Heap Leach Pads

Areas of Study: Mining

Qualifies for CMS
Qualifies for Certification
A course for regulators, designers, operators and consultants on the physics and chemistry of
heap leaching plus design, preparation, construction, operation and closure of heap leach pads.
Author: Jack Caldwell P.E., MS.(Eng.), LLB (Author)
Introduction

This course is about heap leaching: the design of heap leach pads; the mechanics of preparing
the mined ore for placement on a pad; the construction processes involved in placing materials
on pads for leaching; the operation of heap leach pads, including the application of fluids that
liberate the metals in the ore; the physics and chemistry of the seepage of fluids through the
ore; and the ultimate closure of the heap leach pad when mining ends.

Course Objectives

By the end of the course you should know enough to plan, establish, operate, and close a heap
leach pad. And if you choose not to do all this alone, you will have sufficient information and
knowledge to retain and manage specialists, consultants and contractors, hence to undertake
the activities attendant on successful heap leaching.

People Involved

This course is for those who are interested in heap leach pads, who regulated them, design
them, operate them, and finally close them. This course is for you if you are thinking of
investing in a mine that promises to make a fortune with a new heap leach pad operation—I
recall a dim statistic I saw somewhere that nearly fifty percent of heap leach pad operations do
not work as intended or turn the profit anticipated. Just reading this course may help you
evaluate the claims of those who promise new miracles of profit.

We acknowledge these people who make heap leach pads happen and who may be interested
in this course.

 The mining engineer generally has to select the site of the heap leach pad and set the
basic parameters for operation. The mining engineer has to get the ore out of the
ground and transport it to the heap leach pad where he/she has to spread the
materials in the specified lifts.
 The civil engineer has to design the basic civil engineering works that make for a safe
heap leach pad. The civil engineer is generally the designer of record (i.e. the person to
blame if things go wrong) of these components of the heap leach pad: foundation
clearing and preparation, liner selection and construction, drain installation, surface
water management facilities, heap leach pad slope stability, support facilities including
ponds and sediment traps, closure covers, and erosion control works.
 The mechanical engineer could actually do most of what the civil engineer does, and in
addition selects and operates the equipment used to spread the materials on the pad,
including: trucks, conveyors, spreaders, loaders, etc. Moreover, the mechanical
 engineer is usually the person who selects, installs, and operates the pipes, pumps,
and ponds that convey and disseminate the lixiviant, i.e., the liquid mix of chemicals
that goes into the heap leach pad. The mechanical engineer has to figure out a way to
capture the leachate seeping from the heap leach pad drains and get the fluid back to
the process plant for final metal recovery—the leachate is the solution that contains
the metals liberated from the rock of the heap leach pad.
 The chemical engineer, process engineer and the metallurgical engineer, between
them or alone, have to establish the nature of the ore, how best to crush it or
agglomerate it, what lixiviants to add to the leachate solution to best free up the
metals, and how best to chemically treat the resulting leachate from the base of the
pad.
 The environmental specialist has to quantify, explain and mitigate the impact on the
site and the surroundings caused by the enormous structures that most heap leach
pads are.
 The hydrologist has to tell us how much water will fall on the heap leach pad, flow off
the pad, infiltrate, and potentially impact clean surface water downgradient of the
pad.
 The groundwater specialist, luckily, does not generally have to worry about
groundwater contamination because of the robust liners beneath most heap leach
pads. But the knowledge and understanding possessed by the groundwater specialist
of how water seeps through porous media like silt and sand and rock, both as
saturated and unsaturated flow, is invaluable in managing a successful heap leach
operation.
 The investor's savings may be riding on the success of the heap leach pad, and has to
decide if it really will be possible to cost-effectively build and operate a successful
heap leach pad.

Why This Course?

There are few mines in Costa Rica. There will probably be even fewer once the problem at the
Bellavista mine heap leach pad becomes common knowledge. Here is an edited version of the
news report I saw:

Shares of Glencairn Gold Corp. fell after the company suspended operations at its
Bellavista Mine in Costa Rica, citing the risk of a cyanide spill and ground movements
that may compromise containment of cyanide used to dissolve gold from crushed ore.
The earth movement—up to one centimetre a day in some parts of the leach pad and
waste pile—is attributed to years of unusually heavy rain. The company first noticed
earth movements as early as May 2007. Monitoring revealed that the movements
were in the range of one centimetre per day.

The first evaluation of failure pinned the blame on the drains, or absence thereof. A heap leach
pad should have a series of drains at the base of the pad. Theoretically these drains should be
able to accept any seepage down through the heap leach pad materials. The drains of a
conventionally designed heap leach pad ensure that seepage through the pad is vertically
downwards. At Bellavista this did not appear to be happening. We were never told if the drains
blocked or were inadequate, or had been rendered inoperative by the reported movement.
Last I heard they had shut the mine down indefinitely, and the company's shares had
plummeted.

Ultimately a series of experts concluded that the failure of the heap leach pad was the result of
deep-seated sliding of the hillside on which the pad was constructed. For many years now, and
I suspect for many years more, lawyers will fight the issues.

Terminology

In what we wrote above we used some terms specific to heap leach pads. In this course we will
use a few more. For the sake of completeness, here is a brief list of some of these terms and
the meaning we ascribe to them in this course (see also the Dictionary of Mining, Mineral and
Related Terms within this course). See also Figure 1 (below) for a general layout of facilities
associated with a conventional heap leach pad.

Figure 1: Facilities associated with a conventional heap leach pad

Agglomeration: 1) the act or process of collecting in a mass; a heaping together; 2) a jumbled

cluster or mass of usually varied elements; 3) the formation of a lump by the coalescence of
smaller globules; refers to briquetting, nodulizing, sintering, etc.
Barren solution: a solution in hydrometallurgical treatment from which all possible valuable
constituents have been removed; it is usually recycled back to the plant for reuse in
processing.

Bioleaching: 1) the dissolution of metals from their mineral source by naturally occurring
microorganisms; 2) the use of microorganisms to transform elements to another form that can
be extracted from a mineral when water is filtered through it.

Heap leach: a process used for the recovery of copper, uranium, and precious metals from
low-grade ore. The crushed material is laid on a slightly sloping, impervious pad and uniformly
leached by the percolation of the leach liquor trickling through the beds by gravity to ponds.
The metals are recovered by conventional methods from the solution.

Heap rinsing: method used to remove soluble constituents remaining within a heap leach pile
after the metals concentration decreases to levels below economic limits. Simple water
rinsing, chemical, or biological techniques or combinations thereof may be employed.

Leachate: a solution obtained by leaching, e.g. water that has percolated through soil
containing soluble substances and that contains certain amounts of these substances in
solution.

Lixiviant: a liquid that selectively extracts desired metal from ore or material to be leached,
and from which the desired metal can then be recovered in a concentrated form.

Lixiviation: the process effecting contact between the ore and the leaching solution.

Ore: the naturally occurring material from which a mineral or minerals of economic value can
be extracted profitably or to satisfy social or political objectives. The term is generally but not
always used to refer to metalliferous material, and is often modified by the names of the
valuable constituent; e.g. iron ore; gold ore; etc.

Percolation: the process of circulating the solution through the stationary ore mass. The rate
of percolation depends on factors such as the particle size of the ore, and the quantity of
leaching solution distributed over the bed of crushed ore.

Pregnant solution: a value-bearing solution in a hydrometallurgical operation.

Not Covered In Depth

In this course we touch on, but do not cover in depth these aspects of leaching and leach pads.
The reason is that there are many other comprehensive Edumine courses and resources on
these topics, that ultimately are not central or specific to heap leaching, but apply to most
mine tailings and waste rock dumps as well.

 Other forms of leaching: leaching may be undertaken in situ, or in specifically

constructed vats and tanks. The chemistry may be similar, but the physical aspects are
totally different.
 Liners: a heap leach pad must have a liner. The design of liners is far too specialised a
topic to delay us for long in this course.
 Covers: at closure, some heap leach pads will get a new cover. Again, there is no need
in a reasonable length course to burden you with the specifics of covers.
 Surface water, groundwater and water balances: I have written and posted other
Edumine courses on these topics. In them I discuss surface water, groundwater, and
water balance issues as they affect mines and heap leach pads. Thus, in this course we
touch but lightly on surface water, groundwater, and water balance issues associated
with heap leach pads. See Figure 2, below.

Figure 2: Heap leach pad, ponds, and recovery plant flow diagram and water
balance components
Additional Reading

In compiling this course, I have had recourse to many publications, and I have borrowed freely
from them—particularly those from Vector Engineering and O'Kane Consultants. I urge you to
take a look at those that interest you as you work your way through this course.

Edumine has other courses that are relevant to this course.

 Geotechnical Engineering for Mine Geowaste Facilities (website) provides an in-depth

study of basic and fundamental geotechnical engineering as applicable to mine tailings
waste rock, and heap leach facilities. Here you find the basics of soil and rock
properties, strength, slope stability, erosion, and more.
 Mine Closure: The Basics of Success (website) deals with all aspects of closure of a
mine, from planning to implementation; from financing to facilitating; from the social
needs to the engineering needs. The course include consideration of heap leach pads
as they are large geomorphic structures that very much affect how closure is done.

Then there are three closely associated courses that cover pretty much all of the issues that
arise relative to water, the mine, and the heap leach pad. These courses are Mine Water and
Chemical Mass Balance, Surface Water Management at Mines, and Groundwater in Mining
(websites).

At the time of updating this course, mid-2012, I am told that there is another course on heap
leaching awaiting loading on to Edumine. It is by Dirk Van Zyl and Terry Mandziak. I know it will
be a good course. I am sure that it will be a valuable companion to this course, for they will
undoubtedly cover the topics from a different perspective and with different insight. Do both
courses if possible.

General information about heap leach pads is also available on the web. A basic description of
heap leach pads and the technology of their construction and operation is available at Heap
Leaching (website). This is a wiki that focuses on biological processes in metallurgy. You will
find informed discussion about the biological processes that operate in heap leach pads to
liberate the metals to the leachate from which the metal my be remove (refined) by further
processing.

In my opinion, there is one citation on the topic of heap leach pads that warrants you seeking
it out to read. I refer to the beautifully written and informative text by (Schlitt (1992)). It is a
chapter in the book. You will have to buy the book, but it is worth it.

Finally, I must acknowledge the writings of Ian Hutchison (Hutchison (1992)), and the
opportunity he gave me to consult on heap leach pad projects.
Regulations
Introduction

There are no national laws that pertain specifically to heap leach pads. There is certainly no
accepted body of practice regarding heap leach pads that could be said to constitute
international law on the design, operation, or closure of heap leach pads. Accordingly in this
section, we list the criteria and objectives for heap leach pads published by various
organizations and groups concerned with heap leach pads. We believe that if these criteria and
objectives are considered and implemented, you will be in compliance with most potentially
applicable laws and most standards of good practice.

International Finance Corporation (IFC) Requirements

Here are the IFC guidelines for heap leach pads.

Operators should design and operate surface heap leach processes with:

 adequate liners and sub-drainage systems to collect, recycle, or treat solution, and
minimize ground infiltration;
 pipeline systems carrying pregnant solutions should be designed with secondary
bunded protection;
 leak detection equipment should be installed for pipeline and plant systems;
 evaporation ponds and other impoundments should be lined, and be equipped with
leak detection systems; and
 sufficient monitoring wells, which should be installed around leach pads to enable
monitoring of water levels and quality.

Recommended practices for the management of leach-pad waste include the following.

 Leachate collection and treatment should continue until the final effluent criteria are
consistent with guideline values provided in other parts of the IFC requirements
document.
 Leach pad material should be properly covered once leachate quality reaches
acceptable discharge water quality in order to avoid water resource contamination
due to infiltration.

The IFC lends money to many companies to assist them develop mines. If you apply to the IFC
for a loan to develop a mine, and your mine includes a heap leach pad, the IFC evaluates the
extent to which your heap leach pad (hence your mine) meets these guidelines. In short, if you
seek money from the IFC to mine, your heap leach pad had best meet these guidelines.

Feasibility Studies

Only in Canada are you required to prepare a NI 43-101 feasibility study. There are similar, but
certainly not identical reporting requirements in the United States, Australia, and South Africa.
The details need not delay us here. It is sufficient to note that at an early stage of project
development, the mine developer has to prepare and publish a report that establishes that the
project is feasible. You have to document data and studies to demonstrate that there is ore in
the ground, that it can be practically and economically mined, that there are known and
reasonable processes to extract the valuable metals from the ore, and that you can afford to
operate and close the mine.

