Search Documents

By Vlad Ruzicka

"Uranium deposits in the Rabbit Lake-Collins Bay area are associated with the sub-Athabasca unconformity which separates crystalline Archean or Aphebian basement rocks from Helikian clastic sedimentary rocks of the Athabasca Group. The basement rocks are a part of Wollaston lithostructural domain.Most of the high grade deposits, such as Collins Bay ‘A’ and 'B' Zones and Eagle Point are associated with altered rocks of the basal unit of the Wollaston Group. Some deposits, such as Raven and Horseshoe are confined to the uppermost unit of this Group. The Rabbit Lake deposit occurs in the middle, meta-arkose unit of the sequence. Locations of some deposits (Rabbit Lake, Collins Bay ‘A’ and 'B' Zones) are also controlled by thrust faults, such as Rabbit Lake Fault and Collins Bay Fault.The deposits contain either monometallic (uranium) mineralization (Rabbit Lake, Raven, Horseshoe) or polymetallic (mainly uranium-nickel) assemblages (Collins Bay “A’ and 'B' Zones).IntroductionThe Athabasca Basin region, a part of the Churchill Geological Province of the Canadian Shield, is composed of Archean and Aphebian crystalline basement and younger, Helikian, unmetamorphosed supracrustal rocks. The Rabbit Lake-Collins Bay area is situated at the eastern margin of the Athabasca Basin region, which hosts a substantial proportion of Canadian uranium resources.The crystalline basement complex was subdivided by Lewry and Sibbald (1979) into lithostructural domains and these domains were grouped into major crustal units designated, from northwest to southeast, as Western Craton, Cree Lake Mobile Zone, consisting of Wollaston, Mudjatic and Virgin River domains, and Rottenstone Complex (Fig. 1)."

Jan 1, 1986

By Roger T. Laine

"The Carswell structure, located in the western part of the Athabasca Basin, northern Saskatchewan, has been extensively explored since 1967. This exploration has been successful and lead to the discovery, in 1970, of the D sandstone-hosted unconformity related deposit. By the end of 1984, five additional basement-hosted unconformity related deposits had been delineated: the OP and N discovered in 1970, the Claude in 1971, the Dominique-Peter in 1981, and the Dominique-Janine in 1984. The D deposit has been mined out; the Claude open-pit has already produced more than 500 tonnes of uranium, the development of the Dominique-Peter underground mine (first phase) has been completed, and production from the latter started in 1985.All six deposits are located in the southern part of the Aphebian metamorphic core, 18 km in diameter, which has intruded at least 1250 metres of Helikian Athabasca Group sediments during a cryptoexplosion event at 480 Ma, unrelated to the emplacement of uranium mineralization. The metamorphic rocks, affected by the Hudsonian Orogeny, are divided in two lithostratrigraphic units: the Peter River gneiss, aluminous gneiss series, and the Earl River complex, mixed quartzofeldspathic and mafic gneiss series. A well developed regolith profile is recognizable in the south along the contact with the sandstone and inside the metamorphic core sometimes associated with conformable sandstone beds.Basement and sandstone-hosted uranium deposits show many similarities:-linkage to unconformity;-mineralogy and geochronology with a first phase mineralization characterized by a polymetallic sulphide-uraninite-brannerite assemblage dated at 1150 to 1050 Ma, a second phase characterized by a simple sulphide-uraninite assemblage dated at 890 to 820 Ma, and a third phase characterized by a pitchblende-hematite dated at 380 Ma; and,-linkage to early Hudsonian structures with remobilization of these structures during intense hydrothermal alteration resulting in Mg chlorite-illite halos."

