Geometallurgy of Australian Uranium Deposits 2014 Ore Geology Reviews

Ore Geology Reviews 56 (2014) 2544
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Ore Geology Reviews

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/oregeorev
Review
Geometallurgy of Australian uranium deposits

M.I. Pownceby , C. Johnson
CSIRO Process Science and Engineering, Bayview Avenue, Clayton, Victoria 3168, Australia
a r t i c l e
i n f o
Article history:
Received 12 February 2013
Received in revised form 26 June 2013
Accepted 5 July 2013
Available online 14 July 2013
Keywords:
Geometallurgy
Uranium
Australia
Ore deposits
a b s t r a c t
Australian uranium ores are often composed of complex mineral assemblages. Differences in ore compositions and textures are seen between deposits as well as within a single deposit, which can host a range of
ore types. Such a wide variety of uranium ores make it impossible for a single extraction or treatment process
to be developed that will accommodate all of the ores. From a mineralogical perspective, key issues
confronting the Australian uranium mining industry include: the prevalence of low grade ores; a lack of detailed chemical and mineralogical information (uranium speciation, texture, grainsize) for the various ore deposit types; and the presence of refractory uranium-bearing minerals and highly acid-consuming gangue
minerals. This paper reviews some of the main controls on uranium geometallurgy by linking concepts relating to ore genesis and the resulting ore mineralogy, with the processing behaviour of specic Australian uranium ore types. Emphasis is placed on the value of detailed ore mineralogical analysis and the insight this
provides into the factors of importance when considering uranium extraction.
Crown Copyright 2013 Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
Contents
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Geochemistry of uranium . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Uranium ore deposit genesis models classication . . . . . . . . . . . .
Geometallurgical properties of uranium ores . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
4.1.
Uranium mineralogy composition and reactivity during processing
4.2.
Oregangue mineral associations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
4.2.1.
Quartz . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
4.2.2.
Clays . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
4.2.3.
Carbonates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
4.2.4.
Gypsum . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
4.2.5.
Salts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
4.2.6.
Carbon . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
4.2.7.
Sulphides . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
4.2.8.
Phosphates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
4.2.9.
Iron oxides . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
4.3.
Physical ore properties: grainsize, texture and grade . . . . . . . .
Uranium deposits in Australia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Geometallurgy of Australian uranium deposits . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
6.1.
IOCG-U (or breccia complex) deposits . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
6.1.1.
Processing options for IOCG-U (breccia complex) ores . . .
6.2.
Unconformity-related uranium deposits . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
6.2.1.
Processing options for unconformity-related uranium ores .
6.3.
Surcial (calcrete-hosted) deposits . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
6.3.1.
Characterisation of surcial calcrete ores . . . . . . . . . .
6.3.2.
Processing options for calcrete-hosted surcial uranium ores
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Corresponding author. Tel.: +61 3 95458820; fax: +61 3 95628919.

E-mail address: mark.pownceby@csiro.au (M.I. Pownceby).
0169-1368/$ see front matter. Crown Copyright 2013 Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.oregeorev.2013.07.001
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
26
26
27
29
29
29
29
29
30
30
30
30
31
31
31
31
32
33
34
35
37
38
38
39
40
26
M.I. Pownceby, C. Johnson / Ore Geology Reviews 56 (2014) 2544
6.4.
Sandstone-hosted uranium deposits . . . . . . . . . . . . .

6.4.1.
Characterisation of sandstone-hosted uranium ores . .
6.4.2.
Processing options for sandstone-hosted uranium ores
6.5.
Metasomatite uranium deposits . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
6.5.1.
Characterisation of metasomatite deposits . . . . . .
6.5.2.
Processing options for metasomatite uranium ores . .
7.
Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
1. Introduction
Geometallurgy is a rapidly expanding area of ore geology involving the detailed characterisation of the geological and mineralogical
characteristics of an ore. Such an assessment is crucial for quantifying
the material properties relevant to optimising processing performance and resource extraction. For example, the amount of uranium
that can be mined and recovered as a marketable product, and the
costs of mining and processing, are two key factors that determine
whether a uranium deposit can be exploited protably. Both factors
are a complex function of material properties (e.g. ore hardness, degree of liberation, susceptibility to leaching and otation) that are
principally determined by the uranium ore mineralogy (Bowell et
al., 2011; Lottering et al., 2008; Stewart et al., 2000).
Uranium ores often consist of complex assemblages of minerals that
differ widely in composition and texture, such that no two deposits are
the same no matter how similar the formation setting may have been
(Cuney, 2009; Cuney and Kyser, 2009; Dahlkamp, 1989, 1993). These
differences make it difcult for a uranium extraction process to be
optimised to accommodate all the possible variations (Merritt, 1971).
It is also unlikely that any ore specic treatment can be transferred in
detail from one ore to another. The mineralogy of an ore controls, in
part, the metallurgical characteristics exhibited during processing.
Therefore, when assessing the viability/potential of an ore to be mined
and processed, the following information is usually obtained: (a) the
Table 1
Average uranium concentrations in geologic materials.
Adapted from data in Gupta and Singh (2003) and Kyser and
Cuney (2009).
Reservoir/rock type
U (ppm)
Igneous rocks
Peridotite, dunite
Eclogite
Average basalt
MORB basalt
Continental andesite
Island arc andesite
Average granodiorite
Average granite
Nepheline syenite
0.0030.05
0.0130.8
0.3
0.070.1
0.51.0
0.20.4
2.0
3.8
200600
Sedimentary rocks
Black shale
Sandstone
Average carbonate
Marine phosphate
Evaporite
Chert
31250
0.453.2
2.2
50300
0.010.43
2.0
Metamorphic rocks
Average quartzite
Average marble
Average slate
Average schist
Average gneiss
1.5
0.5
2.5
2.0
3.0
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
40
41
41
41
41
41
42
42
42
speciation of uranium in the ore, (b) the associated gangue mineralogy;

(c) the degree of comminution required to affect liberation of the
uranium-bearing mineral and the potential for its separation from
gangue minerals and; (d) the nature of the lixiviant required for extraction (e.g. acid, alkali, oxidant) and the potential level of reagent consumption. Of these, variations in the mineralogy (a and b) together
with some assessment of the likely behaviour of the different mineral
assemblages under specic process environment conditions, are necessary factors to determine when deciding on the best process treatment
for recovering uranium from an ore (Adams, 2007; Pownceby et al.,
2011; Walters, 2011).
This paper briey reviews the mineralogy and geochemistry of uranium, the main types of uranium ore deposits (classication schemes)
and some of the more important mineralogical controls on uranium
geometallurgy. Concepts, relating ore genesis and the resulting mineralogy of specic Australian uranium ore types with their potential impact
on processing behaviour, are then discussed through case studies involving selected uranium ore types. Throughout the latter section, emphasis is placed on the value of the information obtained from high
resolution, detailed ore mineralogical analysis.
2. Geochemistry of uranium
Uranium is widely distributed in the Earth's crust with estimates
of its abundance varying between 2 and 4 ppm (Fleischer, 1953;
Merritt, 1971), being of similar abundance to molybdenum, arsenic,
tungsten and mercury. Table 1 gives approximate orders of magnitude (in ppm) of uranium abundance in some common crustal rock
types.
Oxidation states of 3+, 4+, 5+, and 6+ are known for uranium
(Hanchar, 1999). Of these, the 4+ and 6+ valence states have the required thermochemical characteristics such that pH and Eh conditions
within the Earth's crust preferentially stabilise one or the other valence
form (Hanchar, 1999). The resulting ions associated with these valence
states have very different properties. For example, the uranous ion
(U4+) has low basicity and forms an oxide insoluble in dilute acid and
salts that hydrolyse readily. The U4+ cation with eightfold coordination
and ionic radius ~1.00 is similar to that of the like-charged Th4+
(eightfold coordination, ~1.05 ) and ~Zr4+ (eightfold coordination,
0.84 ) ions (Shannon, 1976) resulting in the chemical behaviour between these ions being so alike that uranium is often found associated
with these elements (Burns, 1999). In comparison, hexavalent uranium
(U6+) typically forms the uranyl ion UO2+
2 , the oxide of which is highly
soluble in acid and alkaline solutions. It readily forms compounds with
other metal anions and cations, thus forming a wide range of complex
minerals (Mandarino, 1999). The large size of the uranyl ion also
means that it is not readily displaced, or replaced, by isomorphous substitution, resulting in crystalline minerals that are generally unique uranium compounds. For a comprehensive list of the structures and
chemical formulas of uranium minerals, the reader is referred to Burns
(1999), Finch and Murakami (1999) and Krivovichev et al. (2006).
Uranium is a lithophile element and therefore has an afnity for silicates. Tetravalent, primary uranium minerals (Table 2) are typically
present in small to trace amounts in igneous rock types although in
27
Table 2
Economically important uranium minerals (Edwards and Oliver, 2000; Frondel, 1958; Frondel and Fleischer, 1955; Mandarino, 1999).
Mineral type
Tetravalent uranium minerals (U4+)
Oxides
REE Ti Fe-oxides
Silicates
Hexavalent uranium minerals (U6+)
Phosphates
Vanadates
Silicates
Mineral name
Formula
Typical % U
Uraninite
Pitchblende
Brannerite
Betate
Davidite
Orthobrannerite
Cofnite
Uranothorite
6+
(U4+
1 x,Ux )O2 + x [ideally UO2]
UO2 amorphous
(U,Ca,Y,Ce,La)(Ti,Fe)2O6
(Ca,U)2(Ti,Nb,Ta)2O6(OH)
(La,Ce)(Y,U,Fe)(Ti,Fe)20(O,OH)38
U2Ti4O12(OH)2
U(SiO4)1 x(OH)4x
(U,Th)SiO4
4688
8688
2644
1524
16
~53
4060
b10
Autunite
Meta-autunite
Torbernite
Carnotite
Tyuyamunite
Boltwoodite
Sklodowskite
Uranophane
Ca(UO2)2(PO4)21012H2O
KCa(H3O)3(UO2)7(PO4)4O468H2O
Cu(UO2)2(PO4)2812H2O
K2(UO2)2(VO4)213H2O
Ca(UO2)2(VO4)258H2O
HK(UO2)SiO41.5H2O
(H3O)2Mg(UO2)2(SiO4)24(H2O)
Ca(UO2)2(SiO3)(OH)25H2O
4850
~57
47
5355
~52
~55
4954
~41
general, most uranium is present as an impurity element substituted

within minor accessory minerals (Table 3). In either form, however,
the presence of uranium in igneous rocks seldom occurs in concentrations or tonnages great enough to be exploitable, except in the case of
pegmatites (e.g. Lentz, 1996). To generate exploitable deposits, uranium re-mobilisation mechanisms are necessary. Uranium is transported
in oxidising, acidic or alkaline hydrothermal uids (e.g. Romberger,
1984). Mobilisation is controlled by oxidative processes as the tetravalent species, being almost insoluble under ambient pH and Eh conditions, requires oxidation to the hexavalent form. The deposition of
uranium out of hydrothermal uids results from redox controlled oxidationsolutionreductionprecipitation processes operating in a variety of environments magmatic, metamorphic, metasomatic and
sedimentary (e.g. Cuney and Kyser, 2009; Fayek and Kyser, 1997;
Hoeve and Sibbald, 1978; Romberger, 1984; Skirrow et al., 2009).
There are other sources of uranium where the element is present
as a minor constituent and does not generally occur in discrete or specic uranium minerals. For example the occurrence of uranium in
seawater (Seko et al., 2003), in phosphate deposits (5200 ppm
Merritt, 1971; Cathcart, 1978; Chernoff and Orris, 2002), in carbonaceous sediments (Eakin and Gize, 1992; Landais and Gize, 1997;
Vine, 1962), and porphyry-copper arc systems (Dahlkamp, 2009;
Lanier et al., 1978) are all well known. As well, uranium in soluble
form in groundwater is present in signicant amounts in some locations (e.g. Hem et al., 1993; Hess et al., 1985).
3. Uranium ore deposit genesis models classication
Uranium mineralisation occurs in a number of different igneous,
hydrothermal and sedimentary environments. The classication of
Table 3
Typical uranium contents of accessory minerals following isomorphic substitution in
crystal lattice.
After de Voto (1978).
Mineral
ppm U
Allanite (Ca,Ce)2(Fe+2,Fe+3)Al2O.OH[Si2O7][SiO4]
Apatite Ca5(PO4)3(OH,F,Cl)
Epidote (CaFe+3)Al2OOH[Si2O7][SiO4]
Garnet Ca3Al2Si3O12
Ilmenite FeTiO3
Magnetite Fe3O4
Monazite (Ce,La,Th)PO4
Titanite CaTi[SiO4](O,OH,F)
Xenotime YPO4
Zircon ZrSiO4
301000
5100
20200
630
150
130
5003000
10700
30035,000
1006000
uranium ore deposits is therefore subject to a number of complications (Cuney, 2009; Dahlkamp, 1978, 1989, 1993; Heinrich, 1958;
Mashkovtsev et al., 1998; McKay and Miezitis, 2001; Mickle and
Mathews, 1978; Nash et al., 1981; Petrov et al., 1995, 2000; Ruzicka,
1971; Skirrow et al., 2009; Stoikov and Bojkov, 1991) chiey due to
differing views on whether to emphasise descriptive features of the
mineralisation such as host rock type and orebody morphology, genetic aspects, or metallogenic aspects (e.g., see discussions by
Cuney, 2009; Dahlkamp, 1993). The former approach was adopted
by the IAEA in their widely used classication scheme (OECD/
NEA-IAEA, 2012) in which fteen uranium deposit types are distinguished. The classication of each deposit type is based on the geological setting and using a set of criteria that includes; the host rock
assemblage, tectonic setting, structural relationships, zoning, alteration, uranium mineral phases and the respective ages of uranium
mineralisation compared with that of the host rock. The fteen deposit types, designated by the IAEA in order of their approximate
world economic importance, are as follows; (1) unconformity related,
(2) sandstone, (3) breccia complex, (4) quartz-pebble conglomerate,
(5) vein (granite related), (6) intrusive, (7) volcanic and caldera related, (8) metasomatite, (9) surcial, (10) collapse breccia pipe,
(11) phosphorite, (12) metamorphic, (13) limestone and palaeokarst,
(14) uranium coal, and (15) other types (including black shales and
rare metal pegmatites).
Dahlkamp (1993) further subdivided these 15 deposit types into
thirty subtypes and thence into classes, while Plant et al. (1999)
re-grouped the types listed by the IAEA into three associations in recognition of the shared geological settings among groups of uranium
deposits i.e. igneous (plutonic and plutonic and volcanic), metamorphic and sediment/sedimentary basin associations. More recently,
Cuney (2009) proposed a genetic classication based on uranium deposit formation conditions through the geological cycle, outlining deposits formed by surface processes, synsedimentary deposits,
deposits related to hydrothermal processes, and deposits related to
partial melting and crystal fractionation. The Cuney (2009) classication model is illustrated in Fig. 1. A similar classication scheme was
proposed by Skirrow et al. (2009) that instead emphasised the similarities between the processes which form the various uranium deposit
types (Fig. 2). This was dubbed a mineral systems approach, a key feature being that all previous classication schemes could be simplied to
t within and between, three end-member uranium mineralising systems: (1) magmatic-related, (2) metamorphic-related, and (3) basinand surface-related.
The mode of formation of many deposits is generally well understood, and thus their classication is unequivocal within the multitude
28
Fig. 1. A uranium ore deposit classication scheme based on geological formation environments, after the Cuney 2009 model. Uranium deposit types from the IAEA Red Book classication are annotated by number, these correspond with the order of economic importance to Australia (McKay and Miezitis, 2001): 1) breccia complex (IOCG-U); 2)
unconformity-related; 3) sandstone; 4) surcial (including calcrete); 5) metasomatite; 6) metamorphic; 7) volcanic; 8) intrusive; 9) vein; 10) quartz-pebble conglomerate; 11)
collapse breccia pipe; 12) phosphorite; 13) lignite; 14) black shale. Emphasis is placed on the processes involved in the formation of uranium deposits.
of classication schemes which exist. However, a number of deposit

types (e.g. IOCG-U) require further investigation and are the subject of
continued debate (Cuney and Kyser, 2009). In some cases, agreement
regarding genesis may never be reached as questions still remain with
respect to the provenance of ore forming and related uids and the conditions of uranium concentration, mobilisation and redeposition.
Consequently, the classication of some deposits remains problematic.

