Buy Ebook Uranium 2009 Resources Production and Demand Iaea Cheap Price

Full download ebook at ebookgate.
com
Uranium 2009 Resources Production and Demand

Iaea
https://ebookgate.com/product/uranium-2009-
resources-production-and-demand-iaea/
Download more ebook from https://ebookgate.com

More products digital (pdf, epub, mobi) instant
download maybe you interests ...
Uranium 2003 Resources Production And Demand

Organisation For Economic Co-Operation And Development
https://ebookgate.com/product/uranium-2003-resources-production-
and-demand-organisation-for-economic-co-operation-and-
development/
World Investment Report 2009 Transnational Corporations

Agricultural Production and Development United Nations
https://ebookgate.com/product/world-investment-
report-2009-transnational-corporations-agricultural-production-
and-development-united-nations/
Compounds of Uranium and Fluorine Chemical Compounds

1st Edition Christopher Estep
https://ebookgate.com/product/compounds-of-uranium-and-fluorine-
chemical-compounds-1st-edition-christopher-estep/
On Demand Writing Lynette Williamson
https://ebookgate.com/product/on-demand-writing-lynette-
williamson/
Depleted Uranium Properties Uses and Health
Consequences 1st Edition Mi Alexandra C.
https://ebookgate.com/product/depleted-uranium-properties-uses-
and-health-consequences-1st-edition-mi-alexandra-c/
Introducing Autodesk Inventor 2009 and Autodesk

Inventor LT 2009 1st Edition Thom Tremblay
https://ebookgate.com/product/introducing-autodesk-
inventor-2009-and-autodesk-inventor-lt-2009-1st-edition-thom-
tremblay/
Silk Properties Production and Uses Properties

Production and Uses 1st Edition Pornanong Aramwit
https://ebookgate.com/product/silk-properties-production-and-
uses-properties-production-and-uses-1st-edition-pornanong-
aramwit/
Energy Demand and Climate Change Issues and Resolutions

1st Edition Franklin Hadley Cocks
https://ebookgate.com/product/energy-demand-and-climate-change-
issues-and-resolutions-1st-edition-franklin-hadley-cocks/
We Still Demand Redefining Resistance in Sex and Gender

Struggles Patrizia Gentile
https://ebookgate.com/product/we-still-demand-redefining-
resistance-in-sex-and-gender-struggles-patrizia-gentile/
A Joint Report by the OECD Nuclear Energy Agency
and the International Atomic Energy Agency
2010
Uranium 2009:
Resources, Production
and Demand
N U C L E A R E N E R G Y A G E N C Y
A Joint Report by
The OECD Nuclear Energy Agency
And the International Atomic Energy Agency
Uranium 2009:
Resources, Production
and Demand
© OECD 2010
NEA No. 6891
NUCLEAR ENERGY AGENCY

ORGANISATION FOR ECONOMIC CO-OPERATION AND DEVELOPMENT
ORGANISATION FOR ECONOMIC CO-OPERATION AND DEVELOPMENT
The OECD is a unique forum where the governments of 31 democracies work together to address the
economic, social and environmental challenges of globalisation. The OECD is also at the forefront of efforts to
understand and to help governments respond to new developments and concerns, such as corporate
governance, the information economy and the challenges of an ageing population. The Organisation provides
a setting where governments can compare policy experiences, seek answers to common problems, identify
good practice and work to co-ordinate domestic and international policies.
The OECD member countries are: Australia, Austria, Belgium, Canada, Chile, the Czech Republic,
Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Korea, Luxembourg,
Mexico, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Poland, Portugal, the Slovak Republic, Spain, Sweden,
Switzerland, Turkey, the United Kingdom and the United States. The European Commission takes part in the
work of the OECD.
OECD Publishing disseminates widely the results of the Organisation’s statistics gathering and research
on economic, social and environmental issues, as well as the conventions, guidelines and standards agreed
by its members.
This work is published on the responsibility of the Secretary-General of the OECD. The
opinions expressed and arguments employed herein do not necessarily reflect the official
views of the Organisation or of the governments of its member countries.
NUCLEAR ENERGY AGENCY

The OECD Nuclear Energy Agency (NEA) was established on 1st February 1958 under the name of the
OEEC European Nuclear Energy Agency. It received its present designation on 20th April 1972, when Japan
became its first non-European full member. NEA membership today consists of 28 OECD member countries:
Australia, Austria, Belgium, Canada, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Greece,
Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Korea, Luxembourg, Mexico, the Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, the
Slovak Republic, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Turkey, the United Kingdom and the United States. The
Commission of the European Communities also takes part in the work of the Agency.
The mission of the NEA is:
– to assist its member countries in maintaining and further developing, through international co-
operation, the scientific, technological and legal bases required for a safe, environmentally friendly
and economical use of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes, as well as
– to provide authoritative assessments and to forge common understandings on key issues, as input
to government decisions on nuclear energy policy and to broader OECD policy analyses in areas
such as energy and sustainable development.
Specific areas of competence of the NEA include safety and regulation of nuclear activities, radioactive
waste management, radiological protection, nuclear science, economic and technical analyses of the nuclear
fuel cycle, nuclear law and liability, and public information.
The NEA Data Bank provides nuclear data and computer program services for participating countries. In
these and related tasks, the NEA works in close collaboration with the International Atomic Energy Agency in
Vienna, with which it has a Co-operation Agreement, as well as with other international organisations in the
nuclear field.
Corrigenda to OECD publications may be found on line at: www.oecd.org/publishing/corrigenda.

© OECD 2009
You can copy, download or print OECD content for your own use, and you can include excerpts from OECD publications, databases and multimedia
products in your own documents, presentations, blogs, websites and teaching materials, provided that suitable acknowledgment of OECD as source
and copyright owner is given. All requests for public or commercial use and translation rights should be submitted to rights@oecd.org. Requests for
permission to photocopy portions of this material for public or commercial use shall be addressed directly to the Copyright Clearance Center (CCC)
at info@copyright.com or the Centre français d'exploitation du droit de copie (CFC) contact@cfcopies.com.
Cover credits: Cameco, Canada; AREVA, France.

PREFACE
Since the mid-1960s, with the co-operation of their member countries and states, the OECD
Nuclear Energy Agency (NEA) and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) have jointly
prepared periodic updates (currently every two years) on world uranium resources, production and
demand. These updates have been published by the OECD/NEA in what is commonly known as the
“Red Book”. This 23rd edition of the Red Book replaces the 2007 edition and reflects information
current as of 1st January 2009.
The Red Book features a comprehensive assessment of current uranium supply and demand and
projections to the year 2035. The basis of this assessment is a comparison of uranium resource
estimates (according to categories of geological certainty and production cost) and mine production
capability with anticipated uranium requirements arising from projections of installed nuclear
capacity. In cases where longer-term projections of installed nuclear capacity were not provided by
national authorities, projected demand figures were developed with input from expert authorities.
Current data on resources, exploration, production and uranium stocks are also presented, along with
historical summaries of exploration and production, and plans for future mine production. In addition,
individual country reports provide detailed information on recent developments in uranium
exploration and production, updates on environmental activities and information on relevant national
uranium and nuclear energy policies.
The Red Book also includes a compilation and evaluation of previously published data on
unconventional uranium resources. Available information on secondary sources of uranium is
presented and their potential market impact is assessed.
This publication has been prepared on the basis of data obtained through questionnaires sent by
the NEA to OECD member countries (17 countries responded and one country report was prepared by
the Secretariat of the Joint NEA/IAEA Group on Uranium) and by the IAEA for those states that are
not OECD member countries (18 countries responded and four country reports were prepared by the
Secretariat). The opinions expressed in Parts I and II do not necessarily reflect the position of the
member countries or the international organisations concerned. This report is published on the
responsibility of the OECD Secretary-General.
Acknowledgement
The OECD Nuclear Energy Agency (NEA), Paris, and the International Atomic Energy Agency
(IAEA), Vienna, would like to acknowledge the co-operation of those organisations (see Appendix 2)
which replied to the questionnaire.
3
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PREFACE .............................................................................................................................................. 3
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ................................................................................................................... 9
I. URANIUM SUPPLY ................................................................................................................. 15
A. URANIUM RESOURCES .................................................................................................. 15

• Identified Conventional Resources .............................................................................. 15
• Distribution of Identified Conventional Resources by Categories and Cost Ranges ... 16
• Distribution of Resources by Production Method ........................................................ 21
• Distribution of Resources by Deposit Type ................................................................. 22
• Proximity of Resources to Production Centres ............................................................ 26
• Undiscovered Resources .............................................................................................. 27
• Other Resources and Materials .................................................................................... 29
• Thorium........................................................................................................................ 32
B. URANIUM EXPLORATION ............................................................................................. 34

• Current Activities and Recent Developments .............................................................. 38
C. URANIUM PRODUCTION ............................................................................................... 44

• Present Status of Uranium Production ......................................................................... 48
• Ownership .................................................................................................................... 49
• Employment ................................................................................................................. 51
• Production Methods ..................................................................................................... 52
• Projected Production Capabilities ................................................................................ 53
• Changes in Production Facilities.................................................................................. 54
II. URANIUM DEMAND .............................................................................................................. 59
A. CURRENT COMMERCIAL NUCLEAR GENERATING CAPACITY

AND REACTOR-RELATED URANIUM REQUIREMENTS .......................................... 59
B. PROJECTED NUCLEAR POWER CAPACITY AND RELATED URANIUM

REQUIREMENTS TO 2035 ............................................................................................... 75
• Factors Affecting Capacity and Uranium Requirements ............................................. 75
• Projections to 2035....................................................................................................... 77
C. URANIUM SUPPLY AND DEMAND RELATIONSHIPS .............................................. 84

• Primary Sources of Uranium Supply ........................................................................... 84
• Secondary Sources of Uranium Supply ....................................................................... 85
• Uranium Market Developments ................................................................................... 96
• Supply and Demand to 2035 ...................................................................................... 100
D. THE LONG-TERM PERSPECTIVE ................................................................................ 103
5
III. NATIONAL REPORTS ON URANIUM EXPLORATION, RESOURCES,
PRODUCTION, DEMAND AND THE ENVIRONMENT ................................................. 109
Argentina ................................................................................................................................... 110

Armenia ..................................................................................................................................... 120
Australia .................................................................................................................................... 122
Botswana ................................................................................................................................... 134
Brazil ......................................................................................................................................... 136
Bulgaria ..................................................................................................................................... 146
Canada ....................................................................................................................................... 154
China ......................................................................................................................................... 168
Czech Republic.......................................................................................................................... 179
Denmark .................................................................................................................................... 190
Egypt ......................................................................................................................................... 192
Finland ....................................................................................................................................... 195
France ........................................................................................................................................ 203
Germany .................................................................................................................................... 208
Hungary ..................................................................................................................................... 213
India ........................................................................................................................................... 221
Indonesia ................................................................................................................................... 235
Iran, Islamic Republic of ........................................................................................................... 240
Japan .......................................................................................................................................... 247
Jordan ........................................................................................................................................ 253
Kazakhstan ................................................................................................................................ 255
Korea, Republic of..................................................................................................................... 270
Malawi ....................................................................................................................................... 272
Mongolia ................................................................................................................................... 276
Namibia ..................................................................................................................................... 286
Niger .......................................................................................................................................... 302
Peru............................................................................................................................................ 312
Poland ........................................................................................................................................ 315
Portugal ..................................................................................................................................... 319
Russian Federation .................................................................................................................... 325
Slovak Republic ........................................................................................................................ 338
Slovenia ..................................................................................................................................... 343
South Africa .............................................................................................................................. 348
Spain .......................................................................................................................................... 364
Sweden ...................................................................................................................................... 371
Tanzania .................................................................................................................................... 376
Turkey ....................................................................................................................................... 381
Ukraine ...................................................................................................................................... 384
United Kingdom ........................................................................................................................ 396
United Sates of America............................................................................................................ 399
6
APPENDICES
1. Members of the Joint NEA-IAEA Uranium Group................................................................... 419
2. List of Reporting Organisations and Contact Persons ............................................................... 423
3. Glossary of Definitions and Terminology ................................................................................. 427
4. Acronym List ............................................................................................................................. 439
5. Energy Conversion Factors ....................................................................................................... 441
6. Listing of all Red Book Editions (1965-2010) and National Reports ....................................... 445
7. Currency Exchange Rates.......................................................................................................... 453
8. Grouping of Countries and Areas with Uranium-related Activities .......................................... 455
7
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Uranium 2009 – Resources, Production and Demand presents, in addition to updated resource
figures, the results of the most recent review of world uranium market fundamentals and provides a
statistical profile of the world uranium industry as of 1 January 2009. First published in 1965, this is
the 23rd edition of what has become known as the “Red Book.” It contains official data provided by
35 countries (and five Country Reports prepared by the Secretariat) on uranium exploration, resources,
production and reactor-related requirements. Projections of nuclear generating capacity and reactor-
related uranium requirements through 2035 are provided as well as a discussion of long-term uranium
supply and demand issues.
Exploration
Worldwide exploration and mine development expenditures in 2008 totalled about
USD 1.641 billion, an increase of 133% compared to updated 2006 figures, despite declining market
prices since mid-2007. Most major producing countries reported increasing expenditures, as efforts to
identify new resources and bring new production centers online moved forward. The majority of
global exploration activities remain concentrated in areas with potential for hosting unconformity-
related and ISL (in situ leach; sometimes referred to as in situ recovery, or ISR) amenable sandstone
deposits, primarily in close proximity to known resources and existing production facilities. However,
generally higher prices for uranium since 2003, compared to the preceding two decades, have
stimulated “grass roots” exploration, as well as increased exploration in regions known to have good
potential based on past work. About 80% of the exploration and development expenditures in 2008
were devoted to domestic activities. Non-domestic exploration and development expenditures,
although reported by only China, France, Japan and the Russian Federation, declined to
USD 324.3 million in 2008 from USD 352.5 million in 2007, but remain significantly above the
USD 19.2 million reported in 2003. Domestic exploration and development expenditures are expected
to decline somewhat but remain strong throughout 2009, amounting to about USD 1.342 billion.
Resources1
1. Uranium Resources are classified by a scheme (based on geological certainty and costs of production) developed to
combine resource estimates from a number of different countries into harmonised global figures. “Identified
Resources” (RAR and Inferred) refer to uranium deposits delineated by sufficient direct measurement to conduct pre-
feasibility and sometimes feasibility studies. For Reasonably Assured Resources (RAR), high confidence in estimates of
grade and tonnage are generally compatible with mining decision making standards. Inferred Resources are not defined
with such a high a degree of confidence and generally require further direct measurement prior to making a decision to
mine. “Undiscovered Resources” (Prognosticated and Speculative) refer to resources that are expected to occur based
on geological knowledge of previously discovered deposits and regional geological mapping. Prognosticated
Resources refer to those expected to occur in known uranium provinces, generally supported by some direct evidence.
Speculative Resources refer to those expected to occur in geological provinces that may host uranium deposits. Both
Prognosticated and Speculative Resources require significant amounts of exploration before their existence can be
confirmed and grades and tonnages can be defined. For a more detailed description see Appendix 3.
9
Total Identified Resources (Reasonably Assured & Inferred) as of 1 January 2009 declined
slightly to 5 404 000 tonnes of uranium metal (tU) in the <USD 130/kgU (<USD 50/lb U3O8) category
(a decrease of 1.2% compared to 1 January 2007), but increased to 6 306 300 tU in the re-introduced
high-cost (<USD 260/kgU or <USD 100/lb U3O8) category (an increase of 15.5% compared to total
2007 resources reported in the <USD 130/kgU cost category).
The high-cost category of <USD 260/kgU was added to this edition in response to both the
overall increase in market prices for uranium since 2003 and increased mining costs. Although total
Identified Resources have increased overall, there has been a significant reduction in lower cost
resources owing principally to increased mining costs (a 73% reduction of <USD 40/kgU and a 16%
reduction of <USD 80/kgU). Though a portion of the overall increases in the new high cost category
relate to new discoveries, the majority result from re-evaluations of previously Identified Resources.
At current (2008) rates of consumption, Identified Resources are sufficient for over 100 years of
supply for the global nuclear power fleet.
Total Undiscovered Resources (Prognosticated Resources & Speculative Resources) as of

1 January 2009 amounted to more than 10 400 000 tU, declining slightly from the 10 500 000 tU
reported in 2007. It is important to note however that some countries, including major producers with
large identified uranium resource inventories, do not report resources in this category.
The uranium resource figures presented in this volume are a “snapshot” of the situation as of
1 January 2009. Resource figures are dynamic and related to commodity prices. The overall increase
in Identified Resources from 2007 to 2009, including the re-introduced high cost category, equivalent
to over 13 years of supply of 2009 uranium requirements, demonstrates that uranium prices impact
resource totals and new resources are readily identified with appropriate market incentives. Favourable
market conditions will stimulate exploration and, as in the past, increased exploration effort will lead
to the identification of additional resources through intensified effort on existing deposits and the
discovery of new deposits of economic interest. For example, recent efforts in Australia have led to the
discovery of several new deposits and potentially significant occurrences: Double 8 (Western
Australia), Beverley North and Blackbush (South Australia), Ranger 3 Deeps, Thunderball, N147 and
Crystal Creek (Northern Territory). Continued effort in Canada has led to high-grade discoveries in
the Athabasca Basin, such as Centennial, Shea Creek, Wheeler River and Roughrider.
Production
Uranium production in 2008 totalled 43 880 tU, a 6% increase from the 41 244 tU produced in
2007 and an 11% increase from the 39 617 tU produced in 2006. As in 2006, a total of 20 countries
reported output in 2008. Global production increases between 2006 and 2008 were driven principally
by significantly increased output in Kazakhstan (61%). More modest increases were recorded in
Australia, Brazil, Namibia and the Russian Federation. Reduced production was recorded in a number
of countries between 2006 and 2008 (including Canada, Niger and the United States) owing to a
combination of lower than expected ore grades, technical difficulties and preparations for mine
expansions. Underground mining accounted for 32% of global production in 2008; ISL mining, 30%
(rising rapidly in importance, principally because of capacity increases in Kazakhstan); open pit
mining, 27%; with co-product and by-product recovery from copper and gold operations and other
unconventional methods accounting for most of the remaining 11%. Global uranium production in
2009 is expected to increase by 16% to over 51 000 tU, with production beginning in Malawi and
continuing to ramp up in Kazakhstan (the largest production increase – more than 60% from 2008 to
2009 – is expected to occur once again in Kazakhstan).
10
Environmental aspects of uranium production
Although the focus of the Red Book remains uranium resources, production and demand,
environmental aspects of the uranium production cycle are once again included in some Country
Reports in this volume. Efforts can generally be divided into two areas. The first encompasses work to
remediate the consequences of uranium production practices, no longer licensed today, that resulted in
a number of legacy uranium mining sites in several countries (e.g. Brazil, Bulgaria, Canada, the Czech
Republic, Germany, Hungary, Kazakhstan, Poland, Slovenia, Spain, Ukraine and the United States).
Included in this volume are updates of some of these activities. These experiences are an important
reminder of the consequences of outdated mining practices that must continue to be avoided in coming
years as uranium production is poised to expand to countries with no past experience in this type of
activity.
The second area encompasses efforts to ensure that ongoing operations are conducted in ways
that protect people and the environment and avoid the creation of new uranium mining legacies.
Information presented in a number of National Reports includes notes on crucial aspects of modern
uranium mine development, such as environmental assessment processes prior to mine openings or
expansions (e.g. Australia, Canada), monitoring programmes at currently operating mines (e.g.
Kazakhstan), efforts to reduce water consumption (e.g. Namibia) and the establishment of new, more
stringent environmental radiation protection regimes (e.g. China). Uranium mining is bringing benefits
to local populations and the use of revenues arising from taxes on uranium mining operations, as well
as efforts by the mining companies themselves, to improve living conditions of people in the vicinity
of mining operations (e.g. Kazakhstan, Namibia) are outlined. Uranium mining companies also
continue to obtain the internationally recognised ISO 14001 series of international standards on
environmental management to enhance sustainable management and environmental protection at their
operations (achievements in this regard are noted in Namibia and Niger).
Additional information on these two areas of environmental aspects of uranium production may
be found in a joint NEA/IAEA Uranium Group publications entitled Environmental Remediation of
Uranium Production Facilities, Paris, OECD, 2002 and Environmental Activities in Uranium Mining
and Milling, Paris, OECD, 1999.
Uranium demand
At the end of 2008, a total of 438 commercial nuclear reactors were connected to the grid with a
net generating capacity of about 373 GWe requiring about 59 065 tU, as measured by uranium
acquisitions. Uranium acquisitions have declined in recent years because increased uranium costs have
motivated utilities to specify lower tails assays at enrichment facilities in order to reduce uranium
consumption and due to inventory drawdown. By the year 2035, world nuclear capacity is projected to
grow to between about 511 GWe net in the low demand case and 782 GWe net in the high demand
case, increases of 37% and 110% from 2009 capacity, respectively. Accordingly, world annual
reactor-related uranium requirements are projected to rise to between 87 370 tU and 138 165 tU by
2035.
The nuclear capacity projections vary considerably from region to region. The East Asia region
is projected to experience the largest increase that, by the year 2035, could result in the installation of
between 120 GWe and 167 GWe of new capacity, representing increases of over 150% to more than
210% compared to 2009 capacity, respectively. Nuclear capacity in non-European Union countries in
Europe is also expected to increase considerably (between 75% and 170%). Other regions projected to
experience growth include the Middle East and Southern Asia; Central and South America; Africa and
11
South-eastern Asia. Nuclear capacity and requirements display wide variation in North America (from
a decrease of 30% to an increase of over 40%) and in the European Union (from a decrease of 10% to
an increase of almost 20%).
However, there are uncertainties in these projections as there is ongoing debate on the role that
nuclear energy will play in meeting future energy requirements. Key factors that will influence future
nuclear energy capacity include projected base load electricity demand, non-proliferation concerns,
public acceptance of nuclear energy and proposed waste management strategies, as well as the
economic competitiveness of nuclear power plants, the ability to fund such capital intensive projects
and the cost of fuel compared to other electricity generating technologies. Concerns about longer-term
security of supply of fossil fuels and the extent to which nuclear energy is seen to be beneficial in
meeting greenhouse gas reduction targets could contribute to even greater projected growth in uranium
demand.
Supply and demand relationship
In 2008, world uranium production (43 880 tU) provided about 74% of world reactor
requirements (59 065 tU), with the remainder being met by supplies of already mined uranium (so-
called secondary sources) including excess government and commercial inventories, low enriched
uranium (LEU) produced by down-blending highly enriched uranium (HEU) from the dismantling of
nuclear warheads, re-enrichment of depleted uranium tails and spent fuel reprocessing.
Uranium mine development has responded to the market signal of increased prices and rising
demand. As currently projected, primary uranium production capabilities including Existing,
Committed, Planned and Prospective production centres could satisfy projected high case world
uranium requirements through 2028 and low case requirements through 2035. Beyond this date, in
order for production to be able to provide fuel for all reactors for their entire operational lifetime,
including new reactors added to the grid to 2035, additional resources will need to be identified and
new mines and mine expansions will need to take place in a timely fashion. Should demand increase
as projected growth in nuclear power is realised, uranium prices would be expected to rise, stimulating
additional investment in mine production capacity. However, sufficiently high uranium market prices
will be required to fund these activities, especially in light of rising costs of production. Secondary
sources will continue to be required, complemented to the extent possible by uranium savings
achieved by specifying low tails assays at enrichment facilities and developments in fuel cycle
technology.
Although information on secondary sources is incomplete, they are generally expected to

