# Heap leaching

Gold heap leaching

Heap leaching is an industrial mining process to extract precious metals, copper, uranium, and other compounds from ore via a series of chemical reactions that absorb specific minerals and then re-separates them after their division from other earth materials. Similar to in situ mining, heap leach mining differs in that it places ore on a liner, then adds the chemicals via drip systems to the ore, whereas in situ mining lacks these liners and pulls pregnant solution up to obtain the minerals.

The process has ancient origins; one of the classical methods for the manufacture of copperas (iron sulfate) was to heap up iron pyrite and collect the leachate from the heap, which was then boiled with iron to produce iron sulfate[1]

## Process

Left: ore fines without agglomeration. Right: Ore fines after agglomeration - Improved percolation as a result of agglomeration.

The mined ore is usually crushed into small chunks and heaped on an impermeable plastic and/or clay lined leach pad where it can be irrigated with a leach solution to dissolve the valuable metals. While sprinklers are occasionally used for irrigation, more often operations use drip irrigation to minimize evaporation, provide more uniform distribution of the leach solution, and avoid damaging the exposed mineral. The solution then percolates through the heap and leaches both the target and other minerals. This process, called the "leach cycle," generally takes from one or two months for simple oxide ores (e.g., most gold ores) to two years (for nickel laterite ores). The leach solution containing the dissolved minerals is then collected, treated in a process plant to recover the target mineral and in some cases precipitate other minerals, and then recycled to the heap after reagent levels are adjusted. Ultimate recovery of the target mineral can range from 30% of contained (run-of-mine dump leaching sulfide copper ores) to over 90% for the easiest to leach ores (some oxide gold ores).

In recent years, the addition of an agglomeration drum has improved on the heap leaching process by allowing for a more efficient leach. The rotary drum agglomerator works by taking the crushed ore fines and agglomerating them into more uniform particles. This makes it much easier for the leaching solution to percolate through the pile, making its way through the channels between particles.

The addition of an agglomeration drum also has the added benefit of being able to pre-mix the leaching solution with the ore fines, to achieve a more concentrated, homogeneous mixture, and allowing the leach to begin prior to the heap.[2]

### Precious metals

The crushed ore is irrigated with a dilute alkaline cyanide solution. The solution containing the dissolved precious metals ("pregnant solution") continues percolating through the crushed ore until it reaches the liner at the bottom of the heap where it drains into a storage (pregnant solution) pond. After separating the precious metals from the pregnant solution, the dilute cyanide solution (now called "barren solution") is normally re-used in the heap-leach-process or occasionally sent to an industrial water treatment facility where the residual cyanide is treated and residual metals are removed. In very high rainfall areas, such as the tropics, in some cases there is surplus water that is then discharged to the environment, after treatment, posing possible water pollution if treatment is not properly carried out.[citation needed]

The production of one gold ring through this method, can generate 20 tons of waste material.[3]

During the extraction phase, the gold ions form complex ions with the cyanide:

$Au^+ (s) + 2CN^- (aq) \rightarrow Au(CN)_2^- (aq)$

Recuperation of the gold is readily achieved with a redox-reaction:

$2 Au(CN)_2^- (aq) + Zn (s) \rightarrow Zn(CN)_4^- (aq) + 2 Au (s)$

The most common methods to remove the gold from solution are either using activated carbon to selectively absorb it, or the Merrill-Crowe process where zinc powder is added to cause a precipitation of gold and zinc. The fine product can be either doré (gold-silver bars) or zinc-gold sludge that is then refined elsewhere.

### Copper Ores

The method is similar to the cyanide method, above, except sulfuric acid is used to dissolve copper from its ores. The acid is recycled from the solvent extraction circuit (see solvent extraction-electrowinning, SX/EW) and reused on the leach pad. A byproduct is iron(II) sulfate, jarosite, which is produced as a byproduct of leaching pyrite, and sometimes even the same sulfuric acid that is needed for the process. Both oxide and sulfide ores can be leached, though the leach cycles are much different and sulfide leaching requires a bacterial or "bio-leach" component.

