PARTICLES THE BRIDGE BETWEEN GEOLOGY AND METALLURGY

Pertti Lamberg Lule University of Technology, Mineral Processing, SE-971 87 LULE, SWEDEN

ABSTRACT Geometallurgy combines geological and metallurgical information to create spatiallybased predictive model for mineral processing plants. A review of how geometallurgy is currently applied in mining industry shows that the linkage of geological information and metallurgical response relies on small number of samples tested in laboratory. Therefore a holistic particle-based approach is proposed. The particle-based approach uses minerals and particles as a common parameters going through the geometallurgical program from the collecting of the geological data to the process simulations. The approach consists of three quantitative models: 1) geological model, 2) particle breakage model and 3) unit process models. The geological model describes quantitatively and spatially modal composition and texture of the ore. The particle breakage model that describes quantitatively what kind of particles will be produced as the rocks given by the geological model are broken. The unit process models quantify how particles behave in different unit operations. For developing and managing the models some practical techniques are described and proposed. Finally the models are combined in a simulator which is used to run the process simulation and derive process performance parameters for each ore block individually. The process performance parameters include figures like throughput; energy consumption; concentrate recovery and grade; and tailing properties. Finally a practical example from Kemi chromite mine is given.

Introduction Demands for more effective utilisation of orebodies and proper risk management in mining industry have emerged a new branch called geometallurgy. Geometallurgy combines geological and metallurgical information to create spatially-based predictive model for mineral processing plants. It is not really a discipline itself because it is related to certain ore deposit and certain processing flow sheet and therefore it can be rather regarded as a practical amalgamation of ore geology and minerals processing. This paper makes a short review of how geometallurgy is currently applied in mining industry. The review brings out the fact that the linkage of geological information and metallurgical response relies on small number of samples tested in laboratory. To strengthen the link this paper introduces a concept where particles are used as a bridge between geology and metallurgy.

Geometallurgical program a review Geometallurgical program is an organized attempt to create reliable, practical and useful model of an ore deposit and mineral processing plant that is used to exploit the resource. Geometallurgical program goes through following steps (modified after Bulled & McInnes 2005, David 2007 and Dobby et al. 2004, Figure 1): 1. Collection of geological data through drilling, drill core logging, measurements, chemical analyses, and other analyses. 2. An ore sampling program for metallurgical testing where geological data is used in the identification of preferred locations for the samples. 3. Laboratory testing of these samples in order to extract process model parameters (sometimes called ore variability testing). 4. Checking the metallurgical validity of the geological ore-type definitions and, where necessary, developing new ore-type definitions called geometallurgical domains. 5. Developing mathematical relationships for the estimation of important metallurgical parameters across the geological database. 6. Developing a metallurgical model of the process. The model consists of unit operations which use the metallurgical parameters defined above. 7. Plant simulation using the metallurgical process model and the distributed metallurgical parameters as the data set. 8. Calibration of the models via benchmarking for existing operations.

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8.

Collection of geological data Ore sampling for metallurgical testing Metallurgical laboratory testing Establishing geometallurgical domains Model to derive metallurgical parameters Establishing process model for simulation Plant simulations Model calibration

Figure 1. Steps of a geometallurgical program.

2.2

Benefits of the geometallurgical program Justification for the geometallurgical program comes from the potential to bring some of the following benefits compared to traditional approach: Better utilisation of the ore resources because ore boundaries are defined also on the basis (forecasted) metallurgical performance. Better metallurgical performance because it is possible to tune the process according to the information of the plant feed beforehand. Better controlled mining due to more comprehensive knowledge of the ore body. Better changes in plant optimisation because the variation in the plant feed is low or, at least, is better controlled. Better changes for new technological solutions because ore-derived problems are identified well ahead and research programs can focus on solving these. Lowering risks in the operation though better knowledge of the ore body and the process and through more controlled process chain. Better possibilities for economical optimising of the full operation considering metal prices, alternative products and costs of commodities. Problem of representativeness In the geometallurgical programs the weakest points are normally in inadequate information collected from the drill cores and small number of samples sent for metallurgical testing. In the metallurgical testing quite small samples, in terms of size and number, should represent large tonnages of the ore. Commonly some tens of carefully selected and prepared samples are tested (Schowstra et al. 2010, Morrell, 2009, Philander & Rozendaal, 2008 & 2010), but there are cases where the whole program is based on less than ten samples (David 2007, Suazo et al. 2010). This sets high requirements for the sampling and sample preparation to avoid the sampling error to rise so high that it limits the usefulness of collected data (Gy 1982, Pitard 1989a and b). There lies also a dilemma in selecting and preparing metallurgical samples based on geological information: tested samples should represent the full variability of the ore in terms of metallurgical response and this can be known only after the tests have been done. To make the sampling (step 2) and definition of geometallurgical domains (step 3) more reliable new rock measurement and analysis techniques are needed (for the step 1). This has been under strong development in recent years (Walters 2008). The challenge is that measurements and analyses have to be done for a very big number of samples, from thousands to hundreds of thousands. Techniques must be fast, inexpensive and preferentially fully automated. Detailed review of the techniques is out of the scope of this paper, but broadly they can be divided in three groups: a) techniques measuring rock properties, b) techniques of quantitative mineralogy and c) geometallurgical tests.

