HPGR Report Lobo Marte

7/23/2019 HPGR Report Lobo Marte

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/hpgr-report-lobo-marte 1/21

COMPAÑIA MINERA SANTA ROSA SCM

PROJECT Nº 2176

LOBO MARTE PROJECT

PREFEASIBILITY

TECHNICALREPORT

Nº 2176U-00-TR-001

FOR

TRADE – OFF FOR HPGR CRUSHING

Prepared by

AMEC In !"n# $%n#& 'C($&!) S*A.

Approved by

Gerente de Proyecto T ony M a y cock (TM)Cliente E r li ng Vill a lobos (EV)

R!+* B, I .! /%" D# ! R!+$!D# ! A "%+!

A TM Coordinación Interna !.A"g.#$!$ !.A"g.#$!$

% TM Client approval $!.&ept.#$!$

Co''ent

PG* *eport.doc



PG* *eport.doc Page # de #!

T A B L E O FC O N T E NS

P A G E

!.$ I+T*,- CTI,+.............................................................................................................................. /

#.$ & MMA*0 ....................................................................................................................................... 1 #.! Test2ork.............................................................................................................................. 1

.$ CI*C IT -E&C*IPTI,+ A+- -E&IG+ C*ITE*IA ....................................................................... 3 .! Circ"it description................................................................................................................ 3 .# -esign Criteria .................................................................................................................. !$

/.$ P4A+T 4A0, T ............................................................................................................................ !$

1.$ TE&T5,*6 ................................................................................................................................... !! 1.! )PG* testing at &G& 4ake7ield ........................................................................................ !! 1.# )PG* Testing at Polysi"s ................................................................................................ !

1. Polysi"s E8"ip'ent *eco''endation ............................................................................. !9 :.$ ,PE*ATI+G C,&T&..................................................................................................................... !9

9.$ CAPITA4 C,&T& ........................................................................................................................... !9

3.$ ;I+A+CIA4 A+A40&I&........................... ............................. ......................... ................................ . !<

T A B L E S

Table #=! Process ,perating Costs by Cost Type ...................................................................................... :Table #=# Cape> Co'parison by -iscipline ................................................................................................. :Table #= ;inancial Analysis *es"lts ........................................................................................................... 9

Table #=/ Prod"ction and ;inancial &"''ary............................................................................................. 3Table 1=! &a'ple -escriptions .................................................................................................................. !!Table 1=# ;eed C?aracteristics .................................................................................................................. !#Table :=! Process ,perating Costs by Cost Type .................................................................................... !9Table 9=! Cape> Co'parison by -iscipline ............................................................................................... !3Table 9=# Cape> Co'parison by Area..................... ............................. ......................... ............................ !3Table 3=! ;inancial Analysis *es"lts ......................................................................................................... !<Table 3=# Cas? Costs Vers"s Gold recovery............................................................................................. #$Table 3= Prod"ction -ata ......................................................................................................................... ##Table 3=/ Prod"ction and ;inancial &"''ary........................................................................................... ##

F I G U R ES

;ig"re #=! PG* &i'"lated Prod"ct &i@e -istrib"tion................................................................................ 1;ig"re =! &i'pli7ied ;lo2s?eet................................................................................................................... <;ig"re 1=! Cr"s?ing Test2ork *es"lts....................................................................................................... !;ig"re 1=# Polysi"s Test Progra' &"''ary ............................................................................................. !/;ig"re 1= PG* ;eed and Total Prod"ct &i@e -istrib"tions.................................................................... !1;ig"re 1=/ PG* ;eed and Centre Prod"ct &i@e -istrib"tions................................................................. !1;ig"re 1=1( )PG* &i'"lated Prod"ct &i@e -istrib"tion.............................................................................. !:



PG* *eport.doc Page de #!

T A B L E O FC O N T E NS

P A G E

A P P E N D I C E S

I ;lo2s?eets and -esign Criteria

II 4ayo"t

III Test2ork *eports

IV Cape> -etails

V ,pe> -etails

VI ;inancial Model



*eport P gina // de #!

1*0 INTRODUCTION

Minera &anta *osa &CM (6inross) is st"dying t?e 7easibility o7 developing t?e 4oboMarte gold deposits located in C?ileBs *egion III !3$ k' to t?e east o7 Copiapó at analtit"de o7 /$$$ 'asl.

In recent years ?ig? press"re grinding roll ( PG*) cr"s?ers ?ave 7o"nd application int?e ?ard rock 'ining b"siness. T?is ?as occ"rred beca"se t?e s"ppliers o7 t?esecr"s?ers ?ave i'proved t?e tec?nology and 'aterials "sed in t?e designs. Typically

PG*s ?ave replaced tertiary cone cr"s?ers. In so'e operations secondary conecr"s?ing 7ollo2ed by PG* tertiary cr"s?ing ?as been "sed instead o7 &AG 'ills toprod"ce ball 'ill 7eed. ;or very ?ard ores signi7icant energy savings ?ave beenreported. More relevant to 4obo Marte is t?e "se o7 PG* tertiary cr"s?ing to prod"celeac? pad 7eed. T?e 'an"7act"rers o7 PG* cr"s?ers ?ave reported t?at t?eco'pressive action o7 t?e grinding rolls not only red"ces t?e particle si@e distrib"tion o7 t?e 7eed 'aterial b"t also prod"ces 'icro=cracking in t?e particles. T?is p?eno'enon'ay allo2 better contact bet2een t?e cyanide leac? sol"tion and t?e 7ine gold locked2it?in t?e ore particles t?"s increasing gold recovery.

