Barite - Density · 2019-07-29 · How do we determine density? Mass per unit volume = density ... • Remove the flask from the bath and repeat 7.3.8 to remove any remaining air

Barite - Density

Andrew Scogings

Principal Consultant

CSA Global, Perth, Australia

Houston, 8 May 2018 www.csaglobal.com

Presentation outline

www.csaglobal.com

• What is density?

• Why is density important?

• How does mineralogy relate to density?

• How do we measure density?

• Le Chatelier vs Gas Pycnometer test results

• Quality Control

• Conclusions and recommendations

Le Chatelier

Gas Pycnometer

Excalibar Minerals LLC

CSA Global Pty Ltd

IMFORMED

Intertek Group plc

KlipStone Pty Ltdwww.csaglobal.com

Acknowledgements

What is density?

www.csaglobal.com

What is density?

Density vs SG

Term Units Definition

Density t/m3 Mass per unit volume

Specific Gravity Relative density: the ratio of the

density of the material to the density

of water at 4oC

www.csaglobal.com

Why is density important?

Incorrect density measurements WILL have consequences!

www.csaglobal.com

Mineralogy & Density

www.csaglobal.com

Density – stoichiometric method

Relationship between mineralogy and density

Source: Lipton and Horton (2014) www.csaglobal.com

• Assays, or mineral contents, are expressed as weight %

• However, density is expressed in terms of volume

• Example: a quartz-copper rock has a grade of 50% copper

➢ Copper density = 8.9 g/mL; Quartz = 2.7 g/mL

➢ Mass weighted density = (8.9+2.7)/2 = 5.8 g/mL

➢ However copper is only 23% of the sample volume

➢ Volume based density = 4.14 g/mL

• Relationship between grade and density is curved


Example of lab-prepared Barite + Quartz (silicate) blends

www.csaglobal.com

• Seven lab blends of barite and quartz

powders

• Ranging from 25% to 95% barite by mass

• Density measured using argon gas

pycnometer

• Density calculated based on mass

• Density calculated based on volume

BaSO4% (mass) SiO2 (Mass)

100% 0%

95% 5%

90% 10%

85% 15%

80% 20%

75% 25%

50% 50%

25% 75%

0% 100%


Example of lab-prepared Barite + Quartz (silicate) blends

BaSO4 SiO2 Barite (calc) Silicate (calc) Density (calc) Density (calc) Pycnometer

(% by mass) (% by mass) (% by volume) (% by volume) (g/mL by mass) (g/mL by volume) (g/mL lab blend)

100 0 100 0 4.5 4.5 4.5

95 5 92 8 4.4 4.4 4.4

90 10 84 16 4.3 4.2 4.2

85 15 77 23 4.2 4.1 4.0

80 20 71 29 4.1 4.0 4.050 50 38 63 3.6 3.4 3.5

25 75 17 83 3.2 3.0 3.0

0 100 0 100 2.7 2.7 2.7

www.csaglobal.com


Density calculated by volume or mass, compared with pycnometer

www.csaglobal.com


Conclusions

• Density is based on volume

• Thus relationship between grade and density is curved

• Curved line verified by pycnometer measurements

• The curved lines means that a quartz – barite rock will have a

higher volume of quartz than expected from SiO2 content

Calculated Quartz volumes

• Barite 4.2 - about 15% quartz by volume / 10% SiO2 by mass



www.csaglobal.com

How do we measure density?

www.csaglobal.com

How do we determine density?

