Bur - Engenium Rep - 141113 - 9396A REP 0000 Z 001 Rev 1 - IFU - BODY PDF

Engenium Pty Ltd Document No: 9396A-REP-0000-Z-001
Bullamine Iron Ore Project Revision No: 1

Metallurgical Testwork Issue Date: 13 November 2014
Report Page No: i
DISCLAIMER
This Document was compiled for Reedy Lagoon Corporation by Engenium Pty Ltd
(Engenium) as an independent consultant. It is based in part upon information furnished by
Reedy Lagoon Corporation, specialist consultants, contract service operators, vendors of
equipment and Engenium’s engineering and project personnel.
This Document is intended to be utilised by Reedy Lagoon Corporation and its contents
have not been audited by Engenium or any other third party.
Engenium also point out that the utilisation of the term “ore” throughout this report is
intended to be used in a descriptive manner only and the term does not indicate any inferred
or intended compliance with the definition of “ore” in the JORC Code.
This Document may also include technical, economic or other assumptions made by
Engenium during the execution of the works which may ultimately not be attained.
Engenium makes no representation or any warranty as to the accuracy of those
assumptions nor any results or estimates that may have resulted there from.
Report Page No: ii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .......................................................................................... 1

1.1 Metallurgical Testwork ................................................................................ 1
1.2 Recommendations to Proceed .................................................................... 2
2.0 ACRONYMS AND DEFINITIONS ............................................................................. 4
3.0 INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................................... 5
4.0 SAMPLING AND COMPOSITING ............................................................................ 7
4.1 Sampling .................................................................................................... 7
4.2 Compositing................................................................................................ 7
5.0 TEST PLAN............................................................................................................ 10
5.1 Comminution Test..................................................................................... 10
5.2 Dry LIMS Programme ............................................................................... 10
5.3 Wet LIMS Programme .............................................................................. 12
6.0 RESULTS DISCUSSION........................................................................................ 13
6.1 Head Assays ............................................................................................ 13
6.1.1 Asbestiform Analysis ................................................................... 14
6.2 Comminution Tests ................................................................................... 14
6.2.1 True SG ...................................................................................... 14
6.2.2 Abrasive Index ............................................................................ 14
6.2.3 Bond Ball Mill Work Index ........................................................... 14
6.3 Beneficiation Tests ................................................................................... 15
6.3.1 DTR Analyses ............................................................................. 15
6.3.2 Dry LIMS Testing ........................................................................ 16
6.3.3 Wet LIMS Testing........................................................................ 17
7.0 CONCLUSIONS ..................................................................................................... 25
8.0 RECOMMENDATIONS .......................................................................................... 27
APPENDIX A - METALLURGICAL TESTWORK DESCRIPTION ......................................... 28
APPENDIX B - CORE PHOTO MATRIX .............................................................................. 35
APPENDIX C - BUREAU VERITAS LABORATORY REPORT ............................................ 71
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 3.1 – Bullamine Project Location ................................................................................ 5
Figure 4.1 – Burracoppin Magnetic survey, showing Diamond Drill holes.............................. 7
Figure 4.2 – Burracoppin Drill Hole DD01/03 Intercepts ........................................................ 8

Report Page No: iii
Figure 4.3 – Burracoppin Drill Hole DD02 Intercepts ............................................................. 8
Figure 5.1 – Dry LIMS unit .................................................................................................. 10
Figure 5.2 – Dry LIMS testplan............................................................................................ 11
Figure 5.3 – Wet LIMS Testplan .......................................................................................... 12
Figure 6.1 – Dry LIMS Iron Recovery By Size for 6 composites .......................................... 17
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1.1 – Cleaner LIMS and DTR Performance Comparison ............................................. 2
Table 1.2 – Comminution Test Results Summary ................................................................. 2
Table 2.1 – Acronyms and Definitions ................................................................................... 4
Table 4.1 – Composite development ..................................................................................... 9
Table 4.2 – 150 µ DTR analysis of the Drill core used for compositing .................................. 9
Table 6.1 – Composite Head Assays .................................................................................. 13
Table 6.2 – Comminution Test Results Summary ............................................................... 14
Table 6.3 – Bond Ball Mill Work Index Results .................................................................... 15
Table 6.4 – DTR Performance Summary ............................................................................ 15
Table 6.5 – Dry LIMS Results Summary ............................................................................. 16
Table 6.6 – Wet LIMS Roughing Results By Size ................................................................ 18
Table 6.7 – Wet LIMS Cleaning Results Summary, with DTR grades ................................. 19
Table 6.8 – Composite 1.1 Product Development, including DTR Performance .................. 20
Table 6.9 – Composite 1.2 Product Development, including DTR Performance .................. 20
Table 6.10 – Composite 1.3 Product Development, including DTR Performance ................ 21
Table 6.14 – Concentrate Development Matrix For Each Composite .................................. 24
Table 7.1 – Wet LIMS and DTR Grades At Various Sizes ................................................... 25
Report Page No: 1
1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

This Report contains the findings from metallurgical testwork arising from
Engenium’s assistance to Reedy Lagoon Corporation in assessing the Bullamine
Iron Ore Project. The aim of the assessment was to provide metallurgical design
data for a Scoping Study (SS) centred on the ore body referred to as the
“Burracoppin prospect”. This deposit contains magnetite based iron ore in host
material. As the ore body shows high silica content, beneficiation of the ore is
required to remove silica and hence increase the iron content. In order to assess
the form of beneficiation, a metallurgical testwork programme was developed using
selected samples from the first stage of diamond drilling. The work was performed
at the Bureau Veritas Laboratory in Canning Vale, a suburb south of Perth, WA.
1.1 Metallurgical Testwork

There has been minimal geological modelling performed on the Burracoppin
prospect, but three diamond drill holes have been drilled into the deposit targeting
the ore body indicated by an airborne magnetic survey. The testwork was
performed on composites taken from two of these drill holes as the third hole did not
encounter mineralisation.
Compositing was based on selecting well defined bands of the mineralised material
from the down hole samples. The metallurgical testwork programme was
performed in two sections, dry and wet magnetic processing, including some
comminution testing. The composites were referenced Composite “Drillhole
number. Composite Number downhole”.
The head sample of each composite was tested for the presence of asbestiform
minerals and none were present.
The dry magnetic testwork was very successful producing a substantial low-grade
tailings stream.
The wet processing stage required more than a single pass application, but the
samples tested for cleaning did supply suitable concentrates.
A summary of the Cleaned Wet LIMS concentrates with the DTR performances is
given in Table 1.1 below.
Comp Cleaned Wet LIMS DTR Concentrate
Parameter Concentrate
Number
Closing screen size 125 µ 250 µ 150 µ 250 µ
1.1 P80 (µm) NA NA 97 190
1.1 Iron % ND ND 69.9 66.3
1.1 Silica % ND ND 1.54 6.27
1.1 Alumina % ND ND 0.32 0.31
1.2 P80 (µm) NA NA 97 195