A successful feasibility study (or national equivalent) will document data and calculations that
establish that a heap leach pad can be built, that there are lixiviants that can extract the metals
from the heaped ore, and that it is practical, safe, and cost-effective to build and operate a
heap leach pad. The quantity and quality of the data is project-specific. At a minimum, you will
be expected to describe the following.

 the nature of the ore, including its response to placement on the pad (will it crush to a
low permeability mass?)
 the lixiviants proposed for application to the heap leach pad
 laboratory tests (preferably column tests) that prove that the proposed lixiviants will
liberate the sought metals from the ore
 test data to demonstrate that the leachate from the heap leach pad can practically and
cost-effectively be treated in the plant to finally yield the mined metals.
 a feasible layout of the proposed heap leach pad, how it will be built, operated, and
closed, and a rationale about why it will be stable and not negatively impact the
environment or human health and safety

Environmental Impact Statement

If you are required to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) or equivalent, you will
find that much of the information in the feasibility study (or equivalent) can be used in the EIS.
But you will have to go further, for the EIS is concerned more with the interaction of the heap
leach pad and the environment than the feasibility study. Thus, you will have to document:

 the size, layout, and geometry of the heap leach pad;

 the components that will ensure stability, integrity and safety;
  the surface water management system to be constructed to limit runon and control
runoff;
 the quantity of water that will be used and where that water will come from;
 the quality of the runoff and what will be done to make sure you do not contaminate
surface water;
 the liner system and how it will function to protect groundwater;
 erosion control features and predicted erosion patterns during operation and post
closure; and
 closure intentions including cover construction, revegetation, monitoring, and
potential remedial actions and responses.

Ultimately in the EIS (or equivalent) you will have to document data, studies, and calculations
to prove that the heap leach pad will not detrimentally impact the environment or people. And
to the extent there are predicted negative impacts, you will have to prove that mitigation will
be undertaken and will be effective.

NPDES Permits

In most jurisdictions you will have to get a permit to discharge excess waters from the heap
leach pad. The key to all this is the water balance of the heap leach pad (Figure 1 below left)
and the water balance of the mine (Figure 2, below right). Depending on the layout of the heap
leach pad and the mine, and their respective water balances, you may be lucky and have no
excess waters. Conversely, you may be working in a wet climate and there will always be too
much water from the heap leach pad and from the mine; in this case that water will have to be
discharged from the site to the surrounding surface waters.

Figure 1: Heap leach pad water balance

 Figure 2: WB Mine water reticulation - piping diagram
Thus you will have to develop and document a water balance for the heap leach pad. If the
excess waters from the heap leach pad are to be discharged directly from the site to the
surrounding area, then this is all you need to support your water discharge permit application.
In the United States this is the famous, or notorious, National Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System—NPDES permit on the US EPA website.

If you cannot prove that the runoff from the heap leach pad that needs to be discharged
complies with the NPDES (or equivalent) requirements, then you will have to consider catch
ponds, treatment, dilution, diversion to the treatment plant or integration with the site-wide
waters.

Closure Plan

In some places you will have to prepare a closure plan for the mine and the heap leach pad
before you can start mining. Personally I think this is good practice and recommend you have
your heap leach pad closure plan in hand and approved before you start.

Most closure plans include an estimate of the cost of closure. Some jurisdictions mandate
posting a bond to provide for closure costs. The temptation is to minimize the estimated cost
of closure of the heap leach pad at this point. Regardless of what you choose to do regarding
cost estimate accuracy, bond costs, provision of reserves for closure, and all the financial stuff
associated with this aspect of heap leach pads, I recommend that you bully your consultants
and engineers and make sure they keep the heap leach pad operational and layout details
consistent with the needs of final cost-effective closure. That is a long sentence; let us put it
more simply. There are many things you can do during the design and operation of a heap
leach pad to simplify and reduce the cost of closure.

 provide adequate interim and final surface water management facilities

 provide a robust liner that will limit seepage from the heap and preclude groundwater
contamination
 incorporate generous setbacks to provide for a flat final slope—preferably flatter than
three horizontal to one vertical
 shape the outer surface of the heap leach pad to limit long-term erosion—replicate
naturally stable geomorphic forms of the area
 place neutral materials that will not produce contaminated surface water runoff on
the outer part of the heap leach pad
 undertake ongoing reclamation during operation, including cover construction and
revegetation consistent with final closure plans

Air Quality

If you need an air quality permit for your mine, and more specifically for the heap leach pad,
you will have to establish that wind will not blow dust and constituents from the exposed
surface of the heap leach pad to the perimeter of the property in quantities leading to
exceedance of air quality standards. This is generally not difficult to do. The ore at the surface
of most heap leach pads is coarse and not particularly susceptible to wind erosion and dust
production, and application of fluids at the top of the pad generally keeps surfaces sufficiently
damp to preclude wind erosion and dust.

International Cyanide Code

Leaching gold generally involves cyanide. Thus you will have to consider and, if you implement
good practice, comply with the International Cyanide Code (see the International Cyanide
Management Institute's explanation about the International Cyanide Code on the ICMI website
for more information). The code sets out procedures for the transport, storage, use, and
disposal of cyanide in mining. It does not specifically address heap leach pads, except in
passing as follows.

Decommissioning—The activities conducted to treat, neutralize or otherwise manage

cyanide and cyanide containing process solutions remaining in storage and production
facilities in preparation for closure so that they do not present a risk to people, wildlife
or the environment due to their cyanide content. Decommissioning includes
 decontamination of equipment, removal of residual cyanide reagents, rinsing of heap
leach pads and installation of measures necessary for control or management of
surface or ground water, such as pumping and treatment systems that would operate
during the facility's closure period.

See also the Technical Report: Treatment of Cyanide Heap Leaches and Tailings (PDF) on the
US EPA website, for state-specific guidance.

Liners And the Utah Code

The only useful code (to my knowledge) from any of the states where heap leach pads are
common is from Utah (see the report Design and Construction Guidance Document for
Precious Metals Heap Leach Extraction Facilities (PDF) on the State of Utah website for more
information). Prepared in 1998 for the Utah Department of Environmental Quality, this
document provides comprehensive practical information. You may want to download this
document, read it, and keep it handy as a source of practical information.

This guidance document also summarizes heap leach requirements in other states. For
example, compare these requirements for liners in different states.

 Colorado: double lined; minimum one synthetic liner; soil liner k = 10-6 cm/sec
 Idaho: continuous liner; natural or man-made; soil liner k = 10 -7 cm/sec; thickness =
12 inches
 Nevada: composite liner or equivalent; soil liner on soil k = 10-7 cm/sc; 12 inches thick
 Utah: leach pads should be designed to allow no discharge of process fluids, and
should incorporate a leak detection system for compliance monitoring. Most mine
sites in mountainous areas will have deep ground water and complex geologic
structure, which could make ground water monitoring difficult and expensive. In these
cases, the leak detection system for the leach pad should be sealed from the
underlying ground in such a way as to assure that fluids will not escape even if there is
a leak in the primary liner and fluids collect in the leak detection system. Leach pad
projects must obtain a construction permit from Utah Department of Water Quality
before construction may begin, in addition to a ground water discharge permit.

An example of an acceptable liner approach that could stand alone and not need ground water
monitoring would include the following components, from top to bottom.

 the stacked ore

 a granular cushion layer to protect underlying liners
 the process fluid collection system
 the primary liner—an 80-mm-thick geomembrane (compatible with leachate
chemistry) in intimate contact with a 12-inch clay layer of hydraulic conductivity 1x10-
7 cm/sec or less
  a barrier geotextile to prevent mixing of the clay with the underlying leak detection
medium
 a leak detection medium of hydraulic conductivity of 1×10-2 cm/sec or greater, either
granular material (sand/gravel) or a synthetic geonet
 leakage collection and conveyance piping
 a leak detection system seal; in areas of high to moderate ground water vulnerability
with good quality ground water, the seal should consist of a 60-mil thick
geomembrane overlying 12 inches of clay with hydraulic conductivity of 1x10-7 cm/sec
or less; in areas with less vulnerability or poorer quality ground water, either the
membrane or clay layer may be used alone

Hydraulic head on the primary liner should be minimized to no more than one foot, so a "head
break" design is not needed as in process water ponds. Valley fill or other designs requiring
construction on slopes of 7 percent or greater are discouraged because of the low strength of
liner materials. Different design criteria will apply if construction under these conditions is
necessary. Leach pads intended for repeated uses will require additional structural
reinforcement to ensure liner integrity. Alternative designs that achieve the same or better
protection of ground water may be utilized with Division approval.

Pit Backfilling

California law mandates backfilling of open pits. The law does not directly address the
materials to be used to backfill the pits. Nevertheless, there are publications from the
California Department of Conservation (see, for example, the Report on Backfilling of Open-Pit
Metallic Mines in California (2007) (PDF) on the State of California website) that imply that the
heap leach pad should be removed and the materials used to backfill the mined-out open pit.
All we can say is consider this possibility carefully before undertaking open pit mining and heap
leaching in California.

Review #1
The randomly selected multiple-choice questions below are designed to
review your understanding of the material covered in the preceding sessions.
Your selections are lost when you leave the review page. On return the
review will start afresh with a new selection of questions.

This review is currently set to practise mode. To optimize your learning

experience you need to register for certification before entering the course.
Certification tests more rigorously, keeps track of your answers to the
multiple choice review questions, and enables you to report and submit your
review scores to complete the certification process. If you have already
registered and been approved for certification then you should Exit and re-
enter before proceeding.
Each question below has one or more correct responses. Your selection of a
response is immediately marked correct or not.

Q1. Which of the following countries / regions have a reporting standard

equal or similar to NI43-101? (select one or more)

Australia

Canada

Europe

USA

South Africa

Q2. In which of the following countries / regions is the NI43-101 reporting

standard applicable? (select one or more)

USA

Australia

Canada

South Africa

Europe

Q3. Non-compliance with IFC guidelines on a new mining project could

jeopardize... (select one only)

the environmental permitting process?

a loan application?

an NPDES permit?
Q4. Which of the following regulations / guidelines / requirements is
concerned with project financing? (select one only)

NPDES

EIS

IFC guidelines

closure plan

Q5. With respect to heap leach pad design and operation, the principal
objectives of an EIS (Environmental Impact Statement) are to prove that...
(select one or more)

the heap leach pad will not detrimentally impact the

environment or people?

to the extent there are predicted negative impacts,

effective mitigation will be undertaken?

the project is appropriately financed?

Heap Leach Pads (Text Level)
Part 2 - Design and Construction

Leach Pad and Facilities

Introduction

This session deals with the basic aspects of a heap leach pad. First we discuss the various pad
layouts. Then we quickly survey the types of information you will need about the site and
surrounding area where you may propose a heap leach pad operation. Finally we look at the
components that make up a typical heap leach pad: liners, drains and surface water
management facilities. All of these elements can make or break your operations.

Heap Leach Pad Types

Reusable pads

The reusable pad (Figure 1, below), or on-off pad as it is sometimes called, involves the
construction of one or a series of pads onto which the prepared ore is loaded, leached, rinsed,
chemically treated if necessary, and unloaded for disposal at the spent ore pile.

Figure 1: Reusable pad

Lifts may vary from 3 to 10 meters thick. Conveyors and/or stackers may be used to load the
ore onto the pad. Unloading may be done with bucket-wheel excavators and conveyors.
Alternatively loaders and trucks may be used. The loads imposed on the liners and drains by
the loading and unloading equipment are usually the key factors affecting the design of liners
and drains.

The following are some advantages of reusable pads relative to "permanent" pads described
below.

 occupies a relatively small footprint

 easier to maintain a zero water balance because of the smaller area on to which
precipitation falls, and hence becomes part of the pad water balance
 it may be economically feasible to cover part of the pad with low permeability covers
to further limit excess precipitation entering the pad water balance

Disadvantages relative to larger "permanent" pads includes the following.

 the leach cycle should be predictable and preferably short

 provides limited flexibility regarding varying the duration of leaching
 the ore should be consistent particularly with regard to leachability
 requires a durable liner that can withstand the repeated placement and removal of ore
 involves double handling of the ore
 not amenable to ore "maturing" for later re-leaching

The size of the pads and the number of pad segments are dictated both by the rate at which
ore is produced and by the duration of the leach cycle required for optimum metal extraction.
Generally, leach durations are 60 to 90 days.

Expanding pad

The expanding pad (Figure 2, below) involves the preparation and placement of ore on a
continually expanding pad. Following leaching, the ore is left in place. Subsequent re-leaching
or washing (rinsing) and treatment, if required, may be undertaken. Additional lifts may be
added to the heap and interim reclamation of the rinsed and treated segments may be done.

Figure 2: Expanding pad

The advantages of such pads include:

 they can accommodate variable ore production rates and different leach cycle
durations; and
 they involve a relatively simple liner that is in essence "loaded" only once.

The disadvantages of such pads include:

 they require a large area;

 they require a relatively dry climate to maintain a near-zero water balance; and
 they need a large storage capacity to hold extreme precipitation runoff.

Valley method

The valley method (Figure 3, below) involves the preparation and placement of ore behind a
retaining structure which is usually an earthen embankment. Facilities with starter
embankments as high as 100 meters and stacked ore rising to a height of 300 meters are
reported. The ore is leached in place, with subsequent lifts progressing up the slope. The
majority of the ore remains in contact with the leach solution during operation. At completion
of leaching, the ore is rinsed, left in place, and the facility reclaimed.

Figure 3: Valley method

Advantages of valley pads include:

 they can be used in steep terrain;

 they can be operated in a wide range of climatic conditions;
 they can accommodate extended leach durations; and
 they usually do not involve a separate pregnant pond.

Disadvantages include:

 they require a durable ore;

 they require a high integrity liner to deal with the high hydraulic heads;
 they involve an engineered retaining structure; and
  the great height may lead to specific consideration of slope stability-both static and
dynamic (earthquake-induced instability).