Nonetheless, a classication method to group the Australian uranium
deposits considered in this paper is essential. The authors have given
preference to the IAEA classication system (OECD/NEA-IAEA, 2012)
as the IAEA system is widely used and accepted by industry workers
and academic researchers (e.g., Cuney, 2009; Cuney and Kyser, 2009;
Meteoric water, basin brines

(10, 12, 13, 14)
(7)
(4)
Basin- & surface-related

genesis processes
(3)
Connate fluids
ix i
ng
Shallow
breccia complex
(1)
Magma &
magmatic fluids
Mixing
Metasomatic fluids
ng
ix i
Deep
breccia complex
(1)
(7, 8, 9)
Diagenetic fluids
Hybrid processes
(1, 5, 9, 10, 11)
Magmatic-related
genesis processes
(2)
Metamorphic-related
genesis processes
(6)
Metamorphic fluids
(5, 9)
Fig. 2. A uranium classication scheme, after Skirrow et al. (2009). Numbers in parentheses indicate the equivalent uranium deposit types from the IAEA Red Book classication are
annotated by number, these correspond with the order of economic importance to Australia (McKay and Miezitis, 2001): 1) breccia complex (IOCG-U); 2) unconformity-related; 3)
sandstone; 4) surcial (including calcrete); 5) metasomatite; 6) metamorphic; 7) volcanic; 8) intrusive; 9) vein; 10) quartz-pebble conglomerate; 11) collapse breccia pipe; 12)
phosphorite; 13) lignite; 14) black shale.
Plant et al., 1999). As well, the IAEA classication scheme is a descriptive, typological classication with an emphasis on geological setting
and ore characteristics the latter is of paramount importance when
considering metallurgical processing of each ore type.
4. Geometallurgical properties of uranium ores
The mineralogical variability between different uranium ore types
means that the ore processing requirement (e.g. acidic versus alkaline
leaching, preconcentration methods, etc.) is a reection of the different
genesis modes and resulting styles of mineralisation. An understanding
of the geological setting in which a deposit has formed, in addition to an
in-depth knowledge of the ore characteristics, enables ore properties to
be determined and processing difculties to be foreseen, planned for
and potentially circumvented. Furthermore, increased awareness of
limitations, which leads to a series of logical, calculated decisions
being taken, results in the most cost effective processing method being
implemented.
A number of independent properties contribute to the overall performance and response of a uranium ore to processing. The main ones
to consider in a geometallurgical investigation are; i) the composition
and reactivity in process solutions of the main uranium mineral species, ii) the oregangue mineral associations, and iii) the deportment
(i.e. grainsize and concentration) of the uranium mineralisation.
4.1. Uranium mineralogy composition and reactivity during processing
The most common uranium ore minerals encountered during ore
processing are primary, tetravalent species; uranium oxides (pitchblende and uraninite); uranium silicate (cofnite); and the uranium
REETi Fe-oxide phases (brannerite, davidite, orthobrannerite and
betate) (Table 2). In comparison, secondary uranium minerals are
commonly hydrated and contain uranium in the oxidised, hexavalent
(U6+) form. For the most part, uranium deposits are dominated by primary uranium phases and contain lesser amounts of secondary minerals. When present, secondary (U6+) minerals such as autunite,
torbernite, uranophane and boltwoodite are found associated with the
oxidised/altered regions of deposits (Kyser and Cuney, 2009). There
are exceptions where deposits are dominated by secondary minerals,
examples include; surcial calcrete deposits where carnotite is the principal ore mineral, e.g. Yeelirrie deposit in WA (Carlisle, 1980, 1983;
Mann and Deutscher, 1978; Mann and Horwitz, 1979); hydrothermal
deposits of boltwoodite, e.g. the Swakopmund district of Namibia, east
of the Rossing Mine (Kinnaird and Nex, 2007; Marlow, 1981; Nex,
1997); and continental phosphorite deposits containing surcial lens
formations of concentrated autinite and tobernite, e.g. Bakouma deposit
in Central African Republic (Bowie, 1979; IAEA, 2009; Notholt, 1980).
The susceptibility of uranium minerals to acid or alkaline process
solutions varies widely and it is essential to characterise the chemistry of the uranium species in order to select the most efcient method
of processing. The theoretical composition of uraninite, UO2, does not
exist naturally, with most natural uraninites containing signicant
levels of cationic impurities (e.g. Ca, Si, Pb, REE) and most having undergone partial oxidation as a result of chemical alteration
(Alexandre and Kyser, 2005; Berman, 1957; Fayek and Kyser, 1997;
Finch and Ewing, 1991; Finch and Murakami, 1999; Frondel, 1958;
Janeczek and Ewing, 1992; Ram et al., 2013). Under ambient conditions, uraninite dissolves most efciently in an acid solution with
the addition of an oxidant (Laxen, 1971; Merritt, 1971; Nicol et al.,
1975); whereas an alkaline leach solution is usually less effective in
dissolving uraninite unless a strong alkaline reagent combined with
high temperatures is used (Gupta and Singh, 2003). Ram et al.
(2013) have recently demonstrated that the presence of minor impurities in uraninite has a signicant impact on rates of uranium extraction compared to stoichiometric UO2. By comparison, pitchblende
29
(amorphous UO2) dissolves readily in both acid and alkaline solutions

with low reagent consumption.
Cofnite is poorly soluble in dilute acid or alkaline solutions and
requires an intermediate oxidising step or a more highly concentrated solution to encourage extraction (Merritt, 1971).
The most difcult uranium ores to leach are those containing minerals of the multiple-oxide type, most commonly found as brannerite
and davidite. Brannerite is represented by the chemical formula,
U4+Ti2O6. Although the uranium in brannerite is nearly always partly
oxidised and sometimes hydrated, it undergoes extensive substitution
with other cations (Finch and Murakami, 1999), and is usually metamict
due to the destruction of crystallinity induced by alpha radiation decay
from the constituent uranium (Lian et al., 2002; Smith, 1984). The chemistry of natural brannerites has been previously reported by Hess and
Wells (1920), Pabst (1954), Hewett et al. (1957), Lumpkin et al.
(2000), Colella et al. (2005) and Charalambous et al. (2012). Uranium
extraction from brannerite is typically achieved using an intermediate
oxidation step with more highly concentrated, hot acid leach solutions.
Alkaline solutions are unsuitable as brannerite is poorly soluble in this
medium. Davidite is also refractory and may require ne grinding,
prolonged leaching in hot acid or leaching at elevated temperature in
an autoclave to achieve satisfactory extraction (Lunt et al., 2007).
Chemically, the extraction of oxidised, hexavalent uranium minerals
is relatively straightforward, as these minerals are readily soluble in
both acid and alkaline leach solutions under ambient conditions. An oxidant may be needed however, to prevent reduction caused by the presence of other species or ferrous iron introduced through grinding media
or present in the ore (Lunt et al., 2007).
4.2. Oregangue mineral associations
Gangue minerals may react with the leach solution(s) used to process uranium ores, obstructing the chemistry and increasing the cost
of uranium extraction. The following identies some of the common
gangue minerals associated with uranium ores and their associated
ore processing complications.
4.2.1. Quartz
Quartz is a major component in sandstone-hosted uranium deposits but can also be present in signicant amounts in other deposit
types (e.g. vein, metasomatite, quartz pebble conglomerate). It is generally considered an unreactive mineral phase in uranium extraction
processes (Merritt, 1971). However, if uranium ore minerals are present as inclusions within quartz, it becomes challenging to extract the
uranium from these ores as leach solutions (acid or alkaline) do not
react with quartz. Ores containing this style of mineralisation typically require ne grinding to liberate the uranium and increase surface
area exposure to the leach solution.
4.2.2. Clays
Almost every uranium deposit-type setting has one or more lithologies that contain clay minerals. These largely result from the weathering
of granite terrains and the presence of argillaceous phases in host sediment units. Clay minerals exhibit a tendency to form aggregates producing a cement that commonly encases coexisting micron-sized uranium
minerals. Such textures are particularly common in sandstone-hosted
and surcial calcrete deposits. The ability for a particular leach solution
to access the uranium minerals is dependent on the porosity of the aggregate accumulation and/or whether a pathway exists to act as a
leaching conduit (e.g. a microfracture network).
Other problems are caused by clays consuming excessive quantities of leach solution due to solidliquid reactions (Carroll and
Starkey, 1971; Huay and Keller, 1971; Ozdemir and Kipcak, 2004) as
well as the effect of clay mineral surfaces becoming positively or negatively charged (dependent on pH). For example, a positively charged
mineral surface, formed under low pH conditions in an acid leach
30
solution system, will attract and adsorb negatively charged uranyl

complexes produced during acid leaching (e.g. UO2(SO4)2
2 ). In contrast, a negatively charged clay mineral surface will attract positively
charged uranyl ions (e.g. UO2+
2 ), which form in both acid and alkaline
leach solution systems. The ability of clay species to adsorb uranium
ions or uranyl complexes from the leach system reduces the amount
of uranium able to be extracted.
An additional problem for processing clay-rich uranium ores, is
that clay mineral surfaces are readily wetted resulting in slurry formation (e.g. Lockhart, 1983). This has a tendency to increase the viscosity of the pregnant solution, which causes poor agitation in stirred
tanks, poor solidliquid separation, clogs pumps and leads to blockages in the processing circuit(s). These factors contribute to metal
being lost to tailings, slower production rates (Lower et al., 2011;
Ritcey, 1980) and ultimately, uranium extraction being a costly
process.
4.2.3. Carbonates
Carbonate minerals (calcite, dolomite, magnesite, ankerite and
siderite) are primarily associated with sedimentary-based uranium
ore settings (e.g. surcial deposits), skarn deposits (e.g. metasomatic
deposits) and mineralised veins. Carbonate minerals readily react
with and consume acid, reducing the availability of leachant. It has
been estimated (Merritt, 1971) that above about 15% CaCO3 in an
ore, the cost of using an acid leachant would be prohibitive and an alternative processing route would be required. Furthermore, different
carbonate species have different solubilities in acid (e.g. some dolomites and siderites react relatively slowly). Identifying the composition of the carbonate phases present in an ore is therefore crucial in
order to model the expected loss of acid and evaluate processing
costs. Ores containing a high carbonate content may, however, be effectively treated using an alkaline leach solution, typically sodium
carbonate or sodium bicarbonate (Connelly, 2008; Merritt, 1971;
Seidel, 1981).
4.2.4. Gypsum
Gypsum may be present in the gangue mineralogy of uranium deposits that form in sedimentary environments under arid climate
conditions (e.g. surcial calcrete deposits). The presence of gypsum
is a processing hindrance when an alkaline leach solution is used as
it reacts to precipitate calcium carbonate and form sodium sulphate
in solution (IAEA, 1990; Kennedy, 1967; Ritcey, 1980). Bowell et al.
(2011) report that a gypsum content of more than 4% in surcial
calcrete uranium ore will lead to excessive reagent consumption
and sufciently affect the processing costs to rule out the use of sodium carbonate leach solutions.
4.2.5. Salts
Common salt minerals such as halite, bischote, epsomite,
hexahydrite and mirabilite, are a frequent mineral component associated
with many sedimentary basins around the world often forming thin
widespread layers interbedded with sediments (Heard, 1972). They are
often present as a minor component in uranium ores formed in lagoonal
or evaporitic sedimentary environments (e.g. cupriferous sandstone-type
uranium deposits in the Catskill formation, Pennsylvania Glaeser, 1974;
Rose, 1976), in unconformity related uranium deposits (e.g. Athabasca
Basin, Canada Cumming and Krstic, 1992; Fayek and Kyser, 1997)
and surcial calcrete-hosted uranium deposits (e.g. within the Yilgarn
Block, Western Australia Mann, 1983; Mann and Deutscher, 1978).
Salts such as halite affect the processing of uranium ores as they react
with the leach solution causing the salt complex to dissociate and release
chloride ions. This reduces the availability of adsorption sites on ion exchange columns or resins, consequently, reducing the efciency of uranium recovery (Venter and Boylett, 2009).
4.2.6. Carbon
Carbon (as organic material) may be present in the mineralogy of
sediment-hosted and lignite uranium ores, the result of plant material
or/and organic debris incorporated during sediment deposition and
subsequent lithication (Breger, 1974; Ritcey and Wong, 1985;
Vine, 1962). Mohan et al. (1991) provided evidence that uranium in
a lignite deposit occurred principally (7090%) in the form of uranyl
humates and the rest in the form of poorly crystallised mineral(s).
Elsewhere, Meunier et al. (1990) determined that in carbon-rich, bituminous deposits, uranium is mainly xed in organics as
organo-uranyl compounds. Carbonaceous uranium-bearing phases
are strongly refractory and difcult to extract and often require physical beneciation (ne-grinding) and/or pretreatment (calcining) for
extraction to be successful (Hurst, 1976; IAEA, 1980; Lunt et al.,
2007; Ritcey, 1980). The removal of carbonaceous material (when
present as a minor or trace component of the gangue mineralogy)
has been shown to improve the porosity of the ore (IAEA, 1980).
Depending on solution conditions carbon, in certain forms such as
graphite, has the potential to form a charged surface. The charged
particles adsorb uranium-bearing ions from the leach solution causing preg-robbing in a similar fashion to clays and thus impede uranium extraction.
Table 4
Separation criteria and related process equipment (IAEA, Vienna, 1993).
Separation basis
Separation devices
Ore property requirements
Radioactivity
Radiometric sorting
Optical properties
Size/shape
Photometric sorting
Screens, cyclones
Density
Dense media separation, tables, jogs, spirals, cones
Paramagnetism
Wet high intensity magnetic separators
Surface properties
Flotation
Adequate heterogeneity of uranium minerals within the ore

Relatively coarse fragmentation
Presence of radiometric equilibrium between uranium
and radium in the ore
Opaque uranium ore and translucent gangue mineral phases
Differences between the hardness and fragility of the ore and
gangue minerals.
These differences can correlate with specic size fractions.
Uranium minerals must be coarse.
Resist breakage, sliming or association with gangue minerals
that may be separated by a density differential.
Most uranium minerals are unsuitable for magnetic separation
because the magnetic properties of the ore minerals are not
sufciently dissimilar from those of the gangue minerals.
The particle size of uranium minerals affects the success
of this separation technique.
Complications when oating uranium phases as the tailings
produced are not discardable.
Used to remove sulphide, carbonate or carbonaceous
material so to increase overall ore grade.

