Mine Tailings Stabilization in Arid

and Semi-Arid Environments:

Assessment, Problems, and
Solutions

Tailings deposition strategies, water balance, and liners

Professor David J. Williams
The University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia
Email: D.Williams@uq.edu.au

1
 Context – Challenges
• Tailings deposition challenges:
– Containment wall failures
– Acid, salinity and radon generation
– Tailings and water management:
• Seepage through wall causing tree deaths
• Seepage to groundwater potentially causing contamination
– Dust generation.
• Tailings rehabilitation challenges:
– Mined landform design
– Cover placement on soft tailings
– Overtopping and outer face erosion
– Ongoing seepage through wall and into foundation
– Sustainable revegetation and future land use.

2
 TSF failures

Translation on soft clay layer in foundation

Poor water management

3 Breach
Oxidation of pyritic tailings

Upper 200 mm
oxidised and leached
Intermediate 200 mm
oxidising
Saturated and
unoxidised

4
 Salinity from hypersaline
metalliferous tailings

The process water is hypersaline and the tailings

themselves may also be.

5
TSF wall seepage causing tree deaths

Extent of ponding

Tree deaths
Toe seepage

TSF wall

6
 Tailings dust
Wind-generated

Equipment-generated

7
 Bearing capacity issues

“Bow-waving” of crusted tailings

4-5 m

“Bow-wave”
Too thin a cover over soft tailings
1.5 m

8
 Dealing with soft wet tailings
Subsequent excavation revealed good
mixing to the full depth of the tailings!

Placing a cover hydraulically

Fine seal deposited
away from discharge
Coarse reject Co-disposal
discharge
1.5 m depth of wet tailings
Pushing coarse into slurry

Coarse cover
deposited
near discharge

9
 Outer TSF slopes

Rock armouring & vegetation

Gullying on overtopping

10
 TAILINGS DEPOSITION
STRATEGIES
High density slurry
10” slump paste
7” slump paste

Reducing supernatant

11
DEPOSITION STRATEGY ADVANTAGES DISADVANTAGES
Slurry Easy to pump and High water/chemical loss
manage Segregation
Lowest operating costs Soft and wet deposit
Most difficult and
expensive to rehabilitate
Thickened slurry Reduced water loss Pumping and
Increased density and management more difficult
strength and expensive
Decreased compressibility
Paste Much reduced water loss Pumping and
Much increased density management very difficult
and strength and expensive
Much decreased Steep beach, requiring
compressibility discharge to be moved
Filter cake Transportable by truck or Not pumpable
conveyor Highest operating costs
Co-disposal with coarse Possibly pumpable (coal) May be difficult and/or
Greatly increased density expensive to manage
and strength separate waste streams into
Greatly reduced one
compressibility
Most easy 12to rehabilitate
Surface tailings paste deposition

In-pit co-deposition
Pumped co-disposal
of coal washery wastes
Thickened tailings Waste rock

13
 Tailings continuum (AMEC, 2004)
Complex water management Tailings slurry
Inefficient water recovery (typically segregating)
Poor process chemical recovery
Containment required
Seepage likely Thickened tailings
Rehabilitation difficult (dewatered, ideally non-segregating)

Likely low operating cost,

but high rehabilitation cost Paste tailings
Pumpable
(dewatered, ideally non-bleeding)
CONTINUUM
Simple water management Non-Pumpable
Efficient water recovery
Process chemical recovery “Wet” filter cake
Minimal containment required (near-saturated)
Negligible seepage losses
Progressive rehabilitation
possible
Stable tailings mass “Dry” filter cake
(85 to 70% saturated)
High operating cost,
but low rehabilitation cost

14
DEPOSITION STRATEGY ADVANTAGES
Above-ground storage:
Slurry – valley storage Limited containment
required
Upslope or downslope
Slurry – turkey’s nest Upstream construction
may be feasible
Clean and tailings water
are readily separated
Central thickened Limited containment
required – mainly for water
Denser than slurry
Low profile
Slightly steeper beach
In-pit No containment required
Reduces disturbed
footprint
Can be very cost-effective
Underground backfill No containment required
Gravity delivery possible
May provide support
15
DISADVANTAGES
Low density
Difficult to separate clean
water
Low density
Upstream requires slow
rate of rise and desiccation
Complete containment
required
Large footprint making
rehabilitation expensive
Water return difficult
Underconsolidated due to
rapid rate of rise, and hence
difficult to rehabilitate
Water return difficult
Thickening/paste required
Cement addition is costly
Multiple riser central thickened
discharge

16
 Dry, Net Evaporative Climate
• Dry (semi-arid and arid, as applies to much of
Australia) or net evapotranspirative:
– Naturally, rainfall is balanced by surface evaporation
and transpiration by plants, with little or no recharge to
groundwater, which is typically deep and discontinuous.

