Feds: NM well water not apparent health hazard

How much you want to bet that there is substantial evidence to the contrary and that those citizens affected don't believe the study's findings are accurate?

(06-29) 17:15 PDT Albuquerque, N.M. (AP) --

Well water near a Superfund site in western New Mexico's uranium belt poses no apparent health risk despite an earlier report that called the site of Homestake Mining Co.'s former mill a hazard, federal officials said.

Test results show wells being used for drinking water do not contain enough contamination to cause adverse health effects, according to a federal report by the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry released Friday. An earlier draft of the health consultation report on the Homestake mill had classified the site as a public health hazard because samples from some wells showed uranium and selenium concentrations above drinking water standards.

The agency, however, found concentrations of uranium above natural levels in a few wells that are not used for drinking water. It recommended that those wells not be used and that residents have their well water tested before using it for household purposes.

Agency spokeswoman Pam Watson said Monday that officials revised the draft version from May 2008 based on information gathered during a public comment period. She was unable to provide specifics.

The New Mexico Environment Department has been warning residents in the area that their wells may contain contaminants from naturally occurring ore deposits and from previous uranium mining operations.

"We continue to believe that a more comprehensive and detailed study of potential health impacts from past uranium mining and milling in the area is warranted," state Environment Secretary Ron Curry said Monday.

The San Mateo Creek basin, which spans parts of Cibola and McKinley counties, is dotted with old uranium mines, milling sites and piles of tailings, including two piles that cover about 240 acres at the Homestake site. The state has started a long-term study to better understand the basin's watershed and to determine the extent of groundwater contamination.

The state also has an agreement with Homestake Mining Co. of California to connect more than a dozen homes to Milan's municipal water system to ensure that residents have a safe drinking water source.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency designated the Homestake mill as a Superfund site in 1983 and the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission has required remediation of groundwater contamination there since the 1970s. Under the 1980 Superfund law, the federal agency has the authority to compel responsible parties to clean up the nation's most contaminated sites or reimburse the government for EPA-led cleanups.

Residents close to the Homestake site first notified the state Environment Department of well water problems at a public meeting in August 2005. The department and Homestake agreed to start sampling well water in response to the concerns.

According to the federal report, remediation efforts have helped to capture some of the contamination from the mill. Concentrations of uranium, selenium and molybdenum recorded from the 1970s through the 1990s were sometimes as much as 100 times greater than samples taken in the past three years.

Cleanup at the Homestake site is expected to last until 2015, but the report said Homestake is required only to reach federally approved background contaminant concentration standards, not drinking water standards.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2009/06/29/state/n161200D19.DTL

Uranium Found on the Moon

By Clara Moskowitz
Staff Writer
posted: 29 June 2009
05:59 pm ET

Uranium exists on the moon, according to new data from a Japanese spacecraft.

The findings are the first conclusive evidence for the presence of the radioactive element in lunar dirt, the researchers said. They announced the discovery recently at the 40th Lunar and Planetary Conference and at the Proceedings of the International Workshop Advances in Cosmic Ray Science.

The revelation suggests that nuclear power plants could be built on the moon, or even that Earth's satellite could serve as a mining source for uranium needed back home.

The Japanese Kaguya spacecraft, which was launched in 2007, detected uranium with a gamma-ray spectrometer. Scientists are using the instrument to create maps of the moon's surface composition, showing the presence of thorium, potassium, oxygen, magnesium, silicon, calcium, titanium and iron.

"We've already gotten uranium results, which have never been reported before," said Robert Reedy, a senior scientist at the Tucson-based Planetary Science Institute, and a member of the Kaguya science team. "We're getting more new elements and refining and confirming results found on the old maps."

The findings could help decide where to build future lunar colonies, since manned outposts will need energy, and could potentially derive it from nuclear power plants.

Furthermore, since uranium supplies on Earth are scarce, mining uranium on the moon to satisfy our energy needs at home could prove lucrative.

Kaguya, officially named SELENE ("Selenological and Engineering Explorer"), crashed into the lunar surface at the end of its mission on June 10.

http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/090629-uranium-moon.html

Goliad County -vs- Uranium Energy Corp.

Whether Goliad should re-file its lawsuit against Uranium Energy Corp. to protect its water is causing quite a stir...and split...amongst area residents. This post is in 2 parts...a PRO argument and a CON argument. Both are posted here with a link to the original article in the Victoria Advocate after each argument. Both articles have interesting comments accompanying them, one from our friend Mark Krueger, all worth a read.


Goliad County sued Uranium Energy Corp. in March 2008 on allegations of groundwater contamination. A judge dismissed the case in federal court just weeks ago, stating the case belongs in a state court. Now, commissioners debate whether they should re-file its case there.

Pro: County must sue again to protect water

• By Gabe Semenza •
• Originally published June 28, 2009 at 10:51 p.m., updated June 29, 2009 at 8:29 a.m

Charlie Faupel wants Goliad County to re-file its lawsuit against Uranium Energy Corp. in state court.

"Too many cities and counties sell out for industry to gain tax base and money while leaving the environment out to dry," the rancher, who lives downstream from the proposed uranium mine, said. "I don't deny we need power. I think we should use technology in place now without having to use these dangerous uranium plants."

Goliad County claims Uranium Energy Corp. contaminated the county's water supply when it didn't cap dozens of exploratory drill holes. The county wants to sue to protect its water, prevent future contamination and recoup some of its hefty legal fees.

Goliad County Commissioner Jim Krenek wants to take the fight to court again.

"Since they have quit messing around over there, the water has cleared up some," Krenek said. "If they don't disturb the aquifer with bore holes, it settles down. What do we do, just roll over and play dead? Let them do what they want? Why do we want to risk them coming in and ruining our groundwater?

If a uranium mining company wanted to operate on your land, Krenek asks, would you feel safe drinking your well water?

"Groundwater is everything to Goliad. It's our livelihood. I don't like spending county tax dollars, but I feel like we have to fight the company. If we don't, who will?"

Faupel agreed.

"My livelihood, ranch and ability to live healthy in an area where my family's lived for generations is worth it," Faupel said. "I think that right now it looks like an awful big mountain, but this mountain may be a mole hill if the uranium company destroys all that land out there."

http://www.victoriaadvocate.com/news/2009/jun/28/gs_pro_lawsuit_062906_55939/?news

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Con: Taxpayer money wasted on losing battle

• By Gabe Semenza •
• Originally published June 28, 2009 at 10:57 p.m., updated June 29, 2009 at 8:24 a.m.

Gentry Powell said Goliad County is unwise to throw hundreds of thousands of tax dollars at a losing fight.

Individual landowners and not county officials signed exploratory mining leases with Uranium Energy Corp.

"Why would the county intervene on the behalf of private landowners?" Powell said. "If I had a fight with an oil company over damaging my land or water, could I ask the county to pay thousands of dollars for my legal fees?"

Goliad County should not file suit against the company in state court because it can't win, it can't afford to lose and because a federal judge already tossed its case once.

Jerry Rodriguez, a Goliad County commissioner, said the county should object to uranium mining by following state protocol - and not by trying to win landmark environmental cases.

"The federal judge ruled there wasn't a case there. Instead of trying to fight with these people anymore, the county should work with UEC," Rodriguez said. "Ultimately, they're going to get the permit. The way we're going, we're going to lose and we won't have a say-so."

The Texas Railroad Commission has deemed the uranium company did not contaminate well water.

"What more proof do the other stubborn commissioners need?" Rodriguez asked.

In addition to the hundreds of thousands of dollars incurred in legal fees, the county now faces the potential of paying the uranium company's legal tab. Uranium Energy Corp. just filed paperwork demanding $200,000 from the county.

