed and final concentrates. Therefore, the samples taken from separation flotation feed, lead
cleaner feed and both lead & zinc concentrates were wet sieved (Figure 34).
Zinc concentrate is clearly coarser than lead concentrate. This fact can be explained with several
reasons. The first reason is galenas more brittle structure than sphalerite against size reduction
procedures. Therefore, it is believed that size reduction for galena was higher than sphalerite
minerals. Secondly, mineralogical studies shows the abundance of very fine galena grains is more
than sphalerite, this condition of the ore can be another reason to explain this PSD difference.
Lastly, as it was introduced before, there is a regrinding unit for the lead cleaner middling which
applies a further size reduction on the lead stream. However, considering the similarity in PSDs
of final lead concentrate (8101) and lead cleaner feed (4102) streams, this regrinding unit is not
believed to be highly effective on this difference between lead-zinc PSD concentrates as other two
previously explained reasons.
47
80.00%
70.00%
60.00%
50.00%
40.00%
30.00%
10
100
1000
7102-Zinc Concentrate
8102-Lead Concentrate
For reconciliation purposes, several of these plant streams were also examined with laser
diffraction technique and the results can be seen in the Table 13 below. All the wet sieving results
introduced in this part of the study can be seen in the Appendix 2.
Table 13. Laser diffraction particle size passing results for plant stream samples
Cumulative Passing Size
Stream
1102
2102
3102
4102
5202
7101
8101
50 % Pass. (m)
48
21
26
16
35
29
13
80 % Pass. (m)
110
60
64
42
66
62
28
90 % Pass. (m)
150
85
88
63
83
83
36
4.3 Grindability
4.3.1 Grinding Time Determination for Laboratory Studies
Grindability studies for the required grinding time determination on laboratory scale rod mill were
made for each orebody sample with three different time of 5, 10 and 15 minutes. In the Figure 35
below, 10 minute grinding PSD results which were acquired from wet sieving can be seen with
1102 fresh flotation feed stream in the plant.
48
90.00%
80.00%
70.00%
60.00%
50.00%
40.00%
30.00%
20.00%
10
100
1000
Mellanby
Savsjon
Borta Bakom
1102
Figure 35. 10 minute grinding PSD results for all orebody samples vs. fresh flotation feed stream PSD (1102)
10 minutes grinding time in laboratory rod mill gives quite similar size distributions within the
plant (1102) for all orebody samples (Figure 35, Table 14). However, due to the AG mill
application in Zinkgruvan, it is seen that the product curves have slight differences. AG mill closed
circuit hyrdocylone overflow have more spread particle size distribution comparing with the rod
mill products. In other words, 1102 has higher amounts both for the finest and the coarsest sizes.
In order to decrease the diverse effect of this fact, instead of focusing on d 80 fractions in the
materials for fitting, 65-75 % percent passing amount fitting between plant and laboratory
conditions was preferred. Consequently, 10 minutes grinding for all orebody samples which give
slightly lower d80 values comparing 1102 was accepted as the suitable grinding time.
Table 14. 10 minutes grinding results comparison with 1102 plant feed
Stream
80% Pass- m
90% Pass- m
1102-AG mill OF
50
105
145
Reference
53
98
115
Ssvsjon
52
95
110
Mellanby
58
105
125
Borta Bakom
50
95
110
According to all methods, Borta Bakom have finest particle size among the four orebody samples
whereas Mellanby is slightly coarser. Savsjon and Reference show very high similarity with each
other and in particle size they are in between of Borta Bakom and Mellanby.
49
Other than 10 minute grinding, 5 and 15 minute grinding products were also wet sieved and their
distributions were plotted on a log-linear curve. Relative PSD results and plots can be seen in
Appendix 3.
4.3.2 Bond Work Index with GCT method
All orebody samples show similar grindability also in the geometallurgical comminution test
(GCT; Table 15). Reference, Borta Bakom and Mellanby gave similar BWI values. According to
this study Savsjon has the lowest BWI index which is believed to be due to less Quartz mineral
abundance (Table 10).
Table 15. GCT test results for Different orebody samples Bond Work Index determination
Efficient
Energy
Spent*
Time
(min)
Reference
D80 (m)
Borta Bakom
D80 (m)
Mellanby
D80 (m)
Orebody
BWI
1915.35
Savsjon
D80
(m)
1936.00
0.00
2011.86
1843.69
Reference
11.15
0.88
1894.64
1731.03
1712.51
1663.94
Borta Bakom
11.40
2.80
1492.80
1421.92
1316.29
1214.82
Mellanby
11.07
10
782.84
906.87
637.23
517.55
Savsjon
6.40
10.37
10.56
17
394.21
401.48
282.56
257.96
16.50
25
169.96
173.82
174.85
157.41
*Efficient energy spent values were acquired from A. Mwanga and determined according to standard ball mill grinding efficiency
models.
4.4 Flotation
4.4.1 Bulk Rougher-Scavenger Flotation
Chemical analysis results of bulk flotation tests were firstly used for back calculation of feed grades
from flotation products and comparison of these values with feed sample chemical analyses was
made. Complete analyzed samples including unprocessed samples can be seen in Appendix 4.1.
Relative difference of feed and back-calculated feed results can be seen in Table 16 below for all
orebody samples.
Reference and Savsjon feed vs. back calculated feed analysis are very similar and check out in this
basic assessment. Borta Bakom and Mellanby show significant difference in analyzed and back
calculated grades. This is most probably due to calibrate problems in chemical analyses in certain
grades and should be further examined. Elemental and mineral grade and recovery calculated for
each sample are given in Appendix 4.2.
Table 16. Feed vs. Back calculated feed analysis results
Reference
Feed
Borta Bakom
Savsjon
Mellanby
Zn %
Pb %
Zn %
Pb %
Zn %
Pb %
Zn %
Pb %
8.94
4.03
6.49
3.02
10.52
3.52
7.13
1.75
8.86
3.96
5.99
2.46
10.58
3.54
6.56
1.49
-0.90%
-1.77%
-8.35%
-22.76%
0.57%
0.56%
-8.69%
-17.45%
50
Comparison of sphalerite and galena recovery results is shown in Figure 36. The Reference sample
gave satisfactory recoveries in bulk flotation. These values are even higher than in plant conditions
due to additional collector usage in the laboratory scavenger flotation. However, none of the new
orebody samples could give equally satisfactory results for sphalerite collection. Especially for
Mellanby, sphalerite recovery of bulk flotation is as low as 62.3 %.
98.24%
94.99%
88.23%
Ultimate Recoveries %
90.00%
93.26%
97.16%
90.69%
90.58%
80.00%
70.00%
62.27%
60.00%
50.00%
40.00%
30.00%
20.00%
10.00%
0.00%
Reference
Borta Bakom
Savsjon
Mellanby
Orebody
Sphalerite Ultimate Recovery
Figure 36. Comparison of orebody samples according to their bulk flotation ultimate recovery results
Galena recoveries from bulk flotation are satisfactory for all samples which is expected since
galena mineral is commonly a better floater comparing with sphalerite. It generally does not need
any activator support for collector adsorption.
Additionally, selectivity of rougher-scavenger flotation for lead and zinc was examined on graderecovery curves with cumulative values of 2 to 16 minutes. Zinc grade- recovery curve can be seen
in Figure 37. Not only recovery values, concentrate zinc grades also vary from one orebody sample
to another. This decrease in the bulk concentrate grades for new orebody samples may due to a
combined outcome of unwanted minerals in the concentrate and variance in the iron grade in
sphalerite. These issues are going to be further discussed in 4.5.4 Simulation & Production Forecast
for New Orebody Samples.
51
Figure 37. Zinc grade-recovery curve for sphalerite according to rougher scavenger kinetic tests
Lead grade recovery curves can be seen in Figure 38. Unlike zinc selectivity for different orebody
samples, lead curves show more similarity. These differences are also going to be discussed in
4.5.4 Simulation & Production Forecast for New Orebody Samples .
Figure 38. Lead grade-recovery curve for galena according to rougher scavenger kinetic tests
52
In order to examine further the possible reasons of sphalerite collection, all significant findings of
the mineralogical study were gathered in Table 17 below. It is believed that, such collection
problem can be due to five main reasons: 1) experimental problems, 2) degree of liberation, 3)
collector starvation, 4) activation of mineral and 5) zinc oxide mineral presence. They are evaluated
individually in order to detect the reason behind sphalerite recovery problem.
Table 17. Gathered mineralogical finding for sphalerite collection problem examination
Liberation
Fully
Liberated
Sph %
Sph - Gn
Binaries
%
Sph
Content
%
Gn
Content
%
Gn / Sph
Ratio
Iron
Sulphide
Content %
Reference
82.75
8.46
19.48
7.29
37.45%
0.88
Iron
Oxide
Content
%
0.45
Borta Bakom
85.48
4.33
13.16
4.58
34.78%
1.36
0.54
Mellanby
82.08
3.17
13.66
2.28
16.70%
1.13
2.33
Savsjon
82.58
8.41
22.68
5.81
25.64%
3.50
0.18
Orebody
Mineral
Property
Proportion
of Zinc in
Gahnite
Av. Fe
Content of
Sph %
6.83%
NA
5.49
14.44%
NA
6.31
25.33%
2.89%
7.60
16.23%
1.06%
7.54
a. Experimental problems
Experimental problems could be caused by wrong reagent selection or recipe, froth stability,
concentrate collection deficiency due to human error, collection time, and errors in chemical
analyses. The first two can be excluded since already existing and successful recipe was used. Also
satisfactory results were received with the Reference. The other possible problems can also be
excluded since repeats and quality control indicated good experimental reproducibility. Therefore,
it can be concluded that the observed collection problem of sphalerite is not experimental related.
b. Degree of liberation
Low degree of liberation commonly leads to low recoveries. However, liberated sphalerite
proportion for all samples is quite similar (Figure 31). Since bulk sulphide flotation was applied, it
is also important to examine galena binaries of sphalerite. These kinds of particles must have been
recovered relatively well since the galena recoveries are high and 10-20% of galena occurs in
binary galena-sphalerite particles. It can be concluded that even liberation degree can affect the
recovery results slightly it cannot be the main reason for low sphalerite recovery.
c. Collector starvation problem
Collector dosages vary in industrial operations due to varying minerals, mineral grades, particle
size, collector type, chain length of the collector etc. Normally, it is known that current recipe with
25 g / t SIPX is sufficient for Zinkgruvan ore type in industrial scale. It is also important for
53
Zinkgruvan that the collector dosages should be kept in low levels since excess collector usage in
bulk flotation can cause problems in the separation stage. Collector starvation is potentially a
reason for poor recovery of sphalerite. Especially, for Savsjon which has higher zinc grade but also
higher iron sulphide (mainly pyrrhotite) grade too low collector dosage can be the reason, at least
partly.
d. Activation of sphalerite
The recovery problem can be due to poor activation of sphalerite. It is known that generally in leadzinc sulphide ores sphalerite needs activation by extra activator. The possible reasons why
Zinkgruvan does not require activator usage were explained previously as AG mill utilization and
low iron mineral content of the ore. However, as it can be seen from Table 17, there are differences
in mineralogy between the Reference and new orebody samples which all located in varying areas
in the deposit (Table 2, Figure 11).
One significant difference, which can effect activation of sphalerite, is iron mineral - sphalerite
ratio. This ratio is significantly higher in the samples from the new orebody samples; especially in
Mellanby. It can be claimed that this increase causes an undesired pulp chemistry in which
sphalerite cannot adsorb collectors and consequently remains hydrophilic.
Another possible reason for poor sphalerite activation is the galena sphalerite ratio (Table 17).
AG milling potentially creates an electro-chemical environment where lead ions are released and
consequently helps in sphalerite activation. Decrease in galena grade and thus lead ions may have
caused such an activation problem in the orebody samples. Despite this can be the reason of the
problem partially, it is not believed that this is the major reason since the variation in recovery
values does not directly match with the variation on this ratio.
Lastly, some studies showed that increasing iron content of sphalerite has a detrimental effect on
minerals activation. Especially for Savsjon and Mellanby a significant increase in high iron
content sphalerite was observed (Table 17). Again a correlation with recovery values could not be
made since Borta Bakom has a similar sphalerite character with Reference but it still has recovery
problems. Therefore, this problem, if exists, can only have a partial effect on recovery.
e. Zinc oxide presence
Last possible reason of low recovery values is the presence of zinc oxide minerals, particularly
gahnite, in orebody samples. Zinc oxides are majorly hydrophilic in the flotation conditions used
and will end up into tailings thus lowering total zinc recovery. In Savsjon and Mellanby samples
gahnite was found but only in trace amounts. Therefore, gahnite presence cannot explain as big
losses for zinc as found.
ii.
The original study plan was to continue with bulk cleaning and zinc- lead separation flotation after
the rougher flotation. However, as the recovery difference of sphalerite between the samples was
realized the program was redesigned to study further the bulk flotation. In these tests the effort was
to increase the bulk flotation performance of sphalerite. Three different adjustments were done on
54
previous tests. Only the tailings fractions of these tests were analyzed in order to detect if there is
any improvement on non-floating fraction of orebody samples. These results are investigated below
individually for all optimization tests. Complete flotation test report and results can be seen in
Appendix 4.3.
a. Longer grinding time
Liberation analysis showed that Borta Bakom, Savsjon and Reference have similar degree of
liberation. On the other hand, Mellanby has slightly lower degree of liberation of sphalerite. To
exclude the poor mineral liberation as a reason for poor recovery, longer grinding time of 13
minutes was applied to all samples prior to flotation tests. From the standard flotation experiment
shown in Figure 24 only two changes were made. Firstly, the grinding time was increased and
secondly, instead of collecting 5 products in first 8 minute flotation, only one concentrate product
was collected.
Recovery values for sphalerite can be seen in Figure 39. For Mellanby, finer grinding gave
significantly better recovery for sphalerite (+8 %). Mellanby had lower degree of liberation
comparing other three orebody samples. Therefore, some increase was expected but reached 71%
recovery is still significantly lower than in the other orebody samples. Additionally, such a change
in plant flowsheet would add extra grinding costs. This should be considered and further examined
whether this recovery improvement would be more profitable or not for Mellanby.
Standard Test vs. Longer Grinding Time Test for Sph Rec
100.00%
90.00%
88.23% 86.07%
90.69% 90.74%
80.00%
70.56%
Sph Rec
70.00%
62.27%
60.00%
50.00%
40.00%
30.00%
20.00%
10.00%
0.00%
Borta Bakom
Savsjon
Orebody
Initial Test
Figure 39. Standard test vs. longer grinding time test for Sph Recoveries
55
Mellanby
For Borta Bakom and Savsjon, slight decreases on the recovery values for sphalerite can be seen.
The portion which could not be collected after this optimization may be related to too fine particles
which were created after longer grinding. However, the differences are within experimental error.
Regardless if the changes are due to very fine particles or normal experimental variation, for Borta
Bakom and Savsjon, longer grinding time application would not be beneficial.
b. Increased collector dosage and collection time
To test whether collector dosage or collection time was too low, another type of adjusted test was
done. (Figure 40). For these tests, thirteen minutes of previous bulk flotation tests was kept the
same with five minute conditioning of 25 g / t SIPX initial collector usage followed by 8 minutes
collection and secondary conditioning with 13 g / t SIPX addition and 4 more minute collection.
After this procedure, the previous tests were adjusted by two additional conditioning with 13 g / t
SIPX and in total 8 minute longer flotation
Figure 40. Adjusted bulk flotation flowsheet for increase of collector dosage trial
Sphalerite recovery changes after this test are shown in Figure 41. The results are very similar to
the ones with longer grinding times. With higher collector dosage no significant change in
sphalerite recovery can be observed for Borta Bakom and Savsjon but for Mellanby there is a
significant increase. Again the final sphalerite recovery value for Mellanby is still far from being
satisfactory with 71%. Additionally, higher collector usage would cause stronger bonds of
sphalerite-xanthate which may cause problems in separation flotation stage where sphalerite should
be depressed. Therefore, higher collector usage should be studied further before applying it in full
scale process.
56
90.00%
88.23% 88.16%
90.69% 89.67%
80.00%
71.11%
Sph Rec
70.00%
62.27%
60.00%
50.00%
40.00%
30.00%
20.00%
10.00%
0.00%
Borta Bakom
Savsjon
Mellanby
Orebody
Initial Test
Increase Collector
Figure 41. Standard test vs. increased collector test results fro sph recovery
57
98.49%
98.44%
98.32%
90.69%
88.23%
80.00%
Sph Rec
70.00%
62.27%
60.00%
50.00%
40.00%
30.00%
20.00%
10.00%
0.00%
Borta Bakom
Savsjon
Mellanby
Orebody
Initial Test
CuSO4
Figure 42. Standard test vs. CuSO4 test results fro sph recovery
In the modeling of flotation kinetics with the floatability component approach, each mineral is
divided to fast, slow and non-floating fraction (See Eq.2, 3). The model fitting can be done in
various ways due to flexibility on this mathematical model. To illustrate this phenomena and to
study different alternatives, three different ways were examined (Table 18, Figure 43). In each of
them the mass proportion of fast, slow and non-floating were fixed and kfast and kslow were searched
by model fitting.
Table 18. Sphalerite experimental cumulative sphalerite recovery results and different kinetic model properties
Measurements
Time (min)
Sph Cum Rec
37.69%
0.5
57.03%
1
74.97%
2
88.10%
4
95.91%
8
98.24%
16
Kinetic Components
m Fast
m Slow
m non-float
k Fast
k Slow
58
Kinetic Fit 1
55.00%
43.00%
2.00%
1.609
0.366
Kinetic Fit 2
70.00%
28.00%
2.00%
1.305
0.268
Kinetic Fit 3
40.00%
58.00%
2.00%
2.087
0.465
90.00%
80.00%
70.00%
60.00%
50.00%
40.00%
30.00%
20.00%
10.00%
0.00%
0.00
2.00
4.00
6.00
8.00
Kinetic Fit 1
10.00
12.00
Kinetic Fit 2
14.00
16.00
18.00
Kinetic Fit 3
Despite the fixed mass proportions (m values of fast slow and non-floating) equally satisfactory
fits could be achieved. This shows that, even being very handy with this flexibility, the method
cannot give unambiguous values for floatability components. Even application of these parameters
in modeling would give identical results in rougher-scavenger flotation the result would be
different in the cleaning stage. Therefore, more information or some constraints, e.g. from
mineralogy, are needed for unambiguous parameter search by model fitting.
However, this is not an easy task due to the complex nature of flotation. There are many parameters
which play a role on the flotation kinetics of a mineral, such as degree of liberation, chemical
composition of the mineral, grain sizes and in this case with bulk flotation even the binaries with
other target mineral may be highly effective on particular minerals floatability kinetics. Therefore,
in order not to be biased between different orebody samples, it was decided to assign the fast
floating mass component of different minerals based on the recovery after one minute flotation
time.
i.
Table 19 gives the kinetic parameters for sphalerite and galena. The fast+slow floating mass
fractions for sphalerite equal to the ultimate recovery and the biggest difference is in the mass
proportion of non-floating fraction which reflects the mass proportion of sphalerite difficult to
activate. The kinetic constants (k fast and k slow) dont differ significantly between the samples.
59
Reference
Sphalerite
57.00%
41.50%
1.50%
1.572
0.343
Borta Bakom
Galena
62.00%
33.18%
4.82%
2.211
0.285
Sphalerite
47.00%
40.20%
12.80%
1.461
0.293
Galena
64.00%
27.67%
8.33%
2.047
0.379
Savsjon
Sphalerite
48.00%
43.34%
8.66%
1.743
0.217
Mellanby
Galena
72.00%
24.97%
3.03%
2.355
0.433
Sphalerite
26.40%
37.50%
36.10%
1.411
0.189
Galena
60.00%
30.00%
10.00%
2.014
0.334
For galena properties of mass and kinetic components are very similar for especially Reference,
Borta Bakom and Mellanby samples. Savsjon has slightly faster kinetics comparing with the other
orebody samples which was not expected from degree of liberation analysis. All the kinetic model
and properties can be seen in Appendix 4.4.
ii.
The initial study plan was to determine separation kinetic conditions for all orebody samples as
well in order to make a complete plant simulation and forecast. However, this plan was changed
after receiving unexpected results from bulk flotation for new orebody samples. For the Reference,
separation kinetics test was made on collected plant samples.
The kinetic property changes are given in Table 20. The use of depressant (Sodium Bisulfite) in
the separation stage caused big change in both sphalerite and galena kinetics. Sphalerite becomes
mostly non-floating with much slower kinetics whereas galena is mainly fast. About 8% of galena
also remains non-floating and this is believed to be due to sphalerite binaries.
Table 20. Kinetic Properties of Plant Samples in Bulk and Separation Flotation
Kinetic Properties
m fast
m slow
m non-float
k fast
k slow
Galena
62.00%
33.18%
4.82%
2.291
0.412
Galena
30.40%
61.40%
8.20%
0.438
0.360
60
90.00%
80.00%
R = 0.997
Cum Gn Rec
70.00%
60.00%
Linear (Cum
Sph Rec)
50.00%
40.00%
30.00%
30.00%
Linear (Cum
Gn Rec)
40.00%
50.00%
60.00%
70.00%
80.00%
90.00%
100.00%
61
Mass Balance - 2 Kinetic Model Sim Comparison for Feed, Bulk and Final Conc
100.0%
Mineral Recovery %
95.0%
90.0%
85.0%
80.0%
75.0%
0.0
10.0
20.0
30.0
40.0
50.0
60.0
70.0
80.0
90.0
100.0
Mineral Grade %
Sph MasBal
Sph Sim
Gn MasBal
Gn Sim
Figure 45.Comparison between mass balance and 2 kinetic property simulation results for feed, bulk and final conc grade and
recoveries for Reference
The simulation results show poorer fit in Zn-Pb separation and Pb cleaning. In initially created
open circuit simulation, zinc concentrate grade and recoveries were fitting well with the plant
results. However, when the circuit was closed with the lead cleaning stage it was found that too
much sphalerite ends into the lead cleaner concentrate. This is due to two main reasons. Firstly,
additional depressant is used in the lead cleaning stage changing the kinetics of the minerals.
Therefore, mineral kinetics on lead cleaning stage should also be determined. Secondly, JELE
flotation unit at the end of lead cleaning stage is believed to have different unit specific kinetic
properties than the other flotation units. Further studies for lead cleaning flotation kinetics should
also be made by considering these findings.
Since fitting results could not be taken for separation flotation stage due to explained reasons, (by
conservation in separation kinetics assumptions) this part of the simulation was reorganized with a
mineral splitter unit in HSC Sim software. The split values were taken from the constructed plant
mass balance. Galena and sphalerite grade-recovery curves after the application of this method are
given in Figure 46.
Using mineral splitter in the separation stage gives better matching results. The mineral split
parameters of this stage is also applied to the orebody samples with the assumption that flotation
kinetics in Zn-Pb separation and cleaning stage are similar with all the orebody samples.
62
Mass Balance - Mineral Splitter Sim Comparison for Feed, Bulk and Final Conc
100.0%
Mineral Recovery %
95.0%
90.0%
85.0%
80.0%
75.0%
0.0
10.0
20.0
30.0
40.0
50.0
60.0
70.0
80.0
90.0
100.0
Mineral Grade %
Sph MasBal
Sph Sim
Gn MasBal
Gn Sim
Figure 46. Mass balance mineral splitter simulation comparison for feed, bulk and final concentrate recovery and grades for
Reference
In order to make a comparison between orebody samples based on the simulation results two major
parameters are considered individually. First important parameter to compare is the recovery values
for the total solids, sphalerite and galena in bulk concentrate for a continuous circuit (Figure 47).