Mass per unit volume = density

• We need to measure mass and

volume

• Measuring mass is the ‘easy bit’• However, the sample could be a:

• Competent solid (e.g. ‘fresh’ drill core, rock sample)

• Porous solid (e.g. weathered rock)

• Powder (e.g. milled barite)

• Therefore volume is typically the

‘difficult bit’ to measure

www.csaglobal.com

Whole core tray method

Calliper method

Wax method

There is a bewildering array of methods for measuring the

volume of samples (as core, rocks, stockpiles, powders, etc)

• Weight in water vs weight in air (Archimedes principle)

• Calliper – physical measurement

• Geophysical – down hole

• Core tray – weathered core

• Liquid displacement – Le Chatelier

• Gas displacement - pycnometer


www.csaglobal.com


Competent solid – rock or drill core

• Immersion method (Archimedes)

• Volume determined by mass in air vs mass in water

www.csaglobal.com


Stockpile loose density (10% moisture) using a cubic metre box

www.csaglobal.com

Steel box 1m3

Clay stockpile


Le Chatelier flask equipment for barite powder

Source: Excalibar Minerals LLC www.csaglobal.com

Heater & thermostat

Water tank

Weight Flask


Le Chatelier flask equipment might look like this………….

Source: Andrew Scogings www.csaglobal.com

Crusher

Oven

Mill

Flasks

Balance

Flasks


Gas pycnometers are an option for barite powder (API 13/I)

www.csaglobal.com

API Specification 13A

www.csaglobal.com

API Specification 13A

API Specification 13A – Sections 7 & 20

www.csaglobal.com

Le Chatelier vs Pycnometer

Barite density test methods• The API specifies the Le Chatelier flask as the default method

• This utilises liquid displacement (kerosene or mineral spirits)

• API Recommended Practice 13I/ISO 10416 describes Air

Pycnometer and Stereopycnometer methods, but:

• “In case of dispute, the results from the Le Chatelier flask method prevail.”

• This study compares the results between Le Chatelier and gas

pycnometer methods

• Excalibar Minerals LLC supplied 30 milled barite samples of three

products PlusWate™, NewWate™ and NewBar™• Densities clustered in three groups between ~3.9 to ~4.3 g/mL

• Excalibar in-house results compared with commercial laboratory

results

www.csaglobal.com

Quantachrome Stereopycnometer SPY2

Beckman Model 930 Air Comparison

API 13I pycnometers (outdated?)

Le Chatelier method API 13A sections 7 & 20

Le Chatelier method – a slow process > 4 hours• Take approximately 100 g of barite that has been oven dried for at least two hours and cooled to room

• temperature in a desiccator.

• Fill a clean Le Chatelier flask to approximately 22 mm (0.8 in) below the zero mark with kerosene.

• Allow the flask and contents to equilibrate for a minimum of 1 h.

• Read the volume to the nearest 0,05 ml without removing the flask from the constant-temperature bath.

• If the kerosene level is outside the −0,2 ml to +1,2 ml volume range after equilibrating, use the 10 ml pipette to• add or remove kerosene in order to bring it within this range. Allow the flask to equilibrate for at least 1 h and

• record the initial volume.

• Remove the Le Chatelier flask from the bath, wipe dry and remove the stopper.

• Weigh 80 g ± 0,05 g of dried barite into the weighing dish and carefully transfer it to the Le Chatelier

• flask. Take care to avoid splashing the kerosene or plugging the flask with barite at the bulb. This is a slow

• process, requiring repeated transfers of small amounts of barite.

• 7.3.8 Gently roll the flask along a smooth surface at no more than 45° from vertical, or twirl the upright flask

• at the neck vigorously between the palms of both hands, to remove entrained air from the barite sample.

• Repeat this procedure until no more bubbles can be seen rising from the barite.

• Return the flask to the bath and let stand for at least 0.5 h.

• Remove the flask from the bath and repeat 7.3.8 to remove any remaining air from the barite sample.

• Immerse the flask in the bath again for at least 1 h.

