Mining, Metallurgy & Exploration

https://doi.org/10.1007/s42461-020-00251-4

The Effect of Hydro-Jex Operation on the Stability of Heap Leach

Pads: a Case Study of a Heap Leach Operation in Central Mexico
Behrooz Abbasi 1 & Babak Azarfar 1 & Seyedsaeid Ahmadvand 1 & Thom Seal 1 & Bryan Ulrich 2

Received: 2 January 2019 / Accepted: 16 June 2020

# Society for Mining, Metallurgy & Exploration Inc. 2020

Abstract
Hydro-Jex® is a new enhanced method for heap leach treatment with significantly higher mineral recovery. In this case study at
the Los Filos Mine in Mexico, the Hydro-Jex operation is evaluated for heap leach stability. This is pursued by numerical
modeling of the heap leach pad stability and well monitoring of the phreatic surface before and after the Hydro-Jex operation.
Experimental and numerical results both indicate an improvement in mineral processing under the influence of Hydro-Jex.
Numerical results show an insignificant decrease and a significant increase in stability during and after Hydro-Jex injection
application, respectively. The integrity of the liner is maintained in both cases. The zonal injection pressure, operationally below
the overburden pressure, is found to be negligible compared with the dimensionality of the heap, and stability of the structure is
not exposed to any significant risk, even up to 25% above overburden pressure. Furthermore, heap leach factor of safety increases
after Hydro-Jex application. This is attributed to breakdown of the water solution build-up and thus a decrease in the phreatic
surface depth below the top of the pad. It is suggested that injection wells be drilled, based on thorough geophysical data, in
locations where overcompaction of heap material results in water solution build-up and pore pressure enhancement. Compared
with traditional heap leaching, the Hydro-Jex technique not only expedites mineral processing by increasing chemical kinetics
extraction but also increases the stability of the heap by unclogging drains.

Keywords Hydro-Jex . Stability analysis . Numerical modeling . Heap leach pad

1 Introduction geomembrane, and failure of the geomembrane anchorage

Heap leaching is a well-developed and widely used operation
in the mining industry. It is used to process low-grade ore
minerals while minimizing environmental impacts [1, 2];
however, a catastrophic heap leach pad failure has significant
financial and environmental consequences, e.g., Summitville
[3], Cieneguita [4], and Pará mines [4]. In recent decades,
there have not been any major failures of heap leach pad
structures; however, unfortunately, there have been several
failures of similar structures, such as landfills and tailing dams
[5, 6]. One of the important stages of leach pad design is the
stability analysis with respect to the leaching method. Sliding
of material along the slope, tensile tearing of the
* Behrooz Abbasi
abbasi@unr.edu
1 the amount of disturbed land and the cost of reclamation. As
Department of Mining and Metallurgical Engineering, University of
Nevada, Reno, Reno, NV 89557, USA
2 also increases [11, 12]. Heap leaching operations involve
Mine Site Infrastructure, Stantec, Edmonton, Canada
are three main instability factors [5, 6]. Critical surface failure
depends on the shear strength of the weakest material in the
heap, such as the ore, the protection layer, or the liner [7].
From a slope stability point of view, the main concern is the
downhill side of the heap stack on the outward sloping lined
pad foundation [8, 9]. To the best of the authors’ knowledge,
there are not any available reports regarding failures on the
uphill side of lined pads.
Factor of safety (FOS) is often used to evaluate the stability
of leach pads [8–10]. FOS values of 1.5 and 1.3 are the lowest
safety limits of heap structures with and without an internal
pond, respectively [7], where FOS = 1.0 is universally accept-
ed as imminent failure. The average height of materials on
heap leach pads is around 50 m, which has a low chance of
failure; however, in recent decades, because of increasing en-
vironmental concerns and attention to sustainability design,
mining companies have increased material heights as much
as possible (some cases reported more than 150 m) to reduce
height increases, consideration for slope stability and recovery
 Mining, Metallurgy & Exploration