Table 5
The degree of grinding required for each uranium ore type (IAEA, Vienna, 1993).
31
4.3. Physical ore properties: grainsize, texture and grade
14,000
1,200
12,000
1,000
Grind range
Leach solution
Sandstone
e.g., Sandstone-hosted deposits,
unconformity related deposits
Carbonate
e.g., Surcial deposits
Conglomerate
e.g., IOCG-U and
breccia complex deposits
Intrusive
e.g., Magmatic deposits
0.6 mm to 0.4 mm
Agitation
acid leach
0.2 mm
Alkaline leach
Finer grinding required,

50% passing 0.074 mm
Acid leach
1.7 mm
Acid leach
4.2.7. Sulphides
The behaviour of sulphide phases during uranium processing is difcult to predict. Often the presence of sulphides indicates that more oxidant may be required and as a consequence, results in higher reagent
consumption. An advantage of sulphides however, is that the ore is likely
to respond to rapid weathering and bacterial leaching in stock-piles (e.g.
Brierley, 1984; Harrison et al., 1996; Lowson, 1975). Low-grade ores containing sulphides are therefore strong candidates for bacterial heap
leaching.
Exports (tonnes U3O8)
4.2.8. Phosphates
The presence of phosphates in an ore can increase the volume of acid
required for leaching, owing to the solubility of certain phosphates in
acid. In addition, phosphate that enters solution can complex with any
ferric ions present and inhibit the oxidation process. Another effect is
that once in solution, phosphate ions can cause reprecipitation of uranium if the pH of the leach system is not maintained below 2.0. The extraction of uranyl ions by ion exchange is hindered by the presence of
phosphate as both ions compete for adsorption sites (Kennedy, 1967).
10,000
800
8,000
600
6,000
400
4,000
200
2,000
tonnes of uranium
Annual export earnings (Aus $ million)
4.2.9. Iron oxides

These are the prevalent gangue minerals in IOCG-U deposits but are
typically present to a greater or lesser extent in all uranium ores. The oxides, along with ferromagnesium minerals, introduce ferric ions to the
leach system which promote the oxidation reaction favouring the extraction of uranium (e.g. Ragozzini and Sparrow, 1987). The presence of iron
oxides can however, lead to preg-robbing, as the charged mineral surfaces attract UO2+
ions (Bruno et al., 1995; Ritcey and Wong, 1985).
2
Uranium ore grades are typically dened as: low grade, b 0.15% U;
medium grade, 0.150.50% U and high grade, N0.50% U (Dahlkamp,
2009). Despite there being multiple genesis models, one commonality is that uranium mineralisation is often ne-grained (~ 50 m to
b5 m), intimately associated with gangue minerals, and disseminated widely throughout the host rock. Thus, the ability to upgrade the
ore through the separation of uranium species and removal of gangue
has several potential advantages. These are: i) to enhance the ore feed
grade, ii) to remove minerals that will be deleterious to the uranium
leaching and/or recovery and, iii) to produce clean tailings that can be
rejected without creating environmental hazards. Pre-concentration
processes often employ differences in mineral properties such as radioactivity, size, shape, density and surface characteristics to separate
the desired minerals. The selection of a process is usually made based
on consideration of the physical properties as outlined in Table 4.
Physical separation to improve the ore grade and properties for processing has been largely successful, except in cases where the uranium
mineralisation is disseminated as ne-grained inclusions within gangue
minerals (Seidel, 1981). An alternative method to maximise uranium
extraction is to increase the exposure of the ore minerals to the lixiviant.
This may be achieved by processing the ore to improve mineral liberation. As with any ore, coarse-grained mineralisation is easier and
more cost effective to process. However, for uranium ores coarse
mineralisation is uncommon and grinding is required to increase the
surface area exposure of the uranium mineral(s). The degree of grinding
required is a function of the ore mineral grainsize, as well as the ore
and gangue mineralogy. Ores containing ne-grained uranium
mineralisation will need ner grinding while the hardness of the associated gangue will inuence the grinding time and energy requirement. Ores processed using alkaline leach solutions (e.g. surcial
deposit ores), also require ne grinding because of the slower kinetics
of the chemical system. Examples of the preferred grind size and the
leach solution used to extract uranium for some common uranium ore
types (and the host deposit types), are presented in Table 5. Autogenous
or semiautogenous grinding are the more favourable methods for uranium mineral liberation, as crushing, particularly ne crushing, is energy intensive, costly and produces dust and releases radon that have
negative environmental impacts (Edwards and Oliver, 2000). The suitability of an ore to physical/mechanical methods of beneciation and
upgrading, may be inferred during the preliminary ore examination.
Ore type and associated deposit types
Aus$ million
Fig. 3. Annual exports, tonnes of U3O8 and earnings (Australian dollar) between 2000 and 2012. The dashed line indicates the estimated forecast for total earnings from exports of
U3O8 in 2012 given an average annual U3O8 spot price of 92.32 Aus$/kg.
32
Fig. 4. The locations of major uranium mines (past and presently active) and deposits. Symbols correspond with different styles of mineralisation.
5. Uranium deposits in Australia

Australia possesses approximately 31% of the world's uranium resources (WNA, 2013) and uranium is a major export earner for the
country generating revenue up to $1B annually (e.g., Fig. 3, year 2009),
from the export of 8000 tpa to 10,000 tpa of uranium oxide, U3O8
(WNA, 2013). Major resources include the Olympic Dam IOCG-U deposit
(South Australia), the Ranger, Jabiluka, Nabarlek, Koongarra (Northern
Territory) and Kintyre (Western Australia) unconformity-related
deposits, the Yeelirrie surcial (calcrete) deposit (Western Australia)

and the Beverley, Four Mile and Honeymoon sandstone-hosted deposits
(South Australia). Australia is the third largest uranium producer in the
world after Kazakhstan and Canada, and uranium production within
Australia is forecast to grow signicantly over coming decades (WNA,
2013).
Australia's uranium ore resources are comprised of a diverse range
of deposit types with just under 100 known uranium deposits
scattered across the Australian continent, varying in size from small
10.00
IOCG-U - Olympic Dam

IOCG-U - Mt Gee
Grade % U
Metasomatite - Valhalla
1.00
Sandstone Hosted - Beverley

Sandstone Hosted - Four Mile
Sandstone Hosted - Mulga Rock
0.10
Sandstone Hosted - Westmoreland

Surficial calcrete - Yeelirrie
Unconformity - Jabiluka
0.01
0.1
10
100
Million Tonnes Ore
1000
Unconformity - Ranger
Unconformity - Kintyre
Fig. 5. Uranium grade against deposit tonnage (reserve and measured resource values) for the largest uranium resources in Australia.
Adapted from McKay et al. (2009).
33
uranium resources being dominated by two main deposit types,

IOCG-U breccia complex (~ 65% of Australia's uranium resources)
and unconformity related (~ 20%). Other signicant resources occur
in sandstone uranium deposits (7%), surcial (calcrete-hosted) deposits (4%) and metasomatites (2%) (McKay and Miezitis, 2001).
to very large (McKay and Miezitis, 2001). The locations of major uranium mines and deposits are shown in Fig. 4, while grade and
in-ground deposit tonnage relationships for Australian deposits are
presented in Fig. 5, and information regarding the top ten uranium resources is provided in Table 6.
Based on the IAEA classication scheme, the Australian uranium
deposit types are listed below in order of their approximate economic
importance: (1) breccia complex (or IOCG-U), (2) unconformityrelated, (3) sandstone, (4) surcial, (5) metasomatite, (6) metamorphic, (7) volcanic, (8) intrusive, (9) vein, (10) quartz-pebble conglomerate, (11) collapse breccia pipe, (12) phosphorite, (13) lignite,
(14) black shale, and (15) other types. The proportion that each deposit type contributes to Australia's uranium resources is shown in
Fig. 6. Note that the order of economic importance of Australian uranium deposit type differs from the order of deposits based on world
economic importance this is largely due to ~ 85% of Australia's
6. Geometallurgy of Australian uranium deposits

Based on the above classication of, ore classication, the
geometallurgical characteristics that affect processing, and the distribution and importance of specic uranium deposit types within Australia, general characteristics for ve of the most relevant to Australia
are reviewed and discussed below. The ndings are presented with
an emphasis on key factors such as uranium and gangue mineralogy
that have the greatest impact on ore processing for each deposit
type. For three of the deposit types (surcial, sandstone-hosted and
Table 6
Australian uranium deposits, including the top 10 largest uranium resources as shown in Fig. 5. The U3O8 (t) estimate values include reserves, measured and indicated resources and
inferred resources tonnages.
Deposit type
Ranka
Deposit name and

geological region
Approx.
contained
U3O8 (t)b
Uranium minerals
Gangue minerals
Unconformity
2nd
3rd
5th
Subordinate
resources
Ranger, Alligator Rivers U-Field (NT)

Jabiluka, Alligator Rivers U-Field (NT)
Kintyre, Rudall Complex (WA)
E.g., Angelo River, Turee Creek,
Pilbara Region (WA)
Mt Fitch, Pine Creek Region (NT)
Mulga Rock, Gunbarrel Basin (WA)
Westmorelande, Pandanus
Creek U-Field (NT)
Beverley, Frome Embayment
U-Field (SA)
Four Mile, Frome Embayment U-Field (SA)
E.g., Ponton Double 8, Gunbarrel;
Basin, Eastern Gold Fields (WA)
Blackbush, Pirie Basin (NT)
Bigrlyi, Ngalia Basin (NT)
Olympic Dam Gawler Craton (SA)
Mt Gee, Mt Painter Field Region,
E.g., Monakoff East,
Mt IsaMcArthur Basin (QLD)
Acropolis, Wirrda Well and Oak
Dam, Gawler Craton (SA)
Yeelirrie, Yilgarn Craton (WA)
Wiluna Centipede,
Lake Maitland and Lake Raeside,
Yilgarn Craton (WA)
Valhalla, Mt Isa, U-eld (QLD)
E.g., Skal and Anderson's
Lode, Mt Isa, U-eld (QLD)
73,052 c 2012
67,700 c 2013
9390 d 2012
799
Pitchblende, uraninite, cofnite,

with lesser amounts of brannerite
and carbonaceous-uranyl phases
Quartz, argillaceous clays,

graphite/carbonaceous material
Pitchblende, cofnite.
Quartz accessory sulphides,

carbonaceous material and
mac ferro-magnesian minerals
Pitchblende with lesser

amounts of cofnite and
brannerite
Quartz, argillaceous clay,

hematite, with accessory
polymetallic-sulphides
Sandstone-hosted 8th
9th
10th
Subordinate
resources
28,210
22,000
d 2012
20,990
d 2010
f 2012
32,000 c 2012
7800 g 2011
2,857,010 h 2012
31,300 d 2008
N/A
IOCG-U
1st
6th
Subordinate
resources
Surcial
4th
Subordinate
resources
Metasomatite
7th
Subordinate
resources
Metamorphic
Past operational mine
Mary Kathleen, Mary Kathleen

zone, Mt Isa, U-eld (QLD)
8900
Volcanic
Subordinate
resources
N/A
Pitchblende, uraninite, cofnite,

uranophane, UREE-silicates
Intrusive
Subordinate
resources
Example: Ben Lomond and Maureen

deposits, GeorgetownTownsville
U-eld (QLD)
Example: Radium Hill,
Olary U-eld (SA)
N/A
Vein
Subordinate
resources
Example: Mundong Well,

Gascoyne Complex (WA)
Uraninite, UTh-silicates,
pitchblende, davidite and
brannerite
Kasolite, pitchblende,
uraninite and/or torbernite
a
b
c
d
e
f
g
h
65,810
N/A
d 2012
Carnotite, tyuyamunite
and uranyl-complexes
Carbonates, clay, quartz

and minor gypsum
34,600
N/A
f 2012
Uraninite U-REEsilicates/
oxides,
brannerite and cofnite.
Quartz, clay, hematite,

carbonates with accessory
Fe- and Pb-sulphides, apatite
and uorite.
Quartz, carbonate,
accessory REE and polymetallic
sulphides
Quartz, carbonate, barite,
uorite and accessory sulphides
f 2012
N/A
Rank has been established on the reported reserve values for each deposit
Approximate contained tonnes of U3O8 include both reserve and resource estimates for each deposit.
www.world-nuclear.org.
www.wise-uranium.org.
Westermoreland accounts for deposits Redtree, Huarabagoo and Junnagunna.
http://australiamap.net.
http://dmp.wa.gov.au.
BHP Billiton Annual Report, 2012.
Uraninite and pitchblende
Quartz, clay, hematite,

accessory Ti-oxides and sulphides.
Quartz, calcite, magnetite and
accessory base metal sulphides.
34
Metasomatite,
1.5%
case studies previously reported in IAEA Technical Report 196 (IAEA,

