Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
PREPRINT
NUMBER
SOCIETY FOR
MINING, METALLURGY,
AND EXPLORATION, INC.
95-19
M. Spangler
FirstMiss Gold
Golconda, NV
1
Abstract
FirstMiss Gold installed a supervisory control system
based on Pavilion Technology's Process Insights neural
network software and Oil System's PI data historian. The
primary goal of the system was to control the acid preconditioning circuit. However, our first successful control loop
was on the limestone feed rate to the neutralization circuit.
The information gained by modeling these circuits and the
better control provided by the system has resulted in
reagent savings of over $80,000 per month.
OVERVIEW
Bailey
Getchell Mine
Network 90
Plant
Loop
Bailey
CIU
DCS
RS-232
Process
Insights *
Training
Dataset
C ontrol
System *
Model
Run-time
Controller *
PI
Control data
and outputs
2
consists of four, 570 m 3 (150,000 gallon) agitated tanks in
series, uses ground limestone to raise the pH from 1 or less
to about 5.7 in the first tank. After allowing the reaction to
stabilize in the second tank, we then add milk of lime to the
third tank to bring the pH to 10.3. Cyanide is added in the
fourth tank, and the resulting slurry is pumped to the CIL
tanks where the gold dissolves. We can also add water to
either the third or fourth tanks if needed to lower the slurry
density or viscosity to acceptable values.
16
14
-----------------------~-------------.
---------------------.~--------------.
.'
"0
~ 12
s 10
0~
8
1:
0)
6
'05
4
$
2
0
L'"
::::::::::::::~~.~~~:::~:::::::::::~:
------------
10
Slurry pH attained
---O-Lime
- - . - - Limestone
Milk of Lime
Discharge from
Autoclaves
pH= 1
pH = 10.3
To elL
Neutralization Tanks
Figure 2; Limestone and Neutralization Circuits.
Control Problems
The control problems associated with this seemingly
simple circuit fall into two main categories. First, the reagents, (limestone and lime) are much different in control
effectiveness and reaction rate, and second, nothing about
the circuit behaves in a linear fashion.
Cheap limestone, expensive lime: Lime is trucked in dry,
slaked on site, then pumped into the neutralization circuit.
It costs us $75 !tonne ($68 !ton). Limestone is mined on site
about one krn (0.6 mi.) from the mill and ground in two ball
mills in the grinding building. Counting grinding costs,
limestone costs $4.10/tonne ($3.70/ton). Lab work has
established that 1.7 kg of limestone is equivalent to 1 kg of
lime in raising pH from 1 to 5.5. The overall effect is that
$1 in limestone is worth $10.80 of lime. However, there is
a complication.
Nonlinear response: The pH rise from adding limestone
[Figure 3] is subject to diminishing returns above a pH of
about 5.0. To raise pH to 6.0 requires much more limestone
than raising the pH from 5 to 5.5. Raising pH to 6.5 requires still more. No amount of limestone will raise pH
over 7.0. These effects are due to the precipitation of a
variety of metals and the ion exchanging behavior of clays
found in the ore.
We also have other, more conventional, control problems. The amount of free acid in the autoclave discharge
can vary from 15 to 45 gr.!l, depending on the sulfide
content of the feed and, paradoxically, the amount of
carbonate in the ore. The temperature in the circuit ranges
from 30 to 60C (85 to 140F) depending on ambient
temperature and the condition of the slurry coolers
upstream of the neutralization circuit. The throughput of an
autoclave varies as a function of its mechanical condition,
the ore's sulfide content, and oxygen availability. And
autoclaves are shut down for maintenance at least once a
week.
were the pHs in the first two neutralization tanks. The controlled input was the limestone belt feeder speed.
Sensitivity analysis: Part of the attraction of Process
Insights is the sensitivity analysis. This has allowed us to
evaluate circuits with an eye to finding bottlenecks.
Unfortunately, the operating requirements of other circuits
restricts our ability to adjust the parameters of this ciruit.
The sensitivity analysis was more interesting in the
conditioning circuit, which is discussed later.
Table 1; Final Limestone Model
Tag Name
Tau
Input Variables
WC:2825
LS:Geho.ca
LS:FAave.ca
-4
-2
AC:ddens.ca
TI:7010
TI:7056
LA:ls150
LA:lsc02
State variable
WI:2825.AV
-3
General Statistics
Description
o
o
pH in #1 neutralization tank
pH in #2 neutralization tank
Results
We used more limestone and less lime: The run-time
controller had interesting effects. As you can see, [Figure 4]
the model used somewhat more limestone than had been
the case previously. However, it used substantially less
lime. This tells us that we were not as far up the diminishing returns curve as we should have been. The net result
was a $31,000 per month reduction in total reagent costs.