covering many hectares of land with tonnes of low-grade ore considered between the bottom of the casing and the
and dealing with low recoveries and long extraction times first injection point [16, 17].
[13]. Many alternative methods have been developed to over- In this paper, the Hydro-Jex operation is evaluated at the
come these challenges [14, 15], one being the Hydro-Jex® Los Filos Mine. The effect of the Hydro-Jex operation on the
technique introduced by Seal [11, 16]. Hydro-Jex has shown stability of heap leach pads is investigated using numerical
the ability to recover stranded metal inventory from pads at a modeling. As-built specifications are obtained from in situ
faster leaching rate due to increased in situ pressure resulting data and the FOS is determined before and after the Hydro-
in particle fluidization, improved micropore wetting, and re- Jex operation. Finally, a comparative analysis is conducted to
agent effectiveness while reducing time required for rinsing, quantify impacts of the Hydro-Jex operation, which are com-
pumping, and closure [12, 16]. Also, it can optimize the chem- pared with conventional heap leaching operations (Fig. 1).
ical composition of targeted zones and operational costs com-
pared with conventional techniques [17]. In the Hydro-Jex
operation, a significant amount of fluid is injected into discrete 2 Model Development
areas within the heap, affecting its regional pore pressure and
thus structural stability [18]. The phreatic surface, injection The fast Lagrangian analysis of continua in three-dimension
pressure, and liner integrity are the main stability concerns (FLAC3D) software was used to build a three-dimensional
of applying Hydro-Jex in heap leaching [18]. Liner integrity (3D) model of the heap structure. As-built data for the
becomes critical during both well drilling and high-pressure installed liner and topography of the heap leach surface were
injection. At lower limits of effective stress and shear strength, used to build the model to real conditions within reasonable
sliding of the heap occurs due to excessive injection of chem- accuracy. Model dimensions were set to 900 × 800 × n m3, n
ical fluid [18]. The Hydro-Jex operation works efficiently at being the adjustable height based on actual topography
pressures close to total vertical stress. If high-pressure Hydro- (Fig. 2). The bottom and east-west and north-south faces of
Jex fluids propagate radially outward from the casing, a weak the model were constrained in a normal direction to achieve
sliding plane can possibly be formed. A 15-m saturated zone more realistic displacement. Slope strike is north-south, dip
around the casing (horizontal distance from the center of well) direction is east-west, and the dip angle of the slope face is
is reported as the distance at which maximum hydraulic 35°. Well-monitoring results and geophysical data were ap-
rechanneling of material occurs, thus overcoming overburden plied to define the phreatic surface and pore pressure (Fig. 3
pressure [19, 20]. and Table 1). Figure 4 shows pore pressure across electrical
The Los Filos Mine is one of the largest gold mines resistivity survey lines in the model based on the phreatic
in Mexico, being commercially used for a decade. The surface derived from geophysical data. Hydro-Jex wells were
Mine consists of two open pits and one underground introduced to the model as piles. The pile element is a
mine sharing heap leach, wet plant, and ancillary facil-
ities [21]. The Hydro-Jex technique with 16 wells was
designed, drilled, and equipped at the Los Filos Mine
allowing for injection of 59,000 m3 of barren fluid into
material columns. This put nearly 800,000 tonnes of
previously leached ore in contact with fresh chemicals
and swept dissolved gold to the drainage system. A
safety distance of approximately 15 m was utilized be-
tween the bottom of wells and the liner to prevent any
possible damage to the liner during drilling. Prior to
installing perforated well casings for injection, surface
irrigation was withheld from the area to be targeted,
thereby allowing drainage of the heap for several weeks.
The procedure used a packer system such that the fluid
was only applied to a single zone within the perforated
casing. The fluid injection zone was then relocated to
another perforated zone or to another well if the initial
zone was sufficiently stimulated or pumped. The use of
steel casing improves well stability and acts as structur-
al support until any settlement or displacement happens
below the bottom of the casing. To reduce any risk of Fig. 1 Zones impacted by pumping solution down a perforated Hydro-
well instability or well failure, a safety distance was Jex® well
Mining, Metallurgy & Exploration
Fig. 2 Model geometry and location of Hydro-Jex wells
structural element that is defined by geometric, material, and
coupling-spring properties (Table 2). It acts like a structural
support with frictional interaction occurring between the pile
and the rock or soil mass in normal and shear directions per-
pendicular and parallel to the pile axis, respectively [23].
The brick element was used to create complex geometries
in the mesh design. Also, to obtain more volumetric flexibility
and fluidity for plasticity analysis, the nodal mixed
discretization (NMD) technique was used [24, 25]. For model-
ing the heap leach, elastic-plastic material was chosen in
which the Mohr-Coulomb failure criterion is met.
Foundation properties were considered as limestone to
Fig. 3 Electrical resistivity survey across leach pad at Los Filos Mine used to build the phreatic surface and pore pressure in numerical modeling. a
Survey line locations. b Results of three resistivity lines [22]
prevent movement or cracking of the pad liner under the heap
weight or geological conditions of the site. Based on available
grain size distribution analyses, the heap material was divided
into two major groups. Ore material and protection layer were
introduced as gravel and sand materials, respectively.
Properties of the heap material are defined in Table 3. A thin
layer (1-m thickness) with a minimum but adequate value of
cohesion was defined and deposited on the surface to prevent
any immediate surficial failure.
The shear strength reduction method (SRM) was used to
calculate FOS. In the SRM approach, actual shear strength
properties (cohesion, internal friction angle, and tension) of
 Mining, Metallurgy & Exploration