Jan 1, 1986

By Ravindra M. Chhatre

Uranium associated with phosphate deposits has been the subject of numerous investigations (1-8). In the land-pebble phosphate deposits of central Florida, uranium is found in the phosphate matrix (ore) and in the leached zone between the over-burden and matrix (1). Between 0.01 to 0.02 percent uranium is found in the leached zone, which consists of apatite and aluminum phosphate minerals (crandallite, wavellite, millisite) (Z). The primary phosphate mineral in the matrix is apatite, and the 0.005 to 0.01 percent uranium typically found in the matrix is associated with this mineral (1). It is generally believed that uranium substitutes for calcium in the apatite structure (3-5). Clay and quartz phases associated with phosphate deposits contain little uranium (1, 6), and no descrete uranium minerals have been detected in these deposits (4). A typical phosphate matrix consists of quartz, slimes (-150 mesh material) and recoverable phosphate. When the matrix is beneficiated, partition of uranium and radium takes place (9, 10). Although considerable data exists on how uranium is distributed in the phosphate deposits, no systematic study has recently been reported on the distribution of uranium during phosphate rock beneficiation. The purpose of this study was to determine how uranium is distributed in the various strata which comprise the overall land-pebble phosphate deposits, as well as how the uranium is redistributed during beneficiation of phosphate matrix. To obtain this information studies were carried out on matrix samples obtained from three different mines in central Florida. Using pilot-plant scale beneficiation, an analysis was performed on how uranium in the matrix is distributed among the pebble fractions, flotation concentrates, flotation tails, and slimes. The uranium level profile for an active mining area was also obtained. Also, since thousands of acres of slime ponds may someday become a source of both phosphate and uranium, a depth versus uranium content profile was determined for an inactive slime pond.

Jan 1, 1978

By David S. Robertson

"IntroductionCanada has been one of the world's leading producers of uranium since atomic energy first became of practical importance in 1942. Indeed, prior to this time, between 1933 and 1940, Canada produced significant amounts of pitchblende, as a source of radium, from the Eldorado Mine at Great Bear Lake*.Uranium was first reported in Canada, however, in the middle of the 19th Century in the vicinity of Theano Point on Lake Superior north of Sault Ste. Marie. In the early 1900s, uranium-bearing minerals were reported in Quebec north of the St. Lawrence River and in pegmatites in Quebec and eastern Ontario. In 1930, G.A. LaBine and E.C. St. Paul visited an occurrence of cobalt reported by the Geological Survey of Canada in 1900, and brought the Eldorado Mine into production in 1933, as noted above, producing, in the main, silver and pitchblende.In 1942, developments in atomic energy were such that the Government of Canada, at the behest of Great Britain and the United States, requested that Eldorado, which had been closed in 1940, be re-opened to produce uranium for the Manhattan Project. In September, 1943, all discoveries of radioactive minerals were reserved to the Crown and their staking by private interests was banned. In January, 1944, the government nationalized Eldorado and formed a Crown corporation, the present Eldorado Nuclear Limited, to take over the assets. That year marked the formal beginning of uranium exploration in Canada.The Period 1944 to 1948In 1944, the Crown Corporation and the Geological Survey of Canada began exploring for uranium deposits, largely in the areas of Great Bear Lake and Lake Athabasca. In that year, A. W. Joliffe of the Survey visited properties on the north shore of Lake Athabasca near Beaverlodge Lake and recommended that Eldorado acquire claims in the area. In 1946, P. St. Louis and E. Laurum, prospectors working for Eldorado, found the pitchblende veinlets that led to the Ace Mine. Shaft sinking began in 1951, and production, through a carbonate leach plant, began in 1953.Continuing drilling on the Eldorado claims led to the Verna ore bodies, some 6,000 feet northeast of Ace, on which shaft sinking started in 1954."

Jan 1, 1986

By K. Soldenhoff, M. Fainerman-Melnikova

The use of strong base resins for uranium recovery is severely affected by the presence of chloride ions in solution. In areas where high-quality process water is not readily available, the use of saline water would extend the potential application for ion exchange in uranium processing. This study presents measurements of uranium uptake, using a wide range of commercially available weak base anionic exchangers, from solutions with chloride concentrations ranging from 2.5 to 22 g/L Cl. Out of 14 weak base anionic resins tested, 3 were identified that were not severely impacted by the presence of chloride and significantly outperformed a gel strong base resin typically used for uranium recovery in high-chloride environments. The uranium loading was sufficiently high for the consideration of development of the application of uranium recovery from uranium ores leached with seawater.

Jan 1, 2012

By A. Himsley

This paper presents a review of the existing ion exchange resin systems for treating unclarified pregnant liquor, with particular reference to uranium extraction. A new concept of a truly continuous ion exchange system is described and operating details are given,of a 0.6.-m (24 in.) diameter pilot plant treating unclarified acid leach liquor.

