re: Ann: Extension of Etango PFS Following Re... Hi Tibbs,I am...

re: Ann: Extension of Etango PFS Following Re... Hi Tibbs,

I am trying to establish where flotation fits into the flowsheet.

I don't have a full idea of the ore mineralogy...perhaps you can provide me with some reference documents to help me resolve it. But I see the use of flotation for two reasons:

a) Upgrade low grade feed to optimise CAPEX for tank leach route. This would mean the uranium bearing mineral would be 'flotable'.

b) Removal of an acid consumer by 'reverse floatation'. i.e. concentrating the waste mineral and removing it.

So I think the flotation route might not be associated with the Heap Leach route, so perhaps we have two alternative flowsheets that are being assessed:

1) Primary crush, Secondary crush, HPGR, Heap Leach OR
2a) Primary Crush, Secondary Crush, HPGR, Ball Mill, Flotation, Tank Leach.
2b)Primary crush, SAG Mill, Ball Mill, Flotation, Tank Leach.

It has been stated previously (by yourself) that the leachable component extracts at a coarse size (i.e. perhaps an HPGR product). If the leach tests show increased kinetics (at a coarse size) as indicated in last weeks ann, then one would think the use of flotaion here would be irrelevant. So I would expect the Heap Leach route to be a firm favourite.

Alternatively, floating the entire feed (which would have to be milled (Ball Mill)) doesn't tee up with the 'increased leach kinetics' statement as it means liberation is needed (i.e. finer grinding) prior to flotation.

So maybe the flotation is a way a removing gangue?

I'd be keen to hear your spin, but either way this is a positive ann, they have clearly had a EUREKA moment in the lab which can always happen during testwork.

Nailing this during the PFS is great work, as you mentioned, it sets out the table for the next step.

What documents do you know of that might give me the mineralogical background?