Professional Documents
Culture Documents
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.