Crushed Ore Agglomeration and Its Control For Heap Leach Operations

Minerals Engineering 41 (2013) 5370
Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect
Minerals Engineering
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/mineng
Crushed ore agglomeration and its control for heap leach operations
Nikhil Dhawan, M. Sadegh Safarzadeh, Jan D. Miller , Michael S. Moats, Raj K. Rajamani
Department of Metallurgical Engineering, College of Mines and Earth Sciences, University of Utah, 135 South 1460 East, Room 412, William C. Browning Building, Salt Lake City,
UT 84112-0114, United States
a r t i c l e
i n f o
Article history:
Received 31 May 2012
Accepted 15 August 2012
Available online 7 December 2012
Keywords:
Heap leach
Agglomeration
Binder
Quality control tools
Characterization
a b s t r a c t
Based on the extensive experience of heap leaching operations, crushed ore agglomeration can be successfully considered and utilized as a pretreatment step for the heap leaching of ores containing significant amounts of nes and clay minerals. The drum agglomeration is considered as a pretreatment step
for the heap leaching of copper and gold ores whereas the agglomeration of uranium and nickel ores has
received less attention over the past years. The acceptance of binder application for acidic leaching systems is limited primarily due to the lack of acid-tolerant binders. The use of binder depends mainly upon
the cost considerations, impact on recovery and safe practice. Of equal importance are the quality control
and characterization tools for the agglomerates to ensure better heap performance. This paper attempts
to provide a concise overview of available quality control and characterization tools for crushed ore
agglomeration with industrial examples from the gold, copper, nickel and uranium operations. Consequently, different agglomeration-heap leaching systems and their differences are summarized. The
requirements for effective agglomeration, characteristics for an ideal agglomerate and integrated owsheet of crushed ore agglomeration-heap leaching system are discussed.
2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Contents
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Crushed ore agglomeration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Agglomeration mechanisms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Inadequate agglomeration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Curing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Binders . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
De-sliming . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
The role of comminution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Quality control (QC) and characterization tools . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
9.1.
Particle size . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
9.2.
Permeability (hydraulic conductivity) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
9.3.
Electrical conductivity. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
9.4.
Visual inspection (glove test) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
9.5.
Stability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
9.6.
Barneys Canyon test . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
9.7.
Strength . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
9.8.
Leaching strength of agglomerates. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
9.9.
Attrition test . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
9.10.
Shatter drop test . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
9.11.
Porosity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
9.12.
Percolation flood column test. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
9.13.
Hydrodynamic column test (HCT) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
9.14.
Geotechnical test. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
9.15.
Kappes percolation test (slump test) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Corresponding author. Tel.: +1 801 5815160; fax: +1 801 5814937.

E-mail address: jan.miller@utah.edu (J.D. Miller).
0892-6875/$ - see front matter 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.mineng.2012.08.013
54
54
56
56
57
57
58
59
59
60
60
61
61
62
62
62
63
63
63
63
63
63
64
64
54
10.
11.
12.
13.
N. Dhawan et al. / Minerals Engineering 41 (2013) 5370
9.16.
Long-term leach pilot scale test . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
9.17.
Heap test . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
9.18.
Summary of quality control tests. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Commercial agglomeration for heap leaching . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Future trends . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Ideal agglomerate. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Conclusions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
1. Introduction
Heap leaching is one of the hydrometallurgical processes that
can and has served as an economical process option for the treatment of complex ores such as copper, uranium, nickel, silver and
gold ores. Several heap leach operations have experienced problems associated with poor recovery due to percolation issues
caused by low-grade complex ores, tailings and clayey deposits.
Poor percolation can lead to low metal extraction due to solution
channeling or the development of impermeable (dead) zones within the heap (Kappes, 2005; Schlitt, 1992).
Improper heap building practice was one of the main reasons
for percolation issues. During the transport of ore material, severe
segregation of material can occur. Generally, the coarse ore tends
to stay on the outside of the piles and ne materials tend to remain
as an inner core as shown in Fig. 1. The segregation causes poor
bulk percolation and poor ore permeability (Chamberlin, 1986).
The clay content must be low enough so that permeability in a
heap can be maintained (Potter, 1981).
To overcome percolation problems, a major improvement was
made with the introduction of agglomeration prior to ore placement. If the ore particles and/or agglomerates are of similar size,
segregation can be avoided to a great extent (Heinen, 1980; Herkenhoff and Dean, 1987; Kinard and Schweizer, 1987; McClelland
et al., 1985). Agglomeration improves the uniform percolation of
solution through the heaps of ore and is applicable to many ores,
wastes and milled tailings (Bouffard, 2005; Dhawan et al., 2012a;
Dorey et al., 1988; Heinen, 1980; Kodali et al., 2011a; Lewandowski and Kawatra, 2009a; McClelland, 1986; Moats and Janwong,
2008; Southwood, 1985).
The term agglomeration is a deceptive term in particle technology. In the case of ne powders (less than 10 lm), particle adhesion/agglomeration may occur due to attractive surface forces;
whereas, in the case of larger particles, adhesion forces must be
produced by the addition of liquids/binders to obtain stable and
strong agglomerates as is the case in heap leaching operations
(Kodali et al., 2011a). In contrast, during many bulk solids processing and handling operations, such as size reduction (e.g. roller
pressing and HPGR), mixing, separation by screening, conveying
and storage, unwanted agglomeration can occur and cause problems (Pietsch, 2005). A wide feed size distribution is not ideal for
consistent high quality agglomerates, when it is known that
agglomerates must be undergoing mechanical handling such as
64
64
64
65
65
68
68
68
68
stacking and drop off from conveyors before being actually placed
on heaps (Herkenhoff and Dean, 1987).
The present paper aims to deliver the recent trends in the
crushed ore agglomeration of copper, nickel, gold and uranium
ores. The industrial agglomeration practice for copper and precious
metal ores, type and size of agglomeration equipment (Bouffard,
2005; Moats and Janwong, 2008), drums (design, selection and
power requirements) for crushed ore agglomeration process
(Miller, 2010) and binder (Lewandowski and Kawatra, 2008,
2009b) have already been discussed in detail. Hence, these topics
will not be given much consideration in this paper.
2. Crushed ore agglomeration
Crushed ore agglomeration has two major aims. First, it is the
best opportunity for the thorough application of the leaching solution prior to building the heap and kick starting the leaching process itself (Bouffard, 2005; Dhawan et al., 2012a; Kodali et al.,
2011a; Purkiss and Anthony, 2004). For example, sulfuric acid
(for copper, nickel and uranium) or cyanide solution (for gold
and silver) are added to the agglomeration solution to improve
the leaching rate from low grade ores (Bouffard, 2005; Kodali
et al., 2011a; Lewandowski and Kawatra, 2009a,b; Lu et al.,
2007). Second, the addition of a leaching solution facilitates
Mining
6%
Crushing
7%
26%
4%
Agglomeration/Stacking
Leach operations
4%
Recovery plant
Site maintenance
Reagents
17%
18%
Closure
Support
4%
14%
Fig. 2. Heap leach operating cost distribution plotted based on the information
published by Manning and Kappes (2005).
Fig. 1. Segregation of coarse and ne particles from improper heap building (adapted from Heinen, 1980).
55
Crushed ore agglomeration
WHAT
WHEN
WHERE
WHY
Heap leach
Fines adherence on larger
operations
Base metals:
Cu, Ni, U
Precious metal:
Au, Ag
particles or fines self

adherence due to tumbling
action
Excess of fines (-75 m)

Presence of clays
Mineralogical issues
Agglomerators
Tumbling drums
Improved percolation
More porous heap
Uniform solution distribution
WHO
Fig. 3. 5Ws (who, what, when, where, and why) for crushed ore agglomeration processes.
Fig. 4. Comparison of solution percolation in agglomerated vs. non-agglomerated ore (adapted from Chamberlin, 1980).
agglomeration by coalescing ne particles onto larger rock particles via liquid bridges. The agglomerates lead to more uniformly
permeable heaps (Bouffard, 2005; Dhawan et al., 2012a; Kappes,
2005; Kodali et al., 2011a; McClelland, 1988; Tibbals, 1987).
Kappes (2005) reported the typical agglomeration/stacking cost
to be in the order of $0.10/t for a mining operation with a capacity
of 15,000 t/d, which is signicantly less than that of binder or cement (10 kg/t at $1/t) (Bouffard, 2005; Kodali et al., 2011a). Also,
according to Cassiday et al. (1991), the major cost corresponding
to cement consumption of 2% of ore weight amounts to $2.00
per ton of ore. The heap leach operating cost distribution is shown
in Fig. 2. The cost of binder is included in the agglomeration/stacking stage since cement binder is frequently used for gold heap
leach operations. It can be seen that agglomeration/stacking corresponds to 14% of total heap leaching operating cost distribution.
Agglomeration is an innovative solution for heap leaching operations with ores having high nes or clay content (Bouffard, 2005;
Dhawan et al., 2012b). In the past, metal recovery up to 8090%
from ores was considered as heap-unleachable. Some of the most
asked questions and answers for crushed ore agglomeration are
presented in Fig. 3.
Agglomeration with binder has been recommended for
the ores, which contain more than 1015% less than 74 lm
nes (Chamberlin, 1986; Garcia and Jorgenson, 1997; Kodali
et al., 2011a). A graphical demonstration of solution percolation
in the heap through agglomerated and non-agglomerated ore is
shown in Fig. 4. As compared to non-agglomerated ore, the
agglomerated ore aids percolation by preventing the segregation
and migration of nes by creating void spaces accessible to
leach solution ow and subsequently better leaching
response.
BEFORE AGGLOMERATION
AFTER AGGLOMERATION
(a) Coarse material with large

percentage of fines
(a) Fines are agglomerated onto

coarse particles (with binder)
(b) Fine material (tailings) with no

or little clay
(b) Agglomerates are formed by

binding fines together with binder
(c) Clay material with metal locked

in low permeability medium
(c) Agglomerates are formed by

binding fines together after
modifying clay properties
Fig. 5. Agglomeration effects (adapted from Mclelland and van Zyl, 1988).
The solution ow is affected by both ore properties (particle size

distribution and geological composition of the rock) as well as heap
56
construction practices (agglomeration, stacking, and ore density)

(Guzman et al., 2008). The ow in a heap is not one-dimensional
and the solution distribution is non-uniform in short depth areas
even after long irrigation periods. Hence, the standard heap construction and operational practices can lead to heterogeneous
and stratied recovery proles. During heap leaching operations,
a considerable fraction of ore is dissolved which leads to the degradation of agglomerates, decrease in permeability and shear
strength of the heap (Steemson and Smith, 2009).
Generally, drum agglomeration is practiced for ores containing
high clay contents such as nickel laterite/saprolite ores (Kappes,
2005). Crushed ore is agglomerated much like ne tailings, but preferred operating conditions and equipment are different such as
more binder (57.5 kg/t), considerably more water (1622%), and
longer curing times (typically 72 h).
the coarse particles and also the self nucleation of nes to form
agglomerates. The presence of adequate liquid lm thickness leads
to form liquid bridges and results in mechanical strength to the
agglomerates (Velarde, 2005).
The different types of particle interactions leading to successful
agglomerate formation are schematically shown in Fig. 5. The newly nucleated agglomerates (Fig. 5b and c) are expected to be more
prevalent in ores having high clay content (e.g. nickel-laterite
ores). Whereas, for hard crushed ores, the dominant mechanism
of agglomeration growth is layering of nes on larger particles
i.e. rim agglomerates (Fig. 5a) (Bouffard, 2005). The residence time
in agglomeration drum and the binding agents dominantly control
the growth and mechanism of agglomeration.
4. Inadequate agglomeration
3. Agglomeration mechanisms
The binding mechanisms of agglomeration can be classied into
ve categories: (1) solid bridges, (2) adhesion and cohesion forces,
(3) surface tension and capillary pressure, (4) attraction forces between solids and (5) interlocking bonds (Lewandowski and Kawatra, 2009a; Moats and Janwong, 2008; Pietsch, 2002). Whereas, in
crushed ore agglomeration, adhesion and cohesion forces are dominant for binder-assisted agglomeration, surface tension and capillary forces dominate the system for non-binder/wet agglomeration
(Kodali et al., 2011a).
Crushed ore agglomerates can take two forms: ne particles
adhering to coarse particles and ne particles adhering to each
other. Based on microscopic investigations, Tibbals (1987) reported
two types of agglomerates: rst, in which, particles of 1 mm or larger in size formed the core and were surrounded by a shell of nely
divided material (rim agglomerates); second, in which, particles
were composed of granular members having no clearly dened
core (nucleated/conglomerate). The rim agglomerates were
mechanically more stable and were preferred for leaching (Tibbals,
1987).
For tailings, the solution should be sprayed in coarse droplets
that serve as nuclei around which agglomerates form: for crushed
ores the method of solution addition becomes less critical since the
large ore particles become the nuclei around which the agglomerates build. The addition of water for green agglomerate strength
and addition of a binder for cured agglomerate strength are the
most important factors. For proper agglomeration it is necessary
to ensure that the binder is completely mixed with the contained
nes.
The agglomeration equipment mixes the ore and solution and
packs the agglomerates in a similar manner to the building of a
snowball (Dhawan et al., 2012a; Tibbals, 1987). Surface tension
forces and capillary action between the solution and the particles
is sometimes enough for the ne material to hold the coarser particles together (Fernndez, 2003; von Michaelis, 1992). In the
agglomeration drum the contact between particles with solution
causes the particles to adhere/coalesce through liquid bridges.
The liquid acts as a binder through capillary action and surface tension, predominantly because of the attachment of ne particles on
The lack of quality agglomerates has probably resulted in the

