U.S. Department of the Interior

U.S. Geological Survey

Scientific Investigations Report 2012–5239

Prepared in cooperation with the U.S. Energy Information Administration

Critical Analysis of World Uranium Resources
Critical Analysis of World Uranium Resources

By Susan Hall and Margaret Coleman

Prepared in cooperation with the U.S. Energy Information Administration

Scientific Investigations Report 2012–5239

U.S. Department of the Interior

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

KEN SALAZAR, Secretary

U.S. Geological Survey

Marcia K. McNutt, Director

U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, Virginia: 2013

For more information on the USGS—the Federal source for science about the Earth, its natural and living 

resources, natural hazards, and the environment, visit http://www.usgs.gov or call 1–888–ASK–USGS.

For an overview of USGS information products, including maps, imagery, and publications, 

visit http://www.usgs.gov/pubprod

To order this and other USGS information products, visit http://store.usgs.gov

Any use of trade, firm, or product names is for descriptive purposes only and does not imply endorsement by the 

U.S. Government.

Although this information product, for the most part, is in the public domain, it also may contain copyrighted materials 

as noted in the text. Permission to reproduce copyrighted items must be secured from the copyright owner.

Suggested citation:

Hall, Susan, and Coleman, Margaret, 2013, Critical analysis of world uranium resources: U.S. Scientific Investigations 

Report 2012–5239, 56 p.
iii

Contents

Abstract...........................................................................................................................................................1

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

Uranium Supply and Demand Worldwide..................................................................................................2

Uranium Supply Worldwide .........................................................................................................................2

Primary Sources....................................................................................................................................2

Identification of Primary Sources .............................................................................................4

Costs of Uranium as a Fuel.........................................................................................................4

Contractual Categories for Purchasing Uranium ...................................................................5

Secondary Sources..............................................................................................................................6

Unconventional Resources.................................................................................................................6

Current World and U.S. Production ...................................................................................................8

Uranium Demand Worldwide.......................................................................................................................9

Current World Uranium Demand........................................................................................................9

Current U.S. Uranium Demand ...........................................................................................................9

Current U.S. Uranium Inventory .......................................................................................................10

Projected Future Uranium Supply and Demand .....................................................................................10

Growth in Demand..............................................................................................................................10

Growth in Supply.................................................................................................................................11

Identified Resources ...................................................................................................................................13

Short-term Supply...............................................................................................................................13

Reserve Distribution by Projected Mining Method.....................................................13

Top 10 Producers ..............................................................................................................13

Largest Advanced-stage Projects and Operating Mines ..........................................26

Undiscovered Resources .........................................................................................................26

Production Capacity....................................................................................................................................29

Uncertainties in Current and Future Production ...........................................................................29

Mine Floods and Accidents ............................................................................................29

The Influence of Infrastructure On Mine Development 

and On Definition of Resources ........................................................................29

Largest Corporate Entities and Holdings .................................................................................................30

Long-term Demand and Supply Projections ...........................................................................................30

Projected Production of Supply, by Country ..................................................................................30

Projections to 2035..............................................................................................................................32

Projections beyond 2035....................................................................................................................34

Summary........................................................................................................................................................35

Acknowledgments.......................................................................................................................................36

References Cited..........................................................................................................................................36
iv

Appendix 1. Analysis of Operating Mines and Advanced-Stage Uranium Properties, by Country ....... 41

Argentina..............................................................................................................................................41

Australia ...............................................................................................................................................41

Brazil ....................................................................................................................................................42

Canada..................................................................................................................................................43

Central African Republic ...................................................................................................................44

China .....................................................................................................................................................44

Czech Republic....................................................................................................................................45

Denmark (Greenland).........................................................................................................................46

Finland ..................................................................................................................................................46

India......................................................................................................................................................47

Iran .......................................................................................................................................................47

Jordan ..................................................................................................................................................48

Kazakhstan...........................................................................................................................................48

Malawi..................................................................................................................................................48

Mongolia...............................................................................................................................................49

Namibia.................................................................................................................................................49

Niger.....................................................................................................................................................50

Pakistan................................................................................................................................................50

Romania................................................................................................................................................50

Russia...................................................................................................................................................51

South Africa.........................................................................................................................................51

Spain .....................................................................................................................................................53

Ukraine..................................................................................................................................................53

United States .......................................................................................................................................54

Uzbekistan............................................................................................................................................55

Other Countries ...................................................................................................................................55

Figures

1. Schemes for classifying geological assurance of uranium resources, as used by 

six international agencies concerned with the mining of ores. ...............................................vii

2. Historic uranium production and nuclear powerplant requirements, 1945–2009..............3

3. Elapsed time between discovery of a uranium mine and the start of mining, 

for all mining methods..................................................................................................................3

4. Uranium exploration expenditures and resources identified during 1975–2009................4

5. Uranium prices in U.S. dollars per pound of uranium oxide (U3O8), by type of 

contract, by major buyers, 1978–2009 .......................................................................................5

6. World uranium supply distribution, 2010...................................................................................7

7. Contribution of primary and secondary uranium sources worldwide, projected 

to 2020.............................................................................................................................................7

8. U.S. production, purchases, and sales of uranium, 1949–2008 (Energy Information 

Administration, 2010b)..................................................................................................................8

9. Net generation of electricity worldwide, in trillions of kilowatt hours, by all fuels, 

2007–2035 (Energy Information Administration, 2010c)..........................................................9

10. Uranium in fuel assemblies, in thousand pounds of uranium oxide equivalent loaded 

into U.S. civilian nuclear power reactors, by originating source, by year, 2005–2009....10

11. Uranium purchased by owners and operators of U.S. civilian nuclear power 

reactors, by selected country of origin and by delivery year, 2005–2009..........................11
v

12. Maximum anticipated uranium market requirements of owners and operators 

of U.S. civilian nuclear power reactors, 2010–2019, as of December 31, 2009.................12

13. Uranium Resources Mapped to Resource Category Geological assurance for, 

and economic feasibility of, worldwide uranium resources, by resource categories 

used by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation Nuclear Agency and 

International Atomic Energy Agency ......................................................................................24

14. Prognosticated resources of countries reported as having more than 11,000 tU...........28

15. Speculative resources for countries reporting more than 60,000 tU.................................28

16. Uranium production by company in 2010. Data from the World Nuclear 

Association, (2011b). ..................................................................................................................30

17. Distribution of resources among the top 9 world uranium producers in 2010 .................30

18. Existing uranium production and projected trends in production worldwide, 

1998–2030 .....................................................................................................................................31

19. Distribution of reasonably assured resources (RAR) in Nuclear Energy 

Agency cost categories for the most resource-rich countries ..........................................31

20. World net electricity generation from nuclear power, by region, 2007–2030...................32

21. Scenarios for production of and requirements for uranium, 2011–2035 ...........................33

23. World Nuclear Association projections for future nuclear capacity worldwide, 

to 2100...........................................................................................................................................34

22. Actual and projected world trends in growth of market demand and increase 

of supply, 2008–2030 ...................................................................................................................35

Appendix Figures

1–1. Location of uranium mines in Argentina, 2010.......................................................................41

1–2. Location of operating mines producing uranium in Australia.............................................41

1–3. Uranium active and developing mines in Brazil ....................................................................43

1–4. Active uranium mines in Canada .............................................................................................43

1–5. Location of the Bakouma deposit, Central African Republic ..............................................44

1– 6. Major uranium production centers in China ..........................................................................44

1–7. Uranium production centers in the Czech Republic.............................................................45

1–8. Location and geology of the Kvanefjeld deposit, Greenland...............................................46

1–9. Location of the Talvivaara uranium deposit in Finland.........................................................46

1–10. Location of current production centers and prospective areas of India..........................47

1–11. Location of the Gachin mine and the Saghand uranium deposit, Iran ..............................47

1–12. Location of major uranium mining districts and operating mines of Kazakhstan............48

1–13. Location of the Kayelekera Mine in Malawi ..........................................................................48

1–14. Location of the Dornod Uranium Project, Mongolia.............................................................49

1–15. Approximate location of operating uranium mines and advanced-stage 

projects in Namibia ....................................................................................................................49

1–16. Location of uranium mines and advanced stage projects in Niger ...................................50

1–17. Location of uranium mines, production centers and advanced properties 

in Pakistan....................................................................................................................................50

1–18. Major uranium mining regions of Romania ............................................................................51

1–19. Location of major Russian uranium mining and processing districts................................51

1–20. Locations of the two operating mines (Ezulwini and Vaal River) and of one mine on 

standby (Dominion) in South Africa.........................................................................................52

1–21. Location of active uranium exploration projects in Spain...................................................53

1–22. Uranium production centers in Ukraine..................................................................................53

1–23. Uranium province map of the United States ..........................................................................54

1–24. Active uranium mining districts in Uzbekistan.......................................................................55
vi

Tables

1. Top ten uranium producing mines in 2009: production, reasonably assured 

resources, and mine life ............................................................................................................13

2. World’s largest deposits in stages of operation, development, feasibility 

or prefeasibility, 2010..................................................................................................................14

3. Operating uranium mines and their remaining reasonably assured resources, 2010 ........16

4. Uranium properties that are permitted, or in feasibility or in the prefeasibility 

stages and their reported resources, 2010.............................................................................20

5. Reasonably assured resources reported in the 2009 Red Book ( NEA–IAEA, 2010) ..........25

6. Reasonably assured resources (RAR) and production capacity of operating 

and proposed mines by extraction technology .....................................................................26

7. Undiscovered resources, in thousands of tonnes uranium metal, as reported 

in the “2009 Red Book” ( NEA–IAEA, 2010) ............................................................................27

Appendix Table

1–1. Chinese uranium mines and associated production centers inferred for 

these mines..................................................................................................................................44

Conversion Factors, Definitions, and Abbreviations

Metric units are used throughout this report because international reporting uses these 

terms. Uranium resources are reported as metric tonnes [of] contained uranium metal (tU). In 

discussions of rates of use, the abbreviation tU/yr denotes metric tonnes of uranium per year. In 

the U.S. domestic mining industry, the more commonly used unit is pounds (lbs.) uranium oxide 

(U3

O8). For convenience, 1 metric tonne is usually written 1 tonne. International usage reports 

uranium concentration in ore as percent U (uranium metal), not percent U3

O8 (uranium oxide).

Useful conversion factors are:

1 short ton U3O8 = 0.769 tU

1 percent U3O8 = 0.848 percent U

Cost categories are reported in U.S. Dollars (USD). Converting U.S. pounds into kilograms, the 

price in U.S. dollars per pound (= 2.6 kilograms (kg)) of uranium oxide is written as equivalent to 

the price in U.S. dollars per kg of uranium metal:

1 USD (U.S. Dollar)/lb. U3O8 = USD 2.6/kgU

Uranium resources are reported in categories that are based on the degree of geological 

assurance for, and the economic feasibility of, extraction of the ore. This report states resources 

in terms of being economically feasible to extract and that have been explored sufficiently 

such that the limits and geological extent of the properties of the deposit are well constrained, 

typically by drill data. Throughout this report, the term Reasonably Assured Resources (RAR) 

is used to describe this class of resource. Other classification systems assign different 

terms to such resources. This report’s usage corresponds roughly to the U.S. Department of 

Energy (DOE) classification “reserves recoverable at less than USD 50 per pound uranium 

oxide” (<USD 50/lb. U3

O8), equivalent to USD 130 per kilogram uranium metal (USD 130/kgU); 

it corresponds to measured and indicated reserves in the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) 

classification system; to economic demonstrated resources in the Australian national scheme; 

to proved and probable reserves as used by Australasia’s Joint Ore Reserves Committee (JORC); 

and to measured and indicated resources of the Canadian Institute of Mining, Metallurgy and 

Petroleum (CIM) (fig. 1).
Decreasing degree of economic feasibility

Decreasing degree of geological assurance

Identified Resources Undiscovered Resources

Demonstrated Inferred

Hypothetical

Prognosticated

Estimated Additional 

Resouces

Speculative

Speculative

Speculative 

Resources

Measured Indicated

Economic

Proved Resources

RAR @ <$80/kg U

Reserves,

Reserves @ <$30/lb U3

O8

Economic Demonstrated Resources

Commercial Projects

Probable Reserves

RAR @ <$80/kg U

Reserves,

Reserves @ <$30/lb U3

O8

Economic Demonstrated Resources

Commercial Projects

Inferred Resources

Estimated Additional

Resources

(Inferred Resources

Recoverable @ 

<$80/kg U)

Inferred Reserves

Economic Inferred

Resources

Measured Resources

RAR @ <$130/kg U

Reserves,

Reserves @ $30–$50/lb U3

O8

Economic Demonstrated Resources

Commercial Projects

Indicated Resources

RAR @ <$130/kg U

Reserves,

Reserves @ $30–$50/lb U3

O8

Economic Demonstrated Resources

Commercial Projects

Subeconomic

Paramarginal

Marginally Economic

Marginal Reserves

RAR @ $130 to $260/kg U

Reserves @ $50–$100/lb U3

O8

Paramarginal Demonstrated Resources

Non-commercial Projects

Inferred Resources

(Inferred Resources

Recoverable @

$80 to $130/kg U)

Inferred Marginal

Reserves

Paramarginal Inferred

Resources

Submarginal

Subeconomic

Demonstrated

Subeconomic Resources

RAR @ $130 to $260/kg U

Reserves @ $50–$100/lb U3

O8

Submarginal Demonstrated Resources

Non-commercial Projects

Inferred Resources

(Inferred Resources

Recoverable @

$130 to $260/kg U)

Inferred Subeconomic

Resources

Submarginal Inferred

Resources

Potential Projects

Other Occurences Includes nonconventional and low-grade materials

All schemes excluding IAEA

IAEA Scheme - RAR - Reasonably Assured Resources (losses resulting from mining/milling deducted, and cost categories from 2009 Red Book)

JORC (Australian Joint Ore Reserves Committee) Scheme

JORC (Australian Joint Ore Reserves Committee) & CIM (Canadian Institute of Mining) Schema

USGS Scheme (USGS Circular 831,1980)

DOE - Note: DOE does not include inferred resources when reporting reserves, but includes them as part of Estimated Additional Resources (EAR)

Australian National Scheme (losses resulting from mining and milling deducted; Australia reports a category “Accessible Economic Demonstrated Resources” which subtracts 

deposits that cannot be currently mined—national parks, etc.)

Canada - Natural Resources Canada

UNFC (United Nations Framework Classification for Fossil Energy and Mineral Reserves and Resources) adds a third dimension to resource classifications, 

“E” - Economic and social viability (reasonable prospects for eventual economic extraction) in addition to “G” - geologic knowledge, and “F” project status and feasibility. 

Available at: http://www.unece.org/energy/se/pdfs/UNFC/oct09/ECE.ENERGY.GE.3.2009.L.5_draft_e.pdf

The system does not correlate completely with other schema, but its general correlation with other systems is shown above.

For Inferred Resources, UNFC would require deposits to be classified by numeric coding from 1 (most viable) to 4 (least viable)

$: U.S. Dollars

vii

Figure 1. Schemes for classifying geological assurance of uranium resources, as used by six international agencies concerned with 

the mining of ores.
viii

Less assured resources—those in the Inferred category, those that are subeconomic, or those 

that are hypothetical or as yet undiscovered—are included in this analysis only in sections of 

the text that project future uranium supply beyond the approximately 20-year timelines that are 

customary for development. Inferred resources are reported in the cost categories used by the 

Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development Nuclear Energy Agency (NEA). The 

present report analyzes these categories when it separately examines the uranium supply in 

24 countries and their scenarios for future development of supply (appendix 1). The text clearly 

identifies these resources as being more speculative wherever it discusses them.

Following International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and Organisation for Economic 

Co-operation and Development, Nuclear Energy Agency (NEA) protocols, this report applied 

recovery factors to in-situ resources in order to determine the amount of uranium available 

after mining and processing, depending on type of mining (NEA–IAEA, 2010). Recovery can be 

determined with certainty only after mining is completed, because it depends on the metallurgy 

of the deposit and on the mining and processing methods, all of which can vary widely from 

deposit to deposit and during the entire course of mining. Estimated recovery adds a measure 

of uncertainty to analysis of the adequacy of uranium resources to satisfy demand. To minimize 

this bias, USGS and EIA followed standard recovery factors used by NEA and IAEA.

EIA U.S. Department of Energy Energy Information Administration

USGS U.S. Department of the Interior Geological Survey

NEA Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development - Nuclear Energy Agency

IAEA International Atomic Energy Agency
Critical Analysis of World Uranium Resources

By Susan Hall1 and Margaret Coleman2

Abstract

The U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Information 

Administration (EIA) joined with the U.S. Department of 

the Interior, U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) to analyze the 

world uranium supply and demand balance. To evaluate shortterm primary supply (0–15 years), the analysis focused on 

Reasonably Assured Resources (RAR), which are resources projected with a high degree of geologic assurance and considered 

to be economically feasible to mine. Such resources include 

uranium resources from mines currently in production as well as 

resources that are in the stages of feasibility or of being permitted. Sources of secondary supply for uranium, such as stockpiles 

and reprocessed fuel, were also examined. To evaluate longterm primary supply, estimates of uranium from unconventional 

and from undiscovered resources were analyzed.

At 2010 rates of consumption, uranium resources identified in operating or developing mines would fuel the world 

nuclear fleet for about 30 years. However, projections currently predict an increase in uranium requirements tied to 

expansion of nuclear energy worldwide. Under a low-demand 

scenario, requirements through the period ending in 2035 

are about 2.1 million tU. In the low demand case, uranium 

identified in existing and developing mines is adequate to 

supply requirements. However, whether or not these identified resources will be developed rapidly enough to provide 

an uninterrupted fuel supply to expanded nuclear facilities 

could not be determined. On the basis of a scenario of high 

demand through 2035, 2.6 million tU is required and identified resources in operating or developing mines is inadequate. 

Beyond 2035, when requirements could exceed resources 

in these developing properties, other sources will need to be 

developed from less well-assured resources, deposits not yet 

at the prefeasibility stage, resources that are currently subeconomic, secondary sources, undiscovered conventional 

resources, and unconventional uranium supplies.

This report’s analysis of 141 mines that are operating or 

are being actively developed identifies 2.7 million tU of in-situ 

uranium resources worldwide, approximately 2.1 million tU 

recoverable after mining and milling losses were deducted. 

Sixty-four operating mines report a total of 1.4 million tU 

of in-situ RAR (about 1 million tU recoverable). Seventyseven developing mines/production centers report 1.3 million tU in-situ Reasonably Assured Resources (RAR) (about 

1

U.S. Geological Survey.

2

U.S. Energy Information Administration.

1.1 million tU recoverable), which have a reasonable chance 

of producing uranium within 5 years. Most of the production 

is projected to come from conventional underground or open 

pit mines as opposed to in-situ leach mines.

Production capacity in operating mines is about 

76,000 tU/yr, and in developing mines is estimated at greater 

than 52,000 tU/yr. Production capacity in operating mines 

should be considered a maximum as mines seldom produce 

up to licensed capacity due to operational difficulties. In 2010, 

worldwide mines operated at 70 percent of licensed capacity, and production has never exceeded 89 percent of capacity. The capacity in developing mines is not always reported. 

In this study 35 percent of developing mines did not report a 

target licensed capacity, so estimates of future capacity may 

be too low.

The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and 

Development’s Nuclear Energy Agency (NEA) and 

International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) estimate an 

additional 1.4 million tU economically recoverable resources, 

beyond that identified in operating or developing mines identified in this report. As well, 0.5 million tU in subeconomic 

resources, and 2.3 million tU in the geologically less certain 

inferred category are identified worldwide. These agencies 

estimate 2.2 million tU in secondary sources such as government and commercial stockpiles and re-enriched uranium 

tails. They also estimate that unconventional uranium supplies 

(uraniferous phosphate and black shale deposits) may contain 

up to 7.6 million tU. Although unconventional resources are 

currently subeconomic, the improvement of extraction techniques or the production of coproducts may make extraction of 

uranium from these types of deposits profitable. A large undiscovered resource base is reported by these agencies, however 

this class of resource should be considered speculative and 

will require intensive exploration programs to adequately 

define them as mineable. These resources may all contribute 

to uranium supply that would fuel the world nuclear fleet well 

beyond that calculated in this report.

Production of resources in both operating and developing 

uranium mines is subject to uncertainties caused by technical, 

legal, regulatory, and financial challenges that combined to 

create long timelines between deposit discovery and mine production. This analysis indicates that mine development is proceeding too slowly to fully meet requirements for an expanded 

nuclear power reactor fleet in the near future (to 2035), and 

unless adequate secondary or unconventional resources can be 

identified, imbalances in supply and demand may occur.
2 Critical Analysis of World Uranium Resources

Introduction

The Blue Ribbon Commission on America’s Nuclear Future 

was established by President Obama under provisions in the 

Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. App.2) in 2010 to 

review and recommend policies for managing spent nuclear 

fuel from the nuclear power industry. As part of the study, the 

Commission requested that the EIA assess primary uranium 

supply globally, and to then compare that supply with world 

requirements or demands. EIA, in collaboration with the 

USGS, responded to the request by researching and analyzing 

the global resource base for uranium. This paper summarizes 

the results of this analysis, and addresses the question of 

whether there is sufficient uranium to supply the present or 

an expanded U.S. nuclear power reactor fleet in the near term 

(~25 years), and beyond.

Geologists from the USGS and EIA examined information describing uranium production, resources, and issues 

related to the continuity of supply of uranium, from all countries that the NEA and the IAEA have identified as containing 

uranium resources. Reasonably assured resources (RAR), 

production capacity, and mine life for individual production centers of operating mines and for mines estimated to 

come online in the near future (~5 to 10 years) were critically 

examined. Determining long-term supply is more problematic: 

because projections are based on uranium-containing properties that have not been fully explored, their contained uranium 

is uncertain. Further uncertainty arises because technical, 

economic, or political challenges may prevent many such 

properties from coming into production, even though they are 

geologically defined. Despite uncertainties, this report uses 

the best information available in order to explore the potential 

extent of future supply, as well as the challenges that individual production centers may encounter. Although information 

about the individual deposits is from the best and most objective sources available, it is beyond the scope of this project for 

the EIA or USGS to independently verify, through site visits to 

uranium producers, the accuracy of all the information that the 

report used as the basis for its analysis.

This report reflects the state of the industry as of 

December 2011, modified by comments in the narrative that 

reflect important events that changed the world uranium supply while this paper was in review. It should be noted that the 

consequences of the recent nuclear accident at the Fukushima 

Daiichi nuclear plant are not yet fully understood so far as 

they may relate to the analysis of how the supply of uranium is 

connected with demand for the metal. To date, the accident has 

resulted in slightly lower or delayed projected future demand, 

as in the projection by the World Nuclear Association that 

nuclear capacity will rise from 393 gigawatts (GW) in 2009 

to 630 GW in 2035, an estimate that is 20 GW lower than the 

Association projected before Fukushima. Most countries that 

are members of the OECD, and many non-OECD countries, 

continue operating existing and developing new nuclear 

powerplants, albeit delaying such development slightly as they 

review safety standards for new and for existing plants (World 

Nuclear Association, 2011b). Another significant recent development is the suspension of the Olympic Dam mine expansion 

by BHP Billiton that changes forward supply projections for 

uranium (ABC News, 2012).

Uranium Supply 

and Demand Worldwide

In 2010, there were 442 nuclear powerplants operating worldwide that required 68,646 tonnes of uranium metal 

(tU), and 53,663 tU was mined from 16 countries satisfying 

78 percent of world requirements (World Nuclear Association, 

2011b). Primary sources—active mines that recover uranium as 

a primary product, a coproduct, or an important byproduct—and 

a number of secondary sources supply uranium to the world 

uranium market. Not currently contributing to world uranium 

supply are unconventional resources, such as uranium in phosphate rocks, in black shale, or in seawater. Although unconventional resources contain a large amount of uranium, the uranium 

is recoverable only as a minor byproduct.

Secondary sources include (1) stocks and inventories 

of natural and enriched uranium held in government and in 

private industry stockpiles, (2) reprocessed spent reactor 

fuel and recycled plutonium from military sources such as 

the United States/Russian program in which highly enriched 

uranium (HEU) is converted to low-enriched uranium (LEU) 

(“the HEU/LEU program”), and (3) uranium produced from 

depleted uranium tails. From 1945 through 1991, yearly production outpaced demand by as much as 2.5 times (fig. 2), a 

mismatch caused by two factors: high levels of uranium mined 

for military purposes, and a slower growth in the nuclear 

power industry than had been expected (NEA–IAEA, 2010).

Uranium Supply Worldwide

Primary Sources

The long-term operation of nuclear powerplants and the 

expansion of a nation’s capacity for producing nuclear power 

depend on the development of uranium from primary sources. 

Yellowcake, or uranium oxide (U3

O8), is the primary product of 

uranium mining, and the price of yellowcake hinges on world 

demand. Increases in uranium price encourage exploration for 

primary resources, thereby increasing supply. Mineability of an 

individual deposit is influenced by the delineation of identified RAR, the duration of the permitting process, the costs to 

mine and mill the product, the construction of infrastructure, 

and the ability of mine owners to raise capital to finance mining 

projects. Current estimates show the lag time from discovery to 

production ranges from 15 to 20 years (Vance, 2005; Boytsov, 

2010) (fig. 3). When researchers attempt to determine world 

uranium supplies that will be available in the future, the length 

of this lag time makes it necessary to look at projects that are in 

early stages of development.
Uranium Supply Worldwide 3

Figure 2. Historic uranium production and nuclear powerplant requirements, 1945–2009. From NEA–IAEA (2010), 

reproduced with permission.

Figure 3. Elapsed time between discovery of a uranium mine and the start of mining, for all mining methods. From 

NEA–IAEA (2010), reproduced with permission.

80,000

70,000

60,000

50,000

40,000

30,000

20,000

10,000

194519471949195119531955195719591961196319651967196919711973197519771979198119831985198719891991199319951997199920012003200520072009*

Tonnes of uranium metal (tU)

Year

World requirements

World production

*2009 values are estimates

EXPLANATION

35

30

25

20

15

10

5

0

Years between discovery and mining

1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010

Start of mining
4 Critical Analysis of World Uranium Resources

Identification of Primary Sources

The development of uranium supply begins when new 

uranium-producing properties are identified. An analysis of 

expenditures for exploration provides a measure of the effort 

being expended to identify new resources and to bring supply 

online. Since 1975, exploration expenditures increased rapidly 

until 1980, then increased at a more gradual rate through 2006, 

when a rise in the price of uranium preceded a rapid infusion 

of exploration expenditures. Increases in RAR followed the 

increase in exploration activities as measured by exploration 

expenditures (fig. 4).

Most uranium mining districts were originally identified 

by mineralization of uranium that was exposed at the surface, producing a geochemical and (or) geophysical anomaly. 

