Major updates

In_Situ_Policy.tex

@@ -1,10 +1,14 @@
 \documentclass[11pt]{article}
 %#####ACG
+\usepackage{soul,color}
+\usepackage{subcaption}
+\usepackage{wrapfig}
 \usepackage{lscape}
 \usepackage{subcaption}
 \usepackage{dcolumn}
 \usepackage{adjustbox}
 \usepackage{graphicx}
+\graphicspath{Images/} 
 \usepackage{amsmath,amsfonts,amsthm,bm}
 \usepackage{float}
 \usepackage{threeparttable}
@@ -37,7 +41,7 @@
 \usepackage{setspace}   %allows me to vary spacing as I go along
 \usepackage{caption}
 \usepackage{subcaption}
-\usepackage[printonlyused]{acronym}
+\usepackage[printonlyused,nolist,nohyperlinks]{acronym}
 
 \usepackage{threeparttable}
 \usepackage{tikz}
@@ -138,9 +142,12 @@ PhD candidate of Economics, University of Wyoming
 \doublespacing
 \input{Supporting/Acro.tex}
 \input{Sections/Introduction.tex}
+\input{Sections/Background.tex}
 \input{Sections/Data.tex}
 \input{Sections/Profit.tex}
 \input{Sections/Extended_Production.tex}
+\input{Sections/Results.tex}
+
 
 
 
@@ -154,6 +161,8 @@ PhD candidate of Economics, University of Wyoming
 	\newpage
 \appendix
 \input{Sections/Appendix/Math.tex}
+\input{Sections/Appendix/Quasi_Supply.tex}
+
 
 \end{document}
 

Sections/Appendix/Quasi_Supply.tex

@@ -0,0 +1,9 @@
+\section{Plot of Uranium Production and Uranium Price}
+\label{A-QUASISUPPLY}
+\cref{QUASISUPPLY} plots the quantity of uranium concentrate produced in the U.S. \citep{eia2024,eia2024a} against the U.S. average contract price of uranium. The U.S. average price includes long term contract prices for U.S. firms representing the actual received payments. Producers respond to these realized prices more directly than spot market prices, which are more volatile. Price data is collected iteratively from \ac{EIA} marketing reports and inflation adjusted to 2024\citep{u.s.bureauoflaborstatistics2023a}. This simple estimate matches the expectations of a constant slope supply curve with a single shift occurring in 2008. This informs the models of \cref{REG} and a dummy for post 2007 is included.
+\begin{figure}
+	\centering
+	\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{./Images/SUPPLY_PLOT.jpeg}
+	\caption{Quasi Supply Curve of U.S. Uranium}
+	\label{QUASISUPPLY}
+\end{figure}

