Production at the company’s Ranger mine — which in previous years supplied as much as 10 percent of the world’s uranium — was halted by heavy rains in early in 2011 and did not resume until mid-June.

A second deluge in December that dumped record rains across parts of the tropical Northern Territory meant ERA would be unable to readily mine richer ores at the bottom of the lode, it said.

“As a result, access to the high grade ore located at the bottom of the pit will be delayed and is highly dependent on rainfall
experienced for the remainder of the 2011/2012 wet season,” said ERA, 68 percent owned by Rio Tinto but separately listed on the Australian bourse….. Analyst are expecting the company to show a loss on earnings before interest and tax of around A$61 million against a profit of A$68.4 million in 2010.

The stock has plummeted more than 80 percent in the last 12 months, in part due to negative sentiment toward uranium companies following the Fukushima nuclear disaster in Japan last March…..
http://af.reuters.com/article/energyOilNews/idAFL3E8CB8ZU20120111?pageNumber=2&virtualBrandChannel=0

These climate changes mean that Kakadu is further threatened by radioactive waste leaks from theRanger uranium mine.

ERA’s uranium mine is surely no longer viable, and it is high time that RioTinto closed it down permanently and stopped this charade of  Northern Territory uranium mining having an economic future - Christina Macpherson

Kakadu treasures ‘at mercy’ of climate-change floods * Sid Maher : The Australian * June 03, 2011 KAKADU faces more flooding and a loss of freshwater flora and fauna as a result of sea-level rises caused by climate change.

A report released yesterday by the Climate Change Department predicts that over the next 20 to 60 years, there will be more large floods on the South Alligator River, which is in Kakadu National Park.

The predictions are based on models predicting 143mm of sea-level rise by 2030 and 700mm of sea-level rise by 2070…… Kakadu treasures ‘at mercy’ of climate-change floods | The Australian

As U.S. Moves Ahead with Nuclear Power, No Solution for Radioactive Waste, Solve Climate News, By Abby LubyMar 3, 2011.”…….Some observers have challenged the sector’s clean energy claims, however, especially when considering the entire nuclear fuel cycle and its impact on global warming.
According to the United States Enrichment Corporation (USEC), which runs the only U.S.-owned uranium enrichment facility in Paducah, Kentucky, the enrichment cycle releases 300,000 pounds, or 150 tons, of ozone-depleting chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) into the atmosphere yearly.

The radiative properties of CFCs make them a dangerous global warming agent — 1,500 times more potent than carbon dioxide, according to EPA figures. Ozone-depleting CFCs have been banned in the U.S. except in the processing of uranium ore.

Further, the Paducah plant enriches the yellowcake, a lightly processed form of uranium ore, to produce uranium oxide and make nuclear fission from two 1,500-megawatt, 30-year-old coal plants, which release CO2 and other environmental pollutants.

As U.S. Moves Ahead with Nuclear Power, No Solution for Radioactive Waste | SolveClimate News

Rainfalls hamper Uranium mine efficiency in Australia | Seer Press, 16 July 2010, Energy Resources of Australia (ERA) admits the high rainfall levels coupled with a slip of a pit wall have significantly hampered their production capacity. A subsidiary of the RIO Tinto, ERA predicts a possible reduction of their volume of produce this year, the lowest ever in the past decade.Last year, a pit slip occurred in ERA’s Ranger Mine in Kakadu National Park denying the miner access to high grade ore. Yesterday’s full-year production volume is only around 4300 to 4700 tonnes of uranium, 18 percent lower compared to previous record of 5240 tonnes…………Both the continuing work on unstable pit wall conditions and the high rainfall level are considered to be the major factors affecting the decline of production volumes by the ERA. The high rainfall actually brings water pooling in the mine preventing miners from getting into the bottom of the mine pit………..With the reduced production volume, ERA is estimated receive an 8 million dollar profit decline for the first half of the year.

The science of climate change demands action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 2020. BHP Billiton’s proposed new open-pit mine at Roxby Downs would blow out SA’s greenhouse gas emissions by more than 12 per cent.

Our CO2 pollution would continue to rise right through to 2020.

Open-pit mining is energy intensive, high in demand for electricity and diesel fuels. BHP plans to dig, crush and process more than one million tonnes of rock and ore a day as the world’s largest open-pit mine.

Roxby would use about 20 per cent of the state’s electricity supply by 2020, when the open-pit mine could first reach full production.

BHP is seeking government approval to increase Olympic Dam’s greenhouse emissions by at least 4.1 million tonnes a year – a 12.4 per cent rise in SA’s greenhouse emissions – and up to as much as 4.7 million tonnes a year.

The company wants to use polluting fossil fuels to generate most of the electricity required and seeks a public subsidy of more than $65 million a year from the Federal Government in diesel fuel rebates through construction and mining operations…………

The Australian Conservation Foundation is calling on all political parties in the state election to commit to a peak and decline of SA’s greenhouse pollution levels in the next state government term to 2014 and to commit to a cut of at least 25 per cent by 2020, in accordance with recommendations of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change for developed countries.