AMEC ?as designed a secondary and tertiary cr"s?ing circ"it 7or t?e 4obo MarteproDect incorporating PG* cr"s?ers in t?e tertiary stage. -esign in7or'ation 2asprovided by Polysi"s o7 Ger'any. Polysi"s is a 'aDor s"pplier o7 PG* cr"s?ers.

6inross ?as carried o"t laboratory scale PG* cr"s?ing at &G& 4ake7ield in ,ntarioCanada and larger scale tests at Polysi"sB test 7acilities in Ger'any. Cr"s?ed 'aterial7ro' t?e &G& 2ork is c"rrently being leac?ed in col"'ns at McClelland 4aboratories int?e &A. Early res"lts indicate t?at ?ig?er recoveries are ac?ieved 7or 4obo s"lp?idescr"s?ed by PG* co'pared to t?ose obtained 7or cone cr"s?ed 'aterial. +odi77erence ?as been observed on o>ide ore. T?ese res"lts are still to be con7ir'ed.

&everal di77erent sa'ples 2ere cr"s?ed at Polysi"s. T?ese are c"rrently beingprepared 7or leac?ing and t?e 7inal res"lts are e>pected in +ove'ber -ece'ber #$!$.

T?is report provides capital and operating costs 7or an PG* circ"it. ;inancial analysis?as been carried o"t to deter'ine t?e gold recovery increase t?at 2o"ld be re8"ired tocover t?e increase in capital and operating costs co'pared to conventional cone

cr"s?ing. A 7inal report 2ill be iss"ed once t?e gold recovery di77erential ?as beendeter'ined bet2een PG* and cone cr"s?ed 'aterial.



*eport P gina 11 de #!

2*0 SUMMARY

AMEC ?as carried o"t a trade=o77 st"dy to co'pare ?ig? press"re grinding roll ( PG*)cr"s?ers 2it? s?ort ?ead cone cr"s?ers 7or tertiary cr"s?ing in t?e 4obo Marte plant.&o'e ?eap leac? operations ?ave reported ?ig?er 'etal recoveries 7ro' PG*cr"s?ed 'aterial d"e to t?e occ"rrence o7 'icro=cracking in t?e 'ineral particlesres"lting 7ro' t?e co'pressive 7orce o7 t?e grinding rolls.

2*1 T! %"3

6inross ?as cond"cted laboratory scale PG* cr"s?ing at &G& 4ake7ield in ,ntarioCanada and se'i=ind"strial scale tests at Polysi"s in Ger'any.

&a'ples 7ro' t?e &G& 4ake7ield tests 2ere sent to McClelland 4aboratories in t?e&A 7or col"'n leac? testing. Early indications are t?at t?e s"lp?ide ores s?o2 a

?ig?er gold recovery t?an e8"ivalent cone cr"s?ed 'aterial 2?ile o>ide ores s?o2 littledi77erence.

T?e Polysi"s test2ork provided in7or'ation 7or t?e si@ing and design o7 an ind"strialPG* circ"it. Cr"s?ed sa'ples ?ave also been sent to McClelland 4aboratories 7or

col"'n leac? testing. *es"lts are e>pected in +ove'ber -ece'ber #$!$. Asi'"lated ind"strial scale PG* prod"ct si@e distrib"tion c"rve 7or 4obo s"lp?ide ore iss?o2n in ;ig"re #.!.

F$4."! 2-15 HPGR S$ .&# ! P"% . S$8! D$ "$9. $%n



*eport P gina :: de #!

O !"# $n4 C%

A s"''ary o7 t?e di77erence in operating costs bet2een t?e P;& pdate case and t?ePG* case is s?o2n in Table #=!. T?is s?o2s t?at t?e PG* operating costs are

?ig?er by &F $. / t d"e to ?ig?er po2er and 2ear parts costs.

T#9&! 2-15 P"% ! O !"# $n4 C% 9, C% T, !

F$n! C". ($n4 PFS C%' .9 % #&

US:; )

HPGRT"# ! %// ' .9 % #&

US:; )

C% D$/*

'US:; )Energy $. !1 $.1#9 $.#!#5ear parts $.$/3 $.!9 $.!#1Maintenance $.$3 $.$3 $4abo"r $.$/9 $.$/9 $T% #& 0*<=> 0*?>0 0*>>7

C# $ #& C%

A s"''ary o7 t?e di77erence in capital costs bet2een t?e P;& pdate case and t?ePG* case is s?o2n in Table #=#. PG* costs are ?ig?er by &F !3 'illion d"e to

?ig?er civil concrete arc?itect"ral electrical and indirect costs.

T#9&! 2-25 C# !@ C% #"$ %n 9, D$ $ &$n!

