DOCSLIB.ORG

Primary and Secondary Sources [PDF]

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Primary and Secondary Sources [PDF] Primary and secondary sources in Global Nuclear Fuel Supply; focus on Uranium Georges CAPUS AREVA VP Front-End Marketing Seminar on Global Nuclear Fuel Supply Permanent Mission of Japan to the IAEA VIC January 26, 2009 Contents 1. Projected nuclear reactor fleet; from fuel demand to uranium demand scenarios and uncertainty 2. Supplying the uranium demand 1. Primary and secondary sources 2. Primary uranium outlook 1. Countries and security of supply 2. Types of mines and potential cost trend 3. Producers 3. Secondary sources 1. uranium stocks 2. Mox and RepU 3. re-enriched tails 4. downblended HEU 3. Balancing Supply and Demand: will future market equilibrium differ from past? 4. Focus on long term Security of Supply 5. Conclusions 3 > G. Capus – 2009_01_26 – IAEA VIC _ v0 1) Projected nuclear reactor fleet; from fuel demand to uranium demand scenarios and uncertainty X Warning: predicting the future is nonsense, forecasting is risky! X Pros: Global population growth Global economy growth Global warming Energy crisis X Cons: Ongoing financial crisis and impacts Public acceptance, technical and manpower bottlenecks… X We, at AREVA, are confident many new reactors will be added in the coming decade, significantly helping at limiting CO2 emissions ( we are still expecting around 635 GWe by 2030 and working at turning it into reality…) 4 > G. Capus – 2009_01_26 – IAEA VIC _ v0 Projected nuclear reactor fleet; from fuel demand to uranium demand scenarios and uncertainty Key parameters and sources of uncertainty in U demand forecast X Short term: the fleet is slowly evolving 1) availability of major secondary sources (mostly U market insensitive) 2) NPPs availability factor and load factor (mostly bound to technical issues or natural events, thus highly unpredictable) 3) Enrichment tails assays (Uranium feed v.s. enrichment market situation) X Long term: all is possible but forecasting the future is difficult 1) Top 1 parameter = projection of installed nuclear capacity 2) Top 2 parameter = composition of future fleet ; LWR and related generation shares, HWR, FBR… Second order parameters z Enrichment tails assays z Recycling and substitutes (Mox, RepU, Th fuels?) z Load factors 5 > G. Capus – 2009_01_26 – IAEA VIC _ v0 Projected nuclear reactor fleet; installed GWe scenarios and uncertainty X After 20 years; a rapidly widening range of uncertainty Under the high scenario, the nuclear share of global electricity production would rise from 16% today to 22% in 2050 1500 NEA2008 high 1250 1000 2009 to 750 2029 1973 OECD Net GWe scenarios WNA-2007 500 WW NEA2008 low 250 Existing capacity 0 2040 2050 2015 2005 2010 2020 2025 2030 2035 2045 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 From OECD-NEA Nuclear Energy Outlook 2008 6 > G. Capus – 2009_01_26 – IAEA VIC _ v0 Projected nuclear reactor fleet; from GWe to uranium demand scenario X A simplified calculation assuming a steady yearly consumption of 168 tU per installed GWe (current fleet consumption of 62 ktU) 250 NEA2008 high 200 150 2009 to 2029 1973 OECD NatU kt 100 scenarios WNA-2007 WW NEA2008 low 50 Existing capacity Maxi past U prod 68 ktU in 1980 0 2040 2050 2015 2005 2010 2020 2025 2030 2035 2045 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 From OECD-NEA Nuclear Energy Outlook 2008 7 > G. Capus – 2009_01_26 – IAEA VIC _ v0 Will it be – easy, possible, difficult – impossible to fuel the projected nuclear reactor fleet? X Say up to 150 ktU /y, the resources in the ground are there, the projects are identified… So, what is needed? X Adequate market signal (durably “sufficiently high” NatU prices)! 