A GEOMETALLURGICAL APPROACH OF THE COPPER-NICKEL-PLATINUM GROUP

ELEMENTS MATURI DEPOSIT, MINNESOTA, USA, USING QUANTITATIVE MINERALOGY

Nicole Hoffmann1, Charles Knilans1, and Tassos Grammatikopoulos2

1
Twin Metals Minnesota LLC,
380 St. Peter Street, Suite 705
St. Paul, MN 55102
(nhoffmann@twin-metals.com; cknilans@twin-metals.com)
2
SGS Canada Inc.
Advanced Mineralogy Facility
185 Concession St.
Lakefield, Canada K0L 2H0
(tassos.grammatikopoulos@sgs.com)

ABSTRACT

Twin Metals Minnesota LLC, (TMM) has recently completed a prefeasibility study evaluating the
development and operation of an underground copper (Cu), nickel (Ni), platinum (Pt), palladium (Pd), and
gold (Au) mining project on the Maturi deposit in northeastern Minnesota.

The Maturi deposit is a magmatic Cu-Ni-sulphide deposit occurring along the basal contact of the
South Kawishiwi intrusion, comprised of heterogeneous troctolites to gabbros forming a tabular body
designated the BMZ (basal mineralized zone). These rocks provide the major gangue mineralogy
(plagioclase, olivine, and clinopyroxene) with local, minor rock-forming orthopyroxene, biotite, magnetite,
and ilmenite. Altered silicates exist within local fracture and/or alteration zones, which are commonly
associated with minor faults in the regional area. The Maturi deposit is comprised of four main mineralized
zones within the BMZ, referred to as Stage 1, Stage 2 (S2), Stage 3 (S3), and Upper Heterogeneous.
Chalcopyrite, cubanite, pentlandite, and pyrrhotite are mainly hosted within the S2 and S3 units, with
talnakhite frequently occurring within the S3 unit.

A cross-discipline approach combining geology, geochemistry, metallurgy, QEMSCAN™

mineralogy, and mine planning has been implemented to develop a preliminary geometallurgical model
and life of mine metallurgical performance forecast. This paper provides an overview of the methods that
were used to develop the model and forecast, and discusses the advantages of such a model in project
development and evaluation.

KEYWORDS

Cu, Ni, QEMSCAN, process mineralogy, geometallurgy

370
 47th Annual Canadian Mineral Processors Operators Conference©, Ottawa, Ontario, January 20-22, 2015

INTRODUCTION

The TMM Project proposes mining a copper-nickel-palladium-platinum-gold-silver (Cu-Ni-PGM)

magmatic sulphide deposit situated in the Duluth Complex of northeastern Minnesota, USA. The
prefeasibility study proposes a 45,000 million tonnes per day mine and concentrator facility to produce two
saleable concentrates. The mine will access two separate deposits, Maturi and Maturi Southwest. Saleable
concentrates are the final products of the sequential flotation plant where a high grade Cu concentrate is
produced followed by a Ni concentrate.

The Maturi deposit is a magmatic Cu-Ni-PGM sulphide deposit hosted by the basal mineralized
zone (BMZ) of the South Kawishiwi Intrusion (SKI). The SKI is comprised predominantly of augite
troctolites to anorthositic troctolites, and is one of a number of layered mafic intrusions emplaced during
the formation of the 1.1 Ga Duluth Complex. In the vicinity of the Maturi deposit, the SKI unconformably
overlies the Archean Giants Range Batholith (GRB; Miller et al. 2002). Disseminated, interstitial and
patchy sulphide mineralization within the BMZ is hosted by heterogeneous gabbros, troctolites, and
melatroctolites. The BMZ dips shallowly to moderately (~10° to 45°) to the southeast and averages 65
meters in thickness, but locally reaches 260 meters.

The reserve base for the TMM Project consists of 527 million short tons (mst) (478 million
tonnes) of Proven and Probable Reserves grading 0.59% Cu, 0.19% Ni, 0.349 ppm Pd, 0.154 ppm Pt, 0.084
ppm Au, and 2.14 ppm Ag located within the Maturi and Maturi Southwest deposits. Of this amount, the
Maturi deposit contributes 482 mst (437 million tonnes) of Proven and Probable Reserves grading 0.61%
Cu, 0.19% Ni, 0.363 ppm Pd, 0.160 ppm Pt, 0.087 ppm Au, and 2.19 ppm Ag. Maturi additionally contains
1130 mst (1025 million tonnes) of Measured and Indicated Resources grading 0.59% Cu, 0.19% Ni, 0.347
ppm Pd, 0.153 ppm Pt, 0.083 ppm Au, and 2.14 ppm Ag. Mineral Reserves are reported according to CIM
Definition Standards for Mineral Resources and Mineral Reserves, use an NSR cut-off of $25.00/st
($27.56/tonne), and assume recoveries of 94.0% for Cu, 60.8% for Ni, 36.1% for Pd, 42.5% for Pt, and
82.3% for Au (Duluth Metals Limited, 2014).

A cross disciplinary approach combining geology, geochemistry, metallurgy, QEMSCAN™

mineralogy, and mine planning has been implemented to develop a preliminary geometallurgical model
based on the mineralogy of the deposit. The mineralogical mass balance aids in life-of-mine metallurgical
performance forecasting along with “de-bottlenecking” of designs moving forward by modelling flotation
performance per stage in order to predict recirculating loads. Any recoveries presented here that differ from
those stated for the reserve base are provisional and have not been incorporated into the economic analysis
published within the prefeasibility study.

