ARCHIVES HISTORIQUES 
DE LA COMMISSION 
 
 
 
COLLECTION RELIEE DES 
DOCUMENTS "COM" 
 
 
 
 
COM (83) 169 
 
 
 
Vol. 1983/0 046 
  
 
Disclaimer  
Conformém ent au règlement (CEE, Euratom) n° 354/83 du Conseil du 1er février 1983 
concernant l'ouverture au public des archives historiques de la Communauté économique 
européenne et de la Communauté européenne de l'énergie atomique (JO L 43 du 15.2.1983, 
p. 1), tel que modifié par le règlement (CE, Euratom) n° 1700/2003 du 22 septembre 2003 
(JO L 243 du 27.9.2003, p. 1), ce dossier est ouvert au public. Le cas échéant, les documents 
classifiés présents dans ce dossier ont été déclassifiés conformément à l'article 5 dudit 
règlem ent. 
In accordance with Council Regulation (EEC, Euratom) No 354/83 of 1 February 1983 
concerning the open ing to the public of the historical archives of the European Econom ic 
Communit y and the European Atom ic Energy Communit y (OJ L 43, 15.2.1983, p. 1), as 
amended by Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1700/2003 of 22 September 2003 (OJ L 243, 
27.9.2003, p. 1), this file is open to the public. Where necessary, classified documents in this 
file have been declassified in conformity with Article 5 of the aforementioned regulation.  
In Übereinstimmung mit der Verordnung (EWG, Euratom) Nr. 354/83 des Rates vom  1. 
Februar 1983 über die Freigabe der historischen Archive der Europäischen  
Wirtschaftsgemeinschaft und der Europäischen Atomgem einschaft (ABI. L 43 vom  15.2.1983,  
S. 1), geändert durch die Verordnung (EG, Euratom) Nr. 1700/2003 vom 22. Septem ber 2003  
(ABI. L 243 vom  27.9.2003, S. 1), ist diese Datei der Öffentlichkeit zugänglich. Soweit  
erforderlich, wurden die Verschlusssachen in dieser Datei in Übereinstimmung mit Artikel 5  
der genannten Verordnung freigegeben.  
COMMISSION  OF THE  EUROPEAN  COMMUNITIES 
COM(83) 169 fiaal 
Brussels,  30 March 1983 
URANIUM EXPLORATION  IN THE  COMMUNITY 
SECOND PROGRESS REPORT 
AND 
ORIENTATIONS  FOR THE  FUTURE 
(Communication  from  the  Commission  to the  Council) 
COM(83) 169 final 

CONTENTS 
1. Summary 
2. Review of exploration programmes  1976-81 
2.1 Implementation 
2.2 Overall assessment of the achievements and effectiveness 
of programme 
2.3 Environmental impact of uranium explorrtion 
3. Future programme 
3.1 General situation of uranium supply and demand 
and its effect on exploration 
3.2 New programme orientation 
3.3 Targets 
3.4 Programme implementation 
3.5 Budget 
3.6 Mechanisms of programme 
3.7 Management 
Annex  1 -  Tables 
Annex  2 -  Individual country assessments 

1 
1. Summary 
1.1 The Commission has provided financial support to uranium prospecting 
projects in the territories of the Member States since 1976.  A 
first  progress report was presented in 1979. The basis for the 
support scheme is the Commission's Regulation (Euratom) 2014/76 
This  Regulation : 
a) outlines the goals of a Community action in this field, which are : 
- taking  into  account the 80% dependence of the Community on 
external uranium supplies, to support the evaluation of the 
uranium resources in the Community. Development of these 
resources  would  further  diversify the sources of supply and 
thus contribute to the long-term security of supply of the 
Communi  ty; 
- to encourage the mining industry to intensify its exploration 
efforts by partial financial support to offset some of the 
inherent financial risks of such activities; 
b) sets out conditions, as required by Article 70 of the Euratom 
Treaty, for giving financial aid from the Community's budget to 
uranium prospecting projects. 
1.2 Community support has extended over 6 years and a substantial number 
of projects have been finalised during this period. It is therefore 
possible  to review the results obtained  till  now and draw conclusions. 
1.3 The  first  part of this communication provides a review of the 
exploration projects to date. These projects were carried out in 
close  cooperation  with  expert geologists of the national administrations. 
Also  information from the programme of R&D in uranium exploration 
techniques and ore processing was injected  into  this exercise. Although 
results obtained necessarily differ from country to country, the 
overall assessment of the action is positive for the following reasons :-
(1) C0M(79)90  final (2) OJ of the EC No L 221 of 14.8.1976 

