THE AUSTRALASIAN INSTITUTE OF MINING AND METALLURGY

TELFER PROJECT PROCESS

PLANT DESIGN
by
Andrew Goulsbra, Divisional Metallurgist, Newcrest Mining Limited
Robert Dunne, ex Group Metallurgist, Newcrest Mining Limited
Greg Lane, Principal Process Engineer, GRD Minproc Limited
David Dreisinger, Consultant, Dreisinger Consulting Inc.
Steve Hart, Project Superintendent, Cadia Valley Gold Mines

April 2003

Published by
The Australasian Institute of Mining and Metallurgy
PO Box 660
Carlton South Vic 3053
Australia
Telephone: (03) 9662 3166; Facsimile: (03) 9662 3662; E-Mail: publications@ausimm.com.au
 TABLE OF CONTENTS
ABSTRACT .................................................................................................................................... 3

INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................ 4

TELFER PROCESS DEVELOPMENT OVERVIEW ........................................................................ 5

General ............................................................................................................................. 5
Geology and Mineralogy ................................................................................................... 5
Metallurgical Testwork....................................................................................................... 6

Prefeasibility Study Testwork.................................................................................................... 6

Feasibility Study Testwork ........................................................................................................ 7

Process Selection and Flexibility ....................................................................................... 8
Impact of Ore Variability on Process Design ..................................................................... 9
Comminution Circuit Design ............................................................................................ 10
SART/AVR Circuit Design ............................................................................................... 11

PROCESS DESIGN AND FLOWSHEET ...................................................................................... 11

Process Concept ............................................................................................................. 11
Process Description ........................................................................................................ 11

COMPARISON WITH CADIA PLANT ........................................................................................... 13

Cadia Valley Mine ........................................................................................................... 13
Design Imperatives and Processes ................................................................................. 13

Crushing and Stockpile........................................................................................................... 13

Grinding.................................................................................................................................. 13

Flotation and Concentrate Handling ....................................................................................... 14

Authors Details

Greg Lane, Principal Process Engineer, GRD Minproc Limited, 103 Pinjarra Road, Pinjarra Hills, QLD
Contact: e-mail greg.lane@minproc.com.au, telephone 0401025358

Andrew Goulsbra, Divisional Metallurgist, Newcrest Mining Limited, Hyatt Centre, Level 2, Plaza Level West,
East Perth, WA.

Robert Dunne, ex Group Metallurgist, Newcrest Mining Limited, now Senior Metallurgical Consultant,
Newmont Australia Limited, 10 Richardson Street, West Perth.

David Dreisinger, Consultant, Dreisinger Consulting Inc. C/- University of British Columbia, Stores Road,
Vancouver, B.C., Canada

Steve Hart, Project Superintendent, Cadia Valley Gold Mines, C/- South Orange Post Office, NSW
ABSTRACT

The paper outlines the 17 Mt/a Telfer Project plant process design from sample selection to feasibility study
design.

The 366 Mt Telfer mine reserve consists of a diverse range of copper and gold mineralisation, from massive
sulphide reef ores to stockwork ore, oxide copper minerals to chalcopyrite, siltstone to competent quartzite,
all with relatively high levels of gravity recoverable gold. The complexity of the orebody demanded a flexible
plant that could recover copper and gold values by a combination of gravity recovery, flotation and
concentrate leaching.

The demands of treating ore from a high grade underground mine and a variable grade open pit (that
includes underground old mine workings) necessitated a dual train approach from primary crushing to
concentrate production in order to minimise the requirement for campaigning of different ore types.

An extensive sampling, testwork and technical evaluation program was undertaken to identify processing
characteristics and the optimum process route for each ore type.

The design experience included:

• the development of robust primary stockpiling and pebble crushing concepts,

• detailed review of scale-up of SAG and ball mill pilot plant data to plant scale,

• the selection of two 15 MW SAG mills and two 13 MW ball mills for the grinding circuit, and

• detailed modelling of the pyrite concentrate carbon-in-leach (CIL)/sulphidisation acidification recovery

thickening (SART)/acidification volatilisation recovery (AVR) process to optimise design for copper and
cyanide recovery from leach liquors.

The Telfer plant design also measures the development of process design based on experiences at the
Cadia Hill Cu/Au concentrator, commissioned in 1998. The differences between the two plants are compared
and contrasted.

INTRODUCTION

The Telfer gold/copper mine is located in the southwestern area of the Great Sandy Desert in the Paterson
Province of Western Australia. The mine is 400 km ESE of Port Hedland on the Paterson Range.

The processing facilities to be constructed as part of the Telfer Project are designed to treat 17 to 19 Mt/a of
open pit and underground ores and produce copper concentrates for sale via Port Hedland and recover
precious metals on site at Telfer. Approximately 4 Mt/a ore is to be mined from the Telfer Deeps
underground mine with the balance coming from the open pits.

Surface ore accessed during mine development will produce an estimated 31 Mt of low grade oxide ores to
be treated by dump leaching over the life of the mine at a varying annual mining rate of up to 5.7 Mt/a.

The proposed project evolved from the development of the existing open pit resource and extensive
evaluation of the underground ore potential. Gold from the open pit was recovered by cyanidation from 1977
to 2001. Copper and gold from the reef structures in the open pit and underground mine were recovered by
flotation of a copper/gold concentrate from 1989 to 2001. A large sulphide resource has been defined
immediately below the existing open pits at Main Dome and West Dome, and the Telfer Deeps underground
mine, will develop the deeper I Series reefs and associated gold-copper mineralisation.

