2.

0 PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF MINERAL PROCESSING OPERATIONS

INTRODUCTION

An ore is considered to be an aggregation of minerals from which a metal or a metal compound

can be recovered economically on a commercial scale. When the grade or tenor of metal or
valuable component in the ore is too low for profitable recovery, the rock ceases to be an ore.
Mineral processing includes any treatment physical or chemical, given to ores directly in order
to effect the economic recovery of valuables.
In order to achieve the these objectives, the processing of ores to yield marketable end
products has to meet two types of requirements namely;
 Technical requirements
 Economic requirement

(a) Technical Requirements in Mineral Processing

The product from mineral processing operations which are mainly in form of concentrates must
be marketable to buyers or customers. Some of the technical requirements expected by the
buyers of concentrates include the following:

1. Removal or reducing to some specified limit of the undesired constituent in the original
ore. The undesired constituents are usually contained in the gangue minerals

2. The product or concentrate delivered must be of a specified quality in terms of such

parameters as particle size, assay grade, moisture content etc.

3. If the ore contains more than one valuable minerals, the ore minerals are concentrated
separately and marketed separately either for a better price or that the buyer can
handle them economically if they are marketed separately.

(b) Economical Requirements in Mineral Processing

The most suitable technical condition of any concentrate as required by the customer would be
to produce a concentrate with a maximum grade and 100% recovery. This entails that:

1. The liberation of the valuable minerals from gangue is 100% efficient

2. The separation of valuable minerals from gangue is 100% efficient

To drive the milling process in order to achieve the above would be accompanied with an
increase in milling costs. A 100% liberation can possibly be achieved if the ore is ground to a
powder or pulverized. However the costs associated with grinding can outweigh the return from
the sale of concentrate thus rendering the process uneconomical.

Performance Evaluation of Mineral Processing Plants Page1

Therefore there must be a balance between milling costs and process efficiency particularly
with low grade ores or an ore with low contained value or an ore with a complex mineralogy,
where it is crucial that milling costs be as low as possible.

Milling Costs
It is a common practice that most mills keep detailed accounts of operating and maintenance
costs broken down into various sub-divisions such as labour, supplies, energy etc, for various
areas of the plant. This type of information is very useful in identifying high-cost areas where
improvement in performances would be most beneficial.

A simplified example of such a breakdown of costs for a 100,000 tonnes per day copper
concentrator is shown in the table below

Table:Costs per Metric Tonne Milled for a 100,000 t/day

Copper Concentrator

ITEM COSTS (US$/TONNE) % COST

Crushing 0.088 2.8
Grinding 1.482 47.0
Flotation 0.510 16.2
Thickening 0.111 3.5
Filtration 0.089 2.8
Tailings 0.161 5.1
Reagents 0.016 0.5
Pipeline 0.045 1.4
Water 0.252 8.0
Laboratory 0.048 1.5
Maintenance Support 0.026 0.8
Management Support 0.052 1.6
Administration 0.020 0.6
Other Expenses 0.254 8.1
Total 3.154 100

The highest costs are attributable to grinding due mainly to power requirements

Actual and ideal Mineral Separatio

Consider an ideal mineral separation process treating an ore containing chalcopyrite that
would produce a concentrate which contains only chalcopyrite minerals and the tailings would
contain all the non valuable gangue material. In such an ideal operation, all the chalcopyrite in
the feed ore reports to the concentrate and all the gangue minerals in the feed is deported to
the tailings stream. This illustrated in the Figure 1 below:

The maximum grade of copper metal in the concentrate is estimated using the expression

Performance Evaluation of Mineral Processing Plants Page2

 [𝐖𝐭 𝐌𝐞] [𝐖𝐭 𝐌𝐞] [𝐖𝐭 𝐦𝐢𝐧]
(% 𝐌𝐞)𝐬𝐮𝐛 = = ×
[𝐖𝐭 𝐬𝐮𝐛] [𝐖𝐭 𝐦𝐢𝐧] [𝐖𝐭 𝐬𝐮𝐛]

For the metal copper contained in the mineral chalcopyrite, the expression becomes

[𝐖𝐭 𝐂𝐮] [𝐖𝐭 𝐂𝐮] [𝐖𝐭 𝐦𝐢𝐧]

(% 𝐂𝐮)𝐬𝐮𝐛 = = ×
[𝐖𝐭 𝐌𝐢𝐧] [𝐖𝐭 𝐦𝐢𝐧] [𝐖𝐭 𝐌𝐢𝐧]

(% 𝑴𝒆𝒕𝒂𝒍)𝒔𝒖𝒃 = 𝑿𝒎𝒆. 𝒀

Where:
(% Metal)sub = assay or grade of metal in a given substance or material
[Wt Me]
XMe= [Wt min] Metal Fraction in the metal bearing mineral in the substance
or material
[𝐖𝐭 𝐦𝐢𝐧]
Y= [𝐖𝐭 𝐬𝐮𝐛]
Weight % distribution of the mineral in the substance or material

Feed Tailings

Concentrate

100% liberation
Of minerals in the Feed

Figure 1: Ideal Two way Mineral Separation Circuit

X Me is given by the following ratio:

∑ 𝐴. 𝑀 (𝑀𝑒𝑡𝑎𝑙)
𝑋𝑀𝑒 =
𝑅𝑀𝑀(𝑀𝑖𝑛𝑒𝑟𝑎𝑙)

Performance Evaluation of Mineral Processing Plants Page3

An assessment of the ideal circuit would yield the following observation:

CONCENTRATE TAILINGS
Content: Pure Chalcopyrite Minerals (CuFeS2) Content: Gangue Minerals Only
Grade % Mineral (CuFeS2) = 100% Grade % Mineral (SiO2) = 100%
% Copper Cu = 34.6% % Copper Cu = 0%
% Gangue(SiO2) = 0 % % Gangue (SiO2) = 100%

Recovery % Mineral (CuFeS2) = 100% Recovery % Mineral (SiO2) = 100%

% Copper Cu = 100% % Copper Cu = 0%
% Gangue (SiO2) = 0 % % Gangue (SiO2) = 100 %

For a substance containing chalcopyrite, the expression (% 𝑀𝑒𝑡𝑎𝑙)𝑠𝑢𝑏 = 𝑋𝑀𝑒 . 𝑌 can be written
as (% 𝐶𝑢)𝑠𝑢𝑏 = 𝑋𝐶𝑢 . 𝑌 where:

∑ 𝐴. 𝑀 (𝑀𝑒𝑡𝑎𝑙)
𝑋𝑀𝑒 =
𝑅𝑀𝑀(𝑀𝑖𝑛𝑒𝑟𝑎𝑙)

becomes
∑ 𝐴. 𝑀 (𝐶𝑢)
𝑋𝐶𝑢 =
𝑅𝑀𝑀(𝐶𝑢𝐹𝑒𝑆2 )

∑ 𝑨. 𝑴 (Metal) = Relative Molecular Mass of the metal contained in the mineral

RMM (Mineral) = Relative Molecular Mass of the mineral

The RMM (CuFeS2) is calculated as follows:

RMM (CuFeS2) = ∑ 𝐴. 𝑀 (Cu) + ∑ 𝐴. 𝑀 (Fe) +∑ 𝐴. 𝑀 (S)

=(1 x 63.546) + (1 x 55.845) + (2 x 32.065)
=(63.546) +(55.845) +(64.130)
=183.521 g/mol

∑ 𝐴. 𝑀 (Cu) =(1 x 63.546)= 63.546 g/mol

Hence:
∑ 𝑨. 𝑴 (𝑪𝒖)
𝑿𝑪𝒖 =
𝑹𝑴𝑴(𝑪𝒖𝑭𝒆𝑺𝟐 )

63.546 g/mol
X Cu = = 𝟎. 𝟑𝟒𝟔𝟐𝟔𝟎𝟏𝟎
183.521 g/mol

Under perfect milling conditions for the case under consideration, chalcopyrite mineral is the
material in the concentrate, hence Y = 100%. The corresponding copper grade in the
concentrate generated from perfect milling is:

Performance Evaluation of Mineral Processing Plants Page4

 (% 𝐶𝑢)𝑠𝑢𝑏 = 𝑋𝐶𝑢 . 𝑌
(% 𝐶𝑢)𝑠𝑢𝑏 = 𝟎. 𝟑𝟒𝟔𝟐𝟔𝟎𝟏𝟎 𝑥 100%
(% 𝑪𝒖)𝒔𝒖𝒃 = 𝟑𝟒. 𝟔𝟑%

This is the maximum grade of copper expected in a chalcopyrite concentrate which contains
pure chalcopyrite. Under perfect milling conditions, the recovery of copper metal to the
concentrate is 100% and the grade of the concentrate is 34.63% Cu. A plot of recovery Vs
grade for perfect milling condition would appear as shown in Figure 2:

Under actual conditions, the Grade-Recovery relationship deviates from the ideal profile
represented by the dotted line. The position of this profile is determined by the efficiency of the
mineral separation process. Generally there is an approximately inverse relationship between
the recovery and grade of concentrate in all concentrating processes, thus:

 If an attempt is made to attain a very high grade concentrate, the recovery will be low
resulting in high tailings assay.

