Search Documents

By J. D. McBeth, G. M. Potter, Ramon Pizarro

Heap leaching is used by the Carlin Gold Mining Co., Carlin, Nev., to supplement conventional processing of gold ore by agitation-leaching and countercurrent decantation. Selected open-pit ore containing about 0.072 oz Au per ton is crushed to 3/4 inch, dumped by truck on an asphalt pad, and leached by sprinkling with dilute cyanide solution for 7 days. The heap is then drained and removed by front-end loader to tailings disposal. About 70 percent of the gold is dissolved. Leach solution from the heap joins the pregnant solution from countercurrent decantation for gold recovery by zinc precipitation. Four leach pads, each with a capacity of 1,400 tons of ore, are in use. About 10,000 tons of ore are heap leached monthly from about April through October. Heap leaching is recessed during freezing weather. Labor, equipment, and reagent requirements for heap leaching are presented.

Jan 1, 1974

By L. R. Todd

Gold Fields' Mesquite mine, located in southeastern California, heap leaches low grade gold ore at an annual rate of 2.7 Mt (3 million st). Ore is crushed in a two stage open circuit and belt agglomerated prior to loading on the leach pads. Since initial heap construction in October of 1985, a number of operating practices have been modified and several agglomeration techniques have been tested in an effort to improve percolation and reduce leaching time. Findings to date are discussed.

Jan 1, 1987

By Robin J. Hickson

The Ortiz Mine is operated by Gold Fields Mining Corporation, a subsidiary of Consolidated Gold Fields Ltd., one of the world's major gold producers. The Ortiz Mine is Gold Fields only heap leaching facility as well as being their first operating mine in the U.S.A. The hydrometallurgical processes utilized for recovery of gold and silver at Ortiz are discussed along with the several practical changes in operation adopted since start-up. Included are heap leaching by cyanidation, concentration of values on activated carbon, desorption, and the final electrowinning steps prior to shipment. Construction costs and pertinent technical data are shown.

Jan 1, 1981

By G. D. Van Arsdale

THE paper of Mr. Posnjak presents a laboratory confirmation of the well known facts that air ox-idation of pure solutions of ferrous sulfate is slow and difficult and that, like many other similar reactions, the speed, may be greatly accelerated by the presence of other substances, often in very small amounts, the effect of the presence of copper being determined ex-perimentally in this case. However, it should not be. overlooked that copper is always present in heap leach-ing solutions in amounts equal to or greater than those in the experiments described; therefore the paper may be considered as an explanation of present results rather than a possible improve-ment to be added to present practice. It is not practicable and it does not pay to precipitate copper by ce-mentation below a point about 5 lb. per 1000 gal., equivalent to about 0.0005 mol. Cu. per liter, compar-ing with the approxi-mately 0.0009 mol. per liter of curve 2 in the diagrams given of course, also, in the heaps local concentrations are usually very much higher than this, which is also true of the effluent li-quors, so that I feel that it is safe to say that copper is already present in amount sufficient to realize, as large an accelerating effect as is practicable. Too much im-provement or refinement cannot be expected in a method of this kind, due to commercial limitations. It should be remembered that chemically and physically there is no sharp dividing line between leaching in place, heap leaching, and the usual tank leaching practice, practi-cally the same reagents being used in all three. From the viewpoint of extractions, etc., it is not common sense to apply leaching in place to an orebody carrying enough copper to pay for mining; and the same is true of heap leaching, for an ore carrying enough to pay for the crushing, handling, etc., of ordinary leaching. That is to say, leaching in place should properly be consid-ered only for an ore too low-grade to pay for mining, and heap leaching for the next higher grade, still how-ever too low-grade to pay for crushing and other re-finements. There is no advantage in leaching without mining or in heap leaching except lower cost of in-stallation and handling; on the other hand there are very distinct disadvantages which are inherent and which should prohibit their use except where necessity requires. The object of metallurgy is to make money out of the handling of ore, and it is purely a question of money as to how far we can go in "improving" or