Sections/Background.tex

@@ -0,0 +1,36 @@
+\section{Background}
+
+Most U.S. uranium mines are classified as underground mines, surface mines \footnote{Either open cut or open pit}, or as in situ recovery facilities. The first step to establish a conventional uranium mine is to identify target orebodies. Then a shaft is generally sunk in the vicinity of the deposit and workings are excavated to remove the uranium ore \citep{nuclearregulatorycommission2020}. Blasted ore is brought to the surface and sent to a mill, where it is crushed or ground and processed into uranium concentrate. 
+\begin{wrapfigure}{r}{0.37\textwidth}
+	\centering
+	\caption{In Situ Mining Process}
+	\label{INSITU}
+	\includegraphics{./Images/In_Situ_Diagram}
+\end{wrapfigure}
+
+In situ (in place) mines, leave the uranium ore body in the ground, and instead process low\footnote{Relative to the ore grades recovered with conventional mining methods} grade uranium deposits of sandstone that contain a ground water aquifer. A diagram of the basic in situ process is provided in \cref{INSITU}. A lixiviant\footnote{A lixiviant is any liquid chemical mixture designed to dissolve a ore concentrate \citep{wang2007}} designed to dissociate uranium from the rock is injected into the target formation. 
+
+For Wyoming in situ mines the lixiviant is a mixture of native groundwater with typical additives such as carbon dioxide, oxygen, and sodium bicarbonate \citep{gregory2015,kehoe2023}, but international mines primarily use acidic lixiviants such as sulfuric acid \citep{worldnuclearassociation2024}. The acid or base dissociates the uranium from a sandstone roll front where a historic oxidation reaction deposited the ore \citep{wilson2015}. 
+
+The lixiviant within a wellfield is pumped from the recovery wells to a plant that contains an ion exchange process. Vessels inside the plant contain ion exchange resin beads that attract uranium ions in the groundwater. Groundwater from the uranium wellfields is passed through the ion exchange beads, which bind the uranium. Once the groundwater leaves the ion exchange vessels, it is refortified with oxygen and carbon dioxide and reinjected into the mining aquifer within the wellfields. The pressure of the injection wells keep the solution within a closed loop in the aquifer. The resin beads, when fully loaded with the uranium, are transferred out of the ion exchange vessel and then stripped of the uranium in a process called elution. Clean resin beads are then transferred back to the ion exchange vessels for re-use. \citep{wichers2024a}
+
+This process is repeated, cycling the groundwater between injection and recovery wells until uranium recovery rates becomes subeconomic, and the well grouping is retired. A single recovery facility serves a system of wells. As some wells are retired, others may be added further along the roll front, until all economically recoverable uranium is extracted, and the operation is ended.
+
+%A common well system for in situ mines is referred to as a five spot. A five spot pattern exists when four injection wells are drilled in a rectangle, with a single recovery well in the center. These wells are shallow typically less than 100 ft deep. A piping system, often constructed with PVC pipes, brings the extracted water to processing facility and then back to the injection wells. This piping network is removed after operation are closed, and wells are capped.
+
+In comparison to traditional mining methods in situ operations create minimal ground disturbance, do not produce tailings, and avoid expose of miners to elevated radon levels linked to lung concern \citep{nationalacademyofsciences1999}.
+There are multiple environmental advantages of this method of uranium recovery. The chemical injected into the groundwater, are commonly used in household without direct health risk, in Wyoming the most commons lixicant is sodium bicarbonate (baking soda). Rather than removing large volumes of earth only minor holes are created that are capped after completion.
+
+
+
+ The \ac{SDWA} requires that in situ mine can only operate on \emph{exempt aquifers}. These are aquifers that the \ac{EPA} has identified as not being a suitable source of public drinking water. Either because the aquifer is already highly polluted, or because there are too few people in the area to make use of it. Once exempt, a aquifer can never be used as a public drinking water source.
+
+ Other rules by the \ac{NRC} mandate that in situ mines restore the groundwater after operations are completed. Samples of groundwater are taken before the mine starts operation. These samples are tested for a array of dissolved solid levels. The rules require that thirteen different water constituent levels are returned to pre-mine levels. 
+
+ In a typical restoration, multiple steps are taken to reduce post-mining increases in aquifer chemical constituents. The first stage of aquifer restoration is a groundwater sweep. The entire pore volume of groundwater within a wellfield is brought to the surface and injected into deeper layers through disposal well. The groundwater sweep process draws in native groundwater from outside the mining zone with lower dissolved solids refills this pore space \citep{saunders2016,yang2023}. Other projects manage the produced water using evaporation ponds, or water treatment followed by surface discharge \citep{wyomingdepartmentofenvironmentalquality2018}. If surface discharge is applied, the constituent concentration of the water must be tested before being applied to the ground \citep{wyomingdepartmentofenvironmentalquality2018}.
+
+ Next, the water is run through reverse osmosis filtration and water treatment processes to reduce pollutants to allowable levels. Once these thresholds are reached, monitoring wells are used to track mineral content in a quarter mile buffer around the operation. If the decline rate of these factors is shown to be stable, the restoration is complete. \citep{internationalatomicenergyagency2016,saunders2016}. Because each individual dissolved solids must be restored to pre-mine levels, some constituents are reduced below starting levels, as additional sweeps and filtering is used to remove the most difficult to extract pollutants. This was the case in the Smith Ranch Wyoming operation where radium levels in the groundwater were lower than baseline after restoration  \citep{ruedig2015}. 
+
+
+\hl{Negative externalties of restoration, positive of production, coase contained costs}
+

Sections/Data.tex

@@ -2,10 +2,22 @@
 The technical feasibility reports of uranium mines in Wyoming are reviewed to create a data set of mine operation plans. The type of data reported varies, based on the jurisdiction of the companies headquarters, and the phase in development of the cite. Projects under the purview of the \ac{NRC}. In total the technical reports of 15 Wyoming in situ operations were reviewed. Of these only five provide sufficient cost estimates for analysis \footnote{Seven projects are in the preliminary evaluation phase, or are otherwise not required to provided economic estimates by the State of Wyoming. Three projects are in the development stage and provide geologic data, as well as exploration costs, but not operating plans. The remaining five projects provide enough data to establish a net present cost estimate of groundwater Restoration.}. These projects have some spatial diversity coming from five different counties and at least to major different uranium plays.
  
