By Katie Whitehead
Wednesday, May 27, 2009 9:57 AM EDT
News reports regarding the work and responsibilities of the Uranium Mining Subcommittee do not begin to inform the public about the true status and complexity of the uranium study process.
There may not be a market for such information, yet there is certainly a need. Urgent questions remain unanswered.
Contrary to some reports, the uranium mining study has not started.
We need to remember, as well, that "the study" is now two studies - a technical study and a socio-economic study.
The subcommittee is negotiating the technical study with the National Academy of Sciences (NAS).
Before NAS can call for nominations for a study committee, both parties must agree on the scope of work, the NAS has to draw up a budget and timeline, and someone has to come up with money and sign a contract.
Subcommittee members have yet to discuss the equally important, complicated, and challenging socio-economic study.
Will there be a socio-economic study?
If a technical study is done, a socio-economic study should also be done.
Some people have gotten the impression that the Uranium Mining Subcommittee sees the socio-economic study as secondary and perhaps unnecessary.
The Danville Register and Bee reported on May 13 that subcommittee member Sen. Phillip Puckett opposes conducting a socio-economic study if mining is found to be unsafe in the technical study: "If that is a 'no,' we don't have to answer any more questions."
One could make the same argument for the socio-economic study: if uranium mining is undesirable for social and economic reasons, we don't have to know absolutely whether it is safe or not.
Contrary to what we have been led to believe, the technical study will not make a final judgment on whether mining is safe or unsafe. A socio-economic study might provide greater clarity.
The stigma associated with uranium mining and tailings has real social and economic impacts, as does the volatility of the market for uranium.
We need to understand how uranium mining might influence perception of a region for current residents, as well as for business executives, farm product consumers, families, students and their parents, retirees, tourists, and others contemplating coming to the area to live or to visit.
We should look at available evidence about whether uranium mining harms or enhances a region's character, quality of life, and economic well-being.
The only way to ensure that the socio-economic study is done and done adequately is to identify an independent and objective research institution, get budget estimates, and secure full funding for both studies before either study begins. This is not happening.
Who will do the socio-economic study? Will it be objective?
The Coal and Energy Commission chose as its advisor Dr. Michael Karmis, a world-renowned mining engineer and director of the Virginia Center for Coal and Energy Research (VCCER).
Whether he is an appropriate advisor regarding a socio-economic study is a valid and important question that implies no disrespect.
Dr. Karmis, in his rough draft scope for the socio-economic study, recommended a site- and region-specific study, not a study anticipating statewide consequences of lifting the moratorium.
He envisioned a smaller, shorter, less complicated, less costly study than the technical study.
He also advised that the National Academy of Sciences would not likely be interested in undertaking the socio-economic study.
We should ask the academy. The National Academy of Sciences does socio-economic studies and some original research and is, of course, known for its independence and objectivity.
The NAS might well be willing to study by analogy how introduction of a controversial industry can influence the perception of a region and its economy.
The academy is also able to study the potential for boom-bust cycles in mining communities and their effects on regional economic activity and quality of life.
Real-life examples of uranium mining communities and regions with analogous industrial activities can help researchers tell us what we might be facing.
An alternative approach would specifically identify businesses, institutions, schools, government bodies, and other entities in a region of interest and study in detail how each might be affected by the potentially disruptive introduction of a stigmatized industry.
Two entities have been named in private conversations as perhaps being capable of this sort of socio-economic study, but one of these institutions may have been suggested by industry lobbyists after prior contact with researchers.
Such contact could inappropriately influence the framing of a study and compromise the independence of the research.
Who is paying for the studies? Who should pay? Will adequate funds be available?
According to various members of the Uranium Mining Subcommittee, Del. Terry Kilgore, chairman of the Virginia Coal and Energy Commission and ex-officio subcommittee member, is responsible for finding money to do the two studies.
Del. Kilgore listened to the May 21 subcommittee meeting by telephone. He did not participate in discussion or respond to questions or comments about funding.
Kilgore has asked for donations to pay for the studies. No other information is publicly available.
The National Academy of Sciences cannot perform a study directly for a private industry.
The Virginia General Assembly has not budgeted money for a study.
The Virginia Coal and Energy Commission cannot accept contributions to spend on a study.
The Virginia Center for Coal and Energy Research can accept donations and use them to contract for a study, though Dr. Michael Karmis said recently that he, as director of the center, has no more information than the general public about who will pay for the two uranium studies or how much money will be available.
Dr. Karmis has also made clear that the work of the VCCER will be complete once study entities are identified and study plans defined.