In 2011 leaching (both heap leaching and in-situ leaching) produced 3.4 million metric tons of copper, 22 percent of world production.[4] The largest copper heap leach operations are in Chile, Peru, and the southwestern United States.

Although the heap leaching is a low cost-process, it normally has recovery rates of 60-70%, although there are exceptions. It is normally most profitable with low-grade ores. Higher-grade ores are usually put through more complex milling processes where higher recoveries justify the extra cost. The process chosen depends on the properties of the ore.

The final product is cathode copper.

### Nickel Ores

The method is an acid heap leaching method like that of the copper method in that it utilises sulfuric acid instead of cyanide solution to dissolve the target minerals from crushed ore. The amount of sulfuric acid required is much higher than for copper ores (as high as 1,000 kg of acid per tonne of ore, but 500 kg is more common.) The method was originally patented by Australian miner BHP Billiton and is being commercialized by Cerro Matoso S.A. in Colombia (a wholly owned subsidiary of BHP Billiton), Vale in Brazil, and European Nickel PLC for the rock laterite deposits of Turkey, Talvivaara mine in Finland, Balkans, and the Philippines. There currently are no operating commercial scale nickel laterite heap leach operations, but there is a sulphide HL operating in Finland.

Nickel recovery from the leach solutions is much more complex than for copper and requires various stages of iron and magnesium removal, and the process produces both leached ore residue ("ripios") and chemical precipitates from the recovery plant (principally iron oxide residues, magnesium sulfate and calcium sulfate) in roughly equal proportions. Thus, a unique feature of nickel heap leaching is the need for a tailings disposal area.

The final product can be nickel hydroxide precipitates (NHP) or mixed metal hydroxide precipitates (MHP), which are then subject to conventional smelting to produce metallic nickel.

### Uranium Ores

Diagram of heap leach recovery for uranium (US NRC)

Similar to copper oxide heap leaching, also using dilute sulfuric acid. Rio Tinto is commercializing this technology in Namibia and Australia, the French nuclear power company Areva in Niger (two mines) and Namibia, and several other companies are studying its feasibility.

The final product is yellowcake and requires significant further processing to produce fuel-grade feed.

### Apparatus

While most mining companies have shifted from a previously accepted sprinkler method to the percolation of slowly dripping choice chemicals (cyanide or sulfuric acid) closer to the actual ore bed (Krauth 1990),[5] heap leach pads have not changed too much throughout the years. There are still four main categories of pads: conventional, dump leach, Valley Fills, and on/off pads (Thiel and Smith 2004).[6] Typically, each pad only has a single, geomembrane liner for each pad, with a minimum thickness of 1.5mm (usually it is thicker).

The simplest in design, conventional pads are used for mostly flat or gentle areas and hold thinner layers of crushed ore. Dump leach pads hold more ore and can usually handle a less flat terrain. Valley Fills are pads situated at valley bottoms or levels that can hold everything falling into it. On/off pads involve the use of putting significantly larger loads on the pads, and removing it and reloading it after every cycle.

Many of these mines, which previously had digging depths of about 15 meters, are digging deeper than ever before to mine materials (approximately 50 meters, sometimes more), which means that, in order to accommodate all of the ground being displaced, pads will have to hold higher weights from more crushed ore being contained in a smaller area (Lupo 2010).[7] With that increase in build up comes in potential for decrease in yield or ore quality, as well as potential either weak spots in the lining or areas of increased pressure buildup. This build up still has the potential to lead to punctures in the liner. As of 2004 cushion fabrics, which could reduce potential punctures and their leaking, were still being debated due to their tendency to increase risks if too much weight on too large a surface was placed on the cushioning (Thiel and Smith 2004).[8] In addition, some liners, depending on their composition, may react with salts in the soil as well as acid from the chemical leaching to affect the successfulness of the liner. This can be amplified over time.