• Record the final volume and record the volume as V2.

www.csaglobal.com

Le Chatelier flask accuracy

mass volume density

g mL g/mL

80.00 20.50 3.90

80.00 20.00 4.00

80.00 19.50 4.10

80.00 19.05 4.20

80.00 18.60 4.30

How accurate is the flask?

www.csaglobal.com

Barite density (g/mL)

Ba

rite

vo

lum

e(m

L)

mass volume density

g mL g/mL

80.00 19.50 4.10

80.00 19.45 4.11

80.00 19.40 4.12

80.00 19.35 4.13

80.00 19.30 4.15

80.00 19.25 4.16

80.00 19.20 4.17

80.00 19.15 4.18

80.00 19.10 4.19

80.00 19.05 4.20

80.00 19.00 4.21

80.00 18.95 4.22

80.00 18.90 4.23

80.00 18.85 4.24

80.00 18.80 4.26

~0.5 mL: 0.1 g/mL)


Gas displacement pycnometry

• Inert gases, such as helium or nitrogen, are used as the displacement medium

• The sample is sealed in the instrument compartment of known volume

• Inert gas is admitted, then expanded into another precision internal volume

• The pressures observed upon filling the sample chamber and then discharging it into a second

empty chamber allow computation of the sample solid phase volume.

• Only the solid phase of the sample displaces the gas

• Dividing this volume into the sample weight gives the gas displacement density

Source: Micromeritics ACCUPYC II brochure www.micromeritics.com www.csaglobal.com

N Pycnometer vs Le Chatelier

ID Excalibar Le Chatelier Excalibar Nitrogen

1 4.15 4.15

2 4.16 4.17

3 4.15 4.17

4 4.16 4.16

5 4.13 4.17

6 4.17 4.17

7 4.17 4.17

8 4.15 4.16

9 4.15 4.17

10 4.17 4.17

11 3.96 3.98

12 4.03 4.06

13 4.04 4.08

14 3.94 3.97

15 3.98 4.00

16 3.96 3.98

17 3.94 3.96

18 3.96 3.97

19 3.96 3.97

20 3.94 3.98

21 4.24 4.26

22 4.23 4.25

23 4.23 4.27

24 4.23 4.27

25 4.23 4.25

26 4.23 4.25

27 4.23 4.26

28 4.21 4.26

29 4.21 4.26

30 4.22 4.26

Positive bias to Nitrogen pycnometer

www.csaglobal.com

Excalibar Le Chatelier (g/mL)

Exc

ali

ba

r N

itro

ge

n (

g/m

L)