2 
- through this programme already over  33,000  tonnes of new uranium 
resources  (reasonably assured and estimated additional) have been 
identified  (1); 
- further  to the resources already identified, several new areas 
with  significant uranium potential have been outlined; 
- a better knot-Hedge of the ti-o:ccL; end ccsts cf developing these 
new sources of uranium supply has been acquired, therefore in  case 
of exploitation, lead times  will  be shorter; 
- the information derived  from  the exploration projects carried out 
in the Community helps provide the basis for exploration methodology 
in third  countries; 
- finally, the  work  carried out has shown  that  uranium exploration 
need  have no lasting detrimental effects on the environment. 
1.4 The second  part  of this communication outlines the rationale for the 
Commission  continuing this action. However, in 
the light  of results achieved so far, it is proposed to modify some of 
the guidelines governing the programme. 
The Commission believes  that  a continued exploration  effort  is required 
to improve assurance of supply over the long term. The present 
situation of surplus uranium production capacity has reduced drastically 
the volume of uranium exploration worldwide. It would be contrary to 
the Community's longer  term  interests of securing nuclear fuel supplies 
to follow this worldwide  trend  in exploration activities and stop  half­
way the current  effort  to evaluate properly the uranium resources in 
the Member States. Termination of the programme would not only put at 
risk the  full  analysis of the results obtained so far, but also be 
contrary to the  intention  expressed by the Commission in its recent 
communication  : An energy strategy for the Community  : the nuclear 
aspects  (C0M(82)36). Proposals on the support of uranium exploration 
(2) 
in third  countries  will  follow 
(1) 
(2) Comprising  : F.FL Germany 2,000 tonnes,  Italy  3,000 tonnes, Greenland 
(Denmark) 28,500 tonnes. This would represent, if produced, enough 
uranium to cover the requirements of at least 30 PWR nuclear plants 
(1000 MWe) during the whole of their expected  lifetime  (ca 30 years). 
This  extension is proposed as a proposition to the Council  within  the 
modifications proposed on Chapter VI of the Euratcm Treaty.  Because 
of this, the implications of this proposal are not considered in this 
document. 

3 
In future,  it is proposed  that  the Community's financial support  will 
not apply to general geological surveys such as it has mainly supported 
during the period 1976-1981. It is proposed to concentrate  further 
financial support on specific geological  target  areas which have been 
shown to have particular uranium potential  from  the current programme. 
It is proposed  that  the level of 
spending  should be 10  MECU  a year which, taking  into  account inflation 
since  1976, corresponds to a level of expenditure equivalent to  that 
for the period 1976-1981 
2. Review of exploration programmes 1976-1981 
2.1 Implementation 
2.11 The Commission Regulation (Euratom) 2014/76 mentioned in paragraph 1.1 
identifies the aims and conditions of the Community's support of uranium 
exploration projects. 
It describes 
the main types of exploration activity which can benefit  from  such 
Community support, namely : 
- regional uranium exploration 
- local uranium evaluation 
- evaluation of uranium occurrences. 
The Commission has supported 58 projects in these fields  with  aid 
totalling  27.5 million ECU  from  1976-1981. It has been a  basic  guiding 
principle  that  Community aid should effectively complement and not 
replace  national and private financial support. 
2.12 Community support for projects has varied between 30% and 70%. The 
higher percentage has been awarded to projects in their  initial  stages 
where the financial risk is highest and maximum encouragement is needed 
to get projects underway. 
(*) 27.5  million ECU. 

