Underground Preconcentration by

Ore Sorting and Coarse Gravity

Separation
B Murphy1, J van Zyl2 and G Domingo3
ABSTRACT
In a narrow vein mining scenario, employing preconcentration technology underground not only
results in reduced transport and handling costs but may allow alternative mining methods to be
implemented, improving overall productivity. Using processing technology underground is not
a new concept with underground crushing and screening operations being quite widely utilised.
With advances in processing technology over recent years, there are now a number of robust
processing methodologies in existence that are capable of performing separation of ore and waste
at a relatively coarse size. Many of these technologies are readily adaptable to the underground
environment and if employed could result in a number of cost and productivity benefits.
Assessment of the ores suitability for preconcentration technology is the first step in harnessing
these potential savings. This paper discusses how coarse ore sorting and gravity separation could
be employed underground in a narrow-vein scenario and details the test work that is required at
the front-end of a project to see if this potential exists.

INTRODUCTION
Ore sorting and coarse gravity concentration are two of the
oldest processing methods employed in the mining industry to
beneficiate ores. With the rise of fine processing technologies
they have suffered a loss in popularity. With the orebodies
now being of higher complexity and lower grades, coupled
with increased commercial and environmental pressures,
an opportunity to revive these techniques to improve overall
mine profitability has arisen.
Direct smelting of ores to produce metals was once common
practice, however, declining head grades and orebodies that
are increasingly difficult to mine has given rise to the need to
concentrate the ore prior to this final stage of processing. With
the advent of the flotation process and CIL/CIP in the early
20th century, there has been a push towards fine (<150 m)
processing for many gold and base metal ores. Reducing the
whole of the ore to a fine size is energy intensive, so decreasing
the amount of material that needs to be taken to a fine size
can lead to major energy savings. Adding an additional
preconcentration step and rejecting waste material prior to
final size reduction can lead to major savings. A graphical
representation of these steps in flow sheet development can
be seen in Figure 1.
Traditionally, most of the ore processing operations at any
mine site are conducted in processing facilities located on the
surface. Given this paradigm it is surprising to note that it
is not uncommon for the first stage of processing in mining
operations to be conducted underground. There are, however,
exceptions to this rule (see Dominy et al, 2009; Klein et al,

FIG 1 - Evolution of ore processing.

2003; Ilgner, 2001). Primary crushing and screening of
ore is commonly conducted underground in many modern
operations to assist with ore transportation to the surface, so
why should adding a coarse separation stage underground be
a major leap of faith?
Advances in the robustness and modularisation of processing
technology (Hughes and Cormack, 2008; Dominy et al, 2009)
over recent years have made it possible not only for separation
processes to be conducted underground but for the processing
plant to fit into conventional development spaces without the
need for additional excavations. They are also capable of being
moved as the drive advances to maximising the benefits of
preconcentration.
This paper outlines how underground preconcentration
using ore sorting and coarse gravity processing can be
used to maximum benefit in the context of a narrow-vein
mining scenario. It also details the steps required at the
mine development stage to assess the suitability of these
technologies.

1. MAusIMM, Technology Leader Flotation, Outotec, Units 6 and 7, 305 Montague Road, W est End Qld 4101. Email: ben.murphy@outotec.com
2. MAusIMM, Product Manager Mining, Steinert Australia, 14 Longstaff Road, Bayswater Vic 3153. Email: vanzyl@steinert.com.au
3. Process Engineer, Gekko Systems, 320 Learmonth Road, Ballarat Vic 3121. Email: gerardd@gekkos.com
NARROW VEIN MINING CONFERENCE / PERTH, WA, 26 - 27 MARCH 2012

B MURPHY, J VAN ZYL AND G DOMINGO

PRECONCENTRATION
Preconcentration is a process where waste material is rejected
allowing down-stream processing to be undertaken on a
smaller, richer stream of material. Eliminating waste material
at the coarsest size possible maximises these benefits. As
orebodies become more and more complex, the infrastructure
and operating cost associated with fine whole ore processing
becomes prohibitive rendering some projects unviable.
Adoption of a preconcentration process that can be conducted
at a coarse size thus reducing the amount of material that
needs to be taken to a subsequent fine processing stage may
tip the balance in favour of project going ahead or even extend
the life of an established operation.
Benefits of preconcentration have been reported widely
across the literature including Gray et al (2011), Denysschen
and Wagner (2009), Bearman (2007) and Klein et al (2003).
These benefits include: reducing cut-off grade, increasing
mining rate, reducing overall plant footprint, extending mine
life, reducing processing costs and reducing energy usage. The
benefit obtainable depends in large on the nature of the ore,
particularly on its ability to be effectively separated from the
gangue minerals present at a coarse size.

