Robert M. Lewis Procedure - P2 InfoHouseTable No. 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 15 16 17 Main Variable...

Object

BENEFICIATION OF FRANK OLIVINE Fe Report #3, December 1968 Progress Report

Lab. Nos. 3218 & 3258 - Book 233, p. 6-182 by

Robert M. Lewis

68-26-P

This project is a continuation of the research program on olivine extraction and product improvement. The Frank ore (Lab. No. 3258) used for most of this project came from the same pit as did Lab. Nos. 3218, 3239, 3240. The ore waS obtained by progressively sampling across two-hundred feet of pit until a composite of 1500 pounds was obtained.

Procedure

The ore waS given a size reduction by jaw crushing followed by rolls crushing at 3/8" roll spacing. A representative sample, obtained by rifflipg, assayed 3.98 percent loss on ignition. Samples (minus 14 mesh) as received and deslimed were separated into sinks and floats by heavy liquid (sp gr 2.95). The data derived from these tests (see Table 1) were useful in arriving at an approximate product distribution. Several series of tests were performed to observe the effects of different variables on the beneficiation of the Frank ore. The tests include scrubbing of are, scrubbing concentrate onty, high solids grinding, acid scrubbing the concentrate, acid scrubbing flotation feed, no scrubbing before tabling, scrubbing before tabling, flotation of table concentrate, scavenger tabling, reagent comparison series, acid scrub tests with various strengths of acid. These tests are summarized for quick reference and are also attached for more detailed information. A beneficiation graph (Table A) shows the relative merits of the tests. A table separation in which the tails were given a second grind in a rod mill followed by desliming and tabling is shown in Table 19. An attempt was made to determine the best flotation reagent system to use with the Frank ore. Series of tests were performed using either anionic, cationic or fatty acid collectors. In order to compare the reagents, the following standard set of conditions was established:

Sample

Head feed Lab. No. 3258 (Frank Deposit) jaw crushed and roll crushed through 114" opening. 500-gram feed samples.

- 2 -

Preparation

Stainless steel rod mill, 10 rods. 40 percent solids grind for 2 minutes. Screen on 20 mesh. Deslime twice at 200 mesh with full bucket (stainless steel) for 1 minute settling.

Standard Float Cell

North float room, Denver cell.

Individual test sheets are included for those tests in which the yield exceeded 40 percent and the ignition loss waS less than 1.0 percent. An acid scrub series (test 26) shows the effect of different acid strengths on the ignition loss of an olivine concentrate.

Results

The heavy liquid separation and ignition loss analysis data (see Table 1) shows 54.7 percent of the head feed assaying 1.14 percent loss on ignition, with an additional 15.5 percent assaying 2.71 percent loss on ignition.

Flotation without scrubbing (Tables 2, 3 and 4) results in a good recovery but poor grade. The grade can be improved by scrubbing the concentrate followed by flotation as shown in Table 4. The use of caustic in the grind was found to be beneficial as shown by the increased recovery in Table 5. The series of tests using a high solids (65 percent) grind showed a definite improvement in grade, while maintaining recovery (see Tables 5, 6 and 7). A further improvement in grade can be made by following the high solids grind and flotation procedure with high density scrubbing, or acid scrubbing of the concentrate and re-floating (Tables 9, 10, II and 12). Acid scrubbing before flotation is also a method for improving the grade (see Table 13).

The ore responded very well to table separation. The ore that had not been scrubbed before tabling gave a higher recovery and ignition loss than the ore that was scrubbed before tabling. This probably reflects more on the operation of the table than on the preparation of the feed. Flotation of the concentrate from these tests resulted in low ignition loss products (see Table 15-18). An additional gravity test (see Table 19) waS performed in which a rougher concentrate waS made on a shaking table. and the table tails were returned to the rod mill for additional grinding and desliming.

- 3 -

and were then treated again on the table in a scavenger separation. The concentrates were cleaned with two stages. The results show a good recovery and grade.

The reagent series (Tables 20-25) are the best tests (plus 40 percent yields and minus 1.0 percent ignition loss) of a series of nineteen tests. This series was run to study the effects of sulfonated oil, amine, and fatty acid collectors under a standard set of conditions. The fatty acid tests did not perform as well as the other two. The results are inconclusive at thiS time as to which of the two reagents, sulfonated oil or amine, is most effective. The anionic system has the advantage of floating the smaller amount of material as gangue. The amine system haS an advantage of floating in a neutral pH. The acid scrub test (Table 26) shows the comparison by ignition loss in the concentrate when using various strengths of acid. The maximum strength of acid necessary to acid scrub is approximately ten percent.

I I

1 I

1 I I

I 1

~-b~r+~-+-~-r4-~-+:4-~i~~~r+-r+-t-.~-r---~4-~-+-Y-~-+~~~~~~~~+-~~1-r1~41-+~:-+4-~-+4-+4-+14-~-+4-~-+4-~~ ~-b~~-r+-~-r+-~-+4-~~~+-r+-r-t-t-l-~-f---~-~4~-+~~~~~~~~~~+-+-I~~4-+4-14-+-!-+I~~-+~+--+-r~~I-r~-+I-r+--+~