1.2 Iron % 69.3 66.1 70.9 67.6
1.2 Silica % 3.3 7.6 1.19 5.5
1.2 Alumina % 0.44 0.41 0.35 0.37
1.3 P80 (µm) NA NA 92 189
1.3 Iron % 68.7 65 70.5 65.1
1.3 Silica % 3.9 8.9 1.8 8.84
1.3 Alumina % 0.33 0.35 0.23 0.27
Report Page No: 2

Number
2.1 P80 (µm) NA NA 95 186
2.1 Iron % ND ND 69.8 64.9
2.1 Silica % ND ND 2.14 8.27
2.1 Alumina % ND ND 0.53 0.56
2.2 P80 (µm) NA NA 98 202

2.2 Iron % 69.9 67.4 71 68
2.2 Silica % 2.2 5.6 0.89 4.6
2.2 Alumina % 0.43 0.45 0.34 0.4
2.3 P80 (µm) NA NA 93 202

2.3 Iron % 68.7 66.5 71 66.3
2.3 Silica % 4.2 7.3 1.16 7.33
2.3 Alumina % 0.36 0.32 0.27 0.29
Table 1.1 – Cleaner LIMS and DTR Performance Comparison
The gradual increase in Iron Grade seen with additional processing testwork, with
sustained Iron Recovery, illustrates the excellent beneficiation of these samples.
The project product can be sold at a stage convenient for transport and handling
with the confidence that it can be upgraded at a buyer’s convenience with minimal
loss of iron units.
The comminution data is summarised below, in Table 1.2.
Composite True SG Abrasive Index BBWi (kWhr/t)
1.1 3.09 0.32 11.6
1.2 3.32 0.82 10.8
1.3 3.12 0.52 10.5
2.1 3.02 0.55 11.3
2.2 3.24 0.45 12.0
2.3 3.27 0.34 10.6
Table 1.2 – Comminution Test Results Summary
The comminution testing showed a quite abrasive ore. The Abrasive Index results
are high enough to require some close consideration of wear materials, chute and
drop box design to minimise wear and the ore’s contact with wearing surfaces.
The BBWi testwork has resulted in low (10-12 kWhr/t) energy consumption data,
which is an encouraging result.
The True SG data is typical for magnetite mineralisation.
1.2 Recommendations to Proceed

The results above certainly showed that the magnetite mineralisation responds to
magnetic separation and the magnetite recovered to the concentrate very well. The
concentrate grade did not perform as indicated by the Davis Tube Recovery (DTR)
analysis so some mineralogical examination is warranted.
Report Page No: 3
Going forward the following activities are recommended to develop the project
processing knowledge.
• Determine a geological model showing the various mineralogical zones of the
deposit that could be used for geo-metallurgical assessment of the ore body.
This would enable the larger tonnage and higher grade ore zones to be
determined.
• Perform a mineralogical study on an ore sample, determined as
representative, to allow assessment of the beneficiation qualities and the
various mineral associations.
• These ore zones should be drilled, at least HQ, but preferably PQ, diamond
core to obtain the parameters for comminution. This is more important than
usual as the Abrasion Indices determined for this prospect, to date, have been
high.
• Composites based on the ore types determined above should be
metallurgically tested to determine a robust beneficiation programme and
develop an operational flowsheet. The testwork programme should include:
- determination of coarse particle comminution parameters,
- determination of fine particle comminution parameters,
- dry processing of crushed particles at various sizings,
- grinding qualities to get appropriate liberation of magnetite,
- wet processing of ground particles,
- removal of fine silica by gravity separation,
- dewatering,
- tailings dam parameter determinations, and
- flow and storage properties of crushed ore and concentrates.
• When sufficient metallurgical testwork has been performed a capital and
operating cost estimate should be developed in a Pre-Feasibility Study.
• The Pre-Feasibility Study should also include a study of the support facilities
and logistical aspects needed for the project development.
Report Page No: 4
2.0 ACRONYMS AND DEFINITIONS

Term Definition
µm, µ Micron (Micrometre)
AI Abrasive Index
Al2O3 Alumina
BBWi Bond Ball Mill Work Index
CaO Calcium Oxide
DD Diamond Drill
DSO Direct Shipping Ore
DTR Davis Tube Recovery
Engineer Engenium Pty Ltd
Fe Iron
FeO Ferrous Oxide (Wustite)
HQ Diamond Drilling Producing Core of 63.5 mm Diameter
LIMS Low Intensity Magnetic Separation
LOI Loss On Ignition
MgO Magnesium Oxide
P100 100% Passing Size Fraction
NQ Diamond Drilling Producing Core of 47.6 mm Diameter
P Phosphorous
PQ Diamond Drilling Producing Core of 85 mm Diameter
Project Bullamine Iron Ore Project
RLC Reedy Lagoon Corporation
S Sulphur
SG Specific Gravity
SiO2 Silica
SS Scoping Study
Table 2.1 – Acronyms and Definitions

Report Page No: 5
3.0 INTRODUCTION
Reedy Lagoon Corporation recently regained the management of the Bullamine
Iron Ore Project following a disbanding of the original Joint Venture that determined
the three main deposits comprising the Project. These were named Wongamine,
Chitterberin and Burracoppin. These prospects are shown below in Figure 3.1.
Figure 3.1 – Bullamine Project Location
The testwork described in this report was performed on samples taken from the
Burracoppin Prospect.
RLC is focussed on the Burracoppin prospect because of the size indicated by the
magnetic anomaly, the wide intersections of mineralisation in two of the three bore
holes completed to date, the favourable metallurgy and its location adjacent to rail
connecting it to bulk cargo ports.
Report Page No: 6
Engenium was asked to assess samples from these two drill holes to test the
process potential of producing a saleable magnetite concentrate as quickly and
economically as possible.
A testwork programme to develop some design parameters and potential
concentrate processing was developed and performed at the Bureau Veritas
Laboratory in Canning Vale, WA.
Report Page No: 7
4.0 SAMPLING AND COMPOSITING

There has been minimal geological modelling performed on the Burracoppin
prospect, but three diamond drill holes have been drilled into the deposit targeting
an ore body indicated by airborne magnetic survey. The testwork was performed
on two of these drill holes.
4.1 Sampling
Two holes intersected the ore body and quarter core, one metre intervals were
analysed to assess the chemical content of the material. Further quarter core
samples were taken for DTR analysis. These DTR analyses formed the basis of
composite development for the testwork.
The three drillholes are shown on the magnetic signature of the Burracoppin
Prospect below in Figure 4.1.
Figure 4.1 – Burracoppin Magnetic survey, showing Diamond Drill holes
The Hole BU12DD003 did not intersect the ore body so was not used in the
programme.
4.2 Compositing
Compositing was based on selecting well defined bands of the mineralised material.
Barren intervals less than 10 metres were included in the composite as it was
presumed that this typical bench height would not be able to be mined separately.
One of the composites included a section from different diameter drilling so a
reduced quantity was taken from this interval to reduce bias.
Report Page No: 8
There were two intervals that reported high Sulphur DTR analyses so were
excluded from the programme.
The composites were numbered as “Drill Hole number.Downhole interval” and were
based on the intervals nominated in Figure 4.2 and Figure 4.3 below. The exact
intervals were optimised following inspection of the core. The core photographs,
with the DTR analysis of the intervals relating to the trays are shown in Appendix B.
Figure 4.2 – Burracoppin Drill Hole DD01/03 Intercepts
Figure 4.3 – Burracoppin Drill Hole DD02 Intercepts

Report Page No: 9
The final composite composition is listed in Table 4.1.