Studying the geology of these exposed deposits enabled geologists to identify concealed deposits in the same local environment. Identifying deposits having no such surface expression 

may in the future require more resources, including time, to 

delineate these targets than did deposits discovered in the past.

At the reconnaissance scale, conventional geophysical 

and geochemical techniques have been used to identifying 

concealed uranium deposits with mixed success. Radon, a 

uranium-decay product, has been analyzed on surfaces above 

potential deposits, but because this decay product is short 

lived and relatively mobile anomalies do not always directly 

identify mineralization. Geochemical analysis of groundwater 

has been used successfully in locating deposits which do 

not crop out. Some geophysical surveys effectively target 

units that commonly contain uranium mineralization, such as 

conductive shale units in the Athabasca basin (Saskatchewan, 

Canada) that can then be explored by drill testing. Recently, 

variable time-domain electromagnetic techniques have identified uranium breccia-type deposits in Arizona (Spiering and 

others, 2009).

Deposit-scale geophysical techniques have proved more 

successful. It is now possible to directly measure U235 using 

Prompt Fission Neutron technology, which is being used 

in lieu of indirect measurement of U235 by interpretation of 

gamma profiles. However, at the reconnaissance scale this 

technique is of limited use in identifying concealed deposits. If 

better techniques to identify concealed deposits are developed, 

it is likely that more uranium supply could be identified.

 Costs of Uranium as a Fuel

The cost of uranium fuel for generating electricity 

is low when compared to the costs of other types of fuel. 

Although finding accurate figures is difficult, the price of 

yellowcake is estimated to contribute only about 25 percent 

to the total cost of nuclear fuel, the rest being attributable 

to processing (conversion, enrichment, and fabrication). At 

60 U.S. dollars (USD) per pound of uranium oxide (U3

O8), 

(equivalent to USD 155 per kilogram contained uranium 

metal (USD 155/kgU)), nuclear fuel costs less than 0.7 cents 

Figure 4. Uranium exploration expenditures and resources identified during 1975–2009. From 

World Nuclear Association (2011b), reproduced with permission.

Known Uranium Resources and Exploration Expenditure

1975

197719791981

1983

1985

1987

1989199119931995

1997

199920012003200520072009

13,000

12,000

11,000

10,000

9,000

8,000

7,000

6,000

5,000

4,000

3,000

2,000

1,000

Cumulative exploration expenditure $US millions

Year

(Red Book reporting period)

<US $80/kgU

<US $130/kgU

<US $260/kgU

Exploration $

9

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

1

Reasonably assured and inferred resources

million tonnes uranium (U)
Uranium Supply Worldwide 5

per kilowatt-hour (kWh) of electricity, or on average about 

4 to 6 percent of the retail price of electricity (MIT Energy 

Initiative, 2011). This low relative fuel cost makes it easier for 

utilities to absorb increases in uranium price than to absorb 

price increases for more costly fuels that generate electricity. 

MIT estimates that utilities can absorb the uranium costs of 

USD 300 to USD 400/kgU for light water reactors. This would 

increase lifetime-levelized costs (busbar costs) for nuclear 

reactors by 8 to 12 percent (MIT Energy Initiative, 2011). If 

uranium prices doubled, an estimated 479,000 tU of RAR of 

uranium in deposits that are now subeconomic would potentially become economic.

Contractual Categories for Purchasing Uranium 

Worldwide uranium purchases fall into two categories: 

spot purchases (delivery within one year), and contracts 

(medium- and long-term delivery). These prices have traditionally tracked each other fairly closely, with the exception 

of the time period of 2006 to 2009 when market forces caused 

the prices to decouple (fig. 5). While waiting for sale or delivery, U3

O8 (uranium as yellowcake) can be held only at producers’ sites or at conversion sites.

Long-term contracts are those in which utilities contract with a supplier, most commonly a corporation owning 

an active mine, to supply their uranium needs for generating 

electricity. These contracts are typically at a fixed price, with 

provisions for fluctuations in market price and demand, and 

they run for many years. The duration of long-term contracts 

depends upon where the buyer is physically situated. In the 

United States, contracts typically run for 5 years; in Europe, 

10 years; and in Japan, typically 15 years. For price indicators, 

the industry relies on market research because these contracts 

are generally not publicly available; the exception being 

contracts in European Union countries which are reviewed 

by the EURATOM Supply Agency. The Ux Consulting 

Company LLC. (http://www.uxc.com) ,TradeTech 

(http://www.uranium.info/) and the Euratom Supply Agency 

(http://ec.europa.eu/euratom/) all track uranium prices.

The short-term “spot” price (available for delivery in a 

short time frame (3–12 months)) of uranium is a smaller market in total volume. In 2011, the volume of uranium in the spot 

market was about 16,000 tU, or 20 percent of demand, and 

30 percent of production, a ratio similar to that in the 1990s 

(TradeTech, 2011; Ux Consulting Company LLC, 2011). 

Uranium ends up on the spot market from smaller mines that 

cannot supply the quantities of uranium over timeframes that 

utilities require, or as a speculative product, with intermediaries buying uranium and holding it in hopes of receiving 

a higher price in due time. Uranium can also end up on the 

spot market in special circumstances, such as those of the 

U.S. Department of Energy, which is currently selling U.S. 

uranium stockpiles to help meet its costs of environmental 

cleanup at the Portsmouth, Ohio enrichment facility. Buyers 

on the spot market can be utilities, producers, or intermediaries, the uranium being either used in reactors or being resold.

Figure 5. Uranium prices in U.S. dollars per pound of uranium oxide (U3O8), by type of contract, by major 

buyers, 1978–2009. From NEA–IAEA (2010), reproduced with permission.

250

200

150

100

50

0

1978198019821984198619881990199219941996199820002002200420062008

0 

10 

20 

30 

40 

50 

60 

70 

80 

90 

100 

USD/lb U O3 8

Year

Current USD/kg U

EXPLANATION

US (spot contracts)

Eratom (multi-annual contracts)

Niger

US (long-term contracts)

Australia (average uranium metal 

 export price)

Canada exports

Euratom (spot contracts)

x
6 Critical Analysis of World Uranium Resources

Producers, traders, and even utilities at times may all 

contribute to the spot market. Key traders are NUKEM BMbH 

(and NUKEM Inc.), Urangelsellschaft mbH, INTERNEXCO 

GmbH, Marubeni Corporation, Traxys North America LLC, 

ITOCHU Corporation, Nufcor International Ltd.(Goldman 

Sachs) and the Mitsui Corporation. Some producers, such as 

the Cameco Corporation (Cameco), also participate in the spot 

market. Brokers seek out uranium and place it for a commission, including American Fuel Resources, ICAP, MF Global, 

the New York Nuclear Corporation, and Evolution Markets. 

Hedge fund managers and investor funds have become 

attracted to the spot uranium market, running up prices to a 

recent high price of USD 136/lb. U3

O8 (USD 353/kgU) in 

July 2007. This kind of investing decoupled spot and longterm prices to such an extent that the spot price now responds 

equally rapidly to perceived and to real threats to uranium 

supply. For this reason, short-term prices may not be the best 

indicator of the cost of nuclear fuel, which more closely tracks 

long-term contract prices.

Secondary Sources

 Secondary sources are likely to become increasingly 

important for meeting uranium demand over the longer term. 

Projections to 2020 predict that the contribution from secondary supplies will shrink, while primary supply, mainly from 

mines in Africa, Kazakhstan, Australia and Canada, increases. 

(figs. 6, 7) (Ux Consulting Company LLC, 2010).

The more important secondary sources, the uranium that 

may be included in these resources and supply challenges are 

described below. Although secondary uranium sources are 

an important portion of the total world uranium supply, the 

quantity of uranium contained in these sources is difficult to 

quantify. Most countries do not report stockpiles of uranium, 

the concentration of uranium in depleted uranium tails is 

not well quantified, nor is information about the use of tails 

readily available, and the future disposition of Russian HEU 

is unknown.

Stockpiles.—From 1945 through 2008, NEA estimates 

that 2,415,000 tU were produced and that 1,840,000 tU were 

consumed, with the surplus production of 575,000 tU remaining in stockpiles (NEA–IAEA, 2010). However, the amount 

of this material that could become available to the market is 

not well known, since only limited information on the size of 

world stockpiles of uranium is publicly available.

HEU to LEU.—Programs that reduce HEU (highly 

enriched uranium) to LEU (low enriched uranium) (“HEU 

to LEU”) are another secondary uranium source. In the 

United States, the Megatons to Megawatts program, a government–industry partnership in which Russian-origin HEU 

is downblended for use in nuclear power plants, is expected 

to end in 2013, reducing the supply of secondary uranium 

by an estimated 9,200 tU/yr. To date, this program is estimated to have recycled more than 400 metric tons of HEU 

into 11,905 tU of LEU for use in U.S. nuclear powerplants 

(U.S. Enrichment Corporation, 2011).

Re-enriched Tails.—Depleted uranium tails are a 

byproduct of the uranium enrichment process. NEA (2010) 

estimates that 1,600,000 metric tonnes is contained in uranium tails worldwide, at an average concentration between 

0.25 and 0.35 percent U. This grade is similar to uranium 

grades in mines that are economically extracting uranium from 

sandstone-hosted uranium deposits. NEA estimates that, if 

this entire inventory were re-enriched, 450,000 tU would be 

produced, the equivalent of more than 7 years of consumption 

at 2010 levels. However, this enrichment requires commercial 

capacity that is currently not available for enrichment and that 

only high uranium prices could sustain.

MOX and RepU.—Mixed oxide fuel (MOX) and reprocessed uranium (RepU) are expected to become increasingly important secondary sources of supply in the future. 

MOX and RepU originate from reprocessing spent nuclear 

fuel. Uranium and plutonium are recovered by reprocessing, and can then be used in nuclear power plants. The use 

of RepU fuel is tied to uranium costs; when mined uranium 

carries higher costs,, reprocessed fuel becomes more attractive. MOX fuel is widely used in reactors in Japan and 

Europe. Fifty reactors worldwide are licensed to use MOX 

fuel, although not all of them are using this fuel type (World 

Nuclear Association, 2011b).

Unconventional Resources

Uranium recoverable only as a mining byproduct is 

termed an “unconventional” uranium resource. The contribution of uranium from unconventional resources could be an 

important source in the future. Uranium in phosphate-rich 

rocks, in black shales, in lignite, and in seawater are considered unconventional resources.

Phosphates have historically been a source of market 

supply of uranium and are a potential source of uranium in 

the future. Prior to December 2011 an estimated 57,863 tU 

was produced from phosphate deposits in Kazakhstan, the 

United States and Morocco (NEA–IAEA, 2010). Production 

costs higher than the market value of uranium have slowed 

development of this supply. However, recent technical innovations that hold the promise of more cost-effective production 

of uranium from phosphate deposits have prompted industry 

investment into developing this resource (Jones and others, 

2009; World Nuclear News, 2007). Cameco invested in and 

is testing the effectiveness of the PhosEnergy process developed to extract uranium from phosphate rock (Ux Consulting 

Company LLC, 2010). Uranium in phosphate rocks is estimated to contain a resource greater than 7.9 million tU with 
Uranium Supply Worldwide 7

Figure 6. World uranium supply distribution, 2010. Data from Ux Consulting Company LLC ( 2010).

Figure 7. Contribution of primary and secondary uranium sources worldwide, projected to 2020. 

Data from Ux Consulting Company LLC (2010).

Africa

14% Australia

9%

Canada

13%

Kazakhstan

25%

Russia

5%

Ukraine

1% U.S.

2% Uzbekistan

3%

Other countries

3%

Russian Govt. Stocks

3%

Re-enriched Tails

4%

Ru HEU Feed

4%

HEU Feed

(Cameco/Areva/Nukem)

6% 

Enricher Sales

2%

U.S. Govt. Stocks

2%

Mox and RepU

4%

Secondary sources

25%

Primary Supply

Secondary Supply

World Uranium Supply 2010

World Uranium Production Projection in 2020

Africa

24%

Australia

11%

Canada

18%

Kazakhstan

26%

Russia

5% Re-enriched tails

2%

Enricher Sales

0.5%

Mox and RepU

3%

Secondary sources

8%

Russian Govt. stocks 0.5%

Secondary Supply

Primary Supply

U.S. Govt. stocks

2%

Ukraine

1%

U.S.

3%

Uzbekistan

2%

Other

countries

2%
8 Critical Analysis of World Uranium Resources

an average ore grade that ranges from 0.006 percent U to 

0.053 percent U (IAEA, 2010). Uranium rich phosphate 

deposits are identified in Morocco, the United States (Florida 

and Idaho), Jordan, Egypt, Iran, Iraq, Mexico, Kazakhstan, 

Sweden, Syria, Israel, Brazil, Finland, and Greece (IAEA, 

2010). Pilot projects exploring uranium extraction from 

phosphate deposits are underway in the United States, Brazil, 

and Jordan.

An estimated 1.3 million tU worldwide is contained in 

black shale and in lignite deposits (IAEA, 2010). The uranium in these deposits is low-grade (0.01 to 0.17 percent U) 

and requires production of another commodity to support 

extraction of the uranium (IAEA, 2010). The largest uraniumrich black shale deposits are in Sweden and Germany, with 

deposits also identified in Uzbekistan, Korea, China, Canada, 

Poland, Turkmenistan, Finland, Uzbekistan, Poland, and 

France. Uraniferous lignites are identified in South Africa, 

Kazakhstan, Russia, Spain, the United States, Australia, 

Greece, Germany, Kyrgyzstan, and the Czech Republic. 

Uranium has been mined from black shales in the past in 

Sweden. The Talvivaara polymetallic black shale deposit 

in Finland, currently being mined for nickel and zinc, also 

contains an estimated 17,110 tU. Cameco is financing the 

construction of a circuit to recover uranium from this resource, 

targeting a production rate of 350 tU/yr (Ux Consulting 

Company LLC, 2010).

Research to develop cost-effective techniques to recover 

uranium from seawater has been carried out in Germany, Italy, 

Japan, the United States, and the United Kingdom. The current 

focus of research is the development of specialized polymer 

braids moored on the ocean floor. Recovery costs for a largescale system that would recover 1200 tU/yr are estimated to 

be about USD 700/kgU (Hisatani, 2010; NEA–IAEA, 2010), 

which would be uneconomic at current and anticipated prices 

of uranium.

Current World and U.S. Production

World uranium production in 2010 was 53,663 tU, up 

from 50,772 tU in 2009 (World Nuclear Association, 2009; 

NEA–IAEA, 2010). Global production has increased gradually since the early 1990s, after steadily declining for 13 years 

(1980–93). Six countries currently dominate world production 

and are expected to produce 83 percent of uranium concentrate 

during the 10 years until 2020: Kazakhstan, Canada, Australia, 

Namibia, Russia, and Niger (Ux Consulting Company LLC, 

2010). The three largest producers—Kazakhstan, Canada, and 

Australia—account for 63 percent of the world production 

of uranium concentrate (World Nuclear Association, 2009). 

Kazakhstan dramatically increased uranium production from 

2,022 tU in 2001 to 19,450 tU in 2011, although projections 

indicate peak production capacity may have been reached 

(World Nuclear Association, 2011b).

The United States currently produces about 3 percent 

of the world uranium concentrate (NEA–IAEA, 2010), with 

4.2 million pounds U3O8 (1,629 tU) in 2010 from one mill 

(White Mesa Mill) and from four in-situ leaching (ISL) plants 

(Alta Mesa Project, Crow Butte Operation, La Palangana, 

and Smith Ranch–Highland Operation) (Energy Information 

Administration, 2010a).

Domestic and world uranium production and exploration 

has historically responded to market conditions. For example, 

U.S. production of uranium concentrate peaked in 1980 at more 

than 43 million pounds of U3

O8 (16,810 tU), as a prolonged 

period of rising prices and intensive exploration ended (fig. 8). 

By 1980, production exceeded reactor requirements, creating 

a surplus of uranium. During 1981–2003, domestic uranium 

production declined to a low of 2 million pounds of U3

O8

(769 tU), coinciding with a nearly 20-year period of falling 

prices (1981–2000). Prices began to rise in 2000, with significant increases during 2003–2007. Increases in the spot price of 

Production and Trade, 1949–2008

75

50

25

0

Million pounds uranium oxide

1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000

Export

sales

Purchased

imports

Domestic

concentrate

production

Year

Figure 8. U.S. production, purchases, and sales of uranium, 1949–2008 (Energy 

Information Administration, 2010b).
Uranium Demand Worldwide 9

0

5

10

15

20

2007 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035

Trillion kilowatthours

Year

Liquids

EXPLANATION

Nuclear

Renewables

Natural gas

Coal

Figure 9. Net generation of electricity worldwide, in trillions of kilowatt hours, by 

all fuels, 2007–2035 (Energy Information Administration, 2010c).

uranium during 2000–2007 were attributed to a combination 

of market factors: the increasing prospects for nuclear powerplant construction, declining inventories, temporary difficulties 

at existing and developing mines and mills, and the entry of 

speculators into the uranium market (Nuclear Energy Agency, 

2008). U.S. production also steadily increased from less than 

2 million pounds (769 tU) in 2003 to more than 4.5 million 

pounds of U3

O8 (1,730 tU) in 2007, following the increase in 

spot prices. Uranium prices reached a high of USD 136/lbU3

O8

(USD 353/kgU) in spring 2007, followed by a drop to prices 

ranging from USD 40 to USD 55 during the three years 

2008–2011, as a rapid expansion of production in Kazakhstan. 

Other market factors, such as the global financial crisis, added 

obstacles to financing uranium exploration, mine development, 

and construction of nuclear power plants, all of which contributed to the “cooling” of the uranium market. Prices surged again 

during the last quarter of 2010 and in early 2011, in response to 

China’s announced plans for and its moves to secure uranium 

contracts for large planned increases in nuclear power. Sustained higher prices would most likely stimulate uranium exploration and production, although permitting of new and expanded 

mines continues to be challenging.

Uranium Demand Worldwide

The only uranium requirements that this analysis considers are those necessary for the generation of electricity by 

civilian nuclear powerplants. Military and other government 

requirements are not included. Growth in world generation of 

electricity has outpaced growth in total consumption of energy 

during the 20-year period, 1991–2011; this trend is expected to 

continue for generating electric power through 2035 (Energy 

Information Administration, 2010b). Nuclear power accounts 

for about 14 percent of worldwide and 20 percent of domestic U.S. generation of electricity (Energy Information 

Administration, 2010b). Although electricity generated by 

nuclear power is expected to increase by about 2 percent a 

year for the 25 years through 2035, the relative contribution of 

nuclear energy to the generation of electricity is expected to stay 

the same (Energy Information Administration, 2010b) (fig. 9).

Current World Uranium Demand

In 2010, the world demand for uranium to power commercial reactors for electricity generation was 68,646 tU, 

as measured from acquisitions of uranium resources (World 

Nuclear Association, 2011b). The total acquired uranium for 

nuclear power is not an exact measure of the amount of uranium 

actually loaded into reactors; it may be higher or lower than the 

amount used for power generation, depending on the amount 

used from inventories (World Nuclear Association, 2011a).

Current U.S. Uranium Demand

In 2009, owners and operators of U.S. civilian nuclear 

reactors purchased a total of 50 million pounds of U3

O8 

(19,232 tU) (Energy Information Administration, 2009). Following recent trends, most uranium purchased in the United 

States in 2009 (86 percent) originated from foreign producers, while 14 percent originated from U.S. mining operations 

(fig. 10). In 2009, uranium in U.S. nuclear reactors originated 
10 Critical Analysis of World Uranium Resources

Figure 10. Uranium in fuel assemblies, in thousand pounds of uranium oxide 

equivalent loaded into U.S. civilian nuclear power reactors, by originating source, by 

year, 2005–2009 (Energy Information Administration, 2010d).

from Australia and Canada (40 percent); Kazakhstan, Russia, 

and Uzbekistan (29 percent); and Brazil, Czech Republic, 

Namibia, Niger, and South Africa (17 percent) (Energy 

Information Administration, 2010d) (fig. 11).

Current U.S. Uranium Inventory

The commercial inventory of uranium owned by U.S. 

civilian nuclear powerplant owners and operators totaled 

84 million pounds U3O8 (32,310 tU) by 2009 year end. Commercial inventory includes ownership of uranium in various 

stages of the fuel cycle at domestic and foreign facilities. The 

total U.S. commercial inventory including inventories owned 

by brokers, converters, enrichers, fabricators, producers, and 

traders, was 110 million pounds U3

O8 (42,311 tU) at the end of 

2009 (Energy Information Administration, 2010d). In addition 

to their existing inventories, owners of nuclear powerplants 

have contracts in place for uranium for which EIA collects 

data 10 years into the future. At the end of 2009, commercial 

plants had purchase contracts in place for a total of 261 million pounds of U3

O8 (100,392 tU)) under purchase contracts 

during 2010–2019. The maximum anticipated market requirement, for commercial plant owners alone, during 2010–2019, 

totals 503.4 million pounds U3

O8 (193,477 tU) (Energy 

Information Administration, 2010d) (fig. 12). Note that 

“market requirement” is not the same as “commercial reactor 

requirement,” although the numbers are not significantly different (~50 million pounds U3

O8, (19,232 tU) per year loaded 

into U.S. commercial reactors).

Projected Future Uranium Supply 

and Demand

Growth in Demand

Projections of future uranium demand depend on 

predictions of nuclear generating capacity, and on the type 

of reactors and fuel being used to generate electricity. EIA 

forecasts that electricity generation from nuclear power 

worldwide will increase from 2.6 trillion kilowatt-hours in 

2007 to 4.5 trillion kilowatt-hours in 2035. Global concerns 

about greenhouse gases, rising fossil-fuel prices, the need for 

additional energy in developing countries and energy security support the development of additional nuclear capacity. 

However significant challenges and uncertainties remain, 

including unresolved issues of storage and disposal of nuclear 

waste, concerns about the safety of nuclear power, and the 

large capital costs associated with powerplant construction. 

These major concerns continue to prevent significant growth 

of nuclear power in many member countries of the OECD. 

Several nonmember countries, most notably China, are forging ahead with construction of new powerplants, and they 

maintain ambitious goals for adding significant new capacity 

during the 25 years to 2035. In the longer term, the expansion 

of the use of MOX and RepU fuels, and the development of 

Generation IV reactors, with their lower fuel requirements, 

will also influence demand.

0

10,000

20,000

30,000

40,000

50,000

60,000

70,000

2005 2006 2007 2008 P2009

Thousand pounds U O3 8 equivalent

P Preliminary data. Final 2008 fuel assembly 

 data reported in the 2009 survey.

Source: U.S. Energy Information Administration, 

Form EIA–858 “Uranium Marketing Annual Survey” 

(2006–2009).

Foreign-origin uranium

Domestic-origin uranium

EXPLANATION

Year
Projected Future Uranium Supply and Demand 11

Figure 11. Uranium purchased by owners and operators of U.S. civilian nuclear power reactors, by 

selected country of origin and by delivery year, 2005–2009 (Energy Information Administration, 2010d).

Short-term projections are made with a fair amount 

of certainty, because most near-term capacity is already in 

operation. Longer term forecasts, to 2035, 2050, and 2100, are 

subject to much greater uncertainties. The growth of nuclear 

capacity in a given country depends on economics, which are 

difficult to predict, and on legislation and regulations that are 

subject to change. In any case, most scenarios point to future 

growth. To account for the uncertainties, the following projections consider both low- and high-case scenarios.

Growth in Supply

In order to assess with some certainty the issues of uranium supply in the near future (~10 years), this study evaluates 

individual deposits and aggregates these results to determine 

longer-range trends. Beyond 10 years, development is much 

more uncertain. The NEA and the IAEA jointly prepare the biennial publication “Uranium 20XX: Resources, Production and 

Demand,” also known as the “ Red Book” for its distinctive red 

cover. For this report, published studies of long-term supply were 

critically examined, and resources from the “Red Book” were 

used to estimate long-term uranium supply (NEA–IAEA, 2010).

Tables 1–4 and appendix 1 provide detailed summaries 

of operating uranium mines and of properties that are likely to 

be producing uranium in the near future. No single published 

source exists for the tonnage of remaining RAR within operating mines, and so this paper examined each deposit using best 

estimates. Sources for the report's information are presented 

in tables 1–4. Some countries, such as India and Iran, are 

not expected to produce uranium that will be sold on the 

open market, but this report evaluated the RAR within these 

countries and included those data in its totals for comparing 

worldwide uranium supply to demand.

Production capacity is reported for mines where available. No mine operates at its maximum-rated capacity for 

the entire mine life, and so readers should consider the stated 

capacity to be a guideline, useful in terms of estimating shortterm supply only. A production center can process ore from 

several mines, as the White Mesa Mill in Utah processes ore 

from the Arizona One mine and from Colorado’s Pandora and 

Daneros mines. Alternatively, a production center may represent an ISL mine that produces yellowcake from each individual mine as a final product without offsite milling. Production 

facilities, usually uranium mill sites for conventional mining, 

and the mines that supply ore to these facilities, were crosschecked to avoid over reporting of capacity. In some cases, 

data were unclear when describing which production facilities were supplied by which mines. As well, reports of RAR 

may not be accompanied by data on the proposed capacity for 

these mines.

0

2,000

4,000

6,000

8,000

10,000

12,000

14,000

16,000

18,000

20,000

22,000

24,000

Thousand pounds U O3 8 equivalent

Australia Canada Kazakhstan Namibia Russia United

States

Uzbekistan

2005

EXPLANATION

2006

2007

2008

2009
12 Critical Analysis of World Uranium Resources

Figure 12. Maximum anticipated uranium market requirements of owners and operators of U.S. civilian nuclear power 

reactors, 2010–2019, as of December 31, 2009 (Energy Information Administration, 2010d). Thousand pounds U O3 8 equivalent

Source: U.S. Energy Information Administration: Form EIA-858 

“Uranium Marketing Annual Survey” (2009)

Maximum Anticipated Uranium Market Requirements of Owners and Operators of U.S. Civilian 

Nuclear Power Reactors, 2010–2019, as of December 31, 2009

Unfilled Market Requirements

Maximum Under Purchase Contracts

Maximum Anticipated Market Requirements

Enrichment Feed Deliveries

U.S. Energy Information Administration/2009 Uranium Marketing

Annual Report

Year

10,000

20,000

30,000

40,000

50,000

60,000

0

2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

EXPLANATION

2009 Uranium Marketing Annual Report

Release Date: August 18, 2010

Next Release Date: May 2011

Maximum Anticipated Uranium Market Requirements of Owners and Operators of U.S. Civilian Nuclear Power 

Reactors, 2010–2019, as of December 31, 2009

(Thousand Pounds U3O8 Equivalent)

Year Maximum Under

Purchase Contracts

Unfilled Market

Requirements

Maximum Anticipated 

Market Requirements

Enrichment Feed

Deliveries

2010 40,739 4,425 45,164 47,567

2011 39,836 5,688 45,523 49,621

2012 36,296 15,342 51,638 52,712

2013 34,846 16,988 51,834 55,712

2014 31,025 17,725 48,749 48,746

2015 25,691 26,892 52,583 52,020

2016 20,004 32,238 52,242 53,686

2017 14,722 34,113 48,834 51,217

2018 10,863 44,661 55,525 56,379

2019 6,961 44,374 51,334 51,575

Total 260,982 242,444 503,426 519,237

Note: Totals may not equal sum of components because of independent rounding.

