The dangerous and deadly toll of uranium mining, on Indian communities
Child with cerebral palsy, in uraniummining region Dungridih village. Jaduguda, photo by Subhrajit Sen.
[Photos] Suffering in the town powering India’s nuclear dreams. Mongabay, BY SUBHRAJIT SEN ON 4 SEPTEMBER 2020
- Uranium is a vital mineral for India’s ambitious nuclear power programme. Out of the seven states with uranium reserves, Jharkhand and Andhra Pradesh have currently operating mines.
- In Jharkhand’s Jaduguda region, which has India’s oldest uranium mines, local communities narrate stories of suffering due to degrading health and the environment. The government, however, denies any ill-impact of uranium mining on people.
- The Indian government is aiming to increase uranium exploration and mining.
- This photo essay features images taken between 2016-2019 of residents of villages around uranium mines in Jharkhand. Some of these photos contain sensitive content.
Anamika Oraom, 16, of village Dungridih, around a kilometre away from Narwa Pahar uranium mine in Jharkhand, wants to study. But she cannot, owing to severe headaches that come up periodically, triggered by a malignant tumour on her face. Sanjay Gope, 18, cannot walk and is confined to his wheelchair. Haradhan Gope, 20, can study, walk, talk, but owing to a physical deformity, his head is much smaller in proportion to his body.
There are many more, young and old, in the village Bango, adjacent to Jaduguda uranium mine in Jharkhand, whose lives and death highlight the ill-effects of uranium mining, say the villagers.
Uranium is a naturally occurring radioactive mineral and is vital to India’s nuclear power programme. At present (till August 31, 2020), India’s installed nuclear power capacity is 6780 megawatts (MW). The country aims to produce 40,000 MW of nuclear power by 2030.
The Uranium Corporation of India Limited (UCIL) is involved in the mining and processing uranium ore in the country. According to the UCIL, mining operations at Jaduguda began in 1967, and it is India’s first uranium mine.
In the 25-kilometre radius of Jaduguda, there are other uranium deposits at Bhatin, Narwa Pahar, Turamdih, Banduhurang, Mohuldih, and Bagjata. While UCIL claims that Jaduguda mine has created a large skill base for uranium mining and the mining industry, local communities point out that their lives and land have changed irreversibly.
The villagers complain that the hills surrounding Jaduguda, dug up to create ‘tailing ponds,’ have proven to be a severe health hazard. A tailing pond is an area where leftover material is stored after the excavated ore is treated to extract uranium. Communities argue that these ponds have led to groundwater and river contamination.
Namita Soren of village Dungridih said, “This radioactive element has become a part of our daily life.”
“Children are born with physical disabilities or people with cancer. But our sorrow doesn’t end there,” said Soren who had three miscarriages before giving birth to a child born with physical deformities.
Ghanshyam Birulee, the co-founder of the Jharkhandi Organisation Against Radiation (JOAR), said that villagers earlier marked certain forest areas as ‘cursed’ – a woman passing through the area was believed be affected by an evil gaze and suffer a miscarriage or people would feel dizzy. These areas coincided with the forest spaces around tailing ponds. In cultural translation, the regions surrounding tailing ponds became infested with ‘evil spirits.’ But as the people became more aware, they connected their misery to the mining operations.
A 2003 study by Tata Institute of Social Sciences emphasised that 18 percent of women in the region suffered miscarriages/stillbirth between 1998 and 2003, 30 percent reported some sort of problem in conception, and most women complained of fatigue and weakness.
When asked the reason for opposing the UCIL’s mining project, Birulee said, “Before mining started, people never used to have diseases like these – children were not handicapped, women were not suffering from miscarriages, people didn’t have tuberculosis or cancer. People had ordinary illnesses, cold and cough, that got cured by traditional medicines. But today, even the doctors are not able to diagnose diseases. It all emerged after uranium mining started.”
India has uranium reserves in Rajasthan, Jharkhand, Chhattisgarh, Meghalaya, Telangana, Andhra Pradesh, and Karnataka. It is currently operating mines in Jharkhand and Andhra Pradesh. The country has a detailed plan to become self-sufficient in uranium production by achieving a nearly ten-fold rise by 2031-32, including expansion from existing mines and opening new mines. However, to augment supply until then, it has signed a long-term contract with Uzbekistan (in 2019) to supply 1,100 metric tons of natural uranium ore concentrates during 2022 -2026. Similar agreements have been signed with overseas suppliers from various other countries like Canada, Kazakhstan, and France to supply uranium ore.
No help from the government or politicians
Birulee feels that the political class is aware of the problem but that has not translated into safeguarding villagers’ lives. “Whoever is elected from here – legislator or parliamentarian – has never raised our issue about radiation either in the state legislature or parliament. If they raise our issue, I am sure the government will take some action to resolve people’s issues,” said Birulee.
