Precious groundwater now threatened by fracking for uranium, too
When it comes to fracking for yellowcake, even more pressing than shaky economics is the obvious potential for environmental contamination. The process is not only extremely water intensive, as is typical of fracking, but it’s also happening at a shallow depth. Unlike the Eagle Ford’s oil and gas reserves, which are miles underground, the in situ uranium mining is taking place at the same level as local groundwater supplies.
Fracking for Yellowcake: The Next Frontier? http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jeffrey-rubin/fracking-for-yellowcake-t_b_2612418.html Jeffrey Rubin 02/04/2013 It works for oil and natural gas, so why not frack for uranium too? After all, America relies on foreign uranium just like it depends on foreign oil.
In the U.S. these days, it seems like you can sell almost anything if you spin it as part of the pursuit of energy independence. Enter Uranium Energy Corp. A junior mining company with Canadian roots, UEC is developing the newest uranium mine in the U.S. And it’s counting on fracking to do it.
Texans, in general, are no strangers to fracking. UEC is operating in the heart of fracking country, south Texas’s Eagle Ford basin, one of the most prolific shale plays in the country. Instead of oil and gas, though, UEC (recently profiled by Forbes Magazine) is fracking for yellowcake.
The technology is basically the same. It involves injecting a mixture of highly pressurized water and sand into an underground formation in order to break open fissures in the rock that allow the energy riches within to be extracted. In this case, it’s a slurry of uranium ore that’s then dried and processed into powdery yellowcake, an intermediate product that eventually becomes fuel for nuclear reactors.
Of course, the very idea of fracking for yellowcake begs the question–just because you can do something, should you? The world isn’t exactly running short of uranium. Prices tell you that much. Uranium prices have plunged from more than $90 a ton before the last recession to just more than $40 a ton following the Fukushima disaster. Friendly countries like Canada and Australia are able to ramp up supply, as can less friendly countries like Kazakhstan. Yellowcake is also exported by Niger (part of the reason, according to some, that nuclear-powered France is taking such an interest in neighbouring Mali right now.)
What’s more, the emergence of cheap natural gas from shale plays is making nuclear energy less attractive to U.S. power utilities. Many are considering shuttering some high cost nuclear stations and switching to cheaper natural gas, just as they’ve been doing with a number of coal plants in recent years.
When it comes to fracking for yellowcake, even more pressing than shaky economics is the obvious potential for environmental contamination. The process is not only extremely water intensive, as is typical of fracking, but it’s also happening at a shallow depth. Unlike the Eagle Ford’s oil and gas reserves, which are miles underground, the in situ uranium mining is taking place at the same level as local groundwater supplies.
According to the International Energy Agency, the amount of fresh water used for global energy production will double over the next twenty-five years. Whether it’s Alberta’s oil sands that run on water from the Athabasca River or the countless gallons used to frack underground stores of oil, gas and now even uranium, it’s easy to see why.
Standard for “acceptable” radiation needs to be changed: it discriminates against women and children
The standard still used for “allowable” and “legal” radiation
doses is a chauvinistic and alarmingly dangerous method of calculating
risk.
The standard is called “reference man.” Created by the International
Commission on Radiological Protection in 1975, it defines humanity as
a 5-foot-7-inch, 154-pound “Caucasian” male, 20-to-30 years old, who
is “Western European or North American in habitat and custom.” Of
course, this set represents neither the most vulnerable population nor
the average person.
Women & Children First! (to be Harmed by Radiation)
http://www.counterpunch.org/2013/01/30/women-children-first-to-be-harmed-by-radiation/
JANUARY 30, 2013
“Reference Man” Risk Model Lambasted as Obsolete,
Unscientific by JOHN LaFORGE
“Woman and children first” is redefined in the nuclear age, now that
science has shown that they are far more susceptible to the ravages of
radiation than men and boys. Continue reading
USA’s nuclear waste dumpsters need high level guarding
America’s Nuclear Dumpsters After Yucca Mountain, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission is stocking up on guns and ammo. Slate, By Geoffrey Brumfiel| , Jan. 30, 2013, While the rest of America spent January debating new gun control laws, one government agency announced its plans to expand the use of high-capacity magazines, assault weapons, and even fully automatic machine guns. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission, which oversees the nation’s nuclear plants, is seeking the firepower not for securing the plants themselves, but to defend their nuclear waste.
