You are on page 1of 37

Mineral Liberation Study

A Client
Mineralogical Report Report# DD/MM/2018

Petrolab Ltd | www.petrolab.co.uk C Edwards Offices, Gweal Pawl, Redruth, Cornwall TR15 3AE
tel +44 (0)1209 219 541 email petrolab@petrolab.co.uk Registered in England & Wales · Company No. 4777735
Mineralogical Report A Client

Contents
Report key findings...............................................................................................iv
Introduction...........................................................................................................1
Scope...............................................................................................................1
Samples / fractions..........................................................................................1
Methods of investigation..................................................................................1
Automated mineralogy...................................................................................................1
Bulk mineral & liberation analysis.........................................................................2
Analysis details................................................................................................2
Classification scheme......................................................................................3
Samples 1 and 2..............................................................................................4
Phase abundance.......................................................................................................... 4
Deportment.................................................................................................................... 6
Grain size..................................................................................................................... 12
Cumulative size distribution.....................................................................................12
Size statistics.......................................................................................................... 14
Liberation study........................................................................................................... 15
Sample 1................................................................................................................. 15
Sample 2................................................................................................................. 18
Theoretical mineral recovery........................................................................................21
Sample 1................................................................................................................. 21
Sample 2................................................................................................................. 22
Particle association......................................................................................................23
Sample 1................................................................................................................. 23
Sample 2................................................................................................................. 25
Notes on liberation and association.............................................................................27
Particle maps............................................................................................................... 28

List of figures
Figure 1: Phase abundance for Sample 1..................................................................................................... 4
Figure 2: Phase abundance for Sample 2..................................................................................................... 5
Figure 3: Deportment of Zn for Sample 1 (% normalised).............................................................................6
Figure 4: Deportment of Cu for Sample 1 (% normalised).............................................................................7
Figure 5: Deportment of Fe for Sample 1 (% normalised).............................................................................8
Figure 6: Deportment of Zn for Sample 2 (% normalised).............................................................................9
Figure 7: Deportment of Cu for Sample 2 (% normalised)...........................................................................10
Figure 8: Deportment of Fe for Sample 2 (% normalised)...........................................................................11
Figure 9: Cumulative grain size distributions of target minerals for Sample 1.............................................12
Figure 10: Cumulative grain size distributions of target minerals for Sample 2...........................................13
Figure 11: Sphalerite theoretical grade-recovery curve for Sample 1..........................................................15
Figure 12: Chalcopyrite theoretical grade-recovery curve for Sample 1......................................................15
Figure 13: Sphalerite liberation yield for Sample 1......................................................................................16
Figure 14: Chalcopyrite liberation yield for Sample 1..................................................................................16
Figure 15: Sphalerite theoretical grade-recovery curve for Sample 2..........................................................18
Figure 16: Chalcopyrite theoretical grade-recovery curve for Sample 2......................................................18
Figure 17: Sphalerite liberation yield for Sample 2......................................................................................19
Figure 18: Chalcopyrite liberation yield for Sample 2..................................................................................19
Figure 19: Sphalerite theoretical mineral recovery curve for Sample 1.......................................................21
Figure 20: Chalcopyrite theoretical mineral recovery curve for Sample 1...................................................21
Figure 21: Sphalerite theoretical mineral recovery curve for Sample 2.......................................................22
Figure 22: Chalcopyrite theoretical mineral recovery curve for Sample 2...................................................22
Figure 23: Sphalerite locking association and lock-type for Sample 1.........................................................23
Figure 24: Chalcopyrite locking association and lock-type for Sample 1.....................................................24

Mineral Liberation Study Issued by Petrolab Ltd


Report# DD/MM/2018 i
Mineralogical Report A Client

Figure 25: Sphalerite locking association and lock-type for Sample 2.........................................................25
Figure 26: Chalcopyrite locking association and lock-type for Sample 2.....................................................26
Figure 27: Size ordered field BSE and particle map images for Sample 1 +38 mm size fraction................28
Figure 28: Size ordered field BSE and particle map images for Sample 1 +23 mm size fraction................29
Figure 29: Size ordered field BSE and particle map images for Sample 1 +8 mm size fraction..................30
Figure 30: Size ordered field BSE and particle map images for Sample 2..................................................31

Mineral Liberation Study Issued by Petrolab Ltd


Report# DD/MM/2018 ii
Mineralogical Report A Client

Petrolab document control


Client A Client

Report title Mineral Liberation Study

Analysis required Full mineral liberation study

Client reference Project Number Client contact Client Name <cname@company.com>

Report ID (version) Report# DD/MM/2018 Version note Report Initial Issue

Prepared by C Brough PhD CGeol Checked by J Fletcher BSc MSc

Limitations
This report relates only to those samples submitted and specimens examined and to any materials properly
represented by those samples and specimens. This report is issued to the Client named above for the
benefit of the Client for the purposes for which it was prepared. It does not confer or purport to confer on
any third party any benefit or right pursuant to the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999.

