RECENT ADVANCES IN COPPER HEAP LEACH ANALYSIS AND

INTERPRETATION

By

Graeme M Miller

Manager Process Engineering

Sinclair Knight Merz Pty Ltd

369 Ann Street

Brisbane QLD 4000

gmiller@skm.com.au

1
 RECENT ADVANCES IN COPPER HEAP LEACH ANALYSIS AND
INTERPRETATION

Presented by

Graeme M Miller

CONTENTS

1. ABSTRACT 3
2. INTRODUCTION 4
3. LEACH RATE PARAMETERS 6
4. INTERPRETATION OF LEACH RATE DATA 10
5. INTERPRETATION OF ACID CONSUMPTION RATE DATA 14
6. EFFECTS OF CHANGES IN VOID FRACTION 16
7. EFFECTS OF HEAP HEIGHT 18
8. EFFECTS OF OVER-STACKING ON RECOVERY RATE 20
9. SELECTION OF HEAP PARAMETERS 22
10. CONCLUSIONS 25
11. REFERENCES 26

2
 1.0 ABSTRACT

The analysis of heap leach test and operating results has been advanced by the use of techniques
developed in the last few years. Application of these techniques has shown that the actual field
leaching of all projects studied is a diffusion controlled situation. This is despite the copper
mineralogy covering the range from carbonate to chalcocite.

The correlation between fines and clay content and a reduced leaching rate has been established
for a number of projects where the proportion of fines is variable. The use of diffusion controlled
modelling allows the calculation of leaching rates that can be compared between operations and
provide an absolute characterisation from fast to very slow. This is a significant improvement on
previous methods where the leach rate was not strictly comparable between operations.

The analysis method also allows the identification of fundamental changes in leaching behaviour. It
can show the change from agglomerate leaching kinetics to ore particle leaching kinetics. This
knowledge is useful in scale up where high recoveries may take extremely long times to achieve.

The new methods also provide a means of understanding the interaction between the leaching time
and the acid consumption. The rate of consumption is related to the acid concentration and this can
be modelled to allow consideration of alternate acid concentration profiles to minimise overall
consumption.

Heap placement parameters such as lift height and bulk density can be used to alter the overall
leach time and help to reduce the acid consumption. The interaction of lift height and the end of
economic leaching can be used to maximise recovery at the same time as minimising acid
consumption.

Bulk density can be used as a predictive tool in considering the leach rates of material in the lower
parts of a lift or in underlying lifts. Ores with a high degree of fines and clay show plastic
characteristics which have the combined effects of reducing the inter-agglomerate voidage and
increasing the effective size of ‘meta particles’ formed in the heap. This combination can lead to
th th
reductions in leach rate of 1/10 to 1/150 of the unconsolidated material.

A new suit of models have been developed to allow assessment of the effects of the various
variables on leach rate, economic recovery limits, acid consumption, grade, PLS grade and leach
time.

3
 2.0 INTRODUCTION

The leaching of copper ores is wide spread in the world but there is a lack of published information
on the actual controls of the leach process. There is also a lack of published models on the
prediction of acid consumption as it relates to the ore mineralogy and the leaching conditions.
Although some data has been presented by Baun (Baun 1999).

This paper is the second in a series that explores the fundamental modelling that is applicable to
copper leaching and gangue acid consumption. The first (Miller 1999) provided the overall frame
work in which this modelling has been conducted. It identified that the gangue acid consumption (at
least in the middle to later parts of the leach cycle) was linear with time and could be modelled
simply with a linear rate kg/tonne/day. The leach rate was modelled using a logarithmic form that in
most cases had a very high correlation coefficient. The presentation of results that allowed
comparison of the leaching system, involved the plotting of nett acid consumption (gangue only)
against copper recovery, Figure 1.

Figure 1.0 Model Acid Consumption vs. Copper Recovery

180.00
Acid Consumption kg/t ore

160.00
140.00
120.00 Fast Leaching
100.00 Slow Leaching

80.00
60.00
40.00
20.00
0.00
0.00 20.00 40.00 60.00 80.00 100.00
Copper Recovery %

The technique was extended to looking at the concept of an economic limit to leaching and how this
was effected by the leaching parameters. This is based on an assumption that for high acid
consuming ores the cost of the acid consumed is linear with time whereas the income from copper
is inversely decreasing with time. When the costs exceed the income the leaching should be
terminated on economic grounds. This can be most readily appreciated as the leach Acid:Copper
Ratio as shown in Figure 2.

