Title of paper

8. Conclusion

Uranium mining is more dangerous than the mining of other minerals due to the radioactivity of the ore and the tailings and the toxicity uranium poses as a toxic heavy metal. The long term radiation of the waste facilities puts countless future generations under threat.

9. References

Gecko Namibia. 2011. Background Information Document. Windhoek.
Jürgens, N. 2007. Letter responding to Areva’s draft EIA on the desalination plant. BIOTA Project. Roan News, March 2008: 15-17. Windhoek.
Paladin Energy Limited. 2013. Annual Report.
Rössing Uranium Limited. 2012. Report to stakeholders.
Rössing Uranium Limited. 2009. Stakeholders Report.
Uranium Institute. 2011. Chamber of Mines Annual Report 2010/2011.
WISE Uranium Project. 2013 (updated). Issues at Rössing Uranium Mine, Namibia; at http://www.wise-uranium.org/umoproe.html; last accessed 22 Dec 2013.

10. Further reading recommendations

Fig, D. 2005. Uranium Road – Questioning South Africa’s Nuclear Direction. Johannesburg. Heinrich Böll Foundation.
Hecht, G. 2012. Being Nuclear – Africans and the Global Uranium Trade. Institute of Technology Massachusetts.
Heinrich Böll Foundation. 2006. Nuclear Power: Myth and Reality – The Risks and Prospects of Nuclear Power. Saxonwold. Heinrich Böll Foundation.
History of Rio Tinto’s Rössing Uranium Mine

By Bertchen Kohrs

1. Discovery of uranium

The first uranium was discovered in Namibia, then South West Africa, far back in 1928 by the geologist Peter Louw. He found little black pebbles about 60 km east of Swakopmund near the Rössing Mountain.
Apparently, there are two different stories surrounding the discovery. The better known story says that Mr Louw’s wife who was a photographer had placed her camera near the black stones. Mrs Louw used to develop the pictures herself. When she removed the negatives of her camera she realized that they were all totally black. So the Louws decided to send the pebbles to a laboratory in the United Kingdom for testing. Indeed, traces of uranium and radium were found to be the cause of spoiling the photographs.
The other story was communicated by Mr John Louw, one of the three sons of Mr and Mrs Louw. In 2012, he celebrated his 40^th year as a Rössing board director and at this occasion told his story: “Rewind to the mid-1920s. My parents had settled in Swakopmund, which prior to World War One (1914-1918) had been part of German South West Africa. Swakopmund was little more than a village in the grips of the beginning of the Great Depression (1929-1934). The entire world seemed to be suffering, and Swakop was no exception. With several friends, including German residents from earlier years, my parents started to investigate the possibility of local mineral prospects, particularly radium. Traces of radium had apparently been identified near the Rössing Mountain by geologists who had done a sterling survey of the mineral wealth of South West Africa when it was part of the German Empire. My British mother, who came from a medical background, was quick to realise the possible value of radium, used to this day in the treatment of cancerous tumours. So, the group went prospecting and searched certain target areas. Eventually, they found some of the smallish black stones which showed a ‘metallescent’ fracture when broken. These were considered to be markers for a possible radium source. Samples were duly collected and sorted, and under my mother’s guidance they were dispatched to the Teddington laboratory in Britain for evaluation. The samples were confirmed to be radioactive but, regrettably, of no apparent financial value (Rössing, 2012).”
At the time of discovery there was no interest in the uranium deposit until 1954, when Captain Peter Louw and his son John explored huge areas south of the Rössing Mountain and found considerable amounts of uranium. Graham Louw, a brother of John, continued checking a huge area in the vicinity of the first finding and found more radioactive anomalies. He plotted four claims for the family, which led to the declaration of an official mining area (Rössing, 2012).

