U.S. Department of the Interior 

U.S. Geological Survey 

U.S. Geological Survey Bulletin 2179-A 
Uranium—Fuel for Nuclear Energy 2002 

By Warren I. Finch 

U.S. Geological Survey Bulletin 2179-A 

U.S. Department of the Interior 

U.S. Geological Survey 
U.S. Department of the Interior 

Gale A. Norton, Secretary 

U.S. Geological Survey 

Charles G. Groat, Director 

U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, Virginia: 2003 

Version 1.0 

This publication is only available online at:


http://pubs.usgs.gov/bul/b2179-a/


For more information about the USGS and its products:


Telephone: 1-888-ASK-USGS


World Wide Web: http://www.usgs.gov/


Any use of trade, product, or firm names in this publication is for descriptive purposes only and does not imply 


endorsement by the U.S. Government.


Although this report is in the public domain, it contains copyrighted materials that are noted in the text. 


Permission to reproduce those items must be secured from the individual copyright owners.


Suggested citation:


Finch, W.I., 2003, Uranium—Fuel for nuclear energy 2002: U.S. Geological Survey Bulletin 2179–A, 18 p. 


Available at URL http://pubs.usgs.gov/bul/b2179-a/

iii 

Contents 

Executive Summary ...................................................................................................................................... 1


Introduction ................................................................................................................................................... 2


Demand and Supply of Uranium................................................................................................................. 2


Reasonably Assured Resources of the World’s Uranium ............................................................. 3


United States Uranium Industry in 2001........................................................................................... 4


Uranium Market Prices................................................................................................................................ 4


Uranium Production ..................................................................................................................................... 5


Former Soviet Union States Imports.......................................................................................................... 6


Conversion of Highly Enriched Uranium ................................................................................................... 6


Nuclear Power Plants .................................................................................................................................. 7


Operating Plants .................................................................................................................................. 7


Relicensing Extensions....................................................................................................................... 9


Advanced Nuclear Reactors ........................................................................................................... 10


A New Revolutionary Reactor Concept ................................................................................ 10


New Power Plants Planned for Construction in the United States........................................... 10


Reprocessing of Spent Fuel and Breeder Reactors ............................................................................. 10


Status of a Repository for Spent Fuel Waste ......................................................................................... 11


Recent and Future Research on Uranium Geology and Resources................................................... 11


Geology................................................................................................................................................ 11


Uranium Resource Assessment...................................................................................................... 12


Uranium Geology and Resources Data Archival Project............................................................ 13


Future Uranium Mining in the United States.......................................................................................... 13


In-situ Leach Mining ......................................................................................................................... 13


Borehole Hydraulic Mining of Colorado Plateau Vanadium-Uranium Ores............................. 13


Future of Nuclear Power ........................................................................................................................... 14


IAEA Uranium Supply Analysis to 2050 .......................................................................................... 14


Acknowledgments ...................................................................................................................................... 15


References Cited ........................................................................................................................................ 15


Selected Nuclear Energy Web Sites ....................................................................................................... 18


Figures 

1. Chart showing the nuclear fuel cycle......................................................................................... 3


2–4. Graphs showing:


2. World production of uranium 1948–2001 .............................................................................. 5


3. 	Nuclear power plant share of electrical generation as of April 2001 for


countries of the world ............................................................................................................. 8


4. 	Distribution of license expiration dates for 104 United States nuclear power 


plants from 2006 to 2035 as of December 31, 1998.............................................................. 9


5. 	Chart showing the International Atomic Energy Agency analysis of uranium 


supplies from 2000 to 2050.......................................................................................................... 14

iv 

Tables 

1. Reasonably assured resources of uranium for various countries of the world............................ 4 

2. Status of nuclear power plants around the world as of April 2001 ................................................. 7 

Conversion Factors 

To convert To Multiply by Divide by 

pounds U3

O8 metric tons U (tU) 0.8480 2205 

pounds kilograms 0.4536 

metric tons (t) short tons 0.9078 

percent U3

O8 percent U 0.8480 

miles (mi) kilometers (km) 1.609 

feet (ft) meters (m) 0.3048 

inches (in.) centimeters (cm) 2.540 
Uranium—Fuel for Nuclear Energy 2002


By Warren I. Finch 

Executive Summary 

Uranium in its various chemical and physical forms plays 

roles in all parts of the nuclear fuel cycle, from the front end 

of its source from natural geologic resources, through transformation into fuel elements for the power plant cycle to produce 

electricity, and finally to the back-end cycle of spent-fuel storage in an underground geologic repository. In 2002, uranium 

has taken on renewed interest in its role in the energy mix for 

our national energy policy. 

At the beginning of the nuclear era in December 1942, 

the United States became the most thoroughly explored 

country for uranium and led the western world in production 

of uranium into the 1960s. During this period, low-cost, lowgrade ores near the land surface were mined, leaving deeper, 

higher cost ores to be mined in later years. The discovery of 

extremely high grade, near-surface, low-cost uranium ores in 

other countries, particularly in Canada and Australia, however, 

has caused domestic U.S. mining and production of uranium 

to become noncompetitive in the world market. In 2001, the 

overall activity of the U.S. uranium industry continued to 

decline. Mining of uranium in the U.S.A. accounted for less 

than 5 percent of the total needed to produce the current 20 

percent of the Nation’s electricity. The free-trade agreement 

of 1988 with Canada assures the U.S.A. of an adequate supply 

for any emergencies. 

The breakup of the Soviet Union in 1991 brought about 

the entry of the former Soviet Union states into the world 

uranium market. In 1993, the decision of Europe and the 

U.S.A. to limit imports and to penalize the price of uranium 

from Russia and Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS) 

was made in order to prevent dumping of their extremely 

large inventories of low-cost uranium mined during the “Cold 

War,” notably from East Germany. As time went on, various 

amendments to the agreements with each CIS country changed 

the situation, and by 2002, Russia was the only country under 

quota restriction, and the price penalty was eliminated because 

of market forces. 

The conversion of Russian and U.S. weapons-grade, 

highly enriched uranium (HEU) into low enriched uranium 

(LEU) was agreed upon by Russia and the U.S.A. in 1993. By 

October 2002, 150 metric tons of Russian HEU with 94 percent U-235 had been blended down to LEU with 4.4 percent 

U-235 and was shipped to the U.S.A. for use by U.S. utilities. The agreement requires that a total of 500 metric tons of 

uranium (tU) be converted by 2013. The U.S.A. plans to start 

converting its HEU in 2010. Agreement has not been made on 

how to dispose of some 200 metric tons (t) of weapons-grade 

plutonium (93 percent Pu-239). 

Countries with more than 200,000 tU classified as 

reasonably assured resources (RAR, essentially equivalent to 

the category of “reserves”) are, in order of decreasing RAR: 

(1) Australia, (2) Canada, (3) Kazakhstan, (4) U.S.A., and (5) 

South Africa. Since the breakup of the Soviet Union, Kazakhstan has joined this elite group. Its notably large uranium 

reserves are amenable to in-situ leach (ISL) mining, and, in the 

future, it could become one of the dominant world producers. 

Of the 438 nuclear power plants producing electricity in 

the world, the U.S.A. had 104 as of January 2002. The total 

net 1 million watts of electric power (MWe) for the world 

plants is 353,298 of which the U.S.A. has a total of 97,800 

MWe. The efficiency of existing U.S. plants is at an all-time 

high, and the present cost of a kilowatt of electricity of many 

nuclear plants is highly competitive with that of coal- and oilpowered plants. Utilities are presently planning to build the 

new designs of safer, even more efficient nuclear power plants 

described in this report. 

The licenses of existing nuclear power plants in the 

U.S.A. expire between 2006 and 2035 as reported December 

31, 1998 by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). The 

NRC is in the process of extending licenses for an additional 

20 years beyond the original 40-year limit. This relicensing 

may extend the use of many nuclear plants to the middle of the 

21st century. 

Reprocessing of spent fuel to obtain plutonium-rich material for the mixed oxide (PuU) (MOX) fuel for use in breeder 

reactors and modified light-water reactors has been banned in 

the U.S.A. since 1975. In May 2001, this matter was reopened 

to consider research on and development of reprocessing in 

order to reduce intensities and volumes of high-level uranium 

(HLU) waste as well as to increase resistance to weapons proliferation by terrorists. Breeder reactors in France and other 

countries have proven not to be economical, and they may not 

be competitive economically until at least 2030. 
2 Uranium—Fuel for Nuclear Energy 2002 

Several potential geologic sites for a repository for highlevel wastes have been investigated in the U.S.A. by the U.S. 

Department of Energy (DOE). In 1983, Yucca Mountain in 

southwestern Nevada near the Nevada Test Site, an area used 

for underground testing of nuclear weapons, was selected as 

having favorable geologic characteristics for long-term isolation of highly radioactive nuclear wastes. Intensive technical, 

scientific, and engineering investigations have been conducted 

to evaluate the suitability of the Yucca Mountain site to host an 

underground waste repository. Congressional and presidential 

approvals were given in early 2002 to proceed with license 

application for the construction of the facility. 

In addition to the studies related to radioactive waste 

storage, geologic research on uranium ores in the past decade 

has been generally focused on geochemistry relative to 

environmental problems. The most significant results of this 

research are in a 14-chapter volume: “Uranium: Mineralogy, 

Geochemistry and the Environment” by P.C. Burns and Robert 

Finch, published by the Mineralogical Society of America in 

1999. 

In 1995, funding for research on geology and resources of 

domestic uranium ores in the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) 

was terminated. Monitoring of worldwide uranium activities was continued at a reduced rate, and results accumulated 

from past geologic research were prepared for publication. As 

part of a new project on alternative energy resources begun 

in 2001, an archival activity of USGS uranium geology and 

resource assessment file data was undertaken. 

The national uranium resource assessment completed by 

the DOE in 1980 is significantly out of date. A new Federal 

assessment, using recent developments in uranium assessment 

methodology and applying new geologic concepts, would 

greatly aid future planning for the uranium industry and contribute to the formulation of a national energy policy. 

