Month: March 2009

Veto Ranger mine expansion, ACF tells Govt

The mine’s general manger of business development says a leakage isn’t affecting Kakadu National Park.

Australian Conservation Foundation (ACF) spokesman Dave Sweeney says news that contaminated water is leaking from the mine’s tailings dam is proof the company cannot properly treat its waste.

Environmentalists are calling for the Federal Government to reject a proposal to expand the Ranger uranium mine, which lies within the boundaries of Kakadu National Park.

The company ERA has put forward plans to expand and also use an acid leaching method to retrieve uranium and other minerals.

Australian Conservation Foundation (ACF) spokesman Dave Sweeney says news that contaminated water is leaking from the mine’s tailings dam is proof the company cannot properly treat its waste.

“Ranger is failing now already,” he said.

“The last thing that we need is to expand that mine, expand the problems, expand the pollution.

“This mine should be being cleaned up and being phased out, certainly not expanding.”

ERA’s general manger of business development, David Patterson, says the leakage is not seeping into the park and the company has strict waste management regulations that are working.

“The office of the supervising scientist is well aware of the issue that they’ve raised and has confirmed each year that ERA has no impact on the surrounding environment,” he said.

Uranium Association calls for debate on nuclear power
Monday March 16, 2009, 4:32 pm
http://wotnews.com.au/view/3171072/

The Australian Uranium Association says there is no reason why Australia should not have a nuclear power industry.

Executive director Michael Angwin is attending a mining conference in Adelaide and says it is time for a renewed debate on nuclear power, given that Australia has 40 per cent of the world’s low cost uranium resources.

He says there are 31 countries using nuclear power in a growing industry world-wide.

Mr Angwin says emotion cannot be discounted from a nuclear power debate.

“There is lots of emotion in this debate and you need two things when you deal with either uranium or nuclear power,” he said.

“The first thing you need is facts, the second thing you need is engagement with your stakeholders so that you can able them to say what worries them and to deal with what worries them in a genuine and timely way.”

Mr Angwin says it makes sense to have the debate in Australia.

“If we have such a debate and we come out the other end without nuclear power it will be because we know we have better alternatives to it and if we come out the other end with nuclear power, then we will know that we’ve got it for good reasons,” he said.

Jerry Grandey, CEO of Cameco (CCJ), made some interesting comments concerning the long term uranium supply/demand balance at the Reuters Global Mining and Steel summit held in New York.
http://seekingalpha.com/article/125858-uranium-producers-worth-a-look
He said that the current lack of uranium supply expansion in the face of the current financial system difficulties coupled with the uncertainty of how Russia will react after the current Megatons to Megawatts deal expires in 2013 is setting up the uranium market for a future supply crunch. He was quoted as saying, “I think the financial crisis is clearly impacting the ability of every supplier to raise capital,” according to Reuters. “When you see project cancellations, you see expansion derail, you see some projects that will just go slower. That is just simply taking away future supply and sowing the seeds of the next spike in the uranium price.”

The current supply of uranium from mines is 115 million pounds per year against a demand of around 180 million pounds per year. Grandey said he expected demand to increase about 2-3% per year.

The deficit between supply and demand has been made up by decommissioning and downblend nuclear warhead material, primarily Russian warheads, under the Megatons to Megawatts program. This program is supposed to end in 2013 and the Russian atomic company Rosatom has been on the record that it does not intend to continue the program after 2013 as it has not been advantageous to Russia. This would be consistent for Russia as it has viewed full control and use of its resources as a cornerstone to a return to superpower status. The blueprint on how they would proceed can be seen by watching how they deal with their current oil and natural gas customers.

The current uranium price of $43.75 per pound is currently insufficient to stimulate sufficient new mine development in a timely enough manner to close the supply/demand gap. Although Cameco has had various problems lately that have impaired the stock price, especially around its Cigar Lake mine, the company still is the 800lb. gorilla in the uranium market. Smaller producers such as Paladin Resources (PALAF.PK), which is in the process of doubling its uranium out put and even Uranium One (SXRZF.PK), which appears to be stabilizing itself after its debacle at its South African uranium mine appear to be worth a look for the long term.

Interesting to see the differences between the Australian Uranium Index and the global uranium share index. It seems that the Australians are leading the charge… perhaps not suprising considering that Australia’s explorers and near term producers have such large resources….

–“World uranium requirements are forecast to increase faster than world supply in 2009,” the agency reports. “As a result, the uranium market is expected to remain in deficit for a sixth consecutive year. Supported by this deficit, spot prices are forecast to recover gradually in 2009 to end the year at around US$62 a pound…In 2010, the spot uranium price is forecast to average around US$70 a pound, an increase of 35 per cent on 2009 prices. Strong consumption growth and a decline in secondary supplies of uranium are forecast to support this price increase.”