Hole Composite # From (m) To (m) Interval (m) Mass (kg) Est
Fe%
BU12DD001 1.1 54.2 68.9 14.7 59.1 21.1
BU12DD001 1.2 97.9 140.8 42.9 129.6 27.7
BU12DD001 1.3 213 304.7 91.7 259.2 21.5
BU12DD002 2.1 54.9 128.6 73.7 195.2 17.2
BU12DD002 2.2 236.85 251.2 14.4 43.9 24.5
BU12DD002 2.3 264.4 299 34.6 107.8 28.3
Table 4.1 – Composite development
The 150 µm DTR values, determined from the original core analysis, for the final
composites were calculated in Table 4.2.
Composite # Interval (m) DTR Yield DTR Fe grade DTR SiO2 grade
% % %
1.1 14.7 24.9 68.1 2.98
1.2 42.9 40.2 69.8 2.18
1.3 91.7 30.6 68.4 3.63
2.1 73.7 24.6 67.8 3.85
2.2 14.4 32.5 70.2 1.63
2.3 34.6 40.5 70.0 2.08
TOTAL 272.0 31.5 68.7 3.10
Table 4.2 – 150 µ DTR analysis of the Drill core used for compositing
Report Page No: 10
5.0 TEST PLAN

Metallurgical testwork has to be performed in a controlled manner so that the ore is
treated logically, especially for tests performed at different sizes. Schematic
diagrams for each programme, known as test plans, introduce this control. This
programme was performed in two sections, dry and wet magnetic processing.
Descriptions of the various testwork activities are described in Appendix A.
5.1 Comminution Test

As the core had been cut it, was too small for the full range of comminution
testwork. Such testwork is performed to optimise the size reduction, as it is such a
high consumer of power, thus costs. The Abrasive Index, true SG and Bond Ball
Mill Work Index were able to be determined from the samples supplied.
More work would need to be performed in future programmes using full core.
5.2 Dry LIMS Programme

Dry LIMS is used to separate barren material from mineralised material so the
barren material is not processed and/or a higher grade stream is developed that
may be sold as an intermediate product. As the intermediate product option was of
particular interest the testwork was performed on the large diameter LIMS unit hired
from the local Eriez distributor. The use of large diameter LIMS units has been
found to be critical in assessing Dry LIMS performance, especially when samples
are of sufficient size.
Testing began with a speed test of the largest composite, 1.3, to determine the
optimum speed for the remaining dry LIMS testwork. Size sensitivity tests were
performed on composites 1.2, 1.3, 1.1 and 2.3 as there was sufficient sample, while
composites 1.1 and 2.2 were only tested at the optimal conditions, as they were the
smallest samples.
The dry LIMS unit contained a 610 diameter drum.
The entire unit is shown in Figure 5.1.
Figure 5.1 – Dry LIMS unit

Report Page No: 11
The Dry LIMS testplan is shown in Figure 5.2.
Reedy Lagoon Corporation Limited

Burracoppin Project Project No 9396A
Diamond Core
Half HQ/NQ
Inventory, inspect & 6 composites as per "Composites" tab

Composite
Asbestiform Analysis
Crush to -19mm
Homogenise
Reserve Mineralogy 1 kg Crush to Abrasion Head assay,

HOLD -10 mm Index 24 element suite
plus FeO, LOI
Real SG
Riffle split DTR @ P80 150μ
Reserve Split Comp 1.3 to get sample Crush to -6.3 mm Crush to -3.35 mm Crush to -1.6 mm
for speed assessment
Dry LIMS using -10 mm Dry LIMS Dry LIMS Dry LIMS
material at 0.65 m/sec * at optimal speed at optimal speed at optimal speed
Assess on site Mass & Assay of both Mass & Assay of both Mass & Assay of both
Assay Mags and Non-mags Mags and Non-mags Mags and Non-mags Mags and Non-mags
* selected as lowest speed drum

can operate safely.
Non-mag recovery seen to be high and of low grade
testing nominated to be performed on smaller unit
at lower speed, 0.5 m/sec
Notes
Lay out trays for inspection
Do speed optimisation on Composite 1.3 as it is largest, fresh sample

Speed tests refer to peripheral velocity of drum
Retain as much magnetics spoils as possible.
Composites 1.1 and 2.2 are small so the dry LIMS test should only be performed at the crush size found optimal.
Assays
Non-mag to be standard suite plus LOI 1000
Mags and Head assays to be standard suite plus FeO, LOI 1000
Figure 5.2 – Dry LIMS testplan

Report Page No: 12
5.3 Wet LIMS Programme

Wet LIMS is performed at finer sizes that the dry LIMS and usually produces a
concentrate of maximum grade, similar to the expectations shown by the DTR. The
exact grades would not be realised as the DTR is a special, well managed test on a
small sample, but it should approximated in grade and comparable in recovery.
The DTR testwork has shown that the samples produced excellent concentrates at
a sizing 80% passing 150 microns. The wet LIMS testwork was performed at sizes
coarser, and a little finer, than the 150 microns to confirm these results.
The wet LIMS was tested to the finest size of the dry LIMS evaluation to check for
the development of an intermediate product. As size reduction is one of the most
expensive stages of ore processing producing a saleable product at a size as
coarse as possible is an appreciable advantage.
The Wet LIMS testwork was performed on the magnetic concentrate from Dry LIMS
bulk sample runs at the optimal conditions developed in the Dry LIMS programme.
The Wet LIMS testplan is shown in Figure 5.3.
Reedy Lagoon Corporation Limited

Burracoppin Project PROJECT No.: 9396A
Pass sufficient -6 mm
sample over Dry LIMS
to get feed for Wet
LIMS testwork.
BWI Riffle split
Reserve
Divide into
bags
Rod Mill to pass Rod Mill to pass Rod Mill to pass Rod Mill to pass Rod Mill to pass
1.6 mm screen ~1.0 mm screen ~0.5 mm screen 0.25 mm screen 0.125 mm screen
Wet LIMS Wet LIMS Wet LIMS Wet LIMS Wet LIMS
Mass and Assay of Mass and Assay of Mass and Assay of Mass and Assay of Mass and Assay of
Mags and Non-mags Mags and Non-mags Mags and Non-mags Mags and Non-mags Mags and Non-mags
All Non-mag assays to be standard suite 3 Pass Cleaner LIMS 3 Pass Cleaner LIMS
plus LOI 1000 Comps 1.2, 1.3, 2.2 & 2.3 Comps 1.2, 1.3, 2.2 & 2.3
I
All Mags assays to be standard suite
plus FeO, LOI 1000 Mass and Assay of Mass and Assay of
Mags and Non-mags Mags and Non-mags
Figure 5.3 – Wet LIMS Testplan

Report Page No: 13
6.0 RESULTS DISCUSSION

The test results were reported progressively. The results are summarised and
discussed in the following sections. A description of the metallurgical tests is given
in Appendix A. The full Bureau Veritas Report is given in Appendix C.
6.1 Head Assays

