Mudd highlighted the points presented in his paper of 2014:
- An extensive data set on global uranium resources and classified by deposit type.
- Comprehensive analysis of key trends, such as ore grades and recovery rates.
- Energy and carbon intensity of production shows an increase as ore grades decline.
- Mine rehabilitation often shows poor success or accounts of long-term effectiveness.
- Real constraints on nuclear power remain safety and costs compared to alternatives.
Mudd then went on to sling it: Uranium (U) mining remains controversial in many parts of the world [Not so much these days (2025)], especially in a post-Fukushima context, and often in areas with significant U resources. Although nuclear proponents point to the relatively low carbon intensity of nuclear power compared to fossil fuels, opponents argue that this will be eroded in the future as ore grades decline and energy and greenhouse gas emissions (GGEs) intensity increases as a result.
Invariably both sides fail to make use of the increasingly available data reported by some U mines through sustainability reporting — allowing a comprehensive assessment of recent trends in the energy and GGE intensity of U production, as well as combining this with reported mineral resources to allow more comprehensive modelling of future energy and GGEs intensity.
In this study, [Mudd created a large pile of it and] provided a detailed data sets are compiled on reported U resources by deposit type, as well as mine production, energy and GGE intensity. Some important aspects included are the relationship between ore grade, deposit type and recovery, which are crucial in future projections of U mining. Overall, the paper demonstrates that there are extensive U resources known to meet potential short to medium term demand, although the future of U mining remains uncertain due to the doubt about the future of nuclear power as well as a range of complex social, environmental, economic and some site-specific technical issues.[This negativity has evaporated since 2014].
[Mud continues to profess Orwellian negativity by suggesting that] despite the utopian promise of electricity ‘too cheap to metre’, nuclear power remains a minor source of electricity worldwide. In 2010 nuclear power accounted for 5.65% of total primary energy supply and was responsible for 12.87% of global electricity supply (IEA, 2012) — and both contributions have effectively been declining through the 2000s. Concerns about hazards and unfavourable economics have effectively slowed or stopped the growth of nuclear energy in many Western countries since the 1980s, and while there has been some renewed interest in the USA (the country with the most reactors), the nuclear reactor fleet is ageing and 24 of the new proposed projects have been delayed, including 8 indefinitely (Schneider et al., 2013). However, there is still growth in nuclear energy in some countries, mostly in China, Russia and India (mainly via central planning by the national government). Over the next 15–20 years, many more nuclear power stations will reach retirement age than those contracted for actual construction (Schneider et al., 2013, Sovacool, 2011).
World primary energy production and electricity generation are given in Table 1, including the International Energy Agency's (IEA) projection of world energy and electricity demands in 2035 under the scenario of current energy policies continuing. It can be seen that, despite modest capacity growth (1.4x), nuclear's share of electricity declines by 2035 to just 9.68% — and yet some argue that it is the only logical choice for the world's power hungry demands (eg. Suppes and Storvick, 2007). Of particular note is the massive proportional increase in renewable energy-derived electricity by 2035 — biomass (3.7 ×), geothermal (3.2 ×), wind (6.3 ×), solar photovoltaics (16.4 ×), tidal (32 ×) and solar thermal (70.5 ×). There are also scenarios for achieving 100% renewable energy on a global scale (Jacobson and Delucchi, 2009, Sørensen and Meibom, 2000), 100% renewable energy for the European Union (Zervos et al., 2010) and 100% renewable electricity for New Zealand (Mason et al., 2010) and Australia (Elliston et al., 2012, Wright and Hearps, 2010), among others.
There are numerous critical issues facing the energy and electricity sectors globally, with arguably the most important being (in no particular order):
- greenhouse gas emissions released by fossil fuel sources contributing to anthropogenic climate change;
- peak oil and the end of the era of cheap conventional oil;
- social and environmental impacts of unconventional oil and gas extraction, such as tar sands, shale gas (and liquids) and coal seam gas;
- concerns about energy security, especially ongoing supply issues and maintaining resources; and
- economic competitiveness of energy sources.