GEOLOGIC MODEL OF THE MATURI DEPOSIT

The Maturi deposit has been extensively drilled between 2006 to the present, with over 600
intercepts of the ore zone in the 5 km by 2.5 km project area (Parker and Eggleston, 2014). Detailed
lithologic and sulphide logging, along with extensive assay sampling, led TMM project geologists to
further distinguish a new igneous stratigraphy within the BMZ. The geology of the BMZ at Maturi
generally follows the Severson (1994) model of the SKI, wherein upper mafic to ultramafic melatroctolites
and troctolites grade downward into less mafic augite troctolites and norites. Olivine-rich troctolite and
melatroctolites units located at the top of the BMZ contain the majority of the metal-bearing sulphides,
while lower in the BMZ, both the olivine and the sulphide abundances decrease toward the footwall
contact. Igneous flow textures, along with gradational to abrupt lithologic contacts, indicate multiple pulses
of magma during the intrusion of the BMZ.

The sulphide mineralogy at the Maturi deposit consists of chalcopyrite (Cp), talnakhite (Tal),
cubanite (Cb), pentlandite (Pn), and pyrrhotite (Po). Cubanite contains 23% Cu. Chalcopyrite ranges in
composition from the end member chalcopyrite with 34% Cu, to talnakhite, with 34% Cu, 0.7 to 1% Ni
and lower iron (Fe) (29%). Although, talnakhite is distinguishable in hand specimen, it is grouped with

371
 47th Annual Canadian Mineral Processors Operators Conference©, Ottawa, Ontario, January 20-22, 2015

chalcopyrite for the mineralogical analyses in this study. Both hexagonal pyrrhotite (containing up to 1%
Ni) and troilite occur in this deposit. Pentlandite displays a slight variation in composition, and averages
29% Ni and 35% Fe.

The BMZ has been further subdivided at Maturi into four units, Upper Heterogeneous (UH),
Stage 1 (S1), Stage 2 (S2), and Stage 3 (S3), on the basis of sulphide distribution, lithogeochemical and
lithologic variations. Unit contacts are defined based on abrupt ‘breaks’ in one or more of these parameters,
and are supported a variety of multivariate statistical analyses. Units are not necessarily continuous across
the deposit, and may show considerable variation in thickness, but respect a general UH-S3-S2-S1 top-to-
bottom stratigraphic order (Figure 1).

Figure 1 – Generalized dip cross-section from NW to SE across the Maturi deposit, showing the
relationship between the mineralized units. The BMZ units include (from top to bottom): UH in hatches,
S3 in black, S2 in dark grey, S1 in light grey, and barren hanging wall and footwall material in white

Ore-Bearing Units of the Maturi Deposit

The S3 unit is the most continuous and highest grade mineralized zone within the BMZ in the
Maturi deposit. S3 is up to 108 meters, averaging 32 meters, in thickness (Figure 1). It is typically thicker
in western and thinner in the eastern side of the deposit. S3 is marked by a sharp increase in sulphide
mineralization at the upper contact, and contains the full range of Cu-Ni sulphides, with average grades of
~0.7% Cu and ~0.23% Ni (Cu:Ni = 3 to 3.2). It is also rich in PGM, especially in the deep southeastern
extremity of the deposit. Therefore, it is considered to be the most significant component of the deposit.

The S2 unit is a moderate grade mineralized zone in the Maturi deposit, typically underlying the
S3 unit. S2 is up to 128 meters, averaging 22 meters, in thickness (Figure 1). S2 is moderately mineralized,
containing less cubanite, and proportionally more pyrrhotite (still with a Cu:Ni = 3 to 3.2), with average
grades of ~0.4% Cu and 0.15% Ni, and lacks talnakhite. Higher grade (typically upper) portions of this unit
are included in the reserve base of the Maturi deposit.

The upper UH and lower S1 units of the BMZ (Figure 1) are characterized by low-grade and(or)
discontinuous sulphide mineralization, and are not included in the reserve base of the Maturi deposit.

KEY PROCESSING PARAMETERS

A review of the metallurgical testwork determined that the Maturi deposit did not have any
significant variability in metallurgical performance that would warrant the formation of metallurgical
domains, rather, flotation performance was determined by sulphide mineralogy. Moving forward, it was
determined that a mineralogical model would be the most useful predictor of base metal flotation grades

372
 47th Annual Canadian Mineral Processors Operators Conference©, Ottawa, Ontario, January 20-22, 2015

and recoveries for the proposed Maturi ore sequential flowsheet; investigating PGM recoveries based on
mineralogy is not incorporated in this analysis.

Based on the mineralogy of the Maturi deposit, three key sulphide mineralogical characteristics
were identified that have an effect on processing via flotation: 1) ratio of cubanite to chalcopyrite
(expressed as the normalized fraction Cp/[Cp+Cb]), 2) ratio of pentlandite to pyrrhotite (expressed as the
normalized fraction Pn/[Pn+Po]), and 3) the fraction of total nickel (Ni[T]) present as sulphide nickel
(pentlandite). The greatest processing concern is the effect of pyrrhotite on flotation performance and final
Ni concentrate grade.