Table 1 Wells monitoring results

prior to stimulation Hole Surface elev. Liner elev. Max hole depth Solution elev. Solution depth to liner
no. (m) (m) (m) (m)* (m)

HJ-1 1506 1439 55 1496.2 53.2

HJ-2 1506 1445 49 1493 48
HJ-3 1501 1444 43 --- ---
HJ-4 1500 1444 43 --- ---
HJ-5 1507 1448 43 1499.2 51.2
HJ-6 1506 1450 43 1496.7 46.7
HJ-7 1507 1456 37 1496.4 40.4
HJ-8 1507 1461 31 1497.4 29.4
HJ-9 1507 1468 25 1498.9 30.9
HJ-10 1507 1474 19 1501.9 27.9
HJ-11 1506 1447 43 --- ---
HJ-12 1507 1455 37 ---
HJ-13 1507 1449 43 1500.1 51.1
HJ-14 1506 1460 31 --- ---
HJ-15 1507 1467 25 1494.4 27.4
HJ-16 1507 1466 25 1494.7 28.7

*Phreatic surface elevation before Hydro-Jex. After the operation, no water was observed in any of the wells

various units were reduced by the strength reduction factor In Eq. 1, C0, Cr, tanφ0, and tanφr are initial and
(SRF) until failure (Fig. 5, [25]). reduced cohesive strength and initial and reduced inter-
nal friction angle, respectively, and FOS and SRF are
C 0 tanφ0
FOS ¼ SRF ¼ ¼ ð1Þ equal.
Cr tanφr

Fig. 4 Pore pressure counters

across electrical resistivity survey
lines in the model. Black line
indicates liner location
Mining, Metallurgy & Exploration

Table 2 Pile properties for numerical modeling

Material properties Quantity

Cross-sectional area 0.0182 m2

Perimeter 0.47854 m
Young’s modulus 20 × 1010 Pa
Poisson’s ratio 0.3
Coupling-stiffness-shear 1.3 × 1011 Pa
Coupling-cohesion-shear 1.0 × 1010 Pa
Coupling-friction-shear 36°
Coupling-stiffness-normal 1.3 × 109 Pa
Coupling-cohesion normal 1.0 × 104 Pa
Coupling-friction-normal 10°
Fig. 5 Shear strength reduction method [26, 27]

