PRRE5001 Process Mineralogy

Techniques

Assignment 2 Cover Sheet

Unit Coordinator: Dr Bogale Tadesse

Teaching staff:
Dr Bogale Tadesse
Dr Louisa OConnor

Student Name: Nur Anbiyak

Students ID: 18475939
Campus: Bentley
INT/EXT: INT
Word Count: 1,512 Words
Question 1

Maximum words: 600

Maximum Marks: 8

Considering all of the analytical techniques described for mineralogy in this unit, explain in
detail which technique would be the most suitable for:

1. Mineral identification in a milled ore sample? Why?

2. Measuring the amount of solid solution gold in pyrite? Why?
3. Determining the grain size and degree of interlocking in a pyrite-chalcopyrite-
sphalerite ore? Why?
4. Suggesting the economic implications of penalty elements? Why?

X-ray Diffraction (XRD) analysis is suitable for mineral identification in a milled ore sample.
XRD provides information regarding crystal structure of the mineral by exposing the sample
to the x-ray beam. Diffraction pattern of the x-ray is used to identify the mineral by comparing
the measured diffraction pattern with the known standard. XRD is able to identify minerals
rapidly and useful for fine grained sample which is difficult to analyze with the other methods,
such as scanning electron microscope. XRDs sample also easy to prepare because it is
only require size reduction into powder whereas milled ore sample is already ground into
certain size. The rapid mineral identification by XRD for milled ore sample is important as the
process control information in the processing plant (Villiers & Lu, 2015).

Secondary Ion Mass Spectrometer (SIMS) is a method to determine composition of mineral

by exposing the sample to ion beam. It is able to analyze elements with detection limit vary
from ppb to ppm. The technique is suitable to measure amount of solid solution gold in pyrite
because the method able to accurately quantify solid solution gold content in sulphide
minerals by comparing the analysis result with the known standard and also provide
distribution of gold in the sulphide minerals. The method has detection range from 0.2 g/t to
more than 10,000 g/t of gold concentration in the samples. It is also capable to distinguish
between colloidal gold and solid solution gold, therefore provide critical data referring to
deportment of gold in the deposit that can be used to design optimum processing criteria for
the gold deposit (Chapman et al., 2010; Chryssoulis & McMullen, 2016).

Quantitative Evaluation of Materials by Scanning Electron Microscopy (QEMSCAN) is an

integrated image analysis system using scanning electron microscope which combine
backscattered electron image and energy dispersive x-ray spectra data from the sample to
identify the mineral assemblage in the sample. QEMSCAN is able to generate three type of
analysis:
1. Bulk mineral analysis (BMA) which using linear intercept technique to provide
information regarding to mineral identification, mineral grain size, and quantification of
mineral in the sample.
2. Particle mineralogical analysis (PMA) that provide spatial distribution of minerals, visual
relationship of mineral grain, mineral texture, and also mineral liberation information.
 3. Specific mineral particles analysis which combine the BMA and PMA method for specific
minerals.
Refer to QEMSCAN ability to measure particle size, provide particle distribution map, and
mineral texture, therefore the method is suitable to determine grain size and degree of
interlocking in a pyrite-chalcopyrite-sphalerite using its PMA and BMA analysis (Gottlieb et
al., 2000).

Penalty elements defined as deleterious elements in the metals concentrate, therefore

decreasing net value of the product. In copper concentrate, penalty elements are group of
elements, such as arsenic, lead, bismuth cadmium, selenium, and antimony which are
contaminant of the copper metal product that need to be removed in the smelters. The
penalty elements also including toxic elements, such as mercury that adding operational cost
for the smelters to disposed. The penalty elements are vary depending on the mineralogy of
the particular deposit and also based on contract agreement between the miner and the
buyer which also depend on processing parameter of the copper refineries (Zanetell, 2013).
Table 1 below shows penalty cost caused by penalty elements that that associated with
copper concentrate.

Table 1 Penalty element cost (Newmont, 2011 in Zanetell, 2013)

The smelters have to remove penalty elements from the final product, consequently it is
reducing the sale value of the concentrate and if the penalty element exceeding the agreed
limit it will cause the rejection of the concentrate by the smelter and make the concentrate
unmarketable. In conclusion, penalty elements play critical roles to determine profitability of
the mine because it affects the market price of the concentrate product.

REFERENCES

Chapman, N., Prince, K., Evans, P., Radke, F., Hayward, P., & Lester, N. (2010). Identifying Gold
Losses Through Application of SIMS Technology. Mineral Processing and Extractive
Metallurgy, 119(4), 242-246.
Chryssoulis, S. L., & McMullen, J. (2016). Mineralogical Investigation of Gold Ores. In M. D. Adams
(Ed.), Gold Ore Processing (Second Edition) Project Development and Operations (pp. 57-
93). Amsterdam: Elsevier.
Gottlieb, P., Wilkie, G., Sutherland, D., Ho-Tun, E., Suthers, S., Perera, K., . . . Rayner, J. (2000). Using
Quantitative Electron Microscopy for Process Mineralogy Applications. Journal of the
Minerals, Metals and Materials Society, 52(4), 24-25.
Villiers, J. P. R. d., & Lu, L. (2015). XRD Analysis and Evaluation of Iron Ores and Sinters. In L. Lu
(Ed.), Iron Ore : Mineralogy, Processing and Environmental Sustainability (pp. 85-100).
Cambridge: Woodhead Publishing
Zanetell, Z. A. (2013). Penalty Element Separation from Copper Concentrates Utilizing Froth
Flotation. (Master of Science), Colorado School of Mines, Golden, Colorado.