Whether he will sign a contract with the National Academy of Sciences is unclear.
Citizens have emphasized to the subcommittee the need to consider the whole study process, secure appropriate funding, and ensure independent experts give adequate time and attention to both studies.
Even the best study process does not ensure a sound public policy decision. The current process raises serious doubts.
Katie Whitehead of Chatham is chairman of the Dan River Basin Association Mining Task Force.
http://www.wpcva.com/articles/2009/05/27/chatham/opinion/opinion01.txt
Showing posts with label Illegal Study. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Illegal Study. Show all posts
Wednesday, May 27, 2009
Friday, May 22, 2009
Uranium study Ok’d; Public-safety, health-impact items made top priority in final draft
Comment: Attention Pittsylvania County, VA people, you must demand our local leaders to draft an ordinance to ban uranium mining NOW or the State of Virginia will mine us, The state of VA, Canada and VUI want the money, they are a bunch of greedy, evil Corp., as you have read on this blog, NUKE Power is not needed, it is too expensive, too dangerous, NO TO URANIUM MINING!!!NOTE FROM GREGG: No Surprise that the "study" was approved. Notice that none of the articles about this deal with who is going to PAY for the study. Ultimately, we, the tax payer's will pay for this road map to put a private, for profit, Canadian corporation into business. This is the same as a bailout before the fact and will become a public financial burden after the fact when we, the people, will be required to monitor the radioactive site in perpetuity after the corporation takes it's profits and closes the site. When disaster strikes this site, and it will because of it's location and our weather, we, the people, will also be tasked with trying to mitigate the damages.
By John Crane
Published: May 21, 2009
RICHMOND — The uranium-mining study has begun. The Virginia Coal and Energy Commission’s Uranium Mining Subcommittee, tasked with overseeing a study to determine whether uranium can be mined and milled safely in the commonwealth, approved a revised final draft of the study Thursday.
But Delegate Danny Marshall, R-Danville, said he is disappointed with the decision. Marshall asked the subcommittee to post Thursday’s citizen input on its Web site and wait 60 days before deciding whether to approve the study.
“We’re not in a hurry to do this,” Marshall said during an interview before the meeting.
Subcommittee members pressed ahead after taking public comment, rearranging and adding amendments to the study’s 11-item “statement of task” before approving it by an 8-2 vote. Delegate William Janis, R-56th District and Delegate Watkins Abbitt, I-59th District, opposed.
One of the biggest alterations the subcommittee brought to the document was making the public-safety and health-impact items the top priority on the statement of task, moving them from No.7 on the list to No. 1. Reviewing global and national uranium market trends had been in the top spot.
Virginia Uranium Inc. wants to mine and mill a 119-million-pound uranium ore deposit at Coles Hill, about six miles northeast of Chatham. Virginia currently has a moratorium on uranium mining.
Subcommittee members received an earful from uranium mining skeptics and opponents. More than 100 people attended the meeting and about 20 publicly commented.
Eloise Nenon, a board member of Southside Concerned Citizens, said uranium mining and milling causes male sterility and would spell disaster for Pittsylvania County farmers.
“This is going to destroy agriculture,” Nenon said.
George Stanhope, an SCC member, said mining would send dust with low-level radiation into the Banister River heading toward Lake Gaston.
Mining opponent Phillip Lovelace told the subcommittee that if health is not the No.1 topic of the study, “I don’t want it.”
Lovelace said he is against lifting the moratorium on mining and milling uranium. If the state allows mining across the commonwealth, five major rivers will be contaminated in other parts of Virginia, he said. Major military installations would relocate from the state as a result, causing major damage to Virginia’s economy and leaving the commonwealth vulnerable to terrorists, he said.
“(If the moratorium is lifted) you’re putting the whole East Coast in jeopardy,” Lovelace said.
Marshall Ecker, a Pittsylvania County supervisor who represents the Staunton River District, said the subcommittee should make health, safety and the economic concerns of uranium mining its main focus.
“Your decisions will affect the citizens of Pittsylvania County and the citizens of Virginia forever,” Ecker said.
Amanda Wydner, a Pittsylvania County native, said the study should address what uranium mining could portend for culture and quality of life in the area. Land values, population density and demographics should be measured and compared before and after mining. She said the study should find out how it will affect the area’s skyline, aesthetic appearance and reputation as a quaint Southern town, she said.
“How will the perception of Chatham change?” she said.
Some opponents also called for a site-specific study to examine areas similar to Pittsylvania County in geology, hydrology, climate and population density, and to find out how those regions were affected by mining.