Source: U.S. Energy Information Administration: Form EIA-858 “Uranium Marketing Annual Survey” (2009).
Identified Resources 13

Beyond fact-checking of RAR, of capacity, and of mine 

life, country narratives explore potential interruptions to supply based on technical, economic, or political challenges for 

individual deposits or for political provinces (appendix 1). In 

these narratives the term “in the near future” describes a development scenario that is ten to fifteen years into the future. This 

timeframe roughly corresponds to the time it takes to develop 

a uranium deposit into a producing mine and, in some cases, 

to develop mining regulations within countries where such 

regulations do not exist.

Identified Resources

Short-term Supply

An analysis of producing mines (operating mines and 

developing mines) completed for this report identifies 2.7 million tU of in-situ RAR (2.1 million tU estimated recoverable) in 64 operating and in 77 developing mines worldwide 

(tables 1–4). The operating mines/production centers report a 

total of 1.4 million tU of in-situ RAR (table 3), approximately 

1 million tU of which are estimated to be recoverable (table 2, 

Developing mines report 1.3 million tU in-situ RAR (1.1 million tU estimated recoverable), which have a reasonable 

chance of producing uranium within 5 to 10 years (table 3). 

This report applies mining and milling to in-situ resources, 

following NEA/IAEA guidelines (NEA–IAEA, 2010). In 

ambiguous mining and resource scenarios, this report used 

conservative mining and milling losses, and so the resulting recoverable resources should be considered minimums. 

Because actual recovery is unknown until mining is complete, 

these are rough estimates to be used for planning purposes 

only. Recovery ranges from 65 percent to 80 percent, depending on the type of mining used to extract ore and on the 

specific metallurgical factors that are used to produce uranium 

from this ore.

The “2009 Red Book” reported 3.5 million tU of economic recoverable RAR worldwide (extractable for less than 

USD 130/kgU) (fig. 13, table 5) (NEA–IAEA, 2010). It was 

expected that the RAR in the development pipeline as estimated from this analysis would represent a subset of NEA’s 

total reported economic reserve. The reserve base that is currently coming online represents 60 percent of RAR reported 

in the NEA–IAEA cost categories “less than USD 130/kgU” 

(fig. 13), which are economic at current uranium prices.

At 2010 rates of demand (68,646 tU; World Nuclear 

Association, 2011b), uranium in operating mines, or those that 

will be coming online in the near future as calculated in this 

report, would fuel the world nuclear power reactor fleet for 

about 30 years, depending on the percentage of actual uranium 

recovery during mining. However, this rate does not take into 

account future demand from the 61 reactors under construction, from 158 reactors planned or on order, or from 326 

proposed reactors (World Nuclear Association, 2011b).

Reserve Distribution by Projected Mining Method

Conventional operating mines contain 68 percent of 

in-situ RAR, and 63 percent of the identified nominal capacity 

for uranium production, whereas ISL mines contain 32 percent of RAR and contribute 37 percent of reported capacity 

(table 6). ISL mines currently operate in Kazakhstan, the 

United States, Australia, China, Uzbekistan, and Russia (with 

one ISL mine planned for Pakistan). The share of future ISL 

capacity measured from advanced-stage properties (those 

expected to produce within the five years 2011–2015) is 

expected to fall to 20 percent of the total uranium being produced, and resources attributable to ISL in upcoming mines 

is a much lower 16 percent. Conventional mines expected to 

come online in the next 5 to 10 years (2011–2021) are estimated to contribute 84 percent of the resources, and to provide 

80 percent of the capacity to future production. However, 

many properties in development do not report proposed capacity. Therefore future production estimates should be considered as minimums, and the ratios of future ISL to conventional 

mined uranium should be considered as supply estimates only. 

Note that the category of “developing conventional mines” 

includes proposed mines for which a production method is 

undetermined, byproduct production, and mining of dumps, in 

addition to open pit and underground operations.

Top 10 Producers

The top 10 producing mines in 2009 contributed about 

30,600 tU, or 62 percent of world production (table 1). Fortyfour percent of the world’s uranium resources in operating 

mines is contained in these ten mines. However, production 

is not expected to continue at current capacity from many of 

the top ten. Production from Ranger, the second largest producer in 2009, is likely to decline as the mine depletes known 

high-grade resources and moves to develop lower-grade ores 

on leach piles not originally processed, and deeper targets. 

Olympic Dam, the sixth largest producer, will continue to produce only if prices for copper and gold, the primary commodities, remain high, and if capital can be raised for a significant 

expansion. Ore at Rabbit Lake/Eagle Point, the eighth largest 

producer, is nearly exhausted.
14 Critical Analysis of World Uranium Resources Table 1. Top ten uranium producing mines in 2009: production, reasonably assured resourecs, and mine life. [tU, metric tonnes] Mine Location Majority owner 2009 Production (tU) Percent of world total production in 2009 Reasonably assured resource (tU) Percent of world reserves (2009) Average ore grade (% U O3 8

)

Mine type Expected mine life Information source

McArthur River Canada Cameco 7,400 14.6% 128,900 7.8% 19.5 Underground—Mill 2030 World Nuclear Association, 2011a

Ranger Australia Rio Tinto 4,423 9.0% 28,832 2.0% 0.135 Open Pit—Mill; Expansion 

includes underground and heap leach

2014 McKay and Carson, 2010; NEA–IAEA, 2010

Rossing Namibia Rio Tinto 3,574 7.0% 17,007 3.5% 0.031 Open Pit—Tank Heap Leach 2021 Ux Consulting Company LLC, 2010Myunkum/Moinkum 

(Katco)

Kazakhstan Areva 3,250 6.0% 24,131 2.4% 0.074 ISL 2039 Ux Consulting Company LLC, 2010

Streltsovskoye

(Priargunsky)

Russia ARMZ 3,003 6.0% 118,340 7.2% 0.12–0.26 Underground—Heap Leach Unknown NEA/OECD–IAEA, 2010

Olympic Dam Australia BHP Billiton 2,981 6.0% 295,000 18.0% 0.059 Underground—Primary 

commodity copper/gold

2063 McKay and Carson, 2010; NEA–IAEA, 2010

Arlit Niger Areva 1,808 4.0% 23,171 1.1% 0.22–29 Open Pit—Mill Unknown UxConsulting, 2010; NEA/OECD–IAEA, 2010

Rabbit Lake Canada Cameco 1,400 3.0% 8,200 0.5% 0.75–0.89 Underground—Mill 2015 World Nuclear Association, 2011a

Akouta Niger Areva 1,435 3.0% 24,670 1.6% 0.34 Underground—Mill Unknown Ux Consulting Company LLC, 2010; 

NEA/OECD–IAEA, 2010

McClean Lake Canada Areva 1,400 3.0% 1,031 0.1% 0.68 Underground—Mill Unknown World Nuclear Association, 2011a

Total 30,674 61.6% 669,282 44.2%
Identified Resources 15

Table 2. World’s largest deposits in stages of operation, development, feasibility or prefeasibility, 2010.[tU, metric tonnes]

Mine Location Majority 

owner

2009 

Uranium 

production

(tU)

Reasonably

assured

resource

(tU)

Status and 

mining method 

Development

time line

Geologic

deposit type Information source

Olympic Dam Australia BHP Billiton 2,981 295,000 Operating—

(Underground/

mill—(Primary 

commodity copper/gold)

Planning open 

pit expansion, 

will extend operations 

to 2063

Poly-metallic 

breccia

NEA–IAEA, 2010; McKay and Carson, 2010

Imouraren Niger Areva 0 183,520 Feasibility—(open pit Production planned 

from 2013–2049

Sandstone NEA–IAEA, 2010; Ux Consulting Company LLC, 2010

McArthur River Australia Cameco 7,340 128,900 Operating—

(Underground/mill

Production planned 

to 2030

Unconformity Ux Consulting Company LLC, 2010; World Nuclear 

Association, 2011b

Streltsovskoye Russia ARMZ 3,003 118,341 Operating—Underground/

Surface heap leach

Unknown Volcanic NEA–IAEA, 2010; Ux Consulting Company LLC, 2010

Novokonstantinovskoe Ukraine VostGOK 0 93,630 Planned—Underground Production by 2011 Metasomatite NEA–IAEA, 2010; Ux Consulting Company LLC, 2010

Cigar Lake Canada Cameco 0 80,500 Planned—Underground Production planned 

to begin in 2013

Unconformity NEA–IAEA, 2010; Ux Consulting Company LLC, 2010

Uzbekistan All regions

(Centres 1,2,3)

Uzbekistan Navoi Mining 

and Metallurgy 

Combinat

NA 76,000 Operating—ISL Unknown Sandstone NEA–IAEA, 2005, 2010

Elkon Russia ARMZ 0 71,300 Planned—Underground Production to begin 

in 2016

Metasomatite Ux Consulting Company LLC, 2010

Itataia-Santa Quiteria 

District

Brazil Industrias 

Nucleares do Brazil

0 67,240 Feasibility—open pit Production planned 

by 2013

Phosphorite NEA–IAEA, 2010; Ux Consulting Company LLC, 2010

Marencia Namibia Marencia 

Energy Ltd.

0 62,856 Feasibility 13 year mine life Surficial Marencia Energy Limited, 2011; NEA–IAEA, 2010; Ux 

Consulting Company LLC, 2010

Langer Heinrich Namibia Paladin Energy 1,115 60,830 Operating—Open Pit Operating to 2026 Surficial NEA–IAEA, 2010; Ux Consulting Company LLC, 2010

Dominion Reef South Africa Shiva Uranium 0 55,753 Standby—Underground Expected to open 

in 2012

Quartz-pebble 

conglomerate

NECSA, 2010

Inkai Kazakhstan Cameco 350 51,808 ISL Operating to 2032 Sandstone NEA–IAEA, 2010; Ux Consulting Company LLC, 2010Kiggavik Canada Areva 0 51,574 Advanced Exploration—

Permitting

Expected to begin 

production 2020

Unconformity Ux Consulting Company LLC, 2010; World Nuclear 

Association, 2011b

Rossing Namibia Rio Tinto 3,574 50,657 Operating—Open pit/

tank leach; expansion—

heap leach planned

Production planned 

to 2021

Granite-hosted Ux Consulting Company LLC, 2010

Yeleerie Australia BHP Billiton 0 44,077 Planned—Open pit 20 to 40 years 

of production

Surficial Ux Consulting Company LLC, 2010; BHP Billiton, 2011

Trekkopje Namibia Areva 0 42,243 Feasibilty—Open pit Production by 2016 

depending on 

uranium prices—

10 years of production

Calcrete-type NEA–IAEA, 2010; Ux Consulting Company LLC, 2010
16 Critical Analysis of World Uranium Resources

Table 3. Operating uranium mines and their remaining reasonably assured resources, 2010.—Continued

[tU, metric tonnes; tU/yr, metric tonnes per year; ISL, in-situ leach. In-situ resources reported, when 2009 Redbook cited information was for production or other 

descriptive information or where there was no other source of resource data]

Mine/

production center Country

Remaining 

in-situ reserve tU 

(proven and 

probable economic)

Grade

%U Ownership End of mine life

Beverley Australia 12,192 0.229 Heathgate Resources Pty. Ltd., General Atomics USA NA

Olympic Dam Australia 295,000 0.059 BHP Billiton 2063

Ranger Australia 28,832 0.117 Rio Tinto 2020

Lagoa Real-Caetite District Brazil 12,700 0.300 Industrias Nucleares do Brazil NA

McArthur River Canada 128,900 15.72–26.33 Cameco Corporation >2031

McClean Lake Canada 1,031 0.530 Areva Resources Canada Inc. NA

Rabbit Lake/Eagle Point Canada 8,200 0.880 Cameco Corporation 2015

Dep.512/Yining China NA NA China National Nuclear Corporation NA

Lantian Deposit China 2,000 0.171 China National Nuclear Corporation NA

Lianshanguan China 1,000 0.340 China National Nuclear Corporation NA

Qinglong district China 8,000 NA China National Nuclear Corporation NA

Shaoguan China NA NA China National Nuclear Corporation NA

Tengchong deposit China 6,000 0.050 China National Nuclear Corporation NA

Xiangshan district China 29,000 0.100 China National Nuclear Corporation NA

Xiazhuang district China 12,000 NA China National Nuclear Corporation NA

Yili deposit China 16,000 0.060 China National Nuclear Corporation NA

Ziyuan China 10,000 NA China National Nuclear Corporation NA

Rozna Czech 

Republic

680 0.379 DIAMO state enterprise 2012 or until 

unprofitable

Straz Czech 

Republic

1,320 0.030 DIAMO state enterprise NA

Bagjata India 2,106 0.047 Uranium Corporation of India NA

Bhatin India 2,200 0.050 Uranium Corporation of India NA

Jaduguda India 8,400 0.067 Uranium Corporation of India NA

Narwapahar India 11,500 0.050 Uranium Corporation of India NA

Turamdih/Banduhurang India 3,750 0.046 Uranium Corporation of India NA

Gachin (Bandar-Abas) Iran 100 0.200 Atomic Energy Organization of Iran NA

Akdala Kazakhstan 9,308 0.070 Uranium One Inc., KazAtomProm NA

Budenovskoye 1-3-4/

Akbastau

Kazakhstan 10,737 0.090 Uranium One Inc., KazAtomProm NA

Budenovskoye 2/Karatau Kazakhstan 11,232 0.090 KazAtomProm, Uranium One Inc. NA

Centralnoye (Kanzhagan, 

S. Muyumkum)

Kazakhstan 25,077 0.070 KazAtomProm NA

Chiili (North and 

South Karamurun)

Kazakhstan 27,403 0.070 KazAtomProm NA

Inkai Kazakhstan 51,808 0.070 Cameco Corporation, 

KazAtomProm

2032

Inkai South Kazakhstan 13,040 0.039 Uranium One Inc., KazAtomProm NA

Irkol Kazakhstan 28,641 0.045 KazAtomProm, China Guangdong NPC NA

Mynkuduk Central Kazakhstan 48,521 0.040 KazAtomProm NA
Identified Resources 17

Table 3. Operating uranium mines and their remaining reasonably assured resources, 2010.—Continued

[tU, metric tonnes; tU/yr, metric tonnes per year; ISL, in-situ leach. In-situ resources reported, when 2009 Redbook cited information was for production or 

other descriptive information or where there was no other source of resource data]

Mine/

production center

Production or 

nominal production 

capacity/rate

(tU/yr)

Geologic

type

Type of 

operation Information source

Beverley 848 Sandstone ISL—Acid Leach Ux Consulting Company LLC, 2010; 

McKay and Carson, 2010; NEA–IAEA, 2010

Olympic Dam 3,820 Hematite 

Breccia Complex

Underground—

Cu/Au

McKay and Carson, 2010; NEA–IAEA, 2010

Ranger 4,660 Unconformity—

Proterozoic

Open Pit McKay and Carson, 2010; NEA–IAEA, 2010

Lagoa Real-Caetite District 340 Metasomatite Open Pit NEA–IAEA, 2010; Ux Consulting Company LLC, 2010

McArthur River 7,200 Unconformity—

Proterozoic

Underground World Nuclear Association, 2011b; Ux Consulting 

Company LLC, 2010

McClean Lake 3,077 Unconformity—

Proterozoic

Underground World Nuclear Association, 2011b; Ux Consulting 

Company LLC, 2010

Rabbit Lake/Eagle Point 4,615 Unconformity—

Proterozoic

Underground World Nuclear Association, 2011b; Ux Consulting 

Company LLC, 2010

Dep. 512/Yining NA Sandstone ISL NEA–IAEA, 2010

Lantian Deposit 100 Granite or Vein Underground/

Heap Leach

NEA–IAEA, 2010

Lianshanguan 220 Granite (Benxi) 

Granite (Qinglong)

Unknown Dahlkamp, 2010

Qinglong district 100 NA NA NEA–IAEA, 2010

Shaoguan 100 Granite Underground NEA–IAEA, 2010

Tengchong deposit NA Sandstone ISL NEA–IAEA, 2010

Xiangshan district 200 Volcanic Underground/

Mill

NEA–IAEA, 2010; Ux Consulting Company LLC, 2010

Xiazhuang district NA Granite or Vein NA Ux Consulting Company LLC, 2010

Yili deposit 300 Sandstone or 

Lignite-type

ISL Dahlkamp, 2010

Ziyuan NA NA NA NEA–IAEA, 2010

Rozna 255 Vein Underground NEA–IAEA, 2010; Ux Consulting Company LLC, 2010

Straz 38 Sandstone ISL—Acid Leach NEA–IAEA, 2010; Ux Consulting Company LLC, 2010

Bagjata Part of Jaduguda Vein Underground Chaki, 2010

Bhatin Part of Jaduguda Vein Underground NEA–IAEA 2010; Ux Consulting Company LLC, 2010

Jaduguda 175 Vein Underground NEA–IAEA, 2010; Ux Consulting Company LLC, 2010

Narwapahar Part of Jaduguda Vein Underground NEA–IAEA, 2010; Ux Consulting Company LLC, 2010

Turamdih/Banduhurang 190 Vein Underground NEA–IAEA, 2010; Ux Consulting Company LLC, 2010

Gachin (Bandar-Abas) 21 Surficial Open Pit NEA–IAEA, 2010

Akdala 1,000 Sandstone ISL—Acid Leach NEA–IAEA, 2010; Ux Consulting Company LLC, 2010

Budenovskoye 1-3-4/

Akbastau

3,000 Sandstone ISL—Acid Leach NEA–IAEA, 2010; Ux Consulting Company LLC, 2010

Budenovskoye 2/Karatau 1,000 Sandstone ISL—Acid Leach NEA–IAEA, 2010; Ux Consulting Company LLC, 2010

Centralnoye (Kanzhagan, 

S. Muyumkum)

1,000 Sandstone ISL—Acid Leach NEA–IAEA, 2010; Ux Consulting Company LLC, 2010

Chiili (North and 

South Karamurun)

1,000 Sandstone ISL—Acid Leach NEA–IAEA, 2010; Ux Consulting Company LLC, 2010

Inkai 2,000 Sandstone ISL—Acid Leach NEA–IAEA, 2010; Ux Consulting Company LLC, 2010

Inkai South 2,000 Sandstone ISL—Acid Leach NEA–IAEA, 2010; Ux Consulting Company LLC, 2010

Irkol 750 Sandstone ISL—Acid Leach NEA–IAEA, 2010; Ux Consulting Company LLC, 2010

Mynkuduk Central 2,000 Sandstone ISL—Acid Leach NEA–IAEA, 2010; Ux Consulting Company LLC, 2010
18 Critical Analysis of World Uranium Resources

Table 3. Operating uranium mines and their remaining reasonably assured resources, 2010.—Continued

[tU, metric tonnes; tU/yr, metric tonnes per year; ISL, in-situ leach. In-situ resources reported, when 2009 Redbook cited information was for production or other 

descriptive information or where there was no other source of resource data]

Mine/

production center Country

Remaining 

in-situ reserve tU 

(proven and 

probable economic)

Grade

%U Ownership End of mine life

Mynkuduk West Kazakhstan 24,540 0.040 KazAtomProm, Sumitomo Corporation, 

Kansai Electric Power Company

NA

Semisbai Kazakhstan 17,099 0.070 KazAtomProm, China Guangdong NPC NA

Stepnoye (Uvanas, 

East Mynkuduk)

Kazakhstan 22,972 0.036 KazAtomProm NA

Tortkuduk/Muyunkum 

(Katco JV)

Kazakhstan 24,131 0.090 Areva NC, KazAtomProm NA

Tselinny Mining and 

Chemical Combine

Kazakhstan 9,730 0.160 KazAtomProm NA

Zarechnoye Kazakhstan 12,618 0.056 Uranium One Inc., 

KazAtomProm, Kara-Balta Ore Mining Combine

NA

Kayelekera Malawai 11,265 0.034 Paladin Energy Ltd. 2020

Langer Heinrich Namibia 60,830 0.055 Paladin Energy Ltd. 2026

Rossing Namibia 50,657 0.031 Rio Tinto, Other interests, 

IDC of S. Africa, Namibian Govt.

2023

Akouta Niger 24,670 0.34–0.47 Areva NC, Office National des Resources Mineres, 

Overseas Uranium Resource Development Company Ltd., 

ENUSA Industrias Avanzadas S.A.

NA

Arlit Niger 23,171 0.22–.29 Areva NC, Office National des Resources Mineres NA

Dera Ghazi Khan Pakistan NA 0.100 Pakistan Atomic Energy Commission NA

Issa Khel/Qabul Khel Pakistan NA 0.500 Pakistan Atomic Energy Commission NA

Tumman Leghari Pakistan NA NA Pakistan Atomic Energy Commission NA

Crucea, Bihor and Crucea Romania 8,769 0.210 Uranium National Company (UNC) Romania 2020

Dalur Production Center 

(Dalmatovskoye deposit)

Russian 

Federation

10,423 0.041 ARMZ (Atomredmetzoloty OJSC) NA

Streltsovskoye Russian 

Federation

118,341 0.180 ARMZ (Atomredmetzoloty OJSC) NA

Ezulwini South Africa 2,730 0.023 First Uranium Corporation NA

Vaal River Complex South Africa 14,346 0.016–0.061 Nufcor International Ltd. NA

Michurinskoye 

(Inglul’skaya)

Ukraine 25,154 0.100 Vostochny Integrated Mining and Concentrating Plant NA

Vatutinskoye 

(Smolinskaya)

Ukraine 23,692 0.100 Vostochny Integrated Mining and Concentrating Plant NA

Alta Mesa USA 2,923 0.080 Mestena Uranium LLC >2017

AZ1 USA 330 0.600 Denison Mines Corp. NA

Beaver +Pandora USA 2,038 0.210 Denison Mines Corp. NA

Crow Butte USA 1,577 0.130 Cameco Corporation >2017

Daneros USA 462 0.280 White Canyon Uranium Ltd. 2014

La Palangana USA 407 0.110 Uranium Energy Corp. NA

Smith Ranch–Highland 

(+Reynolds)

USA 2,269 0.100 Cameco Corporation NA

White Mesa (Mill) USA NA variable Denison Mines Corp. NA

All regions (Centres 1,2,3) Uzbekistan 76,000 0.02–.17 Navoi Mining and Metallurgy Combinat 2040

Total 1,397,822 Known Production Capacity
Identified Resources 19

Table 3. Operating uranium mines and their remaining reasonably assured resources, 2010.—Continued

[tU, metric tonnes; tU/yr, metric tonnes per year; ISL, in-situ leach. In-situ resources reported, when 2009 Redbook cited information was for production or 

other descriptive information or where there was no other source of resource data]

Mine/

production center

Production or 

nominal production 

capacity/rate

(tU/yr)

Geologic

type

Type of 

operation Information source

Mynkuduk West 1,000 Sandstone ISL—Acid Leach NEA–IAEA, 2010; Ux Consulting Company LLC, 2010

Semisbai 500 Sandstone ISL—Acid Leach NEA–IAEA, 2010; Ux Consulting Company LLC, 2010

Stepnoye (Uvanas, 

East Mynkuduk)

1,300 Sandstone ISL—Acid Leach NEA–IAEA, 2010; Ux Consulting Company LLC, 2010

Tortkuduk/Muyunkum 

(Katco JV)

4,000 Sandstone ISL—Acid Leach NEA–IAEA, 2010; Ux Consulting Company LLC, 2010

Tselinny Mining and 

Chemical Combine

500 Vein Underground—

Heap Leach

NEA–IAEA, 2010; Ux Consulting Company LLC, 2010

Zarechnoye 2,000 Vein Underground—

Heap Leach

NEA–IAEA, 2010; Ux Consulting Company LLC, 2010

Kayelekera 1,270 Sandstone Open Pit NEA–IAEA, 2010; Ux Consulting Company LLC, 2010

Langer Heinrich 1,425 Surficial Open Pit NEA–IAEA, 2010; Ux Consulting Company LLC, 2010

Rossing 3,817 Intrusive Open Pit Ux Consulting Company LLC, 2010

Akouta 2,000 Sandstone Open Pit NEA–IAEA, 2010; Ux Consulting Company LLC, 2010

Arlit 2,000 Sandstone Open Pit NEA–IAEA, 2010; Ux Consulting Company LLC, 2010

Dera Ghazi Khan 30 Sandstone Unknown NEA–IAEA, 2010

Issa Khel/Qabul Khel NA 

(Heap Leach)

Sandstone Open Pit/

Heap Leach

IAEA, 2009, Ux Consulting Company LLC, 2010

Tumman Leghari NA NA Unknown IAEA, 2009, Ux Consulting Company LLC, 2010

Crucea, Bihor and Crucea 300 Vein Underground NEA–IAEA , 2010; Ux Consulting Company LLC, 2010

Dalur Production Center 

(Dalmatovskoye deposit)

3,000 Sandstone ISL NEA–IAEA, 2010

Streltsovskoye 3,000 Volcanic Underground NEA–IAEA, 2010; Ux Consulting Company LLC, 2010

Ezulwini 462 Quartz-pebble 

Conglomerate

Underground NECSA, 2010; Ux Consulting Company LLC, 2010

Vaal River Complex 3,400 Quartz-pebble 

Conglomerate

Underground NECSA, 2010; Ux Consulting Company LLC, 2010

Michurinskoye 

(Inglul’skaya)

1,500 Metasomatite Underground NEA–IAEA, 2010

Vatutinskoye 

(Smolinskaya)

NA Metasomatite Underground NEA–IAEA, 2010

Alta Mesa 385 Sandstone ISL—

Alkaline Leach

Energy Information Administration, 2010a; Ux Consulting 

Company LLC, 2010

AZ1 White Mesa Mill Collapse 

Breccia Pipe

Underground Pool and Ross, 2007

Beaver +Pandora White Mesa Mill Sandstone Underground Ux Consulting Company LLC, 2010

Crow Butte 385 Sandstone ISL—

Alkaline Leach

Cameco Corporation, 2011

Daneros White Mesa Mill Sandstone Underground Ux Consulting Company LLC, 2010

La Palangana 385 Sandstone ISL—

Alkaline Leach

Energy Information Administration, 2010a; Rigby, 2010

Smith Ranch - Highland 

(+Reynolds)

2,116 Sandstone ISL—

Alkaline Leach

Cameco, 2010

White Mesa (Mill) 1,200 Various sources Mill EIA, 2010

All regions (Centres 1,2,3) NA Sandstone ISL NEA–IAEA, 2005, 2010

Total 75,984

*No available information, used estimates from NEA–IAEA (2010) which probably do not account for depletion by mining.

