Showing posts with label Uranium Study. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Uranium Study. Show all posts

Sunday, September 13, 2009

URANIUM MINING (Gateway, CO), Uranium Mining from Boom To Burst

Gateway, CO

Comment: Uranium mining will be a total economic and health bust! Demand Virginia leaders to ban uranium mining! (Thanks k)


Insight - A New Economy Emerges in Western Colorado

A new Sonoran Institute report uncovers economic risks associated with renewed uranium mining in Mesa County, Colorado. The research report provides perspective and recommendations for local officials. Read the report (PDF).


URANIUM MINING (Gateway, CO)

Uranium mining activity in the Gateway area is currently centered at the
Whirlwind Mine. In September 2008, Energy Fuels Resource Corporation
(Energy Fuels) completed the permitting process to mine up to 200 tons per
day of uranium ore at the property, which is approximately four miles southwest
of Gateway on the Colorado-Utah border (see Map 2).

The plan of operations indicates an initial mining rate of 100 tons per day and 10 to 12 employees, expanding to 200 tons per day with 24 employees. The average salary of the miners would be $40,000 to $50,000.

The uranium ore would be hauled via John Brown Canyon Road, Colorado
Highways 141 and 90, Utah Highway 46, and U.S. Highway 191 to the White
Mesa Mill in Blanding, Utah. Estimated project life is 10 years (Bureau of Land
Management 2008).

In response to the drop in uranium prices in 2008, the company placed the
mine operation on standby effective November 21, 2008 as part of a “capital
preservation strategy” (Energy Fuels Inc. 2008).

The run-up in uranium prices over the period from 2004 through 2007 increased
the value of low-grade ore stockpiles left by earlier mining efforts.

In 2008, permits were issued for the removal of approximately 7,500 tons of lowgrade
ore from the October Mine, located about four miles due south of Gateway.

The mining plan calls for loading of the ore and hauling it to the White
Mesa Mill in Blanding, Utah (Bureau of Land Management 2008). The operation
would likely employ two or three employees for one month.

Several additional historical uranium mines with potentially minable resources
exist in the area surrounding the Whirlwind Mine. This area is known as the
Beaver Mesa Mining District. Historical mine production in the area included at
least 7 million pounds of uranium ore and 24 million pounds of vanadium ore.

Energy Fuels controls additional mining properties in the area through lease
agreements (Bureau of Land Management 2008). Another company, Blue Rock
Energy Corporation (Blue Rock), also had options on properties in the area, having
conducted sampling operations at the Cone Mountain property. The property
was recently released by Blue Rock, which had not met an option payment
due to market conditions (Blue Rock Resources Ltd. 2009).

Map 2: Gateway Area

Based on the presence in the Gateway area of uranium mines with additional
potentially minable uranium resources, recent uranium claim staking and mineral
exploration activity, the potential exists for increased local uranium mining
activity. The timing and levels of future employment and economic activity that
could be associated with such mining is difficult to estimate, as it is highly dependent
on uranium commodity prices, which have been volatile over the last
few years. Should the uranium price rebound to levels near $100/lb, there
would likely be increased employment and economic activity associated with
mining in the Gateway area.

In summary, the current economy of the Gateway area is primarily based on
tourism and outdoor recreation. Due to low uranium prices, local employment
and other economic activity associated with uranium exploration and mining is
very low at the present time. As such, at this time (early 2009), uranium mining
makes a much smaller contribution to the local economy.

Future activity in this economic sector will likely cycle up and down with uranium prices (see
the following section on boom-and-bust cycles in the Uravan Mineral Belt).
The outdoor recreation and tourism economy in the area is likely to continue to
grow as Gateway Canyons Resort expands and the number of visitors to the
area increases. Another factor to consider when comparing local impacts of
these two economic sectors is that most of the employees in the tourism and
outdoor recreation sector are likely to be local residents. These employees
will spend a greater portion of their incomes in the local economy than mining
employees who are more likely to be out-of-area residents. _
22

Gateway is located at the northern end of the Uravan Mineral Belt
(UMB), an arcuate zone of uranium-vanadium ore deposits within
the Morrison Formation. The UMB extends across the western
portions of Mesa, Montrose and San Miguel counties in Colorado, and
extends slightly into Grand and San Juan counties in Utah (see Map 3)
(Motica 1968).

