Mining company told to collect more data at site
By Matthew Beaudin
Published: Friday, September 25, 2009 8:12 AM CDT
Environmental groups won a victory against the revving uranium industry last week when the US Department of the Interior halted an increase in mining near Naturita and sent the mining company to the field for more data.
In a letter remanding a standing approval for expansion — won over the winter — Lynn E. Rust, the deputy state director in the BLM’s Energy, Land and Minerals division, told Denison Mines Corporation that “This mine permit analysis should rely on the best available data, not simply on the data submitted, if better data can readily be obtained.”
Sheep Mountain Alliance and other groups filed a complaint with the state, asking for the approval to be stricken down or, at least, remanded. They got the latter.
Mining under the initial permit is allowed to continue, “but updated monitoring should occur under that dated permit,” Rust wrote.
The initial approval gave the Canada-based Denison Mines Corporation permission to expand its existing mining operations in the Big Gypsum Valley. New activities at the Sunday Mining complex would have included the expansion of waste rock areas and the addition of vent holes along with access roads and additional drilling. It would have increased land disturbance from 80 to 100 acres.
In an earlier review of the project, Jamie Sellar-Baker, the Dolores Public Lands Office associate manager, signed a Finding of No Significant Impact and Decision Record for the project, meaning its existence will have “no significant impact” on the environment surrounding it.
The most recent letter, though, asks for more information.
“Basically, they said the groundwater and environmental baseline data they collected was not the most recent information,” Hilary White, SMA’s executive director, said. “We’re thrilled with what we did get.”
Sheep Mountain didn’t get it all it wanted, however: Ever since the Department of Energy’s decision more than two years ago to re-open the federal uranium leasing program in the Uravan Mineral Belt — which sowed the seeds of the Manhattan Project — environmental groups have been asking for a comprehensive analysis of mining’s cumulative impacts rather than case-by-case reviews. The BLM, in this case, found a wholesale review of mining’s broad effects was unnecessary.
White says the environmental groups are still trying to get such a review through different cases.
In the summer of 2007, the Department of Energy also announced its intent to renew 13 active leases in southwest Colorado for 10 years, effectively rolling out the welcome mat for mining companies.
“If we just sit idly by and leave it up to the government and public land agencies … the public safety and environment is not fully protected,” White said. ‘It’s very important that there is ongoing … large amounts of scrutiny by private parties to question the government approval process.”
http://www.telluridenews.com/articles/2009/09/26/news/doc4abc17ca0cf29638841724.txt
Showing posts with label Colorado. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Colorado. Show all posts
Sunday, September 27, 2009
Friday, September 25, 2009
Cañon City uranium contamination looms over Montrose mill battle
By David O. Williams 9/25/09 8:39 AM
MONTROSE — For many in Montrose County and surrounding counties and communities in Southwest Colorado, the proposed Piñon Ridge uranium mill really is a clear-cut case of NIMBYism.
But for residents of Cañon City area, some of whom made the long trip to a special-use permit hearing in Montrose earlier this month, declaring “not in my back yard” could have spared them decades of health problems associated with the metal the Navajo Indians call “yellow death.”
Rebecca Lorenz of Colorado Springs was one of the attorneys who in the 1990s convinced two separate federal juries to award Cañon City area residents millions in damages stemming from radiation poisoning produced by Cotter Corp.’s uranium mill near Lincoln Park that was declared an EPA Superfund Cleanup site.
At a hearing before the Montrose County commissioners earlier this month, Lorenz read a laundry list of illnesses stemming from Cotter Corp. uranium processing that began in the 1950s and ran well into the 1980s: cancer, arthritis, bronchitis, infertility, birth defects and learning disabilities, to name a few.
She urged the commissioners to consider those considerable health risks before approving a special-use permit on Sept. 30 for a Canadian company, Energy Fuels, which wants to process uranium ore in far western Montrose County in the Paradox Valley between Bedrock and Naturita.
Cañon City resident Sharon Cunningham also made the long drive to Montrose, telling the commissioners that “ore from this area and tailings are less than a mile from my house.” She related the story of Cotter Corp. chemist Lynn Boughton, who worked at the Cañon City mill for decades and fought Cotter and Pinnacle Insurance for years to secure a settlement after contracting cancer.
Cotter Corp.’s Glen Williams also attended the hearing, acknowledging his company’s problems processing ore near Cañon City. But he said technology has changed dramatically since the state’s uranium-mining heyday, and he urged the commissioners to approve the Paradox Valley mill so mines Cotter still owns and operates in the area will have a much closer processing facility. Milling involves leaching uranium ore with sulfuric acid to produce uranium oxide, or yellow cake, which can then be converted into fuel rods for nuclear power plants.
“The [Paradox Valley] area is nice, but this county was built on natural resources,” Williams said.
Frank Filas, environmental manager for a U.S. subsidiary of Ontario-based Energy Fuels, said Cañon City is ancient history in his industry, with Cotter using unlined tailings ponds that led to groundwater contamination.
“You just can’t use [tailings] for sandboxes the way they were in the ’50s and ’60s, but comparing our situation to historic situations is a little disingenuous,” Filas said, adding his company will use state-of-the-art, double-lined ponds in the Paradox Valley.
