Mine rock drainage: From characterization to

assessment of prevention alternatives

David Arcos, Amphos 21 Consulting S.L., Spain
Eduardo Ruiz, Amphos 21 Consulting Peru S.A.C., Peru
Wolf von Igel, Amphos 21 Consulting Chile Ltda., Chile
Jorge Molinero, Amphos 21 Consulting S.L., Spain
Jordi Guimer, Amphos 21 Consulting Chile Ltda., Chile

Abstract
Mining operations often produce acid or neutral drainage with high metal concentrations that potentially
could adversely affect the environment and/or human health. Generally mine rock drainage occurs
through tailing dams, stockpiles, waste rock piles and leach pads and in mine pits or tunnels. The extent
and the effects of this phenomena depend heavily on specific mine site characteristics such as climate or
geology. It is therefore necessary to develop and implement a plan to prevent, control, mitigate and
prepare for the mine rock drainage (MRD).
The hydrogeochemical processes involved in MRD generation are complex. It is necessary to
characterize the processes and parameters involved at different scales varying in orders of magnitude both
in volumetric samples and representative times. Characterization of mineralogy and bio-geo-chemical
processes through laboratory scale tests such as acid-base account, sequential extraction, batch tests and
humidity cells provide varying results of the composition of the drainage as a result of the interaction of
sulfide minerals with water and oxygen and potentially buffering minerals of the rock sample. This
characterization phase however, needs to be combined with field scale in situ pilot tests which
characterize the hydrological/climatological as well as bio-geo-chemical processes occurring under site
specific conditions. The plan must consider a phase to integrate the information in a conceptual model
that accounts for the entire previous characterization step.
The prediction of MRD generation and its impacts at basin scale are attained with numerical models.
Reactive transport models of varying complexity are used to predict the impacts of the facilities in soils,
aquifers and springs downstream. Numerical models should then be used to evaluate technically the
effectiveness of different alternatives to prevent and/or mitigate MRD. A cost-benefit and/or multicriteria
analysis of the different alternatives may then be developed in order to give the decision maker a tool to
make informed decisions.

Introduction
Mine operations involve large rock handling volumes. These rock volumes usually contain different
lithologies that were subjected to different types of alterations during the mineralization process and
weathering. This diversity could result in rock types with different mineral distributions and, therefore
with different geochemical behavior. In addition, according to the mine planning, the different types of
material have different destinations: process plant, heap-leaching pad, low-grade stockpiles or waste rock
facilities. Among these destinations, often waste rock facilities accumulate the largest rock volumes from
mine operations (Figure 1). Although these rocks have very low grades in terms of metals, this does not
mean they are sulfide-free. On the contrary, these barren rocks can have high contents of non-economic

~ 332 ~

CHAPTER 4 EXTREMELY CHALLENGING GEOCHEMISTRY

sulfides (i.e., pyrite). The oxidation of these sulfides under aerobic conditions results in the generation of
acid drainage, which, in turn, can accelerate the dissolution of other minerals increasing the concentration
of metals in the water draining the system. Although in some systems, such as skarn deposits, the
presence of carbonate minerals, can buffer the acidity of the drainage water, this does not mean that pyrite
oxidation is avoided. In such cases, local acidic conditions can prevail leading to the dissolution of other
minerals. Further in the water pathway, acidity can be neutralized due to interaction with carbonates
leading to the precipitation of some of the metals dissolved in the water (i.e., copper, iron and aluminum),
but others can remain in solution at high concentrations, as their solubility remains high at the pH
conditions imposed by the equilibrium with calcite (i.e., zinc and manganese).