Uranium and vanadium ores have been mined from the UMB since their first
discovery in 1898. The Belt has seen several boom-and-bust cycles.

From 1910 to 1923 the first boom occurred with ores in the UMB exploited primarily for
radium with a small amount of byproduct uranium and vanadium. In 1923,
high-grade uranium deposits were discovered in the Congo and this source supplanted
ores from the UMB.

The first bust occurred from 1923 to 1937, during which there was hardly any mineral production in the area (Motica 1968).

The second boom in the area began in 1937, based on increasing demand for
vanadium for use in steel production. Vanadium mining continued until 1944,
with some byproduct uranium extracted for use in the Manhattan project.

This was followed by a three-year bust period of very little mining activity in the area
after the end of World War II (Motica 1968).

A third boom started in 1948 with the onset of the Atomic Energy Commission
(AEC) domestic uranium procurement program. This boom ended essentially in
1962 when the AEC ended the program, but waning production continued
under the AEC “stretch-out” program until 1970.

With the partial release of market controls in the 1970s and a growing international
demand created by nuclear power expansion, prices increased dramatically,
reaching $50/lb in 1977.

This fourth boom came to an end after the incident at the Three Mile Island Nuclear Generating Station in Pennsylvania in March 1979. The price dropped very rapidly until 1983 and continued to decline throughout the remainder of the 1980s. Low prices then continued until
2003. During this period, uranium mining almost completely ceased in the
UMB and elsewhere in the region.

The fifth boom-and-bust cycle began in 2004 when the price of uranium started
moving up yet again, peaking at about $136 in June 2007. This most recent uranium
price run-up resulted in a huge increase in uranium exploration activity in
the UMB and adjacent prospective areas in Colorado and Utah. Many thousands
of new mining claims were staked in Colorado from 2004 through 2007,
many of them in the UMB (see Map 3). Several mines were permitted and min ing re-started at some properties. Also during this period, a new uranium mill was proposed for the Paradox Valley (see Map 3) and the permitting process initiated. The price of uranium has since plunged again to about $50/lb in early February 2009.

This has initiated a new bust with properties closing down, workers furloughed, exploration programs slowing down and mines going on standby (Energy Fuels Inc. 2008; Jaffe 2008; Blue Rock Resources Ltd. 2009).

In light of the multiple boom-and-bust cycles that have occurred in the UMB
over the last hundred or so years and given the historical and continuing volatility
of uranium prices, it seems highly likely that the area will see similar cycles
in the future.

Price increases will most likely be accompanied by claim-staking
rushes, increased exploration activities and increased mining activities. A period
of sustained high uranium prices could also result in the permitting and opening of new uranium
milling operations in or near the UMB.

With price decreases, exploration programs will wane
and mines will shut down. _

Please review the whole study: http://www.sonoraninstitute.org/

Thursday, September 3, 2009

Virginia Uranium Inc. will pay for mining study

Comment: This blog like the comments after the article but has removed the blogger's names! Their comments are informational about the crooked so call "uranium mining study in Virginia"!

By John Crane

Published: September 2, 2009

The chairman of the Virginia Coal and Energy Commission says Virginia Uranium Inc. will pay for the state study to determine whether uranium can be mined and milled safely in the commonwealth.

Delegate Terry Kilgore, R-1st District and chairman of the VCEC, said he will send a letter to the National Academy of Sciences to let officials there know VUI will fund the study.

Kilgore said he understands concerns about VUI financially backing the study, but the NAS’s research abili-ties are “great.”

“I think they will come out with a good study, a thorough study,” Kilgore said Wednes-day.

So far, the sole entity that has expressed willingness to pay for the study is VUI.

“It looks like that’s our only option,” Kilgore said.

The study’s first portion, which will examine the technical and public-safety aspects of mining and milling, will cost between $1.2-$1.4 million, Kilgore said. Virginia Tech’s Virginia Center for Coal and Energy Research will implement funding and will contract with the NAS for the study. The study’s first phase should begin by the end of the year, Kilgore said.

VUI seeks to mine and mill a 119-million pound uranium ore deposit at Coles Hill, about six miles northeast of Chatham. Walter Coles Sr., VUI chairman, said he has expressed willingness to provide funding for the study since the beginning, but has not spoken to Kilgore.

“We’ve had this offer on the table since day one,” Coles said, adding that he hopes the VCEC will continue to look for other funding sources.

