3599
Driving Stagewise Development of Processing Operations—
The Path to Expediting Revenue
Rebecca McKechnie, Aidan Berry, Laurie McDonnell, Paul Bullock, Stanko Nikolic
Glencore Technology, Australia
Scott Martin
Glencore Technology, Canada
ABSTRACT: Glencore Technology works closely with resource development organisations to evaluate a
stagewise implementation of technologies to treat their ore reserves. Stagewise plant implementation allows
for staggering equipment design and delivery to expedite the path to establishing revenue. This is achieved by
aiming for production of a saleable grade of flotation concentrate in the first stage of operation, with on-site doré
production occurring after commissioning of subsequent plant stages. Through real world examples and case
studies, this paper reviews challenges and considerations for the stagewise development of gold processing plants.
Keywords: Gold, Staged Implementation, Albion Process ™, Jameson, IsaMill ™
INTRODUCTION
As reserves of ‘free milling’ ores are progressively depleted,
operations seek to extend their life of mine by recovering
gold from the sulfide components of their ore bodies or tail-
ings. Sulfide minerals are considered refractory, that is, they
yield poor recoveries when traditional leaching techniques
are applied. This is due to the fine dissemination of target
metals within the sulfide matrix (Aylmore &Jaffer, 2012).
Since 2014, the preferred approach to dealing with sulfide
deposits has been the production of a sulfide concentrate
and sale to a smelting operation due to the favourable pay-
able terms on the metal contained within the concentrate.
However, with the anticipated increase in the percentage of
complex concentrates on the market, such as those contain-
ing arsenic (McKinsey &Company, 2019), and changes
to the way in which emissions are considered, operations
are continuously looking to other options, such as leach-
ing, as a more suitable alternative to selling concentrates to
smelters.
When leaching techniques are applied to the treatment
of sulfide minerals, leach byproducts including elemental
sulfur and iron sulphates create a passivating layer on the
leaching surface, significantly affecting the rate and extent
of the leaching process. As such, sulfide ores typically
require additional treatments or pre-treatment to destroy
the sulfide matrix and make them amenable to further
processing for economical extraction of the target metal/s.
Separate to smelting, several commercialised options exist
for the treatment of sulfide ores. These include roasting,
pressure oxidation, biological oxidation, and the Albion
Process ™ (Lunt &Weeks, Process Flowsheet Selection,
2016 McNeice, 2021). All have been previously described

Previous Page Next Page

Extracted Text (may have errors)

3599
Driving Stagewise Development of Processing Operations—
The Path to Expediting Revenue
Rebecca McKechnie, Aidan Berry, Laurie McDonnell, Paul Bullock, Stanko Nikolic
Glencore Technology, Australia
Scott Martin
Glencore Technology, Canada
ABSTRACT: Glencore Technology works closely with resource development organisations to evaluate a
stagewise implementation of technologies to treat their ore reserves. Stagewise plant implementation allows
for staggering equipment design and delivery to expedite the path to establishing revenue. This is achieved by
aiming for production of a saleable grade of flotation concentrate in the first stage of operation, with on-site doré
production occurring after commissioning of subsequent plant stages. Through real world examples and case
studies, this paper reviews challenges and considerations for the stagewise development of gold processing plants.
Keywords: Gold, Staged Implementation, Albion Process ™, Jameson, IsaMill ™
INTRODUCTION
As reserves of ‘free milling’ ores are progressively depleted,
operations seek to extend their life of mine by recovering
gold from the sulfide components of their ore bodies or tail-
ings. Sulfide minerals are considered refractory, that is, they
yield poor recoveries when traditional leaching techniques
are applied. This is due to the fine dissemination of target
metals within the sulfide matrix (Aylmore &Jaffer, 2012).
Since 2014, the preferred approach to dealing with sulfide
deposits has been the production of a sulfide concentrate
and sale to a smelting operation due to the favourable pay-
able terms on the metal contained within the concentrate.
However, with the anticipated increase in the percentage of
complex concentrates on the market, such as those contain-
ing arsenic (McKinsey &Company, 2019), and changes
to the way in which emissions are considered, operations
are continuously looking to other options, such as leach-
ing, as a more suitable alternative to selling concentrates to
smelters.
When leaching techniques are applied to the treatment
of sulfide minerals, leach byproducts including elemental
sulfur and iron sulphates create a passivating layer on the
leaching surface, significantly affecting the rate and extent
of the leaching process. As such, sulfide ores typically
require additional treatments or pre-treatment to destroy
the sulfide matrix and make them amenable to further
processing for economical extraction of the target metal/s.
Separate to smelting, several commercialised options exist
for the treatment of sulfide ores. These include roasting,
pressure oxidation, biological oxidation, and the Albion
Process ™ (Lunt &Weeks, Process Flowsheet Selection,
2016 McNeice, 2021). All have been previously described