Mineral Liberation Study Issued by Petrolab Ltd


Report# DD/MM/2018 iii
Mineralogical Report A Client

Report key findings


Two samples were supplied by A Client for detailed mineralogical investigation. They were
reported to be Sample 1 and Sample 2 metallurgical test samples and Petrolab was requested
to characterise the bulk mineral deportment of the samples and to undertake a detailed particle
liberation study.
Sample 1
Sphalerite and chalcopyrite are the main ore phases with pyrite the principal gangue phase.
Other gangue phases present in minor amounts are Fe oxides, chlorite, carbonates and quartz.
Accessory phases, mica and clay group minerals and feldspars are trace components. Cu
deportment is only hosted within chalcopyrite and the reconstructed grade is 0.2 %Cu. Zn
deportment is only hosted within sphalerite and the reconstructed grade is 0.9 %Zn. Fe deportment
is primarily hosted (88%) within pyrite with minor amounts in iron oxides and trace amounts in
chlorite, chalcopyrite and carbonates. The reconstructed grade is 42.9 %Fe.
From the size distribution curves the primary target phases (chalcopyrite and sphalerite) are finer
grained than the particles. Of these two the chalcopyrite is substantially finer-grained than the
sphalerite. From the theoretical grade-recovery curves sphalerite has moderate to excellent
theoretical grade-recoveries, improving substantially between the +23 mm and +8 mm size fraction. In
contrast chalcopyrite shows poor theoretical grade-recovery curves and no improvement between
the +23 mm and +8 mm size fraction. These results are equally evident in the liberation yield bar
charts which also show a particular improvement in sphalerite liberation in the finest size fraction,
along with the relatively poor and unchanging liberation of the chalcopyrite across all size fractions.
The key feature of the liberation and theoretical mineral recovery by particle size data is that
sphalerite shows good to moderate liberation up to particles in the 26 to 38 mm size class after which
the sphalerite becomes increasingly locked. For chalcopyrite, all particle size classes are highly
locked apart from the finest size class (2 – 4 mm). The association data for the locked sphalerite and
chalcopyrite show that the predominant association for both minerals is with pyrite. There is also a
minor mutual association of sphalerite and chalcopyrite. Other minor associations include iron-
oxides, carbonates, chlorite quartz and mica and clay group minerals. The proportion of locked and
middlings grains is higher for chalcopyrite which is consistent with the lower degrees of liberation.
Sample 2
Sphalerite and chalcopyrite are the main ore phases with both present in greater proportions
than in the Sample 1. Pyrite is the principal gangue phase. Other gangue phases present in
minor amounts are mica and clay group minerals. Accessory phases include chlorite, iron
oxides, carbonates, quartz and accessory phases. Zn deportment is only hosted within sphalerite
and the grade is 11.1 %Zn. Cu deportment is only hosted within chalcopyrite and the reconstructed
grade is 1.8 %Cu. Fe deportment is primarily hosted (85%) within pyrite with minor amounts in
sphalerite, chalcopyrite and iron oxides, and trace amounts in mica and clay group minerals, chlorite
and carbonates. The grade is 33.2 %Fe.
In contrast to the Sample 1, for the Sample 2, the sphalerite and chalcopyrite are of similar grain-size
proportions to the overall particle size. The key feature of the Sample 2 theoretical grade-recovery
curves is that both sphalerite and chalcopyrite have moderate to excellent theoretical grade-
recoveries. The liberation yield bar charts show good liberation for sphalerite and chalcopyrite,
though with a noticeable population of poorly liberated chalcopyrite.
The key feature of the liberation and theoretical mineral recovery by particle size data is that both
sphalerite and chalcopyrite shows good liberation through the whole particle range. There is a slight
increase in locking in the middle size range. The association data for the locked sphalerite and
chalcopyrite show that the predominant association for both minerals is with pyrite. There is also a
major mutual association of sphalerite and chalcopyrite. All other associations are in trace amounts
barring a minor association with mica and clay group minerals. The proportion of locked and
middlings grains is similar for both chalcopyrite and sphalerite, with a slightly higher proportion
observed for the chalcopyrite.

Mineral Liberation Study Issued by Petrolab Ltd


Report# DD/MM/2018 iv
Mineralogical Report A Client

Introduction
Scope
Two samples were supplied by A Client for detailed mineralogical investigation. They were
reported to be Sample 1 and Sample 2 metallurgical test samples and Petrolab was requested
to characterise the bulk mineral deportment of the samples and to undertake a detailed particle
liberation study. This report presents the findings from automated mineral analysis on two
samples. The Sample 1 was analysed as three size fractions. For the Sample 1 there was a
fourth size fraction which was not analysed (-8 um). The results from the three other size
fractions were therefore normalised. The Sample 2 was analysed as a single size fraction.

Samples / fractions
Date Mass split
Sample / fraction Type
received (%)

Sample 1
Sample 1 +38µm Metallurgical test 07/03/2017 18.8

Sample 1 +23µm Metallurgical test 07/03/2017 27.3

Sample 1 +8µm Metallurgical test 07/03/2017 31.9

Sample 1 -8µm Metallurgical test - Note; not received - 22.1

Sample 2
Sample 2 Metallurgical test 07/03/2017 100.0

Methods of investigation
Automated mineralogy
Quantitative mineralogical analysis using ZEISS Mineralogic Mining 1 - a product for automated
mineral characterisation based on scanning electron microscopy - was requested. A polished
block was prepared from each of the submitted sample/ fractions and carbon coated to a
thickness of 10 nm. Each block was analysed using a ZEISS EVO MA 25 scanning electron
microscope (SEM)2 fitted with a Bruker xFlash 6|60 x-ray detector for energy-dispersive X-ray
spectroscopy (EDX) analysis. The Mineralogic Mining 1.4 software controlled the SEM and
acquired morphology and X-ray data.
A phase classification scheme was developed using the Mineralogic Mining software.
Delineating grains into different phase classes is achieved by matching criteria that compare the
quantitative measurements of elemental composition, as determined from the ED spectrum, with
standard mineral composition data3. A mineral group name or a general name (after dominant
elements) is used for a class where there is a range in the elemental composition data such that
a specific mineral member cannot be separately identified. Reporting of phase / mineral data is
in terms of weight percent. However, all data acquired is from 2D sections of 3D particles. Mass
values are derived from measurement of particle / grain areas, with no correction for
stereological error, and an assumed phase density. Additional notes on the chosen Mineralogic
mode of analysis are provided in the preamble to each related section of the automated
mineralogy results.