Differences in solid recoveries are mainly due to differences in the head grade. However, correlated
with the batch flotation results given in section 4.1.1 Bulk Rougher-Scavenger Flotation; major
differences between mineral recoveries, especially for sphalerite mineral, also exist for the new
orebody samples which effects solid recovery values as well.
According to the forecast by using the closed circuit simulation results; sphalerite mineral
collection will be challenging for all the new orebody samples; especially for Mellanby. The low
recovery of zinc is mainly due to the activation problem of sphalerite.
63
97.00%
96.60%
93.00%
90.00%
90.99%
88.82%
84.77%
84.76%
80.00%
70.00%
55.63%
60.00%
50.00%
40.00%
30.00%
20.00%
21.22%
19.20%
12.56%
8.66%
10.00%
0.00%
Reference
Borta Bakom
Solid Rec
Savsjon
Sphalerite Rec
Mellanby
Galena Rec
Figure 47. Total solid, shalerite and galena recoveries for all orebody samples
Second important parameter to be examined by forecast and to compare is the quality of bulk
concentrate. Collected gangue minerals up to the cleaned bulk concentrate cannot be returned to
tailings. Therefore, examination of grades of the bulk concentrate is critical.
In the Figure 48 a comparison between all orebody samples for sphalerite, galena and gangue
content is made. The cleaned bulk concentrate of the Reference contains less than 5 % gangue
minerals. However, for Mellanby, Borta Bakom and Savsjon, gangue contents of the bulk
concentrate are much higher than in the Reference. For Savsjon some increase was expected
considering the higher content of iron sulphide which also floats with the target minerals.
Additionally, lower liberation degree of galena in Savsjon sample can be an additional reason for
this result.
For Borta Bakom and Mellanby, considering similar liberation degree and mineral assemblage with
the Reference, this type of dirty bulk concentrate was unexpected. This may be due to analysis
problems with these orebody samples and overestimation of the gangue grade (Table 16).
64
72.59%
71.00%
70.71%
66.42%
70.00%
60.00%
50.00%
40.00%
30.00%
22.18%
20.65%
18.67%
20.00%
12.67%
10.00%
9.55%
17.75%
11.02%
4.67%
0.00%
Reference
Borta Bakom
Sphalerite %
Savsjon
Galena %
Mellanby
Gangue %
ii.
Simulated grades and recoveries for zinc full circuit simulation with the assumption of same
separation conditions on all orebody samples are given in Figure 49. Simulation results show lower
recovery and grade values for the new orebody samples compared to the Reference. The most
significant recovery problem is with Mellanby. Also the zinc grade of the final concentrate is lower
than the Reference due to lower zinc (and higher iron) content of sphalerite in Mellanby and higher
gangue response to final concentrate.
Savsjon and Borta Bakom show zinc recoveries between the Reference and Mellanby, but the zinc
grade is also significantly lower, with about 50%. Explanation of this for Savsjon is high iron
content of sphalerite and significantly higher content of iron sulphide that are carried as gangue
minerals into the final concentrate. Complete results are given in Appendix 4.7.
65
Figure 49. Grade- recovery plot of zinc for all orebody samples
Low zinc grade in Borta Bakom cannot be related to iron content of sphalerite, modal mineralogy
or liberation distribution since they are all very similar with the Reference. Entrainment cannot
also explain the problem since, particle size, unit properties and flotation procedure were kept very
similar for all experiments and Reference does not show such a result. Therefore, it is believed that
an analysis problem with too low zinc and lead grades in some flotation products causing thus
overestimation of non-sulphide gangue for Borta Bakom is the reason. Therefore, Borta Bakom
should be furtherly examined. If the prediction about chemical analysis problem is correct an
increase in sphalerite recovery also can be expected.
Simulated grade recovery curves for lead are shown in Figure 50. Unlike the results for zinc
element, lead recovery and grades does not show significant difference. In general, recovery seems
to be correlating with the head grade. Previous studies show that head grade and recovery have a
positive correlation (Neethling & Cilliers 2012) and for galena flotation of different orebody
samples of Zinkgruvan that is believed to be the case.
Savsjon shows the highest recovery but slight lead content decreases in bulk and final concentrates
were also observed which is correlated with the lower liberation conditions of Savsjon and floated
galena-gangue binaries. Mellanby shows the lowest recovery also for lead. The reason for this
recovery decrease is believed to be also due to the locked galena particles with sphalerite. Since a
large amount of sphalerite cannot be collected in Mellanby possible locked galena particles may
also lost into tailings with sphalerite.
66
67
Figure 51. Proposed flotation experimental recipe for geometallurgical characterization of Zinkgruvan ore type floatability
In the second stage of flotation, another 5 minute conditioning is made by regulation of pH addition
of SIPX and Nasfroth similar with first conditioning stage (pH = 8.0, 13 g / t SIPX and 30 g / t
Nasfroth). This stage, so called higher collector dosage flotation (HCDF), is continued for 6 to 8
minutes. One concentrate sample is collected and remaining tail is vacuumed and prepared for
regrinding with 40-50 % solid conditions.
Regrinding continues with third conditioning for longer grinding time flotation (LGTF) stage.
Same conditioning as in the second stage are used and flotation continues for 6 to 8 minutes; one
concentrate sample is collected.
In the last stage of experiment, which is called activator used flotation (AcUsF), conditioning starts
by addition of 30 g / t CuSO4. Following this procedure, 13 g / t SIPX and 30 g /t Nasfroth is added.
Again a 6 to 8 minute flotation is made and one last concentrate is collected.
All 10 products (including final tailings) of experiment are dried and prepared for chemical
analysis.
4.6.2 Result Analysis
After the chemical analyses of the 10 samples are acquired, a back calculation of the feed sample
is made and the results should be compared with initial feed analysis. Element mineral conversion
is made and cumulative recovery of minerals for the first 6 concentrate samples is determined.
According to the results taken from Reference during the studies, calculated cumulative recovery
of these samples should be 90 to 95 % for both galena and sphalerite. Kinetic modeling with three
components approach is made by fixing 1 minute cumulative recovery value to correspond the
mass proportion of the fast floating fraction and unrecovered portion as non-floating fraction.
Following this procedure simulation and forecast for current plant conditions can be made.
68
In the cases of over 90 % recovery could not be achieved by first 6 concentrate samples, next
flotation stage recoveries should be examined. If further collection is observed in the second stage
(HCDF), collector starvation is the most probable reason for poor recovery.
If around 95 % recovery could not achieved still by addition of 7th concentrate, but the next flotation
stage (LGTF) shows increase in recovery then the problem relates to poor liberation .
Lastly, in the cases of first 8th concentrate samples does not cover 95 % of galena and sphalerite
and the 9th concentrate shows significant increase in recovery then additional activation is needed.
If recoveries are still low, then the orebody sample has zinc oxides.
This test can be simplified in order to decrease the concentrate collection numbers. This can be
done by collecting one sample instead of first 6 samples. Therefore, collection of five sample
instead of ten can be made if kinetics and simulation for production forecast is not planned to be
made.
4.7 QA / QC results
As it was explained previously quality assurance and quality control of study and experiments were
made for two major topics of flotation feed product sampling and flotation tests.
4.7.1 Sampling
Results of the chosen sampling QA / QC results are presented in Table 21 and spider charts below.
(Figure 52) Standard error of the mean of zinc for product sampling and feed sampling over
orebody samples are 0.07 and 0.08 respectively and can be considered satisfactory. For lead,
standard error values are even smaller with 0.01 for both product and feed sampling.
Table 21. QAQC Sampling Results
Sample
Zn
Pb
M-T2-1
M-T2-2
7.29
1.76
7.16
1.74
M-T2-3
7.39
1.78
M-T1-1
7.13
1.74
M-T3-1
7.41
1.79
St Err. 1
0.07
0.01
St Err. 2
0.08
0.01
Figure 52. Spider Charts for sampling results
69
Table 22. Chemical analysis results and kinetic properties for Savsjon repeats
Zn %
Pb %
Product
ST7
ST5
ST8
ST7
ST5
ST8
C1
37.0
36.3
35.0
21.2
21.3
C2
38.2
40.2
38.4
14.1
13.5
C3
35.7
39.7
35.1
11.2
12.5
Savsjon 5 - Repeat 1
Savsjon 8 - Repeat 2
21.2
Kinetic
Property
Sphalerite
Galena
Sphalerite
Galena
Sphalerite
Galena
15.2
m fast
48.00%
72.00%
51.00%
74.00%
46.00%
73.00%
10.2
m slow
43.34%
24.97%
43.24%
23.08%
43.28%
24.06%
8.66%
3.03%
5.76%
2.92%
10.72%
2.93%
C4
25.3
32.5
25.5
5.6
5.8
5.8
m nonfloat
C5
22.6
17.4
13.8
1.8
1.8
1.8
k fast
1.743
2.355
1.789
2.630
1.783
2.492
C6
13.8
17.2
14.4
1.0
0.8
0.9
k slow
0.217
0.433
0.214
0.397
0.210
0.411
1.5
0.9
1.8
0.2
0.2
0.2
For these repeat tests, same procedure with other tests was applied on HSC. 7.1 Sim module and
the results can be seen in recovery grade curves in Figure 53. For lead the repeats gave almost
identical results. For the final zinc concentrate the repeats and corresponding modeling and
simulation gave 1.25 % variation in the zinc grade and 2.5 % in zinc recovery. This variance
can also be applied to other orebody samples and similar composite error can be expected for their
results.
5. Discussions
i.
Differences in iron content of sphalerite for varying orebody samples were detected. Some studies
show that increased iron content of sphalerite causes activation problem. However, a direct
correlation could not be made for varying iron content against activation. On the other hand, it is
clear that higher iron content of sphalerite would cause the problem of lower quality zinc
concentrate. For all new orebody samples a decrease in final zinc concentrate was forecasted.
However, this issue is believed to be mainly due to gangue collection to concentrates for new
70
orebody samples instead of iron content differences in orebodies (see gangue collection values in
Figure 48).
ii.
Modal mineralogy
Significant differences for both valuable and gangue mineral composition were found between
orebody samples. In order to verify these results, representativeness of initial sampling, which was
made from the development galleries of Zinkgruvan, should be evaluated. A comparison of results
can be made by using the current knowledge of geology department and prepared block models.
iii.
Mineral liberation
Touching particle problem was faced with especially for finer size fractions. A use of fine carbon
can be a solution in order to avoid such a problem in further automated mineralogy applications.
As a side objective of the study a direct correlation was tried to be found between liberation degree
and flotation kinetics. According to the hypothesis on both minerals, fully liberated sphalerite and
galena, galena- sphalerite binaries would correspond to fast floating fraction whereas galenagangue and sphalerite-gangue binaries and possible more complex particles correspond to slow
floating or non-floating mass proportion depending on valuable-gangue ratio in the particle. Nonfloating mineral fraction that can also be defined as losses are expected to be the particles which
has very low ratio or locked valuable mineral grains in gangue minerals. (Figure 54).
Figure 54. A) Fully liberated sphalerite, B) Sphalerite- Galena Binary, C) Sphalerite- Gangue Binary
Such a correlation could not be observed in this study. Especially for sphalerite, it is seen that there
are other parameters more effective than the liberation degree on floatability, such as modal
mineralogy of the ore, pulp chemistry or grain sizes and collision efficiency. Therefore, the
hypothesis of direct correlation of liberation degree with floatability is rejected for Zinkgruvan ore
type.
iv.
Flotation
sphalerite was explained in 2.2 Zinc-Lead Sulphide Flotation as AG mill utilization and low grade
of iron minerals in their typical ores, represented by the Reference.
However, this study shows the poor activation problem of sphalerite which is expected to be faced
with due to higher Fe mineral abundance in the new orebodies and causing large recovery decrease
for zinc. Adjusted bulk flotation laboratory tests by the usage of CuSO4 showed that activation is
the major problem and recovery can be increased to desired level (+95 %).
On the other hand, since Zinkgruvan applies bulk flotation of galena and sphalerite followed by
selective flotation where sphalerite should be depressed, activator usage could lead to further
problems in secondary flotation stage while fixing the first one. Therefore, before choosing this
application, some other options, such as blending of different orebodies, prior aeration of the pulp,
prior magnetic separation for the removal of monoclinic pyrrhotite and magnetite minerals etc.
should be tried. If none of these options could give satisfactory results, CuSO4 usage should be
used by conducting additional analysis on separation conditions.
As the last possible option, a change in the flowsheet can be done by replacing bulk flotation of
sphalerite and galena with two stage selective flotation of galena and sphalerite, respectively.
Despite the fact that this option would solve the beneficiation problem in the plant it is
recommended as the last option since it would need much investment and prior laboratory and pilot
studies.
v.
6. Conclusions
General conclusions for entire study are presented below.
Degree of liberation was found to be similar for both sphalerite and galena in different
orebody samples except slight variances.
o Mellanby has slightly worse degree of liberation for sphalerite
72
73
7. Recommendations
Recommendations for the incomplete and future work are presented below.
Reconciliation of initial sampling should be made by comparing elemental and
mineralogical findings with block models and general knowledge of geologists on
orebodies.
Sphalerite collection problem in bulk flotation stage should be fixed in order to reach
satisfactory recovery levels (>90 %).
Further experimental work, kinetic modeling and simulation should be done for separation
kinetics after fixing the collection of sphalerite problem in bulk flotation.
Geometallurgical testing should be verified and improved.
8. References
Ahmadi, R. & Shahsavari, S., 2009. Procedure for determination of ball Bond work index in the
commercial operations. Minerals Engineering, 22(1), pp.104106. Available at:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.mineng.2008.04.008.
Anon, 2010. FLSmidth - Zinkgruvan Mining AB Lead-Zinc-Copper Concentrator Review,
Anon, Laser Diffraction. Available at: http://www.malvern.com/en/products/technology/laserdiffraction/ [Accessed April 9, 2015a].
Anon, Laser Diffraction Theory. Available at: http://particle.dk/methods-analyticallaboratory/particle-size-by-laser-diffraction/laser-diffraction-theory/ [Accessed April 16,
2015b].
Anon, Scanning Electron Microscopy & Energy Dispersive X-Ray Spectroscopy. Available at:
http://www.surfgroup.be/semedx [Accessed April 16, 2015c].
Anon, X-Ray Fluorescence. Available at: http://www.portableas.com/index.php/technique/x-rayfluorescence/ [Accessed April 16, 2015d].
Bailey, C. et al., 2009. What Can Go Wrong in Comminution Circuit Design? , (October), pp.12
14.
Boulton, A., Fornasiero, D. & Ralston, J., 2001. Depression of iron sulphide flotation in zinc
roughers. Minerals Engineering, 14(9), pp.10671079.
Boulton, A., Fornasiero, D. & Ralston, J., 2005. Effect of iron content in sphalerite on flotation.
Minerals Engineering, 18, pp.11201122.
Burrows, D., Fandrich, R. & Gu, Y., 2007. Automated Mineralogy for Ore Characterisation and
Plant Optimisation. In Project Evaluation Conference 2007. Melbourne, Vic., pp. 179187.
74
Carrasco, P., Chils, J.-P. & Sguret, S., 2008. Additivity, metallurgical recovery, and grade. In
Geostats 2008.
Evans, A.M., 1987. An Introduction to Ore Geology, Blackwell Scientific Publication, Oxford,
UK.
Fandrich, R.G. et al., 2007. Modern SEM-based mineral liberation analysis. International Journal
of Mineral Processing, 84(1-4), pp.310320.
Finch, J. a., Nesset, J.E. & Acua, C., 2008. Role of frother on bubble production and behaviour in
flotation. Minerals Engineering, 21(12-14), pp.949957.
Gonzalez, R.M. et al., 2003. Analysis of geologic materials using Rietveld quantitative X-ray
diffraction. , 46(Figure 1), pp.204209.
Gorain, B.K., Franzidis, J.-P. & Manlapig, E.V., 1999. The empirical prediction of bubble surface
area flux in mechanical flotation cells from cell design and operating data. Minerals
Engineering, 12(3), pp.309322.
Hedstrom, P., Simeonov, A. & Malmstrom, L., 1989. The Zinkgruvan ore deposit, South-Central
Sweden: a Proterozoic, proximal Zn-Pb-Ag deposit in distal volcanic facies. Economic
Geology, 84, pp.12351261.
Lamberg, P. et al., 2013. Building a Geometallurgical Model in Iron Ores using a Mineralogical
Approach with Liberation Data. In The second AUSIMM international Geometallurgy
Conference, Brisbane, Qld, 30 September-2 October. pp. 317324.
Lamberg, P. & Rosenkranz, J., 2014. Systematic Diagnosis of Flotation Circuit Performance Based
On Process Mineralogical Methods. , pp.417423.
Lamberg, P. & Vianna, S., 2007. A technique for tracking multiphase mineral particles in flotation
circuits. Meeting of the Southern Hemisphere on Mineral , (November).
Laskowski, J.S., Liu, Q. & Zhan, Y., 1997. Sphalerite activation: Flotation and electrokinetic
studies. Minerals Engineering, 10(8), pp.787802.
Liipo, J. et al., 2012. Automated mineral liberation analysis using INCAMineral. In Process
Mineralogy 2012. Cape Town, pp. 17.
Liipo, J., 2011. Liberation of main minerals in Zinkgruvan Zinc and Lead Concentrates with
emphasis on the mode of occurrence of silicates in Zinc Concentrate,
Liipo, J. & Lamberg, P., 2005. Process Mineralogy - Process Assessment for Zinkgruvan Mining
AB,
75
Lishchuk, V., Lamberg, P. & Lund, C., 2015. Classification of geometallurgical programs based
on approach and purpose. SGA 2015.
Lund, C., 2013. Mineralogical, Chemical and Textural Characterisation of the Malmberget Iron
Ore Deposit for a Geometallurgical Model. Lulea University of Technology, pp.1190.
Lund, C., Lamberg, P. & Lindberg, T., 2013. Practical way to quantify minerals from chemical
assays at Malmberget iron ore operations An important tool for the geometallurgical
program. Minerals Engineering, 49, pp.716.
Macas-Garca, A., Cuerda-Correa, E.M. & Daz-Dez, M.A., 2004. Application of the RosinRammler and Gates-Gaudin-Schuhmann models to the particle size distribution analysis of
agglomerated cork. Materials Characterization, 52(2), pp.159164.
Malmstrm, L., Hedstrm, P. & Syme, D., 2009. Mineral Reserves and Mineral Resources of the
Zinkgruvan Mine In South-Central Sweden,
Mwanga, A., 2014. Test Methods for Characterising Ore Comminution Behavior in
Geometallurgy,
Mwanga, A., Rosenkranz, J. & Lamberg, P., 2014. Developing Ore Comminution Test Methods in
the Geometallurgical Context. Conference in Minerals .
Neethling, S.J. & Cilliers, J.J., 2012. Grade-recovery curves: A new approach for analysis of and
predicting from plant data. Minerals Engineering, 36-38, pp.105110. Available at:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.mineng.2012.02.018.
Niiranen, K. & Bhm, A., 2012. A Systematic Characterization Of The Ore Body For Mineral
Processing At Kiirunavaara Iron Ore Mine Operated By Lkab In Kiruna , Northern Sweden.
Impc 2012, (1039), Pp.38553864.
Niiranen, K. & Fredriksson, A., 2007. A Systematic Approach Of Geometallurgical Mapping Of
The Kiirunavaara Iron Ore.
Owen, M. & Meyer, L., 2013. LUNDIN MINING NI 43-101 Technical Report for the Zinkgruvan
Mine, Central Sweden January 2013,
Palsson, B., 2014. Flotation theory. In Mineral Processing Compendium. Lulea University of
Technology.
Palsson, B., 2013. Treatment of lead - zinc ores. In Mineral Processing Compendium. Lulea
University of Technology.
Parian, M., 2015. Development of the Mineralogical Path for Geometallurgical Modeling of Iron
Ores Mehdi Parian.
76
Parian, M. & Lamberg, P., 2013. Combining chemical analysis ( XRF ) and quantitative X-ray
diffraction (Rietveld) in modal analysis of for iron ores for geometallurgical purposes in
Northern Sweden. In SGA 2013. pp. 356359.
Runge, K., 2010. Laboratory Flotation Testing - An Essential Tool for Ore Characterization. In
Flotation Plant Optimization. AusIMM, pp. 155173.
Runge, K. & Franzidis, J., 2003. Structuring a flotation model for robust prediction of flotation
circuit performance. Proceedings XXII , (October), pp.973984.
Runge, K.C. et al., 1997. Floatability of streams around the Cominco Red Dog lead cleaning circuit.
Splaine, M., Browner, M.A. & Dohm, C.E., 1982. The Effect of Head Grade on Recovery
Efficiency in a Gold-Reduction Plant. J.S. Afr. Inst. Min. Metall., 82(1), pp.611.
Sutherland, D.N. & Gottlieb, P., 1991. Application of automated quantitative mineralogy in
mineral processing. Minerals Engineering, 4(7-11), pp.753762.
Wang, L. et al., 2015. A review of entrainment: Mechanisms, contributing factors and modelling
in
flotation.
Minerals
Engineering,
70,
pp.7791.
Available
at:
http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0892687514003045.
Welsby, S.D.D., Vianna, S.M.S.M. & Franzidis, J.P., 2010. Assigning physical significance to
floatability components. International Journal of Mineral Processing, 97, pp.5967.
Whiten, B., 2007. Calculation of Mineral Composition From Chemical Assays. Mineral
Processing and Extractive Metallurgy Review, 29(2), pp.8397.
Wills, B.A. & Nappier-Munn, T.J., 2006. Froth flotation. In Wills Mineral Processing Technology.
pp. 267352.
Wills, B.A.. & Napier-Munn, T., 2005. Mineral Processing Technology, Available at:
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/B85NM-4PN0BCW2/2/c72e67562c4476d7272f679a2e7a64d7.
Wobrauschek, P., 2007. Total Reflection X-Ray Fluorescence Analysis - a review. X-Ray
Spectrometry, 36(August), pp.2734. Available at: <Go to ISI>://000244086800005.