2.3

Logging of petrophysical parameters directly from the drill core is an example of (a) geometallurgical technique which measures the properties of rock (Vantandoost et al. 2008). Quantitative mineralogical techniques (b) measure the mineralogical properties like modal composition, mineral grain size, mineral association and presence of some minerals. Techniques used are optical microscopy image analysis (Leinonen 1998; Liipo et al. 2004; Hunt et al 2008; Lane et al. 2008; Donskoi et al. 2007, 2008), scanning-electron (SEM) based image analysis (Gu 2003, Fandrich et al. 2007; Oghazi et al 2009, 2010, Lund & Martinsson 2008, Lund et al. 2010, Hallewell 2009, Hoal et al. 2009), X-ray diffraction (Helle 2005, Knorr 2010) and reflectance spectroscopy (hyperspectral methods; CSIRO 2011, Haavisto & Kaartinen 2009, Da Costa et al. 2009, Pirard et al. 2008). Methods measuring the metallurgical response directly (c) are called geometallurgical tests. This is an area of rapid development but scientific publications are currently very few. In comminution commercial laboratories report on the existence of following geometallurgical tests (JKTech 2010): GeM Comminution Index (GeMCi), GeM RBT Lite (GeM Rotary Breakage Tester, Lite) and EQUOtip (Portable hardness tester). In downstream processes Bradshaw (2010) has mentioned a small-scale flotation test called JKMSI (JK Mineral Separability Indicator). Lund et al. (2010) used laboratory-scale dry magnetic separator (Mrtsell) to measure the metallurgical response of iron ore to magnetic separation. Metallurgical or geometallurgical parameters determined by testing dont forecast directly the behaviour of a single ore block in a full process. For this a mineral processing model needs to be built (step 6). The model includes the full closed processing circuit and composes of unit processes. The unit processes include static process related parameters (like number of units and size of the units), and ore related parameters which match with the geometallurgical parameters determined earlier. The simulation environment must be capable to handle both size reduction and concentration. Traditionally comminution simulations and concentration simulations have been separate. The former gives throughput, energy consumption and size distribution of the comminution circuit (Morrell, 2009) but doesnt deal with chemical elements and minerals. Thus, it does not give the size distribution of the comminution circuit product (e.g. cyclone overflow) by mineral. Concentration models, on the other hand, are mostly ignoring the particle size distribution (e.g. Runge et al. 1997). Once the models are combined in a simulation platform it is possible, by running a steady-state simulation, to get metallurgical performance figures like throughput, energy consumption, concentrate recovery and grade, and tailing properties for each ore block or feed blend. The simulations can be done basically with any steady-state simulator capable to handle both comminution and concentration processes and at least JKTech (JKSimMet: Morrison et al. 2002; JKSimFloat: Collins et al. 2009), SGS/Minnovex (CEET: Kosick et al

