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

net/publication/289424492

Geometallurgy - Tricks, Traps and Treasures

Conference Paper · October 2012

CITATIONS READS

5 932

2 authors, including:

Gregory Harbort
Geometallurgical Engineering Consultants (Geometecon)
50 PUBLICATIONS   222 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

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

Flotation Trends View project

Geometallurgy View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Gregory Harbort on 10 January 2016.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Geometallurgy – Tricks, traps and treasures

Christine Sola – AMEC Mining and Metals

Greg Harbort – AMEC Mining and Metals

ABSTRACT

The rapid development of geometallurgy in the mining industry has occured in relatively recent times. Its importance
as an independent discipline in the mineral processing world has been emphasized and recognized. To a large
degree, this is the result of a growing understanding of the ore type being processed and their application to provide
better metallurgical responses in different mineral processing techniques. The development has matured from early
progress through to geological knowledge and into the realm of the metallurgist and mining engineer. Working
together, they have discovered body of mineralization can be expressed in economic terms therefore establishing a
framework on how to utilize them.

The integration of geometallurgy and operations has become of more importance now that it is known that an orebody
is a natural system formed by a number of processes and with a definite fabric of mineralization within different
geological domain that has to be taken into account in creating techniques that will enable operations to extract the
valuable components from a distinct type of ore. Incorporation of such knowledge at an early stage of development,
such as the feasibility stage significantly reduces the project risk

This paper is written from the unique perspective of a process engineer embedded within a geological team. It
discusses issues such cross discipline communications and misconceptions and details the numerous tricks, traps
and treasures of geometallurgy encountered during defining of the Seminco and Taysan resources..

INTRODUCTION

As mining companies search for new prospects to develop into new mining operations, the methodology and practice
of geometallurgy have been incorporated in the development of the project from conceptual study through
commissioning, start-up, operation, and rehabilitation. It becomes a powerful tool that allows risk assessment and
highlighst improvement opportunities through proactive short-term forecasting irrespective of size or commodity and
type of mining operations. Its application circumvents inaccurate economic evaluation for a mining project due to poor
process design and mine operation planning.

Several publications have been written emphasizing the importance of geometallurgy in all phases of mining projects.
As stated in the foreword of The First AusIMM International Geometallurgy Conference 2011 proceedings,
geometallurgy aims to add value to mine planning/optimisation for new and existing mining operations through a
robust approach that produces block models that display the distribution of key metallurgical parameters through the
orebody supporting metallurgical process modelling. Dean David (2010) mentioned in his paper that the orebody is the
only asset that mine has at its disposal to generate revenue. The risk associated with mining are varied and complex,
where the dominant source of risk is the orebody itself (Snowden et al., 2002).

The concept of ―orebody knowledge‖ supplemented with well-developed planning, execution, and management is the
key to avoid the common mistakes in the past and predicting what lies in the future. It reduces the errors and
uncertainty in designing a suitable processing plant, and stresses the importance of getting it right from the start of the
mining project. The awareness that ore bodies are not homogeneous and the depletion of the favourably located and
higher-grade, less complex mineral deposits, combined with fluctuating metal prices and increasing capital costs has
stimulated the communication of three different disciplines into one, thus the development of geometallurgy. Mark
Noppe (2004) quoted a comment in his paper on data reconciliation, from Harry and Schroeder, 2000 concerning
business and operational control, which can also be applied to process design and describe the fundamental aspect of
geometallurgy:

“You don’t know what you don’t know

You don’t measure what you don’t value
You can’t value what you don’t measure
If you can’t measure it you can’t control it
If you can’t control it you can’t improve it.”
1
These comments stress the importance of knowing and understanding the nature of the ore body and quantifying and
controlling the ore that is going to be processed. This can only be achieved through the following geometallurgical
approach:

 resource profiling, ore characterization, and sample selection based on the available geological data;
 bench marking against industry experience with similar ore deposits;
 systematic planning and execution of a phased approach metallurgical testwork program with increasing
levels of detail;
 resource profiling and ore characterization based on identified metallurgical drivers, thus capturing the
metallurgical variability of an ore deposit;
 converting geological domains into geometallurgical domains through proven linkage between the
geological/mineralogical properties and metallurgical drivers, thus allowing development of a geometallurgical
model;
 incorporation of the geometallurgical model with the mine plan to extract the maximum economic value from
the resource;
 and, selecting the optimum processing parameters and process route that can be adopted throughout the life
of the mine.

This methodology uses the combined technical expertise of geologists, process engineers, and mining engineers to
measure, control, and improve a mining project through efficient evaluation of an orebody.Geometallurgy, like any
other study, revolves around problem identification, analysis, and selection among different options that will give the
best answer to the problem at hand. With its broad nature as a result of the union of technical knowledge and skill sets
and consolidation and reconciliation of data gathered from three distinct disciplines, it is easy to get lost and commit a
crucial mistake that will impact the direction of any project. Improper use of the available data by misconstrued linkage
between the nature of the ore and its metallurgical response can lead to unquantifiable uncertainty and risks. The
geometallurgical approach should be kept simple and systematic. This paper presents the tricks on how to do this, the
traps brought about by the complexity of data reconciliation and integration, and the treasures that makes the
development of a geometallurgical model a valuable exercise to each phase of mining project.