Montrose internal medicine specialist Dr. Christine Gieszl and others cited numerous federal studies and a 2007 Colorado Medical Society (CMS) finding that uranium mining and milling pose a major public health risk. But Filas discounted the CMS decision.
“Our feeling is that decision was mostly political based on opposition to Powertech in Weld County,” Filas said, referring to a proposed uranium mine 15 miles northeast of Fort Collins that has now been opposed by the cities and towns of Fort Collins, Greeley, Ault, Wellington, Timnath and Nunn, according to the Fort Collins Coloradoan.
There are a number of other concerns associated with a revival of Colorado’s uranium mining industry to meet a growing call for carbon-free nuclear power in the United States and around the world, including transportation of ore and other mining materials on two-lane mountain roads.
The Montrose County commissioners have finished taking public testimony on the proposed mill and appear ready to make a decision at their next hearing on the proposal, set for 10 a.m., Sept. 30, at Friendship Hall in the Montrose County Fairgrounds and Event Center.
Got a tip? Freelance story pitch? Send us an e-mail. Follow The Colorado Independent on Twitter.
http://coloradoindependent.com/38522/canon-city-uranium-contamination-looms-over-montrose-mill-battle
MONTROSE — For many in Montrose County and surrounding counties and communities in Southwest Colorado, the proposed Piñon Ridge uranium mill really is a clear-cut case of NIMBYism.
But for residents of Cañon City area, some of whom made the long trip to a special-use permit hearing in Montrose earlier this month, declaring “not in my back yard” could have spared them decades of health problems associated with the metal the Navajo Indians call “yellow death.”
Rebecca Lorenz of Colorado Springs was one of the attorneys who in the 1990s convinced two separate federal juries to award Cañon City area residents millions in damages stemming from radiation poisoning produced by Cotter Corp.’s uranium mill near Lincoln Park that was declared an EPA Superfund Cleanup site.
At a hearing before the Montrose County commissioners earlier this month, Lorenz read a laundry list of illnesses stemming from Cotter Corp. uranium processing that began in the 1950s and ran well into the 1980s: cancer, arthritis, bronchitis, infertility, birth defects and learning disabilities, to name a few.
She urged the commissioners to consider those considerable health risks before approving a special-use permit on Sept. 30 for a Canadian company, Energy Fuels, which wants to process uranium ore in far western Montrose County in the Paradox Valley between Bedrock and Naturita.
Cañon City resident Sharon Cunningham also made the long drive to Montrose, telling the commissioners that “ore from this area and tailings are less than a mile from my house.” She related the story of Cotter Corp. chemist Lynn Boughton, who worked at the Cañon City mill for decades and fought Cotter and Pinnacle Insurance for years to secure a settlement after contracting cancer.
Cotter Corp.’s Glen Williams also attended the hearing, acknowledging his company’s problems processing ore near Cañon City. But he said technology has changed dramatically since the state’s uranium-mining heyday, and he urged the commissioners to approve the Paradox Valley mill so mines Cotter still owns and operates in the area will have a much closer processing facility. Milling involves leaching uranium ore with sulfuric acid to produce uranium oxide, or yellow cake, which can then be converted into fuel rods for nuclear power plants.
“The [Paradox Valley] area is nice, but this county was built on natural resources,” Williams said.
Frank Filas, environmental manager for a U.S. subsidiary of Ontario-based Energy Fuels, said Cañon City is ancient history in his industry, with Cotter using unlined tailings ponds that led to groundwater contamination.
“You just can’t use [tailings] for sandboxes the way they were in the ’50s and ’60s, but comparing our situation to historic situations is a little disingenuous,” Filas said, adding his company will use state-of-the-art, double-lined ponds in the Paradox Valley.
Montrose internal medicine specialist Dr. Christine Gieszl and others cited numerous federal studies and a 2007 Colorado Medical Society (CMS) finding that uranium mining and milling pose a major public health risk. But Filas discounted the CMS decision.
“Our feeling is that decision was mostly political based on opposition to Powertech in Weld County,” Filas said, referring to a proposed uranium mine 15 miles northeast of Fort Collins that has now been opposed by the cities and towns of Fort Collins, Greeley, Ault, Wellington, Timnath and Nunn, according to the Fort Collins Coloradoan.
There are a number of other concerns associated with a revival of Colorado’s uranium mining industry to meet a growing call for carbon-free nuclear power in the United States and around the world, including transportation of ore and other mining materials on two-lane mountain roads.
The Montrose County commissioners have finished taking public testimony on the proposed mill and appear ready to make a decision at their next hearing on the proposal, set for 10 a.m., Sept. 30, at Friendship Hall in the Montrose County Fairgrounds and Event Center.
Got a tip? Freelance story pitch? Send us an e-mail. Follow The Colorado Independent on Twitter.
http://coloradoindependent.com/38522/canon-city-uranium-contamination-looms-over-montrose-mill-battle
Sunday, September 13, 2009
Commissioners bent on blind conclusion (Uranium Mill)
The proposed location for the Pinon Ridge Mill Photo
Comment: Virginians is fighting against uranium mining and milling just like the people of Pinon Ridge, CO. Boy, this uranium corporation is a sneaky bunch, bussing people in for the event!
