Finding a good andthe right mineral processing laboratory and have your testing filled properly is important. Most metallurgical laboratories now are actually specialized. They will claim to do-it-all while what they can actually do truly depends on who their current staff is. You have hear the clich on people are our greatest asset? Well, it is too true here.
Geography might influence your choice. It may be important for you to by close to your lab. Starting from your specific testing requirement, you can properly choose the mineral processing laboratory.
You want practical engineers and scientists running your testwork. What you test must be applicable. Remember whatMy Cousin Vinny said: Are we to believe that boiling water soaks into a grit faster in your kitchen than in any other place on the face of the earth? Or perhaps the laws of physics cease to exist on your stove! Were they magic grits?
The data herein has been selected from laboratory notes and incorporates only the usual ore dressing methods in practice for the treatment of common minerals. Necessarily, detailed information regarding location of the mineral deposit, marketing conditions, cost factors and certain specific data concerning the performance of test work in each case is omitted, as such information is held to be confidential between the customer and the company. However, the information contained herein can apply to many ores in many parts of the world and is typical only of general treatment methods, so that there is no question of publicizing trade secrets or guarded patent processes.
A comprehensive ore test includes data on physical characteristics of the ore, the response to various metallurgical processes, the physical characteristics of various products secured, and conclusions on the treatment expected to give the best results. From such a complete study it is possible to determine a flowsheet that is applicable, and also to make a selection of equipment suitable to handle a desired tonnage of mill feed.
It is not the purpose of this article to present data for the determination of treatment methods or flowsheets for the ores listed, but rather to illustrate from such data that these ores can be concentrated simply and effectively. It is hoped that the information given may suggest methods or reagents that will assist in securing better results and increased profits from mining operations.
The mining and ore dressing industry has made much progress by the exchange of information through trade publications, publications of technical societies, and agencies such as the various governmental Bureaus of Mines. This exchange of information has led to greater profits in general for those engaged in mining and beneficiation, and has aided subsequent operations also, through the supply of better or higher grade raw materials.
It is therefore commendable that those engaged in this industry have been liberal and generous in furnishing data and information for the general good. Increased yields, opening to trade of lower grade deposits, and better utilization of natural resources has continually added greatly to the national wealth of many countries.
Because a mineral is not listed in this index does not mean that it cannot be economically concentrated. This list is only partial. Nor does it include data on many industrial products or by-products that are being treated by usual metallurgical processes, such as cleaning of foundry sands, recovery of metals or plastics from scrap or waste materials, and many similar operations.
All ores bearing as the principal value the minerals as listed herein will not respond exactly to the treatment methods as shown. Mineral associations and the chemical and physical characteristics of the particular ore will affect in one way or another the results that can be secured. Each ore presents its own individual problem, but the experience gained from the investigation or treatment of a similar ore will indicate likely methods to follow and a comprehensive ore test will show the results that can be expected.
The Science of Mineral Processing faces a great challenge. As the population of the world doubles and re-doubles there is a parallel need for raw materials of all types to meet the needs of all nations. This need for raw materials actually exceeds the population growth for there is an ever increasing standard of living throughout the world. The increase in the living standard has its own demands for metals, non-metallics, fertilizers, chemicals and other materials.
The needs of the world of tomorrow must be met by the men of today. It will take vision, and courage to pioneer new mineral producing areas. But the individual or company who has the foresight to develop a mineral deposit will find a ready market for their products.
Countless installations have proved that operating profits can be increased by installation of a well planned ore dressing laboratory. The basic function of a laboratory is to provide, rapidly, accurate data on metallurgy that can be closely reproduced in the plant. This can be done by using laboratory units as nearly similar as possible, in design and operation, to the full scale operating units. Mineral Processing Laboratory Equipment is designed with this in mind.
A properly equipped metallurgical laboratory should be considered as insurance to protect the venture against the unforeseeable exigencies which may arise in the operation. The cost is generally small as compared to the total investment in the mine and mill. In most cases thecost can be expected to be returned many times in extra profit from the gain in efficiency of the milling operation resulting from the test work.
In former years a laboratory installation was difficult because of the lack of dependable equipment. In fact most of it was home made. Today the demand of the mining industry for dependable equipment, conforming to exact standards, has influenced its design and manufacture. Such equipment is now available at low cost, which not only affords efficient operation but duplicates conditions on a small scale that exist in large scale operation.