9. Appendices
77
Appendix 1. Samples
Sample Name
Mass (g)
Description
Origin
Use
290115_Z_P_1102
1173.40
AG Mill Circuit OF
Process Plant
290115_Z_P_2102
1359.50
Process Plant
290115_Z_P_3102
826.30
Process Plant
290115_Z_P_4102
960.40
Process Plant
290115_Z_P_5202
2002.50
Process Plant
290115_Z_P_7101
125.90
Zinc Concentrate
Process Plant
290115_Z_P_8101
361.60
Lead Concentrate
Process Plant
230215_Z_M_B1
1680.00
Mellanby 1/3
230215_Z_BB_B1
1500.00
230215_Z_S_B1
1250.00
Svsjn 1/3
Reference-Plant AG
Mill Feed
Reference-Plant AG
Mill Feed
Reference-Plant AG
Mill Feed
Reference-Plant AG
Mill Feed
Reference-Plant AG
Mill Feed
Reference-Plant AG
Mill Feed
Reference-Plant AG
Mill Feed
Reference-Plant AG
Mill Feed
Reference-Plant AG
Mill Feed
Reference-Plant AG
Mill Feed
Reference-Plant AG
Mill Feed
Reference-Plant AG
Mill Feed
Reference-Plant AG
Mill Feed
Reference-Plant AG
Mill Feed
Reference-Plant AG
Mill Feed
Reference-Plant AG
Mill Feed
Reference-Plant AG
Mill Feed
Reference-Plant AG
Mill Feed
Reference-Plant AG
Mill Feed
240215_Z_R_CB
30000.00
240215_Z_R_T1
988.00
240215_Z_R_T2
1016.5
240215_Z_R_T3
1005.30
240215_Z_R_T4
979.60
240215_Z_R_T5
991.40
240215_Z_R_T6
994.20
240215_Z_R_T7
1021.70
240215_Z_R_T8
970.80
240215_Z_R_T9
970.40
240215_Z_R_T10
971.40
150515_Z_R_T11
1010.60
150515_Z_R_T12
1000.70
150515_Z_R_T13
989.40
150515_Z_R_T14
982.50
150515_Z_R_T15
981.50
150515_Z_R_T16
967.80
150515_Z_R_T17
973.50
150515_Z_R_T18
868.80
250215_Z_M_B2
1460.00
Mellanby 1/3
250215_Z_BB_B2
1700.00
250215_Z_S_CB
60000.00
Svsjn
250215_Z_S_T1
1016.10
Svsjn
Grindability Tests
250215_Z_S_T2
1007.50
Svsjn
Grindability Tests
78
250215_Z_S_T3
1005.40
Svsjn
Grindability Tests
250215_Z_S_T4
981.70
Svsjn
250215_Z_S_T5
1005.00
Svsjn
250215_Z_S_T6
1010.70
Svsjn
250215_Z_S_T7
1012.70
Svsjn
250215_Z_S_T8
989.10
Svsjn
250215_Z_S_T9
984.60
Svsjn
250215_Z_S_T10
1042.20
Svsjn
250215_Z_S_T11
1009.70
Svsjn
250215_Z_S_T12
993.80
Svsjn
250215_Z_S_T13
971.90
Svsjn
250215_Z_S_T14
1020.20
Svsjn
250215_Z_S_BOS
280.00
Svsjn
150515_Z_S_T15
1051.90
Svsjn
150515_Z_S_T16
987.30
Svsjn
150515_Z_S_T17
957.80
Svsjn
150515_Z_S_T18
970.80
Svsjn
150515_Z_S_T19
989.80
Svsjn
150515_Z_S_T20
993.70
Svsjn
150515_Z_S_T21
995.70
Svsjn
150515_Z_S_T22
1013.60
Svsjn
260215_Z_M_CB
48000.00
Mellanby
260215_Z_M_T1
1016.20
Mellanby
Grindability Tests
260215_Z_M_T2
1000.10
Mellanby
Grindability Tests
260215_Z_M_T3
1004.50
Mellanby
Grindability Tests
260215_Z_M_T4
1005.10
Mellanby
260215_Z_M_T5
981.30
Mellanby
260215_Z_M_T6
1020.40
Mellanby
260215_Z_M_T7
979.30
Mellanby
260215_Z_M_T8
1005.80
Mellanby
260215_Z_M_T9
1011.10
Mellanby
260215_Z_M_T10
980.00
Mellanby
260215_Z_M_T11
998.20
Mellanby
260215_Z_M_T12
1003.80
Mellanby
260215_Z_M_T13
1008.80
Mellanby
260215_Z_M_T14
990.90
Mellanby
260215_Z_M_BOS
420.00
Mellanby
270215_Z_BB_CB
51000.00
Borta Bakom
270215_Z_BB_T1
1005.50
Borta Bakom
Grindability Tests
270215_Z_BB_T2
1012.50
Borta Bakom
Grindability Tests
79
270215_Z_BB_T3
1031.30
Borta Bakom
270215_Z_BB_T4
1027.50
Borta Bakom
270215_Z_BB_T5
1067.60
Borta Bakom
270215_Z_BB_T6
1019.40
Borta Bakom
270215_Z_BB_T7
1023.80
Borta Bakom
270215_Z_BB_T8
1054.50
Borta Bakom
270215_Z_BB_T9
1039.00
Borta Bakom
270215_Z_BB_T10
1041.50
Borta Bakom
270215_Z_BB_T11
1048.70
Borta Bakom
270215_Z_BB_T12
1028.60
Borta Bakom
270215_Z_BB_T13
1085.40
Borta Bakom
270215_Z_BB_T14
1018.90
Borta Bakom
Grindability Test
270215_Z_BB_BOS
385.00
Borta Bakom
150515_Z_BB_T15
983.50
Borta Bakom
150515_Z_BB_T16
1055.20
Borta Bakom
150515_Z_BB_T17
995.10
Borta Bakom
150515_Z_BB_T18
1044.80
Borta Bakom
150515_Z_BB_T19
1014.40
Borta Bakom
150515_Z_BB_T20
985.30
Borta Bakom
150515_Z_BB_T21
987.20
Borta Bakom
150515_Z_BB_T22
993.60
Borta Bakom
020315_Z_M_T2_F
115.00
020315_Z_BB_T2_F
110.00
020315_Z_R_T2_F
114.00
020315_Z_S_T2_F
115.00
030315_Z_M_T2_75_1
06
030315_Z_BB_T2_75_
106
030315_Z_R_T2_75_1
06
030315_Z_S_T2_75_10
6
050315_Z_M_T2_53_7
5
050315_Z_BB_T2_53_
75
050315_Z_R_T2_53_7
5
050315_Z_S_T2_53_75
090315_Z_M_T2_38_5
3
090315_Z_BB_T2_38_
53
090315_Z_R_T2_38_5
3
090315_Z_S_T2_38_53
2.50
2.50
2.50
2.50
2.50
2.50
2.50
2.50
2.50
2.50
2.50
2.50
80
260215_Z_M_T2
Polished Sections
270215_Z_BB_T2
Polished Sections
240215_Z_R_T2
Polished Sections
250215_Z_S_T2
Polished Sections
200315_Z_M_T2_F
200315_Z_BB_T2_F
200315_Z_R_T2_F
200315_Z_S_T2_F
200315_Z_M_T2_F
200315_Z_BB_T2_F
200315_Z_R_T2_F
200315_Z_S_T2_F
200315_Z_M_T2_F
200315_Z_BB_T2_F
200315_Z_R_T2_F
200315_Z_S_T2_F
130315_Z_M_T2_20_3
8
130315_Z_BB_T2_20_
38
130315_Z_R_T2_20_3
8
130315_Z_S_T2_20_38
130315_Z_M_T2_106_
150
130315_Z_BB_T2_106
_150
130315_Z_R_T2_106_
150
130315_Z_S_T2_106_1
50
2.50
2.50
2.50
2.50
2.50
2.50
2.50
2.50
150315_Z_P_1102_L
2.00
150315_Z_P_2102_L
2.00
150315_Z_P_3102_L
2.00
150315_Z_P_4102_L
2.00
150315_Z_P_5202_L
2.00
150315_Z_P_7101_L
2.00
150315_Z_P_8101_L
2.00
150315_Z_P_M_L
2.00
150315_Z_P_R_L
2.00
150315_Z_P_BB_L
2.00
150315_Z_P_S_L
2.00
200315_Z_M_T2_F
200315_Z_BB_T2_F
200315_Z_R_T2_F
200315_Z_S_T2_F
200315_Z_M_T2_F
200315_Z_BB_T2_F
200315_Z_R_T2_F
200315_Z_S_T2_F
290115_Z_P_1102
Laser Diffraction
290115_Z_P_2102
Laser Diffraction
290115_Z_P_3102
Laser Diffraction
290115_Z_P_4102
Laser Diffraction
290115_Z_P_5202
Laser Diffraction
290115_Z_P_7101
Laser Diffraction
290115_Z_P_8101
Laser Diffraction
170315_Z_M_T2_B
Laser Diffraction
170315_Z_S_T2_B
Laser Diffraction
170315_Z_BB_T2_B
Laser Diffraction
170315_Z_R_T2_B
Laser Diffraction
81
Screen
Mean Size
3350
1102
5202
2102
Wt (g)
Wt%
Wt C Rtn %
Wt C Pass %
Wt (g)
Wt%
Wt C Rtn %
Wt C Pass %
Wt (g)
Wt%
Wt C Rtn %
Wt C Pass %
3350
0.00
0.00%
0.00%
100.00%
0.00
0.00%
0.00%
100.00%
0.00
0.00%
0.00%
100.00%
2380
2824
0.00
0.00%
0.00%
100.00%
0.00
0.00%
0.00%
100.00%
0.00
0.00%
0.00%
100.00%
1680
2000
0.00
0.00%
0.00%
100.00%
0.00
0.00%
0.00%
100.00%
0.00
0.00%
0.00%
100.00%
1190
1414
0.00
0.00%
0.00%
100.00%
0.00
0.00%
0.00%
100.00%
0.00
0.00%
0.00%
100.00%
840
1000
0.00
0.00%
0.00%
100.00%
0.00
0.00%
0.00%
100.00%
0.00
0.00%
0.00%
100.00%
595
707
0.00
0.00%
0.00%
100.00%
0.00
0.00%
0.00%
100.00%
0.00
0.00%
0.00%
100.00%
425
503
0.00
0.00%
0.00%
100.00%
0.00
0.00%
0.00%
100.00%
0.00
0.00%
0.00%
100.00%
297
355
0.00
0.00%
0.00%
100.00%
0.00
0.00%
0.00%
100.00%
0.00
0.00%
0.00%
100.00%
212
251
1.35
1.19%
1.19%
98.81%
0.00
0.00%
0.00%
100.00%
0.00
0.00%
0.00%
100.00%
150
178
7.25
6.38%
7.57%
92.43%
0.00
0.00%
0.00%
100.00%
0.00
0.00%
0.00%
100.00%
106
126
12.26
10.79%
18.36%
81.64%
0.38
0.37%
0.37%
99.63%
1.16
1.08%
1.08%
98.92%
75
89
15.81
13.92%
32.28%
67.72%
4.39
4.24%
4.61%
95.39%
5.28
4.91%
5.98%
94.02%
53
63
14.60
12.85%
45.13%
54.87%
9.88
9.55%
14.16%
85.84%
9.44
8.77%
14.76%
85.24%
38
45
11.35
9.99%
55.12%
44.88%
15.26
14.75%
28.92%
71.08%
11.35
10.55%
25.30%
74.70%
20
28
15.63
13.76%
68.88%
31.12%
27.92
26.99%
55.91%
44.09%
22.71
21.10%
46.41%
53.59%
35.36
31.12%
100.00%
0.00%
45.60
44.09%
100.00%
0.00%
57.67
53.59%
100.00%
0.00%
Total
113.61
103.43
107.61
82
3102
4102
Mean
Size
Wt (g)
Wt%
Wt C Rtn %
Wt C Pass %
4102
Wt%
Wt C Rtn %
Wt C Pass %
3350
3350
0.00
0.00%
0.00%
100.00%
0.00
0.00%
0.00%
100.00%
2380
2824
0.00
0.00%
0.00%
100.00%
0.00
0.00%
0.00%
100.00%
1680
2000
0.00
0.00%
0.00%
100.00%
0.00
0.00%
0.00%
100.00%
1190
1414
0.00
0.00%
0.00%
100.00%
0.00
0.00%
0.00%
100.00%
840
1000
0.00
0.00%
0.00%
100.00%
0.00
0.00%
0.00%
100.00%
595
707
0.00
0.00%
0.00%
100.00%
0.00
0.00%
0.00%
100.00%
425
503
0.00
0.00%
0.00%
100.00%
0.00
0.00%
0.00%
100.00%
297
355
0.00
0.00%
0.00%
100.00%
0.00
0.00%
0.00%
100.00%
212
251
0.00
0.00%
0.00%
100.00%
0.00
0.00%
0.00%
100.00%
150
178
0.00
0.00%
0.00%
100.00%
0.00
0.00%
0.00%
100.00%
106
126
0.89
0.75%
0.75%
99.25%
0.00
0.00%
0.00%
100.00%
75
89
6.01
5.10%
5.85%
94.15%
0.31
0.58%
0.58%
99.42%
53
63
10.15
8.61%
14.46%
85.54%
1.20
2.23%
2.80%
97.20%
38
45
11.77
9.98%
24.44%
75.56%
3.15
5.84%
8.65%
91.35%
20
28
28.74
24.38%
48.82%
51.18%
14.51
26.92%
35.57%
64.43%
60.34
51.18%
100.00%
0.00%
34.73
64.43%
100.00%
0.00%
Screen
117.90
Total
53.90
7102
8102
Mean
Size
Wt (g)
Wt%
Wt C Rtn %
Wt C Pass %
Wt (g)
Wt%
Wt C Rtn %
Wt C Pass %
3350
3350
0.00
0.00%
0.00%
100.00%
0.00
0.00%
0.00%
100.00%
2380
2824
0.00
0.00%
0.00%
100.00%
0.00
0.00%
0.00%
100.00%
1680
2000
0.00
0.00%
0.00%
100.00%
0.00
0.00%
0.00%
100.00%
1190
1414
0.00
0.00%
0.00%
100.00%
0.00
0.00%
0.00%
100.00%
840
1000
0.00
0.00%
0.00%
100.00%
0.00
0.00%
0.00%
100.00%
595
707
0.00
0.00%
0.00%
100.00%
0.00
0.00%
0.00%
100.00%
425
503
0.00
0.00%
0.00%
100.00%
0.00
0.00%
0.00%
100.00%
297
355
0.00
0.00%
0.00%
100.00%
0.00
0.00%
0.00%
100.00%
212
251
0.00
0.00%
0.00%
100.00%
0.00
0.00%
0.00%
100.00%
150
178
0.00
0.00%
0.00%
100.00%
0.00
0.00%
0.00%
100.00%
106
126
1.07
1.26%
1.26%
98.74%
0.00
0.00%
0.00%
100.00%
75
89
3.29
3.89%
5.15%
94.85%
0.53
0.50%
0.50%
99.50%
53
63
10.82
12.79%
17.94%
82.06%
2.56
2.42%
2.92%
97.08%
38
45
10.73
12.68%
30.63%
69.37%
6.15
5.80%
8.72%
91.28%
20
28
25.68
30.35%
60.98%
39.02%
26.09
24.62%
33.35%
66.65%
33.01
39.02%
100.00%
0.00%
70.62
66.65%
100.00%
0.00%
Screen
Total
84.60
105.95
83
ii.
Linear-Log Plots
Laser Diffraction (Cilas) results ( Fresh Feed, Bulk Cleaner Feed , Separation Feed )
84
Laser Diffraction (Cilas) results continued (Lead cleaner feed, Reground Bulk Rougher Feed, Zinc Concentrate)
85
86
Wt%
Feed
Wt C Rtn %
3350
0.00
0.00%
0.00%
100.00%
0.00
0.00%
0.00%
100.00%
2824
17.74
7.17%
7.17%
92.83%
0.00
0.00%
0.00%
100.00%
1680
2000
60.39
24.40%
31.57%
68.43%
0.00
0.00%
0.00%
100.00%
1190
1414
25.75
10.40%
41.97%
58.03%
0.00
0.00%
0.00%
100.00%
840
1000
19.36
7.82%
49.79%
50.21%
0.00
0.00%
0.00%
100.00%
595
707
14.15
5.72%
55.51%
44.49%
0.00
0.00%
0.00%
100.00%
425
503
12.91
5.22%
60.73%
39.27%
0.00
0.00%
0.00%
100.00%
297
355
12.04
4.86%
65.59%
34.41%
1.02
0.86%
0.86%
99.14%
212
251
14.21
5.74%
71.33%
28.67%
11.65
9.79%
10.65%
89.35%
150
178
15.55
6.28%
77.62%
22.38%
22.51
18.91%
29.56%
70.44%
106
126
12.37
5.00%
82.61%
17.39%
17.20
14.45%
44.01%
55.99%
75
89
12.13
4.90%
87.52%
12.48%
16.38
13.76%
57.78%
42.22%
53
63
9.50
3.84%
91.35%
8.65%
11.62
9.76%
67.54%
32.46%
38
45
7.15
2.89%
94.24%
5.76%
8.78
7.38%
74.92%
25.08%
20
28
6.13
2.48%
96.72%
3.28%
11.74
9.86%
84.78%
15.22%
8.12
3.28%
100.00%
0.00%
18.11
15.22%
100.00%
0.00%
247.50
100.00%
Screen
Mean Size
3350
2380
Total
Wt C Pass %
Wt (g)
5 min Grinding
Wt%
Wt C Rtn %
Wt C Pass %
119.01
10 min Grinding
Wt%
Wt C Rtn %
15 min Grinding
Wt%
Wt C Rtn %
Screen
Mean Size
Wt C Pass %
Wt (g)
3350
3350
0.00
0.00%
0.00%
100.00%
0.00
0.00%
0.00%
100.00%
2380
2824
0.00
0.00%
0.00%
100.00%
0.00
0.00%
0.00%
100.00%
1680
2000
0.00
0.00%
0.00%
100.00%
0.00
0.00%
0.00%
100.00%
1190
1414
0.00
0.00%
0.00%
100.00%
0.00
0.00%
0.00%
100.00%
840
1000
0.00
0.00%
0.00%
100.00%
0.00
0.00%
0.00%
100.00%
595
707
0.00
0.00%
0.00%
100.00%
0.00
0.00%
0.00%
100.00%
425
503
0.00
0.00%
0.00%
100.00%
0.00
0.00%
0.00%
100.00%
297
355
0.00
0.00%
0.00%
100.00%
0.00
0.00%
0.00%
100.00%
212
251
0.23
0.19%
0.19%
99.81%
0.00
0.00%
0.00%
100.00%
150
178
3.52
2.93%
3.12%
96.88%
0.49
0.43%
0.43%
99.57%
106
126
13.27
11.04%
14.17%
85.83%
2.83
2.47%
2.90%
97.10%
75
89
22.84
19.01%
33.18%
66.82%
14.86
12.99%
15.89%
84.11%
53
63
19.64
16.35%
49.52%
50.48%
20.56
17.97%
33.86%
66.14%
38
45
12.57
10.46%
59.98%
40.02%
15.90
13.90%
47.76%
52.24%
20
28
18.54
15.43%
75.41%
24.59%
22.26
19.46%
67.22%
32.78%
29.54
24.59%
100.00%
0.00%
37.50
32.78%
100.00%
0.00%
120.15
100.00%
Total
Wt (g)
114.40
87
Wt C Pass %
ii.
Screen
Mean Size
5 min Grinding
Wt (g)
Wt%
Wt C Rtn %
Wt C Pass %
Wt (g)
Wt%
Wt C Rtn %
Wt C Pass %
3350
3350
0.00
0.00%
0.00%
100.00%
0.00
0.00%
0.00%
100.00%
2380
2824
19.50
8.06%
8.06%
91.94%
0.00
0.00%
0.00%
100.00%
1680
2000
43.52
17.99%
26.05%
73.95%
0.00
0.00%
0.00%
100.00%
1190
1414
23.25
9.61%
35.66%
64.34%
0.00
0.00%
0.00%
100.00%
840
1000
20.68
8.55%
44.21%
55.79%
0.00
0.00%
0.00%
100.00%
595
707
16.18
6.69%
50.89%
49.11%
0.00
0.00%
0.00%
100.00%
425
503
14.91
6.16%
57.06%
42.94%
0.00
0.00%
0.00%
100.00%
297
355
13.59
5.62%
62.67%
37.33%
5.26
4.26%
4.26%
95.74%
212
251
14.41
5.96%
68.63%
31.37%
19.78
16.01%
20.27%
79.73%
150
178
14.54
6.01%
74.64%
25.36%
21.62
17.50%
37.78%
62.22%
106
126
11.55
4.77%
79.41%
20.59%
14.48
11.72%
49.50%
50.50%
75
89
12.36
5.11%
84.52%
15.48%
14.68
11.88%
61.38%
38.62%
53
63
10.91
4.51%
89.03%
10.97%
10.96
8.87%
70.26%
29.74%
38
45
9.25
3.82%
92.85%
7.15%
7.95
6.44%
76.69%
23.31%
20
28
5.40
2.23%
95.09%
4.91%
11.84
9.59%
86.28%
13.72%
11.89
4.91%
100.00%
0.00%
16.95
13.72%
100.00%
0.00%
241.94
Total
Screen
123.52
10 min Grinding
Mean Size
Wt (g)
15 min Grinding
Wt%
Wt C Rtn %
Wt C Pass %
Wt (g)
Wt%
Wt C Rtn %
Wt C Pass %
3350
3350
0.00
0.00%
0.00%
100.00%
0.00
0.00%
0.00%
100.00%
2380
2824
0.00
0.00%
0.00%
100.00%
0.00
0.00%
0.00%
100.00%
1680
2000
0.00
0.00%
0.00%
100.00%
0.00
0.00%
0.00%
100.00%
1190
1414
0.00
0.00%
0.00%
100.00%
0.00
0.00%
0.00%
100.00%
840
1000
0.00
0.00%
0.00%
100.00%
0.00
0.00%
0.00%
100.00%
595
707
0.00
0.00%
0.00%
100.00%
0.00
0.00%
0.00%
100.00%
425
503
0.00
0.00%
0.00%
100.00%
0.00
0.00%
0.00%
100.00%
297
355
0.00
0.00%
0.00%
100.00%
0.00
0.00%
0.00%
100.00%
212
251
0.32
0.26%
0.26%
99.74%
0.00
0.00%
0.00%
100.00%
150
178
5.91
4.78%
5.04%
94.96%
0.69
0.60%
0.60%
99.40%
106
126
16.51
13.35%
18.39%
81.61%
3.73
3.24%
3.84%
96.16%
75
89
25.87
20.92%
39.32%
60.68%
16.81
14.59%
18.43%
81.57%
53
63
16.83
13.61%
52.93%
47.07%
20.17
17.51%
35.94%
64.06%
38
45
12.53
10.13%
63.06%
36.94%
16.15
14.02%
49.96%
50.04%
20
28
16.71
13.52%
76.58%
23.42%
21.96
19.06%
69.03%
30.97%
28.96
23.42%
100.00%
0.00%
35.68
30.97%
100.00%
0.00%
Total
123.64
115.19
88
iii.
5 min Grinding
Mean
Size
Wt (g)
Wt%
Wt C Rtn %
Wt C Pass %
Wt (g)
Wt%
Wt C Rtn %
Wt C Pass %
3350
3350
0.00
0.00%
0.00%
100.00%
0.00
0.00%
0.00%
100.00%
2380
2824
18.51
8.03%
8.03%
91.97%
0.00
0.00%
0.00%
100.00%
1680
2000
43.51
18.87%
26.90%
73.10%
0.00
0.00%
0.00%
100.00%
1190
1414
20.67
8.97%
35.87%
64.13%
0.00
0.00%
0.00%
100.00%
840
1000
16.06
6.97%
42.83%
57.17%
0.00
0.00%
0.00%
100.00%
595
707
13.54
5.87%
48.71%
51.29%
0.00
0.00%
0.00%
100.00%
425
503
12.80
5.55%
54.26%
45.74%
0.00
0.00%
0.00%
100.00%
297
355
13.08
5.67%
59.93%
40.07%
0.76
0.61%
0.61%
99.39%
212
251
16.34
7.09%
67.02%
32.98%
8.45
6.73%
7.34%
92.66%
150
178
17.63
7.65%
74.67%
25.33%
24.68
19.66%
27.00%
73.00%
106
126
13.47
5.84%
80.51%
19.49%
20.56
16.38%
43.38%
56.62%
75
89
13.06
5.66%
86.18%
13.82%
18.47
14.72%
58.10%
41.90%
53
63
9.57
4.15%
90.33%
9.67%
14.02
11.17%
69.27%
30.73%
38
45
7.27
3.15%
93.48%
6.52%
8.94
7.12%
76.39%
23.61%
20
28
5.99
2.60%
96.08%
3.92%
12.90
10.28%
86.67%
13.33%
9.04
3.92%
100.00%
0.00%
16.73
13.33%
100.00%
0.00%
Screen
230.54
Total
Screen
125.51
10 min Grinding
Mean Size
15 min Grinding
Wt (g)
Wt%
Wt C Rtn %
Wt C Pass %
Wt (g)
Wt%
Wt C Rtn %
Wt C Pass %
3350
3350
0.00
0.00%
0.00%
100.00%
0.00
0.00%
0.00%
100.00%
2380
2824
0.00
0.00%
0.00%
100.00%
0.00
0.00%
0.00%
100.00%
1680
2000
0.00
0.00%
0.00%
100.00%
0.00
0.00%
0.00%
100.00%
1190
1414
0.00
0.00%
0.00%
100.00%
0.00
0.00%
0.00%
100.00%
840
1000
0.00
0.00%
0.00%
100.00%
0.00
0.00%
0.00%
100.00%
595
707
0.00
0.00%
0.00%
100.00%
0.00
0.00%
0.00%
100.00%
425
503
0.00
0.00%
0.00%
100.00%
0.00
0.00%
0.00%
100.00%
297
355
0.00
0.00%
0.00%
100.00%
0.00
0.00%
0.00%
100.00%
212
251
0.41
0.33%
0.33%
99.67%
0.00
0.00%
0.00%
100.00%
150
178
2.78
2.27%
2.60%
97.40%
0.95
0.81%
0.81%
99.19%
106
126
11.31
9.23%
11.84%
88.16%
2.99
2.54%
3.35%
96.65%
75
89
24.26
19.81%
31.65%
68.35%
15.61
13.27%
16.62%
83.38%
53
63
20.42
16.67%
48.32%
51.68%
19.76
16.80%
33.42%
66.58%
38
45
13.64
11.14%
59.45%
40.55%
17.08
14.52%
47.94%
52.06%
20
28
20.02
16.35%
75.80%
24.20%
23.43
19.92%
67.86%
32.14%
29.64
24.20%
100.00%
0.00%
37.80
32.14%
100.00%
0.00%
Total
122.48
117.62
89
iv.
