Mine/Mill production planning based on a Geometallurgical Model

Gomes, Reinaldo Brandao; Tomi, Giorgio De; Assis, Paulo S.

doi:10.1590/0370-44672015690173

Acessibilidade / Reportar erro

Brasil

Rem: Revista Escola de Minas

Español English

Brasil

Español English

sumário « anterior atual seguinte »

Sumário

Mining • Rem: Rev. Esc. Minas 69 (2) • Apr-Jun 2016 • https://doi.org/10.1590/0370-44672015690173 copy

Mine/Mill production planning based on a Geometallurgical Model

Authorship SCIMAGO INSTITUTIONS RANKINGS

Abstract

The Pau Branco mine supplies two blast furnaces with iron ore lumps, and currently, charcoal consumption for pig iron production accounts for 47% of the blast furnaces' operational cost. A geometallurgical model is presented to support an economic study considering reserve volumes, product quality, and operational costs based on the metallurgical performance of different iron ore typologies. Sample analysis provides values required in the model. From the model, an alternative production plan is presented with a positive impact of USD 25.6M over the current net present value of the mining/mill system.

Keywords:
sustainable development; iron ore; tailings; filtering; dry stacking

Typology	Description	% Weight in Pau Branco Reserve
Goethitic BIF ( T1 )	high Fe, presence of martitic hematite, and goethite	5%
Rich Siliceous BIF ( T2 )	medium Fe, low hydratation, high silica. Presence of martite, hematite, and magnetite	25%
Rich Dolomitic BIF ( T3 )	medium Fe, high hydratation and clay. Presence of martite, goethite, and hematite	30%
Poor Siliceous BIF ( T4 )	low Fe, low hydratation and low silica. Presence of matite, hematite, and magnetite	20%
Poor Dolomitic BIF ( T5 )	low Fe and high hydratation and abundant in clay. Presence of martite, goethite, and hematite	20%

	T1	T2	T3	T4	T5
Hematite	28.71	71.6	56.77	57.32	46.89
Magnetite	1.35	6.24	13.3	5.3	14.27
Goethite	60.02	11.89	23.97	22.3	35.85
Quartz	3.95	9.14	5.66	1.44	2.43
Gypsite	4.44	0.68	0	2.81	0.56

	Chemical Analysis (%)
	Fe	Mn	SiO₂	Al₂O₃	P	LOI
T1	61.02	0.13	1.81	8.32	0.08	4.72
T2	54.32	0.21	1.71	1.13	0.06	3.34
T3	48.65	0.05	1.82	5.52	0.07	8.72
T4	63.05	0.05	3.65	1.51	0.07	3.68
T5	58.94	0.08	3.37	4.61	0.06	5.49

		T1	T2	T3	T5	T5	Average
Fe	Laboratory	1.05	1.01	1.04	1.02	1.04	1.03
Fe	Industrial	1.07	1.02	1.05	1.03	1.06	1.04
SiO₂	Laboratory	0.75	0.94	0.62	0.75	0.86	0.8
SiO₂	Industrial	0.72	0.93	0.61	0.7	0.83	0.77
Al₂O₃	Laboratory	0.47	0.59	0.47	0.58	0.59	0.56
Al₂O₃	Industrial	0.43	0.56	0.39	0.57	0.47	0.51
LOI	Laboratory	0.59	0.79	0.9	0.98	0.87	0.87
LOI	Industrial	0.53	0.77	0.8	0.92	0.75	0.81

	T1 (4%)	T2 (23%)	T3 (24%)	T4 (24%)	T5 (25%)	Average
Fe (%)	65.29	55.42	51.09	64.94	62.48	60.62
SiO₂	1.3	15.91	11.16	2.56	2.8	7.67
Al₂O₃	3.58	0.63	2.15	0.87	2.17	1.62
LOI (%)	2.5	2.57	6.98	3.39	4.12	4.31

		Fe	SiO₂	Al₂O₃	LOI	NPV Impact (USDM)
Base Case	Feeding	56.84	10.49	2.72	4.87	0
Base Case	Processed ore	58.17	8.25	1.12	3.96	0
Scenario 01	Feeding	56.83	10.71	3.56	5.44	25.6
Scenario 01	Processed ore	60.62	7.66	1.62	4.31	25.6

Escola de Minas Rua Carlos Walter Marinho Campos, 57 - Vila Itacolomy, 35400-000 Ouro Preto MG - Brazil, Tel: (55 31) 3551-4730/3559-7408 - Ouro Preto - MG - Brazil
E-mail: editor@rem.com.br

Acompanhe os números deste periódico no seu leitor de RSS