See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/303700654

Geometallurgy - beyond conception

Conference Paper · June 2016

CITATION READS

1 1,106

2 authors:

Simon Dominy Louisa O'Connor

Curtin University AXT
87 PUBLICATIONS   511 CITATIONS    13 PUBLICATIONS   55 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Mine value chain sampling optimisation View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Simon Dominy on 05 July 2016.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Geometallurgy - Beyond Conception
S C Dominy1,2,3 and L O’Connor4
1.
FAusIMM(CP), Adjunct Professor, Department of Mining and Metallurgical
Engineering, Western Australian School of Mines, Curtin University, GPO Box
U1987, WA 6845, Australia. Email s.dominy@e3geomet.com
2.
Visiting Associate Professor, Camborne School of Mines, University of Exeter,
Penryn, Cornwall TR10 9FE, UK.
3.
Group Executive – Projects and Development, Exchange Minerals Ltd, 44
Esplanade, St Helier, Jersey JE4 9WG.
4.
MAusIMM, Senior Lecturer, Department of Mining and Metallurgical Engineering,
Western Australian School of Mines, Curtin University, GPO Box U1987, WA
6845, Australia. Email louisa.oconnor@curtin.edu.au

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:

 declining ore grades

 geometrically and/or internally more complex deposits
 deep seated deposits, with potentially high in-situ stress regimes
 increasing quantities of mine waste that needs to be managed appropriately
 higher energy, water, and chemical costs
 processing of more challenging and refractory ores – textural complexities
 stricter environmental/permitting conditions – so-called “licence to mine”.
 increasing demand for specialist metals (e.g. rare earth elements, In, Ge, Te,
Rh, Se, Ga and Li)
 commodity market volatility
 difficult funding environment

Given these challenges, geometallurgy provides the opportunity to control or at least

manage some of them.

METALLURGICAL VS GEOMETALLURGICAL APPROACH

Metallurgical approach
The traditional ‘metallurgical’ approach to plant design involves the testing of a
number composite samples that are reported to be representative of the ore body.
Testwork is carried out to determine factors such as grindability, floatability, leach
recovery and/or other parameters. The testwork is often assumed to be appropriate
and precise. Subsequently, a process plant is constructed and commissioned and at
some point, often within the first year of operation, found to be not performing to
design (Williams, 2013). The common reason for this relates to insufficient and
unrepresentative samples and potentially inappropriate testwork. The traditional
approach generally fails to represent the orebody and likely variability within (Guresin
et al., 2012; Kittler et al., 2011).

Classical geometallurgical approach

‘Classical’ geometallurgy is the collaboration between geology (mineralogy) and
metallurgy, with one discipline supplying the other with information and vice versa for
a better understanding of the deposit and ore character (Williams, 2013). In essence
pushing more mineralogical knowledge into the plant design and/or process
operation. However, little or any quantitative spatial models result from this work and
plant design is based on so-called ‘average’ ore – which in reality does not exist.

Modern geometallurgical approach

Modern geometallurgy seeks to integrate geoscientific disciplines with minerals and
mining engineering. It aims to understand grade, metallurgical and mining (rock
mass) variability based on information such as geochemistry, mineralogy, grade and
lithology obtained from spatially distributed samples or sample points (Ashley and
Callow, 2000). Multiple spatially distributed small-scale tests are used as proxies for
grade, mineralogy, process parameter and rock mass variability (Keeney and
Nguyen, 2014; Kojovic, Michaux and Walters, 2010; Mwanga, Rosenkranz and
Lamberg, 2015; Vos, Stange and Bradshaw, 2014; Walters, 2009).

A key output of geometallurgy is the definition of geometallurgical domains. Mineral

deposits are typically multivariate systems with many factors contributing to their
overall complexity. A deposit can cut across several lithological units and have
differing mineralisation and alteration styles, which will affect metallurgical response.
Using lithological boundaries to control the distribution of metallurgical indices and
testwork without effective evaluation may prove erroneous. Early stage
geometallurgical domains are more likely to correlate with lithology and/or
mineralisation/alteration style (Figure 1). Comminution and recovery domains may
well be different. Geometallurgical domains are qualitative attributes amenable to
spatial block modelling.

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.

Data management is a significant consideration for any organisation embarking on a

geometallurgical programme (Liebezeit et al., 2011). While geologists are
experienced at dealing with thousands of samples and their associated assays,
metallurgists have traditionally carried out relatively few tests and consequently often
manage data in spreadsheets. Geometallurgy possesses with significant challenges
as a result of the large volume of data generated. Considerations for any
geometallurgical data management system include storage space, data integrity,
accessibility, sample provenance, maintenance and ease of use, integration with
data providers and the ability to modify the system to adapt to changing requirements
(Liebezeit et al., 2011).