Jan 7, 1927

By Paul H. Johnson

Heap leaching is a simple means of recovering copper from oxide and oxide-sulfide ores. Although this method requires relatively low capital investment, it suffers from low copper recoveries and relatively high acid consumption. The objectives of this study were (1) to determine what factors influence these shortcomings, and (2) to establish a basis of correlation. between laboratory and field testing. The principal methods of leaching copper ores at the present time are heap, dump, in-place, and vat. A number of references are presented in the bibliography on the theoretical and practical aspects of these methods. In the heap-leaching method, crushed or uncrushed oxidized copper ore is placed on a prepared drainage pad. Acid leach solutions are dis¬tributed over the top of the heap, caused to percolate downward through the ore bed by gravity, and are drained from its base. The leach duration is generally a matter of a few months. Dump leaching is used to recover copper from very low-grade oxide-sulfide pit-waste materials. Here again, leach solutions are, percolated downward through a heap. However, in this method, little or no acid is added to the leach liquors, prepared drainage pads are not used and the leaching cycle is generally measured in terms of several years. Leaching agents are usually autogenously generated by the breakdown of sulfide minerals within the dump.

Jan 1, 1970

By R. E. Ford, P. Tarassoff, P. H. Jennings

Copper oxide ore may be leached at all sizes from run-of-mine down to pulp, and consideration must be given to all available methods in determining the most economical one. Heap leaching was evaluated in a pilot plant at Gaspe Copper Mines, Ltd. which was designed to simultaneously leach two 1200-ton dumps of ore. The plant was operated for two years, in part under severe winter conditions. Two modes of leaching were investigated: acid leaching in which sulfuric acid was added externally to the leach solution, and pyritic leaching in which pyrite concentrate was added to the dump and acid was generated in situ by bacterial action. The pilot plant operation is described, and the results are compared with laboratory data obtained in 6-in.-diam columns. It is concluded that pyritic leaching offers certain operating advantages over acid leaching when copper is recovered by cementation in that iron buildup in the solution is prevented.

Jan 1, 1974

By R. Bruce Thorndycraft

This paper will describe several modifications to design of con­ventional oxide gold heap leaching. They are targeted at reduc­ing costs and simplifying heap operations. These modifications were conceptualized during consulting work on over 90 differ­ent heap leaches. In 1995, a unique opportunity arose to imme­diately apply all of these design concepts to the permitting and construction of a new facility at the American Girl Mine in southeastern California. American Girl Mine has operated since 1987. In April 1995, the mine faced a situation with grave consequences for cash flow. Approval for mining of a new ore zone, Oro Cruz, had just been granted, after lengthy delays by California regula­tors. All existing pad space would be filled by October. Only 6 months were available, and new pad siting and design were still undecided. Permitting of a new pad had not begun. Options were quickly reviewed. A strong criteria for pad site selection and design was ease of permitting. There was also a strong desire to install a system that would achieve better met­allurgical recovery and reduced operating costs, compared to previous heaps at this mine. One site offered the best chance for rapid permitting. It was the site of the original 1987-90 heap leach. This already dis­turbed ground contained 1.6 million tons of heaped ore. The old heap had just completed detoxification and was about to be signed off as a Group C waste, ready for reclamation. Instead of recontouring and revegetating the old heap, which the reclamation plan anticipated, we offered BLM and the County something even better. We proposed to off-load much of the detoxed old heap, and reuse the space. The off-loaded material would be back-filled into the original open pit, imme­diately adjacent. While the footprint of the proposed new pad was much larger, the reuse of disturbed ground, and backfilling of the open pit, had very strong appeal to the regulators. Our permitting strategy included the technical design of the proposed new facility. Many of the new design details also appealed to the regulators, particularly the "zero active ponds" concept.

