Hold dialogue before mining: UN

Stand up and be counted, Virginia politicians. Do the people of Southside not deserve the same respect as the people of Meghalaya, India with regard to proposed uranium mining? If you cannot or will not say "yes", and then follow through with the necessary dialogue, you do not deserve your office.


Shillong, October 16 (PTI): A UN envoy on Thursday said the government should seek the consent of local people before taking up uranium mining in Meghalaya, an issue hanging fire for over two decades. "Such projects need participation of indigenous people. They should agree that they would like to have such a project on their land," Chairperson of the UN Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues Victoria Tauli Corpuz told reporters here.

The Forum is an advisory body to the Economic and Social Council, with a mandate to discuss indigenous issues related to economic and social development, culture, environment, education, health and human rights. "The government should hold intense dialogue until they give their consent. By merely saying that such projects would bring in development is not enough. Development packages should not be used as enticement," Corpuz said.

http://www.morungexpress.com/regional/35497.html

NATIONAL DON'T NUKE THE CLIMATE CALL-IN DAY--THURSDAY, OCTOBER 15

PICK UP THE PHONE! KEEP THOSE SENATE PHONES RINGING!

AND KEEP THOSE E-MAILS/FAXES COMING TOO!

TALKING POINTS BELOW

October 14, 2009

Dear Friends,

Tomorrow is the National Don't Nuke the Climate Call-In Day!

Please call both of your Senators offices and tell them to keep nuclear power out of the Senate climate bill. Recent events, like the John Kerry/Lindsay Graham op-ed in Sunday's New York Times calling for more nuclear power in the bill, add to the urgency of this call-in day.
Help keep the Senate's phones ringing all day long!
Capitol Switchboard: 202-224-3121.

And keep your letters and faxes to your Senators coming, and keep forwarding the action url to all of your lists: http://org2.democracyinaction.org/o/5502/t/5846/campaign.jsp?campaign_KEY=2137

Post it on your Facebook pages, Tweet it, spread the word every way possible. More than 4,000 letters already have been sent to the Senate this week--but we'll need more than that to beat the nuclear lobbyists. And with 16,000+ people on this e-mail list, that means a lot of you haven't yet taken action, and haven't yet helped reach the millions more people across this country who also want to keep nuclear out of the climate bill.

So take action today. E-mail and/or fax your Senators here. Then spread the word to every list you have, everyone you can think of.

And take action tomorrow. Call both your Senators offices at 202-224-3121.
The basic talking point is simple. If you only get 30 seconds with your Senators' offices, or an answering machine, just tell them: No nuclear power in the Senate climate bill, no more taxpayer dollars to support the failed nuclear industry.

But if you get a little more time, below are some talking points you may want to use. These also will be useful for drafting letters to the editor, op-eds, blog postings and the like--all of which will be very helpful as well. The more noise and publicity we can make, the better off we'll be.

Talking Points
*Nuclear power already receives a competitive advantage when a price is placed on carbon. If the nuclear industry cannot compete with such an advantage, that's its own problem, taxpayers should not be expected to provide more help to the industry.

*Projected costs for new reactors are stratospheric. In early 2006, the Nuclear Energy Institute predicted costs for the first few new reactors would run $2,000/kw, going down to $1,500/kw over time. Instead, recent estimates include Turkey Point (Florida) at $8,200/kw and Calvert Cliffs-3 (Maryland) and Bell Bend (Pennsylvania) at about $9,000/kw, or $13-15 billion. For example, see: http://www.bellbend.com/faqs.htm

*Cost overruns have been a constant with the nuclear industry. A 1986 Department of Energy study found the average cost overrun for the first 75 U.S. reactors was 207%. Reactors coming online after 1986 typically experienced even larger overruns. The only two reactors now under construction in the West-Areva reactors in Finland and France-are currently 75% and 20% over-budget, with years to go before construction completion.

*Electricity from new reactors, as expected with such enormous costs, would make the 1980s concept of "rate shock" seem quaint. An August 2009 report from the California Energy Commission, for example, predicts kilowatt/hour costs for nuclear electricity as high as 27-34 cents/kwh-nearly a tripling from today's prevailing rate of less than 12 cents/kwh. This report is available at: http://www.energy.ca.gov/2009publications/CEC-200-2009-017/CEC-200-2009-017-SD.PDF

*Nuclear power is not carbon-free. The nuclear fuel chain is responsible for fairly significant carbon emissions--at least three times those of wind power, for example. A recent study by Virginia Tech professor Benjamin Sovacool on this subject is available here: http://www.nirs.org/climate/background/sovacool_nuclear_ghg.pdf

*Nuclear reactors use enormous amounts of water, and water will become an increasingly precious resource in years to come, especially as we grapple with a warming climate. Allocating water to nuclear reactors now means less water for people and agriculture down the road. An August 2009 Virginia Tech study notes 36 states are projected to experience water shortages during the next decade. http://www.nirs.org/reactorwatch/water/sr46waterdependency.pdf

*Nuclear power is not even the only baseload alternative, as some in the industry claim. As cited in the August 6, 2009 Wall Street Journal for example, Spain is building large baseload solar thermal power plants for about $5,200/kw. While expensive, this is still $2,000/kw cheaper than the current low estimates for new reactor construction.

