You are on page 1of 18

1

A NON-CYANIDE ROUTE FOR PROCESSING OF REFRACTORY GOLD ORES AND


CONCENTRATES
Br yn Har r i s and Carl Whi te
Neomet Technol ogi es Inc.
Dorval , Quebec, Canada
bryn@neomet.com

ABSTRACT
Despite several attempts to supersede its use, cyanide has been the reagent of choice for the
recovery of gold and silver since it was first used in the mid 1800s. However, an increasing number of
jurisdictions have banned its use, and relatively recent accidents, such as that into the Danube, are
increasing environmental pressures to finding an alternative for cyanide. Chloride solutions are, and
have always been, the basis of gold and platinum-group metals refining, but the volumes involved for
refining are very small compared to those generated by large mining operations. The reasons that
such a process has never been implemented at mine sites is partly due to the non-discriminatory
nature of chloride acid attack compared to cyanidation, but mostly because there has never previously
been a viable method, both technically and economically, for the recovery and recycle of hydrochloric
acid, with the simultaneous control of iron, from such solutions. This paper describes a chloride-based
flowsheet, wherein the key unit process is the breakthrough technology for the recovery and recycle of
chloride ion. Results of a continuous miniplant run on a low-grade refractory gold ore are presented.
It is shown that the chloride-based flowsheet is competitive with the conventional cyanide-based
flowsheets, and that it has a number of other advantages.








Paper Presented at ALTA 2011
May 23-27, Perth, WA

2

INTRODUCTION
Cyanidation has been the principal method for the recovery of gold and silver from ores and
concentrates since it was first introduced in the mid-1800s, replacing the equally toxic mercury
amalgamation method. However, despite creating a voluntary code of use for cyanidation [1], the
industry is coming under increasing pressure to replace cyanidation, so that incidents such as the
August, 1995 Omai Gold Mine [2,3] and the January, 2000 Baia Mare [4] cyanide spills in Guyana and
Romania, respectively, no longer capture the news headlines. Some jurisdictions have already
banned its use, and it is only a matter of time before others do so. Hence, it seems appropriate to
accept that this is inevitable, and to develop an alternative to cyanidation.
Neomet Technologies Inc. (Neomet) has developed a chloride-based process for the recovery of not
only gold and silver, but also associated value metals from refractory and carbonaceous gold ores,
concentrates and intermediate materials. The process, therefore, does not require the use of cyanide
to recover gold, nor does it require pre-treatment methods, such as pressure oxidation or ultra-fine
grinding, to liberate gold from the refractory matrix. It is also possible to recover gold and silver
separately or together, and allows for the recovery of other value metals such as copper, nickel,
cobalt, rare earths, minor rare metals such scandium, gallium and indium, and the platinum group
metals.
This paper reviews the background to the process, and describes some initial laboratory results on a
variety of ores and a continuous, 1-L scale, miniplant run, treating 0.4 kg of low-grade ore per hour.
BASIC PRINCIPLES OF THE NEOMET GOLD PROCESS
Background
As noted above, the process is based on chloride chemistry, and there is considerable information in
the literature to show that chloride systems are not novel, and are accepted practice.
Commercial Chloride Practice
It has long been known that high concentration chloride solutions can effectively leach gold from ores
and concentrates, e.g. as practiced from the copper leach residues generated by the short-lived (6
years commercial operation) CLEAR Process commercialized by Duval Corporation in the 1970s [5].
It is also known that gold can be effectively and selectively recovered from dilute solutions using the
ion exchange resin Amberlite XAD-7 [6,7,8 ,9]. Chloride solutions are, and have always been, the
basis of gold and platinum-group metals refining, but the volumes involved for refining are very small
compared to those generated by large mining operations. The reasons that such a process has never
been implemented at mine sites is partly due to the non-discriminatory nature of acid chloride attack
compared to cyanidation, but mostly because there has never previously been a viable method, both
technically and economically, for the recovery and recycle of hydrochloric acid, with the simultaneous
control of iron, from such solutions. Neomet has developed such a method, which forms the core of
the Neomet Gold Process.
Chloride-based atmospheric leach processes, whilst not as common as sulphate-based ones, are not
unique. Noranda operated the Brenda Leach Process, employing a high-temperature (105-110
o
C),
high-strength chloride (CaCl
2
+NaCl+HCl) atmospheric leach of copper-molybdenum concentrates until
the mine shut down in the 1990s [10]. The process essentially leached out all of the copper, lead and
calcium from molybdenum concentrates, and the only real factor of concern was to maintain the
lagging on the piping in winter to prevent the high strength brine from cooling and crystallizing [11].
Xstrata (formerly Falconbridge) has operated a chloride process at its nickel-cobalt refinery in
Kristiansand, Norway, for over forty years [12,13,14]. There are also other operations, such as those
operated by Jinchuan [15], Sumitomo [16] and SLN [17] in a mixed chloride-sulphate medium, which
clearly demonstrate that chloride-based circuits are commercially feasible, and that any material-
3