#

Updated grades not available, used information from IAEA, 2010.
20 Critical Analysis of World Uranium Resources

Table 4. Uranium properties that are permitted, or in feasibility or in the prefeasibility stages and their reported resources, 2010.—Continued

[UG, underground; ISL, in-situ leach; OP, open pit; R, resource only, not reserve; I, indicated resource; NA, data not available; tU/yr, metric tonnes per year. 

Values used because the unique character of the deposits and proposed mining method will likely not yield a reserve prior to development. In-situ resources 

reported, when 2009 Redbook cited information was for production or other descriptive information or where there was no other source of resource data]

Mine name Country In-situ

resource Grade Status Ownership

Cerro Solo Argentina 3,900 0.4 Feasibility study Commision Nacional de Energia Atomica

Sierra Pintada Argentina 2,620 0.1 Feasibility study Commision Nacional de Energia Atomica

Four Mile Australia 23,462 0.28 Feasibility study Quasar Resources Pty. Ltd.

Honeymoon Australia 2,500 0.2035 Development Uranium One Inc.

Lake Maitland Australia 10,000 0.031 Development Mega Uranium Ltd.

Oban Australia 1,781 NA Feasibility study Curnamona Energy Ltd

Wiluna Australia 9,385 0.021–.050 Feasibility study Toro Energy Ltd.

Yeleerie Australia 44,077 0.15 Feasibility study BHP Billiton

Itataia-Santa Quiteria 

District

Brazil 67,240 0.08 Feasibility study Industrias Nucleares do Brazil

Cigar Lake Canada 80,500 16.59 Development Cameco Corporation

Kiggavik Canada 51,574 0.22 Feasibility study Areva Resources Canada Inc.

Matoush Canada 7,770 0.45 Feasibility study Strateco Resources Inc.

Michelin & Jacques Lake Canada 29,923 0.49 Feasibility study Aurora Energy Resources Ltd.

Midwest Canada 16,340 4.4 Feasibility study Areva Resources Canada Inc.

Millenium Canada 18,002 3.8 Feasibility study Cameco Corporation

Bakouma Central African

Republic

9,885 1.72 Feasibility study Areva Resources Centrafrique

Dongsheng China 5,000 NA Feasibility study China National Nuclear Association

Erdos China 21,600 NA Feasibility study China National Nuclear Association

Erlian China 19,400 Unknown Feasibility study China National Nuclear Association

Guyuan China 5,000 0.1–0.3 Feasibility study China National Nuclear Association

Liaohe China NA NA Feasibility study China National Nuclear Association

Shihongtan deposit China 3,000 0.03 Feasibility study China National Nuclear Corporation

Turp-Hame China 9,000 NA Feasibility study China National Nuclear Association

Zaohuohao China 17,000 Unknown Feasibility study China National Nuclear Association

Talvivaara Finland 17,110 0.0018 Development Talvivaara Mining Company Plc.

Tummalapalle -

Rachakuntapalle

India 12,555 0.04 Committed Uranium Corporation of India

Mohuldih India Unknown Unknown Committed Uranium Corporation of India

Lambapur-Peddagattu India Unknown Unknown Committed Uranium Corporation of India

Saghand (Ardakan) Iran 900 0.055 Development Atomic Energy Organization of Iran

Kharasan 1 North Kazakhstan 34,350 0.11 Development Energy Asia Ltd., Kazatomprom, Uranium One Inc.

Kharasan-2 South Kazakhstan 24,751 0.1–.2 Development Energy Asia Ltd, KazAtomProm

Zhalpak Kazakhstan 15,000 NA Committed Zhalpak JV, KazAtomProm

Dornod District

(12 deposits)

Mongolia 24,780 0.116 Feasibility study Khan Resources Inc, Priargunsky Chemical and 

Mining enterprise, Mongol Erdene Holding Co.

Marenica Namibia 62,856 0.017 Pre-feasability Marenica Energy Ltd.

Trekkopje/

Klein Trekkopje

Namibia 43,243 0.015 Development Areva Resources Namibia

Valencia Namibia 23,269 0.019 Development Forsys Metals Corp.

Azelik Niger 10,800 NA Development China U International Uranium Corporation, ZX Joy Global Inc., 

Société de Patrimoine des Mines du Niger, Trendfield Holdings SA 

Imouraren Niger 183,520 .046–0.11 Development Areva Resources Namibia, Société de Patrimoine des Mines du Niger , 

Kansai Electric Power Co. Inc.

Shanawah Pakistan 2,578 0.05 Development Pakistan Atomic Energy Commission

Elkon (Yuzhnoe,

Severnoe)

Russian

Federation

71,300 0.15 Development ARMZ (Atomredmetzoloty OJSC)

Gornoe, Beryozovoe Russian

Federation

7,918 0.2 Development ARMZ (Atomredmetzoloty OJSC)

Khiagda, Vershinnoe Russian

Federation

26,805 0.055 Development ARMZ (Atomredmetzoloty OJSC)

Olovskoye Russian

Federation

12,200 0.082 Development ARMZ (Atomredmetzoloty OJSC)
Identified Resources 21

Table 4. Uranium properties that are permitted, or in feasibility or in the prefeasibility stages and their reported resources, 2010.—Continued

[UG, underground; ISL, in-situ leach; OP, open pit; R, resource only, not reserve; I, indicated resource; NA, data not available; tU/yr, metric tonnes per year. 

Values used because the unique character of the deposits and proposed mining method will likely not yield a reserve prior to development. In-situ resources 

reported, when 2009 Redbook cited information was for production or other descriptive information or where there was no other source of resource data]

Mine name Geologic 

type

Projected 

start-up

Proposed 

mining

method

Proposed 

capacity 

(tU/yr)

Information source

Cerro Solo Sandstone NA OP NA IAEA, 2010; NEA–IAEA , 2010; Ux Consulting Company LLC, 2010

Sierra Pintada Volcanic NA OP NA IAEA, 2010; NEA–IAEA , 2010; Ux Consulting Company LLC, 2010

Four Mile Sandstone 2011 ISL 1,000 NEA–IAEA , 2010; Ux Consulting Company LLC, 2010

Honeymoon Sandstone 2010 ISL 340 NEA–IAEA , 2010; Ux Consulting Company LLC, 2010

Lake Maitland Surficial NA OP NA Mega Uranium, 2011; Ux Consulting Company LLC, 2010

Oban Sandstone NA ISL NA NEA–IAEA , 2010; Ux Consulting Company LLC, 2010

Wiluna Surficial NA OP NA Toro Energy Ltd., 2011; Ux Consulting Company LLC, 2010

Yeleerie Surficial NA OP NA BHPBilliton, 2011; Ux Consulting Company LLC, 2010

Itataia-Santa Quiteria District Phosphorite 2012 OP 1,000 NEA–IAEA , 2010; Ux Consulting Company LLC, 2010

Cigar Lake UnconformityProterozoic2012 UG 6,249 NEA–IAEA , 2010; Ux Consulting Company LLC, 2010

Kiggavik UnconformityProterozoicNA UG NA World Nuclear Association, 2011; Ux Consulting Company LLC, 2010

Matoush Vein NA UG NA Calvert, 2010; Ux Consulting Company LLC, 2010

Michelin & 

Jacques Lake

Volcanic NA OP/UG NA Calvert, 2010; Ux Consulting Company LLC, 2010

Midwest UnconformityProterozoic2013 OP 2,300 World Nuclear Association, 2011b; Ux Consulting Company LLC, 2010; 

NEA–IAEA, 2010

Millenium UnconformityProterozoicNA UG 5,700 Calvert, 2010; Ux Consulting Company LLC, 2010

Bakouma Phosphoritic 

sandstone

2015 OP 1,200 Ux Consulting Company LLC, 2010; Areva, 2011

Dongsheng Sandstone NA ISL/OP NA NEA–IAEA , 2010

Erdos Sandstone NA NA NA Ux Consulting Company LLC, 2010

Erlian Sandstone NA UG NA Zhang, 2010; NEA–IAEA , 2010

Guyuan Granite NA ISL NA Dahlkamp, 2010

Liaohe Sandstone NA NA NA Zhang, 2010; NEA–IAEA , 2010

Shihongtan deposit Sandstone NA ISL NA NEA–IAEA , 2008

Turp-Hame Sandstone NA NA NA NEA–IAEA , 2010

Zaohuohao Unknown NA ISL NA NEA–IAEA , 2008

Talvivaara Black Shales 2012 By-product 350 Talvivaara Mining Company Plc., 2011

Tummalapalle - 

Rachakuntapalle

Strata-bound 2010 UG 217 Chaki, 2010

Mohuldih Vein 2011 UG 190 Chaki, 2010

Lambapur-Peddagattu NA 2012 UG-OP 130 NEA–IAEA , 2010; Ux Consulting Company LLC, 2010

Saghand (Ardakan) Metasomatite 2012 UG 50 NEA–IAEA , 2010

Kharasan 1 North Sandstone 2012 ISL 2,000 NEA–IAEA , 2010; Ux Consulting Company LLC, 2010

Kharasan-2 South Sandstone 2012 ISL 2,000 NEA–IAEA , 2010; Ux Consulting Company LLC, 2010

Zhalpak Sandstone 2015 ISL 1,000 NEA–IAEA , 2010

Dornod District 

(12 deposits)

Volcanic 2015 OP,UG 1,150 NEA–IAEA , 2010; Ux Consulting Company LLC, 2010

Marenica Surficial 2013 OP 1,000 Marencia Energy Ltd, 2011; NEA–IAEA , 2010; 

Ux Consulting Company LLC, 2010

Trekkopje/

Klein Trekkopje

Surficial 2016 OP 1,600 NEA–IAEA , 2010; Ux Consulting Company LLC, 2010

Valencia Surficial 2013 OP 1,400 NEA–IAEA , 2010; Ux Consulting Company LLC, 2010

Azelik Sandstone 2011 OP 1,000 NEA–IAEA , 2010; Ux Consulting Company LLC, 2010

Imouraren Sandstone 2012 OP 5,000 NEA–IAEA , 2010; Ux Consulting Company LLC, 2010

Shanawah Sandstone 2014 ISL 50 IAEA, 2010; NEA–IAEA, 2010

Elkon (Yuzhnoe, 

Severnoe)

Metasomatite 2016 UG 5,000 Ux Consulting Company LLC, 2010

Gornoe, Beryozovoe Vein 2014 UG 600 NEA–IAEA, 2010

Khiagda, Vershinnoe Sandstone 2011 ISL 1,000 NEA–IAEA, 2010

Olovskoye Vein 2014 OP,UG 600 NEA–IAEA, 2010; Ux Consulting Company LLC, 2010
22 Critical Analysis of World Uranium Resources

Table 4. Uranium properties that are permitted, or in feasibility or in the prefeasibility stages and their reported resources, 2010.—Continued

[UG, underground; ISL, in-situ leach; OP, open pit; R, resource only, not reserve; I, indicated resource; NA, data not available; tU/yr, metric tonnes per year. 

Values used because the unique character of the deposits and proposed mining method will likely not yield a reserve prior to development. In-situ resources 

reported, when 2009 Redbook cited information was for production or other descriptive information or where there was no other source of resource data]

Mine name Country In-situ

resource Grade Status Ownership

Beatrix South Africa 24,600 NA Development Harmony Gold Mining Co.

Cooke Dump South Africa 9,464 0.09 Feasibility study Harmony Gold Mining Co.

Dominion Reef South Africa 55,753 0.062 Development Shiva Uranium Pty. Ltd.

Henkries South Africa 1,145 NA Development Niger Uranium Ltd.

Klerksdorp and 

Southern Free

South Africa 2,972 0.02 Development Witwatersrand Consolidated Gold Resources Ltd.

Ezulwini (Randfontein) South Africa 2,692 0.007 Development First Uranium Corp.

Ryst Kuil South Africa 7,731 0.1 Development Gold Fields Ltd., Areva Resources Southern Africa

Western Rand tailings South Africa 11,387 0.004 Development Mintails Ltd.

MWS Tailings South Africa 9,269 0.001 Development First Uranium Corp.

Salamanca I Spain 30,926 0.0563 Feasibility study Berkeley Resources, ENUSA Industrias Avanzadas S.A.

Novokonstantinovskoe Ukraine 93,630 0.139 Development Vostochny Integrated Mining and Concentrating Plant

Safonovskoye Ukraine 6,900 0.035 Development Vostochny Integrated Mining and Concentrating Plant

Bullfrog USA 1,798 0.33 Development Denison Mines Corp.

Canyon USA 586 0.92 Development Denison Mines Corp.

Centennial USA 3,989 0.08 Development Powertech Uranium Corp.

Willow Creek USA 7,506 0.09 Operational Uranium One Inc.

Church Rock USA 7,154 0.1 Partially permitted 

and licensed

Hydro Resources Inc.

Crownpoint USA 5,885 0.16 Partially permitted 

and licensed

Hydro Resources Inc.

Dewey Burdock USA 2,571 0.15 Development Powertech Uranium Corp.

Gas Hills-peach USA 5,270 0.13 Development Cameco Corporation

Goliad USA 2,106 0.42 Partially permitted 

and licensed

Uranium Energy Corp.

Hank USA 860 0.1 Development Uranerz Energy Corp 

Lance USA 3,539 0.039 Feasibility study Peninsula Energy

Lost Creek USA 3,769 0.044 Development Ur Energy Inc.

Moore Ranch USA 2,230 0.085 Permitted and 

licensed

Uranium One Inc.

Nichols Ranch USA 1,115 0.1 Partially permitted Uranerz Energy Corp. 

North ButteBrown RanchUSA 3,154 0.1 Development Cameco Corporation

Pinenut (AZ Strip) USA 336 0.4 Development Denison Mines Corp.

Reno Creek USA 1,651 0.05 Development Uranerz Energy Corp. 

Roca Honda USA 6,730 0.196 Feasibility study Strathmore Minerals Corp.

Tony M + Southwest USA 3,131 0.2 Development Denison Mines Corp.

Whirlwind, Energy Queen,

San Rafael

USA 1,334 0.2–0.3 Development Energy Fuels Inc.

Pinon Ridge Mill USA NA NA Permitting Energy Fuels Inc.

Chimiwungo Zambia 1,020 0.047 Development Equinox Minerals Ltd.

Total in-situ resource (tU) 1,355,097
Identified Resources 23

Table 4. Uranium properties that are permitted, or in feasibility or in the prefeasibility stages and their reported resources, 2010.—Continued

[UG, underground; ISL, in-situ leach; OP, open pit; R, resource only, not reserve; I, indicated resource; NA, data not available; tU/yr, metric tonnes per year. 

Values used because the unique character of the deposits and proposed mining method will likely not yield a reserve prior to development. In-situ resources 

reported, when 2009 Redbook cited information was for production or other descriptive information or where there was no other source of resource data]

Mine name Geologic 

type

Projected 

start-up

Proposed 

mining

method

Proposed 

capacity 

(tU/yr)

Information source

Beatrix Quartz-pebble 

conglomerate

NA UG NA NEA–IAEA , 2010

Cooke Dump Surface dams, 

dumps and 

slimes

2012 Surface NA NEA–IAEA , 2010

Dominion Reef Quartz-pebble

conglimerate

2012 UG 1,460 NECSA, 2010

Henkries Surficial NA OP NA NEA–IAEA , 2010

Klerksdorp and 

Southern Free

Quartz-pebble

conglomerate

NA UG NA NEA–IAEA , 2010; NECSA, 2010

Ezulwini (Randfontein) Quartz-pebble 

conglomerate

2012 UG 425 NECSA, 2010

Ryst Kuil Sandstone NA OP 1,136 NECSA, 2010; NEA–IAEA , 2010; Ux Consulting Company LLC, 2010

Western Rand tailings Quartz-pebble 

conglomerate

NA OP NA NECSA, 2010

MWS Tailings Surface tailings 2012 OP 515 UxConsulitng, 2010

Salamanca I Metasomatite 2014 OP 769 NEA–IAEA , 2010; Ux Consulting Company LLC, 2010

Novokonstantinovskoe Metasomatite 2011 UG 2,500 NEA–IAEA , 2010; Ux Consulting Company LLC, 2010

Safonovskoye Sandstone 2012 ISL 210 NEA–IAEA , 2010; NECSA, 2010

Bullfrog Sandstone NA UG White 

Mesa Mill

Ux Consulting Company LLC, 2010

Canyon Breccia Pipe NA UG White 

Mesa Mill

Ux Consulting Company LLC, 2010

Centennial Sandstone 2012 OP 269 Ux Consulting Company LLC, 2010

Willow Creek Sandstone 2011 ISL 385 Energy Information Administration, 2010a; Ux Consulting Company LLC, 2010

Church Rock Sandstone NA ISL 385 Energy Information Administration, 2010a; Ux Consulting Company LLC, 2010

Crownpoint Sandstone NA ISL 385 Ux Consulting Company LLC, 2010

Dewey Burdock Sandstone 2013 ISL 346 Ux Consulting Company LLC, 2010

Gas Hills-peach Sandstone NA ISL NA Ux Consulting Company LLC, 2010

Goliad Sandstone NA ISL 385 Energy Information Administration, 2010a; Ux Consulting Company LLC, 2010

Hank Sandstone NA ISL NA Ux Consulting Company LLC, 2010

Lance Sandstone 2012 ISL 577 Ux Consulting Company LLC, 2010

Lost Creek Sandstone NA ISL 770 Energy Information Administration, 2010a; Ux Consulting Company LLC, 2010

Moore Ranch Sandstone 2012 ISL 192 Energy Information Administration, 2010a; Ux Consulting Company LLC, 2010

Nichols Ranch Sandstone 2011 ISL NA Ux Consulting Company LLC, 2010

North ButteBrown RanchSandstone NA ISL NA Ux Consulting Company LLC, 2010

Pinenut (AZ Strip) Breccia

Pipe

NA UG White 

Mesa Mill

Ux Consulting Company LLC, 2010

Reno Creek Sandstone NA ISL NA Ux Consulting Company LLC, 2010

Roca Honda Sandstone NA ISL NA Ux Consulting Company LLC, 2010

Tony M + Southwest Sandstone Standby UG White 

Mesa Mill

Ux Consulting Company LLC, 2010

Whirlwind, Energy Queen, 

San Rafael

Sandstone NA UG White 

Mesa Mill

Ux Consulting Company LLC, 2010

Pinon Ridge Mill Various 2013 UG 96 Energy Information Administration, 2010a

Chimiwungo Metamorphic NA OP NA Titley, 2009

Total in-situ resource (tU) Proposed known production capacity 52,741

1

Uses measured and indicated resource (demonstrated economic) estimates when those are available. No cost cutoffs or ranges are included since mines are 

in planning stages. Estimates for some mines may include inferred resources.

*No available information, used IAEA, 2010 estimates which probably do not account for depletion by mining.

#Updated grades not available, used original IAEA, 2010 values.
24 Critical Analysis of World Uranium Resources

Decreasing degree of geological assurance

Geologic Assurance for and Economic Feasibility of Worldwide Uranium Resources, 2010

Identified resources (tU) Undiscovered resources (tU)

Inferred

Economic Subeconomic

RAR USD 130–260/KgU

1,225,800

422,700

653,300 

Decreasing degree of economic feasibility

2,516,100

1,008,800

479,600

Prognosticated Speculative

1,701,500

1,113,300 3,738,200

90,200

None reported

163,500

3,593,800

No cost range

assigned

RAR USD 80–130/KgU RAR < USD 80/KgU

Demonstrated

(2,100,000 recoverable)

2,700,000 in situ

In operating or developing mines

(Calculated as of 2010 in this report)

Unconventional

resources

Uraniferous Phosphate: Demonstrated and Inferred Resource 7.3–7.6 million tU (NEA–IAEA, 2010)

Black Shale Deposits:

Lignite Deposits:

Seawater: Approximately 4,000,000,000 tU (NEA–IAEA, 2010) (uneconomic)

1,061,958 tU—IAEA UDEPO database (IAEA, 2010)

224,360 tU—IAEA UDEPO database (IAEA, 2010)

Enrichment tails

Stockpiles

LEU

Secondary Sources:

1,600,000 tU

up to 575,000 tU

11,905 tU/year

worldwide (production depends on enrichment capacity)

(NEA–IAEA estimate)

(from the HEU–LEU program, expires in 2013; USEC, 2011)

Note: RAR tU is reported as recoverable uranium (milling and mining losses deducted) except for unconventional and secondary sources that are too speculative to treat 

as RAR. Data from the 2009 Red Book (NEA–IAEA, 2010) except where indicated.

Figure 13. Uranium Resources Mapped to Resource Category Geological assurance for, and economic feasibility of, worldwide 

uranium resources, by resource categories used by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation Nuclear Agency and International 

Atomic Energy Agency.
Identified Resources 25

Table 5. Reasonably assured resources reported in the 2009 Red Book (NEA–IAEA, 2010).

[tU, metric tonnes; kg, kilograms; USD, U.S. dollars]

Identified reasonable assured and inferred resources (tU) from the 2009 Red Book (NEA–IAEA, 2010)

(rounded to the nearest 100 tU)

Country

Cost ranges

<USD 40/kg U

tU

<USD 80/kg U

tU

<USD 130/kg U

tU

<USD 260/kg U

tU

Algeria(a,b,c) 0* 0* 19,500 19,500

Argentina 0 11,400 19,100 19,100

Australia NA 1,612,000 1,673,000 1,679,000

Brazil 139,900 231,300 278,700 278,700

Canada 366,700 447,400 485,300 544,700

Central African Republic(a,b,c) 0* 0* 12,000 12,000

Chile(c) 0 0 0* 1,500

China(c) 67,400 150,000 171,400 171,400

Congo, Dem. Rep. of(a,b,c) 0 0* 0* 2,700

Czech Republic 0 500 500 500

Denmark(b,c) 0 0 0 85,600*

Egypt 0 0 0 1,900

Finland(b,c) 0 0 1,100 1,100

France 0 0 100 9,100

Gabon(a,b) 0 0 4,800 5,800

Germany(b,c) 0 0 0 7,000

Greece(a,b) 0* 0* 0* 7,000

Hungary 0 0 0 8,600

India(c,d) 0 0 80,200 80,200

Indonesia(b,c) 0* 0* 4,800 6,000

Iran, Islamic Republic of 0 0 0* 2,200

Italy(a,b) 0 0 4,800 6,100

Japan(b) 0 0* 6,600 6,600

Jordan(a,c) 0* 111,800 111,800 111,800

Kazakhstan(c) 44,400 475,500 651,800 832,000

Malawi* 0 8,100 15,000 15,000

Mexico(a,b,c) 0 0 0* 1,800

Mongolia(b,c) 0 41,800 49,300 49,300

Namibia(a,c) 0* 2,000* 284,200* 284,200*

Niger(a,c) 17,000* 73,400* 272,900* 275,500*

Peru(c) 0 0 2,700 2,700

Portugal(a,b) 0 4,500 7,000 7,000

Romania(a) 0 0 6,700 6,700

Russian Federation 0 158,100 480,300 566,300

Slovakia* 0 0 0 10,200

Slovenia(a,b,c) 0 0* 9,200 9,200

Somalia(a,b,c) 0 0* 0* 7,600

South Africa(b,f) 155,300 232,900 295,600 295,600

Spain(b) 0 2,500 11,300 11,300

Sweden(a,b) 0 0 10,000 10,000

Tanzania(c) 0 0 0 28,400*

Turkey(b,c) 0 0* 7,300 7,300

Ukraine(c) 5,700 53,500 105,000 223,600

United States 0 39,000 207,400 472,100

Uzbekistan(a,c,e) 0 86,200* 114,600* 114,600*

Vietnam(a,b,c) 0 0* 0* 6,400

Zimbabwe(a,b,c) 0 0* 0* 1,400

Total(g) 796,400 3,741,900 5,404,000 6,306,300

*IAEA Uranium Group Secretariat estimate.

(a)Not reported in 2009 responses, data from previous Red Book.

(b)Assessment not made within the last five years.

(c)In-situ resources were adjusted by the Secretariat to estimate recoverable resources using recovery factors provided by countries or estimated by the 

Secretariat according to the expected production method.

(d)Cost data are not provided, therefore resources are reported in the <USD 130/kgU category.

(e)Data from 2007 Red Book (NEA–OECD, 2008), reduced by past production.

(f)Resource estimates do not account for production.

(g)Totals related to cost ranges <USD 40/kgU and <USD 80/kgU are higher than reported in the tables because certain countries do not report resource 

estimates, mainly for reasons of confidentiality.
26 Critical Analysis of World Uranium Resources

Largest Advanced-stage Projects and Operating Mines

A number of mines are expected to continue to produce 

uranium, and several new mines with significant resources 

are projected to come online within the 5 years 2012–2016 

(tables 3, 4). Production rates for future mines are uncertain, and the mines with the largest resources may not have 

the highest production rate. Expansion of the Olympic Dam 

mining operation in Australia, pending financing, would 

potentially be the largest resource and producer, increasing 

current production sixfold (Mckay and Carson, 2010). In 

August 2012 BHP Billiton announced they would be delaying the expansion of Olympic Dam indefinitely (ABC News, 

2012). The world’s second largest resource after Olympic 

Dam, the Imouraren mine in Niger, is expected to begin 

producing uranium in 2014, and to continue for 35 years, 

through 2045. Canada’s McArthur River mine, with the 

world’s third largest reserve, has plans to continue production until 2030. The fourth largest deposit, Priargunsky/

Streltsovskoye in Russia, is expected to continue as a producer. The Novokonstantinovskoe mine in Ukraine opened in 

2011, bringing a large resource to the world market through a 

significant investment of $500 million from Russia. Although 

a series of mine floods have delayed development of Cigar 

Lake mine, also in Canada, production is expected to begin in 

2013. Uzbekistan’s ISL properties are expected to continue to 

produce. Uzbekistan’s official program has a goal of increasing State production by 50 percent by 2012, but this increase 

is dependent on financing of State-owned mines. The Russian 

Elkon deposit is reported to be targeting uranium production 

by 2016. Brazil is working to bring Itatiaia–Santa Quitéria, 

a large unconventional uraniferous phosphate resource, to 

production by 2013. Namibia will continue as a major producer, with continued mining at the Rossing and the Langer 

Heinrich deposits. The Dominion Reef mine in South Africa 

is scheduled to begin to produce in the near future following 

Table 6. Reasonably assured resources (RAR) and production

capacity of operating and proposed mines by extraction technology.