Chalcopyrite to Cubanite

The two main copper minerals, chalcopyrite and cubanite, are both recoverable by flotation in
both the copper and nickel circuits. The main difference between the two copper minerals is the Cu weight
by mineral; chalcopyrite is 34.4% Cu, while cubanite is 23.0% Cu. This difference in the matrix
mineralogy leads to differences in the concentrate Cu grade.

Pentlandite to Pyrrhotite

The sequential flowsheet developed for the ore recovers a majority of copper sulphides to the Cu
concentrate while the remaining sulphides are recovered in the second circuit to the Ni concentrate. The
recovery of sulphides includes non-payable iron sulphides, primarily pyrrhotite, which are a significant
diluent in the nickel circuit. When pyrrhotite is recovered in addition to the other sulphides, the Ni
concentrate Ni grade is reduced, assuming a fixed gangue content. Therefore, the fraction of pyrrhotite in
the remaining sulphides is important from a processing perspective in order to accurately predict the Ni
concentrate grade. The pyrrhotite and pentlandite content for this exercise is calculated based on the
elemental assays and the sulphide mineral matrix described in the Calculation of the Mineralogical Mine
Plan.

Fraction of Sulphide Ni to Total Ni

Mineralogy work determined that the sulphide-Ni fraction (Ni[S]) of total Ni (Ni[T]) is variable
throughout the deposit. The largest deportment of non-sulphide nickel is contained within olivine, which is
the major phase containing magnesium (Mg) within the deposit. Therefore a relationship correlating Mg
content to Ni(S) and Ni(T) was sought as part of the testwork program.

Throughout 98 rougher variability flotation tests, each on a different composite, a logarithmic

relationship was developed in order to predict the rougher recovery of Ni (based on the total Ni assay)
based on the ratio of Mg to Sulfur (S). Flotation test results demonstrated that 95% of the sulphide nickel
was recovered to the rougher concentration on average. Utilizing the Mg/S nickel recovery relationship
and the average 95% recovery of nickel sulphides, the Ni(S) head assay is determined, which is an
important input for calculating the pentlandite content of the feed in order to represent the highest total
nickel (Ni[T]) recovery that can be achieved by flotation.

MINERALOGICAL ANALYSES

QEMSCAN™ Particle Mineral Analysis was used to obtain quantitative mineralogical data for
the oxide, sulphide, and gangue minerals within each sample. The mineral species identification program
(SIP) was developed specifically for the TMM project by using a large amount of samples along with
optical microscopy, qualitative XRD, and electron microprobe data. Thirteen thin sections from the
primary rock types throughout the ore zone and footwall were also submitted for calibration. This SIP is
immediately assigned to any new samples from TMM, and subsequent modifications to the SIP are applied
to previously obtained sample data from Maturi. Two hundred forty-three samples from S3 and S2 have
been analyzed by QEMSCAN™ for this mineralogy study (Figure 2).

373
 47th Annual Canadian Mineral Processors Operators Conference©, Ottawa, Ontario, January 20-22, 2015

Figure 2 – Plan view map of the Maturi deposit with the preliminary mineralogical domains, current
sample distribution with QEMSCAN mineralogy, and resource boundaries from Parker and Eggleston
(2014)

Mineralogy of S3 and S2 Units

The S3 unit is an olivine- and plagioclase-rich unit, with pyroxenes and micas typically
comprising less than 10%. Hydrous silicate alteration minerals are more abundant at the top of the unit,
due to increased serpentine alteration after olivine in the olivine-rich troctolite units (Figure 3a). Copper
sulphides are the dominant sulphides, while pentlandite and pyrrhotite occur in roughly equal but minor
amounts (Figure 3b). Talnakhite is commonly found with the copper sulphides throughout the S3 unit.

In the S2 unit, the amount of pyroxenes is greater relative to S3, and the oxide abundance doubles
that of the S3 unit (Figure 3c). Copper sulphides dominate the sulphide assemblage (Figure 3d), while
pyrrhotite increases in proportion to the rest of the sulphide minerals. Cubanite and pentlandite tend to
decrease in abundance toward the bottom of this unit.

374
 47th Annual Canadian Mineral Processors Operators Conference©, Ottawa, Ontario, January 20-22, 2015

Figure 3 – a) Typical S3 mineralogy from QEMSCAN™ mineralogical studies; b) Typical proportions of

sulphides within the S3 unit; c) Typical S2 mineralogy from QEMSCAN™ mineralogical studies; d)
Typical proportions of sulphides within the S2 unit

MINERALOGICAL DOMAINS

Shallow Domain

Within the S3 unit, the shallow domain (Figure 2) has the greatest abundance of olivine and low-
temperature alteration minerals, and the lowest abundance of both pyroxenes. Ilmenite is the dominate Fe-
(Ti)-oxide, while magnetite is present in lower abundance. This domain is also characterized by a low
proportion of pyrrhotite to the Cu-Ni sulphides, with a normalized pentlandite to pyrrhotite ratio
(Pn/[Pn+Po] of ~0.52 to 0.54). Chalcopyrite is the main copper sulphide, followed by moderate amounts of
talnakhite and cubanite, and the normalized chalcopyrite to cubanite ratio (Cp/[Cp+Cb]) is ~0.58 to 0.67.