Jan 1, 1977

By L. B. Bramlett

The Archean (2.65 b.y.) aged Canning Stock at Copper Mountain, Wyoming contains an average of 20 ppm U. The North Canning and Fuller deposits occur within the enriched interior of the stock. Post-Laramide development of super gene enrichment blankets occurred in wide (25- 100 m) crushed zones. Hematite and chlorite accompany pyrite and sooty pitchblende in the mineralized zones. Reduction mechanisms proposed for deposition of pitchblende are: 1) sulfides, 2) hydrocarbons, 3) bacteria, 4) the water table, or 5) some combination of these. Abundant tar- type organics appear to have preserved the enrichment blankets from degradation. Trace element and radiometric data define target zones, but exploration models focus on favorable structure.

Jan 1, 1980

By Sunil S. Gandhi

"Uranium occurrences are widely distributed in tuffaceous-argillaceous beds and abundant rhyolitic volcanic rocks of the upper Aillik group, which is more than 3 km thick and over 125 km by 40 km in areal extent. They include partially developed Kitts and Michelin deposits, containing 1560 and 7366 t U respectively.Uranium occurs mainly as disseminated fine pitchblende grains in beds and lenticular stratabound zones, and rarely as coarse pitchblende aggregates and thin veinlets. The Kitts deposit and ten other occurrences are in the argillaceous-tuffaceous beds within a steeply dipping stratigraphic zone, less than 50 m thick and over 20 km long, at the base of the upper Aillik group. The occurrences hosted by the rhyolitic rocks, numbering over fifty and including the Michelin deposit, are in elongate structural-stratigraphic belts or zones, and are characterized by a pronounced enrichment of soda and depletion of potash associated with mineralization. The mineralized zones are affected to a varying degree by Hudsonian deformation, metamorphism and granitic intrusions.The uranium mineralization is interpreted as genetically related to the felsic volcanism, involving syngenetic deposition in argillaceous-tuffaceous beds and epigenetic emplacement in rhyolites. The volcanic activity occurred 1855 ± 5 Ma ago according to a preliminary U-Pb zircon date on porphyritic rhyolite. Pitchblendesfrom the Kitts and Michelin deposits and a few other occurrences in rhyolites have yielded nearly concordant dates in 1810 to 1730 Ma range. They reflect resetting of isotopic equilibrium at the time of Hudsonian deformation. Other isotopic data on pitchblendes and galena from veins and aggregates .in the south near the 'Grenville Front' indicate local redistribution of uranium and radiogenic lead at the time of Grenville Orogeny approximately 1100 Ma ago."

Jan 1, 1986

By R Thomson

The use of uranium metal in non-ferrous metallurgical practice is dis-cussed with reference to its alloying behaviour and chemical activity. It is suggested that the more promising applications are in the treatment of molten metals to combine with impurities. Mines Branch work along these lines is described for copper, zinc, magnesium, aluminum and nickel alloys. It is shown that a cop-per-uranium master alloy (25 per cent U) successfully deoxidizes molten copper without detriment to the electrical or mechanical properties of the product at residual uranium levels of up to 0.8 wt. per cent. Additions of uranium to alpha brass in amounts greater than the lead impurity content were found to remove the deleterious effect of lead on hot-workability. Similar deoxidizing and malleableizing effects were found with uranium additions to nickel. It is thought that uranium forms stable intermetallic compounds with many impurity elements. A significant malleableizing effect can therefore be expected in the presence of other elements besides lead.

Jan 1, 1963

By John B. Goddard

In-situ leaching of uranium by aqueous ammonium carbonate containing oxygen or hydrogen peroxide as oxidant results in the partial dissolution of sulfides. While some of the sulfide sulfur is oxidized to sulfate, a considerable portion is oxidized only to thiosulfate and polythionates. Polythionates poison the anion exchange resin used to extract uranium. At the Palangana operation in southeast Texas, the trithionate ion (S3062-) was found by infrared spectrometry to be the major resin poison. Treatment of ion exchange feed solutions with hydrogen peroxide only resulted in partial conversion of reduced sulfur species to sulfate, and trithionate conversion was particularly slow. Poisoning of the resin also occurred from the ammonium chloride eluant, which built up trithionate because of recycling. This was essentially eliminated by chlorinating the eluant prior to yellow cake precipitation.

