DOCSLIB.ORG

ADVANCED BENEFICIATION of BASTNAESITE ORE THROUGH CENTRIFUGAL CONCENTRATION and FROTH FLOTATION by Doug Schriner

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
ADVANCED BENEFICIATION of BASTNAESITE ORE THROUGH CENTRIFUGAL CONCENTRATION and FROTH FLOTATION by Doug Schriner ADVANCED BENEFICIATION OF BASTNAESITE ORE THROUGH CENTRIFUGAL CONCENTRATION AND FROTH FLOTATION by Doug Schriner A thesis submitted to the Faculty and the Board of Trustees of the Colorado School of Mines in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Science (Metallurgical and Materials Engineering). Golden, Colorado Date ______________ Signed: ________________________ Doug Schriner Signed: ________________________ Dr. Corby Anderson Thesis Advisor Golden, Colorado Date ______________ Signed: ________________________ Dr. Ivar Reimanis Professor and Head Department of Metallurgical and Materials Engineering ii ABSTRACT Gravity separation and flotation studies have been conducted on Molycorp bastnaesite ore in order to determine if new beneficiation schemes present a more selective and more economical alternative than that which is currently employed at Mountain Pass. Literature on bastnaesite, monazite, barite, and calcite flotation and gravity concentration principles was surveyed. Flotation reagent additions were determined using components that have shown preferential floatability of bastnaesite and monazite over the gangue minerals. Hallimond Tube microflotation tests were performed on crushed and ground ore samples. Heavy liquid separation with sodium polytungstate was used to investigate the effectiveness of gravity separation on the ore. Shaking table and Falcon concentrator tests were performed to gravity concentrate the ore. A gravity-concentrated feed was floated and compared with a non-concentrated ore feed to illustrate the benefit of preconcentration. An economic analysis was generated for flotation plants operating with and without gravity preconcentration that would sell products with two distinct grades and recoveries. Qualitative microflotation tests produced little selective separation of the rare earth minerals (bastnaesite, parisite, and monazite) from the gangue (calcite, barite, dolomite, and quartz). Heavy liquid tests illustrated the sink/float behavior of the minerals at different specific gravities of separation. Their results suggest that at higher specific gravities the calcite floats while the bastnaesite and barite sink. Shaking table tests showed potential to effect such a separation, but optimum conditions were not determined. A Falcon centrifugal concentrator was used to carry out tests according to a Design of Experiments matrix generated with Stat Ease Design Expert 9. The best conditions from those trials were determined, and the tests were repeated to verify the desirability of those parameters. Bench flotation was then used to compare the standard feed at plant conditions to a feed consisting of the blended gravity concentrates. The flotation results showed that the preconcentrated feed outperformed the typical plant feed. Economic analysis of a plant with and without gravity preconcentration shows that gravity preconcentration, although more capital-intensive, will yield a higher annual profit and a better 10-year net present value. iii TABLE OF CONTENTS ABSTRACT ............................................................................................................. iii LIST OF FIGURES ..........................................................................................................vi LIST OF TABLES ............................................................................................................xi CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION .................................................................................. 1 CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW ........................................................................ 9 2.1 Flotation Surface Chemistry and Analysis Techniques ......................... 9 2.1.1 Hydrophobicity and Contact Angle ..................................... 10 2.1.2 Hydrolysis Reactions .......................................................... 11 2.1.3 Zeta Potential and Point of Zero Charge ............................ 13 2.1.4 Adsorption Density ............................................................. 17 2.1.5 Hallimond Tube Flotation.................................................... 19 2.1.6 Temperature Effects ........................................................... 19 2.2 Minerals .............................................................................................. 21 2.2.1 Bastnaesite ......................................................................... 21 2.2.2 Monazite ............................................................................. 22 2.2.3 Calcite and Barite ............................................................... 22 2.3 Reagents ............................................................................................ 