4
 Figure 2.0 Model Acid:Copper Ratio vs Recovery.
40.00
Delta acid:Delta Copper

35.00
30.00
'Fast' Leach
25.00
Ratio

'Slow' leach
20.00
15.00
10.00
5.00
0.00
0.00 20.00 40.00 60.00 80.00 100.00
Copper Recovery %

It can be seen that faster leaching species have both:

• lower overall acid consumption for any given recovery and

• a higher economic limit recovery than slower leaching species.

The present paper takes these concepts a stage further looking at the more fundamental aspects of
the leach rate determination and the interaction of this with the acid consumption profiles.

5
 3.0 LEACH RATE PARAMETERS

3.1 DIFFUSION RATE CONTROL

The single particle porous diffusion model has been selected as an appropriate basis for the
interpretation. This model was originally developed to describe leaching in a single porous particle
where both the leachate and leachant diffuse through the pores of the particle. The assumption is
that the leachant concentration is evenly spread through out the particle, and that the rate of
reaction is fast compared with the rate of diffusion.

In field situations the ‘particle’ is not the actual crushed ore particles(s) but either :

• The agglomerate formed in an agglomeration drum or

• An ‘effective’ meta particle formed by the placement activity.

The ‘size’ of the meta particle tends to reflect the distance between adjacent leachate flow
channels, within the heap. As a result of this change of particle scale, the leaching can be
considered to reflect the average grade porous model. The copper (even if initially present on the
surface of crushed particles) is contained fairly evenly within the agglomerates or the meta particles.

The solution to the shrinking core model (as it is known) has been widely published (Miller and
Newton 1999) and comes in a number of forms. The most useful for the purposes of leach
modelling is:

= t*{2Vcu*Deff*[Ao]*ε }/{B*ro *τ }
2/3 2
1 – 2/3F – (1 – F)

F fractional recovery

t some measure of time (generally used as leachate flux kL/t ore}

Vcu volume of rock containing one mole of copper

Deff effective diffusion coefficient

[Ao] applied acid concentration

ε void fraction in the ‘particle’ of interest

B reaction molar ratio = 1 for most oxide copper reactions

ro radius of the ‘particle’ of interest

τ tortuosity of the pore = 1 for straight pores and = 2 for most rocks

LF leachate flux

LP lumped parameter leach rate or diffusion coefficient

Substituting in the above equation provides:

= LF*{2Vcu*Deff*[Ao]*ε }/(ro *τ)}

2/3 2
1 – 2/3F – (1 – F)

6
 2/3
For a shrinking core diffusion controlled leach system a plot of {1 – 2/3F –( 1 – F) } vs LF (kL/t)
should yield a straight line if all the other parameters are kept constant. However if the other
parameters are also varied the plot should be a series of straight lines reflecting the variations in the
parameters. Figure 3.0 Illustrates this model on a heap leach operation with little change in any of
the other parameters.

Figure 3.0 Diffusion Model with Constant Leach Conditions

0.25
Lumped Parameter Recovery

y = 0.0261x - 0.005
0.2
R2 = 0.9982

0.15

0.1

0.05

0
0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 6.00 7.00 8.00 9.00
Leach Flux kL/t

The slope of the straight line will be the lumped parameter leach or diffusion coefficient LP.

LP = 2Vcu*Deff*[Ao]*ε }/(ro *τ)

2

The other parameters of particular importance in the modelling and understanding of the leach rate
are [Ao], Vcu, ε and ro.

[Ao] has a significant effect on the LP leach rate and must be taken into account when developing
any sort of model to be used for analysis and predictive purposes.

Vcu is the inclusion of the copper grade and relates to it in the form:

Vcu = 6.35/(%Cu)

Where %Cu is the ‘soluble’ copper in the ore - generally the acid + cyanide soluble copper head
grade. For any given heap leach area of interest, Vcu is a constant. But for analysis between cells
of the same ore type the copper grade needs to be accounted for as it effects the LP found in
practice.

For a range of leach cells with the same ore type but varying grades and [Ao] a plot of LP*%Cu vs
[Ao] should yield a straight line with a slope of:

K*Deff* ε /(ro *τ )
2

7
A measure of the variability in the remaining parameters can be gauged from the spread of results
obtained and the variability of linear correlation coefficients in regression analyses.

