news ltr 13

CircuitConfigurationand ExtractantFormulationConsiderationspage 5

Chile Seminar on Solvent Extraction and Mineral Processingpage 26

Responsible Care®

a Cytec Prioritypage 25

OrganizationalNewspage 27

UpcomingIndustry Eventspage 28

For Hydrometallurgy and Mineral ProcessingVolume 13 • May 2007

The Milpillas Project

MEUM™ — Cytec’s SX Design Toolpage 9

ImprovingFlotation ofCopper OxideOres with AERO®

Promoterspage 19

New CustomizedCollector Blendsfor Improved CuRecoverypage 22

China Seminar on ACORGA®

ExtractionReagentspage 24

CriticalOperationalVariables at Los Pelambrespage 15

The Milpillas Project

(page 2)

Introduction

Compañía Minera La Parreña, Grupo Peñoles, commissionedits first copper solvent extraction (SX) plant in July 2006. This extends the company’s processing expertise beyond its traditional base in flotation of primarily zinc, lead, andcopper. In addition to the usual challenges in designing andconstructing a new plant, Minera La Parrena recognized thattheir workforce would be new to SX operation. Theyaddressed this additional challenge by focusing on trainingboth before and after commissioning. This article gives adescription of the project and discusses some of the actionstaken to address the training needs.

Description of the Project

The Milpillas Project property is located 25 kilometers West of Cananea, in the state of Sonora, Mexico. This is an under-ground mine and copper is produced through leach-solventextraction-electrowinning. The plant is designed for a produc-tion rate of 65,000 tons of cathode copper per year (tpa), butit will produce 45,000 tons per year during the first stage ofoperation of the project (four years).

The project includes the development of a crushing, heap-

leach, solvent extraction and electrowinning (SXEW) plantand the facilities directly related to the process. The actualmining rate will vary depending on the grade of the ore, butthe annual mining rate is expected to be more than three million tons.

Process Description

CrushingThe crushing plant is designed to handle a variable ore feedrate. Initial crushing rates will be approximately 6.4 tons perday in the early stages of the project and will achieve its fulldesign capacity of 9.3 tons per day in the fifth year of opera-tion. The crushed ore cut-off will be one-half inch with thecoarse material sent directly to leaching and the finer materialsent first to agglomeration.

LeachingThe leach process is designed to process fine crushed ore,which has been treated with a diluted acid solution in arotary agglomerating drum. The agglomerated product isdeposited on leach-heaps by trucks and then irrigated withraffinate solution from the solvent extraction plant.

The permanent leach heaps are on a lined pad with six-meterhigh beds. The heaps are located approximately 400meters from the agglomerating drum and cover anarea of approximately 600,000 m2.

Solvent ExtractionThe SXEW operation is designed to process 1,090m3/h PLS flow with a nominal 7.0 gpl Cu grade and92% recovery target. Total production capacity is65,000 tpa of Grade A LME cathode copper. The traindesign consists of two extraction stages and two strip-ping (re-extraction) stages (E1, E2, R2, R1). The SXplant design uses Outokumpu’s Vertical Smooth Flow(VSF™) reverse flow technology.

The extraction mixers are cylindrical FRP VSF-DOPtanks. Each extraction mixer-settler has a DispersionOverflow Pump (DOP™) impeller and two in-seriesVSF-SPIROK™ variable speed agitators. Recirculationcapacity is provided for both the aqueous and the

2

Adrián Hernández Pacheco, Chief Metallurgist,Compañía Minera La Parreña, Cananea, México

Jose Luis Noyola, Plant Superintendent,Compañía Minera La Parreña, Cananea, México

The Milpillas ProjectThe Milpillas Project

Sonora Desert

SPIROK, VSF and DOP are trademarks of Outotec Oyj.

3

organic phases in both of the extractstages. The operational O/A ratio can be modified between 0.75 – 1.25:1 tocontrol phase continuity.

In the stripping stage, a DOP impellerbox is used along with a SPIROK agitator box, both the same size as the extraction mixers. In these stages,there is only an aqueous recycle.

All settlers are covered to protect themfrom evaporation and dirt. These unitshave a fire protection system with automatic detection and manual extinguishing by water.

The solvent extraction operation wascommissioned with ACORGA® M5774extraction reagent.

The raffinate flows by gravity to the raffinate tank. This tank initially has adistribution fence to reduce the flowrate. The design also includes coalescingfences and air bubbling to help coales-cence of remaining organic droplets.The organic and crud on the surface ofthe tank is periodically skimmed into acollection sump. The solution collectedcan be then taken to the crud storagetank for recovery of the organic.

The loaded organic passes to an after-settler which acts as a feed tank ofloaded organic. The incoming organicgoes through a distribution fence forentrainment and settling of any solids.The organic then exits through a dumptowards a pump well where it ispumped to the stripping stages.

The organic goes through two strippingstages. The final rich electrolyte goesthrough an after-settler and then filtersto remove any entrained organic. Thefiltered rich electrolyte is stored in the

rich electrolyte tank and pumpedthrough a plate heat exchanger, wherethe heat is transferred from the lean torich electrolyte. If necessary, a secondexchanger using hot water is used tomaintain the entering electrolyte tocleaning cells at a minimum tempera-ture of 45°C.

The lean electrolyte from the cleaningcells is mixed with the lean electrolytereturning from the commercial cells ofthe circuit and goes into the recircula-tion tank. Electrolyte water make-up isadded to this tank. After the lean elec-trolyte goes through the electrolyte heatexchanger, it is pumped to the SXplant. Electrolyte acid adjustment ismade using a static mixer in the linegoing to the second stripper (R2).

ElectrowinningElectrowinning cells are placed in twoelectric circuits of 80 cells each. Eachcircuit has two rows of 40 cells. Eachcircuit is fed by two 6-pulse half-capacity rectifiers in parallel. One circuit(East) contains 22 cleaning cells and 58circulation cells. During the first stageof the project, the West wing will haveonly 30 cells in two parallel sections of15 cells each. Provisions will be made in order to expand the west tankhouseafter a year.

Each cell has 85 anodes of a lead/calcium/tin alloy and 84 permanentstainless steel cathodes to be used forthe electro-deposition of copper.

All cells are made of polymer-ester-vinyl concrete and are fed with directcurrent in two electric circuits. From the hydraulic and electric point of view, the cells are in parallel and inseries, respectively.

The electrolyte is fed by pumps fromthe electrolyte recirculation tank to the two wings of the electrowinningtankhouse, using one line with itspump for each wing of the tankhouse.The feed tubing enters on each side ofthe installation of the washing/scrub-bing machine.

The electrolyte enters each cell in theend corresponding to the central walk-way through a distribution ring, whichhomogeneously delivers the electrolytealong the entire length of the cell.

The acid mist control is provided by ahood system including collector fun-nels, gas washing and a duct system.

Cathodes are harvested and processedby an automatic cathode strippingmachine which is part of an automaticoverhead crane, both pieces of equip-ment using Outokumpu technology.These machines harvest cathodes fromthe cells in seven-day cycles. On harvesting, the cathodes are lifted,washed with warm water and taken to the receiving rails of the strippingmachine. Cathodes are then washedagain with a hot water sprinkler. Here the copper cathodes are strippedand stacked. The cathodes are thenweighed, sampled, corrugated, strapped,and labeled for shipment on theunloading conveyor. Cathode bundlesare taken out of the electrowinningtankhouse by the forklift to the cathodewarehouse prior to shipping.

Training

Although Minera La Parreña has yearsof experience in mining and flotation,this did not extend to Cu SX. Ratherthan hire outside people to come

into the organization,there was an inten-tional focus to developthe capability internal-ly. The project management team was selected early. The group participatedregularly in industryconferences and seminars and wasactively involved with design engineers.The high level of exposure to the SXprocess developed thetechnical foundationto complement thealready strong miningoperational manage-ment capabilities.

4

37.82

3.07

PLS

Extraction Section

Stripping Section

Mixer-Settler

E1

SE = 95%OA = 1.10

Mixer-Settler

S2

SE = 95%OA = 3.20

Mixer-Settler

S1

SE = 95%OA = 3.20

4.19

2.79

1.91 gpl

6.49 gpl

6.49 gpl

Stripped(UOT=0.34)

Loaded (87.0%)

49.67 gplAdvance

PLS streams(s); Organic circuit;SE.. Stage Efficiency; OA.. Organic to Aqueous Phase Ratio; R.. PLS Recovery; UOT.. Unit Operating Transfer; 0.xxF.. Stream fraction of main flow

Electrolyte

35.00 gplSpent

1.91 gpl

Mixer-Settler

E2

SE = 95%OA = 1.10

5.60 gpl

Raffinate 0.56 gpl(R= 90.06%)

Copper in Aqueous phase

Cop

per

in O

rgan

ic p

hase

Extraction section

0.00 1.50 3.00 4.50 6.00

0.0

2.00

4.00

6.00

8.00

Copper in Organic phase

Cop

per

in A

queo

us p

hase

Stripping section

0.00 2.00 4.00 6.00 8.00

30.0

37.5

045

.00

52.5

060

.00

• A strong emphasis on commitments to technical support was included in the extractant bid package; and

• Additional SX training sessions were scheduled post-commissioning to reinforce the basics of the operation and address any new questions that came up once the operators gained some experience.

Training of the operators was also recognized as important.Although the operation is in the vicinity of the establishedCananea mining community, the operator workforce is actualdrawn from a different community, Magdalena, which doesnot have a mining operation. To address the training needs:

• SX training sessions were set up prior to commissioning;

Figure 1:Milpillas project Configuration 2E+2S

Figure 2:McCabe Thiele Diagram

5

Considerations forCircuit Configuration

and ExtractantFormulation Selection

Introduction

There are multiple configuration options to be consideredwhen designing a new SX circuit or reconfiguring an existingoperation. The choice of optimum configuration and extrac-tant is rarely a straightforward answer and requires an in-depth assessment of both capital and operating costs.

