
книги / 715
.pdf
NATIONAL REPORTS: ARGENTINA
In the mining sector, a conceptual study was conducted using specific software for geological modelling. A pre-technical economic feasibility study was completed, with prior validation of all information (tonnages, grade, geotechnical, geostructural and hydrogeological) with some surface works.
Currently, governmental funds are intended to be used to carry out the basic engineering studies of both the mining operation and also the processing plant.
Besides technical considerations, a Chubut provincial Law 5001/03 that prevents open-pit mining is still in effect and mining projects need to wait for the Chubut provincial territory zoning provisions of the aforementioned law, as well as the introduction of a mining regulatory framework for this jurisdiction.
Ownership structure of the uranium industry
In Argentina, the uranium industry is currently owned by the government. Private sector participation exists only in the exploration phase, although legislation provides for the participation of both state and private sectors in uranium exploration and production activities.
Uranium production centre technical details
(as of 1 January 2017)
|
Centre #1 |
Centre #2 |
|
|
|
Name of production centre |
San Rafael Mining-Milling Complex |
Cerro Solo Deposit |
|
|
|
Production centre classification |
Standby |
Planned |
|
|
|
Date of first production |
1976 |
NA |
|
|
|
Source of ore: |
|
|
|
|
|
Deposit name(s) |
Sierra Pintada |
Cerro Solo |
|
|
|
Deposit type(s) |
Volcanic-related, synsedimentary |
Sandstone, paleochannel |
|
|
|
Recoverable resources (tU) |
6 000 |
N/A |
|
|
|
Grade (% U) |
0.107 |
N/A |
|
|
|
Mining operation: |
|
|
|
|
|
Type (OP/UG/ISL) |
OP |
OP-UG |
|
|
|
Size (tonnes ore/day) |
550 |
N/A |
|
|
|
Average mining recovery (%) |
90 |
N/A |
|
|
|
Processing plant: |
|
|
|
|
|
Acid/alkaline |
Acid |
Acid |
|
|
|
Type (IX/SX) |
IX |
SX |
|
|
|
Average process recovery (%) |
78 |
N/A |
|
|
|
Nominal production capacity (tU/year) |
150 |
200 |
|
|
|
Plans for expansion |
Yes |
N/A |
|
|
|
Other remarks |
Standby since 1997 |
Preliminary stage |
|
|
|
URANIUM 2018: RESOURCES, PRODUCTION AND DEMAND, NEA No. 7413, © OECD 2018 |
119 |

NATIONAL REPORTS: ARGENTINA
Employment in the uranium industry
In connection with the uranium production industry, currently most of the employees are working on development, maintenance and remediation of the San Rafael miningmilling complex.
Future production centres
The strategic plan submitted by CNEA includes the development of a new production centre in the Chubut Province, in the area of the Cerro Solo deposit.
Production and/or use of mixed oxide fuels
Argentina neither produces MOX fuel nor uses it in its nuclear power plants.
Production and/or use of re-enriched tails
The Mock-up facility for uranium enrichment located in Pilcaniyeu Technological Complex (Bariloche) is a pilot plant that was already operating in the 1980s and the beginning of 1990s, until it was deactivated in 1995. The project was relaunched in 2006, restarting its activities in 2007.
The start-up of the operations took place in March 2014, enabling Argentina to produce enriched uranium by gaseous diffusion technology. CNEA aims to use this technology for supplying NPPs currently in operation, plus the projected ones. Furthermore, CNEA is currently developing other technologies such as ultra-centrifuge and laser.
Environmental activities and socio-cultural issues
Environmental impact assessments
In Argentina, production permits are subject to both national and provincial legislation. At this moment, environmental studies are being undertaken in two major uranium production projects.
The San Rafael Mining-Milling Complex Remediation Project (Mendoza Province)
As stated in the 2016 edition of the Red Book, an update of the 2004 EIA (2006 EIA and MGIA-2013) was presented to the authorities of the province of Mendoza. This study addresses only the treatment of solid wastes, currently in temporary storage, and openpit mine water. The original proposal (2006 EIA) received technical approval, but not final approval because it lacked the statutory public hearing, which is due to be held as soon as the 2013-MGIA edition receives technical endorsement. Nevertheless, CNEA has continued with some improvements to preserve the environment along with establishing additional security measures:
Effluent pond “DN 8-9”
The construction of an evaporation pond (5 hectares) with a double liner waterproof high-density polyethylene (HDPE) geo-membrane with a leakage detection system has been completed, and hydraulic tests have been successfully accomplished. It is currently being used to manage open-pit water.
