Concerns and Delights

Nuclear Key to Senate Climate Bill (?)

2009-10-28T09:44:00.001-04:00

A three-day round of hearings over a companion bill to the cap-and-trade legislation passed in the House last May begins today in the Senate. The bill has been introduced by Democrat Barbara Boxer of California, head of the Environment and Public Works Committee, and Massachusetts Senator John Kerry.

It seems the call for cap-and-trade climate change legislation could breathe new life into the US nuclear industry as Democrats make concessions to Republicans in order to get the bill passed before President Barak Obama heads to the UN Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen this December.

While speaking at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology on Friday, President Obama urged the Senate to get the job done saying new energy and climate legislation is essential and should include “safe nuclear power” along with other renewable energies.

The House bill includes a cap-and-trade emissions reduction plan that mandates the use of renewable energy by utilities and allows polluters to buy and sell permits for emissions. It is expected to bring in billions of dollars and reduce carbon dioxide emissions 17 per cent by 2020 and over 80 per cent by 2050.

While most Senate Democrats support cap-and-trade legislation, getting Republicans to back it is a different story. It is this split along party lines that the nuclear industry stands to benefit from as Democrats make concessions in order to bring reluctant Republicans to the bargaining table.

Those in the nuclear power sector have been working hard to push the idea that nuclear energy is green energy because it doesn’t emit carbon dioxide emissions. But, of course, many environmentalists are still opposed to its inclusion under the clean energy umbrella.

via uraniuminvestingnews.com

This article in Uranium Investing News caught my eye this morning for two reasons:

1) I found this article's argument that cap-and-trade as an open door to nuclear power interesting, since no one act of government can grant permission for nuclear power unless people want it. I have told many pro-nuclear people that I am not against nuclear power over and over again. What I am against is the way these plants use power. The use of fossil fuels to generate energy for these plants as well as the uranium mining process that supplies the base energy for the plants both are not "clean." Both the fossil fuel use and uranium mining make nuclear power one of the least clean forms of alternative energy.

2) The words, "of course," which are found in the last paragraph, are rarely used today in journalism. Those two words, used together, are reminiscent of the royal "we," which is a pompous way to inform readers and listeners that the writer or speaker is 'above the crowd' with his or her knowledge.

"Of course," assumes that whatever the writer or speaker says is correct and without argument. In this day and age, no fact is absolutely grounded except the laws of physics, and some folks even try to defy those. In the case of this article (follow the link to read the rest of the story), "of course" is used to denigrate environmentalists by showing that "many" environmentalists do not know what they are talking about.

But, many environmentalists do know what they are talking about. They work hard to learn the facts and they would not be environmentalists if they did not care about what those facts meant to humans, to animals and to the current and future environment.

Using the words, "of couse," is a tool that many writers use to pull an argument in one direction. It is a biased and unnecessary tool to use when a writer has a strong argument that makes sense. The use of "of course" in this article is one reason why I wonder about the veracity of this argument. In the process, I need to consider the source, especially since this article is provided by a uranium investing newsletter.

PS - the headline? Nuclear is not key to the senate climate bill. The nuclear industry currently is not that powerful. It's more like the senate climate bill is key to the nuclear industry.

Posted via web from appomattox's posterous

Radioactive Rabbit Poop Part Of Hanford Nuclear Reservation Cleanup (VIDEO)

2009-10-20T09:57:00.001-04:00

The Hanford nuclear reservation in Washington state produced most of the plutonium our nation used from the the beginning of the atomic bomb through the 1980s. As one can imagine, this production also led to massive amounts of toxic waste. However, one of its sources is not part of the usual suspects.

The area is the focus of the largest environmental cleanup operation in the country right now, and that includes scrubbing all the rabbit feces because it is radioactive. The jackrabbits have taken quite a liking to the nuclear sludge, which contains a radioactive salt that they can't get enough of. According to the Seattle Post-Intelligencer,

Jackrabbits routinely burrowed into those sites. They found the salt, liked it, and licked it. Later, they pooped it, leaving slightly radioactive scat all over the ground.

via huffingtonpost.com

Visit the link to watch the video. While this story has led to many jokes in the commentary, think for a moment about the implications of this event and how the rabbits are 1) food for prey, spreading that radioactive meat to other animals of prey, and; 2) how that scat might affect crops or native flora. While rabbits seem like small impact, they do proliferate wildly. Just ask the Australians about their ongoing rabbit problem.

My question is this: Is anyone conducting studies on how the radioactive waste is affecting the rabbits over the long term? Or, how that scat might affect the soil? Is this really a problem, if people avoid eating rabbit? Are rabbits one method to eliminate toxic waste, or at least mitigate it? Or, will PETA eat ME for lunch?

