Beneficiation of Canadian refractory magnesium minerals - magnesite, brucite and dolomite

P.R.A. Andrews Abstract -Mqnesitc., ht.rrc.ite~nddo/ortrit(~. 1 1 1 hid(>!\' 01~ . thro~rglro~ct Cut~utlu, c/cy)osits of et.onon~ic. hrrt ,sign$ic~utrc~c~ urr Jinortl only in Qurhcc.. Ontut.io c111dBt.iti.slr Colunlhio. Magt~e.sitc> oc.c.rrt-sin (111 threo pt.o\'iirc.e.s, hrur~itc~ Quc.hc~c in ond Ontut.io utrd rlolornitc~in Otrttrt-io. Bc~tr(~i'c~irrtiotr c!f I-eJi-uc,tot.y nrugtresiunr n~itwt-uls I)ecltr the ~ul?je(.tf n ~ u t ~ y hus o it~l~e.s/igutiotr.s CANMET utrd the fot.n7et. Mitrrs Bt-ntrc~li. ut T~~enty-tirt~ec rnu~qtrc~.sitc~, 1)1~1(cito 11it1~ fi)rit. utrd (lolor~itc~ el~uluutiot~ studips II'EI.P c.otrdric./c.dhct~:rrtr 1920 rind 1974. A I.PI'I'PM' (!f'.soni~ ($I/?(> n701.r in2/)ot.tctnt.rtudic,.v i.s /~t.c,sented. Thc~ it~ht.nrtrtiot~ itrc.lrtd~.~ I I P I . C I I ~ S Jhenc~j?(~iuti~tr WI~ . t?r(~lrod.~ utrrl fl(~tutiotr tlcrto. Introduction Refractory evaluation
In 1990. a detailed assessment of Canadian refractory magnesium mineral deposits was conducted at CANMET with emphasis on processing studies. The report, "Summary Report No. 9: Magnesite, Brucite and Dolomite (Collings and Andrews, 1990)," contains detailed information relating to geology and mineralogy of deposits. markets and uses. applications and specifications, trade and production and mining and processing. An extensive appendix contains summaries of tcstwork studies, which provide a valuable record for assessing both deposits and materials. Head analyses, mineralogy, beneficiation methods, product sizes, and concentrate grade and recoveries are reported together with remarks or observations of particular interest. The main features of this report are presented here. A map of Canada showing the location of some of the principal deposits of magnesite, brucite and dolomite is shown in Fig. I . The basic procedure for refractory evaluation of magnesite involved calcination. hydration, high-pressure briquetting and dead burning to produce a high-density refractory MgO. The physical parameters for refractory evaluation are adequately described by Svikis (1969). The procedure for brucite was similar except that after calcination the dried brucite hydrate was washed and scrubbed in hot water to remove lime (Ross. 1962). Dolomite was first stabilized by pelletizing with the nonmagnetic fraction of serpentine before refractory evaluation. mite, serpentine and brucite: or talc, quartz, chlorite and iron oxide minerals. Minerals associated with brucite samples included calcite, magnesite, dolomite, serpentine. iron oxide and iron sulfide minerals. In one study. graphite was present. The minerals occurring with dolomite samples were calcite. limestone and quartz. Analyses of magnesite samples varied from 38% magnesite for an ore from Timmins, Ontario, (Hartman, 1965) to 91.4% magnesite for an ore from Cranbrook. British Columbia (Stone, 1958). The analyses of most magnesite ores, however. were greater than 50% magnesite. The analyses of brucite samples were generally less than 19%. Dolomite samples. conversely, were mostly all high grade.

Magnesite beneficiation
Evaluation of magnesite ores involved a two-stage processing route. A magnesite concentrate was produced first and then calcined for refractory use evaluation. Processing to yield magnesite concentrates involved grinding, flotation, heavy media separation, wet and dry gravity concentration, photometric sorting and magnetic separation. The most extensive investigation was conducted on a 2-kt (2200-st) sample from Deloro, Ontario (Anon, 1 964). Flotation successfully concentrated most magnesite ores to at least 93% grade by either the direct flotation method of magnesite from other minerals or reverse tlotation to remove talc, quartz and other silicate minerals leaving a beneficiated magnesite product.

