Microsoft Word - REO-Uranium

Uranium Resources and Nuclear Energy

EWG-Paper No 1/06

Page 3 of 48

Content

Summary .................................................................................................................................... 4

Uranium and Nuclear Power ...................................................................................................... 7

Uranium Supply ..................................................................................................................... 7

Nuclear Power Plants ........................................................................................................... 17

History of nuclear power plants ....................................................................................... 17

Forecast of nuclear power capacity until 2030................................................................. 20

Annex ....................................................................................................................................... 24

Annex 1: Various Definitions of Uranium Reserves ........................................................... 24

Annex 2: Historical Development of Uranium Resources................................................... 26

Annex 3: Country by Country Assessment of Uranium Resources................................. 27

Annex 4: Uranium Mining and Energy Demand for Mining........................................... 30

Annex 5: Uranium Mining in France............................................................................... 32

Annex 6: Uranium Mining in the USA............................................................................ 34

Annex 7: Uranium Mining Projects (Planned or under Construction) ............................ 36

Annex 8: The Development of Cigar Lake in Canada ......................................................... 38

Annex 9: Country by Country Assessment of Future Production Profiles Based on
Resource Restriction (According to NEA 2006).................................................................. 39

Annex 10:

Nuclear Power Plants Under Construction................................................... 42

Annex 11:

Time Schedules for the New EPR Reactors in Finland and France............. 45

Literature .................................................................................................................................. 47

Uranium Resources and Nuclear Energy

EWG-Paper No 1/06

Page 4 of 48

UMMARY

Any forecast of the development of nuclear power in the next 25 years has to concentrate on
two aspects,

the supply of uranium

and the addition of

new reactor capacity

. At least

within this time horizon, neither nuclear breeding reactors nor thorium reactors will play a
significant role because of the long lead times for their development and market penetration.

The analysis of data on uranium resources leads to the assessment that discovered reserves are
not sufficient to guarantee the uranium supply for more than thirty years.

Eleven countries have already exhausted their uranium reserves. In total, about 2.3 Mt of
uranium have already been produced. At present only one country (Canada) is left having
uranium deposits containing uranium with an ore grade of more than 1%, most of the
remaining reserves in other countries have ore grades below 0.1% and two thirds of reserves
have ore grades below 0.06%. This is important as the energy requirement for uranium
mining is at best indirect proportional to the ore concentration and with concentrations below
0.01-0.02% the energy needed for uranium processing – over the whole fuel cycle – increases
substantially.

The proved reserves (=reasonably assured below 40 $/kgU extraction cost) and stocks will be
exhausted within the next 30 years at current annual demand. Likewise, possible resources –
which contain all estimated discovered resources with extraction costs of up to 130 $/kg –
will be exhausted within 70 years.

At present, of the current uranium demand of 67 kt/yr only 42 kt/yr are supplied by new
production, the rest of about 25 kt/yr is drawn from stockpiles which were accumulated
before 1980. Since these stocks will be exhausted within the next 10 years, uranium
production capacity must increase by at least some 50% in order to match future demand of
current capacity.

Recent problems and delays with important new mining projects (e.g. Cigar Lake in Canada)
are causing doubts whether these extensions will be completed in time or can be realized at
all??

In case only the proved reserves below 40 $/kt can be converted into production volumes,
then even before 2020 supply problems are likely. If all estimated known resources up to
130 $/kgU extraction cost can be converted into production volumes, a shortage can at best be
delayed until about 2050.

This assessment is summarised in the following figure. Possible uranium production profiles
in line with reported reserves and resources are shown together with the annual fuel demand
of reactors. The reserve and resource data are taken from the Red Book of the Nuclear Energy
Agency (NEA 2006). The demand forecasts up to 2030 are based on the latest 2006 scenarios

Uranium Resources and Nuclear Energy

EWG-Paper No 1/06

Page 5 of 48

by the International Energy Agency, a “reference scenario” which represents the most likely
development, and an “alternative policy scenario” which is based on policies to increase the
share of nuclear energy with the aim of reducing carbon dioxide emissions.

Figure:

Past and projected uranium production. Forecasts are based on reasonably
assured resources below 40 $/kgU (red area), below 130 $/kgU (orange area)
and additionally including inferred resources. The black line shows the fuel
demand of reactors currently operating together with the latest scenarios in the
World Energy Outlook (WEO 2006) of the International Energy Agency.

100

1950

2000

2050

2100

kt Uranium

Uranium demand according to IEA scenarios
and possible supply from known resources

Fuel demand
of reactors

Reasonably Assured Resources (RAR)

< 40 $/kg: 1,947 ktU

$/k

: 3

,29

ktU

R+

130

$/k

: 4,

743

ktU

Supply deficit 2006-2020:
180 – 260 kt Uranium
Uranium Stocks:
appr. 200 kt Uranium

WEO 2006-Alternative Policy Scenario

WEO 2006 Reference Scenario

Year

*) IR = Inferred Resources

Constant Capacity as of 2005

Only if estimates of undiscovered resources from the Nuclear Energy Agency are included,
the possible reserves would double or at best quadruple. However, the probability to turn
these figures into producible quantities is smaller than the probability that these quantities will
never be produced. Since these resources are too speculative, they are no basis for a serious
planning for the next 20 to 30 years.

Nuclear power plants have a long life cycle. Several years of planning are followed by a
construction phase of at least 5 years after which the reactor can operate for some decades. In
line with empirical observations, an average operating time of 40 years seems to be a
reasonable assumption. About 45% of all reactors world wide are older than 25 years, 90%

Uranium Resources and Nuclear Energy

EWG-Paper No 1/06

Page 7 of 48

RANIUM AND

UCLEAR

OWER

This chapter is split into two subchapters: the first subchapter analyses the uranium supply
basis and the second chapter analyses the statistics of construction and operation of nuclear
power plants. Both subchapters close with a forecast about probable future developments.

Uranium Supply

The definition of Uranium resources differs from reserve classifications for fossil fuels in
various ways. This is discussed in Annex 1. The classification into various categories (from
discovered Reasonably Assured Resources (RAR) and Inferred Resources (IR) to
undiscovered prognosticated and speculative resources) and cost classes (expected extraction
cost below 40 $/kgU, below 80 $/kg U, and below 130 $/kgU) gives the impression of a high
data quality and reliability which at present is not the case. Usually, only "reasonably assured
resources" or RAR below 40 $/kgU or below 80 $/kgU extraction cost are comparable with
proved reserves regarding crude oil. Other discovered resources (RAR between 80–130 $/kgU
cost and inferred resources (IR)) have the status of probable and possible resources, while the
undiscovered recources are highly speculative which forbids their use in serious projections of
probable future developments.