250 NEA2008 high 200 RB2007_Existing + committed + planned + prospective 150 Mine capacity NatU kt 100 NEA2008 low 50 Actual production RB2007_Existing + committed Maxi past U prod + planned + prospective 68 ktU in 1980 Mine capacity 0 2040 2050 2015 2005 2010 2020 2025 2030 2035 2045 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 From OECD-NEA Nuclear Energy Outlook 2008 8 > G. Capus – 2009_01_26 – IAEA VIC _ v0 2-1) Supplying the uranium demand; Primary and secondary sources X Definitions: (from WNA Report 2007 p. 116) Secondary supplies may be defined as all materials other than primary production (sometimes also named “already mined uranium” or AMU) Conversely primary sources correspond to “freshly mined uranium” Secondary supply sources include z Inventories - Commercial NatU and LEU inventories - Government & strategic inventories - HEU inventories - … z Use of recycled materials of various types - RepU - MOX from civilian fuel cycle - MOX from excess military stockpiles - NatU equivalent recovered through depleted U re-enrichment - Scraps and other sources 9 > G. Capus – 2009_01_26 – IAEA VIC _ v0 Global Uranium Secondary Supplies X A large share of total supply X Obviously, most of the secondary sources come from previously stockpiled uranium Commercial stockpiles build-up Secondary supplies Military Primary stockpiles supplies build-up (Mine production) Primary uranium remains From OECD-NEA – IAEA « Red Book » 2007 the dominant supply source 10 > G. Capus – 2009_01_26 – IAEA VIC _ v0 2-2) Primary uranium outlook Primary uranium outlook 1. Countries and security of supply 2. Types of mines and potential cost trend 3. Producers (possible changes in market and corporate structures …financing… Cooperation among producers, possible impact of the credit crisis.) 11 > G. Capus – 2009_01_26 – IAEA VIC _ v0 Conventional fissile resources represent more than 200 years* of 2007 world demand CATEGORY of Uranium resources (million tons = Mt) Conventional Identified (deposits) Undiscovered Reasonably 1 Based on direct Inferred Prognosticated Speculative Cost of recovery Assured geological Resources Resources Resources evidence $/kgU Resources 1 2 3 2 Based on indirect geological < 40 1.8 1.2 evidence 2.0 3 Extrapolated 40 to 80 0.8 0.6 4.8 values 80 to 130 0.7 0.3 0.8 > 130 ? ? ? 3.0 Unconventional Subtotal 3.34 2.13 2.8 7.8 General total 5.5 10.5 7 to 22 General total of conventional resources: 16,000 000 t World demand in 2007: less than 70,000 t * Of which Resources: > 200 times 2007 demand about 80 years with a very high + With Gen IV Fast Breeder Reactor, resources are virtually probability unlimited Source: OECD Nuclear Energy Agency & IAEA "Uranium 2007: Resources, Production and Demand" 12 > G. Capus – 2009_01_26 – IAEA VIC _ v0 Uranium market price & «Identified Resources» X More than all the currently «Identified Resources» (up to 50$/lb in early 2007 $ estimates!) are needed to fuel a sharply growing Nuclear Renaissance X Therefore: what should be an adequate LT price level???? 140 Spot price Identified U Resources 120 in MtU (RB2007) 40$/kgU limit 100 80$/kgU limit 130$/kgU limit ? 80 260$/kgU limit LT_Price 60 US$/lbU3O8 40 5.47 20 4.46 0 2.97 juin-07 juin-05 juin-06 juin-04 juin-03 juin-02 juin-01 déc-07 déc-06 déc-04 déc-03 déc-05 déc-01 déc-00 déc-02 13 > G. Capus – 2009_01_26 – IAEA VIC _ v0 World Uranium resources*; a widespread energy source potential X Identified uranium resources X Top 10 countries (88%) + 5 next (96%) 15% 10% 8% CANADA RUSSIA 6% 5 3 Ukraine 23% KAZAKHSTAN U.S.A. 10 Uzbekistan 2 Mongolia 6 5% Jordan China others NIGER India 5% 9 8% BRAZIL 5% 7 NAMIBIA AUSTRALIA 8 S.AFRICA 1 4 •Id. Resources recoverable at less than 130$/kgU or 50 $/lbU3O8 Total 5.47 MtU as of 1/01/07 • Source OECD-NEA–IAEA « Red Book 07» 14 > G. Capus – 2009_01_26 – IAEA VIC _ v0 Uranium: a production mainly coming from politically stable countries X A rather slow ramp-up of global production X A fast increase in Kazakhstan X Almost 60% from top 3 countries 50000 45000 40000 Others 35000 Africa 30000 other CIS tU 25000 Kazakhstan 20000 Australia 15000 Canada 10000 5000 0 