largest number of heap leach failures (Kappes et al., 2000). Proper
agglomeration is critical for high clay ores especially in high rainfall environments. The operations staff should have previous experience with correct design or operation of agglomeration systems
otherwise operation failure may result as happened in Santa Rosa
in Panama (Kappes et al., 2000).
Inadequate agglomeration may cause hydrology problems, segregation and channeling but there is no assurance that agglomeration will solve these issues solely because besides agglomeration,
the mechanical handling of agglomerates during transport and
stacking affects the heap characteristics signicantly. Inadequate
dosage of the agglomerating liquid will result in size segregation
during stacking and poor quality of agglomerates, which may lead
to several issues such as ponding, percolation, uneven permeability, limited irrigation ow rates, limited lift height and, ultimately,
deteriorated permeability (Fernndez, 2003). Generally, inadequate addition of liquid content (moisture) could result in loose
nes, coarse particles and weak agglomerates. This weak agglomerated charge may add burden to the transportation due to insufcient mechanical strength. Hence, inadequate moisture disables
the primary purpose of agglomeration, i.e. minimal segregation
during heap stacking (Velarde, 2005).
Inadequate agglomeration practice often results in stratication
of coarse and ne particles in heaps which causes poor permeability of the leaching solution (and gas in heap bio-leaching), the formation of preferential ow channels and perched water tables
(Afewu and Dixon, 2008). The moisture content for each ore type
varies signicantly and depends upon many factors such as the
mineralogy of the ore (presence of clays), particle size distribution,
wetting characteristics and degree of compaction during agglomeration. Hence, it is recommended to have mineralogical analysis
before starting agglomeration practice so as to evaluate the
moisture limits (McClelland and van Zyl, 1988). If excess moisture
is present in the agglomerates, the capillary pressure in the
agglomerate goes to zero due to the concave menisci on the
agglomerates surface and hence further growth is limited (Pietsch,
2002). If this occurs, the mud-like material will not agglomerate
and allow for percolation. However, recently, an experimental
procedure has been developed to determine optimum moisture
Table 1
Consequences of non-optimal agglomeration (Afewu and Dixon, 2008; Guzman et al., 2008; Kodali et al., 2011a; Robertson and Van Staden, 2009; Velarde, 2005).
Parameter
Loose nes
Segregation during stacking
Compaction
Deteriorated permeability
Voidage
Hydraulic conductivity
Density
Saturation
Decreased
Decreased
Increased
Variable
Variable (low/high)
Variable (pockets)
Issue/poor percolation
Decreased
Decreased
Increased
Uneven lixiviant ow
Severe ponding
Dead zones
for agglomeration (Vethosodsakda, 2012). Drier agglomerates have

been reported to withstand acidic conditions less than wet
agglomerates (Lewandowski and Kawatra, 2008). The summarized
effect of non-optimal agglomeration on heap leach properties is
shown in Table 1.
Other issues from inadequate agglomeration include hydrological problems (limited irrigation ow rates, channeling/impermeabilities, and lower moisture), ineffective curing, hydraulic delay,
and longer liquid retention. The most important factors for effective agglomeration (formation of quality agglomerates) include
pH modier addition, binder addition, water addition, moisture
content of feed, degree of mixing of ore-binder-solution and curing
time (Tibbals, 1987).
5. Curing
Agglomerated ore is typically stacked and left to cure for a period of hours to several weeks. For agglomeration with cement, curing times of 896 h have been reported (Bouffard, 2005). During
cement curing, hydrolysis of the cement occurs leading to the formation of solid bridges between particles. Curing times with sulfuric acid have been reported from 14 to 336 h (Lu et al., 2007).
During acid curing, certain components of the ore which have been
dissolved, re-precipitate and act to bind the ore together (Purkiss
and Anthony, 2004).
Agglomeration limits the size variation and increases the permeability of an ore heap whereas acid curing inhibits the dissolution of silicates (impurities) and accelerates copper extraction. Acid
curing causes dehydration of the aluminum silicate minerals
through a change in the structure of hydroxides, rendering the surface hydrophobic and insoluble in aqueous solutions, inhibiting the
silicate dissolution, homogenizing the distribution of acid in the
ore bed along with higher porosity in the bed, and improving the
lterability of the pulp (Cruz et al., 1980; Jansen and Taylor,
2003). The curing period allows strong bonds to form between
the coarse particles and the nes clays (Worstell, 1987). Curing
can be done directly on the conveyor for materials that do not require agglomeration (Galea et al., 2010). However, depending on
the ore type, curing time can vary from times as short as 824 h
(Bouffard, 2005) or as long as 15 days (Lu et al., 2007). Irrigation
ow rate and acid curing have a greater impact on the initial kinetics of copper extraction than they do on the ultimate level of recovery (Baum, 1999; Lu et al., 2007).
6. Binders
Fines can migrate and clog the spaces between the large ore
particles within the heap resulting in an uneven distribution of
the leaching solution. This leads to poor interaction between the
ore and leach solution, resulting in inadequate metal recoveries,
and thereby extending the leach time or sometimes causing heap
closure (Bouffard, 2005; Chamberlin, 1986; Dorey et al., 1988;
Lastra and Chase, 1984; Lewandowski and Kawatra, 2009b;
McClelland, 1986). Any increase in bulk density due to agglomerate
bed compaction (during stacking) reduces the total voidage within
the heap and leads to poor permeability (DeMull and Womack,
1983; Miller, 2003; Schlitt, 1983; Ulrich et al., 2003). To overcome
these issues, binders may be used.
Rodriguez (2007) reported that ores with particularly high clay
and nes content did not necessarily respond as well to water
agglomeration. This might be because in these ore types the particle interactions during agglomeration need to be strong for producing porous, durable and stable agglomerates which, in turn,
requires an effective binding agent.
57
Fig. 6. Important features in stucco agglomeration of ne ore particles at the

surface of a coarse ore particle, (A) initial state of ore particles and reagents, (B)
mixing of ore particles, acid solution and stucco with formation of liquid bridge, and
(C) Meta stable agglomerate, (D) nal stable agglomerate structure formed by
hydration of the stucco binder particles (Kodali et al., 2011a).
Irrespective of the environment (i.e. acidic or alkaline), a binder

or additive should help the ne particles adhere to the coarser
particles. This minimizes percolation problems and increases
metal recovery by increasing the contact between the ore and
leaching solution (Lewandowski and Kawatra, 2008, 2009a,b;
Tibbals, 1987).
Binders are generally added to increase the strength of agglomerates since they act as an adhesive to chemically bond in some
cases or entrap ne particles into larger ore particles. Schlitt
(1992) outlined the dual role of cement binders to include improved clay permeability by the exchange of sodium ions in the
clay with calcium ions in the binder, and the cementing or pozzolanic effect that strengthens the agglomerates.
A binding agent may be needed if 10% of the material is less
than 75 lm (Chamberlin, 1986; Kodali et al., 2011a). Also, the binder is chosen based on the material being used and the product
qualities desired (Pietsch, 2002). Binders can be classied into organic, inorganic or polymeric in nature. For precious metal heap
leaching (alkaline conditions), Portland cement is often used as a
binder, whereas for heap leaching under acidic conditions, dilute/
concentrated sulfuric acid is widely used.
Most of the work reported in the past has been primarily for
gold systems, which are alkaline. Nevertheless, the primary role
of binder is the same but the dosage, reaction time and downstream processing (e.g., solvent extraction (SX), ion exchange
(IX), electrowinning (EW), precipitation, carbon adsorption, zinc
cementation, etc.) may be signicantly different.
Every ore behaves differently from the agglomeration standpoint depending on the ore mineralogy. Binder dosages should
be chosen based on the agglomeration medium. Binder interaction
with ore particles can be physical as well as chemical. The binder
can also participate actively in the leaching process, hence its dosage should be estimated by taking into account size distribution of
the ore, mineralogy (acidity, the amount of clays present, soluble
impurities content), ore grade, and the acid consumption of the
ore itself. Dosages are best determined by laboratory test work,
especially column testing (Lastra and Chase, 1984). A complete
mix and dispersion of all dry reagents must be achieved before
adding the moisture in all agglomeration systems such as addition
during crushing to ensure proper mixing as the binder adsorbs the
water from the ore (Worstell, 1987).
A binder in copper heap leaching should withstand the acidic
environment (pH 2) and should not interfere with the maintenance of a high bacterial population (Kodali et al., 2011a; Lewandowski and Kawatra, 2008, 2009b; Lewandowski et al., 2010). It
is desired that the reagent used as a binder not affect the leach
chemistry during irrigation or the subsequent processes for metal
recovery (Kodali et al., 2011a). The binder assisted agglomeration
58
should be cost effective, provide stable, durable agglomerates and

should not jeopardize heap performance and metal recovery
through release of unwanted ions into SX or IX (Dhawan et al.,
2012a; Kodali et al., 2011a; Lewandowski and Kawatra, 2008;
McClelland, 1986).
The reactions of the binder and the agglomeration solution may
occur during agglomeration, transport, and stacking prior to irrigation for heap leaching (Kodali et al., 2011a). The binder can also act
as a occulant in a system which requires selective dissolution of
impurities.
The application of binders in agglomeration of precious metals,
copper and nickel ores has been extensively reviewed (Bouffard,
2005; Lewandowski and Kawatra, 2009b; Moats and Janwong,
2008). There has been two recent developments since the publication of the mentioned papers which include the use of stucco (Kodali
et al., 2011a) and polyacrylamide based binders (Lewandowski and
Kawatra, 2009b) for copper heap leaching.
It is known that adding cement or lime to sulde ores results in
precipitation of gypsum and jarosite (Bouffard, 2005). Lastra and
Chase (1984) mentioned gypsum and jarosite binders may involve
precipitation reactions and corresponding alteration of the system
pH. Amaratunga (1995) used gypsum b-hemihydrate as a binder
for pyrrhotite tailings and reported agglomerates of poor strength.
Kodali et al. (2011a) reported non-ideal (too wet) agglomerates
using gypsum for copper ore. In contrast, stucco (calcium sulfate
hemihydrate) was reported as an effective binder because the stucco hydration reaction, which occurs during agglomeration of the
ore, immobilizes the nes, binding them together with coarser
ore particles via the gypsum hydration product, which forms
in situ and serves to stabilize the agglomerates thus formed.
The action of solid stucco as a binder during the agglomeration
process is schematically shown in Fig. 6. It was stated that the stucco based agglomerates have more stability, increased size with less
release of nes, and better permeability of the packed agglomerate
bed (Kodali et al., 2011a). Stucco reacts with water to give gypsum
as shown in Eq. (1):
1
3
CaSO4 H2 O H2 O ! CaSO4 2H2 O
2
2
The idea of polymer-based binders came from the occulation

eld, where large macromolecules of polymers aid occulation
due to the aggregation of colloids and other suspended particles
in liquids through the formation of a oc. Polymeric occulants
such as Percol 351 work well as agglomeration binders, and keep
costs lower compared to more expensive specialized products
(von Michaelis, 1992).
Few researchers reported increased percolation rate of cyanide
leach solution for a gold ore containing clay either by occulating
clay particles or by reducing the surface tension of the leach
solution. However, column leach tests demonstrated that calcium
sulfate (clay modifying agent), sodium dodecyl sulfate and gypsum
increased the percolation rate of solution through an ore bed. On
the other hand, both reagents decreased the rate of dissolution of
gold. It was presumed that the wetting agent forms a hydrophobic
layer at the air/solid/solution interface and creates a diffusion
barrier for the reactants to reach the gold leaching reaction front.
It was reported that a trade off exists between increased ow rate
and decreased gold dissolution rate when a wetting agent is used
in heap leach operations (Browner et al., 1991; Browner and
Strickland, 1992).
Because most of the polymeric binders contain acrylamide and
its derivative as the common base, they possess very high molecular weight. Acrylamide copolymers and polyacrylamide binders
used for gold and copper were reported to decrease the detoxication wash time, improve agglomerate stability (mechanical and
chemical resistance) and solution ow (increased bed porosity
and decreased bed compaction), and increase metal recovery