Screen
5 min Grinding
Mean Size
Wt (g)
Wt%
Wt C Rtn %
Wt C Pass %
Wt (g)
Wt%
Wt C Rtn %
Wt C Pass
%
3350
3350
0.00
0.00%
0.00%
100.00%
0.00
0.00%
0.00%
100.00%
2380
2824
10.25
4.42%
4.42%
95.58%
0.00
0.00%
0.00%
100.00%
1680
2000
47.16
20.34%
24.76%
75.24%
0.00
0.00%
0.00%
100.00%
1190
1414
23.45
10.11%
34.87%
65.13%
0.00
0.00%
0.00%
100.00%
840
1000
19.78
8.53%
43.40%
56.60%
0.00
0.00%
0.00%
100.00%
595
707
16.28
7.02%
50.42%
49.58%
0.00
0.00%
0.00%
100.00%
425
503
14.39
6.20%
56.62%
43.38%
0.00
0.00%
0.00%
100.00%
297
355
12.55
5.41%
62.03%
37.97%
5.33
4.43%
4.43%
95.57%
212
251
13.37
5.77%
67.80%
32.20%
18.92
15.73%
20.16%
79.84%
150
178
13.47
5.81%
73.61%
26.39%
20.35
16.92%
37.09%
62.91%
106
126
10.82
4.67%
78.27%
21.73%
13.76
11.44%
48.53%
51.47%
75
89
12.45
5.37%
83.64%
16.36%
13.49
11.22%
59.75%
40.25%
53
63
10.31
4.45%
88.09%
11.91%
10.59
8.81%
68.55%
31.45%
38
45
8.91
3.84%
91.93%
8.07%
7.93
6.59%
75.15%
24.85%
20
28
5.27
2.27%
94.20%
5.80%
11.23
9.34%
84.48%
15.52%
13.45
5.80%
100.00%
0.00%
18.66
15.52%
100.00%
0.00%
231.91
Total
120.26
10 min Grinding
Screen
15 min Grinding
Mean Size
3350
3350
0.00
0.00%
0.00%
100.00%
0.00
0.00%
0.00%
Wt C Pass
%
100.00%
2380
2824
0.00
0.00%
0.00%
100.00%
0.00
0.00%
0.00%
100.00%
1680
2000
0.00
0.00%
0.00%
100.00%
0.00
0.00%
0.00%
100.00%
1190
1414
0.00
0.00%
0.00%
100.00%
0.00
0.00%
0.00%
100.00%
840
1000
0.00
0.00%
0.00%
100.00%
0.00
0.00%
0.00%
100.00%
595
707
0.00
0.00%
0.00%
100.00%
0.00
0.00%
0.00%
100.00%
425
503
0.00
0.00%
0.00%
100.00%
0.00
0.00%
0.00%
100.00%
297
355
0.00
0.00%
0.00%
100.00%
0.00
0.00%
0.00%
100.00%
212
251
0.19
0.16%
0.16%
99.84%
0.00
0.00%
0.00%
100.00%
150
178
2.33
1.95%
2.11%
97.89%
0.52
0.41%
0.41%
99.59%
106
126
11.56
9.66%
11.76%
88.24%
4.61
3.59%
4.00%
96.00%
75
89
22.92
19.15%
30.91%
69.09%
18.48
14.41%
18.41%
81.59%
53
63
18.07
15.09%
46.00%
54.00%
23.17
18.07%
36.48%
63.52%
38
45
13.48
11.26%
57.26%
42.74%
16.36
12.76%
49.24%
50.76%
20
28
20.66
17.26%
74.52%
25.48%
24.38
19.01%
68.25%
31.75%
30.50
25.48%
100.00%
0.00%
40.72
31.75%
100.00%
0.00%
Total
Wt (g)
Wt%
Wt C Rtn %
Wt C Pass %
Wt (g)
Wt%
Wt C Rtn %
119.71
128.24
90
100.00%
90.00%
80.00%
70.00%
60.00%
50.00%
40.00%
30.00%
20.00%
10.00%
0.00%
v.
10
100
100.00%
90.00%
80.00%
70.00%
60.00%
50.00%
40.00%
30.00%
20.00%
10.00%
0.00%
1000
10
100
5 min
15 min
1102
100.00%
90.00%
80.00%
70.00%
60.00%
50.00%
40.00%
30.00%
20.00%
10.00%
0.00%
10
100
10 min
15 min
15 min
5 min
80.00%
60.00%
40.00%
20.00%
0.00%
1000
10 min
100.00%
1102
1000
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
3500
5 min
Reference
91
Savsjon
Mellanby
Borta Bakom
vi.
Laser diffraction ( Cilas ) results for 10 minute grinding (Reference , Borta Bakom )
92
93
Number
Weight
(g)
S%
Ca
%
Mn
ppm
Fe
%
Co
ppm
Cu ppm
Zn
%
As
ppm
Ag
ppm
Cd
ppm
Sb
ppm
Pb
%
Bi
ppm
SiO2
%
MgO
%
1102
65101
44.0
4.6
3.5
3265.0
4.4
35.0
1080.7
8.0
61.0
74.6
259.0
54.0
3.5
3.0
44.7
3.0
2102
65102
54.0
17.3
2.1
2337.0
4.3
59.0
4156.7
30.6
50.0
82.4
616.9
99.0
5.3
3.0
14.0
1.4
3102
65103
59.0
NA
NA
1186.0
3.0
92.0
4998.0
39.1
NA
362.5
816.0
327.0
2.0
14.0
1.5
0.2
4102
65104
56.0
18.0
NA
645.0
4.2
140.0
15245.0
26.2
79.0
1114.0
562.0
596.0
44.8
34.0
1.7
0.2
5202
65105
49.0
21.2
1.7
2015.0
3.5
58.0
4540.5
29.3
90.0
126.2
514.1
100.0
6.8
4.0
5.6
0.7
7101
65106
49.0
33.2
NA
1771.0
5.0
164.0
674.0
55.2
155.0
197.3
1373.0
66.0
2.6
3.0
2.5
0.1
8101
65107
57.0
14.8
NA
237.0
2.9
64.0
24740.0
5.4
80.0
1246.0
131.0
646.0
71.5
49.0
0.5
0.0
R1
R-T2-1
65108
58.0
5.3
3.3
3360.0
4.3
38.0
435.7
8.9
55.0
72.3
291.3
53.0
4.0
3.0
46.9
2.7
S1
S-T2-1
65109
57.0
7.6
3.5
3260.0
5.5
109.0
435.0
10.5
65.0
79.9
283.2
43.0
3.5
3.0
44.8
3.0
M-T2-1
65112
56.0
4.8
3.8
3498.0
5.9
59.0
142.5
7.3
-3.0
63.3
242.6
23.0
1.8
2.0
51.8
2.7
M-T2-2
65111
60.0
4.7
3.8
3470.0
5.8
64.0
155.1
7.2
0.0
63.2
242.5
17.0
1.7
2.0
52.0
2.7
M-T2-3
65114
65.0
4.7
3.8
3473.0
5.8
48.0
216.9
7.4
12.0
77.0
255.0
43.0
1.8
2.0
49.8
2.6
M-T1-1
65110
57.0
4.6
3.6
2773.0
5.7
110.0
431.0
7.1
19.0
83.9
393.2
45.0
1.7
3.0
38.5
2.7
M-T3-1
65113
58.0
4.7
3.8
3504.0
6.0
62.0
156.6
7.4
4.0
68.6
245.7
15.0
1.8
2.0
51.5
2.7
BB1
BB-T2-1
65115
57.0
4.7
4.2
4348.0
4.7
59.0
91.9
6.5
53.0
52.1
203.5
30.0
3.0
3.0
55.8
2.3
65116
47.0
21.0
1.5
0.2
8.7
0.0
0.2
34.7
NA
0.0
0.1
NA
20.2
NA
7.7
NA
65117
34.0
22.2
1.6
0.3
9.4
0.0
0.2
36.5
NA
0.0
0.1
NA
15.1
NA
8.6
NA
65118
42.0
21.1
2.6
0.3
10.5
0.0
0.1
32.8
NA
0.0
0.1
NA
9.4
NA
13.9
NA
M2
M-T4-6C1
M-T4-6C2
M-T4-6C3
M-T4-6C4
M-T4-6C5
M-T4-6C6
M-T4-6T
65119
43.0
18.5
3.8
0.4
11.3
0.0
0.1
27.4
NA
0.0
0.1
NA
6.2
NA
19.8
NA
65120
53.0
11.8
3.1
3157.0
7.3
119.0
279.9
17.9
9.0
75.7
594.3
47.0
1.8
2.0
33.5
2.1
65121
44.0
6.6
3.8
3454.0
6.8
88.0
161.1
9.7
0.0
72.8
390.7
46.0
1.2
2.0
45.5
2.7
65122
39.0
2.2
4.7
3389.0
5.2
1.0
213.0
3.0
-120.0
14.2
60.7
21.0
0.2
1.0
54.1
3.1
R-T9-C1
65123
39.0
21.6
1.2
0.3
6.2
0.0
0.2
38.5
NA
0.0
0.1
NA
21.3
NA
6.0
NA
R-T9-C2
65124
38.0
24.5
1.2
0.3
6.6
0.0
0.2
43.1
NA
0.0
0.1
NA
14.8
NA
5.1
NA
R-T9-C3
65125
37.0
23.5
1.5
0.3
6.8
0.0
0.2
41.1
NA
0.0
0.1
NA
15.2
NA
6.3
NA
Origin
P1
M1
R2
94
S2
BB2
P2
M3
R-T9-C4
65126
35.0
20.1
3.6
0.5
8.1
0.0
0.2
31.9
NA
0.0
0.1
NA
9.4
NA
14.9
NA
R-T9-C5
65127
34.0
10.3
6.8
0.7
9.1
0.0
0.1
19.5
NA
0.0
0.1
NA
6.9
NA
27.3
NA
R-T9-C6
65128
52.0
3.7
4.1
4228.0
5.6
123.0
396.8
3.8
150.0
81.7
66.9
87.0
2.7
3.0
50.0
3.3
R-T9-T
65129
37.0
0.3
NA
3591.0
4.0
16.0
58.4
0.2
-16.0
9.0
5.3
9.0
0.3
2.0
59.2
3.5
S-T7-C1
65130
51.0
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
37.0
NA
NA
NA
NA
21.2
NA
NA
NA
S-T7-C2
65131
43.0
22.9
1.7
0.3
9.9
0.1
0.2
36.2
NA
0.0
0.1
NA
14.1
NA
7.7
NA
S-T7-C3
65132
43.0
22.6
2.0
0.4
10.4
0.1
0.8
35.7
NA
0.0
0.1
NA
11.2
NA
9.0
NA
S-T7-C4
65133
45.0
17.8
4.5
0.4
11.4
0.1
0.1
25.3
NA
0.0
0.1
NA
5.6
NA
18.9
NA
S-T7-C5
65135
49.0
12.7
5.8
0.4
11.7
0.1
0.0
22.6
NA
NA
0.1
NA
1.8
NA
24.2
NA
S-T7-C6
65134
42.0
11.2
3.5
2820.0
7.0
207.0
339.0
13.8
-17.0
83.0
600.2
65.0
1.0
2.0
33.0
2.3
S-T7-T
65136
38.0
1.3
NA
2417.0
3.7
24.0
41.8
1.5
-107.0
12.4
40.5
8.0
0.2
1.0
53.4
3.8
65137
45.0
20.4
1.3
0.4
7.5
0.0
0.1
34.3
NA
0.1
0.1
NA
22.0
NA
8.3
NA
65138
30.0
21.6
1.5
0.5
8.5
NA
0.1
35.6
NA
0.0
0.1
NA
15.5
NA
10.0
NA
65139
33.0
19.9
2.3
0.6
9.2
0.0
0.1
30.6
NA
0.0
0.1
NA
10.4
NA
16.4
NA
65140
29.0
16.4
3.4
0.8
10.0
0.0
0.1
23.5
NA
0.0
0.1
NA
6.9
NA
23.9
NA
65141
32.0
8.2
3.1
4794.0
5.9
49.0
143.5
12.8
46.0
64.6
416.7
24.0
2.5
2.0
42.7
2.3
65142
45.0
6.1
3.2
5052.0
6.1
52.0
70.5
9.4
51.0
61.9
365.8
23.0
1.8
2.0
47.9
2.5
BB-T4-T
65143
43.0
0.7
NA
4653.0
4.0
7.0
19.7
0.9
-42.0
1.8
23.5
7.0
0.2
2.0
62.5
2.7
1102-C1
65144
44.0
21.2
1.4
0.2
5.5
0.0
0.3
37.3
NA
0.0
0.1
NA
21.1
NA
7.3
NA
1102-C2
65145
45.0
23.4
1.3
0.2
6.0
0.0
0.5
40.7
NA
0.0
0.1
NA
15.7
NA
6.9
NA
BB-T4C1
BB-T4C2
BB-T4C3
BB-T4C4
BB-T4C5
BB-T4C6
1102-C3
65146
34.0
22.4
1.9
0.3
6.3
0.0
0.5
37.9
NA
0.0
0.1
NA
15.1
NA
8.8
NA
1102-C4C5
65147
47.0
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
1102-C6
65148
37.0
3.9
4.2
3957.0
5.8
88.0
1839.7
3.1
186.0
86.9
41.2
125.0
3.0
3.0
50.3
3.4
1102-T
65149
41.0
0.2
NA
3446.0
4.2
3.0
155.2
0.2
-34.0
11.6
7.0
24.0
0.3
2.0
58.7
4.1
M-T7-C1
65150
35.0
19.9
1.9
0.3
8.7
0.0
0.2
32.3
NA
0.0
0.1
NA
20.0
NA
9.9
NA
M-T7C2-C3
65151
43.0
19.8
2.9
0.4
10.4
0.0
0.1
30.3
NA
0.0
0.1
NA
10.1
NA
15.9
NA
M-T7-C4
65152
27.0
14.8
5.2
0.5
11.7
0.0
0.1
20.5
NA
NA
0.1
NA
4.6
NA
26.5
NA
M-T7-C5
65153
41.0
8.6
3.5
3322.0
6.9
98.0
194.3
13.5
-9.0
72.5
501.2
35.0
1.5
2.0
41.2
2.4
95
S3
S4
P3
P4
M-T7-C6
65154
45.0
8.8
3.5
3328.0
7.1
95.0
107.9
14.2
-33.0
69.0
548.9
31.0
0.8
2.0
41.2
2.4
M-T7-T
65155
44.0
1.6
NA
3442.0
5.4
30.0
26.6
2.5
-104.0
10.4
49.4
11.0
0.1
1.0
57.7
3.0
S-T5-C1
65156
48.0
22.0
1.1
0.3
8.8
0.1
0.3
36.3
NA
0.0
0.1
NA
21.3
NA
5.0
NA
S-T5-C2
65157
40.0
24.4
1.2
0.3
9.9
0.1
0.2
40.2
NA
0.0
0.1
NA
13.5
NA
5.3
NA
S-T5-C3
65158
33.0
24.6
1.4
0.3
10.0
0.1
0.2
39.7
NA
0.0
0.1
NA
12.5
NA
5.9
NA
S-T5-C4
65159
46.0
22.1
3.0
0.4
11.7
0.1
0.1
32.5
NA
0.0
0.1
NA
5.8
NA
13.2
NA
S-T5-C5
65160
34.0
14.3
3.1
2806.0
8.0
259.0
361.5
17.4
-22.0
83.5
701.2
91.0
1.8
2.0
26.6
2.0
S-T5-C6
65161
56.0
15.1
3.1
2862.0
9.4
276.0
170.2
17.2
-70.0
75.4
760.6
51.0
0.8
1.0
26.4
2.0
S-T5-T
65162
37.0
0.9
NA
2459.0
3.7
5.0
36.6
0.9
-93.0
16.4
28.5
2.0
0.2
1.0
54.2
4.0
S-T8-C1
65163
49.0
21.5
1.4
0.3
8.9
0.1
0.3
35.0
NA
0.0
0.1
NA
21.2
NA
6.1
NA
S-T8-C2
65164
37.0
23.6
1.3
0.3
9.6
0.1
0.3
38.4
NA
0.0
0.1
NA
15.2
NA
5.9
NA
S-T8-C3
65165
43.0
22.7
2.2
0.4
10.5
0.1
0.2
35.1
NA
0.0
0.1
NA
10.2
NA
10.1
NA
S-T8-C4
65166
42.0
17.9
4.5
0.4
11.4
0.1
0.1
25.5
NA
0.0
0.1
NA
5.8
NA
18.6
NA
S-T8-C5
65167
42.0
11.3
3.5
2811.0
6.9
203.0
320.0
13.8
-16.0
78.9
594.9
66.0
1.8
2.0
32.5
2.3
S-T8-C6
65168
48.0
12.2
3.4
2845.0
8.2
232.0
174.8
14.4
-54.0
74.0
695.9
47.0
0.9
1.0
31.4
2.3
S-T8-T
65169
38.0
1.5
NA
2440.0
3.8
23.0
43.9
1.8
-114.0
15.9
51.7
-1.0
0.2
1.0
52.8
3.8
5202-C1
65170
47.0
19.4
0.5
0.1
5.0
0.0
1.4
23.6
NA
0.1
0.1
NA
45.7
NA
2.2
NA
5202-C2
65171
52.0
19.6
0.5
0.1
4.9
0.0
1.4
24.4
NA
0.1
0.1
NA
44.9
NA
2.1
NA
5202-C3
65172
52.0
19.1
0.5
0.1
4.9
0.0
1.2
32.9
NA
0.1
0.1
NA
37.0
NA
2.3
NA
5202-C4
65173
48.0
21.2
0.5
0.2
5.6
0.0
1.2
37.2
NA
0.1
0.1
NA
29.3
NA
2.5
NA
5202-C5
65174
33.0
24.5
0.6
0.2
6.6
0.0
1.0
43.5
NA
0.1
0.1
NA
18.4
NA
2.8
NA
5202-C6
65175
55.0
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
5202-T
65176
55.0
25.2
NA
2811.0
6.3
202.0
3355.0
42.4
329.0
133.0
1214.0
184.0
2.8
2.0
9.4
0.8
2102-C1
65178
39.0
19.4
1.0
0.2
4.9
0.0
0.9
34.0
NA
0.1
0.1
NA
31.7
NA
4.4
NA
2102-C2
65179
41.0
20.3
0.9
0.2
5.1
0.0
0.9
35.5
NA
0.0
0.1
NA
29.5
NA
4.3
NA
2102-C3
65180
54.0
21.2
0.9
0.2
5.3
0.0
0.9
36.9
NA
0.1
0.1
NA
27.4
NA
4.1
NA
2102-C4
65181
44.0
22.8
0.9
0.2
5.7
0.0
0.9
39.3
NA
0.0
0.1
NA
22.5
NA
4.2
NA
2102-C5
65182
42.0
25.2
1.0
0.2
6.6
0.0
0.9
43.1
NA
0.0
0.1
NA
14.3
NA
4.8
NA
2102-C6
65183
37.0
26.3
1.5
0.3
7.1
0.0
0.4
45.4
NA
0.0
0.1
NA
4.8
NA
7.2
NA
2102-C7
65184
56.0
21.5
2.8
3073.0
6.1
172.0
3927.0
38.4
216.0
132.4
1185.0
143.0
2.9
2.0
15.0
1.1
96
P5
Optimizati
on Tests
2102-T
65185
49.0
8.2
3.7
3767.0
6.4
83.0
1539.7
14.7
-28.0
82.2
617.0
187.0
0.8
2.0
38.9
3.2
3102-C1
65187
29.0
17.8
0.6
0.1
4.2
NA
1.2
18.0
NA
0.8
0.0
NA
54.1
NA
1.8
NA
3102-C2
65188
33.0
18.2
0.6
0.1
4.0
0.0
1.0
19.1
NA
0.1
0.0
NA
53.5
NA
1.8
NA
3102-C3
65189
47.0
19.0
0.6
0.1
4.2
0.0
1.0
22.5
NA
0.1
0.1
NA
48.5
NA
2.0
NA
3102-C4
65190
47.0
19.0
0.7
0.1
4.5
0.0
1.0
33.8
NA
0.1
0.1
NA
36.5
NA
2.3
NA
3102-C5
65191
55.0
21.7
0.8
0.2
5.5
0.0
1.1
38.5
NA
0.1
0.1
NA
26.7
NA
3.0
NA
3102-C6
65192
49.0
24.1
1.1
0.2
6.4
0.0
0.9
42.0
NA
0.0
0.1
NA
17.3
NA
4.4
NA
3102-T
65193
51.0
29.1
NA
1832.0
5.4
170.0
1695.0
54.1
177.0
65.2
1323.0
80.0
2.3
2.0
4.6
0.5
BB-T20
65271
60.0
0.6
2.8
4759.0
4.0
16.0
17.0
1.0
NA
2.6
25.7
1.0
0.2
2.0
63.3
2.5
S-T21
65272
60.0
1.4
4.5
2456.0
3.7
20.0
36.0
1.8
NA
15.2
49.9
12.0
0.1
1.0
53.2
3.9
M-T12
65273
60.0
1.7
4.1
3455.0
5.4
33.0
29.0
2.7
NA
11.3
54.1
15.0
0.1
1.0
57.6
2.9
M-T9
65274
60.0
0.2
4.4
3595.0
5.2
20.0
44.0
0.3
NA
8.7
4.6
14.0
0.2
2.0
61.3
3.2
BB-T22
65275
60.0
0.2
4.7
2470.0
3.4
-9.0
54.0
0.1
NA
15.7
4.8
0.0
0.2
2.0
55.7
4.1
S-T22
65276
60.0
0.2
2.8
4687.0
3.9
-3.0
42.0
0.1
NA
1.9
5.8
-1.0
0.3
2.0
64.4
2.8
S-T20
65277
60.0
1.2
4.5
2498.0
3.8
11.0
30.0
1.4
NA
16.0
40.0
6.0
0.1
1.0
53.7
3.8
BB-T21
65278
60.0
0.7
2.8
4842.0
4.1
6.0
19.0
1.1
NA
4.1
26.7
14.0
0.2
2.0
62.7
2.6
M-T7-T
65155
44.0
1.6
NA
3442.0
5.4
30.0
26.6
2.5
-104.0
10.4
49.4
11.0
0.1
1.0
57.7
3.0
97
Date of Procedure
Recording
Test Name
Sample Name
Initial Weight (g)
Grinding Time (m)
Grinding Solid %
d80
Initial Total Cell Weight (g)
Flotation Pulp Density (%)
Product Total (g)
Solid Loss (g)
Froth Water (ml)
Stage
Initial
Conditioning
Conditioning
Conc 1
Conc 2
Conc 3
Conc 4
Conc 5
Conditioning
Conc 6
Total (ml)
Total (g/t)
Product
Conc1 (0.0-0.5 min)
Conc2 (0.5-1.0 min)
Conc3 (1.0-2.0 min)
Conc4 (2.0 - 4.0 min)
Conc5 (4.0 - 8.0 min)
Conc6 (8.0 - 16.0 min )
Tailings
BackCalculated Feed
Feed
31.3.2015
1
Reference Kinetics
R-T9
970.4
10
60.00
102
7260
29.27%
953.77
16.63
380.00
Sphalerite
Galena
Zn
61.65%
0.00%
Fe
5.49%
0.00%
Reagents
SIPX
Sulfuric Acid
NasFroth
Na Bisulfite
Concentration by Wt
2.50%
4.00%
100.00%
40.00%
Reagents (ml)
Na Bisulpide
Acid
SIPX
2.50
0.75
1.00
Time (m)
NasFroth
3
2
0.5
0.5
1
2
4
1.5
8
0.020
0.015
0.50
0.50
3.750
157.27
1.500
39.32
Weight (%)
8.69%
3.97%
3.87%
3.64%
3.56%
5.46%
70.81%
Cum Wt %
8.69%
12.66%
16.53%
20.17%
23.73%
29.19%
100.00%
98
Pb
0.00%
86.39%
S-Cd
32.86%
13.06%
Cu
0.00%
0.00%
pH
9.13
8.25
8.00
8.05
8.12
8.17
8.23
8.29
7.95
8.26
Last
Eh
9.00
10.00
10.00
19.00
11.00
17.00
Temp
22.3
22.6
22.8
22.9
23.1
23.3
23.5
23.6
23.8
24.8
Pb %
21.301
14.797
15.191
9.423
6.894
2.690
0.280
3.960
4.030
SiO2 %
5.980
5.143
6.253
14.874
27.284
50.000
59.200
47.128
46.900
0.035
36.91
Results
S%
21.636
24.465
23.526
20.058
10.252
3.700
0.280
5.258
5.300
Fe %
6.193
6.649
6.762
8.125
9.053
5.550
4.000
4.817
4.810
Cu %
0.151
0.167
0.169
0.173
0.111
0.040
0.006
0.043
0.044
Zn %
38.472
43.145
41.057
31.945
19.462
3.790
0.220
8.864
8.940
Ag %
0.024
0.021
0.034
0.020
0.026
0.008
0.001
0.007
0.007
Stream
Time
Feed
C1
0.50
M1
C2
1.00
M2
C3
2.00
M3
C4
4.00
M4
C5
8.00
M
C6
Tailings
16.00
Solids
Recovery%
Zn %
Pb %
Cu
%
S%
Sph %
Gn %
Ccp
%
NSG
%
Sph Rec
Gn Rec
Ccp Rec
NSG Rec
100.0%
8.86
3.96
0.04
5.26
14.37
4.58
0.12
80.92
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
8.7%
38.42
21.30
0.15
21.64
62.32
24.66
0.44
12.59
37.7%
46.7%
30.5%
1.4%
91.3%
6.04
2.31
0.03
3.70
9.80
2.67
0.09
87.43
62.3%
53.3%
69.5%
98.6%
4.0%
43.15
14.80
0.17
24.47
69.98
17.13
0.48
12.41
19.3%
14.8%
15.4%
0.6%
87.3%
4.36
1.74
0.03
2.75
7.07
2.02
0.08
90.84
43.0%
38.4%
54.0%
98.0%
3.9%
41.06
15.19
0.17
23.53
66.60
17.58
0.49
15.33
17.9%
14.8%
15.2%
0.7%
83.5%
2.66
1.12
0.02
1.79
4.31
1.29
0.06
94.34
25.0%
23.6%
38.8%
97.3%
3.6%
31.95
9.42
0.17
20.06
51.82
10.91
0.50
36.78
13.1%
8.7%
14.7%
1.7%
79.8%
1.32
0.74
0.01
0.96
2.14
0.86
0.04
96.96
11.9%
14.9%
24.2%
95.7%
3.6%
19.43
6.89
0.11
10.25
31.51
7.98
0.32
60.19
7.8%
6.2%
9.2%
2.6%
76.3%
0.48
0.45
0.01
0.52
0.77
0.52
0.02
98.68
4.1%
8.7%
15.0%
93.0%
5.5%
3.79
2.69
0.04
3.70
6.15
3.11
0.12
90.62
2.3%
3.7%
5.1%
70.8%
0.22
0.28
0.01
0.28
0.36
0.32
0.02
99.30
1.8%
5.0%
9.9%
99
Sph Cum
Rec
Gn Cum
Rec
Ccp Cum
Rec
NSG Cum
Rec
37.7%
46.7%
30.5%
1.4%
57.0%
61.6%
46.0%
2.0%
75.0%
76.4%
61.2%
2.7%
88.1%
85.1%
75.8%
4.3%
95.9%
91.3%
85.0%
7.0%
6.1%
98.2%
95.0%
90.1%
13.1%
86.9%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
ii.
