CRUSH SORT - MILL - FLOAT / CRUSH - MILL - WASH - ELECTRO? IN A PERFECT WORLD -
A junior who discovers, proves, or secures a ready made mineral resource, the valuation should correlate with the balued in situ - mineral. Let's face it, th eodds of a geologiat actually finding a mineral resource that's economical are slim. Lots of geologists, but only a handful are fortunate to make that discovery of a, lifetime.
If the junior is real lucky, - secures a ready made mine and infastructure along with a reosurce - again - a valuation must be attached based on assest wealth, mineral wealth, and the wealth in which the has the ability to actually process the mineral vs green field without the vantage of - existing mine infastructure.
EXTRACTION -
What a subect - there'as all kinds of extraction methods outthere but it's the ability to arrive at the best extraction that matches the deposit type - rsulting in - the best method of extraction vs costs of mining + extracting the mineral...
2200 = 1 tonne @ 1.7% copper
= 37.4 pounds of copper in the ore tonne.
The art ?
Pulling as much copper value out of the ores and discarding as much waste at same time.
2200 lbs
- 37.4 lbs
= 2,162.60 lbs waste
If one halves this waste total and manages to keep 100% mineral value of37.4 lbs Cu
= 1,081.30 waste pounds
Halve it again -
540.65 lbs waste
Halve it again -
270.32 lbs waste
Halve it again -
135.16 lbs waste
37.40 lbs Cu ( with the original 37 lbs Cu )
= 172.56 total weight with 100% copper extracted combined
2200 original tonne weight
~ 172.56 divided into 2200
= 12.75 factor / multiplyer
x 37.4 lbs copper
476.95 Cu pounds in a 1 tonne ( 2200 lbs ) concentrate
= 21.67 % concentrate
To achieve this - 21.67% concentrate
the 2200 lbs raw ore would have seen a 4 times ( 100% ) reduction.
Whats fascinating is - ore reduction compounded - 500 x from original weight
if a junior took it one more step and reduced the waste ore another 100%
135.16 ~ 2
= 67.58
+ 37.4 Cu pounds
= 104.98
2200
~ 104.98
= 20.95 x multiplyer
37.4 x 20.95
= 783.53 Cu pounds with in a 2200 lb concentrate
= 35.6 concentrate
Ore reduction 600x compounded from original weight ?
67.58 lbs - waste tonnage ~ 2 ( halved )
= 33.79 lbs waste
+ 37.4 Cu lbs
= 71.19 lbs
2200
~ 71.19
= 30.9 x multiplier
x 37.4 Cu lbs
= 1155.66 lbs copper with a concentrate 2200 tonne with waste ore of - 1044.34
= 52.5 % copper concentrate
Understandably -
this is an incredible feate to reduce ores to a 52.5% concentrate.
ORE SORTING ?
Yeah.. would help - but... what's the cost ratio vs downtime vs what one could achieve using other methods that might reduce ores instead of an ore sorter ?
I feel ore sorters which base thier tech on - mass weight - could have a high variable of ejecting quality ores -
COLOR ORE SORTER -
could be far better using a smaller faction sized rock.
CRX 1000 - ORE SORTER
appears it has something fidderent going on than othrer ore sorters, but...
Again... it's a question of cost vs downtime ot sort -vs feed tonnage / day
FLOTATION -
I like - but....what's so perplexing is - if Braveheart is seeking to only produce a concentrate then, most likely the oresafter sorting would see perhaps a regrind phase then off to the flotation circuit - to extract the copper sulhides -
COST RATIOS -
Cost of sulphuric acids vs ore sorter -
Could the ore sorted be eliminated - and if so, what is the comparable of more acids vs cost of ore sorter ?
DOWN THE RABBIT HOLE -
Bear with me, let's ask the question - what explains the advent of - oxidized mineral ?
Simplest answer - when metal oxidizes - breaks down / iron = rust = rust = iron oxides.