Future uranium mining in the U.S.A. will be mainly by 

ISL mining of large reserves in Tertiary sandstone formations 

in Wyoming, Nebraska, and Texas. Mining of equally large 

reserves of uranium in Mesozoic sandstone formations in the 

Colorado Plateau region is less amenable to ISL. Borehole 

hydraulic mining is a potential method for vanadium-uranium 

ores in western Colorado and eastern Utah. Federal research 

is recommended for both ISL and borehole hydraulic mining 

technology to aid the uranium industry. 

In late 2001, the International Atomic Energy Agency, 

Vienna, Austria, released its report, “Analysis of Uranium 

Supply to 2050,” which covered both primary sources, such 

as uranium mining, and secondary sources, such as downgraded HEU, industry/utility pipeline inventories, and MOX 

fuel. Analyses were made for cumulative worldwide uranium requirements in three basic worldwide cases: (1) high 

demand, (2) median demand, and (3) low demand. The current worldwide reserves, as estimated in 2001, would fall short 

in all three of these cases. The long lead times from exploration to production will require greatly increased exploration 

by 2010 to discover large high-grade ores that can be brought 

into production by 2025 and to allow orderly reserve increases 

to 2050. 

Introduction 

As a result of the consideration of nuclear energy as part 

of the new National Energy Policy as outlined in the Report of 

the National Energy Policy Group in May 2001 (accessed July 

2000 at URL http://www.whitehouse.gov/energy, Summary of 

Recommendations, p. 9), uranium became of greater interest 

as a fuel supply for nuclear power plants to produce electricity in the U.S.A. The present report covers mainly recent 

developments (mid-1995 to mid-2002) in uranium’s role in the 

national and global energy mix, as was outlined previously in 

USGS Circular 1141 (Finch, 1997). Emphasis is placed on 

(1) uranium exploration and production from natural sources 

and from downgrading of weapons material; (2) analyses of 

uranium demand and supply; (3) enrichment of U-235; (4) 

conversion and fabrication of uranium oxide into fuel elements; (5) upgrading of existing nuclear power plants; (6) 

relicensing of existing plants; (7) development of new nuclear 

power reactor designs and plans for new U.S. plant construction; (8) reprocessing of spent fuel to yield MOX fuel; and (9) 

the status of a repository for spent fuel. Each of these topics 

represents a part of the nuclear fuel cycle (fig. 1). The report 

concludes with discussions of a review of recent and recommended future research on uranium geology and resources, the 

archiving of uranium geology and resource data, the future of 

uranium mining in the U.S.A., and the future of nuclear power 

in the world. 

New and additional data are found on several web sites, 

including Energy Information Administration (EIA), DOE, 

Washington, D.C., U.S.A.; International Atomic Energy 

Agency (IAEA), United Nations, Vienna, Austria; Uranium 

Information Center (UIC), Canberra, Australia; Nuclear 

Energy Institute (NEI), Washington, D.C., U.S.A.; and World 

Nuclear Association (WNA), London, England (see appended 

Selected Nuclear Energy Web Sites). 

Quantitative data regarding uranium resources, demand, 

and supply are expressed in two different weight systems: (1) 

internationally, in metric kilograms U (kgU), and in metric 

tons U (tU) (NEA/OECD, 2002); and (2) nationally, in pounds 

U3

O8 and short tons (2,000 pounds) U3O8 (EIA, 2002). In the 

present report, both systems are used as given originally in the 

referenced sources. Conversion from pounds U3

O8 to tU is 

made by using the following: tU = pounds U3

O8 times 0.8480 

divided by 2,205 pounds. For an easy rough comparison of 

pounds U3O8 and tU, simply divide by 2,000. See Conversion 

Factors table on page iv. 

Demand and Supply of Uranium 

The annual uranium requirements for the 438 operating 

nuclear power plants in the world in 2001 were about 64,000 

tU (NEA/OECD, 2002). Furthermore, with a worldwide total 

of 32 reactors under construction in 2001, the Nuclear Energy 

Agency/Organization for Economic Cooperation and 

Development (NEA/OECD) expects the requirements to either 
Demand and Supply of Uranium 3 

PROCESS MATERIAL/PRODUCT 

FRONT END 

Mining/milling Yellowcake U3O8 

Conversion UF6 gas 0.71% U-235 

Enrichment 0.71% U-235 

in UF6 liquid (SWU). 

Depleted UF6 = 0.20% U-235 

(tails assay). 

Conversion UF6 ® UO2 powder 

® UO2 pellets 

Fabrication Fuel rods in Zr alloy 

IN PLANT 

Nuclear steam/electric plant Fuel ® Electricity ® Spent fuel 

UO2

 ® U + Pu 

Interim surface storage in H2O 

BACK END 

Reprocessing Spent fuel ® Pu-U mixed oxide (MOX) fuel 

Waste disposal High-level radioactive waste (HLW) repository 

in underground geologic facility. 

3.3% U-235 

Figure 1. The nuclear fuel cycle (modified from Finch, 1986; 1997, see fig. 2 for detailed lifetime cycle for a 

light-water reactor). SWU=separative work units. 

rise to about 80,250 tU in the high-case projection or decrease 

to about 58,000 tU in the low-case projection by year 2020. In 

January 2002, the 104 nuclear power plants in the U.S.A. generated 20.4 percent of the Nation’s electricity (IAEA, 2002), 

requiring about 18,000 tU annually. 

There were no reactors under construction in the U.S.A. 

in March 2002. The probability of new construction by 2010 

(discussed below) would increase the uranium requirements 

for newly mined uranium ore. The world production in 2001 

was about 37,000 tU (NEA/OECD, 2002). In the U.S.A., 

2001 production was about 1,000 tU from low-grade (0.03– 

0.25 percent U) roll-front sandstone ores. The remaining 

supply of U.S. uranium was imported mostly from Canada and 

Australia, produced primarily from high-grade (1–12 percent 

U) unconformity-related vein ores (Vance, 2002; Grubbs, 

2002). Increasing production in the U.S.A. is not expected to 

satisfy demand, because at present U.S. deposits cannot compete economically with high-grade, low-cost foreign sources. 

For example, the McArthur Lake deposit in eastern Athabasca 

Basin, Canada, has geological reserves of 416,000,000 pounds 

of U3

O8 with an average grade of 15 percent U3O8, which 

includes 189,000,000 pounds of U3

O8 with an average grade 

of 19 percent U3

O8 (McGill, 1999). The deposit is at a depth 

ranging from 1,500 to 2,000 ft and requires special mining 

techniques because of its high grade. Mining began in late 

1999 and reached its rated annual capacity of 18,000,000 

pounds of U3

O8 in late 2000 (Pool, 2000, 2001). 

Reasonably Assured Resources of the 

World’s Uranium 

Reasonably assured resources (RAR, internationally used 

term and essentially equivalent to the term “reserves” used 

by DOE prior to 1982; see EIA, 2002, Table B1, p. 38, for 

historical comparison of uranium resource terms) of uranium 

refers to known uranium ore deposits of delineated size, grade, 

and configuration that could be recovered in a cost range using 

current mining and processing technology. RAR at a cost 

category of less than $80/kgU/$40 pound U3

O8 for various 

countries in the world are shown in table 1. Countries with 
4 Uranium—Fuel for Nuclear Energy 2002 

more than 200,000 tU RAR in decreasing order of RAR are 

(1) Australia, (2) Canada, (3) Kazakhstan, (4) U.S.A., and 

(5) South Africa. Compared with the list in USGS Circular 

1141 (Finch, 1997, table 2) for 1993 before the breakup of the 

Soviet Union, there are several new players, namely Kazakhstan, Russian Republic, Ukraine, Uzbekistan, and Mongolia. 

Of these, Kazakhstan, with its notably large reserves amenable 

to ISL mining, could be a dominant world producer in the 

future. Recently released development plans show that the 

present annual production of 2,020 tU will be 15,000 tU by 

2030 (Rocky Mountain Minerals Scout, 2002). 

RAR for various regions and States are as follows: the 

Colorado Plateau (western Colorado, eastern Utah, northeastern Arizona, and northwestern New Mexico) 120,500 tU, 

Wyoming basins 112,700 tU, Florida 37,700 tU (byproduct 

from phosphoric acid fertilizer processing of phosphorite 

deposits, recovery of uranium not being done at present), western Nebraska 14,700 tU, Colorado Rocky Mountains and High 

Plains 10,600 tU, Texas Gulf Coast 7,600 tU, Virginia 7,300 

tU, and Nevada/Oregon border 7,300 tU (IAEA, 2001b, totals 

from data in Table LXXXVIII). Deposits in Tertiary host 

formations in Wyoming, Nebraska, and Texas can be mined 

by ISL. Uranium deposits in Mesozoic formations are less 

amendable to ISL. Borehole mining is a possible method of 

mining Colorado Plateau uranium ores (see below). Conventional open-pit and underground mining is too costly under 

present economic conditions. 

United States Uranium Industry in 2001 

The overall activity of the U.S. uranium industry continued to decline in 2001 (EIA, 2002). Exploration for 

uranium ores continued to be nonexistent, and development 

drilling of uranium reserves for ISL mining decreased markedly as production decreased. Uranium production in 2001 

was 2,600,000 pounds U3

O8, a decline of nearly 60 percent 

since 1999. About 93 percent was from ISL mining. Some 

55,000,000 pounds U3

O8 were purchased for civilian nuclear 

power reactors by the public utility companies, mainly from 

foreign suppliers, compared to requirements for the reactors of 

about 53,000,000 pounds. The average price paid was $10.15 

per pound U3

O8. Imports, in pounds U3O8, were from Canada 

17,120,000, Australia 10,314,000, Russia 5,042,000, Kazakhstan 3,149,000, Uzbekistan 2,643,000, South Africa 2,022,000, 

and Namibia 568,000, for a total of 42,279,000 (EIA, 2002, 

table 12, p. 21). The inventory held by utilities at the end of 

2001 was nearly 56,000,000 pounds, a 15 percent decrease 

from the 1998 level. A large inventory level has been maintained by the utilities since the late 1980s for various reasons 

related to the dynamics of the uranium market and supply 

cycles (TradeTech, 2001a). Uranium reserves reported to EIA 

by the mining industry are estimated to be about 268,000,000 

pounds U3

O8. 

