DOCSLIB.ORG

Uranium 2020: Resources, Production and Demand Resources, Production and Demand

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Uranium 2020: Resources, Production and Demand Resources, Production and Demand A Joint Report by the Nuclear Energy Agency and the International Atomic Energy Agency U ranium Uranium 2020: Resources, Production and Demand Uranium 2020: Resources, Resources, Production and Demand NEA NUCLEAR ENERGY AGENCY A Joint Report by the Nuclear Energy Agency and the International Atomic Energy Agency Uranium 2020: Resources, Production and Demand © OECD 2020 NEA No. 7551 NUCLEAR ENERGY AGENCY ORGANISATION FOR ECONOMIC CO-OPERATION AND DEVELOPMENT ORGANISATION FOR ECONOMIC CO-OPERATION AND DEVELOPMENT The OECD is a unique forum where the governments of 37 democracies work together to address the economic, social and environmental challenges of globalisation. The OECD is also at the forefront of efforts to understand and to help governments respond to new developments and concerns, such as corporate governance, the information economy and the challenges of an ageing population. The Organisation provides a setting where governments can compare policy experiences, seek answers to common problems, identify good practice and work to co-ordinate domestic and international policies. The OECD member countries are: Australia, Austria, Belgium, Canada, Chile, Colombia, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Japan, Korea, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Mexico, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Poland, Portugal, the Slovak Republic, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Turkey, the United Kingdom and the United States. The European Commission takes part in the work of the OECD. OECD Publishing disseminates widely the results of the Organisation’s statistics gathering and research on economic, social and environmental issues, as well as the conventions, guidelines and standards agreed by its members. This work is published under the responsibility of the Secretary-General of the OECD. NUCLEAR ENERGY AGENCY The OECD Nuclear Energy Agency (NEA) was established on 1 February 1958. Current NEA membership consists of 33 countries: Argentina, Australia, Austria, Belgium, Canada, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Korea, Luxembourg, Mexico, the Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Russia, the Slovak Republic, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Turkey, the United Kingdom and the United States. The European Commission and the International Atomic Energy Agency also take part in the work of the Agency. The mission of the NEA is: – to assist its member countries in maintaining and further developing, through international co-operation, the scientific, technological and legal bases required for a safe, environmentally sound and economical use of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes; – to provide authoritative assessments and to forge common understandings on key issues as input to government decisions on nuclear energy policy and to broader OECD analyses in areas such as energy and the sustainable development of low-carbon economies. Specific areas of competence of the NEA include the safety and regulation of nuclear activities, radioactive waste management, radiological protection, nuclear science, economic and technical analyses of the nuclear fuel cycle, nuclear law and liability, and public information. The NEA Data Bank provides nuclear data and computer program services for participating countries. This document, as well as any data and map included herein, are without prejudice to the status of or sovereignty over any territory, to the delimitation of international frontiers and boundaries and to the name of any territory, city or area. Corrigenda to OECD publications may be found online at: www.oecd.org/about/publishing/corrigenda.htm. © OECD 2020 You can copy, download or print OECD content for your own use, and you can include excerpts from OECD publications, databases and multimedia products in your own documents, presentations, blogs, websites and teaching materials, provided that suitable acknowledgement of the OECD as source and copyright owner is given. All requests for public or commercial use and translation rights should be submitted to [email protected]. Requests for permission to photocopy portions of this material for public or commercial use shall be addressed directly to the Copyright Clearance Center (CCC) at [email protected] or the Centre français d'exploitation du droit de copie (CFC) [email protected]. Cover photos: The Barakah nuclear power plant, United Arab Emirates (ENEC); Husab mine in Namibia (Swakop Uranium); Yellow Cake (Areva/Jean-Marie Taillat). PREFACE/ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Preface Since the mid-1960s, with the co-operation of their member countries and states, the OECD Nuclear Energy Agency (NEA) and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) have jointly prepared periodic updates (currently every two years) on world uranium resources, production and demand. Such updates have been published in what are commonly known as the “Red Books”. This 28th edition features a comprehensive assessment of uranium supply and demand and projections through the year 2040. The basis of this assessment is a comparison of uranium resource estimates (according to categories of geological certainty and production cost) and mine production capability with anticipated uranium requirements arising from projected installed nuclear capacity. Current data on resources, exploration, production and uranium stocks are also presented, along with historical summaries of exploration and production, and plans for future mine development. Available information on uranium secondary supply is provided and the potential impact of secondary sources on the market is assessed. Individual