SPE 9504
SPE
EVALUATING URANIUM DEPOSITS FOR SOLUTION MINING
by Dennis E. Stover, Everest Minerals Corp_
©Copyright 1980, American Institute of Mining, Metallurgical, and Petroleum Engineers, Inc.
This paper was presented at the 55th Annual Fall TechnicalConference and Exhibition of the Society of Petroleum Engineers of AIME, held in Dallas, Texas, September 21-24 1980
The material IS subject to correction by the author. Permission to copy IS restricted to an abstract of not more than 300 words. Write: 6200 N. Central Expwy., Dallas, Texas 75206 ..
ABSTRACT
In situ leaching of uranium has rapidly devel-
oped into a commercial technology.' The extent of
this development is typified by the fact that many
mining feasibility studies now routinely examine in
situ leaching as well as the conventional shaft and
open pit options.
A methodology for evaluating the leachability
of a uranium ore body is presented. Extensive cor-
ing of the ore body and testing of ore samples are
necessary to establish the quality, quantity, and
leachability of the ore. A testing program which
provides the necessary data in a rapid, yet thor-
ough fashion, is discussed.
INTRODUCTION
During the past decade, in situ leaching of
uranium has rapidly progressed from laboratory bench
testing to become an important commercial scale pro-
cess with more than a dozen facilities now operating
within the United States. Much of this growth has
occurred in south Texas where several known large
deposits could not be economically mined by open pit
or underground methods. South Texas deposits at
depth are typically found in sedimentary formations
which lack the structural integrity necessary for
underground mining. Similarly, shallower deposits
are of relatively low quality (by world standards)
and an economic depth limitation of less than 300
feet has governed open pit mining.
The Clay West deposit, near George West, Texas,
was one deposit which motivated the development of
the in situ process. By early 1974, the technical
success of the process had been demonstrated by a
series of pilot tests operated by DALCO as part of
an Atlantic Richfield, DALCO, and U. S. Steel joint
venture. The dramatic uranium price increases of
1974 and 1975 assured the economic feasibility of
References and illustrations at end of paper.
Society of Petroleum Engineers of AIME
the project, and by 1976, the Clay West facility
was operating consistently and profitably. Since
that time, in situ leaching facilities in Texas
have grown steadily with an annual production ca-
pacity now totaling more than 2.5 million pounds of
uranium oxide (U 0 ).
3 8
With this growth, new operations have sprung
up along a one hundred fifty mile line extending
from Hebbronville at the south to Hobson at the
north. Multiple uranium deposits within four dis-
tinct stratiographic units (Catahoula, Goliad,
Jackson, and Oakville) are now being actively
leached. Experience is rapidly accruing to these
operators and, perhaps, the overriding conclusion
to be drawn from this experience is that each de-
posit is unique and that various areas within a de-
posit will respond differently to a particular
lixiviant-oxidant system.
This variability is observed not only among de-
posits located in different stratiographic units,
but among deposits off-setting each other by only
a few hundred yards and located in apparently iden-
tical host environments.
We reach the conclusion that if we, as opera-
tors, are to maximize the productivity and profit-
ability of an in situ uranium operation, we must be
prepared to custom tailor the process for each de-
posit we plan to mine. To be effective, this tail-
oring must be initiated in the earliest stages of
project development. In order to meet such a
schedule, design engineers and production geologists
must maintain an active liaison with the exploration
group working the deposit.
What elements of the flow sheet are most sen-
sitive to uranium deposit variations? In essence,
the entire flow sheet is sensitive because the per-
meability of the deposit and its rate of release of
uranium control both the lixiviant flow rate and its
time dependent uranium concentration. These, in
turn, define the daily production capability of the
deposit and, hence, of the operation. The flow rate
and uranium concentration control the design of the
2 EVALUATING URANIUM DEPOSITS FOR SOLUTION MINING
ion exchange or recovery circuit. Since the remainder
of the process is directly linked to this circuit,
the characteristics of the deposit influence the en-
tire process design.
What are the characteristics of a uranium de-
posit which can readily be determined during the ex-
ploration-development drilling stages and which will
indicate the potential leachability of the deposit?
One list of such requisites follows:
• The uranium should have been deposited in a
permeable strata by precipitation from flow-
ing ground water. This implies that the ura-
nium was once water soluble and mobile. It
was deposited by reducing conditions so that
oxidizing the formation should solubilize the
uranium.
• The uranium should not be
sedimentary process since
the uranium in the interior of clay lenses
where it could not be reached by leaching
fluids.
• The deposit should be in an artesian aquifer
with water levels at least 100 feet above the
ore zone.
• At this time, we think the native ground
water should be fresh (less than 10,000 ppm
TDS) .