r+~~~~~1~~+41_1-+4-P.~~~+4~+4~+4~~~--+~~~~-+-1-+4-~4-~1 --+r~1 +4-'+4_~_!1- -~+4~+4~+-I1-r+4-r+4-~~ I ! ~,~ j I :

~~~~~4-~~4-~~~~~~~~~~-+4-~1~~~~~~-~~~~+-~~+-~~!~~+-14~14-~1l+4-+4-~4-~-+4-+4-+I~I~4-~~4-~~~ 1 I I 1 I I

~-+~~-+4-~I~_~-t-I-+4-+-1~~il~~~~+-~-b+-~~-t--~~~'r+-I-I~'I+4-~'~H-+-1-+-H+-t-t--<tH-~-+~-~-+4-+4-+~I-+4-~I4-+4-+~I-+4-rI1 I I 1 I I

I I...' It I:::: 1 I I ~ I I I

H-r+--+-r+--+4-~-+-+4-~-t4-+-lI-+4-~~~+-~~-H~-+I-+-H~a~I-r~H+~+--+4r+-H-+~~-+~+--+~+-H--~IH--r+--+-r+I-r+-'-+-r+I-r+1 H_I:-I +-rl+-I-+-r+-H-r+--+I-+~I~~~+-l-+4-~-+-H-+I-~-I-~-+,+--+-Ht~-~'~+I~+--+-rH--+1-+-+-~-+~I~r4-+4I-+~+4-+~+4-+~~!-+~+4-+~t-i:~ H~:-+~I-+-+-~: +1 ~:-+++4-+':-++fii~olt--H-'-+~H-1 ~:-+4-H-+-If--:-1 ~-+-I!-h'+-+I-iI-~-+-lI_~4-t- -t- + rl-- - I I I I :

I 1 +~4-+-I;-+-I-I-t-I~-t-r~~I-+-r+-+-t-r~I-+~-+-+-r+-+-~I~-+~-+4i I I I I

"'I I

I I I I

I I

I 1 I I J ; I - --I-t-+-~-H--1~-:- - -+1 -!l-~4-l-+--+4-+--+4-+--+-r+--+-r~-+-r+I"-F-I I I I I I I I I ! I I

I I I I i I I I I i I I II

1-t-r+-I-+~~H~~~-+--+-+4-H-?~14'-~4--I~-+~-+-~~-+--+~-+--+-+~E.4-1-+-I~--r~-t-~4-~-+~+I~+;~~+-I~-~1-t-4-I~-~4-~-+4-~I4-~I+4 ~~-~-t-t-++~~I-t-+4-~-++-~-.-~-t-+-+--+-r+4-+-+-~-t-14-t--+-t-~~-+4-++--+-r+4r++H-t'-+1~~rt~~-r+4-++IH++--++-+-r~

-I-~-+-+I -t-I-+-t-r+-HH-:- - - -j---'I-~-+-+-H--+--iH--+-+-+-+-+-: +4

~1-r+~tH~~~~~~1-rt1-r1~-~~~~~I~4-rt~*4~~-I~~~~~4-rt~~~~K}~~IH-~~~~-t-H+~-+~~~~-++H~'~ I I -1-+-!~-r+4H.+-t-!-++H~-+-+~~~~I- t- -i--'-~~'-+I~-~-++--+-r~-++--+4-t-!-t-t

.... 1 I I": I ! 1

1 I I

~ I

I I

- i] -

)

Table No.

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

15

16

17

Main Variable

No scrubbing

No scrubbing

Scrub conc. only

Scrub conc. only

High solids grind

High solids grind

High solids grind

High solids grind

Acid scrub conc.

Acid scrub cone.

Acid scrub conc.

Acid scrub float feed

No scrub before tabling

Scrubbed before tabling

Flotation table cone. test 2

Stage

Ro. Cl.

Cl.

Cl.

Cl.

Cl.

Cl.

Cl.

Cl.

Cl.

Cl.

Cl.

C1.

Ro.

Ro.

Ro. Cl.

- 5 -

Table B

SUMMARY

Ign. Loss

1.47 0.69

0.81

0.63

0.89

0.55

0.49

0.26

0.38

0.25

0.41

0.82

0.54

0.46

0.38

0.17 0.11

% Yield

66.6 31.6

50.6

48.5

56.6

55.9

57.8

44.2

60.0

48.5

61.6

67.5

56.6

50.0

45.4

46.4 41.0

% Rec.

100.0 49.3

79.1

75.8

88.4

87.3

90.3

69.1

93.8

75.8

96.3

100.0

88.4

78.1

70.9

72.5 64.0

Remarks

Rod milled, deslimed, no scrub, amine float

Rod milled, deslimed, no scrub, amine float

R(Jd milled, deslimed, no scrub, amine float, scrub conc., amine float

Rod milled, deslimed, no scrub, amine float, scrub conc., amine float

Rod milled, deslimed, scrub, amine float

Rod milled, deslimed, scrub, amine float, scrub conc., deslime

Rod milled, des limed, scrub, amine float, scrub cone., amine float

Rod milled, deslimed, scrub, amine float, scrub conc, deslimed,amine float,scrub cone. High solids grind, deslime, scrub, amine float, acid scrub cone.

High solids grind, deslime, scrub, amine float, acid scrub conc., amine float

Low solids grind, deslime, scrub, amine float, acid scrub cone., deslime

Low solids grind, des lime, acid scrub, neutralize pH with water,amine fl.,sc.conc,deslime

Rod milled, deslimed, tabled

Rod milled, deslimed, scrubbed, deslimed, tabled

Rod milled, deslimed, tabled, scrub, amine float

)

-Remarks

Rod milled, deslimed, scrubbed, deslimed, tabled, amine float

Rod milled, deslimed, tabled, rod milled table tails, deslimed, scavenger table tails

Caustic used instead of H2S04

H2S04, M-70, F.O., P.O.

H2SO4 , reduced M-70, F .0" P.O.

H2SO4, reduced M-70, F.O, , P.O.

H2SO4' increased M-70, F.O., P.O.

H2SO4' reduced M-70, F ,0., p,O,

Amine, MIBC

Reduced amine, MIBC

Increased amine, MIBC

Amine, MIBC Increased amine, MIBC Amine , MISC Increased amine, MIBC

- 7 -

NORTH CAROLINA STATE MINERALS RESEARCH LABORATORY

Table 1

ORE DRESSING TEST DATA

Sample No. ---=3:.-2...;:5:....:8_-.::::Lc-_____ _ Test No. __ 1 ________ _

Engineer __ _ Date 219/68. _______ _

Object of Test Heavy Liquid (2.95 Gravity) Separat,_i_o_n ______________ _

Product ~-~---...--T-.,Lgrr;- . __ .- -_ .. - ·Re~l.QI~e

Wt. % loss Resid, e Unitl /Sinks 54.7 1.14 98.86 54.08

(1) r-~1~4~M~e~s~h~M~i~d~s_+~1~5~.~5+_-_+~2~.~7~149~7~.~2~94_--+~15~.~0~8~ ___ +_-~--4_--~---as rec'd.~laats 29.8 11.80 88.20 26.28

'Total 100.0 4.56 95.44 95.44

I=---;-:,-------.-\~S~i:.:;n;:..::k-=--s +--=6~7-=-. ~4 -I-__ -+....;1;.:... 23 98. 77 166 • 57 (2) DeslimedJ Mids 4.3 3.71 90.29 4.14