23 2.3.1 Collectors ........................................................................... 23 2.3.1.1 Fatty Acids ......................................................... 23 2.3.1.2 Hydroxamates .................................................... 26 2.3.2 Modifiers and Depressants ................................................. 29 2.3.2.1 Soda Ash ............................................................ 29 2.3.2.2 Lignin Sulfonate .................................................. 29 2.3.2.3 Metal Salts ......................................................... 29 iv 2.3.2.4 Sodium Silicate ................................................... 31 2.4 Gravity Concentration ......................................................................... 33 2.4.1 Heavy Liquid Separation .................................................... 37 2.4.2 Shaking Tables ................................................................... 37 2.4.3 Knelson and Falcon Concentrators .................................... 39 CHAPTER 3: EXPERIMENTAL METHODS ............................................................. 43 3.1 Characterization and Mineralogy Procedures ..................................... 43 3.2 Microflotation ...................................................................................... 43 3.3 Magnetic Separation ........................................................................... 46 3.4 Gravity Concentration ......................................................................... 46 3.5 Bench Flotation .................................................................................. 48 CHAPTER 4: RESULTS AND DISCUSSION ........................................................... 49 4.1 Characterization and Mineralogy ........................................................ 49 4.2 Microflotation ...................................................................................... 55 4.3 Magnetic Separation ........................................................................... 61 4.4 Gravity Concentration ......................................................................... 62 4.5 Bench Flotation .................................................................................. 70 CHAPTER 5: ECONOMIC ANALYSIS ..................................................................... 71 CHAPTER 6: CONCLUSIONS ................................................................................. 76 CHAPTER 7: SUGGESTIONS FOR FUTURE WORK ............................................. 78 REFERENCES ........................................................................................................... 79 APPENDIX A: FIRST LOT MINERALOGY .................................................................... 83 APPENDIX B: SECOND LOT MINERALOGY ............................................................... 91 APPENDIX C: EXPERIMENTAL DATA ........................................................................ 98 APPENDIX D: ECONOMIC ESTIMATES .................................................................... 101 v LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1.1. Beneficiation Flowsheet at Mountain Pass (as of 1991) [2] .................. 2 Figure 1.2. Molycorp REO Flotation Circuit ............................................................ 3 Figure 1.3. REO Export Prices from China. Data retrieved from www.metal- pages.com ............................................................................................ 4 Figure 1.4. Sichuan Mianning REE Deposit Flowsheet. [10] .................................. 7 Figure 1.5. Egyptian Beach Sand Beneficiation Flowsheet. The first percentage given relates to the original weight and the second represents the assay of monazite. [12] ......................................................................... 8 Figure 2.1. Visual Representation of Young's Equation, showing the contact angle of a hydrophobic (left) and hydrophilic (right) surface. [19] ....... 10 Figure 2.2. Illustration of the geometry used to determine the contact angle of water on carbon. [19] .......................................................................... 11 Figure 2.3. Aqueous Equilibria of cerium species. [22] ......................................... 12 Figure 2.4. Schematic of electrical double layer (from Somasundaran 1975). [23] ..................................................................................................... 13 Figure 2.5. Zeta Potential of bastnaesite and monazite. (Luo Jiake 1984, from [16]) .................................................................................................... 15 Figure 2.6. Zeta potential of barite, bastnaesite, and calcite in pure water. (Smith 1986, from [16]). ...................................................................... 16 Figure 2.7. Oleate adsorption onto bastnaesite as
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Contents 2009
