Talk:Uranium mining

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 14 January 2021 and 11 April 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): ShanPitt. Peer reviewers: JazChapman, Mickinahan.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 12:09, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Plagiarism

Both sections, "Rise, stagnation and renaissance of uranium mining" and "Risks of uranium mining" are plagiarised from this source: www.australianuranium.com.au/about-uranium.html This desperately needs at least paraphrasing, as plagiarism is not permissible. Trappleton 04:42, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

--I have removed the offending material. Trappleton 05:23, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Huh? Quote that link: "This article is licensed under the GNU Free Documentation License. It uses material from the Wikipedia article on Uranium." Femto 13:52, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Wow, insert foot in mouth. Thanks for catching that, and the revert. Trappleton 08:46, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Also, www.australianuranium.com.au is part of a linkspam operation and as such cannot be considered a reliable source. See www.intaanetto.com/our-domains.html. Moondyne (talk) 01:20, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Mine Locations

I added South Dakota to the list of States with former Uranium mining operations. Sbednar 15:46, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Why is the US split into states when it is no longer a significant supplier of uranium? This article comes off as very Americo-centric just from its table of contents.

US is split into states for the convenience of readers interested in uranium mining activity in a particular area. The cure for the article appearing Americo-centric would be for you to add more detail to uranium mining in other countries. Plazak 13:33, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Why is Kazakhstan mentioned twice in the "mine location" section? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.165.177.65 (talk) 13:03, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

In the History section, the following sentence: "From 2000 the new Canadian mines increased it again, and with Olympic Dam it is now 37%" implies the Olympic Dam mine is in Canada. It is in Australia152.120.54.57 (talk) 14:23, 29 December 2014 (UTC).

Uranium Extraction via Coal Gasification?

I recall once reading that coal gasification allows not just for non-coal impurities such as arsenic, lead, and mercury to be separated from the coal, but sold for a profit. What is normally a contaminant becomes valuable. A liability becomes an asset. Uranium concentrations in coal are similar to those other elements, so is coal gasification a viable method of uranium extraction? Google searches turn up nothing, suggesting it isn't, but surely there must be some uranium extracted, suggesting that it could be used, though not economical enough alone to be the impetus for coal gasification, just a side benefit. It's funny, when it comes to electrical power generation, coal and uranium are traditionally thought of as competitors, but they may compliment each other if coal uranium extraction is possible. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.254.112.31 (talk) 16:47, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

hello! im reading a book by Laznicka "giant metallic deposits: future sources of industrial metals" and he says something like there are two ways to get metals from coal, 1) those seperable during mining (like pyrite) and 2) when the conc. of metals in coal is economical enough to remove the ore for the metals and not the coal. im pretty sure this is how the uranium in the 60's in some soviet, czech and east german mines were taken... i think its "command economy" when the demand for U was greater than Coal ... is that helpful?

SimonBloomberg (talk) 04:07, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Where is Asia?

Asia (except India) is not in this article, but mines uranium, while every other continent is represented. And seeing that Kazakhstan has a quarter of the world's unranium supply, I think it's a gigantic omission. Quick Source http://www.internationalspecialreports.com/ciscentralasia/99/kazakhstan/7.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.156.166.62 (talk) 17:31, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

If you have easy access to this info, please feel free to add sections related to those countries. Turgan (talk) 01:34, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Suggestion: Map of uranium mining locations

A graphical map would be ideal to display the (strategic) locations of Uranium mines in the world. 130.89.165.44 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 09:47, 10 February 2011 (UTC).

Merge with List of uranium mines

I think that this page needs to be merged with the List of uranium mines which is in a table instead of a list. -- eiland (talk) 10:14, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Propose adding mention of National Research Council report on Uranium Mining in Virginia, USA

I'd like to add the following text that describes a recent National Research Council report that looked at uranium mining in Virginia:

In February 2010, the Commonwealth of Virginia contracted the National Research Council and Virginia Polytechnic Institute to oversee a National Research Council study of potential environmental and economic effects of uranium mining in Virginia. The National Research Council study, funded indirectly by a $1.4 million grant from Virginia Uranium to the Commonwealth, resulted in a report released in December 2011. Uranium mining and processing carries with it a range of potential health risks to the people who work in or live near uranium mining and processing facilities. Some of these health risks apply to any type of hard rock mining or other large-scale industrial activity, but others are linked to exposure to radioactive materials. In addition, uranium mining has the potential to impact water, soil, and air quality, with the degree of impact depending on site-specific conditions, how early a contaminant release is detected by monitoring systems, and the effectiveness of mitigation steps.

