Following on the heels of the creation of the U.S. Nuclear Fuels Working Group (NFWG), which President Donald Trump had announced in the summer of last year “to develop recommendations for reviving and expanding domestic nuclear fuel production,”the President’s budget proposes $150 million per year over the next ten years for the creation of a U.S. Uranium reserve.

Traditionally, Uranium – primarily known for its energy applications, which have placed it under the purview of the Department of Energy – has not been much of a focal point for ARPN.  Developments over the past few years, not least the inclusion of Uranium in the Department of Interior’s 2018 critical minerals list, have changed that — for good reason.   

Critical for a variety of U.S. defense needs, energy production, and other industries, USGS noted in its 2018 technical input document for the critical minerals list that while DoE inventory was meeting most defense needs in the short term “U.S. sourced uranium will be needed in the future to meet defense requirements that, according to international agreements, must be free from peaceful use restrictions.”

Moreover, the agency stated that  while Uranium was also critical in “ensuring a reliable supply of fuel for the 99 nuclear power reactors that supply about 20 percent of U.S. electricity, (…) [o]nly 8 percent of uranium loaded into U.S. nuclear power reactors in 2016 was of U.S. origin; the remaining 92 percent was imported Uranium.”

According to the Office of Nuclear Energy,

“The new program will help to reestablish the nation’s nuclear fuel supply chain through the domestic production and conversion of uranium. The reserve is expected to support the operation of at least two U.S. uranium mines and will ensure there is a backup supply of uranium in the event of a significant market disruption that prevents entities from acquiring fuel. NE would begin the procurement process for the reserve in FY21.”

Of course inclusion of a Uranium reserve in the Presidential Budget is only the first step, and implementation of the proposal is subject to Congressional approval.  However, the move gives a clear indication of the Administration’s strategic focus — which from a critical minerals perspective is an encouraging development. 

For more on Uranium, see geologist and ARPN expert panel member Ned Mamula’s recent four-piece series for Capital Research Center, “Russia’s Uranium Gambit: An Underappreciated Energy Source”

The post Critical Mineral Uranium – Presidential Budget Proposes Funding Stream for Uranium Reserve appeared first on American Resources Policy Network.

Embedding the discussion in the context of American mining and production of critical minerals in recent decades being “a self-inflicted wound that could imperil our economy and national security,” they point to the fact that while the United States is home to vast domestic Uranium resources and reserves, “more than 90 percent of U.S. uranium requirements are now imported.” More than 40 percent of the total of these imports, come from a “potentially adversarial trading bloc,” Russia, Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan.

“This is not a friendly free-market group that America can depend on, especially in an emergency,” they lament. 

Globally, the percentage of uranium production “coming from state-controlled companies not located in Western market-based economies,” is on the rise.

Meanwhile, domestic issues have contributed to a drastic decrease in U.S. uranium production prompting U.S. Congressmen Paul Gosar (R-Ariz.), Rob Bishop (R -Utah), and Mark Meadows (R-N.C.), spoke of a “dying” industry in an op-ed for Fox News earlier this year.  

Acknowledging the national security implications of the issue, earlier this summer, President Trump announced the formation of a “U.S. Nuclear Fuel Working Group” to conduct a “fuller analysis of national security considerations with respect to the entire nuclear fuel supply chain.” The findings of the working group are due soon, and it will be interesting to see what the recommendations to alleviate “America’s Uranium crisis” are going to be. 

Moore and Mamula argue that — as non-supporters of trade protectionism they are unsure what the best solution to address the issue of imports coming from “nations that are not allies,” but one thing is certain, they argue:

“The strategy of benign neglect is not working and must be replaced with a smart strategy that ensures reliable and affordable uranium for years to come.”

***

To read the full piece, click here.

For more context, see Ned Mamula’s series for Capital Research Center on “Uranium, an underappreciated energy source.”

The post Uranium: From “Benign Neglect” to a Smart Strategy? appeared first on American Resources Policy Network.

While America’s energy dominance is unquestionable, “we cannot rest on our laurels,”writes Sen. Murkowski, who worries that the federal government has been too slow to adjust, and that “our striking lack of robust tools for economic statecraft impairs our ability to reach commercial deals and build critical infrastructure on a strategic basis.”

“[O]ne of the few technologies that can provide zero-emission on-demand heat and electricity,” she says, is nuclear energy, but with eight reactors having closed in the United States since 2013, and only two new reactors being built, this industry is facing rapid decline, in spite of the fact that the new generation of nuclear power features reactors that are “smaller, safer, operate more flexibly, have higher efficiency, produce less or no waste, and have additional operational benefits over the existing fleet.”