4 
2.13  Since  the adoption in 1976 of the regulation, 5 calls for submission of 
uranium exploration projects have appeared in the Official Journal of 
the European Communities. 
2.14 On the basis of the applications received, the Commission has selected 
each  year a number of projects as follows 
Year Applications 
for support Projects  selected 
for support Amount of 
support 
MECU 
1976 12 7 1 
1977 20 13 5 
1978 18 9 5 
1979 18 13 5 
1980 20 12 9 
1981 4 (2) 2.5 (3) 
Total 58 27.5 
2.15 It has not been possible for the Commission to support all the projects 
submitted. In order to arrive at a careful selection of projects for 
support, a two-stage procedure was followed. Projects were  first 
carefully examined by the Commission services. In a second stage the 
Commission  was assisted in the project evaluation by an expert 
group of uranium geologists  from  the Member States. 
2.2 Overall assessment of the achievements and effectiveness of programme 
2.21 The primary objective of this action was not only to outline 
new uranium reserves, but also to estimate the level of sub-economic 
uranium resources in the Community and thus the  total  uranium potential 
of the Community. This has been done in a unique exercise where the 
Commission  services, aided by consultants and uranium experts  from  the 
Member  States have worked together in continually evaluating the results 
of the programmes. They have visited most of the significant uranium 
(1) 
(2) See in Annex 1 set of tables showing projects financed country by country. 
This  total  is made up of the continuation of 3 projects already chosen for 
support in 1980 and a new project in the new Member State of the Community, 
Greece. (3) This  support was made possible through a transfer of 1.2 million ECU  from 
the overall budget for energy and 1.3 million ECU made available  from 
projects terminated earlier than foreseen. 

5 
occurrences  found during the programme and  jointly  made recommendations 
to those carrying out the  work  and to the Commission. The individuals 
concerned  have  built  up over the years a significant expertise in 
evaluating the projects and have thus been able to coordinate this 
evaluation of the potential of the Community. The results of this 
work  are detailed in the individual country assessments (see Annex 2). 
The final reports  from  all the projects will, in due course, be 
put on open  file  by the Commission. 
2.3 Environmental impact of uranium exploration 
Throughout the Community, questions have been raised as to whether 
uranium exploration may have a harmful effect on the environment. The 
regional uranium exploration programmes supported so far have indicated 
a wide range of naturally occurring values for uranium and its daughter 
products in rocks,  soils,  water and the air. None of these programmes 
has had any lasting detrimental effects on the environment. In fact, 
in many countries, for example Ireland, although in some areas there 
has been significant local opposition, the exploration programmes 
concerned  have provided valuable base data on the environment. Though 
in the later stages of uranium exploration, drilling, trenching and 
underground workings may be carried out, there is no reason for there 
to be any detrimental effects  from  them on the environment. 
There  is no evidence  from  the Commission's programmes  that  any  form  of 
exploration activity necessarily increases beyond the natural variation 
already  found in nature the amounts of radiation due to uranium and 
its daughter products. 
3. Future programme 
3.1 General situation of uranium supply and demand and its effect on  
exploration 
3.11 Expectations in the early 1970s as regards nuclear power development 
have  brought about a situation in the world where uranium production 
capacity  is for the  time  being in  excess  of uranium demand. As a 

6 
consequence,  spot uranium prices have  dropped sharply  from  about 
S 40/lb of uranium in the Late 1970s to  Less  than haLf of this figure 
today. There is  Little  reason to believe  that  the state of the 
market  will  change significantly in the short to medium term. 
3.12 The existing situation of weak demand  will  lead suppliers 
to correct the imbalance. Already a number of uranium mines producing 
at high cost are being closed down. This narrows the 
available  sources of supply.  Second,  because demand for uranium is 
weaker  than foreseen and because current price levels reduce the 
profitability  of uranium production, uranium exploration is being seen 
as less  urgent and largely oriented towards low-cost uranium targets, 
for example in Australia and  Canada. 
3.13 In effect, a decrease in uranium exploration activity can be 
observed  worldwide. All of the present exploration is oriented towards 
"low-cost" uranium targets, virtually none of which are located in the 
Community. 
Thus,  the longer  term  effect on the supply structure could well be an 
increasing  concentration of uranium production capacity to a few 
producers. 
3.14  Because  the Community is a major user of uranium, of which by far the 
largest share  will  have to be imported, the current reduction in 
exploration activity worldwide must be  assessed  seriously for its 
impact on the  future  level and structure of supplies and therefore on 
the long-term supply security. 
3.15  The Commission intends therefore to continue to support an adequate 
level  of exploration  effort  on the lines described in the following. 
(1) The spot market only represents up to 10% of the  total  uranium 
market-  Prices  in long-term contracts 
are now also showing signs of being renegotiated downwards. 