The shallow domain in the S2 unit has more micas and low-temperature silicate alteration
minerals than in the other domains. Pyroxene and oxide abundances are consistently higher, and olivine
lower, than in S3. Cubanite is variable and the Cp/(Cp+Cb) ratio varies between ~0.61 and 0.65. Pyrrhotite
abundances is higher and the Pn/(Pn+Po) ratio ranges from 0.28 to 0.34.

Deep Domain

The deep domain (Figure 2) is primarily differentiated from the shallow domain based upon the
relatively thin or absent S2 underlying the S3 unit. The mineralogy of these samples is characterized by an
overall increase in pyroxene and hydrous silicate alteration minerals, and decrease in olivine abundances,
and the greater variability within the sulphide mineralogy in the S3 unit. There are correspondingly fewer
S2 samples from this part of the deposit.

375
 47th Annual Canadian Mineral Processors Operators Conference©, Ottawa, Ontario, January 20-22, 2015

The sulphide mineralogy of this domain, for the most part, is similar to the shallow domain.
Chalcopyrite is the dominant sulphide, while cubanite is variably abundant. In the S3 samples, the
Cp/(Cp+Cb) ratio is ~0.60, and the Pn/(Pn+Po) ratio is commonly between 0.59 and 0.61. In the few S2
samples, the Cp/(Cp+Cb) ratio is much higher at approximately 0.84 to locally 0.89 where cubanite is
decreased to trace amounts, and the Pn/(Pn+Po) ratio is ca. 0.36.

Deep-East Domain

The samples within this domain are primarily grouped together because they are from the BMZ
that underlies an Anorthosite Series megaxenolith (Figure 2). There is also an increase of S1 material (low
to barren sulfides abundances, high plagioclase and oxide contents) below both of the S3 and S2 units
which influence the overall mineralogy. The S2 unit is discontinuous in this portion of Maturi.

The sulphide mineralogy is variable within this domain. The Cp/(Cp+Cb) ratio for the S3 unit
ranges from 0.67 to 0.70, and averages 0.71 in the S2 unit. Pentlandite abundance is very low as supported
by the Ni grades (~0.18%). The S3 unit is also characterized by low amounts of pyrrhotite and Pn/(Pn+Po)
ratios ca. 0.55 to 0.60. In the S2 unit, there is variable, low, amounts of both pentlandite and pyrrhotite with
the Pn/(Pn+Po) ratio averaging 0.42. This domain hosts the highest PGM grades within the Maturi deposit
(Parker and Eggleston, 2014).

CALCULATING THE MINERALOGY OF THE MINE PLAN

The mine plan is determined by assigning net smelter return values to the blocks in the resource
block model and using them to estimate revenue for mining cut-off grades. Information contained in the
block model is elemental assays (i.e. Cu, Ni(T), S, Mg, Au, Pt, Pd, and Ag) and does not include
mineralogy. A mineralogical mine plan for the base metals can be back calculated from the elemental head
grades by coupling the existing mine plan with the Maturi sulphide mineral matrix. The Maturi sulphide
matrix is identified from historical microprobe data on the deposit and is presented in Table 1.

Table 1 – Maturi sulphide mineral matrix assumed for metallurgical modeling

Cu, Ni Fe S
Mineral
wt % wt % wt % wt %
Chalcopyrite 34.4% 0.0% 30.6% 35.0%
Cubanite 23.0% 0.0% 35.2% 35.2%
Pentlandite 0.0% 29.9% 33.4% 33.4%
Pyrrhotite 0.0% 0.0% 36.3% 36.3%

For modelling purposes, four key sulphide minerals have been identified: chalcopyrite, cubanite,
pentlandite, and pyrrhotite. The copper sulphide minerals are calculated first, followed by the pentlandite
content. Finally, a sulphide balance is conducted to calculate the pyrrhotite mill feed grade. Non-sulphide
gangue mineralogy has not shown a significant impact on flotation performance and thus, non-sulphides
are not categorized further for model purposes and are simply classified as non-sulphide gangue (NSG).
The non-sulphide nickel is assumed to be associated with the NSG as determined by electron microprobe
analyses. The following is an example calculation of year 1 mill feed mineralogy using the information
presented in Table 2 and Table 3.

Table 2 – Year 1 mill feed composition

Cu Ni Mg S

wt% wt% wt% wt%

Year 1 0.713% 0.223% 6.42% 1.09%

376
 47th Annual Canadian Mineral Processors Operators Conference©, Ottawa, Ontario, January 20-22, 2015

Table 3 – Year 1 mill feed composition and Cp/(Cp+Cn) mineral fraction representative of all years
Shallow Shallow Deep Deep Deep Deep
S2 S3 S2 S3 East S2 East S3

Year 1 tons 1,053,529 15,334,714 29,457 7,503 0 0

Cp/(Cp+Cb) Mineral Fraction 0.61 0.64 0.72 0.63 0.82 0.67

Copper Sulphides

The first step is calculating the Cp/(Cp+Cb) mineral fraction for each year based from the sub
domain tonnage and representative Cp/(Cp+Cb) mineral fraction for each sub domain; the data for the
example calculation is presented in Table 3.

