This document analyzes two graphite ore samples from southern Bahia, Brazil that have undergone weathering. Sample #1 has larger flakes and lower carbon content than Sample #2. Sample #1 is easier to concentrate and requires less chemicals to reach 99.9% carbon content. Developing technologies to reduce transportation costs and prevent fines segregation could make deposits like Sample #1 more economically viable. The document examines which sample would be better suited for processing given differences in their carbon content, particle size distribution, and response to concentration.

1. An explotation view of low content graphite ores subject to
weathering in southern Bahia, Brazil
The importance of graphite in the future of energy has made a lot of projects
been assessed around the world. I have worked with several supporting them in the
attempt to get better qualities and lower costs. However, nature is wayward creating
these ore deposits. Size of particles and power of enrichment are factors the
appropriate technology is able to improve, but cannot always obtain efficient
outcomes at lower costs. Selecting the right ore deposits is the best choice for sure.
Usually it is thought by a lot of professionals the best option would be getting a high
carbon content, yet this variant can just influence the mining cost and a first stage of
the process, therefore specific properties required by market are way more important.
In this paper I question which alternative would be more suitable for processing.
I use two different graphite ores I have worked with. Both were results of intense
weathering; however, they have different releases and grading curve of graphite.
Weathering assists a lot at the final quality of graphite.
Sample #1 is from southern Bahia state, where is a large flakes and lower carbon
contents region. The ease of raising carbon contents and the lower chemicals
requirements in order to get a 99.9% carbon content final product is a favourable point
for these kinds of deposits. The development of technologies, which lower ore
transportation costs and reduce fines segregation still in mining when not getting
significant carbon contents, make these mineral occurrence highly viable.

2. Sample #1 Sample #2
%C revised 10.50717 %C revised 12.5045
ore (g) 1000 ore (g) 1000
% C ROM 3.2257 % C ROM 12.5045
weight simple acumul. %C weight simple acumul. %C
30# 92 9.2 9.2 7.2 30# 100 10.0 10.0 8.7
50# 115 11.5 20.7 9.5 50# 140 14.0 24.0 12.3
80# 100 10.0 30.7 8.7 80# 270 27.0 51.0 12.4
100# 76 7.6 38.3 1.5 100# 80 8.0 59.0 10.8
140# 97 9.7 48.0 1.2 140# 123 12.3 71.3 13.2
200# 98 9.8 57.8 1.3 200# 130 13.0 84.3 14.2
325# 102 10.2 68.0 0.5 325# 107 10.7 95.0 13.7
<325# 320 32.0 100.0 0.6 <325# 50 5.0 100.0 15.3
total 1000 100.0 - - total 1000 100.0 - -
Sample #1 Concentrated Sample #2 Concentrated
%C revised 10.507 %C revised 12.5
ore (g) 307 ore (g) 1000
% C 3.1 % C 12.5
Concentrated (g) 26.7 Concentrated (g) 116.7
%C concentrated 98.06629 %C concentrated 90.68021
weight yield acumul. %C weight yield acumul. %C
30# 4.2 15.7 15.7 98.7 30# 1.2 1.0 1.0 95.8
50# 9.3 34.8 50.5 99.2 50# 7.2 6.2 7.2 95.8
80# 9.9 37.1 87.6 97.6 80# 19.2 16.5 23.6 96.9
100# 1.2 4.5 92.1 96.4 100# 11.3 9.7 33.3 96.7
140# 1.2 4.5 96.6 95.1 140# 19.6 16.8 50.1 92.8
200# 0.9 3.4 100.0 94.7 200# 19.8 17.0 67.1 92.7
325# 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 325# 17.9 15.3 82.4 87.2
<325# 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 <325# 20.5 17.6 100.0 78.5
total 26.7 100.0 - - total 116.7 100.0 - -
Recovery 81.17215 Recovery 84.65904