One new issue with configuration selection for Cu SX thatshould be considered is the question of ownership of circuitdesigns. Historically configurations have been freely discussedand shared within the industry. Unfortunately that practice is now changing. Over recent years a number of patents havebeen granted and new patent applications submitted whichmay influence the rights of engineering houses and operatorsto use certain designs. Due diligence is now required to not only understand the real benefits of one configuration/extractant combination over another, but also to understandthe long term commercial implications of issued and potential patents.

Cytec does not patent circuit designs. When we evaluate circuits and have reason to belief there may be an issue wewill make others aware in the initial stages of design so allkey factors can be considered when comparing circuits – notwait until configurations are locked into designs or are built.

This article shows some of the differences in performancethat would be expected for two example configurations. Inaddition to flexibility of how the solution flow is configured,the potential influence of extractant formulation on perform-ance is also highlighted.

Configuration Design Comparison

The optimum choice of circuit configuration is dependent ona number of factors, including the Pregnant Leach Solution(PLS) chemical composition and pH, electrolyte copper and acid concentration, and overall circuit operating philosophy – whether it is for maximized copper recovery or copper transfer and reagent utilization.

Once the configuration has been chosen it is important to choose the optimum reagent formulation to maximize the benefits.

2+2 verses a 3+1 circuit configuration

The 2+2 configuration shown in figure 1 is a common configuration that is still widely used today. Although it is difficult to make a blanket statement about its suitability for a given operation (full McCabe Thiele analysis should becompleted for the specified feed), this configuration tends to be favored for operations with higher grade feeds, lowerpH and/or weak electrolyte conditions that would benefitfrom an additional strip stage.

A 3+1 configuration (i.e., plant with three extract stages in series and one strip stage, as shown in figure 2) can alsoprovide positive results depending on the specific processconditions and extractant choice. However, it should benoted, that there is a patent application pending that maycover this configuration in the US as well as other countries.For reference, see US application 20040103756A1.

This application may have an impact on an operator’s abilityto use this configuration longer term – depending on whetherthe patent is eventually granted.

Matthew Soderstrom, Cytec Industries Inc., Global Applications Technology Group Manager, Phoenix, USATroy Bednarski, Cytec Industries Inc., Applications Technology Group Specialist, Phoenix, USA

“Historically configurations have been freely discussed and shared within the industry.

Unfortunately that practice is now changing.”

Table 1 shows a comparison of the recoveries achievableusing the two configurations and three different lean electrolyte conditions: (1) a relatively weak electrolyte 35 gpl Cu, 160 gpl H2SO4, (2) 35 gpl Cu, 180 gpl H2SO4, (3) and a relatively strong electrolyte 35 gpl Cu and 200 gpl H2SO4.

Modeling conditions:15 vol% ACORGA M5640 extraction reagent95% Stage Efficiency1:1 Extract O/A ratioAdvancing to 45 gpl Cu in strip

As shown, the expected difference between the configurationsis highly dependent on the specific feed conditions. Underthese conditions the 3+1 configuration shows an advantagewhen the stronger electrolyte is used (<1%). The 2+2 configuration shows the advantage when the weaker electrolyte is used (5-7%).

The expected recovery difference between the two configurations is far out weighed by the variation in PLS pH and electrolyte acid concentration.

6

36.61

1.90

PLS

Extraction Section

DESCRIPTION: ACORGA M5640

Stripping Section

Mixer-Settler

E1

SE = 95%OA = 1.00

Mixer-Settler

S2

SE = 95%OA = 2.11

Mixer-Settler

S1

SE = 95%OA = 2.11

4.03

3.15

2.38 gpl

7.13 gpl

7.13 gpl

Stripped (66.6%)

Loaded (85.6%)

45.01 gplAdvance


Electrolyte

35.00 gplSpent

2.38 gpl

Mixer-Settler

E2

SE = 95%OA = 1.00

5.00 gpl


Figure 1:2E+2E Configuration

3.82

PLS

Extraction Section


Stripping Section

Mixer-Settler

E1

SE = 95%OA = 1.00

Mixer-Settler

S1

SE = 95%OA = 2.11

6.77

1.35

4.03

7.95gpl

7.95 gpl

Loaded (95.4%)

45.03 gplAdvance


Electrolyte

35.00 gplSpent

Mixer-Settler

E2

SE = 95%OA = 1.00

5.00 gpl

3.20 gpl Stripped (95.8%)

3.20 gpl

Mixer-Settler

E3

SE = 95%OA = 1.00


Figure 2:3E+1S Configuration

PLS

Mixer-Settler

PLS

Mixer-Settler

Mixer-Settler

S1

Mixer-Settler

E1 E2 E3

RaffinateRaffinate

Advance Spent

Figure 4:Interlaced Series-parallel Configuration

7

Standard Series ParallelConfiguration vs. ‘Interlaced’series parallel

Another common configuration widelyused in the industry is a standard seriesparallel configuration as shown in figure 3. A number of operations haveconverted to this type of configurationto allow higher PLS throughput as copper grades decrease. As shown the barren organic exiting the stripstage enters the parallel stage followedby the series.

An alternative configuration to the standard series parallel is sometimesreferred to as an “interlaced series-paral-lel configuration” or an “optimumseries parallel.” In this configuration the barren organic first contacts theaqueous solution from the first extractstage, followed by the parallel stage asshown in figure 4.

This type of configuration often showsslight advantages over the standardseries parallel in terms of achieving ahigher average recovery. However, itshould be noted that this configurationmay be subject to a granted US patent.For reference see US20040261579.

This configuration may also be subjectto pending patent applications in othercountries at various stages of prosecu-tion. The longer term status of theseapplications is uncertain, particularly in Chile, where a mining company iscurrently opposing the patent.

Modeling was completed to show thedifference between the two configura-tions under the following conditions.

Modeling Conditions:20 vol% ACORGA M5640

extraction reagent95% Stage Efficiency1:1 Extract O/A ratioElectrolyte 35gpl Cu;180 gpl H2SO4

advancing to 45 gpl Cu in strip

As shown, the “interlaced” configurationachieves a higher average recovery thanthe standard series parallel circuit underthese conditions. However, by contactingthe “Interlaced” parallel feed with partially loaded organic, the ability toachieve high recovery from this stream is limited. The recovery achievable in the parallel stage will also be much moresensitive to feed changes. This tends to be more important if the raffinatefrom the parallel stage will be used for additional metal recovery (i.e. cobalt recovery).

0.93

PLS

Extraction Section


Stripping Section

Mixer-Settler

E1

SE = 95%OA = 1.00

Mixer-Settler

S1

SE = 95%OA = 1.00

6.51 5.78

8.58 gpl

8.58 gpl

Loaded (86.4%)

35.54 gplAdvance


Electrolyte

30.00 gplSpent

Mixer-Settler

E2

SE = 95%OA = 1.00

3.00 gpl PLS 3.00 gpl

3.03 gpl Stripped (64.6%)

3.03 gpl

Mixer-Settler

E3

SE = 95%OA = 1.00



Figure 3:Conventional Series-parallel Configuration

PLS pHLean Electrolyte(gpl Cu/Acid)

35/160

35/16035/16035/16035/16035/18035/18035/18035/18035/18035/20035/20035/20035/20035/200

5

55555555555555

2.0

1.71.51.21.02.01.71.51.21.02.01.71.51.21.0

92.3

90.788.782.875.794.993.792.287.581.296.395.494.290.585.2

86.9

84.982.576.068.595.193.691.685.778.497.396.495.190.784.2

PLS CuGrade (gpl)

2+2ConfigurationRecovery (%)

3+1ConfigurationRecovery (%)

TABLE 1 Expected copper recoveries

Overall the difference between the configurations for a given reagent is notgreat, and it would be possible to achievesimilar recoveries in one configurationversus the other by optimizing reagentformulation, slightly increasing reagentconcentration for a given reagent, altering the O/A ratios, or altering the solution conditions.

Formulation Considerations

For a given configuration it is necessaryto consider not only the configurationand feed conditions but also the reagentchoice. Cytec provides a full range ofcustomized formulations to optimizereagent performance considering boththe solutions being processed and thespecific configuration.

The strength of the reagent formulation(or its ability to extract copper) may be altered by choosing alternative modi-fiers, alternative oximes, or varying theratio of oxime to modifier within the formulation. The isotherms below showhow a reagent formulation can be altered to affect the extract and strippingisotherms. Both reagents contain thesame type and concentration of oximebut have different concentrations of modifier.

The higher the modifier content themore readily the formulation will strip.However a higher modifier content canalso depress the extract isotherm. Theoptimum amount of modifier willdepend on the configuration chosen.

In a 2+2 circuit, due to the use of twostrip stages, a strong reagent formulationcan be used without sacrificing strip performance. Use of a strong formulationgenerates a very steep extract isotherm,allowing higher recoveries to be8

achieved. The advantages of a 2+2 over a3+1 configuration is most evident whenthe lean electrolyte has a lower acid con-centration. At higher acid concentrationsa single strip stage may be sufficient.

In a 3+1 circuit, three extract stages in series favors the use of a weaker for-mulation over that used in a 2+2 circuit.Although the extract isotherm is slightlydepressed the extra extract stage stillallows high recovery while achieving sufficient stripping performance in a single stage.

In a series parallel configuration, careshould be taken to choose the extractantthat will provide the optimum perform-ance regarding either reagent utilizationor achieving optimum recovery of agiven stream.

