Conference Proceedings
MetPlant 2008
Conference Proceedings
MetPlant 2008
Key Differences Between In Situ Recovery Mining and Conventional Mining
Heathgate Resources Pty Ltd (Heathgate) operates the Beverley Uranium Mine in South Australia, located on the plains between the northern Flinders Ranges and Lake Frome some 600 km north of the state capital Adelaide. The uranium orebody exists in permeable sands within the confined, highly saline Beverley aquifer, approximately 125 m below the ground surface and the uranium is mined using in situ recovery (ISR) technology. The Beverley mine is a highly technologically advanced ISR mine and is operated in accordance with stringent safety and environmental standards. The mine is currently licensed to export 1500 t of uranium oxide (U3O8) per annum._x000D_
This paper outlines the fundamental differences between ISR operations and the more traditional uranium production methods, such as agitation leaching and heap leaching, where the ore is removed from the deposit, stockpiled, crushed, milled and leached on the surface. Solids tailings from either the mill or the heap are finally deposited in a tailing storage facility._x000D_
ISR mining differs from conventional mining because the ore remains in place underground (in situ) and the groundwater contained in the ore-bearing aquifer is utilised as the mining fluid. This is achieved by drilling into the deposit and installing wells for extracting and re-injecting the groundwater which is fortified with chemicals. The fortified groundwater (ie mining fluid) flows through the permeable sands containing the orebody, dissolving the uranium. The pregnant mining fluid is then collected and transferred to the recovery plant where the uranium is captured (on ion exchange (IX) resin in the case of Beverley). The barren mining fluid is then re-fortified and recycled to the wellfields. Once mining is completed in a wellfield, the surface infrastructure is relocated to a new wellfield, and the mined-out wellfield is rehabilitated to its original surface condition._x000D_
A comparison of 'standard' hydrometallurgical plants, heap leach and ISR shows a number of key differences, such as the rate of leaching, the level of control available to the operators, and the type of contact/reaction that occurs._x000D_
While limited in its applications, ISR mining has proven successful at Beverley and provides another mining and processing method for the production of uranium._x000D_
FORMAL CITATION:Cameron, T, Telford, S and Weir, J, 2008. Key differences between in situ recovery mining and conventional mining, in Proceedings MetPlant 2008, pp 407-418 (The Australasian Institute of Mining and Metallurgy: Melbourne).
This paper outlines the fundamental differences between ISR operations and the more traditional uranium production methods, such as agitation leaching and heap leaching, where the ore is removed from the deposit, stockpiled, crushed, milled and leached on the surface. Solids tailings from either the mill or the heap are finally deposited in a tailing storage facility._x000D_
ISR mining differs from conventional mining because the ore remains in place underground (in situ) and the groundwater contained in the ore-bearing aquifer is utilised as the mining fluid. This is achieved by drilling into the deposit and installing wells for extracting and re-injecting the groundwater which is fortified with chemicals. The fortified groundwater (ie mining fluid) flows through the permeable sands containing the orebody, dissolving the uranium. The pregnant mining fluid is then collected and transferred to the recovery plant where the uranium is captured (on ion exchange (IX) resin in the case of Beverley). The barren mining fluid is then re-fortified and recycled to the wellfields. Once mining is completed in a wellfield, the surface infrastructure is relocated to a new wellfield, and the mined-out wellfield is rehabilitated to its original surface condition._x000D_
A comparison of 'standard' hydrometallurgical plants, heap leach and ISR shows a number of key differences, such as the rate of leaching, the level of control available to the operators, and the type of contact/reaction that occurs._x000D_
While limited in its applications, ISR mining has proven successful at Beverley and provides another mining and processing method for the production of uranium._x000D_
FORMAL CITATION:Cameron, T, Telford, S and Weir, J, 2008. Key differences between in situ recovery mining and conventional mining, in Proceedings MetPlant 2008, pp 407-418 (The Australasian Institute of Mining and Metallurgy: Melbourne).
Contributor(s):
T Cameron, S Telford, J Weir
-
Key Differences Between In Situ Recovery Mining and Conventional MiningPDFThis product is exclusive to Digital library subscription
-
Key Differences Between In Situ Recovery Mining and Conventional MiningPDFNormal price $22.00Member price from $0.00
Fees above are GST inclusive
PD Hours
Approved activity
- Published: 2008
- PDF Size: 11.564 Mb.
- Unique ID: P200807029