Different ore types should potentially yield a different slope related to the change in the remaining
parameters.

Void Fraction ε can be predicted to some extent by the use of information on the change in bulk
density with imposed load (lift / over-stacked lift) height. Once the initial slump has occurred it does
not change appreciably during the leach cycle and can be considered constant for this cycle.
However if the ore is over stacked then further stress is placed on the underlying material and ε can
decrease significantly, especially if the ore has a high plasticity index.

Void fraction is also a factor when leaching control changes from a larger to a smaller ‘particle’.
This can be the case when the readily available copper on the surface of particles within an
agglomerate are leached; and the leach control shifts to the copper contained within the individual
crushed particles.

τ is assumed to be constant for the same cell and for approximately the same ore type mix and
mineralogy. No real account can be taken of this parameter unless it can be correlated with
variable clay content as determined by XRD testing.

The effective size ro is not any easy parameter to control as it can depend on:

• The crush size distribution

• Agglomerate size distribution

• Effective meta particle size distribution in the as-placed ore

• Heap height as it interacts (via the ore plasticity) and creates in-situ aggregates, alters the bulk
density (and ε ) and provides more scope for larger or smaller meta particles through the
placement operation.

Again if all other factors are the same (ore type, mix ratio, lift height etc) then the effect of ro can be
treated as not significant when comparing between leach areas of the same ore type.

3.2 ACID CONSUMPTION

A number of test and production analyses (Miller et al 1997, Miller and Newton 1999) have shown
that acid consumption rates are linear with time and dependant on the acid concentration ([acid]).
This dependence is a characteristic of the ore type, gangue mineralogy and other factors such as
size distribution. This is well illustrated in Figure 4.0

8
 FIGURE 4.0
Gross and Nett Acid Consumption verses Time, for
differing acid concentration.

100
Acid Consumption (kg/t

Gross Acid (kg/t)

80
Nett Acid (kg/t)
60
ore)

40

20

0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140
Time (Days)

The interesting point is that the acid consumption rate varies directly with the [acid] and can be
tested both in the field and in the laboratory.

9
 4.0 INTERPRETATION OF LEACH RATE DATA

A number of operating heap leaches have been analysed using these techniques to see if:

• The leaching was diffusion controlled

• The value of the lumped parameter leach rate

• The dependence of the LP value on the voidage ε of the particle being leached at different
times in the leach process.

• The dependence of the LP values on [Ao]

• The dependence of LP values on %Cusol

Figure 5.0 is typical of the leach results that have been analysed. Figure 6.0 shows the acid
concentration effect on the acid consumption rate.

Figure 5.0: Leach Lumped Parameter

0.12

0.1 y = 0.0085x + 0.0355

R2 = 0.9747
Lumped Parameter

y = 0.0364x - 0.1099
0.08 2
R = 0.9956
0.06 y = 0.0212x - 0.0031
2
R = 0.9978
y = 0.0046x + 0.0567
0.04
R2 = 0.9735
0.02

0
0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 6.00 7.00
-0.02
Leach Flux KL/t

10
 Figure 6.0 Acid Consumption Characteristics.

35.00
y = 0.0236x + 19.836 y = 0.0305x + 17.651
30.00
R2 = 0.9672 R2 = 0.9371
25.00
Nett Acid kg/t

y = 0.0268x + 17.879
20.00 2
R = 0.9982
y = 0.0016x + 27.605
15.00 2
R = 0.6758
10.00

5.00

0.00
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500
Leach Days

From Figures 5.0 and 6.0 it can be seen that:

• The leach rate i s diffusion controlled as all leaching follows a series of straight lines in the
transformed model space

• The value of the lumped parameter varies with [Ao], with higher leach rates associated with
higher acid concentrations and visa versa.

• The leaching slows down to effectively zero at low acid concentrations

Figure 7.0 : All Data LP Rate / [acid]

0.12
y = 0.006x - 0.0127
0.1
LP Leach Rate

0.08 R2 = 0.373
0.06
0.04
0.02
0
-0.02
0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0 12.0 14.0
On [Acid] g/L

Figures 7.0. 8.0 and 9.0 show the results from a number of cells with differences in grade, lift height,
ore mix types and size distribution.