Some of the worker and public health risks could be mitigated or better controlled through modern internationally accepted best practices, the report says. In addition, if uranium mining, processing, and reclamation were designed, constructed, operated, and monitored according to best practices, near- to moderate-term environmental effects should be substantially reduced, the report found. [58]

However, the report noted that Virginia’s high water table and heavy rainfall differed from other parts of the United States — typically dry, Western states — where uranium mining has taken place. Consequently, federal agencies have little experience developing and applying laws and regulations in locations with abundant rainfall and groundwater, such as Virginia. Because of Virginia’s moratorium on uranium mining, it has not been necessary for the Commonwealth’s agencies to develop a regulatory program that is applicable to uranium mining, processing, and reclamation.

The report also noted the long-term environmental risks of uranium tailings, the solid waste left after processing. Tailings disposal sites represent potential sources of contamination for thousands of years. While it is likely that tailings impoundment sites would be safe for at least 200 years if designed and built according to modern best practices, the long-term risks of radioactive contaminant release are unknown.

The report’s authoring committee was not asked to recommend whether uranium mining should be permitted, or to consider the potential benefits to the state were uranium mining to be pursued. It also was not asked to compare the relative risks of uranium mining to the mining of other fuels such as coal.

Does this look OK? Earlgrey101 (talk) 17:48, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Cited source uses manufactured quote to underpin argument

The final two statements in the article introduction are supported using a citation from an anti-nuclear campaigner; this campaigner in turn uses what strongly appears to be a quote manufactured by misrepresenting the content of an interview of John Borshoff, an 'unofficial' transcript of which is located here: http://www.abc.net.au/insidebusiness/content/2006/s1606504.htm

The article cited does not produce sources to back its claim that low uranium prices are leading mines to seek out countries with weak governance. In fact, uranium mines often have unusual oversight and worker protection compared to other extractive industries, as detailed in this academic article by an anti-nuclear Professor of Technology Studies at University of Michigan: http://www-personal.umich.edu/~hechtg/articles/HechtJAH11.pdf

In the period 2010-2013, the four primary uranium-producing countries of Africa (South Africa, Malawi, Namibia, and Niger) produced the following share of globally mined uranium: 18.5% (2010), 16.9% (2011), 18.4% (2012), 17.6% (2013), with data available here: http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/Nuclear-Fuel-Cycle/Mining-of-Uranium/World-Uranium-Mining-Production/

This indicates no clear pattern, and certainly does not support the assertion that "uranium companies worldwide are reducing costs, cutting corners, and limiting operations" and that "[uranium companies worldwide] are now looking more to traditional areas of low costs and poor governance (such as Africa) as the location for any new uranium mines". Perhaps this is true; however, the biased source cited does not make this argument convincingly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.118.48.120 (talk) 22:09, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

reports of pitchblende 1763 in Schwarzwald

I highly suspect that this means one of several small towns in the Erzgebirge of Thuringia and not the Black Forest, therefore I'm removing the Link to Schwarzwald. Maybe someone can check with the quoted source... --12:04, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Uranium mining. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20081122042631/http://www.stormsmith.nl/report20071013/partD.pdf to http://www.stormsmith.nl/report20071013/partD.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 04:31, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Yield?

I came here to learn about uranium yield from typical ores but found nothing. What is known about yield? Vaughan Pratt (talk) 19:15, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

From seawater

The Indian Institute of Science Education and Research (IISER), Pune, attempted to extract uranium from seawater. Their attempts were successful and the findings were published in the journal Energy & Environmental Science by the Royal Society of Chemistry. (source: indiatoday.in) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.38.88.7 (talk) 18:46, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

Feel free to edit the article Chidgk1 (talk) 19:11, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

Mining in Pollution?

Sorry, but why is mining in the main article pollution? Almost looks like a negative framing. Why wouldn't you call it resource extraction to use a more neutral phrase? I'm very sorry, I often donate to Wikipedia and read so much on it, but it seems to me Wikipedia gets more and more left leaning vibes, I would like for Wikipedia to be as objective as possible.

Also, Uranium mining is very much needed to decrease air pollution and CO2 reduction, so then how can be more pollution cause less pollution?