Uranium Market Prices 

The uranium market is complex, for there is a market for 

the three basic uranium fuel products: (1) U3O8, (2) UF6, and 

(3) Separative Work Units (SWU, amount of work to separate 

isotopes U-235 and U-238 expressed in US$/kgU as UF6, 

fig. 1). The principal market for U3O8 has two prices: (1) the 

spot-market price for a relatively small quantity of uranium 

as a single delivery within a given year, and (2) the long-term 

contract price for substantial quantities of uranium to be 

delivered over a multiyear period of time. Both prices are 

Table 1. Reasonably assured resources (RAR) of metric tons (tU) uranium, at a 

cost category of less than $80/kgU or $40/pound U3

O8, for various countries of the 

world (IAEA, 2001a, summed from data in Table LXXXVIII; sources of data: The 

Red Book, IAEA, 2001a, and consultants). 

Country Metric tons uranium 

Australia 590,400


Canada 535,700


Kazakhstan 431,600


United States 316,600


South Africa 243,700


Niger 193,500


Brazil 154,800


Russian Republic 152,900


Namibia 123,300


Ukraine 95,700


Uzbekistan 80,500


Mongolia 73,000


Other 6 countries 30,000–10,000 each (total 114,100)


Other 16 countries 10,000–1,000 each (total 86,700)


Total 34 countries 3,192,500

Uranium Production 5 

mostly for raw, newly mined uranium from the mill, ura- Long-term delivery contract price was about $16.50 per pound 


nium-oxide known as “yellowcake,” but in some cases are for U3

O8 in April 1996 (TradeTech, 1996a), and in September 


material from an inventory. For geologic supply and resource 2001, it was $10.50 per pound (TradeTech, 2001a).


research, these market prices are of primary interest. The rela­


tion between spot and long-term prices varies, but generally 


long-term prices are greater than spot-market prices (Trade- Uranium Production


Tech, 1995). From 1991 to 2001, the spot price for former 


Soviet Union material was penalized by a lower price (see Historically, world production of uranium, which began
 two-tiered price system below). There are also market prices in 1948, has been cyclic with peaks in 1959, 1980, and 1988
 for UF6

 converted material and for enriched uranium products (fig. 2). The drop from the 1959 peak reflects a large decrease
 (EUP) based on enrichment services called Separated Work in military demand for uranium. The production increases
 Units (SWU) (fig. 1). in the late 1970s reflect growing peaceful use of uranium to
 The spot-market price of uranium is a dominant factor produce electricity as the number of nuclear plants being built 

in determining profitable uranium mining, particularly in the increased. In the 1980s, uranium production again peaked 

U.S.A. Utilities buy uranium based on the relation of spot- with the increasing number of nuclear power plants around 

market price for small low-cost inventory supply to long-term the world. The largest number of new electric plants was built 

higher price contracts from new mine production. The spot- in the U.S.A. The peak in 1988 was due to the reporting of 

market price fell to a low of $7.25/pound of U3

O8 in October newly available production data from former Soviet Union 

1991 and rose to $16.50 in May 1996 (Pool, 1996, 1997; states, and did not represent a large overall increase in annual 

TradeTech, 2001b). Since 1996, there was a steady decline worldwide production (NEA/OECD, 2002). Prior to 1988, 

to $8.10 by the end of 1998 (Pool, 1998, 1999). In 2002, the the production data shown in figure 2 are only for OECD 

spot prices have been increasing, reaching $9.75 by October 3 (Western World) member countries. Prior production from 

(Mining Journal, 2002). The U.S.A. has a large uranium min- Soviet Union countries was on the order of 100,000 tU from 

ing potential from numerous, relatively small and low-grade Russia (now Russian Federation), 80,000 tU from Kazakhstan, 

ores, but prices of $15–20/pound U3

O8 would be necessary to and 90,000 tU from Uzbekistan (interpretation of data in table 

markedly increase domestic production (Pool, 2001). 9, NEA/OECD, 2002). Most of this production, as well as 

60 

50 

40 

30 

20 

10 

0 

United States 

World 

1948 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 

YEAR 

THOUSAND METRIC TONS URANIUM 

Figure 2. World production of uranium 1948–2001 (NEA/OECD Red Books; EIA Uranium Industry Annuals; EIA, 1998a, 2002). 
6 Uranium—Fuel for Nuclear Energy 2002 

200,000 tU from GDR (East Germany) went into Soviet Union 

nuclear weapons during the “Cold War.” This uranium is now 

entering the world uranium market from the downgrading 

of HEU weapons material. The steep drop of production, 

beginning in 1989 and continuing to 1995, was due mainly 

to the great buildup of consumer and national inventories 

of uranium during the earlier 1980s that was accompanied 

by large decreases in the price of uranium (White, 1989; 

Pool, 1991)—the price of uranium decreased from $16.75 in 

November 1986 to the $9–10 range in 2001. 

World uranium production in 2000 was 36,112 tU, which 

provided 56 percent of the world requirements of about 64,000 

tU, compared to 35,000 tU in 1998, which provided 60 percent 

of the 60,000 tU requirement (NEA/OECD, 2002). Major 

producers were Canada 10,687 tU, Australia 7,759, Niger 

2,915, Namibia 2,715, Russian Federation 2,760, Uzbekistan 

2,028, Kazakhstan 1,870, and U.S.A. 1,522 tU. Total world 

production from 1948 to 2001 was 1,937,822 tU of which 

1,003,099 tU was from OECD countries (NEA/OECD, 2002). 

The U.S.A. was the world’s leading producer of uranium 

from 1950 to 1980 (fig. 2), but since 1980 the proportion has 

grown smaller. In 1959, the U.S.A. produced about 15,000 

tU of the total world production of 34,000 tU; in 1980, about 

17,000 tU of the world total of 44,000 tU; in 1988, about 

5,000 tU of the peak world total of nearly 60,000 tU; and in 

2001, only about 1,000 tU of the total of 37,800 tU (EIA, 

1999, 2002). The latter is the lowest level of U.S. production 

since the earliest years of mining (fig. 2). 

During the peak U.S. production, mining was from 

both underground and open-pit operations; these ores were 

processed in 25 conventional mills using either acid or alkaline 

metallurgy. In 2002, there were no mills operating in the 

U.S.A., but five inactive mills were on standby—two in Utah, 

one in Washington State, one in New Mexico, and one in 

Colorado (EIA, 2002). In 2002, all uranium mining was done 

by the ISL method. 

The low price of uranium oxide has caused most uranium 

mines in the U.S.A. to close, not open as scheduled, or be 

placed on standby. In December 2001, only three uranium 

mines were operating, all by ISL mining of low-grade (0.03– 

0.20 percent U3

O8) roll-front sandstone ores (Rocky Mountain 

Minerals Scout, 2002). Two of the mines were in the Powder 

River Basin in Wyoming—the Rio Algom Smith Ranch 

(1,200,000 pounds U3

O8 produced in 2000) and the Power 

Resources, Inc. Highland (900,000 pounds U3O8 produced in 

2000)—and the other is to the southeast in Nebraska, where 

Crow Butte Resources continued to mine and produce at an 

annual rate of 800,000 pounds of yellowcake. These three 

properties yielded 2,900,000 pounds U3

O8 out of the total 

U.S. production of 4,100,000 pounds in 2000 (Pool, 2001). 

Milling of stockpiled high-grade Schwartzwalder (mine 

closed) uranium vein ore at the Cotter Mill in Canon City, 

Colo., accounted for the rest. The total production in 2001 is 

expected to be 2,800,000 pounds U3

O8 (Pool, 2001). 

Former Soviet Union States Imports 

The breakup of the Soviet Union in 1991 brought about 

the entry of the former Soviet Union states into the world 

uranium market. In 1993, the decision was made by the 

U.S.A. and Europe to limit imports and to penalize the price 

of uranium from former Soviet Union states because of their 

extremely large inventories of non-profit-produced, low-cost 

uranium (EIA, 1998b). The anti-dumping quotas on imports 

from the Russian Federation, as well as from the other CIS 

countries to the U.S.A. would be limited to 4,000,000 pounds 

U3

O8 each year until year 2003, subject to the same amount 

being matched by new U.S. production (Pool, 1994, 1998). 

Imports from Russia and the CIS countries of Ukraine, 

Kazakhstan, and Uzbekistan were assessed a penalty of about 

$2.50 per pound of U3

O8, which lowered the normal unrestricted price to the restricted price of CIS-origin material 

(TradeTech, 1996b). As time went on, various amendments 

to agreements with each CIS country changed the original 

arrangements, and market forces lowered the penalty so that 

the two-tiered price system was abandoned in 2001. Quota 

restrictions, which are slated to expire in 2004, remain only on 

imported uranium from the Russian Federation (Pool, 2001). 

In 2001, U.S. utilities purchased 5,042,000 pounds U3

O8 from 

Russia, 3,149,000 pounds from Kazakhstan, and 2,643,000 

pounds from Uzbekistan (EIA 2002, Table 12, p. 21). 

Conversion of Highly Enriched Uranium 

In 1993, the Russian Federation and the U.S.A. signed a 

formal agreement for the conversion of 500 t of HEU extracted 

from Russian weapons into LEU to fuel reactors to produce 

electricity over a 20-year period (1993–2013) [U.S. Enrichment Corporation (USEC), www.usec.com, Megatons to 

Megawatts Program]. This conversion begins in Russia with 

fluorination of HEU oxide with 94 percent U-235 from the 

warhead to hexafluoride HF6

 and mixing it with a HF6 of about 

1.5 percent U-235 (enriched tails) and blending down this 

mixture by a gaseous diffusion process to LEU of 4.4 percent 

U-235. The resulting HF6

 gas is placed into 2.5 ton steel cylinders to be shipped from St. Petersburg to New Orleans and 

barged up the Mississippi to the Paducah, Ky., USEC plant on 

the banks of the Ohio River. In the plant, the HF6

 is converted 

to UO2

 fuel for fabrication into fuel rods. A HEU transparency 

program is in place to ensure that the LEU from Russia was 

actually derived from weapons material. As of October 2002, 

150 t of weapons-grade material (equal to 6,000 warheads) 

have been blended to LEU (USEC Press Release, October 3, 

2002, accessed July 2001 at www.usec.com). The original 

agreement as regards to the amount paid Russia for their uranium has been amended several times, but as of January 2003, 

it will be the U.S.A. market price. The U.S.A. does not plan to 

convert its HEU until 2010 (Pool, 2001). 
Nuclear Power Plants 7 

Weapons-grade (93 percent Pu-239) plutonium amounts 

to between 150 and 200 metric tons (“Nuclear Warheads as 

a Source of Nuclear Fuel,” accessed at www.uic.com.au). 

