TESTWORK REPORT - omnium-invest.net · The sample was logged, dried, weighed prior to being crushed in a large laboratory jaw crusher to a 100% passing 11.2 mm. ... 4.5. Sizing Analysis

Document Number: T1011 Status: Final Report Version 1.2

T1011 – Omnium Investments Page 1 of 38

TESTWORK REPORT

T1011- Omnium Investments Scoping Python

Amenability Testwork

June 2013



Approved by: Peter Gray

Technical Services Manager

Accepted by: Ben Salter

Technical Services Manager Africa

Version: 1.2

Date: 28/06/2013

Status: Final Report

For more information on procedures and testwork results:

About this document

Filename: T1011 - Omium Investment - Final Report 130628 .docx

Version of the Document Template 1

Produced using Microsoft® Word 2007

Revision History

Version Date Author Description

1.0 20/06/2013 Daniel Vasquez Testwork Report

1.1 24/06/2013 Roberto Fueyo Peer Review

1.2 28/06/2013 Andrew McCallum Final Review

Copyright Notice

Copyright 2013 Gekko Systems Pty. Limited. All rights reserved.

Gekko contact

Name : Suzanne Horwill

Title : Laboratory Team Leader

321 Learmonth Road

Ballarat, Victoria

Australia 3350

Telephone : +61 3 5339 5859

Fax : +61 3 5339 5803

e-mail : [email protected]

TEST WORK REPORT TO723- ABM resources NL Scoping

Python Amenability

mailto:[email protected]



Executive Summary

This report presents the results of the gravity pre-concentration testwork study, completed on the Omnium

Investment sample. The testwork, completed at Gekko Systems Metallurgical Laboratory in Ballarat,

Australia, aimed to provide an understanding of the response of the ore to vertical shaft impact crushing,

gravity separation, gangue rejection, and flotation, all of which are key components of the Python pre-

concentration processing.

Crushing of the sample from 100% passing 11.2 mm to 600 µm increased the calculated gold

grade from 0.74 g/t to 2.86 g/t, therefore indicating that crushing it is of enough to upgrade the

sample. Where gold is associated in the coarser size fractions in comparison to the PSD and

sulphur distributions for the table feed.

Production of fines under 1.18 mm increased from 49.2% to 52.2% in one pass through the VSI

running at 47 Hz, however there was no increase in fines passing the 850 µm and 600 µm size

fractions.

P80 of the as received sample was reduced from 6,700 µm to 2991 µm in just one pass through the

VSI crusher running at 47 Hz. Sizing of the VSI product showed 80% of the gold passing 1.17 mm

and having a coarser size distribution than the particle size distribution.

The sample was reduced to 100% passing 600 µm representing table feed with size by grade

competed. The gold distribution was coarser than the particle size distribution whereas the sulphur

distribution followed the particle size distribution. P80 of gold in the table feed was 565 µm

compared to table feed PSD with a P80 of 336 µm

A combined single pass table and cleaner table test recovered 84% of the gold and 28% of the

sulphur into 28% of the mass at grades of 7.8 g/t and 0.01 g/t respectively over 5 concentrates.

A composite sample comprising of the cleaner table tails and single pass table tails sample was

created to assess the differences in gold and sulphur distributions.

The single tabling tails gold distribution was finer than the particle size distribution whilst the

sulphur distribution followed the particle size distribution. The calculated gold grade of the single

pass table tails was 0.57 g/t and the sulphur calculated grade was negligible at 0.01 g/t.

Containing approximately 450 g of cleaner table tails, the composite table tails sample showed the

gold distribution was finer than the particle size distribution and sulphur distribution was coarser

than the particle size distribution. The calculated gold grade of the composite table tails was 0.62

g/t and the sulphur calculated grade was negligible at 0.01 g/t.



Cumulative recovery of gold from the combined single pass table and cleaner table over

concentrates 1 and 2, yielded 77.2% into 5% of the mass at a grade of 40 g/t. Subsequent gold

recoveries over the final 3 concentrates increased slightly by 6.9%. Therefore a composite sample

of table concentrates 3, 4 and 5 and table tails was subjected to flotation tests and combined with

gravity concentrates 1 and 2 to determine the overall gold recovery over combined gravity and

flotation methods.

Cumulative recovery of gold over combined gravity and flotation methods increased to 84.8%

compared to 84.1% gold recovery expressed solely by gravity. The mass yield decreased from

28% from the sole gravity tests, to just 17% of the combined gravity flotation tests, therefore similar

gold recoveries into a smaller mass yield. The final gold grade also increased from 7.8 g/t to 14.0

g/t with additional flotation.

The Omnium Investment sample appears amenable to Python pre concentration processing methods,

however further areas of the already completed testwork should be investigated further. These include:

A more detailed VSI test combined with comminution testwork should be considered prior to

deciding on real world application.

Work should be undertaken utilising the data generated to identify the economic yield and recovery

cut offs for pre-concentration as well as assessing the most suitable technologies to conduct the

separation and downstream recovery process options in an operational environment.

Confirmatory leaching of the gravity or combined gravity flotation concentrates could be useful in

assessing response and reagent consumptions dependant on planned downstream recovery

processes for the pre concentrate.

The economics and effects of further finer comminution on gravity and flotation recoveries could

also be further investigated.

Further testwork can be completed at Gekko metallurgical laboratory in Ballarat.



Table of Contents

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 3

TABLE OF CONTENTS 5

1. BACKGROUND 6

2. INTRODUCTION 6

2.1 DEFINITIONS AND ACRONYMS 7

3. SAMPLE RECEIPT AND PREPARATION 8

3.1. SAMPLE RECEIPT 8

3.2. SAMPLE PREPARATION 8

3.3. SAMPLE REMAINING 8

4. METALLURGICAL TESTS 9

4.1. TESTWORK FLOWSHEET 9

4.2. TESTWORK VARIATIONS 10

4.3. HEAD GRADE DETERMINATION 10

4.4. ASSAYING METHODS 10

4.5. SIZING ANALYSIS METHOD 10

4.6. VSI AMENABILITY TEST 11

4.7. SINGLE PASS TABLE METHOD 12

4.8. FLOTATION TEST 13

5. RESULTS 14

5.1. HEAD GRADE DETERMINATION 14

5.2. ICP HEAD GRADE DETERMINATION 15

5.3. SIZE BY GRADE ANALYSIS 16

5.4. VSI AMENABILITY TEST 18

5.5. SINGLE PASS/CLEANER TABLE TEST 19

5.6. COMBINED GRAVITY CONCENTRATES AND TAILS SIGHTER FLOTATION 22

6. CONCLUSIONS 23

7. RECOMMENDATIONS 25

APPENDIX A – HEAD GRADE ANALYSIS 26

ICP RESULTS 27

APPENDIX B – SIZE BY GRADE ANALYSIS 28

APPENDIX C – SINGLE PASS TABLE TEST RESULTS 34

APPENDIX D – FLOTATION TEST RESULTS 36

APPENDIX E - DISCLAIMER 38



1. Background

This testwork program was designed to determine the potential amenability of Omnium Investment sample

to gravity pre-concentration and recovery. The objective was to provide an understanding of the ore’s

response to gangue rejection, gravity separation, and flotation, all of which are key components of Python

pre-concentration processing.