Jan 1, 1984

By Brian Lewis

"IntroductionThe leaching method selected for the dissolving of uranium ore depends in part on the physical characteristics of the ore, as well as the uranium mineralization. There are two main methods of leaching employed in uranium circuits in North America, one being ""Carbonate Leaching"" on sandstone, and pitchblende type ores, and ""Acid Leaching"", on quartzite type ores.This chapter deals with the acid leaching of uranium ores found in the Elliot Lake area, using sulphuric acid, for the leaching reagent, and ""pachucas"" for the contactor.The basic leaching process involves the pregrinding of the ore and the mixing of the ore with hot sulphuric acid, the mixture is air agitated, the air being used to oxidize the ore as well as produce agitation. The chemical reaction is as follows: Uranium Oxide + Sulphuric Acid = Uranyl SulphateThe following equations show the actual dissolution of the ""Hexavalent Uranium"", which show that more than one ion or complex of uranium is possible.Uranium DissolutionsI. UO, + 2H-(UOJ + H,O2. (UO,) + SO, = -UO, SO, (Uranyl Sulphate)3. UO, + SO,-(UO, (SO,),)=4. (UO, (SO,),)= -(UO, (SO,),)'Test work carried out in the laboratory as well as in the plants has determined the most efficient methods of extracting the uranium from the ore. A very important factor that has to be determined during initial test work are the amount of acid consumers in the ore. Within the Elliot Lake orebodies are minerals such as chlorite schist, diabase, and basement material, all very high acid consumers, consuming up to 1000 lbs. of acid per ton of ore. Of these minerals only the chlorite schist contain any uranium at all.The following are the operating parameters that have to be controlled in the plant:I. sulphuric acid concentration2. temperature of the mixture3. agitation4. liquid solid ratio5. reaction time6. particle size of ground ore"

Jan 1, 1989

By J. N. Hartley

Uranium mill tailings, waste products of uranium extraction, contain hazardous constituents that if released into the atmosphere and groundwater could threaten our health and environment. To provide for safe disposal and control of these tailings, Congress enacted the Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act of 1978 (Public Law 95-604). Subsequently, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) established standards for tailings disposal that limit radon emission into the air to 20 pCi m-2s-1 on an annual average basis (EPA 1983). The design life of the impoundment is to be 1000 years where practicable, but 200 years at least. To facilitate the design of containment systems that will meet the EPA standards, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) and the Department of Energy (DOE) are sponsoring research at the Pacific Northwest Laboratory (PNL)* to develop the necessary technology. Earthen and asphalt materials have been evaluated for use as radon barriers (Hartley 1983) and as liners to minimize leaching (Buelt 1983). Herbicide and rock barriers against biological intrusion have been evaluated (Cline 1982). Surface stabilization techniques have been investigated to maintain the long-term effectiveness of a containment system that must be protected from wind and water erosion, chemical and physical degradation, and biological disturbance.

Jan 1, 1984

By Chuck Edwards

"Milling operations in northern Saskatchewan’s Athabasca Basin have produced uranium continuously since 1975. Over that period, the Athabasca Basin has been one of the world’s premier uranium camps, yielding more than 660 million lb of U3O8. In this paper, the author describes former and current milling operations and discusses why and how the milling process has changed and developed over the past 35 years. The author’s considerations for the future of uranium extraction in the Athabasca Basin close out the paper.INTRODUCTIONThe roughly oval Athabasca Basin in northern Saskatchewan occupies nearly one third of the surface area of the Saskatchewan Shield. Its sandstone-like deposits lie unconformably on the older basement. The basin hosts many high-grade unconformity-type uranium deposits(Saskatchewan Energy and Resources, 2010) for which the Athabasca Basin is world famous. Uranium production in the Athabasca Basin has come from four mills. In the order of startup these are Rabbit Lake, Cluff Lake, Key Lake and McClean Lake. General data (AREVA, 2010; Cameco, 2010; Denison 2010) for each mill are shown in Table 1."