    INNEHÅLLSFÖRTECKNING/CONTENTS Page Forssberg, Eric, Luleå University of Technology Energy in mineral beneficiation 1 Acarkan N., Kangal O., Bulut G., Önal G. Istanbul Technical University The comparison of gravity separation and flotation of gold and silver bearing ore 3 Ellefmo, Steinar & Ludvigsen, Erik, Norwegian University of Science and Technology Geological Modelling in a Mineral Resources Management Perspective 15 Hansson, Johan, Sundkvist, Jan-Eric, Bolin, Nils Johan, Boliden Mineral AB A study of a two stage removal process 25 Hulthén, Erik & Evertsson, Magnus, Chalmers University of Technology Optimization of crushing stage using on-line speed control on a cone crusher 37 Hooey1, P.L., Spiller2, D.E, Arvidson3, B.R., Marsden4, P., Olsson5, E., 1MEFOS, 2Eric Spiller Consultants LLC, 3Bo Arvidson Consulting LLC, 4, 5Northland Resources Inc. Metallurgical development of Northland Resources' IOCG resources 47 Ikumapayi, Fatai K., Luleå University of Technology, Sundkvist, Jan-Eric & Bolin, Nils-Johan, Boliden Mineral AB Treatment of process water from molybdenum flotation 65 Johansson, Björn, Boliden Mineral AB Limitations in the flotation process 79 Kongas, Matti & Saloheimo, Kari, Outotec Minerals Oy New innovations in on-stream analysis for flotation circuit management and control 89 Kuyumcu, Halit Z. & Rosenkranz, Jan, TU Berlin Investigation of Fluff Separation from Granulated Waste Plastics to be Used in 99 Blast Furnace Operation Mickelsson1, K-O, Östling2 J, Adolfsson3, G., 1LKAB Malmberget, 2Optimation AB Luleå, 3LKAB Kiruna
    [Show full text]
  • Preliminary Estimates of the Quantities of Rare-Earth Elements Contained in Selected Products and in Imports of Semimanufactured Products to the United States, 2010
    Preliminary Estimates of the Quantities of Rare-Earth Elements Contained in Selected Products and in Imports of Semimanufactured Products to the United States, 2010 By Donald I. Bleiwas and Joseph Gambogi Open-File Report 2013–1072 U.S. Department of the Interior U.S. Geological Survey U.S. Department of the Interior KEN SALAZAR, Secretary U.S. Geological Survey Suzette M. Kimball, Acting Director U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, Virginia: 2013 For more information on the USGS—the Federal source for science about the Earth, its natural and living resources, natural hazards, and the environment—visit http://www.usgs.gov or call 1–888–ASK–USGS For an overview of USGS information products, including maps, imagery, and publications, visit http://www.usgs.gov/pubprod To order other USGS information products, visit http://store.usgs.gov Suggested citation: Bleiwas, D.I., and Gambogi, Joseph, 2013, Preliminary estimates of the quantities of rare-earth elements contained in selected products and in imports of semimanufactured products to the United States, 2010: U.S. Geological Survey Open–File Report 2013–1072, 14 p., http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2013/1072/. Any use of trade, firm, or product names is for descriptive purposes only and does not imply endorsement by the U.S. Government. Although this information product, for the most part, is in the public domain, it also may contain copyrighted materials as noted in the text. Permission to reproduce copyrighted items must be secured from the copyright owner. Cover. Left: Aerial photograph of Molycorp, Inc.’s Mountain Pass rare-earth oxide mining and processing facilities in Mountain Pass, California.
    [Show full text]
  • National Instrument 43-101 Technical Report
    ASANKO GOLD MINE – PHASE 1 DEFINITIVE PROJECT PLAN National Instrument 43-101 Technical Report Prepared by DRA Projects (Pty) Limited on behalf of ASANKO GOLD INC. Original Effective Date: December 17, 2014 Amended and Restated Effective January 26, 2015 Qualified Person: G. Bezuidenhout National Diploma (Extractive Metallurgy), FSIAMM Qualified Person: D. Heher B.Sc Eng (Mechanical), PrEng Qualified Person: T. Obiri-Yeboah, B.Sc Eng (Mining) PrEng Qualified Person: J. Stanbury, B Sc Eng (Industrial), Pr Eng Qualified Person: C. Muller B.Sc (Geology), B.Sc Hons (Geology), Pr. Sci. Nat. Qualified Person: D.Morgan M.Sc Eng (Civil), CPEng Asanko Gold Inc Asanko Gold Mine Phase 1 Definitive Project Plan Reference: C8478-TRPT-28 Rev 5 Our Ref: C8478 Page 2 of 581 Date and Signature Page This report titled “Asanko Gold Mine Phase 1 Definitive Project Plan, Ashanti Region, Ghana, National Instrument 43-101 Technical Report” with an effective date of 26 January 2015 was prepared on behalf of Asanko Gold Inc. by Glenn Bezuidenhout, Douglas Heher, Thomas Obiri-Yeboah, Charles Muller, John Stanbury, David Morgan and signed: Date at Gauteng, South Africa on this 26 day of January 2015 (signed) “Glenn Bezuidenhout” G. Bezuidenhout, National Diploma (Extractive Metallurgy), FSIAMM Date at Gauteng, South Africa on this 26 day of January 2015 (signed) “Douglas Heher” D. Heher, B.Sc Eng (Mechanical), PrEng Date at Gauteng, South Africa on this 26 day of January 2015 (signed) “Thomas Obiri-Yeboah” T. Obiri-Yeboah, B.Sc Eng (Mining) PrEng Date at Gauteng, South Africa on this 26 day of January 2015 (signed) “Charles Muller” C.
