Nervousness in Western Australia’s uranium exploring industry, as prices fall further

June 10, 2013

Uranium price hits four-year low  Nick Sas, The West Australian June 7, 2013,  A new wave of nervousness swept through WA’s already under-pressure uranium explorers yesterday after the uranium spot price hit a four-year low.

The price fell below the $40 a pound threshold for the first time since April 2009, closing at $39.87 a pound.Despite industry assurances of a price rebound over the past 12 months, uranium has failed to get any traction.

The price has not pushed through the $45/lb mark since December 14.

The lethargic price places further pressure on local uranium explorers such as Toro Energy, which is looking for a strategic partner to help fund its $269 million Wiluna project.

If funding is found, Wiluna will become WA’s first uranium mine. A hearty increase in the spot price is needed to force WA’s fledgling uranium sector into first gear, with Canadian giant Cameco indicating a price of more than $70/lb is needed before it can give the green light to its massive Yeelirrie or Kintyre deposits……http://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/business/a/-/wa/17512668/uranium-price-hits-four-year-low/

Posted in Cameco, economics, Toro Energy | Leave a Comment »

Poor economic forecast for Toro Energy’s Wiluna uranium project in Western Australia

June 10, 2013

So how do the economics of the Wiluna project stack up? According to our modelling – based on Toro Energy’s own cost figures ?– not well……

Why Wiluna is worth watching, Business Spectator, , 28 May 13 What could be Western Australia’s first uranium mine is unlikely to turn a profit unless costs to clean up the mine can be made to disappear.

Our modelling of the economics of Toro Energy’s Wiluna uranium project found that the mine is unviable if Toro Energy has to pay even optimistic estimates for the decommissioning and rehabilitation of the site.

The public and the environment have quite a stake in most mining projects and uranium projects in particular. Not only is it the public’s own mineral resources that are being sold – it’s often forgotten that all mineral resources are held by the Crown in the name of the public – but the environmental impacts of mine closure can be serious if not carried out properly.

Properly cleaning up a uranium mine can be an expensive business, so here’s why the public should be interested in the finances of mining projects – if in 2030 Toro Energy cannot foot the bill, Western Australians will face the unpleasant choice of paying the bill or accepting a degraded, potentially radioactive landscape.

This is not just idle speculation. Most mine closures occur not because the resource has run out, but for economic reasons such as change in resource price, increases in costs, or unexpected changes in resource quality. So ensuring closure costs are built into the economics of the project is very important for the public.

So how do the economics of the Wiluna project stack up? According to our modelling – based on Toro Energy’s own cost figures – not well……

how much might it cost to close the Wiluna project and will the developers be able to afford this cost?  Uranium projects in Europe and the US have reported closure costs of between $US10 and $US14 per pound of uranium produced. Even the lower end of that range suggests a closure cost for Wiluna of around $150 million. Even if this wasn’t payable as an upfront bond – which the WA government requires – the project would still be unviable under our modelling.

For serious uranium investors, however, this discussion is academic. Investors are looking for lower costs and higher volumes than Wiluna can provide. The Wiluna project is a small resource with limited expansion opportunities and on a pound for pound basis it is far more expensive than most other proposed projects elsewhere in the world,…..

If a minor company such as Toro Energy were to attempt to develop the project, we must be sure that they will be able to finance an expensive clean-up operation when the project ends.
http://www.businessspectator.com.au/article/2013/5/28/science-environment/why-wiluna-worth-watching#ixzz2UeBhK6wU

Posted in economics, Toro Energy | Leave a Comment »

Nuclear weapons danger in Australia’s SILEX laser uranium enrichment technology

June 10, 2013

a SILEX facility could make it much easier for a rogue state to clandestinely enrich weapons grade uranium to create nuclear bombs

SILEX could become America’s proliferation Fukushima,

Controversial nuclear technology alarms watchdogs  http://www.smartplanet.com/blog/intelligent-energy/controversial-nuclear-technology-alarms-watchdogs/18138  By David Worthington | July 30, 2012 A controversial nuclear technology is raising alarms bells among critics who claim it may be better suited for making nuclear weapons than lowering the cost of nuclear power and could lead to a nonproliferation “Fukushima” for the United States.