handling issues associated with a chloride environment can be and are being overcome. Furthermore,
Vale (Inco) [18] has been using mixed chloride-sulphate electrolytes in nickel electrorefining
operations for decades at its Port Colborne and Thompson operations.
In Quebec, Norandas Magnola plant [19] operated successfully for three years until price pressure on
magnesium caused it to shut down (along with Dows plant in Texas and Norsk Hydro, also in
Quebec). The chloride leach circuit operated at 100-105
o
C (atmospheric conditions) and always
performed up to expectations. More recently, Rio Tinto Fer et Titane (QIT) has operated a high
temperature (145-165C) chloride leach plant (known as UGS) at Sorel for upgrading its titania slag
[20,21] since the early 2000s. Finally, in January of 2011, Anglo American announced the building of
a chloride-based pilot plant for treating nickel laterites in Brazil [[22,23].
Currently Operating Refractory Gold Extraction Processes
The modern industry standard for treating refractory gold ores is pressure oxidation (POX) at 220C in
an autoclave, followed by conventional cyanidation (CIL or CIP) of the leach residue. This technique
was pioneered initially by Homestake, and then especially by Barrick at its Goldstrike operations in
Nevada, in the 1980s. Prior to the development of the pressure leach, roasting was the standard, but
this has fallen into disrepute because any arsenic contained in the ore was not fixed, but collected as
a mixture of trisulphide and trioxide. However, even today, roasting remains the method of choice for
carbonaceous ores [24]. With roasting, arsenic elimination ranged from 80-95%. Operations which
have employed roasting include the Dickenson (now Goldcorp) [25] and Campbell mines [26] of the
Red Lake camp in Ontario, Giant Yellowknife Mines [27, 28, 29] and the New Consort Mine [30]
amongst others.
There are two obvious environmental problems associated with the treatment of such ores, namely
sulphur and arsenic. Current process options have been roasting, pressure leaching or biological
leaching [31,32,33,34]. Roasting generates sulphur dioxide, for which the only really effective
recovery process is a sulphuric acid plant. Arsenic is converted to arsenic trioxide and recovered in a
baghouse, and options for its disposal are limited. Placer Dome (now Barrick) was able to sell the
arsenic trioxide from the operation of its Campbell mine roaster for a time, but was eventually forced to
store the material on site [32-34]. The Nerco Con Mine in the Northwest Territories of Canada was
also forced to store its arsenic trioxide, this time in permafrost, but eventually found it necessary to
treat it to meet environmental regulations [35]. A further problem with the roasting option and
conversion of sulphur dioxide to acid is the weak acid bleed from the acid plant. Such bleeds usually
contain significant levels of toxic impurity elements, so that a treatment plant, as well as a disposal
area is required [32].
The leaching (bacterial, pressure) options convert the bulk of the sulphide sulphur directly to either the
element or to sulphuric acid, and subsequently to gypsum, and the arsenic to an iron-arsenic residue.
Sulphur is not really a direct environmental problem with the leach option, and the formation of iron-
arsenic residues are considered to be the most environmentally acceptable method of arsenic disposal
[36,37,38]. Pressure leaching is generally regarded as giving the most stable form for arsenic disposal
[36], and data from the pressure leach installation at the Campbell mine initially supported this
assumption. However, more recent data [38] suggest that the disposal environment is equally as
important, and in the wrong milieu, the arsenic minerals can break down again. The data from the
residues generated by bacterial leaching are inconclusive at best.
From an environmental point of view, of the processes currently in operation, it would seem that the
pressure leach option is the most favourable for treating arsenical refractory gold ores. Noranda
concluded that there was relatively little difference from an economic viewpoint between the various
options mentioned above [31]. Certainly, practical commercial experience suggests that pressure
leaching is generally the process of choice, having been chosen by Placer Dome [32-34], Gencor at
So Bento [39] and Barrick at Goldstrike [40]. Barrick continues to favour autoclave processing, with
the worlds biggest vessels now being installed in the Dominican Republic at Pueblo Viejo [41], albeit
at a cost of over $3 billion. However, there are no reported data of pressure leaching where there are
unusually high levels potassium and sodium, and what the impact of their presence is on residue
4

stability. Aluminium is also known to be a problem in laterite pressure leaching, where alunite
formation has caused considerable scaling problems [42,43].
Newer Developments
Newer developments are generally variations of previously-tried methodologies, namely the bacterial
leaching approach to arsenic, but which has not demonstrably addressed any of the previous
concerns over the stability of the arsenic residues produced, and thiosulphate or thiourea leaching,
neither of which offer any improvement as a replacement for cyanide, and which are inferior both
economically and environmentally.
The only really new entrants are those being marketed by Eco Refractory Solutions, a joint venture
between Globex Mining Enterprises and Drinkard Metalor [44], and Nichromet in a joint venture with
Metanor Resources Inc. [45,46]. Very few details have been released on the nitric process, other than
that high gold recoveries (95-98%) by CIL cyanidation have been achieved (head grades of the gold
have not been disclosed, so quoting such recovery values can be misleading) following a pre-
treatment (undefined) under atmospheric conditions to liberate gold and fix the arsenic in an
environmentally-friendly manner. It is known that the pre-treatment involves nitric acid leaching, which
is certainly effective for destroying arsenopyrite and forming scorodite. However, high consumption of
nitric acid appears to be involved, and unless a cheap and effective method for regenerating the nitric
acid is employed, then costs will be high. Further, nitrates are highly soluble, and unless close to
100% washing efficiency of the leach residues is achieved, then it is inevitable that nitrates will leak
into the environment.
The process described in the Nichromet patent [45] is chloride/bromide-based, and would appear to
be very similar to the Intec Process which has used for a number of years the concept of
chloride/bromide leaching solutions [47]. The Nichromet Process requires a pre-treatment roasting
step to eliminate the sulphur, presumably as SO
2
, which would require collecting and scrubbing. Any
arsenic in the feed would report to the off-gas and have to be dealt with. The roasted ore is leached in
sodium or potassium chloride using bromide as a catalyst, and the leach liquor is regenerated by
electrolysis, again similarly to what Intec does. Gold and silver recoveries are quoted as being about
80%, using activated carbon. It is not said how the carbon is stripped, but presumably it is by cyanide.
Impurities such as iron, aluminium, etc., are removed by neutralization with caustic generated during
the electrolysis step. It is not said how these are filtered, but experience suggests that it is very
difficult, since caustic-generated precipitates are usually very slimy and difficult to handle.
Neomet Gold Flowsheet
The Neomet Gold Process is able to treat a variety of feeds, ranging from ore to intermediates. It was
developed as offshoots of the CCR Gold Refinery in Montreal [48,49] combined with a more
generalised chloride-based metals extraction process, the core component of which is acid
regeneration and hematite precipitation (termed Hydrolytic Distillation). A schematic of the flowsheet
is shown in Figure 1. Both the specific acid regeneration and the more general gold process have
been filed as PCT (Patent Co-Operation Treaty) applications [50,51]. Pyrohydrolysis, which has been
the standard method of hydrochloric acid recovery for the past sixty years, particularly in the steel
pickling and magnesia production industries, is both energy-intensive and non-selective, as well as
recovering a relatively low-concentration hydrochloric acid (18% HCl). The Neomet Process
recovers the acid as either gas, or very concentrated (30-35%) HCl, depending on the feed chloride
concentration, as well as a very pure, low-volume hematite or hematite/alumina suitable for sale, or at
the very least as a benign material for disposal, and requires much less energy than the
pyrohydrolysis approach.
Leaching is carried out under atmospheric conditions at 105-110C in recycled hydrochloric acid, with
some recycle of the leach filtrate to increase both the gold and chloride concentration. For those feeds
where there is a significant pyrrhotite or other reactive sulphide component, the leach is divided into
two stages; a primary (reducing) leach to destroy all of the reactive sulphide, followed by a secondary
(oxidising) leach to dissolve the gold. The oxidising leach is carried out to ensure a high (>750 mV)
5