*Congress must not pre-judge the administration's re-evaluation of radioactive waste policy, which has not yet even begun. Specifically, no money should be spent on expensive, dangerous technologies like reprocessing, especially when the future direction of waste policy is unknown.
Tomorrow, NIRS staff will be going door-to-door in the Senate office buildings, delivering the thousands of postcards you sent to us (Thanks!) and the list of 629 U.S. organizations that have signed on to the simple statement on nuclear power and climate change. We hope to hear those phones ringing in every office we visit!
Thanks for all you do, but this week, let's all try to do just a little bit more....

Michael Mariotte
Executive Director

Nuclear Information and Resource Service
www.nirs.org
nirsnet@nirs.org

A Simple Statement On Nuclear Power and Climate Change

Sign the Statement | Invite Your Friends to Sign | View the Signers | Print the Statement

We're getting a little tired hearing nuclear industry lobbyists and pro-nuclear politicians allege that environmentalists are now supporting nuclear power as a means of addressing the climate crisis. We know that's not true, and we're sure you do too. In fact, using nuclear power would be counterproductive at reducing carbon emissions. As Amory Lovins of Rocky Mountain Institute points out, "every dollar invested in nuclear expansion will worsen climate change by buying less solution per dollar..."

The simple statement below will be sent to the media and politicians whenever they misstate the facts. We hope you and your organization will join us and sign on in support here.

"We do not support construction of new nuclear reactors as a means of addressing the climate crisis. Available renewable energy and energy efficiency technologies are faster, cheaper, safer and cleaner strategies for reducing greenhouse emissions than nuclear power."

http://www.nirs.org/petition2/index.php

Uranium all about $ signs

As Lord Overstone said, "No warning can save a people determined to grow suddenly rich." And remember, Denison now has a stake in Coles Hill. Excellent points, Phillip.

Chatham Star-Tribune
August 5, 2009

Opinion

It saddens me to think some can only think of $$ (dollar signs) and not the contamination and sickness from uranium mining and milling.

We, the citizens, have nothing to gain and everything to lose.

I would like to know when the price of uranium drops will Virginia Uranium Inc. or any other uranium mining companies handle their mining and milling operations like all the other mining companies in the world do?

Will you stop operations tempora[rily] or permanently until the price of uranium rises again?

Keep in mind, even if you are an experienced miner, these jobs could be part time; you might be laid off for months.

Can you support your family on a part-time job? Would you try and build or buy a house or buy a new vehicle knowing you might only work three to four months a year?

The only milling facility (White Mesa) in the United States has only operated a few months this year, and announced in May it would not process ore for the remainder of 2009 because its cost is higher than the spot price of uranium, according to Denison Mines president Ron Hochstein.

Let's not forget about all the part-time tax revenue for our county and state.

My understanding of the tax revenue from mining and milling operations is the company has to be running and the jobs being worked to get the tax revenue.

Our great state and county are not run on part-time taxes and jobs.

It might help, but it does not outweigh the contamination of our drinking water and land, the sickness to our families and the tax increases to clean up this mess if it ever could be cleaned up.

All I hear is we need to mine this uranium, get it out of the ground if it is so dangerous, it's a matter of national security, and we need to dig so we can power our nuclear plants now.

Well watch the price drop and you will see the mining stop.

The nuclear plants still need the uranium whether the price is high or low, but we have an excess of uranium, and the mining and milling will stop and start with the greed and costs of operations.

If dug up, the radon released with be 10,000 times more than if left in the ground.

What I feel is a matter of national security is destroying your own water and agriculture land and depending on foreign countries to feed you or provide you with drinking water.

Phillip Lovelace

Gretna

http://www.wpcva.com/articles/2009/08/05/chatham/opinion/opinion02.txt

Deeds’ ‘Country Tour’ Stops in Chatham: Supporters Cheer Democratic Candidate

Developing...more to come...

By Tim Davis, Editor
Chatham Star Tribune

Wednesday, August 5, 2009

State Sen. Creigh Deeds, the Democratic candidate for governor, brought his “Deeds Country” tour to Pittsylvania County on Monday.

Deeds spoke with about 50 enthusiastic supporters at George and Janet Stanhope’s home on Strader Road in Chatham. Stanhope is an active member of Southside Concerned Citizens, which opposes uranium mining in the county.

Deeds, who joined the anti-mining group in the mid-1980s while working as a lawyer in Danville, is no friend of uranium. “I’m not afraid of science,” he said, “but I don’t think the science is going to suggest that you can do it here.

“I think there is way too much risk. I’m very skeptical you can mine uranium [here].

http://www.wpcva.com/

Colorado Commissioner Joins Fight Against Mine

Wow! Here's a County Commissioner that gets it! Hope some of the local supervisors see this and follow suit!

By Cherry Sokoloski
North Forty News

Larimer County Commissioner Randy Eubanks has thrown down the gauntlet in the uranium-mining controversy, challenging his fellow commissioners to sign a resolution against uranium mining in northern Colorado.

At an informational hearing hosted by the commissioners Feb. 25, Eubanks said he plans to write letters of opposition to all permitting authorities involved with the proposed Centennial mine in Weld County.

"There's no safe level of radiation," said Eubanks, who worked in the nuclear power field for 13 years.

The Centennial Project between Nunn and Wellington is proposed by Powertech Inc., a Canadian company that wants to mine uranium using the in-situ leach method. With this method, wells are drilled into the aquifer containing the uranium deposits. A leaching solution is injected into the site and then piped back to the surface, where the uranium is removed from the water.