Mining opponents say a study paid for with VUI money will not be objective.

“It certainly reduces the credibility of the study in a hurry,” said Eloise Nenon, a founding member of Southside Concerned Citizens. Nenon said the NAS is known to be pro-nuclear.

“The study is going to be tainted by the money,” said Jack Dunavant, SCC chairman. “We know this would happen all along.”

The study’s second part would focus on mining’s socio-economic impact, in-cluding effects on real-estate values and businesses, Kilgore said. The VCEC will seek another institution, such as George Mason University or James Madison University, to perform the second portion of the study. Kilgore said the second phase would probably begin in early 2010.

The scope of the study’s first phase includes, among additional items, examination of public-safety and health impact of uranium mining and milling; review of the geologic, environmental, geographic, climatic and cultural settings and exploration status of uranium resources in Virginia; identification and description of the main types of uranium deposits worldwide, including, for example, geologic characteristics, mining opera-tions and best practices; a review of global and national uranium market trends; a review of the state and federal regulatory framework for uranium mining, milling, processing and reclamation; identification of 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.

Reader Reactions
Posted by ( j ) on September 03, 2009 at 8:12 am


I have said since the very beginning that this “study” was already written and lying on Walter Cole’s desk, just waiting to be delivered to Richmond.

What a blatant example of how stupid they think we all are. It’s insanity for the state to allow the very entity which will profit from this to submit the report on the “safety” of uranium mining, which is also ridiculous since there is no “safe” mining of any type. It’s another glaring example of the arrogance of government. (anyone paying attention here?)

Aside from the very real cancer-causing risks of having open-pit uranium mining in our area, there are also economic dangers. Tourism, what little we have, will grind to a halt. Who wants to vacation at the uranium hole? There is also the huge expense involved with perpetual(that means forever) monitoring of the massive piles of radioactive waste which will be stored right in our backyard, again FOREVER.

Unfortunately and tragically, by the time the local pro-mining lunatics discover the very real risks from having a uranium mine in their backyards, it will be far too late to do anything about it and an apology won’t suffice.

The only local people who stand to profit from this are the GREEDY families which own the land. The rest of us only stand to inherit the polluted wind…and water…and land.


Posted by ( h ) on September 03, 2009 at 5:07 am


Good grief, has all levels of government lost a sense of rational thinking? How is this going to be percieved as an unbiased study?


http://www2.godanriver.com/gdr/news/local/danville_news/article/virginia_uranium_inc._will_pay_for_mining_study/13632/

Friday, August 14, 2009

The mining study

Comment: Has the study started or not? Demand an answer now on the Uranium Study from the government of Virginia!

Published: August 14, 2009

To the editor:

I have been reading a lot on various Web sites about the pros and cons of uranium mining in Pittsylvania County. I find a lot of conflicting information and misinformation.

Based on digesting what I read, I think that most of the populace of the county either is not involved or is waiting to be relieved of the responsibility of being involved by the “yea or nay” of the much purported “study” of whether it will be “safe.”

From what I am reading, this study is not even started because it is not funded. Not funded, I should add, in these times of government cutbacks by any entity other than Virginia Uranium Inc. The company has offered a generous amount of money to get it started. Is that a conflict of interest?

But where’s this study? The National Academy of Sciences is supposed to be doing it. What are we (the people) waiting on? I guess we know what the politicians are waiting on — money.

Meantime, take the opportunity before it’s too late — do your own study. Don’t take the government’s word for it. How’s that worked for you lately? Just Google “uranium mining” and see how good it makes you feel.

LINDA WORSLEY

Chatham


http://www2.godanriver.com/gdr/news/opinion/letters_to_the_editor/danville_letters/article/the_mining_study/13192/

Tuesday, March 24, 2009

State panel frames Virginia uranium mining study

Comment: Couple of articles from todays Uranium Meeting in Richmond


By STEVE SZKOTAK Associated Press Writer
March 24, 2009

RICHMOND, Va. - A panel looking into a proposal to lift a Virginia ban on uranium mining has approved the broad outlines of any future scientific study.

The subcommittee of the Virginia Commission on Coal and Energy heard Tuesday from Michael Karmis, head of the Virginia Center for Coal and Energy Research at Virginia Tech.

He presented the panel with an extensive list of study areas that an independent, scientific review board would work with in attempting to address any concerns about ending a 1980s ban on uranium mining.Speakers and commission members stressed that safety should be the No. 1 concern.

