SME Annual Meeting
Feb. 23-25, Denver, Colorado
PROCESS MINERALOGY – A NEW GENERATION FOR ORE CHARACTERIZATION AND PLANT
OPTIMIZATION
W. Baum
Phelps Dodge Mining Co.
Safford, AZ
N. O. Lotter and P. J. Whittaker
Noranda/Falconbridge Ltd., Sudbury, ON, Canada
SUMMARY
The last twenty years of development in Process Mineralogy are
reviewed. Since the milestone review by Henley in 1983, which pro-
jected the concept and suggested closer working relations between
mineral processing and mineral science, the second generation
(1983-2003) has made significant progress. Examples are to be
found in improved sampling and high-confidence flotation testing,
and in automated quantitative mineral measurement. The recent
addition of end-member studies has provided a clearer view of the
overall ore mixture milled from its constituent geological components.
In all, better predictive abilities have resulted from these improve-
ments to Process Mineralogy. These improvements have led to more
significant business impacts in mineral resource characterization,
and in optimization of existing concentrator operations.
INTRODUCTION
Milling and flotation, sometimes accompanied by gravity sepa-
ration, are well-established unit processes, which have traditionally
been used to treat ore that has been mined. This is because these
processes liberate, then separate, the valuable minerals, which con-
tain paymetals, from host gangue. This is often done by a combina-
tion of crushing and grinding processes to liberate the paymetal min-
erals, followed by gravity separation and/or flotation, to separate
these valuable minerals into a concentrate, or several concentrates.
These concentrate(s) have a lower bulk than the parent ore from
which they are derived. Further, they contain a high percentage of
the valuable minerals. Accordingly, they are more economically
treated in subsequent beneficiation processes than the ore from
which they were produced [Lotter,2002].
The choice of this concentration process invariably results in a
variable paymetal loss to the concentrator tailing. This is discarded
and disposed of in a tailings dam, and has no immediate business
use. This paymetal loss forms the largest loss of paymetal in the
entire flowsheet by which refined, or saleable, metal(s) are produced
[Cramer, 2001].
From the foregoing, the sampling and analysis of these produc-
tion concentrators towards improved metallurgical performance, has
logically been the object of technical effort. A history of these
endeavours exists [Cameron et. al., 1971, Restarick, 1976, Hartley
et. al., 1977; Weller and Stearns, 1984;] These sampling exercises,
sometimes called diagnostic metallurgy, or surveys, have aimed at
identifying and diagnosing segments, or areas, of the concentrator
flowsheet which have potential for improved metallurgical perform-
ance. Implementation of improved processing in these flowsheet
areas reduces the paymetal loss to flotation tailings, and increases
the recovery of the paymetal(s) to gravity or flotation concentrate(s).
1 Copyright © 2004 by SME
Preprint 04-12
Also, these investigations often aim at improving the quality of the
flotation concentrate(s) in terms of reduced gangue dilution, because
the downstream process is often a pyrometallurgical one. These
activities, when successfully performed, enhance the business case
of the production concentrator to a significant extent [Henley, 1983].
First Generation Process Mineralogy: 1983
Henley reviewed the relatively young discipline of Process
Mineralogy in a milestone paper in 1983. This approach involves the
merging of the two disciplines, i.e. mineral processing and mineralo-
gy (or mineral science). In this review, a flowsheet from ore body
exploration to optimal plant operation was proposed. This flowsheet
had the objective of developing a predictive process mineralogy
model for the ore body and concentrator in question. The early inputs
from mineral science, describing the bulk mineral assemblage, pos-
sible liberation size ranges, and identifying problematic minerals,
were shared with the mineral processing engineer. The latter would
develop a flowsheet partly based on this information, and partly on
laboratory and pilot plant testing. Following commissioning of the
plant, an optimization program was pursued by a second (and sub-
sequent iterations) of this study. These iterations especially extend-
ed beyond new samples of drill-core, into samples taken from the
operating plant, which were studied by the two disciplines to identify
flow sheet limitations. Various mineral science technologies were
suggested as suitable means for developing the information. These
included X-ray diffraction, microprobe analysis, scanning electron
microscopy, classical optical microscopy with point-counting and
image analysis techniques. The image analysis approach for miner-
al quantification was pursued by Petruk (2000), starting in the early
1970’s. This approach made use of an electron-probe microanalyser
to generate backscatter electron images of minerals for measure-
ment by an early image analysis system. The results of this work by
Petruk, at what is now CANMET, were aimed specifically at the min-
eral processing industry. The first commercially available electron-
probe microanalyser became available in the late 1950’s to early
1960’s and marked the beginning of quantitative mineral analysis.
Such an instrument was used for locating and identifying minerals in
an automated manner by Jones & Gavrilovic (1966) at Imperial
College, London. This technology provided the foundation for future
development of the x-ray microanalysis approach to quantitative min-
eralogy used by QEM*SEM. At the time of writing in 1983, Henley
noted the beginnings of the QEM*SEM development and suggested
a size-by-size structure for all of these analyses, in keeping with
Trahar’s models [Trahar, 1981]. Some discussion was offered on the
relative errors of point-counting. Henley’s review, however, did not
address the issue of representative sampling or desired confidence
levels for the overall models.

