1887
Volume 12 Number 1
  • ISSN: 1569-4445
  • E-ISSN: 1873-0604
PDF

Abstract

ABSTRACT

An electrical resistivity monitoring survey was conducted on a mine heap to track reagent movement during high‐pressure injections. The injections were designed to increase the dissolution of metallic gold from low‐grade ore and enhance recovery after surface leaching had ceased. The main objective of the geoelectrical monitoring was to observe the effectiveness of the injection technique and provide feedback to optimize injection parameters in real time. Real‐time assessment was achieved by monitoring the raw output current and transfer resistance on a network of borehole electrodes installed around the injection well. It was demonstrated that the output current increased significantly on particular borehole electrodes after commencement of reagent injection, when the wetting front arrived at the electrodes. When injection ceased, the electrical current returned to the initial baseline current values. The timing and distribution of the electrodes demonstrating this behaviour varied with injection depth. The internal structure of the heap was likely a controlling factor in reagent movement. Resistance, converted to apparent resistivity, was also shown to change significantly in the region near the injection. Verification of the real‐time assessment was conducted with post‐injection time‐lapse 3D tomographic inversion. While inverse modelling provides a truer 3D representation of reagent injection, the cost was shown to be a time‐lag of 3.5 days to complete the modelling. The simplicity of monitoring the raw current output and voltage can make this a powerful tool for real‐time tracking of fluid movement in the subsurface.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.3997/1873-0604.2013017
2013-04-01
2024-03-29
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/nsg/12/1/nsg2013017.html?itemId=/content/journals/10.3997/1873-0604.2013017&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah

References

  1. AlumbaughD.L. and NewmanG.A.2000. Image appraisal for 2‐D and 3‐D electromagnetic inversion. Geophysics65, 1455–1467.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. CalendineS., RuckerD.F., FinkJ.B., LevittM.T. and SchofieldJ.2011. Automated leak detection of buried tanks using geophysical methods at the Hanford Nuclear Site. SAGEEP 2011. Annual Meeting of the Environmental and Engineering Geophysical Society,Charleston, SC. April 10–14, 2011.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. ClémentR., DescloitresM., GüntherT., OxarangoL., MorraC., LaurentJ.‐P. and GourcJ.‐P.2011. Improvement of electrical resistivity tomography for leachate injection monitoring. Waste Management30, 452–464.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. ConstableS.C., ParkerR.L. and ConstableC.G.1987. Occam’s inversion: A practical algorithm for generating smooth models from electromagnetic sounding data. Geophysics52, 289–300.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Day‐LewisF.D., SinghaK. and BinleyA.M.2005. Applying petrophysical models to radar travel time and electrical resistivity tomograms: Resolution‐dependent limitations. Journal of Geophysical Research110, B08206.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. deGroot‐HedlinC. and ConstableS.C.1990. Occam’s inversion to generate smooth, two‐dimensional models from magnetotelluric data. Geophysics55, 1613–1624.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. DoetschJ., LindeN., VogtT., BinleyA. and GreenA.G.2012. Imaging and quantifying salt‐tracer transport in a riparian groundwater system by means of 3D ERT monitoring. Geophysics77, B207–218.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. FarquharsonC.G.2008. Constructing piecewise‐constant models in multidimensional minimum‐structure inversions. Geophysics73, K1–K9.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. FarquharsonC.G. and OldenburgD.W.1998. Nonlinear inversion using general measures of data misfit and model structure. Geophysical Journal International134, 213–227.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. FriedelS.2003. Resolution, stability and efficiency of resistivity tomography estimated from a generalized inverse approach. Geophysical Journal International153, 305–316.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. HaC., KimN., ParkH., KwonS.Y., LeeH.S., HongU.J.et al. 2011. Natural gradient drift tests for assessing the feasibility of in situ aerobic cometabolism of trichloroethylene and evaluating the microbial community change. Water, Air and Soil Pollution219, 353–364.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. JohnstonR.H., TrofimenkoffF.N. and HasslettJ.W.1987. Resistivity response of a homogeneous earth with a finite‐length contained vertical conductor. IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote SensingGE‐25(4), 414–421.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. JohnsonT.C., VersteegR.J., RockholdM., SlaterL.D., NtarlagiannisD., GreenwoodW.J.et al. 2012. Characterization of a contaminated well field using 3D electrical resistivity tomography implemented with geostatistical, discontinuous boundary, and known conductivity constraints. Geophysics77, EN85–EN96.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. JohnsonT.C., VersteegR.J., WardA., Day‐LewisF.D. and RevilA.2010. Improved hydrogeophysical characterization and monitoring through parallel modeling and inversion of time‐domain resistivity and induced‐polarization data. Geophysics74, WA27–WA41.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. KimJ.H., YiM.J., ParkS.G. and KimJ.G.2009. 4D inversion of DC resistivity monitoring data acquired over a dynamically changing earth model. Journal of Applied Geophysics68, 522–532.
    [Google Scholar]
  16. LaBrecqueD.J., HeathG., SharpeR. and VersteegR.2004. Autonomous monitoring of fluid movement using 3‐D electrical resistivity tomography. Journal of Environmental and Engineering Geophysics9, 167–176.
    [Google Scholar]
  17. LaBrecqueD.J., MilettoM., DailyW., RamirezA. and OwenE.1996. The effects of noise on Occam’s inversion of resistivity tomography data. Geophysics61, 538–548.
    [Google Scholar]
  18. LeeM., KimJ. and KimI.2011. In‐situ biosurfactant flushing, coupled with a highly pressurized air injection, to remediate the bunker oil contaminated site. Geosciences Journal15, 313–321
    [Google Scholar]
  19. LileO.B., MorrisM. and RønningJ.S.1997. Estimating groundwater flow velocity from changes in contact resistance during a saltwater tracer experiment. Journal of Applied Geophysics38, 105–114.
    [Google Scholar]
  20. LokeM.H., AcworthI. and DahlinT.2003. A comparison of smooth and blocky inversion methods in 2D electrical imaging surveys. Exploration Geophysics34, 182–187.
    [Google Scholar]
  21. LokeM.H. and BarkerR.D.1996. Practical techniques for 3D resistivity surveys and data inversion. Geophysical Prospecting44, 499–523.