Effluent pond “DN 5”
Civil works for ground stabilisation have been completed. The design of this precipitation facility complex aims to treat open-pit water; engineering details have been submitted to the local authorities to determine the corresponding allowance and to continue with the works. These ponds sum up an operative capacity of approximately 12 000 m3 and will
120 |
URANIUM 2018: RESOURCES, PRODUCTION AND DEMAND, NEA No. 7413, © OECD 2018 |

NATIONAL REPORTS: ARGENTINA
have security drainage systems and double waterproofing HDPE geo-membrane to control leaks. These ponds are designed for providing the necessary conditions (residence time) to generate As and Ra precipitates before they are conducted to the effluent pond “DN 8-9” for final disposal.
Other remediation activities
Other activities related to waste management are been carried out, such as cisterns, waterproofing, design of wastewater treatment systems, repairing facilities and the installation of pipes for pumping effluents between the quarries and the processing and treatment facilities.
Cerro Solo ore deposit (Chubut Province)
As requested by the provincial authorities, environmental baseline studies are being developed by CNEA through contracts with universities and institutes, and some parts of the studies (archaeological, palaeontological and socio-economic impact) have already been presented to the provincial authorities. In addition, CNEA continues with social communication activities, offering information on mining activities to the neighbourhoods located near the proposed mining projects and areas of exploration.
Monitoring
The San Rafael Mining-Milling Complex Remediation Project (Mendoza Province)
CNEA currently has an intense monitoring programme, which includes:
•Surface water: systematic sampling of surface water – run-off, upstream and downstream of the facilities are undertaken to follow the evolution of possible pollutants concentration (U, As, Ra, among others) inside and outside CNEA’s influence area.
•Groundwater: systematic sampling of groundwater within a redesigned well network inside the complex is being carried out.
•Air pollution: particulate matter and radon emissions are periodically sampled within key locations of the complex.
•Open-pit water: systematic sampling of open-pit water is being carried out in every pit.
Cerro Solo ore deposit (Chubut Province)
The sampling work includes water samples from exploration wells, water samples from domestic wells (owned by inhabitants of the area), surface run-off and sediment from streams and springs in the watershed (analysing for U, Ra, As, F, among others). Air pollution samples include particulate matter and radon emissions measurements.
Effluent management
The San Rafael Mining-Milling Complex Remediation Project (Mendoza Province)
The construction of the “DN 8-9” evaporation pond and the “DN 5” facility for treating open-pit water, aims to reduce pollutants and meet provincial water quality standards. Moreover, the design and implementation of a domestic wastewater treatment system is under study.
URANIUM 2018: RESOURCES, PRODUCTION AND DEMAND, NEA No. 7413, © OECD 2018 |
121 |

NATIONAL REPORTS: ARGENTINA
Site rehabilitation
The San Rafael Mining-Milling Complex Remediation Project (Mendoza Province)
In general, CNEA is submitting technical proposals to rehabilitate those areas of the complex that will not be used for uranium production in the future. Topics of these projects include: former tailings dump, open-pits rehabilitation and waste rock management, among others.
Uranium Mining Environmental Restoration Programme
Currently, CNEA is undertaking the Uranium Mining Environmental Restoration Programme (PRAMU). The aim of this programme is to restore the environment, as much as possible, in every area where uranium mining and milling activities have taken place. The sites being studied are: Malargüe (Mendoza Province), Córdoba (Córdoba Province), Los Gigantes (Córdoba Province), Huemul (Mendoza Province), Pichiñán (Chubut Province), Tonco (Salta Province), La Estela (San Luis Province), and Los colorados (La Rioja Province). PRAMU seeks to improve the current conditions of the tailings deposits and mines and to ensure the long-term protection of people and the environment. The CNEA is required to comply with all legislation that is in force and is under the control of various national, provincial and local state institutions.
Regulatory activities
Argentina’s provinces have legislation limiting certain aspects of mining activities (e.g. use of certain substances, open-pit mining, etc.). The local regulation co-exists with national legislation related to mining activities and environmental protection.
National regulations
•Law No. 25 675: “General Environmental Law” establishes minimum standards for achieving a sustainable management of the environment, the preservation and protection of biodiversity and the implementation of sustainable development.
