HOME

Lessons Learned from Geometallurgical

Investigations Carried Out on a Nickel
Sulfide Flotation Plant
B Newcombe1

ABSTRACT
From many years practical industrial experience the author has drawn together a list of the key
points to consider when embarking on a large-scale geometallurgical project. Fundamental aspects
which must be considered include (but are not limited to):
 understanding the variability of the orebody both laterally and with depth;
 comminution properties and variability;
 flotation properties, requirements and variability – differing ore zones may have substantially
different requirements for optimal performance;
 the role of texture – the consequences of both grain size and distribution and how the circuit
will handle these;
 realistic expectation in terms of the financial requirements and time frame results are required
within; and
 integration of, and communication between key personnel within the various departments of
the site (mining, geology and processing) is a fundamental aspect of any geometallurgically
based processing system.
An example of a highly complex nickel sulfide ore will be used as the basis of discussion.

INTRODUCTION
It is well established practice to use mineralogical information
in conjunction with metallurgical characterisation to assess an
ores amenability to processing; and this is usually undertaken
as part of a feasibility study prior to the actual processing of
an ore. This initial set of information then forms the basis
for an operations budgeting and forecasting of metallurgical
performance. In the environment of an existing operation, the
use of current mineralogical data is often non-existent within
the metallurgical environment despite the data existing within
geological models, albeit in a basic form.
As orebodies are increasingly becoming more complex,
there is a growing necessity within the industry to use detailed
mineralogical information to predict both plant operating
requirements and ore response. Operators need to know
whether particular ore zones within an orebody will have
significant differences in comminution and flotation (or
hydrometallurgical) processing requirements such as ore
hardness, viscosity, kinetics and reagent type and demand.
Knowledge of the ultimate product specifications such as
overall grade and recovery and the acceptable levels of
contaminant minerals are also required for strategic forward
planning. To date there exists no set guideline for predict-
ing ore performance based on its mineralogy, with most
operations applying a reactive approach to the problem;
when a problem occurs in the plant the ore mineralogy may
be checked retrospectively to see whether a link can be found
with a specific ore property. Even when this approach is
employed, only a metallurgist with appropriate experience
may be able to correctly diagnose the problem.
This paper has been written with operations staff in mind
and seeks to provide some insight into how to (or not to)
conduct a geometallurgical investigation. It is not intended
to provide a review of mineralogical analysis methods, or
even predictive methods used by some major companies and
research facilities. Instead, an example will be presented,
drawn from the authors many years of experience operating
flotation plants treating highly complex base metal sulfide
ores and the lessons learned from geometallurgical projects
conducted on operating sites.
A REAL WORLD EXAMPLE
The example provided here will be based on a flotation
concentrator treating a complex nickel sulfide ore.
Identifying the problem
The scenario is a fairly common one; an existing concentrator is
required to treat ore from a new ore source. Previous test work
conducted on this new ore showed that a saleable concentrate
of 18 per cent Ni is able to be achieved at 70 per cent recovery
using the existing circuit configuration, and these figures
have formed the basis of forecasting the plants performance
on this new ore, as well as concentrate sales contracts. The
current ore being fed to the plant can be broadly described

1. MAusIMM, PhD Candidate, JKMRC, University of Queensland, 40 Isles Road, Indooroopilly Qld 4068. Email: b.newcombe@uq.edu.au