There are similarities in the size, mine types and the process routes between the Cadia Valley Mines, first
commissioned in 1998 and the Telfer Project. Both projects comprise large open pit and smaller underground
mines with copper and gold mineralisation. The Cadia Valley Mines were developed sequentially, with the
17 Mt/a Cadia Hill plant processing low head grade ore and requiring an aggressive low cost approach to
project development. Later development of Cadia Valley’s Ridgeway underground mine necessitated the
construction of a parallel high head grade copper/gold concentrator. The Telfer Project will process the open
pit and underground mine simultaneously through a twin train concentrator. The underground ore will be
combined with higher grade reef ore from the open pit and less altered low grade open pit ore and treated in
one train and the more altered open pit ore treated in the second train.

This paper discusses the development of the process plant design for the Telfer Project and compares and
contrasts the design with the Cadia Valley Mine process plants.

TELFER PROCESS DEVELOPMENT OVERVIEW

General

The Telfer Project comprises two open pit mines, Main Dome and West Dome, and the Telfer Deeps
underground mine. The host rock grades with depth from siltstone through sandstone to quartzite with
increasing competency and hardness. The siltstones generally host copper depleted gold rich oxide ore. The
sandstones contain increasing chalcocite with minor chalcopyrite and some pyrite. The quartzite zones
contains increasing chalcopyrite with pyrite. Gold in the sulphide ores is present as “free” gold, gold with
copper minerals and gold in pyrite. This varied association leads to about 40% of the gold being recoverable
by gravity concentration, 30% to 40% recoverable to a copper sulphide concentrate and 10 to 20%
recoverable to a pyrite concentrate generated from the copper flotation tailings.

The variability in alteration of the sulphide minerals results in an inability to effectively separate the copper
sulphide minerals and pyrite using flotation for some ores in the initial years of operation. These ores
principally have a low pyrite content. The high copper:sulphur assay ratios allow the use of bulk sulphide
flotation rather than the differential sulphide flotation process suited to the majority of the mined ore.

The overall project mine reserve is approximately 366 Mt at 1.46 g/t Au and 0.19% Cu. Table 1 summarises
the distribution and head grade of the three major ore sources. The West Dome pit contains higher pyrite
content and lower copper grades and is mined late in mine life, likely after Year 12.

Geology and Mineralogy

The stratigraphic setting and copper domains for the principal open pit ore source, Main Dome, are depicted
in Figure 1 and Figure 2, respectively.

The gold and copper deposits at Telfer are hosted within a 1750 m thick sedimentary sequence comprising
the Telfer Formation, Malu Quartzite and Isdell Formation.

Several styles of mineralisation have been recognised, namely narrow high grade reefs, pod-like mineralised
bodies, sheeted vein-sets and large areas of low grade stockwork mineralisation, which form the majority of
the sulphide resource. The mineralisation is structurally controlled, but all styles display stratabound
characteristics.

Primary gold mineralisation is associated with pyrite-chalcopyrite and quartz-dolomite gangue. However,
weathering has strongly modified the mineralisation, to depths ranging from 100 m to more than 200 m,
although the boundary between oxide and primary ore types is irregular. Supergene minerals include gold
with limonite/goethite, malachite and chrysocolla in the depleted zone, giving way to chalcocite, pyrite,
digenite, covellite, tenorite and cuprite at depth.

The Telfer Project ore sources consists of the following broad classifications:

1. Main Dome ore, a low grade auriferous copper sulphide and pyrite orebody providing the majority of
the ore tonnage.
2. West Dome ore, a low grade auriferous pyrite orebody containing lesser copper sulphides and higher
pyrite values than the Main Dome orebody.

3. MVR ores, comprising remnant reef ore associated with higher grade massive auriferous copper
sulphide and pyrite mineralisation, with occasional pyrrhotite, adjacent to the existing underground
mine.

4. M Series Reef ore, comprising ore associated with the narrow vein reefs within the Malu Quartzite.

5. Telfer Deeps underground mine ore, from the I Series development, with higher grade massive
auriferous copper sulphide and pyrite mineralisation with occasional pyrrhotite.

The weathering profile varies across the mine. Around Main Dome, the redox boundary is generally 100 m to
200 m below the surface although the reef structures and impermeable quartzite boundaries have a strong
effect on the level of oxidation.

Supergene enrichment and leaching of copper and, to a lesser more localised extent, gold, occurs throughout
the mine. Copper is, in general, far more mobile than the gold in the weathering profile, being leached from
near-surface areas down to roughly 60 m to 80 m below the surface, where there is a strong zone of
supergene enrichment. The sub-horizontal supergene copper “blanket” is generally near or above the
oxide/partially oxidised/sulphide redox boundary.

Localised leaching and enrichment of gold and copper, and oxidation of sulphides with related occurrence of
secondary copper sulphides, occur in deeper positions along permeable reef horizons and structures.

The samples used in process design testwork were classified by orebody, lithology and copper domain
according to the nomenclature in Table 2.

MQM, FWS, MSM and MRF account for the majority of ore in the Telfer open pit orebodies, with MQM being
the dominant lithology. In general, copper domain is strongly correlated with flotation performance and
lithology is associated with physical characteristics. The MVR and REF lithologies are typical of weathered
reefs, with low competency, and have given poorer flotation response during testwork.

Metallurgical Testwork

Prefeasibility study testwork

Metallurgical testwork for the Telfer project was conducted between 1995 and 2001. This program was
augmented by historical plant data for the treatment of the MVR and M-Series reef ores between 1989 and
2001.

