Search Documents

By Phillip I. Merritt

"IntroductionDuring and since• the war, it has been my privilege to work closely with those in Canada who are responsible for the vital raw materials needed in our co-operative atomic energy programme. The understanding which has developed between our two groups in this all-important enterprise has been a great source of pleasure. We in the United States are aware of the importance of the contribution made by Canada to this project, and we look forward to continuing our mutually advantageous relationship.The impact of World War II, and the decision by Canada, Great Britain, and the United States to join in a programme for the development of atomic weapons, created a sudden and immense demand for uranium minerals. Early in the raw materials programme, it was evident that sufficient raw materials to fulfill war-time atomic weapon requirements could be secured from three sources: the rich pitchblende deposits of the Eldorado , mine at Great Bear lake; the Shinkolobwe mine in the Belgian Congo; and as a by-product of the vanadium industry of the Colorado Plateau in the United States. In the early part of the programme, therefore, our joint efforts were directed toward obtaining immediate maximum production from these localities. The contribution made by Eldorado Mining and Refining (1944), Limited, both in supplying and refining raw materials, was and continues to be of vital importance.In addition, it was also obvious from the first that in this programme, as in any mining enterprise, exploration activities directed•toward the discovery and development of new sources of uranium ore were essential if production were to be maintained over an extended period of time. In order to satisfy obvious security requirements during the war, it was necessary to proceed with this exploration programme, both in Canada and the United States, as secretly as possible. With the end of the war, and the revelation that an atomic weapon had been developed, however, secrecy in exploration was no longer required. The important thing was to get on with a broadened exploration programme."

Jan 1, 1950

By C. R. Edwards

"Since the first commercial extraction of uranium in the early 1940s, the range of feasible process alternatives has greatly increased. This paper reviews process options to reduce extraction costs, improve efficiencies, effect safer operations, and lessen environmental impacts. Equipment and processes used in the past, in use now, and that could be considered for future use are described.BackgroundTwo billion years ago life on earth consisted solely of single celled creatures of the simplest design (Gould 1989). Incredible as it may seem, uranium fission reactors were operating then also. In what is now western Africa, a series of natural reactors were fueled by rich uranium deposits in contact with underground rivers. Water from the rivers provided the moderator necessary to sustain the nuclear fission chain reaction. These primordial reactors ran down after about 600 000 years (Ontario Hydro 1989).Because it is ubiquitous in the earth's crust, humans have always been in contact with uranium. Mining of uranium, albeit not intentional, is ancient ; uranium minerals were embedded in ore veins mined for metals such as silver and copper.Uranium was discovered in 1789 in Berlin by an apothecary, Martin Heinrich Klaproth, who named the element after the recently discovered planet Uranus. The metallic element uranium, as opposed to its compounds, was extracted in 1841 by the French chemist Eugene-Melchior Peligot. The atomic mass of uranium was calculated to be 120, but the Russian genius Dmitri Ivanovich Mendeleev (famous and welcome everywhere except in Russia, where his liberal politics were detested by the Tsar), found this did not fit into his periodic table, and submitted a value of 240. Mendeleev was close; the exact atomic mass is 238.029.Henri Becquerel's detection of the radioactivity of uranium in 1896excited scientific study of the metal, but virtually no practical use was found for uranium outside of a minimal consumption as a colouring agent for glass and ceramics. Scientific interest intensified in the 19305. In 1933 Leo Szilard patented the concept of the nuclear chain reaction. While walking to work on a fine fall London morning and mulling over the problem of how to release atomic energy, he was stopped by a red light. He stood in thought and conceived the notion of the neutron-activated chain reaction before the light turned green. The patent was filed in 1934, and Szilard assigned it to the British Admiralty in order to keep it secret, in an honourable but ultimately futile effort to prevent the misuse of science (Bronowski 1973)."