In general: • more extract stages – favors a

weak formulation

• more strip stages – favors a strong formulation

• higher feed grades or lower pH – favors a strong formulation

• Lower electrolyte copper or higher electrolyte acid concentrations – favors a strong formulation

Although there are a number of configu-rations that have been considered, pilot-ed and implemented, a large portion of

Cu in Aqueous phase

Cu

in O

rgan

ic p

hase

0.00 2.00 4.00 6.00 8.00

0.0

4.00

8.00

12.0

016

.00

Additional modifier

ACORGA M5640

ACORGA M5910

Cu in Organic phase

Cu

in A

queo

us p

hase

1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.0035.0

040

.00

45.0

050

.00

55.0

0

Additional modifier

ACORGA M5640

ACORGA M5910

Figure 5:Effect of Modifier Ration on Isotherm

the optimization of a circuit is dependenton the reagent chosen.

Summary

The examples described above showsome of the differences in performancethat can be achieved by adjusting configurations and metallurgical parameters. These are just a few cases of a nearly endless list of potential combination of options.

Cytec will help design and recommendthe optimum configuration/extractantcombination, but Cytec does not patentcircuit configurations. We work togetherwith operators and engineers. Cytec willsupply reagents for any specific circuitconfiguration, but operators should befully aware of the patent landscape. It isimportant to understand the cost/riskdifferences between circuits and thepotential consequences of choosing onecircuit configuration over another – especially if intellectual property for theconfiguration is purported to be ownedby a third party.

As in most situations, the final decisionfor configuration and extractant is acombination of many factors. Theimportant point is that there are alwaysmany options available to a plant tomeet new and changing operationalchallenges. Cytec is here to help.

PLS pHPLS CuGrade (gpl)

3

33

2.0

1.71.5

91.0

89.687.8

93.4

91.288.4

89.2

87.084.4

StandardSeries

Recovery

StandardParallel

Recovery

‘Interlaced’Parallel

Recovery96.7

95.794.3

‘Interlaced’Series

Recovery

TABLE 2 Expected copper recoveries

MEUM™—Cytec’s Cu SXDesign Tool

Introduction

MEUM is a computer program that is used to design and eval-uate solvent extraction (SX) circuits. The program was devel-oped by Cytec and has been used to model copper solventextraction circuits for over twenty years. MEUM is the end-user version of Cytec’s internal MINCHEM® modeling pro-gram (MINCHEM End-User Module). The ability of MEUM togenerate quick, accurate answers has made it a valuable assetfor evaluating new-plant circuit design; examining existingplant reconfiguration options; and optimizing operatingparameters existing operations.

MEUM is the most flexible tool available to provide accurateanswers to how an SX plant will operate under proposed con-ditions as well as answer how well an existing operation isrunning under current conditions. The experience of Cytecspecialists in working with SX circuits and the MEUM pro-gram together provide a powerful tool to create valuable solu-tions to design and operational challenges.

How MEUM Works

MEUM’s capabilities build on flow sheet modeling techniquesof standard chemical engineering process development software. However, the primary exception is the focus that was placed on the user-interface of the program. TheMimic Diagram portion of the program allows a user to make changes to a diagram of the circuit and visually seechanges to the number of stages and distribution of flows.There are two modes of operation, which include circuitanalysis and design.

Calculations

At the heart of the program is a flowsheeting executive thatallows connection of process operating units by process flowstreams. Resulting circuits are solved by iterative calculationprocedures. In the MEUM system there are process models forthe common operating units encountered in SX plants –mixer-settlers, blenders (tanks), and splitters (divided flows).The system is open-ended. Additional models for operationsas yet unforeseen could be added to the system as required.This has been simplified by the use of object oriented programming techniques. As with all process modeling systems the process streams define compositions, flow ratesand state data.

In petrochemical modeling systems the phase equilibriumrelationships are computed by thermodynamic models (e.g.equations of state, activity coefficients, electrolyte theory).None of the standard methods used in petrochemicals model-ing are directly applicable to SX systems which simultaneous-

ly combine strong, partially dissociated aqueous electrolytestreams with organic solutions that also contain partially dissociated species. MEUM has a number of methods for handling these systems including a predictive method developed by, and proprietary to, Cytec. This method canpredict the distribution of copper between pregnant leachsolution (PLS) and electrolyte solutions for most SX extrac-tion reagents over a wide range of concentrations. MEUM can also handle lab generated isotherm data.

Interface

The user does not communicate directly with the flowsheet-ing executive. Instead an interface has been written whichsimplifies the setting up of the operating units and their asso-ciated process streams. The current MS-Windows based inter-face was written in 1994 and has been refined continuouslysince then so as to accommodate changing operational strate-gies in the industry. With this interface the user constructs amimic diagram on screen through direct interaction. Withsimple mouse clicks and/or data entry the user can designateparallel feeds, splitting and recombination of streams andoperating parameters for the processing units. The systemthen constructs the flowsheet using this diagram allocatingthe appropriate number of process streams and their connec-tions. Though not applicable to MEUM, there are other inter-faces to the executive that can allow for non-interactivemodel building from an external file.

Operating Modes

MEUM models SX processes in two modes, design and analy-sis. In design mode the user may specify either phase ratios(i.e. the relative flow rates of organic and aqueous streams tooperating units or cascades) or desired terminal compositions(i.e. raffinate and advance electrolyte compositions). Theunknowns are then computed by the system. In analysismode selected process measurements may be entered directlyonto the mimic diagram and, provided that a required mini-mum of such data have been entered, the system computesthe remaining compositions and operating efficiencies of allunits in the circuit.

MEUM Capabilities

MEUM has successfully modeled a range of circuits from thesimplest to the most complex circuits seen in the copper SXindustry to date. Some features that can be combined to pro-vide numerous possible circuits are highlighted in figures 1and 2 below. Figure 1 shows a diagram for a simple 2-extract,1-strip circuit. Figure 2 shows a circuit that can be consideredusing several of the design features of MEUM.

9

Keith Cramer, Cytec Industries Inc., Marketing Manager, West Paterson, NJ, USA

10

2.27

PLS

Extraction Section

Stripping Section

Mixer-Settler

E1

SE = 95%OA = 1.00

Mixer-Settler

S1

SE = 95%OA = 2.50

4.63

2.69 gpl

7.35 gpl

7.35 gpl

Stripped(UOT = 0.31)

Loaded (88.3%)

46.67 gplAdvance


Electrolyte

35.00 gplSpent

2.69 gpl

Mixer-Settler

E2

SE = 95%OA = 1.00

5.00 gpl


DESCRIPTION: Simple Cu SX Circuit with ACORGA extractant

Figure 1Simple 2E+1S Circuit

0.81

PLS

Extraction Section

DESCRIPTION: Complex Cu SX Circuit with ACORGA extractant

Stripping Section

Mixer-Settler

E1

SE = 95%OA = 1.00

Mixer-Settler

S2

SE = 95%OA = 2.50

6.51 5.97

4.85

9.80 gpl

Loaded (70.6%)

49.24 gplAdvance


Electrolyte

35.00 gplSpent

Mixer-Settler

S1

SE = 95%OA = 2.50

49.24 gplAdvance

35.00 gplSpent

Mixer-Settler

E2

SE = 95%OA = 1.39

5.00 gpl PLS 2.00 gplPLS 3.00 gpl

4.10 gpl4.10 gpl (40%)Stripped(UOT = 0.23)

(60%)

4.10 gpl

Mixer-Settler

E3

SE = 95%OA = 1.00



Raffinate 0.81 gpl(0.40F)

(0.20F)

1.18

4.10 gpl

9.80 gpl(50%)(50%) 9.80 gpl

Figure 2Complex Circuit Incorporation Many Possible Design Features

Included in the theoretical circuit shown in Figure 2:• E1 aqueous advance has a bleed of this aqueous going

out of the SX circuit at a proportion of 0.4 times the flow and at the concentration of 0.81 gpl Cu.

• An additional 3-gpl PLS feed is added into the E2 mixer at 0.2 times the new aqueous flow (1-0.4=0.6 times original E1 flow rate).

• The combined E1 aqueous advance and additional E2 PLS have a flow-weighted average Cu concentration of 1.18 gpl Cu entering into the E2 mixer.

• The E2 O/A ratio at the new flow rate is 1.39/1. • The raffinate leaving E2 has 0.12 gpl Cu. • The total flow-weighted average for the E1 and E2 cascade

is 92.4% — this takes into account the different PLS grades and different Cu concentrations of aqueous streams leaving this SX cascade unit.

• E3 is a 1-extract cascade with a separate 2 gpl PLS feed. • A bleed of barren organic flow is taken from the barren

organic tank, sent through E3, and then re-combined with the rest of the organic flow before entering E2. The combined organic Cu values have a flow-weighted average Cu value of 4.85 gpl Cu entering into the E2 stage.

• Two strip stages are shown, each with their own organic and lean electrolyte feed streams. The organic and electrolyte are evenly split between the circuits so they effectively act as twin strip stages. The electrolyte could flow in series between the strip stages as well.