The head assay of each composite was determined to assess the quality of the
samples as ore. The results are summarised in Table 6.1. The full analysis is
shown in the Laboratory report in Appendix B.
Assays (%)
Composite Fe FeO SiO2 Al2O3 CaO P S MgO K2O Na2O LOI -
o
1000 C
Comp 1.1 22.41 6.3 56.49 6.49 0.61 0.035 0.018 0.27 2.110 1.624 -0.09
Comp 1.2 30.34 13.5 49.26 3.55 1.08 0.050 0.043 1.24 1.162 0.831 -1.02
Comp 1.3 22.45 10.1 55.95 5.72 1.61 0.044 0.044 1.27 1.705 1.367 -0.24
Comp 2.1 18.87 8.9 59.87 6.98 1.19 0.046 0.129 0.99 1.913 1.831 -0.24
Comp 2.2 27.66 12.7 50.71 4.77 1.31 0.056 0.072 1.37 1.213 1.144 -0.70
Comp 2.3 28.84 12.9 50.47 4.05 1.34 0.053 0.045 1.46 1.298 0.937 -1.08
Table 6.1 – Composite Head Assays
The Iron analyses are in line with expectations from the drill core weighted
averages. The smallest composite (2.2) was the only one over 10% different to the
expected assays. This was probably due to some sampling errors in handling small
samples.
The FeO analysis was performed to assess the magnetite content of the samples.
Magnetite is 31% FeO so the ratio of FeO% to 31% estimates the magnetite
content of the sample.
Silica and Alumina are major contaminants that affect slag quality and performance
so are the major impurities to be removed.
Phosphorous and Sulphur have major effects on steel quality and furnace
performance and are usually difficult to remove the low levels in the samples are
favoured.
The alkali metal content (Sodium and Potassium) shows a significant presence of
feldspars in the gangue mineralisation. These should be removed to a low level as
the alkali metal content of the blast furnace feed is kept as low as possible to
reduce lining loss.
The LOI was inconclusive. The high Calcium and Magnesium content can show
high LOI figures if the minerals are present as carbonates, as the carbon dioxide is
removed from the minerals. The LOI at elevated temperatures is negative in
magnetite ores due to the oxidation of magnetite to hematite (taking on oxygen to
complete the oxidation, actually increasing the mineral weight by 3.45%). The
relative amounts of weight reducing minerals to the weight increasing minerals
affects the LOI. Thus the negative LOI indicates a strong presence of magnetite but
cannot be used to quantify it.
Report Page No: 14
6.1.1 Asbestiform Analysis

The head sample of each composite was tested for the presence of asbestiform
minerals and none were present.
6.2 Comminution Tests

Comminution tests are performed as size reduction is a major cost driver for a
project and should be optimised. No coarse crushing testwork could be performed
as the sample size from the half NQ core was too small to perform the tests.
Some data was obtainable and are summarised in Table 6.2.
Composite True SG Abrasive Index
Composite 1.1 3.09 0.32
Composite 1.2 3.32 0.82
Composite 1.3 3.12 0.52
Composite 2.1 3.02 0.55
Composite 2.2 3.24 0.45
Composite 2.3 3.27 0.34
Table 6.2 – Comminution Test Results Summary
6.2.1 True SG
The True SG values show that the near surface samples are of lower density than
the lower samples. This indicates some oxidation of the upper levels. The values
are typical of magnetite ore.
6.2.2 Abrasive Index

The Abrasive Indices results show some issues. A value of 0.3 is typical for a hard
rock mining operation and such a value would be addressed by normal engineering
application of minimising impact and industry typical wear liners. The high values in
this programme indicate that the material was very abrasive and would need special
efforts in design to address the excessive wearing properties of the ore. These
could include:
• careful design of chutes, launders etc to reduce the instance of high velocity
impact;
• selection of pumps and other transfer mechanisms to be as efficient as
possible to give the ore stream the maximum chance of passing through the
equipment without excessive wear; and
• using specific, high wearing liners to reduce the wear on surfaces that must
be in contact with the ore stream.
6.2.3 Bond Ball Mill Work Index

The Bond Ball Mill Work Index is a definitive measurement of the energy
requirements. The test determines the theoretical energy to reduce one tonne of
the material from an infinite size to a size 80% passing 100 microns. Thus is used
to determine the energy needed for milling.
The Dry LIMS concentrate was tested for each composite as that is the product that
would be ground. The results are shown in Table 6.3.
Report Page No: 15
BBWi P80 (µm)

Composite ID
(kWh/t) Feed Product
Composite 1.1 11.6 1608 208
Composite 1.2 10.8 1708 206
Composite 1.3 10.5 1736 207
Composite 2.1 11.3 2095 207
Composite 2.2 12.0 1487 206
Composite 2.3 10.6 1631 214
Table 6.3 – Bond Ball Mill Work Index Results
These values are low for a magnetite ore. This may be due to the liberated
siliceous particles having been removed in the Dry LIMS testing, leaving only
magnetite and composite particles. These composite particles can have a higher
level of breakage along grain boundaries, instead of internal crystal structures,
which is a lower energy breakage mechanism.
This was a positive result as milling energy is a significant energy user in an
operation. Lower energy usage in milling is favoured.
6.3 Beneficiation Tests

Beneficiation is the process of upgrading a mineral stream by physical means. This
can be by processing the mineralisation to split the mineral streams due to a
physical property such as density, surface properties, magnetic properties etc. In
this Project we consider the magnetic properties as the basis for upgrading the feed
streams as magnetite is one of the few minerals that is magnetic.
6.3.1 DTR Analyses

The magnetic response of the samples was determined by the use of the DTR test.
The test was nominated to be performed at a sizing 80% passing 150 microns in
line with historical DTR data, but the initial test was performed with a 150 microns
closing screen, to giving 97% passing 150 µm DTR data. The tests were repeated
using a 250 microns closing screen to give a better approximation of the 80%
passing 150 µm sizing. The results are summarised below in Table 6.4.
150 microns Closing Screen 250 microns Closing Screen
Composite
Head Sizing Mass Fe Silica Alumina Sizing Mass Fe Silica Alumina
Number
Assay P80 Recovery Grade Grade Grade P80 Recovery Grade Grade Grade
(%Fe) (µm) (%) (%) (%) (%) (µm) (%) (%) (%) (%)
1.1 22.4 97 25.7 69.9 1.54 0.32 190 31.1 66.3 6.27 0.31
1.2 30.3 97 42.1 70.9 1.19 0.35 195 45.2 67.6 5.50 0.37
1.3 22.4 92 33.8 70.5 1.80 0.23 189 31.8 65.1 8.84 0.27
2.1 18.9 95 24.5 69.8 2.14 0.53 186 28.4 64.9 8.27 0.56
2.2 12.7 98 38.5 71.0 0.89 0.34 202 40.5 68.0 4.60 0.40
2.3 12.9 93 41.9 71.0 1.16 0.27 202 43.2 66.3 7.33 0.29
Table 6.4 – DTR Performance Summary
The 150 micron results show excellent results producing high iron grades with
resulting low impurity levels. The 250 result shows a poorer regime with only one
sample resulting in a silica grade less than 5%.
Report Page No: 16
Comparing to the analysis performed on the field sample (Table 4.2) the recovery
and Iron grade are in agreement, but the silica values of the composite sample is
some half that of the field samples.
Larger scale separations are invariably lower in selectivity (grade/recovery profile)
but this shows the mineralogy was capable of producing good concentrate.
6.3.2 Dry LIMS Testing