Figure 1: Waste rock facility from Ujina porphyry copper in Collahuasi (northern Chile)
The geochemical behavior of the different materials in a waste rock facility in terms of acid drainage
potential depends on the mineral properties of the rocks, specially the sulfide content and their relative
surface exposed to water and air interaction. In order to assess the long-term behavior of a given waste
rock facility, in terms of its potential acid drainage, it is essential to characterize the behavior of each of
the stored rock types, their relative volumes and the hydrologic behavior of the facility. This information
can be used to model the hydrogeochemical behavior of the system and assess the long-term quality of the
water draining the facility.
Once it has been ensured that acid drainage (or neutral drainage with high metal content) can occur,
it is necessary to evaluate managing alternatives to prevent, or at least to minimize, the formation of this
acid drainage. Several techniques have been proposed to achieve this goal (MEND, 2001; INAP, 2009),
such as encapsulation, blending, segregation and use of engineered barriers among other methods. The
selection of the alternative to be used in a specific site depends on many factors mainly related to the
economic cost and feasibility of the selected technique. The short-term behavior (up to a few years) of
prevention methods can be evaluated by means of in situ large scale tests, but the long-term behavior in
full-scale conditions is still a matter of concern. The implementation of the prevention methods in the
long-term prediction models is the only possibility to assess the effectiveness of these methods.
In the present paper we present a methodology to deal with the potential acid (or neutral) mine
drainage, from characterization of the materials, definition of conceptual models, upscaling of the
processes, hydrogeochemical models and selection and evaluation of the prevention techniques.

~ 333 ~

MINE WATER SOLUTIONS IN EXTREME ENVIRONMENTS LIMA, PERU, 2013

Material characterization
Sample selection
One of the main problems when facing the characterization of waste rock facilities is related to sampling.
If the mine operation is still in the pre-operational stage, then there is no facility to sample yet, whereas if
the facility already exists, the problem is how to obtain representative samples of the different materials
stored in the facility. To solve this question it is proposed to use the same databases used for mine
planning (i.e., block models and exploratory borehole database). These databases usually contain
information on lithology, hydrothermal alteration, mineral zone (related to weathering zonation) and
metal contents. The combination of this information helps identifying the different types of materials and
their relative abundances in the system. As an example, in porphyry copper deposits there is a variety of
lithologies that have been hydrothermally altered during the mineralization process and, once the deposit
was exposed near the surface, weathering caused the formation of leaching, oxidation and secondary
sulfides zones. The combination of these features can be used to identify and quantify the different
materials designated as non-economic in the mine planning that are destined for disposal in the waste
facility (Table 1). According to this process, 15 different materials were identified that represent more
than 95% of the material to be deposited in the waste facility. It is worth mentioning that some of the
materials will have small differences in behavior, as the main differences could be related with the
relative amount of major minerals, as quartz content in the dacitic and rhyolite porphyry from Table 1.
This criterion can be used to reduce even more the number of materials to be sampled.
Table 1: Quartz content in the dacitic and rhyolite porphyry
Lithology

Mineral zone

Alteration

Mass (Mt)

Monzogranite

Leached

Phyllic

225.4

35.72%

Rhyolite porphyry

Leached

Phyllic

89.1

14.12%

Monzogranite

Primary sulfides

Phyllic

65.6

10.39%

Breccia

Leached

Phyllic

44.5

7.06%

Dacitic porphyry

Leached

Phyllic

34.5

5.47%

Dacitic porphyry

Primary sulfides

Potassic

24.8

3.93%

Dacitic porphyry

Primary sulfides

Phyllic

20.0

3.17%

Monzogranite

Primary sulfides

Potassic

18.8

2.97%

Dacitic porphyry

Leached

Potassic

17.6

2.79%

Breccia

Primary sulfides

Potassic

15.9

2.52%

Monzogranite

Leached

No alteration

12.2

1.94%

Breccia

Leached

Potassic

11.1

1.76%

Rhyolite porphyry

Primary sulfides

Phyllic

9.1

1.45%

Monzogranite

Primary sulfides

No alteration

7.4

1.17%

Monzogranite

Leached

Potassic

6.4

1.02%

This information can be used to select the materials to be sampled, as well as to fix the number of
samples for each unit on a statistic basis. Samples can be collected directly from exploratory drill cores,
where the different materials can be carefully examined to corroborate that the sample corresponds to the
desired type of material and that it is fresh enough and has not suffered too much alteration after drilling.