A report by the county's environmental advisory board stated that "a number of risks are identified with ISL operations," but that too little information is available to know for sure what the probabilities of contamination are.

Open-pit uranium mining presents higher risks to the environment than an ISL operation, the EAB noted. However, the report added, uranium mining could cause economic damages in the region regardless of actual risks, because of the power of perceptions.

Local commissioners do not have decision-making authority over the proposed mine, but they may provide input to Weld County, Colorado and the federal government, all of whom must issue permits before any mining can begin.

Jeff Parsons of Loveland, a mining attorney who spoke at the hearing, said the county's input "will be taken seriously at the state level."

Other speakers noted that Fort Collins, Timnath, Front Range Cancer Specialists and the Larimer County and Colorado Medical Societies have already passed resolutions against uranium mining.

Terence Walsh, project manager for Powertech's Centennial project, told the commissioners there's a large demand for uranium in the nuclear power industry. Twenty percent of electrical power in the United States is currently generated by nuclear power, he said, and the industry requires 55 million pounds of uranium per year. Most of that is imported, he said.

In-situ leach mining, according to Walsh, is "a safe and benign method of mining," but he acknowledged that groundwater restoration is a necessary part of the process.

He said monitoring wells would measure any vertical or horizontal migration of water, a primary concern with in-situ mining. If such a migration occurred, it could contaminate other aquifers used for domestic water or irrigation. In Colorado, Walsh noted, compliance wells are also required. Walsh said it takes about three years to restore groundwater to previous quality levels.

Lilias Jarding, a member of Coloradoans Against Resource Destruction which is actively opposing the Centennial project, said water contamination from the mine could occur from pipe failures, failures in the wastewater retention ponds or heavy rains. Another concern for Jarding is the use of large quantities of water for the in-situ process. Powertech officials, she said, estimate that about a million gallons of water per month would be consumed at Centennial.

Jarding said the price of uranium has "skyrocketed" in recent years, creating a worldwide uranium-mining boom.

Most speakers at the hearing were concerned about possible ill effects on health and the environment from the proposed mining operation. Possible water contamination was cited, along with contamination caused by high winds that could carry pollutants long distances.

There was also concern about livestock grazing on contaminated pastureland and about property values in the vicinity that are already falling. Some worried that Powertech would eventually file for permits on open-pit mining as well.

The Navajo Nation in the Four Corners area has banned uranium mining. "The people there were affected very badly by open-pit uranium mining," said Dian Sparling of Fort Collins, a nurse-midwife who worked on the reservation in 1982. One of her jobs was to collect statistics on the number of miscarriages and birth defects experienced by tribal members.

"Uranium mining so close to 275,000 people is a very risky business," said John Dixon of Fort Collins. "We will be playing Russian roulette with the lives of our children and future generations. What is the health of our children worth?"

http://www.northfortynews.com/Archive/A200803-01N_CommissionerFightMine.htm

Hold on a Minute, Mr. Secretary...Some Questions for You

This letter to Secretary Chu, and local news outlets, is in response to "Thank you Mister Secretary" written by Norm Reynolds, Virginia Energy (VUI) posted below (scroll down2 posts). As usual, Ms. Maute asks pertinent questions. We're hoping she gets full, honest responses...but we're not counting on it.

Honorable Secretary Chu,

Thank you for visiting Virginia.

Most of us in Virginia as are welcoming to federal dignitaries. However, we do not generally take kindly to their attempting to set state policy. We're even less excited to have to have an industry do it for us.

The letter from which I cite (printed in its entirty below) leads one to believe that perhaps that may be occurring.

Mr. Norm W. Reynolds has written a letter to local papers (Danville and Pittsylvania County) which appears to take liberties the purpose of your visit and President Obama's energy agenda. I am hoping you can set the record straight. I, and many others, await answers to the questions posed below.

Sincerely,

Karen B. Maute,

Danville, VA

Mr. Reynolds states, "U.S. Energy Secretary Steven Chu could not have picked a better spot than Pittsylvania County to sound his ringing call for “restarting” our nation’s nuclear energy program, as well as endorsing Virginia’s state-sanctioned study to assess the safety and feasibility of mining and milling uranium in the commonwealth.

Question: Was the purpose of your visit to Pittsylvania County, VA to"sound his ringing call for "restarting" our America's nuclear program?

Mr. Reynolds writes, Speaking to concerns that have been raised about mining in Virginia, Chu — a Nobel laureate in physics — explained that in “any kind of mining, whether it’s uranium, coal or nickel, or you name it, it has to be done in a way that protects the environment and protects the people. … there’s a study going on as to whether uranium mining in Virginia is going to do that. … we will wait for the results of that study.”

Question: Do you consider the coal industry as an example of mining in a way that protects the environment and people?

Question: To your knowledge where has uranium been mined and milled safely with a climate, watersheds and density of population similar to Virginia?

Question: Thousands of new uranium claims exist in historically mined areas in the US. Density of population appears less and the areas more arid.

Question: Why encourage mining in Virginia where millions stand to suffer water contamination if mining and milling of uranium occurs?

Mr. Reynolds states, "The Virginia Coal and Energy Commission is working with the National Academy of Sciences to conduct an independent study to address concerns of Virginians about safety to people, livestock, crops and the environment."

Question: Has the National Academy of Sciences entered into contract to conduct the proposed study?

