See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/278968465

The role of 'process mineralogy' in improving the process performance of

complex sulphide ores

Conference Paper · October 2014

CITATIONS READS

12 5,466

1 author:

Dee Bradshaw
The University of Queensland
182 PUBLICATIONS   3,111 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Selective flotation of enargite from copper sulphides in complex ore systems View project

“Designer Tailing” Research Project, Improving the Management of Tailings through Collaborative Research View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Dee Bradshaw on 23 June 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 KEYNOTE PAPER 932

The role of ‘process mineralogy’ in improving the

process performance of complex sulphide ores
D J Bradshaw,
JKMRC, Sustainable Minerals Institute, University of Queensland, Australia

ABSTRACT
‘Process mineralogy’ is a form of applied mineralogy which focuses on addressing problems
associated with the processing of ores. ‘Mineralogy’ is the scientific study of minerals and ‘mineral
processing’ is the production of concentrates from ores. ‘Process mineralogy,’ however can be defined
as the practical study of minerals associated with the processing of ores, concentrates and smelter
products for the development and optimisation of metallurgical flowsheets, including the waste
and environmental management considerations. This hybrid discipline consists of teams that
include geologists, mineralogists, samplers, mineral processors and often others, working together.
The degree of cross-training, communication and trust dictates the potential capacity of the team
and where an appropriate work dynamic is fostered, in which relationships flourish as much as
does the ethic of technical excellence, it is possible to develop technical capabilities that surpass
those of conventional teams.
The world’s demand for metals is ever increasing and ore deposits available for extraction and
processing are lower grade and more complex, often containing deleterious elements that require
tailored treatment. Generally, in the past, the technical challenges only needed to be overcome and
assessed economically to make an ore deposit viable; increasingly and in the future, a more
sustainable approach including environmental and societal considerations is needed. Process
mineralogical assessment is increasingly providing the critical information that stands between
failure or collapse and survival or success of some mining operations.
In this paper, selected case studies are used to demonstrate the valuable role of the process
mineralogy tools being used to provide the platform for innovative technology development. Their
common attributes are discussed and distilled, thus providing some insights and potential
guidance for addressing some of the likely future challenges of the mining industry.
INTRODUCTION
‘Process mineralogy’ is a form of applied mineralogy which focuses on addressing problems associated
with the processing of ores and has been defined as ‘the practical study of minerals associated with the
processing of ores, concentrates and smelter products for the development and optimisation of
metallurgical flow sheets’ (Henley, 1983; Jones, 1987; Petruk, 2000).
The success of the process from rock breakage, feed preparation and classification to separation into
streams of various mineral concentrations for sale or disposal implies knowledge of the minerals
themselves. The key attributes to be considered include: the element deportment in the minerals in the
ore, the bulk modal mineralogy, the mineral grain size, texture and association. For design purposes, this
knowledge defines the entitlement and potential recovery of an ore and impacts the choice of the
metallurgical flowsheet. For the operation, it facilitates diagnosis of the sources of weaknesses and
opportunities. For the environment, it enables the management of waste and potentially deleterious
material. For research it inspires the development of new technologies.
An early reference from Irving, (1906) notes its importance in a “Discussion” in the Journal Economic
Geology stating that “…to the metallurgist and mining engineer, a full and complete grasp of economic geology in
all its relations is a sine-qua-non of practical success…”where he acknowledges the need for metallurgists and
mining engineers to have some university education in Economic Geology. Development continued in
various parts of the world including the United States (Kerr, 1981; Miller, 1981; Hausen, 1981a and 1981b),
Europe (Baum, 2014a), South Africa (Liebenberg, 1970; Hiemstra, 1981) and Australia (Stillwell and
Edwards, 1945).
The discipline of process mineralogy was formalised further at the 1st Conference of Applied Mineralogy
in 1981 in Johannesburg, South Africa wherein a session devoted to “Applications in Mineral Dressing.’
Henley gave the keynote and under the banner of ‘ore dressing mineralogy’ he discussed the various
measurement techniques available at the time, as well as the different mineral attributes affecting
processing, noting the need for experienced mineralogists to estimate proportions of minerals in polished
sections. He also pointed out differences in terminology used between the disciplines (e.g. grain vs.
particle); something which remains an ongoing challenge today (Henley, 1983).
Parallel technological developments in areas such as automated scanning electron microscopy and the
increasing use of combinations of measurements including XRD and optical mineralogy have caused a
dramatic increase of activity within process mineralogy, providing access to a wealth of information
previously inaccessible. The first of the automated scanning electron microscope systems to be
commercially available was the QEM*SEM (now QEMSCAN) developed by CSIRO in Australia, (Grant et
al, 1976; Gottlieb, 2008; Gottlieb et al, 2000) followed by the Mineral Liberation Analyser (MLA)
developed by JKMRC (e.g. Gu, 2003; Gu et al, 2014) also in Australia. Several other such systems are also
now available including TIMA, Mineralogic and INCA Mineral (e.g. Baum, 2014a and 2014b).
A key additional feature of modern practice is the engagement of appropriate sampling practice to ensure
the representativeness, or trueness, of the sample material presented to the automated mineralogy
platform (Lotter, 2011). This supports the growing need for mineralogical support for the processing of
increasingly complex ores, alongside a heightened need for appropriate environmental considerations
and more stringent controls on the quality of the mineral products (Lotter, 2011; Gorain, 2013). These
considerations combine to place an unprecedented demand on the need for a common language, and for
skills; for both dedicated ‘process mineralogists’, and for inter-disciplinary training between geologists,
mineral processing and mining engineers, and environmental scientists (Schouwstra and Smit, 2011).
As lower grade deposits are mined, one of the limits to potential exploitation is provided by the
mineralogical complexity. Figure 1 illustrates the mineralogical barrier between current operations on the
right and the increased number of potential lower grade mining operations on the left. For any deposit to
be economically viable, the project revenue from payable metal extracted has to exceed the associated
costs of mining and processing. Thus the adoption and implementation of new technologies is the key to
accessing the lower grade deposits in the future.

Figure 1: A conceptual illustration of the mineralogical barrier potential to processing lower grade ore bodies facing
the mining industry (from Mudd, 2013).