Jan 1, 1992

By A. H. Lang

"IntroductionMUCH PROSPECTING, exploration, and development work was done for uranium in Canada in 1952, chiefly in northern Saskatchewan and in the Great Bear Lake region of the northwest Territories. The outstanding feature of the year was the great amount of work done in preparing for production at the Ace mine of Eldorado Mining and Refining, Limited, in the Goldfields region . of Saskatchewan. Many private companies and prospectors were also active in this region. Most of the other parts of Canada where uranium has been found received less attention than during the last few years, partly because so much interest was taken in the Goldfields region.In presenting this short summary of the year's activities now, the writer is handicapped because the season is not yet over; some discoveries have probably not yet been announced, and there has not yet been time to digest the numerous reports that have been sent in by companies and prospectors. In any case it would be impossible to give details for most of the discoveries and properties, because that would require a long report, and because that information is classed as confidential until released by the discoverers and companies concerned. It is only possible, therefore, to give a few generalizations, a brief out-line of the activities in northern Saskatchewan, even briefer ,accounts of the work in other parts of the country, and a few details that property owners have informed the writer he may publish or that have already been published by the owners."

Jan 1, 1953

By Sunil S. Gandhi

"Uranium occurrences are widely distributed in tuffaceous-argillaceous beds and abundant rhyolitic volcanic rocks of the upper Aillik group, which is more than 3 km thick and over 125 km by 40 km in areal extent. They include partially developed Kitts and Michelin deposits, containing 1560 and 7366 t U respectively.Uranium occurs mainly as disseminated fine pitchblende grains in beds and lenticular stratabound zones, and rarely as coarse pitchblende aggregates and thin veinlets. The Kitts deposit and ten other occurrences are in the argillaceous-tuffaceous beds within a steeply dipping stratigraphic zone, less than 50 m thick and over 20 km long, at the base of the upper Aillik group. The occurrences hosted by the rhyolitic rocks, numbering over fifty and including the Michelin deposit, are in elongate structural-stratigraphic belts or zones, and are characterized by a pronounced enrichment of soda and depletion of potash associated with mineralization. The mineralized zones are affected to a varying degree by Hudsonian deformation, metamorphism and granitic intrusions.The uranium mineralization is interpreted as genetically related to the felsic volcanism, involving syngenetic deposition in argillaceous-tuffaceous beds and epigenetic emplacement in rhyolites. The volcanic activity occurred 1855 ± 5 Ma ago according to a preliminary U-Pb zircon date on porphyritic rhyolite. Pitchblendesfrom the Kitts and Michelin deposits and a few other occurrences in rhyolites have yielded nearly concordant dates in 1810 to 1730 Ma range. They reflect resetting of isotopic equilibrium at the time of Hudsonian deformation. Other isotopic data on pitchblendes and galena from veins and aggregates .in the south near the 'Grenville Front' indicate local redistribution of uranium and radiogenic lead at the time of Grenville Orogeny approximately 1100 Ma ago."

Jan 1, 1986

By Bill A. Hancock

In Situ leaching for the recovery of uranium from low grade sandstone deposits is one of the newest technological advances in the mineral industry. It is rapidly developing into a commercially feasible mining system which has economic, environmental, and social advantages over conventional mining systems. Because of the current uranium shortage, development of In Situ leaching into a sophisticated system has gained new impetus. In Situ leaching will become an important mining technique in the future, which will greatly help to supply uranium for our nation's energy heeds. In this paper, I will be giving an overview of the merits of the system, as well as the technology, problems, and research in solution mining of uranium.

Jan 1, 1977

By John B. Goddard

In-situ leaching of uranium by aqueous ammonium carbonate containing oxygen or hydrogen peroxide as oxidant results in the partial dissolution of sulfides. While some of the sulfide sulfur is oxidized to sulfate, a considerable portion is oxidized only to thiosulfate and polythionates. Polythionates poison the anion exchange resin used to extract uranium. At the Palangana operation in southeast Texas, the trithionate ion (S3062-) was found by infrared spectrometry to be the major resin poison. Treatment of ion exchange feed solutions with hydrogen peroxide only resulted in partial conversion of reduced sulfur species to sulfate, and trithionate conversion was particularly slow. Poisoning of the resin also occurred from the ammonium chloride eluant, which built up trithionate because of recycling. This was essentially eliminated by chlorinating the eluant prior to yellow cake precipitation.