• For economic recovery, the perme~bility
should probably be above 0.5 ,P m (500 mil-
lidarcies) .
• Ore in impe~.eable calcite cemented zones,
clay stringers, and carbonaceous zones should
not be considered mineable.
• The natural hydraulic gradient should not
cause ground water flows greater than about
100 feet per year.
• The geological factors affecting hydrology
should permit the operator to confine the
leach solution within the areal and vertical
extent of the mining target.
• The deposit should be within economic depth
limitations (1200 feet or less at present).
• Economically mineable deposits roughly are
limited, in my judgement, to portions of the
deposit containing at least 0.02 weight per
cent uranium with a minimum thickness of two
feet.
• In order to provide sufficient time to solve
unanticipated problems, the deposit should be
large enough to support several years of eco-
nomic operation.
A favorable response to each of the eleven points in-
dicates that a deposit is well suited for leaching.
Negative responses do not condemn a deposit but do
illuminate areas of concern which may require careful
study and innovative designs.
The evaluation program described below is one we
have successfully used to characterize both ideal and
non-ideal uranium deposits. It is a sequential pro-
gram designed to provide priority information as re-
quired by planning and design constraints. Conduct-
ing the program cannot, in itself, guarantee a suc-
cessful operation. However, it will provide the
basic information required for the development of a
profitable and successful project. The final totals
on the balance sheet will be determined by the human
factor.
DESCRIPTION OF THE EVALUATION PROGRAM
The objective of in situ leaching is to effec-
tively contact a uranium deposit in place, to selec-
tively oxidize the uranium, and to form a stable,
soluble uranyl complex which can be recovered above
ground. All of these phenomena occur in a complex,
sensitive environment in which minor perturbations
in the geochemistry can lead to a precipitous
ceasation of one or more of these necessary events.
The evaluation program is divided into six ma-
jor catagories, Table I. Of highest priority is the
estimation of the quantity of leachable uranium pre-
sent at levels above the economic grade and grade-
thickness limitations. (The concentration of uranium
in the ore, the ore grade, is expressed in units of
weight percent. The grade-thickness of the ore is
the product of the average grade and ore thickness
expressed in units of percent-feet). These para-
meters provide a direct indication of the quality
and quantity of ore. They are determined from gamma
logging of closely spaced drill holes (50 to 100
foot centers being typical) accompanied by uranium
core analysis or direct uranium assay logging.
Gamma-logging measures gross gamma radiation which
emanates from uranium decay products and indicates
only the possible presence of uranium. Direct ura-
nium assays are necessary to confirm this presence
and the true location and quality of the reserve.
From this information, an estimate of the in-place
uranium reserve is formulated.
Utilizing the above data, we begin to assess
the quantity and quality of the leachable reserve.
Analysis of self-potential and resistivity logs in
conjunction with uranium logs will identify those
zones which contain uranium and display apparent
high permeabilities. Similarly, zones with exten-
sive calcite cementation or dense clay sedimentation
are located and uranium within such zones is ex-
cluded. (Interpretation of these logs should be
confirmed by core description and analyses). Even
with these supporting data, judgements concerning
the distribution of uranium between permeable and
"non-permeable" zones remain subjective. However,
in many deposits, a significant fraction of the
uranium is located in the so-called "non-permeable"
or tight zones and will not be readily leached.
Failure to exclude these reserves can result in an
overtly optimistic estimate of the leachable reserve
and of project profitability. Subtracting the "non-
permeable" reserves from the in-place total yields
an estimate of the leachable reserve.
SPE 9504
To this quantity is applied a recovery factor
which yields an estimate of the recoverable uranium.
The magnitude of this factor is sensitive to the na-
ture of the deposit and the process design. As such,
each deposit will have a unique recovery factor.
Typical factors range from fifty to eighty percent.
RESERVOIR HYDROLOGIC CHARACTERIZATION
Given that an economic quantity of recoverable
reserves are present, we proceed to phase II of the
program; namely, evaluation of the hydrologic char-
acteristics of the deposit. Information desired
includes the formation permeability, direction and
rate of natural ground water movement, aquifer pres-
sure (static water level) as well as a description of
the ground water quality. Essential features of pump
testing for determination of formation permeability
are discussed by Chamberlain (1,2). A minimum set
of one pump well and two observation wells completed
in the mineralized zone with the latter wells ori-
ented at right angles to the pump well will serve as
sources for much of the data. Static water levels
will confirm the artesian nature of the aquifer and
can be utilized to estimate the direction and rate
of ground water flow. Analyses of well water sam-
