metallurgium 2010 marsden rev4.pdf · 2020. 8. 20. · why is energy efficiency so important?...

Innovation, Energy Efficiency and Sustainability in Mineral Processing

John O. Marsden

International Mineral Processing Conference (IMPC) Brisbane, Queensland, Australia

September 8th, 2010

Metallurgium

Overview

• Safety share

• Innovation drivers

• Types of innovation and examples

• Energy efficiency – Copper industry example

• Managing innovation risk

• Managing the innovation process

• Conclusions

Safety Share

• A safety share can save a life…….

• Hemochromatosis

Metallurgium

Safety Share

• A safety share can save a life…….

• Hemochromatosis

– Iron overload disease

– Gene that control amount of iron body absorbs

- HFE, has two mutations C282Y & H63D1

– At risk if you have one or both mutations

– Especially prone – Caucasian males, age 30-50

– Estimated to affect 10% of population1

– Often goes un-noticed until too late

Metallurgium1 Source: Mayo Foundation for Medical Education & Research, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, NY

Safety Share

• Hemochromatosis (continued)

– Easy to detect

• Simple blood tests

– Easy to treat

• Regular blood donation

• Better living through (iron) chemistry

Metallurgium

Why Innovate?

Why Innovate?

• Value proposition• Grades declining & ore complexity increasing over time• Costs increasing over time• Metal prices increasing or decreasing over time

1 Marsden, J.O. (2009) The role of innovation in mineral processing and metallurgical plant design. Proc. SME

Symposium on Mineral Processing Plant Design, Tucson, AZ, Sept-Oct 2009. SME, Littleton, CO.

Why Innovate?

• Value proposition• Grades declining, ore complexity increasing over time• Costs increasing over time• Metal prices increasing or decreasing over time

• “Adapt or die”• Sustainable competitive advantage vs. just competitive

enough to survive?1

1 Marsden, J. O. (2004) Technology Development and competitive advantage – Sustainable or short term? Proc.

Plant Operators’ Forum 2004. Eds. Dowling, E.C. and Marsden, J. O., Society for Mining, Metallurgy and

Exploration, Inc., Littleton, Colorado. pp 127-137.

Why Innovate?

• Value proposition• Grades declining, ore complexity increasing over time• Costs increasing over time• Metal prices increasing or decreasing over time

• “Adapt or die”• Sustainable competitive advantage vs. just competitive

enough to survive?

• Technological excellence and operational excellence go hand-in-hand

Why Not Innovate?

• Innovation is hard

• Innovation involves increased risk

• At a business and operational level, often the easy way out is to do it the same as before

• Potential rewards must outweigh the risks

– Clearly communicated

Business Case for Innovation - Drivers

• Decrease capital cost • At the expense of increase in operating cost?

• Decrease operating cost• At the expense of increase in capital cost?

• Improve metal/mineral recovery• Improve product quality• Improve other attribute(s) of the process/project

• Safety, environmental, health/hygiene, social

• Combination of the above

Business Case for Innovation - Drivers

• Decrease capital cost • At the expense of increase in operating cost?

• Decrease operating cost• At the expense of increase in capital cost?

• Improve metal/mineral recovery• Improve product quality• Improve other attribute(s) of the process/project

• Safety, environmental, health/hygiene, social

• Combination of the above

All of these help us to manage and

mitigate the non-sustainable aspects

of minerals and metals extraction

Why is Energy Efficiency So Important?

• Energy accounts for 25-35% of operating costs in typical base metal mining & extraction1

• Size reduction accounts for 45% of energy used

• Mineral comminution consumes 3% of the world’s energy2

• 0.6% of this energy is used for rock breakage1

Metallurgium

1 Innovation, Research & Development Needs in Mineral Processing and Extractive

Metallurgy (2008), Report of the Canadian Mining Innovation Council2 Pease, J. (2007) Increasing the energy efficiency of processing. www.isamill.com