Might call it entropy. Elyos92 (talk) 15:54, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

Feel free to edit the article Chidgk1 (talk) 19:09, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

deleted Chidgk1 (talk) 16:15, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

Merger proposal

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

There did not seem to be strong opinions either way from the 2 other editors who commented so I am going to go ahead and merge. Chidgk1 (talk) 14:25, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

---

I propose merging Peak uranium as that is such a niche topic it does not deserve its own article. Chidgk1 (talk) 19:13, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

We can definitely start moving some text. Most of the content in peak uranium should be in this article instead. After moving the relevant text, we can have a better idea of how much content specific to peak uranium is left. --Ita140188 (talk) 09:56, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

If you wish to move text before deciding whether you support or oppose this merge then great go ahead Chidgk1 (talk) 17:02, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

I am not entirely convinced a merge helps -- in that "peak x" around minerals and resources is a really common rhetorical issue in policy and academic analysis -- and maintaining a subpage for that kind of analysis in particular makes a lot of sense to me for most topics, Sadads (talk) 15:47, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

I think these days “peak x” is about a peak in demand for x rather than a peak in supply. The Peak uranium article says little about when or why or at what level nuclear uranium fission power will peak. So I suspect after merging most of the content could be deleted or severely summarized. As it is I suspect it is almost useless to readers as it is so long and waffling. I understand the problem with uranium supply to US and Europe these days is replacing Russia as a supplier not any kind of “peak” in overall supply. So I suspect at least 90% of the article is out of date. Chidgk1 (talk) 18:19, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

@Ita140188: @Sadads: I should close this one way or the other so please could you both (and anyone else interested} let me know whether you now support or oppose this merger - thanks Chidgk1 (talk) 11:14, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

@Chidgk1: How is this discussion resulting in a merge? All opinions seemed to favor changes before a final decision. This should have been closed with no consensus (which means no merge) --Ita140188 (talk) 16:30, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

@Ita140188: I was just trying to tidy up this encyclopedia a little after I came across this article by chance as I believe "peak uranium" is a waste of reader's time. Feel free to rollback everything if you wish and I won't look at this article any more as I am not that interested in it. Chidgk1 (talk) 16:47, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

That's not really nice though, now we have a Uranium mining article which has a huge amount of duplicated material and is so messy to be almost unreadable. Unfortunately I don't have time to rollback all the changes which is not trivial without creating more problems. We could have worked first on removing duplication here over time without polluting the Uranium mining article. Ita140188 (talk) 17:11, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

You are correct that “We could have worked first on removing duplication here over time without polluting the Uranium mining article.” but I do not want to spend time doing that.

It should not take you more than 5 minutes if you want to rollback. Just go to the versions of the pages and talk pages before I started and click “restore this version”. Then I will go away and not edit any uranium articles.

I do accept your point that this article now contains a lot of duplication and excess detail. But if you don’t rollback I think it is more likely that will be removed in future than if it had stayed in its own article. From https://www.spglobal.com/marketintelligence/en/news-insights/latest-news-headlines/nuclear-revival-buoys-uranium-sector-but-new-mines-not-on-horizon-72602064 it seems that miners are waiting to see what happens in Russia and Kazakstan before deciding whether to invest in new mines. Once that becomes clearer perhaps more editors will edit this article. My totally unexpert uninformed guess is that Russia will lose influence over Uranium mining in Kazakhstan so “peak uranium” will become even less of a thing Chidgk1 (talk) 17:41, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

Merger proposal

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Not merged as no consensus

---

@Flor WMCH, Sadads, Alexmar983, Chongkian, and Ita140188: I propose merging Uranium mining debate into Uranium mining. I think the content in Uranium mining debate can easily be explained in the context of Uranium mining, and a merger would not cause any article-size or weighting problems in Uranium mining.Chidgk1 (talk) 14:16, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

Oppose for now. We need to first cleanup the articles before considering further merging. I am also planning to split the peak uranium section again from this article. As long as a topic is well-defined and there is enough information, it's better to have a separate article rather than having a huge article with everything inside, which is difficult to read and maintain. --Ita140188 (talk) 15:41, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

@Ita140188: Please put your proposal to split in a new talk section otherwise comments will get confused with this merge proposal thanks Chidgk1 (talk) 19:39, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

Support these debate and controversy articles are just content forks that push all the social issues into another article that no one ever reads. Compare the pageviews: this article gets 300 views/day and Uranium mining debate gets seven. I'm not even sure it was linked in this article until today. Larataguera (talk) 04:55, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.