 
-The \ac{CNSC} requires mines to provide technical reports before beginning operation. These reports include a schedule of mine operation, with project drilling, restoration, and labor costs in each year, along with forecasted revenues from uranium recovery. While not all Wyoming mines are required to report this information, four operating projects in the State are fully or partially owned by a Canadian mining company such as Cameco. The operations with these fillings include the Gas Hills Project in Fremont County, the Lost Creek Project in Sweetwater county, the Shirley basin project in Carbon County, and  the  Moores Ranch Project in Campbell and Johnson counties \citep{moores2021,westernwaterconsultantsinc2024,westernwaterconsultantsinc2024a,malensek2022}.
+The \ac{CNSC} requires mines to provide technical reports before beginning operation. These reports include a schedule of mine operation, with project drilling, restoration, and labor costs in each year, along with forecasted revenues from uranium recovery. While not all Wyoming mines are required to report this information, four operating projects in the State are fully or partially owned by a Canadian mining company such as Cameco. 
 
-The \ac{NPV} of each category of cost and revenue is discounted with a baseline assumption of 10\% private return. A cash flow model for each mine is created, that allows \ac{NPV} to be calculated variables of uranium price, restoration costs, internal return rate, operating costs, and up front costs. This is used to create sensitivity analysis of profits. 
+The operations with these fillings include the Gas Hills Project , the Lost Creek Project, the Shirley basin project, and  the  Moores Ranch Project \citep{moores2021,westernwaterconsultantsinc2024,westernwaterconsultantsinc2024a,malensek2022}. The final report comes from a \ac{NRC} surety bond filling for the Strata Ross Project \citep{strataenergyinc.2010,strataenergyinc.2010a}.
 
-The final report comes from a \ac{NRC} surety bond filling for the Strata Ross Project in Crook County \citep{strataenergyinc.2010,strataenergyinc.2010a}. Wyoming is a agreement State with the \ac{NRC} which shifts the approval process of mine operations from the \ac{NRC} to the \ac{WDEQ} \citep{nrc2018}\footnote{Agreement states must apply restoration and operating standards at least as stringent as the \ac{NRC} and \ac{EPA} rules. The benefit for companies is reduced overhead costs. A comparison of filling costs finds that completing the reports necessary to begin a in situ operation costs \$3.2 million less when filled through the \ac{WDEQ} instead of with the \ac{NRC} \citep{castellon2023,nuclearregulatorycommission2023j}.}. The Strata Ross Project, began production while the \ac{NRC} sill managed the technical report approval process and required restoration cost estimates over time to be provided in the report. This final report is only used to estimate the average Restoration cost of Wyoming projects.
+The \ac{NPV} of each category of cost and revenue is discounted with a baseline assumption of 10\% private return. A cash flow model for each mine is created, that allows \ac{NPV} to be calculated by adjusting the variables of uranium price, restoration costs, internal return rate, operating costs, and up front costs. This can used to create sensitivity analysis of profits. 
 
