книги / 715
.pdf
NATIONAL REPORTS: BOLIVIA
After completion of the aforementioned exploration works, there has been no mining development of the deposit so far.
Speculative conventional resources
(tonnes U)
|
Cost ranges |
|
|
|
|
<USD 130/kgU |
<USD 260/kgU |
Unassigned |
|
|
1 718 |
|
|
|
URANIUM 2018: RESOURCES, PRODUCTION AND DEMAND, NEA No. 7413, © OECD 2018 |
149 |
NATIONAL REPORTS: BRAZIL
Brazil
Uranium exploration and mine development
Historical review
Systematic prospecting for radioactive minerals by the Brazilian National Research Council began in 1952. These efforts led to the discovery of the first uranium occurrences at Poços de Caldas (State of Minas Gerais) and Jacobina (State of Bahia). In 1955, a technical co-operation agreement was signed with the United States to assess the uranium potential of Brazil. After the creation of the National Nuclear Energy Commission (CNEN), a mineral exploration department was organised with the support of the French Alternative Energies and Atomic Energy Commission (CEA) in 1962.
In the 1970s, CNEN exploration for radioactive minerals progressed due to increased financial resources. Additional incentive for exploration was provided in 1974 when the government opened NUCLEBRAS, an organisation with the exclusive purpose of uranium exploration and production. One of the early achievements of the government organisations was the discovery and development of the Osamu Utsumi deposit on the Poços de Caldas plateau.
In late 1975, Brazil and Germany signed a co-operation agreement for the peaceful use of nuclear energy. It was the beginning of an ambitious nuclear development programme that required NUCLEBRAS to increase its exploration activities. This led to the discovery of eight areas hosting uranium resources including the Poços de Caldas plateau, Figueira, the Quadrilátero Ferrífero, Amorinópolis, Rio Preto/Campos Belos, Itataia, Lagoa Real and Espinharas (discovered and evaluated by Nuclam, a Brazilian-German joint venture).
In 1991, Industrias Núcleares do Brasil S.A (INB) uranium exploration activities were brought to a halt according to the Brazilian nuclear development programme reorganisation of 1988. Since then limited work has been done towards the extension of Lagoa Real province resources.
Recent and ongoing uranium exploration and mine development activities
During 2015/2016 exploration efforts were focused on favourable albititic areas in the north part of the Lagoa Real province
Expenditures totalled 16 800 m drilled. For 2017, 4 500 m of drilling.
BRL 5.2 million (Brazilian reals) during that period, with expected expenditures are BRL 2 million, corresponding to
Uranium resources
Identified conventional resources (reasonably assured and inferred resources)
Brazil’s conventional identified uranium resources are hosted in the following deposits:
•Poços de Caldas (Osamu Utsumi mine) with the orebodies A, B, E and Agostinho (collapse breccia pipe-type);
•Figueira and Amorinópolis (sandstone);
150 |
URANIUM 2018: RESOURCES, PRODUCTION AND DEMAND, NEA No. 7413, © OECD 2018 |
NATIONAL REPORTS: BRAZIL
•Itataia, including the adjoining deposits of Alcantil and Serrotes Baixos (phosphate);
•Lagoa Real, Espinharas (metasomatite);
•Campos Belos (metamorphite);
•Others including the Quadrilátero Ferrífero with the Gandarela and Serra des Gaivotas deposits (paleo-quartz-pebble conglomerate).
No additional resources were identified during the 2015-2016 period.
Undiscovered conventional resources (prognosticated and speculative resources)
Based on exploration activities in the Rio Cristalino (Proterozoic unconformity) area and additional resources at the Pitinga site (granite-related), in situ prognosticated resources are estimated to amount to 300 000 tU.
Uranium production
Historical review
The Poços de Caldas uranium production facility, which started production in 1982 with a design capacity of 425 tU/year, was operated by the state-owned company NUCLEBRAS until 1988. At that time Brazil’s nuclear activities were restructured. NUCLEBRAS was succeeded by INB and its mineral assets transferred to Urânio do Brasil S.A. With the dissolution of Urânio do Brasil in 1994, ownership of uranium production is 100% controlled by INB, a state-owned company.