"We shouldn't gamble with taxpayers' money," Rodriguez said. "Now, if individuals want to sue them, that's fine and dandy. I'm not saying uranium is the best for Goliad County. We're just not going to be able to stop them."

Powell said the company already passed state inspection to receive its draft mining permit.

"I do believe no matter how much money they spend, they're going to lose," Powell said. "I think the commissioners mean well, but they've taken this thing and it's become a personal vendetta."

http://www.victoriaadvocate.com/news/2009/jun/28/gs_con_lawsuit_062909_55938/?news&goliad-county

Just a Reminder...Attendance is Encouraged: Virginia Roanoke River Basin Advisory Committee Meeting

Originally posted Friday, June 26, 2009...this is just a reminder. We believe that Walter Coles' continued service on this Committee should be kept under close scrutiny as he simply does not appear to be someone who genuinely represents the best interests of agriculture, forestry, or water.

VIRGINIA ROANOKE RIVER BASIN
ADVISORY COMMITTEE

Meeting Agenda

Tuesday, June 30, 2009
10:30 am - 12:30 pm

Cool Branch Rescue Squad, Penhook, VA

A. Call meeting to order
B. Welcome; Recognition of Members and Guests
C. Minutes of February 2, 2009 Meeting
D. Organizational Issues
1. Review and Consider By Laws
2. Consider Committees and Assignments

E. Update on Bi-State Commission Meetings - Mike McEvoy, Chairman
F. Next Meeting Date/Topic
G. Other Business
H. Adjournment

Directions to Cool Branch Rescue Squad, Penhook, VA 24137 (Thanks to John Lindsey!)

*From Roanoke & Vicinity: US 220 South to Rocky Mount; Take 2nd Rocky Mount Exit to Rt. 40 East; Follow Rt. 40 East 16 miles through Redwood, Glade Hill and Union Hall to Penhook; Left on Rt. 645 one and a half miles to Stop at Rt. 626; Left on 626 1/2 mile to Squad on the Right.

*From Bedford & Vicinity: Rt. 122 South across Hales Ford Bridge to Westlake; At Traffic light, Left on Rt. 616 1/2 mile; Pass the Dairy Queen 200 yards, then (on the curve), Right on Rt. 634, Brooks Mill Road; Follow Brooks Mill Rd about 10 miles to Rt. 40 East, turn Left and follow as above.

*From Gretna & Vicinity: Rt. 40 West 12 miles (Before you get to Penhook), Right Turn on RT 626, go 3 miles, Rescue Squad is on your Right.

Lunch will not be served, but John reports that there are several restaurants in the general vicinity you might enjoy following the meeting.

We look forward to seeing you at the meeting.

Scott Kudlas
Director

Office of Surface and Ground Water Supply Planning

Tammy D. Stephenson
Senior Water Supply Planner

Virginia Department of Environmental Quality
Office of Surface and Ground Water Supply Planning
Blue Ridge Regional Office - Roanoke
3019 Peters Creek Road
Roanoke, Virginia 24019
PH (540) 562-6828
FAX (540) 562-6725

http://www.deq.virginia.gov/watersupplyplanning/homepage.html

Committee Members

Senator Wm. Roscoe Reynolds
Walter Coles, Sr., Chatham (This appointment still baffles me...SB)
Senator Frank M. Ruff
John H. Feild, Mecklenburg
Delegate Kathy J. Byron
Haywood J. Hamlet, Phenix
Delegate Thomas C. Wright, Jr
Evelyn Janney, Floyd
Delegate Onzlee Ware.
Bob Jean, Brookneal
Delegate Charles D. Poindexter
Russ Johnson, Wirtz
Representative Tom Perriello
John Lindsey, Penhook
Mike McEvoy, Chairman, Roanoke
Billy Martin, Sr., Blue Ridge
Tim Pace, Collinsville
Robert H. Conner, Vice-Chair, Ebony
Mark Wagner, Huddleston
Read Charlton, Vice-Chair, Charlotte Court House

cc: Hon. Susan Clarke Schaar
Hon. Bruce Jamerson
Other Interested Parties

Opinions Split on Uranium Lawsuit

Goliad has been on our radar for the past several months as there are myriad instances of severe well-water contamination caused by drilling for uranium, much like what's happening in the vicinity of Coles Hill. Our friend Mark Krueger has kept us informed re: the developments in Goliad and has sent several videos that we've posted upon receipt. The link to the Victoria Advocate (below the article) has been unstable over the past several hours so we're fortunate to have the article here.

By JULIAN CAVAZOS

Originally published June 28, 2009 at 2:54 p.m.

Open bore holes blamed

Of the more than 900 bore holes drilled in northern Goliad County, 136 of them were left open longer than 48 hours, which is a violation, said Jim Blackburn, Goliad County's environmental attorney.

Goliad ...

Of the more than 900 bore holes drilled in northern Goliad County, 136 of them were left open longer than 48 hours, which is a violation, said Jim Blackburn, Goliad County's environmental attorney.

Goliad County contends the open bore holes allowed rainwater to cause contamination to the subsurface, also known as illegal injection, Blackburn said.

Blackburn said the county would take another month or so to decide if they will re-file the case in state court.

GOLIAD - Goliad County commissioners presented their case against Uranium Energy Corp. to the public on Saturday.

County residents attended so that they could become more informed and offer input on whether the county should re-file its legal case in state court.

The county sued the uranium company in March 2008. The lawsuit contends the company failed to cap exploratory bore holes, which they county says contaminated the water supply.

A federal judge dismissed the case a few weeks ago. Now, commissioners are debating whether they should re-file the case in state court.

"We're going to have this public meeting before we come up with a solution," said Goliad County Commissioner Jim Krenek.

Some residents who attended supported re-filing the lawsuit, while others opposed the costly move and think uranium mining should continue unimpeded.

Brad Moore, a uranium company exploration and land manager, said the county should avoid spending money on the case.

"It's really amazing that the citizens of Goliad County who support the opposition are supporting the expenditure of their funds to fight their own rights," Moore said. "The federal judge dismissed the groundwater suit, and they want to continue to spend money."

Sherilyn Arnecke, a Goliad landowner, supports the mining. Her family has been in the area for eight generations.

Mining will bring more jobs and pump more money into the county, Arnecke said.

"I just heard yesterday that in the next 20 years, they're going to build 100 more nuclear power plants in the United States," Arnecke said. "This is concerning the climate bill that's before Congress right now. And where is this uranium going to come from?"

All the money the county would spend on the re-filing in state court would cause financial neglect for the rest of the county, Arnecke said.

"They're fighting for one little part of the county," she said. "And what about the rest of the county that's being totally ignored? They're putting half a million dollars into one, little-bitty area of Goliad County, but then you have all these citizens in other parts of Goliad that are going to suffer. (The county) needs to spend their money on something Goliad County needs."

County Commissioner Jerry Rodriguez said the contaminated water was not caused by the open bore holes, but is naturally occurring.

"Muddy water there was supposedly clogged by uranium mining. It just happened to happen when those guys were out doing their drilling," he said. "It's basically one of the reasons federal judge threw the lawsuit out."

The county should negotiate with the company on a cleaning agreement, because the Uranium Energy Corp. is going to mine anyway, Rodriguez said.

"These people are here to stay," Rodriguez said. "We should work with them and put sanctions in place so they can put money in a savings account. That way if they contaminate it, they're responsible to clean it."

On the other hand, other residents oppose mining and support the lawsuit.

Susan Orr's home in Ander is near the proposed mining site.

"I live out there," Orr said. "I don't want it in my backyard. There's too many environmental issues that could come up over the years."

Contaminated water would cause Orr to lose her cattle, she said.

"I don't want to see my property value go down. We have cattle. I don't want to have to end up getting rid of our livestock because of issues of water."