Question: If so, with whom did they contract and how is the study being funded?

Mr. Reynolds writes,The secretary’s position on the uranium potential at Coles Hill seemed to reflect that of his boss, President Barack Obama. When the president was campaigning in Virginia last year, The Roanoke Times carried the following report:

“According to an e-mail from his Virginia communications director, Obama supports a proposed study of the (Coles Hill) site to evaluate the potential environmental effects of mining. But, he adds, ‘Virginia has the potential to be a national leader in uranium mining, and development of uranium resources in Pittsylvania County could create hundreds of jobs in that part of the state.’”

Question: Who was the communications director who sent the e-mail stating that Obama supports a proposed study of the (Coles Hill) site to evaluate the potential environmental effects of mining?

Question: Is this President Obama's quote or from the un-named communications director, "‘Virginia has the potential to be a national leader in uranium mining, and development of uranium resources in Pittsylvania County could create hundreds of jobs in that part of the state.’”

Mr. Reynolds writes, "On the larger subject of using nuclear energy to power America, Chu told the local audience of about 275 people that the Obama administration and the U.S. Department of Energy are “very supportive of restarting the nuclear power industry,” adding that he believes it can be done safely."

Question: Does this mean that you, Secretary Chu, believe mining and milling of uranium can be done safely? If so, please elaborate reasons for that belief.

Mr. Reynolds writes, "For those of us who have worked long and hard on the Coles Hill project, it is gratifying that the nation’s highest energy official saw fit to come to Pittsylvania County and to endorse the scientific study and to state so unequivocally the Obama administration’s high commitment to getting nuclear back on track in the United States. We look forward to moving ahead hand in hand with such enlightened thinking."

Question: To what extent is the Obama administration involved with the uranium industry ?

Mr. Reynolds writes, "What Dr. Chu is talking about goes straight to the heart of energy independence for our nation. Yes, we need to move ahead on all fronts that make sense. But let us keep in mind that of the 55 million pounds of uranium needed to operate nuclear facilities for one year in this country, over 50 million pounds are imported. That is a frightening statistic in a world as unpredictable as the one in which we are living."

Question: Will the Obama administration and subsequent administrations require uranium mined at Coles Hill or in the United States to remain in the states for the sole purpose of American energy use?

Question: Can sale to foreign countries be prohibited?

Question: Why is the Virginia Coal and Energy Commission studying market trends for the uranium industry as part of its invironmental study?

"Tom [Perriello] In Your Town" Events Come to Southside

During the August district work period, Congressman Perriello will be visiting every locality in the 5^th District and hosting “Tom In Your Town” events.

"Tom In Your Town" is a chance for constituents to meet one-on-one with the congressman [Tom Perriello] to discuss policy issues, give suggestions, or to get help with federal programs like Medicare, Social Security, or veterans’ benefits.

All constituents are invited to come by anytime during the time period and sign in.

Meetings are first-come, first-served. After the constituent meets with the congressman, staff members will be there to follow up with any concerns.

This schedule can also be accessed at www.perriello.house.gov under “Newsroom,” then Upcoming Events.

Further media events will be announced at a later date.

August 3, 6:00 – 8:00 PM

Martinsville: Martinsville High School (Library), 351 Commonwealth Blvd.

August 4, 6:00 – 8:00 PM

Henry County: Laurel Park Middle School (Library), 280 Laurel Park Ave., Martinsville

August 5, 6:00 – 8:00 PM

Danville: O.T. Bonner Middle School (Auditorium), 300 Apollo Drive

August 6, 6:00 – 8:00 PM

Pittsylvania County: Chatham Middle School (Cafetorium), 11650 Hwy 29 N, Chatham

August 7, 6:00 – 8:00 PM

Halifax County: Halifax High School (Auditorium Balcony), 310 High School Circle, South Boston

U.S. Agriculture, Energy Secretaries to Visit Pittsylvania County Saturday, July 18th

We are taking the unusual step in publishing 2 articles in the same post because the information each contains complements the other. As always, we appreciate the reporting of both Tim Davis, editor of the Chatham Star-Tribune and Linda Goin, editor of Appomattox News.

There will be seating for 200. They should be looking for 2000! There is no way to stress too strongly just how important this meeting could be! And we suggest trying to be there way, way before 12:30 pm...this is going to be a major event!


By TIM DAVIS/Star-Tribune Editor
Wednesday, July 15, 2009 9:25 AM EDT

U.S. Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack and U.S. Secretary of Energy Steven Chu will visit Pittsylvania County Saturday [July 18] as part of President Obama's "Rural Tour."

Vilsack and Chu are scheduled to talk about green jobs and a new energy economy with a focus on weatherization and carbon sequestration.

The cabinet secretaries are scheduled to fly in to Danville around 10:30 a.m. and visit Piedmont BioProducts, a biodiesel pilot project at Ken Moss's Windy Acres Nursery in Gretna.

After a quick lunch, Vilsack and Chu will hold a town hall meeting at Buddy Mayhew's farm on Carter Lodge Road in Blairs.

The town hall meeting, which is open to the public, will be held from 1:30 p.m. to 2:30 p.m.

"We're expecting a large crowd," said Freddie Wydner, the county's agricultural director.

A large tent will be set up and there will be seating for around 200 people.

