M400000-110-DC-001 Concentrator

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

I

J

K

L

1 2

DESIGN CRITERIA FOR CONCENTRATOR FACILITIES MATERIAL HANDLING AREA - Document M40000-0000-110-DSC-0001

3

Project Project No Client Date Revision

4 5 6 7 8 9

Design Criteria - Concentrator

10 11

A.1 Ore Physical Characteristics

Cerro Casale Feasibility M40000 Compañía Minera Casale 17-Jun-11 1

Data Sources O C P D

Owner’s (CMC) Input Calculated AMEC – Process input AMEC – Other disciplines input

V T M R

Vendor-supplied data Testwork Mass balance Regulatory/permitting requirement

Value

Unit

Source

Comments

1,800

mm

O

100 99.5 99 98 94 81 55 30 15 5.5 3.5 64

% % % % % % % % % % % mm

O O O O O O O O O O O

10.4 9.8 14.6 10.5 11.4 13.0

kWh/t kWh/t kWh/t kWh/t kWh/t kWh/t

T T T T C P

weighted Based on a mix of 60% GRD and 40% Volcanic Breccia

Rev. Ref

12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26

Run-of-Mine ore top size ROM % passing sieve of: 1,200 mm 1,000 mm 800 mm 750 mm 600 mm 380 mm 200 mm 100 mm 50 mm 10 mm 6 mm P20

indicated by Mining group, per Orica simulations

1

27 28 29 30 31 32

A.2 Primary Crushing

35 36

Bond impact work index Diorite sulphide Microdiorite breccia Granodiorite sulphide Volcanic breccia average Design impact work index

37

Design factor for impact work index

20

%

P

Accounting for variability and higher hardness of recirculated material

38

Modified design impact work index

15.6

kWh/t

P

Based on mix of GRD and Volcanics and 20% design factor

39

Worst-case impact work index

25.0

kWh/t

P

Lack of confidence in historical testwork data due to limitations of measuring apparatus for very hard ores. Based on Boddington benchmarking through comparison of other indices.

33 34

MacPherson testwork report; Dec. 1998

0

40 41 42

Number of primary crushers Type of Primary crusher

43 44

2 gyratory

Primary crusher design availability

P P

49 50

Indicated life of crusher mantle Indicated life of crusher concave liners Indicated life of crusher spider liners Primary crusher design utilization Nominal throughput

19 79 4 6 8 75 4,444

h/d % mo mo mo % t/h

P C V V P P C

Accounting for lost availability for truck waiting time, inspections per crusher

A A 0 1 1 A A

51

Design throughput

4,889

t/h

C

per crusher

A

52

Indicated volumetric capacity at OSS = 191 mm

5,045

t/h

V

Per Bruno software, for this OSS and fine ROM feed (F80 = 372 mm)

B

53


5,315

t/h

V


B

54 55

Ore haul truck capacity

56 57

Dump hopper capacity

360 310 2.0 620 600 2.0 620 750 1,800 800 1,220 Yes

wet t wet t trucks t t trucks t t mm mm mm

O O P C D D C D O O, C P P

72

Open side setting nominal Closed side setting nominal Open side setting design Closed side setting design Primary crusher ROM feed F80

191 140 203 152 372

mm mm mm mm mm

P C P, V C O, C

73

Design primary crusher ROM feed F80

380

mm

74

Primary crusher discharge P80

152

mm

C

Nominal. Range between 131 and 200 mm for ROM feeds with variable PSDs. Bruno Simulations

A

75


161

mm

C

Design, Bruno simulations

A

76


399 425 45 6

mm

P

Nominal. Bruno simulations Design. Bruno simulations

A

45 46 47 48

Indicated Selected

58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71

Nominal Net

Surge hopper capacity Indicated Selected ROM top size ROM d99 Crusher cavity feed top size Hydraulic rock breaker installed?

77 78


79

Primary crusher discharge Cumulative Passing 10 mm

mm %

1 1 1 1 1 1

Indicated top size for the MK-II gyratory one per crusher per Bruno simulation per Bruno c/w 51-mm stroke for MK-II gyratory per Bruno simulation, FLS and Krupp Bids Nominal. Estimated by Mine blasting consultant

A A 0 A A B

1

80

300279383.xls

Page 1 of 73

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

I

J

K

L

1 2


3


4 5 6 7 8


81

Design Criteria - Concentrator Calculated crushing duty power required - design hardness

82

Calculated crushing duty power required - worst-case hardness

83 84

No-load power, per crusher Crusher drive losses Calculated power draw per crusher - design Calculated power draw per crusher - worst-case

89 90

9

85 86 87 88

91 92 93 94



V T M R


Value 480

Unit kW

Source C

At nominal throughput.

Comments

771

kW

C

At nominal throughput.

150 8 684 1,001

kW % kW kW

V P C C

Indicated by Bruno

Indicated crusher size Indicated crusher motor power base

60” x 113” 1,000 kW

V V

FLSmidth VO model or Metso Superior MK-II or equiv.

Crusher motor selected

1,200

kW

P, V

Ore Bulk Density – Crushed ROM Unpacked Packed

1.68 1.68

t/m3 t/m3

At nominal throughput At nominal throughput

Rev. Ref A 0 0 A 0

To cover worst-case hardness scenario and provide additional throughput capability for stockpile replenishment with softer ores.

0

P P

Wet basis, For volume calculations Wet basis, For mechanical/power calculations

A A

baghouse

O

Collected dust from dump pocket, feeder discharge and transfer point to stockpile feed conveyor discharged onto sacrificial conveyors

A

No No 0.02

%

O R D

80,000 72,000 9.18

t t h

P, O T C

40 65

º º

2 apron 6 4 6 2,157 baghouse

each

110 7,719

% t/h

95 96 97 98 99 100

Dust control system Wet scrubber for crusher dump pocket Foggers for transfer points Dust generation rate at transfer points in Primary Crushing

A.3 Coarse Ore Stockpiling and Reclaiming Stockpile live capacity, requested 103 Stockpile live capacity, provided 101 102 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115

Crushed ore angle of repose – design Draw down angle – design Number of reclaim lines Reclaim feeder type Number of feeders Design number of operating feeders Normal number of operating feeders Throughput capacity per feeder Dust control system

each each each tph

Jenike and Johanson analysis indicates live capacity = 72,000 tonnes (worst case minimum) at nominal throughput

A B B

T T

J&J Testwork J&J Testwork

A A

P P P P P C O

3 per line; 2 operated, one stand-by for design capacity. Normal operation will be 3 operating.

116 117

A

US EPA AP 42 Fifth edition http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/ap42/ch11/final/c11s24.pdfDetails dust collection calculations are in M4

At design throughput with 4 feeders operating. dust collected from transfer points between reclaim feeders and reclaim conveyors; dust dropped onto reclaim conveyors

A A

A.4 Comminution Circuits

118 119 120 121 122 123 124

Peak throughput design factor Design throughput for design ore Dust control system Foggers for transfer points Dust generation rate at transfer points

baghouse No

P C O R

0.02

% of feed stream

P

3 16 16 96.9 2.5 to 3.7 2.5 to 3.7 24 85 15.6

wk h h % wk wk wk % kWh/t

O P P P V V P P P

125

10% above normal tonnage for soft ore A A US EPA AP 42 Fifth edition http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/ap42/ch11/final/c11s24.pdf Details dust collection calculations are in M40000-3100-134-CAL0005.

A

126 127

A.4.1 Secondary Crushing Circuit

128

137

Scheduled shutdown frequency Scheduled shutdown duration Duration of shutdown for bowl/mantle liner replacement Crushing Section Availability Indicated life of crusher bowl Indicated life of crusher mantle liners Indicated life of crusher spider liners Secondary crushing circuit utilization Modified design crushing work index

138

Worst-case impact work index

25.0

kWh/t

P

139

Ore abrasive wear

1.5

kg/t

T

129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136

Boddington benchmarking - full line down at once Boddington benchmarking c/w 12 hr at low altitude and no winter drop-in complete spare bowl and mantle assemblies provided Metso estimate Metso estimate

Based on a 60% granodiorite, 40% volcanics mining mix Lack of confidence in historical testwork data due to limitations of measuring apparatus for very hard ores. Based on Boddington benchmarking through comparison of other indices.

A A A C C A

0 A

140

300279383.xls

Page 2 of 73

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

I

J

K

L

1 2


3


4 5 6 7 8 9 141


Design Criteria - Concentrator A.4.1.1 Cone Crushers



V T M R


Value

Unit

Source

Comments

Rev. Ref

8 8 2 6 148 399 154 425 47

ea. ea. ea. ea. mm mm mm mm mm

P P P P, O P,C P,C P,C P,C P,C

0

%

P,C

2.5 35 45

% mm mm

O P P V

566

kW

C

at nominal throughput

700

kW

C

at design throughput

0

910

kW

C


0

100 8

kW %

V P

Indicated by Bruno

724

kW

C

869

kW

P,C

1,098

kW

P,O

142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156

Number of secondary crushers to be installed Number of crushers provided for in layout plans Number of Lines Number of Operating Crushers - at design hardness, design throughput Nominal Feed Size F80 Nominal Feed Size F99 (Top Size) Design Feed Size F80 Design Feed Size F99 (Top Size) Design Feed Size F20 Design Feed Cumulative % Passing 10 mm (Indication of amount of fines in feed) Crusher feed moisture content Crusher Closed Side Setting (CSS) - nominal feed conditions Crusher Closed Side Setting (CSS) - design feed size conditions @ nominal tonnage Liner profile

medium

No future expansion required 3 operating and 1 standby per line. Bruno simulation result Bruno simulation result Bruno simulation result Bruno simulation result Bruno simulation result.

A A A A A A

Bruno simulation result.

1

Boddington benchmarking.

A 0

157

167 168

Theoretical crushing power required - design ore hardness (per crusher) Theoretical crushing power required - design ore hardness (per crusher) Theoretical crushing power required - worst-case ore hardness (per crusher) No-load power, per crusher Crusher drive losses Indicated power draw (per nominal tonnage - design crusher) hardness design tonnage - design hardness nominal tonnage - worst-case hardness Crusher model (indicated) Installed motor power (per crusher) Contingency on power draw design throughput

169

Operated crushers at worst-case hardness, nominal throughput

158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166

170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204

MP1250 series 932 kW 7.2 %

O V C

A 0 Based on benchmarked hardness against Boddington data

0

Standard head cone crusher or equivalent

A

Relative to available power

7.1

#

7,843 8,627

tph tph

C C

peak 10% above average value - soft ore

1,477 1,826

tph tph

M C


A A

1,682

tph

V

Metso data

0

13.9

%

C

Relative to average throughput at nominal CSS of 35mm

2,225

tph

V

Mean of vendor published range for MP1000 x 1.25 for MP1250.

50.6

%

C

Relative to average throughput at maximum CSS of 45mm

Crusher Product Size P80 @ nominal feed size Crusher Product Size P99 (Top Size) @ nominal feed size Crusher Product Size P80 @ design feed size Crusher Product Size P99 (Top Size) @ design feed size Crusher Product Size P20 Crusher Product cumulative % passing 10 mm

39 68 39 68 7 17

mm mm mm mm mm %

C C V V C C

Bruno simulation result. Bruno result Metso Simulation Metso Simulation Bruno simulation result. Bruno simulation result.

Type of crusher feeder Number of crusher feeders

8

ea.

P P

One per crusher

1.68 1.68 20 359 2154 2872 35 60 4.9 16.2 0.06

t/m3 t/m3 min m3 m3 m3 º º m3 sec %

Crusher circuit throughput (fresh feed basis) Average Design Throughput per crusher (total crusher feed c/w circulating load) Average Design Indicated maximum capacity at 35 mm CSS (per crusher) @ nominal feed size Capacity contingency vs. nominal throughput Maximum capacity at 45 mm CSS (per crusher) @ design feed size Contingency on nominal throughput

Secondary Crusher Feed Bins Design bulk ore SG - volume requirement Unpacked Mechanical (Packed) Crusher Feed Surge Bin residence time Cone Crusher Feed Surge Bin Total Surge Bin Capacity Total Surge Bin Capacity Crushed ore angle of repose – design Draw down angle – design Cone Crusher Feed Hopper Cone Crusher Feed Hopper residence time Dust generation rate at transfer points in Secondary Crushing

205

300279383.xls

Belt feeder

0

P

P C C C T T V C, V D

A

A 0 0 A 1

Wet Basis. For volume calculations For mechanical/power calculations

A A A

Live volume, per crusher, 6 operating crushers Live Volume, 6 crushers Live Volume, 8 crushers Jenike and Johanson Testing Jenike and Johanson Testing Live volume, per crusher M40000-3100-110-CAL-0004 Based on supplier design of feed chute. US EPA AP 42 Fifth edition http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/ap42/ch11/final/c11s24.pdf

B B B A A A A A

Page 3 of 73

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

I

J

K

L

1 2


3


4 5 6 7 8 9 206


Design Criteria - Concentrator A.4.1.2 Secondary Dry Screening

Data Sources O C P D Value

Unit

Source

tph tph tph

C C C C C


V T M R


Comments

Rev. Ref

207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 244

Recycle ratio (screen vs. fresh feed tonnage) Average Design Total design processing rate Design screen undersize at max rate Design screen oversize at max rate

1.13 1.27 12,451 9,804 2,647

Dry Screen Feed Bins Design bulk ore SG - volume requirement

Dry Screening Feed Surge Bin residence time Dry Screening Surge Bin Capacity Crushed ore angle of repose – design Draw down angle – design Screen feeder type

1.68 1.68 15 min 2,924 m3 40.0 º 75.0 º Vibrating pan feeder

Number of vibrating dry screens Design processing rate per dry screen Type of screen Screen deck width (indicated) Screen deck length (indicated) Number of decks per screen Peak capacity per screen Screen motor rating Screening efficiency Required Unit screen capacity (at average throughput)

6 ea. 3,264 tph Multi-slope 4.3 m 8.5 m 2 ea. 3,450 tph 75 kW 90 % 81 t/h/m2

Screen panels square aperture Screen cut point Bed depth at discharge Dry screen undersize P80 Dry screen undersize P20 Dry screen undersize Cumulative % Passing 10 mm Average undersize stream flow rate (per screen)

300279383.xls

P T, P T, P P C

Bruno simulations indicated circulating load Bruno simulations indicated circulating load for worst case scenario 25% allowance for instantaneous peaks, at design circulating load 25% allowance for peaks 25% allowance for instantaneous peaks, at design circulating load

A B A A A

Wet Basis, unpacked. For volume calculations For mechanical/power calculations

A A A

Live Volume Jenike and Johanson Testing Jenike and Johanson Testing

A A A

Schenck indicated.

A

P V C P,V P,V P,V V V V V C

45 38 41

mm mm mm

P C V

30 7 26 1,307

mm mm % tph

O,C O,C C C

aka Banana screen Schenck indicated. Schenck indicated.

A A A

Schenck indicated. Schenck indicated. 0 Based on vendor indicated deck dimensions and design tonnage

Bruno indication for nominal throughput Bruno indication at nominal throughput. Confirmed by vendor. Bruno indication Bruno indication Bruno indication Fresh feed to crushing circuit rate

1

Page 4 of 73

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

I

J

K

L

1 2


3


4 5 6 7 8



V T M R


Value

Unit

Source

250 251

Scheduled shutdown frequency Scheduled shutdown duration Duration of shutdown for roll replacement Cumulative daily shutdown for roll/edge block checks Tertiary crusher availability

3 16 30 2 88.6

wk hr hr hr %

O P P, V P P

Boddington benchmarking - full line down at once Boddington benchmarking c/w 12 hr at low altitude and no winter drop-in complete roll assemblies provided Boddington benchmarking, per crusher

A A B A A

252

Indicated roll life

6,000

op. hours

T, V

based on 150 kt/d, 1.55 circulating load

A

adjusted for actual throughput and circulating load

A A

9 245 246 247 248 249

Design Criteria - Concentrator A.4.2 Tertiary Crushing Circuit


per design conditions

253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260 261 262 263 264 265 266

per testwork conditions

Philosophy for design grinding production rate when 1 line of HPGR is bypassed. Tertiary crushing circuit utilization Recycle ratio (per Polysius testwork scale-up) Recycle ratio (crusher throughput vs. fresh feed) Recycle ratio (crusher throughput vs. fresh feed) Wet screen close-out size Recycle ratio (at 10 mm close-out size) Expected recycle ratio at maximum circuit feed size Average processing rate (at crushers) Maximum processing rate (at crushers) Dust generation rate at transfer points in Tertiary Crushing

5,200 op. hours 36,491 kt Nominal tonnage ball mill tonnage with high circulating load. 85 1.85 1.65 2.00 10.0 1.65 2.00 14,510 18,818 0.003

%

C C P

tph tph %

O V C O P C, V, P C C P D

mm

267 268

Comments

Process requirement for maintaining production and inventory in fine ore silos.

Rev. Ref

1

A For 6 mm tested close-out size Calcul Benchmarking to Boddington

Boddington Benchmarking Based on benchmarked recycle ratio At maximum allowable rolls speed US EPA AP 42 Fifth edition http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/ap42/ch11/final/c11s24.pdf

1 1 1 1

A

A.4.2.1 HPGR Crushing

269 270 271 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 279 280 281 282 283 284 285 286 287 288 289 290 291 292 293 294 295 296 297 298 299 300 301 302 303 304 305

Specific grinding force (indicated) Specific throughput rate (m-dot) (indicated) Scaled-up specific throughput rate (m-dot) Specific energy input (indicated) Scaled-up specific energy input ATWAL Abrasion Test (indicated)

3.5 227 300 1.80 1.44 16

N/mm2 ts/(m3h) ts/(m3h) kWh/t kWh/t g/t

T T T T T T

From testwork From test work results Benchmarking From testwork Benchmarking From Polysius testwork

A

Number of High Pressure Rolls Crushers Number of lines Required throughput rate (per crusher, fresh feed) Required throughput rate (per crusher, fresh feed)

6 2 2,418 3,136

ea. ea. tph tph

V P C C

2 lines, each with 3 operating HPGRs Average instantaneous rate Design

A B B

Rolls diameter (indicated) Rolls width (indicated) Maximum allowable rotational speed Maximum allowable rolls speed (mechanical) Max rolls speed (slippage rule of thumb) Nominal rolls speed for required throughput Design rolls speed for design throughput Contingency on throughput (Mechanical limit) Contingency on throughput (Process limit)

2.40 1.65 21.0 2.64 2.40 2.40 2.55 10.0 0.0

m m RPM m/s m/s m/s m/s % %

V V V C P C C C C

From Polysius report From Polysius report Calculated from vendor simulation report At maximum RPM allowed to limit potential mechanical damage Process limit at which slippage becomes a problem At indicated m-dot and recycle ratio At Boddington benchmarking m-dot and recycle rate. At nominal rolls speed required for average throughput At nominal rolls speed required for average throughput

Installed power - per crusher Power consumed per crusher Contingency on power

5,500 3,666 50.0

kW kW %

V C C

Polysius basis Including 95% electrical drive efficiency At average throughput rate

6

ea.

P P

One per rolls crusher

Crushed ore angle of repose – design Draw down angle – design Average % moisture (w/w) of HPGR feed

1.42 1.68 1.88 15 4,704 3,650 40 75 4.7

t/m3 t/m3 t/m3 min t m3 º º %

HPGR Feed Hopper surge residence time HPGR Feed Hopper live surge capacity HPGR feed size P80 HPGR feed size P20 HPGR feed cumulative % passing 6 mm HPGR feed size P99 (top size) HPGR product P80 HPGR product P20 HPGR product cumulative % passing 6 mm HPGR product cumulative % passing 10 mm

20 25 26 9 15 45 17.8 0.7 53 64

sec t mm mm % mm mm mm % %

Type of feeder Number of crusher feeders HPGR ore Bin Design bulk HPGR feed SG - volume requirements Unpacked Mechanical (power) Structural HPGR Surge Bin residence time required HPGR Surge Bin capacity

306 307 308 309 310 311 312 313 314 315 316 317 318 319 320 321

300279383.xls

Belt feeder

T, C T, C T, C T, C P C C

A

A A

Wet basis, packed For volume calculations For mechanical/power calculations For structural design calculations at design throughput i.e. 10% above average Live tonnage at design throughput rates Live volume at design throughput rates Jenike and Johanson Testing Jenike and Johanson Testing

A A A 1

One per crusher at design throughput rate Polysius simulations Polysius simulations Polysius simulations

A A A A A

Used in simulations at 10 mm cut size. Used in simulations at 10 mm cut size. Used in simulations at 10 mm cut size. Used in simulations at 10 mm cut size.