Montrose BOCC should wait on Pinon Ridge Mill Permit
Published: Wednesday, September 9, 2009 9:43 AM CDT
By Dan Chancellor
Dear Editor:
The Montrose Board of County Commissioners faces one of the most important decisions in the history of Montrose County. The special use permit for a uranium mill and radio-active materials dump site could have far-reaching consequences thousands of years into the future.
Despite the urging of citizens, businesses and varied organizations, the commissioners seem bent on blindly racing to a speedy conclusion. By stipulation of the permit process, the commissioners have received fifty thousand dollars for independent analysis of the socio-economic and environmental impacts of the proposed mill and dumpsite.
To date, no studies have been implemented. Future impacts cannot be completely determined. Once established as a sacrifice zone, State and Federal agencies could amend the license to include large quantities of most any toxic, hazardous or radioactive materials.
Using only the data supplied by the mill applicants, in an incomplete application, the commissioners are poised to grant a special use permit that could negatively impact the entire Four Corners region. There is no obligation or apparent reason to rush this complex and extremely consequential process.
Public opposition was made abundantly clear at the Montrose BOCC public hearing in Nucla on Aug. 13. At the end of the allocated time, 28 of the 30 citizen speakers had voiced opposition to the mill. In the commentary extension granted by the board, the balance remained overwhelmingly in favor of the opposition.
To counter the swell of citizen opposition, Energy Fuels, the mill applicant, has chartered busses to bring locals to the upcoming hearing.
Energy Fuels has been serving up free hamburgers, along with sides of questionable facts and vague intentions.
Those of us whose chief concerns are the health, safety and prosperity of the area cannot afford to charter busses or give out free food.
But we can show up, we can stand up and we can make sure that our voices are heard.
The next, and possibly the last, public hearing will occur at 9 a.m. on Wednesday, Sept. 9, at the Montrose Fairground’s Friendship Hall.
If you can’t attend this meeting, you still have a short time to send an e-mail or letter to the Montrose County Commissioners. For further information go to www.paradoxsustainability.org, e-mail pvsa777@yahoo.com or call 970-859-7248.
Sincerely,
Dan Chancellor
Placerville, Colo.
http://www.telluridenews.com/articles/2009/09/12/norwood_post/news/doc4aa7bc525dde8078706492.txt
Friday, September 11, 2009
Proposed uranium mill deeply divides southwestern Colorado communities
Colorado's Paradox Valley, in Montrose County (Creative Commons photo by Iversonic via Flickr)
Comment: We are all fighting against uranium mining and milling all over America, not just Virginia. In addition, we are fighting the Canadian uranium corporations, which Canada owns a certain part of the mining corporations. So tell all leaders to stop foreign corporations from ruining our lives with uranium mining and milling!
Energy Fuels: Uranium processing and tourism 'are compatible and not mutually exclusive' in Montrose County
By David O. Williams
9/10/09 7:52 AM
MONTROSE — Montrose County commissioners delayed a decision on a controversial uranium mill proposal Wednesday after nearly six hours of public testimony that underscored deep divisions between longtime mining families and residents of neighboring Telluride and San Miguel County.
The Pinon Ridge Mill would be located on the far western edge of Montrose County, in the Paradox Valley near the Utah border, but the uranium and vanadium processing mill — capable of producing enough fuel rods to power a city one and half times the size of Denver — has been meeting with stiff opposition from residents of Telluride and Ridgway.
They argue the mill will re-stigmatize the area once known as the capital of the global uranium industry, irreparably damaging the region’s new reputation as an outdoor recreation mecca and international tourism destination.
Proponents counter the western end of Montrose County has been severely depressed for decades, struggling for jobs and a sustainable economy since the last big uranium boom tapered off in the 1970s and ’80s in the wake of nuclear power-plant disasters at Three Mile Island and Chernobyl. They also say technology has changed dramatically since the days when Uravan produced uranium for the first atomic weapons but is now a toxic ghost town.
Frank Filas, environmental manager for a U.S. subsidiary of Ontario-based Energy Fuels Inc., called Pinon Ridge a small facility that will revitalize the once-vibrant industry, but in a way that avoids the mistakes of the past and won’t impact outdoor recreation and agriculture.
“Energy Fuels feels strongly [uranium processing and tourism] are compatible and not mutually exclusive, but I would point out tourism on the west end has not been particularly robust,” Filas said. “We think rural areas benefit from a diverse economy.”
Mark Goldfogel, owner of small farm in Paradox and a technology company in Telluride, urged the commissioners to reject the special-use permit allowing for industry in an area zoned agricultural. His argument was based purely on economics.
“If the mill is allowed, the stigma of a uranium mill in Paradox Valley will make agriculture and tourism extremely difficult,” Goldfogel said. “There is no market for organic produce grown down the road from a uranium mill. There is no market for my farm if you allow this mill.”
The mill would have 85 on-site personnel, with another 282 miners expected to find work at nearby mines, an additional 256 support staff, management and transportation jobs, and 766 indirect jobs. The Western Small Miners Association put the annual economic benefit at nearly $50 million in annual income.
But those numbers are based on the current renewed interest in nuclear power as carbon-free fuel source that could replace coal- and gas-fired power plants and reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Many activists on the Western Slope are skeptical that interest will last, predicting another bust that could leave another toxic legacy for decades to come.