redox potential (ORP) of the final solution. This can be achieved by a variety of oxidants such as a
small amount of nitric acid to act as an oxygen transfer agent, hydrogen peroxide or chlorine in
association with a high concentration of cupric or ferric chloride. The choice of reagent depends very
much on the characteristics of the material being treated.
SecondaryLeach
AcidRecovery
GoldRecovery
PrimaryLeach
GoldOre/Tailings
S
L
S
L
GOLD
Fe,AlOxides
Residue
To
Disposal
HCl
SilverRecovery SILVER
S
L
S
o
, Energy
H
2
S
Bleed for
Impurity Control
Ga,ScRecovery Ga, Sc

Figure 1. Schematic of the Neomet Gold Process
During the oxidising leach, any arsenic minerals, such as arsenopyrite or enargite, are broken down.
Arsenic concentration in the leach solution first increases, then decreases to a limiting value as
scorodite (FeAsO
4
2H
2
O) is formed. Scorodite is one of the most stable of the iron arsenates, and is
acknowledged by the US EPA as being one of the BDAT (Best Developed Available Technology)
options for the disposal of arsenic into the environment.
Gold is recovered from the leach liquor by passing the solution through the ion exchange resin. Once
the resin is loaded, it can be eluted by very dilute hydrochloric acid to give a concentrated (>20 g/L)
solution of gold chloride. Pure gold is recovered from this solution by any of the classical methods,
although ferrous chloride (often formed in the primary leach) is preferred in this flowsheet. Any silver
present in the leach liquor, together with any gold not recovered by the resin (there is normally none)
can be recovered by adsorption on activated carbon.
An advantage of the Neomet Gold Process is that any other minor valuable metals present in the feed,
such as scandium or gallium, can easily be recovered from the leach solution by a method analogous
to that for gold. There are specific ion exchange resins for most of these metals, and they can be
employed to recover the metals of interest after gold and silver recovery.
6

Following gold recovery, the solution is then injected into an inert matrix bath at 180-190C. The
matrix compound remains fluid at such temperatures, and is the key component of the Neomet Acid
Regeneration Process. Reactions are virtually instantaneous at these temperatures, with the iron
hydrolyzing to form hematite and releasing concentrated HCl gas to be condensed or recycled directly
to the leaching stage. Any arsenic remaining from the leaching stage is also transformed into
scorodite in this stage.
Some ores contain other metals such as Al, Mg and base metals, especially copper, which dissolve to
a lesser or greater degree in the leaching stages. These initially dissolve into the matrix solution as
the iron reacts, and can be removed/recovered in a separate step by treating a bleed of the matrix.
Comparison of Neomet with Other Gold Processes
Although primarily conceived as an alternative to the use of cyanidation for refractory and
carbonaceous ores and concentrates, the Neomet Gold Process has a number of advantages over
competing processes, as summarised below in Table 2. The Neomet Process can treat either ore or
concentrate, does not require fine grinding, and is able to treat both refractory and carbonaceous ores
with high gold recovery, produces fine gold and silver directly without need for additional refining, and
most importantly, does not require the use of cyanide.
EXAMPLES USING THE NEOMET GOLD PROCESS
Laboratory Tests
Preliminary batch laboratory tests have been carried out on a number of different feeds to demonstrate
the flexibility of the process. Tests were conducted at 110C, with the addition of an appropriate
amount of HCl/tonne feed, the amount being determined by its chemical composition. Table 1.shows
the result of leaching a complex, refractory arsenopyrite gold ore in two stages. The first, reducing
leach stage was operated for two hours, care being taken to ensure that all of the pyrrhotite in the feed
was destroyed (determined by no more H
2
S gas being evolved). The oxidation leach was then carried
out, also for two hours, the end point being determined when no more arsenopyrite was visible floating
on the surface of the slurry, and the ORP of the leach liquor had attained a value of 930 mV.
Table 1. Chemical Analyses of Batch Laboratory Leach Test on Refractory Whole Ore

Chemical Analysis (g/t or %)
Au Ag Sc Ga Fe As S
g/t g/t g/t g/t % % %
Feed 1.41 0.14 12.8 16.2 3.68 2.74 0.74
Residue 0.01 <0.01 4.5 9.2 0.14 2.05 0.01

The results indicated that substantially all of the gold was leached, and that the arsenic was mostly in
the residue at the conclusion of the test, which is where it should have been, since it first leaches,
along with the iron, and then re-precipitates as scorodite. Furthermore, the data also indicated that all
of the sulphur was eliminated. Of further interest for this particular feed is the fact that much of the
scandium and gallium dissolved. These minor metals have significant value, and are relatively easily
recovered from chloride leach solutions. Their recovery adds significantly to the economic evaluation
of the Neomet Gold Process in that a credit of as much as $50/oz Au can be applied, depending on
the price of the minor metal.