1 ZEISS Mineralogic Mining combines a mineral analysis engine with a scanning electron microscope and energy
dispersive spectrometers to provide automated analysis and is manufactured by Carl Zeiss Microscopy Ltd.
2 SEM system located at Petrolab Ltd, Redruth, UK.
3 The identification of a mineral or mineral group is based on a best match with the acquired chemical data and no
additional verification of its presence has been obtained (unless stated otherwise).

Mineral Liberation Study Issued by Petrolab Ltd


Report# DD/MM/2018 Page: 1 of 32
Mineralogical Report A Client

Bulk mineral & liberation analysis


Analysis details
Liberation mapping mode was utilised, as analysis was undertaken to determine the overall
abundance of major / minor phases, grain/particle sizes and locking characteristics.
Liberation mapping mode acquires data from each particle, particles with edges touching the
border guard frame are discarded (and thus allows for a greater accuracy of liberation data and
particle size data as only complete particles are included).

Petrolab
Sample / fraction ZEISS Mineralogic Mining analysis details
ID#

Sample 1
1x30 mm polished block · Liberation mode 20/03/2017 · 2.25 µm map ·
Sample 1 +38µm Mag. x247 · 1571 particles · Min. analysis ~10 μm².
9851

1x30 mm polished block · Liberation mode 20/03/2017 · 2.0 µm map ·


Sample 1 +23µm Mag. x555 · 1917 particles · Min. analysis ~2 μm².
9852

1x30 mm polished block · Liberation mode 21/03/2017 · 1.0 µm map ·


Sample 1 +8µm Mag. x555 · 1321 particles · Min. analysis ~2 μm².
9853

Sample 2
1x30 mm polished block · Liberation mode 21/03/2017 · 0.5 µm map ·
Sample 2 Mag. x180 · 1109 particles · Min. analysis ~2 μm².
9854

The investigation findings from automated mineral analysis of the samples begins over-page
and consist of phase classification, bulk mineral analysis, element deportment and detailed
liberation and locking association data for selected target mineral phases.
Note on reported values:
A value of <0.1 indicates the mineral phase or element was detected in the sample/ fraction but
with a value beneath the reporting precision, whereas -- indicates the mineral phase or element
was not detected in that particular sample/ fraction.
Any mineral present with an abundance of less than 0.1% may not be encountered by standard
runtime analysis, whereas minerals present with a true abundance of 0.1% or more are likely to
be encountered.

Mineral Liberation Study Issued by Petrolab Ltd


Report# DD/MM/2018 Page: 2 of 32
Mineralogical Report A Client

Classification scheme
Target mineral SG1 Typical composition / Group minerals

Sphalerite 4.1 – 4.4 (Zn,Fe)S

Chalcopyrite 4.2 CuFeS2

Pb Phases 6.5 - 7.4 Galena (PbS) and Cerussite (PbCO3)

Gangue mineral SG Typical composition / Group minerals

Pyrite 4.6 – 6.1 FeS2

Iron Oxides 5.2 – 7.1 Magnetite (FeFe2O4) and hematite (Fe2O3)

Quartz 2.7 SiO2

Chlorite 3.4 Mg5Al(AlSi3O10)(OH)8

Primarily dolomite (Ca(Mg,Fe)(CO3)2), but also some calcite (CaCO3) and


Carbonate Group 2.7
ankerite (Ca(Fe,Mg)(CO3)2)

Mica and Clay Group 2.6 – 3.5 See notes below.

This is a fine-grained alteration phase on the boundary between silicate


Silicate Gangue 2.7
phases.

Accessory 2.3 – 9.7 Accessory minerals include: see notes below

Feldspar Group 2.6 Albite (Na(AlSi3O8)) and Orthoclase (K(AlSi3O8))

Notes on classification
• Sphalerite contains some ultratrace amounts of smithsonite.
• Chalcopyrite includes some trace amounts of bornite and enargite
• Pyrite contains some ultratrace amounts of pyrrhotite and arsenopyrite.
• Iron oxides also includes some tramp steel in the finest size fraction.
• Mica and clay group minerals include muscovite, kaolinite, biotite and lizardite
(serpentine).
• Accessory minerals include apatite, baryte, fluorite, gypsum, rutile and zircon.

1 Typical mineral composition and s.g. data used for calculation of abundance by mass from webmineral.com or as
otherwise estimated.

Mineral Liberation Study Issued by Petrolab Ltd


Report# DD/MM/2018 Page: 3 of 32
Mineralogical Report A Client

Samples 1 and 2
Phase abundance
Figure 1: Phase abundance for Sample 1

100%

90%

80%

70%
Feldspar Group
Silicate Gangue
Mica and Clay Group 60%
Mineral weight (%)

Accessory Phases
Quartz
Carbonate Group 50%
Chlorite
Iron Oxides
Pyrite Group 40%
Pb Phases
Chalcopyrite
Sphalerite Group 30%

20%

10%

0%
Reconstructed +38 um +23 um +8 um

Reconstructed +38 um +23 um +8 um


Phase SG
% % %Dist. % %Dist. % %Dist.
Sphalerite Group 4.1 1.6 1.6 24.1 1.3 29.1 1.8 46.8
Chalcopyrite 4.2 0.5 0.7 29.5 0.7 46.2 0.3 24.3
Pb Phases 7.4 <0.1 <0.1 26.0 <0.1 29.2 <0.1 44.8
Pyrite Group 5.0 81.4 82.1 24.3 91.0 39.1 72.9 36.6
Iron Oxides 5.2 5.3 3.7 16.8 4.5 29.3 7.0 53.9
Chlorite 3.4 3.7 4.6 30.2 0.5 4.9 5.8 64.9
Carbonate Group 3.1 2.9 1.8 15.2 0.7 8.4 5.5 76.5
Quartz 2.7 2.4 3.0 30.0 0.4 5.2 3.9 64.8
Accessory Phases 3.3 1.1 1.1 23.9 0.8 26.9 1.3 49.2
Mica and Clay Group 3.3 0.7 1.1 34.7 <0.1 1.2 1.1 64.0
Silicate Gangue 2.7 0.1 0.1 25.0 <0.1 5.8 0.2 69.1
Feldspar Group 2.6 <0.1 0.1 42.3 <0.1 12.9 <0.1 44.9

