By Kuiri F U Tjipangandjara
On Friday, 10 October 2025, the Namibia Newspaper published an article titled “Stop Dancing around and say No to in-situ leaching – Schlettwein”.
This article, a follow-up to some postings on Facebook,
extensively quoted former minister Calle Schlettwein, was published after former mines minister Natangue Ithete presented a report to Parliament on the in-situ uranium project.
Speaking in Gobabis, President Netumbo Nandi Ndaitwah emphasised the need for stakeholders to learn from other countries’ experiences and to be guided at all times by scientific principles.
Having studied the article by Schlettwein several times, it is evident that Schlettwein’s views have been influenced by the Namibia Chamber of Environment (NCE), which I do not consider balanced.
Further, I need to be convinced of NCE’s expertise in in-situ uranium mining.
Mining and mineral development, as well as water security, are based on solid scientific, applied, and engineering principles.
It will be irresponsible for the government to decide on in situ uranium recovery based on emotions, unproven science, politics, and religious beliefs.
Whilst, as a principle, I refrain from being entangled in political exchanges, the views expressed by Schlettwein cannot remain unchallenged.
Many water scientists believe the Stampriet Aquifer recharges from the Kavango Delta. It is worth noting that waters from the Kavango Delta that recharge the Stampriet Aquifer are constantly in motion, albeit slowly. The Wings Project by Headspring Investments is not the only mining Project in this aquifer.
There are the Cobre Mining Project, which has identified the In-Situ processing method for extraction; the Motheo Copper Mine near Ghanzi; and the Khoemacau Copper Mine in north-west Botswana. There are many prospective license holders for projects south of Mamuno in Botswana.
If an individual is concerned about the potential negative impacts of mining activities on the water quality, then the discussion must go beyond the Wings Project.
Aquifer contamination during exploration activities
The Ministry of Agriculture refused to grant exploration permission to Headspring Investments for the Aminius Area. Possible water contamination during the mineral exploration stage was cited as the reason.
Everyone who has been doing exploration work is aware that mineral drilling is done with a diameter of about 270mm, whereas water-borehole drilling uses a diameter of 700mm.
After the mineral core samples are removed, the cavity is sealed to prevent the intrusion of any material. This action is taken to preserve the integrity of the ore body and to avoid any intrusion of foreign objects. The hypothesis of aquifer contamination during exploration is new and must be proven.
Schlettwein has raised concerns about contamination of the aquifer due to the in-situ process.
However, he is ignoring the fact that in a water-rich environment, minerals tend to dissolve and leach from the orebodies into the aquifers.
The Water Resources Act of 2013 provides clear guidelines on the maximum concentrations of radioactive nuclides permitted in water for animal and human consumption.
During the period 30 April 2021 – 13 May 2022, Headsprings Investments, as part of the Wings Project, collected 217 samples within the eight EPL Areas for water quality analyses—covering around 32 chemical constituents and radio nuclides.
Under the Namibia Resources Act of 2013, the maximum concentration of Alpha nuclides must not exceed 0.5 Bq/l, and the Beta nuclides must be below 1.0 Bq/l.
The results from Headsprings show that 28% of the samples recorded a concentration of 15.4 Bq/l (31 times above the limit), and 38% recorded a concentration of 2.9 Bq/l (3 times above the limit).
If Schlettwein is really concerned about the health of the local communities, he should have organised for comprehensive water sampling of all the boreholes in the Stampriet Aquifer in Namibia to establish the concentration of the alpha and beta radionuclides.
In the absence of such comprehensive water analysis for radio nuclides, it will be difficult for Schlettwein to convince the public about the safety of the water currently used by animals and people.
Contribution of ISL to global uranium production
With the uranium price nearing $80/lb. Namibia, a country with vast proven uranium deposits, that is facing economic challenges and high unemployment rates, “cannot be seen seated and the banks of a river and washes her face with saliva”.
In-situ uranium recovery technology must be exploited to benefit the vast majority of the population.
On several occasions, Schlettwein has mentioned “corrosive chemicals” that will be pumped into the ground, and, according to him, they would contaminate the aquifer.
In conventional uranium leaching processes, concentrated sulfuric acid (+95%) combined with high temperatures is used to leach the pulp; in the case of the in-situ process, diluted sulfuric acid (4% concentration) is used, and subsequently the depleted mineral chamber is flushed out with barren solution (chemicals free from dissolved uranium).
This measure is taken to minimise environmental harm. Is Schlettwein referring to the diluted sulfuric acid and the barren solutions as the “corrosive chemicals”?
“From exploration to mining stage”
Here, Schlettwein argues that once the exploration works are completed, the Headsprings will proceed to the mining stage.
The importance of some critical stages in mineral extraction is not understood or appreciated. As a practice, exploration works are followed by mining, mineral extraction, piloting, comprehensive environmental impact studies, and commissioning.
With only 50% of the targeted exploration works completed, it will be unrealistic for any respected geologist, metallurgist, project owner, financier and/or the government to have a buy-in in such a “half-baked” project.
Prospecting and exploration phases
Definitely, this statement needs some elaboration. The Former Minister owes the stakeholders some explanation regarding this statement. To cite some examples of this new practice.