Cp/(Cp+Cb) = (1,053,529 x 0.61 + 15,334,714 x 0.64 + … + 0 x 0.67) / (16,425) = 0.637 (1)

The mineral fraction denotes the relative mineral abundance of chalcopyrite compared to cubanite.
The mineral fraction is based on the mineral abundance and using the mineral matrix presented in Table 1,
the fraction can be adjusted to an elemental percentage; denoting what percentage of total copper is
contained within each element.

%Cp_mineral = Cp/(Cp+Cb) x 100% = 63.7%

%Cb_mineral = 100% - 63.7% = 36.3%
(2)
%Cp_Cu = [63.7% x 34.4% / (63.7% x 34.4% + 36.3% x 23.0%)] x 100 = 72.4%
%Cb_Cu = 100% - 72.4% = 27.6%

The percentages above include the total copper head grade for each mineral (see Table 1). Thus,
to calculate the chalcopyrite and cubanite head grade, the percentage is multiplied by the total head grade
from Table 2 and divided by the copper content of the specified mineral from the mineral matrix in order to
convert to a mineral percentage.

Chalcopyrite = [(0.713% x 72.4%) / 34.4%] x 100 = 1.50%

(3)
Cubanite = [(0.713% x 27.6%) / 23.0%] x 100 = 0.85%

Nickel Sulphide

The nickel sulphide head grade is calculated with Equation 4.

%Ni(S) = (-15.72 x ln(6.42/1.09) + 99.247) / 95% x 0.223% = 0.175% (4)

Equation 4 takes into account the nickel sulphide recovery identified from flotation data based on
the feed magnesium to sulphur ratio, adjusted by the average sulphide recovery, and multiplied by the total
nickel head grade. The only major nickel sulphide is pentlandite, therefore, dividing the nickel sulphide
head grade by the nickel content of pentlandite results in the pentlandite mineral head grade.

Pentlandite = (0.175% / 29.9%) x 100% = 0.59% (5)

Iron Sulphide

The remaining sulphides are assumed to be the iron sulphide, pyrrhotite. A sulphide balance is
performed to calculate the pyrrhotite head grade. The sulphide balance assumes that any sulphur that is not
deported to the copper sulphides or pentlandite is associated with pyrrhotite.

377
 47th Annual Canadian Mineral Processors Operators Conference©, Ottawa, Ontario, January 20-22, 2015

Pyrrhotite = [1.09% - (1.50% x 35.0% + 0.85% x 35.2% + 0.59% x 33.4%)] / 36.3% = 0.18% (6)

DEVELOPMENT OF METALLURGICAL MODEL

The TMM project proposes a sequential flotation flowsheet to produce two saleable grade
concentrates. The copper sulphides are the faster floating mineral so they are recovered in the first circuit
(copper circuit) to the Cu concentrate while the nickel sulphides are depressed to the second circuit. In the
second circuit (nickel circuit), the remaining sulphides, the majority being nickel sulphides, are floated to
the Ni concentrate.

There are two rougher banks. The first is the copper rougher bank that feeds the copper cleaners
and the second is the nickel rougher bank that feeds the nickel cleaners. The copper circuit has two stages
of cleaning, a bank of mechanical cells followed by a flotation column, to aid in further rejecting the nickel
from the Cu concentrate. The nickel cleaner circuit has three stages of mechanical cells with counter-
current flow with the first cleaner tails reporting back to the nickel rougher. The sequential flowsheet is
shown in Figure 4.

Ore from 
Grinding Plant
Cu Ro Ni Ro
Final Tails
(to di sposal)

Ni Clnr 1
Cu  Clnr 1
Ni Clnr 2
Ni  Clnr 3
Cu  Clnr 2

Copper Concentrate Nickel Concentrate
(to ma rket) (to ma rket)

Figure 4 – Sequential Flotation Flowsheet

When the metallurgy team determined the role that the metallurgical model would serve in TMM
project development, two main objectives were conceived. The first objective of the metallurgical model
is to predict the recoveries and grades for the Cu and Ni concentrates. The second objective of the
metallurgical model is to aid in flotation plant design, in particular, to inform flotation cell sizing and
increase confidence that a robust and capital efficient flotation plant is being designed.

In order to accomplish the second objective, it is necessary to develop recoveries and concentrate
grades for each flotation unit (copper rougher, nickel rougher, copper cleaner stages 1 and 2, and nickel
cleaner stages 1, 2, and 3) to allow the investigation of recirculating loads to aid in flotation cell sizing and
determination of product recoveries and grades.

Building the Model

The metallurgical model is developed using MetSim, a general purpose process simulation
software designed to assist in performing mass and energy balances. The basis of the relationships utilized
in the mineralogical mass balance is three main flotation datasets: 1) Ninety-eight rougher variability bench
flotation tests, 2) Seventeen locked cycle bench tests on 15 composites, and 3) a 24 tonne sequential pilot
plant program.

A preliminary data review established confidence in the predictions of the copper circuit; copper
grade and recovery were consistent and did not vary greatly, even with changing ratios of cubanite and
chalcopyrite. Therefore, MetSim modeling focused on a more detailed investigation of the nickel circuit
and pentlandite and pyrrhotite recovery to better understand the Ni concentrate product.

