By Kuiri F. U. Tjipangandjara (D Sci Eng)
Mining and mineral development, as well as water security, are based on solid sciences, applied sciences and engineering principles.
It would be irresponsible for the Namibian Government to make decisions on in-situ uranium recovery based on emotions, unproven science, politics or religious beliefs.
This write-up was prompted by the publication of the article “Stop dancing around and say ‘No to in-situ leaching’ – Schlettwein.”
Whilst, as a principle, I refrain from political exchanges, the views expressed in recent articles on in-situ uranium recovery in Namibia cannot remain unchallenged.
Mining activities in and around the Stampriet Aquifer have been ongoing for years.
Many water scientists believe the aquifer recharges from the Kavango Delta and that these waters are constantly in motion, albeit slowly. The Wings Project by Headspring Investments is not the only mining development in this aquifer.
Projects such as the Cobre Mining Project (also proposing ISR), the Motheo Copper Mine near Ghanzi and the Khoemacau Copper Mine in north-west Botswana all fall within the broader geological system.
The Warmbad Uranium Project in Namibia is another emerging development.
Several other prospective licence holders are active south of Mamuno in Botswana. If there is genuine concern about potential impacts on water quality, then the discussion should extend far beyond Wings alone.
Aquifer contamination during exploration has also been overstated.
The Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries, Water and Land Reform (MAFWLR) refused exploration permission to Headspring Investments in the Aminuis Constituency, citing possible contamination.
However, mineral exploration drilling is typically done with diameters of 76–96 mm, while water boreholes use diameters of 200 mm or more.
With smaller diameters, water naturally migrates toward the larger borehole. The possibility of contamination during exploration is negligible.
After core samples are extracted, the cavity is sealed to preserve the ore body and prevent intrusion. The hypothesis of aquifer contamination during exploration is new and must be proven.
Much of the debate around ISR is based on a myth that the technology itself will contaminate aquifers. In water-rich environments, some mineral leaching into aquifers occurs regardless.
The Water Resources Act of 2013 sets clear limits on radionuclide concentrations in water for human and animal consumption.
Between 30 April 2021 and 13 May 2022, Headspring Investments collected 217 water samples across eight EPLs as part of the Wings Project.
Some samples exceeded the permissible limits for alpha and beta radionuclides. The MAFWLR’s silence on these results is disturbing.
If the ministry is genuinely concerned about community health, it should undertake comprehensive water testing across the entire Stampriet Transboundary Aquifer System.
Without this, it becomes challenging to reassure the public about the safety of the water currently used by people and livestock.
Globally, more than 55% of uranium is now produced using ISR. With uranium prices nearing US$80/lb, Namibia cannot ignore a technology embraced worldwide.
With vast deposits and high unemployment, “Namibia cannot be seen seated at the banks of a river washing her face with saliva.” ISR must be considered for the wider national benefit.
Concerns about “corrosive chemicals” used in ISR have been exaggerated. Conventional uranium leaching uses concentrated sulphuric acid (95%+) at high temperatures.
ISR uses diluted sulphuric acid (0.1%–5%) and relies on both synthetic and natural restoration to rehabilitate the depleted zones. These measures minimise environmental impacts.
Assertions that exploration is being fast-tracked to mining are incorrect. Pilot studies, feasibility studies, environmental assessments and commissioning follow exploration.
With only 50% of the targeted exploration completed, no responsible geologist, metallurgist, financier, or government would consider advancing to mining.
ISR’s benefits explain its global growth to nearly 60% of uranium output: shorter project timelines, lower capital investment, small surface footprint, minimal air pollution, no tailings dams, strong returns and lower environmental disturbance.
Critics seldom address these advantages.
It has also been argued that ISR is only suitable where aquifers hold water unfit for consumption, such as in Australia and the United States.
However, those opposing ISR have not identified which Namibian aquifers supposedly fall into this category. If this claim is to be taken seriously, they must locate aquifer types and water-quality constituents and concentrations.
Selective criticism also undermines the debate. While Wings has faced restrictions, the Warmbad Uranium Project continues actively.
Concerns about the impact on agriculture fail to acknowledge countries where ISR and agriculture coexist. In the United States, 21 ISR projects are at various stages, all coexisting with cattle, hog, sheep, goat and crop farming.
In South Australia, Australia, ISR projects operate alongside dairy, grain, fruit, and wine agriculture. Both countries have strong environmental oversight.
Kazakhstan, the world’s largest uranium producer, extracts most of its uranium through ISR while maintaining large-scale agriculture, including rice, agroforestry, and sheep, horse, and camel farming.
Israel’s operations show that aquifer restoration after ISR is possible.
Developed countries have published extensive research on post-mining aquifer rehabilitation. The Schlettwein article does not engage this literature and presents an unbalanced, emotion-driven view.
ISR is not a threat to agriculture or job security. Had criticism been grounded in science rather than emotion, it could have strengthened the national debate.
Mineral deposits in the subsoil hold no value until extracted and beneficiated.
Mining projects carry risks, and stakeholders must identify and mitigate them. The lack of knowledge about ISR is being exploited to undermine government initiatives and project development.
Factors such as water-rich environments, population distribution and community dependence on agriculture must be considered when developing ISR projects in Omaheke, Hardap and Karas.
Namibia needs a coordinated unit to oversee all ISR-related activities. Conflicting government positions weaken national progress. Public education on ISR is essential because knowledge is the best weapon against fear and misinformation.
Where Namibia lacks expertise, it must draw on international institutions for support.
To maximise financial benefits from ISR uranium mining operations, investments in human resource development at the vocational, polytechnic, and university levels are essential.
Kuiri F. U. Tjipangandjara (D Sci Eng) is a consultant in Water Security and Mineral Development