Date of Procedure
Recording
Test Name
Sample Name
Initial Weight (g)
Grinding Time (m)
Grinding Solid %
d80 (m)
Initial Total Cell Weight (g)
Flotation Pulp Density (%)
Product Total (g)
Solid Loss (g)
Froth Water (ml)
Stage
Initial
Conditioning
Conditioning
Conc 1
Conc 2
Conc 3
Conc 4
Conc 5
Conditioning
Conc 6
Total (ml)
Total (g/t)
Product
Conc1 (0.0-0.5 min)
Conc2 (0.5-1.0 min)
Conc3 (1.0-2.0 min)
Conc4 (2.0 - 4.0 min)
Conc5 (4.0 - 8.0 min)
Conc6 (8.0 - 16.0 min )
Tailings
BackCalculated Feed
Feed
7.4.2015
1
Savsjon Kinetics
S-T7
1012.7
10
60.00
102
7270
30.46%
999.86
12.84
350.00
Zn
59.52%
0.00%
Fe
7.60%
0.00%
Reagents
SIPX
Sulfuric Acid
NasFroth
Na Bisulfite
Concentration by Wt
2.50%
4.00%
100.00%
40.00%
Reagents (ml)
Na Bisulpide
Acid
SIPX
2.500
0.750
1.000
Time (m)
NasFroth
3
2
0.5
0.5
1
2
4
1.5
8
0.020
0.014
0.500
0.500
3.750
150.02
1.500
37.51
Weight (%)
9.3%
4.3%
4.3%
4.5%
4.2%
6.3%
67.0%
Cum Wt %
9.3%
13.6%
17.9%
22.4%
26.7%
33.0%
100.0%
100
Pb
0.00%
86.39%
S
32.86%
13.58%
Cu
0.00%
0.00%
pH
9.20
8.25
8.03
8.11
8.15
8.18
8.25
8.30
8.00
8.27
Last
Eh
8.00
6.00
7.00
17.00
19.00
21.00
22.00
26.00
7.00
22.00
Temp
22.20
22.50
22.60
22.70
22.90
23.00
23.40
23.60
23.80
24.10
0.034
34.00
Results
S%
21.90
22.88
22.63
17.82
11.16
12.67
1.26
6.92
7.59
Fe %
8.80
9.86
10.40
11.41
11.68
7.04
3.74
5.65
5.49
Cu %
0.31
0.25
0.24
0.12
0.04
0.02
0.01
0.06
0.05
Zn %
36.97
38.20
35.69
25.28
22.60
13.77
1.47
10.58
10.52
Ag %
0.04
0.03
0.03
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.00
0.01
0.01
Pb %
21.17
14.09
11.24
5.57
1.76
0.95
0.15
3.54
3.52
SiO2 %
5.50
7.72
8.98
18.86
24.21
33.00
53.40
40.98
44.80
Stream
Time
Feed
C1
0.50
M1
C2
1.00
M2
C3
2.00
M3
C4
4.00
M4
C5
8.00
M
C6
Tailings
16.00
Solids
Recovery
%
Zn %
100.0%
9.3%
Pb %
Cu
%
S%
Sph
%
Gn %
Ccp
%
NSG
%
Sph Rec
Gn Rec
Ccp Rec
NSG
Rec
10.58
3.54
36.97
21.17
0.06
6.92
0.31
21.90
90.7%
7.89
1.74
0.04
4.3%
38.20
14.09
86.4%
6.38
4.4%
17.77
4.10
0.18
77.95
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
62.11
24.51
0.90
12.49
32.4%
55.3%
46.1%
1.5%
5.39
13.25
2.02
0.11
84.63
67.6%
44.7%
53.9%
98.5%
0.25
22.88
64.18
16.31
0.71
18.80
15.5%
17.1%
17.1%
1.0%
1.13
0.03
4.53
10.72
1.31
0.08
87.90
52.1%
27.6%
36.8%
97.5%
35.69
11.24
0.24
22.63
59.96
13.01
0.70
26.33
14.7%
13.8%
17.0%
1.5%
82.1%
4.83
0.59
0.02
3.57
8.11
0.69
0.04
91.16
37.4%
13.8%
19.8%
96.0%
4.5%
25.28
5.57
0.12
17.82
42.47
6.45
0.34
50.74
10.8%
7.1%
8.6%
2.9%
77.6%
3.63
0.30
0.01
2.74
6.10
0.35
0.03
93.52
26.6%
6.6%
11.2%
93.1%
4.3%
22.60
1.76
0.04
11.16
37.97
2.03
0.12
59.87
9.1%
2.1%
2.9%
3.3%
73.3%
2.53
0.22
0.01
2.25
4.26
0.25
0.02
95.47
17.6%
4.5%
8.3%
89.8%
6.3%
13.77
0.95
0.02
12.67
23.14
1.10
0.06
75.71
8.3%
1.7%
2.0%
67.0%
1.47
0.15
0.01
1.26
2.47
0.17
0.02
97.34
9.3%
2.8%
6.2%
101
Sph Cum
Rec
Gn Cum
Rec
Ccp Cum
Rec
NSG Cum
Rec
32.4%
55.3%
46.1%
1.5%
47.9%
72.4%
63.2%
2.5%
62.6%
86.2%
80.2%
4.0%
73.4%
93.4%
88.8%
6.9%
82.4%
95.5%
91.7%
10.2%
6.2%
90.7%
97.2%
93.8%
16.4%
83.7%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
Stage
Initial
Conditioning
Conditioning
Conc 1
Conc 2
Conc 3
Conc 4
Conc 5
Conditioning
Conc 6
Total (ml)
Total (g/t)
Product
Conc1
Conc2
Conc3
Conc4
Conc5
Conc6
Tailings
BackCalculated Feed
Analyzed Feed
7.4.2015
No
Savsjon Kinetics
S-T8
989.1
10
60.00
102
7260
29.84%
978.02
11.08
350.00
Na Bisulpide
Zn
59.52%
0.00%
Reagents
SIPX
Sulfuric Acid
NasFroth
Na Bisulfite
Concentration by Wt
2.50%
4.00%
100.00%
40.00%
Reagents (ml)
Acid
2.50
0.50
SIPX
Fe
7.60%
0.00%
NasFroth
Time (m)
1.00
3
2
0.5
0.5
1
2
4
1.5
8
0.020
0.014
0.50
0.50
3.500
143.15
1.500
38.34
Weight (%)
9.55%
3.80%
4.44%
4.29%
4.29%
6.32%
67.32%
Cum Wt %
9.55%
13.34%
17.78%
22.07%
26.36%
32.68%
100.00%
102
Pb
0.00%
86.39%
pH
9.17
8.26
8.04
8.12
8.16
8.22
8.28
8.32
7.98
8.31
S
32.86%
13.58%
Last
Eh
17.00
4.00
6.00
15.00
17.00
18.00
19.00
19.00
7.00
15.00
Cu
0.00%
0.00%
Temp
21.30
21.50
21.60
21.70
21.90
22.10
22.40
22.60
22.70
23.70
0.034
34.76
Results
S%
21.483
23.634
22.674
17.912
11.310
12.230
1.470
6.970
7.590
Fe %
8.871
9.616
10.511
11.405
6.880
8.180
3.830
5.558
5.490
Cu %
0.328
0.257
0.176
0.110
0.032
0.017
0.004
0.059
0.055
Zn %
34.969
38.377
35.056
25.457
13.770
14.400
1.820
10.168
10.520
Ag %
0.040
0.036
0.027
0.016
0.008
0.007
0.002
0.009
0.008
Pb %
21.152
15.165
10.249
5.765
1.780
0.910
0.150
3.532
3.520
SiO2 %
6.112
5.860
10.056
18.586
32.500
31.400
52.800
40.974
44.800
Stream
Time
Feed
C1
0.50
M1
C2
1.00
M2
C3
2.00
M3
C4
4.00
M4
C5
8.00
M
C6
Tailings
16.00
Solids
Recovery
%
Zn %
Pb %
Cu %
S%
Sph
%
Gn %
Ccp
%
NSG %
Sph Rec
Gn Rec
Ccp Rec
NSG Rec
100.0%
10.23
3.54
0.06
6.95
17.18
4.10
0.16
78.56
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
9.8%
36.34
21.35
0.31
22.05
61.04
24.71
0.89
13.37
34.8%
59.0%
53.7%
1.7%
90.2%
7.40
1.61
0.03
5.31
12.42
1.86
0.08
85.63
65.2%
41.0%
46.3%
98.3%
Sph Cum
Rec
Gn Cum
Rec
Ccp Cum
Rec
NSG Cum
Rec
34.8%
59.0%
53.7%
1.7%
50.6%
74.4%
69.6%
2.5%
63.6%
86.2%
81.5%
3.3%
78.3%
93.8%
91.1%
5.5%
84.2%
95.6%
93.4%
8.6%
4.0%
40.20
13.50
0.22
24.43
67.51
15.62
0.64
16.23
15.9%
15.4%
15.9%
0.8%
86.2%
5.86
1.05
0.02
4.42
9.84
1.22
0.06
88.89
49.4%
25.6%
30.4%
97.5%
3.4%
39.71
12.46
0.20
24.59
66.70
14.42
0.58
18.30
13.0%
11.8%
12.0%
0.8%
82.8%
4.49
0.59
0.01
3.60
7.54
0.68
0.04
91.74
36.4%
13.8%
18.5%
96.7%
4.6%
32.48
5.81
0.12
22.07
54.56
6.72
0.33
38.38
14.7%
7.6%
9.6%
2.3%
78.2%
2.83
0.28
0.01
2.51
4.76
0.32
0.02
94.90
21.7%
6.2%
8.9%
94.5%
3.5%
17.38
1.80
0.04
14.25
29.19
2.08
0.10
68.62
5.9%
1.8%
2.2%
3.0%
74.7%
2.16
0.21
0.00
1.96
3.63
0.24
0.01
96.11
15.8%
4.4%
6.6%
91.4%
5.7%
17.22
0.81
0.02
15.09
28.92
0.94
0.05
70.09
9.5%
1.3%
1.7%
5.0%
93.7%
96.9%
95.1%
13.6%
69.1%
0.93
0.16
0.00
0.89
1.56
0.19
0.01
98.24
6.3%
3.1%
4.9%
86.4%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
103
Stage
Initial
Conditioning
Conditioning
Conc 1
Conc 2
Conc 3
Conc 4
Conc 5
Conditioning
Conc 6
Total (ml)
Total (g/t)
Product
Conc1
Conc2
Conc3
Conc4
Conc5
Conc6
Tailings
BackCalculated Feed
Feed
1.4.2015
2
Savsjon Kinetics
S-T5
1005.1
10
60.00
102
7290
30.05%
995.50
9.60
350.00
Zn
59.52%
0.00%
Reagents
SIPX
Sulfuric Acid
NasFroth
Na Bisulfite
Concentration by Wt
2.50%
4.00%
100.00%
40.00%
Reagents (ml)
Acid
Na Bisulpide
-
SIPX
2.50
0.75
Fe
7.60%
0.00%
Time (m)
NasFroth
1.00
3
2
0.5
0.5
1
2
4
1.5
8
0.020
0.014
Weight (%)
9.79%
4.04%
3.35%
4.63%
3.45%
5.65%
69.09%
0.50
0.50
3.750
150.68
1.500
37.67
Cum Wt %
9.79%
13.84%
17.18%
21.81%
25.26%
30.91%
100.00%
104
Pb
0.00%
86.39%
pH
9.26
8.24
8.03
8.12
8.15
8.22
8.28
8.33
7.86
8.30
S
32.86%
13.58%
Last
Eh
0.00
-13.00
-10.00
1.00
3.00
8.00
9.00
12.00
-8.00
10.00
Cu
0.00%
0.00%
Temp
21.90
22.20
22.30
22.50
22.80
23.10
23.30
23.60
23.70
24.50
0.034
34.15
Results
S%
22.048
24.429
24.591
22.068
14.250
15.090
0.890
6.951
7.590
Fe %
8.795
9.868
10.021
11.718
7.950
9.420
3.660
5.473
5.490
Cu %
0.307
0.221
0.200
0.116
0.036
0.017
0.004
0.056
0.055
Zn %
36.341
40.195
39.713
32.484
17.380
17.220
0.930
10.233
10.520
Ag %
0.043
0.031
0.024
0.020
0.008
0.008
0.002
0.009
0.008
Pb %
21.347
13.496
12.456
5.808
1.800
0.810
0.160
3.540
3.520
SiO2 %
5.017
5.321
5.903
13.229
26.600
26.400
54.200
41.370
44.800
Stream
Time
Feed
C1
0.50
M1
C2
1.00
M2
C3
2.00
M3
C4
4.00
M4
C5
8.00
M
C6
Tailings
16.00
Solids
Recovery
%
Zn %
Pb %
Cu
%
S%
Sph %
Gn %
Ccp %
NSG %
Sph
Rec
Gn
Rec
Ccp
Rec
NSG Rec
100.0%
10.51
3.53
0.06
6.97
17.66
4.09
0.17
78.08
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
9.6%
34.97
21.15
0.33
21.48
58.75
24.48
0.95
15.82
31.8%
57.2%
53.3%
1.9%
90.5%
7.93
1.67
0.03
5.44
13.32
1.94
0.09
84.65
68.2%
42.8%
46.7%
98.1%
Sph Cum
Rec
Gn Cum
Rec
Ccp Cum
Rec
NSG Cum
Rec
31.8%
57.2%
53.3%
1.9%
45.6%
73.5%
69.9%
2.8%
60.5%
86.4%
83.2%
4.4%
70.8%
93.4%
91.3%
7.2%
80.1%
95.5%
93.6%
10.5%
3.8%
38.38
15.17
0.26
23.63
64.48
17.55
0.74
17.23
13.9%
16.3%
16.6%
0.8%
86.7%
6.59
1.08
0.02
4.64
11.08
1.25
0.06
87.61
54.4%
26.5%
30.1%
97.2%
4.4%
35.06
10.25
0.18
22.67
58.90
11.86
0.51
28.73
14.8%
12.9%
13.3%
1.6%
82.2%
5.06
0.59
0.01
3.67
8.50
0.68
0.03
90.79
39.5%
13.6%
16.8%
95.6%
4.3%
25.46
5.77
0.11
17.91
42.77
6.67
0.32
50.24
10.4%
7.0%
8.0%
2.8%
77.9%
3.93
0.30
0.01
2.88
6.61
0.35
0.02
93.02
29.2%
6.6%
8.7%
92.8%
4.3%
22.60
1.78
0.03
11.31
37.97
2.06
0.09
59.88
9.2%
2.2%
2.3%
3.3%
73.6%
2.85
0.22
0.01
2.39
4.78
0.25
0.01
94.95
19.9%
4.5%
6.4%
89.5%
6.3%
13.77
0.91
0.02
12.23
23.14
1.05
0.05
75.76
8.3%
1.6%
1.8%
6.1%
88.3%
97.1%
95.4%
16.6%
67.3%
1.82
0.15
0.00
1.47
3.06
0.17
0.01
96.76
11.7%
2.9%
4.6%
83.4%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
105
iii.
Date of Procedure
Recording
Test Name
Sample Name
Initial Weight (g)
Grinding Time (m)
Grinding Solid %
d80
Initial Total Cell Weight (g)
Flotation Pulp Density (%)
Product Total (g)
Solid Loss (g)
Froth Water (ml)
Stage
Initial
Conditioning
Conditioning
Conc 1
Conc 2
Conc 3
Conc 4
Conc 5
Conditioning
Conc 6
Total (ml)
Total (g/t)
Product
Conc1 (0.0-0.5 min)
Conc2 (0.5-1.0 min)
Conc3 (1.0-2.0 min)
Conc4 (2.0 - 4.0 min)
Conc5 (4.0 - 8.0 min)
Conc6 (8.0 - 16.0 min )
Tailings
BackCalculated Feed
Analyzed Feed
1.4.2015
3
BB Kinetics
BB-T4
1027.5
10
60.00
100
7300
30.63%
1015.65
11.85
400.00
Sphalerite
Galena
Zn
60.83%
0.00%
Reagents
SIPX
Sulfuric Acid
NasFroth
Na Bisulfite
Concentration by Wt
2.50%
4.00%
100.00%
40.00%
NasFroth
Reagents (ml)
Na Bisulpide
Acid
SIPX
2.20
0.40
1.00
Fe
6.31%
0.00%
Time (m)
3
2
0.5
0.5
1
2
4
1.5
8
0.020
0.016
0.40
0.50
3.000
118.15
1.500
36.92
Weight (%)
5.14%
2.89%
3.27%
2.87%
3.15%
4.41%
78.27%
Cum Wt %
5.14%
8.03%
11.30%
14.17%
17.32%
21.73%
100.00%
106
Pb
0.00%
86.39%
S-Cd
32.86%
13.58%
Cu
0.00%
0.00%
pH
8.96
8.35
7.99
8.07
8.10
8.15
8.21
8.30
7.97
8.30
Last
Eh
-34.00
-29.00
-14.00
-10.00
-8.00
-5.00
0.00
-24.00
-8.00
Temp
21.40
21.80
21.90
22.00
22.10
22.40
22.70
22.80
22.80
23.60
0.036
35.45
Results
S%
20.417
21.620
19.911
16.449
8.240
6.080
0.660
3.842
4.710
Fe %
7.483
8.497
9.165
9.971
5.890
6.050
4.000
4.799
4.680
Cu %
0.097
0.081
0.066
0.050
0.014
0.007
0.002
0.013
0.009
Zn %
34.276
35.586
30.608
23.474
12.770
9.410
0.900
5.987
6.490
Ag %
0.080
0.036
0.027
0.017
0.006
0.006
0.000
0.007
0.005
Pb %
21.979
15.476
10.351
6.940
2.500
1.770
0.240
2.459
3.020
SiO2 %
8.275
9.964
16.388
23.884
42.700
47.900
62.500
54.310
55.800
Stream
Time
Feed
C1
0.50
M1
C2
1.00
M2
C3
2.00
M3
C4
4.00
M4
C5
8.00
M
C6
Tailings
16.00
Solids
Recovery%
Zn %
Pb %
Cu %
S%
Sph %
Gn %
Ccp
%
NSG
%
Sph Rec
Gn Rec
Ccp Rec
NSG Rec
100.0%
5.99
2.46
0.01
3.84
9.84
2.85
0.04
87.27
100.00%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
5.1%
34.28
21.98
0.10
20.42
56.35
25.44
0.28
17.93
29.43%
45.9%
37.7%
1.1%
94.9%
4.45
1.40
0.01
2.94
7.32
1.62
0.03
91.03
70.57%
54.1%
62.3%
98.9%
2.9%
35.59
15.48
0.08
21.62
58.50
17.91
0.23
23.35
17.18%
18.2%
17.7%
0.8%
92.0%
3.48
0.96
0.01
2.36
5.71
1.11
0.02
93.16
53.39%
35.9%
44.6%
98.2%
3.3%
30.61
10.35
0.07
19.91
50.32
11.98
0.19
37.51
16.72%
13.8%
16.3%
1.4%
88.7%
2.48
0.61
0.00
1.71
4.07
0.71
0.01
95.21
36.67%
22.1%
28.3%
96.8%
2.9%
23.47
6.94
0.05
16.45
38.59
8.03
0.14
53.23
11.25%
8.1%
10.8%
1.8%
85.8%
1.77
0.40
0.00
1.22
2.91
0.46
0.01
96.61
25.42%
14.0%
17.5%
95.0%
3.2%
12.77
2.50
0.01
8.24
20.99
2.89
0.04
76.07
6.72%
3.2%
3.3%
2.7%
82.7%
1.35
0.32
0.00
0.95
2.23
0.37
0.01
97.40
18.70%
10.8%
14.2%
92.3%
4.4%
9.41
1.77
0.01
6.08
15.47
2.05
0.02
82.46
6.93%
3.2%
2.3%
78.3%
0.90
0.24
0.00
0.66
1.48
0.28
0.01
98.24
11.77%
7.6%
11.8%
107
Sph Cum
Rec
Gn Cum
Rec
Ccp Cum
Rec
NSG Cum
Rec
29.4%
45.9%
37.7%
1.1%
46.6%
64.1%
55.4%
1.8%
63.3%
77.9%
71.7%
3.2%
74.6%
86.0%
82.5%
5.0%
81.3%
89.2%
85.8%
7.7%
4.2%
88.2%
92.4%
88.2%
11.9%
88.1%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
iv.
