Professional Documents
Culture Documents
net/publication/303700654
CITATION READS
1 1,106
2 authors:
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
All content following this page was uploaded by Simon Dominy on 05 July 2016.
OVERVIEW
Geometallurgy is an important addition to any evaluation project or mining operation.
As a discipline, its seeks to maximise the Net Present Value (NPV) of an orebody,
while minimising technical and operational risk. It also aims to promote sustainable
development and initiatives by ensuring that all stages of extraction are performed in
an optimal manner from a technical, environmental and social perspective. To
achieve these goals, development of innovative technologies and approaches along
the entire commodity value chain are being established (Glass, 2016). Geometallurgy
has been shown to increase operational stakeholder collaboration, creating an
environment for knowledge sharing and improved data acquisition and interrogation,
with the end result being the integration of such data into mine planning and
scheduling. All of these aspects create better business optimisation, utilisation of staff
and targeted and realistic key performance indicators.
The mining industry faces numerous challenges including, but not limited to:
Powell (2013) emphasises the need for high-resolution models for process
optimisation based on geometallurgical properties. Smoothly estimated kriged
models are insufficient for optimising processing operations for heterogeneous
mineralisation. A model with too low variability will understate the local variation in
properties, which should be considered in the design and operation of the mine and
plant. In addition to estimates with too low variability, kriging may introduce a bias for
variables that do not average linearly, such as metallurgical properties (Carrasco,
Chilès and Seguret, 2008; Coward, et al., 2009). Evaluation of geometallurgical
domains is via estimation or simulation using classical statistical and geostatistical
algorithms such as multivariate regression and Gaussian simulation (Deutsch, 2013;
Deutsch et al., 2016).
FIG 1 – Canahuire deposit (Peru) geometallurgical domains based on lithology and
alteration type. Blue: domain 400 [subeconomic silver mineralisation], orange:
domain 300 [copper-gold breccia mineralisation], yellow: domains 200 [gold
replacement mineralisation in limestone] and light blue: domain 100 [structurally-
controlled gold in calcareous sandstone]. For more information see Baumgartner et
al. (2011 and 2013). Figure from Baumgartner et al. (2013).
The integration of core logging (e.g. lithology, alteration, EQUOtip, RQD, etc.),
mineralogical (e.g. QXRD/pXRD), geochemical (e.g. pXRF and ICP-AES/MS) and
physical testing (e.g. SPI, BWi, A*b, etc.) data commonly leads to the prediction of
comminution parameters through correlation and 3D modelling (Alruiz et al., 2009;
Harbort, Lam and Dola, 2013; Hunt, Kojovic and Berry, 2013; King and Macdonald,
2016; Figure 2).
FIG 2 - Block model coloured by Bond work index (BWi) values for the Productora
and Alice Cu-Au-Mo pits (Chile). BWi for the main Productora deposit was estimated
using aluminium and potassium values as proxies. The Productora pit is
approximately 2.4 km long in design. For further details see King and Macdonald
(2016).
Geometallurgy drives the need for multiple samples (taken from a well-defined
sampling programme) across a deposit, though these and their subsequent testing
should be carefully designed to fit the mineralisation type in question (Dominy, 2016;
Dominy, Xie and O’Connor, 2016; Figure 3). A major concern is ensuring fit-for-
purpose data through proper procedures and quality assurance/quality control
programmes during data collection, sampling, testwork and analytical programmes.
FIG 3 – Data (e.g. EQUOtip and pXRF) and samples collected from drill core are
critical geometallurgical inputs. High quality drill core, data readings, samples, sub-
samples and subsequent testwork (e.g. flotation) are required to support estimates or
studies to be reported within the framework of any international code.
In addition to the traditional grade model, block models display the distribution of key
metallurgical and mining parameters throughout the orebody to support financial
analysis and mine planning (Coward and Dowd, 2015; Dowd, Xu and Coward, 2016;
Dunham and Vann, 2007; Figures 1 and 2). Coward and Dowd (2014) summarise the
current general approach to geometallurgical modelling as:
Block models then form the basis for project economic evaluation. Approaches such
as scenario thinking to project evaluation encourages the project team to re-perceive
the systems aspects of the project and allows empirical testing of different strategies
(Vann et al., 2012). This will be achieved by realistically modelling and propagating
the spatial variability and uncertainty of the deposit throughout the value chain.