1 1 1 1

A A A A

C P, V C P,V,C P,V,C P,V,C P,V V,T,C V,T,C V,T,C V,T,C

Page 5 of 73

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

I

J

K

L

1 2


3


4 5 6 7 8 9 322


Design Criteria - Concentrator A.4.2.2 Fine Ore Storage


Unit

Source

9,607

tph

C

60,000 19.4 Silos 6

tonnes hrs

O C

1.37 1.68 1.88 4.7 40.0 75.0

t/m3 t/m3 t/m3 % º º


V T M R


Comments

Rev. Ref

323 324 325

Capacity of twin HPGR product conveyors

326 327

Fine Ore Storage Storage live capacity

328 329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336 337

c/w half of HPGR down Type of storage Number of silos Bulk density of HPGR product Unpacked Mechanical Structural Bin feed moisture content (% w/w) Crushed ore angle of repose – design Draw down angle – design

T, C T, C T, C T, C C

Each. At design throughput rate A A A

Wet basis, packed For volume calculations For mechanical/power calculations For Structural design calcuations

A A A 1

Jenike and Johanson Testing Jenike and Johanson Testing

A A

aka Banana screen Vendor indicated maximum range At nominal circuit throughput rate Forward-reverse re-pulping dead boxes in chute To match ball mill utilization

0

Calculated based on Schenck indicated deck dimensions Calculated based on Schenck indicated deck dimensions

0 0

for dewatering efficiency

A A A

338 339

A.4.2.3 Wet Vibrating Screens

340 341 342 343 344 345 346 347 348 349 350 351 352 353 354 355 356 357 358 359 360 361 362 363

Number of units Type of screen Max throughput per screen (indicated) Average processing rate per screen Feed arrangement Wet Screening Utilization Deck panels aperture Required Unit screen capacity (average throughput) Selected Unit screen capacity (average throughput) Screening area required Selected screen deck width Length to width minimum ratio Screen deck length (indicated) Screen deck length (retained) Number of decks per screen Wet screening efficiency (used in simulations) Wet screening efficiency (expected) Screen motor rating Expected bed depth at discharge Wet screen feed repulping box water consumption, nominal tonnage Wet screen feed repulping box water consumption, design tonnage Screen Sprays

12

ea. Multi-slope 1,300 tph 1,209 tph Belt feeder - Repulper 95 % 10.0 mm 36 t/h/m2 33 t/h/m2 34 m2 4.3 m 2:1 7.9 m 8.5 m 1 ea. 88 % 92 % 55 kW 69 mm 0.50

m3/t

C

0.40

m3/t

C

368 369

type number of bars per screen number of sprays per bar flowrate per spray Flowrate per screen Total screen spray water Pressure

duck bills 3 6 22.0 396.0 4752.0 200.0

370

type of water used

Process

364 365 366 367

P P,V V C P P P C C C P,V P P,V P,V P V P, V V C

ea. m3/hr m3/hr m3/hr kPa

Schenck indicated. Single deck screens with spray bars Used in Polysius simulations Schenck indicated. Schenck indicated. Large volume water required for complete disagglomeration of flakes. Cerro Verde benchmarking is 0.5 to 0.58 m3/t.

P

Required as flowrate is too high for water balance. Ludowici states sprays will work with process water.

1

C V, O, P P P

Benchmarking to Cerro Verde and Boddington, HPGR Simulations. Assumed

374

mm mm % w/w % w/w

375

Wet screen undersize product solids content

40.0

% w/w

P

Water added at screen sprays for proper screening and minimal additional water addition to prevent sanding of low-angle discharge chute.

376

Pulp to individual ball mill pumpbox from wet screens

2,604

m3/h

C

300279383.xls

1

Ludowici Ludowici

P P V V C C V

7.4 5.4 8.0 5.0

372 373

1

A A A 1 1 1 1 0

Wet screen undersize product P80 Calculated (worst case) Wet screen undersize product P80 Selected Wet screen oversize product moisture content, design Wet screen oversize product moisture content, nominal

371

0 0

0 1 1

Page 6 of 73

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

I

J

K

L

1 2


3


4 5 6 7 8 9




Value

Unit


Source

V T M R


Comments

Rev. Ref

377 378

DESIGN CRITERIA FOR CONCENTRATOR FACILITIES GRINDING, FLOTATION, DEWATERING AREAS - Document M40000-0000-110-DSC-0001

379

Project

Cerro Casale Feasibility

380

Project No

M40000

O

Owner’s (CMC) Input

V

Vendor-supplied data

381

Client Date Revision

Compañía Minera Casale 17-Jun-11

C P D

Calculated AMEC – Process input AMEC – Other disciplines input

T M R

Testwork Mass balance Regulatory/permitting requirement

382 383

Data Sources

1

384 385 386 387 388 389 390 391 392 393 394 395 396 397 398 399 400 401 402 403 404 405 406 407 408 409 410 411 412 413 414

Design Criteria - Concentrator B.1.1 Ore Reserves Characteristics Predominant Mineralogy Copper Minerals Distribution Chalcopyrite Bornite Chalcocite Digenite Covellite Native copper Total proportion of Cu-bearing minerals Gangue Minerals Silica K-feldspars Amphiboles Pyrite Molybdenite Sphalerite Fe/Mn oxides Sulphates Carbonates Apatite Zircon Micas Chlorite Ti oxides Clays

300279383.xls

Value

Unit

Source

61.5 11.3 3.2 23.7 0.4 na 0.91

% % % % % % %

T T T T T T T T

27.98 33.83 0.92 1.83 0.09 0.05 4.06 1.18 0.55 0.35 0.35 20.83 3.27 1.05 2.73

% % % % % % % % % % % % % % %

T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T

Comments

Rev. Ref

Year 1-5 Composite

Year 1-5 Composite

Page 7 of 73

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

I

J

K

L

1 2


3


4 5 6 7 8 9 415




Value

Design Clay Content

3.2

Unit %


Source T

V T M R


Comments

Rev. Ref

SGS Report "Gold Deportment Study in Cyclone O/F, 1st Cl. Scav. Tail and Ro Tail Samples from Cerro Casale Project" January 22, 2009; on Year 1-5 composite sample

416 417

Principal Sulphide Lithologies

418

Diorite Porphyry sulphide DSU DSL

419 420

423 424

Granodiorite porphyry sulphide Microdiorite breccia Volcanic conglomerate sulphide Other volcanics

425 426

Microdiorite breccia split as:

427 428

VCGL + VO

429 430

Mine Plan Tonnage - Lithological Distribution

421 422

total

Year 3 to Year 7

431 432 433 434 435 436 437 438

sulphide ore mixed ore

Porphyry sulphide Upper Porphyry sulphide Lower Porphyry sulphide Granodiorite porphyry sulphide Volcanic conglomerate sulphide + others Microdiorite breccia - mixed Microdiorite breccia - sulphide

439

Year 8 to Year 12

440 441 442 443 444 445 446 447


448

Year 13 to EOM

449

455 456


457 458

Ore moisture content - average

450 451 452 453 454

29.1

%

O

6.9 22.2 17.0 13.2 21.5 19.3 100.0 12.8 0.3 40.8

% % % % % % % % % %

C C O O O O C O O O

A (%)

B (%)

81.1 3.2 2.7 6.5 6.5 100.0

22.4 49.7 72.1 6.6 2.2 0.9 18.3 100.0

A (%)

B (%)

50.4 11.9 21.7 8.0 8.0 100.0

0 26.2 26.2 18.2 38.5 0.3 16.9 100.0

A (%)

B (%)

3.4 25.8 64.8 3.0 3.0 100.0 2.5

1.8 3.0 4.8 22.5 65.7 0.0 6.9 100.0 % w/w

O O O O O O O

2.62 t/m3 2.59 t/m3 2.66 t/m3 2.76 t/m3 3.61 t/m3 5.32 * %Cu/100 + 2.77

T T T T C C

proportions in CC_2011_MinePlan_CEJV_04-Mar-11 - by reserves tonnage rock code: DP (rock type was divided between upper (DSU) and lower (DSL) in 2000 FS report)

rock code: GRD rock code: MDBX rock code: VCGL rock code: VO rock code: MDBX sul rock code: MDBX mix

0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

A: per composite samples prepared for testwork B: per CC_2011_MinePlan_CEJV_04-Mar-11 (Year 3 is first year of plant feed) O O O O O O O

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 A: per composite samples prepared for testwork B: per CC_2011_MinePlan_CEJV_04-Mar-11

O O O O O O O

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 A: per composite samples prepared for testwork B: per CC_2011_MinePlan_CEJV_04-Mar-11 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

O

459 460 461 462 463 464 465 466 467 468 469 470 471

Average specific gravity for DP Average specific gravity for MDBX Average specific gravity for GRD Average specific gravity for VCGL average Solids Specific Gravity Estimate Ore abrasion index for DP Ore abrasion index for MDBX Ore abrasion index for GRD Ore abrasion index for VCGL average

0.34 0.47 0.41 0.30 0.38

g g g g g

assumed equal for the VO component of the volcanic rocks For comminution circuits. Linear regression with testwork data. For flotation circuits.

T T T T C

472

300279383.xls

Page 8 of 73

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

I

J

K

L

1 2


3


4 5 6 7 8 9 473




V T M R


Design Criteria - Concentrator B.1.2 Average Head Grades

Value

Unit

Source

Comments

Rev. Ref

Gold (Au) Copper (Cu) Cyanide-Soluble Copper (CuCN)

0.640 0.247

g/t %

O O

Mine Plan CC_2011_MinePlan_CEJV_04-Mar-11 Mine Plan CC_2011_MinePlan_CEJV_04-Mar-11

1 1

Silver (Ag) Sulphur (S)

na 1.40 2.57

% g/t %

O O

not available in geological block model Mine Plan CC_2011_MinePlan_CEJV_04-Mar-11 2004 FS ore composites

1

Average Gold Head Grade per Lithology Diorite sulphide DSU DSL Microdiorite breccia - Mixed Microdiorite breccia - Sulphide Granodiorite sulphide Volcanic sulphide

0.621 0.540 0.580 0.763 0.742 0.712 0.590

g/t g/t g/t g/t g/t g/t g/t

O O O O O O O

Average Copper Head Grade per Lithology Diorite sulphide DSU DSL Microdiorite breccia - Mixed Microdiorite breccia - Sulphide Granodiorite sulphide Volcanic sulphide

0.21 0.21 0.24 0.21 0.29 0.31 0.23

% g/t g/t % % % %

O O O O O O O

Average Silver Head Grade per Lithology Diorite sulphide DSU DSL Microdiorite breccia - Mixed Microdiorite breccia - Sulphide Granodiorite sulphide Volcanic sulphide

1.33 1.30 1.34 2.51 2.07 1.77 1.08

g/t g/t g/t g/t g/t g/t g/t

O O O O O O O

Average Gold Head Grade per Periods Year 3-7 Year 8-12 Year 13+

0.612 0.658 0.645

g/t g/t g/t

O O O

474 475 476 477 478 479 480 481 482 483 484 485 486 487 488 489 490 491 492 493 494 495 496 497 498 499 500 501 502 503 504 505 506 507 508 509 510 511

Mine Plan CC_2011_MinePlan_CEJV_04-Mar-11

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1


1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1


1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1


1 1 1 1


1 1 1 1


1 1 1 1

512 513

Average CuT Head Grade per Periods

514 515

Year 3-7 Year 8-12 Year 13+

0.228 0.249 0.256

% % %

O O O

Average Silver Head Grade per Periods Year 3-7 Year 8-12 Year 13+

1.48 1.33 1.41

g/t g/t g/t

O O O

516 517 518 519 520 521 522

300279383.xls

Page 9 of 73

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

I

J

K

L

1 2


3


4 5 6 7 8


Design Criteria - Concentrator B.1.3 Design Head Grades 524 Gold per Mine Plan FSU V2 wSP using 80th percentile of grade 525 distribution per block 526 Per PFS ore reserves grade vs. tonnage 9



V T M R


Value

Unit

Source

Comments

0.97

g/t Au

O,C

20% above peak year grade of 0.812 g/t in Year 8

0.96

g/t Au

O,C

marginal grade of tonnage fraction to cover 85% of reserves tonnage

Rev. Ref

523

Adjusted for equivalent metal units of high head with nominal tonnage.

527

Retained design grade

0.873

g/t Au

P

528

Total Copper per Mine Plan FSU V2 wSP using 80th percentile of grade distribution per block per PFS ore reserves grade vs. tonnage

0.40

%CuT

O,C

20% above peak year grade of 0.33 % in Year 11

0.39

%CuT

O,C

marginal grade of tonnage fraction covering 85% of reserves tonnage

0.355

%CuT

P

2.28

g/t Ag

O,C

2.08

g/t Ag

P

19 360 24

years d/y h

O P P

Plant Capacity Average Design Hourly - average Hourly – design Yearly

160,000 176,000 7,018 7,719 57.6

t/d t/d t/h t/h Mt/a

O P, O C C C

Grinding/Flotation Planned Shutdown - Weighted

h/week

h/y

529 530 531 532 533 534

retained design grade Silver per Mine Plan FSU V2 wSP using 80th percentile of grade distribution per block retained design grade

Adjusted equivalent metal units of 160 ktpd at 0.39%Cu. 20% above peak year grade of 1.903 g/t in Year 11 Adjusted for equivalent metal units of high head with nominal tonnage.

0

0

0

535

B.2 General Plant Operating Requirements Design Life Operation Schedule 539 Operating hours per day 536 537 538

Projected mine life (partial operations in first and last years) For weather-related interruptions to ore supply

540 541 542 543 544 545 546 547 548 549

Maintenance shutdowns

1.5

78

P

550

Full plant shutdowns

0.9

48.75

P

2.4

126.8

C

8,513 98.5

h/y %

C C

156 96.7 149 95.0 8,208

h/y % h/y % h/y

P C C O C

Total

551 552 553

Grinding/Flotation Availability

554

nominal 10% above average nominal, operated basis

A A

nominal hours weighing based on 100% plant capacity 18 hours per grinding line, each line down once per 12 weeks for cyclone feed pump maintenance. Six lines. 24 hours per 24 weeks. Combined with individual grinding line shutdown

A A

555 556 557 558 559 560 561

Grinding/Flotation/CIL Circuits Unplanned Shutdown Weighted Operational delays Operational Utilization External Interruptions Overall Grinding/Flotation/CIL Circuits Utilization

hours weighing based on 100% plant capacity Accounts for material handling issues Based on operational hours divided by total hours per year for lack of ore, power supply, concentrate or water pipeline issues A A

562

300279383.xls

Page 10 of 73

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

I

J

K

L

1 2


3


4 5 6 7 8 9 563 564 565 566 567 568 569 570 571



Correlated Autogenous Work Index DP MDBX GRD VCGL average

581 582

Design Ore Equivalent

583 584

JKTech parameters – Rock Type Composites

574 575 576 577 578 579

589

A b Axb ta

590 591

Mia SG

588

592 593 594 595 596 597 598 599

Source

16.5 18.5 18.1 17 17.2

kWh/t kWh/t kWh/t kWh/t kWh/t

T T T T/P C

Yr 8 - 12 94.28 0.21 20.1 0.29 30.36 16.67 2.65

Yr 13 - 18 97.61 0.22 21.8 0.24 30.86 16.09 2.72

units


Comments

Rev. Ref

assumed equivalent for VO weighted

Source T T T T T T T

kWh/t kWh/t t/m3

Yr 1 - 5 Blend

P

DP 93.7 0.2 18.7 0.3 30.9 2.62

585 586 587

Unit

V T M R

MacPherson testwork report on Placer Dome samples; Dec. 1998

580

573

Value


B.3 Grinding Parameters

JKTech parameters – Production Composites Yr 3 - 7 A 93.25 b 0.21 Axb 19.2 ta 0.3 Mia 30.41 BMWi 16.94 SG 2.62

572


Bond Rod Mill Work Index at nominal 1,190 µm DP MDBX GRD VCGL average

GRP 94.4 0.23 21.7 0.24 32.0 2.66

MDBX Mix 79.7 0.3 23.9 0.4 23.0 2.56

MDBX Sul 96.8 0.18 17.4 0.33 30.3 2.62

19.3 22.1 18.8 19.3 14.4

kWh/t kWh/t kWh/t kWh/t kWh/t

T T T T C

VCGL 100 0.22 22 0.22 30.7 2.76

Source T T T T T T

Placer Dome Samples

weighted

600

Bond Ball Mill Work Index (@ P80), Average

601

DP (@ 116 µm)

17.3

kWh/t

T

602

MDBX mixed (@ 109 µm)

14.8

kWh/t

T

603

MDBX sulphide (@ 118 µm)

14.8

kWh/t

T

604

GRD (@114 µm)

15.3

kWh/t

T

605

VCGL (@ 112 µm)

16.0

kWh/t

T

606 607

average Design ball mill work index

11.9 16.94

kWh/t kWh/t

C P

608 609

Bond Ball Mill Work Index (@ P80) Average + 1 Standard Deviation

610

DP (@ 116 µm)

17.9

kWh/t

T

611

GRD (@114 µm)

16.1

kWh/t

T

612

VCGL (@ 112 µm)

16.2

kWh/t

T

95 6 475 7.4

% ea. % mm

P, O P P C, P

5.4

mm

P, V

Benchmarking Cerro Verde & Boddington, HPGR vendor simulations.