Since America’s commercial reactors started opening in the 1960s and ’70s, nuclear waste has been piling up. At first, it was stored in spent fuel pools—swimming pools you’d never, ever want to swim in. That was fine for a time, but by the 1980s, the pools started to get crowded. So the utilities began putting old fuel rods in something they call dry cask storage, and I’ll call nuclear dumpsters.
They’re big, they’re white, and they’re literally kept out back like the rest of the trash. Continue reading
Hydraulic Fracking is a source of radiation pollution, too
“We’ve known for a long time that there is radiation coming back in the wastewater”
Among the radioactive material often found in drilling wastes is radium 226, which can cause cancer, anemia and cataracts, according to the federal Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry
DEP backtracks on radiation issue Times online,January 25, 2013 By Rachel Morgan HARRISBURG — For months, the state Department of Environmental Protection denied that radiation in wastewater from natural gas drilling was an issue. On Thursday night, the state announced plans to study the effects of radiation in natural gas drilling wastewater.
After continued questioning by Shale Reporter regarding radioactivity in wastewater, Gov. Tom Corbett’s announcement of a 12-month DEP study of radioactive wastewater was a surprise. The DEP had consistently denied radiation was even an issue……. In the governor’s unexpected announcement Thursday evening, DEP officials said they will begin sampling and analyzing fracking flowback for radioactivity, testing everything from fracking wastewater, drill cuttings, treatment solids and sediments at well pads and wastewater treatment and disposal facilities.
They also plan to analyze radioactivity in pipes, well casings, storage tanks, treatment systems and trucks. http://www.timesonline.com/news/local_news/dep-backtracks-on-radiation-issue/article_9e5853a5-325b-5f9a-83ed-24aea5811db0.html
An Increase in Radiation Monitoring for Fracking, NYT, Jan 25 13 By JON HURDLE Pennsylvania will step up its monitoring of naturally occurring radiation levels in water, rock cuttings and drilling wastes associated with oil and gas development in a yearlong study that will be peer-reviewed, the state’s environmental agency reports.
The study will also assess radiation levels in the pipes, well casings, storage tanks, treatment systems and trucks used by the natural gas industry, which has drilled thousands of wells in the gas-rich Marcellus Shale over the last five years….
Hydraulic fracturing, which involves injecting chemicals and water under enormous pressure into underground shale formations to extract gas or oil, got under way in Pennsylvania in 2008.
In New York, state officials are currently weighing whether to allow the drilling process to begin. The state’s health commissioner is conducting a review of whether the state’s Department of Environmental Conservation has adequately addressed potential impacts on public health. Continue reading
Uranium mining: In situ leaching not the same as fracking
A spokesperson for Uranium Energy disputes the similarities to fracking that is made in the article.
“By contrast, ‘in-situ recovery’ is the process of injected-solution mining that reverses the natural process of deposited uranium in sandstones. On-site groundwater fortified with oxygen is introduced into the ground through a pattern of injection wells. The solution dissolves uranium from the sandstone host rock, and the uranium-bearing solution is brought back to surface through vacuum-suction production wells, where the uranium is concentrated on resin beads for trucking to a nearby processing plant where it is concentrated further and dried into yellowcake.”
Opponents of in situ uranium extraction start throwing around the F word MINING.com Editor | January 25, 2013 A US company is extracting underground uranium reserves in Texas using in situ methods, but opponents are comparing it to another process that is drawing high-profile protests.
Forbes reports that Texas-based Uranium Energy Corp (UEC) uses the in situ method for extracting underground uranium by pumping oxygenated water into porous rock layers via deep-drilled wells.
Forbes notes the process is raising concerns among some in Texas who compare the process to hydraulic fracturing, which has some celebrity opponents.”By design it’s much worse than fracking,” says Houston attorney Jim Blackburn, who is interviewed by Forbes.
“This is intentional contamination of a water aquifer liberating not only uranium but other elements that were bound up with the sand. We know this process will contaminate groundwater; that’s the whole point of it.” Continue reading
New Nuclear Waste Confidence Decision” (NWCD) designed to let nuclear power continue?
the fact that their best scenario now projects a repository to be ready by about 2050 is a story in itself.