Between 1990 and 1992, the production centre at Poços de Caldas was on standby because of increasing production costs and reduced demand. Production restarted in late 1993 and continued until October 1995. After two years on standby, the Poços de Caldas production centre was shut down in 1997. A decommissioning programme started in 1998. This industrial facility was used to produce rare earth compounds from monazite treatment until 2006, but closed the next year for market reasons. The Caetité unit (Lagoa Real) is currently the only uranium production facility in operation in Brazil.
Status of production facilities, production capability, recent and ongoing activities and other issues
The open-pit part of the Cachoeira deposit was entirely mined out in 2014. The licensing process of the underground part is under way and the production expected to start in 2021.
The expansion of Lagoa Real, Caetité unit to 670 tU/year is progressing but the operation has been delayed to around 2021. The expansion involves replacement of the current heap leaching (HL) process by conventional agitated leaching. The overall investment in this expansion is estimated to amount to USD 90 million.
Production in 2015 was 44 tU. There was no production at the Caetité site in 2016.
Since 2014 INB has been working on the development of the Engenho deposit with the first production scheduled for 2018. Initially Engenho was planned as an additional source for increased production at the Caetité plant but is currently the only ore source for the plant due to the delay in the operation of Cachoeira underground mine.
Ownership structure of the uranium industry
The Brazilian uranium industry is 100% government-owned through INB.
Employment in the uranium industry
See table.
URANIUM 2018: RESOURCES, PRODUCTION AND DEMAND, NEA No. 7413, © OECD 2018 |
151 |
NATIONAL REPORTS: BRAZIL
Future production centres
The phosphate/uranium project of Santa Quitéria, an INB-Brazilian fertiliser producer partnership agreement, is under development. In 2012, the project applied for a construction licence, expected to be granted in 2018. The operation is now scheduled to begin in 2021.
The Engenho deposit, located 2 km from the currently mined Cachoeira deposit is under development and is expected to feed Caetité mill after 2018.
Uranium production centre technical details
(as of 1 January 2015)
|
Centre #1 |
Centre #2 |
|
Centre #3 |
|
|
|
|
|
Name of production centre |
Caetité |
Santa Quitéria |
|
Caetité |
|
|
|
|
|
Production centre classification |
Planned |
Planned |
|
Existing |
|
|
|
|
|
Date of first production |
2021 |
2023 |
|
2018 |
|
|
|
|
|
Source of ore: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Deposit name(s) |
Cachoeira |
Santa Quitéria |
|
Engenho |
|
|
|
|
|
Deposit type(s) |
Metasomatite |
Phosphate |
|
Metasomatite |
|
|
|
|
|
Recoverable resources (tU) |
10 100 |
76 100 |
|
6 500 |
|
|
|
|
|
Grade (% U) |
0.3 |
0.08 |
|
0.2 |
|
|
|
|
|
Mining operation: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Type (OP/UG/ISL) |
UG |
OP |
|
OP |
|
|
|
|
|
Size (tonnes ore/day) |
1 000 |
6 000 |
|
1 000 |
|
|
|
|
|
Average mining recovery (%) |
90 |
90 |
|
90 |
|
|
|
|
|
Processing plant: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Acid/alkaline |
Acid |
Acid |
|
Acid |
|
|
|
|
|
Type (IX/SX) |
SX |
SX |
|
HL/SX |
|
|
|
|
|
Size (tonnes ore/day) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Average process recovery (%) |
90 |
75 |
|
80 |
|
|
|
|
|
Nominal production capacity (tU/year) |
340 |
970 |
|
300 |
|
|
|
|
|
Plans for expansion (yes/no) |
No |
Yes |
|
Yes |
|
|
|
|
|
Other remarks |
OP operation |
By-product |
|
To be sent |
from 1999 to 2014 |
phosphoric acid |
|
to Caetité mill |
|
|
|
|||
|
|
|
|
|
Environmental activities and socio-cultural issues
Licences in Brazil are issued by the Brazilian Institute for the Environment and Renewable Natural Resources (IBAMA) and by CNEN.