11

4.98 2.32

PLS

Extraction Section

Stripping Section

Mixer-Settler

E1

SE = 95%OA = 3.00

Mixer-Settler

S2

SE = 95%OA = 1.10

9.42

5.06

36.51

4.248.46

12.76 gpl

Loaded (76.1%)


Electrolyte

35.00 gplSpent

Mixer-Settler

S1

SE = 95%OA = 1.10

45.00 gplAdvance

Mixer-Settler

E2

SE = 95%OA = 3.00

15.00 gpl

3.69 gpl Stripped(UOT = 0.30)

3.69 gpl

Mixer-Settler

E4

SE = 95%OA = 3.00


PLS 14.99 gpl

Mixer-Settler

E3

SE = 95%OA = 3.00


12.76 gpl

Configuration PLS 1 % Cu Recovery PLS 2 % Cu Recovery Avg. Recovery

2E+2E+2S

1E+3E+2SInterlaced 2E+2E+2S*

86.0

90.193.6

95.5

85.693.5

90.8

87.893.5

Split organic 2E+2E+2S Extract O/A 1.5/1

Split organic 2E+2E+2S Extract O/A 3/12 trains 2+1

91.7

94.694.0

* See Outokumpu patent application WO/02/092863; May 2001 priority date. 30v/o ACORGA® M5640; PLS 15 gpl Cu, pH 2, extract O/A 3/1; Lean Electrolyte 35/190, 45 gpl advance

91.7

94.694.0

91.7

94.694.0

Figure 32E+2E+2S

Table 1Example Circuit % Cu Recovery Values

One may rightly ask, why would I possibly design such acomplex circuit? Obviously this type of circuit is not meantfor most operations, but it does highlight options that can be simulated. One or more of these possible features can beemployed, especially for operating plants that need to reconfigure their circuits to adapt to changing conditions, or for new operations that may need to deal with multiple,complex PLS streams and specific requirements for raffinate streams.

Benefits for Circuit Design and Optimization

One of the best features of MEUM is its speed in accuratelypredicting the performance of nearly any circuit one canimagine. This allows someone to quickly explore those “off-the-cuff” ideas that some day could form the first seeds of thenext innovation in SX plant design. Quantifying the benefitof changes is always necessary when justifying projects,whether large of small. MEUM provides this necessary data.In addition, the display and multiple report formats provideexcellent tools for augmenting the technical discussions with-in a report by adding visual explanations to a presentation.

Examples of Circuit Design Comparisons

The following range of configurations was evaluated in

less than twenty minutes using the MEUM program. What is presented is one evaluation measuring the % Cu recoveryfor a two PLS stream circuit under different configurations.One could also complete the analysis to show the differencein extractant concentration to achieve the same % Cu recovery target. Which of these configurations is best? That depends largelyon the other considerations for the specific operation. If oneis dealing with existing mixer/settlers, there may be limita-tions on flow capacity between different units that may makeone of the split-organic circuits better. If it is a new plant, theindependence of two separate trains may be better. Also, byvarying flow distributions within each configuration, onemay also be able to determine each proposed circuits opti-mum operation set-up, which may provide an even strongerrecommendation. The final interpretation is typically a com-bination of several considerations.Each configuration could also be modeled with one less stripstage (except 2E+1S). They would each require approximately10 v/o more extractant to achieve a similar Cu recoveryunder these high Cu PLS conditions. This gives a quick indication of the benefit of the extra capital expense for anadditional strip mixer/settler as compared to running at higher reagent concentration (higher operating costs).

12

4.67 1.94

PLS

Extraction Section

Stripping Section

Mixer-Settler

E1

SE = 95%OA = 3.00

Mixer-Settler

S2

SE = 95%OA = 1.14

9.03

5.04

36.54

7.978.12

12.47 gpl

Loaded (74.4%)


Electrolyte

35.00 gplSpent

Mixer-Settler

S1

SE = 95%OA = 1.14

45.00 gplAdvance

Mixer-Settler

E2

SE = 95%OA = 3.00

15.00 gpl


3.69 gpl

Mixer-Settler

E4

SE = 95%OA = 3.00


PLS 14.99 gpl

Mixer-Settler

E3

SE = 95%OA = 3.00


12.47 gpl

Figure 41E+3E+2S

2.84

PLS

Extraction Section

Stripping Section

Mixer-Settler

E1

SE = 95%OA = 3.00

Mixer-Settler

S2

SE = 95%OA = 1.07

9.81

5.07

36.48

5.145.76

13.04 gpl

Loaded (77.8%)


Electrolyte

35.00 gplSpent

Mixer-Settler

S1

SE = 95%OA = 1.07

45.00 gplAdvance

Mixer-Settler

E2

SE = 95%OA = 3.00

15.00 gpl


3.69 gpl

Mixer-Settler

E4

SE = 95%OA = 3.00


PLS 5.33 gpl

Mixer-Settler

E3

SE = 95%OA = 3.00


PLS 15.00 gpl


13.04 gpl

Figure 5Interlaced 2E+2E+2S

13

PLS

Extraction Section

Stripping Section

Mixer-Settler

E1

SE = 95%OA = 1.50

Mixer-Settler

S2

SE = 95%OA = 1.09

6.40

5.07

36.50

6.40

12.86 gpl 12.86 gpl

Loaded (76.7%)


Electrolyte

35.00 gplSpent

5.31 5.31

Mixer-Settler

S1

SE = 95%OA = 1.09

45.00 gplAdvance

Mixer-Settler

E2

SE = 95%OA = 1.50

15.00 gpl

3.69 gpl3.69 gpl (50%) (50%)


3.69 gpl

Mixer-Settler

E4

SE = 95%OA = 1.50


Mixer-Settler

E3

SE = 95%OA = 1.50

PLS 15.00 gpl


12.86 gpl

Figure 6Split Organic 2E+2E+2S; Reduced Flow Within Each Extract Unit

PLS

Extraction Section

Stripping Section

Mixer-Settler

E1

SE = 95%OA = 3.00

6.91 6.91

11.18 gpl 11.16 gpl

Loaded (50.3%)


Electrolyte

35.00 gplSpent

2.21 2.21

Mixer-Settler

S1

SE = 95%OA = 2.12

45.00 gplAdvance

Mixer-Settler

E2

SE = 95%OA = 3.00

15.00 gpl

6.44 gpl6.44 gpl (50%) (50%)


6.44 gpl

Mixer-Settler

E4

SE = 95%OA = 3.00


Mixer-Settler

E3

SE = 95%OA = 3.00

PLS 14.96 gpl


11.17 gpl

DESCRIPTION: Split Organic 2E+2E+2S;Same Flow Within Each Extract Unit;Increased in Strip

Figure 7Split Organic 2E+2E+2S; Same Flow Within Each Extract Unit; Increased in Strip

14

2.73

PLS

Extraction Section

Stripping Section

Mixer-Settler

E1

SE = 95%OA = 3.00

Mixer-Settler

S1

SE = 95%OA = 2.13

5.49

4.88 gpl

9.57 gpl

9.57 gpl


Loaded (57.1%)

45.00 gplAdvance


Electrolyte

35.00 gplSpent

4.88 gpl

Mixer-Settler

E2

SE = 95%OA = 3.00

15.00 gpl


Figure 82E+1S, 2 Trains

Evaluating Results

The MEUM program can be used to provide answers to manytypes of questions depending on how you want to compareyour options. How will we need to change the reagent con-centration to maintain 90% Cu recovery as the PLS Cu gradechanges? If we do not adjust the extract O/A ratio to compen-sate for variation in the PLS grade, how will our percent Curecovery change? The experience of the Cytec representativeworking with you for this evaluation can help shape how youattack your evaluation. Some times the evaluation of results is straight forward, but atother times many secondary issues should also be considered.The technical representative can help you assess the second-ary performance properties that may be affected by the differ-

ent options you evaluate (i.e., effect on Cu:Fe selectivity whenthe percent copper loading of your loaded organic begins to drop).

Accessing Capabilities

The benefits of Cytec’s MEUM program can be accessed in many ways. Direct collaboration can achieve the mostpowerful results, with Cytec working with you, trying differ-ent ideas. For those with need for more frequent access to theprogram capabilities, either due to the stage of the project ornumber of projects worked on in an office, licensing agree-ments can be developed and training set up to allow directaccess to MEUM. As always, MEUM is available for installa-tion at all of our customers’ facilities.

Cytec encourages open discussions on circuit

configurations. Contact Cytecto discuss how Cytec’s MEUM

program can help you.

Cytec encourages open discussions on circuit

configurations. Contact Cytecto discuss how Cytec’s MEUM

program can help you.

15

Figure 1Location

Figure 2Molybdenum Plant

Control of Critical Operational Variables at the Los Pelambres

Molybdenum Plant Mr. Jorge Cortínez, Leadership Area Metallurgist, Pelambres Molybdenum Plant, Chile

Mr. Sergio Arancibia, Plant Superintendent, Pelambres Molybdenum Plant, ChileMario Palominos, Latin-American Technical Manager MP, Cytec Industries Inc., Santiago, Chile

Introduction

A management tool called CriticalProcesses Display (CPD) was developedat Los Pelambres in order to achieveoperational control and continuousimprovement goals. The system devel-opment and goals are described. Theinfluence of identifying and managingseven Critical Operating Variables(COVs) for the recovery of molybde-num is reviewed. Successful develop-ment and implementation of the CPDsystem and managing the COVs has ledto an improvement in the operatingstability of the molybdenum plant.

Operation Background

Los Pelambres Mining Company islocated 200 km North of Santiago,

Chile and is owned by AntofagastaMinerals (60%) and a Japanese consor-tium made up of Nippon Mining,Mitsubishi Materials, Marubeni,Mitsubishi and Mitsui (40%). Copperand molybdenum concentrates are produced from the porphyry ore bodywith annual production of 319 kton of copper and 11 kton of molybdenum.The plant processes 135,000 tons per day, with average head grades of 0.8% Cu and 0.03% Mo. The pri-mary copper species are chalcopyrite,chalcocite and bornite.

The mineral is extracted from an openpit mine and then carried by conveyorsto the concentrating plant. A collectiveconcentrate is obtained and which islater carried to the molybdenum plant.

The molybdenum plant produces twoproducts: a copper concentrate, whichis carried through a 120 km ore duct tothe shipping port (Puerto Chungo), anda molybdenum concentrate which is

Cu -Mo TK 10 Concentrate

1 Vertimill

150 HP

Cu TK 12 Concentrate

TK – 13

TK – 13

18 Rougher Cells

Agitair, 300 ft3

.

18 Cells 1st

Cleaning

Agitair, 300 ft3

.