Water is precious and cannot be contaminated," said Julie Fritz, a Goliad county resident.

"Water is water. It's all our water," Fritz said. "It affects everybody in the county, and in other places. Victoria should care."

Krenek agreed. He is unsure what the county will do without water.

"My position has been opposed to the uranium mining since the very first day I heard about it," Krenek said. "It has everything to do with our drinking water. Without drinking water, what do you do? Would you have to import it?"

http://www.victoriaadvocate.com/news/2009/jun/28/jc_uraniummeeting_062809_56225/

Economic Benefits, Carbon Dioxide (CO2) Emissions Reductions, and Water Conservation Benefits from 1,000 Megawatts (MW) of New Wind Power in Virginia

The graphics and charts for this article didn't copy but they're certainly worth a look. Click on the link below for the rest of this release and for the visuals. If VA would harness its wind energy, there would be no need for U mining here or in lots of places with similar winds. Job creation would be substantially higher than with U mining and milling too. There are no compelling reasons not to harness VA's renewable energy source, wind.

Wind power is one of the fastest growing forms of new power generation in the United States. Industry growth in 2007 was an astounding 45%. New wind power installations constituted 35% of all new electric power installations. This growth is the result of many drivers, including increased economic competitiveness and favorable state policies such as Renewable Portfolio Standards. However, new wind power installations provide more than cost-competitive electricity. Wind power brings economic development to rural regions, reduces water consumption in the electric power sector, and reduces greenhouse gas emissions by displacing fossil fuels.

The U.S. Department of Energy’s Wind Powering America Program is committed to educating state-level policy makers and other stakeholders about the economic, CO2 emissions, and water conservation impacts of wind power. This analysis highlights the expected impacts of 1000 MW of wind power in Virginia. Although construction and operation of 1000 MW of wind power is a significant effort, six states have already reached the 1000-MW mark. We forecast the cumulative economic benefits from 1000 MW of development in Virginia to be $1.2 billion, annual CO2 reductions are estimated at 3.0 million tons, and annual water savings are 1,600 million gallons.

Economic Benefits
Building and operating 1000 MW of wind power requires a significant investment. But this investment will generate substantial direct, indirect, and induced economic benefits for Virginia. Direct benefits include jobs, land-lease payments, and increased tax revenues. Indirect benefits include benefits to businesses that support the wind farm. Induced benefits result from additional spending on goods and services in the area surrounding the development.

Direct impacts result from investment in the planning, development, and operation of new wind facilities. Beneficiaries include landowners, construction workers, O&M staff, turbine manufacturers, and project managers. Indirect impacts reflect payments made to businesses that support the wind facility and include banks financing the project, component suppliers, and manufacturers of equipment used to install and maintain the facility. Induced benefits result from increased spending by direct and indirect beneficiaries. Examples include increased business to restaurants, retail establishments, and child care providers.

Drivers of economic benefits include the use of local construction companies, the presence of in-state component suppliers, local wage structures, local property tax structures, and operation and maintenance (O&M) expenditures.

The projected benefits for Virginia could be greatly increased by the development of a local wind supply, installation, and maintenance industry within the state.

See the rest of this article, including statistics and graphics here:
http://vwec.cisat.jmu.edu/Fact%20Sheets%20&%20Presentations/Fact%20Sheets/NREL%20factsheet%20(latest).pdf

Radioactive Revival in New Mexico

By Shelley Smithson

June 10, 2009

Mitchell Capitan points to a flock of sheep grazing in the shadow of a sandstone mesa. The sheep belong to Capitan's family, along with a few head of cattle and twelve quarter horses standing in a corral near his mother-in-law's house in Crownpoint, New Mexico.

"All of this area," Capitan says, gesturing to the valley of sage and shrub brush below, "there's a lot of uranium underneath there. That's what they're after."

Capitan and his Navajo neighbors are battling a license granted by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to Hydro Resources Inc. (HRI)--a subsidiary of a Texas company, Uranium Resources--one of several firms that have laid claim to the minerals beneath thousands of acres on and around the lands of the Navajo Nation and three American Indian pueblos in northwestern New Mexico. A group called the Eastern Navajo Diné Against Uranium Mining is suing the NRC to block mining in Crownpoint and another Navajo community. A panel of federal judges in Denver heard the case in May 2008 but has yet to issue a ruling.

A resurgence of interest in building nuclear power plants, touted as a nonpolluting alternative to carbon-fueled plants, has sparked a uranium rush. Since 2007 the NRC has received seventeen license applications for twenty-six new reactors, causing a flurry of applications for uranium mining permits across the Four Corners region, where New Mexico, Arizona, Utah and Colorado meet. In February Energy Secretary Steven Chu announced that the Energy Department would expedite the approval process for $18.5 billion in federal loan guarantees for utilities that are building nuclear plants. The guarantees, along with other Bush-era incentives, are meant to spur construction of new plants.

The anticipated rise in demand for uranium has led the industry back to the very places it deserted three decades ago when it abandoned hundreds of mines, seven polluted uranium mills, billions of gallons of contaminated groundwater and mountains of radioactive waste. Congress is only now beginning to press agencies to clean up the mess, an undertaking that could cost taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars.

Plenty of people in this economically distressed corner of New Mexico are thrilled about the 8,000 new jobs and $1 billion in economic benefits the uranium industry promises. They point to claims made by industry lobbyists in a concerted PR campaign that new technology will make mining safer and that cast doubt on the connection between uranium mining and the illnesses that plague people who worked in mines and mills or lived near them.

Many others, especially American Indians like Capitan, remain unconvinced. They are afraid the companies will leave behind another trail of environmental destruction, illness and death like that of thirty years ago.

Sitting in his wood-paneled office in Window Rock, Arizona, Navajo Nation president Joe Shirley Jr., a tall, thin man with silver hair and a fierce opposition to uranium mining, declares, "I don't believe there is any safe technology that can be used to mine uranium. Many of my people died because of mining of uranium ore here on Navajo land. Back at that time, the US government did not apprise my people of the dangers that are inherent with the mining of uranium ore. And as a result, a lot of people came down with cancer." Shirley has watched several family members suffer from uranium-related illnesses. "It is devastating. It has wrecked the lives of our families," he says.

Starting in 1942, much of the uranium used for atomic bombs being built in Los Alamos was mined in northwestern New Mexico. Between 1950 and 1979, the region yielded more yellowcake than any other place in the United States. Hundreds of uranium mines and seven mills--many of them on or near Indian land--stocked the government's cold war atomic arsenal and, eventually, the nation's nuclear power plants.

Though the region has always been poor, locals remember the uranium era as a prosperous time. People ate lunch at the Uranium Cafe in Grants, listened to country music on KMIN (pronounced K-mine) and built houses with scrap materials from the mines. On weekends Indian uranium workers and their families drove from the reservations to the border towns of Grants, Gallup and Farmington to shop.

But in 1979, everything changed. Public outcry over the near-meltdown at Three Mile Island plus construction cost overruns dealt the uranium industry a deathblow in a few short years. For thirty years no new nuclear plants were ordered in the United States. The nation's 104 nuclear reactors bought cheap surplus uranium from government stockpiles and later from dismantled Soviet-era nuclear warheads.

Read the rest of this article here:

Santoy Provides Update on Plan of Arrangement

News Release: 09-11

Fri Jun 26, 2009

Santoy Resources Ltd. (TSX.V: SAN) wishes to announce that the business combination involving Santoy and Virginia Uranium Ltd., by way of a statutory plan of arrangement and approved by joint shareholders at the Special and Annual Meeting held on May 21st (news release dated May 21, 2009) is now scheduled to close on or before July 21, 2009, subject to required approvals. In order to facilitate the on-going environmental baseline program and a new Preliminary Economic Assessment study, Santoy will advance US$ 904,159.13 (the equivalent of CAD$1,000,000) which upon closing of the transaction will be converted into 1,666,666 shares of VA Uranium Holdings, Inc, which will satisfy the financing commitment specified in the Amended and Restated Combination Agreement dated April 14, 2009. In accordance with the same agreement, the maturity date of the Convertible Promissory Note issued January 2, 2009 will be extended to coincide with the closing of the business combination.

