METHOD FOR NUMERICAL SIMULATION OF REACTIVE TRANSPORT DURING CO2+O2 IN-SITU LEACHING OF URANIUM AT SANDSTONE-TYPE URANIUM DEPOSIT

Abstract

The present disclosure provides a method for numerical simulation of reactive transport during CO.sub.2+O.sub.2 in-situ leaching of uranium at a sandstone-type uranium deposit. Unlike the traditional method for numerical simulation of solute transport during in-situ leaching of uranium with consideration of only convection and diffusion, the method permits establishment of a multi-field coupled reactive solute transport model to simulate the dynamic leaching process of a sandstone-type uranium deposit in Northern China. The method provided in the present disclosure includes: creating a thermodynamic database suitable for CO.sub.2+O.sub.2 leaching of a sandstone-type uranium deposit in Northern China, and with consideration of the dynamic reaction process of uranium dissolution under combined action of oxygen O.sub.2 (aq) and bicarbonate HCO.sub.3.sup.−, performing numerical simulation of reactive transport during CO.sub.2+O.sub.2 in-situ leaching of uranium using a TOUGHREACT simulation technology framework.

Claims

1. A method for numerical simulation of reactive transport during CO.sub.2+O.sub.2 in-situ leaching of uranium at a sandstone-type uranium deposit, said method comprising the following steps: (1) collecting basic data of a mining area of the sandstone-type uranium deposit, said basic data including relative plane positions of injection and production wells in the mining area, a distance between injection and production wells of the mining area, injection and production rates, groundwater level monitoring data, and hydro-chemical analysis data of leaching solution and leachate; (2) constructing a hydrodynamic model of CO.sub.2+O.sub.2 in-situ leaching of uranium based on the basic data collected in step (1) in combination with hydrogeological conditions of the mining area including the type, lithology and thickness of an ore-bearing aquifer, the depth of a groundwater level, the depth and thickness of an ore body, the condition of groundwater recharge based on the fundamental principle of conservation of mass and energy, and Darcy's law; (3) determining initial conditions, boundary conditions, hydraulic parameters, and a source-sink term of the hydrodynamic model, and performing spatial mesh dissection and temporal discretization; (4) solving the hydrodynamic model to obtain a distribution of temporal and spatial flow velocity vectors and a pressure distribution within a simulated domain; (5) establishing a reactive solute transport model of CO.sub.2+O.sub.2 in-situ leaching of uranium based on the results of the hydrodynamic model in step (4) according to processes of component solute transport and chemical reactions in a system of in-situ leaching of uranium; (6) determining a network of geochemical reactions and processes of equilibrium reactions and dynamic reactions of the reactive solute transport model; (7) determining initial concentrations of simulated components in the reactive solute transport model, the composition of minerals involved in simulation, minerals produced by reactions and volume fractions thereof, and parameters for calculation of reaction dynamic rates of the minerals involved in simulation; and (8) solving the reactive solute transport model to obtain trends of variation in leaching concentration of dissolved uranium U (VI), pH and mineral content in the system of in-situ leaching of uranium, thereby completing the numerical simulation of reactive transport during CO.sub.2+O.sub.2 in-situ leaching of uranium.

2. The method for numerical simulation of reactive transport during CO.sub.2+O.sub.2 in-situ leaching of uranium at a sandstone-type uranium deposit according to claim 1, wherein the hydrodynamic model may be resolved by using a TOUGHREACT-V3/EOS9 module of a multi-component and multi-process reactive solute transport simulation program TOUGHREACT in step (4).

3. The method for numerical simulation of reactive transport during CO.sub.2+O.sub.2 in-situ leaching of uranium at a sandstone-type uranium deposit according to claim 1, wherein the reactive solute transport model of CO.sub.2+O.sub.2 in-situ leaching of uranium in step (5) is described by using the following mass conservation equation for chemical components: $\begin{array}{cc}\frac{\partial \left(\varphi c_i\right)}{\partial t}=-\nabla \left(\rho c_{i}v\right)+\nabla \left(D_e\nabla c_i\right)+Q+\varphi R& \left(1\right)\end{array}$ where the term on the left of the equation denotes a rate of mass change of chemical component i in a reaction system, and the term on the right denotes the contributions of convection and diffusion of the chemical component, a source-sink term, and dissolution and precipitation of mineral components to the mass change of the chemical component; c.sub.i is a concentration of the chemical component i involved in simulation in the reactive solute transport model, D.sub.e is an effective diffusion coefficient, Q is the source-sink term in the reaction system, R is a chemical reaction rate, ϕ is a porosity, ρ is a fluid density, v is a hydrodynamic velocity, and ∇ is a gradient operator.

