Showing posts with label foreign corporation. Show all posts
Showing posts with label foreign corporation. Show all posts

Tuesday, June 16, 2009

Sinosteel plans to bid for 20% stake in Canada's Denison Mines

Comment: With all the Uranium companies joining each other, How will we know what countries will receive Uranium. The Canadian Uranium company in Virginia is telling us that if uranium is mine in VA, it will stay in America???? Do you really believe them?

Read several Posts about companies needing uranium!

Sinosteel plans to bid for 20% stake in Canada's Denison Mines

Jun. 16, 2009 (China Knowledge) - Sinosteel Corp, China's second largest iron ore trader, has submitted a bid for a 20% holding in Denison Mines Corp, a Canada-based uranium producer, in an attempt to outbid Korea Electric Power Corp (Kepco), the South China Morning Post reported on Monday, quoting unnamed sources as saying.

In mid-April, Kepco and Denison said that the Korean firm had consented to purchase a 19.9% holding in the Canadian miner for around C$75.4 million. The deal has not been closed yet.

Denison Mines, which is mainly engaged in uranium exploration, development, mining and milling, has uranium mining projects in both the U.S. and Canada as well as development projects in Canada, Zambia and Mongolia.

In early March, Sinosteel announced that it had raised its shareholding in Australia-based Murchison Metals Ltd to 5.85% from the previous 2.4%, which it acquired last April.

Sinosteel reported business revenue of RMB 171.9 billion for last year, a robust growth of 39% from the previous year.

http://www.chinaknowledge.com/Newswires/News_Detail.aspx?type=1&NewsID=24482

Kansai Electric Aims to Invest More in Uranium Mines, Mori Says

The utility was the first from Japan to invest in a mine in Kazakhstan, holder of the world’s second-biggest reserves.

Kansai Electric together with partners Sumitomo Corp. and Kazatomprom, a state-owned miner, said in 2006 they would invest $100 million in the West Mynkuduk mine. The project, in which Kansai holds a 10 percent stake, started production in December 2007 and will yield 1,000 tons a year at its peak.

Australian Exploration

Kansai Electric also holds a 50 percent stake in Japan Australia Uranium Resources Development Co., which won rights to explore two areas in South Australia in 2008 and will invest A$20 million ($15.8 million) in exploration.

The company holds a 6.9 percent stake in Japanese mining venture, Overseas Uranium Resources Development Co., with mines in Canada and Niger.

Kansai Electric got about 39 percent of its uranium from Australia, 27 percent from Africa and 19 percent from North America in the 10 years to 2008. Soga declined to say how much uranium the company needs a year.

http://www.chinaknowledge.com/Newswires/News_Detail.aspx?type=1&NewsID=24482

Vancouver uranium mining company acquires 50% interest in Kazakh project

Tuesday, 16 June 2009

Vancouver's Uranium One Inc. (TSX:UUU) plans to acquire 50% interest in the Karatau Uranium mine from a Russian company in a cash and share deal worth approximately $455 million.

Uranium One's deal with JSC Atomredmetzoloto (ARMZ), a Russian state-owned uranium mining company, will be paid with 117 million Uranium One shares plus US$90 million in cash. The agreement also provides for a contingent payment to ARMZ of up to US$60 million, payable in three equal tranches between 2010 and 2012 subject to post-closing tax-related adjustments.
The Karatau project produced 1.7 million pounds of uranium last year and is expected to yield 3.3 million pounds this year at a total cash cost of $15 per pound. The mine is expected to reach 5.2 million pounds of production by 2011.

As a result of the deal, ARMZ will have a 16.6% interest in Uranium One and will have one member of the board appointed by ARMZ. The deal, which is subject to legal due diligence, customary closing conditions and regulatory and shareholder approvals, is expected to close in December.

Uranium One has agreed to appoint a second ARMZ representative to the board in 2010, subject to shareholder approval.

http://www.bivinteractive.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1686&Itemid=32

Wednesday, June 3, 2009

Wake up and fight, folks, Uranium offers empty economic promises


Comment: Great Letters!!! Santoy will take 60-80 per cent profit back to Canada, VUI group will move to the islands, our County will have 2 huge open pits which will poison our water, air, land, animals, plants, poison the Military bases at Virginia Beach!!!!! Uranium Mining & Milling will kill the Chesapeake Bay too!!!
Wednesday, June 3, 2009 10:07 AM EDT

Uranium offers empty economic promises

This letter is in answer to a letter from Philip Shelton of Blairs published in your paper on May 20, 2009.

I have read your letter regarding the issue of mining uranium in Pittsylvania County where you state, hopefully, that this industry will be such a boon to our economy that our taxes will be reduced.

Let me state now that if this industry is allowed to mine uranium we will lose the enrollment of both Chatham Hall and Hargrave Military Academy.

Both of these institutions are a prime source of local tax revenue.

No one who knows anything about the past history of this industry with its widespread elevations of cancers, birth defects, and death would dare to send their children to a school that is within five miles of an open-pit uranium mine.

Further, if you study the records of uranium mining sites out west, where the industry has tried, unsuccessfully, to mine uranium without harming the environment or the surrounding population for years, you will note that in each case, the cleanup of toxic waste sites is left up to the local taxpayers to foot the bill.

Mr. Shelton, are you aware that Mr. Coles has sold Virginia Uranium Inc. to a Canadian mining company named Santoy?

Why would he sell out? Why is a Canadian mining company buying Virginia Uranium?

The answer is that Santoy's mining operations have been closed down by the Canadian government because of the pollution mines have caused in Canada.

Additionally, VUI has promised record employment here in Pittsylvania County. This is a bald lie.

Their plan states that they will use experienced mining personnel as well as students from the newly formed nuclear science school at Virginia Tech.

VUI claims it will produce 300 to 500 jobs in the county. How can we believe that when, nationwide, the uranium mining industry employs considerably less than 500 people in mining uranium?

It is only through knowledge of the problems of the uranium mining industry that you may begin to realize what a disaster we are in for if the existing moratorium were to be lifted.

I suggest that you, and anyone else who wishes to inform themselves about this industry, study what has gone on before now, worldwide, with the mining and milling of uranium.

I have come to love this area of Virginia and the people who reside here. It is for this reason that I will continue to educate myself and anyone who will listen to the dangers of the uranium mining industry.

I am not, to quote your letter, an "anti-everything" person. However, with what I know I am an anti-uranium mining, tree-hugging resident of Pittsylvania County.

Hunter Austin
Hurt

http://www.wpcva.com/articles/2009/06/03/chatham/opinion/opinion02.txt

Wake up and fight, folks

I am so frustrated by our populace's belief in the uranium "study." Study of what?

How much money the investors of a Canadian company will make?