A mineralogical barrier identified over 100 years ago was dramatically overcome when the flotation
process was developed at the Broken Hill Lead-Silver-Zinc mines in Australia in the early 1900s
(Woodward, 1952, Clark et al, 2005, Lynch et al, 2007). The mines had started in the mid-1800s directly
smelting oxide ores to produce lead silver bullion. As the oxide ores were depleted and sulphide ores
became available, gravity separation of the dense lead-silver component was adopted in the 1890s
although in this process considerable revenue was lost as the silver and lead were recovered but the zinc
was lost to the tailings. Facing financial ruin and after the failure of the use of magnetic separation in 1901,
the potential of an ‘academic curiosity’ was considered and after significant effort, the world’s first
industrial flotation process was developed. Initially a bulk concentrate was obtained and later with the
incorporation of chemistry (copper sulphate addition) by Bradford, (1913) selective lead and zinc
concentrates were produced.
Fuerstenau (2007) records the significance of this event to the industry with his quote from mining
geologist, P. Billingsly (1928) ‘The mining geologist searches for materials which the metallurgist can utilise, and
only such; whenever an advance in metallurgy opens the gates for new materials, the geologist’s problem is
accordingly modified…. The metallurgist has been the geologist’s best friend and the geologist has in turn been able
to convey the metallurgist’s ideas into the concrete form of an increased ore supply.’ As the years have progressed
and flotation has become widely used and monitored with chemical assays of elements, the tendency has
been for the geologist’s contribution to become less. This has been aggravated by company structures that
do not promote integration and a perception that mineralogical information is expensive and only needed
in the early stages of process development (Butcher, 2010).
In a counterbalance to this steady weakening of the position and perception of process mineralogy, key
groups around the world have been established and have demonstrated the value of such work to the
industry. The measurement technologies that have been developed have been applied to appropriate
representative samples, and integrated with process knowledge and high quality metallurgical testwork.
This has led to significant business impacts in mineral resource characterization and in optimization of
existing concentrator operations. Some examples include, but are not restricted to, those discussed by
Baum et al, (2004); Lotter et al, (2011); Schouwstra and Smit, (2011); Baum, (2014); Kappes et al, (2009); Gu
et al, (2014).
The aim of the paper is to demonstrate where process mineralogy has been used to add value to existing
operations as well as design of new operations and why effective process mineralogy is vital to the future
of the mining industry. It focuses on the benefits of process mineralogy to improving flotation
performance from sulphide ores. A range of important aspects of process mineralogy has been selected
for discussion here, along with example case studies and references. These include: measurement and
characterisation of ore performance; the limit mineralogy places on separation potential; optimising size
and liberation; dealing with deleterious elements and minerals and processing variable, complex and
problematic ores. The importance of collaborative multidisciplinary teams is also discussed. It concludes
by noting some of the likely future challenges of the mining industry with the contribution and
developments needed from process mineralogy to address them.

MEASURING POTENTIAL AND CHARACTERISING ORE PERFORMANCE

The number and type of measurements required are driven by the type and precision of information
needed, which in turn is controlled by a thorough understanding of the purpose of the project. This allows
the optimisation of turn-around time and budget utilisation (analogous to the medical field where the
requirements range from first aid to heart surgery). Readers are referred to other sources for detailed
information on measurement techniques and their applications (e.g. Jones, (1987); Petruk, (2000); Butcher,
2010; Henley, (1983); Baum, (2004); Schouwstra and Smit, (2011); www.minassist.com.au; Becker et al,
(2014).
Mineralogical limit to separation
The first step to identify the mineralogical limit to separation is to characterise the element of interest in
the minerals present in the ore to define its ‘entitlement’ (Kormos, 2014). Kormos et al (2010) demonstrate
how this can be done using a combination of instruments; including both a QEMSCAN and a
microprobe. The microprobe provides the mineral compositions and the QEMSCAN provides the modal
abundances and textural quantification. The two sets of data allow for a deportment of valuable metal to
the various minerals and knowing which minerals can be recovered by the process being used, the limit to
recovery, known as the ‘entitlement’ of that ore is defined.
The flotation rate is strongly dependent on particle size (Trahar, 1981) and liberation of the valuable
component (Johnson, 2010). The feed stream is prepared for the selected separation process by crushing
and milling to a specified particle size distribution. As the extent of liberation is dependent on the ore
mineralogy and texture, the mineral potential of a feed stream is likewise dependent on the texture and
the size to which the ore has been subsequently milled. The mineralogical limit to flotation or theoretical
grade recovery is a means of describing or characterising that stream. It assumes perfect separation and
does not take process kinetics or material recovered by entrainment into account so cannot necessarily be
considered a realistic target but does provide the maximum limit. It takes into account the composition of
the particles containing the valuable mineral and gives the maximum potential separation of it. The
location of the limit is determined by the quality and quantity of composites.

Figure 2. LEFT: A schematic of the theoretical grade recovery curve with typical particle images included. RIGHT:
The position of the actual grade/recovery relative to the theoretical potential, with (1) where operational changes can
be made to improve performance and (2) where milling and classification changes are needed for improved
performance (from Cropp et al, 2013).
Figure 2, shows how particle composition defines the theoretical grade recovery curve. Images of
particles are used to show how high recovery of the target mineral will typically also mean recovery of
gangue minerals, thus reducing the grade of the concentrate. If there are more composite particles and the
feed stream is consequently lower grade the curve in Figure 2 (LEFT) shifts left (such as a scavenger
stream), conversely if it is a stream containing a lot of liberated particles (such as a cleaner stream) the
curve shifts to the top right hand corner. Figure 2 (RIGHT) shows the position of the actual
grade/recovery relative to the theoretical potential and that at point (1) the operational conditions such as
reagent addition or circuit modifications can be altered to improve performance, but only to the limit
imposed by the curve. If grade/recovery above the theoretical curve is required, such as for point (2) then
the liberation potential of the feed will need be changed through altering milling and classification
conditions. This curve does not include entrainment or naturally floating gangue, so will always be an
overestimate of what can be achieved practically. The typical influence of mineralogy and texture on
flotation performance has been summarised in Table 1 which is accompanied by a schematic showing the
size fraction affected.

Table 1. Summary of common causes for lower than anticipated grade or recovery in the flotation concentrate. The
schematic graph highlights these regions relative to particle size (from Cropp et al, 2013).

Losses to Tailings Recovery by Size: Losses / Dilution

1) Fine, liberated Minerals

2) Locked Minerals

3) Surface coatings on valuable minerals

Dilution in Concentrate

4) Gangue Composites

5) Entrained Gangue

6) Activated Gangue

7) Deleterious Element Distribution in

various size fractions

The losses in the three major size categories can be commonly be attributed to the following:
 Coarse particles can be composites (i.e. contain multiple grains) of value-bearing minerals and gangue
minerals. Recovering these will increase recovery but lower the grade of the concentrate, as the
locked attached gangue will, by necessity, also be recovered. Rejecting these will mean that grade is
not compromised but the target grains will be lost to tailings, thereby reducing overall recovery.
These particles may be fine grained, have a bimodal grain size distribution of the valuable mineral(s)
that may result either from inequigranular grains in one ore, or from blended material from ores with
different size distributions where the target grind size is optimised for the largest of the distribution
 sizes. Alternatively they may arise from the processing a different ore type with a lower P80 than the
current ore’s target grind size. These may not be recovered in the flotation circuit because either they
are too heavy to float, or lack the free surface area to be collected.
 Fine particles largely comprise of liberated mineral grains. They have a lower probability of particle-
bubble collision and therefore have a reduced chance of being recovered. Very fine gangue material
may be also recovered by entrainment to the final concentrate.
 In the mid-range, particles are typically considered to be fully or well liberated, and therefore be
amenable to separation in a flotation circuit, with the ore minerals being recovered without significant
degradation of grade; however this is not always the case. Surface coatings can reduce the
susceptibility of an ore mineral’s surface to bubble adherence, reducing recovery, whilst concentrate
grade may be lowered when the surface of gangue minerals become activated (for example by Cu
ions) causing them to float.