1980) and also in Cuney and Kyser (2009).
Other *, 1.0%
Surficial,
Calcretehosted, 4.9%
Unconformityrelated, 20.4%
6.1. IOCG-U (or breccia complex) deposits
Sandstonehosted, 6.7%
Breccia
Complex,
65.5%
Fig. 6. Style of uranium mineralization and percentage abundance found within Australia
following the IAEA uranium deposit type classication system (OECD/NEA-IAEA, 2012).
The classication Other comprises; vein, volcanic, pegmatite and intrusive-type uranium deposits.
metasomatite), independent chemical and mineralogical data was

obtained for samples sourced from known Australian deposits or prospects. Results are discussed in view of the implications for potential processing of the ore types. Ores from the two other prevalent uranium
deposit types; IOCG-U (breccia complex), and unconformity-related,
also offer some challenging characterisation issues (e.g. extremely
ne, sub-micron grain-size mineralisation, particularly in the IOCG-U
ores). However, in general, the processing of these ores is considered
more straightforward. Results from these deposit types are not
discussed in this paper but the reader is referred to discussions and
IOCG-U deposits form in association with alkali-rich volcanics and

intrusives. The genesis of this deposit type was most prevalent during
the Proterozoic. Deposits are characterised by hydrothermal brecciation that forms close to surface at sites affected by phreatic activity.
The precipitation and concentration of metallic mineral phases results from uid-mixing redox reactions between upwelling, hot, reducing, magmatic uids (introduced locally by volcanic activity) and
low temperature, oxidising, meteoric and lacustrine near-surface waters, which are drawn downwards as the magmatic activity ceases
and the system cools. Hence, the uranium minerals crystallise close
to the breccia complex zone (Haynes et al., 1995; Oreskes and
Einaudi, 1990; Reeve et al., 1990). A schematic diagram showing the
formation of breccia complex deposits is provided in Fig. 7.
The main deposit of this type in Australia is the Olympic Dam
IOCG-U ore deposit located in South Australia. It is unique, being the
only IOCG breccia complex-type deposit in the world known to contain recoverable uranium credits. It is also the largest, single resource
of uranium in Australia (and the world). The deposit is associated
with a hematite-rich granite breccia complex that is situated in the
Roxby Downs Granite of the Gawler Craton. The host granite terrain,
the Roxby Downs granite, is an A-type granite enriched in K, U and
Th, of Mesoproterozoic age (Creaser and Cooper, 1993). Circulation
of the mineralising uids caused potassic-alteration of the granite
host rock and resulted in an abundance of quartz and clays which
are the dominant gangue minerals (Neumann et al., 2000).
Compared to other styles of uranium mineralisation, IOCG-U deposits are of very low grade (diamond symbols, Fig. 5) and would
not normally be considered exploitable uranium deposits, were it
Playa Lake
Oxidising meteoric
fluid
Hot
magmatic
fluid
Ore precipitation
Ore leaching
Olympic Dam
breccia complex
Dykes
Basalt
Roxby Downs
Granite
Fig. 7. Simplied genesis model for the formation of the Olympic Dam IOCG-U breccia complex deposit. The geological setting and associated mixing of hot magmatic uids with
cooler, oxidising, surface meteoric waters.
Adapted from Robb (2005), after Haynes et al. (1995).
35
Lake
Fracture-controlled
U mineralisation
(perched)
U mineralisation
at unconformity
(basin-hosted)
Unconformity
Vein & bbreccia
U mineralis
mineralisation
asement-hos
asement-hosted)
(basement-hosted)
Graphitic
pelitic gneiss
Granitic gneiss
Pelitic
gneiss
Q
Quartzite
Pelitic gneiss
Arkosic gneiss
Fig. 8. Schematic genesis model for Proterozoic unconformity-related uranium mineralisaiton.

Adapted from Kyser and Cuney (2009).
the Olympic Dam deposit contains strongly mineralised, hematiterich ore, whereas the Murdie deposit is comparatively magnetiterich and poorly mineralised (McKay and Miezitis, 2001). Similarly,
the Mount Gee deposit does not have the same Cu/Ag mineral associations that are present at Olympic Dam. Smaller hematite breccia
complex deposits that have uranium credits associated with copper,
gold, silver and REE mineralisation, include the Ernest Henry, Starra,
Mount Elliot and Osborne deposits in northwest Queensland
(Haynes, 2000; Hitzman, 2000; Pollard, 2000; Porter, 2000). Presently, none of these deposits recover uranium.
not for the polymetallic mineralogy that typies these deposits. The
Olympic Dam deposit has a measured resource of 1474 Mt at an average uranium grade of 0.03% U3O8 with an additional indicated resource
of 4843 Mt at 0.027% U3O8. Probable ore reserves are reported to be
469 Mt at 0.056% U3O8 (BHP Billiton Annual Report, 2012). Uraninite
is the most abundant ore mineral, with lesser amounts of brannerite,
cofnite and complex REETiUTh oxides also present (Hitzman and
Valenta, 2005; Hitzman et al., 1992; Reeve et al., 1990). These minerals
are most abundant in the hematite breccia zone and are associated with
Cu, Au, Ag and CaF2 mineralisation (Hitzman and Valenta, 2005).
Other iron-rich breccia deposits with varying amounts of uranium,
copper and rare earth elements, formed by similar processes to Olympic Dam, have been identied in the Gawler Craton, e.g., Acropolis,
Wirrda Well, Oak Dam, Emmie Bluff and Murdie deposits (Cross,
1993) and Mount Painter areas of South Australia, e.g., Mt Gee,
31,300 t U3O8, average grade of 0.1% U3O8 (Goldstream, 1999,
2000). The mineralisation features of these deposits, specically the
extent of brecciation, hematite/magnetite ratios, and the intensity
and grade of uranium, copper, gold, silver and rare earth element
mineralisation, suggest that the IOCG-U deposit style forms an array
of ore types and are probably best referred to as a subset of the breccia complex deposits (Gow et al., 1994; Hitzman, 2000). For example,
Allu
vium
/Co
Allu
lluv
vium
ium
/Co
s lo
lluv
pe
ium
6.1.1. Processing options for IOCG-U (breccia complex) ores

The uranium component of the Olympic Dam breccia complex
ore partitions into the copper concentrate during ore processing
(copper being the primary commodity). Uranium is subsequently
extracted from the copper concentrate using an acid leach solution
(MacNaughton et al., 1999, 2000; Ring, 1979). The presence of Fe3+
ions derived from the acid dissolution of hematite (the dominant
gangue mineral), as well as uoride ions from the dissolution of associated uorite, oxidise the U4+ mineral phases (uraninite, cofnite
and brannerite) and aid in improving overall uranium recovery
(Ragozzini and Sparrow, 1987; Ring, 1979).
Watertable
Carnotite mineralisation
Calcrete
pH 6.0-7.0
Dune
PH 4.5-7.0
Vanadiu
Uranium
Potassium Ura
nium
pH 7.0-8.5
Channel fill
Ma
Vanadium
fic
fic
Fig. 9. Idealised model of calcrete uranium mineralisation.

Adapted from Mann and Deutscher (1978) and Hou et al. (2007).
Ma
Granite
radiogenic source rocks
Potassium
36
J ailor Bore
Munaballya Well
WESTERN AUSTRALIA
Carnarvon
Ce
n
Hillview
ti p
ed
e
Lake Way
Dawson-Hi nkler Well
Lake M aitland
Nowthana
e
l ir i
Ye e
Lake Mason
Windimurra
28
Thatcher Soak
Lake Raeside
Indian
Ocean
o
Kalgoorlie
Perth
32
Esperance
Grea
t Au
Yilgarn Craton
igh t
an B
st ra li
200
kilometres
Palaeochannel
Gascoyne Province
120
126
Fig. 10. Location of major calcrete-type uranium occurrences in the Yilgarn and Gascoyne districts, Western Australia.
Fig. 11. Mineral phase maps showing the disseminated nature of carnotite (white) in a northern Yilgarn calcrete ore. Data was collected using a JEOL 8500F EPMA equipped with
ve wavelength dispersive spectrometers and two solid-state energy dispersive detectors.
After Aral et al. (2010).
a)
37
b)
Ct
10 m
Qtz
c)
Ct
Dol
Clay
Clay
500 m
20 m
Fig. 12. Back-scattered electron images showing typical ne-grained textures of carnotite grains in calcrete ores. Image (a) shows small carnotite grains (bright phase) as inclusions
in dolomite while images (b) and (c) show high mag. views of carnotite grains. Dol = dolomite, Qtz = quartz and Ct = carnotite (Aral et al., 2010).
For other uranium-bearing hematite breccia complex ores, where

uranium is the principal ore mineral extracted, e.g. the Mount Gee
deposit and Mount Gee East prospect (located to the east of Olympic
Dam in the Mount Painter region), processing can be more complicated.
The low grade, ne-grained, quartz-hematite-rich hosted mineralisation, characteristic of IOCG-U breccia complex ores typically requires
ne grinding and pre-concentration prior to processing. Fine grinding
is energy intensive owing to the high Bond working index of quartz.
In addition, the presence of refractory, complex U Th REE-oxides
increases the quantity of oxidising agent needed to obtain optimal uranium recovery. In the event that polymetallic sulphide phases are
present, additional oxidant is needed, which results in higher acid consumption. Alternatively, an alkaline leach approach may be taken to improve the separation of uranium from base metals.
6.2. Unconformity-related uranium deposits
Large, unconformity-related uranium deposits formed in Australia
during the Proterozoic within intracontinental basins at the interface
between altered Paleoproterozoic metasediments and overlying Later
Paleo- to Meso-Proterozoic, continental clastic sediments (Hegge and
Rowntree, 1978; Maas, 1989). Ore bodies are strata-structure bound,
Infiltration
Infiltr
f ation of uranium-bearing
surface
surfa
f ce fl
ffluids
uids
Groundwater
f ow
fl
flow
Impermeable
Imp
m ermeable sediment (e.g. shale)
Water table
Oxidised
sandstone
Redox fr
ffront
ont
Alteration halo
Impermeable
Imp
m ermeable
sediment (e.g. shale)
Ore zone
Unaltered sandstone
f
(reduced) aquifer
Fig. 13. Generalised conceptual model of a uranium roll-front sandstone deposit; modied from published sources (e.g. De Voto, 1978; Harshman, 1962, 1972; Kyser and Cuney,
2009; Nash et al., 1981; Rubin, 1970; Spirakis, 1996). A crescent-shaped uranium ore body typically forms at the dynamic reaction front in the sandstone aquifer between oxidised
and reduced lithologies. The redox front moves with meteoric water ow more and more inside the original reduced rock unit, driven by hydraulic head.
38
hosted in argillaceous, faulted sandstones located immediately above

and below the unconformity. Mineralisation commonly extends into
the basement (Fig. 8). Elsewhere worldwide, smaller deposits are
recognised to have formed during the Phanerozoic, however, none
have been located in Australia (Jefferson et al., 2007).
Studies of the unconformity uranium deposits from around the
world have resulted in a consensus that these deposits result
from the mixing of sandstone-sourced diagenetic brines with upwelling, basement-circulating, slightly acidic, hot, oxidised, Na-, Ca-rich
diagenetic brines (Hoeve et al., 1980; Hoeve and Sibbald, 1978;
Kotzer and Kyser, 1995; Pagel and Jaffrezic, 1977; Sibbald et al.,
1976). These circulate downwards through underlying basement
rocks (Derome et al., 2003; Kyser and Cuney, 2009) dissolving quartz
and simultaneously reacting with graphite and sulphides (reductants), which results in the precipitation of tetravalent uranium minerals. Mineralisation is strata-bound, present along the unconformity
contact and associated with faults, fractures and breccias present in
the underlying basement Proterozoic metasediment horizons (Kyser
and Cuney, 2009; Wilde, 1988; Wilde et al., 1989).
Uranium minerals associated with this style of deposit are mainly
pitchblende and uraninite, with lesser amounts of cofnite, brannerite
and thucholite. Uranium mineralisation is typically cogenetic with
minor sulphides such as Fe-, Pb-, and Cu- and commonly hematite
(e.g., Fayek and Kyser, 1997). The gangue mineralogy, determined by
the metasedimentary host units, typically includes chlorite, quartz,
sericite, argillaceous and carbonate minerals.
Within Australia, unconformity deposits account for approximately
20% of the uranium resources. The second and third largest uranium deposits in Australia, Jabiluka and Ranger, are located within the Alligator
Rivers ore eld (Northern Territory) and Kintyre, the fth largest uranium resource in Australia, is hosted in the Rudall Province (Western
Australia). Resources are typically medium to large (40,000180,000 t
U3O8) and grades are low to medium, 0.21.0% U3O8 (www.wiseuranium.org, 2013). Smaller unconformity deposits include; Hades Flat
(~726 t U3O8) and Caramal (~2500 t U3O8) in the Alligator Rivers Uranium Field; Mount Fitch (~1500 t U3O8, grade 0.042% U3O8) in the Rum
Jungle Field; and Coronation Hill (~1850 t U3O8, grade 0.537% U3O8) in
the South Alligator Valley eld. Detailed descriptions of the characteristics (structure, age, genesis, uranium mineralisation, gangue mineralogy)
for each of these deposits are discussed by: Ryan (1972) Hades Flat;
Ewers et al. (1984), Fraser (1980), Berkman and Fraser (1980) and
Foster et al. (1990) Mount Fitch; and Hills and Richards (1972),
Cooper (1973), Needham (1987, 1988), Valenta (1991), Wyborn
(1990, 1992) and Mernagh et al. (1994) Coronation Hill.
6.2.1. Processing options for unconformity-related uranium ores

The mineralogy of unconformity-related uranium ores is often
simple, dominated by uraninite, pitchblende and cofnite with
minor brannerite and UREE-oxides. The uranium minerals are relatively coarse-grained and can be readily pre-concentrated by radiometric sorting and processed using an acid leach solution. The
addition of an oxidant is required to aid the uranium extraction, particularly of the refractory UREE-oxide phases. Acid consumption for
some deposits is high, reecting the presence of carbonate and swelling clays in the gangue. The presence of pyrite can lead to an increase
in the requirement for an oxidant and consequently increase acid
consumption. The unconformity contact controls the deposit morphology and orientation, and in certain cases, if the basement and
overlying lithological units have low porosity and the deposits are located below the water table, in-situ leaching can be implemented.
6.3. Surcial (calcrete-hosted) deposits
Surcial (calcrete-hosted) deposits are syngenetic to early epigenetic, near-surface uranium concentrations that form from intracratonic
sedimentation and weathering processes. Uniquely, this style of deposit
hosts hexavalent uranium minerals, most commonly in the form of carnotite and/or tyuyamunite. Compared with the other styles of uranium
deposits, surcial deposits are geologically much younger, forming between the Tertiary to the present.
Deposits tend to be laterally extensive, strata-bound horizons present within indurated sedimentary formations or unconsolidated sediments located in surface depressions (e.g., calcretised uvial drainage
channels Carlisle, 1983). These represent fossilised river channels
formed during periods of higher rainfall when the water table was
higher. Uranium enters the hydrological system when a river drains a
uranium-fertile source (e.g. granite), while vanadium, also present in
the system, is likely to be sourced from nearby mac units. Uranyl
carbonate complexes (UO2(CO3)2
2 ) form and are transported in solution until ground water evaporation decreases the complex solubility,
causing the destabilisation and subsequent precipitation of uranium,
vanadium and carbonate minerals (Fig. 9).
Surcial deposit uranium ores exhibit textural evidence for repeated
precipitation, dissolution and reprecipitation of uranium and gangue
(carbonate) minerals. Mineralisation is typically ne-grained and disseminated. Concentrations may occur in small fractures and vug cavities, forming a powdery coating or accrete by adsorption onto the
surface of clayquartz sediments that are intimately associated with
the predominantly carbonate host mineral assemblage.
Fig. 14. a) Back Scattered Electron (BSE) image, and b) phase-patched mineral map showing the mineralogy and textures of key phases in a sandstone-hosted uranium sample.
Scale bar indicates 500 m. Data was collected using a JEOL 8500F EPMA equipped with ve wavelength dispersive spectrometers and two solid-state energy dispersive detectors.
39
metamorphics in the Gascoyne Province of northwest Western Australia. These deposits occur in a cluster approximately 200 km to 250 km
east northeast of Carnarvon and include, Minindi CreekWabli Creek,
Jailor Bore, Lamil Hills, Munaballya Well South, and Red Hill Well
(Fig. 10) (Arakel, 1988).
Surcial uranium deposits account for approximately 5% of