2
Figure 1: Development of Geometallurgical Model

ENGINEERING DESIGN AND SUBSIDENCE

PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION PREDICTION AND
FORMULATION OF
MULTIPLE OPTIONS

RISK ASSESSMENT
AND ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACT
S
U
S B
U S
PROJECT ECONOMICS
– OPERATIONALB CUT-
I
S OFF GRADES
S D
U I E
B D N
S E C
UPDATE/REVIEW
I NMINE
E
D PLAN C P
E E R
N P E
C R D
E
UPDATE/REVIEW E I
P
RESOURCE MODELD C
R I T
E C I
ORE CHARACTERIZATION D T O
I I N
GEOMETALLURGICAL
C O A
1. Geological Data MODEL
T N N
 Lithology I A D
 Alteration O N F
 Mineralization N D O
A
 Degree of Oxidation METALLURGICAL F R
N
 Elemental Assay TESTWORK PROGRAM O M
D R U
2. Geotechnical Data RESULTS
F M L
 RQD O U A
 Core Recovery R L T
 Fracture per Meter TESTWORK SAMPLE
M A I
3. Drill Hole Survey Data SELECTIONU T O
L I N
 Collar A O O
 Azimuth T N F
 Dip I O M
METALLURGICAL
4. Mineralogical Data TESTWORK PROGRAM
O F U
 Mineral Distribution DEFINITION
N M L
 Grain Size O U T
F L I
5. Laboratory Sample Prep
M T P
QAQC GEOMETALLURGICALU I L
 Crushing Size SPREADSHEET – OREL P E
Analysis CHARACTERIZATION T L O
I E P
P O T
L P I
E T O
O I N
P O S
T N
I S
O
N
S

3
The reliable geometallurgical model is critical to confidence in a feasibility study through operation to the rehabilitation
period with respect to the life of the mine. There is thus a requirement for high-quality data generation, integration, and
interpretation. Any mining company expecting a sound decision for a particular stage of a study must base this on
both relevant and reliable information. This section presents a review of the data sets required and its relevance to
sample selection for a particular metallurgical test work program.

Development of a geometallurgical spreadsheet is an integral part of geometallurgical modelling. The compilation of

several complex data sets with an emphasis on the detailed correlation of multiple geological and geochemical data
sets serves as the backbone of a reliable geometallurgical model. This will lead to the identification of the critical
metallurgical drivers. The more specific geometallurgical model can only be defined based on the available
systematically recorded data from the geologist and mining engineers and methodically planned testwork program,
through thorough sample selection by the metallurgical engineers.

The development of geometallurgical spreadsheet underlies the generation of the geological and geochemical data.
The availability and quality of data during generation and integration is critical to the metallurgical engineers
undertaking these exercises during sample selection and test work program planning. In general, different data will be
used for specific test work programs. Certain errors generated during sample selection for metallurgical testwork will
give significant problems when it comes to reconciling the reserve with mine production and plant operation.

An effective geometallurgical model must integrate a number of different facets, including:

 Geological data
 Geotechnical data
 Geochemical data
 Mineralogical data

The geometallurgical model depends on the integration of the metallurgical testwork results with the mineral deposits:

 Metallurgical testwork results

 Mineral resource and ore reserve estimation
 Practical mine planning and scheduling constraints
 Project economics and the estimation of operational cut-off grades
 Risk assessment and environmental impacts.

Generation of Important Geological Information and Integration to Metallurgical Testwork Program

It is impossible to achieve a conclusive metallurgical result without understanding the ore being evaluated. Generally,
ore deposits are very complex geologically and exhibit great variability in both their grindability (and hardness) and
their metallurgical performance. This complex and variable nature of the lithology / alteration and mineralisation of a
particular deposits leads to variable metallurgical responses. For the development of a strong and robust
geometallurgical model, it is critical to understand the characteristics of the ore and study the variability in the deposit.

Step 1 Resource/Ore Body Profiling.

Resource or orebody profiling is one of the basics of geometallurgy and is the first step of ore characterization. It is
―knowing what you don‘t know‖. It gives a quick overview of the nature of feed that is going to be processed. The
profiling techniques involve a quick representation of the major rock type without complex intrusions. It is the
identification of zones which are likely to be mined and location of drill holes where samples are likely to be drawn.

The type and characteristic of the ore will ultimately dictate the processing route and parameters, and the detail of
sampling and testwork required. A less-complex ore may require only a small amount of sampling and testwork but a
complex ore such as a base metals sulphide deposit will dictate a more detailed sampling and testwork program due
to the increased technical complexity and risk associated with the plant design.

4
Figure 2: Tabulated data showing the major distribution of the different rock types/codes and metal content (adapted
from NI 43-101 Technical Report, Norra Karr REE – Zirconium Deposit, Sweden, Tasman Metals Limited, 2011).

Table 1. Tabulated results of overall Lithology and Alteration Distribution using Pivot Table.