Types of Innovation

• Step change

• Process development, R & D

• Process selection

• Flowsheet design & configuration

• New equipment

• Incremental

• Process optimization

• Process modifications

• Equipment improvements

• Process modelling, simulation & control

Flowsheet Innovation

• Example 1 – Cerro Verde, Peru

High Pressure Grinding Rolls at Cerro Verde1

• 108,000 mtpd throughput• Four 2.4 m x 1.6 m HPGR’s• Advantages vs. SAG mills

• Greater total energy efficiency• 2.4 kWh/t vs. 12.0 kWh/t• Greater operating flexibility• Lower operating cost

• Disadvantages vs. SAG mills• Additional capital cost• Maintenance intensity

• Significant positive financial impact 1 Vanderbeek, J.L., Marsden, J.O. et al (2006) HPGR

Implementation at Cerro Verde. Proc. International

Autogenous and Semi-Autogenous Grinding Technology

2006. pp 45-61.

HPGR at Cerro Verde


• Example 2 – Tenke-Fungurume, DRC

Tenke-Fungurume Project, DRC


• Example 3 – Chino, New Mexico

Stirred Vertimills at Chino, New Mexico

Energy Efficiency in Copper Extraction

2008 Study1 - Purpose:

• To provide a high level overview of specific energy consumption for copper extraction processes from ore in the ground to final salable cathode product (i.e. mining through electro-refining or electrowinning) to;– compare process routes,

– identify and prioritize opportunities for energy reduction, and

– support the Global Mining Initiative, ICMM and sustainable development initiatives

1 Marsden, J. O. (2008) Energy Efficiency and Copper Hydrometallurgy. Proc. Hydrometallurgy 2008 Symposium in Honor of Robert S.

Shoemaker, Phoenix, Arizona. Society for Mining, Metallurgy & Exlporation, Inc., Littleton, Colorado. pp 29-42.

Energy Efficiency in Copper Extraction

Prior Studies:

• Kellogg & Henderson (1976)

• Pitt & Wadsworth, US DOE (1980)

– Best overall study historically

– Efficiency of electricity generation considered

• Ruth (1995-1998)

• BCS Inc. for US DOE (2002)

2008 Energy Study Methodology1

• Generic energy consumption model developed using averaged data from Freeport-McMoRan copper operations in North & South America

• All major sources of energy consumption considered– Electric power

– Natural gas

– Diesel and oil

– Wear steel energy equivalent

• Energy consumption estimated for each unit operation from ore in the ground through final saleable cathode product


Shoemaker, Phoenix, Arizona. Society for Mining, Metallurgy & Exploration, Inc., Littleton, Colorado. pp 29-42.

Energy Efficiency in Copper (kJ/ton)

Fragmentation

(1,380 kJ/ton)

Primary

Crushing

(7,200 kJ/ton)

Secondary

Crushing

(3,600 kJ/ton)

Ball Milling

(40,000 kJ/ton)

Flotation

(16,300 kJ/ton)

Transportation

(3,250 kJ/lb)

Smelting

(5,150 kJ/lb)

Refining

(2,700 kJ/lb)

Transportation

to Market

(180 kJ/lb)

Tertiary

Crushing

(3,600 kJ/ton)

SAG Milling &

Pebble Crush

(43,000 kJ/ton)

SAG Milling

(50,300 kJ/ton)

High Pressure

Roll Grinding

(8,700 kJ/ton)

Run-Of-Mine

Leaching

(3,600 kJ/ton)

Heap Leaching

(7,200 kJ/ton)

Solution

Extraction

(1,970 kJ/lb)

Electrowinning

Conventional

(3,670 kJ/lb)

Transportation

to Market

(180 kJ/lb)

HT Pressure

Leaching

(720 kJ/lb)

Cathode to Market

Ore in Ground

AG Milling &

Pebble Crush

(26,200 kJ/ton)

Gravity

Concentration

(~900 kJ/ton)

Oxygen

Production

2,380 kJ/lb

Ball Milling

(38,600 kJ/ton)

MT Pressure

Leaching

(720 kJ/lb)

1,230 kJ/lb

Residue Disposal

Transportation

to Market

(470 kJ/lb)

Transportation

(35,340 kJ/ton)

Incremental SX

Throughput

(180 kJ/lb)

Ball Milling

(38,900 kJ/ton)

Ball Milling

(53,900 kJ/ton)

Super-fine

Grinding

(380 kJ/lb)

