Geometallurgical Modelling of the Collahuasi Grinding Circuit for Mining Planning

Constantino Suazo Alejandro Hofmann Marcelo Aguilar Yuan Tay Gustavo Bastidas

INTRODUCTION

Collahuasis value optimization is introduced in a simplified manner using the following graphics. The main idea behind the approach is to develop robust grinding and flotation models that allow a proper estimation of the point at which copper production per unit of time reaches a maximum.

THROUGHPUT AS A FUNCTION OF P80 TO FLOTATION

8000

6000

Throughput tph

In general throughput increases as P80 increases.

4000

2000

A robust grinding model should include variables such as: Geological Units Blend P80 Grinding Circuit Features Maintenance Plan
0 50 100 150 P80, microns 200 250 300 350

RECOVERY AS A FUNCTION OF P80

100

80

Recovery (%)

60

40

20

In general recovery increases as P80 decreases. A robust flotation model should include variables such as: Headgrade Geological Units Blend P80 Flotation Circuit Features

0 P80, microns

MAXIMIZING THE ECONOMIC VALUE OF THE COMPANY

10000 8000 Throughput tph

100

80 6000

4000 60 2000 0 40

Flotation P80

Flotation P80

Grinding P80

P80, microns

Grinding P80

Recovery (%)

MAXIMIZING COPPER PRODUCTION PER UNIT OF TIME

Copper Production per unit of time

100000

Tonnes Copper per time: [Treatment (P80) x Headgrade (%) x Recovery(P80)]

80000

60000

40000

20000

The correct P80 is a balance between high throughput and high recovery; however, it is neither flotation P80 nor grinding P80. It is the Business P80

0 P80, m icrons

Flotation P80

Business P80

Grinding P80

How is the TPH vs P80 curve built?

10000 8000 tph 80 6000 4000 60 2000 0 P80, microns 40 Recovery (%) 100

Throughput

GEOMETALLURGICAL UNITS (GMU) DEFINITION

Mineralization

Alteration

DEFINITION CRITERIA: Representative geological units. Grouping based on similar geological features (mineralization, lithology, alteration). Intersection of these geological features.
GMU
1 2 3

G M U

% 18 26 19 25 7 5 100

Lithology

4 5 6

Total

DEFINITION OF GEOMETALLURGICAL UNITS DRILL HOLE CAMPAIGN PQ HQ Drill Cores

ROSARIO DEPOSIT : 2,000 Mtonnes 0,85%Cu 250 ppm Mo

DEFINITION OF GEOMETALLURGICAL UNITS DRILL HOLE CAMPAIGN SAMPLES SELECTION

Pitshell LOM 2009-2033

Spatial representivity within the Deposit

Every 40 mt, a 8m length drill core sample was selected as a variability sample

SAMPLE SELECTION PROTOCOL

PQ Sample Selection every 2 m length
20 cm length sample for generating one composite per GMU to JK Drop Weight Test

To Assay

HQ Sample preparation

1/2 To Assay

Duplicate

To laboratory test program .

1/4 To laboratory test program

Duplicate

CURRENT TESTED VARIABILITY SAMPLES

Pit Shell
PERIOD 2008-2011 2012-2016 2017-2021 2022-2026 2027-2031 2032-2036 2037-2041 TOTAL 1 37 21 16 11 9 1 2 97 VARIABILITY SAMPLES / GMU 2 3 4 5 30 33 35 12 21 39 35 9 10 14 15 6 17 4 13 10 10 11 7 4 1 1 5 2 7 93 104 112 42 6 17 16 10 11 7 2 63 TOTAL 164 141 71 66 48 5 16 511

GMU
1 2 3 4 5 6 The following laboratory tests were performed on each variability sample: SMC (DWI, A, b , Axb) Ball mill Wi SPI Specific gravity Abrasion Crush index Full JK DWT (on composite samples)

SAMPLE TYPES
1. COMMINUTION TEST ON EACH GMU: COMPOSITES
Comminution test Mass Required (Kg) (20cm length samples every two meters of drill core) ----Drill hole diameter

JK Drop Weight Test (SAG)