 If an attempt is made to attain a very high recovery in the concentrate, there will be more
gangue in the concentrate and the grade of the concentrate will be low

A hypothetical Grade-Recovery curve for copper concentrator treating chalcopyrite ore is

shown in Figure 3 below.
100
90 Ideal Separation
80
70
60
% Recovery (Cu) 50
40
30 Actual Separation
20
10
0
0 10 20 30 40 50

% Grade (%Cu in Concentrate)

Figure 2: Grade –Recovery Curve for Perfect Milling Conditions

Performance Evaluation of Mineral Processing Plants Page5

 100 High Recovery low
90 concentrate grade region
80
70 General Direction for improved
% Recovery
Grade-Recovery profile
60
Ideal
50
separation line
40 Low Recovery, high grade
30 concentrate region
20
10
Maximum possible grade in
0
concentrate (34.6% Cu)
0 10 20 30 40 50
% Grade (% Cu in Concentrate)
Figure 3: Grade –Recovery Curve for Actual Milling Conditions

Mineral processes generally move along a recovery-grade curve, with a trade off between
grade and recovery. The mineral processor’s challenge is to move the whole curve to a higher
point so that both grade and recovery are maximized (towards the ideal separation line).

Since the purpose of mineral processing is to increase the economic value of the ore, the
importance of the grade-recovery relationship is in determining the most economic combination
of recovery and grade which will produce the greatest financial return per tonne of ore treated
in the plant. This will depend on the following factors:

 The current price of the valuable product

 Transportation costs to the smelter
 Transportation to refinery or any such treatment plant
 Costs of refining and any further such treatment (this is dependent on the grade of
concentrate supplied)

In ideal milling operations, the mineral grains resulting from liberation are free grains of mineral
values and gangue material. However, the type of mineral particles presented to the separation
cell in an actual milling operation is illustrated in the Figure 4 below

When products of the liberation process in a grinding circuit are presented to the separation
processes, the following scenarios are expected:

Production of high grade concentrates: to produce a high grade concentrate, the

separation process should be controlled in such a manner that the bulk of free grains and
some high grade middlings are recovered to the concentrate. The rest of the middling
particles and gangue material are rejected to the tailings. Conditions on most smelter
Performance Evaluation of Mineral Processing Plants Page6
 contracts stipulates penalties for deleterious impurities in the concentrates and bonuses for
the presence of precious metals. Production of high grade concentrate will incur lower
smelting costs but low recovery due to loss of values to the tailings through the deportment
of middlings to the tailings stream. This leads to low final financial returns from the sale of
concentrates.

Production of concentrates for high financial returns: to increase the recovery of

concentrate, the separation process should be controlled in such a manner that the bulk of
valuable minerals contained not only in free grains but in both high grade and low grade
middlings are recovered to the concentrate whilst deporting the gangue material to the
discard tailings stream. However the introduction of middlings in the concentrates also
introduces gangue material by virtue of it being locked to valuable minerals. Not
withstanding the anticipated high financial returns as a result of increased concentrate
output, the high proportion of gangue material will incur high smelting penalties and
consequently costs due to the included gangue minerals in the concentrates. This can
override the gains resulting from increased concentrate recovery

High Grade valuable mineral particles: 100%

liberation, free grains. Reports to the
concentrate
Medium grade valuable minerals (High grade
Middlings): Fairly liberated, some locking with
gangue minerals. High probability of reporting
to the concentrate
Low grade particles(Low grade Middlings):
poorly liberated with significant locking with
gangue minerals. High probability of reporting
to the tailings

Free gangue minerals: reports to the tailings

Figure 5: Products of Comminution presented to a separation unit

Therefore whether the aim is to produce a high grade concentrate or low grade concentrate,
there are both disadvantages and advantages in either case. The balance is find the recovery-
grade combination that gives the greatest financial return per tonne of ore treated in the plant.
This can be expressed as the Net Smelter Return (NSR) or Net Return from Smelter. The NSR
can be calculated for any recovery-grade combination using the following expression:

Performance Evaluation of Mineral Processing Plants Page7

 Payment for Contained Smelter Charges
NSR = Metal in Concentrate + Transport Costs
(Concentrate Refinery Costs
Valuation) (Costs)
The relationship between NSR and concentrate grade is shown in the Figure 6 below

Concentrate Valuation
Target Grade

NSR
($)/tonne

Treatment Costs

Transport costs

Concentrate Grade
Figure 6: Revenue and Costs for Smelter Treatment of Concentrate

The target grade or economically optimum grade is the concentrate grade corresponding to the
highest value of NSR. Milling operations should aim to produce a concentrate grade which is
as close as possible to this target grade. The highest grade may not necessary be economical.
Slightest variations of the concentrate grade from the target grade can result in very large
financial losses, particularly on high capacity plants treating thousands of tones per day.

The value of the target or optimum grade is not static but can be influenced by such factors as;

 Changes in metal price

 Changes in smelter terms

For instance if the metal price increases, then the optimum grade will be lower, allowing higher
recoveries to be attained.

Performance Evaluation of Mineral Processing Plants Page8

 High Metal Prices

Lower Metal Prices

NSR

Concentrate grade

Figure 7: Effect of Change in Metal Prices on NSR

The table below lists estimated effective costs per tonne of copper processed in 1985 at some
of the world’s major copper mines at a copper price of £980/tonne. From the table, it is evident
that apart from Bougainville, which had a high gold content, and Palabora, a large open pit
operation with numerous heavy mineral by products, the only economic copper mines in 1985
were the large South American mines. The mines profited due to:

 Relatively low actual operating costs

 By – product molybdenum production
 Higher average feed grades (1- 2% Cu) compared to the north American mines (0.6% Cu)

Relatively high grade deposits such as that at Nchanga failed to profit due to partly high
operating costs, but mainly due to lack of by-products.

Since the profit margin involved in the processing of modern copper ores is usually only small,
continual efforts must be made to try to reduce milling costs and metal losses. Even relatively
small increases in return per tonne can have a significant effect, due to the very large tonnages
that are often treated. There is therefore a constant search for improved flowsheets and
flotation reagents.

The balance between milling costs and profitability is very critical on a concentrator treating an
ore of low contained value, where it is crucial that milling costs be as low as possible. Grinding
is by far the greatest energy consumer and this process undoubtedly has the greatest influence
on profitability and technical efficiency. Grinding is essential for the liberation of the minerals,
but it should not be carried out finer than is justified economically. For example, improved
recovery may be possible by improved liberation of values as a result of increase in the

Performance Evaluation of Mineral Processing Plants Page9

fineness of grind, but if increased grinding costs are greater than the increase in smelter or
financial return, then the action is not justified.

Table :Effective Costs at World’s Leading Copper Mines in 1985

MINE COUNTRY Effective Cost of Processed
Copper(£/tonne)
Chuquicamata Chile 581
ElTeniente Chile 622
Bongainville Papua New Guinea 664
Palabora South Africa 725
Andina Chile 755
Cuajone Peru 876
El Salvador Chile 906
Toquepala Peru 1012
Inspiration USA 1148
San Manuel USA 1163
Morenci USA 1193
Twin Buttes USA 1208
Utah/Bingham USA 1329
Nchanga Zambia 1374
Gecamines Congo DR 1374

8
NSR
7

6
(NSR-Grinding costs)
£/tonne 5

2
Grinding Costs
1

50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400

Grind Size (um)(80% passing size)

Figure 8: Effect of Fineness of Grind on NSR and Grinding Costs

Performance Evaluation of Mineral Processing Plants Page10

The Figure 8 shows the effect of fineness of grind on NSR and grinding costs for a typical low
grade copper ore. Although flotation recovery, and hence NSR increases with fineness of
grind, it is evident that there is no economic benefit in grinding finer than 105 microns. Even
this fineness will probably be beyond the economic limit because of additional capital cost of
the grinding equipment required to achieve it.

METHODS FOR PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF MINERAL SEPARATION PROCESSES

In order to qualitatively assess the performance of mineral separation processes, a number of

factors can be used which include the following:

Ratio of Concentration
This is the ratio of the weight of the feed (or heads) to the weight of the concentrates

WeightoftheFeed F
K= =
WeightoftheConcentrate C

Ratio of concentration is a measure of the efficiency of the concentration process, and it is

closely related to the grade or assay of the concentrate; the value of the ratio of
concentration will generally increase with the grade of the concentrate.

Grade of Concentrate
The grade or assay usually refers to the content of the marketable end product in the
material. The marketable end product may either be a metal or a mineral (% WO 3),
%U3O8etc) or (% Cu, Au g/t, Ag ppm). The increase in grade may be an indication of an
improved concentration performance.

Enrichment Ratio (Upgrading Ratio)

This is the ratio of the grade of the concentrate to the grade of the feed
Concentrate Grade c
U. R = =
Feed Grade f

This is also related to the efficiency of the process. High values of the upgrading ratios
indicates an increased ease with which the material is being upgraded.

Recovery
This is the ratio of the weight of the marketable end product in the concentrate to the
original amount present in the feed.

Weight of Marketable end Product in Concentrate

R= x 100
Weight of Marketable end Product in Feed

This can be expressed in terms of assay values of feed, concentrate and tailing.

Cc c(f − t)
R= x100 = x100
Ff f(c − t)

Performance Evaluation of Mineral Processing Plants Page11

 C (f−t)
Since =
F (c−t)

F (c−t)
But K = =
C (c−t)

c 1
Therefore Recovery ( R) = x
f K

Generally increase in recovery, may give an indication of improved plant performance.