Dry LIMS testing is performed to indicate if some barren, non-magnetic
mineralisation could be rejected early in the process to minimise downstream
handling and thus costs, especially in grinding.
The ore responded to Dry LIMS very well to the initial, slow Dry LIMS run, even on
the earliest speed run, so the slowest speed was immediately selected, on a
simpler Dry LIMS unit.
Various size fractions were tested to see if the performance declined over the size
ranges generally assessed for Dry LIMS processing.
The Dry LIMS results are summarised below in Table 6.5.
Comp No Head Top Size Mass Concentrate Iron Tailings
Assay (mm) Recovery Grade Recovery Grade
(%Fe) (%) (%Fe) (%) (%Fe)
1.1 22.41 6.30 51.6 41.05 93.7 2.97
1.70 78.4 38.58 99.0 1.37
1.2 30.34 3.35 75.8 38.29 98.9 1.28
6.30 77.8 39.23 98.9 1.50
1.70 57.8 37.80 96.3 2.00
3.35 57.2 37.84 96.2 2.01
1.3 22.45
6.30 58.9 36.83 96.0 2.17
10.0 59.8 36.36 93.4 2.93
1.70 52.6 34.53 96.0 1.59
2.1 18.87 3.35 52.9 34.42 96.2 1.54
6.30 56.0 32.97 96.3 1.60
2.2 27.66 6.30 73.4 36.75 97.6 2.47
1.70 69.1 42.34 98.3 1.65
2.3 28.84 3.35 70.7 41.03 98.3 1.73
6.30 73.9 40.06 98.4 1.84
Table 6.5 – Dry LIMS Results Summary
As the tailings grade was very low a high recovery of valuable mineral to the
magnetic fraction was obtained. These are very favourable results.
Checking the iron recovery by size (as iron units are the basis for project revenues)
show that the only test performed at 10 mm indicates a reduction of performance
between 6 and 10 mm while recovery below 6 mm was fairly consistent. However,
there was only one sample of sufficient mass to perform the 10 mm test, so this
may be addressed further in future programmes. This performance of the samples
by sizing is shown below in Figure 6.1.
Report Page No: 17
Iron Recovery (%) vs top size (mm) for 6 composites

100
1.1
99
1.2
98
1.3
97
2.1
96
2.2
95
2.3
94
93
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
Figure 6.1 – Dry LIMS Iron Recovery By Size for 6 composites
The composite 1.1 was the poorest performer because, as shown by the real SG
values, it was partially oxidised, so must have some liberated hematite mineral that
was not responsive to magnetic separation.
Thus all future testwork was based on the samples being Dry LIMS processed at 6
mm passing top size.
6.3.3 Wet LIMS Testing

The Samples to be tested by Wet LIMS were crushed to 6 mm top size and treated
by Dry LIMS as a complete run. The subsequent concentrate was crushed, or
milled, to the specified top sizes for testing.
The 0.25 mm and 0.125 mm concentrates from the four primary ore samples were
further cleaned to check the quality of the cleaned concentrate.
The rougher results, at the various sizes tested, are shown in Table 6.6.
Report Page No: 18
Composite LIMS Feed Top Mass Rec Conc. Iron FeO Tail grade
# Assay Size (%) grade Recovery Recovery (%Fe)
(%Fe) (mm) (%Fe) (%) (%)
1.70 69.9 54.5 92.5 100.0 10.3
1.00 69.3 53.9 93.0 97.0 9.2
1.1 41.05 0.50 69.9 53.9 92.6 97.9 10.0
0.25 61.2 62.2 93.0 99.5 7.4
0.125 69.4 55.6 93.6 100.0 8.7
1.70 76.9 45.0 98.2 87.2 2.7
1.00 75.4 47.8 98.0 84.9 3.0
1.2 39.23 0.50 73.5 49.3 98.1 92.2 2.6
0.25 65.5 56.6 97.9 92.0 2.4
0.125 69.6 55.2 98.5 98.5 2.0
1.70 77.4 43.2 97.6 91.5 3.6
1.00 73.3 45.4 97.1 92.2 3.7
1.3 36.83 0.50 64.8 53.4 96.3 91.3 3.8
0.25 61.2 55.7 96.6 94.2 3.1
0.125 67.0 53.6 97.7 99.4 2.8
1.70 73.3 36.1 91.7 83.6 9.8
1.00 71.9 44.3 96.9 92.6 3.6
2.1 32.97 0.50 60.9 51.0 95.5 88.5 3.8
0.25 62.8 48.4 96.0 88.4 3.4
0.125 60.8 51.5 96.1 90.9 3.2
1.70 77.7 46.5 98.1 100.0 3.1
1.00 74.3 48.3 98.0 100.0 2.9
2.2 36.75 0.50 66.1 53.8 97.4 96.9 2.8
0.25 69.0 52.8 97.9 100.0 2.5
0.125 60.4 60.1 97.7 100.0 2.1
1.70 83.9 43.5 98.8 92.2 2.7
1.00 80.2 47.9 98.6 97.0 2.8
2.3 40.06 0.50 71.6 54.5 98.2 97.0 2.5
0.25 66.1 58.3 98.1 96.1 2.2
0.125 75.4 51.4 98.9 99.0 1.8
Table 6.6 – Wet LIMS Roughing Results By Size
The FeO recovery indicates that the recovery of the magnetite was so high that it does not
actually need monitoring. This for the cleaning testwork FeO was not tracked.
The Cleaning testwork is summarised in Table 6.7.
The DTR grades, at the two sizes, are also shown to compare the performance of the
cleaner LIMS to the DTR. The iron grades match reasonably (as with the field figures) but
the silica values do show scatter. The field figures generally split the finer LIMS and DTR
figures.
Report Page No: 19
Composite # Size (Passing) Stage Yield Iron Iron Rec Silica Alumina
Microns % % % % %
1.1 Not Tested
250 Rougher 65.5 56.6 97.9 19.2 0.73
Cleaner 1 58.4 64.0 97.1 10.3 0.46
Cleaner 2 56.8 65.5 96.8 8.5 0.42
Cleaner 3 56.1 66.1 96.5 7.6 0.41
DTR 67.6 5.5 0.37
1.2
125 Rougher 69.6 55.2 98.5 20.9 0.90
Cleaner 1 60.7 63.2 97.9 10.9 0.65
Cleaner 2 57.1 67.0 97.5 6.3 0.52
Cleaner 3 54.8 69.3 97.0 3.3 0.44
DTR 70.9 1.2 0.35
250 Rougher 61.2 55.7 96.6 20.1 0.78
Cleaner 1 54.8 61.8 95.8 12.9 0.47
Cleaner 2 52.7 64.0 95.4 10.1 0.38
Cleaner 3 51.8 65.0 95.3 8.9 0.35
DTR 65.1 8.8. 0.27
1.3
125 Rougher 67.0 53.6 97.5 22.1 1.03
Cleaner 1 56.4 62.7 96.4 11.2 0.62
Cleaner 2 52.6 66.9 95.3 6.1 0.42
Cleaner 3 51.1 68.7 95.0 3.9 0.33
DTR 70.5 1.8 0.23
2.1 Not Tested
250 Rougher 69.0 52.8 97.9 23.2 1.26
Cleaner 1 56.1 64.5 96.7 9.1 0.58
Cleaner 2 54.5 66.2 96.5 7.1 0.50
Cleaner 3 53.4 67.4 96.1 5.6 0.45
DTR 68.0 4.6 0.40
2.2
125 Rougher 60.4 60.1 97.7 14.5 0.93
Cleaner 1 54.4 66.4 97.3 6.6 0.59
Cleaner 2 52.2 69.1 97.0 3.3 0.46
Cleaner 3 50.7 69.9 95.5 2.2 0.43
DTR 71.0 0.9 0.34
250 Rougher 66.1 58.3 98.1 17.6 0.56
Cleaner 1 60.8 63.5 97.8 11.0 0.40
Cleaner 2 58.9 65.5 97.6 8.5 0.34
Cleaner 3 57.9 66.5 97.4 7.3 0.32
DTR 66.3 7.33 0.29
2.3
125 Rougher 75.4 51.4 98.9 25.7 0.89
Cleaner 1 64.1 62.1 98.3 12.6 0.54
Cleaner 2 59.5 66.6 97.9 6.8 0.42
Cleaner 3 57.6 68.7 97.8 4.2 0.36
DTR 71.0 1.16 0.27
Note Yield and recovery relate to wet LIMS feed values.
Table 6.7 – Wet LIMS Cleaning Results Summary, with DTR grades
Report Page No: 20
A product development matrix, showing tailings and concentrates from each test
programme for the six samples, tested, is shown in Table 6.8 to Table 6.13.
Size Stage Stage Stage Fe Yield Iron Iron Silica Alumina
(Passing) yield Rec Recovery
Microns % % % % % % %
Feed 100.0 100.0 100.0 22.4 100.0 56.5 6.49
6300 Dry LIMS Conc. 51.6 93.7 51.6 41.1 93.7 39.5 1.21
6300 Dry LIMS Tail 48.4 6.3 48.4 3.0 6.3 74.8 11.83
250 Wet LIMS Conc. 61.2 93.0 31.6 62.2 87.1 11.7 0.52
250 Wet LIMS Tail 38.8 7.0 20.0 7.4 6.6 83.3 2.90
250 Cleaner Conc.
Not Performed due to lack of sample
250 Cleaner Tail
250 DTR 31.1 66.3 87.6 6.3 0.31
125 Wet LIMS Conc. 69.4 93.6 35.8 55.5 87.7 20.2 0.93
125 Wet LIMS Tail 30.6 6.4 12.6 8.7 6.0 82.1 2.51
125 Cleaner Conc.
125 Cleaner Tail
150 DTR 25.7 69.9 81.5 1.54 0.32
Table 6.8 – Composite 1.1 Product Development, including DTR Performance