TK – 55

75` THICKENER2 W 1 - 2 Cells

Wemco, 300 ft3

.

TK – 10

TK – 10

TK – 56

50’ THICKENER

TO

LEACHING

FILTRATION

PLANT

2

16

Analysis of Selective Recovery ICG of the Rougher Flotation sub-process

In this sub-process, highlighted in green in Figure 2, the col-lective concentrate coming from TK-10 is stored in tanks.Sulfuric acid is added to condition the pulp. The pulp is fedto a dilution tank to adjust the pulp to the optimum % ofsolids for floatation. The pulp is then taken to a conditioning

tank, where the Cu (NaSH) depressor reagent is added. Thenthe pulp enters a distribution box feeding the conventional cells for the separation of Mo from the Cu concentrate.

Thirty nine (39) operational variables were established for thissub-process, seven (7) of which were defined as “critical”, andassigned the following defined control limits:

Critical Operating Variables Unit Lower Control Limit Upper Control Limit

Discharge Solid Percentage

Plant Feed TMSAcidulation Tank pH

%

TMS/h—

60

6

75

1467

pH inside rougher cells

O2 Content in NitrogenReduction potential in rougher cells (ORP)

—

%mV

8

-550

9

0.8-480

% 40 45Solid percentage in rougher feed

Table 1Critical Operating Variables

20

0

20

40

60

80

100Events Quality

30

2005 2006

40 50 60 70 80

Results

Plant personnel conducted a study during 2005 and part of2006.The number of times that a determined value was

COV 1: Percentage of solids inTK010 discharge

As a result of the low re-circulatedand/or fresh water exchange, therewas a smaller percentage of solidsin the year 2006 than in 2005.

The difference is caused by themaintenance of inventories below2000 dry metric tons.

observed (number of events) was plotted on a graph for each of the operational critical variables. The results areshown below:

later treated at the leaching plant in order to reduce its con-tent of copper and obtain a molybdenum concentrate of56%.

The molybdenum plant processes the copper-molybdenumcollective concentrate coming from the concentrating plant,which has already been prepared with sodium sulphydrate ina nitrogen atmosphere at an approximate pH of 7. Its flow-sheet can be observed in Figure 2. The green area correspondsto the rougher flotation, a sub-process selected to develop thestudy described below. Cytec’s CYQUEST® 740 sulfidizingagent is used in the operation.

Critical Process Display at the Molybdenum Plant

Process control is a key management process at LosPelambres. The stabilization of the operating processes con-siders monitoring and controlling a number of variables,including: 1) human dependability (commitment, empower-ment, communication); 2) development of work teams; 3)process dependability (operation within standards, under-

standing of processes and procedures); and 4) equipmentdependability (use strategies and maintenance effectiveness).The key performance targets for the molybdenum plant are:

1. To keep a consistent minimum inventory of dry metric tons of collective concentrate

2. Molybdenum Recovery > 94.5% 3. NaHS Consumption < 4.5 kilograms per ton

collective concentrate 4. Molybdenum in final concentrate > 56%.

Critical Processes Display (CPD) consists of 5 steps:

1. Identification of management key indicators 2. Identification of Critical Operational Variables (COV’s) 3. Relationship between CO’s critical operations and

the operational ranges of the COV’s. 4. Navigation board5. Operational and maintenance strategies.

17

2005 2006

50

0

20

40

60

80

100Events Quality

100 150 200

COV 2: Plant Feed

This graph shows a higher plantfeed rate in 2006, closer to theupper control limit.

2005 2006

5.00

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140Events Quality

6.00 7.00 8.00 9.00

COV 3: pH in acidulation tank

Data obtained are within the control limits.

A more acidic pH has been used in 2006 in order to deactivate residual reagents coming from the concentrating plant.

2005 2006

5.00

0

20

40

60

80

100

120Events Quality

6.00 7.00 8.00 9.00 10.00 11.00 12.00

COV 4: pH inside the rougher cells

A more acidic pH is being used in2006 in order to neutralize the effectof the calcium ion (lime) comingfrom the concentration plant withthe purpose of improving the recov-ery of molybdenum in this stage.

18

2005 2006

0.00

01020304050607080

Events Quality

0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00

2005 2006

-700.0

0

50

100

150

200Events Quality

-600.0 -500.0 -400.0 -300.0 -200.0 -100.0 0.00

COV 5: Oxygen content inNitrogen

The percentage of O2 in 2006 washigher than in 2005 due to a higherconsumption of N2 as a result of ahigher treatment of the plant (lowerefficiency of the nitrogen plant).

This caused a higher consumptionof NaHS.

COV 6: Oxygen reduction potential in rougher cells

In 2006 a higher oxygen reductionpotential was observed, associatedwith a lower pH inside the roughercells. The values obtained are within the control limits.

COV 7: Percentage of solids inrougher feed:

The distribution (not shown) was consistent between years andwithin control limits.

When comparing and analyzing the COV’s affecting the molybdenum recovery ICG, it can be concluded that the majority of the seven variables defined as critical are within the control limits established for the process.There are also some external variables affecting the recoveryof the selective plant, such as the granulometry of the collective concentrate. Although granulometry can not be manipulated at the molybdenum plant, it must be controlled and information given to the the concentratingplant. This generates joint strategies between both units.

Conclusions

As a result of this study, the staff became more involved inthe process. It was possible to unify the operational criteriaand to establish periodical meetings for the revision of thestrategies. The process of developing the operational targetsand monitoring critical operating variables helped fosterplant stability which enabled the plant to meet its goals.

This paper has been based on a presentation made at the First International Conference of Mineral Processing Plants,Antofagasta, Chile, July 28th, 2006

19

Improving Flotation of Copper Oxide Ores by Application of AERO®

XD900 and AERO XD902 PromotersMichael Peart, EMA Technical Manager, Mineral Processing, Cytec Industries BV., Bradford, UK

Summary

This article offers suggestions for theeffective application of AERO XD900and XD902 promoters for use in copperoxides flotation. The work suggests thatthe effectiveness of these two productsmay be enhanced following sulfidiza-tion. All of the work has been done onmixed sulfide/oxide ores, however theresults could potentially have applica-tion in all copper oxide ores where theoxide minerals are discrete, rather thanlow Cu content minerals such as cuprif-erous goethite1.

It has been demonstrated that use ofAERO XD900 promoter on its own canbe effective but tends to require veryhigh dosage. In addition to cost consid-erations, higher dosages of AERO XD900promoter have the disadvantage thatthey can create excessive foaming andan over-stable froth (excessive foamingcan be minimized with the use of AEROXD903 promoter). Concentrate filtrationalso tends to be very difficult.

However, application of AERO XD900promoter following CPS (controlledpotential sulfidization)2 allows a majorreduction in dosage and tends to resultin improved recovery and superior con-centrate grade. Use of xanthate along-side NaSH and AERO XD900 promoteror AERO XD902 promoter is also benefi-cial, as well as is proper conditioningtiming.

Testwork Procedure

The bulk of this work involved takingthe rougher tails after flotation of sul-fides from a mixed sulfide/oxide orefrom two customers. Work was conduct-ed on both underground and open pitores. Plant slurry samples were screenedto remove trash and +500 micron mate-rial, then split into charges using arotary splitter. Tests were done usingboth 2.5l and 4.5l cells on Denver D12machines. Tests were conducted at natu-

ral pH (typically pH 8.0 – pH 8.5) aftertest work at pH 9.0 and pH 9.5 (withNaOH) showed no advantage. Flotationtimes up to 24 minutes were investigat-ed, but the bulk of the work used anoverall flotation time of 12 minutes.

Only the test work for Customer 1 wasconducted on ore milled in the laborato-ry. In this case, bulk sulfide/oxiderougher concentrates were produced.Concentrates and tails were filtered,dried, weighed and prepared. Mostassays were performed by an interna-tional met lab.

In the final sets of work, tails assayswere done in duplicate, sending the second sample under different nomen-clature. Further repeats were conductedwhen these did not match.

Notes:AS Cu is acid soluble copper. For most of this work, acid was 5%H2SO4, agitated at room temperaturefor 20 minutes.

AI Cu is acid insoluble copper which generally refers to the sulfides, metallic Cu and low solubility minerals such as chrysocolla. AI Cu can be determined by aqua regia dissolution of the residue from AS Cu dissolution, but is more

often determined by difference, TCu – ASCu.

T Cu is total copper, usually analyzedfollowing dissolution with boilingaqua regia.

Results and Discussion

Performance of AERO XD902 promoteron its own and with NaSH

The first set of tests shown below was run on an underground ore whereAS Cu levels are typically greater-than0.8% AS Cu.

In this case, minimal AS Cu wasachieved with dosages of AERO XD902promoter between 48 g/t and 170 g/t.Only by using 320 g/t of AERO XD902promoter, on its own, did we start toachieve respectable AS Cu grade/recov-ery. The addition of 30 g/t SiPX along-side low dosages of AERO XD902 pro-moter did not improve performance.Much better performance was seenwhen the reagent was used after sul-fidization, with and without xanthate.

In a second series of tests on this under-ground ore, higher dosages of AEROXD902 promoter were used.

Sulfide Rougher Tails AS Cu Grade vs Recovery

AS Cu Grade (%)

AS

Cu

reco

very

(%

)

20

This time, high AS Cu grade/recovery was only achieved using 550 g/t AERO XD902 promoter, with 350 g/t onlyachieving 22% AS Cu recovery. The performance of 550 g/tAERO XD902 promoter alone was matched using 370 g/tNaSH + 250 g/t AERO XD902 promoter and by 550 g/t NaSH + 230 g/t AERO XD902 promoter. (There was an outlier,however, with lower-than expected recovery in the repeat ofthe test using 350 g/t NaSH + 230 g/t AERO XD902 promoter.)