In March 2020, Bharatiya Janata Party leader Rajiv Pratap Rudy asked Prime Minister Narendra Modi in Lok Sabha about public health hazards due to India’s uranium mines.
Rudy asked whether the central government has reports of hazardous activities like radioactive slurry being stored in the open, causing health hazards to people residing in adjacent areas of uranium mines in the country, and, if so, the action taken on it.
While replying to the question, Minister of State for Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions and Prime Minister’s Office, Jitendra Singh, refuted any such impact. ………..
Birulee reflects on the opposing conditions that he has witnessed. For him, it is impossible to leave behind his land, livelihood, and traditions. But for people close to the mines and tailing ponds, “the only solution is that from this region – from this radiation zone – people should be rehabilitated to a safer place. Else they’ll be surrounded by the same problems.”
Local livelihood options impacted
The people note that displacement and then deforestation for uranium mining robbed them of their land and livelihood, and later cursed them with health impacts.
Though the company and those in power deny any ill-impact on local ecology and livelihood, locals alleged that small-scale production of bidis is also hampered due to the low quality of tendu leaves. They suspect that the trees have been exposed to contaminated groundwater.
Villagers said that with expansion of mining large tracts of sal, sarjom, and teak trees are being wiped out. The trees are essential for the communities’ sacred rituals and traditional activities.
Ashish Birulee, photojournalist and member of JOAR, said that the route for transporting uranium ore is the same used by the public. He says the resulting pollution from the dust has a long-term impact on health and ecology.
Ashish adds that the mining company cannot ignore the most significant factor – the experience of people living in this area. “The experience of people is nothing less than any study or research. It can’t be denied. UCIL is not ready to admit that there are problems. It is because if it admits it would have to compensate people. Peoples’ experience shows that before 1967 there were no such issues, but it started after mining took off. If you look at the population of Jaduguda, there are a lot of people with disabilities. But if you go about 15 kilometres away, there are no such problems.”
“As far as a solution is concerned, once you start mining at any place, there is no solution. The company will mine here till the uranium ore exists. It has a lease for 45-50 years and after mining is over here, it will move to a new mine and extract resources. But the mining waste will be left here,” said Ashish. …… https://india.mongabay.com/2020/09/photos-suffering-in-the-town-powering-indias-nuclear-dreams/
Japan’s nuclear fuel imports almost zero in 2019 as industry stagnates
|
Most nuclear plants in Japan remain idle as stricter safety measures were implemented after a massive earthquake and ensuing tsunami crippled the Fukushima No. 1 nuclear complex. The operations of fuel manufacturing plants have also been suspended……. Of the 54 nuclear reactors that were in operation before the Fukushima crisis, currently, only nine have come back online after clearing harsher safety measures. In the wake of the accident, 21 reactors have been flagged for decommissioning in consideration of the hefty cost of refurbishment. All four fuel manufacturing factories are offline as they are undergoing regulatory review under the new safety standards. Kansai Electric Power Co., Shikoku Electric Power Co. and Kyushu Electric Power Co., which operate the nine plants currently back online, said they have enough fuel to run their reactors for the next several years. …….https://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2020/08/12/business/japan-nuclear-fuel-imports-zero/ |
|
Radiation-related health hazards to uranium miners
|
Radiation-related health hazards to uranium miners https://www.docwirenews.com/abstracts/radiation-related-health-hazards-to-uranium-miners/
July 8, 2020 This article was originally published here
Semenova Y, et al. Environ Sci Pollut Res Int 2020 – Review. ABSTRACT Concerns on health effects from uranium (U) mining still represent a major issue of debate. Any typology of active job in U mines is associated with exposure to U and its decay products, such as radon (Rn), thorium (Th), and radium (Ra) and its decay products with alpha-emission and gamma radiation. Health effects in U miners have been investigated in several cohort studies in the USA, Canada, Germany, the Czech Republic, and France. While public opinion is particularly addressed to pay attention to the safety of nuclear facilities, health hazard associated with mining is poorly debated. According to the many findings from cohort studies, the most significant positive dose-response relationship was found between occupational U exposure and lung cancer. Other types of tumors associated with occupational U exposure are leukemia and lymphoid cancers. Furthermore, it was found increased but not statistically significant death risk in U miners due to cancers in the liver, stomach, and kidneys. So far, there has not been found a significant association between U exposure and increased cardiovascular mortality in U miners. This review tries to address the current state of the art of these studies. PMID:32638305 | DOI:10.1007/s11356-020-09590-7 |
|
Uranium mining protests in Russia
“……..Uranium mining protest
In the Kurgan region, Rosatom’s subsidiary company, Dalur, has been mining uranium and the local communities fear an environmental disaster. In the summer of 2019, the state environmental appraisal revealed a discrepancy between Dalur’s documentation and the Russian legislation
Activists attribute her persecution to her work at the Public Monitoring Fund for the Environmental Condition and the Population Welfare which she led back in 2017. The Foundation has repeatedly published information on the possible environmental damage resulting from Dalur’s mining activity. (28)
9
In the fall of 2019, environmentalists revealed that radioactive and toxic waste (uranium hexafluoride, UF6)were being imported from Germany through the port of Amsterdam into Russia. This is the waste from the uranium enrichment process which will be sent to the Urals or Siberia and stored in containers above the ground. Thus, under the auspices of a commercial transaction, the German uranium–enriching enterprise, Urenco, avoids its nuclear waste problem, while Rosatom profits by taking the hazardous waste into Russia.