Virginia Uranium Ltd. owns an interest in the Coles Hill uranium deposit located in southern Virginia. Coles Hill, considered to be one of the largest undeveloped uranium deposits in the United States, had been advanced through to the feasibility stage in 1982 and has now been investigated by 220 drill holes. It has an estimated measured and indicated resource of 119 million pounds of U3O8 (at a cut-off grade of 0.025 per cent U3O8) based on a National Instrument 43-101 technical report on the Coles Hill property prepared for Santoy by Behre Dolbear and Company Ltd., Marshall Miller and Associates Inc., and PAC Geological Consultant Inc. [Dr. Peter Christopher, P.Eng.] dated Feb 2, 2009 and revised April 29, 2009. This report is available on SEDAR and on Santoy's website at www.santoy.ca

The proposed Private Placement financing announced May 14, 2009 is scheduled to close prior to the closure of the business combination.

On Behalf of the Board of Directors
SANTOY RESOURCES LTD.

"Ron Netolitzky"

R. K. Netolitzky, President & CEO

Neither the TSX Venture Exchange nor the Investment Industry Regulatory Organization of Canada accepts responsibility for the adequacy or accuracy of this release.

For further information contact: Ron Netolitzky, President or Tony Perri - Investor Relations, Manager
Suite 611, 675 W. Hastings Street Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada V6B 1N2
Tel: (604) 669-4799 Fax: (604) 669-2543 Website: www.santoy.ca

http://www.santoy.ca/s/NewsReleases.asp?ReportID=354106&_Type=News-Releases&_Title=Santoy-Provides-Update-on-Plan-of-Arrangement

Virginia Roanoke River Basin Advisory Committee Meeting - - June 30

VIRGINIA ROANOKE RIVER BASIN
ADVISORY COMMITTEE

Meeting Agenda

Tuesday, June 30, 2009
10:30 am - 12:30 pm

Cool Branch Rescue Squad, Penhook

A. Call meeting to order
B. Welcome; Recognition of Members and Guests
C. Minutes of February 2, 2009 Meeting
D. Organizational Issues
1. Review and Consider By Laws
2. Consider Committees and Assignments

E. Update on Bi-State Commission Meetings - Mike McEvoy, Chairman
F. Next Meeting Date/Topic
G. Other Business
H. Adjournment

Directions to Cool Branch Rescue Squad, Penhook, VA 24137 (Thanks to John Lindsey!)

*From Roanoke & Vicinity: US 220 South to Rocky Mount; Take 2nd Rocky Mount Exit to Rt. 40 East; Follow Rt. 40 East 16 miles through Redwood, Glade Hill and Union Hall to Penhook; Left on Rt. 645 one and a half miles to Stop at Rt. 626; Left on 626 1/2 mile to Squad on the Right.

*From Bedford & Vicinity: Rt. 122 South across Hales Ford Bridge to Westlake; At Traffic light, Left on Rt. 616 1/2 mile; Pass the Dairy Queen 200 yards, then (on the curve), Right on Rt. 634, Brooks Mill Road; Follow Brooks Mill Rd about 10 miles to Rt. 40 East, turn Left and follow as above.

*From Gretna & Vicinity: Rt. 40 West 12 miles (Before you get to Penhook), Right Turn on RT 626, go 3 miles, Rescue Squad is on your Right.

Lunch will not be served, but John reports that there are several restaurants in the general vicinity you might enjoy following the meeting.

We look forward to seeing you at the meeting.

Scott Kudlas
Director

Office of Surface and Ground Water Supply Planning

Tammy D. Stephenson
Senior Water Supply Planner

Virginia Department of Environmental Quality
Office of Surface and Ground Water Supply Planning
Blue Ridge Regional Office - Roanoke
3019 Peters Creek Road
Roanoke, Virginia 24019
PH (540) 562-6828
FAX (540) 562-6725

http://www.deq.virginia.gov/watersupplyplanning/homepage.html

Committee Members

Senator Wm. Roscoe Reynolds
Walter Coles, Sr., Chatham (This appointment still baffles me...SB)
Senator Frank M. Ruff
John H. Feild, Mecklenburg
Delegate Kathy J. Byron
Haywood J. Hamlet, Phenix
Delegate Thomas C. Wright, Jr
Evelyn Janney, Floyd
Delegate Onzlee Ware.
Bob Jean, Brookneal
Delegate Charles D. Poindexter
Russ Johnson, Wirtz
Representative Tom Perriello
John Lindsey, Penhook
Mike McEvoy, Chairman, Roanoke
Billy Martin, Sr., Blue Ridge
Tim Pace, Collinsville
Robert H. Conner, Vice-Chair, Ebony
Mark Wagner, Huddleston
Read Charlton, Vice-Chair, Charlotte Court House

cc: Hon. Susan Clarke Schaar
Hon. Bruce Jamerson
Other Interested Parties

'Cheerleaders' for nuclear energy ignore facts

Talk about keepin' it real!

Chatham Star-Tribune

Letter to the Editor

Wednesday, June 24, 2009

The Virginia Uranium Inc. oligarchy continues to ignore and minimize the negative impacts of uranium mining and milling.

Equally disturbing is this industry's ongoing attempts to erode our civil rights and the legislators who are allowing this travesty.

Virginia Uranium has engaged a host of self-serving experts and VUI family members to write letters of support on their behalf.

Their letters speak, in generalities, of nuclear power and avoid mention of the negative impacts of uranium mining and milling on a community, region and state.

The Nuclear Energy Institute has joined the metastasizing Virginia Uranium Inc. supporters.

NEI project manager Suzanne Phelps weighs in with more of the same.

Ms. Phelps likes to "name drop," citing Gov. Kaine, President Obama and former EPA administrator Whitman as supporters of nuclear energy.

Do any of these folks have a uranium mine and mill in their neighborhoods?

She also says the uranium from Coles Hill could fuel Virginia for 65 years.

Phelps portrays VUI as a philanthropic organization regarding yellowcake dispersal.

Somehow I don't see all that yellowcake, or enriched uranium, being warehoused for decades for exclusive use by Virginia.

Phelps further comments, "That potential speaks volumes about the long-term economic opportunities that Pittsylvania County and area residents can derive from mining practices that embrace environmental stewardship and incorporate lessons learned from worldwide experience in this field."

It appears she has the answer to the question we've all been asking. Where are three places in the world, similar to our climate, watersheds and population where mining and milling have been done safely? How many jobs were created?

Perhaps she'll enlighten us in future epistles.

I especially like the "magic" in Phelp's quote: "Nuclear energy is cheap and clean, and we have plenty of it here in America and Virginia."

You dig up some rocks and there's your energy!

She neglects to mention the radioactive/hazardous wastes that are generated and stored for thousands of years as a result of mining, milling and nuclear power generation.

She also omits information regarding the cost of building a reactor and the tax dollars that subsidize, monitor and clean up after the industry.

We do not appreciate cheerleaders for nuclear energy. We crave factual information regarding mining and milling of uranium.

We deserve local and state representative who are bright enough to know the difference.

Karen B. Maute

Danville

http://www.wpcva.com/articles/2009/06/24/chatham/opinion/opinion01.txt

Northrop Grumman Administrator: VA has nothing to fear from uranium

From our friends at "Virginia Energy Independence Alliance", the cleverly named group that's actually a play on the new name of the Santoy/VUI merger whose website, http://www.virginiaenergy.org/home/ is the best spin and manipulation money can buy and a good PR firm can dream up, comes this little ditty.