~~~~tbF~lo~a~t-s~~28~.3~--~8~~~65~9~1~.~3~5rl--~~2~5~.8~5~--+-----+----4--~-----

+200 m.Tota1 100.0 3.44 90.50 96.56

(3) As Rec'd. (+200 , -200 (.:rotal

92.6 7.4

100.0 (4) Head Feed Anal~ sis

Process

3.00 97.00 10.30 89.70 4.14 95.86 3.98

89.22 6.64

95.86

Reagents r--------.---.----.---.---.,---.--.---r--~--~---~-----

Time % Equipment Solid pH

r-----------r--+-----t---4----+---~----~----~-~-----+---.-~,----

Remarks:

(1) As received sample was roll crushed to minus 14 mesh.

(2) Deslimed sample was des limed two times on 200 mesh with one-minute settling in full bucket.

(3) Samo1e as received was deslimed on 200 mesh and bath screen fractions assayed.

(4) Sample as received was assayed.

- 8 -NORTH CAROLINA STATE MINERALS RESEARCH LABORATORY

Table 2


Sample No. _-=3-=2::::.5=-8---=L~ _____ _ Test No. __ 20 ________ _

Engineer __ _ Date 2116/68

Object of Test __ F!otation Without Scrubbing

--- ---.~- ---- ----- -----r~-- ----Product Wt.% Cum.% IBn. L ss

Concentrate (FP) 31.6 ( ~69 Cleaner Tails 35.0 66.6 1 471 2 17 Rougher Tails 17.8 Slimes & Losses 15.6 _.

Total 00.0

-

-

Process Reagents

Equipment Time % Alamac (min) Solid pH ll-C MIBC

Rod Mill 2 40 .--. Screen 29 m. Deslime 3X,2001ll 1 Condo in cell 0.25 1.25 2 drc ps Float olivine 2 Clean olivine 2 drc IPs

Remarks:

Cleaner Float Yiela: - 31.6% Ian. Loss = 0.69'" Recovery - 49.3%

Rougher Float Yield - 66.6% IQn. LoSS = 1.47'Z. Recovery =100.0%


Table 3


Sample No. 3258-L Test No. _2_1 _____ . ___ _

Engineer ____ . __ . Date 2116/68

Object of Test Flotation Without Scrubbing

Product Wt. 'k Cum. ,

-- r-gn. Loss

- ---'--poncentrate (FP) 40.4 ( 0.54 ~nd Cl. Tails 10.2 50.6 0.81 1.87 1st C1. Tails 15.4 Roughe r Tail s 17.8 [Slimes & Losses 16.2 ~otal 100.0

-

-

Process Reagents

Equipment Time % Alama( (min) Solid pH ll-C MIBC

Rod Mill 2 40 .--. Screen 29 m.

Des lime 3X 200m. 1 Condo in cell 0.25 18 1.25 2 dr< IPS

Float olivine 2 18 Clean olivine 18

Re-clean olivinE 18

-

Remarks;

Yield = 50.6% 19n. Loss - 0.81

Recovery = 79.1%

- 10 -


Table 4


Sample No. _.:::.3.=2=-58=----=L~ _____ _ Test No. _-:2:,:2=---______ _

Engineer _____ _ Date 2127/68 ---------Object of Test Flo_~ation Without Scrubbing, Scrub Concentrate and Re-float

--- -1-gn·.-.--Product Wt. % ~um.% Loss +20 m. 5.2 4.58 Cone. F.P.

-49.4 0:84

C1. Tails 19.4 3.80 (1) RQ:.;~Tails 12.0 8.13

Slimes 1l.5 9.30 Loss 2.5 -Total 100.0 3.52 -

Cone. F.P. 96.5 ( 0.63 (2) Tails 1.6 98.1 0.661 2.71

Slimes 1.9 7.50 Total 100.0 0.79

Process Reagents -AramaCi ---

Equipment Time % (min) Solid pH ll-C MIBC

Rod Mill 2 60 Screen 20 m.

0) Deslime 4X,200m. 1 Condo in cell 0.25 18 1.25 2 drc lOS

Float olivine 1.5 18 7.0 Clean olivine 1.5 18 Dry sample

Scrub olivine 10 80 -

(2) Deslime 2X,200m 1 Condo in cell 0.25 18 0.50 2 dr ps Float olivine

Remarks:

Yield = 48.5% IJ?n. Loss = 0.63

Recoverv = 75.8%

-.