Jan 1, 1984

By Peter Waggitt

Northern Australia has been home to uranium mining for over 70 years, more or less continuously. In the early days, post World War 2, there was little effort made to remediate workings at the end of operations. The three “campaigns” of uranium mining (1951-55; 1960-70; and 1979-present) are all now in various stages of remediation. This includes not only the large legacy site at Rum Jungle but also smaller fields like the South Alligator Valley, as well as contemporary works at Nabarlek and the ongoing closure at Ranger– Australia’s longest operating uranium mine. This paper briefly describes some of the past remediation activities before providing an update on the Ranger closure programme and future timetable.

Jan 1, 2020

By Ta M. Li, John D. Wiebmer

Record high prices, burgeoning exploration programs, mine-mill openings, and plant expansions have all characterized a dramatic: resurgence of the US uranium industry in recent years. But while the bull is leading the way on the production side of the nuclear fuel cycle, there is reason for caution from the end-users' viewpoint. How fast will electrical demand grow in the years to come, and what portion of that will nuclear generators supply? How do utilities play their cards when the government holds two of the largest jokers in the deck-a policy on spent fuel reprocessing and a timetable for the fast breeder reactor? Is there a shortfall in domestic uranium supplies on the horizon?

Jan 10, 1978

By J. Randel Hill

The 64th Texas Legislature passed the "Texas Surface Mining and Reclamation Act," Chapter 131, Texas Natural Resources Code (subsequently referred to as "the Act"), at a point in time when little surface mining had taken place within the state. Thus, enactment of regulatory control governing mining operations in our state has, for the most part, preceded widespread, intensive mining activity. I should point out that the statute applies only to the extraction of coal, lignite, uranium and uranium ore. A recent opinion rendered by the Attorney General's office has stated that extraction of the named elements, when it occurs incidental to the extraction of other materials, e.g., clay, is not not an activity subject to the Act. An important theme of the Act, frequently overlooked in other environmentally oriented legislation, is recognition of the Act's affect on the mining industry. The Act states that "the extraction of minerals by surface mining operations is a basic and essential activity making an important contribution to the economic well-being of the state and nation" and, in reference to reclamation being accomplished contemporaneously with mining, provides a recognition that "the extraction of minerals by responsible mining operations is an essential and beneficial economic activity." This legislative recognition is, of course balanced against the need for proper mined land reclamation, the rights of surface owners, the need to guard against unreasonable degradation to land and water resources and numerous other actions or events that the Legislature wanted protected. Another rather pervasive general theme that is established in the Act is the concept that the agency is entitled to obtain whatever information, or take whatever action, that appears reasonably necessary to effectuate the purposes of the Act. This concept, coupled with the detailed requirements placed on mining operations in the portions of the Act dealing with Permit Applications, Reclamation Plan and Reclamation Standards, easily insures that surface mining activities can and will be regulated to the extent necessary. Section 131.102(b)(2) is probably the most relevant provision in the Act which deals with the preclusion of mined lands becoming waste lands. This portion of the Act states that the surface mining operator shall: ". . . restore the land affected to the same or a substantially beneficial condition. ." In this language the Legislature had made it abundantly clear that the abandoned or orphaned lands found in some of the Eastern states, will not be tolerated in this State, and provided the Commission with a degree of latitude to determine what condition would be appropriate in each individual mining situation. I bring this area of the Act to your attention because it is the area which has received the most inquiries and concern by operators, i.e. what does "substantially beneficial" constitute? The Commission's staff has spent a considerable amount of time wrestling with the statutory language "substantially beneficial" to determine the legislative intent and provide operators with guidance of what they can expect. In this regard, the most definitive criteria in our opinion lies in the Act's legislative hsitory. The Legislature had before it basically three reclamation standards namely: House Bill 656, considered to provide the most stringent reclamation standard and identical to Senate Bill 66; House Bill 1717 which was supported by industry spokesmen and was considered to contain the least stringent reclamation standard; and Senate Bill 55 which was adopted by the Legislature. During the Bill's initial hearing before the House Environmental Affairs Committee, the House sponsor of the Senate Bill 55, which was the Bill eventually adopted, made the following statement: (I am quoting verbatim from the Committee's transcript although substituting the speaker's reference to the authors names with the Bill's numbers.) "An example of the differing approaches of the four bills can be seen in the area of reclamation standards and this is critical. House Bill 656, talking about restoring the surface of the land, House Bill 656 has this statement: 'At least fully capable of supporting the use to which it was capable of supporting prior to any mining or any higher or better use.' In other words you have to restore it to the level it was prior to the mining. Senate Bill 55: 'Restore the land to the same or substantially beneficial use.' Substantially beneficial use. (Emphasis his) House Bill 1717 says: 'Restore insofar as practical to appropriate beneficial post-mining use.' So that House Bill 1717 said to, 'restore insofar as practical to appropriate beneficial use. I think that's too weak, whereas I think the House Bill 656 that would call you to restore it to at least the use it had prior to the mining may also be too tight the other way. I think the Senate Bill 55 approach is down the middle of the road which says that you do restore it to the 'same or substantially beneficial use,' is a proper way to go there." Therefore, the conclusion that we have drawn from the legislative history of the bill is that the extent of reclamation required by "substantially beneficial" may be something other than the use it was prior to