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008* * preliminary 15 > G. Capus – 2009_01_26 – IAEA VIC _ v0 World uranium production 2007; countries X Major producing countries likely to remain exporters in the LT… Producing & consuming country 10 Ukraine 9 2% autres 4% 8 USA China 4% 2% Canada 22% 7 Uzbekistan 5% 1 Namibia 6 7% Niger Producing country 5 8% Australia 21% Russia 2 4 9% Kazakhstan 16% Total 2007 = 41 700 tU (108 MlbU3O8) 3 Top 10 = 96% 16 > G. Capus – 2009_01_26 – IAEA VIC _ v0 World uranium production 2007 (major producers) X The production structure is basically concentrated (oligopoly), however less than other fuel cycle segments X opposite tendencies: + juniors – take over = resulting trend? Russia, Canada, Niger, Others* AREVA partners /Niger Kazakhstan AREVA 3 15% 2% Kazakhstan 5 14% AEP/TVEL CAMECO 1 9% 18% 7 Uzbekistan Canada, USA NAVOÏ MMC 5% RTZ - ERA RTZ-RÖSSING 11% 4 BHP-B ODM 6% 2 KAZATOMPROM 6 8% 12% Namibia Australia Australia Kazakhstan Total 41700 tU Top 10 = 90% * Others <= 1000 tU/an 17 > G. Capus – 2009_01_26 – IAEA VIC _ v0 Mining and processing methods; current repartition X Main types of X Main types of Mining Methods process for U3O8 recovery 25% Open pit 57% Conventional ore dynamic processing 45% Underground 3% In Situ Leach (ISL or ISR) Conventional ore static 30% processing (Heap leaching) 30% ISL Solution processing Tailings reprocessing -% By-product processing … 10% z Copper- U z Gold- U z Phosphoric acid – U z … • Cost structure differs from one method to another • However the overall costs are not directly linked to mining and processing methods, but instead to a combination of factors including • The average grade • The ore-body depth • The reagents (types and consumption…), extractants… 18 > G. Capus – 2009_01_26 – IAEA VIC _ v0 2-3) Secondary sources X Secondary sources; main categories Uranium stockpiles (commercial, strategic…) Mox and RepU; the recycling source Re-enriched tails; another form of recycling Downblended HEU; from weapon grade U to civil fuel X In the recent years they were contributing to up to 45% to the Market S&D balance X Some are easy to forecast (like Mox or RepU) X Other are much more unpredictable (excess material disposition by Governments) but this is improving… X Finally some are creating some « market addiction » like Russian HEU? 19 > G.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • 2003/09/17-LES Hearing
    -O - ENERGY "RAS 'V87 RESOURCES 3L INTERNATIONAL, INC. , : _ _ ERI-21 29-0301 Market for Uranium Enrichment Services 0 2003 Energy Resources International, Inc. All Rights Reserved. II II Prepared For: I Cz) C-oC Louisiana Energy Services, L.P. * - C- C-, Ir' Cf. -v" I. Ln U) September 17, 2003 5s 0CRIM by: Appflcantkonqit~- NRC SWaf Oler______ IDnesslnaae4!501 WA A~mbkat FECTED VW1D0M1111 (j 6o 1015 18t Street, NW, Suite 650 Washington, DC 20036 , , _ . USA Telephone: (202) 785-8833 FacsImile: (202) 785-8834 LES-04940 iemP/a7Le-- Sl cy- 16g2 Se Cvo,-e - NOTICE ERI believes the information in this report to be accurate. However, ERI does not make any w arranty, e xpress or i mplied, n or a ssume any l egal I iability o r r esponsibility for t he accuracy, completeness, or usefulness of any informay ntained herein, nor for any consequent loss or damage of jrWit clf this information. * , w * n - LES-04941 ERI-129030203 /Setemer ii nerg Reourcs IteratioalInc ERI-2129-0301/September 2003 .. Energy Resources Internatignal, Inc. TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. Introduction 1 2. Forecast of Installed Nuclear Power Generating Capacity 2 3. Uranium Enrichment Requirements Forecast 7 4. Current and Potential Future Sources of Uranium Enrichment Services 11 5. Market Analysis of Supply #nd Requirements 21 5.1. Scenario A - LES and USEC Centrifuge Plants Are Built in the U.S. 21 5.2. Scenario B - No LES; USEC Deploys Centrifuge Plant and Continues to Operate Paducah GDP 24 5.3. Scenario C - No LES; USEC Deploys Centrifuge Plant and Increases Centrifuge Plant Capability 25 5.4.