•Law No. 1 919: “National Mining Code”, which in Title Eleventh (Articles 205 to 212) refers to nuclear minerals (U and Th).
•Law No. 24 585: Obligation of submitting an environmental impact assessment (EIA) prior to each stage of development of a mining project. It sets the maximum acceptable limits of various effluent parameters in water, air and soil.
Mendoza provincial regulations
•Law No. 3 790, created the Mining General Direction and states that their specific functions are the administration, control and promotion of the mining industry in all its phases and throughout the territory of the province.
•Law No. 7 722 prohibits on the territory of the Mendoza Province, the use of chemicals such as cyanide, mercury, sulphuric acid, and other similar toxic substances in metalliferous mining, including prospecting, exploration, exploitation and industrialisation of metal ores obtained by any extraction method.
•Resolution No. 778/96 of the General Department of Irrigation (DGI) regulates all activities that may affect the quality of surface water and groundwater in the territory of the Province of Mendoza.
122 |
URANIUM 2018: RESOURCES, PRODUCTION AND DEMAND, NEA No. 7413, © OECD 2018 |

NATIONAL REPORTS: ARGENTINA
Chubut provincial regulations
Law XVII-No. 68 prohibits open-pit methods for metal mining activity in the province of Chubut, as well as the use of cyanide in mining production processes. It also mentions the need of zoning in the territory of the province for the exploitation of mineral resources with an approved production model for each case.
Uranium requirements
The uranium requirements listed below correspond to an estimation made in the Strategic Nuclear Energy Planning 2010-2030 and the reactivation of the Argentine Nuclear Energy Plan launched in 2006. As of 2013, the nuclear plan includes:
•extending the life of Embalse NPP (in progress);
•extending the life of Atucha I NPP;
•construction of the 4th and 5th NPPs (planned);
•development and construction of a small modular nuclear power reactor (CAREM) (in progress);
•reactivation of uranium enrichment (in progress);
•reactivation of uranium mining industry.
The most important update in Argentine nuclear production was the start-up of Atucha II (745 MWe), reaching first criticality at the end of 2014.
Also proposed is the expansion of the nuclear energy network, which would be covered by the construction of the 4th and 5th NPPs consisting of one PHWR-type reactor (CANDU 6) of 700 MWe and a PWR-type reactor of 1 150 MWe.
In addition, CNEA is currently carrying out the construction of the CAREM-25 (25 MWe) small modular reactor prototype and is planning to build another two larger units, CAREM-150 (150 MWe by 2032).
Embalse has been out of the electricity generation system for two years for refurbishment tasks designed to extend its useful life for a term of 30 years, which will include an increase in its power by an additional 35 MWe. Within the 2019-2020 period, Atucha I will be inoperative and at that time will undergo facility refurbishment.
Supply and procurement strategy
Argentina is carrying out an exploration programme and it is developing projects for restarting domestic uranium production to achieve self-sufficiency in uranium supply.
Uranium policies, uranium stocks and uranium prices
National policies relating to uranium
The Nuclear Activity Law of 1997 establishes the respective roles of CNEA and the Nuclear Regulatory Authority. It also provides for the participation of both public and private sectors in uranium exploration and development activities.
The National Mining Code of 1994 states that the government has the first option to purchase all uranium produced in Argentina and that export of uranium is dependent upon first guaranteeing domestic supply. It also regulates development activities to ensure the use of environmental practices that comply with international standards.
URANIUM 2018: RESOURCES, PRODUCTION AND DEMAND, NEA No. 7413, © OECD 2018 |
123 |

NATIONAL REPORTS: ARGENTINA
Uranium stocks
Nowadays, CNEA does not have the responsibility of ensuring the uranium concentrate stock. The uranium dioxide producing company (Dioxitek S.A.) and the nuclear power plants operator (Nucleoeléctrica Argentina S.A., NA-SA) hold the responsibility of guaranteeing a uranium stock for at least two years of Argentina’s nuclear power plants operation.
Uranium prices
There is no uranium market in Argentina.