11
 Figure 8.0: Individual Cell LP Rate / [Acid]
0.12
y = 0.0087x - 0.0129
2
R = 0.6735
0.1
y = 0.0047x - 0.0104 y = 0.0083x - 0.0286
2 2
R =1 R = 0.8437
LP Leach Rate

y = 0.0027x - 0.0051
0.08 2
R = 0.436

0.06

0.04

0.02

0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
On [acid] g/L

Figure 9.0: LP Leach Rate*%Cu tot

0.0012
y = 0.00009002x - 0.00016280
0.001 2
LP*%Cutot

R = 0.60375614
0.0008
0.0006
0.0004
0.0002
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
On [Acid] g/L

• The Overall LP values from all cells correlate only poorly with [Ao] with significant scatter, as
shown in Figure 7.0.

• LP values from the same cell with varying [Ao] correlated much better than the overall as shown
in Figure 8.0

• The LP*%Cusol values correlate much better with [Ao] with less scatter and greater correlation
coefficient. The strength of the correlation would seem to suggest that within the data set there
are only small influences from the other parameters, if at all – Figure 9.0.

• The average of the individual cell slopes of the LP*%Cusol/[Ao] lines (Average = 9.4E-05 with a
standard deviation of 1.4E-05) is higher than the least squares fit of the total data set (9.0E-05
from Figure 9.0). The standard deviation is high suggesting a spread of values and the small
data set of only four values.

12
There may be some possibility of a dependency of the LP*%Cusol on agglomerator acid addition
[Aaggl]; which shows an increasing LP*%Cusol with increasing [Aaggl] – Figure 10.0.

However the correlation is week (R^2 = 0.257) and is probably not significant.

Figure 10.0 LP*Cusol vs [Acid] in Agglomeration

Slope of LP*%Cusol vs [Ao]

1.E-04

1.E-04

8.E-05

6.E-05
y = 1.544E-06x + 6.745E-05
4.E-05
R2 = 2.574E-01
2.E-05

0.E+00
0 5 10 15 20 25
Acid in Agglomeration kg/t

13
 5.0 INTERPRETATION OF ACID CONSUMPTION RATE DATA

Acid consumption (gangue only) trends have been analysed and used in the interpretation of [acid]
on leach rate. The same data also provides the effect of [acid] on acid consumption rate. In all
cases there is a high degree of linear correlation between time (not flux) and gangue acid
consumption rate. This is consistent with other experience to date where the acid consumption has
been analysed for both elapsed time and leach flux application. Figure 11.0 Shows the acid
consumption range of data from a number of individual leach areas.

Figure 11.0 Acid Consumption (all data)

0.25
Consumption Rate kg/t/day

2
0.20 y = 0.000779x2 + 0.005352x - 0.016781
R = 0.838810

0.15

0.10

0.05

0.00
0.00 2.00 4.00 6.00 8.00 10.00 12.00 14.00
On [acid] g/L

Across all the data the acid consumption correlation (from Figure 11.0) is:

Acid consumed kg/t/day = 0.000779[acid]^2 + 0.005352[acid] – 0.016781

R^2 = 0.839.

There is a degree of scatter of the data particularly at the higher [acid] > 10g/L. This could indicate
some other effects on the acid consumption rate that needs to be related to other parameters in the
leach heap.

The more important implications are:

• The increase in consumption rate is non linear and related to [acid]^2.

• There is an [acid] below which the consumption rate is zero

• This concentration is close to that for which the copper leach rate also approaches zero.

Ore grade should have no effect on acid consumption rate. Total acid consumption includes the
initial acid added to the agglomerator. Higher grade ores will consume more of the agglomerator

14
acid with copper dissolution. Nett acid consumption is a characteristic of the gangue mineralogy
rather than the copper mineralogy. As such it should be independent of the copper characteristics
of the ore including head grade.

The ore type/mix effects have been assessed; by separating out some of the more important ore
type changes. The ‘high dolomite’ ore types (shown by squares) do not show any significant
difference to the overall correlation as shown in Figure 11.0. However one cell (shown by triangles)
is showing higher than average acid consumption rate. This ore type is also leaching more slowly
and consuming more acid for similar copper recovery levels. The conclusion is that there is some
fundamental change in ore characteristics that is causing this. The lack of other data precludes any
conclusions being drawn as to the controlling mechanism.