decline in market importance, particularly after 2013. However, there remains a potentially significant
amount of previously mined uranium (including material held by the military), and it is feasible that at
least some of this material could make its way to the market in a controlled fashion. As secondary
supplies are reduced in the coming years, reactor requirements will have to be increasingly met by
mine production. The introduction of alternate fuel cycles, if successfully developed and implemented,
could profoundly impact the market balance, but it is too early to say how cost-effective and widely
implemented these proposed fuel cycles will be. What is clear is that a sustained strong market for
uranium will be needed to stimulate the timely development of production capability and to increase
Identified Resources. Because of the long lead-times required to identify new resources and to bring
them into production (typically on the order of 10 years or more), the relatively sparse global network
of uranium mine facilities, and geopolitical uncertainties in some important producing countries, the
market will have to provide the incentive for exploration and mine development activities to continue
in order to avoid potential uranium supply shortfalls.
12
Conclusion
Despite recent declines stemming from the global economic and financial crisis, world demand
for electricity is expected to continue to grow significantly over the next several decades to foster
economic growth and meet the needs of an increasing population. The recognition by many
governments that nuclear power can produce competitively-priced, base-load electricity that is
essentially free of greenhouse gas emissions, combined with the role that nuclear can play in
enhancing security of energy supplies, increase the prospects for growth in nuclear generating
capacity, although the magnitude of that growth remains uncertain.
Regardless of the role that nuclear energy ultimately plays in meeting rising electricity demand,
the uranium resource base described in this document is more than adequate to meet projected
requirements. Meeting even high-case requirements to 2035 would consume less than half of the
identified resources described in this volume. Nonetheless, the challenge remains to develop
environmentally sustainable mining operations and to bring increasing quantities of uranium to the
market in a timely fashion. A strong market will be required for resources to be developed within the
timeframe required to meet projected uranium demand.
13
I. URANIUM SUPPLY
This chapter summarises the current status of worldwide uranium resources, exploration and
production. In addition, production capabilities in reporting countries for the period ending in the
year 2035 are presented and discussed.
A. URANIUM RESOURCES
Identified Conventional Resources
In this edition, Identified Resources consist of Reasonably Assured Resources (RAR) and
Inferred Resources (previously EAR-I), recoverable at a cost of less than USD 260/kgU
(USD 100/lbU3O8).1 A higher cost resource category (USD 130/kgU to USD 260/kgU) was added to
complement previous editions that tabulated resources available at costs up to the USD 130/kgU
(USD 50/lbU3O8). Relative changes in different resource and cost categories of Identified Resources
between this edition and the 2007 edition of the Red Book are summarised in Table 1. As shown in
Table 1, Identified Resources recoverable at costs of <USD 130/kgU decreased by some 65 000 tU
between 2007 and 2009 (about 1.2%) to a total of 5 404 000 tU, mainly the result of significant
reductions reported in Kazakhstan, the Russian Federation, South Africa, Ukraine and the United
States amounting to more than additions reported in Argentina, Australia, Canada, China, India,
Malawi and Namibia. Reduced resources were principally the result of re-classification of previously
known resources into higher cost categories in light of increased mining costs.
Despite the decline in resources recoverable at costs of <USD 130/kgU, the overall increase in
Identified Resources recoverable at <USD 260/kgU between 2007 and 2009 (above those reported in
the 2007 <USD 130/kgU category), amount to over 837 000 tU, equivalent to over 13 years of supply
of 2009 uranium requirements. Though some of these reported increases are due to new discoveries
resulting from increased exploration, most relate to re-evaluations of known deposits and increased
exploration effort to extend the lives of or to expand production at existing mining facilities.
In contrast to the overall increase in the highest cost category, Identified Resources in the two
lowest cost categories (USD 40/kgU and USD 80/kgU; or about USD 15/lbU3O8 and USD 30/lbU3O8)
declined by almost 2 174 000 tU and 715 000 tU, respectively (decreases of 73% and 16% compared
to 2007). Significant reductions occurred in RAR and Inferred Resources (IR) in the lowest cost
1. All Identified Conventional Resources are reported as recoverable uranium. In cases where resources were
reported by countries as in situ, resource figures were adjusted to estimate recoverable resources either by
using recovery factors provided by the country or applying Secretariat estimates according to expected
production method (see Recoverable Resources in Appendix 3).
15
category (<USD 40/kgU), principally the result of reclassification of resources into higher cost
categories in Australia, Kazakhstan, Namibia, Niger, the Russian Federation, South Africa and
Ukraine. However, it is important to note that the decline in the lowest cost category in Australia may
not be as great as indicated owing to the inability to estimate the cost of producing uranium as a by-
product at Olympic Dam, site of the world’s largest uranium deposit. Current estimates of
Identified Resources, RAR and Inferred Resources, on a country-by-country basis, are presented in
Tables 2, 3 and 4, respectively.
Distribution of Identified Conventional Resources by Categories and Cost Ranges
The most significant changes between 2007 and 2009 in the overall amount of Identified
Conventional Resources (Table 2) occurred in Australia, Canada, Namibia and the United States. The
distribution of Identified Resources, RAR and Inferred Resources, among countries with major
resources, is shown in Figures 1, 2 and 3, respectively.
Table 1. Changes in Identified Resources 2007-2009

(1 000 tU)
Resource category 2007 2009 Changes(a)
Identified (Total)
<USD 260/kgU NA > 6 306 + 837(b)
<USD 130/kgU 5 469 5 404 - 65
<USD 80/kgU >4 456 3 742 - 715
(c)
<USD 40/kgU 2 970 > 796 - 2 174
RAR
<USD 260/kgU NA > 4 004 + 666(b)
<USD 130/kgU >3 338 3 525 + 187
<USD 80/kgU 2 598 > 2 516 - 82
(c)
<USD 40/kgU >1 766 570 - 1 196
Inferred Resources
<USD 260/kgU NA 2 302 + 172(b)
<USD 130/kgU >2 130 > 1 879 - 251
<USD 80/kgU >1 858 1 226 - 632
(c)
<USD 40/kgU 1 204 > 226 - 978
(a) Changes might not equal differences between 2007 and 2005 because of independent rounding.
(b) Above those reported in the 2007 <USD 130/kgU category.
(c) Resources in the cost categories of <USD 40/kgU are likely higher than reported, because some
countries have indicated that either detailed estimates are not available, or the data are confidential.
16
Figure 1. Global Distribution of Identified Resources (<USD 130/kgU)
17
The global distribution of Identified Resources amongst 14 countries that are either major uranium producers or have significant plans for
growth of nuclear generating capacity illustrates the widespread distribution of these resources. Together, these 14 countries are endowed with
97% of the identified global resource base in this cost category (the remaining 3% are distributed among another 19 countries). The widespread
distribution of uranium resources is an important geographic aspect of nuclear energy in light of security of energy supply.
Table 2. Identified Resources (RAR + Inferred)
(recoverable resources as of 1 January 2009, tonnes U, rounded to nearest 100 tonnes)
Cost Ranges
COUNTRY
<USD 40/Kg U <USD 80/Kg U <USD 130/Kg U <USD 260/Kg U
Algeria (a) (b) (c) 0* 0* 19 500 19 500
Argentina 0 11 400 19 100 19 100
Australia NA 1 612 000 1 673 000 1 679 000
Brazil 139 900 231 300 278 700 278 700
Canada 366 700 447 400 485 300 544 700
Central African Republic (a) (b) (c) 0* 0* 12 000 12 000
Chile (c) 0 0 0* 1 500
China (c) 67 400 150 000 171 400 171 400
Congo, Dem. Rep. of (a) (b) (c) 0 0* 0* 2 700
Czech Republic 0 500 500 500
Denmark (b) (c) 0 0 0 85 600*
Egypt 0 0 0 1 900
Finland (b) (c) 0 0 1 100 1 100
France 0 0 100 9 100
Gabon (a) (b) 0 0 4 800 5 800
Germany (b) (c) 0 0 0 7 000
Greece (a) (b) 0* 0* 0* 7 000
Hungary 0 0 0 8 600
India (c) (d) 0 0 80 200 80 200
Indonesia (b) (c) 0* 0* 4 800 6 000
Iran, Islamic Republic of 0 0 0* 2 200
Italy (a) (b) 0 0 4 800 6 100
Japan (b) 0 0* 6 600 6 600
Jordan (a) (c) 0* 111 800 111 800 111 800
Kazakhstan (c) 44 400 475 500 651 800 832 000
Malawi* 0 8 100 15 000* 15 000
Mexico (a) (b) (c) 0 0 0* 1 800
Mongolia (b) (c) 0 41 800 49 300 49 300
Namibia (a) (c)* 0 2 000 284 200 284 200
Niger (a) (c)* 17 000 73 400 272 900 275 500
Peru (c) 0 0 2 700 2 700
Portugal (a) (b) 0 4 500 7 000 7 000
Romania (a) 0 0 6 700 6 700
Russian Federation 0 158 100 480 300 566 300
Slovakia* 0 0 0 10 200
Slovenia (a) (b) (c) 0 0* 9 200 9 200
Somalia (a) (b) (c) 0 0* 0* 7 600
South Africa (b) (f) 153 300 232 900 295 600 295 600
Spain (b) 0 2 500 11 300 11 300
Sweden (a) (b) 0 0 10 000 10 000
Tanzania (c) 0 0 0 28 400*
Turkey (b) (c) 0 0* 7 300 7 300
Ukraine (c) 5 700 53 500 105 000 223 600
United States 0 39 000 207 400 472 100
Uzbekistan (a) (c) (e) 0 86 200* 114 600* 114 600*
Vietnam (a) (b) (c) 0 0* 0* 6 400
Zimbabwe (a) (b) (c) 0 0* 0* 1 400
Total (g) 796 400 3 741 900 5 404 000 6 306 300
NA Data not available.
* Secretariat estimate.
(a) Not reported in 2009 responses, data from previous Red Book
(b) Assessment not made within the last five years.
(c) In situ resources were adjusted by the Secretariat to estimate recoverable resources using recovery factors provided
by countries or estimated by the Secretariat according to the expected production method.
(d) Cost data not provided, therefore resources are reported in the < USD 130/kgU category.
(e) Data from previous Red Book, reduced by past production.
(f) Resource estimates do not account for production.
(g) Totals related to costs <USD 40/kgU and <USD 80/kgU are higher than reported because certain countries do not
report low-cost resources. Totals may not equal sum of components due to independent rounding.
18
Table 3. Reasonably Assured Resources (RAR)
Cost Ranges
COUNTRY
Algeria (a) (b) (c) 0* 0* 19 500 19 500
Argentina 0 7 000 10 400 10 400
Australia NA 1 163 000 1 176 000 1 179 000
Brazil 139 900 157 700 157 700 157 700
Canada 267 100 336 800 361 100 387 400
Central African Republic (a) (b) (c) 0* 0* 12 000 12 000
Chile (c) 0 0 0* 800
China (c) 52 000 100 900 115 900 115 900
Finland (b) (c) 0 0 1 100 1 100
France 0 0 0 9 000
Gabon (a) (b) 0 0 4 800 4 800
Germany (b) (c) 0 0 0 3 000
Greece (a) (b) 0* 0* 0* 1 000
India (c) (d) 0 0 55 200 55 200
Indonesia (b) (c) 0* 0* 4 800 4 800
Iran, Islamic Republic of 0 0 0* 700
Italy (a) (b) 0 0* 4 800 4 800
Japan (b) 0 0* 6 600 6 600
Jordan (a) (c) 0* 44 000 44 000 44 000
Kazakhstan (c) 14 600 233 900 336 200 414 200
Malawi* 0 8 100 13 600 13 600
Mexico (a) (b) (c) 0 0 0* 1 300
Mongolia (b) (c)* 0 37 500 37 500 37 500
Namibia (e) 0* 2 000* 157 000* 157 000
Niger (a) (c)* 17 000 42 500 242 000 244 600
Peru (c) 0 0* 1 300 1 300
Portugal (a) (b) 0 4 500* 6 000 6 000
Romania (a) 0 0 3 100 3 100
Slovakia* 0 0 0 5 100
Slovenia (a) (b) (c) 0 0* 1 700* 1 700
Somalia (a) (b) (c) 0 0 0* 5 000
South Africa (b) (f) 76 800 142 000 195 200 195 200
Spain (b) 0 2 500 4 900 4 900
Sweden (a) (b) 0 0 4 000 4 000
Tanzania (c) 0 0 0 8 900*
Turkey (b) (c) 0 0* 7 300 7 300
Ukraine (c) 2 500 38 700 76 000 142 400
United States 0 39 000 207 400 472 100
Uzbekistan (a) (b) (e) 0 55 200* 76 000* 76 000*
Vietnam (a) (b) (c) 0 0 0* 1 000
Zimbabwe (a) (b) (c) 0 0 0* 1 400
Total (g) 569 900 2 516 100 3 524 900 4 004 500
(a) Not reported in 2009 responses, data from previous Red Book
(c) In situ resources were adjusted by the Secretariat to estimate recoverable resources using recovery factors provided by
countries or estimated by the Secretariat according to the expected production method.
(e) Data from previous Red Book, reduced by past production.
(f) Resource estimates do not account for production.
(g) Totals related to costs <USD 40/kgU and <USD 80/kgU are higher than reported because certain countries do not
19
Table 4. Inferred Resources
Cost Ranges
COUNTRY
Argentina 0 4 400 8 700 8 700
Australia NA 449 000 497 000 500 000
Brazil 0 73 600 121 000 121 000
Canada 99 700 110 600 124 200 157 200
Chile (a) (b) (c) 0 0 0 700
China (c) 15 400 49 100 55 500 55 500
Denmark (b) (c) 0 0 0 85 600*
Egypt 0 0 0* 1 900
France (b) 0 0 100* 100
Gabon (a) (b) 0 0 0* 1 000
Germany (b) (c) 0 0 0 4 000
Greece (a) (b) 0* 0* 0* 6 000
Hungary 0 0 0 8 600
India (c) (d) 0 0 24 900 24 900
Indonesia (b) (c) 0 0* 0* 1 200
Iran, Islamic Republic of (c) 0 0 0* 1 400
Italy (a) (b) 0 0 0* 1 300
Jordan (a) (c) 0* 67 800 67 800 67 800
Kazakhstan (c) 29 800 241 500 315 600 417 900
Malawi* 0 0 1 500 1 500
Mexico (a) (b) (c) 0 0 0* 500
Mongolia (b) (c) 0 4 300* 11 800* 11 800*
Namibia (a) (c) (d)* 0 0 127 200 127 200
Niger (a) (c)* 0 30 900 30 900 30 900
Peru (b) (c) 0 0* 1 400* 1 400*
Portugal (a) (b) 0 0* 1 000 1 000
Romania (a) 0 0 3 600 3 600
Slovakia* 0 0 0 5 200
Slovenia (a) (b) (c) 0 0* 7 500 7 500
Somalia (a) (b) (c) 0 0 0* 2 600
South Africa (b) (e) 78 500 90 900 100 400 100 400
Spain (b) 0 0 6 400 6 400
Sweden (a) (b) 0 0 6 000 6 000
Tanzania* 0 0 0 19 500
Ukraine (c) 3 200 14 900 29 000 81 200
Uzbekistan (a) (b) (c) 0 31 000 38 600 38 600
Vietnam (a) (b) (c) 0 0* 0* 5 400
Total (e) 226 600 1 225 800 1 879 100 2 301 800
(a) Not reported in 2009 responses, data from previous Red Book using Inferred or EAR-I data.
(c) In situ resources were adjusted to estimate recoverable resources, using recovery factors provided by the countries or
estimated by the Secretariat according to the expected production method.
(e) Totals related to costs <USD 40/kgU and <USD 80/kgU are higher than reported because certain countries do not
Reasonably Assured Conventional Resources (RAR) recoverable at costs <USD 40/kgU, the
most economically attractive category, decreased by 1 196 500 tU since 2007 to a total of 569 900 tU
(a decrease from 2007 of about 68%). Significant decreases were recorded in Australia, Kazakhstan,
Namibia, the Russian Federation, Ukraine and Uzbekistan. RAR recoverable at a cost of
<USD 130/kgU increased by 186 600 tU, compared to 2007 (about 6%), to a total of 3 524 900 tU, as
20
significant increases reported by Australia, and to a lesser extent in Canada, China and the Russian
Federation, were greater than decreases reported by Kazakhstan, Ukraine and the United States.
Inclusion of the new higher cost category (USD 130/kgU to USD 260/kgU) added 666 200 tU to RAR,
principally as a result of resources reported in Kazakhstan, Ukraine and the United States, and to a
lesser extent Australia and Canada. Overall, these changes were principally the result of re-evaluation
of known deposits. Of particular note are changes reported by Australia and Kazakhstan. In Australia,
low cost RAR (<USD 40/kgU) are no longer reported, owing to rapidly increasing mining costs and
the challenge of determining mining costs at Olympic Dam, where uranium is produced as a by-
product with copper, gold and silver. In Kazakhstan, low cost RAR (<USD 40/kgU) decreased by over
220 000 tU and decreases were also reported in the <USD 80/kgU (over 110 000 tU) and
<USD 130/kgU (over 41 000 tU), owing to rising costs and changes in the tax system. Similar, but less
extensive reclassifications were reported by the Russian Federation, Ukraine and the United States.
Inferred Conventional Resources (IR) decreased in all cost categories, with the exception of the
new high cost category (USD 130/kgU to USD 260/kgU). Low cost IR (USD 40/kgU) was reduced by
as much as 977 000 tU (81%, compared to 2007). Australia, Kazakhstan, the Russian Federation and
Ukraine all reported declining IR, with Kazakhstan registering the greatest decreases. Kazakhstan, the
Russian Federation and Ukraine re-classified a significant amount of resources into the highest cost
category, principally the result of re-evaluation of resources in light of increased costs of production,
while exploration efforts in Canada, China and Denmark (Greenland) resulted in the introduction of
new high cost IR.
Together, the changes in Identified Conventional Resources (i.e. RAR plus IR), recoverable at a
cost of <USD 40/kgU, decreased by 2 173 600 tU (about 73% from 2007) and at costs <USD 130/kgU
decreased by 64 800 tU, some 1.2% less than in 2007. Resources reported in the newly introduced
highest cost category (USD 130/kgU to USD 260/kgU) contributed 837 500 tU to the overall
Conventional Resource base as of 1 January 2009.
Distribution of Resources by Production Method
In 2009, countries reported Identified Resources by cost categories and by the expected
production method, i.e., open-pit or underground mining, in situ leaching, heap leaching or in-place
leaching, co-product/by-product or as unspecified.
Of the remaining low-cost RAR (<USD 40/kgU) reported by production method, recovery by
underground mining is the most important (mainly in Canada), followed by co-product/by-product
production and ISL (Table 6), although the co-product/by-product contribution is likely under-
estimated owing to the difficulty in attributing mining costs to uranium production in these operations,
in particular the Olympic Dam mine in Australia. With respect to RAR recoverable at costs
<USD 130/kgU, most are expected to be produced by underground mining (almost 1/3 of the reported
resources), followed by co-product/by-product, open-pit mining and ISL. The ranking is the same for
resources reported in the new high cost category (<USD 260/kgU).
With respect to Inferred Resources (Table 7), what remains in the <USD 40/kgU category is
dominated by underground and ISL. In the <USD 130/kgU category, underground mining is expected
to be the most important production method, followed by recovery as co-product/by-product, ISL and
open-pit mining. The ranking is much the same for the new high cost category (<USD 260/kgU),
although open-pit mining is slightly more important than co-product/by-product in this cost category.
21
Distribution of Resources by Deposit Type
In 2009, countries also reported Identified Resources by cost categories and by geological types
of deposits, i.e., unconformity related, sandstone, hematite breccia complex, quartz-pebble
conglomerate, vein intrusive, volcanic and caldera-related, metasomatite or as other. Definition of the
deposit types can be found in the glossary of definitions in Appendix 3.
In what remains of the low cost RAR (<USD 40/kgU) category, unconformity related (in
Canada and Australia) deposits dominate, followed by metasomatite and quartz pebble types
(Table 8). In the <USD 130/kgU category, the hematite breccia complex (in Australia) is the largest,
followed closely by sandstone related resources (in the United States, Kazakhstan and Niger), then
unconformity related deposits. In the new high cost category (<USD 260/kgU), sandstone deposits
rank highest, followed closely by hematite breccia complex deposits.
Similar observations can be made for the Inferred Resources (Table 9). In the greatly reduced
low cost (<USD 40/kgU) category, resources related to unconformity related deposits dominate,
followed by the quartz pebble type. In the <USD 130/kgU category, resources related to sandstone
deposits (in Kazakhstan and Russia) are the most important, followed by resources related to hematite
breccia complex (in Australia) and metasomatite (in Russia and Ukraine) deposits. In the new high
cost category (<USD 260/kgU), sandstone deposit remain the most important, followed by
metasomatite and hematite breccias deposits.
Table 5. Major Identified Resource changes by country