Second Generation Process Mineralogy: 1983-2003
Since 1983, some twenty years of development have seen sig-
nificant advances in Process Mineralogy, in terms of sampling, flota-
tion testing, mineral measurement techniques, and especially model-
ling of the data. Baum et al. (1989) showed how continuous use of
process mineralogy contributed to multi-million dollar plant improve-
ments at the El Indio operation.
The purpose of this paper is to update the progress made to
date with the second generation, and to communicate to the mineral
processing discipline the value of this approach.
KEY PROBLEM AREAS
• In order for meaningful diagnosis of whatever nature to
be made from the samples extracted from a concentra-
tor survey, these samples have to be representative of
the flowsheet streams or drill core from which they were
taken.
• In order to better understand the actual behaviour of the
minerals in the concentrator flowsheet, a quantitative
mineral measurement system is needed. Using chem-
ical analysis to determine the paymetal content of the
samples does not necessarily describe the behaviour of
the minerals. It is the mineral content, size and tex-
tures, not the assays, which determine the mineral sep-
aration behaviour.
The second of the above two problems has already been
solved. The advent of modern quantitative mineral measurement
technologies in the 1990’s has enabled accurate, quantitative meas-
urement of minerals in samples taken from production concentrators.
There are two known commercially available technologies. These
are Quantitative Evaluation of Minerals by Scanning Electron
Microscopy (QEM*SEM – and later, Qem*SCAN with light element
detection capability), manufactured by the Commonwealth Scientific
and Industrial Research Organisation, Australia, and the Mineral
Liberation Analyser (MLA), manufactured by the Julius Krutschnitt
Research Centre, Australia. In these two technologies, overall miner-
al assemblage and liberation of minerals are described at a sized
fraction level. Representative sampling is critical to obtaining mean-
ingful QemSCAN or MLA data.
In current research, the first of the above problems will be
addressed [Lotter, 2002-). A fundamental approach will be taken to
improve the representativity, or trueness, of sample material taken
from a production concentrator. This goes beyond routine metal
accounting, rather a coordinated sampling campaign across the
entire flow sheet is desired. This will be with the specific purpose of
producing a suite of representative, or true, samples taken from an
overall flotation flow sheet. This new process will be called statistical
benchmark surveying, and will relate to the generic features of the
ore being mined. Two of the critical issues are:
• The ore presented to the mill for processing has been
mined from an ore reserve that typically has log-nor-
mally distributed metal values. This lognormal distribu-
tion is associated with large variances. The blasting,
underground blending, and surface crushing processes
tend to reduce the log variance of the pay metal values
in the time dimension as compared to the spatial
dimension. It is still common to observe reduced, but
visible, remnants of this variance, expressed as time-
correlated effects in sampling the mill feed and flotation
circuit products. The sampling arrangements have
therefore to take this variance into account.
2 Copyright © 2004 by SME
SME Annual Meeting
Feb. 23-25, Denver, Colorado
• In surveying an operating mill, the level of operator