“Get the Hell Off”: The Indigenous Fight to Stop a Uranium Mine in the Black Hills

An unidentified member of AIM Native American woman sits with her rifle at ready on steps of building in Wounded Knee, South Dakota, March 2, 1973. Indians still have control of town having seized it on Tuesday. Eleven hostages they had taken were finally released. (AP Photo/Jim Mone)
Get the Hell Off”: The Indigenous Fight to Stop a Uranium Mine in the Black Hills
Can the Lakota win a “paper war” to save their sacred sites?
Mother Jones, BY DELILAH FRIEDLER; PHOTOS BY DANNY WILCOX FRAZIER, MARCH/APRIL 2020 ISSUE, Regina Brave remembers the moment the first viral picture of her was taken. It was 1973, and 32-year-old Brave had taken up arms in a standoff between federal marshals and militant Indigenous activists in Wounded Knee, South Dakota, on the Pine Ridge Indian Reservation. Brave had been assigned to guard a bunker on the front lines and was holding a rifle when a reporter leaped from a car to snap her photo. She remembers thinking that an image of an armed woman would never make the papers—“It was a man’s world,” she says—but the bespectacled Brave, in a peacoat with hair pulled back, was on front pages across the country the following Sunday……..
In October, Brave spoke at Magpie Buffalo Organizing’s inaugural “No Uranium in Treaty Territory” summit, which offered a crash course on tribal sovereignty. The activists are closely tracking the various Keystone XL permits, which the Rosebud Sioux Tribe is challenging in court as a treaty violation. As the threat of both uranium and gold mining looms, there’s talk of occupying land in the Black Hills, as the American Indian Movement did in 1981.
Low Oil Prices May Kill Off The Next Nuclear Boom Before It Begins
Low Oil Prices May Kill Off The Next Nuclear Boom Before It Begins, Oil Price, By Alex Kimani – Apr 27, 2020Opening up the West
On Thursday, the Nuclear Fuel Working Group (NFWG) made recommendations to the U.S. Administration to open up ~1,500 acres outside the Grand Canyon for uranium production, arguing that the country needs to beef up domestic production to avoid an over-reliance on foreign sources.
The organization has recommended spending $1.5 billion over ten years buying uranium from American producers to create a uranium stockpile that would necessitate buying about 10 million pounds a year.
The working group’s report claims that the United States also needs more uranium for two other purposes:
– Low-enriched uranium for the production of tritium for nuclear weapons through the 2040s, and
– Highly enriched uranium to be used as fuel for Navy nuclear reactors through the 2050s
The slow and painful demise of the American uranium mining industry can be chalked up to the fact that the country is not endowed with the most abundant and most accessible uranium deposits, with resources in Canada and Australia boasting significantly higher uranium content and a lower production cost per unit.
American miners have had trouble making a profit from their operations even at the best of times. Consequently, the industry has historically had to rely heavily on government largesse.
During the golden age of American uranium that spanned from 1955-1980, the U.S. government offered fat uranium bonuses in a bid to shore up its stockpiles during the Cold War. These included 10-year price guarantees for certain kinds of ore as well as $10,000 discovery and production bonuses for new sources, which pencils out to nearly $100K in today’s dollars. The incentives set off a mad gold rush in the nation’s vast Western region as every man with a jeep and a Geiger counter set out to make the next significant discovery.
The program was a resounding success: U.S. uranium stockpiles skyrocketed so much that the government stopped paying out the bonuses sometime in the 1960s…….
By 1987, the tables had turned completely, with the country importing nearly 15 million pounds of uranium while domestic production clocked in at just 13 million.
Growing competition weighed heavily on domestic production while the country’s love affair with nuclear energy got its first dose of the harsh reality of nuclear technology thanks to the Three Mile Island nuclear disaster in 1979 as well as the Chernobyl reactor meltdown of 1986 that turned an entire Ukrainian city into a ghost town. Meanwhile, utilities began to grow weary of the time and cost of building reactors, which further depressed demand.
The result: U.S. uranium production had sunk to a 35-year low by the time the last wave of reactors came online in 1990…….
Brief Renaissance
The U.S. uranium industry enjoyed a renaissance in the early 2000s as falling global stockpiles, and booming economies in China and India drove new demand.
Unfortunately, this, too, was not to last as the financial crisis of 2008 destroyed demand, while the Fukushima nuclear disaster of 2011 led to another severe backlash that set off a new round of reactor closures while Germany set to phase out the technology by 2022.
