Hon. HENRY M. JACKSON, United States Senate, Washington, D. C. REPUBLIC, WASH., February 18, 1958. DEAR SENATOR JACKSON: A recent article in one of the mining papers states there is to be a meeting before the Joint Congressional Atomic Energy Committee on the 24th and 25th of February to discuss the present uranium conditions. The economy of this part of Washington will depend to a certain extent on the AEC living up to certain promises made a few years back. We are enclosing newspaper clippings that may have escaped your notice, which pretty well illustrate the need of an AEC ore-buying program if the uranium industry is to succeed for the small miner. We, of the Ferry County Prospectors & Miners Association, earnestly ask your aid and cooperation in giving the small uranium prospector and miner the chance to develop his claim and to market his ore. As you are aware, a great deal of time and considerable amount of money have been expended by the small miner in this area. We are confident that you, as you have in the past, will interest yourself in this present matter. Sincerely yours, BEN F. BUTLER, President, Ferry County Prospectors & Miners Association. SEATTLE, WASH., February 19, 1958. Hon. CARL T. DURHAM, Joint Congressional Atomic Energy Committee, House Office Building, Washington, D. C. DEAR CONGRESSMAN DURHAM Members of the West Coast Mineral Association of Seattle, Wash., are very much interested in uranium-mining companies and feel that more consideration should be given to the mining of uranium in the State of Washington. We feel that future demands will probably exceed the present production, and at our meeting of February 17, 1957, a resolution was passed recommending that the present contracts with mining companies producing uranium concentrates be continued and that new contracts be granted to mining companies having properties with a favorable indicated large tonnage of moderate-grade ore. Respectfully yours, WEST COAST MINERAL ASSOCIATION, By LEWIE WILLIAMS, Acting Secretary. SEATTLE, WASH., March 12, 1958. Hon. CARL T. DURHAM, Joint Congressional Atomic Energy Committee, House Office Building, Washington, D. C. DEAR CONGRESSMAN DURHAM: This supplements the letter of February 19, 1958, from the West Coast Mineral Association here in Seattle, Wash., in regard to the uranium situation. The recent hearing indicates that there may be stockpiling of uranium concentrates and some of the States such as South Dakota and Wyoming have been allowed an increase in tonnages. The State of Washington should also be included, and our association recommends a 700-ton per day mill in Okanogan County which would serve both the Republic and Simialkameen or Nighthawk areas. In the Republic area the Mount Leona region has about 2 million tons which should average about 0.23 UзOs, and the Nighthawk area an indicated 8 million tons which should go to 0.121 percent U3O. We also think that the Dawn mill at Ford, Wash., should be allowed an increase of 200 tons per day, as this would allow more custom tonnage for the other properties in the Spokane area. Our new uranium properties must be developed; otherwise we will be faced with the same problem when the present foreign contracts expire; namely, a shortage of uranium ores. Another point is that the foreign producers are paid on the basis of United States gold, and this is a disadvantage to the domestic producer. Respectfully yours, WEST COAST MINERAL ASSOCIATION, Chairman DURHAM. This completes the hearings on the problems of the uranium mining and milling industry. The committee will adjourn until tomorrow afternoon at 2 p. m. to reconvene here in this same room, to continue hearings on the development, growth, and state of the atomic energy industry. (Whereupon, at 4: 10 p. m., Tuesday, February 25, 1958, the hearing recessed, to reconvene at 2 p. m. Wednesday, February 26, 1958.) (NOTE.-The balance of the hearings of February 19, 1958, and those of February 20, 21, 26, 28, and March 3 and 4, 1958, are printed separately, entitled "Development, Growth, and State of the Atomic Energy Industry.") APPENDIXES APPENDIX 1 UNITED STATES ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION, URANIUM PRODUCTION IN THE UNITED STATES Remarks prepared by Jesse C. Johnson, Director, Division of Raw Materials, United States Atomic Energy Commission, for delivery before the fourth annual conference of the Atomic Industrial Forum, New York, N. Y., October 28, 1957 I am glad that uranium resources and production have become a part of the discussions at these conferences sponsored by the Atomic Industrial Forum. A study of the availability of nuclear fuels, and the economics of their production, is basic to the consideration of atomic power as a major source of industrial energy. These discussions should be particularly valuable to the uranium producers who are looking ahead to the industrial market and attempting to estimate the growth and size of that market. Even the reactor and the power experts differ on forecasts of atomic-power growth and uranium requirements so you can appreciate the position of the uranium producers who have a capital investment in mines and mills totaling nearly $1 billion. The United States Government market has been almost entirely responsible for the development of the uranium industry outside Russia and its satellites. This market was for military requirements for the common defense. Had it not been for these military requirements, which in turn were responsible for the raw-materials program carried out by the United States Atomic Energy Commission, there would be little basis for the broad atomic-power development now under way in this country, or the extensive atomic-power program of the United Kingdom, or the survey by Euratom for an even larger program. The limited known uranium resources of 10 years ago would not have justified these projects. The present position of atomic-power development is due to the efforts of the uranium prospector and miner, as well as to those of the scientist and nuclear engineer. The Atomic Energy Commission's