1

120 11.3 1,170 1,287

micron % tph tph

O V,P,C C C

Benchmarking Boddington. Worst case. Design Per ball mill Per ball mill, 10% above average

A A A

for average of mapping samples CC-3, 5, 6, 7, 8; 17 kWh/t for composite sample for rock type composite sample for average of mapping samples CC-12, 14, 15; 15.6 kWh/t for composite sample @ 114 µm for average of mapping samples CC-17, 18, 21; 18.3 kWh/t for composite sample @ 114 µm for average of mapping samples CC-22 to 25; 15.8 kWh/t for composite sample @ 111 µm weighted per design ore - Year 1 - 5 composite

for average of mapping samples CC-3, 5, 6, 7, 8; 17 kWh/t for composite sample for average of mapping samples CC-17, 18, 21; 18.3 kWh/t for composite sample @ 114 µm for average of mapping samples CC-22 to 25; 15.8 kWh/t for composite sample @ 111 µm

613 614 615 616 617 618 619

B.3.1 Grinding Circuit Grinding circuit utilization Number of identical parallel grinding lines Design (max) circulating load Grinding circuit feed – T80 Worst case Benchmarking

620 621 622 623 624

Targeted grinding circuit product P80 Fresh grinding circuit feed passing 120 µm Fresh feed from wet screens

average design

A To accommodate high granodiorite content in Y11+ mining mixes A

625

300279383.xls

Page 11 of 73

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

I

J

K

L

1 2


3


4 5 6 7 8 9 626


Design Criteria - Concentrator B.3.2 Ball Milling


Unit

Source

6 78

ea. % solids

P P P O

16.94 0 16.94 5 12.82 12.5 0.0 1.12 95.1 96.9

kWh/t % kWh/t % kWh/t kWh/t %

Worst case scenario Net ball mill grinding power required Net ball mill power consumption per ball mill, at mill shell at motor leads

14.8 17.3 17.9

kWh/t MW MW

Design Net ball mill grinding power required Net ball mill power consumption per ball mill, at mill shell at motor leads

14.4 16.9 17.4

Indicated grinding mill dimensions Diameter (ID) Length (EGL)


V T M R


Comments

Rev. Ref

627 628 629 630 631 632 633 634 635 636 637 638 639 640 641

Mill Type Ball Mill motor type Number of Ball Mills Ball Mill Discharge Density Testwork indicated ball mill work index Design factor on ball mill work index Design Bond Ball Mill Work Index Reduction in ball mill work index Gross power requirement per ball mill, at shell Worse Case Gross power requirement per ball mill, at shell Design Deduction for Fines in Ball Mill Feed EF4 Ball Mill Feed Oversize Efficiency factor Gearless drive train efficiency

642 643 644 645 646 647

Ball mill gearless

O P C T C C O C P, V V

wet overflow, c/w safety trommel screen

JKSimMet Simulation for design ore, defined as per composite for Year 1-5

per Bond's standard grinding theory Including transformer & cycloconverter At motor leads

A A A A 1 A 0 A 0

C C C

at motor leads For average throughput, design ore For average throughput, design ore

0 0 0

kWh/t MW MW

C C C

at motor leads For average throughput, design ore For average throughput, design ore

1 1 1

7.92 13.9

m m

P P

26 feet 45.5 feet EGL

1

78 80 33 30 33 17.3 18.0 0.6 33 30

% critical % critical % v/v % v/v % v/v MW MW % % %

P P V V V V, P C C V V

Vendor metso power draw curve, at mill shell - new liners Vendor (Metso) power draw tables, at mill shell - worn liners Based on Metso data Vendor (Metso) power draw tables; at mill shell gearless drive At average throughput, with design ore c/w new liners, Metso c/w worn liners, Metso

A A 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1

Ni-hard 1074 5.7

t g/kWh

P V P

79.7 1072 198.5 180.5 5.0 4.6 2.0 460 920 50.8 + 76.2 1270

g/kWh g/t t/d t/d days days units t t mm t

T, P, C C C C O C P P C P P

10.0 0.71 0.66 7.4 5.4

mm mm mm mm mm

P P,V C P,V P,V

%

for microcracking induced by HPGR crushing

648 649 650 651 652 653 654 655 656 657 658 659 660 661 662 663 664 665 666 667 668 669 670 671 672

Mill nominal rotational speed Maximum rotational speed Required mill ball charge Maximum ball charge for mill geometry Power draw per ball mill at maximum ball charge Installed power per ball mill Contingency on power draw vs. required Maximum ball charge for drawing installed power

Ball mill liner material Estimated ball mill liner set weight, per mill Ball mill liners wear rate

673

Factor for improved steel metallurgy

674 675

Ball mill ball design consumption Ball mill ball design consumption Ball mill ball design usage Ball mill ball nominal usage Storage capacity minimum Storage capacity selected Number of storage/metering bins Inventory per bin selected Total Bin Inventory selected Ball diameter Ball charge total weight, per mill

676 677 678 679 680 681 682 683 684 685 686

689 690

Ball mill feed material top size P99 Ball mill product material size P80 Worst Case Ball mill product material size P80 Design Ball mill feed material size P80 Worst case Ball mill feed material size P80 Design

691 692

Reagents added

687 688

0.7

secondary collector, lime

Outotec Based on Bond correlations, with design ore To account for improved steel metallurgy since Bond developed equation. Bond Abrasion formula with adjustment for metallurgy of steel. at design tonnage and design power at nominal tonnage total, on site inventory

live capacity one third-two-thirds split between 2 and 3" balls at load for maximum ball charge

JKSimMet Simulation JKSimMet Simulation

A 1

1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0

1 0 1

T,P

693

300279383.xls

Page 12 of 73

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

I

J

K

L

1 2


3


4 5 6 7 8 9 694 695 696 697 698 699 700 701 702 703 704 705 706 707 708 709 710


Design Criteria - Concentrator B.3.3 Classification


Classification equipment type Cyclone overflow pulp density Cyclone overflow P80 Nominal Circulating Load (indicated) Nominal Circulating Load used in mass balance Design Circulating Load Cyclone underflow slurry density Nominal cyclone feed data Cyclone feed slurry density Cyclone feed flowrate - solids - slurry Design cyclone feed data Cyclone feed slurry density Cyclone feed flowrate - solids - slurry

Unit

Hydrocyclones 34 % solids 120 μm 314 % 314 % 475 % 75 % solids


Source P P T P,V O,P P V

V T M R


Comments

Rev. Ref

set as rougher flotation pulp density JKSimMet simulation result modified from JKSimMet simulation result To accommodate harder ore types FLSmidth

58 4,842 4,835

% solids t/h m3/h

M C C

At nominal throughput and circulating load Per cyclopak at nominal throughput and circulating load

63.7 6,725 5,699

% solids t/h m3/h

C C C

At Design throughput and circulating load Per cyclopak

6

each

P

one per ball mill

1

711 712 713 714 715 716 717 718 719 720 721 722 723

Number of cyclopak Cyclone data – per cyclopak Diameter Model number of cyclones required number installed, per cyclopak (including spares) operating pressure Cyclone feed pumpbox retention time Cyclone feed pumpbox live volume Installed cyclone feed spare pump?

nominal design

840 mm Krebs DS33 gMax 8 units 9 units 11 units 70-85 kPag 2.0 190 No

min m3

P P P,V P,V P P,V P C P, O

typical Krebs Cyclone sizing chart (909 m3/h per cyclone). To be confirmed with suppliers.

A

One cyclopak per pump box spare in warehouse

724

300279383.xls

Page 13 of 73

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

I

J

K

L

1 2


3


4 5 6 7 8 9 725 726 727 728 729 730 731 732 733 734 735 736



Design Criteria - Concentrator B.4 Flotation B.4.1 Metallurgical Production: Cu Life of Mine Summary Copper Distribution - % by mass To Copper Concentrate To Flotation Scavenger Tailings To First Cleaner Scavenger Tailings To CIL Tailings Solids To CIL Tailings Solution - total To CIL Tailings Solution – to tails To CIL Tailings Solution – to SART To Combined Tailings Total Copper Recovered

Value

Unit

Source

90.0 4.7 5.4 3.5 1.9 0.9 0.5 9.1 90.9

% % % % % % % % %

M M M M M M M M C

Cu concentrate grade – average

27.1

%Cu

M

83.8 9.4

% %

M M

6.7

%

M

4.8 1.4

%

M

0.9

%

M

0.6 15.1 84.9

% % %

M M C

25.2

%CuT

M

1,197 2,395

t/d t/d

M M

Mine Life

Units

Source


V T M R


Comments

CIL circuit feed

Rev. Ref

1 0 0

C/W 85% SART recovery

737 738 739 740 741 742 743 744 745 746 747 748 749 750 751 752 753 754

Years 3 - 7 Summary Copper Distribution - % by mass To Copper Concentrate To Flotation Scavenger Tailings To First Cleaner Scavenger Tailings To CIL Tailings Solids To CIL Tailings Solution - total To CIL Tailings Solution – to tails To CIL Tailings Solution – to SART To Combined Tailings Total Copper Recovered Cu concentrate grade – average Cu concentrate production Nominal Design

average ore type mix & feed grade basis 1 1 CIL circuit feed

1 0

c/w 85% SART recovery 0 0 Peak value. (Differs from design criteria for concentrate pipeline.)

755 756

DP DSU Ore Summary Copper Distribution - % by mass

Years 3-7: For Cu Head < 0.13%, y= -67004.4(Cu Head)^2 + 1873.2(Cu Head) 62.708 For Cu Head > 0.025%Cu, y=124.09(Cu Head) + 51.121 Years 8+ y=11.446Ln(Cu Head) + 101.855

757

To Copper Concentrate

78.9

%

T, C

758 759

To Flotation Scavenger Tailings To First Cleaner Scavenger Tailings To CIL Tailings Solids To CIL Tailings Solution - total To CIL Tailings Solution – to tails To CIL Tailings Solution – to SART To Combined Tailings Total Copper Recovered

12.8 8.3 5.4 1.5 0.9 0.6 19.1 80.9

% % % % % % % %

M M M M M M M M

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

767


25.0

%CuT

M

1

768 769

DP DSL Ore Summary Copper Distribution - % by mass

Mine Life

Units

Source

760 761 762 763 764 765

1

766


770


85.7

%

T, C

771 772


5.3 9.0 5.9 1.5 0.9 0.6 12.1 87.9

% % % % % % % %

M M M M M M M M

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

780


25.0

%CuT

M

1

781 782

DP Ore Summary Copper Distribution - % by mass

Mine Life

Units

Source

773 774 775 776 777 778

1

779

783


80.7

%

T, C

784 785


10.8 8.5 5.5 1.5 0.9 0.6 17.2 82.8

% % % % % % % %

M M M M M M M M


25.0

%CuT

M

Mine Life 92.3 6.1 1.6 1.0 1.2 0.7

Units % % % % % %

Source M M M M M M

786 787 788 789 790 791


1

1 1

792 793 794 795 796 797 798 799 800 801

GRD Ore Summary Copper Distribution - % by mass To Copper Concentrate To Flotation Scavenger Tailings To First Cleaner Scavenger Tailings To CIL Tailings Solids To CIL Tailings Solution - total To CIL Tailings Solution – to tails

300279383.xls

Page 14 of 73

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

I

J

K

L

1 2


3


4 5 6 7 8 9 802 803 804


Design Criteria - Concentrator To CIL Tailings Solution – to SART To Combined Tailings Total Copper Recovered

Data Sources O C P D Value 0.5 7.9 92.1

Unit % % %

Source M M M

30.5

%CuT

T, C


V T M R

Comments

Vendor-supplied data Testwork Mass balance Regulatory/permitting requirement Rev. Ref

805 806


y=44.356(Cu Head) + 16.81

0

807

300279383.xls

Page 15 of 73

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

I

J

K

L

1 2


3


4 5 6 7 8 9




Unit

Source

Mine Life

Units

Source

808

MDBX Sul Ore Summary Copper Distribution - % by mass

809

To Rougher Concentrate

810


94.2

%

T, C

811 812


2.1 3.7 2.4 1.4 0.8 0.5 5.3 94.7

% % % % % % % %

M M M M M M M M


27.0

%CuT

M

Mine Life

Units

Source

93.0 1.0 6.0 3.9 1.4 0.9 0.6 5.8 94.2

% % % % % % % % %

M M M M M M M M M

%CuT

T, C

813 814 815 816 817 818 819 820

T, C


V T M R


Comments

y= MAX{Final Cu Rec /0.975, MIN[-13.855(Cu Head)^2 + 20.296(Cu Head) -1.989, 5.444]/100/(Cu Head)} For Cu Head < 0.68%Cu, y=-43.204(Cu Head)^2 + 58.8(Cu Head) + 78.007 For Cu Head >=0.68%Cu, y=97.6%

Rev. Ref

1 1

0

821 822 823 824 825 826 827 828 829 830 831 832

VCGL, VO Sul Ore Summary Copper Distribution - % by mass To Copper Concentrate To Flotation Scavenger Tailings To First Cleaner Scavenger Tailings To CIL Tailings Solids To CIL Tailings Solution - total To CIL Tailings Solution – to tails To CIL Tailings Solution – to SART To Combined Tailings Total Copper Recovered

833 834


27.6

835

838

Rougher Tail Years 3-7 Years 8-12 Years 11+

%Cu 0.024 0.009 0.008

M M M

839

DP

0.025

T, C

840

DP DSU DP DSL GRD VCGL MDBX Mix MDBX Sul

0.030 0.015 0.021 0.002 0.044 0.007

M M T T M M

836 837

841 842 843 844 845 846 847 848

DP Rougher Concentrate %Cu

849 850

1st Cleaner Tail Grade

T, C 0.5 0.72

%Cu %Cu

1 1 1

y=48.878*(Cu Head) + 16.149

1

1 1 1 Years 3-7 if Cu Head < 0.3 then y=0.0053-0.0171*ln(Cu Head) else y = 0.0259

1 1 1

y=-0.0105+0.1273*(Cu Head) y=0.0249+0.007*ln(Cu Head) 0 1 Years 8+ y=8.8528*(Cu Head) - 0.1661 Design Nominal

0

851 852 853 854 855 856 857 858 859 860 861 862 863 864 865 866 867 868 869 870 871 872 873 874 875 876 877 878 879 880 881 882 883 884 885 886 887 888 889 890 891 892 893 894 895 896

Copper Recovery Cleaner Circuit Copper Recovery Years 3-7 Years 8-12 Years 11+ DP DP DSU DP DSL GRD VCGL MDBX Mix MDBX Sul

92.6 94.6 95.2 90.5 90.5 90.4 98.3 93.9 96.5 96.2

1st Cleaner Stage Copper Recovery Years 3-7 Years 8-12 Years 11+ DP DP DSU DP DSL GRD VCGL MDBX Mix MDBX Sul

76.4 81.4 85.3 73.1 44.4 77.1 85.7 85.5 35.4 68.9

2nd Cleaner Stage Copper Recovery Years 3-7 Years 8-12 Years 11+ DP DP DSU DP DSL GRD VCGL MDBX Mix MDBX Sul

88.5 88.2 83.4 87.3 79.9 89.8 89.8 79.9 79.9 94.2

3rd Cleaner Stage Copper Recovery Years 3-7 Years 8-12 Years 11+ DP DP DSU DP DSL GRD

94.5 93.9 89.0 93.5 85.9 99.8 92.8

300279383.xls

%

as ratio of %Cu in stage conc vs. %Cu in stage feed M, P M, P M, P P,T M M P,T P,T P,T P,T

%

1 1 1 1 1 1

as ratio of %Cu in stage conc VS. %Cu in stage feed M M M M M M M M M M

%

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 as ratio of %Cu in stage conc VS. %Cu in stage feed

M M M M M M M M M M %

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 as ratio of %Cu in stage conc VS. %Cu in stage feed

M M M M M M M

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Page 16 of 73

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

I

J

K

L

1 2


3


4 5 6 7 8 9 897 898 899

Design Criteria - Concentrator VCGL MDBX Mix MDBX Sul


Data Sources O C P D Value 85.9 95.9 99.8

Unit

Source M M M


V T M R

Comments

Vendor-supplied data Testwork Mass balance Regulatory/permitting requirement Rev. Ref 1 1 1

900

300279383.xls

Page 17 of 73

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

I

J

K

L

1 2


3


4 5 6 7 8 9 901




Unit

Source

903 904 905 906 907 908 909 910 911 912 913 914 915 916 917 918 919 920

V T M R


Comments

Rev. Ref

as ratio of %Cu in stage conc vs. %Cu in stage feed, used in mass balancing

Copper upgrading factor in flotation stages

902


1st Cleaner Years 3-7 Years 8-12 Years 11+ DP GRD VCGL MDBX Mix MDBX Sul

4.92 4.15 3.62 5.47 3.71 3.83 4.18 3.42

M M M M M M M M

1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1

2nd Cleaner Years 3-7 Years 8-12 Years 11+ DP GRD VCGL MDBX Mix MDBX Sul

2.33 2.45 2.38 2.40 2.45 2.19 2.00 2.54

M, P M, P M, P P,T P,T P,T P,T P,T

1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1

3rd Cleaner Years 3-7 Years 8-12 Years 11+ DP GRD VCGL MDBX Mix MDBX Sul

1.29 1.31 1.30 1.22 1.31 1.22 1.22 1.33


0 0 0

921 922 923 924 925 926 927 928 929 930 931

300279383.xls

Page 18 of 73

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

I

J

K

L

1 2


3


4 5 6 7 8


Design Criteria - Concentrator B.4.2 Metallurgical Production: Au 933 Life of Mine Summary Gold Distribution - % by mass 934 To Copper Concentrate 9


Unit

Source

64.9

%

M

28.0

%

M

7.1

%

M

0.8 6.9

% %

M M


V T M R


Comments

Rev. Ref

932

935 936 937 938 939 940 941 942 943 944 945 946 947 948 949 950 951 952 953 954 955 956 957 958 959 960 961 962 963 964 965 966 967 968 969 970 971 972 973 974 975 976 977 978 979 980 981 982 983 984 985 986 987 988

To Flotation Scavenger Tailings To First Cleaner Scavenger Tailings To CIL Tailings Solids To CIL Carbon To CIL Tailings Solution – to tails To Combined Tailings To Dore Total Gold Recovered Total plant silver recovery - average

-

%

M

28.2 6.9 71.8 32.9

% % % %

M M M M

Years 3-7 Summary Gold Distribution - % by mass To Copper Concentrate To Flotation Scavenger Tailings To First Cleaner Scavenger Tailings To CIL Tailings Solids To CIL Carbon To CIL Tailings Solution – to tails To Combined Tailings To Dore Total Gold Recovered Total plant silver recovery - average

61.9 25.0 13.1 0.8 5.7 32.4 5.7 67.6 81.5

% % % % % % % % % %

M M M M M M M M C P

DP Ore Summary Gold Distribution - % by mass To Copper Concentrate To Flotation Scavenger Tailings To First Cleaner Scavenger Tailings To CIL Tailings Solids To CIL Carbon To CIL Tailings Solution – to tails To Combined Tailings To Dore Total Gold Recovered

Mine Life 60.8 23.3 15.9 1.0 5.0 34.2 5.0 65.8

Units % % % % % % % % %

Source T, C M M M M M M M C

DP DSU Ore Summary Gold Distribution - % by mass To Copper Concentrate To Flotation Scavenger Tailings To First Cleaner Scavenger Tailings To CIL Tailings Solids To CIL Carbon To CIL Tailings Solution – to tails To Combined Tailings To Dore Total Gold Recovered

Mine Life 60.1 24.2 15.7 1.0 5.0 34.9 5.0 65.1

Units % % % % % % % % %


DP DSL Ore Summary Gold Distribution - % by mass To Copper Concentrate To Flotation Scavenger Tailings To First Cleaner Scavenger Tailings To CIL Tailings Solids To CIL Carbon To CIL Tailings Solution – to tails To Combined Tailings To Dore Total Gold Recovered

Mine Life 60.7 23.5 15.8 1.0 5.0 34.3 5.0 65.7

Units % % % % % % % % %


300279383.xls

0

1

1

Based on available testwork data average ore type mix & feed grade basis

CIL circuit feed

1 1 1

Based on available testwork data y=11.183e0.0205(Final Concentrate Cu Recovery) * (if (Au Head) > 0.3, 1, (Au Head)/0.3) Rougher Tails Au grade = 0.1955(Au Head) + 0.657

y=11.183e0.0205(Final Concentrate Cu Recovery) * (if (Au Head) > 0.3, 1, (Au Head)/0.3) Rougher Tails Au grade = 0.1955(Au Head) + 0.657

y=11.183e0.0205(Final Concentrate Cu Recovery) * (if (Au Head) > 0.3, 1, (Au Head)/0.3) Rougher Tails Au grade = 0.1955(Au Head) + 0.657

Page 19 of 73

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

I

J

K

L

1 2


3


4 5 6 7 8

Cerro Casale Feasibility M40000 Compañía Minera Casale 17-Jun-11 1 Value

Unit

Source

GRD Ore Summary Gold Distribution - % by mass To Copper Concentrate To Flotation Scavenger Tailings To First Cleaner Scavenger Tailings To CIL Tailings Solids To CIL Carbon To CIL Tailings Solution – to tails To Combined Tailings To Dore Total Gold Recovered

Mine Life 67.7 23.9 8.4 0.6 6.0 26.3 6.0 73.7

Units % % % % % % % % %

Source M M M M M M M M M

1002

MDBX Sul Ore Summary Gold Distribution - % by mass To Copper Concentrate

Mine Life 64.7

Units %

Source T, C

1003

To Flotation Scavenger Tailings

28.2

%

T, C

1004

To First Cleaner Scavenger Tailings To CIL Tailings Solids To CIL Carbon To CIL Tailings Solution – to tails To Combined Tailings To Dore Total Gold Recovered

7.1 0.6 6.6 28.7 6.6 71.3

% % % % % % %

M M M M M M M

MDBX Mix Ore Summary Gold Distribution - % by mass To Copper Concentrate To Flotation Scavenger Tailings To First Cleaner Scavenger Tailings To CIL Tailings Solids To CIL Carbon To CIL Tailings Solution – to tails To Combined Tailings To Dore Total Gold Recovered Total Gold Recovered

Mine Life 55.5 22.0 22.5 0.8 6.6 37.9 6.6 62.1

Units % % % % % % % % %

Source T, C M M M M M M M M

1024

VCGL, VO Sul Ore Summary Gold Distribution - % by mass

Mine Life

Units

Source

1025


67.0

%

T, C

1026

To Flotation Scavenger Tailings

22.8

%

M

1027 1028

To First Cleaner Scavenger Tailings To CIL Tailings Solids To CIL Carbon To CIL Tailings Solution – to tails To Combined Tailings To Dore Total Gold Recovered

10.2 0.7 8.8 24.2 8.8 75.8

% % % % % % %

M M M M M M M

9




V T M R


Comments

Rev. Ref

989 990 991 992 993 994 995 996 997 998 999

Final Concentrate Gold Grade = 34.846*(Au Head) + 33.913 Rougher Tails Au grade = 0.248(Au Head)^0.7855