4. The method for numerical simulation of reactive transport during CO.sub.2+O.sub.2 in-situ leaching of uranium at a sandstone-type uranium deposit according to claim 1, wherein the determining a network of chemical reactions and processes of equilibrium reactions and dynamic reactions of the reactive solute transport model in step (6) comprises: (a) determining chemical reactions during CO.sub.2+O.sub.2 in-situ leaching of uranium:
CO.sub.2 (aq)+H.sub.2O=H.sup.++HCO.sub.3.sup.−  (2)
2UO.sub.2 (s)+O.sub.2=2UO.sub.3 (S)   (3)
UO.sub.3 (s)+2HCO.sub.3.sup.−=UO.sub.2 (CO.sub.3).sub.2.sup.2−+H.sub.2   (4)
UO.sub.3 (s)+CO.sub.3.sup.2−+2HCO.sub.3.sup.−=UO.sub.2 (CO.sub.3).sub.3.sup.4−+H.sub.2O   (5) (b) creating a thermodynamic database of equilibrium reactions: adding the produced species of the dissolved uranium U (VI) and other components involved in simulation in the system of CO.sub.2+O.sub.2 in-situ leaching of uranium and corresponding equilibrium constant data to create a thermodynamic database of the CO.sub.2+O.sub.2 in-situ leaching of uranium for calculation of component forms of desired species and for use in numerical simulation of reactive solute transport; and (c) establishing a rate equation for dynamic reactions: determining a rate equation for reactions involved in dissolution and precipitation of minerals based on the transition state theory (TST) of chemical reactions.

5. The method for numerical simulation of reactive transport during CO.sub.2+O.sub.2 in-situ leaching of uranium at a sandstone-type uranium deposit according to claim 4, wherein the creating a thermodynamic database of equilibrium reactions comprises: defining an aqueous solution component and formed species in the system of in-situ leaching of uranium, determining a formation reaction process and a thermodynamic equilibrium constant of the formed species, forming a data combination with the component, the formed species and thermodynamic equilibrium constant, and creating thermodynamic database of equilibrium reactions with data combinations of a plurality of components in the reactive solute transport model.

6. The method for numerical simulation of reactive transport during CO.sub.2+O.sub.2 in-situ leaching of uranium at a sandstone-type uranium deposit according to claim 4, wherein the establishing a rate equation for dynamic reactions comprises: using the following reaction rate expression in the TOUGHREACT program: $\begin{array}{cc}r=\mathrm{kA}{.Math.1-{\left(\frac{Q}{K}\right)}^{\theta }.Math.}^{\eta }& \left(6\right)\end{array}$ where r is a dissolution/precipitation reaction rate of a mineral (mol/m.sup.3 s), k is a rate constant, (mol/m.sup.2s), A is a specific surface area of a mineral per kilogram of water(cm.sup.2/g); K is a chemical equilibrium constant, Q is an activity product of an ion, and θ and η are constants measured through experiments, which are positive values.

7. The method for numerical simulation of reactive transport during CO.sub.2+O.sub.2 in-situ leaching of uranium at a sandstone-type uranium deposit according to claim 6, wherein for the dynamic reaction process of uraninite in a sandstone-type uranium deposit, the rate constant k at temperature of 25° C. is expressed as:
k=k.sub.1 [H.sup.+].sup.0.37[O.sub.2 (aq)].sup.0.31+k.sub.2 [HCO.sub.3.sup.−].sup.0.35   (8) where k is the rate constant (mol/m2.Math.s), and k.sub.1 and k.sub.2 are rate constants (mol/m.sup.2.Math.s) with consideration of oxygen component O.sub.2 (aq) and with consideration of bicarbonate ion (HCO.sub.3.sup.−), respectively, wherein 0.37, 0.31 and 0.35 are exponential terms of concentrations of chemical components H.sup.+, O.sub.2 (aq) and HCO.sub.3.

