R.L.

Wiegel

Advances in mineral processing

material balances
Abstract. Because calculation of mineral processing material
balances has changed little over the past 50 years, valuable data are
being wasted since they are not used in the balance calculations. Also,
balances made using only selected fragments of the data are usually
not the best indications of what is happening in the process.
Two techniques which can improve this situation are reviewed.
Both recognize that process measurements are subject to random
errors and use estimates of measurement variability in calculating
stream weights.
The first technique uses the precision for individual calculated
weight splits to obtain minimum variance estimates of stream
weights. The second uses a least squares-data adjustment computer
program for calculating the process stream weights which minimizes
adjustments necessary in chemical and physical analyses and flow
measurements to obtain a completely consistent set of adjusted
data.

Resume. On montre comment, en traitant des minerais, les anciennes

formules simples de bilans peuvent etre rajeunies par l'emploi des
techniques de calcul et de statistiques. Outre les diffthentes fractions
obtenues par ces formules, on peut maintenant calculer ces fractions
avec plus de precision, et ainsi en arriver des donnees corrigees et
plus en accord avec Ie comportement du processus etudie. Deux
techniques differentes sont utilisees: la premiere est basee sur la
precision des mesures de poids des differentes fractions; la deuxieme
fait appel la methode des moindres carres integree un programme .
d'ordinateur. Ces deux techniques sont tres utiles dans l'etude du
comportement des procedes.

One of the most used (and perhaps misused) tools of the

mineral processing engineer is the material balance. Its
importance is evident since its results, in the form of
calculated stream flows and yields, are continually used in
(1) bench scale testing of processes and ores, (2) pilot plant
demonstration of processes, (3) economic evaluation of
process alternatives, (4) design of plants and selection of
-equipment, (5) testing plant modifications, (6) control of
processes, (7) quality control of products, and (8) measurement of plant performance.
Yet, we are, for the most part, still using the material
balance as it was used 50 years ago, even though advances
in the fields of applied statistics and computation would
permit more effective use of the available material balance
data.

State of the art

R.L. Wiegel is Research Associate, Mineral Resources Research

Center, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55455.

CANADIAN

METALLURGICAL

QUARTERLY

Although mineral engineers know the two-product and

three-product
formulas, many do not give sufficient
thought to their use. These formulas, which represent the
general solutions to simultaneous equations of a special
form, state that the over-all and individual material flows
into a balance point or node (i.e., a piece of equipment) are
equal to the respective outflows. This is true providing
there is no accumulation or depletion of material at that
balance point.
The underlying material balances and the two-product
and three-product 'formulas are shown in Equations 1
through 10. The formulas show the fraction of the input
(Stream 1), which appears in the various products (Streams
2, 3 and 4) as a function of the stream analyses.
Two-product formulas (where W is, weight, Rand S are
analyses):

Volume 11 Number 2 (1972)

413

(2)

(1)

(3)

WI - W2

W3 =0

W1R1 - W2R2 - W3R3 =0

W2 _R1-R3
WI - R2 -R3

W3_

R2-RI

WI -

R2

R3

Three-product formulas:
(2)

(1)

(3)

Precision of calculated stream weights

(4)

W1-W2-W3-W4=0

W1R1 - W2R2 - W3R3 - W4R4 = 0

WtSI

W2S2 - W383 - JY4S4

Use of the usual technique can therefore result in the

calculation of considerably different weight splits by
different engineers using the same data, depending on their
choice of balance' points and type of material to be
balanced. In some cases, no doubt, the engineer chooses
that method of calculation which will give results substantiating his opinions regarding a particular situation,
whether it be a comparison of several pieces of equipment,
differences in reagents, or selection of an over-all process.
This technique also results in the waste of considerable
amounts of valuable and expensive data, since the calculated weight splits result in exact balances only for those
material analyses which were used in the calculations. The
inaccuracy of the other balances tends to destroy the
credibility these data should have in describing what is
occurring in the process, i.e., size segregation, efficiency in
classifying, grinding rate, etc.
Since there is obvious room for improvement in the
handling of material balance calculations, this paper describes the use of two techniques which can appreciably
increase the amount of useful information obtained from
material balance data.

W2

(Rt - R3) (S3 - 84) - (SI - S3) (R3 - R4)

,Wt

(R2 - R3) (S3 - S4) - (S2 - 83) (R3 - R4)

W3

(R2

Wt

(R2 - R3) (S3 - S4) - (S2 -83)

W4

(R 2 - R 3) (83 - 8 I) - (82 - 83) (R 3 - R I)

WI

(R2 - R3) (S3 - S4) - (S2 - 83) (R3 - R4)

One technique which is not being used, to any great extent,

is that of using the precision of calculated stream weights.
This can be accomplished by applying relatively simple
mathematical and statistical concepts to the explicit equations used in calculating stream weights. For example, the
simple two-product formula

Rt) (81 - 84) - (S2 - 81) (RI

R4)
9

(R3 - R4)

upon differentation
yields

W2

(R1

WI

(R2 - R3)

~3)
11

with respect to the measured analyses

10

The addition of an unknown stream weigh t to a

separation, i.e., W 4, requires the formulation of another
individual material balance using an additional set of
physical or chemical analyses, i.e., 81 through 84 and R4
Even for a complete processing flowsheet with complex
recirculation of middlings and oversize, most engineers use
these formulas, solving for the weight splits at each stage
throughout the process and then patching them together as
a seamstress would a quilt. The engineer usually makes use
of only those data required to solve the formula and no
more. And who is to criticize this practice, especially when
one realizes that the additional calculations usually produce
results different from the original, which therefore tend to
confuse rather than clarify the interpretation
of the
material balances.

