CONTROVERSY surrounding a uranium project by Headspring Investments could block its possible implementation in Namibia.
Headspring was meant to use the most advanced method of in-situ recovery (ISR), which is widely considered as environmentally friendly.
The main concern of opponents of the project in Namibia is the possible negative impact of uranium mining on the Stampriet Transboundary Aquifer System (Stas).
As a result, the situation requires profound discussion among all stakeholders, and independent expertise is urgent.
The Namibian (TN) got some answers from Bruce Lane (BL), the executive director of GTI Resources Ltd, an Australia-based company, on some of the crucial issues around the project.
GTI Resources is engaged in the exploration of mineral tenements for ISR uranium.
TN: As an expert, what is your opinion on the ISR method? Is it really an environmentally friendly way of uranium mining?
BL: Generally speaking, ISR mining is significantly less destructive to the environment, especially when an alkaline lixiviant (leaching) solution is used. I believe it can be the most environmentally friendly mining method so long as groundwater is not contaminated as a result.
Moreover, the ISR method definitely can comply with international environmental, social and governmental (ESG) principles.
TN: How are territories for ISR uranium mining selected?
BL: ISR projects are usually selected based on amenable rock types (e.g sandstones) with sufficient widths and grades of mineralisation, and conducive geotechnical and geohydrological factors. Mining, generally speaking, takes place sufficiently far enough below the local water table level to not interfere with groundwater flows and systems.
TN: Is the process of decontaminating water easier now than before?
BL: The decontamination of the water is conducted when the uranium-pregnant leach liquor is pumped out of the well to the surface. Uranium is then stripped from the water using either solvent extraction (SX) or ion extraction (IX) with the environmentally benign IX process being preferred.
Once the uranium is stripped from the solution, the remaining water flows through a water-treatment plant, after which the now clean water is returned to the ground it came from.
The water quality standards required are determined by the regulator in the specific jurisdiction, and the requirement can be for potable (drinking) quality water to be injected back into the ground. Modern water treatment techniques and plants are very effective at decontaminating water and bringing it up to potable quality.
Drinking water in many parts of the world is created from wastewater by industrial scale decontamination through water-treatment plants using the same/similar technology.
TN: What are the international requirements for using the ISR method?
BL: It depends on the jurisdiction, but the standards are very high and require groundwater to be rehabilitated. The company usually has to provide an environmental bond to cover some of these costs.
There can, in some unique circumstances, be issues with heavy metal residues which require additional management, particularly when using an acid lixiviant.
TN: Local farmers are worried that 1% to 3% of the dissolved uranium would remain in the recycled solution. Could this be a critical hazard after mining is completed?
BL: Uranium levels are generally reduced through the mining/extraction process – anything that remains would/should be injected back underground, and would in any case be below background (normal) uranium levels and well below any level that would create a hazard.
TN: Are there any radioactive effects of uranium mining through the ISR method beyond possible soil and water contamination?
BL: I believe that health risks are virtually non-existent if the process is well run and well regulated – especially if an alkaline lixiviant and IX process are used. A well-managed, regulated and monitored ISR process using SX and acid lixiviant should be safe.
Credit: The Namibian