From a geotechnical point of view, the predominant con- where τ is shear stress on the failure plane, c is cohesion, σ is
cern of using the Hydro-Jex technology is related to the total normal stress on the failure surface, φ is the angle of
change of stress distribution on the heap leach pad. Due to internal friction, σ is effective stress, and u is pore pressure.
drag forces induced by high-pressure injection, particulate In the numerical approach (Finite difference—FLAC3D), tet-
tends to move away from the injection point, leaving a near rahedron nodes are referred by numbers 1 to 4, and fluid den-
horizontal voidage channel behind. Also, it causes finer- sity and pore pressure are assumed to be constant and linear
grained materials to move out of the area near the well within a tetrahedron, respectively. The Gauss divergence theo-
(Fig. 6, [22]). Horizontal cavity creation and fine grain wash- rem is used to find the pressure head gradient [23, 27],
out near the wellbore increase the permeability of heap mate-
1 4
ðlÞ
rials after short-term pumping of several hours. This allows ðp−pf xi g i Þ j ¼ − ∑ Pl −pf xli g i n j S ðlÞ ð5Þ
solution to return to the perforated wellbore, then flow down 3V l¼1
to the bottom of the well (Fig. 7). Consequently, the phreatic
where nl is the exterior unit vector normal to face l, S is
surface drops as solution drains from the heap leach material.
the face surface area, and V is the tetrahedron volume.
This eventually affects pore pressure and stress distribution.
To increase numerical accuracy, xi is substituted by
FOS is defined as the ratio between shear strength and
xi −x1i in Eq. 5 where x1i corresponds to the coordinates
stress required for equilibrium [27]. Using Mohr-Coulomb’s
of one of the tetrahedron’s corners. As a result, Eq. 5
criterion for failure (Eq. 2) and Terzaghi’s expression for ef-
can be replaced by [23],
fective stress (Eq. 3), FOS can be defined as [28]:
1 4 *l ðlÞ ðlÞ
τ ¼ c þ σtanφ ð2Þ ðp−pf xi gi Þ j ¼ − ∑ p nj S ð6Þ
3V l¼1
σ ¼ σ−u ð3Þ
shear strength of soil unit c þ σtanφ c þ ðσ−uÞtanφ
where the nodal quantity p∗l is defined as,
FOS ¼ ¼ ¼

shear stress required for equilibrium τ τ
p*l ¼ pl −pf xli −x1i gi ð7Þ
ð4Þ

Table 3 Material properties for

numerical modeling Material properties Foundation Ore Surface layer Protection layer Liner Units

Density 2500 2000 2000 1800 600 kg/m3

Bulk modulus 10 × 109 80 × 106 80 × 106 27.7 × 106 3.45 × 109 Pa
Shear modulus 4.6 × 109 48 × 106 48 × 106 11.36 × 106 3.57 × 108 Pa
Cohesion 5 × 106 0 2 × 105 0 -- Pa
Tension 5 × 105 0 2 × 104 0 2 × 106 Pa
Internal friction angle 36 33 33 32 14 °

