Pulsed Columns

7/27/2019 Pulsed Columns

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/pulsed-columns 1/62

1

The BOLEO CopperThe BOLEO Copper

ProjectProject

September 2002September 2002



2

BOLEO Copper Deposit

• Located in Baja California, Mexico

• Ore is complex, fine grained oxide,sulphide and mixed oxide / sulphidecontaining 40% clay

• Treatment is complex



3

Project History1997

• Project optioned by International CuratorResources

• Fluor Daniel Wright conducted feasibility

study based on extensive testwork byLakefield, CMRI, Pocock and others

• Complex process with high capital andoperating costs

• Project put on hold



4

Ore Preparation

- SAG Mill

Oxidation

Leach

Reduction

Leach

Neutralization

In-Pulp Sulfide

Precipitation

Bulk Sulfide

Flotation

Filtration and

Washing

Concentrate

Roasting

Calcine

Leaching

Copper SX/EW

Zinc SX/EW

Cobalt SX/EW

Boleo Ore Rejects

H2SO4

H2SO4 + SO2 + S

High Acid

Consuming Ore

H2S

Floatation ReagentsFloatation Tails

to Disposal

Wash Water

Filtrate to Leach

Air SO2 to Leach

H2SO4 + Water

Copper Cathode

NaOH

NaOH

Zinc Cathode

Cobalt Cathode

Waste Solution to Disposal

Fluor 97 Base Case



5

Project History2001 - 2002

• Project returned by Mintec InternationalCorporation

• Bateman asked to review 1997 study and

develop a simpler, conventional, process• Conducted scoping study for simpler, lessexpensive process, based on previous test

reports• Proposal for full feasibility study with

additional testwork



6

Geology and Mineralogy

• Boleo’s Cu-Co-Zn mineralisation occursin mantos with gradation in mineraltype and metal grade from a distinct

(barren conglomerate) footwall overlaindirectly by high grade ore to a less

distinct gradational hanging wall.



7

Mineralogy (Continued)• 1955 US Geological Survey study of the

Boleo deposit provides an overview of thecomplex and highly variable mineralogy of

the manto structures. Notable featuresinclude;



8

Mineralogy (Continued)

High clay content (up to 60%);Saline in-situ water content of 20-25%;

Large variety of oxide mineralization,including simple oxides, carbonates,oxychlorides, silicates and mixed

(ferrite) oxides;Sulfides, when present, of extremely finegrain size.



9

Process Implications

• Solid – Liquid Separations will beChallenging due to Clayey Oretypes

• Process in Seawater (high chloride) dueto Salinity of Natural Ore

• Must Use a Variety of Chemistries to

Dissolve all Metal (Cu/Co/Zn) Minerals



10

Design Objectives

• Keep it Simple• Inexpensive

• Use proven process steps• Maximum use of previous testwork data



11

Design Basis

11,500 t/d

47,000 t/aCopper production

2,750 t/aCobalt production

20,000 t/aZinc production

5.54 %MnO2

0.62 %Zn (oxide and sulfide)0.089 %Co (oxide and sulfide)

1.36 %Cu (oxide and sulfide)

Average ore grade

4,025,000 t/a Annual ore throughput



12

Testwork Review

• Extensive testing done on all unitoperations for previous study

• Some results appeared to have been

overlooked (thickening) and have beenrevisited

• Conclusion – Testwork data would form good basis fordevelopment of new process



13

Process Options Review

• Seven process options considered andassessed according to

– Technical viability (proven vs. novel)

– Perceived capital and operating costs

– Operability

• One option chosen as base case forscoping study



14

Major Process Changes

• Removal of sulphide flotation androasting operations

• Addition of CCD circuit for solid-liquidseparation to allow base metal recoveryfrom SOLUTION, NOT SLURRY

• Based on high rate thickening testresults from previous work



15

Thickening Testwork Review• Tests done by Pocock Industrial Inc on leach residues

• Initial tests indicated settling rates of up to 2 m2 /t/day.These high figures preclude efficient use of CCD circuit –hence flotation-roasting option considered previously.

• Two high-rate thickening tests at end of test campaignshowed settling rates of 0.1 m2 /t/day. These resultsappear to have been overlooked in previous study.

• Results reviewed by Bateman and Delkor

• Decision taken to proceed on basis that high-ratethickening test results are indicative of full-scaleoperation.