Date of Procedure
Recording
Test Name
Sample Name
Initial Weight (g)
Grinding Time (m)
Grinding Solid %
d80 (micrometer)
Initila Total Cell Weight (g)
Flotation Pulp Density
Product Total (g)
Solid Loss (g)
Froth Water (ml)
Stage
Initial
Conditioning
Conditioning
Conc 1
Conc 2
Conc 3
Conc 4
Conc 5
Conditioning
Conc 6
Reagent Total (ml)
Reagent Total (g/ton)
Product
Conc1 (0.0-0.5 min)
Conc2 (0.5-1.0 min)
Conc3 (1.0-2.0 min)
Conc4 (2.0 - 4.0 min)
Conc5 (4.0 - 8.0 min)
Conc6 (8.0 - 16.0 min )
Tailings
BackCalculated Feed
Feed
26.3.2015
1
Mellanby Kinetics
M-T4
1005.1
10
60.00
105
7260.00
30.32%
993.90
11.21
300.00
Na Bisulpide
Acid
2.500
0.500
Sphalerite
Galena
Zn
59.60%
0.00%
Reagents
SIPX
Sulfuric Acid
NasFroth
Na Bisulfite
Concentration by Wt
2.50%
4.00%
100.00%
40.00%
Reagents (ml)
SIPX
Fe
7.54%
0.00%
Time (m)
NasFroth
1.000
3
2
0.5
0.5
1
2
4
1.5
8
0.020
0.012
0.500
0.500
3.500
139.290
1.500
37.310
Weight (%)
3.16%
1.73%
2.12%
2.21%
3.35%
4.72%
82.71%
Pb
0.00%
86.39%
S
32.86%
13.58%
Cu
0.00%
0.00%
pH
9.19
8.12
8.01
8.29
8.19
8.23
8.25
8.29
7.95
8.33
Last
Eh
10.00
10.00
19.00
19.00
23.00
24.00
23.00
10.00
24.00
Temp
21.70
22.00
22.50
22.50
22.50
22.00
22.10
23.90
22.90
24.70
0.032
31.84
Cum Wt %
3.16%
4.88%
7.00%
9.21%
12.56%
17.29%
100.00%
108
Results
S%
20.954
22.167
21.137
18.509
11.760
6.590
2.240
4.459
4.60
Fe %
8.74
9.40
10.51
11.30
7.32
6.83
5.17
5.75
5.65
Cu %
0.21
0.16
0.13
0.09
0.03
0.02
0.02
0.03
0.04
Zn %
34.71
36.53
32.82
27.41
17.85
9.65
2.99
6.55
7.13
Ag %
0.03
0.03
0.01
0.02
0.01
0.01
0.00
0.00
83.90
Pb %
20.23
15.11
9.39
6.15
1.78
1.22
0.17
1.49
1.74
SiO2 %
7.69
8.56
13.94
19.79
33.50
45.50
54.10
49.14
38.50
Stream
Time
Feed
C1
0.50
M1
C2
1.00
M2
C3
2.00
M3
C4
4.00
M4
C5
8.00
M
C6
Tailings
16.00
Solids
Recovery%
Zn %
Pb %
Cu
%
S%
Sph %
Gn %
Ccp
%
NSG
%
Sph Rec
Gn Rec
Ccp Rec
NSG Rec
100.0%
6.56
1.49
0.03
4.46
11.00
1.73
0.10
87.17
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
3.2%
34.71
20.23
0.21
20.95
58.23
23.42
0.61
17.74
16.7%
42.8%
20.2%
0.6%
96.8%
5.64
0.88
0.03
3.92
9.46
1.02
0.08
89.44
83.3%
57.2%
79.8%
99.4%
1.7%
36.53
15.11
0.16
22.17
61.30
17.49
0.46
20.75
9.6%
17.5%
8.3%
0.4%
95.1%
5.08
0.62
0.02
3.59
8.52
0.72
0.07
90.69
73.6%
39.7%
71.5%
98.9%
2.1%
32.82
9.39
0.13
21.14
55.07
10.87
0.36
33.70
10.6%
13.3%
8.0%
0.8%
93.0%
4.44
0.42
0.02
3.19
7.46
0.49
0.07
91.99
63.0%
26.4%
63.5%
98.1%
2.2%
27.41
6.15
0.09
18.51
45.99
7.12
0.26
46.62
9.2%
9.1%
6.1%
1.2%
90.8%
3.88
0.28
0.02
2.82
6.52
0.33
0.06
93.09
53.8%
17.3%
57.5%
96.9%
3.4%
17.85
1.78
0.03
11.76
29.95
2.06
0.08
67.91
9.1%
4.0%
2.8%
2.6%
87.4%
3.35
0.23
0.02
2.47
5.62
0.26
0.06
94.06
44.7%
13.3%
54.6%
94.3%
4.7%
9.65
1.22
0.02
6.59
16.19
1.41
0.05
82.35
6.9%
3.9%
2.3%
82.7%
2.99
0.17
0.02
2.24
5.02
0.20
0.06
94.73
37.7%
9.4%
52.4%
109
Sph Cum
Rec
Gn Cum
Rec
Ccp Cum
Rec
NSG Cum
Rec
16.7%
42.8%
20.2%
0.6%
26.4%
60.3%
28.5%
1.1%
37.0%
73.6%
36.5%
1.9%
46.2%
82.7%
42.5%
3.1%
55.3%
86.7%
45.4%
5.7%
4.5%
62.3%
90.6%
47.6%
10.1%
89.9%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
v.
Date of Procedure
Recording
Test Name
Sample Name
Initial Weight (g)
Grinding Time (m)
Grinding Solid %
d80
Initial Total Cell Weight (g)
Flotation Pulp Density (%)
Product Total (g)
Solid Loss (g)
Froth Water (ml)
Stage
Initial
Conditioning
Conditioning
Conc 1
Conc 2
Conc 3
Conc 4
Conc 5
Conc 6
Total (ml)
Total (g/t)
Product
Conc1
Conc2
Conc3
Conc4
Conc5
Conc6
Tailings
Back Calculated Feed
Feed
7.4.2015
No
Plant Kinetics
3102
604.3
0.75
60.00
64
6900
20.45%
601.10
3.20
350.00
Sphalerite
Galena
Zn
61.65%
0.00%
Reagents
SIPX
Sulfuric Acid
NasFroth
Na Bisulfite
Concentration by Wt
2.50%
4.00%
100.00%
40.00%
Reagents (ml)
Na Bisulpide
Acid
SIPX
0.50
0.60
0.50
399.27
Weight (%)
4.80%
5.45%
7.86%
10.08%
9.23%
8.13%
54.46%
NasFroth
Fe
5.49%
0.00%
Time (m)
3
2
0.5
0.5
1
2
4
10
0.010
0.014
0.600
24.95
Cum Wt %
4.80%
10.25%
18.11%
28.18%
37.41%
45.54%
100.00%
S-Cd
32.86%
13.06%
Cu
0.00%
0.00%
pH
7.43
7.47
7.61
7.66
7.71
7.80
7.90
8.02
8.10
Last
Eh
35.00
30.00
25.00
34.00
36.00
40.00
41.00
43.00
44.00
Temp
21.00
21.20
21.30
21.30
21.40
21.40
21.40
22.00
22.80
0.024
39.93
S%
17.80
18.18
19.02
19.00
21.66
24.15
29.13
25.080
NA
110
Pb
0.00%
86.39%
Fe %
4.24
4.00
4.24
4.52
5.50
6.40
5.40
5.178
3.01
Cu %
0.15
0.17
0.17
0.17
0.11
0.04
0.01
0.064
0.50
Zn %
17.96
19.11
22.50
33.75
38.46
41.98
54.05
43.469
39.14
Ag %
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.07
0.036
0.04
Pb %
54.11
53.46
48.54
36.49
26.66
17.28
2.32
18.130
2.00
SiO2 %
1.80
1.79
2.02
2.34
3.02
4.35
4.62
3.726
1.49
Stream
Time
Feed
C1
0.50
M1
C2
1.00
M2
C3
2.00
M3
C4
4.00
M4
C5
8.00
M
C6
Tailings
18.00
Solids
Recovery%
Zn %
Pb %
Cu
%
S%
Sph %
Gn %
Ccp
%
NSG
%
Sph Rec
Gn Rec
Ccp
Rec
100.0
%
NSG
Rec
100.0
%
Sph Cum
Rec
Gn Cum
Rec
Ccp Cum
Rec
NSG Cum
Rec
100.0%
43.47
18.13
0.06
7.64
70.51
20.99
0.18
8.31
100.0%
100.0%
4.8%
17.96
54.11
0.15
21.64
29.12
62.63
0.44
7.81
2.0%
14.3%
11.4%
4.5%
2.0%
14.3%
11.4%
4.5%
95.2%
44.76
16.32
0.06
6.94
72.60
18.89
0.17
8.34
98.0%
85.7%
88.6%
95.5%
5.5%
19.11
53.46
0.17
24.47
30.99
61.88
0.48
6.64
2.4%
16.1%
14.3%
4.4%
4.4%
30.4%
25.7%
8.9%
89.8%
46.32
14.06
0.05
5.87
75.13
16.28
0.15
8.44
95.6%
69.6%
74.3%
91.1%
7.9%
22.50
48.54
0.17
23.53
36.49
56.18
0.49
6.83
4.1%
21.0%
20.8%
6.5%
8.4%
51.4%
46.5%
15.3%
81.9%
48.60
10.76
0.04
4.18
78.84
12.45
0.12
8.59
91.6%
48.6%
53.5%
84.7%
10.1%
33.75
36.49
0.17
71.8%
50.69
7.14
0.02
20.06
54.75
42.24
0.50
2.51
7.8%
20.3%
27.4%
3.0%
16.3%
71.7%
73.9%
18.4%
1.95
82.22
8.27
0.07
9.45
83.7%
28.3%
26.1%
81.6%
9.2%
38.46
26.66
0.11
10.25
62.38
30.86
0.32
6.44
8.2%
13.6%
16.1%
7.1%
24.4%
85.3%
89.9%
25.5%
62.6%
52.49
4.26
0.01
0.72
85.14
4.94
0.03
9.89
75.6%
14.7%
10.1%
74.5%
8.1%
41.98
17.28
0.04
3.70
68.10
20.00
0.12
11.78
7.9%
7.7%
5.1%
11.5%
32.3%
93.0%
95.0%
37.0%
54.5%
54.05
2.32
0.01
0.28
87.67
2.69
0.02
9.63
67.7%
7.0%
5.0%
63.1%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.1%
111
Initial Test
Product
Rec Comparison
Weight
Sph Grade
Sph Loss
Gn Grade
Gn Loss
Weight
Sph Grade
Sph Loss
Gn Grade
Gn Loss
Sph Rec 1
Sph Rec 2
Borta Bakom
Tailings
78.27%
1.48%
11.77%
0.28%
7.64%
77.21%
1.78%
13.93%
0.26%
6.99%
88.23%
86.07%
Savsjon
Tailings
66.99%
2.47%
9.31%
0.17%
2.84%
68.50%
2.40%
9.26%
0.16%
2.74%
90.69%
90.74%
Mellanby
Tailings
82.71%
5.02%
37.73%
0.20%
9.42%
78.12%
4.14%
29.44%
0.16%
7.33%
62.27%
70.56%
17.6.2015
NA
BB Longer Grinding
BB-T21
987.2
13
60.00%
7300
977.32
9.88
500.00
Na Bisulpide
Reagents
SIPX
Sulfuric Acid
NasFroth
Na Bisulfite
Acid
Reagents (ml)
SIPX
Concentration by Wt
2.50%
4.00%
100.00%
100.00%
NasFroth
1.50
0.20
0.30
1.00
0.20
0.50
0.01
2.20
90
1.50
38
0.05
51
0.02
112
Time (m)
2
3
2
8
2
8
pH
8.70
8.00
8.01
7.97
8.17
8.04
8.19
End Stage
Eh
Temp
Results
Product
Concentrate (Inital Test Res)
Middlings (Back Calc)
Tailings (Analyzed)
Feed (Analyzed)
Weight (%)
18.06%
4.73%
77.21%
100.00%
Cum Wt %
18.06%
22.79%
100.00%
Zn%
27.75%
3.08%
1.08%
5.99%
Pb%
12.10%
2.23%
0.22%
2.46%
Cu%
0.04%
0.09%
0.002%
0.013%
Fe %
8.01%
4.46%
4.07%
4.80%
S%
17.65%
2.71%
0.680%
3.84%
End Stage
Eh
Temp
Fe %
10.13%
23.26%
3.81%
6.65%
S%
19.77%
24.28%
0.00%
6.52%
b. Savsjon Test
Date of Procedure
Recording
Test Name
Sample Name
Initial Weight (g)
Grinding Time (m)
Grinding Solid %
Initial Total Cell Weight (g)
Product Total (g)
Solid Loss (g)
Froth Water (ml)
Stage
17.6.2015
NA
Savsjon Longer Grinding
S-T20
993.7
13
60.00%
7300
983.35
10.35
500.00
CuSO4
Initial
Coniditoning (pH regulation)
Conditioning (Collector)
Conditioning (Frother)
Rougher Conc
Conditioning
Scavenger Conc
Total Reagent (ml)
Total Reagent (g/ton)
Product
Concentrate (Inital Test Res)
Middlings (Back Calc)
Tailings (Analyzed)
Feed (Analyzed)
Reagents
SIPX
Sulfuric Acid
NasFroth
Na Bisulfite
Concentration by Wt
2.50%
4.00%
100.00%
100.00%
Reagents (ml)
Acid
SIPX
2.00
0.50
0.40
1.00
0.30
0.80
3.20
130
1.80
46
Weight (%)
25.03%
6.47%
68.50%
100.00%
Cum Wt %
25.03%
31.50%
100.00%
NasFroth
0.02
Time (m)
2
3
2
8
2
4
pH
9.04
8.15
8.08
7.98
8.21
8.02
8.20
Pb%
12.40%
5.26%
0.14%
3.54%
Cu%
0.21%
0.08%
0.003%
0.060%
0.04
41
Results
113
Zn%
32.24%
23.66%
1.43%
10.58%
c. Mellanby Test
Date of Procedure
Recording
Test Name
Sample Name
Initial Weight (g)
Grinding Time (m)
Grinding Solid %
Initial Total Cell Weight (g)
Product Total (g)
Solid Loss (g)
Froth Water (ml)
Stage
Initial
Conditioning
Conditioning
Conc 1
Conc 2
Conc 3
Conc 4
Conc 5
Conditioning
Conc 6
Total Reagent (ml)
Total Reagent (g/ton)
Product
Concentrate (Inital Test Res)
Middlings (Analyzed)
Tailings (Analyzed)
Feed (Analyzed)
6.4.2015
1
Mellanby Longer Grinding
M-T7
979.3
13
60.00
7270
956.55
22.75
420.00
Na Bisulpide
-
Reagents
SIPX
Sulfuric Acid
NasFroth
Na Bisulfite
Conc. by
Wt
2.50%
4.00%
100.00%
100.00%
SIPX
NasFroth
Reagents (ml)
Acid
0.50
0.10
1.00
0.020
0.017
0.10
0.50
0.70
29
1.50
39
Weight (%)
15.29%
6.59%
78.12%
100.00%
Last
Eh
0.00
-11.00
-12.00
-1.00
3.00
2.00
7.00
15.00
-8.00
12.00
Temp
21.80
22.00
22.20
22.30
22.40
22.50
22.60
22.90
22.90
23.40
Pb %
9.10%
0.750
0.140
1.49%
Cu %
0.12%
0.011
0.003
0.030%
Fe %
9.20%
7.120
5.360
5.25%
S%
18.27%
8.780
1.570
4.46%
0.05
56
Results
Cum Wt %
Zn %
15.29%
28.86%
21.88%
14.170
100.00%
2.470
6.55%
114
3
2
0.5
0.5
1
2
4
1.5
8
pH
9.19
8.25
8.04
8.10
8.14
8.19
8.26
8.31
7.95
8.29
Time (m)
2. Increased Collector
Orebody
Initial Test
Product
Collector Increase
Rec Comparison
Weight
Sph Grade
Sph Loss
Gn Grade
Gn Loss
Weight
Sph Grade
Sph Loss
Gn Grade
Gn Loss
Sph Rec 1
Sph Rec 2
Borta Bakom
Tailings
78.27%
1.48%
11.77%
0.28%
7.64%
72.35%
1.61%
11.84%
0.26%
6.55%
88.23%
88.16%
Savsjon
Tailings
66.99%
2.47%
9.31%
0.17%
2.84%
60.74%
3.02%
10.33%
0.15%
2.26%
90.69%
89.67%
Mellanby
Tailings
82.71%
5.02%
37.73%
0.20%
9.42%
70.92%
4.48%
28.89%
0.15%
6.25%
62.27%
71.11%
19.5.2015
NA
BB Collector
BB-T20
985.3
10
60.00%
7300
975.45
9.85
500.00
Reagents
SIPX
Sulfuric Acid
NasFroth
Na Bisulfite
Conc. by Wt
2.50%
4.00%
100.00%
100.00%
Reagents (ml)
Na Bisulpide
Acid
SIPX
1.50
0.30
0.20
1.00
0.30
0.50
NasFroth
0.02
0.50
2.30
94
0.50
0.01
2.50
64
0.05
51
115
Time (m)
2
3
2
8
2
4
2
4
2
4
pH
8.74
8.07
8.06
7.99
8.20
7.97
8.13
8.15
8.21
8.23
8.25
End Stage
Eh
26.00
19.00
-12.00
-13.00
13.00
-14.00
5.00
-14.00
1.00
-14.00
5.00
Temp
22.80
22.30
23.10
23.20
23.50
23.60
23.90
23.90
23.90
24.00
24.10
Product
Concentrate (Inital Test Res)
Middlings (Back Calc)
Tailings (Analyzed)
Feed (Analyzed)
Weight (%)
17.92%
6.80%
75.28%
100.00%
Cum Wt %
17.92%
24.72%
100.00%
Results
Zn%
27.75%
4.10%
0.98%
5.99%
Pb%
12.10%
1.85%
0.22%
2.46%
Cu%
0.04%
0.07%
0.002%
0.013%
Fe %
8.01%
6.30%
4.02%
4.89%
S%
17.65%
3.20%
0.610%
3.84%
b. Savsjon Test
Date of Procedure
Recording
Test Name
Sample Name
Initial Weight (g)
Grinding Time (m)
Grinding Solid %
Initial Total Cell Weight (g)
Product Total (g)
Solid Loss (g)
Froth Water (ml)
Stage
Initial
Coniditoning (pH regulation)
Conditioning (Collector)
Conditioning (Frother)
Rougher Conc
Conditioning
Scavenger Conc 1
Conditioning
Scavenger Conc 2
Conditioning
Scavenger Conc 3
Total Reagent (ml)
Total Reagent (g/ton)
Product
Concentrate (Inital Test Res)
Middlings (Back Calc)
Tailings (Analyzed)
Feed (Analyzed)
10.6.2015
NA
Savsjon Collector
S-T21
1013.6
13
60.00%
7300
1003.46
10.14
500.00
CuSO4
0.30
0.3
Reagents
SIPX
Sulfuric Acid
NasFroth
Na Bisulfite
Acid
Reagents (ml)
SIPX
2.00
0.50
0.35
1.00
0.30
0.50
0.3
Conc. by Wt
2.50%
4.00%
100.00%
100.00%
NasFroth
0.02
0.50
0.02
0.50
0.01
0.07
70
3.15
126
2.50
62
Weight (%)
25.93%
8.05%
66.03%
100.00%
Cum Wt %
25.93%
33.97%
100.00%
116
Results
Zn%
32.24%
12.84%
1.80%
10.58%
Time (m)
2
3
2
8
2
4
2
4
2
5
pH
9.00
8.06
8.05
7.94
8.23
7.94
8.15
8.19
8.22
8.24
8.24
Pb%
12.40%
2.97%
0.13%
3.54%
Cu%
0.21%
0.04%
0.004%
0.060%
End Stage
Eh
51.00
11.00
10.00
30.00
7.00
26.00
6.00
22.00
10.00
20.00
Temp
23.50
23.60
23.80
23.90
24.30
25.10
25.30
25.30
25.40
25.40
25.50
Fe %
10.13%
11.93%
4.64%
6.65%
S%
19.77%
6.17%
1.36%
6.52%
c. Mellanby Test
Date of Procedure
Recording
Test Name
Sample Name
Initial Weight (g)
Grinding Time (m)
Grinding Solid %
Initial Total Cell Weight (g)
Product Total (g)
Solid Loss (g)
Froth Water (ml)
Stage
Initial
Coniditoning (pH regulation)
Conditioning (Collector)
Conditioning (Frother)
Rougher Conc
Conditioning
Scavenger Conc 1
Conditioning
Scavenger Conc 2
Conditioning
Scavenger Conc 3
Total Reagent (ml)
Total Reagent (g/ton)
Product
Concentrate (Inital Test Res)
Middlings (Back Calc)
Tailings (Analyzed)
Feed (Analyzed)
11.6.2015
NA
Mellanby Collector
M-T12
1011.9
10
60.00%
7300
1001.78
10.12
500.00
Na Bisulpide
Reagents
SIPX
Sulfuric Acid
NasFroth
Na Bisulfite
Reagents (ml)
Acid
SIPX
2.00
0.60
0.40
1.00
0.40
0.50
Conc. by Wt
2.50%
4.00%
100.00%
40.00%
NasFroth
0.02
0.50
0.50
0.01
0.05
50
3.40
136
2.50
62
Weight (%)
14.55%
6.95%
78.50%
100.00%
Cum Wt %
14.55%
21.50%
100.00%
117
Results
Zn%
28.86%
8.65%
2.67%
6.55%
Time (m)
2
3
2
8
2
4
2
4
2
5
pH
9.01
8.10
8.07
7.98
8.25
7.98
8.19
8.20
8.25
8.27
8.28
Pb%
9.10%
0.92%
0.13%
1.49%
Cu%
0.12%
0.15%
0.00%
0.030%
End Stage
Eh
36.00
-14.00
-17.00
8.00
-10.00
6.00
-9.00
2.00
-11.00
2.00
Temp
23.40
23.50
23.70
23.80
24.40
24.50
24.60
24.60
24.70
24.70
24.80
Fe %
8.20%
8.56%
4.41%
5.25%
S%
18.27%
7.18%
1.66%
4.46%
3. CuSO4 Usage
Orebody
Initial Test
Product
CuSO4
Rec Comparison
Weight
Sph Grade
Sph Loss
Gn Grade
Gn Loss
Weight
Sph Grade
Sph Loss
Gn Grade
Gn Loss
Sph Rec 1
Sph Rec 2
Borta Bakom
Tailings
78.27%
1.48%
11.77%
0.28%
7.64%
75.28%
0.20%
1.51%