At world level about 2.3 million tons of uranium have already been produced since 1945.
Discovered available reasonably assured resources are somewhere between 1.9 and 3.3
million tons, depending on the cost class. Estimated additional resources (with lower data
quality) are between 0.8 and 1.4 million tons. A summary table is provided below, the
detailed country by country assessment is provided in Annex 3 and the historical assessment
in Annex 2. The historical assessment shows that discovered resources were revised in the
early years upward, but after 1980 a substantial downward revision by about 30% was
performed which undermines the credibility of these data. This is discussed later on.

The Nuclear Energy Agency assesses also the undiscovered resources within each country
and cost class. However, since these are highly speculative (and probably might never be
converted into produced quantities) only the aggregated data are summarized in the following
table together with the assessment for discovered resources. One should keep in mind that the
data quality gets worse from top to bottom with the speculative resources having a much
larger probability of never being discovered than of ever being converted into future
production volumes.

Uranium Resources and Nuclear Energy

EWG-Paper No 1/06

Page 8 of 48

Table 1:

Uranium Resources (Source: NEA 2006)

Resource [kt]

Resource category

Cost range

cumulative

Data

reliability

< 40 $/kgU

1,947

40 – 80 $/kgU

696

2,643

Reasonably Assured Resources
(RAR)

80 - 130 $/kgU 654

3,297

< 40 $/kgU

799

4,096

40 – 80 $/kgU

362

4,458

Inferred Resources (IR)

- former EAR I

80 - 130 $/kgU 285

4,743

< 80 $/kgU

1,700

6,443

Prognosticated

80 - 130 $/kgU 819

7,262

< 130 $/kgU

4,557

11,819

Undiscovered
Resources

Speculative

unassigned 2,979

14,798

The reasonably assured (RAR) and inferred (IR) resources and the already produced uranium
are shown in the following graph. About 2.3 million tons of uranium have already been
produced. These amounts are shown as negative values at the left of the bar. Reasonably
assured resources below 40 $/kgU are in the range of the already produced uranium. At
present reactor uranium demand of about 67 kt/year these reserves would last for about 30
years, and would increase to 50 years if the classes up to 130 $/kgU were included. Inferred
resources up to 130 $/kg would extend the static R/P ratio up to about 70 years.

high

low

very low

Uranium Resources and Nuclear Energy

EWG-Paper No 1/06

Page 9 of 48

Figure 1:

Reasonably assured (RAR), inferred (IR) and already produced uranium
resources

-3000 -2000 -1000

1000 2000 3000 4000 5000

Produced

RAR

Source: NEA 2006

kt Uranium

Among other criteria the ore grade plays an important role in determining whether uranium
can be easily mined or not. The energy demand for the uranium extraction increases steadily
with lower ore concentrations. Below 0.01–0.02% ore content the energy requirement for the
extraction and processing of the ore is so high that the energy needed for supplying the fuel,
operation of the reactor and waste disposal comes close to the energy which can be gained by
burning the uranium in the reactor. Therefore, ore grade mining below 0.01% ore content
makes sense only under special circumstances. This is discussed in more detail in Annex 4.

Today only one country, Canada, has reasonable amounts with an ore grade larger than 1%.
The Canadian reserves amount to about 400 kt of uranium with highest concentrations of up
to 20%.

About 90% of world wide resources have ore grades below 1%, more than two thirds below
0.1%. The following figure represents data of about 300 uranium mines which are listed in the
WISE online database. It comprises measured, indicated and inferred resources (this is
roughly equivalent with RAR + IR data in the previous figure – the difference might be due to
some missing data on Russia and China and on different definitions).

Uranium Resources and Nuclear Energy

EWG-Paper No 1/06

Page 10 of 48

Figure 2:

Cumulative world uranium resources (without China, India and Russia)
related to ore grade.

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

4000

0,001

0,01

0,1

100

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

4000

t (U)

Grade U

(%)

Proved & probable + measured + indicated + inferred resources

Source: World Information Service on Energy Uranium Projects
Analysis: LBST 2006

The following figure shows the uranium resources and already produced uranium for
individual countries. The countries are ranked in the order of volume of already produced
uranium. The brown bar at the left shows the already produced uranium while the different
colours of the bar at the right display the different qualities and cost classes of resources. As
before, only reasonably assured and inferred resources are included in this figure as
undiscovered resources are deemed to be too speculative.

It turns out that 11 countries have already exhausted their uranium resources since they
depleted their resources over the last decades at a high rate. These are Germany, the Czech
Republic, France, Congo, Gabon, Bulgaria, Tadshikistan, Hungary, Romania, Spain, Portugal
and Argentina. The remaining resources with highest probability are in Australia, Canada and
Kazakhstan which together contain about 2/3 of these resources below 40 $/kgU extraction
cost. But again, it must be stressed that only Canada contains reasonable amounts of ore with
more than 1% uranium content. Australia has by far the largest resources, but the ore grade is
very low with 90% of its resources containing less than 0.06%. Also in Kazakhstan most of
the uranium ore has a concentration far below 0.1%.

Uranium Resources and Nuclear Energy

EWG-Paper No 1/06

Page 11 of 48

Figure 3:

cumulative produced uranium and reasonably assured and inferred resources
of the most important countries.

-1000

-500

500

1000

1500

Brazil

Argentina

Portugal

Spain

India

Romania

Hungary

Tadschikistan

Bulgaria

Gabon

Congo

Ukraine

France

China

Namibia

Uzbekistan

Niger

Czech

Kazaksthan

Australia

South Africa

Germany

Canada

USA

Already produced

RAR

< 40 $/kgU

< 80 $/kgU
<130 $/kgU

< 40 $/kgU
< 80 $/kgU
<130 $/kgU

Source: NEA 2006, BGR 1995

kt Uranium

Resources:

The production profiles and reported reserves of individual countries show major downward
reserve revisions in USA and France after their production maximum was passed. This is
analysed in detail in Annex 5 for France and in Annex 6 for the USA. These downward
revisions raise some doubts regarding the data quality of reasonably assured resources.

A summary of the historical uranium production of all countries is shown in the following
figure. At the bottom are those countries which have already exhausted their uranium
reserves. The data are taken from NEA 2006 and for some Eastern European countries and
FSU countries from the German BGR (BGR 1995, with additional data for subsequent years).
The figure also includes the uranium demand for nuclear reactors (black line). In the early
years before 1980 the uranium production was strongly driven by military uses and also by
expected nuclear electricity generation growth rates which eventually did not materialise.
Therefore uranium production by far exceeded the demand of nuclear reactors.

The break down of the Soviet Union and the end of the cold war led to the conversion of
nuclear material into fuel for civil reactors and was at least partly responsible for the steep
production decline at the end of the 1980ies and thereafter.