The third nuclear gold rush is starting off on very shaky grounds, too.
First off, the world’s strategic uranium reserves are not in any immediate danger of running out. In 2016, the International Atomic Energy Agency said that the global nuclear fleet has enough stockpiles for 130 years, more than enough for the markets to respond to any shortfalls rapidly as they have done in the past. …..
But more importantly, trying to open up the west for uranium mining is bound to be met with stiff resistance and widespread public uproar.
For all its setbacks over the years, nuclear power has remained broadly popular in the United States. However, the turning point came in 2016 when the majority of people turned against the technology.
The latest poll last year revealed that American public opinion remains split over nuclear power, with 49 percent of U.S. adults either strongly favor (17 percent) or somewhat favor (32 percent) it in power generation while 49 percent either strongly oppose (21 percent) or somewhat oppose (28 percent) its use……
The funny thing is that Gallup has found that American opinion on nuclear power does not have much to do with radiation or safety concerns; rather, it is driven by prevailing fuel prices. …..
a 2020 Colorado College Conservation in the West Poll found that 71 percent of voters in the Mountain West and 77 percent of Arizona voters oppose the development of new uranium mines on public lands adjacent to the Grand Canyon. It’s the kind of backlash that no president wants to deal with, whether they are seeking re-election or not. https://oilprice.com/Energy/Energy-General/Low-Oil-Prices-May-Kill-Off-The-Next-Nuclear-Boom-Before-It-Begins.html
Trump administration to boost uranium mining, weaken environmental regulations
|
Trump officials pitch nuclear plan that would bolster struggling uranium industry, The Hill
BY REBECCA BEITSCH – 04/23/20 The Trump administration on Thursday outlined its plan for revitalizing the U.S. nuclear energy industry in a move that would boost uranium mining while benefiting just a handful of companies.The report from the Nuclear Fuel Working Group includes a set of recommendations to the White House and comes as the price of uranium has steadily fallen over the past decade. he effort to shore up nuclear power is sure to be controversial. Uranium mining has been floated in sensitive areas, including land near the Grand Canyon. …. Nuclear energy has also struggled to remain competitive with other energy sources, leaving some states to bail out nuclear reactors to the tune of tens of millions of dollars to keep them afloat…. To revitalize the industry, however, the new report backs President Trump’s proposal to spend $150 million on a uranium reserve, which would buy U.S.-mined uranium from the small number of domestic producers. The Uranium Producers of America identifies just eight members on its website……. Also at risk is nearly 1,562 square miles just outside the boundaries of the Grand Canyon that since 2012 have been off limits for production. Critics have worried Trump might seek to overturn that ban since he declared uranium a critical mineral for national security purposes at the end of 2017. Some uranium mining companies already own some of that land, and there’s been a push from some Republicans lawmakers to open the area for mining. “It’s despicable to risk irreversible harm to spectacular wild places by propping up uranium companies that can’t compete in global markets,” Taylor McKinnon with the Center for Biological Diversity said in a statement Thursday…….. The report published Thursday, however, calls for “expand[ing] access to uranium deposits on federal lands, including support for necessary legislation” and reconsidering categorical exclusions that bar mining in certain areas. It also recommends overhauling regulations to more quickly spur any number of nuclear projects and easing requirements under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The Trump administration has already proposed a major rollback of NEPA that is set to be finalized in the coming months, including provisions that give companies a greater role in assessing the environmental safety of their own projects. The report also identified potential new financing sources for nuclear projects, like the Export-Import Bank, and changing “legacy policies that disallow support for nuclear projects” to open up financing from the U.S. International Development Finance Corporation…… https://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/494315-trump-officials-pitch-nuclear-plan-that-would-bolster-struggling |
|
Trump’s new uranium plans threaten Grand Canyon area
|
New Trump Nuclear Plan Favors Uranium Mining Bordering the Grand Canyon, The administration, seeking to restore America’s “competitive nuclear advantage,” also wants to create a $150 million uranium reserve in the coming decade. Inside Climate News, Judy Fahys APR 26, 2020
Evergreen forests blanket the Grand Canyon’s less traveled northern plateau, and the perfume of Ponderosa pine drifts down a creekbed to the bottom of the great redrock canyon. Downstream, the strangely blue waters of the Little Colorado River meet the main Colorado, coming from the southern plateau close to sacred places for indigenous people who have lived here for centuries.
