What's lurking in your granite countertop?
By KATE MURPHY
THE NEW YORK TIMES
August 03, 2008
Shortly before Dr. Lynn Sugarman of Teaneck, N.J., bought her summer home in Lake George, N.Y., two years ago, a routine inspection revealed it had elevated levels of radon, a radioactive gas that can cause lung cancer. So she called a radon measurement and mitigation technician to find the source. “He went from room to room,” says Sugarman, a pediatrician. But he stopped in his tracks in the kitchen, which had richly grained cream, brown and burgundy granite countertops. His Geiger counter indicated that the granite was emitting radiation at levels 10 times higher than those he had measured elsewhere in the house.
When the technician told her to keep her daughter several feet from the countertops just to be safe, she says, “I had them ripped out that very day,” and sent to the state Department of Health for analysis. The granite, it turned out, contained high levels of uranium, which is not only radioactive but releases radon gas as it decays. “The health risk to me and my family was probably small,” Sugarman says, “but I felt it was an unnecessary risk.”
As the popularity of granite countertops has grown in the last decade — demand for them has increased tenfold, according to the Marble Institute of America, a trade group representing granite fabricators — so have the types of granite available. For example, one source, Graniteland (graniteland.com) offers more than 900 kinds of granite from 63 countries. And with increased sales volume and variety, there have been more reports of “hot” or potentially hazardous countertops, particularly among the more exotic and striated varieties from Brazil and Namibia.
“It’s not that all granite is dangerous,” says Stanley Liebert, the quality assurance director at CMT Laboratories in Clifton Park, N.Y., who took radiation measurements at Sugarman’s house.
DUELING OPINIONS
Allegations that granite countertops may emit dangerous levels of radon and radiation have been raised periodically over the past decade, mostly by makers and distributors of competing countertop materials. The Marble Institute of America has said such claims are “ludicrous” because although granite is known to contain uranium and other radioactive materials like thorium and potassium, the amounts in countertops are not enough to pose a health threat.
Indeed, health physicists and radiation experts agree that most granite countertops emit radiation and radon at extremely low levels. They say these emissions are insignificant compared with so-called background radiation that is constantly raining down from outer space or seeping up from the earth’s crust, not to mention emanating from manmade sources like X-rays, luminous watches and smoke detectors.
But with increasing regularity in recent months, the Environmental Protection Agency has been receiving calls from radon inspectors as well as from concerned homeowners about granite countertops with radiation measurements several times above background levels. “We’ve been hearing from people all over the country concerned about high readings,” says Lou Witt, a program analyst with the agency’s Indoor Environments Division.
In June, Suzanne Zick, who lives in Magnolia, Texas, a small town northwest of Houston, called the EPA and her state’s health department to find out what she should do about the salmon-colored granite she had installed in her foyer a year and a half ago. A geology instructor at a community college, she realized belatedly that it could contain radioactive material and had it tested. The technician sent her a report indicating that the granite was emitting low to moderately high levels of both radon and radiation, depending on where along the stone the measurement was taken.
TAKING ACTION
The EPA recommends taking action if radon gas levels in the home exceeds 4 picocuries per liter of air (a measure of radioactive emission); about the same risk for cancer as smoking a half a pack of cigarettes per day. In Sugarman’s kitchen, the readings were 100 picocuries per liter. In her basement, where radon readings are expected to be higher because the gas usually seeps into homes from decaying uranium underground, the readings were 6 picocuries per liter.
The average person is subjected to radiation from natural and manmade sources at an annual level of 360 millirem (a measure of energy absorbed by the body), according to government agencies like the EPA and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. The limit of additional exposure set by the commission for people living near nuclear reactors is 100 millirem per year. To put this in perspective, passengers get 3 millirem of cosmic radiation on a flight from New York to Los Angeles.
A “hot” granite countertop like Sugarman’s might add a fraction of a millirem per hour and that is if you were a few inches from it or touching it the entire time. Nevertheless, Witt says, “There is no known safe level of radon or radiation.” Moreover, he says, scientists agree that “any exposure increases your health risk.” A granite countertop that emits an extremely high level of radiation, as a small number of commercially available samples have in recent tests, could conceivably expose body parts that were in close proximity to it for two hours a day to a localized dose of 100 millirem over just a few months. David J. Brenner, director of the Center for Radiological Research at Columbia University in New York, says the cancer risk from granite countertops, even those emitting radiation above background levels, is “on the order of one in a million.” Being struck by lightning is more likely. Nonetheless, Brenner says, “It makes sense. If you can choose another counter that doesn’t elevate your risk, however slightly, why wouldn’t you?”
Radon is the second leading cause of lung cancer after smoking and is considered especially dangerous to smokers, whose lungs are already compromised. Children and developing fetuses are vulnerable to radiation, which can cause other forms of cancer. Witt says the EPA is not studying health risks associated with granite countertops because of a “lack of resources.”
The Marble Institute of America plans to develop a testing protocol for granite. “We want to reassure the public that their granite countertops are safe,” Jim Hogan, the group’s president, said earlier this month. “We know the vast majority of granites are safe, but there are some new exotic varieties coming in now that we’ve never seen before, and we need to use sound science to evaluate them.”
Research scientists at Rice University in Houston and at the New York state Department of Health are currently conducting studies of granite widely used in kitchen counters. William J. Llope, a professor of physics at Rice, says his preliminary results show that of the 55 samples he has collected from nearby fabricators and wholesalers, all of which emit radiation at higher-than-background levels, a handful have tested at levels 100 times or more above background.
Personal injury lawyers are already advertising on the Web for clients who think they may have been injured by countertops.
As for Sugarman, the contractor of the house she bought in Lake George paid for the removal of her “hot” countertops. She replaced them with another type of granite. “But I had them tested first,” she says.
ARE GRANITES A RADIATION RISK? (by Donald Langmuir, PhD, Professor Emeritus of Geochemistry, Colorado School of Mines)
It is worth noting that the stone industry, whether advertising countertops, building materials or monuments, terms many stones 'granites' that are not true granites to a geologist. A true granite, which is often grey or pink, is chiefly comprised of a potassium aluminum silicate mineral (K-feldspar or potassium feldspar) and quartz (silica or SiO2). Rocks called granites by the industry also include magnesium silicates (e.g. peridotites and serpentines) and a host of other chemically different rock-types, most of which contain much less uranium than does true granite.