Site Characterization

Climate

You will need at least the following climatic data if you are designing or operating a heap leach
pad.

 short-term, intense rainfall affects the size of ponds, ditches, and containment dikes
that need to be designed to avoid erosion and/or overtopping
 long-term weather patterns affect the overall water-balance performance of the pad
as regards infiltration, evaporation, and hence the quantity of flow from the pad

Specifically, you will need information about these precipitation events as they pertain to
reasonable component design criteria.

 access roads, culverts and drainage ditches: 1 in 10- to 50-year flood peak
 drainage courses and ditches outside of leach pad perimeter berms, pregnant pond,
and barren pond: 100-year flood peak
 internal freeboard within leach pad, pregnant and barren solution ponds: maximum of
(1) average hydrologic conditions plus a 100-year storm event; and (2) a longer term,
one in a 100-year event, occurring over a duration of several months or even years.

Geology

The geology of a heap leach pad should be established. This may be done as part of the
geological studies usually undertaken as part of the overall mine investigation, characterization
and development.

Geological data about the origin, location, and engineering characteristics of site and local
soils, rocks, and groundwater should be obtained.

Surface water

The surface water systems at the heap leach pad site should be characterized with respect to
the following.
flow patterns, including the location and size of local rivers, streams, creeks, swales, ponds,
lakes, and other contributing and receiving bodies of water

flooding potential, including flood recurrence intervals, flood plane development, and scour
and erosion potentials

Characterization of the surface water features at a heap leach pad includes collation of historic
data, field surveys, ongoing site monitoring and modeling and analyses using standard
hydrological computer codes. Consult standard text books for further details.

Groundwater

In theory, there is no interaction of the heap leach pad and groundwater because the liner
placed at the base of the heap leach pad precludes passage of ground water up into the heap
leach pad and passage of seepage from the heap leach pad to groundwater. In practice, the
following considerations give rise to a need to integrate heap leach pad design and operation
with groundwater evaluations.

 springs and/or artesian groundwater flow at the heap leach pad site may necessitate
placement of drains beneath the heap leach pad liner
 holes in the heap leach pad liner may result in the passage of heap leach pad leachate
to the groundwater—leak monitoring may be appropriate
 water pressures beneath the heap leach pad may affect slope stability
 seepage from the site groundwater may affect the heap leach pad water balance,
water management, and the ability to discharge water from the site in accordance
with discharge limits such as NPDES permits in the USA

Characterization of groundwater and groundwater analyzes are undertaken in accordance with

standard industry procedures and practice. Consult standard text books.

Pad Layout And Components

Site grading

The extent and cost of site grading depends on the natural topography of the selected site and
the operational requirements of the mine for the heap leach pad. General guidelines for
grading a heap leach pad site include:

 slope the surface to one or more points where leachate may conveniently be
collected;
 avoid excessive grade/slope inclinations which may detrimentally affect slope stability;
and
 keep grades as geometrically uniform as possible to facilitate liner placement.
Underdrains

Underdrains may be placed beneath the heap leach pad base liner to capture, control, and
limit the impact of site springs and/or upward migrating groundwater on the heap leach pad.
The type and layout of underdrains is site specific. Underdrain design may be undertaken in
accordance with industry standard procedures and practice.

Liners

Liners may be single liners or double liners, and consist of compacted clay, or geosynthetics, or
both (Figure 4, below). It is prudent to include leak detection monitoring instruments beneath
the liner. Factors affecting choice of liner include the type of solution, physical loading,
exposure to climate, seepage control efficacy, ability to accommodate ore removal (if
relevant), and expected long-term, post-closure performance. Additional factors that may
influence liner selection and design include local regulatory requirements, the specifics of the
site groundwater, impact on heap leach pad slope stability, and the cost of bringing different
liners to the site.

Figure 4: Double liner

Geosynthetics

Geosynthetics may be used in the following applications at heap leach pad operations: liners
beneath the pad, lining of channels, pond liners, tank liners, and in-plant containment.

The geosynthetic used at the base of the pad may be a HDPE or LLDPE material with a
thickness between 1.0 and 2.5 mm. The geomembrane may be smooth, single-side textured,
or double-side textured depending on the topography of the site, the underlying soil
conditions, the mass of heap leach pad material to be placed on it, and the wear to which it
will be subjected by placement traffic. Most significantly, the basal liner geomembrane has to
be able to resist puncture and degradation by the heap leach pad solutions and lixiviants that
may come into contact with the geomembrane.

For example, if you have a firm foundation, a fine-grained underliner soil, a fine-grained
overliner soil, and relatively low stresses imposed on the geomembrane, you may select a 1.5-
mm thick HDPE or LLDPE geomembrane. Conversely if you have a soft foundation, a course-
grained underliner soil, a coarse-grained overliner soil, and relatively high stresses on the
membrane, you may select a 2.5-mm LLDPE geomembrane.

Do not forget about the interface shearing resistance of the geomembrane and the overlying
and underlying materials. Chances are one or other of these interfaces is the critical plane for
sliding of the mass of the heap leach pad and hence failure by slope instability. It is a simple
matter to measure the friction angle for the materials you intend to use, so demand the test
results.

Channels around heap leach pads may be lined with a thick HDPE membrane selected to resist
puncture and exposure. Specifically these geomembranes will be subjected to solar heating,
elevated temperatures, and the constant flow of leachate. Take care to select a gemembrane
that is resistant to ultraviolet light (UV) degradation, and chemical attack.

Barren and pregnant solution Mining Dictionary Look-Up ponds should be lined with a double
HDPE liner generally 1.5 mm thick, with an inner HDPE geonet connected to a shaft that
functions as a leak detector.

Drains

Drains may be placed on top of the liner to collect leachate and direct the leachate to exit and
collection points. The following are reasonable design criteria for the drain material.

 maximum particle size = 35 mm

 non-gap graded
 low fines
 non-plastic
 saturated hydraulic conductivity of at least 10-2 cm/sec

Surface water management facilities

Surface water management facilities at a heap leach pad may include upgradient drainage
ditches, leachate collection and conveyance trenches, sediment ponds, water and/or leachate
storage ponds, and discharge channels.

Such facilities may be designed in accordance with standard geotechnical and hydrological
practice as set out in reference books. Surface water management facilities must be designed
to operate for both normal flows and for selected extreme design precipitation and runoff
events. Selection of the design precipitation and runoff event is affected by relevant laws and
regulations, industry standards for the type of mine, the site-specific consequences of failure,
and the cost-effectiveness of increasing capacity.

Airflow

Aeration is a critical factor where the material to be leached contains sulfide minerals. Air will
generally penetrate the face or sides of a dump or heap approximately 65 to 70 m. Thus the
width of the heap or dump should be limited to 130 to 140 m.

Convection of air through the porous surface of a heap or dump will penetrate the pile
approximately 15 to 20 m. Accordingly, this depth of material in a heap or dump should be
leached before a new lift of material is placed on the heap.

Air may be induced into the heap leach pad by blowing air in through the drains pipes at the
base of the heap, or via boreholes drilled from the sides or top of the dump.

Lift Optimization

The material in the heap leach pad may be placed in a single or in multiple lifts. Selection of
the lift height is based on the following.

 the size of the pad which, if small, may make single lift placement practical
 the planned height of the heap leach pad, which if high makes multiple lifts necessary
 the desired outer slope inclination—it may be necessary to place relatively shallow lifts
with setbacks at each new lift to create a flatter outer slope inclination
 the extent to which segregation of material occurs as a lift is placed—the higher the
lift, the more segregation and hence the greater the potential for preferential flow in
high permeability zones of coarse ore
  conversely, zones of segregated ore may provide for ready air circulation which in
some pads may improve the leaching efficiency
 the amount of effort needed to prepare the surface of a placed lift before a new lift is
placed—if considerable loosening by scarifying Mining Dictionary Look-Up is required
at the top of an old lift to loosen up the material is required, it may be better to reduce
the number of lifts
 the amount of work involved in removing and reinstating the pipes, sprinklers, and
associate equipment needed to spread the lixiviant around the upper layer of each
successive lift
 the lixiviant chemistry and performance—depending on the type of ore and the
gradation of the ore as placed in the heap leach pad, stronger or weaker lixiviant
solutions may be required for greater or lesser lifts heights
 the time of passage of solution through the pad—sometimes new liners and drains are
placed on old lifts; this may be done to reduce the time it takes for the applied
lixiviants to pass down through the heap leach pad; a common vertical spacing is 2 to 4
m (see Thiel (2003); the publication is also available at Thiel Engineering's Website).

There is little in the literature to guide you on the specifics of these issues in selection of an
optimum lift height. Here are two brief statements from "Mineral Leaching Technology"
(Malouf (1981)).

1. In the heap leaching of uranium, gold, or silver ores, the optimum height for the
best recoveries of the values are in heaps up to 7 m (22 ft) high. Multiple lifts of the
mineralized material diminishes recoveries of the contained values.

2. In the heap leaching of minerals containing values other than uranium, gold, or
silver, the optimum height economic relationship are heaps up to 10 m (33 ft). Field
experience data indicates that when sulfide or oxide-mineral-bearing materials are
leached in heaps up to 10 m (33 ft), a new lift can be placed on the ripped surface of
the leached heap and leached as effectively as the first heap or lift. This technique has
been used successfully in multiples of 12 lifts.

In practice, you will have to undertake extensive testing to get the data needed to optimize
you lift height. How it is to be done in practice was discussed by Metallic Ventures Gold on
their website several years ago.

Once leach conditions have been sufficiently optimized, a heap height simulation
column leach test series will follow to confirm optimized conditions, and to obtain
more reliable reagent requirements and precious metal recovery rate data. These tests
will consist of a series of column leach tests designed to simulated multi-lift heap
leaching on a permanent leaching pad. The column tests (est. 5 per series) are run in
series in a manner to obtain metallurgical balances around each simulated lift, and
around the combined simulated lifts. Detailed head analyses and bottle roll testing will
be performed for every composite subjected to column leach testing.
Leaching of Ore
Introduction

This session discusses the information you will need about the ore that is to be leached—most
important being how it will perform in the pad as regards stability, permeability, and
leachabilty. Then we proceed to look at the ways in which ore is leached to recover the metals
in the ore.

The Chemistry of Leaching

General

Hydrometallurgy is the art of recovering metals from ores by first effecting solution of the
metals in the form of a salt, separating the solution from the impoverished solid, then
decomposing the metallic salt in such a way as to cause precipitation of the metal in a state of
comparative purity. As noted previously, this process can be undertaken in a vat, in a tank, or
on the heap leach pad. The physical and chemical processes are much the same. Here is a
summary of the chemistry involved.

Gold and silver

The obsolete chlorination process used chlorine gas that was passed through wet, precrushed
gold ore to form soluble gold chloride that could be washed out with water. The dissolved gold
was precipitated from the aqueous solution by ferrous sulphate.

The leaching solution or lixiviant for reclaiming gold and silver from low-grade ore currently
used is an aqueous solutions of sodium cyanide mixed with oxygen (air) to convert the noble
metal (M) to soluble NaM(CN)2, from which M can be recovered either by precipitation with
zinc dust or aluminum powder, carbon absorption, or by electrowinning Mining Dictionary
Look-Up . This equation shows what happens:
There is another reaction going on at the same time. Some of the gold dissolves in accordance
with this process:

Regardless of which process prevails, both involve cyanide and oxygen, so we have to get both
to that part of the ore where we seek to get the gold.

The optimum pH for this process is reported to be about 10. The pH of the solution is adjusted
by blending into the solution lime (CaO), milk of lime ((Ca(OH)2), or caustic (NaOH).

The normal cyanide consumption per ton of ore is approximately 100–500g. Cyanide soluble
minerals, so called cyanicides Mining Dictionary Look-Up or cyanide killers (e.g. secondary
copper sulphides) increase cyanide consumption; under certain conditions cyanide
consumption can reach levels that render a leaching operation uneconomic. The approximate
tolerable level for cyanide soluble copper is definitely below 0.5%.

Copper

Sulfuric acid works like this as a lixiviant on oxidized ores, such as oxides, silicates, carbonates,
hydroxides and chlorides:

The copper sulfate, CuSO4, is soluble and seeps on down with the solution to the base of the
heap leach pad.

Unoxidized ores such as sulfide minerals and native copper require an oxidant, such as
dissolved oxygen or an ionic species such as ferric Mining Dictionary Look-Up iron in a sulfate-
base system or ferric or cupric ion in a chloride system.

While sulfuric acid is generally inexpensive and commonly available, it must be applied in
dilute form at a pH of 1 or higher. At this pH the acid may be neutralized and copper re-
precipitated in the heap leach pad if the lift is too high.
If you increase the pH, you may cause the acid to attack the gangue Mining Dictionary Look-Up
species such as silica and calcium. Also high acidity causes the clays and fines to increase. The
end result of this is precipitation of gypsum Mining Dictionary Look-Up and lots of fines that
clog up the pore spaces, reduce overall permeability, and slow down leaching.

Bioleaching

Biological processes may enhance the leaching efficiency. Solutions of biological agents may be
added to the solution or they may be sprayed onto the ore as it is placed on the pad.

