XXXI International Mineral Processing Congress 2024 Proceedings/Washington, DC/Sep 29–Oct 3 135
One of the Consortium companies offered to host the
demo cell at their operation. All the Consortium compa-
nies had access to the operational data from the demo cell,
which included site visits to the host operation to view the
cell in operation. This project was started in September
2011 and the demo cell was commissioned in February
2014. The cell operated for one year and was decommis-
sioned and permanently installed at one of the host’s opera-
tions. That same year, one of the Consortium companies
began a Feasibility Study that included these same cells for
100% of their flotation circuits. Out of the nine original
Consortium companies, six have installed or are currently
installing a version of these cells in one of their operations.
The use of the Consortium to spread the scale-up risks
for a new conceptual flotation cell was considered a suc-
cess, but challenges still exist for its general acceptance.
Engineering firms were also often reluctant to support a
change and often told the mining companies that the risk
was too high. They have a proven design with tank cells
and “why change” was their mantra. When the Engineering
firms were asked to estimate the capital savings from the
reduced footprint or power savings of these new cells, unre-
alistic values were provided. The second, but just as serious,
is the resistance that came from operators who did not want
to work with anything new. Statements were often made
that “if the equipment is not operating today in our coun-
try, then we do not want it.” This takes us back to that ear-
lier graph on the “Technology Adoption Life Cycle.” What
can we do to encourage Early Adopters or Champions to
take risks in our mining companies? Without support from
these people, change will only come slowly in an industry
that is risk adverse.
CONCLUSIONS
Given that it takes 8–10-years to take a new idea from con-
cept to commissioning in the minerals industry, the win-
dow for innovators to the early adopters is approximately
3 years. We as an Industry need to reduce this cycle time
to bring these latest ideas into operations faster, while
managing the risks. Increasing Grinding availability from
92% to 94% is seen as achievable but it will take an Asset
Management system to make this step change and sus-
tain it. Flotation circuits with these new cells are achiev-
ing ~50% savings in the installed footprint, 80% savings
in air usage and 40% less power. But without Operators
acceptance, the early adopters are not going to achieve and
sustain these production advantages. This also means the
laggards need to be encouraged to take risks and engage in
accepting new ways of operating. Another area for oppor-
tunity comes from looking outside the Metals Industry
for process applications. One example of this is the new
regrind mills that have come from the Industrial Minerals
operations. The Verti-mill, Isa and HIG mills are seen as
more efficient and deliver consistent liberation sizing, with-
out overgrinding. The Industrial Metals operations have
been slow to accept these mills because they were developed
outside their industry. This study suggests that these tech-
nological step changes have provided significant, sustain-
able cost benefits to those Early Adopters. When the more
conservative Laggards accept and introduce these changes,
they too will receive value but at a declining rate caused by
their delayed implementation. There is an expected a range
of spin off benefits for organizations, including improved
technical staff capability, a stronger operating staff with a
better understanding on their constraints, and improving
Source: www,woodgrove.com
Figure 12. Demo SFR at Vale’s Sossego Mine, Brazil
One of the Consortium companies offered to host the
demo cell at their operation. All the Consortium compa-
nies had access to the operational data from the demo cell,
which included site visits to the host operation to view the
cell in operation. This project was started in September
2011 and the demo cell was commissioned in February
2014. The cell operated for one year and was decommis-
sioned and permanently installed at one of the host’s opera-
tions. That same year, one of the Consortium companies
began a Feasibility Study that included these same cells for
100% of their flotation circuits. Out of the nine original
Consortium companies, six have installed or are currently
installing a version of these cells in one of their operations.
The use of the Consortium to spread the scale-up risks
for a new conceptual flotation cell was considered a suc-
cess, but challenges still exist for its general acceptance.
Engineering firms were also often reluctant to support a
change and often told the mining companies that the risk
was too high. They have a proven design with tank cells
and “why change” was their mantra. When the Engineering
firms were asked to estimate the capital savings from the
reduced footprint or power savings of these new cells, unre-
alistic values were provided. The second, but just as serious,
is the resistance that came from operators who did not want
to work with anything new. Statements were often made
that “if the equipment is not operating today in our coun-
try, then we do not want it.” This takes us back to that ear-
lier graph on the “Technology Adoption Life Cycle.” What
can we do to encourage Early Adopters or Champions to
take risks in our mining companies? Without support from
these people, change will only come slowly in an industry
that is risk adverse.
CONCLUSIONS
Given that it takes 8–10-years to take a new idea from con-
cept to commissioning in the minerals industry, the win-
dow for innovators to the early adopters is approximately
3 years. We as an Industry need to reduce this cycle time
to bring these latest ideas into operations faster, while
managing the risks. Increasing Grinding availability from
92% to 94% is seen as achievable but it will take an Asset
Management system to make this step change and sus-
tain it. Flotation circuits with these new cells are achiev-
ing ~50% savings in the installed footprint, 80% savings
in air usage and 40% less power. But without Operators
acceptance, the early adopters are not going to achieve and
sustain these production advantages. This also means the
laggards need to be encouraged to take risks and engage in
accepting new ways of operating. Another area for oppor-
tunity comes from looking outside the Metals Industry
for process applications. One example of this is the new
regrind mills that have come from the Industrial Minerals
operations. The Verti-mill, Isa and HIG mills are seen as
more efficient and deliver consistent liberation sizing, with-
out overgrinding. The Industrial Metals operations have
been slow to accept these mills because they were developed
outside their industry. This study suggests that these tech-
nological step changes have provided significant, sustain-
able cost benefits to those Early Adopters. When the more
conservative Laggards accept and introduce these changes,
they too will receive value but at a declining rate caused by
their delayed implementation. There is an expected a range
of spin off benefits for organizations, including improved
technical staff capability, a stronger operating staff with a
better understanding on their constraints, and improving
Source: www,woodgrove.com
Figure 12. Demo SFR at Vale’s Sossego Mine, Brazil