Processing San Ignacio tailings

1. Location

San Ignacio is located approximately 45 km NE from Antofagasta, along Ruta 5, or Panamericana, in the
Atacama desert. The property on which the tailings to be treated are located, is owned by CyM, Cobre-y-
Metales, a Chilean company located in Santiago de Chile. These oxidic tailings are an overflow from a
former Mantos Blancos copper oxide process, and are located in a series of ponds, numbered A to I. The
formation of these ponds is illustrated in Appendix 1.

2. History

The Mantos Blancos oxide plant was commissioned in 1960 with a capacity of 6,000 t/d using vat
leaching to dissolve the copper. Atacamite was the predominant copper oxide mineral with a minor
amount of chrysocolla. Atacamite is a copper(II) chloride hydroxide with formula Cu2Cl(OH)3 and is
soluble in any mineral acid. Chrysocolla is a hydrated copper phyllosilicate mineral with formula:
Cu2−xAlx(H2−xSi2O5)(OH)4·nH2O (x<1) or (Cu,Al)2H2Si2O5(OH)4·nH2O. It contains approximately 45% copper
oxide (CuO) and 34% silica (SiO2). Chrysocolla is soluble in hydrochloric acid (HCl) with characteristic
separation of silica.

Atacamite Chrysocolla

Continuous improvements allowed the MB Vat Leach process by the end of 1991 to increase to 9,500
t/d in ten vats of 4,000 t each in a counter-current leach circuit. The ore was crushed to less than 6 mm
and loaded into the vats. Leaching occurred in a solution up-flow mode at a rate of 375 l/h/m2. The
pregnant solution, overflowing the most recently loaded vat, analyzed 35-40 g/l Cu and 30-35 g/l
chloride. The barren solution from the downstream process, at a tenor of 7-10 g/l Cu, was fed to the
oldest vat, from which the overflow was passed successively in counter-current mode through the vats
until it reached the vat loaded most recently.

The basic parameter for simulating the vat leaching process in a test was the amount of solution per ton
of ore applied during the process. In the case of vat leaching of Mantos Blancos ore, this number was 3
m3/t. The bottle rolling test then was carried out using 1.5 L of solution and 0.5 kg of ore for 24 hours.
The results obtained are shown in Table 1.
These test results appear to accurately reflect the copper extraction and acid consumption realized in
the actual operation. The results show that the effect of crush size significantly affects the final
extraction. A solvent extraction process to remove copper from the pregnant solution followed the
leach.

Gustavo Tapia and Roger J. Kelley reported following commercial Vat Leach results as:

Head grade % Soluble copper 0.92 %

Tailings grade % soluble copper 0.20 %
Copper extraction 78.7 %
Net acid consumption 23.4 kg/t ore

Note that this would indicate typical tailing grades of 0.20 % copper, while assays from the San Ignacio
ponds show copper grades closer to 1 %. An explanation of this discrepancy is required.

3. Information on Tailings available at San Ignacio

The best assays of the material contained within the ponds are the Atomic Adsorption results shown in
the Table below. This same table also present the tonnage of the tailings expected in these ponds.
Tonnage measurements were conducted from superficial volume measurements. There is an upside
potential in tonnage due to the fact that when those measurements were taken it is expected that the
bottom of the ponds was not reached.
Contenu Cu (t) Total
Ref pool A B C D E F G H I
Volume pool (m3) 20,800 37,500 51,000 30,000 24,000 19,380 21,000 16,200 7,200 227,080
Density on humid 1.27 1.12 1.24 1.15 1.05 1.07 1.10 1.01 1.35
Concentration (AA-Filab) 0.88 1.25 0.9 1.51 0.68 1.47 1.25 1.34 0.24
Copper content 232 525 569 521 171 305 289 219 23 2,855

The weighted average copper content is 1.10 %. As mentioned in the previous section, an explanation
must be provided between these higher grades and the actual oxide plant tailings grades produced by
the former Mantos Blancos operation.

About 10 % of these tailings were processed in a simple hydraulic leach operation. After collecting
tailings from the ponds with a front-end-loader, the material was piled up onto a heap. This heap was
sprayed with water containing a 0.5% solution of sulfuric acid. Copper extraction in these early works
ranged between 75 and 85%. It is not possible to attain a stable leach process with best results when
spraying solids with dilute acid manually. Nevertheless, leach kinetics were rapid.