Uranium Resources and Nuclear Energy

EWG-Paper No 1/06

Page 12 of 48

Figure 4:

Uranium production and demand

1950

1960

1970

1980

1990

2000

kt Uranium

Fuel demand for reactors

Australia

Canada

Kazakhstan

Russia

Namibia

USA

Niger

Germany

China

South Africa

France

Czech

Uzbekistan

Russia

Year

At present, the production falls short of demand by more than 25 kt/yr. This gap was closed
with uranium drawn from stockpiles. However, the total amount of these stocks is very
uncertain, as they consist partly of stocks at reactor sites, of stocks at the mines, and of stocks
resulting of the conversion of nuclear weapons and the reprocessing of nuclear waste. In 2002
it was estimated that about 390-450 kt of uranium could come from these sources (BGR
2002). This amount should in the meantime be reduced to about 210 kt of uranium or even
less by the end of 2005.

The following figure summarizes the uranium resource situation together with a forecast until
2030. Reflecting the usual reporting practice, the undiscovered prognosticated and speculative
resources are included (at the bottom of the figure) though it is highly probable that these
speculative resources will never be converted into real production volumes. On top of these
speculative resources the inferred resources with expected extraction costs of up to 130 $/kgU
are shown. On top of these the reported reasonably assured resources between 40 and
130 $/kgU and finally the reasonably assured resources below 40 $/kgU are shown. The latter
category is seen by the German BGR as equivalent to "proved" reserves. The uppermost area
represents the cumulative production of uranium of 2.3 million tons since 1945. This category

Uranium Resources and Nuclear Energy

EWG-Paper No 1/06

Page 14 of 48

Figure 5

Uranium resources and consumption 2000 – 2030

2000

2005

2010

2015

2020

2025

2030

Demand for nuclear reactors at constant capacity (360 GW)

RAR < US $40/kg (proved reserves)

Inferred Resources (former estimated additional Resources - EAR I )

Undiscovered Prognosticated Resources (former EAR II)

kt Uranium

Year

Specu-
lative!

Reasonable additional assured resources < US $130/kg

Data source: NEA 2006
Grafic and forecast: LBST 2006

Undiscovered Speculative Resources (SR)

Demand
+5% p.yr.

In order to ensure the continuous operation of existing power plants, uranium production
capacities must be increased considerably over the next few years well before the stocks are
exhausted. Rising prices and vanishing stocks have led to a new wave of mine developments.
Actually, various projects are in the planning and construction stage which could satisfy the
projected demand if completed in time.

Annex 7 lists the mines which are planned to be in operation by the indicated years according
to the Nuclear Energy Agency (NEA 2006). In total, about 20 kt/yr of additional production
capacity are expected by 2010. This would increase the present capacity from about 50 kt/yr
to 70 kt/yr, enough to meet the current demand once the stocks are exhausted.

However, it is very likely that new mining projects experience cost overruns and time delays
which raises doubts whether the production capacities can be extended in time. These
problems can be observed e.g. at the development of the Cigar Lake project which is
supposed to produce about 8 kt/yr U

(equivalent to 6.8 ktU) starting in 2007. This mine

will be the world's second largest high-grade uranium deposit containing about 100 kt proven
and probable reserves. Its expected production capacity will increase the present world
uranium production by about 17%. Therefore its development is a key element in expanding
world uranium supply. In october a severe water inflow occured wholly flooding the almost

Uranium Resources and Nuclear Energy

EWG-Paper No 1/06

Page 16 of 48

Figure 6

History and forecast of uranium production based on reported resources. The
smallest aera covers 1,900 kt uranium which have the status of proved
reserves while the data uncertainty increases towards the largest area based
on 4,700 kt uranium which represents possible reserves.

100

1950

2000

2050

2100

kt Uranium

Fuel demand
of reactors

Reasonably Assured Resources (RAR)

< 40 $/kg: 1,947 ktU

$/k

: 3

,29

ktU

R+

130

$/k

: 4

,74

3 k

Supply gap 2006-2020:
180 – 260 kt Uranium
Uranium Stocks:
appr. 200 kt Uranium

WEO 2006-Alternative Policy Scenario

WEO 2006 Reference Scenario

Year

*) IR = Inferred Resources

Constant Capacity as of 2005

Uranium Resources and Nuclear Energy

EWG-Paper No 1/06

Page 17 of 48

Nuclear Power Plants

History of nuclear power plants

Every two years the Nuclear Energy Agency (NEA) together with the International Atomic
Energy Agency (IAEA) publish detailed data about existing reactors, reactors under
construction, shut down reactors and also forecasts for the next 20–30 years. An early
forecasts in 1975 predicted the nuclear capacity of OECD member countries to grow to
between 772–890 GW by 1990. Based on such forecasts the uranium production capacities
were extended. But in reality, the installed capacity grew to 260 GW falling far below the
IAEA target range. The 1977 forecast was less ambitious, envisaging a range of between
860–999 GW by 2000. As the year 2000 came closer, the more modest the forecasts became
eventually predicting a capacity ranging between 318–395 GW by 2000. Actually, a total of
303 GW were installed in the year 2000. Every forecast by the IAEA in the past eventually
turned out as having been too optimistic. Even the most recent forecast foresees a growth of
world wide installed capacity by 2030 to between 414–679 GW. The upper figure would
almost double the presently installed capacity.

Figure 7:

Historical forecasts

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

1000

1975

1985

1995

2005

2015

2025

Year

Forecast 1975

Forecast 1977

Forecast 1980

Forecast 1985

Forecast 1998

Reality 2005
(OECD countries)

Forecast 2004

Reality 2005
(All countries)

Data Source: IAEA; Grafics: LBST

Forecast
2006

Uranium Resources and Nuclear Energy

EWG-Paper No 1/06

Page 18 of 48

Even the International Energy Agency fell behind these very optimistic forecasts in the past
assuming 376 GW of installed capacity by 2030 and intermediate capacities of 385 GW by
2010 and 382 GW by 2020 (WEO 2004). However the latest IEA report (WEO 2006) states
that nuclear capacity should be increased in order to avoid energy shortages and to reduce
greenhouse gas emissions. The reference case sees a growth of 0.5% per year between 2004
and 2030 and the alternative policy scenario a growth of 1.4% per year. But according to our
analysis this IEA forecast is much too optimistic as in the short run until 2015 the necessary
lead times are too long, not allowing for a capacity increase of about 15%. In addition,
existing reactors are ageing and almost 60–80% of existing reactors will be decommissioned
within the next 25 years.