N Pycnometer vs Le Chatelier

Conclusions

www.csaglobal.com

• Nitrogen pycnometer average is

0.5% higher than Le Chatelier

• Nitrogen pycnometer up to 1.2%

higher than Le Chatelier

• Gas penetrates deeper into pore

spaces, cracks or cavities than

kerosene – giving a lower volume

ID Le Chatelier Nitrogen Accupyc Diff % Diff

1 4.15 4.15 0.01 0.2%

2 4.16 4.17 0.02 0.4%

3 4.15 4.17 0.03 0.6%

4 4.16 4.16 0.00 0.1%

5 4.13 4.17 0.03 0.8%

6 4.17 4.17 0.00 0.0%

7 4.17 4.17 0.01 0.1%

8 4.15 4.16 0.02 0.5%

9 4.15 4.17 0.02 0.5%

10 4.17 4.17 0.00 0.0%

11 3.96 3.98 0.02 0.4%

12 4.03 4.06 0.02 0.6%

13 4.04 4.08 0.04 1.0%

14 3.94 3.97 0.03 0.6%

15 3.98 4.00 0.02 0.5%

16 3.96 3.98 0.02 0.4%

17 3.94 3.96 0.02 0.6%

18 3.96 3.97 0.01 0.4%

19 3.96 3.97 0.01 0.2%

20 3.94 3.98 0.04 1.0%

21 4.24 4.26 0.02 0.5%

22 4.23 4.25 0.02 0.4%

23 4.23 4.27 0.04 0.9%

24 4.23 4.27 0.04 0.9%

25 4.23 4.25 0.01 0.3%

26 4.23 4.25 0.02 0.4%

27 4.23 4.26 0.02 0.6%

28 4.21 4.26 0.05 1.2%

29 4.21 4.26 0.05 1.1%

30 4.22 4.26 0.04 0.9%

Global Average 4.12 4.14 0.02 0.5%

Ar Pycnometer vs Le Chatelier

ID Excalibar Le Chatelier Intertek Argon

1 4.15 4.15

2 4.16 4.24

3 4.15 4.24

4 4.16 4.23

5 4.13 4.23

6 4.17 4.17

7 4.17 4.21

8 4.15 4.25

9 4.15 4.2

10 4.17 4.22

11 3.96 4.06

12 4.03 4.09

13 4.04 4.09

14 3.94 4.04

15 3.98 4.05

16 3.96 3.98

17 3.94 4

18 3.96 3.99

19 3.96 4.03

20 3.94 4.01

21 4.24 4.31

22 4.23 4.3

23 4.23 4.33

24 4.23 4.34

25 4.23 4.22

26 4.23 4.23

27 4.23 4.3

28 4.21 4.31

29 4.21 4.28

30 4.22 4.32

Positive bias to Argon* pycnometer

* Note Argon samples were not dried www.csaglobal.com


Inte

rte

k A

rgo

n (

g/m

L)

Ar Pycnometer vs Le Chatelier

Conclusions


• Argon* pycnometer global

average 1.5% higher than Le

Chatelier

• Ranges from -0.3% to 2.5%

difference

• The Argon samples were tested

‘as received’

ID Le Chatelier Intertek Argon Diff % Diff

1 4.15 4.15 0.01 0.1%

2 4.16 4.24 0.08 2.0%

3 4.15 4.24 0.10 2.3%

4 4.16 4.23 0.07 1.8%

5 4.13 4.23 0.10 2.3%

6 4.17 4.17 0.00 0.1%

7 4.17 4.21 0.04 1.0%

8 4.15 4.25 0.11 2.5%

9 4.15 4.20 0.06 1.3%

10 4.17 4.22 0.05 1.3%

Average 4.15 4.21 0.06 1.5%

11 3.96 4.06 0.10 2.5%

12 4.03 4.09 0.06 1.5%

13 4.04 4.09 0.05 1.2%

14 3.94 4.04 0.10 2.5%

15 3.98 4.05 0.07 1.8%

16 3.96 3.98 0.02 0.5%

17 3.94 4.00 0.06 1.5%

18 3.96 3.99 0.03 0.8%

19 3.96 4.03 0.07 1.8%

20 3.94 4.01 0.07 1.8%

Average 3.97 4.03 0.06 1.6%

21 4.24 4.31 0.07 1.6%

22 4.23 4.30 0.07 1.6%

23 4.23 4.33 0.10 2.3%

24 4.23 4.34 0.11 2.5%

25 4.23 4.22 -0.01 -0.3%

26 4.23 4.23 0.00 -0.1%

27 4.23 4.30 0.07 1.6%

28 4.21 4.31 0.10 2.4%

29 4.21 4.28 0.07 1.7%

30 4.22 4.32 0.10 2.3%

Average 4.23 4.29 0.07 1.6%

Global Average 4.12 4.18 0.06 1.5%

Argon vs Nitrogen pycnometer

Positive bias to Argon pycnometer*


ID Excalibar Nitrogen Intertek Argon

1 4.15 4.15

2 4.17 4.24

3 4.17 4.24

4 4.16 4.23

5 4.17 4.23

6 4.17 4.17

7 4.17 4.21

8 4.16 4.25

9 4.17 4.20

10 4.17 4.22

11 3.98 4.06

12 4.06 4.09

13 4.08 4.09

14 3.97 4.04

15 4.00 4.05

16 3.98 3.98

17 3.96 4.00

18 3.97 3.99

19 3.97 4.03

20 3.98 4.01

21 4.26 4.31

22 4.25 4.30

23 4.27 4.33

24 4.27 4.34

25 4.25 4.22

26 4.25 4.23

27 4.26 4.30

28 4.26 4.31

29 4.26 4.28

30 4.26 4.32Excalibar Nitrogen (g/mL)