    [Show full text]
  • Federal Register/Vol. 86, No. 145/Monday, August 2, 2021/Notices
    41540 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 145 / Monday, August 2, 2021 / Notices DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE III. Investigation Process Producers Will Face Increasing Import A. Initiation of Investigation Competition Bureau of Industry and Security B. Public Comments VIII. Conclusion C. Site Visits and Information Gathering A. Determination RIN 0694–XC078 Activities B. Economic Impacts of 25 Percent U.S.- D. Interagency Consultation Origin Requirement Publication of a Report on the Effect of E. Review of the Department of Commerce C. Public Policy Proposals Imports of Uranium on the National 1989 Section 232 Investigation on Security: An Investigation Conducted Uranium Imports Appendices Under Section 232 of the Trade IV. Product Scope of the Investigation Appendix A: Section 232 Investigation Expansion Act of 1962, as Amended V. Background on the U.S. Nuclear Industry Notification Letter to Secretary of Defense A. Summary of the U.S. Uranium Fuel James Mattis, July 18, 2018 AGENCY: Bureau of Industry and Cycle Appendix B: Federal Register Notices— Security, Commerce. B. Summary of U.S. Nuclear Power Notice of Requests for Public Comments on Generation Industry ACTION: Publication of a report. Section 232 National Security Investigation VI. Global Uranium Market Conditions of Imports of Uranium, July 25, 2018; SUMMARY: The Bureau of Industry and A. Summary of the Global Uranium Market Change in Comment Deadline for Section Security (BIS) in this notice is B. Uranium Transactions: Book Transfers 232 National Security Investigation of and Flag Swaps publishing a report that summarizes the Imports of Uranium, September 10, 2018 C. The Effect of the Fukushima Daiichi Appendix C: Summary of Public Comments findings of an investigation conducted Incident on U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Uranium 2005 – Resources, Production and Demand Summary in English
    Uranium 2005 – Resources, Production and Demand Summary in English Uranium 2005 – Resources, Production and Demand, presents the results of the most recent review of world uranium market fundamentals and provides a statistical profile of the world uranium industry as of 1 January 2005. First published in 1965, this, the 21st edition of what has become known as the “Red Book”, contains official data provided by 43 countries on uranium exploration, resources, production and reactor- related requirements. Projections of nuclear generating capacity and reactor-related uranium requirements through 2025 are provided as well as a discussion of long-term uranium supply and demand issues. Exploration Worldwide exploration expenditures in 2004 totalled over USD 133 million, an increase of almost 40% compared to 2002 expenditures as the market strengthened. Most major producing countries reported significant increases in exploration expenditures, perhaps best exemplified by the United States, where exploration expenditures in 2002 amounted to much less than USD 1 million but by 2004 had jumped to over USD 10 million. Global exploration activities remained concentrated in areas with potential for unconformity-related and ISL-amenable sandstone deposits, primarily in close proximity to known resources. However, the rising price of uranium has also stimulated “grass roots” exploration, as well as exploration activities in regions known to have good potential based on past work. About 50% of the exploration expenditures in 2004 were devoted to domestic activities. Non-domestic exploration expenditures, although reported by only Australia, Canada, France and Switzerland, rose to over USD 70 million in 2004, more than four times the non-domestic exploration expenditures reported in 2002, with only Canada and France reporting data for 2002.