SILEX (separation of isotopes by laser excitation) is a method for enriching uranium with lasers. It was developed by Australian scientists during the mid 1990’s as a way to reduce the cost of nuclear fuel, because uranium must be processed before it can be used to generate power. Read the rest of this entry »

Posted in uranium milling, weapons and war | Leave a Comment »

Jharkhand’s radioactively poisoned land and water, due to uranium minng

June 10, 2013

Uranium waste contaminates water in Jharkhand  , Jun 8, 2013, New Delhi | Agency: DNA Reckless dumping of radioactive waste in Jharkhand is contaminating surface and ground water, putting thousands of locals at risk of developing cancer, according to a report by independent researchers.

The Uranium Corporation of India Limited (UCIL), a subsidiary of the Department of Atomic Energy, supplies uranium (yellow cake) to nuclear power plants in the country. It mines and processes uranium at seven mines in Jharkhand’s Jaduguda area. According to atomic experts, sludge and waste from uranium mines has to be scientifically disposed of as it contains around 85% radioactive substances.

Scientific disposal means creating pits that are covered, protected, cordoned off and made flood-proof. A tailing pond over an area of 30-40 acres must be created for disposal of sludge. These ponds too have to be cordoned off, made flood-proof and ensure that it prevents overflow. The waste decays to produce radium-226, which in turn produces Radon gas, a very powerful cancer-causing agent. For its three new mines i.e. Turamdih, Banduhurang and Mohuldih Uranium Mine, UCIL has one tailing pond at Talsa village, which fails to prevent sludge overflow and is not even fenced.

PT George, director of research institute Intercultural Resources, and independent writer Tarun Kanti Bose, spent six months studying the effects of uranium mining in the areas around the mines. Their report, Paradise Lost, released recently, states that UCIL’s irresponsible dumping in the vicinity of Jaduguda village (in Purbi Singhbhum district) is extremely worrisome as continued exposure to radiation will lead to increased cases of leukaemia and other blood diseases.

Heaps of uranium mining wastes have been abandoned in Dhodanga, Kerwadungri villages and those around Banduhurang open cast mine, according to the report. “The dumping has been going on for the last five years,” said Ghanshyam Birulee, a 45-year-old resident of Jaduguda village. “Despite complaints to UCIL, it has failed to take any action.”

Danger zone
Their report, Paradise Lost,  states that UCIL’s irresponsible dumping in the vicinity of Jaduguda village (in Purbi Singhbhum district) is extremely worrisome as continued exposure to radiation will lead to increased cases of leukaemia and other blood diseases…… http://www.dnaindia.com/india/1845207/report-uranium-waste-contaminates-water-in-jharkhand

 

Posted in environment, Uranium Corporation of India (UCIL), water | Leave a Comment »

Low uranium price means that Cameco’s Western Australian projects may not go ahead

June 10, 2013

Spot Uranium Falls Below $40/Pound Benchmark for First Time in Four Years http://uraniuminvestingnews.com/14766/spot-uranium-falls-below-40pound-benchmark-for-first-time-in-four-years.html   June 7, 2013,The West Australian reported that spot uranium prices fell to below $40/pound for the first time since August 2009, placing pressure on uranium explorers.

As quoted in the market report:

A hearty increase in the spot price is needed to force WA’s fledgling uranium sector into first gear, with Canadian giant Cameco indicating a price of more than $70/lb is needed before it can give the green light to its massive Yeelirrie or Kintyre deposits.

Posted in Cameco, economics, Yeelirrie | Leave a Comment »

Arms race danger in South Korea’s uranium enrichment plans

June 10, 2013

Obama’s Nuclear Vietnam National Review Online By  Henry Sokolski June 4, 2013 ”………..South Korea. The Obama administration has asked Congress to act in the next few weeks on a two-year extension of the existing U.S. nuclear-cooperative agreement with Seoul. The existing deal was supposed to be renegotiated so it could be extended for another 30-year period. Seoul, however, wanted Washington to allow it to make nuclear fuel from U.S. nuclear materials. This caused U.S. negotiators to balk. Publicly, U.S. officials worried that giving South Korea the go-ahead to enrich uranium and reprocess plutonium would sink any prospect of getting North Korea to back off from doing so.