378
 47th Annual Canadian Mineral Processors Operators Conference©, Ottawa, Ontario, January 20-22, 2015

Copper Rougher

The testwork data determined that copper rougher recoveries for chalcopyrite, cubanite, and
pentlandite were constant (Table 4). Pyrrhotite recovery in the Cu rougher concentrate was correlated with
ore feed pyrrhotite grade and ranged from 3% to 20%.

Table 4 – Model Calculations for Copper Rougher Stage Recovery

Mineral Copper Rougher Stage Recovery
Cp 90.0%
Cb 92.0%
Pn 60.0%
Po Calculated: based on Ore Feed Po Grade
Cu Grade 12.5%

After the copper recovery is calculated based on the recovery of chalcopyrite and cubanite, the
mass pull is calculated by fixing the Cu rougher concentrate grade at 12.5%, an average value over the
batch and pilot plant testwork that is independent of ore feed grade.

Copper Cleaner

The copper circuit utilizes two stages of cleaning. The first copper cleaner is a mechanical stage
followed by the second stage flotation column. The first copper cleaner tails are the outlet from the copper
cleaner circuit and feed the nickel cleaner circuit. The second copper cleaner tails recycle to the first
copper cleaner feed.

For Cleaner 1, the recoveries of the four sulphides were set as constants (Table 5). The mass pull
is calculated by fixing the Cleaner 1 product Cu grade at 19.0%, a value representative of the pilot plant
testwork. Cleaner 2 stage copper sulphide recoveries are calculated in order to achieve an overall cleaner
recovery, as cleaner performance was consistent throughout testwork. The fixed recoveries for Cleaner 1
were selected based on previous experience and were validated to ensure that Cleaner 2 and thus, the
overall Cu cleaner recoveries, both appear reasonable. The final Cu concentrate regularly achieved a Cu
grade between 26.0% and 24.7% in the locked cycle test (LCT) data set and around 25% for the pilot plant.
A Cu grade trend with chalcopyrite and cubanite head grades is not identified based on the current dataset
as expected; therefore, the average copper grade of 25.2% was assumed.

Table 5 – Copper Cleaner Stage Recovery

Mineral Copper Cleaner 1 Stage Copper Cleaner 2 Stage Overall Copper Cleaner
Recovery Recovery Recovery
Calculated: fixed overall
Cp 96.0% 95.0%
copper cleaner recovery
Calculated: fixed overall
Cb 95.0% 93.0%
copper cleaner recovery
Pn 35.0% Calculated: Cu Con Ni Grade vs Ore Feed Cu Grade
Po 55.0% Calculated: Cu Con Po Grade vs Ore Feed Po Grade
Cu Grade 19.0% 25.2% -

379
 47th Annual Canadian Mineral Processors Operators Conference©, Ottawa, Ontario, January 20-22, 2015

Figure 5 – a) Correlation used to calculate Ni (and thus pentlandite) recovery to the Cu concentrate in the
metallurgical model, b) Correlation used to calculate pyrrhotite recovery to the Cu concentrate in the
metallurgical model

Variation in copper sulphide mineralogy does not appear to have significant impacts on flotation
and thus, copper sulphide recovery was modelled so the overall recoveries of chalcopyrite and cubanite
were 85.5%.

The overall cleaner recoveries for pentlandite and pyrrhotite are calculated based off their
respective grades in the final Cu concentrate which are correlated to ore feed Cu grade (proxy for mass
pull) and ore feed pyrrhotite grade (Figure 5). It must be noted that the modelled nickel grade in the Cu
concentrate is reduced by 17% based on a scale up comparison between the LCT tests and continuous pilot
plant on the same composite. The proposed commercial design (and pilot plant) includes a column which
is theorized to better reject nickel (pentlandite) through cleaning, further validating this scale up
assumption.

Nickel Rougher

Streams feeding the nickel rougher include the copper rougher tails and the recycle of nickel
Cleaner 1 tails. The Ni rougher concentrate is cleaned by the nickel cleaners and the nickel rougher tails is
the final and only tails stream for the flowsheet. Since the only exit for tails from the circuit is the nickel
rougher, overall recovery is dictated by the by nickel rougher performance. The best copper and nickel
tails grade relationships are shown in Figure 6. Note that the tails pentlandite grade best correlates with ore
feed pyrrhotite grade.

380
 47th Annual Canadian Mineral Processors Operators Conference©, Ottawa, Ontario, January 20-22, 2015

Figure 6 – a) Correlations used to predict Cu tails grade in order to estimate overall Cu recovery, b)
Correlations used to predict pentlandite tails grade in order to estimate overall Ni recovery

In the LCT data set, the mineralogy of Cu in the tails has not been studied extensively, therefore,
the Cu assay was relied upon to predict Cu recovery. The recovery was then coupled with assumptions
from the pilot plant QEMSCAN on the tails to determine the amount of specific copper minerals present.
Note that Figure 6a does exclude four data points in order to achieve a more robust correlation. These
points were excluded because the underlying flotation tests were not believed to be optimal as many
composites lacked flotation optimization before performing the LCTs.