Alteration
Lithology
AL CA CH CL GR KF RF SC SI SS WF WX % Cu
BRX 3.02 1.32 0.61 30.47 0.41 4.54 32.18 0.00 21.85 0.27 5.32 0.49
BSH 0.41 3.19 0.18 11.35 18.07 1.36 7.79 0.00 9.20 1.31 0.78 0.31 0.37
CGL 0.14 0.97
CLY 1.44 0.20
CSL 0.34 0.68 0.24 2.99 4.66 0.52
FLT 0.34 0.00 3.15 5.04 1.07 2.46 0.87 0.71 0.68 0.27 0.36
GRA 0.47 1.19 2.44 0.16 0.27 0.14 0.27 0.09
INT 0.14 0.03
MSD 0.00 2.80 0.61 7.50 0.81 1.76 0.13
PHY 1.49 5.57 17.32 0.54 9.59 51.06 14.35 6.32 0.94 4.31 0.24
RDR 2.59 2.32 13.02 0.54 12.47 3.96 2.82 0.19 1.07 0.20
SCH 0.14 0.16
SHA 3.80 1.22 3.65 0.15
SHR 0.56 0.50
SLT 1.40 2.58 0.20 0.14 2.09 0.27 0.29 0.88
SQT 0.09 0.58 7.62 0.09 0.05 0.11
VEN 0.14 0.51 0.20
WTH 0.62 0.04
%Cu 0.27 0.38 0.37 0.48 0.27 0.37 0.23 0.16 0.32 0.38 0.13 0.28

5
Figure 3 Spatial Distribution of All Lithologies using Vortex 2 Software– Front Elevation Looking North

Legend Key residual soil / colluvian [0], saprolite [100], saprolite rock [200], tonalite [300], Aplite [400], dioritic / andesitic dike [500], vein material
[600] and fault gouge [700

Step 2 Consolidation of data according to primary mineral grade and its distribution in the ore body.

It is important to conduct a preliminary assessment of the grade of the primary metal of interest. Ore characterization
starts with identification of waste-low grade / high grade material. The concentration and occurrence of intrinsic
economic interest in a deposit in such quantity determine that there are reasonable prospects for eventual economic
extraction. The location, quantity and grade should be known and classified accordingly in the ore body. This
preliminary grade assessment is designed to provide an initial focus for metallurgical testwork program planning and
enables the consideration of different process options at an early stage.

Table 2. Tabulated results of overall Lithology according to primary mineral grade.

Lithology Length in Core Selection Gold

Lithology
Ave Cont. Total Distribution Grade Distribution
Code Description (m) (m) (%) (ppb) (%)
0 Residual Soil / Colluvial Deposit 0.00 0 0.0% 0 0.0%
1 Saprolite 0.00 0 0.0% 0 0.0%
2 Saprolite rock 0.00 0 0.0% 0 0.0%
3 Tonalite 86.88 3408 98.8% 410 99.2%
4 Aplite 0.92 8 0.2% 649 0.4%
5 Dioritic / Andesitic dike 1.79 13 0.4% 84 0.1%
6 Vein Material 0.54 13 0.4% 354 0.3%
7 Fault Gouge 0.97 7 0.0% 347 0.0%

Step 3 Consolidation of data according to grade, lithology, alteration, and mineralization and its distribution
in the ore body.

6
Figure 4: Summary of spatial and temporal wall rock alteration patterns around porphyry copper-gold systems, also
showing key alteration minerals and distribution of major sulphides in the mineralized stockwork (adapted from Wilson
et al., 2003; Corbett, 2004).

A well known aspect of any ore deposit is the association of particular ore types with particular host assemblages.
This association broadly reflects the geological environment and enrichment of primary metal that have formed the
ore. From a geochemical point of view, ore deposits represent anomalous crustal accumulations of particular
elements. They typically show multi-element enrichments and depletions relative to their enclosing host rocks. The
non-ore element component of the primary ore expression can be more extensive and obvious than the dispersed ore
elements. It may be expressed by extensive fluid-related alteration of the host rocks including silicification, pyritization,
sericitization, chloritization, or carbonate alteration. Other primary geochemical features include spatial and temporal
zoning of contained elements and alteration types. The mineralogical changes associated with the formation or
emplacement of mineralization, such as those expressed by alteration haloes, are a significant component of the
primary dispersion pattern. A typical example for a porphyry deposit is shown in Figure 4.

This step involves correctly identifying primary lithology, alteration, and mineralization dispersion patterns around
major ore systems as distinct from around bodies of low-grade or non-economic mineralization which is critical in
sample selection for a particular processing route. The evaluation of geochemical, geological, and mineralogical
characteristics and balanced consideration of these aspects in selecting a representative sample will lead to a
successful metallurgical testwork program that will provide results for the identification of different metallurgical
drivers. This provides a method to infer production data on larger amounts of the ore body, from laboratory test
results.. With a rather simple test method drill core sample from different areas within the mine can be identified by the
degree of alteration of the rock types present. To predict when difficulties in the processing route can be expected
should therefore be possible by an ore mineralogical surveying of the ore body. An example of the consolidation of
data in this manner is shown in Table 3.

Table 3. Tabulated results of grade, lithology, alteration, and mineralization and its distribution in the ore body.