(Lewandowski and Kawatra, 2009b; Moats and Janwong, 2008;
Serrano, 2003).
Lewandowski and Kawatra (2009a) reported polyacrylamide as
the most effective binder for low-grade chalcocite ore (Cu2S) because of the presence of electrostatic attraction, hydrogen bonding
and physical bonding. According to the authors, the surface charge
of the ore particles (at pH 2) may have lead to electrostatic
attraction with cationic binders. The better performance of polyacrylamide binders was attributed to the high molecular weight
as in occulation studies. However, hydrogen bonding was considered as the primary mode of attachment between the binder and
ore particles due to the strong nature of hydrogen bonds as compared to van der Waals forces. But, the authors raised some doubt
over the toxic nature of some polyacrylamides. Also, it was suggested that surface charge analysis and soak tests should be employed to nd a suitable binder.
According to one case study polymer agglomeration resulted in
no improvement in the agglomerate quality or the saturated
hydraulic conductivity, and induced an increase in the moisture
retention capacity of the ore (Guzman et al., 2008). It is important
to understand the economic issues in conjunction with the potential chemical kinetic issues. Often, the cost of binder is very high
compared to the processing costs when a binder is not employed
(Bouffard, 2005; Dhawan et al., 2012a; Kappes, 2005; Kodali
et al., 2011a). The addition of binder increases the space requirements on pad for a given volume and reduces the ore grade due
to dilution which may pose additional capital cost. If overall recovery is improved or if it can be proven that the same level of recovery can be achieved in less time, these are advantageous, but often
times, the costs associated with extended leach time are quite
small, depending on the leaching method used (Scheffel, 2011).
Industrial operations should be careful in selecting binders as
they may cause unintended consequences. Many mining companies have trialed surfactants and polymer binders, but very few,
if any, have been sustained over time primarily because of expense
(Kennecott Barney Canyon (Lehoux, 1997) and Nifty copper,
Australia (Efthymiou et al., 1998)). Cement is one of the binding
reagents which had been used consistently in gold leaching. But
even cement has disadvantages such as pH maintenance during
heap de-commissioning. The addition of binder to conveyor belt
or agglomeration drum is always an area of concern considering
the low dosages involved (510 wt.%).
Even though the probability of the binder to be washed out of
the heap by external means such as PLS (pregnant leach solution)
is considered negligible, such a failure may interfere with the
downstream processing (SX, IX, precipitation, cementation, carbon
adsorption and EW). For example, polyvinyl acetate emulsion and
tall oil pitch as binders were reported to cause slight increase in
phase disengagement time during SX (Lewandowski and Kawatra,
2009c). Hence, it is worthwhile to see the effect of binders in
downstream processing before using it in agglomeration, to make
sure that it does not inhibit metal production.
7. De-sliming
Herkenhoff and Dean (1987) considered de-sliming as an
alternative for agglomeration and used the term de-slimed heap.
Also, Chirinos (1997) reported a leaching treatment scheme for
Tintaya operations in Peru that included a wet screening operation
to separate the coarse fraction from the slimes. The coarse fraction
was heap-leached and the nes were treated by agitation leaching.
The split size for washing the ore was reported as 65 mesh
(210 lm) and the dissolved copper was recovered through
SXEW. This method resulted in a reduced acid consumption and
59
Fig. 7. Proposed combination of HPGR and heap leaching operations. GHG: Green House Gas; Downstream processing (SX, IX, cementation, precipitation, etc.).
good copper recoveries. However, from the liberation point of view,

some valuable metal may be contained in these de-slimed fractions.
The channeling of solutions through heaps and the high reagent
consumption sometimes ascribed to heap leaching are decreased
by de-sliming of the sand prior to heap leaching and after agglomeration with lime and cement, which improves the mixing and
neutralization of the material and decreases the probability of
channeling (Van Staden and Laxen, 1988). von Michaelis (1983)
concluded that the agglomeration and the application of concentrated cyanide reagents have major advantages in heap leaching
of uranium and copper. Besides de-sliming, the nes problem can
be overcome by simply blending with competent ore as reported
in Nifty copper operation, Australia (Alta, 2011; Burns and Wright,
1994; West and Connor, 1996).
Burns and Wright (1994) reported the new technique electrokinetic leaching which utilized electro-osmotic ow to enhance
percolation through the heap. The application of electro-osmosis
did not interfere with gold dissolution for a low grade gold ore
and a tailings deposit tested. Electrical measurements made in
the laboratory can be successfully used for full scale design of an
electrokinetic leaching system. The authors concluded that the
technique is a low cost alternative to agglomeration and also as a
potential candidate for enabling the application of low cost heap/
vat leach techniques to a signicantly wider range of ores.
8. The role of comminution
Over the last decade, High Pressure Grinding Rolls (HPGR) have
gained signicant importance and popularity since they offer
numerous metallurgical benets (Baum and Ausburn, 2011; Dhawan et al., 2012b; Kodali et al., 2011b). HPGR comminution within
a crushing circuit, in specic instances, can result in more than 2
10% increase in copper extraction (Baum and Ausburn, 2011).
HPGR comminuted copper ore (andesite rock matrix high in silica,
more than 1% copper and high acid consuming species) followed
by agglomeration and small column leaching showed 810% higher
copper extractions as compared to jaw crusher product. It was also
reported that there was no increase in the production of ultranes,
minor slumping of the agglomerated HPGR-crushed ore in the columns was observed, channeling or nes migration. HPGR can also
increase the ore permeability for leaching, provided that the pressure is properly controlled (Baum and Ausburn, 2011). For gold ore,
it was reported that HPGR shortens the drainage cycle for the leach
solutions and hence minimizes the solution inventory time (Baum
and Ausburn, 2011; Klingmann, 2005). Also, McNab (2006) reported 1011% increase in gold leaching due to the HPGR microfracturing effect.
HPGR or roller presses may also reduce the need for binder in
agglomeration because the press forms akes of aggregated ore
that are fairly stable when exposed to a trickling cyanide solution
(Chamberlin, 1989). Products from new HPGR machines (hardstudded rolls) are generally akes, which possess some strength
and often need external de-agglomeration through ball mills or
ultrasonic treatment (Battersby et al., 1993; Schonert, 1988). If
HPGR product could ever be directly used as a feed for heap leaching, a scenario similar to Fig. 7 can be proposed. It may be noted
that if ores are blended and have signicant differences in hardness, the harder ore could build up in a closed loop (CL) with
screens.
Sometimes, even the crushing of some ores, especially clayey
ores, becomes difcult due to tendency of the ore to ball up or pancake along the sides of the crusher. In this regard, blending of the
ore with hard rock has been recommended (Heitt, 1997). While
HPGR may lead to improved heap leaching for hard ores, it is
worthwhile to mention that it may face problems with soft and
sticky ores. Choudhury (2007) reported the soft characteristics
(Bond abrasion index of 0.17, Ultimate Crushing Strength of 30.6)
of aldag nickel laterite ore (a nickel heap leach project in
Turkey). The ore does not require much force to break up and
becomes sticky due to the presence of high clay content. Hence,
some of the laterite ores may not be likely candidates for HPGR
processing.
9. Quality control (QC) and characterization tools
Agglomeration has been ignored as a research topic, mainly due
to the difculty of measuring results separated from the effect of
downstream processing which tend to hide the effect of agglomeration in the overall recovery. However, there are some QC tools
mentioned in the literature that are outlined next.
60
The issues in crushed ore agglomeration arise mainly due to the

wide variety of agglomerate sizes which behave differently in
terms of permeability, porosity and leaching response. An accurate
statistical comparison of agglomerates from different production
batches is highly impractical. To overcome this problem, the
production of small quantities of identical agglomerates for
comparative physical testing usually occurs. In laboratory tests,
the procedure to agglomerate material uses a revolving concrete
mixer, which was rst practiced by Sullivan and Towne (1936). A
revolving cement mixer is still used in laboratory testing today.
Mintek (Southwood, 1985) developed a detailed procedure for
the evaluation of agglomerates for bacterial heap leaching. The
procedure mainly includes quality control tests such as dry compressive strength, sulfuric acid immersion, acid-wetted compressive strength, porosity determination, impact testing and
leaching studies. It is important to mention that Minteks test work
was done on nickel ore, pyrrhotite, and sulde ores having feed
size distribution less than 1 mm. The test work is obviously more
like a pelletization study rather than crushed ore agglomeration
for heap leaching, but it certainly directs the research to some
invaluable procedures for quality control tools for agglomeration.
9.1. Particle size
The role of size in crushed ore agglomeration-heap leaching systems is discussed in detail elsewhere (Dhawan et al., 2012a,b). The
bonding mechanism of agglomerates, feed size distribution and
particles making up the agglomerate (particle interaction) play
important roles in the leaching response. Generally, the agglomerated ore has a separate particle size distribution (PSD) with a slight
increase in the top size but a very large increase in the bottom size.
Typically, sizes are 602 mm with all of the minus 2 mm adhering
to the coarser fractions and themselves to form the agglomerates
(Miller, 2003).
Special care is needed while handling the wet agglomerates.
The sampling and sieving may involve interference such as coalescence and breakage of agglomerates which alters the size distribution. One of the possible ways to overcome the handling issue
involves the snap freezing of the agglomerates with liquid nitrogen
(Bouffard, 2005). As an example of size measurement, the samples
were rst dried, and then sieved and particle size curve was constructed. The same dried samples were then wet sieved with the
action of water and light mechanical forces to determine the
amount of nes released (Kinard and Schweizer, 1987).
In another procedure, the agglomerates were evaluated with respect to the amount of free nes or small agglomerates. Segregation of sizes during stacking was directly related to moisture. The
physical and grain size distribution characteristics of the agglomerates depends on the quantity of ne particles and clays. It was reported that the size distribution of the agglomerated ore was
determined before the ore was stacked in a heap. The different
zones (low, intermediate and upper) within the heap were analyzed after leaching to determine the nal size distribution. It
was found that, if there is not enough solution used in agglomeration, the agglomerates will not be stable and will eventually release small particles that will migrate downwards through the
heap, decreasing the heap permeability (Fernndez, 2003).
Velarde (2005) studied truncated size distribution (4750 lm)
rather than the complete size distribution for optimal values of
moisture. Kodali et al. (2011a) reported air drying of newly formed
agglomerates below 30 C for 24 h to obtain dried agglomerated
samples, which were further screened on a ro-tap shaker for
3 min at a very low shaking speed to avoid breakage. Bouffard
(2008) reported wet screening to identify the particles which make
up the original agglomerates. Although longer mixing times involve both growth and breakage of agglomerates, the overall effect
of extended agglomeration times has been reported to be detrimental (Bouffard, 2008). Also, it was stated that higher moisture
content results in narrower size distribution of agglomerates and
vice versa. However, the procedure for the determination of PSD
was not reported.
Bouffard (2005) highlighted the applicability of population balance models for describing the size enlargement processes such as
pelletization or crushed ore agglomeration process. Less has been
published regarding the control and modeling studies of crushed
ore agglomeration. The reasons may be lack of understanding of
the process, experimental difculties, and also the ambiguous role
of size. In addition, it seems that the determination of the PSD of
the non-binder agglomerates is a tedious job considering the moist
state of agglomerates, representative sample, wide size spectrum
(microns to inches) and stability issues.
On the other hand, for other similar size agglomeration processes, such as pelletization and granulation, signicant work has
been done regarding modeling aspects. Many researchers (Kapur
and Runkana, 2003; Thella and Venugopal, 2011) reported population balance models for the predictions of size distribution for
batch and continuous operations of pelletization, and granulation
processes which include ne size distribution (minus 100 lm for
pelletization and up to 810 mm for granulation).
Even though the PSD of the ores may be identical, the geology of
the ores makes the difference towards agglomeration behavior.
Very large agglomerates may not be able to hold nes, mono-size
agglomerates may cause packing problems, and very small
agglomerates may not possess sufcient porosity due to higher
particle interactions (make up of agglomerates). Besides, the
above-mentioned procedure for sizing involves dry agglomerate
which is not exactly the case in real heap operations. Hence, the
authors feel that it might be worthwhile to have video capture image analysis system for online size distribution as a method of controlling the agglomeration process. Even without crushing, some
ores have a strong tendency to disintegrate into clay through natural weathering agents or under the action of leaching solutions.
Tests should be run on the ore to determine the percolation rate
and metal recovery for various size distributions (Chamberlin,
1989; Schlitt, 1992).
9.2. Permeability (hydraulic conductivity)
The permeability of the agglomerated ore possess dual character, i.e. macro (inter) and micro (intra) porosity. The former exists
between agglomerates whereas the latter exists within the
agglomerate (Dhawan et al., 2012b; Guzman et al., 2008).
In one case, permeability/hydraulic conductivity was measured
on saturated samples of ore in a falling head permeability apparatus. The samples were saturated and then consolidated at two different conning pressures and permeability values were reported
for both pressures. Density and percent nes (75 lm) were reported to have the largest effect on the permeability of the material
(Kinard and Schweizer, 1987).
In another case (Garcia and Jorgenson, 1997), the sample was
placed in a sealed cylinder with a normal stress load being applied
to the top of the sample. Leach solution was injected into the
bottom of the cylinder at a constant pressure. The saturated
hydraulic conductivity of the sample was then evaluated at
increasing normal stress intervals of approximately 20 psi to
determine how high the ore may be stacked until it loses
permeability. A value of permeability (at least 103 cm/s) under
ultimate load will typically be reached using a dedicated pad and
permeability value (less than 104 cm/s) will be reached using an
interliner pad or on/off pad.
Researchers also determined the coefcient of permeability by a
constant head method (ASTM D2434) for laminar ow through a
packed bed of agglomerates using Darcys Law as shown in Eq. (2)