The leach slurry was allowed to settle in a decantation pond from which the overflow was pumped to a
cementation plant, employing an ELSA cementation device. This equipment produced good results,
achieving a cementation efficiency of just over 80%. The “barren” solution was pumped to the PLS pond.
The settled solids were pumped to filters with the objective to stack filtered tailings. In the former
works, the filter cake was not washed well, allowing loss of copper recovery in the form of entrained
liquor in the stacked tailings.
 4. Proposed flowsheet

The overall process flowsheet is shown in Figure 1. On purpose, the flowsheet is kept simple to suppress
capital cost. An important deviation from previous works is conducting the leach in agitated tanks to
achieve a stable leach operation, while maximizing the recovery of copper through maintaining a pH of
1.5.

Block flow diagram

San Ignacio Tailings Evaporation Flocculant? Wash Water

Agitation S S
Decantation Filtration
Leach L L Re-deposit

Fe Scrap

PLS Filtrate
Cementation

Copper Sponge

S
Filtration Bagging
L

Figure 1: Proposed flowsheet

5. Mass and Water Balance

The expected acid requirement is calculated in Appendix 2. This Table also provides information on
expected Fe and Cu tenors in the leach and barren solutions. The Mass balance in Appendix 3 assumes
an extraction of 91.5% copper. This value has to be validated in follow-up leach tests.

The Water Balance (tonnes water/tonne SI tailings) is shown in Figure 2

Water Feed Evaporation Flocculant? Wash Water
0.185 0.11 0.35 0.32

Agitation S S
Decantation Filtration
Leach L L 0.27 Re-deposit

0.105 1.10 Fe Scrap

0.15 1.05
net water consumption 0.19 t/t
PLS Filtrate
Cementation
1.20 balance in 0.61 1.82
check out 0.61 1.82
0.10 Copper Sponge

S
Filtration Bagging 0.005
L Figure 2: Water Balance
0.015

Wash Water
The mass balance is calculated based on the flowsheet shown above and uses information that was
provided by Franck Lancon from his previous experience at San Ignacio. Appendix 3 is a printout from
the spreadsheet that will be provided together with this document.

The objective is to arrive at a net water consumption that is as low as possible. The water mass balance
is also provided inside the Table in Appendix 3. There may be a small discrepancy with the water
requirement as noted in Appendix 3 and the value provided in the small Table adjacent to Figure 2. This
is a question of fine-tuning the balance.

6. Description of the process

The operation will be based on a single 12-hour day shift. The night shift consists of guards only, or of
occasional maintenance personnel. Make-up water is added to a water collection pond of about 4000
m3 volume. Pump PL01 pumps this water to a smaller pond of about 2000 m3 at a maximum rate of 40
m3/h, called the Leach solution preparation pond. This leach solution is acidified to the desired strength
by pumping acid of 98% strength from a 10 m3 acid tank using a PLAC pump at a rate of 0.2 to 1 m3/h as
required. The acid tank is filled by acid transported to site by truck. The objective is to maintain a pH of
1.5 during the leach to maximize copper recovery.

The leach solution is pumped to leach tank 1 at a rate of 15 t/h (or ~15 m3/h). Tailings, recovered from
one of the existing ponds A to I at San Ignacio, enters this tank through a conveyor belt/hopper
combination at a rate of 10 t/h. A front-end-loader likely discharges the tailings onto a conveyor belt
that feeds the hopper. This hopper may require a small screw conveyor to meter the tailings into the
slurry mixing tank at the desired rate. From this mixing tank, the slurry is pumped into Leach Tank 1.

Leaching occurs in two 25 m3 tanks in series, placed in such way that the slurry flows from Tank 1 to
Tank 2 by gravity. Each leach tank is provided with an agitator. Leach slurry density is about 36-40 %
solids. Total retention time in the leach is about 3.3 h. During the leach, the pH to be maintained is 1.5.
Test work will have to indicate what final extraction can be achieved, be it 80 % or 95%.

The following overall leach reactions are expected to take place:

Appendix 2 summarizes the expected PLS composition and acid consumption, based on a copper
extraction of 95%.

Of caution is that the leach slurry likely contains chloride resulting from the mineral Atacamite. This
requires verification from assaying San Ignacio tailings. If confirmed, plant equipment in contact with the
slurry must be protected to avoid premature failure due to corrosion.