~ 334 ~

CHAPTER 4 EXTREMELY CHALLENGING GEOCHEMISTRY

Geochemical analyses
Once the samples are obtained, they can be submitted to a battery of geochemical tests and analyses. The
evaluation of such tests is beyond the scope of the present work, however, it can be stated that there are
two different types of analyses, one devoted to obtain information on the chemical and mineralogical
composition of the sample and the other designed to get information on the geochemical behavior of the
sample. These two types of analyses must be carefully combined to obtain reliable information on the
geochemical processes governing the behavior of materials under specific conditions.

Chemistry and mineralogy

From the previous example it has been observed that the amounts of major minerals, as silicates, do not
have a clear distribution pattern among the different type of materials. On the contrary, the distribution of
minor minerals, as sulfides and Fe(III) oxyhydroxides has a clear distribution pattern depending on the
mineral zone (leached and primary sulfides are the only two main mineral zones to be stored in the
facility). Those samples from the primary sulfides zone have higher sulfide content (Figure 2), whereas
those samples from the leached zone have a higher Fe(III) oxyhydroxide content. The pyrite content of
the samples from the leached zone never reaches values higher that 2 wt. %, whereas samples from the
primary sulfides zone usually have values above 1 wt. %, and many of the samples have values higher
than 2 wt. %.

Figure 2: Pyrite content from selected samples of example in Table 1

Unfortunately, the determination of the pyrite content in large mining operations is difficult to
obtain, instead the analysis of the total sulfur content in samples used for reserves calculation is easier to
measure. The relationship between total sulfur and pyrite content from the previous samples (Figure 3)
indicates that, at least for those samples with sulfur content above 0.1 %, there is good correlation,
indicating that most of the sulfur from the samples comes from pyrite. Therefore, the amount of pyrite in
the rocks from the waste facility can be calculated from the total sulfur content. This approach has to be
taken with caution, as not always can be applied and needs a detailed chemical and mineralogical study.

~ 335 ~

MINE WATER SOLUTIONS IN EXTREME ENVIRONMENTS LIMA, PERU, 2013

Figure 3: Correlation between total sulfur and pyrite content from samples of the previous example.
The line corresponds to the mass ratio of sulfur in pyrite
According to the approach described previously, the amounts of pyrite in rocks from the two main
mineral zones to be stored in the waste facility for the previous example can be calculated from the total
sulfur measurements (Figure 4). The results are consistent with the data obtained from samples. Rocks
from the leached zone have a wider distribution of pyrite with values ranging between 0.15 and 1.14 %
(D10 and D90, respectively), whereas for the primary sulfides zone it shows a narrower distribution,
ranging between 1.15 and 2.82 % (D10 and D90, respectively).

Figure 4: Accumulated distribution fraction of pyrite content calculated from total sulfur
in rocks from the two mineral zones to be stored in the waste facility

~ 336 ~

CHAPTER 4 EXTREMELY CHALLENGING GEOCHEMISTRY

All this information suggests that the rock types in the waste facility can be grouped as a function of
the mineral zone (leached and primary sulfides in the example) and the pyrite content. However, the
contents of pyrite that should be used to differentiate those rock types that could have an acid drainage
potential from those without acid potential and, eventually those with uncertain acid potential, needs to be
evaluated. To assess these values information from geochemical tests performed to evaluate the
geochemical behavior of the samples is needed.

Kinetic tests
There are different tests that can be used to evaluate the behavior of selected samples (INAP, 2009;
MEND, 2009). However, among the different tests available, humidity cell tests (HCT) modified
according to Dold et al. (2011) and Weibel et al. (2011) were used for this experiment.
Results of the HCT for several of the samples used in the previous example are shown in Figure 5.
The comparison between the final pH value of the test against the measured pyrite content shows that
there is a good correlation, indicating the dependence of pH on pyrite content. Moreover, samples from
the leached zone, with lower pyrite content, show small response in terms of pH, whereas pH for those
samples from the primary sulfides zone show a strong dependency on pyrite content. Only those samples
where calcite is present, have a pH near neutral, even higher than the water used to lixiviate the sample,
indicating the buffering effect exerted by the dissolution of calcite.