Performance Indices
Assessing plant performance based on individual observation of the factors mentioned above
may result in serious misinterpretation of results. For instance, ratio of concentration and
recovery are essentially independent of each other, and in order to evaluate a given operation
it is necessary to know both. For example, it is possible to obtain a very high grade of
concentrate and ratio of concentration by simply picking a few lumps of pure galena from a
lead ore, but the recovery would be very low. On the other hand, a concentrating process might
show arecovery of 99% of the metal, but it might also put 60% of the gangue minerals in the
concentrate. It is of course, possible to obtain 100% recovery by not concentrating the ore at
all. Where proper concentration is taking place an approximately inverse relationship exist
between the recovery and grade of concentrate in all concentrating processes. If an attempt is
made to attain a very high grade concentrate, the tailings assay are higher and the recovery is
low. If high recovery of metal is aimed for, there will be more gangue in the in the concentrate
and the grade of concentrate and the ratio of concentration will both decrease.

A need arises to quantify the efficiency of mineral processing operations using a single index
that combines two or more of the factors discussed above. A number of such indices are
suggested as follows:

(1) Grade-Recovery Curves

The efficiency of any concentrating operation can be expressed by a curve showing the
recovery attainable for any value of concentrate grade. Figure 9 below reproduced from Figure
2 shows a typical grade –recovery curve with a characteristic inverse relationship between
recovery and concentrate grade. Mineral processes generally move along a grade-recovery
curve.

Performance Evaluation of Mineral Processing Plants Page12

 100
90 Ideal Separation
80
70
60
% Recovery 50
40
30 Actual Separation
20
10
0
0 10 20 30 40 50
Concentrate Grade (%)
Figure 9a: A Typical Grade-Recovery Relationship

The efficiency of the mineral separation process is assumed to be improved when the curve is
moved towards the ideal separation profile as shown in Figure 9b below where both grade and
recovery are maximised.

Concentrate grade and recovery when used simultaneously are the most widely accepted
measures of assessing technical performance. However, there is a problem in quantitatively
assessing the technical performance of a concentration process whenever the results of two
similar test runs are compared. If both grade and recovery are greater for one case than the
other, then the choice of process is simple, but if the results of one test show a higher grade
but a lower recovery than the other, then the choice is no longer obvious. Further the
application of the grade-recovery curve is possible when the mineralization of the ore is simple.
However when the ore mineralogy is complex and contains more than one valuable mineral
requiring separationof the minerals into different concentrate, the application of the grade-
recovery curve in assessing the efficiency of mineral separation circuits becomes limited

Performance Evaluation of Mineral Processing Plants Page13

 100
90
80
70 General Direction for improved
% Recovery Grade-Recovery profile
60
Ideal
50
separation line
40
30
20
10
0
0 10 20 30 40 50
% Concentrate Grade)
Figure 9b: Grade –Recovery Curve Showing General for Improved Efficiency

A test on a complex ore may yield the following grade-recovery curves as shown Figure 10.

100

90

80

70

60
Recoverynne
50
(%)
40

30

20

10
5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
Concentrate Grade (%)

Figure 10: Grade –Recovery Curves for Complex Ores

Performance Evaluation of Mineral Processing Plants Page14

For the three curves shown above, it would be difficult to choose a curve that gives both the
highest grade and recovery. To some overcome some of the limitations of the grade-recovery
curves, there have been attempts to formulate single performance Indices to define efficiency
of separation processes. A few are discussed in the sections that follow and listed as .

 Diamond’s Metallurgical Efficiency

 Selectivity Index (SI)
 Separation Efficiency (SE)
 Economic Efficiency and Metallurgical Efficiency

The first three evaluate the technical efficiency of the process while economic and metallurgical
efficiency evaluates the economic performance of the separation process

(2) Diamond’s Metallurgical Efficiency

This was proposed by R.W. Diamond and is defined as the arithmetic mean of the
recoveries of the main constituents of each product (including tailing). It is given by the
expression

∑ 𝑅𝑛 𝑁
𝐸=
𝑛

Where RnN represents the recovery of constituent n in the Nth product. However, the
efficiency is not zero when there no separation.

Example: In the separation of galena, sphalerite and gangue, the recoveries of main
constituents to respective constituents is tabulated as follows

Fraction % Recovery
Lead Concentrate 92 (Pb)
Zinc Concentrate 89 (Zn)
Tailings 96 (Gangue)

92% + 89% + 96%

𝐸=
3
277%
𝐸=
3
𝐸 = 92.3%

(3) Selectivity Index (SI)

This is somewhat a means of quantifying the separation of minerals from each other or
separation of valuable minerals from gangue minerals.

Performance Evaluation of Mineral Processing Plants Page15

 Selectivity Index is the geometrical mean of the relative recoveries and relative
rejections of two minerals, metals, or group of metals or minerals.

Consider a mineral separation process treating an ore for values ‘a’ and ‘b’. The values
are distributed in two products; product A and product B. This is illustrated as follows:

Feed Product B

Product A

Let:
Ra = recovery of a in product A
Rb = recovery of b in product A
Ja = rejection of a in product B
Jb = rejection of b in product B

We define:
Ra
= relative recovery of a to b in Product A
Rb

Jb
= relative rejection of b to a in Product B
Ja

NB: The assumption is that product A is the valuable product containing most of the
valuable component ‘a’, while the bulk of ‘b’ is rejected to product B, the discard stream.
Product A is essentially “‘a’ concentrate” and product B is “‘b’ concentrate”.

Then according to the definition, the selectivity index S.I may be represented as follows:

𝑅𝑎 𝐽𝑏
𝑆. 𝐼 = √ .
𝑅𝑏 𝐽𝑎

But Ja = 100 –Ra and Rb = 100-Jb

𝑅𝑎 𝐽𝑏
𝑆. 𝐼 = √ .
(100 − 𝐽𝑎 ) (100 − 𝑅𝑎 )

𝑅𝑎 𝐽𝑏
𝑆. 𝐼 = √ .
(100 − 𝑅𝑎 ) (100 − 𝐽𝑎 )

Performance Evaluation of Mineral Processing Plants Page16

 For example, if Lead recovery in Lead Concentrate is 94% and gangue rejection to the
tailings is 97% then

𝑅𝑎 𝐽𝑏
𝑆. 𝐼 = √ .
(100 − 𝑅𝑎 ) (100 − 𝐽𝑎 )

Ra = 94% and Jb = 97%

94% 97%
𝑆. 𝐼 = √ .
(100 − 94%) (100 − 97%)

94% 97%
𝑆. 𝐼 = √ .
(6%) (3%)

𝑺. 𝑰 = 𝟐𝟐. 𝟓

In some cases, it is easier to calculate selectivity indices from grades than from
recoveries. Therefore if assay values for substances a and b are X and Y in the
concentrate and x and y in the tailings, the selectivity index may be represented as
follows:

𝑋 𝑦
𝑆. 𝐼 = √ .
𝑥 𝒀

For the metallurgical data shown below

Grade
Stream Wt%
%Pb % SiO2
Concentrate 5.5 60.5 12.6
Tailing 94.5 0.2 94.6
Feed 100 3.5 82.5

X = 60.5, Y = 12.6, x = 0.2 and y = 94.6. Substituting into the equation

60.5 94.6
𝑆. 𝐼 = √ .
0.2 12.6

𝑺. 𝑰 = 𝟒𝟕. 𝟔

If the grade of concentrate and tailing is the same i.e. X = x and Y = y (No separation),
the selectivity index will be unity. On the other hand, if the concentrate is completely
Performance Evaluation of Mineral Processing Plants Page17
 free from valuable mineral, the selectivity index will be infinite. However both extremes
are not reached in practice. The usual range of selectivity indices is between 4 and 40
and exceptionally poor or good results fall outside this range.

(4) Separation Efficiency (SE)

Separation efficiency (S.E) is the difference between the recovery of the valuable
mineral and that of the gangue to the same concentrate:

𝑆. 𝐸. = 𝑅𝑚𝑖𝑛 − 𝑅𝑔 … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … . (1)

Where: Rmin= % recovery of the valuable mineral

Rg= % recovery of the gangue mineral into the same concentrate

Suppose the feed material assaying % f metal separates into a concentrate assaying %
c metal and a tailing assaying % tmetal, then the metal recovery is given by the
expression:
𝐶𝑐
𝑅𝑚𝑒𝑡𝑎𝑙 = 𝑥 100
𝐹𝑓
𝑐
𝑅𝑚𝑒𝑡𝑎𝑙 = 𝑆𝑃𝐹𝑐 . 𝑥 100
𝑓

Where SPFc is the Solids Split Factor to the concentrate.

Assuming that all the valuable metal is contained in the same mineral then the recovery
of the valuable mineral is the same as the recovery of the metal.