How much money Walter Coles and friends will make?

How much money everyone other than these people will lose by being subjected to the loss of their livelihoods and lives by having one of the most hazardous and toxic businesses in the world located in their backyards?

Please wake up and fight, folks.

We need every voice.

Linda Worsley
Chatham

http://www.wpcva.com/articles/2009/06/03/chatham/opinion/opinion03.txt

Sunday, May 10, 2009

Niger’s uranium, poverty and France’s growing wealth

Comment: People all over the world are suffering because of Uranium Corp Greed!!

The $1.5 billion new uranium mine in Niger that is expected to yield 5,000 tonnes of uranium a year once opened will follow in the tradition of the existing two Areva-owned mines.

Areva currently operates two uranium mines in Niger that have left poverty in place and radiological contamination behind.
The new Imouraren mine – that will be the second largest uranium mine in the world – will continue to deliver most of the profits to France (Areva is 90%-owned by the French government.) ( I wonder how much our northern neighbors will take back to the North!!)
The Niger government has only a 33% share in the mining operation but historically any domestic profit has in any case been fed back into the richer southern half of the country

Niger’s uranium, poverty and France’s growing wealth AFRIK.COM
5 May 2009, by Konye Obaji Ori, Patrick K. Johnsson
Niger to get the world’s 2nd largest uranium mine
The President of Niger, Mr. Mamadou Tandja has sought peace-talks with rebel groups in the country to reach terms of agreement to share the country’s impending rise of Uranium wealth.
According to estimates, Niger will become home to the world’s second largest uranium mine by 2012. To benefit from this development, the president has promised amnesty to rebels who will lay down their weapons.
But will the mines profit Nigeriens?……………………..Areva, French nuclear energy giant formerly known as Cogema, is building the mine and will take a majority share in it.
France has kept close ties with its former colony for its uranium; a relationship which is vital to France’s nuclear energy program.
Areva’s uranium mines have helped in shaping France’s place as the world’s fourth uranium producer and the first producer of nuclear power…………………
In 2007, anti-Areva protests rocked the country as thousands of Nigeriens marched on the streets against the presence of the French company, following a nearly 40 year Areva operation in Niger that had yielded little development in the lives of the local people and the country……………………………..
Activists from the local branch of the Greenpeace lobby group claim that the potential pollution from the Uranium mines will bring about the forced displacement of the local people…………………..
he fluctuating price in uranium created by the big consumers in a profit maximization system, has brought repeated instability to Niger’s economy as the world’s fourth biggest producer of uranium. (SouthSide Future???!!)

http://nuclear-news.net/2009/05/08/nigers-uranium-poverty-and-frances-growing-wealth/

Santoy/VIRGINIA URANIUM LTD.

VIRGINIA URANIUM LTD.
231 Woodlawn Heights Road
Chatham, Virginia 24531

April 24, 2009

To: The Shareholders of Virginia Uranium Ltd.

The board of directors (the "Virginia Board") invites you to attend a special meeting (the "Virginia Meeting") of shareholders (the "Virginia Shareholders") of Virginia Uranium Ltd. ("Virginia") to be held at 2:00 p.m. (Eastern Standard Time) on Friday, May 21, 2009 at 231 Woodlawn Heights Road, Chatham, Virginia, United States.

NOTICE OF ANNUAL GENERAL AND SPECIAL MEETING For SHAREHOLDERS OF SANTOY RESOURCES LTD. To be Held on Thursday, May 21, 2009 AND NOTICE OF SPECIAL MEETING For SHAREHOLDERS OF VIRGINIA URANIUM LTD. To be Held on Thursday, May 21, 2009 AND NOTICE OF HEARING OF PETITION To be Held on Friday, May 22, 2009 AND JOINT INFORMATION CIRCULAR April 24, 2009

To Review whole document:http://www.santoy.ca/i/pdf/2009-04-28_SANInfoCirc.pdf

Saturday, May 9, 2009

Russian Company Purchases WV Mining Company

Comment: Do what?

CHARLESTON, W.Va. (AP)
Posted: 7:45 AM May 9, 2009
Last Updated: 5:56 PM May 8, 2009



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

A A A Russian mining and metals company Mechel OAO says it has completed the acquisition of Appalachian coal producer Bluestone Industries and several associated companies.

Moscow-based Mechel said Friday the deal includes Dynamic Energy, JCJ Coal Group and several subsidiaries.

Mechel announced in April it had agreed to buy the companies for $436 million cash, 83.3 million preferred shares of stock, and the assumption of $132 million in debt.

Beckley-based Bluestone Industries is the parent of Bluestone Coal. It primarily produces coking coal used by steelmakers to fire blast furnaces.

Friday's announcement comes a day after Bluestone's former owner announced the purchase of The Greenbrier, an internationally known resort in West Virginia, from CSX Corp.

http://www.whsv.com/home/headlines/44612842.html

Wednesday, May 6, 2009

Uranium Development Consortium Formed

Comment: nuke group talks about nuclear power home grow, cannot live US but the nuke people are welcoming foreign corp to US, what's the difference? Another question, why does the foreign corp coming south to take US uranium?

SOURCE: Anglo Canadian Uranium Corp.

May 06, 2009 13:43 ET
Uranium Development Consortium Formed
Highlighted Links


Anglo Canadian Uranium Corp.


MacReport Media PublishingVANCOUVER, BC--(Marketwire - May 6, 2009) - Anglo Canadian Uranium Corp. (TSX-V: URA) (the "Company") is pleased to announce it has entered into an agreement to bring southwestern United States uranium exploration properties and a state of the art mill project to the market place as a consolidated uranium resource play. This agreement is with Mancos Resources Inc. (MRI), Bluebird Partners, LLC and Drilling Consultants Inc. (DRI), and will enable the consortium of companies to effectively develop long term uranium production to supply the growing demand for nuclear power. This agreement is non-exclusive and will allow the Company to continue and maintain discussions with additional uranium exploration and production companies for further development of projects. This agreement also does not impact the previous arrangement with a senior uranium producer in the Four Corners region and the continued development of the URA mine located in the Bull Canyon region of Colorado.

Anglo Canadian Uranium is an advanced exploration and development company with thirteen (13) uranium and vanadium projects located in the Four Corners region of the United States. All projects are located in close proximity to historical uranium production operations, with some project areas containing historical resources. The Company has focused on continuing the permit process required for future exploration and production at its project areas, and views this new uranium consortium as instrumental in the continued development of the United States uranium industry.

