Group items tagged

American Energy Fields, Inc. (OTCBB:AEFI), formerly Sienna Resources, Inc. is a uranium exploration and development company based in Arizona. Their focus is uranium deposits in the United States. The Company’s three main projects (in which they have sole interest) are  the Coso and Blythe  projects in California, and Artillery Peak project in Arizona. All three properties have been previously explored and developed, and are currently in early exploration stages.  A 43-101 technical report for the Artillery Peak project is available for review on American Energy Field’s website. What we like about American Energy Fields, Inc: Over 9.2 million pounds U3O8 historic resources with 2.8 million pounds 43-101 verified More than $25 million in development work, by past operators, has been spent on AEFI’s current projects Committed to near term production of low cost U.S. Uranium

The Artillery Peak property consists of 1,777 acres of federal land and is located 112 miles northeast of Phoenix, Arizona. American Energy Fields’ historic records indicate 1.7 million pounds of uranium was previously identified through exploration on Artillery Peak. There has been significant exploration work completed on the property, including over 400 holes drilled by Jacquays Mining, Homestake Mining, Hecla Mining, Getty Oil, Public Service Company of Oklahoma, and Santa Fe Mining between the 1950s-1970s. A 1979 report by Central and South West Fuels, Inc. found that the northern portion of the property contains a historical resource of 1.7 million pounds U3O8 with an average grade of 0.113%. In 2007/2008 new exploration was conducted which included 34 additional drill holes to verify historic drilling and further delineate mineralization. In 1979, the Department of Energy conducted an evaluation of the Date Creek Basin and the Artillery Mountains where they estimated that the area could contain as much as 1,260,000,000 pounds of U3O8. The Company will begin a preliminary exploration program to verify the historic data reported by Central and South West Fuels Inc.

Coso – Inyo County – California The Coso project covers 169 federal mining claims and 800 state-owned acres and was previously developed by Western Nuclear, Pioneer Resources, Federal Resources, and Union Pacific Mining/Rocky Mountain Energy. An estimated U.S. $20,000,000.00 was spent on exploration and development of the project, including an engineered pit design, where exploration records indicate 5.5 million lbs. of uranium was identified with an average grade of 0.07 U3O8. American Energy Fields recently received its exploration permit for the 800 state-owned acres from the California Land Department and is currently developing an exploration plan to confirm the historic data with the goal of moving the project towards production. Blythe – Riverside County – California The Blythe project consists of 66 Federal mining claims in Riverside County, California covering 3 historic mines, the Safranek, the McCoy Wash, and the Little Ore Hill operated by Humbug Mining and Bokum Corporation. According to Bokum’s records during the years of 1963 to 1964, the Safranek Mine produced and shipped 1,400 tons of uranium ore averaging 0.80% U308 to the VCA mill in Salt Lake City, Utah for processing. These records also indicate the Safranek site currently contains 100 tons at 0.40% U3O8 and 4,000 tons at 0.30% U3O8 of stockpiled ore, while the McCoy Wash has 3,000 tons of stockpiled ore with a grade of 0.20% U3O8. Bokum Corporation drilled the property in the early 1970s and the results indicated approximately 153,000 lbs of U3O8 while outlining a further potential for an additional 2,000,000 lbs of U3O8. American Energy Fields aims to identify, expand, and develop the ore body with the goal of putting the past producing mines back into production. Management

New uranium mining claims on 1 million acres around the Grand Canyon will be blocked for 20 years under a decision the Bureau of Land Management announced Wednesday. The announcement confirmed that the Obama administration was proceeding with a plan that Interior Secretary Ken Salazar announced in July and is expected to make final in 30 days. The decision withdraws a right to Western public lands that mining companies otherwise would have under the 1872 Mining Law

Sen. John McCain of Arizona and other Republican lawmakers proposed legislation earlier this month that would prevent the administration from proceeding with the withdrawal. They said then that there was no evidence that uranium mining would harm the Grand Canyon watershed, and that banning new claims would cost hundreds of jobs. BLM director Bob Abbey said Wednesday that banning new mining claims was necessary to give time to better understand the environmental impacts of uranium mining in the area. ""The Grand Canyon is an iconic place for all Americans and visitors from around the world," Abbey said in a statement. "Uranium remains an important part of our nation's comprehensive energy resources, but it is appropriate to pause, identify what the predicted level of mining and its impacts on the Grand Canyon would be, and decide what level of risk is acceptable to take with this national treasure."