As admitted by the author of 'Granite and Radon', there have been no direct measurements of radon release from granite countertops. Model calculations suggested by Dr. Richard Wanty, using a standard, scientifically accepted approach and conservative assumptions, indicate that the radon release from a granite countertop is orders of magnitude below detection by any known analytical method.
EPA standard, which is not to be exceeded in indoor air, is 4 picoCuries per liter of air (4 pCi/L). Eisenbud 1 indicates that the average contributions of radon from various sources to indoor air are 1.5 pCi/L from the soil (under and around the house), 0.01 pCi/L from public water supplies (0.4 pCi/L) from private wells), 0.05 pCi/L from building materials, and 0.2 pCi/L from outdoor air. These values are for the average house which is ventilated such that over one hour the air is changed 0.5 to 1.5 times. The vanishingly small amount of radon in household air that might be released from a granite countertop (0.00000074 pCi/L) as computed below, has been calculated assuming no exchange of indoor and outdoor air, which would further trivialize its significance. Note also that the radon content of outside air is 270,000 times greater than that released by the countertop.
There are certain properties of rocks that can increase their radon emanation efficiency, or in other words increase the release of radon from a given weight of rock. These are rock properties that maximize the exposure of internal or external rock surfaces to water or air, allowing any radon gas to escape. It is argued that such properties, which include rock porosity, fissuring and mylonitization, will increase radon releases. This is probably true, however, a granite with such properties would be too brittle to make into a countertop, and too open to take a polish, and so would not be marketable as a countertop - unless the rock pores were first filled with a chemical sealant. Such sealing would also eliminate any possible radon release problems.
The typical granite countertop in our example will release 7.4 x 10 -7 pCi/L of air. This corresponds to 2.7 x 10 -8 atom decays per second (dps). This represents 0.85 decays per year. In other words, less than one atom of radon is produced by the countertop in one year. This is hardly worth getting excited about.
Sunday, August 3, 2008
Granite slabs and radioactivity
Tuesday, September 4, 2007
Map of Indian Nuclear Facilities
Map of Uranium
This link gives a map of the
Indian Nuclear facilities as well
as of the Uranium mines
http://www.scribd.com/doc/4109667/nuclear-energy-locations-india
Wakhyn Uranium Deposit, Meghalaya
Uranium in Meghalaya
The Atomic Minerals Directorate for Exploration and Research is enthused by the discovery of uranium at Wakhyn in Meghalaya and the permission to prospect in the Rajiv Gandhi Tiger Sanctuary.
The AMD camp in Tiniang village.
"WE were encouraged by what we established at Lambapur... We had always called Lambapur the tip of the iceberg," said R.M. Sinha, Director, Atomic Minerals Directorate for Exploration and Research (AMD), Hyderabad, when Frontline met him on September 21. On that day, the AMD had received permission from the Union Ministry of Environment and Forests (MoEF), based on a Supreme Court order, to prospect for natural uranium in a 10 sq km area of the Rajiv Gandhi Tiger Sanctuary near Chitrial. The sanctuary is an extension of the Lambapur-Peddagattu block in Andhra Pradesh's Nalgonda district, where the AMD had already established the presence of uranium deposits.
The AMD had applied to the Board of Wildlife Management to do the exploration for uranium in the sanctuary. According to Sinha, the AMD had earlier surveyed the fringe of the sanctuary and concluded that the area had high potential. "Unless we drill in the area, we cannot prove the deposit. We have received permission to drill in a 10 sq km area [in the sanctuary]," he said.
Besides the neighbouring villages of Lambapur and Peddagattu, the AMD has discovered uranium deposits at Tummalapalle in Cuddapah district of the State. But what has buoyed Sinha is the discovery of uranium deposits at Wakhyn, a densely forested area in Meghalaya, where the turbulent Wahblei river flows. "Our concentration now, after the Singhbhum belt (in Jharkhand), is on Meghalaya. We have got deposits at Domiasiat (Kylleng-Pyndengsohiong) and Wakhyn. The sandstone rock in Meghalaya has high potential, but the ore grade is not high," he said.
On the banks of the Wahblei river in Wakhyn, checking for uranium deposits.
The aerial extent of sandstone in which the uranium mineral is lodged in the area all over Domiasiat is about 1,100 sq km. But one sq km area around Domiasiat alone has a potential of 10,000 tonnes of uranium. "From that you can deduce what a large potential exists in Meghalaya in terms of tonnage," the AMD Director said. But the grade was just 0.1 per cent, that is, 1,000 kg of ore yields only 1 kg of uranium.
Geologists of the AMD are the foot soldiers of the Department of Atomic Energy (DAE) trekking in the desert sands of Rajasthan, camping in leech- and cobra- infested forests in Meghalaya and Karnataka, climbing steep cliffs in the hills of Cuddapah district in Andhra Pradesh or traversing the beach sands of Tamil Nadu and Kerala, all in search of atomic minerals such as uranium, thorium, niobium, tantalum, yttrium, zirconium, titanium, beryllium and lithium.
The AMD started operations on July 29, 1949, as the Rare Minerals Survey Unit (RMSU) under the then Ministry of Natural Resources and Scientific Research. It was renamed Raw Materials Division (RMD) and brought under the Atomic Energy Commission (AEC) on October 3, 1950. The RMD was subsequently renamed Atomic Minerals Division in 1958, and then Atomic Minerals Directorate for Exploration and Research (AMD) during its golden jubilee in 1998. It began with a nucleus of 17 geoscientists under the stewardship of Prof. D.N. Wadia, who was then Geological Adviser to the Government of India.
R.M. Sinha, Director, AMD.
According to Dr. P. Krishnamurthy, former Regional Director, AMD, Eastern Region, Jamshedpur, the first recruitment of geologists was done by the AEC under the leadership of Dr. D.N. Wadia using the services of the Geological Survey of India and the Departments of Geology and Mining of the States and the candidates were from reputed geology departments. On October 3, 1950, at No.10, King George Avenue, the official residence of Dr. Wadia, some 50 people were recruited in different cadres, says Krishnamurthy in a pre-print of his paper to be presented at a conference to be held on January 22 to celebrate the centenary of the Mining and Metallurgical Geology Institute in Kolkata. "The Shamiana Batch, as it was popularly known, constituted the nucleus from which the RMSU, under the control of the AEC, spread out and grew in different parts of the country to explore for atomic minerals," says Krishnamurthy, who is now Consultant, Training and Development, Uranium Corporation of India Limited (UCIL).
