2016
DOI: 10.1016/j.oregeorev.2016.06.016
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

In situ recovery, an alternative to conventional methods of mining: Exploration, resource estimation, environmental issues, project evaluation and economics

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
48
0

Year Published

2016
2016
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
6
3

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 115 publications
(57 citation statements)
references
References 3 publications
0
48
0
Order By: Relevance
“…In essence, blended filtered tailings and waste rock in transit create a product that reduces oxygen flow and yields improved shear strength and better physical stability. This eliminates the need to keep (Seredkin et al 2016) that involves metal leaching underground without producing any tailings on land.…”
Section: Advantages and Disadvantages Of Submarine Tailings Disposal mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In essence, blended filtered tailings and waste rock in transit create a product that reduces oxygen flow and yields improved shear strength and better physical stability. This eliminates the need to keep (Seredkin et al 2016) that involves metal leaching underground without producing any tailings on land.…”
Section: Advantages and Disadvantages Of Submarine Tailings Disposal mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…DISB combines indirect bioleaching, where the abiotic dissolution of a sulfidic ore or concentrate by an acidic, ferric iron-rich lixiviant and the biological regeneration of oxidised iron following the stripping of the target solubilised metal(s), are spatially separated (e.g., Reference [29]) with in situ leaching (ISL) which is, as noted, not a new concept. An ISL process for recovering uranium was first introduced in the USA in 1959 and was estimated to account for 51% of global U production in 2014 [30]. Copper was also recovered using ISL in, e.g., Nevada and Arizona in the 1970s-1990s [31].…”
Section: Deep In Situ Biominingmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…ISL has been most often applied to uranium leaching and accounts for a large proportion of uranium production. Acidic (sulfuric acid) or alkaline (ammonium or sodium bicarbonate/carbonate) lixiviant systems are typically used, although a much wider range of lixiviants are now being considered [9]. However, it is noteworthy that there have been many instances of poor environmental outcome from poorly/unmanaged uranium ISL operations [10].…”
Section: In Situ Technologies Mining Technologiesmentioning
confidence: 99%