Depth Depth Au Dominant

Database Hole_ID Total Dominant Lithology Oxidation
from to ppm Alteration Minerals
Geo001 DD001 0 9.7 9.7 0.675 COL Colluvium OX Pervasive ka kaolinite
Geo001 DD001 13 18 6 0.930 VBX Volcanic Breccia OX Pervasive qz quartz
Geo001 DD001 36 37 18 0.756 SST Siltstone W Weathered il illite
Geo001 DD001 41 162 121 0.985 SST Siltstone FR Fresh di dickite
Geo001 DD001 162 213 51 0.696 SST Siltstone FR Fresh qz quartz
Geo001 DD001 214 219 5 1.064 SSS Sandstone FR Fresh qz quartz
Geo001 DD001 219 275 56 0.903 SST Siltstone FR Fresh il illite

7
 Geo001 DD001 276 346 70 0.607 SCO Conglomerate FR Fresh ch chlorite
Geo001 DD001 346 401.2 55.2 0.684 SCO Conglomerate FR Fresh ch chlorite
Geo001 DD005 0 15 15 0.101 S (undifferentiated) OX Pervasive il illite
Geo001 DD005 16 23 7 0.377 SCO Conglomerate OX Pervasive qz quartz
Geo001 DD005 25 31 6 0.718 HBX Hydrothermal Breccia OX Pervasive qz quartz
Geo001 DD005 33 47 14 0.479 MPE Metapelite OX Pervasive qz quartz
Geo001 DD005 48 58 10 0.199 HBX Hydrothermal Breccia OX Pervasive qz quartz
Geo001 DD005 59 70 11 0.199 MPS Metapsammite OX Pervasive qz quartz
Fracture-
Geo001 DD005 70 101 31 0.640 MPE Metapelite FOX al alunite
Control
Geo001 DD005 102 111 9 1.368 MPS Metapsammite POX Partial qz quartz
Geo001 DD005 112 118 6 0.578 MPS Metapsammite POX Partial il illite
Geo001 DD005 118 158 40 0.817 MPS Metapsammite FR Fresh il illite
Geo001 DD005 158 169 11 1.655 MPS Metapsammite FR Fresh qz quartz
Geo001 DD005 171 190 19 1.658 MCO Metaconglomerate FR Fresh il illite
Geo001 DD005 190 196 6 3.203 MCO Metaconglomerate FR Fresh qz quartz
Geo001 DD005 196 211 15 2.593 MCO Metaconglomerate FR Fresh qz quartz
Geo001 DD005 211 233 22 3.078 MCO Metaconglomerate FR Fresh di dickite

Step 4 Consolidation of data according to lithology and alteration and its corresponding geophysical
properties.

The ore and associated minerals in ore deposits comprise rocks that may be significantly different in their physical
properties from the enclosing host rocks. Distinct physical properties such as a matrix of lithology and alteration,
together with the macro and micro fractures in the rock, are the parameters that drive the relative breakability of the
rock. Extreme variability in hardness can be seen in deposits as indicated by grindability index test work. RQD,
fracture per meter, and core recovery logged by the geologists as well as the size analysis generated from crushing
qa/qc in sample preparation can provide an initial assessment of the physical property of an ore deposit. Table 4
provides an example of these parameters.

Table 4. Tabulated results of grade, lithology, alteration, and mineralization and its distribution in the ore body

Core
HOLE Au % Sample Alteration Core Recovery
Database FROM TO Interval RQD Hardness Fractures Frac per
ID g/t Cu Type Type Size Pct
Angle
2010Master DDH03 398 430 32 0.08 0.31 1/2Core Hsi-cy 0.71 3.63 9.69 38.44 HQ 99.59
Advance
2010Master DDH03 450 486 36 0.62 1.38 1/2Core 0.37 3.00 28.50 41.94 HQ 100.00
Argillic
2010Master DDH03 486 506 20 1.43 1.85 1/2Core CC 0.47 3.30 16.90 52.50 HQ 100.00
2010Master DDH03 520 558 38 3.07 1.80 1/2Core Hsi-cy 0.81 3.89 7.63 46.84 HQ 100.00
Advance
2010Master DDH03 580 592 12 2.58 1.57 1/2Core 0.71 3.67 20.00 29.17 NQ 93.33
Argillic
Advance
2010Master DDH03 600 618 18 1.42 1.01 1/2Core 0.79 3.56 12.78 21.11 NQ 99.49
Argillic
2010Master DDH03 618 673.5 55.5 0.76 0.54 1/2Core Hsi-cy 0.78 3.40 8.13 19.05 NQ 99.34
2010Master DDH24 190 204 14 0.06 0.49 1/2Core Hcy-si 0.94 3.71 4.57 35.00 PQ 99.05
2010Master DDH24 308 334 26 0.20 0.40 1/2Core Hsi-cy 0.97 4.15 1.85 43.08 PQ 99.52
2010Master DDH24 370 386.5 16.5 0.32 0.75 1/2Core Hsi-cy 1.00 4.00 0.97 22.42 PQ 100.00
2010Master DDH24 436 470 34 0.80 0.77 1/2Core Hsi-cy 0.90 4.00 6.41 28.82 HQ 99.63
2010Master DDH24 528 558 30 0.44 0.47 1/2Core Hsi-cy 0.96 4.00 4.73 41.00 HQ 99.56
Advance
2010Master DDH24 564 594 30 0.62 0.91 1/2Core 0.20 2.87 86.67 0.00 HQ 99.44
Argillic

Step 5 Metallurgical Testwork Program and Sample Selections

At this stage a baseline assessment is undertaken in consultation with the geologists and mining engineers, leading to
selecting an appropriate metallurgical testwork route This includes selection of samples that will provide
representativeness of the ore body within the proposed mine plan. The availability and quality of the sample being
selected is also one of the major considerations.