Anglo Canadian's projects in the Four Corners region are as follows:


Location Ownership Size Highlight
-------- --------- ---- ---------

Spider Rock, 100% 4 claims Historical resource contained
Colorado

Joseph, Colorado 100% 106 claims Contains 5 former producing mines

Eula Belle, 100% 52 claims Drill program completed, 1.5 M
Colorado pounds U3O8 and 7 M pounds
vanadium historical production

King, Colorado 100% 250 claims Lies between two major producing
mines, adjacent to DOE leases

Wild Steer, 100% 31 claims Contains 2 former producers
Colorado

Gunslinger, 100% 41 claims Surrounded by 3 DOE uranium
Colorado reserve lands

Tomcat, Colorado 100% 81 claims Contains 3 former producers

Lonestar, Colorado 100% 110 claims Contains 2 former producers
in two
Gunfighter, 100% locations Contains 1 former producer
Colorado

Dragon, Utah 100% 30 claims High scintilometer counts
including one
mile area of
interest

Locuist, Utah 100% 19 claims Contains former producing mine

O8, New Mexico 100% 1920 acre Adjacent to former producing mine

Holley, New Mexico 100% 3200 acres Within 4 miles of Marquez Uranium
Mine
Mancos Resources Inc. and their wholly owned subsidiary Bluerock Energy Corp, are U.S. corporations with offices in Green River, Utah, and Cortez, Colorado. MRI's conventional uranium mill project is located on 640 acres of private land near the town of Green River, Utah. MRI Principals spent two years implementing an exhaustive multi-state site selection process. The site selection criteria included regulatory, environmental, political, geologic, hydrologic, access, and infrastructure elements. The mill is in the geotechnical and environmental baseline data gathering phase of permitting. MRI's next phase of development is initiating a geotechnical drilling program, and crafting and issuing a Request for Qualifications / Request for Proposals from design/build firms for plant engineering design and construction.

BlueBird Partners, LLC is a grass roots geological and mineral property development company with experience, expertise, and uranium properties in the southwestern US.

Drilling Consultants Inc., a U.S. corporation, has extensive holdings in the uranium districts of Colorado, Utah, and New Mexico.

About Anglo-Canadian Uranium Corp.

Anglo-Canadian is an aggressive uranium and gold exploration company with several properties located in Canada and the United States. The Company's current projects include uranium projects located in Colorado, Utah, New Mexico and Quebec, and gold and base metals projects in British Columbia. The Company's focus is to acquire uranium and gold deposits in strategic locations through acquisition and option arrangements, and further develop these projects with experienced management teams.

For more information on the Company and its projects, please visit the website at www.anglocanex.com


ON BEHALF OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS:

"Len J.Harris"
Len J. Harris, President
Neither TSX Venture Exchange nor its Regulation Services Provider (as that term is defined in the policies of the TSX Venture Exchange) accepts responsibility for the adequacy or accuracy of this release.

Contact:
Len J. Harris
President
T: 604 669 6807
Toll Free: 866 488 3838
E: len@anglocanex.comBack

http://www.marketwire.com/press-release/Anglo-Canadian-Uranium-Corp-985597.html

Tuesday, April 14, 2009

Denison to Sell 20% Stake, Uranium to Korea Electric (Update2)

By Christopher Donville and Rob Delaney

April 14 (Bloomberg) -- Denison Mines Corp., a Canadian uranium producer, agreed to sell a 19.9 percent stake in the company to Korea Electric Power Corp. for C$75.4 million ($62.1 million) and supply the utility with uranium until 2015.

Korea Electric will buy about 58 million Denison shares for C$1.30 each, equal to yesterday’s closing price, Denison said in a statement. The agreement requires the Toronto-based mining company to sell as much as 690,000 pounds of enriched uranium a year to the state-controlled utility starting in 2010.

Seoul-based Korea Electric and other power companies in Asia are stepping up efforts to lock in supplies of uranium, the raw material in nuclear reactor fuel, amid concern about future shortages. China is urging its companies to acquire foreign supplies of uranium reserves as the country expands its nuclear generating capacity, an official of China’s National Energy Administration said last month.

“There’s tremendous interest in Asia to build up uranium stockpiles,” George Topping, an analyst at Blackmont Capital in Toronto, said today in a phone interview. “They want guaranteed delivery, not risky, early stage uranium exploration.”

Korea Electric, South Korea’s largest utility, will have the right to appoint two directors to Denison’s board. Today’s agreement also allows parties nominated by Denison Chairman Lukas Lundin to buy an additional 15 million shares for C$19.5 million, Denison said in the statement.

Idled Plants

Denison, which produces uranium in Canada and the U.S., has struggled to meet production targets, said Topping. The company said last month it temporarily idled two of its U.S. mines as the price of uranium for immediate delivery fell. Denison, which halted output at two other U.S. mines late last year, was in danger of breaching its debt covenants,

Chief Executive Officer Peter Farmer said on a March 19 conference call with analysts.

“Denison has disappointed in terms of its ability to ramp up U.S. production,” Topping said.

“Denison has over-promised and under-delivered.”

Ron Hochstein, Denison’s president and chief operating officer, didn’t immediately return a call from Bloomberg News for comment. Farmer, who is stepping down effective April 30, wasn’t immediately available.

Denison gained 12 cents, or 9.2 percent, to C$1.42 at 10:37 a.m. in Toronto Stock Exchange composite trading. The shares fell 11 percent this year before today.

To contact the reporters on this story: Rob Delaney in Toronto at robdelaney@bloomberg.net; Christopher Donville in Vancouver at cjdonville@bloomberg.net.Last Updated: April 14, 2009 11:54 EDT

Wednesday, March 25, 2009

Areva: in crisis in France, looking at Idaho

Comment: Series of blogs from New Mexico, they are being attacked by large French corp plus other articles of interest, so much of this can be related back to our county!

Tuesday, March 24, 2009

Areva: in crisis in France, looking at Idaho

As the uranium enrichment plant in New Mexico tests its centrifuges and begins receiving uranium hexafluoride, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission has just accepted for review "an application by Areva Enrichment Services LLC for a license to construct and operate a centrifuge uranium enrichment plant in Bonneville County, Idaho

".Areva, Areva...where did I read that name recently?Oh, right, in this story from the Pacific Free Press, titled, "The Crash of France's Nuclear 'Success'"Here's an excerpt:

Areva, France's nationally-owned corporate atomic façade, has plunged into a deep financial crisis led by a devastating shortage of cash. Electricite de France, the French national utility, has been raided by European Union officials charging that its price-fixing may be undermining competition throughout the continent. Delays and cost overruns continue to escalate at Areva's catastrophic Olkiluoto reactor construction project in Finland.

Areva has admitted to a $2.2 billion, or 55%, cost increase in the Finnish building site after three and a half years. The Flamanville project---the only one now being built in France---is already over $1 billion more expensive than projected after a single year under construction.Here's a second excerpt, but please do read the story in its entirety here:

Widely portrayed as the model of corporate success, reactor-builder Areva is desperately short of money. As it begs a bailout from its dominant owner, the French government, Areva's mismanagement and overextension in promoting and building new reactors has wrecked its image in worldwide capital markets.