Agglomeration acid addition makes a difference in the total acid consumption as it is added to the
daily consumption rate. All things being equal this should be minimised to the extent of maintaining
control of early exit pH. Once this has been achieved then further agglomeration acid addition does
not appear to enhance the leach rate nor benefit the acid consumption rate.

15
 6.0 EFFECTS OF CHANGES IN VOID FRACTION

Figure 12.0 shows some leach data from column tests transformed into the diffusion model that
identifies that the leach rate is under diffusion control.

Figure 12.0 Two Rate Diffusion Control System

0.25
Lumped Parameter Recovery

0.2
y = 0.0655x
2
R = 0.981
0.15
y = 0.0105x + 0.1375
2
R = 0.9745
0.1

0.05

0
0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 6.00 7.00 8.00
Leach Flux kL/t

In ‘normal’ circumstances there would be a single straight line that characterises the diffusion rate
controlling process. However for this data there are two very distinct regions each with a high
correlation straight line. The global diffusion rate parameter values are:

Column Ave of 4 Ratio

columns

Fast Rate 0.059 1.0

Slow Rate 0.0091 6.5

Intersection 0.159 N/A

CuACS 0.56

The results are extremely consistent and indicate that there is no real difference between the four
tests conducted, and that the different test parameters have had no effect on the result.

The explanation for the two different leach rates is a little more subtle than at first sight. It is thought
that the high rate period relates to the leaching of copper from the surface of the particles, within the
agglomerates. The diffusion controlling parameters are the agglomerate porosity and the
agglomerate tortuosity. The agglomerate porosity is at least that of the residual moisture hold up of

16
+21%. The inter particle tortuosity is also probably fairly low. The combination of the two
parameters gives a high rate of extraction for the copper accessible from the inter-particle solution.

The slow rate probably relates to the extraction of copper from within the larger particles in the
agglomerate. The porosity of the rocks is much lower than the agglomerate, with 3.5% a typical
figure (Bartlett 1992). The internal particle tortuosity is unknown but may be typically higher than
the inter particle value. However the ratio of the rates at 6.5:1 is very close to the ratio of the
agglomerate and particle porosity of 6:1. This close correlation would indicate that the difference in
porosity between the agglomerate and the individual particles is the main controlling step in the
diffusion rate determination.

There is also a high degree of agreement with the intersection point between the two diffusion rates.
The average of 0.159 is equivalent to an extraction of 86.3%.

The results indicate that the extraction is agglomerate diffusion controlled for 86.3% recovery and
particle diffusion rate controlled for the remaining. For a target extraction of 90% the final 3.7% will
be controlled at the slower rate. Under these circumstances there is a strong likelihood that the
final copper recovery will not be economic as the acid:copper ratio will be high and the nett benefit
will be limited.

17
 7.0 EFFECTS OF HEAP HEIGHT

For ores with a medium to high clay content there is a significant amount of compaction with
increasing heap height. Figure 13.0 illustrates the change in bulk density with heap height. This
includes both the instantaneous and average density to that depth in the heap.

Figure 13.0 Density vs Height of Heap

Point density Av Bulk Density Log. (Point density)

2500
Density kg/m3

2000
1500
y = 134.28Ln(x) + 1885.9
1000
R 2 = 0.9899
500
0
0 5 10 15
Depth Below Lift Surface - m

This has been transposed into the resultant void fraction, shown in Figure 14.0

Figure 14.0 Void Fraction vs Heap Height

Ave to depth lower 6m lift

0.600
0.500
Voidage

0.400
0.300
0.200
0.100
0.000
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
Heap Depth from Surface - m

This particular ore had a significant moisture holding capacity of around 12%. This indicates a
material with a ‘medium’ clay content and plasticity. With compaction the number of larger voids is
decreased and the number of smaller voids that are below the critical capillary size is increased.
The plasticity of the ore mass allows material to move into the voids as well as the imposed load
compacting them.

18
Once the local void size reaches a minimum, the interstitial moisture is no longer constrained to the
particle surface but bridges the inter-particle gap (much like in an agglomerate). This is the onset of
local ‘flooding’. Once this occurs the determinant particle size is no longer the agglomerate size but
the flooded particle size. These ‘meta particles’ now act as the diffusion matrix where the leachate
and copper must diffuse through the inter-particle pore moisture. In other words the effective
particle radius increases significantly with compaction and consolidation.