Remarks:
Sphalerite and chalcopyrite are the main ore phases with pyrite the principal gangue phase.
Other gangue phases present in minor amounts are Fe oxides, chlorite, carbonates and quartz.
Accessory phases, mica and clay group minerals and feldspars are trace components.

Mineral Liberation Study Issued by Petrolab Ltd


Report# DD/MM/2018 Page: 4 of 32
Mineralogical Report A Client

Figure 2: Phase abundance for Sample 2

100%

90%

80%

70%
Feldspar Group
Accessory Phases
Silicate Gangue 60%
Quartz
Mineral weight (%)

Carbonate Group
Iron Oxides 50%
Chlorite
Mica and Clay Group
Pyrite Group 40%
Pb Phases
Chalcopyrite
Sphalerite Group 30%

20%

10%

0%
Sample 2

Sample 2
Phase SG
%
Sphalerite Group 4.1 22.5
Chalcopyrite 4.2 5.6
Pb Phases 7.4 0.1
Pyrite Group 5.0 65.6
Mica and Clay Group 3.3 3.0
Chlorite 3.4 1.3
Iron Oxides 5.2 1.1
Carbonate Group 3.1 0.3
Quartz 2.7 0.3
Silicate Gangue 2.7 0.1
Accessory Phases 3.3 <0.1
Feldspar Group 2.6 <0.1

Remarks:
Sphalerite and chalcopyrite are the main ore phases with both present in greater proportions
than in the Sample 1. Pyrite is the principal gangue phase. Other gangue phases present in
minor amounts are mica and clay group minerals. Accessory phases include chlorite, iron
oxides, carbonates, quartz and accessory phases.

Mineral Liberation Study Issued by Petrolab Ltd


Report# DD/MM/2018 Page: 5 of 32
Mineralogical Report A Client

Deportment
Figure 3: Deportment of Zn for Sample 1 (% normalised)

100%

90%

80%

70%
Feldspar Group
Quartz
Accessory Phases 60%
Weight distributon (%)

Silicate Gangue
Mica and Clay Group
Carbonate Group 50%
Chlorite
Iron Oxides
Pyrite Group 40%
Pb Phases
Chalcopyrite
Sphalerite Group 30%

20%

10%

0%
Reconstructed +38 um +23 um +8 um

Reconstructed +38 um +23 um +8 um


Phase SG
% %totalZn % %Zn %Dist. % %Zn %Dist. % %Zn %Dist.
Sphalerite Group 4.1 96.4 0.9 96.7 0.9 24.2 96.8 0.7 35.1 96.0 1.0 40.7
Chalcopyrite 4.2 0.3 <0.1 0.3 <0.1 17.7 0.5 <0.1 53.8 0.2 <0.1 28.6
Pb Phases 7.4 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 100.0 -- -- -- -- -- --
Pyrite Group 5.0 2.0 <0.1 2.2 <0.1 25.9 2.2 <0.1 38.1 1.8 <0.1 36.0
Iron Oxides 5.2 1.0 <0.1 0.7 <0.1 16.5 0.5 <0.1 16.0 1.6 <0.1 67.5
Chlorite 3.4 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 31.1 <0.1 <0.1 2.3 0.1 <0.1 66.6
Carbonate Group 3.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 5.5 <0.1 <0.1 2.3 0.1 <0.1 92.2
Mica and Clay Group 3.3 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 34.2 <0.1 <0.1 10.1 <0.1 <0.1 55.8
Silicate Gangue 2.7 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 30.8 <0.1 <0.1 5.3 <0.1 <0.1 63.9
Accessory Phases 3.3 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 38.5 <0.1 <0.1 2.4 <0.1 <0.1 59.1
Quartz 2.7 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 42.6 <0.1 <0.1 1.9 <0.1 <0.1 55.5
Feldspar Group 2.6 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 86.0 -- -- -- <0.1 <0.1 14.0
Total -- 100.0 0.9 100.0 0.9 24.0 100.0 0.7 28.7 100.0 1.1 47.3

Remarks:
Zn deportment is only hosted within sphalerite and the reconstructed grade is 0.9 %Zn. Zn reporting
to pyrite is likely to be present through analysis points overlapping chalcopyrite and pyrite grains.