[tU, metric tonnes; tU/yr, metric tonnes per year; ISL, in-situ leaching]

Reasonably assured 

in-situ resources

(tU)

Nominal

production capacity 

(tU/yr)

Operating mines

ISL mines 443,600 28,000

Conventional mines 954,200 48,000

Developing mines

ISL mines 221,700 11,000

Conventional mines 1,124,000 42,000

Resources and capacity rounded to the nearest 100 tU. Production capacity 

for developing mines is estimated.

a change in ownership from Uranium One to Shiva Uranium 

Pty. Ltd. Kazakhstan’s two largest resource projects, Katco 

and Inkai, are expected to continue to produce; it is anticipated 

Inkai will be mined until at least 2032. The Areva NC (Areva) 

Kiggavik mine in Canada is projected to produce by 2017 or 

2018, although the production timeline is uncertain because 

this project is in the feasibility stage. BHP Billiton appeared to 

be moving forward in developing the surficial Yeelirrie mine 

after a mining ban in Western Australia was lifted in 2008, 

making exploitation possible. However, in 2010 BHP Billiton 

announced that it would be putting the environmental permitting process on hold, delaying production, and sold the property to Cameco in 2012. Areva’s Trekkopje deposit in Niger 

is currently suspended pending increased uranium prices after 

the resource estimate was reduced because chemical assays 

did not confirm the uranium content projected by radiometric 

surveys (Areva NC, 2011).

Undiscovered Resources 

Undiscovered resources both prognosticated and speculative, are those that, on the basis of earlier discoveries in 

similar geologic settings, are expected to be found. “Prognosticated resources” have some direct evidence for their occurrence, and “speculative resources” are expected to occur, but 

with no direct evidence that they exist. Thirty three countries 

have historically reported some undiscovered resources to 

NEA (table 7). Potentially economic prognosticated resources 

(extractable for <USD 130/kgU) total 2.8 million tU, and economic speculative resources total 3.7 million tU (NEA–IAEA, 

2010). Subeconomic undiscovered resources (prognosticated 

and speculative), including those (3.5 million tU) for which no 

cost range has been assigned, total 7.5 million tU.

The global distribution of reported undiscovered 

resources in many cases reflects the intensity and scope of 

past and (or) current government or industry mineral exploration programs. The United States reports the largest prognosticated resource (1.2 million tU), followed by Kazakhstan 

(500,000 tU) and Brazil (300,000 tU) (fig. 14). Mongolia and 

the United States both report 1.3 million tU in the speculative resource category, South Africa 1.1 million tU, Canada 

700,000 tU and Brazil 500,000 tU (fig. 15). Other countries 

report smaller undiscovered resources. The U.S. National 

Uranium Resource Evaluation (NURE) program, one of the 

most active programs for evaluating undiscovered resources, 

may in part account for its large number of undiscovered 

resources; the program ended in 1982. Conversely, resourcerich Australia and Namibia do not calculate undiscovered 

resources at a national scale, and so their potential resources 

are unreported.
Identified Resources 27

Table 7. Undiscovered resources, in thousands of tonnes uranium metal, as reported in the “2009 Red Book” ( NEA–IAEA, 2010).

[NA, data not available; kgU, kilograms uranium metal]

Country

Prognosticated resources Speculative resources

Cost ranges Cost ranges

<USD 80/kgU <USD 130/kgU <USD 130/kgU Cost range

 unassigned Total

Argentina 1.4 1.4 NA NA NA

Brazil 300.0 300.0 NA 500.0 500.0

Canada 50.0 150.0 700.0 0.0 700.0

Chile NA 1.5 NA 3.2 3.2

China 3.6 3.6 4.1 0.0 4.1

Colombia NA NA NA 20.0 20.0

Czech Republic 0.2 0.2 0.0 179.0 179.0

Denmark(a) 0.0 0.0 50.0 10.0 60.0

Germany 0.0 0.0 0.0 74.0 74.0

Greece(a) 6.0 6.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Hungary 0.0 18.4 NA NA NA

India NA 50.9 NA 17.0 17.0

Indonesia(a) NA NA 0.0 12.5 12.5

Iran, Islamic Republic of 0.0 4.1 12.2 NA 12.2

Italy(a) NA NA NA 10.0 10.0

Jordan 67.8 84.8 84.8 NA 84.8

Kazakhstan 280.0 300.0 500.0 NA 500.0

Mexico(a) NA 3.0 NA 10.0 10.0

Mongolia(a) 0.0 0.0 1,390.0 NA 1,390.0

Niger(a) 14.5 24.6 NA NA NA

Peru 6.6 6.6 19.7 0.0 19.7

Portugal 1.0 1.5 NA 0.0 NA

Romania(a) NA 3.0 3.0 0.0 3.0

Russian Federation 276.5 276.5 714.0 0.0 714.0

Slovenia 0.0 1.1 NA NA NA

South Africa 34.9 110.3 NA 1,112.9 1,112.9

Ukraine 4.0 11.3 120.0 135.0 255.0

United States(b) 839.0 1,273.0 858.0 482.0 1,340.0

Uzbekistan(a) 56.3 85.0 0.0 134.7 134.7

Venezuela(a) NA NA 0.0 163.0 163.0

Vietnam 0.0 7.9 100.0 130.0 230.0

Zambia(a) 0.0 22.0 NA NA NA

Zimbabwe(a) 0.0 0.0 25.0 0.0 25.0

Total (reported by countries)** 1,941.8 2,746.6 4,580.8 2,993.3 7,574.1

*Undiscovered resources are reported as in-situ resources.

**Totals may not equal sum of components due to independent rounding.

(a)Not reported in 2009 reponses, data from previous Red Book.

(b)The United States does not report inferred or prognosticated resources.
28 Critical Analysis of World Uranium Resources

0.0 200.0 400.0 600.0 800.0 1,000.0 1,200.0 1,400.0

United States

Kazakhstan

Brazil

Russian Federation

Canada

South Africa

Uzbekistan

Jordan

India

Bulgaria

Niger

Zambia

Hungary

Ukraine

Prognosticated Resources (tU) by IAEA Cost Category

<USD 80/kgU

EXPLANATION

<USD 130/kgU

<USD 260/kgU

0 200 400 600 800 1,000 1,200 1,400 1,600

Mongolia

United States

South Africa

Canada

Russian Federation

Brazil

Kazakhstan

Ukraine

Vietnam

Colombia

Czech Republic

Venezuela

Uzbekistan

Jordan

Germany

Denmark

Speculative Resources (tU) by IAEA Cost Category

<USD 130/kgU

<USD 260/kgU

Cost range unassigned

EXPLANATION

Figure 14. Prognosticated resources of countries reported as having more than 11,000 tU. From NEA–IAEA (2010).

Figure 15. Speculative resources for countries reporting more than 60,000 tU. Data from NEA–IAEA (2010).
Production Capacity 29

Resources classified as undiscovered should be 

considered conjectural because the methodology and uncertainties of many undiscovered resource estimating techniques are poorly understood. For this reason, reliance upon 

undiscovered resources in developing energy policy should 

be done cautiously. Intensive exploration efforts will be 

required to move these resources into RAR categories in order 

to conduct prefeasibility and feasibility studies that could 

lead to mining.

Historically, the infusion of expenditures for exploring 

resources yielded a fairly predictable increase in the identification of RAR. Past periods of intense exploration, such as 

during the 1940s and 1970s, caused by increased demand, 

led to defining resources in excess of market requirements. 

Although increased expenditures for exploration uncovered 

new resources historically, such investment in the 21st century 

may not yield similar finds. Many of the more easily identified 

deposits have been discovered and developed, whereas potential deposits are expected to be deeper and to require more 

innovative exploration techniques to delineate them, as well as 

more time, expense, and drilling.

Production Capacity

The known nominal or licensed production capacity of 

currently (during 2010) producing properties is 75,984 tU/yr, 

slightly greater than the current consumption of 68,971 tU/yr. 

However, production in 2010 at 53,633 tU, was 70 percent 

of capacity. Disruptions in large mining operations are not 

uncommon, and the NEA reports that world production has 

never exceeded 89 percent of production capacity (Nuclear 

Energy Agency, 2006). Because mines never produce at or 

above production capacity for their entire mine life, when predicting future capacity, licensed capacity should be considered 

a maximum potential capacity.

Proposed mining capacity for developing mines is not 

always reported. Twenty six of the 74 developing mines 

reported in table 4 do not have an associated proposed production capacity that has been reported. Analysis of the proposed 

capacity for those mines for which information is available 

shows that a yearly minimum production rate of 52,741 tU has 

a good chance of being developed within the next 5 years.

Uncertainties in Current and Future Production

Mine Floods and Accidents

Current world uranium supply from primary sources is 

dominated by a few large mines. If there are technical difficulties at any of these large mines, the impact on uranium 

supply could be profound. At the McArthur River mine, which 

accounted for 15 percent of world production in 2009, a flood 

in 2003 halted production for 4 months delaying production of 1,300 tU. If flooding had not been quickly brought 

under control, the mine would have been closed for at least 

a year, according to Ux Consulting Company LLC (2010). 

The nearby Cigar Lake mine was flooded in 2006, delaying startup until at least 2013, and delaying production of an 

estimated 7000 tU/yr. Production at Olympic Dam, the fifth 

largest uranium producer worldwide in 2009, was interrupted 

that same year by an ore haulage accident, which forced the 

mine to work on a limited capacity from October 2009 to 

July 2010, and reducing production by an estimated 1,600 tU 

(Ux Consulting Company LLC, 2010).

The Influence of Infrastructure on Mine Development 

and on Definition of Resources

Mine life for the producing mines is difficult to predict. 

Some operating mines, such as Rabbit Lake in Canada, may 

soon close if new RAR are not identified. At the other end of 

the spectrum, Olympic Dam was planning a major expansion 

that would have extended mine life to 2032, until it announced 

deferment of these plans in August, 2012.

The availability of local infrastructure can have a strong 

impact on identifying new RAR at an operating mine site. 

If existing infrastructure is adequate to support an operating 

mine, RAR are likely to grow and the life of the mine will be 

extended. At the Rabbit Lake mine in northern Saskatchewan, 

Canada, considerable infrastructure was developed to exploit 

the original 15,770 tU identified at this deposit in 1968. 

Incremental exploration followed by expansion along the 

mineralized trend have quadrupled the original capacity of this 

resource, expanding it to 68,467 tU and extending mine life 

27 years beyond the original projected closure.

If infrastructure is lacking, identified deposits will go 

unmined. Only one uranium mill is currently operating in the 

western United States, the White Mesa Mill in southeastern 

Utah, owned and operated by Energy Fuels. Active mines in 

the Uravan mineral belt of Colorado and Utah, the oldest mining area in the United States, and mines in the Arizona Strip 

district in Arizona must ship their ore to White Mesa for processing. Development of RAR of more than 14,000 tU on the 

Colorado Plateau and of RAR of 2,500 tU in the Arizona Strip 

is strongly influenced by whether this ore will have access to 

economic milling.

Exploitation of the largest uranium deposit in the world in 

Australia, BHP Billiton’s Olympic Dam in Australia , depends 

on the development of extensive infrastructure, including 

building a desalination plant at the Indian Ocean and piping 

water approximately 300 kilometers (km) (186 miles (mi)) 

to the mine site in order to provide adequate water to expand 

the mine. The 2012 decision to postpone development of this 

resource (ABC News, 2012) illustrates how strongly resource 

development depends on adequate infrastructure.
30 Critical Analysis of World Uranium Resources

Largest Corporate Entities 

and Holdings

Approximately 25 companies are producing uranium 

worldwide. Of these companies, the top fourteen provided 

91 percent of mined uranium in 2010. Major world uranium 

producers are Areva NC (Areva), the Cameco Corporation 

(Cameco), KazAtomProm , Rio Tinto, Atomredmetzoloty OJSC 

(ARMZ), Navoi Mining and Metallurgy Combinat (Navoi), 

BHP Billiton, Paladin Energy Ltd. (Paladin), and Uranium One 

Inc. (Uranium One) (Ux Consulting LLC, 2010; World Nuclear 

Association, 2011b). Distribution of uranium production among 

the top companies in 2010 is shown in figure 16.

Ux Consulting LLC predicts that it is likely that Areva, 

ARMZ (now ARMZ/Uranium One), BHP Billiton, Cameco, 

KazAtomProm and Rio Tinto will maintain a large market 

share of production to 2020. Projections show that Areva’s 

production will remain relatively constant at about 20 percent 

of world supply. Cameco’s share will fall slowly through 2020 

to about 13 percent. KazAtomProm is expected to remain relatively flat, falling slightly to 12 percent by 2020, and ARMZ 

is expected to fall significantly to 5 percent by 2020, although 

their 2010 acquisition of Uranium One (which is projected 

to have 6 percent of the world market by 2020) will bolster 

production. Rio Tinto is expected to fall in share to less than 

10 percent, and BHP Billiton is expected to fall to 5 percent.

Areva has the largest geologically defined resource 

base. Next in that category are BHP Billiton, KazAtomProm 

and Cameco (fig. 17). Rio Tinto is mining resources at 

the most rapid pace, followed by Cameco, Uranium One, 

KazAtomProm, Navoi, Areva, Paladin, and ARMZ. The rapid 

rate at which Rio Tinto is depleting its resource is related to 

the ages of its two producers, Ranger and Rossing, both of 

which are reaching the end of their effective mine lives. The 

two large ISL producers in the world market, KazAtomProm 

and Uranium One, are depleting RAR at a relatively rapid 

pace due to the nature of ISL mining, which can be brought 

online quickly and operates for a relatively short period of 

time. Cameco’s production relies heavily on their properties in 

the Athabasca Basin of Canada, where uranium can be mined 

rapidly due to the high-grade nature of the ore. BHP Billiton’s 

Olympic Dam mine is being depleted at a low rate because it 

is a large, low-grade deposit.

Long-term Demand 

and Supply Projections

Projected Production of Supply, by Country

Uranium production from Kazakhstan is expected to 

increase in response to the aggressive marketing and development of resources by KazAtomProm, the short lead-time for 

development, the low cost of infrastructure required for ISL 

mines, and this country’s large economic RAR (fig. 18, 19). 

Cameco

16%

Areva

16%

KazAtomProm

15%

Rio Tinto

12%

ARMZ

8%

Uranium One

5%

Navoi

4%

BHP Billiton

4%

Paladin

4%

Sopamin

3%

AngloGold

1%

Denison

1%

Heathgate

1%

Mestena

1%

Other

9%

2010 World Production by Company

Figure 16. Uranium production by company in 2010. Data from 

the World Nuclear Association, (2011b).

Cameco

13%

Areva

21%

KazAtomProm

14%

Rio Tinto

7% 

ARMZ

12%

Uranium One

5%

Navoi

5%

BHP Billiton

18%

Paladin

5%

Distribution of Uranium Resources Among the Top Nine 

World Uranium Producers in 2010 

Figure 17. Distribution of resources among the top 9 world uranium

producers in 2010. Data from Ux Consulting Company LLC (2010).
Long-term Demand and Supply Projections 31

0

25

50

75

100

125

150

175

200

225

250

98 00 02 04 06 08 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30

Million pounds U O3 8

Uzbekistan

Ukraine

Russia

Kazakhstan

Other

U.S.—New

U.S.—Existing

Af rica—New

Af rica—Existing

Australia—New

Australia—Existing

Canada—New

Canada—Existing

EXPLANATION

Figure 18. Existing uranium production and projected trends in production worldwide, 1998–2030. From Ux Consulting 

Company LLC (2010), reproduced with permission.

<USD 80/kg U

<USD 130/kg U

<USD 260/kg U

EXPLANATION

0 500,000 1,000,000 1,500,000 2,000,000 2,500,000 3,000,000 3,500,000 4,000,000 4,500,000 5,000,000

Australia

Kazakhstan

Canada

Russian Federation

South Africa

Brazil

United States

Niger

Namibia

China

Ukraine

Jordan

Uzbekistan

India

Reasonably Assured Resources (tU) in IAEA Cost Categories

Figure 19. Distribution of reasonably assured resources (RAR) in Nuclear Energy Agency (NEA) cost 

categories for the most resource-rich countries. Data from NEA–IAEA (2010).
32 Critical Analysis of World Uranium Resources

Fourteen operating mines should continue to produce, joined 

by two new mines. The rate at which production increases 

in Kazakhstan depends, in part, on the rate at which the 

regional infrastructure develops and recent rapid increases 

may not be sustainable in the future. In Australia, existing 

deposits, such as Ranger, should produce significantly less 

uranium, but large new properties, such as Yeelerie, Olympic 

Dam, Ranger Deeps, and the smaller ISL properties–Four 

Mile and Honeymoon–may more than make up for mines 

that are closing, or for those whose production is expected 

to decrease. New deposits from Africa, in particular from 

Niger (Imouraren) and from Namibia (Trekkopje), could 

bring a great deal of production online. Namibia’s production from existing mines (notably, in Langer Heinrich and in 

Rossing) continues. In Canada, some of the largest producing 

mines may be depleted (McArthur River, Rabbit Lake), and, 

although new planned mines (Midwest, Cigar lake) should 

make up for this production, their contribution to world 

supply is predicted to be relatively short-lived. Production 

from other countries, including Uzbekistan, Russia, Ukraine, 

and others, is expected to continue steadily into the future. 

Uranium production in the United States is minor, providing less than 10 percent of domestic demand, and properties 

now being developed are relatively small ISL mines that 

are fairly short lived (Ux Consulting Company LLC, 2011). 

Continued growth in uranium production worldwide depends 

in part on sustained prices that support extraction of resources 

in the higher cost categories (fig. 19).

Projections to 2035

 On the basis of data supplied from member countries, 

the NEA reports that growth in global installed nuclear capacity is projected to grow from 372 gigawatts of electricity 

(GWe) net in early 2009 to between 511 GWe net (low case) 

and 782 GWe net (high case) by the end of 2035 (NEA–IAEA, 

2010). Projected uranium requirements vary considerably 

by region (fig. 20). Most of the projected growth is in East 

Asia, where increases in annual uranium requirements are 

forecast to range from 120 percent to 180 percent more than 

2009 requirements. By contrast, annual requirements in North 

America are expected to range from a 25-percent decrease 

in the low case to a 55-percent increase in the high case. The 

European Union’s requirements are projected to range from 

a 15-percent decline to an increase of more than 25 percent 

by 2035.

Projected nuclear capacity translates to increased global 

reactor-related uranium requirements that range from 227 million pounds U3

O8 per year (87,370 tU/yr) to 359 million 

pounds U3

O8 per year (138,165 tU/yr), assuming a tails assay 

0.00

0.25

0.50

0.75

1.00

1.25

2007 2015 2025 2035

United States

OECD Europe

China

Japan

Russia

India

Other Asia

Rest of World

Trillion kilowatthours

EXPLANATION

Year

Figure 20. World net electricity generation from nuclear power, by region, 2007–2030 

(Energy Information Administration, 2010b).
Long-term Demand and Supply Projections 33

140,000

120,000

100,000

80,000

60,000

40,000

20,000

0

tU/year

2000

Year

2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035

Existing and committed production (A-11)

Gap between

production (black bars) 

and reactor requirements 

(dashed line)

Reactor

requirements

Low

High

Planned and prospective production (B-11)

World reactor requirements

Production

EXPLANATION

Figure 21. Scenarios for production of and requirements for uranium, 2011–2035. From 

NEA–IAEA (2010), reproduced with permisison.

of 0.30 percent, by the end of 2035 (fig. 21). This represents 

an increased uranium requirement of 40 percent in the low 

case, and 120 percent in the high case (NEA–IAEA, 2010).

Primary production of uranium, that is, actual mining of 

uranium, accounted for 50 to 60 percent of world requirements 

during 2006–2011, with secondary sources providing the 

remainder. Secondary sources, especially the source that will 

diminish after 2013 when the United States/Russian program, 

Megatons to Megawatts, expires, will require an increase in 

uranium from other sources in the near term to meet future 

demand (NEA–IAEA, 2010).

Sixty percent of the 3.5 million tU mineable for less than 

USD 130/kgU identified worldwide is either in production, 

or scheduled to come online by 2015. If uranium prices trend 

higher, an additional 479,600 tU identified in the higher cost 

categories worldwide should become economic (fig. 13). Mining of inferred resources reported by NEA—those classified as 

less well constrained geologically—could add another 2.3 million tU of economic resources to world supply (NEA–IAEA, 

2010). With no growth in demand, these resources would fulfill current requirements: inferred resources for an additional 

27 years, and currently uneconomic resources for an additional 

6 years. Coupled with demonstrated resources, NEA’s reporting predicts that RAR in the identified and in the inferred 

categories would satisfy current demand for 70 years. However, the inferred categories are poorly understood and could 

be substantially different from current estimates.

NEA estimates that, as of 2009, existing and committed uranium mine production covers global demand through 

2021 in the high-case, and until 2024 in the low-case growth 

scenarios. Assuming that plans are successful for significant 

expansion of existing mines and for new production centers, 

high-case demand requirements will be met until 2029, and 

low-case requirements until after 2035 (NEA–IAEA, 2010).

The Ux Consulting Company LLC publishes projections of 

uranium supply determined by detailed examination of development timelines for existing mines and for processing facilities, 

for planned and for potential mines, and for secondary supplies. 

Their projections indicate that supply will increase 13 percent 

to 159 million pounds U3

O8 (61,158 tU) by 2011, and that the 

increase will range from 210 to 224 million pounds U3

O8 (from 

80,775 to 86,160 tU) by 2020. In any scenario for nuclear 

growth, future projections based on high- and on low-growth 

scenarios show that secondary uranium supplies are required 

to fuel the world nuclear power reactor fleet (fig. 22). Projections by both NEA and the Ux Consulting Company indicate 

that mine development is proceeding too slowly to fully meet 

requirements for an expanded nuclear power reactor fleet, and 

imbalances in supply and demand may occur.
34 Critical Analysis of World Uranium Resources

Projections beyond 2035

The World Nuclear Association (WNA), an international private-sector organization, is one of the few organizations that projects global demand for nuclear power to 2100. 

Figure 23 illustrates the WNA upper and lower trajectories for 

growth of nuclear power. The WNA provides an analysis of 

upper and lower trajectories for each country that has a nuclear 

program. The lower trajectory reflects the minimum anticipated nuclear capacity of ~2,050 GW, and the upper trajectory 

reflects a full policy commitment to nuclear power that is as 

much as 11,000 GW of capacity. The zone between the upper 

and lower trajectories is considered the likely domain in which 

growth will occur, and the trajectories are considered boundaries rather than low or high cases. The WNA takes the optimistic view that uranium supply will not be an obstacle to future 

growth, and that the combined factors of successful exploration, new mining technologies, reprocessing of fuel, and use of 

Generation IV reactors, will ensure an ample supply of nuclear 

fuel well into the 22nd century. WNA does concede that delays 

in bringing RAR into production are increasingly challenging 

(World Nuclear Association, 2011a).

The NEA takes a more cautious view of the timely 

development of nuclear fuel supplies. In the 2009 “Red Book”, 

the NEA forecasts adequate Identified Resources (Reasonably 

Assured Resources plus Inferred Resources) to supply reactors 

for the next 100 years, if 2008 consumption rates (154 million pounds U3

O8 per year (59,065 tU/yr)) are projected into 

the future. This forecast does not take into account projected 

growth in capacity (NEA–IAEA, 2010). If all conventional 

resources are included (Identified Resources plus Speculative 

and Prognosticated Resources), then the supply would last 

300 years, through 2410, using the 2008 consumption rate. 

In the 2009 “Red Book” and in related publications, the NEA 

emphasizes that potential problems in the supply chain do not 

include the resource base, but instead lie with factors that affect 

timely development of RAR. For example, expanding the 

resource through exploration and through development depends 

on a robust market that also provides the required capital and 

financing to bring mines online. Other factors that influence 

uranium resource development include the region’s regulatory 

climate for mining, its established regulations and safeguards 

for safe mining development and operations, an adequate infrastructure, a skilled workforce, and the region’s ability to retain 

0

25

50

75

100

125

150

175

200

225

250

275

300

325

350

375

400

425

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2021

2022

2023

2024

2025

2026

2027

2028

2029

2030

Million pounds U O3 8

Year

World market

demand range

Inventory shifting

Inventory drawdown

Other supplies

New production

Existing production

EXPLANATION

Figure 22. Actual and projected world trends in growth of market demand and increase of 

supply, 2008–2030. From Ux Consulting Company LLC, (2010), reproduced with permission.
Summary 35

financiers willing to wait many years for a return on their investment. The single most important factor identified for ensuring 

that mines are developed in a timely fashion is the strength of 

the market. In uncertain financial times, a sustained and strong 

uranium market is far from guaranteed.

Most projections of uranium supply and demand focus 

on primary production from mines that extract uranium as a 

primary product or byproduct, and on secondary sources to 

fulfill demand. Although higher uranium costs may stimulate 

exploration and new discoveries, projections to 2100 and 

beyond would not be complete without evaluating the potential uranium contribution from unconventional resources 

such as uraniferous phosphates, black shales, and seawater. 

Uranium is elevated significantly above crustal abundance in 

both black shale and in phosphate deposits, and the economic 

extraction of uranium from these sources is being actively 

investigated. The extraction of uranium from phosphates is 

receiving the most attention, because it can potentially tap 

into a vast resource that may exceed 1.9 billion tU (IAEA, 

2010). The environmental benefit of removing uranium 

from phosphates that are primarily mined for fertilizer 

makes this potential uranium source increasingly attractive. 

Uranium in black shales is also a large resource capable of 

yielding an estimated 1 billion tU. The benefit of developing 

techniques for removing uranium from existing polymetallic 

mines has become the focus of some large uranium producers. Uranium extraction from seawater is still in the research 

stage, and is currently not even close to being economic, 

with reported production costs reaching USD 700/kgU 

(NEA–IAEA, 2010).

High Boundary = Maximum nuclear commitment in most nations

Low Boundary = Minimum global nuclear capability expected

12,000

10,000

8,000

6,000

4,000

2,000

0

2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 2070 2080 2090 2100

Nuclear GW

Outlook Boundaries

Year

EXPLANATION

Low boundary

High boundary

Likely future nuclear capacity

Figure 23. World Nuclear Association projections for future nuclear capacity worldwide, to 2100. From 

World Nuclear Association (2011b), reproduced with permission.

Summary

This report addresses the question: Is there enough uranium in the worldwide resource base to meet the cumulative 

worldwide requirement for the decades through 2035? Much 

of the emphasis of the report rests therefore on the physical 

quantities of uranium resources, including a fairly detailed 

comparison of what is known about supply and what is known 

about likely demand. The report concludes that identified uranium resources appear to be adequate to serve needs into the 

25-year future, but that delays in developing these resources 

may create periodic imbalances.