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:

 identify the variables required to understand critical process responses

 sample and measure these variables
 develop techniques to estimate and simulate these characteristics spatially at
the correct scale and incorporate the values into block models.

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 is critical to ensure that the entire geometallurgical process, inclusive of data

collection and testwork, data storage and interpretation, modelling and analyses are
of the highest quality to ensure that any Mineral Resource and Ore Reserve
estimates and subsequent economic studies can be reported in accordance with the
JORC Code 2012 (Keeney, 2013; David, 2014).

Stages and strategies for geometallurgy

The geometallurgical approach emphasises early stage intervention and progression
across the mine value chain (Baumgartner et al., 2011, 2013; Bye, 2011; Dunham
and Vann, 2007; Ehrig, 2013; King and Macdonald, 2016; Leichliter and Larson,
2013; Leichliter, Jahoda and Montoya, 2013; Table 1).

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.

Table 1 – Generalised mine value chain showing broad geometallurgical

activities, inputs and outputs
Stage Project geometallurgy Operational
geometallurgy
Exploration-early Definition drilling Detailed drilling Feasibility Mining
evaluation
Study Scoping Pre-Feasibility Feeds into Feasibility [Grade/ore control]
Feasibility [Expansion studies]
Resources/ Inferred Mineral Inferred and See Feasibility Mineral Resources Mineral Resources
reserves Resources Indicated Mineral and Ore Reserves and Ore Reserves
Resources
Key geomet. Develop orebody Develop orebody Develop orebody Develop orebody Develop orebody
activity knowledge knowledge knowledge knowledge knowledge
Data analysis and Data analysis and Data analysis and Data analysis and
modelling modelling modelling modelling
Geomet. Core logging Core logging Core logging Core logging Core logging
inputs Develop proxy tests Proxy tests Proxy tests Proxy tests Proxy tests
Mineralogy Mineralogy Mineralogy Mineralogy Mineralogy
Geochemistry Geochemistry Geochemistry Geochemistry Geochemistry
Met. Testing Met. testing Met. Testing, incl. Met. Testing, incl. Met. Testing
Physical testing Physical testing pilot testing pilot testing Physical testing
Physical testing Physical testing
Geomet. Establish database Expanded database Expanded database Expanded database Expanded database
outputs Geological model Geomet. domains Geomet. domains Geomet. domains
Prelim. geomet. Block model Block model Block model
domains Prelim. mine plan Mine plan Mine plan
Geomet. models Geomet. models Geomet. models
Prelim. flow sheet (incl. waste model) Forecasts
Flow sheet Reconciliation
Scenario analysis
Economic analysis
Collaboration is key
A key aspect of any effective geometallurgical programme are multi-disciplinary
teams, thus bringing together exploration and mining geologists, mining and
geotechnical engineers, metallurgists and mineral process engineers, and financial
modellers, economists and risk specialists (Williams, 2012). By drawing on different
disciplines and on specialists from other areas (for example, data mining and
computing specialists, mathematical modellers and risk specialists) geometallurgy
also sees industry practitioners, consultants, service providers and academics
working closely together.

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.

The major challenges and areas of development within geometallurgy are:

 gaining corporate support – projects may require separate financing

 geometallurgical teaching – integration across disciplines
 implementation of studies across a wide range of technical disciplines and
ensuring effective communication
 application across feasibility studies and mine operations
  representative sampling programmes and effective ore/waste characterisation
 ensuring fit-for-purpose data through proper procedures and quality
assurance/quality control programmes
 integration and interpretation of very large databases
 modelling/simulation of numerous different data types
 process and mine optimisation tools

GEOMETALLURGY AND NEW HORIZONS

Tailings storage facility ‘resources’
An emerging area for geometallurgy is the modelling of some of our most obvious
and dormant resources – tailings storage facilities (Hunt et al., 2016; Mudd and
Jowitt, 2016). The success of using geometallurgy to model tailings facilities has
been well noted. There is huge potential to apply geometallurgical theory and
methodologies to better understand the location and character of a wealth of saleable
metals and minerals.

Characterising tailings storage facilities will also introduce other operational

stakeholders into the project, such as geophysicists and geochemists. As tailings are
a near-future resource for many mining operations, the area should be investigated,
funded and researched now. Mineral processing technologies and deficiencies have
changed so much since many of the tailings facilities were constructed that there is
significant potential for mineable reserves.