Virginia Uranium Inc. is proposing to mine a Pittsylvania County deposit of some 119 million pounds of ore that is worth from $7 billion to $10 billion dollar.

http://www.timesdispatch.com/rtd/news/local/article/MINEGATER24_20090324-165204/239800/

Va. panel gives tentative green light to study on uranium mining


JEFF E. SCHAPIRO TIMES-DISPATCH STAFF WRITERPublished: March 24, 2009

A Virginia panel this afternoon tentatively gave a green light to a study on opening the state to uranium mining.

A subcommittee of the Virginia Commission on Coal and Energy endorsed an initial outline of the inquiry, which would examine health, environmental and technical issues, as well as the social and financial implications of mining.

Uranium mining has been illegal in Virginia since the early 1980s. But two families in Southside Virginia own property that contains a giant deposit of uranium, potentially worth billions of dollars.

The study pegged to the proposed mine in Pittsylvania County could last at least a year and a half. It would be conducted by the National Academy of Science and could be paid for by industry proponents.

Residents of the area fear that a study bankrolled by advocates will be weighted in favor of the proposed mine.

But Michael Karmis, director of Virginia Tech's Coal and Energy Research Center, says the foundation relies only on scientific and technical information.

Karmis is serving as a liaison between the commission and the National Academy of Science.

Monday, March 23, 2009

Comment: Letter about illegal uranium study, comments in RED from Ms. Maute!

Delegate Marshall,

An e-mail circulated that asked for comments. Here are mine.

Re: Uranium study...

At best, we must carry the stigma of being the only state on the east coast stupid and greedy enought to entertain the idea of uranium mining and milling. At worst, we may be only state on the east coast stupid and greedy enought to mine and mill uranium. It is obvious that the study is focusing on Pittsylvania County. There is no intent, that I can see, to study or to mine and mill statewide. The state seems determined to aid and abet Virginia Uranium in assaulting an entire region of Virginia, along with its rich history and culture, for the benefit of a few. VUI advocates will do and say anything and to disturb and excavate the deposit which lies under Coles Hill.

Karen B. Maute

URANIUM MINING IN VIRGINIA
STUDY OBJECTIVES
: TO ASSESS THE SCIENTIFIC AND TECHNICAL ASPECTS OF
URANIUM MINING, MILLING AND PROCESSING IN VIRGINIA AND ASSOCIATED
ENVIRONMENTAL, HUMAN HEALTH, SAFETY AND REGULATORY ISSUES
THE STUDY WILL REVIEW:

1. URANIUM SUPPLY/DEMAND TRENDS AND PROJECTIONS These have nothing to do with the stated study objectives
a. GLOBAL, NATIONAL AND STATE Global benefit, not necessarily a benefit to either Virginia or even the US regarding energy. Irrelevant to stated objectives.
b. SHORT-TERM AND LONG-TERM TRENDS Define? Again, nothing to do with stated objectives.
c. COSTS, PRICES AND MARKETS Irrelevant to stated objectives.
#1 Is purely economics, nothing to do with science, technology or associated environmental, human health, or safety issues.
2. WORLDWIDE URANIUM DEPOSITS AND OPERATIONS What does this mean? Until defined it is irrelevant to stated objectives.
a. DEPOSIT CHARACTERISTICS AND LOCATIONS (GEOLOGY, CLIMATE,
ETC.) Of what? Until defined it is irrelevant to stated objectives.
b. OPERATION CHARACTERISTICS Of what? Until defined it is irrelevant to stated objectives.
c. COSTS AND MARKETS Of what? Until defined it is irrelevant to stated objectives.
d. BEST PRACTICES Of what? Until defined it is irrelevant to stated objectives.
e. CURRENT ISSUES AND CONCERNS Of what? Until defined it is irrelevant to stated objectives.
#2 Is extremely ill-defined and hence, irrelevant.
3.. URANIUM DEPOSITS IN VIRGINIA
a. OCCURRENCE Are they looking any further than Pittsylvania Co.?
b. GEOLOGIC, ENVIRONMENTAL, CULTURAL, CLIMATIC, AND GEOGRAPHIC SETTINGS Where?
c. PHYSICAL AND CHEMICAL CHARACTERISTICS Of what? Until defined it is irrelevant to stated objectives.
d. STATUS OF CURRENT EXPLORATION Where? Only Pittsylvania Co. is currently being explored.
e. AVAILABLE BASELINE DATA Where? Only Pittsylvania Co. is currently being explored and has any semblance of baseline data.
f. ECONOMIC FEASIBILITY Of what?
g. COMPARISON OF POTENTIAL URANIUM OPERATIONS IN VIRGINIA WITH GLOBAL DEPOSITS AND PRACTICES
I do not see any indication that anywhere other than Pittsylvania Co. are being considered. It appears that the state is partnering with VUI to undermine the health and well-being of a specific region of Virginia.
4. URANIUM MINING, MILLING AND PROCESSING TECHNOLOGIES
a. REVIEW OF CURRENT TECHNOLOGIES AND POTENTIAL NEW TECHNOLOGIES Potential new technologies will be more experimental on the population than current existing technologies.
b. APPLICATION OF TECHNOLOGIES/PRACTICES TO VIRGINIA DEPOSITS Which deposits...again, Pittsylvania County is singled out.
c. PROBLEMS AND ISSUES With exactly what?
d. AVAILABLE INFORMATION Regarding what?
e. KNOWLEDGE GAPS AND AREAS FOR RESEARCH On what will credibility of this information be based? Looks like a funding opportunity for Virginia Tech.
THE STUDY WILL ASSESS:
5. OCCUPATIONAL AND PUBLIC HEALTH AND SAFETY
a. RADIOLOGICAL HAZARDS AND RISKS What about particulate mater and heavy metals?
b. OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY CONCERNS
c. CONSIDERATIONS FOR LOCAL COMMUNITIES What considerations?
d. SHORT- AND LONG-TERM CONSIDERATIONS Of what?
Pitiful criteria for assessing impact on public health.
6. SECURITY STANDARDS AND PROCEDURES
a. HAZARDOUS MATERIALS MANAGEMENT Are you drawing a distinction between radiologic material and hazardous? Define Hazardous material.
b. PERSONNEL SECURITY
c. MATERIAL CONTROL AND ACCOUNTABILITY
d. TRANSPORTATION SECURITY
e. INFORMATION SECURITY Protecting who? VUI or public health?
f. SITE SECURITY
Security will only be needed to make sure VUI doesn't sell to a terrorist country.
7. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS
a. POTENTIAL IMPACTS ON AIR AND LAND Where?
b. GROUND- AND SURFACE-WATER IMPACTS AND PROTECTION Where?
c. WATER MANAGEMENT INCLUDING NET CONSUMPTION/RECYCLING Effects on local wells? There appears to be lead contamination at present from exploratory drilling. Who is investigating this? If we can't deal with water issues during exploratation, what makes you think we can deal with effects of mining, milling and waste (tailings) management?
d. WASTE MANAGEMENT INCLUDING OVERBURDEN, WASTE ROCK AND
TAILINGS To date, management of these issues have resulted in failures of one kind or another.
e. ECOSYSTEM EFFECTS
f. OTHER ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH ISSUES Like what?
g. RISK MODELING AND IMPACTS OF SEVERE WEATHER EFFECTS OR OTHER
STOCHASTIC EVENTS
h. NOISE, AESTHETICS, TRAFFIC AND OTHER LOCAL CONSIDERATIONS
Ah, we FINALLY get to the stated objectives. They appear to be woefully inadequately addressed.
8. CLOSURE AND POST-MINING LAND USE AND MONITORING
a. MINESITE MONITORING
b. MONITORING OF TAILINGS AND OTHER WASTES
c. MONITORING OF LOCAL GROUNDWATER AND SURFACE WATERS
d. SITE RECLAMATION
e. LONG-TERM LAND USE IMPACTS AND RESTRICTIONS
f. OFFSITE ECOLOGICAL MONITORING
g. POST-CLOSURE FINANCIAL RESPONSIBILITY AND LIABILITIES
Cookie cutter crap. Damage and devastation can only be guessed. Vui may be bankrupt and the county will have yet another superfund site at taxpayers expense.
9. REGULATORY CONSIDERATIONS AND PUBLIC OUTREACH IN VIRGINIA
a. HEALTH AND SAFETY REGULATIONS Will be inadequate and unenforcable. Staff to insure compliance will be inadequate. It was, even before the downturn in the economy.
b. ENVIRONMENTAL AND MINING LAWS AND REGULATIONS Will be inadequate and unenforcable. Staff to insure compliance will be inadequate. It was, even before the downturn in the economy.
c. INSPECTION AND ENFORCEMENT Will be inadequate and unenforcable. Staff to insure compliance will be inadequate. It was, even before the downturn in the economy.
d. COMMUNITY RIGHT-TO-KNOW AND EMERGENCY PLANNING Right to know what? That Pittsylvania Co.an experiment for the state of Virginia?
a. EDUCATION AND OUTREACH Education? Outreach? To make us docile, if not willing, participants in Virginia's experiment?
10. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
The study is an attempt to legitimize the mining and milling of uranium in Virginia...more specifically, in Pittsylvania County.

