Search Documents

By Karl J. C. Harries

"1.1. WHAT ARE AGREEMENTS AND HOW ARE THEY FORMED?In order to have an agreement, at common law, there must be an offer, acceptance of that offer, and consideration passing between the parties. In addition, the material terms (i.e. the basics or substance) of the agreement must be discernible, preferably by means of documentation. Although these concepts may appear simple and straightforward, the law relating to them is voluminous and complex. Some brief comments are worthwhile.• Offer/acceptance: Both offer and acceptance should be in writing, but they need not be. The actions, conversations, and/or correspondence of the parties may constitute either or both of them. Notwithstanding, the local law or practice of a jurisdiction will impose some specific requirements for certain types of agreements. If these requirements are not met, the agreement may be unenforceable. For example, Ontario’s Mining Act requires transfers of unpatented mining claims to be evidenced in writing and recorded.1• Consideration: Consideration is usually thought of as being money, but it can be virtually anything, even “the premises” (i.e. the mutual covenants or promises contained in the agreement itself). In addition, if one party, relying upon the offer of another, does something to his detriment, then the doing of the act can be considered to be an acceptance of the offer and, under the legal concept of “detrimental reliance”, can also be consideration. Whether or not detrimental reliance exists will depend upon the circumstances of each case.2• Material terms: The requirement that the material terms of an agreement must be discernible does not mean that all of the terms of an agreement must be documented or even have been considered, just the basic or material ones. In addition, it will be up to a judge to decide what is material – not necessarily the parties. In order to establish the material terms, a Court may look at all relevant documentation and may hear oral evidence. It will resist “writing the agreement”"

Jan 1, 2003

By Karl J. C. Harries

"11.1. INTRODUCTIONA royalty is the most common form of interest retained by an owner who is disposing of his property or by a joint venturer who ceases, voluntarily or otherwise, to participate in the joint venture.1 Rarely does a non-participating party have a direct interest in the property and/or assets of a project, except during the period when a non-participating joint venturer may be having his interest diluted.2 In fact, it is most unwise to permit a non-participating party to have such an interest. It may give rise to significant problems that could prevent or substantially delay the development of an orebody and require a considerable amount of time, effort, and money to correct.3In negotiating a royalty, it is important to be aware that there is no law or convention that says, “You just don’t do that in a royalty agreement.” As with any agreement, inventiveness and flexibility on the part of the negotiator are not just assets, but virtual necessities. It is also for this reason that it is essential to read the royalty provisions, particularly the definitions, fully and carefully, especially if you are the recipient. On the other hand, if your inventiveness and flexibility cause your accountant to question the advisability of one of your ideas, pay close attention to him.4 He will, no doubt, have had experience with many royalties, and no competent professional adviser disparages a client’s ideas without good reason. Besides, he will probably be the person who will be determining the royalty or certifying the determination of it. At the very least, he will be auditing your general financial statements, which must, of course, reflect the royalty determination. Heeding his advice not only may make the determination easier but also will probably save you money in professional fees later on. Nevertheless, do not simply accept his comments or recommendations without understanding what they mean, why they have been made with respect to your royalty agreement (sometimes professionals have comments that they make as a matter of course and, even though they may be valid, you should require them to be justified to you), and how they will affect your royalty determination.It is surprising how many corporate payors insist that their standard royalty provisions5 be used as a matter of policy, thereby effectively tying the negotiator’s hands. It is even more surprising, and to professional advisers frightening, how many of the senior employees who insist that such a policy be adhered to, virtually without variation, do not know what is in the standard provisions and would be hard-pressed to explain them to a property owner. If standard provisions are appropriate, by all means use them, but do allow experienced and sensible negotiators some flexibility and make sure that everyone within the corporation who may have to use such provisions – negotiator and supervisor alike – knows what they contain and why they are as they are. For example, there are often good and convincing reasons to describe a deduction in a certain way or to include a certain specific type of deduction. On the other hand, quite often the answer to the question “why?” is that “it has always been there”; this is, or should be, an unacceptable answer. In any event, if you, as the negotiator, appear to know what you are talking about, are familiar and comfortable with your royalty provisions, and are backed up by your boss with the same words or reasoning, a property owner cannot help but be satisfied that you are knowledgeable, even if he still does not agree with your provisions. Finally, if you do use standard provisions, make sure that they are reviewed and updated regularly."