It is argued by some (e.g. Suppes and Storvick, 2007, UMPNERT, 2006) that nuclear power can effectively address most of these problems on the basis that it has lower carbon intensity than fossil fuels, is largely independent of oil or coal supplies and, if plutonium breeder reactors can be made commercial (while ignoring or, at best, downplaying severe proliferation risks), could provide a substantial energy resource which could last a considerable period of time.
In this context, what is the basis upon which nuclear power could be argued to increase beyond the IEA's current projections? In other words, can the nuclear fuel chain be considered a sustainable option for future electricity generation? These questions are more than of minor consequence to address. The contribution of nuclear power to nuclear weapons proliferation remains paramount and urgent (eg. North Korea, India, Pakistan, Iran, Israel, etc.) and nuclear reactor safety and long-term stewardship of nuclear waste (ie. for greater than 100,000 years) still represent fundamental concerns, especially when comparing these risks to those of energy efficiency and various renewable energy technologies such as baseload solar thermal, solar photovoltaics, wind and so on.
This paper presents a detailed study of the ability for uranium (U) resources and mining to meet possible future scenarios for expanded nuclear power. An extensive array of data is compiled and analysed, focussing on known economic resources by deposit type, mine production and U recovery efficiency, including case studies of several key U projects such as Ranger and Olympic Dam in Australia, Rössing in Namibia and McArthur River and the Elliot Lake field in Canada, with these aspects then briefly discussed in light of other sustainability issues such as energy and greenhouse gas emissions (GGEs) intensity. The paper thus provides a comprehensive assessment of the most important factors which will affect the future of the U mining sector which, albeit a somewhat small player in value terms, attracts significant political and corporate support while remaining deeply controversial in the public energy debate.
Uranium and Its Uses
There are two primary uses for uranium — as fuel in a nuclear power plant to produce electricity, or as the ingredient for nuclear weapons. Natural uranium consists primarily of two isotopes, uranium-238 (238U) and uranium-235 (235U), comprising 99.28% and 0.715%, respectively (Barré, 2010). The fissile 235U can be forced to undergo a chain reaction and split (i.e. fission) and release energy in the process. In a weapon, the release of energy is uncontrolled and leads to a severe explosion.
Uranium deposit types
Uranium can be found in a wide variety of mineral deposit types, mainly related to its geochemical versatility (Dahlkamp, 2009, Dahlkamp, 2010). According to the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), there are eleven primary types of U deposits (IAEA, 2009b):
- unconformity-related
- sandstone
- hematite breccia complex#
- quartz-pebble conglomerate
- vein
- intrusive
- volcanic and caldera-related
- metasomatite
- surficial
- collapse breccia pipe
- phosphorite
#commonly known as an iron oxide copper–gold (or IOCG)
Overview
The uranium mining sector is a relatively minor area of the global mining industry, with a global value of about US$7.28 billion (i.e. 68,848 t U3O8 in 2012 valued at ~ US$105.8/kg U3O8, or ~ US$56.3/lb U3O8; data from BREE, 2013, WNA, 2013) compared to coal and iron ore which are of the order of US$100s of billions globally. The U sector, however, is widely regarded as a key strategic asset and is intimately linked to considerations by certain countries of national security and energy.
Energy, water and greenhouse gas emissions intensity
A welcome trend across all sectors of global industry is the strong emergence of sustainability reporting over the past decade. Numerous mining companies have certainly been at the forefront of this change in corporate accountability by publishing annual sustainability reports alongside statutory financial reports (Mudd, 2009b). The most popular protocol is the Global Reporting Initiative (GRI, 2006) — a coalition of the United Nations, industry, government and civil society groups.
Future uranium demand and realistic constraints
The data compiled and synthesised in this paper are extensive and raise numerous issues with respect to the future of U mining, with the primary issues remaining: (i) potentially mineable U resources; (ii) the future of nuclear power; (iii) energy and greenhouse gas emissions accounting; and (iv) environmental impacts from U mining and rehabilitation.
Summary and conclusions
This paper has provided an extensive review of the mining and milling of uranium (U) ore in the context of a perceived future increase in global nuclear power. Despite its early promise, nuclear power remains a minor source of primary world energy supplies as well as electricity — and its share is projected to continue to decline, especially as renewable energy sources enter substantial growth in the coming decade.
Managed & Built by I2M Consulting, LLC | © 2010-