2. Introduction

The scope of the testwork entailed the use of continuous gravity methods to upgrade the as received

sample. This report refers to testwork proposal number T1011.

A flowsheet of the program can be summarised as follows:

A Single Pass Vertical Shaft Impact Crushing Test – Provides an indication of the amenability of a

sample to vertical shaft impact crushing (VSI) and its suitability for fine crushing at or below 600 µm.

It also provides an indication if the required size reduction can be achieved in a single pass step.

Continuous Gravity Recovery test determines the response of the ore to gravity separation, over a

range of coarse size fractions which is indicative of an InLine Pressure Jig (IPJ) performance and a

cleaner table test for reduced concentrate mass production and subsequent tails flotation.

Flotation on a composite feed comprising of single pass table concentrates 3 to 5, table tails and

cleaner table tails.



2.1 Definitions and Acronyms

These are the definitions of the acronyms used in this document.

Acronyms and Their Definitions

Term or Acronym Definition

Au Gold

FA Fire Assay

GAL Gekko Assay Laboratory

Gekko Gekko Systems Pty Ltd

ICP Inductively Coupled Plasma

Pxx Screen Size (µm or mm) XX% of material passes

PSD Particle Size Distribution

S Sulphur

SPT Single Pass Table

VSI Vertical Shaft Impact Crusher

µm Micron



3. Sample Receipt and Preparation

3.1. Sample Receipt

The Omnium Investment sample was received by Gekko on the 19th April 2013. The bulk sample weighed

approximately 127.9 kg and was assigned the generic name LOMN.

3.2. Sample Preparation

The sample was logged, dried, weighed prior to being crushed in a large laboratory jaw crusher to a 100%

passing 11.2 mm. After crushing the sample past 11.2 mm it was further reduced to 100% passing 1.18

mm via the VSI. It was then homogenised and split for further testwork. The Gekko laboratory large jaw

crusher set-up is shown in Figure 1.

Figure 1: Laboratory Large Jaw Crusher

3.3. Sample Remaining

The table below indicates to the amount of sample left in reserve for the Omnium Investment sample.

Sample Weight (kg)

Testwork Feed @ P100-11.2mm 94.3

Single Pass VSI @ 47 Hz 8.0

Table Feed @ P100-600um 0.4

Table Tails 13.7

Flotation Tails (FLOT 1) 2.9



4. Metallurgical Tests

4.1. Testwork Flowsheet

The testwork flowsheet used as per the quote: T1011- Omnium Investment Testwork is presented in Figure

2.

Figure 2: Omnium Investment Testwork Flowsheet



4.2. Testwork Variations

At times the sample and/or the initial results dictate a variation to the proposed testwork program required.

In this instance there was no variation to the initial testwork.

Issue Revised Work

Nil Not applicable

4.3. Head Grade Determination

The head grades for the sample were determined at the Gekko Assay Laboratory. Four sub samples

weighing approximately 50g each were split out from the as received sample at -11.2 mm, 1.18 mm and

single pass table feed at -600 µm and flotation feed and sent for gold and sulphur determination by FA

analysis.

4.4. Assaying Methods

During this testwork program, head, concentrate and tail samples were assayed to determine the gold and

sulphur content. All samples were sent for analysis to the Gekko Assay Laboratory in Ballarat.

4.5. Sizing Analysis Method

Various samples were subjected to a size by grade distribution analysis throughout the program. By

separating a sample into size fractions, the particle size distribution of the sample can be determined, and

they then can be assayed to determine gold deportment. The sieve sizes used were a root 2 series from

11.2 mm to 38 µm.

The minus 38 µm fraction was obtained via washing 100% of the sample over a screen using a pneumatic

sieve shaker. The plus 38 µm fractions were dried in a low (60 ºC) temperature oven and dry sieved

through a nest of sieves using an electric shaker for 20 minutes.

The weight of sample contained in each size fraction was recorded and a sub-sample sent for assay as

detailed in Section 4.4.



4.6. VSI Amenability Test

This test is conducted to determine the amenability of processing the sample through a vertical shaft

impactor (VSI) crusher. The test involves:

The sample is reduced to 100% Passing 11.2 mm via a Jaw Crusher (minimum 10 kg).

The sample is then screened at 600µm (or as specified) on a Kason screen.

A 2 kg lot is split from the oversize sample for a feed size analysis.

The oversize is fed through a lab sized VSI running at 2800 rpm. The feed to the VSI is

deliberately choke fed to ensure rock on rock breakage during the test.

A 2kg sample from the VSI product is split out for a product size analysis.

The feed and product size ranges are compared, with the amount of fines generated (<600 µm) in one

pass a key measure of the viability of using a VSI for comminution.

.

Figure 3: Laboratory VSI Crusher



4.7. Single Pass Table Method

Approximately 30 kg of sample at 100% passing 600 µm was tabled using a laboratory sized Wilfley table.

During operation of the single pass table a thin film of water was applied to the shaking table surface to

help separate the lighter particles from the heavier ones. The heavier material was collected in a series of

concentrate ports at the end of the table, while the lighter material was collected in a port on the side of the

table. The products were collected into individual tubs and decanted, with the solids filtered and dried.

Five final cumulative concentrate products were produced at 1%, 5%, 10%, 20%, and 30% of the original

sample mass, with all concentrate and tails samples assayed as detailed in Section 4.4.

The recoveries and mass yields achieved in the tabling test are comparable to those expected from an In-

Line Pressure Jig (IPJ).

Figure 4: Laboratory Size Wilfley Table



4.8. Flotation Test

A sighter flotation test was carried out on a composite sample comprising of gravity concentrates 3, 4 and

5, gravity tails and cleaner table tails. In the test, a 4 kg sub-sample was slurried in an 8 L Denver D-12

laboratory flotation cell (Figure 3) and conditioned with reagents (frother – MIBC, collector – PAX, activator

– CuSO4) added over a 60 second period. While the slurry pH was recorded regularly during this test, no

modifiers were added to alter or control the pH.

