Phosphate resources and production

Transcription

1 Phosphate resources and production Hari Tulsidas International Atomic Energy Agency

2 Country Reserves kt Production kt USA Algeria Australia Brazil Canada China Egypt India Iraq Israel Jordan Mexico Morocco Peru Russia Saudi Arabia Senegal South Africa Syria Togo Tunisia Others World Total Phosphate reserves 67 billion tonnes of reserves 300 billion tonnes of resources* *USGS 2012

3 Capacity trends

4 Phosphate utilization 72% - Phos acid 12% - SSP 2% - TSP 14% - Other uses (Nyri, 2010) - Mining - Beneficiated phosphate rock - Wet process - Fertilizer production Process Production Capacity (`000t P 2 O 5 ) Di-Hydrate 22, Hemi-Hydrate 4, Other/Unknown 5, %

5 Uranium resources tu (UDEPO, 2013) 1. Intrusive Granite-related Polymetallic breccia complex Volcanic-related Metasomatite Metamorphite Proterozoic unconformity Collapse breccia pipe Sandstone Paleo-quartz pebble conglomerate Surficial Coal-lignite Carbonate Phosphate Black shales Phosphate U deposits identified TOTAL tu

6 Phosphate U resources Country Resources tu U ppm Brazil Chile Egypt Finland Greece Iraq Israel Jordan Kazakhstan Mexico Morocco Peru Sweden Syria USA Total

7 Assessing U availability from phosphates Quantities associated with known and potential phosphate resources Contained in Phosphoric acid Not extracted; available in PG and process water Available in raffinite and slags Lost in tailings and clays Not Commercial for current extraction Potential for Commercial extraction Commercially Extracted quantities Currently dissipated in fertilizers

8 UxP lifecycle and UNFC-2009 Conceptual Conceptual Studies Studies Order of Magnitude Scoping Studies Studies Pre-feasibility Pre-feasibility Studies Studies Feasibility Project Studies Implementation Project Feasibility Studies Implementation Mine closure, Remediation and Decommissioning Handover Additional Quantities in Place U Extraction Project Non- Commercial Project Potentially Commercial Project Commercial Project U Extraction Project Development Unclarified Development Pending Justified for Development Approved For Development On Production Available in Clays and Residues Development Not Viable Development On Hold

9 U concentration in phosphates Country Deposit U (ppm) Algeria Djebel Onk 25 Djebel Kouif 100 Australia Duchess China Undifferentiated Egypt Abu Tartur Israel Arad 150 Jordan Shidyia 46 Morocco Bucraa Khourigba Peru Sechura Saudia Arabia Ma aden Senegal Taiba Syria Khneifiss 75 Tanzania Minjingu 390 Togo 77 to Tunisia USA North Carolina Central Florida North Florida Idaho

10 Extraction of U 3 Waves First wave: Driven by strategic reasons Second wave: Driven by energy boom 8 plants in USA during 70s Also in Spain, Canada, Belgium, Israel, Iran, Iraq, China (and also in Taiwan, China) Third wave: ? Methods Precipitation Solvent extraction Ion Exchange Liquid membrane techniques Supported Liquid Membranes Emulsion Liquid Membranes

11 Solvents Vs Ion exchange Technology SX (Liquid-Liquid) IX (Solid-liquid) Process equipment Conventional, proven, flexible, simple Performance, Kinetics, & Relative Cost (?) Hazards Solvent & Diluent Waste Disposal (?) Capital Cost Relatively High Reported to be low Operating cost Governed by Solvent Cost & Loss Reported to be low Industrial Deployment Proven Yet to be demonstrated Life cycle performance Adequate data Available Yet to be demonstrated Disposal Simple, Technology available Bulk active solid effluent (?)