D$ $ &$n! HPGR T% #&'US: $&&$%n)

PFSU T% #&'US: $&&$%n)

Mining !#/ !#/Eart?2orks < <Civil Concrete // 3&tr"ct"ral ## #$

Arc?itect"ral ## #!E8"ip'ent Mec?anical ! < ! <Piping !3 !3

Electrical < 9Instr"'entation !# !#T% #& D$"! C% <60 <<?Total Indirect Cost 1<? 1<<C%n $n4!n , 10> 101In$ $#& C# $ #& C% 711 6=>




F$n#n $#& An#&, $

T?e analysis 2as carried o"t "sing t?e P;& pdate 7inancial 'odel 2it? t?e PG*data. In t?e absence o7 leac? recovery data t?e s"lp?ide ore gold recoveries 2erevaried to deter'ine t?e breakeven point (i.e. sa'e +PV) co'pared to t?e P;&

pdate. ;ro' Table #= it can be seen t?at t?is point occ"rs at a s"lp?ide orerecovery increase o7 !.3 at a 1 disco"nt rate. A 1 recovery increase provides anadditional &F 9: 'illion in +PV.

T#9&! 2->5 F$n#n $#& An#&, $ R! .&

C# ! P;& PG* (!) PG* (#) PG* ( ) PG* (/) PG* (1)

C. .&# $+! n! # ( /&%ndisco"nted &F$$$ 313 913 3$# :93 39$ /$$ <!1 #3! <<$ $3/ ! $:1 !<!

N! "! !n +#&.!-isco"nted at 1 &F$$$ #1 9<1 #3# 3 / #1 <#/ 1/ //1 /$! 931 //< #$<-isco"nted at 3 &F$$$ ! < # 9 !$# !:# ! 1 :19 !19 3!$ !</ 1!! # ! # :-isco"nted at !$ &F$$$ /< <#3 !: !:! // :3< : 1/3 </ 919 !#1 <:9-isco"nted at !# &F$$$ =!3 9!/ =/< 13$ =#1 !/: =< $$! !9 :<! // :<

Internal rate o7 ret"rn !!./ !$./ !!.# !!.9 !#.1 ! .

Payback period 0ears 9. 9.: 9 ./ 9 .# 9 .$ : .9+otes (!) P;& recoveries(#)P;& recoveries H !.3( )P;& recoveries H (/)P;& recoveries H 1(1)P;& recoveries H 9

Table #=/ provides a s"''ary o7 t?e 7inancial 'odel inp"ts cas? costs and +PV. A1 increase in s"lp?ide ore recovery prod"ces an additional #11 $$$ o@ o7 gold andred"ces cas? costs by &F !: o@.




T#9&! 2-<5 P"% . $%n #n F$n#n $#& S. #",

S . , P;& PG* (! ) PG* (#) PG* ( ) PG* (/) PG* (1)

Gold payable 6o@ 1// 1// : 1 :<: 9<9 3<3Copper payable 6lb 9< :# 9< :# 9< :# 9< :# 9< :# 9< :#Total cas? costs F o@ /<1 1$< /<9 /3< /9: /:/Copper credit F o@ =1# =1# =1! =1$ =/< =/9Cas? costs net o7 credits (C!+et -irect Cas? Cost) F o@ // /19 //: / < /#9 /!:C"'"lative net cas? 7lo2 FM 31< 3$ 39$ <!1 <<$ ! $:1Internal rate o7 ret"rn !!./ !$./ !!.# !!.9 !#.1 ! .

N! "! !n +#&.! :M >2 *? 2?2*? >2 *= > <*< <01*? <<=*2Mine li7e 0ears <.< <.< <.< <.< <.< <.<Payback period 0ears 9. 9.: 9 ./ 9 .# 9 .$ : .9Total initial capital (inc.pre=stripping) FM :<#.9 9!!./ 9!!./ 9!!./ 9!!./ 9!!./Total s"staining capital (e>c.clos"re cost ) FM 3#.3 3#.3 3#.3 3#.3 3#.3 3#.3T% #& LOM # $ #& '$n$ $#&#n . #$n$n4) :M 77 * 7=<*2 7=<*2 7=<*2 7=<*2 7=<*2

+otes (!) P;& recoveries(#)P;& recoveries H !.3( )P;& recoveries H (/)P;& recoveries H 1

(1)P;& recoveries H 9

>*0 CIRCUIT DESCRIPTION AND DESIGN CRITERIA

>*1 C$" .$ ! "$ $%n

A si'pli7ied 7lo2s?eet is s?o2n in ;ig"re .!



*eport P gina << de #!

F$4."! >-15 S$ &$/$! F&% (!!

T?e pri'ary cr"s?ing and coarse ore stockpile are identical to t?e P;& pdate design.Polysi"s stated a design criterion 7or t?e PG* 7eed si@e as !$$ passing /$ ''.T?e secondary cr"s?ing circ"it is t?ere7ore a closed circ"it. Material disc?arged 7ro't?e coarse ore stock pile is conveyed to t2o $$ t capacity secondary cr"s?er 7eedbins. T?e bins are disc?arged by vibrating 7eeders to t2o .$ ' 2ide by 9. ' longdo"ble deck banana screens (one per line). T?e screen oversi@e 7eeds t2o MP !#1$standard cone cr"s?ers eac? 7itted 2it? a ! #1$ ?p (< $k5) 'otor 2?ile t?e screen"ndersi@e passes to t?e PG* 7eed stockpile. T?e cr"s?er disc?arge is re=circ"latedvia t2o conveyors to t?e cr"s?er 7eed bins.