(recoverable resources in 1 000 tonnes U)
Country Resource category 2007 2009 Changes Reasons
RAR
<USD 40/kgU 709 NA NA
<USD 80/kgU 714 1 163 +449 Additional resources defined at
<USD 130/kgU 725 1 176 +451
Olympic Dam, Ranger, Mt Fitch,
<USD 260/kgU NA 1 179 NA
Australia Mt Gee, Westmoreland and Valhalla
Inferred deposits. Upgrade between
<USD 40/kgU 487 NA NA resource categories.
<USD 80/kgU 502 449 -53
<USD 130/kgU 518 497 -21
<USD 260/kgU NA 500 NA
RAR
<USD 40/kgU 270 267 -3
<USD 80/kgU 329 337 +8
<USD 130/kgU 329 361 +32 Re-evaluation of deposits discovered in
<USD 260/kgU NA 387 NA the 1970s resulted in several new NI 43-
Canada
Inferred 101 compliant
<USD 40/kgU 82 100 +18 resource assessments.
<USD 80/kgU 94 111 +17
<USD 130/kgU 94 124 +30
RAR
<USD 130/kgU 20 0 -20
Increase in high cost inferred resources
Denmark and decrease in RAR due to re-
Inferred
<USD 130/kgU 12 0 -12
evaluation of Kvanefjeld deposit.
RAR
<USD 130/kgU 49 55 +6
India Re-evaluation of resources.
Inferred
<USD 130/kgU 24 25 +1
22
Table 5. Major Identified Resource changes by country (contd.)
(recoverable resources in 1 000 tonnes U)
RAR
<USD 40/kgU 236 16 -220
<USD 80/kgU 344 263 -81
<USD 130/kgU 378 366 -12
<USD 260/kgU NA 472 NA Re-evaluation resulting in movement to
Kazakhstan higher cost categories based mainly on
Inferred changes in legal framework.
<USD 40/kgU 282 34 -248
<USD 80/kgU 407 243 -164
<USD 130/kgU 439 357 -82
RAR
<USD 40/kgU 8 0 -8
<USD 130/kgU 46 38 -9
<USD 260/kgU NA 38 NA Re-evaluation of deposits by Secretariat
Mongolia Inferred in light of increased
<USD 40/kgU 8 0 -8 mining costs.
<USD 80/kgU 16 4 -12
<USD 130/kgU 16 12 -4
RAR
<USD 40/kgU 145 114 -31
<USD 80/kgU 176 206 +30 Additional resources defined at
<USD 130/kgU NA 206 NA Rossing, Langer Heinrich, Rossing
Namibia
Inferred South, Trekopje, Valencia, Ida Dome,
<USD 40/kgU 85 83 -2 Etango and Husaf deposits.
<USD 80/kgU 99 161 +62
RAR
<USD 40/kgU 48 0 -48
<USD 80/kgU 172 100 -72
<USD 130/kgU 172 181 +9
Resource re-evaluation, mainly among
Russian <USD 260/kgU NA 181 NA
cost categories.
Federation Inferred
<USD 40/kgU 36 0 -36
Upgrade between resource categories.
<USD 80/kgU 323 58 -265
<USD 130/kgU 373 299 -74
RAR
<USD 130/kgU 285 284 -1
Inferred
South Africa Re-evaluation of resources.
<USD 40/kgU 120 78 -41
<USD 80/kgU 137 91 -46
<USD 130/kgU 151 100 -51
RAR
<USD 80/kgU 127 45 -82
<USD 130/kgU 135 87 -48
<USD 260/kgU NA 161 NA Re-evaluation resulting in movement to
Ukraine
Inferred higher cost categories.
<USD 80/kgU 58 17 -41
<USD 130/kgU 65 33 -32
RAR
United <USD 80/kgU 99 39 -60 Re-evaluation resulting in movement to
States <USD 130/kgU 339 215 -125 higher cost categories.
23
Figure 2. Distribution of Reasonably Assured Resources (RAR)
among countries with major resources
1400
1200
1000
USD 130-260/kgU
800
USD 80-130/kgU
USD 40-80/kgU
1 000 tU
600
< USD 40/kgU
400
200
0
Kazakhstan
South Africa
Russian Fed.
Uzbekistan*
Canada
Namibia*
United States
Brazil
Ukraine
China
Australia
Niger
Table 6. Reasonably Assured Resources (RAR) by production method

(tonnes U)
<USD 40/kgU <USD 80/kgU <USD 130/kgU <USD 260/kgU
Open-pit mining 41 400 370 600 833 400 950 900
Underground mining 386 400 710 700 1 031 800 1 354 500
In situ leaching 51 600 407 200 519 000 541 500
Heap leaching* 5 000 19 300 64 600 64 600
In-place leaching 0 0 6 300 6 300
Co-product / by-product 71 100 972 900 972 900 972 900
Unspecified mining method 14 400 35 400 96 900 113 700
Total 569 900 2 516 100 3 524 900 4 004 500
24
Figure 3. Distribution of Inferred Resources
among countries with major resources
600
500
400
USD 130-260/kgU
USD 80-130/kgU
300
USD 40-80/kgU
1 000 tU
< USD 40/kgU

200
100
0
South Africa
Uzbekistan*
Kazakhstan
Ukraine
Jordan
Russian Fed.
Australia
Namibia*
Canada
Niger
Brazil
China
Table 7. Inferred Resources by production method

(tonnes U)
Open-pit mining 2 400 160 400 347 600 463 000
Underground mining 181 000 332 900 637 500 862 000
In situ leaching 41 800 329 000 387 700 389 000
Heap leaching* 0 13 000 22 600 22 600
In-place leaching 0 0 3 200 7 100
Co-product / by-product 0 346 200 398 600 398 600
Unspecified mining method 1 430 44 300 81 900 159 500
Total 226 600 1 225 800 1 879 100 2 301 800
25
Table 8. Reasonably Assured Resources (RAR) by deposit type
(tonnes U)
Unconformity-related 267 100 536 800 559 400 564 300
Sandstone 32 900 424 200 888 500 1 118 800
Hematite breccia complex 0 900 300 908 000 908 000
Quartz-pebble conglomerate 61 100 82 100 108 800 108 800
Vein 0 7 400 64 600 129 100
Intrusive 1 000 5 000 97 100 100 100
Volcanic and caldera-related 0 132 400 166 800 193 500
Metasomatite 88 800 147 600 246 700 314 300
Other* 53 600 138 600 263 000 278 200
Unspecified 65 400 141 700 222 000 289 400
Total 569 900 2 516 100 3 524 900 4 004 500
* Includes surficial, collapse breccia pipe, phosphorite and other types of deposits, as well as rock types with
elevated uranium content. Pegmatite and black shale are not included.
Table 9. Inferred Resources by deposit type

(tonnes U)
Unconformity-related 99 700 163 600 165 500 169 400
Sandstone 32 200 396 000 480 500 528 700
Hematite breccia complex 0 339 900 347 500 347 500
Quartz-pebble conglomerate 73 906 88 900 94 500 107 100
Vein 0 700 50 700 159 600
Intrusive 800 5 900 92 500 181 200
Volcanic and caldera-related 0 31 300 48 000 98 500
Metasomatite 3 200 28 000 335 900 413 300
Other* 0 118 300 190 400 201 300
Unspecified 16 800 53 200 73 600 95 200
Total 226 600 1 225 800 1 879 100 2 301 800
* Includes surficial, collapse breccia pipe, phosphorite and other types of deposits, as well as rock types with
elevated uranium content. Pegmatite and black shale are not included.
Proximity of Resources to Production Centres
A total of eight countries provided estimates of the availability of resources for near-term
production by reporting the percentage of Identified Resources (RAR and Inferred Resources)
recoverable at costs <USD 80/kgU and <USD 130/kgU that are tributary to existing and committed
production centres (Table 10). Resources tributary to existing and committed production centres
in eight countries listed below total 2 486 752 tU at <USD 80/kgU, about 10% below the 2007 value
of 2 757 590 tU reported in the same cost category.
26
Table 10. Identified Resources proximate to existing or committed production centres*
RAR + Inferred recoverable at <USD 80/kgU RAR + Inferred recoverable at <USD 130/kgU
Country in Existing or Committed Production Centres in Existing or Committed Production Centres
Total resources % Proximate resources Total resources % Proximate resources
Australia 1 612 000 83 1 337 960 1 673 000 NA NA

Brazil 231 300 66 152 658 278 700 66 183 942
Canada 447 400 75 335 550 485 300 69 334 857
Czech Rep. 500 100 500 NA NA NA
Kazakhstan 475 500 93 442 215 651 800 82 534 476
Russian Fed. 158 100 90 142 290 480 300 NA NA
South Africa 232 900 13 30 277 295 600 NA NA
Ukraine 53 500 89 47 615 105 000 82 86 100
Total 3 211 200 77 2 486 752 3 969 700 NA
NA Not available.
* Identified resources only in countries that reported proximity to production centres; not world total.
Undiscovered Resources
Undiscovered Resources (Prognosticated and Speculative) refer to resources that are expected
to occur based on geological knowledge of previously discovered deposits and regional geological
mapping. Prognosticated Resources refer to those expected to occur in known uranium provinces,
generally supported by some direct evidence. Speculative Resources refer to those expected to occur
in geological provinces that may host uranium deposits. Both Prognosticated and Speculative
Resources require significant amounts of exploration before their existence can be confirmed and
grades and tonnages can be defined. All Prognosticated Resources and Speculative Resources are
reported as in situ resources (Table 11).
Worldwide, reporting of SR is incomplete, as only 26 countries have historically reported

resources in this category. Only 16 countries reported SR for this edition, compared to the 27 that
reported RAR. A number of countries did not report Undiscovered Resources for the 2009 Red Book,
while others indicated that they do not regularly update evaluations of this type of resource.
Nonetheless, some of these countries, such as Australia, Gabon and Namibia, are considered to have
significant resource potential in as yet sparsely explored areas.
Prognosticated Resources are estimated to total about 2.81 million tU recoverable at

<USD 130/kgU (a 2% increase from 2.77 million tU in 2007), including about 1.70 million tU at
<USD 80/kgU (1.95 million tU in 2007, a 12% decrease). Prognosticated Resources are estimated to
total about 2.91 million tU recoverable at <USD 260/kgU. Major changes in Prognosticated Resources
between 2007 and 2009 occurred in Kazakhstan (an increase from 280 000 tU to 321 600 tU in the
<USD 80/kgU cost category and an increase from 300 000 tU to 498 500 tU in the <USD 130/kgU
cost category), the Russian Federation (decrease from 276 500 tU to182 000 tU in the <USD 80/kgU
category) and Ukraine (decrease from 22 500 tU to15 300 tU in the <USD 130/kgU category). The
total Prognosticated Resources reported in the new high cost category amounted to 2 905 000 tU, a 5%
increase from the total reported in the <USD 130/kgU category in 2007.
The total for countries reporting Speculative Resources (SR) recoverable at <USD 130/kgU is
about 3.7 million tU, a decrease of over 1 059 000 tU (22%) compared to the 2007 total.
27
Speculative Resources (SR) recoverable at <USD 260/kgU amounted to a little over
3.9 million tU. About 3.6 million tU of SR are reported without an estimate of production cost, a
decrease of 620 500 tU (21%) compared to 2007. The most significant changes in SR are reported in
Kazakhstan, where 200 000 tU were upgraded from Speculative to high cost (<USD 260/kgU)
Prognosticated Resources, and the Russian Federation, where Speculative Resources were reduced by
714 000 tU in the <USD 130/kgU category and 633 000 tU were added to the unassigned cost range.
Indonesia and the Islamic Republic of Iran recorded slight increases (<5000 tU) in Speculative
Resources. Total reported SR are estimated to amount to almost 7.5 million tU, down slightly (3.6%)
compared to the 2007 total of 7.7 million tU.
Table 11. Undiscovered Resources*
(in 1 000 tonnes U, as of 1 January 2009)
Prognosticated Resources Speculative Resources

COUNTRY Cost ranges Cost ranges
< USD < USD < USD < USD < USD Cost range
Total
80/kgU 130/kgU 260/kgU 130/kgU 260/kgU unassigned
Argentina NA 1.4 1.4 NA NA NA NA
Brazil 300.0 300.0 300.0 NA NA 500.0 500.0
Bulgaria NA NA 25.0 NA NA NA NA
Canada 50.0 150.0 150.0 700.0 700.0 0.0 700.0
Chile (a) NA 1.5 1.5 NA NA 3.2 3.2
China (a) 3.6 3.6 3.6 4.1 4.1 0.0 4.1
Colombia (a) NA 11.0 11.0 217.0 217.0 0.0 217.0
Czech Republic 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.0 0.0 179.0 179.0
Denmark (a) 0.0 0.0 0.0 50.0 50.0 10.0 60.0
Germany 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 74.0 74.0
Greece (a) 6.0 6.0 6.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Hungary 0.0 18.4 18.4 NA NA NA NA
India (a) NA NA 63.6* NA NA 17.0 17.0
Indonesia (a) NA NA NA 16.1 16.1 0.0 16.1
Iran, Islamic Rep. of 0.0 4.2 4.2 NA 14.0 NA 14.0
Italy (a) NA NA NA NA NA 10.0 10.0
Jordan (a) 67.8 84.8 84.8 84.8 84.8 NA 84.8
Kazakhstan 321.6 498.5 500.0 270.5 300.0 NA 300.0
Mexico (a) NA 3.0 3.0 NA NA 10.0 10.0
Mongolia (a) 0.0 0.0 0.0 1 390.0 1 390.0 NA 1 390.0
Niger (a) 14.5 24.6 24.6 NA NA NA NA
Peru 6.6 6.6 6.6 19.7 19.7 NA 19.7
Portugal 1.0 1.5 1.5 NA NA NA NA
Romania (a) NA 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 NA 3.0
Russian Federation NA 182.0 182.0 NA NA 633.0 633.0
Slovenia 0.0 1.1 1.1 NA NA NA NA
South Africa 34.9 110.3 110.3 NA NA 1 112.9 1 112.9
Ukraine NA 15.3 15.3 NA 120.0 135.0 255.0
United States 839.0 1 273.0 1 273.0 858.0 858.0 482.0 1 340.0
Uzbekistan (a) 56.3 85.0 85.0 0.0 0.0 134.7 134.7
Venezuela (a) NA NA NA 0.0 0.0 163.0 163.0
Vietnam (a) 0.0 7.9 7.9 100.0 100.0 130.0 230.0
Zambia (a) 0.0 22.0 22.0 NA NA NA NA
Zimbabwe (a) 0.0 0.0 0.0 25.0 25.0 0.0 25.0
Total (reported by
1 701.5 2 814.8 2 905.0 3 738.2 3 901.7 3 593.8 7 495.5
countries)**
Undiscovered resources are reported as in situ resources. NA Data not available.
* Secretariat estimate in cost category.
** Totals may not equal sum of components due to independent rounding.
(a) Not reported in 2009 responses, data from previous Red Book.
28
Other Resources and Materials
Conventional resources are defined as resources from which uranium is recoverable as a

primary product, a co-product or an important by-product, while unconventional resources are
resources from which uranium is only recoverable as a minor by-product, such as uranium associated
with phosphate rocks, non-ferrous ores, carbonatite, black schists, and lignite. Most of the
unconventional uranium resources reported to date are associated with uranium in phosphate rocks,
but other potential sources exist (e.g. seawater and black shale). Since few countries reported updated
information a comprehensive compilation of unconventional uranium resources and other potential
nuclear fuel materials (e.g. thorium) is not possible. Instead, a summary of information documented
over recent years and data reported in this edition is provided below.
Historically phosphate deposits [1] are the only unconventional resource from which a significant
amount of uranium has been recovered. Processing of Moroccan phosphate rock in Belgium produced
686 tU between 1975 and 1999 and about 17 150 tU were recovered in the United States from Florida
phosphate rocks between 1954 and 1962. As much as 40 000 tU was also recovered from processing
marine organic deposits (essentially concentrations of ancient fish bones) in Kazakhstan. In the 1990s,
the price of uranium dropped to a level that made these operations uneconomic and most of these plants
were shut down. Those that were operating in the United States were decommissioned and demolished.
Estimated production costs for a 50 tU/year uranium by-product recovery project, including
capital and investment, ranged between USD 40/kgU and USD 115/kgU (USD 15/lb U3O8 and
USD 45/lb U3O8) in the United States in the 1980s [2]. More recently, production costs between
USD 65/kgU and USD 78/kgU (USD 25/lb U3O8 and USD 30/lb U3O8) have been put forward by
Australia’s Uranium Equities [3], although supporting feasibility study results have not yet been
produced. In November 2009, Cameco invested USD 16.5 million in Uranium Equities to develop and
commercialise the company’s PhosEnergy process.
An IAEA Technical Meeting was convened in November 2009 to update activities in this area.
During the meeting, a broad spectrum of issues relating to the potential of unconventional resources
was covered, along with research, technological developments and related environmental aspects [4].
It is clear that with stronger uranium prices and expectations of rising demand a variety of projects and
technologies are being investigated by both governments and commercial entities.
Unconventional uranium resources were reported occasionally by countries in Red Books

beginning in 1965. In 2009, only very few countries (Egypt, Finland, Peru and South Africa)
mentioned or reported such resources (Table 12). But with the price of uranium having generally
increased since 2003, compared to the preceding 20 years, unconventional uranium resources,
particularly those contained in phosphate rocks, are gaining more attention. In Brazil, development of
the St. Quitéria Project is ongoing, with production of as much as 1 000 tU/yr from phosphoric acid
produced from the Itataia phosphate/uranium deposit expected to begin in 2012. Egypt reports an
estimate of 42 000 tU contained in upper Cretaceous phosphate deposits, with U content ranging
between 50-200 ppm. Peru notes the potential of the Bayovar deposit in Piura, estimated to contain as
much as 16 000 tU at an average grade of 60 ppm. And South Africa makes note of the long-term
potential of uranium recovery from phosphate deposits off its west coast with uranium grades as high
29
as 430 ppm. Although not reported in this edition of the Red Book, other countries, such as Jordan,
Morocco and Tunisia have also expressed an interest in recovering uranium from phosphate rocks
during fertiliser production.
But interest is not restricted to phosphate rocks alone. In Finland, low-grade polymetallic
(nickel, zinc, copper and cobalt) sulphide ores in the Talvivaara black shales have been in commercial
production since October 2008 using bio-heap leaching. Although uranium recovery is not included in
the extraction process at present, the uranium contained in ore could be extracted under favourable
market conditions.
In 2007, the Ministry of Employment and the Economy in Finland granted a two-year extension
of the Sokli mining concession on phosphate ore containing niobium, thorium and uranium. The
environmental assessment delivered in support of its development includes an option for uranium
production. Also in Finland, Mawson Resources and Namura Finland are working toward
development of the Nuottijärvi deposit. The deposit has a high cost (>USD 130/kgU) historic resource
estimate of 1 000 tU.
If uranium prices reach levels in excess of USD 260/kgU (USD100/lb U3O8), by-product
recovery of uranium from unconventional resources, and in particular from phosphate processing
facilities, is likely to become economically viable. If potential barriers such as regulatory requirements
and qualified personnel development can be overcome, by-product uranium production from
phosphoric acid could again become an important, competitive source of uranium. In this way,
uranium that is now being dispersed in very low concentrations on the land surface in fertiliser could
be recovered and used in the nuclear fuel cycle.
Table 12. Unconventional Resources reported in 2009

