By Gunter Wippel, uranium-network.org, Germany.

”A novel type of excavation"..." is an encouraging title that creates significant anticipation – but will the actual content meet these expectations?

The piece focuses on uranium mining – a practice that is not new to Namibia, as uranium has been extracted since the 1970s when the country was not yet an independent state but was under South Africa's administration. Uranium was mined and sent abroad in breach of UN Resolution No. 1, by a British firm, Rio Tinto Zinc, taking advantage of the territory's colonial status.

Therefore, uranium extraction is not unfamiliar to Namibia in any way.

Clearly, the article discusses the mining technique that the company Headspring Investments, a division of the Russian state-owned enterprise ROSATOM, intends to implement: in-situ leaching (ISL), also known as in-situ recovery (ISR), which involves keeping the ore deposit 'in situ,' meaning underground, while uranium is chemically dissolved and brought to the surface through pipelines for extraction.

ISL is not a novel concept, as it has been implemented in the United States along with Kazakhstan and other regions for many years. Evidence indicates that it is far from being environmentally safe: underground and surface leaks, spills, and various other incidents have been documented by the US Environmental Protection Agency, leading to significant financial fines imposed on mining companies.

The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) describes ISL (ISR) in its TecDoc 1428 "Guidebook on environmental impact assessment for in situ leach mining projects" as: "ISL extraction involves introducing an appropriate leaching solution into the ore deposit beneath the water table; ( … )” and:

According to existing technology, the ore deposit should be located beneath the natural water table in a permeable area, probably sandstone. Layers that are not permeable above and below the host sandstone (aquitards) provide improved hydrological control of the leaching solution during mining and help restore groundwater quality after mining is finished.

(Source: https://www-pub.iaea.org/MTCD/publications/PDF/te_1428_web.pdf)

In 2016, the IAEA reaffirms this definition: “ISL extraction involves introducing an appropriate leaching solution into the ore area beneath the water table…” as stated in its Nuclear Energy Series document NF-T-14 (https://www-pub.iaea.org/MTCD/publications/PDF/P1741_web.pdf ).

CONNECTED AQUIFERS

In the Omaheke area, there are multiple aquifers, some of which are interconnected while others are not, and some function as artesian wells while others do not.

The uranium reserve being evaluated for extraction is found within the Auob aquifer, surrounded by additional aquifers both above (the Kalahari aquifer) and below. Therefore, the extraction method used is not ISL as outlined by the IAEA, and should not be referred to using that term. To do so is equivalent to misleading the public.

Indeed, the EIA for Headspring Investments' pilot project 'Wings' mentions on multiple occasions that the Auob aquifer is linked to the Kalahari aquifer, which serves as the primary water source for most farms and residents in the Omaheke region. Any form of pollution or radioactive contamination could pose a risk to human beings, animals, their well-being, and means of subsistence.

Mining firms opt for In-Situ Leaching (ISL) due to reduced initial investment costs, lower capital expenditures, and decreased operational expenses. According to the EIA (page 82): “The utilization of ISL for uranium deposit development is the most cost-effective and lucrative approach.” This leads to higher profits for the mining companies. The assertion that there will be less environmental damage is largely a justification for the actual goal: maximizing profits for the mining company.

The idea that there is less environmental harm compared to open-pit or underground mining is largely based on the visual aspect: no waste piles, no visible excavation. What occurs beneath the surface during leaching mining remains hidden: out of sight – out of mind.

In reality, ISL—defined by the IAEA—is implemented in several countries, and there is a lengthy record of incidents: the WISE Uranium Project documents 80 spills between 2000 and 2024 at ISL mines, including leaks of leaching solutions, with or without uranium, both above ground and underground (referred to as 'excursions,' meaning the leaching acid seeps into areas where it shouldn't), leaking evaporation ponds, damaged yellow cake containers, workers exposed to spilled yellow cake, improper operational pressures and flow rates, and more.

Following the completion of the operation, it is anticipated that there will be a "Spontaneous Recovery of Groundwater Quality" over the course of 10 or 20 years (EIA p. 85). A 2009 study by the United States Geological Survey stated: “Up to now, no remediation of an ISR operation in the United States has effectively restored the aquifer to its original conditions.” (Statement by Susan Hall and J.K. Otton, International Symposium on Uranium Raw Material for the Nuclear Fuel Cycle: Exploration, Mining, Production, Supply and Demand, Economics and Environmental Issues (URAM-2009)).