𝑅𝑚𝑖𝑛 = 𝑅𝑚

Where Rm = % recovery of the valuable metal

Hence equation can be written as:

𝑆. 𝐸. = 𝑅𝑚 − 𝑅𝑔 … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … . (1)

From the general recovery equation

𝑐
𝑅 = 𝑆𝑃𝐹𝑐 . 𝑥 100
𝑓

The following equations apply

𝑐𝑚
𝑅𝑚 = 𝑆𝑃𝐹𝑐 . 𝑥 100 … … … … … … … … … … … … . . (2)
𝑓𝑚
𝑐𝑔
𝑅𝑔 = 𝑆𝑃𝐹𝑐 . 𝑥 100 … … … … … … … … … … … … . . (3)
𝑓𝑔

Performance Evaluation of Mineral Processing Plants Page18

 Where:

cm = metal assay or metal content in concentrate

fm = metal assay or metal content in feed
cg = gangue assay or gangue content in concentrate
fg = gangue assay or gangue content in feed

Cm and fm are usually assayed to estimate their values. Cg and fg are calculated from
the values of Cm and fm by making use of the concept of yield.

The general expression for gangue content in a material is given the following
expression:
𝛼𝑔 = 100% − %𝑌

and
𝛼𝑚
%𝑌 = 𝑥 100
𝑚

Where: 𝛼𝑔 = gangue assay or content in a substance

Y = Yield of metal in the substance

𝛼𝑚 = assay or grade of metal in substance
𝑚 =maximum possible theoretical grade of metal in substance

Hence:
𝑓𝑔 = 100% − %𝑌𝑓 𝑔𝑎𝑛𝑔𝑢𝑒 𝑐𝑜𝑛𝑡𝑒𝑛𝑡 𝑖𝑛 𝑓𝑒𝑒𝑑
𝑐𝑔 = 100% − %𝑌𝑐 𝑔𝑎𝑛𝑔𝑢𝑒 𝑐𝑜𝑛𝑡𝑒𝑛𝑡 𝑖𝑛 𝑐𝑜𝑛𝑐𝑒𝑛𝑡𝑟𝑎𝑡𝑒
Where:
%𝑌𝑓 = Yield of metal in feed
%𝑌𝑐 = Yield of metal in concentrate

To make use of equations (1), (2) and (3), fg and Cg have to estimated in terms of
quantifiable parameters Cm, fm and m

Estimation of fg gangue content in feed

Using the expression
𝑓𝑔 = 100% − %𝑌𝑓
𝑓𝑚
= 100 − 𝑥100
𝑚
𝑓𝑚
= 100 (1 − )
𝑚
𝑓𝑚
𝑓𝑔 = 100 (1 − )
𝑚

Performance Evaluation of Mineral Processing Plants Page19

 Estimation of Cg gangue content in feed
Using the expression
𝑐𝑔 = 100% − %𝑌𝑐
𝑐𝑚
= 100 − 𝑥100
𝑚
𝑐𝑚
= 100 (1 − )
𝑚
𝑐𝑚
𝑐𝑔 = 100 (1 − )
𝑚

Substituting the expressions of Cg and fg in equation (3)

𝑐𝑔
𝑅𝑔 = 𝑆𝑃𝐹𝑐 . 𝑥 100 … … … … … … … … … … … … . . (3)
𝑓𝑔

𝑐𝑔
𝑅𝑔 = 𝑆𝑃𝐹𝑐 . 𝑥 100
𝑓𝑔

𝑐𝑚
100 (1 − )
𝑚
𝑅𝑔 = 𝑆𝑃𝐹𝑐 . 𝑓𝑚
𝑥 100
100 (1 − )
𝑚
𝑚−𝑐𝑚
100 ( )
𝑚
𝑅𝑔 = 𝑆𝑃𝐹𝑐 . 𝑚−𝑓𝑚
𝑥 100
100 ( )
𝑚

100(𝑚 − 𝑐𝑚 )
𝑅𝑔 = 𝑆𝑃𝐹𝑐 . 𝑥 100 … … … … … … … … … (4)
100(𝑚 − 𝑓𝑚 )

The relevant equations so far are:

𝑆. 𝐸. = 𝑅𝑚 − 𝑅𝑔 … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … . (1)

𝑐𝑚
𝑅𝑚 = 𝑆𝑃𝐹𝑐 . 𝑥 100 … … … … … … … … … … … … . . (2)
𝑓𝑚

100(𝑚 − 𝑐𝑚 )
𝑅𝑔 = 𝑆𝑃𝐹𝑐 . 𝑥 100 … … … … … … … … … (4)
100(𝑚 − 𝑓𝑚 )

Substituting equations (2) and (4) into equation (1)

𝑐𝑚 100(𝑚 − 𝑐𝑚 )
𝑆. 𝐸. = (𝑆𝑃𝐹𝑐 . 𝑥 100) − (𝑆𝑃𝐹𝑐 . 𝑥 100)
𝑓𝑚 100(𝑚 − 𝑓𝑚 )

𝑐𝑚 100(𝑚 − 𝑐𝑚 )
𝑆. 𝐸. = (𝑆𝑃𝐹𝑐 . 𝑥 100) − (𝑆𝑃𝐹𝑐 . 𝑥 100)
𝑓𝑚 100(𝑚 − 𝑓𝑚 )

Performance Evaluation of Mineral Processing Plants Page20

 𝑐𝑚 (𝑚 − 𝑓𝑚 ) − 𝑓𝑚 (𝑚 − 𝑐𝑚 )
𝑆. 𝐸. = 100. 𝑆𝑃𝐹𝑐 [ ]
𝑓𝑚 (𝑚 − 𝑓𝑚 )

𝑐𝑚 𝑚 − 𝑐𝑚 𝑓𝑚 − 𝑚𝑓𝑚 + 𝑐𝑚 𝑓𝑚
𝑆. 𝐸. = 100. 𝑆𝑃𝐹𝑐 [ ]
𝑓𝑚 (𝑚 − 𝑓𝑚 )

𝑐𝑚 𝑚 − 𝑐𝑚 𝑓𝑚 − 𝑚𝑓𝑚 + 𝑐𝑚 𝑓𝑚
𝑆. 𝐸. = 100. 𝑆𝑃𝐹𝑐 [ ]
𝑓𝑚 (𝑚 − 𝑓𝑚 )

𝑐𝑚 𝑚 − 𝑚𝑓𝑚
𝑆. 𝐸. = 100. 𝑆𝑃𝐹𝑐 [ ]
𝑓𝑚 (𝑚 − 𝑓𝑚 )

𝑚 𝑐𝑚 − 𝑓𝑚
𝑆. 𝐸. = 100. 𝑆𝑃𝐹𝑐 . [ ]
𝑓𝑚 (𝑚 − 𝑓𝑚 )

𝒎 𝒄𝒎 − 𝒇𝒎
𝑺. 𝑬. = 𝟏𝟎𝟎. 𝑺𝑷𝑭𝒄 . [ ]
𝒇𝒎 (𝒎 − 𝒇𝒎 )

Example:
A tin concentrator treats a feed containing 1.0% Sn, and three possible combinations of
concentrate grade and recovery are

% Grade %Recovery
Concentrate
High Grade Concentrate 63 62
Medium Grade Concentrate 42 72
Low Grade Concentrate 21 78

Determine which of these combinations of grade and recovery produce the highest separation
of efficiency. Assume that the Tin (Sn) is totally contained in the mineral cassiterite (SnO 2)

Solution

The separation efficiency (S.E) expression is given by

𝒎 (𝒄𝒎 − 𝒇𝒎 )
𝑺. 𝑬. = 𝟏𝟎𝟎. 𝑺𝑷𝑭𝒄 . [ ]
𝒇𝒎 (𝒎 − 𝒇𝒎 )

The parameters in the SE expression can be determined as follows

fm = 1.0 % Sn feed grade

Cm = grade for each concentrate as shown in the table

Performance Evaluation of Mineral Processing Plants Page21

 % Grade
Concentrate
High Grade Concentrate 63
Medium Grade Concentrate 42
Low Grade Concentrate 21

SPFc = Solids Split Factor. This is not given but can be estimated from the two product
or recovery Formula as follows:
𝑐𝑚
𝑅𝑚 = 𝑆𝑃𝐹𝑐 . 𝑥 100
𝑓𝑚

Making SPFc the subject of formula

𝑓𝑚
𝑅𝑚 = 𝑆𝑃𝐹𝑐
100 𝑐𝑚

𝑓𝑚
𝑆𝑃𝐹𝑐 = 𝑅𝑚
100 𝑐𝑚

m = maximum grade of metal in mineral. This is calculated as follows

The maximum grade of Tin metal (Sn) in the mineral cassiterite (SnO2) is estimated
using the expression

(% 𝑀𝑒𝑡𝑎𝑙)𝑠𝑢𝑏 = 𝑋𝑚𝑒. 𝑌

Where:
(% Metal)sub = assay or grade of metal in a given substance or material
XMe= Metal Fraction in the metal bearing mineral in the substance or material
Y = Weight % distribution of the mineral in the substance or material

X Me is given by the following ratio:

∑ 𝑨. 𝑴 (𝑀𝑒𝑡𝑎𝑙)
𝑋𝑀𝑒 =
𝑅𝑀𝑀(𝑀𝑖𝑛𝑒𝑟𝑎𝑙)

For a substance containing cassiterite (SnO2), the expression (% 𝑀𝑒𝑡𝑎𝑙)𝑠𝑢𝑏 = 𝑋𝑀𝑒 . 𝑌

can be written as (% 𝑆𝑛)𝑠𝑢𝑏 = 𝑋𝑆𝑛 . 𝑌 where:

∑ 𝑨. 𝑴 (𝑀𝑒𝑡𝑎𝑙)
𝑋𝑀𝑒 =
𝑅𝑀𝑀(𝑀𝑖𝑛𝑒𝑟𝑎𝑙)

becomes
∑ 𝑨. 𝑴 (𝑆𝑛)
𝑋𝑆𝑛 =
𝑅𝑀𝑀(𝑆𝑛𝑂2 )

Performance Evaluation of Mineral Processing Plants Page22

∑ 𝑨. 𝑴 (Sn) = Relative Molecular Mass of the Sn contained in the mineralcassiterite (SnO 2),
∑ 𝑨. 𝑴 (SnO2) = Relative Molecular Mass of the mineral cassiterite (SnO 2),

The RMM (SnO2) is calculated as follows:

RMM (SnO2) = ∑ 𝑨. 𝑴 (Sn) + ∑ 𝑨. 𝑴 (O2)

=(1 x 118.69 + (2 x 16)
=(118.69) +(32)
=150.69 g/mol

RMM (Sn) =(1 x 118.69)= 118.69 g/mol

Hence:
𝑅𝑀𝑀(𝑆𝑛)
𝑋𝑆𝑛 =
𝑅𝑀𝑀(𝑆𝑛𝑂2 )

118.69 g/mol
X Sn = = 𝟎. 𝟕𝟖𝟕𝟔𝟒𝟑𝟓𝟎𝟔
150.69 g/mol

For pure mineral Y = 100%, hence

(% 𝑀𝑒𝑡𝑎𝑙)𝑠𝑢𝑏 = 𝑋𝑚𝑒. 𝑌

(% 𝑆𝑛)𝑆𝑛𝑂2 = 𝑋𝑆𝑛 . 𝑌

(% 𝑆𝑛)𝑆𝑛𝑂2 = 0.787643506 x 100%

(% 𝑺𝒏)𝑺𝒏𝑶𝟐 = 𝟕𝟖. 𝟕𝟔

The SPFc is common to all the concentrates. Substituting the SPFc term in the S.E
expression will an expression applicable to all the concencentrates.

𝑚 (𝑐𝑚 − 𝑓𝑚 )
𝑆. 𝐸. = 100. 𝑆𝑃𝐹𝑐 . [ ]
𝑓𝑚 (𝑚 − 𝑓𝑚 )

𝑅𝑚 𝑓𝑚 𝑚 (𝑐𝑚 − 𝑓𝑚 )
𝑆. 𝐸. = 100. ( ) [ ]
100 𝑐𝑚 𝑓𝑚 (𝑚 − 𝑓𝑚 )

𝑹𝒎 𝒎 (𝒄𝒎 − 𝒇𝒎 )
𝑺. 𝑬. = ( )[ ]
𝒄𝒎 (𝒎 − 𝒇𝒎 )

The SE for each concentrate can therefore be calculated using the above general expression.

Performance Evaluation of Mineral Processing Plants Page23

 SE for High Grade Concentrate

Rm = 62% Sn
Cm = 63% Sn
fm = 1.0% Sn
m = 78.76 % Sn

Substituting into the SE expression

𝑅𝑚 𝑚 (𝑐𝑚 − 𝑓𝑚 )
𝑆. 𝐸. = ( )[ ]
𝑐𝑚 (𝑚 − 𝑓𝑚 )

62 𝑥 78.76 (63 − 1.0)

𝑆. 𝐸. = ( )[ ]
63 (78.76 − 1.0)

𝑺. 𝑬. = 𝟔𝟏. 𝟖%

SE for Medium Grade Concentrate

Rm = 72% Sn
Cm = 42% Sn
fm = 1.0% Sn
m = 78.76 % Sn

Substituting into the SE expression

𝑅𝑚 𝑚 (𝑐𝑚 − 𝑓𝑚 )
𝑆. 𝐸. = ( )[ ]
𝑐𝑚 (𝑚 − 𝑓𝑚 )

72 𝑥 78.76 (42 − 1.0)

𝑆. 𝐸. = ( )[ ]
42 (78.76 − 1.0)

𝑺. 𝑬. = 𝟕𝟏. 𝟐%

SE for Low Grade Concentrate

Rm = 78% Sn
Cm = 21% Sn
fm = 1.0% Sn
m = 78.76 % Sn

Substituting into the SE expression

𝑅𝑚 𝑚 (𝑐𝑚 − 𝑓𝑚 )
𝑆. 𝐸. = ( )[ ]
𝑐𝑚 (𝑚 − 𝑓𝑚 )

Performance Evaluation of Mineral Processing Plants Page24

 78 𝑥 78.76 (21 − 1.0)
𝑆. 𝐸. = ( )[ ]
21 (78.76 − 1.0)

𝑺. 𝑬. = 𝟕𝟓. 𝟐%

Therefore the highest separation efficiency is achieved by the production of low grade
(21.0 % Sn) concentrate at high recovery (78% Sn)

(5) Economic and Metallurgical Efficiency

All the indices discussed which quantifies technical efficiency are useful in comparing
the performance of different operating conditions on selectivity. However they do not
take into account the impact of economic variables on separation processes. A high
value of separation efficiency does not necessary lead to improved economic return.
Thus if the index is doubled, the return from the sale of concentrate does not necessary
double because the factors that are responsible for improving separation index, such as
improved liberation of values from gangue, is unrelated to the price of the metal
contained in the concentrates which has a direct effect on the return from the sale of
concentrates.

A comprehensive measurement of the economic effectiveness of an ore processing

operation is achieved by the following quantities.

(a) Economic Effeciency (E.E)

𝐴𝑐𝑡𝑢𝑎𝑙 𝑁𝑆𝑅
𝐸 .𝐸 = 𝑥 100
𝑇ℎ𝑒𝑜𝑟𝑒𝑡𝑖𝑐𝑎𝑙 𝑁𝑆𝑅

(b) Economic Recovery (E. R)

𝐴𝑐𝑡𝑢𝑎𝑙 𝑁𝑆𝑅
𝐸 .𝑅 = 𝑥 100
𝐺𝑟𝑜𝑠𝑠 𝑉𝑎𝑙𝑢𝑒 𝑜𝑓 𝑚𝑒𝑡𝑎𝑙 𝑖𝑛 𝐹𝑒𝑒𝑑

𝐴𝑐𝑡𝑢𝑎𝑙 𝑁𝑆𝑅
𝐸 .𝑅 = 𝑥 100
𝐹𝑒𝑒𝑑 𝑉𝑎𝑙𝑢𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛
Where

Payment for Contained Smelter Charges

NSR = Metal in Concentrate - Transport Costs
(Concentrate Refinery Costs
Valuation) (Costs)

And Actual NSR is the NSR considered for operations under actual conditions while theoretical
NSR is the NSR determined under ideal operations.

Performance Evaluation of Mineral Processing Plants Page25

Gross value of metal in feed or feed valuation is based on the same concept as concentrate
valuation and can be regarded as payment for contained metal in the feed.

Factors that should be taken into consideration to enable economic assessment of a milling
circuit include the following:

(1) Current price of the valuable product

(2) Facilities and cost of transportation for further treatment e.g smelting, refining etc.
(3) Cost of such further treatment
(4) Nature of the contract between buyer and seller of concentrate (Smelter Contract)

The difference between Economic Recovery and Economic (Metallurgical) efficiency lies in
the definition of the denominator in the expressions for the two terms.

In Economic Recovery (E.R) expression, the total or gross value of the metal in feed is simply
payment for metal contained in the feed, according to the price of metal on the London Metal
Exchange. This is also referred to as feed valuation

In the Economic Efficiency (EE) expression, the term Theoretical NSR is better defined by
contrasting it with the Actual NSR. The Actual NSR has to do with concentrates produced
under actual conditions and subjected to the terms of the smelter contract. On the other hand
the theoretical NSR has to do with concentrates produced under perfect milling conditions and
subjected to the terms of the smelter contract. Under perfect milling conditions, the recovery of
the metal is 100%. The liberation process and the subsequent mineral separation process is
also 100% efficient. The resulting concentrate (the perfect concentrate) contains no gangue
material but only valuable minerals. The concentrate grade is the grade of the metal in the
valuable mineral.

The theoretical NSR can adequately be representation by the following expression:

Theoretical NSR = Payment for Contained Metal - Smelter Charges

in Perfect Concentrates Transport Costs
(Theoretical Concentrate Refinery Costs
Valuation) (Total Costs)

Performance Evaluation of Mineral Processing Plants Page26

Example

For the information given in the table below

Stream TPD % SnO2

Concentrate 51.00 53.32
Tailings 2949 0.37
Feed 3000 1.27

TPD = tonnes per day

SnO2 is the mineral casserite.