    [Show full text]
  • Uranium Producers of America
    RANIUM RODUCERS OF MERICA U P A 141 EAST PALACE AVENUE, POST OFFICE BOX 669, SANTA FE, NEW MEXICO 87504-0669 TELEPHONE (505) 982-4611; FAX (505) 988-2987; WWW.THEUPA.ORG January 21, 2015 David Henderson U.S. Department of Energy Office of Nuclear Energy Mail Stop NE-52 19901 Germantown Rd. Germantown, MD 20874-1290 Re: UPA Response to DOE RFI; Excess Uranium Management: Effects of DOE Transfers of Excess Uranium on Domestic Uranium Mining, Conversion, and Enrichment Industries Dear Mr. Henderson: On behalf of the Uranium Producers of America (UPA) and our member companies, we appreciate the opportunity to provide input regarding the Department’s management of the federal excess uranium inventory. As an industry that is directly impacted by federal uranium transfers, UPA has consistently urged the Department to make the Secretarial Determination process more transparent. While the Request for Information (RFI) is a step in the right direction, additional steps are needed to ensure the Department lives up to its congressional mandate to certify uranium transfers “will not have an adverse material impact on the domestic uranium mining, conversion, or enrichment industry.”1 UPA maintains the Department’s recent actions, including the May 2014 Secretarial Determination, fail to meet its legal obligation to protect the domestic uranium industry and violate the USEC Privatization Act. Despite extensive data provided by UPA and our member companies documenting the fragile state of our industry, the Department has dramatically increased the amount of uranium entering the market. As described in greater detail below, these transfers come at a time when the market is already oversupplied with uranium.
    [Show full text]
  • Cameco Corporation 2019 Third Quarter Results Conference Call
    Cameco Corporation 2019 Third Quarter Results Conference Call Transcript Date: November 1, 2019 Time: 8:00 AM EST Presenter: Tim Gitzel President and Chief Executive Officer Grant Isaac Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer Brian Reilly Senior Vice President and Chief Operating Officer Sean Quinn Senior Vice President, Chief Legal Officer and Corporate Secretary Rachelle Girard Vice President, Investor Relations OPERATOR: Welcome to the Cameco Corporation Third Quarter 2019 Conference Call. As a reminder, all participants are in listen-only mode, and the conference is being recorded. After the presentation, there’ll be an opportunity to ask questions. To join the question queue, you may press star, one on your telephone keypad. Should you need assistance during the conference call, you may signal an Operator by pressing star, zero. I would now like to turn the conference over to Rachelle Girard, Vice-President, Investor Relations. Please go ahead, Ms. Girard. RACHELLE GIRARD: Thank you, Operator, and good day, everyone. Thank you for joining us. © 2019 Cameco Corporation 1 Welcome to Cameco’s third quarter conference call. Today’s call will focus on the trends we’re seeing in the market and on our strategy, not on the details of our quarterly financial results. If you have detailed questions about our quarterly financial results, please reach out to the contacts provided in our news release, and we’ll be happy to help you with those details. With us today on the call are Tim Gitzel, President and CEO, Grant Isaac, Senior Vice-President and CFO, Alice Wong, Senior Vice-President and Chief Corporate Officer, Brian Reilly, Senior Vice-President and Chief Operating Officer, and Sean Quinn, Senior Vice-President, Chief Legal Officer and Corporate Secretary.