After the addition of reagents CuSO4 and PAX, MIBC was added with air flowing through the system

immediately after. At 30 second intervals over a period totalling 2 minutes, four concentrates were

collected. After this initial 2 minute flotation period, the slurry was conditioned with additional reagents for

an additional minute, froth collected over a 5 minute period and further conditioned for another minute with

PAX and CuSO4 introduced at higher dosages. Froth was further collected for an additional 5 minutes for

the final flotation concentrate. In all, a total of 6 flotation concentrates were collected over a 15 minute

period. The flotation process itself was 12 minutes removing the times allowed for the flotation testwork

conditioning.

Figure 5: Denver Laboratory Flotation Unit



5. Results

5.1. Head Grade Determination

The Omnium Investment sample was crushed to 100% passing 11.2 mm for size distribution analysis and

to determine gold and sulphur content. The sample was further reduced to a 100% passing 1.18 mm via

the VSI for a size distribution analysis and head grade determination and then further reduced to 100%

passing 600 µm for a single pass tabling where four sub samples were sent away for further head grade

determination. Table 1 displays the results.

Four sub-samples of a minimum 50 g each were split from the homogenised crushed samples and

assayed for gold and sulphur head grade determination via fire assay. The assayed head grades were

compared to the calculated head grades.

Table 1: Omnium Investment Head Grade Results

Calculated head grades are more representative of the bulk sample and provide a better estimate of the

gold and sulphur content as more samples are used for assay. Calculated assays originate from the size by

grade analysis.

In Table 1, it can be seen that there is no notable difference in head grades between the average assays

and calculated assays for the as-received samples at minus 11.2 mm and minus 600 µm regarding both

gold and sulphur content.

However a difference between the calculated head assay and average head assay for the gold in the single

pass table feed is noticeable. The difference of 1.68 g/t can be attributed to the spotty nature of the gold

present in the sample in the minus 600 µm size fraction.

Referring to Table 1, as the sample is crushed, the gold grade is increasing and therefore crushing is

enough to upgrade the sample.

For additional information on head grade results, refer to Appendix A – Head Grade Analysis.

Average Calculated Average Calculated

Testwork Feed @P100 -11.2 mm 0.74 0.64 0.01 0.01

Testwork Feed @P100 -1.18 mm 1.05 1.61 0.01 0.01

SPT Feed @P100 -600 µm 2.86 4.54 0.01 0.01

Gold Content Sulphur Content

Sample



5.2. ICP Head Grade Determination

In order to attain an understanding of the mineralogy for the as-received sample at minus 11.2 mm, 200 g

of homogenized feed was split out for ICP analysis. Table 2 shows the major elemental composition of the

feed sample at 100% passing 11.2mm.

Table 2: Omnium Investment ICP Results

For additional ICP analysis refer to Appendix A – ICP Head Grade Analysis

Element % ppm

Au 0.25

Ag 0.2

As 393

B 10

Cu 86

Fe% 10.3

Mg% 0.01

Mn 237

Mo 3

P 210

Pb 59

S 0.05

Zn 72



5.3. Size by Grade Analysis

5. 3. 1. Testwork Feed

The initial sample was crushed to 100% passing 11.2 mm and then sized to characterize the sample. The

main aim was to establish the particle size distribution of the crushed sample and the size distribution of

gold and sulphur. The gold distribution is finer than the particle size distribution from 150 µm size fraction

and above. The sulphur distribution is coarser than the particle size distribution.

Figure 6: Omnium Investment Feed Particle Size Distribution @ -11.2 mm.

With the sample further crushed down to 100% passing 1.18 mm via vertical shaft impact crushing, a size

by grade was completed to characterize the sample. The gold distribution is finer than the particle size

distribution from 150 µm size fraction and above and coarser than the particle size distribution in size

fractions below 150 µm. The sulphur distribution follows the particle size distribution.

Figure 7: Omnium Investment Feed Particle Size Distribution @ -1.18 mm

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

10 100 1000 10000 100000

Cu

mu

lati

ve %

Passin

g

Particle Size (microns)

Size Cum % Passing

Au Distribution

S Distribution

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

10 100 1000 10000

Cu

mu

lati

ve %

Passin

g


Size Cum % Passing

Au Distribution

S Distribution



5. 3. 2. Single Pass Table Feed

The sample was then further reduced to 100% passing 600 µm using the rolls crusher to represent table

feed and a size by grade was competed. The gold distribution is coarser than the particle size distribution

whereas the sulphur distribution follows the particle size distribution. A comprehensive table of the P80 and

P50 for the testwork feed at minus 11.2, minus 1.18 mm and table feed at minus 600 µm is displayed in

Table 3. Crushing of the testwork feed to the specified table feed, has lead to an upgrade of the sample,

where gold is associated in the coarser size fractions in comparison to the PSD and sulphur distributions.

Table 5: Omnium Investments Size Distribution

Figure 8: Omnium Investment Single Pass Table Feed Size Distribution

PSD µm Au µm S µm PSD µm Au µm S µm

Testwork Feed @P100 -11.2 mm 6700 4583 7959 1296 249 4073

Testwork Feed @P100 -1.18 mm 604 296 604 123 134 123

SPT Feed @P100 -600 µm 336 565 336 74 497 74

P50P80

Sample

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

10 100 1000

Cu

mu

lati

ve %

Passin

g


Size Cum % Passing

Au Distribution

S Distribution



5.4. VSI Amenability Test

The single pass efficiency of the VSI was tested on the minus 11.2 mm feed sample. The sample was

subjected to a VSI frequency of 47 Hz with a 1 kg sub-sample of the product subjected to a size by grade

to determine the gold and sulphur deportment. In Table 6, in can be seen that the production of fines under

1.18 mm increased from 49.2% to 52.2% in one pass, however there was no increase in fines passing 850

µm and 600 µm. Gold passing 1.18 mm increased from 69.4% to 83.4% after just one pass, however there

was no increase in fines passing 850 µm and 600 µm. Sulphur however displayed a notable increase in

fines production passing 1.18 mm from 38.1% to 48.1% in just one pass. The P80 was reduced from 6700

µm to 2991 µm. Table 6 shows the results of the VSI affects on the as received sample.

