Satbayev University (Almaty, Kazakhstan):

Yusupov Kh. A., Professor, Doctor of Engineering Sciences, Corr. Mem. of NAS RK, Professor, yusupov_kh@mail.ru
Bashilova E. S., Doctoral Candidate, elenab84@mail.ru
Tsoy B. V., Doctoral Candidate, bertan.tsoy@mail.ru

Sergo Ordzhonikidze Russian State University for Geological Prospecting (Moscow, Russia):

Aleshin A. P., Associate Professor, Candidate of Engineering Sciences, Associate Professor, alexei.aleshin@gmail.com

The current goal in uranium mining is to ensure the maximum effect at minimized costs. One of the problems when using the in-situ leaching (ISL) technology consists in the incomplete mining of the process blocks due to premature uranium content reduction in the pregnant solutions, leading to increased mining times and excessive reagent consumption. The required complete block mining shall be ensured with the highest possible efficiency. The ISL technology is currently used for the mining of all hydrogenous uranium deposits in the Republic of Kazakhstan, which are often characterized by complex geological and hydrogeological conditions. One of these deposits, Semizbay, rates as complexity type III. The conditions at the deposit require increasing the redox potential of the solution by oxidizing Fe²⁺ into Fe³⁺. The article considers the addition of hydrogen peroxide to the leaching solutions to improve the redox potential with due account of the mining and geological features of the Semizbay deposit. The pilot tests have established that this oxidizing agent has a positive effect on the uranium content in the pregnant solution with the concentrations of 0.2–0.3 l/m³, provided that the concentration of sulfuric acid in the leaching solutions is within the range of 13–15 g/l. The studies allowed increasing the concentration of uranium in the pregnant solutions from 74 to 114 g/l (i.e., by over 50 %).
The authors are grateful to the staff of the geotechnology department of the Semizbay mine, Semizbay-U LLP, for collecting the data and to the staff of the IVT-Zerde LLP laboratory (branch of the Semizbay mine) for the high-quality laboratory experiments during the pilot tests at the mine.

1. URL: http://atominfo.ru/newsz01/a0922.htm (accessed: 10.08.2020).
2. Nikulin A. A. Global uranium market prospects in the context of new trends in nuclear power development. Problemy Natsionalnoy Strategii. 2013. No. 2. pp. 104–122.
3. Shatalov V. V., Tarkhanov A. V. Present status of the world and russian uranium mineral-raw material resources. Atomnaya Energetika. 2009. Vol. 107, No. 5. pp. 258–262.
4. Sukhodolov А. P. World's supply of uranium: prospects for primary provision of atomic energy industry. Izvestiya Irkutskoy Gosudarstvennoy Ekonomicheskoy Akademii. 2010. No. 4. pp. 166–169.
5. Boytsov A. Worldwide ISL uranium mining outlook: presentation. Proc. of the International symposium on uranium raw material for the nuclear fuel cycle: exploration, mining, production, supply and demand, economics and environmental issues (URAM–2014). 23–27 June 2014. Vienna : IAEA, 2014. pp. 1–23.
6. URL: https://www.world-nuclear.org/informationlibrary/nuclear-fuel-cycle/mining-of-uranium/worlduranium-mining-production.aspx (accessed: 18.08.2020).
7. Zhivov V. L., Boitsov A. V., Shumilin M. V. Uranus: geology, mining, economy. Мoscow: Atomredmetzoloto, 2012. 301 p.
8. Nazarova Z. M., Ovseichuk V. A., Lementa O. Yu. Market of uranium: contemporary state, problems and perspectives of development. Problemy Sovremennoy Ekonomiki. 2016. No. 2. pp. 159–162.
9. URL: http://www.armz.ru/o-kompanii/entsiklopediya/dobycha-urana/skvazhinnoe-podzemnoe-vyshchelachivanie-spv (accessed: 10.08.2020).
10. Derek M. Insight: Uranium is in a holding pattern. Commodity Insights Bulletin. 2015. 8 p. URL: https://assets.kpmg.com/content/dam/kpmg/pdf/2015/12/uraniumq2-q3-2015.pdf (accessed: 18.08.2020).
11. Arnold N., Gufler K. The future of nuclear fuel supply. Proc. of the 1^st INRAG conference on nuclear risk, 16–17 April 2015. Vienna: University of Natural Resources and Life Sciences, 2015. pp. 1–27.
12. Aubakirov Kh. B. On the causes of problems during the development of the Semizbay uranium deposit. Geologiya i Okhrana Nedr. 2017. No. 2. pp. 80–84.
13. Pirmatov E. A., Dyusambaev S. A., Duysebaev B. O., Zhatkanbaev E. E., Vyatchennikova L. S., Sadyrbaeva G. A. Prospects for in-situ leaching of uranium at the Semizbay deposit. Gorny Informatsionno-analiticheskiy Byulleten'. 2006. No. 11. pp. 246–254.
14. Poezzhaev I. P., Polinovsky K. D., Gorbatenko O. A., Panova E. N., Bulenova K. Zh., Karmanov E. M., Blynsky P. A., Bitovt O. A. Uranium geotechnology. Almaty: Qazaq Wnïversïteti, 2017. 328 p.
15. Yusupov Kh. A., Aliev S. B., Dzhakupov D. A., Elzhanov E. A. Application of ammonium bifluoride for chemical treatment of wells in underground uranium leaching. Gornyi Zhurnal. 2017. No. 4. pp. 57–60. DOI: 10.17580/gzh.2017.04.11.
16. Shen N., Li J., Guo Y., Li X. Thermodynamic modeling of in situ leaching of sandstone-type uranium minerals. Journal of Chemical & Engineering. 2020. Vol. 65, Iss. 4. pp. 2017–2031.
17. Mongush G. R. Application of biotechnology for processing mineral deposits of Tuva. Novye Issledovaniya Tuvy. 2010. No. 1. pp. 228–242.
18. Pastukhov A. M. Application of synthetic oxidants for intensification of uranium in-situ leaching process: Final R&D report / UrFU. Ekaterinburg, 2013. 34 p. URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10995/21454 (accessed: 31.03.2021).
19. URL: http://www.h2o2.ru/about (accessed: 14.07.2020).
20. Yahya Kh., Abbas Kh., Syed S. Sh., Gulzar H., Gulraiz F., Muhammad S. Stabilization of hydrogen peroxide used as oxidizing agent in the in-situ leaching of uranium from Arkosic sandstone. Journal of the Chemical Society of Pakistan. 2011. Vol. 4, No. 33. pp. 474–480.