Australia's uranium resources. Within Australia these deposits are
found mainly in the northern region of the Yilgarn Craton, Western
Australia. Deposits are located either within Tertiary to Quaternary
aged palaeodrainage channels or playa lake sediments, which drain
the uranium-rich Archaean granitoids and greenstone basement
(Arakel, 1988; Langford, 1974; Mann and Deutscher, 1978). Differences
in environmental characteristics such as soil type, groundwater chemistry and climate cause the surcial calcrete deposits to be conned to the
northern portion of the Yilgarn Block (Fig. 10). Deposits are typically
small (5000 t to b 10,000 t U3O8), low grade (0.02%0.07% U3O8) and
often challenging to exploit, as the host gangue mineralogy complicates
ore processing and uranium extraction. The exception is the Yeelirrie
deposit (Cameron, 1990), the world's largest surcial deposit containing 65,810 t U3O8 grading 0.15% U3O8. Examples of other smaller surcial deposits that formed contemporaneously, under similar conditions
to the Yeelirrie deposit include; Lake Raeside (~1700 t U3O8, ore grade
0.025% U3O8), Lake Mason (2700 t U3O8, ore grade 0.035% U3O8) and
Centipede (~3800 t U3O8, ore grade 0.07% U3O8).
Aside from the Yilgarn region, surcial calcrete uranium deposits are
also present in Tertiary calcrete overlying Proterozoic granite and
6.3.1. Characterisation of surcial calcrete ores

Four samples were examined from surcial deposits in the northern
Yilgarn and two from deposits in the Gascoyne Province. Uranium
grades of the four northern Yilgarn samples varied from 60 to
560 ppm uranium (0.0070.066% U3O8), which in general, represents
the extremes in grade variations of the surcial calcrete ores in the
northern Yilgarn (except for the anomalously high-grade Yeelirrie deposit). The vanadium content also varied accordingly and ranged from
70 to 530 ppm V2O5 indicating probable carnotite mineralisation. The
uranium grades from the two Gascoyne Province samples were approximately 400 ppm U (0.0470% U3O8) while the vanadium content ranged
from 270 to 410 ppm V2O5.
EPMA mapping of the Yilgarn samples conrmed the main
uranium-bearing mineral in the deposit to be carnotite (Fig. 11). Although the carnotite particles shown in Fig. 11 appear coarse-grained,
NT
QLD
WA
SA
NSW
Gunpowder
VIC
Carpentaria Basin
Calton
Hills
2000
Kajabbi
Georgina Basin
Watta
Closed Mine
u
Warwai
Deposit
Prospect
Mt. Isa Inlier
Glen Isla &

Malakoff
Valhalla
Skal
Gorge Creek
Flat Tyre
Mothers Day
Andersons
Turpentine
Lode
Citation
Mt. Isa
Spear Creek
Rita, Rary
Mary Kathleen
Elaine
Kuridala
Duchess
13930
Western succession
Lawn Hill Platform
Leichhardt River Fault Trough
MyallyShelf
Kalkadoon LeichhhardtBelt
EwenBlock
Kalkadoon-Leichhardt Block
Eastern Succession
Mary Kathleen zone
Quamby Malbonzone
Cloncurry Selwyn zone
2200
Paroo
Creek
Elizabeth
Anne
50 km
Fig. 15. Regional geology of the Mount Isa Inlier and principal uranium deposits and prospects.
Adapted from McKay and Miezitis (2001).
40
additional high resolution scanning electron microscope imaging

showed that the carnotite-rich regions were typically very porous and
made up of numerous small micron to sub-micron crystallites
(Fig. 12). Grains were rarely fully liberated. This texture was also
noted in the other calcrete samples where the carnotite was typically
present as ne-grained precipitates along fractures and bedding surfaces of carbonates and/or clays. Depending on the deposit, the gangue
mineralogy was composed of varying proportions of carbonate, quartz,
kaolinite, albite, feldspars, muscovite, swelling clays (e.g., smectite,
montmorillonite, palygorskite), clinochlore, halite, gypsum, bassanite
and Fe-oxides. Calcite, gypsum, dolomite, ferric oxide, and halite were
the main cementing minerals.
6.3.2. Processing options for calcrete-hosted surcial uranium ores
The high carbonate content of the ores causes acid leaching to be
the less favourable processing option because of the increased likelihood of reagent consumption. In cases where the uranium
mineralisation is not intimately associated with the carbonate phases,
physical separation methods can be used to make the ore more amenable to acid leaching. In the event that the carbonate mineralogy
cannot be separated from the uranium mineralisation an extraction
a)
6.4. Sandstone-hosted uranium deposits
b)
Albite
Mg Na Fe silicate
Magnetite
Rutile
Apatite
process using an alkaline carbonate-based lixiviant would be the preferred option. For this deposit type, alkaline leaching also has several
other advantages over acid leaching including; (a) the inherent selectivity of the alkaline solution for uranium, (b) its noncorrosive interaction with materials of construction, and (c) the relative ease of
recovering the uranium from solution and regenerating the leach liquor (Merritt, 1971). The low grade (b0.02% U3O8) and near surface
position of surcial calcrete uranium deposits also make them potential candidates for alkaline heap leaching, although the presence of
swelling clays such as smectite, montmorillonite, saponite and
palygorskite may cause channelling and reduced permeability.
Surcial calcrete ores are soft, friable ores that readily disintegrate.
When mixed with the leach solution there is a tendency for the ore to
form slurry. This can cause the circuit pumps to clog as well as hamper liquidsolid separation of the pregnant leach solution from the
processed ore.
The highly disseminated nature of the carnotite mineralisation, together with the friable nature of the ores, generally precludes ne
grinding techniques to separate the ore. However, it is possible that
pre-concentration may be achieved through scrubbing and screening
as the carnotite is often located on fractures and bedding planes
(Bowell et al., 2011).
Quartz
Chlorite
K feldspar
Ilmenite
Coffinite
Dolomite
Calcite
Zircon
(Zr, Si) titanate
Brannerite
Fig. 16. The occurrence of cofnite and brannerite in two metasomatite uranium ores
from the Mt Isa region of Queensland. Data was collected using a JEOL 8500F EPMA
equipped with ve wavelength dispersive spectrometers and two solid-state energy
dispersive detectors. The rst ore has brannerite as the main uranium mineral species
while the second ore is dominated by cofnite. Scale bar in image a) is 100 m and in
image b) is 500 m.
Sandstone-hosted uranium deposits form in continental uvial or

marginal marine environments. The mineralised sandstone units are
typically underlain, capped and interbedded with less permeable sedimentary units such as shale. The presence of tuffaceous material incorporated within or interbedded between the sediments, and/or
proximal volcanic or granite rocks, serve as sources for uranium.
Depending on the morphology of the ore body, sandstone deposits
can be subdivided into three categories; tabular, roll-front and tectoniclithologic deposits.
Soluble uranyl complexes are transported in oxidised, meteoric
uids, which migrate through the sandstone unit. When reducing conditions are encountered, e.g. in the presence of sulphides, carbonaceous organic material or an excess of Fe2+ (associated with basic volcanics and/
or intrusive dykes), the uranyl complex dissociates and uranium-oxide
and -silicate precipitate. The location of the uranium mineralisation
within the sandstone units indicates the redox interface (e.g. De Voto,
1978; Harshman, 1962, 1972; Kyser and Cuney, 2009; Nash et al.,
1981; Rubin, 1970; Spirakis, 1996 see Fig. 13).
The concentration of uranium mineralisation is determined by the
permeability of the sediments, as well as the availability of uraniumbearing uids and reductant material. The permeability is primarily
controlled by diagenesis of the host rocks. Pitchblende, cofnite and
uraninite are the most common ore minerals and pyrite and organic
carbon may also feature in the ore zone. Secondary alteration of
these deposits can form hexavalent uranium phases including phosphates, vanadates (rarely), and silicates (see Table 2 for a list of common secondary hexavalent uranium minerals).
Approximately 7% of Australia's uranium resources are hosted in
sandstone deposits. Deposits are often low to medium grade (0.05
to 0.40% U3O8) and range in size from ~ 675 t U3O8 (e.g. the Sue deposit in the McArthur Basin, Northern Territory) to 17,600 t U3O8
(e.g. the Goulds Dam deposit, Lake Eyre Basin Frome Embayment,
South Australia). The Mulga Rocks deposit, Gunbarrel Basin, Western
Australia, contains an estimated 28,210 t U3O8 at a grade of 0.1% U3O8
whereas the Westmoreland deposit, in the Pandanus Creek uranium
eld, Northern Territory, has 22,000 t U3O8 and an average ore
grade of 0.089% U3O8. The Beverley sandstone deposit (South Australia) is an operating mine which contains ~ 7.7 Mt U3O8 at an average
grade of 0.27% U3O8. The mineralisation is predominantly cofnite
with lesser amounts of uraninite. The nearby Four Mile deposit, located 8 km north west of the Beverley Mine, is a 9.8 Mt resource with an
average ore grade of 0.33% U3O8, containing approximately 32,000 t

U3O8.
6.4.1. Characterisation of sandstone-hosted uranium ores
Characterisation of a high grade drill core sample (2.15% bulk U)
sourced from a Northern Territory sandstone-hosted uranium deposit
showed that the host rock was an arkosic sandstone containing large
grains of quartz, microcline (K-feldspar) and muscovite, encased by
intergranular calcite cement and a ne-grained (Mg,Fe,V,K) aluminosilicate (Fig. 14). The latter phase also contained measurable vanadium suggesting it may be the vanadium mica, roscoelite (K[V,Al,
Mg]2AlSi3O10[OH]2) or possibly a vanadium-rich chlorite. Minor
phases identied included; pyrite, altered ilmenite, galena, zircon, dolomite, gypsum, baryte and an unidentied Mg-rich silicate.
Uranium was present as cofnite and uraninite. These were either
precipitated on the surface of quartz grains (mainly cofnite), or in
pores between grains (mainly uraninite). The cofnite coated the
quartz grains forming a 610 m thick layer and there appeared to
be a continuous network of cofnite from grain to grain. The association of cofnite with quartz suggested that uranium-rich uids
reacted with the surfaces of the detrital quartz grains. The cofnite
had been covered by vanadium-rich aluminosilicate minerals
(roscoelite and/or chlorite) before being cemented by the calcite.
Compared with cofnite, the uraninite tended to be massive and
was associated with the altered aluminosilicate gangue. In addition
to these two main U-bearing phases, a minor amount of uranium
was also present in an unknown (Ca,Si,Al,S) oxide phase.
6.4.2. Processing options for sandstone-hosted uranium ores
Common metallurgical problems associated with sandstone-,
hosted ores include; high clay contents, high carbonate contents,
the presence of sulphides and organic matter, and low overall grade.
According to Bowell et al. (2011) these deposits are well disposed
to radiometric sorting due to the coarse nature of the mineralisation.
In some cases however, ne-grained uranium may be encapsulated
within gangue clays, quartz and carbonates requiring ner grinding
in order to liberate the uranium (e.g. note the presence of
ne-grained uraninite in Fig. 14). In general however, processing of
sandstone-hosted uranium ores is relatively straightforward. Well
established tank leaching technologies effectively extract uranium,
usually in the presence of an oxidising agent (if organic matter,
often associated with the ore, is present). Potential issues include excess acid consumption if the ore contains a high percentage of carbonates and possibly other acid consuming gangue minerals (e.g.
clays). In the event that an acid leach is not a cost effective processing
option then an alkali carbonate/bicarbonate leach is an alternative.
6.5. Metasomatite uranium deposits
Metasomatite uranium deposits are associated with sodic or sodic
and carbonate metasomatic alteration (Cuney, 2009; Dahlkamp,
2009). Uranium mineralisation is contemporaneous with the metasomatism of the host rocks; several different uid sources have been
proposed to account for the alteration process, including; exsolved
magmatic uids (MacKevett, 1963), basinal brines, and sea water derived uids (Polito et al., 2009). Deposits usually form in highly deformed rocks (Dahlkamp, 1993) and prior to metasomatism, the
parent host lithologies are usually granite, gneiss, migmatite,
metasediments or metavolcanics. Two mechanisms have been proposed to explain uid circulation; i) metamorphism-related (Lobato
et al., 1983) and ii) hydrothermal circulation driven by the intrusion
of granite (Turpin et al., 1988).
Mineralisation is structurally controlled with faults providing a focused pathway for uid migration with mineralisation concentrated in
veins and stockworks along and adjacent to faults. Uranium
mineralisation occurs as ne-grained disseminations and micro-veinlets
41
of uraninite, silicate (cofnite and high U-containing Zr silicates) and