8. The method for numerical simulation of reactive transport during CO.sub.2+O.sub.2 in-situ leaching of uranium at a sandstone-type uranium deposit according to claim 5, wherein the establishing a rate equation for dynamic reactions comprises: using the following reaction rate expression in the TOUGHREACT program: $\begin{array}{cc}r=\mathrm{kA}{.Math.1-{\left(\frac{Q}{K}\right)}^{\theta }.Math.}^{\eta }& \left(6\right)\end{array}$ where r is a dissolution/precipitation reaction rate of a mineral (mol/m.sup.3.Math.s), k is a rate constant, (mol/m.sup.2.Math.s), A is a specific surface area of a mineral per kilogram of water(cm.sup.2/g); K is a chemical equilibrium constant, Q is an activity product of an ion, and θ and η are constants measured through experiments, which are positive values.

9. The method for numerical simulation of reactive transport during CO.sub.2+O.sub.2 in-situ leaching of uranium at a sandstone-type uranium deposit according to claim 8, wherein for the dynamic reaction process of uraninite in a sandstone-type uranium deposit, the rate constant k at temperature of 25° C. is expressed as:
k=k.sub.1[H.sup.+].sup.0.37[O.sub.2 (aq)].sup.0.31+k.sub.2[HCO.sub.3.sup.−].sup.0.35   (8) where k is the rate constant (mol/m2.Math.s), and k.sub.1 and k.sub.2 are rate constants (mol/m.sup.2.Math.s) with consideration of oxygen component O.sub.2 (aq) and with consideration of bicarbonate ion (HCO.sub.3.sup.−), respectively, wherein 0.37, 0.31 and 0.35 are exponential terms of concentrations of chemical components H.sup.+, O.sub.2 (aq) and HCO.sub.3.sup.−.

10. The method for numerical simulation of reactive transport during CO.sub.2+O.sub.2 in-situ leaching of uranium at a sandstone-type uranium deposit according to claim 1, wherein the reactive solute transport model in step (8) is resolved by using a sequential iteration algorithm (SIA) in the multi-component multi-process reactive solute transport simulation program TOUGHREACT.

Description

BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE DRAWINGS

[0031] FIG. 1 is a flowchart of a method for numerical simulation of reactive transport during CO.sub.2+O.sub.2 in-situ leaching of uranium.

[0032] FIG. 2 is a schematic diagram of a CO.sub.2+O.sub.2 pressure column leaching test rig.

[0033] FIG. 3 is a diagram of a conceptual model of pressure column leaching with CO.sub.2+O.sub.2.

[0034] FIG. 4 is a diagram showing a trend of variation in concentration of dissolved uranium U (VI) with time in a leaching column during a simulated column leaching test.

[0035] FIG. 5 is a diagram showing a trend of variation in pH with time in a leaching column during a simulated column leaching test.

[0036] FIG. 6 is a diagram showing results of variation in dissolved uranium U (VI) and pH in leachate during a simulated column leaching test.

[0037] FIG. 7 is a diagram showing results of variation in concentrations of dissolved O.sub.2 (aq) and HCO.sub.3 in leachate during a simulated column leaching test.

[0038] FIG. 8 is a schematic diagram of spatial distributions of production wells and injection wells at well spacing R=20 m and R=40 m.

[0039] FIG. 9 is a schematic diagram of simulated cumulative concentrations of leached uranium with consideration of a combination of well spacing (R) and the concentration of injected O.sub.2.

DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THE EMBODIMENTS

[0040] To explain the objectives, technical solutions, and advantages of the present disclosure more clearly, the technical solutions of the present disclosure will be described in more detail below with reference to the accompanying drawings.