Help

Destination page number Search scope Search Text

loading

3600 XXXI International Mineral Processing Congress 2024 Proceedings/Washington, DC/Sep 29–Oct 3
in existing literature. The decision as to the most appropri-
ate processing solution is influenced by a number of project
specific constraints, jurisdiction legislation, existing infra-
structure, local communities and the social licence to oper-
ate, and the rise of metal sovereignty.
Project economics is also a significant consideration
in the decision as to the best approach to treating sulfide
materials, particularly for junior mining operations who
may find themselves more capital constrained compared to
their more established counterparts. Glencore Technology
(GT) works closely with a number of resource develop-
ment organisations to create flexible flowsheet solutions to
maximise financial economics of projects and make them
viable options to smaller companies that may have con-
sidered them out of reach in the past. This is achievable
through the development of several specialised technologies
suited to stagewise implementation. Stagewise implemen-
tation, as implied by the name, is the progressive design,
installation and commissioning of each processing stage,
resulting in staggered delivery schedules, more manage-
able capital expenditure (CAPEX) and expediting product
generation and therefore revenue. The first stage of opera-
tion focuses on the production of a saleable concentrate
as an interim stage to provide an initial source of revenue
while the downstream plant is fully tested, designed and
commissioned. This is followed by the production of doré
(final product) on site, after the subsequent plant stage/s
are commissioned. The expedited revenue is leveraged for
the development and commissioning of these subsequent
plant stages. In this way, the financial requirements of many
organisations can be realised, and the most appropriate pro-
cessing solution selected. This paper seeks to describe stage-
wise plant implementation and its economic considerations
compared to the traditional approach of building and com-
missioning all stages at once.
STAGES OF IMPLEMENTATION
The goal of stagewise implementation is to stagger capi-
tal and expedite revenue through the progressive design,
construction and commissioning of the plant in different
stages.
Stage 1: Concentration
Stage 1 comprises the concentration of the mineral of
interest, with froth flotation being the predominant pro-
cess applied to achieve this. As such, Stage 1 is typically
characterised by the design, construction and commis-
sioning of a flotation circuit. The design of these circuits
is underpinned by rigorous flotation testwork programs,
which are typically well understood by industry experts,
and each flotation program will uniquely vary depending
on the commodity type, mineralogy and metal dissemina-
tion within each deposit.
A challenge to the stagewise implementation of plants
lies in the design of a flotation circuit that offers the flex-
ibility to maximise grade or recovery. Initially, during stage
1, grade should be maximised to achieve a saleable concen-
trate to expedite revenue. When later stages of processing
are commissioned, the function of the flotation plant can
be changed to produce a bulk concentrate of lower grade
(where recovery is maximised), either by operating at a dif-
ferent point on the grade recovery curve or through recon-
figuration of the flotation circuit.
In the application of GT technologies, Stage 1 involves
the installation of a Jameson Concentrator ™. The term
‘Jameson Concentrator ™’ is used to describe a flotation cir-
cuit which is wholly made up of individual Jameson Cells ™.
The Jameson Concentrator ™ offers the ability to reconfig-
ure individual units (i.e., individual Jameson Cells ™) to
operate at any point along the grade recovery curve, as well
as reconfiguration of the flotation circuit as a whole. It is
this flexibility that makes the Jameson Concentrator ™ a
key facilitator of stagewise implementation. The initial test
to evaluate the Jameson Cell ™, referred to as the dilution
cleaning test, is publicly available for use by any metal-
lurgical laboratory. This test provides the opportunity to
establish a grade recovery curve for a Jameson Cell ™ and
evaluate scalping opportunities. The first stage of the test
involves floating to extinction (residence time is not a factor
in the sizing of Jameson Cells ™), and therefore the over-
all rougher recovery will always be at least the same as a
standard conventional cell (Point A, Figure 1). Subsequent
stages then simulate the froth washing capabilities of the
Jameson Cell ™, to achieve high concentrate grades relative
to a conventional cell. For illustrative purposes and to assist
in highlighting the opportunity to reconfigure the Jameson
Cell ™, a generic grade-recovery curve is shown Figure 1
(Gurnett, Swann, Martin, &Stieper, 2024). Actual plant
data to support this relationship is provided further below
in Figure 2.
A Jameson Concentrator ™, or individual Jameson
Cells ™, would be capable of being configured to achieve
high metal recoveries for a lower grade concentrate
(Figure 1, Point A), a higher-grade concentrate with lower
recoveries (Figure 1, Point B), or any point in between on
the grade recovery curve. The Jameson Cell ™ also offers
the opportunity for a significantly higher grade concen-
trate at the same recoveries compared to a conventional
cell. Evidence of this from an existing operation in regional
NSW is provided in Figure 2. During this campaign a J500

Previous Page Next Page

Extracted Text (may have errors)