Inte

rte

k A

rgo

n (

g/m

L)

Argon vs Nitrogen pycnometer

Conclusions


• Argon* pycnometer averages 1 %

higher than Nitrogen pycnometer

• Ranges from -0.6 % to 2.1 %

• The Argon samples were tested ‘as received’

ID Excalibar Nitrogen Intertek Argon Diff % Diff

1 4.15 4.15 0.00 0.0%

2 4.17 4.24 0.07 1.6%

3 4.17 4.24 0.07 1.7%

4 4.16 4.23 0.07 1.7%

5 4.17 4.23 0.06 1.5%

6 4.17 4.17 0.00 0.0%

7 4.17 4.21 0.04 0.9%

8 4.16 4.25 0.09 2.1%

9 4.17 4.20 0.03 0.8%

10 4.17 4.22 0.05 1.2%

Average 4.17 4.21 0.05 1.1%

11 3.98 4.06 0.08 2.1%

12 4.06 4.09 0.04 0.9%

13 4.08 4.09 0.01 0.2%

14 3.97 4.04 0.07 1.9%

15 4.00 4.05 0.05 1.3%

16 3.98 3.98 0.00 0.1%

17 3.96 4.00 0.04 0.9%

18 3.97 3.99 0.02 0.4%

19 3.97 4.03 0.06 1.6%

20 3.98 4.01 0.03 0.8%

Average 3.99 4.03 0.04 1.0%

21 4.26 4.31 0.05 1.1%

22 4.25 4.30 0.05 1.1%

23 4.27 4.33 0.06 1.4%

24 4.27 4.34 0.07 1.6%

25 4.25 4.22 -0.03 -0.6%

26 4.25 4.23 -0.02 -0.5%

27 4.26 4.30 0.04 1.0%

28 4.26 4.31 0.05 1.2%

29 4.26 4.28 0.02 0.5%

30 4.26 4.32 0.06 1.4%

Average 4.26 4.29 0.04 0.8%

Global Average 4.14 4.18 0.04 1.0%

Argon (dry) vs Argon original pycnometer

Note that original Argon samples were not dried www.csaglobal.com

ID Argon pycnometer Argon pycnometer (dry)

1 4.15 4.18

2 4.24

3 4.24 4.08

4 4.23

5 4.23

6 4.17 4.21

7 4.21

8 4.25

9 4.20 4.15

10 4.22

11 4.06

12 4.09 4.09

13 4.09

14 4.04

15 4.05 4.03

16 3.98

17 4.00

18 3.99 3.93

19 4.03

20 4.01

21 4.31 4.25

22 4.30

23 4.33

24 4.34 4.31

25 4.22

26 4.23

27 4.30 4.18

28 4.31

29 4.28

30 4.32Intertek Argon original (g/mL)

Inte

rte

k A

rgo

n d

ry (

g/m

L)

Slight positive bias towards Argon original

Argon (dry) vs Argon pycnometer

Conclusions

• Density is 1% lower on average after

2 hours drying

• Differences between -3.8% and +1%

• Drying seems to make a difference

www.csaglobal.com

ID

Ar pycnometer

(original)

Ar pycnometer

(dry) Diff % Diff

1 4.15 4.18 0.03 0.7%

3 4.24 4.08 -0.16 -3.8%

6 4.17 4.21 0.04 1.0%

9 4.20 4.15 -0.05 -1.2%

12 4.09 4.09 0.00 0.0%

15 4.05 4.03 -0.02 -0.5%

18 3.99 3.93 -0.06 -1.5%

21 4.31 4.25 -0.06 -1.4%

24 4.34 4.31 -0.03 -0.7%

27 4.30 4.18 -0.12 -2.8%

Average 4.18 4.14 -0.04 -1.0%

Argon (dry) vs Nitrogen pycnometer

No bias to Argon (dry) pycnometer

Note that Argon samples were dried 2 hours www.csaglobal.com

Excalibar Nitrogen (g/mL)