The following figure shows the net capacities of started constructions of new reactors (red
bars) and the grid connections of new reactors (black line) between 1955 and 2006. As a
general trend, most reactors were constructed between 1965 and 1975 when on average the
construction of about 20 new reactors started each year. The peak of grid connections was in
1985, indicating an average construction time of about 10 years.

Figure 8:

Construction start and decommissioning of nuclear power plants at world level

1960

1970

1980

1990

2000

2010

October 2006

Source: International Atomic Energy Agency

GW/yr

Construction start
closure

Grid connection

Year

At present, a total of 28 reactors are under construction worldwide (see the table in Annex
10). However, 11 of these reactors are already under construction for more than 20 years of

Uranium Resources and Nuclear Energy

EWG-Paper No 1/06

Page 19 of 48

which almost all are located in countries of the former eastern bloc. Construction of the
reactors in these countries stopped at the beginning of the economic transition. It is therefore
highly questionable whether these reactors ever will be completed – anyway, a scheduled date
is not available. If construction of these reactors were to continue now this would amount to a
completely new construction. Consequently the black line in the figure includes only those
future grid connections which can be expected by 2011 if everything proceeds according to
schedule. This adds up to a total of 13.7 GW by 2011 (or 6.7 GW by the end of 2009). If
completion of some of these reactors will be delayed then this number will be smaller.

The blue bars in the figure show the reactors already shut down and also the probable shut
downs of reactors for the period between 2006 and 2009 as expected by the IEA (see table in
Annex 10). This adds up to a total capacity of shut down reactors of 9.3 GW by the end of
2009. Balancing annual reactor capacity additions and shut downs gives the resulting grid
connected net capacity for the period 1950 to 2009 as shown in the following figure. The thin
blue line shows the gross cumulative capacity additions and the thick blue line the cumulative
net capacity. The net capacity presumably will peak in 2008 and will then decline in the
following years.

Figure 9:

Cumulative installed capacity until 2011

1960

1970

1980

1990

2000

2010

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

Kernreaktoren weltweit

October 2006

Source: International Atomic Energy Agency

MW/yr

Grid connection (net capacity)

Construction start
closure

Year

Uranium Resources and Nuclear Energy

EWG-Paper No 1/06

Page 21 of 48

Figure 10:

Age of nuclear reactors

100

200

300

400

500

Kernreaktoren weltweit

October 2006

Source: International Atomic Energy Agency

Cumulative no. of reactors

Years of operation

Over the last 15 years the average construction rate was between three to four reactors per
year. If this trend continues, only half of the decommissioned capacity would be substituted
by new reactors and installed capacity would decline by about 30 GW. This scenario is
represented in the following figure by the blue line. The red bars indicate the construction
start of already existing reactors with an extrapolation of the present trend – i.e. start of con-
struction of three reactors per year. If this trend were upheld until 2030 then installed capacity
would decline from 367 GW at present to 140 GW.

Just to maintain the present capacity would require much more ambitious investments into
nuclear power as can be observed today. The World Nuclear Association frequently updates
its overview of reactors in operation, under construction, on order or planned and proposed.
At the end of September 2006 about 28 reactors were under construction (including the 11
reactor "ruins" which are now under construction for more than 20 years), 62 are on order or
planned with a net capacity of 68 GW and 160 reactors with a net capacity of 119 GW are
listed as "proposed". Assuming (1) that the reactors under construction (except the already
discussed 11 permanent construction sites) will be grid connected by 2011, (2) that all of the
reactors "on order or planned" will be grid connected within the next 10 years by 2016 and (3)
all "proposed" reactors will be built within the next 15 years by 2021, then total new capacity

Uranium Resources and Nuclear Energy

EWG-Paper No 1/06

Page 22 of 48

would sum up to 190 GW. By 2021 about 164 of the present reactors with a total capacity of
130 GW will be older than 40 years. Additionally the shut down of 13 GW is scheduled in
Germany. Therefore, if these plans materialise, the net capacity could increase by 2021 at best
by 50 GW to 420 GW i.e. 13%, despite probable fuel supply problems as discussed earlier.

If all the proposed reactors will only be completed within the next 20 years (instead of the
next 15 years) then total capacity would still decline. Therefore, maintaining present capacity
until 2030 seems to be an ambitious goal even when assuming a revival of nuclear projects.
The figure below sketches the necessary effort needed to meet various scenario requirements.

An average construction time of 5 years is assumed. The red bars indicate the present trend of
the annual construction start of three new reactors on average with 3 GW. The red line gives
the trend of grid connected capacity. New reactors are grid connected after 5 years of
constrution time. After 40 years of operation, old reactors are decommissioned. Therefore, the
net capacity will decline by about 70% until 2030 if present trends continue. German reactors
are decommissioned after 32 years of operation. The broken red line provides the results if
their operation time is extended to 40 years.

The dark green bars indicate the necessary annual construction start-ups in order to maintain
the present capacity of about 367 GW which is represented by the dark green line. A tiny
decline at the end of this decade is unavoidable as too few reactors are under construction at
present.

The light green bars indicate the necessary annual construction start-ups in order to meet the
projection of the International Energy Agency in its "reference scenario" in the world energy
outlook 2006. The light green line provides the corresponding total capacity.

The blue bars indicate the necessary annual construction starts in order to meet the projection
of the International Energy Agency in its "alternative policy scenario" in the WEO 2006. The
blue line provides the corresponding total capacity

Over the last few years too few reactors started their construction in order to meet the IEA
scenario until 2012. In order to meet these scenarios beyond 2012, between 5 to 10 times
more reactors must be annually constructed than at present. This will need skilled manpower
for the construction which is not yet available. In addition, the long lead times and the huge
investments of more than 1 billion Euro per GW together with the high financial risk make it
hard to believe that these investments will be performed in liberalised markets. For instance,
in the UK nobody invested into new nuclear power plants for at least the last 18 years,
thought this was not forbidden and the electricity demand was there.

Summarising the results of this chapter, in the short term until 2012 the world nuclear
capacity will rather decline than increase due to ageing reactors and too few new reactors
under construction. In the long term beyond 2030 uranium shortages will limit the expansion
of nuclear power plants. However, even to meet the demand until 2030 the present uranium

Uranium Resources and Nuclear Energy

EWG-Paper No 1/06

Page 23 of 48

production capacities must be increased by at least 30%. Due to the delays in new projects
and the severe problems at the new Cigar Lake mine, the largest mine under development,
probably these uranium supply restrictions will limit the available nuclear capacity way
before 2030.