(tonnes U)
Country Tonnes U Types of deposit
Egypt 42 000 Phosphorite
Finland 5 500 Black shale and carbonatite deposits
Peru 21 600 Phosphorite and polymetallic (Cu, Pb, Zn, Ag, W, Ni) deposits
South Africa NR Phosphorite and coal deposits
NR = not reported.
Table 13 summarises ranges of unconventional resources reported in Red Books since 1965 [5].
These figures are incomplete. They do not include all worldwide unconventional resources since large
uranium resources associated with the Chattanooga (United States) and Ronneburg (Germany) black
shales, which combined contain a total of 4.2 million tU, are not listed. Neither are large uranium
resources associated with monazite-bearing coastal sands in Brazil, India, Egypt, Malaysia, Sri Lanka
and the United States. Unconventional resources are also not regularly reported in former USSR
countries.
30
Table 13. Unconventional Uranium Resources (1 000 tU) reported in 1965–1993 Red Books
Country Phosphate rocks Non-ferrous ores Carbonatite Black schist, lignite
Brazil* 28.0 – 70.0 2.0 13.0
Chile 0.6 – 2.8 4.5 – 5.2
Columbia 20.0 – 60.0
Egypt** 35.0 – 100.0
Finland 1 2.5 3.0 – 9.0
Greece 0.5
India 1.7 – 2.5 6.6 – 22.9 4.0
Jordan 100 – 123.4
Kazakhstan 58
Mexico 100 – 151 1.0
Morocco 6 526
Peru 20 0.14 – 1.41
Sweden 300.0
Syria 60.0 – 80.0
Thailand 0.5 – 1.5
United States 14.0 – 33.0 1.8
Venezuela 42.0
Vietnam 0.5
* Considered a conventional resource in Brazil and is thus included in conventional resource figures for Brazil.
** Includes an unknown quantity of uranium contained in monazite.
The total uranium reported in previous Red Books as unconventional resources, dominated by
phosphorite deposits in Morocco (>85%), amounts to about 7.3 – 7.6 million tU. As noted above, this
total does not include significant deposits in other countries and is therefore a conservative estimate of
the existing unconventional uranium resource base.
Other estimates of uranium resources associated with marine and organic phosphorite deposits
point to the existence of almost 9 million tU in four countries alone: Jordan, Mexico, Morocco and the
United States [6]. Others estimate the global total to amount to 22 million tU, as cited in the 2005
Red Book [7]. Surveys of uranium content in phosphate rocks [8], combined with estimates of the
extent of such deposits [9], support estimates of substantial amounts of uranium contained in
phosphate rocks. The variation in these estimates shows that these figures should be considered as part
of a general mineral inventory rather than conforming to standard categories used in reporting
resources. The development of more rigorous estimates of uranium in phosphate rocks is needed to
define the extent of these resources, their accessibility and the economics of uranium production given
that uranium market prices may justify the exploitation of these deposits.
Efforts to recover uranium from tailings deposits in South Africa have also been advanced
recently. Harmony Gold has been investigating the potential of recovering uranium from 11 tailings
dumps southwest of Johannesburg, where the Cooke dump near Doornkop alone contains an estimated
9 500 tU, as well as gold. Gold Fields is also investigating the potential of tailings dumps and a gold –
uranium quartz – pebble conglomerate at the Beatrix mine near Welkom, containing an estimated
24 600 tU and 75 t Au. And First Uranium is working toward uranium production from 14 old tailings
dams included in the Mine Waste Solutions (MWS) tailings reclamation project.
31
Canadian based Sparton Resources has been actively developing the technology for the recovery
of uranium from coal ash, focussing efforts on a Chinese coal-fired power station, but is also exploring
other potentially suitable ash disposal sites in China, South Africa and Eastern Europe. Although the
process has been conducted on a limited scale in the past, as with other unconventional sources of
uranium, strong uranium prices will be necessary for such extraction technologies to be commercially
viable. Although uranium recovery from tailings and coal ash would be a welcome addition, these
projects, as currently outlined, would contribute annually only small amounts of material, on the order
of a few hundred tU/year from each operation.
UraMin Inc. (now AREVA Resources South Africa) had been investigating uranium recovery
from the Springbok Flats coal field, estimated to contain 77 000 tU at grades of 0.06 – 0.1% U.
However, developing a cost effective, environmentally acceptable means of uranium extraction from
this potential source remains a challenge.
Seawater has long been regarded as a possible source of uranium, due to the large amount of
uranium contained (about 4 billion tU) and its almost inexhaustible nature. However, because of the
low concentration of uranium in seawater (3-4 ppb), it is estimated that it would require the processing
of about 350 000 tonnes of water to produce a single kg of uranium. Nonetheless, with the exception
of its high recovery cost, there is no intrinsic reason why at least some of these significant resources
could not be extracted from various coast lines at a total rate of a few hundred of tonnes annually.
Research on uranium recovery from seawater was carried out in Germany, Italy, Japan,
the United Kingdom and the United States of America in the 1970s and 1980s, but is now only known
to be continuing in Japan. Japanese researchers continued trials of a recovery system, based on
polymer braids, directly moored to the ocean floor, which recovered about 2.0 gU per kg absorbent
over the test period [10]. The annual recovery factor of large scale systems was estimated in 2006 to
be about 1 200 tU/year at a recovery cost of over USD 700/kgU. Research is continuing through pilot
trials in Japan, [11] to improve the recovery factor and lower costs towards competitive ranges. Use of
this type of technology eliminates the need to process large quantities of seawater.
Thorium
Thorium, abundant and widely dispersed, could also be used as a nuclear fuel resource. Most of
the largest identifed thorium resources were discovered during the exploration of carbonatites and
alkaline igneous bodies for uranium, rare earth elements, niobium, phosphate and titanium. Today,
thorium is recovered mainly from the mineral monazite as a by-product of processing heavy-mineral
sand deposits for titanium-, zirconium-, or tin-bearing minerals. Information on thorium resources
[1,5] was published in Red Books between 1965 and 1981, typically using the same terminology used
for uranium resources at that time (e.g. Reasonably Assured Resources and Estimated Additional
Resources I and II, which are now termed Inferred and Prognosticated Resources, respectively). No
additional information is available since the publication of the 2007 Red Book. Worldwide thorium
resources, which are listed by major deposit types in Table 14, are estimated to total about
6.08 million t Th, including undiscovered resources.
32
Table 14. Major thorium deposit types and resources [5]
Deposit type Resources (1 000 t Th)
Carbonatite 1 900
Placer 1 500
Vein-type 1 300
Alkaline rocks 1 120
Other 258
Total 6 078
Table 15 lists these thorium resources on a country by country basis, classified in categories
similar to those used for uranium resources.
Table 15. World thorium resources (1 000 tU) [3]

RAR EAR I (Inferred) Identified Resources
Country Prognosticated
< USD 80/kgTh <USD 80/kgTh <USD 80/kgTh
Australia* 46 406 452 NA
Brazil* 172 130 302 330
Canada NA 44 44 128
Egypt NA 100 100 280
Greenland 54 NA 54 32
India 319 NA 319 NA
Norway NA 132 132 132
Russian Fed. 75 NA 75 NA
South Africa 18 NA 18 130
Turkey* NA NA NA NA
USA 122 278 400 274
Venezuela NA 300 300 NA
Others 23 10 33 81
Total 829 1 400 2 229 1 387
* Based on updated assessments [8].
World total thorium resources estimated in the categories RAR, EAR-I (Identified Resources)
and Prognosticated Resources listed in Table 15 total 3.6 million t Th, or about 60% of the world
thorium resources listed in Table 14. Differences in these estimates are the result of the differing
approaches used (e.g. different costs and degrees of geological assurance).
So-called secondary sources of uranium, though small compared with the resources described
above, play a significant role in supplying current nuclear fuel requirements and are expected to
continue to do so for several years. These resources are discussed in detail in the Uranium Demand
section of this volume.
33
B. URANIUM EXPLORATION
Exploration and development activities in 2007 and 2008 continued at a pace not seen for
almost two decades, driven by increases in the uranium spot price until mid-2007. These activities
were conducted in countries which explored for and developed uranium deposits in the past and also in
many countries where exploration for uranium had not been conducted for some time. Since most of
these countries did not report exploration and development expenditures, total worldwide uranium
exploration and development expenditures are likely higher than what is reported here.
Worldwide uranium exploration continues to be unevenly distributed geographically, with the

majority of exploration expenditures being concentrated in areas considered to have the best likelihood
for the discovery of economically attractive deposits, mainly unconformity-related, sandstone-type
and hematite breccia complex deposits.
In 2008, only China, France, Japan and the Russian Federation reported non-domestic
exploration and development expenditures amounting to a total USD 324.3 million (Table 16).
In 2007, Canada, China, France, Japan and Switzerland reported non-domestic expenditures
amounting to USD 352.5 million, more than 20 times the 2002 total. In 2009, non-domestic
exploration and mine development expenditures are expected to decline to USD 197.0 million,
although only France, Japan and the Russian Federation reported expected expenditures. Total non-
domestic exploration expenditures are incomplete, as expenditures are known to have been made
abroad in recent years by companies based in Australia and the Republic of Korea, but no data were
reported. Trends in domestic and non-domestic exploration expenditures are depicted in Figure 4.
Domestic exploration and development expenditures generally decreased from 1998 to 2001,
then began to slightly increase in 2002 where a total of 18 countries reported domestic expenditures
of about USD 95.1 million (Table 17). In 2003 and 2004, 20 and 21 countries, respectively,
reported exploration and development activities amounting to about USD 123.8 million and
USD 218.8 million, respectively. But these figures are likely underestimating the total amount of
exploration since a number of countries either did not report exploration and mine development
expenditures or did so for government expenditures only, as discussed below.
In 2005, 19 countries reported domestic exploration and development expenditures totalling

about USD 393.7 million, an increase of about 80% compared to 2004. In 2006, 17 countries reported
domestic expenditures totalling about USD 704.5 million, an increase of about 79% compared to 2005
(these figures include conservative Secretariat estimates for Namibia and Uzbekistan). In 2007,
exploration and development expenditures reported by 22 countries increased a further 89%,
amounting to about USD 1.328 billion, and in 2008 increased by 24% to a total of USD 1.641 billion
(again with 22 countries reporting and Secretariat estimates for Namibia and Uzbekistan).
The bulk of 2008 expenditures were reported in only six countries: Australia, Canada,
Kazakhstan, Niger, the Russian Federation and the United States. These countries together accounted
for over 90% of reported domestic exploration and development expenditures. Of reported domestic
expenditures, 60% were made in only three countries; Australia, Canada and the United States.
Overall, domestic exploration and development expenditures are expected to remain strong but decline
by 18% in 2009 to USD 1.342 billion, based on reports from 18 countries (although South Africa
reported expenditures for only one operation). The most significant increases anticipated in 2009 are
expected to occur in Australia, Canada, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Niger and the Russian Federation.
Figure 4 portrays these trends, showing the recent, rapid divergence between domestic and non-
domestic expenditures.
34
Table 16. Non-domestic uranium exploration and development expenditures
(USD in year of expenditures)
2009
COUNTRY Pre-2002 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008
(expected)
Australia NA NA NA 1 571 8 855 4 580 NA NA NA

Belgium 4 500 0 0 0 0 0 0
Canada 22 820 2 549 2 547 9 559 53 968 p 124 546 p 139 655 NA NA
1 1
China 0 0 0 0 NA NA 157 237 183 717 NA
France 722 623 14 370 16 701 59 701 127 500 85 000 53 985 87 092 84 406
Germany 403 158 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
2 2
Japan 418 331 NA NA NA NA NA 1 570 3 810 4 430 2
Korea, Republic of 24 049 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
35
Russian Federation NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 49 724 108 190
Spain 20 400 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Switzerland 29 657 0 0 3 0 3 16 0 0
United Kingdom 61 263 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
United States 260 598 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
Total 1 967 399 16 919 19 248 70 834 190 323 214 129 352 463 324 342 197 026
Note: Domestic exploration and development expenditures represent the total expenditure from domestic and foreign sources within each country.
Expenditures abroad are thus a subset of domestic expenditures.
1. Government development expenditures only.
2. Government expenditures only.
p Provisional data.
Table 17. Industry and government uranium exploration
and development expenditures – domestic
(USD thousands in year of expenditure)
2009
COUNTRY Pre-2002 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008
(expected)
Argentina (a) 51 022 265 627 701 966 649 439 481 1 268
Australia 501 813 3 020 4 116 9 971 31 366 61 603 149 917 211 612 139 179
Bangladesh 453 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
Belgium 2 487 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Bolivia 9 343 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
Botswana 825 NA NA NA NA NA NA 377 NA
Brazil 186 128 NA NA 449 0 0 0 0 4 304
Cameroon 1 282 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Canada 1 243 914 22 876 21 687 78 676 184 921 316 364 532 710 514 751 224 774
Central African Rep. 21 800 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
Chile 6 627 154 115 133 84 100 113 NA NA
China 10 200 7 200 7 600 9 500 13 500 23 905 33 971 43 240 40 176
Colombia 19 946 NA NA 0 0 0 6000 NA NA
Costa Rica 364 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
Cuba 972 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
Czech Republic (b) 313 995 25 56 23 53 132 33 373 108
Denmark 4 140 0 0 0 0 NA NA NA NA
Ecuador 1 945 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
Egypt 95 990 7 186 5 631 2 589 1 730 1 736 1 761 2 378 2 777
Finland 13 984 0 0 210 803 1 798 1 511 2 418 NA
France 907 240 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Gabon 102 433 0 0 0 0 NA NA NA NA
Germany (c) 2 002 789 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ghana 90 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
Greece 17 547 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
Guatemala 610 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
Hungary 3 700 0 0 0 0 NA 112 239 NA
India 289 134 11 922 14 172 14 333 16 588 16 422 19 793 25 093 31 983
Indonesia 15 815 30 33 31 NA 120 122 0 217
Iran, Islamic Rep of 4 561 1 389 3 781 3 751 3 723 4 826 3 930 8 047 16 357
Ireland 6 200 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
Italy 75 060 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
Jamaica 30 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
Japan 19 697 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Jordan 920 0 0 0 0 0 0 353 115 819
Kazakhstan 31 040 11 836 4 372 723 1 169 8 500 34 318 78 155 130 083
Korea, Republic of 17 886 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Lesotho 21 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
Madagascar 5 293 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
36
Table 17. Industry and Government Uranium Exploration
and Development Expenditures – Domestic (contd.)
(USD thousands in year of expenditure)
2009
COUNTRY Pre-2002 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008
(expected)
Malaysia 10 478 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
Mali 58 693 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
Mexico 30 306 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
Mongolia 8 153 NA NA NA NA 12 527 26 138 26 649 19 178
Morocco 2 752 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
Namibia 25 631 0 110 1 747 2 000* 2 000* 8 000* 14 000* 12 000*
Niger 208 513 3 126 4 545 4 222 6 400* 12 453 152 984 207 173 312 097
Nigeria 6 950 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
Norway 3 180 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Paraguay 26 360 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
Peru 4 776 0 0 0 0 NA NA NA NA
Philippines 3 456 4 2 NA NA NA NA NA NA
Portugal 17 637 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Romania 10 060 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
Russian Fed. 76 939 10 420 7 241 10 597 24 946 33 496 64 218 221 528 258 761
Rwanda 1 505 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sloveniad 1 581 NA NA NA NA 0 0 0 0
Somalia 10 000 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
e
South Africa 140 846 0 73 886 1 593 24 698 14 972 3 922 6 787e
Spain 140 455 0 0 0 NA 427 3 887 4 552 NA
Sri Lanka 43 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
Sudan 200 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sweden 47 900 0 0 0 0 NA NA NA NA
Switzerland 3 359 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Syria 1 151 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
Thailand 11 299 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
Turkey 21 981 NA 7 7 23 56 50 74 189
Ukraine 10 341 1 898 3 415 4 259 4 801 6 168 6 560 7 548 4 725
United Kingdom 3 815 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
United States 2 506 761 352 31 300 59 000 77 800 155 300 245 700 246 400 NA
Uruguay 231 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
USSR 3 692 350
Uzbekistan 112 402 13 255 13 923 16 995 21 230* 21 230* 21 230* 21 230* 21 230*
Vietnam 2 842 132 980 45 NA NA NA NA NA
Zambia 25 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
Zimbabwe 6 902 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
TOTAL 13 196 836 95 090 123 786 218 848 393 696 704 510 1 328 468 1 640 593 1 342 012
NA Data not available. * Secretariat estimate.