(Kodali et al., 2011a):
Q K DP
A
lL
where Q is ow rate (cm3/s), A is area of column (cm2), K is permeability (cm2), DP is pressure difference (qgh), q is density of water
(kg/cm3), g is acceleration due to gravity (cm/s2), h is head
difference between solution inlet and outlet (cm), l is viscosity of
water (kg/(cm s)), and L is the length of the column occupied by
the agglomerates (cm).
A geotechnical testing program should also include saturated
hydraulic conductivity (permeability), which is measured as a function of lithostatic load to represent a heap height. It was reported
that a good saturated hydraulic conductivity (more than 102 cm/
s) is necessary; however, it was not sufcient to guarantee an adequate leaching performance. Hydraulic properties of the ore include
porosity, saturated hydraulic conductivity, capillary pressure and
solution retention capacity (Guzman et al., 2008). The ore density
is a master variable, which impacts both the hydrodynamic and metallurgical response of an ore to leach (Guzman et al., 2008; Robertson
et al., 2010). Guzman et al. (2008) developed two independent measuring techniques to determine these constitutive relationships.
Robertson et al. (2010) used a stacking test to determine the ore
density and saturated hydraulic conductivity of the ore as well as
the macro and micro-porosity as a function of overburden pressure
(heap height). The stacking test involves placing ore samples into
test cells and mechanically increasing the conning load to simulate the effect of a heap weight on the bulk density of ore. The load
is increased in a stepwise fashion, allowing for height stabilization
during the loading steps. The density and conductivity of the ore
are measured at each step and then the load is increased to simulate additional lithostatic loading. Generally, the stacking test is
conducted under partially saturated conditions, containing only
the moisture of agglomeration, as opposed to fully saturated
conditions.
Another method that facilitates concurrent determination of the
hydraulic and air pressure within a column along with moisture
content and electrical resistivity has been indicated (Guzman
et al., 2008). However, the technical details of the method have
not been reported. From this method, the shape of the hydraulic
conductivity curves was reported to be a function of the particle
size distribution, the degree of agglomeration, the moisture content during agglomeration, the density of the ore, the type of solution used and the composition of feed material (Guzman et al.,
2008). The hydraulic conductivity was reported to be a strong
function of degree of saturation (solution content). It has been suggested by Guzman et al. (2008) that a good agglomerated ore possesses an equal partition between macro and micro-porosity and
produces optimal conditions for percolation leaching. The solution
ow through micro-porosity is dominated by capillary forces and
macro-porosity is controlled by gravity forces. Micro-porosity,
which is favorable for the leaching process and owes mainly to
the large surface of the containing particles require a careful design
of the irrigation scheme. It was reported that relationship between
density and saturated hydraulic conductivity can be accurately
represented by a power law.
The direct measurements of physical and hydraulic properties
on ores for a percolation process have been less reported. The dual
porosity (macro/micro) of agglomerates makes it difcult to
extrapolate physical and hydraulic measurements from soils to
ore for leaching. Hence, standard methods developed for soil characterization are not necessarily adequate to test ore leaching given
the very coarse nature of the material (ROM) or the dual-porosity
of agglomerated ore.
61
There is limited knowledge of the impact of agglomeration

practices on the ow properties of the actual heap leach solution
(Guzman et al., 2008).
As the ore density increases, the void volume (porosity) in the
ore sample decreases, moisture retention capacity increases linearly while the percolation capacity decreases in a strongly non-linear fashion. Minimal settlement indicates a competent (resilient
and durable) agglomeration product, whereas maximum value of
bulk density is indicative of unstable agglomerates (Guzman
et al., 2008).
The hydraulic characteristics of the ore should be tested under
fully saturated conditions. The saturated hydraulic conductivity
of the ore represents the maximum solution application rate of
the ore. If the solution application rate exceeds the saturated ore
hydraulic conductivity, the heap becomes saturated and may become unstable due to the high phreatic surface within the heap.
Also, the saturated conductivity of the ore under load allows the
heap leach pad designer to assess whether the heap is likely to become saturated under future conditions as more ore is stacked
higher onto the leach pad (Lupo and Dolezal, 2010).
9.3. Electrical conductivity
Electrical conductivity testing was developed considering the
fact that conductivity changes drastically when the added moisture reaches the absorption limit. At that instant, a lm is developed around the particles that leads to the formation of
agglomerates through liquid bridges and hence leads to electrical
connections. The test duration is about 45 s and onsite monitoring
is possible (Fernndez, 2003; Velarde, 2005). The technique was
rstly introduced to evaluate proper amount of moisture for
agglomerating a copper ore. Since, the adequate dosage of moisture will vary with the ore type, electrical conductivity test cannot
be used to control xed moisture levels. However, it can be used to
monitor unpredictable changes in moisture requirements caused
by nes/clay changes and ensure the hydrometallurgical quality
of the product (Fernndez, 2003; Velarde, 2005). Minera Cerro
Verde Peru Company has reported the eradication of inadequate
agglomeration through the capital-inexpensive electrical conductivity technique (Fernndez, 2003).
Kodali et al. (2011a) placed agglomerates in a resistance measurement device, which essentially consists of two equal stainless
steel rectangular electrodes and the resistance was measured using
a multimeter clipped to the electrodes. The electrical conductivity
of the packed agglomerate bed was calculated using Eq. (3):
K cond
L
RA
where Kcond is the conductivity (X1 cm1), L is the distance between the two electrodes (cm), R is the measured resistance (X)
and A is the longitudinal cross sectional area of the electrode (cm2).
The electrical conductivity increased with an increase in the
amount of sulfuric acid solution and eventually a constant value
is reached for no stucco addition. Kodali et al. (2011) also included
electrical conductivity test technique in determining the best
quality agglomerates. Recently, the use of electrical resistivity
techniques was also reported to dene dry areas of poor percolation in heaps and to locate leaks in liners (Alta, 2011).
9.4. Visual inspection (glove test)
The optimum agglomeration moisture is just below the moisture holding capacity of the ore (Guzman et al., 2008). It is apparent that this can be visually determined from the surface sheen on
the agglomerates. Some researchers (Kodali et al., 2011a; Velarde,
2005) reported surface sheen as a control measure for moisture
62
addition to the agglomeration drum, which is also a controlling

parameter for agglomerate size.
From an operator point of view, an ideal agglomerate is the one
which appears to be visually good, i.e. neither too wet nor too dry
(Kodali et al., 2011a; Velarde, 2005). The glove test is quite subjective and manual and hence provides limited information about
quality (Velarde, 2005). Good visual appearance is necessary,
although not sufcient; to guarantee good physical or hydraulic
performance i.e. stable and durable agglomerates (Guzman et al.,
2008).
9.5. Stability
It is difcult to dene the stability of agglomerates for heap
leaching operations. The reason is, after the agglomeration process
in a drum, the agglomerates may break or even combine as they
are transported to the heap. During transport the agglomerates
experience mechanical handling (conveyors and stackers), compaction and atmospheric conditions (sun/rain/snow). Hence, the
agglomerates are expected to face mechanical testing, uidic conditions and curing conditions.
Submerging or soaking agglomerates gives a measure of degradation, when the agglomerates being subjected to moisture (water
or leach solution). Agglomerates were placed into a burette, which
was plugged with steel wool and solution was fed through the steel
wool into the burette. The solution which came out of the bottom
of burette was analyzed for the solids (Chamberlin, 1986). Along
similar lines, the degradation of agglomerates was classied into
complete, partial and no degradation during the 24 h soak period
(von Michaelis, 1992).
Milligan (1984) reported similar stability analysis, using dried
agglomerates at 90 C for 6 h and then, after cooling, dipped 10
times into water. The amount of nes collected in water was reported as a measure of strength of agglomerates. Agglomerates
were submerged in sulfuric acid (pH 1) for an extended period
during which their breakdown was noted. Some agglomerates
were found to disintegrate in very short periods (less than 1 min)
and others remained intact for several days. Agglomerates are classied as good, promising, weak and poor based on the collapse
time. The technique has also been used for selecting binders
(Southwood, 1985).
Other similar tests reported binder assisted agglomerates were
placed on Tyler 10-mesh screen and allowed to cure. Then, the
screen containing agglomerates was jigged in and out of container
of water for a set amount of time (McClelland, 1988; Tibbals, 1987;
von Michaelis, 1992). The agglomerates were jigged over a Tyler
9-mesh screen and amount of minus 9-mesh nes produced were
measured. The increase in weight retained on a screen was plotted
against binder feed and the break in the curve indicates a target
binder addition for feed (Thompson, 1997).
Lewandowski and Kawatra (2008) modied the existing soak
tests by incorporating air drying as the cure method and stated it
as more representative of what the agglomerates would experience
when being placed in a heap during stacking operation. They also
found that many agglomeration binders lose their strength on drying, which is in agreement with the ndings of Bouffard (2008).
The test was developed to verify whether binders can withstand
acidic conditions. The air dried-cured agglomerates were submerged into 6 g/L sulfuric acid solution (pH 1.8) for 30 min. After
soaking, the material which was passed through Tyler 10-mesh
screen was measured to determine nes migration. The percent
nes migration gives a quantitative measurement regarding
agglomerates breakdown.
The jigging and submersion of the agglomerates do not represent realistic environments as it would be in real heap leaching
operations. Also, these tests impart substantially more shear stress
than does normal percolation leaching. The optimum agglomerating conditions determined from the strength and stability tests
should, therefore, be conrmed by conducting a column percolation test on agglomerates (Lewandowski and Kawatra, 2008).
9.6. Barneys Canyon test
The Barneys Canyon mine operation developed a standard
evaluation test of agglomerate quality. The test was developed to
simulate actual preparation practice, rather than to measure
permeability under identical, controlled conditions (such as ASTM
soil tests). Agglomerates were prepared by gently tumbling the ore
and cement mixture, while adding small amounts of water until
the product was visually perfect in terms of adherence of nes
to coarse particles, and then poured into a pan producing a cone
with a natural angle of repose. The pan was then tightly covered
for the cure period (3 days for cement agglomerates). At the end
of the cure, 400 mL of water was added to the apex of the cone.
The amount of nes washed out the bottom of the slightly tilted
pan was evaluated on a scale of 110. Perfectly stable agglomerates
consistently scored 10, with the water exiting the cone completely
clear. The test was rst used to evaluate various chemicals, as well
as cement and water ratios and was later used routinely to
evaluate the agglomerate quality of production-heaped ore. The
difference in agglomeration effectiveness, as determined from
this test, was reproducible and readily apparent. Water addition
was reported as the major factor in agglomerate quality determination (Braun and Lehoux, 1993). It is important to mention that
with the available information the test seems to be subjective.
9.7. Strength
Agglomerates at the base of a heap are subjected to stack
heights of 610 m, thereby causing considerable continuous
mechanical loading in terms of compaction and shear action of
agglomerate bed. Based on the underlying heap conditions, the
agglomerate strength becomes crucial to heap stability and
permeability.
In one of the studies, prepared agglomerates were allowed to
cure at ambient temperature. The mechanical strength of agglomerates was measured with the use of load cell and was termed
as compressive strength. On average, standard agglomerates
(9.5 mm) were reported to tolerate loads up to 8 kg (yield point)
(Southwood, 1985). Agglomerate strength can be subjectively
measured by hand squeezing and looking for clumping (Moats
and Janwong, 2008). Most recently, a compressive strength of
2030 kPa for 1020 mm size wet nickel laterite agglomerates
has been reported (Nosrati et al., 2012).
Kinard and Schweizer (1987) used the standard proctor (ASTM
D 698) compaction test. The test was performed on the composite
bulk sample to provide shear strength parameters to be used
in stability analysis. Typical moisture (21%), permeability
(104106 cm/s) and strength (13100 kPa) values on different
heap regions were reported. The authors mentioned that
laboratory testing does not model what actually happens in the
heap because in the heap, the ore is held in a metastable condition
by the pozzolonic or cementatious effects of the lime and cement
whereas during the saturation and consolidation phase of the
strength tests, some of these bonds may be destroyed. On the other
hand, the changes in moisture content of the heap occur over
relatively long periods of time, and the ore does not become
completely saturated, whereas in laboratory testing, once the
bonds are disturbed and consolidation begins, the sample will consolidate more than equivalent material in the heap.
The shear strength governs stability in the ore slope of the heap.
Triaxial compression tests can be used to evaluate static liquefac-
tion or potential for ore slope collapse and generation of excess

pore pressures (Lupo and Dolezal, 2010). However, test details
are not reported in the available literature.
9.8. Leaching strength of agglomerates
Yijun et al. (2002) inserted a measured number of agglomerates
into a transparent column, and leaching was done in stages
of increasing sulfuric acid concentration, fresh water, then 20
30 g/L solution, and nally 50100 g/L solution. The numbers of
unbroken agglomerates were measured after each leaching stage.
The percentage of unbroken pellets to the original number was reported as the leaching strength of pellets. The size, water adsorbing
capacity, compression strength, wet strength, and permeability
were also mentioned but no procedures were reported.
9.9. Attrition test
The abrasion of agglomerate surface was tested using 200 mm
diameter pan with a soft rubber lining. Attrition was limited largely to inter-agglomerate contact. A Pascal sieve shaker was used
to provide a standardized agitation over a 20 min period. After
the material was shaken for a set time, the proportion of material
abraded to less than 9.5 mm was recorded. The percentage difference was used to evaluate agglomerates and different binding systems (Southwood, 1985).
Herkenhoff and Dean (1987) suggested a tumble test for cured
and dried agglomerates for certain specied time in a small abrasion drum and then screening and weighing of the abraded nes.
However, few authors (Bouffard, 2008; Lewandowski and Kawatra,
2008) reported dried agglomerates become weak in strength. This
test is of limited use since in actual heap leach operation, the
agglomerates will only be completely dried at surfaces with the
bulk of the heap retaining moisture.
9.10. Shatter drop test
Drop tests have been used in the iron ore industry for pellet
evaluation since the early 1950s. ASTM standard drop height of
6 ft (1.83 m) is used in the test. Loaded agglomerates were allowed
to roll off from a xed height and fall to hit a steel plate. Then, the
number of drops taken to break agglomerates was assigned as the
drop number of the specimen. Also, the drop number was found to
have an inverse relationship to the size of agglomerate (Southwood, 1985).
63
9.12. Percolation ood column test