1 1

y= 1.7253(Final concentrate Cu recovery) - 87.156 Rougher Tails Au recovery = 1.862(rougher tails Cu recovery) + 12.301

1

1000 1001

1005 1006 1007 1008 1009 1010 1011 1012 1013 1014 1015 1016 1017 1018 1019 1020 1021 1022 1023

1029 1030 1031 1032 1033 1034

300279383.xls

1 1

y= 57.4*(if Au Head >0.5, 1, (Au Head)/0.5) Rougher tails Au grade = 0.18 gpt

For final concentrate Cu recovery < 90.6, y= if((Au Head) > 0.3, 1, (Au Head)/0.3*(-1.3883*(Final Cu Recovery)^2 + 251.83(final Cu recovery) -11347) For final Cu Recovery => 90.6%, y = 73.14% At a rougher mass pull of 9%, rougher concentrate Au grade = 9.5938(Au Head) - 0.6035

1 1 1

Page 20 of 73

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

I

J

K

L

1 2


3


4 5 6 7 8 9 1035 1036 1037 1038 1039 1040 1041 1042 1043 1044 1045 1046 1047 1048 1049 1050 1051 1052 1053 1054 1055 1056 1057 1058 1059



Design Criteria - Concentrator Rougher Tail Years 3-7 Years 8-12 Years 11+ DP DP DSU DP DSL GRD VCGL MDBX Mix MDBX Sul

Value gpt Au 0.17 0.18 0.17 0.16 0.15 0.16 0.19 0.15 0.19 0.23

Cleaner Circuit Gold Recovery Years 3-7 Years 8-12 Years 11+ DP DP DSU DP DSL GRD VCGL MDBX Mix MDBX Sul

82.5 84.4 86.9 79.3 79.3 79.3 89.0 86.8 71.1 90.1

Unit

Source

V T M R


Comments

M M M M M M M M M M %

Rev. Ref 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 1

as ratio of gold in stage conc vs. gold in stage feed M, P M, P M, P P,T M M P,T P,T P,T P,T

1 1 1 1 1

as ratio of gold in stage conc vs. gold in stage feed, used in mass balancing

Gold upgrading factor in flotation stages

1060


1 Cleaner st

1061 1062 1063 1064 1065 1066 1067 1068

Years 3-7 Years 8-12 Years 11+ DP GRD VCGL MDBX Mix MDBX Sul

3.17 2.99 2.91 3.65 3.77 3.29 2.05 3.10

M M M M M M M M

0 0 1 1 1 1 0 1


2.11 2.19 2.09 2.18 2.11 2.29 2.05 1.99


0 0 1 1 1 0 1


1.33 1.35 1.31 1.24 1.27 1.22 1.30 1.33


1069 1070

2nd Cleaner

1071 1072 1073 1074 1075 1076 1077 1078 1079 1080 1081 1082 1083 1084 1085 1086 1087 1088

3rd Cleaner 1 1

1089

300279383.xls

Page 21 of 73

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

I

J

K

L

1 2


3


4 5 6 7 8 9 1090


Design Criteria - Concentrator B.4.3 Metallurgical Production: Ag


Unit

Source


V T M R


Comments

Rev. Ref

1091 1092 1093 1094 1095 1096 1097 1098 1099 1100 1101 1102

Cleaner Circuit Silver Recovery Years 3-7 Years 8-12 Years 11+ DP DP DSU DP DSL GRD VCGL MDBX Mix MDBX Sul

% 78.1 81.1 82.4 72.8 72.8 72.8 82.1 82.3 41.6 88.1

as ratio of silver in stage conc vs. silver in stage feed M M M M M M M M M M

0 0 1 1 1

1103 1104

as ratio of silver in stage conc vs. silver in stage feed, used in mass balancing

Silver upgrading factor in flotation stages

1105

1st Cleaner

1106 1107 1108 1109 1110 1111 1112 1113 1114 1115


3.5 4.0 3.5 4.0 4.0 3.4 5.1 4.1

M M M M M M M M

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0


1.6 1.5 1.4 1.6 1.5 1.4 1.3 1.3


0 0 0 0 0 0


1.2 1.1 1.1 1.2 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1


0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

2nd Cleaner

1116 1117 1118 1119 1120 1121 1122 1123 1124 1125 1126 1127 1128 1129 1130 1131 1132 1133 1134

300279383.xls

3rd Cleaner

Page 22 of 73

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

I

J

K

L

1 2


3


4 5 6 7 8 9 1135 1136 1137 1138 1139 1140 1141 1142 1143 1144 1145 1146 1147 1148 1149 1150


Design Criteria - Concentrator B.4.4 Flotation Parameters Year 1-5 Rougher Retention Time Required. Residence Time Scale Up Factor Scaled-up rougher retention time Optimum laboratory rougher flotation time Indicated residence time scale-up factor Pilot Plant 1st Cleaner/1st Cleaner Scavenger Retention Time Required. Residence Time Scale Up Factor 1st cleaner retention time 1st cleaner scavenger retention time Second cleaner retention time Third cleaner retention time Rougher flotation feed tonnage, design Mass recovery to rougher concentrate

1151 1152

1st Cleaner Scavenger Feed

1153 1154

2nd Cleaner Feed

1155 1156

3rd Cleaner Feed

1157

Data Sources O C P D Source

40.0 1.0 40 15 2.7

minutes

T P C T C

Based on analysis of pilot plant cell by cell recovery data

34 1 20 14 5 5

minutes

T P C

Based on analysis of pilot plant cell by cell recovery data

min minutes

min min min min

T T

7,719

tph

nominal

11.3

%

T,P

design % solids solids SG % solids solids SG % solids solids SG

11.3 24.4 2.89 15.8 3.20 21.7 3.79

% % t/m3 % t/m3 % t/m3

T,P O, P, M M O, P, M M O, P, M M T, C

1160

Flotation air holdup volume allowance

1163

1166

Required flotation cell volume Rougher 1st Cleaner 1st Cleaner Scavenger

1167

1168

1164 1165


Unit

Solids specific Gravity in flotation

1161 1162

V T M R

Value

1158 1159


Comments

Rev. Ref

Based on analysis of pilot plant data Based on analysis of pilot plant data Based on analysis of pilot plant data

DP Ore DP Ore at design throughput at design throughput at design throughput at design throughput at design throughput at design throughput

A

Function (SolidsSGfromCuGrade) of copper assay SolidsSGfromCuGrade = 5.32 * CuGr / 100 + 2.77 Solids SG = 5.1548*(%Cu)+2.7525

12

%

P

13,067 1,699 855

m3 m3 m3

C C C

at design throughput and nominal head grade at design throughput and design metal units at design throughput and design metal units

2nd Cleaner

147

m3

C

at design throughput and design metal units, based on lip loading and froth carrying capacity

3rd Cleaner

38

m3

C

at design throughput and design metal units, based on lip loading and froth carrying capacity

44.1 21.2 16.4 17.1 19.9

min min min min min

C C C C C

1169

1174 1175

Flotation stages retention time provided Rougher 1st Cleaner 1st Cleaner Scavenger 2nd Cleaner 3rd Cleaner

1176 1177

Flotation cells type retained

1170 1171 1172 1173

1178 1179 1180 1181 1182 1183 1184 1185 1186 1187

Target froth removal rate range for design Froth removal efficiency of internal launders Target carrying rate range for design Rougher 1st Cleaner Scavenger Cleaners

1191

Rougher flotation cells configuration cell size No. of lines No. of cells per line cell line arrangement

1192

launder configuration

1193

Estimated Lip Loading Rate

1194

Estimated Carry Rate

1188 1189 1190

Tank forced aeration

P O

Max 1.5 0.75

t/h/m m/m

V P

0.5 to 1.5 0.3 to 0.8 1.0 to 2.0

t/h/m2 t/h/m2 t/h/m2

V V V

300 m3 6 each 8 each 1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1 Cell 1: Peripheral and radial Cells 2-8: Peripheral 1.50 t/h/m

P P C P

as proportion of requirement 110.2% 105.9% 116.9% 341.0% 397.8% for minimum lip length requirements Outotec Reference\Flotation\Minerals Engineering International Online - Froth Flotation Latest News.mht recognizing crowding limitations with double lip for minimum open cell area requirements Outotec Reference\Flotation\Minerals Engineering International Online - Froth Flotation Latest News.mht

matching number of grinding lines

P C

Assuming 7.13 m as diameter for cells, at design production Assuming 7.13 m as diameter for cells, at design production Value can be increase through adjustment of froth crowder

1.50

t/h/m2

C

30

% solids

P

1195 1196 1197

Rougher concentrate lip density

1198

1st Cleaner flotation cells configuration cell size No. of lines No. of cells per line cell line arrangement launder configuration Estimated Lip Loading Rate Estimated Carry Rate 1st Cleaner concentrate lip density

1199 1200 1201 1202 1203 1204 1205 1206

200 m3 1 each 10 each 1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1 Cell 1: peripheral + radials Cells 2 - 10: Peripheral 1.50 t/h/m 2.00 t/h/m2 17.1 % solids

P P C P P C C P

Cell 2-10: peripheral Assuming 7 m as diameter for cells, at design production Assuming 7 m as diameter for cells, at design production Value can be increase through adjustment of froth crowder

A A

1207

300279383.xls

Page 23 of 73

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

I

J

K

L

1 2


3


4 5 6 7 8 9 1208 1209 1210 1211 1212 1213 1214 1215 1216 1217 1218 1219 1220 1221 1222 1223 1224 1225 1226 1227 1228 1229 1230 1231 1232 1233 1234 1235 1236 1237 1238 1239 1240 1241 1242 1243


Design Criteria - Concentrator 1st Cleaner Scavenger flotation cells configuration cell size No. of lines No. of cells per line cell line arrangement launder configuration Estimated Lip Loading Rate Estimated Carry Rate 1st Cleaner Scavenger concentrate lip density 2nd Cleaner flotation cells configuration cell size No. of lines No. of cells per line cell line arrangement launder configuration Estimated Lip Loading Rate Estimated Carry Rate 2nd Cleaner concentrate lip density 3rd Cleaner cell size No. of lines No. of cells per line cell line arrangement launder configuration Estimated Lip Loading Rate Estimated Carry Rate 3rd Cleaner concentrate lip density Rougher Flotation pH Cleaner Flotation pH Flotation Air Superficial Velocity, Jg Rougher Cleaners


Unit

200 m3 1 each 5 each 1+1+1+1+1 Cell 1: peripheral + radials Cells 2 - 5: Peripheral 0.1 t/h/m 0.1 t/h/m2 27 % solids

100 1 5

m3 each each

1+2+2 Cell 1 - 2: peripheral + radials Cells 3-5: Peripheral 1.3 t/h/m 0.8 t/h/m2 23 % solids

30 1 5

m3 each each

1+2+2 Cell 1-3: peripheral + radials Cells 4-5: peripheral 1.50 t/h/m 2.00 t/h/m2 25 % solids 9.2 10.5 - 11


Source P P C P P C C P

P P C P P C C P

P P C P P C C P

V T M R


Comments

Rev. Ref

Assuming 7 m as diameter for cells, at design production Assuming 7 m as diameter for cells, at design production Value can be increase through adjustment of froth crowder

A A

Assuming 5.6 m as diameter for cells, at design production Assuming 5.6 m as diameter for cells, at design production Value can be increase through adjustment of froth crowder

A A 0

Cell 3-5: peripheral Assuming 3 m as diameter for cells, at design production Assuming 3 m as diameter for cells, at design production Value can be increase through adjustment of froth crowder

A A

T T

1.4 2.5

cm/s cm/s

P P

2.5 4.2 4.2 5.8 7.5

% v/v % v/v % v/v % v/v % v/v

P P P P

1244

B.4.6 Water Process water to Rougher Launder Process water to 1st Cleaner Launder 1248 Process water to 1st Cleaner Scavenger Launder 1249 Process water to 2nd Cleaner Launder 1250 Process water to 3rd Cleaner Launder 1245 1246 1247

% of Concentrate volume % of Concentrate volume % of Concentrate volume % of Concentrate volume % of Concentrate volume

1251 1253

B4.7 Reagents Reagents added

1254

Rougher

lime, primary & secondary collectors, frother

T

1255

Regrinding

lime, cellulose, secondary collector

P

1256 1257

1st Cleaner 1st Cleaner Scavenger

secondary collector, frother secondary collector, frother

T T

1258

2nd Cleaner

lime, cellulose, secondary collector, frother

T

1259

3 Cleaner

lime, cellulose, secondary collector, frother

P

1252

rd

1260

300279383.xls

Page 24 of 73

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

I

J

K

L

1 2


3


4 5 6 7 8 9 1261 1262


Design Criteria - Concentrator B4.8 Flotation Pumping Flotation pumpbox minimum design retention time


Unit

Source

1.5

min

P

1263 1264 1265 1266 1267 1268 1269 1270 1271 1272 1273 1274 1275 1276 1277 1278 1279 1280 1281 1282 1283 1284 1285

Froth factors - pumps Grinding circuit cyclone feed Regrinding circuit cyclone feed Rougher Concentrate and all cleaner tails Cleaners Froth factors – launders and pumpboxes Grinding Ball Mill Cyclone Overflow Ball Mill Cyclone Underflow Rougher Concentrate Rougher tails Concentrate scavenger flotation Tails Thickener Underflow Scavenger Concentrate 3rd Cleaner Concentrate 2nd Cleaner flotation Concentrate 1st Cleaner Concentrate Regrind Area Concentrate to Regrinding Mills Cyclone Overflow Cyclone Underflow


V T M R


Comments

Rev. Ref

calculated considering volume between height covering minimum pump NPSH requirements and 85% pumpbox level as maximum normal control range

1.00 1.25 1.50 2.00

P P P P

1.00 1.00 1.25 1.25 2.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 3.00 3.00

P P P P P P P P P P

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

1.25 1.25 1.00

P P P

1 1 1

1st Cleaner Feed Pumpbox Design feed flowrate Indicated pumpbox volume

4428 332

m3/h m3

M C

unaerated Froth Factor applied as direct multiplier

1 1

1st Cleaner Concentrate Pumpbox Design feed flowrate Indicated pumpbox volume

1688 127

m3/h m3

M C


1 1

1st Cleaner Tailings Pumpbox Design feed flowrate Indicated pumpbox volume

3052 95

m3/h m3

M C

unaerated - nominal + 10% Froth Factor applied as direct multiplier

1 1

2nd Cleaner Concentrate Pumpbox Design feed flowrate Indicated pumpbox volume

434 33

m3/h m3

M C


1 1

2nd Cleaner Tailings Pumpbox Design feed flowrate Indicated pumpbox volume

1278 40

m3/h m3

M C


1 1

3rd Cleaner Concentrate Pumpbox Design feed flowrate Indicated pumpbox volume

289 22

m3/h m3

M C


1 1

1312

Regrind Mills Distributor feed pumpbox Design feed flowrate Indicated pumpbox volume

697 22

m3/h m3

P M C

1st Cleaner Scavenger Concentrate unaerated - nominal + 10% Froth Factor applied as direct multiplier

1 1

1313 1314

Standby pumps

Yes

1286 1287 1288 1289 1290 1291 1292 1293 1294 1295 1296 1297 1298 1299 1300 1301 1302 1303 1304 1305 1306 1307 1308 1309 1310 1311

O

0

1315

300279383.xls

Page 25 of 73

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

I

J

K

L

1 2


3


4 5 6 7 8 9 1316 1317 1318 1319 1320


Design Criteria - Concentrator B.5 Flotation Concentrate Regrinding Mill type Mill product P80 Mill product P80 Selected Mill feed F80



V T M R


Unit

Source

25 30 85

μm μm μm

O T O, T, C P

Yr 8-12 Yr 3-7

11.75 8.55

kWh/t kWh/t

T, P T, P

Yr 8-12

1,053

t/h

M

Yr 3-7

1,101

t/h

M

Regrind mill drive efficiency Required regrinding power input

95 13,024

% kW

P,V C

Indicated regrind ball mill dimensions ball mill diameter ball mill length Liner material

5.5 12.2 rubber

m m

P P P

Installed motor rated capacity Number of installed regrinding mills indicated Number of installed regrinding mills selected Indicated power requirement coverage

6.71 2 1 51.5

MW each each %

V C O C

Ball size – dia. Required ball loading Ball charge weight, per mill Fraction of critical speed

20 35 517 76

mm % v/v t %

P V V P

cyclone 150 200 56-60

% % % solids

P P P P,V

42.6 3,302 5,588

% solids t/h m3/h

M M M

2

each

P

380 14 16

mm units units

P P,V P

Cyclone feed pumpbox retention time Number of pumpbox Design feed flowrate, per pumpbox Cyclone feed pumpbox volume required

2 1 5,587 0.0

min ea m3/h m3

P P M C

2nd and 3rd Cleaner Tails Distributor Retention time Design feed flowrate Indicated pumpbox volume

s m3/h m3

P P M C

3-way split into regrind mills cyclone feed pumpboxes

45 2062 39

0.15

g

P

Assumed value for sulphides reduction of empirical equation stated consumption for improved ball metallurgy Bond equation installed motor power - 5% for drive efficiency

Ball Mill

Comments

Result with 1 ball mill. design

Rev. Ref

B 0

1321 1322

Regrind required mill power

1323 1324

Regrind circuit fresh feed design tonnage

1325 1326 1327 1328 1329 1330 1331 1332 1333 1334 1335 1336 1337 1338 1339 1340 1341 1342 1343 1344 1345 1346 1347 1348 1349 1350 1351 1352

Classification equipment type Nominal Circulating Load Design Circulating Load Cyclone underflow slurry density Design cyclone feed data Cyclone feed slurry density Cyclone feed flowrate

1353 1354 1355 1356 1357 1358 1359 1360 1361 1362 1363 1364

solids slurry

Number of cyclopak Cyclone data – per cyclopak diameter number required, maximum number installed (including spares)

at shaft

at motor leads For 2 ball mills and P80 = 25 microns. 18 ft 40 ft A 9000 hp per ball mill Required for P80 = 25 microns. Client´s Request

0

FLSmidth and Metso FLSmidth

0 0

Totals for both cyclopaks unaerated

0 unaerated per pumpbox - Froth factor applied

1365 1366 1367 1368 1369 1370

1380 1381

Regrind mill ball design consumption Bond abrasion index Consumption reduction for ball alloy and heat treatment Unit consumption Regrind mill power draw Design ball usage Regrinding Design ball usage Lime Grinding Design ball usage Regrinding + Lime Ball Consumption, ROM basis Ball Consumption, fresh feed basis Storage capacity

1382 1383

Ball diameter

1371 1372 1373 1374 1375 1376 1377 1378 1379

30

%

P

0.057 6365 8.8 0.10 8.9 55.4 353 5 44 20

kg/kWh kW tpd per mill tpd per mill

C P C C

g/t g/t days t mm

C C P P P

unaerated – 1.25 froth factor

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

1384

300279383.xls

Page 26 of 73

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

I

J

K

L

1 2


3


4 5 6 7 8


Design Criteria - Concentrator B.6 Flotation Concentrate Dewatering 1386 Copper concentrate production rate 1387  Nominal 1388  Design



V T M R


Value

Unit

Source

Concentrate P80 Concentrate thickener feed slurry density

54.1 75.0 72.6 60 23.3

t/h t/h t/h µm % solids

M M M T M

average Yr 1-5 feed grade nominal throughput@design feed grades, Year 1-10 nominal throughput@design feed grades, Year 11-19 Yr 1-5 composite pilot plant testwork Average Yr 1-5

Thickener internal dilution implemented? Limiting rise rate

Yes 1.2

m3/h/m2

P T

0.5 scale-up factor applied

9

Comments

Rev. Ref

1385

1389 1390 1391 1392 1393 1394 1395 1396 1397 1398 1399 1400 1401 1402 1403 1404 1405 1406 1407 1408

B.6.1 Concentrate Thickening at Plant Underflow solids, weight percent Unit rate – conventional basis Yield stress Selected thickener type Indicated thickener diameter Selected thickener diameter Overflow clarity target Flocculant addition Froth Control Water Addition Thickener overflow standpipe retention time Thickener overflow standpipe volume

70 % solids 0.125 m²/t/d 100 Pa Conventional 16.9 m <17 m

D P,T T P C P

< 15 20 25 3 12.0

g/l g/t m3/h min m3

P T,P P P C

98 36 64 68

% m3/h % solids % solids

T T, O O O

pipeline design basis Minimum limit to unit rate for sizing conventional thickeners at targeted U/F density, unsheared

A 1

nominal throughput @ design feed grades, year 1 - 10

anionic, 15% charge density

1409 1410

B.6.2 Concentrate Pipeline Utilization of concentrate transfer system Minimum slurry flow rate in pipeline Operating slurry density range of pipeline, minimum 1413 Operating slurry density range of pipeline, maximum 1414 1411 1412

Testwork indicated continuous operation required to prevent settling From testwork and Brass/Techint interpretation Brass-Techint Brass-Techint

1 1 0

1415 1416

B.6.3 Concentrate Thickening at Port

1417

Service

1418

Port Thickener Feed solids, weight percent Underflow solids, weight percent Unit rate – conventional basis Yield stress Selected thickener type Indicated thickener diameter Selected thickener diameter

1419 1420 1421 1422 1423 1424

For intermittent batch flushing of pipeline and collection of sumps, polishing filter rejects, filtrate, sand filter rejects, and emergency pond reclaim. 51.9 % solids M Design for flushing of pipeline. 65 % solids P 0.26 m²/t/d T 200 Pa T at targeted U/F density, unsheared Conventional P 16.9 m C nominal throughput @ design feed grades, year 1 - 10 <17 m P

0

1

1425 1426 1427 1428 1429 1430

Overflow clarity target Flocculant addition Froth Control Water Addition Thickener overflow tank retention time Thickener overflow standpipe volume

< 15 15 25 11 9.9

g/l g/t m3/h min m3

P T,P P P C

4.1 2.12 26 1,311

M C P C

Copper Concentrate 65% Solids (Plant site)

hours m3

P P C C O O C

Tanks half full at design feed rate.