No firm agreements between Russia and U.S.A. have been 

concluded as to the use of this plutonium. Most likely, it 

will be made into (Pu) MOX fuel, but, in the U.S.A., it could 

be treated as high-level waste and placed in an underground 

repository. 

Nuclear Power Plants 

Operating Plants 

In April 2001, there were 438 nuclear power plants in the 

world (IAEA, 2001b), generating a total net MWe of 351,327 

(table 2; see Finch, 1997, table 3, for comparison as of April 

Table 2. Status of nuclear power plants around the world as of April 2001 (IAEA, 2001a). MWe, 1,000,000 watts of electric power. 

Reactors in operation Reactors under construction 

Country No. of units Total net MWe No. of units Total net MWe 

Argentina


Armenia


Belgium


Brazil


Bulgaria


Canada


China


Czech Republic


Finland


France


Germany


Hungary


India


Iran


Japan


Korea, Rep. Of


Lithuania


Mexico


Netherlands


Pakistan


Romania


Russia


South Africa


Slovak Republic


Slovenia


Spain


Sweden


Switzerland


United Kingdom


Ukraine


United States


World totals*


2 935 1 692 

1 376 

7 5,712 

2 1,885 

6 3,538 

14 9,998 

3 2,167 8 6,420 

5 2,569 1 912 

4 2,656 

59 63,103 

19 21,122 

4 1,729 

14 2,503 

2 2,111 

53 43,691 3 3,190 

16 12,990 4 3,820 

2 2,370 

2 1,308 

1 449 

2 425 

1 650 1 650 

29 19,843 3 2,825 

2 1,842 

6 2,408 2 776 

1 632 

9 7,470 

11 9,432 

5 3,079 

35 12,968 

13 11,207 4 3,800 

104 97,145 

438 351,327 31 27,756 

*These totals include Taiwan, where six reactors totaling 4,884 MWe are in operation, and two units totaling 2,650 MWe are under construction. 
8 Uranium—Fuel for Nuclear Energy 2002 

1994). The U.S.A. had 104 plants in operation with a total 

net MWe of 97,145, about 28 percent of the world capacity. 

Those countries generating more than 20,000 MWe annually 

were France with 63,103, Japan with 43,691, and Germany 

with 21,122. Russia generated 19,843 MWe, and Armenia was 

the smallest with 376 MWe. 

The graph in figure 3 shows the nuclear power plants’ 

share of electrical generation in percent of the national totals 

as of April 2001 for 30 countries of the world (IAEA, 2001a; 

see Finch, 1997, fig. 7, for comparison as of December 1993). 

The four largest shares were 76.4 percent (63,103 MWe) for 

France, which transmitted some of its electricity to nearby 

countries; 73.7 percent (2,370 MWe) for Lithuania; 56.8 percent (5,712 MWe) for Belgium; and 53.4 percent (2,408 MWe) 

for Slovak Republic. The U.S.A. was 19.8 percent (97,145 

MWe). Power plants under construction totaled 31 with a total 

rating of 27,756 MWe. 

In recent years, utilities in the U.S.A. have looked more 

favorably toward nuclear-produced electricity, because of 

greater efficiency and relatively lower generating costs (fuel 

costs are a minor proportion of the total generating costs); 

also, refueling is done on a yearly basis, and the refueling 

length of time has become much shorter. From an environmental standpoint, nuclear power plants do not emit greenhouse gases; they are environmentally clean with respect to 

acid rain, global warming, and ozone depletion. If nuclear 

plants were substituted for coal-fired plants, these environmental problems would be measurably lessened. 

The U.S. nuclear power industry achieved record powergeneration levels in 1999 and 2000, increasing from 728.1 

billion kilowatt hours (kWh) to 753.9 billion kWh (EIA Press 

Release, March 15, 2001). These records compare to 577.0 

billion in 1990 when 111 power plants were in operation as 

compared to the 103 plants in 2000. Slightly more than 100 

billion kWh were recorded in 1974. 

The average capacity factor (ratio of electricity actually 

produced to full-power operation) for the 103 U.S. reactors in 

2000 was 87.2 percent compared to 76.41 percent worldwide 

(TradeTech, 2001b). South Korea had a 90.4 percent capacity for its 16 reactors that generated 789,000 gigawatt hours 

(GWh) (TradeTech, 2001b). 

FRANCE


LITHUANIA


BELGIUM


SLOVAK REP.


UKRAINE


BULGARIA


HUNGARY


KOREA REP.


SWEDEN


SLOVENIA


SWITZERLAND


JAPAN


ARMENIA


FINLAND


GERMANY


SPAIN


UNITED KINGDOM


UNITED STATES


CZECH REP.


RUSSIA


CANADA


ROMANIA


ARGENTINA


SOUTH AFRICA


NETHERLANDS


MEXICO


INDIA


PAKISTAN


BRAZIL


CHINA


76.4 

73.7 

56.8 

53.4 

47.3 

45.0 

42.2 

40.7 

39.0 

37.4 

35.5 * 

33.8 

33.0 

32.1 

30.6 

27.6 

21.9 

19.8 

18.5 

14.9 

11.8 

10.9 

7.3 

6.7 * 

4.0 

3.9 

3.1 

1.7 

1.4 

1.2 

Figure 3. Nuclear power plant share of electrical generation (in percent of national totals) as of April 2001 for countries of 

the world (IAEA, 2001a). Note that the share for Taiwan was 23.64 percent in 2000. Asterisk (*) indicates estimates. 
Nuclear Power Plants 9 

Refueling times have declined markedly in recent years, Relicensing Extensions 

which increases power generation. A U.S. national record 

for the shortest refueling time for boiling water reactors of The distribution of the license expiration years for the 

15 days, 16 hours, and 45 minutes was set in November 104 U.S. nuclear power plants from 2006 through 2035, as 

2000 (Exelon Nuclear Press Release, November 6, 2000, reported on December 31, 1998 (EIA, 1998a), is shown in 2007 

www.exelonnuclear.com); the national average in 2000 was figure 4. From 2012 to 2016, 35 licenses are due to expire and 2008

38 days. from 2024 to 2027, 27 licenses are due to expire, together well 2009

The median cost to generate electricity by nuclear over one-half of the plants. The extension of these plants for 2010

reactors in the U.S.A. was 0.521 cents/kWh in 2000 (Min- 20 years would extend nuclear energy close to the midpoint of 

ing Journal, 2001). Over a 3-year period ending in 2000, the the 21st century. 2011 

Duke Power Catawba Nuclear Station established a record of Relicensing or license extensions beyond the original 40- 2012 

0.423 cents/kWh (Duke Power Press Release, July 23, 2001, year limit imposed by the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 for an 2013 

www.duke-energy.com). additional 20 years was started in 1998 by the NRC 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 

14

2019 2020 2021 2022

12 

2023 2024 2025 

10

2026 2027 2028 2029

8 

2030 2031 2032 

6

2033 2034 

4 

2 

0 

NUMBER OF PLANTS 

2006 2035 

YEAR 

Figure 4. Distribution of license expiration dates for 104 United States nuclear power plants from 2006 to 2035 as of 

December 31, 1998 (EIA, 1998a). 
10 Uranium—Fuel for Nuclear Energy 2002 

(TradeTech, 1998; Radsafe, 2001a). These original license 

time limits were based on economic and antitrust considerations and not on technical limitations of the power plants 

themselves. The process followed by the NRC to extend 

licenses consists of environmental and technical reviews. 

A “Generic Environmental Impact Statement” for license 

renewal was developed in December 1996 to facilitate timely 

environmental review (NRC Regulations 10 CFR parts 51 and 

54; TradeTech, 1998, 2000; U.S. NRC, 1998). An Aging Management Program was established to monitor the condition 

of critical equipment and structures in each nuclear plant so 

repairs and (or) replacement would be done before any license 

renewal application (NRC Regulations 10 CFR part 54; TradeTech, 1998, 2000). In 2000, NRC approved license renewals 

of 20 years for six units at each of three plants (two extended 

to 2033, three to 2034, one to 2038) (NRC Press Release No. 

20-004, February 19, 2002, accessed at www.nrc.gov, 

February 19, 2002). Fourteen additional units at seven plants 

were under review in 2000. Twenty-eight more license 

renewal applications are expected by 2004 (EIA Press Release, 

March 15, 2001). No plants were relicensed in 1998 and 

1999. 

Advanced Nuclear Reactors 

A new generation of light-water nuclear reactors has 

been developed that received standardized (fuel = 3–4 percent 

U-235) final generic design certification by the NRC (Uranium Information Center Ltd., 2001). They are simpler and 

more rugged, of standardized design, and easier to operate and 

less vulnerable to operational problems, have higher burn-up 

to reduce fuel costs and waste, and possess longer operating 

life (as many as 60 years) than the present first-generation 

reactors. Two second-generation reactors are large evolutionary reactor designs based on prior U.S. experience: (1) the 

General Electric Advanced Boiling Water Reactor (ABWR, 

1,300 MWe) in commercial operation in Japan; and (2) the 

ABB-Construction advanced pressurized water reactor (PWR, 

System 80, 1,300 MWe), of which eight are in operation in 

Korea. A third, smaller advanced reactor is the Westinghouse 

passive safe AP-600 (600 MWe) that received approval of 

final design in December 1999. A scaled-up AP-1000 is under 

development. These reactor designs have fully resolved safety 

status and are not subject to legal challenge during licensing. 

A NRC license for construction and operation can be obtained 

before construction begins. Firm information on construction costs and schedule to build have been developed by DOE. 

These reactors can be built in 3–4 years. New advanced 

reactor designs have also been developed in Europe (Uranium 

Information Center Ltd., 2001). 