According to Mycle Schneider, Paris-based author of "Nuclear Power in France---Beyond the Myth," Areva shares have plunged by over 60% since June 2008, twice as much as the CAC40, the standard indicator of the 40 largest French companies on the stock market.Areva's hyper-active public relations department has made much of recent orders to build two new reactors in China.

But it's now begging France's taxpayers for some $4 billion in short term bailout money, and may need still another $6 billion more to pay for investments in uranium mines, fuel production and heavy manufacturing ventures.Areva will also need more than 2 billion Euros (about US$3 billion) to buy back shares in its nuke reactor unit after Germany's Siemens pulled out of a joint venture.

There have been significant, highly-publicized bumps in the Chinese transaction.

And Areva may now be forced to pony up billions more in penalties from delays and overruns at its reactor construction fiasco in Finland.The Finnish government will also have to meet additional costs from trading in carbon emissions because it had firmly counted on the new reactor to supply "green" power as of this year.

Olkiluoto is now not expected to deliver electricity before 2012.Areva's woes have caused French President Nicolas Sarkozy to face possible job cuts and asset sales at the government-controlled energy giant, which was formed in 2001.

Courtesy of the NRC's press release, here's more information about the Idaho proposal:

The Areva application, minus certain classified and sensitive portions (e.g., proprietary information), is available on the NRC Web site at this page: http://www.nrc.gov/materials/fuel-cycle-fac/arevanc.html. The application has been assigned docket number 70-7015.

Monday, August 18, 2008

SAIC and NRC

There's a very important story in today's Washington Post about conflict of interest, involving the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission and the private company, Science Applications International Corporation, or SAIC. (maybe like the Uranium Study?)

Here's an excerpt:

For years, Science Applications International Corp. served as an adviser to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission on the development of rules for when radioactive materials could be released from nuclear facilities for recycling.

At the same time, SAIC worked as a contractor on just such a recycling project at a Department of Energy facility, but it did not disclose the conflict as required by federal regulations, according to evidence gathered by the Justice Department.

A company executive also helped run an association that advocated for favorable recycling standards, and the firm was planning a business that could have been affected by rules it was helping to write, Justice documents show.

After hearing testimony about SAIC's apparent conflicts of interest, a federal jury recently found the firm guilty of making dozens of false and fraudulent claims for payment relating to the NRC work.


The NRC, by the way, is the federal agency that oversees things like permits for nuclear power plants and uranium mining, as well as radiation protection.

Here's another excerpt:

SAIC provides scientific, engineering and systems integration services to the Pentagon, Department of Homeland Security, intelligence community and other government agencies. More than a third of its 44,000 employees work in the Washington region.
I

n the July 31 decision, a federal jury concluded that the firm's executives knowingly concealed business interests that stood to benefit from its consulting role at the NRC.

It found that SAIC had made 17 false statements and 60 false claims under the Federal False Claims Act.

A U.S. District judge will determine the total amount of fines that SAIC must pay.

Why should anyone in Albuquerque care about such a story?

Aside from the fact that we're like the defense contractor capital of America, and the state hosts two national labs, a stockpile of nuclear weapons, and the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant--we also have an SAIC office here.

Worth paying attention to, for sure. And if you want to read more about SAIC, Vanity Fair ran a story about the company last year, titled Washington's $8 Billion Shadow.

Sunday, August 17, 2008

the temptation of uranium
.
..And here's the Abq Journal perspective on uranium mining.

This story isn't about mining on the Navajo reservation, but rather on the Juan Tafoya Land Grant near Marquez.

Heirs have leased their mineral rights to Neutron Energy. Here's an excerpt:

If Neutron's application is approved by state regulators, the company will reactivate the old Bokum mine and rebuild the old Bokum mill.

Both were built, then abandoned before they ever produced a bucket of ore when the bottom fell out of the uranium market.

There are about 16 million pounds of uranium still under the Juan Tafoya Land Grant and, when the mine and mill are cranking, Neutron envisions 450 full-time jobs here in this isolated spot.And here's another:

At a meeting in Grants earlier this summer to discuss labeling nearly the entire mountain a protected cultural property to require the tribes be consulted before any activity — including mining — was permitted, the high school gym was literally divided: Mining advocates on one side, tribal people on the other.

The 500 or so land grant heirs of Marquez say they respect the people sitting on the other side of the gym, but they have made up their minds.

They can't wait for the mining to begin."The mine will enable us to live here full time," says Martinez, who lives with his family in Albuquerque.

"Our kids will come back to the land. We want an opportunity to make our land better and for our people to continue and to prosper.

"Stories like these kind of break my heart, because yes, rural communities need jobs.

But resource extraction jobs (will they be union jobs? long-term jobs? jobs with health care and benefits?) often leave behind a terrible legacy.

You can read of the lessons the Navajo learned, just by checking out the Dine Natural Resources Protection Act the tribal council passed a few years back.

It's a really powerful document, that lays out the economic, social, cultural, spiritual and environmental why the tribe opposes any more uranium mining on its lands.

Wednesday, March 18, 2009

Uranium mining in Lakota Territory: Hearing over foreign ownership


Monday, March 16, 2009

Uranium Mine Foreign Ownership Hearing: Judges Say Issue Potentially Fatal to Cameco, Inc.

By Debra White Plume
The Atomic Licensing Board Judges Panel have scheduled a hearing for March 24, 2009at 10 am at the Federal Courthouse in Rapid City, SD.

The Foreign Owenership issue is raised by petitioners challenging the Cameco, Inc. license renewal and expansion for the Crow Butte Uranium Mine and its North Trend expansion plan near Crawford, Nebraska.
The petitioners include the Oglala Sioux Tribe, The Black Hills Sioux Nation Treaty Council Oglala Band,Owe Aku, the Western Nebraska Resource Council, American Horse Tiospaye, and several individuals from the Pine Ridge Reservation in South Dakota and the Nebraska panhandle.
On the issue of foreign ownership of the mine and the concealment of that fact, the Judges Panel ruled, "its resolution in this proceeding is potentially fatal to Crow Butte's proposed renewal if its license.

The Board is of the opinion that it is in the best interest in the management of htis proceeding that this issue be segragated from the other contentions and breifed on the merits up front.
"The Atomic Energy Act and other laws prohibit the Nuclear Regulatory Commission from granting an In Situ Leach uranium mining license to a foreign company.