“What we have heard here is a real strong desire to make clear that safety is our top priority,” said Delegate Kristen Amundson, D-44th District, a subcommittee member.
Amundson proposed moving the seventh item listed, addressing health and safety, under the statement of task to the top slot. The subcommittee unanimously approved the motion. Another motion from Amundson to amend language in part of the statement also passed unanimously.
Patrick Wales, a VUI geologist, spoke in favor of the study, saying that health and safety are important issues, and that he hopes uranium can be mined in a way that would protect citizens and the environment.
The subcommittee also green-lighted added language proposed by Abbitt that calls for analysis of mining impacts on public health and safety in areas with comparable geologic, hydrologic, climatic characteristics and population density.
In response, Sen. Frank Wagner, R-7th District, proposed language stating that if negative consequences were found in those areas, then options would be presented by the National Research Council for elimination or mitigation of the effects. The language was approved.
Abbitt requested that the study include available methods for management of tailings to prevent or mitigate leachates (leakage). The motion failed 4-2.
As a result, Abbitt voted against approving the revised draft.
“I can’t vote for this,” Abbitt said.
Janis voted against the study because he was absent during discussion. Janis had a scheduling conflict and was unable to attend the meeting until it was almost over.
Sen. John Watkins, R-10th District, told attendees that the subcommittee’s aim is not to hurry through the study, but to be conscientious.
“We’re not here to run this through without due diligence,” he said.
Delegate Lee Ware, R-65th District, said Michael Karmis, director of Virginia Tech’s Center for Coal and Energy Research, will take the revised document to the National Research Council and “things will get under way.”
The study will take about two years.
http://www.godanriver.com/gdr/news/local/danville_news/article/uranium_study_okd_public-safety_health-impact_items_made_top_priority_in_fi/11192/
Published: May 21, 2009
RICHMOND — The uranium-mining study has begun. The Virginia Coal and Energy Commission’s Uranium Mining Subcommittee, tasked with overseeing a study to determine whether uranium can be mined and milled safely in the commonwealth, approved a revised final draft of the study Thursday.
But Delegate Danny Marshall, R-Danville, said he is disappointed with the decision. Marshall asked the subcommittee to post Thursday’s citizen input on its Web site and wait 60 days before deciding whether to approve the study.
“We’re not in a hurry to do this,” Marshall said during an interview before the meeting.
Subcommittee members pressed ahead after taking public comment, rearranging and adding amendments to the study’s 11-item “statement of task” before approving it by an 8-2 vote. Delegate William Janis, R-56th District and Delegate Watkins Abbitt, I-59th District, opposed.
One of the biggest alterations the subcommittee brought to the document was making the public-safety and health-impact items the top priority on the statement of task, moving them from No.7 on the list to No. 1. Reviewing global and national uranium market trends had been in the top spot.
Virginia Uranium Inc. wants to mine and mill a 119-million-pound uranium ore deposit at Coles Hill, about six miles northeast of Chatham. Virginia currently has a moratorium on uranium mining.
Subcommittee members received an earful from uranium mining skeptics and opponents. More than 100 people attended the meeting and about 20 publicly commented.
Eloise Nenon, a board member of Southside Concerned Citizens, said uranium mining and milling causes male sterility and would spell disaster for Pittsylvania County farmers.
“This is going to destroy agriculture,” Nenon said.
George Stanhope, an SCC member, said mining would send dust with low-level radiation into the Banister River heading toward Lake Gaston.
Mining opponent Phillip Lovelace told the subcommittee that if health is not the No.1 topic of the study, “I don’t want it.”
Lovelace said he is against lifting the moratorium on mining and milling uranium. If the state allows mining across the commonwealth, five major rivers will be contaminated in other parts of Virginia, he said. Major military installations would relocate from the state as a result, causing major damage to Virginia’s economy and leaving the commonwealth vulnerable to terrorists, he said.
“(If the moratorium is lifted) you’re putting the whole East Coast in jeopardy,” Lovelace said.
Marshall Ecker, a Pittsylvania County supervisor who represents the Staunton River District, said the subcommittee should make health, safety and the economic concerns of uranium mining its main focus.
“Your decisions will affect the citizens of Pittsylvania County and the citizens of Virginia forever,” Ecker said.
Amanda Wydner, a Pittsylvania County native, said the study should address what uranium mining could portend for culture and quality of life in the area. Land values, population density and demographics should be measured and compared before and after mining. She said the study should find out how it will affect the area’s skyline, aesthetic appearance and reputation as a quaint Southern town, she said.