Modelling is a pathway to seeking high NPV options that are robust in the face of
plausible future scenarios. A scenario model makes it harder for an optimistic project
manager to bias project outcomes unreasonably.
It can be broadly split into two key approaches: project and operational (or strategic
versus tactical geometallurgy: McKay et al., 2016). The project approach focuses on
the whole orebody and long-term life-of-mine view, whereas operational
geometallurgy relates to the short- to medium-term view during mining. Operational
geometallurgy adds to, and draws from the project database (David, 2010; Liebezeit
et al., 2016; McKay et al., 2016). Operational geometallurgy is primarily focused on
defining feed variability for forecasting and steady state blending purposes.
GEOMETALLURGICAL EDUCATION
Incorporating a highly applied discipline and subject such as geometallurgy into a
university’s curriculum is extremely challenging. There are trains of thought in so far
as students should be made aware of geometallurgy as soon as reasonably possible.
On the other side, they need to understand fundamentals and grasp concepts well in
order to apply those key learnings in to the world of geometallurgy. New initiatives in
mining and extractive metallurgy courses must be sought and the inclusion of core
and elective geometallurgy units is required. These should include the re-introduction
of ore mineralogy and microscopy, which forms such a core base to many
geometallurgical considerations. Integrating geometallurgy theory and practice would
probably best suit a final year undergraduate and post graduate student; at this point
in education, their ability to approach problems through systemic thinking, logic and
to handle large data sets would be at an appropriate level.
There are more industry roles asking for geometallurgical knowledge and practical
experience now more than ever. However, academics trained in geometallurgical
practices are few, so academia should be looking for assistance from industry to put
back into the system, through sessional training, workshops and guest lecturing.
University courses can be inflexible and hard to change. It is via direct industry
feedback and the Alumni groups that proposed changes can be voiced influencing
the development of new units delivered. Included in this, educating site personnel
who do not have the ability to leave site for further education and development. In
parallel with voicing feedback of the requirement for geometallurgical
programmes/units, universities need to understand the delivery expectations i.e.
online or blended learning. Experience would suggest that any online learning in the
geometallurgical discipline should be reserved for post graduate level alone, though
this is certainly open to suggestion.
GEOMETALLURGICAL CHALLENGES
Given the aim of geometallurgy to support mine value chain optimisation, it has great
potential to increase the effectiveness of diverse mining projects globally. Many
projects are geologically and metallurgically complex and in turn have lower grades.
To make these projects viable in uncertain times, it is critical that there are no
‘surprises’ across the life-of-mine. Geometallurgy aims to define and manage these
surprises.
HRXCT is useful when characterising textures for liberation studies (Becker et al.,
2016), but also extremely useful for characterising rock mass for leaching purposes,
whether that be heap leaching or in-situ potential (Miller and Lin, 2009). The latter
requires information about pore connectivity providing a relationship between that
and flow of lixiviants for metal recovery. The 3D analysis provided by the HRXCT
software allows a determination of particle shape or morphology and could provide
key information about the best comminution approach and recovery practices
thereafter (Dominy et al., 2016; Evans, Wightman and Yuan, 2015; McGrath,
O’Connor and Eksteen, 2015).
Continuous HRXCT scanning of drill core is the ultimate goal and may be possible
given that such technology (though low energy) is already used in the forestry sector
to image defects in logs (Giudiceandrea, Ursella and Vicario, 2012). The routine and
continuous scanning of drill core would provide many advantages to a project across
early stage commencement, automation and speed.
CONCLUSIONS
Geometallurgy has reached a maturity beyond its early simplistic “geology +
metallurgy” conception. It is recognised as an approach that can both maximise value
and predict the risks associated with resource development. It is however not a ‘quick
fix’, but a long-term commitment to adding value (Williams, 2012). Geometallurgy
complements, but does not replace existing approaches to design and optimisation of
mining and processing operations.