17
Annual groundwater recharge
vs Annual rainfall

Arid Semi-arid

18
 Net evaporative vs Net infiltrative
3
RAINFALL / EVAPOTRANSPIRATION

2.5
Kalgoorlie, WA, average annual rainfall = 250 mm

2
Net evapotranspirative

Net infiltrative Moisture

1.5 excess

0.5

0
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000
RAINFALL (mm/year)

19
 Evaporative, No-Flow and
Infiltrative Fluxes
-ve PORE PRESSURE +ve

Evaporative Infiltrative
(“DRY”) (“WET”)

No-Flow

Phreatic surface within
stored tailings

20
 Schematic of operational TSF
water balance

Rainfall Evaporation from

ponded water and
Tailings input wet tailings
Decant
Seepage
recovery
Phreatic Stored wet tailings
surface
Wall seepage
Foundation seepage

Groundwater mounding
Groundwater table

21
 TAILINGS WATER BALANCE
– OPERATIONAL
• Inputs:
– Tailings water, of which a proportion remains entrained
– Rainfall and runoff
– Storage of waste water.
• Losses:
– Evaporation from:
• Ponded water
• Wet tailings
• Desiccating tailings.
– Seepage through:
• Wall
• Foundation.

22
Tailings water balance – Operational
• Best known water volumes are:
– Initial solids concentration of the tailings
– Rainfall
– Evaporation from ponded water.
• Water volumes that can be determined are:
– Entrained water
– Runoff
– Storage of waste water
– Evaporation from wet, desiccating and dry tailings.
• Water volumes that are least well known are:
– Seepage through the wall and into the foundation.

23
 South American TSF – Arid climate
– Operational water balance
• Overall, the estimated annual operational tailings
water balance in this arid climate was:
TW + R + Ww = En + S + Ev, where
TW = Tailings input water = 1.60 m/year
R = Rainfall = 0.35 m/year
Ww = Net waste water = 0.00 m/year
En = Entrained water = 0.57 m/year
S = Foundation seepage = 0.40 m/year
Ev = Surface evaporation = 0.98 m/year

Surface evaporation was 50% of the water balance!

24
 Kidston’s TSF – Semi-arid climate
– Operational water balance
• During operation, approximately 8.0 Mm3/year was
discharged with the tailings.
• In addition, the 400 ha tailings dam catchment
receives ongoing rainfall and run-off averaging
2.8 Mm3/year.
• Of the total average annual input of 10.8 Mm3 to
the operating tailings dam, about 4.0 Mm3 (37% of
the total or 50% of the tailings water) was returned
to the plant, about 4.7 Mm3 (43.5%) remained
entrained, and an estimated 2.1 Mm3 (19.5%) was
lost to evaporation.

25
 Schematic of TSF water balance
post closure

Rainfall Evap otranspiration

from store/release cover

S ealed decant
Stored tailings

Diminishing
wall seepage Diminishing f oundation seepage
Diminishing groundwater mounding

Groundwater table

26
 Kidston’s TSF – Semi-arid climate
– Post-operational water balance
• Of the average 2.8 Mm3/year rainfall and run-off,
the bulk was lost to evaporation (2.1 Mm3/year),
prior to the removal of surface water to Eldridge
Pit.
• Seepage through the tailings wall diminished over
time from perhaps 1 Mm3 (mostly from rainfall) in
the first year towards 0.2 Mm3/year.
• The amount of water entrained within the tailings
slowly diminished as the tailings desiccated.
• With revegetation, run-off reduced.

27
Enhancing evaporation of rainfall

28
Store/release cover system

Rainfall
Evaporation Evapotranspiration
from ponded water from vegetated surface

Nominal 1 to 2 m
loose, rocky soil
Seepage
along ~1% slope Infiltration and storage

Nominal 0.5 m compacted seal

Minor Capillary break

infiltration over saline tailings

Limited oxygen
diffusion Tailings
and infiltration

29
 Uptake of salinity into a cover over
hypersaline tailings
Note transfer of salinity from tailings to cover, destroying salt crust.
TOTAL DISSOLVED SOLIDS (ppm, dry mass basis)
0 10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000 50,000 60,000
1.0
0.5 Cover
0.0
-0.5
ELEVATION (m)

-1.0
-1.5 Tailings
TP1a - Toe
-2.0
TP1a - 2 m outside toe
-2.5 TP1a - 5 m outside toe
-3.0 TP1a - 5 m inside toe
TP2
-3.5 Lake Miranda
Foundation
-4.0

30
 Possible improvements
AIM STRATEGY
To improve water return Thicken, paste or filter cake (i.e. recover water in plant)
Efficient decanting (i.e. recover water from storage)
Treat return water to make it re-usable
Dry processing (under investigation)
To reduce stored volume Disposal at higher % solids (thickened, paste or filter
cake)
Co-disposal with coarse wastes to produce a denser
packing
To hasten rehabilitation Disposal in thin layers (< 1 m), with desiccation between
Disposal at higher % solids (thickened, paste or filter
cake)
Co-disposal with coarse wastes for rapid bearing capacity

31
MONITORING TAILINGS
WATER CYCLE

MONITORING TAILINGS
WATER CYCLE
 Tailings water cycle instrumentation

Matric suction sensor

Piezometer

TDR moisture sensor

33
 Instrumented trial TSF cell
Weather station on TSF

Two instrumentation towers

34
 Deposition in trial TSF cell

Early deposition Further deposition

Final deposition of lift Desiccated tailings

35
 Tailings elevation with time
Initial Further
486 Deposition Deposition

485.5
TAILINGS ELEVATION (RL m)

Consolidation/Desiccation Preparation for

(not captured by Wall Raise
485 visual observation)