EXAMPLE

[0041] The present disclosure provides a method for numerical simulation of reactive transport during CO.sub.2+O.sub.2 in-situ leaching of uranium at sandstone-type uranium deposit. The method includes the following steps: S1, collect basic data; S2, establish a hydrodynamic model in combination with hydrogeological conditions; S3, perform mesh generation, temporal discretization and basic setting of the model; S4, resolve the seepage flow model; S5, establish a reactive solute transport model; S6, determine the geochemical reaction network and reaction types; S7, perform basic setting of the reactive solute transport model; S8, resolve the reactive solute transport model. In examples of the present disclosure, a laboratory pressure column leaching test with CO.sub.2+O.sub.2 of a certain uranium deposit was conducted.

1) Conditions of CO.sub.2+O.sub.2 Pressure Column Leaching Test

[0042] Generally, an appropriate pressure column leaching laboratory test with CO.sub.2+O.sub.2 would be conducted before the starting industrial in-situ leaching mining. Test simulation of leaching of uranium under pressure was performed to obtain a series of process parameters of in-situ leaching of uranium, providing reference for industrial mining design. A pressure column leaching test rig for simulation as shown in FIG. 1 was used, including compressed gas cylinders, a leaching column 2, a sampler 3, a solution circulating pump 1 and the like (see related documents for detailed descriptions). During the test, rock core ore samples collected during exploration were analyzed and identified first. A broken sandstone ore sample was placed into the leaching column of the pressure column leaching test rig, and then a prepared leaching solution containing carbon dioxide and oxygen was injected into the leaching column. An outlet valve was adjusted to control the flow velocity. A leachate was allowed to flow from the top of the leaching column to the sampler and sampled regularly for analysis of U, pH, Eh and other main ion components of the leachate.

2) Mineral Component Characteristics of Ores

[0043] According to analysis and identification results of the collected rock core ore samples, the ore-bearing rock mainly manifested as fine sandstone and medium sandstone, with less mineralized siltstone and mudstone. The quantitative analysis of minerals of the ore-bearing sandstone showed that main mineral components in ores were quartz (56.2-79.5%, with an average of 68.4%), K-feldspar (6.8-11.9%, with an average of 9.9%), albite (7.2-19.3%, with an average of 10.6%), and clay minerals (3.6-13.0%, with an average of 7.2%). Carbonate minerals in the ore-bearing sandstone were dolomite as a primary component and calcite as a secondary component.

3) Conceptual Model of Laboratory Pressure Column Leaching with CO.sub.2+O.sub.2

[0044] A conceptual model of column leaching having the same physical parameters and rock mineral characteristics as in the actual situation was established based on the conditions of the laboratory pressure column leaching test. As shown in FIG. 4 and FIG. 5, an injection well was placed at the left end and a production well was placed at the right end. Main physical parameters were defined as shown in Table 1, with a leaching column length of 2.5 m and a leaching column diameter of 0.1 m. The left side was assumed as a prescribed flow boundary. The flow velocity was expressed by a pore volume (PV), i.e., a volume of pores in the test sample, and set to be about 1 PV per day. In addition, the initial volume fraction of uranium-bearing ore in the ore sample in the leaching column was 0.001 (vol. %), and the initial mass concentration of uranium in the aqueous solution was 6.3×10.sup.−7 mol/kgw. The leaching solution containing carbon dioxide and oxygen was injected from the left boundary. The hydrochemical composition and other parameters during the test are shown in Table 2. The duration of the simulated process was 200 d, and time was discretized by automatic time stepping. The simulation involved such chemical components as H.sub.2O, Na.sup.+, Ca.sup.2+, Mg.sup.2+, K.sup.+, H.sup.+, Cl.sup.−, HCO.sub.3.sup.−, AlO.sub.2.sup.−, O.sub.2 (aq), SiO.sub.2 (aq) and U (VI) and related aqueous complexes, and mineral components mainly including quartz, albite, K-feldspar, muscovite, dolomite, dolomite, calcite, and uraninite.