2001, FLEET: Dobby et al. 2002) and Outotec (HSC Chemistry: Lamberg et al. 2009, Lamberg 2010) provide such tools. SGS has developed a specific geometallurgical simulator, IGS, Integrated Geometallurgical Simulator, which can solve steady-state problems faster than traditional simulators mentioned above (Hatfield et al. 2010). The main problem in the process model is that the original model parameters have to be derived from limited number of laboratory tests and still they should give a reliable forecast for the full deposit at any time of the history of the mine (Figure 2). The model should respond to changes in the process, for example changes in head grade and throughput. 3 Particle-based approach Particle-based approach proposed here uses minerals and particles to link geology and metallurgy. As such this approach has not been used but all the components required have been applied separately in some of the referred studies. The particle-based approach cant avoid the fact that the samples selected for the metallurgical testing form the crucial base for the information and if the samples are not representative the final geometallurgical model is erroneous. However, particle-based approach uses minerals and particles from the very beginning to the end (Figure 2). Therefore there are common parameters which go through the different steps of the geometallurgical program. This gives better changes to succeed in the critical steps of sampling (step 2, Figure 1) and building a model between geology and metallurgy (steps 4-5, Figure 1). Particle-based geometallurgical approach consists of three models (Figure 2): 1) Geological model which gives the mineralogy by ore block. 2) Particle breakage model which forecasts which type of particles will be generated when different ore blocks and rocks break down. 3) Unit process models forecast how different particles behave in a unit process. 3.2 Geological model In the particle-based approach it is required that the geological model describes the mineralogy of the ore block in a quantitative and adequate way. This is a challenging, and potentially expensive, requirement because much of the geological data gathered traditionally is qualitative or semi-quantitative. The model should give, preferentially, modal composition (mineral composition by weight percentage) and textural information throughout the ore deposit (block model). The modal composition can be solved from chemial assays with element-to-mineral conversion (Lamberg 1997, Whiten 2008, Lamberg and Vianna 2009). This, however, requires that mineralogy is not too complex and chemical assays are designed properly. Methods like X-ray diffraction and reflectance spectroscopy can be used as discussed above (chapter 2).

Process model parameters

Geological data Metallurgical testing

Samples for metallurgical testing

Model to derive metallurgical parameters from geological data

Metallurgical parameters into block model

Production forecast

Plant model and simulations

Particles

Geological model
Mineralogy

Particle breakage model

Unit process model

Particles behaviour

Production forecast

Simulations

Figure 2. Comparison of currently used geometallurgical approach (above) and particle-based approach proposed here (below).

Textural information is much more difficult to describe quantitatively and to model than modal composition. Furthermore, unlike mineral grades, textural variables are not necessarily linear or additive and therefore require very careful geostatistical consideration when applied in the block model (Dunham & Vann 2007). The AMIRA P843 and P843A projects have done a lot of research and development in quantitative characterisation of textures (Walters 2008, AMIRA 2009) and part of that work has been published (Berry et al. 2008; Bonnici et al. 2008 and 2009; Hunt et al. 2008 and 2010). In the project a relatively inexpensive method for collecting mineralogical data has been developed. Drill core samples are crushed and a polished thin section are prepared from one coarse size fraction (0.6-1.18 mm). By optical micrsocopy and advance image analysis particles and minerals are identified automatically. Textural information is stored in mineral maps (Figure 3) for further processing by image analysis techniques (see chapter 3.3). Besides textural information the technique gives also a modal composition of (one, representative size fraction of) the sample.

Figure 3. Mineral maps produced by the MLA: Frame view (left) and a close up of one particle in a particle view (above) of a nickel Flash Concentrate, size fraction 75-150 microns. 3.3 Particle breakage model The particle breakage model of the particle-based geometallurgical approach is a general rule or collection of rules which quantitatively tells what kind of particles will come out as the rocks, given by the geological model, are broken. A name liberation model has also been used but here, a more generic name was chosen to emphasize that current model does not gives liberation distribution described by statistics but actual particles. As an input the model takes the modal composition and the textural information from the geological model. In addition the model requires that the size distribution of the progeny particles is given; this comes from the unit model (see chapter 3.4). The model gives as an output the progeny particles. Each particle in the model output has following properties: size, mineral composition by weight, mineral composition by volume, mineral composition by surface area, flowrate or mass proportion of all the particles (t/h), and (texture as a particle map, potentially). Several different model have been developed in past to forecast the liberation distribution of comminution products. Models which take an image of an unbroken ore and calculate the outcome by random breakage assumption (e.g. King 1979, Stamboliadis, 2008; Gay 2004) were found to fail (Laslett et al. 1990). Introduction of more parameters made the model very difficult and tedious to calibrate and their portability became questionable (Wei and Gay 1999; Gay 1999, 2004; King & Schneider 1998). Two quite recent studies serve a simpler approach matching perfectly with the structure of the particle-based geochemical approach described here. Hunt et al. (2008, 2010) and Bonnici et al. (2008, 2009) simulated the fragmentation of