## Environmental Concerns

### Effectiveness

Heap leach mining works well for large volumes of low grade ores, as reduced metallurgical treatment (comminution) of the ore is required in order to extract an equivalent amount of minerals when compared to milling. The significantly reduced processing costs are offset by the reduced yield of usually approximately 60-70%. The amount of overall of environmental impact caused by heap leaching is often lower than more traditional techniques. It also requires less energy consumption to use this method, which many consider to be an environmental alternative.

### Government regulation

In the United States, the General Mining Law of 1872 gave rights to explore and mine on public domain land; the original law did not require post-mining reclamation (Woody et al. 2011). Mined-land reclamation requirements on federal land depended on state requirements until the passage of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act in 1976.[9] Currently, mining on federal land must have a government-approved mining and reclamation plan before mining can start. Reclamation bonds are required.[10] Mining on either federal, state, or private land is subject to the requirements of the Clean Air Act and the Clean Water Act.

One solution proposed to reclamation problems is the privatization of the land to be mined (Woody et al. 2011).

### Cultural and Social Concerns

With the rise of the environmentalist movement has also come an increased appreciation for social justice, and mining has showed similar trends lately. Societies located near potential mining sites are at increased risk to be subjected to injustices as their environment is affected by the changes made to mined lands—either public or private—that could eventually lead to problems in social structure, identity, and physical health (Franks 2009).[11] Many[who?] have argued that by cycling mine power through local citizens, this disagreement can be alleviated, since both interest groups would have shared and equal voice and understanding in future goals. However, it is often difficult to match corporate mining interests with local social interests, and money is often a deciding factor in the successes of any disagreements. If communities are able to feel like they have a valid understanding and power in issues concerning their local environment and society, they are more likely to tolerate, and indeed encourage, the positive benefits that come with mining, as well as more effectively promote alternative methods to heap leach mining using their intimate knowledge of the local geography (Franks 2009).

## Examples

### Rum Jungle Mine

One of the oldest and most famous uranium mines in the world, the Rum Jungle Mine in Northern Territory, Australia was constructed in the 1950s, and is today experiencing extreme amounts of environmental degradation and acid rock drainage that are leading to further negative impacts on the surrounding river and ecosystems (Ferguson et al. 2011).[12] This mine includes three overburdened heaps, two flooded open cuts, and a backfilled open cut, as well as numerous former tailings and heap leach pads. These leach pads caused considerable contamination to soils as chemicals seeped through them. There was attempted rehabilitation in the 1980s, but there are still high evidences of environmental problems today (Mudd and Patterson 2010).[13] These waste sites caused the local river to maintain water that is highly unsafe due to its acidity, high concentrations of target minerals, and other toxic chemicals, many of which are said to have originally leached out of (Ferguson et al. 2011). While the highest concentrations have stayed near the buffer zones of the mine and in the East Finniss River, those that did make it into the Finniss River pose a serious and ongoing public threat to those living nearby who used the river daily (Ferguson et al. 2011). Now, years later, it is still posing a serious environmental risk to those around the mine (Mudd and Patterson 2010).

### Ranger Uranium Mine

The Ranger Uranium Mine in Northern Australia showed a significant increase in erodibility of lands when in contact with materials treated from chemical mining (Riley 1995).[14] This could manifest itself in landslides and loss of habitat, as well as an increase in gravel composition that could cause other potential problems. If these lands can be planted with vegetation that can survive more acidic conditions, however likely that may be, they may be able to avoid eroding materials into other, less mine-contaminated ecosystem (Riley 1995). Given the likelihood of this, though, more rehabilitation measures are being sought after.