Mineral Liberation Study Issued by Petrolab Ltd


Report# DD/MM/2018 Page: 6 of 32
Mineralogical Report A Client

Figure 4: Deportment of Cu for Sample 1 (% normalised)

100%

90%

80%

70%
Feldspar Group
Accessory Phases
Mica and Clay Group 60%
Weight distributon (%)

Quartz
Silicate Gangue
Chlorite 50%
Carbonate Group
Iron Oxides
Pyrite Group 40%
Pb Phases
Sphalerite Group
Chalcopyrite 30%

20%

10%

0%
Reconstructed +38 um +23 um +8 um

Reconstructed +38 um +23 um +8 um


Phase SG
% %totalCu % %Cu %Dist. % %Cu %Dist. % %Cu %Dist.
Chalcopyrite 4.2 85.3 0.2 89.4 0.2 25.3 91.6 0.2 37.6 77.6 <0.1 37.2
Sphalerite Group 4.1 0.2 <0.1 0.3 <0.1 27.9 0.2 <0.1 29.5 0.2 <0.1 42.5
Pb Phases 7.4 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 100.0 -- -- -- -- -- --
Pyrite Group 5.0 11.3 <0.1 8.2 <0.1 17.5 7.3 <0.1 22.5 16.6 <0.1 60.0
Iron Oxides 5.2 2.3 <0.1 1.6 <0.1 16.8 0.9 <0.1 14.0 3.8 <0.1 69.2
Carbonate Group 3.1 0.3 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 2.8 <0.1 <0.1 2.7 0.7 <0.1 94.5
Chlorite 3.4 0.2 <0.1 0.3 <0.1 29.3 <0.1 <0.1 0.7 0.4 <0.1 70.0
Silicate Gangue 2.7 0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 3.8 -- -- -- 0.3 <0.1 96.2
Quartz 2.7 0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 9.5 <0.1 <0.1 2.1 0.2 <0.1 88.4
Mica and Clay Group 3.3 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 22.8 -- -- -- <0.1 <0.1 77.2
Accessory Phases 3.3 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 6.8 <0.1 <0.1 14.8 <0.1 <0.1 78.4
Feldspar Group 2.6 <0.1 <0.1 -- -- -- -- -- -- <0.1 <0.1 100.0
Total -- 100.0 0.2 100.0 0.2 27.7 100.0 0.3 49.9 100.0 <0.1 22.4

Remarks:
Cu deportment is only hosted within chalcopyrite and the reconstructed grade is 0.2 %Cu. Cu
reporting to pyrite is likely to be present through analysis points overlapping chalcopyrite and pyrite
grains.

Mineral Liberation Study Issued by Petrolab Ltd


Report# DD/MM/2018 Page: 7 of 32
Mineralogical Report A Client

Figure 5: Deportment of Fe for Sample 1 (% normalised)

100%

90%

80%

70%
Feldspar Group
Accessory Phases
Quartz 60%
Weight distributon (%)

Silicate Gangue
Mica and Clay Group
Carbonate Group 50%
Chlorite
Iron Oxides
Pyrite Group 40%
Pb Phases
Sphalerite Group
Chalcopyrite 30%

20%

10%

0%
Reconstructed +38 um +23 um +8 um

Reconstructed +38 um +23 um +8 um


Phase SG
% %totalFe % %Fe %Dist. % %Fe %Dist. % %Fe %Dist.
Chalcopyrite 4.2 0.4 0.2 0.5 0.2 31.5 0.4 0.2 40.8 0.3 0.1 27.7
Sphalerite Group 4.1 0.2 <0.1 0.2 <0.1 25.6 0.2 <0.1 27.4 0.3 0.1 47.0
Pb Phases 7.4 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 24.7 <0.1 <0.1 27.7 <0.1 <0.1 47.5
Pyrite Group 5.0 87.8 37.8 89.8 38.1 24.7 91.8 42.7 36.6 83.2 33.4 38.7
Iron Oxides 5.2 8.9 3.7 6.3 2.7 17.3 7.1 3.3 28.1 11.8 4.7 54.6
Chlorite 3.4 1.9 0.8 2.5 1.1 31.8 0.2 0.1 4.3 2.9 1.2 63.9
Carbonate Group 3.1 0.5 0.2 0.3 0.1 15.2 0.2 <0.1 9.6 1.0 0.4 75.3
Mica and Clay Group 3.3 0.2 <0.1 0.1 <0.1 20.0 <0.1 <0.1 1.8 0.3 0.1 78.1
Silicate Gangue 2.7 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 24.9 <0.1 <0.1 4.9 0.1 <0.1 70.3
Quartz 2.7 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 20.9 <0.1 <0.1 2.3 <0.1 <0.1 76.8
Accessory Phases 3.3 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 17.9 <0.1 <0.1 16.3 <0.1 <0.1 65.8
Feldspar Group 2.6 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 29.7 <0.1 <0.1 21.8 <0.1 <0.1 48.5
Total -- 100.0 42.9 100.0 42.4 23.8 100.0 46.5 37.9 100.0 40.1 38.2

Remarks:
Fe deportment is primarily hosted (88%) within pyrite with minor amounts in iron oxides and trace
amounts in chlorite, chalcopyrite and carbonates. The reconstructed grade is 42.9 %Fe.

Mineral Liberation Study Issued by Petrolab Ltd


Report# DD/MM/2018 Page: 8 of 32
Mineralogical Report A Client

Figure 6: Deportment of Zn for Sample 2 (% normalised)

100%

90%

80%

70%
Quartz
Silicate Gangue
60%
Weight distributon (%)

Accessory Phases
Carbonate Group
Chlorite
50%
Iron Oxides
Mica and Clay Group
Pyrite Group 40%
Pb Phases
Chalcopyrite
Sphalerite Group 30%

20%

10%

0%
Sample 2

Sample 2
Phase SG
% %Zn
Sphalerite Group 4.1 94.0 10.4
Chalcopyrite 4.2 1.4 0.2
Pb Phases 7.4 <0.1 <0.1
Pyrite Group 5.0 4.0 0.4
Mica and Clay Group 3.3 0.3 <0.1
Iron Oxides 5.2 0.1 <0.1
Chlorite 3.4 0.1 <0.1
Carbonate Group 3.1 <0.1 <0.1
Accessory Phases 3.3 <0.1 <0.1
Silicate Gangue 2.7 <0.1 <0.1
Quartz 2.7 <0.1 <0.1
Total -- 100.0 11.1

Remarks:
Zn deportment is only hosted within sphalerite and the grade is 11.1 %Zn. Zn reporting to pyrite is
likely to be present through analysis points overlapping chalcopyrite and pyrite grains.

