Browsing by Subject "Acid rock drainage"

Now showing 1 - 4 of 4
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Open Access
    Assessing environmental risks associated with ultrafine coal wastes using laboratory-scale tests
    (Trans Tech Publications, 2015-11) Opitz, Alex; Broadhurst, Jenny; Harrison, Sue
    Characterisation of the risk of acid rock drainage is typically achieved through the quantification of acid-generating and acid-consuming components present within a sample using initial laboratory-scale, chemical static tests. These static tests, however, consider ARD generation under chemical conditions and do not account for the role of micro-organisms. Their focus is exclusively on the net potential for acid generation, with no account of metal deportment or the relative rate of acid generation and consumption. The present study investigates the ARD potential of two ultrafine coal wastes samples using the standard static tests as well as the UCT biokinetic test to account for microbial ARD generation. The deportment of metal species under each test condition was also considered. The UCT biokinetic test results supported the static test classification, providing preliminary kinetic data on the ARD generation. Sequential chemical extraction tests allowed for differentiation of the host minerals according to their leaching potentials, providing supporting evidence for the deportment of metal species under the characterisation tests, thereby improving the knowledge base on which to classify coal wastes as benign or otherwise.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Restricted
    A comparison of pyrrhotite rejection and passivation in two nickel ores
    (Elsevier, 2013) Chimbganda, T; Becker, M; Broadhurst, J L; Harrison, S T L; Franzidis, J.-P
    The non-stoichiometric sulfide mineral pyrrhotite (Fe1-xS) occurs almost ubiquitously inter-grown with the principal nickel mineral, pentlandite ((Fe,Ni)9S8). During Ni processing, pyrrhotite is generally rejected to the tailings stream by flotation to produce a low tonnage, high grade (Ni) smelter feed and reduce SO2 emissions. In this study, the effect of different pyrrhotite flotation rejection strategies (artificial oxidation and TETA: SMBS addition) are evaluated on a magnetic (Ore A) and non-magnetic (Ore B) pyrrhotite ore to determine if either may effectively depress and potentially passivate the pyrrhotite surface during flotation to produce benign tailings without compromising pentlandite recovery. For both ores, the best pyrrhotite rejection (pentlandite/pyrrhotite recovery) was obtained using TETA: SMBS. Differences in the flotation performance of the two ores are considered more a function of BMS content, liberation and ore handling rather than a difference in sulfide passivation from the inherent pyrrhotite mineralogy (magnetic vs non-magnetic pyrrhotite). Pyrrhotite passivation could possibly provide a means of rendering the tailings non-reactive and thus mitigate acid rock drainage (ARD) formation.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Restricted
    A comparison of pyrrhotite rejection;passivation in two nickel ores
    (Elsevier, 2013) Chimbganda, T; Becker, M; Broadhurst, J L; Harrison, S T L; Franzidis, J-P
    The non-stoichiometric sulfide mineral pyrrhotite (Fe1-xS) occurs almost ubiquitously inter-grown with the principal nickel mineral, pentlandite ((Fe,Ni)9S8). During Ni processing, pyrrhotite is generally rejected to the tailings stream by flotation to produce a low tonnage, high grade (Ni) smelter feed and reduce SO2 emissions. In this study, the effect of different pyrrhotite flotation rejection strategies (artificial oxidation and TETA: SMBS addition) are evaluated on a magnetic (Ore A) and non-magnetic (Ore B) pyrrhotite ore to determine if either may effectively depress and potentially passivate the pyrrhotite surface during flotation to produce benign tailings without compromising pentlandite recovery. For both ores, the best pyrrhotite rejection (pentlandite/pyrrhotite recovery) was obtained using TETA: SMBS. Differences in the flotation performance of the two ores are considered more a function of BMS content, liberation and ore handling rather than a difference in sulfide passivation from the inherent pyrrhotite mineralogy (magnetic vs non-magnetic pyrrhotite). Pyrrhotite passivation could possibly provide a means of rendering the tailings non-reactive and thus mitigate acid rock drainage (ARD) formation.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Restricted
    Mitigating acid rock drainage risks while recovering low-sulfur coal from ultrafine colliery wastes using froth flotation
    (Elsevier, 2012) Mbamba, C Kazadi; Harrison, S T L; Franzidis, J-P; Broadhurst J L
    Ultrafine coal wastes contain sulfide minerals, particularly pyrite, which oxidize and give rise to acid rock drainage (ARD) resulting in extensive and prolonged contamination of local ground and surface waters. Currently, mining operations emphasise an end-of-pipe approach to ARD management using costly chemical or biological treatment techniques, which do not address the long term problem of achieving sustainable closure solutions within the resource lifetime. Eliminating ARD potential before waste disposal would have a major beneficial impact on water quality and facilitate long term closure solutions. Recovering a saleable coal product would be an added economic incentive. This paper presents the results of an investigation to establish the feasibility of a two-stage flotation process to produce: (i) a low-volume sulfide-rich concentrate, (ii) a high-volume benign (low sulfur) tailings, and (iii) a coal concentrate. Laboratory-scale batch flotation experiments were carried out using an oily collector to float coal from samples of coal ultrafines and a xanthate collector to recover acid-generating sulfides. The results of acid generating potential tests (both static and biokinetic) indicate that a low-sulfur tailings with low ARD potential may be produced, together with a coal ultrafine concentrate stream with a low ash content.