OPTIMIZING SIZE AND LIBERATION

Size reduction is the most energy intensive and thus costly part of mineral processing. The grinding
circuit is highly influential to the outcomes of flotation by way of the characteristics of the actual particle
size distribution (McIvor and Finch, 1991). Inadequate liberation is a common cause of poor performance.
As fine grinding technologies become increasingly available, it is possible to improve and optimise
liberation and improve flotation performance where mineralogical texture is a limiting factor. In some
cases, harmful chemical effects on floatability may arise from conventional media and a move to ‘Stirred
Inert Grinding’ is expected to dominate the re-grind circuits in future metals mining (Baum, 2014c). Poor
size distributions with too much fine material can also contribute to lower than optimum recoveries and
increase costs. Ensuring grinding circuit cyclones are operating efficiently with appropriate circulating
loads and having sufficient retention time in the flotation circuit while maximising mineral selectivity can
mitigate the risks of fine particle losses.
There are many examples of the inclusion of additional milling capacity in a circuit. The particular
location of the intervention in an existing circuit and the particle size obtained in most cases has been
based on the mineralogy of the ore being processed, the liberation desired and the point of maximum
benefit identified. The most famous example, with the longest running quantitative mineralogical data set
is the Mt Isa Grinding project and is the one selected for more detailed discussion. This case study has
become one of the ‘process mineralogy’ classics and has been widely reported from different angles and
also used as an excellent teaching example (e.g. Young et al, 1997, Johnson et al 1998, Pease et al, 2006,
Pease, 2010). The declining metallurgical performance resulting from more complex mineralogy drove
research in to the reasons for the zinc losses. This work, through the development of McArthur River
deposit ultimately led to the development of the IsaMill and a staged grind-regrind-flotation approach to
increase grade and recovery in the zinc and lead circuits (Enderle et al, 1996). More details are given in
his paper, but this quote in Young et al (1997) captures the typical response before the key of the
mineralogical change to the ore was recognised “Until the nature of these changes were fully understood, the
response consisted of an endless circle of circuit changes, reagent changes, operator changes, metallurgist changes
and so on.’ A similar observation was made by Macdonald et al (2011) when discussing the value of the
onsite automated quantitative mineralogy (MLA) at Kennecott Utah Copper Concentrator.
The effect of the changing mineralogy of the Mt Isa lead-zinc ore and corresponding plant performance
are shown in Figure 3. The key tools to diagnose the problem were size-by-size mineralogical analysis and
liberation analysis. The data combined to provide a unique mineralogical profile of plant performance,
which captured both the decade-long decline in performance, and the results of the step changes in zinc
and lead recovery.

Figure 3: The relationship between % liberation in recalculated zinc feed and zinc recovery at Mt Isa from 1981 to
1996 showing the impact of introducing multiple stages of grinding and regrinding with the Mt Isa flotation
circuit (from Young et al, 1997).
There are a range of further examples highlighting the value of integrated process mineralogy. In the case
of the Raglan concentrator, process mineralogy surveys and analysis identified several opportunities
including the addition of a regrind mill to the cleaner tails (Lotter et al, 2002; Lotter at al, 2011). Anglo
American Platinum (Anglo American Research) was an early adopter of quantitative mineralogical
assessment and purchased its first QEM*SEM in 1987 (Schouwstra and Smit, 2011), the second in 1991 and
has since invested strongly in mineralogical capacity to support its metallurgical operations. In particular
the benefit of incorporating mainstream inert grinding (MIG) and fine grinding using the world’s largest
Isamills have generated significant economic payback (Rule et Schouwstra, 2011; Gu et al, 2014). These
examples show the critical contribution of linking ore texture with the size of liberation of the valuable
minerals, and integrating this with the right mineral surface chemistry and flotation circuit design.
Wightman and Evans, (2013) have developed a technique from the information obtained from automated
SEM-based systems, to represent the liberation spectrum in a form that is useful to mineral processors,
particularly to determine grinding targets for separation processes. This was successfully used by Lotter
et al, (2013) in the process design of the flowsheet of Kamoa. Process modelling and simulation to
optimise particle size and liberation is also moving towards the inclusion of particle and mineral data. In
recent years the AMIRA P9 project has developed methods to mass balance particle liberation data in
process streams (Lamberg and Vianna, 2007) and a simulation framework to provide simulations of
comminution, liberation and separation in one integrated system (Evans et al, 2013), both key steps along
the path to optimising processing plants using particle and mineral data.

DEALING WITH DELETERIOUS MINERALS AND ELEMENTS

Ore deposits typically contain ore zones of different types and composition, some of them containing
elements or minerals detrimental to flotation. These may be associated with the gangue mineral phases
such as clay or phyllosilicate minerals or may be associated with the value phases such as arsenic bearing
tennantite. For example supergene areas on a porphyry copper deposit typically contain clays that can
cause problems to both flotation and leaching (Cropp et al, 2013; Baum et al, 2013), whilst mafic ores such
as those in Sudbury and in the platinum bearing Bushveld Complex in South Africa contain naturally
floatable gangue in the form of orthopyroxene or talc as shown in Figure 4 (Becker et al, 2008; Lotter et al,
2008; Ndlovu et al, 2013).

Figure 4: Transmitted light photomicrograph showing talc rim or coating around orthopyroxene (opx) on the
boundary between orthopyroxene cumulate crystals and a sulphide bleb from the Merensky Reef. Other minerals
present include lathes of biotite (bio) as well as euhedral chromite (chr) crystals. Photomicrograph is 2.5 mm across, in
plane polarised light. (from Lotter et al, 2008).
In the case of minerals containing deleterious elements such as arsenic and bismuth, the potential to
separate them from other minerals depends on mineral deportment and texture. Kormos et al (2010)
demonstrated in a study of the ore from the ‘Bornite Zone’ from Antamina that there was an unusual
mottled bornite with a texture containing up to 6.5% bismuth in solid solution and that it would not be
possible to prevent it reporting to the concentrate. It was thus necessary to mitigate the risk by design of
an appropriate mining plan and to blend this ore to dilute the bismuth content of the feed material. They
also utilised a combination of characterisation techniques to identify that arsenic was present as both
enargite and tennantite, and that these reflected different ore textures. The tennantite was found to occur
in massive to semi-massive veins as grains several millimetres in size and was associated with quartz and
calcite, whilst the enargite occurred in veins with a finer and more complex texture. Whilst it would be
possible to separate the tennantite metallurgically, the enargite would require finer grinding to enable any
possible separation.
In the case of the Gamsberg Zinc deposit, Schouwstra et al, (2013) showed that the complex association of
the deleterious element manganese with sphalerite in the higher grade ore type resulted in inadequate
separation by flotation and that hydrometallurgical treatment would be needed to achieve saleable grade.
However, for the lower grade, ‘inferior’ ore, the manganese association was with silicates and so flotation
cleaning was possible to improve the grade, thus demonstrating that mineralogical assessment was
necessary to interpret the counter-intuitive processing behaviour obtained.

PROCESSING VARIABLE AND COMPLEX ORES

In her keynote at the Centenary of Flotation, Clark et al, (2005) noted that mined ores are not uniform over
the life of the mine and technical processing solutions need to be able to adapt or change to deal with the
new ore types (e.g. oxide to sulphide transition). These changes in ore mineralogy and texture need to be
known and quantified ahead of time, and there are some good examples of this being achieved using
process mineralogy principles and tools. Successful examples highlighting the value of process
mineralogical characterisation of variable and complex ores are found in the design and commissioning of
the Montcalm concentrator (Charland et al, 2006; Lotter, 2011), and in the successful George Fisher project
(Young et al, 2000). The issues faced during the commissioning of the Cannington concentrator serve to
further underline the risk associated with insufficient ore characterisation (Leung et al, 2000).
During the design and commissioning of the Montcalm concentrator by the then Falconbridge group
(Charland et al, 2006; Lotter, 2011) it was necessary to deal with the variability that would be encountered
and Figure 5 shows the three metallurgical units identified. The successful integration of this
understanding of the mineralogical controls to the design and commissioning of the concentrator is
highlighted by the fact that a Type 1 start-up was achieved (using McNulty’s classification from McNulty,
(1998), where Type 4 is the least desired) as shown in Figure 6, (Lotter, 2011). This demonstrates that a
comprehensive process mineralogical study allowed the ore variability to be accounted for. Mackey and
Nesset, (2003) have used this model to review and compare a number of operations and note that a major
reason for operations not meeting a Type 1 start-up is not accounting for ore variability or problematic
minerals that were not fully characterised such as was encountered during the commissioning of the
Ernest Henry copper operation (Mackey and Nesset, 2003).
 Figure 5: False colour images obtained from QEMSCAN of different textures of different ore types from Montcalm
(from Charland et, 2006; Lotter, 2011).