Posted via web from appomattox's posterous

Daniel Kessler: Boxer-Kerry Climate Bill Greenwashes Nuclear Power

2009-10-02T11:41:00.001-04:00

If the Senators actually want to abate climate change rather than merely enriching nuclear corporations, we need solutions that are fast, safe and affordable, and that rules out nuclear power. The Congressional Budget Office has already determined that the risk of default on the nuclear loan guarantees congress will supply to the nuclear industry is well above 50%. Is it really the Senator's intent to support the next taxpayer bailout?

Mid American, a subsidiary of Warren Buffet's Berkshire Hathaway, has already conducted their economic due diligence on a new nuclear plant and determined that
it does not make economic sense to build. If the "world's greatest investor" will not waste his resources on new nuclear power, perhaps the Senate should listen.

But Warren Buffet's corporation isn't the only one who thinks nuclear power is an economic non-starter. In April, Jon Wellinghoff, the chairman of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, stated that new nuclear and coal plants are not needed. Renewable energy like wind & solar and improvements in energy efficiency will provide enough energy to meet our future energy demands. Wellinghoff concluded that nuclear and coal plants are too expensive.

In June, Moody's Investor Services released their analysis of new nuclear generation
and determined that nuclear power was a "bet the farm" risk. Why should the American taxpayer be expected to support such an investment?

The history of nuclear power plant cost overruns that led Forbes magazine to call nuclear power the "largest managerial disaster in business history" is repeating itself with the current generation of nuclear reactors. Last month, the French nuclear giant, Areva announced that they had lost 550 million euros, a 79% drop in their profits, due to construction delays with their reactor in Finland. According to Areva, the 3-billion euro nuclear plant has now accumulated 2.3 billion euros in estimated losses. Does the Senate really want to repeat this fiscal fiasco in the U.S.?

via huffingtonpost.com

The comments above contain the best arguments in this article, along with links. One point that is not included is the BBB (Better Business Bureau) when they declared in 1998 that the Nuclear Energy Institute's ads falsely claimed that nuclear reactors make power without polluting the air and water or damaging the environment. The BBB said that, "The nuclear industry should stop calling itself 'environmentally clean' and should stop saying it makes power 'without polluting the environment.'" The director of the division said such claims were "unsupportable." The bureau agreed with environmentalists that nuclear fuel is made using electricity from coal plants and that nuclear waste poses a threat to the public health and safety (http://www.nytimes.com/1998/12/10/business/media-business-advertising-better-business-bureau-says-nuclear-group-ran-false.html?sec=&spon=&pagewanted=all%3Cbr%20/%3E )

Jim Riccio continues, "Nuclear power is a deadly and dangerous distraction from real solutions to climate change and our energy needs. Nuclear power is unsafe, uneconomical & unnecessary. Rather than greenwashing nuclear power, Senators Boxer and Kerry should cut the nuclear title from their bill and work to oppose any attempts to support this failed experiment."

Posted via web from appomattox's posterous

150 AREVA Jobs Leaving Lynchburg | ABC 13

2009-09-30T08:29:00.001-04:00

Lynchburg, VA - One of Lynchburg's largest employers has announced it is eliminating 150 jobs from a plant in the Hill city.
The AREVA facility at Mount Athos plans to consolidate its nuclear fuel fabrication operations. They'll be moving it all to a plant in Richland, Washington.
These changes are set to begin in about six months. AREVA officials say the transition will begin next spring, so those affected will have time to make plans.

via wset.com

Areva, a French company, has had financial difficulties lately as have many other companies throughout the world. This particular plant produces fuel assemblies, which makes the parts used in nuclear facilities throughout the world. They are relocating to "increase efficiency and save operating cost."

This story basically reads that 300 jobs are moving out of Lynchburg as about 150 out of 300 jobs at the Lynchburg location are promised other positions within the company, whicle the other 150 employees could be relocated.

Richland, Washington - where the Lynchburg plant is relocating - is focused on nuclear energy since WWII, according to Wikipedia. "It has been the home of Pacific Northwest National Laboratory(PNNL) since 1965. One of the two Laser Interferometer Gravitational-Wave Observatory sites is located immediately north of Richland. Numerous smaller high technology business and expert consultants have grown up around the Richland technology center as well.

"Major employers include Battelle Memorial Institute operating PNNL, Bechtel National Inc. building a waste vitrification plant, Washington River Protection Solutions controlling operations of the nuclear waste tank farms, Washington Closure providing waste management and cleanup efforts including decontamination and demolition (D&D) of facilities along the Columbia River, CH2M Hill Plateau Remediation Company responsible for D&D of facilities on the site's Central Plateau, Duratek Federal Services, Inc. providing services to the U.S. government, Energy Northwest generating nuclear power at a nearby reactor facility, Areva creating nuclear fuel, Lockheed Martin Services, Inc. providing technology services and the U.S. Department of Energy which operates the Hanford Site."