PRECONCENTRATION IN A NARROW-VEIN
SCENARIO
There are a number of advantages to performing
preconcentration underground in a narrow-vein mining
situation. These include:
Reduction in total comminution energy requirements
(lower carbon footprint) as some of the waste is removed
at a coarser size early in the process route.
Reduction in tramming and hauling costs both
underground and prior to surface processing, due to lower
tonnage being moved. Part of these savings will be in the
energy required during transport. Others will be from
reduced wear and tear on equipment.

The ability to benefit from use of alternative ore

transportation technologies such as hydraulic hoisting
(Francis, Turner and Larder, 2005).
Ability to change to more productive bulk mining
techniques, as waste can be rejected earlier on (with
obvious impacts on mine life and cut-off grade).
Improvement in mine call factor, due to smaller stockpiles
and potentially fewer stockpiles on route to plant.
Potential for improved ground control and decrease in
rock-bursts, due to the production of an improved backfill
(Bamber et al, 2004).
Potential for improved backfill availability, due to less
reliance on surface plant and shorter supply lines (Thomas,
2006).
Reduction in surface footprint of processing facilities.
Ultimately, the benefit of underground preconcentration is
to shift the cost structure of the operation to a more favourable
regime. To maximise benefit from preconcentration
in a narrow-vein scenario the best place to install the
preconcentration plant is underground, as close to the mining
face as possible, while including a backfill system as part of
the plant. An example of such a plant can be seen in Figure 2.
Studies undertaken by various groups, Bamber et al (2005)
and Hughes and Cormack (2008), have estimated that by
employing underground preconcentration methods, there is
a potential savings of 20 - 40 per cent of mine operating costs.
To maximise the benefit derived from underground
preconcentration it is necessary to have the plant as close to
the mining face as possible. To maintain this throughout the
life of mine the plant would need to be movable and ideally
not need any special excavation prior to installation. It is
thus important to select a processing technology that can be
successfully modularised, yet maintain its full functionality.
Klein et al (2003) notes that while technologies such as
dense medium separation have high separation efficiency
they require a significant amount of space for media recovery
circuits so they may not be ideal for this application. Simple
robust technologies such as ore sorters and the In-Line

FIG 2 - Conceptual underground preconcentration system (The Gekko Python).

2

NARROW VEIN MINING CONFERENCE / PERTH, WA, 26 - 27 MARCH 2012

UNDERGROUND PRECONCENTRATION BY ORE SORTING AND COARSE GRAVITY SEPARATION

Pressure Jig (IPJ) are robust and require little external

infrastructure to operate, which makes them ideal for
underground preconcentration.
Lloyd (1979) notes that due to increasing underground costs,
as mines go deeper there may be merit sacrificing some process
efficiency (eg recovery loss) to reduce the more significant
costs associated with mining and haulage. Alternatively if
the economics of the project are recovery dependant it may
be possible to combine technologies to maintain efficiencies
by harnessing the best separation properties of these
technologies. Sorting followed by coarse gravity separation
are two technologies that could be potentially applied in this
scenario. Another example is in Gekkos modular underground
processing plant which utilises coarse gravity separation and
coarse flotation technology to maximise valuable recovery.
The complementary nature of these technologies can be seen
in Hughes, Donaldson, and Murphy (2010) where the IPJ
performs gravity separation on the material in the circulating
load of a fine crushing circuit and any material that is too fine
for efficient separation by the IPJ is scavenged by flotation.
Even if the ore should prove amenable to preconcentration
a number of challenges still exist in combining mining and
underground processing operations. Many of these issues
relate to the integrating of the processing facilities into the
mine development and production schedules. Studies have
been conducted by Klein et al (2003), Morin, Bamber and
Scoble (2004) and Bamber et al (2005) addressing many of
these issues by simulation of the integrated process. Lane,
Fountain and LaBrooy (2008) make the observation that if
wet processing methods are to be employed, the availability
and management of water underground could be a major
issue in some mines. None of the issues highlighted are
insurmountable, especially when the potential payback of
underground preconcentration is considered. It should be
noted that these challenges will all require an interdisciplinary
approach by mining, metallurgical and geological personnel
to reach a successful resolution.