Stirred Milling

(Potential)

(30,900 kJ/ton

Transportation

(17,500 kJ/ton)

Electrowinning

With AART

(2,020 kJ/lb)

Electrowinning

With AA

(3,120 kJ/lb)

Energy Efficiency in Copper (kJ/lb)

Fragmentation

(160 kJ/lb)

Primary

Crushing

(820 kJ/lb)

Secondary

Crushing

(410 kJ/lb)

Ball Milling

(4,640 kJ/lb)

Flotation

(1,860 kJ/lb)

Transportation

(3,250 kJ/lb)

Smelting

(5,150 kJ/lb)

Refining

(2,700 kJ/lb)

Transportation

to Market

(180 kJ/lb)

Tertiary

Crushing

(420 kJ/lb)

SAG Milling &

Pebble Crush

(4,930 kJ/lb)

SAG Milling

(5,750 kJ/lb)

High Pressure

Roll Grinding

(990 kJ/lb)

Run-Of-Mine

Leaching

(720 kJ/lb)

Heap Leaching

(960 kJ/lb)

Solution

Extraction

(1,970 kJ/lb)

Electrowinning

Conventional

(3,670 kJ/lb)

Transportation

to Market

(180 kJ/lb)

HT Pressure

Leaching

(720 kJ/lb)

Cathode to Market

Ore in Ground

AG Milling &

Pebble Crush

(3,000 kJ/lb)

Gravity

Concentration

(~100 kJ/lb)

Oxygen

Production

2,380 kJ/lb

Ball Milling

(4,420 kJ/lb)

MT Pressure

Leaching

(720 kJ/lb)

1,230 kJ/lb

Residue Disposal

Transportation

to Market

(470 kJ/lb)

Transportation

(4,050 kJ/lb)

Incremental SX

Throughput

(180 kJ/lb)

Ball Milling

(4,450 kJ/lb)

Ball Milling

(6,170 kJ/lb)

Super-fine

Grinding

(380 kJ/lb)

Stirred Milling

(Potential)

(3,540 kJ/lb)

Transportation

(6,670 kJ/lb)

Electrowinning

With AART

(2,020 kJ/lb)

Electrowinning

With AA

(3,120 kJ/lb)

2008 Energy Study Methodology (cont.)

• Efficiency of electricity generation1

– Direct conversion of kWh to kJ applied

– Conversion efficiency depends on energy source

• Energy for sulfur dioxide capture and acid production included in smelter energy data

• Energy for delivery of supplies and reagents not considered


Shoemaker, Phoenix, Arizona. Society for Mining, Metallurgy & Exlporation, Inc., Littleton, Colorado. pp 29-42.

2008 Energy Study - Qualifier

• This generic analysis only considered energy consumption and does not take into account process capital and operating costs, nor other factors that may be important for process development and process selection for a particular mine site or application

• Process selection decisions should not be made solely on the basis of energy consumption

SAG & Ball Milling – 90,300 kJ/ton

Fragmentation

(1,380 kJ/ton)

Primary

Crushing

(7,200 kJ/ton)

Secondary

Crushing

(3,600 kJ/ton)

Ball Milling

(40,000 kJ/ton)

Flotation

(16,300 kJ/ton)

Transportation

(3,250 kJ/lb)

Smelting

(5,150 kJ/lb)

Refining

(2,700 kJ/lb)

Transportation

to Market

(180 kJ/lb)

Tertiary

Crushing

(3,600 kJ/ton)

SAG Milling &

Pebble Crush

(43,000 kJ/ton)

SAG Milling

(50,300 kJ/ton)

High Pressure

Roll Grinding

(8,700 kJ/ton)

Run-Of-Mine

Leaching

(3,600 kJ/ton)

Heap Leaching

(7,200 kJ/ton)

Solution

Extraction

(1,970 kJ/lb)

Electrowinning

Conventional

(3,670 kJ/lb)

Transportation

to Market

(180 kJ/lb)

HT Pressure

Leaching

(720 kJ/lb)

Cathode to Market

Ore in Ground

AG Milling &

Pebble Crush

(26,200 kJ/ton)

Gravity

Concentration

(~900 kJ/ton)