"If you want a seat, you'd better arrive early," Wydner said.

http://www.wpcva.com/articles/2009/07/15/chatham/news/news53.txt

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

White House Listening Tour Slated for Pittsylvania County

Saturday, 18 July 2009

Buddy Mayhew’s farm

1501 Carter Lodge Road
Blairs, Virginia

(Directions below)

The public is encouraged to arrive around 12:30 p.m. with an anticipated arrival by the Secretaries at 1:00 p.m. The Secretaries plan to take comments and questions until approximately 2:30 p.m.

By Staff Reports on July 15th, 2009

The White House recently announced that President Obama has directed many members of his Cabinet to begin what it describes as a “listening tour” of rural America this summer. The tour will be in Virginia’s Blairs community on Saturday, 18 July 2009. Energy Secretary Steven Chu and Agricultural Secretary Tom Vilsack will be on a mission to develop “green jobs.”

The Obama administration stated they will focus on weatherization and carbon sequestration.

A town hall meeting will be held at Buddy Mayhew’s farm (1501 Carter Lodge Road, Blairs, Virginia).

Directions to Buddy Mayhew’s farm from Danville: Take Route 29 North. Turn right onto Spring Garden Road (Route 640). Go 1.7 miles, then turn left onto Carter Lodge Road (Route 825). Go 0.2 miles to Buddy’s farm.

Directions to Buddy Mayhew’s farm from Chatham: At the ‘top’ of White Oak Mountain, turn left onto Carter Lodge Road. Go 1.4 miles to Buddy’s farm.

http://www.appomattoxnews.com/2009/white-house-listening-tour-slated-for-pittsylvania-county.html

Nuclear power isn't clean or cheap

BY NIELS S. NOKKENTVED - Idaho Statesman

Published: 07/14/09

An Eagle-based company wants to build a 1,600-megawatt nuclear power plant in Elmore County.

The U.S. Congress is considering a bill that proposes the nation build 100 new nuclear power reactors over the next 20 years.

Idaho Republican U.S. Rep. Mike Simpson has embraced nuclear power, and like others, promotes it as cheap and clean. They argue also that nuclear energy emits no greenhouse gases. But it is unclear which part of the nuclear energy cycle they're referring to. Nuclear power is neither cheap nor clean.

The two main reasons no new power plants have been built in the United States since the late 1970s are the high cost of construction and the uncertainty of the regulatory approval process. Only federal subsidies make nuclear power "cheap."

The nuclear fuel cycle starts with mining, which relies on trains, trucks and heavy equipment that run on diesel fuel. Refining the ore and turning it into nuclear fuel creates large amounts of radioactive and toxic tailings and waste. Uranium, for example, gives off radioactive radon gas, the second leading cause of lung cancer in this country.

And operating a nuclear power plant requires an outside source of electric power. Reactors emit small amounts of radiation and heat in the form of steam or hot water, and they produce waste for which we have no disposal solution.

Uranium mining and milling have a sordid history in the West. In the Southwest, Navajo homes once were built of radioactive mine tailings, and their land is riddled with more than 1,000 abandoned mines. Mining companies hired local residents to work at low wages without telling them of the health risks. When the ore played out, some companies simply walked away.

In one example, Uranium Reduction Co. began processing ore from the Moab area's rich uranium ore deposits in the 1950s. In 1962, the company sold the mill to Atlas Minerals Corp., which ran it until declaring bankruptcy in 1998. The federal government took over the site in 2001.

Today a 94-foot tall pile of radioactive and toxic mill tailings covers 130 acres and holds 12 million tons of radioactive waste - about 750 feet from the third largest river in the West, three miles from Moab, less than a mile from Arches National Park and across the mouth of Moab Wash.

The unlined pile leaks an average of 57,000 gallons per day into the Colorado River upstream of Lake Mead, which supplies drinking and irrigation water to southern California, Las Vegas and parts of Arizona. Similar piles at 38 mill sites in the West - 22 of them abandoned - hold 140 million tons of radioactive tailings.

The story doesn't end with refining the ore. Producing reactor fuel involves a process that concentrates one form, or isotope, of uranium that can sustain a nuclear reaction. The leftovers, known as "depleted uranium," remain radioactive. About 750,000 tons of depleted uranium already awaits disposal. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission recently issued warnings about disposing of large amounts of this material as "low level" waste - the current proposed practice.

Most industry supporters - who claim nuclear power produces no greenhouse gases - want to ship spent fuel from power plants, mainly in the eastern part of the country, by diesel-powered trains to a proposed waste disposal facility in Jackass Flats, Nev. - a site known as Yucca Mountain.

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

Niels S. Nokkentved has degrees in journalism and environmental studies and has worked as natural resource reporter for 20 years, including more than 12 years of covering nuclear waste issues at the Idaho National Laboratory.

http://www.idahostatesman.com/opinion/story/832976.html

Secretaries of Agriculture, Energy to visit Ringgold Saturday, July 18

Mark your calendars and make plans to be in Ringgold on Saturday, July 18! We'll bring you more details re: time and location as they're available. This is a stellar opportunity to approach these Cabinet members, President Obama's right-hand men, and make your thoughts known on nuclear energy as well as on true alternative/renewable energy! Please don't let this chance pass you by! Everyone with a stake in the future of Southside needs to be out in force to talk to Secretary Vilsack and Secretary Chu!

By TIM DAVIS/Star-Tribune Editor
Wednesday, July 8, 2009 9:41 AM EDT

U.S. Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack and U.S. Secretary of Energy Steven Chu will visit Pittsylvania County later this month as part of President Obama's "Rural Tour."