• Follows Bateman experience on similar clayey ores (eg.Bulong)



16

Process - Basic

MILLOXIDISING

LEACH

REDUCING

LEACHCCD

Cu

SX / EW

SULPHIDE

PRECIP

SULPHIDE

LEACH

Zn

SX / EW

Co

SX / EW

Acid SO2 Water

Tailings

Copper

CobaltZinc

Oxygen

H2S

Tailings

Leach

Residue



17

Process - Detail

OX

LEACH

RED

LEACH

NEUT 1

CCD

NEUT 2

TAILINGS

Cu SX

Cu EW

NEUT 3SULPHIDE

PRECIP

SULPHIDE

LEACH

Fe

REMOVAL

Cu / Cd

CEMENT

Zn SX 1Zn EW Zn SX 2

NEUT

Co SXCu / Zn

IX

Co EW

Ore

Acid

SO2

HAC

Zinc

Cathode

HACLime

Air

Decant Tailings

Copper

Cathode

HAC H2S O2

Air

Limestone

Zn Dust

Cobalt

Cathode

NaOH

NaOH

Limestone

Air

Water



18

ProcessCrushing & Milling

• Primary jaw crusher

• Scrubber for clay removal

• Single stage ball mill for scrubber

oversize

• Cyclone classification

• 40% w/w solids @ P80 = 200 µm



19

ProcessLeaching

• Two stage leach maximises recoveries

• Oxidising leach – Majority of copper and some zinc leached

– High acid consumption due to gangue• Reducing leach

– Metal values associated with manganesedioxide (mainly cobalt) leached

– Reducing conditions maintained with SO2



20

Leach Chemistry

• Oxidizing Leach Using Natural MnO2 in ore

MS + MnO2 + 2H2SO4 = MSO4 + MnSO4 + 2H2O + S

where M = Cu, Co, Zn

• Reducing Leach Using Sulfur Dioxide Addition

MnO2 + SO2 = MnSO4

cobalt in Mn-Oxide is leached



21

Ore Characterization Tests(From Fluor Study)

Bed

Number

No. of

Intervals

Sulfide

(%)Carbonate

(%)

Net MnO2

(%)

2 27 0.09 7.06 9.8

3AA 9 0.28 2.15 8.1

3A 78 0.82 4.49 7.9

3 147 0.24 3.40 5.9



22

ProcessLeaching

• Overall Leach recoveries

– Copper 91%

– Cobalt 87%

– Zinc 73% – Manganese 97%

• Acid consumption ~180 kg/t ore• SO2 consumption ~ 25 kg/t ore



23

ProcessStage 1 Neutralisation

• Partial neutralisation with high acidconsuming ore (HAC)

• Product solution is amenable to Cu

SX/EW• Two functions:

– Raise pH after leaching – Oxidise Cu1+ to Cu2+ (air sparging)



24

Neutralization Chemistry

• High Acid Consuming Ore is Available atSite and Contains Ca/Mg Carbonates

H2SO4 + CaCO3 → CaSO4 + H2O + CO2

H2

SO4

+ MgCO3

→ MgSO4

+ H2

O + CO2



25

ProcessCCD

• Six large thickeners

• Washing with discharge solution fromsulphide precipitation (free of copper,

cobalt and zinc), plus sea water make-up

• 97% washing efficiency



26

ProcessStage 2 Neutralisation

• Tailings neutralisation with HAC andlime

• Neutralisation to pH 5 to 6 for soluble

metal precipitation• Manganese not precipitated – contained

in soluble form in tailings dam



27

ProcessCopper SX from Partially Neutralized Leach Solution

• Extraction with LIX984N @ 15% v/v

• Extraction – 2 mixer settlers

– 98% extraction

• Scrubbing – 1 mixer settler

– Removal of entrained manganese and chloride

• Stripping – 2 mixer settlers

– Stripping with EW spent electrolyte



28

ProcessCopper EW

• Electrowinning under standardconditions

• LME Grade A copper produced



29

ProcessStage 3 Neutralization

• Neutralization with HAC

• Two functions:

– Neutralize acid generated in copper SX

– Precipitate residual iron prior to sulphideprecipitation



30

ProcessSulphide Precipitation

• Acts as primary purification step for zincand cobalt

• Zinc, cobalt and residual copper

precipitated with H2S gas• Iron, manganese, magnesium,

aluminium and calcium remain insolution (recycled to CCD in wash)



31

ProcessSulphide Leach

• Precipitated sulphides dissolved at high

efficiency in oxidising pressure leach @150°C

• Sulphur oxidation controlled to producesome elemental sulphur (assists withoverall sulphur balance)