If the March 24 hearing decision rules against the company on the foreign ownership issue, Cameco, Inc. will either lose their license and start 20 years of full time water restoration, or they will have to sell the mine to a U.S. company.
Cameco, Inc. also owns and operates two ISL uranium mines in Wyoming, the Highland and the Smith, both near Douglas, WY which produces 2 million pounds of "yellow cake" each year.

Cameco recently paid the state of Wyoming $1.4 million in fines for license violations, and was fined $100,000 by the state of Nebraska for license violations at their Crow Butte ISL mine near Crawford.
The Crow Butte ISL mine annually produces 800,000 to 1 million pounds of yellow cake.

"We have been notified that the Powertech, Inc. uranium exploration company will send representatives to the hearing", said petitioner Debra White Plume, "as Powertech is also a foreign owned corporation based in Canada who has applied to the US Nuclear
Regulatory Commission for an ISL mining license in the Edgemont area.

The EPA is sending officials to the hearing as well, because Powertech has to apply to the EPA for its Underground Injection Control permit (for permanent storage of waste water) and for its aquifer exemption of the aquifers in the Black Hills.
We have also been told that Uranium One, who is planning to ISL mine for uranium in Wyoming will have company officials at the hearing.

This issue can have an effect on all these uranium mining corporations as they are all foreign owned corporations based in Canada.
"The March 24 hearing is open to the public.
Photo provided by the Lakota Media Project. Contact number: 605-455-2155.Debra White PlumeOwe Aku, Bring Back the Waylakota1@gwtc.netwww.bringbacktheway.com

Thursday, February 12, 2009

Panel says foreign ownership an issue in mine's expansion

By GEORGE LEDBETTER, Record Editor Wednesday, February 11, 2009

The ownership of the Crow Butte Resources uranium mine near Crawford by a Canadian mining company is a legitimate issue for argument in deciding whether the mine should be allowed to expand its operation to a nearby site, a three-member panel of Nuclear Regulatory Commission judges has ruled.

In a decision issued Jan. 27, the NRC judges also said that questions of the impact of low levels of arsenic in water returned to aquifers during mining operations, the relationship between arsenic exposure and diabetes and information about an alleged cluster of pancreatic cancer in the Chadron area can also be raised during hearings on the mine’s proposed North Trend expansion.

The panel, which heard arguments on those issues at a hearing in Chadron in July, had previously granted two organizations-the Western Nebraska Resource Coalition and Owe Aku/Bring Back the Way, a Lakota Indian cultural group based on the Pine Ridge Reservation in South Dakota-and one individual-Debra White Plume-the right to take part in hearings on the expansion project.The Crow Butte mine has been in operation since 1991 and now produces about 800,000 pounds of yellowcake uranium a year.

It is seeking NRC approval to mine on a 2,100 acre site north of Crawford, about seven miles from the existing mine.

Crow Butte has also announced its intention to mine other areas near Crawford, including south of Fort Robinson State Park and northeast of Marsland.Saskatoon, Saskatchewan-based Cameco, the world’s largest uranium producer, owns the Crow Butte Resources mine.

It uses an in-situ leach process to remove uranium from underground sandstone by pumping a sodium bicarbonate solution into the ground, where it dissolves the uranium and then is pumped to the surface for processing into uranium oxide. Water from the process is recycled during mining, and eventually returned to the ground.

Opponents of the mine’s expansion have argued that the process contaminates water under the mine, and that cracks and faults in underground rocks could allow that water to mix with other aquifers that are used by livestock and people.

The same issues have been raised in connection with renewal of the existing mine’s license, a process that has brought a different panel of NRC judges to Chadron for hearings as well.

Administrative judge Ann Marshall Young chairs the NRC’s Atomic Safety and Licensing Board panel that issued the memorandum decision on the expansion permit. The other judges are Fred Oliver and Richard Cole.In their ruling on the expansion project, the NRC judges said that foreign ownership of the mine is a legitimate subject for argument, even though the same owner already holds a permit, and did not attempt to conceal that it is a foreign corporation in the application for expansion.

That’s because of an NRC rule that “issuance of the license will not be inimical to the common defense and security or to the health and safety of the public,” the latest ruling states, and because foreign ownership is key to determining whether the operation is “within the best interests of the US general public.”

One important aspect of foreign ownership, the panel said, is how the NRC could enforce its rulings. “Whatever Crow Butte mine personnel may do with regard to NRC requirements, ultimate control of the Licensee/Applicant appears to rest with Cameco personnel, who are based in Canada, not the United States,” the judges wrote. “These circumstances highlight the significance of the question of the extent to which it is realistic to expect that relevant regulatory requirements could be enforced with Crow Butte if the need ever arose.”

The judges also noted that, although the Crow Butte has applied for an expansion permit, there appears to be no set criteria for judging if a satellite facility such as the North Trend is a part of an existing operation or is actually a new mine.

And since it is acknowledged that the uranium produced at Crow Butte is exported to Canada, the opponents should be allowed to argue whether its use might be harmful to national security, the panel said.“Clearly, if the applicant in even a license amendment proceeding were controlled by foreign nationals who presented some security risk to the United States...this would be within the scope of the proceeding.

It does not logically follow that the identity of the nation in question should affect the issue of scope,” the ruling says. “Very much in dispute are questions of the factual and legal ramifications of Cameco’s ownership of Applicant Crow Butte Resources, Inc. And these include...the fundamental question of the ability to assure compliance with NRC rules relating to the proposed expansion site.”

The admission of what opponents called new evidence regarding the link between arsenic and diabetes into its arguments against the mine expansion required less explanation by the judges.

That issue is related to a previously admitted contention that mixing of contaminated groundwater in the mined aquifer with water in other aquifers and drainage into the White River could result in harm to public health, they said.

Other decisions included in the January memorandum included:•allowing the Black Hills Delegation of the Great Sioux Nation Treaty Council to participate in the license proceedings and• denial of a request to conduct the license hearing under ‘Subpart G’ rules, which have rules of evidence, discovery and questioning of witnesses similar to a courtroom trial.

Although that request was denied, the judges recommended that the NRC order a Subpart G hearing in the matter. “Opening the proceeding up to the greater transparency associated with a Subpart G hearing would be entirely appropriate,” the memorandum says.

Dates for further action in the license application process have not been set.

Friday, January 30, 2009

Ont. mayors want answers over radioactive spill

Thu, January 29, 2009
Pembroke, Petawawa officials say they have a right to know of incidents at Chalk River
By SEAN CHASE, Sun Media

PEMBROKE - Mayor Ed Jacyno is asking why Atomic Energy of Canada did not inform area municipalities after a radioactive spill at Chalk River in December.

In the wake of Sun Media reports that radioactive tritium and contaminated heavy water leaked from the National Research Universal (NRU) reactor, questions are being raised by municipalities living downstream from the nuclear facility.

