Process Mineralogy Today

A discussion resource for process mineralogy using todays technologies

close

MinAssist Privacy Policy

Privacy is important and we respect yours.

This policy sets out our privacy practices and how we handle information we may collect from or about you when you visit MinAssist.com.au.

What do we capture and what for?

You may choose to provide information such as email address, name, phone number, company and so forth to MinAssist in order to:

  • subscribe to the MinAssist Newsletter;
  • download resources like digital books; or
  • make an enquiry about MinAssist’s services.

This information is used by MinAssist to:

  • respond to enquiries originating from you.
  • add you to a mailing list for newsletters and other occasional email contact. You may request at any time to be removed from this list.
  • add your to our contacts database which may result in email, postal or telephone communication. You may request at any time to be removed from this list.

Google Analytics

MInAssist also uses Google Analytics, a web analytics service. Google Analytics uses cookies, web beacons, and other means to help MInAssit analyse how users use the site. For information about Google’s Privacy Policy please refer to http://www.google.com/intl/en/privacypolicy.html.

Sharing of Information

MinAssist may share information under the following circumstances:

  • legal requirement - courts, administrative agencies, or other government entities.
  • organisations that may provide services to us - where relevant we may need to share some of your information to companies we engage with (for example, accountants, lawyers, business advisors, marketing service providers, debt collection service providers, equipment providers). Note that these third parties are prohibited by law or by contract from processing personal information for purposes other than those disclosed in this Privacy Policy.
  • where the information is already in the public domain.
  • business sale or merger - where contact data may be passed to new owners.

Access

At your request, we will provide you with reasonable access to your personal information, so that you can review what we have stored and, if you choose, request corrections to it. Please request access by writing to us at the address listed in the Contact Information section below.

Security

MinAssist combines technical and physical safeguards with employee policies and procedures to protect your information. We will use commercially reasonable efforts to protect your information.

Links to Other Websites

When you click on a link on this website that takes you to a website operated by another company, you will be subject to that company’s privacy practices.

Amendments

MinAssist may amend this Privacy Policy from time to time.

Enforcement, Dispute Resolution, and Verification

Please contact us with any questions or concerns related to this Privacy Policy by using the address listed in the Contact Information section below. We will investigate and attempt to resolve complaints or disputes regarding personal information.

Contact Information

If you have questions or concerns related to this Privacy Policy, you may contact us by email at enquiries@minassist.com.au.

From Paragenesis to Processing: Geological Reconstructions Carry Implications for Mineral Processing

 

Source: http://www.northam.co.za/about-northam/zondereinde

Source: http://www.northam.co.za/

This case study briefly highlights the potential to derive, in an approximate sense, likely processing behaviour from geological reconstructions. In turn, this information can feed into geometallurgical planning allowing the early stage recognition of potential processing flowpaths that can be used to optimise recovery.  The case study is pulled together from analysis undertaken on the Merensky reef at Northam Platinum Ltd in South Africa.

 

The Merensky Reef at Northam Platinum shows a complex range of reef developments with several distinct reef types that are processed through the run-of-mine. These differences can be related to the paragenetic history of the deposit with the differing mineralogy related to the changing footwall mineralogy at the time of the hanging wall deposition. This case study looks at three of those reef types (the Normal Reef, the transitional Pothole reef and the full Pothole reef) which contain distinct differences in their mineralogical deportment.

 

The differing mineralogy of the footwall at the time of hanging wall deposition resulted in differences in modal mineralogy, the amount of floatable gangue and the sulphide textural development. These differences in turn led to predictable differences in milling times, mineral liberation and sulphide flotation performance. As the Merensky reef is a platinum-group element (PGE) ore with the majority of the platinum-group minerals contained within sulphides, these differences are crucial.

 

Background

 

The Merensky reef, which was discovered in 1924 by Dr Hans Merensky, formed for many years the worlds’ premium resource of platinum. It consists of the Merensky Cyclic Unit (MCU) deposited unconformably as a drape over a stratified and mineralogically variable footwall (Figure 1; Viring & Cowell, 1999; Roberts et al., 2007). Mineralisation within the Merensky reef is present at both the base of the MCU and within the upper portion of the footwall. The variability in the footwall mineralogy at Northam Platinum mine during MCU depodition has significant processing implications which will be explored in this article. For further reference, similar research at the Bafokeng Rasimone Platinum mine also shows the effect of geological variations on flotation performance (Smith et al., 2013).   All results presented in this article are derived from a laboratory scale set of experiments. The results are therefore presented as a comparison across standardised conditions but are not necessarily completely indicative of the behaviour on a processing plant scale.