Mineralogy
Magnesite samples were associated with either doloP.R.A. Andrews is an industrial minerals specialist with the Resource Utilization Laboratory, Energy Mines and Resources, Ottawa, Ontario. Canada. SME nonmeeting paper 93-313. Manuscript May 7, 1993. Discussion of this peer-reviewed and approved paper is invited and must be submitted, in duplicate, prior to June 30.

234 MARCH 1994

MINING ENGINEERING

Fig. 1 - Principal deposits and occurrences of rnagnesite, brucite and dolomite in Canada.

Legend Newfoundland 1. Great Bend (rnagnesite) 2. Port-au-port (dolomite) Nova Scotia 3. Meat Cove (brucite) 4. Cape Breton (dolomite) New Brunswick 5. St. John City (dolomite) Quebec 6. Kilrnar (rnagnesite) 7. Wakefield (brucite) 8. Harve St-Pierre (dolomite) 9. Ferrnont (dolomite) Ontario 10. Deloro (rnagnesite) 11. Rutherglen (brucite) 12. Haley (dolomite) 13. Guelph (doornite) Manitoba 14. lskwasurn Lake (rnagnesite) 15. Winnipeg (dolomite) Sasketchewan 16. Arnisk Lake (rnagnesite, dolomite) British Columbia 17. Mount Brussilof (rnagnesite) FairrnOnt

Magnesite flotation collectors were generally the fatty acid type. Various derivatives were employed between pH 9.1 and 10.3 with concentration levels between 100 and 920 g/t (3.5 and 32.4 oz/st) on ore sizes less than 2 10 pm (70 mesh). Sodium silicate and quebracho were employed as depressants. Sodium silicate (700 to 2000 g/ t or 25 to 7 1 oz/st) was used for slime dispersion, and also to depress quartz and calcite. Quebracho (500 to 1600 g/ t or 18 to 56 oz/st) was used to depress calcite. The concentration of magnesite by heavy media separation and wet and dry gravity concentration methods was based on differences in specific gravity between magnesite and gangue minerals. In one study of magnesite from Kilmar. Quebec (Johnson, 1942), heavy media separation was used to separate magnesite (specific gravity 3.00) from dolomite (specfic gravity 2.85) and serpentine (specific gravity 2.55). The separation of rnagnesite from brucite (specific gravity 2.39) was attempted by air tabling and wet tabling of +420 pm (40 mesh) material. In each case, a 90% magnesite grade was achieved from 65% magnesite feed grade (Wyman, 1958). Magnetic separation as a secondary beneficiation technique was successful in various studies for removing liberated magnetic material from concentrated magnesite flotation concentrates. It was less successful, however, in removing iron locked in the magnesite crystal lattice. Photometric sorting of magnesite ore from Kilmar, Quebec was partially successful in separating magnesite from serpentine (Wyman. 1973).

Flotation was successful in concentrating a low-grade brucite ore from Farm Point, Ontario (Bennett, 1941). A brucite concentrate analyzing 88.2% MgO after calcination, and containing very little calcite, was obtained from 3 1 % brucite feed material. The brucite was floated using a higher aliphatic secondary alcohol sulfate after grinding to -300 pm (-50 mesh) and desliming at 60 jlm (230 mesh). Modifiers included sodium silicate as a slime dispersant and quartz depressant and tannic acid as calcite depressant. Photometric sorting was used to remove serpentine and dark-colored silicate minerals in a study of brucite ore from Wakefield, Quebec (Wyman, 1968). In another study of brucite ore from Wakefield, Quebec (Zoldners, 1962), sized brucite was successfully evaluated as asource of coarse aggregate for use in concrete.

Dolomite beneficiation
Dolomite beneficiation was more straightforward than that of magnesite and brucite. It only involved dry processing. Techniques studied included screening, air classification and photometric sorting. Calcination evaluation was either for dolomitic lime or as refractory raw material. Dolomite ore from Haley, Ontario was evaluated in three separate studies: Air classification successfully separated a -75 ym (-200 mesh) fraction (Wyman, 1963). Photometric sorting successfully produced a very white -12.5 +4.8 mm (-0.5 in. + 4 mesh) fraction (Wyman. 1966). A third sample was successfully evaluated as s refractory raw material and as a furnace-fettling compound using iron oxide as the fluxing agent (Palfreyman. 1974).