How do the AMD geologists detect atomic minerals in sand, rock or riverbeds? Their work begins with the identification of favourable areas with the help of remote-sensing imageries or air-borne gamma-ray spectrometric survey. The geologists prepare a geological map of the area and then drill for rock samples to know the depth of occurrence of the uranium ore. The rocks are tested in the AMD's laboratories for uranium and other associated economic minerals and to understand the genetic aspects of uranium mineralisation. A simple method for recognising uranium minerals involves the use of ultra-violet lamp. If a rock were to have uranium mineralisation, it will glow under the light due to the presence of secondary uranium minerals.
Geologists assess the potential of the find in tonnes in a given area. If it is a viable deposit, the UCIL steps into the picture. It excavates the deposit by setting up mines, and mills the uranium into yellowcake, that is, magnesium diuranate, in processing plants. The Nuclear Fuel Complex (NFC) in Hyderabad sinters the yellowcake into fuel bundles to power India's 13 operating Pressurised Heavy Water Reactors.
The approximate ore grades from Kylleng-Pyndengsohiong is 0.1 per cent, Jaduguda 0.065 per cent, Banduhurang 0.03 and Lambapur 0.1 per cent. If the grade of the ore found in a particular area were 0.01 per cent and the grade of the ore in another area were to be 0.1 per cent, there would be ten times the quantity of natural uranium in the same volume of ore in the latter. "So the grade is important," the AMD Director said. In Canada, uranium ore grades are as high as 21 per cent.
Uranium in India
Uranium resources of India
India's uranium resources are modest, with 54,000 tonnes U as reasonably assured resources and 23,500 tonnes as estimated additional resources in situ.
Mining and processing of uranium is carried out by Uranium Corporation of India Ltd, a subsidiary of the Department of Atomic Energy (DAE), at Jaduguda and Bhatin (since 1967), Narwapahar (since 1995) and Turamdih (since 2002) - all in Jharkhand near Calcutta. A common mill is located near Jaduguda.
In 2005 and 2006 plans were announced to invest almost US$ 700 million to open further mines in Jharkand at Banduburang, Bagjata and Mohuldih; in Meghalaya at Domiasiat-Mawthabah (with a mill) and in Andhra Pradesh at Lambapur-Peddagattu (with mill 50km away at Seripally), both in Nalgonda district, and also a new mill at Turamdih in Jharkhand.
Banduburang is the first open cut mine and is being commissioned in 2007, Bagjata is underground and due in production from 2008, though there had been earlier small operations 1986-91. The Mohuldih underground mine is expected to operate from 2010. The Lambapur-Peddagatta mine has environmental clearance but faces local opposition, and a US$ 220 million Pulivendula mine and mill project in Kadapa district of Andhra Pradesh was approved in February 2007. The Domiasiat-Mawthabah mine project (also called Nongbah-Jynrin) in Meghalaya is also facing longstanding local opposition.
In August 2007 the government approved a new US$ 270 million mine and mill at Tummalapalle in Kadapa district of Andhra Pradesh, for commissioning in 2010.
India's uranium mines and mills - existing and announced
| State, district | Mine | Mill | Operating from |
| Jharkhand | Jaduguda | Jaduguda | 1967 |
|---|---|---|---|
Bhatin | Jaduguda | 1967 | |
Narwapahar | Jaduguda | 1995 | |
Turamdih | Turamdih | 2002 (mine) | |
Banduburang | 2007 | ||
Bagjata | 2008 | ||
Mohuldih | 2010 | ||
| Meghalaya | Mawthabah | Mawthabah | ? |
| Andhra Pradesh, Nalgonda | Lambapur-Peddagattu | Seripally | ? |
| Andhra Pradesh, Kadapa | Tummalapalle | Tummalapalle | 2010 |
| Andhra Pradesh, Kadapa | Pulivendula | Pulivendula | ? |
However, India has reserves of 290,000 tonnes of thorium - about one quarter of the world total, and these are intended to fuel its nuclear power program longer-term (see below).
Uranium fuel cycle
DAE's Nuclear Fuel Complex at Hyderabad undertakes refining and a conversion of uranium, which is received as magnesium diuranate (yellowcake) and refined. The main 400 t/yr plant fabricates PHWR fuel (which is unenriched). A small (25 t/yr) fabrication plant makes fuel for the Tarapur BWRs from imported enriched (2.66% U-235) uranium. Depleted uranium oxide fuel pellets (from reprocessed uranium) and thorium oxide pellets are also made for PHWR fuel bundles. Mixed carbide fuel for FBR was first fabricated at BARC in 1979.
Heavy water is supplied by DAE's Heavy Water Board, and the seven plants are working at capacity due to the current building program.
Used fuel from the civil PHWRs is reprocessed by BARC at Trombay, Tarapur and Kalpakkam to extract reactor-grade plutonium for use in the fast breeder reactors. Small plants at each site were supplemented by a new 1000 t/yr Kalpakkam plant commissioned in 1998, and this is being extended to reprocess FBTR carbide fuel. Apart from this all reprocessing uses the Purex process. Further capacity is being built tat Tarapur and Kalpakkam, to come on line by about 2010.
In 2003 a facility was commissioned at Kalpakkam to reprocess mixed carbide fuel using an advanced Purex process. Future FBRs will also have these facilities co-located.
Under plans for the India-specific safeguards to be administered by the IAEA in relation to the civil-military separation plan several fuel fabrication facilities will come under safeguards.
Thorium cycle development
The long-term goal of India's nuclear program is to develop an advanced heavy-water thorium cycle.This first employs the PHWRs fuelled by natural uranium, and light water reactors, to produce plutonium.
Stage 2 uses fast neutron reactors burning the plutonium to breed U-233 from thorium. The blanket around the core will have uranium as well as thorium, so that further plutonium (ideally high-fissile Pu) is produced as well as the U-233.
Then in stage 3, Advanced Heavy Water Reactors (AHWRs) burn the U-233 and this plutonium with thorium, getting about two thirds of their power from the thorium.
In 2002 the regulatory authority issued approval to start construction of a 500 MW prototype fast breeder reactor at Kalpakkam and this is now under construction by BHAVINI. The unit is expected to be operating in 2010, fuelled with uranium-plutonium oxide (the reactor-grade Pu being from its existing PHWRs). It will have a blanket with thorium and uranium to breed fissile U-233 and plutonium respectively. This will take India's ambitious thorium program to stage 2, and set the scene for eventual full utilisation of the country's abundant thorium to fuel reactors. Four more such fast reactors have been announced for construction by 2020.