Uranium exploration and development expenditures and drilling effort – domestic
(in Argentine pesos [ARS])
|
2014 |
2015 |
|
2016 |
|
2017 (preliminary) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Industry* exploration expenditures |
N/A |
N/A |
|
N/A |
|
22 500 000 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Government exploration expenditures |
34 500 000 |
53 331 800 |
|
60 200 000 |
|
16 000 000 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total expenditures |
34 500 000 |
53 331 800 |
|
60 200 000 |
|
38 500 000 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Industry* exploration drilling (m) |
N/A |
N/A |
|
N/A |
|
5 000 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Industry* exploration holes drilled |
N/A |
N/A |
|
N/A |
|
40 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Government exploration drilling (m) |
3 494 |
2 752 |
|
1 114 |
|
0 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Government exploration holes drilled |
24 |
27 |
|
6 |
|
0 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total drilling (m) |
3 494 |
2 752 |
|
1 200 |
|
5 000 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total number of holes drilled |
24 |
27 |
|
6 |
|
40 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
* Non-governmental.
Reasonably assured conventional resources by deposit type
(tonnes U)
Deposit type |
|
<USD 40/kgU |
|
<USD 80/kgU |
<USD 130/kgU |
|
<USD 260/kgU |
|
Recovery factor (%) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sandstone |
|
|
|
2 890 |
4 600 |
|
4 600 |
|
72 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Volcanic-related |
|
|
|
2 240 |
4 000 |
|
4 000 |
|
72 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Surficial |
|
|
|
|
2 420 |
|
2 420 |
|
70 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total |
|
|
|
5 130 |
11 020 |
|
11 020 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reasonably assured conventional resources by production method
(tonnes U)
Production method |
|
<USD 40/kgU |
<USD 80/kgU |
|
<USD 130/kgU |
<USD 260/kgU |
|
Recovery factor (%) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Underground mining (UG) |
|
|
|
|
180 |
180 |
|
72 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Open-pit mining (OP)* |
|
|
5 130 |
|
10 840 |
10 840 |
|
72 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total |
|
|
5 130 |
|
11 020 |
11 020 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
* Industry share of 22% with a recovery factor of 70%.
124 |
URANIUM 2018: RESOURCES, PRODUCTION AND DEMAND, NEA No. 7413, © OECD 2018 |

|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
NATIONAL REPORTS: ARGENTINA |
||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reasonably assured conventional resources by processing method |
|||||||||
|
|
|
|
(tonnes U) |
|
|
|
|
||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Processing method |
|
<USD 40/kgU |
<USD 80/kgU |
|
<USD 130/kgU |
<USD 260/kgU |
|
Recovery factor (%) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Heap leaching* from UG |
|
0 |
0 |
|
180 |
180 |
|
72 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Heap leaching* from OP |
|
0 |
5 130 |
|
8 420 |
8 420 |
|
72 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Unspecified |
|
0 |
|
|
2 420 |
2 420 |
|
70 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total |
|
|
5 130 |
|
11 020 |
11 020 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
* A subset of open-pit and underground mining, since it is used in conjunction with them.
Inferred conventional resources by deposit type
(tonnes U)
Deposit type |
|
<USD 40/kgU |
<USD 80/kgU |
|
<USD 130/kgU |
<USD 260/kgU |
|
Recovery factor (%) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sandstone |
|
1 950 |
2 200 |
|
11 360 |
12 410 |
|
72 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Volcanic-related |
|
480 |
1 800 |
|
6 170 |
6 170 |
|
72 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Surficial |
|
|
|
|
1 460 |
1 460 |
|
70 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total |
|
2 430 |
4 000 |
|
18 990 |
20 040 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Inferred conventional resources by production method
(tonnes U recoverable, assuming 72% mining and milling recovery)
Production method |
|
<USD 40/kgU |
<USD 80/kgU |
|
<USD 130/kgU |
<USD 260/kgU |
|
Recovery factor (%) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Open-pit mining (OP) |
|
2 430 |
4 000 |
|
11 390 |
12 440 |
|
72 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Underground mining (UG) |
|
|
|
|
250 |
250 |
|
72 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Unspecified |
|
|
|
|
7 350 |
7 350 |
|
72 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total |
|
2 430 |
4 000 |
|
18 990 |
20 040 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Inferred conventional resources by processing method
(tonnes U)
Processing method |
|
<USD 40/kgU |
<USD 80/kgU |
|
<USD 130/kgU |
<USD 260/kgU |
|
Recovery factor (%) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Conventional from OP |
|
2 430 |
4 000 |
|
9 930 |
10 980 |
|
72 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Heap leaching from OP |
|
|
|
|
1 460 |
1 460 |
|
70 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Heap leaching from UG |
|
|
|
|
250 |
250 |
|
72 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Unspecified |
|
|
|
|
7 350 |
7 350 |
|
72 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total |
|
2 430 |
4 000 |
|
18 990 |
20 040 |
|
72 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
URANIUM 2018: RESOURCES, PRODUCTION AND DEMAND, NEA No. 7413, © OECD 2018 |
125 |

NATIONAL REPORTS: ARGENTINA
Prognosticated conventional resources
(tonnes U)
Cost ranges
<USD 80/kgU |
<USD 130/kgU |
<USD 260/kgU |
N/A |
13 810 |
13 810 |
|
|
|
Speculative conventional resources
(tonnes U)
Cost ranges
<USD 130/kgU |
<USD 260/kgU |
Unassigned |
N/A |
79 450* |
N/A |
|
|
|
* Estimated over five investigation units.
