3516 XXXI International Mineral Processing Congress 2024 Proceedings/Washington, DC/Sep 29–Oct 3
Samples from the site were collected in 2020, 2021,
and 2022, and were sent to CanmetMINING for char-
acterization and the design of a flowsheet to extract valu-
able minerals. The aim is to mine valuable minerals from
it and to render sulphide tailings benign by removing the
hazardous sulphide component, with a particular focus on
the 2022 sample. Results from the other two samples will
be presented in a separate publication, contributing to the
broader understanding of effective tailings management
strategies.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
The received 2022 sample (~2 tonnes) underwent a
dry-screening process to break up any aggregates, and
any screened oversize was blended with the undersize.
Subsequently, the sample was homogenized and split using
a rotary splitter apparatus into 1-kg charges. In our meth-
odology, the initial 1-kg charge of tailings, characterized
by a top particle size (d95) of 400 microns, was homog-
enized and systematically divided using a rotary splitter
to produce eight aliquots of 125 g each. This sample mass
significantly exceeds the minimum 8 grams calculated as
necessary to minimize sampling errors for our given particle
size, as determined by Pierre Gy’s safety line formula (Gy,
1979). One selected aliquot was pulverized in a ring mill to
reduce the particle size to less than 20 microns, significantly
exceeding the fineness required to minimize sampling
errors associated with coarse particle sizes. This pulverized
material was then submitted for precise chemical analysis,
including methods such as ELTRA, ICP, and XRF, ensuring
the representativeness of the analytical samples relative to
the original charge. The mean of the seven chemical anal-
yses was then calculated, and the summarized results are
presented in both Table 1 and Table 2. The samples were
kept in a freezer to inhibit the sulphides from further oxi-
dation. The mineralogy of the sample characterized by the
TESCAN integrated mineral analyzer (TIMA) is summa-
rized in Table 3.
The sample were weighed and then transferred to
ceramic crucibles and analyzed using the ELTRA CS-2000
Carbon/Sulphur analyzer without any additional treat-
ment. The instrument, equipped with an Induction
Furnace, utilized metal cylinders as accelerators. To ensure
the accuracy of the calibration curve and verify the instru-
ment’s condition, three levels of certified reference materi-
als were incorporated. For the sample fusion process, the
Claisse TheOX Advanced fusion instrument was employed.
A precisely weighed 0.1 g of finely ground representative
sample was mixed with Lithium Metaborate flux at a ratio
of 1:10 before being transferred to the platinum crucible.
The sample was fused at a high temperature, causing the
flux to act as a solvent. The resulting melt was dissolved in
10% nitric acid. For tungsten samples, an additional 3%
hydrogen peroxide was added to ensure the retention of
tungsten in the solution.
Table 1. Average results from XRF analysis of seven randomly chosen samples and S from ELTRA (wt%)
SiO
2 Fe
2 O
3 CaO Al
2 O
3 MgO K
2 O MnO Na
2 O WO
3 TiO
2 P
2 O
5 S LOI
29.9 28.3 13.4 5.36 4.62 0.739 0.604 0.360 0.275 0.193 0.094 9.73 8.19
LOI: Loss of Ignition
Table 2. Average results from ICP analysis of seven randomly chosen samples (g/t)
As Ba Be Bi Cd Co Cu Li Ni Pb Sb Se Sn Sr Zn
30 147 11.7 567 5.38 51.4 1090 45.0 29.5 20 30 30 21.5 134.0 500
Table 3. Mineral composition of the 2022 Cantung tailings
sample
Mineral Relative Mass Distribution, %
Scheelite 0.48
Pyrrhotite 22.1
Pyrite 1.36
Chalcopyrite 0.33
Other Sulphides 0.22
Native Sulphur 0.22
Fe Oxides 6.52
Fe-(S)- Oxide 3.63
Pyroxenes 22.5
Quartz 7.62
Feldspars 7.20
Amphibole 7.03
Calcite 5.57
Dolomite 5.02
Epidote/Garnet 2.36
Biotite 2.08
Chlorite 1.81
Muscovite/Illite 1.81
Ankerite/Siderite 0.80
Other Minerals 1.38
Samples from the site were collected in 2020, 2021,
and 2022, and were sent to CanmetMINING for char-
acterization and the design of a flowsheet to extract valu-
able minerals. The aim is to mine valuable minerals from
it and to render sulphide tailings benign by removing the
hazardous sulphide component, with a particular focus on
the 2022 sample. Results from the other two samples will
be presented in a separate publication, contributing to the
broader understanding of effective tailings management
strategies.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
The received 2022 sample (~2 tonnes) underwent a
dry-screening process to break up any aggregates, and
any screened oversize was blended with the undersize.