The ood column test is mainly used to determine agglomerate
strength over time. The ore is agglomerated with binder and sufcient solution to obtain wet agglomerates, which are then placed
into a small column (75 mm diameter) to cure. Water/solution is
added to the top of the column at a rate to ood or cause an overow situation within the ore bed. According to von Michaelis
(1992), the higher ow rates subject the ore material to harsher
conditions as prevalent in actual heap leaching. The ow rate of
the solution through the column is measured, to determine the
permeability of ore bed, which is related to the amount of void
space. When the agglomerates break down, ne material will migrate through the heap and solution build up/pooling will occur,
causing the solution ow to decrease. Also, agglomerate breakdown leads to slumping as determined by increase in bulk density.
Lewandowski and Kawatra (2008) concluded that the bulk density is an incomplete tool for the determination of the agglomerate
breakdown. The authors used different columns to study the nes
migration. The agglomerated sample was placed in a graduated
cylinder, which was slowly ooded with water. The amount of settling observed was considered as a measure of the binder dosage.
The same procedure provides an indication of the efuent (pregnant solution) pH, which may be expected during column leaching
(copper: pH 1.82; gold: pH 9.511) (Thompson, 1997).
The stability of agglomerates can be determined by measuring
the hydraulic conductivity, bulk density and nes migration in percolation-ooded columns (Lewandowski and Kawatra, 2008). They
termed the best agglomerates those which will have the highest
hydraulic conductivity, smallest slump (lowest bulk density) and
least amount of ne material migration from the ore bed. Change
in bulk density and hydraulic conductivity can be measured, both
values indicating permeability within the column and also agglomerate strength. Good agglomerates can be submerged in water for
many hours without disintegrating. The change in bulk density or
slump would indicate a breakdown of agglomerates during the
leaching process and thus should be small in ideal cases.
Lupo and Dolezal (2010) outlined the aspects of load percolation tests as pass/fail. The test was reported to be sensitive to
ore, incremental increase to applied load, and potential bypass
along sides of vessel. The failed tests exhibit ponding at the surface.
The authors recommended test should be done with actual leach
solution, and settlement and percolation should be monitored.
While slump of a column is often used as an indicator of
agglomerate strength, it has been reported that slump is not a good
gauge for agglomerate quality and does not correspond to nal
pore space (Moats and Janwong, 2008).
9.11. Porosity
9.13. Hydrodynamic column test (HCT)
Velarde (2005) reported ores having high amount of nes/clays

have tendency to produce low apparent density agglomerates.
Generally, lower apparent density material ends up with a higher
level of compaction. The bulk density increases linearly with increase in heap height (Bouffard, 2008; Miller, 2003). Controlling
the moisture is the key to achieve the lowest possible dry bulk density of the mixture (Scheffel, 2011).
Southwood (1985) examined porosity by immersing dried preweighed agglomerates in water for measured time intervals. An
approximation of the potential penetration rate of lixiviant is obtained from the mass of water absorbed and the period of immersion. The porosity is calculated as ratio of volume of water
absorbed at saturation to the total volume of saturated agglomerate. The use of surface-active agents has been reported to be
adequate for comparison of binding systems, although they contribute to a small amount of error.
Guzman et al. (2008) outlined the hydrodynamic properties of

agglomerates as a metric to identify the optimal agglomeration approach. Density and permeability proles that develop from a particular agglomeration practice are the key parameters which
determine the metallurgical performance of an ore. The agglomerate quality tests, stacking test, air and hydraulic conductivity tests
seem to be ideal from complete and interactive property relationships point of view. However, the tests are expected to be expensive and take a lot of time and effort. Generally, for commercial
testing to identify good agglomeration conditions, short column
percolation tests as well as the Guzman stacking test are practiced
frequently.
The hydrodynamic column test procedure is claimed to provide
the most complete characterization of the physical and hydrodynamic properties of an ore-for-leach at the bulk density imposed
on the sample. The test provides a complete characterization of
64
the potential hydrodynamic response of an ore sample under percolation leaching such as saturated hydraulic conductivity, moisture retention curve, air permeability as a function of solution
content, drain down curve and total porosity (micro and macro)
(Robertson et al., 2010).
9.14. Geotechnical test
Geotechnical testing includes hydraulic and mechanical characteristics (compressibility and shear strength). There are few tests
regarded as geotechnical tests such as one-dimensional compression (ore durability, ore compressibility, permeability and settlement), saturated hydraulic conductivity (load permeability and
load percolation), shear strength (direct shear and triaxial compression), and soil water characteristic curve (SWCC). SWCC is
used to understand unsaturated hydraulic properties of ne
grained ore, and can be used to relate moisture content (saturation) to hydraulic conductivity. SWCC is not a constant curve and
changes with ore compression and size fractions in ore heap (Lupo
and Dolezal, 2010; Robertson et al., 2010).
Kinard and Schweizer (1987) performed classication tests
including determination of moisture-density, Atterberg limits,
and particle size. The Atterberg liquid limit quantitatively indicates
the moisture content when there is a shift in material state from a
liquid to a plastic stage; however, Atterberg plastic limit denotes
the moisture level when the material transforms from plastic to
a semisolid stage (Bouffard, 2005). These limits provide a quantitative understanding of the materials load carrying capacity and the
maximum recommended moisture content that can occur in the
material without affecting heap stability. It was reported that an
ore with liquid limit greater than 20 and plasticity index of 10
has clay content and may exhibit low permeability under load
(Garcia and Jorgenson, 1997).
9.15. Kappes percolation test (slump test)
Kappes percolation test involves lling a leaching column
(0.1 m diameter and 0.6 m height) with agglomerates at a certain
known ore height. The loaded column is tapped with a rubber mallet over its length which causes settling of the agglomerates and
the change in height is measured to determine the slump of the
ore. After that, the column is bottom lled with leaching solution
such that the solution covers all of the ore. The column is allowed
to stand for 48 h and then the height of the agglomerates is measured again. Finally, percolation rate/ow rate is calculated in L/
h/m2 (Pyke, 1994; Rodriguez, 2007). It is important to mention that
Kappes percolation testing was originally developed for gold ores
and is of an empirical nature.
9.16. Long-term leach pilot scale test
Generally, column tests are used to simulate the heap leaching
process in vertical tubes (pipes) to determine recovery, leaching
rate, and reagent requirements. These tests are often performed
to determine the agglomerate performance over a period of time.
Lewandowski and Kawatra (2008, 2009c) studied whether the
use of binders in agglomeration would have any negative effects
on copper recovery rates or the bacteria populations in the column
leaching. Column tests, even large ones, generally give better results than large scale tests or commercial operation, due to nearly
perfect solution-rock contact obtained in the columns. Whereas in
actual heap, as discussed in next section, the coarse rock size
distribution contributes signicantly to slow leach kinetics (Hernandez et al., 2003). Also, in similar agglomeration conditions,
the heap leach results were different from the column tests due
to more compactness of heap and also the absence of structural
support because of wall effects in columns (Bouffard, 2008). Also,

the comparison of column tests to actual heap leach operations requires a more accurate prediction of the solution characteristics
such as solution velocity within the heap (Wadsworth, 1977). Recently, Martens et al. (2012) reported that the lixiviant has less
contact with reductants in comparison to the column experiment
for gold in situ leaching.
9.17. Heap test
The heap test is almost a real heap in analyzing the performance
of agglomerates (Lewandowski and Kawatra, 2009b; McClelland,
1988; Milligan, 1984). The heap is of industrial scale size and generally metal recoveries are also reported. Of course, this is one of
the most representative techniques for performance; however,
time, cost and labor factors limit the scope of test for only commercial operations.
9.18. Summary of quality control tests
It is worthwhile to note that for comparative purposes and reliability on quality control tests, the agglomerates must be of equivalent sizes. The laboratory tests appear to be good for binder and
agglomeration process screening, but they do not appear capable
of providing feedback in a time frame needed to control an agglomeration operation. Therefore, these tests seem to be satisfactory as
part of scoping test work, whereas hydrodynamic tests may be
more practical for commercial operations.
Some of the quality control tests practiced in crushed ore
agglomeration and binder screening are mechanical tests developed for pelletization such as drop tests, attrition tests and compression tests. However, few/none of the tests obtain a direct
measure of the strength, size of agglomerates and particle interactions in individual agglomerates (Bouffard, 2005; Scheffel, 2011).
There is no standardized quantitative method for evaluating
agglomerate stability when using binders except the hand squeezing of agglomerates practiced in the industry. However, soak test
and percolation column test for qualitative screening of potential
binders has been reported (Lewandowski and Kawatra, 2008,
2009b).
Having reviewed the QC and characterization tools for crushed
ore agglomeration, it is understood that fundamental understanding of the crushed ore agglomeration process is still lacking. This is
primarily due to unique behavior of each ore body, lack of process
insight, limited practical quality control tools for the guidance of
operators, and lack of advanced characterization tools.
Certainly, it is necessary to nd optimal conditions of operation
and to measure the variation of the agglomerate properties on time
in a real conned situation as in a heap leaching system. But to nd
optimal conditions, complete characterization of agglomeration
and leaching process is required. The real challenge is the in situ
study of the effect of agglomeration variables, agglomeration quality and optimal processing conditions. The application of non-invasive characterization technologies such as X-ray computed
tomography has been recently reported (Dhawan et al., 2012b).
Information such as agglomerates size characterization, uid ow
and porous network structure, and the change of agglomeration
quality during the leaching process can be obtained.
Other important areas which have not received much attention
in the past are modeling studies for crushed ore agglomeration.
Agglomerate size as a fundamental and critical property has still
not been given the required attention (Dhawan et al., 2012b).
Besides, there is necessity for a continuous model of the agglomeration process especially to avoid segregation during heap building,
which of course is one of the primary reasons for agglomeration
itself.
65
Fig. 8. Steps involved in effective mineral dissolution rate during heap leach operation.
Also, there is a need for cost-effective binders for different heap

leaching systems (especially nickel laterites and uranium). In particular, some surface studies regarding the forces driving bonding
in the agglomeration process are required. Not much has been published regarding the determination of optimal moisture content for
agglomeration, agglomerate strength/stability and mineral phase
transformation during the course of leaching. The importance of
quality control and characterization tools in crushed ore agglomeration is presented in Fig. 8. The related research work is presently
underway at the University of Utah, as part of an important project
to improve understanding of crushed ore agglomeration.
10. Commercial agglomeration for heap leaching
Generally, ores with a high clay content require drying before
agglomeration. Weathered ores contain enough nes that cause severe issues for percolation. For example, oxidized massive sulde
gold ores are so soft and permeable that even crushing below
75 mm does not increase gold recovery (e.g. Filon Sur ore body,
Tharsis, Spain and Hassai Mine, Sudan). There can be serious issues
in multiple lift and higher height heaps due to difference in ore
properties. As subsequent lifts are stacked, the underneath ore
body gets compressed, which reduces the heap permeability. This
effect is expected to be more prevalent in softer ores, whereas
hard-crushed ores can withstand the resulting pressure (Kappes,
2002). In such circumstances, adequate agglomeration serves as
an important step to overcome the issues of concern.
Due to the variable nature of ores and modes of leaching, different heap leach operations practice different operating parameters.
From the review of the literature (Alta, 2011; Bouffard, 2005;
Kodali et al., 2011a; Lewandowski and Kawatra, 2009a,b; Moats
and Janwong, 2008), it is evident that most operations use lixiviant
as part of the physical/chemical binder, depending on the leach
environment. For example, the copper ore agglomeration is
typically conducted in a drum agglomerator with low additions
(1525 kg) of sulfuric acid per ton of ore and about 60100 kg of
water. Gold heap leaching operations practice the USBMs procedure, which includes alkaline leaching following cement and dilute
cyanide solution addition during the agglomeration pretreatment
step. However, the well established data from gold heap leach
operations is of limited use in copper, nickel and uranium due to
different mode of leaching (i.e., basic vs. acidic) and different ore
types. A comparison of typical gold, copper, nickel and uranium
heap leaching systems is summarized in Table 2.
11. Future trends
High gold and silver prices relative to general cost indices usually favor relatively ne crushing to improve ultimate recovery and
shorten the leaching cycle. Most ores not containing excessive clay
will percolate well when crushed as ne as 10 mm. It is possible to
heap leach gold locked in some sulde ores by adopting a biooxidation pretreatment followed by heap leaching. When gold is
locked in other minerals exposure and leaching is possible by ne
crushing using HPGR (Alta, 2011). Leaching size requirements and
economic considerations dictate the complexity of the crushing
plant. HPGR may be used if ner crushing is needed. Dust slurries
from the crushing circuits may be pumped onto the leaching heaps
during the agglomeration step.
The future trends for copper operations will likely include the
extension of heap bio-leaching to chalcopyrite and enargite copper
ores, and increased development of ROM heap leaching and use of
forced aeration for suldes and mixed ores. Based on the numerous
benets of agglomeration in the copper industry, it appears that
crushed ore agglomeration will hold its place as a pretreatment
step in heap-leach technology for many years to come.
While heap leaching was introduced in the uranium industry in
the 1950s (Scheffel, 2002), its use waned as environmental
concerns and low metal prices made heap leaching unattractive.
In the past few years, several new green eld uranium projects
66
Table 2
Comparison of the different agglomeration-heap leaching systems.
Parameter
Ore type
Copper
oxides
Copper suldes
Uranium
Nickel laterites
Gold/silver
Ore grade (%)
0.451.45
0.81.0
0.32.5
0.551.5 ppm
Tonnage (Mtpa)
Crush size (mm)
Heap height (m)
Permeability
Leach agent
321
1018
411
OK
Fe2(SO4)3/H2SO4
0.73
2570
46
Low
H2SO4 (conc. mostly)
1025
710
OK
Cyanide solution (NaCN) with lime
618
200600
7080
48
Bacterial activity
and temperature
required to
enhance leaching
1540
40100
6080%
515
Fine crushing; oxidant could be
required
>300
120250
6585
510
Low permeability; high acid
consumption, variable complex
mineralogy, high impurity leach
solutions (Fe, Mg)
0.10.5
70150
5087
510
Locked/encapsulated gold;
cyanide destruction
Accepted for
better aeration
Acid agglomeration/tailing
Must to improve ore