PQ

Composite Sample (Bond Work Index, SPI, Abrasion, Flotation test)

PQ y HQ

2. VARIABILITY TEST SAMPLES

SMC (DWI, A, b, Axb) SPI Ball mill Bond work index Abrasion Specific gravity Flotation test 511 currently tested

HQ

GRINDING TESTS RESULTS ON GMU COMPOSITE SAMPLES

Sample GMU 1 GMU 2 GMU 3 GMU 4 GMU 5 GMU 6 Sample GMU 1 GMU 2 GMU 3 GMU 4 GMU 5 GMU 6 A 59.1 61.7 63.6 49.5 58.9 61.6 b 0.9 0.6 0.8 1.2 0.8 1.0 A*b 52.6 37.0 52.8 59.4 49.5 58.5 Ta 0.80 0.73 0.64 0.78 0.56 0.95 SPI, min 59.2 97.6 48.0 58.8 42.2 36.5 Resistance to Impact Breakage Medium Hard Medium Moderately Soft Medium Moderately Soft Crusher Index 13 9 12 15 12 7 Abrasion Range Soft Soft Soft Soft Moderately Soft Soft Abrasion Index 0.1953 0.1957 0.2666 0.4297 0.2351 0.1985

Bwi, Kwh/t 12.4 13.7 11.5 12.6 11.8 10.9

GRINDING TESTS RESULTS ON GMU VARIABILITY SAMPLES

Variability Samples Bond Work Index, Wi, kWh/t UGM1 UGM2 UGM3 UGM4 UGM5 UGM6 Average on composite sample 11.5 13.7 11.5 12.6 11.8 10.9 Number of Samples 28 28 51 46 17 25 Sample average 11.9 12.9 11.3 12.4 10.9 11.5 Standard Deviation 1.9 2.4 1.9 2.3 1.9 1.5

Variability Samples Number of SMC, DWi UGM1 UGM2 UGM3 UGM4 UGM5 UGM6 Samples 87 50 133 138 37 56 Simple average 5.1 6.6 5.6 6.8 4.0 4.6 Standard Deviation 1.5 2.1 1.7 2.0 1.8 1.7

How is the TPH vs P80 curve built?

JKSimMet Simulation

1.- The instantaneous throughput was increased for each iteration.

Pebble Crusher

Bond Equation P80

2.- SAG Mill was simulated using JKSimMet. For each iteration, the SAG mill power draw, total load and transfer size were recorded as shown in the table below. 3.- The transfer size and the instantaneous throughput were fed to the Bond equation to predict the P80.

SAG

tph

KW
Ball Mill

tph T80

4.- The iterative process continued until one of the following restrictions were met: 1) Maximum Power Draw = Installed Power 2) Maximum SAG Mill Total Load = 30%

P (KW)

Line 1-2: 1* 32ft *15ft SAG Mill (8000 KW) + 1* 22ft*36ft Ball Mill (9700 KW) Line 3: 1* 40ft *22ft SAG Mill (21000 KW) + 2* 26ft*38ft Ball Mill (15500 KW)

TPH versus P80 curve Bond Equation Ball Mill Power Draw (KW) 14812 14812 14812 P80 estimated from Bond Equation, microns 100 200 241

JKSimMet Simulations Iteration N 1 2 3 tph 2800 4300 4800 Power Draw KW 17605 18600 18900 Transfer Size (T80 um) 3778 4737 4944

TRANSFER SIZE VALIDATION

COLLAHUASI MODEL TRANSFER SIZE FORECASTING
TRANSFER T80 SIZE LINE 3
6,000 5,000 4,000 3,000 2,000 GMU1 1,000 0 600 1,600 2,600 3,600 4,600 5,600 6,600 Instantaneous tph GMU2 GMU3 GMU4 7,600 GMU5 GMU6

T80 Transfer Size (microns)

TRANSFER SIZE VALIDATION

Transfer Size Sampler (T80)

