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
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