User talk:Shikomba/The Environmental impact of Uranium mining in Namibia

The Environmental impact of Uranium mining in Namibia

Rossing Uranium Mine is owned by Rio Tinto Group, the world’s largest mining group, which has annual Profits of over $1.4 billion. It supplies enriched yellow cake uranium to power stations in France, UK, USA and Japan. The open-cast mine opened in 1976 and it has now been decided that the mine will close with the next few years. The company had an option of spending $100 million and expanding the mine, or closing down all operations by the year 2007; it close the latter. The mine also provides employment for 800 local people. In a country like Namibia which suffers from a severe lack of water, and has an annual rainfall of less than 30mm, that is a real probe Although mining causes environmental damage, these problems do not necessarily disappear with the closure of the mine. There are many dangerous waste products which would need to be disposed of and many methods that have been used at other mines in the past have been in effectual. Namibia is one of the African countries with a good environment compared to other countries.

Every prospecting and mining operation needs to comply with an environmental management plan (EMP), which is an outgrowth of the assessment of its environmental impacts (EIA). An EIA is mandatory before a prospecting or mining license is granted, and the EMP defines the activities that the operation must undertake to minimize environmental damage. The environmental impact of uranium mining in Namibia has also change the environment as Uranium mining is polluting the environment. The uranium mining activities are done in the Namib-Naukluft National Park, and this has even worried the Topnaar communities and has expressed their concern over the ongoing prospecting and mining of uranium in all areas that are protected because of their unique flora and fauna. Mining in protected area is a threat to conservation of the desert and its living organisms. The government should not give out too many prospecting licences, the Topnaar chief cautioned (New Era Oct. 13, 2008) mining uranium does not only possess health hazards but also environmental concerns such as water contamination, one of the serious issues that have not been addressed properly ( New Era April 21, 2005).

All the Namib uranium mines will bring ore to the surface, crush it, extract the valuable uranium and return the waste to the ground as rock piles or tailings dams or in-filled pits. A common denominator in all these operations is dust. Tons and tons of it – liberated at the surface and exposed to the desert winds. We all know that strong Namib winds pickup and carry dust over hundreds of kilometers, and some of this will blow over towns such as Swakopmund, Arandis and Walvis Bay. How significant is this problem? It is difficult to tell, as the uranium mineral car notate can be found naturally on the surface of the gravel plains at Trek kopje, so we should not be surprised to find some of that material in the air.

The activities that are being done at park is experiencing environmental effects from uranium prospecting and possibly in the future mining and what will happen to the tourism industry in the Namib when mining activities takes place ? Tourists will not want to visit the areas that are near mines or prospecting because of the visual scars on the landscape, noise and dust pollution. Sensitive desert plants are being destroyed. The levels of dust, itself being a problem, as well as the radioactive particles that it might carry, will be elevated by all this mining activity. Groundwater contamination Rössing is proud to proclaim that it has adequate measures in place to detect and prevent any spillage or leakage.

Minimizing the risks

These five aspects reflect the biggest changes that could be inflicted upon us. Irrespective of how much you may want to keep Swakopmund or the Namib ‘as you knew it before’, it is going to be changed by uranium mining, so we should get used to the idea and make a positive contribution to the changes. One way could be to motivate for, and get involved in, a strategic planning exercise which spells out the various scenarios and provides options for how to guide or plan those scenarios better. For example, we might consider a zoning exercise in which certain high-value areas (for biodiversity, tourism or wilderness) would be forbidden for mining, as has been done in the Sperrgebiet. Certain areas and routes, already heavily disturbed, could be ear marked as the future desalination foci and the corridors for pipelines power lines that would serve the region at large. Social growth scenarios could be planned, including the growing need for domestic water, waste management and health services. Environmental monitoring stations could be set up to record possible pollutants and health statistics for the region as a whole could provide indicators of the effectiveness of radiation safety precautions. Uranium mining can be an economically and environmental accepted method for extracting uranium. Environmental impact in uranium mining has also advantages of such as lower capital and operating costs which required much smaller workforce, and the limited environmental impact as no waste lock, no tailing, and lower consumption of water. One’s long-held impression of mines may be that they profess to bring great economic benefit to a country, yet deep down they are unconcerned with the environmental damage they inflict. Early indications, from the thoroughness of their EIAs, are that they operate on principles of transparency and responsibility to our natural and social environment. The proof of their commitment to make a net positive impact to this country will be seen in how effectively they prevent environmental damage arising from their cumulative activities.

User: Shikomba 21037319 | Shikomba 21037319 (talk ) 13:25, 16 May 2012 (UTC)