8
Metallurgical testwork, as well as obtaining samples for the testwork program involves considerable expenditure and
lead time. Improper selection of the processing route and the associated parameters and conditions, and incorrect
selection of samples to be processed will result in failure of the metallurgical program. Poor sample preservation and
unavailability of samples will limit the assessment needed to provide a robust geometallurgical model.
Geometallurgical assessment should be a high priority and extensive metallurgical planning needs to be done well to
ensure optimal evaluation and exploitation of the orebody.

A. Basis of Metallurgical Testwork Program

1. Review of Historical Testwork and Current Project Status

Consideration should also be given to historical data and background information of a particular project. An
understanding of the precise nature and status of the project will lead to identification of the projects‘
metallurgical requirements. A metallurgical framework based on the current status and an evaluation of the
relevancy of the available historical data will prompt a systematic and well-planned testwork program. Early
geological and metallurgical input is needed to specify an assay suite for the subsequent drilling program to
avoid later backtracking and will identify potential metallurgical issues (A.Taylor, Altamet,
www.altamet.com.au). It will provide definition to clarify the direction and purpose of a particular metallurgical
testwork program.

A metallurgical testwork program varies accordingly to the current project status. The level of detail and scope
decreases from a new greenfield property with a new geologic setting to new greenfield property with an
existing geologic setting. The latter requires less testing since certain data would be available and duplicate
testwork may not be required (Pincock Perspective, 2000).

2. Benchmarking against industry experience with similar ore deposits;

This is a review of available technology and comparison of processes to mining companies with similar
deposits. One of the highly recommended practices in process design is that it is often useful to learn and
compare against industry experience with similar deposits. This is a particularly familiar notion to anyone who
has been in engineering design—it is safe to say that the majority of the design problems in any given project
are solved by adapting solutions that have been used before. Furthermore, learning from industry experience
has been identified as a critical factor for a mining company to avoid unnecessary expenditure.

3. Testwork Required for Engineering Studies

Different types of tests are carried out based on the type and level of the engineering studies. The level of
metallurgical testwork requirements for each type of engineering studies are described in Table 5.

Table 5. Level of metallurgical testwork requirements for each type of engineering studies.

Engineering Principal Level of Cost Level of Economic Decision

studies Parameters Accuracy Associated Testwork Making
Used
Assumed
Conceptual $50,000 +/- None to
and/or ± 40% to 50% Not Valid
/Scoping Study 20% Minimal
Factored
Preliminary
Pre-Feasibility $200,000 +/- Assess various
Engineering ± 20% to 30% Sufficient
Study 50% Development Options
basis
Complete
Engineering $500,000 +/-
Feasibility
and Detailed ± 10% to 20% 50% to Detailed ―Go/No Go‖ Decision
Study
Metallurgical $1,000,000
Testwork

B. Type of Sample Material

There are several types of sample material commonly used for metallurgical testwork:

1. Reverse Circulation (RC) Drill Chips

9
 The use of reverse circulation (RC) chips should be avoided. Fundamental problems due to the oxidation of
minerals, stratification of heavy particles, loss of softer components and fines and overproduction of fines
within RC drill chip samples can result in poor representation.

2. Diamond Drill Core

Diamond drill core provides the premier sample for metallurgical testwork, particularly for areas that is
geologically complex. Diamond drill core provides larger volume samples and larger core sizes wherein
lithology and structure are much easier to recognize. Metallurgical testwork i.e., comminution and
flotation,generally requires drill core of varying sizes to help identify metallurgical anomalies or develop
conceptual targets.

3. Coarse Rejects

Coarse rejects are generated in the laboratory assay sample procedure and are typically minus 3.35 mm
crushed product. They can provide additional material for flotation evaluation, provided that correct storage
requirements are met.

C. Type Of Samples for Metallurgical Testwork Program

1. Composite Samples:

Composite samples are used for testing reagent or flowsheet variables where comparative testwork must be
carried out on the one sample. Typically, several composite samples may be required to assess the major ore
types. The number of these composites needs to be rationalised to minimise testwork costs and time.

2. Variability Samples:

These are individual drill hole intersections or specific composites that represent ore types exhibiting different
metallurgical responses, as indicated by the mineralogy/geology and expected process performance. They
are used to assess the variability of the orebody, to determine whether the plant design will be suitable for all
ore types, and to evaluate metallurgical recovery and/or grade. In this context, it is also important to ensure
that testwork is carried out on samples representing the ore to be fed initially to the plant.

3. Bulk Samples:

Bulk samples are used for pilot plant testing or large-scale tests. Pilot plant tests are usually required to
demonstrate a high risk process, to increase the confidence level on a marginal project or for the production of
concentrate or other downstream products for other testwork (eg. roasting). Pilot plant testwork does not
necessarily provide better testwork data than bench scale work and should be evaluated carefully in terms of
the high cost of sample collection and the difficulty in achieving adequate sample representation.

