Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
Progress
P D Munro1 and P A Tilyard2
THEN AROUND 40 YEARS AGO
ABSTRACT
There have been enormous changes in mineral processing in the past four
decades. For example grinding mill power has increased by an order of
magnitude, regrinding is done to -10 microns and flotation machines are
100 times bigger. Operating staff have unprecedented opportunities for
online monitoring and performance control of mineral processing plants.
Sophisticated instruments can provide a plethora of data characterising the
mineralogy and surfaces of particles. Digital computers allow complex
calculations on huge amounts of data including modelling and simulation
of machine and plant performance.
However, all these changes have not necessarily lead to better metallurgical results. An analogy can be drawn with the thoroughbred racing
industry in Australia. Significant advances in scientific knowledge in
animal genetics, physiology, biomechanics and nutrition applied to the
business have resulted in only a two per cent reduction in winning times
for the Melbourne Cup and Caulfield Cup since the 1920s.
A critical look at some mineral processing metrics suggests similar
failures to improve performance despite putting in more resources. In fact
certain parameters such as operating times and plant start-up performance
are considered to have remained static or even deteriorated.
There has been an emphasis on process at the expense of outcomes.
The industrys strength has been in finding technical (or hardware)
solutions while its weakness has been at the people end of the business in
maximising and consolidating the gains from the technologies. Some
trends in plant design over these years have exacerbated the apparent
deskilling of operating and technical staff. Despite unparalleled options
for communications, some staff are embarrassingly uninformed about
technical developments in their fields.
The boom and bust cycles of the industry, together with trends in
tertiary education and the effects of fly-in, fly-out (FIFO) operations,
raise serious questions about the sustainability of human capital in the
mineral processing sector.
This paper by two experienced mineral processing engineers, with
contributions from other senior practitioners, reviews these trends. While
there may be an element of the older we are, the better we were, it is an
attempt to identify the issues and propose solutions.
INTRODUCTION
4.3 t of copper,
161 t.oz of gold
16 t of lead,
2 t of nickel,
2988 t.oz of silver, and
18.7 t of zinc.
2.
'Running time was the only thing that mattered, with both
maintenance and operational groups zealously guarding their
reputation on minimising downtime. There was significant
focus at a high level on areas for improvement.
Future ore testing looked at the ore sources the plant would
process in future years.
Metallurgists routinely:
Were held accountable for metallurgical performance
NOW 2009
Observations on the current situation:
Computer models of mineral processes are increasingly phenomenological and can be run on powerful laptop computers.
IF THIS IS PROGRESS ?
Below are examples supporting the contention that mineral
processing outcomes are not uniformly improving:
An equipment list.
A mass balances for solids, elements, minerals and water.
A simulation model of the comminution circuit with
grindability data for current ores.
in a spatial sense. This should include grindability, quantitative mineralogy, metallurgical performance, distribution of
precious and impurity elements and minerals, eg Au, Ag, As,
F, Hg, organic carbon, talc, etc, where applicable.
not improved its performance. The reason given for this is the
limited equine gene pool available for development.
We are not currently suggesting that the gene pool of
metallurgists is the cause of our perceived dissatisfaction with
the performance of mineral processing professionals!
However, the cautionary message from the thoroughbred
racing industry is that merely applying modern scientific
techniques does not ensure the desired outcome.
This is sharply contrasted to advances in modern dentistry over
the same time period where technology and innovation have
clearly improved the patients physical (if not his/her fiscal)
wellbeing (ORourke, 1995).
plants plus rod mills plus ball mils for comminution (though
some would argue this has been at the expense of rapid plant
start-up, fluctuating metallurgical performance and increased
down time).
Selective flocculation.
OSA; online measurement of both coarse and fine particle
10
MANAGEMENT RESPONSE
If management fails to comprehend and master the technical
basics of plant operation it will not understand the outcome
drivers and be less capable of directing the available metallurgical talent pool.
We rarely encounter a coherent plan of metallurgical
development for a minerals processing plant with the most
precious resource on site of competent person hours
appropriately focused on the most productive opportunities.
Management has to recognise this black hole of metallurgists time from:
CONCLUSIONS
By some criteria the standard of operation of mineral processing
plants has not significantly improved in the last 40 years despite
the information technology revolution.
Professional time for process monitoring and improvement has
been eroded by the bureaucratisation of the metallurgists work
despite the fact that, for most commodity producers, process
engineers are now relatively more expensive to employ than in
1969 - 1970.
Metallurgists need to get back to the basics of their profession
to produce outcomes rather than being overwhelmed by processes.
There is a risk that information technology can enslave rather
than liberate with data displacing fundamental mineral
processing information.
The concentrator manager has to take the leading role in
turning around the current unsatisfactory state of affairs.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The authors thank Mineralurgy Pty Ltd and MMG Ltd for
permission to publish this paper.
The following individuals are thanked for their observations on
these matters over the years: Gary Chilman, John Glen, Greg
Lane, Rolly Nice, Joe Pease, Geoff Richmond, Peter Rohner,
Stuart Smith, and Michael Young.
The authors stress that the ideas, opinions and biases in this
paper are their own.
REFERENCES
Colbert, P J, Munro, P D and Yeowart, G, 2009. Prominent Hill
Concentrator Designed for operators and maintainers, in
Proceedings Tenth Mill Operators Conference, pp 23-32 (The
Australasian Institute of Mining and Metallurgy: Melbourne).
McCarthy, P, 2006. Message from the Managing Director [online],
Digging Deeper, AMC Consultants. Available from: <http://www.
amcconsultants.com.au> [Accessed: 5 June 2009].
Munro, P D, Eaton, R and Burton, E, 1982. Wear materials experience in
Mount Isa concentrators, in Proceedings Second Mill Operators
Conference, pp 327-335 (The Australasian Institute of Mining and
Metallurgy: Melbourne).
ORourke, P J, 1995. All the Trouble in the World: The Lighter Side of
Overpopulation, Famine, Ecological Disaster, Ethnic Hatred,
Plague, and Poverty, 340 p (Atlantic Monthly Press: New York).
Quirk, T, 2006. Correct weight [online]. Available from: <http://www.
onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=5282&page=0> [Accessed:
5 June 2009].
Wills, B A and Napier-Munn, T J, 2006. Wills Mineral Processing
Technology, Seventh Edition: An Introduction to the Practical
Aspects of Ore Treatment and Mineral Recovery, 456 p
(Butterworth-Heinemann).
Woodcock, J T, 1978. Mineral processing in Australasia 1978, Australian
Mining, pp 16-90.
11