A subsequent set of tests was run on an open pit ore. The objective was to look at NaSH, PAX and AERO XD900promoter requirements. Results for AS Cu recovery and AS Cu grade have been plotted as AERO XD900 promoter dosage versus NaSH dosage.

Note: four tests with same recovery obscure each other.

This set of results appeared to be quite a setback as it seemedthat use of NaSH + PAX alone could achieve high AS Curecovery. Use of AERO XD900 promoter managed to yield small increases in recovery but with a major drop inconcentrate grade.

Looking more closely at the results, however, it was seen thatNaSH + PAX appeared to hit a maximum at 50% AS Curecovery. Increasing NaSH from 700 g/t to 1400 g/t and PAXfrom 105 g/t to 170 g/t did not improve AS Cu recovery. Inthe tests without PAX, increasing the dosage of AERO XD900promoter from 75 g/t to 120 g/t did achieve significantly

higher AS Cu recovery at equivalent concentrate grade at 700g/t and 1400 g/t NaSH. It was again clearly demonstrated thatlittle AS Cu recovery could be achieved with low dosages ofAERO XD900 promoter alone.

Performance of AERO XD900 promoter with NaSH and PAX.

As the previous tests had demonstrated the value in havingNaSH and PAX present with AERO XD902, the following setof tests was run on the second customer’s open pit ore todetermine if AERO XD900 promoter added any value whenused in conjunction with these products.

In all tests 700 g/t NaSH was added and conditioned for fourminutes prior to addition of the collector. Duplicate testswere run where 100 g/t PAX was added to the first rougher.High AS Cu grade concentrate was produced at high grade inthe first rougher but little additional AS Cu recovery wasachieved in the second rougher. Repeating the test (PAX onlyto first rougher) but adding 70 g/t AERO XD900 promoter(black line) or an additional 200 g/t NaSH + 70 g/t AEROXD900 promoter (pink line) both brought about an addition-al 15%-20% AS Cu recovery gain to final conc. Use of 70 g/tAERO XD900 promoter (no PAX) gave superior results to thePAX only test but optimum results were seen when both PAXand AERO XD900 promoter were added to the first rougher.Unfortunately no test was run where PAX was added to firstand second roughers.

Effect of AERO XD900 Promoter Conditioning Time.

Since high energy conditioning is necessary for use of AEROXD900 promoter and similar formulations in Kaolin process-ing, the question arose as to whether additional conditioning

time might improve its effectiveness for oxide copper flota-tion. Tests were run on second customer’s open pit ore using70 g/t AERO XD900 promoter at three conditioning times:one minute, four minutes and 12 minutes in 1) tests withonly 700 g/t NaSH added, 2) tests with 700 g/t NaSH then100 g/t PAX.

Second Customer Underground Sulfide Tails FlotationAS Cu Grade vs Recovery

AS Cu grade (%)

Second Customer AS Copper Recovery vs AERO XD900 Dosage

AERO XD900 Dosage (g/t)

Second Customer AS Copper Grade vs AERO XD900 Dosage

AERO XD900 Dosage (g/t)

Second Customer Flotation of Sulfide AS Cu Grade vs Recovery

AS Cu Grade

AS

Cu

reco

very

(%

)

AS

Cu

reco

very

(%

)

AS

Cu

Gra

de (

%)

AS

Cu

Reco

very

(%

)

21

Use of PAX alongside this relatively low dosage of AEROXD900 promoter proved beneficial. Conditioning for 12minutes was deleterious to performance, with superiorperformance being achieved at one minute and four minutes conditioning.

What Did Not Prove So Effective

Emulsification: It was thought that because the AEROXD900 promoter and AERO XD902 promoter moleculeswere relatively water insoluble, use of an emulsifier mightaid its distribution through the pulp (Cytec’s Reagent S-9947). Test results showed no metallurgical advantage to adding an emulsifier. It would appear that the AEROXD902 promoter disperses adequately on its own.

Use of CYQUEST® 3223 dispersant: It was thought thatuse of CYQUEST 3223 dispersant might aid the use ofAERO XD900 promoter by blocking adsorption on to surfaceof slimes and dispersing slimes from the surface of the oxidecopper. Two sets of test work were run using CYQUEST 3223dispersant and in neither set was any advantage seen. Thismay have been because a dispersant was not necessary onthis ore, or it may have been due to CYQUEST 3223 depress-ing the AS Cu to some degree as a result of the high dosage.

Ammonium sulfate: In a paper by David Bastin of LiegeUniversity, Belgium (Ref 4) it was shown that use of ammoni-um sulfate significantly boosted AS Cu recovery in CPS withxanthate. This method was mentioned in a much older paper(Ref 5), which describes use of ammonium sulfate as a meansof controlling the harmful effect of overdose of sulfidizer.Testwork was run at relatively low sulphidiser dosages of 500g/t to 1000 g/t and comparative tests performed with andwithout 800 g/t ammonium sulphate. Results showed areduction in performance when the ammonium sulphate waspresent . The reason no advantage was seen in the use ofammonium sulphate was probably because the levels of NaSHused were well below the threshold level where ammoniumsalts start to show an advantage by control of excess hydro-sulfide.

Recommendations

• AERO XD900 and AERO XD902 promoters can aid recovery when used with xanthate (PAX or NaBX), following sulfidization.

• Adequate conditioning after NaSH addition is necessary to avoid excessive frothing.

• Very slimy ores can make use of AERO XD900 and XD902 promoters difficult, due to generation of an over-stable froth. Look at either de-sliming or use of polyphosphate type dispersants.

• Experiment with conditioning time of AERO XD900 and XD902 promoters, but 1-3 minutes is a good starting point.

• To maintain Cu recovery through cleaning, it is necessary to maintain the cleaning stages at similar potentials to the roughing stage.

• For a mixed copper sulfide/oxide ore, it may be valuable (when feasible) to clean the sulfide and oxide concentrates separately, as kinetics of oxide flotation are likely to be slower.

• As AERO XD900 and XD902 promoters tend to solidify at lower temperatures (<17°C), try to do test work at the temperature of the plant pulp.

References

1. Lee J.S, Nagaraj D.R. and Coe J.E., 1998, Practical Aspects of Oxide Copper Recovery with Alkyl Hydroxamates, Minerals Engineering vol 11 no 10 p929 – 939.

2. Nagaraj D.R. and Gorken A., 1991, Potential controlled flotation and depression of copper sulfides and oxides using hydrosulfide in non-xanthate systems, Canadian Metall. Quarterly Vol 30 No 2 pp 79 – 86.

3. Kasanda J.K., Mpashi P. and Mumba C., 1998, Laboratory Optimisation of the Underground Copper Ore Flotation Recovery at Second customer Concentrator, 100th AGM of the CIM, Montreal.

4. Bastin D., Frenay J. and Philippart P., 2003, Ammonium Sulfate as Promoting Agent of the Sulfidization Process of Cu-Co Oxide Ores From The Luiswishi Deposit (DRC), Handout from Poster session at XXII IMPC Cape Town 2003.

5. Zhang W. and Poling G.W., 1987, Ammonium Sulfate as Activator in Sulfidized Xanthate Flotation of malachite, unknown.

References of Interest to Enthusiastic Oxide Floaters

Hallimond tube only: Salmon-Vega S., Herrera-Urbina R.,Sanchez-Corrales V.M., Robles-Vega A., 2003, Floatability of oxidised copper, oxidised chalcocite and copper slag using octyl hydroxamate as a collector, 2003, Cobre 2003Volume III.

On use of ammonium sulfide: Kongolo K., Kipoka M.,Minanga K. and Mpoyo M., 2003, Improving the efficiency of oxide copper-cobalt ores flotation by combination of sulfidisers, Minerals Engineering 16, pp 1023 – 1026.

Potential use of aldoximes for oxide copper flotation: Das K.K., Pradip and Suresh B., 1995, Role of MolecularArchitecture and Chain Length in the Flotation-Separation of Oxidised Copper-Lead-Zinc Minerals Using Salicylaldoximederivatives, XIX IMPC.

An early paper on use of sulfidization, xanthate + AEROXD900 promoter and AERO XD902 promoter: Evrard L. andDe Cuyper J., 1975, Flotation of copper-cobalt oxide ores withalkyl hydroxamates, Proc 11th IMPC Cagliari.

Suggested use of imidazolines for malachite flotation:Ackerman P.K., Harris G.H., Klimpel R.R. and Aplan F.F., 1999, Use of Chelating Agents as Collectors in the Flotationof Copper Sulfides and Pyrite, Minerals and Metallurgical processing Vol 16, No 1.

Second Customer Flotation of Sulfide Tails AS Cu Grade vs Recovery

AS Cu Grade

AS

Cu

reco

very

(%

)

22

New Customized CollectorBlend Shows

Improved Cu Recovery

New Customized CollectorBlend Shows

Improved Cu RecoveryMichael Peart, EMA Technical Manager, Mineral Processing, Cytec Industries BV., Bradford, UK

Summary

Using its proprietary FLOTATIONMATRIX 100™ process for mineralflotation, Cytec has developed a num-ber of new reagents that are deliveringmeasurable improvements over existingtechnology.

Two such novel collector formulations,AERO® XD905 promoter and AERO®

XD904 promoter, have shown consider-able promise in rejecting Acid Soluble(AS) Cu and recovering Acid Insoluble(AI) Cu at one of Cytec’s concentratorcustomers. These two products havebeen tested on underground ore andopen pit ore circuits. AERO XD905 pro-moter is the optimum product for useon the underground ore circuit as it

shows a significant reduction in AS Curecovery while maintaining AI Curecovery. On the open pit ore circuit,AERO XD904 promoter is recommend-ed since it demonstrated a potential 2-3% improvement in AI Cu recovery.