414

12

Replacing the differentials with random errors and squaring

yields

13

Equation 13 indicates the relationship between the

estimated variability in the calculated weight of Stream 2

CANADIAN

METALLURGICAL

QUARTERLY

OPERATIONS

and the measurements and estimated variabilities of the

measurements from which it is calculated.
Application of this approach to the simple flowsheet
and data shown in Figure 1 demonstrates its usefulness. In
this case both size and chemical analyses are available and
either could be used independently to calculate the stream
flows. As shown in Table I, the estimated standard
deviations of the calculated stream flows show the importance of considering both sets of data, since in some of the!
two-product separations here the chemical analyses provide
the most precise calculation (i.e., magnetic separation and
flotation), in others, the size analyses do (i.e., cyclone) and
in one (Le., screen) the two standard deviations are of the
same order of magnitude. These calculations, based on each
set of analyses, can be combined to give a minimum
variance estimate for the individual separations, for
example,
W2/W1

= [(W2/W1

)Fe

+ (l

n (W2/W1)32S

14

W2/Wl

[2 2

aW2/Wl Fe

+ (l

[)2

15

aW2/W1325

where
2

This technique can be applied to any process calculation regardless of complexity. And for any new set of
calculated material balances which are to be used as the
basis for important and expensive decisions, the estimate of
reliability or variability should definitely be made and its
possible effect on the decision considered.
Although the technique just demonstrated does permit
estimation of the precision of individual calculations and an
incorporation of several individual sets of results into
minimum variance estimates of weight splits in the process,
it does require that explicit equations be derived for each
and every stage of the process. As the complexity of the
process increases and the number of chemical and physical
analyses increases, the derivation of explicit equations and
the calculations making use of them become extremely
cumbersome.

aW2/W1325
[=

16

aW2/Wl Fe

Least squares - data adjustments

+ aW2/W1325

An alternative approach, used quite successfully, is based

These calculated results, also shown in Table I, demon- on recognizing the basic problems in calculating balances.
strate that the variability of the weighted average of the These are twofold: first, that of having too few unknowns,
two calculations is always as good or better than that of the in the form of stream weights, for the number of over-all
individual calculations. These individual separation results and individual material balance equations which can be
can then be "patched" together to yield the over-all process formulated from the data, and second, that of realizing that
results, for example,
the data are subject to errors which occur during sampling,
sample preparation and analysis. These errors, reflected in
W2
W7
W9
the
chemical and physical analyses of stream sanlples as
17
W9 = WI X X - X well as in flow measurements, should be random and
WI
W2
W7
(hopefully) independent, although their actual values are
where variability of calculated stream flows can be appro xiunknown. The gross and individual material balances
mated* b1y
provide a means for relating all of these errors, as the
adjustments which would have to be made in the data to
*This is an overestimate because it in effect counts the measurement
attain consistency. The least squares approach is then used
variabilities for Streams 2 and 7 twice.
Table I. Calculated stream weights and standard deviations for simple flowsheet (Figure 1)
Cumulative

Individual separations

%Wt.

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9

100.0
4.1.4
58.6
18.6
81.4
72.9
27.1
27.0
73.0

Volume

-325 MBasis

Fe Basis

Stream
No.

11

Number

2 (1972)

S.D.

9.
3.9
3.9
25 .7
257.7

@
3.9

%Wt.
100.0
52.1
47.9
100.0
0
53.8
46.2
-1.2
101.2

S.D.

ctD
9.7
47.1
47.1

@
7.9
52.1
52.1

Min. variance avg.

S.D.

%Wt.

100.0
49.9
50.1
19.1
80.9
54.0
46.0
26.9
73.1

2.0
8.7
8.7
3.9
3.9
7.9
7.9
3.9
3.9

Min. variance avg.

S.D.
Wt.(TPH)
100.0
49.9
50.1
9.6
40.5
26.9
23.0
6.2
16.8

2.0
8.7
8.7
2.6
7.3
6.2
5.6
1.8
4.2

415

to obtain those stream weights which minimize the sum of

squares of the errors in the analyses, weighted with respect
to the variability of each analysis.
The application of least squares-data adjustment to the
simple two-product problem is shown here to demonstrate
the approach since with larger problems the formulation
becomes quite complex. In this case there are two sets of
chemical or physical analyses (R and S) and a set of stream
flow measurements (M), all of which could have errors (', S,
and m) associated with them. The variability of these
various measurements are denoted by V.
The exact material balances to be satisfied are
WI - W2

--

W3

WI (R1 - '1) -- W2(R2 -'2) - W3(R3 - '3)

WI (SI -- SI) - W2(S2 - S2) -- W3(S3 - S3)
WI - (M 1 - m 1)
W2 - (M2 - m2)
W3 - (M3 - m3)

19

20
21
22

23

= 0

24

=.0

Values of the unknown stream weights and data

adjustments are obtained as an iterative solution using the
method of Lagrangian multipliers after linearizing the cross
product unknowns, Le.,
WI =(WI)O

WI'I

222

m2

m3

'1

VM2

VM3

VR1

+--+--+--

SS =-

VM1
2
'2

2
'3

2
SI

2
S2

2
S3

VR2

VR3

VS1

VS2

VS3

+-+-+-+-+-

~ (W1)0 ('1)0

25

copy of the program and detailed directions

obtained upon request from the author.

