Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
Kathy Ehrig
Principal Geometallurgist
Disclaimer
Reliance on Third Party Information
The views expressed here contain information that have been derived from publicly available sources that have not been
independently verified. No representation or warranty is made as to the accuracy, completeness or reliability of the
information. This presentation should not be relied upon as a recommendation or forecast by BHP Billiton.
No Offer of Securities
Nothing in this release should be construed as either an offer to sell or a solicitation of an offer to buy or sell BHP Billiton
securities in any jurisdiction.
Slide 2
Todays Presentation
Mineral Mapping
Conclusions
1% Copper shell
45
40
35 Rock Type Continuum
30
Si (wt%)
25
20
15
10
5
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Whole Rock Data Fe (wt%)
Felsic Dykes
Sediments
Mafic/Ultramafic Dykes
Hematite grinding
Quartz grinding
Cu-Sulphides Co-, Zn-, Mo-, REE-, Sericite slime
(py-cp-bn-cc) As-, Se-, Bi-, Te-, K-feldspar
(concentrate quality)
Sb-, Pb- Chlorite acid, gelling
Uranium Minerals bearing minerals
(uranium recovery)
(concentrate quality)
Siderite acid
Au-Ag Fluorite acid
Barite
+etc
Wide spectrum of mineral mixtures many ore types
OD breccias are:
texturally chaotic
mineralogically simple
Two Facts:
mineralogy process
+
metallurgical
effect on critical
performance
process minerals
PREDICTED
QUANTIFIED MAPPED
The Geomet Models are predictive mineralogy and recovery models which are
applied to blocks in the Mineral Resource model to enable the estimation of
mineralogy and metallurgical recovery on a block-per-block basis.
Mill throughput
Ore hardness (hematite-quartz-sericite)
Grind size (sulphide particle size-liberation characteristics)
Uranium Recovery
Extraction (uranium mineralogy, particle size, and association)
Acid consumption (siderite and chlorite)
Gelling potential (chlorite)
Different ore types for mill, concentrator, hydromet, smelter and refinery.
Geometallurgy at Olympic Dam 8th SA Exploration and Mining Conference Slide 12
Components of any Geomet Program
Resource
Delineation > 1% Cu
+1,500,000 samples
Resource
Model
+11,000 samples +1,000 samples
Ore Metallurgical
Characterisation Testing
Flotation
Grind establishment
Rougher kinetics
Cleaner kinetics
Locked-cycle tests
Leaching
Concentrate (standard conditions)
Tailings (standard conditions)
Metallurgical performance =
(assays, mineralogy, texture, process conditions)
Geometallurgy at Olympic Dam 8th SA Exploration and Mining Conference Slide 14
Ore Characterisation Program
+
Mineralogy (using MLA or QEMSCAN)
-600+425 m size fraction
sulphide, uranium, gangue mineralogy
mineral textural data
mineral (wt%) = (assays)
Predicted Minerals
pyrite hematite
mineral (wt%) = (assays) chalcopyrite quartz
sulphide and gangue mineralogy can be bornite feldspar
accurately predicted on each assayed sample chalcocite sericite
sphalerite chlorite
molybdenite
galena
siderite
fluorite
Mineralogy (predicted) on 1.5M samples barite
Very powerful dataset
cc
bn-cc
bn
cv
cp-bn
cp
cp-py
bn-cp
1.5 requires Smelter change DBF
hybrid
2-stage
cp 1.0 two-stage smelting
py bn, py cc, cp cc
bn
the interface between cp and bn is a mappable
surface across the deposit
(cp-bn)
copper occurs in hypogene sulphide minerals only
py
djurleite
70 anilite chalcocite
digenite
Sulphide mineral Cu grade (wt%)
60
bornite
50
40
30 chalcopyrite
20
10
pyrite
0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0
Cu:S Ratio (Sulphide mineral)
60
bornite
50 40% cp 60% bn
40
80% cp 20% bn
30 chalcopyrite
20
30% py 70% cp
10 60% py 40% cp
pyrite
0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0
Cu:S Ratio (Sulphide mineral)
60
bornite
Cu% = 1.1619CuS3 - 10.108CuS2 + 43.016CuS + 1.1844
50 R = 0.9997
n
40
%Cu sample = (%Cui * %Mineral i ) / 100
i =1
30 chalcopyrite
%Cu sample
%sulphides =
%Cu(max,Cu:S )
20
pyrite
0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0
Cu:S Ratio (Sulphide mineral)
Supported by:
geology
assays 26 elements + 15 minerals
mineralogy density and magnetic susc
metallurgical testing + 50 metallurgical parameters
* Economic return on each block *
Maps
26 elements
density
magnetic susc Optimal Mine Plans/Schedules
Flotation Copper Recovery
$$$
96.0% 2.50%
94.0%
92.0%
90.0%
1.50%
88.0%
1.00%
86.0%
82.0%
Copper Recovery
Copper Grade
0.50%
80.0% -
2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030
Financial Year