The breeder reactor (one that both consumes fissionable 

material and creates new material by a process known as 

breeding) probably will not be economically competitive 

in the electricity market until after 2030 (Oi and Wedekind, 

1998). 

A New Revolutionary Reactor Concept 

Designs for a new revolutionary high-temperature (HTR), 

helium-gas-cooled, pebble-bed nuclear power reactor, a 

concept under development by various competing groups for 

decades, were recently completed by a Massachusetts Institute 

of Technology research team (accessed July 2001 at URL http: 

//www.mit.edu/pebble-bed; Uranium Information Center Ltd., 

2001; for best illustrations see Time, 2001). The pebble-bed 

reactor utilizes heated helium (as much as 950°C) to propel 

the turbine to generate electricity rather than steam as in the 

standard light-water reactors. A “pebble” is a ball about 60 

mm (about 2.4 in.) in diameter with a kernel or core of uranium oxycarbide grains (enriched to about 8 percent U-235) 

enclosed by a “containment center” (stable to 2,000°C) and by 

successive layers of (1) innermost carbon buffer, 

(2) silicon carbide, (3) pyrolytic carbon, and (4) outermost 

shell of graphite. Within the reactor vessel, the reactor core 

contains as many as 450,000 pebbles. The core (bed) is 

surrounded by helium that is heated by the nuclear reaction 

within the pebbles and piped to the turbine to generate electricity. Similar to light-water reactors, the helium is cooled by 

water and returned to the reactor core to be heated again. Test 

pebble-bed reactors (capacity 110 MWe) are being built near 

Cape Town, South Africa, by the Exelon Corporation 

(Uranium Information Center Ltd., 2001; Talbut, 2002). 

New Power Plants Planned for Construction in 

the United States 

Three new companies—Entergy Corp., New Orleans, La.; 

Exelon Corp., Chicago, Ill.; and Dominion Resources, Waterford, Va.—are consolidating nuclear power sites into major 

blocks to produce nuclear energy (Radsafe, 2001b). They 

have plans to build additional nuclear power units at existing 

sites because transmission lines are already established and 

less regulatory review is needed to start construction (Hartford 

Courant quoted in Radsafe, 2001b). The new plants would 

be built using new designs already approved by the NRC 

that are simpler, safer, and quicker to build. The NRC has an 

early-siting process that takes about 1 year to complete and 

allows for a 20-year period in which to complete construction. Construction will take 3 years and full power would be 

established within 1 year. Permit applications for as many as 

nine new plants could be made within a year or so. Decisions 

will be based on existing electricity demand and on political 

and economic conditions. 

Reprocessing of Spent Fuel and 

Breeder Reactors 

Spent fuel from nuclear power reactors can be reprocessed to obtain plutonium-rich material for MOX fuel for use 
Recent and Future Research on Uranium Geology and Resources 11 

in breeder and modified light-water reactors. In 1974, after 

much discussion by industry and Federal Government officials 

(Finch and others, 1975), the U.S.A., by presidential order, 

decided not to pursue research on the breeder reactor and on 

reprocessing spent fuel because of fears of proliferation of 

nuclear weapons by terrorists (Stover, 1995). Thus, plutonium 

in spent fuel became a high-level waste instead of a potentially 

useful product. These decisions were continued until May 

2001, when research on and development of reprocessing was 

reopened for examination to reduce high-level waste volumes 

and intensive radioactivity as well to increase resistance to 

weapons proliferation by terrorists (Von Hippel, 2001). 

Outside the U.S.A., “fast-breeder” reactors, which create 

more plutonium-rich fuel than consumed, have not proceeded 

to commercialization as originally expected, even though 

research in some countries continues (Von Hippel, 2001). 

Only the French have built two experimental breeders, but 

their performances have not proven to be commercial so interest in the breeder reactor has waned. Breeder reactors may not 

be competitive in the electricity market until after 2030 (Oi 

and Wedekind, 1998). 

Status of a Repository for Spent 

Fuel Waste 

Yucca Mountain in southwestern Nevada is the location of the proposed site for the long-term (more than 10,000 

years) repository for spent nuclear fuel and other high-level 

radioactive waste (Bodvarsson and Tsang, 1999; Bodvarsson 

and others, 1999). It is projected to store 77,100 tons of spent 

fuel from the existing commercial reactors by 2020 (National 

Research Council, 1999) and as much as 85,000 tons by 2035 

(T.C. Pool, Nuclear Fuels Corp., written commun., in Odell, 

2002) because of license extensions (see above). The addition 

of military high-level-waste (HLW) is estimated to be about 

3 percent of the amount of commercial spent fuel (National 

Research Council, 1999). 

In 1982, DOE initiated an intensive investigation to determine the viability of Yucca Mountain as a repository facility, 

based in large part on USGS studies of unsaturated-zone rocks 

in the adjacent Nevada Test Site for underground testing of 

nuclear weapons (Hanks and others, 1999). A large number 

of Federal, State of Nevada, university, and industry scientists 

and engineers have examined the geology, hydrology, geophysics, and geochemistry of rock formations in the semi-arid 

Yucca Mountain area. 

Yucca Mountain is an uplifted ridge of unsaturated 

welded and nonwelded silicic volcanic tuff of Miocene age 

within a region of extensional tectonics, characterized by the 

presence of numerous normal faults, some of which show 

movements as young as a few thousand years ago (Stuckless, 2002; Stuckless and Dudley, 2002). The potentiometric 

surface beneath Yucca Mountain is relatively flat and water 

movement is extremely slow (8–20 mm/yr; National Research 

Council, 1999), and geochemical retardation by exchange by 

zeolite and other minerals in the unsaturated zone provides a 

natural barrier to contaminant movement in pore water. These 

two characteristics contribute to long-term isolation of radioactive wastes in the unsaturated zone (Stuckless, 2002). The 

waste can be placed in robust bimetallic canisters in underground space about 300 m below the ridge surface and about 

300 m above the water table (Levich and others, 2002). 

Although the Viability of Total Systems Performance 

Assessments (U.S. Department of Energy, 1998) supports the 

development of Yucca Mountain as a geologic repository, there 

are significant concerns that remain to be addressed (Hanks 

and others, 1999). For example, there are questions about 

control of heat generation by radioactive waste and the lack 

of understanding of moisture changes over time, if the walls 

were concreted, that need to be further addressed. Also, Dyer 

and others (2002), of the Yucca Mountain Site Characterization Office, discussed the latest developments concerning 

the likelihood of the occurrence of volcanic activity (also see 

Smith and others, 2002), transport of radionuclides in water 

through the unsaturated zone, and potential radionuclide transport in the saturated zone some 1,000 ft below the level of the 

planned repository; they outlined unfinished experiments to be 

completed in future years before containment. Additional concerns have been raised by Steve Frishman (2002) and by Don 

L. Shettel and Maury E. Morgenstein (2002), all from Nevada 

institutions, about the effectiveness of the engineering barrier 

system. On the other hand, Levich and others (2002) reported 

that studies to date indicate that the natural geologic system 

combined with supporting engineered barriers would provide a 

safe environment to isolate nuclear wastes. 

Despite some as yet unresolved issues, the technical, scientific, and engineering investigations at Yucca Mountain have 

progressed to the point that congressional and presidential 

approvals were given in early 2002 (see Pianin, 2002) for DOE 

to proceed with applying for a license from NRC to construct 

a waste facility at the site. 

Recent and Future Research on 

Uranium Geology and Resources 

Geology 

Worldwide geologic research on uranium in the latter 

part of the 20th century was focused primarily on (1) environmental remediation of mine, mill, and processing sites; and 

(2) issues related to finding a suitable repository for high-level 

nuclear waste in geologic settings. 

The preparation of a short course on “Uranium: Mineralogy, Geochemistry and the Environment,” sponsored by 

the Mineralogical Society of America in 1999, resulted in an 

in-depth reference book (Burns and Finch, 1999), with 
12 Uranium—Fuel for Nuclear Energy 2002 

contributions from numerous authors representing U.S. and 

foreign universities, and in addition the Argonne National Laboratory, Southwest Research Institute (San Antonio, Texas), 

the British Geological Survey, and The National Museum in 

the Czech Republic. Funding other than from the institutions 

of residence for these endeavors came from the DOE, NRC, 

British Geological Survey, Polish Research Committee, and 

Czech State Department. A foundation for appreciating recent 

research is laid in the first chapter—“Radioactivity and the 

20th century”—historic research after the discovery of radioactivity in 1896. The book presents research results, mainly 

since 1990, on (1) uranium crystal chemistry, systematics and 

paragenesis, isotopic geochemistry, and geomicrobiology of 

uranium minerals; (2) genesis of uranium ore deposits; (3) 

geochemical behavior of uranium and other actinides in 

natural fluids; (4) environmental aspects of ground-water 

contamination; (5) mineralogy of spent fuel; and (6) disposal 

of nuclear wastes. Such topics cover the mineralogy of all 

three parts of the nuclear fuel cycle (fig. 1). The volume 

concludes with in-depth descriptions of various updated 

analytical techniques applied to uranium phases of natural and 

man-made occurrences. Reviews of this volume by Donald 

Langmuir (2001) and K. Morris (2001) gave good perspectives 

of the book and are worthy of being consulted. 

Future research on the mineralogy and geochemistry 

of all aspects of the nuclear fuel cycle needs to be continued 

by both academic and government institutions. Burns and 

Finch in their preface of the volume stated “***importantly, 

the reader may develop a sense of the tremendous amount of 

work that remains to be done, not only concerning uranium in 

the natural systems, but for low-temperature mineralogy and 

geochemistry in general***.” 

Detailed mineralogical studies of roll-front ores in 

Wyoming and Nebraska by Stewart and Reimann (2002), 

sponsored by Power Resources, Inc., have provided essential 

information for increased economic recovery of ISL-mined 

uranium ore (Stewart and others, 2000). Furthermore, these 

authors combined mineralogy with water chemistry to provide 

a predictive model for restoration of post-mine water in the 

ore-bearing aquifer. This is an example of potential research 

for future USGS uranium programs to aid the uranium mining 

industry. 