SOCIO-ECONOMIC IMPACTS OF URANIUM MINING IN VIRGINIA
STUDY OBJECTIVES: TO ADDRESS SITE- AND REGION-SPECIFIC SOCIAL, ECONOMIC AND
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS AND SUSTAINABILITY FACTORS SUCH AS QUALITY OF LIFE,
INFRASTRUCTURE, LOCAL ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITIES AND PROPERTY AND REAL ESTATE
VALUES.
It appears that site and region specific means HERE. ..Coles Hill in Southside Virginia.
STUDY COMPONENTS:
1. SOCIAL IMPACTS
a. AESTHETICS AND OVERALL QUALITY OF LIFE ISSUES Where?
b. AVAILABILITY OF AND IMPACTS ON SOCIAL INFRASTRUCTURE
(POLICE, FIRE, ROADS, SCHOOLS, ETC.) Where?
c. EFFECTS ON LOCAL POPULATION AND COMMERCIAL ACTIVITY Where?
d. EFFECTS ON INTERNAL AND EXTERNAL IMAGE OF THE REGION Where? What region?
e. MARKETABILITY OF THE REGION FOR OTHER INDUSTRY AND
POPULATION Where? What region?
f. FEAR OF POTENTIAL HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS Where? The facts give rise to fear. VUI, and now YOU are asked, "Show us 5 places where Uranium has been safely mined in a place similar to Virginia w/regard to climate, population, rainfall, topography, watersheds, hydrology etc.
g. SHORT- VS. LONG-TERM EFFECTS AND COMMUNITY SUSTAINABILITY These cannot be determined.
h. EDUCATATIONAL OPPORTUNITIES What the heck does that mean?
Again, Southside Virginia is the focus.
2. ECONOMIC IMPACTS
a. JOB CREATION AND LOCAL INCOME EFFECTS
b. INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT For the uranium industry? Infrastructure for other development can not be ascertaianed since the industry may negate future economic development in other sectors.
c. EFFECTS OF CHANGES IN INCOME AND LOCAL ECONOMIC
ACTIVITY
d. TAX REVENUES OVER LIFE OF MINE AND BEYOND For whom?
e. IMPACTS ON GOVERNMENT EXPENDITURES Local and state?
f. OVERALL ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT EFFECTS, PARALLEL AND
SUPPORT BUSINESSES ETC. for the uranium industry? Looks as though econimic diversity has been abandoned.
g. PROPERTY VALUES VS. DISTANCE FROM MINE OR PROCESSING FACILITY Nice to finally see concern for citizens and their property values. The whole region will suffer. Those of us who have bought our homes and looked at them as a safe environment and a good investment will be disappointed on both counts.
h. IMPACTS ON REAL ESTATE VALUES IN THE AREA AND ON You can bet that Coles Hill will not be on the Virginia Garden Club Tour in the future.
LOCAL COMMUNITIES Again, the whole region will suffer. Those of us who have bought our homes and looked at them as a safe environment and a good investment will be disappointed on both counts.
i. LONG-TERM ECONOMIC SUSTAINABILITY
3. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
a. INTEGRATION WITH THE TECHNICAL STUDY (I.E., NRC) What technical study?
b. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS ON SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC
FACTORS What does this mean?
c. MONITORING DURING OPERATIONS/CLOSURE Taxpayer money...forever. That's if things go well, which historically, they don't.
4. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
The study is pro-uranium mining and milling and it's findings will reflect such.

Thursday, February 12, 2009

Chatham mulls updating uranium resolution

By John CranePublished: February 11, 2009

The towns of Hurt and Gretna have passed resolutions on uranium mining this month, and now Chatham is mulling a resolution of its own to replace the previous one the town passed a year ago.