    [Show full text]
  • Stillwater Mine, 45°23'N, 109°53'W East Boulder Mine, 45°30'N, 109°05'W
    STILLWATER MINING COMPANY TECHNICAL REPORT FOR THE MINING OPERATIONS AT STILLWATER MINING COMPANY STILLWATER MINE, 45°23'N, 109°53'W EAST BOULDER MINE, 45°30'N, 109°05'W (BEHRE DOLBEAR PROJECT 11-030) MARCH 2011 PREPARED BY: MR. DAVID M. ABBOTT, JR., CPG DR. RICHARD L. BULLOCK, P.E. MS. BETTY GIBBS MR. RICHARD S. KUNTER BEHRE DOLBEAR & COMPANY, LTD. 999 Eighteenth Street, Suite 1500 Denver, Colorado 80202 (303) 620-0020 A Member of the Behre Dolbear Group Inc. © 2011, Behre Dolbear Group Inc. All Rights Reserved. www.dolbear.com Technical Report for the Mining Operations at Stillwater Mining Company March 2011 TABLE OF CONTENTS 3.0 SUMMARY ..................................................................................................................................... 1 3.1 INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................. 1 3.2 EXPLORATION ................................................................................................................ 1 3.3 GEOLOGY AND MINERALIZATION ............................................................................ 2 3.4 DRILLING, SAMPLING METHOD, AND ANALYSES ................................................. 3 3.5 RESOURCES AND RESERVES ....................................................................................... 3 3.6 DEVELOPMENT AND OPERATIONS ........................................................................... 5 3.6.1 Mining Operation ..................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Transmittal of Draft EIR for Molycorp Mountain Pass Mine Expansion, for Review and Comment
    COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING DEPARTMENT I,regular-! I PUBLIC WORKS GROUP -- W&- Sw1. NENNO lorth Arrowhead Avenue * San Bernardino, CA 924154182 * (909) 3874131 VALERY PILMER Director of Planning December 9, 1996No. 909) 3873223 IY RESPONSIBLE AND TRUSTEE AGENCIES INTERESTED ORGANIZATIONS AND INDIVIDUALS RE: NOTICE OF AVAILABILITY FOR THE DRAFT EIR ON THE MOLYCORP MOUNTAIN PASS MINE EXPANSION Dear Reader/Reviewer: Enclosed for your review and comment is the Draft EIR for the Molycorp Mountain Pass Mine Expansion. The purpose of the document is to identify and describe the probable environmental impacts that would result from the proposed expansion of Molycorp's existing mine and processing plant complex located at Mountain Pass, California. Mountain Pass is within the unincorporated portion San Bernardino County along Interstate 15 approximately 30 miles northeast of Baker and approximately 14 miles southwest of the Nevada stateline. The proposed quarry and waste rock areas would add 696 acres of disturbance to the existing mine site, resulting in a total disturbed area of approximately 1,044 acres. sag_> This document has been prepared to meet the State requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act. The Draft EIR has been prepared under the supervision of the County of San Bernardino Planning Department. The public comment period will end on January 27, 1997. Written comments should be addressed to: County of San Bemnardino- Planning Dgparnn 385 N. Arrowhead Avenue, Third Floor San Bernardino, CA 92415-0182 Attn: Randy Scott Sincerely, Randy Scottjlanning Manager, San Berardo County Planning Department ~-! - nLA ,;;K Scr.'Eperviscs .,* 1:,. 3 - -, I- . 1 12 4~ ..!A','V34-' TUrCCI Vi~i D;s~ri:n, BARBA~RA CPANM FURtOPAN .