Jan 1, 2003

By Karl J. C. Harries

"12.1. NO DEPRECIATION/GAAPAll calculations and computations relating to the Royalty shall be carried out in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles consistently applied to the extent that such principles are not inconsistent with the provisions of this Schedule and the agreement attached hereto, it being specifically agreed that nothing herein contained shall permit, or be construed to permit, the Operator to deduct any amount for depletion, depreciation, amortization or any deduction that represents a non-cash outlay.Comment: In cases like net profit royalties where recoupment of prior expenditures is permitted, care should be taken to avoid any implication that depreciation may also be taken. It is only logical and equitable that Property Owners should not be permitted an apparent ability to “double dip” with respect to deductions. A provision like this example should accomplish the task. It will be noted that the example specifically contemplates that the negotiated arrangements will prevail over any requirements of GAAP. Accordingly, if the parties agree to an unusual formula for recoupment, it will not be set aside to accommodate GAAP requirements. Under GAAP, revenues and expenditures are accounted for on an accrual basis. In addition, it specifically prohibits the taking of non-cash deductions, which is in keeping with the concept of recoupment.Although in some ways the example states the obvious and could be considered redundant, its presence, especially in provisions contemplating recoupment, makes it clear to the financial people that there may well be some variations from normal practices dictated by GAAP, while at the same time confirming the availability of GAAP to fill any voids.The accounting profession often makes the caveat that application of GAAP is an “art”, not a “science”. GAAP do not provide a cure-all and can create problems that will have to be addressed. For example, GAAP contemplate that asset costs are to be reduced by investment tax credits, which can cause a problem for a payor with more than one mine."

Jan 1, 2003

By Karl J. C. Harries

13.1. RIGHT TO RECEIVE ROYALTY CONTRACTUAL ONLY1

Jan 1, 2003

By Karl J. C. Harries

"14.1. INTRODUCTION1The boilerplate of an agreement is not a single provision, but a series of provisions that are expected in “every agreement”. They are sometimes also referred to as the “lawyer’s provisions”. Many businessmen consider the boilerplate to be superfluous and, to some extent, window-dressing by the lawyers – even legalese. They will often offer advice to the effect that it can “pretty well be ignored”. Such advice could not be more wrong.Most boilerplate provisions are essential parts of every agreement. Some may be part of a “standard package” and may have little relevance to the agreement at hand, but these are the exception rather than the rule. The exceptions should not be treated as justification for giving all these provisions short shrift. The boilerplate should receive the same review, consideration, and negotiation as the provisions that set forth the business deal. It is often these provisions that make the deal work or that are turned to at the time of disputes. If they are inadequate, as they sometimes are (unfortunately, some draftsmen are also loath to review or update their standard boilerplate provisions or to tailor them to the deal at hand), they can create problems, rather than offer solutions. Such problems can be costly and time-consuming for the parties to address. Inadequate or incomplete provisions may ultimately be one of the reasons for the parties to turn to the courts to settle their differences. On the other hand, good boilerplate provisions can help keep them out of the courts.One of the principal objectives of an agreement should be to provide procedures, or mechanics, for implementing agreed principles and for the parties to follow to settle their differences, real or perceived, without going to the expense and disruption of a lawsuit. An agreement should aim to keep the parties away from the courts, not serve as a springboard to the courts. It must nevertheless be acknowledged that, if there is a major falling-out among the parties to an agreement, the chances are that, however carefully the provisions of that agreement have been negotiated and drafted, the parties will end up before the courts or some other adjudicating body."

