J.W Storm Van Leeuwen Kuannersuit Discussion Paper

8/12/2019 J.W Storm Van Leeuwen Kuannersuit Discussion Paper

1/10

KvanefjeldU 1

Kvanefjeld/Kuannersuit

uranium mining

By J.W. Storm van Leeuwen, MScindependent consultant

Discussion paper

Ceedata Consulting, Chaam, The Netherlands, 4 March 2014E [email protected]

W www.stormsmith.nl


2/10

KvanefjeldU 2

Uranium resources

The Greenland Minerals and Energy Ltd (GMEL) intends to exploit the Kvanefjeld Mineral Resourcefor production of Rare Earth Elements (REE) and uranium.This paper focuses on the projected uranium production from the Kvanefjeld/Kuannersuit mineral

resource.

Units and abbreviations

Mt = million metric tonnesMtpa = million metric tonnes per annumt = metric tonnetpa = metric tonnes per annumREE = rare earth elementTREO = total rare earth oxide, refers to the rare earth elements in the lanthanide series plus yttriumppm = part per millionU3O8 = uranium oxide, 1 t U3O8 contains 0.848 t UU = uraniumMlbs = million pounds, 1 lb = 0.4536 kg, 1 Mlbs = 453.6 t

Summary uranium resources according to GMEL 2012 [1] and 2014a [2]

Uranium oxide: 2.6 Mlbs pa = 1180 tpa U3O8 = 1000 tpa U33 000 t U sum over 33 years mine life

232.6 Mt ore at an average mine grade of 341 ppm U 3O8Uranium grade of processed ore: g= 341 ppm U3O8 = 289 ppm UUranium content of processed ore: 232.6 Mt341 ppm U3O8 = 79 317 t U3O8 = 67 260 t UThis means that GMEL expects to achieve an average yield of the uranium extraction (= recoveryfactor or recovery yield) of:

33000 t U produced/67260 t U in ore = 0.49 = 49%.Probably above figures are nominal projected capacities and yield, in practice the figures may turnout lower.From above yield figure follows that at least 51% of the uranium in the processed ore is discarded inthe mill tailings.

Table 1

Uranium resources at a cut-off grade 127 ppm U, according to GMEL 2012 [1] and 2014a [2]

portion ofresources

resourceMt ore

gradeppm U

uraniumcontent in situ

t U

recoverableuranium

t U

1 232.6 289 67260 33000

2 628 207 129682 38900-45400 *

3 (zone 3) 95 255 24233 ~9700 *

sum 956 av 231 221175 ~88000 *

* Estimate by the author, numbers depend on assumed recovery factor, which steeply decreases withdecreasing ore grade: portion 1 recovery factor 49%, portion 2 30% and portion 3 (zone 3) 40%

Sum ore portions (1+2) = 232.6 + 628 = 861 Mt oreSum uranium content (1+2) = 67260 + 129682 = 196 942 t UAverage ore grade of (1+2) = 196 942 t U /861 Mt ore = 229 ppm UThis result equals the average ore grade of the Kvanefjeld and Srensen deporits in GMEL 2014b [3]


3/10

KvanefjeldU 3

Summary uranium resources according to GMEL 2014b [3]

Table 2

Uranium resources at a cut-off grade 127 ppm U, according to GMEL 2014b [3]

portion ofresources

resourceMt ore

average gradeppm U

uraniumcontent in situ

t U

recoverableuranium

t U

Kvanefjeld deposit 619 218 134 942 * 53 977 **

Srensen deposit 242 258 62 436 * 24 974 **

Zone 3 deposit 95 254 24 130 * 9652 **

sum 956 av 232 221 508 * 88 603

* Calculated by the author, based on published ore grades** Numbers depend on assumed recovery factor, here assumed 40%; cut-off grade 127 ppm U

Sum Kvanefjeld and Srensen ore resource = 619 + 242 = 861 MtSum uranium content = 134 942 + 62 436 = 197 378 t UAverage ore grade = 197 378 t U/861 Mt ore = 229 ppm UThis figure equals the average grade calculated from figures from GMEL 2012 [1] and GMEL 2014a[2], see note at Table 1.From this equivalence may follow that the resources are redefined in a different way.

