Gloomy reality of Australia’s collapsing uranium industry

AUSTRALIAN CONSERVATION FOUNDATION, 26 Nov 13, Uranium hopefuls will be hard pressed to find a positive story about the embattled sector at a mining industry conference this week in South Australia. The last two weeks have seen further evidence of the continuing market fallout from Fukushima on SA’s embattled uranium sector with the closure of the Honeymoon operation and the decision by Marathon Resources to exit the uranium trade, declaring the sector’s ‘risks outweigh the rewards’.

 The news comes as a set of uranium junior companies join with the Beverley project’s Heathgate Resources to talk up the sector at the 2013 Mining South Australia conference, which starts today in Whyalla.

Australia’s uranium industry is suffering from:

• ·                The scrapping of plans for a massive expansion of BHP Billiton’s Olympic Dam mine in SA because of the ‘uncertain’ uranium market
• ·                A fall in the uranium commodity price of around 50 per cent and larger falls in the share value of uranium mining companies since Fukushima – a continuing crisis directly fuelled by Australian uranium
• ·                Sustained losses and operational failures at ERA’s Ranger mine in Kakadu
• ·                Attempts by Queensland uranium promoters to receive ‘royalty relief’ and public concessions even before making any formal applications to mine
• ·                Projects stalled, scrapped or deferred in WA, SA and the NT

“The uranium industry has long caused trouble, now it is increasingly in trouble,” said Australian Conservation Foundation nuclear free campaigner Dave Sweeney. “Uranium mining is a high-risk, low-return sector that poses unique, unresolved and long-lived threats and does not enjoy secure social license.

“It is time for politicians to stop accepting industry promises and start genuinely examining industry performance. “ACF urges state and federal governments to give effect to the UN Secretary General’s call that Australia conduct ‘an in-depth assessment of the net cost impact of the impacts of mining fissionable material (uranium) on local communities and ecosystems’.

“Instead of misplaced industry enthusiasm it is time for a comprehensive and independent assessment of the costs and consequences of the uranium sector.”

Australian uranium industry “spin” wearing thin

Time to spill truth  on uranium sector,Townsville Bulletin, DAVE SWEENEY,  23 Nov 13,  THERE is an old saying that no trader calls out ‘‘bad fish’’. So it comes as no surprise that a former uranium company executive now paid to do public relations for the uranium sector will say all is well in the industry (Uranium: safety first, TB, 18/11). The reality is the industry is in very poor shape, financially and operationally – as can be seen by the recent mothballing of the Honeymoon mine in South Australia, because the numbers didn’t add up, and the backroom push by the Queensland Resources Council to get ‘‘royalty relief for Queensland uranium mines that have not even filed an application to develop yet.

The most recent independent assessment of the Australian uranium industry – an inquiry by the Australian Senate in October 2003 – found the sector characterised by underperformance and noncompliance, an absence of reliable data to measure contamination or its impact and an operational culture focused on the short-term.

Uranium mining is a high-risk, low-return sector that poses unique unresolved and long-lived threats and does not enjoy secure social license. Australian uranium fuelled Fukushima. Every Australian uranium mining operation has a history of leaks and spills. The need to manage radioactive materials over extremely long periods, along with security and

proliferation concerns, make uranium mining fundamentally different from other mining. In the shadow of Fukushima, and given the call by the UN Secretary General in September 2011 that Australia conduct an indepth assessment of the net cost impact of the impacts of uranium mining on communities and ecosystems, it is time the industry and state and federal governments supported a comprehensive and independent assessment of the costs and consequences.

The continued failure to do so highlights the industry’s preference for public relations over public scrutiny– and the fact that uranium is a very smelly fish.

 

Paladin boss talks up uranium industry, despite drastic loss

‘Price hikes will be severe’ And uranium’s rise will come sooner, not later, says Paladin’s John Borshoff Resource Clips, by Greg Klein, 31 Aug 13,    

With uranium selling well under $40, “no one will or can move forward with growth, never mind maintaining current production,” said Paladin Energy TSX:PDN managing director/CEO John Borshoff. While summarizing his company’s fiscal 2013 he expressed incredulity about the uranium market’s “absolute absurdity” of low prices despite looming shortages.