particles by applying chessboard segmentation on the particle map of one size fraction (0.6-1.18 m, see previous chapter for description of the measurement). Vizcarra et al. (2010), on the other hand, showed that liberation distribution is conserved in narrow size classes regardless of global size distribution of the sample or of the breaking mechanism. These studies introduce a new technique for establishing the particle breakage model: from the rock texture given by the geological model it is possible to populate particles with mineralogical and physical properties for any given size distribution. 3.4 Unit process models The unit process models describe quantitatively how different particles behave in a single processing stage. In minerals processing the behaviour of particles is dictated by particle properties therefore the unit models have to include, as parameters, the particle properties like size, composition and density. The structure of the simulator binding up the unit models must be based on particles (Lamberg 2010). The unit operations models used in minerals processing can be divided in three types: Comminution models where particle size distribution changes. Separation models where particles are distributed between two or more output streams based on their physical properties. Leaching and precipitation models where liquid phase is an active component and minerals dissolve and new phases are formed through chemical reactions. In the comminution unit models (grinding mills, crushers) it is possible to use the particle breakage model described above. Therefore in the model the forecasting of liberation distribution and total size distribution can be decoupled. In the latter the traditional population balance breakage models can be used (Weller et al. 1996, Alruiz et al. 2009, Vogel & Peukert 2003). Most of the models of separation and leaching, which industry uses, are semiempirical. In minerals processing the fundamental process model based entirely on physics, chemistry and particle properties are still quite far away from being practical and accurate enough for everyday use. For example the physical flotation model which describes sub processes of collision, attachment, bubble rise, detachment and froth behaviour requires tens of parameters, which are mostly difficult to determine or estimate (King 2001). Therefore commonly used approach is so called floatability component model, where each mineral is divided into three kinetic types: fast floating, slow floating and non-floating (Runge et al. 1997). Although the division into kinetic types is based on mathematical model fitting, Polat and Chander (2000), and more recently Welsby et al. (2010), have found that there exist a clear link between the floatability type and physical properties of particles (i.e. mineral composition of particles).

The development of property based models in minerals and metallurgical processing requires that particle properties can be measured in different parts of the process. Liberation analysis is state-of-the-art technique (Sutherland et al. 1997, 1998, Gu, 2003, Fandrich et al. 2007) and X-ray tomography is an emerging method (Miller et al. 2003). The liberation measurement gives quantitative information on particles in process stream but for the modelling purposes a particle mass balance is required. Lamberg and Vianna (2007) have developed a particle tracking, which is a mass balancing technique of multiphase liberation data. The technique gives a quantitatively description how different particle types (liberation classes) behave in single process units and the full process. Vianna (2004) and Lamberg & Vianna (2007) have shown that in flotation the flotation kinetics of binary galena-sphalerite and galena-quartz particles differs significantly from each other (Figure 4).

Figure 4. Recovery of binary galena-sphalerite (above) and galena-quartz (below) particles of size fraction 10-20 microns into the concentrate in continuous laboratory flotation test (Vianna 2004, Lamberg & Vianna 2007). Xaxis gives the mass proportion of galena in binary particles; 100% equals to fully liberated galena particle. The particle tracking technique gives an opportunity to develop unit models which are based on particle properties. This is an attractive tool for research and development but it is possible to apply the technique in a practical way in the particle-based geometallurgical program. The working plan is as follows: In selected metallurgical tests samples are sent for liberation analysis. Particle tracking technique is applied to establish a particle balance in each test. The particle classes are defined in a uniform way. Property-based unit models are created based on particle balance. 3.5 Combining the model in a simulation After completing the steps 1-6 it is time to put all the models together and do the geometallurgical simulations to derive the outcome of the full program:

metallurgical performance figures like throughput, energy consumption, concentrate recovery and grade, and tailing properties for each ore block or feed blend. In practise this goes through following stages: The process simulator is established to include all the minerals and particle classes which were found in the particle tracking to be significant. This is called global definitions (Figure 5). The process flowsheet is drawn and property-based models and model parameters are defined (unit properties Figure 5).
Global definitions Minerals Size Classes Particles Other solid component Liquid components Gas components

Stream, basic properties Particle Flowrates Liquid component flowrates Gas component flowrates Stream, calculated properties Mineral (modal) composition, chemical composition Denstity (specific gravity), %solids, Enthalpy, Unit properties Static unit parameters (e.g. size) Operational parameters

Figure 5. Structure of the property based simulator for minerals processing (Lamberg 2010). The geological model and geostatistical methods are applied through the whole geological database to have the required mineralogical information (modal composition, textural description) in all blocks in the ore block model (Figure 6). The master simulation loop is established and run (Figure 6). o The master loop goes one-by-one through the block model, takes one block and sends the information to the process simulator. o Process simulator takes the geological information and updates the feed characterisation information (called stream basic properties or mineral setup, Figure 5). o Steady-state simulation is run. o The key parameters like throughput, final concentrate tonnages, grade, and recovery are read from the simulation. o The loop goes to the next block.

 The process performance parameters are returned into the block model (Figure 6).