The metallurgical model calculates the pentlandite recovery based off a pentlandite tails grade
versus ore feed pentlandite grade correlation. However, pentlandite and pyrrhotite are both recoverable via
flotation with the xanthate collector in the nickel circuit and a typical flotation grade recovery trade-off is
evident in testwork. The results point towards pyrrhotite affecting the recovery of pentlandite, because the
nickel circuit is a Ni grade driven circuit, meaning it is important to hit a required grade which can come at
the sacrifice of recovery. Therefore, it is hypothesized that future correlations to predict pentlandite
recovery will include pyrrhotite ore feed grade as well.

The pyrrhotite recovery is calculated based on a relationship identifying the pyrrhotite grade in the
final Ni concentrate based on the feed Pn/(Pn + Po) fraction (Figure 7).

Figure 7 – Ni rougher pyrrhotite recovery was back calculated by final Ni concentrate grade as a result of
the Ni cleaner pyrrhotite recovery modelled as fixed

381
 47th Annual Canadian Mineral Processors Operators Conference©, Ottawa, Ontario, January 20-22, 2015

The Ni concentrate grades (rougher and cleaner grades) are controlled by calculating the sulphur
grade based on the feed pyrrhotite grade (since pyrrhotite is the only sulphide mineral, that grade/recovery
greatly varies in the nickel circuit). Therefore, the NSG content was determined once the recovery for the
sulphide minerals has been established.

Nickel Cleaner

Overall nickel cleaner pentlandite recovery was constant at 85% throughout the testwork and thus,
individual stage recoveries were selected in order to achieve this recovery. The copper sulphide recoveries
in the nickel cleaner circuit are selected based on the pilot plant QEMSCAN™ mineralogical balance and
requires further vetting, however, the overall copper recoveries modelled are consistent with batch
testwork (Table 6).

Table 6 – Sulphide recoveries for the nickel cleaner

Nickel Cleaner 1 Stage Nickel Cleaner 2 Nickel Cleaner 3 Overall Nickel
Mineral
Recovery Stage Recovery Stage Recovery Cleaner Recovery
Cp 93.5% 93.0% 76.0% 91.9%
Cb 99.0% 99.0% 99.0% 99.0%
Calculated: fixed
Pn 89.5% 76.0% overall Ni cleaner 85.0%
recovery
Po 75.0% 65.0% 55.0% 60.3%
S Grade Calculated: Based on ore feed Po grade

To predict the mass pull, the set variable was Ni concentrate sulphur grade in each case, based on
the feed pyrrhotite grade. The Ni cleaner concentrate S grade versus feed pyrrhotite grade relationship was
determined based on the LCT (Figure 8). However, it was found, when comparing pilot plant performance
to LCT on the same composite (PP3), that the continuous pilot plant’s nickel cleaners outperformed the
LCTs nickel cleaners to a statistical difference. Therefore, a 19% scale up factor is applied to the Ni
concentrate S grade when using the LCT dataset to determine a commercial metallurgical forecast.

Figure 8 – Final Ni concentrate S grade versus ore feed pyrrhotite grade

THE METALLURGICAL MODEL RESULTS

The output of the metallurgical model are the results of the flotation correlations presented
previously, calculated by the MetSim program based on the annual mineralogical mill feed composition
and mining rate. Figures 9 and 10 present the base metal recoveries and concentrate grades per concentrate
for the mill modelled for years 1 to 18.

382
 47th Annual Canadian Mineral Processors Operators Conference©, Ottawa, Ontario, January 20-22, 2015

Figure 9 – a) Recovery of copper, b) Recovery of nickel

Figure 10 – a) Copper concentrate grades, b) Nickel concentrate grades

Variation in pyrrhotite content has the potential to impact the nickel circuit performance and
decrease the Ni concentrate grade, which was initially seen as a concern. The metallurgical model provides
a solution to concerns regarding Ni concentrate grade, providing a prediction of the Ni concentrate grade
with varying pyrrhotite content. As seen in the model, pyrrhotite does have some impact on Ni grade and
recovery, but not to a point where the Ni concentrate is no longer saleable. Variation in pyrrhotite is
attenuated by the mining method which requires mining from multiple working faces, producing a blended
mill feed.

In the MetSim metallurgical model, all the intermediate stream flow rates and compositions are
calculated, including iterations on recirculating loops. Each flotation plant stream can be modelled using
this approach, allowing project developers to “debottleneck” a design and test the modified design against

383
 47th Annual Canadian Mineral Processors Operators Conference©, Ottawa, Ontario, January 20-22, 2015

various ore scenarios to measure the design robustness. For example, modelling varying pyrrhotite
contents for a constant pentlandite grade evaluates if the designed nickel cleaner flotation cells are able to
handle the increased mass pull to the cleaner circuit. The feed rates for nickel Cleaners 1, 2, and 3 are
known and based on the designed cell capacity; the retention time per stage can be calculated and
compared with the targeted retention time. This same methodology could be used on an operating basis as
well, allowing the ore throughput rate to be adjusted appropriately.

Advantages of Mineralogical Mass Balances

There are several advantages of mineralogical mass balance over an elemental one. For the TMM
project, the sequential flowsheet is complicated and thus, an understanding of mineralogy is important in
order to model the production of two saleable grade concentrates. In addition to calculation of the
recoveries and grades utilized for the financial evaluation, a substantial benefit of creating the
mineralogical mass balance and determining stage recoveries and grades is that the recirculating loads can
be estimated. This helps in determining the design criteria for the flotation circuit, especially in sizing the
flotation cells. The model also aids in simulation scenarios when sizing flotation cells in order to
investigate whether the flotation plant is sized to maintain nameplate throughput through the mill feed
variations expected over the life-of-mine.