Jan 1, 1979

By Paul Basinski

The Northern Reese River Valley is in west-central Lander County approximately 31 miles north of Austin, Nevada in the north-central Basin and Range Province (Figure 1). Authigenic zeolites, which were previously undescribed in the literature, are voluminous in this small sedimentary basin. Uranium mineralization is also abundant in this study area. Until now, what we believe to be cause and effect have not been put together. X-ray diffraction, differential thermal analysis, and scanning electron microscopy reveal clinoptilolite, erionite, analcime, and minor chabazite to be present (Figures 2, 3). Assays show uranium to be present in thicknesses up to 0.7 meters at amounts up to 0.10% eU308. The sediments in the Northern Reese River Valley belong to the Mio-Pliocene Humboldt Formation equivalents. This formation consists largely of tuffacious lacustrine and fluviatile sedimentary rocks. Mudstone is the dominant lithology and intercalated thin zeolite strata (usually less than 0.6 meter thick) are present. Zeolites in the Northern Reese River Valley were diagenetically derived from rhyolitic glass deposited in a shallow, saline-alkaline lake under arid to semi-arid conditions. Clinoptilolite from the study area was K-Ar dated at approximately 4.7 + 0.5 million years which corresponds to Middle Pliocene age (Krueger and Basinski, in press). This age is further substantiated by Middle Pliocene mammalian fauna collected in the vicinity by Deffeyes (1).

Jan 1, 1979

By Wi11iam M. Leaders

Uranium Recovery Corporation was incorporated in the State of Florida in 1968 for the sole purpose of developing a method to economically recover uranium from Florida phosphoric acid. The preliminary laboratory work culminated in the demonstration of the process to United Nuclear Corporation in the spring of 1971. This was quickly followed by a pilot plant program to identify any unusual problems such as those arising from the day-to-day variation which occurs in a fertilizer phosphoric acid plant production system. After two years of pilot plant operation, United Nuclear Corporation purchased controlling interest in Uranium Recovery Corporation and committed several million dollars to the design and construction of the first commercial plant for this purpose in the State of Florida, or anywhere else in the United States, for that matter. After many start-up problems were resolved at the production plant located at the W. R. Grace fertilizer complex near Bartow, sustained production began March, 1971, and has continued to date. We still have some problems to solve but are currently producing sufficient uranium to make shipments to the UF6 converters for preparation of Florida uranium for use in nuclear power plant fuel materials.

Jan 1, 1978

By N. C. J. Dempers, J. A. L. Parker, R. A. Wildenboer

More than half of global cobalt reserves are located in the Southern African Copperbelt, stretching over the northern tip of Zambia and southern area of the Democratic Republic of Congo. In these areas, cobalt is not typically produced as a primary product but as a byproduct of copper production. Ores from this region often contain uranium, which is readily leached under typical copper leach conditions and enters the process. Uranium does not pose a challenge to copper production, but it becomes a significant problem when it follows cobalt to the cobalt precipitation process and results in unacceptably high levels of U in the final Co product. This paper evaluates the existing process technologies that can be used to remove uranium from cobalt-bearing process streams, including phosphate precipitation and ion exchange. Advantages and disadvantages of the uranium removal processes are discussed, and important design considerations are highlighted.