Initial FBRs will be have mixed oxide fuel but these will be followed by metallic-fuelled ones to enable shorter doubling time.
Radioactive Waste Management
Radioactive wastes from the nuclear reactors and reprocessing plants are treated and stored at each site. Waste immobilisation plants are in operation at Tarapur and Trombay and another is being constructed at Kalpakkam. Research on final disposal of high-level and long-lived wastes in a geological repository is in progress at BARC.
Regulation and safety
The Atomic Energy Commission (AEC) was established in 1948 under the Atomic Energy Act as a policy body. Then in 1954 the Department of Atomic Energy (DAE) was set up to encompass research, technology development and commercial reactor operation. The current Atomic Energy Act is 1962, and it permits only government-owned enterprises to be involved in nuclear power.
The DAE includes NPCIL, Uranium Corporation of India (mining and processing), Electronics Corporation of India Ltd (reactor control and instrumentation) and BHAVIN* (for setting up fast reactors). The government also controls the Heavy Water Board for production of heavy water and the Nuclear Fuel Complex for fuel and component manufacture.
* Bhartiya Nabhikiya Vidyut Nigam Ltd
The Atomic Energy Regulatory Board (AERB) was formed in 1983 and comes under the AEC but is independent of DAE. It is responsible for the regulation and licensing of all nuclear facilities, and their safety and carries authority conferred by the Atomic Energy Act for radiation safety and by the Factories Act for industrial safety in nuclear plants.
NPCIL is an active participant in the programmes of the World Association of Nuclear Operators (WANO).
Research & Development
An early AEC decision was to set up the Bhabha Atomic Research Centre (BARC) at Trombay near Mumbai. A series of 'research' reactors and critical facilities was built here: APSARA (1 MW, 1956) was the first research reactor in Asia, Cirus (40 MW, 1960) and Dhruva (100 MW, 1985) followed it along with fuel cycle facilities. The Cirus and Dhruva units are assumed to be for military purposes, as is the plutonium plant commissioned in 1965.
BARC is also responsible for the transition to thorium-based systems and in particular is developing the 300 MWe AHWR as a technology demonstration project. This will be a vertical pressure tube design with heavy water moderator, boiling light water cooling with passive safety design and thorium-plutonium based fuel.
A series of three Purnima research reactors have explored the thorium cycle, the first (1971) running on plutonium fuel fabricated at BARC, the second and third (1984 & 1990) on U-233 fuel made from thorium - U-233 having been first separated in 1970.
Two civil research reactors at the Indira Gandhi Centre for Atomic Research at Kalpakkam are preparing for stage two of the thorium cycle. The 40 MWt fast breeder test reactor (FBTR) has been operating since 1985, and has achieved 120,000 MWday/tonne burnup with its carbide fuel (70% PuC + 30% UC). In 2005 the FBTR fuel cycle was closed, with the reprocessing of 100 GWd/t fuel - claimed as a world first. FBTR is based on the French Rapsodie FBR design. Also the tiny Kamini (Kalpakkam mini) reactor is exploring the use of thorium as nuclear fuel, by breeding fissile U-233. BHAVINI is located here and draws upon the centre's expertise and that of NPCIL in establishing the fast reactor program.
As part of developing higher-burnup fuel for PHWRs mixed oxide (MOX) fuel is being used experimentally in them.
In 1998 a 500 keV accelerator was commissioned at BARC for research on accelerator-driven subcritical systems as an option for stage three of the thorium cycle.
The Board of Radiation & Isotope Technology was separated from BARC in 1989 and is responsible for radioisotope production. The research reactors APSARA, CIRUS and Dhruva are used, along with RAPS for cobalt-60.
Non-proliferation
India's nuclear industry is largely without IAEA safeguards, though four nuclear power plants (see above) are under facility-specific arrangements related to IndiaÕs INFCIRC/66 safeguards agreement with IAEA. The lack of full-scope IAEA safeguards however means that India is isolated from world trade by the Nuclear Suppliers' Group.
However, India has been scrupulous in ensuring that its weapons material and technology are guarded against commercial or illicit export to other countries.
Following the 2005 agreement between US and Indian heads of state on nuclear energy cooperation, the UK indicated its strong support for greater cooperation and France then Canada then moved in the same direction. The US Department of Commerce, the UK and Canada have relaxed controls on export of technology to India, though staying within the Nuclear Suppliers Group guidelines. The French government says it will seek a nuclear cooperation agreement, and Canada has agreed to "pursue further opportunities for the development of the peaceful uses of atomic energy" with India.
In December 2006 the US Congress passed legislation to enable trade with India of nuclear fuel and technology, after reconciling earlier House and Senate versions of it. The final wording is under consideration by India's parliament, which will need to put most of the country's nuclear power reactors under IAEA safeguards. A safeguards agreement with the IAEA must now be negotiated, and agreement of the 45-nation Nuclear Suppliers Group will be required before a bilateral trade agreement in line with the new Act can be sent to Congress. The ultimate objective is to put India on the same footing as China in respect to responsibilities and trade opportunities.
BACKGROUND TO NUCLEAR PROLIFERATION ISSUES
India (along with Pakistan and Israel) was originally a 'threshold' country in terms of the international non-proliferation regime, possessing, or quickly capable of assembling one or more nuclear weapons: Their nuclear weapons capability at the technological level was recognised (all have research reactors at least) along with their military ambitions, and all remained outside the 1970 Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), which 186 nations have now signed. This led to their being largely excluded from trade in nuclear plant or materials, except for safety-related devices for a few safeguarded facilities.
India is opposed to the NPT as it now stands, and has consistently attacked the Treaty since its inception in 1970.
Regional rivalry
Relations between India and Pakistan are tense and hostile, and the risks of nuclear conflict between them have long been considered quite high.
In 1974 India exploded a "peaceful" nuclear device and then in May 1998 India and Pakistan each exploded several nuclear devices underground. This heightened concerns regarding an arms race between them.
Kashmir is a prime cause of bilateral tension, its sovereignty has been in dispute since 1948. There is persistent low level military conflict due to Pakistan backing a Muslim rebellion there.
Both countries engaged in a conventional arms race in the 1980s, including sophisticated technology and equipment capable of delivering nuclear weapons. In the 1990s the arms race quickened. In 1994 India reversed a four-year trend of reduced allocations for defence, and despite its much smaller economy, Pakistan pushed its own expenditures yet higher. Both have lost their patrons: India, the former USSR; and Pakistan, the USA.