Calculate the economic efficiency and economic recovery of a tin concentrator under the
conditions of the smelter contract appended. The cost of transportation to the smelter is
$40.00 per tonne of concentrate. Assume a tin price of $9,000.00 per tonne of valuable
metal

Yjb```SIMPLIFIED TIN SMELTER CONTRACT

MATERIAL
Tin concentrate assaying no less than 15%Sn, to be free from deleterious impurities not
stated, and to contain sufficient moisture as to evolve no dust when unloaded at our works
QUANTITY
Total production of concentrates
VALUATION
Tin, less 1 unit per dry tone of concentrates, at the lowest of the official London Metal
Exchange price
PRICING
On the 7th market day after completion of arrival of each sampling lot into our works
TREATMENT CHARGE
$385 per dry tone of concentrate
LOT CHARGE
$175 per lot sampled of less than 17 tonnes
DELIVERY
Free to our works in regular quantities, loose on a tipping lorry, or in any other acceptable
to both parties

Solution
Generate the metallurgical balance sheet in terms of the metal Sn using the expression

∑ 𝐴𝑡𝑜𝑚𝑖𝑐 𝑚𝑎𝑠𝑠 𝑜𝑓 𝑀𝑒𝑡𝑎𝑙

% 𝑚𝑒𝑡𝑎𝑙 = 𝑥 % 𝑀𝑖𝑛𝑒𝑟𝑎𝑙
𝑅𝑀𝑀 (𝑚𝑖𝑛𝑒𝑟𝑎𝑙)

Performance Evaluation of Mineral Processing Plants Page27

 ∑ 𝐴. 𝑀(𝑀𝑒)
(% 𝑀𝑒)𝑠𝑢𝑏 = 𝑥 % 𝑀𝑖𝑛𝑒𝑟𝑎𝑙
𝑅𝑀𝑀 (𝑚𝑖𝑛𝑒𝑟𝑎𝑙)

(% 𝑀𝑒)𝑠𝑢𝑏 = 𝑋𝑀𝑒 𝑥 𝑌

Therefore the grade of Sn in the various streams are

In Concentrate
∑ 𝐴. 𝑀(𝑆𝑛)
(% 𝑆𝑛)𝑐𝑜𝑛𝑐 = 𝑥 % 𝑆𝑛𝑂2
𝑅𝑀𝑀 (𝑆𝑛𝑂2 )

118.69
(% 𝑆𝑛)𝑐𝑜𝑛𝑐 = 𝑥 53.32% = 42.0%
150.69

In tailings
118.69
(% 𝑆𝑛)𝑡𝑎𝑖𝑙𝑖𝑛𝑔𝑠 = 𝑥 0.37 % = 0.29%
150.69

In Feed
118.69
(% 𝑆𝑛)𝑓𝑒𝑒𝑑 = 𝑥 1.27 % = 1.00 %
150.69

The material balance can be established as follows:

Fraction TPD % Wt %SnO2 % Sn % Dist Units

concentrate 51 1.70 53.32 42.00 66.3 71.40
Tailings 2949 98.30 0.37 0.29 33.7 36.37
Feed(Calc) 3000 100.00 1.37 1.08 100.0 107.77
Feed (Assay) - - 1.27 - - -

The Economic efficiency and Economic Recovery is given by the expressions:

(a) Economic Efficiency (E.E)

𝐴𝑐𝑡𝑢𝑎𝑙 𝑁𝑆𝑅
𝐸 .𝐸 = 𝑥 100
𝑇ℎ𝑒𝑜𝑟𝑒𝑡𝑖𝑐𝑎𝑙 𝑁𝑆𝑅

(b) Economic Recovery (E.R)

𝐴𝑐𝑡𝑢𝑎𝑙 𝑁𝑆𝑅
𝐸 .𝑅 = 𝑥 100
𝐺𝑟𝑜𝑠𝑠 𝑉𝑎𝑙𝑢𝑒 𝑜𝑓 𝑚𝑒𝑡𝑎𝑙 𝑖𝑛 𝐹𝑒𝑒𝑑

𝐴𝑐𝑡𝑢𝑎𝑙 𝑁𝑆𝑅
𝐸 .𝑅 = 𝑥 100
𝐹𝑒𝑒𝑑 𝑉𝑎𝑙𝑢𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛

Performance Evaluation of Mineral Processing Plants Page28

To calculate the above parameters, the following should be determined:

(1) Actual NSR

(2) Theoretical NSR
(3) Feed Valuation

(1) Actual NSR

The Actual NSR is given by the expression:

Actual NSR = Payment for Contained Metal - Smelter Charges

in Actualt Concentrates Transport Costs
(Actual Concentrate Refinery Costs
Valuation) (Total Costs)

(a) Payment for Contained Metal in actual Concentrates (Actual Concentrate

Valuation)

Actual Concentrate Valuation (ACV)

𝑃𝑟𝑖𝑐𝑒
𝐴𝐶𝑉 = 𝑥 𝑡𝑜𝑛𝑛𝑒𝑠 𝑜𝑓 𝑚𝑒𝑡𝑎𝑙 𝑖𝑛 𝐶𝑜𝑛𝑐𝑒𝑛𝑡𝑟𝑎𝑡𝑒
𝑡(𝑚𝑒𝑡𝑎𝑙)

𝑃𝑟𝑖𝑐𝑒 𝑡(𝑐𝑜𝑛𝑐) 𝑡(𝑚𝑒𝑡𝑎𝑙)

𝑨𝑪𝑽 = 𝑥 𝑥
𝑡(𝑚𝑒𝑡𝑎𝑙) 𝑡(𝑓𝑒𝑒𝑑) 100 𝑡(𝑐𝑜𝑛𝑐)

Where

𝑃𝑟𝑖𝑐𝑒
= 𝑝𝑟𝑖𝑐𝑒 𝑜𝑓 𝑛𝑒𝑡𝑎𝑙 𝑝𝑒𝑟 𝑡𝑜𝑛𝑛𝑒 𝑜𝑓 𝑚𝑒𝑡𝑎𝑙
𝑡(𝑚𝑒𝑡𝑎𝑙)

𝑡(𝑐𝑜𝑛𝑐)
= 𝑡𝑜𝑛𝑛𝑒𝑠 𝑜𝑓 𝑐𝑜𝑛𝑐𝑒𝑛𝑡𝑟𝑎𝑡𝑒 𝑝𝑒𝑟 𝑡𝑜𝑛𝑛𝑒 𝑜𝑓 𝑓𝑒𝑒𝑑 ( 𝑺𝑷𝑭 𝒕𝒐 𝒄𝒐𝒏𝒄𝒆𝒏𝒕𝒓𝒂𝒕𝒆 )
𝑡(𝑓𝑒𝑒𝑑)

𝑡(𝑚𝑒𝑡𝑎𝑙)
= 𝑡𝑜𝑛𝑛𝑒𝑠 𝑜𝑓 𝑚𝑒𝑡𝑎𝑙 𝑝𝑒𝑟 100 𝑡𝑜𝑛𝑛𝑒𝑠 𝑜𝑓 𝑐𝑜𝑛𝑐𝑒𝑛𝑡𝑟𝑎𝑡𝑒 (𝐶𝑜𝑛𝑐𝑒𝑛𝑡𝑟𝑎𝑡𝑒 𝑔𝑟𝑎𝑑𝑒)
100 𝑡(𝑐𝑜𝑛𝑐)

Therefore the actual concentrate valuation is

𝑃𝑟𝑖𝑐𝑒 𝑡𝑜𝑛𝑛𝑒𝑠(𝑐𝑜𝑛𝑐) 𝑡𝑜𝑛𝑛𝑒𝑠(𝑚𝑒𝑡𝑎𝑙)

𝑨𝑪𝑽 = 𝑥 𝑥
𝑡𝑜𝑛𝑛𝑒𝑠(𝑚𝑒𝑡𝑎𝑙) 𝑡𝑜𝑛𝑛𝑒𝑠(𝑓𝑒𝑒𝑑) 100 𝑡𝑜𝑛𝑛𝑒𝑠(𝑐𝑜𝑛𝑐)

Performance Evaluation of Mineral Processing Plants Page29

 $9,000 51.00 𝑡𝑜𝑛𝑛𝑒𝑠(𝑐𝑜𝑛𝑐) (42 − 1)𝑡𝑜𝑛𝑛𝑒𝑠(𝑆𝑛)
𝑨𝑪𝑽 = 𝑥 𝑥
𝑡𝑜𝑛𝑛𝑒𝑠(𝑆𝑛) 3,000 𝑡𝑜𝑛𝑛𝑒𝑠(𝑓𝑒𝑒𝑑) 100 𝑡𝑜𝑛𝑛𝑒𝑠(𝑐𝑜𝑛𝑐)

$62.73
𝑨𝑪𝑽 =
𝑡𝑜𝑛𝑛𝑒𝑠(𝑓𝑒𝑒𝑑))

(b) Total Costs

[i]. Transportation Costs: transport charges at $40.00 per tonne of
concentrate.