3600 XXXI International Mineral Processing Congress 2024 Proceedings/Washington, DC/Sep 29–Oct 3
in existing literature. The decision as to the most appropri-
ate processing solution is influenced by a number of project
specific constraints, jurisdiction legislation, existing infra-
structure, local communities and the social licence to oper-
ate, and the rise of metal sovereignty.
Project economics is also a significant consideration
in the decision as to the best approach to treating sulfide
materials, particularly for junior mining operations who
may find themselves more capital constrained compared to
their more established counterparts. Glencore Technology
(GT) works closely with a number of resource develop-
ment organisations to create flexible flowsheet solutions to
maximise financial economics of projects and make them
viable options to smaller companies that may have con-
sidered them out of reach in the past. This is achievable
through the development of several specialised technologies
suited to stagewise implementation. Stagewise implemen-
tation, as implied by the name, is the progressive design,
installation and commissioning of each processing stage,
resulting in staggered delivery schedules, more manage-
able capital expenditure (CAPEX) and expediting product
generation and therefore revenue. The first stage of opera-
tion focuses on the production of a saleable concentrate
as an interim stage to provide an initial source of revenue
while the downstream plant is fully tested, designed and
commissioned. This is followed by the production of doré
(final product) on site, after the subsequent plant stage/s
are commissioned. The expedited revenue is leveraged for
the development and commissioning of these subsequent
plant stages. In this way, the financial requirements of many
organisations can be realised, and the most appropriate pro-
cessing solution selected. This paper seeks to describe stage-
wise plant implementation and its economic considerations
compared to the traditional approach of building and com-
missioning all stages at once.
STAGES OF IMPLEMENTATION
The goal of stagewise implementation is to stagger capi-
tal and expedite revenue through the progressive design,
construction and commissioning of the plant in different
stages.
Stage 1: Concentration
Stage 1 comprises the concentration of the mineral of
interest, with froth flotation being the predominant pro-
cess applied to achieve this. As such, Stage 1 is typically
characterised by the design, construction and commis-
sioning of a flotation circuit. The design of these circuits
is underpinned by rigorous flotation testwork programs,
which are typically well understood by industry experts,
and each flotation program will uniquely vary depending
on the commodity type, mineralogy and metal dissemina-
tion within each deposit.
A challenge to the stagewise implementation of plants
lies in the design of a flotation circuit that offers the flex-
ibility to maximise grade or recovery. Initially, during stage
1, grade should be maximised to achieve a saleable concen-
trate to expedite revenue. When later stages of processing
are commissioned, the function of the flotation plant can
be changed to produce a bulk concentrate of lower grade
(where recovery is maximised), either by operating at a dif-
ferent point on the grade recovery curve or through recon-
figuration of the flotation circuit.
In the application of GT technologies, Stage 1 involves
the installation of a Jameson Concentrator ™. The term
‘Jameson Concentrator ™’ is used to describe a flotation cir-
cuit which is wholly made up of individual Jameson Cells ™.
The Jameson Concentrator ™ offers the ability to reconfig-
ure individual units (i.e., individual Jameson Cells ™) to
operate at any point along the grade recovery curve, as well
as reconfiguration of the flotation circuit as a whole. It is
this flexibility that makes the Jameson Concentrator ™ a
key facilitator of stagewise implementation. The initial test
to evaluate the Jameson Cell ™, referred to as the dilution
cleaning test, is publicly available for use by any metal-
lurgical laboratory. This test provides the opportunity to
establish a grade recovery curve for a Jameson Cell ™ and
evaluate scalping opportunities. The first stage of the test
involves floating to extinction (residence time is not a factor
in the sizing of Jameson Cells ™), and therefore the over-
all rougher recovery will always be at least the same as a
standard conventional cell (Point A, Figure 1). Subsequent
stages then simulate the froth washing capabilities of the
Jameson Cell ™, to achieve high concentrate grades relative
to a conventional cell. For illustrative purposes and to assist
in highlighting the opportunity to reconfigure the Jameson
Cell ™, a generic grade-recovery curve is shown Figure 1
(Gurnett, Swann, Martin, &Stieper, 2024). Actual plant
data to support this relationship is provided further below
in Figure 2.
A Jameson Concentrator ™, or individual Jameson
Cells ™, would be capable of being configured to achieve
high metal recoveries for a lower grade concentrate
(Figure 1, Point A), a higher-grade concentrate with lower
recoveries (Figure 1, Point B), or any point in between on
the grade recovery curve. The Jameson Cell ™ also offers
the opportunity for a significantly higher grade concen-
trate at the same recoveries compared to a conventional
cell. Evidence of this from an existing operation in regional
NSW is provided in Figure 2. During this campaign a J500