Figure 6. Example of simulation platform where ore block model, mining schedule and blend calculator has been combined with the particle-based model. Each block and blend is simulated separately to give forecasted metallurgical performance. The strucure enables to run simulations to schedule the production and to study different blending strategies. 4 Practical example Kemi chromite mine The particle-based approach may sound tedious and one can question whether the potential benefits will realise and pay back the costs of the program. As such the program is not in use. However, one example of a long ongoing geometallurgical program utilising mineralogy and particles in mining industry can be given. At Kemi chromite mine mineralogical information has been collected and used systematically in production planning for more than 15 years (Leinonen 1998, Huovinen 2007, Huhtelin pers. comm. 2011). The grain size of chromite varies in the deposit a lot and that has a big effect on processing. Therefore chromite grain size is measured in a systematic way from the drill cores. Polished sections are prepared in (unbroken) ore samples and the grain size distribution of chromite is determined with optical microscopy and image analysis (Figure 7). This information is fed into the ore block model. The size distribution of chromite is used to evaluate whether ore is suitable for fine concentration and to forecast the expected recovery. Estimation is based on findings that the grain size of chromite after grinding follows the grain size of the original chromite in the ore and that the recovery losses come in the gravity separation in the fine end (<80 microns).

100

80

11
60

Passing-%

12 12_2* 13
40

14

20

Figure 7. Processed binary images of Kemi Cr ore illustrating the variety in the grain size of chromite in the deposit. The width of the picture is about 3 mm. Chromite is shown in white, other minerals are black. Graph on left shows the cumulative size distribution of chromite. Size distribution data is generated from the optical images by image analysis techniques (Leinonen 1998, Liipo et al. 2004).

0 1000 700 550 450 350 250 150 100 50

Acknowledgements This paper was prepared within the Geometallurgy workpackage of the Center of Advanced Mining and Metallurgy (CAMM, WP1). Id like to thank Timo Huthelin (Outokumpu) and Jussi Liipo (Outotec) for their help and permission of using Kemi as a practical example. Im grateful to Sergio Vianna (University of Queensland, Julius Kruttschnitt Mineral Research Center) for excellent cooperation in the AMIRA P9 project where we developed the particle tracking technique. References
Alruiz, O.M., Morrell, S. Suazo, C.J. & Naranjo A., 2009. A novel approach to the geometallurgical modelling of the Collahuasi grinding circuit. Minerals Engineering 22 (2009) 10601067 AMIRA, 2009. GeM flies again. AMIRA Newsflash 4 August 2009. http://www.amira.com.au/web/documents/newsletter/events/20090804_Newsflash.html. Berry, R., Walters, S.G. & McMahon, C., 2008. Automated mineral identification by optical microscopy. Australasian Institute of Mining and Metallurgy Publication Series, pp. 91-94. Bonnici, N., Hunt, J., Walters, S., Berry, R., Kamenetsky, M., McMahon, C., and Nguyen, K., 2009. Integrating meso- and micro-textural information into mineral processing: an example from the Ernest Henry iron-oxide copper-gold deposit. proc. Canadian Mineral Processors, Ottawa, January 2009, paper 16, pp. 259-278. Bonnici, N., Hunt, J.A., Walters, S.G., Berry, R., Collett, D., 2008. Relating textural attributes to mineral processing - Developing a more effective approach for the Cadia east Cu-Au porphyry deposit. Australasian Institute of Mining and Metallurgy Publication Series, pp. 415-418. Bradshaw, D.J., 2010. Development of a new tool for process mineralogy. Process Mineralogy 10, Vineyard Hotel, Cape Town, South Africa, November 10-12, 2010. Bulled, D., McInnes, C., 2005. Flotation plant design and production planning through geometallurgical modeling (2005) Australasian Institute of Mining and Metallurgy Publication Series, pp. 809-814. Collins, D., Schwarz, S. E. E. and Alexander, D., 2009. Designing modern flotation circuits using JKFIT and JKSimFloat... In: Recent Advances in Mineral Processing Plant Design. Mineral Processing Plant Design - An update 2009 Conference, Tucson, Sept 30 - Oct 3, 2009, 197-201. CSIRO. HyLogging Systems. Hyperspectral mineralogical logging and imaging of drill core and chips. http://www.csiro.au/files/files/py3w.pdf Da Costa, G.M., Barron, V., Ferreira, C.M. and Torrent, J., 2009. The use of diffuse reflectance spectroscopy for the characterization of iron ores. Minerals Engineering 22, 1245-1250. David, D. 2007. The importance of geometallurgical analysis in plant study, design and operational phases. (2007) Australasian Institute of Mining and Metallurgy Publication Series, pp. 241-247. Dobby, G., Bennett, C., Bulled, D. and Kosick, 2004. Geometallurgical modeling The new approach to plant design and production forecasting/planning, and Mine/Mill Optimization. Proceedings of 36th Annual Meeting of the Canadian Mineral Processors, January 20-22, 2004. Ottawa, Canada, Paper 15. Dobby, G., Kosick, G. & Amelunxen, R., 2002. A focus on variability within the orebody for improved design of flotation plants. 34th Annual Canadian Mineral Processing Conference, Ottawa, Ontario 2002. Donskoi, E., Suthers, S.P., Campbell, J.J and Raynlun, T. 2008. Modelling and optimization of hydrocyclone for iron ore fines beneficiation using optical image analysis and iron ore texture classification. International Journal of Mineral Processing 87, 106-119. Donskoi, E., Suthers, S.P., Fradd, S.B., Young, J.M., Campbell, J.J., Raynlyn, T.D. and Clout, J.M.F. 2007. Utilization of optical image analysis and automatic texture classification for iron ore particle characterisation. Minerals Engineering, 20, 461-471.