Still, the numerous residents of Naturita and Nucla who spoke in favor of the mill and bristled at the invasion of concerned residents from Telluride and Ridgway, are convinced it’s a gamble well worth taking given improvement in technology and their nostalgia for the good old days.
There were countless stories of fathers, grandfathers and uncles who later worked the mines in the Cold War heyday swimming in evaporation ponds and playing on tailings piles as children, with no adverse effects.
Lee Sutherland said his father started hauling uranium ore in 1942 and lived to be 85. He talked of pumping water out of a mine and using it to irrigate his garden, pointing to his five healthy children as evidence of the benign effects of uranium mining and processing. Besides, he added, it’s the right thing to do for the planet.
“They’re all talking about global warming, and if we go to nuclear power, it’ll stop a lot of that,” Sutherland said. But even Energy Fuels’ Filas acknowledged the cavalier attitude of the early days of the uranium industry can’t be repeated today.
“You just can’t use [tailing] for sandboxes the way they were in the 50s and 60s,” Filas said. “But comparing our situation to historic situations is a little disingenuous.”
He called a finding by the Colorado Medical Society that uranium mining is not safe “mostly political” based on opposition to the proposed Powertech mine in Weld County.
Still, Dr. Christine Gieszl, an internal medicine specialist in Montrose, cited a long litany of studies linking uranium mining and processing to everything from lung cancer to birth defects and infertility. And a Colorado Springs attorney testified she successfully represented numerous victims of contamination from a mill in Canon City that has since been shut down.
Jerry Cope of Placerville noted the irony of a Canadian company “pointing to us as outsiders,” and warned of creating another mining-ravaged Appalachia in southwestern Colorado, which would result in a “loss of tourism, real estate values and spikes in cancer rates.”
But proponents countered places like Moab and even Telluride with long mining histories still thrive as legendary recreation destinations, but that low-paying service-sector jobs in the tourism industry or agriculture-industry jobs in other areas aren’t nearly as desirable as high-paying mining-sector jobs, however fleeting.
Bobby Calhoun, owner of the 5th Avenue Grill in Naturita, said if organic farming can come close to mining wages, she’s all for it. “I’ll be the first person in line to pick your tomatoes for $45,000 to $75,000 a year. The people in Telluride have enough of their own problems without worrying about what’s going on in the west end [of Montrose County].”
Many opponents called on the county to delay a decision until the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment can begin reviewing the license application from Energy Fuels once it’s filed next month. At that time the company will have to provide $50,000 to the county for an environmental assessment, and the state will take up to a year to review the application.
Officials from San Miguel County, where Telluride’s located, spoke in favor of additional hearings to allow them to provide feedback on the state’s findings. Montrose County Commission
By David O. Williams
9/10/09 7:52 AM
MONTROSE — Montrose County commissioners delayed a decision on a controversial uranium mill proposal Wednesday after nearly six hours of public testimony that underscored deep divisions between longtime mining families and residents of neighboring Telluride and San Miguel County.
The Pinon Ridge Mill would be located on the far western edge of Montrose County, in the Paradox Valley near the Utah border, but the uranium and vanadium processing mill — capable of producing enough fuel rods to power a city one and half times the size of Denver — has been meeting with stiff opposition from residents of Telluride and Ridgway.
They argue the mill will re-stigmatize the area once known as the capital of the global uranium industry, irreparably damaging the region’s new reputation as an outdoor recreation mecca and international tourism destination.
Proponents counter the western end of Montrose County has been severely depressed for decades, struggling for jobs and a sustainable economy since the last big uranium boom tapered off in the 1970s and ’80s in the wake of nuclear power-plant disasters at Three Mile Island and Chernobyl. They also say technology has changed dramatically since the days when Uravan produced uranium for the first atomic weapons but is now a toxic ghost town.
Frank Filas, environmental manager for a U.S. subsidiary of Ontario-based Energy Fuels Inc., called Pinon Ridge a small facility that will revitalize the once-vibrant industry, but in a way that avoids the mistakes of the past and won’t impact outdoor recreation and agriculture.
“Energy Fuels feels strongly [uranium processing and tourism] are compatible and not mutually exclusive, but I would point out tourism on the west end has not been particularly robust,” Filas said. “We think rural areas benefit from a diverse economy.”
Mark Goldfogel, owner of small farm in Paradox and a technology company in Telluride, urged the commissioners to reject the special-use permit allowing for industry in an area zoned agricultural. His argument was based purely on economics.
“If the mill is allowed, the stigma of a uranium mill in Paradox Valley will make agriculture and tourism extremely difficult,” Goldfogel said. “There is no market for organic produce grown down the road from a uranium mill. There is no market for my farm if you allow this mill.”
The mill would have 85 on-site personnel, with another 282 miners expected to find work at nearby mines, an additional 256 support staff, management and transportation jobs, and 766 indirect jobs. The Western Small Miners Association put the annual economic benefit at nearly $50 million in annual income.
But those numbers are based on the current renewed interest in nuclear power as carbon-free fuel source that could replace coal- and gas-fired power plants and reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Many activists on the Western Slope are skeptical that interest will last, predicting another bust that could leave another toxic legacy for decades to come.
Still, the numerous residents of Naturita and Nucla who spoke in favor of the mill and bristled at the invasion of concerned residents from Telluride and Ridgway, are convinced it’s a gamble well worth taking given improvement in technology and their nostalgia for the good old days.