T?e PG* 7eed stockpile ?as $$ tonnes live capacity and is covered. T?e ore isdisc?arged by si> vibrating 7eeders arranged in t2o lines o7 t?ree 7eeders. Eac? linedisc?arges to a separate conveyor one conveyor per PG* cr"s?er.

T?e PG* circ"it consists o7 t2o Polysi"s 'odel #$ > !9 cr"s?ers eac? 7itted 2it? t2ovariable speed ! <1$ k5 'otors. T?e 7eed conveyors disc?arge into 7eed c?"tesdesigned to provide an even pl"g 7lo2 to t?e cr"s?ers. Cr"s?ed 'aterial 7ro' eac?

PG* passes onto a vibrating pan 7eeder to break "p any cake 7or'ation and t?en to a



*eport P gina !$!$ de

.: ' 2ide > 3.1 ' long banana screen. &creen "ndersi@e 2it? a P <1 !$ '' isconveyed to agglo'eration 2?ile t?e oversi@e is ret"rned to t?e PG* 7eed stockpile.

T?e 7lo2s?eet can be 7o"nd in Appendi> I d2g. A! #!9: =$1$!=$!=$$!.

>*2 D! $4n C"$ !"$#

T?e design criteria are s?o2n in Appendi> II doc"'ent #!9: =$!=-C=$$!. T?e basicdata 7or ore c?aracteristics and plant t?ro"g?p"t are identical to t?e design criteria 7or t?e P;& pdate report.

<*0 PLANT LAYOUT

T?e plant layo"t can be 7o"nd in Appendi> II d2g. A! #!9:P=$1$!=1$=$9$=$ .

T?e layo"t ?as been developed considering design in7or'ation 7ro' Polysi"s andrevie2s by 6en %oyd AMECBs senior cr"s?ing and 'aterials ?andling cons"ltant.

T?e plant ?as been laid o"t as t?ree 'ain ele'ents eac? connected by conveyors.T?ese are

S! %n #", ". ($n4

T?e b"ilding is an enclosed steel str"ct"re /.1 ' long > !:.$ ' 2ide > < ' ?ig?. It ise8"ipped 2it? a 1 t capacity bridge crane and laydo2n space is provided to 7acilitate'aintenance.

HPGR /!! % 3 $&!

T?e stockpile is covered by a pre=7abricated steel do'e to contain d"st and is / ' india'eter and !< ' ?ig?. Eac? line o7 7eeders and t?e corresponding conveyors are?o"sed in concrete t"nnels # ' long. T?e conveyors e>it to grade level via corr"gatedsteel '"lti=plate t"nnels.

A stockpile 2as selected instead o7 steel silos to provide a greater storage vol"'e at'"c? lo2er cost.

HPGR ". ($n4

T?e b"ilding is an enclosed steel str"ct"re 1 ' long > #9 ' 2ide and /: ' ?ig?. It ise8"ipped 2it? a !$$ t capacity bridge crane and laydo2n area to 7acilitate c?anging o7 t?e grinding rolls.



*eport P gina !!!! de

*0 TEST OR

*1 HPGR ! $n4 # SGS L#3!/$!&PG* cr"s?ing test2ork 2as carried o"t at laboratory scale by &G& 4ake7ield ,ntario

Canada and s"bse8"ently at larger scale at Polysi"s in Ger'any. A description o7 t?etests and t?e res"lts 7ollo2s.

T?e sa'ples received by &G& 4ake7ield consisted o7 # ! individ"al intervals 7ro' t?e7irst t2o ?oles ($# and $:) drilled 7ro' t?e 4obo deposit (4%-) and 2eig?edappro>i'ately ! t.

Eac? interval 2as identi7ied by a ticket n"'ber a drill?ole n"'ber dept? alterationtype and 8"alitative gold grade (?ig? or lo2). T?e sa'ples represented a total o7 eig?tcategories (t2o alteration types t2o grades and t2o drill?oles) 2?ic? are s"''ari@edin Table 1=!. Category co'posites 2ere prepared and cr"s?ed to no'inal !#.9''and a 1$ kg s"b=sa'ple 2as prepared. T?e eig?t 1$ kg s"b=sa'ples 2ere co'positedinto an ,J co'posite (4%-=$# ,J=4G ,J= G and 4%-=$: ,J=4G ,J= G) and an&J co'posite (4%-=$# &J=4G &J= G and 4%-=$: &J=4G &J= G).

T#9&! -15 S# &! D! "$ $%n

S# &!C# !4%" $!

R! !$+! ! $4(34

S %"!

A& !"# $%n C% % $ !

4%-=$# ,J 4G !1< 1$ ,J Co' !$<

4%-=$# ,J G 3# 1$ ,J Co' #

4%-=$# &J 4G ! $ 1$ &J Co' 3$

4%-=$# &J G !1! 1$ &J Co' !$!