“How will the perception of Chatham change?” she said.
Some opponents also called for a site-specific study to examine areas similar to Pittsylvania County in geology, hydrology, climate and population density, and to find out how those regions were affected by mining.
“What we have heard here is a real strong desire to make clear that safety is our top priority,” said Delegate Kristen Amundson, D-44th District, a subcommittee member.
Amundson proposed moving the seventh item listed, addressing health and safety, under the statement of task to the top slot. The subcommittee unanimously approved the motion. Another motion from Amundson to amend language in part of the statement also passed unanimously.
Patrick Wales, a VUI geologist, spoke in favor of the study, saying that health and safety are important issues, and that he hopes uranium can be mined in a way that would protect citizens and the environment.
The subcommittee also green-lighted added language proposed by Abbitt that calls for analysis of mining impacts on public health and safety in areas with comparable geologic, hydrologic, climatic characteristics and population density.
In response, Sen. Frank Wagner, R-7th District, proposed language stating that if negative consequences were found in those areas, then options would be presented by the National Research Council for elimination or mitigation of the effects. The language was approved.
Abbitt requested that the study include available methods for management of tailings to prevent or mitigate leachates (leakage). The motion failed 4-2.
As a result, Abbitt voted against approving the revised draft.
“I can’t vote for this,” Abbitt said.
Janis voted against the study because he was absent during discussion. Janis had a scheduling conflict and was unable to attend the meeting until it was almost over.
Sen. John Watkins, R-10th District, told attendees that the subcommittee’s aim is not to hurry through the study, but to be conscientious.
“We’re not here to run this through without due diligence,” he said.
Delegate Lee Ware, R-65th District, said Michael Karmis, director of Virginia Tech’s Center for Coal and Energy Research, will take the revised document to the National Research Council and “things will get under way.”
The study will take about two years.
http://www.godanriver.com/gdr/news/local/danville_news/article/uranium_study_okd_public-safety_health-impact_items_made_top_priority_in_fi/11192/
Thursday, May 7, 2009
Coal and Energy Commission
Comment: Virginia - take notice, the most important facts of the study is money, GREED, not the health of VA's people - TAKE NOTICE ALL OF VIRGINIA - 'U R NEXT' - see next article for the so call illegal study!
Uranium Mining Sub-Committee Meetings
Contact information for Sub-Committee Members
Thurdsay, May 21, 2009 - 2:30 p.m., Uranium Mining Sub-Committee Meeting, House room D, General Assembly Building
Contact information for Sub-Committee Members
Thurdsay, May 21, 2009 - 2:30 p.m., Uranium Mining Sub-Committee Meeting, House room D, General Assembly Building
Final draft: Scope of Study for Uranium Mining in the Commonwealth
Tuesday, March 24, 2009 - 2:00 p.m., Uranium Mining Sub-Committee Meeting, House room C, General Assembly Building
Tuesday, March 24, 2009 - 2:00 p.m., Uranium Mining Sub-Committee Meeting, House room C, General Assembly Building
Uranium subcommittee releases proposed final study draft
Comment: The study is mainly on profit and not the people of Virginia, demand now, Ban uranium mining & milling in Virginia!
Thursday, May 7, 2009 4:53 PM EDT
The Virginia Coal and Energy Commission's Uranium Mining Subcommittee today released a proposed final draft for a study on the dangers and benefits of uranium mining.
The subcommittee will meet Thursday, May 21, at 2:30 p.m. in Richmond.
The final study draft:
Uranium mining in the Commonwealth of Virginia has been prohibited since 1982 by a state moratorium although approval for restricted uranium exploration in the state was granted in 2007.
A National Research Council study will examine the scientific, technical, environmental, human health and safety, and regulatory aspects of uranium mining, milling, and processing as they relate to the Commonwealth of Virginia.
In particular, the study will:
1) Review global and national uranium market trends.
2) Identify and briefly describe the main types of uranium deposits worldwide including, for example, geologic characteristics, mining operations, and best practices.
3) Review the geologic, environmental, geographic, climatic, and cultural settings and exploration status of uranium resources in the Commonwealth of Virginia.
4) Review the primary technical options and best practices approaches for uranium mining, milling, processing, and reclamation that might be applicable within the Commonwealth of Virginia, including discussion of improvements made since 1980 in the design, construction, and monitoring of tailings impoundments ("cells").
5) Review the state and federal regulatory framework for uranium mining, milling, processing, and reclamation.
6) Review federal requirements for secure handling of uranium materials, including personnel, transportation, site security, and material control and accountability.