7

Table 2. Comparison of Refractory Gold Processes
Operation
Pressure
Oxidation (POX)
Bacterial Leaching Roasting Albion/Activox Nitric Acid
Neomet
Chloride
Feed Concentrate Concentrate Ore or Concentrate Concentrate, ultra
fine grind
Concentrate Ore or
Concentrate
Arsenic Type II mineral,
ferrihydrite finish,
stable
Ferrihydrite, stable
only if sufficient Fe
in solution at time of
precipitation
Arsenic trioxide,
separate treatment
plant required plus
separate source of
iron to make stable
residue
Ferrihydrite,
stable only if
sufficient Fe in
solution at time of
precipitation
Scorodite, ferrihydrite
finish, stable
Scorodite, no
finish necessary
Residue
disposal
Dedicated area,
non-reducing
Dedicated area,
non-reducing
Dedicated area,
non-reducing
Dedicated area,
non-reducing
Dedicated area, non-
reducing
Dedicated area,
non-reducing
Effluent
issues
None if no K or Na
dissolves
Bacteria cultures
leaking into water
table
Weak acid from
scrubbers or acid
plant
None if no K or
Na dissolves
Nitrates leaking into
environment
Chlorides into
environment.
However, wash
efficiency so
high, that such is
minimal
Alkali
metals
Potential to form
KOH and NaOH on
lime neutralization,
which will slowly
decompose As
minerals. Potential
to form jarosites,
consuming acid and
iron.
Potential to form
KOH and NaOH on
lime neutralization,
which will slowly
decompose As
solids. Potential to
form jarosites,
consuming acid and
iron.
No issues Potential to form
KOH and NaOH
on lime
neutralization,
which will slowly
decompose As
solids. Potential
to form jarosites,
consuming acid
Potential to form
KOH and NaOH on
lime neutralization,
which will slowly
decompose As
minerals. Potential
to form jarosites,
consuming iron, but
helping control
sulphate balance.
K and Na
separated,
chloride
recovered. Not
mixed with As
solids, therefore
no impact other
than cost to
control.
Aluminium Forms alunites,
consumes acid,
scaling issues
Will dissolve,
consumes acid and
lime
No issues Will dissolve,
consumes acid
and lime
Will dissolve,
consumes acid and
lime
Dissolves, has to
be separated
Gold Cyanide in separate
leach circuit,
Cyanide in separate
leach circuit,
Cyanide in
separate leach
Cyanide in
separate leach
Cyanide in separate
leach circuit, requires
Direct from
chloride leach as

8

recovery requires cyanide
destruction.
requires cyanide
destruction.
circuit, requires
cyanide
destruction.
circuit, requires
cyanide
destruction.
cyanide destruction. pure gold.
Silver
recovery
Along with gold as
dor metal
Along with gold as
dor metal
Along with gold as
dor metal
Along with gold
as dor metal
Along with gold as
dor metal
Separately as
pure silver or
together with
gold
By-
products
None None None None None Can recover any
PGMs, Ga, Sc,
etc.




9
Table 3 shows the results of leaching a so-called double refractory ore containing not only
arsenopyrite but also a significant (>1%) organic carbon content. Conventional pressure oxidation
was ineffective, as it did not eliminate the preg-robbing ability of the carbon during subsequent
cyanidation. The ore was leached in HCl at 100C with chlorine gas addition.
Table 3. Chemical Analyses of Laboratory Leach Test on Double Refractory Whole Ore

Solids Chemical Analysis (g/t or %) Solution Analysis, mg/L
Au Fe As S Au Fe As
g/t % % %
Feed 8.20 2.01 0.92 1.45 - - -
3 h 2.21 0.0243 0.0061 na 1.27 3353 1889
5.5 h nd 0.0121 0.0037 na 1.49 4617 2721

The results showed that all of the gold was recovered into the leach solution. No attempt was
made during this test to force the re-precipitation of arsenic or to optimize the amount of chlorine
added, since it was meant to determine whether oxidative chloride leaching could be effective in
leaching gold from a refractory, carbonaceous ore. In this case, however, with the relatively low
iron content, there would be no value in trying to produce a pure hematite product for sale, since
the tonnage is so low, and it makes more sense to concentrate the arsenic into the hematite solids
rather than the leach residue.
Miniplant Operation
The ore in Table 1 was also used as the feed and was ground to be 100% passing 100 mesh (150
microns). An overall view of the miniplant is shown in Figure 2. Two 8-hour day tanks were used
as the primary (reducing) leach, and a series of five 1-L capacity reactors, each with a nominal
residence time of one hour was used as the oxidizing leach. In this circuit, nitric acid was initially
used as the oxidant, but later on, this was changed to chlorine. The use of chlorine is much
easier, and serves the dual purpose of not only being the oxidant, but also of providing chloride
make-up. The fifth reactor in the series served as a holding tank to act as a feed to the filtration
system. The reacted slurry was then fed to a vacuum filter, with filtrate being pumped to the ion
exchange gold recovery system. The cake was washed with 5% HCl and then twice with hot
water. Vendor testing of the leach slurries was carried out during this campaign, and showed
excellent filtration rates of >300 kg dry solids/m
2
/hr for both leach slurries.

Figure 2. Overview of Miniplant

10

Temperature was maintained at 100-105C in the reactors, which were jacketed in an oil bath to
give uniform heating of the slurry. ORP was measured periodically in both the slurry and
freeboard. With such an oxidizing environment, it is not possible to leave conventional ORP
probes permanently immersed, as the reference platinum or gold electrode will dissolve over time.
The filtrate from the second leach was passed through the ion exchange circuit to recover the gold.
No attempt was made to recover the silver in this particular circuit, since it was present in very low
levels. After ion exchange, the liquor proceeded to the acid regeneration circuit for recovery of the
acid and hematite. The principles and operation of this circuit have been described elsewhere
[52].
Leaching Performance
Samples were taken at 2-hr intervals for analysis, and a daily composite also made. The following
results are from the daily composites, showing the overall performance of the circuit. The
elements of particular interest in this campaign were gold and arsenic.
Gold
Figure 3 shows the daily gold residue profiles throughout the campaign. In general, the profiles
show most of the gold was leached with high recovery, even from such a low head grade.