characteristics (permeability,
strength)
Required for tailings/nes
Binder
356
1038
310
OK
H2SO4,
NH3
875
40180
7086
415
Complex
nature of
minerals;
depleted
resources
Rare
(ROM
mostly;
dump)
recovery
3060%
1501000 ppm; less than 0.1%

U3O8
1.436
6
OK
H2SO4 or Na2CO3 NaHCO3
Cement (carbonate leaching)
Polymeric binder (Hi-Tex

82200); Polyacrylamide
OPTIMER AA 182H
Portland cement; Burnt Lime;

Extract ore 9760/9960, Vinyl
addition polymer
Moisture (%)
Dosage (kg/t of ore)
Curing time (hours)
Feed size distribution
2.540
ROM
Up to 12
1560
14336
Minus 19 mm; tailings (minus 63
lm)
Up to 25
5150
24168
Up to 50 mm and minus 44 lm
(up to 10%)
820
2.510
896
Up to 25 mm tailings (600 lm)
Solution chemistry
Changes
with ore
depth
1.05
3040
Nalco-Extract ore
9560, Nalco
anionic occulant
optimer 9960,
Stucco,
Polyacrylamide
711
140
24240
ROM, up to
25 mm; Tailings
(250 + 44 lm)
Changes with ore
depth
Depends upon ore body
Complex due to no-selective

leaching
Depends upon ore body
0.90
35
2675
Tropical
2.53.5
160350
Derupt (2009), Dudley et al.

(2000), Galea et al. (2010),
Georgescu and Graur (2002),
Mashbir (1964), Scheffel (1981,
2002, 2010), Sinclair (2010), Thiry
and Derupt (2010), Yanru et al.
(2002), Yijun et al. (2002), West
and Connor (1996)
Alta (2011), Dhawan et al.

(2012a), Duyvesteyn et al. (2001),
Galea et al. (2010), Kyle (2010),
Leonardou et al. (1997),
Longworth et al. (2007), Readett
and Fox (2010), Rodriguez (2007),
Robertson and Van Staden (2009),
Steemson and Smith (2009) and
http://www.enk.co.uk/
Bouffard (2005), Braun and Lehoux

(1993), Butwell (1990), Cassiday
et al. (1991), DeMull and Womack
(1983), Galea et al. (2010), Groesz
et al., (1994), Heinen (1980), Heitt
(1997) Kinard and Schweizer
(1987), Lehoux (1997), McClelland
and van Zyl (1988), Nivens and
Given (1993), Pautler et al. (1990),
Phifer (1988), Pyper and
Pangbourne (1988), Scheffel
(2002), Zrate and Guzmn (1987)
Leach agent (kg/t)

Leach time (days)
Metal extraction (%)
Irrigation rate (L/h m2)
Issues
Agglomeration
Climate/area
Operating cost (US$/lb)
Capital cost (US$/t of
ore to heap)
References
Bernard (1995), Canello and

Schnell (1995), Cisneros et al.
(1995), Dudley et al. (2000),
Efthymiou et al. (1998), Galea
et al. (2010), Holle (1995), Lu
et al. (2007), Natunen et al.
(1995), Sylwestrzak et al.
(2002), Scheffel (2002) and
Zrate et al. (2003)
are considering heap leaching. Bacterial heap leaching is being

investigated for more complex, low-grade ores (Herkenhoff and
Dean, 1987; Robertson and Van Staden, 2009; Van Staden et al.,
2008). Most of the ores are likely to need comminution to achieve
adequate recoveries and hence the probability of excessive nes
generation is likely along with percolation issues and slow leaching
rates. Thus, with the implementation of agglomeration and curing,
percolation behavior and leach kinetics can be improved signicantly (Alta, 2011).
Carbonate leaching of uranium ores offers the possibility of
using binders such as cement when agglomeration of nes is
needed (Taylor, 2007). With uranium ores, the additional key
benet of agglomeration or wetting the ores as soon as possible

is reduction in the dust emissions from conventional dry crushing
circuits, which will provide cleaner and safer environment.
Agglomeration is an integral part of new and future heap leaching
uranium operations. Some of the new projects under development
employing acidic agglomeration and heap leaching are; (1) Ranger,
Northern Territory, Australia, (2) ERA, Rossing, Namibia, Rio Tinto
Group and, (3) Somair, Niger, Areva Group. Also, some of the operations using alkaline heap leaching include; (1) Trekkopje,
Namibia, Areva Group, (2) Napperby Project, Australia, (3) Langer
Heinrich, Namibia, Paladin Energy, and (4) Marenica Project, Marenica Energy, Namibia (Alta, 2011).
67
Requirements for effective crushed ore agglomeration
Feed size
distribution
Fines
(-200 mesh)
Top size
Blending
Ore
characterization
Determination of
optimal
conditions
Development of
quality control
tools
Chemistry/bonding
of agglomerates
Prediction of
agglomerate size
distribution
Mineralogy
Liberation/
Moisture retention
capacity
Size (PSD)
Permeability
Conductivity
Hydrodynamic
Mechanical
Soak/Percolation
X-Ray Micro-CT
SEM, QEMSCAN
Dissolution/Dip
Permeability
Scale up
Heap performance
exposure
Clays
Acid consuming
Reagents (acid)
Binder screening
Column or crib
species (smectite)
Fig. 9. Requirements of effective agglomeration for heap leach operations.
Chemical
Compatibility
Optimum Moisture High Mechanical

Strength
Mineralogy/Ore
Characteriscs
Agglomeraon
Condions
Acid Soluble Gangue Uniform Size

Components
and Shape
Bonding
Mechanism
Minimum Release of
Fines on Handling
High Porosity
Parcle
Interacon
Optimal Bed
Packing
Low Cost
Quality Control Tools
Soluon/
Agglomerate
Interacon
Low Curing
Temperature
IDEAL
AGGLOMERATE
IMPROVED HEAP
LEACH
PERFORMANCE
Leaching Response
Fig. 10. Ideal agglomerate characteristics for heap leach operations.
Fig. 11. Information and preparation of an integrated process stream for a crushed ore agglomeration-heap leaching system.
68
12. Ideal agglomerate

Based on the review of all different types of agglomeration-heap
leach operations, it becomes important to dene an ideal agglomerate. Kodali et al. (2011a) differentiated the ideal agglomerates
with the help of quality control tools such as agglomerate size distribution, permeability, electrical conductivity, visual inspection
and column leaching response. However, the authors believe that
there are other properties, which need to be included in the characteristics of ideal agglomerates (Bouffard, 2005; Chamberlin,
1986; Dhawan et al., 2012a,b; Kodali et al., 2011a; Lewandowski
and Kawatra, 2009a,b; McClelland and van Zyl, 1988; McClelland
et al., 1985; Moats and Janwong, 2008; Southwood, 1985; Sullivan
and Towne, 1936). In this regard, agglomerates:
must have physical characteristics such as high mechanical
strength to resist breakage during handling and when stacked
under other agglomerates, drop from stacker, and/or are hit
by falling rain drops;
must have chemical compatibility particularly for acid leaching
systems with low pH (1.82) conditions and/or with bacterial
activity in case of secondary sulde leaching;
should have the least acid soluble non-sulde components particularly for acid leaching systems;
should have low curing temperature as the presence of external
high temperature can affect bacterial activity and solution
chemistry for suldes;
must have high porosity to provide maximum access of the lixiviant, air and bacteria to the mineral surface;
should be cost effective, especially for binder assisted agglomeration, to ensure agglomeration as a cheap insurance for heap
leaching operations;
should be perfectly sized to avoid the ill effects of being too
large or too small i.e. long leaching time, surface irregularities
and permeability issues.
should have a specic shape to facilitate the leaching response,
permeable beds and porous surface;
should have adequate micro/macro-porosity to facilitate
acceptable leaching kinetics and solution drainage; and
should remain moist all the time to avoid disintegration and
negative effects on leaching (Connelly and West, 2009; Sullivan
and Towne, 1936).
Robertson et al. (2010) reported the characteristics of good ore
for leaching based on ow hydrodynamics, including:
narrow particle size distribution
initial moisture content (promotes a stable mixing of various
size particles during stacking as well);
total porosity of stacked sample about 50% (equally distributed
between macro and micro-porosity); and
stable pore structure under mechanical forces/handling/stacking, ability of pore structure to endure the negative impact of
full saturation and ore bulk density less than 2 g/mL.
Based on the literature and authors0 experience, the requirements for effective agglomeration for heap leach operations are
summarized in Fig. 9. The characteristics of ideal agglomerate
and factors affecting them are summarized in Fig. 10.
13. Conclusions
The advances in crushed ore agglomeration in heap leaching
operations have been discussed. Because each ore type possesses
unique characteristics, different approaches of treatment are
expected. Based on the numerous benets cited in the literature,

the application of agglomeration as a pretreatment step for different heap leach systems looks highly promising. However, special
care is required in heap building to ensure ideal agglomerates
maintain their integrity during the leaching. There are many factors which control the crushed ore agglomeration for heap leaching
as discussed in the aforementioned sections. Nevertheless, it is
worthwhile to mention that proper mineralogical evaluation of
ore, efcient comminution, effective agglomeration practice and
the precise use of quality control tools must be undertaken to ensure successful heap leaching.
Most of the operations make use of rafnate as a binder,
whereas a few use external binders due to cost considerations, issues in de-commissioning and enhancing recovery. The performance of polymeric binders (Michigan Tech University, MurrinMurrin lab) and inorganic binder (stucco) looks promising at small
scale for acid leaching. However, these need to satisfy large scale
testing and cost considerations before being considered for commercialization purposes.
The effect of comminution on energy savings, green process
environment, extra liberation and substantial downstream benets
are making the ingress of HPGR easier into hydrometallurgical processing. The precise use of quality control tools such as hydrodynamic testing and electrical resistivity techniques to dene dry
areas of poor percolation in heaps, saturated conditions and to locate leaks in liners will contribute towards more control of heap
leach operations. Test work and quality control tools for crushed
ore agglomeration deserve special attention. With the development of heap leach projects for different ore types, extreme climates, complex and different mineralogies, the development of
models for process simulation, test-work interpretation and
scale-up, and process monitoring and control will also be crucial.
The complete agglomeration scenario as related to heap leach
operations is summarized in Fig. 11.
Acknowledgements
Recognition is given to Mr. Randolph Scheffel for useful discussions regarding industrial agglomeration operations. We would
also like to acknowledge Prof. Courtney Young and Ms. Dorrie
Spurlock for proofreading of the manuscript and providing valuable suggestions. Finally, we would like to thank Professor Michael
Free for helpful discussions.
References
Afewu, K.I., Dixon, D.G., 2008. Calibrating a 3D axisymmetric water and solute
transport model for heap leaching. In: Young, C.A., Taylor, P.R., Anderson, C.G.,
Choi, Y. (Eds.), Proceedings of the Sixth International Symposium:
Hydrometallurgy, pp. 10981109.
Alta, 2011. Heap Leaching and Its Application to Copper, Gold, Uranium and Nickel
Ores. Short Course, Perth, Australia, May 28 (Instructor: Alan Taylor).
Amaratunga, L.M., 1995. Cold-bond agglomeration of reactive pyrrohotite tailings
for back lls using low cost binders: gypsum b-hemihydrate and cement.
Minerals Engineering 8, 14551465.
Battersby, M.J., Kellerwessel, H., Oberhauser, G., 1993. High-pressure particle bed
comminution of ores and minerals a challenge. In: Proceedings XVIII
International Mineral Processing Congress (IMPC 1993), May 2328, Sydney,
Australia, pp. 14031407.
Baum, W., 1999. The use of a mineralogical data base for production forecasting and
troubleshooting in copper leach operations. In: Proceedings of the Copper 99,
International Conference. Hydrometallurgy of Copper, vol. IV, October 1013,
Phoenix, Arizona, USA, pp. 393408.
Baum, W., Ausburn, K., 2011. HPGR comminution for optimization of copper
leaching. Minerals and Metallurgical Processing 28 (2), 7781.
Bernard, G.M., 1995. Rio Algoms Cerro Colorado begins copper heap leach operation
in Chile. Mining Engineering (April), 323326.
Bouffard, S.C., 2005. Review of agglomeration practice and fundamentals in heap
leaching. Mineral Processing and Extractive Metallurgy Review 26, 233294.
Bouffard, S.C., 2008. Agglomeration for heap leaching: equipment design,
agglomerate quality control, and impact on the heap leaching process.
Minerals Engineering 21, 11151125.

