|
|
Lawrence, R. (2002). Technology reduces sulphur compounds – A new way of treating acid mine drainage. Canadian Mining Journal, 123(7), 27.
|
|
|
|
Franchet, J. (1995). An example of sulphate removal by nanofiltration – The treatment of iron ore mine water in Lorraine. Membranes in Drinking Water Production, , 27–31.
|
|
|
|
(1995). Selecting Mine Drainage Treatment Systems. E&Mj-Engineering and Mining Journal, 196(10), Rr24–&.
|
|
|
|
Whitehead, P. G. (2005). Bioremediation of acid mine drainage: an introduction to the Wheal Jane wetlands project. Science of the Total Environment, 338(1-2), 15–21.
Abstract: Acid mine drainage (AMD) is a widespread environmental problem associated with both working and abandoned mining operations. As part of an overall strategy to determine a long-term treatment option for AMD, a pilot passive treatment plant was constructed in 1994 at Wheat Jane Mine in Cornwall, UK. The plant consists of three separate systems; each containing aerobic reed beds, anaerobic cell and rock filters, and represents the largest European experimental facility of its kind. The systems only differ by the type of pre-treatment utilised to increase the pH of the influent minewater (pH<4): lime-dosed (LD), anoxic limestone drain (ALD) and lime free (LF), which receives no form of pre-treatment. The Wheal Jane pilot plant offered a unique facility and a major research project was established to evaluate the pilot plant and study in detail the biological mechanisms and the geochemical and physical processes that control passive treatment systems. The project has led to data, knowledge, models and design criteria for the future design, planning and sustainable management of passive treatment systems. A multidisciplinary team of scientists and managers from the U.K. universities, the Environment Agency and the Mining Industry has been put together to obtain the maximum advantage from the excellent facilities facility at Wheal Jane. (C) 2004 Elseaier B.V All rights reserved.
|
|
|
|
Schoeman, J. J., & Steyn, A. (2001). Investigation into alternative water treatment technologies for the treatment of underground mine water discharged by Grootvlei Proprietary Mines Ltd into the Blesbokspruit in South Africa. Desalination, 133(1), 13–30.
Abstract: Grootvlei Proprietary Mines Ltd is discharging between 80 and 100 Ml/d underground water into the Blesbokspruit. This water is pumped out of the mine to keep the underground water at such a level as to make mining possible. The water is of poor quality because it contains high TDS levels (2700-3800 mg/l) including high concentrations of iron, manganese, sulphate, calcium, magnesium, sodium and chloride. This water will adversely affect the water ecology in the Blesbokspruit, and it will significantly increase the TDS concentration of one of the major water resources if not treated prior to disposal into the stream. Therefore, alternative water desalination technologies were evaluated to estimate performance and the economics of the processes for treatment of the mine water. It was predicted that water of potable quality should be produced from the mine water with spiral reverse osmosis (SRO). It was demonstrated that it should be possible to reduce the TDS of the mine water (2000-2700-3400-4500 mg/l) to potable standards with SRO (85% water recovery). The capital costs (pretreatment and desalination) for a 80 Ml/d plant (worst-case water) were estimated at US$35M. Total operating costs were estimated at 88.1c/kl. Brine disposal costs were estimated at US$18M. Therefore, the total capital costs are estimated at US$53M. It was predicted that it should be possible to produce potable water from the worst-case feed water (80 Ml/d) with the EDR process. It was demonstrated that the TDS in the feed could be reduced from 4178 to 246 mg/l in the EDR product (65% water recovery). The capital costs (pretreatment plus desalination) to desalinate the worst-case feed water to potable quality with EDR is estimated at US$53.3M. The operational costs are estimated at 47.6 c/kl. Brine disposal costs were estimated at US$42M. Therefore, the total capital costs are estimated at US$95.3 M. It was predicted that it should be possible to produce potable water from the mine water with the GYP-CIX ion- exchange process. It was demonstrated that the feed TDS (2000- 4500 mg/l) could be reduced to less than 240 mg/l (54% water recovery for the worst-case water). The capital cost for an 80 Ml/d ion-exchange plant (worst-case water) was estimated at US$26.7M (no pretreatment). Operational costs were estimated at 60.4 c/kl. Brine disposal costs were estimated at US$55.1M. Therefore, the total desalination costs were estimated at US$81.8M. The capital outlay for a SRO plant will be significantly less than that for either an EDR or a GYP-CIX plant. The operating costs, however, of the RO plant are significantly higher than for the other two processes. Potable water sales, however, will bring more in for the RO process than for the other two processes because a higher water recovery can be obtained with RO. The operating costs minus the savings in water sales were estimated at 17.2; 6.7 and US$8.6M/y for the RO, EDR and GYP-CIX processes, respectively (worst case). Therefore, the operational costs of the EDR and GYP-CIX processes are the lowest if the sale of water is taken into consideration. This may favour the EDR and GYP-CIX processes for the desalination of the mine water.
|
|