Jan 1, 2003

By Karl J. C. Harries

"2.1. INTRODUCTIONNo agreement can be perfect in the sense that it contemplates and provides for all eventualities. Mineral acquisition agreements are usually negotiated and drafted at a time when an orebody is no more than a gleam in a geologist’s eye, so it is hardly possible to provide for development and operation in other than the most general terms. However, an agreement that stops short of contemplating the possibility of an orebody and production is ill-advised. Accordingly, it is important to provide procedures to make decisions that will let the project proceed, even in the face of a fallingout between parties. Whether the parties are shareholders in a corporation or venturers in a contractual common undertaking like a joint venture, differences of opinion and disputes will occur. Unfortunately, more and more are ending up before the courts. Besides greed and the growing tendency in society to fight rather than talk, there are other factors that contribute to the increase of litigation. In some jurisdictions, agreements have tended to become complicated, often defying interpretation, even by a lawyer, and explorationists want their budgets to go into the ground as constructive work rather than into a lawyer’s pocket. All this has led to a growing tendency for corporations to take the attitude that the chances of finding a mine are, at best, marginal and there are lots of earlier agreements in the files to draw from, so why not prepare their own agreements? As discussed in the preceding chapter, this can be folly. All these factors can quickly have parties facing each other in court while a project sits idle. Added to this is the problem that, in some jurisdictions, lawyers may take cases on a contingency-fee basis, sometimes promoting the pursuit of a nebulous claim.When an orebody is discovered, someone will always want some, or more, for himself. There is a breed of “prospectors” who prospect for legal actions, on the somewhat sound grounds that a major corporation will buy off nuisance litigation, rather than incurring the cost and effort of attacking even a poorly founded claim in the courts. They may even find a winner. Besides, it is far more comfortable and relaxing to prospect for problems and legal niceties than to prospect for an orebody.1 In short, it is appropriate to consider briefly some of the factors relating to lawsuits and judgments. Although many of the comments are made in the context of the common law and the Canadian legal system, most of the concepts and suggestions are applicable to any legal system."

Jan 1, 2003

By Karl J. C. Harries

"4.1. INTRODUCTIONThis chapter, although divided into four parts, deals with only two principal topics. The first briefly describes and discusses some common types of property interests and considerations relating to them and the second deals with entering upon privately owned lands and obtaining the consent to do so.It should be noted that the terms “mining rights” and “mineral rights” are used interchangeably. As so used, they include the right to exploit the minerals and dispose of them for the benefit of the owner/lessee. This is relatively common in common law jurisdictions. In some jurisdictions, the two terms have distinct meanings, with “mining rights” referring to the right to work or exploit the minerals and “mineral rights” referring to the minerals themselves.Finally, it must be mentioned that the comments in the Introduction and §§ 4.2., 4.3. and 4.4. are based primarily upon Ontario law and Ontario’s mining and real property systems of registration. They have been included for illustrative purposes.4.2. LICENCES, CLAIMS, AND LEASESIn most jurisdictions, there are several basic types of interests that can be obtained from the state for mining purposes and that are of interest to the explorationist, as opposed to the operator. Different jurisdictions will have variations of these and possibly some extra ones that will address special purposes or local concerns. In virtually every jurisdiction, privately owned property rights are obtained through negotiation between owner and acquiror.Exploration or prospecting licence. This licence grants to the holder the right to prospect over a large tract of land and the exclusive right to acquire mining claims within that tract for the term of the licence. Such licences are usually negotiated documents requiring a minimum expenditure during the first year (often secured by a deposit or surety bond) and minimum annual expenditures thereafter to continue the licence in force up to its full term. The term will rarely exceed four years. The number of claims permitted to be staked will be limited in some way, possibly as to a maximum aggregate area or a maximum number of claims per annum. It is normal for the holder to have to drop part of the licensed area each year, so that the area shrinks annually, although exploration expenditure requirements will usually increase.These types of licences are usually used by governments to encourage exploration of otherwise unattractive or remote areas, such as the far northern parts of some of Canada’s provinces. They do not grant any real property interest in the area for which they are issued, and they will be subject to any claims or property rights that exist in the area. They are contracts with the state that grant certain exclusive rights in return for commitments to carry out work. They may or may not be specifically authorized by statute."