Jan 1, 2023

By Lynn C. Jacobsen

Among the unforeseen consequences of the 1973 Arab oil embargo has been a considerable array of new or increased taxes on the so-called energy minerals. These taxes will be the subject of this report. Both Federal and State taxes have been enacted, but I will be concerned mostly with state severance taxes and particularly those on uranium. Severance taxes are considered to include all taxes having the distinctive feature of being applied on a natural resource at the stage of extraction. The tax may be based on units of production or on value, and if on values it may be on gross value or on gross value less either arbitrary or cost-related deductions. The tax has a number of aliases - resource excise tax, conservation tax, privilege tax, mining excise tax, ad valorem production tax, and more - and this makes comparison of tax burdens among states difficult. The windfall profit tax on oil is an example of a severance tax at the Federal level. Severance taxes are an established feature of state tax systems, but they continue to be a controversial issue, and proposals to raise or modify existing severance taxes are regularly submitted to the legislatures of the Western energy producing states. No concensus exists as to what is a reason- able and proper level of severance taxation or to the form it should take. The taxes which have been adopted by the various states reflect the interaction of a variety of interests and the specific circum- stances in each state. What follows is a summary of theoretical, practical, and emotional viewpoints and arguments that surface in any statehouse in which a severance tax bill has been introduced. The New Mexico experience will be heavily relied upon. THE ECONOMISTS Marginal effects. A severance tax which is based on a gross percentage of revenue or on units of production is a constant addition to variable costs, and to the mine operator has the same effect as any other increase in operating costs. The direction of these effects is straightforward: the tax will cause the property to have a lowered present value, to be mined at a lower rate than without the tax, raise the minimum grade that will be mined, lead to lower total recovery, make marginal properties sub-marginal and discriminate in favor of richer, more profitable operations (Lockner, 1965; Steele, 1967). In the short run, production facilities are fixed and imposition of a severance tax will have little effect on production levels. In the longer term, capital is mobile and investment and exploration expenditures will shift from minerals and jurisdictions with high taxes to those with low taxes. Over a considerable range of taxation the effect will be to change the relative position of the taxing state, but an overly optimistic evaluation of the capacity of mineral producers to absorb a tax can bring an industry to a halt. It is generally acknowledged that imposition of high severance taxes on taconite in Minnesota stopped development completely, and that only the adoption of a constitutional amendment limiting the amount of taxes that could be imposed in the future brought the firms back and encouraged them to make the huge investments required (Weaton, 1969). A tax which is a percentage of the net operating income (gross revenue less cash operating costs) does not influence the cut-off grade for recovery nor change the time preference for extraction, and hence, is free of the negative features of the tax applied to gross revenues or units of production. In theory it is a more efficient tax but relative administrative complexity and inherent difficulty in predicting revenue have discouraged its use. The Wyoming severance tax on uranium, which uses grade of ore as well as price in establishing taxable value, is the most cost related, and hence, the most neutral and efficient of the various state severance taxes on uranium. Economic rent. Despite the discrimination and the anti-conservation aspect inherent in most severance taxes, economists generally endorse their use because they are seen as a vehicle to appropriate rents - that is, returns greater than the long-run competitive supply price. Conspicuous examples of supposed economic rents are the returns to oil producers because of the OPEC cartel, the returns of the uranium producers under AEC buying contracts in the 19501s, and the high prices obtained by the uranium producers for contracts entered into in the 1976-1979 period. Mining of coal in the Western states is believed by some to generate huge economic rents because of the OPEC caused increase in price of a competitive fuel (McLure, 1978, p. 261), and possibly because of clean air regulations favoring the burning of low-sulfur coal. In theory, such surplus returns could be taxed completely away without affecting supply. In practice, the situation is more complex (Steele, 1967, pp. 234-236); economic rent of mineral production is an elusive quantity involving as it does replacement costs, and technical and market risk, and it, like beauty or pornography, probably exists mostly in the eye of the beholder. Rent may also be perceived to be present in the upper portion of a cyclic market which also has a downside. Where rent exists, it is almost certain to be short-lived - cartels self- destruct, government subsidies end, competitive adjustments occur - but the taxes imposed to capture it tend to be immortal. There is little doubt that the perception of un- usual and undeserved (obscene) profits in the mid- and late 1970's was a major factor in the adoption of energy mineral taxes strikingly higher than had been previously considered. At the New Mexico legislature of 1977 supporters of a moderate tax were repeatedly confronted with some variant of the statement, "You can't expect me to believe that a