The closure of Poços de Caldas in 1997 brought to an end the exploitation of this lowgrade ore deposit that produced vast amounts of waste rock. Several studies have been carried out to characterise geochemical and hydrochemical aspects of the waste rock and tailings dam to better establish the impact they may have had on the environment and to develop the necessary mitigation measures. A remediation/restoration plan, considering several alternatives, was submitted to the regulatory body at the end of 2012. Depending on the option adopted, the costs of implementing the remediation/restoration plan could reach USD 300 million. In the meantime, some measures have been taken to reduce environmental impact, such as: uranium recovery from acid drainage (resin); heavy metals precipitation (ozone) and surface drainage optimisation. INB, regulators and the central government are involved on the consolidation of a “work plan” for the remediation.
152 |
URANIUM 2018: RESOURCES, PRODUCTION AND DEMAND, NEA No. 7413, © OECD 2018 |
NATIONAL REPORTS: BRAZIL
The licensing of Santa Quitéria Uranium/Phosphate Project is split into a non-nuclear part involving milling and phosphate production and a nuclear part involving uranium concentrate production. INB has applied for local construction licences under the guidelines established by IBAMA and CNEN.
Regulatory regime
Licences are issued by IBAMA, according to Brazilian environment law and CNEN regulations.
Government policies and regulations established by CNEN include basic radiation protection directives (NE-3.01 – Diretrizes Básicas de Radioproteção), standards for licensing of uranium mines and mills (NE-1.13 – Licenciamento de Minas e Usinas de Beneficiamento de Minérios de Urânio ou Tório) and decommissioning of tailings ponds (NE-1.10 – Segurança de Sistema de Barragem de Rejeito Contendo Radionuclídeos), as well as standards for conventional U and Th mining and milling (NORM and TENORM NM 4.01 – Requisitos de Segurança e Proteção Radiológica para Instalações Mínero-Industriais). In the absence of specific norms, the International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP) and IAEA recommendations are used.
CNEN is in charge of nuclear research and regulation and currently controls INB as a major stakeholder. Due to the future growth of the Brazilian nuclear programme, the creation of a separate independent nuclear regulatory agency is under study by the federal government.
Uranium requirements
Brazil’s present uranium requirements for the Angra 1 nuclear power plant, a 630 MWe pressurised water reactor, are about 150 tU/yr. The Angra 2 nuclear power plant, a 1 245 MWe PWR, requires 220 tU/yr. The start-up of the Angra 3 nuclear power plant (a similar design to Angra 2), scheduled initially for 2016, had the construction halted in 2015 and is currently scheduled to be operating in 2026. Once in operation, this will add another 220 U/yr to annual domestic demand.
The long-term electricity energy supply plan includes about 5 000 MWe generated from nuclear sources by 2030. A new version “The 2050 Plan”, to be issued this year, will establish the sector guidelines.
Supply and procurement strategy
All domestic production is destined for internal requirements. The shortfall between demand and production is met through market purchases. In the period 2015/2016, INB acquired 610 tU.
The planned production increases are intended to meet all reactor requirements, including the Angra 3 unit and all units foreseen in the long-term planned expansion of nuclear energy for electricity generation.
Uranium policies, uranium stocks and uranium prices
National policies relating to uranium
INB, a 100% government-owned company, is in charge of fuel cycle activities, which are conducted under state monopoly. Currently INB is working on the increase of uranium concentrate production and towards full implementation of the fuel cycle activities to meet domestic demand.
URANIUM 2018: RESOURCES, PRODUCTION AND DEMAND, NEA No. 7413, © OECD 2018 |
153 |
NATIONAL REPORTS: BRAZIL
Uranium stocks
The Brazilian government does not maintain stocks of uranium concentrate or enriched uranium product.
Uranium exploration and development expenditures and drilling effort – domestic
(in BRL [Brazilian real])
|
2012 |
|
2013 |
|
2014 |
|
2015 |
|
2016 |
|
2017 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
(expected) |
|||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Industry* exploration expenditures |
0 |
|
0 |
|
0 |
|
0 |
|
0 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Government exploration expenditures |
2 500 000 |
|
3 500 000 |
|
0 |
|
700 000 |
|
4 500 000 |
|
2 000 000 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total expenditures |
2 500 000 |
|
3 500 000 |
|
0 |
|
700 000 |
|
4 500 000 |
|
2 000 000 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Government exploration drilling (m) |
5 200 |
|
7 500 |
|
0 |
|
2 300 |
|
14 500 |
|
4 500 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Government exploration holes drilled |
41 |
|
45 |
|
0 |
|
32 |
|
117 |
|
40 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total drilling (m) |
5 200 |
|
7 500 |
|
0 |
|
2 300 |
|
14 500 |
|
4 500 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total number of holes drilled |
41 |
|
45 |
|
0 |
|
32 |
|
117 |
|
40 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
* Non-government.