Portions of the Maturi deposit are deep, and sample acquisition costs to perform additional
metallurgical testwork are high and necessitate long lead times for the drill hole samples. Therefore,
evaluating new metallurgical sample blends based on changing mine plans can be quite difficult. With the
mineral balance approach, a sample set of spatially and mineralogically diverse samples can be derived that
are a step removed from mine planning and sequencing due to the continuity of the Maturi deposit.

Greater confidence in the metallurgical performance is continuing to be developed by creating the

mineralogical model, because a more detailed investigation into the flotation response of the minerals is
required to accurately model performance. Having a more detailed model and greater confidence allows
for the option of reducing variability sample sets by focusing on mineralogical variation sample sets,
presenting an opportunity to reduce the total number of samples drilled and tested. The model aids when
conducting testwork, allows production of “target” grades and recoveries for a given sample based on its
mineralogy, and helps to confirm the understanding of the metallurgy.

CONCLUSION

The S3 and S2 units are the major mineralized units delineated in the Maturi deposit. There are
significant differences between these units in both silicate and sulphide mineralogy. The S3 unit has
higher olivine, lower pyroxene, and higher abundances of sulphide minerals. Relative to S3, the S2 unit has
lower olivine and higher pyroxene, and lower cubanite and higher pyrrhotite abundances, while
chalcopyrite and pentlandite abundances are lower. While these differences are apparent deposit wide, the
subtle differences in the relative proportions of minerals lead to the creation of three mineralogical
domains within the Maturi deposit: shallow, deep, and deep-east.

Future work on these mineralogical domains will include better defining the boundaries and
potentially defining additional domains. One example of a potential boundary is a strike-perpendicular
minor fault (Figure 2), which splits the shallow domain into a western portion and an eastern portion. The
eastern portion of the shallow domain contains numerous massive oxide inclusions, along with a thicker,
more pyrrhotite-rich S2 unit. As more mineralogical data are collected, the deep and deep-east boundaries
will be evaluated in relation to this fault.

The current mine plan and base metallurgical forecast for the Maturi prefeasibility study was
developed based on four elements included in the resource block model: Cu, Ni(T), S, and Mg. The
elemental distribution is converted into a mineralogical mine plan model based on the current
understanding of modal and matrix mineralogy of the Maturi deposit. This allows the metallurgical model

384
 47th Annual Canadian Mineral Processors Operators Conference©, Ottawa, Ontario, January 20-22, 2015

to be developed based on a mineralogical mass balance rather than on an elemental mass balance. The
TMM project, due to the high continuity of the Maturi deposit and lack of significant variability in
metallurgical performance other than that explainable by mineralogy, presents the opportunity to develop
mineralogical domains to inform metallurgical performance modelling. The flotation stage recoveries and
grades of minerals are predicted in order to model the large recirculating loads within the circuits. Creating
a mineralogical balance also allows more flexibility in selecting the variability sample set and can focus on
mineralogical and spatial variation and can then also be back calculated to compare with the mine plan at a
later time.

The mineralogical mass balance approach continues to be for the TMM project beyond the
prefeasibility study. Recoveries presented in this paper differing from those stated for the reserve base are
provisional, and have not been incorporated into the economic analysis published with the prefeasibility
study. The advantages of a mineralogical mass balance are well understood, therefore, ongoing work is
pointed to further advancing the mineralogical mass balance into the feasibility study. Additional details
hoped to be added to the metallurgical model resulting includes investigation into the type of pyrrhotite
present (troilite versus hexagonal) as a result from more detailed mineralogical domaining of the Maturi
deposit, differences in chalcopyrite and cubanite flotation, and key sulphide and NSG mineralogy that may
impact metallurgical performance.

REFERENCES

Duluth Metals Limited (2014). Duluth Metals Highlights Low Copper (C1) Cash Costs and Strong
Operating Margins in its Pre-feasibility Study for Twin Metals Minnesota Project [Press release].
Retrieved from:
http://www.duluthmetals.com/s/NewsReleases.asp?ReportID=670391&_Type=News-
Releases&_Title=Duluth-Metals-Highlights-Low-Copper-C1-Cash-Costs-and-Strong-Operating-
Marg...

Miller, James D. Jr.; Green, John C.; Severson, Mark J.; Chandler, Val. W.; Hauck, Steven A.; Peterson,
Dean M.; Wahl, Timothy E. (2002). Geology and Mineral Potential of the Duluth Complex and
Related Rocks of Northeastern Minnesota (Report of Investigations 58, ISSN 0076-9177). St.
Paul, Minnesota: Minnesota Geological Society

Parker, Harry; Eggleston, Ted. (2014). Maturi, Maturi Southwest, Birch Lake, and Spruce Road Cu-Ni-
PGE Projects Ely, Minnesota USA; AMEC NI 43-101 Technical Report, Sedar Posting.

Severson, M.J. (1994). Igneous Stratigraphy of the South Kawishiwi Intrusion, Duluth Complex,
Northeastern Minnesota (Technical Report: NRRI/TR-93/34). Duluth, MN: Natural Resources
Research Institute, University of Minnesota.

385