RE: Today's RNS (Video)19 Sep 2025 10:05
Yes, there are major differences between ISR mining for uranium and rare earths, primarily in the lixiviant (the dissolving solution) used, the geological settings where the deposits are found, and the overall process complexity.
Lixiviant
The most significant difference is the chemical solution used to dissolve the minerals.
Uranium ISR typically uses a mild alkaline or acidic solution, often fortified with an oxidizing agent like oxygen or hydrogen peroxide. The choice depends on the specific geology of the orebody.
Rare Earth ISR is primarily used for ion-adsorption clay (IAC) deposits. These deposits are mined using a weak acidic solution, such as ammonium sulfate or magnesium sulfate, which desorbs the rare earth ions from the clay particles.
Geological Setting and Process Complexity
The suitability for ISR depends heavily on the orebody's characteristics.
Uranium ISR is most effective in permeable sandstone aquifers. The uranium is trapped within these porous layers, which are confined by impermeable layers of clay or shale. This setup allows for the controlled injection and recovery of the lixiviant, preventing contamination of surrounding groundwater. The process is relatively well-understood and has been used commercially for decades.
Rare Earth ISR is specifically developed for ion-adsorption clay deposits, which are found in weathered granitic crusts. The rare earth elements are weakly bound to the surface of the clay particles. This type of deposit is highly permeable, making it suitable for ISR. However, the chemistry involved in selectively desorbing and recovering the different rare earth elements can be more complex than for uranium, which is recovered as a single element. This process is less common commercially, though it's a major method for rare earth production in China.
Sign In
Follow the stocks