AERO XD905 and AERO XD904 are spe-cialty collector blends containing newlycommercialized AERO XD5002 collectoras a base. Proper formulation blendingbased on this collector has created prod-ucts that can significantly reducereagent consumption while improvingperformance related to selectivity,recovery, and/or grade for target orebodies. One example of the benefitsthat can be achieved from the new col-lector in a properly formulated productis highlighted below.

Test Work Procedure

Laboratory flotation tests were per-formed on samples of underground oreand open pit ore slurries that were sam-pled from the conditioning agitatorsprior to reagent addition. Tests were runusing the Denver Laboratory FlotationMachine in a 4.5 liter cell. In some testssingle rougher concentrates were takenover six minutes, while in others con-centrates were taken over two and sixminutes cumulative.

Results and Discussion

Although many tests were conducted,only results of the more relevant testswill be mentioned.

Underground Ore

Figure 1Roughers AS Cu Grade Recovery

Figure 2Roughers AI Cu Grade Recovery

00 1 2 3 4

STD = 120 g/t SiPXAERO XD905 8 g/tAERO XD905 14 g/tAERO XD905 22 g/tAERO XD905/SiPX 8/30 g/tAERO XD905/SiPX 14/30 g/tAERO XD905/SiPX 22/30 g/t

Cum AS Cu Grade (%)

Roughers AS Cu Grade Recovery

Cum

Rec

over

y (%

AS

Cu)

2468

1012141618

STD = 120 g/t SiPXAERO XD905 8 g/tAERO XD905 14 g/tAERO XD905 22 g/tAERO XD905/SiPX 8/30 g/tAERO XD905/SiPX 14/30 g/tAERO XD905/SiPX 22/30 g/t

3010 15 20 25 30 35 40

Cum Grade (% AL Cu )

Roughers AI Cu Grade Recovery

Cum

AL

Cu R

ecov

ery

(%)

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

23

In the first day of test work on under-ground ore, AERO XD905 promoter wastested at 8 g/t, 14 g/t and 22 g/t bothalone and with 30 g/t SiPX.Comparison was made to the standardof 120 g/t SiPX. Three standard testswere run and the data in the graphshown above is for the average of thosethree standard tests.

Results were extremely encouraging,with the 22 g/t AERO XD905 promotergiving almost equivalent AIgrade/recovery to the standard whilerecovering much less AS Cu (9.9%

versus 13.6%). Although the tests usingAERO XD905 promoter with xanthateonly recovered equivalent AI Cu to thestandard, they did so at much lowerdosage (14 g/t + 30 g/t replacing 120 g/t SiPX).

In the second day of test work onunderground ore, a single test withAERO XD905 promoter at 25 g/t wascompared to three standard tests at 120g/t SiPX. Note: head grade was extreme-ly low on this day at only 1.1% AI Cu,resulting in low grade concentrates.Only a single concentrate was taken soresults have not been plotted.

In this test the AERO XD905 promoterachieved higher AI Cu grade/recoverythan the combined standards(86.9%/13.7% vs 85.3%/12.77)although the reduction in AS Cugrade/recovery was not as large as hadbeen seen earlier (14.7%/1.95% versus15.9/2.10%).

Overall AERO XD905 promoter appearsto be very effective for flotation of theunderground ore. It appears to showselectivity against AI Cu while main-taining AI Cu grade/recovery.

Collector

SiPX 120 3.7 5.8 30.4 24.2 69.7 85.6 3.3 2.9 10.1 13.6

AERO XD905 8 1.6 3.7 31.9 21.3 32.5 49.5 2.0 1.94 2.5 5.4

AERO XD905 14 2.5 5.0 34.6 23.4 54.3 74.3 2.1 2.1 4.1 8.4

AERO XD905

AERO XD905/SiPX

AERO XD905/SiPX

AERO XD905/SiPX

22 3.0 5.4 34.8 24.8 64.7 84.3 2.4 2.3 5.8 9.9

8+30 4.0 6.0 27.2 22.2 69.3 85.1 3.2 2.8 10.4 13.6

14+30 4.3 6.6 25.7 20.5 69.0 85.8 3.1 2.7 10.7 14.6

22+30 4.8 7.1 24.7 20.3 72.5 88.2 3.1 2.7 11.8 15.4

Dosage(g/t)

C1Cumwt %

C2Cumwt %

C1Cum

% AICu

C2Cum

% AICu

C1CumAICurec %

C2CumAICurec %

C1Cum

%ASCu

C2Cum

%ASCu

C1CumASCurec %

C2CumASCurec %

Table 1Day 1 Results, Underground Ore

Table 2Day 2 Results, Underground Ore

Collector

SiPX 120 7.0 12.8 84.9 2.10 16.1

AERO XD905 25 7.1 13.7 86.9 1.95 14.7

Dosage(g/t)

Concwt %

Conc% AICu

ConcAICurec %

ConcASCurec %

Conc %ASCu

Open Pit Ore

Seventeen different collectors were com-pared to the standard on open pit orewith optimum results being achievedwith AERO XD904 promoter. AEROXD904 promoter at 35 g/t was com-pared to the standard of 80 g/t SiPX.AERO XD904 promoter was tested induplicate and the standard in triplicate.

Since only a single concentrate wastaken, results have not been plotted.AERO XD904 promoter gives a signifi-cant improvement in AI Cu recovery(82.2% vs 79.1%) although at a lower

24

concentrate grade (25.2% vs 29.9%). Concentrate AS Cugrade was lower with AERO XD904 promoter than the stan-dard (1.2% vs 1.4%), although recovery was slightly higherdue to the higher mass pulled (9.4% vs 8.8%).

Next Steps

After the blend is developed and results confirmed in controlled laboratory testing, the next step is verification of performance in commercial trials.

For this example, a short plant test was recommended usingAERO XD905 promoter on the underground ore circuit to

determine likely reduction in AS Cu flotation. Alonger trial of AERO XD904 promoter would benecessary on the open pit ore circuit to determineimprovements in AI Cu recovery. Actual triallengths/protocols can be determined only after an analysis of current plant data using REFDIST(Cytec’s proprietary software for preparation ofrelevant plant trials and data evaluation).

More details on the statistical approaches used to develop the custom blend and evaluate testresults are available from your Cytec MiningChemicals representative.

Collector

SiPX 80 2.6 29.9 79.1 1.38 8.8

AERO XD904 35 3.2 25.2 82.2 1.20 9.4

Dosage(g/t)

Concwt %

Conc% AICu

ConcAICurec %

ConcASCurec %

Conc %ASCu

Table 3Open Pit Ore Results

China is becoming an increasingly important market for copper solvent extraction with steady demand for copper solvent extraction reagents from many new and existingoperations. Recently Chinese companies and engineeringdesign houses (notably Jinchuan, among others) havebecome very active globally, with a particular emphasis inAfrica and the Asia Pacific, to support China’s rapid growthand need for raw materials.

In an effort to enhance the exchange of solvent extractionprocess information in the region, Cytec first sponsored aseminar in China with Beijing Hydrometallurgy in 2001. The third seminar was held in Beijing, China, October 31 –November 2, 2006.

Approximately 60 delegates representing mainly customers,engineering houses, universities and industry associationswere in attendance. The seminar provided the opportunityfor Cytec further enhance its presence in the region.

• Christopher Ferguson, Global Sales Director, provided an introduction to the Cytec MEP organization.

• Damien Shiels, Regional Manager – Asia Pacific, presented Cytec’s new range of modified aldoxime ketoxime ACORGA copper extractants.

• Keith Cramer, Global Marketing Manager MEP, presented an update on the global copper SX market and the use of auxiliary equipment in the Cu SX process.

• Pete Tetlow, International technical Specialist, led the workshop in the use of the MEUM™ program. A practical demonstration on the use and benefits of Cytec’s MEUM SX process modeling software was presented to support the use of ACORGA extraction reagents at customer operations.

Cytec personnel reviewed case studies based on real plantdata submitted from customers at the seminar. These casestudies provided a powerful demonstration of the capabilitiesof the MEUM program in the process of flow sheet develop-ment and design or in improving the performance of existingACORGA copper solvent extraction operations.

Professor Yang of Beijing Hydromet also presented papers that covered the topics of heap leach and concentrate leach,rounding off a comprehensive program that was appreciatedby the delegates. Professor Zhu Tun of the Institute of ProcessEngineering, Chinese Academy of Sciences facilitated manyactive discussions at the seminar.

The seminar in Beijing culminated with a day trip to the Great Wall of China that provided a good opportunity to thank the delegates for their valuable time in attending the seminar.

We look forward to the next Cytec and BeijingHydrometallurgy seminar in 2008.

Damien Shiels, Asia-Pacific Regional Sales Manager, Cytec Australia., Melbourne, Australia

Seminar in China on ACORGA®

Extraction Reagents

25

What is Responsible Care?

Responsible Care is a global chemical industry performanceinitiative that is implemented in the United States throughthe American Chemistry Council. It is a set of guiding principles intended to improve industry performance in safety, occupational health, protection of the environment,product stewardship and security. The guiding principles of the Responsible Care initiative are applied to R&D andmanufacturing operations, product transportation and distribution, as well as to the use and ultimate disposal of our products (and related wastes) by our customers.

To improve performance, companies use an integratedResponsible Care and ISO environmental management system called RC14001. This system helps us quantify theextent to which we are operating in accordance with ourSafety, Health & Environmental policy.

Cytec has committed to implementing the RC14001 management system globally over the next two years. We are doing this to demonstrate our commitment to protectingthe health and safety or our employees, the people we dobusiness with and the communities in which we operate.

Why Do We Take Responsible Care Seriously?

Responsible Care is more than a set of principles and declarations. It involves implementing world-class management systems that have been verified through independent auditors; tracking performancethrough established environmental, health, safety and security measures; and extending these best practices to our business partnersthrough the industry supply chain.