Figure 11:

Projections of nuclear capacity

1960

1970

1980

1990

2000

2010

2020

2030

100

200

300

400

500

October 2006

Source: International Atomic Energy Agency

New Capacity [GW/yr]

Construction start ( forecast: 3 GW/yr assumed) – present trends
Required Construction start to maintain constant capacity
Required Construction start to meet WEO-2006 reference scenario
Required Construction start to meet WEO-2006 alternative policy scenario

Installe

d capac

ity

Not realised!

Installed Capacity [GW]

Year

When presenting the WEO 2006 report the IEA said it was a major argument in the
development of the “Alternative Policy Scenario” that the extension of nuclear power plants
would be an efficient instrument to combat climate change. This is in striking contrast to the
results in the report because according to the report nuclear energy is considered to be the
least efficient measure in combating greenhouse warming: in the “Alternative Policy
Scenario” the projected reduction of GHG emissions by about 6 billion t of carbon dioxide is
primarily due to improved energy efficiency (contributing 65% of the reduction), 13% are due
to fuel switching, 12% are contributed by enhanced use of renewable energies and only 10%
are attributed to an enhanced use of nuclear energy.

Uranium Resources and Nuclear Energy

EWG-Paper No 1/06

Page 24 of 48

NNEX

Annex 1: Various Definitions of Uranium Reserves

The reserve classifications of uranium differ from the reserve definitions of oil and gas. Most
national or international institutions use a slightly different scheme for the listing of uranium
reserves. But even within the same institution these definitions change from time to time. The
most common classifications are summarized in the following figure.

The reference scheme introduced by the Nuclear Energy Agency and the International Atomic
Energy Agency is frequently used. According to this classification resources are split into
“known resources” and “undiscovered resources”. “Undiscovered resources” are divided into
“prognosticated” and “speculative” resources. Prior to the last resource update the phrase
"Estimated Additional Resources of category 2", or in short EAR II, was commonly used for
describing prognosticated resources.

“Known resources” are divided into the groups "Reasonably Assured Resources" (RAR) and
"Inferred Resources" (formerly denominated as "Estimated Additional Resources, category
1"). The categories are internally divided into various cost classes according to suggested
extraction costs. The definition of these classes also changed from time to time. The classes
“below 40 $/kgU”, “below 80 $/kgU” and “below 130 $/kg U” are the most widely used.

The data quality declines from "reasonably assured resources" to "speculative resources" and
from low to high extraction cost estimates. Very often resources of type “RAR < 80 $/kgU”
are regarded as being equivalent to "proved reserves", e.g. by the German Federal Agency for
Geosciences and Minerals (BGR) until 2002. In Canada this category is known as "measured
reserves". The category of RAR between 80 and 130 $/kgU is defined as "probable reserves"
in Germany, but as "indicated reserves" in Canada. The whole group of "Estimated Additional
Resources of category 1" or "Inferred Reserves" (IR) is defined in Germany as "possible
reserve". Compared with the classification of oil and gas reserves, a "possible reserve" is
something which might be turned into a "proven reserve" with 5 to 10% probability. Recently,
the German BGR has changed its classification scheme and has reduced the range of "proved
reserves" to “RAR < 40 $/kgU”. While “discovered resources” are grouped into “RAR
between 40 and 80 $/kgU” and “IR below 80 $/kgU” at the one hand – this might correspond
to "probable reserves" – and “RAR between 80 and 130 $/kgU” and “IR between 80 and
130 $/kgU” at the other hand – this might correspond to "possible reserves", “undiscovered
resources” are always treated similar.

This long discussion of definitions shows that these definitions are only indications of proved
reserves. The high level of disaggregation of the data into four groups, each of them
subdivided into different cost classes, gives the impression of a high level of data quality

Uranium Resources and Nuclear Energy

EWG-Paper No 1/06

Page 25 of 48

which in actual fact is not justified. Each class might include speculative amounts which
never might be turned into produced volumes. This is demonstrated below by giving some
examples.

Figure A-1 :

Different classification schemes of uranium reserves and resources which are

commonly used

Prognosticated

Speculative

NEA / IAEA
2006

Known resources

undiscovered resources

Reasonably assured (RAR)

Estimated
additional (EAR I)

Speculative

Estimated
additional (EAR II)

Measured

Indicated

Inferred

Prognosticated

Speculative

RAR
<40 $/kgU

RAR
<80 $/kgU

RAR
<130 $/kgU

EAR I
<40 $/kgU

EAR I
<80 $/kgU

EAR I
<130 $/kgU

proven

probable

possible

Prognosticated

Speculative

Germany
1995

Reserves

Canada

Germany
2005

RAR
<40 $/kgU

RAR 40 - 80 $/kgU
EAR I < 80 $/kgU

RAR 40 – 130 $/kgU
EAR I 40 - 130 $/kgU

Reserves

Resources

discovered

undiscovered

Reasonably assured (RAR)

Inferred Resources

Speculative

Prognosticated

NEA / IAEA
2004

<80 $/kgU<130 $/kgU<130 $/kgU

Uranium Resources and Nuclear Energy

EWG-Paper No 1/06

Page 26 of 48

Annex 2: Historical Development of Uranium Resources

The historical development of the resource estimates is illustrated in the following figure. So-
called “undiscovered resources” are not included. However, the different cost classes are
listed individually. For the time period between 1977 and 1995 no separation of the cost class
“below 40 $/kgU” was available – this explains why these data are missing. The red curve in
the background of the figure indicates the exploration expenditures of the mining industry
which show a marked peak around 1980. It seems that the level of expenditures did not
influence the exploration success since no growth of resources can be attributed to this time
period. Vice versa, "Estimated Additional Resources" declined in the early 1980ies by almost
1 million tons of uranium, about 30% of total resources. As will be shown later, this is almost
completely due to the downward revision of resource assessments in the USA.

Figure A-2:

Historical development of uranium resources of categories RAR and EAR I

between 1965 and 2005, and estimated annual expenditures for exploration.
The resources are split into different cost classes as indicated in the figure.

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

4000

4500

5000

1950

1960

1970

1980

1990

2000

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

1000

Annual Uranium Exploration Expenditure and Resource Assessments

kt (U) Uranium Resources (RAR+EAR I)

M $/year

year

EAR I < 130$/kgU

RAR <130 $/kgU

EAR I < 80$/kgU

RAR < 80 $/kgU

EAR I < 40 $/kgU

RAR < 40 $/kgU

Uranium Resources and Nuclear Energy

EWG-Paper No 1/06

Page 27 of 48

Annex 3:

Country by Country Assessment of Uranium

Resources

The following table lists the detailed assessment of “reasonably assured” and “inferred”
resource data for each country as of end year 2004 as provided in the latest report (NEA
2006). A question mark indicates that no comment by the reporting body was made relating to
the respective cost class.