484.5

484

483.5

483

482.5

482
May-07 Jun-07 Jul-07 Aug-07 Sep-07 Oct-07 Nov-07 Dec-07
Northern Tower Southern Tower

36
 Rainfall with time
30 90

CUMULATIVE RAINFALL (mm)

25 75
DAILY RAINFALL (mm)

20 60

15 45

10 30

5 15

0 0
May-07 Jun-07 Jul-07 Aug-07 Sep-07 Oct-07 Nov-07 Dec-07
Rainfall at TSF Rainfall Recorded at Cosmos
Cumulative Rainfall at TSF Cumulative Rainfall at Cosmos

37
 Rainfall and tailings inputs
Cumulative Rainfall at TSF Cumulative Tailings Water
Cumulative Tailings Solids Cumulative Entrained Water
Cumulative Entrained Air Settled Tailings Height
4000
Over 80 times rainfall
3500
CUMULATIVE ADDITION (mm)

3000

2500

2000

1500

1000

500

0
May-07 Jun-07 Jul-07 Aug-07 Sep-07 Oct-07 Nov-07 Dec-07

38
 Matric suction with time
Suction Data Collected from Northern Tower
Deposition from 17 May to 19 July & 26 Oct to 16 Nov 2007
10
1@2 2@2 3@2 4@2 5@2
9
6@2 7@2 8@2 9@2 10 @ 2
MATRIC SUCTION (kPa)

8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
0 50 100 150 200 250
Deposition DAYS Deposition

39
 Matric suction profiles with depth
Suction Data Collected from Northern Tower
Deposition from 17 May to 19 July & 26 Oct to 16 Nov 2007
485
Desication 4
SENSOR ELEVATION (RL m)

484.5
484
Desication 3
483.5

483 Desication 2

482.5 Desication 1 Tailings

482 01-Jun-07 15-Jun-07 01-Jul-07 Foundation
15-Jul-07 01-Aug-07 15-Aug-07
01-Sep-07 15-Sep-07 01-Oct-07
481.5 15-Oct-07 01-Nov-07 15-Nov-07
01-Dec-07 15-Dec-07 31-Dec-07
481
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
MATRIC SUCTION (kPa)

40
Wetting up by rainfall

41
TO LINE OR NOT TO LINE?
 TSF under drainage
• Under drainage can be effective in:
– Removing/recovering excess base seepage, particularly
from early lifts
– Increasing the rate of tailings consolidation.
• Under drainage becomes less effective over time:
– As adjacent tailings consolidate, limiting their hydraulic
conductivity to the drains
– As the depth of tailings increases, increasing flow paths.
• Under drainage may need to be in conjunction with
a liner, to control base seepage.

43
 TSF liners
• Liners typically involve
geomembranes.
• Liners for TSFs are not
commonplace, but are
required at locations close
to human habitation where
there is a recognised
potential for contaminated
seepage, e.g. within close
proximity to Charters
Towers in Queensland.
• Liners are more common for
process water ponds.

44
 Liner leakage rates
LINER POTENTIAL LEAKAGE RATE
Under unit hydraulic gradient i i under 3 m head
(m/s) (mm/year) (m/s)
Geomembrane:
Intact 10-14 0.0003 1.5 x 10-11
In practice 10-10 3 1.5 x 10-7
Natural CLAY 10-9 32 10-9
Well-compacted CLAY 10-8 315 6 x 10-8
Poorly-compacted CLAY 10-7 3,150 6 x 10-8
SILT/Tailings 10-6 31,500 10-6
Assumptions: Will pass all ponded rainfall!
1.Thickness of geomembrane = 2 mm.
2.Thickness of natural CLAY = 3 m.
3.Thickness of compacted CLAY = 0.5 m.
4.Thickness of SILT/Tailings = 3 m.

45
Good tailings management

1. Exclude clean runoff

2. Discharge thickened tailings
3. Deposit in thin layers
4. Cycle between lifts and cells
5. Maintain a small decant pond
6. Separate evaporation ponds

46
 Professor David J. Williams
• Professor David J. Williams is the inaugural Golder
Professor of Geomechanics at The University of
Queensland, Brisbane, Australia, and directs the
new Golder Geomechanics Centre within the
School of Engineering.
• He has a First Class Honours Degree in Civil
Engineering from Monash University and a PhD in
Soil Mechanics from Cambridge University.
• After 3 years with Golder Associates, he joined
The University of Queensland (UQ) 25 years ago.

47
 Professor David J. Williams
• At UQ, he has developed an international
reputation for his research, presentations and
expert advice in the application of unsaturated
geomechanics principles to mine waste disposal
and mined landform design.
• His particular contributions include co-disposal,
store/release covers, risk assessment and cost-
effectiveness analysis, product coal dewatering,
dump hydrology, and tailings water balance.

48