0.19%
4.95%
88.23%
98.49%
Savsjon
Tailings
66.99%
2.47%
9.31%
0.17%
2.84%
66.03%
0.42%
1.56%
0.21%
3.40%
90.69%
98.44%
Mellanby
Tailings
82.71%
5.02%
37.73%
0.20%
9.42%
78.50%
0.23%
1.68%
0.21%
9.58%
62.27%
98.32%
12.6.2015
NA
BB CuSO4
BB-T22
993.6
10
60.00%
7300
983.66
9.94
500.00
CuSO4
0.30
0.3
Reagents
SIPX
Sulfuric Acid
NasFroth
Na Bisulfite
Conc. by Wt
2.50%
4.00%
100.00%
100.00%
SIPX
NasFroth
Reagents (ml)
Acid
1.50
0.20
0.30
1.00
0.10
0.50
0.01
0.50
0.01
0.50
0.01
2.50
64
0.07
71
0.02
0.3
-
2.10
85
118
Time (m)
2
3
2
8
3
4
3
4
3
4
pH
8.73
8.03
8.10
8.00
8.23
8.02
8.16
8.09
8.14
8.02
8.13
End Stage
Eh
32.00
-29.00
-27.00
-5.00
-14.00
-4.00
-9.00
2.00
2.00
19.00
Temp
22.80
22.90
23.10
23.20
24.10
24.20
24.40
24.50
24.70
24.80
24.90
Product
Concentrate (Inital Test Res)
Middlings (Back Calc)
Tailings (Analyzed)
Feed (Analyzed)
Weight (%)
17.51%
10.14%
72.35%
100.00%
Cum Wt %
17.51%
27.65%
100.00%
Results
Zn%
27.75%
10.29%
0.12%
5.99%
Pb%
12.10%
2.22%
0.16%
2.46%
Cu %
0.040%
0.021%
0.005%
0.013%
Fe %
8.01%
9.39%
3.38%
4.80%
S%
17.65%
5.89%
0.21%
3.84%
b. Savsjon Test
Date of Procedure
Recording
Test Name
Sample Name
Initial Weight (g)
Grinding Time (m)
Grinding Solid %
Initial Total Cell Weight (g)
Product Total (g)
Solid Loss (g)
Froth Water (ml)
Stage
Initial
Coniditoning (pH regulation)
Conditioning (Collector)
Conditioning (Frother)
Rougher Conc
Conditioning
Scavenger Conc 1
Conditioning
Scavenger Conc 2
Conditioning
Scavenger Conc 3
Total Reagent (ml)
Total Reagent (g/ton)
12.6.2015
NA
Savsjon CuSO4
Reagents
SIPX
Sulfuric Acid
NasFroth
Na Bisulfite
S-T22
995.7
10
60.00%
7300
985.74
9.96
500.00
CuSO4
0.30
0.3
Reagents (ml)
Acid
SIPX
2.00
0.30
0.20
1.00
0.20
0.50
0.3
-
2.70
110
Conc. by
Wt
2.50%
4.00%
100.00%
100.00%
NasFroth
0.02
0.50
0.02
0.50
0.01
2.50
63
0.07
71
119
Time (m)
2
3
2
8
3
4
4
4
4
6
pH
8.98
8.02
8.03
8.00
8.27
8.03
8.18
8.10
8.19
8.08
8.20
End Stage
Eh
7.00
25.00
-12.00
-12.00
10.00
-8.00
4.00
-9.00
2.00
7.00
25.00
Temp
23.10
23.20
23.30
23.40
24.60
24.70
24.60
24.70
24.90
25.00
24.80
Product
Concentrate (Inital Test Res)
Middlings (Back Calc)
Tailings (Analyzed)
Feed (Analyzed)
Weight (%)
26.77%
12.49%
60.74%
100.00%
Cum Wt %
26.77%
39.26%
100.00%
Results
Zn%
32.24%
14.39%
0.25%
10.58%
Pb%
12.40%
0.89%
0.18%
3.54%
Cu %
0.21%
0.01%
0.004%
0.060%
Fe %
10.13%
6.34%
5.18%
6.65%
S%
19.77%
8.86%
0.20%
6.52%
c. Mellanby Test
Date of Procedure
Recording
Test Name
Sample Name
Initial Weight (g)
Grinding Time (m)
Grinding Solid %
Initial Total Cell Weight (g)
Product Total (g)
Solid Loss (g)
Froth Water (ml)
Stage
Initial
Coniditoning (pH regulation)
Conditioning (Collector)
Conditioning (Frother)
Rougher Conc
Conditioning
Scavenger Conc 1
Conditioning
Scavenger Conc 2
Conditioning
Scavenger Conc 3
Total Reagent (ml)
Total Reagent (g/ton)
11.6.2015
NA
Mellanby CuSO4
M-T9
1011.9
10
60.00%
7300
1001.78
10.12
500.00
Na Bisulpide
Reagents
SIPX
Sulfuric Acid
NasFroth
Na Bisulfite
Reagents (ml)
Acid
SIPX
2.00
0.60
0.40
1.00
0.40
0.50
Conc. by Wt
2.50%
4.00%
100.00%
40.00%
NasFroth
0.02
0.50
Product
145.72
69.62
786.44
1001.78
3.40
136
Weight
(%)
14.55%
6.95%
78.50%
0.50
0.01
2.50
62
0.05
50
Results
Time (m)
2
3
2
8
2
4
2
4
2
5
pH
9.01
8.10
8.07
7.98
8.25
7.98
8.19
8.20
8.25
8.27
8.28
End Stage
Eh
36.00
-14.00
-17.00
8.00
-10.00
6.00
-9.00
2.00
-11.00
2.00
Temp
23.40
23.50
23.70
23.80
24.40
24.50
24.60
24.60
24.70
24.70
24.80
Cum Wt %
Zn%
Pb%
Cu%
Fe %
S%
14.55%
21.50%
100.00%
28.86%
32.26%
0.14%
6.55%
9.10%
0.36%
0.18%
1.49%
0.12%
0.13%
0.004%
0.030%
9.20%
11.78%
3.94%
5.25%
18.27%
24.13%
0.16%
4.46%
120
1. Reference
A*(1-exp(-D*X))+B*(1-exp(-E*X))+0*C
A: m Fast
B: m Slow
C: m Non-Float
D: k Fast
E: k Slow
0.57
0.41524666
0.01475334
1.57176812
0.34252035
A*(1-exp(-D*X))+B*(1-exp(-E*X))+0*C
A: m Fast
B: m Slow
C: m Non-Float
D: k Fast
E: k Slow
0.62
0.33186872
0.04813128
2.21052756
0.28503109
A*(1-exp(-D*X))+B*(1-exp(-E*X))+0*C
A: m Fast
B: m Slow
C: m Non-Float
D: k Fast
E: k Slow
0.46
0.451336228
0.087663772
1.542941823
0.258018878
A*(1-exp(-D*X))+B*(1-exp(-E*X))+0*C
A: m Fast
B: m Slow
C: m Non-Float
D: k Fast
E: k Slow
0.01067574
0.653810173
0.335514089
5.616897442
0.012500447
121
2. Borta Bakom
A*(1-exp(-D*X))+B*(1-exp(-E*X))+0*C
A: m Fast
B: m Slow
C: m Non-Float
D: k Fast
E: k Slow
0.47
0.401988625
0.128011375
1.460623561
0.292884897
A*(1-exp(-D*X))+B*(1-exp(-E*X))+0*C
A: m Fast
B: m Slow
C: m Non-Float
D: k Fast
E: k Slow
0.64
0.276726243
0.083273758
2.047310569
0.379191697
A*(1-exp(-D*X))+B*(1-exp(-E*X))+0*C
A: m Fast
B: m Slow
C: m Non-Float
D: k Fast
E: k Slow
0.55
0.32801
0.12199
1.663279
0.424317
A*(1-exp(-D*X))+B*(1-exp(-E*X))+0*C
A: m Fast
B: m Slow
C: m Non-Float
D: k Fast
E: k Slow
0.017558
0.191487
0.790955
0.849133
0.04707
122
3. Savsjon
A*(1-exp(-D*X))+B*(1-exp(-E*X))+0*C
A: m Fast
B: m Slow
C: m Non-Float
D: k Fast
E: k Slow
0.48
0.43344681
0.08655319
1.74269796
0.21719904
A*(1-exp(-D*X))+B*(1-exp(-E*X))+0*C
A: m Fast
B: m Slow
C: m Non-Float
D: k Fast
E: k Slow
0.72
0.24972391
0.03027611
2.35481352
0.43281031
A*(1-exp(-D*X))+B*(1-exp(-E*X))+0*C
A: m Fast
B: m Slow
C: m Non-Float
D: k Fast
E: k Slow
0.63
0.30441468
0.06558532
1.95185044
0.43922013
A*(1-exp(-D*X))+B*(1-exp(-E*X))+0*C
A: m Fast
B: m Slow
C: m Non-Float
D: k Fast
E: k Slow
0.02286075
0.30057224
0.67656702
0.91857619
0.03927875
123
4. Mellanby
A*(1-exp(-D*X))+B*(1-exp(-E*X))+0*C
A: m Fast
B: m Slow
C: m Non-Float
D: k Fast
E: k Slow
0.26
0.375188505
0.360811497
1.411246908
0.189340163
A*(1-exp(-D*X))+B*(1-exp(-E*X))+0*C
A: m Fast
B: m Slow
C: m Non-Float
D: k Fast
E: k Slow
0.6
0.300163915
0.099836086
2.013879739
0.334442269
A*(1-exp(-D*X))+B*(1-exp(-E*X))+0*C
A: m Fast
B: m Slow
C: m Non-Float
D: k Fast
E: k Slow
0.285
0.190669986
0.524330015
1.847218211
0.305807261
A*(1-exp(-D*X))+B*(1-exp(-E*X))+0*C
A: m Fast
B: m Slow
C: m Non-Float
D: k Fast
E: k Slow
0.011
0.989000137
8.21752E-12
0.578417879
0.005871254
124
Reference
Reference
Experimental Results
Product
Sp %
Sp Rec
Sp Cum Rec
Sp %
Sp Rec
Sp Cum Rec
C1
62.32
37.69%
37.69%
62.15
37.57%
37.57%
C2
69.98
19.34%
57.03%
69.94
19.65%
57.22%
C3
66.60
17.94%
74.97%
67.19
17.93%
75.14%
C4
51.82
13.13%
88.10%
51.15
12.73%
87.87%
C5
31.51
7.81%
95.91%
28.36
7.96%
95.83%
C6
6.15
2.34%
98.24%
6.88
2.50%
98.33%
Tailings
0.36
1.76%
100.00%
0.34
1.67%
100.00%
Reference
Experimental Results
Product
Gn %
Gn Rec
Gn Cum Rec
Gn %
Gn Rec
Gn Cum Rec
C1
24.66
46.74%
46.74%
24.19
45.88%
45.88%
C2
17.13
14.83%
61.58%
19.92
17.55%
63.44%
C3
17.58
14.85%
76.42%
14.62
12.24%
75.68%
C4
10.91
8.66%
85.09%
11.39
8.89%
84.57%
C5
7.98
6.20%
91.28%
8.21
7.23%
91.80%
C6
3.11
3.71%
94.99%
2.68
3.05%
94.85%
Tailings
0.32
5.01%
100.00%
0.33
5.15%
100.00%
ii.
Borta Bakom
Borta Bakom
Experimental Results
Product
Sp %
Sp Rec
Sp Cum Rec
Sp %
Sp Rec
Sp Cum Rec
C1
56.35
29.43%
29.43%
56.92
29.84%
29.84%
C2
58.50
17.18%
46.61%
56.97
16.47%
46.30%
C3
50.32
16.72%
63.33%
53.18
15.99%
62.29%
C4
38.59
11.25%
74.58%
42.26
12.32%
74.61%
C5
20.99
6.72%
81.30%
26.36
8.73%
83.34%
C6
15.47
6.93%
88.23%
8.57
3.49%
86.83%
Tailings
1.48
11.77%
100.00%
1.64
13.17%
100.00%
125
Borta Bakom
Experimental Results
Product
Gn %
Gn Rec
Gn Cum Rec
Gn %
Gn Rec
Gn Cum Rec
C1
25.44
45.94%
45.94%
25.30
45.78%
45.78%
C2
17.91
18.19%
64.12%
18.73
18.69%
64.47%
C3
11.98
13.76%
77.89%
12.69
13.18%
77.65%
C4
8.03
8.10%
85.99%
7.90
7.95%
85.60%
C5
2.89
3.20%
89.19%
4.17
4.76%
90.36%
C6
2.05
3.17%
92.36%
0.90
1.27%
91.64%
Tailings
0.28
7.64%
100.00%
0.30
8.36%
100.00%
100.00%
90.00%
Cum Sph
Rec
R = 0.997
80.00%
R = 0.9986
70.00%
Cum Gn
Rec
60.00%
Linear
(Cum Sph
Rec)
50.00%
40.00%
30.00%
20.00%
20.00% 30.00% 40.00% 50.00% 60.00% 70.00% 80.00% 90.00% 100.00%
Linear
(Cum Gn
Rec)
Savsjon
Savsjon
Experimental Results
Product
Sp %
Sp Rec
Sp Cum Rec
Sp %
Sp Rec
Sp Cum Rec
C1
62.11
32.36%
32.36%
62.60
32.37%
32.37%
C2
64.18
15.53%
47.89%
62.28
15.67%
48.04%
C3
59.96
14.67%
62.56%
57.46
13.73%
61.77%
C4
42.47
10.80%
73.36%
48.18
11.30%
73.08%
C5
37.97
9.08%
82.44%
37.77
10.59%
83.67%
C6
23.14
8.25%
90.69%
19.41
6.29%
89.96%
Tailings
2.47
9.31%
100.00%
2.66
10.04%
100.00%
126
Savsjon
Experimental Results
Product
Gn %
Gn Rec
Gn Cum Rec
Gn %
Gn Rec
Gn Cum Rec
C1
24.51
55.35%
55.35%
24.40
54.69%
54.69%
C2
16.31
17.10%
72.45%
17.66
19.27%
73.95%
C3
13.01
13.80%
86.25%
11.47
11.88%
85.84%
C4
6.45
7.11%
93.36%
6.62
6.74%
92.57%
C5
2.03
2.11%
95.46%
3.00
3.65%
96.22%
C6
1.10
1.70%
97.16%
0.54
0.76%
96.98%
Tailings
0.17
2.84%
100.00%
0.18
3.02%
100.00%
100.00%
Cum Sph
Rec
R = 0.9989
90.00%
80.00%
R = 0.997
70.00%
Cum Gn
Rec
60.00%
Linear
(Cum Sph
Rec)
50.00%
40.00%
30.00%
20.00%
20.00% 30.00% 40.00% 50.00% 60.00% 70.00% 80.00% 90.00% 100.00%
Linear
(Cum Gn
Rec)
Mellanby
Mellanby
Experimental Results
Product
Sp %
Sp Rec
Sp Cum Rec
Sp %
Sp Rec
Sp Cum Rec
C1
58.23
16.73%
16.73%
58.20
16.74%
16.74%
C2
61.30
9.64%
26.37%
59.72
9.68%
26.42%
C3
55.07
10.61%
36.98%
56.19
10.21%
36.63%
C4
45.99
9.24%
46.22%
44.56
9.57%
46.20%
C5
29.95
9.12%
55.34%
31.18
9.43%
55.63%
C6
16.19
6.95%
62.28%
15.03
6.45%
62.08%
Tailings
5.02
37.72%
100.00%
5.05
37.92%
100.00%
127
Mellanby
Experimental Results
Product
Gn %
Gn Rec
Gn Cum Rec
Gn %
Gn Rec
Gn Cum Rec
C1
23.42
42.81%
42.81%
23.34
42.70%
42.70%
C2
17.49
17.50%
60.31%
17.30
17.82%
60.51%
C3
10.87
13.33%
73.63%
11.28
13.04%
73.55%
C4
7.12
9.10%
82.74%
6.26
8.54%
82.09%
C5
2.06
3.99%
86.73%
3.03
5.83%
87.93%
C6
1.41
3.86%
90.59%
0.71
1.93%
89.86%
Tailings
0.20
9.41%
100.00%
0.21
10.14%
100.00%
100.00%
Cum Sph
Rec
90.00%
80.00%
70.00%
R = 0.9985
R = 0.9998
60.00%
50.00%
Linear
(Cum Sph
Rec)
40.00%
30.00%
Linear
(Cum Gn
Rec)
20.00%
10.00%
10.00%
Cum Gn
Rec
30.00%
50.00%
70.00%
128
90.00%
Stream
Zn % Meas
Zn % Bal
Zn % Rec%
Pb % Meas
Pb % Bal
Pb % Rec%
AGM Feed
145.00
100.00
7.96
7.99
100.00
3.50
3.33
100.00
145.00
100.00
7.99
100.00
3.33
100.00
Reground Feed
23.50
16.21
13.78
13.95
28.31
6.40
6.35
30.95
Rougher Conc
38.31
26.42
35.48
35.39
117.10
15.10
14.76
117.17
Scavenger Conc
9.83
6.78
6.65
6.53
5.55
3.55
3.57
7.28
Rougher Tail
130.19
89.79
0.90
1.00
11.21
0.55
0.51
13.78
Cleaner Tail
13.68
9.43
19.34
19.28
22.77
8.19
8.35
23.67
Bulk Concentrate
24.63
16.99
44.60
44.34
94.33
18.80
18.31
93.50
Tailings
120.36
83.01
0.62
0.55
5.67
0.21
0.26
6.50
Sep Feed
38.53
26.58
44.75
148.94
17.46
139.47
13.90
9.59
44.36
45.49
54.61
15.19
15.96
45.97
19.38
13.37
35.80
34.23
57.30
32.87
31.80
127.78
Zinc Concentrate
19.15
13.21
55.16
55.41
91.64
2.80
2.94
11.69
Lead Concentrate
5.49
3.78
5.40
5.68
2.69
71.47
71.95
81.81
129
ii.
130
Unit
Feed
BR
C1
BR
C2
BC
R3
BR
C4
Rougher
Conc
BS
C1
BS
C2
Tail
BC
C1
BC
C2
Bulk
Conc
Bulk
Midd
S
C1
S
C2
S
C3
Zinc
Conc
LC
C1
LCC2
Lead
Conc
Sep
Midd
t/h
145.0
21.5
8.8
5.7
3.3
39.3
5.0
4.3
120.0
31.9
30.3
25.0
23.5
21.8
9.8
4.7
18.3
18.2
15.4
6.7
29.5
Rec%
100.0
14.9
6.0
3.9
2.2
27.1
3.4
2.9
82.8
22.0
20.9
17.2
16.2
15.0
6.7
3.2
12.6
12.5
10.6
4.6
20.3
Zn
wt%
8.0
39.7
36.2
30.8
17.6
35.8
9.6
4.7
0.3
44.7
45.5
45.1
14.8
37.1
44.6
49.9
55.2
32.3
25.9
17.7
46.0
Cu
wt%
0.0
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.1
0.2
0.1
0.1
0.0
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.1
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.0
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.3
Pb
wt%
3.3
16.8
13.1
10.9
7.5
14.4
4.6
2.5
0.3
17.8
18.0
18.0
6.2
31.8
21.5
13.6
3.6
38.5
46.9
57.3
19.7
Fe
wt%
0.7
3.7
3.4
2.9
1.7
3.4
0.9
0.5
0.0
4.2
4.3
4.2
1.4
3.7
4.3
4.7
5.0
3.4
2.9
2.2
4.4
Parameter
Total
solids
Solids
Recovery
wt%
4.8
24.0
21.6
18.3
10.7
21.5
5.9
2.9
0.2
26.9
27.3
27.1
9.0
25.2
27.5
29.0
30.0
23.8
21.8
19.1
27.9
Cd
wt%
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Ag
wt%
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Sp
wt%
13.0
64.4
58.8
50.0
28.6
58.1
15.5
7.6
0.4
72.5
73.8
73.2
23.9
60.1
72.3
80.9
89.5
52.3
42.1
28.7
74.6
Ccp
wt%
0.1
0.6
0.6
0.6
0.4
0.6
0.3
0.2
0.0
0.7
0.7
0.6
0.4
1.3
1.0
0.8
0.1
1.6
1.8
2.0
1.0
Gn
wt%
3.9
19.5
15.2
12.6
8.7
16.6
5.3
2.9
0.3
20.6
20.8
20.9
7.2
36.8
24.9
15.7
4.1
44.6
54.3
66.4
22.8
Gan
wt%
83.1
15.5
25.5
36.8
62.3
24.7
79.0
89.4
99.2
6.2
4.7
5.3
68.5
1.8
1.8
2.6
6.2
1.5
1.8
2.9
1.7
Zn
Rec%
100.0
73.9
27.4
15.1
5.0
121.4
4.1
1.7
2.8
123.0
119.2
97.2
30.0
69.6
37.5
20.3
87.0
50.6
34.4
10.3
117.1
Cu
Rec%
100.0
67.5
28.9
18.2
7.9
122.5
7.7
3.8
12.4
122.8
114.8
87.6
46.3
161.4
56.8
20.0
12.7
159.6
156.1
74.9
163.3
Pb
Rec%
100.0
75.2
23.8
12.8
5.0
116.8
4.7
2.2
6.7
117.6
113.0
93.3
30.4
143.1
43.5
13.3
13.5
144.9
149.2
79.8
120.1
Fe
Rec%
100.0
73.6
27.5
15.3
5.1
121.4
4.3
1.8
3.2
123.0
119.0
96.8
30.8
74.2
38.5
20.3
83.2
56.0
40.5
13.5
119.4
Rec%
100.0
74.0
27.0
14.9
5.0
120.9
4.2
1.8
3.3
122.4
118.5
96.7
30.2
78.4
38.4
19.5
78.3
61.8
47.9
18.4
117.8
Cd
Rec%
100.0
73.9
27.4
15.1
5.0
121.4
4.1
1.7
2.8
123.0
119.2
97.2
30.0
69.6
37.5
20.3
87.0
50.6
34.4
10.3
117.1
Ag
Rec%
100.0
75.2
23.8
12.8
5.0
116.8
4.7
2.2
6.7
117.6
113.0
93.3
30.4
143.1
43.5
13.3
13.5
144.9
149.2
79.8
120.1
Sp
Rec%
100.0
73.9
27.4
15.1
5.0
121.4
4.1
1.7
2.8
123.0
119.2
97.2
30.0
69.6
37.5
20.3
87.0
50.6
34.4
10.3
117.1
Ccp
Rec%
100.0
67.5
28.9
18.2
7.9
122.5
7.7
3.8
12.4
122.8
114.8
87.6
46.3
161.4
56.8
20.0
12.7
159.6
156.1
74.9
163.3
Gn
Rec%
100.0
75.2
23.8
12.8
5.0
116.8
4.7
2.2
6.7
117.6
113.0
93.3
30.4
143.1
43.5
13.3
13.5
144.9
149.2
79.8
120.1
Gan
Rec%
100.0
2.8
1.9
1.7
1.7
8.1
3.3
3.2
98.9
1.6
1.2
1.1
13.4
0.3
0.1
0.1
0.9
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.4
131
iii.
