Writer Answers Mutli-Nationals Pro-Uranium Ad

(The following is a letter to the editor of the Danville Register - Bee scheduled to appear on Friday, 03/14/2008)


" He is right, except if I owed $19 million and I was blocked from the resource to pay the loan, I probably would think I had been treated unfairly too when my 15 lobbyists did not prevail in the General Assembly."


Dear Editor,

That was a most gracious thank-you ad by Walter Coles and Virginia Uranium, Inc., for the support given them for a uranium mining study, (page A6, March 9, 2008, The Danville Register & Bee).

However, I do wish we could dispense with the statement by Virginia Uranium, Inc., that
we need a uranium mining study to determine if uranium can be mined safely in Virginia and specifically in Pittsylvania County. ..

In my opinion, a study is needed for the sole purpose of giving cover to the members of the General Assembly to vote to lift the moratorium on uranium mining in Virginia.

Senator Frank Wager, sponsor of the study bill, may be a hero to Mr. Coles but my opinion of Senator Wagner is the word "energy" sends him into a senseless orbit.

I would like to remind Mr. Coles of something published in The Virginian-Pilot on October 21, 2007, in an article entitled "State considers lifting ban to extact farm's uranium mother lode." Senator Frank Wager who sponsored the Virginia Energy Plan was quoted as stating the references to uranium mining in the Energy Plan were offered by him as an amendment after he had been contacted by Whitt Clement. Wagner referred to Clement as "an old friend and colleauge".

So, could we please have no more statements about how vital this Coles Hills uranium mining is to the Virginia Energy Plan since uranium was not in the Plan until Clement, a lobbyist for Virginia Uranium, Inc., had chatted with Senator Wager?

I assume everyone knows "Clement" is Whitt Clement, formerly of Danville, who is a former long-time member of the General Assembly and a member of the administration of Governor Mark Warner.

Mr.Clement is now a member of a law firm whose Internet site states it represented the "U. S. Department of Energy in licensing of Yucca Mountain nuclear waste repository". With that kind of representation along with, as I recall, 14 other lobbying firms employed by Mr. Coles to influence members of the General Assembly, I would assume the staff of Virginia Uranium, Inc., did suffer severe shock at the defeat of its efforts to get the study.

Mr. Coles does not need to assure us that he will be back in the next session of the General Assembly for his study. I think most people in Pittsylvania County who are following this matter have seen on the Internet that.Coles has borrowed about $19 million from Canadian financiers for start-up money. While I do not know the terms of these loans, the usual practice would be that Coles Hills is the security, meaning if Mr. Coles cannot mine his uranium deposit he loses Coles Hills and his $10 billion uranium deposit to his lenders.

Could we also hear no more expressions of the statement that if the mining cannot be done safely, it will not be done? Being in the above-described position with borrowed money, it is my opinion Virginia Uranium, Inc., would mine this deposit even if half the residents of Pittsylvania County were killed by contamination and the State of Virginia becomes radioactive until the end of time. Please spare us that senseless phrase.

Nor do we need to be reminded by Mr. Coles there are "...various ways to achieve our goal of having a scientific study..." One of those ways was demonstrated in this Session. One of the Senators (not Wagner nor Hurt) tacked on to the Senate budget bill an amendment which instructed the Virginia Department of Mines, Minerals and Energy to determine the regulations for mining uranium in Virginia.

The moratorium consists of a sentence or two in the Virginia Code which reads that no uranium mining permit can be issued until DMME writes the mining regulations. There has been discussion over whether or not this budget amendment would have raised the moratorium. This vote would have been taken without the much-touted study and as a part of the vote on the budget.

I disagree with Mr. Coles implying that Delegates Clark Hogan and Watkins Abbitt and Speaker of the House William Howell did not have the right to express their opposition to the study. The voting principle is suppose to be that a member of a legislature votes in the best interest of his or her constituents. I am thankful for the wisdom of these three
Delegates. Speaker Howell said this was something that could have an impact on the lives of people for thousands of years and there was no need for such a hurry over the study. He is right, except if I owed $19 million and I was blocked from the resource to pay the loan, I probably would think I had been treated unfairly too when my 15 lobbyists did not prevail in the General Assembly.

Yours very truly,

Hildred C. Shelton

Danville, VA