UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA

School of Advanced Manufacturing and Mechanical Engineering

Bachelor of Engineering
In
Mechanical and Manufacturing Engineering
Plus
Bachelor of Technology and Double Degrees


Final Year Project
Thesis Guide




Peter
Course coordinator
2014


Table of Contents
Background And Significance: ....................................................................................... 2
Introduction: .................................................................................................................................................................. 3
Aim: .................................................................................................................................................................................... 4
Significance: .................................................................................................................................................................... 4
Scope: ................................................................................................................................................................................ 4
HEAP CONSTRUCTION : ................................................................................................................................................ 9
Carlin-Type Sedimentary Ores ................................................................................................................................. 12
Low Sulfide Acid Volcanics Or Intrusives ............................................................................................................ 13
Oxidized Massive Sulfides ........................................................................................................................................... 13
Saprolites / Laterites .................................................................................................................................................... 13
Clay-Rich Deposits ......................................................................................................................................................... 14
Silver-Rich Deposits....................................................................................................................................................... 14
Gold and Silver Ores: ..................................................................................................................................................... 14
LIXIVIANTS: ................................................................................................................................................................. 15
Application of Lixiviant (Recent study) ............................................................................................................... 15
Methodology: ............................................................................................................. 17
References: ................................................................................................................. 17











Background And Significance:
Introduction:
The objective of mining is to provide valuable minerals needed by the society. For doing
so, mining companies extract resources from mineral deposits around the globe and
use different techniques to recover the valuable mineral resources from the ore.
The choice of a suitable technique, which is both environmentally sound and
economically viable, to process mineral resources very much depends on the type of
ore which is mined as well as of the physical conditions linked to the location of the
mine site.
Heap leaching is a tried and tested mining technique enabling the processing of
different kinds of ores, which could not otherwise be exploited under viable economic
conditions. Heap leaching had become a fairly sophisticated practice at least 500 years
ago. Georgious Agricola, in his book De Re Metallica (1556 1912)illustrates a heap
leach with a 40-day leach cycle (Figure 1), which could pass in many ways for a modern
heap leach. The Agricola heap leaches recovered aluminium (actually alum) for use in
the cloth dying industry. Copper heap and dump leaches in southern Spain were
common by about 1700. Gold and silver heap leaching began with the first Cortez heap
leach in 1969.
Modern day heap leaching, which has a relatively low level of energy consumption, is
successfully used for the beneficiation of certain types of gold ores.
(W.Kappes)
Figure 1 "The rocks are Piled in Heaps fifty feet long, eight feet wide and four feet high, which are sprinkled for
forty days with water. The rocks begin to fall to pieces like slaked lime, and there originates a new material".
Drawing and text from


As the qualities of ores in the world are continuously decreasing the necessity for better
leaching techniques are becoming need of the moment. But this process is very poorly
understood which requires a lot of ground level improvement in the industry.

One of the most important things in leaching is the transport of the lixiviant through (the
porous media) the ore. The lixiviant leaches the ore and dissolves the valuables. This
Report will analyze in detail about the impact of lixiviants in heap leaching.

Aim:

To characterize the synthetic and real ores particularly to determine important
microstructural changes during heap leaching process. The role of cracks and pores in
improving the efficiency of leaching will also be studied in detail. In this study to
understand the flow of lixiviants through the cracks, model crack (microfluidic device)
narrow channels will be designed. The experiments will be performed and results will be
analysed for deeper understanding.

Significance:

As mentioned earlier the qualities of ores are decreasing around the world continuously.
For better recovery higher quality pretreatment is becoming necessary which is very
expensive. In order to avoid this various other methods are being improved and
researches are being carried on. Among them all the understanding and improvement
of flow of lixiviant through the ores is very significant. So thus the data and results from
this study will further aid the mainstream researchers.

Scope:

In this project synthetic ores will be prepared at in-situ conditions in the laboratory their
microstructural properties will be studied under microscopes. Further the real ores
collected from the field also will be studied for its properties. The results of both the
studies will be compared.