awareness of the survey tends to drive the concentra-
tor performance upwards; thus the benchmark survey
result probably represents less of the short-term
process variability than would normally be the case.
This sets the benchmark above what is more typical of
the operation. The aim of the benchmark survey is to
measure plant performance whilst processing normal
run-of-mine ore.
FLOTATION TESTING
A problem equivalent to that of the concentrator survey sam-
pling used to exist at the laboratory scale flotation test level. Before
one could meaningfully conduct a laboratory scale flotation test, it
was first necessary to prove that the sample of ore presented to the
flotation test was representative. Further, it was necessary to
demonstrate that the flotation test results were reproducible. Earlier
work in South Africa addressed these problems. The work showed
that a fundamental approach to the ore sampling and sample prepa-
ration protocols prior to the tests reduced the fundamental variance
of the ore sample to 5%, with quantitative proofs of trueness [Lotter,
1995a]. A series of replicated flotation tests with quantitative diagnos-
tics for laboratory scale flotation testing of platinum-bearing ores
improved the platinum accountability, and thus the reproducibility of
results, across the flotation test [Lotter, 1995b]. Apart from defining
primary sampling protocols, this work measured and minimized the
evaluation bias errors of PGE in specialised sample processing
ahead of lead collection fire-assay [Lotter et.al., 2000].
There are several interests in the type of information desired
from representative sample material. These samples are grouped
into concentrator survey samples, and drill-core samples.
CONCENTRATOR SURVEY SAMPLES
For the concentrator, these interests extend beyond the routine
metal accounting of battery limit streams such as final concentrate(s),
final flotation tailings and flotation feed. A well-formulated ‘plant sur-
vey’ wherein detailed sampling of internally recirculating or interme-
diate streams is often highly informative, requires far more than a
one-off ‘snapshot’ sampling approach. In the case where the type of
information desired will be produced from advanced technologies
such as QemSCAN or the MLA, which are expensive units, the chal-
lenge of sample representativity at the polished section level is criti-
cal. It is therefore very important to have quality control diagnostics
at hand. These diagnostics certify the representativity of the plant
survey material prior to any advanced analysis being performed.
High-quality information from such technologies places the investiga-
tor in a position to practice Process Mineralogy on flowsheet optimi-
sation, or in the case of exploration, to model the behaviour of the ore
body in a variety of flow sheet options. These are predictive models.
DRILL-CORE
The other key problem to be solved is that of drill-core sampling
and testing ahead of a decision to proceed with a new mine, or with
a replacement mineral resource for an older operation. It is key to the
success of the project that accurate, reliable characterisation of drill-
core is performed, in both quantitative mineral terms and in high-con-
fidence flotation tests. This approach was recently reported [Lotter
et. al. 2003].
In this work, it was shown that by approaching the drill core sam-
pling and testing from an end-member structure, individual character-
istics and flotation behaviours could be identified and treated. By
treating the drill-core on an overall composite basis (such as would