I guess that when you're preparing for the day when you can perpetrate wreck and ruin upon everything within scores of miles, you don't want anyone to realize that while you're waiting. Sooo...what's an agent of death and destruction to do?

Spread lies, of course! On everything and everyone! You make yourself sound like the Messiah and those who oppose you like raving lunatics. You go far and wide to find folks who'll do your lying for you...making stuff up as they go along...as long as the bad guys look like the good guys and the good guys look like the evil-doers. This letter below is a fine example...one of the more outrageous we've seen in its degree of fantasy.

We all need to face the facts...uranium mining and milling are not safe and not advantageous to anyone save a few investors and perhaps a handful of peripheral players like PR agents, lobbyists, and those who will sign modern-day fairy tales to make them appear as sincere letters. It's only going to get more and more ridiculous in the days and months ahead...the "facts" will become the fantasies and the fantasies the facts.

Prepare yourself! It's going to be a bit like Alice as she stepped through the Looking Glass...nothing will be as it appears. It's important to remember, though, who's telling the truth...and can verify their stories through myriad respected sources: those anti-uranium advocates who Virginia Energy will continue to portray as "opponents spreading fear" (aka telling the hard, cold truth) and those pro-uranium advocates who will sing you to sleep with lullabyes of the goodness and wonder of radioactivity, illness, contamination and devastation.

You can continue to get your daily dose of "true truth" (honest facts backed up by science and history) here...I promise.

And now on with the show!

In a letter to the editor of the Virginian-Pilot, Mike Cohen - Virginia Beach resident and contract administrator with Northrop Grumman Shipbuilding - reassures Hampton Roads and Southside residents that they have nothing to fear from uranium mining in Pittsylvania County. Pittsylvania County is home to Coles Hill, the largest untapped uranium deposit in the U.S. Mr. Cohen tells residents that so much of the fear spread by opponents of mining the Coles Hill deposit is based on erroneous myths and complete fallacies that are easily invalidated by science.

Indeed, the premise that our water supply is in danger reflects an ignorance of the water chemistry and material characteristics of uranium and its related products, which make such long-distance transport virtually impossible…

Uranium is a naturally occurring component of soils, building materials and coal. It is already present in every source of our water supply, as well as our homes, office buildings and yards.

Radon, the decay product of uranium most frequently cited as a danger, is steadily emitted from the earth below us and accumulates in our buildings. The simple fact that we construct airtight buildings accounts for more human radon exposure than all of the mines in this country combined…

Finally, we are exposed to far more hazardous contaminants than uranium every day in [Hampton Roads]. Ships, trucks and trains carrying deadly chemicals come in and out of the port every day, many of which have the potential to contaminate our air and water supply in a severe accident. Yet we tolerate that risk because of the benefit to our economy.”

Mr. Cohen believes the development of the Coles Hill deposit will provide enormous economic benefits by creating as many as 1,000 new jobs and breaking our dependence on foreign energy.

So when you read in the coming months about Coles Hill, remember to keep the big picture. While there are potential risks with any large project, we stand to lose much more by leaving our natural resources in the ground.”

http://www.virginiaenergy.org/2009/06/23/northrop-grumman-administrator-va-has-nothing-to-fear-from-uranium/

12 tons of bomb-grade uranium to be made into fuel

More evidence we might have enough U floating around and don't need any from VA.

The Associated Press

Tuesday, June 23, 2009

KNOXVILLE, Tenn. — The government on Tuesday ordered 12 tons of bomb-grade uranium converted into commercial reactor fuel as backup in case another source of fuel from weapon ingredients is delayed.

The highly enriched uranium, already declared surplus for the nation's nuclear arsenal, will come from the vast storage vaults at the Y-12 nuclear weapons plant in Oak Ridge.

The material will be converted or "down-blended" at the Nuclear Fuel Services plant in Erwin, Tenn., into about 220 tons of low-enriched uranium suitable for commercial reactors. The work will begin this year and be completed in 2012.

The uranium will be shipped to Westinghouse Electric Co.'s Columbia Fuel Fabrication Facility in South Carolina and held in reserve for utilities contracting for reactor fuel from a plutonium mixed-oxide processing plant being built at the Savannah River Site.

The $4.8 billion mixed-oxide facility at Savannah River is scheduled to open in 2016. The program is on time to this point, officials said.

But "should there be a delay down the line in fabricating the stuff, the low-enriched uranium (from Nuclear Fuel Services) could be used to assure fuel supply" to participating utilities, said National Nuclear Security Administration spokesman Damien Lavera.

The low-enriched uranium is "the fallback, the backup plan," he said.

The National Nuclear Security Administration on Tuesday awarded a $209 million contract to Nuclear Fuel Services, a subsidiary of Virginia-based Babcock&Wilcox Co., and to Westinghouse-owned WesDyne International for the uranium conversion and storage, respectively.

The down-blended uranium will have a market value of more than $400 million, the NNSA said. Nuclear Fuel Services and WesDyne International will receive "a fraction" of the material for resale as compensation.

The Knoxville-based Tennessee Valley Authority is considering participation in the mixed-oxide program and could end up some of the converted plutonium or uranium, TVA spokesman Terry Johnson said.

TVA, the nation's largest public utility, has made similar purchases in the past, buying 39 tons of Nuclear Fuel Services-converted former weapons uranium in 2005 for its Browns Ferry nuclear station in Alabama.

http://www.reflector.com/news/state/12-tons-of-bomb-grade-uranium-to-be-made-into-fuel-679766.html

McDonnell ducks on mining question while stumping with Mississippi governor

By Tyler Whitley

Published: June 23, 2009

Republican gubernatorial candidate Bob McDonnell talked jobs and energy yesterday at a news conference with Mississippi Gov. Haley Barbour.

McDonnell also ducked on two issues that have been in the limelight recently.

McDonnell said he would defer judgment on whether to allow uranium mining in the state and what to do about Virginia's troubled information technology agency, VITA, until studies have been completed.

McDonnell said he supports public-private partnerships and wants the state to use them more, particularly in roadbuilding.

Some have blamed cost overruns and management problems at the Virginia Information Technology Agency on its operation as a public-private partnership with Northrop Grumman.

Asked about VITA, McDonnell said the agency "needs further review and some stewardship and accountability."

He said he wanted to see what a study of the agency by the state Senate turns up.

McDonnell spoke at a news conference with Barbour, who helped McDonnell raise money and perhaps help his own presidential ambitions.

A spokesman for McDonnell said the Barbour visit helped the McDonnell campaign raise $250,000 at three events, including a luncheon at the Richmond Marriott Hotel, yesterday.

Barbour, a former GOP national chairman, made a recent trip to Iowa and is said to be eyeing a presidential run.

Barbour said he is not and urged Republicans to concentrate on winning the gubernatorial races in Virginia and New Jersey this year and congressional races nationwide next year before focusing on the 2012 presidential election.

While he favors more nuclear-power plants, McDonnell said he wanted to await the results of a study of the environmental and safety risks of uranium mining before taking a stand. A rich vein of uranium worth an estimated $10 billion exists in Pittsylvania County.

The proposed study would not be completed until well after the gubernatorial election.

http://www.timesdispatch.com/rtd/news/state_regional/state_regional_govtpolitics/article/BOBM23_20090622-211203/275468/

Court OKs dumping gold mine waste in lake

This is outrageous!!

WASHINGTON – A mining company was given the go-ahead by the Supreme Court on Monday to dump waste from an Alaskan gold mine into a nearby 23-acre lake, although the material will kill all of the lake's fish.