Following the leach, the slurry is pumped to a decantation pond to separate liquid from solids. Test work
will have to indicate whether the decantation pond requires replacement by a thickener. Important is to
provide the tailings filters with a feed flow containing at least 55 % solids, and preferably over 60%
solids. However, oversized filters may not require such high slurry feed density.
From the decantation pond, the thickened slurry is pumped to the filter feed tank using a (submersible if
from the pond) slurry pump. If a thickener is employed, the leach slurry is pumped to directly feed the
thickener, using pump PL04, with one standby pump. It is preferred to use a high-rate thickener to
minimize foot print, and thus capital costs. For both a decantation pond and thickener, flocculant will be
added to the slurry entering either device for maximum separation efficiency between liquid and slurry.
This will require a Flocculant reception and make-up system that typically consists of a package. Test
work must be conducted to assess the flocculant type and dosage.

Two pressure filters will be required to process the tailings and produce a cake containing about 20 %
moisture (max), and preferably less. The reason for two filters is that production is not completely
stopped in case of maintenance. Filter availability is much lower than leach or cementation equipment.
For filtration of tailings material, Metso filters have proven the best option in the industry. Typical
tailings moisture content these filters are capable of producing is around 17 to 18%, but depends on
various operating conditions maintained during filtration, such as filtration time, cake blow etc.

It is important to employ sufficient wash water to displace leach liquor remaining within the voids of
filtered solids. A minimum of three volumes of wash water to one volume of water remaining in the
cake is desired for efficient displacement of leach liquor. Compared to previous experience at San
Ignacio, each filter would have a surface filter capacity of 1 m3. This requirement must be validated. If
correct, then filter utilization of two filters at this flow rate would be 42%.

Filtered tailings would not require neutralization because the inherent acid content in San Ignacio
tailings will be removed through the leach process, while filter cake will be washed to displace any
residual acidic leach liquor. The intent is to deposit filtered tailings in areas freed up after removal of San
Ignacio tailings. Some Acid Based Accounting and Net Acid Generating Potential testing will be required
to evaluate the neutrality of the filtered tailings, and area suitability for building other structures in the
future.

The liquid in the decantation pond (pregnant liquor or PLS), or thickener overflow in case the pond is
replaced by a thickener, is pumped to a storage tank ahead of the cementation process. This tank could
also be a PLS pond if a larger storage area is required, or to save on capital costs. This depends on the
effectivity of separation and density achievable of the settled solids in the decantation pond. The size of
the tank or PLS pond must suffice to bridge the difference in equipment availability between the leach
circuit and cementation plant. The availability of the latter is lower. Pump PL05 with maximum capacity
of 40 m3/h, is designated to pump PLS from the decantation pond to the PLS pond or storage tank.

At a rate of about 20.5 m3/h, Pump PL06 will pump PLS from the storage tank or pond to the
Cementation plant. We expect to install an ELSA cementation reactor, a simple device that will operate
at lower capital and operating costs than a SX-EW would operate. The capacity of this device should be
to handle flows of at least 25 m3/h. Actual capacity must be calculated on the actual availability of this
device. Disadvantages of the cementation process are lower recovery of copper and addition of Iron
powder or scrap to complete the cementation process. The low recovery in a single cycle will be
resolved through recirculation of the barren solution to the start of the plant. As such, the overall
copper recovery through the plant will be higher than for a single stage cementation. Expected copper
recovery in single stage is between 80 and 88%.

The cementation reaction follows the following equation:

 Cu2+(aq) + Fe(s) → Cu(s) + Fe2+(aq)

Fe scrap or iron powder partly dissolves in the cementation process while copper is cemented. This will
cause fouling of the barren solution through concentration of iron in solution. A small bleed from barren
solution will require separate processing and neutralization with lime prior to discarding the neutralized
bleed stream. During the neutralization step, any iron and copper will precipitate as a hydroxide. This
precipitate requires separation, which can likely be effected by adding this neutralized stream to the
feed tank of the tailings filters.

At the indicated plant throughput, we expect to produce 14 tonnes/month of cemented copper, not
including the high iron content this cement will contain. Copper cement contains ? % Cu.

Barren solution leaving the cementation reactor is returned to the water collection pond using Pump
PL07, at a rate up to 20 m3/h. The barren solution will contain less than 0.5 g/L copper.

7. Required equipment
a. Calculation agitation tank dimensions

throughput tailings 129 t/d (minimum)

throughput tailings 5.4 t/h
pulp density 40%
solids specific gravity 2.7 g/cm3
pulp volume flow 10 m3/h
retention time 1 h
number of leach tanks 2
tank freeboard 0.3 m
agitator volume 20%
active tank volume per tank 4.0 m3/h
tank diameter 2 m
tank height 1.58 m

b. Other equipment

Equipment

Feed hopper 1 +conveyor+screwconveyor?