Simple flowsheet

%Fe

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9

45.64
50.14
42.46
9.68
49.93
50.30
49.71
21.30
60.24

57.1
75.2
37.4
37.4
46.4
96.6
50.3
58.6
50.4

100.0

1.2

3.0

2.0

(2)

Cyclone

Tal1

(5)

Cone.

--

(6)

(7)

Slime

STDDEV

Tail

416

1. Simple flowsheet

%- 325 mesh TPH solids

Flotation

--

(8)

Figure

for its use may be

Stream

Screen

(4)

28

Measurements

(1)

Mag sep

+ (Wl)O&1

~Wl

*A

Feed

(3)

+ ('1)0

This approach can be applied to large, complex

processes with multiple chemical and physical analyses
more easily than the technique described earlier. In
addition, it readily provides a set of adjusted data, which is
statistically more reliable than the original data and which
could be used for auxiliary calculations, i.e., classification
efficiency, segregation effects, etc.
An approach similar to this was used by Gauss as early
as 1809 to calculate the parameters defining the paths of
celestial bodies based on numerous time-position measurements (1), while its application to the solution of material
balance problems was suggested by Kuehn and Davidson in
1961 (2).
Since the calculations involved in solving such a
problem would soon overwhelm the engineer or technician
sitting at his calculator, a general purpose computer
program, MATBAL, has been written for solving the least
squares-data adjustment problem formulated above. The
program has been written in FORTRAN IV for use in a
Control Data 6600 System. Computer memory requirements vary from 34,000 octal words for small problems (20
simultaneous equations) to 110,000 octal words for large
problems (150 simultaneous equations). *

while the unknowns (W 1, W2, W3, m 1, m2, m3, '1, '2, '3,
S2,
S3)
in addition, must satisfy the criterion of
minimizing the weighted sum of squares of data adjustments, defined by

26
27

S 11

m1

+~Wl

and data used to demonstrate

(9)

Cone

precision

of calculated

stream

weights.

CANADIAN

METALLURGICAL

QUARTERLY

OPERATIONS

The program is general purpose to the extent that the

input information for each calculation contains: title,
stream
identifications,
measurement
identifications,
measurements and variability of measurements, over-all
material balances, individual material balances, and
measurements which are to be held at some predetermined
constant value. The printout includes a summary of the
input information, a table for each material balanced
showing stream name, original analysis for that material,
final adjusted analysis, stream weights, per cent weight,
material units (product of weight and adjusted analysis),
and per cent material recovery in that stream.

The problem shown in Figure 1, used to demonstrate

the use of material balances precision, was solved using the
MATBAL program as shown in Table II. This printout
summarizes the balance results in tables for soluble iron and
minus 325 mesh, indicating original and adjusted analyses,
stream weights, per cent weights, units and recoveries for
each stream. In addition there is a summary of statistics
regarding the distribution of adjustments over the various
streams and various analyses.
The completely consistent set of results available in
these tables represents those values satisfying the constraint
equations and the least squares criterion. that is, the sum of

Table II. Calculated material balancesusing least squares - Data adjustment computer program for simple flowsheet (Figure 1)

Calculated material balances

0
1
M
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9

Analysis (0)
Soluble iron
Stream (M)
Feed
Screen undersize
Screen oversize
Mag separator tail
Mag separator cone
Cyclone slime
Cyclone oversize
Flotation tail
Flotation cone

2
M
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9

Minus 325 Mesh

Stream (M)
Feed
Screen undersize
Screen oversize
Mag separator tail
Mag separator cone
Cyclone slime
Cyclone oversize
Flotation tail
Flotation cone

0/0
Original
45.64
50.14
42.46
9.68
49.93
50.30
49.71
21.30
60.24

Residual &td error Adjusted

-.14
-.12
45.78
.09
.07
50.05
42.27
.19
.16
-.02
-.02
9.70
-.09
-.07
50.02
-.01
-.01
50.31
-.06
-.05
49.77
21.29
.01
.01
.04
.03
60.20

Weight
100.00
45.13
54.87
10.54
44.33
23.70
21.43
5.74
15.68

Wt PCT
100.00
45.13
54.87
10.54
44.33
23.70
21.43
5.74
15.68

Wt Units
45.78
22.59
23.19
1.02
22.17
11.93
10.66
1.22
9.44

Recovery
100.00
49.34
50.66
2.23
48.43
26.05
23.29
2.67
20.62

Original
57.10
75.20
37.40
37.40
46.40
96.60
50.30
58.60
50.40

Residual Std error Adjusted

.21
56.89
.07
-.10
-.03
75.30
-4.35
-1.45
41.75
.81
.27
36.59
3.42
1.14
42.98
.00
.00
96.60
-.48
-1.43
51.73
58.22
.38
.13
1.05
.35
49.35

Weight
100.00
45.13
54.87
10.54
44.33
23.70
21.43
5.74
15.68

WtPCf
100.00
45.13
54.87
10.54
44.33
23.70
21.43
5.74
15.68

Wt Units
56.89
33.98
22.91
3.86
19.05
22.90
11.08
3.34
7.74

Recovery
100.00
59.73
40.27
6.78
33.49
40.25
19.48
5.88
13.61

0/0

Analysis of adjustments
Sum of squares of adjustments in measured weights
.000
Sum of squares of adjustments over all analyses
1
Feed
2
Screen undersize
3
Screen oversize
4
Mag separator tail
5
Mag separator cone
6
Cyclone slime
7
Cyclone oversize
8
Flotation tail
9
Flotation cone

.019
.006
2.127
.074
1.306
.000
.230
.016
.123

.Sum of squares of adjustments over all streams

1
2

Soluble iron
Minus 325 Mesh

010
%

.053
3.848

Over-all sum of squares of adjustments

3.902

Volume 11 Number 2 (1972)

417

squares of the standardized residuals is minimized.

