28/07/2021
The Uranium Producers of America (UPA) was formed more than twenty years earlier. For many years, this trade association worked with Congress and state legislators to assist improve the front end of the nuclear fuel cycle: uranium mining. Today, it has been re-energized with new members and with the task of assisting to restore the U.S. uranium mining sector. We talked with Jon Indall, an attorney based in Santa Fe, New Mexico, who works as the Executive Director of the UPA. Uranium Producers of America members consist of International Uranium Corporation, Power Resources, Uranium Resources, Cotter Corporation, Energy Metals Corporation, Mestena Uranium, U.S. Energy, Laramide Resources, Strathmore Minerals, Uranium Energy and Neutron Energy. StockInterview: What is the function of the Uranium Producers of America (UPA)? Jon Indall: The Uranium Producers of America is a trade association, originally established in 1985 to promote the viability of the domestic uranium industry. StockInterview: How did the UPA trade association originated? Jon Indall: The UPA was established initially by the significant U.S. producers, such as Kerr McGee, Homestake, United Nuclear, Rocky Mountain Energy, Union Carbide, Atlas, and Pathfinder. The significant operating companies decided to form their own group to concentrate on specific uranium viability problems. StockInterview: In what method does the UPA differ from the National Mining Association with regards to the uranium market? Jon Indall: Throughout the years the UPA was sort of a lobbying organization for the domestic industry and managed viability type concerns. The National Mining Association has a uranium ecological subcommittee. The NMA has actually been more included with the regulative element, however we collaborate and have a great relationship. There's absolutely an overlap between the members of each group, but our charge has been more on the viability element. StockInterview: How do you promote the practicality of the domestic uranium industry? Jon Indall: Our agenda is twofold. We wish to continue to promote the viability of uranium production in the United States. Because vein we have actually been meeting the Department of Energy (DOE) to explain what's going on out in the field. We let them understand there are active business pursuing mining operations, obtaining residential or commercial properties, doing the expedition and advancement work, and so forth. We are also advising DOE not to do anything that affects the market. StockInterview: How could the Department of Energy impact the uranium market? Jon Indall: The Department of Energy is sitting on a lot of stock. We desire DOE to be cautious in how they use that material. There's a really strong possibility, in our view, going out a few years, there's going to be a space in between offered to supply and demand. The secondary market is decreasing. We want DOE to keep back their material. If there is a scarcity, they can ride to the rescue, and the reactors will not go cold. StockInterview: Are the energies going to get back into the domestic uranium sector to ensure their nuclear reactors have adequate uranium available? Jon Indall: In the 1970s, when we had the preliminary boom, the domestic energies were out making deals with manufacturers. They were actively buying jobs and things of that nature. I don't believe that's going to happen this year or next year. However a couple of years down the line, if things truly tighten up, you may see that. StockInterview: Where do the U.S. energies stand with regards to a domestic uranium market? Jon Indall: In the late 1980s and early 1990s, I believe the utilities saw Canada as such a huge production center, they disliked the domestic producers. They were not too worried about having enough fuel can be found in. StockInterview: But, hasn't the industry changed over the past few years, as the area uranium cost has soared? Jon Indall: If you read the trade press and whatever else, you can see, with the impetus that's going on in Asia and all the reactors that are under building and construction or prepared, I believe the energies need to understand that security of supply is something they need to focus on. It's on our agenda to begin speaking to the utilities a little bit more seriously. Despite the fact that you can get this material from other places, it's nice to have a local manufacturer. It's relatively evident this market, in the next 4 to 5 years, could be producing in the series of 20 million pounds. StockInterview: Do you think the domestic uranium market can produce twenty million pounds over the next four to 5 years? Jon Indall: Conservatively, 5 to 6 years, but perhaps even faster. Well, let me put it this way: We're producing approximately 3 million pounds now. That's up from two. I might be off by an element of a few hundred thousand. Power Resources is producing approximately 2 million pounds. With the Uranium Resources production that're beginning in Texas, and with Mestena, you've got about another million pounds approximately. IUC has actually just announced that they're going to produce 3.5 million pounds, I think, over the next 2 years. Some of that is material they're cleaning up for DOE, but it is still in production. All the UPA members have plans to be in production at some time. StockInterview: Yes, however does not it take five to