Oxygen

Production

2,380 kJ/lb

Ball Milling

(38,600 kJ/ton)

MT Pressure

Leaching

(720 kJ/lb)

1,230 kJ/lb

Residue Disposal

Transportation

to Market

(470 kJ/lb)

Transportation

(35,340 kJ/ton)

Incremental SX

Throughput

(180 kJ/lb)

Ball Milling

(38,900 kJ/ton)

Ball Milling

(53,900 kJ/ton)

Super-fine

Grinding

(380 kJ/lb)

Stirred Milling

(Potential)

(30,900 kJ/ton

Transportation

(17,500 kJ/ton)

Electrowinning

With AART

(2,020 kJ/lb)

Electrowinning

With AA

(3,120 kJ/lb)

Crushing & Ball Milling – 68,300 kJ/ton

Fragmentation

(1,380 kJ/ton)

Primary

Crushing

(7,200 kJ/ton)

Secondary

Crushing

(3,600 kJ/ton)

Ball Milling

(40,000 kJ/ton)

Flotation

(16,300 kJ/ton)

Transportation

(3,250 kJ/lb)

Smelting

(5,150 kJ/lb)

Refining

(2,700 kJ/lb)

Transportation

to Market

(180 kJ/lb)

Tertiary

Crushing

(3,600 kJ/ton)

SAG Milling &

Pebble Crush

(43,000 kJ/ton)

SAG Milling

(50,300 kJ/ton)

High Pressure

Roll Grinding

(8,700 kJ/ton)

Run-Of-Mine

Leaching

(3,600 kJ/ton)

Heap Leaching

(7,200 kJ/ton)

Solution

Extraction

(1,970 kJ/lb)

Electrowinning

Conventional

(3,670 kJ/lb)

Transportation

to Market

(180 kJ/lb)

HT Pressure

Leaching

(720 kJ/lb)

Cathode to Market

Ore in Ground

AG Milling &

Pebble Crush

(26,200 kJ/ton)

Gravity

Concentration

(~900 kJ/ton)

Oxygen

Production

2,380 kJ/lb

Ball Milling

(38,600 kJ/ton)

MT Pressure

Leaching

(720 kJ/lb)

1,230 kJ/lb

Residue Disposal

Transportation

to Market

(470 kJ/lb)

Transportation

(35,340 kJ/ton)

Incremental SX

Throughput

(180 kJ/lb)

Ball Milling

(38,900 kJ/ton)

Ball Milling

(53,900 kJ/ton)

Super-fine

Grinding

(380 kJ/lb)

Stirred Milling

(Potential)

(30,900 kJ/ton

Transportation

(17,500 kJ/ton)

Electrowinning

With AART

(2,020 kJ/lb)

Electrowinning

With AA

(3,120 kJ/lb)

Crushing, HPGR & Ball Milling – 58,100 kJ/t

Fragmentation

(1,380 kJ/ton)

Primary

Crushing

(7,200 kJ/ton)

Secondary

Crushing

(3,600 kJ/ton)

Ball Milling

(40,000 kJ/ton)

Flotation

(16,300 kJ/ton)

Transportation

(3,250 kJ/lb)

Smelting

(5,150 kJ/lb)

Refining

(2,700 kJ/lb)

Transportation

to Market

(180 kJ/lb)

Tertiary

Crushing

(3,600 kJ/ton)

SAG Milling &

Pebble Crush

(43,000 kJ/ton)

SAG Milling

(50,300 kJ/ton)

High Pressure

Roll Grinding

(8,700 kJ/ton)

Run-Of-Mine

Leaching

(3,600 kJ/ton)

Heap Leaching

(7,200 kJ/ton)

Solution

Extraction

(1,970 kJ/lb)

Electrowinning

Conventional

(3,670 kJ/lb)

Transportation

to Market

(180 kJ/lb)

HT Pressure

Leaching

(720 kJ/lb)

Cathode to Market

Ore in Ground

AG Milling &

Pebble Crush

(26,200 kJ/ton)

Gravity

Concentration

(~900 kJ/ton)

Oxygen

Production

2,380 kJ/lb

Ball Milling

(38,600 kJ/ton)