Table 6: Single Pass VSI Test Summary

A size by grade of the VSI product was carried out to determine the VSI’s impact on gold and silver

deportments throughout the test. As shown in Figure 9, the gold distribution is finer than the size

distribution in the size fractions above 1.18 mm and coarser than the particle size distribution in size

fractions below 1.18 mm. Sizing of the VSI product showed 80% of the gold passing 1.17 mm. Sulphur

distribution follows the particle size distribution

Figure 9: Particle Size Distribution - Single Pass VSI Product

For additional size by grade results from the single pass VSI amenability test is shown in Appendix B –

Size by Grade Results.

1.18 mm 850 µm 600 µm 1.18 mm 850 µm 600 µm 1.18 mm 850 µm 600 µm

VSI Feed 49.2 47.3 45.5 69.4 64.7 64.2 38.1 36.7 35.3

VSI Product 52.2 45.6 40.5 83.4 24.3 23.7 48.1 48.1 48.1

Au S

Sample

PSD

Cumulative % Passing

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

10 100 1000 10000

Cu

mu

lati

ve %

Passin

g


Size Cum % Passing

Au Distribution

S Distribution



5.5. Single Pass/Cleaner Table Test

Five concentrate products were produced at approximately 1%, 5%, 10%, 20% and 30% of the original

sample feed mass. The concentrate and tails products were analysed via fire assay only and results given

in Table 7. The sulphur grades of the feed and recoverable material is so low, they are considered to be

negligible. A cleaner table test was also completed on the cumulative 30 wt% concentrate, producing

additional 450 g of cleaner table tails. The cleaner table tails was combined with the single pass table tails

to provide a composite tails sample for sizing.

Table 7: Results from Single Stage/Cleaner Tabling Test

Table 7 shows that over the five concentrates, 84% of the gold and 28% of the sulphur were recovered into

28% of the mass at grades of 7.8 g/t and 0.01 g/t respectively. Figure 10 is a graphical representation of

the gold and sulphur recoveries from Table 7.

Figure 10: Single Stage/Cleaner Table Recovery

Sample

g % cumulative Assay Distribution Cumulative Cumulative Assay Distribution Cumulative Cumulative

% ppm % Distribution grade ppm % % Distribution grade %

0 0 0 0 0

Concentrate 1 278.3 1.0% 1.0% 132.00 51.3% 51.3% 132.0 0.01 1.0% 1.0% 0.01

Concentrate 2 1095.5 4.0% 5.0% 16.95 25.9% 77.2% 40.3 0.01 4.0% 5.0% 0.01

Concentrate 3 1360.3 5.0% 10.0% 1.03 2.0% 79.2% 20.7 0.01 5.0% 10.0% 0.01

Concentrate 4 2506.2 9.2% 19.2% 0.92 3.2% 82.4% 11.3 0.01 9.2% 19.2% 0.01

Concentrate 5 2457.3 9.0% 28.2% 0.51 1.7% 84.1% 7.8 0.01 9.0% 28.2% 0.01

Table Tails 19554.0 71.8% 100.0% 0.58 15.9% 100.0% 2.6 0.01 71.8% 100.0% 0.01

Calc'd Feed 27251.6 100.0% 2.63 100.0% 0.01 100.0%

Assay Feed 27500.0 2.86 0.01

Mass Yield Gold Distribution Sulphur Distribution

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Re

co

ve

ry

Mass Yield

Tabling Recovery Yield Curve

Au Distribution

S Distribution

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Au

Gra

de

(p

pm

)

Mass Yield

Tabling Grade Yield Curve

Cum Au Grade



Single Pass Table Tail and Cleaner Table Tail Distribution

A sub-sample of the SPT tails was sized and assayed to determine the deportment of recovered gold and

sulphur versus particle size. The gold distribution was finer than the particle size distribution whilst the

sulphur distribution followed the particle size distribution. The calculated gold grade of the single pass table

tails was 0.57 g/t and the sulphur calculated grade was negligible at 0.01 g/t. A sub-sample of the

composite single pass table tails and cleaner table tails sample was also sized and assayed to determine

the deportment of recovered gold and sulphur versus particle size. So as to attain a direct comparison

between the two gravity methods employed. Figure 11 displays the results.

Containing approximately 450 g of cleaner table tails, the composite table tails sample showed the gold

distribution was finer than the particle size distribution and sulphur distribution was coarser than the particle

size distribution. The calculated gold grade of the composite table tails was 0.62 g/t and the sulphur

calculated grade was negligible at 0.01 g/t.

The P80 and P50 of gold, sulphur and particle size distributions for the single pass table tails and composite

table tails is provided in Table 8

Table 8: Single Pass Tail Size Distribution

Figure 11: Single Pass Table Tails Size by Grade Curve

Sample PSD µm Au µm S µm PSD µm Au µm S µm

SPT Tails 158 72 157 34 28 34

SPT + Cleaner Tails 145 92 340 35 30 50

P80 P50

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

10 100 1000

Cu

mu

lati

ve %

Passin

g


Size Cum % Passing

Au Distribution

S Distribution



Figure 12: Composite SPT and Cleaner Table Size by Grade Curve

For additional size by grade results for gravity tests are provided in Appendix B – Size By Grade Analysis.

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

10 100 1000

Cu

mu

lati

ve %

Passin

g


Size Cum % Passing

Au Distribution

S Distribution



5.6. Combined Gravity Concentrates and Tails Sighter Flotation

Cumulative recovery of gold from the combined single pass table and cleaner table yielded 77.2% into 5%

of the mass at a grade of 40 g/t. Subsequent gold recoveries over the final 3 concentrates increased

slightly by 6.9%. Therefore a composite sample of table concentrates 3, 4 and 5 and table tails was

subjected to a sighter flotation test and combined with gravity concentrates 1 and 2 to determine the overall

gold recovery from combined gravity and flotation methods. Table 9 displays the results.

Table 9: Results from Single Stage/Cleaner Table Test and Additional Floats

Cumulative recovery of gold over combined gravity and flotation methods increased to 84.8% when

compared to 84.1% gold recovery expressed solely by gravity. The mass yield decreased from 28.2% from

the sole gravity test, to just 16.5% of the combined gravity flotation test, therefore similar gold recoveries

into a smaller mass yield. Figure 13 is a graphical representation of sole gravity recovery versus combined

gravity flotation recoveries.

Figure 13: Single Pass Table Recovery Yield Curve (left) and Yield Grade Curve

The detailed results of the single pass table test are provided in Appendix C - Single Pass Table Test

Results.