Figure 6: Montcalm startup curve compared to compiled types by Mackey and Nesset (2003) (from Lotter, 2011).

Gorain, (2013) in his paper titled ‘Developing solutions to complex flotation problems’ discusses some of
the challenges that include poor recoveries, low quality concentrates, the need to use poor quality water,
reduced environmental impacts affecting the ‘Licence to Operate,’ the need to use integrated flotation and
hydrometallurgy circuits, challenges of using unproven technology and the ever increasing need for
reliable metallurgical input to financial models to evaluate the economic viability of projects.
Gold and silver bearing ores are usually more complex and both Kappes et al, (2009) and Chattopadhyay
and Gorain, (2013) discuss the challenges associated with the Carlin gold ores, the characterisation
necessary and the need for the use of various techniques to distinguish between visible and invisible gold
and its deportment in the various phases including a variable proportion in carbonaceous material. The
dramatic improvement of the El Indio gold ore processing plant through 3 years of routine process
mineralogy is an example documented by Baum et al, (1989). Quinteros-Riquelme et al, (2014)
demonstrate an approach for identifying the deportment of silver in complex ores for three silver bearing
ore types in a single deposit (sulphide, oxide and supergene oxide ore) requiring different sophistication
of characterisation techniques and resulting different separation strategies for processing them.

Treating problematic ore types in a deposit

In cases when the ore types in a deposit are treated as blends, particular ore types can cause problems and
if the appropriate operating conditions cannot be identified, it can be better to process that ore type
separately. Rio Tinto’s Kennecott Utah Copper Concentrator (KUCC) is one of the world’s longest
running and largest producing porphyry copper mines also rich in gold, silver and molybdenum. Due to
the quantity of ore being processed at any one time, the feed comprises of a number of blends of its
various ore types. In 2006 one of the ore types was identified as problematic and a project was initiated to
identify the causes (Triffett et al, 2008; Bradshaw et al, 2011).

Figure 7. Reflected light photomicrographs of a) monzonite ore (MZME3) b) limestone skarn ore (LSN) Cpp =
chalcopyrite. Born = bornite. Mo = monazite. Py = pyrite (from Bradshaw et al , 2011).

The recovery from two ore types from KUCC was compared; a monzonite ore (MZME3) representing the
ore with a typical copper and molybdenum recovery, and a limestone skarn ore (LSN) with poor
recoveries. With similar amounts of total copper but very different recovery rates, the nature and
proportions of the texture and gangue minerals were examined, including the particle size distribution
after milling. Results showed that the LSN had a different particle size distribution with more materials
reporting to both the coarse and fine fractions, possibly due to the wider range of both harder (such as
andradite and garnet) and softer minerals than those found in the MZME3 ore. The copper minerals were
found to be finer in the LSN ore, leaving the potential for a greater quantity of unliberated Cu-bearing
grains in the coarse size fractions.
The theoretical grade recovery curves produced from QEMSCAN mineralogical data shown in Figure 8
highlight the lower liberation of copper minerals in the coarse particles of the LSN compared to those of
the monzonite ore. These results are supported by the lower actual recovery to the flotation concentrate in
laboratory tests seen in these fractions for the LSN ore shown in Figure 9.

Figure 8: Theoretical grade-recovery curves based on the mineralogy the monzonite ore (MZME3) left) and limestone
skarn ore (LSN - right) (from Bradshaw et al, (2011)

Figure 9: Copper recovery by size fraction for laboratory flotation tests of the monzonite porphyry ore (MZME3) and
the limestone skarn ore (LSN) (from Bradshaw et al, (2011).

The coarse size fraction in the LSN displays a lower grade-recovery curve than the equivalent fraction in
the monzonite ore due to the finer copper minerals remaining locked. (after Bradshaw et al, 2011). Thus it
was also possible at KUCC to identify the reasons for the poor performance of one of the LSN ore when it
was processed in a blend and the strategy was adopted to process this ore type in batches and not to blend
it.
In the example above, the monzonite and skarn ores can be characterised as different geometallurgical
units. This term can be defined as an ore type or group of ores types that possess a unique set of textural
and compositional properties from which it can be predicted they will have similar metallurgical
performance. The advantage to this approach is that the metallurgy of each unit is individually defined
and the response will not be muted by combining multiple units from the start. The method allows for the
creation of a robust flowsheet able to treat the full range in variability and to develop strategies that
maximise financial performance. It is important that geometallurgical studies incorporate appropriate ore
characterisation techniques and that causal relationships based on mineralogical drivers are developed,
rather than statistical correlational ones (Williams and Richardson, 2004, Kormos et al, 2013).
In other examples, ore deposits that were not considered economically viable can become so with the
incorporation of appropriate process mineralogical, sampling and metallurgical tools, particularly with
the incorporation of appropriate chemistry for process development. These include the ‘Kamoa’ copper
project in the Democratic Republic of Congo (Lotter et al, 2013) and the ‘Yenipazar’ lead-zinc deposit in
Turkey by Ekmekci et al (2014).
The challenge with the Kamoa resource was twofold: copper sulphide mineral grain sizes that range
from 7 to 27 microns, with some coarser sulphides reaching 50-75 microns; and a range of primary and
secondary copper sulphides that had different flotation rates. Both these observations were made by
QEMSCAN measurement. This necessitated a stage-wise approach to the grinding and flotation, since
primary grinding to this very fine size would not be practical or economic. Rather, an intermediate
degree of liberation was provided for the rougher float, together with a mixed collector strategy to
successfully float most of the middling particles and the liberated particles to rougher concentrate,
followed by IsaMilling of the rougher concentrate for improved liberation prior to cleaner flotation. This
strategy was complemented by secondary grinding of the rougher tailings followed by scavenger
flotation. In the cleaner circuit, the flotation rate hierarchy between the primary and secondary copper
sulphides placed significant amounts of secondary copper sulphides in the rougher cleaner tailings, losing
some 20% copper recovery to this discard stream. This was successfully treated after QEMSCAN analysis
of samples of this cleaner tail showed the copper losses to be liberated secondary copper sulphides, which
were easily recovered by retreating this stream in the downstream scavenger cleaner circuit together with
the scavenger concentrate. This strategy regained 18 of the 20 percent of initial recovery loss. Subsequent
refinement of the cleaner circuit included regrinding of the rougher recleaner tailings, which carried an
abundance of very fine-grained middling copper sulphides. This step improved the copper grade of
saleable concentrate produced, and delivered a higher copper recovery (Lotter et al., 2013).
The Yenipazar deposit is a volcanogenic massive sulphide (VMS) type deposit, polymetallic in nature,
consisting of gold, silver, copper, lead and zinc mineralization. The ore formation is classified into three
groups as oxide, Cu-enriched and sulphide zones. The oxide zone contains high gold values, along with
oxide copper, lead and zinc mineralization. The hypogene zones contain the principal minerals of
chalcopyrite, galena, sphalerite and pyrite. The mineralization is often associated with variable amount of
pyrite (average 15%) and secondary copper mineralization particularly in Cu-enriched zone.
The concentration flowsheet has been developed with SAG Milling, GRG (gravity recoverable gold) and
sequential Cu-Pb-Zn flotation processes. Presence of mica/clays (37-40%), secondary copper minerals and
surface oxidation of sulphide minerals are the main issues affecting the concentration performance.
Detailed mineralogical and surface characterization based on EDTA extraction technique (Bicak and
Ekmekci, 2012) have been successfully employed for process optimization through changing the grind
size and reagent scheme (type and dosages) (Ekmekci et al, 2014).