0 0

Based on 64% Solids

0 0 0 0

anionic, 15% charge density

1431

B.6.4 Concentrate Pipeline Storage Tanks Dry Solid SG Slurry SG 1435 Plantsite tanks Retention time 1436 Indicated Volume Required 1432 1433 1434

Based on 65% Solids

1437 1438 1439 1440 1441 1442 1443 1444

Portsite tanks Retention time Inventory in Tank Total Tank volume Slurry SG Slurry density Slurry flowrate Indicated Volume Required

12 50 24 1.94 64 55 1,063

hours % Hours % solids m3/h m3

1445 1446 1447 1448 1449 1450 1451

Number of agitated storage tanks  at plant site  at port site Recommended H:D ratio Retained tank diameter Calculated tank height - live fraction

2 2 1:1 10 8

each each m m

P P P P C

1452

300279383.xls

Page 27 of 73

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

I

J

K

L

1 2


3


4 5 6 7 8



V T M R

Value

Unit

Source

11.6 10.5 9.0 2.19 42

% % % t/m3 mm

P P P T T

1464

Indicated filtration cycle duration  pump ramping up and down  feed pumping  diaphragm pressing  cake blow (drying)

10.0 0.5 1.5 1 3.0

min min min min min

C P,V V V V

1465



extended blowing time allowance

0.0

min

V

1466

   

filter opening cake discharge/cloth wash filter closing valves opening/closing delays

0.5 2.0 0.5 1.0

min min min min

P,V V P,V P,V

85 75 11.8 469.1 151.9 192.0

% % % kg/h/m2 m2 m2

P V C C V V

For design tonnage Based on indicated filtration cycle duration For Nominal concentrate generation rate For Design concentrate generation rate

P O

Type Larox PF 96/96 M60

9 1453 1454 1455 1456 1457 1458 1459 1460 1461 1462 1463

1467 1468 1469

Design Criteria - Concentrator B.6.5 Filtration Flow moisture limit of concentrate Maximum Moisture content for sea shipping Targeted concentrate residual moisture Bulk density of dry cake Cake thickness



Comments

Rev. Ref

SGS Lakefield result for Year 6 to 10 concentrate SGS Lakefield result for Year 6 to 10 concentrate Calculated from Larox test report Larox test report

1 1 1 Provision to accommodate gradual blinding of cloth in field application, Included in cake blow.

1 1

1470

1476

Filtration circuit utilization rate Filtration circuit utilization rate taken Excess installed filtration capacity Unit filtration rate required Minimum filtration area required nominal Minimum filtration area required design

1477 1478

Filter type

1471 1472 1473 1474 1475

1479 1480

2 6 16 96 192 96 192

each m2 each m2 m2 m2 m2

P P,V P V V V V

Total filtration area provided Unit filtration rate provided by installation

192 590.0

m2 kg D.S./m2h

C C

Indicated cake discharged per cycle, per filter - dry basis Instantaneous cake discharge rate, per filter - dry basis

9,393 282

kg tph

C C

Drying air pressure Drying airflow rate Pressing air pressure Slurry feed pressure Instantaneous filter feed flowrate

800 230 1,600 600 297.9

kPag Nm3/min kPag kPag m3/h

P,V P,V P,V P C

1501 1502

Number of compressors installed

3

1503

Cloth wash water consumption (average) Other filtered water to pressure filter (average) Solids recovery to filtrate Total Water Reporting to Port Site Water Treatment  average  maximum

1481 1482 1483 1484 1485 1486 1487

Number of filtration units provided Nominal individual plate area Number of installed plates, per filter Filtration area provided, per filter Filtration area provided Expanded area potential per filter Expanded area potential

pressure horizontal plates

1 1 1

1.5 m x 4.01 m 1 1 1 1 1

1488 1489 1490

1

1491 1492 1493 1494 1495 1496 1497 1498 1499

dry basis, excludes allowance for delays between cycles

Filter feed pump output required for this application

0

1500

1504 1505 1506 1507 1508

P

1 operated per filter, one stand-by

0.5 1.2 0.5

m3/cycle/filter m3/cycle/filter %

V V P

Outotec Outotec

878 1,105

m³/d m³/d

M M

At Design Concentrate Production (75 tph) Based on Yrs 1 - 5

60,000 45 800

t degrees t/h

O P O

benchmarking of 5 sites, value is average + one std deviation

B.6.7 Port Site Sand Filters Feed stream Filtration Rate (Feed slurry) Solids content in sand filter feed effluent Solids content in sand filter filtrate water Backwash as percentage of feed volume, nominal Backwash as percentage of feed volume, design

Portsite thickener overflow 19.5 m3/h/m2 200 mg/l 10 mg/l 3.5 % 5 %

P P P P P

B.6.8 Port Site Polishing Filters Feed stream Filtration rate Solids content in feed Solids content in polishing filter rejects Filtration Efficiency Reduction of TSS ratio Filtrate content in polishing filter filtrate Backwash water volume Back wash pressure Backwash cycle frequency Backwash duration Backwash Air requirement

Sand Filter filtrate TBD 10 mg/l TBD 70 % 0.2 fraction 2 mg/l 1.1 m3/cycle <20 psi 18 to 36 hours 45 minutes 40 Nm3/cycle

V C V P V C V V V V V

1 1

1509

B.6.6 Concentrate Shiploading Concentrate shed design capacity Concentrate stockpile angle of repose 1513 Concentrate load-out rate 1510 1511 1512

A

1514 1515 1516 1517 1518 1519 1520 1521

SME Mineral Processing Handbook, Equipment maximum SME Mineral Processing Handbook, Equipment maximum SME Mineral Processing Handbook, Equipment maximum From SME Mineral Processing Handbook P 9-17

0 B B B 0 0

1522 1523 1524 1525 1526 1527 1528 1529 1530 1531 1532 1533 1534 1535

The Nalco Water Handbook, page 6.43 To be confirmed in equipment selection process To be confirmed in equipment selection process To be confirmed in equipment selection process To be confirmed in equipment selection process To be confirmed in equipment selection process To be confirmed in equipment selection process To be confirmed in equipment selection process

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

1536

300279383.xls

Page 28 of 73

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

I

J

K

L

1 2


3


4 5 6 7 8 9 1537 1538 1539 1540 1541 1542 1543 1544 1545 1546 1547 1548 1549 1550 1551 1552 1553 1554 1555 1556 1557 1558 1559 1560 1561 1562 1563 1564 1565 1566 1567 1568 1569 1570 1571 1572 1573 1574 1575


Design Criteria - Concentrator B.7 Flotation Tailings Dewatering B.7.1 Rougher Tailings Thickening Average feed tonnage Design feed tonnage Rougher Tailings Dry SG Rougher tailings P80 Rougher tails slurry density Froth control spray water (PW)


Unit

Source

6,316 6,870 2.77 150 34.5 50

t/h t/h

M P M P M P

µm % m³/h

Target underflow density Target underflow density Years 8-12 Thickener type Yield stress Internal feed dilution slurry density Equivalent settling rate

% solids % solids high rate 70 Pa 25 % solids 0.75 t/h/m²

P T P T,P T T

Number of units Indicated thickener diameter Selected thickener diameter Limiting rise rate Actual rise rate Overflow clarity Flocculant addition per ton rougher tails Thickener O/F standpipe retention time Thickener U/F pumpbox retention time Thickener U/F pumpbox volume Evaporation

2 76.4 80 1.9 0.91 < 50 32.5 na 2.35 290 0.84

each m m m³/h/m² m³/h/m² g/l g/t min min m3 m3/h

P C P T C P T,P P P C C

750.5 776.4 2.78 20 27 16.3 1.7

t/h t/h µm % % m³/h/m²

M P M T M M T

high rate 60

Pa

P T,P

Pre-leach Thickener Target underflow density Internal feed dilution slurry density Equivalent settling rate

50 18 0.2

% solids % solids t/h/m²

O T T,P

Indicated thickener diameter Selected thickener diameter Actual rise rate Flocculant addition Froth control spray water addition Evaporation

70 70 0.83 20 30 0.64

m m m³/h/m² g/t m3/h m3/h

C P C T,P P C

Pre-leach thickener overflow flowrate Overflow standpipe retention time

3,349 na

m3/h min

M P

3 ~2

days batches/day

O P

B.7.2 Cleaner Scavenger Tailings Thickening Average solids feed rate Design solids feed rate First cleaner tailings specific gravity Cleaner tailings P80 Average Cleaner tails slurry density Design Cleaner tails slurry density Limiting rise rate Thickener type Yield stress

64 62


V T M R


Comments

Rev. Ref

Assuming 10% rougher mass pull peak tonnage; 11% rougher weight recovery

Per Thickener Required to meet permitted fresh water extraction limit Outotec Testwork at targeted U/F density, unsheared

1

0.5 scale-up factor applied per volume of supernatant crossing through solids bed anionic, 15% charge density

c/w O/F from cleaner tails thickener at Design throughputs 0

Worst case scenario for flotation recovery

Base Case Design Case 0.5 scale-up factor applied

at targeted U/F density, unsheared

1

1576 1577 1578 1579 1580 1581 1582 1583 1584 1585 1586 1587

Based on design throughput at settling rate per volume of supernatant crossing through solids bed anionic, 15% charge density Assumed 0

1588 1589 1590

design

1591

B.8 Reagents Handling. B.8.1 General Reagents Systems Configuration Holding tank / Warehouse 1594 inventory 1595 Mixing tank 1592

(except for packaged flocculant systems)

1593

1596

Distribution tank

P

volume sufficient for mixing frequency of 2 batches/day (not applicable to lime, Cellulose and liquid reagents added neat) storage for ~ 1.5 batches (not applicable to lime, Cellulose and liquid reagents added neat)

1597

300279383.xls

Page 29 of 73

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

I

J

K

L

1 2


3


4 5 6 7 8


Design Criteria - Concentrator B.8.2 Potassium Amyl Xanthate (PAX) 1599 Role 1600 Consumption 9


Unit


Source

V T M R


Comments

Rev. Ref

1598

1601 1602 1603 1604 1605 1606

Design factor Design peak consumption Form of supply Reagent SG

primary collector 30 g/t 5,280 kg/d 1.2 6,336 kg/d 1000 kg 1.35 t/m³ na

T T C P C V V P

2000 Feasibility operated basis, based on design throughput rate operated basis, based on design throughput rate + 20% safety factor lined tote bags of pellets

1607 1608

Holding tank

not required

1609

Mixed solution strength

15

% w/w

P

1610

Design solution consumption

40.60

m³/d

C

Mixed reagent quantity per batch Solution SG Mixing tank capacity

3,000 1.040 3 19.2 11.4 18 30.4

kg t/m³ bags m3 hours hours m3

C C P C P P C

net volume at design consumption at design consumption net volume

Distribution tank capacity

1

m3

P

head tank; net volume

Addition points and consumptions to Rougher Line #1 to Rougher Line #2 to Rougher Line #3 to Rougher Line #4 to Rougher Line #5 to Rougher Line #6

30 30 30 30 30 30

g/t g/t g/t g/t g/t g/t

T T T T T T

per ton of fresh feed to this Rougher line per ton of fresh feed to this Rougher line per ton of fresh feed to this Rougher line per ton of fresh feed to this Rougher line per ton of fresh feed to this Rougher line per ton of fresh feed to this Rougher line

1611 1612 1613 1614 1615 1616 1617 1618

Holding tank capacity

1619 1620 1621 1622 1623 1624 1625 1626 1627 1628 1629 1630 1631 1632 1633 1634 1635 1636 1637

B.8.3 Aero 3477 Promoter (A3477) Role Consumption Design factor Design peak consumption Form of supply

1638

secondary collector 33 g/t 5,808 kg/d 1.2 6,970 kg/d 22 m3 24.3 t 1.105 t/m³ 41 @ 0ºC cP 11 @ 30ºC

T T C P C O C V

1639

Reagent SG

1640

Viscosity

1641 1642


1.30 28.6 4.5

trucks m3 days

P C C

Mix solution strength Design solution consumption

100 6.31

% w/w m³/d

P C


1.5 5.7

m3 h

P C

24 24 24 24 24 24 6 6 6 6 6 6 1.0 0.6 0.8 0.4 0.2

g/t g/t g/t g/t g/t g/t g/t g/t g/t g/t g/t g/t g/t g/t g/t g/t g/t

T,P T,P T,P T,P T,P T,P T,P T,P T,P T,P T,P T,P T T T T T

1643 1644 1645 1646 1647

2000 Feasibility operated basis, 176000 tpd operated basis Tanker Truck of liquid

P

1 1 0

Sufficient to receive contents of a full truck when at low level (30%) Live capacity at design consumption

1648 1649 1650 1651 1652 1653 1654 1655 1656 1657 1658 1659 1660 1661 1662 1663 1664 1665 1666 1667 1668 1669 1670

Addition Points and Consumptions Ball Mill/Cyclone feed pump box #1 Ball Mill/Cyclone feed pump box #2 Ball Mill/Cyclone feed pump box #3 Ball Mill/Cyclone feed pump box #4 Ball Mill/Cyclone feed pump box #5 Ball Mill/Cyclone feed pump box #6 to Rougher Line #1 to Rougher Line #2 to Rougher Line #3 to Rougher Line #4 to Rougher Line #5 to Rougher Line #6 Regrind mill Cyclone Feed Pumpbox #1 to 1st Cleaner Flotation Cell #1 to 1st Cleaner Scavenger flotation to 2nd Cleaner Flotation Cell #1 to 3rd Cleaner Flotation Cell #1

300279383.xls

head tank; net volume

per ton of fresh feed to this grinding line per ton of fresh feed to this grinding line per ton of fresh feed to this grinding line per ton of fresh feed to this grinding line per ton of fresh feed to this grinding line per ton of fresh feed to this grinding line per ton of fresh feed to this Rougher line per ton of fresh feed to this Rougher line per ton of fresh feed to this Rougher line per ton of fresh feed to this Rougher line per ton of fresh feed to this Rougher line per ton of fresh feed to this Rougher line per ton of plant feed per ton of plant feed per ton of plant feed per ton of plant feed per ton of plant feed

Page 30 of 73

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

I

J

K

L

1 2


3


4 5 6 7 8


Design Criteria - Concentrator B.8.5 Frother - MIBC 1672 Role 1673 Consumption 9


Unit


Source

V T M R


Comments

Rev. Ref

1671

1674 1675 1676 1677

Design factor Design peak consumption Form of supply

1678

frothing agent 10.05 1,769 1.2 2,123 22 17.732 0.806 5

kg/d m3 t t/m³ cP

T T C P C O C V P

g/t kg/d

2000 Feasibility operated basis, 176000 tpd operated basis Tanker Truck of liquid

1679 1680 1681

Reagent SG Viscosity

1682


1.25 27.5 10.4

trucks m3 days

P C C

Mix solution strength Viscosity Design solution consumption

100 5.2 2.63

% w/w MmPa·s m³/d

P P C

MSDS


14 1.5

hours m3

P C

at design consumption net volume

5.8 5.8 5.8 5.8 5.8 5.8 3 3 3 3 3 3 0.5 0.45 0.2 0.1

g/t g/t g/t g/t g/t g/t g/t g/t g/t g/t g/t g/t g/t g/t g/t g/t

T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T

per ton of feed to Row per ton of feed to Row per ton of feed to Row per ton of feed to Row per ton of feed to Row per ton of feed to Row per ton of feed to Row per ton of feed to Row per ton of feed to Row per ton of feed to Row per ton of feed to Row per ton of feed to Row per ton of plant feed per ton of plant feed per ton of plant feed per ton of plant feed

P P T C C P C V

packaged preparation system

1683 1684 1685 1686 1687 1688 1689 1690 1691

B

1 1 0

at design consumption

1692 1693 1694 1695 1696 1697 1698 1699 1700 1701 1702 1703 1704 1705 1706 1707 1708 1709

Addition Points and Consumptions to Rougher Flotation Line #1, Cell #1 to Rougher Flotation Line #2, Cell #1 to Rougher Flotation Line #3, Cell #1 to Rougher Flotation Line #4, Cell #1 to Rougher Flotation Line #5, Cell #1 to Rougher Flotation Line #6, Cell #1 to Rougher Flotation Line #1, Cell #4 to Rougher Flotation Line #2, Cell #4 to Rougher Flotation Line #3, Cell #4 to Rougher Flotation Line #4, Cell #4 to Rougher Flotation Line #5, Cell #4 to Rougher Flotation Line #6, Cell #4 to 1st Cleaner Flotation, Cell #1 to 1st Cleaner Scavenger Flotation, Cell #1 to 2nd Cleaner Flotation, Cell #1 to 3rd Cleaner Flotation, Cell #1

1710 1711 1712 1713 1714 1715 1716 1717 1718 1719 1720 1721 1722 1723 1724

B.8.6 Cellulose Role Consumption

Design factor Design peak consumption Form of supply Mix solution strength Viscosity

1729 1730 1731 1732 1733 1734 1735

of rougher concentrate of plant feed at design concentrate production rate – operated basis for ore variability operated basis per lined tote bag of free flowing powder

2 15.0 to 20.0

% w/w cP

P P

in agitated preparation tank included in vendor package

Design solution consumption Distribution tank capacity

197 11.25 92.2

m³/d hours m³

C P C

Assumed solution SG of 1.0 at design consumption net volume

Mixing system utilization Batch preparation duration Number of batches per day Batch size

54 60 13.0 15.2

% min ea. m³

P P,V C C


Addition Points and Consumptions Regrind Mills Cyclone Feed Pumpbox 1st Cleaner Concentrate Pumpbox 2nd Cleaner Concentrate Pumpbox

100 35 15

g/t g/t g/t

P P P

of rougher concentrate of rougher concentrate of rougher concentrate

1725 1726 1727 1728

clay depression 150 g/t 16.95 g/t 2,959 kg/d 1.33 3,936 kg/d 700 kg

0

1736

300279383.xls

Page 31 of 73

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

I

J

K

L

1 2


3


4 5 6 7 8 9 1737 1738 1739 1740 1741 1742 1743 1744 1745 1746 1747 1748 1749 1750 1751 1752 1753 1754 1755 1756 1757 1758 1759 1760 1761 1762 1763 1764 1765 1766 1767


Design Criteria - Concentrator B.8.7 Plant Site Flocculant - Magnafloc 351 Role Consumption Concentrate Cleaner Tails Rougher Tails