3598 XXXI International Mineral Processing Congress 2024 Proceedings/Washington, DC/Sep 29–Oct 3
The tracking of progress is critical, and to be effective
at some level is necessary to analyze leading indicators, job
walks, engagement on technical issues, continuous com-
munications with those responsible for the work.
CONCLUSION
There are a number of influential factors that define the
design and layout of the concentrator and some specific
examples have been illustrated above. Design considerations
should be considered in the early study phases with contin-
ued optimization as the project advances through to imple-
mentation. Site locations continue to be more challenging
and the associated infrastructure costs of the project more
than out way the processing facility and equipment itself.
This paper illustrates some of the most influential factors to
be taken into account as well as examples of designs from a
number of well executed high performance copper concen-
trators located throughout the world. In the past few years
the equipment sizes have not changed significantly and are
a controlling limitation in determining the concentrator
capacity. Some alternative circuit designs can be expected in
the next few years including new comminution approaches
and potential new downstream technology adjustments.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The authors would like to thank and acknowledge the
management of Bechtel Mining and Metals for their
co-operation and preparation of this paper. The authors
would like to thank the Critical Minerals and Operational
Excellence Centre of Excellence team in Santiago together
with a number of construction staff representatives across
the various projects discussed in the paper.
REFERENCES
[1] D G Meadows, G.Naranjo, G.Bernstein, C.Jimenez
A review and update of the grinding circuit perfor-
mance at the Los Pelambres Concentrator, Chile,
SAG 2011, Vancouver 2011.
[2] S Bird, CJ Robison, R W Harper, A M Berges—
Copperton Concentrator Fourth Line expansion,
plant performance to date and ongoing continuous
improvement projects, SME publication 1995.
[3] D G Meadows and I Callow—Grinding Plant Design
and Layout Considerations, Mineral Processing
Plant Design, Practice and Control, Proceedings,
Vancouver, Two Volumes, October 2002.
[4] J Petruska Escondida Phase IV Expansion Project—
SAG and Ball Mills—SAG Mill Trommel, FFE
Minerals Internal Communication February 2, 2000.
[5] J.M.Berkoe, K.K.Knight et al., “CFD Modeling Of
Slurry Conveyance and Distribution in Concentrator
Grinding Circuits” SME Annual Meeting, Denver,
CO, Feb. 2001.
Note High Level Schedule example with early works activities, from Bechtel Resources Projects
Figure 18. High Level Schedule example

Previous Page Next Page

Extracted Text (may have errors)

3598 XXXI International Mineral Processing Congress 2024 Proceedings/Washington, DC/Sep 29–Oct 3
The tracking of progress is critical, and to be effective
at some level is necessary to analyze leading indicators, job
walks, engagement on technical issues, continuous com-
munications with those responsible for the work.
CONCLUSION
There are a number of influential factors that define the
design and layout of the concentrator and some specific
examples have been illustrated above. Design considerations
should be considered in the early study phases with contin-
ued optimization as the project advances through to imple-
mentation. Site locations continue to be more challenging
and the associated infrastructure costs of the project more
than out way the processing facility and equipment itself.
This paper illustrates some of the most influential factors to
be taken into account as well as examples of designs from a
number of well executed high performance copper concen-
trators located throughout the world. In the past few years
the equipment sizes have not changed significantly and are
a controlling limitation in determining the concentrator
capacity. Some alternative circuit designs can be expected in
the next few years including new comminution approaches
and potential new downstream technology adjustments.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The authors would like to thank and acknowledge the
management of Bechtel Mining and Metals for their
co-operation and preparation of this paper. The authors
would like to thank the Critical Minerals and Operational
Excellence Centre of Excellence team in Santiago together
with a number of construction staff representatives across
the various projects discussed in the paper.
REFERENCES
[1] D G Meadows, G.Naranjo, G.Bernstein, C.Jimenez
A review and update of the grinding circuit perfor-
mance at the Los Pelambres Concentrator, Chile,
SAG 2011, Vancouver 2011.
[2] S Bird, CJ Robison, R W Harper, A M Berges—
Copperton Concentrator Fourth Line expansion,
plant performance to date and ongoing continuous
improvement projects, SME publication 1995.
[3] D G Meadows and I Callow—Grinding Plant Design
and Layout Considerations, Mineral Processing
Plant Design, Practice and Control, Proceedings,
Vancouver, Two Volumes, October 2002.
[4] J Petruska Escondida Phase IV Expansion Project—
SAG and Ball Mills—SAG Mill Trommel, FFE
Minerals Internal Communication February 2, 2000.
[5] J.M.Berkoe, K.K.Knight et al., “CFD Modeling Of
Slurry Conveyance and Distribution in Concentrator
Grinding Circuits” SME Annual Meeting, Denver,
CO, Feb. 2001.
Note High Level Schedule example with early works activities, from Bechtel Resources Projects
Figure 18. High Level Schedule example