 
+To compare restoration of in situ mines to the value of land effected assessed land value data in Wyoming was collected \citep{wyomingdepartmentofrevenue2024}. The map of these parcels was overlaid with the geologic distribution of uranium in the State \citep{eia2020a}. 
+To provide additional information about the potential starting groundwater quality, total dissolved solids of wells  less than 200 feet deep was collected, and values were interpolated to create a spatial distribution of initial dissolved solid levels. This is important because aquifers with initially low groundwater quality have a lower restoration cost. For example, Australia has similar  aquifer restoration rules as the U.S. but the initial groundwater quality is so low, that in practice no restoration is required \citep{commonwealthofaustralia2010}. A map of this data is created in \cref{MAP}.
+\begin{figure}[htp]
+	\centering
+\caption{Wyoming Uranium Reserves and Water Quality}
+\label{MAP}
+\includegraphics[width=0.6\textwidth]{./Images/TDS_Wyoming.pdf}
+\end{figure}
+
+As will be seen in the cost comparison, the uranium resources in Wyoming are located in rural areas where land is cheap. However, they are also situated on top of relatively clean aquifers. From an economic perspective a clean but unused aquifer should not be treated differently than a highly polluted aquifer. However, this higher groundwater quality leads to high restoration costs to be applied.
+
+For use in the time series regression, two sets of data are collected from the \ac{EIA} uranium marketing series, the contract price of uranium is collected iteratively going back to 1992\footnote{Source of \citep{eia1993,eia1994,eia1995,eia1996,eia1997,eia1998,eia1999,eia2000,eia2001,eia2002,eia2003,eia2004,eia2005a,eia2006a,eia2007a,eia2008a,eia2009a,eia2010b,eia2011a,eia2012a,eia2013,eia2014a,eia2015b,eia2016a,eia2017c,eia2018a,eia2019a,eia2020b,eia2021a,eia2022b,eia2023b}}. The weighted average contract price is prefered over the spot market price, since this more closely aligns with long run expectation of uranium price. Uranium concentrate production and total the total inventories of yellow cake held by power plants are provided by the \ac{EIA} \citep{eia2024}.

Sections/Extended_Production.tex

@@ -23,9 +23,10 @@ Under the assumption no operating costs, and a exponential decline curve the mar
 \end{equation}
 Where \emph{D} is the decline rate of the well, and r is the instantaneous private discount rate. Since the terminal time \emph{T} is a choice variable the optimal time to operate the well can be found with:
 \begin{equation*}
-	\frac{d \pi_{w}}{dT}= \left(P_{ur}\cdot q_{i}-C_{op}e^{-rT}+r\cdot C_{Res}\right)e^{-rT}=0 \
+	\frac{d \pi_{w}}{dT}= \left(P_{ur}\cdot q_{i}e^{-rDT}-C_{op}+r\cdot C_{Res}\right)e^{-rT}=0 \
 \end{equation*}
-This yields a optimal operating time in \cref{EQINFWELL}, with the increase in operting time induced by the resotration requirement \(\Delta T^{\star}\) identified in \cref{TIMEDIFF}. The full derivation is provided in \cref{AINFWELL}
+This yields a optimal operating time equation of \cref{EQINFWELL}.
+The effect on the opertaing life of a uranium well induced by the restoration costs \(\Delta T^{\star}\) is identified in \cref{TIMEDIFF}. The full derivation is provided in \cref{AINFWELL}
 \begin{equation}
 	\label{EQINFWELL}
 	T^{\star}=\frac{\ln(P_{ur})+\ln(q_{i})-\ln(C_{op}-r C_{Res})}{D}

Sections/Introduction.tex

@@ -1,16 +1,18 @@
 \section{Introduction}
-Uranium mines generate uranium oxide that is necessary to support the 390 operating nuclear reactors, supplying 10\% of the worlds energy \citep{worldnuclearassociation2024}. Uranium not stored as inventories is shipped to a conversion facility to prepare for enrichment. Uranium recovery facilities establish contracts with nuclear power plants to purchase set quantities of uranium in future years \citep{camecocorporation2024}. 
+Uranium mines generate uranium oxide that is necessary to support the 390 operating nuclear reactors, supplying 10\% of the worlds energy \citep{worldnuclearassociation2024}. Uranium recovery facilities establish contracts with nuclear power plants to purchase set quantities of uranium in future years \citep{camecocorporation2024}.
 
-Most U.S. uranium mines are classified as underground mines, surface mines \footnote{Either open cut or open pit}, or as in situ recovery facilities.  The first step to establish a conventional uranium mine is to identify target orebodies. Then a shaft is generally sunk in the vicinity of the deposit and workings are excavated to remove the uranium ore \citep{nuclearregulatorycommission2020}. Blasted ore is brought to the surface and sent to a mill, where it is crushed or ground and processed into uranium concentrate. 
+The uranium mine industry, essential for nuclear energy, has undergone a technological innovation that shifts the method of recovery. Some companies have begun extracting uranium from groundwater aquifers. This in situ method was first tested in Wyoming at the Shirley Basin uranium project during the 1960’s \citep{mudd2001,worldnuclearassociation2022b}. This less intrusive extraction method has become the dominate means of uranium recovery the United States. Wyoming produced uranium entirely with conventional mining methods, until the early 1990s but now all mines use in situ techniques \citep{energyinformationadministration2023a}.
 