7) Assess the potential short- and long-term occupational and public health and safety considerations from uranium mining, milling, processing, and reclamation, including the potential human health effects from exposure to "daughter" products of radioactive decay of uranium.
8) Identify the issues that may need to be considered regarding the quality and quantity of groundwater and surface water, and the quality of soil and air from uranium mining, milling, processing, and reclamation. As relevant, water and waste management and severe weather effects or other stochastic events may also be considered.
9) Assess the potential ecosystem issues for uranium mining, milling, processing, and reclamation.
11) Identify baseline data and approaches necessary to monitor environmental and human impacts associated with uranium mining, milling, processing, and reclamation.
12) Briefly characterize a potential public education and outreach program in the Commonwealth of Virginia for a uranium mining operation (for example, health and safety issues, inspection and enforcement, community right-to-know, emergency planning).
By addressing these questions, the study will provide independent, expert advice that can be used to inform decisions about the future of uranium mining in the Commonwealth of Virginia; however, the study will not make recommendations about whether or not uranium mining should be permitted nor will the study include site-specific assessments
http://www.wpcva.com/articles/2009/05/07/chatham/news/news38.txt
Thursday, April 30, 2009
Uranium subcommittee to meet May 21
Comment: people of this county, wake up, look at the subcommittee's order of business, (1.) Mining first, (2.)Uranium Supply & Demand (3.) People's health last - this is a flaw study, just like the previous Senate Bill 525, which was table because of the same flaw ----PEOPLE, THE SUBCOMMITTEE WANTS THE MONEY, IT WILL BE FOUND SAFE IN THEIR EYES, IT HAS NEVER BEEN SAFELY ANYWHERE IN THE WORLD!!!!!!!!
By TIM DAVIS/Star-Tribune Editor
Wednesday, April 29, 2009 9:30 AM EDT
The Virginia Coal and Energy Commission subcommittee studying the dangers and benefits of uranium mining will meet Thursday, May 21, in Richmond.
The meeting, which is open to the public, will begin at 2:30 p.m. in House Room D, said Del. Lee Ware of Powhatan, chairman of the Uranium Mining Subcommittee.
Dr. Michael Karmis will present the National Academy of Science's recommendations for the final scope of the study.
Karmis is a professor in the Department of Mining and Minerals Engineering and director of the Virginia Center for Coal and Energy Research at Virginia Tech in Blacksburg.
He presented the proposed study draft to the subcommittee in March after reviewing information from two earlier public hearings, including one in Chatham.
The National Academy of Science is expected to present its recommendations by May 4.
"Accordingly, these recommendations will be made available for review on the Coal and Energy Commission's Web site well in advance of the meeting," Ware said.
The May 21 meeting also will include time for public comment, the chairman said.
At the subcommittee's last meeting, members voted unanimously to proceed with a tentative draft of the study's objectives.
Once approved, the study is expected to take about two years.
In addition to Ware, members of the subcommittee include Del. Watkins Abbitt of Appomattox, Sen. John Watkins of Midlothian, Del. William R. Janis of Glen Allen, Del. Charles W. Carrico Sr. of Galax, Sen. Phillip P. Puckett of Tazewell, Del. Clarence E. Phillips of Castlewood, Del. Kristen J. Amundson of Fairfax County, Sen. Frank Wagner of Virginia Beach and Harry D. Childress.
Childress, a citizen member on the Coal and Energy Commission, is the former head of the Virginia Department of Mines, Minerals and Energy.
Abbitt was a member of the original commission that studied uranium mining in the 1980s.
The commission's chairman, Del. Terry Kilgore of Scott County, also serves on the subcommittee as an ex-officio member.
Pittsylvania County is home to one of the largest uranium deposits in the United States.
The Coles Hill uranium deposit, about six miles northeast of Chatham, was discovered in the early 1980s.
In 2007, the Coles and Bowen families, who own the ore, formed Virginia Uranium Inc. in hopes of mining the uranium, which at that time was worth between $8 billion and $10 billion.
Before the deposit can be mined, however, the General Assembly would have to lift Virginia's moratorium on uranium mining, which has been in place since 1982.
The Uranium Mining Subcommittee held a public hearing at Chatham High School in early January to receive input on the study. More than 400 people attended the meeting.
The study objectives are "to assess the scientific and technical aspects of uranium mining, milling and processing in Virginia and associated environmental, human health, safety and regulatory issues."
According to the draft, the study will consider uranium supply and demand trends and projections, worldwide uranium deposits and operations, and uranium mining, milling and processing technologies.