He also predicted a dramatic change, emphasizing “the price can only go up sooner than some think.

”…… Addressing a conference call from his Western Australia office on August 30 (August 29 in the Western Hemisphere), Borshoff acknowledged “an extremely challenging year, what with the uranium price falling from about $50 in July 2012 to $35 this month and currently sitting on an eight-year low.”

He attributed this month’s fall in share value to the uranium price, a general weakness in world markets “still waiting by and large for Japanese nuclear re-starts post-Fukushima” and uncertainty about the sale of a minority interest in Paladin’s Langer Heinrich mine in Namibia…….

There’s absolutely no incentive for miners or juniors to develop anything today in anticipation of this shortage. This time around, prices will have to rise and stay there on a sustained basis before the time of the shortfall for the developers to commit, and the end user needs to realize this fact.”

Borshoff said new development will remain stalled “until a price of at least $70 or higher is reached to galvanize some action. It’s only at this price level, and above, that sufficient capital for new development can be raised.”…… http://resourceclips.com/2013/08/29/%E2%80%98price-hikes-will-be-severe%E2%80%99/

In South Australia, the drive for nuclear industry to supply US nuclear weapons fuel

The issue isn’t nuclear power.  The issue is processing uranium for nuclear power that then can be used for defence 

You have to understand this in terms of  in terms of Adelaide, -it’s a military industrial intelligence complex 

Simons is connected to the University College of London  but basically he’s a front man for business interests,    We can clearly question what he is doing given the fact that he’s getting funding from indirect corporate sources.

AUDIO: https://radio.adelaide.edu.au/nuclear-power-in-south-australia-a-golden-age/   Nuclear Power in South Australia – a golden age? Radio Adelaide 23 Aug 13     Chris Komorek spoke with Dr David Palmer from Flinders University to explore the changing landscape. Produced by Ian Newton. TRANSCRIPT by Christina Macpherson 

Chris Komorek  As the uranium debate heats up, so does the destroyed reactor in Fukushima, Japan.The International Energy Policy Institute at the University College London’s Adelaide campus is advocating a ramped up nuclear industry here in South Australia. We’re joined by Dr David Palmer from Flinders University.

 Q. What level of support is there in industry and science for an expanded nuclear industry in South Australia?

 Dr David Palmer First of all you have to put this in context  The interviews you’ve had on Radio Adelaide over the last 2 days have really been interesting. Helen Caldicott’s question about  what motivates these people. She couldn’t quite get her head around that

  I think that actually Prof Simons has answered that. However did not give his real answer on your program

Just to put it in context. Just a few minutes ago, Japan Times released a new story that is quite shocking.It’s Fukushima again –  Their top story of the day “Rate of radioactive flow to Pacific  alarming”. Fukushima No1 leaks estimated at 30 trillion becquerels  since May 2011. What this means is that the rate of release estimated since May 2011 is 100 times more than what TEPCO has been saying.

The other thing is – This is just Fukushima

The Japan Times headline story that ran previously is about the coming earthquake that will hit Tokyo. They estimate that 10,000 people will die from that earthquake which will probably hit under Yokohama.  7 million people will be homeless. Roughly 1.2 $billion will be lost in terms of damage.

There is a nuclear power plant called Homolka halfway between Mt Fuji and Tokyo and that’s right on the coast. That will probably be hit as well. You’re talking about a nuclear disaster South of Tokyo They also think this earthquake could hit at any moment. it’s 90 years overdue.- Mt Fuji potentially could erupt. It’s interesting that Prof S said nothing about the extreme dangers  now hitting Japan almost daily.

Q. I will ask you again. What level of support is there in industry and science for an expanded nuclear  industry in South Australia?