Figure 5: Diagram showing the relationship between pyrite content of the samples from the
different mineral zones and final pH values measured in humidity cell tests (HCT)
Note: Samples with calcite maintain a near neutral pH at the end of the test
The interpretation of the HCT results indicates that pyrite oxidation is enhanced when large amounts
of fine-grained disseminated pyrite and, hence larger reactive surface of pyrite are present. Only when
calcite is present a strong buffering effect, due to calcite dissolution, occurs, impeding the generation of
acid drainage. Moreover, the high Fe(III) oxyhydroxide content in samples from the leached zone can
additionally exert a certain pH buffering effect on the behavior of the samples. This effect is illustrated by
reaction 1, given that dissolution of Fe(III) oxyhydroxides consumes protons.

Fe (OH )3 + 2 H + Fe2+ + 2.5 H 2O + 0, 25 O2

~ 337 ~

(1)

MINE WATER SOLUTIONS IN EXTREME ENVIRONMENTS LIMA, PERU, 2013

The behavior of the samples indicate that above a pyrite content of approximately 0.1 % the samples
start to show a certain acid drainage potential, and above 2 % the acid drainage generation is clear.
However, as it has been stated before, this reactivity depends on the reactive surface of pyrite, which in
turn depends on the grain size of the sample used in the test. This means that for the same pyrite content,
a sample with larger grain size will result in lower pyrite reactive surface and, hence in a lower acid
drainage production. Thus, the comparison of grain size from the humidity cell tests and the material from
the waste facility (Figure 6) shows that there is a difference of approximately two orders of magnitude.
However, this is not a straightforward transposition to the pyrite content, as pyrite oxidation is a kinetic
process. Therefore, to evaluate the upscaling effect from laboratory samples to real waste facility
conditions in terms of grain size we need to perform geochemical calculations.

Figure 6: Comparison between grain size distribution from samples

used in HCT and material sent to waste rock facility

Implementation in the mining plan

Humidity cell tests modelling
For implementation in the mine plan it is necessary to define the geoenvironmental units (GEUs)
according to the variables that have been observed to play a role on the behavior of the different materials
(Arcos et al., 2011). In the example presented, it has been observed that the main variables are the mineral
zone and the pyrite content. However, the pyrite content must be scaled up to the waste facility conditions
expected. The first step consists in modelling the experimental results, as the results allow us to establish
the geochemical conceptual model of the waste facility. We present here a simplified model of the
experiments presented above. These models have been calculated using the code PHREEQC (Parkhurst
and Appelo, 1999). We considered the two different mineral zones, leached and primary sulfides, with
mean pyrite content for each material. The processes considered were kinetic oxidation of pyrite, kinetic
dissolution of silicate minerals, dissolution of Fe(III) oxyhydroxides under thermodynamic equilibrium
for leached zone materials, and possible precipitation of secondary minerals (Fe and Al hydroxides and
hydroxisulfates) if saturation is attained. In addition, the whole system has been considered in equilibrium
with air (mainly equilibrium with oxygen and CO2 under atmospheric conditions). The calculation of
reactive surface for pyrite has been done based on pyrite content, grain size and porosity. The results of
the calculations for one year of simulation are presented in Figure 7. The calculated pH after one year

~ 338 ~

CHAPTER 4 EXTREMELY CHALLENGING GEOCHEMISTRY

simulation is consistent with the analytical results presented in Figure 5. The behavior of the leach zone
shows that there is almost no change in pH, which is in agreement with the observations from the
experiments when low pyrite contents are present (0.5 wt. % in the model).
On the contrary, when higher pyrite contents are considered (2.5 wt. %), as is the case for primary
sulfides zone, pH gradually decreases until a pH below 4 is reached, also in agreement with the
experimental results shown in Figure 5. This means that the processes and the reactive surface of pyrite
are well constrained. However, as it has been indicated before, this is not a representation of the real
system in the waste facility. Therefore there is a need to scale up the model to waste facility conditions.

