A ROBUST WATER-BALANCE METHOD FOR SIZING HEAP

LEACH SOLUTION PONDS AND WATER RESERVOIRS

James R. Kunkel
Senior Project Manager/Hydrologist - Knight Pisold and Co.


INTRODUCTION
A water balance is a calculation procedure, which provides for detailed analyses
of the state of the system, using climatological and operational variables. A
water balance is an accounting of water, using the general hydrologic equation
(Thornthwaite and Mather, 1955, 1957)
0 = D -
S
E -
S
Q - P
s w
D D

where P is precipitation, Q is runoff, is change in storage of water ponded on
the surface, E is evapotranspiration (evaporation plus transpiration), D is
change in soil (ore) moisture storage, and D is deep percolation (unrecoverable by
vegetation or evaporation).
Sw
D
Ss

Water-balance inputs typically include pond/reservoir characteristics, precipitation,
evapotranspiration, inflows, seepage, water demands, and operating variables.
For heap leach pads, the loading sequence of ore is an operating variable, and
must be taken into consideration in the water balance. One of the most sensitive
times for water handling at a heap leach pad is at startup, when large footprint
areas are exposed, but little ore is available to hold water. Another sensitive time
is at shutdown or draindown during a power outage, when water cannot be
recirculated from storage ponds.

Water-balance outputs are the state of the system at any time for any variable of
interest. For heap leach operations, these variables may include the volume of
water in pregnant and barren storage ponds, makeup water demands, or flow

1
rates which must be treated and released. Design usually involves predicting the
state of the system for extreme events, such as meteorological droughts or
excessive precipitation. Therefore, the water balance is a design tool for sizing
and operating the facilities. Water balances are generally more sensitive to
operational variables than to climatological variables.

The purpose of a water balance, then, is to answer the questions How do we
know that the state of the system may not overtop the available storage? or How
do we know that the state of the system may not be reduced to zero at a time of
heavy water demand? The following sections present the traditional approach to
answering these questions and a more robust approach.


TRADITIONAL WATER-BALANCE APPROACH
The traditional approach to a water balance is to use the systematic
climatological record with either averages or once-through operation. The
approach using averages is to use only a 12-season model with one season
representing one month. Thus, even if the climatological time series has 30
years of data, the average approach uses the average of the January values,
the February values, and so on through December. An alternative approach for
the traditional water balance is to use the full-time series of climatological data
but only have a once-through simulation. In order to assess the sensitivity of the
initial state of the system, for example an empty reservoir, a large number of
once-through simulations must be run for each initial system state.

The fall back position of the traditional approach is to perform sensitivity
analyses, by assigning a wet or dry sequence within the average time series.
Often the climatological variables are arbitrarily increased or decreased by
some percentage in an attempt to simulate a wetter or dryer than average year.
Another fall back of the traditional approach is to use a random time series of
equally likely climatological variables. These variables, precipitation for

2
example, are generated stochastically, but used deterministically in the water
balance.

There are two obvious drawbacks of the traditional water-balance approach.
These drawbacks are (1) the approach does not analyze all possible
combinations of climatological and operational variables, and (2) it uses an
arbitrary sensitivity analysis. Some arbitrary sensitivity analyses used in the
traditional water-balance approach include synthetic extreme wet years,
synthetic extreme dry years, wet years followed by wet years, and dry years
followed by dry years.

None of these traditional water-balance analyses can give a full assessment of
running a water balance for all possible combinations of climatological and
operational variables. Therefore, a more robust approach is needed to fully
assess the impacts of a water balance on the system being analyzed.


ROBUST WATER-BALANCE APPROACH
The robust water-balance approach uses the systematic climatological record or
a synthetically generated long-term time series. The difference between the
traditional approach and the robust approach, is that in the robust approach the
operation begins in each year of the systematic climatological record, and runs
for the full life of the project.

For example, if a heap leach pad has an expected life of 12 years, and there is
a 20-year climatological record, the first 12 years of the pad life are first run,
using the first 12 years of the systematic record, the 12 years are run again
starting in year 2 through year 13, and so on until year 20 is reached.
Obviously, at year 10 there are not 12 years of climatological data remaining. In
this case, year 1 is transposed to the end of the climatological record to always
provide a full 12 years of climatological data. If the water-balance run begins in
year 15, for example, the first six years of data are transposed to the end of the

3
record to always provide a full 12 years of climatological data. In this way, all
possible combinations of climatological record are experienced by the project
operation.

Obviously, in a mining or water resources project, it is not possible to determine
a priori if the project will come on line in a wet, dry, or average climatological
year. Figure 1 shows a 33-year time series of monthly precipitation in Per
showing wet and dry periods based on a six-year moving average analysis. By
analyzing the system using a robust water-balance method, the probability of
having a successful project or finding areas of concern during system operation
can be identified. The next section gives an example design for the volume of
makeup water and makeup pond volume for a heap leach pad. The robust
water-balance model also can be used to design the lixiviant pond volume, or
the volume of water treatment required, as well as many other operational
variables.
500
700
900
1100
1300
1500
1700
1900
2100
2300
2500
1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000
Year
A
n
n
u
a
l

P
r
e
c
i
p
i
t
a
t
i
o
n

(
m
m
)
Total Annual
6-Yr Moving Average
Wet Dry Wet Dry Wet Dry Wet
Figure 1. Total annual and six-year moving average precipitation showing wet and dry periods.