Jan 1, 2003

By Karl J. C. Harries

"5.1. INTRODUCTIONThis chapter is intended as a general overview of the subject of royalties between private parties – royalties extracted by governments are not dealt with. This same subject is covered in detail in Volume II, which critiques many sample provisions taken from agreements, giving both pros and cons. If you find something that interests you in this chapter, check Volume II for extra information. Detailed cross-referencing to Volume II has not been attempted, however, most subjects mentioned in this Chapter will also appear in Volume II, usually in greater detail. Reference should be made to the Index.A Brief History of Royalties1In the early days of mining in Canada, the tendency was to sell a claim for cash and to move on, using the stake to look for and stake more prospects. As prospectors became more sophisticated and Canada’s North opened up, the market for properties and the number of mining properties available increased dramatically. Speculation and the practice of consolidating several small properties into one large holding entity became common. In “hot” areas, the speculators2 could far outnumber the prospectors, many of the former having little or no prospecting expertise but lots of market and promotional savvy. However, to consolidate a number of small parcels into one large project can be expensive, and many of the parcel owners became interested in keeping a share in the project, rather than giving up everything. Speculators who were trying to consolidate small parcels wanted to minimize cash payments to parcel holders (usually they did not have much cash and preferred it flowing in their direction rather than away from them). Accordingly, non-cash transactions were developed to meet the aspirations of both owners and speculators."

Jan 1, 2003

By Karl J. C. Harries

"7.1. INTRODUCTIONThis chapter addresses the joint venture and examines a number of general concepts of the joint venture relationship. Chapter 8 looks at some specific concepts related to the provisions of a joint venture agreement, which are equally applicable to a shareholders’ agreement or other contractual relationship. The term “joint venture” is used because the author is a common law solicitor (a matter of convenience for which apologies are offered to civil law readers), but it should be noted that, in many aspects, the legal structure of an entity is irrelevant. It is the relationship of the parties, be they venturers or shareholders, that is important, and the areas of concern are surprisingly similar (except for terminology).The details of the joint venture relationship and agreement could fill several books. Accordingly, this chapter and the next focus on selected topics that appear to have caused problems or confusion or to be the basis for disputes. And remember that, although the following discussion is in the context of a joint venture, many of the comments apply, either directly or indirectly, to virtually any common undertaking and the agreement defining it.For interest’s sake, this chapter starts with a summary of some of the earlier types of agreements and arrangements that have evolved into the joint venture agreement of today in Canada, the philosophy of their format, and the reasons for their demise.7.2. EVOLUTION OF THE CANADIAN JOINT VENTUREThe Early DaysMuch of the opening up of Canada’s north is due to exploration for and development of mines. The early discoverers were relatively free to roam and explore at will and, if they were fortunate enough to find something, they dealt with the appropriate government to acquire exploitation rights. The early interests lay in gold or silver. Workings were small, usually worked by the owner alone or with only a couple of helpers to extract the native gold or silver. If the owner wanted to move on, he could sell his property outright and use his stake to look elsewhere.As logging and mining camps were opened, the development of better roads and railways made access easier. Entrepreneurs saw the opportunity to make money by assembling large parcels of land and working them as a single operation. In order to do this, some owners who were not ready to sell out had to be convinced to do so through more attractive offers"

Jan 1, 2003

By Karl J. C. Harries

"8.1. INTRODUCTIONThe purpose of this chapter is not to provide precedents or examples of provisions, but rather to offer some comments that may be worth considering in the negotiation or review of an agreement. These comments are not intended to be exhaustive. It must also be noted that, although the chapter is written in the context of a common law joint venture, the concepts and concerns for the most part apply equally to a corporation that is owned by only a few shareholders for the purpose of participating in the project held by the corporation.The corporation has the advantage of having much of its organization established by local corporate law, but the particular wishes of the shareholders will appear in a shareholders’ agreement. The principal differences will be surprisingly small, save for the acquisition provisions that appear in a farm-in agreement1 and the substantial portion of the joint venture agreement devoted to creating and organizing the joint venture entity. Where the joint venture agreement refers to venturers and committees, the shareholders’ agreement will refer to shareholders and the board of directors, but both will have to deal with such basic matters as decision-making, default, dispute resolution, first refusals, funding, and carrying out work on the project. For convenience, this chapter usually refers to “venturers”, which may be taken to include shareholders.Negotiations give rise to many varying circumstances and concerns, and the main asset of the negotiator is an open and flexible mind. A desired result can often be accomplished indirectly in circumstances where the other side has adopted an inflexible position on a suggested approach. As precedents and standard forms tend to focus a negotiator’s thinking, they can be counterproductive. It is after the deal has been agreed to that a precedent can be of great assistance to the draftsman.The concepts are arranged in alphabetical order for convenience, not to suggest their sequence or position in an agreement or their relative importance. An agreement should adopt a progression of subjects in what the parties consider a logical sequence to read and work with. However, experience has indicated that it is best to set out in a single article the substance of the deal (i.e. the terms relating to the farm-in and what the acquiring party has to do to acquire his interest), preferably near the beginning of an agreement. The acquisition of the interest is, after all, the first order of business. The joint venture provisions will then follow in a reasonable sequence. It is also worthwhile to devote a single article to any special provisions that may apply during the earn-in period. For example, it may be provided that, although all work is to be done by the acquiring party as operator (with the duty of care, liability, and reporting requirements as set out in the joint venture sections of the agreement), but during the acquisition period, the acquiring party, acting as operator, may be at liberty to do such work as he wishes, without the need for any committee or other approvals, and committee meetings may be suspended.2An agreement is divided into paragraphs and articles to make it easier for the parties to read and understand, and to assist a party in finding “that provision” when the need arises. A comprehensive table of contents will also assist the parties who must work under an agreement. An added benefit of a table of contents is that in preparing it, the draftsman sees the overall structure of the agreement and will often catch and correct flaws."