On slide 6 GMEL2014b [3] states:Geological resource estimate generated by Henning Srensen, published by the IAEA, of >1.3Blbs @150ppm U3O8 cut-off

The global (JORC) uranium resource is listed in slide 6 as 575 Mlbs U3O8, conform GMEL 2014a [2].

1.3 Blbs = 1300 Mlbs U3O8= 589680 t U3O8= 500 049 t U = 500 000 t U (rounded)cut-off grade 127 ppm UApparently this high figure has to do with the statement on slide 6:


4/10


5/10

KvanefjeldU 5

Strikingly in none of its publications and presentations GMEL mentions the presence of thorium inthe ores of the Ilimaussaq Complex, although several minerals contain thorium.

The report Ris 1966 [7] mentions three radioactive minerals to be present in the Kvanefjeldlujavrite (the rock type containing the ore minerals):monazite CePO4(ThO2, UO2, SiO2)

thorite ThSiO4(UO2)steenstrupine see table below

Part of Table 1 from Ris 1966 [7]

From Table 1 of Ris 1966 [7] follows that the content of thorium in the mineral steenstrupine is ten

times as much as the uranium content. Steenstrupine is the major ore mineral of the Kvanefjelddeposit.The two other radioactive minerals identified by Ris in the lujavrite also contain thorium.A number of significant REE ore minerals listed by GMEL 2012 [1] and GMEL2009 [6] also containthorium.It is not clear why GMEL conceals the presence of thorium in the ores to be mined.

Extraction from ore

All uranium minerals are silicates or phospho-silicates, and therefore are hard ores.Some ore minerals belong to the most refractory minerals known (zircono-silicates).

Extraction of uranium (and of the other metals) from these refractory minerals requires much moreenergy and chemicals per kg reovered uranium than from conventional uranium ores. (see alsoStorm 2012a [8].

Broadly the recovery of uranium, and the of the other metals, comprises five steps:1 Sorting of the mined ore at the mine using radiation counters: only rock with an uranium

content of 127 ppm U or more is transported to mill (extraction plant): 127 ppm U is the cut-off grade.This raises the question how the radiation counters distibguish between radioactivity fromthorium plus its decay daughters and uranium plus its decay daughters.

2 Benefication. The ore is milled to powder and mixed with water and chemicals. By means of aflotation process the heavy ore mineral grains are separated from the lighter ore bearing rock(gangue) GMEL claims that the resulting amount of ore minerals is some 8.5% of the raw input.

The remaining 91.5% of the rock powder is discarded into the tailings.3 Leaching. By means of an assortment of chemicals the ore mineral grains are dissolved into

what is called a pregnant liquor, this liquid contains U, Th, REE, Zn, and other elements (e.g.Fe, Al).

4 Separation. Using various techniques and chemicals the desirable metals (REE, U) areseparated from the pregnant liquor. Uranium can be extracted by means of solvent extractionor by ion exchange columns.

5 Purification of the extracted metals.

Recovery factor

The efficiency of the recovery of uranium from the ore, called the recovery factor or recoveryyield, will be low for two reasons: Leaching of hard ore minerals using conventional methods is substantially less efficient than of

soft ores.


6/10

KvanefjeldU 6

Due to fundamental chemical and physical phenomena the efficiencies of the requiredseparation processes decline with decreasing uranium content.

For this reason the extraction yield of uranium might be low. GMEL (GMEL 2012 [1]) expects toattain a recovery of 49% from ore at 289 ppm U. In practice this figure might be lower. From Table2 follows that the grades of the three ore bodies are lower: the average is 232 ppm U. Consequently

one might expect an average recovery yield of less than 49%. This author assumed 40% in Table 2.

The low yield is affirmed by the remark in Red Book 2009 [4] placing the uranium production atKvanefjeld in the highest cost category of


7/10

KvanefjeldU 7

Radioactive waste

In the separation of uranium and REEs all radioactive decay daughters of uranium are discarded inthe waste stream. In addition all thorium and its decay daughters leave the refinery in the wastestream, at a concentration of about three times of uranium decay daughters. This means that themill tailings will be strongly radioactive. A number of the decay daughters are highly dangerous, for

example polonium-210. All the radionuclides are present in a chemically mobile form in the tailingsand can easily contaminate surface water and ground water. If the tailings become dry, dust isreason for concern. Dust can be transported by the wind over very large distances. Radon is onlygaseous radionuclide and will escape into the air anyway.