Microns % % % % % % %
Feed 100.0 100.0 100.0 30.3 100.0 49.3 3.55
6300 Dry LIMS Conc. 77.8 98.9 77.8 39.2 98.9 40.3 1.49
6300 Dry LIMS Tail 22.2 1.1 22.2 1.5 1.1 75.9 11.64
250 Wet LIMS Conc. 65.5 97.9 51.0 56.6 96.8 19.2 0.73
250 Wet LIMS Tail 34.5 2.1 26.8 2.4 2.1 87.7 2.63
250 Cleaner Conc. 85.7 96.5 43.7 66.1 94.5 7.6 0.41
250 Cleaner Tail 14.3 3.5 7.3 5.4 2.3 82.2 2.44
250 DTR 45.2 67.6 96.9 5.5 0.37
125 Wet LIMS Conc. 69.6 98.5 54.1 55.2 97.4 20.9 0.90
125 Wet LIMS Tail 30.4 1.5 23.7 2.0 1.5 88.3 2.41
125 Cleaner Conc. 78.8 97.0 40.2 69.3 94.5 3.32 0.44
125 Cleaner Tail 21.2 3.0 10.8 4.0 2.9 84.8 2.63
150 DTR 42.1 70.9 96.7 1.2 0.35

Report Page No: 21

Microns % % % % % % %
Feed 100.0 100.0 100.0 22.5 56.0 5.72
6300 Dry LIMS Conc. 58.9 96.0 58.9 36.8 96.0 43.2 1.60
6300 Dry LIMS Tail 41.1 4.0 41.1 2.2 4.0 73.3 11.87
250 Wet LIMS Conc. 61.2 96.6 36.0 55.7 92.7 20.1 0.78
250 Wet LIMS Tail 38.8 5.8 22.9 3.1 3.3 84.4 3.46
250 Cleaner Conc. 84.8 95.3 30.6 65.0 92.1 8.9 0.35
250 Cleaner Tail 15.2 4.7 5.5 5.1 0.7 81.8 3.14
250 DTR 31.1 65.1 92.9 8.8 0.27
125 Wet LIMS Conc. 67 97.5 39.5 53.6 93.6 22.1 1.03
125 Wet LIMS Tail 33 2.5 19.4 2.8 2.4 85.1 3.27
125 Cleaner Conc. 76.2 95.7 30.1 68.7 89.6 3.9 0.33
125 Cleaner Tail 23.8 4.3 6.0 4.2 4.0 82.2 3.46
150 DTR 33.8 70.5 93.9 1.8 0.23

Microns % % % % % % %
Feed 100.0 100.0 100.0 18.9 59.9 6.98
6300 Dry LIMS Conc. 56.0 96.3 56.0 33.0 96.3 47.2 2.48
6300 Dry LIMS Tail 44.0 3.7 44.0 1.6 3.7 75.0 12.60
250 Wet LIMS Conc. 62.8 96.0 35.2 48.4 92.4 28.63 1.43
250 Wet LIMS Tail 37.2 4 20.8 3.4 3.9 84.53 3.79
250 Cleaner Conc.
250 Cleaner Tail
250 DTR 28.4 64.9 92.6 8.3 0.56
125 Wet LIMS Conc. 60.8 96.1 34.0 51.5 92.5 24.8 1.41
125 Wet LIMS Tail 39.2 3.9 10.0 3.2 3.8 85.1 3.52
125 Cleaner Conc.
125 Cleaner Tail
150 DTR 24.5 69.8 90.4 2.14 0.53