The following information is submitted to provide aguide to the planning of such an installation: Ore dressing problems generally involve one or more of the following three principle methods of concentration:
Other less widely used methods may be involved in some instances, such as amalgamation, magnetic separation, electrostatic separation, leaching, roasting, sink and float, screen tests, etc. A well designed laboratory is based upon two fundamental steps in ore dressing:
In every case machinery is needed for crushing and preparation of samples of ore and since this equipment is generally necessary for the preparation of regular mine and mill samples for assay, its installation in conjunction with the ore dressing laboratory can be made to serve a double purpose.
Flotation testing requires means of grinding the ore under conditions similar to regular mill practice and laboratory flotation machines capable of handling the resulting pulp under regular mill conditions. Laboratory flotation machines should be provided with varying capacity so that the rougher or initial concentrate produced in the larger machine may be refloated in a cleaning operation in the smaller machine. Sub-A 2000, 1000, 500, and 50-gram Machines are designed to accomplish this dual operation upon various size charges of pulp.
Cyanidation testing of slime pulps can be accomplished by means of mechanical agitators or in bottles on rolls. Mechanical agitators are preferred because of the requirement of securing proper aeration under conditions more nearly duplicating plant practice. Testing of sands is accomplished by percolation apparatus.
The following list of laboratory equipment includes all items which a complete laboratory may require for the three general methods of concentration testing and from which a mine laboratory may select the items necessary for the specific problem involved.
Our Rapid Indicator Mineral Scan (RIMSCAN) uses smaller samples than traditional methods and provides fully automated, rapid, objective identification of the full indicator mineral suite (kimberlite and base metal indicator minerals, gold, uranium etc.).
Indicator mineral methods are an effective tool used in mineral exploration. Heavy mineral concentrates (HMC) are traditionally recovered from large, conventional till and soil samples to ensure recovery of key minerals. In the past, HMC were time consuming and used + 250 m fractions. However, over 60% of the indicator mineral population occurs in the finer fractions that are laborious to pick. With RIMSCAN, even the finest material can be rapidly examined for its full mineral content and more information can be generated (e.g. mineral abundances, mineral mass distribution, and particle size).
Unlike traditional procedures that require a 20 to 30 kg sample, RIMSCAN works with a smaller sample (0.5- 2 kg). A sub-sample of this may be submitted for geochemical analysis, still leaving sufficient material for RIMSCAN. Larger size fractions can be used when processing kimberlite indicator minerals.
Tens to hundreds of thousands of data points are collected on each section during RIMSCAN analysis. Depending on program requirements, many types of measurement are possible and the output can be tailored to individual project objectives. For instance, RIMSCAN allows the calculation of precise modal abundances and grain size distributions for individual minerals. Detailed particle maps of each identified mineral can also be created to show mineral abundances, relationships, grain size distribution, etc.
SGSs technical innovation RIMSCAN provides you with the ability to gather statistically accurate data on coarse and fine fractions of indicator mineral samples using QEMSCAN, an extremely fast and accurate High Definition Mineralogical technique. For a real competitive advantage, get RIMSCAN working for you and improve your delineation of target areas and speed-to-market.
Bruker, continuously driven to provide the best technological solution for every analytical task, understands the importance and criticality of Metal Identification and Alloy Identification in an array of industrial uses. Contact us now for more information on our state-of-the-art metal tester, the innovative and highly-accurate S1 TITAN! Typical XRF analysis applications include:
Handheld and portable Bruker XRF analyzers offer unmatchable metal identification, engineered for ease of use, accuracy, and reliable elemental analysis. See where fit, form, and function all intersect with our metal sorter instruments. Designed for the most demanding customer applications, our rock-solid analytical tools offer fast, precise, nondestructive solutions for alloy identification.
Designed for nearly any weather condition, field environment, and location, both the S1 TITAN will give you reliable results in seconds. A Bruker metal tester saves significant expenses in comparison with traditional laboratory testing. The S1 TITAN model 500 can detect elements Ti through U. The S1 TITAN model 800 and 500S can analyze elements Mg through U on the periodic table. With shorter measurement times and superior detection limits, ourhandheld XRF analyzers increase your productivity. For our thousands customers around the world, a Bruker metal analyzer offers a higher profit potential and lower long-term ownership costs.
The Nigerian mining sector is bedevilled by a number of problems, chief among which are shady practices that have been identified by various stakeholders and in previous Nigeria Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative (NEITI) audit reports.
Tin, columbite, coal, etc, were the early solid minerals that contributed significantly to Nigerias economy but declined at the advent of the oil boom from 1970, a decline that has continued till date.
In the 1970s, the federal government set an ambition to use Nigerias iron ore and coal to produce steel for her industrialisation. The search and project development for the steel project was under the National Steel Development Authority (NSDA).