Sample



0 0 0 0 0

Concentrate 1 278.3 1.0% 1.0% 132.00 49.7% 49.7% 132.0 0.01 0.4% 0.4% 0.0

Concentrate 2 1095.5 4.0% 5.0% 16.95 25.1% 74.8% 40.3 0.01 1.4% 1.8% 0.0

Float Con 1 226.9 0.8% 5.9% 3.08 0.9% 75.7% 35.0 0.02 0.6% 2.4% 0.0

Float Con 2 233.9 0.9% 6.7% 2.68 0.8% 76.6% 30.9 0.02 0.6% 3.0% 0.0

Float Con 3 309.1 1.1% 7.9% 2.10 0.9% 77.5% 26.7 0.01 0.4% 3.4% 0.0

Float Con 4 266.5 1.0% 8.8% 2.40 0.9% 78.3% 24.0 0.02 0.7% 4.1% 0.0

Float Con 5 1027.3 3.8% 12.6% 2.64 3.7% 82.0% 17.6 0.02 2.7% 6.8% 0.0

Float Con 6 1050.4 3.9% 16.5% 1.93 2.7% 84.8% 14.0 0.03 3.5% 10.3% 0.0

Float Tails 22763.7 83.5% 100.0% 0.50 15.2% 100.0% 2.7 0.03 89.7% 100.0% 0.0

Calc'd Feed 27251.6 100.0% 2.71 100.0% 0.03 100.0%

Assay Feed 27500.0 2.86 0.01


0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Re

co

ve

ry

Mass Yield

Combined Gravity Recovery Yield Curve

SPT + Flot Au Distribution

SPT + Flot S Distribution

SPT Au Distribution

SPT S Distribution

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Au

Gra

de

(p

pm

)

Mass Yield


SPT + Flot Cum Au Grade

SPT Cum Au Grade



6. Conclusions

The following conclusions for Omnium Investment sample can be made:

Average head grade analysis of the as received sample at P100 11.2 mm was 0.74 g/t is similar to

the calculated head grade of 0.64 g/t.

Average head assay of the as received sample at P100 1.18 mm was 1.05 g/t is consistent with the

calculated head assay of 1.61 g/t.

Averaged head assay of the table feed at P100 600 µm was 2.86 g/t and the calculated head assay

was 4.54 g/t. The difference of 1.68 g/t between the calculated and average head assays can be

attributed to the spotty nature of the gold present in the sample at the minus 600 µm size fraction.

Production of fines under 1.18 mm increased from 49.2% to 52.2% in one pass through the VSI

running at 47 Hz, however there was no increase in fines passing the 850 µm and 600 µm size

fractions.

P80 of the as received sample was reduced from 6,700 µm to 2991 µm in just one pass through the

VSI crusher running at 47 Hz. Sizing of the VSI product showed 80% of the gold passing 1.17 mm

and having a coarser size distribution than the particle size distribution.

The VSI amenability test indicated that the sample would appear amenable to treatment via a VSI.

A more detailed VSI test combined with comminution testwork should be considered prior to

deciding on real world application.

The sample was reduced to 100% passing 600 µm using the rolls crusher to represent table feed

with a size by grade was completed. The gold distribution was coarser than the particle size

distribution whereas the sulphur distribution followed the particle size distribution. P80 of gold in the

table feed was 565 µm compared to table feed PSD with a P80 of 336 µm.

A combined single pass table and cleaner table test recovered 84% of the gold and 28% of the

sulphur into 28% of the mass at grades of 7.8 g/t and 0.01 g/t respectively over 5 concentrates.

A composite sample comprising of the cleaner table tails and single pass table tails sample was

created to assess the differences in gold and sulphur distributions.

The table tails gold distribution was finer than the particle size distribution whilst the sulphur

distribution followed the particle size distribution. The calculated gold grade of the single pass table

tails was 0.57 g/t and the sulphur calculated grade was negligible at 0.01 g/t

Containing approximately 450 g of cleaner table tails, the composite table tails sample showed the

gold distribution was finer than the particle size distribution and sulphur distribution was coarser

than the particle size distribution. The calculated gold grade of the composite table tails was 0.62

g/t and the sulphur calculated grade was negligible at 0.01 g/t.



Cumulative recovery of gold from the combined single pass table and cleaner table yielded 77.2%

into 5% of the mass at a grade of 40 g/t over concentrates 1 and 2. Subsequent gold recoveries

over the final 3 concentrates increased slightly by 6.9%. Therefore a composite sample of table

concentrates 3, 4 and 5 and table tails was subjected to flotation tests and combined with gravity

concentrates 1 and 2 to determine the overall gold recovery over combined gravity and flotation

methods.

Cumulative recovery of gold over combined gravity and flotation methods increased to 84.8%

compared to 84.1% gold recovery expressed solely by gravity. The mass yield decreased from

28% from the sole gravity tests, to just 17% of the combined gravity flotation tests, therefore similar

gold recoveries into a smaller mass yield. The final gold grade also increased from 7.8 g/t to 14.0

g/t with additional flotation.

The Omnium Investment sample appears amenable to Python pre concentration processing

methods, however further areas of the already completed testwork should be investigated further.

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Re

co

ve

ry

Mass Yield




SPT Au Distribution

SPT S Distribution

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Au

Gra

de

(p

pm

)

Mass Yield



SPT Cum Au Grade



7. Recommendations

The following are recommendations based on the testwork carried out on the Omnium Investment sample:

The sample appeared amenable to crushing through a VSI, although further comminution

testwork should be carried out.

Work should be undertaken utilising the data generated to identify the economic yield and

recovery cut offs for pre concentration as well as assessing the most suitable technologies to

conduct the separation and downstream recovery process options in an operational environment.

Confirmatory leaching of the gravity or combined gravity flotation concentrates could be useful

in assessing response and reagent consumptions dependant on planned downstream recovery

processes for the pre concentrate.

The economics and effects of further finer comminution on gravity and flotation recoveries

could also be further investigated.

Further testwork can be completed at Gekko’s metallurgical laboratory in Ballarat.



Appendix A – Head Grade Analysis

.