Report Page No: 22

Microns % % % % % % %
Feed 100.0 100.0 100.0 27.7 50.7 4.77
6300 Dry LIMS Conc. 73.4 97.6 73.4 36.8 97.6 42.6 2.09
6300 Dry LIMS Tail 26.6 2.4 26.6 2.5 2.4 73.9 11.52
250 Wet LIMS Conc. 69 97.9 50.6 52.8 95.6 23.2 1.26
250 Wet LIMS Tail 31 2.1 22.8 2.5 2.0 85.0 4.08
250 Cleaner Conc. 77.3 96.1 39.1 67.4 94.1 5.6 0.45
250 Cleaner Tail 22.7 3.9 11.5 4.2 1.5 82.1 3.94
250 DTR 40.5 68.0 96.0 4.6 0.4
125 Wet LIMS Conc. 60.4 97.7 44.3 60.1 95.4 14.5 0.93
125 Wet LIMS Tail 39.6 2.3 29.1 2.1 2.2 86.2 3.73
125 Cleaner Conc. 83.9 95.5 37.2 69.9 91.1 2.2 0.43
125 Cleaner Tail 16.1 4.5 13.5 8.6 4.3 77.7 3.53
150 DTR 38.5 71.0 95.2 0.9 0.34

Microns % % % % % % %
Feed 100.0 100.0 100.0 28.8 50.5 4.05
6300 Dry LIMS Conc. 73.9 98.4 73.9 40.1 98.4 40.15 1.20
6300 Dry LIMS Tail 26.1 1.6 26.1 1.8 1.6 73.74 11.82
250 Wet LIMS Conc. 66.1 98.1 48.8 58.3 96.5 17.57 0.56
250 Wet LIMS Tail 33.9 1.9 25.1 2.2 1.9 87.65 2.47
250 Cleaner Conc. 87.6 98.1 42.8 66.5 96.2 7.3 0.32
250 Cleaner Tail 12.4 1.9 6.1 3.3 0.3 86.0 2.31
250 DTR 43.2 66.3 96.4 7.3 0.29
125 Wet LIMS Conc. 75.4 98.9 55.7 51.4 97.3 25.71 0.89
125 Wet LIMS Tail 24.6 1.1 18.2 1.8 1.1 88.36 2.34
125 Cleaner Conc. 76.5 97.8 42.6 68.7 95.2 4.2 0.36
125 Cleaner Tail 23.5 2.2 6.2 2.5 2.1 87.4 2.32
150 DTR 41.9 71.0 96.5 1.2 0.27
The Cleaned Wet LIMS concentrate performs comparably to the DTR values.
Mineralogical assessment may assist in determining if a method other than particle
size reduction can be used with LIMS to achieve the same iron and silica grades
achieved by DTR at the coarser particle size.
The gradual increase in Iron Grade with additional processing, with sustained Iron
Recovery, illustrates the excellent beneficiation of these samples. The Project
product can be sold at a stage convenient for transport and handling with the
Report Page No: 23
confidence that it can be upgraded at a buyer’s convenience with minimal loss of

iron units.
A summary of the various concentrates produced during the testwork is below, in
Table 6.14.
Composite Size Stage Yield Iron Iron Silica Alumina
Rec
Ref Microns % % % % %
Feed 100.0 22.4 100.0 56.5 6.49
6300 Dry LIMS Conc. 51.6 41.1 93.7 39.5 1.21
250 Wet LIMS Conc. 31.6 62.2 87.1 11.7 0.52
1.1
250 Cleaner Conc. Not Performed due to lack of sample
125 Wet LIMS Conc. 35.8 55.5 87.7 20.2 0.93
Feed 100.0 30.3 100.0 49.3 3.55

6300 Dry LIMS Conc. 77.8 39.2 98.9 40.3 1.49
250 Wet LIMS Conc. 51.0 56.6 96.8 19.2 0.73
1.2
250 Cleaner Conc. 43.7 66.1 94.5 7.6 0.41
125 Wet LIMS Conc. 54.1 55.2 97.4 20.9 0.90
125 Cleaner Conc. 40.2 69.3 94.5 3.32 0.44
Feed 100.0 22.5 100.0 56.0 5.72
6300 Dry LIMS Conc. 58.9 36.8 96.0 43.2 1.60
250 Wet LIMS Conc. 36.0 55.7 92.7 20.1 0.78
1.3
250 Cleaner Conc. 30.6 65.0 92.1 8.9 0.35
125 Wet LIMS Conc. 39.5 53.6 93.6 22.1 1.03
125 Cleaner Conc. 30.1 68.7 89.6 3.9 0.33
Feed 100.0 18.9 100.0 59.9 6.98

6300 Dry LIMS Conc. 56.0 33.0 96.3 47.2 2.48
250 Wet LIMS Conc. 35.2 48.4 92.4 28.63 1.43
2.1
125 Wet LIMS Conc. 34.0 51.5 92.5 24.8 1.41
Feed 100.0 27.7 100.0 50.7 4.77

6300 Dry LIMS Conc. 73.4 36.8 97.6 42.6 2.09
250 Wet LIMS Conc. 50.6 52.8 95.6 23.2 1.26
2.2
250 Cleaner Conc. 39.1 67.4 94.1 5.6 0.45
125 Wet LIMS Conc. 44.3 60.1 95.4 14.5 0.93
125 Cleaner Conc. 37.2 69.9 91.1 2.2 0.43
Feed 100.0 28.8 100.0 50.5 4.05
6300 Dry LIMS Conc. 73.9 40.1 98.4 40.2 1.20
2.3
250 Wet LIMS Conc. 48.8 58.3 96.5 17.6 0.56
250 Cleaner Conc. 42.8 66.5 96.2 7.3 0.32
Report Page No: 24
Composite Size Stage Yield Iron Iron Silica Alumina

Rec
Ref Microns % % % % %
125 Wet LIMS Conc. 55.7 51.4 97.3 25.7 0.89
125 Cleaner Conc. 42.6 68.7 95.2 4.2 0.36
Table 6.14 – Concentrate Development Matrix For Each Composite
The low grade of the Dry and Wet LIMS testing lead to high (>90%) Iron Recovery
in even the most processed concentrate.
Report Page No: 25
7.0 CONCLUSIONS
The testwork results show that the Burracoppin prospect magnetite mineralisation is
amenable to beneficiation into high grade concentrate, with low impurities, justifying
further work as recommended in the following Section 8.0; Recommendations.
Results from the Wet testwork show concentrate compositions recovered by Wet
LIMS at a closing screen size of 125 micron include high iron grade (greater than
68% Fe) and low silica (less than 4.2% silica); see Table 7.1 below.
Number
1.1 P80 (µm) NA NA 97 190
1.1 Iron % ND ND 69.9 66.3
1.1 Silica % ND ND 1.54 6.27
1.1 Alumina % ND ND 0.32 0.31
1.2 P80 (µm) NA NA 97 195