7 
3.2 New programme orientation 
3.21 A study on the uranium potential of the EC countries carried out for 
the Commission indicates a significant potential for new discoveries 
within  the Community. Uranium geologists  from  the Member States have 
endorsed  this opinion. 
3.22 The Community-supported projects have shown  that  the new uranium 
resources  identified mainly in Greenland,  Italy  and Germany could, if 
developed,  make substantial additions to the uranium resource base in 
the Community. Further Commission support is likely to lead to more 
discoveries,  in the areas mentioned and in other favourable  areas,  e.g. 
Greece. 
3.23 The most promising approach for the coming years  will  be to concentrate 
on the evaluation of those primary uranium occurrences  that  have already 
been  identified. 
Development of the uranium resources 
identified would have positive implications for employment and the 
balance  of payments of the Community. 
3.3 Targets 
3.31 The Commission believes  that  for the near  future  the following types of 
mineralisation should  form  the mainstay of the Community's support : 
a) uranium mineralisation associated  with  high-level intrusions 
b) volcanogenic uranium deposits 
c) contact metamorphic deposits 
d) uranium associated  with  continental sediments. 
3.32 The reason is  that  the major discoveries made in the Community since 1976 
all fall  within  these four types. They host all the significant 
indications of uranium mineralisation  that  have been outlined in 
programmes supported by the Commission. 
(1) Bowie  S.H.U.  : Uranium Potential of the EEC Countries, 31 December 1979. 

8 
3.33 It is not precluded  that  there  will  be uranium discoveries in other 
types of deposit in the short to medium term, but there  will  need to be 
significant advances in research and development in uranium exploration 
techniques and uranium ore processing before exploration for other types 
of deposit becomes viable. 
3.34 In its  future  calls for applications for Community support the Commission 
intends to include  that  priority  will  be given to uranium exploration 
proposals  aimed at the discovery of these four types of deposit. 
3.4 Programme Implementation 
intends to 
3.41 The Commission / continue to provide support for uranium exploration 
projects on the basis of the Commission Regulation (Euratom) 2014/76. 
3.42 An expert group of uranium geologists  from  the Member States should 
continue to advise on the selection of project applications. 
3.43 On the basis of the experience gained so far, the expert group has 
supported a number of technical and administrative recommendations which 
would improve the programme's execution. The Commission intends to 
take advantage of these recommendations in  future. 
3.5 Budget 
3.51 The Commission estimates  that  a continuation of support on the lines 
described  will  need a support of approximately 10 million ECU per year. 
3.52 Support at this level would enable the Commission to support the most 
promising projects and maintain present practice as regards the share 
of Community support to the individual project. 
In the  light  of the progress of discussions now taking place on 
Community policy on supply of nuclear fuels, more ambitious 
objectives could be followed in  future,  when account is also 
taken of the possibility of extending Community funds to 
prospecting outside the Community. 

9 
3.53  Currently this range is  30-70%  of total  exploration costs, but the 
typical Community share of support ranges from 30%-50%. Higher levels 
of support will go to programmes in their initial reconnaissance phase, 
when chance of  success  is least certain. Lower support levels apply 
to programmes in their detailed evaluation stage, when already the 
basic  economic parameters have been determined. 
3.6 Mechanisms of Programme 
It is proposed  that,  following the identification of the geological 
targets, a call for applications will be made in the Official Journal of 
the European Communities  with  specific reference to these targets. As 
is present practice, the organisations  within  the Community will be given 
a list of headings to reply to in their description of the project. These 
headingsare covered in the current Commission Regulation  (Euratom) 2014/76. 
3.7 Management 
Following receipt of the programmes, the Commission services,  with  the 
aid of consultants, will review and make preliminary comments on the 
projects. Following this, all the projects received will be tabled to 
an advisory group of geologists who will aid the Commission in the final 
selection of programmes. Having taken the advice of this group, the 
Commission  will propose which projects will be supported  within  the 
available budget . 