Design factor Design peak consumption Form of supply Mix solution strength Mix solution viscosity Diluted solution strength Diluted solution viscosity Design solution consumption Distribution tank capacity


Unit

sedimentation 20 g/t 45 g/t 32.5 g/t 34.1 g/t 6233.2 kg/d 1.2 7479.9 kg/d free-flowing powder

Source P P P P P C C


V T M R


Comments packaged preparation system

Rev. Ref

of concentrate of cleaner tails of rougher tailings of plant feed at design throughput and head grades at design concentrate production rate – operated basis

C V

operated basis 700 kg lined tote bags in agitated preparation tank included in vendor package

0.5 100 0.05 22 1496.0 8.0 496

% w/w cP % w/w cP m³/d hours m³

P P P P C P C

Number of mix systems Mixing system utilization Batch preparation duration Number of batches per day Batch size

2 13 125 3.0 85.0

% min ea. m³

P P,V C C

Addition Points and Consumptions Concentrate Thickener Pre-leach Flotation Tails Thickener Post leach Flotation Tails Thickener Rougher Tailings Thickener #1 Rougher Tailings Thickener #2

20 20 25 32.5 32.5

g/t g/t g/t g/t g/t

P P P P P

of concentrate of cleaner tailings of cleaner tailings of rougher tailings to this thickener of rougher tailings to this thickener

P P P C C

packaged preparation system

C V

operated basis 700 kg lined tote bags in agitated preparation tank included in vendor package

as added to addition points after in-line dilution

0 B 0

Assuming solution SG = 1 at design consumption net volume


1 0 0 0 0

1768

B.8.9 Filter Plant (Port) Flocculant - Magnafloc 336 Role 1771 Consumption 1769 1770 1772 1773 1774 1775 1776 1777 1778 1779 1780 1781 1782 1783 1784 1785 1786 1787 1788 1789 1790

Design factor Design peak consumption Form of supply

sedimentation 15 g/t 0.15 g/t 27 kg/d 1.2 32.4 kg/d powder

Mix solution strength Mix solution viscosity Diluted solution strength Diluted solution viscosity Design mix solution consumption Distribution tank capacity

0.2 37.4 0.02 20.0 16.2 12 8.1

% w/w cP % w/w cP m³/d hours m³

P P P P C P C

Mixing system utilization Batch preparation duration Number of batches per day Batch size

50 60 12 1.35

% min ea. m³

P P,V C C

15

g/t

P

1791

Addition Points and Consumptions

1792

 Concentrate Thickener

of concentrate of plant feed at design concentrate production rate – operated basis

as added to addition points after in-line dilution

0 B 0



of concentrate

1793

300279383.xls

Page 32 of 73

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

I

J

K

L

1 2


3


4 5 6 7 8 9 1794 1795 1796 1797 1798 1799 1800 1801 1802 1803 1804 1805 1806 1807 1808 1809 1810 1811 1812 1813 1814 1815 1816 1817 1818 1819 1820 1821 1822

Design Criteria - Concentrator B.8.11 Quicklime - CaO Role Consumption Flotation circuit Cleaner tails leach circuit Cyanide destruction Heap Leach SART circuit

Value

pH modifier

g/t g/t g/t g/t g/t g/t

T B,C B,C

Available CaO provided Consumption at quicklime supply quality Design factor Design Usage Mix solution strength Mix solution strength for HL trucks

76 686.4 1.2 823.6 15 25

% CaO t/d

O C P C P P

Slurry viscosity

1828 1829 1830 1831 1832 1833

Design

1834 1835

Solution consumption

1836 1837

Bulk quicklime SG Lime storage silo capacity

1847 1848 1849 1850 1851 1852 1853 1854 1855 1856 1857 1858

@100% available CaO basis per tonne of plant feed per tonne of flotation tails of CIL cleaner tails of oxide ore of oxide ore

t/d % w/w % w/w

C

100% - 19 mm granulated powder 3.25 t/m³ 2.23 t/m³

V V C

75 % elevated temperature 46 t/h 1.09 t/m³

P P C C

cP

Slurry Density, % w/w Viscosity, cP 11.00 7.1 to 7.9 16.00 26 to 29 22.00 30 to 42 15.00 24.45 25.00 33.94 25.00 50.00 5037 m³/d

P

10% of plant tonnage, 95% plant utilization. 5% bleed VS. daily irrigation volume, 95% utilization 150 kt/d of oxide ore placement, 100 ktpd irrigation rate. 100 kt/d of oxide ore treatment rate, 95% utilization rate on a plant operated basis

Rev. Ref

B B

B B B B B

Based on 160,000 tpd, 95% utilization

27 t bulk carrier c/w pneumatic discharge system

An Overview Of Lime Slaking And Factors That Affect The Process By: Mohamad Hassibi Chemco Systems, L.P. February 2009

V V V C C P C

Coloma, Guillermo of INA-Antofagasta

t/m³ d t m³

C P C C

net volume

12 2518

hours m³

P C

net volume

Plant lime distribution pumped volume

1049

m3/h

P,C

Addition Points in Concentrator Lime to Ball Mill #1 Lime to Ball Mill #2 Lime to Ball Mill #3 Lime to Ball Mill #4 Lime to Ball Mill #5 Lime to Ball Mill #6 Lime to Regrind Mill Cyclone Pump box Lime to Cleaner Tailings Leach Circuit Lime to Cyanide Destruction

320 320 320 320 320 320 274 2000 150

g/t g/t g/t g/t g/t g/t g/t g/t g/t

T T T T T T T T P

Grinding Media Consumption Grinding Media Usage

140 96.1

g/t lime k/d

P C

Distribution tank capacity – at plant


Comments

1.44 3 2471 1716

1838 1839

V T M R

per tonne of plant feed equivalent

45 to 700

1827

1845 1846

P P T T P P P

351 71 163 1,882 631 3097

Form of supply Reagent SG Hydrated lime solids SG


Source

Consumption – per ton of sulphide ore, operated basis Flotation circuit Cleaner tails leach circuit Cyanide destruction Heap Leach SART circuit total

1826

1842 1843 1844

Unit

kg/t kg/t kg/t kg/t kg/t

1825

1840 1841


0.351 1.30 3.0 2.28 1.01

Lime slaking circuit availability Slaker type Slaker capacity Solution SG

1823 1824


0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

B

5 times volume at peak consumption

per tonne of plant feed per tonne of plant feed per tonne of plant feed per tonne of plant feed per tonne of plant feed per tonne of plant feed per tonne of rougher concentrate per tonne of flotation cleaner tails (Year 1 to 5 consumption) per tonne of flotation cleaner tails (CIL tails) 1 1

1859 1860 1861

B.8.14 Antiscalant Role

1862

Generic chemical formulation

1863

Consumption

1864 1865 1866 1867 1868

Design factor Design consumption

scale inhibitor

P

polycarboxylate / polyacrylate

P

0.5 1.5 264 1.2 317

g/m3 g/t kg/d

of process water of plant feed at design throughput

kg/d

P C C P C

m³ kg % w/w

O C V

tote bins of liquid

1869 1870

Form of supply

1871 1872

Supply solution strength

1 1200 100

1873 1874 1875

Solution SG Viscosity Design solution consumption

1.2 5 0.26

t/m³ cP m³/d

V P C

0.671 60 20 1.22 101.3 30

g/m3 kPa ºC g/m3 kPa ºC

P O P P O P

1 1

0

1876

B.9 Air Systems Air density at mine site Atmospheric pressure at mine site Design temperature at mine site 1881 Air density at port site 1882 Atmospheric pressure at port site 1883 Design temperature at port site 1877 1878 1879 1880

M40000-0000-131-SPC-0001

B

M40000-0000-131-SPC-0001

B

1884

300279383.xls

Page 33 of 73

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

I

J

K

L

1 2


3


4 5 6 7 8 9 1885 1886 1887 1888 1889 1890 1891 1892 1893


Design Criteria - Concentrator B.9.1 Gyratory Crushers Installed capacity, per crusher Discharge air pressure Power efficiency Number of unit, per crusher Peak flow design factor Indicated motor size Motor size retained Receiver capacity


Unit

Source

850 800 78 1 1.2 81 90 5

Nm3/h kPa %

V V P P P C P P

B.9.2 Ore Reclaim Tunnels Installed capacity Discharge air pressure Power efficiency Number of units, per area Peak flow design factor Indicated motor size Motor size retained Receiver capacity

850 700 78 1 1.2 76 90 2

Nm3/h kPa %

B.9.4 Plant Air Consumption points carbon fines filter general purpose plant air total Peak flow design factor Installed capacity

190 850 1,040 1.2 1,248

Nm3/h Nm3/h Nm3/h Nm3/h

P P C P C

Discharge air pressure Power efficiency Number of operated units Indicated motor power Motor size retained Receiver capacity

700 78 1 93 112 5

kPag % ea kW kW m3

P P P C P P

B.9.5 Flotation Air Rougher cells 1st Cleaner cells 1st Cleaner Scavenger cells 2nd Cleaner cells 3rd Cleaner cells total Peak flow design factor Indicated capacity

87,336 14,981 9,557 5,117 1,842 118,833 1.2 142,600

Nm3/h Nm3/h Nm3/h Nm3/h Nm3/h Nm3/h

V V V V V C P C

138 71.25 5 1 30,000 891 800 4000 nr

kPa % ea. ea. Nm3/h kW kW/unit kW total

C V V V P C V C P

kW kW m3


V T M R


Comments

Rev. Ref

packaged with crusher supply

2 units in total

160 2 units, one per crusher

1894 1895 1896 1897 1898 1899 1900 1901 1902 1903

kW kW m3

P P P P P P C P P

for pneumatic tools

3 units, one per coarse ore reclaim tunnel, one for fine ore stockpile

3 units, one per coarse ore reclaim tunnel, one for fine ore stockpile

1904 1905 1906 1907 1908 1909 1910 1911 1912 1913 1914 1915 1916 1917 1918

one operated, one stand-by

1919 1920 1921 1922 1923 1924 1925 1926 1927 1928 1929 1930 1931

1936

Discharge air pressure Power efficiency Number of operated units Number of spares Installed capacity, per unit Indicated motor power Motor size retained

1937 1938

Receiver capacity

1932 1933 1934 1935

Nm3/h

60 kPa atm, 20 C temp, 7 m Diameter cells 60 kPa atm, 20 C temp, 7 m Diameter cells 60 kPa atm, 20 C temp, 7 m Diameter cells 60 kPa atm, 20 C temp, 5.6 m Diameter cells 60 kPa atm, 20 C temp, 3 m Diameter cells

116

0 0 0 0 0 0

kPa minimum requirement 0 0

70 kPa, 570 Im3/min airflow

0 0

1939 1941

B.9.6 Filtration Air System at Port Cake drying

1942

Instantaneous flowrate required

6,800

Nm3/h

V

1943

Peak flow design factor Indicated capacity Discharge air pressure Power efficiency Number of operated units Installed capacity, per unit Indicated power requirements Indicated motor power Receiver capacity

1.0 6,800 800 78 2 3,400 388 400 85

Nm3/h kPag % ea Nm3/h kW kW m3

P V V P P C C P V

per filter vendor package

1,000 1,500 2 500 75 7

Nm3/h kPag ea Nm3/h kW m3

V V V V C V V

500 700 nr 10

Nm3/h kPa kW m3

P P P P

intermittent use

1940

1944 1945 1946 1947 1948 1949 1950 1951

2 operated, one stand-by

each of 2 receivers

1952 1953 1954 1955 1956 1957 1958 1959

Diaphragm pressing Instantaneous flowrate required Discharge air pressure Number of operated units Installed capacity, per unit Motor power installed Receiver capacity

one per filter

each of 2 receivers

1960 1961 1962 1963 1964 1965

B.9.7 Port Air System Installed capacity Discharge air pressure Motor size retained Receiver capacity

provided by filter compressors

1966

300279383.xls

Page 34 of 73

DESIGN CRITERIA FOR CONCENTRATOR FACILITIES MATERIAL HANDLING AREA - Do Project Cerro Casale Feasibility Data Sources Project No M40000 O Owner’s Client Compañía Minera Casale C Calculat Date 40711 P AMEC – P Revision 1 D AMEC – Ot Design Criteria - Concentrator Nominal Design

Value 1,244 1,800

Unit t/d t/d

Source M M

Comm

Years 8 - 12 Summary Copper Distribution - % by mass To Copper Concentrate To Flotation Scavenger Tailings

89.4 4.5

% %

M M

To First Cleaner Scavenger Tailings

6.1

%

M

CIL circuit feed

To CIL Tailings Solids To CIL Tailings Solution - total To CIL Tailings Solution – to tails To CIL Tailings Solution – to SART To Combined Tailings Total Copper Recovered

4.0 1.4 0.9 0.6 8.0 92.0

% % % % % %

M M M M M C

c/w 85% SART rec

Cu concentrate grade – average Cu concentrate production Nominal

31.3

%CuT

T

1,279

t/d

M

average ore type m

Years 13+ Summary Copper Distribution - % by mass To Copper Concentrate To Flotation Scavenger Tailings

92.9 2.4

% %

M M


4.7

%

M

CIL circuit feed


3.0 1.4 0.8 0.5 5.0 95.0

% % % % % %

M M M M M C

c/w 85% SART rec

Cu concentrate grade – average Cu concentrate production Nominal

33.3

%CuT

T

1,212

t/d

M

Mine Life

Units

Source

VO Sul Ore Summary Copper Distribution - % by mass

average ore type m

Units

To Copper Concentrate To Flotation Scavenger Tailings

% %

0.0 Mine Life

% %

M M


%

93.0

%

M


% % % % % %

60.5 6.0 3.9 1.4 66.2 33.8

% % % % % %

M M M M M M

%CuT

27.3

%CuT

M

Cu concentrate grade – average Years 8-12 Summary Gold Distribution - % by mass To Copper Concentrate To Flotation Scavenger Tailings

63.6 24.7

% %

M M


11.7

%

M

To CIL Tailings Solids To CIL Carbon To CIL Tailings Solution – to tails To Combined Tailings To Dore Total Gold Recovered

0.7 7.0 29.5 7.0 70.6

% % % % % %

M M M M M C

average ore type m

Years 11+ Summary Gold Distribution - % by mass To Copper Concentrate To Flotation Scavenger Tailings

67.3 23.0

% %

M M


9.6

%

M

To CIL Tailings Solids To CIL Carbon To CIL Tailings Solution – to tails To Combined Tailings To Dore Total Gold Recovered

0.7 7.6 25.1 7.6 74.9

% % % % % %

M M M M M C

VO Sul Ore Summary Gold Distribution - % by mass To Copper Concentrate To Flotation Scavenger Tailings

Mine Life 67.6 22.1

Units

Source

% %

M M


10.3

%

M

To CIL Tailings Solids To CIL Carbon To CIL Tailings Solution – to tails

1.3 7.4 -

% % %

M M M

CIL circuit feed

average ore type m

CIL circuit feed

To Combined Tailings To Dore Total Gold Recovered

25.1 7.4 74.9

% % %

M M M

Rougher concentrate solids

nominal 5130 t/h C design 822 t/h P,C 1st Cleaner Feed solids 1218.6 t/h M % solids 24.9 % O, P, M 3 solids SG 2.85 t/m M 1st Cleaner Scavenger Feed solids 1029.2 t/h M 2nd Cleaner Feed solids 190.4 t/h M 3rd Cleaner Feed solids 71.3 t/h M Cyclone overflow pulp density 24 % solids P Cyclone overflow P80 25 μm T,O Ball mill discharge density 57 % solids P 3 Water addition (total) to each wet screen #DIV/0! m /h C 3 total flow, per screen ### m /h C Maximum throughput required per screen #REF! tph C % of ore to cleaner scav tails HL deposition rate HL leach rate HL Irrigation System Utilization Proportion of lime to trucks

150000 100000 95 80

% tpd tpd % %

MaximumConcentra at peak t Rougher Scavenger Concen Cleaner (desig at designTails throughp at design throughp at nominal through at design throughp at design throughp

Into chute for repul

To match maximum

NDLING AREA - Document M40000-0000-110-DSC-0001-1 V T M R


Comments

average ore type mix & feed grade b

CIL circuit feed

c/w 85% SART recovery


CIL circuit feed

c/w 85% SART recovery

Rev.

Ref


CIL circuit feed


CIL circuit feed

MaximumConcentrate at peak tonnage Rougher + 1st Cleaner Scavenger Concentrate + 2nd Cleaner (design) at designTails throughput. at design throughput. Function of Cu grade at nominal throughput + 10% at design throughput A at design throughput A

Into chute for repulping and to spray A To match maximum throughput capab

DESIGN CRITERIA FOR CONCENTRATOR FACILITIES MATERIAL HANDLING AREA - Document M40000-0000-110-DSC-0001-1 Project Project No Client Date Revision

Cerro Casale Feasibility M40000 Compañía Minera Casale 24-Oct-10 A

Design Criteria - Concentrator 4.3 Ore Reserves Characteristics Predominant Mineralogy Copper Minerals Distribution Chalcopyrite Bornite Chalcocite Digenite Covellite Native copper Total proportion of Cu-bearing minerals Gangue Minerals Silica K-feldspars Amphiboles Pyrite Molybdenite Sphalerite Fe/Mn oxides Sulphates Carbonates Apatite Zircon Micas Chlorite Ti oxides Clays

Data Sources O Owner’s (CMC) Input C Calculated P AMEC – Process input D AMEC – Other disciplines input Value

Unit

Source

61.5 11.3 3.2 23.7 0.4 na 0.91

% % % % % % %

T T T T T T T T

27.98 33.83 0.92 1.83 0.09 0.05 4.06 1.18 0.55 0.35 0.35 20.83 3.27 1.05 2.73

% % % % % % % % % % % % % % %

T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T

3.2

%

T


Comments

Rev. Ref

Year 1-5 Composite

Year 1-5 Composite

Design Clay Content

Principal Sulphide Lithologies Diorite Porphyry sulphide

29.5

%

D

Granodiorite porphyry sulphide Microdiorite breccia Volcanic conglomerate sulphide Other volcanics

16.6 12.9 19.6 21.4 100.0 12.6 0.3

% % % % % % %

D D D D C D D

A (%)

B (%)

81.1 3.2 2.7 6.5 6.5 100.0

75.1 6.7 17.6 0.6 0.0 100.0

A (%)

B (%)

50.4 11.9 21.7 8.0 8.0 100.0

32.1 17.6 21.6 25.7 3.0 100.0

A (%)

B (%)

3.4 25.8 64.8 3.0 3.0 100.0

8.1 20.3 6.1 24.5 41.0 100.0

total Microdiorite breccia split as:

V T M R

sulphide ore mixed ore

SGS Report "Gold Deportment Study in Cyclone O/F, 1st Cl. Scav. Tail and Ro Tail Samples from Cerro Casale Project" January 22, 2009; on Year 1-5 composite sample proportions in FSU mine plan V_2 c/w stockpile - by reserves tonnage rock code: DP (rock type was divided between upper (DSU) and lower (DSL) in 2000 FS report) rock code: GRD rock code: MDBX rock code: VCGL rock code: VO rock code: MDBX sul rock code: MDBX mix

Mine Plan Tonnage - Lithological Distribution Year 3 to Year 7 Porphyry sulphide Granodiorite porphyry sulphide Volcanic conglomerate sulphide + others Microdiorite breccia - mixed Microdiorite breccia - sulphide Year 8 to Year 12 Porphyry sulphide Granodiorite porphyry sulphide Volcanic conglomerate sulphide + others Microdiorite breccia - mixed Microdiorite breccia - sulphide Year 13 to EOM Porphyry sulphide Granodiorite porphyry sulphide Volcanic conglomerate sulphide + others Microdiorite breccia - mixed Microdiorite breccia - sulphide

300279383.xls

A: per composite samples prepared for testwork B: per FSU mine plan V_2 wSP (Year 3 is first year of plant feed) O/D O/D O/D O/D O/D A: per composite samples prepared for testwork B: per FSU mine plan V_2 wSP O/D O/D O/D O/D O/D A: per composite samples prepared for testwork B: per FSU mine plan V_2 wSP O/D O/D O/D O/D O/D

Page 41 of 73



Data Sources O Owner’s (CMC) Input C Calculated P AMEC – Process input D AMEC – Other disciplines input

Design Criteria - Concentrator 4.4 Ore Physical Characteristics

Value

Unit

Source

Ore moisture content - average

2.5

% w/w

O

1,800

mm

D

100 99.5 99 98 94 81 55 30 15 3.5 64

% % % % % % % % % % mm

D D D D D D D D D D

Run-of-Mine ore top size ROM % passing sieve of: 1,200 mm 1,000 mm 800 mm 750 mm 600 mm 380 mm 200 mm 100 mm 50 mm 6 mm P20 Average specific gravity for DP Average specific gravity for MDBX Average specific gravity for GRD Average specific gravity for VCGL average Solids Specific Gravity Estimate Ore abrasion index for DP Ore abrasion index for MDBX Ore abrasion index for GRD Ore abrasion index for VCGL average

V T M R


Comments

Rev. Ref

indicated by Mining group, per Orica simulations

2.62 t/m3 2.59 t/m3 2.66 t/m3 2.76 t/m3 2.65 t/m3 5.32 * %Cu/100 + 2.77

T T T T C C

0.34 0.47 0.41 0.30 0.38

g g g g g

T T T T C

g/t % % g/t %

D D

Silver (Ag) Sulphur (S)

0.613 0.242 na 1.48 2.57

D O

Average Gold Head Grade per Lithology Diorite sulphide Microdiorite breccia - Mixed Microdiorite breccia - Sulphide Granodiorite sulphide Volcanic sulphide

0.557 0.734 0.740 0.708 0.575

g/t g/t g/t g/t g/t

O O O O O

Average Copper Head Grade per Lithology Diorite sulphide Microdiorite breccia - Mixed Microdiorite breccia - Sulphide Granodiorite sulphide Volcanic sulphide

0.20 0.20 0.29 0.30 0.23

% % % % %

O O O O O

Average Silver Head Grade per Lithology Diorite sulphide Microdiorite breccia - Mixed Microdiorite breccia - Sulphide Granodiorite sulphide Volcanic sulphide

1.32 2.45 2.06 1.73 1.30

g/t g/t g/t g/t g/t

O O O O O

Average Gold Head Grade per Periods Year 3-7 Year 8-12 Year 13+

0.648 0.668 0.567

g/t g/t g/t

D D D

Year 3-7 Year 8-12 Year 13+

0.246 0.255 0.233

% % %

D D D

Average Silver Head Grade per Periods Year 3-7 Year 8-12 Year 13+

1.37 1.71 1.39

g/t g/t g/t

D D D

assumed equal for the VO component of the volcanic rocks For comminution circuits. Linear regression with testwork data. For flotation circuits.