TABLE-US-00001 TABLE 1 Major Physical Parameter of Conceptual Model in the Example of the Present Disclosure Parameter Unit Numerical Value Length of Leaching column m 2.5 Diameter m 0.1 Effective porosity — 0.25 Rock density kg/m.sup.3 2300 Permeability m.sup.2 1.0 × 10.sup.−13 Longitudinal dispersivity m 0.5 Temperature ° C. 25

TABLE-US-00002 TABLE 2 Hydrochemical Composition in Column Leaching Test Component Content (mol/kgw) Temperature 25° C. PH 7.62 Ca.sup.2+ 0.000131 Mg.sup.2+ 0.00014 K.sup.+ 0.00051 SiO.sub.2(aq) 0.00023 HCO.sub.3.sup.− 0.041148 AlO.sub.2.sup.− 0.000131 Cl.sup.− 0.003831 O.sub.2 (aq) 0.000225
4) Network of Reactions During Pressure Column Leaching with CO.sub.2+O.sub.2

[0045] The primary mechanism of CO.sub.2+O.sub.2 in-situ leaching of uranium was as follows: a leaching solution prepared with CO.sub.2 and O.sub.2 was injected into an ore deposit, in which this chemical solution provides an oxidizing agent to oxidize reduced uranium (UO.sub.2) to hexavalent uranium, and CO.sub.2 was dissolved in water and reacted with carbonate rock to form bicarbonate HCO.sub.3 to serve as a coordination ion for complexing of uranium and to regulate the pH of the system; and HCO.sub.3 was complexed with uranium oxides in the ore bed to form uranyl carbonate. Thus, uranium was dissolved and leached, and then lifted to the ground for ion exchange recovered. CO.sub.2+O.sub.2 in-situ leaching of uranium involved such chemical reactions as complexation-dissociation, adsorption-desorption, oxidation-reduction, and dissolution-precipitation.

a) Complexation-Dissociation

[0046] Results of hydrochemical analysis on the leachate during the column leaching test showed a total concentration of each component present in different forms. Some components were almost all present in the form of simple ions, while numerous components were present in the form of complicated complex ion(s) or neutral conjugate(s). Under an oxidizing condition, the uranyl ion UO.sub.2.sup.2+ of hexavalent uranium U (VI) was thermally stable, and UO.sub.2.sup.2+ was highly prone to complexing with CO.sub.3.sup.2− to form complexes including uranyl carbonate complexes UO.sub.2(CO.sub.3).sub.2.sup.2− and UO.sub.2((CO.sub.3).sub.3.sup.4− as main component. The complexation usually resulted in improved dissolution of uranium and significantly enhanced migration of uranium. Equilibrium constants for complexing reactions of uranyl ion UO.sub.2.sup.2+ with other inorganic ligands were listed in Table 3.

TABLE-US-00003 TABLE 3 Equilibrium constants for Complexing Reactions of Uranyl Ion UO.sub.2.sup.2+ with Major Ligands (25° C.) Major Chemical Reaction LogK(25° C.) UO.sub.2.sup.2+ + H.sub.2O = UO.sub.2OH.sup.+ + H.sup.+ −5.20 UO.sub.2.sup.2+ + 2H.sub.2O = UO.sub.2(OH).sub.2, aq + 2H.sup.+ −11.50 UO.sub.2.sup.2+ + 3H.sub.2O = UO.sub.2(OH).sub.3.sup.− + 3H.sup.+ −20.00 UO.sub.2.sup.2+ + 4H.sub.2O = UO.sub.2(OH).sub.4.sup.2− + 4H.sup.+ −33 2UO.sub.2.sup.2+ + H.sub.2O = (UO.sub.2).sub.2OH.sup.3+ + H.sup.+ −2.70 2UO.sub.2.sup.2+ + 2H.sub.2O = (UO.sub.2).sub.2(OH).sub.2.sup.2+ + 2H.sup.+ −5.62 3UO.sub.2.sup.2+ + 4H.sub.2O = (UO.sub.2).sub.3(OH).sub.4.sup.2+ + 4H.sup.+ −11.90 3UO.sub.2.sup.2+ + 5H.sub.2O = (UO.sub.2).sub.3(OH).sub.5.sup.+ + 5H.sup.+ −15.55 3UO.sub.2.sup.2+ + 7H.sub.2O = (UO.sub.2).sub.3(OH).sub.7.sup.− + 7H.sup.+ −31.00 4UO.sub.2.sup.2+ + 7H.sub.2O = (UO.sub.2).sub.4(OH).sub.7.sup.+ + 7H.sup.+ −21.9 UO.sub.2.sup.2+ + CO.sub.3.sup.2− = UO.sub.2CO.sub.3(aq) 9.67 UO.sub.2.sup.2+ + 2CO.sub.3.sup.2− = UO.sub.2(CO.sub.3).sub.2.sup.2− 16.94 UO.sub.2.sup.2+ + 3CO.sub.3.sup.2− = UO.sub.2(CO.sub.3).sub.3.sup.4− 21.60 UO.sub.2.sup.2+ + 6CO.sub.3.sup.2− = UO.sub.2(CO.sub.3).sub.6.sup.6− 54 2UO.sub.2.sup.2+ + CO.sub.3.sup.2− + 3H.sub.2O = (UO.sub.2).sub.2CO.sub.3(OH).sub.3.sup.− + 3H.sup.+ −0.86 3UO.sub.2.sup.2+ + CO.sub.3.sup.2− + 3H.sub.2O = (UO.sub.2).sub.3CO.sub.3(OH).sub.3.sup.+ + 3H.sup.+ 0.66