The combined effect is to decrease the leach rate lower in the heap, by a combination of lower heap
and agglomerate voidage and a growth in the ‘meta particle’ size to that approaching the width of
the fines channels between the coarse material channels. Once the residual total heap voidage
approaches the ore moisture holding capacity this situation exists throughout the heap. Even at
levels higher in the lift, the reduction in overall heap voidage is significant, which can help to explain
the lower leach recovery in the lower parts of the heap; simply from the voidage reduction factor
alone. Other factors such as lixivant concentration and irrigation rate are important in the overall
leach rate determination; and account needs to be taken of them.

In order to ensure that high heap voidage and low ‘meta particle’ size is maintained a lower lift
height is indicated for ore with high clay content and/or plasticity. This is the approach taken at El
Tesoro in Chile which has a very high clay content ore. The design lift height is 2.0m as illustrated
in Figure 15.0. When due to operational pressures the lift height was raised to 2.5m the lower 0.5m
did not leach to any appreciable extent due to the combination of large meta size and low voidage
in the meta particles. On site observations were that the lower 0.5m was fully compacted and not
leached.

Figure 15.0 - El Tesoro Heap Leach

19
 8.0 EFFECTS OF OVER-STACKING ON RECOVERY RATE

If the ore has little clay or low plasticity the effect of over staking will be to reduce the voidage
somewhat but not change the in-situ ‘effective’ particle size. However for clayey and plastic ores
this will not be the case. It would be expected that large changes to both parameters will occur with
an attendant interactive reduction in the diffusive lumped parameter leach rate.

Using the data shown in Figure 14.0, and assuming a 6m lift over-staking another 6m lift. The
following calculated values result.

Average voidage for single 6m lift 20%

Average voidage for 6m underlying lift 12.6%

Average agglomerate size in upper lift 15mm

Average meta particle in lower lift 150mm

Leach rate change due to voidage = 12.6/20 =0.63

Leach rate change to size =(15/150)^2 =0.01

Total effect =0.0063

This is equivalent to a reduction in leach rate of 1/160.

If the underlying lift had a slow leach rate LP slope of 0.013 and had leached to a 65% recovery in
12 months (5.2 kL/t), the extra recovery that could be expected in a further 12 months (5.2 kL/t) of
leaching would be:

LP recovery after 12 months =1-2/3.65-(1-.65)^(2/3) =0.0700

Leach rate =0.013/160 =0.00008

Extra recovery =5.2*0.00008 =0.00042

New total LP recovery =0.0700 + 0.000042 =0.07044

New total recovery 65.15%

Nett increase in recovery 0.15%

Even if the change in effective meta particle size is not as great as this and can be reduced to an
increase to 45mm (x3) the leach rate multiplier becomes 0.07 and recovery:

LP recovery after 12 months =1-2/3.65-(1-.65)^(2/3) =.0700

Leach rate =0.013*0.63/9 =0.0009

Extra recovery =5.2*0.0009 =.00047

20
New total LP recovery =.0700 + .0047 =0.0748

New total recovery 66.65%

Nett increase in recovery 1.65%

From this analysis it is easy to see why over-tacking of slow leaching ore (slow because it has high
clay content in the first place) does not produce the expected recovery that many people anticipate.
The reason that the operations in the SE USA have been able to achieve these sorts of results is
mainly due to the highly siliceous nature of the ore and its low plasticity and clay content.

21
 9.0 SELECTION OF HEAP PARAMETERS

With the ability to interpret the leach data to define the fundamental rate controlling mechanisms of:

• Diffusion control rate

• The ability to account for the acid soluble head grade within the diffusion control rate

• The change of leach rate with acid concentration

• The change of leach rate with bulk density (1/voidage)

• Nett gangue acid consumption rate

• The change of acid consumption rate with acid concentration

it is now possible to set up an integrated model that allows investigation of changing the following
parameters:

• Heap height

• Agglomerate average size

• Acid concentration strategies throughout the whole of the leach cycle

• Alternate grade control strategies as it effects the soluble copper grade

• Effect of over-stacking on further recovery expectations.