Question 2

Maximum words (excluding chemical reactions and calculations): 900

Maximum Marks: 12

A supergene ore from a magmatic nickel sulphide deposit near Kambalda contains pyrite,
violarite (FeNi2S4), chalcopyrite and millerite (NiS).

(i) Give a brief overall description of magmatic nickel sulphide deposits?

(ii) Describe the transformation of the primary sulphides (in the hypogene zone) to
secondary sulphides (supergene enrichment)? Use chemical reactions where
appropriate.

(iii) Using the table of mean atomic numbers and the formula for calculating mean Z
(in your lecture notes), discuss the suitability of using an SEM/back-scattered
electron (BE) system for carrying out mineralogical investigations of this ore. In
your discussion, assume that there needs to be a difference of about 0.5 in the
mean atomic numbers between minerals, in order to distinguish them on a BE
image.

Magmatic nickel sulphide deposit is one of the nickel deposits type beside lateritic nickel
deposit. The deposit is formed by liquid immiscibility mechanism where the sulphur saturated
magma incorporated chalcophile elements and precipitate metal bearing sulphide minerals
from the melt (Naldrett, 1999). It is typically hosted by mafic-ultramafic rocks that containing
pyrrhotite, pentlandite, chalcopyrite, and in several deposits, platinum group elements.
According to Evans (1993), the deposits are classified into three groups, based on tectonic
setting and rock type of the host rock.
1. Komatiite and tholeiitic associated deposit in the greenstones belt
The deposits are associated with volcanism event in the plate margin of the greenstones
belt. According to the host rock and the nature of mineralization, the komatiite
associated deposits are divided into two main groups, peridotite hosted komatiite
deposits (Kambalda, Perseverance) and dunite hosted komatiite deposits (Mt Keith,
Yakabindie). The former characterized by high grade, small tonnage nickel ore deposits
that hosted by peridotite rocks. The sulphide minerals are located at the base of the lava
flow with massive and matrix textures. The mineralogy of the deposit consists of
pyrhotite, magnetite, chalcopyrite, pentlandite, chromite, millerite, heazlewoodite, and
pyrite (Evans, 1993; Hoatson, Jaireth, & Jaques, 2006).

The dunite associated deposits hosted by thick dunite ultramafic rocks with high MgO
content (48-53%). The deposits are typically large tonnage ore with nickel grade vary
 between 0.51.5% Ni. It has high nickel to to copper ratio due to abundance of
pentlandite in the orebody. The sulphide minerals in the deposit is the assemblages of
pyrrhotite, pentlandite, magnetite, pyrite, chalcopyrite, millerite, heazlewoodite,
godlevskite, and polydimite (Hoatson et al., 2006).

In the tholeiitic deposits (Pechenga, Carr Boyd), the sulphide minerals are associated
with the intrusion of tholeiitic basaltic magma that containing crustal xenolith. The
intrusion containing nickel bearing picritic basalt and accumulated in < 3 km sill. The ore
deposit typically low tonnage ores which containing 0.5-3% Ni and 2% Cu (Evans, 1993;
Hoatson et al., 2006).

2. Intrusion related to large igneous province in continental rifting zones

The deposit is associated with flood basalt that formed during early stage of continental
rifting that triggered volcanism activities in the area. Norilsk-Talnak deposit in Russia is
one the example of the deposit. The sulphide minerals are disseminated in the flat,
elongated, successive basaltic layers. The deposit hosted large amount of nickel,
copper, and PGE (Evans, 1993; Naldrett, 1999).

3. Noritic associated deposit that related to impact crater (Sudbury)

The deposit is formed by noritic intrusion complex that triggered by meteoric impact
during Proterozoic. The impact caused crustal fracture and provide conduit for
ascending magma. The ore deposits are located at the margin of eruption zone and
dykes offset in the wall rocks. In addition to nickel, the complex also produces significant
amount of Cu, Co, Au and PGE (Ames, Davidson, & Wodicka, 2008).