MT Pressure

Leaching

(720 kJ/lb)

1,230 kJ/lb

Residue Disposal

Transportation

to Market

(470 kJ/lb)

Transportation

(35,340 kJ/ton)

Incremental SX

Throughput

(180 kJ/lb)

Ball Milling

(38,900 kJ/ton)

Ball Milling

(53,900 kJ/ton)

Super-fine

Grinding

(380 kJ/lb)

Stirred Milling

(Potential)

(30,900 kJ/ton

Transportation

(17,500 kJ/ton)

Electrowinning

With AART

(2,020 kJ/lb)

Electrowinning

With AA

(3,120 kJ/lb)

HPGR & Stirred Milling 50,000 kJ/ton

Fragmentation

(1,380 kJ/ton)

Primary

Crushing

(7,200 kJ/ton)

Secondary

Crushing

(3,600 kJ/ton)

Ball Milling

(40,000 kJ/ton)

Flotation

(16,300 kJ/ton)

Transportation

(3,250 kJ/lb)

Smelting

(5,150 kJ/lb)

Refining

(2,700 kJ/lb)

Transportation

to Market

(180 kJ/lb)

Tertiary

Crushing

(3,600 kJ/ton)

SAG Milling &

Pebble Crush

(43,000 kJ/ton)

SAG Milling

(50,300 kJ/ton)

High Pressure

Roll Grinding

(8,700 kJ/ton)

Run-Of-Mine

Leaching

(3,600 kJ/ton)

Heap Leaching

(7,200 kJ/ton)

Solution

Extraction

(1,970 kJ/lb)

Electrowinning

Conventional

(3,670 kJ/lb)

Transportation

to Market

(180 kJ/lb)

HT Pressure

Leaching

(720 kJ/lb)

Cathode to Market

Ore in Ground

AG Milling &

Pebble Crush

(26,200 kJ/ton)

Gravity

Concentration

(~900 kJ/ton)

Oxygen

Production

2,380 kJ/lb

Ball Milling

(38,600 kJ/ton)

MT Pressure

Leaching

(720 kJ/lb)

1,230 kJ/lb

Residue Disposal

Transportation

to Market

(470 kJ/lb)

Transportation

(35,340 kJ/ton)

Incremental SX

Throughput

(180 kJ/lb)

Ball Milling

(38,900 kJ/ton)

Ball Milling

(53,900 kJ/ton)

Super-fine

Grinding

(380 kJ/lb)

Stirred Milling

(Potential)

(30,900 kJ/ton

Transportation

(17,500 kJ/ton)

Electrowinning

With AART

(2,020 kJ/lb)

Electrowinning

With AA

(3,120 kJ/lb)

Energy for Size Reduction

Total Energy ComminutionMine-to-Product 1 Energy Decrease

(kJ/ton ore) (kJ/ton ore) (%)

SAG milling, ball milling 253,200 97,500 -

SAG milling, pebble crush, ball milling 246,000 90,300 7.4

AG milling, pebble crush, ball milling 228,000 72,300 25.8

Three-stage crushing, ball milling 224,000 68,300 29.9

Two-stage crush, HPGR, ball milling 213,800 58,100 40.4

Two-stage crush, HPGR, stirred milling2 206,100 50,400 48.3

1 Includes mining through final metal product2 Based on projected stirred milling efficiency

2008 Energy Study Conclusions

• Size reduction opportunities

– HPGR

– Stirred milling, with or without ball milling

• Crushed/run-of-mine ore heap leaching with SX/EW

– Approximately half the energy of milling-flotation-smelting

– But….overall resource utilization is less efficient

– 75/50% vs. 87% copper extracted

• Concentrate leaching vs. smelting

– Highly project-specific

But Where are the Next Step Changes?

• In search of the vertical Schumann plot

• Over-grinding is costing energy and recovery loss

• Under-grinding represents recovery loss

• Cycloning and screening

• Grinding media optimization

• Liberation for purpose

• Joe Pease concept1

• Targeted material characterization

• Backwards (or sideways) in process control?