country reports offer detailed information on recent developments in uranium exploration and production, on environmental activities, regulatory requirements and on relevant national uranium policies. This publication has been prepared on the basis of data obtained through questionnaires sent by the NEA to OECD member countries and by the IAEA to other countries. It contains official data provided by 31 countries and 14 national reports prepared by the NEA and the IAEA. This report is published under the responsibility of the OECD Secretary-General. Acknowledgements This joint report was prepared by the NEA and IAEA Secretariats. The contributions from across the two agencies were led by Luminita Grancea at the NEA, and Mark Mihalasky and Martin Fairclough at the IAEA. The NEA/IAEA gratefully acknowledge the attentive support provided by members of the Joint NEA/IAEA Uranium Group, as well as the co-operation of those organisations and individuals listed in Appendix 1 and 2. In compiling and preparing Chapters 1 and 3, Jean René Blaise (France), Alexander Boytsov (Russian Federation), Adrienne Hanly (Austria), Luis López (Argentina), James Marlatt (Canada), Gabi Schneider (Namibia) and Robert Vance (Canada), provided valuable help. The input and participation of all was essential for the successful completion of this report. URANIUM 2020: RESOURCES, PRODUCTION AND DEMAND, NEA No. 7551, © OECD 2020 3 TABLE OF CONTENTS Table of contents Executive summary ................................................................................................................................ 9 Chapter 1. Uranium supply ............................................................................................................... 15 Uranium resources ............................................................................................................................ 15 Identified conventional resources ............................................................................................ 15 Distribution of resources by production method ................................................................... 27 Distribution of resources by processing method ................................................................... 28 Distribution of resources by deposit type ............................................................................... 29 Proximity of resources to production centres ........................................................................ 30 Undiscovered resources ............................................................................................................ 31 Other resources and materials ................................................................................................. 33 Uranium exploration ........................................................................................................................ 38 Non-domestic.............................................................................................................................. 38 Domestic ...................................................................................................................................... 40 Current activities and recent developments .......................................................................... 43 Uranium production ......................................................................................................................... 55 Present status of uranium production..................................................................................... 58 Ownership ................................................................................................................................... 63 Employment ...............................................................................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Strategic Environmental Management Plan Report 2015
    SEMP: Annual Strategic Environmental Management Plan Report 2015 Strategic Environmental Management Plan (SEMP) for the Central Namib Uranium Province 2015 Annual Report April 2017 Prepared by Geological Survey of Namibia Project Management: Ministry of Mines and Energy, Geological Survey of Namibia, Divi- sion of Engineering and Environmental Geology Status of Data Received: April 2017 Compiled by: Rosina Leonard (GSN), Michelle Hijamutiti (GSN), Israel Hasheela (GSN), Norwel Mwananawa (GSN), Alfeus Moses (GSN), Theo Was- senaar (NERMU), Sandra Müller (NUA) Contributions from: Namibian Uranium Association Final editing: Norwel Mwananawa and Alfeus Moses © Geological Survey of Namibia, Ministry of Mines and Energy 2017 Citation Geological Survey of Namibia (2017): Strategic Environmental Management Plan (SEMP) for the Cen- tral Namib Uranium Mining Province, 2015 Annual Report. Ministry of Mines and Energy, Windhoek, Republic of Namibia Additional Information and queries to: Mr. Norwel Mwananawa Coordinator Geological Survey of Namibia Ministry of Mines and Energy Private Bag 13297 Windhoek Namibia Tel: +264-61-2848111 Email: [email protected] Mr. Theo Wassenaar Namib Ecological Restoration and Monitoring Unit (NERMU) Gobabeb Research and Training Centre P.O. Box 953 Walvis Bay Namibia Tel: +264-61-230752 Email: [email protected] 2015 Strategic Environmental Management Plan Report for the Central Namib Uranium Province EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Strategic Environmental Management Plan (SEMP) for the Namibian uranium province is a pub- lic-private collaborative initiative housed within the Geological Survey of Namibia, Ministry of Mines and Energy and it is supported by the Namib Ecological Restoration and Monitoring Unit (NERMU) at the Gobabeb Research and Training Centre. The SEMP is an over-arching framework and roadmap to address the cumulative impacts of existing and potential developments, within which individual projects have to be planned and implemented.
