Starvid wrote:Of course not. The problem is that the "heretics" aren't producing any data (beyond the imho faulty EWG report). That's not the fact when dealing with peak oil, where the peakers are the ones who supply data.
And seriously, if oil reserves had grown 50 % in 2003-2005 I wouldn't worry about peak oil either.
The problem is, there are little facts in the field. The whole situation looks like a stalemate.
a) de facto uranium production falls (2006 less than 2005 if I get this right, and 2007 looks like it was less than 2006), but reserves grow into zillions. Of which, nota bene!, only 4.7 million ton are considered "real" and not "estimated".
b) we need extra 20 000 tons to replace secondary supplies, and thats a 50% increase of current production, but what we hear from mine operators is thing like with Roessing: "increase from 3711 up to 4000 over several years" - nowhere near 50%. And if you consider the new plants being built - the reality (even PLANNED) does not come near the "nuclear future".
That is the problem. There is little facts about the concrete hard numbers. There is a list of mines _planning_to_expand_operation. But the published numbers are not as marvellous as some would like to believe. When I read 3711 to 4000 ton increase I see "scratching for last bits of uranium" and not "mining the plentiful resource of which there are billion tons".
Anyway: nuclear plants run on real uranium, not on "planned" uranium. Planned mines tend to go Cigar Lake way which is still "planning".
If we want nuclear power grow say 10% a year, we will need a yearly 10% increase either in uran production, or in SWU capacity (or both so that we could leave less tails).
And when the people say: Look, the price has been high for two years now, and the industry has 15 years of lead time, so today is the freakin good day to see some numbers, there is a list of uranium mines "planning to expand capacity".
This all makes people draw their own conclusions.
And I once again ask for some real number on real production increases. I understand that all mines in the world are planning to expand capacity. Like Cigar Lake for example. What we lack are hard numbers on those increases. If we increase from 45 000 tons a year to 45005 tons a year, this is also an increase, right?
growing prices but falling production?
Or this one
BHP Billiton is reviewing plans to substantially expand production at the Olympic Dam mine and in August 2005 commenced an environmental assessment of the $5 billion project.
The company expects to spend about two years undertaking both analysis of the proposed expansion and public consultation, before deciding whether to proceed.
If BHP Billiton does commit to the expansion, substantially higher uranium oxide production, of up to 15,000 tonnes (depending on the final shape of the project) will result. However, output is unlikely to become available until near the end of the outlook period. "
Reading between the lines can be nice. They first assess whether they should assess the project. after that they assess the project. And after that, more likely in 2030 they will ... ta da... produce MAYBE 15000 ton.
If the whole industry works this way (which it does) then there is little hope (to say in australian: NO EFFING WAY )that uranium production will be increased to 67000 before the secondary supplies run out.
From the same text:
Despite very large price rises, world uranium production has responded only slowly, reflecting the long lead-time required to either expand existing operations or bring new developments on stream. However, world uranium output is expected to expand solidly from 2008 onwards, easing concerns over the adequacy of supplies and pulling back spot prices.
EXPAND SOLIDLY... In an industry with lead times of 10-15 years the production in one year should be "predictable". It is not like there will be a ...oops... random mine conjured out of thin air in 2008. No, the 2008 production should have been known 2007 already - but instead we get an "EXPAND SOLIDLY".
this is also a clue - which everybody can interpret the way he/she likes.
http://www.abareconomics.com/interactiv ... ranium.htm
2007 - 51000 tons
2008 - 60000 tons.
Are there 2007 data ready to verify that claim?
There is no knowledge that is not power.