World's Third Largest Uranium Producer Underwater

http://www.stockinterview.com/News/03092007/Ranger-Flooded-ERA.html

March 9, 2007
By James Finch

Ranger Uranium Mine Pit 3 Flooded
World’s Third Largest Uranium Producer Underwater

A Loss of Up to 4 Million Pounds U3O8 in 2007?

(Editor’s Note: The photos of the damage, which occurred as a result of a recent cyclone in early March, were obtained through at least two intermediaries. We received these photographs Wednesday morning, and spent two days authenticating the source of these photographs and their legitimacy. On Friday afternoon, we received independent confirmation that these photos were reportedly taken by ERA and supplied to their utility clients as evidence of the force majeure the company declared on March 7th.)

U.S. and other utilities dependent upon newly mined uranium to power their nuclear reactors can add yet another supply headache to their plate. Energy Resources of Australia declared ‘force majeure’ on its uranium sales contracts to utilities the company supplies in North America, Europe and Asia. No specifics were provided on the company’s website. Information coming from ERA has been on the quiet side.

<snip>

This is the second major uranium mine flooding announcement over the past five months, further tightening the noose around utilities who previously expected ample uranium mining supply to power their nuclear reactors. Utilities had anticipated Cameco’s Cigar Lake uranium mine to provide them with about 10 percent or more of the newly mined uranium in 2008, before catastrophic flooding indefinitely delayed the mine opening.

<snip>

Rising corn prices are good? Rising uranium prices are bad?

Where are the pictures of the smiling aboriginal uranium miners wearing those large colorful sombreros brown people are so fond of? Aren't they as happy as Mexican corn farmers? Prices are rising!



Oh wait, I get it. You can get rich off of heavy metals! Gold, Uranium, whatever... Especially if a mine gets flooded... I mean, like some anonymous dudes we asked said things ranging from “This is a nightmare!” to “They have big problems: It will take lots of time and lots of money to fix this.”

to read more books from Amazon!

lacking in ethics, doing illegal via your direct hooks into the CIA, being immoral as you turn hate of those not like you into religious values, and buying politicians that help you buy off justice so you never "get caught".

Those non-GOP loving Texan's that try the game will find that tax ploys that result in small - relative to the "savings" - fines for the Texans, will result in criminal charges and convictions against outsiders - requiring getting Scooter and other GOP to beg for your pardon from a Dem President, who will yjen be dumped on by the media if agrees he should make the results of tax planning a little more even and fair for ALL players and therefor grants the pardon.

Got to love Texas oil rich and corporate because they are showing us the future that is coming once all governments are controlled by the rich and corporate.

the US, Japan, China, France, Sweden, Germany, Spain, South Korea....

Nope - not good news at all...

You posted an article about smiling Mexican farmers, right?

:evilgrin:

Corn producers are ramping up production in response to higher corn prices.

This mine accident reduced global uranium production and new mines cannot be developed fast enough to make up for this loss of production.

Furthermore, there was a serious shortfall in global uranium production (40,200 tonnes/year in 2004) relative to reactor demand (67,450 tonnes/year in 2004) *before* this mine accident.

Consumption of rapidly diminishing stockpiles of uranium currently make up the difference.

Once those stockpiles are gone, there will be a real crisis in the availability of uranium for reactor fuel.

...and high corn prices and shortages will kill.......??????

Better the fuel ethanol industry than people.

and what is the by-product of ethanol distillation - spent distillery mash???

What do they do that...feed cattle with it????

No - we'll just ignore those points - ETHANOL KILLS!!!!1111

We should probably get rid of factory farmed cattle too.

I think the difference between you and me is that I see industrial agriculture as a neccessary evil that should be minimized.

An industrial corn or soybean field is to me a toxic wasteland. If the price of corn is low, farmers go out of business, and the land reverts to a natural state of forest or prairie, and that is a good thing.

I also think it would be a good thing if more people recognized the true horrors of industrial scale meat and dairy production.