4%-=$: ,J 4G 9 1$ ,J Co' #

4%-=$: ,J G ! ! 1$ ,J Co' 3!

4%-=$: &J 4G ! 9 1$ &J Co' 39

4%-=$: &J G !#/ 1$ &J Co' 9/

A ?ead sa'ple 2as taken 7ro' t?e t2o co'posites 7or speci7ic gravity (&G) b"lkdensity particle si@e analysis (P&A) and Kas receivedB 'oist"re deter'ination. T?e &G2as 'eas"red "sing a gas pycno'eter. T?e b"lk density 2as 'eas"red by vibratingt?e sa'ple 7or 7ive 'in"tes in a ! 4 grad"ated cylinder and recording t?e vol"'e. T?e



*eport P gina !#!# de

7eed c?aracteristics o7 t?e t2o stage=cr"s?ed co'posites (at !#.9 '') are s"''ari@edin Table 1.=#.

T#9&! -25 F!! C(#"# !"$ $

F!! C(#"# !"$ $ OC%

SC%

; 1$ ('icrons) / 199 1 3:#

; 3$ ('icrons) 3 !$! 3 </9

Percent Passing !$$'es?

!$.! :.<

Percent Passing : 'es? /!.1 #.#

&peci7ic Gravity (kg 4) #.:! #.:/

5et %"lk density (kg 4) !.1< !.11

Moist"re as received (#$)

$.$ $.$

Prior to cr"s?ing t?e 'oist"re content 2as adD"sted to # as re8"ested by 6inross by

adding 2ater to t?e 7o"r <$ kg sa'ples (,J PG* &J PG* ,J Cone and &JCone) and 'i>ing in a ce'ent 'i>er.

T?e t2o <$ kg PG* sa'ples 2ere processed separately t?ro"g? t?e 4ab2al "nit inone pass. A speci7ic grinding 7orce o7 + '' # 2as "sed.

T?e sa'ple 2as c?oke 7ed to t?e PG* "nit and t?e test d"ration 2as recorded 2it? astop2atc?. T?e po2er dra2 and operating press"re 2ere recorded. -"ring testing7lakes 7ro' t?e PG* prod"ct 2ere collected and t?e 7lake t?ickness 2as 'eas"red2it? a r"ler and recorded. &o'e 2a>=coated 7lakes 2ere s"b'itted 7or b"lk densitydeter'ination (t?e 2a> protects t?e sa'ple 7ro' breaking "p 2?en i''ersed in 2ater and prevents t?e 2ater 7ro' 7illing t?e voids in t?e 7lake). T?e 7lake speci'ens 2ere2eig?ed be7ore and a7ter coating 2it? 2a> prior to &G deter'ination "singdisplace'ent tec?ni8"e. T?e 2eig?t and vol"'e o7 t?e 2a> 2ere kno2n ?ence t?eact"al b"lk density o7 t?e 7lakes co"ld be calc"lated.

T?e PG* and cone cr"s?er prod"cts 2ere blended and s"b=sa'pled 7or P&A. T?e7eed and prod"ct P&As are presented in ;ig"re 1=!. T?e t?ick lines represent t?e 7eedt?e solid t?in lines represent t?e cone cr"s?er prod"ct and t?e dotted lines representt?e PG* prod"ct. It can be seen t?at t?e PG* prod"cts 2ere signi7icantly 7iner t?ant?e cone cr"s?er prod"cts as e>pected. T?e 7"ll report is presented in Appendi> III.



*eport P gina ! ! de

F$4."! -15 C". ($n4 T! %"3 R! .&

*2 HPGR T! $n4 # P%&, $.

In May #$!$ 'aterial 2as s?ipped to Polysi"s Ger'any to r"n PG* test2ork. T?esa'ples selected 7or PG* test2ork 2ere c?osen by p?ysical c?aracteristicsaccording to t?e 'ine prod"ction plan (see Appendi> III 7or 7"rt?er in7or'ation). T?etest2ork 2as carried o"t in L"ly #$!$.

T?e ?ig? press"re grinding test2ork on a se'i=ind"strial scale provided t?e basis 7or t?e 7ollo2ing

• &i@ing o7 t?e 7"ll scale ind"strial PG*s to 'atc? t?e t?ro"g?p"t re8"ire'ents

• -eter'ination o7 t?e opti'"' grinding 7orce to ac?ieve a certain prod"ct 7ineness

• -eter'ination o7 t?e absorbed energy at t?e re8"ired grinding 7orce

• &i'"lation o7 ind"strial prod"ct si@e distrib"tions ac?ievable on 7"ll scale ind"strialPG*s

• &i'"lation o7 t?e circ"lating load and prod"ct 7ineness in ind"strial closed circ"it.

Additional 2ear testing on t?e AT5A4 abrasion testing "nit allo2ed proDection o7 t?e2ear li7e to be e>pected 7or ind"strial 2ear protection tyres.

T?e test progra' at Polysi"s is s"''ari@ed in ;ig"re 1.=#.