THE FIRST AUSIMM INTERNATIONAL GEOMETALLURGY CONFERENCE / BRISBANE, QLD, 5 - 7 SEPTEMBER 2011 139
B NEWCOMBE
as a coarse grained pentlandite-pyrrhotite; whilst the new ore
has been broadly described as a finely disseminated millerite-
pyrite. The target metals of interest are nickel and to a lesser
extent cobalt. As with most nickel concentrators, penalties are
applied if arsenic levels are too high or the Fe:MgO ratio is too
low. A schematic of the circuit configuration is presented in
Figure 1, showing that a flash flotation cell is in use and there
are currently two stages of cleaning applied.
The operating strategy for the existing ore is very well
established, having been the sole source of production for
many years. When the new ore is treated through the plant,
the operating personnel try to maintain the status-quo, with
significant detrimental impacts on every part of the plant.
As can be seen from Figures 2 - 5, plant performance is quite
erratic, despite taking ore from a single stockpile on the ROM
pad.
It is evident that the plant is not well operated or controlled,
having major fluctuations in almost all key operating
parameters. Mill stoppages are frequent, occurring up to
50 times a month, concentrate grade targets (>18 per cent Ni)
are not being met, and although it’s not able to be shown, the
plants recovery is well below expectation. Trends with similar
variability to those presented in Figures 2 - 5 can be produced
for every section of the plant (crushing through to final product
thickening and filtration) and more specifically for parameters
fundamental to flotation performance, including flotation
feed size (p80) and density. No consistent operating strategy
can be applied to maintain the plants stability, with both
recoveries and concentrate grades fluctuating wildly within
a single stockpile feed. Working in this highly unpredictable
operating environment is also placing a significant amount
of stress on plant personnel. The following is a succession of
questions that were worked through to try and mitigate the
problem, this scenario is founded in reality and the lessons
Circuit Feed AG Mill
(from crushing)
Final Tail
FIG 1 - Circuit configuration.
140 THE FIRST AUSIMM INTERNATIONAL GEOMETALLURGY CONFERENCE / BRISBANE, QLD, 5 - 7 SEPTEMBER 2011
learned are intended to provide some valuable insight for
anyone considering embarking on a geo-metallurgical study,
particularly at an operating site.
Question – ‘Is the plant feed material
consistent?’
Answer
Plant feed material for this new ore source has been classified
by the ratio of sulfide to non-sulfide nickel. This classification
system is summarised in Table 1.
Consideration of Figure 6 shows that the mill feed grade
is possibly the only trend in this plant that displays any
consistency; the ‘answer’ returned by both the mining
and geology departments to this question is that the ore is
consistent as delivered and stockpiled on the run-of-mine
(ROM) pad based on the grade guidelines that have been
specified... ‘it’s not us, it’s you’.
Given that the plants in-line assay equipment is well
maintained and operating effectively, a fault finding
investigation into the key operating equipment (control
valves, flow and level indicators, etc) and variables (such as
water and reagent addition) is undertaken, with little effect.
Question – ‘Has any test work previously been
performed on this new ore?’
Answer
There is very little information available from feasibility test
work performed on this orebody and the relevance of what
is available is questionable due to the way core samples were
blended together and the proximity of these samples to both
the top and centre of the orebody, which represent ore blocks
that have already been processed. The lack of information
Cyclone
overflow to
flotation circuit
Cyclones
Flash
Float
Flash Con
(to final con)
Ball Mill
Rougher
Scavenger
Cleaner
ReCleaner
To Final Con
 LESSONS LEARNED FROM GEOMETALLURGICAL INVESTIGATIONS CARRIED OUT ON A NICKEL SULFIDE FLOTATION PLANT

GrindingCircuitPerformance
HourlyAveragefor7days
90 600

85
550

80
500
75

450
70
MillFeedTonnes

MillPoerkW
65 400

60
350

55
300
50

250
45

40 200
Time(hours)

MillFeed(tph) MillPower(kW)

FIG 2 - Seven day mill performance (hourly average data).

GrindingCircuitPerformance
6minuteaverageover24hours
90 600

85
550

80
500
75

450
70
MillFeedTonnes

MillPoer(kW)

65 400

60
350

55
300
50

250
45

40 200
Time(sixminaverages)

MillFee(tph) MillPower(kW)

FIG 3 - Twenty-four hour mill performance (six minute average data).

THE FIRST AUSIMM INTERNATIONAL GEOMETALLURGY CONFERENCE / BRISBANE, QLD, 5 - 7 SEPTEMBER 2011 141
B NEWCOMBE

FlotationCircuitPerformance
HourlyAveragefor7days
30

25

20
ConcentrateGrade%M

15

10

0
Time(hours)

ConcentrateGrade(%M)

FIG 4 - Seven day flotation performance (hourly average data).

FlotationCircuitPerformance
6minuteaverageover24hours
25

20
ConcentrateGrade%M

15

10

0
Time(sixminaverages)

ConcentrateGrade(%M)

FIG 5 - Twenty-four hour flotation performance (six minute average data) (note that no data was available for the tail grade during this period due to blockages in the
line feeding the in-line analyser).