(a) Government exploration expenditures only
(b) Includes USD 312 560 expended in Czechoslovakia (pre-1996)
(c) Includes USD 1 905 920, spent in GDR between 1946 and 1990.
(d) Includes any expenditures spent in other parts of the former Yugoslavia.
(e) Data from Ezulwini only.
(f) Includes reclamation and restoration expenditures from 2004 to 2008. Reclamation expenditures amounted to USD
50.9 million, 50.2 million and 49.1 million in 2006, 2007 and 2008, respectively.
NOTE: Domestic exploration and development expenditures represent the total expenditure from domestic and foreign
sources in each country for each year.
37
Figure 4. Trends in exploration and development expenditures
1800
1600 Non-domestic
Domestic
1400
1200
USD (millions, current)
1000
800
600
400
200
Year
Current Activities and Recent Developments
North America. In Canada, domestic uranium exploration expenditures alone amounted to

USD 385 million in 2008, down slightly from the peak in exploration expenditures of
USD 386 million that occurred in 2007. Exploration expenditures in 2009 are expected to decline
further to USD 170 million.
As in previous years, uranium exploration remained focused on areas favourable for the
occurrence of deposits associated with Proterozoic unconformities in the Athabasca Basin of
Saskatchewan, and to a lesser extent, similar geologic settings in the Thelon and Hornby Bay basins of
Nunavut and the Northwest Territories. Uranium exploration also remained very active in the Otish
Mountains of Quebec where Strateco Resources Inc. has applied for a licence to conduct underground
exploration on the Matoush deposit. Exploration activity in the Central Mineral Belt of Labrador,
where Aurora Energy Resources Inc. is proposing to develop the Michelin and Jacques Lake deposits,
reduced significantly after April 2008 when the regional aboriginal government imposed a three-year
moratorium on uranium mining on their lands. In April 2008, the British Columbia government
extended a moratorium on uranium and thorium exploration and in July that same year the province of
New Brunswick limited lands available for uranium exploration. The decline in uranium spot prices
since the second half of 2007 triggered a decrease in exploration activity in other areas of Canada.
Uranium exploration and development drilling totalled 821 300 m in 2008, compared to the
record 853 200 that was reported in 2007. Over 60% of the combined exploration and development
drilling in 2007 took place in Saskatchewan.
38
In 2008, overall Canadian uranium exploration and development expenditures amounted to
USD 515 million, down about 3% from 2007 expenditures of USD 533 million. Less than one-third of
the overall exploration and development expenditures in 2008 can be attributed to advanced
underground exploration, deposit appraisal activities, and care and maintenance expenditures
associated with projects awaiting production approvals.
In 2008, the United States recorded a significant increase in domestic exploration and mine
development activity with expenditures since 2006, amounting to USD 246.4 million, up slightly from
expenditures in 2007 of USD 245.7 million. Although a portion of these expenditures relate to
decommissioning and reclamation activities, this continued upward trend in investment indicates a
significant turnaround for the industry. Much of the recent increase in development and production
expenditures is due to the general rise in uranium (and vanadium) prices. The number of exploration
and development holes drilled was 9 355 in 2008 and 9 347 in 2007 with significant increases in the
total drilling length (1 552 656 m in 2008 and 1 568 501 m in 2007, compared to 576 682 in 2006).
Renewed interest in leasing activity for historical uranium reserve properties led to the purchase of
uranium mineral rights and the formation of new joint ventures to explore and develop prospective
new deposits principally in Arizona, California, Colorado, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Mexico,
Oregon, South Dakota, Texas, Utah, and Wyoming.
Central and South America. Argentina reported government exploration expenditures

totalling about USD 0.481 million in 2008, up slightly from about USD 0.439 million in the previous
year. A number of foreign companies are active in exploration projects in the country, including
AREVA, but expenditure data was not reported. Government exploration activities included a
programme to complete the final feasibility study of the Cerro Solo deposit and evaluation of the
surrounding areas. In addition, more exploration programmes (investigating vein type deposit at Las
Thermas and sandstone type deposits favourable for in situ leach mining) are planned in the near
future. Government expenditures and drilling efforts are expected to increase in 2009 to
USD 1.268 million and 20 000 m, up from 2 956 m in 2008. Local opposition to uranium exploration
and mining remains strong in some areas of the country.
No exploration work was carried out in Brazil from 2005 to 2008. In 2009, a drilling
programme is planned to confirm the continuity of the Cachoeira and Engenho deposits at Lagoa Real
(Caetité site), in addition to geological mapping of new targets in Bahia State and preliminary
exploration activities in the Rio Cristalino area of Pará State. Exploration expenditures are expected to
amount to USD 4.304 million in 2009.
In Peru, the Instituto Peruano de Energia Nuclear (IPEN) is promoting potential areas of
interest for uranium exploration. In 2007 and 2008, several companies conducted work in the area of
Macusani, where the bulk of the county’s Identified Resources are located, in order to explore and
develop these resources through bore holes in different prospects. Details of these and other activities
were not reported by the Government of Peru.
Exploration activities were also conducted in Chile, Colombia, Ecuador, Guyana, Paraguay, and
Venezuela, although details were not reported.
European Union. No fieldwork was conducted in the Czech Republic and exploration
activities were focused on drilling in the deeper part of the Rozna deposit to identify additional
resources to further extend the life of the mine. In Denmark (Greenland) significant exploration
39
effort in recent years resulted in the delineation of a large multi-metal deposit containing significant
amounts of uranium, although details of the exploration effort were not reported by the government.
The resource estimate is based on data derived during exploration for other metals, since exploration
and mining of radioactive elements is prohibited in Greenland.
Finland reported domestic exploration expenditures in 2007 and 2008 of USD 1.51 million and
USD 2.42 million, respectively. Because of the difficulties and delays in licensing, activities in
Finland have mainly been limited to grass roots exploration, first in claim reservation and then in
claim application areas. AREVA carried out an aerogeophysical survey on its target in eastern Finland
in 2007, followed by trenching and diamond drilling in 2008, after a favourable court decision.
Prolonged licensing, including probable appeals of claim decisions and the general decline in funding
of exploration may cause the companies to reduce activities in Finland during the year 2009.
Although no domestic activities have been carried out in recent years, France reported
increasing non-domestic uranium exploration and development expenditures of USD 54 million in
2007 and USD 87 million in 2008, although these figures are down from the peak of
USD 127.5 million in 2005. Expenditures of over USD 84 million are expected in 2009. French
exploration and development activities were reported in Australia, Canada, the Central African
Republic, Finland, Kazakhstan, Mongolia, Niger and South Africa.
In Hungary, exploration activity focussed on development of a new geological model of the

previously mined Mecsek sandstone deposit, allowing calculation of revised resource estimates.
Drilling of the Bátaszék roll-front deposit and limited drilling of the Dinnyeberki deposit also took
place. These efforts amounted to total expenditures of USD 0.11 million and USD 0.24 million in
2007 and 2008, respectively. Drilling amounted to a total of 950 m in 2008.
In 2007 and 2008, several foreign companies expressed an interest in obtaining mineral rights
for the Nisa area in Portugal. In Spain, Berkeley Resources through its Spanish filial Minera de Rio
Alagón S.L (MRA, has been actively investigating a total of 11 exploration licences spanning
45 214 hectares. By reassessing historic data and conducting reverse circulation and diamond drilling
programs, it developed a JORC complaint resource base of 27 million lbs U3O8 (10 385 tU) distributed
in four deposits. Exploration expenditures in 2007 and 2008 amounted to USD 3.9 million and
USD 4.6 million, respectively. International uranium exploration companies were also active the
Republic of Slovakia and Sweden, but expenditures related to these activities were not reported by
governments.
Europe outside the EU. In Armenia, a joint venture was established with the Russian
Federation in April 2008 for uranium exploration, mining and processing in Armenia and work,
beginning with the assessment of archival material, began shortly thereafter. The work plan calls for
exploration beginning in 2009. In the Russian Federation, most uranium exploration was performed
in the Republic of Kalmykia, the Republic of Buryatia, Trans-Baikal Territory and the Chukotka
Peninsula. Prospecting in Buryatia (the Vitim uranium district) identified a group of uranium bearing
paleovalleys and the Dulesminskoe uranium occurrence. In Kalmykia, two-well trial in-situ leaching
(ISL) at the Balkovskoe deposit yielded positive results and prospecting in the Trans-Baikal Territory
(area to the north of Lake Baikal) identified promising areas for subsequent exploration. Total
exploration and development expenditures increased in the Russian Federation in 2008 to over
USD 221.5 million, compared to USD 64.2 million in 2007. Exploration and development
expenditures are expected to increase further to USD 258.8 million in 2009 as prospecting in regions
located near the operating uranium mines, as well as in the promising regions of Eastern Siberia and
Kalmykia continues and development of the Elkon, Gornoe and Olovskoe deposits proceeds.
40
Exploration and mine development activities were not confined to within the Russian Federation in
recent years, as non-domestic expenditures of USD 49.7 million and USD 108.2 million were reported
in 2008 and 2009, respectively.
In Turkey, granite and acidic intrusive and sedimentary rocks were explored for radioactive raw
materials, covering a 10 000 km2 area in the Kırşehir-Nevşehir-Aksaray-Ankara region in 2007 and
2008. In 2009, granite and acidic intrusive and sedimentary rocks will be explored over a 5 000 km2 area
in the Kütahya-Uşak-Manisa region. Exploration expenditures amounted to USD 0.05 million and
USD 0.07 million in 2007 and 2008, respectively, and are expected to increase to USD 0.19 million in
2009 with a 1 000 m drilling campaign planned.
Ukraine continued exploration for vein-type and unconformity-related deposits in the Ukrainian
shield area and unconformity type deposits (Verbovskaya, Khotynskaya, Drukhovskaya) were
discovered on its western slopes. Efforts to follow-up on Prognosticated Resources calculated in the
Rozanovskaya, Gayvoronskaya and Khmelnitskoy areas were also undertaken. Exploration and
development expenditures totalled USD 6.6 million in 2007, rose in 2008 to USD 7.5 million but are
expected to decline to USD 4.7 million in 2009.
Africa. The Government of Botswana reported exploration expenditures of USD 0.377 million
in 2008 as regulations for uranium mining and milling were being developed. In Egypt, exploration
and development activities were focussed on four uranium prospects in southern and northern portions
of the Eastern Desert and the southwest of the Sinai Peninsula. In early 2009, comprehensive
geological, geophysical, and geochemical exploration works in the southern part of the Eastern Desert
and Red Sea region were initiated, concentrating on potential uranium resources in new target
environments. Unconventional resources, including phosphorite deposits, are also under investigation.
Total expenditures in Egypt have steadily increased from USD 1.76 million in 2007 to
USD 2.38 million in 2007 and 2008, respectively. Expenditures are expected to increase further to
about USD 2.8 million in 2009.
In Namibia, major drilling programmes were conducted in support of proposed expansions of

the Rössing and Langer Heinrich mines, ongoing development of the Trekkopje mine and continuing
evaluation of several deposits for possible mine development, including Husab, Etango, Marenica,
Rössing South and Omahola deposits. However, the Government of Namibia reported expenditure and
drilling activity details for Rössing only. In Niger, activities focused on resource development in and
around the existing mine sites in an effort to expand the resource base in the western Arlit area.
Several deposits in this area are also under development (Ebba, Tamgak and Tabele). New exploration
and development projects, with intensive drilling campaigns on the Azelik, Imouraren and Teguidda
deposits, continued through 2009. Exploration and development expenditures reported by the Ministry
officials in Niger amount to USD 153 million in 2007 and USD 207 million in 2008, with
USD 312.1 million expected in 2009. In Malawi, infill drilling amounting to 9 955 m was conducted
in 2008 on the Kayelekera deposit, where open pit mining began in April 2009, but expenditures were
not reported.
In South Africa, a stronger market and supportive government policy stimulated at least eight
companies to actively explore, develop and mine deposits in recent years. Companies are also actively
assessing uranium by-product opportunities associated with the Witwatersrand gold reefs and recovery
from tailings piles (“slimes”). Renewed interest in uranium occurrences in the Karoo Basin has also
been evident in recent years, along with investigations of unconventional sources of uranium, such as
the Springbok Flats coal field. Total expenditures in South Africa decreased from a peak of
USD 24.7 million in 2006 to USD 14.97 million in 2007. With only the Ezulwini mining company
41
reporting in 2008 and 2009, exploration expenditures declined further to USD 3.92 million in 2008,
but are expected to increase to USD 6.78 million in 2009. In Tanzania, about 70 licences have been
issued to companies interested in uranium exploration and investigations of Karoo-age sediments in
southern Tanzania (the Mkuju River, Mbamba Bay and Southern Tanzania Projects) and paleochannel
associated calcrete and sandstone hosted uranium targets within the Bahi catchment of central
Tanzania (the Bahi North and Handa Projects), but expenditure and drilling details were not reported
by the government. Updated resource estimates and pre-feasibility studies have been published by the
companies involved.
Exploration activities are also known to have been conducted in Burkina Faso, Cameroon, the
Central African Republic, the Democratic Republic of Congo, Gabon, Guinea, Madagascar, Malawi,
Mali, Mauritania, Mozambique, and Zambia, although details and associated costs were not reported
by the governments of these countries.
Middle East, Central and Southern Asia. In India, active programmes are being conducted in
several provinces, concentrating on Meso-Proterozoic, Neo-Proterozoic and Cretaceous sandstone
basins. Annual drilling increased sharply from 46.6 km in 2006 to 60.46 km and 117.75 km in 2007
and 2008, respectively. In 2009, an extensive drilling programme totalling over 321 km is planned.
Exploration expenditures are increasing commensurately, from USD 19.8 million and USD 25 million
in 2007 and 2008, respectively, to USD 32 million in 2009.
In Iran, in addition to projects already under study outlined in the 2007 Red Book, exploration
was begun in 2007 and 2008 in new areas in the southeast and east of Iran (in the Kerman, Sistan-va-
Baluchstan, South Khorasan and Razavi Khorasan provinces). In 2009, regional structural studies will
continue covering almost the entire eastern half of Iran. Reconnaissance of sedimentary type uranium
deposits using modern procedures is on-going over the entire country in order to evaluate the potential
of favourable sedimentary basins for uranium mineralisation. Total exploration expenditures alone
amounted to about USD 1.8 million and USD 5.4 million in 2007 and 2008, respectively, and are
expected to increase substantially to about USD 6.9 million in 2009, including funding for a 40 km
drilling campaign. Total exploration and mine development expenditures amounted to
USD 3.9 million, USD 8.0 million and USD 16.4 million in 2007, 2008 and 2009, respectively.
In Jordan, the Jordan Atomic Energy Commission (JAEC) was established in 2008 to develop
the Jordanian nuclear power program, including the exploration, extraction and mining of uranium and
other nuclear materials. In September 2008, JAEC created the Jordanian - French uranium mining
company (JFUMC) to carry out all exploration activities leading to a feasibility study of developing
resources in Central Jordan. Rio-Tinto is carrying out reconnaissance and prospecting in three areas in
cooperation with JAEC and exploration activities in co-operation with SinoU of China are being carried
out in two other areas. Exploration and development expenditures amounted to USD 0.4 million in 2008
and are expected to increase substantially to USD 116 million in 2009.
In Kazakhstan, exploration expenditures increased from USD 7.84 million in 2006, to

USD 13.2 million in 2007 and to USD 42 million in 2008, with 1 036 holes drilled in 2007 and 1 693
in 2008, amounting to a total length of 514 783 m and 853 862 m. In 2009, increasing effort will
continue with expenditures expected to amount to over USD 60 million and length drilled totaling
over 1 081 000 m. From 2005 to 2008, exploration of sandstone-type deposits was performed at
Moinkum, Inkai, Mynkuduk and Buddenovskoye in the Shu-Sarysu Uranium Province and at
Northern Kharassan in the Syrdaria Uranium Province. Geological and economic re-estimation of
vein-type deposits in the Northern Kazakhstan Uranium Province was conducted in 2007-2008. In
2009, exploration and ISL pilot production is to be completed on the western site of the
42
Mynkuduk deposit, at site No. 4 of the Inkai deposit and at the central site of the Mynkuduk
deposit. The Akbastau JSC will start exploration at sites No. 1, 3 and 4 of the Buddenovskoye deposit
in 2009-2010, with ISL pilot production at these three sites planned. In 2010, the Volkovgeology JSC
is to renew geological exploration of sandstone-type deposits in new perspective areas of the
Shu-Sarysu and the Syrdaria Uranium Provinces. Including significant mine development
expenditures raise the totals to USD 34.3 million, USD 78.2 million and USD 130.1 million in 2007,
2008 and 2009, respectively.
Exploration continues in Uzbekistan in order to increase uranium production, although details

were not reported by the government. Chinese and Japanese companies have signed agreements in
recent years with the Government of Uzbekistan in order to assess uranium production from black
shale deposits and to explore sandstone deposits.
South-eastern Asia. Limited activities were carried out in Indonesia in 2007 (exploration
drilling at Semut) and in 2009 exploration drilling is to be continued in the Kalan Sector. Detailed,
systematic prospection in the Kawat area is also planned, where Speculative Resources have been
increased by 11 000 tU. No exploration activities were reported by governments in other South-eastern
Asia.
East Asia. China reported increasing exploration and development expenditures of

USD 33.9 million and USD 43.2 million in 2007 and 2008, respectively. China continues to focus
exploration efforts on sandstone-type deposits amenable to ISL in the Yili basin of the Xinjiang region
and the Erdos basin in Inner Mongolian Autonomous Region. In addition, work was restarted on
hydrothermal vein-type deposits in southern China. In 2009, exploration expenditures are expected to
amount to USD 40.2 million, featuring a significant drilling programme (1 590 holes, 500 km). Non-
domestic exploration and development activities, carried out mainly in Kazakhstan and Niger,
amounted to a total of USD 157.0 million and USD 183.7 million in 2007 and 2008, respectively.
China has adopted a “two market, two resources” approach to meet rapidly rising domestic uranium
demand, as reflected in the increased domestic and non-domestic expenditures outlined above.
In Japan, no domestic exploration has taken place since 1988, but the Japan-Canada Uranium
Co. Ltd. is carrying out exploration activities in Canada and Japanese private companies hold shares in
developing and mining operations in Canada, Niger, Kazakhstan and elsewhere. Non-domestic
government mine development and exploration activities amounted to USD 1.6 million and USD
3.8 million in 2007 and 2008 respectively, and are expected to increase to over USD 4.4 million in
2009.
Exploration continues in Mongolia, performed principally by Canadian companies Khan

Resources Inc., Western Prospector Group Ltd., East Asia Minerals Corporation, Denison Mines and
Cameco. Solomon Resources Mongolia and foreign affiliates of Areva, the Chinese National Nuclear
Corp, Japan and the Russian Federation, among others, have also been active in recent years.
Activities included development of the Dornod deposit, the Gurvanbulak, Nemer and Mardaingol
deposits of the Saddle Hills and the Kharat and Khairkhan deposits of the eastern Gobi region.
Industry exploration expenditures amounted to a total of USD 26.1 million and USD 26.6 million in
2007 and 2008 respectively, and are expected to decline slightly to USD 19.2 million in 2009. Drilling
length has been steadily increasing in recent years, from 167 259 m in 2006, to 170 637 m and
172 669 m in 2007 and 2008, respectively.
43
Pacific. Exploration continued vigorously in several regions of Australia, with uranium
exploration and development expenditures increasing from USD 61.6 million in 2006, to
USD 149.9 million in 2007, and USD 211.6 million in 2008. Exploration focused on the Gawler
Craton/Stuart Shelf region (South Australia, SA) for hematite breccia complex deposits, the Frome
Embayment (SA) for sandstone uranium deposits, the Alligator Rivers region (Northern Territory) for
unconformity-related deposits in Palaeoproterozoic metasediments and the Mount Isa Region
(Queensland) for extensions of metasomatite type deposits. Significant discoveries in 2007 and 2008
included the Double 8 deposit in Tertiary palaeochannels sands in Western Australia, the Blackbush
deposit in South Australia, the Thunderball deposit near Hayes Creek in the Northern Territory and the
N147 project south east of Nabarlek, also in the Northern Territory. Domestic exploration and mine
development expenditures are expected to decline to USD 139.2 million in 2009. During 2007 and
2008, Paladin Energy Ltd (an Australian exploration company) completed the development of an open
cut mining operation at the Kayelekera deposit in Malawi. Mine production commenced in May 2009.
Paladin is also the operator of the Langer Heinrich uranium mine in Namibia, where production began
in 2007 and production capability is being expanded. No details on non-domestic exploration and
mine development expenditures were provided by the government.
C. URANIUM PRODUCTION
In 2008, uranium was produced in 20 different countries; the same number as in 2006 (although
Germany had no production from mine water treatment in 2008; Bulgaria reported production from
this method for the first time). In three of the 20 producing countries (Bulgaria, France and Hungary),
uranium was produced only as a result of mine remediation efforts. Production grew faster in
Kazakhstan since 2006 than in any other country, increasing by 26% and 28% in 2007 and 2008,
respectively. In 2008, Kazakhstan became the world’s second largest producer and if plans for future
expansion are realised, as they have been in the recent past, it is poised to become the world’s largest
producer in 2009. Namibia also increased production significantly and in 2008 ranked as the world’s
fourth largest producer. Four countries; Australia, Canada, Namibia and Kazakhstan, accounted for
69% of world production in 2008 and just eight countries, Canada (21%), Kazakhstan (20%),
Australia (19%), Namibia (10%), the Russian Federation (8%), Niger (7%), Uzbekistan (5%) and the
United States (3%), accounted for about 93% of world production in 2008 (Figure 5).
Overall, world uranium production increased from 39 617 tU in 2006 to 41 244 tU in 2007 (a
4.1% increase) and to 43 880 tU in 2008 (a 6% increase from 2007). In 2009, uranium production is
expected to increase by 16% to over 51 000 tU.
Within OECD countries, production increased slightly from 19 705 tU recorded in 2006 to
20 176 tU in 2007, then declined to 19 203 tU in 2008. Production in 2009 is expected to increase
marginally to 20 108 tU. Table 18 summarises the significant changes that occurred in production in
selected countries between 2006 and 2008. Historical uranium production on a country-by-country
basis is provided in Table 19 and Figure 6.2
2. Some historical production figures have changed since the last edition of the Red Book as a result of new
data made available by member countries.
44
Figure 5. Uranium production in 2008: 43 880 tU
Canada
7% Kazakhstan
3% 21%
5% Australia
7% Namibia*
Russian Federation
8%
Niger
20%
Uzbekistan*
10%
United States
19%
Others
Table 18. Production in selected countries and reasons for major changes (tonnes U)
Production Production Change Reasons for changes
Country
2006 2008 2006-2008 in production
Production increased at all three mines,
Australia 7 593 8 433 +840
(Olympic Dam, Ranger and Beverley).
Production increased at Caetité
Brazil 200 330 +130
according to the planned development.
Low grade ore milled at McClean Lake
Canada 9 862 9 000 -862
and Rabbit Lake; Cigar Lake delay.
Low grade ore at Rozna mine,
Czech Republic 375 275 -100 decreased recovery at remediated ISL
mine.
Increase of production at existing mines
Kazakhstan 5 281 8 512 +3 231
and new mines started.
Langer Heinrich opening and increased
Namibia 3 076 4 400 +1 324 production at it and Rössing according
to development plan.
Preparations for production increases
Niger 3 443 3 032 -411
temporarily reduced output.
Russian Increase of production at existing mines
3 190 3 521 +331
Federation according to the planned development.
Technical difficulties leading to
United States 1 805 1 492 -313
decreased production at existing mines.
45
Table 19. Historical uranium production
(tonnes U)
2009
COUNTRY Pre-2006 2006 2007 2008 Total to 2008
(expected)
Argentina 2 513 0 0 0 2 513 0
Australia 131 800 7 593 8 602 8 433 156 428 8 500
Belgium 686 0 0 0 686 0
Brazil 2 009 200 300 330 2 839 340
Bulgaria 16 357 2 (c) 2(c) 1 (c) 16 362 2 (c)
Canada 398 332 9 862 9 476 9 000 426 670 9 900
China* 29 169 750 710 770 31 399 750
Congo, Democratic
Republic of 25 600* 0 0 0 25 600 0
Czech Republic (a) 109 470 375 307 275 110 427 255
Finland 30 0 0 0 30 0
France 75 975 3 (c) 2*(c) 2*(c) 75 982 2*(c)
Gabon 25 403 0 0 0 25 403 0
Germany (b) 219 411 65 (c) 41 (c) 0 (c) 219 517 50 (c)
Hungary 21 048 2 (c) 1 (c) 1 (c) 21 052 1 (c)
India* 8 423 230 250 250 9 153 250
Iran, Islamic Rep of 0 6 5 6 17 10
Japan 84 0 0 0 84 0
Kazakhstan 106 474 5 281 6 633 8 512 126 900 13 900*
Madagascar 785 0 0 0 785 0
Malawi 0 0 0 0 0 100*
Mexico 49 0 0 0 49 0
Mongolia 535 0 0 0 535 0
Namibia 84 980 3 076 2 832* 4 400* 95 288* 4 623*
Niger 100 644 3 443 3 193 3 032 110 312 3 208
Pakistan* 1 039 40 40 40 1 159 40
Poland 660 0 0 0 660 0
Portugal 3 717 0 0 0 3 717 0
Romania 18 169 90 80* 80* 18 419* 80*
Russian Federation 129 611 3 190 3 413 3 521 139 735 3 611
Slovenia 382 0 0 0 382 0
South Africa 154 673 534 540* 565* 156 312* 600*
Spain 5 028 0 0 0 5 028 0
Sweden 200 0 0 0 200 0
Ukraine 121 957 810 800 830 124 397* 900
United States 358 596 1 805 1 747 1 492 363 640 1 400*
USSR (e) 102 886 0 0 0 102 886 0
Uzbekistan (d) 28 069 2 260 2 270* 2 340* 34 939* 2 500*
Zambia (f) 86 0 0 0 86 0
OECD 1 325 086 19 705 20 176 19 203 1 384 170 20 108
TOTAL 2 284 850 39 617 41 244 43 880 2 409 591 51 022
(a) Includes 102 241 tU produced in the former Czechoslovakia and CSFR from 1946 through the end of 1992.
(b) Production includes 213 380 tonnes U produced in the former GDR from 1946 through the end of 1989.
(c) Production from mine rehabilitation only.
(d) Production since 1992 only.
(e) Includes production in former Soviet Socialist Republics of Estonia, Kyrgystan, Tadjikistan, Uzbekistan.
(f) Correction based on re-calculation of 102 tonnes U3O8 to U.
Note: For Pre-2006, other sources cite 6 156 tonnes U for Spain, 91 tonnes U for Sweden.
46
Figure 6. Recent world uranium production
50 000
45 000
40 000
35 000 Others*
South Africa
30 000
United States
Uzbekistan
tU/year
25 000
Namibia
20 000 Kazakhstan
Russian Fed.
15 000
Niger
10 000 Australia
Canada
5 000
0
2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008
Year
* “Others” includes the remaining producers (Table 15)