Figure 3. Gold Residue Profile
The data suggest that, as far as gold is concerned, three reactors were more than sufficient to
effect maximum gold recovery.
Arsenic
The solution profiles for arsenic are shown in Figure 4 and the solids in Figure 5. These clearly
indicate that, as expected, the arsenic concentration first increased as the arsenopyrite was
oxidised and broken down (reactor 2), and then decreased as the mineral scorodite was formed
and precipitated. The final solution concentration of 100-200 mg/L is consistent with all arsenic
mineral (as opposed to amorphous ferrihydrite) precipitation processes. However, in all other
processes, the arsenic has to be polished with the ferrihydrite process in order to reduce its
concentration to <1 mg/L, which requires an iron to arsenic molar ratio of at least 4, and
neutralization to at least pH5 to be effective. In the Neomet flowsheet, this is not necessary, as the
0.00
0.50
1.00
1 2 3 4 5
A
u

C
o
n
c
e
n
t
r
a
t
i
o
n
,

g
/
t
o
n
n
e
Reactor Number
Day1 Day2 Day4 Day7 Day8 Day9 Day10

11

arsenic is effectively eliminated as scorodite or Type II mineral (there is a small amount of sulphate
present due to the oxidation of pyrite and arsenopyrite) during the acid regeneration process.

Figure 4. Solution Arsenic Profiles

Figure 5. Solids Arsenic Profiles
However, unlike for gold, a longer residence time appears to be necessary for the complete set of
arsenic reactions to occur, and to reduce the terminal arsenic concentration to 100-200 mg/L.
Gold Recovery
Gold can be recovered directly from the leach filtrate by ion exchange with Amberlite XAD-7
1
. A
composite solution was prepared from a miniplant run, and the loading results are shown below in

1
Formerly produced by Rohm & Haas, but now Dow.
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
1 2 3 4 5
A
s
,

m
g
/
L
ReactorNumber
Day2 Day4 Day5 Day7 Day8 Day9 Day10 Day11
0
500
1000
1 2 3 4 5
A
s

C
o
n
c
e
n
t
r
a
t
i
o
n
,

g
/
t
o
n
n
e
Reactor Number
Day2 Day4 Day7 Day8 Day9 Day10 Day11

12

Table 4. The data clearly show that the gold was loaded onto the resin, and that the resin was not
fully loaded during this test (no breakthrough seen). The gold was quantitatively recovered from
the solution, despite there being high levels of ferric iron. No iron, or any of the other major
background elements such as aluminium, calcium, potassium or magnesium were loaded onto the
resin.
Table 4. Ion Exchange of Recovery of Gold from Actual Leach Solution Loading
Bed Volume Passed Gold Concentration, mg/L
Feed solution 12.5
Displacement nd
Bed Volume 1 nd
Bed Volume 2 nd
Bed Volume 3 nd
Bed Volume 4 nd
Bed Volume 5 nd
Bed Volume 6 nd
Bed Volume 7 nd
Bed Volume 8 nd
Bed Volume 9 nd
Bed Volume 10 nd
Bed Volume 11 nd
Bed Volume 12 nd
Bed Volume 13 nd
Bed Volume 14 nd
nd = not detected

Figure 6 shows a typical stripping profile from a fully loaded resin. The resin was initially loaded
from a leach solution with a gold concentration of 200 mg/L, generated by leaching a different type
of gold feedstock, one containing in excess of 2 ozs/tonne, since the gold recovered during the
miniplant run was insufficient to achieve full loading. The resin was stripped with very dilute
hydrochloric acid, and as can be seen, a concentrated strip solution assaying 23 g/L gold was
obtained, a concentration factor of 100 in a single pass. In practice, it is possible to build up the
gold concentration by repeated strip contacts, such that solutions with a concentration of >100 g/L
can be attained.

Figure 6. Gold Stripping Profile (Resin loaded from 200 mg/L solution)
0
5
10
15
20
25
1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21
G
o
l
d

C
o
n
c
e
n
t
r
a
t
i
o
n
,

g
/
L
Bed Volumes

13

Acid Regeneration and Iron Precipitation
The ore tested during the miniplant run was quite complex, and because of this, the leach solution
contained significant quantities of aluminium, magnesium, potassium and calcium in addition to
iron. This offered an opportunity, not previously tested, to determine the behaviour of all of these
elements together. Testing was divided into two runs as a precaution in case modifications to the
conditions needed to be made.
Figure 7 shows data from the first regeneration test at 190C, where filtrate from the miniplant run
was injected into a solvent matrix (500 mL in a 1-L reactor) at a rate of 6 mL/minute. It can be
seen that a steady production of acid was achieved, demonstrating that the hydrolysis reaction
occurs more or less instantaneously consistent with the feed rate. The total acid equivalent (in)
was calculated from all the potential hydrolysable ions in the feed, but not all of them reacted,
hence the divergence.