142 THE FIRST AUSIMM INTERNATIONAL GEOMETALLURGY CONFERENCE / BRISBANE, QLD, 5 - 7 SEPTEMBER 2011
 LESSONS LEARNED FROM GEOMETALLURGICAL INVESTIGATIONS CARRIED OUT ON A NICKEL SULFIDE FLOTATION PLANT
2.5
1.5
M%
0.5
0
FIG 6 - Twenty-four hour mill feed grade (six minute average data) (note that periods of flat-line occur when the equipment is being maintained).
TABLE 1
Current ore classification system.
Ore Type sNi %
1 >0.45
2 >0.45
3 >0.30
Talc low >0.30
Talc high >0.50
available to retrospectively compare the actual plant perform-
ance for when these ore blocks were processed means the
available test work data will be of limited use at best. Test
work does, however indicate that not only does the valuable
metal mineralogy vary across the orebody, but there is also a
significant difference in performance observed from one side
of the orebody to the other.
Question – ‘How does the ore change across
the orebody?’
Answer
An initial look at the geological database and models shows
that there are significant differences in the sulfide mineralogy
throughout the orebody. The differences are so severe
that further investigation is justified. Figures 7 through 11
illustrate the variation of key nickel minerals, pyrite and
arsenic across the orebody and Figure 12 presents a plan view
of the general ore zones. Discussions held between the geology
and metallurgy departments result in the identification of five
THE FIRST AUSIMM INTERNATIONAL GEOMETALLURGY CONFERENCE / BRISBANE, QLD, 5 - 7 SEPTEMBER 2011
CircuitFeedGrade
6minuteaverageover24hours
Time(sixminaverages)
M%
distinct ore zones based on sulfide mineral content and grain
size, these are presented in Table 2.
It is important to note that at this stage the host rock
variation has not been considered.
nSNi Question – ‘Is there a difference in performance
0.0 - 0.15 between the ore types?’
0.15 - 0.50
Answer
>0.50 In order to determine whether each ore type will have
N/A fundamentally different processing requirements, we need to
N/A take a moment to consider what we know about the flotation
response of each of the nickel sulfides. Unfortunately the
information available in the literature is generally limited
to the study of pentlandite and there are very few examples
where different nickel sulfides are compared under similar
conditions (Senior, Shannon and Trahar, 1994; Smith et
al, 2011). Although technical information is lacking, there
is a well-established rule of thumb in the nickel flotation
industry that the primary nickel sulfides (pentlandite and
millerite) are fast floating, the secondary sulfides (violarite)
have an intermediate flotation rate and the more complex
nickel sulfides such as polydymite, carrollite and vaesite are
comparatively the slowest floating. The gangue sulfides present
here, which include gersdorffite, enargite and cobaltite, are all
notoriously easy to float and often difficult to depress without
impacting on valuable mineral performance.
There exists a comparatively large amount of information
in the literature in regard to the different flotation response
of the various copper sulfides, which if used as a basis for
comparison shows that under identical test conditions, both
the flotation rate and ultimate recovery of copper are found
to decrease in the following order: chalcopyrite, chalcocite,
143
B NEWCOMBE

FIG 7 - Millerite distribution.

FIG 8 - Pentlandite distribution.

covellite and bornite (Ackerman et al, 1987a). Each mineral
responds differently to the type of collector used, has different
optimum addition rates of collector and has different optimal
pH requirements (Ackerman et al, 1987a; Ackerman et al,
1987b). The varying hydrophobicity of the different sulfides
would also mean that small changes in operating variables
such as froth depth (which is frequently used for control in
industrial plants) would have a more significant impact on
the more weakly hydrophobic minerals (Ross, 1991). This
information suggests that the different ore zones under
consideration in this example will require different operating
strategies in order to achieve optimal results.
In order to quantify whether a significant difference exists
between the ore types, samples are taken from production
drilling of three different ore types, initially classified as
footwall (ore type 3), hanging wall (ore type 2) and main lode

144 THE FIRST AUSIMM INTERNATIONAL GEOMETALLURGY CONFERENCE / BRISBANE, QLD, 5 - 7 SEPTEMBER 2011
 LESSONS LEARNED FROM GEOMETALLURGICAL INVESTIGATIONS CARRIED OUT ON A NICKEL SULFIDE FLOTATION PLANT

FIG 9 - Violarite distribution.