PRECONCENTRATION TECHNOLOGY
AND TESTING
Ultimately the mineralogy of an ore determines the potential
for preconcentration and the suitability of a processing
technology. There are a number of technologies that are
suitable for coarse preconcentration including: dense medium
separation, jigging, ore sorting, coarse flotation, magnetic
separation and size separation. As pointed out by Klein et al
(2003) the mineralogy of the ore determines the potential
for preconcentration as well as the most suitable processing
technology. Examination and testing of an ore for its potential
for coarse preconcentration is essential for identifying the
optimal mine-to-mill flow sheet. It should be noted that coarse
preconcentration techniques may not be suitable for all ores.
Ideally, the first step of any metallurgical test work regime
is to look at the ore and see if there are any obvious properties
that can be exploited. The potential for cross disciplinary
cooperation to add benefit to the project exists, as typically
the best source of information on whether or not there is
potential for coarse preconcentration is the project geologist.
Discussing the different ore domains and the occurrence of
the valuables (and indeed gangue) in these might highlight
not only potential for coarse processing but may also point to
the most likely route. For instance, if gold is being targeted
and it is situated in a quartz vein that is located in a shale host
rock, a sorting application to reject any of the shale hanging
wall or foot wall mined from the quartz may have potential
to provide an upgrade at a coarse size. The likely next step
NARROW VEIN MINING CONFERENCE / PERTH, WA, 26 - 27 MARCH 2012

would be to assess if sufficient liberation exists to allow clean

separation of the quartz and dolomite after a coarse crush.
The current trend in metallurgical testing routes involve
grinding the ore fine (<150 m) before testing beings. Once this
has been undertaken the sample suitable for preconcentration
is gone and the opportunity to test beneficiation processes at
a coarse size is lost. It is thus essential that the early round
of metallurgical testing includes some assessment of the ores
ability to be preconcentrated prior to the ore being crushed
and ground down to finer sizes. Even if the sample is limited
performing size-by-grade analysis (after visual inspection) on
the ore at various crush sizes may show that there is sufficient
liberation to justify further coarse separation test work.
Another issue is getting sufficient sample at a coarse size to be
representative of the domains of the orebody that are going to
be treated. It is advisable that the sample size and the grade
of minerals that are being chased be considered to ensure that
sampling theory is adhered to. Once again working closely
with the projects geologists is essential to ensuring that
the maximum value and information can be extracted from
limited samples.

ORE SORTING
Ore sorting is a technology which has proved itself in many
installations worldwide. It makes use of a variety of electronic
sensors combined with high speed processors that can be
programmed to recognise certain characteristics like colour,
density, conductivity, etc. A mechanical ejection system is
then activated by the processor, which will eject individual
particles from the feed stream. These principle components
are illustrated in Figure 3.
A variety of sensors measuring material characteristics
within the electromagnetic spectrum are available today, as
can be seen in Table 1. The latest technology can combine the
information from any combination of sensors and thus gather
more data about the particles than a single sensor can. For
example, by combining an XRT sensors signal with that of a
3D laser scanner, particles can be separated from one another
based on both density and the rate of refraction of light within
a particular mineral.

FIG 3 - Components of an ore sorter.

3

B MURPHY, J VAN ZYL AND G DOMINGO

X-RAY TRANSMISSION
X-ray Transmission (XRT) is probably one of the most
versatile types of sensors; it can be widely used in narrow
vein mining applications where there is a difference in density
between the vein and the host rock. It measures amount of
X-ray radiation absorbed within individual particles and
negates the effect of particle size by measuring the radiation
at two different energy levels.

OPTICAL (COLOUR OR LASER)

Optical material recognition has been around for quite some
time but the latest advances open up a wide variety of new
applications.
By combining 3D laser object positioning systems with CCD
colour cameras, it is possible to separate particles based on
colour without the necessity for a non-reflective background,
which was practically only achievable by having particles in
freefall in front of a black background as in earlier systems.
This means that particles can now be sensed and recognised
while travelling on a belt at much higher speed and separated
with greater accuracy.