Responsible action on climate change requires we reject BHP’s proposed 12 per cent jump in SA’s greenhouse gas pollution and for the state government to place a condition on BHP to use renewable energy for full electricity supply to any new open-pit mining at Roxby.

BHP green efforts behind schedule
The Age MATHEW MURPHYSeptember 24, 2009 AUSTRALIA’S largest company, BHP Billiton, is failing on its greenhouse and energy management, which, according to its own environmental scorecard, is ”behind schedule”.BHP’s annual sustainability report shows its greenhouse gas, energy and water intensity indices, which measure average use per unit of production, have risen from last year’s levels – extending the ground it needs to make up if it is to achieve its 2012 targets………………….

The company’s energy use is also heading in the wrong direction. BHP wants to reduce its energy intensity by 13 per cent from 2006 levels, a target that looks the toughest to achieve as it sits 8 per cent above where it started.

The company’s water management will also require attention if it is to reach its target of a 10 per cent improvement in the amount of recycled water to high-quality water consumed by 2012. Water use for 2008-09 was 8 per cent above its 2007 base year.

Adelaide Now CHRISTOPHER RUSSELL, BUSINESS EDITOR, and GREG KELTON, WASHINGTON August 24, 2009
KEY environmental concerns about the multibillion-dollar expansion of the Olympic Dam mine must be fixed by BHP Billiton before the mine proceeds.The State Government says these “key environmental concerns” will require BHP to investigate further before any final decision on the Roxby Downs expansion is made in the middle of next year.
The concerns are raised in the Government’s submission – to be published today – into BHP’s Draft Environmental Impact Statement, released in May this year.
The submission lists 368 issues the Government wants resolved. It emphasises these concerns will “require significant attention”……………….

The main concerns include:

DESALINATION: Inadequate surveys about potential risks to species and the ecosystem in the Upper Spencer Gulf where the desal plant is proposed.

WASTE: More detail needed on the proposed tailings storage facility to meet design safety and stability as well as minimising danger posed to local wildlife.

GROUNDWATER: Further examination of the long-term impact on groundwater, in particular directly affected aquifers and the Great Artesian Basin.

ENERGY: The submission applauds BHP’s commitment to source 40 per cent of its electricity from renewable sources and to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 60 per cent by 2050 – but says data is too vague for BHP to be held to account.

The Government submission consolidates the response of its agencies – including the Environmental Protection Authority – and departments such as Primary Industries and Resources SA, Local Government and Environment and Heritage.

A spokesman for BHP said the company would not comment on the Government submission…………………

The Government’s response follows receipt of 4189 public submissions during a 14-week consultation period.

AdelaideNow… Environmental demands to test Roxby Downs expansion

BHP-Billiton’s plan to dig the biggest open-cut uranium and copper mine in the world is under attack from environmental groups who claim it will send greenhouse gas emissions soaring in the home state of the Climate Change Minister, Penny Wong.The battle over the massive expansion of the Olympic Dam mine in South Australia comes as mining companies are in talks with the Government over whether the copper industry will be granted free permits to cover greenhouse gas emissions because of export competition from countries such as Chile.If the talks are successful, BHP could be shielded from some of the high costs of greenhouse pollution associated with the mine’s expansion under the Government’s carbon pollution reduction scheme.

BHP estimates that the expanded Olympic Dam mine could produce up to 4.7 million tonnes (4.7 megatonnes) of greenhouse emissions every year at its peak, according to its environmental impact statement, which is on display. That figure is close to 1 per cent of Australia’s total greenhouse gas emissions today.

The Australian Conservation Foundation estimates that by 2020 the mine’s expansion will increase South Australia’s emissions by about 12.4 per cent a year.

A spokeswoman for Senator Wong told the Herald yesterday the copper industry ‘‘is working with the Department of Climate Change to assess copper’s eligibility’’ for free permits under the Government’s scheme and whether it qualifies.

Uranium mining is not considered eligible for free permits under the Government’s scheme but Olympic Dam’s main product will be its huge copper reserves.

Emissions will rise under Olympic Dam plan: greens

Trail of Nuclear Tears, Exposong Nuclear’s Horrid Truths (Part one) OpEd News.com June 18, 2007 - “……………………………There is no bigger myth within the nuclear energy than their claim that nuclear energy and commercial reactors are and environmentally friendly CO2 source of electricity. From the very beginning of the uranium fuel cycle, the massive creation of and dumping of CO2 into our environment begins, as well as a trail of far deadly contaminants.