The first two columns show the latest available annual production rate and the estimated
cumulative production data. The next columns state “reasonably assured” and “inferred”
resources while each category is disaggregated into the cost classes “<40 $/kgU”,
“<80 $/kgU” and “130 $/kgU”. One should note that the values given for the high cost classes
include the values for the lower cost classes.

Table A-1:

Cumulative uranium production as of end 2005, “Reasonably Assured
Resources” and “Inferred Resources” of uranium as of end 2004 [kt Uranium]
(NEA 2006) (BGR 1995, 1998, 2001, 2006)

Reasonably Assured

Resources (RAR)

end 2004

Inferred Resources (EAR I)

end 2004

Country Productio

in 2005

Cum.
productio
n
end 2005

< 40

$/kgU

< 80

$/kgU

< 130

$/kgU

< 40

$/kgU

< 80

$/kgU

< 130

$/kgU

Algeria

Argentina

Australia

Brazil

Bulgaria

Canada

CAR

Chile

China

Congo

Czech Rep

Denmark

9.51

11.6

0.75

0.4

2.6

132

1.9

16.7

394

25.6

110

4.8

701

139.9

1.67

287.2

25.8

19.5

4.9

714

157.7

5.9

345.2

1.4

0.5

19.5

7.1

747

157.7

5.9

345.2

0.6

1.4

0.5

20.3

2.9

343

1.7

84.6

5.9

2.9

360

73.6

6.3

98.6

21.7

1.3

0.1

8.6

396

121

6.3

98.6

0.9

21.7

1.3

0.1

Uranium Resources and Nuclear Energy

EWG-Paper No 1/06

Page 28 of 48

Finland

France

Gabon

Germany

Greece

Hungary

India

Indonesia

Iran

Italy

Japan

Jordan

Kazakhstan

Malawi

Mexico

Mongolia

Namibia

Niger

Pakistan

Peru

Poland

Portugal

Romania

Russian
Fed.

Slovenia

Somalia

South Africa

Spain

Tadchikistan

0.007

0.077

0.23

4.36

3.147

3.093

0.045

0.09

3.431

0.674

25.6

220

111

0.7

3.2

136

158

6.1

30.4

278.8

62.2

172.9

57.5

88.5

0.3

4.8

30.4

378.3

8.8

46.2

151.3

180.5

1.2

131.8

1.2

177.1

2.5

1.1

4.8

42.6

4.6

0.4

4.8

6.6

30.4

513.9

8.8

1.3

46.2

182.6

180.5

1.2

3.2

131.8

1.2

255.6

4.9

48.6

129.3

8.3

61.2

21.6

54.6

48.6

228.4

15.8

86.3

1.3

1.2

40.7

2.8

71.6

11.7

22.3

1.2

1.1

1.3

48.6

302.2

0.5

15.8

99.8

1.3

1.2

3.6

40.7

5.5

2.6

6.4

Uranium Resources and Nuclear Energy

EWG-Paper No 1/06

Page 29 of 48

Sweden

Turkey

Ukraine

USA

Uzbekhistan

Vietnam

Zaire

Zimbabwe

1.039

1.219

2.3

423

59.7

7.4

58.5

102

59.7

1.4

7.4

66.7

342

76.9

1.4

6.5

17.3

0.8

23.1

38.6

5.4

World

41.952 2,347 1,947

2,643 3,297 799 1,161 1,446

Uranium Resources and Nuclear Energy

EWG-Paper No 1/06

Page 30 of 48

Annex 4:

Uranium Mining and Energy Demand for Mining

About 10% of the uranium is mined as by-product of the mining of gold, copper or other
minerals (e.g. in South Africa). But most reservoirs contain only uranium. At these mines the
mining effort increases dramatically with decreasing ore grade. This is due to two reasons:

The materials throughput (and therefore the energy demand) is indirectly proportional
to the ore grade: To extract 1 kg of uranium out of 1% ore containing material needs
the processing of 100 kg. Extracting the same amount from 0.01% ore needs the
processing of 10,000 kg.

The separation of the uranium ore from the waste material can only be achieved with
some losses. These losses are negligible if the ore grade is high, but at low ore grades
the extraction losses set a lower limit on the accessible ore quality.

These relations are discussed in detail in a publication by Storm van Leeuwen and Smith,
2005. According to this study the energy demand for uranium mining increases according to
the formula:

Energy demand = E

/ (yield*G),

with ‘E

’ being the energy demand at 1% ore grade, ‘yield’ being the amount of extracted

uranium and ‘G’ being the ore grade in percent. The detailed assessment provides the
following results for the increasing energy demand relative to the energy demand of 1% ore
grade.

Ore grade (G)

[% U

]

Energy

demand

(theoretical)

Yield

(theoretical)

Yield

(empirical)

1% E

0.98 0.98

0.10%

0.05%

0.03%

0.015%

0.010%

11 times E

23 times E

41 times E

90 times E

143 times E

0.91

0.86

0.81

0.74

0.7

~0.9

~0.85

~0.75-0.8

~0.5

?? (probably 0)

The full calculation – including energy needs covering the whole fuel path with the steps “ore
mining”, “yellow cake processing” and “transport to the power plant” – shows that below an

Uranium Resources and Nuclear Energy

EWG-Paper No 1/06

Page 32 of 48

Annex 5:

Uranium Mining in France

Mining of uranium started very early in France in the context of military and electricity
generation applications. The production rate gradually increased until the end of the 1980ies
and declined sharply thereafter. Production ceased in 2002. Between 1956 and 2002 about
76 kt of uranium have been mined.

Figure A-3:

Uranium production in France

1 9 5 0

1 9 6 0

1 9 7 0

1 9 8 0

1 9 9 0

2 0 0 0

k t U

y e a r

F ra n c e – U ra n iu m p ro d u c tio n

According to the latest NEA statistics the “inferred resources between 80 and 130 $/kgU” still
amount to about 11 kt. This is in accordance with the resource estimates up to 1970 stating
“reasonably estimated and inferred resources” of about 70 kt while about 10 kt have already
been consumed (see the following figure). The red bar indicates “reasonably assured
resources below 80 $/kgU” and the blue bar estimates “additional or inferred resources below
80 $/kgU” which in these early years coincided with “resources up to 130 $/kgU”. In later
years the reported resources remain that high or were increased up to 82 kt by end 1985 (and
even up to 112 kt if “resources up to 130 $/kgU” are included). At that time already 50 kt
have been produced.

In the following years the “reasonably assured” and “estimated” resources were successively
downgraded with a steep dip from 67 kt to 28 kt in 1991 and a second big downgrading from
13 kt to 0.19 kt in 2001. At present, “reasonably assured” and “inferred” resources below
80 $/kgU are zero. It is interesting to notice that the resource estimates were increasing as
long the production was increasing, but were followed by significant downgradings as soon as
production had peaked and started to decline.