These alone would have paid for the entire supervisory
control system in 6 months.
Q)
c
0
U)
Q)
..J
.....U)
.Q
..J
Mean
Standard Deviation
Variance
Range
Minimum
Maximum
Standard Error
Median
Mode
Kurtosis
Skewness
4.79
0.764
0.584
3.9
1.6
5.5
0.083
5.0
5.2
8.106
-2.879
Proc. Insights
5.38
0.407
0.166
2.3
3.7
6.01
0.044
5.5
5.8
2.282
-1.205
=3.90
Remaining Problems
Outputs
AR:7011
AR:7021
50
400
350
300
250
200
150
100
50
0
Q)
45
40
E
::i
35 ~
30
en
.Q
25 ..J
20
5/93
7/93
9/93
- - - I - - Limestone
11/93
1/94
3/94
- - 0 - Lime
Purpose of Circuit
rank#
input name
tau#
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
AI:3012.
TI:3016.
CD:D_T1.CA
TI:3026.
FR:3007.
U:3038.
U:2748.
AC:3001.
CD:D_ST.CA
02:DEMAND
FR:3007.
DI:2664.
TI:3036.
AC:P_AVE.CA
FC:2665.
LS:GEHO.CA
-1
0
0
0
-3
0
0
-2
0
0
0
-3
0
0
-3
0
Control Problems
Although we have been able to train a model for any
given ore stockpile, this requires about two weeks. As a
given stockpile lasts no more than four weeks, and it is not
uncommon to start blending in other stockpiles during this
time, we have been unable to develop a useful control
model that will work reliably across stockpiles. Part of the
problem has been the changing clay contents of the ore.
The k-feldspar clays freely absorb acid. Also, we have
recently discovered that we have organic carbon present in
the ore which causes inaccurate carbonate assays. As these
contaminants strongly vary throughout the ore zone, we
have not been able to find a cross-stockpile model.
Since we have now proved that the lab results that we
were using to try to run the plant were random variables,
we are investing in an oxygen analyzer that will sample the
autoclave vent gas. The vent gas is a mixture of oxygen and
carbon dioxide, therefore we can derive the amount of
carbonates in the autoclave feed from the oxygen content of
the vent gas. We hope that this will give us a better value to
use in a control scheme, as we can then control
conditioning to give a desired carbon dioxide content in the
autoclave's vapor space.
Further complicating our efforts is that Process Insights
expects to control an output to a fixed value. However, the
desired value for our major control variable, autoclave feed
pH, varies with the ore characteristics. On one ore, the
autoclaves may run fine with a feed pH of 5.8. On the next
stockpile, the feed pH may have to be 4.8 to maintain the
same throughput and oxidation. This does not lend itself to
easy control.
Results Using Process Insights
Even though a control model has eluded us, we have
been able to make some money from Process Insights.
Sensitivity analyses of the various models consistently
showed that the feed pH was highly sensitive to the temperatures of the conditioning tanks [TI:3016, TI:3026, and
TI:3036 in Table 3]. This is an indirect mechanism, as
higher temperatures allowed a higher autoclave feed pH
without having excess C02 quench the reaction in the
autoclaves. This led to a plant-scale test using boiler steam
to heat the slurry in the surge tank before it entered the
conditioning tanks. The results showed a substantial drop in
acid consumption. Therefore we spent about $40,000 to
route waste steam from our flash tanks to the surge tank,
raising the average temperature from 38C to 55C (lOOF to
130F.) This has reduced acid use about 20%, resulting in a
savings of $54,000 per month. Figure 5 shows the ratio of
actual acid use to the usage expected based on plant history.
1.20
1.10
0.90
a:
0.80
0.489
0.314
-0.306
0.283
-0.169
-0.082
-0.071
0.041
-0.069
-0.048
-0.056
-0.054
0.038
0.043
0.040
-0.023
~ .~.
1.00
....1\1
Avg.
/ \ \/
"\.
. . 1"'"'"'".,
.\1
,~
0.70
0.60
V
First full month with steam on.
0.50
9/93
11/93
1/94
3/94
5/94
7/94