An additional concern, though, was more immediate and credible: Saying yes might lock down Japanese plans to finally open a large, uneconomical fuel-making plant capable of producing 1,000 to 2,000 nuclear bombs’ worth of “civilian” plutonium a year. If Japan should decide to open this plant, located in Rokkasho, it might easily give Beijing yet another reason to turn its own military preparations up an additional notch. It was for these reasons that U.S. negotiators asked South Korea to agree to a short, two-year extension to allow further negotiations to sort these matters out.

Reflecting these worries, congressional staffers from both parties added modest language to the administration’s draft U.S.–South Korea two-year nuclear-agreement-extension bill. The staffers’ amended language clarified the desirability of keeping nuclear-fuel-making at bay on the Korean peninsula and in Asia more generally. Administration officials, however, have privately made it clear that they want this language taken out.

This raises even more questions. Is the administration going to hold the line on Korean fuel-making? If so, how can it do this without doing the same with Vietnam? Or is the plan to cave in both cases? If so, how do we intend to deal with the nuclear-fuel-making aspirations of Japan, Saudi Arabia, South Africa, Jordan, Egypt, and Turkey?

One diplomatic answer is that we will handle these matters country by country (i.e., case by case). If Congress settles for this, though, it will have forgotten what it was trying to make the White House understand when it first complained about Secretary Clinton’s cutting a loose nuclear deal with Vietnam: That a “case by case” policy is no policy at all.http://www.nationalreview.com/article/350043/obamas-nuclear-vietnam-henry-sokolski

Posted in uranium enrichment, weapons and war | Leave a Comment »

Runaway costs for Oak Ridge uranium processing facility

June 10, 2013

Frank Munger: Alexander keeping eye on Uranium Processing Facility costs Knox News, By Frank Munger  June 5, 2013 U.S. Sen. Lamar Alexander has been a big supporter of the Uranium Processing Facility and no doubt still is, but Tennessee’s senior senator sounded a warning last week that he wouldn’t put up with out-of-control costs — even for an Oak Ridge project that he considers essential.

“I’ve pretty well had it with these big Energy Department projects
that start out costing a billion dollars and end up costing $6
billion,” Alexander said in an interview. “We can’t afford that. And
we can use the money much more wisely, either to reduce the debt or to
pay for energy research.”

There are reports that the UPF is on the verge of going over the top
end of its estimated cost range — currently set at $4.2 billion to
$6.5 billion. The senator is the ranking Republican on the Senate
Appropriations’ energy and water subcommittee, which plays a pivotal
role in funding the Department of Energy and its sub-unit, the
National Nuclear Security Administration.

I asked him if there was a price tag too high.

“Well, we’ll have to decide that,” he said. “One thing I want to make
sure is we don’t start constructing the facility until we have a
design. And then I want it to be more like the big Spallation Neuron
Source which we built a few years ago that (ORNL Director) Thom Mason
was in charge of. Once we knew the design and we knew the cost, even
though the number was big ($1.4 billion), they stayed on time and on
budget.”

When pressed about a cost ceiling for UPF, Alexander wouldn’t go
there….. http://www.knoxnews.com/news/2013/jun/05/frank-munger-alexander-keeping-eye-on-uranium/

Posted in economics | Leave a Comment »

Continung bad market news for uranium companies

June 10, 2013

Uranium – little selling in May 9 News Finance 4 June 13  By Andrew
Nelson Uranium sellers were not inclined to sell in May and
unfortunately for them, the buyers weren’t really buying either. The
spot price traded in a tight range over the month, starting at
US$40.50 per pound and then dropping to US$40.25 before heading back
up to end the month at US$40.40 per pound.

The same old story continued to play out, the one in which sellers
can’t/don’t want to drop prices further versus buyers that really
don’t need the stock. Industry analyst TradeTech reports that
producers have been going almost door to door to shift uncommitted
material off the shelves this year at or around current prices, but
buyers are increasingly focused on 2014 deliveries.