be the case in a production mill feed), a problematic feature may be
identified but would not necessarily be as effectively treated.
This approach is not limited to assessment of future operations.
The end-member study is as effective when used ahead of a first
concentrator survey.
The typical structure of an end-member study includes:
• Listing of end members in the orebody or mineral
resource, from a geological perspective.
• Sampling each end-member from either drill core or
working stopes.
• Mineralogical characterisation of each end-member,
using a diverse array of appropriate compositional, tex-
tural and grain size measurement technologies.
• Chemical analysis of each end-member.
• High-confidence flotation tests on each end-member,
characterising the metallurgical performance.
• High-confidence flotation tests on an ore mixture of end-
members to simulate the likely production mill feed, in
keeping with the mining plan.
When all of this information is gathered and reviewed, a more
fundamental understanding of the basic causes of certain flotation
circuit problems develops [Lotter et. al., 2003]. This often leads to a
list of expected performance issues ahead of performing a survey on
the operating concentrator, or in the case of a mineral resource being
studied from drill core, a list of issues that the greenfield flowsheet will
have to address.
Characterisation of the Mexican San Nicolas deposit was
improved using QEM*SEM [Winkers, 2002]. This fine-grained poly-
metallic VMS deposit required the more fundamental mineral-based
description; conventional flotation tests failed on their own to prove
head grade/recovery models. In this study, Winkers [2002] showed
that the Concentration Efficiency Index (CEI) in the flotation test cor-
related with the Phase Specific Surface Area (PSSA).
The CEI was defined as
CEI = (C-F)*R/(100-F)
Where
C = concentration of mineral in concentrate
F = concentration of mineral in feed
R = percent mineral recovery.
PSSA is defined from line scan measurements using linear
intercept lengths. This means that the surface area per unit volume
of a mineral, or phase specific surface area (PSSA), can be reliably
estimated [Sutherland, Pers. Comm., November, 2002; Sutherland et
2 3
al, 1991]. PSSA is in mm / mm , or 1/length. For sizes in microme-
tres, the function “6000/PSSA” is used. This is based on an equant
particle approximating a cube (6 sided). Since this is an inverse rela-
tionship, as PSSA becomes larger, grain sizes become smaller.
QEMSEM produces a PSSA value directly.
In this model, larger PSSA values (smaller grain sizes) correlat-
ed with lower CEI, indicating that, for this ore, the flotation perform-
ance was liberation-controlled. By transposing the CEI equation to
predict recovery, it was possible via the correlation between CEI and
PSSA to predict recovery from the PSSA.
IMPROVEMENTS IN QEM*SEM OR QEMSCAN
OPERATION
3 Copyright © 2004 by SME
SME Annual Meeting
Feb. 23-25, Denver, Colorado
A common argument presented to a QEM*SEM/QemSCAN
user is that the polished section displays the minerals in only two
dimensions, thereby causing QemSCAN to overestimate the degree
of liberation in composite particles.
In a key study to describe and quantify stereological bias in pol-
ished sections of sized fractions which are measured by QEM*SEM
or QemSCAN, Latti and Adair concluded in 2001 that, for the sample
material studied, stereological biases were minimal. In this study, a
hard-rock titanium deposit was sampled. The size fraction
–850+425 micrometres was chosen for the polished section because
this size corresponded with the processing conditions of the operat-
ing circuit.
The –850 + 425 micrometre size fraction was prepared into a
polished section, then measured by QemSCAN in this instance.
After measurement, the section was taken back to the polished sec-
tion preparation laboratory and was cut down by 25 micrometres. At
this point, the section was measured again by QemSCAN. This
process was repeated several times.
A 3-dimensional picture of the section was then constructed,
and compared to the two-dimensional images. The results showed
that there was only a minimal difference between the two models.
TWO CASE STUDIES
Raglan Concentrator: 1998-2000
The Raglan concentrator was commissioned in January 1997,
and formed a major replacement source for nickel arising out of
Sudbury for Falconbridge Ltd. Two surveys were conducted on this
concentrator, one in June 1997, and the other in February 2000. In
both cases, the difference of nickel recovery between rougher and
final concentrate was 5-7%. It was therefore important to understand
what was leading to this difference. The loss was present in scav-
enger tailings, a final discard material arising from the cleaner circuit
[Lotter et. al., 2002].
QemSCAN analysis of these scavenger tailings produced a dis-
tribution of liberation across the 106 micrometre to 3 micrometre size
range as shown in Figure 1.
16
14
12
%TotalPentlandite
10
8
6
Liberated
(90-100)
4
Middling
(30-90) ParticleType
2
0 Locked(0-30)
-3
+3 +7 +15 +25
+53 +106
SizeFraction(micrometers)
Figure 1 - Raglan Scavenger Tailings : Pentlandite Distribution
by Size and Liberation Class
The overall distribution of pentlandite in this stream was found
to be: Liberated : 26.6%; Middling : 28.6 %; and Locked: 44.7 %.
Locked and middling particles thus accounted for 54% of all pent-
landite in this stream. This clearly indicated a need for regrinding the
cleaner tailing prior to scavenger flotation. The regrind mill was com-
missioned into this duty in September 2000, and resulted in a sus-
 SME Annual Meeting
Feb. 23-25, Denver, Colorado