Mineral Liberation Study Issued by Petrolab Ltd


Report# DD/MM/2018 Page: 9 of 32
Mineralogical Report A Client

Figure 7: Deportment of Cu for Sample 2 (% normalised)

100%

90%

80%

70%

Quartz
Accessory Phases
Weight distributon (%)

60%
Carbonate Group
Chlorite
Silicate Gangue 50%
Iron Oxides
Mica and Clay Group
Pyrite Group 40%
Sphalerite Group
Chalcopyrite
30%

20%

10%

0%
Sample 2

Sample 2
Phase SG
% %Cu
Chalcopyrite 4.2 95.3 1.7
Sphalerite Group 4.1 1.1 <0.1
Pyrite Group 5.0 3.3 <0.1
Mica and Clay Group 3.3 0.1 <0.1
Iron Oxides 5.2 <0.1 <0.1
Silicate Gangue 2.7 <0.1 <0.1
Chlorite 3.4 <0.1 <0.1
Carbonate Group 3.1 <0.1 <0.1
Accessory Phases 3.3 <0.1 <0.1
Quartz 2.7 <0.1 <0.1
Total -- 100.0 1.8

Remarks:
Cu deportment is only hosted within chalcopyrite and the grade is 1.8 %Cu. Cu reporting to pyrite is
likely to be present through analysis points overlapping chalcopyrite and pyrite grains.

Mineral Liberation Study Issued by Petrolab Ltd


Report# DD/MM/2018 Page: 10 of 32
Mineralogical Report A Client

Figure 8: Deportment of Fe for Sample 2 (% normalised)

100%

90%

80%

70%
Feldspar Group
Quartz
Accessory Phases 60%
Weight distributon (%)

Silicate Gangue
Carbonate Group
Chlorite 50%
Mica and Clay Group
Iron Oxides
Pyrite Group 40%
Pb Phases
Chalcopyrite
Sphalerite Group 30%

20%

10%

0%
Sample 2

Sample 2
Phase SG
% %Fe
Sphalerite Group 4.1 7.4 2.4
Chalcopyrite 4.2 3.8 1.3
Pb Phases 7.4 <0.1 <0.1
Pyrite Group 5.0 84.6 28.0
Iron Oxides 5.2 2.2 0.7
Mica and Clay Group 3.3 1.0 0.3
Chlorite 3.4 0.8 0.3
Carbonate Group 3.1 0.1 <0.1
Silicate Gangue 2.7 <0.1 <0.1
Accessory Phases 3.3 <0.1 <0.1
Quartz 2.7 <0.1 <0.1
Feldspar Group 2.6 <0.1 <0.1
Total -- 100.0 33.2

Remarks:
Fe deportment is primarily hosted (85%) within pyrite with minor amounts in sphalerite, chalcopyrite
and iron oxides, and trace amounts in mica and clay group minerals, chlorite and carbonates. The
grade is 33.2 %Fe.

Mineral Liberation Study Issued by Petrolab Ltd


Report# DD/MM/2018 Page: 11 of 32
Mineralogical Report A Client

Grain size
Cumulative size distribution
The cumulative grain size distribution for each target mineral is shown in the following graph
together with the overall particle size distribution. Curves are plotted with no smoothing
function1. Grain size is the maximum feret diameter calculated from the grain area measured in
2D section with no correction for stereological error2.

Figure 9: Cumulative grain size distributions of target minerals for Sample 1

100.0

90.0

80.0

70.0
Cumulative mineral mass (%)

60.0

50.0

40.0

Sample 1 | Mineral Particle


30.0
Sample 1 | Chalcopyrite
20.0
Sample 1 | Sphalerite Group
10.0
Sample 1 | Pb Phases

0.0
1 10 100 1000

Grain/particle size (µm)

1 If a mineral is present as a minor or trace phase in a sample / fraction then the size data will be based on a small
number of grains and the resulting curve, if plotted, is likely to appear stepped and interpolation from the grain
size curve may be unreliable.
2 Size data obtained from samples analysed as a single size fraction are likely to be subject to greater stereological
error.

Mineral Liberation Study Issued by Petrolab Ltd


Report# DD/MM/2018 Page: 12 of 32
Mineralogical Report A Client

Figure 10: Cumulative grain size distributions of target minerals for Sample 2

100.0

90.0

80.0

70.0
Cumulative mineral mass (%)

60.0

50.0

40.0

30.0
Sample 2 | Mineral Particle
20.0 Sample 2 | Chalcopyrite
Sample 2 | Sphalerite Group
10.0
Sample 2 | Pb Phases
0.0
1 10 100 1000

Grain/particle size (µm)

Mineral Liberation Study Issued by Petrolab Ltd


Report# DD/MM/2018 Page: 13 of 32
Mineralogical Report A Client

Size statistics
The grain size occurrence and statistics for target minerals are listed in the following table. The
approximate D20/ D50/ D80 values are given (e.g. D80 - this is the grain size at the 80% point in
the grain size distribution of the phase by cumulative mineral mass i.e. 80% by mass is finer
than the given diameter). For target minerals with low occurrence the D20/D50/D80 values may
not be wholly representative.

Grain size (µm) Occurrence D20 D50 D80

Sample 1
Particle 4809 25 39 56
Chalcopyrite 870 4 11 22
Sphalerite 701 12 24 37
Pb Phases 104 2 6 13
Sample 2
Particle 3202 5 9 15
Chalcopyrite 745 3 6 15
Sphalerite 2623 3 6 11
Pb Phases 46 0 2 4
Notes: The analysis is restricted to a minimum grain area of ~5 µm². Grain size measurement is the maximum feret
diameter.