Subsequently, the federal government broke the NSDA into Ajaokuta Steel Company, Delta Steel Plant and other steel rolling mills. At the same period, increased investments were made into the Nigerian Coal Corporation and Nigeria Mining Corporation with mandates to mine, process, add value and enhance the utilisation of solid minerals within their activities and to export the excess.
In early 2000, the privatisation policy of the federal government resulted in another decline in activities of extractive companies within the solid minerals sector, although there was increase in exploration and exploitation of construction materials such as limestone and granite for cement production and infrastructure development of Nigeria.
Also, privatisation brought an increase in foreign direct investment in exploration and exploitation of gold, iron ore, coal, gypsum, lead and zinc, tin and columbite among others. This increment in foreign interests brought about the Solid Minerals Roadmap of 2012, to add value to mining and processing towards utilisation and industrialisation.
The federal government, through the ministry of mines and steel development, re-launched the Solid Minerals Policy Roadmap in September 2016 aimed at ensuring policy continuity and consistency in the sector.
NEITI reports have further exposed, that with more than 50 minerals in commercial quantities strewn across Nigeria, paradoxically the solid minerals sector contributes less than 1 per cent to the national GDP while more than 80 per cent of mining activities (in particular artisanal mining) are unregulated and their revenue unaccounted for.
Total earnings from the sector since 2016 that the roadmap was launched up till the last NEITI report for 2018 was only N5 billion. About N1.6 billion was earned in 2016, N1.5 billion in 2017 from 59 companies and N1.9 billion from 69 companies in 2018. This figure is small when compared to Nigerias oil earnings in only year 2016 where Nigeria earned $17.05 billion.
NEITI came into law in 2007 and has been empowered with special powers to reform the extractive industry by providing technical assistance to government bodies overseeing the industry. It is powered to constantly scrutinise the activities of the industry.
The many reports produced by NEITI alongside its National Stakeholders Working Group (NSWG) is part of its objective of reforming and improving the sector. This report focuses on the issues raised in 11 years of NEITI reports, identifies recurrent problems identified by these reports and highlights recommendations for improving the sectors outlook.
NEITIs maiden report covered a 4-year (2007 to 2010) and showed that over 70 per cent of mining title holders in Nigerias solid mineral sector are inactive companies, causing Nigerias government huge revenue losses.
Mineral titles are issued by the Mining Cadastre Office (MCO) to many companies, however, only a few are paying their annual fees and other fees required such as royalties, taxes, permits etc as stated in Nigerian Minerals and Mining Act, 2007. The non-compliance of these licence-holding companies, by itself, constitutes a loss of revenue to the government
It also revealed that out of about 3,163 companies granted 1,443 mining titles during the period, only 30 per cent are engaged in active quarry, mining and exploration activities, with illegal miners, medium scale operators and artisan miners being the dominant group.
According to the 2007 2010, 2011 report, out of a total of 147 companies/entities audited, only 78, consisting of six cement manufacturing, 44 construction companies and three mineral buying centres, were aggregated for the audit population based on their meeting the materiality threshold of N1 million and above.
Total revenue yield from royalties paid by the major players between 2007 and 2010 was N2.2 billion; earnings from ground rents/annual surface rents for the period was about N173.9 million; tax, N51.4 million; and levies N122.9 million. These numbers will be much improved if the remaining 70 per cent of title holders carried out enough activities to meet the materiality threshold.
Royalty payments made by the companies are therefore based only on what the operators disclose to the regulators. With no framework for transparency or real consequences for defaulters, the companies can withhold or share information to their benefit.
This is similar to what obtains in the oil industry where the federal government continues to find it difficult to determine how much crude is really produced daily but relies on figures submitted by the oil procuring companies.
The report also identified the dearth of sufficient data about the operators as well as the absence of effective synergy/collaboration between MCO and the State Offices, which makes it difficult for the regulators to monitor operators effectively.
Other areas identified include the refusal of the operators to file annual returns with the Corporate Affairs Commission (CAC), as stated by law; which frustrates efforts by government revenue agencies to determine the correct amount to be paid in taxes by the mining companies.
The 2013 audit report of the sector showed that the total revenue from the solid minerals sector amounted to NGN 33.9 billion in 2013. This amount is composed of 85.50 per cent of taxes received by FIRS, while mining taxes received by Mines Inspectorate Department (MID) and MCO represent 3.97 per cent and 2.08 per cent respectively and other taxes paid to other Government Agencies not selected in the scope 8.45 per cent.
A significant concern in this report is that some of the quantities reported by the MID did not match the corresponding royalty amounts. This issue is a carry on from the initial report which noted that operators declare figures at will with no framework for ensuring transparency.