Seventy Years of Nuclear Fission, Thousands of Centuries of Nuclear Waste ,25 January 2013 By Gregg Levine, Truthout “…….Confidence Game
Two months after the Appeals Court found fault with the NRC’s imaginary waste mitigation scenario, the agency announced it would suspend the issuing of new reactor operating licenses, license renewals and construction licenses until the agency could craft a new plan for dealing with the nation’s growing spent nuclear fuel crisis. In drafting its new nuclear “Waste Confidence Decision” (NWCD) – the methodology used to assess the hazards of nuclear waste storage – the Commission said it would evaluate all possible options for resolving the issue.
At first, the NRC said this could include both generic and site-specific actions (remember, the court criticized the NRC’s generic appraisals of pool safety), but as the prescribed process now progresses, it appears any new rule will be designed to give the agency, and so, the industry, as much wiggle room as possible. Continue reading
Dangers of nuclear spent fuel cooling ponds, and of dry cask storage
Seventy Years of Nuclear Fission, Thousands of Centuries of Nuclear Waste ,25 January 2013 By Gregg Levine, Truthout “…….Everyone Out of the Pool
As disasters as far afield as the 2011 Tohoku earthquake and last October’s Hurricane Sandy have demonstrated, the storage of spent nuclear fuel in pools requires steady supplies of power and cool water. Any problem that prevents the active circulation of liquid through the spent fuel pools – be it a loss of electricity, the failure of a back-up pump, the clogging of a valve or a leak in the system – means the temperature in the pools will start to rise. If the cooling circuit is out long enough, the water in the pools will start to boil. If the water level dips (due to boiling or a leak) enough to expose hot fuel rods to the air, the metal cladding on the rods will start to burn, in turn heating the fuel even more, resulting in plumes of smoke carrying radioactive isotopes into the atmosphere.
And because these spent fuel pools are so full – containing as much as five times more fuel than they were originally designed to hold, and at densities that come close to those in reactor cores – they both heat stagnant water more quickly and reach volatile temperatures faster when exposed to air. Continue reading
EPA permits fracking for uranium to go ahead in USA
Goliad skeptics have been fighting UEC’s plans for five years. At Goliad the uranium ore is located just 400 feet deep within the same rock as a groundwater reservoir that ranchers tap for drinking water, both for themselves and their livestock. Water, not oil, is the region’s long-term liquid gold. “We are running out of water; I don’t want mine ruined,” said one rancher who asked not to be named. “When you’re out of water, you’re out of everything.”….
A 2009 study of Texas in situ mines by the U.S. Geological Survey … found no instance in which there wasn’t more selenium and uranium in the water than before mining.
Energy’s Latest Battleground: Fracking For Uranium This story appears in the February 11, 2013 issue of Forbes. No tour of Uranium Energy Corp.’s processing plant in Hobson, Tex. is complete until CEO Amir Adnani pries the top off a big black steel drum and invites you to peer inside. There, filled nearly to the brim, is an orange-yellow powder that UEC mined out of the South Texas countryside. It’s uranium oxide, U3O8, otherwise known as yellowcake. This is the stuff that atomic bombs and nuclear reactor fuel are made from. The 55-gallon drum weighs about 1,000 pounds and fetches about $50,000 at market. But when Adnani looks in, he says, he sees more than just money. He sees America’s future.
“The U.S. is more reliant upon foreign sources of uranium than on foreign sources of oil,” says Adnani,……
Adnani insists that he can close the yellowcake gap through a technology that is similar to the hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, that has created the South Texas energy boom. Fracking for uranium isn’t vastly different from fracking for natural gas. UEC bores under ranchland into layers of highly porous rock that not only contain uranium ore but also hold precious groundwater. Then it injects oxygenated water down into the sand to dissolve out the uranium. The resulting solution is slurped out with pumps, then processed and dried at the company’s Hobson plant. Continue reading
EU lacks funds for decommissioning nuclear reactors
Funding gap for nuclear decommissioning in Bulgaria, Lithuania and Slovakia
Defects in the EU’s nuclear decommissioning programmes in Bulgaria, Lithuania and Slovakia include cost overruns, delays, lack of coordination and supervision, diffused responsibilities, too much money going to unrelated energy projects and ill-informed priority setting, say Budgetary Control Committee MEPs in a resolution voted on Monday. Continue reading
In Mali – a war for grabbing resources – especially uranium
Uranium: encouraging signs and exploration in full swing. Exploration is currently being carried out by several companies with clear indications of deposits of uranium in Mali. Uranium potential is located in the Falea area which covers 150 km² of the Falea- North Guinea basin, a Neoproterozoic sedimentary basin marked by significant radiometric anomalies. Uranium potential in Falea is thought to be 5000 tonnes. The Kidal Project, in the north eastern part of Mali, with an area of 19,930 km2, the project covers a large crystalline geological province known as L’Adrar Des Iforas. Uranium potential in the Samit deposit, Gao region alone is thought to be 200 tonnes.