Values for China, France, India, Namibia, Pakistan, Romania, South Africa and Uzbekistan are estimated.
47
Present Status of Uranium Production
North America production, about 24% (10 492 tU) of the world total in 2008, declining from
11 667 tU produced in 2006. Canada remained the world’s leading producer in 2008, despite
producing below full capacity. In 2008, production amounted to 9 000 tU, some 5% below 2007
production 9 476 tU of due to lower grade ore and operational difficulties. In 2009, production is
expected to increase to 9 900 tU. A proposal to increase production at McArthur River and Key Lake
by some 18% annually (from 7 200 tU/year to 8 500 tU/year) remains under regulatory review.
Rehabilitation of the Cigar Lake mine, flooded during development work in 2006 and again in 2008
continues but the mine is not expected to begin production until 2012 at the earliest. In November
2008, it was announced that development of the Midwest mine would be postponed due to the
prevailing economic climate, delays and uncertainties associated with the regulatory approval process,
rising capital and operating costs and the current uranium market. And in late 2009, AREVA
Resources Canada Inc. announced that the McClean Lake mill would be put in care and maintenance
after July 2010, with the timing of the re-start dependent upon market conditions and the Cigar Lake
development schedule. Production in the United States in 2008 was 1 492 tU, 15% less than 2007
production (1 747 tU) and 17% less than 2006 production (1 805 tU), due to operational challenges
and declining uranium prices. Despite these recent declines, 2008 production is a significant increase
(58%) over 2004 production of 943 tU.
Brazil was the only producing country in South America in 2007 and 2008. Production at the
country’s only production centre, Lagoa Real (Caetité), increased from 200 tU in 2006 to 300 tU in
2007, then to 330 tU in 2008. Expansion of this facility to a nominal capacity to 670 tU/year remains
on course for completion in 2010, with open pit mining to be replaced by underground mining in
2011. Production of uranium at the St. Quitéria project at the Itataia phosphate/uranium deposit is
scheduled to begin in 2012. Work continues in Argentina to restart production at the Sierra Pintada
mine of the San Rafael complex, placed on standby in 1999.
Output from the European Union remained very low in 2008, representing less than 1% of
total world production. Production in the Czech Republic amounted to 275 tU in 2008, but is
expected to decline slightly to 255 tU in 2009. Production at the Rozna mine is to continue as long as
it remains profitable. Bulgaria, France and Hungary ended domestic uranium production in 1990,
2001and 1997, respectively. Today, only small amounts are recovered through mine remediation
efforts. In Germany, 41 tU were recovered from mine rehabilitation activities in 2007 but none in
2008. It is expected that about 50 tU will be recovered in 2009.
Production in non-EU Europe increased slightly from 4 090 tU in 2006 to 4 401 tU in 2008,
about 10% of total world production. In 2009, production is expected to increase slightly to 4 521 tU.
Production in the Russian Federation increased from 3 190 tU in 2006 to 3 521 tU in 2008. Although
the majority came from the Priargunsky mine, 471 tU were produced in 2008 at the Dalur ISL facility
(the Dalmatovskoe deposit) in the Transural district. Production is expected to rise slightly to 3 611 tU
in 2009. Production in Ukraine increased from 810 tU in 2006 to 830 tU in 2008. Production from the
underground mines of Michurinskoye and Vatutinskoye is expected to amount to 900 tU in 2009.
Three countries in Africa, Namibia, Niger and South Africa, contributed about 18% to world
production in 2008. Overall, production in Africa increased from 7 053 tU in 2006 to 7 997 tU in
2008. Production in Namibia increased from 3 076 tU in 2006 to 4 400 tU in 2008 and is expected to
increase further in 2009 as expansion of the Langer Heinrich open-pit mine, commissioned in 2007,
continues. Combined with proposed expansion of the existing Rössing facility and ongoing mine
development activity at Trekkopje, production is poised to increase even further in the near future.
48
Niger’s output decreased from 3 443 tU in 2006 to 3 032 tU in 2008, but is expected to increase to
over 3 200 tU in 2009. Ongoing development of the Imouraren and Azelik mines, with production
capacities of 5 000 tU/year and 700 tU/year respectively, indicates that production is also set to
increase significantly in the near-term. Production in South Africa remained relatively steady at about
534 tU in 2006 and to 565 tU in 2008, but is expected to increase to 600 tU in 2009, as operators are
developing circuits to recover uranium in gold mines, as well as from tailings stored at these facilities.
Uranium production in South Africa is determined to a large extent by the gold content of the ore,
since uranium is produced as a by-product or co-product of gold mining. Production in Malawi began
in April 2009 as open-pit mining of the Kayelekera deposit was initiated. Efforts at the facility are
directed toward attaining full production capacity of 1 270 tU/year, as early as 2010.
Production in the Middle East, Central and Southern Asia increased dramatically between
2006 and 2008, totalling 11 148 tU (about 25% of the world total) in 2008, compared to 7 817 tU in
2006. This increase is largely driven by developments in Kazakhstan, where production rose from
5 281 tU in 2006 to 8 512 tU in 2008 (a 61% increase). In 2009, production is expected to be increased
by a further 63% to 13 900 tU. Mine development expenditures amounted to USD 21.11 million and
USD 36.17 million in 2007 and 2008, respectively, and are expected to increase to USD 69.48 million
in 2009 as development plans continue to move forward. Production in Uzbekistan, estimated to have
reached 2 340 tU in 2008, is expected to increase to 2 500 tU in 2009. Iran reported production of
6 tU by open-pit mining of the Gachin deposit and is working toward the opening of a second facility
at Ardakan (the Saghand plant) with a nominal production capacity of 50 tU/year in 2012. Mine
development expenditures amounted to USD 2.2 million and USD 2.6 million in 2007 and 2008,
respectively, and are expected to increase to USD 9.4 million in 2009. India and Pakistan do not
report production data but output is estimated to have increased slightly from 2006 to 2008 at 270 tU
and 290 tU, respectively. Based on the available preliminary data, it is expected that the region will
have a new producer in the near future, as production in Jordan is expected to start in 2012, building
to an estimated annual output of 2 000 tU.
China, the only producing country in East Asia, does not report official production figures.
Annual production is estimated to have increased slightly from 750 tU in 2006 to 770 tU in 2008.
Production is not expected to increase in 2009, although neither the Qinlong underground nor the
Yining ISL mines have achieved full design capability. The Shaoguan production centre in South
China, an underground – heap leach mine, was recently completed and put into operation.
Australia, the only producing country in the Pacific region, reported a 2% decrease from
8 602 tU in 2007 to 8 433 tU in 2008. Production decreases at Olympic Dam and Beverley were
recorded in 2008, due to a combination of processing lower grade ore and operational difficulties.
Production in Australia is expected to remain at about 8 500 tU in 2009, but forecast to increase
thereafter as the Four Mile ISL mine is brought into production and operational improvements and
expansion plans are implemented at Ranger and Beverley.
Ownership
Table 20 shows the ownership of uranium production in 2008 in the 20 producing countries.
Domestic mining companies controlled about 67.6% of 2008 production, compared to about 71.3% in
2006. Non-domestic mining companies controlled about 32.2% of 2008 production with
approximately 10.2% controlled by government-owned companies and 22.0% by privately-owned
companies.
49
Table 20. Ownership of uranium production based on 2008 output
Domestic mining companies Non-domestic mining companies
COUNTRY Government-owned Privately-owned Government-owned Privately-owned TOTAL
tU % tU % tU % tU %
Australia 0 0.0 2 547 30.2 0 0.0 5 886 69.8 8 433
Brazil 330 100.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 330
Bulgaria 1 100.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 1
Canada 0 0.0 6 126 68.0 2 780 31.0 94 1.0 9 000
China* 770 100.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 770
Czech Republic 275 100.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 275
France* 2 100.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 2
Hungary 1 100.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 1
India* 250 100.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 250
50
Iran, Islamic Rep of* 6 100.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 6
Kazakhstan 5 135 60.3 0 0.0 451 5.3 2 926 34.4 8 512
Namibia* 152 3.5 4 198 96.5 0 0.0 0 0.0 4 350
Niger* 1 006 33.6 0 0.0 1 251 41.8 736 24.6 2 993
Pakistan* 40 100.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 40
Romania* 80 100.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 80
Russian Federation 3 521 100.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 3 521
South Africa 0 0.0 565 100.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 565
Ukraine* 800 100.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 800
United States* 0 0.0 1 492 100.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 1 492
Uzbekistan* 2 340 100.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 2 340
Total 14 709 33.6 14 928 34.1 4 482 10.2 9 642 22.0 43 761
Employment
Although the data are incomplete, Table 21 shows that employment levels at existing uranium
production centres increased by 8.3% from 2006 to 2008, and are expected to continue to do so in
2009 (by 4.3%), mainly due to min expansions and the development of new projects in Australia,
India, Kazakhstan, Namibia and South Africa. Table 22 provides, in selected countries, employment
directly related to uranium production (excluding head office, R&D, pre-development activities, etc.).
Table 21. Employment in existing production centres of countries listed

(in person-years)
COUNTRY 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

(expected)
Argentina 60 60 60 60 133 133 133 140
Australia (a) 502 655 743 889 959 3 010 3 347 3 173
Brazil 128 140 140 140 580 580 640 640
Canada (b) 972 965 985 1 067 1 665 1 873 1 984 1 600
China 8 000 7 700 7 500 7 000 7 300 7 400 7 450 7 500
Czech Republic 2 507 2 426 2 409 2 312 2 251 2 294 2 287 2 261
Germany (c) 2 691 2 444 2 230 2 101 1 835 1 775 1 770 1 683
India 4 200 4 200 4 200 4 200 4 300 4 300 4 634 4 634
Iran, Islamic Rep. of 0 0 0 0 285 285 285 300
Kazakhstan 3 770 3 870 5 120 6 522 6 941 7 845 7 940 9 448
Namibia* 782 NA NA NA 1 400 1 900 2 200 2 900
Niger 1 558 1 606 1 598 1 657 1 741 1 900* 1 932 1 950*
Portugal (c) 11 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Romania* 2 000 2 000 2 000 2 000 2 000 2 000 2 000 2 000
Russian Federation 12 800 12 785 12 670 12 551 12 575 12 950 12 870 12 870
Slovenia (c) 48 45 40 28 20 NA NA NA
South Africa 150 150 150 150 150 1 150 3 000 5 500
Spain (c) 56 56 56 56 58 58 43 43
Ukraine NA NA 4 380 4 350 4 310 NA NA NA
United States 277 204 299 524 600 1 076 1 409 NA
Uzbekistan* 8 370 8460 8 560 8 620 8 700 8 700 8 700 8 700
Total 48 882 47 766 53 140 54 227 57 803 57 229 62 624 65 342
(a) Olympic Dam does not differentiate between copper, uranium, silver and gold production.
Employment has been estimated for uranium-related activities.
(b) Employment at mine sites only.
(c) Employment related to decommissioning and rehabilitation.
51
Another random document with
no related content on Scribd:
storage, are much used for the chimneys of pueblo houses, being
built up one upon another till the requisite height is attained, when a
coating of adobe-mortar fills in all chinks and makes a smooth outer
surface; but it is believed that this occurred only after Spanish
influence was introduced. Before this innovation the smoke escaped
through the hatchway. At first, all vessels were probably moulded by
the fingers of the potter from a lump of material; then, copying the
wicker coils of the basket-maker, the potter rolled in the hands long
ropes of clay, mobile and easy to build up spirally into any desired
form. Nothing resembling a potter’s wheel has ever been employed
in the pueblos, but a shallow foot of wicker, or a piece of a gourd
often serves as a temporary support in order that the jar may be
revolved by a touch of the artist’s fingers, without injury to the clay
coil. We find, of course, that most enviable characteristic of all hand-
work—the slight variations in modelling and in decoration that are
lost when more mechanical processes are employed. The quality of
the material varied somewhat according to the use to be made of
the jars. Those for storage, either of grain or of water, or those for
dyeing wool where weaving is a local industry, are of coarse clay and
are plainer and heavier than the small receptacles made for daily
use. After the modelling would come the question whether the
irregularities of surface were to be left ribbed or made smooth by
scraping with the sharp edge of a bit of gourd, or of a broken shard,
or fragment of obsidian. Jars are found with the roughnesses of the
coils inside, and the outer surface carefully smoothed, but the
commoner practice was the reverse of this, and indeed the Pueblo
people showed at a very early stage their love of ornament by using
a great variety of devices in the spiral coils. Thumb-nail indentations
in regular patterns probably made one of the first of such decorative
adjuncts. Sometimes the coil is crimped throughout the whole
surface, and again the body of the vessel will be smoothed and the
coils left only upon the shoulder and collar. More and more elaborate
patterns, wave-like or of incised lines, or overlapping in scale design,
were invented and varied in a multitude of ways. The next
innovation was modelling in relief, and this was soon followed by
painting. Black appears to have been the first pigment discovered,
and the black-and-white pottery is considered the oldest; but it could
not be long before an artist living in a land of color would wish to
use color on the light surface of jars, and would begin to reproduce
designs familiar in natural objects. Such ornament followed closely in
the footsteps of basketry and textiles. Meander patterns and
geometric adaptations of rectilinear outlines were employed in both
arts in an infinite variety of designs.[258] Dr. Holmes thinks that very
little decoration was invented outright and that, like the forms of
pottery, it originated in copying natural objects such as the exquisite
shells, whose surfaces are “embellished with ribs, spines, nodes and
colors.” “Clay,” he says, “is so mobile it can be made to record or
echo a vast deal of nature and of co-existent art.”[259] The conch-
shell may have suggested, to the imaginative mind of the native
artist, spiral forms of vessels, as well as the convenient addition of
handles, and also must have helped the painter to adapt rectilinear
lines to the curved surfaces of the jars.
Colors were always used symbolically as well as decoratively on
every kind of vessel, whatever its material. While watching a potter
at Ácoma I was interested to notice that the first delicate hair-lines
around the lip of a jar were never quite closed together. The space
left was so tiny it would not be noticed as an imperfection, and it
was most illuminating afterward to read that Cushing was told by a
Zuñi woman that this little unfilled space was “the exit trail of life
and being.” Cushing goes on to say that when at length a pot is
dried, polished, and decorated,
the potter will tell you with an air of relief that it is a “made
being,” and her statement is confirmed as a sort of article of
faith when you observe that as she places the vessel in the
kiln she also places in and beside it food.[260]
This vague feeling that any and all jars have some sort of personality
is further illustrated by the belief that the noise made when a pot is
struck is the voice of the spirit within, and the louder note of a pot
when broken is similarly the cry of the spirit escaping from the
imprisoning clay.
The superstition that to close completely an ornament is unlucky
must be as widely diffused as any primitive belief, for it is a well-
known fact that, among the weavers and embroiderers and painters
of Greece and the Balkans, no design is ever quite joined. A tiny bit
that does not mar the effect is always left unfinished.
The extent and variety of ways in which the Indian depicts his
idea of the source or breath of life is vividly illustrated by Cushing in
his “Decorative Symbolism.”[261] For example, clouds or many
another “phenomenon of nature held sacred and mysterious” by the
Indian are conventionalized by the potter for decorative purposes.
Thus the terraced or stepped rim of a round bowl is the symbol of
the horizon whence rise the clouds. The painted decoration on jars
conveys the same idea, and the pendant drops from many an
ornament represent the falling rain. The art of ornament is
everywhere a conservative one and depends greatly upon the
general development of culture in the nation practising it; or, as Dr.
Holmes puts it: “The character of ornamentation does not depend so
much upon the age of the art, as upon the acquirements of the
potter and his people in other arts.”
Though the work of all pueblo potters is free-hand, it is never
haphazard. The Indian friend whom we watched through a long day
of work at Ácoma had no pattern, no visible rule, nor did she
measure out any spaces for her most elaborate designs. Though she
did not tell us how many more she knew than the ten designs we
saw, she did say that she knew exactly from the starting of each
what the whole would become. The brush used is very limber, being
made from two or three strands of yucca fibre about three inches in
length. With this flexible tool she adapted her pattern to the curved
surfaces, without embarrassment or erasures, and with as little
difficulty as one might have in tracing a flat drawing in a book. It is
no doubt a convenience to restrict the preparation of colors for any
one particular time, and on that day she used only black, yellow, and
brown colors.
After the decoration is completed there is the process of firing.
The chalk-white clay acquires a mellow tint, varied according to the
fuel used. Age, and especially daily use over the fire, deepen and
beautify this surface tone so that the older a jar, the more delightful
is it to possess. In the museum at Santa Fé a large case of jars, all
marked as coming from Ácoma, shows that the modern potters are
using old designs, often mingled with those believed to have
originated at Sía. In earlier days many kinds of fuel were used for
the firing process, such as very dry greasewood, sagebrush, or
piñon, though wherever cannel coal was found it was given
preference. The worst method ever employed was burying the green
pot under hot ashes and encircling it with a blazing fire. The better
and more usual practice is to dig a little kiln in the ground, or, as is
perforce the only way at Ácoma, to hollow out a space in the rock.
This is lined with dried cakes of sheep dung—now the universal and
almost exclusive fuel in all pueblos. The jars are fitted into this
shallow kiln and a dome-like structure of dung is built above, after
which the whole is slowly fired. The dung is thought by the Indians
to bake the ware more evenly than the resinous woods, but Cushing
thinks this fuel so inferior that to its use in great measure can be
attributed the deterioration of modern ceramics in the pueblos.
Resinous woods cannot be used where the color is the important
thing, but the
black ware while still hot from a first firing, if coated both
outside and in with some of the easily obtained mucilaginous
gums, and then burned a second or third time with resinous
wood-fuel, is rendered absolutely fireproof, semi-glazed with
a black gloss and wonderfully durable.
No principle of true glaze is now known to the pueblo potters, but in