Key drivers for the geometallurgical approach come from the following:
The process of ore variability testing for metallurgical response and the use of quick,
inexpensive metallurgical proxies have been developed in the past decade.
Technology continues to advance, and techniques such as hand-held analytical tools
and automated core scanning allow for faster, less expensive in-situ testing.
In the current mining industry downturn and with more complex deposits,
geometallurgical application for short-term operational modelling and mine planning
is vital. The data-rich nature of geometallurgy allows orebody variability to be
incorporated into an optimised mine plan. The geometallurgical approach has tended
to be used on large multi-million tonne type deposits (Baumgartner et al., 2011, 2013;
Beniscelli, 2011; Leichliter and Larson, 2013), though is now becoming applied more
to smaller deposits (Dominy, Xie and O’Connor, 2016) and across different
commodities (Glass, 2016).
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The authors thank Dr Regina Baumgartner (Gold Fields, Peru) and Dr Belinda Van
Lente (CSA Global, UK) for for their constructive comments on the manuscript.
Figures 1 and 2 are reproduced courtesy of Dr Regina Baumgartner and Grant King
(AMEC, Australia) respectively. The opinions expressed in this paper are those of the
authors and not necessarily those of their affiliations.
REFERENCES
Alruiz, O M, Morell, S, Suazo, C J and Naranjo, A, 2009. A novel approach to the
geometallurgical modelling of the Collahuasi grinding circuit, Mins Eng, 22: 1060-
1067.
Carrasco, P, Chilès, J-P and Seguret, S, 2008. Additivity, metallurgical recovery and
grade, in Proceedings International Geostatistics Congress, pp 237-246 (Gecamin:
Santiago).
Dominy, S C, 2016. Importance of good sampling practice throughout the gold mine
value chain, Min Tech (Trans Inst Min Metall: Section A), 125: in press/online [DOI:
10.1179/1743286315Y.0000000028]
Dominy, S C, O’Connor, L and Xie, Y-L, 2016. Sampling and testwork protocol
development for geometallurgical characterisation of a sheeted vein gold deposit, in
Proceedings International Geometallurgy Conference, pp 000-000 (The Australasian
Institute of Mining and Metallurgy: Melbourne).
Dowd, P A, Xu, C and Coward, S, 2016. Strategic mine planning and design: some
challenges and strategies for addressing them, Min Tech (Trans Inst Min Metall:
Section A), 125: in press/online [DOI: 10.1179/1743286315Y.0000000032]
Dunham, S and Vann, J, 2007. Geometallurgy, geostatistics and project value – does
your block model tell you what you need to know, in Proceedings Project Evaluation
Conference, pp 189-196 (The Australasian Institute of Mining and Metallurgy:
Melbourne).
Ehrig, K, 2013. Geometallurgy – what do you really need to know from exploration
through to production, in Proceedings MetPlant Conference, pp 28-33 (The
Australasian Institute of Mining and Metallurgy, Melbourne).
Hunt, J, Kojovic, T and Berry, R J, 2013. Estimating comminution indices from ore
mineralogy, chemistry and drill core logging, in Proceedings International
Geometallurgy Conference, pp 173-176 (The Australasian Institute of Mining and
Metallurgy: Melbourne).
Keeney, L and Nguyen, K, 2014. The use of EQUOtip as a hardness domaining tool,
in Proceedings International Mineral Processing Congress, pp 128-138 (Gecamin:
Santiago).
Leichliter, S and Larson, D, 2013. Geometallurgy for two recovery process operations
at Cripple Creek and Victor gold mine, Mining Eng, 65: 29-33.
Miller, J D and Lin, C L, 2009. High resolution X-ray micro CT (HRXMT) – advances
in 3D particle characterisation for mineral processing operations, in Recent Advances
in Mineral Processing Plant Design, pp 48-59 (SME: Littleton).
Mudd, G M and Jowitt, S M, 2016. From mineral resources to sustainable mining: the
key trends to unlock the holy grail, in Proceedings International Geometallurgy
Conference, pp 000-000 (The Australasian Institute of Mining and Metallurgy:
Melbourne).