Figure 7. Acid Regeneration Test at 190C - Acid In and Out
Figure 8 shows the data from the same test presented in a different way. Here it can be seen that
the concentration of the produced HCl was consistent at around 230-240 g/L (6.5M HCl). Primary
and secondary refer to two collection points, the secondary being a back-up to collect any acid not
recovered by the primary condenser. The ORP values of 900-1000 mV are typical of acid
regenerated in this manner, and are due to a small amount of chlorine being generated.
Table 5 shows the analyses of the final matrix solution, the composition of the solids produced,
and the distribution of the elements between solids and solution. It is clear that the solids were
comprised of primarily of iron and aluminium, with virtually all of the iron reporting to the solids.
Potassium and calcium all reported entirely to the matrix solution, as was anticipated. At 190C,
minimal magnesium was found in the solids, and that present is likely due to inefficient washing.
The results from the second test were virtually identical, again with constant production of acid at
approximately 230-240 g/L (6.5M HCl). Table 6 shows the analyses of final matrix solution, solids,
and their deportment form the second test. Most of the elements in the second test deported
much as they had done in the first test. It is clear from both tests that any arsenic in the feed
reports to the solids. Under these highly oxidising conditions, the arsenic compound formed is
likely to be scorodite, although its concentration was too small to be confirmed by XRD. No
arsenic was detected in the acid, although it had been thought that some might be present since
arsenic chlorides are quite volatile. The only noticeable difference in the two tests was that more
iron reported to the matrix solution in the second test than in the first. However, this may be an
anomaly, since iron remained at that concentration throughout the test, and did not increase unlike
potassium, magnesium, calcium and aluminium, and may therefore have been due to the initial
addition temperature being too low.
0
100
200
9:30 10:30 11:30 12:30 13:30 14:30 15:30 16:30
T
o
t
a
l

a
m
m
o
u
n
t

o
f

H
+

(
g
)
Time of Day
H+ In (g)
H+(Fe) In (g)
H+ Tot In (g)
H+ Out (g)
H+(Al) In (g)

14


Figure 8. Acid Regeneration Test at 190C - Acid Concentration and ORP

Table 5. Matrix and Solids Analyses from First Acid Regeneration Test at 190C
Element Feed, Final Matrix Solids Analysis, Distribution, %
g/L (mg/L) g/L (mg/L) % Matrix Solids
Al 19.0 5.41 17.0 10.2 89.8
As (180) (2.4) 0.16 0.5 99.5
Ca 6.05 13.7 0.10 98.3 1.7
Fe 34.2 (45) 34.1 0.5 99.5
K 10.2 32.6 nd 100 0
Mg 13.7 35.4 0.08 99.3 0.7
Mn (456) 1.34 nd 100 0

Table 6. Matrix and Solids Analyses from Second Acid Regeneration Test at 190C
Element Feed, Final Matrix Solids Analysis, Distribution, %
g/L (mg/L) g/L (mg/L) % Matrix Solids
Al 18.5 2.02 17.0 9 90
As (183) (1.84) 0.16 2 98
Ca 5.61 3.08 0.10 93 7
Fe 34.7 5.85 34.1 19 81
K 10.3 12.7 nd 100 0
Mg 13.8 12.7 0.08 100 0
Mn (465) (389) nd 99 1
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS
The data presented in this paper have demonstrated that the Neomet Gold Process works on both
refractory and carbonaceous ores, and is a technically viable alternative option to the currently-
practiced pressure oxidation and roasting. Environmentally, it offers a unique alternative to the
use of cyanide leaching, eliminating the need for cyanide-containing effluent treatment . The
elimination of pyrrhotite also reduces or eliminates acid generation potential of tailings. High gold
recovery was seen in the leaching step, with the ability to fix arsenic in both or either the leach and
acid regeneration residues. Efficient and effective gold recovery directly from the leach solution
700
800
900
1000
1100
1200
0
50
100
150
200
250
09:30 10:30 11:30 12:30 13:30 14:30 15:30 16:30
O
R
P

(
m
V
)
[
H
+
]

(
g
/
L
)
Time of day
[H+]Cond (g/l) [H+]Prim (g/l)
[H+]Sec (g/l) ORPCond (mV)
ORPPrim (mV) ORPSec (mV)

15

was also seen with the ion exchange circuit, and recovery of gold from the resin in a more
concentrated and pure solution demonstrated.
The key novel and unique acid regeneration step was shown to be effective, as it has been in
laterite leaching [52]. A particular observation is that for ores containing a lot of gangue minerals
that are easily leached, high levels of potassium, aluminium and magnesium report to the leach
liquor. These elements are all problematic in any hydrometallurgical circuit, and if they can be
largely removed initially by a simple physical separation process, be it for example flotation or
dense medium without compromising gold recovery, then it is clearly a preferred method of
operation since it would significantly reduce both capital and operating costs.
It is beyond the scope of this paper to give any breakdown of costs, but preliminary estimates of
the costs for the processing plant alone, for a concentrate assaying 1 oz/tonne at 500 t/day, is of
the order of $100-150 million (including mill and flotation plant), depending on the make-up of the
ore and whether a single or 2-stage leach circuit is required. For whole ore, the costs are around
$300 million, but again very much depend upon the make-up of the ore. Those for an ore as in
Table 1 containing a significant pyrrhotite content and highly reactive gangue minerals, would be
appreciably higher than for the carbonaceous ore of Table 3 which had neither of those.
Projected processing costs of $35-50/oz Au (before by-product credits) were estimated for the
concentrate case, again depending on the chemical make-up of the feed. Furthermore, the
Neomet Process, unlike cyanidation, offers the potential for recovering additional value metals,
such as scandium, indium and gallium, as these elements leach from the ore in a chloride medium,
and thus can be recovered as an additional revenue stream.
The preferred oxidant is chlorine gas, since the oxidation requirement is usually more or less
similar to the chloride make-up required from the loss in the filter cakes. Per unit of chloride,
chlorine gas is cheaper than hydrochloric acid (in eastern Canada), and thus there would be
savings in this respect. It should be noted that, as mentioned earlier, hydrochloric acid/chlorine
leaching of sulphide minerals is known practice, and has been carried out at Kristiansand in
Norway for over forty years [12,13,14].
REFERENCES