Vilsack and Chu are scheduled to be in Ringgold on Saturday, July 18, to talk about green jobs and a new energy economy with a focus on weatherization and carbon sequestration.

Details of the cabinet secretaries' visit are still being worked out. A time and location have not been announced.

Todd Haymore, commissioner of the Virginia Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, said he is aware of the secretaries' visit, and hopes to receive more details soon.

"We've been hearing about this potential visit for months and were even asked to submit some ideas for his staff's consideration," said Haymore, a county native.

"We obliged and forwarded a number of suggestions: a combination of traditional agricultural operations mixed with those that either had current or future bio-energy potential."

Pittsylvania County Board of Supervisors chairman Coy Harville said the secretaries' visit is exciting news.

"This is a big plus, especially with the energy crunch we are in," said Harville.

"It speaks volumes about Virginia and speaks volumes about Pittsylvania County."

Freddie Wydner, the county's agricultural development director, agreed.

"I think the county should be proud that our advances in agriculture are being noticed," said Wydner.

Windy Acres in Gretna is producing "bio-crude" and Van Der Hyde Dairy in Chatham recently proposed installing the state's first anaerobic digester.

The county also is at the forefront in selling "carbon credits," the agriculture director said.

"All of these are a testament to the county and Virginia agriculture as a whole," said Wydner.

"Washington is taking note, and the farming community should feel pride knowing the Secretary of Agriculture wants to come here to talk about green energy and the green economy."

The president's office announced the "Rural Tour" last week, saying that over the course of the next few weeks and months, top administration officials, including cabinet secretaries, will "fan out across the nation to hold a series of discussions on how communities, states, and the federal government can work together to help strengthen rural America."

Vice President Joe Biden, U.S. Secretary of Commerce Gary Locke, and Vilsack began the tour on July 1 by visiting Wattsburg, Pa., to discuss rural broadband.

"A healthy American economy depends on a prosperous rural America," Obama said. "Rural America is vast and diverse, and different communities face different challenges and opportunities.

"That's why we're going out to hear directly from the people of rural America about their needs and concerns and what my Administration can do to support them."

Administration officials participating in the tour will hear about challenges and opportunities facing small towns and rural communities.

They also will share some of the Obama administration's ideas about how to "nurture strong, robust, and vibrant rural communities."

They will report back to the president about the state of rural America and what the administration can do to strengthen it.

The events will serve as "listening sessions" on such issues as broad-based rural health, economic development, infrastructure, education, energy, natural resources, and agriculture.

Events will be held in Alaska, Louisiana, Nebraska, New Mexico, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Virginia and Wisconsin.

Vilsack will hold listening sessions in additional states with local and state elected officials.

The rural tour is scheduled to end in September.

"The entire tour will provide an opportunity for the Obama administration to listen to diverse voices throughout rural America, and to highlight its broader vision for growth and prosperity in these regions of the country," a spokesman said.

Uranium hearing Tuesday to ban uranium exploration and mining

More public testimony planned for proposed uranium amendment

Debbie Bell
The Daily Record

7/6/2009

Public testimony is scheduled Tuesday night for the second month in a row on proposed amendments to the Fremont County Master Plan that would ban uranium exploration and uranium mining in certain instances.

The public hearing that began June 2 will continue before the Fremont County Planning Commission at 7 p.m. Tuesday, in the lower level of the County Administration Building, 615 Macon Ave. The panel will listen to new public testimony only.

Planners heard more than three hours of testimony and conflicting legal opinions during the initial hearing regarding the Master Plan amendment, which was offered by the government affairs committee of the Tallahassee Area Community. The amendment would establish a two-mile buffer zone between uranium activity and residential areas in Fremont County’s Mountain Districts.

Residents testified in June that they believe health and safety issues are at stake, as well as economic and environmental issues.

Planning Commission Chairman Tom Piltingsrud said the panel was not prepared to make a decision last month, because members had volumes of material and legal opinions to review.

Because of the heightened interest in the proposed Master Plan amendment and the large crowd that attended the first hearing in June, Tuesday’s meeting will be televised on local public access channel 19 on Bresnan Cable.

Review of the Urban Growth Boundary Area map also is on Tuesday’s agenda. The map, prepared by the planning staff of Cañon City, was referred to the planners by the Cañon City Council. According to Piltingsrud, the question is whether future growth areas targeted outside the city limits of Cañon City would be subject to the city’s subdivision and development regulations when reviewed by county officials.

http://www.canoncitydailyrecord.com/Top-Story.asp?ID=11048

Uranium's promise of economic prosperity rings hollow

Chatham Star-Tribune
Wednesday, July 1, 2009 9:41 AM EDT

Bringing uranium mining to Pittsylvania County, according to what we are told, will mean economic prosperity for our area beyond the wildest dreams of local economic development personnel.

According to the United States Energy Information Administration, there is one operating uranium mill for conventionally-mined ore in the United States.

Denison Mines Corporation operates the sole active mill, being White Mesa. Early in May, 2009, Denison announced White Mesa was being put on standby and would not process any more conventional uranium ore for the rest of the year 2009.

The president and chief operating officer of Denison Mines Corporation, Ron Hochstein, stated Denison had filled all of its contracts for uranium for 2009 and that the market price of uranium, known as the spot price, was lower than the cost of processing conventional uranium ore. (The spot price went up a whole 50 cents last week!)