-In comparison in situ (in place) mines create minimal ground disturbance, do not produce tailings, and avoid expose of miners to elevated radon levels linked to lung concern \citep{national_academy_of_sciences_health_1999}. In situ mining recovers uranium from groundwater aquifers. A lixiviant\footnote{A lixiviant is any liquid chemical mixture designed to dissolve a ore concentrate \citep{wang2007}} designed to dissociate uranium from the rock is injected into the target formation. For Wyoming in situ mines the lixiviant is a mixture of native groundwater with typical additives such as carbon dioxide, oxygen, and sodium bicarbonate \citep{gregory2015,kehoe2023}, but international mines primarily use acidic lixiviants such as sulfuric acid \citep{worldnuclearassociation2024}. The acid or base dissociates the uranium from a sandstone roll front where a historic oxidation reaction deposited the ore \citep{wilson2015}.
+While in situ operations do not create as much surface disturbance, the process does increase the amount of dissolved constituents in groundwater. Some of these constituents can be toxic when consumed at high enough concentrations, such as selenium, and uranium. As a result rules propagated by the \ac{NRC} and \ac{EPA} create constraints on in situ recovery projects.
 
-The lixiviant within a wellfield is pumped from the recovery wells to a plant that contains an ion exchange process. Vessels inside the plant contain ion exchange resin beads that attract uranium ions in the groundwater.  Groundwater from the uranium wellfields is passed through the ion exchange beads, which bind the uranium.  Once the groundwater leaves the ion exchange vessels, it is refortified with oxygen and carbon dioxide and reinjected into the mining aquifer within the wellfields.  The pressure of the injection wells keep the solution within a closed loop in the aquifer. The resin beads, when fully loaded with the uranium, are transferred out of the ion exchange vessel and then stripped of the uranium in a process called elution.  Clean resin beads are then transferred back to the ion exchange vessels for re-use.
+ One \ac{EPA} requirement is that the operation only takes place in low value reservoirs\footnote{The aquifer must be \emph{exempt} which is a \ac{EPA} classification that the aquifer wont be used as a public drinking water source, due to natural pollution, or low economic value}. At the same time \ac{NRC} rules require that after closure mines restore groundwater back to the original level of dissolved solid\footnote{At least 13 constituents are tested for and each independently must reach background levels}. On initial viewing these rules appear to create economically inefficient outcomes. Significant costs must be spent to restore aquifers that are already ruled to have a low economic opportunity costs. 
 
-This process is repeated, cycling the groundwater between injection and recovery wells until uranium recovery rates becomes subeconomic, and the well grouping is retired. A single recovery facility serves a system of wells. As some wells are retired, others may be added further along the roll front, until all economically recoverable uranium is extracted, and the operation is ended.
+We seek to answer two questions relevant to policy makers. How do producers of uranium applying in situ technology respond to economic incentives? and; Are current \ac{EPA} and \ac{NRC} in situ regulations economically efficient?
 
-A common well system for in situ mines is referred to as a five spot. A five spot pattern exists when four injection wells are drilled in a rectangle, with a single recovery well in the center. These wells are shallow typically less than 100 ft deep. A piping system, often constructed with PVC pipes, brings the extracted water to processing facility and then back to the injection wells. This piping network is removed after operation are closed, and wells are capped.
+To answer the first question a micro economic model of uranium in situ mining is created. This is used to inform a time series regression that estimates the short run and long run supply elasticities of uranium mining. This model is calibrated using production plan data from five Wyoming mines. The calibration is still a work in progress, but average values are used to provide preliminary results.
 
-There are multiple environmental advantages of this method of uranium recovery. The chemical injected into the groundwater, are commonly used in household without direct health risk, in Wyoming the most commons lixicant is sodium bicarbonate (baking soda). Rather than removing large volumes of earth only minor holes are created that are capped after completion.
+To determine if the current in situ regulations are efficient, the cost of regulatory compliance is estimated for each mine. Then assessor data on land values in uranium bearing regions is collected. Under a hedonic pricing model, the value of amenities such as aquifer quality are captured in land sale prices \citep{rosen1974}. By comparing these costs to the value of land in a typical mine, it is found that the net present cost of compliance are 4.3 times larger than the total land value. 
 