b) Adsorption-Desorption

[0047] During long-term water-rock interaction occurring between the leaching solution and the ore sample in the column leaching test, adsorption-desorption might control the migration of uranium in the leaching column, with accompanying minerals such as iron oxides, clay minerals and calcite in the ore sample serving as the adsorbent and the adsorption efficiency depending on the concentration of uranium, the concentration of a substance involved in competitive adsorption with uranium, and the adsorbability of the adsorbent. The amount of adsorption of uranium on a solid surface during adsorption-desorption was generally described by using an isothermal adsorption equation. Linear isothermal adsorption, Langmuir isothermal adsorption and Freundlich isothermal adsorption are common isothermal adsorption types.

c) Oxidation-Reduction

[0048] Oxidation-reduction could be closely related to the dissolution-precipitation of a mineral. For example, oxidative dissolution of uraninite (UO.sub.2) was a multi-step reaction process. The leaching process of uranium ores with the leaching solution generally consisted of five steps: (1) diffusion of a leaching agent from the solution to the surfaces of ores; (2) adsorption of the leaching agent on the surface of the ores; (3) chemical reaction of the leaching agent adsorbed on the internal surface of the ores with the ores; (4) desorption of reaction products from the surface of the ores; and (5) separation of the products from the surface of the ores by diffusion. Most researchers believed that surface oxidation occurs based on the mechanism of electron transfer and adsorption of oxygen molecules on the surface of a matrix. The proposed mechanism of oxidative dissolution may be explained by the following processes:

>UO.sub.2+O.sub.2.Math.>UO.sub.2—O.sub.2 kO.sub.2

>UO.sub.2—O.sub.2+>UO.sub.2.Math.>2>UO.sub.3 Fast

[0049] where >UO.sub.2 denotes a surface reaction site; >UO.sub.2-O.sub.2 denotes a surface site with completely adsorbed oxygen molecules; and >UO.sub.3 denotes a completely oxidized surface site.

d) Dissolution-Precipitation

[0050] In the system of CO.sub.2+O.sub.2 in-situ leaching of uranium, the injected CO.sub.2 would cause the geochemical equilibrium state to change, resulting in dissolution of some minerals and precipitation of other minerals that were not present previously to form secondary minerals. For dissolution and precipitation of a mineral are controlled by thermodynamic equilibrium, the dissolved or precipitated state of the mineral might be identified by using a mineral saturation index (SI) expressed by the following formula:

[00003]$\mathrm{SI}=\log \frac{\mathrm{IAP}}{K_{\mathrm{sp}}}$

where SI is the saturation index, IAP is an ion activity product, and K.sub.sp is a solubility product constant. If SI<0, unsaturation of the mineral was indicated; if SI=0, unsaturation of the mineral was indicated; and if SI>0, precipitation of the mineral was indicated.

[0051] The dissolution and precipitation of a mineral depending on reaction dynamics might be expressed by a mineral reaction rate. The composition of minerals involved in the model and the parameters for calculation of dynamic rates of mineral reactions are shown in Table 4.