The court said that the federal government acted legally in declaring the waste left after metals are extracted from the ore as "fill material" allowing a federal permit without meeting more stringent requirements from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency under the Clean Water Act.

Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin called the decision "great news for Alaska" and said it "is a green light for responsible resource development." The Kensington gold mine 45 miles north of Juneau will produce as many as 370 jobs when it begins operation.

But environmentalists feared the ruling could lead to a broader easing of requirements on how companies dispose of their mining waste.

"If a mining company can turn Lower Slate Lake in Alaska into a lifeless waste dump, other polluters with solids in their water can potentially do the same to any water body in America," said Trip Van Noppen, president of Earthjustice, which had participated in the litigation.

By a 6-3 vote, the Supreme Court said a federal appeals court wrongly blocked on environmental grounds the Army Corps of Engineers' waste disposal permit for the mine project. The Alaska mine, which had been closed since 1928, now plans to resume operation and will dump about 4.5 million tons of mine tailings — waste left after metals are extracted from the ore — into the lake located three miles away in the Tongass National Forest.

The court, in its majority opinion written by Justice Anthony Kennedy, said that the Army Corps was correct in agreeing with the mining company that the waste should be considered "fill material" and not subject to the more stringent EPA requirements.

The 2005 permit was issued three years after the Bush administration broadened the definition of fill material so that waste, including some contaminated materials, can be dumped into waterways.

"We conclude that the Corps was the appropriate agency to issue the permit and that the permit is lawful," wrote Kennedy. He said the court should "accord deference to the agencies' reasonable decision" on the matter.

In a dissenting opinion, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said it is "neither necessary or proper" to interpret the waterway protection law "as allowing mines to bypass EPA's zero-discharge standard by classifying slurry as fill material." She argued the lower court had been correct in concluding that the use of waters as "settling ponds for harmful mining waste" was contrary to the federal Clean Water Act.

Environmentalists said dumping 200,000 gallons a day of mining waste water — containing aluminum, copper, lead, mercury and other metals — has dire implications not only for the Alaska lake, but possibly other lakes and waterways.

Rob Cadmus of the Southeast Alaska Conservation Council said there were better ways to dispose of the mine waste such as dry land storage. But the mining company argued that the alternative would have been to put the material into nearby wetlands, which it maintained was more environmentally harmful.

Officials of the Idaho-based Coeur d'Alene Mine Co., owner of the Alaska mine, said the decision was the last hurdle to building the tailings facility so that mining activities can begin.

The court ruling "confirms that this thoroughly studied permit and plan is the best environmental choice" for disposal of the mine's waste, said Tony Ebersole, the company's director of corporate communications. Company lawyers said in court arguments that after mining activities are halted the lake will be restocked.

"The lake will be as good or better as a fishery than it is today," Ebersole said. The waste deposits are expected to raise the lakebed 50 feet to the current lake surface level and eventually triple its size to 60 acres. The lake contains a variety of common fish that are not expected to survive, according to court documents.

Sen. Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska, welcomed the court ruling and said it "resolved the most significant obstacle to the creation of hundreds of direct and indirect jobs and a major boost for the economy of Juneau and Southeast Alaska."

The disposal plan had been approved by various state agencies. But the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco in 2007 blocked the permit.

Joining Kennedy in approving the disposal plan were Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas, Stephen Breyer and Samuel Alito Jr. In addition to Ginsburg, dissenting were Justices John Paul Stevens and David Souter.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090623/ap_on_go_su_co/us_supreme_court_gold_mine

Colorado's Summit County again seeks ban on uranium mining and cyanide

Despite a setback in Colorado's Supreme Court, Summit County is again seeking a way to stringently regulate mining at the local level.

Author: Dorothy Kosich
Posted: Monday , 22 Jun 2009

RENO, NV -

Despite a Colorado Supreme Court decision that overturned Summit County's cyanide heap-leach mining ban, Summit County planners are still pursuing tightening mining regulations.

A January Colorado Supreme Court ruling found the county could not ban a mining technique the state of Colorado allows.

The Colorado Mining Association successfully challenged Summit County's ban on cyanide processes for gold mining. The CMA contends existing state laws adequately regulate mining and the local mining bans could result in conflicting state and local regulations that would negatively impact mining companies.

However, this past week, the county introduced a first draft of new mining regulations during a work session of the Summit County Commission. The county may consider designating mining areas and implement tough performance standards in them,

The draft suggests performance standards that would require mining companies to enhance planning for emergency operations, including the clean-up of any potential cyanide spill. Under its existing land use powers, the county could designate certain areas are inappropriate for mining.

Summit County Planning Director Jim Curnutte told the Summit Daily News that the county would also consider applying its 1041 powers to review and regulate mining operations. Local 1041 powers come from a 1974 Colorado state law allowing local governments to "designate certain geographic areas and specified activities as matters of state interest."

Curnutte suggested Summit County may look at designating specific mining or mineral zones that would be subject to local 1041 permitting authority. These regulations could also force mining companies to disclose their exploration activities.

The overall changes in the local mining regulations would make it easier for local planning boards to review proposed mining projects and to issue stringent conditional use permits, the Summit Daily News reported.

http://www.mineweb.net/mineweb/view/mineweb/en/page72068?oid=85286&sn=Detail

Ohio Uranium Plant at Risk Without Federal Loan

Your tax dollars at work! Again!


Updated 12:26 PM Sunday, June 21, 2009

COLUMBUS, Ohio — A company's plans to build a uranium enrichment plant in southern Ohio are in jeopardy without a $2 billion federal loan guarantee, The Columbus Dispatch reported Sunday.

USEC Inc., based in Bethesda, Md., is developing the American Centrifuge project on the site of a former gaseous diffusion plant in Piketon, about 65 miles south of Columbus.

The company applied for the loan guarantee 10 months ago under a U.S. Department of Energy program launched by former President George W. Bush.

Without the loan guarantee, USEC won't be able to obtain private financing, company officials said.

The delay is adding to the project's overall cost, which is about $3.5 billion, USEC spokeswoman Elizabeth Stuckle told The Dispatch. The company has spent about $1.4 billion so far, including the construction of a new facility.

Secretary of Energy Steven Chu has said he intends to speed up the process of approving loan guarantees, but only one has been issued. In late March, Chu's department signed off on a $535 million loan guarantee for a solar-panel manufacturing plant to be built by California-based Solyndra.

USEC's project, announced five years ago, is supposed to open in 2011 and employ about 400. Enriched uranium from the plant would be used in generating electricity at nuclear power plants.

Work on the plant has slowed, and the prospect of mothballing it isn't far off, said Stuckle told the newspaper. She declined to specify when the project could be shut down.

"This is a serious time issue. We cannot get enough funding absent the loan guarantee," Stuckle said.

Rob Portman, a Republican candidate for the U.S. Senate and a former congressman from Cincinnati whose district included Piketon, recently wrote to President Barack Obama urging that the loan guarantee be granted quickly.

Democratic Gov. Ted Strickland also wrote to Obama in March, saying that "without timely approval of the loan guarantee, the many thousands of new jobs currently being created will be delayed or perhaps lost."

Obama was supportive when he campaigned in southern Ohio last year.

The Piketon site is where the former Portsmouth Gaseous Diffusion Plant enriched uranium during the Cold War.

Cleanup of the site is still going on, and just last week Gov. Ted Strickland and other politicians announced plans by Duke Energy and the French nuclear energy company Areva to build a $10 billion nuclear power plant there over the next 10 years.

http://www.daytondailynews.com/news/ohio-news/ohio-uranium-plant-at-risk-without-federal-loan-171934.html

Permit delay worries uranium hopefuls

Remember that old saying when we were all kids in high school..."Gee, I'm so sorry my heart bleeds purple kool-aid for you"? Well, here's a crowd that's eliciting that sentiment. U prices are way down, the NRC just might be responding to the ground-swell of citizen protest, investors losing patience...all of these things make my heart bleed purple Kool-Aid.