tainable improvement to nickel, copper, platinum and palladium

recoveries.

Candelaria Concentrator 2000

The use of automated mineral analysis via QemSCAN technol-
ogy was implemented in 2000 at Phelps Dodge Mining Company. It

% Chalcopyrite
is now extensively used within Phelps Dodge for ore characterisation,
concentrator surveys and hydrometallurgical applications [Baum et
al. 2002, 2003a] and Kendrick et al [2003b]. A QemSCAN survey was
performed on the Candelaria concentrator with the objective to a)
quantitatively characterise the process mineralogy of key ore types,

[CS7]

[CS6]

[CS4-5]
b) assess options for gold recovery improvement and c) establish a

[CS1-3]

[-38/+20]

[-75/+38]

[-106/+75]

[-150/+106]

[-300/+150]
size-by-size mineralogy of the circuit streams.

[+300]
Pertinent findings of the QemSCAN analysis can be sum-
marised as follows:
Figure 2 Size-by-size Chalcopyrite Liberation in Rougher Feed
• The liberation characteristics of the chalcopyrite exhibit
variances between the different ore types. Also, textur-
al differences impact the liberation in the comminution Further improvements in Cu recovery, therefore, need to target
circuit and govern middlings generation, i.e. insolubles the 4.2% lost from the rougher circuit. In particular, the form of the
content in the final concentrate and losses of ultrafine chalcopyrite lost to the +106 micrometre fractions of the rougher tail-
chalcopyrite to the rougher tails. ings need to be investigated because these fractions account for over
• Ore types with higher quartz and magnetite contents 50% of the lost copper. Figure 3 shows the size-by-size liberation
reduce the liberation efficiency of the chalcopyrite. distribution of the chalcopyrite lost to the rougher tailings.
• Coarse grained chalcopyrite textures (80-120 microme- The distribution resolves into two very discrete populations of
tre) such as semi-massive and veinlet occurrences lib- particles with the following characteristics:
erate well.
• Silicate gangue (such as chlorite, amphibole, epidote,
biotite, clay) and carbonates occur in the fine to ultra-
fine size range and represent the major causes for slim-
ing during primary grinding and re-grinding.
• Lower recoveries (<95%) are most often associated
with a combination of high Bond WI and fine chalcopy-
rite sizes.
• The monitoring of ore feeds for particle size distribution
on a mineral-by-mineral basis and control of hard
gangue and sliming minerals is beneficial to optimal
chalcopyrite liberation and good mill operation.
[CS7]

[CS6]

[CS4-5]

[CS1-3]

[-38/+20]

[-75/+38]

[-106/+75]

The Candelaria concentrator exhibited typical metallurgy during

[-150/+106]

[-300/+150]

the survey period and averaged 95.3% Cu recovery. Losses to tail-
ings averaged 4.7%, of which 0.5% was lost from the scavenger cir-
cuit and 4.2% from the rougher circuit.
It is clear that the excellent liberation characteristics identified in
the –75-micrometre fractions of the feed contributed to the high
recoveries in the same size fractions of the concentrate. It is also
apparent that the cleaner/scavenger circuits were performing excep-
tionally well with losses of only 0.5% Cu relative to the feed.
The size-by-size chalcopyrite liberation and locking characteris-
tics in the rougher feed are shown in Figure 2. The degree of libera-
tion of both the chalcopyrite and the gangue provides quantitative
evidence that there are no major textural barriers to further upgrad-
ing this stream to final concentrate grade.
[+300]
Figure 3: Size x size Chalcopyrite Liberation in the Rougher
Tailings
• The most dominant population consists of locked chal-
copyrite in coarse particles, typically larger than 75
micrometres. Some of these particles are also present
in the intermediate fractions and consist of disseminat-
ed chalcopyrite typically enclosed within silicate gangue
minerals such as feldspar, chlorite and amphibole/epi-
dote. The average grain size of this disseminated chal-
copyrite is 25 to 30 micrometres and will never be fully
recovered without additional fine grinding. Locked par-
ticles account for 58% of the copper losses to rougher
tailings and represent a recovery target of 2.5%.
• The second population consists of liberated particles in
the fine –20-micrometre fractions. Some liberated par-
ticles are also lost in the +20 and +38 micrometre frac-
tions. Liberated particles account for 31% of the cop-
per lost to the rougher tailings and represent a recovery
target of 1.3% copper.