early days a genuine glaze was used purely for decoration. Being
spread over only a part of the surface, it added nothing toward
making a jar water-tight.
I have found no indication that the Ácomas ever followed any
other art than that of pottery, but it is quite possible this may be
only their share of the partitioning of the industries agreed upon by
the pueblos in comparatively recent time. However, since to-day the
sole artistic occupation of the Ácomas appears to be in ceramics, I
have omitted, in the consideration of Pueblo arts, both textiles and
basketry. With regard to the pottery, Dr. Fewkes says that, in the
absence of more definite insight,
Ácoma pottery bears little resemblance to that peculiar to

southern clans; it is distinctly Queresan, and resembles more
closely the pottery of ancient Hopi than that of ancient Zuñi,
or of Little Colorado ware—by which it does not seem to have
been affected.[262]
Though the pottery of the Ácomas is less durable than that of the
Zuñis, its designs have much more variety—trees and leaves, birds
and flowers, being introduced along with geometrical patterns.
There are specific reds and grays used in the Ácoma and Zuñi
pottery; and a bright green pigment applied in circular blotches
before firing, that gives something approaching a glaze afterwards,
is found at both Ácoma and Laguna.
Among those pueblos where pottery and earthenware utensils
form a conspicuous feature of their civilization, Mr. James
Stevenson[263] mentions Ácoma and the great similarity of its
pottery to that of Laguna, though the Laguna potters use more
colors. He calls some of the designs at Ácoma “very spirited.” Many
of the jars in the Santa Fé museum have combinations of Ácoma
and Sía designs—the bird of each pueblo being quite distinct.
We may briefly summarize here the value of our knowledge
concerning ceramics to the other forms of cultural development of
any people and find it applicable to the inter-relationships of those
American Indians who practised the art. Since it can never be known
when the modelling of clay was first practised, there is fascination in
the suggestion that it came in some long-past day when a man
walking on clay softened by rain noticed his own footprints. The
rudest savage may well have discovered with what ease he could
fashion a crude but useful vessel from moist earth, but the first
baking of such a utensil probably occurred through some happy
accident. We know that sun-dried bricks were used in early building,
but no clay cups thus treated would have served to hold liquids.
The student searching for some standard by which to measure the
creative attainment of a semi-civilized race has chosen as most
universal the work of the early potters, and the interesting fact is
disclosed that the first attempts in ceramics of all peoples are
curiously alike in processes, in modes of decoration, and in
adaptation to practical needs. There is in the decorative addition of
painting to pottery something much more valuable than mere
ornament, namely, a conventionalized representation, graphically
expressed, of the mythology and the social habits of a race, so that
even without written records it becomes possible for us to form a
fairly clear idea of its cultural development. In short, the study of
pottery has disclosed so much of race origins that it is now regarded
as essential to an understanding of the history and mythology, and,
in many countries, of the industries no less than of the arts, of
ancient peoples.
The student of American ceramics accepts the theory prevailing
to-day to the effect that the aborigines of this continent came from
Asia, not all at once but in successive migrations, bringing with them
customs and arts from many different sources at many different
times; and our hope to-day is that the modifications brought about
by the meeting and mingling of these various migratory streams will
be finally made clear through the patient work of the experts as new
ceramic “finds” are unearthed throughout the continent.
THE GUARDIAN CLIFFS OF ÁCOMA
Bolton
L’ENVOI
In taking our leave of the Republic of Ácoma, seated haughtily
aloof upon her stony citadel, certain reflections grow imperious.
Emerging from the shadows of legendary origins to the historic past,
already a dim and distant background, we may please our fancy with
poetic and picturesque, or heroic episodes, while recognizing that
the flowing tide of civilization has inevitably swept away some that
was admirable, along with more that was brutal and savagely
impossible to retain.
The sources of Ácoma’s life story, as of other Indian communities,
are three. First, we have all that has been carefully garnered and
interpreted for us by the anthropologists. This is chiefly concerned
with pre-Columbian or pre-Spanish days. Since the American
domination, government officials and visitors to all the pueblos have
added much of value and interest. There remains an almost
untouched treasure in the vast number of records kept through
nearly three centuries by Spanish priests and chroniclers. The padres
in particular saw the Indian as he is in his daily occupations, in his
mind, in his traditional worship, as well as in his warrior adventuring.
When these shall have received due recognition from students of the
Southwest, we may begin to hope that we shall understand the First
Americans.
Looking at Ácoma as symbolic of all Indian “city-states,” are we
not forced to admit that the white invader has pretty completely
blotted out one type of the human family? So altered are the
fragmentary remains of its religious and its social organization that
they appear to be hardly more significant to the white onlooker than
is any picturesque pageant; while to the Indian himself they must be
rather a poor imitation of his traditional ceremonial.
It is too late to ask whether or not white conquest could have
been less cruel, but surely our reconstruction might have been less
ruthless.
It is asserted by those who know that “nearly a thousand
languages have given way before the Anglo-Saxon speech.” When
the American succeeded to the Spanish over-lordship of the
aborigine, why did he not heed the example of his English forbears
in their rule of subject races? Tolerant of all that was most sacred
and inherent to the conquered, recent English colonial policy has had
for a fundamental principle the fostering of native genius, and a
respect for the faith and ritual, essential to those brought under
subjection.
This served as well the useful end of making conquest less
offensive and obedience more willing. It makes one envious of what
Sir Valentine Chirol writes of his rulers when they mastered India.
“They respected the customs of the people, tried to understand their
needs, and gave the humblest folk a new sense of security from
arbitrary oppression, and a new conception of justice as a boon that
was neither to be bought nor sold.”
The Spaniard was the pioneer invader and conqueror. The
American should have grasped his opportunity as trustee of a rich
and original element in the land. Trustees accept a duty and
responsibility along with new power, the success or failure of which
lies within their own hands. But the white man began by imposing
upon the Indian a religion so unlike his own that it soon became a
weapon of deceit, and a dangerous impediment to their mutual
understanding.
The system under which these wards of the nation are ruled to-
day would doubtless protest against the old phrase that “the only
good Indian is a dead Indian,” but in practice it does not materially
improve on that unhappy formula.
In justice to a great inheritance of art and of primitive literature
(for the chant and the folk-lore are the germ of written tales), can
we not now arouse a public pride for the appreciation of this legacy,
which constitutes, as has been said earlier in these pages, the only
original contribution of the western world to either form of creative
genius.
The healthy association of the races should promote an education
that pays heed to the needs and mentality of the Indian, fostering
his deft fingers in his native crafts instead of teaching him that
machine-made and artificially dyed rugs are superior; that would
help him to develop his innate agricultural talent by better
implements and a more generous use of soils and of irrigation. At
least let him be protected from political exploitation and even from
the selfishness of too ardent exploring students.
It does not fall within this writer’s province to suggest solutions for
one of the most urgent and complex of national problems. She only
desires to bring before the bar of public opinion the tangle of
difficulties largely created by an indifference to Indian philosophy
and sensitiveness and to a misuse of power which has bred a deep
sense of racial injustice.
APPENDIX
APPENDIX
I. The Name Ácoma
Ako (of obscure ethnology). They call their own people Ákomi (mi =
people). It is translated as People of the White Rock.
Hacus of Fray Marcos of Niza.
Ácuco of Coronado.
Hakukue in Zuñi language, meaning “drinkers of the dew.”
A-ko-kai-obi in Hopi language, meaning “the place of the ladle,” and
referring to the two great natural reservoirs upon the summit.
Ácoma Clans extinct:
Kuishkosh Blue corn

Kuishtiti Brown corn
Moshaich Buffalo
Haka Fire
Clans still existent:[264]
Kuüts Antelope
Tsits Water
Kusesh White corn
Kochinish Yellow corn
Tyami Eagle
Osach Sun
Huwaka Sky
Shawiti Parrot
Shask Road-runner
Hapanyi Oak
Shquwi Rattlesnake
Sii Ant
Kuwhaia Bear
Tsina Turkey
Tani Calabash
Dr. Elsie Clews Parsons, in 1918, adds to the clans: Chaparral,

Cock, Tansy-Mustard, and Lizard (this last may be identical with
Rattlesnake). She omits Road-runner and Ant. In 1922 we were told
that the Snake was extinct.
Other pueblos occupied by Ácoma clans at various early periods
were Heash-Koa, two miles southwest, by the Red-corn clan; and
Kowina, fifteen miles west, by the Calabash clan. This was a mesa at
the head of the Cebollita Valley.
Population
Castañeda (1541) wrote that “Ácoma could place on foot about

200 warriors and that there was not room on the Rock for much
more than 1000 people.”
Espéjo (1581) speaks of more than 6000; Oñate (1595) estimated
them at 3000; Villagrá says that there were 6000 at the time of the
siege.
In 1680 Ácoma was credited with 1500 inhabitants.
In 1760 there were said to be 1052 inhabitants.
In 1780-81 a smallpox epidemic prevailed, so that ten years later
there were but 820 persons.
In 1910 there were but 691 inhabitants; while Laguna had, in
1910, as many as 1441.
II. Ha-Chamoni
Ha-chamoni (prayer-sticks) are deposited by the oracle of the cult
of the hunt to convey the messages of the people. The hunt may or
may not take place directly after these offerings, its time being at
the pleasure of the Ho-aanite (theurgist or oracle), who does not
himself inform the pueblo but communicates with the war chief.—
Mrs. M. C. Stevenson (of Sía Pueblo).
III. Salt
Early chroniclers mention the “salt-kernels” of the Cíbolans, and
Cushing found “a trail brokenly traceable for hundreds of miles from
the cliff-town to the inexhaustible Lake of Salt in central New
Mexico.” This salt is superior to any other found in the Southwest
and commanded such a price that Cushing found it often adulterated
with other varieties. He goes on to say that the influence of such a
salt supply upon the movements of large tribes is not confined to
those of America, for “all the great historic trade-routes across Asia
were first established along salt trails.”—Thirteenth Annual Report,
Bureau of Ethnology and Anthropology, pp. 352-355.
Shrine of Salt Woman. Near, or in, the Grand Cañon, Cárdenas in
1540 used the same trail which the Hopi use to-day when they visit
the Havasupai in Cataract Cañon, or part of the old route of the Hopi
to get salt. The trail apparently crosses the Little Colorado not far
from Moenkopi trail at Tanner Crossing, a few miles below Black
Falls. Before gathering the salt, which hung from the cliffs in
“icicles,” the Hopi laid one prayer-stick before the image of the salt
goddess and the other before the god of war. The gatherer must be
suspended over the edge of the cliff by ropes to reach the icicles.—
Cushing, Bureau of Ethnology and Anthropology, Vol. VIII, pp. 352-
358.
Salt Place (Zuñi Salt Lake) belongs to the Parrot clan. The
substance of a folk-tale collected by Dr. Boas explaining how this
happened is given in “Laguna Genealogies.” When Salt Woman and
the Twin War Gods were on their wanderings they were hospitably
entertained by the Parrot people, when everyone else had refused
them admittance. Going farther southward, Salt Woman met Zuñi
Parrot people, to whom she gave her house; but Laguna informants
assert that until her people showed them how, neither Hopi nor Zuñi
folk were able to get the salt out of the Place. The journey to Salt
Place is made in September, and in company with collectors from
Ácoma, a rare case of inter-pueblo coöperation. Parrot men lead the
expedition, while those of the clan who remain at home are praying
in their house. The salt-collector desires to get omens at the Place;
hence he must offer prayer-sticks and then pray. Before putting the
sticks and cigarettes and shell-meal into the water, he must rub
himself with salt. Having taken off his clothes, and standing in the
water, he feels for the salt with his feet and treads it out; then
gathers it with his hands, using neither pick nor shovel. If you are to
have good harvests of wheat or watermelon, or if you are going to
kill a deer, you will see in the water the wheat or watermelon or
deer. If you are going to die you will see yourself lying dead there.
Besides the salt, medicine-water is brought back from Salt Place. On
the return journey, the accompanying war captain sends forward one
day before arrival a messenger to procure two donkeys from the
Parrot people. As the expedition approaches, all the clans-women
with the kurena-cheani come out to meet it, and they all sing
together for the Salt Woman. Later these same women distribute the
salt. “If an individual wants to go salt-collecting on his own account
he will go to the Parrot clansman to ask him to make prayer-sticks.
If your salt gives out you may ask the Parrot clan-mother to give you
some.”—Elsie Clews Parsons, Laguna Genealogies.
IV. Towers and Great Houses

Were they observation points or granaries or ceremonial places?
Or, did they combine all these with defence? No satisfactory answer
yet found, nor the epoch in which they were constructed. Some have
great trees growing in them, but none has a roof; their walls are so
good that they do not suggest very great age; yet the builders of
cliff-dwellings, and by inference their kindred, the Tower Builders,
were far superior in their art to modern pueblos.
V. Keres (Queres)
Concerning the origin of the word Keres (Castañeda’s Quirix)
nothing can be learned from any of these people, who pronounce it
in every conceivable way. But they all agree that “they have no
ethnic name in Keresan language which sounds anything like it.” We
have, therefore, a confusion of designations for Ácoma.
Sía (Tsía) is linguistically a part of the western branch of the Keres
nation. According to fragments of Keres tradition this is the place on
the Jémez River where the Ácomas separated from the other Keres.
The name Temá is applied to the Cochití and to all who talk like
them. Among these are Sía, Ácoma, and Laguna. The two latter are
so isolated from the rest of the Keres nation that frequently they are
not listed with the other pueblos of their stock; when they are, they
invariably are made a separate group by themselves.
The culture of the Keresan tribes is fundamentally similar to that
of the others in the Southwestern area; namely, a dependence upon
maize and other cultivated foods; the use of the metate instead of a
mortar for grinding the maize; terraced houses of stone and adobe;
tailored textile clothing, which involves cultivation of cotton and
weaving on a loom; a pottery decorated in color; much less use of
basketry than in non-Pueblo tribes; the domestication of the turkey;
matrilinear descent; a mythology characterized by migration
traditions; each pueblo a “republic” with governor and war chief
elected annually, but the religious head, cacique, must give his
sanction; very complex ritualism; numerous shrines before which
sacred meal and pollen are constantly offered; purification rites by
emetics and head washing; Kachina, or K’at’sina, ceremonies by
masked impersonators; different priests for summer and for winter.
In most pueblos there are made extensive sand paintings for
religious festivals. No writer mentions them at Ácoma. Is this
because no strangers have seen their most sacred celebrations?[265]
The Queres Indians, to which nation Ácoma belongs, have always
claimed the range of the Tanos Mountains and the valleys of the
upper Rio Grande and the Jémez Rivers as their ancestral heritage.
The prehistoric remains in the romantic gorge of the Rito de los
Frijoles are said by the Queres to belong to their people and
especially to those who later settled permanently at Cochití. The
medicine men of Cochití paid frequent visits to holy shrines there as
recently as 1890.
VI. Language
The ethnologists agree that there is no reason to suppose that
only one language existed among the earliest dwellers in America.
Certainly the Spaniards found the different languages, or dialects, a
great source of confusion in their early expeditions from Mexico into
the North. To know one well was no password to the next or to
those beyond.
Dr. Franz Boas says that “at any rate when man began to increase,
the number of languages was legion though sprung from the same
root.” As some tribes grew more powerful and as inter-tribal wars did
their fatal work, “many older stocks were eliminated, to be replaced
by the dialects of a few groups.”[266]
The four pueblo linguistic stocks distinguishable to-day are:
(1) Shoshonean, to which belong all Hopi pueblos, except Hano;
(2) Zuñian; (3) Tanoan; (4) Keresan or Queresan.
VII. Katzímo, A Disenchanted Mesa

Professor Libbey, of Princeton University, describes in Harper’s
Weekly, August 28, 1897, the way in which he went, with two
assistants and two heavily laden wagons which contained “among
other things a small cannon, and miles and miles of rope.” After the
cannon had been charged, a large shot was fired to which had been
attached a projecting shaft and ring in the gun. By throwing the shot
to the far side of the mesa, it was possible to construct a kind of
bo’sun’s chair which, with pulleys, lifted Libbey to a point on the
smaller end of the rock. A ladder was now sent up to him, on which
the explorer climbed down the face of the cliff to a point from which
he could jump across to the other side of the chasm. “A few grasses
and plants common on the plains below, and these with one grey rat
and some lizards were all the evidences of life to be seen.”
Libbey admits that “a small cairn-like structure of stones” might
have been the work of human hands; but he was convinced not only
that the mesa had never been a human habitation, but that no
fragment of pottery or of implements of any sort could be found.
VIII. Medicine
According to Alexander, medicine has come to be applied to
objects and practices controlling the animistic powers of Nature as
the Indian conceives them. Medicine is, therefore, private magic and
may “exist in the form of a song or spell known to the owner,” in
some symbol upon his body or in some object that he carries in his
“medicine bag.” It may appear in a ceremony or in a system of rites
and practices known to the “medicine lodge.” “The essential idea
varies from fetichism to symbolism.” When fetichistic, the objects are
regarded as talismans. Disease comes from occult powers of wizards
or from the anger of certain animals. Death is the result of
necromancy practised by bad men or angry gods. Medicine
ceremonials are quite unlike rain ceremonials.—H. B. Alexander,
North American Mythology, p. 269.
IX. Smoke
Cigars and cigarettes are used by Navajo and Pueblo peoples even
for ritualistic purposes. Smoke is an invocation to “those above” and,
being always a preliminary to councils, came to be known to the
white man as the Pipe of Peace. All Southwestern and California
tribes used the straight tubular pipe of clay or stone. Elaborate pipes
are found in prehistoric mounds, most often among the more
northern tribes. However, in 1922 Dr. J. Walter Fewkes and his corps
of archaeological assistants found on the Mesa Verde National Park a
central Kiva unique there so far as we yet know. Among the objects
found in it “were a full dozen decorated tobacco pipes made of clay,
some blackened by use, others showing no signs that they had ever
been smoked.... For many years it had been suspected that the
ancient inhabitants of the Mesa Verde cliff dwellings were smokers,
but these pipes are the first objective evidence to prove it, and the
fact that these objects were found in the shrine of a sacred room
would indicate that they were smoked ceremonially, as is customary
in modern pueblo rites.” The Kiva is known as Pipe Shrine House.
X. Shaman
A word corrupted from the Sanskrit, meaning “ascetic.” A term
more or less interchangeable with “medicine man,” “doctor,” or even
“priest.” Many tribes give Shaman and priest not merely distinct, but
antagonistic functions. The priest is keeper and demonstrator of
rituals. The Shaman mystifies by jugglery, pretends to foretell events
and control them by incantations, and by fetish-practice prevents the
evil spirits to whom all mishaps are attributed from working harm.
Since disease is mischief done by evil spirits, Shamans treat the sick.
They are the workers of “good magic,” and preside over ceremonies
peculiar to their healing powers. When they fail they become wizards
and practisers of “bad magic,” and are feared and if possible are put
out of the way.
XI. Serpent
The great mythic serpent is as much a sky-being as one of earth.
The lightning and the Milky Way are his sky attributes. He is the
emblem of healing and of fertility in our Southwest.
“Any element or phenomenon in nature which is believed to

possess a personal existence is endowed with a personality
analogous to that of the animal whose operations most
resemble its manifestations; e.g., lightning is given the form
of a serpent, with or without the arrow-pointed tongue
because its course through the sky is serpentine, its stroke
instantaneous and destructive; yet it is named Wi-lo-lo-a-ne,
a word derived not from the name of the serpent itself but
from its most obvious trait, its gliding zig-zag motion. For this
reason the serpent is supposed to be more nearly related to
lightning than to man, but more nearly related to man than is
lightning, because mortal and destructive.”—Cushing, Zuñi
Fetiches, Second Annual Report, Bureau of Ethnology and
Anthropology, p. 9.
The writer is indebted to a California friend for the following

examples of hypnosis by rattlesnakes.
“When I was a young girl visiting on a ranch in Napa County,
California, I had the following interesting experience, which was
unusual, in fact, unique. Napa County is infested with rattlesnakes;
subconsciously we were never unaware of the danger and, as
children, killed many of them. The country was a particularly well-
favored spot for the raising of turkeys and as we often drove them
into the stubble fields where the grasshoppers were to be found we
became accustomed to the ways of these very sensitive
domesticated birds. Their usual mournful whine would give way to
an alert cry if a hawk or buzzard began to circle over us in the sky
and we also noticed a very peculiar and distinct cry when a
rattlesnake was seen by them: Brrrup, Brrrup, in a very high piercing
key.
“One day we were in the house when we heard this peculiar snake
cry from the throats of about one hundred young birds. They were
only about four weeks old and were in a small, well-protected snake-
proof enclosure. Two of us ran out to see what could have
happened, and this is what we saw—a rattlesnake the size of a lead
pencil coiled in one corner and surrounding him all the turkeys in a
semi-circle with heads stretched to the fullest, slowly but surely
hypnotized and moving towards the swaying head of the snake. So
absorbed were they that neither the snake nor the turkeys heard us.
We watched the performance long enough to be sure of what was
happening and then, with the never forgotten stick, killed the snake.
The little turkeys, released from the spell, shook themselves,
blinked, yawned and stood around confused until their little brains
registered safety.
“I was talking with a friend of mine about Lower California one
day and he was telling me of the fascinating beauty of it. ‘However,’
he said, ‘it has one great drawback and that is the size and number
of the rattlesnakes.’ He said that it was not at all unusual to see
them five feet long with bodies the size of a quart bottle and heads
that would cover the palm of his hand.
“One day while hunting he saw a thrush behaving in a most
peculiar manner under a bush. It was jumping up and down in one
spot, feathers ruffled and fairly crying in a terrified manner. He
crawled under the bush and there he saw one of these huge rattlers
hypnotizing the bird. As soon as the snake saw him and turned his
head towards him the bird flew away unharmed. He had his gun and
shot from the hip, killing the snake.
“Another experience he had that was interesting. A boy jumped
down on to a ledge and failed to see a huge snake almost red in
color that was coiled on rocks of the same color. A companion, afraid
that he might hurt the boy, shot the snake near the tail. The snake
writhed for some time and then, apparently realizing it could not
move, turned and stung itself, dying within a few minutes.”
XII. Lightning
Mrs. Stevenson records of the Queres people that the “lightning-
people shoot their arrows to make it rain harder, the smaller flashes
coming from the bows of the children. Thunder-people by making a
great noise frighten the lightning and cloud-peoples to work harder.”
The rainbow people were created to make the sky more beautiful for
the earth people.
XIII. The Swastika and Primitive Cross-Symbols