1 Pease, J. (2007) Increasing the energy efficiency of processing. Xstrata Technology. www.isamill.com

Innovation Risks

• Increase in down time/decrease in availability

• Start-up ramp-up delay

• Below design throughput rate

• Below design metal/mineral recovery

• Above budget capital or operating cost

• Technical failure of process or equipment• Cost and production timing impacts

• Safety, health and/or environmental factors

Managing the Innovation Process

Stakeholder Issues for Innovation

EQUIPMENT

SUPPLIERS

CLIENT/

OWNER

EPC/EPCM

CONTRACTOR


Client/Owner

- Optimize Project NPV

(Capital & Operating Cost

Trade-offs)

- Achieve design

production rate, recovery,

availability on schedule

- Improve operability and

maintainability

- Innovate to avoid prior

design flaws

- Innovate to improve

Project NPV

EPC/EPCM Contractor

- Maximize use of

existing designs

- Increase fees,

manhours, margins

- Minimize liability and

risk of process non-

performance

- Please the client

- Maintain/enhance

reputation

Equipment Supplier

- Increase equipment and

spare parts sales

- Increase margins

- Limit warranty claims

- Develop new equipment

if there is a clear and

compelling market need

- Maintain/enhance

reputation

Conclusion 1:

Goals of

stakeholders

rarely aligned


Client/Owner

- Optimize Project NPV

(Capital & Operating Cost

Trade-offs)

- Achieve design

production rate, recovery,

availability on schedule

- Improve operability and

maintainability

- Innovate to avoid prior

design flaws

- Innovate to improve

Project NPV

EPC/EPCM Contractor

- Maximize use of

existing designs

- Increase fees,

manhours, margins

- Minimize liability and

risk of process non-

performance

- Please the client

- Maintain/enhance

reputation

Equipment Supplier

- Increase equipment and

spare parts sales

- Increase margins

- Limit warranty claims

- Develop new equipment if

there is a clear and

compelling market need

- Maintain/enhance

reputation

Conclusion 1:

Goals of

stakeholders

rarely aligned

Conclusion 2:

Innovation

process

must be

actively &

aggressively

managed


• Strategic approach• Planned and well-managed• Brainstorming sessions – formal/informal is fine• Opportunities identified, evaluated, ranked & prioritized• Risks identified and quantified• Key stakeholders involved early, build consensus

• Random approach• Un-planned, not managed (or poorly-managed)• Sporadic, ad-hoc innovation development• No formal/informal review and approval process• Options considered limited to opinions, perspective and

experience of one person, little or no peer-review• Risks not identified or poorly identified • May not address biggest opportunities


• Strategic planning is key• Benchmarking• Every innovation needs a site champion• Ensure effective continuity

• Concept inception through detailed engineering design into fully-effective commercial implementation

• Involve key client-side staff early• Involve outside expertise – Review team concept

• Brainstorming, flowsheet review, risk-rewards peer review

• Establish criteria for evaluation of options and communicate to all stakeholders

Conclusions

• Innovation is essential to manage non-sustainable aspects of mining

• Innovation involves risk – the risk must be managed

• How it is managed will determine success or failure

• Energy efficiency is a key focus of innovation

• Energy efficiency should be at the heart of corporate sustainability strategy

• Big improvements are possible with effective long term strategic approaches

Metallurgium

Where Are the Future Innovations?

• More efficient SAG mills?

• Bigger HPGR units?

• Better flotation reagents?

• Dewatering improvements?

• Tighter process control?

• ……running faster but standing still?

Metallurgium

Perhaps We Need Bigger, Bolder Goals?

• Blast-face material characterization

• Fragmentation-for-purpose, not just bulk fragmentation

• Near(er)-vertical Schumann plot products

• Multi-stage HPGR

• Stirred mills, staged grinding and staged separations

• Continuous on-line SEM for mineral separations

• On-line particulate mineral recognition (and feedback)

• Advanced sorting techniques, at fine sizes

• Combined disposal of tailings with waste rock

Metallurgium

Acknowledgements

• Freeport-McMoRan Copper & Gold, Inc. for permission to publish photographs and project-specific information

• The opinions expressed are those of the author

Metallurgium

metallurgium 2010 marsden rev4.pdf · 2020. 8. 20. · why is energy efficiency so important?...

Documents