Funding for research on geology and resources of 

domestic uranium ores in the USGS was terminated in 1995, 

but the author (as the USGS’s Uranium Resource Specialist) continued to monitor worldwide commercial uranium 

exploration, mining, and market trends; electricity-producing 

utility actions; and new trends in scientific research. The use 

of internet sources of information has been invaluable for this 

purpose (see appended Selected Nuclear Energy Web Sites), 

and this report, as well as others (Finch, 1996, 1997, in press; 

Finch and others, 2000), is a direct result of this continued 

effort. In 2001, a new formal project—Alternative energy 

resources of the future—was begun to cover these uranium 

studies as well as similar ones for oil shale and heavy oil. 

An essential activity has been the continued USGS participation in the NEA/IAEA Uranium Group, which produces 

the biannual Red Book: Uranium Resources, Production and 

Demand (see Appendix A of Finch and McCammon, 1987). 

The author reviewed the U.S. contributions to the Red Book 

in 1997, 1999, and 2001 and, as the USGS representative, 

attended two foreign meetings of the Uranium Group that 

involved field examinations of uranium districts: (1) in Johannesburg, South Africa, with field trips to the Witwatersrand 

Gold/Uranium Fields in South Africa, and to the Rossing 

Uranium Mining District in Namibia in 1996; and (2) at the 

Industrias Nuclear do Brazil offices in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, 

with field trips to the new active Caetite Uranium District west 

of Salvador and the Pocos de Caldas Mining District north of 

Sao Paulo in 2000. 

In 2001, the author, with R.L. Grubbs (consultant), 

organized the “Uranium Session: Uranium Energy: Source 

to Power to Repository” for the 2002 Annual Meeting of the 

American Association of Petroleum Geologists (AAPG) in 

Houston, Texas, with 10 abstracts being published to describe 

results of recent research. These are: R.J. Finch (2002), 

Grubbs (2002), Levich and others (2002), Maxwell (2002), 

McLemore (2002), Smith (2002), Stewart and Reimann 

(2002), Stuckless (2002), Underhill (2002), and Vance (2002). 

Uranium Resource Assessment 

The first national assessment of uranium resources that 

was done in 1980 by the DOE’s “National Uranium Resource 

Evaluation (NURE) Program” (U.S. Department of Energy, 

1980) is out of date and needs to be updated to incorporate 

new scientific data and to apply more refined assessment 

methodology (Finch, 1997, p. 20–21). The new assessment 

would enhance the national energy policy relative to nuclear 

energy. The updating should take advantage of an ongoing 

annual analysis of information on uranium exploration, production, reserves, and resources as well as uranium procurement by utilities reported by the EIA of the DOE (EIA, 2002; 

see “United States Uranium Industry in 2001” above). The 

potential uranium resources are updated yearly based on scientific uranium resource data developed prior to 1983 by the 

NURE program using methodology described by Finch and 

McCammon (1987). 

An independent study of domestic uranium resources and 

their availability by consultant R.D. Maxwell (Maxwell, 2002) 

concluded that in 2001 the U.S.A. had no uranium reserves 

capable of being mined by conventional methods. 

In 1997 and early 1998, J.K. Otton (USGS) and the 

author took part in a review of a contractor’s document for 

EPA’s (Environmental Protection Agency) Naturally Occurring 

Radioactive Materials (NORM) Mine Waste Characteristics 

Study. For this review, a new database was developed that 

includes (1) deposits with depleted reserves (“mined out”), 

(2) inactive mines, (3) producing mines, and (4) occurrences 

(defined as locations where rock with a grade of 0.03 percent 
Future Uranium Mining in the United States 13 

U3O8 occurs in outcrop or drill hole, size not determined). A 

total of 4,214 uranium deposits and occurrences or properties are listed by name, size (tons U3

O8), and location in 30 

States. Those States with more than 90 uranium properties are 

Arizona, Colorado, New Mexico, South Dakota, Texas, Utah, 

and Wyoming. 

The USGS has taken part in various international uranium resource missions for the IAEA since 1976. The most 

recent was an IAEA Technical Cooperative Mission in late 

1995 to advise the Argentina Government on their national 

uranium resource program in the Mendoza District. Earlier 

ones were in the Cordova and Patagonia uranium districts in 

1993 and the Salta uranium district in 1994. 

Uranium Geology and Resources Data 

Archival Project 

An extremely large collection of domestic as well as 

worldwide uranium geology and resources data has been 

assembled by the USGS, consisting of numerous data sets on 

uranium deposits, uranium clusters (district areas representing 

deposits in an area about 5 mi in diameter), uranium provinces, and scattered uranium occurrences outside of defined 

provinces. A large punch-card uranium-occurrence file 

created in 1954–1957 was the first comprehensive database. 

Other key databases include the uranium-cluster database for 

the Colorado Plateau uranium province (Finch, 1991) and 

seven other uranium provinces that provided input to show 

the distribution of large clusters in North America (Finch, 

1996). These databases also contributed to the World Atlas of 

uranium deposits (Finch and others, 1995). In addition, there 

are many special databases, such as uranium production for 

various districts, DOE NURE data managed by the USGS, 

uranium drill-hole logs from various areas, USGS core library 

data, USGS Field Records material filed from numerous uranium research projects dated 1948 to the present, uranium ore 

samples from major districts in the U.S.A. and other countries, 

State Geological Survey databases on file in the USGS, and a 

comprehensive library of uranium publications. 

The USGS is presently preparing a digital archive for 

these materials; for example, the 1954–1957 punch-card 

occurrences file is now digitized. The archive will be interactive and open to the public. It will not contain confidential 

company data. The archivist is Frederick (Nick) Zihlman 

(zihlman@usgs.gov). 

Future Uranium Mining in the 

United States 

Future uranium mining in the U.S.A. will depend upon 

a higher price for U3O8, at least $15 per pound. The principal 

reserves are in Tertiary and Mesozoic sandstone formations. 

Tertiary-hosted sandstones in Wyoming, Nebraska, and Texas 

are highly amenable to ISL mining, but those in Mesozoic 

rocks of the Colorado Plateau are less so. Possibly, borehole 

hydraulic mining may be tried in Mesozoic rocks. Conventional underground mining will be practiced only in the few 

cases where development is completed, such as the deep Nose 

Rock and Mt. Taylor mines in the San Juan Basin of New 

Mexico. 

In-situ Leach Mining 

ISL mining will be the dominant mining method in the 

U.S.A. for the foreseeable future because costs are lower and 

environmental issues are less contentious than for conventional 

mining. The reserves of 135,000 tU in Tertiary formations in 

Wyoming, Nebraska, and Texas will be mined by ISL. The 

shallow parts of the reserves of 120,500 tU in Mesozoic sandstone formations in the Colorado Plateau may be mined by 

ISL. Pilot plant tests by private mining companies have been 

completed for three large deposits in the Jurassic Morrison 

Formation in the Grants Mineral Belt in the San Juan Basin of 

New Mexico (W.L. Chenoweth, consultant, written commun., 

2002). Results of these tests have not been released. 

In 1982, the U.S. Bureau of Mines (USBM) completed an 

Improved Solution Mining Production Cost Model for Bendix 

Field Engineering Corporation, contractor for the DOE (U.S. 

Bureau of Mines, 1982), of the original cost model (Toth and 

Annett, 1981). The improved model includes depth and grade 

of ore, well-flow rates, and chemistry of injection fluids. The 

model did not consider geologic factors such as porosity, 

permeability, induration, and chemistry (for example, humaterich ores in the Grants Mineral Belt, New Mexico) of the host 

sandstone that would influence recovery by solutions and 

amounts of uranium recovered from the solutions. Comparison of the costs of ISL mining of Tertiary rock-hosted ores 

with those of Mesozoic rock-hosted ores would be of interest 

to the uranium mining industry. Economic parameters for 

development and rate of return of capital as well as changes 

in the economy in the past 20 years need to be considered in 

a new model (T. Pool, Nuclear Fuels Corp., oral commun., 

2002). All of these factors would affect the costs of mining. 

With the closing of the USBM, the USGS, in cooperation 

with DOE, became the organization to initiate research on and 

update the ISL cost model; the resulting cost model would 

benefit the uranium mining industry. 

Borehole Hydraulic Mining of Colorado Plateau 

Vanadium-Uranium Ores 

A research and development program was developed by 

Cotter Corporation to mine Colorado Plateau vanadium-uranium ores in the Salt Wash Member of the Morrison Formation by borehole hydraulic mining (Cotter Corporation, 2002). 

A proposed testing program consists of (1) drilling a hole 

using a special bit and high-pressure jet; (2) pumping a slurry 

of broken rock up out of the hole; and (3) separating the slurry 
14 Uranium—Fuel for Nuclear Energy 2002 

into fine and coarse fractions with a hydroclone. The coarse 

fraction may then be heap leached or returned back down the 

hole as back fill in the mined-out cavity. The fine fraction 

may be heap leached or trucked to the Canon City, Colo., mill 

to recover the uranium. On-site residue may be returned to the 

cavity. 

The USBM conducted a borehole mining test in the 

1970s and found it technically successful but not economic 

(T. Pool, Nuclear Fuels Corp., oral commun., 2002). Borehole mining of phosphatic fish-scale-hosted uranium ores 

was done in the Caspian Sea area in Kazakhstan in the 

1970s and 1980s (Grigovi Abramov, BHMI, Inc., Denver, 

Colo., www.boreholemining.com, written commun., 2002; 

see descriptions of Kazakhstan Uranium Deposits Numbers 

224, 235, and 236 in Finch and others, 1995; IAEA, 1996). 

Research on the potential of borehole mining of sandstone 

uranium ores is warranted. 

Future of Nuclear Power 

IAEA Uranium Supply Analysis to 2050 

In late 2001, the IAEA released its report “Analysis of 

Uranium Supply to 2050” (Mining Journal, 2001), which 

replaces a decade-old report that included the period to the 

year 2035. A systematic analysis of the long-term uranium 

supply as the fuel for nuclear power plants is essential for 

sustainability of the worldwide nuclear power industry (IAEA, 

2001b; Underhill, 2002). The life cycle of the nuclear fuel 

cycle is relatively long; for facilities with a large resource 

base, it ranges from 30 to 50 years. Sources of uranium supply are of two groups: primary and secondary (fig. 5). 