By DUSTIN BLEIZEFFER
Casper Star-Tribune

Several proposed uranium mining projects in Wyoming and across the West will be delayed due the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission's recent decision requiring a more thorough site-specific analysis for each project.

The NRC will require a supplemental environmental impact statement for each mining project rather than a more simplified environmental assessment, which the agency had considered.

Some officials in the uranium industry claim the NRC overreacted to a groundswell of public concern that they say comes from either ignorance of the in-situ leach mining process or a desire to block uranium mining.

Industry officials have also told the Star-Tribune they worry that investors are losing patience.

However, those who scrutinize the emerging next generation of uranium mining say both the industry and government regulators have a history that deserves skepticism. Shannon Anderson, community organizer for the Powder River Basin Resource Council, said she has researched dozens upon dozens of spills and excursions documented by the Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality.

The Star-Tribune has also reviewed DEQ documentation describing dozens of violations related to in-situ recovery of uranium in the state.

Most recently, a 2007 DEQ investigation documented yearslong, regular violations at Cameco Corp.'s Smith Ranch-Highland in-situ uranium mine in Converse County. It resulted in a $1 million settlement, although Cameco and DEQ insist no one was injured as a result of the violations, and there was no long-lasting environmental damage.

"Asking questions isn't necessarily opposition to these projects. We are citizens of Wyoming, and we want to promote development that is beneficial to the state. But we also want to protect citizens and the environment," Anderson said.

Industry officials counter that there have been at least 15 commercial-scale in-situ uranium well-fields successfully restored in Wyoming, and not one documented case of damage to human health or contamination of drinking water.

NRC's caution

Uranium One controls more than 100 million pounds of historically identified uranium resources in Wyoming, and says it has 61 potential mine projects in the state.

The predecessors of Uranium One first filed applications with the NRC and DEQ in October 2007 for the proposed Moore Ranch in-situ mine and processing plant near the Pumpkin Buttes in Campbell County. Company officials said the NRC's decision to require a more thorough environmental analysis means production will begin in 2011 rather than 2010.

"We have been told various firm dates by the NRC, yet every time we get close to ending the process, something changes," said Donna Wichers, senior vice president of Uranium One, Americas.

In moving to the supplemental environmental impact statement requirement, NRC reportedly told some in the uranium industry that the extra analysis makes the new mining projects less susceptible to lawsuits and legal delays.

Wayne Heili, president of mining for UR Energy, said he's obviously disappointed with the delay. However, he said it's hard to blame the NRC for doing its best to satisfy the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act.

Heili said he believes the NRC's move toward a supplemental environmental impact statement has more to do with public comments insisting on more public involvement in the licensing process, and less about the industry's past track record.

"To the NRC's credit, they're being cautious and making sure these licenses are being issued on solid legal grounding," Heili said.

Anderson said the Powder River Basin Resource Council's membership is pleased with the NRC's decision. However, the group remains concerned that neither the federal nor state government has addressed the "legacy" issues of the industry's past, nor have they addressed the cumulative impacts of possibly dozens of new mines.

Although the in-situ recovery process is supposed to be contained within uranium ore-bearing aquifers that never have been sources of drinking water, individual landowners still deserve to know details about what's taking place underground, Anderson said. There's still no estimate of how much groundwater might be consumed cumulatively.

"(In-situ uranium recovery) can reduce aquifer pressure and affect artesian wells, and it can create draw-down in areas already impacted by coal-bed methane or other industrial development," Anderson said.

Fletcher Newton, executive vice president for marketing and strategic affairs for Uranium One, said the uranium industry is much more sophisticated than it was in the 1970s and 1980s.

"(The industry) certainly learned a lot about safe practices and protecting the environment. There's a big difference between today and the way things were 25 years ago," Newton said. "Nobody wants to go back and repeat the mistakes of the past."

White House uncertainty

Some uranium mining officials say they feel the Obama administration isn't as supportive of domestic uranium development as the previous administration. As evidence, they say the U.S. Department of Energy hasn't made good on loan guarantees promised to the industry under the Bush administration.

While there were 19 applications made to the DOE under the Bush administration, so far the DOE under the Obama administration has issued only $18.5 billion in loan guarantees to four companies that plan to build new nuclear reactors for electrical generation.

"I think this administration is moving very carefully," Newton said. "If they impose a carbon tax on utilities, then that would be an indirect way of supporting nuclear power because, suddenly, nuclear power becomes much more cost competitive."

Last week, the DOE announced it will provide $2.9 million in scholarships and fellowships to 86 U.S. nuclear science and engineering students, and will offer $6 million in grants to 29 U.S. universities for nuclear research infrastructure. None of the grant money was allocated to the University of Wyoming, according to a DOE press release.

According to the Nuclear Energy Institute, about half of the nuclear industry's work force will be eligible to retire during the next 10 years.

Energy reporter Dustin Bleizeffer can be reached at (307) 577-6069 or dustin.bleizeffer@trib.com. Check out Dustin's blog at tribtown.trib.com/DustinBleizeffer/blog.

* The energy derived from 1 pound of uranium is equivalent to 20,000 pounds of coal.

Source: Wyoming Mining Association

* More than 200 million pounds of uranium has been mined in Wyoming since 1954. More than 300 million pounds of "historic" reserves remain.

Source: Uranium One

About in-situ mining

The conventional method of uranium mining involves carving large pits into the earth to recover ore-bearing material. In-situ recovery involves a series of wells to flush oxygen and carbon dioxide (and sometimes sodium bicarbonate) into a uranium ore-bearing aquifer, which breaks down the uranium ore.

The solution is brought to the surface through production wells where the uranium is recovered. From there, the uranium is isolated through a drying process and trucked to market in secure containers.

This ongoing circulation between injection wells and production wells takes place for two to three years in order to produce about 85 percent of the uranium resource. Monitor wells surround the production zone -- in the formations above and below -- to detect any leaks.

After production is complete, a yearslong remediation process begins. Using the same injection and production wells, the water is circulated through an ion-exchange facility

-- Dustin Bleizeffer

Uranium boom

The price for uranium neared $140 per pound in 2007, sparking renewed interest in the mining industry. The Nuclear Regulator Commission received notice of more than 20 in-situ uranium mine proposals across the West, mostly in Wyoming.

In response, the NRC launched a "generic" environmental impact statement to provide analysis of the in-situ leach mining process. A final version of the document was issued in May.

Today, uranium is selling for about $52 per pound, but companies are still planning many new mining operations.

-- Dustin Bleizeffer

http://www.casperstartribune.net/articles/2009/06/21/news/wyoming/50d1a9a79c1f0a19872575db005f0300.txt

Undersea Uranium Farms Could Be A Goldmine

by Steve Levenstein

Japanese researchers are considering the possibility of constructing giant undersea sponge farms to collect uranium suspended in seawater. If enough farms are built, every nuclear plant in Japan could soon be running exclusively on ocean-sourced fuel.

The stakes are huge and so are the numbers: Japanese nuclear reactors process 8,000 tons of radioactive uranium each year. That may sound like a lot but approximately 4.5 billion tons of uranium are suspended in the world's oceans. The concentration is very low - just 3.3 parts per billion - but the proposed sponge farms are designed to selectively adsorb these low-level concentrations.

The sponges are made from irradiated polyethylene fabric developed by Dr. Masao Tanada of the Japan Atomic Energy Agency. Explains Dr. Tanada, "At the moment, Japan has to rely on imports of uranium from Canada and Australia, but this technology could be commercially deployed in as little as five years." He is suggesting a pilot project that would see the first sponge farm, covering an area of 400 square miles, absorb enough uranium to meet a sixth of Japan's annual uranium requirements.