Reasonably assured conventional resources by deposit type*
(tonnes U**)
Deposit type |
|
<USD 40/kgU |
|
<USD 80/kgU |
<USD 130/kgU |
|
<USD 260/kgU |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Granite-related |
|
25 400 |
|
50 800 |
50 880 |
|
50 880 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Collapse breccia-type |
|
500 |
|
500 |
500 |
|
500 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Metasomatite |
|
82 300 |
|
82 300 |
82 300 |
|
82 300 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Phosphate |
|
76 100 |
|
76 100 |
76 100 |
|
76 100 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total |
|
184 300 |
|
209 700 |
209 700 |
|
209 700 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
*No changes in resources in the period 2015/16 due to absence of mining activities.
**In situ resources.
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) |
|
72 900 |
72 900 |
|
72 900 |
72 900 |
|
90 (mine); 90 (process) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Open-pit mining (OP) |
|
9 900 |
9 900 |
|
9 900 |
9 900 |
|
90 (mine); 90 (process) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Co-product and by-product |
|
101 500 |
126 900 |
|
126 900 |
126 900 |
|
70 (process) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total |
|
184 300 |
209 700 |
|
209 700 |
209 700 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
* In situ resources. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
154 |
URANIUM 2018: RESOURCES, PRODUCTION AND DEMAND, NEA No. 7413, © OECD 2018 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
NATIONAL REPORTS: BRAZIL |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||
|
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 (%) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Conventional from UG |
72 900 |
|
72 900 |
|
72 900 |
72 900 |
|
90 (mine); 90 (process) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Conventional from OP |
8 100 |
|
8 100 |
|
8 100 |
8 100 |
|
90 (mine); 90 (process) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Heap leaching** from OP |
1 800 |
|
1 800 |
|
1 800 |
1 800 |
|
90 (mine); 90 (process) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Unspecified |
101 500 |
|
126 900 |
|
126 900 |
126 900 |
|
70 (process) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total |
184 300 |
|
209 700 |
|
209 700 |
209 700 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
*In situ resources.
**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 |
|
|
|
13 000 |
13 000 |
|
13 000 |
|
90 (mine); 80 (process) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Paleo-quartz-pebble |
|
|
|
15 000 |
15 000 |
|
15 000 |
|
90 (mine); 80 (process) |
conglomerate |
|
|
|
|
|
||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Granite-related |
|
|
|
0 |
67 700 |
|
67 700 |
|
70 process |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Metamorphite |
|
|
|
1 000 |
1 000 |
|
1 000 |
|
90 (mine); 80 (process) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Collapse breccia-type |
|
|
|
26 400 |
26 400 |
|
26 400 |
|
90 (mine); 80 (process) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Metasomatite |
|
|
|
5 000 |
5 000 |
|
5 000 |
|
90 (mine); 80 (process) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Phosphate |
|
|
|
44 600 |
44 600 |
|
44 600 |
|
70 process |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total |
|
|
|
104 900 |
172 600 |
|
172 600 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
* In situ resources.
Inferred conventional resources by production method
(tonnes U*)
Production method |
|
<USD 40/kgU |
|
<USD 80/kgU |
|
<USD 130/kgU |
|
<USD 260/kgU |
|
Recovery factor (%) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Open-pit mining (OP) |
|
|
|
3 400 |
|
3 400 |
|
3 400 |
|
90 (mine); 80 (process) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Co-product and by-product |
|
|
|
44 600 |
|
112 300 |
|
112 300 |
|
70 (process) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Unspecified |
|
|
|
56 900 |
|
56 900 |
|
56 900 |
|
70 (average) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total |
|
|
|
104 900 |
|
172 600 |
|
172 600 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
* In situ resources.