Jan 1, 2003

By Karl J. C. Harries

"9.1. INTRODUCTIONIn Chapter 5 of Volume I royalties are dealt with and several topics would appear to be duplicated in this Volume. However, Volume I may be looked upon as a general guide, whereas this Volume is a reference volume. It deals in considerable detail with specific provisions and concepts relating to royalties between private parties. This does not, however, mean that Chapter 5 can be ignored. It should be looked upon as a source of general information concerning royalties between private parties and as a negotiating aid intended to give an overview of various topics. You may well find that in its general approach it will lead you to ask a question which, hopefully, will be dealt with in this Volume .It should be remembered that royalty agreements are agreements with a particular focus, and so the concepts set forth in Chapter 1 apply to them. This chapter addresses a few considerations specific to royalties that will usually form part of an agreement rather than a stand-alone agreement.9.2. FORMAT FOR ROYALTY PROVISIONSIn many of the cases where royalties arise, they are adjunct to, or part of, other arrangements. For example, a royalty may form part or all of the consideration to be given to an owner upon purchase of his property, or it may arise if a joint venturer ceases to contribute to the venture and has his interest converted to a royalty.1 It is with such situations that this section primarily deals; if the royalty is contained in an agreement that is singularly, or primarily, concerned with creating it, then it is just a normal agreement.Commonly, by the time the right to receive the royalty arises, at least some of the other provisions of the agreement have been performed and/or become redundant. For example, in an option agreement the royalty will be a continuing obligation of the optionee, usually arising only after the option has been exercised.2 In a joint venture agreement, a royalty will often arise where the interest of a non-participating venturer has been diluted and converted to a royalty, in which case the recipient will usually become a passive party, entitled only to his royalty, and most of the rights that he enjoyed as an active venturer will cease to be effective."

Jan 1, 2003

By R P. Bewick

Many future and current block and panel caves extract ore from veined rock masses. These rock masses are composed of open joints forming blocks or rock with healed networks of veinlets. These two types of discontinuities pose a challenge for rock mass characterisation and classification due to difficulties in distinguishing actually open joints from healed but weak veins when diamond core drilling and excavation blasting practices disturb the rock mass. The inability of separating characteristics of open joints and healed veins has often resulted in an underestimation of the rock mass quality and as a consequence led to inappropriate assessments of rock mass response to mining (ie rock mass behaviour) and consequently deficient excavation stability assessments and ground support designs. In this paper, guidelines are provided to improve the characterisation and classification of veined rock masses. It is shown how veined rock masses can be mischaracterised resulting in often incorrect forecasting of rock mass behaviour. Following this, the classification of veined rock masses is examined. It is shown how the primary classification systems (ie Q – Barton, Lien and Lunde, 1974; rock mass rating (RMR) – Bieniawski, 1976) may not lead to reliable ratings in veined rock masses if care is not taken to differentiate between open joints and veins of varying strength. Examples are provided to illustrate how the Q and RMR systems are insensitive to veining. Finally, an example of characterising a veined rock mass for design purposes is presented.CITATION:Bewick, R P and Kaiser, P K, 2016. Characterisation and classification of veined rocks for rock mass behaviour assessment, in Proceedings Seventh International Conference and Exhibition on Mass Mining (MassMin 2016), pp 825–834 (The Australasian Institute of Mining and Metallurgy: Melbourne).