FIG 10 - Pyrite distribution.

(ore type 1). Basic performance tests are conducted in the
site laboratory, involving grinding to a target p80 of 75 μm
and performing rougher/scavenger flotation tests under a
standard set of conditions. Results of each ore type using the
‘standard’ site test procedure are given in Table 3.
The standard site test procedure was developed for ore
type 1 (which represents the bulk of the ore) and provides
optimal conditions for that particular ore zone alone. When
test conditions are optimised to suit each individual ore zone,
significant improvements in both grade and recovery are
observed as shown Table 4.
These results, in conjunction with numerous other flotation
test results indicate that despite having a similar feed grade,
not only do the ores perform very differently; they also have
very different reagent and pulp preparation requirements.
During the time taken to perform and report this initial test
work, the operation has been under ever-increasing amounts
of pressure to improve performance or face termination of
personnel or even potential shutdown of the plant; the effect of
this is that the decision making process may be compromised
by the extreme levels of stress technical staff are working
under.

THE FIRST AUSIMM INTERNATIONAL GEOMETALLURGY CONFERENCE / BRISBANE, QLD, 5 - 7 SEPTEMBER 2011 145
B NEWCOMBE

High
Violarite
zone

Foot-Wall
Ore
Main Hanging
Lode -Wall
Ore

FIG 11 - Plan view of arsenic distribution (ppm). FIG 12 - Plan view of overall ore zones.

Question – ‘Can an operating strategy be
quickly developed to deal with the different
ore types?’
Answer
A detailed test work program at this stage would be a waste of
time and money if the current ore classification system remains
in place. Discussions are held between the geology, mining
and metallurgy departments. An understanding is eventually
reached that if (and only if) metallurgical test work shows
that plant performance will be significantly compromised by
maintaining the current system, ores will be re-classified by
mineral content, new orebody models produced and mining
production and ore separation will be in-line with these new
models.
Available funds are limited and results are required quickly.
As the problem is perceived as largely a flotation issue and
flotation testing and associated mineralogy will cost in excess
of $100 k per ore type, it is decided to proceed with testing
the three most prevalent ore types (1, 3 and 4) without any
grinding/hardness characterisation work. The objective of this
work is to provide a basis for forecasting plant performance,
find a preliminary reagent scheme based on the available
reagents on site for each ore type and identify the nature of
the losses that are occurring.
Samples for this work are taken from the grade control
drilling program and are ‘RC’ drill chips. Results of the three-
stage cleaning flotation test work are presented in Table 5 and
indicate that not only does each of the ores respond differently,
they also have significantly different reagent requirements.
The feed material for each test has been ground to the plant
target p80 (75 μm). Table 5 is provided to give an overall
review of the performance differences between the ores at
laboratory scale. Please note that the depressant referred to in
this table is used for non-sulfide gangue depression and is not
targeting the arsenic minerals.

TABLE 2
New ore zone classifications.

Ore type Description Key sulfides

1 Finely disseminated millerite with pyrite NiS, FeS2
2 High-grade, coarse grained millerite NiS
3 Finely disseminated complex sulfide with pyrite FeS2, Fe2NiS4, Ni3S4, NiS2, etc
4 High penalty elements with intermediate sized grains of mixed sulfides NiAsS, FeS2, NiS, (Fe,Ni)9S8, Fe2NiS4, Ni3S4, NiS2, etc
5 Low-grade, high talc with mixed sulfides NiS, (Fe,Ni)9S8, Fe2NiS4, Ni3S4, NiS2, etc

TABLE 3
Preliminary test work results under standard conditions.
TABLE 4
Preliminary test work results under optimised conditions.
Ore type Head grade Con grade Recovery
(Ni %) (Ni %) (%)
Ore type Head grade Con grade Recovery
1 1.1 4.9 86 (Ni %) (Ni %) (%)
2 1.2 7.8 56 2 1.2 9.1 66
3 0.7 4.4 60 3 0.7 5.4 66

