Top 50 Countries by Uranium Mine Production (2025 Edition)
Uranium mine production (tU): quick ranking snapshot for the 2025 edition
Uranium mine production measures uranium metal content produced by mines in a given year. It is an upstream supply indicator and should be separated from the midstream fuel services that convert and enrich uranium for reactors. That distinction matters because mining output and fuel-service capacity can be located in different countries and respond to different bottlenecks.
Quick read: 2024 output is heavily concentrated; a small number of producers account for most global mine supply, making the global balance sensitive to a limited set of operational and geopolitical variables.
Source: World Nuclear Association (updated 23 Sep 2025)
| Rank | Country | Value (tU) |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Kazakhstan | 23,270 |
| 2 | Canada | 14,309 |
| 3 | Namibia | 7,333 |
| 4 | Australia | 4,598 |
| 5 | Uzbekistan (est.) | 4,000 |
| 6 | Russia | 2,738 |
| 7 | China (est.) | 1,600 |
| 8 | Niger | 962 |
| 9 | India (est.) | 500 |
| 10 | South Africa (est.) | 200 |
Values as published by the source (reported/estimated).
Explanation and connections: what the distribution reveals
The 2024 ranking (as presented in the 2025 update) shows an unusually “small N” supply structure: a few large producers dominate, while the remainder is a very thin tail. This is a common pattern in extractive commodities with constrained geology and specialized processing, but uranium is particularly sensitive because many end-users treat supply security as a strategic constraint rather than a purely market variable.
In uranium, the separation between mining and midstream fuel services is central. Mine output is measured in tonnes of uranium (tU), while reactor fuel markets typically price and contract in different units and specifications (e.g., U3O8 and UF6), with conversion and enrichment capacity creating additional chokepoints. As a result, two countries with the same mine output can face very different exposure depending on contracting structures, service access, and logistics routes.
Data interpretation note: the public country table consolidates smaller producers into an “Others” entry. That is still informative for concentration analysis, but it is not a substitute for a detailed country-by-country “long tail” dataset when the goal is granular diversification mapping.
Headline pattern: in 2024, the top 3 producers account for ≈74.6% of world mine output, and the top 5 reach ≈88.9%. This makes the global supply picture sensitive to changes in a small set of producing jurisdictions and major mines.
This table reproduces the full set of entries available in the source summary for 2024, including “Others” and the world total.
| Rank | Country / group | Value (tU) |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Kazakhstan | 23,270 |
| 2 | Canada | 14,309 |
| 3 | Namibia | 7,333 |
| 4 | Australia | 4,598 |
| 5 | Uzbekistan (est.) | 4,000 |
| 6 | Russia | 2,738 |
| 7 | China (est.) | 1,600 |
| 8 | Niger | 962 |
| 9 | India (est.) | 500 |
| 10 | South Africa (est.) | 200 |
| 11 | Ukraine (est.) | 288 |
| 12 | USA | 260 |
| — | Others | 155 |
| — | World total | 60,213 |
Shares are rounded to two decimals for comparability.
| Group | Output (tU) | Share of world (%) |
|---|---|---|
| Top 1 (Kazakhstan) | 23,270 | 38.65% |
| Top 3 (Kazakhstan + Canada + Namibia) | 44,912 | 74.59% |
| Top 5 (add Australia + Uzbekistan) | 53,510 | 88.87% |
| Top 10 (add Russia, China, Niger, India, South Africa) | 59,510 | 98.83% |
Annual series in the same source table; the 2024 spike for Canada is visible in the recovery of production.
A compact way to see how quickly global output accumulates across the largest producers.
Long format keeps tables mobile-friendly (≤3 columns).
| Year | Series | Output (tU) |
|---|---|---|
| 2015 | Kazakhstan | 23,607 |
| 2015 | Canada | 13,325 |
| 2015 | Namibia | 2,993 |
| 2015 | Top 3 total | 39,925 |
| 2016 | Kazakhstan | 24,689 |
| 2016 | Canada | 14,039 |
| 2016 | Namibia | 3,654 |
| 2016 | Top 3 total | 42,382 |
| 2017 | Kazakhstan | 23,321 |
| 2017 | Canada | 13,116 |
| 2017 | Namibia | 4,224 |
| 2017 | Top 3 total | 40,661 |
| 2018 | Kazakhstan | 21,705 |
| 2018 | Canada | 7,001 |
| 2018 | Namibia | 5,525 |
| 2018 | Top 3 total | 34,231 |
| 2019 | Kazakhstan | 22,808 |
| 2019 | Canada | 6,938 |
| 2019 | Namibia | 5,476 |
| 2019 | Top 3 total | 35,222 |
| 2020 | Kazakhstan | 19,477 |
| 2020 | Canada | 3,885 |
| 2020 | Namibia | 5,413 |
| 2020 | Top 3 total | 28,775 |
| 2021 | Kazakhstan | 21,819 |
| 2021 | Canada | 4,693 |
| 2021 | Namibia | 5,753 |
| 2021 | Top 3 total | 32,265 |
| 2022 | Kazakhstan | 21,227 |
| 2022 | Canada | 7,351 |
| 2022 | Namibia | 5,611 |
| 2022 | Top 3 total | 34,189 |
| 2023 | Kazakhstan | 21,109 |
| 2023 | Canada | 11,001 |
| 2023 | Namibia | 6,986 |
| 2023 | Top 3 total | 39,096 |
| 2024 | Kazakhstan | 23,270 |
| 2024 | Canada | 14,309 |
| 2024 | Namibia | 7,333 |
| 2024 | Top 3 total | 44,912 |
Interpretation: what the ranking can imply for economies, policy, and markets
Uranium is unusual among mining commodities because it sits inside a tightly regulated, multi-stage fuel cycle. Mine production is the “front end” of the system and is meaningful for supply resilience, but it does not directly describe the location of conversion and enrichment services, nor the end-use demand profile shaped by reactor fleets and national power strategies.
The 2024 distribution highlights how upstream output can be dominated by a small set of jurisdictions. In such a structure, changes in permitting environments, operational disruptions, or logistics constraints can have an outsized effect on global supply totals. For policy analysis, that typically shifts attention from marginal producers to the reliability and expansion trajectories of the dominant group.
Method note: some countries are flagged as “est.” in the source table. Year-to-year values can be revised, and totals may show small rounding differences when aggregates are recomputed.
Policy takeaway
- Concentration is the core structural feature: when a small group accounts for most output, resilience depends on a narrow set of operational and geopolitical variables.
- Upstream vs midstream must be separated: mine production (tU) and fuel services (conversion/enrichment) are different capacity stacks with different risk profiles.
- Lead times are long: supply expansion is constrained by permitting, construction, and commissioning timelines, which makes near-term flexibility limited.
- Public summaries compress the long tail: a consolidated “Others” bucket is informative for concentration analysis but not granular diversification mapping.
- System context matters: the relevance of uranium supply varies with nuclear generation intensity and the reactor pipeline, not only with mine output.
Primary data sources and technical notes clickable
Download: Uranium mine production (2025 edition) — tables & charts
ZIP includes CSV tables, an Excel workbook, and PNG chart images used in this article.