TRANSFER SIZE SAMPLES

Transfer Size 120

Blend of GMU fed to the plant during survey

GMU GMU 1 GMU 2 % 34 10 32 3 18 3

100 Cumulative Passing (%)

GMU 3 GMU 4
C1 C2 C3 C4 C5

80

GMU 5 GMU 6

60

40

SAMPLE C1

T80 (microns) 4386 4159 3736 3385 4576 4048

20

C2 C3

0 1 10 100 1000 microns (um) 10000 100000

C4 C5 AVERAGE

TRANSFER SIZE VALIDATION

COLLAHUASI MODEL TRANSFER SIZE FORECASTING
TRANSFER T80 SIZE LINE 3
6,000 5,000 4,000 3,000 2,000 GMU1 1,000 0 600 1,600 2,600 3,600 4,600 5,600 6,600 Instantaneous tph GMU2 GMU3 GMU4 7,600 GMU5 UGMU

Blend of GMU fed to the plant during survey

GMU GMU 1 GMU 2 GMU 3 GMU 4 GMU 5 GMU 6 % 34 10 32 3 18 3

T80 Transfer Size (microns)

Measured T80 (mm) 4.05

Modelled (Weighted average) 4.02

GENERAL TREATMENT CAPACITY MODEL FOR TOTAL GRINDING PLANT

12,000 10,000 8,000 TPH 6,000

GMU 1 GMU 2 GMU 4 GMU 6

4,000
GMU 3

2,000 0 90

GMU 5

110 130 150 170 190 210 230 250 270 290 310 330 350 370 390 P80 (microns)

TREATMENT CAPACITY MODEL FOR MINING PLANNING

Ton (P80) : Total processed tonnes per period. H: Total hours in the period Hm l i : Programmed maintenance hours in grinding line i Hf l i : Un-programmed maintenance hours in grinding line i N l i : Number of shut-downs within the period H t : Transient time to achieve stable operation after shut downs PT tchp: Treatment losses due to Crusher Pebbles shut downs Hmchp: Crusher Pebbles Programmed maintenance hours Hfchp: Crusher Pebbles Un-programmed maintenance hours

GRINDING MODEL FORECASTING CAPACITY

TREATMENT FORECASTING 2007-2011
1,800,000

Observed (tons)
1,600,000

Modelled

1,400,000

1,200,000

tonnes

1,000,000

800,000

600,000

400,000

200,000

%Error = 4.5%

1 6 11 16 21 26 31 36 41 46 51 56 61 66 71 76 81 86 91 96 101 106 111 116 121 126 131 136 141 146 151 156 161 166

weeks 2007-2011

GRINDING MODEL FORECASTING CAPACITY

TREATMENT FORECASTING 2007-2011
GMU 6 GMU 5 GMU 4 GMU 3 GMU 2 GMU 1 Observed (tons) Modelled

100% 90% 80% 70%

UGM Proportions

1,800,000

1,600,000

1,400,000

1,200,000 60% 1,000,000 50% 800,000 40% 600,000 30% 20% 10% 0%
1 6 11 16 21 26 31 36 41 46 51 56 61 66 71 76 81 86 91 96 101 106 111 116 121 126 131 136 141 146 151 156 161 166

400,000

200,000

Tonnes
-

weeks 2007-2011

%Error = 4.5%

SCATTER PLOT : MODELLED v/s OBSERVED

1.800.000 R2 = 0.94 1.600.000

1.400.000

Modelled (tons)

1.200.000

1.000.000

800.000

600.000

400.000

200.000

200.000

400.000

600.000

800.000

1.000.000

1.200.000

1.400.000

1.600.000

Observed(Ton)

1.800.000

CONCLUSIONS
The grinding modelling currently used by Collahuasi Mining Company has been presented showing an updated validation of the predictive capacity of the total treated ore per week from September 2007-May 2011. The aim of developing a robust and accurate forecasting model has been satisfactorily achieved through the use of a combination of simulation and power-based modelling. The model has shown an average relative error of 4.6% as inferred from the statistical analyses using production data from the period September 2007 to June 2011 The Collahuasi grinding modelling allows planning engineers to maximise grinding circuit treatment capacities on the basis of appropriate blending of GMU and also on the basis of the concentrator's maintenance program.

THE END