ples provide the desired description of the typical
water quality. A pumping test in which the central
well is pumped at a measured rate while water level
drawdown is measured in the two observation wells
will yield an aquifer permeability value. The draw-
down difference between the two wells and their dis-
tances from the pumping well are used to calculate
the aquifer storage coefficient.
HOST FORMATION r.HARAr.'T'F.RT7I\TION
The third phase provides a means for assessing
the physical, chemical, and mineralogical character-
istics of the ore body. As outlined in Table II,
cores are subjected to a variety of laboratory tests
which focus on characteristics important to in situ
leaching. We must carefully select the coring sites
to ensure the samples are representative of host
formation variations within the are body. A typical
program might include twenty samples representing
the areal and vertical extent of the are body.
Physical properties such as density, permea-
bility, porosity, and particle size distribution are
indicators of the ease with which water will flow
through the formation. Similarly, variations in the
clay content point to areas of potential low flow or
loss of flow during leaching.
Petrographic analysis of thin sections provide
insight into the mineralogy, texture, alteration,
and any other observable characteristics of the host
formation. Similar to the entire program, the goal
of this analysis is to identify sources of potential
problems during leaching.
Identification of the clays, their cation ex-
change capacity, and dominate cations is valuable
in selecting cations for the lixiviant system. In
a calcium montmorillonite rich formation, we can
anticipate that a sodium carbonate lixiviant will
cause a significant reduction in permeability due
-------------------..-------------------------------~--------------------------------------------------~
DENNIS E. STOVER 3
to the exchange of calcium for sodium within the mont-
morillonite platlets and subsequent swelling of the
clay. With such an environment, ammonia or potassium
carbonate 1ixiviants will induce far less swelling
and leachability studies should focus on these sys-
tems.
Relative to sulfuric acid leaching, alkaline
1ixiviant systems using oxygen or hydrogen peroxide
are considered selective in that relatively low con-
centrations of other oxidizable metals are co-pro-
duced with the uranium. However, minerals typically
present in an ore body do react with oxygen or hydro-
gen peroxide and can limit the amount of oxidant
available to oxidize uranium. For example, pyrite,
molybdenite, and organic carbon are well know oxi-
dant consumers. Pyrite oxidation is particularly
troublesome: it consumes oxidant; it generates
sulfate which in turn promotes gypsum precipitation
and permeability losses; it causes precipitation of
iron oxyhydroxides which plug the formation and co-
precipitate uranium; and it may locally dissolve
calcite, adding to calcite and gypsum plugging prob-
lems elsewhere along a flow path. Humic acids and
lignitic materials not only consume oxidant, but
tend to adsorb the complexed uranium.
When produced in significant quantities,
other oxidizables such as molybdenum, selenium, and
vanadium interfere with ion exchange extraction of
uranium.
Data on the cation composition of the host rock
when combined with similar data for the clays affords
a basis for estimating the cation composition of the
lixiviant and for identifying potential solubility
limiting reactions.
'At completion of this phase, we have a firm
indication of the ore bearing zone's permeability,
its capability to consume OXidant, and of its general
physicochemical nature. Equally important, we have
a measure of the variability or range of these para-
meters within the ore body.
HOST FORMATION - LIXIVIANT AMENABILITY
Maintaining adequate formation permeability
during the operational life is essential to the ef-
ficient recovery of uranium. To this end, laboratory
studies of the permeability sensitivity of the host
formation to various lixiviant systems is an integral
component of the lixiviant selection process.
As in preceeding sections, the importance of
selecting core sites representative of typical con-
ditions within the are body is stressed. It is
readily possible to have vastly different permea-
bility sensitivities within an ore body. Early de-
tection of these differences is important in plan-
ning the project.
Core should be cut in both mineralized sections
and adjacent barren areas. The samples must be care-
fully preserved by freezing or molding in paraffin
to minimize any damage to the core structure or mat-
rix. The number of tests in an evaluation will be
dictated by the extent of ore body variations and
4 EVALUATING URANIUM DEPOSITS FOR SOLUTION MINING
sensitivities to conventional lixiviants such as am-
monium and sodium carbonates.
Samples or plugs are cut from the core and
mounted in a rubber sleeved Hassler tube. Typically,
the plugs are one or two inches long and one inch in
diameter. A pressure equal to the formation pressure
is applied to the exterior of the rubber sleeve to
simulate in situ conditions and to prohibit fluid
channeling along the outside of the plug. A possible
test sequence is illustrated in Table III. Synthetic
or, if available, native ground water is flowed
through the core to estahlish the natural formation
or baseline permeability. Subsequently, a proposed