132
Unit
Feed
BR
C1
BR
C2
BR
C3
BR
C4
Rougher
Conc
BS
C1
BS
C2
Tail
BC
C1
BC
C2
Bulk Conc
Bulk Midd
Lead Conc
Zinc Conc
Total solids
t/h
145.0
21.5
8.8
5.7
3.3
39.3
5.0
4.3
120.0
31.9
30.3
25.0
23.5
5.4
19.6
Solids Recovery
Rec%
100.0
14.9
6.0
3.9
2.2
27.1
3.4
2.9
82.8
22.0
20.9
17.2
16.2
3.7
13.5
Zn
wt%
8.0
39.7
36.2
30.8
17.6
35.8
9.6
4.7
0.3
44.7
45.5
45.1
14.8
6.3
55.7
Cu
wt%
0.0
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.1
0.2
0.1
0.1
0.0
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.1
0.9
0.0
Pb
wt%
3.3
16.8
13.1
10.9
7.5
14.4
4.6
2.5
0.3
17.8
18.0
18.0
6.2
73.8
2.8
Fe
wt%
0.7
3.7
3.4
2.9
1.7
3.4
0.9
0.5
0.0
4.2
4.3
4.2
1.4
1.3
5.0
wt%
4.8
24.0
21.6
18.3
10.7
21.5
5.9
2.9
0.2
26.9
27.3
27.1
9.0
15.9
30.1
Cd
wt%
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Ag
wt%
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Sp
wt%
13.0
64.4
58.8
50.0
28.6
58.1
15.5
7.6
0.4
72.5
73.8
73.2
23.9
10.2
90.3
Ccp
wt%
0.1
0.6
0.6
0.6
0.4
0.6
0.3
0.2
0.0
0.7
0.7
0.6
0.4
2.6
0.1
Gn
wt%
3.9
19.5
15.2
12.6
8.7
16.6
5.3
2.9
0.3
20.6
20.8
20.9
7.2
85.4
3.3
Gan
wt%
83.1
15.5
25.5
36.8
62.3
24.7
79.0
89.4
99.2
6.2
4.7
5.3
68.5
1.7
6.3
Zn
Rec%
100.0
73.9
27.4
15.1
5.0
121.4
4.1
1.7
2.8
123.0
119.2
97.2
30.0
2.9
94.3
Cu
Rec%
100.0
67.5
28.9
18.2
7.9
122.5
7.7
3.8
12.4
122.8
114.8
87.6
46.3
76.8
10.8
Pb
Rec%
100.0
75.2
23.8
12.8
5.0
116.8
4.7
2.2
6.7
117.6
113.0
93.3
30.4
81.8
11.5
Fe
Rec%
100.0
73.6
27.5
15.3
5.1
121.4
4.3
1.8
3.2
123.0
119.0
96.8
30.8
6.6
90.1
Rec%
100.0
74.0
27.0
14.9
5.0
120.9
4.2
1.8
3.3
122.4
118.5
96.7
30.2
12.1
84.6
Cd
Rec%
100.0
73.9
27.4
15.1
5.0
121.4
4.1
1.7
2.8
123.0
119.2
97.2
30.0
2.9
94.3
Ag
Rec%
100.0
75.2
23.8
12.8
5.0
116.8
4.7
2.2
6.7
117.6
113.0
93.3
30.4
81.8
11.5
Sp
Rec%
100.0
73.9
27.4
15.1
5.0
121.4
4.1
1.7
2.8
123.0
119.2
97.2
30.0
2.9
94.3
Ccp
Rec%
100.0
67.5
28.9
18.2
7.9
122.5
7.7
3.8
12.4
122.8
114.8
87.6
46.3
76.8
10.8
Gn
Rec%
100.0
75.2
23.8
12.8
5.0
116.8
4.7
2.2
6.7
117.6
113.0
93.3
30.4
81.8
11.5
Gan
Rec%
100.0
2.8
1.9
1.7
1.7
8.1
3.3
3.2
98.9
1.6
1.2
1.1
13.4
0.1
1.0
Parameter
133
iv.
Plant Conditions
According to
Mass Balance
Plant Simulation
According to
Laboratory Test
Kinetics Models
v.
Stream
Zn %
Pb %
Sph %
Gn %
Gangue %
Sph Rec %
Gn Rec%
Gangue Rec %
Feed
145.0
100.0
8.0
3.3
13.0
3.9
83.2
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
Bulk Concentrate
24.6
17.0
44.3
18.8
71.9
21.8
6.3
94.3%
95.9%
1.3%
Zinc Concentrate
19.2
13.2
55.4
2.8
89.9
3.2
6.9
91.6%
11.1%
1.1%
Lead Concentrate
5.5
3.8
5.7
71.5
9.2
82.7
8.1
2.7%
81.3%
0.4%
Tailings
120.4
83.0
0.6
0.2
0.9
0.2
98.9
5.7%
5.2%
98.7%
Feed
145.0
100.0
8.0
3.3
13.0
3.9
83.2
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
Bulk Concentrate
25.0
17.2
45.1
18.0
73.2
20.9
5.9
97.2%
93.3%
1.2%
Zinc Concentrate
18.3
12.6
55.2
3.6
89.5
4.1
6.3
87.0%
13.5%
1.0%
Lead Concentrate
6.7
4.6
17.7
57.3
28.7
66.4
4.9
10.3%
79.8%
0.3%
Tailings
120.0
82.8
0.3
0.3
0.4
0.3
99.2
2.8%
6.7%
98.8%
Plant Conditions
According to
Mass Balance
Plant Simulation
According to
Kinetic Model and
Mineral Splitter
Stream
Zn %
Pb %
Sph %
Gn %
Gangue %
Sph Rec %
Gn Rec%
Gangue Rec %
Feed
145.0
100.0
8.0
3.3
13.0
3.9
83.2
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
Bulk Concentrate
24.6
17.0
44.3
18.8
71.9
21.8
6.3
94.3%
95.9%
1.3%
Zinc Concentrate
19.2
13.2
55.4
2.8
89.9
3.2
6.9
91.6%
11.1%
1.1%
Lead Concentrate
5.5
3.8
5.7
71.5
9.2
82.7
8.1
2.7%
81.3%
0.4%
Tailings
120.4
83.0
0.6
0.2
0.9
0.2
98.9
5.7%
5.2%
98.7%
Feed
145.0
100.0
8.0
3.3
13.0
3.9
83.2
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
Bulk Concentrate
25.0
17.2
45.1
18.0
73.2
20.9
5.9
97.4%
93.4%
1.2%
Zinc Concentrate
19.6
13.5
55.7
2.8
90.3
3.3
6.4
94.3%
11.5%
1.0%
Lead Concentrate
5.4
3.7
6.3
73.8
10.3
85.4
4.3
3.0%
81.8%
0.2%
Tailings
120.0
82.8
0.3
0.3
0.4
0.3
99.2
2.6%
6.7%
98.8%
134
Reference Sample
135
Parameter
Unit
Feed
BR
C1
BR
C2
BR
C3
Solids Recovery
Rec%
100.00
16.72
6.79
3.87
Zn
wt%
8.86
39.44
36.17
28.51
Cu
wt%
0.04
0.17
0.18
0.17
Pb
wt%
3.96
17.87
13.97
Fe
wt%
0.83
3.67
wt%
5.38
Cd
wt%
Ag
BR
C4
BS
C1
BS
C2
Tail
Rougher Conc
BC
C1
BC
T1
BC
C2
Bulk Conc
Bulk Midd
Lead Conc
Zinc Conc
2.74
3.88
3.17
80.80
30.11
24.78
10.91
23.36
19.20
17.96
4.31
14.89
20.83
11.54
5.81
0.33
35.61
43.82
19.51
45.06
44.75
15.37
5.98
55.97
0.14
0.10
0.06
0.01
0.17
0.21
0.14
0.21
0.19
0.11
0.76
0.03
11.05
8.77
5.53
3.13
0.34
15.29
18.70
8.47
19.06
19.16
6.89
74.85
3.04
3.38
2.69
1.98
1.11
0.57
0.04
3.32
4.09
1.86
4.20
4.16
1.47
1.20
5.01
24.00
21.65
17.09
12.62
7.11
3.64
0.24
21.55
26.50
11.86
27.21
27.05
9.39
15.72
30.33
0.00
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.00
0.00
0.02
wt%
0.00
0.01
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.01
0.01
0.00
0.01
0.01
0.00
0.03
0.00
Sp
wt%
14.37
63.98
58.67
46.24
33.79
18.71
9.42
0.53
57.76
71.08
31.65
73.10
72.59
24.93
9.70
90.79
Ccp
wt%
0.12
0.50
0.53
0.49
0.42
0.28
0.17
0.02
0.50
0.61
0.39
0.61
0.56
0.33
2.20
0.09
Gn
wt%
4.58
20.69
16.17
12.79
10.15
6.40
3.63
0.40
17.70
21.65
9.80
22.06
22.18
7.98
86.65
3.52
Gan
wt%
80.93
14.83
24.63
40.48
55.64
74.60
86.79
99.05
24.05
6.66
58.16
4.23
4.67
66.76
1.46
5.60
Zn
Rec%
100.00
74.42
27.70
12.46
6.44
5.05
2.08
3.00
121.02
122.59
24.03
118.84
97.00
31.16
2.91
94.09
Cu
Rec%
100.00
67.91
29.16
15.41
9.23
8.69
4.22
12.88
121.71
122.09
34.58
114.11
87.12
47.50
76.41
10.72
Pb
Rec%
100.00
75.51
23.96
10.81
6.07
5.43
2.51
7.00
116.35
117.15
23.35
112.55
93.00
31.29
81.56
11.44
Fe
Rec%
100.00
74.12
27.77
12.60
6.56
5.22
2.18
3.45
121.06
122.57
24.51
118.62
96.55
31.90
6.27
90.28
Rec%
100.00
74.49
27.28
12.30
6.42
5.13
2.15
3.54
120.49
121.96
24.03
118.07
96.46
31.30
12.59
83.87
Cd
Rec%
100.00
74.42
27.70
12.46
6.44
5.05
2.08
3.00
121.02
122.59
24.03
118.84
97.00
31.16
2.91
94.09
Ag
Rec%
100.00
75.51
23.96
10.81
6.07
5.43
2.51
7.00
116.35
117.15
23.35
112.55
93.00
31.29
81.56
11.44
Sp
Rec%
100.00
74.42
27.70
12.46
6.44
5.05
2.08
3.00
121.02
122.59
24.03
118.84
97.00
31.16
2.91
94.09
Ccp
Rec%
100.00
67.91
29.16
15.41
9.23
8.69
4.22
12.88
121.71
122.09
34.58
114.11
87.12
47.50
76.41
10.72
Gn
Rec%
100.00
75.51
23.96
10.81
6.07
5.43
2.51
7.00
116.35
117.15
23.35
112.55
93.00
31.29
81.56
11.44
Gan
Rec%
100.00
3.06
2.06
1.94
1.88
3.58
3.40
98.89
8.95
2.04
7.84
1.22
1.11
14.82
0.08
1.03
136
ii.
Borta Bakom
137
Parameter
Unit
Feed
BR
C1
BR
C2
BR
C3
Solids Recovery
Rec%
100.00
11.46
5.35
3.27
Zn
wt%
5.99
33.91
29.83
24.05
Cu
wt%
0.01
0.08
0.06
0.04
Pb
wt%
2.46
15.69
9.78
Fe
wt%
0.63
3.59
wt%
3.63
Cd
wt%
Ag
BR
C4
BS
C1
BS
C2
Tail
Rougher Conc
BC
C1
BC
T1
BC
C2
Bulk Conc
Bulk Midd
Lead Conc
2.39
3.37
2.64
87.44
22.47
18.46
11.33
6.54
1.04
29.86
18.01
9.91
15.91
12.56
15.92
2.66
9.89
37.59
16.51
40.55
40.40
13.76
5.71
49.75
0.02
0.01
0.00
0.00
0.06
0.08
0.02
0.09
0.09
0.02
0.38
0.01
6.09
3.94
2.05
1.02
0.25
11.64
14.68
3.78
16.35
17.84
2.95
73.72
2.79
3.14
2.53
1.93
1.18
0.68
0.11
3.15
3.97
1.73
4.28
4.27
1.44
0.93
5.17
20.85
17.70
13.98
10.61
6.45
3.69
0.60
18.01
22.68
9.53
24.55
24.71
7.91
15.06
27.31
0.00
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.00
0.00
0.02
wt%
0.00
0.01
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.01
0.00
0.01
0.01
0.00
0.03
0.00
Sp
wt%
9.84
55.75
Ccp
wt%
0.04
0.23
49.04
39.54
30.34
18.63
10.75
1.71
49.09
61.80
27.13
66.66
66.42
22.62
9.39
81.78
0.16
0.10
0.07
0.03
0.01
0.01
0.18
0.22
0.06
0.25
0.27
0.05
1.10
0.04
Gn
wt%
2.85
18.16
11.33
7.05
4.57
2.37
1.18
0.29
13.47
17.00
4.37
18.92
20.65
3.42
85.34
3.22
Gan
wt%
87.27
25.86
39.47
53.31
65.03
78.97
88.06
97.99
37.26
20.98
68.43
14.18
12.67
73.92
4.18
14.96
Zn
Rec%
100.00
64.93
26.64
13.15
7.36
6.38
2.88
15.24
112.08
113.14
27.32
107.77
84.76
36.58
2.54
82.22
Cu
Rec%
100.00
67.55
22.47
8.91
4.07
2.76
0.99
12.78
103.01
104.45
15.79
102.83
87.22
19.53
76.50
10.73
Pb
Rec%
100.00
73.03
21.24
8.10
3.82
2.80
1.09
9.01
106.19
107.43
15.21
105.63
90.99
19.10
79.80
11.19
Fe
Rec%
100.00
64.98
26.56
13.07
7.30
6.31
2.85
15.19
111.92
112.98
27.11
107.68
84.81
36.27
3.90
80.90
Rec%
100.00
65.80
26.05
12.60
6.97
5.99
2.68
14.57
111.42
112.50
25.99
107.52
85.43
34.66
11.05
74.39
Cd
Rec%
100.00
64.93
26.64
13.15
7.36
6.38
2.88
15.24
112.08
113.14
27.32
107.77
84.76
36.58
2.54
82.22
Ag
Rec%
100.00
73.03
21.24
8.10
3.82
2.80
1.09
9.01
106.19
107.43
15.21
105.63
90.99
19.10
79.80
11.19
Sp
Rec%
100.00
64.93
26.64
13.15
7.36
6.38
2.88
15.24
112.08
113.14
27.32
107.77
84.76
36.58
2.54
82.22
Ccp
Rec%
100.00
67.55
22.47
8.91
4.07
2.76
0.99
12.78
103.01
104.45
15.79
102.83
87.22
19.53
76.50
10.73
Gn
Rec%
100.00
73.03
21.24
8.10
3.82
2.80
1.09
9.01
106.19
107.43
15.21
105.63
90.99
19.10
79.80
11.19
Gan
Rec%
100.00
3.40
2.42
2.00
1.78
3.05
2.66
98.18
9.59
4.33
7.77
2.58
1.82
13.48
0.13
1.70
138
Zinc Conc
iii.
Savsjon
139
Parameter
Unit
Feed
BR
C1
BR
C2
BR
C3
BR
C4
Solids Recovery
Rec%
100.00
20.04
9.34
5.94
4.44
Zn
wt%
10.58
36.49
33.12
28.79
24.61
Cu
wt%
0.06
0.23
0.15
0.08
0.05
Pb
wt%
3.54
14.01
7.57
4.03
Fe
wt%
1.41
4.86
4.36
wt%
6.46
22.56
Cd
wt%
0.00
Ag
wt%
Sp
BS
C1
BS
C2
Tail
Rougher Conc
BC
C1
BC
T1
BC
C2
Bulk Conc
Bulk Midd
Lead Conc
Zinc Conc
6.20
4.67
78.78
39.77
32.48
18.55
27.89
21.22
29.42
4.21
17.00
18.26
12.88
2.05
33.22
40.26
22.87
42.83
42.27
20.31
6.39
51.17
0.02
0.01
0.01
0.17
0.21
0.05
0.24
0.27
0.04
1.20
0.04
2.34
1.12
0.53
0.15
9.70
12.00
2.35
13.85
16.13
1.80
71.21
2.48
3.75
3.18
2.35
1.65
0.27
4.39
5.32
2.96
5.68
5.64
2.63
1.87
6.57
19.61
16.60
13.99
10.27
7.20
1.16
20.02
24.30
13.03
26.04
26.13
11.53
15.93
28.65
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.00
0.00
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.00
0.02
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.01
0.00
0.02
0.00
wt%
17.77
61.29
55.63
48.36
41.33
30.67
21.63
3.44
55.80
67.62
38.42
71.93
71.00
34.12
10.72
85.93
Ccp
wt%
0.18
0.66
0.42
0.24
0.14
0.07
0.03
0.02
0.48
0.60
0.14
0.69
0.79
0.11
3.48
0.12
Gn
wt%
4.10
16.22
8.76
4.66
2.70
1.30
0.62
0.18
11.23
13.90
2.72
16.03
18.67
2.09
82.43
2.87
Gan
wt%
77.95
21.83
35.19
46.74
55.82
67.97
77.72
96.37
32.49
17.88
58.72
11.34
9.55
63.69
3.37
11.08
Zn
Rec%
100.00
69.12
29.25
16.17
10.33
10.70
5.68
15.23
124.88
123.62
40.11
112.91
84.77
56.49
2.54
82.22
Cu
Rec%
100.00
73.82
21.80
8.04
3.55
2.35
0.83
7.07
107.20
108.56
14.27
107.29
92.93
17.45
81.50
11.43
Pb
Rec%
100.00
79.27
19.97
6.76
2.93
1.96
0.70
3.40
108.92
110.10
12.32
109.08
96.60
14.99
84.72
11.88
Fe
Rec%
100.00
69.31
28.96
15.85
10.07
10.38
5.49
14.92
124.19
123.03
39.10
112.69
85.08
54.97
5.62
79.47
Rec%
100.00
70.05
28.37
15.28
9.63
9.87
5.21
14.13
123.33
122.30
37.46
112.52
85.87
52.53
10.40
75.47
Cd
Rec%
100.00
69.12
29.25
16.17
10.33
10.70
5.68
15.23
124.88
123.62
40.11
112.91
84.77
56.49
2.54
82.22
Ag
Rec%
100.00
79.27
19.97
6.76
2.93
1.96
0.70
3.40
108.92
110.10
12.32
109.08
96.60
14.99
84.72
11.88
Sp
Rec%
100.00
69.12
29.25
16.17
10.33
10.70
5.68
15.23
124.88
123.62
40.11
112.91
84.77
56.49
2.54
82.22
Ccp
Rec%
100.00
73.82
21.80
8.04
3.55
2.35
0.83
7.07
107.20
108.56
14.27
107.29
92.93
17.45
81.50
11.43
Gn
Rec%
100.00
79.27
19.97
6.76
2.93
1.96
0.70
3.40
108.92
110.10
12.32
109.08
96.60
14.99
84.72
11.88
Gan
Rec%
100.00
5.61
4.22
3.56
3.18
5.41
4.66
97.40
16.58
7.45
13.98
4.06
2.60
24.04
0.18
2.42
140
iv.
Mellanby
141
Parameter
Unit
Feed
BR
C1
BR
C2
BR
C3
BR
C4
BS
C1
BS
C2
Tail
Rougher
Conc
BC
C1
BC
T1
BC
C2
Bulk
Conc
Bulk
Midd
Lead
Conc
Zinc
Conc
Solids
Recovery
Rec%
100.00
8.17
4.44
3.03
2.34
3.45
2.80
91.34
17.97
13.52
9.31
11.92
8.66
15.56
1.64
7.02
Zn
wt%
6.56
37.31
35.22
31.90
28.08
21.08
14.67
3.18
34.68
44.70
27.75
44.21
42.14
23.92
6.68
50.41
Cu
wt%
0.03
0.15
0.10
0.07
0.05
0.03
0.01
0.02
0.11
0.15
0.04
0.16
0.18
0.03
0.83
0.03
Pb
wt%
1.49
12.99
7.45
4.55
3.01
1.64
0.85
0.18
8.90
11.96
2.93
13.21
15.34
2.27
71.11
2.33
Fe
wt%
0.86
4.85
4.54
4.09
3.59
2.69
1.87
0.42
4.48
5.78
3.55
5.73
5.49
3.06
1.57
6.40
wt%
3.88
22.75
20.68
18.36
15.99
11.90
8.23
1.80
20.62
26.66
15.80
26.60
25.81
13.57
15.70
28.17
Cd
wt%
0.00
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.00
0.00
0.01
0.02
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.00
0.02
Ag
wt%
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.01
0.00
0.02
0.00
Sp
wt%
11.00
62.60
59.10
53.53
47.12
35.38
24.62
5.34
58.19
75.01
46.56
74.18
70.71
40.14
11.21
84.58
Ccp
wt%
0.10
0.43
0.28
0.19
0.13
0.08
0.04
0.06
0.31
0.42
0.13
0.46
0.52
0.10
2.39
0.08
Gn
wt%
1.73
15.04
8.63
5.27
3.49
1.90
0.98
0.21
10.31
13.85
3.39
15.29
17.75
2.63
82.31
2.69
Gan
wt%
87.17
21.94
31.99
41.02
49.26
62.65
74.36
94.39
31.19
10.72
49.92
10.07
11.02
57.14
4.08
12.64
Zn
Rec%
100.00
46.47
23.85
14.73
10.01
11.08
6.26
44.37
95.07
92.16
39.43
80.41
55.63
56.78
1.67
53.97
Cu
Rec%
100.00
36.67
13.00
5.99
3.27
2.79
1.24
53.41
58.94
59.51
12.35
57.25
46.59
16.38
40.86
5.73
88.82
23.61
77.89
10.92
Pb
Rec%
100.00
70.99
22.14
9.21
4.71
3.78
1.59
11.18
107.05
108.20
18.24
105.4
0
Fe
Rec%
100.00
46.14
23.48
14.43
9.78
10.80
6.09
44.67
93.84
91.05
38.51
79.62
55.33
55.41
3.00
52.33
Rec%
100.00
47.87
23.66
14.32
9.63
10.57
5.94
42.43
95.48
92.85
37.91
81.72
57.57
54.42
6.62
50.94
Cd
Rec%
100.00
46.47
23.85
14.73
10.01
11.08
6.26
44.37
95.07
92.16
39.43
80.41
55.63
56.78
1.67
53.97
88.82
23.61
77.89
10.92
Ag
Rec%
100.00
70.99
22.14
9.21
4.71
3.78
1.59
11.18
107.05
108.20
18.24
105.4
0
Sp
Rec%
100.00
46.47
23.85
14.73
10.01
11.08
6.26
44.37
95.07
92.16
39.43
80.41
55.63
56.78
1.67
53.97
Ccp
Rec%
100.00
36.67
13.00
5.99
3.27
2.79
1.24
53.41
58.94
59.51
12.35
57.25
46.59
16.38
40.86
5.73
Gn
Rec%
100.00
70.99
22.14
9.21
4.71
3.78
1.59
11.18
107.05
108.20
18.24
105.4
0
88.82
23.61
77.89
10.92
Gan
Rec%
100.00
2.06
1.63
1.42
1.32
2.48
2.39
98.91
6.43
1.66
5.33
1.38
1.09
10.20
0.08
1.02
142