There were countless stories of fathers, grandfathers and uncles who later worked the mines in the Cold War heyday swimming in evaporation ponds and playing on tailings piles as children, with no adverse effects.
Lee Sutherland said his father started hauling uranium ore in 1942 and lived to be 85. He talked of pumping water out of a mine and using it to irrigate his garden, pointing to his five healthy children as evidence of the benign effects of uranium mining and processing. Besides, he added, it’s the right thing to do for the planet.
“They’re all talking about global warming, and if we go to nuclear power, it’ll stop a lot of that,” Sutherland said. But even Energy Fuels’ Filas acknowledged the cavalier attitude of the early days of the uranium industry can’t be repeated today.
“You just can’t use [tailing] for sandboxes the way they were in the 50s and 60s,” Filas said. “But comparing our situation to historic situations is a little disingenuous.”
He called a finding by the Colorado Medical Society that uranium mining is not safe “mostly political” based on opposition to the proposed Powertech mine in Weld County.
Still, Dr. Christine Gieszl, an internal medicine specialist in Montrose, cited a long litany of studies linking uranium mining and processing to everything from lung cancer to birth defects and infertility. And a Colorado Springs attorney testified she successfully represented numerous victims of contamination from a mill in Canon City that has since been shut down.
Jerry Cope of Placerville noted the irony of a Canadian company “pointing to us as outsiders,” and warned of creating another mining-ravaged Appalachia in southwestern Colorado, which would result in a “loss of tourism, real estate values and spikes in cancer rates.”
But proponents countered places like Moab and even Telluride with long mining histories still thrive as legendary recreation destinations, but that low-paying service-sector jobs in the tourism industry or agriculture-industry jobs in other areas aren’t nearly as desirable as high-paying mining-sector jobs, however fleeting.
Bobby Calhoun, owner of the 5th Avenue Grill in Naturita, said if organic farming can come close to mining wages, she’s all for it. “I’ll be the first person in line to pick your tomatoes for $45,000 to $75,000 a year. The people in Telluride have enough of their own problems without worrying about what’s going on in the west end [of Montrose County].”
Many opponents called on the county to delay a decision until the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment can begin reviewing the license application from Energy Fuels once it’s filed next month. At that time the company will have to provide $50,000 to the county for an environmental assessment, and the state will take up to a year to review the application.
Officials from San Miguel County, where Telluride’s located, spoke in favor of additional hearings to allow them to provide feedback on the state’s findings. Montrose County Commission
Chairman David White seemed open to that continuing dialogue with neighboring San Miguel.
The next hearing was set for 10 a.m., Sept. 30 at Friendship Hall in the Montrose County Fairgrounds and Event Center.
Got a tip? Freelance story pitch? Send us an e-mail. Follow The Colorado Independent on Twitter.
The next hearing was set for 10 a.m., Sept. 30 at Friendship Hall in the Montrose County Fairgrounds and Event Center.
Got a tip? Freelance story pitch? Send us an e-mail. Follow The Colorado Independent on Twitter.
Thursday, September 3, 2009
Uranium mining may get buried in Nunn
Definition of carpetbagger: refers to roving opportunists (Canadian uranium corporations in America)
Comment: We are all fighting against uranium mining all over America from the carpetbaggers of Canada! Why are the Canadian uranium corporations (plus the Country of Canada and the French connection) coming south to ruin of land with uranium mining? The Canadian people are tired of their land already ruin from uranium mining so they have placed uranium mining bans in their districts! America government, enact the same uranium mining bans now before you kill your people with uranium mining! Demand our leaders now to ban uranium mining and milling now!
Comment: We are all fighting against uranium mining all over America from the carpetbaggers of Canada! Why are the Canadian uranium corporations (plus the Country of Canada and the French connection) coming south to ruin of land with uranium mining? The Canadian people are tired of their land already ruin from uranium mining so they have placed uranium mining bans in their districts! America government, enact the same uranium mining bans now before you kill your people with uranium mining! Demand our leaders now to ban uranium mining and milling now!
Powertech says its process is safe but a vote by Nunn's town board could make permitting difficult.
By Monte Whaley
The Denver Post
denver and the west
Posted: 09/03/2009 01:00:00 AM MDT
NUNN — Opponents of a huge uranium- mining operation northwest of Greeley say they are ready for a showdown tonight before the Nunn town board.
Coloradoans Against Resource Destruction — a citizens group formed in 2007 — wants the Nunn board to back a resolution against a plan by Powertech Uranium Corp. to extract uranium from the windy plains that surround Nunn and two other small towns, Wellington and Carr.
Powertech, a Canadian company, owns 9,615 acres of mineral rights in the area. Company officials say they hope to extract the uranium using the in-situ method, in which a solvent solution is injected underground to dissolve uranium ore and pump it to the surface. They claim it is less environmentally damaging than traditional techniques that scar the landscape.
The company also said the operation would bring plenty of jobs to a struggling region.
But CARD claims the mining will damage air and water and bring other health problems. A negative vote by the Nunn board will make state and local officials more reluctant to approve any permits for Powertech's Centennial Project, said the group's spokeswoman, Jackie Adolph.
"The people who have turned out over this issue have so far, over and over again, opposed this project," Adolph said.