Jan 1, 1996

By R. C. Beard

"Heap leaching, currently being applied in the treatment of low-grade ores in the south western United States, is shown to have potential for use in north western Ontario. The history and operation of the process are described, and cost comparisons are given.IntroductionHeap leaching is a simple, low-cost method of recovering gold from low-grade ore. Although it is not currently being used in Canada on a production scale, it is being used extensively, and successfully, in the southwestern United States as well as elsewhere in the world. Especially suited for large deposits of very low -grade ore, it also appears to be practical for use on small, high-grade deposits because it avoids the high capital costs of mills. Eveleth (1980) and others suggest that the capital and operating costs required for heap leaching are approximately 20% and 40% respectively of conventional milling methods.Northwestern Ontario is noted for its large number of undeveloped, small, high-grade gold deposits. Although there are a number o f larger and higher-grade deposits in the area as well, it is the relatively small undeveloped deposits which would benefit most from heap leaching, if it could be demonstrated to be a viable extraction method.To assess the significance of these small deposits, the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources recently commissioned a consultants' study of the gold reserves in certain parts of northwestern Ontario. This report, titled ""Feasibility of Small-Scale Gold Mining in Northwestern Ontario"", by J.N. Neilson and R.C.E. Bray (1981, OGS Open File Report 5332), documents 106 known gold deposits having sufficient information to calculate gold reserves. A total of over 7.8 million tons having a weighted average grade of 0.19 oz of gold per ton were compiled in the proven, probable and possible categories, with an additional 8.2 million tons in the speculative category. Many of these deposits could be mined by open-pit methods."

Jan 1, 1983

By Thomas J. DeMull

Heap leaching was introduced to the precious metals mining industry approximately two decades ago as a simple, low cost method for recovering gold and silver from ores. Since that time, operational experience has contributed to knowledge and understanding of the process, making it a reliable alternative to conventional milling processes for low grade ores. At time of this writing, dozens of heap leach operations are active producing hundreds of thousands of ounces of gold and millions of ounces of silver annually. These successes have caused the popular press to acclaim heap leaching "high-tech" gold mining, but, despite the hype, the process remains a simple one. An example of simplicity in heap leaching is the operation established in 1986 at Amax Gold's Sleeper Mine. Starting with a simple goal, namely to produce gold from sub-mill grade ore at low cost, heap leaching was rapidly implemented at Sleeper; only five months after testwork started, leaching commenced on the first commercial scale, 50,000 ton heap of low grade ore. Sized at 600,000 tons per year to produce 10,500 oz gold per year, the low grade heap operation has performed beyond expectations. During the first year of production, 881,800 tons have been leached producing 15,665 oz of gold and 35,528 oz of silver. Operating ·costs for the first year have averaged $112 per oz gold produced ( or $95 per oz if silver credit is included). Successful implementation of heap leaching at Sleeper has had a dramatic impact on ore reserves and future operations.

Jan 1, 1998

By Robert G. Woolery

Union Carbide_ began looking seriously at heap leaching in 1971. At that time some 1.6 million tons of mineral averaging 0.040% U308 were stockpiled at various sites around the Gas Hills, Wyoming, uranium facility. Several alternatives for economically exploiting these reserves were considered and heap leaching seemed the most attractive. At the time, Western Nuclear Inc. was operating a heap leach project nearby in which the low-grade ore was leached with sulfuric acid, the product liquor treated in an on-site solvent extraction circuit, and the stripped product liquor re-acidified and recycled. They were most generous in allowing us to visit their site, answering our questions, and were helpful in discussing the problems associated with heap leaching. They confirmed our belief that, it was possible to operate a heap leach profitably on material too low grade for. conventional milling. Based largely on what we had learned from Western Nuclear's experience, a program was set up involving a laboratory study to determine the characteristics of the mineral stockpiles as related to heap leaching and to conduct a pilot heap leach adjoining our Gas Hills mill. Basically, the pilot heap construction and leach procedure were similar to those described in the literature(1,2) with certain modifications to permit detailed monitoring of the operation. In May, '1972, the decision was made to construct a test heap. The UCC plant at Gas Hills, Wyoming was selected as the most appropriate site for the follow¬ing reasons:

Jan 1, 1977

By A. D. Hammond

Until recently, the volumes delivered and unloaded from heap-leaching pads have been estimated by manual methods at Wharf Resources' South Dakota operation. In August 1989, the Engineering Department acquired the MINE-SURVEY software developed by GEM COM Services, Inc. of Vancouver, Canada, as part of a mine planning/grade control software package. The implementation of MINE-SURVEY for pad control resulted in a cost-effective tool to provide accurate and prompt estimates of ore delivered or unloaded from the pads. Volumes can be calculated in a matter of minutes as opposed to hours or days. Another benefit is the ease of comparison of as-build and designed volumes, plotting cross-section in any orientation, importing into AUTOCAD, validation of ore densities and truck factors. This paper describes the application of the MINE-SURVEY systems in heap leaching pad volumetrics.

Jan 1, 1991

By N. Ogbonna, D. G. Dixon

Although heap bioleaching has been recognized as an economic alternative for treating low grade mineral ores, the underlying physical, chemical and biological processes involved are complex. A detailed investigation into the dynamics of heap bioleaching processes has provided much insight into the underlying complexities, and has led to the development of a sophisticated modelling tool - HeapSim. This tool can be of great help in the design and operation of heap bioleaching processes. In this paper, the mathematical model implemented in HeapSim is examined. The model takes into account mineral kinetics, particle level effects, bacterial growth, oxidation and adsorption, gas absorption, pore diffusion, bulk advection, gas balance and heat conservation. Three case studies where the model has been applied are briefly discussed. Computational Analysis in Hydrometallurgy 35th Annual Hydrometallurgy Meeting held in conjunction with the 44th Annual Conference of Metallurgists of CIM Calgary, Alberta, Canada Edited by

Jan 1, 2005

By Mark R. Stephenson

Everyone knows that mining is a noisy job, but did you know that you are nine times more likely to lose your hearing than someone who works in a quieter job? If unprotected from noise on the job, by age 50, you will probably need hearing aids. Obviously, the best solution is to engineer out the noise, but that isn?t always im­mediately possible. Until mines are quieter, one way you can help save your vital sense of hearing is to use hearing protectors whenever the noise around you is hazardous. Even if you already have some hearing loss, you can use hearing protectors to prevent your hearing from getting worse. When loud noise is present, proper use of hearing protectors will help miners pre-vent most or all noise-induced hearing loss.

Jan 1, 1998

By David C. Byrne

PURPOSE: Evaluate practical technological advances in level-dependent hearing protectors and inexpensive personal acoustic monitors. RESEARCH SUMMARY: The results of previous NIOSH research show that miners develop hearing loss much more quickly than nonoccupationally noise-exposed individuals and that miners experience a greater severity of hearing loss than would be expected for nonoccupational noise-exposed persons of the same age and gender. Using hearing thresholds at 4,000 Hz as an indicator, coal miners experience hearing loss 2.5 to 3 times greater than would be expected for persons not exposed to occupational noise. At age 50, 90% of coal miners and 49% of metal/nonmetal miners were found to have a hearing impairment. In comparison, only 9% of a nonoccupationally exposed control group had a hearing impairment at age 50. There are numerous barriers to the prevention of hearing loss among miners. In an effort to overcome some of these obstacles, this work was initiated to evaluate practical technological advances in level-dependent hearing protectors and inexpensive personal acoustic monitors. Experiments will involve analysis of this new technology under both laboratory and field conditions. Laboratory components will consist of controlled studies using an anthropometrically correct test fixture as well as human subjects to evaluate the adequacy/effectiveness of various hearing protective devices. Electroacoustical performance testing of new noise monitors will also be conducted in a laboratory setting. Subsequent field studies will determine the actual usefulness and practicality of the personal protective/monitoring equipment as used in different mining situations. It is anticipated that increased on-the-spot awareness of hazardous noise levels and the availability of better-suited hearing protectors will provide a degree of protection beyond what is currently attained in different mining environments. Therefore, the intent of this project is to identify and adapt new acoustical technologies and products that have a direct application to individual mine workers. With increased knowledge of these technological advances, a greater demand for similar devices will likely occur, which, in turn, will lead to a better understanding and awareness of hearing loss prevention methods throughout the mining community. The ultimate goal is for widespread integration of useful hearing loss prevention products and devices into the daily routines of miners