Testwork Feed @ P100 - 11.2mm

50.46 0.26 0.01

50.28 0.88 0.02

51.91 1.20 0.01

49.33 0.62 0.01

Ave 0.74 0.01

Assay Wt

(g)

Au

ppm

S

%

Testwork Feed @-1.18mm

59.28 0.80 0.01

56.24 1.25 0.01

57.42 1.20 0.01

57.01 0.95 0.01

Ave 1.05 0.01

S

%

Assay Wt

(g)

Au

ppm

Table Feed @-600µm

55.18 1.39 -

55.96 6.03 -

57.21 1.91 -

56.4 2.10 0.01

Ave 2.86 0.01

S

%

Assay Wt

(g)

Au

ppm



ICP Results

Testwork Feed @ P100 - 11.2mm

Au ppm 0.25

Ag ppm 0.2

Al % 1.65

As ppm 393

B ppm 10

Ba ppm 50

Be ppm 0.9

Bi ppm <2

Ca % 0.01

Cd ppm <0.5

Co ppm 18

Cr ppm 212

Cu ppm 86

Fe % 10.3

Ga ppm 10

Hg ppm <1

K % 0.07

La ppm 20

Mg % 0.01

Mn ppm 237

Mo ppm 3

Na % 0.01

Ni ppm 34

P ppm 210

Pb ppm 59

S % 0.05

Sb ppm <2

Sc ppm 10

Sr ppm 5

Th ppm <20

Ti % 0.04

Tl ppm <10

U ppm <10

V ppm 188

W ppm <10

Zn ppm 72



Appendix B – Size By Grade Analysis

Particle Size Analysis

Project: Omnium Investments

Stream: Testwork Feed @ P100 -11.2mm

Date: 13/05/2013

Results Date: 22/05/2013

Size Wt Retained (g) Wt % Size Cum % Assay Mass Wt% Cum % Assay Mass Wt% Cum %

(microns) Sizing 1 Retained Passing (g/t) (Units) Retained Passing (%) (Units) Retained Passing