Subsequently, the sample was homogenized and split using
a rotary splitter apparatus into 1-kg charges. In our meth-
odology, the initial 1-kg charge of tailings, characterized
by a top particle size (d95) of 400 microns, was homog-
enized and systematically divided using a rotary splitter
to produce eight aliquots of 125 g each. This sample mass
significantly exceeds the minimum 8 grams calculated as
necessary to minimize sampling errors for our given particle
size, as determined by Pierre Gy’s safety line formula (Gy,
1979). One selected aliquot was pulverized in a ring mill to
reduce the particle size to less than 20 microns, significantly
exceeding the fineness required to minimize sampling
errors associated with coarse particle sizes. This pulverized
material was then submitted for precise chemical analysis,
including methods such as ELTRA, ICP, and XRF, ensuring
the representativeness of the analytical samples relative to
the original charge. The mean of the seven chemical anal-
yses was then calculated, and the summarized results are
presented in both Table 1 and Table 2. The samples were
kept in a freezer to inhibit the sulphides from further oxi-
dation. The mineralogy of the sample characterized by the
TESCAN integrated mineral analyzer (TIMA) is summa-
rized in Table 3.
The sample were weighed and then transferred to
ceramic crucibles and analyzed using the ELTRA CS-2000
Carbon/Sulphur analyzer without any additional treat-
ment. The instrument, equipped with an Induction
Furnace, utilized metal cylinders as accelerators. To ensure
the accuracy of the calibration curve and verify the instru-
ment’s condition, three levels of certified reference materi-
als were incorporated. For the sample fusion process, the
Claisse TheOX Advanced fusion instrument was employed.
A precisely weighed 0.1 g of finely ground representative
sample was mixed with Lithium Metaborate flux at a ratio
of 1:10 before being transferred to the platinum crucible.
The sample was fused at a high temperature, causing the
flux to act as a solvent. The resulting melt was dissolved in
10% nitric acid. For tungsten samples, an additional 3%
hydrogen peroxide was added to ensure the retention of
tungsten in the solution.
Table 1. Average results from XRF analysis of seven randomly chosen samples and S from ELTRA (wt%)
SiO
2 Fe
2 O
3 CaO Al
2 O
3 MgO K
2 O MnO Na
2 O WO
3 TiO
2 P
2 O
5 S LOI
29.9 28.3 13.4 5.36 4.62 0.739 0.604 0.360 0.275 0.193 0.094 9.73 8.19
LOI: Loss of Ignition
Table 2. Average results from ICP analysis of seven randomly chosen samples (g/t)
As Ba Be Bi Cd Co Cu Li Ni Pb Sb Se Sn Sr Zn
30 147 11.7 567 5.38 51.4 1090 45.0 29.5 20 30 30 21.5 134.0 500
Table 3. Mineral composition of the 2022 Cantung tailings
sample
Mineral Relative Mass Distribution, %
Scheelite 0.48
Pyrrhotite 22.1
Pyrite 1.36
Chalcopyrite 0.33
Other Sulphides 0.22
Native Sulphur 0.22
Fe Oxides 6.52
Fe-(S)- Oxide 3.63
Pyroxenes 22.5
Quartz 7.62
Feldspars 7.20
Amphibole 7.03
Calcite 5.57
Dolomite 5.02
Epidote/Garnet 2.36
Biotite 2.08
Chlorite 1.81
Muscovite/Illite 1.81
Ankerite/Siderite 0.80
Other Minerals 1.38