INDUCTION SENSOR
Induction sensors use pulsed eddy currents (PEC) to measure
a particles relative conductivity. The sensitivity of these
machines can be adjusted very accurately to target a preset
level of conductivity of individual particles. They are used
mainly for conductive minerals ores such as nickel, copper and
placer gold deposits. They have very successfully been used in
old gold tailings dumps (see Figure 4) and should be readily
adaptable to a narrow-vein scenario where there are coarse
mineral assemblages with a large differences in conductivity.

TESTING REQUIREMENTS
In order to determine the viability and efficiency of sensor
based sorting of different ore types, comprehensive test work
on individual ore types have to be conducted. Testing will take
place in three stages.

FIG 4 - Examples of gold recovered from placer tailings by an induction sorter.

Stage one of testing will determine which type of sensor will
differentiate most effectively between the reject ore and the
target material. Approximately 20 L of material needs to be
supplied where the sample has been handpicked to provide
approximately equal amounts of target material and reject ore.
This sample should be crushed to a size that will allow for the
rejection of gangue from ore and will be used to calibrate the
sensor and determine viability of separation. Once this stage
has been completed a recommendation can be given on whether
or not further work is warranted. An example of the output of
this stage of the assessment program can be seen in Figure 5.
Stage two of testing will determine whether effective
upgrading and separation can be achieved in the desired size
range using the type of sensor selected. This step requires

TABLE 1
Ore sorter sensor technology.
Electromagnetic wavelength (m)
10

Sensor type

Material property detected

RM (Radiometric)

Natural Gamma Radiation

X-ray transmission (XRT)

X-ray fluorescence (XRF)

Atomic density
Visible fluorescence under X-rays

COL (CCD colour camera)

Reflection, brightness, transparency, shape

Photometric (PM)

Monochromatic reflection/absorption

Near infrared spectrometry (NIR)

Reflection/absorption

Infrared camera (IR)

Heat conductivity, heat dissapation

MW-IR (heating with IR)

Metals heat faster than other minerals

Electro-magnetic sensor (EM)

Conductivity

-12

Gamma-radiation

10-11
10-10

X-ray

10-8

Ultraviolet (UV)

10-7

Visible light (VIS)

10-6

Near infrared (NIR)

Infrared (IR)
Microwaves
Radio waves
Alternating current (AC)

10-9

10-5
10-4
10-3
10-2
10-1
101
102
103
104

NARROW VEIN MINING CONFERENCE / PERTH, WA, 26 - 27 MARCH 2012

UNDERGROUND PRECONCENTRATION BY ORE SORTING AND COARSE GRAVITY SEPARATION

approximately 100 L of representative sample in the desired

size range (to be determined beforehand by mineralogical
analysis). Assay records are to be done before testing. Using
the calibration setting determined in stage one, the sample
will be subjected to separation by the selected sorter. The
results will be photographed and product/reject streams will
be assayed again.
The third and final stage of testing will determine the
maximum feed capacity without compromising on separation/
upgrading efficiency. Further sample, 200 - 1000 L of dry,
representative sample is required and will be subjected
to separation by the selected sensor at various feed rates
to determine the maximum feed rate that will not affect
separation efficiency. This testing is typically conducted on a
pilot scale sorter.

COARSE GRAVITY SEPARATION

Gravity preconcentration involves concentrating the valuable
mineral or rejecting waste ore based on the differences in the
specific gravity of the minerals present. Gravity processing is
one of the oldest forms of minerals processing which has fallen
out of favour in recent years with the push toward fine mineral
processing technologies. There are numerous technologies in
existence that are suitable concentration of minerals based on
specific gravity differences at a relatively coarse (>1 mm) size,
these include jigs, spirals and even medium separators.
The Gekko IPJ is a modern take on a tried and tested gravity
separation device, more importantly its compact nature lends
itself to modularisation and underground installation. Table 2
shows the size, throughput and power requirements of the IPJ.
Traditionally jigs have been used to separate relatively coarse
particles at relatively low specific gravity differences. A jig
operates by expanding a hindered settling bed of the material,
so that heavier particles work their way toward the bottom
of the leaving the lighter particles at the top of the bed. Fine
tuning the separation is achieved by controlling the length and
frequency of the mechanical pulsation stroke. The IPJ utilises
through bed jigging where during the pulsation stroke the
bed is lifted and then expands as the velocity decreases and
the lower and heavier particles fall first until the whole bed
is loosened. On the suction stroke the bed slowly closes again
allowing heavier particles to fall through the spaces within the
bed formed after the larger particles have stopped moving.
Examples where the IPJ has been utilised in a coarse
gravity separation role are at Castlemaine Gold Fields (pyrite,