Dunham, S., & Vann, J., 2007. Geometallurgy, geostatistics and project value - Does your block model tell you what you need to know? Australasian Institute of Mining and Metallurgy Publication Series, pp. 189-196. Fandrich, R., Gu, Y., Burrows, D. & Moeller, K., 2007. Modern SEM-based mineral liberation analysis. Int. J. Miner. Process. 84, 310320. Gay, S., 1999. Numerical verification of a non-preferential-breakage liberation model. International Journal of Mineral Processing 57, 125-134. Gay, S., 2004. A liberation model for comminution based on probability theory. Minerals Engineering 17, 525-534. Gay, S., 2004. Simple texture-based liberation modelling of ores. Minerals Engineering 17, 1209-1216. Gu, Y., 2003. Automated Scanning Electron Microscope Based Mineral Liberation Analysis. Journal of Minerals & Materials Characterization & Engineering, Vol. 2, No.1, 33-41. Gy, P.M., 1982. Sampling of Particulate Materials - Theory and Practise. Developments in Geomathematics 4, Elsevier. Haavisto, O. & Kaartinen, J., 2009. Multichannel reflectance spectral assaying of zinc and copper flotation slurries. Int. J. Miner. Process. 93, 187193. Hallewell, M., 2009. Geometallurgy for mine data. Materials World, 17 (7), pp. 48-50. Hatfield, D., Rumayor, H., Connolly, J. and Hatton, D., 2010. A fast method for solving mineral flotation circuit simulations. Procemin 2010. Helle, S., Kelm, U., Barrientos, A., Rivas, P., & Reghezza, A., 2005. Improvement of mineralogical and chemical characterization to predict the acid leaching of geometallurgical units from Mina Sur, Chuquicamata, Chile. Minerals Engineering 18 (2005) 13341336. Hoal, K.O, Appleby, S.K., Stammer, J.G. & Palmer, C., 2009. SEM-based quantitative mineralogical analysis of peridotite, kimberlite, and concentrate. Lithos 112S (2009) 41 46. Hunt, J., Berry, R. and Walters, S., 2010. Using mineral maps to rank potential processing behaviour. International Mineral Processing Congress (IMPC 2010), Brisbane, 2010, Congress Proceedings, pp. 2899-2905. Hunt, J.A., Berry, R., Walters, S.G., Bonnici, N., Kamenetsky, M., Nguyen, K., Evans, C.L., 2008. A new look at mineral maps and the potential relationships of extracted data to mineral processing behaviours. Australasian Institute of Mining and Metallurgy Publication Series, pp. 429-432. Huovinen, I., 2007. Kemin kromitiitin Cr/Fe-suhde kromiitin raekoon funktiona Pohjois-Viian, Elijrven ja Elijrven E -malmioissa. Pro-gradu ty, Oulun yliopisto, Geologian laitos. JKTech, 2010. JKTechs monthly e-Newsletter. December 2010. King, P. & Schneider, C.L., 1998. Mineral liberation and the batch communition equation. Minerals Engineering 11, 1143-1160. King, P., 1997. A model for the quantitative estimation of mineral liberation by grinding. International Journal of Mineral Processing 6, 207-220. King, R.P. 2001, Modeling and Simulation of Mineral Processing Systems. ButterworthHeinemann, Oxford, 403 p. Knorr, K., 2010. Advances in Quantitative X-ray Mineralogy. Process Mineralogy 10, 10-12 November 2010, Cape Town, South Africa. Kosick, G., Dobby, G. & Bennett, C., 2001. CEET (Comminution Economic Evaluation Tool) for comminution circuit design and production planning. SME 2001, Denver, Colorado. Lamberg, P. and Vianna, S., 2009. Element to Mineral Conversion and Mineral Balance in a Complex Nickel Sulphide Flotation Circuit. Flotation 09, Cape Town. Lamberg, P. and Vianna, S.M.S., 2007. A technique for tracking multiphase mineral particles in flotation circuits. In Lima, R. M. F., Ladeira, A. C. Q., Da Silva, C. A. et.al. (eds) Proceedings of VII Meeting of the Southern Hemisphere on Mineral Technology, Ouro Preto, Brasil, 195-202. Lamberg, P., 1997. Mineralogical balances by dissolution methodology. IMA COM Short course, Portugal.

