No.

1 Milling Unit Grind Optimisation

Title Jan Matuwane

27 May 2005

Agenda

Introduction Sampling procedure Sample points Simulations Results and Conclusions Recommendations

Objective

Improve Mill grind:

Mill Discharge Density Optimization Circulating load Grinding Performance Mill power Ball size ratio

Evaluating cyclone performance by using 100 &150 mm Spigots

Introduction

Ball Mill circuit Mill variables

Feed size Power consumption Grind Ball charge volume

Milling Circuit

M1 conveyor O/F

Stockpile No.1 Cluster Linear Screen

Fresh Feed

Dilution

U/F Cyclone Feed

SAG Mill
Scats U/F U/F

Ball Mill

Dilution

Mill Sump

VSD Pump

Milling Circuit

M1 conveyor O/F

Stockpile

No.1 Cluster Linear Screen

Fresh Feed

Dilution

U/F Cyclone Feed

SAG Mill
Scats U/F U/F

Ball Mill

Sampling Points

Dilution

Mill Sump

VSD Pump

Data to be collected

Ball Mill inlet dilution water flow rate Ball Mill Power Consumption (kW) Cyclone pressures (kPa) Cyclone feed pump output (%) Cyclone feed density Cyclone feed flow rate (m3/h)

Test Results
100 mm Spigots
Power drawn (kW) Wi (kWh/t) Ball Filling % solids Mill discharge w/s F80 (micron) P80 (micron) Kwh/t -75 micron Kwh/t +150 micron Circulating ratio 1970 9.42 15% 81.04 0.26 679 79.57 30.28 5.13 0.22

150 mm Spigots
1805 3.71 15% 75.06 0.33 474 66.06 12.70 10.14 0.77

Test Results

100 mm Spigots
Power drawn (kW) Wi (kWh/t) Ball Filling % solids Mill discharge w/s F80 (micron) P80 (micron) Kwh/t -75 micron Kwh/t +150 micron Circulating ratio 2705 11.16 22% 77.08 0.26 679 79.57 30.28 5.13 0.22

150 mm Spigots
2640 4.89 22% 72.00 0.33 474 66.06 12.70 10.14 0.77

Mill Discharge Size Distribution

Discha rge Particle Distribution
120 100 80 % Pa ssing 60 40 20 0 10 100 1000 10000

100 mm

150 mm

Mill Performance
Mill Discharge Vs % -75 Passing
90

85

80

% - 7 5 P a s s in g

75 `

70

65

60

55

50

70.00

72.00

74.00

76.00

78.00 80.00 82.00 MIll Dis charge % Solids 100 mm 150 mm

84.00

86.00

88.00

90.00

Tromp Curves (2)

Cyclone Pe rfoma nce Vs Predicted Tromp curve 150 mm - sampling data
1.00 0.90 0.80

Partition factor

0.70 0.60 0.50 0.40 0.30 0.20 0.10 0.00 1 10 100 1000 10000 100000 Particle Siz e, microns Simulation 150 mm

Tromp Curves (1)

Cyclone Perfomance Vs Predicted Tromp curve 100 mm - sampling data
1.00 0.90 0.80

Partition factor

0.70 0.60 0.50 0.40 0.30 0.20 0.10 0.00 1 10 100 1000 10000 100000 Particle Size, m icrons Simulation 100 mm

Cyclone performance
Cyclone Performance Plant data 100 mm Spigots Imperfection Circulating load D50 Corrected(um) Alpha Water Feed % Solids 0.18 238 85 0.18 59.81 150 mm Spigots 0.21 550 95 0.42 45.38 100 mm Spigots 0.25 369 102 0.45 46.7 Simulation 150 mm Spigots 0.22 526 129 0.27 55.7

Mill performance Simulation

Sample N BALLBAL Grinding Circuit Mass Balance Estimator Remarks : Base Case Example

Moly-Cop Tools T M

100 mm

BALL MILL PERFORMANCE Diameter, ft Length, ft Speed, % Critical App. Density, ton/m3 Charge Level, % Balls Filling, % Lift Angle, () 16.0 30.0 72.0 3.99 35.0 15.0 35.0 Mill Power, kW (Gross) Mill Power, kW (Net) Throughput, ton/hr % Solids (by weight) Sp. Energy, KWH/ton Reduction Ratio F80(micron) 2298 2068 806.8 74.0 3.74 1.82 379

Mill performance Simulation

Moly-Cop Tools T M BALLBAL Grinding Circuit Mass Balance Estimator Sample N 150 mm

Remarks :

Base Case Example

BALL MILL PERFORMANCE

Diameter, ft Length, ft Speed, % Critical App. Density, ton/m3 Charge Level, % Balls Filling, % Lift Angle, ()

16.0 30.0 72.0 4.08 35.0 22.0 35.0

Mill Power, kW (Gross) Mill Power, kW (Net) Throughput, ton/hr % Solids (by weight) Sp. Energy, KWH/ton Reduction Ratio F80(micron)