The testwork program included preliminary assessment of various flowsheets, including:

1. SAG milling and/or fine crushing to –2mm and gravity concentration to 15% of feed mass followed by
ball milling and differential flotation of copper and pyrite concentrates.

2. SAG/ball milling and generation of a bulk flotation concentrate for hydrometallurgical plant treatment on
site.

3. SAG/ball milling and differential flotation of copper and pyrite concentrates.

4. Stage crushing including High Pressure Grinding Rolls (HPGR) followed by ball milling and the bulk
flotation/hydrometallurgical route or differential flotation of copper and pyrite concentrates.

5. Various methods of gold recovery from pyrite concentrate, including gravity concentration and cyanide
leaching. The cyanide leaching testwork incorporated the consideration of cyanide recovery
technologies such as SART and AVR.
Testwork conducted prior to the feasibility study is summarised in Table 3.

GRD Minproc undertook scoping level and prefeasibility level studies in 1999 and 2000 to examine the
application of moderate temperature ferric leaching of flotation concentrates by pressure oxidation on site.
The objective of the studies was to provide the basic inputs to allow comparison of the sale of copper
concentrate and on-site metal recovery from pyrite concentrates with the on-site processing of a combined
copper-pyrite concentrate to produce copper metal and doré. As part of the study work, batch autoclave
testwork was undertaken by AMMTEC in 2000. The work was dynamic in nature, with the test programme
being modified as data was analysed and the chemistry better understood. The objectives of the testwork
were to establish the autoclave operating conditions and the key leaching responses in terms of gold and
copper recovery, cyanide consumption and the generation of acid and ferric sulphate. Eleven tests were
completed, which investigated copper and gold recovery and reagent consumptions in relation to
temperature, grind size, leach density, carbonate reaction (pre-acidulation), sodium nitrate addition, leach
time, and oxygen overpressure.

Feasibility study testwork

A detailed testwork programme was conducted in 2001/2002 during the early stages of the feasibility study by
AMMTEC and Amdel for flowsheet development. The testwork program was designed and supervised by
GRD Minproc.

Benchscale comminution testwork was conducted to supplement data from previous benchscale and pilot
scale testwork. This testwork consisted of Bond ball mill and rod mill work indices, abrasion indices and JK
Dropweight tests on major ore type composites and a validation of the grind time database developed during
prefeasibility study flotation testwork programs.

Benchscale flotation and leach testwork was conducted for flowsheet development and optimisation. This
work was conducted in four stages:

1. Variability Repeat Work: repeat tests on samples from the 1999 core variability testwork programme
on Main Dome samples to confirm and optimise previous results.

2. Grind Size Optimisation: testwork at various grind sizes to determine the optimum grind size for the
open pit and Telfer Deeps composite samples.

3. Composite Sample Testwork: evaluation of flotation and leaching using the optimised flowsheet from
the pilot plant testwork on various composite samples representing the major ore types from Main
Dome, West Dome and Telfer Deeps.

4. Blending Testwork: evaluation of the effects on flotation of blending various ore types.

Additional pyrite circuit optimisation testwork was conducted to assess the processing options for the copper
flotation tailings. This work focussed on minimising the recovery of copper minerals to pyrite concentrate and
included flotation circuit and desliming circuit evaluation. Copper minerals in pyrite rougher concentrate
typically consisted of fine chalcocite, and desliming was found to be effective in dramatically reducing cyanide
soluble copper grades with very low gold loss.

A series of repeat assays to test sampling procedures and assay reproducibility was conducted. The “spotty”
nature of the gold in the ore samples required a rigorous approach to assay balances and recovery modeling.

Further pilot plant flotation trials were conducted to evaluate the flotation response of two composite samples
representing typical ore blends from the upper Main Dome open pit, lower Main Dome open pit and Telfer
Deeps.

Pilot plant samples were used to assess viscosity, settling, filtration and other physical process parameters,
including:

• concentrate and tailings thickening testwork undertaken by Outokumpu and Eimco,

• concentrate filtration testwork undertaken by Delkor, JORD and Metso,

• Tunra and SGS testwork to determine transportable moisture limits for copper concentrates, and

• viscosity testwork undertaken at AMMTEC.

Materials flow properties for bulk storage and materials handling design were assessed by Tunra.

Metallurgical data for oxide ore processing evaluations is sourced from May 2002 testwork conducted at
AMMTEC on Main Dome and West Dome ores, and from historical data from Telfer dump leach operations
up to 2000. Some column and batch leach tests were conducted by AMMTEC on samples or oxide ore from
various rock types.

Process Selection and Flexibility

Processing options considered for the Telfer Project included the use of HPGR in the comminution circuit and
on-site metal production by pressure oxidation (POX) of bulk concentrates followed by solvent extraction (SX)
and electrowinning (EW) to produce copper cathodes, with gold production by CIL.

The POX-SX-EW option offered the opportunity to minimise the transport and concentrate treatment cost for
copper recovery. However, the driving force for using POX was the effective removal of copper prior to gold
recovery, as Telfer is really a gold mine with a “copper problem”. Thus, POX presented an alternative to the
proven route used historically at Telfer of sequential copper concentrate and pyrite concentrate flotation and
pyrite concentrate leaching to recover contained gold. The potentially high cyanide consumption when
leaching the pyrite concentrates using CIL requires that a cyanide recovery process be used. The SART
process was commissioned at Telfer for cyanide recovery just prior to project closure in 2000.