Lamberg, P., 2010. Structure of a Property Based Simulator for Minerals and Metallurgical Industry. SIMS 2010, The 51st Conference on Simulation and Modelling, Oulu 14-15 October 2010. Lamberg, P., Bourke, P and Kujawa, C. 2009. Impact of Flash Flotation on Grinding and Main Flotation Circuits Design by Simulation and Case Studies. In Malhotra, D., Taylor, P.R., Spiller E. & LeVier, M. (eds.), Recent Advances in Mineral Processing Plant Design, 396405. Lane, G.R., Martin, C. and Pirard, E., 2008. Techniques and applications for predictive metallurgy and ore characterization using optical image analysis. . Minerals Engineering 21, 568-577. Lassett, G.M., Sutherland, D.N., Gottlieb, P. & Allen, N.R., 1990. Graphical assessment of a random breakage model for mineral liberation. Powder Technology 60, 83-97. Leinonen, O., 1998. Use of chromite microstructure image analysis to estimate concentration characteristics in the Kemi chrome ore. Acta Universitatis Ouluensis, A305. University of Oulu. 115 p. Liipo, J., Lamberg, P., Turunen J., & Pitkjrvi., J, 2004. Grain Size and Liberation of Chromite in Ground Chrome Ore from Kemi Mine, Finland. ICAM 2004 - The 8thInternational Congress on Applied Mineralogy (Aquas de Lindoia, Brazil, September 19-22, 2004. Lund, C. & Martinsson, O. 2008 A characterising of the ore minerals due to mineralogical, chemical and textural properties in Malmberget. Conference in Minerals Engineering 2008. Lule tekniska universitet s. 71-80. Lund, C., Lindberg, T. & Martinsson, O., 2010. Mineralogical-textural characterisation of different apatite-iron ore bodies, Malmberget deposit, Sweden, treated in a sorting process in laboratory scale. Process Mineralogy 10, Vineyard Hotel, Cape Town, South Africa, November 10-12, 2010. Miller, J.D, Lina, C.L., Garcia, C. and Arias, H., 2003. Ultimate recovery in heap leaching operations as established from mineral exposure analysis by X-ray microtomography. International Journal of Mineral Processing, Volume 72, Issues 1-4, 29 September 2003, Pages 331-340. Morrell, S., 2009. Getting Optimum Value from Ore Characterisation Programs in Design and Geometallurgical Projects Associated with Comminution Circuits. Tenth Mill Operators Conference, Adelaide, SA, 12 - 14 October 2009, 167-170. Morrison, R. D. and Richardson, J. M., 2002. JKSimMet: A simulator for analysis, optimisation and design of comminution circuits. In: Andrew L. Mular, Doug N. Halbe and Derek J. Barratt, Mineral Processing Plant Design Practice and Control: Proceedings. Oghazi, P., Lund, C., Plsson, B. & Martinsson, O., 2010. Applying traceability in a mine-tomill context by using particle texture analysis. SME Annual Meeting and Exhibit 2010. Society for Mining, Metallurgy and Exploration, 7-11. Oghazi, P., Plsson, B. & Tano, K. 2009 Applying traceability to grinding circuits by using Particle Texture Analysis (PTA). Minerals Engineering 22, 710-718. Philander, C. and Rozendaal, A., 2010. The Hards Liberation Project of Namakwa Sands. Chronicles of a geometallurgical success. Process Mineralogy 10. Philander, C., Rozendaal, A., 2008. Geometallurgical challenges of Namakwa Sands - A South African titanium-zirconium heavy minerals mine. (2008) Australasian Institute of Mining and Metallurgy Publication Series, pp. 459-464. Pirard, E., Bernhardt, H-J., Catalina, J.C., Brea, C., Segundo, F., Castroviejo, R., 2008. From spectrophotometry to multispectral imaging of ore minerals in visible and near infrared (VNIR) microscopy. In: 9th International Congress for Applied Mineralogy (ICAM 2008), 08/09/2008-10/09/2008, Brisbane, Australia. Pitard, F.F., 1989a. Pierre Gys sampling theory and sampling practice. Volume I. Heterogeneity and sampling. CRC Press, Boca Raton, Florida. Pitard, F.F., 1989b. Pierre Gys sampling theory and sampling practice. Volume II. Sampling correctness and sampling practice. CRC Press, Boca Raton, Florida. Polat, M. and Chander, P. 2000. First-order flotation kinetics models and methods for estimation of the true distribution of flotation rate constants. International Journal of Minerals Processing, 58, 145-166.