 

 

 

A schematic cross-section through the upper section of the Upper Critical Zone, showing the hanging wall ‘drape’ and footwall components to the Merensky reefs at Northam Platinum Mine, South Africa. Adapted from Smith et al., (2004).

Figure 1. A schematic cross-section through the upper section of the Upper Critical Zone, showing the hanging wall ‘drape’ and footwall components to the Merensky reefs at Northam Platinum Mine, South Africa. Adapted from Smith et al., (2004).

 

 

At the Northam Platinum mine variation in the footwall mineralogy has led to development of at least three distinct reef types; Normal, NP2 and P2 reef. The Normal and P2 reefs are broadly mineralogically similar in that the footwall is melanocratic in each case and with the immediate lithology below the MCU chromitite consisting of pegmatitic pyroxenite underlain by another basal chromititic stringer. For the Normal reef this basal chromite stringer is underlain by anorthosite, whilst for the P2 reef the basal stringer is underlain by a more dunitic harzburgite. The NP2 reef is the most mineralogically distinctive of the three reef types consisting of the single MCU chromite overlying a predominantly anorthositic footwall. Within the anorthosite there is the development of a troctolite band which marks the downward extent of fluid infiltration from the MCU (Figure 2; Viring & Cowell, 1999).

 

Schematic of the three reef types

Figure 2. Schematic of the three reef types

 

Critically, the difference in footwall mineralogy, particularly of the NP2 reef effects the modal mineralogy (Table 1), the degree of floatable gangue, the sulphide textural development (Figure 3), expected milling times (Table 2), as well as sulphide grades and recoveries during flotation (Figure 4). The focus on factors affecting the sulphide development is key because platinum group minerals (PGM) show an intimate association with base-metal sulphides in the Merensky Reef (Becker et al., 2008; Brough et al., 2010), though this does not necessarily hold for the other reef types present within the Bushveld Complex (i.e. the UG2 and Platreef).

 

Modal Mineralogy

 

QEMSCAN analysis of the milled feeds of the three reef types show distinct differences in their modal mineralogy (Table 1). In comparison to the NP2 reef which is plagioclase rich (62.6 wt%), the Normal and P2 reef are plagioclase poor (16.7 wt% and 7.2 wt%, respectively). With relatively little plagioclase the principal gangue mineral in the Normal and P2 reefs is orthopyroxene (51.2 wt% and 68.6 wt%, respectively), which constitutes just 25.4 wt% in the NP2 reef. There are also differences in the total proportions of alteration minerals (defined as the sum of the minerals amphibole, serpentine, talc, chlorite as well as magnetite). The Normal reef contains the highest amount of alteration minerals (2.3 wt%), followed by the P2 reef (1.8 wt%) and lastly the NP2 reef (1.0 wt%). Biotite which may be primary or secondary is also greatest within the Normal reef (1.8 wt%) compared to the P2 (0.9 wt%) and NP2 reefs (1.1 wt%). The relative proportions of low-temperature alteration minerals such as talc are important since they are naturally floatable and may induce inadvertent gangue flotation if they are associated with other common gangue minerals (Becker et al., 2009; Jasieniak and Smart, 2009).

 

Percentage abundance of minerals in weight% within each reef as calculated by QEMSCAN. Total alteration is the summative value of amphibole, serpentine, talc, chlorite, other silicates and magnetite (Brough et al., 2010).

Table 1. Percentage abundance of minerals in weight% within each reef as calculated by QEMSCAN. Total alteration is the summative value of amphibole, serpentine, talc, chlorite, other silicates and magnetite (Brough et al., 2010).

