{[ promptMessage ]}

Bookmark it

{[ promptMessage ]}

Lischuk (2016) Geometallurgical Programs.pdf

Lischuk (2016) Geometallurgical Programs.pdf - L ICE N T...

Info iconThis preview shows pages 1–6. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
LICENTIATE TH ES I S Geometallurgical Programs – Critical Evaluation of Applied Methods and Techniques Viktor Lishchuk Mineral Processing
Background image of page 1

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Background image of page 2
Geometallurgical programs – critical evaluation of applied methods and techniques Viktor Lishchuk Division of Minerals and Metallurgical Engineering (MiMeR) Department of Civil, Environmental and Natural Resources Engineering Luleå University of Technology SE-971 87 Luleå Sweden Supervisors: Pertti Lamberg and Cecilia Lund Luleå University of Technology PREP
Background image of page 3

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Printed by Luleå University of Technology, Graphic Production 2016 ISSN 1402-1757 ISBN 978-91-7583-636-2 (print) ISBN 978-91-7583-637-9 (pdf) Luleå 2016 www.ltu.se
Background image of page 4
i ABSTRACT Geometallurgy is a team-based multidisciplinary approach aimed at integrating geological, mineralogical and metallurgical information and yielding a spatial quantitative predictive model for production management. Production management includes forecast, control and optimization of the product quality (concentrates and tailings) and metallurgical performance (e.g. recoveries and throughput); and minimization of the environmental impact. Favourable characteristics of an ore body calling for geometallurgical model are high variability, low mineral grades, complex mineralogy and several alternative processing routes or beneficiation methods. Industrial application of geometallurgy is called a geometallurgical program. This study undertook a critical review and evaluation of methods and techniques used in geometallurgical programs. This evaluation aimed at defining how geometallurgical program should be carried out for different kinds of ore bodies. Methods applied here were an industry survey (questionnaire) along with development and use of a synthetic ore body build-up of geometallurgical modules. Survey on geometallurgical programs included fifty two case studies from both industry professionals and comprehensive literature studies. Focus in the survey was on answering why and how geometallurgical programs are built. This resulted in a two-dimensional classification system where geometallurgical program depth of application was presented in six levels. Geometallurgical methods and techniques were summarised accordingly under three approaches: traditional, proxy and mineralogical. Through the classification it was established that due to similar geometallurgical reasoning and methodologies the deposit and process data could be organized in a common way. Thus, a uniform data structure (Papers I, II) was proposed. Traditionally the scientific development in geometallurgy takes place through case studies. This is slow and results are often confidential. Therefore, an alternative way is needed; here a synthetic testing framework for geometallurgy was established and used as such alternative. The synthetic testing framework for geometallurgy consists of synthetic ore body and a mineral processing circuit. The generated digital ore body of a kind is sampled through a synthetic sampling module, followed by
Background image of page 5

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Image of page 6
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

{[ snackBarMessage ]}