Both plateaus are also where mining companies want to unearth uranium. Mining those claims has been barred since 2012, when Congress imposed a 20-year mining ban across 1,000 acres here because past uranium extraction has polluted drinking water and poisoned the air and the ground. Local tribes and environmental groups that sought the temporary ban have been pressing Congress to make the ban permanent. But in a sweeping plan to revive the domestic uranium mining industry unveiled Thursday, the Trump administration proposed instead to open the scenic and sacred areas once again in the name of economic vitality and national security. Allowing more uranium mining on federal lands is just one of the suggestions that emerged from an eight-month review by the White House Nuclear Fuel Working Group. Proposals outlined in the Restoring America’s Competitive Nuclear Advantage report quickly triggered criticism. Some environmentalists say that the administration shouldn’t propose using taxpayer funds during a pandemic to bail out a dirty, uncompetitive industry that’s largely owned by foreign companies. ….. |
|
Outcry as uranium industry exploits Covid 19 to call for financial bailout
![]() Uranium Industry’s COVID-19 Bailout Request Sparks a Disgusted Pushback, Phoenix New Times,
ELIZABETH WHITMAN | APRIL 14, 2020 , When Jamescita Peshlakai was a little girl, she herded sheep along the Little Colorado River, which courses through the Navajo Nation in northern Arizona.
One July morning in 1979, a dam containing tailings from United Nuclear Corporation’s uranium mill some 200 miles away broke, letting loose more than 1,000 tons of waste. Ninety-four million gallons of radioactive water gushed into the Puerco River, which feeds the Little Colorado. More than 40 years later, the Church Rock spill is still the biggest release of radioactive material in American history. The lambs born soon after that disaster barely lasted after birth, recalled Peshlakai, now an Arizona state senator. “Once the umbilical cord was cut, they simply died,” she said. “That happened to a lot of livestock at that time, and we did not know it was because of the Church Rock spill.” Uranium mining has left a toxic, indelible imprint on the Navajo Nation. Mining companies would come in over the years to hire Navajo people for the backbreaking work of picking at uranium ore and hauling it in wheelbarrows. When the companies were ready to move on, they abandoned more than 500 mines on the Navajo Nation, the water they had contaminated, and the people who worked them, many of whom died of cancer and whose offspring were born with birth defects, Peshlakai said. “They never did anything to fix the land, and fix the communities or the tribal nations that they used,” Peshlakai said. That legacy has done nothing to stop America’s dwindling uranium mining industry from going to the federal government and asking to be bailed out in the midst of a public health crisis. At the end of March, two uranium companies penned a letter to President Donald Trump asking for a $150 million bailout, citing the economic impacts of COVID-19. One of them was Energy Fuels Resources, which hopes to open a uranium mine south of the Grand Canyon and whose exploratory operations already have led to it trucking radioactive water across the Navajo Nation. The request quickly sparked disgust and fury among those who oppose the industry’s deleterious effects on people and the land. Last Friday, a cohort of 75 conservation and grassroots groups penned a missive of their own and sent it to four congressional leaders, asking them to reject any bailout for an industry that has wreaked so much destruction, and calling into question the companies’ claims that a public health crisis like COVID-19 justifies extending a lifeline to a declining industry. Leaders of the Navajo Nation also oppose the request. Jared Touchin, a spokesperson for Navajo Nation President Jonathan Nez and Vice President Myron Lizer, said that the two leaders “would not support this effort if it proposes to use uranium resources that impact the Navajo people.” Peshlakai also rejected the idea that the industry, which has never been held accountable for its operations in Arizona, receive a bailout. “This industry should not be left off the hook,” she said. In their letter to Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, Speaker of the House of Representatives Nancy Pelosi, and House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy, the 75 groups declared that the uranium industry was “falsely” suggesting that the COVID-19 pandemic had led to uranium shortages that threatened supply chains. Rather than helping the industry, they said, Congress should “invest stimulus funds towards the assessment, reclamation, and cleanup of the hundreds of thousands of abandoned hardrock mines on public and tribal lands, which are currently polluting roughly 40 percent of western headwaters.” Among the signatories were the Sierra Club, the Wilderness Society, the Grand Canyon Trust, and the Natural Resources Defense Council…….. To the 75 groups who wrote in protest, because the U.S. uranium industry has been in decline for years, the two companies [ Energy Fuels Resources, and Ur-Energy USA], are unjustly invoking the COVID-19 pandemic in an effort to make funding that the administration promised months ago finally materialize. The industry is “seeking to take advantage of the global Coronavirus pandemic for their own benefit by seeking $150 million for the establishment of a uranium reserve,” they wrote. Citing the fact that Arizona Public Service, which operates the country’s largest nuclear power plant, Palo Verde, recently said it was “confident” it could provide reliable service throughout the pandemic, they suggested that the industry’s warning of supply chain disruptions was misleading. “Industry reports are telling us that they have more than enough uranium,” said Ray Rasker, executive director of the Montana-based Headwaters Economics, a nonprofit land management research firm. The U.S. already has a stockpile of uranium, he explained. Because of a global oversupply or uranium, prices have also fallen low, Rasker said; right now, prices are below $30 a pound. And if they were to rise again, the most economically viable deposits of uranium in North America are in Saskatchewan, Canada — an ally of the U.S. “There’s no national security concern,” Rasker said. Past statements suggest that the industry is now invoking COVID-19 to seek what it believes it is due……. In an investigation in 2018, Phoenix New Times found that reviving uranium mining in the U.S. made little sense, because of the low quality of deposits in the country, an oversaturated global market, and the lack of benefits for local economies. https://www.phoenixnewtimes.com/news/uranium-industry-asks-for-bailout-during-covid-19-arizona-11465201 |
|
Canada pushing Small Modular Nuclear Reactors, but the outlook for uranium/nuclear industry is bleak
Nuclear power, and Canada’s uranium industry, are struggling to find their place in a green energy future, CIM Magazine, 23 Mar , 2020 NuScale Power submitted its small modular nuclear reactor (SMR) design to the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission for a pre-licensing vendor design review. This came just over a month after the leaders of three Canadian provinces – Ontario premier Doug Ford, New Brunswick premier Blaine Higgs and Saskatchewan premier Scott Moe – signed a memorandum of understanding to develop SMRs in their respective provinces.