To counter the decline, Congress is working to speed up the development of such advanced reactors, and we are currently awaiting the results of the “U.S. Nuclear Fuel Working Group” announced in July to conduct a “fuller analysis of national security considerations with respect to the entire nuclear fuel supply chain,” the findings of which are due later this year.

However, Sen. Murkowski says, “demonstrating the technology at home as an energy and climate solution is not sufficient to enable competitive global nuclear exports” and argues that the U.S. is ceding its edge in the global competition for energy dominance to Russia and China, state-owned companies of which are offering financing, fuel services and technical know-how to nations turning to nuclear technology to meet rising energy demands. 

Touting her “Strategic Energy Initiative (SEI)” which she unveiled in July to “sharpen and direct our tools of energy- related economic statecraft to enhance the geopolitical posture of the United States,” she closes:

“Our energy future is bright, but only if we recognize the world we are in. Prosperity, after all, is not a birthright. We as Americans know that it is earned.”

To learn more about the Strategic Energy Initiative aimed at sharpening the focus of and strengthening federal departments and agencies, such as the Department of Energy, and trade and finance-related institutions such as the Trade Development Agency, the Export-Import Bank, and the Development Finance Corporation (as it evolves from the Overseas Private Investment Corporation), click here: 

The post U.S. Senator: “Our Energy Future Is Bright, But Only If We Recognize The World We Are In” appeared first on American Resources Policy Network.

However, the policy issues surrounding uranium – many of which have a familiar ring to followers of ARPN – increasingly warrant a closer look.  Last year, the Department of Interior included uranium in its list of 35 metals and minerals deemed critical from a U.S. national security and economic perspective – for good reason.

As Congressmen Paul Gosar (R-Ariz.), Rob Bishop (R -Utah, Mark Meadows, R-N.C.) outlined in an op-ed for Fox News earlier this month, “U.S. utilities rely on foreign sources for 98 percent of the uranium they use to fuel the nuclear power plants that provide 20 percent of our country’s electricity” – a fact that not only poses a significant national security risk, but harms domestic industry.

They argued: 

“Uranium [fuels] our nuclear Navy. But instead of buying from the domestic uranium mining companies that once thrived in the West, utilities are enriching adversarial countries like Russia and China.

Following their carefully orchestrated geopolitical plan, Russia and its allies flood the global market with uranium from state-owned companies, making it impossible for America and other free-market economies to compete.

Meanwhile, quietly and gradually, China has been buying up previously free-market uranium mines to control global supply.

Rather than keep good jobs here at home and depend on our own resources to power the electric grid, the U.S. jeopardizes national security by relying on nations that have demonstrated their will to undermine our defense infrastructure and our economy, and to do us harm.

As a result, America’s uranium mining industry is dying. U.S. uranium mining companies produced 721,000 pounds of uranium last year – only enough to fuel one nuclear reactor.”

The Congressmen, writing on behalf of the bipartisan Western Congressional Caucus, called on U.S. President Trump heed a recommendation to impose an import “quota that reserves a relatively small 25 percent of the U.S. market for the domestic uranium mining industry.”

The recommendation was initially put forth by two domestic uranium mining companies that in January 2018 had requested a Commerce Department investigation under Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act, with a presidential decision on the findings of the DoC investigation expected by July 15 of this year. 

Taking many by surprise, however, while agreeing with the Commerce Department that the United States’ reliance on foreign uranium “raise significant concerns,” President Trump last week announced that he will not impose quotas on uranium imports. This comes a  somewhat unusual move for a President who has invoked national security concerns when calling for restricting foreign metal imports elsewhere.

The President instead announced the formation of a “U.S. Nuclear Fuel Working Group” to conduct a “fuller analysis of national security considerations with respect to the entire nuclear fuel supply chain.”

In his memorandum announcing his decision on July 12, the President states:

“I agree with the Secretary that the United States uranium industry faces significant challenges in producing uranium domestically and that this is an issue of national security.  The United States requires domestically produced uranium to satisfy Department of Defense (DOD) requirements for maintaining effective military capabilities — including nuclear fuel for the United States Navy’s fleet of nuclear-powered aircraft carriers and nuclear-powered submarines, source material for nuclear weapons, and other functions.  Domestic mining, milling, and conversion of uranium, however, while significant, are only a part of the nuclear supply chain necessary for national security, including DOD needs.”

Over the next 90 days, the The Working Group “shall examine the current state of domestic nuclear fuel production to reinvigorate the entire nuclear fuel supply chain, consistent with United States national security and nonproliferation goals.”

The post Critical Mineral Uranium: No Import Quotas, But “Significant Concerns” Prompt Fuller Analysis of Nuclear Fuel Supply Chain appeared first on American Resources Policy Network.