With increasing reserves and further metallurgical data, particularly from Telfer Deeps, HPGR and POX-SX-
EW options were rejected on a project risk basis. Although both processes offered the potential for reduced
operating costs, the remote location of the Telfer site and the novel nature of the technology were considered
to offset the potential advantages.

The introduction of ore from Telfer Deeps into the mine schedule during prefeasibility assessments
significantly increased the concentrate weight pull for the bulk flotation required as POX feed and increased
the chalcopyrite and pyrite content. This had a significant impact on the flowsheet and equipment
requirements, capital costs and operating costs for POX-SX-EW options, with increased technical risk.

The mining schedules for the early payback years of the project show a significant portion of feed consisting
of weathered enriched (WEN) and weathered supergene (WSG) material. This material has the highest
copper content within the open pit resource and typically contains a varying amount of oxidised copper
mineralisation with poor flotation characteristics.

Preliminary bulk flotation tests on upper open pit ore indicated that bulk flotation would require sulphidisation
with sodium sulphide to achieve maximum recovery. Concentrate grades of 17-20% Cu were achieved.
Sequential flotation of upper open pit ore resulted in very high concentrate grades (above 35% Cu), but low
copper recovery and a high leakage of copper into the pyrite circuit. Sulphidisation was required in pyrite
circuit to achieve maximum gold recovery, but also resulted in a high recovery of copper to the pyrite
concentrate. Telfer Deeps ore and lower open pit ore did not require sulphidisation. For sequential flotation,
RTD12, a dithionocarbamate collector and sodium cyanide as a pyrite depressant, was used in copper
flotation and xanthate as a collector in pyrite flotation.

Gravity gold recovery was relatively consistent for all ores tested. Both oxide and sulphide ore processed in
prior to 2000 yielded between 35% and 45% gravity gold recovery. This trend was maintained in benchscale
testwork.

The outcome of the mine design and testwork programs was the definition of a number of different ore types
that required different process routes to optimise metallurgy, as described in Table 4.
An overall review of the project concepts and design parameters was undertaken to establish the design
basis for the Feasibility Study. The review was carried out to reflect increased reserves, revised mine
schedules indicating an increase in plant throughput, revised ore grades and a recognition that mill capacity
was constrained by the competency of the Telfer Deeps and lower open pit ores.

The result of the review was the dual train concept, as discussed below, with a nominal throughput of
17-19 Mt/a and the potential to be readily expanded to accommodate potential increased reserves.

Impact of Ore Variability on Process Design

The treatment plant flowsheet is designed to provide optimum process routes, in terms of recoveries and
economics, for ores from different mine sources and with different metallurgical characteristics. In broad
terms, the ores fall into the following categories.

1. Bulk flotation ores to produce mixed copper-pyrite concentrates for sale, with no on-site gold recovery
by pyrite leaching. Such ores include much of the upper open pit material.

2. Sequential flotation ores to produce separate copper and pyrite concentrates, with the copper
concentrates being shipped via Port Hedland and the pyrite concentrates being leached on site for gold
recovery. Such ores include much of the lower open pit and Telfer Deeps material.

3. Copper flotation only ores, in which it is uneconomic to recover and treat pyrite concentrate.

4. Pyrite flotation only ores, in which it is uneconomic to recover copper concentrates.

Most of the ores fall into the bulk flotation or sequential flotation category. The plant is designed for a
nominal sequential ore throughput of 17 Mt/a. However, the softer bulk flotation ores can be treated at a
nominal throughput rate of 19 Mt/a.

The ores are derived from different sources.

The Telfer Deeps ore is crushed underground, transported to the surface by shaft and then conveyed to the
coarse ore stockpile stacker. The Telfer Deeps ore is similar to the M-series reef ore derived from the open
pit. The lower open pit ore from the MQM region is also similar in flotation response to the M Series and
Telfer Deeps ores. Thus, M Series reef ore and lower open pit ore are crushed in the primary crusher and
delivered to the Telfer Deeps ore stockpile. These ores are processed using the sequential flotation of copper
and pyrite concentrates.

MVR ore is only suitable for bulk flotation, irrespective of pyrite grade, due to the high level of alteration of the
copper mineralogy and the difficulty in separating the copper and pyrite minerals. Thus, crushed MVR reports
to the stockpile for bulk flotation.

Upper open pit ore may be either suitable for bulk flotation due to low pyrite levels, copper flotation only due
to the high leakage of cyanide soluble copper to the pyrite concentrate, or be suitable for sequential flotation
of copper and pyrite concentrates.

The different requirements of the various ore types to be mined simultaneously required that the primary
crushing station consist of two 54/75 gyratory crushers rather than a single 60/110 gyratory, with the added
advantage of the potential for operation at a finer open side setting and finer SAG mill feed.

As ores from around the M Series reef and MVR were likely to have remnant steel and wood from old
unground workings, one of the crushers was fitted with an apron feeder and picking station to facilitate trash
removal. This crusher was required to deliver ore to both the Telfer Deeps/sequential flotation stockpile and
the bulk flotation stockpile and as such delivered to a stacker central to the two stockpiles. The other primary
crusher delivers ore to only the Train 2 stockpile which consists of predominantly bulk flotation ore in the
initial years of operation.
The grinding circuit is required to treat sequential flotation ore and bulk flotation ore, either in campaigns or in
parallel process trains. The cost of stockpiling and rehandling ore for campaign treatment was substantial,
thus favouring the installation of parallel grinding trains and minimizing rehandling. The two grinding trains are
identical as the majority of ore is sequential flotation ore and the ore grindability will be similar for both trains
after year 3.