Figure A-4

: Cumulative uranium production and quality of resources in France

Uranium Resources and Nuclear Energy

EWG-Paper No 1/06

Page 35 of 48

In 1977 “reasonably assured and additionally estimated resources below 80 $/kgU” were at
1,361 kt when 200 kt were already produced at the time. By extending the extraction cost
class to 130 $/kgU the reported resources amounted to 1,800 kt. In 1983 the “reasonably
assured and inferred resources” where downgraded by 85%, a decline of almost 1,000 kt. This
happened at a time when exploration expenditures reached their highest level. This drop of
US uranium resources by 1,000 kt was the reason for the decline of “reasonably assured and
inferred resources” at world level at that time (see text and figure above). At present
“reasonably assured resources below 80 $/kgU” are still at 100 kt, while at the same time the
production declined steeply.

Though the reasons for the production decline in the USA could be manifold, this strong
correlation between declining production and downgraded resources is at least interesting.
Therefore it is possible that production was declining because of a lack of resources. Apart
from this observation, a decline of "reasonably assured resources" is hard to understand – this
is to say that in fact the formerly stated resources were not “reasonably assured” after all. A
known discovered resource was converted into an unknown undiscovered resource: this does
imply that the reporting practice of known resources is highly questionable and unreliable. A
decline of 1,000 kt is a relevant quantity which reduces the static R/P-ratio (at 50 kt
production) by 20 years.

Figure A-6:

Cumulative uranium production in the USA and resource estimates

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

1800

1950

1960

1970

1980

1990

2000

USA – cum Uranium production and Resource estimates

kt U

year

EAR < 80 $/kgU
RAR < 80$/kgU
Cum production

Uranium Resources and Nuclear Energy

EWG-Paper No 1/06

Page 36 of 48

Annex 7:

Uranium Mining Projects (Planned or under

Construction)

The following table is based on a report by the NEA (NEA 2006)

Table A-2:

Planned uranium mines

Year Country

Mine

Projected

capacity

Iran

Bandar Abbas

0.021 kt/yr

Russia Khiagda

kt/yr

2005

Total 1.021

kt/yr

India Banduhuran

Lambapur

0.15 kt/yr

0.13 kt/yr

Namibia

Langer Heinrich

1 kt/yr

Niger Ebba

kt/yr

Kazakhstan

JV KATCO – Tortkuduk

1 kt/yr

2006

Total 4.28

kt/yr

Brazil Itataia

0.68

kt/yr

Canada Cigar

Lake

6,9

kt/yr

Iran Ardakan

0,05

kt/yr

Kazakhstan

JV Kendala – Central Mynkuduk

2 kt/yr

2007

Total 9.63

kt/yr

Kazakhstan

LLP Stepnogorskiy Mining –
Semizbai

LLP Kyzylkum – Kharasan-1

Southern Inkai

Irkol

JV Karatau – Budenovskoye 2

0.4 kt/yr

1 kt/yr

0.75 kt/yr

2008

Total 3.15

kt/yr

Uranium Resources and Nuclear Energy

EWG-Paper No 1/06

Page 38 of 48

Annex 8: The Development of Cigar Lake in Canada

The Cigar Lake deposit was discovered in 1981. Test mine development began in 1987 and
was completed in 2000. An environmental impact statement was filed with the relevant
regulatory authorities in 1995. After a thorough environmental assessment, in April 1998 the
federal and provincial governments accepted the recommendations of a joint-review panel
and authorized the project to proceed to the regulatory licencing stage. In 2003, a further
screening level environmental assessment was required by the regulations before construction
and operating licences could be issued. In February 2004, the Environmental Assessment
Study report was filed and accepted by the regulatory authority (CNSC) in July 2004 allowing
the project to proceed to construction licensing (quotations from CAMECO 2004).

Approval for start of construction of Cigar Lake was given in December 2004. At that time
construction was expected to start early in 2005 and production was scheduled to start after 27
months of construction by early 2007. According to the plans, then there was to follow a
rampup period of three years before the mine would reach its full production.

The Cigar Lake mine consists of an ore deposit about 450 m below surface between basement
rock and overlaying water-saturated sandstone. This makes the extraction difficult requiring
the freezing of the ground to allow for safe mining. In April 2006 a first water inflow occured.
The repairs of this accident were expected to delay the work for six months and to increase
costs by 10–20%. On October 23, 2006, Cameco reported a second inflow at Cigar Lake
following a rock fall in a future production area that had previously been dry. This second
more severe water inflow will cause a substantial delay for at least another year. A
remediation plan is still being developed and at present there are a number of unknowns, such
as changes (if any) to the development and/or mining plan, production schedules and
additional capital expenditures. According to the latest qarterly report, after a clarification of
these uncertainties the mine owner Cameco will be in a better position to evaluate whether the
reserves in Cigar Lake will need to be reclassified from proven to probable.

This example shows that the process of bringing new mines into production needs long lead
times and is by no means straight foreward. Delays due to technical problems and cost
overruns are common.

Source: Company reports and press releases by Cameco (www.cameco.com)

Uranium Resources and Nuclear Energy

EWG-Paper No 1/06

Page 42 of 48

Annex 10: Nuclear Power Plants Under Construction

Table A-3:

Nuclear power plants under construction (Status October 2006, Source: PRIS)

Country Name

Net

capacity

Construction

start

Expected start

of operation

Argentina Atucha-2

692

1981 ?

Bulgaria Belene-1

Belene-2

953

1987

China Lingao

Lingao 4

Qinshan 2-3

Tianwan-2

1000

610

1000

2005

2006

2000

2010

2006

Finland

Olkiluoto-3 (EPR)

1600

2005

2009

India Kaiga-3

Kaiga-4

Kudankulam-1

Rajasthan-5

Rajasthan-6

Kudankulam-2

PFBR

202

917

202

917

470

2002

2003

2002

2004

2007

2008

2010

Iran Bushehr-1

915

1975

2006

Japan Tomari-3

866 2004

2009

Korea Shin-Kori-1

960 2006

2010

Pakistan Chasnupp

300 2005 2011

Romania Cernavoda-2

655 1983 2007

Russia Volodonsk-2

Kursk-5

Kalinin-4

Balakovo-5

950

1983

1985

1986

1987

Taiwan Lungmen-1

Lungmen-2

1350

1999

2010

Ukraine Khmelnitski-3

950 1986 ?