Primary world supply comes from mined and processed 

reserves of natural uranium ore deposits, and is divided into 

PRIMARY SUPPLY 

Market-based production—Cost-competitive sources 

Nonmarket-based production 

Commonwealth Independent States (CIS) 

National programs—Argentina, Brazil, India, and others 

China 

SECONDARY SUPPLY 

Highly enriched uranium (HEU) 

Downgraded—Significant source until 2030 

Pipeline inventories and low enriched uranium (LEU) 

Reprocessed spent fuel to produced mixed-oxide fuel (MOX) 

Re-enrichment of depleted uranium (0.30% U-235 tails) 

ANALYSIS 2000–2050 

Accumulative requirement Reasonably assured resources shortfall 

Low demand 3,390,000 tU 800,000 tU 

Middle demand 5,394,100 tU 1,500,0000 tU 

High demand 7,577,300 tU 3,700,000 tU 

Figure 5. Chart showing the International Atomic Energy Agency analysis of uranium supplies (in metric tons U, tU) from 2000 

to 2050 (IAEA, 2001b). 
References Cited 15 

(1) market-based production (that is, from cost-competitive 

sources); (2) nonmarket-based production, including supplies from the CIS countries; (3) various national programs 

for internal consumption; and (4) Chinese production (fig. 5). 

The NEA/OECD semiannual Red Book summarized primary 

2001 uranium production for 21 countries out of the 45 countries containing uranium resources (NEA/OECD, 2002). Of 

the CIS countries, the Russian Federation and Ukraine have 

internal need and use for uranium and, to some degree, they 

financially support production; however, both Kazakhstan and 

Uzbekistan have no nuclear power plants and produce uranium 

with some outside support with an increasing market base. 

Kazakhstan has the third largest reasonably assured uranium 

resources (table 1) and could become a major world producer. National-program countries, of which there are about a 

dozen (most importantly Argentina, Brazil, Spain, and India), 

dedicate their production, commonly at high cost, for internal 

need. China’s production and resources are uncertain and 

considered in the IAEA report as being a separate primary 

supply. China does not release reserve and production data, 

but little uranium has been exported. In 2001, primary sources 

provided about 60 percent of world production and came 

mainly from high-grade uranium ores in Canada and Australia. 

Secondary supply comes from (1) downgrading HEU 

from nuclear weapons and from inventory; (2) inventories of 

in-pipeline of natural uranium (yellowcake U3

O8) and LEU 

used in nuclear power plants; (3) reprocessed spent fuel to 

produce MOX fuel; and (4) re-enrichment of depleted uranium 

derived from the tails of original enrichment (figs. 1 and 5). 

Secondary supplies provided about 40 percent of 1998 world 

demand but are expected to supply only about 6 percent by 

2020. 

Analyses of demand were made in three basic worldwide 

cases: (1) high demand—significant expansion of generating 

capacity with high economic growth; (2) middle demand— 

sustained increase in development of nuclear power worldwide with medium economic growth; and (3) low demand— 

medium growth in new nuclear power but phased out by 2100. 

Factors influencing demand will be political and subject to 

environmental restraints and levels of economic growth. 

The normal growth rate projected for nuclear power is 1–3 

percent. 

Estimates of cumulative uranium requirements for 

the 2000–2050 time period for each case are high demand 

7,600,000 tU, middle demand 5,400,000 tU, and low demand 

3,400,000 tU (fig. 5). The current RAR in 2001 would 

fall short in all three cases by 3,700,000 tU, 1,500,000 tU, 

and 800,000 tU, respectively (fig. 5). Current RAR will be 

depleted by the mid-2030s. 

The life cycle from start of exploration to reclamation is 

on the order of 20–40 years. Long lead times from exploration to mining of 8–10 years will require major increases in 

exploration by 2010 in order to find new large high-grade ore 

deposits that can be brought into power-plant production by 

2025. This will allow orderly uranium reserve increases in the 

second 25 years. 

Acknowledgments 

Special acknowledgment is made to Thomas C. Pool, 

Vice President–Engineering, Nuclear Fuels Corp., Englewood, 

Colo., poolt@gadenver.com, for discussions of uranium 

economics, ISL and borehole mining, and other aspects of 

uranium geology. Peer reviewers, P.J. McCabe, J.K. Otton, 

and C.J. Schenk, were very helpful in suggestions of new 

topics in the manuscript, improvements in illustrations and 

tables (as well as recommending new ones), and clarity 

of expressions. Editing of the manuscript by W.R. Keefer 

sharpened the expression of ideas and the readability and flow 

of the text. 

References Cited 

Bodvarsson, G.S., Boyle, W., Patterson, R., and William, D., 

1999, Overview of scientific investigations at Yucca Mountain—The potential repository for high-level nuclear waste, 

in Bodvarsson, G.S., and Tsang, Y., guest eds., Special 

issue, Yucca Mountain Project: Journal of Contaminant 

Hydrology, v. 38, nos. 1–3, p. 3–24. 

Bodvarsson, G.S., and Tsang, Y., guest eds., 1999, Special 

issue, Yucca Mountain Project: Journal of Contaminant 

Hydrology, v. 38, nos. 1–3, 426 p. 

Burns, P.C., and Finch, Robert, eds., 1999, Uranium mineralogy, geochemistry and the environment: Reviews in Mineralogy, v. 38, 679 p. 

Cotter Corporation, 2002, Research and Development 

Program—Western slope uranium and vanadium ores: 

Pueblo, Colo., Cotter Corporation, February 2002, 

cotterdoeconcept2.ppt, 35 p. 

Dyer, R., Van Luik, A., Linden, R., and Salness, R., 2002, In 

search of water, an update on Yucca Mountain studies: Geotimes, v. 47, no. 3, p. 14–18. 

EIA (Energy Information Administration), 1998a, Nuclear fuel 

data: Energy Information Administration Form RW-858. 

Accessed July 2002 at URL http://www.eia.doe.gov/.cneaf/ 

nuclear/spent_fuel/table2b.html. 

———1998b, Commercial nuclear fuel from U.S. and Russia 

surplus defense inventories—Materials, policies, and market 

effects: Energy Information Administration, DOE/EIA0619, May 1998, 115 p. 
16 Uranium—Fuel for Nuclear Energy 2002 

———1999, International energy outlook: Energy Information Administration. Accessed July 2002 at URL http: 

//www.eia.doe.gov. 

———2002, Uranium industry annual 2001, May 2002: 

Energy Information Administration Report DOE/EIA0478 (2001), 56 p. Accessed July 2002 at URL hhtp: 

//www.eia.doe.gov. 

Finch, R.J., 2002, Precipitation of neptunium solids during the 

aqueous corrosion of Np-doped uranium oxides: American 

Association of Petroleum Geologists, Abstracts CD-ROM, 

Houston Annual Meeting, March 10–13, 2002. 

Finch, W.I., 1986, Uranium resources, in Bever, M.B., ed., 

Encyclopedia of materials science and engineering: Oxford, 

England, Pergamon Press, v. 7, p. 5218–5221. 

———1991, Maps showing the distribution of uranium 

deposits in the Colorado Plateau uranium province—A cluster analysis: U.S. Geological Survey Miscellaneous Field 

Studies Map MF–2080, scale 1:2,500,000. 

———1996, Uranium provinces of North America—Their 

definition, distribution, and models: U.S. Geological Survey Bulletin 2141, 18 p., 2 pl. 

———1997, Uranium, its impact on the National and World 

energy mix—Its history, distribution, production, nuclear 

fuel-cycle, and relation to the environment: U.S. Geological Survey Circular 1141, 24 p. Available at http: 

//pubs.usgs.gov/circ/c1141/c1141.html. 

———in press, Uranium, in Dyni, J.R., ed., Unconventional 

energy resources of North America: American Association 

of Petroleum Geologists Special Energy Minerals Division Publication, “25th Anniversary Edition,” map (scale 1: 

9,000,000) and panels. 

Finch, W.I., Fischer, R.P., Butler, A.P., Jr., Masters, C.D., and 

Stead, F.W., 1975, Discussion of uranium availability and 

the breeder decision: Crane, Russak & Co., Energy Systems and Policy, v. 1, no. 3, p. 259–269. 

Finch, W.I., and McCammon, R.B., 1987, Uranium resource 

assessment by the Geological Survey—Proposed methodology and a plan to update the National resource base: U.S. 

Geological Survey Circular 994, 31 p. 

Finch, W.I., Molina, P., Naumov, S.S., Ruzicka, V., Barthel, F., 

Muller-Kahle, E., and Tauchid, M., 1995, World distribution of uranium deposits, First Edition: Vienna, Austria, 

International Atomic Energy Agency, STI/PUB/995, ISBN 

92-0-004095-0, scale 1:30,000,000. 

Finch, W.I., Smith, L.L., and Chenoweth, W.L., 2000, Characteristics of uranium deposits USA: 31th International 

Geological Congress, Extended Abstracts, Rio de Janeiro, 

Brazil, August 6–17, 2000, 4 p. 

Frishman, Steve, 2002, Letters, Yucca Mountain: Geotimes, v. 

47, no. 7, p. 4. 

Grubbs, R.L., 2002, Australia’s position in uranium: American Association of Petroleum Geologists, Abstracts CDROM, Houston Annual Meeting, March 10–13, 2002. 

Hanks, T.C., Winograd, I.J., Anderson, R.E., Reilly, T.E., and 

Weeks, E.P., 1999, Yucca Mountain as a radioactive-waste 

repository: U.S. Geological Survey Circular 1184, 19 p. 

IAEA (International Atomic Energy Agency), 1996, Guidebook to Accompany IAEA map—World distribution of 

uranium deposits: Vienna, Austria, International Atomic 

Energy Agency, STI/PUB/1021, 224 p. 

———2001a, International datafile: Vienna, Austria, International Atomic Energy Agency Bulletin, v. 43, no. 3, p. 549. 

———2001b, Analysis of uranium supply to 2050: Vienna, 

Austria, International Atomic Energy Agency, STI/PUB/ 

1104, 103 p., 36 fig. 