D. Metallurgical Sample Selection and Testwork

1. Primary Sample Selection Criteria

Regardless of the type of testwork to be conducted and the type of sample and sample material to be used,
sample selection should be based on the following criteria:

a. Spatial Distribution – Collar and Depth

The first requirement is to identify the location of drill holes subjected for sample selection. Geological
survey data such as collar, azimuth, and dip are used for preliminary drill holes location. These data gives
an overview of the entire geographic extent of an orebody. Samples should cover a representative cross
section of the orebody. In addition, samples should also be selected from different depth (Figure 5)
Mineralogy often changes with depth and varies from one location to another. The process plant typically
receives ore from different locations and depths. Consequently, location and depth are variables to be
accounted for in the design of a sampling program. Oxidation of the upper areas of a deposit commonly
leads to the formation of oxide and transitional ore zones above the primary ore zones. Each zone can
respond differently to a metallurgical process, and a staged approach to processing may be required with
different processing strategies for each ore zone. Often samples will be weighted towards the early years
of production (Table 5)
10
 Figure 5 Drill Hole Location Highlighting Preliminary Hole Selection for Samples – Front Elevation
Looking North

Table 6 Sample Quantity According to Depth

Depth Distribution

Range No of Samples

0m to 100m 14

100m to 200m 13

200m to 300m 10

300m to 400m 7

400m to 500m 1

b. Lithology Type

Sample should be selected according to rock or lithology type. Alteration and mineralogy should be also
identified across each lithological type, as various degrees of competency and metal content are aligned
to alteration and mineralogy. A formation of a geometallurgical domain dominance matrix from the
identified lithological domain is important. This matrix will aid in detailing the number of samples falling
within each category. Samples with a single lithology/alteration domain greater than two-thirds of that
sample areconsidered a dominant domain sample (diagonal on the Dominance Matrix). All dominant
domains will preferably be covered by the sample selection. Any sample where two lithology/alteration
domains are greater than two-thirds of the sample is considered a dual domain sample. The sample
selection should provide either direct or indirect coverage of these domain variations. An example of the
sample dominance matrix is shown in Figure 6.

11
 Dominant Domain Legend
0 Tonalite - Unaltered
S 0 1 2 3 4 5
e
c 1 Saprolite
o
0 1 2
n
2 Tonalite - Potassic Alteration
d 1 2
a
r 3 Blank
y 2 2 5 5 4
4 Tonalite - Sericitic and Quartz – Sericitic Alteration.
D 3
o
m 5 Tonalite - Albite – Sericite Alteration
a
4 1 3 10 1
i
Blank
n 5 1 1 1 4

X Class directly covered - X equals number of samples

Mixed 2
Class indirectly covered

Class not covered

Figure 6 Geometallurgical Domain Dominance Matrix

c. Grade Distribution and Cut-off Grade Criteria

It is important to determine ore that is worth mining and processing from waste. Characterization with
regards to cut-off grade criteria during the selection phase must be sufficient to allow estimation of any
significant long-term costs for inclusion in the economic evaluation of the project. A block model used by
the mining engineers during the mine planning phase can be used to differentiate ore from waste.

In addition, it is imperative to avoid excessive clustering around the high-grade zones and evaluation
should not be confined to onlythe valuable elements, but also include those deleterious elements which
can constrain throughput and recovery. To a large degree, early identification of these deleterious
elements can exert important and predictable controls on the environmental signature of mineralized
areas. A table detailing the number of samples that covers all significant grade variations expected to a
process feed is needed, for example Table 7

Table 7 Sample Quantity according to Grade Distribution

Grade Distribution
ppm Au ppb Cu
No of Samples % S Range No of Samples No of Samples
Range Range

<0.4 7 <0.3 7 <100 18

100 to
0.4 to 1.0 25 0.3 to 0.6 22 21
400

>1.0 13 >0.6 16 >400 26

d. Mine Plan

The mining methods and mine plans/schedule also need to be taken in consideration during sample
selection as mine plan and methods determine the sequence and nature of the ore to be fed to the
processing plant. Ore head grade and mineralogy can significantly change over the life of the mine which
influences process design selection.

2. Metallurgical Testwork Program

12
 a. Bench Scale Testing

Bench scale testing is generally the first step of a metallurgical testwork program. Factors that can be
controlled such as reagent, grind/recovery, retention time etc., are identified, evaluated and optimized.
Preliminary economic and environmental considerations are also incorporated in this stage. Operating
cost through evaluation of power and operating consumables and assessment of capital cost through
flowsheet options and residence time are being analysed in parallel to provide a basis for decision making
about the future of the project. The type and quantity of deleterious elements in the product are also
determined to assess possible financial penalties and downstream processing problems.

b. Pilot Scale Testing or Continuous Testing

Pilot scale testing should only be undertaken to validate the outcomes of the bench scale testwork
program and to confirm integration of various unit operations. It should be used to develop optimized
process, not to develop or to conduct preliminary evaluation of the flowsheet. Correlation of analysis and
results should be undertaken using bench scale testwork as a control.

c. Variability Testing

Variability testing is conducted on variability samples to assess and optimise the selected flowsheet based
on the nature and type of the sample ( i.e., lithology, alteration, and mineralization type), head grade, and
changes in liberation requirements. Result of a variability testwork programme may dictate whether
blending of an ore type is possible to maximize the revenue of the plant or a separate flowsheet is
required to process a particular ore type. The outcome of variability testing may impact the mine plan and
the optimumisation of the project.