Figure 7: pH results of the simulations for two mineral zones with mean contents of pyrite

Upscaling and implementation in mine planning

In order to upscale the results from the experiments to in situ conditions; it is necessary to evaluate the
site-specific information, such as climatic conditions (rainfall events, evapotranspiration, temperature,
etc.), hydrologic properties (infiltration into the waste facility, runoff, etc.), hydrogeological behavior of
the waste facility (flow paths, existence of preferential paths, porosity, degree of water saturation, fluxes,
etc.), and geochemical conditions (heterogeneities in the distribution of minerals, reactive surface areas of
the minerals, etc.). To perform simulations considering this information it is necessary to use complex 3D
hydrogeochemical models accounting for variable infiltration, variations in the water saturation,
heterogeneities in mineral and reactive surface distribution, different flow paths, etc. However, for the
sake of simplicity, we presented here simplified 1D models that can help illustrate the procedure rather
than creating an exhaustive representation of the system. The main variables considered are the residence
time of water through the column and the reactive surface of pyrite linked to its content in the rocks and
the grain size difference between experimental set-ups and waste facility conditions.
The calculations were performed assuming that water renewal within the column takes one year,
which is equivalent to the assumption that infiltration occurs once a year and washes the full column of
material. Different reactive surface areas for pyrite were considered for the calculations, in order to allow
identifying the key pyrite content above which the materials show definitive acid drainage potential. The
pH resulting from the calculations are shown in Figure 8. The results show that for leach zone material
with a mean pyrite content of 0.5% pH increases slightly due to silicate dissolution, indicating that most
of this material has no acid drainage potential. Almost all samples selected for modeling from the primary
sulfides zone have pyrite content above 2%, although from Figure 4 it can be envisaged that 50% of the

~ 339 ~

MINE WATER SOLUTIONS IN EXTREME ENVIRONMENTS LIMA, PERU, 2013

rocks of this type have less than 2% of pyrite. However, the behavior of selected samples from the
primary sulfides zone with pyrite content above 2%, indicates there is definite acid drainage potential.
According to this behavior only 15% of the material extracted from the mine with destination to the waste
facility (14% from primary sulfides zone and 1% from leach zone) has a potential for acid drainage
generation. Thus, four GEUs can be defined to be implemented in the block models and the mine
planning:
GEU 1: Leach zone with pyrite content <2%
GEU 2: Leach zone with pyrite content 2%
GEU 3: Primary sulfides zone with pyrite content <2%
GEU 4: Primary sulfides zone with pyrite content 2%.

Figure 8: Calculated pH values for 1D columns of waste facility with different pyrite contents
When implementing these four GEUs in the mine planning their yearly production can be obtained
(Figure 9). In the example, it can be seen that those units with the highest acid drainage potential will be
mainly extracted after year 10 of operation. This would condition any management alternative to handle
these materials. For example, encapsulation of the potential acid generation material in the last years of
operation would not be feasible if not enough rocks with low acid potential are extracted afterwards.

~ 340 ~

CHAPTER 4 EXTREMELY CHALLENGING GEOCHEMISTRY

Figure 9: Yearly production percentages of the four GEUs with destination to the waste facility

Evaluation of managing alternatives

The previous information should be used to evaluate the best or most appropriate management
alternatives of those materials with high acid drainage potential. The different options evaluated in the
present work are: segregation, encapsulation and use of neutralizing additives.
To evaluate the effectiveness of the different alternatives, they can be evaluated with the models
used to assess the behavior of the different materials. Again, the most complex 3D hydrogeochemical
models are the most appropriate to evaluate these alternatives. However, here more simple models were
used in order to gain clarity on the methodology approach. These simpler models consider pyrite content,
surface area and residence time as the three most relevant variables in the system according to the
previous results.