    [Show full text]
  • + 2020 Annual Information Form
    Denison Mines Corp. 2020 Annual Information Form March 26, 2021 ABOUT THIS ANNUAL INFORMATION FORM This annual information form (“AIF”) is dated March 26, Table of Contents 2021. Unless stated otherwise, all of the information in this AIF is stated as at December 31, 2020. About this AIF .................................... 1 About Denison ................................... 6 This AIF has been prepared in accordance with Canadian Developments over the Last Three securities laws and contains information regarding Years ................................................. 8 Denison’s history, business, mineral reserves and The Uranium Industry ........................ 17 resources, the regulatory environment in which Denison Mineral Resources and Reserves 24 does business, the risks that Denison faces and other Mineral Properties ............................. 27 important information for Shareholders. Athabasca Exploration: Sampling, Analysis and Data Verification ........... 102 This AIF incorporates by reference: Denison Operations ........................... 107 Manager of UPC ................................ 111 Denison’s management discussion and analysis (“MD&A”) for the year ended December 31, 2020, Denison Closed Mines Group ........... 112 Environmental, Health, Safety and Denison’s audited consolidated financial Sustainability Matters ........................ 112 statements for the year ended December 31, 2020, Government Regulation .................... 114 Risk Factors ...................................... 120 both of which
    [Show full text]
  • Project Management for Decommissioning of Hope Brook
    Uranium Development & Exploration The Athabasca Basin, Northern Saskatchewan July 2020 | Corporate Update Cautionary Statements & References This presentation and the information contained herein is designed to help you understand management’s current views, and may not be appropriate for other purposes. This presentation contains information relating to other companies and provincial infrastructure, and the plans and availability thereof, derived from third-party publications and reports which Denison believes are reliable but have not been independently verified by the Company. Certain information contained in this presentation constitutes “forward-looking information”, within the meaning of the United States Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 and similar Canadian legislation concerning the business, operations and financial performance and condition of Denison. Generally, these forward-looking statements can be identified by the use of forward-looking terminology such as “plans”, “expects”, “budget”, “scheduled”, “estimates”, “forecasts”, “intends”, “anticipates”, or “believes”, or the negatives and / or variations of such words and phrases, or state that certain actions, events or results “may”, “could”, “would”, “might” or “will be taken”, “occur”, “be achieved” or “has the potential to”. In particular, this presentation contains forward-looking information pertaining to the results of, and estimates, assumptions and projections provided in, the PFS, including future development methods and plans, market prices, costs
    [Show full text]
  • Uranium Prevails
    34 RESOURCES INDUSTRIAL MINERALS Uranium prevails Development of new mines continues in the uranium sector despite current low prices for the commodity, reports Roger Murray he uranium mining and devel- tors closed (six permanently) – after On the supply side, Kazakhstan opment sector is locked into Japan’s March 2011 earthquake/ has provided some stability by this T survival mode, with cuts to tsunami seriously damaged the year pledging not to raise produc- mine production, development Fukushima nuclear plant – have tion above the 28,000t of U3O8, rep- delays and exploration spending restarted; as more come back into resenting 39% of global uranium freezes as companies struggle to operation, this will provide another output, that it produced last year. balance the books and cope with the upward impetus to demand. drop in the uranium spot price to an However, it is China’s purchase SALAMANCA SHINES 11-year low of US$24/lb for uranium of nuclear fuel for its expanding One mining development proceed- Bannerman oxide (U3O8) as of September. nuclear-plant network (an average ing is Salamanca in west-central Resources’ The principal cause of supplier six new reactors are due on line each Spain, where Berkeley Energia has heap-leach woes is continued weak demand. year until 2020) that provides the already begun initial site infrastruc- uranium Western utilities remain well-stocked main upside. Analysts see China’s ture works, with mine start-up cur- demonstration with inventory, although it is antici- continued inventory accumulation rently scheduled for 2018. plant on its pated that some at least will resume as the leading factor likely to spark Salamanca’s location in a Etango project buying activity in the next two years.