    [Show full text]
  • Gravity Concentration in Artisanal Gold Mining
    minerals Review Gravity Concentration in Artisanal Gold Mining Marcello M. Veiga * and Aaron J. Gunson Norman B. Keevil Institute of Mining Engineering, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC V6T 1Z4, Canada; [email protected] * Correspondence: [email protected] Received: 21 September 2020; Accepted: 13 November 2020; Published: 18 November 2020 Abstract: Worldwide there are over 43 million artisanal miners in virtually all developing countries extracting at least 30 different minerals. Gold, due to its increasing value, is the main mineral extracted by at least half of these miners. The large majority use amalgamation either as the final process to extract gold from gravity concentrates or from the whole ore. This latter method has been causing large losses of mercury to the environment and the most relevant world’s mercury pollution. For years, international agencies and researchers have been promoting gravity concentration methods as a way to eventually avoid the use of mercury or to reduce the mass of material to be amalgamated. This article reviews typical gravity concentration methods used by artisanal miners in developing countries, based on numerous field trips of the authors to more than 35 countries where artisanal gold mining is common. Keywords: artisanal mining; gold; gravity concentration 1. Introduction Worldwide, there are more than 43 million micro, small, medium, and large artisanal miners extracting at least 30 different minerals in rural regions of developing countries (IGF, 2017) [1]. Approximately 20 million people in more than 70 countries are directly involved in artisanal gold mining (AGM), with an estimated gold production between 380 and 450 tonnes per annum (tpa) (Seccatore et al., 2014 [2], Thomas et al., 2019 [3], Stocklin-Weinberg et al., 2019 [4], UNEP, 2020 [5]).
    [Show full text]
  • Producers Case Study the Changing
    Producers Case Study The Changing Geography of Rare Earth Element Production Introduction The locations where rare earth elements are produced changed repeatedly throughout the 1900s and early 2000s. This variation suggests that production is not determined primarily by the geographic location of rare earth ores. Instead, the location of mines and separation plants is driven by a combination of market prices, government policies, and the actions of producers and manufacturers. As a result where and how rare earth elements are produced could change in the future. Initial Rare Earth Metal Production Although a mineral containing rare earth elements was identified in Sweden in 1788, it took more than 100 years for the first significant industrial product to be made using the rare earths. In the 1890s chemist Carl Auer von Welsbach developed a mantle made of a mixture of 99% thorium and 1% cerium for use with gas streetlights. More than five billion mantles were sold worldwide through the 1930s. Welsbach also developed mischmetal, a mixture of rare earth elements cerium, lanthanum, neodymium, and praseodymium. When alloyed with iron, mischmetal produced a metal that sparked when struck. It was widely used in pocket cigarette lighters as well as automobile ignition switches. The Welsbach Company mined rare earth deposits located in coastal sands in Brazil, India, and North Carolina. India’s coastal sands are also rich in the radioactive element thorium, which is not a rare earth element. India banned the export of these sands in 1948 to preserve its thorium supply for a potential nuclear energy program. At that time the price of rare earth metals spiked until newly established mining locations briefly made South Africa the world’s leading exporter of rare earth ores in the 1950s.