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 |
|
|
3 400 |
3 400 |
|
3 400 |
|
90 (mine); 80 (process) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Unspecified |
|
|
101 500 |
169 200 |
|
169 200 |
|
70 (average) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total |
|
|
104 900 |
172 600 |
|
172 600 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
* In situ resources. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
URANIUM 2018: RESOURCES, PRODUCTION AND DEMAND, NEA No. 7413, © OECD 2018 |
155 |
NATIONAL REPORTS: BRAZIL
Prognosticated conventional resources
(tonnes U)
Cost ranges
<USD 80/kgU |
<USD 130/kgU |
<USD 260/kgU |
300 000 |
300 000 |
300 000 |
|
|
|
Speculative conventional resources
(tonnes U)
Cost ranges
<USD 130/kgU |
<USD 260/kgU |
Unassigned |
N/A |
N/A |
500 000 |
|
|
|
Historical uranium production by deposit type
(tonnes U in concentrates)
|
Deposit type |
|
Total through |
|
2014 |
|
|
2015 |
|
2016 |
|
Total through |
|
2017 (expected) |
|
|
|
end of 2013 |
|
|
|
|
|
end of 2016 |
|
|
|||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||
|
Collapse breccia-type |
|
1 097 |
|
0 |
|
0 |
|
0 |
|
1 097 |
|
0 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Metasomatite |
|
3 020 |
|
55 |
|
44 |
|
0 |
|
3 119 |
|
60 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total |
|
4 117 |
|
55 |
|
44 |
|
0 |
|
4 216 |
|
60 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Historical uranium production by production method
(tonnes U in concentrates)
|
Production method |
|
Total through |
|
2014 |
|
|
2015 |
|
2016 |
|
Total through |
|
2017 (expected) |
|
|
|
end of 2013 |
|
|
|
|
|
end of 2016 |
|
|
|||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||
|
Open-pit mining* |
|
4 117 |
55 |
|
44 |
|
0 |
|
4 216 |
60 |
|
|||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||
|
Total |
|
4 117 |
55 |
|
44 |
|
0 |
|
4 216 |
60 |
|
|||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
* Pre-2010 totals may include uranium recovered by heap and in-place leaching.
Historical uranium production by processing method
(tonnes U in concentrates)
|
Processing method |
|
Total through |
|
2014 |
|
2015 |
|
|
2016 |
|
Total through |
|
2017 (expected) |
|
|
|
end of 2013 |
|
|
|
|
|
end of 2016 |
|
|
|||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||
|
Conventional |
|
1 097 |
0 |
|
0 |
|
0 |
|
1 097 |
|
0 |
|
||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||
|
Heap leaching* |
|
3 020 |
55 |
|
44 |
|
0 |
|
3 119 |
|
60 |
|
||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||
|
Total |
|
4 117 |
55 |
|
44 |
|
0 |
|
4 216 |
|
60 |
|
||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
* A subset of open-pit and underground mining, since it is used in conjunction with them.
Ownership of uranium production in 2016
|
Domestic |
|
|
|
|
|
Foreign |
|
|
|
|
Totals |
|
|||
Government |
|
Private |
|
Government |
|
|
Private |
|
|
|
||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||||||
(tU) |
(%) |
(tU) |
|
(%) |
|
(tU) |
(%) |
|
(tU) |
|
(%) |
|
(tU) |
|
(%) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
0 |
100 |
0 |
|
0 |
|
0 |
0 |
|
0 |
|
0 |
|
0 |
|
100 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
156 |
URANIUM 2018: RESOURCES, PRODUCTION AND DEMAND, NEA No. 7413, © OECD 2018 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
NATIONAL REPORTS: BRAZIL |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Uranium industry employment at existing production centres |
|||||||
|
(person-years) |
|
|
|
|
|
||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2014 |
|
2015 |
2016 |
2017 (expected) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total employment related to existing production centres |
|
620 |
|
620 |
680 |
680 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Employment directly related to uranium production |
|
340 |
|
310 |
310 |
310 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Short-term production capability (tonnes U/year)
|
|
|
|
2017 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2020 |
|
|
|
|
||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
A-I |
|
|
B-I |
|
A-II |
|
|
B-II |
|
A-I |
|
|
B-I |
|
A-II |
|
|
B-II |
||
340 |
|
|
340 |
|
340 |
|
|
|
340 |
|
300 |
|
|
300 |
|
300 |
|
|
|
300 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||