Step 7 Integration of Metallurgical Results with the Mineral Deposit – Geometallurgical Mapping: Formation of
a Geometallurgical Model

The preliminary mine plan in conjunction with the geological data and metallurgical results will form the development
of a geometallurgical model that can be incorporated into the resource model allowing concentrate grades and
recoveries to be estimated on a block-by-block basis.

The integration of metallurgical results and confirmation of its linkage with the nature of the mineral deposit will
generate modelled values across a spatial grid covering the ore deposit. This allows the development of various
models which express metallurgical responses as a function of ore characteristics. As a result, a number of distinct
geometallurgical associations can be identified and used to calibrate metallurgical drivers against location within the
resource, mineralisation, lithology and alteration, and valuable and deleterious metals species to produce block-by-
block calculations.

These modelled calculations can be used to allow the following future development for a mining project:

 Comparison of different processing routes with respect to the geometallurgical model

 Block-by-block comparisons of valuable metal recoveries for different processing routes
 Block-by-block concentrator operating costs
 Block-by-block concentrate grades, allowing calculation of off-site costs
 Adequate evaluation based on net smelter return on a block-by-block basis.
 Development of a pit optimisation study and associated mine plan, using a nominal fixed throughput rate and
inputs from the geometallurgical model
 Iterations that will provide detail design checking of all flows and capacities in the processing area that will
optimise mining and process performance to maximise the project‘s return.

Step 8 Geometallurgical Model Evaluation.

A geometallurgical model is a tool for which tonnage, physical characteristic, grade and mineral content, and
metallurgical performance can be estimated and predicted with a high level of confidence. It is based on detailed and
reliable sampling and testing information gathered through appropriate techniques from locations such as pits and drill
holes. A robust geometallurgical model is ideally evaluated and represented with the following criteria:

1. Geological Data

13
  Particular attention should be given to drill hole logging and other sample information used in the
geometallurgical spreadsheet.
 Description of the thoroughness with which all significant lithologic, structural, mineralogical, alteration, or
other geological or geotechnical characteristics were recorded
 Significant data or data that could materially influence the estimated quantity and quality of the sample
selection were evaluated.

2. Sampling method and preparation

 Description of sample type and sample collection method.

 Reliability of sample quality and representativeness (sample recovery, high grading, selective losses or
contamination, and any other factors that may have resulted in sample biases, etc.).
 Discussion of whether duplicates samples or alternative methods of sampling were used to verify sample
quality.

3. Laboratory Analysis

 Identification of laboratory and analytical method (fire assay, AA assay, emission spectroscopy, etc.).
 Discussion of precision and accuracy, including the use of check assays, quality control programs, and
submission of samples to other laboratories for verification.

4. Specific Gravity and Tonnages

 Discussion of how the tonnage factor was determined (assumed or measured). If assumed, which
assumptions were made and on which basis.
 Discussion of whether different tonnage factors were used in different parts of the deposit and why.
 The specific gravity and bulk tonnage must have been measured by methods that adequately account for
void spaces (vugs, porosity, etc.) and for differences between rock and alteration zones within the deposit.

5. Geological and Metallurgical Interpretation

 Discussion of sufficiency of data to assure continuity of mineralization and provide an adequate

geometallurgical data base for the estimation procedure used.
 Discussion of the extent to which the interpretation is based on data or on assumptions and whether
consideration was given to alternative interpretations or models. It also involves detailed description of the
method used and the assumptions made to estimate tonnages and grade, and recovery.
 Description of how the geological interpretation was used to control the metallurgical performance.

6. Mining Method and Cost

 Inclusion and justification of mining method(s) to be used.

 Discussion of mining rate, equipment selected, ore control methods, geotechnical and hydrological
considerations, dilution, and mine recovery.
 Description and justification of capital and operating costs.

7. Processing

 Justification of estimated recovery (proportion of material sent to the processing plant that will be
recovered) whether based on historical information, laboratory test, or pilot plant results.
 Application of integrated simulation software dependent on geometallurgical information that provides the
optimisation link between a geometallurgical model and mine evaluation techniques such as JKTech‘s
software packages.

8. Environmental Impact

 Inclusion of any environmental factors that could have a significant impact on the project feasibility and
possible means of mitigation.

9. Economic consideration

14
  Parallel economic studies and risk analyses should be undertaken for each phase of testwork to provide a
basis for decision making about the future of the project.
 The studies should cover all other aspects of the project including ore reserve estimation, mining, water
availability, climatic, environmental, decommissioning and long term monitoring, logistic, social and
political issues.

CONCLUSION

Establishing a geometallurgical model and/or incorporation of geometallurgy serves as a valuable tool to test and
validate strategic targets, directions and goals for each stage of mine development cycle. It does not only positively
impact on the value of making strategic and quality decision making, but it also provide grounded measures for project
execution risk management. The iterative and multi-disciplinary nature of this exercise allows formulation of project
development strategy through meaningful reconciliation of geological and mineralogical data, mining schedule and
resource model, and metallurgical drivers.

