Discussion - In-Situ Uranium Mining with Oxygen – Technical Papers, MINING ENGINEERING, Vol. 34, No. 1, Jan. 1982, pp. 52-56 – Litz, L. M.

The subject article is an excellent comparison between two potential oxidants, molecular oxygen and hydrogen peroxide, as used in the Palangana field at the time of the trials. The tests showed no advantage to using hydrogen peroxide; however, it would be unwise to generalize that the experience in these trials was universally true. During the time of the work cited, extremely high levels of an unusual impurity were recycling in the lixiviant, which substance was a catastrophically destructive catalyst for peroxide. Since this material was not removed before recycle, it was not surprising that much of the peroxide fed was decomposing in the feed piping and never made contact with the uranium mineralization. Under these conditions, indeed, peroxide showed no improvement over oxygen. This is, however, perhaps the most adverse environment encountered to date in US in-situ uranium leaching. In other operations, peroxide has proved advantageous where two factors have been exploited: 1.Despite the tendency for Hz02 to decompose to water and oxygen in the in-situ leach environment, its higher redox potential before decomposition has provided higher leach rates. In some formulations, overloading beyond the O2 saturation equivalent with peroxide has allowed higher oxidant levels, and higher leaching rates, when overloading with molecular O2, led to vapor-locking.