Submersible pump PL01 1
Pump PL02 from Leach solution pond 1
Pulp mixing tank 3m3? 1
Leach feed pump PL03 1 +1 standby?
Leach tanks 2
Agitator 2
Thickener installation? 1
Additional pump? 1
Flocculant system + tank+small pumps 1
Pump PL05-decantion pond to PLS pond 1
Submersible? pump to filter feed tank PL08 1
Filter feed tank 1
Filter feed pump PL04 2
Filter - Metso 1 or 2
Cake wash water pump 1
filtrate pump PL09 1
Filtrate and WW tank 1
Cementation feed pump PL06 1
Cementation equipment 1
Bagging system 1
Generator, 350 kW 1 +1 standby?
Pump PL07 returning barren solution 1
Additional odd pumps? 3 ?
Small lime neutralization system for barren
solution bleed stream 1

8. Estimated Power requirement

Item power installed operating

1 subm tails pump 26 19.5 kW EL35
2 leach feed pump 15 11.3 kW PEMO
3 leach sol'n pump (2) 37 27.8 kW OP80
4 leach tanks 60 45.0 kW
5 filter pump 37 27.8 kW PEMO
OMA
6 filter ww pump 11 8.3 kW 100
OMA
7 filtrate pump 11 8.3 kW 100
OMA
8 spent liquor pump 11 8.3 kW 100
kW
9 Cementation reactor? 10 7.5 max
10 additional odd pumps 33 24.8 kW assumed
Total 251 188.3 kW
Consumption in gal/h for following Load
Generator Size (kW) 1/4
Load (gal/hr) 1/2 Load
(gal/hr) 3/4 Load (gal/hr)
Full Load (gal/hr) 1/4 2/4 3/4 4/4
200 4.7 7.7 11 14.4
250 5.7 9.5 13.6 18

@18 gal/h req'mnt/mo: 49,969 ? gal/mo

 9. Required test work

A list of testing prior to start-up should include:

a. Leach tests of material from each pond at different pH. Tests should include kinetics.
Calculations require acid consumption.
b. Assays of leach solution for chloride content
c. Liquid-solid separation tests of leach residue, including flocculant screening
d. Filtration tests of leach residues, to be conducted by Metso personnel to design required filter
requirements
e. Acid Base Accounting and Net Acid Generation tests of filtered tailings.
Appendix 1: Formation of the San Ignacio Oxide Tailings Ponds
Appendix 2: Expected Acid requirement and PLS composition at estimated 95% Copper extraction
A3 A7 B3 C3 D3 E3 F3 G3 H3 I3 Comments
Cu head 0.88 0.88 1.25 0.9 1.51 0.68 1.47 1.25 1.34 0.24 %
Cu in residue after water leach 0.18 0.18 0.25 0.18 0.30 0.14 0.29 0.25 0.27 0.05 % Assume 80% Cu extraction with water
Cu in residue after acid leach 0.04 0.04 0.06 0.05 0.08 0.03 0.07 0.06 0.07 0.01 % 95% Total copper extraction

Cu dissolution due to acid 1.32 1.32 1.875 1.35 2.265 1.02 2.205 1.875 2.01 0.36 kg/ton
Total Cu dissolution 8.36 8.36 11.875 8.55 14.345 6.46 13.965 11.875 12.73 2.28 kg/ton
Acid requirement to produce CuSO4 12.9 12.9 18.3 13.2 22.1 10.0 21.6 18.3 19.6 3.5 kg/ton 15.2 kg H2SO4/t ore average CUO + H2SO4 = CUSO4 + H2O

Acid requirement to drop pH from 2.5 to 1.5 9.3 9.3 9.3 9.3 9.3 9.3 9.3 9.3 9.3 9.3 kg/ton 9.3 kg H2SO4/t ore
estimated consumption
From Paper by Tapia and Kelley: Leaching Practices at Mantos Blancos 150 l/t 1.84 sg H2SO4 96
Maximum Acid consumption, kg/t ore, in either VAT or heap leaching reached 53 kg H2SO4/t ore 81.5 kg/t 154% higher
Available acid for Fe leaching is 59.3 59.3 53.9 59.0 50.1 62.3 50.7 53.9 52.6 68.7 kg/ton 28.5 kg H2SO4/t ore 57.0 kg/ton average