4
DESIGN EXAMPLE
The following example project demonstrates the use of the robust water-
balance approach. This project is a 2.8 million tonnes per year (tpy) gold heap
leach project in northern Per. Previous designs had been done, and this
project was an expansion to an existing project. The existing process ponds had
been sized and constructed to store 182,500 cubic meters (m) of fluid, and
these ponds, were to remain with the owners desire to not construct either new
ponds or expand the size of the existing ponds due to land space constraints.

Design procedure
After developing a six-year plan for expansion of the heap leach pad, a water
balance was done using the 33-year period of monthly precipitation from a
nearby climatological station. Figure 2 shows the 33-year precipitation record in
relation to the six-year project life.

The mine life was estimated by the owner to be approximately six years based
on the proven ore reserves. The problem was to calculate the quantity of
makeup water required to expand the heap leach pad to 2.8 million tpy.
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
J
a
n
-
6
4
M
a
r
M
a
y
J
u
l
S
e
p
N
o
v
J
a
n
-
7
1
M
a
r
M
a
y
J
u
l
S
e
p
N
o
v
J
a
n
-
7
8
M
a
r
M
a
y
J
u
l
S
e
p
N
o
v
J
a
n
-
8
5
M
a
r
M
a
y
J
u
l
S
e
p
N
o
v
J
a
n
-
9
2
M
a
r
M
a
y
J
u
l
S
e
p
N
o
v
Month/Year
M
o
n
t
h
l
y

P
r
e
c
i
p
i
t
a
t
i
o
n

(
m
m
)
6-year mine life
C
Figure 2. Monthly precipitation time series for a 33-year period of record.

5
Because it is unknown a priori which six years of the 33-year precipitation
record would produce the largest quantity of makeup water, a systematic
approach was used to assess this value. The first step was to perform a
monthly water balance, using the first six years of the precipitation record. The
monthly values of required pond storage and makeup water were calculated
from the water-balance equation (1). After the first six years of the precipitation
record were used, a second water-balance run (second run on Figure 3) using
years 2 through 7 of the precipitation was completed. Subsequent six-year
water balances were run, by stepping through the 33-year precipitation record
by beginning each new water-balance run in each succeeding year as shown
on Figure 3. For the last five water balance runs, climatological data from the
beginning of the 33-year time series were transposed to the end of the existing
time series so each run used a full six years of data.
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
J
a
n
-
6
4
M
a
r
M
a
y
J
u
l
S
e
p
N
o
v
J
a
n
-
7
1
M
a
r
M
a
y
J
u
l
S
e
p
N
o
v
J
a
n
-
7
8
M
a
r
M
a
y
J
u
l
S
e
p
N
o
v
J
a
n
-
8
5
M
a
r
M
a
y
J
u
l
S
e
p
N
o
v
J
a
n
-
9
2
M
a
r
M
a
y
J
u
l
S
e
p
N
o
v
Month/Year
M
o
n
t
h
l
y

P
r
e
c
i
p
i
t
a
t
i
o
n

(
m
m
)
C
Second run



N - 5 Run
6-year mine life

Figure 3. Water-balance runs for six-year mine life and 33 years of climatological record.



6
Interpretation of Results
By beginning the six-year project water balance in each of the 33 years of
climatological data, all possible combinations of operational (ore loading) and
climatological possibilities were modeled. Using 33 years of the monthly data
and six years per run meant that 198 values of required pond volume and
makeup water volume were generated for each of the 12 months of the
calendar. This total number of values was 2,376 for the 33 water-balance
cases. Given so many values, 198 per month, or 2,376 total values, raises the
question of how to interpret the meaning of these values.

Because engineers often design facilities for the largest or smallest values
generated from a time series analysis, the robust method uses univariate
statistics to summarize the 2,376 values into usable design values. Univariate
statistics are defined by the mean (average), variance (or standard deviation),
maximum, and minimum values for a given set of events.

Figure 4 shows the required pond volume for six years of heap leach pad
operation based on using all 33 years of monthly climatological record. Figure 4
shows the average, maximum, and minimum monthly values for the six-year
project operation period. Figure 4 indicates that the maximum storage does not
exceed the existing pond capacity of the 182,500 m of fluid. Also, the water-
balance model predicts that the minimum pond volume required is
approximately 37,000 m at the beginning of the six-year operation, and
increases to over 100,000 m near the end of the operation period (Figure 4).
Therefore, the water balance analysis helps set operational criteria for the
operating pond(s) in order to minimize the makeup water requirements.