The basis of bioleaching is that microorganisms are able to mobilize metals by the formation of
organic or inorganic acids; oxidation and reduction reactions; and the excretion of complexing
agents. For example, thiobacilli form sulfuric acid.

Copper recovery from bioleaching accounts for about 25% of the world copper production.
Following the initial isolation of Acidithiobacillus ferrooxidans from coal mine water in 1947,
studies quickly disclosed its presence in copper-leaching operations.

A copper dump represents a complex and heterogeneous microbiological habitat. Bacterial

colonization occurs mainly in the top one meter or so. The temperature may reach 90°C in the
interior of the dump and support a range of thermophillic microorganisms, which are often
anaerobic, or microaerophilic. In these regions indirect leaching by ferric sulphate also prevails.

Geotechnical Testing

Standard geotechnical testing of the ore destined for a heap leach pad should be done. This
includes: gradation, compaction characteristics, and strength. We need not delay here to
review these standard geotechnical tests, other than to note that you should also quantify the
interface friction between any materials used at the heap leach pad and the liner materials
such as geosynthetics used beneath the pad.

It is useful to characterize the resistance to breaking, crushing, and weathering of heap leach
ores. There are many suitable tests to do this; many are used routinely in the design and
construction or roads; many are used routinely in planning and implementing comminution
programs. (You can do no better than get a copy of the SGS Group's Comminution Tests
Handbook (free) by filling in the form at the SGS website). At the very least, ask for the Los
Angeles Abrasion Test results, which are described in the SGS booklet as follows.
The test determines a value reported as the percent loss. It is used in the aggregate industry as
an indicator of the relative quality or competence of various sources of aggregate having
similar mineral compositions. There are two procedures, one for small-sized coarse aggregate,
and one for large-sized coarse aggregate. The test is a batch test run in a standard 28" × 20"
ball mill with one 3 1/2" lifter bar to give combination of abrasion and impact. The sample is
screened at the end of the test at 1.7 mm to determine percent loss.

Leach Testing

General

Generally leach testing is done in "columns" or cylinders. Representative ore is placed in the
column and different solutions allowed to seep through the column. The column size and
particle sizes should be representative of the mineralized material to be leached in the actual
heap leach pad.

You may vary the nature of the material placed in the column depending on potential details
of operation regarding: types of lixiviants; whether fines will be removed or agglomerated; and
whether the minerals will be preconditioned with the lixiviant.

Procedure for test column

The column is loaded with representative, thoroughly mixed, crushed ore. Avoid segregation of
the fines and coarse fractions. A perforated plastic plate in the bottom of the column is used to
support the sample. The surface of the column of ore is covered with an open weave nylon
cloth to provide uniform distribution of the leach solutions over the surface of the material.

If the test is to be conducted to achieve the maximum recovery of the values in the least
possible time, a preconditioning solution is applied to the material. The conditioning solution is
usually of the same composition as the lixiviant that is to be used during the leaching, with the
exception that the preconditioning solution is of a greater strength (four to tenfold) than the
normal leach solution.

The preconditioning solutions are allowed to penetrate the mineral pores, fractures, and
interstices, thereby starting the reactions that result in the alteration of the minerals into
water-soluble compounds.
A preconditioning-reaction period of 10 to 14 days is allowed before systematic leaching is
started. The volume of preconditioning solution to be applied to the column of ore is
equivalent to one pore volume displacement of the material in the column.

Leach solution application rate to the surface of the column of ore is 5 to 7 L/h/m2 equivalent
(0.1–0.2 gal/sq ft/hr). The solutions passing through the column of material for each 24-hr
period are sampled. The sample of solution is analyzed as to pH, volume, temperature, and
various salt and values content.

At the end of leaching, the column of mineralized material is washed with a displacement
volume of leach solution, equivalent to 20% of the material weight.

The leached material from the column is then removed, dried, weighed, and crushed to 2 mm
(-10 mesh). Then it is sampled and analyzed for the remaining values to establish a
metallurgical balance.

Additional testing

This are some additional testing you may carry out on the ore in order to quantify its response
to leaching.

 heap leach crush size optimization column leach test on crushed core and/or bulk ore
samples
 head and tail screen analysis
 saturated and retained moisture and drain down rate and volume

Pilot heap test

I recommend that you carry out a pilot heap leach pad test prior to committing to full scale
production. The advantages of this include:

 the mass of material is more likely to be representative of the actual mass in the final
pad;
 normal run-of-mine operation is simulated;
 accurate design data is obtained; and
 information about blinding, solution channelling, and fines migration may be obtained.

There are, however, disadvantages, including high costs; difficulty of obtaining enough
material; the possible need for environmental permits; the need to construct the attendant
parts such as the solution distribution system, drains, and processing unit; and the need to
shut down and reclaim the area.
Objectives

Design of the laboratory and/or pilot plant heap tests must be based on the intended results;
these may include:

1. maximum recovery of the metal in the least possible time;

2. leaching is to be accomplished at reasonable cost;

3. leaching is to be accomplished at minimum cost, irrespective of recovery; and

4. determining the amount of pollutants that will be leached naturally from the heap
leach pad material in the long term.

Under the conditions outlined in No. 1, consideration has to be given to the possible added
costs of crushing, agglomeration, and preconditioning, if required.

Under the conditions outlined in No. 2, leaching would be made without the costs of crushing,
agglomeration, and possibly preconditioning.

In case No. 3, leaching would be made at a minimum cost. This would involve pumping the
value-stripped solutions back onto the heap or dump, without the costs of special preparation
of the mineralized material or the costs of solution adjustment of buffering the pH and salt
content.

In case No. 4, accelerated laboratory column leach tests would need to provide data on the
amount of polluting salts that might need to be processed to prevent pollution problems.

Checklist

Here is a list of factors that affect the progress and success of leaching, including bioleaching
and chemical reaction rates. You will note that we do not discuss each separately. But the
following is a useful checklist to be followed as you plan, investigate, review, upgrade, or close
your mine's heap leach facilities.
Physicochemical parameters

 temperature
 pH
 redox Mining Dictionary Look-Up potential
 water potential
 oxygen content and availability
 carbon dioxide content
 mass transfer
 nutrient availability
 iron (III) concentration
 light
 pressure
 surface tension
 presence of inhibitors

Microbiological parameters

 population density
 microbial activities
 spatial distribution of microorganisms
 metal tolerance
 adaptation abilities of microorganisms

Properties of the minerals to be leached

 mineral type
 mineral composition
 mineral dissemination
 grain size
 surface area
 porosity
 hydrophobicity
 galvanic interactions
 formation of secondary minerals
Seepage through Ore
Introduction

In this session we focus on what is probably the most important issue in successful heap
leaching, namely the way in which the solution seeps through the ore. If you get this aspect of
your operations right, your heap leaching will be a success; if you get it wrong, the metals
won't come out and you will be wasting time and money.

Basic Theory

In theory, seepage through the heap leach pad is simple: the lixiviant is applied at the top of
the pad and seeps vertically downward under gravity to the drains where it is diverted laterally
to seep out at collection points. Along the way, as the lixiviant seeps down through the
materials of the heap leach pad, chemical and physical reactions occur between the lixiviant
and the ore, and these reactions result in the copper or gold (or whatever metal is being
sought) entering into combination with the lixiviant.

As always in physical systems it is never as simple as saturated, vertical flow, down through a
homogeneous mass. The following factors make flow down through the heap leach pad
materials a complex, some would say chaotic, unpredictable phenomenon.

Solution Application

It is seldom possible to apply the lixiviant at the surface of the materials in a totally uniform
manner; there will be spots of concentrated irrigation; there will be areas where no lixiviant is
applied. This non-uniformity of application will give rise to preferential seepage paths through
the pad materials.

Figure 1: Preferential seepage through a heap leach pad

Sometimes it rains on the pad. Some of the precipitation will run off; much will infiltrate the
pad. The infiltration pattern will be irregular, reflecting the pad's surface topography and
material permeabilities. Localized zones of fresh water seepage down through the pad
materials develop. There may be dilution of the lixiviant, and other (possibly unwanted)
chemical and physical reactions as clean water moves down through the leached material (see
Figures 1 and 2, above).

Material Non-Homogeneity

The pad materials inevitably are non-homogeneous: placement in lifts results in stratification.
Segregation leads to zones of higher permeability near the base of lifts. Placement traffic may
compact and "blind" the top surface of the lift, creating low permeability zones near the upper
part of the lift. Horizontally, too, there is non-homogeneity: different materials from different
parts of the open pit will be placed adjacent to each other. Difference in rock type, blasting
patterns, breakage, loading and transport response, all combine to create non-homogeneous
conditions in the pad.

Partially Saturated Flow

Seldom is the flow of fluids down through the pad materials fully saturated. Most often there
are large zones of unsaturated flow, and we know that unsaturated flow is never uniform.
Preferential flow paths develop (see Figure 2, above) a kind of rathole situation develops.
Zones of higher saturation develop and connect up to create funnels or zones of preferential
flow down through the mass. The fluids, rainwater infiltration and applied lixiviant find their
way quickly enough to these preferential flow paths and squirrel quickly down through the
generally unsaturated mass. It all boils down to minimization of energy: if more can move fast
and more rapidly along a preferential flow path, it will. Why fight your way through zones of
low permeability materials or zones of low moisture content, when all those other high
permeability, high moisture content zones exist?

Then there is the issue of the low permeability zones resulting, perhaps, from placement traffic
on the top of the lift. Fluid seeping happily downwards through a higher permeability zone will
encounter a low permeability layer. The seepage will be deflected sideways and may seep a
considerable distance along the top of the old lift surface before finding a way to continue on
its way down. This may give rise to the phenomenon called a perched water table. A thick zone
of saturated, predominantly horizontal seepage may develop. There is nothing intrinsically
wrong with this, other than that the material beneath the low permeability layer may never
see the lixiviant. The saturated zone may experience water pressures detrimental to slope
stability. To avoid this generally undesirable condition of perched seepage, it is worth putting
some effort into limiting the development of low permeability layers at the top of a lift. As is
conventional in earth embankment construction, it may be worthwhile to go in and scarify the
surface; in essence: rough it up to break up the crust, compacted zone, or low permeability
layer before placing the next lift.

The result is that there will always be within the leached material zones of high and low
permeability; zones of high and low moisture content; and zones where leaching is occurring,
and where the ore is unleached and no metals are liberated.

Solution Application Rates

The materials in a heap leach pad constitute a heterogeneous, anisotropic Mining Dictionary
Look-Up mass. Material hydraulic conductivities vary greatly from point to point. This random
variation from point to point of hydraulic conductivity is the result of the inherent in situ
variability in the ore being mined, variations in the comminution of the ore as a result of
blasting, loading, and dumping, and segregation and blinding that occur during placement.

While it is tempting to think of seepage of leach solution and lixiviants as a uniform, vertically
downward flow regime, this simply is not the case. Simply put, the paths that the solution will
take as it flows down through the mass of heap leach material will depend on these, and
probably many other factors.

 the heterogeneity of the mass, and hence the presence and pattern of channels or
paths of greater permeability
 the moisture content of the ore, which depends on the moisture content as mined, as
placed, and as resulting from ambient conditions including antecedent rainfall
percolation
 the rate and pattern of application of the solution and lixiviant

As O'Kane consultants note:

"Layers of coarse and fine textured ore inevitably develop within heap and dump leach
piles as natural processes segregate coarse and fine material during material placement.
Segregation of heap leach material will occur regardless of whether the material is
agglomerated or non-agglomerated. Under such conditions, leaching-solution flows
preferentially in the more conductive layer, potentially leaving areas within the heap
unleached.

"The preferred flow path is not dependent entirely on the physical properties of each
layer, but also on the stress state and resulting degree of saturation, and therefore the
solution application rate. For this reason either the coarse or the finer material can be the
preferred flow path."
 –(OKane (2000))

Thus, it is not quite as simple as multiplying the area of the pad by the saturated hydraulic
conductivity if you want to establish the maximum possible application rate.

If you do succeed in applying enough solution to the top of the pad to create fully saturated
flow through the heap leach materials, you will certainly be getting lots of solution through the
materials, but you may not be getting the metal recovery you seek or could achieve by less
aggressive solution application.

To quote O'Kane consultants:

"Column testing revealed that solution application rates greater than the saturated
hydraulic conductivity of the finer material resulted in preferential flow in the coarser
layer. The preferred flow path became the finer textured material when application
rates were less than the saturated hydraulic conductivity of the fine material."

–(OKane (2000))

The following figure illustrates the process.

Figure 3: Preferential flow through ore material depends on application rate
(courtesy of O'Kane).
In other words, to get the metal out of the finer materials and into the solution, you need to
get the solution to seep through these finer materials. And that only happens best when the
material is partially saturated, and the seepage retreats, as it were, into the finer channels.

This leads to the counterintuitive conclusion: to increase recovery, it may be better to reduce
solution application rates, rather than increase them.

Keep in mind also if you increase application rates too much you may create a saturated zone
near the base of the pad, and that could induce slope failure.

