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.

Abstract: In nature, pyrite is initially oxidized by atmospheric O2, releasing acidity and Fe2+. At pH below 3.5, Fe2+ is rapidly oxidized by T. ferrooxidans to Fe3+, which oxidizes pyrite at a much faster rate than O2. Commonly, limestone is used to prevent pyrite oxidation. This approach, however, has a short span of effectiveness because after treatment the surfaces of pyrite particles remain exposed to atmospheric O2 and oxidation continuous abiotically. Currently, a proposed mechanism for explaining non-microbial pyrite oxidation in high pH environments is the involvement of OH- in an inner-sphere electron-OH exchange between pyrite/surface-exposed disulfide and pyrite/surface-Fe(III)(OH)n3-n complex and/or formation of a weak electrostatic pyrite/surface-CO3 complex which enhances the chemical oxidation of Fe2+. The above infer that limestone application to pyritic geologic material treats only the symptoms of pyrite oxidation through acid mine drainage neutralization but accelerates non-microbial pyrite oxidation. Therefore, only a pyrite/surface coating capable of inhibiting O2 diffusion is expected to control long-term oxidation and acid drainage production. The objective of this study was to examine the feasibility in controlling pyrite oxidation by creating, on pyrite surfaces, an impermeable phosphate or silica coating that would prevent either O2 or Fe3+ from further oxidizing pyrite. The mechanism underlying this coating approach involves leaching mine waste with a coating solution composed of H2O2 or hypochlorite, KH2PO4 or H4SiO4, and sodium acetate (NaAC) or limestone. During the leaching process, H2O2 or hypochlorite oxidizes pyrite and produces Fe3+ so that iron phosphate or iron silicate precipitates as a coating on pyrite surfaces. The purpose of NaAC or limestone is to eliminate the inhibitory effect of the protons (produced during pyrite oxidation) on the precipitation of iron phosphate or silicate and to generate iron-oxide pyrite coating, which is also expected to inhibit pyrite oxidation. The results showed that iron phosphate or silicate coating could be established on pyrite by leaching it with a solution composed of: (1) H2O2 0.018-0.16 M; (2) phosphate or silicate 10-3 to 10-2 M; (3) coating-solution pH [approximate]5-6; and (4) NaAC as low as 0.01 M. Leachates from column experiments also showed that silicate coatings produced the least amount of sulfate relative to the control, limestone and phosphate treatments. On the other hand, limestone maintained the leachate near neutral pH but produced more sulfate than the control.

Abstract: Under environmental conditions, arsenic (As) reveals anionic behavior and is converted into various forms in accordance with the Eh/pH condition. This causes the difficulty of treating As with other heavy metals in tailing. This study was carried out to develop the immobilization method of arsenic in tailing as ferric arsenate (FeAsO4) using hydrogen peroxide. According to experimental results, the extracted concentrations of arsenic and iron (Fe) from tailing were reduced up to 84% and 93%, respectively. In the experiment using pure Pyrite (FeS2) and As solution, As concentration decreased with an increase of hydrogen peroxide dosage. The experimental results of re-extraction showed that only 10% of As and 20% of Fe were extracted in the case of using hydrogen peroxide. As a result, the long-term stability of this method was clarified.