In the region that is now the Czech Republic, uranium was extracted using in-situ leaching; the country has been dealing with the resulting cleanup since 1995 – and it is still ongoing.

At the same time, the Czech government chose to release the extra billions required to address the effects of chemical uranium mining [ISL] in theStráž pod Ralskemarea, which has already cost over 34 billion Crowns [US$1.48 billion]. The projected total funding requirement for the next five years, 2023–2027, is expected to exceed 8 billion Crowns [US$350 million] in this area.” (WISE Uranium Project,https://www.wise-uranium.org/udeur.html#CZGEN)

If you plan to invest millions and billions in cleaning up after ISL – feel free; if you're looking for genuine, long-term development, take a different approach.

In "A New Kind of Mine..." the writer highlights that children have recently been admitted to hospitals because of malnutrition. Will a uranium mine provide them with food? No, the mine will not produce any food.

It could generate employment for parents to purchase food for their children – but why go through the lengthy process of uranium, mining, possible jobs – and income that might be earned? Why not grow food domestically for undernourished children? It seems odd to involve a company from another country, to extract a mineral for an industry located far away, and to rely on income from this. Especially when the water is right beneath your feet.

Let's trace the path that uranium follows: There are only two applications for uranium: it is used in nuclear power stations; once utilized as fuel in these facilities, uranium becomes nuclear waste – an issue that the industry and governments have been attempting to address for the last 50 years – with limited success. Moreover, the cost of uranium experiences sharp increases over a short period, followed by prolonged declines – and local economies fluctuate accordingly with these price changes. Is this considered stable growth?

Another application of uranium is in the production of nuclear weapons.

In reality, mining activities, particularly those involving uranium, rarely result in sustained growth, employment opportunities, or expansion into different industries.

Consider Uranium City, Saskatchewan, Canada: A town that emerged due to uranium discoveries and mining during the 1950s and 1960s, housing up to 2,500 employees in a newly constructed community for a brief period; later, the price of uranium—artificially maintained by a cartel—plummeted. Hundreds of workers departed the town almost immediately. From then on, the town has been gradually deteriorating, with fewer than 100 residents remaining. There has been no long-term growth.

Consider Uravan, a town located in Colorado, USA: it was established due to the extraction of uranium and vanadium (which is why it bears its name). The town expanded during the 1950s for several years. Uranium mining led to pollution of the area and affected numerous workers and residents. By the 1980s, the price of uranium fell, causing the mining operations to stop, and the town was shut down because of contamination: the 800 residents were forced to relocate. The structures, including the town hall, were demolished due to radioactive and harmful pollution.

Now, only a pile of gravel is left. There is no long-term plan. Instead, the government had to allocate millions of dollars to clean up the area.

Check out Africa: Niger. A state-owned French firm, AREVA, which is now known as ORANO, began extracting uranium in the 1970s. The company established a town in the middle of the desert called Arlit. It experienced a brief period of success; however, when the price of uranium dropped, the town and its residents faced difficulties. Renowned African filmmaker Idrissou Mora-Kpai created the documentary “Arlit – deuxième Paris” ( "Arlit – the second Paris"; see:www.thegazelle.org/issue/172/opinion/arlit-deuxieme-paris-a-story-of-extractive-colonialism).

Afterward, individuals started to become ill. Niger, which was among the poorest nations globally as per the UN, remains one of the poorest countries in the world – despite the extraction of uranium valued at billions of Euros from its land. Long-term development? Industrial variety? Not at all.

Consider Gabon: The same French firm that operated in Niger also extracted uranium there. In addition to miners and their family members falling ill, the company refuses to provide compensation. The cleanup following the end of mining activities is inadequate. Development? There has been none.

The cost of uranium, which is prone to significant fluctuations, worsens the situation. The present high prices of uranium are a result of speculation in the uranium market and the misconception of a nuclear 'revival' that the industry has been promoting for almost twenty years. Reality tells another story: the number of nuclear power plants is not increasing; the newly operational nuclear power plants do not compensate for those that have been decommissioned.

The concept of balancing "ambition with caution" seems appealing. However, progress has not been achieved through uranium mining, as numerous cases demonstrate.

For any inquiries, don't hesitate to reach out to him atmail@uranium-network.org or g.wippel@mail.de