11200 0 0.00 100.00 0 0.00 0.00 100.00 0 0.00 0.00 100.00

9500 21.71 1.50 98.50 0.17 0.00 0.40 99.60 0.01 0.00 1.16 98.84

6700 210.09 14.50 84.01 0.35 0.05 7.76 91.85 0.03 0.00 33.71 65.12

6700 182.89 12.62 71.39 0.15 0.02 2.94 88.91 0.01 0.00 9.78 55.34

3350 136.40 9.41 61.97 1.07 0.10 15.59 73.32 0.01 0.00 7.30 48.05

2360 60.59 4.18 57.79 0.12 0.01 0.78 72.54 0.01 0.00 3.24 44.80

1700 76.62 5.29 52.51 0.28 0.01 2.26 70.29 0.01 0.00 4.10 40.71

1180 48.51 3.35 49.16 0.18 0.01 0.93 69.35 0.01 0.00 2.59 38.11

850 27.24 1.88 47.28 1.61 0.03 4.69 64.66 0.01 0.00 1.46 36.65

600 26.14 1.80 45.48 0.17 0.00 0.48 64.18 0.01 0.00 1.40 35.26

425 32.87 2.27 43.21 1.09 0.02 3.84 60.35 0.01 0.00 1.76 33.50

300 37.69 2.60 40.61 1.39 0.04 5.61 54.74 0.01 0.00 2.02 31.48

212 36.59 2.52 38.08 2.18 0.06 8.54 46.20 0.01 0.00 1.96 29.52

150 38.27 2.64 35.44 2.41 0.06 9.87 36.33 0.01 0.00 2.05 27.48

106 34.38 2.37 33.07 1.99 0.05 7.32 29.01 0.01 0.00 1.84 25.64

75 41.51 2.86 30.21 0.80 0.02 3.55 25.45 0.01 0.00 2.22 23.42

53 41.61 2.87 27.34 0.98 0.03 4.37 21.09 0.01 0.00 2.23 21.19

38 48.00 3.31 24.02 0.84 0.03 4.32 16.77 0.01 0.00 2.57 18.62

0 348.16 24.02 0.00 0.45 0.11 16.77 0.00 0.01 0.00 18.62 0.00

Total 1449.27 100.00 Head Grade 0.64 100.00 Head Grade 0.01 100.00

Initial Wt 1457.75 Reconcile 101% Assay Head 0.74 Assay Head 0.01

D80 6700 D50 1296 D80 4583 D50 249 D80 7959 D50 4073

LABORATORY TEST WORK RESULTS

Particle Size Distribution Gold Distribution Sulphur Distribution

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

10 100 1000 10000 100000

Cu

mu

lati

ve %

Passin

g


Size Cum % Passing

Au Distribution

S Distribution





Stream: Testwork Feed @ P100 - 1.18mm

Date: 14/05/2013




1180 0 0.00 100.00 0 0.00 0.00 100.00 0 0.00 0.00 100.00

850 86.66 8.73 91.27 0.29 0.03 1.57 98.43 0.01 0.00 8.73 91.27

600 113.94 11.48 79.78 0.88 0.10 6.28 92.15 0.01 0.00 11.48 79.78

425 75.86 7.65 72.14 0.49 0.04 2.30 89.85 0.01 0.00 7.65 72.14

300 73.48 7.41 64.73 1.94 0.14 8.89 80.96 0.01 0.00 7.41 64.73

212 64.84 6.54 58.20 4.96 0.32 20.08 60.88 0.01 0.00 6.54 58.20

150 55.76 5.62 52.58 2.03 0.11 7.05 53.83 0.01 0.00 5.62 52.58

106 44.22 4.46 48.12 3.97 0.18 10.95 42.87 0.01 0.00 4.46 48.12

75 45.19 4.55 43.56 2.66 0.12 7.50 35.37 0.01 0.00 4.55 43.56

53 50.56 5.10 38.47 2.71 0.14 8.54 26.83 0.01 0.00 5.10 38.47

38 37.26 3.76 34.71 2.10 0.08 4.89 21.94 0.01 0.00 3.76 34.71

0 344.42 34.71 0.00 1.02 0.35 21.94 0.00 0.01 0.00 34.71 0.00



D80 604 D50 123 D80 296 D50 134 D80 604 D50 123



0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

10 100 1000 10000

Cu

mu

lati

ve %

Passin

g


Size Cum % Passing

Au Distribution

S Distribution





Stream: Testwork Feed @ P100 - 600µm

Date: 14/05/2013




600 0 0.00 100.00 0 0.00 0.00 100.00 0 0.00 0.00 100.00

425 121.98 12.55 87.45 25.91 3.25 71.70 28.30 0.01 0.00 12.55 87.45

300 104.95 10.80 76.65 0.53 0.06 1.25 27.04 0.01 0.00 10.80 76.65

212 90.21 9.28 67.37 1.46 0.14 2.98 24.06 0.01 0.00 9.28 67.37

150 56.08 5.77 61.60 1.60 0.09 2.04 22.03 0.01 0.00 5.77 61.60

106 57.41 5.91 55.69 2.43 0.14 3.17 18.86 0.01 0.00 5.91 55.69

75 52.47 5.40 50.29 3.06 0.17 3.64 15.21 0.01 0.00 5.40 50.29

53 54.50 5.61 44.69 2.91 0.16 3.60 11.61 0.01 0.00 5.61 44.69

38 58.93 6.06 38.62 2.32 0.14 3.11 8.50 0.01 0.00 6.06 38.62

0 375.40 38.62 0.00 1.00 0.39 8.50 0.00 0.01 0.00 38.62 0.00



D80 336 D50 74 D80 565 D50 497 D80 336 D50 74



0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

10 100 1000

Cu

mu

lati

ve %

Passin

g


Size Cum % Passing

Au Distribution

S Distribution





Stream: First Pass Table Tails

Date: 17/05/2013




850 0 0.00 100.00 0 0.00 0.00 100.00 0 0.00 0.00 100.00

600 1.16 0.12 99.88 0.87 0.00 0.17 99.83 0.00 0.00 0.00 100.00

425 61.50 6.12 93.77 0.23 0.01 2.45 97.38 0.01 0.00 6.12 93.88

300 57.49 5.72 88.05 0.37 0.02 3.69 93.69 0.01 0.00 5.72 88.15

212 42.13 4.19 83.86 0.32 0.01 2.34 91.35 0.01 0.00 4.19 83.96

150 45.67 4.54 79.32 0.49 0.02 3.92 87.44 0.01 0.00 4.55 79.41

106 44.20 4.40 74.93 0.37 0.02 2.84 84.60 0.01 0.00 4.40 75.01

75 54.87 5.46 69.47 0.39 0.02 3.71 80.89 0.01 0.00 5.46 69.55

53 81.76 8.13 61.34 0.51 0.04 7.23 73.66 0.01 0.00 8.14 61.41

38 59.39 5.91 55.43 0.45 0.03 4.58 69.08 0.01 0.00 5.91 55.50

0 557.48 55.43 0.00 0.71 0.40 69.08 0.00 0.01 0.01 55.50 0.00



D80 158 D50 34 D80 72 D50 28 D80 157 D50 34



0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

10 100 1000

Cu

mu

lati

ve %

Passin

g


Size Cum % Passing

Au Distribution

S Distribution





Stream: Single Pass Table Tails -2 (Includes ~450g of cleaner table tails)

Date: 20/05/2013




850 0 0.00 100.00 0 0.00 0.00 100.00 0 0.00 0.00 100.00

600 3.16 0.25 99.75 0.76 0.00 0.30 99.70 0.00 0.00 0.00 100.00

425 68.44 5.41 94.34 0.67 0.04 5.77 93.93 0.01 0.00 4.42 95.58

300 71.46 5.65 88.69 0.35 0.02 3.21 90.72 0.05 0.00 23.09 72.49

212 54.06 4.27 84.42 0.51 0.02 3.49 87.23 0.01 0.00 3.49 69.00

150 50.29 3.98 80.44 0.48 0.02 3.06 84.17 0.01 0.00 3.25 65.75

106 53.09 4.20 76.24 0.35 0.01 2.39 81.78 0.01 0.00 3.43 62.31

75 73.00 5.77 70.47 0.48 0.03 4.42 77.37 0.01 0.00 4.72 57.60

53 98.76 7.81 62.66 0.57 0.04 7.14 70.23 0.01 0.00 6.38 51.22

38 99.57 7.87 54.79 0.54 0.04 6.81 63.42 0.01 0.00 6.43 44.78

0 693.00 54.79 0.00 0.72 0.40 63.42 0.00 0.01 0.01 44.78 0.00



D80 145 D50 35 D80 92 D50 30 D80 340 D50 50



0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

10 100 1000

Cu

mu

lati

ve %

Passin

g


Size Cum % Passing

Au Distribution

S Distribution





Stream: LOMN (FL01) Tail Sizing (Gravity Composite TC 3,4,5 & SPT Tails @ P100 -600um)

Date: 30/05/2013




850 0 0.00 100.00 0 0.00 0.00 100.00 0 0.00 0.00 100.00

600 4.50 0.44 99.56 0.27 0.00 0.21 99.79 0.00 0.00 0.00 100.00

425 108.09 10.50 89.07 0.96 0.10 17.70 82.09 0.00 0.00 0.00 100.00

300 99.01 9.62 79.45 1.20 0.12 20.15 61.94 0.00 0.00 0.00 100.00

212 70.64 6.86 72.59 0.39 0.03 4.73 57.20 0.01 0.00 56.16 43.84

150 70.54 6.85 65.74 0.48 0.03 5.78 51.43 0.00 0.00 0.00 43.84

106 55.14 5.36 60.38 0.39 0.02 3.65 47.78 0.01 0.00 43.84 0.00

75 52.61 5.11 55.27 0.52 0.03 4.69 43.09 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

53 58.30 5.66 49.61 0.32 0.02 3.22 39.87 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

38 51.65 5.02 44.60 0.32 0.02 2.85 37.03 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

0 459.19 44.60 0.00 0.47 0.21 37.03 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00



D80 306 D50 54 D80 412 D50 131 D80 273 D50 224



0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

10 100 1000

Cu

mu

lati

ve %

Passin

g


Size Cum % Passing

Au Distribution



Appendix C – Single Pass Table Test Results

Gravity Separation TestProject: Omnium Investments

Sample: Sample prepared to P100 -600µm

Test: SP Table Test

Date: 17/05/2013


Sample



0 0 0 0 0

Concentrate 1 278.3 1.0% 1.0% 132.00 51.3% 51.3% 132.0 0.01 1.0% 1.0% 0.01

Concentrate 2 1095.5 4.0% 5.0% 16.95 25.9% 77.2% 40.3 0.01 4.0% 5.0% 0.01

Concentrate 3 1360.3 5.0% 10.0% 1.03 2.0% 79.2% 20.7 0.01 5.0% 10.0% 0.01

Concentrate 4 2506.2 9.2% 19.2% 0.92 3.2% 82.4% 11.3 0.01 9.2% 19.2% 0.01

Concentrate 5 2457.3 9.0% 28.2% 0.51 1.7% 84.1% 7.8 0.01 9.0% 28.2% 0.01

Table Tails 19554.0 71.8% 100.0% 0.58 15.9% 100.0% 2.6 0.01 71.8% 100.0% 0.01

Calc'd Feed 27251.6 100.0% 2.63 100.0% 0.01 100.0%

Assay Feed 27500.0 2.86 0.01



0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Re

co

ve

ry

Mass Yield


Au Distribution

S Distribution

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Au

Gra

de

(p

pm

)