Fig. 6 Schematic representation
of cavity initiation and washout of
fines near the wellbore [22]
3 Results and Discussion
One way to investigate the stability of the Hydro-Jex
operation is to compare the phreatic surface before (con-
ventional heap leaching) and after injection. Such a
comparison shows that the Hydro-Jex operation reduces
the saturation zone. Thus, the phreatic surface goes be-
low the wellbore bottom (Table 1) in the long run.
Lowering the water table level decreases pore pressure
and increases FOS. Ideally, using an optimum pressure
injection increases permeability of the heap and keeps
solution from aggregating anywhere above the liner.
This injection pressure should be high enough to in-
crease zone permeability in the short time duration of
a few hours, which expedites leaching time, yet low
enough not to risk the stability of the heap. At the level
of injection, overburden pressure is usually less than the
lower limit of injection pressure required to lift up the
material above the injection zone, which increases effec-
tive permeability. As saturation level drops below the
Fig. 7 Schematic of treatment
and drain down from each zone
(a–n) in a Hydro-Jex® well
pumping stimulation [26]
Mining, Metallurgy & Exploration
wellbore bottom, the condition after the Hydro-Jex op-
eration can be considered as a drain-down state. For
modeling purposes, only static conditions were
considered.
A series of stability analyses were conducted to eval-
uate the stability of saturated and dry conditions before
and after Hydro-Jex operation. A higher FOS value is
an indicator of greater general stability of the heap
leach pad at each stage. Modeling results show FOS
values of 3.35 and 2.68 for dry (after Hydro-Jex) and
saturated (before Hydro-Jex) conditions, respectively.
This implies that the Hydro-Jex operation improves the
stability of the heap leach pad at the Los Filos Mine by
26%. Figures 8 and 9 show maximum displacement be-
fore and after Hydro-Jex operation, respectively. Fluid
drainage leaves no pore pressure after the operation;
however, overburden pressure is still present in all
cases. After the Hydro-Jex (Fig. 9) injection in wellbore
HJ.6 (Hydro-Jex well number 6), the depth of mobilized
zone and magnitude of displacement around the HJ.6
Mining, Metallurgy & Exploration
Fig. 8 Displacement of the heap leach pad before the Hydro-Jex opera-
tion. Black line indicates liner location
reduce by 50% (from 27 to 13 m) and 28% (from 14 to
around 10 cm), respectively. This can be referred to as
an increase in permeability followed by a decrease in
pore pressure after the operation. Also, steel casing
installed in the wellbore acts similar to reinforcement
with soil nails [29]. A precise measurement and/or
modeling of permeability of the in situ material can
further support these results.
Figure 10 illustrates a sensitivity analysis on the im-
pact of phreatic surface depth on stability of the heap
leach pad. As phreatic surface depth increases, FOS,
and thus stability, increases; however, FOS values for
the phreatic surface of 20 m below the heap top or
ground surface (about one-third of liner depth) and dry
condition are 3.3 and 3.4, respectively, which indicates
less than 3% increase. Figure 11 shows displacement in
the heap leach pad as a function of phreatic surface
depth. These results indicate that maximum displace-
ment in the heap leach pad is reduced from 17 to
4 cm by increasing phreatic surface depth.
Overburden pressure determines the lower limit of pressure
to create rechanneling (i.e., increase effective permeability)
Fig. 9 Displacement of the heap leach pad after the Hydro-Jex operation.
Black line indicates liner location
Fig. 10 Effect of phreatic surface depth on FOS value
during the Hydro-Jex operation, e.g., ~ 5.0 bar is the minimum
fluid pressure for 25-m depth at the location of HJ.6. This
pressure creates a non-zero effective stress during the opera-
tion and possibly a local weak sliding plane reinforced by the
shear strength of the steel well casing with solution pressure
decreasing away from the well due to particle friction and
drag. In investigating sliding instability, the worst case is con-
sidered where pore pressure around each well is set to the
injection pressure of ~ 5 bar (Fig. 12) in an asynchronous
manner (i.e., one zone and one well at a time).
A comparison between before and during Hydro-Jex
operation shows a FOS decrease from 2.68 before
Hydro-Jex to 2.65 during Hydro-Jex. This 1.1% reduc-
tion suggests that instability caused by high-pressure
injection is negligible, most likely due to the fact that
the area affected by high-pressure injection (roughly the
volume of a cylinder with 15-m radius and 1.5-m
height) is much smaller than the overall heap dimen-
sions. Also, displacement contours remain nearly the
same before (Fig. 8) and during (Fig. 12) the Hydro-
Jex operation. Maximum displacement shows a ~ 20%
increase (as expected to increase permeability) within
the injection zone; however, it is local displacement
around the well, it affects only a small area, and it does
not cause any instability around the well.
Injection pressure is selected based on overburden height at
each point. A sensitivity analysis was conducted to analyze
the safety range for injection pressure. Modeling results show
that increasing injection pressure more than 6.0 bar at 25-m
depth causes instability in the heap leach pad (Fig. 13). This
analysis indicates that the safety zone for working pressure is
between 4 and 6 bar and the heap can bear up to 25% above
overburden pressure. This trend is similar for all depths and
25% can be considered as a safety zone for pressure calcula-
tion. Displacement analysis results (Fig. 14) show that high-
pressure injection (up to 6.75 bar) does not affect liner integ-
rity, whereas mass and pressure need to increase significantly
to exert a downward force on the liner (Fig. 15).
 Mining, Metallurgy & Exploration