Acid rock drainage prediction

Tailings are not the only interesting and obvious fit for geometallurgical practice.
Undertaking effective environmental ore characterisation at the pre-feasibility and
feasibility stages is essential for both efficient mine operations and reducing
environmental impacts post-closure. Environmental parameters requiring
characterisation include the propensity of a rock unit to generate acid, mapping
deleterious element deportment, and characterising the release of toxic dusts as a
result of blasting (Parbhakar-Fox and Lottermoser, 2015; Fox, Parbhakar-Fox and
Lottermoser, 2016).

Advanced 3D mineralogical characterisation

A wealth of information and data came into existence with the development of
automated mineralogy, which is a very successful and respected analytical tool used
today. There are specific occasions when ‘standard’ analytical tools do not provide
the next level of information critical to a programme.

It is known that optical microscopy, automated SEM-based microscopy (e.g. MLA,

QEMSCAN and TIMA), microprobes, laser ablation (LA-ICPMS) used in conjunction
with assay and geological logging data is a typical suite of tools, but recently the use
of high-resolution X-ray computed tomography (HRXCT) is being used in research to
investigate a range of ore types (Becker et al., 2016; Dominy et al., 2016).

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.

Automated core scanning

Much non-grade information derived from drill core is a function of visual inspection
as part of geological and geotechnical logging. Visual logging is generally highly
subjective, experience-based and often conducted by relatively junior personnel.
Automated core logging, across short wave length infrared reflectance, thermal
infrared reflectance and petrophysical technologies are playing an increased role in
characterisation across geological and engineering parameters (Harraden, Berry and
Lett, 2016; Walters, 2012; Vantandoost and Fullagar, 2009). For example, the
HyLoggerTM automated spectral analysis and imaging system collects systematic
short wave length infrared reflectance spectra (Huntington et al., 2006). These can
be classified into the dominant responsive mineral species and their compositional
variations (chlorites, white micas, clays, etc.). Distribution of ‘soft’ responsive phases
show relationships to comminution behaviour related to decrease of bulk strength
(Walters, 2012).

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:

 deposits are becoming lower grade, and geologically and/or metallurgically

more complex
 ore bodies are variable both in terms of grade and metallurgical response,
where this variability is a source of uncertainly that affects plant design, mine
design and capital investment decisions
 rightly or wrongly, throughputs are increasing and profit margins decreasing –
thus financial risk is also increasing
 mining project risk needs to be carefully managed for projects to attract
funding

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.

Ashley, K J and Callow, M I, 2000. Ore variability: exercises in geometallurgy, Eng

Min Journ, 201: 24-28.

Baumgartner, R, Dusci, M, Gressier, J, Trueman, A, Poos, S, Brittan, M and Mayata,

P, 2011. Building a geometallurgical model for early-stage project development – a
case study from the Canahuire epithermal Au-Cu-Ag deposit, Peru, in Proceedings
International Geometallurgy Conference, pp 53-59 (The Australasian Institute of
Mining and Metallurgy, Melbourne).

Baumgartner, R, Dusci, M, Trueman, A, Poos, S and Brittan, M, 2013. Building a

geometallurgical model for the Canahuire epithermal Au-Cu-Ag deposit, Peru – past,
present and future, in Proceedings International Geometallurgy Conference, pp 51-
57 (The Australasian Institute of Mining and Metallurgy, Melbourne).

Becker, M, Jardine, M A, Miller, J A and Harris, M, 2016. X-ray computed

tomography: a geometallurgical tool for 3D texural analysis of drill core, in
Proceedings International Geometallurgy Conference, pp 000-000 (The Australasian
Institute of Mining and Metallurgy: Melbourne).

Beniscelli, J, 2011. Geometallurgy – fifteen years of developments in Codelco: Pedro

Carrasco contributions, in Proceedings International Geometallurgy Conference, pp
3-7 (The Australasian Institute of Mining and Metallurgy: Melbourne).

Bye, A R, 2011. Case studies demonstrating value from geometallurgy initiatives, in

Proceedings International Geometallurgy Conference, pp 9-30 (The Australasian
Institute of Mining and Metallurgy, Melbourne).

Carrasco, P, Chilès, J-P and Seguret, S, 2008. Additivity, metallurgical recovery and
grade, in Proceedings International Geostatistics Congress, pp 237-246 (Gecamin:
Santiago).

Coward, S, Vann, J, Dunham, S and Stewart, M, 2009. The primary-response

framework for geometallurgical variables, in Proceedings International Mining
Geology Conference, pp 109-113 (The Australasian Institute of Mining and
Metallurgy: Melbourne).