Today, Hanford is the most contaminated nuclear site in the United States and is the focus of the nation's largest environmental cleanup.

Posted via web from appomattox's posterous

Green forum for House candidates spurs talk about oil | HamptonRoads.com | PilotOnline.com

2009-09-25T15:37:00.001-04:00

Six candidates for the House of Delegates flashed their green credentials Wednesday night to about 100 residents at a forum on environmental issues. While they all showed love for the comeback of Lynnhaven River oysters, the sharpest ideological contrasts emerged on offshore drilling, a proposed uranium mine and global warming.

The forum, at Cape Henry Collegiate School, was sponsored by Lynnhaven River NOW, an environmental advocacy group. With the exception of few barbs traded at the end by Republican Del. Bob Purkey and his challenger, Peter Schmidt, there was little mudslinging.

via hamptonroads.com

Del. Joe Bouchard was involved in this forum, and he has spoken out before against uranium mining in Pittsylvania County. He made a puzzling remark in this article, stating that global warming is not a threat to the economy. One comment below this story may clear up that stance, as it appears that the paper may have misrepresented Bouchard's statement.

According to the commenter, Bouchard stated that "efforts to limit our contributions to global warming need not harm the economy, but iwll actually provide opportunities for economic growth through the development of renewable energy sources and green jobs."

At the forum, Bouchard also expressed sentiment against drilling offshore for oil. "The Navy has said we are absolutely opposed to drilling," said Bouchard, former commanding officer of Norfolk Naval Station and director of government sales for Cox Communications.

Chris Stolle, an obstetrician/gynecologist and vice president of medical affairs at Riverside Regional Medical Center who is facing a rematch with Bouchard to represent the 83rd District, responded, "Jobs are a darn good reason to drill offshore...The Navy is not a problem."

Stolle is brother to state Senator Ken Stolle.

The paper also stated:

Republicans at the forum said it's important to explore uranium mining at a site in Pittsylvania County.

"We've got to let the science play out," said Republican Ron Villanueva, a Beach councilman and defense contractor challenging Democrat Del. Bobby Mathieson, a retired police officer now working for a security firm. They're vying to represent the 21st District.

Mathieson and other Democrats said the risk of the proposed mine contaminating Lake Gaston, Virginia Beach's water supply, is too great.

"We spent too many years trying to get that water," he said.

Posted via web from appomattox's posterous

A Simple Statement On Nuclear Power and Climate Change - NIRS

2009-09-09T16:01:00.001-04:00

We're getting a little tired hearing nuclear industry lobbyists and pro-nuclear politicians allege that environmentalists are now supporting nuclear power as a means of addressing the climate crisis. We know that's not true, and we're sure you do too. In fact, using nuclear power would be counterproductive at reducing carbon emissions. As Amory Lovins of Rocky Mountain Institute points out, "every dollar invested in nuclear expansion will worsen climate change by buying less solution per dollar...

via nirs.org

More than 11,000 people already have signed the NIRS statement on nuclear power and climate. It's endorsed by 675 organizations so far, from 48 states and Washington, DC and from every corner of the globe. NIRS is going to take this list of organizations and hand-deliver it to every Senator at the end of September, along with the thousands of postcards they've been collecting. And they want the list to be as complete as possible.

The statement itself is simple but in the context of the upcoming climate bill in the Senate, hard-hitting: "We do not support construction of new nuclear reactors as a means of addressing the climate crisis. Available renewable energy and energy efficiency technologies are faster, cheaper, safer and cleaner strategies for reducing greenhouse emissions than nuclear power."

If you have not signed this petition, please do so now, and send invitations to your friends to sign it as well. Nuclear power is not renewable energy, nor is it clean. This greenwashing needs to stop, and only you can stop the movement toward this expensive and counterproductive measure to develop more nuclear power plants.