This week’s uranium report- prices fall again, Australia’s “nuclear future” going nowhere
Uranium Week: The Nuclear Debate https://www.fnarena.com/index.php/2020/03/11/uranium-week-the-nuclear-debate-3/ Mar 11 2020
Moves are afoot once again in Australia to lift bans on both uranium mining and nuclear power. The uranium spot price has slipped once more.
-U3O8 spot prices fall again
-Nuclear debate reopens in Australia
-History suggests it will be no easy road
By Greg Peel This week’s uranium report could simply be left as “nothing happened”. At least nothing of major uranium industry implication. The same issues remain in place, so rather than rake over old ground yet again, as to why uranium prices are in the doldrums, this week we’ll zoom in Australia’s nuclear dilemma.
For the record, industry consultant TradeTech reported ten transactions completed in the uranium spot market last week totalling 1mlbs U3O8 equivalent. As buyers were again largely MIA, prices fell gradually during the week. TradeTech’s weekly spot price indicator has fallen -US50c to US$24.40/lb.
Term price indicators remain at US$28.25/lb (mid) and US$33.00 (long).
How to React?
The nuclear power debate has heated up in Australia once more. Driving fresh debate is the pending shutdown of ageing coal-fired power stations that provide Australia’s base load electricity. The federal government wants to build new coal-fired power stations. This policy already had its critics but as a result of this season’s bushfire disaster, an electoral groundswell is calling for the government to recognise climate change and act accordingly before it’s too late.
Australians are now generally opposed to both coal-fired power and new thermal coal mines. But not all Australians. The country is the world’s largest exporter of coal. The coal mining industry employs thousands, and thousands more are supported indirectly by that industry. The surprise victory for the coal-friendly Coalition at last year’s federal election was in part due to support from Queensland-based electorates, Queensland being Australia’s premier coal producing state.
Nuclear power has long been proposed as an alternative source to meet Australia’s electricity needs, if for no other reason Australia boasts the world’s largest known reserves of uranium. But from Three Mile Island to Chernobyl and Fukushima, successive governments have considered nuclear power to be electoral suicide. The debate is now back on again nevertheless, to lift bans on uranium mining and build nuclear reactors.
Australia is a federation of six sovereign states and two federal territories. Of those six states, four have bans on uranium mining. Tasmania has no known commercial uranium deposits, leaving South Australia as the only state with operating uranium mines. Of those four operating mines, two are currently under care & maintenance pending improved uranium prices, leaving only BHP Group’s ((BHP)) Olympic Dam and the foreign-owned Beverley in operation. A fifth mine – Ranger in the Northern Territory — is currently producing uranium but only from stockpiled ore.
Over a decade ago, the then Queensland premier decided to lift the state’s ban on uranium mining. So swift and brutal was the backlash from the coal lobby, the premier very quickly changed his mind. In the interim, one Western Australia state government lifted the ban on uranium mining, only to have the next government ban it again. Two mines under construction on the basis of the prior policy were exempted.
The Australian federal government previously limited the number of allowable uranium mines, but that policy has since been abandoned. The federal government is currently content to restrict the number of countries Australia can export uranium to.
Last week the New South Wales deputy premier supported a bill in state parliament to overturn a nuclear power ban, after a parliamentary inquiry recommended that the law prohibiting uranium mining and nuclear facilities should be repealed. The bill has the support of the Minerals Council of Australia, and the Australian Workers Union, which supports uranium mining and nuclear power for the jobs both will create. But the AWU’s stance puts it at odds with the Australian Council of Trade Unions, which has long been anti-uranium for what we might call Fukushima reasons.
And support for uranium mining and nuclear power is not split down party lines at either federal or state level. The debate is splitting parties.
A lifting of state uranium mining bans would likely not achieve much in the near term. The marginal cost of new production well exceeds current uranium trading prices. To not build nuclear reactors, on the other hand, when the issue of Australia’s future base load power and electricity prices is paramount, and Australia has abundant uranium resources, is seen by supporters as pure folly.