Coward, S and Dowd, P A, 2015. Geometallurgical models for the quantification of

uncertainty in mining project value chains, in Proceedings of the 37th APCOM
Conference, pp 360-369 (SME: Littleton).

David, D, 2010. Operational geometallurgy, in Flotation Plant Optimisation – A

Metallurgical Guide to Identifying and Solving Problems in Flotation Plants, Spectrum
Series #16, pp 210-209 (The Australasian Institute of Mining and Metallurgy,
Melbourne).

David D, 2014. Geometallurgical guidelines for miners, geologists and process

engineer – discovery to design, in Mineral Resource and Ore Reserve Estimation
Guide to Good Practice, pp 443-450 (The Australasian Institute of Mining and
Metallurgy, Melbourne).

Deutsch, C V, 2013. Geostatistical modelling of geometallurgical variables –

problems and solutions, in Proceedings International Geometallurgy Conference, pp
7-15 (The Australasian Institute of Mining and Metallurgy, Melbourne).

Deutsch, J L, Palmer, K, Deutsch, C V, Szymanski, J and Etsell, T H, 2016. Spatial

modelling of geometallurgical properties: techniques and a case study, Nat Res
Research, 25: 161-181.

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).

Dominy, S C, Platten, I M, Y, Xie, Cuffley, B W and O’Connor, L, 2016.

Characterisation of gold ore from the Nick O’Time shoot (Tarnagulla, Australia) using
high resolution X-ray computed tomography, 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).

Evans, C L, Wightman, E M and Yuan, X, 2015. Quantifying mineral grain size

distributions for process modelling using X-ray micro-tomography, Mins Eng, 82: 78-
83.

Fox, N, Parbhakar-Fox, A and Lottermoser, B G, 2016. Geometallurgical evaluations

of mine waste – an example from the old tailings dam, Savage River, Tasmania, in
Proceedings International Geometallurgy Conference, pp 000-000 (The Australasian
Institute of Mining and Metallurgy: Melbourne).
Giudiceandrea, F, Ursella, E and Vicario, E, 2012. From research to market: a high
speed CT scanner for the saw mill industry, in Proceedings Annual School in
Bioengineering, pp 159-169 (Patron Editore: Bologna).

Glass, H J, 2016. Geometallurgy: driving innovation in the mine value chain, in

Proceedings International Geometallurgy Conference, pp 000-000 (The Australasian
Institute of Mining and Metallurgy: Melbourne).

Guresin, N, Lorenzen, L, Dominy, S C, Muller, H, Cooper, A, 2012. Sampling and

testwork protocols for process plant design, in Proceedings Sampling Conference, pp
95-107 (The Australasian Institute of Mining and Metallurgy: Melbourne).

Harbort, G J, Lam, K and Sola, C, 2013. The use of geometallurgy to estimate

comminution parameters within porphyry copper deposits, in Proceedings
International Geometallurgy Conference, pp 217-230 (The Australasian Institute of
Mining and Metallurgy: Melbourne).

Harraden, C L, Berry, R and Lett, J, 2016. Proposed methodology for utilising

automated core logging technology to extract geotechnical index parameters, in
Proceedings International Geometallurgy Conference, pp 000-000 (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).

Hunt, J, Lottermoser, B G, Parbhakar-Fox, A, Van-Veen, E and Goemann, K, 2016.

Precious metals in gossanous waste rocks from the Iberian Pyrite Belt, Mins Eng, 87:
45-53.

Huntington, J, Quigley, M, Yang, K, Roache, T, Young, C, Roberts, I, Whitbourn, I L

and Mason, P, 2006. A geological overview of HyLogging 18 000 m of core from the
Eastern Goldfields of Western Australia, in Proceedings International Mining Geology
Conference, pp 45-50 (The Australasian Institute of Mining and Metallurgy:
Melbourne).

JORC, 2012. Australasian Code for Reporting of Exploration Results, Mineral

Resources and Ore Reserves, The JORC Code. Joint Ore Reserves Committee of
the Australasian Institute of Mining and Metallurgy, Australian Institute of
Geoscientists and Minerals Council of Australia, December 2012.

Keeney, L, 2013. A geometallurgical methodology suitable for resource definition,

SEG Newsletter, 94: 18-19.

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).

King, G S and Macdonald, J L, 2016. The business case for early-stage

implementation of geometallurgy - an example from the Productora Cu-Au-Mo
deposit, Chile, in Proceedings International Geometallurgy Conference, pp 000-000
(The Australasian Institute of Mining and Metallurgy: Melbourne).
Kittler, P, Liebezeit, V, Ehrig, K, Macmillan, E and Lower, C, 2011. “It seemed like a
good idea at the time…” – common mistakes in geometallurgy, in Proceedings
International Geometallurgy Conference, pp 133-138 (The Australasian Institute of
Mining and Metallurgy: Melbourne).