Braun, T.B., Lehoux, P.L., 1993. Gold leaching and recovery operations at Barneys
canyon mine. In: Hiskey, B., Warren, E. (Eds.), Hydrometallurgy Fundamentals,
Technology and Innovation. SME, pp. 521529.
Browner, R.E., Kyle, J.H., Misra, V., 1991. Studies on the Heap Leaching
Characteristics of Western Australian Gold Ores. World Gold 91, Cairns,
Australia, April 2125, pp. 219222.
Browner, R.E., Strickland, R.J., 1992. Modication of Heap Leach Characteristics with
a Wetting Agent or a Flocculation Agent. Extractive Metallurgy of Gold and Base
Metals, Kalgoorlie, Australia, October 2628, pp. 143146.
Burns, C.J., Wright, D.J., 1994. Electrokinetic Leaching A New Approach to Ensuring
Percolation. Recent Trends in Heap Leaching, Bendigo, Australia, September 27
29, pp. 1726.
Butwell, J.W., 1990. Heap leaching of ne agglomerated tailings at Asameras
Gooseberry Mine. Mining Engineering, 18.
Canello, R., Schnell, H., 1995. Piloting of the bacterial leach process at Quebrada
Blanca. In: Proceedings of the Copper 95, International Conference.
Electrorening and Hydrometallurgy of Copper, vol. III, November 2629,
Santiago, pp. 773780.
Cassiday, M.W., Cox, T.J., Domfeh, I.A., Stalker, I., Jaczkowski, B.M., 1991. The Ashanti
(Ghana) Heap Leach Treatment of a Decomposed Schist in a Tropical
Environment. World Gold, Cairns, Queensland, Australia.
Chirinos, L.R., 1997. Treatment of the Tintaya skarn copper oxide. In: SME Annual
Meeting, Denver, Colorado, February 2427, Preprint No. 97-90.
Cisneros, M., Garcia, G., Montejo, E., 1995. Treatment of copper-bearing ore from
Hierro mantua deposit by acid curing leaching. In: Proceedings of Copper 95,
International Conference. Electrorening and Hydrometallurgy of Copper, vol.
III, November 2629, Santiago, pp. 821830.
Chamberlin, P.D., 1980, Heap leaching and pilot testing of gold and silver ore. In:
Precious Metals Symposium, Sparks, Nevada, November 1719, pp. 7783.
Chamberlin, P.D., 1986. Agglomeration: cheap insurance for good recovery when
heap leaching gold and silver ores. Mining Engineering 38 (12), 11051109.
Chamberlin, P.D., 1989. Status of heap, dump, and in-situ leaching of gold and silver.
In: Gold Forum on Technology and Practices World Gold. Processing I: Heap,
Dump, and In-situ Leaching, pp. 225232 (Chapter 26).
Choudhury, R., 2007. Caldag nickel project comminution and transportation of
ore. In: ALTA Nickel/Cobalt Conference, Perth, Western Australia, May 1926.
Connelly, D., West, J., 2009. Trips and traps for copper heap leaching. In: Alta 2009,
Perth, Australia, May 2530.
Cruz, A., Lastra, M., Menacho, J., 1980. Sulfuric acid leaching of copper silicate ore.
Leaching and recovering copper from as mined materials. In: Proceedings of the
Las Vegas, Symposium, February 26, pp. 6170 (Chapter 5).
DeMull, T.J., Womack, R.A., 1983. Heap leaching practice at Alligator Ridge. Au and
Ag heap and dump leaching practice with panel discussion. In: Proceedings
from the SME Fall Meeting, October 1921, Salt Lake City, pp. 921 (Chapter 2).
Derupt, N., 2009. Heap leaching of low-grade uranium ores at Somar. In: ALTA
Uranium Conference, Perth, Australia, May 2829.
Dhawan, N., Safarzadeh, M.S., Miller, J.D., Rajamani, R.K., Moats, M., 2012a. Insights
into heap leaching. In: SME-2012, Seattle, Washington, Preprint No. 12-119.
Dhawan, N., Safarzadeh, M.S., Miller, J.D., Rajamani, R.K., Moats, M., Lin, C.L., 2012b.
Recent advances in the application of X-ray computed tomography in the
analysis of heap leaching systems. Minerals Engineering 35, 7586.
Dorey, R, Van Zyl, D., Kiel, J., 1988. Overview; Predevelopment Aspects of Heap
Leaching. Introduction to Evaluation, Design and Operation of Precious Metal
Heap Leaching Projects, pp. 322 (Chapter 1).
Dudley, K.A., Readett, D.J., Bos, J.L., 2000. Hydrometallurgical Processing of Copper
OresHeap Leach, Solvent Extraction and Electrowinning at Girilambone
Copper Company, MINPREX, Melbourne, Australia, September 1113, pp.
263269.
Duyvesteyn, W.P.C., Liu, H., Davis, J., 2001. Heap Leaching of Nickel Containing Ore.
United States Patent, US 6312500 B1.
Efthymiou, M., Henderson, L., Pyper, R., 1998. Practical aspects of the application of
Extract-Ore 9560 for heap leach agglomeration at Nifty copper operation. In:
ALTA Copper Hydrometallurgy Forum, October 2021, Queensland, Australia,
pp. 115.
Fernndez, G.V., 2003. The use of electrical conductivity in agglomeration and
leaching. In: Proceedings of Copper 2003, 5th International Conference.
Leaching and Process Development, vol. VI, November 30December 03,
Santiago, pp. 161175.
Galea, W., Lupo, J.F., Gutierrez, A., 2010. Technical Breakfast-Heap Leaching.
Considerations in Heap Leaching Design and Recent Industry Trends, July 20.
<http://www.minproc.com/news-and-publications/presentations>
(accessed
15.06.11).
Garcia, A.J., Jorgenson, M.K., 1997. Agglomeration and heap leaching testing
requirements for high clay ores. In: Randol Gold Forum, Colorado, pp. 143146.
Georgescu, P.D., Graur, G., 2002. Inuence of pelletisation on uranium ores heap
leaching. Recent developments in uranium resources and production with
emphasis on in-situ leach mining, In: Proceedings of Technical Meeting
Organized by the IAEA in Co-Operation with the OECD Nuclear Energy
Agency, The Bureau of Geology, and China National Nuclear Corporation,
Beijing, China, September 1823, pp. 230235.
Groesz, M.J., Gross, A.E., Neville, P.C., 1994. Use of Polymeric Agglomeration Aids to
Improve Heap Leach Recovery and Protability. Recent Trends in Heap
Leaching, Bendigo, Australia, September 2729, pp. 4552.
Guzman, A., Scheffel, R., Flaherty, S.M., 2008. The fundamentals of physical
characterization of ore for leach. In: Proceedings of Hydrometallurgy 2008
6th International Symposium, August 1721, Phoenix, Arizona, pp. 937954.
69
Heinen, H.J., 1980. Percolation leaching of clayey goldsilver ores, Nevada bureau of
mines and geology. In: Report 36, Papers Given at the Precious-Metals
Symposium, Sparks, Nevada, November 1719, pp. 8791.
Heitt, D.G., 1997. Geology and mineralization related to heap leaching. In:
Proceedings of the Symposium on Global Exploitation of Heap Leachable Gold
Deposits, February 913, Orlando, Florida, pp. 5364.
Herkenhoff, E.C., Dean, J.G., 1987. Heap leaching: agglomerate or deslime?.
Engineering and Mining Journal 188 (6), 3239.
Hernandez, R., Schlitt, W.J., Lopez, M.E., 2003. The El Abra run of mine leach
testwork program. In: Proceedings of Copper 2003, 5th International
Conference. Leaching and Process Development, vol. VI, November 30
December 03, Santiago, pp. 1329.
Holle, H., 1995. Process innovations at Girilambone copper company heap leach/SX/
EW operation. In: Randol 5th Global Mining Opportunities and 2nd Annual
Copper Hydromet Roundtable International Conference and Exhibition,
Vancouver, Canada, November 1720, pp. 289294.
Jansen, M., Taylor, A., 2003. Overview of gangue mineralogy issues in oxide copper
heap leaching. In: ALTA Conference, May 1924, Perth, Australia.
Kappes, D.W., Pyper, R.A., Collins, D.J., 2000. Observations on recent successes and
problems in heap leaching. In: Fourth International Gold Symposium, Lima,
Peru.
Kappes, D.W., 2002. Precious metal heap leach design and practice. In: Mular, A.L.,
Halbe, D.N., Barratt, D.J. (Eds.), Proceedings Mineral Processing Plant Design,
Practice, and Control, vol. 2, no. 12, pp. 16061630.
Kappes, D.W., 2005. Heap Leaching of Gold and Silver Ores. Advances in Gold Ore
Processing. Developments in Mineral Processing, vol. 15, pp. 456478 (Chapter
19).
Kapur, P.C., Runkana, V., 2003. Balling and granulation kinetics revisited.
International Journal of Mineral Processing 72 (14), 417427.
Kinard, D.T., Schweizer, A.A., 1987. Engineering properties of agglomerated ore in a
heap leach pile. In: Dirk, V.Z. (Ed.), Geotechnical Aspects of Heap Leach Design,
pp. 5564 (Chapter 10).
Klingmann, L., 2005. Soledad Mountain Project owsheet development and
benets of the HPGR. In: Proceedings of the Randol Innovative Metallurgy
Forum, Perth, Australia.
Kodali, P., Depci, T., Dhawan, N., Wang, X., Lin, C.L., Miller, J.D., 2011a. Evaluation of
stucco binder for agglomeration in the heap leaching of copper ore. Minerals
Engineering 24 (11), 886893.
Kodali, P., Dhawan, N., Depci, T., Lin, C.L., Miller, J.D., 2011b. Particle damage and
exposure analysis in HPGR crushing of selected copper ores for column
leaching. Minerals Engineering 24 (12), 14781487.
Kyle, J., 2010. Nickel laterite processing technologies where to next?. In: ALTA,
Nickel/Cobalt/Copper Conference, May 2427, Perth, Australia.
Lastra, M.R., Chase, C.K., 1984. Permeability, solution delivery, and solution
recovery: critical factors in dump and heap leaching of gold. Mining
Engineering (November), 15371539.
Lehoux, P.L., 1997. Agglomeration practice at Kennecott Barneys Canyon mining
company. In: Hausen, D.M. (Ed.), Global Exploitation of Heap Leachable Gold
Deposits.
Leonardou S.A., Dimaki D., Mposkos, E., 1997. Extraction of nickel and cobalt from
Greek low-grade nickel oxide ores by heap leaching. In: Proceedings of the
NickelCobalt 97 International Symposium, August 1720, Sudbury, Ontario,
Canada, pp. 489503.
Lewandowski, K.A., Kawatra, S.K., 2008. Development of experimental procedures
to analyze copper agglomerate stability. Minerals and Metallurgical Processing
25 (2), 110116.
Lewandowski, K.A., Kawatra, S.K., 2009a. Polyacrylamide as an agglomeration
additive for copper heap leaching. International Journal of Mineral Processing
91, 8893.
Lewandowski, K.A., Kawatra, S.K., 2009b. Binders for heap leaching agglomeration.
Minerals and Metallurgical Processing 26 (1), 124.
Lewandowski, K.A., Kawatra, S.K., 2009c. Effect of agglomeration binders on the
copper solvent extraction process. Minerals and Metallurgical Processing 26 (3),
121126.
Lewandowski, K.A., Eisele, T.C., Kawatra, S.K., 2010. Agglomeration for copper heap
leaching. In: Proceedings XXV International Mineral Processing Congress (IMPC
2010), September 610, Brisbane, Australia, pp. 183192.
Longworth, M., Von Perger, D., Bartsch, P., 2007. Jump-up dam nickel laterite
heap leach project. In: ALTA Nickel/Cobalt Conference, Perth, Australia,
May 1926.
Lu, J., Dreisinger, D., West-Sells, P., 2007. Acid curing and agglomeration. In: Riveros,
P.A., Dixon, D.G., Dresinger, D.B., Collins, M.J. (Eds.), Cu 2007, John E. Dutrizac
International Symposium on Copper Hydrometallurgy, Toronto, pp. 453464.
Lupo, J.F., Dolezal, A., 2010. Ore geotechnical testing for heap leach pad design. In:
Hydroprocess, 3rd International Workshop on Process Hydrometallurgy, August
1113, Santiago, Chile.
Manning, T.J., Kappes, D.W., 2005. Heap leaching. SME Mining Engineering
Handbook, pp. 10731086 (Chapter 11.3).
Martens, E., Zhang, H., Prommer, H., Greskowiak, J., Jefrey, M., Roberts, P., 2012. In
situ recovery of gold: column leaching experiments and reactive transport
modeling. Hydrometallurgy 125126, 1623.
Mashbir, D.S., 1964. Heap leaching of low-grade uranium ore. Mining Congress
Journal 50 (2), 5054.
McClelland, G.E., Pool, D.L., Hunt, A.H., Eisele, J.A., 1985. Agglomeration and Heap
Leaching of Finely Ground Precious Metal Bearing Tailings. Bureau of Mines
Information Circular.
70
McClelland, G.E., 1986. Agglomerated and unagglomerated heap leaching behavior