Mass Yield


Cum Au Grade



Combined RecoveryProject: Omnium Investments

Sample: Gravity + Flotation

Test: Combined Recovery

Date: 17/05/2013


Sample



0 0 0 0 0

Concentrate 1 278.3 1.0% 1.0% 132.00 49.7% 49.7% 132.0 0.01 0.4% 0.4% 0.0

Concentrate 2 1095.5 4.0% 5.0% 16.95 25.1% 74.8% 40.3 0.01 1.4% 1.8% 0.0

Float Con 1 226.9 0.8% 5.9% 3.08 0.9% 75.7% 35.0 0.02 0.6% 2.4% 0.0

Float Con 2 233.9 0.9% 6.7% 2.68 0.8% 76.6% 30.9 0.02 0.6% 3.0% 0.0

Float Con 3 309.1 1.1% 7.9% 2.10 0.9% 77.5% 26.7 0.01 0.4% 3.4% 0.0

Float Con 4 266.5 1.0% 8.8% 2.40 0.9% 78.3% 24.0 0.02 0.7% 4.1% 0.0

Float Con 5 1027.3 3.8% 12.6% 2.64 3.7% 82.0% 17.6 0.02 2.7% 6.8% 0.0

Float Con 6 1050.4 3.9% 16.5% 1.93 2.7% 84.8% 14.0 0.03 3.5% 10.3% 0.0

Float Tails 22763.7 83.5% 100.0% 0.50 15.2% 100.0% 2.7 0.03 89.7% 100.0% 0.0

Calc'd Feed 27251.6 100.0% 2.71 100.0% 0.03 100.0%

Assay Feed 27500.0 2.86 0.01



0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Re

co

ve

ry

Mass Yield




SPT Au Distribution

SPT S Distribution

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Au

Gra

de

(p

pm

)

Mass Yield



SPT Cum Au Grade



Appendix D – Flotation Test Results

Flash Flotation Reagent Addition Sheet

Project Omnium Approved: Andrew McC

Sample compositions and weights 3997 grams

Test Name LOMN FL01 Technician: BP / BD

Date 28/05/2011

time time time Stage MIBC# pH sample Comments

100%

(secs) (seconds cumulative)(mins cumulative) g/t mL g/t mL (drops)

0 0 0 start 6.52

60 60 1.00 condition 50 10 60 12 10 6.50 Poor bubbles

30 90 1.50 float 6.50 FC 1 "

30 120 2.00 float 6.50 FC 2 "

30 150 2.50 float 6.51 FC 3 "

30 180 3.00 float 6.50 FC 4 "

60 240 4.00 condition 50 10 40 8 4 6.46 Medium size bubbles

300 540 9.00 float 6.47 FC 5 "

60 600 10.00 conditioning 50 10 20 4 6.38 Good bubbles

300 900 15.00 float 6.41 FC 6 "

150 30 120 24 14 6.43

Extra info

*Flash float # Numbers to be used as a guide - may require more frother

*Tap water used 8180 mL

* % solids 33 %

*Cell Used Large

*1200rpm 1300

*Impellor Used Large

*Froth depth = 1cm (flash standard)

CuSO4 Pax

2% 2%



Flotation TestProject: Omnium Investments

Sample: (TC 3, 4, 5 & SPT Tails) prepared to P100 -600µm

Test: LOMN FL01

Date: 29/05/2013


Sample



0 0 0 0 0

Float Con 1 34.89 0.9% 0.9% 3.08 3.8% 3.8% 3.1 0.02 0.6% 0.6% 0.0

Float Con 2 35.96 0.9% 1.8% 2.68 3.4% 7.1% 2.9 0.02 0.6% 1.2% 0.0

Float Con 3 47.52 1.2% 3.0% 2.10 3.5% 10.6% 2.6 0.01 0.4% 1.6% 0.0

Float Con 4 40.98 1.0% 4.0% 2.40 3.4% 14.0% 2.5 0.02 0.7% 2.4% 0.0

Float Con 5 157.95 4.0% 8.0% 2.64 14.6% 28.6% 2.6 0.02 2.7% 5.1% 0.0

Float Con 6 161.51 4.1% 12.0% 1.93 10.9% 39.5% 2.4 0.03 3.5% 8.6% 0.0

Float Tails 3500.00 88.0% 100.0% 0.50 60.5% 100.0% 0.7 0.03 91.4% 100.0% 0.0

Calc'd Feed 3978.8 100.0% 0.72 100.0% 0.03 100.0%

Assay Feed 3997.0 0.63 0.01



0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Re

co

ve

ry

Yield


Au Distribution

S Distribution

0

1

1

2

2

3

3

4

4

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Au

Gra

de

(p

pm

)

Yield




Appendix E - Disclaimer

Interim reports are provided as a means of keeping the client informed of testwork progress and to obtain feedback and discussion of the results.

Conclusions drawn in these interim reports are to be viewed with caution until the testwork program is completed and the final report issued

Gekko has undertaken test work to characterize the response of your ore to certain separation techniques and/or to help your own experts make a

decision as to whether you wish to purchase our product and, if so, the number and type.

It is important that you understand that:

Our testing is preliminary only.

You should obtain, independent advice from all relevant specialists, including a metallurgist, before acquiring any equipment and

before committing to and proceeding with your project.

You must have your own experts examine the detailed analysis in our report to decide its applicability to your project.

We analyse only the sample you provide. Any one of a number of factors may cause that sample inaccurately to reflect the ore body.

You must determine the extent to which the sample represents the ore body. That includes the detection limits and confidence intervals

relevant to our results.

At all times we endeavour to provide accurate test work outcomes but you should not use our results as a basis for your broader business decisions

about your project.

If we have not exercised due care with our tests, the limit of our liability, both at common law and under any statute, will be to provide a further

set of test results to you free of charge. You indemnify us with respect to all other loss and damage of every kind, including, without limitation:

damage to or loss of property;

injury to or death of any person; and

economic and consequential loss arising from the negligent act or omission of us or any one else in connection with our test

Documents

TESTWORK REPORT - omnium-invest.net · The sample was logged, dried, weighed prior to being crushed in a large laboratory jaw crusher to a 100% passing 11.2 mm. ... 4.5. Sizing Analysis