The debate will rage on, but in the short term at least, likely go nowhere.
Protesters call for Capenhurst Urenco nuclear plant to be closed down
|
Protesters call for Capenhurst nuclear plant to be closed down https://www.cheshire-live.co.uk/news/chester-cheshire-news/protesters-call-capenhurst-nuclear-plant-17873816 Demonstration held as Urenco celebrated its 50th birthday By
David HolmesChief reporter 6 MAR 2020
Urenco’s nuclear plant at Capenhurst this week celebrated 50 years since the government-owned international company was founded . But outside protesters lamented the damage to human health and the environment caused by disasters like Chernobyl in Ukraine and Fukushima in Japan. Close Capenhurst campaigners argued the sector was unsafe from uranium mining to nuclear power production and the transportation and storage of highly radioactive waste.
Concerns have been raised about the Urenco plant itself which enriches uranium for use as fuel in nuclear reactors with the depleted uranium – a low level radioactive and toxic byproduct of the process – stored on site. Marianne Birkby, an anti-nuclear campaigner from Cumbria, speaking at the small demonstration outside the plant, said: “The start of the nuclear fuel cycle is here and where it ends up is Sellafield in Cumbria and every day, virtually, there’s nuclear waste transported on the roads, rail, sea and nobody wants the waste. “It’s all very well for Urenco to say ‘enriching the future’ and how fantastic it all is but nobody wants nuclear waste at the end of the day. And nuclear waste is the product of nuclear power.” Japanese campaigner Kaori Mikata-Pralat read out a statement on behalf of a group pursuing legal action against the Tokyo Electric Power Company over the 2011 Fukushima disaster when a tsunami swamped the plant leading to the release of radioactive contamination. Explaining that Fukushima had alerted her to the dangers, she told CheshireLive: “I wasn’t quite aware of the scale of the problem of this nuclear industry.” She has met victims of nuclear accidents, adding: “What they want is this tragedy should not be repeated any where in the world. Fukushima people suffered a lot.” Kaori said the ocean had also been poisoned. Even nuclear power stations functioning normally affected the eco-system as sea and river water was used to cool the reactors with the hot water put back, harming fish and plant life. Pointing at the sun, fellow protester Philip Gilligan said: “That nuclear power station up there is supplying the energy. It’s the only nuclear power station we want. So the energy coming to earth could easily be used with zero carbon output and zero nuclear. The problem is we need a bomb. And it’s hidden in statements like ‘energy as cheap as water’ which was current when Sellafield went critical in the ‘70s.” Urenco highlights the alleged green credentials of nuclear because there are no CO2 emissions during energy generation but the protesters claim the carbon footprint is ‘enormous’ after taking into account uranium mining, transport and the manufacture of thousands of tons of concrete for the installations. But what of the job losses if plants like Capenhurst, which employs 550 people, were closed? The campaigners argue the Government should reskill the workforce to produce renewable technology like solar panels. |
Uranium prices at rock bottom- doesn’t help the struggling nuclear industry
Uranium Week: The Nuclear Conundrum https://www.fnarena.com/index.php/2020/02/11/uranium-week-the-nuclear-conundrum/
By Greg Peel, Lack of demand continues to drag on uranium prices despite ongoing production curtailments, yet nuclear energy remains a matter of cost.
-Uranium spot prices drift lower
-Production curtailments ongoing
-Nuclear power a costly option
he world’s largest mining investment conference, now in its 26th year, began in Cape Town last week. Given the tenuous state of South Africa’s energy supply, the focus this year of the “Investing in African Mining Indaba” is on a transition from coal toward renewable and clean energy resources to deal with power shortages across the African continent. (Indaba means meeting.)
The five-day conference brought together representatives from 94 countries and regions, including more than 38 ministers, under the theme “Optimizing Growth and Investment in the Digitized Mining Economy.”
The CEO of the Minerals Council South Africa said at the conference the Council fully supports a transition from coal to non-fossil fuel forms of power generation such as wind and solar power and, where cost is not prohibitive, nuclear power.
“Where cost is not prohibitive” underscores the dilemma facing the global nuclear power and uranium mining industries at present. The US experience is one of US uranium miners being unable to compete with cheaper imports from the likes of Canada and Kazakhstan, with uranium prices near historically low levels. Yet the US nuclear power industry cannot compete with gas-fired and renewable power, despite historically low uranium prices.
