3082 XXXI International Mineral Processing Congress 2024 Proceedings/Washington, DC/Sep 29–Oct 3
using milk of lime, including inadequate quality and no
consistency in the flotation test results, so it was switched
to dry lime. and continued with dry lime for the test works.
Reagent usage changed throughout the test work,
to establish a baseline. The final decision was not to add
frother, and both collectors would be dosed at 5 g/t. By
using dry lime, the lime consumption dropped to 2 g,
which would be a significant saving on the lime consump-
tion, and consequently, costs in the plant. In addition, mass
pull dropped to 12%. The recovery was 87.3% (Figure 7).
That is an acceptable recovery for the plant. After control
tests, sieving tests were done for tailings, which showed the
average %retained on 150 microns was 17.4%.
Flotation Test for Estrella Ore Exposed to Pit Water
Representative samples were transferred to five buckets and
covered with Estrella Pit water. Each bucket was labeled for
5 months, The first bucket was opened in the first month,
2nd in the 2nd month, 3rd in the 3rd month, 4th in the
4th month, and the last one was opened in the 5th month
to test how timeline of contacting between Estrella ore and
Estrella pit water can impact on the flotation performance
Table 3. Estrella pit water and process water analysis (mg/l)
Al Ca CaCO
3 Cu Fe Mg Mg(CaCO
3 )Mn P
Process water 0.52 450 1100 0.03 0.02 0.25 1 0.005 51
Pit water 8600 590 1500 590 640ª0 5600 23000 952 140
Si SiO
2 Na Zn SO
4 Cl NO
3 Total Hardness
Total Suspended
Solid
Process water 6.2 13 46 0.01 1000 31 2 670 7
Pit water 62 130 24 250 84000 390 200 24000 170
Table 4. Baseline flotation tests to determine reagents dosages
Control Tests
Collector 1
(7310)
Collector 2
(7048)
Frother 1
(Pine oil)
Frother 2
(Q222) Lime Recovery Mall Pulls
C1T1 7 g/t 7 g/t 10 g/t 5 g/t 8g-wet 89.7 16.6
C1T2 7 g/t 7 g/t 5 g/t 2.5 g/t 9g-wet 84.8 12.5
C1T3 7 g/t 5 g/t 5 g/t 2.5 g/t 10g-wet 87.1 22.1
C1T4 5 g/t 5 g/t 0 0 2g-dry 87.3 14.0
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
Time (min)
Control
Figure 7. Control flotation tests average recovery
Recovery%
using milk of lime, including inadequate quality and no
consistency in the flotation test results, so it was switched
to dry lime. and continued with dry lime for the test works.
Reagent usage changed throughout the test work,
to establish a baseline. The final decision was not to add
frother, and both collectors would be dosed at 5 g/t. By
using dry lime, the lime consumption dropped to 2 g,
which would be a significant saving on the lime consump-
tion, and consequently, costs in the plant. In addition, mass
pull dropped to 12%. The recovery was 87.3% (Figure 7).
That is an acceptable recovery for the plant. After control
tests, sieving tests were done for tailings, which showed the
average %retained on 150 microns was 17.4%.
Flotation Test for Estrella Ore Exposed to Pit Water
Representative samples were transferred to five buckets and
covered with Estrella Pit water. Each bucket was labeled for
5 months, The first bucket was opened in the first month,
2nd in the 2nd month, 3rd in the 3rd month, 4th in the
4th month, and the last one was opened in the 5th month
to test how timeline of contacting between Estrella ore and
Estrella pit water can impact on the flotation performance
Table 3. Estrella pit water and process water analysis (mg/l)
Al Ca CaCO
3 Cu Fe Mg Mg(CaCO
3 )Mn P
Process water 0.52 450 1100 0.03 0.02 0.25 1 0.005 51
Pit water 8600 590 1500 590 640ª0 5600 23000 952 140
Si SiO
2 Na Zn SO
4 Cl NO
3 Total Hardness
Total Suspended
Solid
Process water 6.2 13 46 0.01 1000 31 2 670 7
Pit water 62 130 24 250 84000 390 200 24000 170
Table 4. Baseline flotation tests to determine reagents dosages
Control Tests
Collector 1
(7310)
Collector 2
(7048)
Frother 1
(Pine oil)
Frother 2
(Q222) Lime Recovery Mall Pulls
C1T1 7 g/t 7 g/t 10 g/t 5 g/t 8g-wet 89.7 16.6
C1T2 7 g/t 7 g/t 5 g/t 2.5 g/t 9g-wet 84.8 12.5
C1T3 7 g/t 5 g/t 5 g/t 2.5 g/t 10g-wet 87.1 22.1
C1T4 5 g/t 5 g/t 0 0 2g-dry 87.3 14.0
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
Time (min)
Control
Figure 7. Control flotation tests average recovery
Recovery%