    [Show full text]
  • Critical Materials and US Import Reliance
    Testimony Critical Materials and U.S. Import Reliance Recent Developments and Recommended Actions Richard Silberglitt CT-485 Testimony presented before House Natural Resources Committee, Subcommittee on Energy and Mineral Resources on December 12, 2017. For more information on this publication, visit www.rand.org/pubs/testimonies/CT485.html Testimonies RAND testimonies record testimony presented or submitted by RAND associates to federal, state, or local legislative committees; government-appointed commissions and panels; and private review and oversight bodies. Published by the RAND Corporation, Santa Monica, Calif. © Copyright 2017 RAND Corporation is a registered trademark. Limited Print and Electronic Distribution Rights This document and trademark(s) contained herein are protected by law. This representation of RAND intellectual property is provided for noncommercial use only. Unauthorized posting of this publication online is prohibited. Permission is given to duplicate this document for personal use only, as long as it is unaltered and complete. Permission is required from RAND to reproduce, or reuse in another form, any of its research documents for commercial use. For information on reprint and linking permissions, please visit www.rand.org/pubs/permissions.html. www.rand.org Critical Materials and U.S. Import Reliance: Recent Developments and Recommended Actions Testimony of Richard Silberglitt1 The RAND Corporation2 Before the Committee on Natural Resources Subcommittee on Energy and Mineral Resources United States House of Representatives December 12, 2017 hank you Chairman Gosar, Ranking Member Lowenthal, and distinguished members of the Subcommittee for inviting me to testify today. My testimony is based on the results of a 2013 study conducted by the RAND Corporation at the request of the National T 3 Intelligence Council, taking into account relevant developments and data since the publication of that report.
    [Show full text]
  • On the Association of Palladium-Bearing Gold, Hematite and Gypsum in an Ouro Preto Nugget
    473 The Canadian Mineralogist Vol. 41, pp. 473-478 (2003) ON THE ASSOCIATION OF PALLADIUM-BEARING GOLD, HEMATITE AND GYPSUM IN AN OURO PRETO NUGGET ALEXANDRE RAPHAEL CABRAL§ AND BERND LEHMANN Institut für Mineralogie und Mineralische Rohstoffe, Technische Universität Clausthal, Adolph-Roemer-Str. 2A, D-38678 Clausthal-Zellerfeld, Germany ROGERIO KWITKO-RIBEIRO§ Centro de Desenvolvimento Mineral, Companhia Vale do Rio Doce, Rodovia BR 262/km 296, Caixa Postal 09, 33030-970 Santa Luzia – MG, Brazil RICHARD D. JONES 1636 East Skyline Drive, Tucson, Arizona 85178, U.S.A. ORLANDO G. ROCHA FILHO Mina do Gongo Soco, Companhia Vale do Rio Doce, Fazenda Gongo Soco, Caixa Postal 22, 35970-000 Barão de Cocais – MG, Brazil ABSTRACT An ouro preto (black gold) nugget from Gongo Soco, Minas Gerais, Brazil, has a mineral assemblage of hematite and gypsum hosted by Pd-bearing gold. The hematite inclusion is microfractured and stretched. Scattered on the surface of the gold is a dark- colored material that consists partially of Pd–O with relics of palladium arsenide-antimonides, compositionally close to isomertieite and mertieite-II. The Pd–O coating has considerable amounts of Cu, Fe and Hg, and a variable metal:oxygen ratio, from O-deficient to oxide-like compounds. The existence of a hydrated Pd–O compound is suggested, and its dehydration or deoxygenation at low temperatures may account for the O-deficient Pd-rich species, interpreted as a transient phase toward native palladium. Although gypsum is a common mineral in the oxidized (supergene) zones of gold deposits, the hematite–gypsum- bearing palladian gold nugget was tectonically deformed under brittle conditions and appears to be of low-temperature hydrother- mal origin.