Jacyno said Wednesday he believes federal regulators require AECL to tell the public that an incident has taken place.

"As we are living downstream, we do expect to get notification," said Jacyno. "We need to know what's going on when there is an occurrance. Why did it occur six weeks after the fact?"

During the incident on Dec. 5, amounts of tritium were released into the air at the NRU reactor.

AECL officials contained another

The NRU, which produces 70 per cent of the world's medical isotopes, was shutdown briefly.

The leak was revealled in an internal report to the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission (CNSC) that was obtained by Sun Media.

The nuclear regulator also said another part of the reactor has been leaking water from a 2.4 inch crack in a weld. Technicians have been pumping water into the unit to replace the estimated 7,000 litres a day that has been spewing from the seam.

The CNSC said the water has "a very low level of radioactivity." The water is being dumped into the Ottawa River.

Sitting 16 km south of the Chalk River Laboratories, Petawawa is the first downstream municipality in the vicinity. Mayor Bob Sweet said he is concerned that they were not informed of the spill.

"We should have been made aware of it," said Sweet. "I don't think there was any intent to cover anything up, but I think they had an obligation to tell us."

The internal report stated there was no threat to the health of workers and the tritium, a radioactive isotope of hydrogen, released into the air posed no significant danger to the environment.

Jacyno takes AECL at their word that the situation was contained. He noted that the company has maintained good relations with the area and pointed to a protocal in which Chalk River officials meet quarterly with municipal leaders from Pembroke, Petawawa and Pontiac County to keep them apprised of developments at the facility.

The mayor has since fired off a letter to Shaun Cotnam, AECL manager of site and community affairs, seeking an explanation.

"They have been a good neighbour, but we're dealing with a product that could have an impact on those living downstream," he said. "It may have been an oversight, but it's unacceptable."

Monday, January 26, 2009

Uranium Mining in Canada – Past and Present

Uranium Mining in Canada – Past and Present

Background notes for a presentation to the Indigenous World Uranium Summit
November 30-December 1, 2006
Window Rock, Arizona
Jamie Kneen, MiningWatch Canada


Historic Mines – underground mines, tailings unconfined at older mines (dumped on land and/or in lakes) and in dry or underwater dams (natural lakes or valleys) at newer mines (1950s and later):1
 Port Radium (Eldorado mine), Northwest Territories
o Pitchblende was discovered at Great Bear Lake in the Northwest Territories in 1930. In 1943, in order to gain control of all sources of uranium in their respective countries, the governments of Canada, the United Kingdom and the United States banned all private exploration for, and development of, radioactive materials. The federal government established a Crown corporation, Eldorado Mining and Refining Limited, to oversee Canadian uranium interests.

This company expropriated the uranium mine at Port Radium and was given a monopoly in all uranium prospecting and developing activities.2 The Port Radium site was decommissioned in 1984. Clean-up and reclamation work recently undertaken.

 Rayrock mine, Northwest Territories
o Staked in 1948; development underway by Rayrock Mines Limited in 1955. Production
commenced in 1957 and ceased due to lack of economic reserves in 1959. A small townsite built by the company was in operation during this period. The mine employed 135 men in 1958 and the townsite had 20 families as residents. The Rayrock site was abandoned in 1959.3 Indian and Northern Affairs Canada began the decommissioning and rehabilitation of the Rayrock site including capping of the tailings in 1996. Environmental monitoring of long-term performance of the decommissioned site began in 1998.

 Bancroft, Ontario
1 Details of tailings amounts, disposal, and chemical and radiological characterization are mostly not included here.
2 http://interactive.usask.ca/ski/mining/search/mineral_types/energy/uranium/history_uranium.html 3 Inventory of Radioactive Waste in Canada LLRWMO-GN-TR-99-037. Low-Level Radioactive Waste Management Office, November 1999 http://www.llrwmo.org/en/programs/ongoing/inventory.pdf

IWUS: Uranium Extraction Methods and Regulatory Issues in Canada page 2

o Madawaska Mine/Faraday Mine Discovered and originally staked in 1949 by A.H. Shore of Bancroft. Underground development started in 1954 by Faraday Uranium Mines Ltd. Production started 1957 and lasted until 1964 when contracts to sell uranium expired.
Mining operations were resumed in 1975 by Madawaska Mines Ltd.; the 444m shaft was deepened to 473m. Production began in 1976 and lasted until 1982. Other workings underground include a 50m shaft and three adits. 2,544,716 tons of ore were produced, averaging .1074% U3O8.4 AEC West Ltd. has completed decommissioning activities at the Madawaska site.
o Operations at the Dyno and Bicroft sites ceased in the early 1960s. AEC West is completing rehabilitation activities at the Dyno Mine; Barrick Properties has been carrying out decommissioning activities at the Bicroft Mine.

Agnew Lake (north of Espanola, Ontario)
o The mine was operated by Kerr Addison Mines Ltd. between 1977 and early 1983 and produced a total of 855,000 kg of U3O8 from approximately 2.8 million tonnes of ore. The underground mine was developed to over 980 m in depth.5 The site was turned over to the province in the early 1990s.

Elliot Lake, Ontario
o Uranium discovered in 1953
o The Lacnor Mine operated from 1957 to 1960, producing 2.7 million tonnes of waste. (Rio Algom)
o The Nordic Mine operated from 1957 to 1968 and produced 12 million tonnes of waste. (Rio Algom)
o The Panel Mine and Mill produced uranium from 1958 to 1961, and then again from 1979 to 1990. It produced 16 million tonnes of waste. (Rio Algom)
o The Pronto Mine and Mill processed 2.1 million tonnes of uranium ore between 1955 and 1960, when the mill was converted to process copper. Copper processing continued until 1970. The Pronto Mill produced 4 million tonnes of waste. (Rio Algom)
o The Quirke Mine (1 and 2) and Mill operated from 1956 to 1961, and then from 1968 to 1990. It produced 46 million tonnes of tailings and waste rock. (Rio Algom)
o The Spanish-American mill operated from 1958 to 1959 and dumped 400,000 tonnes of waste in Oliver Lake. (Rio Algom)
o The Milliken and Stanleigh mines and mills produced 20 million tonnes of waste and tailings. The Milliken mill operated from 1958 to 1964, and the Stanleigh mill operated from 1957 to 1960, and again from 1983 to 1996. (Rio Algom)
o Denison Mines Limited operated in Elliot Lake from 1957 to March 1992, producing about 70 million tonnes of waste at the Stanrock (inactive since 1964), Can-Met, and Denison (inactive since 1992) mines.
o By 1976 all 55 miles of the Serpent River system were badly contaminated with acid generating, highly radioactive wastes. An official Ontario report noted that there were no living fish in the entire river located downstream from the mining wastes.
o In 1978 alone, more than 30 tailing dam failures were reported.
o In August 1993, two million litres of contaminated water spilled from a tailings site at Rio Algom’s Stanleigh mine as a result of a power failure. Rio Algom was charged by the Atomic Energy Control Board with one count of failure to provide appropriate training for its employees, and one count of failure to prevent the spill under “reasonably foreseeable