World’s first public database of mine tailings dams aims to prevent deadly disasters
World’s first public database of mine tailings dams aims to prevent deadly disasters https://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2020-01/g-wfp012320.php
Previously unreleased data offer unprecedented view into mining industry’s waste storage practices
GRID-ARENDAL 24 JAN 2020 ENVIRONMENTAL ORGANIZATION GRID-ARENDAL HAS LAUNCHED THE WORLD’S FIRST PUBLICLY ACCESSIBLE GLOBAL DATABASE OF MINE TAILINGS STORAGE FACILITIES. THE DATABASE, THE GLOBAL TAILINGS PORTAL, WAS BUILT BY NORWAY-BASED GRID-ARENDAL AS PART OF THE INVESTOR MINING AND TAILINGS SAFETY INITIATIVE, WHICH IS LED BY THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND PENSIONS BOARD AND THE SWEDISH NATIONAL PENSION FUNDS’ COUNCIL ON ETHICS, WITH SUPPORT FROM THE UN ENVIRONMENT PROGRAMME. THE INITIATIVE IS BACKED BY FUNDS WITH MORE THAN US$13 TRILLION UNDER MANAGEMENT.
Until now, there has been no central database detailing the location and quantity of the mining industry’s liquid and solid waste, known as tailings. The waste is typically stored in embankments called tailings dams, which have periodically failed with devastating consequences for communities, wildlife and ecosystems.
“This portal could save lives”, says Elaine Baker, senior expert at GRID-Arendal and a geosciences professor with the University of Sydney in Australia. “Dams are getting bigger and bigger. Mining companies have found most of the highest-grade ores and are now mining lower-grade ones, which create more waste. With this information, the entire industry can work towards reducing dam failures in the future.”
The database allows users to view detailed information on more than 1,700 tailings dams around the world, categorized by location, company, dam type, height, volume, and risk, among other factors.
“Most of this information has never before been publicly available”, says Kristina Thygesen, GRID-Arendal’s programme leader for geological resources and a member of the team that worked on the portal. When GRID-Arendal began in-depth research on mine tailings dams in 2016, very little data was accessible. In a 2017 report on tailings dams, co-published by GRID and the UN Environment Programme, one of the key recommendations was to establish an accessible public-interest database of tailings storage facilities.
“This database brings a new level of transparency to the mining industry, which will benefit regulators, institutional investors, scientific researchers, local communities, the media, and the industry itself”, says Thygesen.
The release of the Global Tailings Portal coincides with the one-year anniversary of the tailings dam collapse in Brumadinho, Brazil, that killed 270 people. After that disaster, a group of institutional investors led by the Church of England Pensions Board asked 726 of the world’s largest mining companies to disclose details about their tailings dams. Many of the companies complied, and the information they released has been incorporated into the database.
For more information on tailings dams, see the 2017 report “Mine Tailings Storage: Safety Is No Accident” and the related collection of graphics, which are available for media use.
About GRID-Arendal
GRID-Arendal supports environmentally sustainable development by working with the UN Environment Programme and other partners. We communicate environmental knowledge that motivates decision-makers and strengthens management capacity. We transform environmental data into credible, science-based information products, delivered through innovative communication tools and capacity-building services.
Kyrgyzstan bans uranium, thorium mining
Above – radioactive tailings mountain in Central Asia
|
Kyrgyzstan bans uranium, thorium mining http://www.xinhuanet.com/english/2019-12/16/c_138635832.htm 2019-12-16 BISHKEK, Dec. 16 (Xinhua) –– President of Kyrgyzstan Sooronbai Jeenbekov signed a decree banning the mining of uranium and thorium deposits in the Central Asian country, his press service reported on Monday.The law, aimed at ensuring radiation and environmental safety, prohibits geological exploration and development of uranium and thorium deposits in Kyrgyzstan, as well as dumping and transfer of the material, the report said.
Meanwhile, the import of raw materials and waste containing the two radioactive substances is not allowed by law, it said. Earlier this year, protests arose against the development of uranium deposits after reports that exploration work had begun in the Kyzyl-Ompol area in the Issyk-Kul region. |
|
-
Archives
- May 2026 (72)
- April 2026 (356)
- March 2026 (251)
- February 2026 (268)
- January 2026 (308)
- December 2025 (358)
- November 2025 (359)
- October 2025 (376)
- September 2025 (257)
- August 2025 (319)
- July 2025 (230)
- June 2025 (348)
-
Categories
- 1
- 1 NUCLEAR ISSUES
- business and costs
- climate change
- culture and arts
- ENERGY
- environment
- health
- history
- indigenous issues
- Legal
- marketing of nuclear
- media
- opposition to nuclear
- PERSONAL STORIES
- politics
- politics international
- Religion and ethics
- safety
- secrets,lies and civil liberties
- spinbuster
- technology
- Uranium
- wastes
- weapons and war
- Women
- 2 WORLD
- ACTION
- AFRICA
- Atrocities
- AUSTRALIA
- Christina's notes
- Christina's themes
- culture and arts
- Events
- Fuk 2022
- Fuk 2023
- Fukushima 2017
- Fukushima 2018
- fukushima 2019
- Fukushima 2020
- Fukushima 2021
- general
- global warming
- Humour (God we need it)
- Nuclear
- RARE EARTHS
- Reference
- resources – print
- Resources -audiovicual
- Weekly Newsletter
- World
- World Nuclear
- YouTube
-
RSS
Entries RSS
Comments RSS