The post ARPN Expert Zeroes in on Issues Surrounding Uranium – an “Underappreciated Energy Source” appeared first on American Resources Policy Network.

 Via our friend Simon Moores, managing director of Benchmark Minerals and lead expert on the supply chain for batteries, we came across a solid analysis of minerals in clean car technology.  Bloomberg’s Liam Denning discusses the role of lithium as one of the key minerals at the heart of 21^st Century battery technology fueling electric vehicles as well as portable devices and power storage.

Contrasting lithium’s story with that of two other once promising metals, palladium and uranium, Denning outlines lithium’s rise to stardom, appeal and potential staying power.  His verdict – lithium is a mineral worth watching:

“Rising demand that is largely indifferent to price, combined with lagging supply, is what commodity bulls dream of. This underpinned the boom in palladium, as well as the recent bull markets in oil and copper. It looks like lithium’s turn is coming.”

With Tesla’s new Gigafactory slated to open soon, and other battery makers expanding their plants, chances are, he is right.

Says Simon Moores:

“[New supply from all lithium sources] will have a critical role to play in sourcing lithium for the battery supply chain. As things stands, there will not be enough lithium to supply the battery megafactories coming onstream.”

With the net import reliance on foreign supplies of lithium hovering at more than 60% according to USGS estimates, this challenge will most certainly affect U.S. battery makers and downstream domestic industries.

Click here to read the full piece.

Click here to keep tabs on Simon Moore’s analysis of critical metals and minerals.

The post Is Lithium the New Black? appeared first on American Resources Policy Network.

Experts consider the deposit the “the nation’s richest untapped source of uranium oxide.” In order to harness the deposit’s potential, Virginia’s 1982 moratorium on mining uranium would have to be lifted, and the local debate has sparked a national controversy over the merits of uranium mining.

As industry figures place the United States’ reliance on foreign imports of uranium to meet domestic needs at a whopping 95 percent, and in light of uranium’s relevance as reactor fuel, it is a debate worth having.

While environmentalists are quick to dismiss any uranium mining proposals as risky and harmful to the environment, People for Economic Prosperity points to impressive Canadian mining successes using the highest safety standards and stringent regulations, and argues that the Coles Hill deposit “can and will be mined safely and that Pittsylvania County will benefit immensely from the direct and indirect economic benefits including jobs and capital investment.”

To learn more about the group, visit www.PEPsouthside.org (after the end of the month, as the group’s website is currently under construction).

The post Local group forms in support of uranium mining in Virginia appeared first on American Resources Policy Network.

U.S. Senators Sherrod Brown (D-OH) and Rob Portman (R-OH) recently met with U.S. Energy Secretary Steven Chu to discuss this pending $2 billion loan guarantee from DOE. If the political obstacles can be overcome, the project will create 4000 construction jobs and 400 long-term jobs.

The American Centrifuge project uses an innovative technology to produce enriched uranium. If Congress and the Administration are truly serious about job creation, look no further than this project. And there’s a bonus here too for those who seeking to expand our domestic energy resources and reduce our dependence on foreign supply sources.

The post Uranium Enrichment Technology: Job Creator and Energy Resource appeared first on American Resources Policy Network.

U.S. Oak Ridge Laboratory, home of super-secret nuclear weapons work during World War II, is auctioning off artifacts from the Manhattan Project.  Among them, massive magnets called “D-Rings,” used to separate bomb-grade uranium, each one containing 11-tons of copper coil. (To the London copper thieves: that’s a lot of downspouts!) The story notes that pre-auction interest is driven by the value of copper in today’s global market.

Note to potential purchasers:  You need to be a U.S. citizen – and you’ll need to agree that your copper recovery process can be observed under the watchful eye of Department of Energy officials.

From our point of view, if someone’s going through that much trouble to recover copper for resale today, shouldn’t we ask whether our policymakers are doing all they can to help new supply enter a hungry market?

The post Kicking Off Copper Month With a Bang appeared first on American Resources Policy Network.

At a time when China’s stranglehold on rare earths has cost for downstream industries soaring, this is a welcome development one would hope to see replicated for other mining projects, as the underlying structural problem of a rigid permitting process continues to hurt the United States’ economic and strategic future.

We will examine the bureaucratic regime that has given the U.S. the dubious honor of being tied with Papua New Guinea for the longest approval process for mining permits among the top 25 mining countries in the world in a forthcoming policy paper.  Be sure to connect with us on Facebook and Twitter so you get to read it first.

The post Priority permitting for two Alaska mining projects approved appeared first on American Resources Policy Network.