Figure 16.0, 17.0, 18.0, and 19.0 show a typical model output of a leaching activity with changing
[acid] and its effects on recovery, acid consumption and acid:copper ratio. Similar curves can be
constructed for alternate heap heights, [acid] regimes and soluble copper grade. Comparison of the
outputs allows selection of the most attractive scenario to address the more important of the
following aims:

• Greatest economic copper recovery

• PLS grade management

Figure 17: Model Acid Consumption
• Minimum acid consumption
total acid nett acid
Figure 16: Model - LP Recovery with Flux
It is not
40possible to achieve all of these aims concurrently however it is possible to arrive at an
economic and operationally attractive compromise. The acid concentrations used are 8, 4, 3 and 4
0.250
35
g/L in sequence.
Recovery

30
Nett kg/tonne

0.200
25
0.150
20
LP Leach

0.100
15
10
0.050
5
0.000
0 22
0 0 100 2200 300 4 400 6 500 8
600 700 10 800
LeachLeach
Flux Days
kL/tonne
 Figure 18: Model Acid Data vs Copper Recovery
Variable g/L

acid cu ratio gross acid nett acid

40
35
Acid kg/t, A/Cu Ratio

30
25
20
15
10
5
0
0.0 1 0 . 0 2 0 . 0 3 0 . 0 4 0 . 0 50.0 60.0 70.0 80.0 90.0 1 0 0 .
0
Copper Recovery %

Figure 19: Model Recovery / Flux

100.0
Recovery %

80.0
60.0 y = 15.888Ln(x) + 61.276
40.0 R2 = 0.9551
20.0
0.0
0 2 4 6 8 10
Leach Flux kL/t

23
Points to note from these figures are that:

• The log model seems to provided a good correlation between the recovery and Leach Flux
(R^2=0.96). However it hides the true underlying changes in the leach control mechanism and
is not recommended for use except where the [acid] does not change during the data
generation activity.

• The acid:copper ratio is kept low giving high economic recoveries when using a low acid
concentration in the last part of the leach cycle.

• The acid consumption model allows the tracking of the typical nett consumption pattern with an
initial decrease from the agglomeration addition level and a gradual turn around and increase to
a time linear consumption pattern.

• The difference between the gross and nett acid consumption is

Gross – nett acid = 1.54 * %Cu sol * % Cu recovery.

And represents the recovered copper stichometric acid return to the leach solution.

The development and description of these models will be the subject of another paper at a later
conference.

24
 10.0 CONCLUSIONS

Copper leaching data can be interpreted using the underling rate determinant mechanism rather
than by empirical models. The data can be tested rigorously to identify a diffusion controlled
system.

Changes in the diffusion control rate can be identified as relating to either acid concentration, a
change in the particle being leached or to a change in ore characteristic between leach areas.

Likewise the effects of acid concentration on leach rate and acid consumption rate can be
determined.

It is possible to account for changes in the leachable copper grade in comparing leach rates
between similar ores but of different grades.

The changes in leach rate between ores from the same mine can be shown to be dependant on the
change in bulk density with imposed load and the plasticity of the ore. More plastic materials tend
to have high bulk densities and lower voidage with large effective in-situ, effective particle sizes.

It is possible to model and predict the increase in leach recovery from an underlying lift when
consideration is taken of the increased bulk density (lower voidage) and the increase in effective
particle size from the over-stacking activity.

A model can be developed to show the alteration of the leach and acid consumption profiles for
different acid concentration regimes. This allows optimisation of the acid leach conditions to
optimise the operation.

25
 11.0 REFERENCES

Bartlett, R W Solution Mining, Leaching and Fluid Recovery of Materials, Gordon and Breach, New
York, NY, 1992

Baum W, 1999, “The use of a mineralogical data base for the production forecasting and
troubleshooting in copper leach operations”, Copper 99-Cobre-99, Volume IV-Hydrometallurgy of
Copper, pp393-408, TMS.

Miller, G M, Dicinoski, W and Stuart, M, “Heap Leach Testing and Operation of the Mt Cuthbert
Sulphide Ores”, Proc. IBS Biomine ‘97, Sydney, AMF.

Miller G M, “Ore Character Effects on Copper Heap Leach Management”, Mine to Mill Conference,
AusIMM, Brisbane, October 1999.

Miller G M and Newton T, ”Copper Heap Leach Testing Interpretation and Scale Up.” ALTA Copper
Hydrometallurgy Forum, Surfer’s Paradise, October 1999.

26