Runge, K.C., Frew, J., Harris, M.C. and Manlapig, E.V., 1997. Floatability of streams around the Cominco Red Dog Lead Cleaning Circuit. Proceedings of the AusIMM 6th Mill Operators Conference, Australasian Institute of Mining and Metallurgy, Madang, 157-163. Schouwstra, R. de Vaux, D., Hey, P., Malysiak, V., Shackleton, N., & Bramdeo, S., 2010. Understanding Gamsberg A geometallurgical study of a large stratiform zinc deposit. Minerals Engineering 23 (2010) 960967. Schouwstra, R. de Vaux, D., Hey, P., Malysiak, V., Shackleton, N., & Bramdeo, S., 2010. Understanding Gamsberg A geometallurgical study of a large stratiform zinc deposit. Minerals Engineering 23 (2010) 960967. Stamboliadis, E.Th. 2008. The evolution of a mineral liberation model by the repetition of a simple random breakage pattern. Minerals Engineering 21, 213-223. Stamboliadis, E.Th., 2008. The evolution of a mineral liberation model by the repetition of a simple random breakage pattern. Minerals Engineering 21, 213-223. Suazo, C.J., Kracht, W. & Alruiz, O.M., 2009. Geometallurgical modelling of the Collahuasi flotation circuit. Minerals Engineering 23 (2010) 137142. Sutherland, D., Gottlieb, P., Jackson, R., Wilkie, G., Stewart, P. 1988. Measurement in section of particles of known composition. Minerals Engineering, 1, 4, 317-326. Sutherland, D.N., Gottlieb, P. 1991. Application of automated quantitative mineralogy in mineral processing. Minerals Engineering, 4, 7-11, 753-762. Vatandoost, A., Fullagar, P., Roach, M., 2008. Automated multi-sensor petrophysical core logging. Exploration Geophysics, 39 (3), pp. 181-188. Vatandoost, A., Fullagar, P., Roach, M., 2008. Automated multi-sensor petrophysical core logging. Exploration Geophysics, 39 (3), pp. 181-188. Vianna, S.M.S.M. 2004. The effect of particle size, collector coverage and liberation on the floatability of galena particles in an ore. Ph.D. thesis, The University of Queensland, Julius Kruttschnitt Mineral Research Centre, Department of Mining, Minerals and Materials Engineering, 337 pp. Vizcarra, T.G., Wightman, E.M, Johnson, N.W. and Manlapig, E.V., 2010. The Physical Basis of Non-Random Breakage in an Iron-Oxide Ore. XXV International Minerals Processing Conference, Brisbane, Australia. Vizcarra, T.G., Wightman, E.M., Johnson, N.W. & Manlapig, E.V., 2010. The effect of breakage mechanism on the mineral liberation properties of sulphide ores. Minerals Engineering 23, 374-382. Vogel, L. and Peukert, W., 2003. Breakage behaviour of different materialsconstruction of a master curve for the breakage probability. Powder Technology 129, 101-110. Walters, S.G., 2008. An overview of new integrated geometallurgical research. Australasian Institute of Mining and Metallurgy Publication Series, pp. 79-82. Wei, X., Gay, S., 1999. Liberation modelling using a dispersion equation. Minerals Engineering 12, 219-227. Weller, K.R., Morrell, S., Gottlieb, P., 1996. Use of grinding and liberation models to simulate tower mill circuit performance in a lead/zinc concentrator to increase flotation recovery. International Journal of Mineral Processing 44-45, 683-702. Welsby, S.D.D., Vianna, S.M.S.M. and Franzidis, J-P., 2010. Assigning physical significance to floatability components. International journal of Mineral Processing, 97, 54-67. Whiten, B., 2008. Calculation of mineral composition from chemical assays. Mineral Processing & Extractive Metall. Rev., 29: 8397, 2008.