The first quarter 2009 financial report for Denison Mines Corporation shows a net loss of $1.3 million and the annual financial statement for 2008 shows a loss of $80.6 million.

Ron Hochstein is also chairman of the board of directors of Santoy Resources Ltd, which, according to announcements, is the Canadian firm in the process of merging with the Coles Hill company, Virginia Uranium, Ltd. (Do look at the financial statements of Santoy, posted on its Internet corporate site.)

The United States and Russia currently have a policy of converting uranium from dismantled uranium bombs, etc., into nuclear fuel rods to keep the uranium out of the hands of terrorists, which reduces the market for mined uranium ore.

The U. S. company handling this project is USEC Inc., and the vice president of marketing and sales is John M. A. Donelson.

Whether or not this is the same person who wrote by that name a recent glowing letter to the Star-Tribune in support for uranium mining at Coles Hill, I do not know.

There are 35 states in the United States which have nuclear generated electricity, producing a total of 806,181,935 megawatt hours in 2008. This was a bit less than the 2007 figure.

There are applications for 20 additional nuclear plants, with the application status being "under review."

One might wonder how many, if any, of those will be built for years, if ever, in the currrent state of financing even with the Energy Policy Act of 2005.

Considering all of these factors, one might be justified in wondering just how many jobs over how long a period each year will result in Pittsylvania County from uranium mining and milling.

(The White Mesa Mill has been in operation since about 1980, including the period under another corporate name, and only has contracts sufficient for operation for four months out of 12?)

Hildred C. Shelton

Danville

http://www.wpcva.com/articles/2009/07/01/chatham/opinion/opinion03.txt

Uranium Tearing County Apart

Chatham Star-Tribune

July 1, 2009

I grow weary of this constant belittling enveloping this county.

What happened to the days of "Hi Neighbor"?

We now have a large issue that makes most of us turn on one another. Over what? Money, jobs, maybe's.

Churches are torn apart, friendships are destroyed forever. Women cry and wring their hands. Many people don't know where to go or what to do.

The majority of people in this county do not want anything to do with this uranium! Check the numbers, please!

People write letters pro and con. Some say leave Walter Coles and Henry Bowen alone.

The people trying to stop this are non-progressive and trying to scare everyone.

Facts are facts. There is no safe processing mill in the world.

The people trying to stop this are not paid lobbyist giving out balloons to little children. These people are the backbone of this county, speaking for the majority of the county and trying to do whatever they can to save us all.

They are not big money people who buy what they want.

They are everyday people who bothered to educate themselves on uranium, who give their time, money and heart in trying to stop big money which once again is fooling the little guy into thinking they know what's best for us while they line pockets and spin their jargon of jobs and safety first.

When are we going to wise up and quit being puppets for the few and do what the majority of people want in their county?

Check the numbers, please!

Any man that causes harm (mental or physical) to so many people before what he wants is even off the ground is no man in my book.

You do not tear holes in churches. You do not turn neighbor against neighbor. You do not make grown women cry.

I don't care what the issue is. Moral upbringing, plain and flat should stop you in your tracks.

You are not excused for any of these things, no matter how much money you intend to give "your" church or think you can give to your community.

This is not about you, it is about us all. May God have mercy on your souls!

Check the numbers, please!

As for Smith Mountain Lake, how many people made money off of the lake, percentage wise throughout the county?

How many have died on Smith Mountain Lake? How many water battles have there been between Leesville Lake and Smith Mountain?

Finally, how many of you saw less taxes on your property because of the development on the lake?

What is Coles Hill really going to give you?

Check, the numbers, please!

Reality, not fantasy.

By the way, I believe in God, hunting, fishing. I do not throw thrash out my window, and I have never hugged a tree in my life!

Do I belittle? No, I speak from moral standards, love of neighbor.

Check the numbers, please!

Debra Towle

Chatham

http://www.wpcva.com/articles/2009/07/01/chatham/opinion/opinion02.txt

Can county's zoning ordinance protect against uranium?

Wednesday, July 1, 2009
Chatham Star-Tribune

On Feb. 17, I went before the Pittsylvania County Board of Supervisors to ask that the board update the zoning ordinance and explore the possibility of banning uranium mining in Pittsylvania County.

On May 28, Pittsylvania County Administrator Dan Sleeper asked Sen. Robert Hurt to request an "opinion" from the attorney general.

It read specifically: "On behalf of the Pittsylvania County Board of Supervisors, I am requesting an Attorney General's opinion on whether or not the County of Pittsylvania can pass an ordinance that would ban mining of uranium in its local jurisdiction."

Senator Hurt's letter of June 3 responds to Sleeper, stating that he had contacted the attorney general's office regarding "the question of whether the County of Pittsylvania can adopt an ordinance that would ban uranium mining in its local jurisdiction."

The attorney general's office returned an opinion that had been rendered earlier regarding the adoption of a "chemical trespass ordinance," a newly adopted ordinance by Halifax County.

This is not the question for which an answer is sought.

Our supervisors either missed the mark or aimed 180 degrees from the target regarding the question that should have been asked.

We have an existing local zoning ordinance. Can this ordinance be amended to better protect us regarding the mining and milling of uranium?