ANNEX 1 -  TABLES 

Euratom Article 70 - 1976 round  of funding 
in u.c. 
No Name  of project Location 
of project Organi sation Total cost 
EUA % Commission 
participation Total 
funding 
1 Kvanefj eld Denmark 
(Greenland) Geological  Survey of Greenland 906.667 30 272.000 
2 Regional  programme Ireland Irish  Base  Metals Ltd 165.984 63 104.570 
3 Regional  project Ireland Geological  Survey of  Ireland 28.800 50 14.400 
4 Leinster Granite 
Survey Ireland Maugh Ltd 311.118 62 192.893 
5 Mari  funt Italy AGIP  SpA 732.800 30 219.840 
6 Orkney United Kingdom South of Scotland Electricity 
Board 325.800 50 162.900 
7 Niedersachsen RF Germany UrangeselIschaft mbH 95.420 35 33.397 
TOTAL 1.000.000 

Euratom Article  70 - 1977  round of funding 
in u.a. 
No Name  of project Location 
of project Organi sation Total cost 
EUA % Commission 
participation Total  
funding 
1 Uranium  follow-up 
programme Ireland Irish  Base  Metals  Ltd 551.400 60 330.840 
2 Leinster  project 
(Stage  II) Ireland Maugh  Ltd 1.631.015 45 729.110 
3 Regional survey Ireland Geological Survey  of Ireland 174.000 30 52.200 
4 Fintona Block United Kingdom 
(N. Ireland) Minerex  Ltd 198.000 50 99.000  . 
5 Vise Belgium Université  Libre  de Bruxelles 168.722 39 66.000 
6 Bayerischer Wald FR Germany UrangeselIschaft  mbH and 
Minatome  SA 528.837 67.5 356.965 
7 Niedersachsen FR Germany UrangeselIschaft  mbH 533.236 50 266.618 
8 Oberpfalz FR Germany Saarberg-Interplan  mbH 2.074.211 57 1.186.466 
9 Mittelfranken FR Germany Saarberg-Interplan  mbH 1.203.138 43 520.401 
10 Kvanefjeld Denmark 
(Greenland) Geological Survey  of Greenland 65.333 40 26.133 
11 S. Greenland Regio­
nal programme Denmark 
(Greenland) Geological Survey  of Greenland 669.334 65 435.067 
12 Western Alps Italy AGIP  SpA 1.184.000 30 355.200 
13 Val Rendena Italy AGIP  SpA 1.920.000 30 576.000 

ARTICLE  70 -  SIHATŒ-Î  TREATY  
1978  round  of funding 
in UCE 
Kame  of project Country . Funding 
Kame  of project Country urganisation Total cost  of 
pro.iect /b of Cc=ziiB3ion  I 
participation Total Coimission 
participation 
Preliainary  U Prospecting Belgium Union  Minière 920,306 55 504,889 
Allihies Ireland Minerex  Ltd. 34,633 70 24,243 
Val Rendena 
Western Alps Italy 
Italy A.C. I.P. 
A.C.I.P. 1,040,433 
1,089,845 70 
70 728,303 
762,892 
URSEJ Netherlands IRC International  V 
Resources  Consultants 60,000 70 42,000 
Cornwall-South  of  Scotland. U. Kingdom Minatome 876,191 62 547,052 
Bavarian Forest Field  I 
and Field  II 
U exploration  in the  ' 
Schwarzwald 
Ksuper  Wiïrtteaberg W. Germany 
H. Germany 
W. G em any Deutsche  BP 
Uranerzbergbau 
Urangesellschaft 1,304,747 
1,502,861 
941,622 62 
66 
63 802,679 
985,721 
592,852 
TOTAL 7,770,638 4,990,631* 
The sua of  9,369  UCE  has  already been cor.nitted  by  written  procedure  ^(78)792  - article  321. 