LITERATURE REVIEW:

The primary objective of mining is to supply raw materials to downstream users, extracted from
ore deposits in the earths crust, using applicable excavation and ore enrichment processes with
economically feasible and environmentally sound engineering operations.
In a typical metal ore mining operation, ores are selectively excavated from an open pit or
underground workings, crushed and milled for further treatment in ore beneficiation units for
enrichment and/or production of metals and metal compounds.
There are several mainframe ore preparation/beneficiation methods available in mining practice
based on physical, chemical and smelting processes.
Concentration:
o Gravity concentration (Heavy/dense media, Shaking tables, Spiral separators,
jigs)
o Electrostatic separation
o Magnetic separation
o Flotation
Hydrometallurgy
o Leaching
o Electrolysis
o Precipitation (cementation)
Pyro metallurgy
o Calcining, Roasting
o Smelting
o Refining
All of these processes require crushing and/or, grinding/milling of run-of-mine ores for liberation
of mineral particles of interest for efficient application of appropriate processes of beneficiation.
1. Selection of a beneficiation technology is based on economic viability which is directly
dependent on the:
o Ore type (namely, oxide or sulphide),
o Mineral composition, matrix features of ore
o Reserves and average grade (based on the cut-off grade) of the ore.
It should be borne in mind that lowering the cut-off grade of ores:
o Increases asymptotically the quantity ore to be excavated and treated (Figure 2),
o Increases energy and chemical usage in pressure/tank leaching technologies,
generating larger Volumes of tailings to be managed;
o Decreases profitability, making beneficiation processes uneconomical below
certain grades.


Figure 2 Relationship Between Excavation Quantity and Average Grade of Mined Ore as a function of cut-off
grade
(B 2006)
In response to global increases in metal commodity prices, the low-grade base metal and
precious metal ores (<1% copper, <1g/ton gold, < 0.5% nickel) previously considered
uneconomical, became feasible with introduction of heap leaching technologies (J.O 2009).
In consideration of ore types, a generalized diagram showing the applicable ore beneficiation
technologies for oxide and sulphide ores versus ore grade is given in Figure 3.

Figure 3 Applicable Ore Beneficiation Technologies as a Function of Ore Grade
(Robertson 2005)

A chart showing identified applicable process categories for gold ore recovery is given Figure 4
((B 2006)). This chart is based on a preliminary analysis of 2,832-bulk leach extractable Gold
(BLEG) results for shear-hosted Achaean metasediment ores in Western Australia.


Figure 4 Process categories based on leach recovery vs ore gold grade
(B 2006)


Leaching:
Leaching is a physico-chemical process where minerals in rock masses go through dissolution
under percolating water and anion/cation exchange reactions to generate metal salts in
solute/colloid phase that migrate and accumulate under hydrological forces. Depending on the
presence of pyrite (FeS) or pyrrhotite (F and acidic/alkaline conditions, biological process of iron
and sulphur oxidation by certain natural bacteria may also catalyse the leaching process. Lateritic
ore deposits, the major resources of aluminium, nickel, platinum, cobalt and some gold, are clear
evidence of ongoing natural leaching process through geological times. Leaching is the second
fundamental step following physical alteration (fractioning under extreme temperature changes
and erosional forces) in the rock-to-soil weathering cycle taking place in nature under
atmospheric pressure conditions.
Similarly, leaching is also a major natural process that occurs at depths in the evolution of
hydrothermal-origin ore deposits. Hydrothermal ore deposits are the products of complex
chemical interaction processes involving hydrothermal fluids and gases with the host rocks;
namely, a natural high temperature and pressure leaching followed by a cooling process on a
geologic time scale.

Heap Leaching:
Heap leaching is the process to extract precious metals like gold, silver, copper and
uranium from their ore by placing them on a pad (a base) in a heap and sprinkling a
leaching solvent, such as cyanide or acids, over the heap. This process dissolves the
metals and they collect at the bottom of the pad. The metal is then further processed.
This methodology is mostly used for low-grade ores, and the basic processing steps
involve crushing and sometime grinding.
The stages for heap leaching can be described as:
1. Ground Preparation and pad construction: Here the soil on a slightly sloping ground is
compacted and covered by an impermeable pad (can be made of plastic).
2. Ore stacking: Then the crushed ore is stacked in the form of big heaps. Amount of
fines is decreases as low as possible to improve permeability.
3. Then the leaching agent such as cyanide or acid is sprayed over the heap.
4. As, the reagent passes through the heap; the valuable metals get dissolved in it.
5. The solution containing metal is drained from the heap and collected in a pond and
the solution is sent for subsequent process for metal recovery.
Here is an illustration of the process:

(Biomine)
Figure 5 Heap Leaching Process
Heap leaching was first practiced by piling up heaps of copper ore and irrigating them
with leach solution ((Kappes 1978)). Heap leaching can be defined as the practice of
piling a large tonnage of mineral- bearing material over a liquor collection system and
feeding a leaching solution onto the surface of the heaped pile ((Mashbir 1964)).
Modern heap leaching is a controlled process whereby a complex or low-grade ore is
stacked in short lifts (under 10 m in most cases), usually crushed and often
agglomerated, on a carefully prepared containment system (the leach pad) and irrigated
in a controlled manner with a solution to extract the optimum amount of metal from the
ore (usually copper, gold, silver, uranium and nickel). The first commercial modern-day
style of heap leaching was probably introduced to the uranium industry in the 1950s
((Scheffel 2002)). The application of heap leaching technology revolutionized gold
production in the United States, Peru and other countries in the 1970s and 1980s
((Brunk 1997)). The rapid expansion of the heap leach-solvent extraction-electrowin (L-
SX-EW) copper production occurred in Chile during 1990s ((Taylor 2007)). In the past
decade, heap leaching of nickel laterites ((Taylor 2007)) and mixed metal sulphide ores
((Taylor 2007)) have been demonstrated and appear to be moving into commercial
practice.
Heap leaching has been demonstrated as a viable and low cost approach to open-pit
mining operations with low-grade and complex run of mine (ROM) ores, agglomerated
flotation tailings and also for the treatment of coarse rejects from semi-autogenously
grinding (SAG) circuits ((Hiskey 1983)). Rising costs of milling and concentration forces
more low to medium grade ores to be available for heap leaching ((Hiskey 1983)).
While heap leaching is a well-established technology, which continues to grow in use,
there are certain criteria that justify its selection over other treatment options. Ore grade
and mineral leachability are two of these criteria. Gold and silver can be recovered from
their ores by a variety of methods, including gravity concentration, flotation, and agitated
tank leaching. Methods similar to heap leaching can be employed: dump leaching and
vat leaching (vat leaching is the treatment of sand or crushed ore in bedded vats with
rapid solution percolation).
Typically, heap leaching is chosen for basic financial reasons - for a given situation, it
represents the best return on investment. For small operations or operations in
politically unstable areas, it may be chosen because it represents a more manageable
level of capital investment.

HEAP CONSTRUCTION :
The construction of heap fills involves the placement of precious or base metal ore
materials in controlled individual loose and relatively dry fill lifts stacked at the natural
angle-of-repose. The heap ore lifts are typically stacked at 15 to 30 feet (5 to 10 meters)
in thickness and leached to typical maximum heights in the range of 100 to 200 feet (30
to 60 meters). The highest heap stacks to date exceed 500 feet (150 meters) above the
geomembrane lined pad foundation. A geomembrane lined leach pad with a stacked
and leached ore heap in the background is shown on Figure 6.

Figure 6 GEOMEMBRANE LINED GOLD HEAP LEACH OPERATION IN MONTANA
These Crushed ore placement in the heap leach operations can be done either by
trucks and/or by conveyor systems. Truck dumping generally causes segregation of the
ore where the fines remain near the top surface, and the coarse material rolls to the
base of the lift creating a highly permeable zone at the base. To control the degree of
this segregation the ore may be partially agglomerated (wetted to cause the fines to
stick to the coarse material) prior to placing in the trucks. Short lifts also result in less
segregation. Truck dumping can also result in compaction of ore under the roadways on
top of the heap. To mitigate this problem, most operations rip the ore surface after
stacking (prior to leaching). However this requires substantial bulldozer traffic on the
heap surface, which can also lead to compaction and loss of permeability for some ores
((D.W 2002)).
Conveyors stacking systems where wheels, discharge angle, and stinger position are all
motorized and are moved continuously by the operator as the heap is built, commonly
include the following equipment ((D.W 2002)):
One or more long (overland) conveyors that transport the ore from the crushing
(and agglomeration) plant to the heap. These may consist of conveyors up to
several kilometres in length.
A series of "grasshopper" conveyors to transport the ore across the active heap
area. Grasshoppers are inclined conveyors some 30 meters long, with a tailskid
and a set of wheels located near the balance point.
A transverse conveyor to feed the stacker-follower conveyor
A stacker-follower conveyor, typically a horizontal mobile conveyor that retracts
behind the stacker
A radial stacker 25 to 50 meters long, with a retractable 5 - 10 meter conveyor
stinger at its tip.