THE TEAMS
The contribution of a high quality team, including the degree of cross-training, varied experience,
communication and trust, can often be unrecognised but it dictates the potential capacity of the team. In
their discussion of the development of flotation, Clark et al (2005) note that ‘Innovation benefits from the
intersection of different minds enriched by a varied experience (eg it is reasonable to surmise that Mr Delprat’s
apprenticeship in engineering in construction of the Tay Bridge, his experience in working as an assistant to the
famous physicist Prof van der Waal in Amsterdam, and his experience in the mining industry in Spain all fuelled his
contribution to innovation in The Broken Hill Proprietary Co Ltd).’
Gorain, (2013) notes that an integrated multidisciplinary approach is crucial to develop effective solutions
to complex flotation problems and that it is necessary to develop strategic partnerships and effective
collaboration to reduce the associated risk of making the wrong decisions. He notes that the process
should be transparent with effective communication of the risks and benefits of the various options.
Cavender, (2008), as the manager of value planning at Kennecott Utah Copper Company, in his discussion
of the role of the mill in a competitive minerals company, argues that a short term focus on process
efficiencies and cost is necessary to maintain operating effectiveness, but is insufficient to provide
superior performance and sustained competitive advantage in the minerals industry. A competency
driven approach characterised by a ‘connect and collaborate‘ management style rather than a ‘command
and control’ one is necessary. For this to flourish it requires a focus on implementing new technical
developments and equal emphasis on physical and human assets. Rio Tinto’s KUCC was the first
operation to have its own onsite dedicated quantitative mineralogical assessment (MLA) and Macdonald
et al, (2011) showed that its value was to dispel the myths and misconceptions that had developed as to
the reason for lower than expected recoveries when they were obtained. The information gained made it
possible to decouple the effects of ore type from the process variables, making it possible to address them
constructively.
The value and contribution of the teams is most easily recognised by the authorship of the critical papers
in process mineralogy. In particular the team that undertook the work for Raglan as described in the
technical paper by Lotter et al, (2002) contains a photograph and summary of the background of each of
the five authors and it is evident that the multidisciplinary team consists of two mineral processors, two
mineralogists, as well as a research scientist from the QEM*SEM team.
The joint authorship for the technical paper discussing the ore characterisation and implications for the
metallurgical processing development of the George Fisher described by Bojcevski et al, (1998), with six
authors from the various disciplines provides another example of a high performing multidiscipline team
which was rewarded with the successful start-up (Young et al, 2000). The long-term investment in process
mineralogy by Anglo American Pty and subsequent success of the multidisciplinary teams is captured by
the paper describing the Gamsberg project by Schouwstra et al, (2013). The role and contribution as well
as the skills and experience needed by mineralogists in these teams is well described in Schouwstra and
Smit (2011), who also note the valuable contribution of the universities and research groups. Multi-
disciplinary research teams are also developing new, mineralogy-based techniques to deal with some of
the sustainability challenges facing the minerals industry. Examples include the work by Evans et al,
(2009, 2011) which developed a method to optimise energy use across the comminution-separation-
smelting process chain and UQ’s Sustainable Minerals Institute’s Designer Tailings research (Edraki et al,
2014) which shows the exciting potential of an integrated approach to simulating mines from deposit to
sale and disposal of final products, including rehabilitation of tailings.

SUMMARISING THE VALUE AND POTENTIAL BARRIERS

Effective process mineralogy has been used for many years around the world to lower the risk in design
of new circuits, to diagnose and aid correction of poor performance of existing flotation and leaching
circuits, and, in particular to optimise plants processing variable ore types. Its benefits have been greatly
enhanced by the skilled use of the new generation of automated quantitative instrumentation. Specific
benefits include:
 Characterising the deportment of elements in the minerals present, along with their association
and texture so as not to rely on grade alone. This makes it possible to adapt the metallurgical
processes accordingly; from the target feed grind size to the chemical environment and reagents
needed for the target selectivity.
 Targeting the appropriate particle size within a particular part of a circuit allows appropriate
liberation to be attained for the separation required. Flotation performance can therefore be
improved, and total energy usage and costs reduced. Mineralogy can be used to design a staged-
grind and flotation strategy to recover minerals as early as possible thereby reducing the right
minerals to the right size in the right place, and recovering them as quickly as possible, in similar-
sized fractions.
 Identifying and characterising problematic minerals and the deportment of deleterious elements,
enables the manipulation of reagents (eg floatable gangue depressants can be added) or
alternative mining and/or processing strategies can be developed.
 Different processing strategies can be evaluated, resulting in better design and optimisation, and
increasing the viability of deposits that were previously uneconomic.
 The ‘licence to operate’ can be obtained due to the development of suitable processes with
favourable environmental outcomes, particularly with respect to water usage.
 Startup risk and time to reach nameplate target recoveries can be lowered so that the economic
return on investment is quicker. Reduced project risk can also make investment more attractive
in a time of increasing competition for the use of capital.
The critical aspects of successful process mineralogy can be summed up by the four “I’s”:
1. Information (appropriate measurements and accurate data),
2. Interpretation (what does the information mean),
3. Implication (converting the interpretation to wisdom) and,
4. Implementation (of a change to either the existing circuit or the process design)
If any of these steps are missing the whole process is threatened and much of the value can be lost. Thus
the potential barriers to achieving the value can largely be attributed to short-term thinking, the
imposition of inappropriate time or budget constraints, or to a lack of understanding of either the project
aim or process mineralogy as a whole. Greet (2013) made reference to this at Flotation ’13 in his remark
‘Unfortunately, in many instances such an approach is deemed time consuming, expensive and yields quantitative
data way too late to be effective in an operating plant’.
Process mineralogy, though associated with some capital investment, is a valuable risk reduction tool for
any mining company, not only in terms of finances but also in terms of human and intellectual capital.
When the economic losses caused by poor ore characterization, insufficient hardness profiling, excessive
reagent consumption, underperforming flow-sheets and related costly post start-up ‘de-bottlenecking’ (or
a combination thereof) are considered, the expenditure is a small price to pay (Baum, 2014b). It is
necessary to have integrated multidisciplinary teams with the appropriate equipment, skills and
knowledge and support. For the larger mining houses, and even some larger operations, the investment
has shown to be worthwhile in terms of bringing such skills and equipment in house. For small to
medium size companies and operations, access to these may be through consultants and service
providers. When it is effective, the technical capacity and benefits far outweigh the costs, however as
noted when one step is missing the high goal is not achieved and the value of the investment in process
mineralogy may not be realised.

Potential barriers include:

 Cost of the information. The equipment is expensive, as is access to experienced and specialist
staff.
 Ineffective communication between teams or narrow views of the problems.
 Non-representative or poor sampling leading to specimens and not samples being selected for
analysis and metallurgical tests.
 Inappropriate analysis and/or interpretation. This includes the selection of the wrong equipment
and/or analysis technique, or the incorrect application of a dataset.
 Inadequate training and education at all levels.

