1498 XXXI International Mineral Processing Congress 2024 Proceedings/Washington, DC/Sep 29–Oct 3
Laboratory Testing
Following a review of deposit heterogeneity for each major
lithology or domain, samples are collected for laboratory
evaluation. These samples are typically half core (10 to
50kg each) but can also be collected directly from an active
mining operation. The testing protocol (detailed below)
was developed to allow any early stage project to determine
if their mineralized material could be amenable to pre-
concentration from crushing/screening and sensor sorting
(Dance, 2022).
SRK’s approach is to test a greater number of small
mass samples to measure variability, rather than rely on the
single result from a large mass “performance test” such as
being offered by sorting equipment suppliers. For early-
stage studies, the authors recommend multiple samples of
each lithology type with a total number of samples being
tested in the dozens, similar to standard practice for com-
minution testing.
Economic Evaluation
As a third stage, laboratory results are combined with the
heterogeneity analysis to evaluate a wide range of different
scenarios and mine plans. Based on the sample character-
istics tested, pre-concentration flowsheets could include
crushing (one or two stages of targeted energy input),
screening (at sizes determined from test responses) with/
without sensor sorting. The independent nature of the eval-
uation and testing leads to impartial conclusions and rec-
ommendations on the most suitable path to follow (if any).
COMMON TESTING PROTOCOL
As with any metallurgical testwork, assessing pre-concen-
tration potential should follow a natural progression from
bench scale, proxy or amenability tests up to pilot plant
testing for feasibility studies (see Figure 3 presented by the
Saskatchewan Research Council). Currently, most testing
facilities are associated with particle sorter manufacturers,
offering pilot plant services that can be directly scaled to
full-size sorting equipment.
Performance Testing
Testing done by sorter manufacturers focusses on demon-
strating equipment capabilities, their expertise in select-
ing sensor combinations and optimising software settings
to achieve the desired separation. This is best done on a
Source: McCarthy 2019
Figure 2. Waste in ore (W/O) with increasing aggregation distance (estimated from drillcore assays)
Laboratory Testing
Following a review of deposit heterogeneity for each major
lithology or domain, samples are collected for laboratory
evaluation. These samples are typically half core (10 to
50kg each) but can also be collected directly from an active
mining operation. The testing protocol (detailed below)
was developed to allow any early stage project to determine
if their mineralized material could be amenable to pre-
concentration from crushing/screening and sensor sorting
(Dance, 2022).
SRK’s approach is to test a greater number of small
mass samples to measure variability, rather than rely on the
single result from a large mass “performance test” such as
being offered by sorting equipment suppliers. For early-
stage studies, the authors recommend multiple samples of
each lithology type with a total number of samples being
tested in the dozens, similar to standard practice for com-
minution testing.
Economic Evaluation
As a third stage, laboratory results are combined with the
heterogeneity analysis to evaluate a wide range of different
scenarios and mine plans. Based on the sample character-
istics tested, pre-concentration flowsheets could include
crushing (one or two stages of targeted energy input),
screening (at sizes determined from test responses) with/
without sensor sorting. The independent nature of the eval-
uation and testing leads to impartial conclusions and rec-
ommendations on the most suitable path to follow (if any).
COMMON TESTING PROTOCOL
As with any metallurgical testwork, assessing pre-concen-
tration potential should follow a natural progression from
bench scale, proxy or amenability tests up to pilot plant
testing for feasibility studies (see Figure 3 presented by the
Saskatchewan Research Council). Currently, most testing
facilities are associated with particle sorter manufacturers,
offering pilot plant services that can be directly scaled to
full-size sorting equipment.
Performance Testing
Testing done by sorter manufacturers focusses on demon-
strating equipment capabilities, their expertise in select-
ing sensor combinations and optimising software settings
to achieve the desired separation. This is best done on a
Source: McCarthy 2019
Figure 2. Waste in ore (W/O) with increasing aggregation distance (estimated from drillcore assays)