Dr Palmer: In South Australia it’s interesting  and here we get into the argument by  Prof Simons.  There’s a  certain sector of corporate world in Australia, but particularly in our area, that is very supportive of this. You have to look at the rationale that Simons gave in his talk when speaking with the Liberal Opposition Minister. What he said is: Governments throughout the world are trying to balance the trilemma of providing their nations with – and this is his argument for nuclear energy . It’s not about climate change No. 1. It’s about:

1 securing energy supply

2 maintaining economic growth

3 impact on climate change and reducing carbon emissions

So the Issue is security of energy supply If you look at who is supporting this initiative  it’s BHP  Billiton that would probably like to get Olympic Dam operation  going again, once the Coalition gets in to the federal government. It’s all of these  defence contractors up in Edinburgh area, and also the submarine corporation. Simons is one of the main  proponents of a  nuclear powered submarine being built here in Adelaide

The  door will then be open for Adelaide will then be a port for nuclear powered naval  vessels.

Q. Would Australia be going against the world trend if we went down the path of nuclear power? 

Dr Palmer: No, because The issue isn’t nuclear power.  The issue is processing uranium for nuclear power that then can be used for defence That is the key thing. It’s not about somehow cheap energy.  It’s about securing energy supply.  Simons himself said SA has about 30+% of world’s uranium  This is one of the most strategic places in the world for those involved in military operations. Now they’re ramping this up so they have  an entire industrial complex

 You have to understand this in terms of  in terms of Adelaide, -it’s a military industrial intelligence complex Simons is connected to the University College of London  but basically he’s a front man for business interests, that’s just my opinion. We can clearly question what he is doing given the fact that he’s getting funding from indirect corporate sources.

The reality is that Universities play a major part in assisting business in defence contracts. That’s really what it’s about. it’s not just about cheap energy or climate change

Q. If Australia increases exports, and begins enrichment could we see Australia  become an international depository for depleted uranium?

Dr Palmer. Yes I think that  that’s already happening.  That’s my guess. I don’t have the proof of that.

It’s not just about building nuclear power plants and making the world  a better place. What Simons says basically is that you have a choice  nuclear power or coal.  Caldicott was absolutely right, by saying that’s ridiculous  We have all of these other non carbon based energy sources. In fact  a very substantial part of SA’s power is now wind derived

You have to look at other reasons for this .   The other thing is If you look at – Why would someone from London from University College be in Adelaide?  and the fact is that in terms of defence operations we look at military strategy  generally , The US UK and Australia are key players in the US defence operations. The other side is China Essentially this is part of this repositioning in terms of US and its allies military strategy  That’s what it’s really about It’ security in energy supply.

It’s not about nuclear weapons. It’s about nuclear powered sources for military uses, and secondarily to deal with economic growth and climate change.. Their interest in climate change  more about the impact it will have on the economy, not about the impact on you and me.

“Emotion” is good, says uranium lobby – when it’s used to promote uranium mining

I have often been accused by nuclear lobbyists of beong – that awful thing “emotional”.  An anti-nuclear person speaking out is “emotional” (obviously not sensible). Indeed, an anti nuclear woman is“hysterical”.

So I find it almost hysterical that Australia’s uranium propagandists are now being advised to be emotional – C.M .

Coal seam gas industry has to work harder to win over critics August 21, 2013 Business Day David Paterson

“……..Australia’s CSG industry could learn a few lessons from the way the uranium industry worked on its image during the past three to four decades…….

in 2006, the uranium sector sought to bring a more sophisticated approach to its advocacy on public policy and in the following years there were some substantial successes……  the Australian uranium industry made a number of fundamental changes to the way it approached policy debates that helped improve its public reputation.

For today’s CSG industry, there are five important lessons that could be learned from the uranium sector’s experience.

Firstly, hearts and minds will not be won by facts alone. Good advocacy requires reliable factual information, but emotions will play a surprisingly important role in even the most technical debate. Understanding this is the first step to developing a communications strategy that will resonate with audiences.

Secondly, the CSG industry must learn that the battle is all about trust. Building trust takes many things, from showing technical ability to emotional intelligence, and company representatives will need to have both.