Fig. 11 Effect of phreatic surface

depth on displacement in the heap
leach pad. Black line indicates
liner location, and purple line
indicates phreatic surface

Fig. 12 Pore pressure counters

before and during the Hydro-Jex
operation. Black line indicates
liner location, and purple line in-
dicates phreatic surface

Fig. 13 Displacement of heap

leach pad during Hydro-Jex op-
eration at wellbore HJ.6. Black
line indicates liner location
Mining, Metallurgy & Exploration
Fig. 14 Effect of injection zone pressure on FOS
4 Conclusions
In this research, monitoring wells, phreatic surface, permeabil-
ity of the heap, fluid displacement, and FOS are used before,
after, and during the Hydro-Jex operation to analyze the sta-
bility of heap leach pads at the Los Filos Mine. It is demon-
strated that the Hydro-Jex operation increases permeability of
Fig. 15 Effect of injection zone
pressure on displacement around
well. Red area inside black line
indicates failed zone
the heap based on the saturation zone of monitoring wells
before and after the operation. As permeability increases, pore
pressure and phreatic surface decline, resulting in higher sta-
bility for the heap. FOS analysis suggests that the Hydro-Jex
operation ideally improves the stability of the heap by 26%.
Geophysical data attributes this significant improvement to
the proper choice of drilling Hydro-Jex wells where
overcompaction and/or physicochemical properties of materi-
al result in water solution build-ups in heap leach pads at the
Los Filos Mine. In such cases, high-pressure injection can
break the overcompaction and release water solution build-
ups to drain down the Hydro-Jex well post-injection. Using
overburden and higher pressure limits (< 25%), numerical
modeling dismisses any significant instability of the heap in-
duced by injection pressure. Therefore, it can be inferred that
any instability stemming from high-pressure injection is insig-
nificant compared with the dimensionality of the heap during
the Hydro-Jex operation. In addition, displacement analysis
indicates that liner integrity remains intact at high injection
pressure, even in the unstable zone. These results are based
on the single case study described herein and may not be
applied to all cases and situations. The authors are working
to develop small-scale and large-scale laboratory tests to