The decision prevents only new mining claims. Mines that already have been approved would continue to operate, and new mines could be approved on claims that already exist.

he concept of ‘environmental protection’ has taken on new meaning with the announcement of Commonwealth environmental approvals for BHP Billiton’s Olympic Dam copper/gold/uranium mine in South Australia. “We have the toughest environmental conditions that you’ll ever find imposed on a uranium mine,” Commonwealth Environment Minister Tony Burke stated proudly. This is known in the technical literature as a ‘bald-faced lie’. We know that, because the toughest environmental conditions found at a uranium mine are 2,000 kilometres northward, at the Ranger Uranium mine on a lease chopped out of Kakadu National Park in the NT. There, the company is required to backfill the mine voids with their radioactive wastes, removing somewhat more than a hundred million tonnes of the stuff from the surface and dumping it back in the pit to be capped and revegetated as best as possible. In Kakadu, the company is required to isolate these wastes from the wider environment for a period not less than 10,000 years. This is clearly an impossible task, but a worthy ambition at least.

No such duty of care will be applied for the benefit of South Australians. Mr Burke has earnestly reassured us that conditions will apply for 10 years after the life of the mine. He has granted approval for the mine tailings waste to be dumped and left out on the surface in apparent ignorance of the fact that the residual inventory of Uranium 238 has a half-life of 4.5 billion years, and that the mine wastes will contain a cocktail of unwanted daughter isotopes including radium, protactinium, radon gas and radioactive lead.

The Australian Government is committed to strengthening occupational health and safety requirements for individuals working at uranium mining and milling sites. The Australian Government is committed to strengthening occupational health and safety requirements for individuals working at uranium mining and milling sites.

The Australian National Radiation Dose Register (ANRDR) was established in 2010 to collect, store, manage and disseminate records of radiation doses received by workers in the course of their employment in a centralised database. The ANRDR has been open to receive dose records from operators since 1 July 2010. The ANRDR was officially launched in June 2011 following full development of the Register, including a system for workers to be able to request their individual dose history record.

The ANRDR is maintained and managed by the Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency (ARPANSA).

Anti-nuclear campaigner David Noonan, formerly of the Australian Conservation Foundation, provides invaluable insights into the operation, past and present of the Olympic Dam mine and what it represents to the post-Fukushima world. Designed to leak millions of litres of radioactive tailings from the mine back into the earth, the mine will continue to lower the water table in the Great Artesian Basin (drawing up to 42 million litres from the aquifer each day, free of charge to BHP Billiton) principally for the purposes of dust control. The mine’s increased output of Uranium will turn South Australia into a major contributor to the risk of nuclear disaster, through the sale of fuel for power generators and potentially nuclear weapons via export markets in China, Russia and in the probable future, India. Be sure to watch all three parts of this video, and for further information visit.

http://cuttlefishcountry.com

Arusha. Adequate safety measures must be taken before the start of uranium mining in the country, experts observed here yesterday.They said Tanzania was still short of qualified personnel to handle radioactive materials as well as the requisite infrastructure for storage and transportation of uranium and its by products."Measures have to be taken because accidents involving nuclear material are quite lethal," said the director of Nuclear Technology with the Tanzania Atomic Energy Commission (Taec) Mr Firmin Banzi.Speaking to reporters at  the  start of a training course on radiation detection for the police and security officers from public institutions, the official said mishandling of radiation material was equally deadly. He said strict measures on safety would be put in place before any company is licensed to mine uranium found in some parts of the country.He added that an aggressive public sensitisation has been undertaken for communities living around the Mkuju River valley in Ruvuma Region and Bahi District in Dodoma where large deposits of uranium have been found.Mr Banzi explained that if not handled properly the radioactive uranium would expose people to life-threatening hazards and would as well have long-term effects on the environment and water through contamination.