TABLE-US-00004 TABLE 4 Parameters for Calculation of Dynamic Rates of Mineral Reaction Mineral Dissolution-precipitation reaction k.sub.25 (mol/m.sup.2/s) Πa.sub.i.sup.n E.sub.a Quartz SiO.sub.2(s) .Math. SiO.sub.2(aq) 10.sup.−13.99 a 1.0 87.5 .sup.a Albite NaAlSi.sub.3O.sub.8(s) .Math. Na.sup.+ + AlO.sub.2.sup.− + 3SiO.sub.2(aq) 3.89 × 10.sup.−13 a [H.sup.+].sup.0.5 38.0 .sup.a 8.71 × 10.sup.−11 b 51.7 .sup.b K-feldspar KAlSi.sub.3O.sub.8(s) .Math. K.sup.+ + AlO.sub.2.sup.− + 3SiO.sub.2(aq) 3.89 × 10.sup.−13 a [H.sup.+].sup.0.5 38.0 .sup.a 8.71 × 10.sup.−11 b 51.7 .sup.b Muscovite KAlSi.sub.3O.sub.11•H.sub.2O(s) .Math. 2H.sup.+ + K.sup.+ + 3AlO.sub.2.sup.− + 3SiO.sub.2(aq) 6.74 × 10.sup.−13 a .sup. [H.sup.+].sup.0.37  .sup. 62.76 .sup.a b 4.16 × 10.sup.−13 b Dolomite CaMg(CO.sub.3).sub.2(s) + 2H.sup.+ .Math. Ca.sup.2+ + Mg.sup.2+ + 2HCO.sub.3.sup.− 2.95 × 10.sup.−8 a  [H.sup.+].sup.0.5 52.2 .sup.a .sup. 6.5 × 10.sup.−4 b 36.1.sup.b  Ankerite CaMg.sub.0.3Fe.sub.0.7(CO.sub.3).sub.2(s) + 2H.sup.+ .Math. 1.3 × 10.sup.−9 a [H.sup.+].sup.0.5  62.76 .sup.a Ca.sup.2+ + 0.3Mg.sup.2+ + 0.7Fe.sup.2+ + 2HCO.sub.3.sup.− .sup. 6.5 × 10.sup.−4 b 36.1.sup.b  Calcite CaCO.sub.3(s) + H.sup.+ .Math. Ca.sup.2+ + HCO.sub.3.sup.−  1.0 × 10.sup.−4.82 a [H.sup.+].sup.   .sup. 62.76 .sup.a b  1.0 × 10.sup.−1.08 b Uraninite UO.sub.2(s) + 3HCO.sub.3.sup.− + 0.5O.sub.2 .Math. H.sub.2O + UO.sub.2(CO.sub.3).sub.3.sup.4− + H.sup.+  1.0 × 10.sup.−7.46 b [H.sup.+].sup.0.37 × [O.sub.2(aq)].sup.0.31  .sup. 62.76 .sup.a b 3.15 × 10.sup.−10 b [HCO.sub.3.sup.−].sup.0.35±0.02 Notes: superscripts .sup.a and .sup.b represent dissolution of a mineral under the action of a neutral mechanism (spontaneous) and dissolution under the action of an acid mechanism, respectively.