increase the validity and comprehensiveness of these results.
Also, investigation of the effect of Hydro-Jex operation on
induced failure cause by any seismic activities should be con-
ducted in the next stage of tests to complete this research.
Compliance with Ethical Standards
Conflict of Interest The authors declare that they have no conflicts of
interest.
References
1. Petersen J (2016) Heap leaching as a key technology for recovery of
values from low-grade ores – a brief overview. Hydrometallurgy
165:206–212
2. Mandziak T, Pattinson D (2015) Experience-based approach to
successful heap leach pad design. Mining World 12(5):28–35
3. Plumlee GS, Edelmann P, Bigelow RC (1995) “The Summitville
mine and its downstream effects,” USGS
4. “http://www.wise-uranium.org,” 2018. [Online]. Available: http://
www.wise-uranium.org/mdaf.html
5. Lyu Z, Chai J, Xu Z, Qin Y, Cao J (2019) “A comprehensive
review on reasons for tailings dam failures based on case history.”
Adv Civil Eng
6. Koerner RM, Soong T-Y (2000) “Stability assessment of ten large
landfill failures.” Adv Transport Geoenviron Syst Using
Geosynthetics, pp. 1–38
7. Mortazavi A, Abbasloo Z, Ebrahimi L, Keshavarz A, Masoomi A
(2015) Geotechnical investigation and design of leaching heap no.
2, Meydook copper mine, Iran. Miner Eng 79:185–195
8. Karimi Nasab S, Atashpanjeh A, Mollaei Fard M (2001) “Design
considerations of heap leaching at Sarcheshmeh open pit copper
mine.” In 17th International Mining Congress and Exhibition of
Turkey- IMCET2001
9. Zanbak C (2012) “Heap leaching technique in mining within the
context of best available techniques,” Euromines, The European
Association of Mining Industries, Metal Ores & Industrial Minerals
10. Breitenbach AJ (2005) “Heap leach pad design and construction
practices in the 21st century,” Vector Colorado LLC
11. Ulrich B (2008) “Geotechnical aspects of the Hydro-Jex operation,”
in 1st International Seminar on the Managment of Rock Dumps,
Stockpiles, and Heap Leach Pads, Perth, Australia
12. Richard Thiel MES (2004) State of the practice review of heap
leach pad design issues. Geotext Geomembr 22(6):555–568
Mining, Metallurgy & Exploration
13. Ayala R, Parra D, Valdivia R (2013) “Design and construction
review of a heap leach pad for safe operation,” in 1st International
Heap Leach Solutions Conference, pp. 321–331
14. Coulibaly Y, Tikou B, Cheng L (2017) Numerical analysis and
geophysical monitoring for stability assessment of the Northwest
tailings dam at Westwood mine. Int J Min Sci Technol 27:701–710
15. Reyes A, Ayala R, Canabi L, Zuta J, Marroqum R, Rodriguez J
(2016) “3D dynamic analysis of a valley-fill heap leach pad,” in
Heap Leach Mining Solutions, Lima, Peru
16. Reyes A, Garma P, Parra D (2014) “3D slope stability analysis of
heap leach pads using the limit equilibrium method,” Lima, Peru
17. Ghorbani Y, Franzidis J, Petersen J (2016) Heap leaching
technology—current state, innovations, and future directions: a re-
view. Miner Process Extr Metall Rev 37(2):73–119
18. Winterton J, Rucker D (2013) “Optimal strategies for leach pad
injection operations,” Phoenix, AZ
19. Padilla GA, Cisternas LA, Cuetoa JY (2008) On the optimization of
heap leaching. Miner Eng 21(9):673–678
20. Seal T (2007) “Hydro-Jex: heap leach pad stimulation technology;
ready for world wide industrial adoption?” Denver, Colorado, USA
21. Seal T (2004) “Enhanced gold extraction in cyanide heap leaching
using Hydro-Jex,” Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Idaho
22. Seal T, Rucker D, Winterton J, Ashanti A (2012) “Enhancing gold
recovery using Hydro-Jex© at Cripple Creek and Victor Gold Mine
Co.,” Denver
23. Seal T, Jung S (2005) “Reduction of gold inventory in cyanide heap
leaching,” SME Annual Meeting and Exhibit, Preprint No. 05-22,
Salt Lake City, Utah, USA
24. Rucker DF (2015) Deep well rinsing of a copper oxide heap.
Hydrometallurgy 153:145–153
25. Rucker DF, McNeill M, Schindler A, Noonan G (2009) Monitoring
of a secondary recovery application of leachate injection into a
heap. Hydrometallurgy 99:238–248
26. Itasca, “FLAC3D (Fast Lagrangian Analysis of Continua in 3
Dimensions), version 6.0,” Itasca Consulting Group, Inc.,
Minneapolis, 2017
27. Basi J, Rucker D, Seal T (2017) “Testing inventory drawdown
through pressure injection in the leach pad at Los Filos Mine,”
Vancouver, BC, Canada
28. Abbasi B, Russell D, Taghavi R (2013) “FLAC3D mesh and zone
quality,” FLAC/DEM Symposium, China
29. Azarfar B, Ahmadvand S, Sattarvand J, Abbasi B (2019) Stability
analysis of rock structure in large slopes and open-pit mine: numer-
ical and experimental fault modeling. Rock Mech Rock Eng
52(12):4889–4905
Publisher’s Note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdic-
tional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.