$40.00 51.00 𝑡𝑜𝑛𝑛𝑒𝑠(𝑐𝑜𝑛𝑐) $0.68

𝑻𝒓𝒂𝒏𝒔𝒑𝒐𝒓𝒕 𝑪𝒐𝒔𝒕𝒔 = 𝑥 =
𝑡𝑜𝑛𝑛𝑒𝑠(𝐶𝑜𝑛𝑐) 3,000 𝑡𝑜𝑛𝑛𝑒𝑠(𝑓𝑒𝑒𝑑) 𝑡𝑜𝑛𝑛𝑒𝑠(𝑓𝑒𝑒𝑑)

[ii]. Smelter Treatment Costs: Smelting treatment costs at $250.00 per tonne of
concentrate

$250.00 51.00 𝑡𝑜𝑛𝑛𝑒𝑠(𝑐𝑜𝑛𝑐) $4.25

𝑺𝒎𝒆𝒍𝒕𝒆𝒓 𝑪𝒐𝒔𝒕𝒔 = 𝑥 =
𝑡𝑜𝑛𝑛𝑒𝑠(𝐶𝑜𝑛𝑐) 3,000 𝑡𝑜𝑛𝑛𝑒𝑠(𝑓𝑒𝑒𝑑) 𝑡𝑜𝑛𝑛𝑒𝑠(𝑓𝑒𝑒𝑑)

𝑻𝒐𝒕𝒂𝒍 𝑪𝒐𝒔𝒕𝒔 = 𝑇𝑟𝑎𝑛𝑠𝑝𝑜𝑟𝑡 𝐶𝑜𝑠𝑡𝑠 + 𝑆𝑚𝑒𝑙𝑡𝑒𝑟 𝐶𝑜𝑠𝑡𝑠

$0.68 $4.25 $𝟒. 𝟗𝟑

𝑻𝒐𝒕𝒂𝒍 𝑪𝒐𝒔𝒕𝒔 = + =
𝑡𝑜𝑛𝑛𝑒𝑠(𝑓𝑒𝑒𝑑) 𝑡𝑜𝑛𝑛𝑒𝑠(𝑓𝑒𝑒𝑑) 𝒕𝒐𝒏𝒏𝒆𝒔(𝒇𝒆𝒆𝒅)

Actual NSR = Payment for Contained Metal - Smelter Charges

in Actual Concentrates Transport Costs
(Actual Concentrate Refinery Costs
Valuation- ACV) (Total Costs)

𝑨𝒄𝒕𝒖𝒂𝒍 𝑵𝑺𝑹 = 𝐴𝐶𝑉 − 𝑇𝑜𝑡𝑎𝑙 𝐶𝑜𝑠𝑡𝑠

$62.73 $4.93
𝑨𝒄𝒕𝒖𝒂𝒍 𝑵𝑺𝑹 = −
𝑡𝑜𝑛𝑛𝑒𝑠(𝑓𝑒𝑒𝑑)) 𝑡𝑜𝑛𝑛𝑒𝑠(𝑓𝑒𝑒𝑑)

$62.73 $4.93
𝑨𝒄𝒕𝒖𝒂𝒍 𝑵𝑺𝑹 = −
𝑡𝑜𝑛𝑛𝑒𝑠(𝑓𝑒𝑒𝑑)) 𝑡𝑜𝑛𝑛𝑒𝑠(𝑓𝑒𝑒𝑑)

$57.80
𝑨𝒄𝒕𝒖𝒂𝒍 𝑵𝑺𝑹 =
𝑡𝑜𝑛𝑛𝑒𝑠(𝑓𝑒𝑒𝑑))

Performance Evaluation of Mineral Processing Plants Page30

 (2) Theoretical NSR

Theoretical NSR = Payment for Contained Metal - Smelter Charges

in Perfect Concentrates Transport Costs
(Theoretical Concentrate Refinery Costs
Valuation- TCV) (Total Costs)

Theoretical Concentrate Valuation (TCV)

𝑃𝑟𝑖𝑐𝑒
𝑻𝑪𝑽 = 𝑥 𝑡𝑜𝑛𝑛𝑒𝑠 𝑜𝑓 𝑚𝑒𝑡𝑎𝑙 𝑖𝑛 𝐶𝑜𝑛𝑐𝑒𝑛𝑡𝑟𝑎𝑡𝑒
𝑡(𝑚𝑒𝑡𝑎𝑙)

𝑃𝑟𝑖𝑐𝑒 𝑡(𝑐𝑜𝑛𝑐) 𝑡(𝑚𝑒𝑡𝑎𝑙)

𝑻𝑪𝑽 = 𝑥 𝑥
𝑡(𝑚𝑒𝑡𝑎𝑙) 𝑡(𝑓𝑒𝑒𝑑) 100 𝑡(𝑐𝑜𝑛𝑐)

𝑃𝑟𝑖𝑐𝑒 𝑡𝑜𝑛𝑛𝑒𝑠(𝑐𝑜𝑛𝑐) 𝑡𝑜𝑛𝑛𝑒𝑠(𝑚𝑒𝑡𝑎𝑙)

𝑻𝑪𝑽 = 𝑥 𝑥
𝑡𝑜𝑛𝑛𝑒𝑠(𝑚𝑒𝑡𝑎𝑙) 𝑡𝑜𝑛𝑛𝑒𝑠(𝑓𝑒𝑒𝑑) 100 𝑡𝑜𝑛𝑛𝑒𝑠(𝑐𝑜𝑛𝑐)

‘Perfect’ concentrates are generated from perfect milling conditions. Under perfect
milling conditions, the recovery of Tin (Sn) to Tin concentrate is 100%. The grade of Tin
in perfect Tin concentrate is the maximum metal content in the metal bearing mineral.
The Tin (Sn) metal in this ore is contained in the mineral casseterite (SnO 2). The
liberation and mineral separation processes are assumed to 100% efficient, resulting in
a concentrate of pure casseterite mineral (SnO2). The grade of a perfect concentrate
containing only SnO2 is the metal content in this mineral which represents the maximum
possible grade in the tin concentrate

The maximum possible grade of tin metal in the tin concentrate is given by the following
general expression:

∑ 𝐴. 𝑀(𝑀𝑒)
(% 𝑀𝑒)𝑠𝑢𝑏 = 𝑥 (% 𝑀𝑖𝑛𝑒𝑟𝑎𝑙)𝑠𝑢𝑏
𝑅𝑀𝑀 (𝑚𝑖𝑛𝑒𝑟𝑎𝑙)

Where:

(% Me)sub = grade of metal in the given substance

∑ 𝐴. 𝑀(𝑀𝑒) = Summation of atomic masses of the metal in the given substance
𝑅𝑀𝑀 (𝑚𝑖𝑛𝑒𝑟𝑎𝑙) = Relative molecular mass of the mineral in which the metal is
contained
(% 𝑀𝑖𝑛𝑒𝑟𝑎𝑙)𝑠𝑢𝑏 = distribution of the mineral or minerals in which the metal is
contained.

Performance Evaluation of Mineral Processing Plants Page31

Therefore the grade of Sn in the perfect tin concentrate is given by above expression in the
following form.

∑ 𝐴. 𝑀(𝑆𝑛)
(% 𝑆𝑛)𝑐𝑜𝑛𝑐 = 𝑥 % 𝑆𝑛𝑂2
𝑅𝑀𝑀 (𝑆𝑛𝑂2 )

118.69
(% 𝑆𝑛)𝑐𝑜𝑛𝑐 = 𝑥 100% = 78.76%
150.69

The weight split or the Solids Split factor to the concentrate (SPFc) can be estimated
from the two product formula
𝑐𝑚
𝑅𝑚 = 𝑆𝑃𝐹𝑐 . 𝑥 100
𝑓𝑚

Under perfect milling conditions, the recovery to the perfect concentrate is 100%, hence
the above expression becomes:
𝑐𝑚
𝑅𝑚 = 𝑆𝑃𝐹𝑐 . 𝑥 100
𝑓𝑚

𝑅𝑚 𝑓𝑚
𝑆𝑃𝐹𝑐 . =
100𝑐𝑚

The feed grade has been given as 1.08 % Sn and the grade of Tin in the perfect
concentrate has been calculated as 78.76% Sn. Substituting these values into the
expression:

𝑅𝑚 𝑓𝑚
𝑆𝑃𝐹𝑐 . =
100𝑐𝑚

(100)(1.08 ) (1.08 ) 𝑡𝑜𝑛𝑛𝑒𝑠 𝑐𝑜𝑛𝑐𝑒𝑛𝑡𝑟𝑎𝑡𝑒 (1.08 ) 𝑡(𝑐𝑜𝑛𝑐)

𝑆𝑃𝐹𝑐 . = = =
100 (78.76) (78.76) 𝑡𝑜𝑛𝑛𝑒𝑠 𝑓𝑒𝑒𝑑 (78.76) 𝑡(𝑓𝑒𝑒𝑑)

The theoretical concentrate valuation for perfect concentrate

𝑃𝑟𝑖𝑐𝑒
𝑻𝑪𝑽 = 𝑥 𝑡𝑜𝑛𝑛𝑒𝑠 𝑜𝑓 𝑚𝑒𝑡𝑎𝑙 𝑖𝑛 𝐶𝑜𝑛𝑐𝑒𝑛𝑡𝑟𝑎𝑡𝑒
𝑡(𝑚𝑒𝑡𝑎𝑙)

𝑃𝑟𝑖𝑐𝑒 𝑡𝑜𝑛𝑛𝑒𝑠(𝑐𝑜𝑛𝑐)
𝑻𝑪𝑽 = 𝑥 𝑥 𝑒𝑓𝑓𝑒𝑐𝑡𝑖𝑣𝑒 𝑚𝑒𝑡𝑎𝑙 𝑔𝑟𝑎𝑑𝑒
𝑡𝑜𝑛𝑛𝑒𝑠(𝑚𝑒𝑡𝑎𝑙) 𝑡𝑜𝑛𝑛𝑒𝑠(𝑓𝑒𝑒𝑑)

𝑃𝑟𝑖𝑐𝑒 𝑡𝑜𝑛𝑛𝑒𝑠(𝑐𝑜𝑛𝑐) 𝑒𝑓𝑓𝑒𝑐𝑡𝑖𝑣𝑒 𝑡𝑜𝑛𝑛𝑒𝑠(𝑚𝑒𝑡𝑎𝑙)

𝑻𝑪𝑽 = 𝑥 𝑥
𝑡𝑜𝑛𝑛𝑒𝑠(𝑚𝑒𝑡𝑎𝑙) 𝑡𝑜𝑛𝑛𝑒𝑠(𝑓𝑒𝑒𝑑) 100 𝑡𝑜𝑛𝑛𝑒𝑠(𝑐𝑜𝑛𝑐)

Performance Evaluation of Mineral Processing Plants Page32

 $ 9,000 (1.08 ) 𝑡(𝑐𝑜𝑛𝑐) (78.76 − 1)𝑡𝑜𝑛𝑛𝑒𝑠 (𝑆𝑛)
𝑻𝑪𝑽 = 𝑥 𝑥
𝑡(𝑆𝑛) (78.76) 𝑡(𝑓𝑒𝑒𝑑) 100 𝑡𝑜𝑛𝑛𝑒𝑠 (𝑐𝑜𝑛𝑐𝑒𝑛𝑡𝑟𝑎𝑡𝑒)

$ 𝟗𝟓. 𝟗𝟕
𝑻𝑪𝑽 =
𝒕(𝒇𝒆𝒆𝒅)

(c) Total Costs

[i]. Transportation Costs: transport charges at $40.00 per tonne of
concentrate.