Only once GMEL (GMEL 2012 [1) refers to radioactive tailings:The residue will be covered by water hence radon emissions will be safely managed.

Discussion

Inconsistent figures of GMEL

The figures on resources, ore grades and recoverable metals as given by GMEL are not consistentand deviate from figures given by the Red Book. Probably different categories of resources and/orreserves with different assurance ratings are discussed. In addition GMEL seems not to distinguish insituresources from recoverable uranium resources.This fact hampers an independent judgement of the feasibility of the proposed uranium miningactivities, in technical, economic and environmental senses.

Uranium as energy source: the energy cliff

At low grades the energy consumption of the recovery of uranium from its in situore increasesteeply, due to larger direct energy inputs plus the energy embodied in the chemicals andequipment used for the recovery.

An elaborate energy analysis of the nuclear process chain including all industrial processes neededto generate electricity from uranium from cradle to grave demonstrates that a grade of 250 ppmfor hard ores is near the bottom of the energy cliff (Storm 2012b [9]), see diagram below. Thisobservation means that a nuclear energy system using uranium from this ore, measured from cradleto grave, is actually an energy sink and does not deliver useful energy to the consumer. A negativeenergy balance is possible when the amount of useful energy generated by the nuclear power plantduring its operational lifetime is equal or less then the amount of energy required to run theindustrial processes needed to generate useful energy from uranium from ore mining to finaldisposal of the radioactive wastes.In the case of Kvanefjeld uranium is a by-product of the REE production, so not all energy consumedby the refinery can be attributed to the recovery of uranium.

Health effects

A report of EPA 2012 [10] mentions several primary pollutants of concern, associated with REEmining, such as radiologicals, metals, mine drainage (acid, alkaline or neutral), organics, dust andassociated pollutants. The report discusses documented human health and ecological effects fromexposure to REE. Two quotes from the Key Findings of [10]:

The most significant environmental impact from contaminant sources associated with hardrock mining is tosurface water and ground water quality. However, documented impacts also have occurred to sediments, soils,and air. Mining for rare earth mineral ores and processing those ores into the final products can be comparedto other hardrock metal mining and processing operations, and similar environmental impacts and risks wouldbe expected.

The specific health effects of elevated concentrations of REEs in the environment from mining and processingREE-containing ores are not well understood. From the limited literature review, it appears that most available

epidemiological data are for mixtures of REEs rather than individual elements. These data indicate thatpulmonary toxicity of REEs in humans may be a concern.


8/10

KvanefjeldU 8

Figure 17 from [9]The energy cliff. EROEI of the nuclear energy system as function of the uranium ore grade of soft oresand hard ores, under baseline conditions. In the background the grade distribution of the known uraniumresources is represented by the bar graph. The EROEI (Energy Return On Energy Investment) is defined as theratio of useful energy production and the useful energy investment.

Environmental concerns regarding Kvanefjeld

RadioactivityThe descriptions of the processes in GMEL 2012 [1] needed to extract uranium and REEs from orenever refer to the presence of thorium, whereras most REE minerals mentioned in the report docontain thorium. The concentrations of thorium and its daughters in the mined and processedminerals may be significant, but are not disclosed by GMEL.

Radioactive decay products of uranium and thorium are not mentioned, except radon. GMEL doesnot disclose the concentrations of these radioactive species in the mill tailings, although thesespecies are of major health concern. As pointed out above, the concentrations of the radioactivedaughters in the mill tailings would be higher than in the original minerals. This fact might poseserious health hazards.

Non-radioactive toxic chemical speciesThe GMEL report [1] does not indicate which chemical species at which concentrations are expectedto be present in the mill tailings, originating from the treated minerals and added by the chemicalprocessing of the ore.

The GMEL report [1] does not mention the organic solvents (kerosene, xylene?) and other chemicals(e.g. TBP) needed for the solvent extraction of uranium and other metals from the liquor resultingfrom the leaching step. The report does not discuss the treatment of the waste streams of theseparation processes either.

Lack of clarityNor the description in the text nor Figure 2.7.3 of the GMEL report [1] make clear by what meansmigration of chemical species from the mill tailings into the environment will be counteracted.