Historical uranium production by deposit type
(tonnes U in concentrate)
|
Deposit type |
|
Total through |
|
2014 |
|
2015 |
|
|
2016 |
|
Total through |
|
2017 (expected) |
|
|
|
end of 2013 |
|
|
|
|
|
end of 2016 |
|
|
|||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||
|
Volcanic-related |
|
1 600.0 |
0 |
|
0 |
|
0 |
|
1 600.0 |
|
0 |
|
||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||
|
Sandstone |
|
729.2 |
0 |
|
0 |
|
0 |
|
729.2 |
|
0 |
|
||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||
|
Granite-related |
|
252.5 |
0 |
|
0 |
|
0 |
|
252.5 |
|
0 |
|
||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||
|
Total |
|
2 581.7 |
0 |
|
0 |
|
0 |
|
2 581.7 |
|
0 |
|
||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Historical uranium production by production method
(tonnes U in concentrate)
|
Production method |
|
Total through |
|
2014 |
|
2015 |
|
2016 |
|
Total through |
|
2017 (expected) |
|
|
|
end of 2013 |
|
|
|
|
end of 2016 |
|
|
|||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||
|
Open-pit mining1 |
|
1 858.7 |
0 |
|
0 |
|
0 |
|
1 858.7 |
|
0 |
|
|
|
Underground mining1 |
|
723.0 |
0 |
|
0 |
|
0 |
|
723.0 |
|
0 |
|
|
|
Total |
|
2 581.7 |
0 |
|
0 |
|
0 |
|
2 581.7 |
|
0 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1. Pre-2012 totals may include uranium recovered by heap and in-place leaching.
Historical uranium production by processing method
(tonnes U in concentrate)
|
Processing method |
|
Total through |
|
2014 |
|
2015 |
|
|
2016 |
|
Total through |
|
2017 (expected) |
|
|
|
end of 2013 |
|
|
|
|
|
end of 2016 |
|
|
|||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||
|
Conventional |
|
752.7 |
0 |
|
0 |
|
0 |
|
752.7 |
|
0 |
|
||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||
|
Heap leaching* |
|
1 829.0 |
0 |
|
0 |
|
0 |
|
1 829.0 |
|
0 |
|
||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||
|
Total |
|
2 581.7 |
0 |
|
0 |
|
0 |
|
2 581.7 |
|
0 |
|
||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
* Also known as stope leaching or block leaching.