$40.00 1.08) 𝑡𝑜𝑛𝑛𝑒𝑠(𝑐𝑜𝑛𝑐) $0.55

𝑻𝒓𝒂𝒏𝒔𝒑𝒐𝒓𝒕 𝑪𝒐𝒔𝒕𝒔 = 𝑥 =
𝑡𝑜𝑛𝑛𝑒𝑠(𝐶𝑜𝑛𝑐) (78.76) 𝑡𝑜𝑛𝑛𝑒𝑠(𝑓𝑒𝑒𝑑) 𝑡𝑜𝑛𝑛𝑒𝑠(𝑓𝑒𝑒𝑑)

[ii]. Smelter Treatment Costs: Smelting treatment costs at $250.00 per tonne
of concentrate

$250.00 1.08) 𝑡𝑜𝑛𝑛𝑒𝑠(𝑐𝑜𝑛𝑐) $3.43

𝑺𝒎𝒆𝒍𝒕𝒆𝒓 𝑪𝒐𝒔𝒕𝒔 = 𝑥 =
𝑡𝑜𝑛𝑛𝑒𝑠(𝐶𝑜𝑛𝑐) (78.76) 𝑡𝑜𝑛𝑛𝑒𝑠(𝑓𝑒𝑒𝑑) 𝑡𝑜𝑛𝑛𝑒𝑠(𝑓𝑒𝑒𝑑)

𝑻𝒐𝒕𝒂𝒍 𝑪𝒐𝒔𝒕𝒔 = 𝑇𝑟𝑎𝑛𝑠𝑝𝑜𝑟𝑡 𝐶𝑜𝑠𝑡𝑠 + 𝑆𝑚𝑒𝑙𝑡𝑒𝑟 𝐶𝑜𝑠𝑡𝑠

$0.55 $3.43 $𝟑. 𝟗𝟖

𝑻𝒐𝒕𝒂𝒍 𝑪𝒐𝒔𝒕𝒔 = + =
𝑡𝑜𝑛𝑛𝑒𝑠(𝑓𝑒𝑒𝑑) 𝑡𝑜𝑛𝑛𝑒𝑠(𝑓𝑒𝑒𝑑) 𝒕𝒐𝒏𝒏𝒆𝒔(𝒇𝒆𝒆𝒅)

Theoretical NSR = Payment for Contained Metal - Smelter Charges

in Perfect Concentrates Transport Costs
(Theoretical Concentrate Refinery Costs
Valuation- TCV) (Total Costs)

𝑻𝒉𝒆𝒐𝒓𝒆𝒕𝒊𝒄𝒂𝒍 𝑵𝑺𝑹 = 𝑇𝐶𝑉 − 𝑇𝑜𝑡𝑎𝑙 𝐶𝑜𝑠𝑡𝑠

$95.97 $3.98
𝑻𝒉𝒆𝒐𝒓𝒆𝒕𝒊𝒄𝒂𝒍 𝑵𝑺𝑹 = −
𝑡𝑜𝑛𝑛𝑒𝑠(𝑓𝑒𝑒𝑑)) 𝑡𝑜𝑛𝑛𝑒𝑠(𝑓𝑒𝑒𝑑)

$91.99
𝑻𝒉𝒆𝒐𝒓𝒆𝒕𝒊𝒄𝒂𝒍 𝑵𝑺𝑹 =
𝑡𝑜𝑛𝑛𝑒𝑠(𝑓𝑒𝑒𝑑))

Performance Evaluation of Mineral Processing Plants Page33

 (3) Feed Valuation (FV)
This is the worth or value of the feed for the metal contained under the prevailing market
price the metal. Feed valuation is different from concentrate valuation in that it is not
subjected to the smelter contract on the assumption that it is not treated through the
smelter. The calculation procedure is however the same as that for concentrate
valuation.

𝑃𝑟𝑖𝑐𝑒
𝑭𝑽 = 𝑥 𝑡𝑜𝑛𝑛𝑒𝑠 𝑜𝑓 𝑚𝑒𝑡𝑎𝑙 𝑖𝑛 𝑓𝑒𝑒𝑑
𝑡(𝑚𝑒𝑡𝑎𝑙)

𝑃𝑟𝑖𝑐𝑒 𝑡𝑜𝑛𝑛𝑒𝑠(𝑓𝑒𝑒𝑑)
𝑭𝑽 = 𝑥 𝑥 𝑚𝑒𝑡𝑎𝑙 𝑔𝑟𝑎𝑑𝑒
𝑡𝑜𝑛𝑛𝑒𝑠(𝑚𝑒𝑡𝑎𝑙) 𝑡𝑜𝑛𝑛𝑒𝑠(𝑓𝑒𝑒𝑑)

𝑃𝑟𝑖𝑐𝑒 𝑡𝑜𝑛𝑛𝑒𝑠(𝑓𝑒𝑒𝑑) 𝑡𝑜𝑛𝑛𝑒𝑠(𝑚𝑒𝑡𝑎𝑙)

𝑭𝑽 = 𝑥 𝑥
𝑡𝑜𝑛𝑛𝑒𝑠(𝑚𝑒𝑡𝑎𝑙) 𝑡𝑜𝑛𝑛𝑒𝑠(𝑓𝑒𝑒𝑑) 100 𝑡𝑜𝑛𝑛𝑒𝑠(𝑓𝑒𝑒𝑑)

𝑃𝑟𝑖𝑐𝑒 𝑡𝑜𝑛𝑛𝑒𝑠(𝑚𝑒𝑡𝑎𝑙)
𝑭𝑽 = 𝑥
𝑡𝑜𝑛𝑛𝑒𝑠(𝑚𝑒𝑡𝑎𝑙) 100 𝑡𝑜𝑛𝑛𝑒𝑠(𝑓𝑒𝑒𝑑)

$ 9,000 1.08 𝑡𝑜𝑛𝑛𝑒𝑠(𝑆𝑛)

𝑭𝑽 = 𝑥
𝑡𝑜𝑛𝑛𝑒𝑠 (𝑆𝑛) 100 𝑡𝑜𝑛𝑛𝑒𝑠(𝑓𝑒𝑒𝑑)

$ 97.20
𝑭𝑽 =
𝑡𝑜𝑛𝑛𝑒𝑠(𝑓𝑒𝑒𝑑)

(4) Economic Efficiency (EE) and Economic Recovery (ER)

(a) Economic Effeciency (E.E)

𝐴𝑐𝑡𝑢𝑎𝑙 𝑁𝑆𝑅
𝐸 .𝐸 = 𝑥 100
𝑇ℎ𝑒𝑜𝑟𝑒𝑡𝑖𝑐𝑎𝑙 𝑁𝑆𝑅
$57.80
𝑡𝑜𝑛𝑛𝑒𝑠(𝑓𝑒𝑒𝑑)
𝐸 .𝐸 = [ $91.99 ] 𝑥 100
𝑡𝑜𝑛𝑛𝑒𝑠(𝑓𝑒𝑒𝑑)

$57.80
𝐸 .𝐸 = [ ] 𝑥 100
$91.99

𝑬 . 𝑬 = 𝟔𝟐. 𝟖%

Performance Evaluation of Mineral Processing Plants Page34

 (b) Economic Recovery (E. R)

𝐴𝑐𝑡𝑢𝑎𝑙 𝑁𝑆𝑅
𝐸 .𝑅 = 𝑥 100
𝐺𝑟𝑜𝑠𝑠 𝑉𝑎𝑙𝑢𝑒 𝑜𝑓 𝑚𝑒𝑡𝑎𝑙 𝑖𝑛 𝐹𝑒𝑒𝑑

$57.80
𝑡𝑜𝑛𝑛𝑒𝑠(𝑓𝑒𝑒𝑑)
𝐸 .𝑅 = $ 97.20
𝑥 100
𝑡𝑜𝑛𝑛𝑒𝑠(𝑓𝑒𝑒𝑑)

$57.80
𝐸 .𝑅 = 𝑥 100
$ 97.20

𝑬 . 𝑹 = 𝟓𝟗. 𝟒𝟔%

Performance Evaluation of Mineral Processing Plants Page35