It also will take into account occupational and public health and safety, environmental considerations, social and economic impacts, and security standards and procedures.
tim.davis@chathamstartribune.com
http://www.wpcva.com/articles/2009/04/30/chatham/news/news50.txt
By TIM DAVIS/Star-Tribune Editor
Wednesday, April 29, 2009 9:30 AM EDT
The Virginia Coal and Energy Commission subcommittee studying the dangers and benefits of uranium mining will meet Thursday, May 21, in Richmond.
The meeting, which is open to the public, will begin at 2:30 p.m. in House Room D, said Del. Lee Ware of Powhatan, chairman of the Uranium Mining Subcommittee.
Dr. Michael Karmis will present the National Academy of Science's recommendations for the final scope of the study.
Karmis is a professor in the Department of Mining and Minerals Engineering and director of the Virginia Center for Coal and Energy Research at Virginia Tech in Blacksburg.
He presented the proposed study draft to the subcommittee in March after reviewing information from two earlier public hearings, including one in Chatham.
The National Academy of Science is expected to present its recommendations by May 4.
"Accordingly, these recommendations will be made available for review on the Coal and Energy Commission's Web site well in advance of the meeting," Ware said.
The May 21 meeting also will include time for public comment, the chairman said.
At the subcommittee's last meeting, members voted unanimously to proceed with a tentative draft of the study's objectives.
Once approved, the study is expected to take about two years.
In addition to Ware, members of the subcommittee include Del. Watkins Abbitt of Appomattox, Sen. John Watkins of Midlothian, Del. William R. Janis of Glen Allen, Del. Charles W. Carrico Sr. of Galax, Sen. Phillip P. Puckett of Tazewell, Del. Clarence E. Phillips of Castlewood, Del. Kristen J. Amundson of Fairfax County, Sen. Frank Wagner of Virginia Beach and Harry D. Childress.
Childress, a citizen member on the Coal and Energy Commission, is the former head of the Virginia Department of Mines, Minerals and Energy.
Abbitt was a member of the original commission that studied uranium mining in the 1980s.
The commission's chairman, Del. Terry Kilgore of Scott County, also serves on the subcommittee as an ex-officio member.
Pittsylvania County is home to one of the largest uranium deposits in the United States.
The Coles Hill uranium deposit, about six miles northeast of Chatham, was discovered in the early 1980s.
In 2007, the Coles and Bowen families, who own the ore, formed Virginia Uranium Inc. in hopes of mining the uranium, which at that time was worth between $8 billion and $10 billion.
Before the deposit can be mined, however, the General Assembly would have to lift Virginia's moratorium on uranium mining, which has been in place since 1982.
The Uranium Mining Subcommittee held a public hearing at Chatham High School in early January to receive input on the study. More than 400 people attended the meeting.
The study objectives are "to assess the scientific and technical aspects of uranium mining, milling and processing in Virginia and associated environmental, human health, safety and regulatory issues."
According to the draft, the study will consider uranium supply and demand trends and projections, worldwide uranium deposits and operations, and uranium mining, milling and processing technologies.
It also will take into account occupational and public health and safety, environmental considerations, social and economic impacts, and security standards and procedures.
tim.davis@chathamstartribune.com
http://www.wpcva.com/articles/2009/04/30/chatham/news/news50.txt
Saturday, April 18, 2009
Green Party calls Sask. uranium report a 'sham,' saying the public needs more info
Comment: Remember, the local yokel uranium co is really a French-Canadian uranium company, which is the problem below for Canadian citizens; their government are influenced by Lobbyist too, their study can compare with the illegal Uranium Study by our state!
April, 17, 2009 - 07:35 pm Graham, Jennifer - (THE CANADIAN PRESS)REGINA - The Saskatchewan government is being accused of rushing headlong into what the Green Party calls "a nuclear boondoggle" through flawed public consultations on whether a nuclear power plant should be built in the province.
The Green Party charged Friday that the provincial government hasn't put out enough information about where a plant could be built, what it would cost and whether the province even needs one.
And the information that is out there is biased, said federal Green Party Leader Elizabeth May, pointing to a report from a government-appointed panel.
This is a sham," said May.
"This is not the report on which a government should base decisions. This is the equivalent of a report from lobbyists telling governments how they want them to spend their money," she told reporters at the Saskatchewan legislature.
"This isn't the fox is guarding the chicken coops. This is the fox report recommending how the chicken coop can best be consumed by the foxes."