Ore Stacking typically proceeds in an upslope direction. It may proceed in the
downslope direction provided that the advancing face is stable (Figure 4).
In lateritic ore leaching operations, where the permeability of the clay-rich heap
materials may significantly decrease at the end of each leaching cycle (cycles may take
over a year), use of an intermediate geomembrane layer after each lift (inter-lift liners)
may be considered to minimize leach cycles and consumption of lixiviant specifically by
iron containing minerals and for effective collection of leach solutions.
Each ore lift surface is wetted uniformly during leaching by using irrigation drip emitters
or sprinkler sprays. Leaching is generally conducted in 30 to 120 day or longer leach
cycles with barren or recirculated alkaline (gold and silver) or acidic (copper) process
solutions.
The maximum rock size of the granular ore materials ranges from large run of mine
cobble and boulder rock fragments to fine crushed sand and gravel particles. The
crusher operations may include agglomeration as needed to provide a more efficient
distribution of fines (minus No. 200 sieve size material) for improved permeability and
recovery of the target metals. The individual ore lifts are offset with benches along the
exterior slope, as required for establishing the overall stable design slopes for
operations.

Figure 7 Ore Stacking directions

There are three main things to be considered with regards to stacking
a) Static Stability: Evaluation of the static stability of the ore heap should include all
possible mechanisms of failure modes (circular, block and random failure surfaces).
Generally, the stability failure mechanism for lined leach pad facilities is of block type
failure along the liner interface that typically has the lowest shear strength parameters.
Circular failure mechanisms may be critical when deep saprolitic type foundation
materials underlie the heap facility, particularly when associated with high water tables
and potential generation of pore water pressures due to rapid loading of the heap or
seismic events. Static factors of safety values of 1.3 and greater are considered
acceptable good engineering practice.
b) Seismic Stability: Many mining operations are located in seismically active areas. A
detailed seismic evaluation of the particular mining location should be conducted to
assess design factors and ground accelerations to be considered in both structural
(buildings) and geotechnical design of water and tailings impoundments, and heap
leach facilities. Typically, seismic stability analyses for heap leach ore facilities are
evaluated using conventional limit equilibrium analysis with a pseudo-static coefficient.
Pseudo-static analysis is a very conservative procedure used as the first step in most
seismic stability analyses. It is not a dynamic analysis procedure and does not directly
account for dynamic/vibratory loading (i.e., the periodicity or cyclic character of the
loads and the short duration of loading). Rather, the procedure models seismic impacts
by applying a uniform horizontal static force to slices in a conventional limit equilibrium
analysis. For a maximum credible earthquake of up to a magnitude of 8.5, a pseudo-
static acceleration coefficient of 0.15g could be used ((Seed 1979)). Seismic factors of
safety of greater than 1.0, as determined by pseudo-static analyses, are acceptable for
heap leach facilities as a good engineering practice. In rare cases where seismic
stability concerns cannot be satisfied using a simple pseudo-static analysis, more
detailed analyses of expected seismic displacement may be required to asses seismic
stability of the structures.
Liquefaction Potential: Liquefaction potential of heaps should also be taken into
consideration, especially in earthquake-prone regions ((Thiel 2003)). Liquefaction (flow
slides) typically occurs when saturated or near-saturated (greater than 85%), loose
granular material contracts or collapses under some triggering event causing a sudden
surge of excess pore water pressure build-up and a reduction in shear strength. A
classic triggering event is seismic shaking. Seismically induced liquefaction is typically
limited to approximately 20 m in depth, as the confining pressures at greater depths
reduce susceptibility to this type of failure. Generally, heap materials are maintained at
saturation levels much less than 85%; therefore, liquefaction risk is minimal.
Type of ores:
Heap leach recovery is very dependent on the type of ore being processed. Some
typical examples are discussed below.
Carlin-Type Sedimentary Ores
These ores consist of shales and "dirty" limestones, containing very fine
(submicroscopic) gold. Oxidized ores leach very well, with low reagent consumption and
production recovery of 80% or better. Ores are typically coarse-crushed (75mm) but
may show recovery of 70% or better at run- of-mine sizes. The largest of the northern
Nevada heap leaches (Carlin, Goldstrike, Twin Creeks) treat this type of ore.
Unoxidized ore contains gold locked in sulfides, and also contains organic
(carbonaceous) components, which absorb the gold from solution. This ore shows heap
leach recovery of only 10 to 15% and is not suitable for heap leaching. Because of the
different ore types, the northern Nevada operations (for instance, Barrick's Goldstrike
Mine) may employ roasters, autoclaves, agitated leach plants and heap leaches at the
same minesite. Crushing is usually done in conventional systems (jaw and cone
crushers) and ores are truck stacked.
Low Sulfide Acid Volcanics Or Intrusives
Typical operations treating this type of ore are Round Mountain, Nevada, and Wharf
Mine, South Dakota. Original sulfide content is typically 2 to 3% pyrite, and the gold is
often enclosed in the pyrite. Oxidized ores yield 65 to 85% recovery but may have to be
crushed to below 12 mm (1/2 inch). Usually the tradeoff between crush size and percent
recovery is a significant factor in process design. Unoxidized ores yield 45 to 55% gold
recovery and nearly always need crushing. At Round Mountain, Nevada, approximately
150,000 tons per day of low grade oxide ore is treated in truck-stacked run-of-mine
heaps, 30,000 tons per day of high grade oxide ore is treated in crushed (12mm),
conveyor-stacked heaps, and 12,000 tons per day of unoxidized ore is treated in a
processing plant (gravity separation followed by leaching in stirred tanks). Crushing is
done using jaw and cone crushers; fine crushed ore contains enough fines that
conveyor stacking is preferred over truck stacking.
Oxidized Massive Sulfides
The oxide zone of massive sulfide ore deposits may contain gold and silver in iron
oxides. Typically these are very soft and permeable, so crushing below 75mm often
does not increase heap leach recovery. The Filon Sur orebody at Tharsis, Spain (Lion
Mining Company) and the Hassai Mine, Sudan (Ariab Mining Company) are successful
examples of heap leaches on this type of ore. Because the ore is fine and soft, the ore
is agglomerated using cement (Hassai uses 8 kg cement/tonne), and stacking of the
heaps is done using conveyor transport systems.