The Australian government, which deals with negative environmental effects from many historic mines, now requires steps to address environmental and social concerns. Alternative locations must be analyzed in mining proposals, as well as rehabilitation plans, externalities (and possible solutions), groundwater and infrastructure changes, gained or lost opportunities, socio-economic impacts, and risks, as well as measures taken to reduce or eliminate therisks (Department of Natural Resources, Environment, the Arts and Sport 2009).[15]

### Fort Belknap, Montana

Located on the Fort Belknap Indian Reservation, the Zortman-Landusky gold mine in Montana was one of many early heap leach mines that experienced problems with spills and contamination of surface and groundwater. Although the leaks happened in the 1980s, and the mine was eventually shut down in 1996, health problems on the reservation persist, and as not all of the mine was properly cleaned up, could potentially cause further damage to the people of Fort Belknap (Woody et al. 2011).[16] Zortman-Landusky eventually filed bankruptcy when the Bureau of Land Management stepped in to assist the lawsuit that was not heard by the residents of the reservation. Once the bankruptcy was filed, however, all health care and studies ceased, and compensation for the destruction of culturally significant mountain peaks to the local Assiniboine and Gros Ventre people was never achieved (Klauk 2012).[17] Today, there are still abnormally high reports of health problems including thyroid problems, lead poisoning, chemical burns, and emphysema (especially in children) (Klauk 2012).

## References

1. ^ Industrial England in the Middle of the Eighteenth Century, Nature, Vol, 83, No. 2113, Thursday, April 28, 1910; page 267.
2. ^ "Agglomeration Drums in the Heap Leaching Process". FEECO International, Inc. Retrieved 21 February 2013.
3. ^ Gage B. & G. 2008. American Outrage. USA: Human Rights Watch.
4. ^ US Geological Survey, 2011 Minerals Yearbook - Copper, 2012.
5. ^ Krauth, Richard G. 1991 Controlled Percolation System and Method for Heap Leach Mining. United States Patent 5,005,806. April 9, 1991.
6. ^ Thiel, Richard, and Mark E. Smith 2004 State of the practice review of heap leach pad design issues. Geotextiles and Geomembranes 22(5): 555-568
7. ^ Lupo, John F. 2009 Liner system design for heap leach pads. Geotextiles and Geomembranes 28(12): 163-173
8. ^ Thiel, Richard, and Mark E. Smith 2004 State of the practice review of heap leach pad design issues. Geotextiles and Geomembranes 22(5): 555-568
9. ^
10. ^ Nevada Division of Minerals, Modern mining reclamation.
11. ^ Franks, Daniel 2009 Avoiding Mine-Community Conflict: From Dialogue to Shared Futures. In: Jacques Wiertz and Chris Moran, Proceedings of the First International Seminar on Environmental Issues in the Mining Industry. Enviromine 2009, Santiago, Chile, (x-x). 30 Sept- 2 Oct 2009
12. ^ Ferguson, Paul R., Christoph Wels, and Mike Fawcett 2011 Current Groundwater Quality Conditions at the Historic Rum Jungle Mine Site, Northern Australia. Tailings and Mine Waste 2011: Vancouver, BC. November 6 to 9, 2011
13. ^ Mudd, Gavin M, and James Patterson 2010 Continuing pollution from the Rum Jungle U-Cu project: A critical evaluation of environmental monitoring and rehabilitation. Environmental Pollution 158(1): 1252-1260
14. ^ Riley, SJ 1995 Aspects of the differences in the erodibility of the waste rock dump and natural surfaces, Ranger Uranium Mine, Northern Territory, Australia. Applied Geography 15(4): 309-323
15. ^ Department of Natural Resources, Environment, the Arts and Sport 2009 Guidelines for Preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement. Ranger Uranium Mine—Heap Leach Facility. Energy Resources of Australia Ltd, Northern Territory Government
16. ^ Woody, Carol Ann., Robert M. Hughes, Eric J. Wagner, Thomas P. Quinn, Leanne H. Roulson, Lori M. Martin, and Kitty Griswold 2010 The mining law of 1872: Change is overdue. Fisheries 35(7): 321-331
17. ^ Klauk, Erin 2012 The Fort Belknap Reservation and Gold Mining. Impacts of Resources Development on Native American Lands. Geoscience Education at Montana State University