4 http://www.mindat.org/loc-542.html Ref.: Geol. Survey of Canada, Misc Report 39; Rocks & Min.:59:206-210
5 Ontario Geological Survey Open File Report 6185: Report of Activities, 2005 Resident Geologist Program,
Kirkland Lake Regional Resident Geologist Report: Sudbury District, 2006
http://www.mndm.gov.on.ca/mndm/mines/ims/pub/roa/roapdfs/ofr6185.pdf

IWUS: Uranium Extraction Methods and Regulatory Issues in Canada page 3

circumstances”. The radiologically and chemically contaminated water spilled into McCabe Lake.
Uranium City, Saskatchewan
o Uranium deposits were first found at Goldfields in the Beaverlodge area north of Lake
Athabasca in 1935-36. In 1944 Eldorado staked mineral claims in the region. In 1946 the Atomic Energy Control Act was passed in the House of Commons to regulate all operations of the industry. Regulation was administered from Ottawa by the Atomic Energy Control Board.
By March 1951 and after further exploration in the area, sufficient ore deposits had been
identified to warrant a mine and mill. Production commenced in May 1953 and exploration activity increased, resulting in further finds and the establishment of as many as 12 uranium mines and three mills in the Beaverlodge area by 1958. Eldorado operated the Beaverlodge mine and mill continuously for 29 years, closing in 1982.
o In 1952 the town of Uranium City was established in the area of Beaverlodge. Buildings from Goldfields were moved to the site.
o In 1955, Gunnar Mines Limited, a private uranium mining company, began production in the Beaverlodge area.
o In 1957, Lorado Uranium Mines Limited, a private company, began production in the
Beaverlodge area. Numerous small mines like Nisto operated in the Beaverlodge area, using Eldorado and Lorado milling facilities.
o In 1960, Lorado Uranium Mines Limited closed.
o In 1964, Gunnar Mines Limited closed due to depletion of ore body. Eldorado was the only uranium production company in Saskatchewan.
o Between 1953 and 1982 Eldorado mines in the Beaverlodge area produced some 45 million lbs of uranium concentrate (U3O8). Production of ore and yellowcake peaked in 1959/60 and 1967/8.
o The Beaverlodge operation was decommissioned in 1985 and is monitored by Cameco.

“Modern” mines: All are in northern Saskatchewan. Open pit and underground operations, some using freezing and remote control mining techniques; tailings in surface dams and mined-out pits using “hydraulic containment” to control groundwater contamination:6

Cluff Lake (Areva):
o Discovered in 1971
o Mining began in 1980
o Deposits include: OP underground mine (1983-85), Dominique-Janine open pit mine (1989-90) and extension (1994-97), Janine North open pit mine (1990-91), Dominique Peter and Dominique Janine West mines (1998-1999), and West Dominique Janine underground mine (1994-2002)7
o Mill initially separated radioactive components of tailings for storage in concrete barrels, which leaked.
o On March 24, 1998, the AECB (Atomic Energy Control Board) denied a two year licence renewal. Instead, AECB approved an extension to the licence expiring March 31, 1998 for nine months, subject to several conditions. This decision reflects a number of deficiencies identified by AECB at the Cluff Lake site:
the recent detection of increased radium levels in a lake located next to the tailings
management facility
,
6 Ore reserves and details of processing and tailings disposal are not included here.

7 http://www.ir.gov.sk.ca/dbsearch/MinDepositQuery/default.aspx?ID=2153 \

IWUS: Uranium Extraction Methods and Regulatory Issues in Canada page 4

 the recent twofold increase in workers’ radiation exposure,
 the insufficience of the tailings management facility’s capacity (by the end of 1996, there was capacity for a production of one more year, while mining is scheduled to continue for ten years),

 Cogema’s inadequate project management capabilities at Cluff Lake.8
o Closed 2002

 Key Lake (Cameco/Areva):
o Discovered in 1975
o Mining began in 1983
o Open pit mines and mill
o Gaertner ore body mined out in 1987
o In September, 2004, the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission approved the renewal of the mining operating licence for the Key Lake Operation although the tailings disposal in the Deilmann open pit suffers from periodic sloughing of the pit sidewalls. One million cubic metres of sand have already slumped into the tailings, and another half a million cubic metres may follow. This sloughing not only decreases the capacity of the tailings disposal facility, it moreover distorts the performance of the facility in the long term which is based on the impermeability of the tailings.
o Still operating as mill for McArthur River ore; Deilmann pit to receive tailings

 Rabbit Lake/Collins Bay (Cameco):
o Discovered in 1968
o Mining started in 1975
o Deposits include mined-out original Rabbit Lake open pit and Collins Bay A-, B- and D-zone pits as well as Eagle Point underground (incline access) mine
o In 1989, 2 million litres of radioactive water spilled into Wollaston Lake; the company was charged and eventually pled guilty, attracting a $5000 federal and a $55,000 provincial fine.
o Eagle Point still in operation
o Mill to process half of Cigar Lake ore

 McArthur River (Cameco/Areva):
o Discovered in 1988
o Mining began in 1999
o Ore is frozen and removed by raise boring and boxhole boring remote mining methods and slurried to surface for milling
o On April 7, 2003, Cameco suspended production due to underground flood; resumed operation on July 2, 2003.

 McClean Lake (Areva):
o Discovered in 1979
o Mining began in 1995
o JEB open pit, McClean North & South underground mines, Sue C open pit
o Open pit and underground mines

 Cigar Lake (Cameco/Areva/Idemitsu/KEPCO)
o Discovered in 1981
o Jet boring remote mining method proposed
o Underground flooded October 23, 2006 – production development delayed at least 2 years