The War on Mali What You Should Know: An Eldorado of Uranium, Gold, Petroleum, Strategic Minerals SPY GhanaBy 4thmedia.org R. Teichman, News Beacon Ireland, 17 Jan 13
The French government has stated that: …… We have one goal. To ensure that when we leave, when we end our intervention, Mali is safe, has legitimate authorities, an electoral process and there are no more terrorists threatening its territory.” [1]
So this is the official narrative of France and those who support it. And of course this is what is widely reported by the mainstrem media.
France is supported by other NATO members. US Defense Secretary Leon Panetta confirmed that the US was providing intelligence to French forces in Mali. [2] Canada, Belgium, Denmark and Germany have also publicly backed the French incursion, pledging logistical support in the crackdown on the rebels. [3]
If we are to believe this narrative we are misled again about the real reasons. A look at Mali’s natural resources reveals what this is really about. Continue reading
Even very low level “background” radiation is harmful
Recent evidence on the risks of very low-level radiation, Dr Ian Fairlie, January 17, 2013“…….I’ve previously shown that a great deal of evidence supports the LNT hypothesis and indicates radiation effects well below 100 mSv.
But in recent months, a flurry of epidemiological studies go further than merely refuting ill-informed articles. They indicate adverse effects to people exposed to very low doses from medical CT scans and other clinical procedures; to infants living near nuclear power stations; and to Chernobyl clean-up workers. They even reveal adverse effects from background radiation to which all of us are exposed.
Together they reveal a pattern of higher-than-expected risks from very low exposures to radiation.
1. Background Radiation
Perhaps the most eye-opening of the recent studies concern background radiation. Most people think that background radiation levels (typically 2 to 3 mSv per year) are very low and are of little concern. But recent authoritative studies clearly indicate that background radiation is not harmless. Continue reading
USA government quietly rejects nuclear reprocessing
Steve Skutnik January 17, 2013 There is a hallowed tradition in Washington known as the “Friday Document Dump,” in which news and announcements the government wishes to bury are strategically timed for Friday afternoons, when such announcements tend to fall through the cracks of the typical news cycle (i.e., assuming reporters are even present to cover the event, the strategic timing tends to ensure it will miss the weekend papers, thus effectively “burying” the story by the time the new week rolls around).
It’s the uranium, stupid! France’s war in Mali
Although Niger has been France’s primary uranium trading partner in the region, investors are currently estimating 5,200 tonnes of untapped uranium sources in Mali, making the requirements of a favourable government and a suppressed civil society all the more urgent.
The curbs on civil liberties in the West which the so-called War on Terror forces upon citizens is part of the same struggle that activists in West Africa are fighting against uranium mining corporations
Blood for Uranium: France’s Mali intervention has little to do with terrorism http://ceasefiremagazine.co.uk/blood-uranium-frances-mali-intervention-terrorism/ Adam Elliott-Cooper looks at the geo-strategic and economic interests shaping the current French intervention in Mali. 17 Jan 13, France opened 2013 with a series of airstrikes on Northern Mali to prevent “the establishment of a terrorist state”. At the time of writing, 11 civilians (including two children) have been killed, and according to the UN, an estimated 30,000 have been displaced. The morbid irony of the France’s leaders bombing people in order to prevent a “terrorist state” appears to be lost on them, but this may be due to their eyes being on something far more important – Mali’s economy. (Picture: Activists in Niger protesting uranium mining company AREVA) Continue reading
Leukemias near Nuclear Power Stations – new evidence
Taken together, the new studies indicate that our current understandings about radiation risks, especially in infants and children, may be incorrect and they may need to be revised upwards. In particular, the current adult (absolute) ICRP risk for fatal cancer of 5% per Sv and the ICRP’s use of a dose and dose-rate effectiveness factor (DDREF) look increasingly out of date.
The new studies also mean that our public radiation limits and constraints may need to be revised.
Recent evidence on the risks of very low-level radiation, Dr Ian Fairlie, January 17, 2013
“…… 4. Leukemias near Nuclear Power Stations The final area is exposures from nuclear power stations.