Chatham Mayor George O. Haley said he wants to bring the town’s resolution up to par with the other towns’ more detailed documents.

“Their resolutions were a little more comprehensive than ours,” Haley said.

Virginia Uranium Inc. wants to mine and mill a uranium ore deposit at Coles Hill six miles northeast of Chatham.

Chatham passed a simple resolution on Feb. 11, 2008, asking the state’s General Assembly not to consider scrapping Virginia’s moratorium on uranium mining unless a thorough, independent study finds uranium mining and milling safe.

A year later, the situation has changed. Senate bill 525, which called for a study, was tabled in the House Rules Committee in March 2008. The Virginia Coal and Energy Commission approved a study in November to be conducted by the National Academy of Sciences or a comparable institution.

Also, Gretna and Hurt have passed resolutions calling for the study to meet certain criteria. Both request the entire process be open to the press and public and that the respective towns be allowed to participate in the study.

Both also call for a peer-review group separate from the parties conducting the study and made up of representatives from agencies in environmental public health, water supply and resources, air quality and the Army Corps of Engineers to monitor and critique the study.

In addition, the towns want ample time and adequate funding for the study. And the study must be thorough, unbiased and conducted by an agency outside the mining industry.

Eloise Nenon, a founding member of Southside Concerned Citizens, asked the Chatham Town Council during its regular meeting Monday night to pass a resolution calling for a study to determine whether uranium can be mined safely in the commonwealth, as well as a companion study to examine issues other than scientific aspects.

Nenon wants the resolution to be broader than those passed in Gretna and Hurt and to include a request for a parallel study by the National Trust for Historic Preservation or other comparable institution. Nenon would like to see a study cover quality-of-issues separate from “hard science” aspects.

Haley said he would discuss Nenon’s request with the town manager and report back to the council. Haley said he is anti-uranium mining but supports a study to determine whether it can be done safely. Chatham’s original resolution was “not as comprehensive as I would like for it to be,” he said. However, “it was a step in the right direction,” Haley said.

Besides public health and environmental issues, Haley said he is also concerned about the aesthetic effects uranium mining and milling would yield.

“What are we going to look like physically when this takes place?” Haley said.
Delegate Lee Ware, R-Powhatan, who heads the Coal and Energy Commission’s Uranium Subcommittee, said the study process will be open and honest. Ware said the towns’ resolutions will not fall on deaf ears.

“There is no question that we are highly interested in and attuned to the views of those who are the most directly affected,” Ware said.

Ware said the Virginia Center for Coal and Energy Research will present the scope of the study at the subcommittee’s next meeting. A date and time have not been set. The NAS would examine the study’s language next, Ware said. The NAS would probably designate about a dozen or 15 internationally known scientists to conduct the study, Ware said.

The study will take about 18 months.

Wednesday, February 11, 2009

Gretna targets uranium

By SUSAN WORLEY/Star-Tribune Staff WriterWednesday,
February 11, 2009 10:47 AM EST

GRETNA - Gretna Town Council passed a resolution Monday night addressing concerns about the possibility of mining uranium in Pittsylvania County.

The town endorses the concept of asking the National Academy of Sciences to join the Coal and Energy Commission on the state study that is under way.

The town takes the position that unless mining and milling can be done safely, Gretna opposes the lifting of the state moratorium enacted in 1983."That unless and until it can be demonstrated to a reasonable degree of scientific certainty that there will be no significant release of radioactive sediments downstream or in the air, the Town of Gretna is opposed to the elimination of the existing legislative moratorium on uranium mining," states the resolution.

The town stresses that a study should include a thorough evaluation of the risks, including those resulting from natural events such as floods.Also safeguards must be in place to protect the environment, agricultural lands and the health and well-being of citizens.

The town would like for the study process to be open to the public and the press.Since Gretna is the closest town to the site, a town representative should be included in the study, not for influence, but to make sure the town is kept informed.

It is a non-binding resolution that is simply the expression of the position of the town, said town attorney Michael Turner.

Joe Aylor, chief geologist for Virginia Uranium Inc., which plans to mine the site, grew up in Gretna.He said there are 119 million pounds of uranium at Coles Hill which could mean between 300 and 500 jobs for the long term.

"The jobs would mean economic gains for the community and Pittsylvania County," said Aylor.He invited those present to visit the VUI office in Chatham or the proposed site to better understand what uranium mining means for the community.