P
icture 1: A typical black pebble containing uranium (pitchblend) (Source: K. Kraft)

2. The situation at Rössing prior to Independence

By the mid-1950s, it was recognized that nuclear power could be generated for peaceful use and the first nuclear reactors were built which led to increased demand of uranium. The concession to mine the uranium was twice offered to the British based mining multinational Rio Tinto Zinc (RTZ), first in 1959 and later again in 1962. At first RTZ was not interested, however this changed in 1966, at a time when more countries started their nuclear energy programmes. Uranium became such a wanted commodity, that it seemed profitable to mine the low grade uranium at Rössing. The low wages black workers received in former apartheid South West Africa made the project even more lucrative. Officials of the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority (UKAEA) wrote in a statement: “The new mine would be open cast involving a minimum of skilled labour and thus is relatively immune from the trends of labour escalation.” The Labour Party government of the UK did not seem to bother about this injustice (Hecht, 2012: 98).
Because of the extremely low grade ore, huge quantities of rock would have to be mined and milled to extract uranium. This would increase the operation costs tremendously. To secure loans for the mine development, RTZ had to prove that it could sell the uranium. To guarantee profitability of the mine, UKAEA signed a long-term contract with RTZ to purchase yellow cake. Germany also signalled interest in RTZ’s yellow cake (Hecht, 2012: 69).
Geological exploration, planning and construction of the mine took another ten years. The mine and plant, designed to produce 5,000 tons of uranium oxide (U₃O₈) per year began operating in March 1976. Money for the construction of the mine did not only come from RTZ; South Africa, Canada, France and Germany assisted with credits and security.

The government of South Africa was the most important ally during the construction of the mine and later, when production started was instrumental helping to market the uranium. This fact was not publicised as production and trade of Namibian uranium was against international law.

Namibia was ruled by South Africa after World War One. In 1966, the United Nations through the International Court of Law in The Hague ended South Africa’s mandate over Namibia which made South Africa’s occupation of Namibia illegal. According to the UN Decree No.1, adopted by the United Nations Council for Namibia on 27 September 1974, “no person or entity, whether a body corporate or unincorporated, may search for, prospect, explore for, take, extract, mine, process, refine, use, sell, export, or distribute natural resources, whether animal or mineral, situated or found to be situated within the territorial limits of Namibia”. This decree was binding to all countries that had signed the charter of the UN and warned that violators could be held liable for damages. Projected to be Namibia’s largest mining operation, Rössing became the primary target of Decree No. 1 (Haseldine, 2014).
However, many western countries did not acknowledge the decree and in opposition encouraged companies to invest in Namibia. Rössing’s uranium was imported for power plants and nuclear weapons by China, Japan, USA and Europe, mainly Britain (AKAFRIC, 1988: 8-10). Only Sweden pledged to boycott Rössing’s product. Activists joined forces with anti-nuclear movements, resulting in the British organisation CANUC (Campaign Against the Namibian Uranium Contract). A seminar held in 1981 detailed the secret movements of Rössing Uranium through European planes and ships, noting that European transport workers had unknowingly handled barrels of radioactive substances (Haseldine, 2014).
Interestingly, during the liberation struggle, SWAPO publicly condemned the uranium deal between Namibia and RTZ. But in 1976, when the production of uranium started, SWAPO, in advance of independence, said off the record “a SWAPO government would not disturb RTZ’s position in Namibia” (Hecht, 2012: 103). After independence in 1990, Rössing’s slogan ‘Working for Namibia’ was fully backed by the SWAPO government. The party leadership reassured the company that they saw it as a key player in the Namibian economy (Hecht, 2012: 305).
Namibia, then administered by the South African government, guaranteed investors exemptions of taxes, till the cost of investment was regained by profit. For the first nine years of production, Rössing did not pay any taxes.
Shortly after commencing production, serious setbacks arose from the nature of the ore. Rössing’s metallurgists and engineers were confronted with many operating difficulties caused by the abrasive properties of the granite rock containing the uranium. Tremendous wear and tear of the machinery made major alterations and additions to the plant necessary. In 1978, when the modifications were nearing completion, a major fire in one of the two solvent extraction units resulted in considerable damage and caused a further bottleneck (Rössing, 1989: 4). To protest against working and living conditions the workers went on strike in 1976 and again in 1978. Order during the strikes was reinstated by the South African riot police. All these impediments made it difficult for Rössing to deliver yellow cake in time according to contracts (Hecht, 2012: 155).