"The time is now for the town board to speak for the overwhelming majority of residents who think uranium mining this close to the town represents unacceptable risks," resident Dan Rapelje said.
The project, opponents say, may reap more jobs but would be a detriment to long-term economic growth in the area.
The governing bodies of Fort Collins, Greeley, Wellington, Timnath and Ault already have approved similar resolutions.
Powertech president and chief executive Dick Clement said a resolution against the project could harm the company's permit application.
Still, Clement said, he has faith that emotions won't sway state and local overseers of the project. "All we can do is give them the scientific facts and present them with the truth."
Nunn Mayor Jeff Pigue said he's not sure whether a vote will be taken tonight. The board may decide to call for a study session to examine Powertech's plans more closely.
Pigue has been harshly criticized for not coming out solidly against Powertech. The mayor said he wants to reserve judgment until all the evidence is in on the health effects of the mining.
"If it can be done safely, I have no problems with it," Pigue said. "If they can prove there will be no harm done to our citizens, then (Powertech) should be able to do what they want with their mineral rights."
http://www.denverpost.com/search/ci_13256900
Friday, August 7, 2009
Nunn board turns down support for Powertech
Comment: We have weak resolution in Pittsylvania County to somewhat protect us from uranium mining problems and the residents of Nunn are fighting resolutions from a Canadian Corporation! Are all Canadian Uranium Corporation the same, trying to ruin our environment in America so they can take 50 to 70 per cent of the profits back to Canada and our government is allowing this to happen? Pure Greed at the highest and at the cost of American lives from uranium contamination!
Colin Lindenmayer
NUNN — Residents applauded a town board decision Thursday to reject a resolution in support of uranium mining corporation Powertech at a town board meeting.
The Centennial Project, a proposed uranium mine located near Nunn, has been met with much resistance from the town's residents.
Moments after Powertech Uranium Corp. representative Terry Walsh read the proposed resolution to the board, trustee Brian Jex suggested the town wait to accept the resolution until more public input was heard.
Mayor Jeff Pigue, who has publicly supported the mine, announced that without an
official board motion, Powertech's presentation was finished, thus ending the Canadian company's most recent opportunity to smooth over hard feelings with residents.
“Most people who live here don't want this,” said Gerrit Voshel, who lives outside of Nunn near the Centennial Project site, during a short recess from the meeting.
Voshel said the risk of contaminating groundwater — even if the risk is slight — is not worth the gamble.
“The population density is far too great to risk that,” he said. “If they make a mistake, they'll shrug their shoulders and move on.”
At a town meeting in July, Powertech Chief Operations Officer Wallace Mays and CEO Dick Clement noted the corporation's track record and the potential economic benefits as reasons to support building the mine.
The resolution in support of Powertech was introduced as a starting point for dialogue between the corporation and the town. It dealt with safety procedures and possible infrastructure stresses that could be caused by mine usage.
The resolution would have assured people that the corporation would be held responsible for specific standard requirements.
Powertech owns mineral rights to 9,615 acres of northern Colorado land. Debates about whether the mine should be built near Nunn have been ongoing for more than a year, and discussions about Powertech's plans at town meetings have been emotionally charged.
At the meeting, a petition to remove Pigue and two trustees from office that was circulated in July, but because of errors in the petition it was ruled invalid. Pigue will remain mayor of Nunn and two trustees will remain on the board.
Several residents have began a new petition.
http://www.greeleytribune.com/article/20090807/NEWS/908079992/1002/NONE&parentprofile=1001
Colin Lindenmayer
NUNN — Residents applauded a town board decision Thursday to reject a resolution in support of uranium mining corporation Powertech at a town board meeting.
The Centennial Project, a proposed uranium mine located near Nunn, has been met with much resistance from the town's residents.
Moments after Powertech Uranium Corp. representative Terry Walsh read the proposed resolution to the board, trustee Brian Jex suggested the town wait to accept the resolution until more public input was heard.
Mayor Jeff Pigue, who has publicly supported the mine, announced that without an
official board motion, Powertech's presentation was finished, thus ending the Canadian company's most recent opportunity to smooth over hard feelings with residents.
“Most people who live here don't want this,” said Gerrit Voshel, who lives outside of Nunn near the Centennial Project site, during a short recess from the meeting.
Voshel said the risk of contaminating groundwater — even if the risk is slight — is not worth the gamble.
“The population density is far too great to risk that,” he said. “If they make a mistake, they'll shrug their shoulders and move on.”
At a town meeting in July, Powertech Chief Operations Officer Wallace Mays and CEO Dick Clement noted the corporation's track record and the potential economic benefits as reasons to support building the mine.
The resolution in support of Powertech was introduced as a starting point for dialogue between the corporation and the town. It dealt with safety procedures and possible infrastructure stresses that could be caused by mine usage.
The resolution would have assured people that the corporation would be held responsible for specific standard requirements.
Powertech owns mineral rights to 9,615 acres of northern Colorado land. Debates about whether the mine should be built near Nunn have been ongoing for more than a year, and discussions about Powertech's plans at town meetings have been emotionally charged.
At the meeting, a petition to remove Pigue and two trustees from office that was circulated in July, but because of errors in the petition it was ruled invalid. Pigue will remain mayor of Nunn and two trustees will remain on the board.