Mine production may not keep pace with demand 

because (1) the time between the delineation of a deposit and 

the time when it is first mined can lag by as much as 15 years ; 

(2) exploration in some regions is insufficient to keep production growing at reasonable rates; (3) infrastructure inadequate 

to support the economic milling of the ore may limit extraction; and (or) (4) future exploratory drilling may reveal less 

resource than is currently estimated, especially in the categories of mines that are less geologically certain.

It is also possible, however, that the report has erred in the 

direction of being too conservative. Only a few of the many 

technological changes and substitutions that are likely to occur 

on the supply and the demand sides of the market have been 

incorporated into mining procedures. In many cases, additional 

resources are discovered as mining proceeds. Although this 

report describes a few cases where uranium mining uncovered 

much larger resources nearby, it would be too speculative to 

include this kind of growth in estimates of reserve.
36 Critical Analysis of World Uranium Resources

In the short term, an analysis of production centers shows 

that, since 1990, uranium has been under produced when 

compared to demand. The shortfall has been made up from 

stockpiles, from recycling, and from the United States/Russian 

HEU–LEU program (to end in 2013). Although worldwide 

reporting restrictions make it difficult to determine remaining uranium inventories, it appears that these stockpiles are 

being depleted, and that primary supply is coming online more 

slowly than demand is expanding.

Although resources identified in the existing and developing supply are sufficient to fuel existing reactors at current 

rates of consumption for at least 30 years (to 2040), capacity 

does not appear to be being developed at a fast enough rate to 

keep up with demand. Projections more than about 20 years 

into the future (to 2030) are problematic because whether uranium resources will be identified depends on the price of uranium, which in turn drives both exploration and development. 

If, however, we assume that NEA’s estimates of world supply 

are accurate, so that higher-cost uranium deposits and those 

that are not geologically well constrained (inferred resources) 

are included in estimates of supply, then, at current rates of 

consumption, supply can keep pace with demand for 70 years 

(to 2080).This evidence-based conclusion does not take into 

account the future growth worldwide of nuclear power.

Predictions that show expansion of nuclear capacity as 

ranging from 40 to 120 percent of current capacity by 2035 

will strain capacity for developing supply. NEA estimates that 

operating and developing mines will be capable of satisfying 

only 80 percent of demand for the low-growth scenarios, and 

50 percent of demand for the high-growth scenarios. Recognizing this potential shortfall, some utilities are buying into 

primary supply at the mine site rather than relying on uranium 

suppliers or brokers.

Additional concerns include the possibility that the stability of future primary uranium supplies will decrease. More 

primary uranium will be supplied from Kazakhstan, Africa 

(Namibia, Niger), Australia, and Canada, with production 

from other countries remaining flat. Production in Australia 

is tied to the large Olympic Dam deposit, and Canada largely 

depends on the development of the Cigar Lake and the 

Midwest mines. The dependence of uranium supply on large 

individual uranium properties and countries adds uncertainty 

to estimates of future supply. Major producers Cameco, Areva, 

KazAtomProm, Rio Tinto, ARMZ/Uranium One, and BHP 

Billiton are expected to continue to maintain their large market 

share into the future.

Growth in nuclear capacity worldwide will put pressure 

on existing and identified supplies. Unless new large-capacity 

mines come online in the near future, prices are expected 

to rise, and this increase should at the same time stimulate additional exploration and make some unconventional 

resources more attractive. Long-term projections of uranium 

supply depend on the rate at which nuclear capacity expands. 

As supplies tighten, utilization of secondary sources and of 

unconventional resources is likely to expand. Industry is 

beginning to develop some large mostly unexploited resources, 

including uranium in phosphates and in black shale deposits. 

In addition, secondary sources including uranium in enrichment tails are increasingly attractive. Exploration is expected 

to continue if uranium prices remain high, moving the reported 

2.81 million tU of prognosticated, and the 7.5 million tU of 

speculative undiscovered resources into less hypothetical RAR 

categories. Although data are currently insufficient to allow 

accurate projections of the extent to which unconventional 

resources will contribute to the expansion of uranium supply 

into the future, careful monitoring of ongoing pilot projects 

and of expansion of capacity is warranted.

Acknowledgments

This paper benefited from reviews by and discussion 

with Robert Vance of the OECD Nuclear Energy Agency, 

and William Watson and Scott Sitzer (retired) of the DOE 

Energy Information Administration. The authors would also 

like to acknowledge Mark Hannon, who drafted the maps in 

appendix 1.

References Cited

ABC News, 2012, BHP shelves Olympic Dam as profit falls 

a third, August 22, accessed September 24, 2012 at: http://

www.abc.net.au/news/2012-08-22/bhp-billiton-profit-fallsa-third/4215638.

Areva NC, 2011, [Home page]: Areva Web site, accessed 

January 2011, at http://www.areva.com.

Bakarzhiyev, Y.A., 2011, Recent developments in the field of 

uranium—Ukraine: Joint Nuclear Energy Agency/ International Atomic Energy Agency Group on Uranium, meeting, 

47, Paris, France, November 2–4, 2011, presentation, 14 p.

Berkeley Resources Ltd., 2011, Home: Berkeley Resources 

Ltd. Web site, accessed January 2011, at http://

www.berkeleyresources.com.au/.

BHP Billiton, 2011, Uranium: BHP Billiton Web site, accessed 

January, 2011, at http://www.bhpbilliton.com/.

Bianchi, R.E., 2010, Update of raw materials activities in 

Argentina: Nuclear Energy Agency-International Atomic 

Energy Agency Group on Uranium, meeting, 45, Saskatoon, 

Canada, August 19–20, 2010, presentation, 29 p.
References Cited 37

Boytsov, A.V., 2010, Sustainable development of U 

production—Time challenge: Joint Nuclear Energy Agency/ 

International Atomic Energy Agency Group on Uranium, 

technical meeting, Saskatoon, Canada, 15 p.

Calvert, Tom, 2010, Recent developments—Canada: Joint 

Nuclear Energy Agency/ International Atomic Energy 

Agency Group on Uranium, meeting, 45, Saskatoon, 

Canada, August 19–20, 2010, presentation, Organisation for 

Economic Co-operation and Development Nuclear Energy 

Agency and International Atomic Energy Agency, 15 p.

Cameco Corporation, 2011, On the double—Keeping pace 

with uranium demand: Cameco Corporation 2010 annual 

report, 144 p. (Also available at http://www.cameco.com/

investors/financial_reporting/annual_reports/2010/.)

Chaki, Anjan, 2010, India country report: Joint Nuclear 

Energy Agency/ International Atomic Energy Agency 

Group on Uranium, meeting, 45, Saskatoon, Canada, 

August 19–20, 2010, presentation, 16 p.

Commonwealth of Australia, 2010, Australia’s in situ recovery uranium mining best practice guide—Groundwaters, 

residues and radiation protection: [Australia] Department of Resources, Energy and Tourism, 23 p. (Also 

available at http://www.ret.gov.au/resources/Documents/

Mining/10-4607_in%20situ%20uranium_31May.pdf).

Dahlkamp, F.J., 2010, Uranium deposits of the world: Berlin, 

Springer, v. 4, 2,400 p.

daSilva, L.F., 2010, Brazil, recent activities: Joint Nuclear 

Energy Agency/ International Atomic Energy Agency Group 

on Uranium, meeting, 45, Saskatoon, Canada, August 

19–20, 2010, presentation Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development–Nuclear Energy Agency & 

International Atomic Energy Agency, 2 p.

Energy Fuels Inc., 2012, Home page: Energy Fuels Inc. Web 

site, accessed October, 2012 at: http://www.energyfuels.com/.

Energy Information Administration, 2009, Domestic uranium production report—Annual [2009]: U.S. Energy 

Information Administration, accessed January 2011 at 

http://www.eia.gov/cneaf/nuclear/dupr/dupr.html.

Energy Information Administration, 2010a, Domestic uranium production report—Quarterly, 4th quarter 2010: U.S. 

Energy Information Administration, accessed March 2011, 

at http://www.eia.gov/cneaf/nuclear/dupr/qupd.html.

Energy Information Administration, 2010b, International 

energy outlook 2010 with projections to 2035: U.S. Energy 

Information Administration Report no. EIA–0554, 195 p.

Energy Information Administration, 2010c, International 

energy statistics: U.S. Energy Information Administration 

database, accessed March 2011 at http://205.254.135.7/

cfapps/ipdbproject/iedindex3.cfm.

Energy Information Administration, 2010d, Uranium marketing annual report [2009]: U.S. Energy Information Administration, accessed April, 2010 at http://www.eia.gov/cneaf/

nuclear/umar/umar.html.

Energy Information Administration, 2011, Domestic uranium 

production report 2010: U.S. Energy Information Administration, 14 p., accessed May 2011 at http://205.254.135.7/

uranium/production/annual/.

Greenland Minerals and Energy Ltd., 2011, [Home page]: 

Greenland Minerals and Energy Ltd. Web site, accessed 

January 2011, at http://www.ggg.gl/.

Hisatani, Koichi, 2010, Current status of nuclear industry 

and technology in Japan: Joint Nuclear Energy Agency/

International Atomic Energy Agency Group on Uranium, 

meeting, 45, Saskatoon, Canada, August 19–20, 2010, 

presentation, 7 p.

IAEA (International Atomic Energy Agency), 2009, World 

distribution of uranium deposits (UDEPO) with uranium 

deposit classification: Vienna, Austria, International Atomic 

Energy Agency IAEA–TECDOC–1629, 117 p.

IAEA (International Atomic Energy Agency), 2010, World 

distribution of uranium deposits (UDEPO): International 

Atomic Energy Agency database, accessed January–April, 

2011, at http://infcis.iaea.org/.

Itamba, Helena, 2011, Developments in the field of uranium 

Namibia: Joint Nuclear Energy Agency/International 

Atomic Energy Agency Group on Uranium, meeting, 45, 

Saskatoon, Canada, August 19–20, 2010, presentation, 14 p.

Jones, Bryn, and Davidson, James, 2009, PhosEnergy—New 

age extraction of uranium from phosphoric acid, in International Atomic Energy Agency Uranium from unconventional resources technical meeting, August 2009, Vienna, 

Austria, International Atomic Energy Agency, 33 p.

Khan Resources Inc., 2011, Latest news: Khan Resources Inc. Web 

site, accessed April 2011, at http://www.khanresources.com/.

Marenica Energy Limited, 2011, Marenica Energy Limited is 

an Australian Stock Exchange listed company with its major 

focus being the discovery and development of uranium 

deposits: Marencia Energy Limited, accessed April 2011, at 

http://www.marenicaenergy.com.au/.

Mawson Resources Limited, 2008, Tåsjö uranium project: 

Mawson Resources Limited, accessed February 2011, at 

http://www.mawsonresources.com/s/Tasjo.asp
38 Critical Analysis of World Uranium Resources

McKay, Aden, and Carson, Leesa, 2010, Recent developments in Australia’s uranium mining industry: Joint Nuclear 

Energy Agency/International Atomic Energy Agency 

Group on Uranium, meeting, 45, Saskatoon, Canada, 

August 19–20, 2010, presentation, 28 p.

Mega Uranium Mining Company, 2011, Uranium resources: 

Mega Uranium Mining Company, accessed February 2011, 

at http://www.megauranium.com/uranium_resources/.

MIT Energy Initiative, 2011, The future of the nuclear fuel 

cycle: Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 237 p. (Also 

available at http://web.mit.edu/mitei/research/studies/

nuclear-fuel-cycle.shtml.)

NEA–IAEA (Organization for Economic Co-operation and 

Development Nuclear Energy Agency and International 

Atomic Energy Agency), 2000, Uranium 1999—Resources, 

production and demand: Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development Publishing, 340 p.

NEA–IAEA (Organization for Economic Co-operation and 

Development Nuclear Energy Agency and International 

Atomic Energy Agency), 2006, Uranium 2005—Resources, 

production and demand: Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development Publishing, 388 p.

NEA–IAEA (Organization for Economic Co-operation and 

Development Nuclear Energy Agency and International 

Atomic Energy Agency), 2008, Uranium 2007—Resources, 

production and demand: Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development Publishing, 420 p.

NEA–IAEA (Organization for Economic Co-operation and 

Development Nuclear Energy Agency and International 

Atomic Energy Agency), 2010, Uranium 2009—Resources, 

production and demand, Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development Publishing, 456 p.

NECSA (South African Nuclear Energy Corporation), 2010, 

Uranium in South Africa—An industry update: Joint 

Nuclear Energy Agency/ International Atomic Energy 

Agency Uranium Group, meeting, 45, Saskatoon, Canada, 

August 19–20, 2010, presentation, 12 p.

Ngoupana, Paul-Marin, Felix, Bate, and Barker, Anthony, 

2011, Areva suspends CAR uranium mine project: 

Thompson Reuters, November 3, accessed June 22, 

2012, at http://af.reuters.com/article/commoditiesNews/

idAFL5E7M34T920111103.

Nuclear Energy Agency (NEA), 2006, Forty years of uranium 

resources, production and demand in perspective: Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development Publishing, 276 p.

Nuclear Energy Agency (NEA), 2008, Nuclear energy outlook 

2008: Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development Publishing, 460 p.

Paladin Energy, Ltd., 2011, Paladin Energy Ltd.—The new 

energy on the market: Paladin Energy, Ltd. Web site, 

accessed June 22, 2012, at http://www.paladinenergy.com.au/.

Pool, T.C., and Ross, D.A., 2007, Technical report on the Arizona strip uranium project, Arizona, U.S.A.: Scott Wilson 

Roscoe Postle Associates Inc. technical report NI 43–101, 

prepared for Denison Mines Corporation, 116 p., accessed 

June 22, 2012, at http://www.denisonmines.com/content/

pdf/43-101_arizona_strip.pdf.

Puritch, Eugene, Hayden, Alfred, Partsch, Alexander, Harron, 

G.A., and Brown, F.H., 2010, Preliminary economic assessment on the Viken MMS project, Sweden: P & E Mining 

Consultants Inc., EHA Engineering Ltd., and G.A. Harron 

& Associates Inc. technical report NI 43–101 and 43–101F, 

prepared for Continental Precious Minerals Inc., 122 p., 

accessed June 22, 2012, at http://www.czqminerals.com/

assets/pdf/viken_pea_report_oct_2010.pdf.

Rigby, Neal, Muller, S.C., Hollenbeck, Patrick, Stryhas, 

Bart, Daviess, Frank, and Kurrus, Andy, 2010, Technical 

report on resources—Uranium Energy Corp. Palangana 

ISR uranium project, deposits PA–1, PA–2 and adjacent 

exploration areas, Duval County, Texas: SRK Consulting 

Engineers and Scientists technical report NI 43–101, prepared for Uranium Energy Corp., 106 p., accessed June 22, 

2012, at http://www.uraniumenergy.com/_resources/reports/

Palangana_NI_43-101_Technical_Report_199600_010_

KG_012-opt.pdf.

Spiering, E.D., Hillard, P.D., and Inman, J.R., 2009, Exploration and discovery of blind breccia pipes—The potential 

significance to the uranium endowment of the Arizona strip 

district, northern Arizona: U2009 Global Uranium Symposium, Keystone, Colorado, May 9–13, 2009, abstracts, 

p. 17.

Talvivaara Mining Company Plc., 2011, Mineral resources: 

Talvivarra Mining Company Plc. Web site, accessed 

June 22, 2012, at http://www.talvivaara.com/operations/

Mineral_resources.

Titley, Malcolm, 2009, The Mutanga project—Located 

in Southern Province, Republic of Zambia: GSA 

Global (UK) Ltd. technical report NI 43–101, prepared 

for Denison Mines Corp., 225 p., accessed June 12, 

2012, at http://www.denisonmines.com/content/pdf/

ni43_101_mutanga_uranium_19mar09.pdf.

Toro Energy Ltd., 2011, Projects: Toro Energy Limited Web site, 

accessed June 12, 2012, at http://www.toroenergy.com.au/

projects.html.
References Cited 39

TradeTech, 2011, TradeTech—Specialists in nuclear fuel markets—Consulting and supply/demand analysis: Tradetech 

Web site, accessed [date], at http://www.uranium.info/.

U.S. Enrichment Corporation Inc., 2011, Megatons to Megawatts: USEC Inc. Web site, accessed February 2011, at 

http://www.usec.com/megatonstomegawatts.htm.

Ux Consulting Company LLC, The, 2010, Uranium suppliers 

annual: The Ux Consulting Company, LLC special report, 

500 p.

Ux Consulting Company LLC, The, 2011, The industry’s leading 

source of consulting, data services & publications on the global 

nuclear fuel cycle markets: The Ux Consulting Company, 

LLC Web site, accessed January, 2011, at http://www.uxc.com/

index.aspx.

Vance, Robert, 2005, What can forty years of red books tell 

us?: Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development Publishing, 19 p.

Vettraino, Fortunato, 2010, Brief update on the nuclear energy 

programme in Italy and related uranium supply features: 

Joint Nuclear Energy Agency/International Atomic Energy 

Agency Group on Uranium, meeting, 45, Saskatoon, 

Canada, August 19–20, 2010, presentation, Organisation for 

Economic Co-operation and Development Nuclear Energy 

Agency and International Atomic Energy Agency 6 p.

Vettraino, Fortunato, 2011, Updates to the nuclear energy 

programme in Italy and related uranium outlook: 

Joint Nuclear Energy Agency/International Atomic 

Energy Agency Group on Uranium, meeting, 47, 

Issy Les Moulineaux-Paris, France, November 2–4, 2011, 

presentation, 7 p.

World Nuclear Association, 2009, Projected uranium requirements to 2030: World Nuclear Association Web site, 

accessed January 2011, at http://www.world-nuclear.org/.

World Nuclear Association, 2011a, The global nuclear fuel 

market; Supply and demand, 2011 to 2030: World Nuclear 

Association, 197 p.

World Nuclear Association, 2011b, [Home page]: World 

Nuclear Association Web site, accessed January 2011, 

at http://www.world-nuclear.org/.

World Nuclear News, 2007, New study on uranium from 

phosphates: World Nuclear News, July 31, accessed 

March, 2011, at http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/

newsarticle.aspx?id=13796&LangType=2057.

Zhang, Decun, 2010, Uranium resources, production and 

requirements in China: Joint Nuclear Energy Agency/International Atomic Energy Agency Group on Uranium, meeting, 45, Saskatoon, Canada, August 19–20, 2010, presentation, 8 p.

Appendix 1 41

Appendix 1. Analysis of Operating Mines and Advanced-Stage Uranium

Properties, by Country

Figure 1–1. Location of uranium mines in Argentina, 2010. From 

Bianchi (2010).

Figure 1–2. Location of operating mines producing uranium in 

Australia. From Mckay and Carson (2010).

\

30°S

40°S

50°S

70°W 60°W 50°W

Sierra Pintada

Cerro Solo

ARGENTINA

BUENOS AIRES

0 500 1,000 KILOMETERS

0 500 1,000 MILES

\

120°E 130°E 140°E 150°E 10°S

20°S

30°S

Ranger

Mine

Beverly

Mine

Olympic Dam

CANBERRA

AUSTRALIA

0 500

0 500

1,000 KILOMETERS

1,000 MILES

This appendix describes uranium RAR and production in 

the most important countries that contain uranium resources. 

In addition to uranium that is actively being produced or is in 

potential near-future production, the country narratives discuss 

projects that are likely to take longer to develop than those 

studied for this report. Possible impediments to or potential 

increases in uranium production are discussed for each major 

uranium-producing country worldwide.

Argentina

Argentina reports 10,400 tU mineable in the top two 

cost categories (<USD 130/kgU and <USD 260/kgU), and 

it reports 7,000 tU mineable at less than USD 80/kgU. 

Argentina mined uranium for use in its domestic reactors 

until the late 1990s when it suspended domestic mining 

because less expensive uranium available on the world market 

became more attractive. In 2006, national policy tasked the 

Comision Nacional de Energia Atomica (CNEA) to restart 

local production, and government exploration expenditures 

have increased dramatically (Bianchi, 2010; NEA–IAEA, 

2010). Two mines—the Sierra Pintada deposit (2,620 tU), 

part of the San Rafael Mining and Milling complex, and Cerro 

Solo (3,900 tU)—are on standby while CNEA evaluates the 

feasibility of restarting the mining of these deposits (IAEA, 

2009; Bianchi, 2010; Ux Consulting Company LLC, 2010) 

(fig. 1–1). Argentina has also begun a program to assess the 

country’s potential undiscovered resource.

Australia

The three operating uranium mines in Australia include 

two of the most prolific world producers during 2009. The 

large underground Olympic Dam (Roxby Downs) mine, 

operated by BHP Billiton, produced 2,981 tU, and the openpit Ranger mine operated by Rio Tinto produced 4,423 tU. 

Heathgate Resources Pty. Ltd (Heathgate) owns and operates the Beverly ISL mine (South Australia), which produced 

559 tU (McKay and Carson, 2010) (fig. 1–2).

Olympic Dam is a polymetallic Iron Oxide Copper Gold 

deposit currently mined primarily for gold and copper, with 

uranium production (capacity 3,820 tU/yr) incidental to these 

commodities. The total RAR (295,000 tU) ranks Olympic 

Dam as the world’s largest uranium deposit, holding 34 percent of the world’s total identified uranium resource (Mckay 

and Carson, 2010). Although uranium’s economic contribution 

to the mine’s economic viability is significant, its low grade 
42 Critical Analysis of World Uranium Resources

(0.023 percent U) would, at current prices, probably preclude 

production of uranium alone from this mine. Olympic Dam is, 

however, the world’s fourth largest remaining copper deposit, 

and the fifth largest gold deposit. The future price of copper 

and gold will therefore more probably influence uranium production from Olympic Dam. Technical issues have interrupted 

production of uranium at Olympic Dam in the past. Most 

recently, production was cut 75 percent during October 2009 

through March 2010 because a hoist that transported ore to the 

surface failed.

A proposed expansion project that will increase the 

uranium production capacity at Olympic Dam to 16,100 tU 

is in the permitting process (IAEA, 2009). A feasibility study 

is complete, and a draft Environmental Impact Statement has 

received public comment and is in review by the government. 

This expansion includes the construction of a large openpit 

mine estimated to eventually be 6 km by 5 km and more than 

1,200 meters deep, southeast of the current underground mine. 

The cost of this expansion will range from 30 to 50 billion 

U.S. dollars. One of the greatest technical challenges for the 

project is securing adequate water to run the proposed operation. BHP Billiton’s preferred solution is to desalinate ocean 

water at Point Lowly in the Upper Spencer Gulf and pipe the 

water 320 km (200 mi) to the mine. While this paper was in 

review, BHP Billiton announced it would suspend expansion 

of this pit, pushing production of this uranium to an undetermined time in the future (ABC News, 2012). This supply 

was projected to have become available in about 2020, and 

provided significant primary supply to the world market. The 

impact of the loss or delay of this source on forward supply 

projections for uranium has not been fully evaluated.

The Ranger openpit mine (28,832 tU reserve) appeared 

to be reaching the end of its mine life in 2007 when it reported 

RAR sufficient to continue mining until 2014 (NEA–IAEA, 

2008). Additional drilling has since identified 34,000 tU of 

high-grade RAR below the current openpit operation in this 

unconformity-type deposit (Mckay and Carson, 2010). A 

decline is being constructed to explore this new resource. 

In addition, a heap-leach facility is proposed for extracting 

a resource of 16,100 tU from low-grade RAR on stockpiles 

and from those remaining in the mine. The Ranger mine has 

experienced periodic delays in production for several weeks at 

a time during the rainy season when ore and treatment plants 

become inaccessible and facilities for impounding tailings 

have filled with water. Ranger operates within the Kakadu 

National Park, a United Nations Educational, Scientific and 

Cultural Organization World Heritage site. The operations are 

currently licensed through 2021, and any extension of operations beyond that time period would require new legislation. 

Production from Ranger has declined since at least 2007, and 

declines are likely to continue as the operation targets lowergrade ore through its use of surface heap-leaching and from 

resources lying deeper underground.

Jabiluka, a large unexploited 123,389 tU reserve, abuts 

the northern edge of the Ranger lease (IAEA, 2010). This 

property has been dormant since 2005, when its owner, 

Rio Tinto, reached an agreement with the Mirarr traditional 

aboriginal people that would require aboriginal approval prior 

to development. An exploration tunnel was backfilled with 

waste rock and unprocessed material, and the property was 

placed on standby. Development of Jabiluka will depend on 

the ability to overcome significant permitting impediments.

Another area of active mining and ongoing permitting and development are sandstone uranium deposits in the 

Fromme Embayment in South Australia. The Beverly ISL 

uranium mine (12,192 tU), owned and operated by Heathgate 

Resources Pty. Ltd. (Heathgate), is located in the Fromme 

Embayment, as are the following developing properties: 

Honeymoon (2,500 tU), owned by Uranium One, Oban 

(1,781 tU inferred), owned by Curnamona Energy Ltd., 

and Four Mile (23,462 tU ), owned by Quasar Resources 

Pty. Ltd., and newly discovered Pepegoona (900 tU), also 

owned and operated by Heathgate (Mckay and Carson, 

2010; Ux Consulting Company LLC, 2010). Protests against 

ISL mining as a procedure for recovering ores in Australia 

prompted the Australian government to investigate the impacts 

of leach mining (Commonwealth of Australia, 2010). The 

aquifer being mined is highly saline, and the area is remote 

from cities and farms so impacts on human health, on stock, 

or on agriculture from mining of uranium from this aquifer 

were determined to be minimal. Permitting and mining has 

proceeded fairly rapidly, and it is likely that uranium will continue to be produced from this region in response to ongoing 

exploration and development.

In Western Australia, BHP Billiton is conducting a feasibility study of its Yeelirrie deposit (44,077 tU inferred). This is 

a calcrete uranium deposit located 4 to 8 m below the surface 

that will be developed by surface operations in a progressive 

fashion with ongoing reclamation and remediation. Processing 

details have not yet been reported. This deposit is projected as 

producing between 2,000 and 2,500 tU per year over a mine 

life of 20 to 40 years. Two other calcrete uranium deposits in 

Western Australia are in the prefeasibility stage: the Wiluna 

project (9,385 tU) being explored by Toro Energy Ltd. and the 

Lake Maitland resource (10,000 tU), owned by Redport Ltd. 

(Mckay and Carson, 2010).

Brazil

Brazil’s single operating uranium mine, the Lagoa 

Real–Caetite mine, a metasomatite deposit, produced 347 tU 

in 2009 from a remaining reserve of 12,700 tU (fig. 1–3; 

NEA–IAEA, 2010; Ux Consulting Company LLC, 2010)). An 

expansion is underway that will double production capacity 

by 2012. However, production is expected to fall significantly 

in the near future, due to licensing delays at a tailings dam 

(daSilva, 2010).
Appendix 1 43

A pilot plant to produce uranium from the Santa Quitéria/

Itataia phosphate deposit is being designed, constructed, and 

to be operational by 2012, with a capacity of 1,000 tU/yr. This 

resource is a substantial 67,240 tU (Ux Consulting Company 

LLC, 2010). As with all phosphate-uranium deposits, economic development depends on using an appropriate extraction technology, but none has been identified to date. Little 

exploration is being carried out in Brazil, although favorable 

geologic conditions exist (Dahlkamp, 2010). All uranium 

deposits in Brazil are controlled by the government owned 

Industrias Nucleares do Brazil.