-Wyoming produced uranium entirely with conventional mining methods, until the early 1990s when in situ techniques were adopted \citep{energyinformationadministration2023a}.
+A qualitative review of the regulatory impacts are also provided, which will be built into a quantitative analysis in later work. The structure of in situ mines makes externalities caused by nearby aquifer contamination unlikely. On the other hand, the recovery process required by the \ac{NRC} and \ac{EPA} does create some minor externality costs. 
+
+A analysis that robustly answer these questions is still in progress, and the current estimates are preliminary. However, the results do answer these questions. To our knowledge this is the first economic model of uranium in situ mines. Based on these models dead weight loss from the regulations is expected. The average cost of aquifer remediation is 15 million dollars per Wyoming uranium in situ mine. Most of this is a dead weight loss providing a lower bound estimate of the policy inefficiencies. We also identify a untended consequence of the restoration requirements, that existing mines extract uranium for a longer period of time. This non-obvious policy outcome results in the water remaining polluted for a longer time period.

Sections/Results.tex

@@ -0,0 +1,48 @@
+\section{Results}
+\subsection{Restoration Cost and Value}
+The results from the \ac{NPV} model of the five observed mine operations, find an average aquifer restoration costs of 15 million dollars per mine. This can be compared to the expected economic benefits of restoration to determine if the current rules balance costs and benefits of aquifer quality.
+
+Ideally a hedonic model would be estimated that uses the sale price of the land affected by in situ mining. While hedonic models have been frequently applied in the context of surface water \citep{lansford1995,vasquez2013,poor2007,petrie2007} or groundwater access in agriculture \citep{hornbeck2014,gebben2024,stage2003}, only a few studies have evaluated the economic costs of groundwater water quality \citep{mukherjee2014,guignet2015}. These place estimates of the cost to decreased groundwater quality between 0.3\% of land price for a mild increases in salinity for farms, up to 15\% residents relying on groundwater with nitrogen over the \ac{EPA} drinking water standards. Unfortunately there is not enough data to complete a hedonic model of uranium in situ mines. 
+
+In lieu of a formal hedonic model, the average land value that overlays a identified uranium resource is calculated. The market value as reported by Wyoming county assessors averages \$239 per acre. This value is weighted by total acreage, so a single large ranching plot such as the one containing the Christen Ranch Mine is weighted higher than small home plots. The average leased area of in situ project is 13,750 acres, making the median expected land value of the leased land 3.29 million dollars\footnote{The leased land is an over estimation of total affected land since much of a lease is used for exploration. For example, the Shirley Basin project has an area under pattern of 283 acres, but a lease area of 3,536 \citep{schiffer2023}}. Since the cost of aquifer restoration is 4.5 times larger than the entire expected land value it is not plausible that the current restoration rules are efficient.
+
+Externalities were also considered. If the groundwater pollution spreads to nearby homes the restoration requirements can reduce social costs. However, the geochemistry of in situ mining, makes this scenario unlikely. The chemical process that bound the uranium to produced sandstone, continues once the constituents flow from the mine zone. Geologic models of water flow from a in situ mine indicate that the flow occurs at around 1,000 feet over a hundred years, or half a mile in 400 years \citep{roshal2006}. Further with time the aquifer is restored naturally, and total dissolved solids are reduced \citep{borch2012,hu2011}. While casing leaks of uranium wells have occurred no pollution increases farther than a quarter mile away from a uranium mine has been identified by the \ac{NRC} \citep{leftwich2011,wright2013,nuclearregulatorycommission2014}.
+
+Interestingly, two potential negative externalities were identified for the restoration process. After being treated the groundwater can be disposed of by surface irrigation. In one instance, water with elevated levels of selenium moved up the food change, increasing selenium levels in grass, grass hoppers, and finally to toxic levels in birds \citep{ramirez2002}. Second the sweeping of groundwater, lowers the aquifer which affects neighbors using groundwater. One rancher who leased his land to a uranium operation reported a decline of the water table at his nearby well of 100 ft \citep{lustgarten2012}. 