Several residents have began a new petition.
http://www.greeleytribune.com/article/20090807/NEWS/908079992/1002/NONE&parentprofile=1001
Friday, July 10, 2009
Powertech touts uranium mine advantages, C.A.R.D. argues contrary
NUNN — There were 140 folding chairs furnished for spectators in the old gymnasium, but about 200 people attended a head-to-head debate Wednesday at the Nunn Community Center between authorities from a uranium mining company and representatives from a group opposing a mining project near Nunn.
Officials of Vancouver, Canada-based Powertech Uranium Corp. attempted to reassure residents of Nunn and surrounding areas that the proposed operation of placing uranium mines a few miles west of Nunn would not only bring economic benefits, but would bring no negative water contamination or health problems.
Coloradoans Against Resource Destruction argued the contrary. A number of members of the audience seemed to side with C.A.R.D.
Victor Elder, who has a well two miles east of one of the proposed mining areas, said his main worry is the quality of well water.
“It is a definite concern,” he said.
Still, there were several mine supporters as well.
John D. Nelson, who lives within a mile of the proposed mine site — between Nunn, Wellington and Carr — said he has worked more than 30 years in the uranium mine industry. He said he hopes the mine application is approved because of the tax revenue it will bring to Nunn, improving roads and services.
Though most of the people in attendance seemed to have their minds made up before the debate, Nelson said he'll continue to advocate acceptance of the mine, saying he'll “try to talk some sense into people.”
After each side conducted a 20-minute presentation, moderator Jeff Boulter had to temporarily halt the debate because several audience members audibly voiced opinions while Powertech and C.A.R.D. representatives took prepared questions.
The debate, including presentations, lasted more than three hours.
Representing Powertech were chairman and COO Wallace Mays and president and CEO Dick Clement.
Mays and Clement noted Powertech's track record and economic benefits as reasons to support building the mine in northern Colorado.
In C.A.R.D.'s corner were civil engineer Jay Davis, attorney Jeff Parsons and medical doctor Michael Paddock, who cited, among many reasons, the risk of contamination as the main factor for disapproving the mine.
“We cannot afford to take the chance, that once the gate is open, it cannot be closed,” Paddock said. “We cannot afford to experiment here.”
Officials of Vancouver, Canada-based Powertech Uranium Corp. attempted to reassure residents of Nunn and surrounding areas that the proposed operation of placing uranium mines a few miles west of Nunn would not only bring economic benefits, but would bring no negative water contamination or health problems.
Coloradoans Against Resource Destruction argued the contrary. A number of members of the audience seemed to side with C.A.R.D.
Victor Elder, who has a well two miles east of one of the proposed mining areas, said his main worry is the quality of well water.
“It is a definite concern,” he said.
Still, there were several mine supporters as well.
John D. Nelson, who lives within a mile of the proposed mine site — between Nunn, Wellington and Carr — said he has worked more than 30 years in the uranium mine industry. He said he hopes the mine application is approved because of the tax revenue it will bring to Nunn, improving roads and services.
Though most of the people in attendance seemed to have their minds made up before the debate, Nelson said he'll continue to advocate acceptance of the mine, saying he'll “try to talk some sense into people.”
After each side conducted a 20-minute presentation, moderator Jeff Boulter had to temporarily halt the debate because several audience members audibly voiced opinions while Powertech and C.A.R.D. representatives took prepared questions.
The debate, including presentations, lasted more than three hours.
Representing Powertech were chairman and COO Wallace Mays and president and CEO Dick Clement.
Mays and Clement noted Powertech's track record and economic benefits as reasons to support building the mine in northern Colorado.
In C.A.R.D.'s corner were civil engineer Jay Davis, attorney Jeff Parsons and medical doctor Michael Paddock, who cited, among many reasons, the risk of contamination as the main factor for disapproving the mine.
“We cannot afford to take the chance, that once the gate is open, it cannot be closed,” Paddock said. “We cannot afford to experiment here.”
Tuesday, May 12, 2009
Uranium mining claims crop up near proposed Dolores River Canyon wilderness area
Comment: No Uranium Anywhere!!!
By David O. Williams
May 11, 2009 — A spike in uranium prices in recent years has sparked a mining-claim rush near a proposed Colorado wilderness area — a situation that would be exacerbated by a federal energy bill that may include nuclear power in a national renewable energy standard.
Several uranium mining claims have been filed near the proposed Dolores River Canyon Wilderness Area along the high desert cliffs of a river known for its scenic rafting and kayaking from high in the San Juan Mountains to the border of Utah.
The Dolores was initially recommended as a wild river under the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act in 1976 and for years has been part of the U.S. Bureau of Land Management’s 29,000-acre Dolores River Canyon Wilderness Study Area.
Official wilderness designation would require an act of Congress, and a local environmental advocacy group has been pushing U.S. Rep. John Salazar, a Manassa Democrat, to introduce such legislation and include 12,000 additional acres.
Uranium mining could complicate that process given the revival of the nuclear-energy industry as a means of combating global warming and reducing dependence on fossil fuels. Some have even suggested nuclear plants as a means of powering the oil shale industry on Colorado’s Western Slope. (NO!!!)
A comprehensive federal energy bill introduced in late March seeks to mandate a renewable energy standard of 25 percent by 2025. It also would mandate efficiency standards and possibly create a cap-and-trade system or carbon tax to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. But none of those possibilities is a sure thing.