Figure 5 shows the monthly average, maximum, and minimum makeup water
rate for the six-year project operation period. Makeup water requirements are
largest in the first few months of the expansion project (over 25 m/hr) because
the ore must be initially wetted to bring its moisture content up to the leaching
moisture content. The larger maximum makeup water requirements occur

7
during the end of the Peruvian dry season in the months of September and
October.
0
20,000
40,000
60,000
80,000
100,000
120,000
140,000
160,000
180,000
200,000
S
e
p
-
9
7
D
e
c
-
9
7
M
a
r
-
9
8
J
u
n
-
9
8
S
e
p
-
9
8
D
e
c
-
9
8
M
a
r
-
9
9
J
u
n
-
9
9
S
e
p
-
9
9
D
e
c
-
9
9
M
a
r
-
0
0
J
u
n
-
0
0
S
e
p
-
0
0
D
e
c
-
0
0
M
a
r
-
0
1
J
u
n
-
0
1
S
e
p
-
0
1
D
e
c
-
0
1
M
a
r
-
0
2
J
u
n
-
0
2
S
e
p
-
0
2
D
e
c
-
0
2
Month/Year
R
e
q
u
i
r
e
d

P
o
n
d

V
o
l
u
m
e

(
m
3
)
Average
Maximum
Minimum

Figure 4. Average, minimum, and maximum required pond storage volume.




8
(30)
(25)
(20)
(15)
(10)
(5)
0
5
S
e
p
-
9
7
D
e
c
-
9
7
M
a
r
-
9
8
J
u
n
-
9
8
S
e
p
-
9
8
D
e
c
-
9
8
M
a
r
-
9
9
J
u
n
-
9
9
S
e
p
-
9
9
D
e
c
-
9
9
M
a
r
-
0
0
J
u
n
-
0
0
S
e
p
-
0
0
D
e
c
-
0
0
M
a
r
-
0
1
J
u
n
-
0
1
S
e
p
-
0
1
D
e
c
-
0
1
M
a
r
-
0
2
J
u
n
-
0
2
S
e
p
-
0
2
D
e
c
-
0
2
Month/Year
M
a
k
e
u
p

W
a
t
e
r

R
a
t
e

(
m
3
/
h
r
)
Average
Maximum
Minimum

Figure 5. Average, minimum, and maximum makeup water rate.
Figure 6 shows the cumulative monthly makeup water volume over the life of
the project. This makeup water must come from either an outside source, such
as a well field or from a storage pond separate from the operational pond(s).
Analysis of Figure 6 shows that the maximum cumulative makeup of 80,000 m
of water occurs during the first six months of operation, when operational pond
volumes are generally low (Figure 4). This demonstrates that there is a
combination of the 33-year climatological record and operating conditions which
would increase the cumulative monthly makeup water volume by approximately
four or five times the average cumulative makeup water volume shown on
Figure 6.

9
(90,000)
(80,000)
(70,000)
(60,000)
(50,000)
(40,000)
(30,000)
(20,000)
(10,000)
0
10,000
S
e
p
-
9
7
D
e
c
-
9
7
M
a
r
-
9
8
J
u
n
-
9
8
S
e
p
-
9
8
D
e
c
-
9
8
M
a
r
-
9
9
J
u
n
-
9
9
S
e
p
-
9
9
D
e
c
-
9
9
M
a
r
-
0
0
J
u
n
-
0
0
S
e
p
-
0
0
D
e
c
-
0
0
M
a
r
-
0
1
J
u
n
-
0
1
S
e
p
-
0
1
D
e
c
-
0
1
M
a
r
-
0
2
J
u
n
-
0
2
S
e
p
-
0
2
D
e
c
-
0
2
Month/Year
C
u
m
u
l
a
t
i
v
e

M
a
k
e
u
p

W
a
t
e
r

V
o
l
u
m
e

(
m
3
)
Average
Maximum
Minimum

Figure 6. Average, minimum, and maximum cumulative makeup water volume.
Therefore, designing for average conditions could lead to undersizing of both
operating ponds and other facilities. Designing for average values also can
lead to inefficient operation and shortage of makeup water. The robust water-
balance method can reduce the uncertainty of poor design and improve the
understanding of the interaction between operational and climatological
variables.


CONCLUSIONS
Using a robust water-balance method to size storage ponds and reservoirs as
well as to calculate operational water demands is important to assess the
interactions between operational and climatological variables for the project.
Typically, operational variables play a much larger role than climatological
variables in design of the water management facilities.
In summary, the following conclusions are made related to use of the robust
water-balance approach.

10
Let the water-balance calculations begin in every year of the climatological
record over the life of the project.
Include operational variables in addition to climatological variables.
Use univariate statistics to summarize the results and select design values.


REFERENCES
Thornthwaite, C.W. and J.R. Mather, 1955, The water balance, Drexel Institute
of Technology, Laboratory of Climatology, Publications in Climatology, Volume
8, Number 1, Centerton, New Jersey.
Thornthwaite, C.W. and J.R. Mather, 1957, Instructions and tables for
computing potential evapotranspiration and the water balance, Institute of
Technology, Laboratory of Climatology, Publications in Climatology, Volume 10,
Number 3, Centerton, New Jersey.



11