4 Copyright © 2004 by SME


The remaining 11% of the chalcopyrite occurs as middling par-
ticles in intermediate and coarser size fractions (38 to 150 microme-
tres). This loss represents a recovery target of 0.4% Cu. It is clear
from this analysis that the fine size fractions offer the best target for
improved recovery because these fractions are clearly dominated by
liberated chalcopyrite losses. Since poorer flotation kinetics are
responsible for the losses of liberated chalcopyrite, mineral process-
ing solutions need to address over-grinding in the primary grinding
circuit, and improved fine particle flotation in the rougher flotation cir-
cuits.
In the rougher feed, 84% of the silicates are in liberated particles
(containing more than 90% silicates). Furthermore, significant pro-
portions of liberated silicates are found in the coarser fractions as
well as the finer –20 micrometre fractions. It can, therefore, be
expected that the majority of the feldspar and biotite particles are
either liberated or they occur in association with other gangue miner-
als in this stream.
CONCLUSIONS
Both the Raglan and Candelaria QemSCAN plant surveys
(associated with metallurgical testing) represent highly successful
case histories for size-by-size circuit audits as essential tools for plant
optimization.
At Candelaria, the QemSCAN survey and the subsequent
implementation of circuit changes and associated metallurgical tests
resulted in increased copper recovery and reagent savings.
Further, this work has resulted in significant gold recovery improve-
ments since 2001.
Several revenue-generating optimization targets were identified
by the QemSCAN work. The QemSCAN surveys, even at well oper-
ated/high recovery plants, can achieve substantial benefits from cir-
cuit audits using quantitative size-by-size mineralogy.
It is concluded that the use of automated mineral analysis rep-
resents a powerful and highly economic process mineralogy tool for
ore type characterisation, control and optimisation of grinding and
flotation circuits.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The authors would like to thank the management of Noranda-
Falconbridge and Phelps-Dodge Mining Company for permission to
publish this paper. Prof. AR Laplante, of McGill University, and Ms.
L Kormos, of Noranda/Falconbridge, kindly provided valuable editing
comment during the preparation of this paper.
REFERENCES
Baum, W., Marsden, J., Vanderbeek, J, and Wilkie, G., 2003a,
Mineralogical Audits of Grinding and Flotation Circuits with the
QemSCAN Mineral Analyzer, Applied Mineralogy Conference 03,
Helsinki, 3 p.
Baum, W., Fennel, M., Vanderbeek, J., Wilkie, G. , and Gottlieb,
P., 2002, The use of the QemSCAN Automated Mineral Analyzer for
Ore Characterization and Concentrator Operation, abst. SME
Arizona Conference, Tucson, December 2002.
Baum, W., Sanhueza, J., Smith, E., and Tufar, W., 1989, The
Use of Process Mineralogy for Plant Optimization at the El Indio
Gold-Silver-Copper Operation (Chile), Erzmetall, 42, Nr. 9, pp. 373
– 378.
Cameron, AW, Kelsall, DF, Restarick, CJ, and Stewart, PSB,
1971, A Detailed Assessment of Concentrator Performance at
Broken Hill South Limited, Proc. Aust. Min. Met. 240, Dec. 1971, pp.
53-67.
5 Copyright © 2004 by SME
SME Annual Meeting
Feb. 23-25, Denver, Colorado