Jan 1, 1982

By Michael Davis

In the fairly recent past, with a history of cheap and abundant energy, it has been possible to predict with reasonable confidence that world energy demand would continue to double about every 15 years. Those who attempted to forecast the role of nuclear energy in future electricity generation could also start with the fairly safe assumption that electricity demand would increase even faster : with a doubling in demand about every 10 years. To estimate the likely future world demand for uranium it was then necessary to introduce a number of other assumptions including the rate of penetration of nuclear energy, the timing and the specific fuel requirements. This series of assumptions naturally compounded the uncertainty, but, remarkably, usually led to future uranium demands being overestimated. Such a bias which has almost always been observed in predictions made over the past 20 years has increasingly made uranium producers sceptical when expected to match the forecast demand with increased production capacity and supporting reserves. This scepticism has, of course, been reinforced by the persistence so far of a buyers' market in uranium throughout the entire period of emergence of commercial nuclear electricity generation.

Jan 1, 1974

By Edward S. Bell, Frank Angebrandt

"Nuclear reactors must have very large heat outputs to compete with conventional sources and the only feasible applications are in the production of electric power or large quantities of process steam. This paper considers alternative fuels for electric power generation in Canada. In a publicly owned utility, nuclear stations are economic for base-load generation for unit sizes of 500 mega• watts or larger where competitive fossil fuel costs are higher than about 30 cents per million Btu. In British Columbia, Alberta and Saskatchewan, fossil fuels will continue to be in adequate supply at costs lower than 30 cents per million Btu and thus, except for the special case of Vancouver Island, power generation in Western Canada will continue to be the hydraulic and conventional thermal type. In Eastern Canada, fossil fuel prices are likely to be higher than 30 cents per million Btu and most utilities will be able to install units of 500 mw or larger, so that nuclear power plants will provide much of the base-load generation required. Base-load generation comprises about two-thirds of the energy generated by power utilities. By 1990, the total annual electrical energy load will be over 600 billion kwh, with two-thirds of this load in Eastern Canada. Allowing for additional hydraulic resources which may be developed in Quebec, British Columbia and Manitoba, hydraulic generation is forecast to provide a little more than a third of this electrical energy, nuclear generation a third and fossil-fuelled generation about a quarter."

Jan 1, 1969

By Jim Pae Lem

This study investigates the mode of occurrence of uranium in a copper concentrate from the Prominent Hill mine. Mineralogical and liberation studies of a high grade Cu concentrate (monthly composite) containing uranium (U) were undertaken using QEM-Scan in combination with QXRD and ICP-MS. The study aimed at determining in what form U was recovered, and by which mechanisms. The deportment of U was studied in 3 size fractions; +20µm, -20+8µm and -8µm. QEM-Scan analysis showed that uranium was present as U(Cu)-silicates, U-silicates, UPbOx/FeOx or traces of UThOx and UTiOx, with the U-silicates present across the size fractions. The association of uranium bearing minerals with copper sulphides varied across the size ranges. Interestingly, most of the U (46% by weight) was distributed in the finest fraction (-8µm), in which the deportment of Cu was low (6%). Over 40% of the U mineralisation in the -8µm was liberated. In terms of the floatation response, while recovery of the uranium minerals as a result of their association with copper sulphides (as composite particles) was evident, recovery of UPbOx locked in hydrophilic haematite in the +20µm size fraction suggests, that other mechanisms (e.g. Inadvertent activation by Pb from radioactive U decay) are possible. Furthermore, the high amount of fine liberated U bearing particles in the concentrate points at entrainment as another major mechanism for uranium recovery, and therefore, a target for process optimisation.

