The previous technical considerations demonstrate how technology variations can extend the amount of United States uranium resources which are recover-able by in-situ mining methods. The question remains whether these re-sources are competitive in today's world markets and how their competitive position can be improved.
There are two types of players in the uranium supply side of the energy equation, those being United States producers competing for sales on domes-tic and foreign markets and foreign interests seeking primarily to acquire and perhaps develop resources for home consumption. Referring to Figure 10, about 33 percent of the 1987 potential producers in the United States are foreign holdings.
The attractiveness of United States-based resources for foreign countries is a) political stability, b) minimal government constraints on export, c) no government requirements for part domestic ownership, and d) no
produc-PEAK-1981
• 57 COMPANIES
• 8 ISL
• 0 FOREIGN
CURRENT- 1987
• 14 COMPANIES
•4 ISL
• 1 FOREIGN ' 9 COMPANIES
1 3 FOREIGN
ISL COMPANIES
WITH CONTRACT COMMITMENTS
ISL COMPANIES WITH COMMERCIAL
LICENSES .FIGURE IQ
U.S. URANIUM PRODUCERS
tion commitments. These factors, combined with low acquisition costs, make the United States' uranium resources an attractive acquisition. In some cases projects can be acquired which come complete with commercial operat-ing permits. If the properties are in-situ mineable, uranium production can be "turned on" in a relatively short time, from 12 months to 18 months, at minimum up-front capital expenditures and low technical risk.
To be sure, legislative corrections have been introduced which affect the development of United States uranium resources. On the one hand, recent court actions and the Domenici Bill seek to constrain uranium imports to the United States until domestic producers become viable, while, on the other hand, the recently proposed Free Trade Agreement with Canada brings the richer Canadian resources into direct competition with United States producers.
These legislative swings do not reduce the fundamental attractiveness to foreign investors of United States resources, but may affect the time frame in which they are developed. In the meantime it is encumbent upon the existing producers to use technical innovations and development procedures which will enable them to stay competitive in today's marketplace.
Operating Improvements
There are several operating improvements which will reduce the cost of producing uranium by in-situ methods. Table 6 shows that the "big ticket"
items in the product cost list are labor, well replacement, and ground water restoration.
TABLE 6
TYPICAL ISL DIRECT OPERATING COST BREAKDOWN
ITEM PERCENT OF TOTAL
Well field Replacement* 27.0%
Chemicals 13.0%
Power 2.5%
Payroll* 17.0%
Maintenance 2.5%
*
Reclamation and Restoration 17.0%
Royalties and Taxes 14.0%
Other 7.0%
*Major cost centers.
Labor costs can be significantly reduced by operating unmanned satellite mining stations much in the same way as stripper pumps work on oil reser-voirs. In this case, the resin is trucked to a central processing facility for uranium recovery. The satellite concept allows large areas of uranium reserves to be mined by a small number of people. Leach chemistry, well completion, and reservoir management technology exist today to be able to operate these satellites unmanned or with a minimum of manpower.
As pointed out earlier, well replacement costs can be significantly reduced by using intelligent mine planning methods. The technologies have reached the level of sophistication where very accurate predictions of uranium concentrations in wellfield solutions can be made. Figure 11 shows a recent illustration of this point in a Wyoming project.
Complete ground water restoration is achievable by other technical methods which are more cost effective than RO. Proven chemical-methods can reduce
«oo
K)' O*
CUMULATIVE GALLONS PROCESSED
FIGURE I I
COMPARISON OF CALCULATED AND ACTUAL
SOLUTION GRADE
the cost of ground water restoration by as much as 94 percent or produce 95 percent less waste for surface disposal. Table 7 compares alternative ground water restoration methods.
These and other technological improvements have the potential to make uranium in-situ mining cost competitive in today's market for a wide range of United States resources.
5.0 CONTRACT DEVELOPMENT
Because of the high-tech nature of uranium in-situ mining operations, the percentage of the total headcount which falls into the technical, and management categories is much higher than for conventional mining opera-tions. Table 8 presents a breakdown of requirements for a typical in-situ m i n i n g project.