Without an understanding of the implications of the measurements, effective communication within the
processing team, (i.e. geologists, mining engineers, mineralogists, process engineers & mineralogists,
chemists, environmentalists etc.), and the effective implementation of changes, the information is useless
and the resources are wasted. Geometallurgical studies that are focussed on black box statistical
correlations without the consideration of the underlying mineralogical drivers can fall in to this trap,
further propagating the misconceptions around the value of such work. Open engagement between
disciplines and with process mineralogy specialists will help manage these challenges and ensure the
success of such projects is realised.
The biggest risk is short-term ‘cost reduction’ thinking rather than the longer term ‘value’ focus. Most
importantly if the value is not recognised throughout the organisation and operational priorities are on
short-term cost reduction, then appropriate resources will not be allocated by the various stakeholders
including; mining companies, equipment suppliers, research and development companies as well as
education and training providers. Without the appropriate skills and expertise to operate the expensive
equipment and interpret and analyse the data obtained, the investment is wasted and operational risk
remains high.

THE FUTURE
The relatively ‘easy to process’ ore sources will run out, and long term investment in process mineralogy
is vital to mitigate this. New, more complex operations, requiring integrated and sophisticated use of
current and future knowledge can be developed to overcome technical, environmental or societal
considerations; for example when the excessive use of energy and water cannot be tolerated or permitted.
Innovative and novel technologies, and the skills to utilise them to process lower grade deposits can be
developed, and the mineralogical barrier to many low grade, currently unprocessable deposits, including
current tailings dams or urban waste, can be removed.
Without appropriate and effective process mineralogy tools and teams, the future of the mining industry
contributing to the world’s sustainable future is jeopardised. Any part missing from the discipline will
prevent its value and its effective contribution, and be a wasted cost. This requires engagement, support
and cooperation from all stakeholders, from the operating mining companies, equipment suppliers and
educators (especially universities). A focus on ‘costs’ and ‘short-term’ delivery by any of the stakeholders
will undermine our future, and a ‘longer term’ commitment to the integration and value of process
mineralogy is essential to realise the potential enhanced capability available to maximise our mineral
resources.
To realise a better future and potential of process mineralogy, some requirements are
 Modelling tools and frameworks that incorporate mineralogical and particle attributes which span
the mining value chain from the deposit to processing options to the environmental implications
are needed to evaluate options and quantify benefits of different processing routes and strategies.
 The use of multiple mineralogical techniques to accurately identify element and mineral
deportment is becoming more important with the complexity of ores increasing. A range of new
analytical techniques is needed to span the precision and cost range and to capture the
mineralogical drivers of process. These include on-line, tracking and real-time measurements
appropriate to process changes that can be made. The real target as noted by Batterham and
Moodie, (2005) is to have on-line measurement of mineral liberation linked with predictive
 models of recovery. This will enable flexibility of processing options as discussed by Baum, (2014
a).
 New technologies are needed to access lower grade deposits, such as reprocessing of tailings
dams which will need process mineralogy to inform and support them.
 Techniques to help reduce energy requirements and the environmental footprint by producing
particle size distributions as coarse as possible and using staged separation processes to achieve
worthwhile separations are necessary.
 As the range of techniques and methodologies needed increases, so does the need for effective
cross-disciplinary knowledge and co-operation. Appropriate university education should develop
the deep skills needed, with an understanding of associated disciplines as well as the ability to
think laterally and creatively. Workplace education and training courses are necessary at all
levels and groups that expose young engineers and graduates to the various aspects of the mining
industry are key. Equally, a work-place culture of interdisciplinary understanding and respect
needs to be nurtured.
 The existence of and cooperation within multidisciplinary teams and partnerships which are
adequately resourced, nurtured and sustained are essential to provide innovative and creative
environments akin to that provided by Delprat when flotation was developed at Broken Hill. As
extracting the value from ores becomes more complicated with a greater range of potential
processes being considered and potentially integrated, a greater range of skills and experience is
needed within these teams.

With this provided, we have a sustainable source of minerals and metals for our future world.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Firstly, I am indebted to Norm Lotter and colleagues at XPS Consulting & Testwork Services for their
tremendous help and support in the preparation of this paper, especially for obtaining some of the less
accessible papers. Also to Bill Johnson, Pertti Lamberg and Alan Butcher who started me on the ‘process
mineralogy’ journey and Megan Becker who has been with me from the beginning. To Greg Wilkie,
Dewetia Latti and Brett Triffett who provided the foundation during 2007 and introduced me to the
multidisciplinary teams at Rio Tinto. Also thanks to Cathy Evans and Elaine Wightman at the JKMRC,
Zafir Ekmekci and his team who facilitated the writing of this paper, and discussion and editorial support
is also very much appreciated from Al Cropp Julie Hunt and Francois Vos. This paper is distilled from
discussions and insights gained from colleagues and especially students from universities and research
institutions around the world, as well as from various mining companies, equipment and reagent
suppliers and I would like to thank them all for their support, partnerships and collaboration through the
years.
REFERENCES
Baum, W, Lotter, N O, Whittaker, P J (2004). ‘Process Mineralogy – A New Generation for Ore Characterization and
Plant Optimization’, In: SME Annual Meeting, Denver, Pre-print 04–12, p. 1–5.

Baum, W (2014a) ‘Ore characterization, process mineralogy and lab automation a roadmap for future mining’,
Minerals Engineering, vol. 60, pp. 69-73.

Baum, W (2014b) Barry’s blog: http://min-eng.blogspot.co.uk/2014/02/process mineralogy.html.

Baum, W (2014c) Personal communication.

Baum, W, Sanhueza, J, Smith, E H, and Tufar, W (1989), ‘The use of process mineralogy for plant optimization at the
El Indio gold-silver-copper operation. Erzmetall, 42, Nr. 9, pp. 373-378.

Batterham, R and Moodie, J P (2005) Flotation in the Minerals Industry — Some Observations . In proceedings
Centenary of Flotation ISBN 1 920806 31 8, 4-6 June. Brisbane.

Becker, M, Wightman, E and Evans, C (2014) Process Mineralogy (book in preparation).

Becker, M, Harris, P J, Wiese, J G and Bradshaw, DJ (2009) ‘Mineralogical characterisation of naturally floatable
gangue in Merensky Reef ore flotation’, International Journal of Mineral Processing, 93 (3-4), pp. 246-255.

Billingsly , P (1928) ‘How flotation has broadened the geologist’s viewpoint.’ Flotation Practice. American Institute of
Mining and Metallurgical Engineers. New York. Pg. 33.

Bicak, O, Ekmekci Z, (2012) ‘Prediction of flotation behaviour of sulphide ores by oxidation index’
Minerals Engineering, Volumes 36–38, October 2012, pp. 279-283.

Bojcevski, D, Vink, L, Johnson, N W, Landmark, V, Mackenzie, J and Young, M F (1998) ‘Metallurgical

Characterisation of George Fisher Ore Textures and Implications for Ore Processing’, in Proceedings (The
Australasian Institute of Mining and Metallurgy) Mine to Mill, pp 29-41.

Bradford, L (1913) Australian Patent 8, 123.

Bradshaw, D, Triffett, B and Kashuba, D (2011) ‘The role of process mineralogy in identifying the cause of the low
recovery of chalcopyrite at KUCC’, ICAM Norway 1-5 August, 2011.

Butcher, A (2010) ‘A practical guide to some aspects of mineralogy that affect flotation’ Flotation Plant Optimisation A
Metallurgical Guide to Identifying and Solving Problems in Flotation Plants. Edited by C J Greet. Spectrum Series
No 16. The Australasian Institute of Mining and Metallurgy, Chapter 10, pp. 191-200.

Cavender, B (2008) ‘Role of the mill in a competitive minerals company – is low cost enough ‘Mining Engineering
December 2008, pg 30-34.