NEITI also noted that the decentralised structure of the Federal Inland Revenue Services (FIRS) makes the collection of taxes uncoordinated, meaning collection of taxes from extractive companies cannot be confirmed, which could mean loss of revenue to the nation.
Another major issue raised in the report was that the various agencies responsible for the supervision of exports of minerals do not have good synergy; figures from the agencies do not match and differ from those declared by companies. Despite the provision in the mining act, minerals are still exported without an export permit from MID.
Further analysis of the 2013 report showed similar patterns of unethical practices in the sector. NEITI noted that most of the findings and recommendations presented in the 2013 audit report have already been raised in previous NEITI reports and the recurrences of these issues during the reconciliation exercise for 2013 could have been avoided if previous recommendations had been implemented.
The audit report in 2014 showed a high variance of N19.5 billion arising from FIRS data. This means declared payments and revenue by companies and the government are not the same and have huge difference amounting to this variance (N19.5 billion).
NEITI also identified that lack of synergy between the state FIRS offices and the headquarters would likely account for the variance, a problem that was highlighted in the 2013 report. Export figures reported by companies were different from those declared by government
Unsurprisingly, the majority of the issues identified in the operation of the sector in the previous reports covered also repeated itself in the reports of 2015 and 2016 analysed by PREMIUM TIMES and CDD in January 2020.
The report revealed that mining companies operating in the mining sector in Nigeria have developed schemes through which they defraud the Nigerian government of billions in revenue. Analysis of the NEITI audit of the operation of the sector in 2015 and 2016 indicted these companies and exposed their schemes to include non-remittance of statutory dues, unlicensed mining and evasion of taxes, illegal practices, and incessant smuggling of solid minerals out of the country.
The audit report for 2015 and 2016 specifically focused on the volume of solid minerals produced (extracted and mined), exported and imported as well as comparison of all payments by mining companies against receipts by government agencies.
The exercise examined the accuracy of declared figures from operators and regulators, disclosed all cases of under-payments, highlighted the balances payable to the federation and identified lapses in policies and procedures on collection, custody, bases for financial computation and management of funds accruing from the solid minerals sector reviewed for the period that made the schemes effective.
For instance, 2017 audit report showed that export data received from the Nigerian Customs Service (NCS) include minerals that were not captured in the production data provided by the MID as well as inconsistency in free on board value of minerals.
A highlight of the 2017 report, however, is that the sectors contribution to GDP was an abysmal 0.11 per cent which showed a decline of 0.01 percentage point and 0.02 percentage point from the data of 0.12 per cent in 2015, and 0.13 per cent in 2016.
The 2018 earnings from the solid mineral sector were the highest in 12 years. The solid minerals sector contributed about N69.5 billion to federation revenue in 2018, the highest so far since NEITI commenced reconciliation of payments in the sector, However, the report explained that out of 720 entities covered by the exercise, only payments by 69 companies were reconciled.
Unauthorised operations were also identified in the 2018 audit reports where 302 companies (42 per cent of companies that paid royalty in 2018) but whose names/titles are not found on the MCO register (in spite of the fact they paid royalty in 2018).
NEITI also noted an emerging unethical trend of issuance of treasury receipt in advance of payment, an act that it said may lead to huge revenue loss to the government if it remains unchecked. Misstatement of government revenue/ receipts was also identified in 2018 reports.
A total of 1,801 holders of valid titles did not make any royalty payment in 2018. It was also noted that out of the 291 titles held by the 69 reporting companies, 143 or 49 per cent of the titles were inactive during the reporting period.
All these issues, as identified by NEITI since 2007 till date, has not only led to huge revenue loss for the government, it also deprived other prospective investors the opportunity to gainfully participate in the sector leading to even more loss of government revenue, employment opportunities and the sectors dismal contribution to the economy.
It is estimated by the Nigeria Investment Promotion Commission (NIPC) in a report that the current commercial value of seven of the countrys solid minerals (Iron ore, Coal, Lead/Zinc, Bitumen, Gold, Limestone and Barite) runs into trillions of dollars.
It was also reported by Nigerias Ministry of Mines and Steel Development that Nigeria loses about $40 billion annually in unexploited gold alone (68.29 per cent of Nigerias 2017 budget of N7.28 trillion budget; higher than oil revenue in 2015 ($37 billion), and far higher than the 2016 oil revenue of $26 billion.
Apart from NEITIs audit of the solid mineral sector, In 2019, an analysis of two audit reports The Fiscal Allocation and Statutory Disbursement of the Federal Government from 2007 to 2011 and 2012 to 2016 by DATAPHYTE showed how the Nigerian government reportedly diverted the sum of N908.6 billion over ten years meant for Natural Resource Development.