TABLE 2
Specifications for different models of the Gekko In-Line Pressure Jig.
IPJ1000

IPJ1500

IPJ2400

Cone diameter

mm

1400

1800

2500

Unit height

mm

2105

2500

3200

Max operating pressure

kPa

200

200

200

Maximum throughput

t/h

25

50

100

Maximum particle size

mm

15

22

22

Minimum hutch water addition

t/h

10

15

25

Power (installed)

kW

1.5

2.2

aresenopyrite, gold), Goldfield SA Kloof Python (arsenopyrite

and gold) and Silver Standards Pirquitas Mine (lead, silver
and tin minerals). These and other examples can be found
in the literature (Gray et al, 2011; Dominy et al, 2009 and
Hughes et al, 2008).

TESTING REQUIREMENTS
Determining whether an ore type is amenable to coarse gravity
separation at a given size is the first step in determining if
gravity preconcentration is an option for the ore. As mentioned
previously, there are a number of different processing
options for coarse gravity separation. Fortunately the testing
requirements for all coarse gravity methods in the early stages
of orebody development is focused on the characterisation
of the ore rather than focusing on machine specific testing.
Various methods exist for these characterisation tests, each
having their own strengths and weaknesses. It is important
that anyone embarking on a characterisation program has an
appreciation of these and designs the program accordingly.
The result from the characterisation test work is typically
presented in the form of a yield recovery curve, showing how
much mineral can be concentrated into a given percentage of
feed mass. An example of two typical yield recovery curves can
be seen in Figure 6. Sample A is typical of an ore that has shown
itself to be amenable to valuable mineral preconcentration.
It has a very high recovery of valuable mineral (90 per cent)
into a relatively small mass (10 per cent) at the given size.
In contrast Sample B is for an ore that would allow gangue
rejection to be performed where a recovery of greater than

FIG 5 - An example output from the initial testing phase. False colour image of five different handpicked ore samples, scanned with an X-ray transmission scanner.
The items marked with a border were recognised as wanted material by the applied algorithm.
NARROW VEIN MINING CONFERENCE / PERTH, WA, 26 - 27 MARCH 2012

B MURPHY, J VAN ZYL AND G DOMINGO

100
90
80

Recovery(%)

70
60
50
SampleA

40

SampleB

30
20
10
0
0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Yield(%)

FIG 6 - Example yield-recovery curves.

95 per cent of the valuable can be achieved by rejecting
25 per cent of the material at this size. A curve (not shown)
with a slope close to 1:1 when plotted on a yield recovery curve
would indicate that the mineral was not amenable to gravity
concentration. The final determinate of the ores suitability
to coarse gravity separation is the economics of the proposed
design which can be examined in detail once this data exists.
Historically heavy liquid separation (HLS) has been used to
separate minerals in a sample into different density fractions.
Typically the minerals were placed in the high specific gravity
organic liquid and then the sinks (material of higher specific
density) and floats (material of lower specific density) were
collected. This process was then repeated with a liquid of a
lower density, typically a dilution of the original liquid, until
the sample is fractionated into sinks and floats over a wide
range of specific gravities. A yield recovery curve can be
constructed from the resultant data. Unfortunately the liquids
commonly used such as Tetrabromoethane are highly toxic
and their use is being phased out due to health concerns.
Alternate methods of characterisation to HLS can be
achieved using dense medium characterisation process such
as pilot dense medium cyclones and Gekkos Viking Cone. The
size of the laboratory facilities and equipment available will
limit the size ranges where each of these characterisation tests
can be performed. As these are both dynamic processes it is
also important to break the sample to be tested into a number
of size fractions to ensure that the results obtained are related
to mineral gravity separation potential rather than a function
of particle settling diameter. An example of a coarse gravity
characterisation testing program utilising the Viking Cone,
Dense Medium Cyclone and tabling can be seen in Figure 7.
A pilot Dense Medium Cyclone test plant consists of a
mixing tank, pump, mixing box, feeder, drain panels, washing
screens, and a magnetic separator. Size ranges for ore sample
testing usually falls between the range of -6 mm to 3 mm.
The testing sample is kept agitated in a mixing tank, and is
pumped to a mixing box where the sample is introduced into
a (suspended) ferro-silicon mixture. The mixture is gravity
fed to dense medium cyclone to ensure constant pressure.
The specific gravity of the mixture is measured on the feed
to the cyclone, with adjustments to water addition in order
to maintain the specific gravity. The sinks and float products