126 |
URANIUM 2018: RESOURCES, PRODUCTION AND DEMAND, NEA No. 7413, © OECD 2018 |

|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
NATIONAL REPORTS: ARGENTINA |
||||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||
|
|
|
|
|
|
Uranium industry employment at existing production centres |
|
|
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(person-years) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2014 |
|
|
|
2015 |
|
|
2016 |
|
2017 (expected) |
|
||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||
|
|
Total employment related to existing production centres |
|
|
|
|
|
85 |
|
|
|
82 |
|
|
|
65 |
|
|
58 |
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||
|
|
Employment directly related to uranium production |
|
|
|
|
|
0 |
|
|
|
0 |
|
|
|
0 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
0 |
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Short-term production capability |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(tonnes U/year) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||
|
|
|
|
|
|
2017 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2020 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2025 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||
|
|
A-I |
|
B-I |
|
|
A-II |
|
|
|
B-II |
|
|
|
A-I |
|
|
|
B-I |
|
|
|
|
|
A-II |
|
B-II |
|
|
A-I |
|
|
B-I |
|
|
A-II |
|
B-II |
|
||||||||||||||
|
0 |
|
0 |
|
|
0 |
|
|
0 |
|
|
0 |
|
|
|
0 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
0 |
|
|
|
0 |
|
|
0 |
|
|
0 |
|
|
|
NA |
|
NA |
|
|||||||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2030 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2035 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||||
|
|
A-I |
|
|
|
|
B-I |
|
|
|
|
A-II |
|
|
|
|
B-II |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
A-I |
|
|
|
|
B-I |
|
|
A-II |
|
|
|
|
|
|
B-II |
|
|
|||||||||||
|
|
N/A |
|
|
|
|
N/A |
|
|
|
|
N/A |
|
|
|
N/A |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
N/A |
|
|
|
N/A |
|
N/A |
|
|
|
|
|
N/A |
|
||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net nuclear electricity generation |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2015 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2016 |
|
|
|
|
2017 |
|
|
|||||||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Nuclear electricity generated (TWh net) |
|
|
|
|
|
6.52 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
7.68 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
7.00 (estimated) |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Installed nuclear generating capacity to 2035 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(MWe gross capacity) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
2015 |
|
|
|
2016 |
|
2017 |
|
|
2020 |
|
|
|
|
2025 |
|
|
2030 |
|
|
|
2035 |
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||||||||||
|
1 213 |
|
|
|
884 |
|
|
Low |
|
|
High |
|
|
Low |
|
|
|
High |
|
|
Low |
|
|
High |
|
|
Low |
High |
|
|
|
Low |
|
High |
|
||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
1 107 |
1 107 |
|
1 460 |
|
1 460 |
|
|
2 200 |
|
2 682 |
|
3 470 |
|
4 072 |
|
|
4 890 |
|
5 950 |
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Annual reactor-related uranium requirements to 2035 (excluding MOX)
(tonnes U)
2015 |
2016 |
|
|
2017 |
2020 |
|
2025 |
2030 |
2035 |
|||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
157 |
107 |
|
Low |
|
High |
Low |
High |
|
Low |
High |
Low |
High |
Low |
High |
|
127 |
|
127 |
140 |
194 |
|
292 |
359 |
530 |
624 |
799 |
988 |
||
|
|
|
|
|
||||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
URANIUM 2018: RESOURCES, PRODUCTION AND DEMAND, NEA No. 7413, © OECD 2018 |
127 |

NATIONAL REPORTS: ARMENIA
Armenia
Uranium exploration
Historical review
On 23 April 2007, the Director-General of Rosatom (a state corporation of Russia) and the Armenian Minister of Ecology Protection signed a protocol on the realisation of uranium exploration work in Armenia.
Based on this protocol, an Armenian-Russian joint venture, CJ-SC Armenian-Russian Mining Company (ARMC), was established in April 2008 for the purpose of geological exploration, mining and processing of uranium. The founders of ARMC are the Armenian government and Atomredmetzoloto of Russia.
Within this framework, the collection and analysis of archival material relevant to uranium mining has been completed. The document Geologic Exploration Activity for 2009-2010 aimed at the uranium ore exploration in Armenia was published and approved. According to this document, in the Spring of 2009, field work related to uranium ore exploration started in the province of Syunik.
Geological prospecting works were carried out on the 1st Voghchi zone of the PkhrutLernadzor licensed area in 2011. Geologic prospecting identified some anomalies. All plans for geologic prospecting in 2011 were fulfilled by January 2012. In 2012, legislated works were implemented.
Exploration of the block 1st Voghchi zone identified reserves of uranium ores classified in category C2. Calculations of inferred resources of the Voghchi zone of the Pkhrut deposit indicated that the deposit is prospective.
In 2013, the Armenian-Russian joint venture was suspended.
Uranium production
In 2007, the Armenian government decided that Armenia would enter into an agreement with the governments of Kazakhstan and Russia to establish an international uranium enrichment centre (IUEC) at the Angarsk electrolytic chemical combine in Russia. Armenia completed the legal registration of accession and in 2010 joined the IUEC.
Armenia does not produce uranium.
Uranium requirements
There have been no changes to Armenia’s nuclear energy programme during the past two years. The country’s short-term uranium requirements remain the same and are based on the operation of one VVER-440 unit (Armenian-2). A detailed forecast for uranium requirements was carried out, taking into account the designed lifetime for this reactor, which has an installed capacity of about 407.5 MWe.
128 |
URANIUM 2018: RESOURCES, PRODUCTION AND DEMAND, NEA No. 7413, © OECD 2018 |