Cramer, 2001, The Extractive Metallurgy of South Africa’s
Platinum Ores, Journal of Metallurgy, October 2001, pp. 14-18.
Hartley, DG, Trahar, WJ, and Weller, KR, 1977, Analysis of
Concentrator Operations at Mount Lyell, Conference Series,
Australasian Institute of Mining and Metallurgy, 6, pp. 155-169.
Henley, KJ, 1983, Ore Dressing Mineralogy – A Review of
Techniques, Applications and Recent Developments, Spec. Publ.
Geol. Soc. S. Afr., 7, (1983) pp. 175-200.
Jones, MP, and Gavrilovic, J, 1968. Automatic searching unit
for the location of rare phases by electron-probe X-ray microanalysis,
Institution of Mining and Metallurgy, (77) pp. B137-B143.
Kendrick, M., Marsden, J., Baum, W., Wilkie, G., Gottlieb, P.,
and Thompson, P., 2003b, The Use of the QemSCAN Automated
Mineral Analyzer in the Candelaria Concentrator, Copper 03,
Santiago/Chile, Proceedings, paper in preparation.
Latti, D, and Adair, BJI, 2001, An Assessment of Stereological
Adjustment Procedures, Minerals Engineering, 14, no,. 12, pp. 1579-
1587, 2001.
Lotter, NO, 1995a, Review of Evaluation Models for the
Representative Sampling of Ore, J. S. Afr. Inst. Min. Metall., 1995,
(4), pp. 149-155.
Lotter, NO, 1995b, A Quality Control Model for the Development
of High-Confidence Flotation Test Data, M.Sc.(Eng.)(Chem.) Thesis,
University of Cape Town, June 1995.
Lotter, NO, O’Connor, CT, and Clark, I, 2000, The Evaluation
Bias Errors of the Platinum-Group Elements (PGE) Associated with
Gravimetric Fire-Assaying Practice in Rustenburg Section of the
Bushveld Complex, South Africa, SME Preprint, Annual Meeting and
Exhibit, Salt Lake City, February 2000.
Lotter, NO, 2002-, Statistical Benchmark Surveying of
Production Concentrators, PhD Thesis in Preparation, McGill
University, 2002-.
Lotter, NO, Whittaker, PJ, Kormos, L, Stickling, JS, and Wilkie,
GJ, 2002, The Development of Process Mineralogy at Falconbridge
Ltd., and Application to the Raglan Mill, CIM Bulletin, vol. 95, no.
1066, November/December 2002, pp. 85-92.
Lotter, NO, Kowal, DL, Whittaker, PJ, Tuzun, MA, and Kormos,
L, Sampling and Flotation Testing of Sudbury Basin Drill Core for
Process Mineralogy Modelling, SME Annual Meeting and Exhibit,
Cincinnati, February 2003, Preprint # 03-23.
Petruk, W, 2000. Applied Mineralogy in the Mining Industry.
Published by Elsevier, New York, pp.268.
Restarick, CJ, 1976, Pulp Sampling Techniques for Steady
State Assessment of Mineral Concentrators, Sampling Symposium,
Aus. Inst. Min. Metall., Melbourne, 1976, pp. 161-168.
Sutherland, D.N., Gottlieb, P., Wilkie G. and Johnson, C.R.,
1991, Assessment of ore processing characteristics using automated
mineralogy, XVIIth International Mineral Processing Congress (
Dresden ), pp. 353 – 361.
Sutherland, DN, 2002, Estimation of Grain Sizes using
QemSCAN (pers. comm., November 2002.
Trahar, WJ, 1981, A Rational Interpretation of the Role of
Particle Size in Flotation, Int. J. Min. Proc., 8, (1981), pp. 289-327.
Weller, KR, and Sterns, UJ, 1984, The Use of Mineralogical
Data in Computer-Aided Optimisation of a Tin Concentrator, AIME
Symp. Applied Mineralogy, Los Angeles, 22-25 February 1984, pp.
313-330.
Winkers, AH, 2002, Metallurgical Mapping of the San Nicholas
Deposit, Canadian Mineral Processors Conference, Ottawa, January
2002, paper no. 3, pp. 35-55.