In 1997 India deployed a medium-range missile and is now developing a long-range missile capable of reaching targets in China's industrial heartland.
In 1995 the USA quietly intervened to head off a proposed nuclear test. The 1998 tests were unambiguously military, including one claimed to be of a sophisticated thermonuclear device. Their declared purpose was "to help in the design of nuclear weapons of different yields and different delivery systems".
It is the growth and modernisation of China's nuclear arsenal and its assistance with Pakistan's nuclear power program and, reportedly, with missile technology, which now exacerbates Indian concerns. In particular, China's People's Liberation Army operates somewhat autonomously within Pakistan as an exporter of military material.
Indian security policies are driven by:
- its desire to be recognised as the dominant power in the region;
- its increasing concern with China's expanding nuclear weapons and missile delivery programs; and
- its deep concern about Pakistan, with its nuclear weapons capability and now the clear capability to deliver such weapons deep into India.
It perceives nuclear weapons as a cost-effective political counter to China's nuclear and conventional weaponry, and the effects of its nuclear weapons policy in provoking Pakistan is, by some accounts, considered incidental.
India has had an unhappy relationship with China. Soundly defeated by China in the 1962 war, relations were frozen until 1998. Since then a degree of high-level contact has been established and a few elementary confidence-building measures put in place. China still occupies some Indian territory. Its nuclear and missile support for Pakistan is however a major bone of contention.
India's weapons material appears to come from the Canadian-designed 40 MWt Cirus "research" reactor which started up in 1960 (well before the NPT), and the 100 MWt Dhruva indigenous unit in operation since 1985, using local uranium. It is estimated that India may have built up enough weapons-grade plutonium for one hundred nuclear warheads.
Nuclear arms control in the region
The public stance of India and Pakistan on non-proliferation differs markedly.
Pakistan has initiated a series of regional security proposals. It has repeatedly proposed a nuclear-free zone in South Asia and has proclaimed its willingness to engage in nuclear disarmament and to sign the NPT if India would do so. This would involve disarming and joining as non-weapon states. It has endorsed a US proposal for a regional five power conference to consider non-proliferation in South Asia.
India has taken the view that solutions to regional security issues should be found at the international rather than the regional level, since its chief concern is with China. It therefore rejects Pakistan's proposals.
Instead, the 'Gandhi Plan', put forward in 1988, proposed the revision of the NPT, which it regards correctly as inherently discriminatory in favour of the nuclear-weapon States, and a timetable for complete nuclear weapons disarmament. It endorsed early proposals for a Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT) and for an international convention to ban the production of highly enriched uranium and plutonium for weapons purposes, known as the 'cut-off' convention.
The USA has, for some years pursued a variety of initiatives to persuade India and Pakistan to abandon their nuclear weapons programs and to accept comprehensive international safeguards on all their nuclear activities. To this end the Clinton administration proposed a conference of nine states, comprising the five established nuclear-weapon states, along with Japan, Germany, India and Pakistan.
This and previous similar proposals have been rejected by India, which countered with demands that other potential weapons states, such as Iran and North Korea, should be invited, and that regional limitations would only be acceptable if they were accepted equally by China. The USA would not accept the participation of Iran and North Korea and such initiatives lapsed.
Another, more recent approach, centres on the concept of containment, designed to 'cap' the production of fissile material for weapons purposes, which would hopefully be followed by 'roll back'. To this end India and the USA jointly sponsored a UN General Assembly resolution in 1993 calling for negotiations for a 'cut-off' convention, the Fissile Material Cut-off Treaty (FMCT). Should India and Pakistan join such a convention, they would have to agree to halt the production of fissile materials for weapons and to accept international verification on their relevant nuclear facilities (enrichment and reprocessing). In short, their weapons programs would be thus 'capped'. It appeared that India was prepared to join negotiations regarding such a FMCT under the 1995 UN Conference on Disarmament (UNCD).
However, despite the widespread international support for a FMCT, formal negotiations on cut-off have not yet begun. The UNCD can only approve decisions by consensus and since the summer of 1995, the insistence of a few states to link FMCT negotiations to other nuclear disarmament issues has brought progress on the cut-off treaty there to a standstill.
Bilateral confidence-building measures between India and Pakistan to reduce the prospects of confrontation have been limited. In 1990 each side ratified a treaty not to attack the other's nuclear installations, and at the end of 1991 they provided one another with a list showing the location of all their nuclear plants, even though the respective lists were regarded as not being wholly accurate. Early in 1994 India proposed a bilateral agreement for a 'no first use' of nuclear weapons and an extension of the 'no attack' treaty to cover civilian and industrial targets as well as nuclear installations.
Having promoted the CTBT since 1954, India dropped its support in 1995 and in 1996 attempted to block the Treaty. Following the 1998 tests the question has been reopened and both Pakistan and India have indicated their intention to sign the CTBT. Indian ratification may be conditional upon the five weapons states agreeing to specific reductions in nuclear arsenals.Geology of Uranium
Geology of Uranium Deposits
- Uranium occurs in a number of different igneous, hydrothermal and sedimentary geological environments.
- Most of Australia's uranium resources are in two kinds of orebodies, unconformity-related and breccia complex, while sedimentary deposits are less significant than overseas. Most Canadian deposits are unconformity-related.
Uranium deposits world-wide can be grouped into 14 major categories of deposit types based on the geological setting of the deposits (OECD/NEA & IAEA, 2000). Australian uranium deposits can be grouped into 6 of these categories, with some mineralisation in two further ones:
Unconformity-related deposits - Unconformity-related deposits arise from geological changes occurring close to major unconformities. Below the unconformity, the metasedimentary rocks which host the mineralisation are usually faulted and brecciated. The overlying younger Proterozoic sandstones are usually undeformed.
Unconformity-related deposits constitute approximately 33% of the World Outside Centrally Planned Economies Area (WOCA)'s uranium resources and they include some of the largest and richest deposits. Minerals are uraninite and pitchblende. The main deposits occur in Canada (the Athabasca Basin, Saskatchewan and Thelon Basin, Northwest Territories); and Australia (the Alligator Rivers region in the Pine Creek Geosyncline, NT and Rudall River area, WA).
Unconformity-related deposits constitute a major proportion (20%) of Australia's total uranium resources, and much of Australia's total production since 1980 has been mined from two of these deposits - Nabarlek (now mined out) and Ranger 1 & 3. Other major deposits in the Alligator Rivers region are Jabiluka, Koongarra and Ranger 68.