Inte

rte

k A

rgo

n d

ry (

g/m

L)

ID Nitrogen pycnometer Argon pycnometer

1 4.15 4.18

3 4.17 4.08

6 4.17 4.21

9 4.17 4.15

12 4.06 4.09

15 4.00 4.03

18 3.97 3.93

21 4.26 4.25

24 4.27 4.31

27 4.26 4.18

Argon (dry) vs Nitrogen pycnometer

Conclusions• Average density for Nitrogen

(4.15 g/mL) almost identical to

Argon dry (4.14 g/mL)

• Between -2.2% and +1%

difference

• Drying appears to be important

• However, the customer uses

barite ‘as received’ moisture• Preferable to test barite product

‘as received’ rather than after drying?

www.csaglobal.com

ID Nitrogen pycnometer Argon pycnometer Diff % Diff

1 4.15 4.18 0.03 0.7%

3 4.17 4.08 -0.09 -2.2%

6 4.17 4.21 0.04 1.0%

9 4.17 4.15 -0.02 -0.4%

12 4.06 4.09 0.04 0.9%

15 4.00 4.03 0.03 0.8%

18 3.97 3.93 -0.04 -1.1%

21 4.26 4.25 -0.01 -0.3%

24 4.27 4.31 0.04 0.9%

27 4.26 4.18 -0.08 -1.8%

Average 4.15 4.14 -0.01 -0.2%

Helium pycnometer vs Le Chatelier

No obvious bias

Note that Argon samples were dried 2 hours www.csaglobal.com


Inte

rte

k H

eli

um

(g

/mL)

ID

Excalibar Le

Chatelier

Excalibar

Nitrogen

Intertek

Helium

3 4.15 4.17 4.17

15 3.98 3.99 3.98

24 4.23 4.27 4.26

• Only three data points

• Helium pycnometer is

very close to Le Chatelier

Conclusions

Quality Control

www.csaglobal.com

Quality Control

Where do we want our analytical results to be?

Source: Scogings and Coombes (2014) www.csaglobal.com

• poor accuracy

• good precision

• high bias• good accuracy

• good precision

Quality Control

What is QA / QC ?


• QA is planned actions to provide confidence in the data collection process

• QC is the use of statistical tools to ensure that the analytical systems are in

control

• QC samples are necessary to monitor contamination, precision, accuracy and

bias

• QC samples include standards, duplicates and external checks (umpire)

• Standards are samples of known or accepted value that are submitted to

assess the accuracy of a laboratory

• Duplicates are samples collected, prepared and assayed in an identical manner

to an original sample, to provide a measure of the total error of sampling

• External laboratory checks generally rely on pairs of pulverised exploration

samples (also known as umpire samples) to define inter-laboratory precision

and bias.

Quality Control

Types of QC charts used in geological exploration


Quality Control

Calibration – mass and volume

www.csaglobal.com

Quality ControlORIGINAL (Le Chatelier) Original (Nitrogen) ORIGINAL (Argon) DUPLICATE (Argon) DUPLICATE (Argon dry) UMPIRE (Helium)