lixiviant is introduced into the core and the time
dependent permeability response monitored. Reintro-
duction of the ground water permits assessment of the
reversability of any observed permeability damage.
Additional sequencing of various lixiviants provides
a quick measure of their impact. A compound test
such as this is not adequate for distinguishing sub-
tle differences in response. However, we have found
that it does serve as an excellent screening test in
that we can rapidly identify high pluggage lixiviants.
Subsequent testing of less damaging lixiviants are
performed separately with each compared to ground
water.
With alkaline lixiviants, the question is not
whether permeability damage does or does not occur
but rather, what is the nature and extent of the
damage? Following testing, core plugs can be sub-
jected to petrographic analysis by which the nature
of the damage can be identified. The principle ad-
vantage of this testing is that we are able to study
the physical phenomena associated with in situ
leaching with bench scale experiments in a rapid and
reproducible manner.
URANIUM ORE-LIXIVIANT AMENABILITY
Of equal importance is the rate of uranium dis-
solution in the presence of potential lixiviant sys-
tems. This rate is likely to be influenced by com-
binations of oxidant concentration, pH, and anion
concentration. Increased concentration of oxidant
contacting the ore will increase the rate of uranium
dissolution; however, oxidizable minerals with vary-
ing kinetics compete with uranium for the available
oxidant. Depending on these kinetics, increased oxi-
dant concentrations may yield diminishing increases
in the uranium concentration while the sulfate con-
centration increases unabatedly. This increases the
tendency for gypsum precipitation. Similarly, it is
likely that increased carbonate (CO~) concentrations
will increase uranium dissolution, out will also in-
crease the tendency for calcite (CaC0 ) precipitation.
3
The severity of this latter tendency can be moderated
by pH control. A balance among these competing
reactions must be accepted in any operation.
The rate of uranium dissolution is also depen-
dent on the host mineralogy and environment of the
uranium species. Direct characterization of its
response to a lixiviant is readily as-
sessed using batch leach tests. These tests use a
small quantity of ore (100 to 300 g) which is agi-
tated with a known amount of oxident and lixiviant.
SPE 9504
Periodically, samples are withdrawn to identify the
kinetics and extraction Simultaneously,
the oxidant and lixiviant are Typical-
ly, multiple experiments with various concentrations
of oxidant and anions at different pH's are run for
periods of three to eight weeks.
Test ranges for the process variables should
encompass pH levels from less than 7.0 to 10.0, al-
kalinity contents from 0.5 to 20.0 gil (as C0 ) and
oxidant concentrations from 0.1 to 2.0 gil (as3 oxy-
gen equivalents). Typical, optimum conditions will
be within these ranges and they can be identified
most readily by employing statistical experimental
designs, Hunter (3).
These tests do not reproduce the physical ore
body characteristics (permeability, particle size,
etc.) or the fluid dynamics of in situ leaching.
However, agitation provides for highly efficient
contact between the lixiviant system and the ore re-
sulting in a clear demonstration of the responsive-
ness of the ore. This affords the investigator a
view of the relative chemical effectiveness of the
various systems. This information combined with the
results of permeability sensitivity studies shows
which lixiviant systems are compatible with the
physicochemical limitations of the ore body. This
screening process is accomplished with a series of
relatively inexpensive and simple bench scale tests.
It is now necessary to subject only the better lix-
iviant systems to the final phase of the evaluation.
LABORATO.RY LEACH SIMULATION
Simulation or packed column flmv studies allow
us the opportunity to observe the leaching process
under laboratory conditions which closely approxi-
mate field conditions. The observations and hypoth-
eses formulated during the earlier testing phases
are confirmed by these studies. Synergistic phenom-
ena which may have escaped earlier detection are now
evident.
Under an inert atmosphere, a large quantity of
preserved (frozen, anaerobic) ore is disaggregated
and packed into a tubular test vessel which may
range in length from ten to thirty foot. The long
length (flow path) is necessary to ensure that suf-
ficient residence time exists for detection of all
significant physicochemical phenomena. Many reac-
tions (such as chromatographic effects, reprecipi-
tation of minerals, gas blockage, depleted front
movements, etc.) cannot be detected in shorter ves-
sels, Sundar (4).
The simulation is initiated by flooding the
packed vessel with deaerated (reduced) synthetic
ground water to purge entrained gases and soluble
uranium. No matter how carefully the ore was pre-
pared for the test, a finite amount of uranium oxi-
dation occurred. Failure to purge this oxidized
uranium may introduce a significant experimental
artifact into the test results. The effective per-
meability of the packed ore is also determined dur-
ing ground water flushing. At this point, the sim-
ulation begins with the introduction into the vessel
of the oxidant enriched lixiviant system at a
SPE 9504 DENNIS E. STOVER 5