The NEITI report said the federal government continues to abuse its powers by misappropriating the Development of Natural Resource Funds (DNRF) and is complicit in the lack of development of the sector.
According to the report by DATAPHYTE, the Natural Resource Development Account was established in July 2002 as a response to Nigerias inability to secure generous revenue proceeds from oil, coupled with the economic challenges of cyclical recession, achieve resource diversification and to move the country away from its reliance on petroleum for revenue.
Sources of revenue that feed the DNRF include excess crude oil allocation, exchange gain, the share of SURE-P, share from non-oil revenue, contractual obligation, share from excess petroleum profit tax (PPT) and refunds.
Since the government established DNRF in 2002, trillions of naira have accrued to the account. It is, however, unclear what proportion of this has actually been utilised for the purpose for which the fund was created in the first place.
NEITIs report showed that the fund accrued to the DNRF between 2007 and 2011 was N365 billion. The analysis revealed that of this amount, the sum of N275 billion (75.3 per cent of total fund) was released as loans from the Development of Natural Resources Fund to finance budget deficits, a clear contravention of the intention of establishing the fund in the first place.
The DATAPHYTE report also noted that the sum of N94.8 billion was released from the Fund between 2007 and 2011 to the Fertiliser Revolving Account. Within the same period, the refund made to the account by various state governments on procurement of fertiliser was N66.1 billion.
Gold: Gold is found in the North-west, North-central and South-west of Nigeria. Gold deposits found in Northern Nigeria are most prominently near the schist belt in Maru, Anka, Malele, Tsohon Birnin Gwari-Kwaga, Gurmana, Yauri, Dogondaji, and Iperindo in Osun State.
There are over ten sites holding reserves in excess of 50,000 ounces of high quality gold according to Thor Exploration Ltd, (2016). There are also a number of smaller occurrences beyond these major areas.
Till date, over 30 licences have been issued to co-operative societies and companies for mining of gold in the country. In Nigeria, most of the concessions in the mining of gold are still in the exploration stage.
Iron Ore: Nigeria currently has the 12th largest iron ore reserves in the world. There are over three billion tons of iron ore found in Kogi, Enugu, Niger, Zamfara and Kaduna States. Iron ore deposits in Nigeria typically occur in forms such as hematite, magnetite, metasedimentary, band of ferruginos quartzites, sedimentary ores, limonite, maghemite, goethite and siderite.
The Itakpe iron ore deposit has an estimated reserve of 310 Metric tons and Agbaja has about 500 Mtons according to KCM (2014), Ajabanoko (60 Mtons), Agbado-okudu (60 Mtons), Tajimi (20 Mtons), Ochokocho (12 Mtons), among others.
Lead-Zinc: Lead-zinc ores are found usually together and often associated with copper and silver. The minerals are found in commercial quantities along the Benue trough, extending from Abakiliki in the South-east through the middle Benue trough, through to upper Benue trough in Bauchi State.
Limestone: Limestone occurrences are reported in over 30 states of the federation with reserves of over 2.3 trillion metric tons with 568 million tons of proven reserves. The largest and purest limestone deposits are found in the South-west and North-central regions of the country. Most limestone mining activities are mainly for lime and cement production as is evident across all the six geo-political zones in Nigeria.
Coal: Nigeria has bituminous coal with low sulfur and ash content, and is environment friendly. It can be found in the North-east, North-central and South-east regions of the country. There are nearly three billion tons of indicated reserves in 17 identified coalfields and over 600 million tons of proven reserves.
Gypsum: Over two million tons of gypsum deposits are spread over many states in Nigeria. Active extraction of gypsum is ongoing in Tongo and Funakaye area and supports cement production of Ashaka Cement Plc, Ashaka, Gombe State and Nothern Nigeria Cement Company, Sokoto. Current production is put at 8 million tons per annum while the national requirement is 9.6 million tons (MMSD, 2013).
The NEITI reports exposed the vulnerabilities in the sector and its inability to live up to its enormous potential. It underscored the importance of a comprehensive action plan to shift attention from oil to the development of the solid minerals sector in the face of dwindling oil revenue.
Among the many recommendations by the report is the call on the government to develop strategies for monitoring and penalising extractive companies that fail to sign and or implement community development agreements.
Further recommendations include that the government must not only strengthen the structures of monitoring and enforcement but also exercise restraints in using the NDRF and allowing the funds to be used to develop the sector as originally intended.Get in Touch with Mechanic