Table 5


Sample No. 325_8--"'L'--_____ _ Test No. __ 2_3 ________ _

Engineer _______ . ___ . ____ _ Dote 2/27/68

Object of Test __ F!otation Using Caustic in Grind, Scrub Concentrate

._---- ---- - ~--r- --------Product Wt. '1r Cum. % tgn • oss +20 m. 2.6 4.56 Cone. FP 58.8 ) ~ 1.18

(1) Cl. Tails 15.0 73.8 1.98 5.14 Ro. Tails 11.3 8.24 Slimes 9.8 9.65 Loss 2.5 -Total 100.0 3.55 -

Cone. FP 74.8 96.3 0.89( 0.67 (2) Tails 21.5 I 1.69 -

Slimes 3.7 7.10 Total 100.0 1.12

--Process Reagents

Equipment Time % Alamac (min) Solid pH NaOH ll-C MIBC

Rod Mill 2 40 2.0 Screen 20 m.

Deslime 2X,200m. 1 9.7 (1) Condo in cell 0.25 18 1.25 2 dI ops

Float olivine 2 8.9 Clean olivine Drv olivine

Scrub olivine 10 80 (2) iDeslime 2X.200m.

Condo in cell 0.2 2 dl ops Float olivine

Remarks:

Yield = 56.6% Ign. Loss = 0 .• 89

Recovery = 88.4%

- 12 -


Table 6


Sample No. 325:...:8~--=L~ _____ _ Test No. 2._9 ________ _

Engineer __ _ Date 3/8/--=-6~8 _______ _

Object of Test __ F_lotation After High Solids Grind. _______________ _

Product Wt. 'k tgn • oss +20 m. 0.6 4. 6~ Cone. FE' 55.9 o.S-5 C1. Tails 3.1 .5.1'1

Ro. Tails 19.3 -6.[2

1st Slime 11.0 9.99 -

2nd Slime 8.5 10.25 Loss 1.6 - -Total 100.0

-

-Process Reagents

Equipment Time % Alamac (min) Solid pH NaOH ll-C MIBC

Rod Mill 2 65 2.0 Screen 20 m. Deslime 2X 200111 Wemco scrub 15 75 2.0 Deslime 2X.200n Condo in cell'.: 0.25 1.25 2 dl ops Float olivine 1.5 8.7 Clean olivine

-

Remarks:

Yield = 55.9% Ign. Loss - 0.55

Recoverv = 87.3%

--

- 13 -


Table 7


Sample No. _-=3~2~5=-8-__.:L=__ _____ _ Test No. _~3.:::.3 _______ _

Engineer _____ . __ _ Date _.......:..4/:...;3/6_8 _______ _

Object of Test __ FJ.otation After High Solids Grind _______________ _

Product Wt. % -- -tgn~ -~- -- ----_ ... -

Loss +35 m. 2.2 4.15 .. Cone. FP 58.2 0.61 1st C1. Tails 12.4 7.60 2nd Cl. Tails 2.5 6.34 Rougher Tails 3.9 10.80 1st Slimes 13.2 10.21 2nd Slimes 4.6 8.30 -Loss 3.0 -Total 100.0

Cone. 99.3 0.49 -Slimes 0.7 Total 100.0 -

Process Reagents

Equipment Time % Alama( (min Solid pH NaOH ll-C MIBC

Rod Mill 2 65 2.0 Screen 35 m. Deslime 2X,200n T Condo in cell 0.25 18 1.10 2 dr( ps Float olivine 2.5 18 Clean olivine

Scrub o1iv.con< • 15 75 Deslime 2X,200E

Remarks:

Yield :::: 57.8% Ign. Loss :::: 0.49

Recovery = 90.3%

- 14 -


Table 8


Sample No_ 3258--=L=--_____ _ Test No_ --c3::<-4~ ____ . ___ _

Engineer ______ _ Date 4/4/68. ___ . ____ _

Object of Test Flotation After High Solids Grind --------------------------

-- -_._- . Tgll;-.----- -~--~.-.

Product Wt. '/(. Loss +35 m. 2.2 4.20 - ---Cone. FP 44.2 0.26 2nd Cl. Tails 7.5 1. 24 1st Cl. Tails 15.3 3.93 Rougher Tails 7.3 11.96 -1st Slimes 12.5 10.27 2nd Slimes 4.9 11.17

-Loss 6.1 -Total 100.0

-

Process Reagents

Equipment Time % A1amac (min) Solid pH NaOH 11-C MIBC

Rod Mill 2 65 2.0 Screen 35 m. De slime 2X, 200m 1 Condo in cell 0.25 18 1.0 2 dr >ps Float olivine 18

Scrub conc. 15 75 2.0 Deslime 2X,200m Condo in cell 0.25 18 0.50 2 dr ~ps -Float olivine Clean olivine 2 dr ~ps

Remarks:

Useo Wemeo SOO-gram scrubber.

Yield = 44.2% Ign. Loss = 0.26

Recovery = 69.1%

-.