There was a bit of hope earlier in the month that prices could start
pushing higher on news of a terrorist attack and subsequent production
stoppage at the Somair uranium mine in Niger. The problem with this
ill-conceived hope is that it looks like production at the facility
will kick back on over the next few months and with little disruption
to delivery commitments.

With buyers not buying and sellesr not wanting to sell at lower
prices, market activity in May was slow. TradeTech reports only 23
transactions were concluded, accounting for nearly 3 million pounds of
U3O8 equivalent. While by no means running hot, May was at least up on
the 2.4m pounds that changed hands in April.

By the end of the month, which was also the end of the week,
TradeTech’s Exchange Spot Price Indicator had come off US10c to
US$40.40…… http://finance.ninemsn.com.au/newscolumnists/other/8669520/uranium-little-selling-in-may

Posted in economics | Leave a Comment »

Opposition to uranium mining in Anantapur district, India

June 10, 2013

“Uranium mining posing danger to people, habitat” http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/andhra-pradesh/uranium-mining-posing-danger-to-people-habitat/article4782354.ece  5 June 13, Kadapa Memorandum submitted to in-charge Collector

Uranium mining at Thummalapalle in Pulivendula and Kadiri in Anantapur district is leading to radiation and causing water pollution, thus endangering the health of people, Rayalaseema Rashtra Samithi president K. Venkatasubba Reddy alleged on Tuesday.

People were perturbed at reports that uranium purification plant would be set up at P. Kothapalli in Nambulapoolakunta mandal in Anantapur district, he said in a press release here. The effects of radiation were evident in Somavandlapalle, Velagalabailu and other villages in Thalupula mandal in Anantapur district and RIMS doctors were collecting blood samples of the people and enquiring about their health as the radiation was said to have been causing cancer, he said.

Uranium Corporation of India Limited and Bhabha Atomic Research Centre officials have inspected lands in P. Kothapalle panchayat in accordance with the plans to set up the uranium purification plant. The UCIL plant at Thummalapalle has an installed capacity to produce 3,000 tonnes of uranium. A 140 km. tunnel was being dug for excavating uranium and it caused steep depletion of groundwater, he said. Drinking water was being contaminated and water was not available for irrigation, he alleged.

Meanwhile, United Forum Against Uranium Project, leaders L. Nagasubba Reddy, P. Siva Reddy, K. Jayasri, R. Shamir Basha, M. Bhaskar and K. Srinivasulu Reddy submitted a memorandum to in-charge District Collector K. Nirmala complaining against the UCIL Executive Director. The UCIL laid tailing pipeline through two acres of land belonging to L. Damodar Reddy in Mabbuchinthalapalle in Vemula mandal, they alleged.

The pipeline leakage on April 22 led to the death of goats due to internal chemical injuries and skin burns when they entered the sludge pond. The UCIL officials tried to hush up the matter by getting the sick livestock treated by veterinary doctors and issuing compensation cheques to farmers for the death of the livestock, they said.

Posted in opposition to u-mining | Leave a Comment »

South Korea working on USA to allow uranium enrichment technology

June 10, 2013
 Meanwhile, South Korea and the U.S. are set to sign a pact that will allow the two nations to step up their joint research on pyroprocessing technology, said a senior official at Seoul’s foreign ministry.
 If adopted, the pact would enable the International Atomic Energy Agency to guarantee the safety of pyroprocessing technology.
  S. Korea renews ‘firm commitment’ to enriching uranium in talks with U.S.
SEOUL, June 3 (Yonhap) -- South Korea’s chief negotiator renewed his “firm commitment” on Monday to enriching uranium and reprocessing nuclear fuel for the nation’s civil nuclear energy program as Seoul resumed formal negotiations with Washington aimed at revising a bilateral nuclear accord. After more than two years of negotiations, South Korea failed to win U.S. permission to enrich uranium and reprocess spent nuclear fuel in the negotiations. Instead, the allies agreed in late April to extend the current agreement by two more years until March 2016…… Read the rest of this entry »

Posted in uranium enrichment | Leave a Comment »

« Older Entries
Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 25 other followers