    [Google Scholar]
  22. LokeM.H., DahlinT. and RuckerD.F.2013. Smoothness‐constrained time‐lapse inversion of data from 3‐D resistivity surveys. Near Surface Geophysics (in press).
    [Google Scholar]
  23. LokeM.H., WilkinsonP.B. and ChambersJ.E.2010. Parallel computation of optimized arrays for 2‐D electrical imaging surveys. Geophysical Journal International183, 1302–1315.
    [Google Scholar]
  24. LwambiyiM., MawejaK., KongoloK., LwambiyiN.M. and DiyambiM.2009. Investigation into the heap leaching of copper ore from the Disele deposit. Hydrometallurgy98, 177–180.
    [Google Scholar]
  25. NavarroA. and MartínezF.2010. The use of soil‐flushing to remediate metal contamination in a smelting slag dumping area: Column and pilot‐scale experiments. Engineering Geology115, 16–27.
    [Google Scholar]
  26. NguyenF., KemnaA., AntonssonA., EngesgaardP., KurasO., OgilvyR.et al. 2009. Characterization of seawater intrusion using 2D electrical imaging. Near Surface Geophysics7, 377–390.
    [Google Scholar]
  27. OldenburgD.W. and LiY.1999. Estimating depth of investigation in DC resistivity and IP surveys. Geophysics64, 403–416.
    [Google Scholar]
  28. PidliseckyA., @@@Cockett and KnightR.2012. The Development of Electrical Conductivity Probes for Studying Vadose Zone Processes: Advances in Data Acquisition and Analysis. Vadose Zone Journal (in review).
    [Google Scholar]
  29. RobertT., CaterinaD., DeceusterJ., KaufmannO. and NguyenF.2012. A salt tracer test monitored with surface ERT to detect preferential flow and transport paths in fractured/karstified limestones. Geophysics77, B55–B67.
    [Google Scholar]
  30. RuckerD.F.2009. A coupled electrical resistivity‐infiltration model for wetting front evaluation. Vadose Zone Journal8(2), 383–388.
    [Google Scholar]
  31. RuckerD.F.2012. Enhanced resolution for long electrode ERT. Geophysical Journal International191, 101–111.
    [Google Scholar]
  32. RuckerD.F., CrookN., GlaserD.R. and LokeM.H.2012. Pilot‐Scale Field Validation of the Long Electrode Electrical Resistivity Tomography Method. Geophysical Prospecting60(6), 1150–1166.
    [Google Scholar]
  33. RuckerD.F., FinkJ.B. and LokeM.H.2011. Environmental monitoring of leaks using time lapse long electrode electrical resistivity. Journal of Applied Geophysics74, 242–254.
    [Google Scholar]
  34. RückerC. and GüntherT.2011. The simulation of finite ERT electrodes using the complete electrode Model. Geophysics76, F227–F238.
    [Google Scholar]
  35. RuckerD.F., LokeM.H., NoonanG.E. and LevittM.T.2010. Electrical resistivity characterization of an industrial site using long electrodes. Geophysics75, WA95–WA104.
    [Google Scholar]
  36. RuckerD.F., McNeillM., SchindlerA. and NoonanG.E.2009a. Monitoring of a secondary recovery application of leachate injection into a heap. Hydrometallurgy99, 238–248.
    [Google Scholar]
  37. RuckerD.F., SchindlerA., LevittM.T. and GlaserD.R.2009b. Three‐dimensional electrical resistivity imaging of a gold heap. Hydrometallurgy98, 267–275.
    [Google Scholar]
  38. SealT., RuckerD.F. and WintertonJ.2012. Enhancing gold recovery using Hydro‐Jex© at Cripple Creek and Victor Gold Mine Co. In: Separation Technologies for Minerals, Coal & Earth Resources, (eds C.A.Young and G.H.Luttrell ). Society for Mining, Metallurgy, and Exploration, Denver.
    [Google Scholar]
  39. StummerP., MaurerH. and GreenA.2004. Experimental design: Electrical resistivity data sets that provide optimum subsurface information. Geophysics69,120–129.
    [Google Scholar]
  40. SvabM., KubalM., MüllerovaM. and RaschmanR.2009. Soil flushing by surfactant solution: Pilot‐scale demonstration of complete technology. Journal of Hazardous Materials163, 410–417.
    [Google Scholar]
  41. TelfordW., GeldartL. and SheriffR.1990. Applied Geophysics. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
    [Google Scholar]
  42. WarrickA.W. and RojanoA.1999. Effects of source cavity shape on steady, three‐dimensional flow of soil gases. Water Resources Research35, 1425–1433.
    [Google Scholar]
  43. WilkinsonP.B., LokeM.H., MeldrumP.I., ChambersJ.E., KurasO., GunnD.A.et al. 2012. Practical aspects of applied optimized survey design for electrical resistivity tomography. Geophysical Journal International189, 428–440.
    [Google Scholar]
  44. WilkinsonP.B., MeldrumP.I., KurasO., ChambersJ.E., HolyoakeS.J. and OgilvyR.D.2010. High‐resolution electrical resistivity tomography monitoring of a tracer test in a confined aquifer. Journal of Applied Geophysics70, 268–276.
    [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.3997/1873-0604.2013017
Loading
/content/journals/10.3997/1873-0604.2013017
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article

Most Cited This Month Most Cited RSS feed

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error