Euratom Article 70 - 1979 round  of funding 
in EUA C*> 
No Name  of project Location 
of project Organi sation Total cost 
EUA % Commission 
participation Total 
funding 
1 Hessen FR Germany Saarberg-Interplan  mbH 34.441 70 24.109 
2 Kanderta I FR Germany Saarberg-Interplan  mbH 73.882 70 51.717 
3 Structural localis­
ation of uranium Ireland Geological  Survey of  Ireland 72.304 70 50.613 
4 U exploration in 
Donegal and Kilkenny Ireland Irish  Base  Metals Ltd 374.334 60 224.600 
5 Leinster Ireland Maugh Ltd 671 .4 65 70 470.026 
6 Uranium  - Donegal Ireland Rio Tinto  Finance and 
Exploration Ltd 28.490 70 19.943 
7 Uranium  - Galway and 
KiIkenny Ireland Rio Tinto  Finance and 
Exploration Ltd 36.490 70 25.543 
8 Val Vedello Italy AGIP  SpA 4.740.717 42 1.994.513 
9 Western Alps Italy AGIP  SpA 1.924.537 45 866.042 
10 Sardinia Italy AGIP  SpA 1.112.347 70 778.643 
11 Scotland United Kingdom UrangeselLschaft  mbH 274.367 70 192.057 
12 U potential in 
Armagh and Down United Kingdom Ulster  Base  Metals Ltd 140.012 70 98.008 
13 Narssaq  Gamma-Ray 
Survey Denmark 
(Greenland) Rise National Laboratory and 
Geological  Survey of Greenland 408.371 50 204.186 
TOTAL 9.855.605 5.000.000 
(*) Exchange  rate  of 2 April  1979. 

Sbrp.tc= Article  70 -  *..?zO  rcur.d  of fur.dir./j 
——~  _- • f«) 
in EITA  v ; 
J No Xace of project Location 
of project Organisation Total cost BUA /& Co=i3sicn participation Total 
funding 
1 Bayerischer Wold FR Ger-.ony U rasngesn e11schaf  t/Mir.at ce:e/ 
j Deutsche  3? 357,607 60 214,354 
2 Cter?falz FR Censary  |  Saarbers-Interplan 
1 3,460,292 60 2,076,175 
3 Schvarzvald FR Gcmany Saarberg>-Int  erplcn 663,107 70 464,175 
4 Donegal Ireland Irish  2oso  Metals/Tara 
Prospect  ir..^ 1,711,960 60 1,027,176 
5 kilkenny Ireland Irish  Baso  Ketals/Tara 
Prospect irò 133,524 70 93,467 
6 Leister Unit  IV Iroland Min at o= e/ '.·'. au gh 423,571 70 300,000 
. 7 
• Lcir.s-.er  Unit V Ireland Irioh  Sase  I-.'otals/liaigh 537,023 70 375,916 
8 
« Satellite  Iaagery 
Denegai Ireland Geological  Survey  of 
Ireland 103,505 70 72,454 
9 Sardinia Italy AGIP 661,694 70 603,160 
10 Val Vcdcllo Italy AGIP 10,A20,374 30 3,126,112 
11 '.•'cs'.em  Alps Italy AGI? 577,510 70 404,537 
12 Cornwall United Jlinsdorn Charter  Consolidaied/ 
Minatone 346,054 70 242,233 
(*) Conversion  rate  of 25 April  1980  Total  : $  KSJA 

Euratom  Article  70 - 1981  round of  funding 
in ECU 
No Name of project Location 
of project Organi sation Total cost 
ECU Total funding 
1 Kavala Greece Greek Atomic Energy Commission 697,674 300,000 
2 Sardinia Italy AGIP 826,198 550,000 
i 3 
! Val Seriana Italy AGIP 1,238,886 850,000 
4 Cornwall United Kingdom Charter Consolidated/Minatome 1,145,475 800,000 