Uranium Resources and Nuclear Energy

EWG-Paper No 1/06

Page 44 of 48

Table A-4:

Anticipated worldwide reactor closures before 2010 (Source IEA, according to

US-EIA 2006)

Country Name

Net

capacity

Operation

start

Expected

closure

Bulgaria Kozloduy

Kozloduy 4

408

1973

2006

France Phenix

233 1974 2009

Germany Biblis

Neckarwestheim

Biblis B

Brunsbüttel

1,167

785

1,240

771

1974

1976

2008

2009

Lithhuania Ignalina

1,185 1987 2009

Slovakia Bohunica

Bohunice 2

408

1978

1980

2006

2008

UK Dungeness

Dungeness A2

Sizewell A1

Sizewell A2

Oldbury A1

Oldbury A2

Wylfa 1

Wylfa 2

225

210

230

490

1960

1961

1962

1963

2006

2008

2009

World

9,323

2009

Uranium Resources and Nuclear Energy

EWG-Paper No 1/06

Page 45 of 48

Annex 11: Time Schedules for the New EPR Reactors in Finland
and France

The following examples demonstrate the long lead times from the first applications until the
reactor starts to operate:

Example Finland:

(Source: Nuclear Energy in Finland, UIC briefing paper#76,

September 2005 (www.uic.au/nip76.htm) and Areva (www.areva-np.com))

•

November 2000: Application by Finnish Utility TVO.

•

May 2002: Finland's parliament voted 107-92 to approve the building of a fifth
nuclear power plant, to be in operation by about 2009.

•

January 2003: Approval by the government.

•

March 2003: Tenders were submitted by three vendors for four designs.

•

October 2003: The site of the new unit was decided to be at the existing
Olkiluoto plant. In the same month, TVO indicated that Framatome ANP's
1,600 MW

European Pressurised water Reactor (EPR) was the preferred

design.

•

December 2003: TVO signed contracts with Areva and Siemens for the con-
struction of a 1,600 MW

EPR unit effective on 1 January 2004. In January

2004 licence for construction was applied for and granted in January 2005.
Construction started in mid 2005 and the reactor was scheduled to start
commercial operation in 2009.

•

In April 2006 it was reported that construction of the reactor was already 9
months behind schedule. The reactor is now expected to start commercial
operation in 2010 (Source: AFX Paris, Finanznachrichten, 24.4. 2006, see at
http://www.finanznachrichten.de/nachrichten-2006-04/artikel-6320902.asp ).

•

2009: Scheduled start of operation.

Example France:

•

Reactor site for EPR was decided to be Flamanville on 21

October 2004.

•

2005 – 2006: Administrative procedures.

•

2007: Scheduled start of construction.

•

2012: Scheduled start of operation.

Uranium Resources and Nuclear Energy

EWG-Paper No 1/06

Page 47 of 48

ITERATURE

AFX 2006

Areva reactor construction in Finland 9 months behind schedule, AFX news ,
24 april 2006, see at www.finanznachrichten.de

AREVA 2006 Finnish EPR Olkuoto 3, the first reactor of the third generation under

construction in the world

BGR 1995

Reserven, Ressourcen und Verfügbarkeit von Energierohstoffen 1995,
Bundesanstalt für Geowissenschaften und Rohstoffe, Hannover, 1995

BGR 1998

Reserven, Ressourcen und Verfügbarkeit von Energierohstoffen 1998,
Bundesanstalt für Geowissenschaften und Rohstoffe, Hannover, 1998

BGR 2002

Reserven, Ressourcen und Verfügbarkeit von Energierohstoffen 2002,
Bundesanstalt für Geowissenschaften und Rohstoffe, Hannover, 2003

BGR 2006

Reserven, Ressourcen und Verfügbarkeit von Energierohstoffen 2005,
Bundesanstalt für Geowissenschaften und Rohstoffe, Hannover (www.bgr.de)

Breuer 2006 Th. Breuer, Reichweite der Uranvorräte der Welt, Greenpeace, Hamburg 2006

Cameco: The following press releases are the basis for the description of Cigar Lake:

21 December 2004: Cameco Proceeds with Cigar Lake Mine Construction

6 April 2006: Cameco Announces Construction Delay at Cigar Lake

May 2006: Uranium Operations

27 October: Cameco Announces Setback at Cigar Lake

31 October 2006:

Cameco reports 3

Quarter Earings

EFN 2004

The first French EPR will be built in Flamanville (Normandy), Newsletter of
EFN, 21st October 2004

EIA 2006

When do commercial reactors permanently shut down? The recent record,
(www.eia.doe.gov, status of 5 October 2006)

EIA 2006

Uranium overview 1949 – 2005, at www.eia.doe.gov (status of October 2006)

Friends of the Earth 2006

France and Finland must release all info about safety of planned

nuclear reactor – leaked confidential report reveals vulnerability of EPR
reactor, Press release of 18 May 2006, see at www.foeeurope.org

Greenpeace 2006

Reichweite der Uran-Vorräte der Welt, Autor Peter Diehl, Greenpeace,

Hamburg, May 2006

Uranium Resources and Nuclear Energy

EWG-Paper No 1/06

Page 48 of 48

IAEA

nuclear power reactors in the world, reference data series No. 2, International
Atomic Energy Agency, Vienna, May 2006.

IAEA

Energy, Electricity and Nuclear Power Estimates for the Period up to 2030,
reference data series No. 1, International Atomic Energy Agency, Vienna, July
2006

ISA 2006

Life-Cycle Energy Balance and Greenhouse Gas Emissions of Nuclear Energy
in Australia, The University of Sidney, 3rd November 2006

NEA/IAEA 2005

Uranium 2005: Resources, Production and Demand, Nuclear Energy

Agency, IAEA , OECD, Paris 2005

NEA/IAEA 2006

Forty Years of Uranium Resources, Production and Demand in

Perpective, Nuclear Energy Agency, IAEA , OECD, Paris 2006

Nuclear Energy in Finland, UIC briefing paper#76, September 2005 (www.uic.au/nip76.htm)

and Areva (www.areva-np.com)

PRIS

database of nuclear power plants, see at www.iaea.org

Storm van Leeuwen, Smith, 2005 J. Willem Storm van Leeuwen, Ph. Smith, Nuclear

Power - the energy balance, 2005 (www.stormsmith.nl)

UIC 2006

World wide review of the status of nuclear power and uranium industry, see at
www.uic.com.au (status of October 2006)

Wise 2006

P. Diehl, World Information Service on Energy Uranium Projects,
Decommissioning data of uranium mines (status 16 june 2003), see at
www.wise-uranium.org

Wise 2006

P. Diehl, World Information Service on Energy Uranium Projects, Uranium
mining ownership (status 6 October 2006), see at www.wise-uranium.org

Acknowledgement

The authors thank Peter Diehl for a critical reading of the manuscript and helpful comments