Brucite beneficiation
Processing brucite was very similar to magnesite, that is, beneficiation to produce a brucite concentrate followed by calcination for refractory use evaluation. Beneficiation techniques included screening, flotation and photometric sorting.

MINING ENGINEERING

MARCH 1994 235

Dolomite ore from Nassagaweya, Ontario was also successfully calcined for the suitability of producing dolomitic lime (Ross, 1959).+

J llmestone from ROSS. S , 1962, "lnvestigatlon ofthe recovery of magnesla from bruclt~c Meat Cove, Nova Scotla." Mrneral Processing Jest Report 62-37. CANMET, Energy. M~nes and Resources Canada Stone. W J D 1958. "Beneflc~atlon magneslte-bearlng rock from Cranbrook, southof east Brltlsh Columbia," lndustrral Mrnerals Test Report 58-107, CANMET, Energy. Mines and Resources Canada S v ~ k ~V .D , 1969. "Dead-burned magnesla from an Ontarlo magneslle concentrate." s Journal 01 the Amencan Ceramics Society. Vol 48, No 7, pp 724 728 Wyman. R A , 1958, "Tabl~ng magnesite~rlchbruclte mill products." Investigal~on of Report 58-164, CANMET. Energy, M ~ n e s and Resources Canada Wyman. R A . 1963. "Alr separation tests on a t h ~ r d sample of dolom~le from Haley, Ontarlo," Mmeral Processfng Test Report 63-62. CANMET. Energy. M ~ n e s and Resources Canada Wyman, R A 1966, "Photomelr~csortlng 01 dolom~tefrom Haley. Ontarto.' M ~ n e r a l Processing Test Report 66-12. CANMET. Energy. Mlnes and Resources Canada Wyman, R A 1968. "Photometr~csortlngof r u c ~ l ~ c l ~ m e s t o n e f r o m b Wakefield, Quebec,' M~neralProcessing TestReport68-1, CANMET. Energy, M ~ n e s a n d ResourcesCanada Wyman. R A 1973, "Photomelr~c sortlng lrlals on magnesite from Canad~an Refracto rles Lirn~ted. K~lmar. Quebec," Mlneral Processing Jest Report 73-5, CANMET, Energy, M~nes and Resources Canada. Zoldners, N G.. 1962. "Evaluation of brucltlc llmestone from Wakefleld for use as concrete aggregate.' Invest~gat~on Report 6 2 ~ 5 7 ,CANMET. Energy. M ~ n e s and Resources Canada

References
Anon 1964. 'Pllot plant evaluation of a lalc-magneslte ore from Deloro Township. Ontarlo." unpublished report, Canad~an Magnes~te Lid Bennett. R.I. 1941. "Flotat~on brucltlc llmestone lrom Farm Polnt.' Ore Dressrng of lnvestrgatron Report (unnumbered). CANMET. Energy, Mines and Resources Canada Coll~ngs R K and Andrews P R A 1990 Summary report No 9 magneslte bruclte and dolomlte Drvrsron Report 90 80 (RI CANMET Energy Mlnes and Resources Canada Hartman F H 1965 Concentration of magneslle lrom the T ~ m m n s area Ontarlo Investrgahon Report 65 4 CANMET Energy, M ~ n e s and Resources Canada Johnson. J D 1942, "Stnk-and-float tests on samples 01 magneslte ore from K~lmar. Quebec." Ore Dressrng Investrgation Report 1202. CANMET Energy. Mlnes and Resources Canada Palfreyman. M 1974, "Evaluat~onof an Ontarlo dolom~telrom Haley. Ontarlo as a refractory raw rnater~al,"Investrgalron Report 74 7 CANMET Energy, M ~ n e sand Resources Canada lesls on dolomlte from Nassagaweya Townsh~p, Ontarlo." Ross. J S , 1959. 'Burn~ng Industrral Mrnerals Report 5 9 3. CANMET. Energy. M ~ n e s and Resources Canada.

MINING ENGINEERING 236 MARCH 1994