is compared in production heaps. Mining Engineering (July), 500503.
McClelland, G.E., 1988. Testing of Ore. Introduction to Evaluation, Design and
Operation of Precious Metal Heap Leaching Projects, pp. 6167 (Chapter 4).
McClelland, G.E., van Zyl, D., 1988. Ore Preparation: Crushing and Agglomeration.
Introduction to Evaluation, Design and Operation of Precious Metal Heap
Leaching Projects, pp. 6891 (Chapter 5).
McNab, 2006. Exploring HPGR technology for heap leaching of fresh rock gold ores.
In: Proceedings of HR Crushing and Grinding Conference, March, Townsville,
Australia.
Miller, G., 2003. Analysis of commercial heap leaching data. In: Proceedings of the
Copper 2003, 5th International Conference. Modeling, Impurity Control and
Solvent Extraction, vol. VI, November 30December 03, Santiago, pp. 531545.
Miller, G., 2010. Agglomeration drum selection and design. In: Proceedings XXV
International Mineral Processing Congress (IMPC 2010), September 610,
Brisbane, Australia, pp. 193202.
Milligan, D.A., 1984, Agglomerated heap leaching at Anacondas Darwin silver
recovery project. Au and Ag heap and dump leaching practice with panel
discussion. In: Proceedings from the SME Fall Meeting, October 1921, Salt Lake
City, pp. 2939. ISBN 0-89520-425-8 (Chapter 4).
Moats, M. S., Janwong, A., 2008. The art and science of crushed ore agglomeration
for heap leaching. In: Young, C., Taylor, P., Anderson, C., Choi, Y. (Eds.),
Proceedings of the Hydrometallurgy 2008 6th International Symposium,
August 1721, Phoenix, Arizona, pp. 912917.
Natunen, H., Arias, H., Guasch, D., Mallory, J., Saarenpaa, T., 1995. Copper heap
leachingsolvent extractionelectrowinning process at the Zaldivar mine. In:
Proceedings of Copper 95, International Conference. Electrorening and
Hydrometallurgy of Copper, vol. III, November 2629, Santiago, pp. 757772.
Nivens, R.E., Given, K.M., 1993. Benets of polymer agglomeration at Newmont gold
company. In: SME Annual Meeting, Reno, Nevada, February 1518.
Nosrati, A., Addai-Mensah, J., Robinson, D.J., 2012. Drum agglomeration behavior of
nickel laterite ore: effect of process variables. Hydrometallurgy 125126, 90
99.
Pautler, J.B., Gross, A.E., Strominger, M.G., 1990. New Polymeric Agglomeration Aid
Improves Heap Leach Efciency at Brewer Gold. Advances in Gold and Silver
Processing. Heap Leaching, pp. 1521 (Chapter 2).
Phifer, S.E., 1988. Agglomerating gold ores at the Haile gold mine. Mining
Engineering (June), 447450.
Pietsch, W., 2002. Agglomeration Processes. Wiley-VCH Verlag GmbH, Weinheim,
pp. 614.
Pietsch, W., 2005. Unwanted agglomeration: how it happens and how to prevent it.
Powder and Bulk Engineering (May), 6773.
Potter, G.M., 1981. Design factors for heap leaching operations. Mining Engineering
33 (3), 277281.
Purkiss, S., Anthony, R., 2004. Heap Leaching Base Metals from Oxide Ores. Pub. No.
WO/2004/031422.
Pyke, P.O., 1994. Operations of a Small Heap Leach. Recent Trends in Heap Leaching,
Bendigo, Australia, 2729 September, pp. 103109.
Pyper, R., Pangbourne, A., 1988. Marvel Loch gold mines exhibition heap leach
project. In: Workshop Conference on Economics and Practice of Heap Leaching
in Gold Mining. Cairns, Queensland, Australia, August 36.
Readett, D.J., Fox, A., 2010. Commercialization of nickel heap leaching at Murrin
Murrin operations. In: Proceedings of XXV International Mineral Processing
Congress (IMPC 2010), September 610, Brisbane, Australia, pp. 36113616.
Robertson, S., Van Staden, P.J., 2009. The progression of metallurgical test work
during heap leach design. In: Proceedings of Hydrometallurgy Conference. The
Southern African Institute of Mining and Metallurgy, April 67, Cape Town,
South, Africa, pp. 3142.
Robertson, S., Sayedbagheri, A., Van Staden, P., Guzman, A., 2010. Advances in heap
leach research and development. In: ALTA 2010 Nickel/Cobalt/Copper
Conference, May 2426, Perth, Australia.
Rodriguez, M., 2007. Murrin Murrin Operations. The Method for Agglomeration.
International Publication Number WO 2007/143779 A1.
Scheffel, R.E., 1981. Retreatment and stabilization of the Naturita tailing pile using
heap leaching techniques. In: SMEAIME Fall Meeting and Exhibit, Denver,
Colorado, November 1820, Preprint No. 81-314.
Scheffel, R., 2002. In: Mular, A.L., Halbe, D.N., Barratt, D.J. (Eds.), Copper Heap Leach
Design and Practice. Mineral Processing Plant Design, Practice, and Control
Proceedings, vol. 2, no. 12, pp. 15711605.
Scheffel, R., 2010. Heap leaching design for success a case study. In: Low-Grade
Uranium Dump and Heap Leach Technical Meeting, March 2931. International
Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), Nuclear Fuel Cycle and Materials Section, Vienna,
Austria.
Scheffel, R.E., 2011. Personal Communication, June.
Schlitt, W.J., 1983. The role of solution management in heap and dump leaching.
Heap and dump leaching practice. In: Proceedings SME Fall Meeting, October
1921, Salt Lake, City, pp. 6983 (Chapter 8).
Schlitt, W.J., 1992. Solution mining: surface techniques. In: Hartman, H.L. (Ed.), SME
Mining Engineering Handbook, vol. 15, no. 2, pp. 14781492.
Schonert, K., 1988. A rst survey of grinding with high-pressure compression roller
mills. International Journal of Mineral Processing 22 (14), 401419.
Serrano, E.M., 2003. New agglomeration techniques for the acid percolation
leaching of clay-bearing copper ores. In: Proceedings of Copper 2003 5th
International Conference. Leaching and Process Development, vol. VI, November
30December 03, Santiago, pp. 189201.
Sinclair, G., 2010. Applying Heap Leach Technology to the Treatment of Ranger Ores.
IAEA Consultancy on Low-Grade Uranium Ore, March 2426. <http://
www.iaea.org/OurWork/ST/NE/NEFW/documents/RawMaterials/TM_LGUO/
4f%20Sinclair%20Ranger%20Heap%20Leach.pdf> (accessed 12.06.11).
Southwood, A.J., 1985. The Agglomeration of Fine Material for Bacterial Heap
Leaching. Mintek Report No. M191. Council for Mineral Technology, Randburg,
South Africa.
Steemson, M.L., Smith, M.E., 2009. The development of nickel laterite heap leach
projects. In: ALTA 2009 Nickel/Cobalt Conference, May 2530, Perth, Australia.
Sullivan, J.D., Towne, A.P., 1936. Agglomeration and Leaching of Slimes and Other
Finely Divided Ores. Bureau of Mines, Bulletin 329.
Sylwestrzak, L., Cudby, M., Readett, D., Dudley, K, 2002. Initiation of bioleaching at
Nifty copper operation. In: ALTA Copper Conference, Perth, Australia.
Taylor, A., 2007. Innovations and trends in uranium ore treatment. In: ALTA Nickel/
Cobalt, Copper and Uranium Conference, Perth, Australia, May 1926.
Thella, J.S., Venugopal, R., 2011. Modeling of iron ore pelletisation using 3(k-p)
factorial design of experiments and polynomial surface regression
methodology. Powder Technology 211, 5459.
Thiry, J., Derupt, N., 2010. Heap Leaching of Low-Grade Uranium Ores at Somar.
International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), Technical Meeting on Low-Grade
Uranium Ore, March 2931.
Thompson, P., 1997. The effect of column height on simulated heap leach test
results. In: Proceedings of the Symposium Global Exploitation of Heap
Leachable Gold Deposits, February 913, Orlando, Florida, pp. 231241.
Tibbals, R.L., 1987. Agglomeration practice in the treatment of precious metal ores.
In: Proceedings of the International Symposium on Gold Metallurgy, vol. 1,
Winnipeg, Canada, August 2326. Pergamon Press, New York, pp. 7786.
Ulrich, B., Andrade, H., Gardner, T., 2003. Lessons learnt from heap leaching
operations in South America AN update. The Journal of the South African
Institute of Mining and Metallurgy (January/February), 2328.
Van Staden, P.J., Laxen, P.A., 1988. Process options for the retirement of gold-bearing
material from sand dumps. Journal of South African Institute of Mining and
Metallurgy 88 (8), 257264.
Van Staden, P.J., Gericke, M., Craven, P.M., 2008. Minerals Biotechnology: trends,
opportunities and challenges. In: Proceedings of Hydrometallurgy 2008 6th
International Symposium, August 1721, Phoenix, Arizona, pp. 613.
Velarde, G., 2005. Agglomeration control for heap leaching processes. Mineral
Processing and Extractive Metallurgy Review 26 (34), 219231.
Vethosodsakda, T., 2012. Evaluation of crushed ore agglomeration, liquid retention
capacity, and column leaching. Masters thesis, Department of Metallurgical
Engineering, University of Utah.
von Michaelis, H., 1983. Innovations in gold and silver recovery. In: SME Annual
Meeting, Atlanta, Georgia, March 610, Preprint No. 83-119.
von Michaelis, H., 1992. Innovations in Gold and Silver Recovery. Phase IV, 10,
Golden, Colorado. Randol International Ltd., pp. 57505816.
Wadsworth, M.E., 1977. Interfacing technologies in solution mining. Mining
Engineering 29 (12), 3033.
West, J.N., Connor, J.W., 1996. Nifty-hydrometallurgy in the sand dunes. In: AuslMM
Annual Conference, Perth, Australia, 2428 March, pp. 181183.
Worstell, J.H., 1987. Guide to successful precious metal heap leaching. In: African
Mining Conference. Institute of Mining and Metallurgy, pp. 425436.
Yanru, S., Wancheng, G., Runshen, X., 2002. The new progress on heap leaching of
hard rock uranium ore in China. In: Recent Developments in Uranium Resources
and Production with Emphasis on In-Situ Leach Mining. Proceedings of a
Technical Meeting, IAEA-OECD Nuclear Energy Agency, the Bureau of Geology,
and China National Nuclear Corporation, Beijing, China, September 1823, pp.
250255.
Yijun, Z., Jianhua, L., Tieqiu, Li., Pingru, Z., 2002. Application of agglomerated acid
heap leaching of clay-bearing uranium ore in China. In: Recent Developments in
Uranium Resources and Production with Emphasis on In-Situ Leach Mining.
Proceedings of a Technical Meeting, IAEA-OECD Nuclear Energy Agency, The
Bureau of Geology, and China National Nuclear Corporation, Beijing, China, 18
23 September, pp. 243249.
Zrate, G.E., Guzmn, J.C., 1987. Low Cost Processing for Precious Metals Recovery.
Small Mines Development in Precious Metals, pp. 151-155 (Chapter 24).
Zrate, G.E., Trincado, L., Troncoso, U., Vargas, C., 2003. Process improvements at
Mantoverde heap leach-SX-EW plant. In: Proceedings of Copper 20035th
International Conference. Modeling, Impurity Control and Solvent Extraction,
vol. VI, November 30December 03, Santiago, pp. 811819.

Crushed Ore Agglomeration and Its Control For Heap Leach Operations

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Crushed Ore Agglomeration and Its Control For Heap Leach Operations

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Minerals Engineering 41 (2013) 5370

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

Corresponding author. Tel.: +1 801 5815160; fax: +1 801 5814937.

N. Dhawan et al. / Minerals Engineering 41 (2013) 5370

N. Dhawan et al. / Minerals Engineering 41 (2013) 5370