U-REE oxides (largely brannerite).
Metasomatite deposits comprise less than 2% of Australia's uranium resources. Deposits are small, generally contain less than 1000 t
U3O8, and have low ore grades, typically less than 0.2% U3O8. Within
Australia, metasomatite deposits are mainly present in the Eastern
Creek Volcanics north of Mount Isa, Queensland; these include the
Valhalla, Skal and Andersons Lode deposits (Fig. 15). The Valhalla deposit is the largest consisting of approximately 34,600 t U3O8 (combined measured, indicated and reserved resources) with an average
grade of 0.077% U3O8 (Polito et al., 2009). The deposit is hosted by
brecciated metasediments (carbonaceous shale and mac tuff), altered basalt and albitite (Polito et al., 2009; Wilde et al., 2013). The
host rocks show intense sodic and hematitic alteration, and the uranium mineralisation is closely associated with the alteration. Skal and
Anderson's Lode are similar to Valhalla but smaller. More than 100
additional small uranium deposits and prospects of this type are present in the Eastern Creek Volcanics (Gregory et al., 2005; McKay and
Miezitis, 2001).
6.5.1. Characterisation of metasomatite deposits
Samples from two metasomatite deposits from the Mt Isa region
were examined. Uranium levels varied between 0.3 and 0.4% U3O8
and all samples contained high sodium, aluminium and silicon levels
consistent with albitisation of the host rocks. The samples were dominated by the mineral assemblage albite, dolomite and quartz with
minor magnetite, calcite, K-rich feldspar, chlorite, rutile, apatite and
muscovite and trace amounts of U-containing zircon, riebeckite and
galena (Fig. 16). The main uranium-bearing minerals were brannerite
(Fig. 16a) and cofnite (Fig. 16b). Uranium was also present, in minor
amounts, within uraninite and also within small, Zr-rich silicate
grains.
6.5.2. Processing options for metasomatite uranium ores
Metasomatite mineralisation is usually well constrained forming
in veins and stockworks and ore can readily be beneciated using radiometric sorting. Uraninite is usually the most common ore mineral
reportedly associated with these types of deposits (Cinelu and Cuney,
2006; Omel'yanenko and Mineyeva, 1982), however, in the samples
examined in the case study presented, brannerite was the principal
uranium mineral phase (also conrmed by Polito et al., 2009 for the
Valhalla deposit and more recently by Wilde et al., 2013).
The occurrence of brannerite in association with acid consuming
gangue minerals such as carbonates presents the greatest challenge
in dening a cost-competitive owsheet for the treatment of Australian metasomatite ores. Brannerite ores are known to require stronger
leaching conditions than ores containing uraninite or secondary uranium minerals. For example, Goldney et al. (1972) showed, using a
brannerite-rich ore from the Valhalla prospect, that over 80% extraction of uranium could be obtained with sulphuric acid leaching at
50 C with continuous agitation over a period of 50 h, provided the
ore was nely ground to 63 m and the free acidity of the leach liquor was maintained at 0.5 N or higher throughout the leaching period. Similar results could be achieved in shorter times using higher
free acidity levels and/or higher temperatures. Goldney et al. (1972)
also emphasised the need for a substantial separation of dolomite
from uranium minerals before leaching, to reduce acid consumption.
It was not possible to effectively separate dolomite from uranium by
sizing, gravity separation, or magnetic separation techniques. However, froth otation of dolomite and calcite was successful to some extent, reducing carbonate levels from ~ 21% to 7% CaCO3 equivalent.
The amount of uranium upgrading as a result of otation was small.
The effectiveness of an alkaline leach was also investigated by
Goldney et al. (1972) on a composite sample ground to 45 m
and leached at 50 C for 50 h. This resulted in a uranium extraction
of 24%. A similar leach experiment conducted at 20 C resulted in
42
18% extraction of uranium while an alkaline leach at 100 C on a random Valhalla sample was ineffective. These results are consistent
with the refractory nature of brannerite, meaning that alkaline
leaching of such ores (even though carbonate contents can be high)
is not a viable option.
7. Conclusions
The geological record preserved by the Australian landmass has
captured multiple uranium mineralising events dating as far back as
the Paleoproterozoic (~ 2500 Ma), such as the formation of unconformity related uranium deposits, to recent Paleocene (~66.5 Ma)
present mineralising events that have formed surcial uranium deposits. Changes to environmental, atmospheric, terrestrial and tectonic conditions have resulted in a large number of different styles
of uranium mineralisation and consequently, there is no single extraction method that can be applied to optimally process all uranium
ores.
The number of minerals which can accommodate uranium is vast,
although mined deposits are largely dominated by the tetravalent
uranium minerals uraninite, cofnite, brannerite and davidite. Surcial calcrete deposits are unique in forming concentrations of the
hexavalent uranium mineral, carnotite. The susceptibility of the uranium minerals to acid or alkaline leach solutions, temperature, oxidants and organic matter varies widely and it is essential to
characterise the mineralogy of the ore in order to select the most efcient method of processing. For example, uraninite is considered relatively easy to leach via either acidic or alkaline solutions, while
cofnite, brannerite and davidite are more refractory, usually requiring the addition of an oxidant and more aggressive acidic leach
conditions.
Other factors such as the grainsize of the uranium mineralisation
and the associated gangue mineralogy also play an important role in
the ore process selection. Uranium ores with ne mineralisation
(e.g. IOCG-U deposits) or poor liberation (e.g. some sandstonehosted deposits) may require ne-grinding in order to expose the
uranium mineral to the leach solutions, while the amount and type
of gangue minerals associated with the ore will dictate the basicity/
pH of the lixiviant used.
This study contrasts ve of the most economically important Australian uranium ore deposit types (in terms of annual revenue generated from uranium exports) and demonstrates that valuable
information on the probable metallurgical behaviour of an ore can
be obtained from a carefully directed mineralogical and analytical
study. The study emphasises that key data required includes; 1) uranium mineral identication and probable physical characteristics, 2)
an appraisal of uranium mineral liberation size, and, 3) major associated minerals and gangue.
Acknowledgements
The authors appreciate the support of current and former CSIRO
colleagues Ralph Hackl, Hal Aral, Colin MacRae, Nick Wilson, Aaron
Torpy, Cameron Davidson and Steve Peacock who provided interaction, analytical assistance and reviews. Financial support for this
work was supplied by the Minerals Down Under National Research
Flagship through its Strategic Metals Theme. The authors also acknowledge the support of various Australian uranium companies
who readily supplied samples for analysis and graciously allowed results to be published.
References
Adams, M.D., 2007. Towards a virtual metallurgical plant 2: application of mineralogical data. Miner. Eng. 20, 472479.
Alexandre, P., Kyser, T.K., 2005. Effect of cation substitutions and alteration of uraninite,
and implications for the dating of uranium deposits. Can. Mineral. 43, 10051017.
Arakel, A., 1988. Carnotite mineralisation inland drainage areas of Australia. Ore Geol.
Rev. 3, 289311.
Aral, H., Hackl, R., Pownceby, M., 2010. Calcrete-types deposits of Western Australia. In:
Lam, E.K., Rowson, J.W., Ozberk, E. (Eds.), Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Uranium.
Berkman, D.A., Fraser, W.J., 1980. The Mount Fitch copper and uranium deposits Rum
Jungle Uranium Field NT Australia. In: Ferguson, J., Goleby, A.B. (Eds.), Uranium
in the Pine Creek Geosyncline. International Atomic Energy Agency, Vienna, pp.
343350.
Berman, R.M., 1957. The role of lead and excess oxygen in uraninite. Am. Mineral. 42,
705731.
BHP Billiton Resourcing the future, 2012. What we value. Annual Report 2012, pp. 6466.
Bowell, R.J., Grogan, J., Hutton-Ashkenny, M., Brough, C., Penman, K., Sapsford, D.J.,
2011. Geometallurgy of uranium deposits. Miner. Eng. 24, 13051313.
Bowie, S.H.U., 1979. The mode of occurrence and distribution of uranium deposits.
Philos. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. A 291, 289300.
Breger, I.A., 1974. The role of organic matter in the accumulation of uranium: the organic geochemistry of the coaluranium association. International Atomic Energy
Agency Symposium, Formation of Uranium Deposits, Athens, May 610, 1974, Proceedings, pp. 99124.
Brierley, C.L., 1984. Microbiological mining: technology status and commercial opportunities. World Biotechnol. Rep. 1, 599609.
Bruno, J., De Pablo, J., Duro, L., Figuerola, E., 1995. Experimental study and modelling of
the U(VI)Fe(OH) surface precipitation/coprecipitation equilibria. Geochim.
Cosmochim. Acta 59, 41134123.
Burns, P.C., 1999. The crystal chemistry of uranium. In: Burns, P.C., Finch, R. (Eds.), Uranium Mineralogy, Geochemistry and the Environment. Mineralogical Society of
America, Reviews in Mineralogy, 38, pp. 2398.
Cameron, E., 1990. Yeelirrie uranium deposit. In: Hughes, F.E. (Ed.), Geology of the
Mineral Resources of Australia and Papua New Guinea. The Australasian Institute
of Mining and Metallurgy, pp. 16251629.
Carlisle, D., 1980. Possible variation in the calcrete-gypcrete uranium model, US Department of Engegy. Open-File Report GJBX-53 (80).
Carlisle, D., 1983. Concentration of uranium and vanadium in calcretes and gypcretes.
In: Wilson, R.C.L. (Ed.), Residual Deposits: Surface Related Weathering Processes
and Materials, Geological Society of London Special Publication, vol. 11. Geological
Society, London, pp. 185195.
Carroll, D., Starkey, H.C., 1971. Reactivity of clay minerals with acid and alkalies. Clay
Clay Miner. 19, 321333.
Cathcart, J.B., 1978. Uranium in phosphate rock. U.S. Geol. Surv. Prof. Pap. 988-A,
A1A6.
Charalambous, F.A., Ram, R., Pownceby, M.I., Tardio, J., Bhargava, S.K., 2012. Chemical
and microstructural characterisation studies on natural and heat treated
brannerite samples. Miner. Eng. 39, 276288.
Chernoff, C.B., Orris, G.J., 2002. Data set of world phosphate mines, deposits, and occurrences part A. Geologic data. USGS Open File Report 02-156-A (352 pp.).
Cinelu, S., Cuney, M., 2006. Sodic metasomatism and UZr mineralization: a model
based on the Kurupung batholith (Guyana). Abstracts Goldschmidt Conference
2006, 70, p. A103.
Colella, M., Lumpkin, G.R., Zhang, Z., Buck, E.C., Smith, K.L., 2005. Determination of the
uranium valence state in the brannerite structure using EELS, XPS, and EDX. Phys.
Chem. Miner. 32, 5264.
Connelly, D., 2008. Uranium processing. International Mining, pp. 5861 (01/08).
Cooper, L.A., 1973. On the age of uranium mineralisation at Nabarlek NT Australia.
J. Geol. Soc. Aust. 19, 483486.
Creaser, R.A., Cooper, J.A., 1993. UPb geochronology of Middle Proterozoic felsic
magmatism surrounding the Olympic Dam CuUAuAg and Moonta CuAuAg
deposit, South Australia. Econ. Geol. 88, 186197.
Cross, K.C., 1993. Mineralisation associated with the Gawler Range Volcanics and
Hiltaba Suite granitoids: Acropolis and Wirrda Well deposits. In: Drexel, J.F.,
Preiss, W.V., Parker, A.J. (Eds.), The Geology of South Australia, 54. South Australian
Geological Survey, Bull., p. 138.
Cumming, G.L., Krstic, D., 1992. The age of unconformity related uranium mineralization in the Athabasca Basin northern Saskatchewan. Can. J. Earth Sci. 29,
16231639.
Cuney, M., 2009. The extreme diversity of uranium deposits. Miner. Deposita 44, 39.
Cuney, M., Kyser, K., 2009. Recent and not-so-recent developments in uranium deposits and implications for exploration. Short Course, vol. 39. Mineralogical Association of Canada (MAC) and Society Geology Applied to Mineral Deposits (SGA)
(272 pp.).
Dahlkamp, F.J., 1978. A classication of uranium deposits. Miner. Deposita 13, 83104.
Dahlkamp, F.J., 1989. Classication scheme of uranium deposits. Metallogenesis of Uranium Deposits. IAEA, Vienna, pp. 131.
Dahlkamp, F.J., 1993. Uranium Ore Deposits.Springer, Berlin Heidelberg New York (460 pp.).
Dahlkamp, F.J., 2009. Uranium Deposits of the World.Springer, Berlin Heidelberg New
York (2400 pp.).
De Voto, R.H., 1978. Uranium Geology and Exploration: Lecture Notes and
References.Colorado School of Mines, Golden Colorado (396 pp.).
Derome, D., Cuney, M., Cathelineau, M., Dubessy, J., Bruneton, P., 2003. A detailed uid inclusion study in silicied breccias from the Kombolgie sandstones (Northern Territory,
Australia): application to the genesis of Middle Proterozoic unconformitytype uranium
deposits. J. Geochem. Explor. 80, 259275.
Eakin, P., Gize, A.P., 1992. Reected-light microscopy of uraniferous bitumens. Mineral.
Mag. 56, 8599.
Edwards, C.R., Oliver, A.J., 2000. Uranium processing: a review of current methods and
technology. J. Miner. Met. Mater. Soc. 52, 1220.