 

Floatable Gangue

 

The basic gangue minerals are the same for each reef type (orthopyroxene, plagioclase, olivine, clinopyroxene, chromite and alteration phases) but relative to the NP2 reef, the Normal and P2 reef contain a far higher abundance of primary ferromagnesian minerals and their alteration phases. One important alteration phase is talc which is present in slightly greater abundance in both the Normal and P2 reefs. Talc is a highly floatable gangue mineral, capable of not only entering the concentrate through true flotation but also of carrying other gangue minerals such as orthopyroxene through association (Becker et al., 2009). Furthermore, talc has a froth stabilising effect promoting increased water recovery and therefore mass recovery by entrainment.

 

This increased quantity of floatable gangue has two main effects. The first is to lower base-metal sulphide (BMS) grades and this is seen for the Normal and P2 reefs, where initial grades are lower than the NP2 reef (Figure 4). The second is to slow the rate of BMS recovery and thereby reduce total BMS recovery (Figure 4). It is worth noting that this latter effect is only key in batch floats which are froth limiting and that the plant response may not be identical.

 

Sulphide Textures

 

Across the three reef types there is one main sulphide texture and three subsidiary textures; the main sulphide texture is fine to medium grained (0.5-5mm), composites (Figure 3a), predominantly of pyrrhotite, pentlandite and chalcopyrite, but also with minor amounts of bornite, cubanite and possibly mackinawite. The three subsidiary textures are: fine grained (<0.2mm), largely monomineralic inclusions in the major silicate phases (Figure 3b) and chromite; sulphides concentrated within microfractures that occurred during brittle deformation (Figure 3c); and very fine unidentifiable sulphides located within secondary silicate minerals such as paragonite and serpentine (Figure 3d).

 

Sulphide textures. a. composite sulphide about 2mm across. b. Fine grained sulphides locked in an orthopyroxene megacryst. c. sulphide vein within plagioclase grain. d. Very fine grained sulphides enclosed in serpentine (Adapted from Brough et al., 2010).

Figure 3. Sulphide textures. a. composite sulphide about 2mm across. b. Fine grained sulphides locked in an orthopyroxene megacryst. c. sulphide vein within plagioclase grain. d. Very fine grained sulphides enclosed in serpentine (Adapted from Brough et al., 2010).

 

The Normal and P2 reefs contain all four sulphide textures, whereas the NP2 reef contains only composite sulphides (Figure 3a) and fine-grained sulphides (Figure 3b). The lack of very fine sulphide development and sulphide veining suggests that sulphides within the NP2 reef will be the easiest to liberate as is the case for chalcopyrite, pyrrhotite and the composite BMS (Brough et al., 2010).

 

The reason for this difference between the NP2 reef and the Normal and P2 reefs is the pegmatitic nature of the footwall, which is related to the initial ‘pre-MCU event’ footwall. Since the footwall to the Normal and P2 reef was melanocratic, the subsequent deposition of a new hot magma pulse (the MCU), led to reconstitution and grain coarsening. This encouraged the development of coarse composites as well as complex secondary remobilisation of sulphides, generating three subsidiary textures. In contrast the leucocratic NP2 footwall responded very differently to the deposition of the MCU. Rather than grain coarsening, the magma infiltrated between the plagioclase grains occasionally reacting with rare orthopyroxene grains. The result was largely undisturbed anorthositic or leucocratic layers within which a thin troctolized layer represents the downward extent of magma infiltration.

 

Milling Times

 

Milling times for the three reefs suggest that the NP2 reef is the softest, relative to the Normal and P2 reefs, with the P2 reef being the hardest (Table 2). This difference in hardness can be attributed to mineralogy, texture and degree of alteration. It implies that the plagioclase rich rocks (i.e. the NP2 reef) are softer that the orthopyroxene rich rocks (i.e. the Normal and P2 reefs). Furthermore, since the mineralogy of the Normal and P2 reefs are similar the role of alteration and texture are also critical. The Normal reef is slightly more altered that the P2 reef, and contains a much thicker inter-chromitite pegmatite (~150 cm, compared with ~40 cm). This suggests that the increased alteration and pegmatitic character of the Normal reef decreases its milling time relative to the P2 reef. The major implication of this is the expected ore throughput, with the NP2 reef capable of being processed quicker than either the Normal of P2 reefs (Brough et al., 2010).

 

Milling times given in minutes for the standard and fine grinds for each of the three reef types. Milling was undertaken on an Erietz laboratory stainless steel rod mill.