Kojovic, T, Michaux, S and Walters, S, 2010. Developments of new comminution

testing methodologies for geometallurgical mapping of ore hardness and throughput,
in Proceedings International Mineral Processing Congress, pp 891-899 (The
Australasian Institute of Mining and Metallurgy: Melbourne).

Leichliter, S, Jahoda, R and Montoya, P, 2013. Using geometallurgical models to aid

in metallurgical testwork for pre-feasibility projects, La Colosa, Colombia, in SME
Annual Meeting 2013, Preprint 13-066, 4 pp (SME: Littleton).

Leichliter, S and Larson, D, 2013. Geometallurgy for two recovery process operations
at Cripple Creek and Victor gold mine, Mining Eng, 65: 29-33.

Liebezeit, V, Smith, M, Ehrig, K, Kittler, P, MacMillan, E and Lower, C. 2011.

Geometallurgy data management – a significant consideration, in Proceedings
International Geometallurgy Conference, pp 237-245 (The Australasian Institute of
Mining and Metallurgy: Melbourne).

Liebezeit, V, Ehrig, K, Robertson, A, Grant, D, Smith, M and Bruyn, H. 2016.

Embedding geometallurgy into mine planning practices - practical examples at
Olympic Dam, in Proceedings International Geometallurgy Conference, pp 000-000
(The Australasian Institute of Mining and Metallurgy: Melbourne).

McGrath, T D H, O’Connor, L and Eksteen, J J, 2015. A comparison of 2D and 3D

shape characteristics of free gold particles in gravity and flash flotation concentrates,
Mins Eng, 82: 45-53.

McKay, N, Vann, J, Ware, W, Morley, C and Phodkiewicz, P, 2016. Strategic versus

tactical geometallurgy - a systematic process to add and sustain resource value, in
Proceedings International Geometallurgy Conference, pp 000-000 (The Australasian
Institute of Mining and Metallurgy: Melbourne).

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).

Mwanga, A, Rosenkranz, J and Lamberg, P, 2015. Testing of ore comminution

behaviour in the geometallurgical context – a review, Minerals, 5: 276-297.

Olson-Hoal, K, Woodhead, J and Smith, K S, 2013. The importance of mineralogical

input into geometallurgy programmes, in Proceedings International Geometallurgy
Conference, pp 17-25 (The Australasian Institute of Mining and Metallurgy:
Melbourne).

Parbhakar-Fox, A and Lottermoser, B G, 2015. A critical review of acid rock drainage

prediction methods and practices, Mins Eng, 82: 107-124.
 Powell, M, S, 2013. Utilising orebody knowledge to improve comminution circuit
design and energy utilisation, in Proceedings International Geometallurgy
Conference, pp 27-35 (The Australasian Institute of Mining and Metallurgy:
Melbourne).

Vann, J, Jackson, S, Bye, A, Coward, S, Moayer, S, Nicholas, G and Wolff, R, 2012.

Scenario thinking – a powerful tool for strategic planning and evaluation of mining
projects and operations, in Proceedings Project Evaluation Conference, pp 5-14 (The
Australasian Institute of Mining and Metallurgy: Melbourne).

Vantandoost, A and Fullagar, P, 2009. Characterisation of ore crushability using

petrophysical properties, in Proceedings International Mining Geology Conference,
pp 119-124 (The Australasian Institute of Mining and Metallurgy: Melbourne).

Vos, C F, Stange, W and Bradshaw, D J, 2014. A new small-scale test to determine

flotation performance – Part 1: Overall performance, Mins Eng, 66: 62-67.

Walters, S, 2009. New research initiatives in geometallurgical integration – moving

towards a common operating language, in Proceedings International Mining Geology
Conference, pp 19-22 (The Australasian Institute of Mining and Metallurgy:
Melbourne).

Walters, S, 2012. A review of core scanning sensor technologies to support routine

geometallurgical logging and spatial characterisation, in Proceedings International
Seminar on Geometallurgy, pp 102-103 (Gecamin: Santiago).

Williams, S R, 2012. Geometallurgy – the journey, SEG Newsletter, 90: 22-23.

Williams, S R, 2013. A historical perspective of the application and success of

geometallurgical methodologies, in Proceedings International Geometallurgy
Conference, pp 37-47 (The Australasian Institute of Mining and Metallurgy:
Melbourne).

View publication stats