12 Solvent extraction steps

13 Acid cleaning - Pre-treatment Most important stage Involve % of plant cost Unit operations involve : Cooling Clarification ( flocculation & organic removal ) Valency adjustment

14 New solvents One example D2EHPA-TBP Extracts uranium from WPA D = for 1.5M D2EHPA 0.2M TBP Cycle-I stripping with MGA under reducing condition, cycle-ii stripping with ammonium carbonate solution [US patent no (2007)] Co-extraction of rare earths is better and that of iron is lower as compared with D2EHPA- TOPO Due to higher viscosity of solvent, slower phase separation; needs larger settlers implying higher solvent hold-up Since D lower than D2EHPA-TOPO system, number of stages required is higher; higher solvent inventory. Useful when TOPO is unavailable or it is desired to co-extract rare earths with uranium.

15 Industrial equipment in Pre-treatment Clariflocculator for removal of suspended solids & organics Belt Filter for separation of solids from clear phosphoric Acid Mixer-settler for organic wash Activated Carbon column for organic removal Mixing Tanks or Electrolytic Oxidator / Reducer for valency adjustment Clariflocculator Electrolytic Oxidator/reducer

16 Industrial Equipment in Extraction Mixer-Settler, a conventional liquid-liquid contacting device Centrifugal Extractor, a more efficient liquid-liquid contacting device having advantage of low inventory Rotating Disc Contactor, a preferred liquid-liquid contacting device for industrial application due to low footprint & ease of automation Mixer-Settler, Safeguard, march 2013

17 Economics Plant 1 o SX On- Stream Recovery Capital Intensity ($/lb/a) Opex ($/lb) Years Operation W/house DHEPA/TOPO 98% 92% IMC DHEPA/TOPO 92% 96% URC OPAP 60% 80% Freeport DHEPA/TOPO 92% 95% Gardinier OPPA? 90% Note: Operating costs exclude royalties, all cost in 2009US$

18 Urtek study Consistently high uranium recovery (> 90%) No crud formation Reagent consumptions within expected range Purification and concentration of uranium achieved without significant uranium losses Phosphoric acid chemistry unchanged except for the removal of uranium and other impurities 1M short ton of P2O5 phosphate facility 880,000 lbs of uranium per annum Cash operating costs: $18/lb of U3O8 Consumables: $6.70/lb of U3O8 Labor: $1.10/lb of U3O8 Maintenance: $3.20/lb of U3O8 Misc. $4.90/lb of U3O8 Contingency $1.50/lb of U3O8 Capital cost: $156 million

19 Uranium Production Potential PA Plant Annual Capacity : Q PA (T P 2 O 5 / yr) U-Content : C U (Gm / M 3 ) P2O5 Concentration : C P2O5 (%) Acid Density : D PA (T / M3 ) S-X Plant Recovery Efficiency : ή On-stream Factor : OS (%) Annual Capacity : Q U (T / yr) Q U = ( Q PA ) * (1/C P2O5 ) * (1/D PA ) * (C U ) * (ή/100) * (OS/100) * (10-6 ) t/yr; 100 mg/lit; 28% P 2 O 5 ; 90% Recovery & O.S. Q U = 25 T U 3 O 8 / Yr, Safeguard, march 2013

20 Conceptual study (1) Fertiliser plant Capacities, by product Phosphoric acid production flow sheet(s) Feed materials (phosphate rock, P 2 O 5 ) Rock phosphate / P 2 O 5 source(s) Blends (if known) Location Utilities Water, electricity requirements and supplies Extraction efficiency P 2 O 5 known/ likely % of U in P 2 O 5 and PG Process technology Solvent extraction - eg di-hydrate, hemi-hydrate, hemi-di-hydrate Ion exchange other Land availability is there enough room on site (needs ~ 2ha) Likely requirements/ options if off-site Ore Phosphate rock characteristics P 2 O 5 grade and homogeneity Detailed chemical characterization of the phosphate ore/ rocks P 2 O 5, CaO, H 2 SO 4, Fe 2 O 3, SiO 2, Al 2 O 3, MgO, Na 2 O, F, U 3 O 8, organic matter, REE, Cr, Fe, U, Si, V, SO 2, CaO etc Likely or known U content in phosphate rock - ppm Mineralogy Physical characteristics or rock Particle size distribution Beneficiation required? Chemistry of the ore concentrate REE content? Could it be a potential byproduct? (Some rock contains 1% or more REE) Th content - ppm