Charland, A, Kormos, L J, Whittaker, P J, Arrué-Canales, C A, Fragomeni, D, Lotter, N O, Mackey, P, Anes, J (2006) ‘A

case study for the integrated use of automated mineralogy in plant optimisation: the Montcalm
concentrator’, In: Proc. Automated Mineralogy, MEI Conference, Brisbane, July 2006.

Clark M E, Brake, I, Huls, B, Smith B E and Yu M (2005) ‘Creating Value Through the Application of Flotation
Science and Technology’, In proceedings Centenary of Flotation, ISBN 1 920806 31 8, Brisbane, 4-6 June, 2005.

Chattopadhyay, A and Gorain (2013) ‘A novel approach to quantify gold deportment for double refractory gold ores’
45th Annual Canadian Mineral Processors Operators Conference. Ottawa, Canada, 22-24 January 2013.

Cropp, A F, Goodall, W R and Bradshaw, DJ (2013) ‘The Influence of Textural Variation and Gangue Mineralogy on
 Recovery of Copper by Flotation from Porphyry Ore – a Review’, AusIMM GeoMet 2013 Proceedings, Oct
2013, pp. 279–291.

Edraki, M, Baumgartl, T, Huynh, T, Huang, L, Andrusiewicz, M, Wightman, E, Tungpalan, K, Bradshaw, D,

Palaniandy, S, Manlapig, E, Evans, C, Farrokhpay, S and Vink, S ( 2014) ‘Designer Tailings – An Integrated
Model for Tailings Management’, Proceedings of Life-of-Mine 2014, AusIMM. Brisbane, July 2014,

Enderle, U, Woodall, P, Duffy, M and Johnson, NW, (1997) ‘Stirred mill technology for regrinding McArthur River
and Mount Isa zinc/lead ores’, XX International Mineral Processing Congress, Aachen, pp. 71-78.

Ekmekci, Z, (2014) personal communication.

Evans, C L, Coulter, B L , Wightman, E M and Burrows, A S (2009) ‘Improving Energy Efficiency Across Mineral
Processing and Smelting Operations – a New Approach.’ In Proceedings of Sustainable Development
Indicators in the Minerals Industry Conference, Gold Coast, Queensland, AusIMM.

Evans, C L, Wightman, E M, Manlapig, E V and Coulter, B L (2011) ‘Application of Process Mineralogy as a Tool in
Sustainable Processing.” Minerals Engineering 24, (12), pp. 1242–48.

Evans, C L, Andrusiewicz, M A, Wightman, E M, Brennan, M, Morrison, R D , and Manlapig, EV, (2013) ‘Simulating
concentrators from feed to final products using a multi-component methodology’, SME Preprint 13-094, SME
Annual Meeting, Denver, CO.

Fuerstenau , D W (2007) ‘A Century of Developments in the Chemistry of Flotation Processing’, Froth Flotation A
Century of Innovation, eds MC Fuerstenau , G Jameson and RH Yoon, Society of Mining, Metallurgy and
Exploration Inc. (SME) Littleton Colorado, USA , pp. 3-64.

Gottlieb, P, Wilkie, G, Sutherland, D N, Ho-Tun, E, Suthers, S, Perera, K, Jenkins, B,Spencer, S, Butcher, A, Rayner, J
(2000) ‘Using quantitative electron microscopy for process mineralogy applications’. JOM 52 (4), pp.24–25.

Gottlieb, P (2008) ‘The revolutionary impact of automated mineralogy on mining and mineral processing’. In
Proceedings 24th International Mineral Processing Congress. Beijing: Science Press.

Gorain B.K. (2013) ‘Developing solutions to complex flotation problems’, 45th Annual Canadian Mineral Processors
Operators Conference. Ottawa, Canada, January 22-24, pp. 43-57.

Grant, G, Hall, JS, Reid, A F, Zuiderwyk, M (1976) ‘Multi-compositional particle characterisation using the SEM-
microprobe’. In: Proc. Scanning Electron Microscopy/1976, Part III, Workshop on Techniques for Particulate
Matter Studies in SEM, ITT Research Institute, pp. 401–408.

Greet, C (2013) Barry’s blog: http://min-eng.blogspot.co.uk/2013/11/flotation-13-conference-diary.html.

Gu, Y, (2003). Automated scanning electron microscope based mineral liberation analysis. Journal of Mineralogy M 2
(1), pp. 33–41.

Gu, Y, Schouwstra, R P and Rule C (2014) ‘The value of automated mineralogy’ Minerals Engineering, vol. 58, pp. 100-
103.

Hausen, D M (1981a) ‘Process mineralogy of auriferous pyritic ores at Carlin’, Proceedings of ICAM 81. Special
Publication No. 7, Geological Society of South Africa 1983. pp. 271-289.

Hausen, D M (1981b) ‘Methods and application of quantitative mineralogy in mineral exploration’, Proceedings of
ICAM 81. Special Publication No. 7, Geological Society of South Africa 1983. pp. 127-142.
Henley, K J (1983) ‘Ore dressing mineralogy – a review of techniques, applications and recent developments’. In: De
Villiers, J.P.R., Cawthorn, P.A., (Eds.), ICAM 81, Proceedings of the First International Congress on Applied
Mineralogy, Special Publication. Geological Society. South Africa, 7, pp. 175–200.

Hiemstra, S A (1981): Keynote address ICAM 81. Proceedings of ICAM 81. Special Publication No. 7, Geological
Society of South Africa 1983. pp xiv – xvii.

Irving, J D (1906) ‘University training of engineers in economic geology’: Discussion. Economic Geology, 1, 77-82.

Johnson, N W, Gao, M, Young, M F, Cronin, B (1998) ‘Application of the IsaMill (a horizontal stirred mill) to the lead
zinc concentrator (Mount Isa Mines Ltd.) and the mining cycle’. In: Proceedings AusIMM _98 Annual
Conference, April. The Australasian Institute of Mining and Metallurgy, pp. 291–297.

Johnson NW (2010), ‘Existing methods for process analysis’, Flotation Plant Optimisation A Metallurgical Guide to
Identifying and Solving Problems in Flotation Plants. Edited by C J Greet. Spectrum Series No 16. The
Australasian Institute of Mining and Metallurgy, Chapter 2. pp. 35-64.

Jones, M P (1987) Applied Mineralogy: A quantitative approach. London: Graham and Trotman.

Kappes, R, Brosnahan, D, Gathje, J C (2009) ‘Utilizing Mineral Liberation Analysis (MLA) to determine pyrite,
arsenopyrite and arsenian pyrite floatabilities for Carlin Trend ores’. In proceedings SME Denver, 2009.

Kerr, P F (1981) Reminiscences in Applied Mineralogy, pp. 3-22.

Kormos, L. J, Oliveira, J, Fragomeni, D, Whiteman, E, Carrión De la Cruz, J (2010) ‘Process diagnosis using
quantitative mineralogy’, In Proceedings Canadian Mineral Processors, Ottawa, January 2010, Paper No. 8,
pp. 97–120.

Kormos, L, Sliwinski, J, Oliveira, J and Hill, G (2013) ‘Geometallurgical characterisation and representative
Metallurgical sampling at xstrata process support’. 45th Annual Canadian Mineral Processors Operators
Conference. Ottawa, Canada, January 22-24, 2013: pp. 43-57.

Kormos, L (2014) personal communication.

Lamberg, P and Vianna S M (2007) ‘A Technique for Tracking Multiphase Mineral Particles in Flotation Circuits’ In
Proceedings of 7th Meeting of the Southern Hemisphere on Mineral Technology, Ouro Preto, Brazil. Pp. 195–
202.