Sep 1, 2012

By Louise Corriveau, Bronwyn Azar, Valerie A. Jackson, Luke Ootes, Jeff Harris

We use the results of new bedrock mapping, combined with geochemical point data and airborne radiometric data (in particular equivalent uranium concentrations) to help determine which geological units in the Paleoproterozoic Great Bear magmatic zone (GBmz) contain elevated uranium. The data collectively indicate that the highest primary uranium concentrations are in equigranular granites and subvolcanic/volcanic porphyries. Notably, these rocks host the majority of known uranium-bearing deposits and/or prospects in the GBmz. We speculate that the uranium in these deposits/prospects was derived from nearby, uranium-enriched rocks and was mobilized by much younger, circulating hydrothermal fluids. Sedimentary rocks of the Thelon and Dismal Lakes groups unconformably overlie the GBmz and are known to host unconformity-type and sandstone-hosted uranium prospects. Most likely, the uraniumenriched rocks of the GBmz acted as a uranium donor to these overlying sedimentary basins. The method of investigation employed in this study may be applicable to other ‘granitic’ terrains in order to identify regions with favourable rocks for uranium exploration.

Jan 1, 2013

By George White

On June 25, 1876 Lt. Colonel George Armstrong Custer led the Seventh U.S. Cavalry Regiment., comprising 31 officers and 637 enlisted men, into the valley of the Little Big Horn River in southern Montana. His assigned mission was a reconnaissance-in- force to locate the Indians reported to be assemblying in that area. Custer was extremely successful in locating the Indians. Unfortunately he located more than 3000 Cheyenne and Sioux under the leadership of the great war chiefs Crazy Horse and Gall. Custer's entire battalion of more than 200 men was annihilated; there were no survivors. While I don't seriously suggest that things will be all that bad in the uranium industry, I do suggest that some very fundamental changes have occurred in the uranium market. Conventional thinking based on past truths will no longer suffice. Geology, economics, politics, nuclear growth pat terns, technology, and utility attitudes have all changed. New thinking is in order. It is at this point that I would offer my usual disclaimer. My views regarding the future are simply that--my personal views. My belief that certain events will come to pass does not mean I view those events as appropriate, wise, good, equitable, or economic.

Jan 1, 1985

By James F. Fraser

Construction of a major linear project in any environment is difficult, at best. Construction of a major linear project which includes major subway elements, both cut and cover and tunneling, in the center of an urban environment, approaches the impossible. I believe such a project would be impossible for a private company or a privately owned utility for a variety of reasons. The major two reasons are the funding necessary for such massive projects and the myriad of individual interests associated with private ownership of land. Such projects are possible in the public sector only because the need for the project... as is the case with mass transportation in Atlanta. . .overrides the profit motive. Without the profit motive, private companies, whether utilities or not, are precluded from practical interest in the development of any project. While it is safe to conclude that a profit-oriented business would have no practical interest in developing such massive projects as may include major tunnels, it would be useful, I think, to compare some of the significant differences between private profit-oriented businesses, and an agency, or Authority, such as MARTA, in building a major linear project. SLIDE 1. Comparison of a Private Company and a Public Agency [Item Private Company Public Agency Simplified To make a profit To provide a pre Purpose scribed service]

Jan 1, 1979

By Patrick B. Kenny

Generally speaking, it is safe to address this conference as a conclave of Engineers, Owners' Agents, Governmental Representatives, and Contractors. As a group, we have assembled here to learn of our compatriots engaged in similiar underground operations throughout the United States and the World. We are here to learn of improved methods, higher technology, and better management. Through the acquisition of this knowledge, we each hope we can improve our own particular services, products and projects. This session is dedicated to a discussion of "Costs". The most apparent reason for a discussion of costs at this level is to expose subjects affecting costs and propose methods to reduce them. From that premise a contractor can identify three areas of discussion: design considerations, contract considerations, and governmental considerations. A fourth area of consideration is an introspective view of the contractor's role in the design construct process. Unnecessary costs and risks attributable to these areas are contributing excessively to ever increasing project and system costs. DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS On April 20, 1977 the Metropolitan Sanitary District of Greater Chicago accepted proposals for the Tunnel and Reservoir Plan on Contract A and Contract B. This letting called for construction of over 33 km (21 miles) of the Mainstream Tunnel bored at 9.75 m (32 ft) to 10.67 m (35 ft.) in diameter. Also included were all the appurtenant collecting and regulating structures. The proposal allowed the

Jan 1, 1979