Thirdly, the industry needs operational standards that all companies maintain. During the uranium debate, the mystique and fear of radiation caused deep concern in communities that lived near mines. Codes of practice and reporting methods were introduced throughout the industry and best practices were shared across the industry.

Fourth is the lesson that transparency is your friend. The evil stereotype of spin-doctoring suggests it’s an exercise in denial, defence and deflection. These methods rarely work, whereas transparency builds credibility and trust.

Lastly, the CSG industry needs to get close to its communities. For many years uranium companies found that environmental activists had harnessed the concerns of local communities and forged a united front with them. The uranium industry learned from this and turned its focus to the aspirations and feelings of people who lived near the mines. Eventually some of the indigenous leaders joined the board of the Australian Uranium Association, and environmental activists were increasingly marginalised.

David Paterson was a founding director of the Australian Uranium Association, and general manager of external affairs at Energy Resources of Australia. He is director of Emergent Advisory. http://www.businessday.com.au/business/coal-seam-gas-industry-has-to-work-harder-to-win-over-critics-20130820-2s99z.html

Australia’s uranium mining industry discounts risks of radiation

Industry leaders claim uranium mining held back by fear,Mining Australia 6 June, 2013 Vicky Validakis Addressing the fear of the uranium industry was the central theme of a uranium conference held in Adelaide last month, with industry leaders speaking out against campaigns that they say have choked the development of industry…… AUA chief executive Michael Angwin said the local industry has been politically choked by fear……  we should use that impetus to also reform the overweight regulation of and the approvals process for new uranium mines in Australia.”…..

“In short, we have entered the political end-game for uranium and any remnant political fears about the industry cannot be justified against the sector’s 40 year track record.”….

Greens nuclear policy spokesman Scott Ludlam said selling uranium to India would be ‘mistake’.

“I’m extremely concerned that Australian uranium will find itself one way or another fuelling a sub-continental arms race,” he said at the time……..http://www.miningaustralia.com.au/features/industry-leaders-claim-uranium-mining-held-back-by

Despite the facts, uranium lobby presents a rosy view of their market situation

Elemental: How some people are playing the uranium glut  24 Jul 2013 | By: Anna Andrianova | Special to CNBC.com   With Japan shuttering its nuclear reactors and Europe pulling away from the nuclear power, the world has more uranium than it needs. But that’s not stopping some people from betting on the radioactive element in the longer term. ……

Nuclear bulls

Despite those low prices—or perhaps because of them—some investors are putting bets on a uranium turnaround.

Uranium Energy Corp, an exploration and production company, said it expects demand to pick up faster than production can respond.

“With the uranium prices falling so low post-Fukushima, they are well below the economic incentive level needed to see new mine construction,” said Amir Adnani, CEO of Uranium Energy Corp.

As mines struggle because of the low prices, now is the time to buy them, Adnani said………….

All the acquisitions could gain value when demand revives, which could be triggered by the Japanese reactors’ coming back—at least that’s what investors hope………..

Demand for uranium is expected to grow less than 1 percent this year, leaving the industry with a net oversupply of 7 million pounds, said Nicolas Carter, senior vice president for uranium at Ux Consulting, a nuclear industry consultancy.

The world’s net oversupply of uranium may reach 18 million pounds this year, according to Ux. The difference between demand (185 million pounds) and the supply from mining (155 million pounds) is covered by 48 million pounds from secondary sources.

Those sources include government stockpiles, as well as recycled uranium from a U.S.-Russia treaty that lets U.S. utilities acquire uranium from former Soviet nuclear weapons. That treaty is set to expire this year.

However, USEC is a buyer of that Soviet uranium, and Donald said that even the expiration of the treaty will not create a shortage in the near term. The market has been prepared for the change, so it is unlikely to have a big impact on prices, he added.