- 15 -


Table 9


Sample No. _=..:32=.:5::...:8~_--=L~ _____ _ Test No. 40

Engineer _____ . Date 4/11/68

Object of Test Hig~ Solids Grind, Flotation, Scrub Concentrate, Re-float

-- ---Product Wt. ,/(. ~~1l. Loss

+35 m. 2.0 -3.65

Conc. FP 60.3 0.58 1st Cl. Tails 1.5 9.77 2nd Cl. Tails 2.8 6.39 Rougher Tails 2.0 11.70 1st Slimes 12.3 10.03 2nd Slimes 7.2 10.85 -3rd Slimes 2.0 8.33 Loss 9.9 -Total 100.0

( Rescrubbed)Con 99.3 0.38 -Slimes 0.7 8.58 Total 100.0

-

Process Reagents

Equipment Time % Alama ~ min) Solid pH NaOH ll-C MIBC

Rod Mill 2 70 4.0 Screen 35 m De slime 2X, 200m 1 Wemco scrub 15 75 4.0 Deslime 2X,200m Condo in cell 0.25 18 0.40 2'dr pps Float olivine 3 Clean olivine Scrub conc. 15 75 4.0 Deslime 2X.200m Condo in cell 0.25 18 0.30 2 dr pps Float olivine Scrub olivine IS 7) Des lime Remarks:

Yield = 60.0% Ign. Loss = 0.38%

Recovery - 93.8%

---


Table 10


Sample No. __ 3258"'--...... L~ _____ _ Test No. _---'-4=2 ___ .

Engineer _______ . Date 4/11/68

Object of Test -.-!!5>tation, Acid-Scrub Concentrate

Product Wt. '"if -rgn-;-c -~ -- ----Loss

+35 m. 2.3 4.15 Cone. FP 56.2 0.61 Cl. Tails 6.8 4.20

13.4 ---I-.

Ro. Tails 7.16 1st Slimes 11.8 10.24 2nd Slimes 7.2 10.44 LoSS 2.3 . Total 100.0

(Scrubbed) cone. 86.2 0.25 Slimes 13.8 3.00 -Total 100.0

Process Reagents

Equipment Time % Alamac (min) Solid pH NaOH 11-C MIBC H2SO4

Rod Mill 2 70 4.0 -Screen 35 m De S lime 2X,2001I 1 Scrub 20 75 4.0 Des lime 2X,200n 1 Condo in cell 0.25 0.35 2C1li ops Float olivine 18 Clean olivine Scrub oliv.conc 30 75 5~ Deslime 2X,200n

Remarks:

yielQ = 48.5'7. Ign. Loss = 0.25

Recovery - 75.8'7.

(Reser & flo


Table 11


Sample Na. -=-3::.:25::.:8=----=L~ _____ _ Test Na. _4.:..::3'----________ _

Engineer ____ _ Date 4/1._2_1_6_8 _____ _

Object of Test Flotation and Acid Scrub Concentrate and Re-f1oat ~~~~~~---------------

----- ----Product 19n. Wt. % Loss

+35 m. 3.0 3.79 -Cone. FP 67.3 0.93 C1. Tails 2.8 9.06 -Ro. Tails 4.4 10.41 1st Slimes 11.0 10.61 2nd Slimes 8.4 10.61 Loss 3.1

-Total 100.0

t bbedJJConc. FP 91.7 0.41 ~ ted1 Tails 1.3 2.02 -

Slimes 7.0 6.23 Total 100.0

Process Reagents

Equipment Time 0/0 Alama (min) Solid pH NaOH 11-C MIBC H')SO,,-

Rod Mi·ll 2 70 4.0 Screen 35 m. Deslime 2X. 200~ 1 Scrub 30 75 4.0 De s lime 2X.2001 1 Condo in cell 0.25 18 0.40 2 dr« ~DS Float olivine 2 Clean olivine Scrub cone. 30 75 5% -Deslime 2X 20011 Condo in cell 0.25 0.30 2 dr« ~DS Float olivine

Remarks:

Yield = 61.6~ Ign. Loss = 0.41

Recovery = 96.3%

- 18 -


Table 12


Sample No. 3258- L Test No. __ 4-'-4 _______ _

Engineer __ _ Date 4/12168~ _____ _

Object of Test __ F_1otation With Acid Scrub of Conce=.n=.t.::..r::..:a::..:t:..:e~ ___________ _

--J:gn • ---_ .. Product WI. % Loss

+20 m. 1.7 4.73 Conc. FP 69.0 1.11 C1. Tails 2.2 8.95 Ro. Tails 5.2 9.50 1st Slimes 9.0 10.21 2nd Slimes 10.0 11.00 Loss 2.9 -Total 100.0

(Rescrubbed) cone 97.8 0.82 Slimes 2.2 3.78 -Total 100.0

Process Reagents

Equipment Time % A1amaCi (min) Solid pH NaOH ll-C MIBC H2SO4

Rod Mill 2 40 Screen 20 m. Des lime 2X,200II 1 Scrub 30 75 4.0 Des lime 2X,200n 1 Condo in cell 0.25 18 0.4 2 dr( ps Float olivine Clean olivine Scrub conc. 30 75 5%

-Deslime 2X,200n

Remarks:

Yield = 67.5% 19n. Loss = 0.82

Recovery =100%


Table 13


Sample No. ---,3~2~5~8~_-2:L!--_____ _ Test No. __ 4'-='5'---_______ _

Engineer _____ _ Date _ 4/12(6.8 ________ _

Object of Test Acid Scrub Before Flotation

--I-grr;- ,--- -- -----,-- _ .... _--,----Product Wt. % Loss

+20 m. 1.2 5.02 Conc. FP 57.7 0.75 Cl Tails 10.4 3.63 Ro. Tails 7.6 6.52 1st Slimes 8.6 10.02 2nd Slimes 10.8 11.65 l.oss 3.7 -Total 100.0