    [Show full text]
  • Uranium Mining Communities in the American West
    Contents List of Illustrations vii Acknowledgments ix Introduction xv 1 From Weed to Weapon: U.S. Uranium, 1898–1945 1 2 To Stimulate Production and in Interest of Security: 17 The First Cold War Uranium Boom, 1946–1958 3 Uranium Company Towns in the American West 37 4 The Uranium Capital of the World I: Moab 53 5 The Uranium Capital of the World II: Grants 77 6 Allocation, Protectionism, and Subsistence: 105 Changing Federal Policies to Preserve Domestic Producers, 1958–1970 7 Creatures of Uncle Sam: Yellowcake Communities 115 During the Allocation and Stretch-out Periods 8 The Commercial Boom and Bust: Federal Policies and 135 the Free Market, 1970–1988 9 Yellowcake Towns During the Commercial Boom and 149 Bust, 1970–1988 10 Conclusion 173 Bibliography 181 Index 197 Introduction S INCE THE END OF THE COLD WAR in 1989, Americans have begun to consider seriously the social costs exacted by the development of the atom. Recent disclosures have revealed radiation tests conducted on unknowing children. Similar studies have probed cancer rates in the inter- montane West presumably caused by nuclear testing. Still others have ex- amined the survival of cities such as Hanford, Washington, and Los Alamos, New Mexico, where the first bombs and reactors were manufactured.1 But little scholarly attention has been directed to the supply side of the indus- try. Although some recent works have examined the environmental conse- quences of uranium mining and the cancer rates among its miners, there is little mention of the well-being of the communities impacted by the min- ing and milling of yellowcake, the industry’s term for processed uranium ore.2 This study analyzes the origins, development, and decline of four such yellowcake communities: Uravan, Colorado; Moab, Utah; Grants, New Mexico; and Jeffrey City, Wyoming.
    [Show full text]
  • Slide #1: Uranium Market: How Did We Get Here and What Will Be Needed to Fuel the Nuclear Renaissance
    Slide #1: Uranium Market: How did we get here and what will be needed to fuel the nuclear renaissance Good morning and thank you for this opportunity to address the 2008 class of the World Nuclear University. Before I delve into my topic, I would just like to say a few things about this program. I give the WNA and Member companies a great deal of credit for having the foresight to create this strategic program. Put simply, your participation in the WNU, and the network that it fosters, is critically important to the success of the growth of our industry going forward. As someone who entered the nuclear industry at the age of 21 in 1984, I can only imagine how useful this program would have been to me at that stage in my career. While learning at the feet of the grey haired pioneers of this business was very exciting, and sometimes colorful, the network of gifted nuclear professionals that you are a part of must be very exciting and gives us all confidence that this industry will be very capably led into the future. The mid 80s (smack between TMI and Chernobyl) was not necessarily a time of optimism and growth in our industry so as a young person coming in, you could say I bucked the trend. In retrospect, however, I am extremely thankful that I made this career choice and never lost my faith in the benefits of clean, safe and economic nuclear power. It is nice to see our nuclear dreams being realized, and your generation could not be more ideally positioned.
    [Show full text]
  • Uranium Market Conditions and Their Impact on Trends in Uranium Exploration and Resource Development
    Features Uranium market conditions and their impact on trends in uranium exploration and resource development A review of historical developments and projections through the turn of the century by Eberhard Miiller-Kahle Thhee estimates for the growth of nuclear power projection, translating into a demand of 244 000 tonnes made in the 1970s have been found to be overly optimis- uranium (tU).* This projection compares with the most tic. The reality accentuated by the accidents at Three recent estimates of 337 GWe and about 49 000 tU, Mile Island and Chernobyl has reduced these projections approximately 20% of the 1975 projection. to a mere fraction of the original estimates. In more detail, it is estimated that the uranium This development has affected the nuclear fuel cycle demand for WOCA increased from about 4000 tU in industry, especially its sub-sector, the uranium resource 1965 to 41 500 tU in 1989. This is equivalent to an industry, which occupies the first step of activities to annual growth rate of over 10%. The projection for the produce fuel for nuclear reactors. time through 2005 estimates a further, though smaller, Most producers had to reduce uranium production, increase to nearly 53 000 tU, or about 1.5% per year. with the exception of Australia and Canada. Especially It is obvious that the difference between projection painful has been the reduction of revenues for the devel- and reality of uranium demand had significant impacts oping countries Gabon and Niger. Niger's economy on the uranium mining industry, which was undertaking depends to a large part on the revenues from uranium efforts to supply the uranium needed for an ambitious exports.