Readers will be aware of my lectures showing that about 40 studies worldwide indicate increased leukemia risks among children within 5 km of nuclear power plants (NPPs). In particular, the important 2008 KiKK case-control study (discussed in Fairlie, 2009), which was commissioned by the German Government, found large increases in the risks of child leukemias and embryonal cancers near all German NPPs. This authoritative report led to geographical studies sponsored by the governments of France, UK, Switzerland and Germany. These have now been published and all four had similar findings, ie 30% to 40% increases in child leukemias near NPPs – see table from Körblein and Fairlie (2012) which contains the references to these four government studies.
Table: Studies of observed (O) and expected (E) childhood leukemias (under 5 year olds) within 5 km of NPPs
| Dataset | O | E | SIR=O/E | 90% CI | one-sided p-value |
| Germany | 34 | 24.1 | 1.41 | 1.04-1.88 | 0.0328 |
| Great Britain | 20 | 15.4 | 1.30 | 0.86-1.89 | 0.1464 |
| France | 14 | 10.2 | 1.37 | 0.83-2.15 | 0.1506 |
| Switzerland | 11 | 7.9 | 1.40 | 0.78-2.31 | 0.1711 |
| Pooled | 79 | 57.6 | 1.37 | 1.13-1.66 | 0.0042 |
The important point here is that most scientists think that radiation exposures to local residents from NPPs are extremely small. Indeed, many nuclear scientists remain in denial about the relationship between proximity to NPPs and child leukemias despite the bountiful clear evidence which exists. Yet the evidence of child leukemias near NPPs fits well with the evidence emerging from background radiation and medical radiation. Continue reading
USA’s Dept of Energy announces goals for nuclear waste management
DOE touts interim storage option for spent nuclear fuel, Augusta Chronicle, By Rob Pavey Jan. 16, 2013 “……….Read the complete report:
http://energy.gov/downloads/strategy-management-and-disposal-used-nuclear-fuel-and-high-level-radioactive-waste
Legislative goals for next 10 years:
• Active engagement in a broad, national, consent-based process to site pilot and full-scale interim storage facilities, and site and characterize a geologic repository;
• Siting, design, licensing, and commencement of operations at a pilot-scale storage facility with an initial focus on accepting used nuclear fuel from shut-down reactor sites.;
• Significant progress on siting and licensing of a larger consolidated interim storage facility capable of providing system flexibility and an opportunity for more substantial progress in reducing government liabilities;
• Development of transportation capabilities (personnel, processes, equipment) to begin movement of fuel from shut-down reactors;
• Reformation of the funding approach in ways that preserve the necessary role for ongoing discretionary appropriations and also provide additional funds as necessary, whether from reclassified fees or from mandatory appropriation from the NWF or both; and
• Establishment of a new organization to run the program, the structure and positioning of which balance greater autonomy with the need for continued Executive and Legislative branch oversight.
Source: U.S. Energy Department http://chronicle.augusta.com/news/metro/2013-01-16/doe-touts-interim-storage-option-spent-nuclear-fuel?v=1358336852
1 This Month
26 April – Chernobyl: Inside the Meltdown airs on National Geographic on Sunday 26th April from 4pm
29 April – Nuclear Expert Webinar #1 – Radiation Impacts on Families with Mary Olson and Cindy Folkers
- 12:15 PM MT – 1:45 PM MT
- Location: Virtual – REGISTER TODAY
4 May -West Suburban Peace Coalition to discuss Iran war at May Educational Forum
Monday, May 4, 7:00 – 8:00 PM Central Standard Time
Title: : How Trump’s Narrative Tries to Shape the Reality of the War on Iran.
Contact Walt Zlotow, zlotow@hotmail.com 630 442 3045 for further information
14 May – online event From Bombs to Data Centres: the Face of Nuclear Colonialism
Pine Ridge Uranium is the real threat, not Tehran- Tell Burgum: Stop the Extraction.
Chernobyl: The Lost Tapes – A good documentary on Chernobyl on SBS available On Demand for the next 3 weeks– https://www.sbs.com.au/ondemand/tv-program/chernobyl-the-lost-tapes/2352741955560
To see nuclear-related stories in greater depth and intensity – go to https://nuclearinformation.wordpress.com
-
Archives
- May 2026 (25)
- 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
nuclear-news 