I Rescrubbed)conc 98.0 0.54 Slimes 2.0 4.67 -Tot .. 1 100.0

Process Reagents

Equipment Time % Alama (min) Solid pH H? S04 ll-C MIBC

Rod Mill 2 40

Screen 20 m. Deslime 2X,200t 1 Wemco scrub 30 75 5% Deslime 2X,2001 1

Ne 1 tralize wi th H2( Condo in cell 0.25 0.4 2 dr ~ps Float olivine Clean olivine Scrub olivine 10 75 0.1 Deslime 2X,200D

Remarks:

Yield = 56.6% Ign. Loss = 0.54%

Recoverv = 88.4%


Table 14


Sample No. _-=3-=2.=:.5.::.8--=A:.::..--=L~ __ - __ Test No. __ 1 ________ _

Engineer ___ _ Date 4/8/68 ~---

Object of Test ~t:~nd and Deslime Thirty SOO-Gram S.:..:a=m::!p:..:l:..:e:..:s ____________ _

-- -- -Product Wt. 'lr .ran. L ss ---'--

+20 m. 2.4 4.71 --20+200 88.4 3.09 -200 Slimes 9.2 9.78 Total ~OO.O 3.74

Feed 3.98 -

-

Process Reagents

Equipment Time % (min) Solid pH

Grind 2 40

Screen 20 m. Des lime 2X.200m

-

Remarks:

Each sample ground in stainless stell mill with 10 rods.


Table 15


Test No. 2

Engineer _________ . Date _ 4/16!6~ ______ _

Object of Test Ta~le Separation of Deslimed Rod Hilled Ore (-20+200 Mesh) No Scrub Before Tabling

---- --lgn-;- --- ---Product Wt. 'it Loss

Cone. 56.6 O.lie Tails -

35.5 5.57 Slimes 7.9 8.22 Total 100.0 --:r:89- -_."

Feed 3.09

.

-

Process Reagents

Equipment Time % (min) Solid pH

Rod Mill 2 40 Screen 20 m. Des lime 2X,200n 1 Table

Remarks:

Head feed ore waS obtained from batch rod milling thirtv 500-gram samples, screening on 20 mesh! and des liming two times on 200 mesh (see Table 14),

Yield = 50.0% Ign. Loss = 0.46%

Recovery = 78.1%

Percent weights in table are baseo on deslimeo feed representing 88.4 percent of original head feed.

-- f-----

.---


Table 16


Sample No. -E58:- AL- 1 Test No. 3

Engineer ___ ._ .. __ . Date 4/16.1_6_8 _______ _

Object of Test Table Separation of Deslimed Rod Milled Ore (-20+200 Mesh) Scrubbed Before Tabling

. _--... -Tgn-;--" - .---. Product Wt. % Loss

Cone. 57.2 0.38 Tails 39.2 4.60 Slimes 3.6 4.18 - -Total 100.0 2.17

Head Feed 2.27 -

-

.-

Process Reagents

Equipment Time % (min) Solid pH NaOH

Rod Mill 2 40 Screen 20 m. Des lime 2X,200I Wemco scrub 10 75 4.0 Des lime 2X,2001 Table

Remarks:

Head feed ore was obtained from batch rod mi11in2 thirtv SOO-gram samples screening on 20 mesh, and desliming two times on 200 mesh.

Yield = 45.5% Ign. Loss = 0.38%

Recovery = 70.9%

Percent weights in table are based on des1imed feed re~resenting 79.3 percent of original head feed.

-


Table 17


Sample No. __ 32_5_8 __ -_A_L_-_2 ____ _ Test No. 5

4/19/68 Engineer __ _ Date ---------

Object of Test Flotation (With Scrubbing) of Table Concentrate ~~~~~~------------From Test 2 (No Scrubbing Before Tabling)

l"gn-;- r--- -- ----- - ---r---- r--" Product Wt. '7(. Cum.% Loss

Conc. 82.0 92.8 0.17 0.11 Cl. Tails 10.8 0.65 Ro. Tails 4.4 0.66 Slimes 2.0 8.27 LoSS 0.8 ----Total 100.0 0.36

-

Head Feed 0.46

-

Process Reagents

Equipment Time 0/0 NaOH 11-C MIBC (min) Solid pH rpm Wemco scrub 30 75 1750 -4-.-U

Deslime 2X,200m Condo in cell P.25 0.20 2 dro s Float olivine Clean olivine

-

Remarks:

Rougher Float Yield = 46.4% Ign. Loss = 0.17% Recovery = 72.5%

Cleaner Float Yield = 41.0% Ign. Loss = 0.11% Recovery - 64.0%

- 24 -


Table 18


Sample No. 3258-AL-3 Test No. 6

Engineer ___ , Date __ 4~/1~9...:../_6_8 _______ _

Object of Test __ F}otation (No Scrubbing) of Tab1e-:"CL""0;-:n;-:c::-:e::-;n,t_r_a_t_e __________ _ From Test 3 (Scrubbed Before Tabling)

------ -rot. ~ -.----~

Product Wt. % Loss Conc. FP 98.1 0.35 Tails 1.5 2.06 Loss 0.4 Total 100.0 0.37

Head Feed 0.38 -

-

Process Reagents

Equipment Time % A1ama MIBC (min) Solid pH rpm ll-C

Condo in cell 0.25 18 1200 0.4 2 drc ps Float olivine 2 Clean olivine

-

Remarks: ._-

Yiela: = lj:lj:.5% Ign. Loss - 0.35%

Recovery = 69.5%

---


Table 19


Sample No. _-=.3~2-=-58::----,B::.::L~ ____ _ Test No. 7

Engineer ___ . ___ . Date __ _

Object of Test Table Separation and Scavenger Sepa __ ra_t_i_o_n_o_f_T_a_i_l_s ________ _

-

18~s - ---- -~ --- _.