Segregation
Segregation of the acid drainage material could be an interesting option, especially when the proportion of
material with high acid drainage potential is relatively small, as it occurs with the example case, where
less than 15% of the waste rock is considered as potential acid generation material. Therefore, postclosure treatment options, such as covers, will be less expensive than considering covers for the whole
waste rock material. If segregation is the chosen option, it is important to know when the material with
the highest acid drainage potential will be extracted. If, as in the example, the extraction will occur later
than material with low acid drainage potential, then encapsulation is probably not the best strategy. The
reason is because the material with low acid drainage potential needs to be temporarily stored somewhere
waiting to encapsulate to high acid generation potential material, which implies double handling and
hence increased costs.
Under the segregation option, the high acid drainage potential rocks must be evaluated carefully by
discretizing the amount of pyrite initially present in the models (Figure 8). This will allow better
evaluation of the behavior of these materials. This also allows for potentially choosing better options for
closure, such as designing a cover that can consume the oxygen from infiltrating water to avoid pyrite
oxidation at a high rate and, thus, minimizing the acid drainage potential.

Use of neutralizing additives

There are different additives that can neutralize the acid generation due to pyrite oxidation. Calcite is, in
some cases, the easiest material to find, and the resulting pH is compatible with the maximum pH values

~ 341 ~

MINE WATER SOLUTIONS IN EXTREME ENVIRONMENTS LIMA, PERU, 2013

allowed for drainage discharge to river courses. Despite the neutralizing effect, the effect of calcite
dissolution is not enough to decrease the concentration of some metals, such as arsenic, selenium, zinc
and manganese, or other constituents of concern such as sulfate. There are other additives that can be
used, as lime, but in most cases this leads to too high pH values and does not solve the problem of
elevated sulfate concentrations. Another problem could be ensuring that the additive is homogeneously
incorporated in the waste rock material, and that during reaction with water local acid production due to
pyrite oxidation is avoided or readily neutralized, avoiding acidic dissolution of other nearby metalbearing sulfides, that can add metals into water.
In any case, we have assessed the effect of adding a neutralizing material as calcite to the waste
material with high acid drainage potential. The simulation of adding 100 g of calcite for each ton of waste
material seems to be enough for the mean pyrite content of rocks from the primary sulfides zone (Figure
10). However, the amount of calcite to be added needs to be carefully evaluated. Rocks with high acid
drainage potential have different contents of pyrite, then, the amount of calcite added needs to be
calibrated for each ton of material to be technically efficient and economically feasible. If the calcite
added is lower than needed (Figure 10), the neutralizing capability can be exhausted. In the example,
adding 40 g of calcite per ton of material with a pyrite content of 3.2 wt. % will result in a decrease of pH
after 40 years of deposition in the waste facility.

Figure 10: Effect of adding calcite on the high potential acid drainage material
It can be concluded that adding neutralizing materials has to be carefully evaluated, as it can result in
delaying the problem of acid production more than in minimizing it.

Encapsulation
It has been argued many times that encapsulation is one of the best options for acid drainage
minimization. However, as indicated above, this method needs to be compatible with mine planning; if
the mine plan doesnt support concurrent encapsulation, then temporary storage is needed, which usually
is not economically and/or technically feasible. Another challenge with encapsulation is related to oxygen
consumption of the encapsulating material. It has to be ensured that the encapsulating material can
consume oxygen before reaching the rock with high acid drainage potential; otherwise, the encapsulation