Jan 2, 2000

PURPOSE: Evaluate practical technological advances in hearing protective devices for use in different mining environments. RESEARCH SUMMARY: Previous NIOSH research shows that miners develop hearing loss much more quickly than nonoccupationally noise-exposed individuals. Also, miners experience a greater severity of hearing loss than would be expected for nonoccupational noise-exposed persons of the same age and sex. As described in the National Occupational Research Agenda, problems created by occupational hearing loss include (1) the reduced quality of life due to social isolation and unrelenting tinnitus, (2) impaired communication with family members, the public, and coworkers,(3) a diminished ability to monitor the work environment (e.g., warning signals, equipment sounds, etc.), (4) lost productivity and increased accidents resulting from impaired communication and isolation, and (5) expenses for workers? compensation and hearing aids.

Jan 1, 2000

PURPOSE: Evaluate practical technological advances in hearing protective devices for use in different mining environments RESEARCH SUMMARY: Previous NIOSH research shows that miners develop hearing loss much more quickly than nonoccupationally noise-exposed individuals and that miners experience a greater severity of hearing loss than would be expected for nonoccupational noise-exposed persons of the same age and sex. As described in the National Occupation-al Research Agenda, problems created by occupational hearing loss include(1) reduced quality of life due to social isolation and unrelenting tinnitus,(2) impaired communication with family members, the public, and coworkers, (3) diminished ability to monitor the work environment (i.e., warning signals, equipment sounds, etc.), (4) lost productivity and increased accidents resulting from impaired communication and isolation, and (5) expenses for workers? compensation and hearing aids.

Jan 1, 2001

By David C. Byrne

PURPOSE: Evaluate practical technological advances in hearing protective devices for use in different mining environments. RESEARCH SUMMARY: Previous NIOSH research shows that miners develop hearing loss much more quickly than nonoccupationally noise-exposed individuals and that miners experience a greater severity of hearing loss than would be expected for nonoccupational noise-exposed persons of the same age and sex. As described in the National Occupation-al Research Agenda, problems created by occupational hearing loss include(1) reduced quality of life due to social isolation and unrelenting tinnitus,(2) impaired communication with family members, the public, and coworkers, (3) diminished ability to monitor the work environment (i.e., warning signals, equipment sounds, etc.), (4) lost productivity and increased accidents resulting from impaired communication and isolation, and (5) expenses for workers’ compensation and hearing aids. Although eliminating hazardous noise is the long-term solution to the noise problem, miners will likely need to rely on personal hearing protection in certain situations for quite some time. However, it is well known that noise attenuation provided by hearing protectors as they are worn during everyday use is usually quite different (i.e., worse) than when tested under lab conditions. In addition, workers may refuse to wear their hearing protection for any number of reasons. This project was initiated to evaluate practical technological advances in hearing protectors, with an emphasis on optimizing the balance between effectiveness, comfort, over protection, and communication ability. The recently completed auditory research facility is now under-going the accreditation process conducted by the National Institute of Standards and Technology under the National Voluntary Laboratory Accreditation Program. Experiments are planned to investigate the factors that affect a miner’s ability to hear hazard and warning sounds (e.g., roof working, alarm signals, spoken communications, etc.). A service contract has been initiated to record and digitally store samples of typical warning sounds heard in an underground coal mine. This information will be analyzed in the lab to develop recommendations that can be offered to the mining community regarding correct earplug/earmuff usage to maximize there cognition of hazard and warning sounds while adequately protecting the miners’ hearing.