SAMPLE NUMBERS Density Density Density Density Density Density

1 4.15 4.15 4.15 4.18

2 4.16 4.17 4.24

3 4.15 4.17 4.24 4.08 4.17

4 4.16 4.16 4.23

5 4.13 4.17 4.23

6 4.17 4.17 4.17 4.21

7 4.17 4.17 4.21

8 4.15 4.16 4.25

9 4.15 4.17 4.20 4.15

10 4.17 4.17 4.22 4.18

11 3.96 3.98 4.06

12 4.03 4.06 4.09 4.09

13 4.04 4.08 4.09

14 3.94 3.97 4.04

15 3.98 4.00 4.05 4.03 3.98

16 3.96 3.98 3.98

17 3.94 3.96 4.00

18 3.96 3.97 3.99 3.93

19 3.96 3.97 4.03

20 3.94 3.98 4.01 4.07

21 4.24 4.26 4.31 4.25

22 4.23 4.25 4.30

23 4.23 4.27 4.33

24 4.23 4.27 4.34 4.31 4.26

25 4.23 4.25 4.22

26 4.23 4.25 4.23

27 4.23 4.26 4.30 4.18

28 4.21 4.26 4.31

29 4.21 4.26 4.28

30 4.22 4.26 4.32 4.33

BaSO4 Standard 4.43

Quartz-1 Standard 2.64

www.csaglobal.com

Quality Assurance & Control

Conclusions – density QA / QC • Equipment should be regularly calibrated (QA)

• QC samples (each approximately 5% of originals):

➢ Standards

➢ Duplicates

➢ External checks (umpire)

➢ Alternative test methods

o e.g. if testing by Le Chatelier, use gas pycnometer as a check

o For incoming crudes, test using Le Chatelier for a milled

sample and also run some using whole rock by the

‘Archimedes’ method

www.csaglobal.com

Conclusions

www.csaglobal.com

Barite density

Conclusions – density methods• Le Chatelier

➢ Robust method

➢ However, very time consuming ~ 4 hours

➢ Cannot be automated or digitised – labour intensive

➢ Relatively inexpensive equipment (~$1K)

• Gas pycnometer

➢ Biased to higher densities (~ 1 % difference)

➢ Quick and easy to use ~ 5 minutes

➢ No chemicals to be disposed

➢ Can be automated and free up the operator

➢ Smaller footprint than Le Chatelier

➢ Relatively expensive equipment (~20K)www.csaglobal.com

Barite density

General comments and questions

➢ If it is assumed that kerosene does not penetrate the barite in

the same way as a gas atom does, could a systematic

correction factor be applied to pycnometer data?

➢ Perhaps the API Le Chatelier method is more appropriate?

(even if more tedious to perform than pycnometry)

➢ Could the Le Chatelier method be improved by using two

separate funnels* to add liquid, or dry barite powder?

➢ Assuming that drilling muds are mainly water, perhaps water

should be used for Le Chatelier tests?

➢ Gas pycnometers are already accepted for refractory materials

density (ASTM C604). Why not for barite?

* e.g. Helsel et al., 2016 www.csaglobal.com

Barite density

Conclusions – Mineralogy & QC

• Mineralogy

➢ Relationship between grade and density is curved

➢ A quartz – barite rock will have a higher volume of quartz

than expected from SiO2 content

➢ This may have implications for plant wear

• Quality Control

➢ Test equipment should be calibrated

➢ Insert QC samples (approximately 5% of originals):

➢ Standards, duplicates, external checks (umpire)

➢ Alternative test methods

www.csaglobal.com

Recommendations

www.csaglobal.com

Barite density

Recommendations• Evaluate alternate liquids for Le Chatelier e.g. Escaid 110,

isopropyl alcohol, ethyl alcohol (and water?)

• Try and improve the Le Chatelier method (e.g. adding barite via a

funnel)

• Assess the effect of temperature on Le Chatelier – does it have

to be at 32oC?

• Approach the API about updating the recommended

pycnometers to currently available models

• Collaboration between producers and commercial labs to

compare different methods and convince API to add gas

pycnometer as an alternative to Le Chatelier in Specification 13A

• Use QA and QC methods to ensure accurate and precise results

www.csaglobal.com

Thank youAcknowledgments

• Excalibar Minerals LLC (David Henrick, Joe Gocke, Lori Garcia)

• CSA Global Pty Ltd

• Intertek Group plc

• IMFORMED Industrial Mineral Forums and Research

• KlipStone Pty Ltd

Houston, May 2018 www.csaglobal.com

Bibliography

www.csaglobal.com

• Abzolov, M. Z., 2008. Quality Control of Assay Data: A Review of Procedures for Measuring and Monitoring Precision and

Accuracy. Exploration and Mining Geology, Vol. 17, 131–144. Canadian Institute of Mining, Metallurgy and Petroleum.