3002 2702 7780 71.3 0.39 1.19 501

Charge Level Estimation

Charge Volume vs x
0.4 0.35 C ha rg e V o lu m e (% ) 0.3 0.25 0.2 0.15 0.1 0.05 0 0 200 400 600 800 x (mm) 1000 1200 1400 1600 First run Kw = 1987 Second run Kw = 2300
Ball Mill

% - 75 u m
100 20 50 70 30 40 60 80 90 10 0

Mill Power Utilization

%-75 um Pow er draw (kWh/t) Linear (Pow er draw (kWh/t))

0.00 2.00 4.00 6.00 8.00 10.00

%-75um (O/F) Vs Pow e r draw (kWh/t)

J ul -04 J ul -04 A ug- 04 A ug- 04 A ug- 04 A ug- 04 S ep- 04 S ep- 04 S ep- 04 S ep- 04 O c t -04 O c t -04 O c t -04 O c t -04 O c t -04 N ov -04 N ov -04 N ov -04 N ov -04 D ec - 04 D ec - 04 D ec - 04 D ec - 04 J an -05 J an -05 J an -05 J an -05 J an -05
P o w e r (k W h /t )
12.00 14.00 16.00 18.00 20.00

50/80 mm ratio Ball Addition

Ineffective reduction of +150m fraction in Ball mill Simulation indicated larger dia ball required for coarser material Intent to mill both fractions 80 mm added 50/50 ratio with 50 mm (Trial and Error)

Grind theory

Ball Wear Rate Ball WearRate

D is in t e g r a t e C o arse

D is in t e g r a t e C oa rs e
F ine 5 0m m

F in e

8 0 m m

8 0m m

50 m m

100

90

80

70

60

50

40

3 0

20

10

B a ll S iz e

% +150 u m
10.0 9.5 9.0 8.5 8.0 7.5 7.0 6.5 6.0 5.5 5.0 4.5 4.0 3.5 3.0 2.5 2.0 1.5 1.0 0.5 0.0

Grind Vs Residue

% +150um Resid ue (g/t) Lin ear (% +150um)

0.10 0.00 0.05 0.15 0.20

% +150 Um Vs Plant Residue

J u l-0 4 J u l-0 4 A u g -0 4 A u g -0 4 A u g -0 4 A u g -0 4 S e p -0 4 S e p -0 4 S e p -0 4 S e p -0 4 O c t-0 4 O c t-0 4 O c t-0 4 O c t-0 4 O c t-0 4 N o v -0 4 N o v -0 4 N o v -0 4 N o v -0 4 D e c -0 4 D e c -0 4 D e c -0 4 D e c -0 4 J a n -0 5 J a n -0 5 J a n -0 5 J a n -0 5 J a n -0 5

0.25 0.30 0.35

R e s id u e ( g /t )

TON S 100,000 150,000 200,000 250,000 300,000 50,000

TONS MILLED

Tons milled

Tons Milled Plan

Jun-03 Ju l-03 Aug -03 Se p-0 3 Oct-03 N ov-03 D ec-03 Jan-04 F eb-04 Mar-04 Apr-04 May-04 Jun-04 Ju l-04 Aug -04 Se p-0 4 Oct-04 N ov-04 D ec-04 Jan-05 F eb-05 Mar-05 Apr-05 Q 4 2 004 Q 1 2 005 Q 2 2 005 Q 3 2 005 YTD

% 100 92 94 96 98

Recovery

RECOVERY

Recovery Plan

J un-03 J ul- 03 Aug- 03 S ep-03 O c t-03 N ov -03 D ec -03 J an-04 F eb- 04 M ar- 04 Apr- 04 M ay -0 4 J un-04 J ul- 04 Aug- 04 S ep-04 O c t-04 N ov -04 D ec -04 J an-05 F eb- 05 M ar- 05 Apr- 05 Q 4 2004 Q 1 2005 Q 2 2005 Q 3 2005 YTD

Feasibility Study
Base data Current tons milled Forecasted tons milled per month Steel addition @ 1.0 kg/t Steel ball cost Steel ball cost for make up Amount of steel used for make up Cost of steel make up Steel cost/month @ 1.00 kg/t Head Grade Gold Produced @ 94 % Recovery before make up Gold Produced @ 96.4 % Recovery after make up Extra Au extracted Gold price Extra revenue achieved Thus profit @ 1.00 kg/t addition (Including m ake up) 1.00 tons tons tons R/t R/t tons R R g/t kg kg kg R/kg R R Monthly 223417 223417 223.417 3977 3977 25 99,425 888,529 5.42 1,138.00 1,167.00 29.00 85,000 2,465,000 1,477,046

Recommendations
Maintain Optimum Mill Discharge Research Mill Feed Variation Investigate Liner Wear Screen failure due to over-charge Continue 50/80 mm steel ball blending Different ratio ( 100% 80 mm)

Thank you