4.5 Ore Chemical Characteristics 4.5.1 Average Head Grades Gold (Au) Copper (Cu) Cyanide-Soluble Copper (CuCN)

Mine Plan FSU V2 wSP




Average CuT Head Grade per Periods

300279383.xls

Mine Plan FSU V2 wSP Mine Plan FSU V2 wSP not available in geological block model Mine Plan FSU V2 wSP 2004 FS ore composites



Page 42 of 73



Design Criteria - Concentrator 4.5.2 Design Head Grades Gold per FS mine plan V_8 Per PFS ore reserves grade vs. tonnage Retained design grade Total Copper per FS mine plan V_8 per PFS ore reserves grade vs. tonnage retained design grade Silver per FS mine plan V_8 retained design grade 4.6 General Plant Operating Requirements Design Life Operation Schedule Operating hours per day Plant Capacity Average Design Hourly - average Hourly – design Yearly Grinding/Flotation Planned Shutdown - Weighted Maintenance shutdowns Full plant shutdowns Total Grinding/Flotation Availability

Grinding/Flotation/CIL Circuits Unplanned Shutdown Weighted Operational delays Operational Utilization External Interruptions Overall Grinding/Flotation/CIL Circuits Utilization

300279383.xls


V T M R


Value

Unit

Source

Comments

Rev. Ref

0.97

g/t Au

D,C


0.96

g/t Au

D,C

marginal grade of tonnage fraction to cover 85% of reserves tonnage

0.96

g/t Au

P

0.40

%CuT

D,C

20% above peak year grade of 0.33 % in Year 11

0.39

%CuT

D,C

marginal grade of tonnage fraction covering 85% of reserves tonnage

0.39

%CuT

P

2.28 2.28

g/t Ag g/t Ag

D,C P

19 360 24

years d/y h

D P P

Projected mine life (partial operations in first and last years) For weather-related interruptions to ore supply

160,000 176,000 7,018 7,719 57.6

t/d t/d t/h t/h Mt/a

O P C C C

nominal 10% above average nominal, operated basis

h/week

h/y

1.5

78


A A

nominal hours weighing based on 100% plant capacity

P

18 hours per grinding line, each line down once per 12 weeks for cyclone feed pump maintenance. Six lines.

A

24 hours per 24 weeks. Combined with individual grinding line shutdown

A

0.9

48.75

P

2.4

126.8

C

8,513 98.5

h/y %

C C

156 96.7 149 95.0 8,208

h/y % h/y % h/y

P C C O C

hours weighing based on 100% plant capacity Accounts for material handling issues Based on operational hours divided by total hours per year for lack of ore, power supply, concentrate or water pipeline issues A A

Page 43 of 73



Design Criteria - Concentrator 4.7 Primary Crushing Bond impact work index Diorite sulphide Microdiorite breccia Granodiorite sulphide Volcanic breccia average Design impact work index


V T M R


Value

Unit

Source

Comments

10.4 9.8 14.6 10.5 11.4 13.0

kWh/t kWh/t kWh/t kWh/t kWh/t kWh/t

T T T T C P

weighted Based on a mix of 60% GRD and 40% Volcanic Breccia

Rev. Ref

MacPherson testwork report; Dec. 1998

Design factor for impact work index

20

%

P

Accounting for variability and higher hardness of recirculated material

Modified design impact work index

15.6

kWh/t

P

Based on mix of GRD and Volcanics and 20% design factor

Number of primary crushers Type of Primary crusher Primary crusher design availability

2 gyratory

P P

Indicated life of crusher mantle Indicated life of crusher concave liners Indicated life of crusher spider liners Primary crusher design utilization Nominal throughput Design throughput

19 79 6 12 12 75 4,444 4,889

h/d % mo mo mo % t/h t/h

P C P P P P C C

Accounting for lost availability for truck waiting time, inspections per crusher per crusher


5,230

t/h

V



7,020

t/h

V


360 600 1.7 750 2.1

t t Trucks t Trucks

D D C D C

1,800 800 1,220 Yes

mm mm mm

D D P P

Open side setting nominal Closed side setting nominal Open side setting design Closed side setting design Primary crusher ROM feed F80

191 140 203 152 372

mm mm mm mm mm

P C P C D

Design primary crusher ROM feed F80

372

mm


152

mm

C

Nominal. Range between 131 and 200 mm for ROM feeds with variable PSDs. Bruno Simulations

A


161

mm

C

Design, Bruno simulations

A


399 425 45 3.5

mm

P

Nominal. Bruno simulations Design. Bruno simulations

A

480 486 150 8 684 692

kW kW kW % kW kW

C C V P C C

At nominal throughput. At design throughput. Indicated by Bruno

A A

At nominal throughput and with modified design work index

A A

Indicated crusher size Indicated crusher motor power base

60” x 113” 1,000 kW

V V

FLSmidth VO model or Metso Superior MK-II or equiv.

Ore Bulk Density – Crushed ROM Unpacked Packed

1.60 1.60

P P

Wet basis, For volume calucations Wet basis, For mechanical/power calcuations

A A

baghouse

O

Collected dust from dump pocket, feeder discharge and transfer point to stockpile feed conveyor discharged onto sacrificial conveyors

A

No No

O R

Ore haul truck capacity Dump hopper capacity Surge hopper capacity

ROM top size ROM d99 Crusher cavity feed top size Hydraulic rock breaker installed?

Primary crusher discharge P20 Primary crusher discharge Cummulative Passing 6 mm Calculated crushing duty power required No-load power, per crusher Crusher drive losses Calculated power draw per crusher - nominal - design

Dust control system Wet scrubber for crusher dump pocket Foggers for transfer points Dust generation rate at transfer points in Primary Crushing

300279383.xls

0.02

A A A A A A A A

per volume fixed at PFS per volume fixed at PFS

Indicated top size for the MK-II gyratory one per crusher per Bruno simulation per Bruno c/w 51-mm stroke for MK-II gyratory per Bruno simulation

A A A A A

Nominal. Estimated by Mine blasting consultant

A

mm %

t/m3 t/m3

%

D

A US EPA AP 42 Fifth edition http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/ap42/ch11/final/c11s24.pdf

Page 44 of 73



Design Criteria - Concentrator 4.8 Coarse Ore Stockpiling and Reclaiming Stockpile live capacity

Crushed ore angle of repose – design Draw down angle – design Number of reclaim lines Reclaim feeder type Number of feeders Design number of operating feeders Throughput capacity per feeder Dust control system


V T M R


Unit

Source

Comments

Rev. Ref

80,000

t

P

Jenike and Johanson analysis indicates live capacity = 72,000 tonnes

A

10.2

h

P


A

40 65

º º

P,T P,T

J&J Testwork J&J Testwork

A A

2 apron

each

P A

6

each

P

4 2,157 baghouse

each tph

P C O

110 7,719

% t/h

P C

3 per line; 2 operated, one stand-by for design capacity. Normal operation will be 3 operating. At design throughput with 4 feeders operating. dust collected from transfer points between reclaim feeders and reclaim conveyors; dust dropped onto reclaim conveyors

A A

4.9 Comminution Circuits Peak throughput design factor Design throughput for design ore Dust control system Foggers for transfer points Dust generation rate at transfer points

baghouse No

10% above normal tonnage for soft ore A

O R

0.02

% of feed stream

P

3 16 16 96.9 6 6 24 85 15.6 1.5

wk hr hr % wk wk wk % kWh/t kg/t

O P P P V, P V, P P P P T

A US EPA AP 42 Fifth edition http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/ap42/ch11/final/c11s24.pdf

A

4.9.1 Secondary Crushing Circuit Scheduled shutdown frequency Scheduled shutdown duration Duration of shutdown for bowl/mantle liner replacement Crushing Section Availability Indicated life of crusher bowl Indicated life of crusher mantle liners Indicated life of crusher spider liners Secondary crushing circuit utilization Modified design crushing work index Ore abrasive wear

300279383.xls

Boddington benchmarking - full line down at once Boddington benchmarking c/w 12 hr at low altitude and no winter drop-in complete spare bowl and mantle assemblies provided Metso estimate and benchmarking Metso estimate and benchmarking

A A A A A A

Based on a 60% granodiorite, 40% volcanics mining mix A

Page 45 of 73



Design Criteria - Concentrator 4.9.1.1 Cone Crushers


Unit

Number of secondary crushers to be installed Number of crushers provided for in layout plans Number of Lines Number of Operating Crushers Crusher model (indicated) Nominal Feed Size F80 Nominal Feed Size F99 (Top Size) Design Feed Size F80 Design Feed Size F99 (Top Size) Design Feed Size F20 Design Feed Cummulative % Passing 6 mm Crusher feed moisture content

8 ea. 8 ea. 2 ea. 6 ea. MP1250 series 148 mm 399 mm 154 mm 425 mm 47 mm 0 mm 2.5 %

Crusher Closed Side Setting (CSS) - nominal feed conditions

35

Crusher Closed Side Setting (CSS) - design feed size conditions @ nominal tonnage Liner profile Theoretical crushing power required at nominal throughput (per crusher) Theoretical crushing power required at design throughput (per crusher) No-load power, per crusher Crusher drive losses

45

Source

P P P P, O O P,C P,C P,C P,C P,C P,C O

V T M R


Comments

No future expansion required 3 operating and 1 standby per line. Standard head cone crusher or equivalent Bruno simulation result. Confirmed with JKSimMet. Bruno simulation result Bruno simulation result. Confirmed with JKSimMet. Bruno simulation result Bruno simulation result. Confirmed with JKSimMet. Bruno simulation result. Confirmed with JKSimMet.

A A A A A A A A

A

mm

P

mm

P

Boddington benchmarking.

P

To be confirmed Bruno indicated 558 kW for same conditions.

medium

Rev. Ref

537

kW

C

625

kW

C

100 8

kW %

V P

Indicated power draw (per crusher)

693

kW

T,V

At average throughput but for design mining mix of 60% granodiorite

A

Indicated power draw (per crusher)

789

kW

T,V

At design throughput

A

Installed motor power (per crusher) Contingency on power draw Contingency on power draw

932 34.5 18.2

kW % %

V C C

Relative to available power Relative to available power

7,843 8,627

tph tph

C C


1,477 1,682

tph tph

M C

1,765

tph

V


19.5

%

C

Relative to average throughput at nominal CSS of 35mm

2,225

tph

V


50.6

%

C

Relative to average throughput at maximum CSS of 45mm

Crusher Product Size P80 @ nominal feed size

41

mm

C


Crusher Product Size P99 (Top Size) @ nominal feed size

68

mm

C

Bruno result

Crusher Product Size P99 (Top Size) @ design feed size

41

mm

C


A

Crusher Product Size P99 (Top Size) @ design feed size

68

mm

C

Bruno result

A

Crusher Product Size P20 Crusher Product cummulative % passing 6 mm

7 17

mm %

C C

Bruno simulation result. Bruno simulation result.

A A

8

ea.

P P

One per crusher

1.68 1.68 20 334 2670 35

t/m3 t/m3 min m3 m3 º

Draw down angle – design

60

º

Cone Crusher Feed Hopper

4.5

m

V

Cone Crusher Feed Hopper residence time Dust generation rate at transfer points in Secondary Crushing

16.2

sec

C, V

0.06

%

D

average throughput design throughput

Crusher circuit throughput (fresh feed basis) Average Design Throughput per crusher (total crusher feed c/w circulating load) Average Design Maximum capacity at 35 mm CSS (per crusher) @ nominal feed size Contingency on nominal throughput Maximum capacity at 45 mm CSS (per crusher) @ design feed size Contingency on nominal throughput

Type of crusher feeder Number of crusher feeders Secondary Crusher Feed Bins Design bulk ore SG - volume requirement Unpacked Mechanical (Packed) Crusher Feed Surge Bin residence time Cone Crusher Feed Surge Bin Total Surge Bin Capacity Crushed ore angle of repose – design

300279383.xls

Belt feeder

P

3

P C C

Indicated by Bruno

A A A

A

A

Wet Basis. For volume calculations For mechanical/power calcualtions

A A A

Live volume, per crusher, 6 operating crushers Live Volume, 8 crushers Jenike and Johanson Testing

A A A

Jenike and Johanson Testing

A

Live volume, per crusher

A

M40000-3100-110-CAL-0004 Based on sullpier design of feed chute. US EPA AP 42 Fifth edition http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/ap42/ch11/final/c11s24.pdf

A A

Page 46 of 73



Design Criteria - Concentrator 4.9.1.2 Primary Vibrating Dry Screens Recycle ratio (screen vs. fresh feed tonnage) Average Design Total design processing rate Design screen undersize at max rate Design screen oversize at max rate


1.13 1.17 11,471 9,804 1,667

Source

tph tph tph

C C C C C

Bruno simulations indicated circulating load Bruno simulations indicated circulating load 25% allowance for instantaneous peaks, at design circulating load 25% allowance for peaks 25% allowance for instantaneous peaks, at design circulating load

A A A A A

P

Wet Basis, unpacked. For volume calcuations For mechancial/power calucations

A A A

Live Volume Jenike and Johanson Testing Jenike and Johanson Testing

A A A

Schenck indicated.

A

Dry Screening Feed Surge Bin residence time Dry Screening Surge Bin Capacity Crushed ore angle of repose – design Draw down angle – design Screen feeder type

1.68 1.68 15 min 2,924 m3 40.0 º 75.0 º Vibrating pan feeder

Number of vibrating dry screens Design processing rate per dry screen Type of screen Screen deck width (indicated) Screen deck length (indicated) Number of decks per screen Peak capacity per screen Screen motor rating Screening efficiency Unit screen capacity (at average throughput)

6 ea. 3,120 tph Multi-slope 4.3 m 8.5 m 2 ea. 3,450 tph 75 kW 90 % 78 t/h/m2

Dry screen undersize P80 Dry screen undersize P20 Dry screen undersize Cummulative % Passing 6 mm Average undersize stream flow rate (per screen)

300279383.xls


Unit

Dry Screen Feed Bins Design bulk ore SG - volume requirement

Screen panels square aperture Screen cut point Bed depth at discharge

V T M R

P C

Comments

Rev. Ref

P V C P,V P,V P,V V V V P C

45 38 41

mm mm mm

P C V

30 30 17 1,307

mm mm % tph

O,C O,C O,C C

aka Banana screen Schenck indicated. Schenck indicated.

A A A

Schenck indicated. Schenck indicated. Based on vendor indicated deck dimensions and design tonnage

Bruno indication for nominal throughput Bruno indication at nominal throughput. Confirmed by vendor. Bruno indication Bruno indication Bruno indication Fresh feed to crushing circuit rate

Page 47 of 73



Design Criteria - Concentrator 4.9.2 Tertiary Crushing Circuit


V T M R


Value

Unit

Source

Scheduled shutdown frequency

3

wk

O

Boddington benchmarking - full line down at once

A

Scheduled shutdown duration

16

hr

P

Boddington benchmarking c/w 12 hr at low altitude and no winter

A

30 2 88.6 6,000 5,600 39,298

hr hr % op. hours op. hours kt

P, V P P T, V C C

drop-in complete spare bowl and mantle assemblies provided Boddington benchmarking, per crusher

A A A A A A

Duration of shutdown for roll replacement Cumulative daily shutdown for roll/edge block checks Tertiary crusher availability Indicated roll life per testwork conditions per design conditions

Nominal tonnage ball mill Philosophy for design grinding production rate when 1 line of tonnage with high circulating HPGR is bypassed. load.

Rev. Ref

based on 150 kt/d, 1.55 circulating load adjusted for actual throughput and circulating load Process requirement for maintaning production and inventory in fine ore silos.

Tertiary crushing circuit utilization Recycle ratio (per Polysius testwork scale-up) Recycle ratio (crusher throughput vs fresh feed) Wet screen close-out size Recycle ratio (at 10 mm close-out size)

85 1.85 2.00 10.0 1.51

For design purpose. From benchmarking against Cerro Verde

A

Expected recycle ratio at maximum throughput

2.10

P

For design purpose - coarser product expected at larger floating gap

A

2.10 14,510 18,818 0.003

Boddington Benchmarking Based on benchmarked recycle ratio At maximum allowable rolls speed US EPA AP 42 Fifth edition http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/ap42/ch11/final/c11s24.pdf

A

tph tph %

C C P D

Specific grinding force (indicated) Specific throughput rate (m-dot) (indicated) Scaled-up specific throughput rate (m-dot) Specific energy input (indicated) Scaled-up specific energy input ATWAL Abrasion Test (indicated)

3.5 227 300 1.80 1.44 16

N/mm2 ts/(m3h) ts/(m3h) kWh/t kWh/t g/t

T T T T T T

From testwork From test work results Benchmarking From testwork Benchmarking From Polysius testwork

Number of High Pressure Rolls Crushers Number of lines Required throughput rate (per crusher, fresh feed) Required throughput rate (per crusher, fresh feed) Number of HPGRs provided for in layout

6 2 2,418 3,136 8

ea. ea. tph tph ea.

V P C P

2 lines, each with 3 operating HPGRs Average instantaneous rate Design For future expansion

Rolls diameter (indicated) Rolls width (indicated) Maximum allowable rotational speed Maximum allowable rolls speed (mechanical) Max rolls speed (slippage rule of thumb) Nominal rolls speed for required throughput Design rolls speed for design throughput Contingency on throughput (Mechanical limit) Contingency on throughput (Process limit)

2.40 1.65 21.0 2.64 2.40 2.40 2.55 10.0 0.0

m m RPM m/s m/s m/s m/s % %

V V V C P C C C C

From Polysius report From Polysius report Calculated from vendor simulation report At maximum RPM allowed to limit potential mechanical damage Process limit at which slippage becomes a problem At indicated m-dot and recycle ratio At Boddington benchmarking m-dot and recylce rate. At nominal rolls speed required for average throughput At nominal rolls speed required for average throughput

Installed power - per crusher Power consumed per crusher Contingency on power

5,500 3,666 50.0

kW kW %

V C C

2 x 2,750 kW motors Including 95% electrical drive efficiency At average throughput rate

ea.