generated by the cyclone are drained over drain panels, with

the fluid medium returned to the mixing tank. The sinks and
floats are washed with water, with each stream being sent to
a magnetic separator for concentrating. The medium is then
diluted as required and the sample run again to generate
sufficient data for the yield recovery curve.
The Viking Cone is used to separate and characterise coarse
particles (typically >6 mm) to assess their gravity separation
potential. The method uses a mixture of water and ferro-silicon
to maintain a slurry specific gravity. The slurry medium in the
cone is pumped up a vertical shaft, and into a sinks basket.
The medium then overflows and re-circulates back down into
the cone. Tracers of a known SG are used to set up the Viking
cone during the test to a relative specific gravity. Adjustments
to the cut point are made by changing the ratio of water to
ferro-silicon. Figure 8 shows the Gekko Viking Cone test
rig. Runs are done with the sample being tested over either
increasing or decreasing medium specific gravity to give yield
recovery data. It should be noted that the Viking Cone does
have a testing limit specific gravity cut of approximately 3.8.
For material less than 1 mm the continuous gravity recovery
(CGR) test should be utilised to generate a yield-recovery
curve to assess the potential for gravity recovery of the
minerals examined. A detailed description of this test can
be found in Dominy et al (2011) and it is also discussed by
Hughes et al (2010) for its role in assessment of ore suitability
of the Python underground processing plant. This test is
slightly different to the characterisation tests described above
as it includes both comminution and gravity stages to assess
the potential for gravity recovery of the ore in a comminution
circuit. This methodology can be also applied to the testing
procedures described above, however, this would most likely
require a large sample due to the rock size involved thus would
only be conducted after the initial characterisation work has
shown some coarse gravity separation potential.
Once it has been identified that an ore is suitable to gravity
preconcentration then further technology specific testing
can be conducted to give confidence in the separation
ability of the selected processing route. For example Gekko
Systems utilises a pilot (1 t/h) scale IPJ to sample of material
between 0.1 - 5 mm.

NARROW VEIN MINING CONFERENCE / PERTH, WA, 26 - 27 MARCH 2012

UNDERGROUND PRECONCENTRATION BY ORE SORTING AND COARSE GRAVITY SEPARATION

FIG 7 - Coarse gravity scoping test work flow sheet.

FIG 8 - Gekko Viking Cone test rig for gravity characterisation of coarse (>6 mm) particles.
NARROW VEIN MINING CONFERENCE / PERTH, WA, 26 - 27 MARCH 2012

B MURPHY, J VAN ZYL AND G DOMINGO

CONCLUSION
Underground preconcentration in the context of a narrow-vein
mine has the ability to make a significant impact on a projects
economics. It is thus important that metallurgical testing is
undertaken on the ore in the initial stages of a project to see if the
orebody is amenable to coarse preconcentration. Technology
such as ore sorting and gravity concentration via the IPJ are
ideal for the underground preconcentration application as
they can concentrate the ore at a coarse size, they require little
auxiliary infrastructure and they are easily modularised for
underground installation. Successful development and long
term operation of an underground preconcentration plant will
rely on a high level of interdisciplinary cooperation between
mining, metallurgical and geological professionals.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The authors would like to thank management at Gekko
Systems Pty Ltd and Steinert Australia Pty Ltd for their
permission to present the information detailed in this paper.