1. International Cyanide Management Institute, International Cyanide Management Code for the
Gold Mining Industry, 2010, http://www.cyanidecode.org/cyanide_use.php
2. Dam Review Team, Preliminary report on technical causation: Omai Tailings Dam Failure,
Report Submitted to Guyana Geology and Mines Commission, November 16, 1995, URL:
http://antenna.nl~wise/uranium/mdgr.html
3. Omai Gold Mine Resumes Full Operation, Caribbean Daylight, April 1, 1996.
4. Wikipedia, 2000 Baia Mare Cyanide Spill
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2000_Baia_Mare_cyanide_spill
5. A.T. Wilson, An Economical Method for the Recovery of Gold from the Sulphur Containing
Residue of a Hydrometallurgical Process, in Complex Sulphides, Processing of Ores,
Concentrates and By-Products (A.D. Zunkel, R.S. Boorman, A.E. Morris and R.J. Wesely,
Editors), TMS, 1985, pp. 143-148.
6. Bryn G. Harris et al., Recovery of Gold from Acidic Solutions, US Patent 5,028,260 issued on
July 2, 1991.
7. G.B. Harris, New Developments in Precious Metals Refining: An Ammonia-Free Process for
Platinum and Palladium, Presented at Precious Metals 1994, Proceedings of the Eighteenth
International Precious Metals Conference, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada, June, 1994,
(J.G. Peacey, Editor), IPMI, Allentown, PA, p. 259
8. A. Filcenco-Olteanu, et al., Statistical model of gold recovery from chloride media using
Amberlite XAD-7, Chem. Bull. "POLITEHNICA" Univ. (Timisoara), Volume 55(69), 1, 2010,
pp. 64-67.

16


9. R. Radulescu, et al., New Hydrometallurgical Process for Gold Recovery, Chem. Bull.
"POLITEHNICA" Univ. (Timisoara), Volume 53(67), 1-2, 2008, pp. 135-139.
10. P.H. Jennings, R.W. Stanley and H.L. Ames, Development of a Process for Purifying
Molybdenite Concentrates,. in Proceedings of Second International Symposium on
Hydrometallurgy, (D.J.I. Evans, Editor), AIME, New York, 1973, p. 868.
11. R.W. Stanley, Noranda Research Centre, Personal Communication, April, 1985.
12. P.G. Thornhill, E. Wigstol and G. Van Weert, The Falconbridge Matte Leach Process, Journal
of Metals, 23(7), 1971, p. 13.
13. E.O. Stensholt, H. Zachariasen and J.H. Lund, The Falconbridge Chlorine Leach Process, in
Nickel Metallurgy, Volume I - Extraction and Refining of Nickel, (E. Ozberk and H. Marcusson,
Editors), CIM Montreal, 1986, p. 442.
14. E.O. Stensholt, H. Zachariasen, J.H. Lund and P.G. Thornhill, Recent Improvements in the
Falconbridge Nickel Refinery, in Extractive Metallurgy of Nickel and Cobalt, TMS-AIME,
Warrendale, 1988, p. 403.
15. Yang Yuhua and Meng Xianxuan, Operating Practice and Technical Developments in Nickel
Refining and Cobalt Recovery at Jinchuan Non-Ferrous Metal Company, in
Electrometallurgical Plant Practice, (P.L. Claessens and G.B. Harris, Editors), Proceedings of
the 20
th
Annual CIM Hydrometallurgical Meeting, Pergamon Press, 1990, p.253.
16. M. Fujimori, N. Ono, S. Itasako and I. Fukui, Solvent Extraction in Sumitomo's Cobalt Refining
Process, Paper presented at Cobalt 80, 10
th
Annual CIM Hydrometallurgical Meeting,
Edmonton, Alberta, October 26-28, 1980.
17. J.M. Demarthe, L. Gandon and M. Goujet, Hydrometallurgical Method For Treating Nickel
Mattes, Canadian Patent 1,126,201, to Socit Mtallurgique le Nickel-SLN, 22 June, 1982.
18. J.R. Boldt and P.ueneau, Winning of Nickel, Van Nostrand Company, 1967.
19. P. Ficara, et al., Magnola: A Novel Commercial Process For The Primary Production Of
Magnesium, Light Metals 1996, (M. Avedesian, R. Guilbault and D. Ksinisk, Editors), CIM,
Montreal, 1996, p. 183.
20. C. Coscia and J.A. Kozinski, Pyrohydrolysis of an Al-Fe-Mg-Cl Solution Characteristics of
the Transformation Process, in Chloride Metallurgy 2002 Volume 2 (E. Peek and G. van
Weert, Editors), Proceeding of the 32
nd
Annual CIM Hydrometallurgical Conference, CIM,
Montreal, 2002, p. 683.
21. M-C. Patoine, A. De Mori, K. Borowiec and C. Coscia, Pyrohydrolysis of a Calcium and
Magnesium Bearing FeCl
2
Leach Liquor, in Chloride Metallurgy 2002 Volume 2 (E. Peek and
G. van Weert, Editors), Proceeding of the 32
nd
Annual CIM Hydrometallurgical Conference,
CIM, Montreal, 2002, p. 699.
22. M. Pelser, J.D.T. Steyl and J. Smit, Development of the Anglo Research Nickel (ARNi)
Process for the Treatment of Laterite Ores, Proceedings of Hydrometallurgy of Nickel &
Cobalt 2009 (J.J. Budac, R. Fraser, I. Mihaylov, V.G. Papangelakis and D.J. Robinson,
Editors), 48th CIM Annual Conference of Metallurgists, 39th Annual Hydrometallurgy Meeting,
Sudbury, Ontario, Canada, August 23-26, 2009, p. 409.
23. Anglo American plc., Annual Report 2010, p. 39.
24. Ivanhoe Mines, Altynalmas Kyzyl Gold Project Estimated Average Annual Gold Production of
368,000 Ounces Confirmed by Independent Pre-Feasibility Study, June 30, 2010.
25. K.P. Wright, Fluid Bed Roasting Practice in the Red Lake Camp, CIM Bulletin, August 1961,
p. 595.
26. J.O. Burckle, Arsenic Emissions and Control: Gold Roasting Operating, Environmental
International 6, 1981, p. 443.
27. E.O. Foster, The Collection and Recovery of Gold from Roaster Exit Gases at Giant
Yellowknife Mines Ltd., CIM Bulletin, June 1963, p. 469.
28. L. White, Giant and Con Underpin Yellowknife Economy, E&MJ 183(2), February 1982, p. 79.