*eport P gina !/!/ de

F$4."! -25 P%&, $. T! P"%4"# S. #",

;o"r sa'ples 7or col"'n leac? tests at McClelland 4aboratories 2ere selected toco'pare conventional cone cr"s?ing vers"s PG* cr"s?ing.

T?e particle si@e distrib"tions o7 t?e PG* test prod"cts are s?o2n in ;ig"re 1= and;ig"re 1=/.



*eport P gina !1!1 de

F$4."! ->5 HPGR F!! #n T% #& P"% . S$8! D$ "$9. $%n

F$4."! -<5 HPGR F!! #n C!n "! P"% . S$8! D$ "$9. $%n

T?e ind"strial prod"ct si@e distrib"tion 2ill di77er 7ro' t?at obtained in t?e se'i=ind"strial tests. T?e edge e77ect 2ill be less prono"nced in an ind"strial 'ac?ine sincet?ese "nits ?ave a ?ig?er 4 - ratio t?an t?e test "nit. T?e red"ced edge e77ect s?o"ldincrease t?e prod"ct 7ineness. o2ever t?e ind"strial PG* 2ill "s"ally be 7ed 2it? acoarser 7eed si@e and 2ill be operated 2it? a larger 2orking gap allo2ing so'e larger



*eport P gina !:!: de

particles to pass t?e gap "n=cr"s?ed. T?ese e77ects 2ill "s"ally lead to a coarser ind"strial PG* disc?argeN co'pared to t?e prod"cts generated in t?e test2ork.

&i'"lation 2as carried o"t to predict t?e e>pected ind"strial si@e distrib"tion o7 t?ePG* disc?arge and o7 t?e screen "ndersi@e prod"ct 7or a closed circ"it operation.

T?ese si'"lations took into acco"nt t?e ind"strial 7eed gap si@e applied grindingpress"re and t?e operating 'ode (single pass 'ode edge cake recirc"lation or closedcirc"it operation). &i'"lation also allo2ed t?e deter'ination o7 circ"lating loads 7or ind"strial PG* operation in closed circ"it 2it? screens.

T?e si'"lated PG* prod"ct si@e distrib"tion is s?o2n in ;ig"re 1=1. T?is distrib"tionass"'es an PG* 7eed si@e o7 !$$ passing /$ '' 2it? t?e cr"s?ers operating inclosed circ"it 2it? screens. It can be seen t?at t?e prod"ct P 3$ is : '' and t?e P <1 is!$ ''. T?ere is a concern t?at t?e percent passing 9/ 'icrons (#$$O) at !/ is ?ig?7or ?eap leac?ing in '"ltiple li7ts. Per'eability vers"s load tests are being carried o"t at

AMECBs laboratory in *eno +evada.

F$4."! - 5 HPGR S$ .&# ! P"% . S$8! D$ "$9. $%n




*> P%&, $. E .$ !n R! % !n # $%nPolysi"s reco''ended t2o 'odel #$ > !9 cr"s?ers eac? e8"ipped 2it? # > ! <#1 k5variable speed 'otors. T?e rolls are # ' dia'eter > !.:1 ' long 2it? a designperip?eral speed o7 #. $ ' s. T?e esti'ated tyre li7e at t?e design speed is : #1$?o"rs. T?e preli'inary report can be 7o"nd in Appendi> III.

6*0 OPERATING COSTS

T?e PG* operating costs 2ere calc"lated 7ro' po2er and 2ear costs provided byPolysi"s. T?e costs 7or t?e balance o7 t?e 7ine cr"s?ing circ"it 2ere based on AMECand ot?er 'an"7act"rerBs data. Table :=! s?o2s costs by cost type 2it? a co'parisonto t?e e8"ivalent P;& pdate costs 7or t?e 7ine cr"s?ing area. Costs 7or ot?er areas didnot c?ange.

T#9&! 6-15 P"% ! O !"# $n4 C% 9, C% T, !

F$n! C". ($n4 PFS C%' .9 % #&

US:; )

HPGRT"# ! %// ' .9 % #&

US:; )

C% D$/*

'US:; )Energy $. !1 $.1#9 $.#!#5ear parts $.$/3 $.!9 $.!#1

Maintenance $.$3 $.$3 $4abo"r $.$/9 $.$/9 $T% #& 0*<=> 0*?>0 0*>>7

It can be seen t?at t?e operating cost increase 7or t?e PG* circ"it is &F $. 9 t 2it?: attrib"table to ?ig?er po2er costs and t?e balance 2ear parts costs.

7*0 CAPITAL COSTS

Mec?anical and electrical e8"ip'ent lists 2ere prepared 7or t?e 7ine cr"s?ing area andcivil str"ct"ral arc?itect"ral 8"antity take=o77s 2ere 'ade 7ro' t?e layo"t dra2ing. +o

c?anges 2ere 'ade to ot?er plant areas. Table 9=! s?o2s t?e costs by disciplineco'pared to t?e e8"ivalent costs 7or t?e P;& "pdate. Table 9=# s?o2s t?e costs byarea incl"ding t?e indirect cost distrib"tion.




T#9&! 7-15 C# !@ C% #"$ %n 9, D$ $ &$n!

