Column34Filtration+Separation July/August 2006

Most mineral processing technologies havebeen developed over a long time period.Milling, flotation and thickening have beenwith us for over 100 years, and crushing andfiltration a lot longer. Generally, by their verynature, incremental improvements in technologyoccur over a long period of time.

Since such advances are generally available to allplayers, technology suppliers tend to follow oneanother closely, with the result that uniqueproduct optimisations can be short-lived.

However, there are also less frequent, ground-breaking changes, usually related to thefundamental mechanics or underlying science.These changes are often the subject of patents,and can lead to basic alterations in thedevelopment of a technology.

PPuullpp FFiiccttiioonn

It is unfortunately also true that some of these‘ground-breaking’ improvements are nothing ofthe sort – and very often are the result ofmarketing hype. It is then up to clientcompanies to sort out reality from fiction.Properly conducted plant trials are usually a wayto sort the wheat from the chaff. Someapparently promising developments have beenstopped in their tracks by well-conducted trials,which have revealed their weaknesses. On theother hand, even limited success in a poorly-designed trial can be transformed by skillfulmarketing into ‘the next big thing’, and costlyfailures at plant level can result. So theimportance of competent, properly conductedtrials cannot be overestimated.

PPllaanntt ttrriiaallss

In many areas, there is surprisingly little datafrom ‘head-to-head’ plant trials, where anemerging technology is tested against existingtechnology. There are many reasons for this, themost obvious being that in most operating plantsit is unusual to have two competing technologiesdoing the same job in parallel. Another reasonwould be that once a plant is in production,comparative technology testing is both

expensive and low on the agenda, from aproduction viewpoint.

It is widely recognised that full-scale plant trialsare the most reliable way to identify promisingnew technologies and an efficient means ofseparating the good from the bad – and evenfrom the ugly. So, if there is real value in thesetrials, who should conduct and evaluate them?

If the stakes are high enough, co-operativeindustry research groups such as the AustralianMining Industry Research Association (AMIRA)are an obvious answer, but clearly they also haveother research priorities to consider. Anotheroption is academic institutions, who, thoughwell equipped to design the tests and do theanalysis, often do not have the funding toinitiate this type of work.

They can, however, be commissioned by industryto do it. Technology suppliers are frequently theinitiators of such trials but cannot credibly carrythem out without client or institutionalinvolvement. A further option would bemetallurgical testing laboratories, who are alsoequipped to carry out such trials, although it isnot ‘core business’ unless their clients make it so.

The best combination of players to carry outmeaningful comparative plant trials seems to be:

• Mine owners leading the way, who canrecognise the benefits and commission thework;

• Academic and testing institutions, who canprovide the skills to design and run the tests,and also collect and analyse the data;

• Technology suppliers who put forward theirtechnology improvements. They can adviseon the optimum settings for their technologyand provide commentary on the results andsubsequent evaluation.

Why should a mine owner invest in developinga more efficient and reliable plant triallingregime?

There are many benefits to a mine owner, someof which include:

• Improved evaluation of ‘emerging’technologies results in better projects (i.e.lower capex, lower opex, improved recoveryetc);

• Raising the bar for technology suppliers topresent measurable benefits to the end user.A good example of such an improvement wasthe development of Outokumpu’s TankCellflotation unit (contact Outokumpu for details).

• Deepening the operator’s in-house knowledgeof the technologies, which results in morecustomer-driven innovation;

• Ultimately, encouraging those R&D-shytechnology suppliers to direct their spendingtowards innovative development;

Will the technology suppliers be willingparticipants in this process?

Most competent suppliers will readily submittheir technologies and improvements to scrutiny,as they prefer a level playing field to beestablished for the technology adjudicationprocess. Also, genuine technology enhancementscan more rapidly gain acceptance through arecognised industry testing regime, with anassociated benefit to the innovative supplier.

Engineering companies can also benefit fromaccess to information produced by professionallyconducted plant trials. One of the mostimportant spin-offs would be the incorporationof a new technology into a project, whichresulted in higher returns or lower overall projectrisk.

In conclusion, there are clear benefits to begained in setting up comparative plant trials totest new technologies. However, these planttrials need to be handled professionally with theright mix of skills. A poorly designed and/orconducted plant trial is often worse than no trialat all. •CCoonnttaacctt::Ian Arbuthnot is a director of OutokumpuTechnology Pty Ltd, based in Perth, Australia.He is responsible for the research anddevelopment of Outokumpu’s thickening andpaste technologies.

Opinion:

truth, lies andsales talk

utokumpu Technology’s Ian Arbuthnot on plant trials in mining.

O

FISE_Jul_aug_pg34_35.qxd 14/07/2006 16:31 Page 34