———2002, Nuclear share of electricity generation: Vienna, 

Austria, International Atomic Energy Agency Bulletin, v. 

44, no. 1, p. 33. 

Langmuir, Donald, 2001, Book review of Uranium—Mineralogy, geochemistry and the environment by P.C. Burns and 

Robert Finch: American Mineralogist, v. 86, p. 585–587. 

Levich, R.A., Patterson, R.L., and Linden, R.L., 2002, Closing 

the uranium fuel cycle—Deep geologic disposal at Yucca 

Mountain and WIPP: American Association of Petroleum 

Geologists, Abstracts CD-ROM, Houston Annual Meeting, 

March 10–13, 2002. 

Maxwell, R.D., 2002, Domestic uranium resources and their 

availability: American Association of Petroleum Geologists, Abstracts CD-ROM, Houston Annual Meeting, March 

10–13, 2002. 

McGill, Brian, 1999, The McArthur River deposit—A geological update, in Ashton K.F., Harper C.F., and Brown, C.L., 

eds., MINEXPO ’96—Advances in Saskatchewan geology 

and mineral exploration: Saskatchewan Geological Society 

Special Publication Number 14, p. 95. 

McLemore, V.T., 2002, Uranium resources in New Mexico: 

American Association of Petroleum Geologists, Abstracts 

CD-ROM, Houston Annual Meeting, March 10–13, 2002. 

Mining Journal, 2001, Uranium resource review: London, 

Mining Journal, October 26, 2001, p. 318–319. 

———2002, Mineral markets, Indicated prices: London, 

Mining Journal, October 4, 2002, p. 242. 

Morris, K., 2001, Book review of Uranium—Mineralogy, geochemistry and the environment by P.C. Burns and Robert 

Finch: Journal of Petrology, v. 42, p. 853–854. 
References Cited 17 

National Research Council, 1999, Disposition of high-level 

radioactive waste through geological isolation—Development, current status, and technical and policy challenges: 

Washington, D.C., National Academy Press, Steering committee discussion paper prepared for Board on Radioactive 

Waste Management Workshop November 4–5, 1999, 35 p. 

NEA/OECD (Nuclear Energy Agency/Organization for 

Economic Cooperation and Development), 2002, Uranium 

2001, Resources, production and demand, A joint report by 

the OECD Nuclear Energy Agency and the International 

Atomic Energy Agency [Red Book]: Paris, France, Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, 348 p. 

Odell, R.D., 2002, April, 2002 activity, North America 

uranium and energy resources: Rocky Mountain Minerals 

Scout, 1547 South Jefferson, Casper, WY 82601, p. 4. 

Oi, Noborn, and Wedekind, Lothar, 1998, Changing global 

perspectives, Nuclear fuel cycle trends into the next century: 

IAEA Bulletin Quarterly, v. 40, no. 1, p. 711. 

Pianin, Eric, 2002, House affirms Yucca Mtn. waste-disposal 

decision: Washington Post, in The Denver Post, May 9, 

2002, p. 4A. 

Pool, T.C., 1991, Uranium, You thought ’89 was bad: Engineering and Mining Journal, v. 192, no. 4, p. 57–60. 

———1994, Weapons conversion looms: Engineering and 

Mining Journal, v. 195, no. 3, p. 55–58. 

———1996, Uranium—A widening supply and demand gap: 

Engineering and Mining Journal, v. 197, no. 3, p. 27–28, 

30–31. 

———1997, Uranium—Prices rise, then fall: Engineering 

and Mining Journal, v. 198, no. 3, p. 41–43, 44. 

———1998, Uranium—A continuing struggle for producers: 

Engineering and Mining Journal, v. 199, p. 68–70. 

———1999, Uranium—Low prices, bring closures, cutbacks, 

and consolidation: Engineering and Mining Journal, v. 200, 

p. 56–62. 

———2000, Uranium—No relief in sight: Engineering and 

Mining Journal, v. 201, p. 53–57. 

———2001, Uranium—Prices down, production up: Engineering and Mining Journal, v. 202, p. 50–51. 

Radsafe, 2001a, Aging nuclear plants and license renewal: 

radsafe@list.vanderbilt.edu, December 12, 2001, 3 p. 

———2001b, Hartford Courant article on new nuclear plant 

construction: radsafe@list.vanderbilt.edu, November 15, 

2001, 3 p. 

Rocky Mountain Minerals Scout, 2002, December activity, 

North American uranium and energy resources: Rocky 

Mountain Minerals Scout, R.B. Odell, 1547 South Jefferson, Casper, WY 82601, 22 p. 

Shettel, D.L., and Morgenstein, M.E., 2002, Letters, Yucca 

Mountain: Geotimes, v. 27, no. 7, p. 4–5. 

Smith, E.I., Keenan, D.I., and Plank, Terry, 2002, Episodic 

volcanism and hot mantle—Implications for volcanic 

hazard studies at the proposed nuclear waste repository at 

Yucca Mountain, Nevada: GSA Today, April 2002, v. 12, 

no. 4, p. 4–10. 

Smith, R.B., 2002, The role of exploration in the coming 

uranium boom: American Association of Petroleum Geologists, Abstracts CD-ROM, Houston Annual Meeting, March 

10–13, 2002. 

Stewart, C.L., and Reimann, L.J., 2002, Using mineralogy to 

enhance mining and restoration: American Association of 

Petroleum Geologists, Abstracts CD-ROM, Houston Annual 

Meeting, March 10–13, 2002. 

Stewart, C.L., Reimann, L.J., and Swapp, S.M., 2000, Mineralogic considerations for uranium in-situ leach mining—A 

preliminary study of uranium and associated mineralogy of 

roll-front uranium deposits in Wyoming and Nebraska, in 

Ozbok, E., ed., Process metallurgy of uranium—Uranium 

2000: Met Soc, p. 241–255. 

Stover, Dawn, 1995, The nuclear legacy: Popular Science, v. 

247, no. 2, p. 52–58, 82, 83. 

Stuckless, J.S., 2002, The Yucca Mountain project—A major 

science investigation: American Association of Petroleum 

Geologists, Abstracts CD-ROM, Houston Annual Meeting, 

March 10–13, 2002. 

Stuckless, J.S., and Dudley, W.E., 2002, The geohydrologic 

setting of Yucca Mountain, Nevada, in Gascoyne, M., and 

Peterman, Z.E., eds., Geochemistry of Yucca Mountain, 

Nevada—A potential site for a high-level nuclear waste 

repository: Pergamon, v. 17, no. 6, p. 659–682. 

Talbut, David, 2002, The next nuclear plant: Technology 

Review, January/February, p. 55–59. 

Time, 2001, Nuclear Summer: New York, Time, Inc., May 28, 

2001, p. 58–60. 

Toth, G.W., and Annett, J.R., 1981, Cost and sensitivities 

analysis for uranium in situ leach mining: U.S. Bureau of 

Mines, unnumbered 1981 open-file report, 342 p. 

TradeTech, 1995, Long-term & spot price relationships— 

What’s the “basis”?: TradeTech, Denver, CO 80202, The 

Nuclear Review, no. 327, p. 13–16. 
18 Uranium—Fuel for Nuclear Energy 2002 

———1996a, October market review, Natural uranium and 

conversion: The Nuclear Review, no. 338, p. 4. 

———1996b, Suspension agreements—The status quota: 

The Nuclear Review, no. 329, p. 13–19. 

———1998, License extensions in the U.S.A.: The Nuclear 

Review, no. 304, p. 14–16. 

———2000, License renewal in the U.S.A.: The Nuclear 

Review, no. 379, p. 15–18. 

———2001a, Nuclear electricity generation in 2000: The 

Nuclear Review, no. 392, p. 14–31. 

———2001b, U.S. nuclear fuel inventories—Evaluation in a 

cyclical market: The Nuclear Review, no. 399, p. 14–17. 

Underhill, D.H., 2002, Analysis of uranium supply to 2050: 

American Association of Petroleum Geologists, Abstracts 

CD-ROM, Houston Annual Meeting, March 10–13, 2002. 

Uranium Information Center Ltd. (UIC), 2001, Advanced 

reactors: Melbourne, Australia, Uranium Information Center. Accessed July 2001 at www.uic.com.au/nip/6.htm, 8 p. 

U.S. Bureau of Mines, 1982, Improved solution mining production cost model: U.S. Bureau of Mines, Final Technical 

Report, April 1–September 30, 1982, 42 p., 15-p. table. 

[Available at U.S. Department of Energy, DOE Office 

Library, B & 3/4 Rd., Grand Junction, CO 81503.] 

U.S. Department of Energy, 1980, An assessment of uranium in the United States of America: U.S. Department of 

Energy Report GJO-111 (80), 150 p., 6 microfiche. 

———1998, Viability assessment of a repository at Yucca 

Mountain: U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Civilian 

Radioactive Waste Management, 5 v., and NRC overview. 

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), 1998, NRC 

Regulations 10 CFR, Parts 51 and 54: U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 

Vance, R.E., 2002, Uranium resources in Canada: American 

Association of Petroleum Geologists, Abstracts CD-ROM, 

Houston Annual Meeting, March 10–13, 2002. 

Von Hippel, F.N., 2001, Plutonium and reprocessing of spent 

nuclear fuel: Science, v. 293, September 28, 2001, p. 

2397–2398. 

White, George, Jr., 1989, Uranium price weakness: Engineering and Mining Journal, v. 190, no. 3, p. 45–48. 

Selected Nuclear Energy Web Sites 

Australia Geological Survey for uranium industry review, 

Canberra, Australia www.agso.gov.au 

Energy Information Administration, Washington, D.C. 

www.eia.doe.gov 

European Atomic Forum www.foratom.org 

International Atomic Energy Agency, Vienna, Austria 

www.iaea.org 

International (USA) Uranium Corp. www.intluranium.com 

Nuclear Energy Institute, Washington, D.C. www.nei.com 

The Ux Consulting Company, LLC www.Ux.com 

Uranium Information Center (UIC), Canberra, Australia 

www.uic.com.au 

United States Enrichment Corporation (USEC), Bethesda, 

Maryland www.usec.com 

World Nuclear Association (formerly Uranium Institute), 

London, England www.world-nuclear.org