Jan 1, 2011

By C. Edwards

ABSTRACT: Milling operations in northern Saskatchewan’s Athabasca Basin have produced uranium continuously since 1975. During that period, the Athabasca Basin has been one of the world’s premier uranium camps, yielding more than 660 million lb (299,370,964 kg) of U3O8. In this paper, the author describes former and current milling operations and discusses why and how the milling process has changed and developed over the past 35 years. The author’s considerations for the future of uranium extraction in the Athabasca Basin conclude the paper.

Jan 1, 2012

By G. F. Colborne, A. Thunaes

"When the Canadian uranium milling plants went into operation during the early 1950's, they utilized flowsheets developed at the Radioactivity Division of the Federal Mines Branch in Ottawa. Since then, numerous process improvements have been made by the Mines Branch, by the operating companies themselves and by other research organizations. This paper will consider uranium milling technology from the standpoint of a new mine operator charged with the responsibility for the design of an economic flowsheet, and will indicate the range of process elements available to him and the testwork required to enable an intelligent decision to be made."

Jan 1, 1968

By Peter Waggitt

Northern Australia has been home to uranium mining for over 70 years, more or less continuously. In the early days, post World War 2, there was little effort made to remediate workings at the end of operations. The three “campaigns” of uranium mining (1951-55; 1960-70; and 1979-present) are all now in various stages of remediation. This includes not only the large legacy site at Rum Jungle but also smaller fields like the South Alligator Valley, as well as contemporary works at Nabarlek and the ongoing closure at Ranger– Australia’s longest operating uranium mine. This paper briefly describes some of the past remediation activities before providing an update on the Ranger closure programme and future timetable.

Jan 1, 2020

By R. J. Munday

Although uranium deposits in northern Saskatchewan are clustered around the Athabasca basin, basement lithostructure determines their distribution. Basal Wollaston Group pelites are invariably graphitic and carry uraninite in felsic segregations and biotitic pegmatite. Where these intersect the Athabasca Formation, remobilized uranium concentrated as pitchblende. Uranium is also concentrated in silicified and hematized sandstone where the Athabasca Formation overlies post-orogenic faults. Presumably, pregnant solutions associated with the fault were stripped of their metals as they emerged into the contrasting physico-chemical environment of the sandstone basin. Both these types of mineralization correlate with a Grenvillian (-1,000 m.y.) heating event and associated diabase intrusions. However, the rich pitchblende veins at Uranium City appear to predate the Athabasca Formation, but display spatial correlation with the Martin Formation. They are tentatively associated with a syn- to post-D3 retrograde metamorphic event which thoroughly leached crystalline basement and generated uraniferous fluids which escaped, and precipitated metals, into fractures associated with faults that define the grabens in which the Martin Formation was deposited. Remobilization events allowed some of this uranium to move upward into fractures within Martin sediments.

Jan 1, 1979

Australia had an active uranium mining industry in the 1950s with uranium oxide being supplied under contract to the atomic energy authorities of the U.K. and U.S.A. In the 1960s, when these con- tracts concluded, domestic production ceased, apart from Rum Jungle, whose production until 1971 was stockpiled. By the 1970s, the demand for uranium from the electrical utility industry had risen sharply and the effects on Australia were notable. The Mary Kath- leen mine re-opened in 1976 but, more significantly, exploration activity suddenly expanded with the re- sult that several world-standard deposits were locat- ed. Western world requirements for uranium based on increasing energy consumption and a changing energy mix, will warrant the development of Aust- ralia's resources. By 1985 our mines could be pro- ducing 9,500 tonnes of uranium oxide yearly and by 1995 the export value from uranium could reach that from wool. In terms of benefit to the community the economic rewards are considerable but, in terms of providing energy to the world, Australia's uranium is vital.

Jan 1, 1978

By Savory P. J

Uranium mining operations commenced at Ranger mine site, Jabiru NT Australia in May 1980. The Ranger orebodies, totalling approximately 110 000 tonnes contained U305 had been indicated by airborne radiometric survey in 1969 and confirmed by drilling the following year. Both diamond and percussion drilling methods were used to define the mineralisation and samples were analysed using a combination of radiometric and neutron activation techniques. Ore reserve estimates were calculated from conventional and geostatistical methods, and following the mining of 15 million tonnes of ore, reconciliations with before mining estimates are well within acceptable industry standards. In-pit grade control employs radiometric techniques including a radiometric truck discriminator built in Australia to mine specification to meet production requirements and improve productivity. Environmental requirements associated with uranium mining are a daily consideration.