Clearly you will have to experiment at your heap leach pad to establish the optimum solution
application rate. In so doing take into account these possible variables.

 the capacity of the solution distribution network

 the capacity of pregnant and barren solution ponds
 the area of the heap, and the cost-effectiveness of increasing the area
 the capacity of the process plant and the optimum metals concentration in pregnant
solutions for metal recovery

The Use Of Geophysics

The challenge for the operator is to minimize zones of unleached, or only partially leached,
material. The first problem to be addressed is: where are the zones of unleached material?
Geophysics may help. There are many geophysical techniques that are good at detecting
differences of moisture condition in the subsurface. As a first approximation, if a zone has a
low moisture content relative to surrounding zones, the drier zone is likely to be the less
leached zone.

You may drill down through the mass, taking samples along the way. You can test the materials
for almost anything: moisture content, constituent concentrations, leachability, and so on.
Hence, you may designate zones of unleached or but partially leached materials.

Next comes the problem of getting lixiviant to the unleached zones. And we presume at this
point that you have decided it is cost effective to undertake extra work to get lixiviant to these
unleached zones. Some mines drill holes down into the unleached zones and inject lixiviant
into the holes. You can even undertake a sort of hydraulic fracturing to loosen things up. In
theory, I suppose even a little subsurface blasting in the recalcitrant zones will help.

The point is: there is no limit to what you can do to preferentially inject fluids to selected
zones; the oil and gas industry does it all the time. Pilfer a few of their techniques as they may
be profitable at your heap leach pad.

Review #2

The randomly selected multiple-choice questions below are designed to

review your understanding of the material covered in the preceding sessions.
Your selections are lost when you leave the review page. On return the
review will start afresh with a new selection of questions.

This review is currently set to practise mode. To optimize your learning

experience you need to register for certification before entering the course.
Certification tests more rigorously, keeps track of your answers to the
multiple choice review questions, and enables you to report and submit your
review scores to complete the certification process. If you have already
registered and been approved for certification then you should Exit and re-
enter before proceeding.

Each question below has one or more correct responses. Your selection of a
response is immediately marked correct or not.

Q1. The lixiviant for leaching of copper ores is sulfuric acid at a pH of...
(select one only)

-2?

0?

1 or higher?

Q2. Advantages of the 'valley method' type of heap leach pad include...
(select one or more)

use in steep terrain?

 use in a wide range of climatic conditions?

easier to maintain a zero water balance?

use with extended leach durations?

Q3. Which of the following would you consider to be important

microbiological parameters in the leaching process? (select one or more)

metal tolerance

spatial distribution

surface area

adaptation abilities

population density

iron concentration

Q4. Geotechnical testing of ore material in a heap leach pad should include
tests for... (select one or more)

gradation?

compaction characteristics?

strength?

interface friction with liners?

Q5. Primary considerations for site characterization for a heap leach pad
include... (select one or more)

geology?

vegetation?

climate?
groundwater?

surface water?
Heap Leach Pads (Text Level)
Part 3 - Operation, Performance and Closure

Operation
Introduction

Operation of a heap leach pad should be undertaken in accordance with industry, company
and site-specific procedures. Generally this involves compliance with formal and/or informal
Standard Operating Procedures, Health and Safety Plans, Emergency Response Plans, permits,
and relevant and applicable laws and regulations.

In this session, we will take a look at some of the most important aspects of the operation of a
heap leach pad, including preparing the ore and placing it on the pad, applying the solutions
that will seep down to liberate the metals, and collecting the leachate. We will consider the
chemistry of the interactions of the applied solutions, the lixiviants, and the ore as the metals
are liberated. Finally, we'll take a look at three topics that relate to improving the success of
leach pad operation, namely forcing air into the pad, limiting infiltration, and using chemicals
to increase percolation rates.

Ore Preparation

Comminution

Run of the mine materials may be placed on the heap leach pad if the gradation of the
materials is conducive to cost-effective leaching. Comminution, including increased blasting
and/or crushing, may be required to produce an ore gradation that results in cost-effective
leaching. It is ultimately a cost-benefit decision: is the cost of extra blasting and/or crushing
worth it? Phrased another way: is the cost of crushing less than the value of the added metal
recovery from the heap leach pad? If it costs less to crush than your increased profit, it make
good sense to crush, otherwise don't.

The ore should be crushed only to the extent that there is a balance between being fine
enough for percolation to occur without excessive channelling and being coarse enough to
allow air dispersion and timely seepage of the solution through the ore. If the ore is too fine,
percolation may be too slow for cost-effective heap operation, ponding may occur, and a high
phreatic surface Mining Dictionary Look-Up may develop, leading to slope instability. If the ore
is too coarse, percolation will be too fast for metal solution to occur.

Agglomeration

A persistent cause of failure of heap leach operations is excess fines in the materials placed on
the pad. Excess fines result in a low permeability material and thus the seepage rate of the
lixiviant is too slow for economic pad operations.
A similar situation occurs if you intend to leach tailings. Generally, tailings are primarily clay
and silt—the seepage rate of most lixiviants through these fine-grained, low permeability
materials is generally too slow for cost-effective heap leaching.

It may be possible to agglomerate the fines in the ore or the tailings to be leached. This
normally involves adding a binder to the fines so that the resulting material consists of
individual particles that are larger than the original material and hence of higher permeability.

Additives for effective agglomeration vary greatly and depend on the ore type and gradation,
the chemistry of the ore and the lixiviant, and the physical characteristics of the heap leach
pad, including the height and the stresses imposed on the agglomerated fine grained
materials.

Typical agglomerating materials include Portland cement, lime, or ash for gold ores. Polymers
have been used for copper ores.

Ore Placement

Equipment

Run of mine ore, crushed ore, and ore agglomerated materials may be transported to the heap
leach pad and spread around by one or more of the following: trucks, dozers, conveyors, and
stackers.

The cost-effective combination of equipment is site-specific, depending on distance to the pad,

change of elevation from pit to pad, availability and condition of access road, nature of the
ore, geometry of the heap leach pad, lift thickness, and precautions taken to avoid ore
compaction and lift blinding.

Generally, trucks and dozers are suitable if the material is not susceptible to breakdown during
loading and placement. It will generally be necessary to use conveyors for agglomerated (or
other) materials that are susceptible to break down and the formation of low permeability
layers within the pad.

Permeability control

The lowest "effective" permeability of the overall mass of the heap leach pad is generally the
permeability of the upper part of each lift. The condition (hence permeability) of the top
surface of each lift may be significantly affected by these processes:

 breakup and compaction of the surface by placement equipment—use of trucks

exacerbates this;
 segregation of fine material at or near the top of the lift;
 formation or accumulation of chemical precipitates such as gypsum or hydrated iron
oxides; and
 accelerated weathering of the surface layer.
Lift height

Lift heights in heap leach pads vary from 3 meters to as much as 10 meters. The optimum lift
height is a function of:

 the overall geometry of the heap leach pad;

 the response of the ore to placement—how it segregates;
 the ore's leachabilty—how effective the lixiviant is; and
 the cost of restoring the solution spreading system.
You will get many a good idea and guidance on what will work for your ore and for your mine
by observing what is done at surrounding properties or with similar ores worldwide.
Ultimately, however, only testing and comparative economic evaluations will help pinpoint the
site-specific optimum.

Solution Application

Spraying

Conventional percolation systems for heap leach mining normally include sprayers mounted
above the bed of crushed ore. The leaching solution is prone to evaporation and degradation
by exposure to ultra-violet rays.

Surface spraying may induce ice build-up over the pad in freezing weather. As an alternative to
shutting down the operation, the leaching solution and/or the ore itself may be heated, but at
substantial cost.

Further disadvantages of conventional surface spraying include the formation of surface

ponding and run-off. Ice melt-downs, ponding and other adverse effects, resulting from
uneven solution distribution common to surface spraying, may lead to preferential infiltration
and hence percolation through the heap leach materials resulting in preferential leaching and
zones of unleached materials.

Drip emitters

The preferred system for heap leach solution spreading is the use of one or more of a number
of proprietary systems that involve supply and header pipes with a series of spaced tubes
connected to the supply header pipes. Drip type emitters are connected along each of the
tubes for emitting the leaching solution at a controlled and relatively uniform rate over the
pad and into the ore bed. The tubes and emitters can be positioned either on an upper surface
of the ore bed or buried beneath such surface, at a predetermined depth.

Suppliers of such systems are listed in the InfoMine SupplyMine website.

Figure 1: Example of a heavy wall emitter line above grade

Figure 2: Example of a welded emitter line below grade

Improving Operations

Forced air

Not all agree that it is necessary or appropriate to force air into the heap. Here is one opinion
on the matter.

Scheffel (2006) concludes on the basis of an examination of seven copper heap leach
operations (full paper available here (PDF)):

"The common feature of all the commercial operations is that all can achieve 80% to 90%
recovery of the acid and ferric soluble mineral content. This level of extraction is achieved by
reaching a proper compromise on crush size and ample leaching time."

The author questions the conventional wisdom of forced aeration; his statement is a
masterpiece of diplomatic-speak:

"The results of these comparisons suggest it is highly questionable if forced aeration for ore
grades up to 1.0% to 1.5% chalcocite provides a quantifiable advantage to extraction rates or
terminal levels-at least for a leach cycle time necessary to achieve 85% recovery of the oxide
and supergene mineral content under conditions of non-homogeneous solution wetting
and/or flow."

In "History of Forced Aeration in Copper Sulfide Leaching" (Schlitt (2006)) describes the history,
theory, practice, and case studies of forced aeration of copper sulfide leaching operations. The
author's conclusions:

"Forced aeration boosts sulfide leach rates where the dump design impedes natural air flow;
installation of an HDPE pipe system beneath a new pad is cheap insurance—if you need the
air, the system is there, but if you do not, the cost was minor.

"Design of a dump to promote natural air flow is the best and most cost-effective approach—
avoid the need for force aeration if you can.

"Blowing too much air into a pad can be counterproductive—the air coming out removes the
moisture and the heat needed to keep the process going."

Infiltration control

During operation of the heap leach pad infiltration to the mass of ore placed on the liner is
controlled by the properties of the upper surface of the ore, site precipitation and evaporation
patterns, and the application rates of solution water. Ideally the only infiltration to the heap
leach pad is the applied leach solution. Precipitation-derived infiltration only serves to "upset"
the chemistry and water balance of the heap leach pad.

One way to limit excess infiltration during the wet season is to put a temporary plastic cover
over part or all of the pad. Such a cover sheds the water and precludes the water entering the
heap leach pad circuit. Breitenbach and Smith (2007) list these advantages of using raincoat
liners (see "Geomembrane raincoat liners in the mining heap leach industry"(PDF)).
  protect weak ore and agglomerates from degradation and fines migration due to the
impact and seepage of excess rainfall
 reduced surplus water balance management
 less dilution of process solutions for improved metal recovery
 reduced reagent consumption in recirculated barren solutions
 reduced likelihood of accidental spills due to excess storm pond water accumulation
The authors list projects where liners include HDPE, PVC, and LLDPE. Which means, I suppose,
that whatever you have on hand can be used.

In theory, the following criteria may be formulated.

 UV resistance for at least five years

 flexibility to facilitate placement, removal, and relocation
 puncture strength to resist damage by the rough surface of the heap leach material
 sufficient strength to deal with anchorage stresses and wind loadings
 some seam strength, although this is of lesser importance than it would be in a basal
liner
The bottom line in deciding to use this approach is cost. If it is cheaper to place such a cover
than it is to deal with the wet season excess infiltration, this may work for you.

Heating

One of the risks in a cold climate is that frozen ore can develop in the heap, causing a failure of
the leaching process. Use of mill water is recommended to reduce the potential for frozen ore
to develop. Heat traces and thermisters may be included on monitoring sumps to prevent and
monitor freezing.

Drainage aids

It seems there is a never-ending list of patents on new and better lixiviants and additive to
release more metal from the heap leach pad. Some may actually work. You will just have to try
them out. Here for example is a random, but fairly typical patent description.

Methods for increasing drainage or percolation of a lixiviant solution through mineral ore in a
heap mining operation. A drainage aid comprising ethoxylated aliphatic primary alcohols and
mixtures thereof is dripped, sprayed or otherwise brought into contact with the heaped metal
ore aggregate and thereby improves percolation or drainage of the lixiviant through the
heaped metal ore.

Such patented solutions may work at your heap leach pad.

Performance Evaluation
Introduction

In this session we first examine the performance of a heap leach pad with respect to the
computer codes that may be used to simulate the overall performance of the heap leach pad.
Use of such codes may help in understanding the physics and chemistry of what is going on in
a pad and may enable you to identify more efficient ways of operating your pad. Next we take
an in-depth look at two very important aspects of the performance of a heap leach pad that,
once again, if done right, lead to success and if done wrong, can mean disaster. I refer to the
stability of the pad during operation and control of erosion of the pad and its materials during
operation.

Performance Modeling

Computer codes to simulate and model the performance of heap leach pads abound. Most of
the "performance" issues associated with a heap leach pad are common and general
geotechnical issues that can be modeled with generic geotechnical computer codes. See the
following examples.