21 Conceptual study (2) P 2 O 5 characteristics P 2 O 5 concentration (%) P 2 O 5 content - kg P 2 O 5 / m 3 U content of P 2 O 5 - kg U/m 3 Detailed chemical characterisation of acid CaO, H 2 SO 4, Fe 2 O 3, Fe 2+, SiO 2, Al 2 O 3, MgO, Na 2 O, HF, organics/humic matter, solids, traces, total H +, EMF Physical characteristics temp, density, viscosity, coloration Uranium species U VI phosphate - extractable species vs inextricable? Uranium recovery Technologies comparison and choice of process High level flow sheet Throughput of P 2 O 5 in litres/hour Acid pre-treatment conditioning required Solvents to be used Contacting equipment used First cycle extraction stripping Second cycle purification of uranium and precipitation of concentrates Acid post treatment Organic solvent contamination Space requirements for operating plant Water requirements Dependencies and constraints R&D required Training Cultural issues

22 Conceptual study (3) Plant Design Design basis inputs Plant battery limits Design basis for plant operation Production Raw materials Chemicals and additives Utilities Design requirements inputs Outputs Process description Acid pre-treatment Cycle I extraction Cycle II extraction Precipitation and drying Heat and mass balance Storage of raw materials and chemicals Strategy for regular supply of chemicals Engineering design Plant organization Operation management Labour source and training Do job descriptions exist? Staffing and working time Salaries Are Standard Operating Procedures available? Does any current or recent past employee have operational experience of UxP? If not, is a suitable consultant engaged for advice? Are suitably qualified personnel available for deployment Managerial Regulatory/ HSE Supervisory Operator Maintenance Familiarity with UxP in national/ regional government or academic laboratories?

23 Conceptual study (4) Supply Chain Are there national requirements/ restrictions on Contractor selection eg engineering company Sourcing labour and materials Local sourcing or equivalent in contractual off-set Availability, supply and transportation of solvents, reagents etc Socio Economics Are clear and defined national policies and plans approved for: Energy requirements Food fertilizer requirements National nuclear programme Uranium fuel requirements Financing / investment Sources and availability Return on investment/ return on capital requirements Positive project evaluation.

24 Conceptual study (5) Regulatory aspects Is there an existing regulatory or legal framework? Are there laws in place determining in advance who owns the uranium once extracted? Are any (experienced) regulators in place? Licensing is an independent licensing authority/ agency in place? If not, what I the licensing process/ requirement? Are stakeholders consulted What are the pertaining policies and procedures for Environmental protection Waste management Radiological protection. Health, Safety and Environment Site characterisation Geology Climate Groundwater Proximity to sensitive areas Liquid / solid wastes from uranium plant Residue/ waste (eg phosphogypsum) and its characterisation Stakeholder attitudes.

25 Conceptual study (6) Investment costs EPC investment costs Non-EPC investment costs Financial analysis Energy industry trends, Nuclear fuel demand, Uranium price forecast Economic analysis Operating costs Annual U production capacity (from U content in P 2 O 5, P 2 O 5 throughput, and assuming 90% (?) recovery 300 working days in a year calculate the annual U production) Capital costs? Operational costs? Direct (chemicals, utilities) Fixed (labour, consumables, overheads) Financial costs Process water / steam, electricity requirements? Economical evaluation

26 Conceptual study (7) Project implementation Project schedule Go/No Go decision EIA Basic engineering EPC Pre-commissioning and commissioning Project management Project timing Decommissioning Conceptual decommissioning plan Financial guarantee Timeline Chemical analysis - 1 month Laboratory tests 2 months Pre-treatment tests 6 months Pilot plant tests 6 months Build 2-3 years Operations [ ] Decommissioning [1-2 years?]

27 Thank you Harikrishnan TULSIDAS Nuclear Technology Specialist Section of Nuclear Fuel Cycle and Materials Division of Nuclear Fuel Cycle and Waste Technology Department Nuclear Energy International Atomic Energy Agency Vienna International Centre, PO Box 100, 1400 Vienna, Austria T: (+43-1) M: (+43) F: (+43-1) Follow us on