open pit amp stockpile ore
play

OPEN PIT & STOCKPILE ORE CONTROL FOR CYANIDE HEAP LEACHING to - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

OPEN PIT & STOCKPILE ORE CONTROL FOR CYANIDE HEAP LEACHING to PREVENT A SOUR PAD Presented by Thom Seal, Ph.D., PE. Co-Authors: C. L. Bolin SME Salt Lake City March 1, 2000 Knight Piesold ARD Conference Elko, NV. March 15, 2012


  1. OPEN PIT & STOCKPILE ORE CONTROL FOR CYANIDE HEAP LEACHING to PREVENT A SOUR PAD Presented by Thom Seal, Ph.D., PE. Co-Authors: C. L. Bolin SME – Salt Lake City March 1, 2000 Knight Piesold – ARD Conference – Elko, NV. March 15, 2012

  2. ORE CONTROL  Cyanide Leachable - Mill & Heap Leach  Refractory – Mill {Roaster - Autoclave - Flotation} Grade – Leach {Biooxidation - ATS} Grade  Waste – General (Non Acid Generating) – Acid Generating (PAG)

  3. METALLURGICAL CHARACTERISTICS  Cyanide Gold Extraction – CN Shake Test - AA for [Au] = AUCN – Fire Assay – AA/FA - Theoretical CN Gold Extraction  Preg. Rob – Spike w/Au CN Shake Test – Determine [Au] Absorbed by Ore – PRV = (AUCN + 0.1) - AUPR  Fuel Value = 1.3 (OrgC) + SS - Target 2.5

  4. MINERAL CHARACTERISTICS  Sulfides GQ - 10 microns ( u m) + – Pyrite - FeS 2 – Arsenopyrite - FeAsS GQ - 1-2 microns ( u m)  Carbonates – Calcite - CaCO 3 – Dolomite - CaMg(CO 3 ) 2 – Siderite - FeCO 3  Carbonaceous Material

  5. ANALYTICAL  LECO Total Sulfur & Carbon  Sulfur as a Percent – % Sulfate Sulfur = SRO – % Sulfide Sulfur - Roast {% SS} = STOT - SRO  Carbon as a Percent – % Organic Carbon = CAI = OrgC – % Carbonate Carbon - Leach HCl {% CC} – % CC = CTOT - CAI

  6. AGP  Acid Generating Potential - AGP – Equal to - 1.37 * % SS  Sample Equation: – 2 FeS 2 + 7 O 2 + 2 H 2 O  2 FeSO 4 + 4 H + + 2 SO 4 2-  Leads to Acid Rock Drainage

  7. ANP  Acid Neutralization Potential - ANP – Equal to 3.67 * % CC  Sample Equation: 2-  – CaCO 3 + 2 H + + SO 4 CaSO 4 + H 2 O + CO 2 

  8. NCV  Net Carbonate Value - NCV – Equal to ANP + AGP – NCV = 3.67 * % CC - 1.37 * % SS

  9. EQUATIONS  Cyanide Hydrolyses at pH < 10 – CN - + H 2 O  HCN + OH -  Cyanide Reaction with Sulfides – 2 FeS + 12 CN - + 5 O 2 + 2 H 2 O  4- + 2 SO 4 2- + 4 OH - 2 Fe(CN) 6  Lime Hydrolyses – CaO + H 2 O  Ca(OH) 2

  10. LIME USE MODEL  Net Reaction – 4 FeS 2 + 8 CaO + 15 O 2 + 6 H 2 O  4 Fe(OH) 3 + 8 CaSO 4  Regression Model – Lime (pounds/ton) = 5.066 - 2.6874 * NCV – Multiply by Safety Factor: Using S.F. = 2 for NA Stockpiles

  11. LIME USE AND COLUMN TESTS Lime Addition to Oxide CN Extractions vs. NCV Column Model: CaO (lbs/ton) = 5.066 - 2.6874 * NCV 25 20 Lime lbs/ton 15 10 y = -2.6874x + 5.066 R 2 = 0.5904 5 Column Tests Linear (Column Tests) 0 -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 NCV