If I'm comparing industrial agriculture to nuclear power on some arbitrary scale of good and evil, it's not hard to to see which is worse. It's pretty clear that if biomass is used to produce energy, it's going to kill and maim more people than nuclear power and cause far more damage to the environment.

There's some truly frightening data accumulating that links various sorts of mental deficiencies and disorders to prenatal and childhood exposure to low levels of the pesticides and herbicides used in agriculture. There are also some hints that high fructose corn syrup is causing obesity not simply because it is empty calories, but because the human physiological response to a diet high in fructose is passivity. The more fructose you eat, the more you feel like sitting around and not exercising.

I'm not at all swayed by any romantic notions that farming is a generally a good thing, or that land destroyed by intensive corn monoculture is any prettier than the ugliest suburban strip mall. In terms of biological diversity the field of corn ranks right down near the bottom, and far below some places that were once used as toxic waste dumps.

Oh well, I guess I'll never be elected to public office. People will say I hate farmers, and I find ugly strip malls and weedy fields contaminated by toxic wastes more interesting than amber waves of grain.

:shrug:

http://news.independent.co.uk/environment/article2062484.ece

"But in almost every case, the world's 1.5 billion cattle are most to blame. Livestock are responsible for 18 per cent of the greenhouse gases that cause global warming, more than cars, planes and all other forms of transport put together."

Yeah, let's keep propping up that industry with cheap feed, good idea.

http://www.startribune.com/535/story/1044904.html

...so it *IS* reducing GHG emissions...

:evilgrin:

Let me guess...the world of nuclear energy will come to a screeching halt?


:eyes:

Let's see, if a coal mine floods, that's not news, but a uranium mine is the end of the world.

Actually nuclear fuel companies have been enriching from tails, which is better resource utilization in any case.

Nuclear energy won't be a much larger percentage than it is now.

"Nuclear power is expected to go up from the current 2-3 percent of India's energy
supply to 6-7 percent by 2031 in the most optimistic scenario with the U.S. deal
and consequently boost private investment in the sector, Kirit Parikh, a member
of the Indian government's planning commission, told Reuters."
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=115x87332

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

They'll send us all to nursing homes in Florida... to drown.

He just doesn't think it will play a big role.

He could, of course, be triangulating. It's understandable for him to "keep his powder dry" for other fights.

My own prediction is a little different. We will all (well, most of us) be dutifully anti-nuclear until we realize just how much of a disaster is taking place due to the power-down. Then, we will demand it ASAP, even if we have to build reactors out of old coffee cans, garden hose, and origami birds.

I would much prefer that we plan for those days today, whether or not we commit to nuclear power. But our modern market economy is so geared to "just-in-time" planning that it may not be able to anticipate when time has run out.

--p!

I'm not "anti-nuclear" either - I just don't think it will play a big role. :)

In his policy address at NYU, he advocates distributed renewable microgeneration, not large centralized nuclear power plants.

Some people claim that his real position is the exact opposite,
that he's lying about what he really believes,
that he's "making stuff up" to get elected,
that once elected he will "flip-flop".

They also personally attack anyone who says the same things he says.

They're called "freepers".

You do not speak for Al Gore, who has explicitly stated that he is not a nuclear opponent. You often pick up sentences that follow these explicit statement.

I would state these quotations but they would be deleted on the grounds that obvious statements are banned.

Telling the truth may not be a permitted activity,

It appears that in any case irrespective of what you think, the world has a different idea.

There are 28 COL's of file, parts for US reactors are being forged and experts are being trained in Japan to build fast reactors.

In the meanwhile "distributed energy" is a diddling hobby that rich kids play with as toys. Not one gas plant on the face of this earth has been shut because of solar toy hobbists.

but you are opposed to it.
In fact, you mock him and his proposals, calling the electranet a "diddling hobby that rich kids play with as toys".
Go ahead, mock him, show your true colors.
You are anti-Gore.
Anyone can watch the video of Al Gore's policy address,
they can search through the transcript,
and verify this for themselves.
The video and transcript are here: http://nyu.edu/community/gore.html