146 THE FIRST AUSIMM INTERNATIONAL GEOMETALLURGY CONFERENCE / BRISBANE, QLD, 5 - 7 SEPTEMBER 2011
 LESSONS LEARNED FROM GEOMETALLURGICAL INVESTIGATIONS CARRIED OUT ON A NICKEL SULFIDE FLOTATION PLANT

TABLE 5 TABLE 6
Optimised performance for each ore type from three-cleaner test work. Grind times required to achieve a target p80 of 75 μm.
Feed Ore type Grind time
Ore Con grade Recovery
grade Reagent use
type (Ni%) (%) 1 11 min, 53 sec
(Ni%)
3 16 min, 15 sec
Standard collector and
activator dosages can be 4 12 min, 11 sec
used, but frother addition
1 0.8 17.3 78 should be minimised in the In terms of host rock variability, although no specific
rougher cells. Depressant ore hardness or grinding characterisation work has been
use should be limited to performed, there is an indication that this may also be a
final cleaning only. problem when the lab grind times are considered, as shown in
Increased collector and Table 6. It is also noted that slurry viscosity may be an issue
depressant requirements, when treating ores 3 and 4.
3 0.7 10 62 frother addition should be On the basis of these results, new operating strategies are
minimised, standard dose put into place across site, with ores being re-classified into
of activator. new categories, new block models produced and new ROM
Standard collector, activator stockpiling strategies employed. Reagent strategies within
and frother dosages can the plant are changed to allow online optimisation for each
4 0.7 8.0 67 be used but depressant ore type, along with optimisation of other key operating
addition should be parameters such as air addition, pulp density and froth depth
minimised. for each ore. Ongoing test work is undertaken to find a solution
to viscosity problems and new reagents are tested for each ore
type to seek out better alternatives.
Whilst recovery is considered acceptable for the ore types
tested, the third cleaner concentrate grades indicate that
significant unforeseen difficulties will be encountered to
OVERALL RESULT
reach contract concentrate grades when treating ore types 3 The impact of these changes on day-to-day operation of the
and 4. It is important to note that the circuit treating the ore plant is displayed in Figures 13 to 17. These figures contain
incorporates a flash flotation cell, and no attempt has been data from immediately after the first ore is treated with the
made as part of this test work to determine whether the new classification system in place (some eight months after the
operation of this unit will be beneficial or detrimental in trying initial inception of the project). The most significant change is
to achieve both grade and recovery targets. The test work also that of improved comminution circuit stability, with periods
indicates that in order to get the best results from each ore of several days enjoyed without stoppages and consistent
type, a different reagent addition strategy should be in place feed material. Another beneficial impact is the ability to
for each. stabilise the plant on a single ore type, optimise performance

GrindingCircuitPerformance
HourlyAveragefor7days
90 600

85
550

80
500
75

450
70
MillFeedTonnes

MillPowerkW

65 400

60
350

55
300
50

250
45

40 200
Time(hours)

MillFeed(tph) MillPower(kW)

FIG 13 - Seven day mill performance (hourly average data).

THE FIRST AUSIMM INTERNATIONAL GEOMETALLURGY CONFERENCE / BRISBANE, QLD, 5 - 7 SEPTEMBER 2011 147
B NEWCOMBE

GrindingCircuitPerformance
6minuteaverageover24hours
90 600

85
550

80
500
75

450
70
MillFeedTonnes

MillPowerkW
65 400

60
350

55
300
50

250
45

40 200
Time(sixminaverages)

MillFeed(tph) MillPower(kW)

FIG 14 - Twenty-four hour mill performance (six minute average data).