QUESTION -
Can a sulphide minerals oxidize ?
Not much on this subject - in fact i've not come across it at all.
Which begs the question -
If chalocopyrite is comprised of - Cu, Fe, S
COPPER
IRON
SULPHER
Sulphuric ( acids ) work over the iron and sulpher.
And.. also place copper into a state of - copper soluble sulphate
While Hydrochloric acids
solubilize the iron and sulpher that comprise chalcopyrite yet...
copper goes unscathed.
My thoughts are .....
would it be far more opportune to crush ores, then mill ores to a - 200 - 300 mesh
then.. .introduce to a eash sluice plant - rely on - molecular weight of minerals
to capture as much heavies as possible ?
What would this process look like if a reduction of waste ores achieved = 50% ?
Then... bypass flotation and place ores into solvent solution - hydrochloric acids.
= 50 % less acids used due to 50% waste ores removed ( ore more )
= iron and sulphur 9 from chalco ) dissolves
- copper breaks lattice bonds from the iron and sulpher
= copper sulphate reamins in tact - by itself ( not into solution )
= then... anodizr the copper.
- streamline crushing ( all ores sized same )
- eliminate ore sorter
- veer from standard sulphuric acids - employ hydrochloric acid
- purer copper sulphate goes unscarhed
- employ anodizing - electrolysis
Whern i think of the two main types of copper - aside opf carbonate/alkai ores.
- sulphide and oxide
i would have ot question the industry practice in regards of....
Industry practice.
If copper can be flotated - with use of parafins...etc...
Then... why hasn't any one in the industry ever tried to employ a sluice wash plant
and capture the copper ores based on - molecular weights -
i have ot question the copper i've pannned and sluiced myself...
In terms of, it's in an iron ore host.
Thus.. .IOCG -most likely.
And if chalcopyrite is what it's appearence is...
Then.. mny own efforts have isolated the chalcopyrite using simple wayer and relying on gravitomical weights.
it would be nice to see Braveheart perform a quick test on thoer copepr sulphide ores.
Crush to fines - and place in sluice wash plant. ( speed of water flow is critical )
What would the outcome be ?
Could a junior achieve far better results ?
No ore sorting.
Simply... crush ores, mill to fines.
Use simple water and rely on gravity and molecular weights of minerals ?
Quartz with Silica / Argillites, Greywacke,
vVersus -molecular weight of- chalcopyrite
would allow one to know the potential success recovery.
Again... if copper is most often recovered in - flotation cells - use of waters + float agents .
Then.... why not a water sluice plant - capture the heavies ?
= Go directly to electrolysis ?
Just ideas....
Ideas that might assist in recoveries maximizing the ability to create a higher concentrate and or, eliminate processing steps = quicker path to = and if costs are saved - such costs might be passed onto - electrowinning ?
Lastly...
Hard ot shake the -cobalite potential -
I came across a company which has a specialized XRF minerla identifier.
It specifically zeros in key minerals such as....coppers and cobalt....
My goodness - take a week and rent one of therse and test the cores in racks -
document what type of ore, location of core hole, cobalite % .
Is it more prone to host rock, such as, argilites, or greywackes ?
Test the stock piled ores also .\
This project could change on a dime ( economically )cobalite was found to be consistent.
I'd take a gram of cobalite per tonne any day...lol
Yip.. revisit the cost to mine, those numbers in my opinion could be lowered.
Compare - Kuchco copper's PFS - Braveheart should be in this ball park for cost to mine.
Or.. .better them... and how one betters a competitor OR out do the last operator of Bull river one simply takes it to the next level and go for the holy grail - ELECTROWINNG -
Why give the opper away ot another to make the big - $$$.
LIBS = XRF
https://www.thermofisher.com/ca/en/home/industrial/spectroscopy-elemental-isotope-analysis/portable-analysis-material-id/portable-xrf-analyzer-selection-guide.html
Cheers....