A comparison of the two sets of calculated weights,
those based on minimum variance averaging and those
based on least squares-data adjustments, is shown in Table
III. Although the two sets of weights are not in exact
agreement, the least squares-data adjustment set is well
within the one standard deviation range. And while the
minimum variance averaging technique was simple enough
to do by calculator in about four hours, the least
squares-data adjustment solution took about a quarter of an
hour to prepare input computer cards and less than 15
seconds of computing time.
As a final example of the versatility and capability of
the least squares-data adjustment technique, results of

estimates of precIsIon for calculated weight splits or

completely consistent adjusted data. Each of these can be
of considerable value in the evaluation of process performance.

r>
CRUSHING

GRINDING
&
CLASSIFICATION

--r1st Cu FLOT
(2)
nd

Table III. Comparison of calculated stream weights obtained by

minimum variance averaging and .least squares-data adjustment

Minimum
Variance Average
Stream
Feed
Screen. undersize
Screen oversize
Mag separator tail
Mag separator conc
Cyclone slime
Cyclone oversize
Flotation tail
Flotation conc

Std. Dev.

Weight

100.0
49.9
50.1
9.6
40.5
26.9
23.0
6.2
16.8

2.0
8.7
8.7
2.6
7.3
6.2
5.6
1.8
4.2

100.0
45.1
54.9
10.5
44.3
23.7
21.4
5.7
15.7

calculations for the Quemont Milling flowsheet at Noranda,

Figure 2, are shown in Tables IV-IX. These are based on
published data from 1951 (3). The material balance
equation and pertinent assays and estimates of assay
precision are shown in Tables IV and V_The calculated
material balances are shown in Tables VI through IX for
each of the seven components used in the calculations. The
hand calculation would have been impossible; the computer
solution took about 45 seconds following the preparation
of some 50 computer cards which set up the problem and
provided original data.
Although, in this case, it was necessary to assume the
assay variabilities used in the calculations, the resulting
stream weights, adjusted analyses and mineral recoveries do
represent a consistent set of results based on all available
data, rather than bits and pieces. This should better
describe what is happening in the process.

(5)

3rd Cu FLOT

Cu CLEANER

Least SquaresData Adjustment

Weight

Cu FLOT

~1(3)
(4)

CLASSIFIER
CuCONC

(7)

Zn CLEANER
(11)

(10)

(19)

Zn RETREAT
(20)
CLASSIFIER

REGRIND

(21)

CYANIDIZATION

BULLION

PYRITE

~
Figure 2. Flowsheet for
Quebec, December 1951.

Quemont

milling

operation,

Noranda,

Conclusion

References

This paper has shown how the "age old" two- or threeproduct formulas can be updated through application of
statistical or computational techniques to permit more
effective use of available material balance data. In addition
to the usual weight splits obtained from the formulas it is
now possible to obtain, via these newer techniques,

(1) W. Edward Deming. Statistical Adjustment of Experimental

Data. Dover Publications, Inc. (1964).
(2) D.R. Kuehn and Harold Davidson. Computer Control, IT
Mathematics of Control Chern. Eng. Progr. 57(61):44-47.
(3) C.G. McLachlan, M.J.S. Bennett and R.L. Coleman. The
Quemont Milling Operation. Recent Developments in Mineral
Dressing, The Institution of Mining and Metallurgy (1953).

418

CANADIAN

METALLURGICAL

QUARTERLY

OPERATIONS

Table IV. Matbal computer program printout

- material balance equations

University of Minnesota Mineral Resources Research Center

Mineral processing flowsheet material balance
Quemont milling operation, Noranda, Quebec - December 1951 Data/Inst Min Met 1953
Minimization of sum of squares of analyses residuals, weighted by reciprocal variance
Input Information
Node equations valid for all Materials
M
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21

Stream (M)
Mill Head
Prim copper cone
Sec copper cone
Clean copper tail
Clean copper cone
Final copper cone
Copper circuit tail
Rough zinc cone
Rough zinc tail
Clean zinc cone
Clean zinc tail
Pyrite circuit tail
Pyrite circuit cone
Retreat copper feed
Retreat copper tail
Retreat copper cone
Scav gold conc
Final flat tail
Retreat zinc feed
Retreat zinc cone
Retreat zinc tail

N=

1
1
0
0
0
0
-1
0
0
0
-1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
-1
0
0
-1

2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
-1
-1
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0