Today, all of Canada's uranium production is from unconformity-related deposits - Key Lake, Cluff Lake, Rabbit Lake (all now depleted), and McClean Lake and McArthur River deposits. Other large, exceptionally high grade unconformity-related deposits currently being developed include Cigar Lake (averaging almost 20% U3O8, some zones over 50% U3O8).
The deposits in the Athabasca Basin occur below, across and immediately above the unconformity, with the highest grade deposits situated at or just above the unconformity (eg Cigar Lake and McArthur River). In the Alligator Rivers region, the known deposits are below the unconformity and like their Canadian counterparts, are generally much lower grade.
Uranium exploration in the Alligator Rivers region and Arnhem Land has been restricted since the late 1970s because of political and environmental factors. Much of the Alligator Rivers region and Arnhem Land have only been subjected to first pass exploration designed to detect outcropping deposits and extensions of known deposits, eg Jabiluka 2 was found by drilling along strike from Jabiluka 1.
There has been very little exploration to locate deeply concealed deposits lying above the unconformity similar to those in Canada. It is possible that very high grade deposits occur in the sandstones above the unconformity in the Alligator Rivers/Arnhem Land area.
The Kintyre deposit in the Rudall River area is similar to the deposits in the Alligator Rivers region. Metallurgical tests have shown that Kintyre ore can be radiometrically sorted and upgraded prior to milling and processing.
Breccia complex deposits - The Olympic Dam deposit is one of the world's largest deposits of uranium, and accounts for about 66% of Australiaís reserves plus resources. The deposit occurs in a hematite-rich granite breccia complex in the Gawler Craton. It is overlain by approximately 300 metres of flat-lying sedimentary rocks of the Stuart Shelf geological province.
The central core of the complex is barren hematite-quartz breccia, with several localised diatreme structures, flanked to the east and west by zones of intermingled hematite-rich breccias and granitic breccias. These zones are approximately one kilometre wide and extend almost 5 km in a northwest-southeast direction. Virtually all the economic copper-uranium mineralisation is hosted by these hematite-rich breccias. This broad zone is surrounded by granitic breccias extending up to 3 km beyond the outer limits of the hematite-rich breccias.
The deposit contains iron, copper, uranium, gold, silver, rare earth elements (mainly lanthanum and cerium) and fluorine. Only copper, uranium, gold, and silver are recovered. Uranium grades average from 0.08 to 0.04% U3O8, the higher-grade mineralisation being pitchblende. Copper grades average 2.7% for proved reserves, 2.0% for probable reserves, and 1.1% for indicated resources. Gold grades vary between 0.3-1.0 g/t.
Details of the origin of the deposit are still uncertain. However the principal mechanisms which formed the breccia complex are considered to have been hydraulic fracturing, tectonic faulting, chemical corrosion, and gravity collapse. Much of the brecciation occurred in near surface eruptive environment of a crater complex during eruptions caused by boiling and explosive interaction of water (from lake, sea or groundwater) with magma.
Sandstone deposits - Sandstone uranium deposits occur in medium to coarse-grained sandstones deposited in a continental fluvial or marginal marine sedimentary environment. Impermeable shale/mudstone units are interbedded in the sedimentary sequence and often occur immediately above and below the mineralised sandstone. Uranium precipitated under reducing conditions caused by a variety of reducing agents within the sandstone including: carbonaceous material (detrital plant debris, amorphous humate, marine algae), sulphides (pyrite, H2S), hydrocarbons (petroleum), and interbedded basic volcanics with abundant ferro-magnesian minerals (eg chlorite).
Three main types of sandstone deposits:
- rollfront deposits - arcuate bodies of mineralisation that crosscut sandstone bedding;
- tabular deposits - irregular, elongate lenticular bodies parallel to the depositional trend, deposits commonly occur in palaeochannels incised into underlying basement rocks;
- tectonic/lithologic deposits - occur in sandstones adjacent to a permeable fault zone.
Sandstone deposits constitute about 18% of world uranium resources. Orebodies of this type are commonly low to medium grade (0.05 - 0.4% U3O8) and individual orebodies are small to medium in size (ranging up to a maximum of 50 000 t U3O8). The main primary uranium minerals are uraninite and coffinite. Conventional mining/milling operations of sandstone deposits have been progressively undercut by cheaper in situ leach mining methods.
The United States has large resources in sandstone deposits in the Western Cordillera region, and most of its uranium production has been from these deposits, recently by in situ leach (ISL) mining. The Powder River Basin in Wyoming, the Colorado Plateau and the Gulf Coast Plain in south Texas are major sandstone uranium provinces. Other large sandstone deposits occur in Niger, Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Gabon (Franceville Basin), and South Africa (Karoo Basin). Kazakhstan has reported substantial reserves in sandstone deposits with average grades ranging from 0.02 to 0.07% U.
Large uranium resources within sandstone deposits also occur in Niger, Kazakstan, Uzbekistan, Gabon (Franceville Basin), and South Africa (Karoo Basin). Kazakstan has reported substantial reserves in sandstone deposits with average grades ranging from 0.02 to 0.07% U.
Sandstone deposits represent only about 7% of Australia's total resources of uranium . Within the Frome Embayment, six uranium deposits are known, the largest being Beverley, Honeymoon, East Kalkaroo and Billaroo West-Gould Dam, all amenable to ISL mining methods. Other deposits are Manyingee, Oobagooma, and Mulga Rock in WA and Angela, NT. At Mulga Rock uranium mineralisation is in peat layers interbedded with sand and clay within a buried palaeochannel.
Surficial deposits - Surficial uranium deposits are broadly defined as young (Tertiary to Recent) near-surface uranium concentrations in sediments or soils. These deposits usually have secondary cementing minerals including calcite, gypsum, dolomite, ferric oxide, and halite. Uranium deposits in calcrete are the largest of the surficial deposits. Uranium mineralisation is in fine-grained surficial sand and clay, cemented by calcium and magnesium carbonates.
Surficial deposits comprise about 4% of world uranium resources. Calcrete deposits represent 5% of Australia's total reserves and resources of uranium. They formed where uranium-rich granites were deeply weathered in a semi-arid to arid climate. The Yeelirrie deposit in WA is by far the world's largest surficial deposit. Other significant deposits in WA include Lake Way, Centipede, Thatcher Soak, and Lake Maitland.