The copper flotation circuits for both trains are identical. Although the head grade for Train 1 (nominally the
sequential flotation train) is lower, the copper concentrate grade is lower and the concentrate production rate
was determined to be similar to that for Train 2 (nominally the bulk flotation train).

The pyrite rougher flotation circuits are identical and the pyrite cleaner/deslime circuit is common to both
trains.

Thus, the two trains are interchangeable with the exception that Telfer Deeps ore must be processed through
Train 1. In the initial 18 months of operation very little Telfer Deeps ore is mined and only bulk flotation ore is
treated through both trains. The construction of the pyrite cleaning and pyrite concentrate treatment circuits
can be deferred for 18 months, if necessary. The pyrite roughing circuit is used for bulk flotation as a
sulphidisation scavenging circuit to maximize copper and gold recovery.

The option of designing two parallel trains of unequal capacity was considered. Between 4 Mt/a and 6 Mt/a of
underground and M Series reef ore are mined per year. This ore produces high value pyrite concentrate. The
option of a 4 Mt/a to 6 Mt/a high grade plant and a parallel 11 Mt/a to 13 Mt/a low grade was considered. This
option was rejected due to the lack of flexibility and the high tonnage of profitable sequential flotation ore from
the non-reef areas of the open pit that requires pyrite flotation in the large capacity plant, thus obviating the
opportunity to simplify the larger plant and reduce capital cost.

Comminution Circuit Design

The comminution circuit design for Telfer was based on benchscale and pilot plant data and Cadia plant
operating trends. Benchscale data was used to provide an indication of ore variability as illustrated in Figures
3 and 4.

The feasibility study grinding circuit design included a 10% allowance for “operational factors” based on the
difference between surveyed SAG mill performance and average monthly performance at Cadia. The pebble
recycle rate through pebble crushing circuit was expected to vary from 17% to 50%, again based on Cadia
performance (Hart et al, 2000).

The design ore parameters are represented by a ball work index of 13.7 kWh/t and a rod mill work index of
20.7 kWh/t, although there is considerable variability in the ore hardness and competency as indicated in
Figures 3 and 4.

Table 5 illustrates the expected impact of feed size and pebble recycle rate on SAG mill specific energy (with
no operational factor). Ball mill specific energy, again with no operational factor, was expected to average
8.8 kWh/t for the design case SABC circuit to yield a P 80 of 120 microns.

Thus, with the 10% operational factor allowance, the SAG mill and ball mill specific energies were 9.44 kWh/t
and 9.7 kWh/t, respectively. At a nominal treatment rate of 18 Mt/a, 20.9 MW of SAG mill power and
21.4 MW of ball mill power are required. The selection of twin 15 MW 10.98 m diameter SAG mills allows
operation at 8% ball load and 26% total charge volume.

Two 13 MW ball mills were selected to ensure that:

• target grind is achieved when treating harder underground and lower open pit ore, and

• a P 80 of 75 microns can be achieved to improve recovery when treating softer altered upper open pit ores
where fine grinding increases recovery significantly.
SART/AVR Circuit Design

The existing SART circuit will be relocated from the old sulphide/oxide plant to the new concentrator. A new
AVR plant will be constructed. The economics of gold recovery from the pyrite concentrate is heavily reliant
on the successful recovery and recycle of cyanide from the leach tail. High cyanide levels are maintained in
the CIL circuit to ensure that cyanide soluble copper remains in solution and is not absorbed on the carbon.
The leach liquor is recovered by counter current decantation (CCD), the copper precipitated and the
remaining cyanide liquor recycled to leach feed. Due to the excess volume of cyanide liquor, some of the
liquor is subjected to volatilization and recovery in the AVR plant.

AVR technology has been used since the 1920s and is not considered novel.

The issues in plant design relate to minimizing operating cost and gypsum formation by minimizing acid and
lime addition. Acid addition is required to obtain optimum copper sulphide precipitation and allow the
volatisation of the cyanide species. Lime addition is required to neutralize the liquors for reuse in the leach
plant.

A model of the CIL/SART/AVR plant was prepared by Dreisinger Consulting Inc to allow optimization of the
water balance and predict reagent consumption.

PROCESS DESIGN AND FLOWSHEET

Process Concept

The plant is designed with two identical parallel trains for primary crushing, crushed ore stockpiles, grinding,
pebble recycle crushing and rougher scavengers flotation for copper and pyrite and parallel copper cleaner
flotation trains.

Pyrite concentrate cleaning and subsequent leaching is undertaken in a single train, as is copper concentrate
thickening and filtering subsequent to the copper cleaner flotation.

The crushed ore stockpile for Train 1 grinding circuit is fed with both primary crushed underground Telfer
Deeps ore and primary crushed open pit ore. Train 1 will normally treat a blend of underground and open pit
sequential ores, but, until the underground operations commence, this train will process bulk flotation ores.
The blending of open pit sequential and underground ores will require continuous operational management to
control head grade feed to the plant.

The crushed ore stockpile for Train 2 grinding circuit is fed with primary crushed open pit ores only. Train 2
will normally treat bulk flotation ores, but, on an as required basis, can run campaigns of open pit sequential,
open cut copper only or open pit pyrite only ores.

The dual train plant concept is depicted in Figure 5.

The low grade oxide ore is processed in an extension of the existing dump leach facility and is expected to
yield 442 600 oz of gold over the life of the project.