He emphasized that once uranium mining starts, the security organs in the country must be extra vigilant against people who might steal the radiation material for bad motives such as terrorism."We are living in the world of conflicts. Radioactive material could be used as weapons of mass destruction, revenge and/or sabotages to fulfil political gains or individuals," he pointed out.According to him, the consequences of uncontrolled use of radioactive materials, especially during spillage or discharge, are many including water, food, air and environmental contamination.The week-long course at a hotel in Arusha is being attended by security officers drawn from the Intelligence Department, the police, Criminal Investigation Department, major airports, ports as well as some border posts.The official stressed that since nuclear material has to be handled with care, the relevant experts must keep abreast with the technology trends underlined by the nuclear security programme of the International Atomic Energy Agency, the global watchdog on the radiation matter

Indian JV to buy into overseas mines  The government of India is proposing to set up a joint venture company to look into acquiring uranium assets in other countries

Final EIS for US deconversion plant  No environmental impacts would preclude the licensing of International Isotope Inc's proposed uranium deconversion facility in New Mexico, the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) has found. The NRC has issued its final environmental impact statement (EIS) for the plant, which would recover high-quality fluorine products from the depleted uranium hexafluoride tailings from uranium enrichment plants

Offtake agreements for Paladin  Paladin Energy has secured two mid-term offtake agreements for the purchase of a total of 6.3 million pounds U3O8 (2423 tU) from its Langer Heinrich (Namibia) and Kayelekera (Malawi) operations. The material is to be delivered from late 2012 to the end of 2015.

Two days out from the NT election, the Australian Conservation Foundation has launched a new video targeting the uranium industry and has challenged all candidates to rule out new uranium mines in the Territory. The uranium industry in the Northern Territory has a proven track record of: - Failed standards, radioactive leaks and spills; - Unresolved radioactive waste problems; - Harm to the well-being of Indigenous communities; and - Health and safety risks to workers. Uranium mining is unsafe, unnecessary and unwanted in the NT

Six months after the Fukushima disaster, the repercussions of history’s second-largest nuclear meltdown are still being felt, not only in Japan but around the world. Predictably, people are rethinking the wisdom of relying on nuclear power. The German and Swiss governments have pledged to phase out the use of nuclear power, and Italy has shelved plans to build new reactors. Public debate on future nuclear energy use continues in the United Kingdom, Japan, Finland, and other countries.So far, it is unclear what the reaction of the Korean government will be. Certainly, the public backlash to nuclear energy that has occurred elsewhere in the world is also evident in Korea; according to one study, opposition to nuclear energy in Korea has tripled since the Fukushima disaster. However, there are countervailing considerations here as well, which have caused policy-makers to move cautiously. Korea’s economy is often seen as particularly reliant on the use of nuclear power due to its lack of fossil fuel resources, while Korean companies are some of the world’s most important builders (and exporters) of nuclear power stations.

There are three primary reasons why nuclear power is safer and greener than power generated using conventional fossil fuels. First ― and most importantly ― nuclear power does not directly result in the emission of greenhouse gases. Even when you take a life-cycle approach and factor in the greenhouse gas emissions from the construction of the plant, there is no contest. Fossil fuels ― whether coal, oil, or natural gas ― create far more global warming.

The negative effects of climate change will vastly outweigh the human and environmental consequences of even a thousand Fukushimas. This is not the place to survey all the dire warnings that have been coming out of the scientific community; suffice it to quote U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki-moon’s concise statement that climate change is the world’s “only one truly existential threat … the great moral imperative of our era.” A warming earth will not only lead to death and displacement in far-off locales, either. Typhoons are already hitting the peninsula with greater intensity due to the warming air, and a recent study warns that global warming will cause Korea to see greatly increased rates of contagious diseases such as cholera and bacillary dysentery.

Nuclear power proponents claim: It has low carbon emissions. It is the peaceful face of the atom and proliferation problems are manageable. It is compact -- so little uranium, so much energy. Unlike solar and wind, it is 24/7 electricity. It reduces dependence on oil. Let's examine each argument.