3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
-1
-1
0
0
0

5 6 7 8 9 101112

13 141516171819202122

232425

Node equations valid for selected materials

M
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21

Stream (M)
Mill Head
Prim copper conc
Sec copper conc
Clean copper tail
Clean copper cone
Final copper cone
Copper circuit tail
Rough zinc cone
Rough zinc tail
Clean zinc cone
Clean zinc tail
Pyrite circuit tail
Pyrite circuit cone
Retreat copper feed
Retreat copper tail
Retreat copper cone
Scav gold cone
Final flat tail
Retreat zinc feed
Retreat zinc cone
Retreat zinc tail
Measured weights
Std dev of weights

Volume 11 Number 2 (1972)

NN=

3
2
4
1
0
0
1
0
1
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
-1
-1
0
0
-1
0
1
0
-1
-1
0
0
-1
0
1
0
-1
0
0
0
-1
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
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
-0.00 -0.00 -0.00 -0.00
-0.00 -0.00 -0.00 -0.00

5
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
-1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
-0.00
-0.00

6
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

0
0
0
0
0
0
1
-1
-1
0
0
1
-1
-1

-0.00
-0.00

8
7
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
-1
0
0
0
0
0
-0.00 *00.00
-0.00'
.01

9 10
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
.01
.00

11

12

419

Table V. Matbal computer program printout - original data

Original analyses
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
M
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21

420

Analysis (0)
Copper
Zinc
Gold
Silver
Pyrite
Pyrrhotite
Insoluble
Stream (M)
Mill head
Prim copper conc
Sec copper conc
Clean copper tail
Clean copper conc
Final copper conc
Copper circuit tail
Rough zinc conc
Rough zinc tail
Clean zinc conc
Clean zinc tail
Pyri te circuit tail
Pyrite circuit conc
Retreat copper feed
Retreat copper tail
Retrea t copper conc
Scav gold conc
Final flot tail
Retreat zinc feed
Retreat zinc conc
Retreat zinc tail

PCf
PCT
OZjT
OZjT

PCT
PCT
PCT

o =

Variance
.00250
.04000
.00250
.09000
4.00000
4.00000
1.00000
1
1.60
22.00
16.50
1.70
15.00
19.10
.14
.60
.11
.94
.52
.11
.35
.50
.10
4.30
.63
.08
.18
1.00
.09

2
2.20
2.50
4.25
1.80
4.50
3.65
1.98
24.50
.25
51.00
4.85
.20
.72
.85
.90
2.80
.78
.17
1.55
11.10
.65

Std Dev
.05000
.20000
.05000
.30000
2.00000
2.00000
1.00000
3
.16
2.00
1.50
.39
1.00
1.53
.06
.23
.05
.11
.22
.05
.16
.18
.13
1.70
.12
.02
.14
.35
.08

4
.96
7.50
6.00
2.70
5.00
6.74
.63
1.40
.57
1.61
1.28
.50
1.00
1.20
1.40
5.00
1.00
.34
1.38
3.10
.67

5
22.00
-0.00
-0.00
-0.00
-0.00
14.00
-0.00
-0.00
22.00
1.50
-0.00
6.00
85.00
-0.00
-0.00
-0.00
27.00
4.90
-0.00
-0.00
81.00

6
32.00
-0.00
-0.00
-0.00
-0.00
15.00
-0.00
-0.00
36.50
11.50
-0.00
39.00
12.50
-0.00
-0.00
-0.00
60.00
40.50
-0.00
-0.00
15.00

7
28.00
-0.00
-0.00
-0.00
-0.00
3.50
-0.00
-0.00
26.00
.65
-0.00
29.00
.60
-0.00
-0.00
-0.00
4.00
34.50
-0.00
-0.00
1.75

CANADIAN

10

11

12

METALLURGICAL

13 14

15

QUARTERLY

OPERATIONS

Table V I. Matbal computer program printout - calculated material balances - copper and zinc
Calculated material balances
0
1
M
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17..;
18
19
20
21

Analysis (0)
Copper
Stream (M)
Mill Head
Prim Copper Cone
Sec Copper Cone
Clean Copper Tail
Clean Copper Cone
Final Copper Cone
Copper Circuit Tail
Rough Zinc Cone
Rough Zinc Tail
Clean Zinc Cone
Clean Zinc Tail
Pyrite Circuit Tail
Pyrite Circuit Cone
Retreat Copper Feed
Retreat Copper Tail
Retreat Copper Cone
Seav Gold Cone
Final Flat Tail
Retreat Zinc Feed
Retreat Zinc Cone
Retreat Zinc Tail

Zinc
Stream (M)
Mill Head
Prim Copper Cone
Sec Copper Cone
Clean Copper Tail
Clean Copper Cone
Final Copper Cone
Copper Circuit Tail
Rough Zinc Cone
Rough Zinc Tail
Clean Zinc Cone
Clean Zinc Tail
Pyrite Circuit Tail
Pyrite Circuit Cone
Retreat Copper Feed
Retreat Copper Tail
Retreat Copper Cone
Seav Gold Cone
Final Flat Tail
Retreat Zinc Feed
Retreat Zinc Cone
Retreat Zinc Tail

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21

Volume 11 Number 2 (1972)

PCT
Original
1.60
22.00
16.50
1.70
15.00
19.10
.14
.60
.11
.94
.52
.11
.35
.50
.10
4.30
.63
.08
.18
1.00
.09

Residual
.00
-.01
.00
-.00
-.01
.02
.00
-.05
-.01
.02
.06
-.02
-.02
.13
-.01
-.00
.00
.02
.01
-.02
-.13