In WA, the calcrete uranium deposits occur in valley-fill sediments along Tertiary drainage channels, and in playa lake sediments. These deposits overlie Archaean granite and greenstone basement of the northern portion of the Yilgarn Craton. The uranium mineralisation is carnotite (hydrated potassium uranium vanadium oxide).
Calcrete uranium deposits also occur in the Central Namib Desert of Namibia.
Volcanic deposits - uranium deposits of this type occur in acid volcanic rocks and are related to faults and shear zones within the volcanics. Uranium is commonly associated with molybdenum and fluorine. These deposits make up only a small proportion of the world's uranium resources. Significant resources of this type occur in China, Kazakhstan, Russian Federation and Mexico. In Australia, volcanic deposits are quantitatively very minor - Ben Lomond and Maureen in Qld are the most significant deposits.
Intrusive deposits - included in this type are those associated with intrusive rocks including alaskite, granite, pegmatite, and monzonites. Major world deposits include Rossing (Namibia), Ilimaussaq (Greenland) and Palabora (South Africa). In Australia, the main ones are Radium Hill (SA) which was mined from 1954-62 (mineralisation was mostly davidite) and the large bodies of low grade mineralisation at Crocker Well and Mount Victoria in the Olary Province, SA.
Metasomatite deposits - these occur in structurally-deformed rocks that were already altered by metasomatic processes, usually associated with the introduction of sodium, potassium or calcium into these rocks. Major examples of this type include Espinharas deposit (Brazil) and the Zheltye Vody deposit (Ukraine). Valhalla and Skal near Mount Isa are Australian examples.
Metamorphic deposits - In Australia the largest of this type was Mary Kathleen uranium/rare earth deposit, 60km east of Mount Isa, Qld, which was mined 1958-63 and 1976-82. The orebody occurs in a zone of calcium-rich alteration within Proterozoic metamorphic rocks.
Quartz-pebble conglomerate deposits - these deposits make up approximately 13% of the world's uranium resources. Where uranium is recovered as a by-product of gold mining, the grade may be as low as 0.01% U3O8. In deposits mined exclusively for uranium, average grades range as high as 0.15% U3O8. Individual deposits range in size from 6000-170 000 t contained U3O8. Major examples are the Elliot Lake deposits in Canada and the Witwatersrand gold-uranium deposits in South Africa. The mining operations in the Elliot Lake area have closed in recent years because these deposits are uneconomic under current uranium market conditions.
No such economic deposits are known in Australia, although quartz-pebble conglomerate containing low-grade uraninite and gold mineralisation exists in several Archaean-Palaeoproterozoic basins in Western Australia. These are similar in lithology and age to the Witwatersrand conglomerates, being formed before there was any oxygen in the atmosphere.
Vein deposits - Vein deposits constitute about 9% of world uranium resources. Major deposits include Jachymov (Czech Republic) and Shinkolobwe (Zaire).
Uranium Minerals
The major primary ore mineral is uraninite (basically UO2) or pitchblende (U2O5 .UO3, better known as U3O8), though a range of other uranium minerals is found in particular deposits. These include carnotite (uranium potassium vanadate), the davidite-brannerite-absite type uranium titanates, and the euxenite-fergusonite-samarskite group (niobates of uranium and rare earths).
A large variety of secondary uranium minerals is known, many are brilliantly coloured and fluorescent. The commonest are gummite (a general term like limonite for mixtures of various secondary hydrated uranium oxides with impurities); hydrated uranium phosphates of the phosphuranylite type, including autunite (with calcium), saleeite (magnesian) and torbernite (with copper); and hydrated uranium silicates such as coffinite, uranophane (with calcium) and sklodowskite (magnesian).
Monday, September 3, 2007
Uranium in Niger: India in the fray
Uranium exploration firms flock to Niger desert
Niger has granted a wave of permits to British, Canadian and Indian mining firms allowing them to explore for uranium in its desert north, the West African country’s government said on Saturday.
A total of 23 permits were granted to three Canadian firms, three British firms and an Indian company, enabling them to explore in the former French colony’s Arlit and Tchirozerine regions, vast swathes of land in the southern Sahara desert.
Canada’s Southampton Ventures Inc, Delta Exploration Inc and UraMin Inc., Britain’s COJ Commodity Investments Ltd., Agadez Ltd. and Indo Energy Ltd., and India’s Taurian Resources Pvt Ltd. between them pledged to invest some $55 million in exploration activities over the next three years.
Rising demand for uranium on international markets has renewed appetite for prospecting and mining in Niger, the world’s third-largest producer of the mineral but bottom of a U.N. development index ranking countries by quality of life.
The government is hoping the discovery of more deposits will again boost its economy, creating jobs and training, bringing development to some of its most remote communities, and raising tax revenues paid by foreign firms while they explore.
It hopes rising demand from fast-industrialising China, to whom it granted a series of exploration licences last July, means the industry will be sustainable in the medium-term.
The government has already granted around 70 mining exploration permits for its desert north, mostly for uranium, and around 100 more are currently under consideration.
If new exploitable reserves are discovered, the state of Niger will take a 40 percent stake in the projects, 10 percent for free, while it will pay for the remaining 30 percent.
DESERT BANDITS
Uranium is used as a nuclear fuel in power stations and atomic submarines and vessels, in the production of nuclear weapons and armour piercing bullets and in the aviation sector.
Rising demand saw spot uranium prices double last year on international markets, and a report by Deutsche Bank in January forecast they would rise by nearly 40 percent again this year.
Production in Niger - which also has reserves of iron ore, coal, copper, silver, platinum, vanadium, titanium and lithium, peaked at 4,366 tonnes in 1981 but has since fallen, standing at around 3,000 tonnes last year.
But the growing presence of foreign firms in one of the country’s most lawless regions is also catching the eye of Tuareg and Toubou nomads who have long complained of neglect and are demanding a share in the country’s natural wealth.
The light-skinned Tuareg and other northern tribesmen launched a full-scale rebellion against the government in Niamey in the 1990s and although peace deals were signed, the region remains a hotbed of resentment and is awash with arms.
Suspected Tuareg rebels last month attacked a uranium mine operated by a subsidiary of French mining group AREVA, more than 1,200 km northeast of Niamey near the border with Algeria.
The attack was the latest in a series of incidents on the ancient trade routes that criss-cross the Sahara, including the kidnapping of 20 European tourists last year, drugs and arms seizures and clashes with the army.