Leung, K, Andreatidis J, Duffy, M and Torrisi C (2000) ‘Commissioning the Cannington Project — Creating Success’
In proceedings AuSIMM Seventh Mill Operators’ Conference, Kalgoorlie, Western Australia. 12 - 14 October
2000, pp. 123-126.

Liebenberg, W R (1970) ‘Mineralogy and the metallurgist’, Sci. Eng., 2 (4), pp. 3-23.

Lotter, N O, Whittaker, P J, Kormos, L, Stickling, J S and Wilkie G J(2002) ‘The development of process mineralogy at
Falconbridge Limited and application to the Raglan Mill’ , CIM Bulletin, vol. 95, N° 1066, pp 85-92.

Lotter, N O, Bradshaw, D J, Becker, M, Parolis, L A S, Kormos, L J (2008) ‘A discussion of the occurrence and
undesirable flotation behaviour of orthopyroxene and talc in the processing of mafic deposits’ Minerals
Engineering, vol. 21, (12–14), pp. 905-912.

Lotter N O, and Fragomeni D (2010) ‘High-confidence flotation testing at Xstrata Process Support’, Minerals &
Metallurgical Processing, vol. 27 No. 1 50, pp. 47-54.

Lotter, N O, Kormos L J, Oliveira, J, Fragomeni, D and Whiteman, E (2011) ‘Modern Process Mineralogy: Two case
 studies’, Minerals Engineering, Volume 24, Issue 7, June 2011, pp 638-650.

Lotter, N O (2011) ‘Modern Process Mineralogy: An integrated multi-disciplined approach to flowsheeting’ Minerals
Engineering, Volume 24, Issue 12, October 2011, pp. 1229-1237.

Lotter, N O, Oliveira, J F, Hannaford, A L, Amos S R (2013) ‘Flowsheet development for the Kamoa project – A case
study’. Minerals Engineering, Volume 52, October 2013, pp. 8-20.

Lotter, N O, Whiteman, E and Bradshaw, D J (2014) ‘Modern Practice of Laboratory Flotation Testing for Flowsheet
Development- a Review’. Presented at Flotation 13. (Minerals Engineering in press).

Lynch, A J, Watt, J S, Finch, J A and Harbort G J (2005) ‘History of Flotation Technology’, Froth Flotation A Century of
Innovation, eds MC Fuerstenau , G Jameson and RH Yoon, Society of Mining, Metallurgy and Exploration
Inc. (SME) Littleton Colorado, USA , pp. 65-94..

Mackey, P J and Nesset, J E (2003), ‘The impact of commissioning and start-up performance on a mining/metallurgical
project’,Proceedings 2003 Canadian Mineral Processors, Ottawa, January 21-23.

MacDonald M, Adair, B J, Bradshaw, D J, Dunn, M and Latti, D (2011) ‘Learnings from five years of on-site MLA at
Kennecott Utah Copper Corporation (myth busters through quantitative evidence)’, In proceedings ICAM
Norway, 1-5 August.

McIvor, R E, and Finch, J A (1991) ‘A guide to the interfacing of plant grinding and flotation operations’, Minerals
Engineering, 4, 1, pp. 9-23.

McNulty, T (1998) ‘Developing innovative technology’,Minerals Engineering 50 (10), pp. 50–55.

Miller, L J (1981) ’Mineralogy applied to mineral exploration’, pp. 121-125.

Minassist website, www.minassist.com.au,

Mudd, G M, Weng, Z. and Jowitt, S (2013) ‘A detailed assessment of global Cu resource trends and endowments’.
Economic Geology 108, pp. 1163-1183.

Ndlovu, B, Forbes E, Farrokhpay, S Becker M, Bradshaw D, Deglon D (2014) ‘A preliminary rheological classification
of phyllosilicate group minerals’ Minerals Engineering, vol 55, January 2014, pp. 190-200.

Pease, J D, Curry, D C, Barns, K E, Young, M F and Rule, C (2006)’ Transforming flowsheet design with inert grinding
media - the IsaMill’, Proceedings 38th Annual Meeting of the Canadian Mineral Processors, CMP, Ottawa,
pp. 231-249.

Pease, J D (2010) ‘Economics and communication’, Flotation Plant Optimisation A Metallurgical Guide to Identifying and
Solving Problems in Flotation Plants. Edited by C J Greet. Spectrum Series No 16. The Australasian Institute of
Mining and Metallurgy, Chapter 10, pp. 191-200.

Petruk, W (2000). Applied Mineralogy in the Mining Industry. Amsterdam: Elsevier.

Quinteros-Riquelme, J, Wightman, E, Bradshaw, D and Johnson, N W (2014) ‘Applying process mineralogy to

complex low-grade silver ores’, In proceedings IMPC 2014 Santiago 20-24 October.

Rule, C and Schouwstra, R P (2011) ‘Process mineralogy delivering significant value at Anglo Platinum Concentrator
operations’, In proceedings ICAM, Norway, 1-5 August.

Schouwstra, R P and Smit, A J (2011) ‘Developments in mineralogical techniques – What about mineralogists?’
Minerals Engineering, 24, (12), pp. 1224-1228.
 Schouwstra, R P, de Vaux, D, Hey, P, Malysiak, V, Shackleton, N, and Bramdeo, S (2013) ‘Understanding
Gamsberg –A geometallurgical study of a large stratiform zinc deposit’, Minerals Engineering, 23 (11–13),
pp. 960-967.

Stillwell, F L and Edwards, A B (1945) ‘The mineralogical composition of the black star copper ore body Mount Isa,
Queensland’. Australian Institute of Mining and Metallurgy vol 139, pp.149-159.

Trahar, W J (1981) ‘A rational interpretation of the role of particle size in flotation’, International Journal of Mineral
Processing, 8, pp. 289–327.

Triffett, B, Veloo, C, Adair, B J I and Bradshaw, D J (2008) ‘An investigation of the factors affecting the recovery of
molybdenite in the Kennecott Utah copper bulk flotation circuit’, Minerals Engineering, 21, pp. 832-840.

Woodward, G H, (1952) ‘A Review of the Broken Hill Lead-Silver-Zinc Industry’, The Australasian Institute of Mining
and Metallurgy: Melbourne.

Williams, S R and Richardson, J M (2004) Williams, S.R., and Richardson, J.M., (2004). Geometallurgical Mapping: A
New Approach That Reduces Technical Risk. Proceedings – 36th Annual Meeting of the Canadian Mineral
Processors, Ontario, Canada.

Wightman, E M, Evans, C L (2013) ‘Representing and interpreting the liberation spectrum in a processing context’
Minerals Engineering, 61, pp 121-125

Young, M F, Pease, J D, Johnson, N W and Munro, P D (1997) ‘Developments in Milling Practice at the Lead/Zinc
Concentrator of Mount Isa Mines Limited from 1990’, in Proceedings AusIMM Sixth Mill Operators’
Conference, Madang, Papua New Guinea. 6-8 October 1997, pp. 3-12.

Young, M F, Pease, J D and Fisher, K S (2000) ‘The George Fisher Project to Increase Recovery in the Mount Isa
Lead/Zinc Concentrator’, In proceedings AusIMM Seventh Mill Operators’ Conference, Kalgoorlie, Western
Australia. 12 - 14 October , pp. 157-166.

World Economic Forum (2014), Scoping Paper: ‘Mining and Metals in a Sustainable World’, World Economic Forum
Mining & Metals Industry Partnership in collaboration with Accenture, Feb 2014.

View publication stats