Edgemont, SD (0609)

I find the idea that we're jumping back into the uranium mining business somewhat disturbing, and it's something that hasn't been big in the things I read. I find it somewhat unexpected in the world at the moment, as I can't figure out what would be driving it. I need to do some reading.

I'll have to admit I was surprised to discover it there, but the news in the West has covered the issue of reopening uranium mining in various parts. Don't recall the specific stories, but seem to remember plans to reopen it in Arizona and Colorado. Considering the meltdown on nuclear energy in demand, I would have thought that demand would decrease, but demand (and thus prices) has increased making mining more attractive

Here's an interview from an investment company (so take it with a grain of yellowcake) with an exploration geologist that explains one line of thinking on the uranium market. ... www.theenergyreport.com/pub/na/why-uranium-prices-will-spike-in-2013-raymond-james

In essence, this sounds like a ping-pong correction, somewhat similar to what's been going on with oil since about 2006 or so. From what I can gather, there was a boom in uranium prices that started in 2001 (probably because of increased demand in Asia) and peaked around 2008, and since then the market has been falling. Prices have fallen to the point where a number of producers are shutting down, and market people are predicting a resulting shortfall. This, combined with more new reactors coming online in Asia (Fukushima notwithstanding), has people excited about another boom. Evidently, a lot of these excited people are in Wyoming.

Reading that article has a bizarre "Dr Strangelove" effect. The discussion of uranium in supply/demand tones so effectively glides over Chernobyl, Three Mile Island, and Fukushima (and not even addressing the environmental effects of the mining itself) that it all seems like just a normal work-a-day process. It also sounds like you might want to lump Saskatchewan in with Wyoming.

As you've likely noticed, I am a man of many rants, and this issue cuts to the heart of one of my most frequent. We place far too much confidence in our ability to control the world through increasingly complicated machines, and these "accidents" only reinforce that. You'd think it would go the opposite way, but instead we look at these events and note all the things people did wrong. We say, "Well that never would have happened if they'd properly maintained the relief valve" or something along those lines. We blame the people rather than the technology, forgetting that there's always going to be some relief valve that isn't properly maintained. (There are similar lines of argument when talking about oil spills.) The more complicated the system, the more likely for that system to fail. By their nature, nuclear reactors are immensely complicated machines. But economists and market people always assume the machines will work fine, so they make their money betting on the fuel.

I'll be honest, I haven't decided just where to settle on nuclear power. You see landscapes uninhabitable for the next several millennia and juggle that against the weather forecast in Beijing. I understand why the Chinese might want more nuclear power, but I also know they'd have trouble finding a place to move the refugees after their own Chernobyl. On the upside, though, thinking about it makes me doubly likely to remember to turn off lights when I leave the room.