122 XXXI International Mineral Processing Congress 2024 Proceedings/Washington, DC/Sep 29–Oct 3
From the perspective of mining companies and perceived
issues, Ediriweera and Wiewiora, (2021) examined what
they termed environmental (i.e., contextual /situational)
and organizational barriers, as shown in Figure 9.
The scale required in mining operations and the inti-
mate relationship to the economics for a project are often
seen as a major barrier to innovation. In comminution, the
predominance of SAG and ball mills has been unchallenged
for decades and their scalability has allowed the industry to
move the ever greater throughputs.
Use of SAG mills means that large feed can be accepted,
blending occurs naturally and it provides direct transition
to a slurry form, which is easy to handle and fits with sub-
sequent treatments. Although these have traditionally been
strengths of the SAG mill, both blending and the wet pro-
cessing of all feed, can now be considered as detrimental
features. These sit alongside the known challenges of tum-
bling mills, i.e., low energy efficiency and consumption of
high embedded-energy media.
Scale of operation and the associated economies of scale
are practically sacred to mining and processing, with this
mantra compounded by decreasing grade. In any evalua-
tion of new or replacement equipment in circuits, the first
question is often, can it do “x” thousand tph and replace
SAG mills?
The idea of a “standard” flowsheet for certain commod-
ities, is well established and the procedure for the design
is easily available, well understood and proven to deliver
results. Should there be any shortfall in performance, then
modifications to improve the plant, or slightly customize
are available. Given that the time for a project to go through
the usual concept to detailed design phase has reduced con-
siderably over the years, this is certainly a major aspect that
drives engineers towards what is known and proven to per-
form. From this situation you have the embedded momen-
tum of companies well versed and efficient in designing a
given plant design, along with the associated risk minimiza-
tion that accompanies it.
The opposite to a “standard” plant is one where equip-
ment or process configurations are considered which do not
have a track record, or where the evidence is not as complete
as is usually expected. For existing equipment and combi-
nations, there are datasets and operational examples which
can quickly and effectively provide confidence that they can
be used to deliver the required outcomes. If emerging, or
novel equipment, is to be considered, the database of per-
formance is simply not available. Even in the case where the
equipment maybe familiar, but the circuit configuration is
innovative, doubts will exist.
The risk can only be balanced against an imperative
that is so pressing, or lucrative, that it can be justified. One
classic example is the use of HPGR in the diamonds sector.
Whilst most other non-diamond operations were still strug-
gling with the wear and operability challenges of the early
HPGR machines, the diamond sector invested heavily in
the technology on the basis of reduced diamond breakage.
Source :Ediriweera and Wiewiora 2021
Figure 9. Environmental (i.e., contextual /situational) and organizational barriers and enablers to technology adoption in the
mining sector
From the perspective of mining companies and perceived
issues, Ediriweera and Wiewiora, (2021) examined what
they termed environmental (i.e., contextual /situational)
and organizational barriers, as shown in Figure 9.
The scale required in mining operations and the inti-
mate relationship to the economics for a project are often
seen as a major barrier to innovation. In comminution, the
predominance of SAG and ball mills has been unchallenged
for decades and their scalability has allowed the industry to
move the ever greater throughputs.
Use of SAG mills means that large feed can be accepted,
blending occurs naturally and it provides direct transition
to a slurry form, which is easy to handle and fits with sub-
sequent treatments. Although these have traditionally been
strengths of the SAG mill, both blending and the wet pro-
cessing of all feed, can now be considered as detrimental
features. These sit alongside the known challenges of tum-
bling mills, i.e., low energy efficiency and consumption of
high embedded-energy media.
Scale of operation and the associated economies of scale
are practically sacred to mining and processing, with this
mantra compounded by decreasing grade. In any evalua-
tion of new or replacement equipment in circuits, the first
question is often, can it do “x” thousand tph and replace
SAG mills?
The idea of a “standard” flowsheet for certain commod-
ities, is well established and the procedure for the design
is easily available, well understood and proven to deliver
results. Should there be any shortfall in performance, then
modifications to improve the plant, or slightly customize
are available. Given that the time for a project to go through
the usual concept to detailed design phase has reduced con-
siderably over the years, this is certainly a major aspect that
drives engineers towards what is known and proven to per-
form. From this situation you have the embedded momen-
tum of companies well versed and efficient in designing a
given plant design, along with the associated risk minimiza-
tion that accompanies it.
The opposite to a “standard” plant is one where equip-
ment or process configurations are considered which do not
have a track record, or where the evidence is not as complete
as is usually expected. For existing equipment and combi-
nations, there are datasets and operational examples which
can quickly and effectively provide confidence that they can
be used to deliver the required outcomes. If emerging, or
novel equipment, is to be considered, the database of per-
formance is simply not available. Even in the case where the
equipment maybe familiar, but the circuit configuration is
innovative, doubts will exist.
The risk can only be balanced against an imperative
that is so pressing, or lucrative, that it can be justified. One
classic example is the use of HPGR in the diamonds sector.
Whilst most other non-diamond operations were still strug-
gling with the wear and operability challenges of the early
HPGR machines, the diamond sector invested heavily in
the technology on the basis of reduced diamond breakage.
Source :Ediriweera and Wiewiora 2021
Figure 9. Environmental (i.e., contextual /situational) and organizational barriers and enablers to technology adoption in the
mining sector