Public Fears of Nuclear Power in the Uranium Mining Industry, in March's Issue of Energy Digital

Energy Digital takes a second look at the uranium market and the significance of nuclear energy. Despite what various may think about nuclear power in light of Fukushima's nuclear reactor meltdown incident earlier this year it residue an integral part of the world's power supply. Compared to burning additional fossil fuels, it's also the better option.

"It's the only form of power generation in the world that is low cost, large-scale, dependable and emissions-free," says Uranium Energy Corporation's CEO Admir Adnani in an interview with Energy Digital. "There's just no credible option to that."

Comparing the injure caused from nuclear reactor failures, fossil fuels continue to dump ridiculous amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere on a daily basis. The nuclear industry has taken unbelievable effort to adjust those safety issues, but the difficulty now is supplying uranium to keep it running.

Uranium One reports record sales and production

The strong consequences came despite challenges that the nuclear industry faced last year, says CEO Chris Sattler.The company reported familiar earnings per share of 12 cents for the year ended December after a loss of 1 cent the previous year.

Revenue rose 62% to a record $530.4 million, based on documentation sales and production of 9.9 and 10.7 million pounds. Net earnings for 2011 were $88 million, or $0.09 per share and familiar net earnings for 2011 were $114 million after a loss of $3.3 million.Total attributable production through 2011 was a record 10.7 million pounds, 43% higher than 2010, while the average total cash cost per pound sold was $14, compared to $13 per pound through 2010.

The company has a internationally diversified portfolio of assets in Kazakhstan, the US, Australia and is operator of the Mkuju River Project in Tanzania.Uranium One's major shareholder is JSC Atomredmetzoloto (ARMZ) which is a completely owned subsidiary of Rosatom, the Russian State Corporation for Nuclear Energy.

Iran has uranium for 4 nukes, builds US-reach missiles - Israel

Iranian scientists have previously managed to enrich enough radioactive material to successfully produce not just one, but four nuclear bombs, Israel’s military intelligence chief has announced. General Aviv Kochavi broke the news at a security discussion on Thursday. The intelligence chief says he believes Iran would need a year from the word go to really producing a crude device, and another year or two to manufacture a nuclear warhead that can be installed on a ballistic missile.

Kochavi also claimed that “Iran is very actively pursuing its efforts to develop its nuclear capacities, and we have confirmation that they are seeking nuclear weapons."However, no real evidence was produced or even referred to at the conference. The Israeli Deputy PM added fuel to the fire, claiming that Iran has as well succeeded in building a long-range missile capable of putting the US within its reach. Moshe Ya’alon, who had just returned from Washington where he discuss the Iran situation with President Obama’s administration, chose to echo Kochavi’s words of warning, saying “The Israeli government will discontinue Iran one way or another.”

These latest statements are extremely much in line with the position of Israel and its allies who are accusing Iran of using its nuclear industry to mask plans to develop nuclear arms, a charge official Tehran has regularly and vehemently denied.Israel, backed by its key ally the United States, has extended pushed for tougher sanctions against Iran. Top level officials in both Tel Aviv and Washington DC have recently said they do not rule out a military attack next to the Islamic Republic.

Wall back uranium takeover

After successfully important the charge against BHP's hostile takeover bid for PotashCorp, Premier Brad Wall is now defensive the right of foreign companies to have controlling interest in Saskatchewan uranium mines. Wall was speaking in favour of Saskatoon Humboldt Tory MP Brad Trost's personal member's bill before Parliament, which would remove limits on foreign ownership of uranium mines. Currently, foreign ownership of Saskatchewan uranium mines is imperfect to 49 per cent. Wall's place is that the federal Non-Resident Ownership Policy should be eliminate completely as it represents "a barrier to foreign investment in the province."

Wall maintains that his position on liberalize foreign ownership of uranium mines does not disagreement with his stance opposite the sale of PotashCorp to BHP on the basis that potash is a "strategic resource.'' "We want to be open to that kind of investment in the province, so that correct now that's the case with potash,'' Wall said, noting that Minnesota based Mosaic owns some potash mines in the province. He added that AREVA Resources Canada, the Canadian supplementary of the French state owned uranium and nuclear industry giant, would likely spend more in the province if the ownership limits were removed.