With current land-based sources of uranium expected to be mined out in just 100 years, time is of the essence in finding a workable alternative. The obvious choice is to exploit oceanic uranium which is approximately 1,000 times more plentiful than all the known un-mined uranium on land - and the clock is ticking on efforts to "mine" it. "Other countries are conducting similar research but none are as advanced as we are," stresses Dr. Tanada. With $720 trillion worth of uranium "just floating around", Japan's lead could prove to be a very lucrative one.

http://inventorspot.com/articles/undersea_uranium_farms_could_be_goldmine_29171

South Dakota Uranium Mine Request Deficient

By Carson Walker
Sioux Falls, South Dakota (AP) 6-09

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has told the Canadian developer of a planned uranium mine in southwest South Dakota that it must fix several deficiencies in its application or the proposal will be rejected.

Powertech Uranium Corp. is operating under a state permit to drill exploratory holes and hopes to start mining in 2011 near Edgemont if it can get all the required federal and state permits.

NRC spokesman David McIntyre said the agency met with the company. He said Powertech indicated that within a week, it will indicate if it plans to withdraw the application, fix the problems and resubmit it or wait for the NRC to reject the current request.

It’s not a fatal blow, but it could delay the project that seeks to take advantage of higher uranium prices, he said.

“This is by no means the NRC saying, ‘You can never recover uranium at this site.’ This is us saying, ‘You haven’t given us enough information,”’ McIntyre said.

Powertech has a corporate office in Vancouver, British Columbia, and operations Colorado, Wyoming and New Mexico, as well as the Dewey Burdock project in South Dakota.

The company wants to inject chemically treated water into holes to dissolve the uranium, then pump out the solution and collect the uranium for processing. Company representatives said the so-called in situ leach-mining process is safe and does not cause contamination.

But some environmental and American Indian groups oppose the project for fear it would harm underground aquifers and disturb archaeological sites. The land is about 60 miles from the Pine Ridge Indian Reservation and lies on the southern edge of the Black Hills, which Indians consider sacred.

McIntyre said two of the four primary deficiencies deal with water. Powertech must show more clearly that the rock formations in the area would protect groundwater from chemical contamination through the drilling process or seismic faults, he said.

“Anything that could affect the flow of the water or how the drilling could affect the flow of the water,” McIntyre said. “The application doesn’t address it fully.”

The company also must give more specifics on how it would dispose of waste at the mining site and how the mine would operate, he said.

Mark Hollenbeck, project manager of the Dewey Burdock project, said the company’s management is studying the NRC’s request for more information and plans to release the company’s decision on how to proceed early next week.

“But we don’t anticipate any significant delay in the process,” he said.

http://indiancountrynews.net/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=6772&Itemid=116

Uranium Mine Could Use Three Billion Gallons of Water Per Year, Part II

This is Anne Cockrell's letter to NC Representative Lucy Allen written following Anne's and Deborah Dix's appearance at the Roanoke River Basin Bi-State Commission. The figures Anne quotes re: the water that mining and milling at Coles Hill could necessitate are nothing short of staggering.

Madam Chairman, N.C. Representative Lucy Allen:

Thank you for allowing Deborah Dix and me to speak Friday at the Roanoke River Basin Bi-State Commission meeting. We, like so many others, had traveled some distance and really wanted to address the bi-state commission members.

I quoted some numbers regarding the amount of water usage in uranium mining and milling that some of the members requested to see for themselves. I am sending two online links for source information. (One is a link with a video that addresses, in general, the amount of water used in both exploratory drilling and the mining and milling of uranium. The second link is the source I cited for the numbers I gave.)

I hope that you and the other bi-state committee members will take a few minutes and watch the video and review the cited sources.

1) Down The Yellowcake Road http://www.downtheyellowcakeroad.org/

Considering the past "water wars" between Va and NC, will there be enough water for both while sharing it with a water-hungry industry that mines and mills uranium? Millions of gallons of water will be needed per day by the industry!

Using this online converter: http://www.onlineconversion.com/auto_convert.pl

33 million liters = 8,717,677.7 gallons (See #2 for volume used in calculations.)

If using 33 million liters per day, then 8,717,677.7 gallons of water is used per day. If the mine & mill is operating 365 days a year (8,717,677.7 x 365), then 3,181,952,360.5 gallons of water will be used each year.

Please keep in mind that the proposed time table for mining and milling uranium at Coles Hill, near Chatham, Virginia (Pittsylvania County) will be for 30 to 40 years, by Virginia Uranium Inc.'s own estimation. Water sources close to Coles Hill include the Banister and Roanoke Rivers.*

A question was asked by Mr. Gene Adesso if VUI would be using this much water** and, of course, my response was that the amount was unknown because VUI, to my knowledge, has not given out that information.

Generalizing, should Virginia's moratorium on the mining and milling of uranium be lifted, other uranium-rich areas in Virginia could be mined. Most likely, there will only be one milling facility where all the mined uranium will be trucked/railed in for processing, but with multiple mines will come multiple demands for water usage. Further, speculation has it, the Banister and/or the Roanoke Rivers would not be able to meet the water needs of a uranium milling facility. Perhaps, the Dan River would be a potential water source, too.

Whatever the water source(s), using the numbers above, the needed water volume for multiple mines and one milling facility, over a 30 to 40 year-period, would total to an astronomical number. I respectfully request the issue of water usage in uranium mining and milling be critically addressed now, should Virginia's moratorium be lifted in the future.

2) Uranium in Queensland, Briefing Paper (section 2.1.1)

http://www.brisbane.foe.org.au/media/120506qldubriefing-foeb.pdf

Per Section 2.1.1 Water: Uranium mining uses huge quantities of water. Water is needed for separating the uranium from the ore, for dust control and for covering the radioactive sludge. Olympic Dam in South Australia pumps 33 million litres a day from the Great Artesian Basin and is licensed to use 42 m litres a day...

Because I was born a Tarheel and have lived most of my adult life in Virginia, I am asking the members of this bi-state commission to be proactive in protecting the quality and quantity of water in the waterways of both states. I truly love North Carolina and Virginia and feel blessed to have called both states "home."

Again, thank you, Madam Chairman Allen, for kindly allowing us the opportunity to briefly address the bi-state commission.

Respectfully yours,

Anne Cockrell

Danville, Virginia

Other Source Information:

*To see waterways/water supplies at risk: Go to Piedmont Environmental Council's website: http://www.pecva.org/anx/index.cfm, click on "Hot Issues" and then "Uranium Mining." Under "Uranium Mining Maps," go to "Water Supplies Potentially Impacted by Uranium Mining." This is an excellent website for understanding how uranium mining and milling could impact waterways in both Virginia and North Carolina.

**Wed Apr 29, 2009, NI 43-101 Technical Report for the Coles Hill Uranium Deposit:
http://www.santoy.ca/s/TechnicalReports.asp?ReportID=337251&_Type=Technical-Reports&_Title=NI-43-101-Technical-Report-for-the-Coles-Hill-Uranium-Deposit or http://www.santoy.ca/i/pdf/43-101ColesHill.pdf

Section 4.3, page 15, does not illuminate the amount of expected water needs/usage (amount needed in millions of gallons/day) to run a uranium mine and mill, and it mentions nothing about the source of that water. For all its history and data verification, use of plentiful and colorful schematics, Santoy & VUI's technical report does not give specifics on water usage. [If neither of the above links open when clicked upon, google: Santoy Resources Ltd, go to its Homepage, click on "Projects" and, then, "Technical Reports" (Revised Wed. Apr 29, 2009).]