 Slope stability: any code that calculates a factor of safety of a soil slope against
instability will work to calculate the factor of safety of the slope of on a heap leach pad
problem.
 Saturated and unsaturated flow: any code that models saturated and/or unsaturated
flow through a porous mass may be used to model saturated and unsaturated flow
through a heap leach pad.
 Chemical reactions in the heap leach pad: while there are, as described elsewhere in
this course, specific chemical process occurring in heap leach pads, keep in mind that
for your pad there may be a generic chemical modeling code that works. Talk to your
favorite metallurgist or chemist.
Of course, there are computer codes specifically developed to model heap leach pads. For
example, Soilvision Systems sells a heap leach pad application called SVFlux (website) to
analyze unsaturated flow in a pad—when coupled with ChemFlux (website) you can study the
effect of the input chemistry on the output chemistry.

Chemical modeling

In the paper "A New Approach to Heap Leach Modeling and Scale-Up," Jensen and Taylor
(2012) compare codes for specifically evaluating the chemistry of heap leach pads. Here are
two.

1. METSIM (website) has a heap leach model that is part of their comprehensive suite of
computer codes to address complex chemical, metallurgical, and environmental processes.
The heap leach module performs mass balances around the heap leach process including
chemical reactions, precipitation and evaporation, solids and water inventories, heap drainage
and control logic. The model is non-steady state and generates time dependent plots. The
model allows input of several ore types with separate recovery curves for each ore type.
Detailed data on the day to day operation of the heap are provided. Comparisons of control
strategies, the effects of changing key parameters and the effect of seasonal variations can be
evaluated.
2. LEACH (website) is a software package to scale up and simulate a heap leaching operation
based on engineering and kinetic fundamentals of the leaching process. Using results from a
column leach test or a commercial heap operation, LEACH will allow you to quickly predict
heap performance under different operating conditions such as particle size distributions,
heap heights, solution flow rates and solution chemistry. The projections are based on
fundamental principles, not rules-of-thumb. The program is applicable to all copper and gold
heap leaching operations as laboratory test results or field data from each operation are used
to initialize the program.

Heap2D

In the paper "Modeling Chalcocite Leaching," Cooper and Dixon (2006) from the Phelps Dodge
Mining Company, Safford, Arizona, describe the use of the PD/PERI Heap2D Model to evaluate
best management practices for operating a chalcocite leach pad (see "Modeling Chalcocite
Leaching" (PDF)). With the model they simulate and evaluate variations in raffinate application
rate, aeration rate, raffinate iron grade, acid cures, lift height, crush size, bulk density, air
injection spacing, and raffinate Mining Dictionary Look-Up drip emitter spacing. Their results
quantify the influence of crush size, bulk density, segregation and other operational factors on
the heap's air permeability hence air circulation hence leach efficiency. They conclude that for
their operations aeration is necessary. It would be nice, I suspect, to have an analysis of your
operations using their model before committing to the expense of aeration of your pad.

FEMLAB

FEMLAB (website) can be used to model heap leach pad performance. Here is a description of
the code.

FEMLAB is a powerful, interactive environment for modeling and solving scientific and
engineering problems based on partial differential equations. With it you can easily extend
conventional models that address one branch of physics to state-of-the art multiphysics
models that simultaneously involve multiple branches of science and engineering. Accessing
this power, however, does not require that you have in-depth knowledge of mathematics or
numerical analysis. Indeed, you can build many useful models simply by defining the relevant
physical quantities rather than defining the equations directly.
The paper "Two-dimensional dynamic model of a copper sulphide ore bed" by Sidborn et. al.
(2003) on the University of Chile website tells how the code was used to model heap leach pad
performance.

"A two-dimensional dynamic model for bioleaching of secondary copper minerals from a pile
has been developed. Aeration of the pile is considered to be due to natural convection caused
by the density gradient in the air within the bed. The rate of sulphide mineral dissolution is
modeled according to the unreacted core model. The transport of ferric ions from the particle
surface to the reaction zone is calculated considering film diffusion, diffusion within the
particle and reaction kinetics. The rate of oxidation of the ferrous ion by bacteria attached to
the ore surface is modeled using the Michaelis-Menten relationship. The influences of
temperature, dissolved ferric iron and dissolved oxygen in the leaching solution are considered
in the kinetic formulation."

Stability Analysis
General

Critical conditions include heaps: on weak foundations; on steeply sloping sites; intended to
rise to a considerable height; and heaps within which a buildup of a zone of saturation may
occur.

Heap leach pad slope failure may occur by one or more of the following failure modes.

 foundation instability involving failure planes through the foundation materials

beneath the liner and stacked ore
 sliding of the mass of material along the liner beneath the ore
 slope failure within the mass of material through one or a combination of planes of
low strength material
The primary features that affect heap stability are:

 the geometry of the section being analyzed;

 the shear strength of the materials along which failure planes may develop; and
 the pore water pressures in the heap materials and the foundation subsoils.

Stability—static

Industry standard methods and/or computer programs may be used to evaluate the factor of
safety of the slopes of heap leach pads. Key to the use of any of these programs is the
geometry of the heap leach pad, the strength of the ore as placed in the pad, and the angle of
friction between the liner beneath the pad and the materials placed directly above the liner.

As is conventional in geotechnical stability analyses, the recommended static factor of safety is

1.5. A lesser value of 1.3 may be acceptable for temporary and interim slopes.

Generally ore as used in a heap leach pad should be assumed to have zero cohesion and an
angle of friction of about 37°. The interface strength between ore (or the gravel drain material)
and the membrane liner depends on the liner material. I would recommend assuming zero
cohesion, and the following friction angles: smooth PVC = 5° to 20°; smooth HDPE =10° to 25°;
roughened HDPE = 25° to 35°. Better still, test the materials that will be used in your heap
leach pad-there are many labs willing to do the test for you, and the cost will be negligible by
comparison with the cost overbuild or failure.

Basal sliding

Provided you have selected a site with adequate foundation material, the primary potential
mode of static slope instability is sliding of the mass of ore along the interface with the basal
liner. This is a simple situation to analyze—see Figure 1 (below). If failure is possible, the best
thing to do is to reduce the inclination of the outer slope of the pad, generally by providing
setbacks at each lift. Alternatively, you may elect to regrade the pad site so that you reduce
the inclination of the ground surface along the pad perimeter within which the potential basal
failure zone occurs or may occur.
 Figure 1: Basal failure zone in heap leach pad

In that the outer slope of each lift of ore will generally be placed by tipping, the inclination of
this outer face will be the angle of repose of the ore itself, generally 37°. In theory the factor of
safety of this face is, by infinite slope theory, unity, you may be tempted to rethink this
condition. Provided, however, that you leave setbacks between lifts (see Figure 2) to create an
overall flatter slope, there is, in my opinion, no harm in such localized zones of unity factor of
safety.

Figure 2: Sliding of heap leach pad along basal liner

Pore pressure control

If unacceptable pore pressures or water table build up are feasible, I recommend provision of
adequate drainage components beneath the ore (and above the liner) and possibly even
within the mass of the pad itself between lifts. A layer of free-draining gravel protected by a
filter soil is the best. But be careful, for breakdown of the particles of the drain under the high
load imposed by the pad could reduce the overall hydraulic conductivity of the gravel, and
possibly lead to the development of a water table that could reduce the static stability of the
mass. Pipes designed to convey predicted quantities of flow and capable of withstanding the
high pressures from the overlying ore, may also be used to prevent the buildup of pore
pressures potentially detrimental to slope stability. Keep in mind that biotic processes may
lead to a buildup of "biotic gunk" in the pipes, effectively blocking them and causing water
pressure increases that could cause the slope to fail.

Stability—seismic

The response of a heap leach pad to an earthquake depends on the magnitude of the event,
the properties of the materials in the pad, and the liner interface strength. Potential responses
include:

 material liquefaction (Kavazanjian (1999), see "Seismic Design of Solid Waste

Containment Facilities" (PDF));
 sliding of the ore over the liners (Kavazanjian (2006) see "Seismic Response of a
Composite Landfill Cover" (PDF)); and
 mass deformation of the slopes of the pad.
Methods used in the landfill industry to evaluate the seismic response of landfills may be used
to quantify the potential for liner sliding and mass deformation (Kavazanjian (2001) see
"Seismic Design of Mixed And Hazardous Waste Landfills" (PDF)).

The recommended seismic factor of safety for a pseudo-static analysis is 1.0 for the Maximum
Credible Earthquake (MCE) and 1.1 for the Maximum Probable Earthquake (MPE). If a seismic
displacement analysis is performed, the maximum acceptable deformation should generally be
less than a foot—say 250 mm.

In general, only saturated sands and silts are susceptible to liquefaction by the shaking
associated with strong earthquakes. The lower the density of the sand or silt the more likely it
is to liquefy in a given earthquake. Most heap leach pads do not, or should not, contain
appreciable quantities of such materials. The point is, in a well designed, well constructed, and
well operated heap leach pad, there will be no layers of saturated, low-density sand or silt.

If tailings are incorporated into the pad for leaching, they should be so agglomerated, located,
and drained that they are consequently not susceptible to earthquake-induced liquefaction.

But liquefaction is not, as we note above, the only potential impact of an earthquake on a
heap leach pad. The earth shaking may impart a good, solid jolt to the otherwise unsaturated
rocks and gravels, and that jolt may be sufficient to "push" a part or all of the mass sliding
sideways along the liner, or to cause a sloughing of the outer particles on the slope of the pad.
As with static stability, this wedge-type failure is easy to quantify and to preclude: flatten
sideslopes and/or the inclination of the graded foundation around the vulnerable perimeter of
the pad.

Operational Erosion Control

Control of erosion during operation of the heap leach pad is generally best effected by
appropriate surface contouring as part of the placement of the ore on the heap leach pad, by
limiting runon, and by directing runoff to sediment control dams and basins.

The heap leach pad itself should be surrounded with swales, channels, berms, dikes, and
embankments so that no runoff from upgradient catchment areas is able to enter or approach
the pad. It is simply good policy to prevent any runoff from the area surrounding the heap
leach pad from coming into contact with the pad. This is good policy not only to control
erosion but also to prevent contamination of surface waters that may contact the ore on the
pad.

The ore should be placed to such a top deck surface geometry that rainfall runoff is directed
over flat or gently inclined surfaces to holding (pond) areas, or swales that are maintained to
limit surface erosion. Generally such "overland" flow across the top deck will infiltrate the
heap and become part of the overall water balance of the heap leach system. In arid climates,
this is not usually a problem. In wet climates, this may be nuisance. It may be cost-effective to
place a geomembrane liner over part of the top deck in the rainy season to shed excess
precipitation. This will assist in controlling erosion, and will limit the problem of overwhelming
the water balance with too much fresh water.

The inclination of the sideslopes of most heap leach pads is determined by operational
(placement) and stability considerations. Provided the ore is relatively coarse, an erosion-
resistant layer of coarser rocks soon develops on sideslope, thereby contributing to effective
erosion control.

The Cost of Heap Leaching

General

Heap leaching is a popular method of extracting copper and gold primarily because in most
instances it is the lowest cost approach. CostMine (website) on InfoMine provides resources to
help estimate the cost of a potential heap leach operation. In essence, all you need to do is
sketch the layout of a possible pad and estimate the cost of the components and operations.

Construction

These are the primary factors in establishing a baseline for construction costs.

 site clearing and grading

 surface water management facilities including surround swales, channels, diversion
ditches, and protective embankments
 starter works including perimeter toe starter dikes, and interior berms to form
separate compartments for successive stages of the heap leach facility
 liner construction, including compacted clay, geosynthetics, protective layer, gravel
drainage layer, drainage pipes
 adjacent ponds and tanks to hold leach solutions before application to the pad and
after collection from the pad
  fluid distribution networks including the pumps and piping to move solutions from the
plant to holding ponds to the heap leach pad for distribution across the surface of the
pad, and hence to collect and convey solutions form the base of the pad to holding
ponds and back to the plant for processing and metal recovery
 access roads that are needed to transport ore from the mine to the pad
 ore conveyance and spreading equipment including conveyors, trucks, and spreaders

Operation

These are the primary factors in establishing a baseline for operation cost management.

 personnel and equipment needed to operate the facility

 power: (a) to pump the leach solution to the heap leach pad and distribute it around
the top of the pad, (b) to pump leachate back from the pad to the process plant, and
(c) for electricity for a plethora of things at the pad
 chemicals to add to the solution to ensure liberation of the metals sought from the ore
as the solution seeps down through the stacked materials of the heap leach pad

Closure

Also, estimate the closure costs. As we discuss in more detail in a subsequent section of this
course, it is best to undertake closure and reclamation of the heap leach pad as mining
proceeds and one section after another of the pad is worked out. The primary closure costs are
usually associated with the final regrading, cover placement, revegetation, and provision of the
long-term surface water management components.

Closure

Introduction

Finally, mining ends, and you must close the heap leach pad. How you plan for closure and
how you finance closure of the heap leach pad is only a small part of the bigger issue of how
you plan for and finance closure of the mine itself. We do not consider that aspect of heap
leach pad closure: suffice it to say that you best have a plan, and would probably do better to
undertake interim closure than leave it all to the end of operations.

We will take a quick look at the general goals and objectives that commonly govern heap leach
pad closure. Then we consider some of the more common closure works for heap leach pads.
There is not really much that is unique about the goals or the works for heap leach pad
closure—they are much the same as for the mine in general and for tailings impoundments
and waste rock dumps. But we will make note of them for completeness.