|
2025 |
|
|
|
|
|
2030 |
|
|
|
|
2035 |
|
|
|
|||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||
A-I |
B-I |
A-II |
|
B-II |
|
A-I |
B-I |
|
A-II |
B-II |
A-I |
|
B-I |
|
A-II |
B-II |
||||
300 |
1 600 |
300 |
|
1 600 |
|
N/A |
1 600 |
|
N/A |
1 600 |
N/A |
|
1 600 |
|
N/A |
1 600 |
||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net nuclear electricity generation
|
|
2015 |
|
2016 |
|
|
|
|
|
Nuclear electricity generated (TWh net) |
|
13.9 |
|
15.10 |
|
|
|
|
|
Installed nuclear generating capacity to 2035
(MWe net)
2013 |
2014 |
|
2015 |
2020 |
2025 |
|
2030 |
|
2035 |
|
|||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1 875 |
1 875 |
Low |
|
High |
Low |
High |
Low |
High |
|
Low |
High |
|
Low |
|
High |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||
1 875 |
1 875 |
1 875 |
1 875 |
1 875 |
1 875 |
|
3 120 |
5 120 |
|
3 120 |
|
N/A |
|||
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Annual reactor-related uranium requirements to 2035 (excluding MOX)
(tonnes U)
2013 |
2014 |
|
|
2015 |
|
2020 |
2025 |
|
|
2030 |
|
2035 |
|||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
400 |
400 |
|
Low |
|
High |
Low |
|
High |
Low |
|
High |
Low |
|
High |
Low |
|
High |
|
400 |
|
400 |
400 |
|
400 |
400 |
|
400 |
550 |
|
1 000 |
550 |
|
N/A |
||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
URANIUM 2018: RESOURCES, PRODUCTION AND DEMAND, NEA No. 7413, © OECD 2018 |
157 |
NATIONAL REPORTS: CANADA
Canada
Uranium exploration
Historical review
Uranium exploration in Canada began in 1942, with the focus of activity first in the Northwest Territories where pitchblende ore had been mined since the 1930s to extract radium. Exploration soon expanded to other areas of Canada, resulting in the development of mines in northern Saskatchewan and in the Elliot Lake and Bancroft regions of Ontario during the 1950s. In the late 1960s, exploration returned to northern Saskatchewan where large high-grade deposits were discovered in the Athabasca Basin and later developed. Saskatchewan is now the sole producer of uranium in Canada.
Recent and ongoing uranium exploration and mine development activities
During 2015 and 2016, exploration efforts continued to focus on areas favourable for the occurrence of deposits associated with Proterozoic unconformities in the Athabasca Basin of Saskatchewan, and to a much lesser extent, similar geologic settings in the Thelon Basin of Nunavut. Very little exploration activity occurred in other areas of Canada in 2015 and 2016.
Surface drilling, as well as geophysical and geochemical surveys, continued to be the main tools used to identify new uranium occurrences, define extensions of known mineralised zones and to reassess previously discovered deposits.
Exploration activity has led to new uranium discoveries in the Athabasca Basin. Notable recently discovered large high-grade uranium deposits include Phoenix/Gryphon (Denison Mines Inc.), Triple R – (Fission Uranium Corp.), Arrow (Nex-Gen Energy Corp.) and Fox Lake (Cameco Corp.).
Domestic uranium exploration expenditures were CAD 170 million in 2015, down 7.6% from 2014 exploration expenditures of CAD 184 million. In 2015, overall Canadian uranium exploration and development expenditures amounted to CAD 491 million. Less than onefifth of the overall exploration and development expenditures in 2015 can be attributed to advanced underground exploration, deposit appraisal activities and care and maintenance expenditures associated with projects awaiting production approvals.
Uranium resources
Identified conventional resources (reasonably assured and inferred resources)
As of 1 January 2017, Canada’s total identified conventional uranium resources recoverable at a cost of <USD 80/kgU amounted to 310 400 tU, a decrease of 3.5% from the 2015 estimate of 321 800 tU, primarily due to mining depletion. Canada’s total identified uranium resources recoverable at a cost of <USD 130/kgU were 514 400 tU as of 1 January 2017, an increase of 1% compared to the 2015 estimate of 509 000 tU. These increases are primarily due to new resources being identified as a result of recent exploration activity. Most of Canada’s identified uranium resources are re-evaluated annually by the uranium mining companies.
158 |
URANIUM 2018: RESOURCES, PRODUCTION AND DEMAND, NEA No. 7413, © OECD 2018 |