velocity consistent with expected in situ fluid velo-
cities.
During the course of the simulation, effluent
lixiviant samples are periodically analysed for var-
ious constituents. Typically, we analyze for uranium,
sulfate, alkalinity, pH, oxygen, calcium, sodium,
magneSium, ammonia, and, if present in the ore, heavy
metals such as molybdenum, selenium, and vanadate.
As in early phases of the program, the analysis
schedule is designed to acquire data concerning the
rate and quantity of uranium produced, the rate and
quantity of oxidant consumed, the distribution of
oxidant among oxidant consuming components of the ore,
and the cation-clays interactions.
Depending on the leachability of the ore, the
duration of the leaching simulation ranges from a
few weeks to months.
At completion of leaching, additional tests fo-
cusing on post leaching reservoir restoration can be
conducted or the equipment shut in and are samples
taken for petrographic analysis.
Synthesis of the agitated batch leach kinetic
data and the simulation data is the basis for form-
ulating a mathematical leaching model of the ore
body. This model when combined with a hydrologic
(fluid movement) model provides a semi-quantative
predicator model for use in developing an ore body.
This model can be an extremely useful tool in plan-
ning and operating an in situ project. Although
many excellent hydrologic models are commercially
available, the uranium leaching model must be de-
veloped by the investigator. The cost and time re-
quired to accomplish this must be weighed against
not only the potential gain from its use, but also
against the incremental project risk and development
schedule. While many smaller projects may not just-
ify the model development costs, we have benefited
from insights gained during the simulation study.
However, the utility of these data remains
limited by our ability to apply this quantitative
information to the realities of the complex environ-
ment which constitutes a uranium deposit. In situ
uranium leaching is a new technology, one for which
the textbooks are yet to be written, the mathematical
models to be developed, and the complexity of the
process to be fully understood. Until we move far
closer to these aims, the final evaluation of an ore
body will depend on the experience and judgement of
the people involved.
REFERENCES
1. Chamberlain, Peter G: "Field Permeability
Methods for In-Place Leaching", Min. Con-
gress J. (September, 1978) 22-25.
2. Chamberlain, Peter G.: "Evaluating Ore
Bodies for Leaching with Permeability Mea-
surements", Paper SME 79-27 presented at
AIME Annual Meeting, New Orleans, Feb. 18-
22, 1979.
3. Hunter, J. Stuart: "Statistical Design of
Engineering Experiments", AIChE Today
Series, American Institute of Chemical
Engineers, New York (1969).
4. Sundar, P. S.: "In-Situ Leaching Simula-
tion Studies of Uranium Ores", paper SME
78-E-102 presented at AIME Annual Meeting,
Denver, Feb. 28 - Mar. 2, 1978.