1.2 Iron % 69.3 66.1 70.9 67.6
1.2 Silica % 3.3 7.6 1.19 5.5
1.2 Alumina % 0.44 0.41 0.35 0.37
1.3 P80 (µm) NA NA 92 189

1.3 Iron % 68.7 65 70.5 65.1
1.3 Silica % 3.9 8.9 1.8 8.84
1.3 Alumina % 0.33 0.35 0.23 0.27
2.1 P80 (µm) NA NA 95 186

2.1 Iron % ND ND 69.8 64.9
2.1 Silica % ND ND 2.14 8.27
2.1 Alumina % ND ND 0.53 0.56
2.2 P80 (µm) NA NA 98 202

2.2 Iron % 69.9 67.4 71 68
2.2 Silica % 2.2 5.6 0.89 4.6
2.2 Alumina % 0.43 0.45 0.34 0.4
2.3 P80 (µm) NA NA 93 202

2.3 Iron % 68.7 66.5 71 66.3
2.3 Silica % 4.2 7.3 1.16 7.33
2.3 Alumina % 0.36 0.32 0.27 0.29
Notes: NA is “not applicable”; ND is no data and resulted from having insufficient sample to
complete multiple passes, to reduce the entrainment of non-magnetic material, caused by
the laboratory LIMS equipment used.
Table 7.1 – Wet LIMS and DTR Grades At Various Sizes
Wet LIMS results are comparable with results from DTR tests but have lower grade
iron and higher silica content than DTR results at the same particle size. Some
mineralogical assessment would be of benefit to indicate if finer grinding or some
elutriation would be the better way to reach the higher grade indicated.
Report Page No: 26
Dry LIMS test work on particle sizes 1.7 mm, 3.35 mm and 6.3 mm as well as one
sample at 10 mm (closing screen) shows high recovery of valuable mineral to the
magnetic fraction was obtained with less than 3% Fe reporting to the tailings for all
sizes tested. Reduction in particle size from 6.3 mm to 1.7 mm did not significantly
improve the iron grade in the concentrates.
Throughout the entire programme the non-magnetic streams’ grades were very low
for all sizes, tested on all composites, indicating a high recovery of valuable mineral
to all of the magnetic fractions.
Comminution testing showed the samples have a relatively low energy requirement
for milling (10-12 kWhr/t). However, the material is quite abrasive (Abrasive Index
ranged from 0.32 to 0.82).
Report Page No: 27
8.0 RECOMMENDATIONS
The results above certainly show that the magnetite mineralisation responds to
magnetic separation and the magnetite recovers to the concentrate very well. The
concentrate grade did not perform as indicated by the DTR analysis so some
mineralogical examination is warranted.
The comminution testing has shown that the samples show a relatively low energy
requirement for milling. However the Abrasive Index data has shown that the
material was quite abrasive and would need some extra design considerations to
minimise metal contact and wear.
Going forward the following activities are recommended to develop the project
processing knowledge.
• Determine a geological model showing the various mineralogical zones of the
deposit that could be used for geo-metallurgical assessment of the ore body.
This would enable the larger tonnage and higher grade ore zones to be
determined.
• Perform a mineralogical study on an ore sample, determined as
representative, to allow assessment of the beneficiation qualities and the
various mineral associations.
• These ore zones should be drilled, at least HQ, but preferably PQ diamond
core to obtain the parameters for comminution. This was more important than
usual as the Abrasion Indices determined for this prospect, to date, have been
high.
• Composites based on the ore types determined above should be
metallurgically tested to determine a robust beneficiation programme and
develop an operational flowsheet. The testwork programme should include:
- determination of coarse particle comminution parameters,
- determination of fine particle comminution parameters,
- dry processing of crushed particles at various sizings,
- grinding qualities to get appropriate liberation of magnetite,
- wet processing of ground particles,
- removal of fine silica by Gravity Separation,
- dewatering,
- tailings Dam parameter determinations, and
- flow and storage properties of crushed ore and concentrates.
• When sufficient metallurgical testwork has been performed a capital and
operating cost estimate should be developed in a Pre-Feasibility Study.
• The Pre-Feasibility Study should also include a study of the support facilities
and logistical aspects needed for the project development.

Bur - Engenium Rep - 141113 - 9396A REP 0000 Z 001 Rev 1 - IFU - BODY PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Bur - Engenium Rep - 141113 - 9396A REP 0000 Z 001 Rev 1 - IFU - BODY PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Engenium Pty Ltd Document No: 9396A-REP-0000-Z-001

Bullamine Iron Ore Project Revision No: 1

1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .......................................................................................... 1

Figure 3.1 – Bullamine Project Location ................................................................................ 5

Figure 4.1 – Burracoppin Magnetic survey, showing Diamond Drill holes.............................. 7

Figure 4.2 – Burracoppin Drill Hole DD01/03 Intercepts ........................................................ 8

Figure 4.3 – Burracoppin Drill Hole DD02 Intercepts ............................................................. 8

Figure 5.1 – Dry LIMS unit .................................................................................................. 10

Figure 5.2 – Dry LIMS testplan............................................................................................ 11

Figure 5.3 – Wet LIMS Testplan .......................................................................................... 12

Table 1.1 – Cleaner LIMS and DTR Performance Comparison ............................................. 2

Table 1.2 – Comminution Test Results Summary ................................................................. 2

Table 2.1 – Acronyms and Definitions ................................................................................... 4

Table 4.1 – Composite development ..................................................................................... 9

Table 6.1 – Composite Head Assays .................................................................................. 13

Table 6.2 – Comminution Test Results Summary ............................................................... 14

Table 6.3 – Bond Ball Mill Work Index Results .................................................................... 15

Table 6.4 – DTR Performance Summary ............................................................................ 15

Table 6.5 – Dry LIMS Results Summary ............................................................................. 16

Table 6.6 – Wet LIMS Roughing Results By Size ................................................................ 18

Table 6.14 – Concentrate Development Matrix For Each Composite .................................. 24

1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1.1 Metallurgical Testwork

1.2 P80 (µm) NA NA 97 195

Comp Cleaned Wet LIMS DTR Concentrate

2.2 P80 (µm) NA NA 98 202

2.3 P80 (µm) NA NA 93 202

Table 1.1 – Cleaner LIMS and DTR Performance Comparison

1.2 Recommendations to Proceed

2.0 ACRONYMS AND DEFINITIONS

Table 2.1 – Acronyms and Definitions

Figure 3.1 – Bullamine Project Location

4.0 SAMPLING AND COMPOSITING

Figure 4.1 – Burracoppin Magnetic survey, showing Diamond Drill holes

Figure 4.2 – Burracoppin Drill Hole DD01/03 Intercepts

Figure 4.3 – Burracoppin Drill Hole DD02 Intercepts

The final composite composition is listed in Table 4.1.

Table 4.1 – Composite development

5.0 TEST PLAN

5.1 Comminution Test

5.2 Dry LIMS Programme

Figure 5.1 – Dry LIMS unit

The Dry LIMS testplan is shown in Figure 5.2.

Reedy Lagoon Corporation Limited

Inventory, inspect & 6 composites as per "Composites" tab

Reserve Mineralogy 1 kg Crush to Abrasion Head assay,

* selected as lowest speed drum

Do speed optimisation on Composite 1.3 as it is largest, fresh sample

Figure 5.2 – Dry LIMS testplan

5.3 Wet LIMS Programme

Reedy Lagoon Corporation Limited

BWI Riffle split

Figure 5.3 – Wet LIMS Testplan

6.0 RESULTS DISCUSSION

6.1 Head Assays

Table 6.1 – Composite Head Assays

6.1.1 Asbestiform Analysis

6.2 Comminution Tests

6.2.2 Abrasive Index

6.2.3 Bond Ball Mill Work Index

BBWi P80 (µm)

6.3 Beneficiation Tests

6.3.1 DTR Analyses