1. Climate. Nuclear energy has low carbon emissions. But the United States doesn't lack low-carbon energy sources: The potential of wind energy alone is about nine times total US electricity generation. Solar energy is even more plentiful. Time and money to address climate change are in short supply, not low carbon dioxide sources. Instead of the two large reactors the United States would require every three months to significantly reduce carbon dioxide emissions, all the breathless pronouncements from nuclear advocates are only yielding two reactors every five years -- if that. Even federal loan guarantees have not given this renaissance momentum. Wall Street won't fund them. (Can nuclear power even be called a commercial technology if it can't raise money on Wall Street?) Today, wind energy is far cheaper and faster than nuclear. Simply put: Nuclear fares poorly on two crucial criteria -- time and money.

2. Proliferation. President Eisenhower spoke of "Atoms for Peace" at the United Nations in 1953; he thought it would be too depressing only to mention the horrors of thermonuclear weapons. It was just a fig leaf to mask the bomb: Much of the interest in nuclear power is mainly a cover for acquiring bomb-making know-how. To make a real dent in carbon dioxide emissions, about 3,000 large reactors would have to be built worldwide in the next 40 years -- creating enough plutonium annually to create 90,000 bombs, if separated. Two or three commercial uranium enrichment plants would also be needed yearly -- and it has only taken one, Iran's, to give the world a nuclear security headache.

TELLURIDE, Colo.— In a major victory for clean air, clean water and endangered species on public lands, a federal judge on Tuesday halted the Department of Energy’s 42-square-mile uranium-leasing program that threatened the Dolores and San Miguel rivers in southwestern Colorado. Five conservation groups had sued to halt the leasing program, charging that the Department of Energy was failing to adequately protect the environment or analyze the full impacts of renewed uranium mining on public lands. “We are pleased that Judge Martinez agreed with the groups, as well as local governments, who have been requesting the federal government take responsible steps to disclose the full range of impacts of mining uranium on public lands in combination with the impacts from Energy Fuels’ proposed uranium mill,” said Hilary White, executive director of Sheep Mountain Alliance. “This is an important ruling that will help ensure that any uranium mining and milling that may take place in the Dolores River watershed is protective of the environment and human health. We look forward to the Environmental Protection Agency’s leadership in disclosing the full impacts of uranium activity in this important watershed.”

Severe restrictions in mining of coal has led the world’s largest coal supplier, state-run Coal India Limited to rework its coal extraction targets from 460 million tonnes per annum to 452 million tonnes. Rajghat and Dadri, thermal power stations that supply power to India’s Capital are among the 27 plants with critical coal stock. There are 101 such power plants in the country has. ‘Critical’ is a stage where a coal based thermal power plant is left with barely seven days of coal stocks to fire its electricity producing turbines. The standard coal stock for any power plants ranges from 21 to 30 days.

“We have had similar situations in the past but this time around it is particularly grim as CIL has scaled down its coal production targets (to 452 million tons from 460 million tons which is seven per cent less than the original target) due to reasons varying from environmental clearances to the continuing debate over new mining areas to availability of railway wagons to transport coal,” a senior official in the ministry of power told TEHELKA.

Of the 27 power stations, all of which fall in the category of ‘major’ power plants two are in the Northern region, eight each in the western and southern region and nine plants are in the southern region of the country. All these power plants generate about 500 MWs of electricity per day.

U.S. Senator Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.), chairman of the Senate Republican Conference, delivered a speech this week at the International V.M. Goldschmidt Conference in Knoxville.  Alexander serves on the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee and is the chairman of the Tennessee Valley Authority Congressional Caucus.  His remarks as prepared follow:

When

in a speech in Oak Ridge in May of 2009, I called for America to build 100 new nuclear plants during the next twenty years.  Nuclear power produces 70 percent of our pollution-free, carbon-free electricity today.  It is the most useful and reliable source of green electricity today because of its tremendous energy density and the small amount of waste that it produces.  And because we are harnessing the heat and energy of the earth itself through the power of the atom, nuclear power is also natural.

Near the end of 2010, the Massachusetts Institute of Technology released a summary of a report titled The Future of the Nuclear Fuel Cycle as part of its MIT Energy Initiative. The complete report was released a few months ago. The conclusions published that report initiated a virtual firestorm of reaction among the members of the Integral Fast Reactor (IFR) Study group who strongly disagreed with the authors.

the following quote from the “Study Context” provides a good summary of why the fast reactor advocates were so dismayed by the report.