As a norm, no mining activities commence without pilot works and the presentation and approval of the comprehensive environmental assessment.
Close to 50% of uranium is produced through the in situ process because of the benefits it has over the conventional methods (underground and open pit). This 50% global share is expected to grow in the next 5 to 10 years.
The in-situ Uranium process offers the following benefits: short project completion time; reduced investment in mining and mineral infrastructure; small footprint; minimal air pollution; absence of tailings dams; healthy returns on investment; minimal environmental damage, etc. It is rather unfortunate that the former minister chose not to look into these factors.
Positive impacts of ISL uranium leaching on the aquifer As pointed out earlier in #3 above, the presence of radio nuclides in aquifer water is caused by the dissolved uranium ore bodies.
If uranium is extracted through the ISL process, the risk of radioactive nuclides leaching into and depositing in aquifers is reduced.
Subsequently, the water quality in the aquifer improves. Here, again, one cannot ignore the positive impacts of the ISL process, which were not mentioned by either Schlettwein or the Namibia Chamber of Environment (NCE).
Schlettwein argues that ISL mining is possible in Australia, the US, and Kazakhstan, where aquifers contain water unsuitable for human or animal consumption.
Here, Schlettwein failed to identify the specific aquifers with poor water earmarked for the ISL Technology.
Thus, the onus is on the minister to elaborate and cite examples of aquifers with poor-quality water. And to elaborate on the water constituents and their respective concentrations that classify these water bodies as of poor quality.
Co-existence of ISL mining methods and agricultural activities
Schlettwein argues that if ISL Operations are allowed in Namibia, water will be polluted, agricultural activities will cease, and there will be substantial job losses.
In the discussion below, an attempt will be made to highlight some ISL Projects being executed alongside agricultural activities.
Currently, there are 21 ISL projects at various stages in these States. Also, the agricultural activities in the concerned States are indicated.
The majority of these projects are in the early development or licensing stages.
The increase in ISL uranium mining in the State is aided by the US Administration’s policy to increase domestic production, to “meet the goal of quadrupling nuclear energy capacity by 2050”.
From my experience, the US has always been stringent on environmental protection; hence, the US will never permit any mining operation that could threaten the environment and/or food security.
All ISL projects are in South Australia.
Compared to the US, the majority of these ISL projects are in the developmental stage.
However, it is worth noting that Australia has put in place measures to prevent uranium extraction at the expense of the environment and agriculture.
Australia has the world’s largest uranium deposit, with 1,684,100 metric tons, and was ranked 4th among producers in 2024.
Given the country’s rich and responsible history of uranium mining, combined with the economic benefits of ISL technologies, it is not surprising that it will develop some of the identified projects.
Kazakhstan has the world’s largest uranium deposit (815,200 Metric tons) and is the world’s leading producer of uranium (21,227 metric tons in 2024).
In-situ leaching technology is used for uranium extraction.
In most projects, ISL technology is favoured due to the presence of uranium in the sandstone aquifers. It is worth noting that Kazakhstan’s share of global uranium production rose from 15% in 2001 to 35% in 2021.
The Regions of Kyzylorda and Tortkuduk are considered to be the major uranium producers.
In the interview with Schlettwein, the focus was on aquifer contamination and the subsequent cessation of agricultural activities.
No attempt was made in the ongoing research to examine what developed countries are doing to restore aquifers and/or improve water quality in these bodies. There is a wealth of information on aquifer restoration after in situ uranium recovery; shockingly, Schlettwein opted not to consult these literature sources.
Here, again, it is evident that the views expressed in the interview are unbalanced. These views are not made in furtherance of the principles of sciences, applied sciences and engineering.
Concluding observations
Mining and mineral development projects entail certain risks. Therefore, it is the responsibility of the various stakeholders to identify and prioritise these risks, and to develop mechanisms to reduce their impacts.
It must be admitted that there is an immense lack of knowledge about the ISL technology, and these aspects are being exploited to the detriment of the government’s initiatives or the project promoters.
The water-rich environment, the population in the project areas, and the communities’ dependence on agricultural activities must be considered at all times when embarking on ISL Project developments in the Omaheke-Karas-Hardap Regions.
For Namibia to realise tangible benefits from its mineral resources, and in this case uranium, the country must pay attention to the following strategies:
It is essential to establish a coordination unit to oversee all ISL activities, as the current, scattered approach is not yielding satisfactory results.
To ensure buy-in from the locals where uranium deposits are located, policy directives must ensure their participation.
At the National level, the government must speak with one voice, as conflicting positions undermine its good intentions.
Given the limited knowledge of the population about ISL Technology and the inaccurate and false information being peddled, this must be avoided.
The government must embark on an aggressive programme to educate policy-makers, concerned stakeholders, and the public about ISL technology: Knowledge is the Best Weapon Against Fear and Apprehension.
Where local knowledge of ISL Technology is lacking, Namibia must not reinvent the wheel; international institutions can assist with knowledge transfer.
About the author
Dr Eng Kuiri F Tjipangandjara is a consultant on Water Security and Mineral Development.