Process Description

Primary crushing facilities for open pit ores, consisting of two parallel crushing and stockpiling trains with a
nominal maximum capacity of 2500 t/h per train. This dual facility allows for the open pit mining of two
different ore types simultaneously, thus providing increased mine scheduling flexibility and reduced stockpile
live capacity requirements.
Facilities for removal of trash and tramp from open pit MVR and M Series Reef material are provided on one
primary crusher. This facility will be required when open pit operations mine through areas of previous
underground operations.

Parallel crushed ore stockpile trains, each with one reclaim tunnel feeding to a SAG mill feed conveyor.
Stockpile stacking is via three luffing and slewing radial stackers, one dedicated to primary crushed ore from
underground and one per open pit primary crushing train. Each stockpile train has three drawdown zones,
each with two back-to-back apron feeder arrangements, i.e. six feeders per train to facilitate blending of
different ore types and grades.

Grinding facilities consist of two parallel mill trains, each comprising one 15 MW SAG mill and one 13 MW
ball mill in closed circuit with classifying cyclones. Each SAG mill is fed by a conveyor from one crushed ore
stockpile reclaim system. Each mill train has a SAG mill pebble stockpile and recycle crushing facility.

10% of the cyclone feed on each train is directed to a gravity concentration circuit for gravity gold recovery.

A portion of cyclone underflow in each train is directed to a two stage flash flotation circuit, with cleaner
concentrates being directed to the copper concentrate thickener.

Copper flotation is carried out in two identical parallel trains of roughing, scavenging, cleaning and recleaning
cells. Sulphidisation is applied ahead of the cleaner scavengers. When operating under bulk flotation
conditions, residual sulphides are further reactivated by sulphidisation and recovered via the pyrite flotation
circuit roughers, with the rest of the pyrite flotation circuit being redundant.

Pyrite flotation is carried out in two identical parallel trains. One train is dedicated to sequential ore treatment,
while the other can be used for either sequential or bulk flotation ore treatment. In sequential mode, pyrite
rougher concentrates from each train are combined as feed to the pyrite cleaner cells. Sulphidisation
conditioning is applied ahead of the roughers and cleaner scavengers. Pyrite cleaner concentrates are
deslimed ahead of the pyrite concentrate thickener. In bulk flotation mode, pyrite rougher scavenger
concentrate from the relevant train is recycled to the copper cleaner circuit to recover reactivated sulphides,
as described above.

Copper flotation concentrates are screened, thickened, pressure filtered and stockpiled prior to load-out for
road transportation to Port Hedland.

Pyrite concentrate is thickened prior to belt filtration. Dewatered concentrates are repulped with recovered
cyanide solution from SART/AVR and directed to the pyrite leach circuit.

The leach circuit consists of a leach tank followed by a series of CIL adsorption tanks. Loaded carbon from
CIL is directed to the elution circuit.

CIL tailings are washed in a CCD thickener circuit for cyanide solution recovery prior to their disposal to the
tailings dam. Overflow from No. 1 CCD thickener is pumped to the SART/AVR plant for copper and cyanide
recovery. Underflow from No. 6 CCD is pumped to tailings disposal

Loaded carbon from the CIL circuit is treated in an acid wash and split AARL elution circuit. Gold is
recovered as doré by electrowinning and smelting.

Stripped carbon is regenerated in a horizontal kiln prior to return to the CIL circuit.

Low grade oxide ores from the open pits are processed in a separate dump leaching facility, from which
loaded carbon is treated in plant elution facilities.
 COMPARISON WITH CADIA PLANT

Cadia Valley Mine

The Cadia Valley Mines consist of the 17 Mt/a Cadia open pit and the 5 Mt/a Ridgeway underground mines.
The ores are processed in separate dedicated process plants. This scenario is similar to that of the Telfer
Project with a number of important differences as summarised in Table 6.

Design Imperatives and Processes

The Telfer Project benefited from the scale-up lessons learnt at Cadia in grinding and flotation circuit design.

Cadia had a low head grade and was perceived to be a difficult project. The capital cost of the plant was
optimised in the project definition phase by maximizing the size of each item of equipment and, thus,
minimising the amount of equipment. No allowance was made expansion other than to allow space adjacent
the plant for a parallel concentrator.

The variability in processing characteristics at Telfer is substantially greater than that at Cadia. Cadia ore is
relatively homogenous monzonite with minor more competent volcanics. Localised shear zones and areas of
high mineralisation occur, but the impact of oxidation is relatively minor. Telfer ore varies from siltstone to
highly competent quartzite, and from pyrite deficient oxide copper to pyrite rich with copper as chalcopyrite.
This variability demanded that flexibility in ore handling and processing was a paramount consideration in
design.

Due to the up side potential of the Telfer area, the design of the Telfer concentrator considered various
methods of increasing plant throughput by increasing SAG mill ball load and reducing the SAG mill feed size.
The plant design throughput varies with ore grindability and process route, and the materials handling
capability of the plant is considerably greater than the nominal design of 17 to 19 Mt/a. The need to
separately handle underground, M-series reef ores, MVR ore and open pit bulk and sequential flotation ores
with minimum rehandling necessitated a more complex crushing and stockpiling system than installed at
Cadia. Stockpile segregation was found to impact on SAG mill throughput and as a result reduced the
average plant throughput. Luffing and slewing stackers with kidney-shaped stockpiles were design for Telfer
to reduce the impact of segregation and reduce dust issues.

Other lessons learnt from the Cadia Project and major differences between from the Cadia and Telfer
concentrators are summarised below.