First, you have to get the uranium out of the ground…uranium mining is very equipment intensive, and the large pieces of equipment use MASSIVE amounts of fossil fuels. Further, it takes tons and tons of of ore containing trace amounts of uranium to get enough actual raw uranium to be of any use. This means said materials have to be carted to processing plants…again, said transporting of such vast quantities of these raw start up materials burn up vast amounts of carbon based fuels, adding to nuclear CO2 contributions to Global Warming.

Once the materials have been mined, they then must be milled, or crushed. These milling operations are usually fairly close to the mines. Once the materials are crushed, various impurities are removed (creating vast amounts of waste), and the end product of this segment of the processing creates what is known as yellowcake. This yellow cake is then packaged into 55 gallon drums, and is ready…TO BE SHIPPED AGAIN, thus using even more fossil fuels………Depending on the country, and enrichment means to be used, the uranium trioxide goes through even more processing at a conversion plant……At this point, the materials are ready…TO BE SHIPPED AGAIN, this time to a fuel fabrication facility

…………………….Factor in the building of the nuclear facilities, and the vast amount of fossil fuels that will be burned in decommissioning, and it is obvious who the major contributor to Global Warming really is.

It would be nice if this was the end of nuclear energy’s CO2 contributions to the environment, but it is not. It would be nice if these CO2 emissions were the only contaminants and contributions to Global Warming that nuclear reactors created, but sadly, it is but the tip of the iceberg.

The fuel rods as one example still have to be SHIPPED to the reactor sites. Again, additional fossil fuels being burned up, and we have not seen one watt of electrical energy produced as of yet….”.

Climate change puts nuclear energy into hot water - Could climate change be the latest jinx on nuclear power? International Herald Tribune By James Kanter May 20, 2007 PARIS:“.……………there is a less well-known side of nuclear power: It requires great amounts of cool water to keep reactors operating at safe temperatures. That is worrying if the rivers and reservoirs which many power plants rely on for water are hot or depleted because of steadily rising air temperatures.

If temperatures soar above average this summer – let alone steadily increase in years to come, as many scientists predict – many nuclear plants could face a dilemma: Either cut output or break environmental rules, in either case hurting their reputation with customers and the public.

Governments and the energy industry are just starting to grasp the vulnerabilities of water-hungry power plants. If the complications prove serious in countries where inland sources of water are growing scarce, where seafront nuclear stations are unwelcome or impractical and where alternative cooling technologies are too expensive, it could take the bloom off of nuclear as a source of clean energy and leave it more unclear than ever where sizable new power supplies might come from.

We’re going to have to solve the climate-change problem if we’re going to have nuclear power, not the other way around’ said David Lochbaum, a nuclear engineer who is with the Union of Concerned Scientists.’As the climate warms up, nuclear power plants are less able to deliver,’ he said.

France relies on nuclear power more than any other country and is held up by advocates of nuclear power as a model for how to generate enough cheap and reliable electricity to sell surpluses abroad while reducing carbon dioxide emissions.

But global warming is exposing France to new risks………………

Officials at Électricité de France have been preparing for a possible rerun of a ferocious heat wave that struck during 2003, the hottest summer on record in France, when temperatures of some rivers rose sharply and a number of reactors had to curtail output or shut down altogether.

In countries like Australia, where the government is considering introducing nuclear power, and the United States, which gets about a fifth of its electricity from nuclear power, some officials and operators warn of similar pitfalls if plants are built in areas where there already are water shortages………”

Nuclear risk up in a warming world - (edie news summary 25 January 2007) “Higher risk of flooding in a warming world must be factored into plans for new nuclear power stations in the UK, the Met Office has said. Rising sea levels, stronger winds and more powerful storm surges caused by climate change would strongly affect nuclear plants, traditionally built in remote coastal areas where cooling water is always at hand.The Met Office study, commissioned by nuclear power company British Energy to assess the impacts of climate change on nuclear plants, concluded that the stations would need better flood protection and coastal defences, and would also need to be built further inland……….”

Nuclear power faces stormy seas threat- Alert Net By Daniel Fineren LONDON, Jan 31 (Reuters) – “Dozens of nuclear power reactors around the world could be threatened by rising sea levels and violent storms……

Nuclear power plants need plentiful water for cooling so are usually near the sea or on rivers. All of the UK’s operational plants, most of Japan’s and many in the United States are on the coast……With sea levels likely to rise for at least the next 1,000 years, according to a United Nations report to be published on Friday, bolstering the flood defences of the world’s many coastal reactors looks set to become a more costly and time-consuming job — one that could last for centuries……………

.Nor are inland river-cooled reactors invulnerable to global warming. Hot weather makes it difficult to keep them cool and operate safely. The hotter it gets, the more frequently they may have to close, just when power demand is highest.”

16 June 07 Report: nuclear unable to curb global warming 25 Jan 07 UK Met Office study – nuke plants at risk from rising sea levels2003 – France- reactors shut down in heat wave

global warming

Tags: nuclear, globalwarming, climate