uranium program, which was initiated less than 10 years ago, moved slowly at first and then rapidly gained momentum. Production greatly increased during the past 4 years but a major increase will come in the next 12 to 18 months with the completion and operation of a number of large Canadian and American uranium mining and milling projects. Freeworld production in 1957 is expected to be about 21,000 tons of UзOs and the estimate for 1959 is in excess of 40,000 tons with more than 30,000 tons coming from the United States and Canada. Ten years ago we were dependent upon the Belgian Congo for more than 90 percent of our uranium. Production in Canada and the United States was insignificant by today's standards and known ore reserves were equally meager. At that time the only possibility of large additional production from any known source was the recovery of uranium from South African gold tailings. Here the problem was to develop a process to recover economically less than 1 pound of uranium oxide per ton of material treated. Except for the South African gold ores, any major increase in uranium production had to come from new discoveries, unless we were prepared to pay $30 to $50 a pound for uranium from low-grade phosphate and shale deposits. Answers were found to the metallurgical problems involved in processing South African gold-ore tailings. Mill construction began early in 1951, making this our first major new uranium production project. The South African gold-mining industry deserves great credit for the speed with which the large engineering and construction program was carried out and for the efficiency of the milling operations. South Africa now is producing approximately 6,000 tons of U30, per year. South African production was not enough. New sources of uranium had to be found and brought into production. Our instructions were to get as much uranium as possible from every available source, but production from the North Amercian Continent was particularly important for obvious strategic reasons. Consequently, the program of 1948 to stimulate exploration concentrated on the United States and Canada. There were no specific reasons for great optimism except that there was a vast mineral-bearing territory in which to search. Any chance for even a measure of success in a short time depended upon enthusiastic participation by hundreds, if not thousands, of prospectors, geologists, and mining organizations. These considerations led to the establishment of uranium-purchase programs in both the United States and Canada. The programs had to provide time for exploration and development and at least a 5-year production period. Also, there had to be an adequate reward in terms of potential profits for the discovery of important deposits. The initial programs fell somewhat short in meeting these objectives and were revised accordingly. We worked closely with the Canadian Government and received its full cooperation. Production figures speak for the success of these two nearly parallel programs. In my opinion, this cooperative program for discovery and development offers one of the finest examples of the effectiveness of private initiative at work in a free society. I think that this background is important to an understanding of our domestic uranium program and its problems, of our long-term overseas uranium commitments, and of our commitments to Canada. Now let me review our domestic program and some of the problems with which we are faced. In 1948 our known uranium ore reserves were estimated at about 1 million tons, averaging approximately 0.20 percent U3Os. The possibility of major additions to these limited reserves was a matter of hope and could not be measured on the basis of specific evidence. The search for uranium-bearing carnotite ores in our Western States had extended over a period of nearly 40 years, first for uranium as a source of radium and then for vanadium which also is a constituent of carnotite. Except for a brief period in World War II, when vanadium was in great demand, the search had never been intensive or sustained. This record of prospecting and exploration, together with reports on the ore deposits that represented known reserves, was the basis for the design of our domestic uranium program. The objective was to get as much immediate production as possible and to provide practical incentives for widespread private exploration and development. Experience indicated that the sedimentary-type carnotite deposits generally would be small and scattered and that small milling operations would have to draw on large areas for ore supply. The best chance for really large production seemed to lie in finding vein-type pitchblende deposits which, in the past, had been the source of most of the world's uranium. One of the surprises of the past few years has been the size of our sedimentarytype deposits and the extent of the ore reserves developed in areas with no significant surface exposures. The Big Indian Wash district in Utah, and the Ambrosia Lake field of New Mexico are examples of major discoveries by drilling. The outcrops in the Gas Hills district, Wyoming, provided little indication of an important uranium area. Because of the widespread exposure by erosion of the sedimentary beds in which the uranium is found, it was expected that surface outcrops would give better indication of the size and extent of our uranium re sources. With the development of million- and multimillion-ton ore bodies, and the accumulation of geologic data, private drilling campaigns have expanded greatly and ore reserves have increased rapidly. We now estimate domestic ore reserves at about 70 million tons, averaging about 5 pounds of uranium oxide per ton. A year ago our reserves were 60 million tons, 2 years ago 25 million tons, 3 years ago, 10 million tons, and 4 years ago 5 million tons. Most of our ore reserves now are in deposits ranging from several hundred thousand to several million tons. Earlier most of our deposits were less than 100,000 tons. Small mining operations still provide a substantial part of our |