Fe Head 7.85 18.22 28.02 8.08 8.38 9.92 22.2 16.67 5.85 11 %
Fe leached due to max acid consumption 1.08 1.08 1.08 1.08 1.08 1.08 1.08 1.08 1.08 1.08 % 0.38 g Fe/g acid
Fe leached due to max acid consumption 2.25 2.25 2.05 2.24 1.90 2.36 1.92 2.05 2.00 2.61 % at higher acid consumption rate
Fe leached 14% 6% 4% 13% 13% 11% 5% 6% 18% 10% %
Fe leached 29% 12% 7% 28% 23% 24% 9% 12% 34% 24% %

Fe in residue after acid leach 6.77 17.14 26.94 7.00 7.30 8.84 21.12 15.59 4.77 9.92 %
Fe in residue after acid leach 5.60 15.97 25.97 5.84 6.48 7.56 20.28 14.62 3.85 8.39 %

Estimated PLS composition

Cu 5.57 5.57 7.92 5.70 9.56 4.31 9.31 7.92 8.49 1.52 g/L
Fe 7.20 7.20 7.20 7.20 7.20 7.20 7.20 7.20 7.20 7.20 g/L
Fe 15.0 15.0 13.6 14.9 12.7 15.8 12.8 13.6 13.3 17.4 g/L
 Appendix 3: Calculation of mass balance
Make-up water
0.7 m3/h
98% H2SO4 tank
water pool 4000 m3 tk 1 tk 2
10 m3 10 m3

pump PL01 40 m3/h pump PLAC 0.2-1 m3/h

water+acid mix pool 2000 m3

storage cap 4.6 days
conveyor
pump PL02 18 t/h grinder 10 t/h tailings
Cu 0.47 g/L Cu 1.0% % @ 100 kg/h Cu

leaching 28 t/h
pulp density 36%
mix tank 3 m3 tank
Pump PL03 28 t/h
leach tank 50 m3 2x25m3 tanks R91-R92
retention time 2.8 h
Cu 6.1 g/L Filtration
dissolution 14 % filters 2 m3 2x1 m3 sand
pulp density 32.3% wash water 8 m3/h 20.4 % moisture
solids 8.6 t/h 2.7 sg 2 pumps PL04 30 t/h ea 2 operating at low cap 8.6 t/h solids
liquid 16.4 t/h displacement 363 % 2.20 t/h liquid
liquid 14.5 m3/h 1.24 sg PL08 filtrate 22.2 t/h 2.00 m3/h liquid 1.1 sg
pulp 25.0 t/h filtrate 20.2 m3/h 1.10 sg 10.80 t/h wet sands
pulp 17.7 m3/h required utilization 42%
Extraction 91.5 % 4.1 g/L Cu loss in solution
Bypass BJH: Includes some filter 9.0 g/h Cu loss to solution
Pump PL05 40 m3/h max rate wash water
PL09

PLS Pond 1000 m3

storage cap 2.1 days
Cu 4.1 g/l
installed operating
Installed power
PLS Storage 1 subm tails pump 26 19.5 kW EL35
Pump PL06 20.2 m3/h max 35 2 leach feed pump 15 11.3 kW PEMO
4.1 g/L 3 leach sol'n pump (2) 37 27.8 kW OP80
Cu in PLS 82.7 kg/h 4 leach tanks 60 45.0 kW
5 filter pump 37 27.8 kW PEMO
6 filter ww pump 11 8.3 kW OMA 100
Cementation 7 filtrate pump 11 8.3 kW OMA 100
Pump ? 20.2 m3/h max 8 spent liquor pump 11 8.3 kW OMA 100
Cu conc 4.10 g/L (higher due to evaporation) 9 Cementation reactor? 10 7.5 kW max
Cu recovery 88% 10 additional odd pumps 33 24.8 kW assumed
Cu production 73 kg/h
Availability 90 %
Operation hrs 12 h/day Total 251 188.3 kW
Production 288 t/yr 24.0 t/mo
Barren solution 0.47 g/L Consumption in gal/h for following Load
purge to evaporation pond: 2.85 m3/h Generator Size (kW) 1/41/4 Load (gal/hr)
2/41/2 Load (gal/hr)
3/4 3/4 Load
4/4 (gal/hr) Full Load (gal/hr)
Return solution 12% 200 4.7 7.7 11 14.4
250 5.7 9.5 13.6 18
Pump PL07 17.3 m3/h 1.0 sg
17.3 t/h
Lean solution 0.47 g/L