For decades, the discussion about future nuclear fuel cycles has been dominated by the expectation that a closed fuel cycle based on plutonium startup of fast reactors would eventually be deployed. However, this expectation is rooted in an out-of-date understanding about uranium scarcity. Our reexamination of fuel cycles suggests that there are many more viable fuel cycle options and that the optimum choice among them faces great uncertainty—some economic, such as the cost of advanced reactors, some technical such as implications for waste management, and some societal, such as the scale of nuclear power deployment and the management of nuclear proliferation risks. Greater clarity should emerge over the next few decades, assuming that the needed research is carried out for technological alternatives and that the global response to climate change risk mitigation comes together. A key message from our work is that we can and should preserve our options for fuel cycle choices by continuing with the open fuel cycle, implementing a system for managed LWR spent fuel storage, developing a geological repository, and researching technology alternatives appropriate to a range of nuclear energy futures.

While the 2011 earthquake and worries surrounding Fukushima have brought the threat of radioactivity back into the public consciousness, many people still don't realize that radioactive contamination is a worldwide danger. Radionuclides are in the top six toxic threats as listed in the 2010 report by The Blacksmith Institute, an NGO dedicated to tackling pollution. You might be surprised by the locations of some of the world’s most radioactive places — and thus the number of people living in fear of the effects radiation could have on them and their children.

10. Hanford, USA

The Hanford Site, in Washington, was an integral part of the US atomic bomb project, manufacturing plutonium for the first nuclear bomb and "Fat Man," used at Nagasaki. As the Cold War waged on, it ramped up production, supplying plutonium for most of America's 60,000 nuclear weapons. Although decommissioned, it still holds two thirds of the volume of the country’s high-level radioactive waste — about 53 million gallons of liquid waste, 25 million cubic feet of solid waste and 200 square miles of contaminated groundwater underneath the area, making it the most contaminated site in the US. The environmental devastation of this area makes it clear that the threat of radioactivity is not simply something that will arrive in a missile attack, but could be lurking in the heart of your own country.

Kiwamu Ariga skirted the paddies of ripening rice, moving briskly despite his 81 years to reach a pile of yellowish rocks at the foot of a steep, forested hillside.

It was here that, as a junior high school student in the final months of World War II, Mr. Ariga and his classmates were put to work hacking rocks out of the hill’s then exposed stone face until the blood ran from their sandaled feet. The soldiers told them nothing beyond instructing them to look for stones with brown or black spots.

an officer finally explained what they were after: “With the stones that you boys are digging up, we can make a bomb the size of a matchbox that will destroy all of New York.” Mr. Ariga said he did not learn other details of Japan’s secrecy-wrapped efforts to build an atomic bomb until years after the war.

Almost 12 million tons of radioactive waste will be moved from the banks of the Colorado River, the source of drinking water for more than 25 million people across the West, the government said Wednesday. Energy Department officials on Wednesday cleared the way for a plan that was announced this year. The 94-foot high pile of uranium mining waste is near Moab, Utah, and 750 feet from the river. The department now will work on the specifics of moving the waste to a site at Crescent Junction, more than 30 miles northwest. Concern that contaminants would leach into the Colorado River was heightened by January flooding in southern Utah.

Moab's rich uranium deposits were mined for nuclear bombs starting in the 1950s. The Uranium Reduction Co. sold its mill in 1962 to Atlas Corp., which ran it sporadically until declaring bankruptcy in 1998. The Energy Department took over the site in 2001.

Left behind was a 130-acre uranium mill tailings pile, which is mostly in the open air on bare ground, surrounded by a chain-link fence. "This decision demonstrates our commitment to fulfilling our Cold War cleanup obligations as well as preserving the long-term environmental health of the river and the many communities it serves," Energy Secretary Samuel Bodman said in a statement. Utah Gov. Jon Huntsman, a Republican who lobbied the Bush administration to move the waste, said the development "was great news for Utah and the millions of people who rely on the Colorado River for their water supply." The cleanup cost is expected to be more than $400 million. The department estimates it will begin moving the tailings in 2008 and finish by 2014, department spokesman Mike Waldron said.