• Acid provided in recycle from primaryzinc SX



32

ProcessSolution Purification

• Zinc / cobalt solution purified in two stages

• Stage 1

– Iron removal by precipitation using limestone andair

– Some copper removed

• Stage 2

– Cadmium removal with zinc dust – Residual copper removed



33

ProcessZinc SX

• Extraction with D2EHPA @ 40% v/v

• 2 stage extraction with intermediateneutralisation

• Primary extraction – 1 Bateman Pulsed Column

– No pH control

– 60% extraction

– Raffinate split• 75% to sulphide leach

• 25% to neutralisation



34

ProcessZinc SX

• Intermediate neutralisation

– pH raised using limestone – Residue recycled to oxidising leach

• Secondary extraction – 1 Bateman Pulsed Column

– pH control using sodium hydroxide

– 99.5% extraction

– Loaded organic to primary extraction



35

ProcessZinc SX

• Scrubbing

– 3 mixer settlers – Physical removal of entrained impurities as well as

chemical scrubbing of calcium

• Stripping – 1 Bateman Pulsed Column

– Stripping with EW spent elecrolyte

• Regeneration – 1 mixer settler

– Iron removal from bleed using 6M HCl



36

ProcessZinc EW

• Electrowinning under standardconditions

• SHG zinc produced



37

ProcessCobalt SX

• Extraction with Cyanex 272® @ 25% v/v

• Extraction – 1 Bateman Pulsed Column

– pH control using sodium hydroxide

– 99.95% extraction

• Scrubbing – 2 mixer settlers

– Primarily for nickel removal

• Stripping

– 1 Bateman Pulsed Column – Strip solution dependant on cobalt product



38

ProcessCobalt Purification - IX

• Residual copper, zinc and others

removed from cobalt electrolyte by ionexchange

• IX columns in “lead-lag” configurationfor maximum efficiency



39

ProcessCobalt EW

• Electrowinning under standard

conditions in undivided cells

• Alternative for cobalt sulphideproduction also considered



40

ProcessReagents

• Elemental sulphur imported for production of

– H2SO4 (produced in acid plant)

– SO2 (produced in acid plant sulphur burner)

– H2

S (produced from molten sulpur andhydrogen from Naphta reformer)

– Acid plant generates 31 MW net power

• Limestone milled on site• All other reagents used as supplied



41

Major Reagent Consumptions

386,000

1,948,000

2,038,000

882,000

1,224,000

7,000,000

Cost

US$

Consumption

t/a

SX Organic Reagents

7,800Sodium Hydroxide

760Flocculant

14,000Hydrogen Sulphide

87,400Sulphur Dioxide*

764,400Sulphuric Acid*



42

Metsim ModellingGeneral

• Metsim model set up to calculate

– Flows and compositions of major streams,including recycles

– Major reagent consumptions

– Heating and cooling requirements• Steady-state simulation using simple unit

operations used to simulate more complex

real-life operations• Testwork data and information from previous

studies used where possible



43

Metsim ModellingMass Balance Calculations

• High level of accuracy

• 73 components considered in 4 phases – 42 inorganic solid

– 16 inorganic aqueous

– 8 organic aqueous – 7 gaseous

• Major elements include Cu, Co, Zn, Ni, Fe,Mn, Mg, Na, S, Ca, Si, Cl



44

Metsim ModellingEnergy Balance Calculations

• Lower level of accuracy

• All stream temperature calculations done byMetsim using thermo data from Metsimdatabase and other sources

• Heat loss from equipment not simulated

• Heat exchangers simulated using steam or

cooling water – no solution interchangesimulated due to model stability



45

Metsim ModellingFeed Mineralogy

• Not readily available from previous work

• Mineralogy developed based on

– Previous test results

– Recent sample analyses• Oxide / sulphide split difficult to determine

with any accuracy

• Mineralogy adjusted to produce acid and SO2

consumptions consistent with test results



46

Metsim ModellingFeed Mineralogy

SiO2MgSO4

MgCO3CaCO3

MnO2

FeOOH

0.02NiO

Balance0.56ZnO0.350.33ZnS

5.770.08CoO4.000.026CoS

5.541.28CuO

9.230.41Cu2S

%%



47



48



49



50



51



52



53

Metsim ModellingResults

• Model results compare well with available test

data and general plant operating data• Excellent tracking of impurities and water

balance issues

• Energy balance results suitable for sizing of heat exchangers

• Metsim model an invaluable tool for accurateplant design

• Model can be easily and quickly adapted formore detailed design during feasibility study



54

Capital CostsDirect Field Costs (US$)

202,439,000TOTAL DIRECT FIELD COSTS

7,269,000Transport

8,296,000Infrastructure

5,862,000Instrumentation

14,639,000Electrical

17,885,000Pipework

13,430,000Structures

18,748,000Concrete

6,134,000Site Development / Earthworks

53,681,000Mechanical Equipment

56,495,000 Vendor Supply and Install Packages



55

Operating Costs

28,964,551

7,086,347

17,715,687

2,558,652

4,559,194

US$/a

7.96TOTAL OPERATING COST

1.76Power

4.40Consumables

0.64Maintenance

1.14Labour

US$/t



56

Summary and Conclusions

• Boleo ores can be settled in High RateThickeners

• Conventional CCD will work

• Cu, Co and Zn recovered from solutionas high quality, saleable products



57

Example Projects - Bateman

Mt Gordon



58

Insert picture of Mt Gordon Expansion Project

Mt Gordon

Gunpowder Autoclave



59

Gunpowder Autoclave

Bulong Nickel Plant



60

Ore Preparation

Pressure LeachCCD

SX

Electrowinning

Bulong Nickel Plant

Kasese Cobalt



61

Kasese Cobalt

Olympic Dam Expansion



Olympic Dam Expansion

Pulsed Columns

Documents