ANNEX 2 
Individual  Country Assessments 
1. BELGIUM 
Two preliminary uranium exploration  programmes  have been supported in 
Belgium. The  first was a research  programme  to examine  uranium mineral­
isation at Visé (Liège  Province). A re-evaluation of the  ! ,own uranium 
prospects in the  Visé region was  carried  out plus new exploration in the 
region in order that any further uranium occurrences could be detected. 
The results  of this programme  indicated that the  economic  potential of the 
area was very  limited  and no further  work was proposed. 
The second project was a regional geochemical reconnaissance  programme 
over the  whole of the Belgian Paleozoic in order to provide a  first picture 
of the distribution  of uranium, and from  this data base propose  what 
further  detailed research could be undertaken in  particular  zones. The 
project was coordinated by the Geological Survey of Belgium with the 
participation  of the  Université  Catholique de  Louvain, the  Université  Libre 
de Bruxelles  and the  Faculté  Polytechnique de  Mons. Radiometric, stream 
sediment and hydrogeochemi cal exploration  methods  were combined  with 
advanced data processing techniques to evaluate the area's  potential.  In 
all 10,200  stream sediment samples,  2,400  water samples and  13,000  radiometric 
measurements  were collected.  A synthesis of  this data indicated three  main 
regions where the presence of  numerous  small anomalies  seemed  to reveal a 
more favourable geochemical or geological  setting  for uranium mineralisation. 
However,  a' present no further uranium exploration  programmes  have been 
proposed. 
2. DENMARK 
No projects  have been supported on the mainland of  Denmark  due to its very 
limited uranium  potential.  However,  the situation  in Greenland is 
geologically  more attractive  for uranium mineralisation and  significant 
results have been obtained through projects supported by the  Commission. 
Initially  the programmes  in Greenland concentrated on developing the 

2 
Potential  of the Kvanefjeld deposit in the iLimaussaq aLkaLine intrusive 
in south GreenLand.  Here  ReasonabLy  Assured  Resources  of uranium  have 
been increased from  5,800 tonnes  U to 28,500  tonnes  U in the cost category 
S 80-130/kg  U Estirnated  Additional  Resources  in the same cost 
category  have increased from  8,700 tonnes  U to 16,000  tonnes  U. However, 
before this deposit can be developed,  more research is necessary on 
processing the ore as well as on studies of the  economics  of recovering 
by-product or co-product elements. Attention has also to be given to the 
adequate  disposal of the fluorine content of the deposit. 
However,  more important are the new discoveries of  uranium  mineralisation 
in the rocks surrounding the alkaline intrusives of S.W. Greenland.  These 
discoveries  have increased the  uranium  potential of the area as the type 
of mineralisation discovered  does not have the same processing  problems 
as the uranium  resources inside the Ilimaussaq intrusive. 
3. FEDERAL REPUBLIC  OF GERMANY 
In Germany  a significant  amount of uranium  exploration was supported before 
the Article  70 exercise was  initiated.  However,  assistance  under  Article 
70 was instrumental in  expanding  the evaluation of the  uranium  potential 
of the Federal Republic, both by supporting a  number  of regional exploration 
programmes  and smaller  specific  evaluation  programmes  over areas that had 
already been outlined. This evaluation has  been carried out by individual 
organisations acting either on their own or  under  joint ventures. 
The main area of interest discovered so far is in the N.E. part of Bavaria 
near the Czechoslovakian border.  Here,  in the region of  2,000 tonnes  of 
new uranium  resources  have been outlined. This discovery is particularly 
worthwhile as following this result the  whole uranium  potential of the 
immediate  area associated with the  metamorphosed  crystalline  basement  is 
increased. 
Other projects elsewhere in  Germany,  for example  in the southern Black 
Forest, are continuing but it is too early to assess their results. 
Average grade 0.04% U. (1) 