Canada

Canada’s three operating uranium mines produced 

10,174 tU in 2009, providing 20 percent of the world’s mined 

uranium (World Nuclear Association, 2011b). Production 

was from the rich unconformity-related uranium deposits in 

the Athabasca Basin of northern Saskatchewan. In 2009, the 

McArthur River mine produced 7400 tU, with a large remaining resource of 128,900 tU; McClean Lake produced 1,410 tU, 

with a small remaining resource of 1,031 tU; and Rabbit Lake 

produced 1,400 tU, also with a relatively small remaining 

resource of 8,200 tU (fig. 1–4: (Ux Consulting Company LLC, 

2010; World Nuclear Association, 2011b).

Deposits in the Athabasca basin that are in the development or feasibility stages include (1) Cameco’s Cigar 

Lake mine, containing a significant reserve of 80,500 tU 

that is expected to produce in 2012 at an annual capacity of 

6,294 tU; and (2) Areva’s Midwest deposit, containing RAR 

of 16,340 tU with a planned capacity of 2,300 tU/yr (Calvert, 

2010; Ux Consulting Company LLC, 2010). Cigar Lake, 

containing 80,500 tU in RAR was expected to be a significant 

uranium supplier by 2009, but a series of technical challenges 

that resulted in mine flooding and a total mine shutdown 

have delayed production until at least 2012. Water inflow is a 

significant problem in this wet northern environment, and the 

construction of freeze walls to control this water flow in active 

underground mines continues to be a technical and economic 

challenge. Midwest was originally planned as an underground 

mine, with startup in 2011, but an openpit option with no 

planned startup date is now reported (Calvert, 2010). Other 

advanced-stage projects in the Athabasca basin include 

Areva’s Kiggavik (51,574 tU) and Cameco’s Millennium 

(18,002 tU) deposits. Outside the Athabasca basin, Strateco 

Resources Inc. is exploring the 7,770-tU Matoush deposit in 

Quebec by surface drilling and construction of an underground 

exploration ramp scheduled for 2012. Aurora Energy 

Resources Inc., a subsidiary of Paladin, is working to develop 

two deposits in Labrador: the Jacques Lake (4,000 tU) and the 

Michelin (25,923 tU) deposits.

Figure 1–3. Active and developing uranium mines in Brazil. 

From Dahlkamp (2010).

Figure 1–4. Active uranium mines in Canada. From WNA (2011).

10°S

0°

20°S

30°S

70°W 60°W 50°W 40°W

Itataia

Lagoa Real

BRASILIA

BRAZIL

\

r

0 500 1,000 KILOMETERS

0 500 1,000 MILES

60°N

55°N

50°N

110°W 100°W 90°W

\SASKATOON

McClean Lake

McArthur

River

Northwest Territories Nunavut

Alberta

Saskatchewan

Manitoba

Ontario

CANADA

Rabbit

Lake

0 250 500 KILOMETERS

0 250 500 MILES
44 Critical Analysis of World Uranium Resources

Central African Republic

In 2010, a feasibility study of Areva’s Bakouma deposit 

containing 9,885 tU was being conducted, with tentative plans 

to develop the mine by 2015 (fig. 1–5). In late 2011, however, 

Areva suspended the project for two years, stating that the 

mine was unprofitable at present uranium prices (Ngoupana 

and others, 2011). The Central African Republic retains a 

10-percent interest in Bakouma (Areva NC, 2011).

heap-leaching in 2007. Although the production capacity is 

listed as 100 tU/yr, Quinglong has not achieved full capacity 

because of lower than expected yields from heap-leaching. 

Production capacity and RAR are listed in table 3.

Mines reported as operating but with no associated 

production center include Xiangshan, Jiangxi Province; 

Xiazhuang, Guangdong Province ; Yili, Xinjiang province; 

Tengchong, Yunnan Province; Lianshanguan, Liaoning 

Province; Ziyauan, Guangxi Region; and Tengchong, Yunnan 

Province. Because Tengchong is listed as an ISL mine, production does not require a mill, and so no production center is 

associated with it (table 1–1).

Combining information reported in the 2009 “Red 

Book,” in Dahlkamp (2010), and in the Uranium Suppliers 

Annual (Ux Consulting Company LLC, 2010), this report proposes the following associations of mine and mill, as based on 

the proximity of a production district where mines are listed as 

Figure 1–5. Location of the Bakouma deposit, Central African 

Republic. From Areva NC (2011).

Figure 1–6. Major uranium production centers in China. From 

Dahlkamp (2010).

China

All uranium mines in China are owned and operated by 

the China National Nuclear Corporation (CNNC). CNNC is 

a state-owned enterprise with hundreds of subsidiaries, and 

it fully controls the nation’s nuclear fuel cycle of mining, 

conversion, enrichment, and fabrication. The “Red Books” 

for 2005, 2007, and 2009 (NEA–IAEA, 2006, 2008, 2010, 

Dahlkamp (2010) and Zhang, 2010 are this report’s sources 

for resource and production data. Because of the limited 

reporting from China, there is some confusion about resource 

and development time lines.

Six production centers are reported for China: Fuzhou 

(Jiangxi Province), Chongyi (Giangxi Province), Yining 

(Xinjiang Province), Lantian (Shaanxi Province), Benxi/

Quinglong (Liaoning Province), and Shaoguan (Guandong 

Province) (fig. 1–6, table 1–1) (NEA–IAEA, 2010). Mines 

associated with the production centers are reported for the 

Yining ISL facility (Dep. 512); Lantian (Lantian deposit), 

Benxi (Benxi deposit), and Quinglong (Quinglong District). 

Uranium began to be produced from the Quinglong deposit in 

Liaoning Province through underground mining and surface 

Table 1–1 Chinese uranium mines and associated production 

centers inferred for these mines.

Operating Uranium Mines and Production Centers in China

Production

center

Reported

associated mine

Inferred

associated mine

Fuzhou Xiangshan

Chongyi

Yining Dep.512 Yili

Lantian Lantian

Benxi/Benxi Benxi Lianshanguan 

Benxi/Qinglong Qinglong

Shaoguan Xiazhuang

Operating mines with no associated production center

Tengchong (ISL—No milling required for production)

Ziyauan

CENTRAL AFRICAN REPUBLIC

BANGUI

Bakouma Project

10°N

5°N

15°E 20°E 25°E

0 200 400 KILOMETERS

0 200 400 MILES

\

CHINA

BEIJING

Yining Benxi

Lantian

Fuzhou

Chongyi

Shaoguan Tengchong

50°N

30°N

20°N

40°N

90°E 110°E 130°E

0 500 1,000 KILOMETERS

0 500 1,000 MILES

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

\\^ !(
Appendix 1 45

operating: (1) the Fuzhou mill, which may be processing ore 

from deposits in the Xiangshan district; (2) the Yining mill, 

which may be processing ore from the Yili district; (3) the 

Shaooguan, milling ore from the Xiazhuang deposit; and 

(4) the Benxi, milling ore from the Lianshanguan deposit. This 

leaves the Ziyuan deposit for which no production center can 

be surmised.

Several deposits in China are described as being in some 

stage of feasibility. The 3,000-tU Sihongtan deposit near the 

Yining production area is an ISL deposit undergoing pilot testing. The 5,000-tU Dongsheng deposit in Inner Mongolia was 

determined not to be amenable to ISL mining, but feasibility 

studies of mining this resource using underground methods 

are being conducted. Feasibility studies are also reported 

at the 19,400-tU Erlian, the 17,000-tU Zaohuohao, and the 

21,600-tU Erdos deposits in Inner Mongolia. The 5,000-tU 

Guyuan deposit in Hebei Province is in pilot testing or in 

construction. The Liaohe deposit of unknown size is also in 

the feasibility stage, according to the 2009 “Red Book”. The 

9,000-tU Turp-Hame deposit, possibly in the Turpan-Hami 

Basin that also hosts the Sihongtan deposit , is listed as an ISL

project in the planning stages. The Shihongtan deposit in the 

Inrpan-Hami Basin in Xingiang Autonomour region is listed as 

in the feasibility stage in the IAEA Uranium Deposits database 

(IAEA, 2010), although the 2009 “Red Book” did not report 

this resource.

The 2009 “Red Book” reported that China has 

171,400 tU in RAR from 13 deposits. Some of these deposits were described separately as operating mines, some as 

a depleted deposit, and some as being dormant; the status 

of several others is unknown. An additional “statistical” 

1.2 to 1.7 million tonnes of “potential uranium resources 

are predicted” (NEA–IAEA, 2010). The status of many of 

these deposits is unknown; one is listed in the IAEA uranium deposits database as depleted (IAEA, 2010). Tables 2 

and 3 list deposits believed to be operating or to be in some 

stage of feasibility. As a geologically diverse region, China 

might be expected to have a larger uranium resource than 

has been reported to date. The low numbers reported here for 

these resources may reflect lack of exploration, incomplete 

reporting, or the absence of a uranium-rich province within 

the country.

In addition to domestic resources, CNNC has an interest in RAR from the Azelik deposit in Niger; from the 

Gurvanbulag deposit in Mongolia; and from the Zhalpak, 

Irkol, and Semisbai deposits in Kazakhstan. The production 

and RAR for these deposits are described in this appendix 

under their respective countries.

Czech Republic

The Czech Republic has two operating uranium mines: 

the Straz mine in the Straz pod Ralskem district in northern 

Czech Republic, and the Rozna mine, part of the Rozna–Olsi 

uranium field (fig. 1–7). Remaining RAR at Rozna are 680 tU, 

and at Straz they are 1,320 tU (NEA–IAEA, 2010). All 

uranium-related activities, including mining and environmental restoration, are carried out by the DIAMO state enterprise 

(DIAMO s.p.).

At Rozna, production using underground methods during 

2009 was projected to be 255 tU. Mining is expected to continue through 2012 and beyond if it remains profitable. Production at Straz is a byproduct of remediation of this former 

ISL facility. In 2009, Straz produced 38 tU (100,000 pounds. 

U3O8) and production is decreasing as environmental cleanup 

at the mine site continues while uranium concentrations in 

leachate solutions decrease. At Straz more than 4.5 million 

tonnes of sulfuric, nitric, hydrochloric, and hydrofluoric acid 

were used to mine this deposit during the 30-year period 

1967–1996. Cross-contamination between aquifers allowed 

mining solutions to migrate into the drinking-water aquifer that the local community relied on. In 2009, the Czech 

Ministry of Economics proposed that mining be resumed at 

Straz either by underground or ISL techniques.

Government policy set in 1980 in the Czech Republic 

was to eventually close all of the nation’s uranium mines, 

and for this reason no new mines are anticipated to open in 

the near future. However, uranium resources are believed to 

exist in several regions. Of the 23 identified Czech Republic 

deposits, 20 have been mined, Rozna is currently being mined, 

and the remaining two identified deposits, Osecna-Kotel and 

Brzkov, remain unexploited. In 2008 ,the Australian mining company, Uran Ltd. (Uran), applied for a lease to initiate 

exploration around the 7,500-tU Brzkov deposit in the central 

Czech Republic, but the Environment Ministry did not grant 

the license. Uran also attempted to recover uranium from 

surface-dump rock at the Pribram mine, but whether this venture was successful is unknown.

Figure 1–7. Uranium production centers in the Czech Republic. 

From OECD/NEA-IAEA (2010).

CZECH REPUBLIC

Rozna-Olsi

Straz pod Ralskem

PRAGUE

51°N

49°N

50°N

13°E 14°E 15°E 16°E 17°E 18°E

0 80 160 KILOMETERS

0 80 160 MILES

\

!(

!(
46 Critical Analysis of World Uranium Resources

Denmark (Greenland)

The multielement Kvanefjeld deposit (Greenland 

Minerals and Energy Ltd.) contains an identified 85,614 tU, 

as well as rare-earth elements and zinc in mineable quantities (fig. 1–8: (NEA–IAEA, 2010). Several other exploration 

targets and prospective terrane exist throughout the country. 

Currently, Denmark has banned uranium exploration and 

exploitation in Greenland. Although a feasibility study has 

been performed on the Kvanefjeld deposit, the in-place ban on 

mining prevents this report from including Kvanefjeld among 

world uranium resources.

Finland

Although there is considerable exploration for uranium in 

Finland, there is no current production. The Talvivaara polymetallic black shale deposit, in the Kainuu Province of eastern 

Finland is mined for nickel and zinc that contain trace uranium 

(0.001 to 0.004 percent U) (fig. 1–9). The mine operator, 

Talvivaara Mining Company Plc, is constructing a uranium 

extraction circuit at the mine that is expected to be complete 

in 2012. Cameco has signed an agreement to help finance 

production and to buy this uranium, which is estimated to be 

produced at a rate of 350 tU/yr.

Figure 1–8. Location and geology of the Kvanefjeld deposit, 

Greenland. From Greenland Minerals and Energy Ltd. (2011).

Figure 1–9. Location of the Talvivaara uranium deposit in Finland. 

From Talvivaara Mining Company Plc., (2011).

0 500 1,000 KILOMETERS

0 500 1,000 MILES

Nu

GREENLAND

NUUK

Kvanefjeld

80°N

60°N

70°N

60°W 40°W 20°W

\

0 200 400 KILOMETERS

0 200 400 MILES

FINLAND

HELSINKI

Talvivaara

70°N

65°N

60°N

20°E 30°E

\
Appendix 1 47

India

All uranium mines and production are owned and controlled by Uranium Corporation of India, the India State mining company. Six operating mines are reported: Narwapahar 

(11,500 tU); Jaduguda (8,400 tU); Turamdih and Banduhurang 

(3,750 tU); Bagjata (2,106 tU); and Bhatin (2,200 tU) mines 

(Chaki, 2010; IAEA, 2010) (fig. 1–10). Since India does not 

regularly report RAR remaining in these mines, the available resource figures probably do not account for depletion 

by mining and should be considered high. Three mines are in 

development: the Mohuldih (unknown resource), LambapurPeddagattu (unknown resource) and the Tummalapalle 

(12,555 tU) deposits. The RAR estimated to be remaining 

in operating and developing mines in India total 40,511 tU. 

The 2009 “Red Book” reports a slightly larger number 

(55,200 tU) for the country, but it does not allocate quantities 

to individual mines. Other mine development reported for 

India is still in the planning stages, and is not included in this 

summary. Uranium has been recovered from the Rakha and 

Mosaboni mines as a product of copper mining, but it is not 

currently being produced from these mines (Ux Consulting 

Company LLC, 2010).

Because India has historically been unable to import 

uranium, the Uranium Corporation of India has explored and 

continues to aggressively explore prospective terrane in order 

to provide fuel to its 19 operating powerplants. India is also 

actively exploring the viability of thorium-fueled rather than 

uranium-fueled reactors because the country has a significant 

thorium resource. It does not seem likely that India will supply 

uranium to the world market in the immediate future.

Iran

Exploration and development in Iran is performed by 

the government agency, Atomic Energy Organization of Iran, 

which reports one existing and one committed production 

center (NEA–IAEA, 2010). Production capacity is 21 tU from 

a 100-tU reserve at the Gachin mine, although since at least 

2007 this reserve has been reported with no measurable reduction from having been mined (fig. 1–11). The small size and 

low grade of Gachin ore would probably make this deposit 

subeconomic without Iran’s strong desire for a domestic 

source for uranium. Development of an underground (90 percent) and openpit (10 percent) mine to exploit the 900-tU 

Saghand deposit is underway, with production at a rate of 

50 tU per year planned to commence in 2012. The 2009 “Red 

Book” reports a strong exploration program, utilizing modern 

techniques and targeting several different geologic provinces 

and deposit types. It is not anticipated than Iran will contribute 

uranium to the world market in the near future because mined 

uranium will be used domestically.

Figure 1–10. Location of current production centers and 

prospective areas of India. From Chaki (2010).

Figure 1–11. Location of the Gachin mine and the Saghand 

uranium deposit, Iran. From Dahlkamp (2010).

0 200 400 KILOMETERS

0 200 400 MILES

INDIA

Jaduguda

Bhatin

Narwapahar

Banduhurang

Turamdih

Bagjata

DELHI

30°N

20°N

10°N

70°E 80°E 90°E

\

0 250 500 KILOMETERS

0 250 500 MILES

IRAN

Gachin Mine

Saghand Project

TEHRAN

40°N

35°N

30°N

25°N

40°E 45°E 50°E 55°E 60°E 65°E

\

!(

!(
48 Critical Analysis of World Uranium Resources

Jordan

Jordan does not currently produce uranium, and has 

no deposits that can be classified as imminent producers. However, a number of uranium companies, including France’s Areva and Australia’s Rio Tinto, are actively 

exploring in this country. As well, the Jordan Atomic Energy 

Commission’s commercial arm Jordan Energy Resources 

Inc. (JERI) is conducting regional exploration to encourage commercial development of uranium deposits in the 

country. A total resource of between 59,360 and 165,470 tU 

is identified in phosphate deposits in Jordan. In addition, 

surficial deposits ranging from 50,000 to 70,000 tU in are 

currently being explored in central Jordan south of Amman 

by JERI (NEA–IAEA, 2008; IAEA, 2010; Ux Consulting 

Company LLC, 2010).

Kazakhstan

The national mining company, KazAtomProm, is 

responsible for all uranium mining activities in Kazakhstan, 

the world’s largest uranium producer. KazAtomProm has 

formed joint-venture partnerships with the following mining 

companies to develop properties: Areva, Cameco, Uranium 

One, Sumitomo Corporation, Energy Asia Ltd., and CNNC.

Fifteen operating mines and two pilot projects were 

reported for Kazakhstan in 2010 (tables 3, 4). The mines are 

located in three mining districts: (1) the two pilot projects in 

Kokshetau Region (Tselinny, and Semisbai); (2) the 12 mines 

in the Chu-Sarysu district (Akdala, Centralnoye, Chiili, 

Stepnoye, Inkai, S. Inkai, Muyunkum/Tortkuduk, Zarechnoye, 

Central Mynkuduk, W. Cynkuduk, Budenovskoye 2, and 

Budenovskoye 1,3,4); and (3) the three mines in the Syr-Darya 

district (Kharasan 1, Kharasan 2, Irkol) (NEA–IAEA, 2010) 

(fig. 1–12). ISL mining using an aggressive sulfuric acid 

lixiviant is the most common mining method in the primarily sandstone-hosted roll-front deposits. Production costs 

are low, permitting and restoration hurdles are not high, and 

the country is aggressively promoting the development of 

deposits, the result being that uranium production is expanding rapidly. With a large national resource of 459,677 tU, 

Kazakhstan is expected to continue as a top producer for the 

immediate future.

Malawi

Malawi reports one operating uranium mine, the 

Kayelekera deposit that is being mined using openpit methods 

by Paladin (fig. 1–13). Paladin is producing 1,270 tU/yr from 

the 11,265-tU deposit, which it expects to deplete by 2020 

(Paladin Energy Ltd., 2011).

Figure 1–12. Location of major uranium mining districts and 

operating mines of Kazakhstan. From Dahlkamp (2010).

Figure 1–13. Location of the Kayelekera Mine in Malawi. From 

Paladin Energy, Ltd. (2011).

0 500 1,000 KILOMETERS

0 500 1,000 MILES

KAZAKHSTAN

Chu-Sarysu

District

Kokshetau

Region

Syr-Darya

District

ASTANA

55°N

50°N

45°N

40°N

50°E 60°E 70°E 80°E

\

0 100 200 KILOMETERS

0 100 200 MILES

MALAWI

Kayelekera

LILONGWE

10°S

15°S

33°E 35°E 37°E

\
Appendix 1 49

Mongolia

One advanced-staged project is reported for Mongolia, the 

Dornod deposit containing 24,780 tU, which is expected to be 

mined by Khan Resources Inc. at a rate of 1,159 tU/yr during 

the 10 years beginning about 2015 (fig. 1–14) (NEA–IAEA, 

2010). The deposit was partly mined by the Russian 

Federations’ Priargunsky Mining and Chemical Enterprise 

during 1988–1995, when infrastructure, including a rail line 

over which ore was shipped 500 km to Krasnokamensk in 

Siberia, was developed at the mine site. The Nuclear Agency 

of Mongolia delayed development of the Dornod deposit by 

invalidating Khan’s mining license in 2009 (Khan Resources 

Inc., 2011). Litigation ensued, and has not been fully resolved. 

Uranium may be produced from Mongolia from this deposit 

in the near future if title issues for Dornod are successfully 

resolved so that Khan can begin raising sufficient financing for 

the project.

Four mining companies are involved in uranium exploration throughout Mongolia: Cameco, East Asia Minerals Corp., 

Areva, and Solomon Resources Ltd. No other projects are far 

enough advanced to anticipate production in the near future.

Namibia

Following the passage of the Minerals Act of 1992 that 

established uranium as a strategic mineral, the government 

of Namibia began working to develop mining guidelines for 

studying the cumulative societal and environmental impacts of 

mining in the west-central Erongo region, the major uranium 

province of Namibia. Overwhelmed with applications while 

working to develop a national policy for uranium mining, 

Namibia in 2007 called a moratorium on granting new exploration licenses.

Two mines are producing uranium in Namibia; Rio Tinto’s 

Rossing Mine (50,657 tU resource) with a production capacity of 3,817 tU/yr; and Paladin’s Langer Heinrich mine, with 

a production capacity of 1,425 tU/yr from a 60,830 tU reserve 

(fig. 1–15) (NEA–IAEA, 2010; Ux Consulting Company LLC, 

2010). Rossing has been in operation since 1976, and has a lifeof-mine operating plan that details production through 2023. If 

mine-site exploration results are encouraging, mine life may be 

extended. Rossing is testing enhanced heap-leach techniques 

that may increase production. At Langer Heinrich, Paladin is 

capitalizing on recent increases in RAR and is planning a plant 

expansion that would increase production to 3,500 tU/yr.

Areva is developing the Trekkopje deposit, with tentative plans to begin production from a 42,243-tU reserve at 

an initial rate of 1,600 tU/yr by 2013, eventually ramping up 

to 3,500 tU/yr. A mine license was granted in 2008, and pilot 

testing is underway. The mine life of Trekkopje is expected 

to be 12 years, until 2023. Also close to production is the 

23,269-tU Valencia deposit, which Forsys Metals Corp. is 

developing with plans to produce 1,000 tU/yr by 2013. The 

Figure 1–14. Location of the Dornod Uranium Project, Mongolia. 

From Khan Resources Inc. (2011).

Figure 1–15. Approximate location of operating uranium mines 

and advanced-stage projects in Namibia. From OECD/NEA-IAEA 

(2010) and from Marencia Energy Limited (2011).

Marencia uranium deposit (62,856 tU) is being developed to 

produce at a rate of 1,000 tU/yr by Marencia Energy Ltd. by 

2014, with financing through China’s Hanlong Energy Ltd. 

(Ux Consulting Company LLC, 2010). The Rossing South 

deposit, currently owned by Extract Resources Inc. and part 

of the larger Husab deposit, contains an estimated 98,846 tU. 

The Husab deposit is a significant future producer, but was not 

included in this analysis because it is still in the exploration 

stage (Ux Consulting Company LLC, 2010). Other projects in 

Namibia are progressing but are still many years away from 

production (Itamba, 2011).

0 500 1,000 KILOMETERS

0 500 1,000 MILES

MONGOLIA

Dornod ULAANBAATAR

50°N

40°N

90°E 100°E 110°E 120°E

!(

\

0 200 400 KILOMETERS

0 200 400 MILES

!!

!

!!

!

NAMIBIA

Marencia Project

Valencia Project

Langer

Heinrich

Mine

Rossing

South

Project

Trekkopje Project

Rossing Mine WINDHOEK

20°S

25°S

10°E 15°E 20°E 25°E

\
50 Critical Analysis of World Uranium Resources

Niger

Two producing centers, both operated by Areva, are 

reported for Niger. The 24,670-tU Akouta mine with a production capacity of 2,000 tU/yr, and the 23,171-tU Arlit mine with 

a production capacity of 2,000 tU/yr (fig. 1–16: (NEA–IAEA, 

2010; Ux Consulting Company LLC, 2010).

The Imouraren and Azelik advanced-stage projects are 

projected to start up by 2013. Areva Company’s Imouraren 

mine has a reserve of 183,520 tU, the second largest reserve 

in the world, and its production capacity is proposed as ranging from 2,000 to 7,000 tU/yr (table 3) (NEA–IAEA, 2010; 

Ux Consulting Company LLC, 2010). The Imouraren mine is 

expected to produce uranium for 35 years, through 2048. The 

Azelik deposit, with 10,800 tU, is jointly being developed to 

its proposed capacity of 1000 tU/yr by the Nigerian government and a private Nigerian group, Trendfield Holdings SA 

(NEA–IAEA, 2010; Ux Consulting Company LLC, 2010). 

Other mining companies are actively exploring tenements in 

Niger, but none has reported reaching the feasibility or development stage.

Pakistan

The Pakistan Atomic Energy Commission (PAEC) 

controls all uranium mining within the country. Pakistan is 

nearing the end of a 5-year (2006–2011) exploration program designed to identify domestic uranium supplies nationwide. No recent country reports are available for Pakistan, 

so estimates of national RAR are based on the IAEA world 

distribution of uranium deposits database (UDEPO) and on 

Ux Consulting Company’s Uranium Suppliers Annual (IAEA, 

2010; Ux Consulting Company LLC, 2010).

Three mines are reported to be operating in Pakistan: the 

Quabul Khel/Issa Khel, the Tumman Leghari, and the Dera 

Ghazi Khan mines (fig. 1–17). The Tumman Leghari mine 

could not be located, but is reported to be in the South Punjab 

Province. RAR for these deposits are unknown. There is some 

confusion in the literature about the location of the Quabul 

Khel and Issa Khel mine/production center (Dahlkamp, 2010; 

Ux Consulting Company LLC, 2010). It is likely mining is 

being carried out at Quabul Khel, with the ore being processed 

at Issa Khel, so the location of both are show on figure 1–17. 

The cumulative nominal production capacity of Pakistani 

mines is estimated to be 84 tU. One deposit, the Shanawah 

ISL mine, is in development and is expected to be producing 

at a rate of 50 tU by 2014 from a resource of 2,578 tU (IAEA, 

2010). PAEC claims to have located one thousand favorable 

uranium areas in the country.

Romania

The Romanian government’s Uranium National Company 

(UNC) owns and manages exploration, mining, and production of uranium resources. Uranium production in Romania has 

Figure 1–16. Location of uranium mines and advanced stage 

projects in Niger. From OECD/NEA-IAEA (2010) and Areva NC (2011).