Uranium hunt: India strikes gold in Sahara
Pallava BaglaMonday, August 20, 2007 (New Delhi):
Even as lawmakers in India fight over the merits of the Indo-US civilian nuclear deal, which now threatens to destabilize the Manmohan Singh government, a bold and courageous move by an Indian company promises access to literally unlimited amounts of uranium, yes the very same mineral over which India is spending sleepless nights.
At a time when the country is trying to procure uranium at any cost, an Indian company has broken new ground by acquiring exclusive rights for exploration and mining of uranium in the west African country of Niger.
This is the first time any Indian has won a contract for uranium exploration and mining anywhere in the world.
Natural uranium is much sought after for use as fuel in nuclear reactors. India is not well endowed with uranium ores and it is this short supply that is becoming the stumbling block for the rapid expansion of nuclear power in India.
Taurian Resources Private Limited, Mumbai, a Rs 300 crore company, has recently won a contract which gives it exclusive rights over 3000 square kilometers of the Sahara Desert known to be rich in deposits of uranium.
According estimates of the Managing Director of the company Sachin Bajla (36-years-old), the area is likely to hold at least 30,000 metric tons of Uranium, which he says 'should be enough to meet India's requirement for the next 1,000 years'.
Against huge odds, Taurian won a permit to search for uranium in the Arlit region of Niger for an undisclosed amount.
Bajla says 'till he relinquishes nobody can take away this area earmarked exclusively for his company'. He received the permit from Mohamed Abdoulahi, Minister of Mines and Energy for Niger and also had an audience with Mr Mamadou Tandja, President of Niger.
Dr Anil Kakodkar, chairman of the Atomic Energy Commission 'welcomed' the development but said as of now the government has little role to play as it was a 'bold forward looking private venture'.
Interestingly, Niger is not a member of the Nuclear Suppliers Group, the 45 member nation that controls all nuclear related commerce and hence it should be easy for India to access uranium once the mines become operational which will take several years, with the possibility that the ground may not be that rich in uranium as is being envisaged.
Today, Niger is the fifth largest supplier of Uranium in the world, the refined form of this atomic element is also called 'Yellow Cake'. Uranium is the largest export item for Niger. Ironically, despite such a mineral deposit, Niger is still a very poor country as it ranks right at the bottom of United Nations Human Development Index.
The French company Areva SA has a huge presence in Niger, where the French giant has built a whole township in the desert and mines uranium from at least 600 meters below the ground. Niger exports about 3,500 metric tones of uranium mostly going to France.
Just yesterday, Australia the largest supplier of Uranium in the world expressed its willingness to supply uranium to India, but not without strings being attached.
Bajla says, 'I would be happy to meet India's uranium requirement if the government so desires'. He is also looking for government support for his huge venture having written about this to the Prime Minister.
Bajla feels to fully exploit the potential an investment of at least US$ 6-7 billion will be required and for which he hopes to raise money from the international market by listing his company on the London Stock Exchange. If uranium is indeed found by Taurian, the Government of Niger will also hold part rights over the sales of mineral.
He says as the region is very barren a whole new township will have to be created. In return for the permit Bajla says he has promised to the government of Niger that his company would green one million hectares of land using the plant Jatropha, a known source for biofuels.
The Arlit region where Taurian has secured its rights is known for its unending sectarian conflict, but Bajla hopes to win the hearts and minds of the locals though appropriate social development of the region.
The Tauruian group was set up a decade ago and iron ore mines in Jharkhand and Orissa and a big engineering unit in Roorkee.
Wednesday, August 29, 2007
Uranium in Ladakh Batholith
Kumaon Geologist discovers uranium in the Ladakh region
|
|
Scientists have for the first time found uranium in “exceptionally high concentration” in Ladakh, the icy Himalayan region in Jammu and Kashmir that has strategic significance for India.
Samples of rocks analysed in a German laboratory have revealed uranium content to be as high as 5.36 per cent compared to around 0.1 per cent or less in ores present elsewhere in the country.
India badly needs uranium to fuel its nuclear power plants and the proposed India-US nuclear deal is all about importing it. The Ladakh find may cheer those opposed to the deal even though detailed exploration and mining may take years.
The Ladakh block lies between the Indian plate in the south and the Asian plate in the north and is bounded by the “Indus and the Shyok suture zones”. Collision between the two plates 50-60 million years ago formed the Himalayas.
The earth’s crust that got crushed and melted during collision and pierced the surface, cooled and solidified becoming “magmatic” rocks dotting what geologists call the Ladakh “batholith”. It is in these rocks that uranium is found.
“The presently recorded uranium rich zircons from young magmatic intrusions of the Shyok suture zone and associated sequences is the first record from these remote regions,” said Rajeev Upadhyay, a geologist at Kumaon University in Nainital.
“In geological terms, these uranium-bearing magmatic rocks exposed in Ladakh are very young (between 100 million and 25 million years old),” he said.
Other uranium rich rocks in India such as in Andhra Pradesh, Chhattisgarh, Jharkhand and Rajasthan are very old geological terrains known as the Precambrian (2,500-3,000 million years old), he said.
For his study, reported in the journal Current Science, Upadhyay took samples from thick exposed granite from a place north of Udmaru village in Leh district. The village in the Nubra-Shyok River Valley is situated on a volcanic rock formation known as the Shyok Volcanics.
The samples of rock mineral (zircon) were analysed at the isotope laboratory of the University of Tuebingen in Germany where he had gone under the Alexander von Humboldt Fellowship.
“Geochemical analysis of the separated zircon grains showed exceptionally high concentration of both uranium (0.31 - 5.36 per cent) and thorium (0.76 - 1.43 per cent),” said Upadhyay. He added that the study is preliminary and “detailed work is in progress”. According to Upadhyay, uranium-bearing magmatic rocks are located all along Kohistan, Ladakh and southern Tibet (from east to west). “However, contents of uranium may differ from place to place,” he said.
Officials of the atomic minerals division under the Department of Atomic Energy (DAE) did not reply to questions about the significance of this new find or whether the Ladakh uranium could augment India’s reserves.
The total established uranium resources of the country so far (in the form of uranium oxide or yellow cake) are 94,000 tonnes. The majority of these resources, according to DAE, occur in three “provinces”: Singhbhum in the east, Mahadek in the northeast and Cuddapah in the south.
The low uranium content in ores, however, makes mined uranium in India expensive compared to that in Australia whose ores contain as much as 15 per cent uranium.