Table 2. Milling times given in minutes for the standard and fine grinds for each of the three reef types. Milling was undertaken on an Erietz laboratory stainless steel rod mill.

 

Sulphide Grade and Recovery

 

The variations in sulphide development described above can be linked in with observed variations in liberation and grade recovery. Firstly, the dominance within all reef types of medium grained composite sulphides results in excellent liberation (>80%) for all BMS at both grind sizes (Brough et al., 2008). Since PGM are invariably associated with sulphides, any such PGM associated with the major composite sulphides can also be expected to be recovered.

 

Secondly, the presence of fine-grained BMS locked within primary orthomagmatic (e.g. orthopyroxene) minerals explains why sulphide recovery is not optimised for each of the three reefs. This is because after grinding the fine-grained sulphides will be locked or only partially liberated, and being trapped within hydrophilic minerals will be retained in the pulp. The lower sulphide recoveries observed within the Normal and P2 reefs values will partly be a function of the greater quantity of fine grained sulphides minerals present (Figure 4).

 

Total sulphide grade-recovery Curves. Standard applies to flotation conditions using copper sulfate as an activator whilst ‘No C.S.’ refers to flotation conditions without the addition of copper sulfate as an activator. Two grind sizes are shown which are p60 and p80 passing 75 m (Taken from Brough et al., 2010).

Figure 4. Total sulphide grade-recovery Curves. Standard applies to flotation conditions using copper sulfate as an activator whilst ‘No C.S.’ refers to flotation conditions without the addition of copper sulfate as an activator. Two grind sizes are shown which are p60 and p80 passing 75 m (Taken from Brough et al., 2010).

 

 

Conclusion

 

From this particular study the NP2 reef is the easiest of the three reefs to process, producing optimum sulphide recoveries and the highest sulphide grades and that these differences in performance can be traced back to the conditions at the time of formation. The different footwall conditions during MCU deposition resulted in a different modal and textural mineralogy. These mineralogical differences ultimately controlled the processing performance, having a direct effect on milling times, floatable gangue and sulphide liberation. Essentially, the paragenesis controlled the processing requirements. This case study shows the potential that accurate geological reconstructions have to impact on geometallurgical considerations.

About the Authors

Chris Brough1, Megan Becker2, David Reid3 and Dee Bradshaw4

 

  1. Petrolab Ltd, C Edwards Offices, Gweal Pawl, Redruth, Cornwall, TR15 3AE
  2. Centre for Minerals Research, Department of Chemical Engineering, University of Cape Town, Rondebosch, Cape Town, 7700, South Africa
  3. Department of Geological Sciences, University of Cape Town, Rondebosch, Cape Town, 7701, South Africa
  4. Julius Kruttschnitt Minerals Research Centre, University of Queensland, 40 Isles Road, Indooroopilly, Brisbane, QLD 4068, Australia

 

Christopher Brough

Christopher Brough is a consultant mineralogist at Petrolab, Cornwall. He specialises in the application of mineralogy to a range of mining problems including the characterisation of acid-generating and acid-neutralising minerals with implications for acid rock drainage and metal leaching (ARDML) together with the characterisation of ore and gangue mineralogy with their implications for potential processing problems. He has an MEarthSc from Oxford University, an MRes from the University of Cape Town and obtained his PhD in PGE and chromite geochemistry from Cardiff University in 2011.

 

Contact: chris@petrolab.co.uk

 

Megan Becker

Megan Becker is a Senior Research Officer leading the process mineralogy initiative in the Centre for Minerals Research in the Department of Chemical Engineering at the University of Cape Town. She has a background in geology (BSc Hons, MSc – University of Cape Town) and a PhD in process mineralogy from the University of Pretoria (2009). Her research interests focus on understanding both the effect mineralogy has on the beneficiation process and the effect of the beneficiation process on the mineralogy, and how one can best use mineralogy information. She has a keen interest in teaching mineralogy and in mineralogical analysis techniques, and currently manages the QEMSCAN facility in the CMR. She has supervised close to 20 postgraduate students and has over 50 publications in international journals and conference proceedings in the area of minerals beneficiation (including comminution, flotation, hydrometallurgy and even environmental aspects such as acid rock drainage).