• Abzolov, M. Z., 2009. Use of Twinned Drillholes in Mineral Resource Estimation. Exploration and Mining Geology, Vol. 18,

13–23. Canadian Institute of Mining, Metallurgy and Petroleum.

• CIM, 2003. Estimation of Mineral Resources and Mineral Reserves Best Practice Guidelines. Available from:

http://web.cim.org/standards Canadian Institute of Mining, Metallurgy and Petroleum.

• Helsel, M., Ferraris, C. and Bentz, D. (2016). Comparative study of methods to measure the density of cementicous

powders. Journal of Test Evaluation, 44 (6).

• Lipton, I.T. and Horton, J.A. (2014). Measurement of bulk density for resource estimation - methods, guidelines and quality

control. Mineral resource and ore reserve estimation : the AusIMM guide to good practice. Monograph 30.

• Micromeritics (2014). Accupyc II gas pycnometry system. Information brochure

• Quantachrome (2017). Gas Pycnometers. True density analysis of powders, foams and bulk solids. ©Quantachrome

Corporation 07171 Rev B 0217

• Scogings, A.J. (2015). Drilling grade barite. Supply, Demand & Market. Industrial Minerals Research, January 2015. 226 pp.

• Scogings, A. J. (2015). Bulk Density: neglected but essential. Industrial Minerals Magazine, April 2015, 60-62.

• Scogings, A.J. (2015). Bulk density of industrial minerals: Reporting in accordance with the 2007 SME guide. SME Mining

Engineering, July 2015 Web Exclusive. Society for Mining, Metallurgy & Exploration.

• Scogings, A. J. and Coombes, J. (2014). Quality Control and Public Reporting in Industrial Minerals. Industrial Minerals

Magazine, September 2014, 50-54.

• Verly, G., 2012. Geostatistical Mineral Resource / Ore Reserve Estimation and Meeting JORC Requirements: Step by step

from sampling to grade control. Course Notes, October 15-19, 2012. Perth WA, Australia. 2012 Professional Development

Seminar Series; The Australasian Institute of Mining and Metallurgy.

Andrew Scogings CV

www.csaglobal.com

Andrew Scogings

PhD (Geology), MAIG, MAusIMM, RPGeo (Industrial Minerals)

Dr Scogings is a geologist with more than 25 years’ experience in industrial minerals exploration, product

development and sales management. Andrew has published papers on reporting requirements of the JORC

Code 2012, with specific reference to Table 1 and Clauses 18 and 19 (industrial mineral Exploration Results)

and Clause 49 (industrial mineral specifications). He has published numerous articles on industrial minerals in

Industrial Minerals Magazine, SEG Mining News, AIG News and AIG Journal amongst others; addressing

aspects of QA/QC, bulk density methods and petrography for industrial minerals exploration. He was recently

senior author of two significant reviews: Natural Graphite Report – strategic outlook to 2020 and Drilling

grade barite - Supply, Demand & Markets published in 2015 by Industrial Minerals Research (UK). He has co-

authored several papers on lithium pegmatites including: Reporting Exploration Results and Mineral

Resources for lithium mineralised pegmatites published during 2016 in the AIG Journal. Andrew is a

Registered Professional Geoscientist (RP Geo. Industrial Minerals) with the Australian Institute of

Geoscientists.

Documents

Barite - Density · 2019-07-29 · How do we determine density? Mass per unit volume = density ... • Remove the flask from the bath and repeat 7.3.8 to remove any remaining air