Crushing and Stockpile

The dual primary crushing and stockpiling arrangement designed for Telfer allows direct dumping of the
majority of mined open pit ore although there are significant variations in optimum process route within the
pit. The use of radial stackers and an increase in stockpile live capacity will reduce the impact of segregation
on SAG mill operation and facilitate steadier operation.

Grinding

The Cadia SAG mill throughput was impacted by lower than anticipated pebble discharge rate, particularly
with new discharge grates and lower than anticipated power draw under design conditions. This resulted in
the need to operate at 12% to 14% ball charge to achieve design throughput.

Telfer comminution circuit design utilised Cadia data on the impact of primary crusher product size, pebble
crusher recycle rate and equipment availability on SAG mill throughput. The impact of these factors was used
to construct operating envelopes for various ore types. The SAG mill was sized to be able to treat the hardest
ores at less than 12% ball charge.
The MP1000 crushers selected for the Cadia Project were not selected for Telfer. The MP1000 crushers at
Cadia have had a number of mechanical problems that have impacted on plant capacity. For Telfer, robust
Symons 7 ft HD hydrocones were selected based on operating experience in other Australian operations,
such as Fimiston.

Pebble stockpiles were included in the Ridgeway plant design to reduce the impact of variations in pebble
crushing rate on SAG mill performance. Thus, both pebble crusher operation and SAG mill performance
could be separately controlled. Pebble stockpiles were also included in the Telfer design between the SAG
mill discharge screen and the pebble crusher.

The SAG mill trommel/screen combination was retained after successful application at Ridgeway. The design
minimises the reliance on the SAG mill trommel for dewatering thus minimizing the structural impact of a
large trommel, and allows a subsequent screening stage to fully dewater the recycle pebble prior to pebble
crushing. Problems with ring-bounce were apparent at Cadia due to fines and water carry over to the pebble
crushing circuit. Also, final drainage of the pebbles in the pebble bin resulted in slurry flow from the pebble
feed bin.

Flotation and concentrate handling

The flotation plant mass balance data from Cadia and Ridgeway were reviewed with respect to concentrate
densities and operational froth characteristics. The cells sizes used at Telfer are similar to those in operation
in the Cadia and Ridgeway concentrators.

Data from surveys of concentrate froth factors at Cadia and Ridgeway were considered in Telfer design.

The layout of the Telfer plant is complicated by the need to access cells with a mobile crane due to the
absence of a building to support an overhead crane. The use of semi-portal cranes may be considered in
detailed design.

References:

Hart, S, Dioses, J, Gelfi, P, Clements, B, Valery, W, Dunne R, 2000, Cadia Mines –Reflection After One
Year’s Operation, in Proceedings of SME Conference (SME/AIME).
List of Tables

Table 1 Summary of Telfer mine reserve

Table 2 Telfer orebody classifications

Table 3 Summary of pre feasibility study testwork

Table 4 Summary of optimum Telfer ore processing routes

Table 5 SAG mill specific power as a function of feed size and pebble crushing rate (with no
operational factor)

Table 6 Comparison of Cadia Valley and Telfer Project process plant requirements

List of Figures

Figure 1 Stratigraphic Settling

Figure 2 Main Dome – Copper Domains

Figure 3 Relationship between ball and rod mill work indices

Figure 4 Ball mill work index as a function of RL for open pit MQM ore by copper domain

Figure 5 Dual Train Concept

 Table 1 Summary of Telfer Mine Reserve
Ore Source Tonnes Au g/t Cu % CNsolCu % S%
Main Dome 294 1.41 0.176 0.116 0.9
West Dome 76 1.15 0.08 0.05 2.48
Telfer Deeps 40 2.65 0.5 0.07 3.45
TOTAL 410 1.48 0.19 0.10 1.44