Ewers, G.R., Ferguson, J., Needham, R.S., Donnelly, T.H., 1984. Pine Creek geosyncline
NT. In: Ferguson, J. (Ed.), Proterozoic Unconformity and Stratabound Uranium Deposits. , 315. International Atomic Energy Agency, Vienna, Tecdoc, pp. 135206.
Fayek, M., Kyser, T.K., 1997. Characterization of multiple uid-ow events and rareearth-element mobility associated with formation of unconformity-type uranium
deposits in the Athabasca basin, Saskatchewan. Can. Mineral. 35, 627658.
Finch, R.J., Ewing, R.C., 1991. Alteration of natural uraninite under oxidizing conditions
from Shinkolobwe, Katanga, Zaire: a natural analogue for the corrosion of spent
fuel. Radiochim. Acta 52 (53), 395401.
Finch, R.J., Murakami, T., 1999. Systematics and paragenesis of uranium minerals. In:
Burns, P.C., Finch, R. (Eds.), Uranium Mineralogy, Geochemistry and the Environment. Mineralogical Society of America, Reviews in Mineralogy, 38, pp. 91180.
Fleischer, M., 1953. Recent estimates of the abundance of the elements in the earth's
crust. U. S. Geol. Surv. Circ. 285, 7p.
Foster, F.B., Robbins, E.I., Bone, Y., 1990. Organic tissues, graphite and hydrocarbons in
host rocks of the Rum Jungle uranium eld, northern Australia. Ore Geol. Rev. 5,
509523.
Fraser, W.J., 1980. Geology and exploration of the Rum Jungle Uranium Field. In:
Ferguson, J., Goleby, A.B. (Eds.), Uranium in the Pine Creek Geosyncline, Proc. Int.
Uranium Symposium, International Atomic Energy Agency, Vienna, pp. 287298.
Frondel, C., 1958. Systematic mineralogy of uranium and thorium. U. S. Geol. Surv. Bull.,
1064. United States Government Printing Ofce, Washington (Reston, VA).
Frondel, J.W., Fleischer, M., 1955. Glossary of uranium- and thorium-bearing minerals,
3rd ed. U.S. Geol. Surv. Bull. 1009-F, pp. 169209.
Glaeser, J.D., 1974. Upper Devonian stratigraphy and sedimentary environments in
northeastern Pennsylvania. Penn. Geol. Surv. Gener. Geol. Rep. 63, 189.
Goldney, L.H., Canning, R.G., Gooden, J.E.A., 1972. Extraction investigations with some
Australian uranium ores. The AAEC Symposium on Uranium Processing, 2021
July 1972, Paper V, AAEC/E238. Australian Atomic Energy Commission, Lucas
Heights, Australia.
Goldstream, 1999. Goldstream Mining NL. Report to Stock Exchange for Quarter Ended
31 December 1999.
Goldstream, 2000. Goldstream Mining NL. Report to Stock Exchange for Quarter Ended
31 March 2000.
Gow, P.A., Wall, V.J., Oliver, N.H.S., Valenta, R.K., 1994. Proterozoic iron oxide (CuU
AuREE) deposits: further evidence of hydrothermal origins. Geology 22, 633636.
Gregory, M.L., Wilde, A.R., Jones, P.A., 2005. Uranium deposits of the Mount Isa region
and their relationship to deformation, metamorphism and copper deposition.
Econ. Geol. 100, 537546.
Gupta, C., Singh, H., 2003. Uranium Resource Processing: Secondary Resources.Springer,
Berlin Heidelberg New York (542 pp.).
Hanchar, J., 1999. Spectroscopic techniques applied to uranium in minerals. In: Burns,
P.C., Finch, R. (Eds.), Uranium Mineralogy, Geochemistry and the Environment.
Mineralogical Society of America, Reviews in Mineralogy, 38, pp. 499517.
Harrison, V.F., Gow, W.A., Ivarson, K.C., 1996. Leaching of uranium from Elliot Lake ore
in the presence of bacteria. Can. Mineral. J. 87, 6466.
Harshman, E.N., 1962. Alteration as a guide to uranium ore, Shirley Basin, Wyoming.
U.S. Geol. Surv. Prof. Pap. 450, D8D10.
Harshman, E.N., 1972. Geology and uranium deposits Shirley Basin area, Wyoming. U.S.
Geol. Surv. Prof. Pap. 745 (82 pp.).
Haynes, D.W., 2000. Iron oxide copper (-gold) deposits: their position in the ore deposit spectrum and modes of origin. In: Porter, T.M. (Ed.), Hydrothermal Iron Oxide
Copper-Gold & Related Deposits: A Global Perspective. Australian Mineral Foundation, Adelaide, pp. 7190.
Haynes, D.W., Cross, K.C., Bills, R.T., Reed, M.H., 1995. Olympic Dam ore genesis: a uid
mixing model. Econ. Geol. 90, 281307.
Heard, H.C., 1972. Steady-state ow in polycrystalline halite at pressure of 2 kilobars.
In: Heard, H.C., et al. (Ed.), Flow and Fracture of Rock, vol. 16. American Geophysical Union, Geophysical Monographs, pp. 191210.
Hegge, M.R., Rowntree, J.C., 1978. Geologic setting and concepts on the origin of uranium deposits in the East Alligator River region, Northern Territory, Australia. Econ.
Geol. 73, 14201429.
Heinrich, E.W., 1958. Mineralogy and Geology of Radioactive Raw Materials. McGrawHill, New York (654 pp.).
Hem, J.D., Paulson, R.W., Chase, E.B., Williams, J.S., Moody, D.W., 1993. factors affecting
stream water quality, and water-quality trends in four drainage basins in the conterminous United States, 190590. National Water Summary 199091; hydrologic
events and stream water quality. U. S. Geol. Surv. W2400, 6792.
Hess, F.L., Wells, R.C., 1920. Brannerite, a new uranium mineral. J. Franklin Inst. 189,
225237.
Hess, C.T., Michel, J., Harton, T.R., Procured, H.M., Coniglio, W.A., 1985. The occurrences
of radioactivity in public water supplies in United States. Health Phys. 48, 553586.
Hewett, D.F., Stone, J., Levine, H., 1957. Brannerite from San Bernardino County, California. Am. Mineral. 42, 3038.
Hills, J.H., Richards, J.R., 1972. The age of uranium mineralization in northern Australia.
Search 3 (10), 392396.
Hitzman, M.W., 2000. Iron oxideCuAu deposits: what, where, when and why. In:
Porter, T.M. (Ed.), Hydrothermal Iron-Oxide CopperGold and Related Deposits:
A Global Perspective. Australian Mineral Foundation, Adelaide, pp. 925.
Hitzman, M.W., Valenta, R.K., 2005. Uranium in iron oxide-copper-gold (IOCG ) systems. Econ. Geol. 100, 16571661.
Hitzman, M.W., Oreskes, N., Einaudi, M.T., 1992. Geological Characteristics and tectonic
setting of Proterozoic iron-oxide (Cu-U-Au-REE) deposits. Precambrian Res. 58,
241287.
Hoeve, J., Sibbald, T., 1978. On the genesis of Rabbit Lake and other unconformity-type
uranium deposits in northern Saskatchewan, Canada. Econ. Geol. 73, 14501473.
43
Hoeve, J., Sibbald, T.I.I., Ramaekers, P., Lewry, J.F., 1980. Athabasca Basin unconformitytype uranium deposits: a special class of sandstone type deposits. In: Ferguson, J.,
Goleby, A.B. (Eds.), Uranium in the Pine Creek Geosyncline, Proc. Int. Uranium
Symposium, International Atomic Energy Agency, Vienna, pp. 575594.
Hou, B., Fabris, A.J., Keeling, J.L., Fairclough, M.C., 2007. Cainozoic palaeochannel-hosted
uranium and current exploration methods, South Australia. MESA J. 46, 3439.
Huay, W.H., Keller, W.D., 1971. Dissolution of clay minerals in dilute acids. Am. Mineral.
52, 10821092.
Hurst, F.J., 1976. Recovery of uranium from wet-process phosphoric acid by solvent extraction. Presented at Annual AIME Meeting, Las Vegas, February.
IAEA, 1980. Signicance of mineralogy in the development of owsheets for processing
uranium ores. Technical Reports Series No. 196. International Atomic Energy Agency, Vienna (267 pp.).
IAEA, 1990. Manual on laboratory testing for uranium ore processing. Technical Report
Series No. 313. International Atomic Energy Agency, Vienna (149 pp.).
IAEA, 1993. Uranium extraction technology. Technical Reports Series No. 359 (380 pp.).
IAEA, 2009. World Distribution of Uranium Deposits (UDEPO) with Uranium Deposit
Classication. IAEA, VIENNA, 2009. IAEA-TECDOC-1629. 117p.
Janeczek, J., Ewing, R.C., 1992. Structural formula of uraninite. J. Nucl. Mater. 190, 128132.
Jefferson, C.W., Thomas, D.J., Gandhi, S.S., Ramaekers, P., Delaney, G., Brisbin, D., Cutts,
C., Quirt, D., Portella, P., Olson, R.A., 2007. Unconformity associated uranium deposits. In: Goodfellow, W.D. (Ed.), Mineral Deposits of Canada. Geological Association of Canada, Special Publication, 5, pp. 273306.
Kennedy, R.H., 1967. Recovery of Uranium from Low-grade Sandstone Ores and Phosphate Rock. Processing of Low-grade Uranium Ores.International Atomic Energy
Agency, Vienna 216226.
Kinnaird, J.A., Nex, P.A.M., 2007. A review of geological controls on uranium
mineralisation in sheeted leucogranites within the Damara Orogen, Namibia.
Appl. Earth Sci. (Trans. Inst. Min. Metall. B) 116, 6885.
Kotzer, T., Kyser, T.K., 1995. Fluid history of the Athabasca Basin and its relation to diagenesis, uranium mineralization and paleohydrology. Chem. Geol. 120, 4589.
Krivovichev, S., Burns, P., Tananaev, I., 2006. Chemistry of Inorganic Actinide
Compounds.Elsevier, St. Petersburg, Notre dame, Moscow.
Kyser, K., Cuney, M., 2009. Geochemical characteristics of uranium and analytical
methodologies. In: Cuney, M., Kyser, K. (Eds.), Recent and Not-so-recent Developments in Uranium Deposits and Implications for Exploration. Mineralogical Association of Canada (MAC) and Society Geology Applied to Mineral Deposits (SGA), pp.
2357.
Landais, P., Gize, A.P., 1997. Organic matter in hydrothermal ore deposits, In: Barnes,
H.L. (Ed.), Geochemistry of Hydrothermal Ore Deposits, 3rd ed. John Wiley and
Sons, New York, pp. 613656.
Langford, F.F., 1974. A supergene origin for vein-type uranium ores in the light of the
Westem Australian calcretecarnotite deposits. Econ. Geol. 69, 516526.
Lanier, G., John, E.C., Swensen, A.J., Reid, J., Bard, C.E., Caddey, S.W., Wilson, J.C., 1978.
General geology of the Bingham mine, Bingham Canyon. Utah. Econ. Geol. 3,
12281241.
Laxen, P.A., 1971. Dissolution of uranium dioxide as an electron transfer reaction. The
Recovery of Uranium: Proceedings of a Symposium. International Atomic Energy
Agency, Vienna.
Lentz, D., 1996. U, Mo, and REE minerlization in late-tectonic granitic pegmatites,
southwestern Grenville Province, Canada. Ore Geol. Rev. 11, 197227.
Lian, J., Wang, L., Lumpkin, G.R., Ewing, R.C., 2002. Heavy ion irradiation effects of
brannerite-type ceramics. Nucl. Inst. Methods Phys. Res. B 191, 565570.
Lobato, L.M., Forma, J.M.A., Fyfe, W.S., Kerrich, R., Barnett, R.L., 1983. Uranium enrichment in Archaean crustal basement associated with overthrusting. Nature 303,
235237.
Lockhart, N.C., 1983. Electro-osmotic dewatering of ne tailings from mineral processing. Int. J. Miner. Process. 10, 131140.
Lottering, M.J., Lorenzen, L., Phala, N.S., Smit, J.T., Schalkwyk, G.A.C., 2008. Mineralogy
and uranium leaching response of low grade South African ores. Miner. Eng. 21,
1622.
Lower, C., Ehrig, K., Macmillan, E., Kittler, P., Liebezeit, V., Yang, K., 2011. Quantitative clay
mineralogy for a calcrete-hosted uranium deposit innovative application of existing
technology on an unprecedented scale. Proceedings from The First AUSIMM International Geometallurgy Conference, Brisbane, QLD, 57 September 2011, pp. 18.
Lowson, R.T., 1975. Bacterial leaching of uranium ores. A review. Australian Atomic Energy Commission (AAEC) Publication E356. (24 pp.).
Lumpkin, G.R., Leung, S.H.F., Colella, M., 2000. Composition, geochemical alteration,
and alpha-decay damage effects of natural brannerites. In: Smith, R.W.,
Shoesmith, D.W. (Eds.), Scientic Basis for Nuclear Waste Management XXIII.
Mat. Res. Symp. Proc., 608, pp. 359368.
Lunt, D., Boshoff, P., Boylett, M., El-Ansary, Z., 2007. Uranium extraction: the key process drivers. J. South. Afr. Inst. Min. Metall. 107, 419426.
Maas, R., 1989. NdSr isotope constraints on the age and origin of unconformity-type
uranium deposits in the Alligator Rivers uranium eld, Northern Territory, Australia. Econ. Geol. 84, 6490.
MacKevett, E.M. Jr, 1963. Geology and ore deposits of the Bokan Mountain uranium
thorium area, southeastern Alaska. U.S. Geol. Surv. Bull. 1154 (125 pp.).
MacNaughton, S.J., Ring, R.J., Day, A., Collier, D.E., Tan, L.K.P., 1999. Optimisation of the
leach conditions for a copper/uranium ore. In: Mishra, B. (Ed.), Proceedings EPD
Congress 1999. The Minerals, Metals and Materials Society, pp. 509522.
MacNaughton, S.J., Tan, L., Day, A., Ring, R.J., 2000. Modelling the leaching behavior of
an uranium ore. Uranium 2000. Proceedings of the International Symposium on
the Process Metallurgy of Uranium 2000, Saskatoon, SK, pp. 413427.
Mandarino, J.A., 1999. Fleischer's Glossary of Mineral Species 1999.The Mineralogical
Record, Tucson.
44
Mann, A.W., 1983. Hydrogeochemistry and weathering on the Yilgarn Block. Western
Australia - ferrolysis and heavy metals in continental brines. Geochim. Cosmochim.
Acta 47, 181190.
Mann, A.W., Deutscher, R.L., 1978. Genesis principles for the precipitation of carnotite
in calcrete drainages in Western Australia. Econ. Geol. 73, 17241737.
Mann, A.W., Horwitz, R.C., 1979. Groundwater calcrete deposits in Australia: some observations from Western Australia. J. Geol. Soc. Aust. 25, 293303.
Marlow, A.G.M., 1981. Remobilisation and Primary Uranium Genesis in the Damaran
Orogenic Belt. (PhD thesis) University of Leeds, Leeds, UK.
Mashkovtsev, G.A., Kislyakov, Y.M., Miguta, A.K., Modnikov, I.S., 1998. Commercial genetic types of uranium deposits. Otechestvennaya Geol. 4, 1320 (in Russian).
McKay, A., Miezitis, Y., 2001. Australia's uranium: resources, geology and development
of deposits. Mineral Resource Report, 1. Geoscience Australia, Canberra (184 pp.).
McKay, A.D., Miezitis, Y., Jairedth, S., 2009. Australian Uranium Resources, May 2009. Edition, 1:10,000,000 scale map, Published by Geoscience Australia, Canberra, Australia.
Mernagh, T.P., Heinrich, C.A., Leckie, J.F., Carville, D.P., Gilbert, D.J., Valenta, R.K.,
Wyborn, L.A.I., 1994. Chemistry of low temperature hydrothermal gold, platinum,
and palladium (uranium) mineralisation at Coronation Hill, Northern Territory,
Australia. Econ. Geol. 89, 10531073.
Merritt, R.G., 1971. The Extractive Metallurgy of Uranium1st edition. Colorado School
of Mines Research Institute (576 pp.).
Meunier, J.D., Landais, P., Pagel, M., 1990. Experimental evidence for uraninite formation from the diagenesis of uranium-rich organic matter. Geochim. Cosmochim.
Acta 54, 809817.
Mickle, D.G., Mathews, G.W., 1978. Geologic characteristics of environments favourable
for uranium deposits. U.S. Department of Energy Report GJBX-67(78). (250 pp.).
Mohan, M.S., Ilger, J.D., Zingaro, R.A., 1991. Speciation of uranium in a South Texas lignite: additional evidence for a mixed mode of occurrence. Energy Fuel 5, 568573.
Nash, J.T., Granger, H.C., Adams, S.S., 1981. Geology and concepts of genesis of important
types of uranium deposits. Economic Geology 75th Anniversary Volume, pp. 63116.
Needham, R.S., 1987. A Review of Mineralisation in the South Alligator Conservation
Zone.Bureau of Mineral Resources, Australia (Record 1987/52).
Needham, R.S., 1988. Geology of the Alligator Rivers Uranium Field, Northern
Territory.Bureau of Mineral Resources, Australia (Bulletin, 224 pp.).
Neumann, N., Sandiford, M., Foden, J., 2000. Regional geochemistry and continental
heat ow: implications for the origin of the South Australian heat ow anomaly.
Earth Planet. Sci. Lett. 183, 107120.
Nex, P., 1997. Tectono-metamorphic Setting and Evolution of Granitic Sheets in the
Goanikontes Area. (PhD thesis) University College Cork, National University of Ireland,
Namibia.
Nicol, M.J., Needs, C.R.S.N., Finkelstein, N.P., 1975. Electrochemical model for the
leaching of uranium dioxide. 1. Acid media. In: Burkin, A.R. (Ed.), Leaching and Reduction. Hydrometallurgy. Institution of Mining and Metallurgy, London.
Notholt, A.J.G., 1980. Economic phosphatic sediments: mode of occurrence and stratigraphical distribution. J. Geol. Soc. 137, 793805.
OECD/NEA-IAEA, 2012. Uranium 2011: Resources, Production and Demand.OECD, International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), OECD Publishing (488 pp.).
Omel'yanenko, B.I., Mineyeva, I.G., 1982. Pre- and sun-ore vertical zonation in Precambrian uraniferous metasomatites. Int. Geol. Rev. 24, 422430.
Oreskes, N., Einaudi, M.T., 1990. Origin of REE-enriched hematite breccias at Olympic
Dam, Roxby Downs, South Australia. Econ. Geol. 85, 128.
Ozdemir, M., Kipcak, I., 2004. Dissolution kinetics of sepiolite in hydrochloric and nitric
acids. Clay Clay Miner. 52, 714720.
Pabst, A., 1954. Brannerite from California. Am. Mineral. 39, 109117.
Pagel, M., Jaffrezic, H., 1977. Analyses chimiques des saumures des inclusions du quartz
et de la dolomite du gisement d'uranium de Rabbit Lake (Canada). Aspect
mthodologique et importance gntique. C. R. Acad. Sci. Paris 284, 113116.
Petrov, N.N., Yazikov, V.G., Aubakirov, H.B., Plekhanov, V.N., Vershkov, A.F., Lukhtin,
V.F., 1995. Uranium Deposits of Kazakhstan (Exogenous).Gylym, Almaty (264 pp.
(in Russian)).
Petrov, N.N., Yazikov, V.G., Berikbolov, B.R., Vershkov, A.F., Egorov, S.A., Zhelnov, V.P.,
Karelin, V.G., Kravtsov, E.G., Nikolaev, S.L., Ostrokom, I.M., Shishkov, I.A., 2000. Uranium Deposits of Kazakhstan (Endogenous).Gylym, Almaty (523 pp. (in Russian)).
Plant, J.A., Simpson, P.R., Smith, B., Windley, B., 1999. Uranium ore deposits products
of the radioactive Earth. In: Burns, P.C., Finch, R. (Eds.), Uranium Mineralogy, Geochemistry and the Environment. Mineralogical Society of America, Reviews in Mineralogy, 38, pp. 255319.
Polito, P.A., Kyser, T.K., Stanley, C., 2009. The Proterozoic, albitite-hosted, Valhalla uranium
deposit, Queensland, Australia: a description of the alteration assemblage associated
with uranium mineralisation in diamond drill hole V39. Miner. Deposita 44, 1140.
Pollard, P.J., 2000. Evidence of a magmatic uid and metal source for the Fe-oxide CuAu mineralisation. In: Porter, T.M. (Ed.), Hydrothermal Iron Oxide Copper-Gold &
Related Deposits: A Global Perspective. Australian Mineral Foundation, Adelaide,
pp. 2741.
Porter, T.M., 2000. Hydrothermal iron-oxide copper-gold & related ore deposits. In:
Porter, T.M. (Ed.), Hydrothermal Iron Oxide Copper-Gold & Related Deposits: A
Global Perspective. Australian Mineral Foundation, Adelaide, pp. 35.
Pownceby, M.I., Aral, H., Hackl, R., 2011. Geometallurgy and processing of Australia's
uranium deposits. Proceedings ALTA 2011 Uranium, Perth, WA, Australia, 2627
May 2011. ALTA Metallurgical Services (18 pp.).
Ragozzini, R.J., Sparrow, G.J., 1987. Selective dissolution of uranium from Olympic Dam
copper concentrates. Hydrometallurgy 18, 367382.
Ram, R., Charalambous, F.A., McMaster, S., Pownceby, M.I., Tardio, J., Bhargava, S.K.,
2013. Chemical and micro-structural characterisation studies on natural uraninite
and associated gangue minerals. Miner. Eng. 45, 159169.
Reeve, J.S., Cross, K.C., Smith, R.N., Oreskes, N., 1990. Olympic Dam copperuranium
gold silver deposit. In: Hughes, F.E. (Ed.), Geology of the Mineral Deposits of Australia and Papua New Guinea. The Australasian Institute of Mining and Metallurgy,
Monograph, 14, pp. 10091035.
Ring, R.J., 1979. Leaching characteristics of Australian uranium ores. Proceedings Australasian Institute of Mining and Metallurgy, 272, pp. 1323.
Ritcey, G.M., 1980. Crud in solvent extraction processing a review of causes and
treatment. Hydrometallurgy 5, 97107.
Ritcey, G.M., Wong, E.W., 1985. Inuence of cations on crud formation in uranium circuits. Hydrometallurgy 15, 5561.
Robb, L., 2005. Introduction to Ore-Forming Processes.Blackwell Publishing Company
(158 pp.).
Romberger, S.B., 1984. Transport and deposition of uranium in hydrothermal systems
at temperatures up to 300 C: geological implications. In: De Vivo (Ed.), Uranium
Geochemistry, Mineralogy, Geology, Exploration and Resources, Environment Abstracts, Institution of Mining and Metallurgy (U.K.) Report, pp. 1217.
Rose, A.W., 1976. The effect of cuprous chloride complexes in the origin of red-bed copper and related deposits. Econ. Geol. 71, 10361048.
Rubin, B., 1970. Uranium roll front zonation in the southern Powder River Basin,
Wyoming. WGA Earth Sci. Bull. 512.
Ruzicka, V., 1971. Geological comparison between East European and Canadian uranium deposits. Geological Survey Canada Paper 70-48. (196 pp.).
Ryan, G.R., 1972. Ranger 1, a case history. In: Bowie, S.H.V., Ostle, D. (Eds.), Uranium
Prospecting Handbook. Institution of Mining and Metallurgy, London, pp. 296300.
Seidel, D.C., 1981. Extracting uranium from its ores. IAEA Bull. 23, 2428.
Seko, N., Katakai, A., Hasegawa, S., Tamada, M., Kasai, N., Takeda, H., Sugo, T., Saito, K.,
2003. Aquaculture of uranium in seawater by a fabric-adsorbent submerged system. Nucl. Technol. 144, 274278.
Shannon, R.D., 1976. Systematic studies of interatomic distances in oxides. In: Strens,
R.G.J. (Ed.), The Physics and Chemistry of Minerals and Rocks. John Wiley and
Sons, United Kingdom, London, pp. 403431.
Sibbald, T.I.I., Munday, R.J.C., Lewry, J.F., 1976. The geological setting of uranium mineralization in northern Saskatchewan. In: Dunn, C.E. (Ed.), Uranium in Saskatchewan, SaskatchewanGeol. Soc. Spec. Publ. 3, 5198.
Skirrow, R.G., Jaireth, S., Huston, D.L., Bastrakov, E.N., Schoeld, A., van der Wielem, S.E.,
Barnicoat, A.C., 2009. Uranium mineral systems: processes, exploration criteria and
a new deposit framework. Geoscience Australia Record 2009/20. (44 pp.).
Smith Jr., D.K., 1984. Uranium mineralogy. In: de Vivo, B., Ippolito, F., Capaldi, G.,
Simpson, P.R. (Eds.), Uranium Geochemistry, Mineralogy, Geology, Exploration
and Resources. The Institution of Mining and Metallurgy, London, pp. 4388.
Spirakis, C.S., 1996. The roles of organic matterin the formation of uranium deposits in
sedimentary rocks. Ore Geol. Rev. 11, 5369.
Stewart, C.L., Reimann, L., Swapp, S., 2000. Mineralogic considerations for uranium insitu mining. CIM Bull. 93, 8996.
Stoikov, H.M., Bojkov, I.B., 1991. Geology and Exploration of Uranium Deposits.Spector,
Soa (148 pp. (in Bulgarian)).
Turpin, L., Maruejol, P., Cuney, M., 1988. UPb, RbSr and SmNd chronology of granitic
basement, hydrothermal albitites and uranium mineralization (Lagoa Real, SouthBahia, Brazil). Contrib. Mineral. Petrol. 98, 139147.
Valenta, R.K., 1991. Structural Controls on Mineralisation of the Coronation Hill Deposit
and Surrounding Areas.Bureau of Mineral Resources, Australia (Record 1991/107).
Venter, R., Boylett, M., 2009. The evaluation of various oxidants used in acid leaching of
uranium. Hydrometallurgy Conference 2009. The Southern African Institute of
Mining and Metallurgy, pp. 445455.
Vine, J.D., 1962. Geology of uranium in coaly carbonaceous rocks. U. S. Geol. Surv. Prof.
Pap. 356-D, 113170.
Walters, S.G., 2011. Integrated industry relevant research initiatives to support
geometallurgical mapping and modeling. Proceedings from The First AUSIMM International Geometallurgy Conference, Brisbane, QLD, 57 September 2011, pp.
273278.
Wilde, A.R., 1988. On the Origin of Unconformity-related Uranium Deposits.
(Unpublished PhD thesis) Monash University, Clayton, Victoria (293 pp.).
Wilde, A.R., Mernagh, T.P., Bloom, M.S., Hoffman, C.F., 1989. Fluid inclusion evidence on
the origin of some Australian unconformity-associated uranium deposits. Econ.
Geol. 84, 16271642.
Wilde, A., Otto, A., Jory, J., MacRae, C., Pownceby, M., Wilson, N., Torpy, A., 2013. Geology
and mineralogy of uranium deposits from Mount Isa, Australia: implications for
albitite uranium deposit models. Minerals. http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/min30x000x.
World Nuclear Association, 2013. Australia's Uranium. www.world-nuclear.org/info/
inf48.html (accessed February 2013).
Wyborn, L.A.I., 1990. Location of mineralisation in the Coronation Hill and related deposits, South Alligator Valley Mineral Field, NT. BMR Research Newsletter, 12. Bureau of Mineral Resources, Australia, pp. 12.
Wyborn, L.A.I., 1992. AuPtPdU mineralisation in the Coronation HillEl Sharana Region, NT. BMR Research Newsletter, 16. Bureau of Mineral Resources 13.