Aylor said the resolution basically mirrors what the state is already doing.

Bunny Eanes, who represents a group that earlier asked council to pass a resolution addressing uranium mining, said she is very concerned."The studies I have seen don't address the long range effects in this area's climate and rainfall," said Eanes."I'm worried about my grandchildren. The jobs all sound fine and well, but I don't think jobs are worth the health of our community."

The resolution will be forwarded to the town's Congressional and General Assembly delegations.

Friday, February 6, 2009

Hurt wants independent uranium study

By John CranePublished: February 5, 2009

The town of Hurt has passed a resolution opposing the mining and milling of uranium without an independent, conclusive study determining its environmental impact.

Mayor Lillian Gillespie said the town is neither for nor against uranium mining, but it wants a study.

Hurt’s resolution also states the study should include a thorough evaluation of risks resulting from floods and other natural events; be open to the public and press; include the town of Hurt as participants in the study; be conducted by impartial experts such as the National Academy of Sciences; and be given ample time for completion.

Patrick Wales, geologist and spokesman for Virginia Uranium Inc., said he is puzzled by the resolution since a study already is in progress.

“It’s exactly what’s taking place,” Wales said.

VUI seeks to mine and mill a uranium ore deposit six miles northeast of Chatham. The Virginia Coal and Energy Commission approved a study in November and urged the Virginia Center for Coal and Energy Research to contract with the National Academy of Sciences or another institution to conduct it.

The town’s resolution requests that a peer review group independent of the VCEC and the VCCER monitor and critique the study.

Gillespie said sources of energy, including wind, solar and water, and those from uranium, should be explored.

VUI and members of the community working with Southside Concerned Citizens, who oppose uranium mining in Pittsylvania County, each drafted resolutions and presented them to the town council, Gillespie said. SCC members praised the town’s unanimous decision, which took place during the council’s meeting Tuesday night.

Gregg Vickrey, president of SCC’s Chatham-Pittsylvania County chapter, called the town’s move a “huge victory.”

“It is a great first step,” Vickrey said in an e-mail. “Obviously, this local governing body is trying to protect its citizens – the highest priority of any government that truly serves the people.”

The town of Gretna also is considering a resolution regarding uranium mining and milling. The town council will discuss it during its regular meeting Monday night, Town Manager David Lilly said. Gretna and Chatham both considered chemical-trespass ordinances, but abandoned the idea due to legal constraints of the ordinance.

Tuesday, February 3, 2009

Uranium opponents lash out at county

Comment: Why did the board put the Uranium Statement on the Agenda and then pull because according to the following statement:
“I don’t know what it’s about,” Snead said

By John CranePublished: February 2, 2009

CHATHAM — The leader of a local group opposing uranium mining blasted the Pittsylvania County Board of Supervisors on Monday night after the board voted not to discuss a uranium-mining study commission listed on its agenda.

‘We don’t trust you,” Gregg Vickrey, president of the Chatham/Pittsylvania chapter of Southside Concerned Citizens, said to supervisors during their regular meeting Monday night.

Vickrey warned the board not to “give the impression you’re sweeping things under the carpet.”
“We will take appropriate action when it comes time to vote,” he said.


Chatham-Blairs Supervisor Hank Davis had put the item on the agenda, but Dan River Supervisor James Snead requested it be removed because there was no explanation of the topic in the board’s agenda packet.

“I don’t know what it’s about,” Snead said. “I don’t know how we can consider anything when there’s no information.”

Vickrey, along with two other mining opponents, voiced their displeasure to the board when it came time for residents to address supervisors about topics not on the agenda.

Vickrey drew parallels between the county’s delayed public notification of a leachate leak at the county landfill in Dry Fork and the implications it could have for a possible similar incident at the proposed uranium mining and milling operation at Coles Hill. Virginia Uranium Inc. wants to mine and mill a uranium ore deposit at Coles Hill about six miles northeast of Chatham.

“What if it took almost a year for the public to find out about a spill at Coles Hill?” he said.
After the meeting, Davis said he will bring the topic back to the board at a later date. Davis would not reveal why he entered the agenda item.

Walt Coles Jr., executive vice president of VUI, said opponents’ attacks on the company’s plans are unfair.

“All we’ve ever proposed is a state-sanctioned study,” Coles said after the meeting. “We need a fair chance to do something safely.”