Figure 1–17. Location of uranium mines, production centers and 

advanced properties in Pakistan. From Dahlkamp (2010).

decreased significantly during the past decade, due to depleted 

resources and closing of unprofitable production facilities. The 

“Energy Strategy of Romania,” a report on domestic reserves 

spanning the years 2007–2020, states that RAR are sufficient to 

supply domestic nuclear energy requirements for the 10 years 

through 2020 (Ux Consulting Company LLC, 2010). In 2010, 

the Romanian government provided UNC with subsidies for 

production of 45 tU (Ux Consulting Company LLC, 2010).

Romania’s last submission to the NEA “Red Book” was 

in 2002. In 2009, the IAEA Secretariat estimated Romania’s 

reasonably assured resources (RAR) at 3,100 tU, and its 

inferred resources at 3,600 tU (NEA–IAEA, 2010). Other 

0 200 400 KILOMETERS

0 200 400 MILES

NIGER

Arlit Mine

Imouraren Project

Azelik Project

Akouta

Mine

NIAMEY

20°N

15°N

0° 5°E 10°E 15°E

\

!

!

!

!

0 250 500 MILES

0 250 500 MILES

PAKISTAN

Issa Khel

Shanawah

Qabul Khel

Dera Ghazi Khan

ISLAMABAD

35°N

30°N

25°N

60°E 70°E 80°E

!!

!

!

\
Appendix 1 51

estimates report a total reserve of 8,769 for mines in the 

Banat Region, Bihor (Apuseni Mountains), and Crucea 

(Eastern Carpathians) regions (fig. 1–18) (Ux Consulting 

Company LLC, 2010). Past and present production of 

38 tU/yr is expected to continue through 2019 (Ux Consulting 

Company LLC, 2010). Reports in 2009 indicate that production is coming from the Crucea Mine in the Eastern 

Carpathians (NEA–IAEA, 2000).

Russia

The Russian Federation is among the top five nations 

producing uranium, with a total cumulative production 

of 139,735 tU as of 2008. Russia reported RAR of over 

181,000 tU, a total that could potentially double after 

feasibility studies are completed for inferred resources that 

exceed 300,000 tU (NEA–IAEA, 2010). Most of Russia’s 

uranium is produced from the Priargunsky mining complex, the world’s largest uranium-producing center, which 

has produced a total of 130,000 tU as of 2008 (fig. 1–19) 

(NEA–IAEA, 2010).

Six Russian uranium deposits are significant. (1) The 

Streltsovsk district Mining and Chemical Works (PCMCW), 

(also referred to as “the Priargunsky works”) has volcanic 

caldera deposits where mining is ongoing and for which 

NEA reports RAR of 102,600 tU, and IR of 26,930 tU, and 

for which Ux Consulting Company LLC (UXC) reports 

118,341 tU. (2) The Dalur production center (Dolmatovskoye 

ISL mine) is producing uranium; the 2009 “Red Book” reports 

RAR of 10,970 tU. (3) The Khiagda deposit, which is amenable to ISL mining, has RAR reported as 26,805 tU and has not 

yet been mined. (4) Vein deposits of the Gornoe deposit have 

RAR reported as 7,918 tU, and with production anticipated by 

2014. (5) Vein deposits of the Olovskaya deposit are reported 

as 12,200 tU, with production anticipated by 2014. (6) The 

metasomatic Elkon district contains large inferred resources 

(319,00 tU), with RAR reported as 71,300 tU, with production anticipated by 2015. (NEA–IAEA, 2010; Ux Consulting 

Company LLC, 2010). Both the Streltsovsk (PCMCW) and 

Dalur mines are producing uranium, with production anticipated from Olovskaya and Gornoe by 2014, and from Elkon 

by 2015 (NEA–IAEA, 2010).

The Russian government plans to continue to expand 

uranium resources, production, and all other steps in the fuel 

fabrication process to meet the growing needs not only of 

the Russian nuclear industry but of the global fuel market. 

In primary supply, their goal is to increase uranium production capacity from 3,521 tU in 2008 (NEA–IAEA, 2010) to 

12,000 tU by 2026 (Ux Consulting Company LLC, 2010).

South Africa

The South African government plans to increase domestic nuclear power generation and to become self-sufficient 

in all steps of the nuclear fuel cycle (NECSA, 2010). The 

Figure 1–18. Major uranium mining regions of Romania.

Figure 1–19. Location of major Russian uranium mining and 

processing districts. From OECD/NEA-IAEA (2010).

government reports an increase in the uranium resource base 

through renewed brownfield exploration efforts during the 

five years 2006–2011, and production capacity is expected to 

double by 2013 (NECSA, 2010).

In South Africa, uranium has been primarily a byproduct 

of gold mining. Since production began in 1951, most 

uranium was from underground mines within quartz-pebble 

conglomerates in the Archean Witwatersrand Basin in the 

northwest region of the country. Potential for uranium producers expanded quickly in 2007, when brownfield exploration, 

stimulated by the “uranium beneficiation” program of the 

South African Government, increased the number of operating 

and planned uranium-producing mines.

0 100 200 KILOMETERS

0 100 200 MILES

ROMANIA

Apesuni

Mountains Eastern

Carpathians

Banat

Mountains

BUCHAREST

48°N

47°N

46°N

45°N

44°N

20°E 25°E 30°E

\

0 1,500 3,000 KILOMETERS

0 1,500 3,000 MILES

RUSSIA

Elkon

Olovskaya

Khiagda

Gornoe

PCMCW

(Streltsovsk)

Dalur

MOSCOW

70°N

50°N

30°N

40°E 100°E 140°E 180°E

!

!

!

!! !

\
52 Critical Analysis of World Uranium Resources

The two main producers of uranium, the Vaal River 

and Ezulwini mines, are located within the Witwatersrand 

Basin, and their combined RAR are reported to contain 

17,076 tU (fig. 1–20) (Ux Consulting Company LLC, 2010). 

The Ezulwini underground mine, about 40 km southwest of 

Johannesburg, is owned and operated by the First Uranium 

Corporation, which estimates more than 4,600 tU in proven 

and probable reserves, and in measured and indicated 

resources from underground deposits and from mine-waste 

tailings (NEA–IAEA, 2010). This report uses a more conservative estimate of measured and indicated resources for 

Ezulwini: 2,730 tU (Ux Consulting Company LLC, 2010). 

Production is anticipated to be 500 tU/yr by 2012 (NECSA, 

2010), the increase in production being attributed to expanding underground development at the Ezulwini mine and also 

to expanding plant capacity of the Mine Waste Solutions 

(MWS ) tailings recovery facility. The Ezulwini mine is 

expected to produce through 2030, and the MWS operation is 

expected to begin producing in 2012, continuing through 2026 

(Ux Consulting Company LLC, 2010).

The second main producing mine, the Vaal River mine 

complex near Klerksdorp, is owned by AngloGold Ashanti 

Ltd. (fig. 1–20). At Vaal River, three mines are producing uranium as a byproduct to gold production: the Great Noligwa, 

the Kopanang, and the Moab Khotsong mines. They report 

RAR of 14,346 tU (NECSA, 2010; Ux Consulting Company 

LLC, 2010). Anglogold Ashanti Ltd. is the largest producer 

of both gold and uranium-byproduct in the country, reporting 

RAR of 70,500 tU (IAEA, 2010). The company is expanding the reserve base through exploring extensions of known 

ore bodies, and it is doubling capacity of its uranium plant by 

refurbishing and rehabilitating existing facilities. Production 

exceeded 600 tU in 2009 and is expected to reach more than 

1,200 tU by 2012, leveling out at 1,100 tU in 2014, and maintaining this level through 2025.

The Dominion Reef deposit is currently on standby. 

This property was acquired by Shiva Uranium Pty. LLC in 

2010, with plans to rehabilitate the production plant and to 

resume mining in 2012. Reserve estimates total 55,753 tU, 

at an average grade of 0.062 percent, with expected production of 425 tU/yr for 2012. Plans are to increase production to 

between 850 and 1,460 tU a year by 2013, and to maintain this 

level through 2025 (NECSA, 2010). After Shiva’s purchase of 

Dominion, however, significant progress toward production 

has not been reported for this mine.

Two mines will potentially come online in 2012 and 

2017: the Cooke and the Ryst Kuil deposits. Using conventional underground mining methods and processing of tailings, 

the Rand Uranium Company is developing the Cooke property, which is outside Johannesburg in the Randfontein region 

within the Elsburg and VCR Reef deposits. The company 

was formed in 2008 to expand historic gold-producing mines 

into large-scale uranium and gold operations, capitalizing on 

surface resources contained within the Cook Tailings Dam. 

During the three years 2012–2015, the company is focusing on developing a uranium processing plant, expanding 

underground mining, and recovering uranium from tailings. 

Production of this Cooke resource of 9,464 tU is scheduled to 

commence in 2012 at a rate of 425 tU/yr. Underground mine 

life is expected to last at least 10 years through 2022, and the 

tailings feed to last for 17 years, to 2030.

The Ryst Kuil sandstone deposit (Areva joint venture 

with AngloGold Ashanti Ltd.) in the Karoo region has historic 

RAR of 7,731 tU (Ux Consulting Company LLC, 2010). 

Current exploration is underway, with the goals of updating 

estimates of reserves and of resources, starting commercial 

production in 2017–2018 at a rate of 1,136 tU/yr, and producing molybdenum as a significant byproduct (NEA–IAEA, 

2010; Ux Consulting Company LLC, 2010).

Other less certain plans for developing South African uranium resource prospects involve properties owned by Mintails 

Ltd., Witwatersrand Consolidated Gold Resources Ltd., Niger 

Uranium SA, and Harmony Gold Mining Company Ltd., with 

reported measured and indicated resources totaling 35,196 tU 

(table 3).

Figure 1–20. Locations of the two operating mines (Ezulwini 

and Vaal River) and of one mine on standby (Dominion) in South 

Africa. From OECD/NEA-IAEA (2010).

0 200 400 KILOMETERS

0 200 400 MILES

SOUTH AFRICA

Vaal River Mine

Ezulwini Mine

Dominion

Reef

25°S PRETORIA

30°S

35°S

15°E 20°E 25°E 30°E 35°E

!!!\
Appendix 1 53

Spain

Spain reports 2,500 tU in the cost category of 

<USD 80kg/U, and it reports 2,400 tU in the cost category 

of <USD 130/kgU (NEA–IAEA, 2010). A past producer, there 

is currently no uranium production from Spain. Berkeley 

Resources Ltd. (Berkeley) is actively exploring in the country 

in the Salamanca and Caceres areas (fig. 1–21). Berkeley also 

holds mineral tenements in the Calaf region where uranium 

is found in lignite seams. In 2009 Berkeley reached a collaborative agreement, along with ENUSA Industrias Avanzadas SA with Spain’s Council of Ministers to complete a 

feasibility study at the Salamanca I deposit (NEA–IAEA, 

2010) Salamanca I is anticipated to produce 769 tU/yr from 

a 30,926-tU deposit, beginning in 2014 (Ux Consulting 

Company LLC, 2010).

Ukraine

The Ukraine government is in the process of increasing domestic nuclear capacity and uranium production, 

with plans for doubling 2010 domestic production by 2013. 

Although domestic uranium production supplied 30 percent of Ukraine’s nuclear energy requirements in 2008, 

increased domestic uranium production is expected to supply 

100 percent of the country’s nuclear energy requirements by 

2012 (NEA–IAEA, 2010). All aspects of the uranium and 

Figure 1–21. Location of active uranium exploration projects in 

Spain. From Berkeley Resources Ltd. (2011).

Figure 1–22. Uranium production centers in Ukraine. From 

Bakarzhiyev, (2011).

0 100 200 KILOMETERS

0 100 200 MILES

SPAIN

Caceres III

Caceres VI

Calaf

Salamanca Project

MADRID

36°N

38°N

40°N

42°N

10°W 6°W 2°W 0° 4°E

!

!!

\

!

0 200 400 KILOMETERS

0 200 400 MILES

Central

Michurinskoye

Safonovskoye

Novokonstantinovskoye

Vatutinskoye

KYIV

UKRAINE 50°N

45°N

25°E 30°E 35°E 40°E

! !

!

!!

\

nuclear industry are state-owned and controlled, operating 

under the Vostochny Integrated Mining and Concentrating 

Plant (VostGOK).

In 2008, Ukraine reported 161,601 tU in the RAR 

category. To date (2011), most of Ukraine’s uranium 

(>100,000 tU) has been extracted from metasomatite deposits 

within the Kirovograd block of the Ukrainian Shield, using 

conventional underground mining methods and underground 

block leaching techniques. Remaining RAR deposits are 

estimated at about 142,000 tU, at grades of 0.1–0.2 percent 

U (NEA–IAEA, 2010; Ux Consulting Company LLC, 2010). 

The remaining RAR—6,900 tU in sandstone deposits within 

the sedimentary cover of the Ukrainian Shield, at grades of 

0.01–0.06 percent U—are amenable to ISL mining.

Production centers include (1) the Hydrometallurgical Plant (HMP) in Zheltiye Vody plant, which has been 

operating since 1958 and currently produces 1000 tU/yr 

from the Michurinskoye, Central and Vatutinskoye deposits 

through the processes of acid leach, solvent extraction, and 

ion exchange (NEA–IAEA, 2010); (2) the new processing 

facility Novokonstantinovskoye HMP in the Kirovograd 

District, which is expected to reach a capacity of 2,500 tU 

year by 2015 (NEA–IAEA, 2010); and (3) the Safonovskoye 

ISL plant in the Kazanofsky District, with planned production 

of 150 tU/yr in 2012 (Ux Consulting Company LLC, 2010) 

(fig. 1–22).
54 Critical Analysis of World Uranium Resources

United States

The following description of U.S. uranium resources 

includes only the publicly available estimates of resources 

associated with operating or with developing mines; it does 

not include United States RAR that are included in other estimates by the EIA uranium reserve , because the EIA considers 

this information to be proprietary and therefore protected.

Mines in the United States produced 3.7 million 

pounds. U3

O8 (1,577 tU) in 2009 and 4.2 million pounds 

U3

O8 (1,615 tU) in 2010 (Energy Information Administration, 

2011). During the fourth quarter of 2011, five ISL operations, 

with a combined reserve of 14,737 tU, were in production: 

the Alta Mesa and the La Palangana mines in Texas, the Crow 

Butte operation in Nebraska, and the Smith Ranch–Highland 

mine, and the Willow Creek mine in Wyoming. Several small 

conventional mines on the Colorado Plateau operated intermittently during this time, with all ore processed at the Denison 

Mines Corp. (Denison) White Mesa Mill in Blanding, Utah 

(purchased by Energy Fuels Inc. in 2012).

In-situ leaching operations produce most of the uranium concentrate in the United States, and most developing 

mines in the country use this process. Currently operating 

ISL plants report more than 7,000 tU of demonstrated economic resources, and more than 61,000 tU are associated with 

developing ISL operations. Uranium-bearing sedimentary 

deposits amenable to ISL are in abundance in the Gulf Coast 

Province in Texas, in Wyoming basins, in the Crawford Basin 

of Nebraska (Black Hills-Northern Great Plains Province), and 

in the Grants district of New Mexico (fig. 1–23).

The United States has significant uranium deposits in 

areas where geologic factors require mining of uranium ore 

by conventional underground or openpit mining techniques, 

such as the high-grade breccia pipes of the Arizona Strip and 

the uranium-bearing sandstones of the Uravan Mineral Belt. 

Development of underground and openpit uranium mining is 

limited by higher costs for extraction, transportation costs, and 

limited milling capacity. In December 2010, operating underground mines within the Colorado Plateau, the Arizona Strip, 

and the Uravan Mineral Belt contained more than 3,000 tU 

in economic resources. Developing underground and openpit 

mines report more than 12,000 tU in demonstrated economic 

resources. Ore from these mines is currently processed at 

the White Mesa Mill, which has an operating capacity of 

2,000 tU/yr. In 2011, the White Mesa Mill was supplied with 

ore mined from underground mines from the Arizona Strip 

Figure 1–23. Uranium province map of the United States.

Gulf Coast

Province

Northwestern 

Arizona 

Wyoming Basins

Province

Tallahassee Creek

District

Front Range 

District

Colorado Plateau

Province

Northwestern 

Arizona 

Black Hills-Northern

Great Plains Province

(includes Crawford Basin)

Wyoming Basins

Province

Cheyenne-Denver

Basin area

Tallahassee Creek

District

Front Range 

District

Florida

Phosphate 

Province

X

X

Uravan 

Mineral 

Belt

Grants

District

Uravan 

Mineral 

Belt

Colorado Plateau

Province

Grants

District X

United States Uranium Provinces, Districts, and Important Deposits

Coles

Hill

Deposit

Anderson

Deposit
Appendix 1 55

(Arizona One mine) and from the Colorado Plateau District 

(Pandora and Daneros mines). Three other existing mills with 

a total capacity of 4,150 short tons of ore per day were on 

standby: the Canon City Mill in Colorado, the Sweetwater 

Uranium Project Mill in Wyoming, and the Shootaring Canyon 

Uranium Mill in Utah. One planned mill in western Colorado, 

Energy Fuel’s Piñon Ridge, is almost fully permitted (Energy 

Fuels Inc., 2012).

The development timeline for mines in the United States 

is long, and the major hurdle to production continues to be 

regulatory uncertainty. The Coles Hill deposit in Virginia 

(Virginia Uranium Inc.; 27,656 tU) cannot currently be developed due to the State’s moratorium on uranium mining and is 

therefore not included in this review of world supply. Development is proceeding at a much more rapid pace in States 

considered friendly to mining, such as Wyoming, whereas 

development is at a virtual standstill in States with active 

groups opposed to uranium mining, such as New Mexico.

Uzbekistan

Uzbekistan is one of the world’s top 10 uranium producers. The country has no national uranium requirements 

and exports all the uranium it produces. The Navoi Mining 

and Metallurgical Complex (Navoi MMC), owned by the 

Uzbekistan government, controls all aspects of uranium 

resource exploration and production.

Uzbekistan’s uranium resources are in sandstone and 

black shale deposits, with production only coming from the 

sandstone deposits. Cenozoic and Mesozoic sedimentary 

basins host the uranium-bearing sandstones in a 125-km-wide 

belt that extends more than 400 km from Uchkuduk in the 

northwest to Nurabad in the southeast. All current and planned 

production is by in-situ leaching from sandstone deposits. 

The black shale deposits are breccia complexes hosted by 

deformed Precambrian-Paleozoic carbonaceous and siliceous 

schists. Mineralization within the black shales includes uranium–vanadium–phosphate ores and could be mined by openpit and by heap-leaching, but there are no immediate plans (as 

of 2005) to mine these deposits (NEA–IAEA, 2006).

Uranium is produced by Navoi MMC from three production centers that have all been operating since 1960s: (1) 

the Northern Mining Division (Uchkuduk District), (2) the 

Southern Mining Division (Zafarabad District), and (3) Mining 

Division #5 (Nurabad District) (Dahlkamp, 2010) . Annual 

production all from ISL mines and was 2,300 tU in 2005, with 

plans to increase to 3,000 tU/yr through 2040 (fig. 1–24).

Uzbekistan has not reported uranium resource information to the NEA since 2005. The 2009 “Red Book” reports 

resource estimates based on the IAEA Secretariat’s adjustments of the 2005 data reduced by past production. For 

2010 NEA estimates RAR of 76,000 tU and IR of 38,600 tU 

(NEA–IAEA, 2010). The Ux Consulting Company LLC 

reports RAR of 108,441 tU, which is fairly consistent with 

NEA’s reporting (Ux Consulting Company LLC, 2010).

Other Countries

Nineteen countries, in addition to these 24 discussed 

above, are listed in the 2009 “Red Book” as containing RAR 

but as currently not producing uranium (table 6) (NEA–IAEA, 

2010). For example, all the following countries contain 

resources but the resources are in the highest cost category 

of USD 260/kgU: France (9,000 tU), Mexico (1,300 tU), 

Tanzania (8,900 tU), Slovakia (5,100 tU), Somalia (5,000 tU), 

and Vietnam (1,000 tU). These economic barriers may well 

account for the lack of production (NEA–IAEA, 2010).

Algeria reports 9,500 tU in the top two cost categories. 

Significant exploration has been carried out in this country, 

but no uranium production is reported (NEA–IAEA, 2008). 

Chile last reported RAR of 1,034 tU in an undesignated cost 

category (NEA–IAEA, 2008). These resources are in lowgrade surficial deposits (~ 0.02 percent U), in metasomatic 

deposits (0.03–0.20 percent U), and in one volcanic deposit, 

El Laco (0.01–0.18 percent U). In 2009, the IAEA Secretariat 

revised this estimate, adjusted for recovery factors, to 800 tU 

in the highest cost category (NEA–IAEA, 2010). Although 

no production has been reported from Chile, an estimated 

7,256 tU could be recovered as a byproduct resource in the 

active Chuquicamata copper deposit and in the Bahia Inglesa 

and Mejillones phosphate deposits (NEA–IAEA, 2006).

Gabon produced uranium before 2006; the 2009 “Red 

Book” reports 4,800 tU in the second highest cost category. 

Areva and Pitchstone Exploration Ltd. have active exploration campaigns in Gabon (NEA–IAEA, 2010; Ux Consulting 

Company LLC, 2010).

Indonesia has never produced, nor is it currently producing, uranium, but it reports 4,800 tU at <USD 130 kg/U 

(NEA–IAEA, 2010). Although uranium deposits in Indonesia 

are well known, exploration is minimal and development is 

not likely in the foreseeable future (Dahlkamp, 2010).

Figure 1–24. Active uranium mining districts in Uzbekistan. 

From NEA–IAEA (2006).

0 250 500 KILOMETERS

0 250 500 MILES

N. Mining

Division

Mining

Division #5

S. Mining

Division

TASHKENT

UZBEKISTAN

45°N

40°N

60°E 65°E 70°E

!

!

!

\
56 Critical Analysis of World Uranium Resources

The 2009 “Red Book” credits Italy with 4,800 tU in the 

<USD 130 kg/U cost category (NEA–IAEA, 2010). Italy 

passed a series of legislative packages during 2008 through 

2010 that emphasized the importance of nuclear power. An 

assessment of prospective ground in the northern Alps near 

Switzerland was undertaken in an attempt to stimulate foreign 

investment (Vettraino, 2010). In 2011, following Fukushima, 

the nuclear policy of Italy was effectively reversed, ceasing 

investigations at least through 2016 (Vettraino, 2011).

The 2009 “Red Book” reported Japan as having 6,600 tU 

in the cost category of <USD 130 kg/U (NEA–IAEA, 2010). 

Japan has historically produced minimal uranium. Known 

resources are attributed to the Tono and the Ningyo–Toge 

deposits (Dahlkamp, 2010). Pilot-test mining of Ningyo–Toge 

during 1964–1982 yielded a small amount of uranium (87 tU), 

and this facility has been dismantled. Underground development of the Tono deposit was initiated, but this deposit is not 

active. Japan imports all its uranium, and Japanese utilities are 

involved in exploration and mining ventures worldwide. Japan 

has been on the forefront of developing technology for extracting uranium from seawater.

Peru reported 1,300 tU in the cost category of 

<USD 80/kgU in the 2009 “Red Book”. This resource is from 

the Macusani area, currently being explored by Macusani 

Yellowcake Inc., Mega Uranium Ltd., South Andes Energy 

Inc., and Vena Resources Inc. (Vena) (Mega uranium Mining 

Company, 2011). Vena reports a 7,997 tU reserve for their 

deposit in the Macusani area, jointly held with Minergia S.A.C. 

This resource is still being explored, and has not progressed to 

the feasibility stage (Ux Consulting Company LLC, 2010). Peru 

has favorable geologic attributes for uranium mineralization, 

and exploration groups are active in some districts. The possibility of this country becoming a producer in the near future 

continues to increase as active exploration proceeds.

Portugal reported 4,500 tU in the cost category of 

<USD 80/kgU, and an additional 1,500 tU in the higher cost 

2009 “Red Book” category of <USD 130/kgU(NEA–IAEA, 

2010) . Portugal has produced uranium, but not since 2001, 

and nuclear energy is not considered in the current national 

energy policy. Some private companies have expressed interest in exploring the Nisa uranium property, but none has yet 

been granted mineral rights (NEA–IAEA, 2010).

The IAEA Secretariat estimated that Slovenia contains 

1,700 tU in the 2009 “Red Book”’s cost category of 

<USD 130/kgU in 2009 (NEA–IAEA, 2010). This resource 

is attributed to the Zirovski deposit, owned by the Republic 

of Slovenia, which the government decided to decommission 

in 1994. Slovenia has not had recent or ongoing exploration 

or mine development activities, and is unlikely to contribute 

to the world uranium supply in the near future.

Sweden reported 400 tU in the cost category of 

<USD 130/kgU in 2009 (NEA–IAEA, 2010). Since 2007, 

exploration has increased in Sweden, with black shale deposits 

containing a very large potential resource. The Viken deposit 

is estimated to contain an indicated resource of 20 million tU, 

and inferred resources of 2.4 billion tU (Puritch and others, 

2010). The metallurgy of this deposit precludes easy recovery, 

however, and Continental Precious Minerals Inc., the company 

currently exploring the Viken deposit, is reportedly investigating the use of bioleaching technology to leach uranium 

from these shales. Mawson Resources Ltd. is exploring three 

deposits of particular note in northern Sweden: the Hotagen 

unconformity related deposit (1,270 tU); the Tasjo uranium 

rare-earth deposit (42,300 tU); and the Dubblon volcanogenic 

deposit containing 3,366 tU (Mawson Resources Limited, 

2008; Ux Consulting Company LLC, 2010). Aura Energy Ltd. 

is exploring low-grade black shales in its Haggan deposit in 

central Sweden with a reported resource of 114,642 tU, which 

the company feels might be profitable if coproducts molybdenum, vanadium, nickel and zinc are mined. Sweden is highly 

prospective, although the black shale and phosphate deposits 

will require either improved technology or the production of 

coproducts, or both, in order to be feasible (Ux Consulting 

Company LLC, 2010). No deposits are yet at the feasibility 

stage in Sweden, although the active exploration activities in 

the country may advance these deposits to feasibility in the 

near future.

Publishing support provided by:

Denver Publishing Service Center, Denver, Colorado

For more information concerning this publication, contact:

Center Director, USGS Central Energy Resources Science Center

Box 25046, Mail Stop 939

Denver, CO 80225

(303) 236-1647

Or visit the Central Energy Resources Science Center Web site at:

http://energy.usgs.gov/

This report is available at: http://pubs.usgs.gov/sir/2012/5239
Hall, Susan, and Coleman, Margaret—Critical Analysis of World Uranium Resources—Scientific Investigations Report 2012–5239