However, like other mining models, geometallurgical model are based on data from samples collected from the
mineralised and non-mineralised regions of deposits. Quality of the data used will dictate the quality and effectiveness
of the geometallurgical model that will assist in producing a planned desirable outcome. Its framework is designed to
establish timing and content of project studies and other economic and financial analyses, allow anticipation of
availability and terms of future financing, and foresee future production, operating and capital costs as well as predict
operating or financial performance through conversion of geological data into metallurgical information to drive
production and mine planning.

REFERENCE

David, D, 2010. Operational Geometallurgy, Flotation Plant Optimisation, AusIMM Spectrum Series No. 16, pp 201 -
209, AusIMM (Melbourne), Ed: 1st

Dominy S C, Murphy B, Gray AH, Year. Characterization of Gravity Amenable Gold Ores – Sample Representivity
and Determination Methods inThe First AusIMM Geometallurgical Conference 2011 Proceedings, pp 281 - 292,
AusIMM (Brisbane), Ed: 1st

Everett J E, 2011 Ore Selection and Sequencing, in The First AusIMM Geometallurgical Conference 2011
Proceedings, pp 197 - 204, AusIMM (Brisbane), Ed: 1st

Kittler P, Liebezeit, E K, Macmillan E, Lower C, 2011 ‗It Seemed like a Good Idea at the Time...‘ Common Mistakes in
Geometallurgy, in The First AusIMM Geometallurgical Conference 2011 Proceedings, pp 133 - 138, AusIMM
(Brisbane), Ed: 1st

McQueen, K G , 2005., Ore Deposit Types and Their Primary Expressions, CRC LEME, Australian National
University, Canberra, ACT 0200 and School of REHS, University of Canberra, ACT 2601.

Leichliter, S, Hunt, J, Berry, R, Keeney, L, Montoya, P, A, Chaberlain, V, Jahoda, R, Drews, U 2011. Development of
a Predictive Geometallurgical Recovery Model for the La Colosa, Porphyry Gold Deposit, Colombia, in The First
AusIMM Geometallurgical Conference 2011 Proceedings, pp 85 - 111, AusIMM (Brisbane), Ed: 1st

Keeney L, Walters, S, G, Kojovic, T 2011. Geometallurgical Mapping and Modelling of Comminution Performance at
the Cadia East Porphyry Deposit, in The First AusIMM Geometallurgical Conference 2011 Proceedings, pp 73 -
83, AusIMM (Brisbane), Ed: 1st

Baumgartner, R, Dusci M, Gressier J, Trueman A, Poos S, Brittan M, Mayta P 2011. Building a Geometallurgical
Model for Early-Stage Project Development - A Case Study from the Canahuire Epithermal Au-Cu-Ag Deposit,
Southern Peru, in The First AusIMM Geometallurgical Conference 2011 Proceedings, pp 53 - 59, AusIMM
(Brisbane), Ed: 1st

Harbort G, Manfrino A, Wright J, 2011. Development of the Zafranal Geometallurgical Model, in The First AusIMM
Geometallurgical Conference 2011 Proceedings, pp 61 - 71, AusIMM (Brisbane), Ed: 1st

Dominy S, C 2011. Foreword in The First AusIMM Geometallurgical Conference 2011 Proceedings, pp vii - viii,
AusIMM (Brisbane), Ed: 1st

15
Haren, E, Williams, P 2000. Mine Geology Practices at the Sunrise Open Pit, in the Fourth International Mining
Geology Conference Proceedings, pp 83 - 86.

Pincock Allen & Holt 2000. Pincock Prespective Issue No. 10. www.pincock.com

Lane G, Dunne R, Richmond G, Dioses J 2002. Interpretation of Flotation Data for the Design of Process Plants,
Paper presented at AusIMM Conference - Metallurgical Plant Design and Operating Strategies.
AusIMM(Sydney)

Dominy S. C. Noppe M, A, Annels A. E. 2004. Erros and Uncertainty in Mineral Resource and Ore Reserve
Estimation: The Importance of Getting It Right. Exploration Mining Geology Volume 11 Nos 1-4, pp. 77-98. 2004
Canadian Institute of Mining, Metallurgy, and Petroleum.

Coward S, Vabb J, Dunham S, Stewart M 2009. The Primary-Response Framework for Geometallurgical Variables, in
the Seventh International Mining Geology Conference Proceedings (Perth), pp 109 - 113.

Brown M, H, Cashman J, O, Ritchie, I, C, The Project Cycle From Study to Commissioning. Minproc Limited, Perth
WA.

Altman K, A, Taylor D, L, Smith R, W 2000. How To Develop an Optimum Metallurgical Project. SME Annual Meeting,
Salt Lake City Utah.

Taylor A. Keys to Succesful Gold Heap Leaching. Alta Metallurgical Services Australia. www.altamet.com.au

Noppe M, 2004. Reconcilitation: Importance of Good Sampling and Data QA-QC. Mining and Resource Geology
Symposium, XYZ, ERGU Contribution No. 62. 2004.

16

View publication stats