Saprolites / Laterites
Volcanic- and intrusive-hosted orebodies in tropical climates typically have undergone
intense weathering. The surface "cap" is usually a thin layer of laterite (hard iron oxide
nodules). For several meters below the laterite, the ore is converted to saprolite, a very
soft water-saturated clay sometimes containing gold in quartz veinlets. Silver is usually
absent. These ores show the highest and most predictable recovery of all ore types,
typically 92 to 95% gold recovery in lab tests, 85% or greater in field production heaps.
Ores are processed at run-of-mine size (which is often 50% minus 10 mesh) or with
light crushing. Ores must be agglomerated, and may require up to 40 kg of cement per
tonne to make stable permeable agglomerates. Many of the West African and Central
5
Central American heap leaches process this type of ore. Good examples are Ity in the
Ivory Coast, and Cerro Mojon (La Libertad) in Nicaragua. When crushing is required,
one or two stages of toothed roll crushers (Stammler-type feeder-breaker or MMD
Mineral Sizer) are usually employed. Conveyor systems are almost always justified; ore
can be stacked with trucks if operations are controlled very carefully.
Clay-Rich Deposits
In some Carlin-type deposits, as well as in some volcanic-hosted deposits, clay
deposition or clay alteration occurred along with gold deposition. The Buckhorn Mine,
Nevada (Cominco, now closed) and the Barney's Canyon Mine, Utah (Kennecott) are
good examples. These ores are processed using the same techniques as for saprolites,
except that crushing is often necessary. Because of the mixture of soft wet clay and
hard rock, a typical crushing circuit design for this type of ore is a single-stage impact
crusher. Truck stacking almost always results in some loss of recovery. Agglomeration
with cement may not be necessary, but conveyor stacking is usually employed.
Barney's Canyon employs belt agglomeration (mixing and consolidation of fines as it
drops from conveyor belts) followed by conveyor stacking. The new La Quinua
operation at Yanacocha employs belt agglomeration followed by truck stacking.
Silver-Rich Deposits
Nevada deposits contain varying amounts of silver, and the resulting bullion may assay
anywhere from 95% gold, 5% silver to 99% silver, 1% gold. Silver leaches and behaves
chemically the same as gold, although usually the percent silver recovery is significantly
less than that of gold. Examples of nearly pure silver heap leaches are Coeur Rochester
and Candelaria in Nevada, and Comco in Bolivia.
Gold and Silver Ores:
The chemistry of leaching gold and silver from their ores is essentially the same for both
metals. A dilute alkaline solution of sodium cyanide dissolves these metals without
dissolving many other ore components (copper, zinc, mercury and iron are the most
common soluble impurities). Solution
Solution is maintained at an alkaline pH of 9.5 to 11. Below a pH of 9.5, cyanide
consumption is high. Above a pH of 11, metal recovery decreases.
any heap leachable ores contain both gold and silver. f the 28 ines that reported
bullion assays, five produce a dor (ipure gold-silver bullion ) bar that is greater than
70% silver. Another five produce a bullion greater than 30% silver. Only five produce a
bullion with less than 5% silver. Deposits in western Africa and Australia tend to be very
low in silver, while those in Nevada are highly variable, ranging from pure gold to pure
silver.
Silver is usually not as reactive with cyanide as gold. This is because gold almost
always occurs as the metal, whereas silver may be present in the ore in many different
chemical forms some of which are not cyanide-soluble. Reported heap leach recoveries
(32 operations) averaged 71% gold, and ranged from 49% to 90%. Reporting run-of-
mine heap leaches averaged 63%. Typical recovery for silver is 45-60%, although when
silver is a minor constituent, its recovery may be only 15-25%.
The level of cyanide in the heap on flow solution ranges from 100 to 600 ppm NaCN,
and averages 240 ppm for the 28 operations reporting. Forty-five percent of the
operations reported cyanide strength below 200 ppm, 25% were above 300 ppm. Heap
discharge solution (pregnant solution) averages 110 ppm.
Cyanide consumption, via complexation, volatilization, natural oxidation or oxidation by
ore components, typically ranges from 0.1 to 1.0 kg per tonne of ore. Price of sodium
cyanide is currently at a historical low of $1.00 per kg. Cement and/or lime consumption
ranges from 0.5 to 40 kg per tonne of ore. Several operations use cement for alkalinity
control (instead of lime) as well as for agglomeration. The price of cement or lime is $60
to $100 per tonne, $160 delivered to remote African locations.
Other leaching agents - thiosulfate, thiourea, hypochlorite, and bromine - have been
experimented with as an alternative to cyanide, but cyanide is by far the most effective
and the most environmentally friendly leaching agent.
LIXIVIANTS:
The primary objectives of leaching processes applied in mining are the selective
dissolution of metals of interest in ores, segregate the loaded (pregnant) solution from
solids and recover available metals either in metal compounds or in metallic forms
through further hydrometallurgical treatment.
Lixiviant are chemical solutions used in leach mining to enhance dissolution of metals in
ores. Sulphuric acid and cyanide salts are the most common demonstrated lixiviants
used in heap or vat (tank) leaching processes applied under atmospheric conditions.
Thiourea and thiosulphate are also known lixiviants for copper and gold ores; however,
they are not used in world mining practice for their more complicated chemical
management issues and environmental concerns. Currently, there are no successfully
demonstrated applications of these lixiviant on an industrial scale that can be
considered within the context of Best Available Techniques (BATs).
Application of Lixiviant (Recent study)
The materials in a heap leach pad constitute a heterogeneous, anisotropic mass.
Material hydraulic conductivities vary greatly from point to point. This random variation
from point to point of hydraulic conductivity is the result of the inherent in-situ variability
in the ore being mined, variations in the combination of the ore as a result of blasting,
loading, and dumping, and segregation and blinding that occur during placement.
While it is tempting to think of seepage of leach solution and lixiviants as a uniform
vertically downward flow regime, this is not the case. The paths that the solution will
take as it flows down through the mass of heap leach material will depend on these, and
probably many other factors:
The heterogeneity of the mass, and hence the presence and pattern of
channels or paths of greater permeability.
The moisture content of the ore which depend on the moisture content as
mines, as placed, and as resulting from ambient conditions including
antecedent rainfall percolation
The rate and pattern of application of the solution and lixiviant.
OKane Consultants have carried out much research into the area and they note:

Figure 8 Movement of lixiviants in fine and coarse ores
Layers of coarse and fine textured ore inevitably develop within heap and dump leach
piles as natural processes segregate coarse and fine material during material
placement. Segregation of heap leach material will occur regardless of whether the
material is agglomerated or non-agglomerated. Under such conditions leaching solution
flows preferentially in the more conductive layer, potentially leaving areas within the
heap unleached. The preferred flow path is not dependent entirely on the physical
properties of each layer, but also on the stress state and resulting degree of saturation,
and therefore the solution application rate. For this reason either the coarse or the finer
material can be the preferred flow path.
Thus it is not quite as simple as multiplying the area of the pad by the saturated
hydraulic conductivity if you want to establish the maximum possible application rate.
If you do succeed in applying enough solution to the top of the pad to create fully
saturated flow through the heap leach materials, you will certainly be getting lots of
solution through the materials, but you may not be getting the metal recovery you seek
or could achieve by less aggressive solution application. To get the metal out of the finer
materials and into the solution, you need to get the solution to seep through these finer
materials. And that happens best when the material is partially saturated, and the
seepage retreats, as it were, into the finer channels.
This leads to the counterintuitive conclusion: to increase recovery, it may be better to
reduce solution application rates, rather than increase them.
Keep in mind also if you increase application rates too much you may create a
saturated zone near the base of the pad, and that could induce slope failure.