REFERENCES
Bamber, A S, Klein, B, Morin, M and Scoble, M J, 2004. Reducing
selectivity in narrow-vein mining through the integration of
underground preconcentration [online], InfoMine Inc. Available
from: <www.infomine.com/publications/docs/Bamber2004.pdf>
[Accessed: 22 August 2011].
Bamber, A S, Klein, B, Morin, M and Scoble, M J, 2005. Integration
of preconcentration underground: Reducing mining costs, in
Proceedings XVII International Conference on Mine Planning
and Equipment Selection (Banff: Alberta).
Bearman, R A, 2007. Total system design for comminution, in
Proceedings Ninth Mill Operators Conference, pp 3-8 (The
Australasian Institute of Mining and Metallurgy: Melbourne).
Denysschen, D F and Wagner, B N, 2009. Preconcentration of low
grade lateritic sulfide nickel ore, in Proceedings Base Metals
Conference 2009, pp 261-306 (The Southern African Institute of
Mining and Metallurgy: Johannesberg).
Dominy, S, C, Hughes, T R, Grigg, N J, Gray, A H and Cormack,G,
2009. Development of underground gravity gold processing
plants, in Proceedings Physical Separation 2009 [CD ROM],
paper 18, pp 1-18 (Minerals Engineering International: Falmouth).
Dominy, S C, Murphy, B and Gray, A H, 2011. Characterisation
of gravity recoverable gold ores sample representivity
and determination methods, in Proceedings First AusIMM
International Geometallurgy Conference (GeoMet) 2011,
pp 281-292 (The Australasian Institute of Mining and Metallurgy:
Melbourne).

Francis, R S, Turner, S E and Larder, C J, 2005. Opportunities

with underground hydraulic hoisting, in Proceedings Hoist and
Haul 2005, pp 45-51 (The Australasian Institute of Mining and
Metallurgy: Melbourne).
Gray, A H, Delemontix, G, Grigg, N and Yeomans, T, 2011. In-Line
pressure jig preconcentration at the Pirquitas mine, in Proceedings
Metallurgical Plant Design and Operating Strategies (MetPlant
2011), pp 138-153 (The Australasian Institute of Mining and
Metallurgy: Melbourne).
Hughes, T R and Cormack, G, 2008. Potential benefits of
underground processing for the gold sector conceptual process
design and cost benefits, in Proceedings First International
Future Mining Conference and Exhibition 2008, pp 135-142 (The
Australasian Institute of Mining and Metallurgy: Melbourne).
Hughes, T, Donaldson, K and Murphy, B, 2010. Is the python right
for me python amenability test work, in Proceedings Gravity
Gold 2010, pp 101-108 (The Australasian Institute of Mining and
Metallurgy: Melbourne).
Ilgner, H J, 2001. The use of development waste for backfill in deep
South African gold mines, in Proceedings Seventh International
Symposium on Mining with Backfill (MineFill 2001),
pp 145-155 (Society for Mining, Metallurgy and Exploration:
Colorado).
Klein, B, Hall, R, Scoble, M and Dunbar, W S, 2003. Simulation
of integrated underground mining-processing, in Proceedings
APCOM 2003: 31st International Symposium on Application of
Computers and Operations Research in the Mineral Industries,
pp 481-486 (The Southern African Institute of Mining and
Metallurgy: Johannesberg).
Lane, G, Fountain, C and LaBrooy, S, 2008. Developments in
processing to match future mining opportunities, in Proceedings
First International Future Mining Conference and Exhibition
2008, pp 221-228 (The Australasian Institute of Mining and
Metallurgy: Melbourne).
Lloyd, P J D, 1979. An integrated mining and extraction system
for use on Witwatersrand mines, Journal of the South African
Institute of Mining and Metallurgy, 79(6):135-148.
Morin, M, Bamber, A and Scoble, M, 2004. Systems analysis and
simulation of narrow-vein mining method with underground
preconcentration, in Proceedings Second International
Symposium on Narrow-Vein Deposits [CD ROM] (The Canadian
Institute of Mining, Metallurgy and Petroleum: Westmount).
Thomas, E G, 2006. Preparation of mine fill from process plant
tailings, in Proceedings Metallurgical Plant Design and
Operating Strategies (MetPlant 2006), pp 436-473 (The
Australasian Institute of Mining and Metallurgy: Melbourne).

NARROW VEIN MINING CONFERENCE / PERTH, WA, 26 - 27 MARCH 2012