    [Show full text]
  • Uranium Resources, Production and Demand, Commonly Known As the "Red Book"
    A^3«s..*s< Uo\«.-*^'- 18^ RESOURCES, PRODUCTION AND DEMAND A JOINT REPORT BY THE OECD NUCLEAR ENERGY AGENCY AND THE INTERNATIONAL mATOMIC ENERG Y AGENCY 198* ORGANISATION FOR ECONOMIC CO-OPERATION AND DEVELOPMENT Pursuant to article 1 of the Convention signed in Paris on 14th December 1960, and which came into f-^rce on 30th September 1961, the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) shall promote policies designed: - to achieve the highest sustainable economic growth and employment and a rising standard of living in Member countries, while maintaining financial stability, and thus to contribute to the development of the world economy; - to contribute to sound economic expansion in Member as well as non-member countries in the process of economic development; and - to contribute to the expansion of world trade on a multilateral, non-discriminatory basis in accordance with international obligations. The original Member countries of the OECD are Austria, Belgium, Canada, Denmark, France, the Federal Republic of Germany, Greece, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Turkey, the United Kingdom and the United States. The following countries became Members subsequently through accession at the dates indicated hereafter: Japan (28th April 1964), Finland (28th January 1969), Australia (7th June 1971) and New Zealand (29th May 1973). The Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia takes part in some of the work of the OECD (agreement of 28th October 1961). The OECD Nuclear Energy Agency (NEA) was established on 1st February 1958 under the name of the OEEC European Nuclear Energy Agerxy. It received its present designation on 20th April 1972, when Japan became its first non-European full Member.
    [Show full text]
  • ERI Analysis – February 20, 2015
    ENERGY RESOURCES INTERNATIONAL, INC. ERI-2142.18-1501 Analysis of the Potential Effects on the Domestic Uranium Mining, Conversion and Enrichment Industries of the Introduction of DOE Excess Uranium Inventory During CY 2015 Through 2024 ENERGY RESOURCES INTERNATIONAL, INC. ERI-2142.18-1501 Analysis of the Potential Effects on the Domestic Uranium Mining, Conversion and Enrichment Industries of the Introduction of DOE Excess Uranium Inventory During CY 2015 Through 2024 Prepared For: U.S. Department of Energy Office of Nuclear Energy Prepared By: Thomas B. Meade Eileen M. Supko February 20, 2015 1015 18th Street, NW, Suite 650 Washington, DC 20036 USA Telephone: (202) 785-8833 Facsimile: (202) 785-8834 NOTICE This report was prepared for the Office of Uranium Management and Policy in the Office of Nuclear Energy, Department of Energy (DOE) under Task 18 under GSA FABS Contract No. GS-23F0242P and DOE Contract No. DE-DT0000752. DISCLAIMER Any views expressed or conclusions made in this independent report are solely the opinion of Energy Resources International, Inc. and do not necessarily represent the views of the Department of Energy. ERI-2142.18-1501/February 2015 iii Energy Resources International, Inc. TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. Introduction 1 2. Background on Nuclear Fuel Supply Markets 4 2.1 Uranium Concentrates 5 2.1.1 Uranium Market Price Activity 5 2.1.2 Uranium Requirements 6 2.1.3 Uranium Supply 7 2.1.4 Adequacy of Uranium Supply Relative to Requirements 8 2.2 Conversion Services 12 2.2.1 Conversion Market Price Activity 12 2.2.2 Conversion Services Requirements 13 2.2.3 Adequacy of Conversion Supply Relative to Requirements 13 2.3 Enrichment Services 14 2.3.1 Enrichment Market Price Activity 14 2.3.2 Enrichment Services Requirements 15 2.3.3 Adequacy of Enrichment Supply Relative to Requirements 15 2.4 Summary of U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • IAEA Nuclear Energy Series Use of Reprocessed Uranium