Methodology:
After a detailed literature review and understanding of Heap leaching, model ores, ore
boundaries and crack I further moved to the experimental part of the project.
In this initially I will prepare model ores (synthetic ores) in laboratory similar to the real
ores. Before starting my work at the laboratory I completed safety inductions and got
trained under expert supervision in handling the equipments. The model ores are
prepared at 3 different sizes (.5,1.5 and 8) under sintering temperatures varying from
1000 to 1200 C.
After the Ore preparation model cracks will be created in this ores with the help of
microfluidic device and the flow of lixiviant through this channel will be characterised
and corresponding AU thickness will be noted. The Mechanical strength and density of
the model ore also will be measured.
In parallel to this the real ores will be collected from the field and they will be prepared
for characterisation.
Advanced equipments like SEM, BET, QEMSCAN, XRF and XRD will be used for
characterisation the ores.
For model ores SEM will be used to study the microstructure, compression test will lead
us towards the mechanical strength and the Pycnometer will give us the density.
In case of real ores Mechanical strength will be measured in a similar way as earlier.
Porosity will be noted form BET; Assay/XRF should give us the elemental composition,
XRD and QEMSCAN for further analysis.



References:



1556, A. G. (1912). "De Re Metallica."

B, M. (2006). Exploring HPGR Technology For Heap Leaching of Fresh Rock Gold Ores. IIR
Crushing & Grinding Conference, , Townsville, Australia,.

Biomine. from http://wiki.biomine.skelleftea.se/wiki/.

Brunk, K. A. (1997). Process technology: Its role as a component of a strategic business
plan, . Global exploitation of heap leachable gold deposits, Orlando, Florida.

D.W, K. (2002). "Precious Metal Heap Leach Design and Practice, in Proc. Mineral
Processing Plant design, Practice and Control, ." SME Vol.2, .

Hiskey, J. B. (1983). Heap leaching practice at Alligator Ridge, Chapter 1, Current status of
U.S. Gold and Silver Heap Leaching Operations, Heap and Dump Leaching practice,. SME fall
meeting.

J.O, M. (2009). , Lessons Learned from the Copper Industry Applied to Gold Extraction,
Keynote Presentation World Gold 2009 Conference. Johanessberg, South Africa.

Kappes, W. (1978). Precious Metals Heap Leaching: Simple - Why not Successful?,
Presentation to the Northwest Mining Assn., .

Mashbir, D. S. (1964). Heap leaching of low-grade uranium ore. Mining Congress

Robertson, S., Vercuil, A., van Staden, PJ, Craven, P., (2005). A Bacterial Heap Leaching
Approach for the Treatment of Low Grade Primary Copper Sulphide Ore. 3rd S. African
Conf. on Base Metals,SAIMM Symp.

Scheffel, R. (2002). "Copper Heap Leach Design and Practice, ." Mineral processing plant
design, practice, and control 2.

Seed, H. B. (1979). Considerations in the Earthquake Design of Earth and Rockfill Dams.
Geotechnique. 29: 215 -263.

Taylor, A. (2007). Innovations & Trends in Uranium Ore Treatment, . , ALTA 2009-
Nickel/Cobalt, Copper and Uranium conference,. perth, australia.

Thiel, R. S., Smith, M.E. (2003). "State Of The Practice Review of Heap Leach Pad Design "
vol. 22(, Proc. GRI-18,): 555- 568.

W.Kappes, D. "Precious metal heap leach desing and practice."