8 AECB News Release 98-07 http://www.aecb-ccea.gc.ca/news_rel/9807_e.htm

IWUS: Uranium Extraction Methods and Regulatory Issues in Canada page 5

 Midwest (Denison/Areva/OURD):
o Underground test mine – not yet developed
Exploration – a long way from mine development even in previously explored areas; 3-5 years at the earliest
 Athabasca Basin (northern Saskatchewan) – unconformity-type deposits
 Thelon Basin (Northwest Territories/Nunavut) – similar to Athabasca Basin
 Southern British Columbia – uranium-rich sedimentary strata like Wyoming’s
 Labrador and western Newfoundland – lower-grade but substantial deposits
Commissions of Inquiry and Environmental Assessments (EAs)
 Bayda Commission, a.k.a. Cluff Lake Board of Inquiry (Province of Saskatchewan, 1977-1978)  Kitts-Michelin Uranium Project (Province of Newfoundland, 1979)
 Key Lake Board of Inquiry (Province of Saskatchewan, 1979)
 Bates Commission, a.k.a. Royal Commission of Inquiry into Health and Environmental Protection in Uranium Mining in British Columbia (1980)
 Nova Scotia Uranium Inquiry under Mr. Justice McCleave (1985)
 Kiggavik Environmental Assessment Panel (federal, 1989-90)
 Environmental Assessment Panel: Rabbit Lake Uranium Mining (federal, 1993): expansion of the Rabbit Lake mine to include Eagle Point underground mine and A- and D-Zone open pit operations.
 Joint Federal-Provincial Panel on Uranium Mining Developments in Northern Saskatchewan (1991-1997): Environmental Assessment of McArthur River, Cigar Lake, Deilmann Pit (Key Lake),
McClean Lake and Midwest Projects.


Environmental Assessment Issues

McLean Lake Court Case
 On July 22, 1999, ICUC applied to the Federal Court, Trial Division to review the AECB’s decision to licence the grant an operating licence for the JEB Uranium Tailings Facility at the McLean Lake uranium mine without a full environmental assessment.

 On September 23, 2002, Federal Court Judge Campbell ruled that a Judicial Review was necessary for the AECB decision. The operating licence for the JEB nuclear waste facility is quashed; the mine continues to operate without a licence.

 On Nov. 7, 2002, the Federal Court of Appeal granted a stay of the Federal Court decision, allowing the mine to operate legally.

 On June 4, 2004, the Federal Court of Appeals overturned the Federal Court decision.

 On March 24, 2005, the Supreme Court of Canada dismissed ICUCEC’s request to appeal the Federal Court of Appeal decision and awarded costs against ICUCEC.
Rabbit Lake/Collins Bay A-zone Decommissioning

 On October 24, 2003, the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission (CNSC) announced its decision to renew the operating licence for Cameco Corporation’s Rabbit Lake uranium mine in northern Saskatchewan. As part of this licence, the company will be allowed to breach the dike that separates the mined-out Collins Bay A-Zone pit from Wollaston Lake itself.

MiningWatch Canada was among the intervenors who demanded an environmental assessment of this decommissioning plan.

IWUS: Uranium Extraction Methods and Regulatory Issues in Canada page 6

In fact, no environmental or public consultation information was brought before the Commissioners, although this did not seem to bother them.

 In a public meeting in spring 2003, people in the community of Wollaston Lake told the company in no uncertain terms they did not want the dike breached at all.
The CNSC determined that breaching the dike is not “decommissioning” but rather part of the “ongoing site rehabilitation” and therefore no EA is required, much less meaningful consultation with the affected Athabasca Denesuliné First Nations and accommodation of their interests on Crown lands.
Joint Federal-Provincial Panel on Uranium Mining Developments in Northern Saskatchewan
 Serious weaknesses in Panel process led to two Panel members and several intervenors withdrawing:
o Dr. Annalee Yassi, University of Manitoba occupational and environmental health professor, resigned from the panel on August 15, 1996.
o John Dantouze, vice-chief with the Prince Albert Grand Council, and only aboriginal member of the panel, resigned from the panel on October 1, 1996.
o The Inter-Church Uranium Committee (ICUC) withdrew from the participation in the review process.
o The mayors of four Northern Saskatchewan communities announced on October 1, 1996, that they would not allow the scheduled public hearings to be held in their communities.
Cluff Lake Decommissioning

 On April 15, 2004, Environment Minister David Anderson announced that the decommissioning of the Cluff Lake Uranium Mine and Mill facility does not require further assessment by a review panel or mediator under the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act. The Minister referred the
project, proposed by COGEMA Resources Inc., back to the federal responsible authority, the CNSC, for appropriate action.


Kiggavik Project
 In a March 26, 1990, municipal plebiscite the Baker Lake community voted 90.2% against the proposal.
 The EIS was deemed deficient by the Panel; on July 5, 1990 the proponent asked for “indefinite delay” in proceedings.9


Kitts-Michelin Project
 Brinex (British Newfoundland Exploration) discovered uranium in 1977 and planned an open pit mine at Michelin and an underground mine at Kitts. Brinex submitted a revised EIS in 1979 and the provincial government held public hearings; the Labrador Inuit Association and local people (Inuit and settlers) from Makkovik and Postville expressed strong opposition to the proposal and on May 29, 1980, Premier Brian Peckford announced a moratorium on uranium mining in the Province of Newfoundland, saying the proponent had failed to satisfy the government “it can and will safely and permanently dispose of the waste materials (tailings)” and that its social impact studies were “woefully inadequate”.10

Nova Scotia – A moratorium on uranium exploration, declared in 1984, expired on January 1, 1995.

British Columbia – In 1980, premier Bill Bennett bowed to public pressure and introduced a seven-year moratorium on uranium mining and exploration. It was not renewed.

9 The Gulliver UG (Urangesellschaft) Dossier, http://www.sea-us.org.au/gulliver/ug.html
10 The Gulliver File: Mines, people and land: a global battleground. Roger Moody. Minewatch, London, 1992.

Wednesday, January 14, 2009

Virginia Uranium's Canadian Ties Cause For Concern

Letter to the Editor

Chatham Star-Tribune

Wednesday, January 14, 2009 9:42 AM EST



Concerning Walter Coles' Jan. 7 letter, it is nice to see someone from Virginia Uranium finally admit that the company is not Virginia owned, even though you have to dig to find the admission - "Virginia Uranium Holdings, the parent company of Virginia Uranium Inc....[is] registered in Canada...."

It is quite irrelevant that the Coles and Bowen families presently control the Canadian company.

It is amusing that Virginia Uranium spokesmen accuse the Piedmont Environmental Council of finding Canadians sinister (Patrick Wales, Dec. 31, 2008, letter to Virginian- Pilot) and foreigners scary (Coles, Jan. 7, 2009 letter).

We simply have observed that Virginia Uranium is foreign owned, which it is, and expressed concern.

People incorporate in different states or countries for various reasons. Limitation of liability and protection against litigation are both reasons for doing this.

Indeed, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission is now deciding whether certain uranium licenses can be issued to any U.S. company controlled by a foreign entity and whether such control is inimical to national interests - including health and environmental protections.



These questions are equally relevant to the Virginia debate.

W. Todd Benson

Piedmont Environmental Council

Warrenton

http://www.wpcva.com/articles/2009/01/14/chatham/opinion/opinion04.txt