Producl !cum. % ---

WI. 'ii

Cl. Cone. 38.0 t 0.41 --1----

--C1. Scavo Cone. 17 .6 55.6 0.631 1.09 C1. Scavo Tail~ 1.5 2.42

- -1st C1. Tails 2.0 2.31 2nd C1. Tails 0.9 2.21 Ro. Scav. Tails 19.1 8.14 1st Slimes 11.0 10.64 2nd Slimes 4.0 9.78 Loss 5.9 -Total 100.0 3.7S

-

- --Process Reagents

--

Equipment Time % Solid pH

--

Remarks:

1st Slime -200 slime after rod milling ore 2nd Slime = -200 slime after rod milling table tails

Orie.inal table cone. cleaned 2 times.

Original table tails cleaned 2 times.

Yield = 55.6% 19n. Loss = 0.63'7.. ---

Recovery = 86.9%


Table 20


Sample No. 325B-47N Test No. __ 3:::-. _______ _

Engineer ______________ _ Date ____________ _

Object of Test ____ Am_i_n_e_S_e_r_i_e_s _______ _

.--.-- ---- ---- ---------Product Wt_ % tass

Cl. FP Cone. 75.0 0.B7 1st C1. Tails 3.0 6.10 2nd Cl. Tails 1.3 4.B7 MD Tails 13.0 7.45 Slimes 6.7 11.05 Loss 1.0 -Total 100.0 2.60 -

Head Feed 2.52

Process Reagents

Equipment Time 0/0 Alama (min) Solid pH rpm NaOH ll-C MIBC

Wemco scrub 10 75 1750 4.0 Deslime 2X,1000 1 Condo in cell 0.25 IB 0.50 2 dr ps Float olivine 3 Clean olivine 2 Clean olivine

Remarks:

Yield = 59.9% 19on. Loss - 0.B7%.

Recovery = 93.6%

Percent weights in table are based on des limed feed representine: 79.B percent of orillinal head feed

---

- 27 -


Table 21


Sample Na. ~?S-47~N~ __ _ Test Na. 19

Engineer _____ . Date ____ .

Object of Test __ ~ine Series

1--. -lgn .. ~-- --- ---,---- ---Product Wt. 'If Loss Cl. FP Cone. 72.S 0.93 Cl. Tails 5.2 4.9i MD Tails 15.4 6.70 - --_. Slimes 6.4 11.77

-Loss 0.2 - ---Total 100.0 -- -

-

-

- - -

Process Reagents

Time % I~u.ama\

Equipment (min Solid pH rpm NaOH ll-C MISC

Wemco scrub lU 75 175U -'f~O

Deslime 2X.100J Condo in cell 9.25 lS 0.60 2 dr ps Float olivine 3 Clean olivine 2.5

--

Remarks: '--

Yield = 58.1% -- Ign. Loss = 0.93%

Recovery = 90.S%

Percent weights in table are based on deslimed feed representing 79.S percent of ori2inal head feed.

-----

- 28 -


Table 22


Sample No. 32~8-~7N _____ _ Test No. _13~ _______ _

Engineer ___ ~~_~ __ _ Date __ _

Ob f T Amine Series ject 0 est _________________ _

-18~~-- - -- ---- ---- ----- ---~----

Product Wt. 'if - -

Cl. FP Cone. 69.3 0.76 1st Cl. Tails

. -4.2 -4.97

~~ ------ -

2nd Cl. Tails 6.7 3.35 Ro. Tails 13.6 7.75 Slime 5.9 11.55 ----Loss 0.3 ---Total 100.0 .

f----

-

- ::.==-- =-Process Reagents

-Alama~ ~-

Equipment Time % (min) Solid pH rpm NaOH ll-C MIBC

Wemco scrub 10 75 1750 4.0 Des lime 2X.lOOm 1 Condo in cell 0.25 18 0.50 2 dr )Ps Float olivine 2.5 Clean olivine 2 Clean olivine 2

--

Remarks: ---

Yield = 55.3% Ign. LQ..s_s = 0.26% _.

Recovery = 86.4%

Percent weights in table are based on des limed feed reoresentinQ 79.8 percent of original head feed.

~---

---


Table 23


Sample No. _3=.c2::..:5=8:c...-__ 4~7.=..:N _____ _ Test No. 12

Engineer __ _ Date __ _

Object of Test __ ~_i_n_e_S~e...::r_i...::e_s _______ _

------.-lgn-.--- -.-----.. --- -.. ---.~ ---Product Wt. 7c- Cum.% Loss FP Ro. Cone. 51.5 j 0.74

-~ 1-----

C1. Cone. 30.6 82.1 1.10 1 2.34 1st C1. Tails 4.1 8.43

4.0 -- f-. 2nd Cl. Tails 7.33 Ro. Tails 1.5 11. 75 1st Slimes 3.8 13.07 2nd Slimes 1.9 8.38 . LoSS 2.6 -Total 100.0

-

L

Process Reagents Alama --

Equipment Time % (min Solid pH rpm NaOH ll-C MIBe

Wemco scrub 10 75 1750 4.0 Deslime 2X.100m 1 Condo in cell 0.25 18 0.40 2 dr )Ps Float olivine Rod mill roo tai s 1 60 2.0 Deslime 2X.100m Condo in cell Float olivine e .40 4 dr bps Clean olivine

Remarks: ._-

1st Float Yield - 41.1% Ign. Loss = 0.74% Recovery - 64.2%

Combined Float Yield = 65.5% I~n. Loss = 1.10% Recovery = 100.0%

Percent weights in table are based on des limed feed .--representing 79.8 percent of original head feed.