Rather, we will focus in this section on an issue specific to heap leaching: namely, how at
closure to deal with the solution and lixiviant that may be in the ore at cessation of operations
and which may continue to seep out at ever-decreasing rates for a very long time.
Closure Goals & Objectives

The following are the most general goals for heap leach pad closure.

 protect public safety

 protect sensitive environments
 reduce or eliminate long-term management requirements
 achieve closure in an efficient and cost-effective way
The following specific goals should apply.

 minimize infiltration of meteoric waters

 provide a suitable surface for cover and vegetation
 provide a landform with a natural appearance that is compatible with existing
topographic landforms
 minimize erosional losses

Closure Construction Works

A heap leach pad should be closed so that it becomes a new long-term geomorphic entity in
the surrounding environment. To the extent possible, the heap leach pad should be closed so
that it is an essentially self-sustaining entity that requires the least conceivable post-closure
care and/or maintenance. Achieving this objective may involve, amongst other things:

 regrading to enhance surface water control, runoff, and erosion control;

 constructing a cover to limit infiltration, air entry, and erosion; and
 replacing and/or upgrading surrounding surface water management facilities to
control upgrading runoff, direct heap leach pad seepage, manage heap leach pad
runoff, and generally provide topographic expressions that replicate natural
geomorphic features and forms.

Seepage Quality Control

Rinsing

It may be possible to rinse the heap leach pad prior to closure by flushing large quantities of
clean water through the materials on the pad. The objective of such rinsing is to wash out any
remaining chemicals or leachable constituents prior to closure. If successful, rinsing leaves you
with only clean water seeping from the base of the heap leach pad, and no issues of water
quality management post-closure arise.

In practice, it is generally not possible to rinse to the extent that seepage water meets most
water quality standards. If you are very smart, you may be able to identify some chemical or
some biological agent that can be flushed through the pile as part of the washing solution to
effect chemical and physical changes reducing seepage contaminant loadings.

Cyanide destruction

If cyanide was used in the heap leach operation, the pad cannot be said to be "closed" until
the cyanide is "gone." In practice, cyanide degradation occurs in unused heap leach pads as a
result of cyanide reaction with bacteria, sunlight, and the materials of the heap leach pad.
These processes may take many years to totally degrade the majority of cyanide in a typical
heap leach pad.

Evaporation of excess leachate

In most instances, leachate will continue to seep from the heap leach pad drains at rates
approaching operational period rates for a significant period after cessation of operations
proper. If you are unable to keep the process plant operational to receive and treat this longer-
term, decreasing seepage, it may be necessary to install spray evaporation systems on the top
of the heap leach pad and to use these sprayers to enhance evaporation of seepage waters.

Land application

With time after closure, the seepage rate will decrease. At some point the seepage rate may
reduce to the point where you can dispose of the seepage by land application. You will need to
locate a suitable soil formation on site: one where the soil is of sufficient permeability to
accept the predicted seepage quantities; where the soil is such that adsorption, bacterial
metabolization, volitalizations, plant uptake, and/or storage of solution in vadose zone pore
space will occur. If such a soil deposit exists, then take the excess seepage to the field, and
spray it around at a rate that does not lead to surface ponding, contaminated seepage
downgradient, or pollution of surface waters or groundwater.

Passive treatment

If the long-term seepage rate is very small and the constituent loading relatively low, then it
may be possible to lead the excess seepage from the heap leach pad to a passive treatment
system. In essence, this involves trenches filled with gravel, limestone, manure, wood chips, or
other materials that act to attenuate the contaminants in the heap leach pad seepage.

Long-Term Erosion Control

To the extent that the ore is too fine for an erosion-resistant layer to develop, it may be
necessary to plough a series of troughs or furrows to limit runoff and hence erosion.
Alternatively, the benches or setbacks between lifts may be arranged to intercept downslope
runoff flow and direct such runoff laterally to erosion-resistant down-swales, or to pond the
water long enough to let it seep into the heap leach pads itself.

After closure of the heap leach pad, control of erosion is crucial to the long-term performance
of the closed site. Generally, control of gully erosion is the primary consideration. This may be
achieved by one or more of the following approaches.

 vegetation, which may be preferable in a moist climate

 placement of rocky soil, which may be preferable in a dry climate
 contouring to limit runoff lengths-benches at 20- to 50-ft vertical intervals are
commonly used
  disking to create paddocks, i.e. a series of vertical and horizontal surfaces on the
otherwise overall slope sideslope
The fact is that the closed heap leach pad is a new, and often very large, geomorphic form in
the environment; neither the best intentions nor the best engineering will prevent it being
eroded away. The trick is not to bluff yourself, your client, the regulators, or that amorphous
body called the stakeholders that erosion will not happen. The trick is to contour the closed
heap leach pad to limit erosion so that the quantity of solids moved along each year does not
detrimentally affect on-site, and particularly off-site, surface water quality.

Post-Closure Maintenance

Post-closure maintenance should be undertaken in accordance with a Post-Closure

Maintenance Plan that should incorporate a Post-Closure Emergency Response Plan. Post-
closure maintenance should include at least the following.

 vegetation irrigation, fertilizing and mowing

 revegetation to augment dead, burnt, or eaten vegetation
 control and repair of erosion damage resulting from runoff
 regrading to address slope creep, mass movement induced by earthquakes and high
precipitation events, or slope instability
 access road maintenance include regrading, dust control, etc.
 maintenance of surface water management facilities and components include
vegetation removal, sediment cleanup, liner repair, replacement of damaged erosion
control riprap Mining Dictionary Look-Up , etc.
 monitoring of groundwater to observe reducing or developing groundwater pollution
resulting from possible liner deterioration and/or failure

Review #3

The randomly selected multiple-choice questions below are designed to

review your understanding of the material covered in the preceding sessions.
Your selections are lost when you leave the review page. On return the
review will start afresh with a new selection of questions.

This review is currently set to practise mode. To optimize your learning

experience you need to register for certification before entering the course.
Certification tests more rigorously, keeps track of your answers to the
multiple choice review questions, and enables you to report and submit your
review scores to complete the certification process. If you have already
registered and been approved for certification then you should Exit and re-
enter before proceeding.
Each question below has one or more correct responses. Your selection of a
response is immediately marked correct or not.

Q1. Drip emitters beneath the pad surface for solution application are
better than spray emitters because... (select one or more)

evaporation is reduced?

degradation of solution by ultra-violet exposure is reduced?

ice build-up in freezing weather is reduced?

they are much easier to deploy?

Q2. The presence of excess fines in the ore material is a persistent cause of
failure of heap leach operations.

True?

False?

Q3. Erosion of ore material during operation of a heap leach pad can be
controlled by...

appropriate surface contouring during placement of ore?

limiting surface water runon from surrounding areas?

directing runoff to sediment control dams and basins?

Q4. Drainage through ore material with excessive fines can be improved
by... (select one or more)

consolidation?

aeration?

agglomeration?
 comminution?

Q5. Agglomerating agents for copper ores include... (select one or more)

Portland cement?

ash?

polymers?

lime?
Heap Leach Pads (Text Level)
Part 4 - Case Histories

Case Histories

Introduction

(See Summary for main points)

In this section we present a number of case histories of

heap leach pad design and performance. We arrange
them more or less in order of the course. Thus this
section serves as a kind of summary of the course, or
better a refresher that you may read to get an overall
view of what you have previously read and learnt by
way of practical situations.

Case History 1: Fort Knox

(See Summary for main points)

Here is a description of a proposed heap leach pad in

Alaska for an operating mine. I include this case history
as it provides a relatively complete description of a
proposed new heap leach pad. The case history includes
details of the mine, the heap leach pad, the
components, and the application of lixiviant and
collection and processing of leachate.

The Fort Knox Mine is an open-pit gold mine,

approximately 26 miles northeast of Fairbanks, Alaska.
The mine was originally permitted in 1994, and currently
produces about 330,000 ounces of gold annually.

The valley fill heap leach will be located immediately

upstream from the existing tailings storage facility (TSF).
The heap leach pad with an in-heap storage
embankment and base platform will cover
approximately 310 acres and will have a total capacity
for leaching 165 million tons of ore.

The pad is to be constructed in five stages: clear brush

and trees and initial earthwork in preparation of liner
construction, build the site access road, construct the
portion of the in-heap embankment outside the pad
limit, and establish drainage control over the entire 310
acres of the project. Within that area, 130 acres of lined
pad will be constructed for the first two stages and
loaded with ore. Each of the three additional stages will
be constructed as needed for loading ore.

Ore for the heap leach pad will consist of run-of-mine

rock from the Fort Knox Pit as well as lower grade ore
that was previously placed in various stockpiles. The
Barnes Creek and Fish Creek stockpiles currently contain
29 million tons of lower grade ore that will be loaded on
the heap leach pad. The ore is characterized by
relatively high permeability that will promote efficient
flow in the heap for rapid solution recovery and
drainage and for rapid rinsing at closure.

In-heap storage of process solution and storm water will

be accomplished uphill of an embankment at the
downstream toe of the heap. The rock that will be used
to construct the embankment for the in-heap storage
pond is sound, and durable.

The valley fill heap leach pad will be constructed with a

12-inch prepared subbase with a coefficient of
permeability of less than 1 × 10-5 cm/sec overlain by a
geomembrane liner of 80-mil thick LLDPE or similar
material. Above the geomembrane liner, there will be
an overliner consisting of 3 feet of crushed rock
containing a network of pipes to promote rapid
drainage. The overliner will protect the geomembrane
liner during ore loading and will help promote leachate
collection and maintain a low head on the
geomembrane liner.

The facility will utilize in-heap storage to collect

pregnant (gold-bearing) solution. In addition to
providing the necessary operating capacity for pregnant
solution, the in-heap storage pond will be sized to
contain: (1) solution from a 24-hour drain down, plus (2)
the runoff from the 100-year/24-hour storm event.

Beneath the in-heap storage pond, a Leachate

Collection and Recovery System (LCRS) will be
constructed between an overlying primary
geomembrane liner and an underlying secondary
geomembrane liner underlain by a 12-inch-thick layered
prepared subbase. The LCRS will consist of a drainage
layer that will report to a pump back system to return
any solution passing through the primary liner back to
the in-heap storage pond. The LCRS constructed in
conjunction with the double liner in the area of the in-
heap storage reservoir will provide leak monitoring and
collection.

A Process Component Monitoring System (PCMS) will be

constructed under the main header lines for the
solution collection system, outside of the LCRS,
providing additional leak detection. An underdrain
system consisting of a network of drainage channels
containing drain rock will route water from base flow in
Walter Creek, and other seeps and springs under the
subbase to the tailing impoundment providing a third
level of leak detection.

Barren (non-gold-bearing) solution will be applied on

the heap leach using drip emitters, or possibly sprinklers
during the warm months. The solution will flow through
the run-of-mine ore. Pregnant solution will flow to the
in-heap storage reservoir, which will have an operating
capacity of about 68 million gallons, or 9.1 million cubic
feet. The pregnant (gold-bearing) solution that collects
in the wells in the in-heap storage reservoir will be
pumped to the Carbon-In-Columns (CIC) plant using
vertical pumps located in the solution collection wells.
Barren solution and pregnant solution will be pumped in
pipes between the pad and the CIC plant. Loaded
carbon will be processed in the existing Fort Knox mill
facilities
 Below (Figure 1) is the layout of the final heap leach pad
(see Fort Knox Mine on the State of Alaska website).

Case History 2: Zaldivar Copper

(See Summary for main points)

Here is a case history of field testing that demonstrates

the importance of getting the lixiviant right. I include
this case history to emphasize the importance of
considering alternative heap leach pad geometries,
lixiviants, and process applications, and of recognizing
that not all seeming improvements will improve heap
leach pad recovery.

In "Impact of Heap Operational Changes on Zaldivar

Copper Production" (Bouffard (2007)) the author writes
that Barrick's Zaldivar operation in Chile produces
copper by heap leaching, solvent extraction and
electrowinning. The heap consists of a dynamic pad, and
its stacking and operating conditions have changed over
its 11 years of operation. These changes have included
pad re-mining midway through the cycle, tightening of
the irrigation drip lines, an increase of the coarseness of
the particles, and an increase of the heap height. Field
tests demonstrated that neither re-mining nor
tightening the irrigation grid added value for both low
and high grade oxide and sulfide ores. The P80 of the
feed ore was increased by 0.8 mm, which did not reduce
the copper recovery of oxide and sulfide ores. The
increase of the heap height above 8 m lowered
moderately the copper recovery from sulfide minerals,
and very slightly the recovery from oxide minerals.
Despite the lower recovery, the higher tonnage stacked
in the taller heap increased the copper output.
 Optimizing the chemistry of the agglomeration and feed
solution holds more promise for increasing the copper
recovery than the above physical changes.

Case History 3: Sherlock Bay Nickel

(See Summary for main points)

In this case history, we read about plans for a heap

leach project for an Australian nickel mine. Plans involve
bacterial agents to augment leaching efficiency. I find
the case history interesting as it deals with bioleaching
and takes into account the environmental issues of heap
leach pad operation.