    IAEA Nuclear Energy Series No. NF-T-4.4 Basic Use of Reprocessed Principles Uranium: Challenges and Options Objectives Guides Technical Reports INTERNATIONAL ATOMIC ENERGY AGENCY VIENNA ISBN 978–92–0–106409–7 ISSN 1995–7807 P1411_cover.indd 1 2009-12-23 09:13:14 IAEA NUCLEAR ENERGY SERIES PUBLICATIONS STRUCTURE OF THE IAEA NUCLEAR ENERGY SERIES Under the terms of Articles III.A and VIII.C of its Statute, the IAEA is authorized to foster the exchange of scientific and technical information on the peaceful uses of atomic energy. The publications in the IAEA Nuclear Energy Series provide information in the areas of nuclear power, nuclear fuel cycle, radioactive waste management and decommissioning, and on general issues that are relevant to all of the above mentioned areas. The structure of the IAEA Nuclear Energy Series comprises three levels: 1 — Basic Principles and Objectives; 2 — Guides; and 3 — Technical Reports. The Nuclear Energy Basic Principles publication describes the rationale and vision for the peaceful uses of nuclear energy. Nuclear Energy Series Objectives publications explain the expectations to be met in various areas at different stages of implementation. Nuclear Energy Series Guides provide high level guidance on how to achieve the objectives related to the various topics and areas involving the peaceful uses of nuclear energy. Nuclear Energy Series Technical Reports provide additional, more detailed, information on activities related to the various areas dealt with in the IAEA Nuclear Energy Series. The IAEA Nuclear Energy Series publications are coded as follows: NG — general; NP — nuclear power; NF — nuclear fuel; NW — radioactive waste management and decommissioning.
    [Show full text]
  • (The “Red Book”) Uranium Supply and Demand to 2035
    Uranium Resources Production and Demand (the “Red Book”) Uranium supply and demand to 2035 Robert Vance UNMP Consulting UNECE Training November 2018 “Red Book” Recognized source for global resource information Longstanding OECD/NEA and IAEA cooperation – first published in 1965 – since 1990s published every 2 years Relies principally on input from country representatives nominated by governments to the Uranium Group Over 100 countries have contributed to the publication over its history UNECE Training November 2018 Uranium Group history Formed in the mid 1960s - OECD, European Nuclear Energy Agency 1991: former Eastern Block countries join 1996: International Atomic Energy Agency member states formally join; re- organized as the Joint OECD-NEA / IAEA Uranium Group Red Book series a history of resource and mine development, changing supply and demand situation Recent meetings in U producing countries: 2000 Brazil; 2002 China; 2004 Czech Republic; 2006 Kazakhstan; 2008 Australia; 2010 Canada; 2012 Ukraine; 2014 Namibia; 2016 Argentina Follows OECD general objective of collective gain through sharing knowledge and experience UNECE Training November 2018 Evolution of the Red Book The Red Book has increased significantly in scope and depth in 50+ years into a comprehensive source of information about world uranium resources, production and demand. 1965: 1st RedBook was 20 pages, with one map and 2 tables, thorium resource estimates and reports from 11 countries. Uranium from seawater was discussed in 3 paragraphs and was determined to be sub-economic. Price categories: USD 5 – 15 - 30/lb U3O8 2016: 546 pages, included 49 country reports, and uranium from seawater was discussed in two paragraphs and determined to be sub-economic.
    [Show full text]