FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W2016081818> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W2016081818 abstract "Kasper, Dennis R.; PRC Toups PRC Toups Copyright 1980, American Institute of Mining, Metallurgical, and Petroleum Engineers, Inc. Petroleum Engineers, Inc. This paper was presented at the 55th Annual Fall Technical Conference and Exhibition of the Society of Petroleum Engineers of AIME, held in Dallas, Texas, September 21–24, 1980. The material is subject to correction by the author. Permission to copy is restricted to an abstract of not more than 300 words. Write: 6200 N. Central Expressway, Dallas, Texas 75206. Abstract This paper identifies and discusses optimization of wastewater concentration and disposal alternatives for wastewaters generated by in situ solution leaching. Disposal alternatives considered include:deep well injection;evaporation ponds;reverse osmosis (RO) concentration plus deep well injection, andRO concentration plus evaporation ponds. Factors affecting the RO process and other disposal processes include: flushing volume required for processes include: flushing volume required for restoration, recovery of RO system, degree of pretreatment and restoration pumping schedule. pretreatment and restoration pumping schedule Introduction Restoration of uranium in situ solution leached deposits generates large volumes of wastewaters which together with leaching process bleed streams must be disposed of by suitable techniques. The wastewaters contain gross alpha, gross beta activities and other constituents in excess of levels permitted for disposal by normal non- radioactive methods. The costs for disposal of these wastewaters normally range between 5 and 15 percent of the total production costs. As in situ percent of the total production costs. As in situ solution mining develops front its infancy stages and as capacities of operations increase, it is becoming increasingly important to optimize waste- water disposal systems to reduce production costs. This paper is concerned with the effects of various operational parameters on the costs of wastewater disposal by deep well injection and evaporation ponds with and without wastewater concentrations by reverse osmosis (RO). Techniques are presented for optimizing RO concentration of the wastewater there by reducing volumes requiring disposal. Large reductions in wastewater volumes are only possible with the RO process if feedwaters are properly pretreated to prevent membrane damage. Several different pretreatment applications are described. The effects of such operational factors such as restoration flowrate, number of pore volumes flushed, and restoration-leaching schedules on wastewater disposal costs are discussed. ALTERNATE DISPOSAL SYSTEMS There are two techniques currently available for disposal of in situ wastewaters: deep well injection and evaporation ponds. Each of these alternatives has advantages and disadvantages specific to particular sites. A prerequisite for injection wells is the existence of formations suitable for storage of waste solutions at depths providing isolation from the surface environment. providing isolation from the surface environment. In many states, regulatory restraints prohibit the use of deep well disposal for in situ wastewaters. Capital costs for deep wells are highly variable depending primarily upon the depth to the injection stratum and the nature and difficulty of drilling in the overlying stratum. Costs typically range between $2.00 and $5.00 per gallon per day (gpd) capacity. A 150 gallon per minute (gpm) injection would cost $750,000 based upon an average capital cost $3.50/gpd capacity. This is equivalent to $1.40 per 1,000 gallons based upon a 15-year life at 12 percent. Operating costs normally range between $0.10 and $0.70 per 1,000 gallons depending on injection pressures and scaling tendency. In general, injection wells are characterized as high capital costs and relatively intermediate operation costs. Evaporation ponds are a disposal alternative in geographical areas where the evaporation exceeds the precipitation. Recent government regulations have precipitation. Recent government regulations have proposed that all evaporation and storage ponds used proposed that all evaporation and storage ponds used for containment of uranium ore processing solutions would require double impermeable liners instead of the single liner currently mandated. State and Federal agencies regulate the design criteria for all such ponds including provisions for monitoring systems and closure or removal of the pond and its contents." @default.
• W2016081818 created "2016-06-24" @default.
• W2016081818 creator A5077956560 @default.
• W2016081818 date "1980-09-21" @default.
• W2016081818 modified "2023-09-26" @default.
• W2016081818 title "Optimization Of Reverse Osmosis Treatment Of In Situ Wastewaters" @default.
• W2016081818 doi "https://doi.org/10.2118/9492-ms" @default.
• W2016081818 hasPublicationYear "1980" @default.
• W2016081818 type Work @default.
• W2016081818 sameAs 2016081818 @default.
• W2016081818 citedByCount "3" @default.
• W2016081818 crossrefType "proceedings-article" @default.
• W2016081818 hasAuthorship W2016081818A5077956560 @default.
• W2016081818 hasConcept C127413603 @default.
• W2016081818 hasConcept C130797344 @default.
• W2016081818 hasConcept C134018914 @default.
• W2016081818 hasConcept C159390177 @default.
• W2016081818 hasConcept C159750122 @default.
• W2016081818 hasConcept C185592680 @default.
• W2016081818 hasConcept C2775865663 @default.
• W2016081818 hasConcept C2778520758 @default.
• W2016081818 hasConcept C39432304 @default.
• W2016081818 hasConcept C41625074 @default.
• W2016081818 hasConcept C548081761 @default.
• W2016081818 hasConcept C55493867 @default.
• W2016081818 hasConcept C71924100 @default.
• W2016081818 hasConcept C87717796 @default.
• W2016081818 hasConcept C90982505 @default.
• W2016081818 hasConcept C94061648 @default.
• W2016081818 hasConceptScore W2016081818C127413603 @default.
• W2016081818 hasConceptScore W2016081818C130797344 @default.
• W2016081818 hasConceptScore W2016081818C134018914 @default.
• W2016081818 hasConceptScore W2016081818C159390177 @default.
• W2016081818 hasConceptScore W2016081818C159750122 @default.
• W2016081818 hasConceptScore W2016081818C185592680 @default.
• W2016081818 hasConceptScore W2016081818C2775865663 @default.
• W2016081818 hasConceptScore W2016081818C2778520758 @default.
• W2016081818 hasConceptScore W2016081818C39432304 @default.
• W2016081818 hasConceptScore W2016081818C41625074 @default.
• W2016081818 hasConceptScore W2016081818C548081761 @default.
• W2016081818 hasConceptScore W2016081818C55493867 @default.
• W2016081818 hasConceptScore W2016081818C71924100 @default.
• W2016081818 hasConceptScore W2016081818C87717796 @default.
• W2016081818 hasConceptScore W2016081818C90982505 @default.
• W2016081818 hasConceptScore W2016081818C94061648 @default.
• W2016081818 hasLocation W20160818181 @default.
• W2016081818 hasOpenAccess W2016081818 @default.
• W2016081818 hasPrimaryLocation W20160818181 @default.
• W2016081818 hasRelatedWork W1451884085 @default.
• W2016081818 hasRelatedWork W176351250 @default.
• W2016081818 hasRelatedWork W1878511350 @default.
• W2016081818 hasRelatedWork W2166768719 @default.
• W2016081818 hasRelatedWork W2365769328 @default.
• W2016081818 hasRelatedWork W2474641498 @default.
• W2016081818 hasRelatedWork W2567200416 @default.
• W2016081818 hasRelatedWork W27974291 @default.
• W2016081818 hasRelatedWork W2804758138 @default.
• W2016081818 hasRelatedWork W4292875799 @default.
• W2016081818 isParatext "false" @default.
• W2016081818 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W2016081818 magId "2016081818" @default.
• W2016081818 workType "article" @default.