eleven years to get the production underway? Jon Indall: I think eleven years is too far out. I believe, if the companies can get with it, you can see 4 or five In Situ Healing (ISR) operations producing one to two million pounds apiece. And then maybe somebody gets a conventional mine going here once again, like IUC is doing. I can't tell you the precise number, but I believe you'll see increased production, assuming that the price continues to rise or support. StockInterview: How are the uranium business going to move that quick? Jon Indall: I believe a great deal of it, in my mind, is how well the regulatory community accepts what these guys are trying to do. My impression is-- and this is simply me talking-- that a great deal of the neighborhoods, where this activity has actually been undertaken in the past, are not averse to seeing it again. It implies great tasks and that type of thing. A lot of these neighborhoods are sort of depressed communities. For instance in New Mexico, McKinley County is one of the most affordable counties in the state financially. I believe the average man out there would welcome the opportunity to see some high-paying tasks. StockInterview: How well would the regulative neighborhood in New Mexico respond? Jon Indall: I recently consulted with the New Mexico Mining Minerals Division. Since we passed the New Mexico Mining Act in 1993, no one has allowed a mine in New Mexico. We were speaking about how we were going to do this. Clearly it's not going to happen tomorrow. StockInterview: What about senior state officials, such as the Governor of New Mexico? Jon Indall: I can inform you the New Mexico guv was exceptionally encouraging of the uranium miners when he was in Congress. He presented legislation supporting our efforts in those days, and some of it he did on his own. He's got a big state to govern, and I believe he's looking for jobs. I believe if we can show him that we can do this much better than we did in the past, then he'll be encouraging. That's my hope. StockInterview: Will the significant oil or mining business return to the uranium industry? Jon Indall: I don't prepare for the huge oil companies being available in once again for a long time. BHP Billiton at first said, 'We have no interest in uranium mining in New Mexico.' Then they reversed and purchased the greatest residential or commercial property in Australia. Now I understand BHP is looking hard at their New Mexico operations. So you might see a few of the huge mining companies involved. StockInterview: Who, then, will build up the domestic uranium market? Jon Indall: I think it may be more entrepreneurial, which was the method it started back in the 1950s. The early manufacturers, with the exception of Kerr McGee, were people-- Charlie Steen, C**k Bokum, and Cotter Ferguson in Wyoming. They were individuals who actually got this industry up and going, with AEC help. I am unsure the oil business is that vital, but I wish to see utilities get into the mix. I think all of it depends on how supply and need are perceived. StockInterview: How should the major uranium producers, such as Cameco or BHP, handle the impact of a potential supply lack for U.S. energies? Jon Indall: BHP and Cameco are aggressively trying to increase their production. They would not be doing that if they didn't believe there was a market for it. The U.S. market and the U.S. government are so important to the health of all suppliers, in my viewpoint, because our federal government has done more to assist and hurt domestic and around the world production than any other entity. I believe foreign manufacturers would be wise to acknowledge that having a viable U.S. market, which senators and the congressmen care about, due to the fact that they're creating tasks and income in their states, is not a bad thing. I believe it keeps DOE truthful. To me, if I were sitting up in Canada, this would be something I may be taking a look at. StockInterview: What should U.S. energies be looking at, with regards to the supply photo? Jon Indall: You have actually got the Russians revealing they're not going to proceed with the HEU contract after 2013. It is my understanding they're aiming to beef up supply for themselves. With the utilities, I believe it's the type of 'wait and see' right now. I believe that they're looking at this from the big picture. I believe it's becoming more obvious to them nuclear has got to play an ever increasing role. Global warming is actually driving a great deal of boats here, and I think they're realizing there needs to be a real active nuclear power plant production boost. StockInterview: How are things differently now for the Uranium Producers of America compared to the early days in the 1980s? Jon Indall: Today, it's a much different atmosphere than it was in 1985. The marketplace was going down quickly in 1985. Everyone was type of defending their existence. We were pleading our case that this market was developed by the government-- the government did things that really screwed it up. I believe, now, we're not asking for a lot. We're basically asking for the status quo. We do not want the federal government to do anything that negatively impacts the price. Let the price work itself out. Let's start producing uranium where expense has some impact. The cost and the expense of have a relationship. From about 1985 on, they did not.