The 12-member Uranium Development Partnership, which was asked to study the nuclear cycle from mining through to disposal, recently recommended Saskatchewan include nuclear power in its energy mix.
But May argued that the group was dominated by people who would profit from any project.
The panel included presidents of Bruce Power, Areva and Cameco - two companies that mine uranium.
Their report followed a feasibility study released last November by Bruce Power, which identified a region from Prince Albert west to Lloydminster as a good spot to build a nuclear power plant. That study suggested a plant could be in operation by 2018 and contribute 1,000 megawatts of electricity to the province by 2020.
"Certainly the need for it is well-outlined in the UDP report," said Saskatchewan Enterprise and Innovation Minister Lyle Stewart.
"Without factoring in virtually any growth, we're going to need an additional 1,000 megawatts of baseload power by the time a nuclear power plant could be built. Whether it's nuclear or other sources, that remains to be seen."
The minister has said that any final approval for a plant would be years away and brushed aside suggestions that the province is moving too fast.
"It's very sensitive and we don't want to push hard at all on this thing. We want people to be on board with this, anything that gets done, and hopefully be leading the process," said Stewart.
Saskatchewan residents will get their chance to speak out on the nuclear issue at public forums which are to be held in May and June.
Stewart said the 120-page report from the uranium development partnership "is solid fact" for the public to read, despite arguments from the Green Party that people won't have all the information on the issue.
May said she was also disappointed that the report "never even bothered to look at alternatives."
"The mandate of the group was already a foregone conclusion to recommend nuclear. There's no pretense here that this is an analysis of what Saskatchewan residents need for energy security," said May.
"Obviously, Saskatchewan has uranium but as far as I know it's also got the sun and the wind and lots of other options that can be developed for the benefit of the whole province."
http://www.680news.com/news/national/more.jsp?content=n173267324
April, 17, 2009 - 07:35 pm Graham, Jennifer - (THE CANADIAN PRESS)REGINA - The Saskatchewan government is being accused of rushing headlong into what the Green Party calls "a nuclear boondoggle" through flawed public consultations on whether a nuclear power plant should be built in the province.
The Green Party charged Friday that the provincial government hasn't put out enough information about where a plant could be built, what it would cost and whether the province even needs one.
And the information that is out there is biased, said federal Green Party Leader Elizabeth May, pointing to a report from a government-appointed panel.
This is a sham," said May.
"This is not the report on which a government should base decisions. This is the equivalent of a report from lobbyists telling governments how they want them to spend their money," she told reporters at the Saskatchewan legislature.
"This isn't the fox is guarding the chicken coops. This is the fox report recommending how the chicken coop can best be consumed by the foxes."
The 12-member Uranium Development Partnership, which was asked to study the nuclear cycle from mining through to disposal, recently recommended Saskatchewan include nuclear power in its energy mix.
But May argued that the group was dominated by people who would profit from any project.
The panel included presidents of Bruce Power, Areva and Cameco - two companies that mine uranium.
Their report followed a feasibility study released last November by Bruce Power, which identified a region from Prince Albert west to Lloydminster as a good spot to build a nuclear power plant. That study suggested a plant could be in operation by 2018 and contribute 1,000 megawatts of electricity to the province by 2020.
"Certainly the need for it is well-outlined in the UDP report," said Saskatchewan Enterprise and Innovation Minister Lyle Stewart.
"Without factoring in virtually any growth, we're going to need an additional 1,000 megawatts of baseload power by the time a nuclear power plant could be built. Whether it's nuclear or other sources, that remains to be seen."
The minister has said that any final approval for a plant would be years away and brushed aside suggestions that the province is moving too fast.
"It's very sensitive and we don't want to push hard at all on this thing. We want people to be on board with this, anything that gets done, and hopefully be leading the process," said Stewart.
Saskatchewan residents will get their chance to speak out on the nuclear issue at public forums which are to be held in May and June.
Stewart said the 120-page report from the uranium development partnership "is solid fact" for the public to read, despite arguments from the Green Party that people won't have all the information on the issue.
May said she was also disappointed that the report "never even bothered to look at alternatives."
"The mandate of the group was already a foregone conclusion to recommend nuclear. There's no pretense here that this is an analysis of what Saskatchewan residents need for energy security," said May.
"Obviously, Saskatchewan has uranium but as far as I know it's also got the sun and the wind and lots of other options that can be developed for the benefit of the whole province."
http://www.680news.com/news/national/more.jsp?content=n173267324
Wednesday, April 1, 2009
In uranium mining study, ensure independence
The Virginian-Pilot© April 1, 2009
Every aspect of a study on uranium mining is going to be radioactive, and that's particularly true for the money needed to fund the project.