17


29. L. Connel, et al., Roasting Process at Giant Yellowknife Mine, Paper presented at 20th CIM
Conference of Metallurgists, August 1981.
30. D.W. Penman, Metallurgical Aspects of the Treatment of Refractory Ores from Barberton, in
Impurity Control and Disposal, Proceedings of the 15th Annual CIM Hydrometallurgy Meeting,
Vancouver, August 1985, p. 8-1.
31. G.D. Hallett, W.F. Luinstra and R.W. Stanley, The Economics of Treating an Arsenopyrite
Refractory Gold Concentrate, in Precious Metals 1990, (Donald Corrigan, Editor),
Proceedings of the 14th IPMI Conference, San Diego, CA, June 1990, p. 105.
32. J. Frostiak, R. Raudsepp and R. Stauffer, The Application of Pressure Oxidation at the
Campbell Red Lake Mine, Presented at Randol Forum '90, Squaw Valley, CA, September 13-
15, 1990.
33. K. Norris, Process Improvements at Placer Dome Campbell Mine, in Proceedings - 24th
Annual Meeting of the Canadian Mineral Processors, Ottawa, Ontario, January, 1992, Paper
22.
34. J. Frostiak and B. Haugrud, Start-up and Operation of Placer Dome's Campbell Mine Gold
Pressure Oxidation Plant, Mining Engineering, August 1992, p. 991.
35. J. Geldart, R. Williamson and P. Maltby, in Hydrometallurgy, Theory and Practice,
Proceedings of the Ernest Peters International Symposium, Hydrometallurgy 30(1-3), p. 29.
36. G.B. Harris and E. Krause, The Disposal of Arsenic from Metallurgical Processes: Its Status
Regarding Ferric Arsenate, Paper presented at Paul Queneau International Symposium on
the Extractive Metallurgy of Copper, Cobalt and Nickel, Denver, CO, February 1993.
37. G.B. Harris, The removal and stabilization of arsenic from aqueous process solutions: past,
present and future, Proceedings of Minor Elements 2000: Processing & Environmental
Aspects of As, Sb, Se, Te, Bi, SME 2000 Annual Meeting & Exhibit, February 28 - March 1,
2000, Salt Lake City, Utah, USA, p. 3.
38. Bryn Harris, The removal of arsenic from process solutions: theory and industrial practice, in
Proceedings of Hydrometallurgy 2003 - International Symposium in Honor of Professor Ian
Ritchie, (C.A. Young, A. Alfantazi, C. Anderson, A. James, D. Dreisinger and B. Harris,
Editors), Vancouver, CIM/TMS/SME, August 2003, p. 1889.
39. T.M. Carvalho, , et al., Start-up of the Sherritt Pressure Oxidation Process at So Bento, in
Precious Metals 1989, (Bryn Harris, Editor), Proceedings of 13th IPMI Conference, Montreal,
Quebec, June 1989, p. 319.
40. A.W. Bolland, H.J.H. Pieterse and R.H. Colquhoun, American Barrick Goldstrike operation in
Elko, Nevada - a summary of the operation and future expansions, in Proceedings - 24th
Annual Meeting of the Canadian Mineral Processors, Ottawa, Ontario, January, 1992, Paper
4.
41. Barrick Gold Corporation, Pueblo Viejo Brings Innovative, Environmentally-Responsible
Mining Technology to the Dominican Republic, Beyond Borders, September 8, 2010.
42. P. Perdikis and V.G. Papangelakis, Scale Formation in a Batch Reactor Under Pressure Acid
Leaching of a Limonitic Laterite, Canadian Metallurgical Quarterly 37(5), 1998, pp. 429-440.
43. V.G. Papangelakis, B.C. Blakey and J. Kambossos, Behaviour of Aluminum During Direct
Acid Leaching of Limonitic Laterites, in Impurity Control And Disposal In Hydrometallurgical
Processes (B. Harris and E. Krause, Editors), 24th Annual CIM Hydrometallurgical Meeting,
Toronto, Canada, August 21-24, 1994, CIM, pp. 315-325.
44. Globex Mining Enterprises Inc., Gold Recovery Technology Proven Successful Again,
http://www.marketwire.com/mw/release.do?id=1379554, January 12, 2011.
45. Jean-Marc Lalancette, Gold and Silver Recovery from Polymetallic Sulphides by Treatment
With Halogens, US Patent 7,537,741 (to Nichromet Extraction Inc.), May 26, 2009.
46. Metanor Resources Inc., Metanor Preliminary Discussions with Nichromet, January 13, 2011.
47. Intec Limited, Australia, http://intec.com.au/

18


48. G.B. Harris and R.W. Stanley, Hydrometallurgical Treatment of Silver Refinery Anode Slimes,
in Precious Metals 1986 (U.V. Rao, Editor), Proceedings of the 10th International Precious
Metals Institute Conference, Lake Tahoe, Nevada, June 1986, IPMI, Allentown PA, 1986, p.
239.
49. A. Bilodeau, G.B. Harris, C.A. MacDonald, K. Hooper and R.W. Stanley, Silver Refinery
Anode Slimes Treatment at the CCR Division of Noranda Inc., in The Electrorefining and
Winning of Copper (J.E. Hoffman, R.G. Bautista, V.A. Ettel, V. Kudryk, R.J. Wesely, Editors),
TMS-AIME 1987, p. 527.
50. Bryn Harris and Carl White, Process for the Recovery of Metals and Hydrochloric Acid, PCT
International Application No. PCT/CA2011/000141, February 4, 2011 (Priority Date February
18, 2010).
51. Bryn Harris and Carl White, Process for the Recovery of Gold from an Ore, PCT International
Application No. PCT/CA2011/000143, February 4, 2011 (Priority Date February 4, 2010).
52. Bryn Harris and Carl White, Recent Developments in the Chloride Processing of Nickel
Laterites, ALTA Ni-Co-Cu 2011, Perth, WA, May 23-27, 2011.

You might also like