    [Show full text]
  • Survey of Design and Regulatory Requirements for New Small Reactors, Contract No
    Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission - R550.1 Survey of Design and Regulatory Requirements for New Small Reactors, Contract No. 87055-13-0356 Final Report - July 3, 2014 RSP-0299 Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission R550.1 Survey of Design and Regulatory Requirements for New Small Reactors, Contract No. 87055-13-0356 Final Report July 3, Released for Brian Gihm 0 Victor Snell Jim Sarvinis Milan Ducic 2014 Use Victor Snell Date Rev. Status Prepared By Checked By Approved By Approved By Client - CNSC H346105-0000-00-124-0002, Rev. 0 Page i © Hatch 2015 All rights reserved, including all rights relating to the use of this document or its contents. Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission - R550.1 Survey of Design and Regulatory Requirements for New Small Reactors, Contract No. 87055-13-0356 Final Report - July 3, 2014 Executive Summary The objectives of this report are to perform a design survey of small modular reactors (SMRs) with near-term deployment potential, with a particular emphasis on identifying their innovative safety features, and to review the Canadian nuclear regulatory framework to assess whether the current and proposed regulatory documents adequately address SMR licensing challenges. SMRs are being designed to lower the initial financing cost of a nuclear power plant or to supply electricity in small grids (often in remote areas) which cannot accommodate large nuclear power plants (NPPs). The majority of the advanced SMR designs is based on pressurized water reactor (PWR) technology, while some non-PWR Generation IV technologies (e.g., gas-cooled reactor, lead-cooled reactor, sodium-cooled fast reactor, etc.) are also being pursued.
    [Show full text]
  • Annual Report 2020
    ANNUAL REPORT 2020 1 Photo credits 2 Foreword On 1 June 1960, the newly established Supply Agency of the European Atomic Energy Community (Euratom) started operations, ensuring that all users in the Community received a regular and equitable supply of ores and nuclear fuel. In 2020, the Agency celebrated 60 years of continued operations, demonstrating its resilience, its ability to adapt and its determination to modernise itself. When the COVID-19 crisis hit in March, we protected ESA’s most valuable asset: its staff. The lockdown united us in keeping the spirit of a common effort focused on the Agency’s core objectives and values. The transition to remote working was accompanied by introduction of new working methods, which allowed us to deliver in this challenging time on all the critical core processes: managing nuclear fuel contracts, facilitating the supply chain of medical radioisotopes and analysing market data. The meetings of the Advisory Committee and of the European Observatory on the Supply of Medical Radioisotopes, which were for the first time ever conducted in a remote format, enabled efficient communication and decision-making, as did many meetings with our partners and stakeholders. Our response to the limitations created by the coronavirus pandemic was to take it as an enforced opportunity to accelerate the adoption of new technologies to cut red tape. We expedited investment in the Noemi application that will, for years to come, securely host data from contracts for the supply of nuclear materials and related services. This new IT system will also greatly improve monitoring of the nuclear energy market and production of reports from aggregated data.
    [Show full text]
  • 1 Potential Influences on the Prospect of Renewable Energy Development in OPEC Members Hanan Alsadi1 1. Introduction the Global
    1 Potential Influences on the Prospect of Renewable Energy Development in OPEC Members Hanan Alsadi1 1. Introduction The global energy transitioning trend escalates due to the continuous growth of energy consumption and advancing climate change. While the total fossil fuel consumption is increasing twice as fast as the average rate over the last decade, making 70% of the global energy demand, the reckless use of fossil fuel is causing substantial damage to the environment (International Energy Agency, 2018; Šolc, 2013). An effective fix to the problem while dubious is to replace the energy source by alternatives. The renewable energy (RE) offers the most definite prospect for producing clean, sustainable power in substantial quantities, which arouses interest around the world. According to Gielen and Colleagues (2019), the RE’s share of global consumption energy would rise from 15% in 2015 to 63% in 2050. However, if this increasing trend in renewable energies would also prevail among Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC), is subject to debate. They all have abundant potential to invest in renewable energy sources. Yet, some of the Middle Eastern and Arab Gulf OPEC members do not have or have a small amount of renewable energy sources. In contrast, other members have significant renewable energy sources. Researchers have studied some aspects of renewable energy and its relationship to the OPEC countries. For example, Wittmann (2013) looked at the potential for transitioning from petroleum exportation to renewable energy exportation among the OPEC countries. Still, Wittmann does not explain any specific transition strategies or plans for the Middle Eastern OPEC countries.