Jan 1, 1993

By J. Randel Hill

The 64th Texas Legislature passed the "Texas Surface Mining and Reclamation Act," Chapter 131, Texas Natural Resources Code (subsequently referred to as "the Act"), at a point in time when little surface mining had taken place within the state. Thus, enactment of regulatory control governing mining operations in our state has, for the most part, preceded widespread, intensive mining activity. I should point out that the statute applies only to the extraction of coal, lignite, uranium and uranium ore. A recent opinion rendered by the Attorney General's office has stated that extraction of the named elements, when it occurs incidental to the extraction of other materials, e.g., clay, is not not an activity subject to the Act. An important theme of the Act, frequently overlooked in other environmentally oriented legislation, is recognition of the Act's affect on the mining industry. The Act states that "the extraction of minerals by surface mining operations is a basic and essential activity making an important contribution to the economic well-being of the state and nation" and, in reference to reclamation being accomplished contemporaneously with mining, provides a recognition that "the extraction of minerals by responsible mining operations is an essential and beneficial economic activity." This legislative recognition is, of course balanced against the need for proper mined land reclamation, the rights of surface owners, the need to guard against unreasonable degradation to land and water resources and numerous other actions or events that the Legislature wanted protected. Another rather pervasive general theme that is established in the Act is the concept that the agency is entitled to obtain whatever information, or take whatever action, that appears reasonably necessary to effectuate the purposes of the Act. This concept, coupled with the detailed requirements placed on mining operations in the portions of the Act dealing with Permit Applications, Reclamation Plan and Reclamation Standards, easily insures that surface mining activities can and will be regulated to the extent necessary. Section 131.102(b)(2) is probably the most relevant provision in the Act which deals with the preclusion of mined lands becoming waste lands. This portion of the Act states that the surface mining operator shall: ". . . restore the land affected to the same or a substantially beneficial condition. ." In this language the Legislature had made it abundantly clear that the abandoned or orphaned lands found in some of the Eastern states, will not be tolerated in this State, and provided the Commission with a degree of latitude to determine what condition would be appropriate in each individual mining situation. I bring this area of the Act to your attention because it is the area which has received the most inquiries and concern by operators, i.e. what does "substantially beneficial" constitute? The Commission's staff has spent a considerable amount of time wrestling with the statutory language "substantially beneficial" to determine the legislative intent and provide operators with guidance of what they can expect. In this regard, the most definitive criteria in our opinion lies in the Act's legislative hsitory. The Legislature had before it basically three reclamation standards namely: House Bill 656, considered to provide the most stringent reclamation standard and identical to Senate Bill 66; House Bill 1717 which was supported by industry spokesmen and was considered to contain the least stringent reclamation standard; and Senate Bill 55 which was adopted by the Legislature. During the Bill's initial hearing before the House Environmental Affairs Committee, the House sponsor of the Senate Bill 55, which was the Bill eventually adopted, made the following statement: (I am quoting verbatim from the Committee's transcript although substituting the speaker's reference to the authors names with the Bill's numbers.) "An example of the differing approaches of the four bills can be seen in the area of reclamation standards and this is critical. House Bill 656, talking about restoring the surface of the land, House Bill 656 has this statement: 'At least fully capable of supporting the use to which it was capable of supporting prior to any mining or any higher or better use.' In other words you have to restore it to the level it was prior to the mining. Senate Bill 55: 'Restore the land to the same or substantially beneficial use.' Substantially beneficial use. (Emphasis his) House Bill 1717 says: 'Restore insofar as practical to appropriate beneficial post-mining use.' So that House Bill 1717 said to, 'restore insofar as practical to appropriate beneficial use. I think that's too weak, whereas I think the House Bill 656 that would call you to restore it to at least the use it had prior to the mining may also be too tight the other way. I think the Senate Bill 55 approach is down the middle of the road which says that you do restore it to the 'same or substantially beneficial use,' is a proper way to go there." Therefore, the conclusion that we have drawn from the legislative history of the bill is that the extent of reclamation required by "substantially beneficial" may be something other than the use it was prior to

Jan 1, 1979