May 9, 2016

By R Munoz, R González, J Vallejos, A Delonca

In panel caving in underground mines, it is essential to characterise and monitor the stress and stability state of production level pillars to ensure the extraction of the mineralised ore column and the safety of workers. Pilar Norte is a sector in the El Teniente mine that forms a pillar between the undercut fronts of the adjacent Esmeralda and Reservas Norte sectors. It exists in a high-stress environment, which may induce damage to the rock mass production pillars. Generally, numerical models are calibrated using observed damage in galleries. This procedure does not discriminate between the structural condition and/or the blasting damage effects. This paper proposes a technique that uses borehole cameras to measure stress-induced damage. This has the advantage of being at the intact rock scale, meaning that the effect of geological structures is negligible and the blasting damage factor is eliminated. Comprehensive geotechnical characterisation and tomography monitoring has been undertaken at Pilar Norte to describe and determine the rock mass behaviour of the production pillars. By combining analytical, empirical and numerical models, a correlation between the measured overbreak recorded by the borehole cameras and the stress level of the pillar was developed. The methodology can be routinely applied to estimate the stress state in the production pillars.CITATION:González, R, Munoz, R, Vallejos, J and Delonca, A, 2016. Characterisation and monitoring of the stress state of production pillars at El Teniente Mine, in Proceedings Seventh International Conference and Exhibition on Mass Mining (MassMin 2016), pp 197–202 (The Australasian Institute of Mining and Metallurgy: Melbourne).

May 9, 2016

By A. S. W. Kurny, M. Z. Huq

Bangladesh ilmenite is partially altered, containing pseudorutile, rutile and haematite as well as the predominant ilmenite phase. A typical analysis is 39.45% TiO2, 24.19% FeO and 33.0% Fe2O3. Reduction of the ilmenite by charcoal was found to involve two major reactions: conversion of pseudorutile into ilmenite and rutile, and change of ilmenite into metallic iron and rutile. The first, which was much the faster reaction, was responsible for an initial increase in ilmenite content with reduction time at lower temperatures. Apart from these two major reactions, rutile was reduced to lower oxides at 1 100 degrees C with a consequent decrease in its XRD peak height

Jun 19, 1905

By D Nobes, D Trumm, D Manhire, A OÆSullivan, M W. Milke

Coal seam gas (CSG) exploration and development requires the abstraction of significant amounts of water. This is so because gas desorbtion in coal seams takes place only after aquifer pressure has been reduced by prolonged pumping of aquifer water. CSG waters have a specific geochemical signature which is a product of their formation process. These waters have high bicarbonate, high sodium, low calcium, low magnesium, and very low sulphate concentrations. Additionally, chloride concentrations may be high depending on the coal depositional environment. This particular signature is not only useful for exploration purposes, but it also highlights potential environmental issues that can arise as a consequence of CSG water disposal. Since 2002 L&M Coal Seam Gas Ltd and CRL Energy Ltd, have been involved in exploration and development of CSG in New Zealand. Anticipating disposal of CSG waters as a key issue in CSG development, they have been assessing CSG water quality along with exploration work. Coal seam gas water samples from an exploration well in Maramarua closely follow the geochemical signature associated with CSG waters. This has helped to identify CSG potential, while at the same time assessing the chemical characteristics and water generation processes in the aquifer. Neutral pH and high alkalinity suggest that these waters could be easily managed once the sodium and chloride concentrations are reduced to acceptable levels.