D$ $ &$n! HPGR T% #&'US: $&&$%n)

PFSU T% #&'US: $&&$%n)

Mining !#/ !#/Eart?2orks < <Civil Concrete // 3&tr"ct"ral ## #$

Arc?itect"ral ## #!E8"ip'ent Mec?anical ! < ! <Piping !3 !3Electrical < 9Instr"'entation !# !#T% #& D$"! C% <60 <<?Total Indirect Cost 1<? 1<<C%n $n4!n , 10> 101In$ $#& C# $ #& C% 711 6=>

T#9&! 7-25 C# !@ C% #"$ %n 9, A"!#

F# $&$ , HPGR T% #&'US: $&&$%n)

PFSU T% #&'US: $&&$%n)

Mine E8"ip'ent <$ <$&ite -evelop'ent !$1 !$/Mine -evelop'ent 1 1Process ;acilities #!< #$<

eap 4eac?ing Tailings I'po"nd'ent !$ !$T% #& D$"! C% <60 <<?Indirect Constr"ction Costs # #Engineering Proc"re'ent 1 1ProDect Manage'ent Costs < <5are?o"se Inventory !! 9;reig?t -"ty And Ta>es ! !T% #& In $"! C% 1<? 1<<C%n $n4!n , 10> 101

In$ $#& C# $ #& C% 711 6=>

It can be seen t?at t?e total 'ec?anical e8"ip'ent cost 7or PG* is si'ilar to t?e P;&pdate case. o2ever civil concrete str"ct"ral arc?itect"ral and electrical costs are

?ig?er. T?e ?ig?er direct cost i'pacts indirect costs and contingency.

T?e detailed capital cost esti'ate can be 7o"nd in Appendi> IV.



*eport P gina !<!< de

?*0 FINANCIAL ANALYSIS

-isco"nted cas? 7lo2 analysis 2as carried o"t "sing t?e P;& pdate 7inancial 'odel2it? t?e PG* capital and operating costs. An analysis 2as carried o"t to deter'inet?e increase in gold recovery t?at 2o"ld be re8"ired 7or t?e PG* option to ac?ievet?e sa'e +et Present Val"e (+PV) as t?e P;& pdate. Preli'inary col"'n leac? testsindicate t?at PG* cr"s?ed s"lp?ide 'aterial 'ay ?ave a ?ig?er gold recovery t?ane8"ivalent cone cr"s?ed 'aterial. +o di77erence ?as been seen 7or o>ide ore.T?ere7ore t?e s"lp?ide recoveries 2ere increased in incre'ents to deter'ine t?ebreakeven recovery 2it? t?e P;& pdate case and to s?o2 t?e "pside potential.

;ro' Table 3=! it can be seen t?at t?e breakeven point is an increase in s"lp?iderecovery o7 !.3 i.e. 7ro' 1$.< to 1#.9 7or 4obo lo2 grade s"lp?ides :$.! to :!.<7or 4obo ?ig? grade s"lp?ides : .: to :1./ 7or Marte lo2 grade s"lp?ides and 9$.1to 9#. 7or Marte ?ig? grade s"lp?ides. +o increases 2ere 'ade to o>ide recoveries.

An increase o7 1 in t?e s"lp?ide recovery increases t?e +PV by &F 9: 'illionco'pared to t?e P;& pdate case at a 1 disco"nt rate. A 9 recovery increasegives an additional &F !# 'illion.

T#9&! ?-15 F$n#n $#& An#&, $ R! .&

C# ! P;& PG* (!) PG* (#) PG* ( ) PG* (/) PG* (1)

C. .&# $+! n! # ( /&%ndisco"nted &F$$$ 313 913 3$# :93 39$ /$$ <!1 #3! <<$ $3/ ! $:1 !<!

N! "! !n +#&.!-isco"nted at 1 &F$$$ #1 9<1 #3# 3 / #1 <#/ 1/ //1 /$! 931 //< #$<-isco"nted at 3 &F$$$ ! < # 9 !$# !:# ! 1 :19 !19 3!$ !</ 1!! # ! # :-isco"nted at !$ &F$$$ /< <#3 !: !:! // :3< : 1/3 </ 919 !#1 <:9-isco"nted at !# &F$$$ =!3 9!/ =/< 13$ =#1 !/: =< $$! !9 :<! // :<

Internal rate o7 ret"rn !!./ !$./ !!.# !!.9 !#.1 ! .

Payback period 0ears 9. 9.: 9 ./ 9 .# 9 .$ : .9

+otes (!) P;& recoveries(#)P;& recoveries H !.3( )P;& recoveries H (/)P;& recoveries H 1(1)P;& recoveries H 9



*eport P gina #$#$ de

T#9&! ?-25 C# ( C% !" . G%& "! %+!",

C# ! P;& PG*(!)