Table 2 Telfer Orebody Classifications

Parameter Classification Abbreviation
Orebody Main Dome MD
West Dome WD
Telfer Deeps TD
Lithology Malu Quartzite Member MQM
Footwall Sandstone Member FSM
Middle Vale Reef MVR
M Series Reefs MRF
Middle Vale Siltstone MVS
Median Sandstone Member MSM
Upper Vale Siltstone UVS
Rim Sandstone Member RSM
E Reef Mineralisation REF
Outer Siltstone Member OSM
Copper Domain Sulphide SX
Transitional TX
Weathered – Enriched WEN
Weathered – Enriched, Oxide WENOX
Weathered supergene WSG
Oxide (minor ore type in flotation feed) OX
Central Copper Envelope CCE
Table 3 Summary of Prefeasibility Study Testwork
Head grade determination Screen fire assay testwork to assist in the resolution of head grade
variations
Comminution Comminution testwork drill core, bulk mined ore samples and selected
samples from Telfer Deeps, West Dome and Main Dome.
A comminution pilot plant trial at Amdel completed in November 2001.
Development of a relationship between grind time and Bond ball mill
work index for ore variability assessment (over 200 samples).
HPGR benchscale testwork was conducted at Amdel in 2000. Pilot
plant testwork was carried out in early 2001 on samples representing
very soft, soft, medium and hard ores. The testwork programme
included:
– pilot scale HPGR testwork at CSIRO at Waterford, WA
– HPGR vendor test programmes by KHD, Krupp and
Koeppern
– ball mill sizing testwork by JKTech and SMCC.
– benchscale comminution ore characterisation testwork,
including Bond work indices, UCS and JK Dropweight
tests conducted by AMMTEC.
Flotation performance A flotation pilot plant conducted in February 1999, including the
determination of engineering design parameters for dewatering and the
collection of samples for concentrate treatment testwork
Assessment of pilot plant products and locked cycle testwork with size
fraction analysis of product streams
Testwork on pyrite flotation concentrate cleaning to determine the
potential gold losses to the cleaner circuit tail.
An evaluation of alternative flotation reagents to improve oxidized
copper and gold recovery to copper concentrate.
Optimisation testwork on high Cu/Au MVR ores, including flotation,
leaching and gravity testwork.
Assessment of flotation performance variability throughout Telfer
Deeps, West Dome and Main Dome.
Au recovery testwork Testwork on the pilot plant pyrite concentrate samples, including
desliming, cleaning, pressure oxidation, cyanide leaching, gravity
separation and magnetic separation.
Cyanide recovery Scoping tests by Oretest, using the EMEW cell to recover Cu from Cu
testwork cyanide solution.
An evaluation of membrane technology for the separation of copper
cyanide/cyanide species for cyanide recovery.
A SART plant was installed at Telfer in 2000 to control copper and
cyanide levels in the leach liquors from the existing operations. Data
from the commissioning and operation of the SART plant, together with
data from sulphide leaching testwork, provides the basis for the
SART/AVR process design.
Table 4 Summary of Optimum Telfer Ore Processing Routes
Ore Type Dominant Optimum Optimum Flotation Method Pyrite
Mineralogy Grind, P 80 Concentrate
(microns) Leaching
Required
Upper Open Pit Ore – Chalcocite with low 75 Bulk flotation with No
Low Pyrite pyrite sulphidisation
Upper Open Pit Ore – Chalcocite with high 75 Selective copper sulphide No
High Pyrite pyrite flotation
Lower Open Pit Chalcopyrite with 130 Selective copper sulphide Yes
pyrite flotation then pyrite flotation
Open Pit MVR Ore Chalcocite with high 75 Bulk flotation with No
pyrite sulphidisation
Open Pit M Reef Ore Chalcopyrite with 130 Selective copper sulphide Yes
pyrite flotation then pyrite flotation
Telfer Deeps Ore Chalcopyrite with 130 Selective copper sulphide Yes
pyrite flotation then pyrite flotation
West Dome – Low Cu Pyrite with minor 130 Pyrite concentrate flotation Yes
Grade Ore copper only

Table 5 SAG Mill Specific Power as a Function of Feed Size and Pebble Crushing
Rate (With No Operational Factor)
Feed size range (mm) SAG mill specific power (kWh/t)
Pebble crushing rate % (new feed) 0 17 25 34
Coarse, 122-150 12. 6 10.2 9.4 8.89
Medium, 103-125 11.0 9.0 8.3 7.8
Fine, 95-110 10.4 8.5 7.8 7.3
Table 6 Comparison of Cadia Valley and Telfer Project Process Plant Requirements
Issue Cadia Valley
The projects were developed
Development Schedule
sequentially and there was no
consideration of the Ridgeway ore in
the design and construction of the
Cadia process plant
Open Pit: 0.17% Cu and 0.8 g/t Au
Head Grade
Underground: 1.24 % Cu and 3.84g/t
Au
Development of the initial Cadia open
Project Philosophy
pit project relied on the construction of
a low cost concentrator and
consequently small design margins. No
allowance was made for expansion of
the concentrator.
The Ridgeway ore benefits from a finer
Primary Grind
grinding circuit product size,
P 80 125 microns compared with
Cadia’s P 80 180 microns.
Open Pit Ore Variability The Cadia open pit ore varies gradually
and Process Route from bornite rich to chalcopyrite rich.
Pyrite content varies through the ore
body but only a very low proportion of
the ore potential “bulk flotation” ore.
Some high grade reefs occur.
Gold Recovery to Pyrite Au recovery to pyrite concentrate is low
Concentrate (<<10%) and recovery by cyanide
leaching is not economically viable.
Telfer
The Telfer Project is developing the
open pit and underground operations
simultaneously.
Open Pit: 0.49% Cu and 1.5 g/t Au
Underground: 0.7% Cu and 3 g/t Au
The development of the combined open
pit and underground project benefited
from relatively high head grades and
enables the use of design margins that
facilitate future expansion and flexible
operation.
The open pit ore at Telfer benefits from
a finer grind P 80 75 microns for the
softer altered ore and a similar optimum
grind for the primary open pit to the
underground Telfer Deeps ore, P 80
130 microns.
Ore pit ore is highly variable as
described. The results in a number of
optimum processing routes.
Au recovery to pyrite concentrate is
typically 10% to 25%. Providing Cu grade
to pyrite concentrate is low, Au recovery
by leaching is economic.
Figure 1 Stratigraphic Settling

Figure 2 Main Dome – Copper Domains

 Figure 3 Relationship between Ball and Rod Mill Work Indices

30

Telfer Deeps

25 Competent Main Dome

Incompetent Main Dome

Competent West Dome

20
Rod mill work index (kWh/t)

15

10

0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18
Ball mill work index (kWh/t)

Figure 4 Ball Mill Work Index as a Function of RL for Open Pit MQM Ore by Copper Domain

Ball mill work index (kWh/t)

Page 21
Figure 5 Dual Train Concept

Train 2

COPPER FLOTATION
PYRITE FLOTATION

Train 1
GRINDING, GRAVITY, FLASH FLOTATION

PRIMARY CRUSHING AND

STOCKPILING

Tailings

TAILINGS HANDLING

PYRITE
LEACHING

COPPER
CONCENTRATE CYANIDE RECOVERY
HANDLING
23