    [Show full text]
  • Principles of Extractive Metallurgy Lectures Note
    PRINCIPLES OF EXTRACTIVE METALLURGY B.TECH, 3RD SEMESTER LECTURES NOTE BY SAGAR NAYAK DR. KALI CHARAN SABAT DEPARTMENT OF METALLURGICAL AND MATERIALS ENGINEERING PARALA MAHARAJA ENGINEERING COLLEGE, BERHAMPUR DISCLAIMER This document does not claim any originality and cannot be used as a substitute for prescribed textbooks. The information presented here is merely a collection by the author for their respective teaching assignments as an additional tool for the teaching-learning process. Various sources as mentioned at the reference of the document as well as freely available material from internet were consulted for preparing this document. The ownership of the information lies with the respective author or institutions. Further, this document is not intended to be used for commercial purpose and the faculty is not accountable for any issues, legal or otherwise, arising out of use of this document. The committee faculty members make no representations or warranties with respect to the accuracy or completeness of the contents of this document and specifically disclaim any implied warranties of merchantability or fitness for a particular purpose. BPUT SYLLABUS PRINCIPLES OF EXTRACTIVE METALLURGY (3-1-0) MODULE I (14 HOURS) Unit processes in Pyro metallurgy: Calcination and roasting, sintering, smelting, converting, reduction, smelting-reduction, Metallothermic and hydrogen reduction; distillation and other physical and chemical refining methods: Fire refining, Zone refining, Liquation and Cupellation. Small problems related to pyro metallurgy. MODULE II (14 HOURS) Unit processes in Hydrometallurgy: Leaching practice: In situ leaching, Dump and heap leaching, Percolation leaching, Agitation leaching, Purification of leach liquor, Kinetics of Leaching; Bio- leaching: Recovery of metals from Leach liquor by Solvent Extraction, Ion exchange , Precipitation and Cementation process.
    [Show full text]
  • Understanding Fluid–Rock Interactions and Lixiviant/Oxidant Behaviour for the In-Situ Recovery of Metals from Deep Ore Bodies
    School of Earth and Planetary Science Department of Applied Geology Understanding Fluid–Rock Interactions and Lixiviant/Oxidant Behaviour for the In-situ Recovery of Metals from Deep Ore Bodies Tania Marcela Hidalgo Rosero This thesis is presented for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy of Curtin University February 2020 1 Declaration __________________________________________________________________________ Declaration To the best of my knowledge and belief, I declare that this work of thesis contains no material published by any other person, except where due acknowledgements have been made. This thesis contains no material which has been accepted for the award of any other degree or diploma in any university. Tania Marcela Hidalgo Rosero Date: 28/01/2020 2 Abstract __________________________________________________________________________ Abstract In-situ recovery (ISR) processing has been recognised as a possible alternative to open- pit mining, especially for low-grade resources. In ISR, the fluid–rock interaction between the target ore and the lixiviant results in valuable- (and gangue-) metal dissolution. This interaction is achieved by the injection and recovery of fluid by means of strategically positioned wells. Although the application of ISR has become more common (ISR remains the preferential processing technique for uranium and has been applied in pilot programs for treating oxide zones in copper deposits), its application to hard-rock refractory and low-grade copper-sulfide deposits is still under development. This research is focused on the possible application of ISR to primary copper sulfides usually found as deep ores. Lixiviant/oxidant selection is an important aspect to consider during planning and operation in the ISR of copper-sulfide ores.