Table 24


Sample No. __ 3~.:l~-_~7-B:..N,"-__ _ Test No. 7

Engineer _______ . _________ _ Date ___ _

Object of Test __ A~:=i:..::o~n:.=i..::c--=:.S.=.e.::.ri=-e=-s:....... ______ _

---- -ign-;- -- - . .---. -. ---- ---- _._---Product Wt. 'if Cum.% Loss ---

MD - Olivine 67.8 0.44 FP Tails - 24.2 ---- 6.05 Slimes 6.7 lO.94 ._-- -_.-

Loss 1.3 -Total lOO.O -_. -

--t-o

-_. -

Process Reagents .-

Equipment l~"i'h % Solid pH rpm NaOH H2SO4 M-70 F.O. P.O.

Wemco scrub lO 75 1750 4.0 ...

Des lime 2X, lOOm 1 Condo in condo 3 65 5.5 3.0 0.6 1. 70 2 drc ps Condo in cell 0.1 .. - f--.--Float gangue

- _.

Remarks: --

Yield - 54. L% Ign. Loss = 0.44%

Recovery - 84.5%

Percent weights in table are based on deslimed feed representing 79.8 percent of original head feed.

----


Table 25


Sample No. _. 3258-47N Test No. __ 1 ________ _

Engineer _0 _____ .---_. ____ _

Dote ____________ _

Object of Test __ . A..'lionic Series

-- __ 00- --- -r-grr.- ---- - .. ----...----- ------,--- ---Product

Wt. ':'t LOss Olivine 59.7 0.28

-.f-- .-----MD -

32.8 5.19 1----

FP - Tails Slimes 6.8 11.55 -- ... -LosS 0.7 -Total 100.0 2.66 -

Head Feed 2.52 -

-

Process Reagents .--

Time 'It Equipment (min) Solid pH rpm NaOH M-70 F.O. P.O. Wemco scrub 10 75 1750 4.0 Deslime 2X,lOOm 1 Condo in condo 3 70 700 15cc 0.70 1. 70 2 dr I>ps Condo in cell 0.1 1200 Float 2an~ue 3

- --

Remarks: ---

"XUnknown alkaline reagent

yIeld - "47.6% Ign. Loss = 0.28% Recovery = 74.41-

percent we1gnEs 1n Ea5Ie are 5aseo on oesIImeo feeo representing 79.8 percent of original head feed.

-~--


Table 26


Sample No. __ ~}21~~2 Test No.

Engineer ____ ~o __ 0 __ 0 _0 ____ _ Date ___ 0 _______ _

Object of Test ~~d Scrub Tests (P.P. Olivine Ino -=P:...::r,-=o...:cd-=u-=c.;;;.t~) ___________ _

t12;:)l4

Product __ 0 --- 0lgrr.-0 o _____ ,---_ -- --.---~

WI. 'I, % Ib/to Loss - 95.B 40 200- 0.27 Conc. 0-_- ---- ~--. -Slimes 4.2 Total 100.0

-~ ---- --- __ 0 1---- ~---~ _00

Conc. 95.5 20 133 0.26 ---

Slimes 4.5 Total 100.0 -

Cone. 96.3 10 Db.5 10:28 Slimes 3.7 Total 100.0

-Conc. 96.8 5 33.2 0.33 Slimes 3.2 ITotal WU.O

-~-

Cone. 98.0 9 0 0.54 Slimes 2.0 Total 100.0

Head Feed 0.62

-~-

Remarks:

400 gram samples 0-

Acid scrubbed (Wemco scrubber) iSh solids, 10 min •• 1600 I:pm

Des lime 2X at 200 mesh, 1 minute settling

The feed material for this test was obtained from a concentrate produced in a spiral pilot plant. The ~ilot Elant recovered 70.8% of the head feed as a product which assayed 0.91% loss on ignition. ---The inO product represented 68.8% of the spiral concentrate.

~., 1 __ .. , ___ ,. ~ __ ,_ ._._ . 5/5/71

CONFIDENTIAL RBPORr PILES (68-26 & 68-27)

~ with reference to Reports 68-26 and 68-27, dealing with research

by RML and JPN on Frank olivine (Sample No. 3258):

During March 1970, R. lol. Lewis was informed verbally by Carroll

P. Roqers, Jr., Vice President of Feldspar Corporation, that

sponsored research reports on olivine performed by MRL for FC could

be made public, since that company was no lonqer interested in

beneficiatinq or selling olivine.

Since Fe paid only for work performed by RML, it may be assumed that

research by JPN on this same sample, \'1hich ",as not paid for or

sponsored, may also be set out as public information.

In May 1971, copies of the above reports were given to Dr. Paul Bennett

of C. E. Minerals Inc., ,-,ho t'las currently interested in olivine and

\.mo submitted a sample of his o~m (No. 3865) for evaluation.

11./ I Ii / C· ,I .. y ( ( I

" ;

{. ;,.-, , (-, I

/ 'i .. J /. ! \:

I ( ;',

" 1/// /' I / i

j I

(i L i I " ~.' I I I( ,;.

oj

(; I

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------9/2/71 These 2 reports (68-26-P and 6827-P) ARE in the Public Report files.

In addition to above distribution, a copy of each of these have been sent (9/2/71) to Jerry Bundy.

, .......

Robert M. Lewis Procedure - P2 InfoHouseTable No. 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 15 16 17 Main Variable...

Documents

Transcript of Robert M. Lewis Procedure - P2 InfoHouseTable No. 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 15 16 17 Main Variable...