“All three of those are deeply in danger of getting removed or watered down,” said Keith Hay, energy advocate for Denver-based Environment Colorado. “There’s a strong push by southern Democrats to include nuclear and clean coal in the renewable energy standard, for example, and we in the advocacy community are pushing back strongly that those are not clean fuels, especially here in Colorado. (what is wrong with the south, coal dust on the brains!!!! a southern can say this!!!)
“Anyone who has seen the front end of uranium mining for nuclear knows that it is in no way clean.” (Hi, Richmond, reading this...duh!!!!, these guys have been mined in the past, knows the problems of uranium mining!!!)
Indiana, the only state in the upper Midwest without a renewable energy standard and one of only 21 in the nation, recently saw a bid to implement such a standard fail in the statehouse. Early versions of the bill sought to include nuclear power as a renewable energy source.
Colorado is one of five uranium-producing states in the West and has a long history of producing weapons-grade uranium. The current boom in mining claims, which has waned a bit in recent months with a worldwide drop in prices, has focused mostly on states such as Utah and Arizona, where activists have been fighting new claims near national parks such as the Grand Canyon, Arches and Canyonlands.
Even politicians in gas-rich areas of Colorado say nuclear may be the solution.
“What we have to say is we’re using the energy, everybody uses energy, and who’s going to produce it for us? We’re going to have to solve it,” Garfield County Commissioner John Martin said when asked if nuclear should be considered to power oil shale production on Colorado’s Western Slope, adding Europe is far ahead of the United States in that arena. (same old, same old from the Nuke Dinosaur group, Like below, Eurpope is not the role model for nuke power, they have ruin their water, land & air!!)
“Because of the regulations in the United States, [nuclear energy] companies have gone to Europe and have developed that and actually mastered it, and now what we need to do is bring back our own technology and use it in the United States,” Martin said (NO!!,Eurpope are messed up too from old uranium mining and Nuke Plants!!)
http://www.realvail.com/RealBiz/682/Uranium-mining-claims-crop-up-near-proposed-Dolores-River-Canyon-wilderness-area.html
Several uranium mining claims have been filed near the proposed Dolores River Canyon Wilderness Area along the high desert cliffs of a river known for its scenic rafting and kayaking from high in the San Juan Mountains to the border of Utah.
The Dolores was initially recommended as a wild river under the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act in 1976 and for years has been part of the U.S. Bureau of Land Management’s 29,000-acre Dolores River Canyon Wilderness Study Area.
Official wilderness designation would require an act of Congress, and a local environmental advocacy group has been pushing U.S. Rep. John Salazar, a Manassa Democrat, to introduce such legislation and include 12,000 additional acres.
Uranium mining could complicate that process given the revival of the nuclear-energy industry as a means of combating global warming and reducing dependence on fossil fuels. Some have even suggested nuclear plants as a means of powering the oil shale industry on Colorado’s Western Slope. (NO!!!)
A comprehensive federal energy bill introduced in late March seeks to mandate a renewable energy standard of 25 percent by 2025. It also would mandate efficiency standards and possibly create a cap-and-trade system or carbon tax to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. But none of those possibilities is a sure thing.
“All three of those are deeply in danger of getting removed or watered down,” said Keith Hay, energy advocate for Denver-based Environment Colorado. “There’s a strong push by southern Democrats to include nuclear and clean coal in the renewable energy standard, for example, and we in the advocacy community are pushing back strongly that those are not clean fuels, especially here in Colorado. (what is wrong with the south, coal dust on the brains!!!! a southern can say this!!!)
“Anyone who has seen the front end of uranium mining for nuclear knows that it is in no way clean.” (Hi, Richmond, reading this...duh!!!!, these guys have been mined in the past, knows the problems of uranium mining!!!)
Indiana, the only state in the upper Midwest without a renewable energy standard and one of only 21 in the nation, recently saw a bid to implement such a standard fail in the statehouse. Early versions of the bill sought to include nuclear power as a renewable energy source.
Colorado is one of five uranium-producing states in the West and has a long history of producing weapons-grade uranium. The current boom in mining claims, which has waned a bit in recent months with a worldwide drop in prices, has focused mostly on states such as Utah and Arizona, where activists have been fighting new claims near national parks such as the Grand Canyon, Arches and Canyonlands.
Even politicians in gas-rich areas of Colorado say nuclear may be the solution.
“What we have to say is we’re using the energy, everybody uses energy, and who’s going to produce it for us? We’re going to have to solve it,” Garfield County Commissioner John Martin said when asked if nuclear should be considered to power oil shale production on Colorado’s Western Slope, adding Europe is far ahead of the United States in that arena. (same old, same old from the Nuke Dinosaur group, Like below, Eurpope is not the role model for nuke power, they have ruin their water, land & air!!)
“Because of the regulations in the United States, [nuclear energy] companies have gone to Europe and have developed that and actually mastered it, and now what we need to do is bring back our own technology and use it in the United States,” Martin said (NO!!,Eurpope are messed up too from old uranium mining and Nuke Plants!!)
http://www.realvail.com/RealBiz/682/Uranium-mining-claims-crop-up-near-proposed-Dolores-River-Canyon-wilderness-area.html
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