FlotationCircuitPerformance
HourlyAveragefor7days
25

20
ConcentrateGrade%M

15

10

0
Time(hours)

ConcentrateGrade%M

FIG 15 - Seven day flotation performance (hourly average data).

and maintain the operating strategy for the duration of that
stockpile (generally from seven to ten days on each ore type).
Figure 17 shows that the feed grade to the plant is very stable
on each stockpile. Figure 13 shows a changeover from one ore
type to another and Figure 14 is a 24 hour snapshot, showing
a significant improvement in circuit stability. Mill utilisation
was significantly increased as a result of the change, from
being as low as 87 per cent to 96 per cent, however the target
p80 of 75 μm was never achieved, with actual p80s to the
flotation circuit being typically in the range of 120 - 150 μm to
allow throughput targets to be met.
Figures 15 and 16 indicate that the plant still has trouble
stabilising the flotation circuit, and whilst periods of good
stability and performance were encountered, the flotation
operator was required to maintain a close vigil on the circuit
to ensure final concentrate grade was not reduced. Overall
flotation recoveries prior to the change were 61 per cent, and
this improved to 66 per cent once the ores were reclassified,
however this is still below the target recovery of 70 per cent.
Flotation product grade was also an ongoing concern; with
test work indicating that a flotation feed p80 of less than
75 μm is required for sufficient liberation to achieve final
concentrate sales specification on some ores. The significantly
coarser feed sizes being delivered to the flotation circuit
resulted in considerable contamination by composite particles
and consequent down-grading of the final concentrate. Final

148 THE FIRST AUSIMM INTERNATIONAL GEOMETALLURGY CONFERENCE / BRISBANE, QLD, 5 - 7 SEPTEMBER 2011
 LESSONS LEARNED FROM GEOMETALLURGICAL INVESTIGATIONS CARRIED OUT ON A NICKEL SULFIDE FLOTATION PLANT

FlotationCircuitPerformance
6minuteaverageover24hours
20

18

16

14
ConcentrateGrade%M

12

10

0
Time(sixminaverages)

ConcentrateGrade%M

FIG 16 - Twenty-four hour flotation performance (six minute average data).

CircuitFeedGrade
6minuteaverageover24hours
0.8

0.7

0.6

0.5
%M

0.4

0.3

0.2

0.1

0
Time(sixminaverages)

MillFeedGrade%M

FIG 17 - Twenty-four hour mill feed grade (six minute average data).
concentrate grades remained low throughout averaging 16.7
per cent Ni, well below the target of 18 per cent Ni. Large
fluctuations in concentrate grade were observed from one
ore type to another, ranging from as low as 12 per cent up to
22 per cent Ni.
A major factor contributing to poor flotation performance
was ore viscosity, this previously unforeseen problem may
have been identified and mitigated earlier if closer attention
had been paid to host rock properties (such as fibre and clay
content). The operation of the flash flotation cell also proved
troublesome with this viscous, poorly liberated material; with
evidence to suggest that the flash circuit should be bypassed
whilst on some ores to minimise reduction in final concentrate
grades.
Whilst flotation recovery was improved overall, there was an
indication that the residence time of the plant was insufficient
for some of the slower floating minerals found in ore types 3, 4
and 5. Flotation test work was continued in order to understand
the varying kinetic responses of the minerals concerned and
perform ongoing flotation optimisation test work.
LESSONS LEARNED
The information presented here represents a scenario that
has been and will continue to be played out at many operating
plants all over the world. The key lessons learned by the
author, having been through this experience a number of
times can be summarised as thus:

THE FIRST AUSIMM INTERNATIONAL GEOMETALLURGY CONFERENCE / BRISBANE, QLD, 5 - 7 SEPTEMBER 2011 149
B NEWCOMBE
 Understanding of the orebody and how it varies both
laterally and with depth is a requirement for all persons
involved in a geo-metallurgical study. Metallurgists are not,
and should not be expected to have intimate knowledge of
geological models, but through good communication with
the site geologists have ready access to overviews of block
models and their assay and mineralogical content. These
are easily printed from the programs the geologists use
and provide a visual (usually colour coded) tool for seeing
grade and mineral variation.
 Understanding key aspects of mineralogical response is
a fundamental requirement of the metallurgist involved.
Sulfide minerals within a group each have their own
unique processing requirements and response (ie the
different nickel sulfides have a different response to the
same reagents and chemical conditions). Variations in
host rock properties may also require different treatment
methods to be employed. Where such knowledge is lacking
within the site team, it would be advised to involve a
consultant (either from within the company or an external
source) with the relevant experience, not only to interpret
metallurgical data, but also provide high-level training
and education to the site team on geo-metallurgical issues.
 Host rock characteristics and consequent comminution
properties are just as important as flotation properties.
Whilst the comminution circuit in the example provided
here is now able to be operated steadily on each ore
type, milling throughput is limited and target p80s are
seldom achieved, affecting both the grade of and recovery
to final concentrate. Ore viscosity is also an ongoing
concern. A considerable amount of capital expenditure
would be required to upgrade the comminution circuit
in order to achieve the expected results, upgrading of
pumping equipment for thickeners is also required, along
with significant amounts of test work in order to find
suitable flocculants and dispersing agents. All of this was
unforeseen from the feasibility test work conducted on the
ore; if initial testing had been expanded to more thoroughly
investigate ore properties, systems could have been put
into place to cope with the new ores’ requirements.
 Understanding the role of texture; the consequences of
both grain size and distribution and how the circuit will
handle these is vital. In the circuit considered here, the
use of a flash flotation cell to treat a finely disseminated,
slow floating nickel sulfide ore resulted in a very low-grade
concentrate. The circuit configuration was eventually
required to be altered to accommodate this type of ore.
This could have been picked up earlier if closer attention
had been paid to the available mineralogical data.
 Realistic expectation in terms of time and financial
requirements for such a study should also be outlaid from
the start of such a project. In the example provided here
there is eight months between the initial inception of the
project and the actual changeover to when the first ore was
treated through the plant under the revised classification
system. The cost of the test work conducted throughout
that period (including feed ore characterisation, baseline
150 THE FIRST AUSIMM INTERNATIONAL GEOMETALLURGY CONFERENCE / BRISBANE, QLD, 5 - 7 SEPTEMBER 2011
flotation testing and associated mineralogy and reagent
optimisation test work) was in the order of $500 k.
Even after this initial phase of testing, work was still
ongoing due to the continued issues associated with the
poor kinetics of some of the ore types and ore viscosity
problems. More thorough planning and testing of the ore
in the initial stages of feasibility may have reduced both
the overall cost and duration of this particular project,
and also saved the operation from having to maintain an
essentially uncontrollable concentrator whilst the work
was being done.
 Communication is a fundamental aspect of this type
of project. Involvement from the geology, mining and
processing departments on site are required to make
such an endeavour a success and the communication
between these departments must be open and honest.
As with all projects involving teams, selection of the
appropriate people must not only take into consideration
their technical ability but also their personality and inter-
personal skills. Technical knowledge can always be drawn
from sources external to the team as required.
 Utilise all available resources; managing a troublesome
plant as well as conducting major project work stretched
the site metallurgy department to its absolute limits. The
use of ‘corporate’ metallurgists located elsewhere within
the company would have significantly eased the load. Good
relationships with reagent suppliers allowed test work for
optimising reagents and tailoring collector and frothers
to be performed by external technicians, allowing the site
team to remain focused on the significant task at hand.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
The author wishes to acknowledge the invaluable assistance
of Professor Dee Bradshaw (JKMRC) in the preparation of
this document.
REFERENCES
Ackerman, P K, Harris, G H, Klimpel, R R and Aplan, F F, 1987a.
Evaluation of flotation collectors for copper sulphides and pyrite,
I, Common sulfhydryl collectors, Interntional Journal of Mineral
Processing, 21:105-127.
Ackerman, P K, Harris, G H, Klimpel, R R and Aplan, F F, 1987b.
Evaluation of flotation collectors for copper sulphides and pyrite,
III, Effect of xanthate chain length and branching, International
Journal of Mineral Processing, 21:141-156
Ross, V E, 1991. An investigation of sub-processes in equilibrium
froths (I): The mechanisms of detachment and drainage,
International Journal of Mineral Processing, 31:37-50.
Senior, G D, Shannon, L K and Trahar, W J, 1994. The flotation of
pentlandite from pyrrhotite with particular reference to the effects
of particle size, International Journal of Mineral Processing,
42:169-190.
Smith, L K, Senior, G D, Bruckard, W J and Davey, K J, 2011. The
flotation of millerite – A single mineral study, International
Journal of Mineral Processing, 99:27-31.