~ 342 ~

CHAPTER 4 EXTREMELY CHALLENGING GEOCHEMISTRY

will have no beneficial effect. Alternatively, encapsulating material has to prevent too much infiltrating
water from reaching the rocks with high acid production material (i.e., avoiding the formation of
preferential flow paths). This however is difficult to ensure.
In the example case, the disposition of rocks from leach zone above the rocks from the primary
sulfides zone results in acidic production after a few years of deposition (Figure 11). This results from the
penetration of infiltrating water reaching the primary sulfides zone without oxygen consumption reactions
along the path, so oxygen was available to oxidize pyrite in these materials. If rocks from the primary
sulfides zone are stored above, then acid production is readily formed as water infiltrates, but once water
penetrates deeper inside the waste facility, materials with low pyrite content can neutralize pH due to
silicate dissolution, although as acidity production increases the buffering effect of silicate dissolution is
not enough to neutralize acidity (Figure 11). This could be a normal behavior in such systems, where
oxygen consumption is only exerted by pyrite oxidation. In those systems where a higher infiltration of
water occurs (i.e., more humid climates), the effect could be even worse, although the formation of a
vegetative cover could create a top oxygen consumption cover that exerts a beneficial effect in
encapsulating alternatives.

Figure 11: Effect of encapsulation of high acid drainage potential material

Conclusion
Mining operations result in the creation of large waste rock facilities. Therefore, the assessment of these
deposits and the alternative management options need to be carefully evaluated. The first step is
characterizing the chemical and mineralogical properties of the different rock types, as well as their
geochemical behavior. Although this information is very valuable, it cannot be directly transferred to
mining operations. Upscaling from experimental information to site-specific conditions is a key issue that
has to be carefully addressed for each site. Once the upscaling factors have been identified and
incorporated into the interpretation of analytical data, the geoenvironmental units (GEUs) to be
incorporated into the mine planning can be defined.
The second step is the assessment of the behavior of the defined GEUs. This can be achieved by
means of hydrogeochemical models, based on laboratory and large scale in situ experimental data. These

~ 343 ~

MINE WATER SOLUTIONS IN EXTREME ENVIRONMENTS LIMA, PERU, 2013

models can explain the expected behavior of these materials and the associated uncertainties, in terms of
parameters and processes. The evaluation of managing alternatives for these materials can be incorporated
into the models to assess their technical feasibility. It is important to take into consideration mine
planning in the assessment, as otherwise the management alternatives considered may not be
economically viable.
In summary, segregation could be the best alternative when the amount of rocks with high acid
drainage potential is low enough. The use of neutralizing additives needs a careful evaluation of the
behavior of the resulting material. Whereas, encapsulation depends on climate conditions, and more
specifically, on ensuring that oxygen consumption is attained before reaching the rocks with high acid
drainage potential.

References
Arcos, D., Von Igel, W., Flores, L.G. and Acua, A. (2011) Geoenvironmental units (GEU) in waste dumps from Collahuasi. In
Proceedings of Enviromine 2011 (pp. 60-61), Santiago, Chile.
Dold, B., Weibel, L. and Cruz, J. (2011) New modified humidity cells test for acid rock drainage prediction in porphyry copper
deposits. In Proceedings of Enviromine 2011 (pp. 76-77), Santiago, Chile.
INAP (International Network for Acid Prevention) (2009) The global acid rock drainage guide (GARD guide). Viewed at
http://www.gardguide.com
MEND (Mine Environment Neutral Drainage Program) (2001) Prevention and control. Vol. 4. Manual 5.4.2d. G.A. Tremblay
and C.M. Hogan (Eds.), CANMET.
MEND (Mine Environment Neutral Drainage Program) (2009) Prediction manual for drainage chemistry from sulphidic
geologic materials. MEND Report 1.20.1. W.A. Price (Ed.), CANMET.
Parkhurst, D.L. and Appelo, C.A.J. (1999) User's guide to PHREEQC (version 2): A computer program for speciation, batchreaction, one-dimensional transport, and inverse geochemical calculations. US Geological Survey Water-Resources
Investigations Report, pp. 99-4259.
Weibel, L., Dold, B. and Cruz, J. (2011) Application and limitation of standard humidity cell tests at the Andina porphyry copper
mine, CODELCO, Chile. In Proceedings of the Eleventh SGS Biennial Meeting (pp. 976-978), Antofagasta, Chile.

~ 344 ~