Optimization of ISRI j ti d E t ti S tInjection andExtractionSystemsPresented by:Shawn LeppertLeppert AssociatesNRC/NMAUraniumRecovery WorkshopJuly 1-2, 2009Denver, ColoradoA Uranium Mine ProspectOpportunity–Uranium Ore has been Delineated within a Fluvial DepositsFound within water-bearing geologic units 100+ feet below ground surfaceData indicate the uranium is potentially present in mineable quantitiesDataindicatetheuraniumispotentiallypresentinmineablequantitiesChallenge-Can the Uranium Ore be Extracted Cost EffectivelyUsing Hydraulic Methods; if so How?Understand the subsurface settingGeology Hydrology & GeochemistryMaximize the Extraction of Uranium Ore Efficient Lixiviant Delivery/RecoveryMinimize Environmental Liability Placement of Monitoring NetworkUnderstandthesubsurfacesettingGeology,Hydrology,&GeochemistryMinimize Required RestorationTight Control of Lixiviant DistributionContributing FactorsSubstantial Site Surface and Subsurface DataFluid Hydraulics are PredictableMinimizeRequiredRestorationTightControlofLixiviantDistributionFluidHydraulicsarePredictableUncertain Shallow Geology (even witha large number of geologic logs)Solution–Develop A Regimented Quantitative Decision FrameworkSite Specific Information has been Modified to Protect Its Propriety NatureQuantitative Analysis as a Part of theRegimented Decision FrameworkA Hydraulic Simulator IntegratesHydrogeologic and HydrogeochemicalData into a Dynamic Decision FrameworkDataintoaDynamicDecisionFrameworkThe Decision Framework can Evolve asan Understanding of the SubsurfaceQuantitative Analysis Tools Have AdvancedSince the Last ISR Mine PermittedW ll T t d A t d d P ti blIncreases9Accurate Extraction/Injection Well Simulation9Finite-Element Surface Representation9Dynamic Front Generation9Explicit Water Table EmulationWellsTested,AcceptedandPracticableAccurateExtraction/InjectionWellSimulationDynamicFrontGeneration9Direct Simulation of Separate Liquids9Telescopic Mesh Refinement9Faulting/Fracturing9Coupling with Geochemical ModelFEFLOW Model Development3⁄4Finite-Element Mesh54 Layers, 55 SurfacesTelescopic MeshTotal of 1,050,408 ElementsFEFLOW Model DevelopmentAerial View3⁄4Finite-Element Mesh54 Layers, 55 SurfacesTelescopic MeshCross-Section B-B’Cross-Section B-B’Cross-Section C-C’Cross-Section C-C’3⁄4Porous MediaProperty DistributionTotal of 1,050,408 ElementsGeology Defined by LogsVery Fine Grained MediaFine Grained MediaUranium SymposiumFEFLOW Model Development3⁄4Finite-Element Mesh54 Layers, 55 SurfacesTelescopic MeshLateral Inflow ofGroundwaterRiver Influenceon AquiferPrecipitation-BasedRecharge3⁄4Porous MediaProperty DistributionTotal of 1,050,408 Elementso qu e3⁄4H d li B d iGeology Defined by th LogsVery Fine Grained MediaFine Grained MediaHydraulicBoundariesPrecipitation RechargeLocal CreekLateral FlowFEFLOW Model Development3⁄4Finite-Element Mesh54 Layers, 55 SurfacesTelescopic MeshGeneratorPumpP iHypothetical3⁄4Porous MediaProperty DistributionTotal of 1,050,408 ElementsGeneratorPumpControllerPumpingWell3⁄4H d li B d iGeology Defined by th LogsVery Fine Grained MediaFine Grained MediaFlowControl/MeterApparatus3⁄4HydraulicBoundariesPrecipitation RechargeLocal CreekLateral FlowWell 1Well 2 SimWell 3 SimWell 1 SimWell 3Well 23⁄4CalibrationHydraulic Stress TestsParameter EstimationTarget – Hydraulic HeadsParameterEstimationLixiviant Delivery/RecoverySystem DesignOre Body ScenarioModeratePermeabilityMixedPermeabilityUraniumOreLowPermeabilityLixiviant Delivery/RecoverySystem DesignOre Body ScenarioExamine the InjectionLixiviant Delivery/RecoverySystem DesignOre Body ScenarioExamine the InjectionMechanical DesignLixiviant Delivery/RecoverySystem DesignOre Body ScenarioExamine the InjectionMechanical DesignOptimized DesignOptimizedDesignLixiviant Delivery/RecoverySystem DesignOre Body ScenarioExamine the InjectionMechanical DesignOptimized DesignOptimizedDesignSweeping DesignLixiviant Delivery/RecoverySystem DesignOre Body Scenario(1) Volume of Ore Zone havingComparison CriteriaExamine the Injection(1)VolumeofOreZonehavinga Lixiviant Saturation >50%•Maximize Delivery•Favorable if the Lixiviant is ControlledMechanical DesignOptimized DesignFavorableiftheLixiviantisControlled(2) Average Residence Time of LixiviantOptimizedDesignSweeping Design•Maximize Recovery ... Minimize Residence Time(3) Volume of Lixiviant Remaining after 1⁄2Scenario Comparison(3)VolumeofLixiviantRemainingafter1⁄2Year of Clean-Water Injection/Extraction•Minimize Restoration ActivitiesLixiviant Delivery/RecoverySystem DesignOre Body ScenarioExamine the Injection 2 days

, 152 ft 3 6 ft 3Mechanical DesignOptimized Design 13 106 days

4,449 , 3,112,03 6 f t 3 ft 3OptimizedDesignSweeping Design 79 days

2,898762 f 3,112,036Scenario Comparison 88,608 ft 3 102,762 ft 3MechanicalOptimizeSweepingQuantitative Hydrogeologic DecisionFrameworkGeologyData Evaluation DecisionPilot Tests & AdditionalCharacterizationHydrologyQuantitative ModelElectronicHydraulic PropertyEstimationGW Quality Tables(dynamic)Hydrostratigraphy Tables(static)Hydrologic Tables(dynamic)Event Tables (dynamic)Database10 .5L egendNF ra c tio n o fIn je c tio n M a te ria lLixiviant Delivery &Recovery System DesignGeochemistryGeochemical Table (Static)Well Construction Tables(static)(dynamic)LS 5011MLS 5012MLS5013M0 .10 .0 50 .0 10 .0 0 50 .0 0 10 .0 0 0 50 .0 0 0 1L o s t S o ld ie rA re a o f In te re s tD raw n b y : M A W0 2 /2 3 /0 7PotSurflpkF in a l L in eS te a d y S ta teW e llSystem PerformanceMonitoringReports/PermitsReclamationGeophysicalConclusionsDemonstrated how the Quantitative Decision Framework can be used toAssist in the Design of a Hydraulic Lixiviant Deliveryand RecoverySystemy y yyOptimize the design to maximize its efficiencyComparison of three design alternativesusing three quantitative design criteriaDesign a system the will control thelixiviant so as to require onlyminor restoration effortsOne can Infer How the Decision Framework can Assist in the otherPlace an effective subsurface monitoring networkDevelop a thorough understanding of the subsurface settingChallengesEnd