Laboratory simulation is far less expensive and

a more convenient engineering method of testing than
is field testing. Both methods suffer from limita-
tions imposed by heterogenities within an ore body.
However, laboratory simulation when combined with a
thorough physicochemical characterization of the ore
body is the preferred method. Not only is it less
expensive, but samples repLesent the range of
heterogenitics can be evaluated.

Perhaps the greatest limitation of laboratory

simulation is "understanding quantitatively the dif-
ferences between the controlled test conditions and
the non-ideal conditions encountered in an under-
ground deposit", Sundar (4).

SUMMARY

Proper evaluation of the host formation and the

leachability of a uranium deposit is the single most
important aspect in planning a successful in situ
uranium leaching project. This program will supply
the quantitative data necessary for such an evalua-
tion. Further, deSigners will find that much of the
information necessary to specify well completions,
locations, and spacing is developed during the pro-
gram.
 TABLE I I
HOST FORMATION CHARACTERIZATION TESTS

TABLE I 1. PHYSICAL PROPERTIES

density
porosity
permeability
particle size distribution
I. Uranium Reserve Determination (sieve analysis)
petrographic analysis
II. Reservoir Hydrologic Characterization clay content

III. Host Formation Characterization

2. CLAY MINERALOGY
IV. Host Formation-Lixiviant Amenability
type identification
V. Uranium Ore-Lixiviant Amenability cation exchange capacity
cation types
VI. Laboratory Leach Simulation

3. CHEMICAL COMPOSITION

calcium selenium
inorganic carbon sodium
iron sulfate
magnesium sulfur
molybdenum uranium
organic carbon vanadium
potassium

TABLE III
TYPICAL PERMEABILITY SENSITIVITY

TEST SEQUENCE

STEP TEST

1 Synthetic Ground Water

2 Sodium Based Lixiviant A

3 Synthetic Ground Water

4 Ammonia Based Lixiviant A

5 Synthetic Ground Water

6 Sodium Based Lixiviant B

7 Synthetic Ground Water

8 Sodium Based Lixiviant B with
Clay Stabilizing Additive