PG*(#)

PG*( )

PG*(/)

PG*(1)

C% !" %nn! $&&!'US:; )

Mining 1.$# 1 .$# 1.$# 1.$# 1.$# 1.$#Process / .<# 1 .#: 1.#: 1.#: 1.#: 1.#:G A ! .#$ ! .#$ !.#$ !.#$ !.#$ !.#$&'elter costs TC *C Priceparticipation $. $ $. $ $. $ $. $ $. ! $. !Concentrate transport $.$3 $ .$3 $.$3 $.$3 $.$< $.$<&"b=total !!.1# !!.31 !!.3: !!.3: !!.39 !!.39

CreditsCopper (!.##) (!.##) (!.##) (!.##) (!.##) (!.##)&"b=total (!.##) (!.##) (!.##) (!.##) (!.##) (!.##)

AdD"sted cas? costsTotal !$. $ !$.:/ !$.:/ !$.:1 !$.:1 !$.::

C% !" %.n ! A. #,#9 &!'US: ;%8)

Mining #!1.99 #!1.99 #!$. : #$:.<$ #$!. 3 !<:.!1Process #!!. : ##1.3: ##$.!< #!:.19 #!$.9< #$1. !G A 1!.1$ 1!.1$ 1$.#$ /<. 3 /3.$: /:.3!&'elter costs TC *C Priceparticipation !#.91 !#.91 !#.:$ !#.1$ !#. / !#.!<Concentrate transport ./3 ./3 ./: ./1 ./ ./!&"b=total /</.3: 1$<. : /<:.3# /33.3$ /9:.$$ /: .33

Credits

Copper (1#.##) (1#.##) (1$.<!) (1$.$9) (/3.9 ) (/9./9)&"b=total (1#.##) (1#.##) (1$.<!) (1$.$9) (/3.9 ) (/9./9)

AdD"sted cas? costsTotal //#.:/ /19.!/ //1.<! / 3.9 /#9.#9 /!:./!


;ro' t?e above it can be seen t?at an increase o7 1 in s"lp?ide gold recoveryred"ces costs by &F !1 o@



T#9&! ?->5 P"% . $%n D# #

C# ! P;& PG*(!)

PG*(#)

PG*( )

PG*(/)

PG*(1)

Total Mined (kt) / : <: / : <: / : <: / : <: / : <: / : <:Total 5aste (kt) #3/ !$# #3/ !$# #3/ !$# #3/ !$# #3/ !$# #3/ !$#Total ,re (kt) !1# #</ !1# #</ !1# #</ !1# #</ !1# #</ !1# #</

A" (g t) !.!:< !.!:< !.!:< !.!:< !.!:< !.!:<CnC" ( ) $.$ : $.$ : $.$ : $.$ : $.$ : $.$ :*ecovery A" ( ) :#.#! :#.#! : .3! :/.33 ::.:: :3.//*ecovery CnC" ( ) :3.:$ :3.:$ :3.:$ :3.:$ :3.:$ :3.:$

Gold contained (o@) 1 9#1 !<# 1 9#1 !<# 1 9#1 !<# 1 9#1 !<# 1 9#1 !<# 1 9#1 !<#Copper contained (lb) !#$ $:/ ::: !#$ $:/ ::: !#$ $:/ ::: !#$ $:/ ::: !#$ $:/ ::: !#$ $:/ :::

Gold recoverable (o@) 1:! :!3 1:! :!3 :1 #9! 9!/ 9 3!: #!$ <!3 $/:Copper recoverable (lb) 3# :/ :! 3# :/ :! 3# :/ :! 3# :/ :! 3# :/ :! 3# :/ :!+otes (!) P;& recoveries

(#)P;& recoveries H !.3( )P;& recoveries H (/)P;& recoveries H 1(1)P;& recoveries H 9

It can be seen t?at an increase o7 1 in s"lp?ide gold recovery give an additional#11 $$$ o@ o7 gold prod"ction.

T#9&! ?-<5 P"% . $%n #n F$n#n $#& S. #",

S . , P;& PG* (! ) PG* (#) PG* ( ) PG* (/) PG* (1)

Gold payable 6o@ 1// 1// : 1 :<: 9<9 3<3Copper payable 6lb 9< :# 9< :# 9< :# 9< :# 9< :# 9< :#Total cas? costs F o@ /<1 1$< /<9 /3< /9: /:/Copper credit F o@ =1# =1# =1! =1$ =/< =/9Cas? costs net o7 credits (C!+et -irect Cas? Cost) F o@ // /19 //: / < /#9 /!:C"'"lative net cas? 7lo2 FM 31< 3$ 39$ <!1 <<$ ! $:1Internal rate o7 ret"rn !!./ !$./ !!.# !!.9 !#.1 ! .N! "! !n +#&.! :M >2 *? 2?2*? >2 *= > <*< <01*? <<=*2Mine li7e 0ears <.< <.< <.< <.< <.< <.<Payback period 0ears 9. 9.: 9 ./ 9 .# 9 .$ : .9Total initial capital (inc.pre=stripping) FM :<#.9 9!!./ 9!!./ 9!!./ 9!!./ 9!!./Total s"staining capital (e>c.clos"re cost ) FM 3#.3 3#.3 3#.3 3#.3 3#.3 3#.3T% #& LOM # $ #& '$n$ $#&#n . #$n$n4) :M 77 * 7=<*2 7=<*2 7=<*2 7=<*2 7=<*2


HPGR Report Lobo Marte

Documents

Transcript of HPGR Report Lobo Marte