3 
4. GREECE 
The Commission  supported its  first uranium  exploration  programme  in Greece 
starting  in 1981. The project, being carried out by the  Greek Atomic  Energy 
Commission,  is situated in N.E.  Greece  and entails intensive  uranium 
exploration in a  number  of specific areas. The  first conclusions  from this 
programme  are expected in mid  1983. 
No uranium  exploration  programmes  have been supported by the  Commission  under 
the Euratom  Treaty in France. 
Before the  initiation  of the  Community  uranium  exploration support  programme, 
there had  been only a very limited  amount  of uranium  exploration carried out 
in Ireland. A  total of 17 contracts  have been concluded  under  this 
programme  so far. The  first actions supported in Ireland  were regional 
surveys that had as their objective a  first assessment  of the  whole country. 
From these programmes,  it was apparent that two areas in Ireland had  some 
potential  for uranium  mineralisation.  These  are the areas of the Leinster 
granite in S.E. Ireland and the  Donegal  granite in N.W. Ireland. It is 
too early to say  whether  the uranium  mineralisation found in these two areas 
will eventually  prove economic. 
Of the two areas, it is the  Donegal  granite that has proved to be of  most 
interest  A number  of target areas for exploration in relation to this 
high-level  granitic intrusion  have been identified.  These  target areas 
are at present being evaluated. 
In Donegal,  local concern has  been voiced as to the  impact  on the 
environment  of the  uranium  exploration carried out.  Because  of this 
anxiety, particular care has  been given to monitoring the  activities  of the 
organisations supported by the  Commission  and it has  been ascertained that 
none of the exploration  activities  have had any long-term detrimental effect 
on the areas  concerned.  In fact, the results of the exploration  programmes 
provide new data on the natural  background  levels of  uranium  and its 5. FRANCE 
6. IRELAND 

4 
daughters in the areas surveyed. 
In the Commission's  view, it  would be worthwhile continuing the evaluation 
of the uranium potential of the Donegal area. 
7. ITALY 
The uranium exploration  programmes  supported by the  Commission  in Italy 
have been concentrated in three  main areas : the central northern Alps, 
the western Alps and Sardinia. To date, the  most significant  results  have 
been in the central northern Alps  where at Val Vedello the  Commission's 
action has supported the  identification  of in the region of  3,000 tonnes of 
uranium resources. This  development  has particularly  increased the 
potential  of the central northern Alps. 
In the western Alps, a  number  of uranium occurrences  have been identified 
and work is concentrating on evaluating the uranium potential of these and 
re-evaluating  areas with  similar  geology. 
In Sardinia, the uranium potential is being assessed in the north and south 
of the island  and it  will take further  work before drawing a conclusion on 
the importance of  this potential. 
The potential of volcanogenic uranium deposits in central  Italy is being 
examined. 
8. LUXEMBOURG 
Although there appears to be  some limited  potential for uranium mineralisation 
in the continental sandstones of  Luxembourg,  no proposals for exploration 
have been received by the  Commission. 

5 
9. NETHERLANDS 
10. FoLlowing  a comparison  of the  geology  of the  Netherlands with  similar  areas 
with uranium  potential,  one small programme was  supported  in order to assess 
the Netherlands' uranium  potential.  The  results  of this programme 
indicated  that, although there  were a number of  small concentrations  of 
uranium mainly associated with phosphatic material, there  was little 
likelihood  of finding  adequate quantities  of uranium  for development  under 
present economic  conditions. 
UNITED KINGDOM 
Exploration  supported through  this action  has been concentrated  in Scotland 
and the south-west  of England.  These  programmes  followed  on from the 
regional  uranium exploration  programmes  carried  out by the  Institute  of 
Geological  Sciences. Although  a number of  areas of interest  were 
identified  in Scotland, since  1978 the  major part of the  exploration  effort 
has been concentrated  in the S.W. of  England.  Here  a joint venture 
between  British  and French organisations  has been examining uranium targets 
related to major fracture zones associated with  the granites  of S.W.  England. 
Although  good exploration targets  have been identified,  progress  in testing 
these targets  has been hampered by  difficulties  in identifying  and 
securing  adequate mineral rights over  the areas of interest. 
These difficulties  have added  significantly  to the  costs of the programme. 
Following  a period of three years mainly devoted  to this problem,  some 
progress  is now  being made in securing  the mineral rights over  a limited 
number of  individual  targets.