9/10

KvanefjeldU 9

Retaining

Of primary concern regarding the health effects and environmental issues of the proposedKvanefjeld mine are effective measures to avoid the release of radioactive and non-radioactivetoxic species into the environment, not only during the operational life of the mine, but also afterclosure of the mine.

The hazardous species have to be chemically immobilised as good as possible and as soon as possibleafter they are released in the processing sequence. This implies that these species have to beincorporated into insoluble chemical compounds. The heavy metals, including uranium and thoriumand their radioactive decay products, may be precipitated, for example, as phosphates. The wastestreams from the ore processing plants have to be processed before they are pumped as a slurry tothe mill tailings pond.Organic solvents, tributyl phosphate and other harmful chemicals used in the separation andpurification processes should also to be processed in an adequate way.

The mill tailings pond has to be lined with a thick impermeable layer of bentonite. This clay mineralswells when aborbing water, minimizing chances of fissures and leaking channels, and has theproperty of strongly retarding the migration of ions dissolved in water. During the operational life of

the mine the surface of the tailings pond has to be covered by some means. The drainage waterfrom the tailings pond has to be purified constantly.

Figure i18Concept of mine reclamation, from Storm 2012b [9].During operation of the mine the tailings pond should be lined with bentonite, to prevent dissolved speciesentering the ground water. In the second part of this figure the situation is given which is currently common aturanium mines. Reclamation of uranium mines is nowhere practised up until now.

To prevent environmental damage and health hazards during long times after the mine is depletedit would be advisable to relocate the tailings and place them between thick bentonite layers at thebottom of the mining pit and cover the mass with the waste rock and overburden mined out to get

the ore. This mine reclamation should occur before abandoning the mining location and should beincorporated in the project plans of the mining corporation, in this case GMEL.


10/10

KvanefjeldU 10

References

[1] GMEL 2012Kvanefjeld Prefeasibility Study Confirms a Long-Life, Cost Competitive Rare Earth Element-Uranium Project,Section 2, Executive Summary, April 2012,Greenland Minerals and Energy Ltd, May 4, 2012.

www.ggg.gl/docs/ASX-announcements/

[2] GMEL 2014awww.ggg.gl/retrieved 27 February 2014

[3] GMEL 2014bStrategic Metals for Global Industry,Greenland Minerals and Energy Ltd, February 2014.www.ggg.gl/docs/ASX-announcements/retrieved 1 March 2014

[4] Red Book 2009Uranium 2009: Resources, Production and Demand,A joint report by the OECD NEA and International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), Red Book

NEA No. 6891OECD 2010.www.oecd-nea.org/ndd/pubs/2010/

[5] Red Book 2011Uranium 2011: Resources, Production and Demand,A joint report by the OECD NEA and International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), Red BookNuclear Energy Agency Organisation for Economic C0-operation and Development,NEA No. 7059,OECD 2012.

www.oecd-nea.org/ndd/pubs/2012/

[6] GMEL 2009Development of Metallurgical Flowsheet Kvanefjeld Multi-Element Project,

Greenland Minerals and Energy Ltd, not dated, probably 2009.www.iaea.org/OurWork/ST/NE/NEFW/documents/RawMaterials/TM_LGUO/

retrieved 3 March 2014

[7] Ris 1966Srensen E & Lundgaard Th,Selective Flotation of Steenstrupine and Monazite from Kvanefjeld Lujavrite,Danish Atomic Energy Commission, Research Establishment Ris,Ris Report No. 133, June 1966.www.risoe.dk/rispubl/reports_INIS/

[8] Storm 2012aStorm van Leeuwen JW,Nuclear power, energy security and CO2 emission,

Ceedata, May 2012www.stormsmith.nl/reports.html

[9] Storm 2012bStorm van Leeuwen JW,Uranium mining,Ceedata, May 2012.www.stormsmith.nl/i18.html

[10] EPA 2012Rare Earth Elements: A Review of Production, Processing, Recycling, and Associated Environmentsl Issues,EPA 600/R-12/572|December 2012,US Environmental Protection Agencywww.epa.gov/ord , downloadable from:

www.epa.gov/Adobe/PDF/

Documents

J.W Storm Van Leeuwen Kuannersuit Discussion Paper