Jan 12, 2001

By David C. Byrne

PURPOSE: Evaluate practical technological advances in hearing protective devices for use in different mining environments. RESEARCH SUMMARY: Previous NIOSH research shows that miners develop hearing loss much more quickly than nonoccupationally noise-exposed individuals. Also, miners experience a greater severity of hearing loss than would be expected for nonoccupational noise-exposed persons of the same age and sex. As described in the National Occupational Research Agenda, problems created by occupational hearing loss include (1) the reduced quality of life due to social isolation and unrelenting tinnitus, (2) impaired communication with family members, the public, and coworkers,(3) a diminished ability to monitor the work environment (e.g., warning signals, equipment sounds, etc.), (4) lost productivity and increased accidents resulting from impaired communication and isolation, and (5) expenses for workers’ compensation and hearing aids. Although the elimination of hazardous noise is the ideal long-term solution to the noise problem, miners will likely need to rely on personal hearing protection in certain situations for quite some time. However, it is well known that noise attenuation provided by hearing protectors as they are worn during everyday use in the workplace is usually worse than when tested under laboratory conditions. Additionally, workers may refuse to wear their hearing protection for any number of reasons. Therefore, this project was initiated to evaluate practical technological advances in hearing protectors, with an emphasis toward optimizing the balance between effectiveness, comfort, overprotection, and communication ability. Currently, the necessary in-house laboratory facilities and research techniques are being finalized. Individual experiments are planned that involve analysis of new hearing protector technology under both laboratory and field conditions. The laboratory components are to consist of con-trolled studies using human subjects and/or an anthropometrically correct artificial test fixture to evaluate the adequacy/effectiveness of various hearing protective devices. Field studies are planned to determine the actual usefulness and practicality of the hearing protectors as used in diferent mining environments. Recommendations can then be offered to the mining community regarding correct earplug/earmuff usage that maximizes recognition of hazard/warning sounds while adequately protecting the miners’ hearing.

Jan 12, 2000

PURPOSE: Evaluate practical technological advances in level-dependent hearing protectors and inexpensive personal acoustic monitors. RESEARCH SUMMARY: The results of previous NIOSH research show that miners develop hearing loss much more quickly than nonoccupationally noise-exposed individuals and that miners experience a greater severity of hearing loss than would be expected for nonoccupational noise-exposed persons of the same age and gender. Using hearing thresholds at 4,000 Hz as an indicator, coal miners experience hearing loss 2.5 to 3 times greater than would be expected for persons not exposed to occupational noise. At age 50, 90% of coal miners and 49% of metal/nonmetal miners were found to have a hearing impairment. In comparison, only 9% of a nonoccupationally exposed control group had a hearing impairment at age 50.

Jan 1, 2000

By David Ingram

The results from the sound level measurements, the dosimeter recordings and the time-activity studies on four different air-rotary rigs indicate a wide variation of operator noise exposure during hole development. These variations appear to be dependent on the cab design and the operator?s drilling behavior. Studies have documented that exposure to high sound levels for long periods of time can cause hearing loss. The results of this study help identify the loudest parts of the drilling cycle. Sound level measurements on the four rigs show that all the rigs generate sound levels that are 90 A-weighted decibels (dB(A)) and above within 6 feet around the rigs during drilling. It is easy to conclude that some type of noise protection, such as a cab, is needed to protect the operator from overexposure to noise for an eight-hour shift of uninterrupted drilling. However, even when rigs are outfitted with cabs, operators observed in this study are being exposed to sound levels above 90 dB(A) during some activities required to complete a drilling cycle. An evaluation and comparison of the four dosimeter recordings and time-activity studies during one drilling cycle may explain why variations in operator exposure occur. Table 1 summarizes the time-weighted average (TWA) and accumulated dose percentages for each of the four operators during the time needed to complete one typical hole cycle.

Jan 1, 2008