Chemistry, Mineralogy & Liberation Characteristics of Samples of EVTAC Concentrator Unit Operations

Abstract

Minnesota taconite operations frequently encounter quality problems due to chemical-mineralogical variations in crude ore blends. Mine personnel have expressed interest in determining ore blend behaviors in unit operations of concentrators. This knowledge could assist in providing ore blends that produce more uniform and desirable final concentrates. The behavior of ores in intermediate concentrator stages may also help concentrator operators to adjust units to produce optimum results. A project proposal submitted to the Permanent University Trust Fund (PUTF) to determine chemistry, mineralogy, and indicated magnetite liberation for samples of unit operations of two EVTAC ore blends was approved. Feed, concentrate, and tailing samples from concentrator unit operations that represented two crude ore blends were received by the Coleraine Minerals Research Laboratory (CMRL) in 2001 and 2002. They were designated Set 1 and Set 2, respectively. The samples were dried, mixed, and split into portions for "As Is" Davis tube magnetic separations and other splits to be pulverized for chemical analyses and for x-ray diffraction. Chemistry was run at the CMRL and x-ray diffraction patterns were run at the University of Minnesota Shepherd Laboratory in Minneapolis. Mineral percentages in each sample were calculated from the chemical analyses on a spreadsheet in a "Quattro Pro for Windows" computer program after examining x-ray patterns to determine the minerals that were present. The spreadsheet was adjusted to comprehend minerals present and their chemical compositions, and so that the sum of mineral percentages in a sample was within 0.50 percent of the chemistry total oxides (near 100 percent). The results of “As Is" Davis tube separations are given in Table I. It shows magnetic weight recoveries and concentrate iron and silica percentages and provides an indication of the progressively improved magnetite liberation through the concentrator operations. It also shows that liberation in sample Set 2 was somewhat better than in Set 1, and, when compared to the sample chemical analyses in Table 2, separation efficiencies in concentrator units are demonstrated. Calculated mineral percentages in cobber feed samples showed that total silicates were nearly equal in Sets 1 and 2, that the hematite percentage was considerably higher in Set 1, and that total carbonate was higher in Set 2. In the final concentrates, most hematite and silicates had been rejected from both sets, but the total carbonate from Set 2 was 3.6 percent, about double that for Set 1. A set of bar graphs was made for each unit operation, which shows percentages of each mineral in the feed, concentrate and tailing. They illustrate the recovery and rejection of each mineral in each concentrator operation. Company personnel may therefore distinguish the effectiveness of each unit in recovering and rejecting particular gangue minerals.