While Wall says his position on foreign ownership of uranium mines doesn't oppose his tough stance on potash, it does conflict with the position taken by Cameco Corp., the Uranium growth Partnership and the federal Competition Policy Review Panel, not to mention the regional NDP and federal Liberal opposition parties. Of course, Wall brushed off the NDP's objection, pointing out that the former NDP government supported lifting limits on the foreign ownership of uranium mines in 2007 and 1997. And the former Devine government support their elimination in 1988, as did the Saskatchewan Party government in 2009 in respond to the UDP report.

Many on-site explorations could show more uranium

A Virginia Uranium Inc. commissioned study shows the Coles Hill uranium mine project could insert up to $300 million annually into the local economy and pinpoints an chance for more on-site exploration. The company’s preliminary economic assessment, conduct by independent engineering consultant Lyntek Inc. and BRS Inc, shows it is economically feasible to mine and mill the uranium ore put at Coles Hill in Pittsylvania County. In fact, VUI project manager Patrick Wales argues it’s at present one of the world’s most economically viable uranium resource projects. The deposit could be more than the predictable 119 million pounds.

“We have one of the world’s best capitals as it is now,” Wales said. “Any additional work we do to enlarge the deposit would be on-site.” The economic appraisal noted the historic exploration drilling conducted at Coles Hill was for open pit mining depths. The Coles family homestead situated in between the two ore bodies was protected from surface trouble and exploration drilling there was limited. Underground mining in that confined area could potentially enlarge the resource, but more exploration would be wanted to know. All underground mining would be economically possible, the assessment stated. Most likely, because some of the uranium ore comes correct to the surface, the company could use a combination of underground and open pit mining, Wales said.

The economic assessment will supply into the mining plans for Coles Hill, but some more analyses will be needed in the coming years, Wales said. Potential investors continue to call and call the site and the company hears a lot from the nuclear industry about the require for domestic uranium, Wales added. “This is one of the biggest energy projects in the entire U.S.,” Wales said. “The deposit contains a tremendous resource not just for Virginia but for the whole country to fuel our nuclear power plants domestically.” At present, the United States imports 92 percent of the uranium use to fuel nuclear power plants. A domestic provide would also mean savings on transportation costs, Wales said.

Nuclear power plants aren’t bomb factories

FACTUAL accuracy is a regular casualty in discussion of nuclear issues in Australia. The tendency of certain industry sectors and parts of government to overstate the economic benefits of nuclear power and dismiss genuine concerns over nuclear safety has been well canvassed. Yet far less attention has been paid to examining the coherence of the arguments put forward by those who resist Australia's involvement in the nuclear fuel cycle as a supplier of uranium. Recent observations by Australian Greens senator Scott Ludlam seeking to justify his party's opposition to Australian uranium exports presents an chance to test these arguments.

The essential thrust of his case is that it is impossible to distinguish between the civilian and military utilization of nuclear energy and that, as a consequence, any promotion of civilian nuclear power will unavoidably promote its use for military purposes. However, there are severe flaws in this argument. Since 1945, global nuclear proliferation dynamics have remained mainly disconnected from the civilian nuclear industry. Every nuclear weapons program since and including the US Manhattan Project has been the product of devoted military reactors rather than an offshoot of civilian programs.

Fissile materials for nuclear weapons growth programs are the product of special-purpose reactors, not a consequence of civilian reactor programs, whose mix of nuclear fuel is specifically calibrated for generating electricity and other utility outputs. There is simply no historical proof to support the proposition that civilian nuclear reactor programs fuel weapons proliferation. Today, there are a mere nine nuclear weapons states in the international system despite the fact that more than 1000 nuclear reactors have function across several continents since the 1940s. All nuclear weapons states obtain their arsenals through purpose-built military facilities, not as a by-product of civilian reactors.