Std Error
.02
-.23
.09
-.00
-.27
.40
.06
-1.08
-.11
.46
1.20
-.48
-.34
2.66
-.19
-.04
.06
.45
.23
-.33
-2.54

Adjusted
1.60
22.01
16.50
1.70
15.01
19.08
.14
.65
.12
.92
.46
.13
.37
.37
.11
4.30
.63
.06
.11'

1.02
.22

Weight
2000.00
90.70
57.43
.01
65.38
156.08
1851.87
152.93
1746.51
64.97
87.96
1638.99
327.31
327.32
434.50
7.96
219.79
1419.19
522.45
47.57
359.76

Wt Pet
100.00
4.54
2.87
.00
3.27
7.80
92.59
7.65
87.33
3.2:'\
4.4u
81.95
16.37
16.37
21.72
.40
10.99
70.96
26.12
2.38
17.99

Wt Units
31.98
19.97
9.47
.00
9.82
29.78
2.54
1.00
2.02
.60
.40
2.20
1.20
1.20
.48
.34
1.38
.82
.88
.48
.78

Recovery
100.00
62.44
29.63
.00
30.70
93.14
7.94
3.13
6.32
1.86
1.27
6.87
3.76
3.76
1.49
1.07
4.31
2.56
2.75
1.51
2.44

Weight
2000.00
90.70
57.43
.01
65.38
156.08
1851.87
152.93
1746.51
64.97
87.96
1638.99
327.31
327.32
434.50
7.96
219.79
1419.19
522.45
47.57
359.76

Wt Pet
100.00
4.54
2.87
.00
3.27
7.80
92.59
7.65
87.33
3.25
4.40
81.95
16.37
16.37
21.72
.40
10.99
70.96
26.12
2.38
17.99

Wt Units
42.21
2.42
2.60
.00
2.82
5.25
37.19
37.45
5.00
33.14
4.31
3.86
2.85
2.85
3.86
.23
1.70
2.15
8.17
5.27
1.67

Recovery
100.00
5.74
6.15
.00
6.69
12.43
88.11
88.73
11.86
78.51
10.22
9.14
6.75
6.75
9.14
.53
4.04
5.10
19.36
12.48
3.96

PCT
Original
2.20
2.50
4.25
1.80
4.50
3.65
1.98
24.50
.25
51.00
4.85
.20
.72
.85
.90
2.80
.78
.17
1.55
11.10
.65

Residual
.09
-.17
-.27
.00
.18
.29
-.03
.01
-.04
-.01
-.05
-.04
-.15
-.02
.01
-.03
.00
.02
-.01
.03
.19

Std Error
.45
-.86
-1.35
.00
.92
1.45
-.14
.06
-.18
-.03
-.26
-.18
-.75
-.10
.06
-.17
.02
.09
-.07
.13
.93

Adjusted
2.11
2.67
4.52
1.80
4.32
3.36
2.01
24.49
.29
51.01
4.90
.24
.87
.87
.89
2.83
.78
.15
1.56
11.07
.46

421

Table VII.

Matbal computer program printout - calculated material balances - gold and silver

3
M
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21

OZIT
Gold
Stream (M)
Mill Head
Prim Copper Cone
Sec Copper Cone
Clean Copper Tail
Clean Copper Cone
Final Copper Cone
Copper Circuit Tail
Rough Zinc Cone
Rough Zinc Tail
Clean Zinc Cone
Clean Zinc Tail
Pyrite Circuit Tail
Pyrite Circuit Cone
Retreat Copper Feed
Retreat Copper Tail
Retreat Copper Cone
Seav Gold Cone
Final Flat Tail
Retreat Zinc Feed
Retreat Zinc Cone
Retreat Zinc Tail

Original
.16
2.00
1.50
.39
1.00
1.53
.06
.23
.05
.11
.22
.05
.16
.18
.13
1.70
.12
.02
.14
.35
.08

4
M
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21

Silver
Stream (M)
Mill Head
Prim Copper Cone
Sec Copper Cone
Clean Copper Tail
Clean Copper Cone
Final Copper_Cone
Copper Circuit Tail
Rough Zinc Cone
Rough Zinc Tail
Clean Zinc Cone
Clean Zinc Tail
Pyrite Circuit Tail
Pyrite Circuit Cone
Retreat Copper Feed
Retreat Copper Tail
Retreat Copper Cone
Seav Gold Cone
Final Flat Tail
Retreat Zinc Feed
Retreat Zinc Cone
Retreat Zinc Tail

Original
.96
7.50
6.00
2.70
5.00
6.74
.63
1.40
.57
1.61
1.28
.50
1.00
1.20
1.40
5.00
1.00
.34
1.38
3.10
.67

422

Residual
-.01
.07
.28
-.00
-.27
-.12
.01
.04
-.00
-.02
-.01
.01
.01
.03
.00
.04
-.00
-.01
-.00
-.00
-.03

Std Error
-.24
1.44
5.67
-.00
-5.42
-2.46
.13
.82
-.00
-.35
~.29
.22
.12
.52
.07
.77
-.03
-.12
-.09
-.09
-.68

Adjusted
.17
1.93
1.22
.39
1.27
1.65
.05
.19
.05
.13
.23
.04
.15
.15
.13
1.66
.12
.03
.14
.35
.11