  12. CYANIDE USE MODEL Cyanide Addition to Oxide CN Extractions vs. NCV Column Model: NaCN (lbs/ton) = 0.505 - 0.1534 * NCV 1.8 Column Tests 1.6 Linear (Column Tests) 1.4 NaCN lbs/ton 1.2 1 0.8 0.6 y = -0.1534x + 0.505 R 2 = 0.477 0.4 0.2 0 -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 NCV

  13. GOLD EXTRACTION AND NCV Percentage of Total Gold Extraction as a function of NCV Percent of Total Gold Extracted 1 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3 Column Tests 0.2 0.1 0 -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 NCV

  14. BLAST HOLE INFORMATION Gold Quarry Blast Hole Information Class LGL Low Recovery General Leach Drill Hole # 13645 99 016 Series # Pattern # Au Fire Assay [AuFA] 0.031 0.010 CN Extractable Au [AuAA] Ratio AuCN/AuFA 0.323 0.006 Preg. Rob Value [AuPR] Total Sulfur [STOT] 1.32 0.06 Total Carbon [CTOT] Sulfate S [SRO] 0.43 0.05 Organic Carbon [OC] Sulfide S [SS] 0.89 0.02 Carbonate Carbon [CC] Fuel Value [FV] 0.96 -1.17 Net Carbonate Value [NCV]

  15. GOLD QUARRY PIT - POLYGON Gold Quarry Pit Newmont Mining Co. December 2,1999 Bench: 4550 SS%: 1.06 Poly Num: C245 OC%: 0.04 Mat'l Class: LGL CC%: 0.02 Tons: 10,397 NCV: -1.37 AuFA: 0.04 Lime #/ton: 10.5 AuAA: 0.02 AA/FA Ratio: 43% Spacing: 18' Drill Depth: 30' Hole Dia: 7.9"

  16. LIME USE MODEL  Net Reaction – 4 FeS 2 + 8 CaO + 15 O 2 + 6 H 2 O  4 Fe(OH) 3 + 8 CaSO 4  Regression Model – Oxide Ore – Lime (pounds/ton) = 5.066 - 2.6874 * NCV – Multiply by Safety Factor: Using S.F. = 2 for NA Stockpiles

  17. LIME USE MODEL  Regression Model – ARD Stockpile Ore Lime (pounds/ton) = 6.68 – 7.68 * CC 1.01 + 45.7 * SRO 1.09 CC = % Carbonate Carbon SRO = % S as SO 4 (Sulfate Sulfur)

  18. Lime Model for ARD Stockpiles NA Stockpiles [Lab Lime vs Stk Lime Model-1] 50 Lab Lime #/ton 40 30 20 R 2 = 0.7075 10 0 0 10 20 30 40 Stk Lime Model-1 #/ton

  19. NAL Gold Production NAL Gold Production - 3Q 2001 800 Au oz/ton Solution 700 600 500 400 300 6/18 7/8 7/28 8/17 9/6 9/26 10/16 Shifts

  20. NAL Solution Grade NAL Preg Grade - 3Q 2001 INPreg 0.018 0.017 Au oz/ton Solution 0.016 0.015 0.014 0.013 0.012 0.011 0.01 6/18 7/8 7/28 8/17 9/6 9/26 10/16 Shifts

  21. Gold Quarry Results  2.6 million stockpile tons  2.5 million mines tons  85,000 recovered Au oz.  Net Revenue  $ 18,000,000  1996 - 1999

  22. CONCLUSIONS  Reagent Utilization is Ore Dependant  Run of Mine Ore to have + NCV Value  Biooxidation of Ores with NCV Values less than - 2.0  Caustic Cost is 7.5 times higher than Lime  Cyanide Cost is 22 times higher than Lime  Ore Destination by Grade, AA/FA, Preg. Rob and NCV Value

Download Presentation
Download Policy: The content available on the website is offered to you 'AS IS' for your personal information and use only. It cannot be commercialized, licensed, or distributed on other websites without prior consent from the author. To download a presentation, simply click this link. If you encounter any difficulties during the download process, it's possible that the publisher has removed the file from their server.

Recommend


More recommend