 

Contact: megan.becker@uct.ac.za

 

Dee Bradshaw

Dee Bradshaw is a Professorial Research Fellow and Research Leader at the Julius Kruttschnitt Mineral Research Centre (JKMRC) part of the Sustainable Minerals Institute. She joined the University of Queensland in 2008 after working for the Centre for Minerals Research at the University of Cape Town for over 25 years. Her interest in Process Mineralogy began in 2003 after a background in flotation chemistry. She is particularly interested in the processing of complex ores and in the development of a mineralogical framework for mineral processing in general. She has also been responsible for initiating and participating in post graduate courses in Flotation Chemistry, Process Mineralogy and Geometallurgy at UCT, JKMRC and the University of Tasmania. She has participated in many professional development courses for industry in Australia, South Africa and Canada. She has supervised over 40 post graduate research students and co-authored over 120 journal and conference papers.

 

Contact: d.bradshaw@uq.edu.au

 

David Reid

David Reid received his Bachelor of Science degree (BSc.), Honours and MSc in Geology and Geochemistry from Victoria University of Wellington, New Zealand in 1970-73. He obtained his PhD in Geochemistry in 1977 from the University of Cape Town, South Africa where he is currently a Professor in the Department of Geological Sciences. He was a recipient of the Distinguished Teacher Award from UCT in 2000. He is a Fellow and Life Member of the Geological Society of South Africa since 1973 and has three times been awarded their Jubilee Medal in recognition of published research in South African geology and geochemistry. He is a Fellow of the Society of Economic Geologists since 1998. David Reid has published, lectured and consulted widely on topics related to economic geology and geochemistry, with particular emphasis on mineralization in Namaqualand, Bushmanland, Namibia and the Bushveld Complex. He also holds Directorships in mineral exploration companies listed on the JSE.

 

References:

 

Becker, M., Harris, P., Wiese, J. and Bradshaw, D. (2009): Mineralogical characterisation of naturally floatable gangue in Merensky Reef ore flotation. International Journal of Mineral Processing, 93, pp 246-255

 

Becker, M., Brough, C., Reid, D., Smith, D., Bradshaw, D. (2008): Geometallurgical characterisation of the Merensky Reef at Northam Platinum Mine: Comparison of normal, pothole and transitional reef types, 9th International Congress for Applied Mineralogy, pp 391 – 399

 

Brough, C (2008); An investigation into the process mineralogy of the Merensky Reef at Northam Platinum Limited, Thesis, University of Cape Town

 

Brough, C., Bradshaw, D. J., Becker, M. (2010): A comparison of the flotation behaviour and the effect of copper activation on three reef types from the Merensky reef at Northam, Minerals Engineering, 23 (11), pp 846 – 854

 

Jasieniak, M., Smart, R.S.C., 2009. Collectorless flotation of pyroxene in Merensky ore: residual layer identification using statistical ToF-SIMS analysis. International Journal of Mineral Processing. 92, pp 169–176.

 

Roberts, M.D., Reid, D.L., Miller, J.A., Basson, I.J., Roberts, M. & Smith, D. (2007): The Merensky Cyclic Unit and its impact on footwall cumulates below Normal and Pothole reef types in the Western Bushveld Complex. Mineralium Deposita, 42, pp 271- 292

 

Smith, A.J.B., Viljoen, K.S., Schouwstra, R., Roberts, J., Schalkwyk, & Gutzmer, J. (2013): Geological variations in the Merensky Reef at Bafokeng Rasimone Platinum Mine and its influence on flotation performance. Minerals Engineering, 52, pp 155-168

 

Smith, D.S., Basson, I.J. & Reid, D.L. (2004): Normal Reef Subfacies of the Merensky Reef at Northam Platinum Mine, Zwartklip Facies, Western Bushveld Complex, South Africa. The Canadian Mineralogist. 42, pp 243-260.

 

Viring, R.G. & Cowell, M.W. (1999): The Merensky Reef on Northam Platinum Limited. South African Journal of Geology, 102, pp 192-208

 

 


Share On LinkedIn


About the Author: Christopher Brough


Previous Arrow Back to all posts

Follow Blog

Subscribe to the MinAssist Newsletter group and receive notifications of new Process Mineralogy Today blog posts.

We promise not to spam you and we'll keep your email safe and secure. MinAssist may send you occassional email correspondence but you can unsubscribe at any time.