Jan 1, 2005

Characterisation of Computer Printed Circuit Boards for Hazardous Properties and Beneficiation Studies

Sep 13, 2010

Characterisation of Manganese Ores

Sep 13, 2010

By P Fullagar

Automated multi-sensor core loggers (MSCL) measure petrophysical properties of diamond drill cores, including gamma density, P-wave velocity, electrical conductivity and magnetic susceptibility. A Geotek MSCL system has been used to record petrophysical data on archival drill core from Cadia East Au-Cu porphyry deposit, New South Wales, Australia, for correlation with metallurgical parameters. P-wave modulus, calculated from density and P-wave velocity, exhibits a correlation with small-scale crushability (A*b) test results, and hence offers a means for æcontinuousÆ characterisation of ore crushability at Cadia East. Magnetic susceptibility has proved to be a good indicator of alteration styles, and is a possible indicator of crushability.

Jan 1, 2009

By A E. Waltho, W J. Shaw

Predicting the physical characteristics of various ore types has for long been a difficult problem during mining. Grade control practices tend to concentrate on the chemical grade of the ore. Estimation of physical characteristics such as beneficiation behaviour is commonly limited to the simplistic application of historical averages. Large amounts of geochemical data are often gathered during the exploration and mining stages of a project, especially in ferrous and base metal deposits. In addition to the elements of principal economic interest, samples are often analysed for suites of gangue constituents to determine whether the mineralisation lies within target specifications. This multi-element data is often put to no other use than this simple chemical classification, yet it may present the geologist or metallurgist with valuable insights into the mineral content and physical characteristics of the deposit. Normative mineral estimates have been used as a method for characterising igneous rocks for almost 100 years. The method establishes and applies a set of sequential rules, by which the chemical components of a sample are assigned to mineral components. Provided that it is possible to make some realistic assumptions about the mineral species likely to be present in a rock unit or deposit and their paragenesis, this approach can be extended to a variety of mineral deposits. The geochemical data that are routinely collected when, for example, drilling iron ore and base metal deposits, can be used to derive estimates of normative mineral content. These estimates can be used to characterise physical or metallurgical aspects of the ore, such as density, beneficiation behaviour and metal recovery. This paper examines the application of normative mineral estimates to a variety of practical resource characterisation problems. The potential for predicting the lump and fines proportions of iron and manganese ores is also discussed.

Jan 1, 1999

By L. Mabiza

Keywords: Pyrometallurgy, furnace, sulphur, SO2, off-gas, Zimplats Zimplats embarked on an off-gas sampling campaign in December 2009 to characterise the concentration of SO2 in the off-gas from their 13 MW furnace. In excess of forty isokinetic samples (US EPA Method 8) were taken over seven days. The aim of the sampling campaign was to increase the understanding of factors that influence sulphur release from sulphide concentrates in an electric furnace. Specifically, detailed monitoring was conducted over various operating conditions to evaluate: ? The relationship between SO2 and feed rate (i.e. furnace power) ? The relationship between SO2 and ingress (i.e. furnace freeboard pressure) ? The impact of concentrate bed thickness on SO2 (i.e. blacktop) ? The effect of events such as tapping and converter slag return on SO2 ? The desulphurization reactions that take place in the blacktop A model was developed to predict the SO2 content in furnace off-gas for a particular set of operating conditions. In order to evaluate the impact of random, uncorrelated changes in concentrate composition, ingress and power (feed rate) on the SO2 content of the off-gas, a Monte Carlo approach was adopted whereby concentrate composition, power, and ingress were allowed to vary randomly around selected set-points. The model is primarily based on the release of ?labile? sulphur from the partial thermal dissociation of sulphide minerals with an over-stoichiometric sulphur content (e.g., Fe7S8 decomposition to FeS and S). The main findings of this work suggest that labile sulphur does not fully account for the measured SO2 content of the off-gas, and that limited oxidation of sulphides during melting also contributes to the SO2 content. Details of sulphide oxidation reactions in the furnace remain unclear, and it is currently not possible to provide a theoretical framework for the relationship between the extent of oxidation and variables such as temperature, gas composition, particle size, and residence time in the furnace black top. Through the use of the Monte Carlo model it was, however, possible to constrain the extent of sulphide oxidation to about 1%. This work has shown in practice what was expected in concept, that SO2 in off-gas is proportional to furnace power and ingress rate. The model that was developed consistently slightly under-predicts the quantity of SO2 generated. It also highlights that more work is required to better understand the analytical methods used to analyse for SO2 in off-gas.

Jan 1, 2011