5) Result Analysis of Simulation of Reactive Transport During Leaching

[0052] FIG. 4 and FIG. 5 illustrate the trends of variation in mass concentration of uranium and pH in the leaching column with time during the simulated column leaching test, respectively, and FIG. 6 illustrates the results of variation in mass concentration of uranium and pH in the leachate during the simulated column leaching test. As shown in the figures, the mass concentration of uranium in the leachate increased constantly. The average mass concentration of uranium in the leachate on day 200 of leaching was 1.7 mg/mol, and in this case, uranium was not completely leached. Uranium was then continuously leached until no uranium was leached from the uraninite in the leaching column. The pH in the leaching column was 7.62 initially, and then changed slightly, but the overall pH would be within a range of 7.6-7.9. FIG. 7 illustrates the results of variation in concentrations of dissolved O.sub.2 (aq) and HCO.sub.3 in the leachate during the simulated column leaching test. As shown in the figure, the concentration of dissolved O.sub.2 (aq) and HCO.sub.3 decreased within a small range during leaching. This was contrary to the trend of variation in mass concentration of uranium mainly because dissolved O.sub.2 (aq) and HCO.sub.3 were depleted by the dissolution reactions of uranium and also reacted with other minerals, and further played a role in regulating pH and oxidation-reduction potential Eh. A higher Eh would maintain the dissolved state of uranium. A suitable pH would allow for effective complexing of uranyl ion with bicarbonate (HCO.sub.3) for leaching, and secondary precipitation of carbonate minerals during leaching could be effectively inhibited by controlling the pH within a certain range. The results of the laboratory column leaching test also showed that the peak of uranium concentration appeared also with a higher addition amount of O.sub.2, meaning that a sufficient amount of O.sub.2 was crucial to the leaching effect of uranium.

[0053] To achieve accurate simulation and dynamic control of CO.sub.2+O.sub.2 leaching, the following control strategy was adopted.

[0054] (1) Due to the complex structure of the reactive solute transport model of the system of in-situ leaching of uranium and significant uncertainty of input parameters, the effects of several key parameters on the results of the model were quantized by parameter sensitivity analysis. Specifically, a variation of ±10% was made to each of such key parameters as volume fraction of uranium ore, reaction specific surface area, dissolved oxygen concentration, bicarbonate concentration and dissolution rate constant in the reactive transport model on the basis of the corresponding parameter value obtained after model calibration, whereby key factors for the concentration of leached uranium were identified. To further analyze the reaction mechanism of in-situ leaching of urbanism and investigate which of dissolved oxygen concentration and dissolved carbon dioxide concentration had a greater influence on in-situ leaching of uranium, the sensitivity analysis on the influence of CO.sub.2 would be performed with O.sub.2 (aq) and without O.sub.2 (aq). Major factors affecting the release and migration of uranium during in-situ leaching of uranium could be obtained preliminarily by combining the analysis results.

[0055] (2) Accurate simulation and dynamic control of CO.sub.2+O.sub.2 in-situ leaching of uranium could be discussed by the following process. Major influencing factors concerned during practical in-situ leaching of uranium included well spacing (R) between injection and production wells, volume of injected fluid, (Q.sub.in), volume of pumped fluid (Q.sub.out), concentration of dissolved 02 in leaching solution, etc. Taking a combination of well spacing (R) between injection and production wells and concentration of dissolved O.sub.2 in leaching solution for example, the well spacing R was set to 10 m, 20 m, 30 m and 40 m and the concentration of dissolved O.sub.2 to 0.002 mol/L, 0.004 mol/L, 0.06 mol/L and 0.08 mol/L, respectively. The relationship between the number of injection and production wells with well spacing of 20 m and 40 m were as shown in FIG. 8, with 18 production wells and 54 injection wells at R=20 m, and 4 production wells and 16 injection wells at R=40 m. One of values of well spacing (R) was combined with one of values of the concentration of dissolved 02. Cumulative concentrations of leached uranium were obtained based on the operation results of the established reactive transport model of in-situ leaching of uranium, and a diagram showing trends of cumulative concentrations of leached uranium simulated in case of different combinations was drawn, as shown in FIG. 9. As shown in the figure, cumulative concentrations of leached uranium increased with decreasing well spacing between injection and production wells and increasing concentration of dissolved O.sub.2 in the leaching solution. The influence of a combination of other influencing factor on the cumulative concentration of leached uranium would be investigated similarly. Thus, a guidance can be provided on a practical project of in-situ leaching of uranium, and accurate simulation and dynamic control of CO.sub.2+O.sub.2 in-situ leaching of uranium can be achieved.

[0056] The foregoing are merely descriptions of the specific embodiments of the present disclosure, and the protection scope of the present disclosure is not limited thereto. Any modification or replacement made within the technical scope of the present disclosure by a person skilled in the art shall fall within the protection scope of the present disclosure. Therefore, the protection scope of the present disclosure should be subject to the protection scope of the claims.