+
+On the other hand uranium mining creates some positive externalities. First the exploration for uranium creates lower costs for other producers \citep{mason2014,mason1989,mason1985}. It can also identify aquifers that contain elevated levels of radon, which causes lung cancer as well as mental health problems in children \citep{taylor2024,chen2017c}. By exploring uranium rich regions, geologist help homeowners avoid and manage radon. 
+
+%\begin{figure}
+%\begin{subfigure}{0.4\textwidth}
+%	\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{./Images/Irigary1.png}
+%    \caption{}
+%    \label{fig:first}
+%\end{subfigure}
+%\hfill
+%\begin{subfigure}{0.4\textwidth}
+%	\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{./Images/Irigary2.png}
+%    \caption{Second subfigure.}
+%    \label{fig:second}
+%\end{subfigure}
+%\end{figure}
+
+\subsection{Uranium Supply Elasticity}
+%The model predicts the total quantity of uranium concentrate produced in the U.S. each year. Uranium operations make decisions about expanding capacity in stages. First, existing projects respond to prices immediately, by increasing exploration rates and extraction at operating wells. Next, the exploration expenditures lead to new production wells. It takes time for the in situ wells to reach full capacity, so the response in uranium production caused by a uranium price shift is expected to occur over time. Further, operators factor in the available uranium inventories of nuclear power plants when making investment decisions. If uranium stockpiles are large, then powerplants will augment newly produced uranium with these reserves. 
+
+The change in uranium production is estimated predicted as response to uranium price, using yearly lags in uranium production, a one-year lag of total uranium inventories, and a time trend. The time trend prevents a spurious regression that attributes correlated trends with casual changes to supply \citep{granger1998}. It also incorporates long run trends in mineral depletion due to extraction. Two lags in uranium production are included in the final model\footnote{This selection is based on the \ac{AIC} \citep{akaike1974}. Two lags minimize the \ac{AIC} score.}. One difficulty in estimating uranium supply is that prices are affected when uranium supply shifts. For example, if a new mining technology lowers operating costs, the quantity of uranium produced by mines will increase, which in turn lowers the market price of uranium.
+ An instrumental variable method is applied. We apply the West Texas Intermediate price of oil as an instrument, following past literature \citep{kahouli2011,mason1985}. A change in the demand for energy will affect both the price of oil and uranium, but a change in the price of oil does not plausibly change the operating cost of uranium recovery operations. The estimate from these models is provided in \cref{REG}. 
+\begin{table}[!htp]
+	\centering
+\caption{Uranium Supply Estimate}
+\label{REG}
+\includegraphics[width=0.7\textwidth]{./Images/UR_Supply_Reg_Table.png}
+\end{table}
+The results from \cref{REG} provide insights into the production decision of Wyoming operations. The effect on production over time matches the dynamics expected from uranium recovery operations. Based on model one, uranium companies can add to production in the same year that prices increase. However, the largest effect occurs two years following the price change, as exploration from the previous year leads to new production wells becoming operational. Finally, after three years existing production declines as resources are extracted. The previous years inventories levels reduce current production as an alternative source of mined uranium. 
+
+Because the response of uranium production to price shocks is dynamic, the cumulative effect over time is provided in \cref{IMPACT}.  The value on the y axis is the percentage of a price increase that translates to production. For example, if a 1\% increase in uranium price expands production by 0.7\% this value is 70\%. 
+\begin{table}[!htp]
+	\centering
+\caption{Dynamic Production Response to a Uranium Price Shocks}
+\label{IMPACT}
+\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{./Images/Price_Shock.jpeg}
+\end{table}

Supporting/Acro.tex

@@ -2,6 +2,9 @@
 	\acro{NRC}{United States Nuclear Regulatory Agency}
 	\acro{CNSC}{Canadian Nuclear Saftey Commission}
 	\acro{WDEQ}{Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality}
+	\acro{EIA}{U.S. Energy Information Administration}
+	\acro{SDWA}{Safe Drinking Water Act}
+
 
 
 	\acro{EPA}{United States Environmental Projection Agency}

build.sh

@@ -1,5 +1,5 @@
 #!/bin/bash
-bash Supporting/clean.sh
+bash ./Supporting/clean.sh
 rm app.aux
 rm In_Situ_Policy.aux
 rm In_Situ_Policy.log