The best option would be for the state to underwrite the $1 million-plus needed to guarantee a thorough analysis by the respected National Academy of Sciences.
But a 119-million-pound deposit of uranium in Pittsylvania County was too hot for state legislators, who refused to fund a study determining whether it could be mined safely.
Virginia Uranium Inc., a firm established by two families whose properties contain the deposit, has offered to stroke a check, raising concerns that the study's outcome would be tainted by a less-than-objective sponsor.
Environmental and citizens groups that object to the project have been criticized because they won't contribute to the cause. That's a cynical ploy to discredit organizations with legitimate interests in the process.
Those groups aren't sitting on a pile of uranium ore with an estimated value of at least $7 billion.
They have no financial stake in a mine, just a reasonable concern over its effect on public safety.
And they certainly aren't the ones pressing the state to allow uranium mining after a 25-year ban.
The reality is there's only one stakeholder with the means and the motivation to make this study happen, and that's Virginia Uranium Inc.
That should make state officials uncomfortable, but they can at least put safeguards in place to preserve some semblance of propriety.
The company should be required to turn over the full amount for the study up front, rather than parsing it out over the course of the research. There should be no potential for funds to dry up if preliminary results aren't to Virginia Uranium's liking.
The awkward financial arrangement demands a careful step-by-step analysis to ensure that public safety is paramount.
If mining and milling of the ore pose a threat to local wells and nearby Lake Gaston, the primary source of drinking water for Virginia Beach, that danger should be identified and disclosed before researchers begin examining the mine's economic viability.
That doesn't mean economics should be ignored.
Under current market conditions, the Pittsylvania deposit may be the only feasible site for a mine.
If ore prices skyrocket, however, communities as far away as Fauquier County could become candidates for mining operations. (U R NEXT!!!!!)
If the state were to end its moratorium on uranium mining, the decision would affect the entire commonwealth, not just Pittsylvania, and the study must recognize that fact.
Questions about the financing and scope of the study are making for an uneasy start to what will be at least an 18-month process.
The only way to soothe those anxieties is for state officials to make sure the analysis is thorough and transparent.(AND DUDES WE ARE WATCHING YOU VERY CLOSELY!!)
Every aspect of a study on uranium mining is going to be radioactive, and that's particularly true for the money needed to fund the project.
The best option would be for the state to underwrite the $1 million-plus needed to guarantee a thorough analysis by the respected National Academy of Sciences.
But a 119-million-pound deposit of uranium in Pittsylvania County was too hot for state legislators, who refused to fund a study determining whether it could be mined safely.
Virginia Uranium Inc., a firm established by two families whose properties contain the deposit, has offered to stroke a check, raising concerns that the study's outcome would be tainted by a less-than-objective sponsor.
Environmental and citizens groups that object to the project have been criticized because they won't contribute to the cause. That's a cynical ploy to discredit organizations with legitimate interests in the process.
Those groups aren't sitting on a pile of uranium ore with an estimated value of at least $7 billion.
They have no financial stake in a mine, just a reasonable concern over its effect on public safety.
And they certainly aren't the ones pressing the state to allow uranium mining after a 25-year ban.
The reality is there's only one stakeholder with the means and the motivation to make this study happen, and that's Virginia Uranium Inc.
That should make state officials uncomfortable, but they can at least put safeguards in place to preserve some semblance of propriety.
The company should be required to turn over the full amount for the study up front, rather than parsing it out over the course of the research. There should be no potential for funds to dry up if preliminary results aren't to Virginia Uranium's liking.
The awkward financial arrangement demands a careful step-by-step analysis to ensure that public safety is paramount.
If mining and milling of the ore pose a threat to local wells and nearby Lake Gaston, the primary source of drinking water for Virginia Beach, that danger should be identified and disclosed before researchers begin examining the mine's economic viability.
That doesn't mean economics should be ignored.
Under current market conditions, the Pittsylvania deposit may be the only feasible site for a mine.
If ore prices skyrocket, however, communities as far away as Fauquier County could become candidates for mining operations. (U R NEXT!!!!!)
If the state were to end its moratorium on uranium mining, the decision would affect the entire commonwealth, not just Pittsylvania, and the study must recognize that fact.
Questions about the financing and scope of the study are making for an uneasy start to what will be at least an 18-month process.
The only way to soothe those anxieties is for state officials to make sure the analysis is thorough and transparent.(AND DUDES WE ARE WATCHING YOU VERY CLOSELY!!)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