P P

One per rolls crusher

Expected recycle ratio at maximum circuit feed size Average processing rate (at crushers) Maximum processing rate (at crushers) Dust generation rate at transfer points in Tertiary Crushing

%

Comments

mm

O V V P P

A For 6 mm tested close-out size Based on Cerro Verde experience at 6 mm close-out size

A

4.9.2.1 HPGR Crushing

Type of feeder Number of crusher feeders HPGR ore Bin Design bulk HPGR feed SG - volume requirements Unpacked Mechanical HPGR Surge Bin residence time required HPGR Surge Bin capacity

Belt feeder 6

Crushed ore angle of repose – design Draw down angle – design Average % moisture (w/w) of HPGR feed

1.42 1.68 15 4,704 3,650 40 75 4.7

min t m3 º º %

HPGR Feed Hopper surge residence time HPGR Feed Hopper live surge capacity HPGR feed size P80 HPGR feed size P20 HPGR feed cummulative % passing 6 mm HPGR feed size P99 (top size) HPGR product P80 HPGR product P20

20 25 26 9 15 45 14.7 1.4

sec t mm mm % mm mm mm

300279383.xls

T, C T, C T, C P C C

A A

A A A

A A

Wet basis, packed For volume calcuations For mechanical/power calcuations at design throughput i.e. 10% above average Live tonnage at design throughput rates Live volume at design throughput rates Jenike and Johanson Testing Jenike and Johanson Testing

A A A

One per crusher at design throughput rate Polysius simulations Polysius simulations Polysius simulations

A A A A A

Used in simulations at 10 mm cut size. Tests indicated 9 mm for 6 mm screen cut size. at 10 mm cut size. Tests indicated 9 mm for 6 Used in simulations mm screen cut size.

A A

A A A A

C P, V C P,V,C P,V,C P,V,C P,V V,T,C V,T,C

Page 48 of 73



Design Criteria - Concentrator HPGR product cummulative % passing 6 mm

300279383.xls

Data Sources O Owner’s (CMC) Input C Calculated P AMEC – Process input D AMEC – Other disciplines input Value 46

Unit %

Source V,T,C

V T M R


Comments Used in simulations at 10 mm cut size. Tests indicated 9 mm for 6 mm screen cut size.

Rev. Ref A

Page 49 of 73



Design Criteria - Concentrator 4.9.2.2 Fine Ore Bins Capacity of twin HPGR product conveyors Fine Ore Storage Storage live capacity c/w half of HPGR down Type of storage Number of silos Bulk density of HPGR product Unpacked Mechanical Bin feed moisture content (% w/w) Crushed ore angle of repose – design Draw down angle – design


Unit

Source

9,607

tph

C

60,000 19.4 Silos 6.0

tonnes hrs

O C

ton/m3

C

% º º

C

1.37 1.68 4.7 40.0 75.0

V T M R


Comments

Rev. Ref

Each. At design throughput rate A A A

Wet basis, packed For volume calculations For mechanical/power calucations

A A A

Jenike and Johanson Testing Jenike and Johanson Testing

A A

4.9.2.3 Secondary Wet Vibrating Screens Number of units Type of screen Max throughput per screen (indicated) Average processing rate per screen Feed arrangement

12

ea. Multi-slope 1,300 tph 1,209 tph Belt feeder - Repulper

Deck panels aperture Unit screen capacity (average throughput) Estimated Max unit screen capacity Screening area required Selected screen deck width Length to width minimum ratio Screen deck length (indicated) Screen deck length (retained) Number of decks per screen Wet screening efficiency (used in simulations) Wet screening efficiency (expected) Screen motor rating Expected bed depth at discharge Screen Sprays type number of bars per screen number of sprays per bar flowrate per spray type of water used Wet screen undersize product P80 Wet screen oversize product moisture content Wet screen feed repulping box overflow solids content Wet screen undersize product solids content Pulp to individual ball mill pumpbox from wet screens

300279383.xls

10.0 43 46 3.6 2:1 7.9 8.5 1 88 92 55 69 duck bills 3 5 4

mm t/h/m2 t/h/m2 m2 m m m ea. % % kW mm

P C C C P,V P P,V P,V P V P V C

m3/hr

P P P P, V

mm % w/w % w/w % w/w m3/h

V,T P P P C

ea.

fresh 7.6 8.0 55.0 40.0 3,016

P P,V V C P

P

aka Banana screen Vendor indicated maximum range At nominal circuit throughput rate Forward-reverse re-pulping dead boxes in chute

Calculated based on vendor indicated deck dimensions Based on Vendor indicated range and area

for dewatering efficiency

A A A

Schenck indicated. Single deck screens with spray bars Used in Polysius simulations Schenck indicated. Schenck indicated.

spacing of about 0.75 m 15 Usgpm @ 50 psi

A A A A A

to minimize wear of sprays with entrained solids in process water

A

JKSimMet simulations Assumed Large volume water required for complete disagglomeration of flakes Additional water addition to prevent sanding of low-angle discharge chute

A A

Page 50 of 73

Post-leach Thickener CIL tailings density Thickener feed screen spray water rate Target underflow density Thickener dilution feed box retention time Flow to dilution feed box Post-leach thickener distributor volume Diluted feed slurry density Internal feed dilution slurry density Equivalent settling rate

39.5 25 50 60 1763 #VALUE! 38.6 18 0.2

% solids m3/h % solids s m3/h m3 % solids % solids t/h/m²

Indicated thickener diameter Selected thickener diameter Actual rise rate Flocculant addition

8.0 70 0.00 25-30

m m m³/h/m² g/t

Dilution Water to Post-Leach Thickener Flocculant Addition Lined Tailings Reclaim Water Post-leach thickener overflow flowrate Overflow standpipe retention time Standpipe volume

20 24.1 157.1 207 3 10

m3/h m3/h m3/h m3/h min m3

B.5 Carbon-In-Leach Circuit Design throughput Design gold head grade Feed slurry density Dry Solids SG Gold lock-up on carbon - Years 3 to 7 Gold lock-up on carbon - Years 8 to 12 Gold lock-up on carbon - Years 13+ Design slurry flowrate

10 0.76 40 2.78 138 122 114 19

t/h g/t % solids

2.0 60 0.14 35

g/t % % %

1 0

min m3

Indicated silver head grade Indicated silver leach extraction Indicated copper head grade Indicated copper leach extraction Leach circuit feed distributor retention time Distributor volume

kg kg kg m3/h

Trash screen aperture Carbon sizing screen aperture Carbon size

24 20 6 x 12

mesh mesh mesh

B.5.1 Leach Circuit Trash Screen Screen type Safety screen aperture Screen feed flowrate design factor Estimated screen unit capacity Net screen area required Number of screen provided

linear, static 28 mesh 1.2 90 m3/h/m2 m2 0 1 ea.

B.5.2 Leach Tanks Leaching retention time Aeration volume allowance Effective tank volume Gross leach tank volume requirement

20 5 94.5 414

h % % m3

Tank aspect ratio (H:L) Tank freeboard Retained tank diameter Tank height Tank freeboard Number of stages Leach tank volume provided Actual retention time provided

1:1 0.25 16.3 16.3 0.9 10 33,492 1620.8

m m m m ea m3 h

Final gold residue Nominal effluent dissolved gold tenor

0.050 0.006

g/t mg/l

Agitator type Aeration gas Aeration rate

axial turbines air 0.3 Nm3/h/m3

Slurry pH Carbon concentration in CIL slurry Carbon inventory

11.0 18 603

Carbon advance method

g/l t

vertical interstage pump

Daily nominal carbon forwarding duration

6

h

Carbon advance pumping rate Carbon advance rate through CIL section

185 20

m3/h tpd

24

tpd

204

m3/h

- design Peak interstage slurry advance rate

Carbon interstage screen type

Kemix swept screen

Interstage screen aperture

20

mesh

Indicated screen capacity Screen area required, per leach tank Selected area per screen Number of screens per tank Number of screen positions per tank

85 2.4 10 0 1

m3/h/m2 m2 m2 each each

B.5.3 Loaded Carbon Screen Screen type Screen aperture Transfer flowrate Screen feed flowrate design factor Estimated screen unit capacity Net screen area required Selected screen net area Screen wash water Loaded carbon max gold loading Peak carbon loading Expected nominal carbon gold loading

high-frequency 20 mesh m3/h 185 1.2 180 m3/h/m2 2.47 m2 m2 2.88 m3/h 2.5 1,000 g/t 600 g/t 581 g/t

Wet carbon SG Loaded carbon holding tank capacity

1.5 2 32

t/m3 batch m3

Barren carbon holding tank capacity

4 64.0

batches m3

B.5.4 Carbon Safety Screen Screen type Safety screen aperture Screen feed flowrate design factor Estimated screen unit capacity Net screen area required Number of screens provided Selected screen size Net screen area provided Screen spray water flowrate Leach reagents NaCN addition NaCN consumed NaCN in tailings Lime addition (100% CaO basis)

high-frequency 28 mesh 1 130 m3/h/m2 0.1 m2 2 ea. 1820 3600 m2 13.1 12.5 m3/h Years 6 to 18 Years1 to 5 1.6 3.1 1.5 3.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 1.3

B.6.12 Sodium Cyanide - NaCN (CIL Facility) Role Consumption at design throughput Peak design factor Design Consumption Form of supply Mixed solution strength Solids SG Solution SG Design solution consumption

gold leaching agent 4 kg/t 350.3 t/d 1.2 420.4 t/d briquettes c/w alkaline buffer 20 % w/w 1.6 t/m³ 1.06 t/m³ 1982.9

m³/d

Mixing tank capacity

15 1239

h m³


1.2 1487

batches m³

B.6.13 Activated Carbon Role Usage rate, per tonne of CIL feed Average consumption Form of supply B.7.3 CIL Leach Air Flotation tails leach Peak flow design factor Installed capacity Discharge air pressure Power efficiency Number of operated units Indicated motor power Motor size retained Receiver capacity

gold adsorption 20 g/t 1752 kg/d loose granules

10,048

Nm3/h

1.2 12,057 320 78 1 #DIV/0! 597 nr

Nm3/h kPag % ea kW kW

M P P P M C C T T

nominal feed equivalent to heap leach requirements at design feed rate

nominal feed

C P C per volume of supernatant crossing through solids bed P anionic, 15% charge density M M M M design, to SART Recovery Circuit P C

M For leach tank volume calculations P For carbon circuit sizing T,P Low density due to viscosity constraints M C C C C T T C T P C

SGS leaching testwork 2009 SGS leaching testwork 2009 Mass balance result G&T testwork

P P P

P P P P C P

P P P net of air, screens, agitator C P P P C Based on H:D ratio of 1:1 P P C C At Design Throughput P Indicated, from leach optimisation testwork results P Indicated by modeling results P paired P P P Increased from 8 g/l to compensate for dilution of leach P feed pulp C P C P nominal C Expected nominal for years 11 to 19 design based on nominal head grade and design P tonnage scenario C

A

P P P,V C P P P

P P M P P C P P P P P

6 hours operated per day

1200 mm x2400 mm instantaneous Short-term peak loading At design tonnage and nominal grade At average CIL feed tonnage and grade

P P daily carbon transfer batch C for transfer to pneumatic truck P daily carbon transfer batch C

P P P P C Assuming leach tails flow = leach feed flow P P L X W (mm) P,V P per screen

kg/t kg/t kg/t kg/t

P T C T

Includes cyanide credit recycled from SART

P T per SGS Lakefield cyanidation testwork C Based on design tonnage for the CIL P C operated basis c/w 92% utilization P Isotainers – size to confirm P V V C P C net volume P C net volume

rption O C Based on design tonnage to CIL V 900-kg tote bags

C P C P V P plus one stand-by unit C P P

Information Reagent form of supply Number of Mixing Tanks Mixing system utilization Filling Time of Mixing tank Batch preparation duration Time to transfer from mixing to distribution tank Distribution tank capacity Solution SG Concentrate Thickener Feed Cleaner Tailings (Pre-Leach Thickener) Cleaner Tailings (Post-Leach Thickener) Rougher tailings to thickener #1 Rougher tailings to thickener #2

Time to mix, minutes Mix tank volume, m3 Number of mix tanks Daily volume used, m3 Number of mixes per day required Number of mixes per day per mix tank Mixing time per day per tank, minutes Mix System Utilization, %

INPUTS value units 700 kg 2 85 % 40 min 50 min/batch 35 min 8 h 1 53.4 mt/h 0.0 mt/h 743.1 mt/h 0.0 mt/h 1036.8 mt/h

125 85 2 256 3.012275 1.506138 188.2672 13.07411

comment free-flowing powder

nominal nominal nominal nominal nominal

source Design Criteria Pierre Lacombe Pierre Lacombe Assumption Design Criteria Assumption Design Criteria Assumption Mass Balance Mass Balance Mass Balance Mass Balance Mass Balance

Stream Number 743 723 734 726 729 727 742A 724A 742B 724B

723 = 743 726 = 734 727 = 729 724A = 742A 724B = 742B 723 726 727 724A 724B

733 733 733 789 (868) 868

742,729,734,743

743 867 734 871 729 872 742A 869 742B

870

743 734 729 742A 742B 873

CALCULATIONS DISTRIBUTION TANK 4172-TNK-035 Solution strenght from package Flocc. to Concentrate Thickener Solution from package to concentrate thickener Flocc. to Pre-leach Flotation Tails Thickener Solution from package to flotation tails thickener Flocc. to Post-leach Flotation Tails Thickener Solution from package to post-leach flotation tails thickener Flocc. to Rougher Tailings Thickener #1 Solution from package to rougher tailings thickener #1 Flocc. to Rougher Tailings Thickener #2 Solution from package to rougher tailings thickener #2 Total flocculant consumption TotalSolution needed Solution needed Live volume capacity Flocc. from package to concentrate thickener Flocc. from package to flotation tails thickener Flocc. from package to post-leach flotation tails thickener Flocc. from package to rougher tailings thickener #1 Flocc. from package to rougher tailings thickener #2

0.5 0.001 0.214 0.000 0.000 0.019 3.715 0.000 0.000 0.034 6.739 0.053 10.67 10.67 256.0 85 0.001 0.000 0.019 0.000 0.034

% mt/h mt/h mt/h mt/h mt/h mt/h mt/h mt/h mt/h mt/h mt/h mt/h m3/h m3/d m3 mt/h mt/h mt/h mt/h mt/h

Water in Solution from package to concentrate thickener Water in Solution from package to flotation tails thickener Water in Solution from package to post-leach flotation tails thickener Water in Solution from package to rougher tailings thickener #1 Water in Solution from package to rougher tailings thickener #2

0.212 0.000 3.697 0.000 6.706

mt/h mt/h mt/h mt/h mt/h

PACKAGE MIXING TANK considering 80 m3 of live volume Solution strenght 0.5 Total time per batch 2.1 Real batch per day 9.8

% h batch/d

WATER

789

paulina.carrasco: Hay 2 estanques de mezcla, pero no operan simultaneamente.

paulina.carrasco: se debe redondear manualmente


batch/d mt/batch mt/batch m3/batch

Solution from Mixing to Distribution Tank Flocc. from Mixing to Distribution Tank Water in Solution from Mixing to Distribution Tank Flocculant consumption Flocculant consumption Water consumption Water flow rate

9 0.142 28 28 2 14 14 24.385 6.8 24 0.1 24.3 0.07 0.11 14.15 21.23027

FLOW PER LINE DISTRIBUTION Solution strenght Solution to Concentrate Thickener Solution to Concentrate Thickener Water added in this line Water added in this line Solution to Pre-leach Flotation Tails Thickener Solution to Pre-leach Flotation Tails Thickener Water added in this line Water added in this line Solution to Post-leach Flotation Tails Thickener Solution to Post-leach Flotation Tails Thickener Water added in this line Water added in this line Solution to Rougher Tailings Thickener #1 Solution to Rougher Tailings Thickener #1 Water added in this line Water added in this line Solution to Rougher Tailings Thickener #2 Solution to Rougher Tailings Thickener #2 Total solution consumption at 0.05% Water added in this line Water added in this line Total water added

0.05 2.14 2.14 1.92 1.92 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 37.15 37.15 33.44 33.44 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 67.39 67.39 2560.43 60.66 60.66 96.02

% mt/h m3/h mt/h m3/h mt/h m3/h mt/h m3/h mt/h m3/h mt/h m3/h mt/h m3/h mt/h m3/h mt/h m3/h m3/d mt/h m3/h m3/h

2.13 0.00 37.14 0.00 67.36

mt/h mt/h mt/h mt/h mt/h

Tonelaje por Batch Requerido Tonelaje de Estanque Requerido Volumen vivo requerido Cantidad de estanuqes requeridos Volumen por estanque Capacidad másica del estanque Carried flow

Water in solution. to Concentrate Thickener Water in solution to Pre-leach Flotation Tails Thickener Water in solution to Post-leach Flotation Tails Thickener Water in solution to Rougher Tailings Thickener #1 Water in solution to Rougher Tailings Thickener #2

Total water consumption 117.25

m3 mt m3/h L/s mt/h mt/h mt/h mt/bacth mt/h m3/bacth m3/h

mt/h

paulina.carrasco: considera 2 estanque de 85 m3 c/u

0.053 10.615 10.668

0.800 0.500 0.999

117.25 mt/h

96.02 mt/h 1.92

873 789

0.067 10.615 10.682

867

14.15 mt/batch 21.23027 m3/h

Flocc 0.07 mt/batch 0.11 mt/h 9 batch/day

0.00 mt/h

868

33.44 mt/h

870 60.66 mt/h

paulina.carrasco: Hay 2 estanques de mezcla, pero no operan simultaneamente.

MIXING tANK BATCH

85 m3

24.4 24.4 0.5 0.1

4172-TNK-035

0.00 mt/h

872

869

m3/h Sol mt/h Sol % mt/h Flocc

67.39 mt/h Sol 0.05 % 0.034 mt/h Flocc

742B


871

0.00 mt/h Sol 0.05 % 0.000 mt/h Flocc

742A


paulina.carrasco: considera 2 estanques de 85 m3 c/u

mt/h

867

743 2.14 mt/h Sol 0.05 % 0.0011 mt/h Flocc

37.15 mt/h Sol 0.05 % 0.019 mt/h Flocc

729

0.00 mt/h Sol 0.05 % 0.0000 mt/h Flocc

734

Floc Viscosity Strength, Viscosity, cP 1 600 0.5 100 0.25 50 0.1 25 0.05 22 0.2 37.38577

700

y = 18,699e3,4641x

400

Chart Title 600

f(x) = 18.6989560359 exp( 3.4640540253 x ) R² = 0.9972236624

500

Viscosity, cP Exponential (Viscosity, cP)

Viscosity, cP

300 200 100 0 0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

45 40

f(x) = - 0.18666666

35

f(x) = - 0.2348484848x^2 30 1 1 R² = 1.2 25 20

Lime Slurry Density, %

11.00 7.1 to 7.9 16.00 26 to 29 22.00 30 to 42 15.00 25.00

15

Min

Max 7.1 26 30

7.9 29 42 25.5195 43.4395

Average 7.5 27.5 36 24.452 33.942

10 5

0 10.00 12.00 14.00 16.00 18 Slurry Den

Viscosity, cP Exponential (Viscosity, cP)

(x) = - 0.1866666667x^2 + 9.26x - 71.3733333333

= - 0.2348484848x^2 + 10.3409090909x - 77.8333333333 1 1.2

2.00 14.00 16.00 18.00 20.00 22.00 24.00 Slurry Density, %

Min Max Polynomial (Max) Average Polynomial (Average)

Calculation of pond area Pond:

Process Water

Width, m Length, m 60 50

10.75

4.3 m

~38.5m

63.5m

78.5 m

Level, % 0 25 50 75 100

Width, m Length, m 38.5 78.5 43.875 83.875 49.25 89.25 54.625 94.625 60 100

Area, m2 3000

m

Area, m2 6022 6680 7396 8169 9000

1st cleaner 2nd cleaner 3rd cleaner

0.00 #DIV/0! 1.23

Cleaner cct 1st clnr 2nd clnr 3rc clnr

234.2 0.0 61.0 89.8

M400000-110-DC-001 Concentrator

Recommend Documents