Weight
2000.00
90.70
57.43
.01
65.38
156.08
1851.87
152.93
1746.51
64.97
87.96
1638.99
327.31
327.32
434.50
7.96
219.79
1419.19
522.45
47.57
359.76

Wt Pet
100.00
4.54
2.87
.00
3.27
7.80
92.59
7.65
87.33
3.25
4.40
81.95
16.37
16.37
21.72
.40
10.99
70.96
26.12
2.38
17.99

Wt Units
3.44
1.75
.70
.00
.83
2.58
.99
.29
.87
.08
.21
.64
.50
.50
.55
.13
.27
.37
.75
.17
.41

Recovery
100.00
50.82
20.30
.00
24.15
74.97
28.87
8.39
25.38
2.40
5.99
18.48
14.66
14.66
15.94
3.84
7.76
10.72
21.94
4.90
11.91

Adjusted
1.00
7.53
5.58
2.70
5.50
6.68
.54
1.41
.54
1.61
1.26
.49
1.07
1.07
1.40
4.94
1.00
.41
1.38
3.11
.76

Weight
2000.00
90.70
57.43
.01
65.38
156.08
1851.87
152.93
1746.51
64.97
87.96
1638.99
327.31
327.32
434.50
7.96
219.79
1419.19
522.45
47.57
359.76

Wt Pet
100.00
4.54
2.87
.00
3.27
7.80
92.59
7.65
87.33
3.25
4.40
81.95
16.37
16.37
21.72
.40
10.99
70.96
26.12
2.38
17.99

Wt Units
20.06
6.83
3.20
.00
3.60
10.43
10.02
2.15
9.35
1.05
1.11
8.06
3.49
3.49
6.09
.39
2.20
5.86
7.20
1.48
2.73

Recovery
100.00
34.06
15.97
.00
17.93
51.99
49.97
10.72
46.62
5.21
5.51
40.17
17.42
17.42
30.37
1.96
10.97
29.20
35.88
7.38
13.60

OZIT

Residual
-.04
-.03
.42
-.00
-.50
.06
.09
-.01
.03
.00
.02
.01
-.07
.13
-.00
.06
-.00
-.07
.00
-.01
-.09

Std Error
-.14
-.11
1.40
-.00
-1.67
.19
.30
-.02
.12
.00
.08
.03
-.22
.44
-.01
.19
-.00
-.24
.01
-.03
-.29

CANADIAN

METALLURGICAL

QUARTERLY

OPERATIONS

Table V III. Matbal computer program printout - calculated material balances - pyrite and pyrrhotite
5
M
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21

Pyrite
Stream (M)
Mill Head
Prim Copper Conc
Sec Copper Cone
Clean Copper Tail
Clean Copper Cone
Final Copper Cone
Copper Cireuit Tail
Rough Zine Cone
Rough Zinc Tail
Clean Zine Cone
Clean Zine Tail
Pyrite Cireuit Tail
Pyrite Cireuit Cone
Retreat Copper Feed
Retreat Copper Tail
Retreat Copper Cone
Seav Gold Cone
Final Flot Tail
Retreat Zine Feed
Retreat Zine Cone
Retreat Zine Tail

PCT

6
M
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21

Pyrrhotite
Stream (M)
Mill Head
Prim Copper Cone
See Copper Cone
Clean Copper Tail
Clean Copper Cone
Final Copper Cone
Copper Cireuit Tail
Rough Zinc Cone
Rough Zine Tail
Clean Zine Cone
Clean Zine Tail
Pyrite Circuit Tail
Pyrite Cireuit Cone
Retreat Copper Feed
Retreat Copper Tail
Retreat Copper Cone
Seav Gold Cone
Final Flot Tail
Retreat Zinc Feed
Retreat Zine Cone
Retreat Zine Tail

PCT

Volume

11 Number 2 (1972)

Original
22.00
-0.00
-0.00
-0.00
-0.00
14.00
-0.00
-0.00
22.00
1.50
-0.00
6.00
85.00
-0.00
-0.00
-0.00
27.00
4.90
-0.00
-0.00
81.00

Residual
2.23:
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
-.~7
0.00
0.00
1048
-.07
0.00
-2.42
-.28
0.00
0.00
0.00
.32
-.69
0.00
0.00
-.40

Std Error
1.12
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
-.09
0.00
0.00
.74
-.04
0.00
-1.21
-.14
0.00
0.00
0.00
.16
-.35
0.00
0.00
-.20

Adjusted
19.77
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
14.17
0.00
0.00
20.52
1.57
0.00
8.42
85.28
0.00
0.00
0.00
26.68
5.59
0.00
0.00
81040

Weight
2000.00
90.70
57.43
.01
65.38
156.08
1851.87
152.93
1746.51
64.97
87.96
1638.99
327.31
327.32
434.50
7.96
219.79
1419.19
522.45
47.57
359.76

WtPct
100.00
4.54
2.87
.00
3.27
7.80
92.59
7.65
87.33
3.25
4.40
81.95
16.37
16.37
21. 72
.40
10.99
70.96
26.12
2.38
17.99

Wt Units
395.33
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
22.12
0.00
0.00
358.46
1.02
0.00
137.97
279.12
0.00
0.00
0.00
58.63
79.34
0.00
0.00
292.85

Recovery
100.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
5.60
0.00
0.00
90.67
.26
0.00
34.90
70.60
0.00
0.00
0.00
14.83
20.07
0.00
0.00
74.08