A Responsible Care management system supportsCytec’s company values, specifically those making safety our first priority and protecting the health and well-being of the communities in which we operate. Moreover, Responsible Care can help us improve our operating performance by requiring us to implement systems and procedures to better manage oursafety, health and environmental performance.

We expect that implementing Responsible Care management systems will improve our performance in the following ways:

• Working toward zero injuries, zero harmful releases and zero serious process incidents

• Reducing our overall environmental foot-print (reducing energy use, greenhouse gas emissions and waste)

• Developing sustainable products and technologies that generate sustainable business advantage for Cytec

• Ensuring compliance with all regulations

Responsible Care in Mining – Projects with customers:

1. Working with mining customers on managing transportation risk

2. Working with customers to ensure that our employees are trained and follow Mine Safety and Health Association (MSHA) requirements.

3. Customizing products to increase extraction rates from low grade ore bodies, thereby reducing environmental impact

4. Helped a customer based in Chile to reduce sulfate discharge in wastewater

5. Cytec’s plant in Antofagasta, Chile was recently recertified for ISO-14001 and OSHAS 18000

6. A recent plant expansion at Mount Pleasant, Tennessee (where Cytec’s solvent extraction products are manufac-tured) enabled 75 percent reduction in air emissions, while increasing overall production capacity

7. Mt. Pleasant, Tennessee was certified for RC14001 in late 2006; certification at Atequiza, Mexico is expected in early 2007

Cytec Makes Responsible Care®

a Corporate-Wide Priority

Cytec Makes Responsible Care®

a Corporate-Wide Priority

Annual Responsible Care Metrics Goals

Recordable injury frequency(number of recordable injuries per 100 employees) < 1.0

Responsible Care process incidents 0

Total accidental releases > 1 lb. 10% Improvement

Permit excursions (number of times we exceed permit limit) 10% Improvement

Long-Term Responsible Care Metrics Goals

Recordable injury frequency < .5 by 2010

Global hazardous air pollutant releases 20% improvement from2002 baseline by 2007

Energy (BTUs), energy efficiency (BTUs/lb.) Set long-term goal for2012 by end of 2006

Greenhouse gas emissions (CO2 and other equivalents) Set global 2012 GHG reductiontarget for Cytec by end of 2006

Waste (hazardous waste) Set global 2012 targetsby end of 2006

26

Cytec held its annual seminar for customers of metal extraction and mineral processing regeants in Iquique, Chilein October 2006. It was the ninth event with sessions onACORGA extraction reagents, and third event with sessionson mineral processing reagents.

The seminar, attended by 120 people, included customersfrom leading mining companies throughout the region aswell as representatives of universities, research institutes, engineering companies, and consultants.

“We had two simultaneous sessions, one on technical flotation and the other on solvent extraction,” said J.M.Rodriguez, Mineral Processing Regional Sales Director forLatin America. “These topics were well received, and we were pleased that this event continues to be so successful.”

Cytec introduced a new series of solvent extraction reagentsto the Latin American market. The MAK series of ACORGA®

extractants is being promoted to maximize efficiencies in solvent extraction plants. These reagents, which are modifiedaldoxime:ketoxime blends, can improve copper recovery significantly and are effective over a wide range of conditionsas compared to unmodified aldoxime:ketoxime blends.

After the presentation on the Flotation Matrix 100™ process,customers also shared cases describing the benefits from thisprocess, J.M. said.

“We had excellent participation by our customers, and it wasa great opportunity to see them outside of their regularresponsibilities,” said J.M. He concluded by saying that the2007 seminar is already planned for October 18 and 19, andit will be an opportune time to be with many Latin Americancustomers representing both the Solvent Extraction andMineral Processing areas.

Cytec Chile Mining Seminar for SolventExtraction and Mineral Processing

Juan Manuel Rodriguez, Regional Sales Director, Mineral Processing, Cytec Industries Inc., Santiago, Chile

Osvaldo Castro, Regional Sales Manager, Metal Extraction Productions, Cytec Industries Inc., Santiago, Chile

Cytec Chile Mining Seminar for SolventExtraction and Mineral Processing

27

OrganizationalNews

Alan Fischer joined Cytec as AccountManager Eastern Australia and PapuaNew Guinea, Mineral ProcessingChemicals.

Alan joins Cytec from BuckmanLaboratories where he was employedas Area Manager for New South Wales.His main responsibilities included new business development in theSydney paper industry, managingpaper division sales growth in NewZealand and acting as ProductManager for a new biocide in Australia and New Zealand.

David Holt joined Cytec as AccountManager Asia, Mineral ProcessingChemicals.

David joins Cytec from Mobil Oilwhere he worked as Site Manager at PT Freeport, Indonesia. His mainresponsibility was to manage the fuel and lubricants contract betweenFreeport and Mobil.

Joanne Blair joined Cytec as AccountManager Western Australia, Mineral Processing Chemicals.

Joanne joins Cytec from SouthernCross Operations (St Barbara Ltd)where she held the position of Senior Metallurgist. Her main respon-sibilities included daily and monthlymetallurgical accounting, workingwith supervisors and operators toensure efficient operation of the plant,and mentoring graduate metallurgists.

ALANFISCHER

DAVIDHOLT

JOANNEBLAIR

Sean Armstrong, based out of RenoNevada, recently joined Cytec as a Sales Representative for the Minerals Processing group in Western United States.

Sean has worked in the mining industry for 27 years. He has experience in North America, Mexico, the Dominican Republic,India, Kazakhstan, Nicaragua, Russia and Chile. Most recently, Sean managed the metallurgical laboratory at Newmont Mining Co. in Carlin, Nevada, just prior to starting with Cytec.

Dominic Norman joined Cytec as aSales Representative with Cytec’s mineral processing group working in the Western United States andCanada. Dominic earned a BSc. in Environmental Geology at RoyalHolloway University of London before getting his MSc. in IntegratedEnvironmental Studies withEngineering from the University of Southampton. He then left England and moved to the west coast of the US to work as a geologistin the geoscience industry.

Drew Lewing joined the MineralProcessing Group in 2006 as theGlobal Sales Director based at Cytec’s headquarters in West Paterson,NJ. Drew has been with Cytec for 18 years in a variety of Sales andMarketing roles serving the Paper,Textile, Pharma, Petrochemical,Electronic Chemical and generalchemical industries.

Drew has a Bachelor of Science inChemical Engineering from BucknellUniversity in the States and an MBAin International Marketing from NIMBAS in the Netherlands. Most of Drew’s commercial experience has been global in nature includingassignments outside the US in Franceand Canada.

SEANARMSTRONG

DOMINICNORMAN

DREWLEWING

Cytec reinforces our commitment to the mining industry by expanding our global team.Our most recent group of new employees bring a depth of industry experience

and technical knowledge to our organization.

Cytec Solutions will be published approximately twice per year for the international mining industry. Editorial content will include: industry news; information on progress particularly in hydrometallurgy and mineral processsing; relevant scientific articles; and news on the Mining Chemicals business of CytecIndustries Inc.

Editor: Keith CramerDesign/Layout: Creative Marketing Group, Inc.

Please direct any questions, comments, or requests for correctionsor changes to the distribution list to Keith Cramer:Phone (U.S.) +1 973-357-3276email: [email protected]

© 2007 Cytec Industries Inc.All Rights Reserved.Printed in U.S.A.

IMPORTANT NOTICEThe information and statements herein are believed to be reliable,but are not to be construed as a warranty or representation forwhich we assume legal responsibility or as an assumption of a duty on our part. Users should undertake sufficient verification and testing to determine the suitability for their own particular purpose of any information, products or vendors referred to herein. NO WARRANTY OF FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE IS MADE. Nothing herein is to be taken as permission,inducement or recommendation to practice any patented invention without a license.

Trademark NoticeThe ® indicates a Registered Trademark in the United Statesand the ™ or * indicates a Trademark in the United States.The mark may also be registered, the subject of an application for registration or a trademark in other countries.

Corporate HeadquartersCytec Industries Inc.

Five Garret Mountain Plaza

West Paterson, NJ 07424 USA

Tel: +1 973 357-3193

US Toll Free: +1 800 652-6013

Fax: +1 973 357-3117

North American Regional OfficeCytec Industries Inc.

3259 E. Harbour Dr., Suite 100

Phoenix, AZ 85034 USA

Tel: +1 602 470-1446

Fax: +1 602 470-5030

South American Regional OfficeAvda. Andrés Bello 2687

Torre Pacífico, Piso 23

Las Condes, Santiago, Chile

Tel: +56 2-560-7927

Fax: +56 2-560-7902

Europe, Africa and the Middle EastRegional OfficeCytec Industries BV

Abenbury Way

Wrexham Industrial Estate

Wrexham LL13 9UZ

United Kingdom

Tel: +44 1274-762215

Fax: +44 1274-762288

Asia Pacific Regional OfficeCytec Australia Holdings Pty Ltd.

Suite 1, Level 1, Norwest Quay

21 Solent Circuit

Baulkham Hills, NSW 2153

AUSTRALIA

Tel: +61 2-9846-6200

Fax: +61 2-9659-9776

MCT-1137

UpcomingIndustry Events

May 8-9, 2007Cobalt ConferenceShanghai, China

May 16-18, 2007HydroCopperVina del Mar, Chile

May 21-26, 2007ALTA 2007 Nickel-Cobalt,Copper & Uranium Conference Perth, Australia

August 25-27, 2007Copper 2007Toronto, Cananda

September 13-14, 2007Hatch Conference on HydrometallurgyAmanzingwe, South Africa

October 18-19, 2007Tenth ACORGA Extractant Users Seminar, Third MineralProcessing Seminar, Iquique, Chile

Trade Shows

Customer Seminars

news ltr 13

Documents