Remarks:
The key features of the size distribution curves are that in the Sample 1 the primary target
phases (chalcopyrite and sphalerite) are finer grained than the particles. Of these two the
chalcopyrite is substantially finer-grained than the sphalerite. In contrast, for the Sample 2, the
sphalerite and chalcopyrite are of similar grain-size proportions to the overall particle size.

Mineral Liberation Study Issued by Petrolab Ltd


Report# DD/MM/2018 Page: 14 of 32
Mineralogical Report A Client

Liberation study
Sample 1

Figure 11: Sphalerite theoretical grade-recovery curve for Sample 1

Figure 12: Chalcopyrite theoretical grade-recovery curve for Sample 1

Mineral Liberation Study Issued by Petrolab Ltd


Report# DD/MM/2018 Page: 15 of 32
Mineralogical Report A Client

Figure 13: Sphalerite liberation yield for Sample 1

Figure 14: Chalcopyrite liberation yield for Sample 1

Mineral Liberation Study Issued by Petrolab Ltd


Report# DD/MM/2018 Page: 16 of 32
Mineralogical Report A Client

Mode of liberation

Locked Sub-Middlings Middlings Liberated


Mode of liberation Total
(<30%) (30<50%) (50<80%) (80+%)

Sample 1
Sphalerite Reconstructed 29.2% 10.2% 14.8% 45.9% 100.0%
Sphalerite +38 um 40.5% 11.8% 28.2% 19.5% 100.0%
Sphalerite +23 um 34.9% 11.1% 17.4% 36.5% 100.0%
Sphalerite +8 um 20.1% 8.8% 6.7% 64.4% 100.0%
Chalcopyrite Reconstructed 83.4% 10.0% 0.1% 6.6% 100.0%
Chalcopyrite +38 um 81.0% 19.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%
Chalcopyrite +23 um 81.5% 4.2% 0.1% 14.2% 100.0%
Chalcopyrite +8 um 89.4% 9.9% 0.0% 0.8% 100.0%

Notes: The percent 'liberated' is calculated from the cumulative area of the target mineral in analysed particles with an
overall area of the target phase of > 80%. Other area grade classes reported are ‘locked’ (0 < 30%), 'sub-middlings' (30 <
50%) and ‘middlings’ (50 < 80%).

Remarks:
The key feature of the Sample 1 theoretical grade-recovery curves is that sphalerite has
moderate to excellent theoretical grade-recoveries, improving substantially between the +23 mm
and +8 mm size fraction. In contrast chalcopyrite shows poor theoretical grade-recovery curves
and no improvement between the +23 mm and +8 mm size fraction. These results are equally
evident in the liberation yield bar charts but show in particular the improvement in sphalerite
liberation in the finest size fraction, along with the relatively poor and unchanging liberation of
the chalcopyrite across all size fractions.

Mineral Liberation Study Issued by Petrolab Ltd


Report# DD/MM/2018 Page: 17 of 32
Mineralogical Report A Client

Sample 2

Figure 15: Sphalerite theoretical grade-recovery curve for Sample 2

Figure 16: Chalcopyrite theoretical grade-recovery curve for Sample 2

Mineral Liberation Study Issued by Petrolab Ltd


Report# DD/MM/2018 Page: 18 of 32
Mineralogical Report A Client

Figure 17: Sphalerite liberation yield for Sample 2

Mineral Liberation Study Issued by Petrolab Ltd


Report# DD/MM/2018 Page: 19 of 32
Mineralogical Report A Client

Figure 18: Chalcopyrite liberation yield for Sample 2

Mineral Liberation Study Issued by Petrolab Ltd


Report# DD/MM/2018 Page: 20 of 32
Mineralogical Report A Client

Mode of liberation

Locked Sub-Middlings Middlings Liberated


Mode of liberation Total
(<30%) (30<50%) (50<80%) (80+%)

Sample 2
Sphalerite 12.8% 9.6% 22.3% 55.3% 100.0%
Chalcopyrite 18.9% 11.1% 25.1% 45.0% 100.0%

Notes: The percent 'liberated' is calculated from the cumulative area of the target mineral in analysed particles with an
overall area of the target phase of > 80%. Other area grade classes reported are ‘locked’ (0 < 30%), 'sub-middlings' (30 <
50%) and ‘middlings’ (50 < 80%).

Remarks:
The key feature of the Sample 2 theoretical grade-recovery curves is that both sphalerite and
chalcopyrite have moderate to excellent theoretical grade-recoveries, with sphalerite the slightly
better of the two. The liberation yield bar charts show good liberation for sphalerite and
chalcopyrite, though with a noticeable population of poorly liberated chalcopyrite.

Mineral Liberation Study Issued by Petrolab Ltd


Report# DD/MM/2018 Page: 21 of 32
Mineralogical Report A Client

Theoretical mineral recovery


Sample 1

Figure 19: Sphalerite theoretical mineral recovery curve for Sample 1

Figure 20: Chalcopyrite theoretical mineral recovery curve for Sample 1

Remarks:
The key feature of the liberation and theoretical mineral recovery by particle size data is that
sphalerite shows good to moderate liberation up to particles in the 26 to 38 mm size class after
which the sphalerite becomes increasingly locked. For chalcopyrite, all particle size classes are
highly locked apart from the finest size class (2 – 4 mm).

Mineral Liberation Study Issued by Petrolab Ltd


Report# DD/MM/2018 Page: 22 of 32
Mineralogical Report A Client

Sample 2

Figure 21: Sphalerite theoretical mineral recovery curve for Sample 2

Figure 22: Chalcopyrite theoretical mineral recovery curve for Sample 2

Remarks:
The key feature of the liberation and theoretical mineral recovery by particle size data is that
both sphalerite and chalcopyrite shows good liberation through the whole particle range. There
is a slight increase in locking in the middle size range.