The mentioned above deposits are the primary nickel sulphide deposit. However, due to
geological process along period of time, the primary deposit can be altered to form
supergene deposit. Supergene enrichment process involved oxidation of sulphide minerals
due to the chemical weathering and the occurrence of groundwater (Thornber, 1975). Based
on studies by Nickel, Ross, & Thornber (1974) and Thornber (1975), supergene alteration
profile of Kambalda nickel sulphide deposit is divided into four zones, primary zone,
transition zone, violarite-pyrite zone, and oxide zone from the bottom to the surface
respectively. The supergene profile of Kambalda nickel deposit is illustrated in the Fig 1
below.
 Fig 1 Supergene zonation of Kambalda deposit (Thornber, 1975)

The contact between primary zone and transition zone is characterized by violarite-pyrite
replacement of pentlandite and pyrrhotite and on upward direction violarite is replaced
pentlandite and pyrrhotite gradually until those minerals disappears completely in the upper
zones.
Fe4.1Ni4.9S8.0 => Fe2.6Ni3.8S8.0 + 1.1Ni2+ + 1.5Fe2+ + 5.2e-
(pentlandite) (violarite)
0.33Fe7S8 + 1.1Ni2+ => 0.33Fe3.0Ni3.3S8.0 + 1.32Fe2+ + 0.44e-
(pyrrhotite) (violarite)
Fe7S8 + 1.1Ni => 4FeS2 + 3Fe2+ + 6e-
2+

(pyrrhotite) (pyrite)

In addition, millerite foming process occurs in the boundary between oxide zone and
violarite-pyrite zone due to the present of water that provide higher redox condition which is
suitable for the reaction.
Ni3S4 + 8H2O => 2NiS + Ni2+ + 2SO42- + 16H+ + 14e-
(polydimite) (millerite)
In the oxide zone, sulphide minerals are replaced by iron oxides and nickel-magnesite,
except pyrite which still exist in the lower part of the zone. The upper part of oxide zone is
represented by development of gossan on the surface.

In order to identify sulphide minerals from the supergene ore in Kambalda, Scanning
Electron Microscopy (SEM) instrument with back-scatter electron detector is used to produce
backscattered electron image. The image provides information to identify pyrite, violarite,
chalcopyrite and millerite in the sample. Backscattered electron image provides mineral
characteristics data based on its average atomic number, therefore the image is grayscale
because the atomic number is the only parameter being measured. Mineral with low atomic
number is shown as dark coloured mineral in the image while the higher atomic number
minerals shown in brighter colour (Lloyd, 1987). The example of backscattered electron
image is shown in Fig 2 below.
 Fig 2 Example of SEM/BE image (Lloyd, 1987)

The average atomic number for the supergene ore minerals is calculated refer to the formula
below:
= a(A1Z1) + b(A2Z2)/ A
where:
= average atomic number
A = atomic mass
a, b = represent elements proportion in the mineral

The values for each mineral are calculated below:

1. Chalcopyrite (CuFeS2)
(29 x 63.54) + (26 x 55.85) + 2(16 x 32.06) / 183.51 = 23.5
2. Pyrite (FeS2)
(26 x 55.85) + 2(16 x 32.06) / 119.97 = 20.6
3. Violarite (FeNi2S4)
(26 x 55.85) + 2(28 x 58.69) + 4(16 x 32.06) / 301.47 = 22.5
4. Millerite (NiS)
(28 x 58.69) + (16 x 32.06) / 90.75 = 23.7

Refer to the calculation above, all of the minerals have more than 0.5 value differences,
except for chalcopyrite and millerite which values are 23.5 and 23.7 respectively. In order to
distinguish between minerals in the backscattered electron image, the 0.5 difference of
value between minerals is needed to show contrast in the image. Based on the above
values calculation, the SEM/backscattered electron technique is suitable to distinguish
between chalcopyrite, pyrite, and violarite. However, it is unable to differentiate between
chalcopyrite and millerite due to their low values different. Additional method, such as
electron microprobe can be used to solve the backscattered electron method limitation.

REFERENCES

Ames, D. E., Davidson, A., & Wodicka, N. (2008). Geology of the Giant Sudbury Polymetallic Mining
Camp, Ontario, Canada. Economic Geology, 103, 1057-1077.
Evans, A. M. (1993). Ore Geology and Industrial Minerals : An Introduction Oxford: Blackwell
Scientific Publications
Hoatson, D. M., Jaireth, S., & Jaques, A. L. (2006). Nickel Sulfide Deposits in Australia:
Characteristics, Resources, and Potential. Ore Geology Reviews, 29(3-4), 177-241.
Lloyd, G. E. (1987). Atomic Number and Crystallographic Contrast Images with the SEM: A Review
of Backscaterred Electron Techniques. Mineralogical Magazine, 51, 3-19.
Naldrett, A. J. (1999). World-Class Ni-Cu-PGE Deposits: Key Factors in Their Genesis. Mineralium
Deposita, 34, 227-240.
Nickel, E. H., Ross, J. R., & Thornber, M. R. (1974). The Supergene Alteration of Pyrrhotite-
Pentlandite Ore at Kambalda, Western Australia. Economic Geology, 69, 93-107.
Thornber, M. R. (1975). Supergene Alteration of Sulphides, I A Chemical Model Based On Massive
Nickel Sulphide Deposits at Kambalda, Western Australia. Chemical Geology, 15, 1-14.