The Sherlock Bay Nickel Project will use bacterial heap

leach technology which will effectively oxidise around
90% of the nickel bearing sulphides within the ore,
producing a nickel sulphate solution which will drain out
of the base of the heaps. The construction and
operation of the heaps is very similar to the widely
utilised acid heap leaching of copper oxide ores with the
major difference being the introduction of specially
selected strains of bacteria during the stacking process
and the aeration of the heaps during operation to
provide oxygen and carbon dioxide for the bacteria.

The bacterial action oxidises the sulphides in the ore

and at the same time creates acid, thus producing a ten
to twenty fold decrease in the acid consumption
compared to lateritic nickel heap leaches.

The clear solution draining from the bottom of the heap

leaches is collected once it is sufficiently concentrated
and the nickel and other metals can then be recovered
using pH modification techniques.

The nature of the bacterial heap leach process is such

that it has inherent environmental advantages when
compared to the environmental impacts from a
conventional process of concentrating and smelting. In
 essence, the key difference environmentally between
the two process types is that the oxidation of the
sulphide material in the bacterial heap leach process
occurs within the heap, through bacterial oxidation,
producing a sulphate; whereas in a conventional process
a concentrate is smelted to oxidise the sulphides to
sulphates, which produces sulphur dioxide. The
advantages of the bacterial heap leach process are that
it does not produce any sulphide tailings or significant
air emissions of sulphur dioxide and carbon dioxide. In
summary, the bacterial heap leach process has lower
rates of potentially harmful environmental
inputs/outputs.

Results of the third phase of the column bacterial

leaching test work has shown that acid consumption in
the columns was around 35 kg per tonne of ore. Actual
acid consumption in the trial is expected to be far lower
due to scale up factors. This has been shown in previous
trials by other operators. This is in comparison with
lateritic nickel heap leaches which typically use 400–600
kg of acid per tonne.

Case History 4: Peru Instability

(See Summary for main points)

I include this case history as it deals with the only known

failure of a heap leach pad as the result of an
earthquake. The fact that we have only one instance of
earthquake-induced failure of a heap leach pad should
not, however, induce complacency: as pads get bigger,
as the stack of ore gets higher, as we leach more
aggressively, and as larger earthquakes hit in mining
areas, we may see more such failures. Use this case
history to remind yourself to consider earthquake
stability in designing and constructing your heap leach
pad.

The only known failure of a heap leach pad due to an

earthquake occurred in southern Peru in 2001 when a
 copper heap leach liquefied on an interlift liner about 10
m above the basal liner. The causative earthquake is
reported to have been of magnitude 8.4 M with peak
acceleration of 0.22 g in the bedrock beneath the pad.
The pad is lined with a 100-mil HDPE geomembrane
bottom liner. The pad consists of 2-meter thick lifts,
each of them underlined by a thin (20-mil)
geomembrane liner. The ore consists of 8-inch minus
material. The fifth lift liquefied during the earthquake
and underwent considerable displacement. Another
nearby heap leach pad, as well as lined solution ponds,
were undamaged.

Case History 5: Bingham Canyon

(See Summary for main points)

This is a case history of a test pad culled from a paper by

W. J. Schlitt (Schlitt (2006)). I include this case history as
it illustrates the importance of field-scale tests as part of
an integrated evaluation of new heap leaching
procedures, and it was a success.

In the early 1990s, Kennecott's Bingham Canyon

operation included 350 Mt of low grade material
containing at least 0.15% Cu present as chalcopyrite.
Milling would have displaced higher grade copper ore,
so the decision was taken to carry out a heap leach test
involving a full-sized heap of 960kt using truck-hauled,
run-of-mine ore and an ancillary solvent extraction-
electrowinning (SX-EW) pilot plant.

The test heap was located atop an old leach dump

which was graded and capped with 150 mm of calcium-
treated clays and fines containing electronic moisture
sensor to detect leaks. Another 150-mm layer of minus
6-mm fines screened from run-of-mine materials was
placed over the instrumented layer. Each of the three
cells was lined with a different liner: 1.5 mm LDPE; 0.5
mm PVC; and 1.0 mm HDPE. 100-mm-diameter
corrugated and perforated HDPE pipes were laid at 15-
 m centers. The pipes were covered with 450 mm of
minus screened quartzitic drainage material grading
plus 6 mm to minus 50 mm. In-heap aeration pipes were
placed over the drainage layer and cover with 1.5 m of
run-of-mine ore before placement by truck dumping of
the 16 m of heap materials.

Before construction of the second lift, the first lift was

graded to slope and five evenly spaced shallow channels
cut and lined with HDPE and two 50-mm-diameter
pipes. The intent of these was to intercept solution from
the second lift before it percolated into the first lift. The
height of the second lift varied from 11 to 14 m.

Here is a summary of the results and findings.

 At least 30 percent of the copper was recovered.

 Supplemental forced aeration did not improve leach

pad performance—there was sufficient natural
convective airflow to provide oxygen.

 Heap temperatures ran at least 30 degrees Celsius

above ambient.

 The pregnant leach solution underwent little

attenuation as it percolated from the upper lift into
the lower lift.

 Copper recovery from the first lift continued even

after placement of the second lift.

 The SX-EW plant performed very well—achieving

95% extraction efficiency and producing high-quality
cathode copper that was sold to offset the cost of
the test.

Case History 6: Seepage Through the Ore

(See Summary for main points)

Here is a case history where one man with vision and
enthusiasm made a difference in the efficiency and
effectiveness of heap leaching at an operating mine. I
include it to remind us all that we can individually make
a difference, and that there are still many opportunities
to improve the theory and practice of heap leaching.

A good presentation at a conference informs you of

technical advances and new ways to make money.
"Hydro-Jex—Heap Leach Pad Stimulation Technology:
Ready for World Wide Industrial Adoption?" is a paper
that was presented at the SME conference in 2007 in
Denver. The paper is in the conference proceedings that
are available for purchase through SME. Or you could
contact the author himself ([email protected]).

The author and presenter was Thom Seal of Newmont

Mining Corporation From Elko, Nevada. He talked with
enthusiasm and knowledge of the work he has done to
recover more gold from old heap leach pads. My quick
summary of his work: in any heap leach pad there are
zones where the gold has not been removed, mainly
because construction practices prevented access to
these zone by the seeping fluids supposed to liberate
and transport the gold to collection points. He has
devised novel ways to locate these "unprocessed" zones
and to get the right chemicals to these zones to get the
gold out. With gold at $600 an ounce plus, it makes
good economic sense to go after these reserves, and he
has proven you can do it.

The Hydro-Jex technology has been used by Newmont

Mining Corp. on the gold heap leach pads on the Carlin
Trend, Nevada for three years to recover the inventory
gold and change the chemistry in the pads. This
research-and-development-patented process is
described and the data presented. Information on drill
sampling, geophysical surveying, followed by leach pad
stimulation with impacts on solution chemistry and gold
recovery are discussed. Can this technology be used to
rinse and close heap leach pads faster with reduced
pump energy cost and improved recovery?
 I believe the answer is yes, and I can only encourage you
to take a look at his data to convince yourself.

Thom earned his Ph.D. for the work he has done in

developing the Hydro-Jex technology. I suspect this is a
well deserved degree. I chatted briefly with him after his
presentation and he told me he is refining the work for
future publication in the SME magazine. He speculated
on the potential application of his methods to copper
heap leach pads. It seems there is another world of
opportunity awaiting this development.

Case History 7: Bellavista, Costa Rica

(See Summary for main points)

There is a lesson for us all in the failure of the heap

leach pad at the Bellavista mine. It is also useful to read
the paper "Estimation of Fugitive Dust Impacts of Open-
Pit Mines on Local Air Quality—A Case Study: Bellavista
Gold Mine, Costa Rica" (Arpacioglu (2003)).

Here is an edited version of the first news report I saw.

Glencairn Gold Corp. suspended operations at its

Bellavista Mine in Costa Rica, citing the risk of a
cyanide spill and ground movements that may
compromise containment of cyanide used to
dissolve gold from crushed ore. The earth
movement—up to one centimeter a day in some
parts of the leach pad and waste pile—is attributed
to years of unusually heavy rain.

"Based on earth movement patterns in Costa Rica,

the geological structure at the site and the opinions
of its experts, the company does not believe that
there is a risk of sudden earth movement at this
time," Glencairn stated. "However, continued small
movements could compromise the sub-liner, liner
and drain system."

Glencairn said the mine closure is a "precautionary

 measure until a full technical analysis has been
completed and required remedial action has been
implemented."

Gray said the company first noticed earth

movements as early as May. "Monitoring since then
has revealed that the movements have been
identified in the range of one centimeter per day."

"We are taking a conservative approach with our

valuation and are assuming that the ground
movement problems will take one year to resolve
and mining will not restart until August 2008."

A few weeks later, this (edited) news report appeared.

Glencairn Gold Corp. shares were trading near a six-

year low, a day after the company warned that its
Bellavista mine in Costa Rica may remain closed
indefinitely and that the Toronto-based company
needs cash urgently.

All mining and leaching operations at the gold heap

leach mine in Costa Rica were suspended last month
after ground movements raised concerns about risk
of a cyanide spill.

The company said last month that massive ground

movements—first noticed in May—had caused
cracks at two corners of a leach pad which contains
cyanide used to dissolve gold from crushed ore.

Below you can see two pictures of the heap leach pad.
The first looks at the pad from across the valley above
which it sits. The second is taken from a plane flying
over the site. This is a developing story, so keep an eye
on events as they develop.
 Case History 8: Radio Hill

(See Summary for main points)

To end this course on the lightest note possible, I show

this picture of the mine's heap leaching pads. It shows in
one snapshot the support facilities (tanks), the liners
awaiting new ore, the newly placed ore awaiting
leaching, and old ore that has been leached. We wish
them success with their operations, and wish you well
with your leaching. Thanks for staying the course.

Heap Leach Pads - Author References

Arpacioglu, C. B. and C. Er. "Estimation of Fugitive Dust

Impacts of Open-Pit Mines on Local Air Quality—A Case
Study: Bellavista Gold Mine, Costa Rica." 18th International
Mining Congress and Exhibition of Turkey—IMCET 2003. SRK
Consulting. Ankara, Turkey. 2003. Available:
http://www.maden.org.tr/resimler/ekler/8cac9d33aad44bb_e
k.pdf. (Accessed April 2013.)
Bouffard, S.C., Barrick Technology Centre and Flores, D.,
Minera Zaldivar. Impact of heap operational changes on
Zaldivar Copper production. 2007

Breitenbach, Allan J. and Mark E. and Smith. Geomembrane

raincoat liners in the mining heap leach industry. 2007.

Cooper, G. and S. Dixon. "Modeling Chalcocite Leaching." SME

Annual Meeting. March 27–March 29, 2006.

Hutchison, P.G. and Ellison, R.D. (1992). Mine Waste

Management: A Resource for Mining Industry Professionals,
Regulators and Consulting Engineers.Crc Press Llc. 672
pages.

Jensen, Mal, and Alan Taylor. "A New Approach to Heap Leach
Modeling and Scale-Up." International Project Development
Services Pty Limited. December 2012. Available:
http://www.altamet.com.au/wp-
content/uploads/2012/12/New-Approach-to-Heap-Leach-
Modeling-and-Scale-Up.pdf. (Accessed April 2013.)

Kavazanjian, Edward and Matasovic, Neven. Seismic Design

of Mixed And Hazardous Waste Landfills (2001).

Kavazanjian, Edward and Matasovic, Neven. Seismic

Response of a Composite Landfill Cover. 1090-0241(2006)
132:4 (448).

Kavazanjian, Edward. Seismic Design of Solid Waste

Containment Facilities. In: Proceedings of the Eight Canadian
Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Vancouver, BC, June
1999, pp. 51-89.

Malouf (1981). Mineral Leaching Technology (in Surface

Mining - 2nd Edition) published by Society for Mining,
Metallurgy & Exploration

OKane Consultants (2000). Demonstration Of The Application

Of Unsaturated Zone Hydrology For Heap Leach Optimization.
A Research Project Funded by the Industrial Research
Assistance Program (IRAP), Contract # 332407 and O'Kane
Consultants Inc., Saskatoon, SK. Canada
Scheffel, R. E. "The Rewards of Patience." SME Annual
Meeting Minutes. March 27–March 29, 2006. St. Louis, MO.

Schlitt, W.J. (Chapter 15.2) SME Mining Engineering

Handbook, 2nd Edition by A. B. Cummins (Editor), I. A. Given
(Author), Howard L. Hartman (Editor), 1992

Schlitt, W.J., History of forced aeration in copper sulfide

leaching, Minerals & Metallurgical Processing, Vol.23 No.2,
2006

Sidborn, M. et. al. "Two-dimensional dynamic model of a

copper sulphide ore bed." Hydrometallurgy. 71 (1-2); 67-74
Oct. 2003. Available:
http://www.captura.uchile.cl/bitstream/handle/2250/2414/Si
dborn_M.pdf?sequence=1. (Accessed April 2013.)

Thiel, Richard, et. al. (2003). "State of the Practice Review of

Heap Leach Pad Design." Proceedings of the 17th Annual GRI
Conference Hot Topics in Geosynthetics—IV, presented in Las
Vegas, NV, Dec. 15. Geosynthetics Institute, Folsom, PA.