    [Show full text]
  • Rare Earth Elements Deposits of the United States—A Summary of Domestic Deposits and a Global Perspective
    The Principal Rare Earth Elements Deposits of the United States—A Summary of Domestic Deposits and a Global Perspective Gd Pr Ce Sm La Nd Scientific Investigations Report 2010–5220 U.S. Department of the Interior U.S. Geological Survey Cover photo: Powders of six rare earth elements oxides. Photograph by Peggy Greb, Agricultural Research Center of United States Department of Agriculture. The Principal Rare Earth Elements Deposits of the United States—A Summary of Domestic Deposits and a Global Perspective By Keith R. Long, Bradley S. Van Gosen, Nora K. Foley, and Daniel Cordier Scientific Investigations Report 2010–5220 U.S. Department of the Interior U.S. Geological Survey U.S. Department of the Interior KEN SALAZAR, Secretary U.S. Geological Survey Marcia K. McNutt, Director U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, Virginia: 2010 For product and ordering information: World Wide Web: http://www.usgs.gov/pubprod Telephone: 1-888-ASK-USGS For more information on the USGS—the Federal source for science about the Earth, its natural and living resources, natural hazards, and the environment: World Wide Web: http://www.usgs.gov Telephone: 1-888-ASK-USGS Any use of trade, product, or firm names is for descriptive purposes only and does not imply endorsement by the U.S. Government. This report has not been reviewed for stratigraphic nomenclature. Although this report is in the public domain, permission must be secured from the individual copyright owners to reproduce any copyrighted material contained within this report. Suggested citation: Long, K.R., Van Gosen, B.S., Foley, N.K., and Cordier, Daniel, 2010, The principal rare earth elements deposits of the United States—A summary of domestic deposits and a global perspective: U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • The Geological Occurrence, Mineralogy, and Processing by Flotation of Platinum Group Minerals (Pgms) in South Africa and Russia
    minerals Review The Geological Occurrence, Mineralogy, and Processing by Flotation of Platinum Group Minerals (PGMs) in South Africa and Russia Cyril O’Connor 1,* and Tatiana Alexandrova 2 1 Department of Chemical Engineering, Centre for Minerals Research, University of Cape Town, Cape Town 7701, South Africa 2 Department of Minerals Processing, St Petersburg Mining University, St Petersburg 199106, Russia; [email protected] * Correspondence: [email protected] Abstract: Russia and South Africa are the world’s leading producers of platinum group elements (PGEs). This places them in a unique position regarding the supply of these two key industrial commodities. The purpose of this paper is to provide a comparative high-level overview of aspects of the geological occurrence, mineralogy, and processing by flotation of the platinum group minerals (PGMs) found in each country. A summary of some of the major challenges faced in each country in terms of the concentration of the ores by flotation is presented alongside the opportunities that exist to increase the production of the respective metals. These include the more efficient recovery of minerals such as arsenides and tellurides, the management of siliceous gangue and chromite in the processing of these ores, and, especially in Russia, the development of novel processing routes to recover PGEs from relatively low grade ores occurring in dunites, black shale ores and in vanadium-iron-titanium-sulphide oxide formations. Keywords: Russia; South Africa; PGMs; geology; mineralogy; flotation Citation: O’Connor, C.; Alexandrova, T. The Geological Occurrence, Mineralogy, and Processing by Flotation of Platinum Group Minerals (PGMs) in South 1. Introduction Africa and Russia.
    [Show full text]
  • Regulation of Source Material
    STATE OF CALIFORNIA--HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES AGENCY GRAY DAVIS, Governor DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH SERVICES RADIOLOGIC HEALTH BRANCH P.O. BOX 942732, MS-178 SACRAMENTO, CA 94234-7320 (916) 445-0931 August 30, 2001 t-4 Mr. Paul Lohaus U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of State and Tribal Programs _ -o Washington, D.C. 20555 SUBJECT: REGULATION OF SOURCE MATERIAL Dear Mr. Lohaus: The State of California, Department of Health Services, Radiologic Health Branch (RHB) has recently been working to license Molycorp, Inc.'s operations in Mountain Pass, CA, as they relate to the possession and use of source material. Molycorp mines and processes rare-earth ores containing less than 0.05% source material at their facility, producing refined rare-earth compounds containing greater than 0.05% source material that are purchased by others for further processing or for incorporation into finished commercial products. Several issues have arisen related to the regulation of source material at this facility. We are contacting you for an interpretation of NRC regulations as they would apply to this material. Our questions relate primarily to issues concerning those exemptions contained in 10 CFR 40.13 for source material that is less than 0.05% by weight uranium or thorium and for rare-earth metals and compounds, mixtures and products containing not more than 0.25% by weight uranium and thorium. Our concerns involve both the regulation of active licenses and the decommissioning of sites contaminated by the materials referenced above. Thus, we are also seeking an interpretation of your regulations in 10 CFR 20, Subpart E, as they relate to decommissionings.
    [Show full text]