The swastika, a symbol in the form of a Greek Cross with the end
of the arms bent at right angles all in the same direction, and each
prolonged to the height of the parallel arm of the cross. Full
discussion of the swastika is found in Mrs. Zelia Nuttall’s “Old and
New World Civilizations.” She finds these symbols universally
accompanied by vestiges of a certain set of cosmical concepts and a
scheme of organization which can be traced back to an original pole-
star worship. The calendar swastika or cross of ancient Mexico gives
absolute proof of native association with ideas of rotary motion and
progress of time, and furnishes an indication that it may have been
used by primitive races as a sign for a year or a cycle. Cushing found
almost precisely the same thing among the Zuñi priesthood.
XIV. Religious Import of the Dance

“Not the epic song, but the dance, accompanied by a monotonous
and often meaningless song constitutes everywhere the most
primitive, and in spite of that primitiveness, the most highly
developed art. Whether as a ritual dance, or as a purely emotional
expression of the joy in rhythmic bodily movement, it rules the life of
primitive man to such a degree that all other forms of art are
subordinate to it.”—Wundt, Völker Psychologie, 3rd ed. Bd. 1 Teil 1,
p. 277.
FOOTNOTES
[1] “Mesas appear to furnish the most direct and convincing
testimony we have of the tremendous power of the wind in
effecting general erosion under conditions of aridity. That water
could not possibly produce such effects is shown in a number of
ways. On the continental divide the streams are smallest.
Drainage features are necessarily insignificant. Rainfall is the
scantiest. These summit plains of the continent are a region of
continual high wind and constant sand-storm. By wind action
alone there appears to be incontestable testimony that from the
entire area of the vast arid region there has been lifted and
exported in very recent geologic times a prodigious layer of rock
not less than 5000 feet in thickness. Thus it is that arid regions
have introduced us to an erosive agent more potent than stream-
corrosion, more constant than the washing of rains, more
extensive and persistent than the encroachments of the sea.”—
Charles R. Keyes, Wind-Graved Mesas and their Message.
[2] Coronado did not pass Inscription Rock on his way from
Zuñi to Ácoma, but went a little south of it. The earliest
inscription on El Morro with a date is that of Oñate, 1606, but we
found an undated autograph of Luxan, a member of Espéjo’s
force. It was easily identified by comparing it with his
characteristic signature in an as yet unpublished manuscript. E. H.
Vogt, describing some recently explored ice-caves near Ramah, N.
M., mentions “two old Indian trails six or eight miles south of the
road. One of these enters the lava bed and crosses it in line with
El Morro and Ácoma. This was perhaps the way Coronado
travelled with his Zuñi guides in 1540.”—El Palacio, February 1,
1924.
[3] Bandelier maintains that no tribe so influenced the fate of
the Southwest as did the Apache. Twitchell affirms that “the word
‘Indian’ in all the laws whether Spanish or Mexican, and the treaty
of Guadalupe Hidalgo, was not intended to cover, nor to refer to
any ‘Indians’ other than those living in villages ... who are
invariably referred to and described as naturales and pueblos and
as indios de pueblos. For the other Indians, such as the Apaches,
Comanches, Utes or Navajos, the term savages—Salvajes or
Indios barbaros—was always the descriptive and differentiating
form of expression.”—R. E. Twitchell, Leading Facts in New
Mexican History.
[4] Espéjo called those Indians Navajos who haunted the
mountains near Ácoma. Castañeda describes the “Querechas and
Teyas” (of the eastern plains) “as being better warriors, having
better figures and are more feared. They travel like the Arabs
with their tents and troops of dogs loaded with poles and having
Moorish pack-saddles with girths.”
[5] “They” (the Sedentary Indians of New Mexico) “live some of
them in the identical houses their forefathers occupied at the time
of Coronado’s expedition (1541-2) as at Ácoma, Jémez and Taos,
and although their plan and mode of life have changed in some
respects in the interval, it is not unlikely that they remain to this
day a fair example of the life of the Village Indians from Zuñi to
Cuzco as it existed in the 16th century.”—Lewis H. Morgan,
Houses and House-life of the American Aborigines, in Vol. IV, U.
S. Geological Survey, Contributions to American Ethnology.
See Appendix I.
[6] An estado is 5 feet, 7 inches—about the height of an
average man.
[7] W. W. H. Davis, in his history of New Mexico, says ten acres
in area—which must be either a slip or a misprint.
[8] George Wharton James, Land of the Delight Makers.
[9] Descriptions of Ácoma are in Bancroft, Native Races, Vol. IV,
pp. 365, 366; Lummis, The California Magazine, January, 1892.
Other references may be found in the bibliography, under
Engelhardt, Hodge, Lummis, James, and Prince.
[10] For Ácoma,—George Wharton James, The Land of the
Delight Makers.
[11] Called piki in Hopi, and hewe in Zuñi.
[12] According to Lummis, another reservoir on the southern
mesa is reached by a toilful path up and down the craggy slope.
We did not see this.
[13] Mt. Taylor, 11,389 feet high. At Ácoma it is called Spi-nat.
[14] Or else from twenty miles to the west from “the great
frowning pine-fringed Mesa Prieta at whose feet lies the beautiful
Vale of Cebollita.”—Hodge, Land of Sunshine, November, 1897.
[15] Land of Sunshine, Vol. 15, 1901, p. 320. The article is
supplied with illustrations.
[16] Shelley, Daemon of the World.
[17] Hodge, Handbook of American Indians; also, Notes to
Benavides Memorial. Lummis, Poco Tiempo; Spanish Pioneers.
[18] Goddard says Coronado’s Ácoma was partly burned in
1599 but that the village was not destroyed in the revolt of 1680,
and therefore the walls now in use may be the same as those
seen in 1540, partly rebuilt and repaired from time to time.
Handbook—Indians of the Southwest, p. 73.
A writer in El Palacio for August, 1918, mentions a tradition that
Ácoma has the only church that survived the rebellion of 1680,
but says that authorities do not agree upon this and that Hodge
declares no trace of the old edifice remains except the carved
beams found in one of the houses of Middle Row. It would seem
as if the letter of the commanding Spanish officer should clear
away all confusion about this building.
[19] A fuller account may be read in El Palacio for January 1,
1925.
[20] An interesting article, Painting the Town Red, by Professor
C. F. Crane, showing the relation of the color scarlet or some
shade of red to burial wrappings and ceremonials, may be found
in the Scientific Monthly for June, 1924. On pp. 612, 613, the
author cites instances among the Sioux tribes in the eighteenth
century.
[21]
Four days is the spirit’s journey

To the land of ghosts and shadows,
Four its lonely night encampments;
Therefore, when the dead are buried,
Let a fire as night approaches,
Four times on the grave be kindled,
That the soul upon its journey
May not grope about in darkness.
—Longfellow, Song of Hiawatha.

[22] The Cheani are the medicine men or curative shamans,
who are officers also of weather control.
[23] The Indian word is ha-chamoni, meaning “they take the
breath.” It is invariably a notched stick with plumes attached, and
is illustrated in Eleventh Annual Report, Bureau of American
Ethnology, p. 78. See Appendix II.
[24] The Warrior Dance.
[25] Kasik is given as the Keres form of cacique.
[26] This is the same as the asa at Hopi or the ise at Laguna.
[27] To avoid confusion, it is wise to reserve the word kiva for
the ceremonial chamber of the Indian pueblo, and estufa for the
sweat-houses.
[28] Final Report, Pt. I, p. 268.
[29] Cosmos Mindeleff, Introduction to Eighth Annual Report,
Bureau of American Ethnology, p. xxxi.
[30] Relación de Father Fray Francisco de Escobar, October,
1605. Also in Bandelier, Final Report, Pt. I, pp. 143-145.
[31] Description by Leslie Spier, Havasupai Days, in American
Indian Life, edited by Elsie Clews Parsons.
[32] In certain tribes women have rites to perform that
necessitate kivas for their special use.
[33] Lummis, The Land of Poco Tiempo.
[34] Charles Alexander Eastman (Ohiyesa), The Soul of an
Indian. An Interpretation.
[35] Translated by Alice Fletcher, in the Path on the Rainbow,
edited by George Cronyn.
[36] The Coronado Expedition by Castañeda, Fourteenth
Annual Report, Bureau of American Ethnology, translated by G. P.
Winship; The Journey of Coronado, Trail Makers’ Series, 1904,
translated by Winship; The Narrative of the Expedition of
Coronado by Pedro de Castañeda, Spanish Explorers in the
Southern United States, edited by F. W. Hodge.
[37] Doc. Inéd. de Indios, Vol. III, Relación du Voyage de
Cíbola, translated by Ternaux Compans; abstract in English by
Fewkes in Journal of American Ethnology and Archaeology, Vol.
III, 1892.
[38] Very exhaustive studies and excavations were made of
Háwikuh by Frank Hamilton Cushing, between 1879 and 1888.
His reports can be consulted in the Thirteenth Annual Report,
Bureau of American Ethnology, and in separate monographs.
There are later studies by Fewkes and Stevenson.
[39] Hodge affirms that Jaramillo and Zárate-Salmerón say it
was Háwikuh. American Anthropologist, April, 1895.
[40] There are many spellings of this name. According to
Hodge, “Ako” is the Indian form. See Appendix I.
[41] Winship, Coronado Expeditions, Chapter XII, p. 490. “They
described some cows, which from a picture that one of them had
painted on his skin seemed to be cows, although from the hides
this seemed not to be possible, because the hair was woolly and
snarled, so that we could not tell what sort of skins they had.”
Best brief account in Bolton, Spanish Borderlands.
[42] Castañeda.
[43] Translated by Winship, and included in each of his works
on the expedition; also American History Leaflets, No. 13.
[44] Winship, The Coronado Expedition, pp. 491, 560, 569,
575.
[45] Between June 7 and July 10, 1540.
[46] Three reliable records exist of this entrada. The
translations of Pedro de Bustamente, and another by Barrado and
Escalante, may be read in Bolton, Spanish Exploration in the
Southwest. A third by Gallegos, “The Scrivener,” is translated by
Mecham: MS. thesis in the Bolton Collection.
[47] Two manuscripts recently discovered prove beyond
question that the Father had been put to death by the Indians of
the Sierra Morena or Sandía mountains before the soldiers
returned to Mexico. The viceroy, we now know, had incorporated
this information in his report to the Spanish King. Bolton was the
first person to make use of this material. It was further
elaborated by J. Lloyd Mecham in a thesis for the Master’s degree
at the University of California. See also the article by Mecham on
the “Death of Fray Santa María” in Catholic Historical Review,
October, 1920.
[48] Querecho was a pueblo name for the buffalo-hunting
Apache Indians east of New Mexico (Hodge, Handbook, II, 338).
[49] The snake dance is now characteristically a Hopi
ceremony, where it is primarily a prayer for rain. It was formerly
widespread among the pueblo tribes and traces of it are still
found at Ácoma and other places.—Walter Hough, in Hodge,
Handbook, II, 605, 606.
[50] Bolton, Spanish Exploration in the Southwest, 182, 183.
[51] Bureau of American Ethnology, Thirteenth Annual Report,
327.
[52] Historia de la Nuevo Mejico del Capitán Gaspar de Villagrá,
Año 1610, Con privilegio. En Alcala por Luys Martínez Grande.
Translated in part in Bancroft and in Read.
[53] Bancroft, Arizona and New Mexico.
[54] Historical Documents relating to New Mexico (edited by
Charles Wilson Hackett, Ph.D., Carnegie Institution, Washington,
D.C.), pp. 264 et seq.
[55] Translated in Bancroft, Arizona and New Mexico.
[56] A religious inspector.
[57] The Crossing. Here the trail crossed the river and threaded
the pass through the mountains. It was a crossing in a double
sense.
[58] Canto XVI, translated in Read, History of New Mexico, p.
213.
[59] It may not be entirely beside the point to note here that
this same Bernabé de las Casas, a few years after this event,
projected an expedition across the country from the Rio Grande
to drive the English out of Jamestown.
[60] Ytinerario de las Minas del Caxco. Translated by Bolton, in
Spanish Exploration in the Southwest.
[61] Read, History of New Mexico, pp. 226, 227.
[62] Villagrá, Historia de la Nueva Mexico, Canto XXV.
Translated in Read, pp. 229-231.
[63] From Villagrá, Folio 222. Translated by Mrs. N. V. Sanchez.
[64] Villagrá, Canto XXX.
[65] Engelhardt, Franciscan Herald, February, 1920.
[66] Villagrá, Historia, Canto XVIII, gives the weapons used by
the Ácomas as shields of buckskin, bows and flint-tipped arrows,
war-clubs, and a helmet of buffalo hide.
[67] Read, History of New Mexico, p. 229.
[68] No satisfactory translation of Villagrá’s narrative has yet
appeared, and the writer is indebted for the material used in this
paraphrase to Lummis, The Spanish Pioneers.
[69] This is, so far as known, the only mention of subterranean
passages cut in the Rock. Do they still exist and are they used?
[70] American Historical Review, October, 1917.
[71] A translation of this remarkable account may be found in
the article by Bourke, American Anthropologist, Vol. VIII, April,
1894.
[72] Perea served as custodian until 1633 or 1636, and during
that period founded the church and monastery at Sandía, where
he was buried.
[73] A graphic description of the discomforts of the “Jornado
del Muerto” in 1888 may be read in The Land of the Pueblos, by
Mrs. Lew Wallace.
[74] The name Robledo is still on the map, sixty miles above El
Paso.
[75] The text gives the celebration as the “Pascua del Espiritú
Santo.” Hodge and Lummis translate this as Easter, which would
make the march from Robledo to Santa Fé, including the delay of
four days, only a week in passing. In the Roman church the Feast
of the Holy Spirit is Pentecost, the celebration of the descent of
the Holy Ghost upon the disciples of Christ, and comes fifty days
after Easter. We need not infer that the party did not reach Santa
Fé somewhat earlier than Pentecost, but only that it was this Holy
Day they celebrated there.
[76] The Encyclopaedia Britannica gives no such places as
Abasia or Mount Amar. It does speak of Amasia with an acropolis
on a lofty cliff overhanging the town. This is a town in Anatolia
(Turkey), splendidly situated in a narrow gorge on both sides of a
river and eighty miles from its mouth. It contains remarkable
antiquities such as the tombs of the kings of Pontus, described by
Strabo. (Illustrated in the National Geographic Magazine, July,
1918, in article “Under the Heel of the Turk.”)
[77] Translated by Mrs. E. E. Ayer in Land of Sunshine, Vol.
XIII.

Buy Ebook Uranium 2009 Resources Production and Demand Iaea Cheap Price

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Buy Ebook Uranium 2009 Resources Production and Demand Iaea Cheap Price

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Buy Ebook Uranium 2009 Resources Production and Demand Iaea Cheap Price

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Full download ebook at ebookgate.

Uranium 2009 Resources Production and Demand

Download more ebook from https://ebookgate.com

Uranium 2003 Resources Production And Demand

World Investment Report 2009 Transnational Corporations

Compounds of Uranium and Fluorine Chemical Compounds

On Demand Writing Lynette Williamson

Introducing Autodesk Inventor 2009 and Autodesk

Silk Properties Production and Uses Properties

Energy Demand and Climate Change Issues and Resolutions

We Still Demand Redefining Resistance in Sex and Gender

NUCLEAR ENERGY AGENCY

NUCLEAR ENERGY AGENCY

Corrigenda to OECD publications may be found on line at: www.oecd.org/publishing/corrigenda.

Cover credits: Cameco, Canada; AREVA, France.

A. URANIUM RESOURCES .................................................................................................. 15

B. URANIUM EXPLORATION ............................................................................................. 34

C. URANIUM PRODUCTION ............................................................................................... 44

II. URANIUM DEMAND .............................................................................................................. 59

A. CURRENT COMMERCIAL NUCLEAR GENERATING CAPACITY

B. PROJECTED NUCLEAR POWER CAPACITY AND RELATED URANIUM

C. URANIUM SUPPLY AND DEMAND RELATIONSHIPS .............................................. 84

D. THE LONG-TERM PERSPECTIVE ................................................................................ 103

Argentina ................................................................................................................................... 110

1. Members of the Joint NEA-IAEA Uranium Group................................................................... 419

2. List of Reporting Organisations and Contact Persons ............................................................... 423

3. Glossary of Definitions and Terminology ................................................................................. 427

4. Acronym List ............................................................................................................................. 439

5. Energy Conversion Factors ....................................................................................................... 441

7. Currency Exchange Rates.......................................................................................................... 453

8. Grouping of Countries and Areas with Uranium-related Activities .......................................... 455

Total Undiscovered Resources (Prognosticated Resources & Speculative Resources) as of

Supply and demand relationship

Although information on secondary sources is incomplete, they are generally expected to

Identified Conventional Resources

Distribution of Identified Conventional Resources by Categories and Cost Ranges

Table 1. Changes in Identified Resources 2007-2009

Table 5. Major Identified Resource changes by country

Table 6. Reasonably Assured Resources (RAR) by production method

< USD 40/kgU

Table 7. Inferred Resources by production method

Table 9. Inferred Resources by deposit type

Proximity of Resources to Production Centres

Australia 1 612 000 83 1 337 960 1 673 000 NA NA

Worldwide, reporting of SR is incomplete, as only 26 countries have historically reported

Prognosticated Resources are estimated to total about 2.81 million tU recoverable at

Prognosticated Resources Speculative Resources

Conventional resources are defined as resources from which uranium is recoverable as a

Unconventional uranium resources were reported occasionally by countries in Red Books

Table 12. Unconventional Resources reported in 2009

Table 15. World thorium resources (1 000 tU) [3]

Worldwide uranium exploration continues to be unevenly distributed geographically, with the

In 2005, 19 countries reported domestic exploration and development expenditures totalling

Australia NA NA NA 1 571 8 855 4 580 NA NA NA

NA Data not available. * Secretariat estimate.

Current Activities and Recent Developments

North America. In Canada, domestic uranium exploration expenditures alone amounted to

Central and South America. Argentina reported government exploration expenditures

In Hungary, exploration activity focussed on development of a new geological model of the