Karen B. Maute

Danville

http://www.wpcva.com/articles/2009/07/01/chatham/opinion/opinion01.txt
and http://www.godanriver.com/gdr/news/opinion/letters_to_the_editor/danville_letters/article/countys_uranium_question_ignored/12193/

Visitors Didn't Get Entire Uranium Story

This is the response to Glenn Giles' letter below. The Chatham Star-Tribune, Altavista Journal and other newspapers are owned and published by the same family and company.


The Altavista Journal
Wednesday, July 1, 2009

This is in response to Glenn Giles' recent letter, "Area residents visit uranium site." I, along with others, did as Mr. Giles did and contacted Virginia Uranium Inc. (VUI) for their "briefing" as they like to call it. I also have done little else but study this matter since it was brought to my attention some 18 months ago. I believe it is only sensible to listen to all sides (there are normally more than two sides to any issue) and draw your own intelligent conclusions.

What, exactly, did Mr. Giles expect to hear during his visit to VUI's offices and the Coles Hill site, except the absolute best-case scenario about uranium mining and milling when there is so much money for them to make at stake?

Did he expect to hear the truth about the illness, destruction and devastation that has been left in the wake of uranium mining and milling throughout the western United States?

Did he think any of VUI's "friendly and professional hosts" would even mention, let alone discuss, the thousands of abandoned uranium mine sites in this country, the ones that have leached radioactive waste into the soil and water for years and wait for the federal government to come clean them up at taxpayer expense?

Did he expect anyone to mention that many of the towns associated with mining and milling in other parts of the U.S. have become ghost towns after the mines were exhausted and mills done with processing because of the widespread radioactive contamination can't be remediated? Of course not!

VUI is going to give its visitors the nicest, most pleasant and reassuring fairy tale of uranium mining and milling its public relations firms can dream up. It has to. If it spoke the truth on any aspect of uranium mining and/or milling as it's been done in this country or around the world, for that matter, its visitors would flee so quickly the lovely hosts would see only a blur of flailing limbs. That's certainly not the reaction VUI needs for its visitors to experience. VUI needs its visitors to leave believing that the planned uranium mine and mill will be the biggest, safest boon to Southside in decades, not that it will be the biggest gamble in the history of Southside, which will use the Giles family's lives and yours and mine as the ante. And VUI surely doesn't want the Giles family or yours or mine to know that so far, everywhere in the world where this gamble has been taken, the winners were only a handful of stakeholders and investors. The rest of the folks, those whose lives were the ante, lost big. Very big.

No one who has spent any time at all researching the realities of uranium mining and milling could sit still and listen to what sounds like the biggest bunch of self-serving malarkey being served up anywhere in Southside these days. But VUI depends on its visitors to be ignorant of the truth about what it plans to do, not just to Coles Hill, but also to Southside. It needs local citizens to be brainwashed by its PR magic and old southern hospitality so that they won't want to believe the truth, if they even try to seek the truth. Sometimes fantasy presentations, also known as propaganda, are so cleverly crafted that the truth appears too ugly to be believed, especially when those who speak the truth can offer no wonderful promises except for a healthy environment for us and our children with clean air to breathe and clean water to drink.

I encourage Mr. Giles and those who accompanied him to the VUI "briefing" and visit to the Coles Hill site to realize that what they heard and saw while being entertained by VUI was just that, entertainment. And I encourage them to spend as much time as they did with VUI in pursuit of the other side of the story, the side that tells the harsh, unvarnished truth about the widespread illness, destruction and contamination of all living things that will ensue should VUI proceed with its plan to mine Coles Hill. Perhaps, after hearing and/or reading the rest of the story, Mr. Giles will understand that the long and interesting history of Pittsylvania County, of which he has been a dedicated steward, will, for all intents and purposes, end when the first rock is blasted loose in Coles Hill as those living in the shadow and contamination pathways of Coles Hill will be required to leave in order to preserve their health and lives.

Mr. Giles and his family and guests deserved the truth about uranium mining and milling. They didn't get it, but they got a pleasant outing. I hope, that for their own sakes and for the sakes of their grandchildren and their grandchildren, he and his guests will realize that what they heard from VUI is only one tiny theoretical piece of the story and a piece that, as of right now, has not yet been a part of the reality of any town in America in which uranium has been mined or milled. And I hope they'll wonder why and make every effort to find out.

VUI did not show me any sort of plan to mine or mill uranium, even though they want to do what is an illegal activity now in the state of Virginia. Every business owner knows that you must have a plan to implement it to its best and most profitable use. Any question that I asked was answered by, "That is why we need a study." I believe the company must have a plan, otherwise, how on earth do they know even a simple thing as how many people they have reported numerous times hiring? Did they pull those figures out of their magical hat or make them up? Why won't VUI disclose its plans? Why are they keeping everyone in the dark? Maybe they know that we would not believe the magic if they did not skirt the issue and were forthcoming in all aspects.

I keep remembering the last week of school when we were under a tornado watch and the county schools wisely kept our children at school where they would be safe, and my child did not get home until almost 5 p.m. That night at my home, we received over seven inches of rain, which overflowed everything including my swimming pool and goldfish pond. How could that be contained in a holding pond? Would we have the same disaster as they did in Tennessee with the coal sludge pond dam breaking? I am only talking about one incident. What about 30 years worth of uncontrollable situations? How many times have we been under a flood watch just this year?

Deborah Lovelace

Gretna

http://www.wpcva.com/articles/2009/07/01/altavista/opinion/opinion01.txt

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/

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

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).]