Mineral Liberation Study Issued by Petrolab Ltd


Report# DD/MM/2018 Page: 23 of 32
Mineralogical Report A Client

Particle association
Sample 1

Figure 23: Sphalerite locking association and lock-type for Sample 1

Mineral Liberation Study Issued by Petrolab Ltd


Report# DD/MM/2018 Page: 24 of 32
Mineralogical Report A Client

Figure 24: Chalcopyrite locking association and lock-type for Sample 1

Remarks:
The association data for the locked sphalerite and chalcopyrite show that the predominant
association for both minerals is with pyrite. There is also a minor mutual association of
sphalerite and chalcopyrite. Other minor associations include iron-oxides, carbonates, chlorite
quartz and mica and clay group minerals. The proportion of locked and middlings grains is
higher for chalcopyrite which is consistent with the lower degrees of liberation.

Mineral Liberation Study Issued by Petrolab Ltd


Report# DD/MM/2018 Page: 25 of 32
Mineralogical Report A Client

Sample 2

Figure 25: Sphalerite locking association and lock-type for Sample 2

Mineral Liberation Study Issued by Petrolab Ltd


Report# DD/MM/2018 Page: 26 of 32
Mineralogical Report A Client

Figure 26: Chalcopyrite locking association and lock-type for Sample 2

Remarks:
The association data for the locked sphalerite and chalcopyrite show that the predominant
association for both minerals is with pyrite. There is also a major mutual association of
sphalerite and chalcopyrite. All other associations are in trace amounts barring a minor
association with mica and clay group minerals. The proportion of locked and middlings grains is
similar for both chalcopyrite and sphalerite, with a slightly higher proportion observed for the
chalcopyrite.

Mineral Liberation Study Issued by Petrolab Ltd


Report# DD/MM/2018 Page: 27 of 32
Mineralogical Report A Client

Notes on liberation and association


Theoretical mineral grade vs recovery:
Each line on this graph type (grade-recovery curve) provides a mineralogically limited
representation of liberation. Each particle is assigned to a liberation class depending on the
'grade' of the particle. The particle grade is determined from the percentage of the particle area
occupied by the target phase (as measured in 2D section) – i.e. the area grade.
Starting with the highest grade particles, the total target mineral area in each successive
liberation class is determined and compared against the total particle area in each successive
class to determine the 'Grade' points on the chart. Whereas 'Recovery' is determined from the
cumulative target mineral area in each successive liberation class normalised against the total
target mineral area analysed. The grade vs recovery curve represents the theoretical maximum
mineral recovery at each particle grade class and does not reflect any other recovery factors
that could affect the metallurgical process.
Liberation yield:
Each bar on this graph type provides a mineralogically limited representation of liberation. Each
particle is assigned to a liberation class depending on either the 'grade' or 'partial perimeter' of
the particle. The particle grade is determined from the percentage of the particle area occupied
by the target phase (as measured in 2D section) – i.e. the area grade – and the partial perimeter
determined from the percentage of the particle perimeter occupied by the target phase.
The total mineral area in each liberation class (the liberation yield) is determined and normalised
against the total mineral area analysed. The liberation yield represents the theoretical maximum
mineral recovery at each particle grade class and does not reflect any other recovery factors
that could affect the metallurgical process.
Mode of liberation:
The percent 'Liberated' is calculated from the cumulative mineral area of the target mineral in
analysed particles with an apparent grade (by area or partial perimeter) of > 80%. Other particle
grades reported are ‘Locked’ (0 < 30%), 'Sub-Middling' (30 < 50%) and ‘Middling’ (50 < 80%).
Theoretical mineral recovery by particle size:
The combination bar/line graphs provide a composite summary by grain size of the liberation of
the target minerals. Each bar (grain size class) is split into the four modes of liberation based on
the proportion of the target mineral area in particles that fall in the locked, sub-middling, middling
or liberated particle grades. The line on each graph represents the cumulative amount of the
target mineral that is coarser than the lower limit of each size class, starting on the right side
(coarsest grains). This theoretical mineral-recovery curve is based on all particles containing the
target mineral and excluding all particles without the target mineral.
Particle association:
Each target mineral is grouped by 'Lock type' to calculate the proportion of the mineral (by area)
in particles with: 'Free' association (> 95% apparent liberation); Binary association (particles
containing one other phase) and Complex association (particles containing two or more other
phases).
The locking association bar graph shows the overall proportion of the target mineral that is
associated with other phases (regardless of lock type), allowing the dominant association(s) to
be determined.

Mineral Liberation Study Issued by Petrolab Ltd


Report# DD/MM/2018 Page: 28 of 32
Mineralogical Report A Client

Particle maps
Figure 27: Size ordered field BSE and particle map images for Sample 1 +38 mm size fraction

Mineral Liberation Study Issued by Petrolab Ltd


Report# DD/MM/2018 Page: 29 of 32
Mineralogical Report A Client

Figure 28: Size ordered field BSE and particle map images for Sample 1 +23 mm size fraction

Mineral Liberation Study Issued by Petrolab Ltd


Report# DD/MM/2018 Page: 30 of 32
Mineralogical Report A Client

Figure 29: Size ordered field BSE and particle map images for Sample 1 +8 mm size fraction

Mineral Liberation Study Issued by Petrolab Ltd


Report# DD/MM/2018 Page: 31 of 32
Mineralogical Report A Client

Figure 30: Size ordered field BSE and particle map images for Sample 2

Mineral Liberation Study Issued by Petrolab Ltd


Report# DD/MM/2018 Page: 32 of 32