TABLE 7
COMPARISON OF GROUND WATER R E S T O R A T I O N A L T E R N A T I V E S FOR A W E L L F I E L O
Restoration Method
Estimated
t , Cost
$/lb. U.O Waste Amounts
3 8 MM." MM. pe 3
ans Advantages Pi sadvantaqes
Reverse Osmosis $3.75
Ground Water Sweep 0.96 Plus RO
Ground Water Sweep 0.23 Plus Chem. Restn.
Chem. Restn. Plus RO 1.41
Cation Resin Plus Chem. 1.67 Restoration
Restoration Volume 180 MM Gallons Type 1 is Surface Discharge Waste Type 2 is Ponded Brine Waste Type 3 is Sol id Waste
30 2,402 Technology proven and accepted by agencies.
5 1,705 Low cost.
Simple p l a n t operation.
None 2,125 Low residual U, V, Ra, trace metals.
Low cost.
12 1,406 Low residual U, V, Ra, trace metals.
Used successfully in S. Texas.
Low water consumption.
10 108 Low residual U, V, Ra, trace metals.
Used successfully in Wyoming and S. Texas.
Bench test results only, no f i e l d experience.
Not effective on Cl, S04.
Works better on low Na leach, h i g h baseline TDS groundwater.
More complicated plant opns.
vo Solid wastes require disposal in low level rad. waste site.
TABLE 8
FUNCTIONAL BREAKDOWN OF AN ISL OPERATION FUNCTION HEADCOUNT PROVIDED BY OWNER:
Management 2 Administration 5 Environmental and Safety 2 Analytical 3 Maintenance 3 Operators ^6
Subtotal 31 PROVIDED BY CONTRACTOR:
Permitting 2 Construction 5 Technical 12
Subtotal 19 TOTAL HEADCOUNT: 5Q
If the well fields and plant designs are done properly, the operation of central and satellite plants can be performed with very low manpower re-quirements yielding productivities on the order of 30,000 pounds to 50,000 pounds of uranium per man-year. Once the plant is built and operating, the ongoing technical activities are related to production planning to meet financial goals, and ground water restoration planning to meet regulatory requirements. These activities include development drilling to establish reserves, generation and comparisons of wellfield designs which will meet a range of financial and productivity criteria, design and construction of new wellfields and satellite plants, and restoration of the ground water in old wellfields.
Because of the variations in technology required for different sites, which we have just reviewed, a technical organization needs to be formed which will be a repository of knowledge and know-how. This organization provides the technical planning and quality assurance/quality control (QA/QC) needed to obtain the lowest possible product cost from uranium in-situ mining projects.
Another area of concern is construction. For wellfield installation, an operating company will typically hire a contract driller, usually by
com-petitive bid, to install the wells supervised by a company geologist. One of several well completion techniques may be appropriate for the deposit, but perhaps the geologist and certainly the driller will not be familiar with the selected well completion method. This lack of continuity of experience results in decreased QA/QC control on the wellfield installa-tion, which can have significant adverse impact on uranium product cost.
In the past, companies engaged in conventional mining have typically provided internal management and technical assistance to operations. A very good reason for this has been to maintain a competitive edge over other producers, whereby product costs can be reduced through technical
innovation and improved operating procedures. Because of the "high-tech"
nature of in-situ mining, a large proportion of the labor budget is taken by technical services. In addition, there is a shortage of qualified personnel with the needed skills. For these reasons, it is likely the use of specialized contract technical and construction services on an interim basis will have a greater impact on reducing the project's bottom line than will internal technical and cost control programs. This concept is espe-cially appropriate for foreign countries investing in United States markets where the primary goal is the acquisition of uranium supplies for home consumption, but there is an ongoing need to pursue property acquisition, permitting, and property evaluation activities independent of project development and production.
Figure 12 presents a suggested functional organization chart. In this case, the contract development organization provides the permitting and technical direction for new ventures on an as-needed basis. The owner
PERMITTING
ENVIRONMENTAL COMPLIANCE
PROPERTY EVALUATIONS
TECHNICAL QA/QC
PROPERTY DEVELOPMENT
DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION
FIGURE 12 CONTRACT SERVICES
ORGANIZATION
manages and operates the projects although these services can also be contracted out to an independent group with operating skills.