    [Show full text]
  • Commercialization and Deployment at NREL: Advancing Renewable
    Commercialization and Deployment at NREL Advancing Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency at Speed and Scale Prepared for the State Energy Advisory Board NREL is a national laboratory of the U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency & Renewable Energy, operated by the Alliance for Sustainable Energy, LLC. Management Report NREL/MP-6A42-51947 May 2011 Contract No. DE-AC36-08GO28308 NOTICE This report was prepared as an account of work sponsored by an agency of the United States government. Neither the United States government nor any agency thereof, nor any of their employees, makes any warranty, express or implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness of any information, apparatus, product, or process disclosed, or represents that its use would not infringe privately owned rights. Reference herein to any specific commercial product, process, or service by trade name, trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise does not necessarily constitute or imply its endorsement, recommendation, or favoring by the United States government or any agency thereof. The views and opinions of authors expressed herein do not necessarily state or reflect those of the United States government or any agency thereof. Available electronically at http://www.osti.gov/bridge Available for a processing fee to U.S. Department of Energy and its contractors, in paper, from: U.S. Department of Energy Office of Scientific and Technical Information P.O. Box 62 Oak Ridge, TN 37831-0062 phone: 865.576.8401 fax: 865.576.5728 email: mailto:[email protected] Available for sale to the public, in paper, from: U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • The Year in Elections, 2013: the World's Flawed and Failed Contests
    The Year in Elections, 2013: The World's Flawed and Failed Contests The Harvard community has made this article openly available. Please share how this access benefits you. Your story matters Citation Norris, Pippa, Richard W. Frank, and Ferran Martinez i Coma. 2014. The Year in Elections 2013: The World's Flawed and Failed Contests. The Electoral Integrity Project. Published Version http://www.electoralintegrityproject.com/ Citable link http://nrs.harvard.edu/urn-3:HUL.InstRepos:11744445 Terms of Use This article was downloaded from Harvard University’s DASH repository, and is made available under the terms and conditions applicable to Other Posted Material, as set forth at http:// nrs.harvard.edu/urn-3:HUL.InstRepos:dash.current.terms-of- use#LAA THE YEAR IN ELECTIONS, 2013 THE WORLD’S FLAWED AND FAILED CONTESTS Pippa Norris, Richard W. Frank, and Ferran Martínez i Coma February 2014 THE YEAR IN ELECTIONS, 2013 WWW. ELECTORALINTEGRITYPROJECT.COM The Electoral Integrity Project Department of Government and International Relations Merewether Building, HO4 University of Sydney, NSW 2006 Phone: +61(2) 9351 6041 Email: [email protected] Web: http://www.electoralintegrityproject.com Copyright © Pippa Norris, Ferran Martínez i Coma, and Richard W. Frank 2014. All rights reserved. Photo credits Cover photo: ‘Ballot for national election.’ by Daniel Littlewood, http://www.flickr.com/photos/daniellittlewood/413339945. Licence at http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0. Page 6 and 18: ‘Ballot sections are separated for counting.’ by Brittany Danisch, http://www.flickr.com/photos/bdanisch/6084970163/ Licence at http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0. Page 8: ‘Women in Pakistan wait to vote’ by DFID - UK Department for International Development, http://www.flickr.com/photos/dfid/8735821208/ Licence at http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0.
    [Show full text]
  • Mining Company of Akouta (COMINAK), Akouta, Agadez II 111 I II III 111 Lllllll Mining Society of Air (SOMAIR), Arlit, Agadez XA0055932 Niger
    IAEA-SM-362/37 WASTE MANAGEMENT IN URANIUM COMPANIES OF NIGER Mining Company of Akouta (COMINAK), Akouta, Agadez II 111 I II III 111 lllllll Mining Society of Air (SOMAIR), Arlit, Agadez XA0055932 Niger Two companies produce uranium (yellow cake) in Niger: the "Societe des Mines de l'Ai'r (SOMAIR)" and the "Compagnie Miniere d'Akouta (COMINAK)". SOMAIR exploits uranium an open pit mining whereas COMINAK exploits an underground mining. The uranium ores with a grade of 0.25%U to 0.5%U [1] are treated by SOMAIR and COMINAK mills since 1971 and 1978 respectively. During the uranium recovery processing the principal following inputs are used: uranium ores, sulphuric acid (75 kg/t to 80 kg/5), nitric acid (10 kg/t recycled), sodium oxidant (2.5 kg/t) and water (150 l/t) [2]. The main chain of mining and milling is the following: Mining • Crushing • Leaching —• Solid-Liquid separation —*• Solvent extraction —• Uranium recovery —• Tailings management. The wastes produced (from mining and milling) can be classified as liquid wastes and solid wastes. The first one (liquid wastes) is of two kinds: wastewater and other liquid effluents. The wastewater is decanted for reuse in mills (COMINAK uses 16 basins with 4m of depth on an area of 44 ha to treat 3.4 millions mVyear [3]). Other liquid effluents are stored in basins of evaporation (COMINAK which has produced a volume of 2.18 millions m3 used 11 basins with 4 m of depth on an area of 65 ha against 10 ha for SOMAIR [3])- The solid wastes are barren overburden, low grade uranium ore and tailings mill.
    [Show full text]