Geometallurgy of Australian Uranium Deposits 2014 Ore Geology Reviews

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Geometallurgy of Australian Uranium Deposits 2014 Ore Geology Reviews

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Ore Geology Reviews 56 (2014) 2544

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Ore Geology Reviews

Geometallurgy of Australian uranium deposits

Corresponding author. Tel.: +61 3 95458820; fax: +61 3 95628919.

M.I. Pownceby, C. Johnson / Ore Geology Reviews 56 (2014) 2544

Sandstone-hosted uranium deposits . . . . . . . . . . . . .

speciation of uranium in the ore, (b) the associated gangue mineralogy;

M.I. Pownceby, C. Johnson / Ore Geology Reviews 56 (2014) 2544

general, most uranium is present as an impurity element substituted

M.I. Pownceby, C. Johnson / Ore Geology Reviews 56 (2014) 2544

of classication schemes which exist. However, a number of deposit

Consequently, the classication of some deposits remains problematic.

Meteoric water, basin brines

Basin- & surface-related

M.I. Pownceby, C. Johnson / Ore Geology Reviews 56 (2014) 2544

(amorphous UO2) dissolves readily in both acid and alkaline solutions

M.I. Pownceby, C. Johnson / Ore Geology Reviews 56 (2014) 2544

solution system, will attract and adsorb negatively charged uranyl

Ore property requirements

Dense media separation, tables, jogs, spirals, cones

Wet high intensity magnetic separators

Adequate heterogeneity of uranium minerals within the ore

M.I. Pownceby, C. Johnson / Ore Geology Reviews 56 (2014) 2544

4.3. Physical ore properties: grainsize, texture and grade

Finer grinding required,

Exports (tonnes U3O8)

Annual export earnings (Aus $ million)

4.2.9. Iron oxides

Ore type and associated deposit types

M.I. Pownceby, C. Johnson / Ore Geology Reviews 56 (2014) 2544

5. Uranium deposits in Australia

deposits, the Yeelirrie surcial (calcrete) deposit (Western Australia)

IOCG-U - Olympic Dam

Sandstone Hosted - Beverley

Sandstone Hosted - Westmoreland

Million Tonnes Ore

M.I. Pownceby, C. Johnson / Ore Geology Reviews 56 (2014) 2544

uranium resources being dominated by two main deposit types,

6. Geometallurgy of Australian uranium deposits

Deposit name and

Ranger, Alligator Rivers U-Field (NT)

Pitchblende, uraninite, cofnite,

Quartz, argillaceous clays,

Quartz accessory sulphides,

Pitchblende with lesser

Quartz, argillaceous clay,

Past operational mine

Mary Kathleen, Mary Kathleen

Pitchblende, uraninite, cofnite,

Example: Ben Lomond and Maureen

Example: Mundong Well,

Carbonates, clay, quartz

Quartz, clay, hematite,

Uraninite and pitchblende

Quartz, clay, hematite,

M.I. Pownceby, C. Johnson / Ore Geology Reviews 56 (2014) 2544

case studies previously reported in IAEA Technical Report 196 (IAEA,

6.1. IOCG-U (or breccia complex) deposits

metasomatite), independent chemical and mineralogical data was

IOCG-U deposits form in association with alkali-rich volcanics and

M.I. Pownceby, C. Johnson / Ore Geology Reviews 56 (2014) 2544

Fig. 8. Schematic genesis model for Proterozoic unconformity-related uranium mineralisaiton.

6.1.1. Processing options for IOCG-U (breccia complex) ores