Original
32.00
-0.00
-0.00
-0.00
-0.00
15.00
-0.00
-0.00
36.50
11.50
-0.00
39.00
12.50
-0.00
-0.00
-0.00
60.00
40.50
-0.00
-0.00
15.00

Residual
-.18
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
.01
0.00
0.00
2.08
.01
0.00
-3.09
-.39
0.00
0.00
0.00
Al
1.12
0.00
0.00
.03

Std Error
-.09
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
.01
0.00
0.00
1.04
.00
0.00
-1.55
-.19
0.00
0.00
0.00
.21
.56
0.00
0.00
.02

Adjusted
32.18
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
14.99
0.00
0.00
34042
11049
0.00
42.09
12.89
0.00
0.00
0.00
59.59
39.38
0.00
0.00
14.97

Weight
2000.00
90.70
57.43
.01
65.38
156.08
1851.87
152.93
1746.51
64.97
87.96
1638.99
327.31
327.32
434.50
7.96
219.79
1419.19
522.45
47.57
359.76

Wt Pet
100.00
4.54
2.87
.00
3.27
7.80
92.59
7.65
87.33
3.25
4.40
81.95
16.37
16.37
21. 72
AD
10.99
70.96
26.12
2.38
17.99

Wt Units
643.64
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
23.39
0.00
0.00
601.12
7.47
0.00
689.90
42.19
0.00
0.00
0.00
130.96
558.93
0.00
0.00
53.85

Recovery
100.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
3.63
0.00
0.00
93.39
1.16
0.00
107.19
6.55
0.00
0.00
0.00
20.35
86.84
0.00
0.00
8.37

423

Table IX. Matbal computer printout - calculated material balances - insoluble statistical analysis of data adjustments

7
M
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21

Insoluble
Stream (M)
Mill Head
Prim Copper Cone
Sec Copper Cone
Clean Copper Tail
Clean Copper Cone
Final Copper Cone
Copper Circuit Tail
Rough Zinc Cone
Rough Zinc Tail
Clean Zinc Cone
Clean Zinc Tail
Pyrite Circuit Tail
Pyrite Circuit Cone
Retreat Copper Feed
Retreat Copper Tail
Retreat Copper Cone
Seav Gold Cone
Final Flot Tail
Retreat Zinc Feed
Retreat Zinc Cone
Retreat Zinc Tail

PCT
Original
28.00
-0.00
-0.00
-0.00
-0.00
3.50
-0.00
-0.00
26.00
.65
-0.00
29.00
.60
-0.00
-0.00
-0.00
4.00
34.50
-0.00
-0.00
1.75

Residual
3.01
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
-.24
0.00
0.00
-1.83
-.10
0.00
-1.12
.34
0.00
0.00
0.00
.15'
.31
0.00
0.00
-.54

Std Error
3.01
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
-.24
0.00
0.00
-1.83
-.10
0.00
-1.12
.34
0.00
0.00
0.00
.15
.31
0.00
0.00
-.54

Adjusted
24.99
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
3.74
0.00
0.00
27.83
.75
0.00
30.12
.26
0.00
0.00
0.00
3.85
34.19
0.00
0.00
2.29

Weight
2000.00
90.70
57.43
.01
65.38
156.08
1851.87
152.93
1746.51
64.97
87.96
1638.99
327.31
327.32
434.50
7.96
219.79
1419.19
522.45
47.57
359.76

Wt Pet
100.00
4.54
2.87
.00
3.27
7.80
92.59
7.65
87.33
3.25
4.40
81.95
16.37
16.37
21.72
.40
10.99
70.96
26.12
2.38
17.99

Wt Units
499.72
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
5.83
0.00
0.00
486.01
.49
0.00
493.63
.84
0.00
0.00
0.00
8.46
485.16
0.00
0.00
8.25

Recovery
100.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
1.17
0.00
0.00
97.25
.10
0.00
98.78
.17
0.00
0.00
0.00
1.69
97.09
0.00
0.00
1.65

Analysis of Adjustments
Sum of Squares of Adjustments in Measured Weights
.000
Sum
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21

of Squares of Adjustments over all Analyses

Mill Head
10.619
Prim Copper Cone
2.874
Sec Copper Cone
35.947
Cle~ Copper Tail
.000
Clean Copper Cone
33.066
Final Copper Cone
8.380
Copper Circuit Tail
.127
Rough Zinc Cone
1.853
Rough Zinc Tail
5.026
Clean Zinc Cone
.341
Clean Zinc Tail
1.599
Pyrite Circuit Tail
5.416
Pyrite Circuit Cone
.925
Retreat Copper Feed
7.535
Retreat Copper Tail
.045
Retreat Copper Cone
.656
Seav Gold Cone
.097
Final Flot Tail
.810
Retreat Zinc Feed
.066
Retreat Zinc Cone
.138
Retreat Zinc Tail
8.185

Sum of Squares of Adjustments over all

1
Copper
PCT
2
Zinc
PCT
3
Gold
OZIT
4
Silver
OZIT
5
Pyrite
PCT
6
Pyrrhotite
PeT
7
Insoluble
PCT

Streams
17.390
7.379
71.951
5.375

3.467
3.876
14.268

Overall Sum of Squares of Adjustments

123.706

424

CANADIAN

METALLURGICAL

QUARTERLY