Sunday, March 23, 2008
Virginia Uranium May Have an Undisclosed Plan
(It appears that VUI may actually have a plan for its mining of uranium in Virginia, but is just holding it close to prevent opposition. The following was submitted by an SCC affiliate.)
"....the Coles Hill Deposit may be appropriate for open pit mining"
Though VUI has not laid out its mining plans, here's something worth noting:
In its preliminary prospectus (Nov. 2007), documents state the management of Virginia Uranium Ltd. and Holdco believe the Coles Hill property has attractive project potential, noting "Most of the historic resource is near the surface and, if current resources and reserves can be estimated, the Coles Hill Deposit may be appropriate for open pit mining." It further states Holdco will, however, "explore the use of other recovery techniques such as in-situ recovery (ISR) as deemed appropriate."
ISR is the same thing as in-situ leaching (ISL) but uranium companies like to refer to it as "recovery" instead of "leaching." But one of the keys to ISL is determining the permeability of the uranium ore body. (The process also uses a LOT of water, which is something to seriously examine if the region is prone to drought conditions - seasonal or not.)
ISL is often labeled by uranium companies as the most "benign" method to mine uranium.
Did you know the Nuclear Regulatory Commission does not regulate conventional mines (including open pit); however, NRC does regulate the mills that work alongside the mine (and process the ore into yellow cake). The agency does regulate in-situ leach recovery operations. But Virginia also is in the process of negotiating an agreement with the NRC under which it would license and regulate radioactive materials in the Commonwealth; So, depending on the scope of that agreement and its timing, the NRC could possibly never be involved with a uranium recovery operation in Virginia, according to an agency spokesman.
"....the Coles Hill Deposit may be appropriate for open pit mining"
Though VUI has not laid out its mining plans, here's something worth noting:
In its preliminary prospectus (Nov. 2007), documents state the management of Virginia Uranium Ltd. and Holdco believe the Coles Hill property has attractive project potential, noting "Most of the historic resource is near the surface and, if current resources and reserves can be estimated, the Coles Hill Deposit may be appropriate for open pit mining." It further states Holdco will, however, "explore the use of other recovery techniques such as in-situ recovery (ISR) as deemed appropriate."
ISR is the same thing as in-situ leaching (ISL) but uranium companies like to refer to it as "recovery" instead of "leaching." But one of the keys to ISL is determining the permeability of the uranium ore body. (The process also uses a LOT of water, which is something to seriously examine if the region is prone to drought conditions - seasonal or not.)
ISL is often labeled by uranium companies as the most "benign" method to mine uranium.
Did you know the Nuclear Regulatory Commission does not regulate conventional mines (including open pit); however, NRC does regulate the mills that work alongside the mine (and process the ore into yellow cake). The agency does regulate in-situ leach recovery operations. But Virginia also is in the process of negotiating an agreement with the NRC under which it would license and regulate radioactive materials in the Commonwealth; So, depending on the scope of that agreement and its timing, the NRC could possibly never be involved with a uranium recovery operation in Virginia, according to an agency spokesman.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
(The following Comment is from a different SCC affiliate)
Pittsylvania County already has one open-pit mine, being the rock quarry on White Oak Mountain.
The newspaper article in October in The Star-Tribune also commented on how close to the surface the uranium deposit is at Coles Hill and that open-pit mining would likely be the mining process of choice.
I inquired of some agencies and it seems that Pittsylvania County does not have the kind of soil that is most desireable for the in-situ process. If that is used however, I think there is no question the two creeks and Banister River will be contaminated. There is a paper on-line somewhere that i have read, which stated that the groundwater restoration which is required by NRC after in-situ is completed has never been successful and if the creeks and river are alreadt contamined, which they would be, restoration does not mean anything anyway.
Post a Comment