Exelon, a utility company with 10 power plants and 17 reactors in Illinois, Pennsylvania and New Jersey, said that it does not expect any uranium shortage soon and that it has planned its purchases with the cessation of the Russian treaty in mind.  http://www.cnbc.com/id/100901959

Dubious record of Australian uranium mining companies; Paladin and Rio Tinto in Africa

What have interested Australian companies, or the Australian government, done to address these concerns?…….

 what should we make of Australian Defence Force chief General David Hurley’s alarming indication that there might be a role for the ADF in protecting “Australian interests” in Africa?

Multinational miners: magnanimous or malevolent? Kellie Tranter – lawyer and Humna Rights Activist, FEBRUARY 1, 2013 BY KELLIE TRANTER   “……..Malawi “…….Minister Carr praised the work of Australian mining company Paladin, referring to its strong corporate social responsibility.  Paladin operates Malawi’s biggest uranium mine, the Kayelekera.

In June 2008, The Bench Marks Foundation released a report ‘Corporate Social Responsibility and the Mining Sector in Southern Africa’ which suggested that when Paladin struck its deal with the Malawi government to mine uranium, it was agreed that it would get a 100% capital write off, a reduction in corporate tax from 30% to 27.5% and a scrapping of the 10% resource rent tax.  Paladin was also to be exempt from the standard 17.5% import VAT or duty and a royalty rate reduced from 5% to 1.5% in the first three years and 3% thereafter.

Paladin uranium miner, and others, use Australia’s overseas aid to bolster their image in Africa

Paladin, which has been the subject of some controversy in Malawi over job cuts, was last year linked to a funding application through its employees’ charity – Friends and Employees of Paladin for African Children.

 Paladin’s (African) Ltd general manager, international affairs, Greg Walker, who was invited late last year to be Australia’s honorary consul to Malawi, was involved in the process, according to 2012 correspondence from Australia’s ambassador to Zimbabwe, Matthew Neuhaus, to Mr Walker. The letter obtained under freedom of information confirmed Mr Walker’s successful application for the employees’ charity funding proposal.

The Aidwatch director Thulsi Narayanasamy said it was not the place of the Australian aid program to fund the corporate social responsibility programs of wealthy mining companies.

Firms use tax money for aid projects : http://www.smh.com.au/money/tax/firms-use-tax-money-for-aid-projects-20130129-2ditd.html#ixzz2Jbp0RzOT  January 30, 2013 Rory Callinan

WEALTHY resource companies operating overseas are tapping into Australian taxpayer funds to set up aid projects potentially benefiting their corporate social responsibility credentials.

Aid and mining watchdogs have expressed concerns about the practice, arguing the corporations are wealthy enough to bankroll their own aid and that linking donations to controversial mine operations is a conflict of interest.

Nine mining companies all operating in Africa have been linked to the successful applications via the Foreign Affairs Department’s Direct Aid Program – a scheme that allows heads of missions to give up to $30,000 to local causes.

About $215,000 of taxpayers’ money went to the mining company-conceived projects last financial year, including a school for the deaf, providing trade skill training to local workers, establishing women’s groups and digging wells. Two applications involved uranium mining companies, Paladin Energy in Malawi and Bannerman Resources in Namibia.

Lynas rare earths company bent on discrediting its critics

Lynas’ waste plans a toxic pipe dream  Aliran,   19 December 2012 Scientists and community leaders are concerned about radioactive waste from Lynas’ Malaysian plant but the company representative who took Wendy Bacon’s questions brushed off the criticism. This is the second of two articles about Lynas by Wendy Bacon “………Shutting down the critics

New Matilda asked to interview Lynas Executive Chairperson Nick Curtis but he was not available. Instead we interviewed a Lynas spokesperson who insists that the waste products of the Lamp project are “not hazardous in any way”. He refers to the safety record of Lynas which in “all of its constructions … has been achieved with zero lost time injury”.

When New Matilda suggested that problems are more likely to arise in the long term, even 20 or 30 years away, he replied: “I would be lying if I categorically tell you there is no risk in 20 or 30 years time from anything. What I can tell you is that the unanimous conclusion of all of the scientific experts from all of the different organisations that have investigated this material and everything else is that there will be no discernible risk for the public or anyone else from this facility.”

But this is far from true.