Go to: http://www.nirs.org/petition2/index.php

Posted via web from appomattox's posterous

Africa Joins the Nuclear-Free Club - Will this stop Africa being dumping site? | Environment | News - insidesomalia.org

2009-08-26T12:11:00.001-04:00

Africa, the second-largest continent after Asia, has now become the world's largest nuclear-free zone comprising 53 countries with about a billion people. This means denuclearisation of one of the richest uranium producing regions.
The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and the African Union (AU) announced mid-August that the African Nuclear-Weapon-Free Zone (NWFZ) Treaty has come into force.
This was after Burundi became the 28th African state to ratify the treat Jul. 15. Algeria and Burkina Faso were the first African countries to ratify it in 1998, two years after its signature.
Its entry comes amidst reports of intensive exploitation of uranium mines in Africa by European and Chinese-backed multinational corporations. It now ensures that the southern hemisphere is now free of nuclear weapons.
Under the treaty all parties are required to conclude comprehensive safeguards agreements with the IAEA. These agreements are equivalent to those required under the Treaty on Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT).

via insidesomalia.org

France depends entirely on uranium exploitation in Niger to operate its 58 nuclear power plants. Africa is also reported to be one of the largest nuclear, radioactive and toxic waste-dumping sites, together with Southeast Asia. Somalia is reported to be a major nuclear waste dumping site.

Posted via web from appomattox's posterous

USEC Appoints Christine M. Ciccone Senior Vice President

2009-08-24T12:13:00.001-04:00

USEC Inc. (NYSE:USU) announced today that Christine M. Ciccone, Esq., has been appointed senior vice president of external relations. Ciccone will lead the Company’s public policy efforts with the U.S. government, media and other external stakeholders as well as develop and implement strategic communication plans companywide. She will report to John K. Welch, president and chief executive officer.

via earthtimes.org

I don't know why I find it interesting that Ms. Ciccone is a member of the Virginia State Bar. With that said, USEC has been mentioned on this blog previously - it currently is the only uranium enrichment plant for commercial nuclear power plants in the U.S. Read more at USEC Web site: http://www.usec.com/

Posted via web from appomattox's posterous

61st Virginia Conference Focuses on Trade w/France, Poland, UK and Asia

2009-08-20T10:18:00.001-04:00

Governor Timothy M. Kaine today announced that the Commonwealth will host the 61st Virginia Conference on World Trade October 14-15 at the Dulles Westfields Marriott in Chantilly. Virginia companies will have the opportunity to learn more about global infrastructure business opportunities at the annual conference, hosted by the Virginia Economic Development Partnership and the Virginia Port Authority.

via appomattoxnews.com

Virginia Economic Development Partnership and the Virginia Port Authority are providing the forum (which begins with a golf tournament). Jacques Besnainou, President of AREVA, Inc. will open the conference. AREVA is focused on nuclear energy, a fact that is neglected in this press release. BAE Systems will provide its "global perspective" during a luncheon keynote address. BAE Systems is focused on defense, security and aerospace.

Arvea, headquartered in Lynchburg, is a French company. BAE Systems is a UK company. Hence, the global perspective. "United Kingdom Trade and Investment, Invest in France and the Embassy of Poland will provide an international perspective on global infrastructure initiatives."

Finally, "Advantages of the Virginia Inland Port will also be addressed, along with getting products to Asia on all water routes."

Posted via web from appomattox's posterous

Editorial: Educate Yourself About Radiation

2009-08-17T20:48:00.001-04:00

I decided against using the Internet for my research and, instead, headed to the classroom to find out what I needed to know for the sake of our children and grandchildren -- and all those who might follow.

A good place to start seemed to be radiation, since the root of most concerns seems to lie in the radioactive nature of uranium.

I signed up for a course called "Understanding Nuclear Radiation" at Central Virginia Community College in Lynchburg. While there, I heard about a week-long workshop on the subject at the University of Richmond, so I signed up for that also.

What I learned is that radiation has been a life-sustaining force since the formation of the Earth. It is essential to our lives. I learned that we always have been exposed to radiation in the air, from outer space and from the water and food we consume. Without radiation, the Earth would be a cold and barren place.

The common measure used for exposure to radiation is the millirem. On average, each person in the United States is exposed to 360 millirem of radiation each year. How you reach that average exposure level for the year depends upon factors such as the elevation of your hometown, the construction materials in your house, how much time you spend in the sun and many other circumstances.

Some people receive less than 360 millirem per year -- and some receive more. But 360 millirem is the average amount received by each of us across the United States.

We pick up radiation from watching television and additional radiation from flying cross country on an airliner. Life-saving medical procedures increase our dosage of radiation. A routine chest X-ray delivers six millirems, while the much more serious CAT-scan delivers 110 millirems.

What I learned is that under normal conditions, radiation causes no harm to our bodies. Intense exposure to radiation can be harmful, and that is why you see medical and dental technicians taking precautions as they go about their work on a day-after-day basis.

Nothing I learned supported the wild claims of radiation ruining the air and water in a modern, properly managed uranium mining and milling operation. For what it's worth, if you live within 50 miles of a coal-fired power plant, you get more exposure to radiation than if you live the same distance from a nuclear power plant.

If you've noticed, nearly everything being thrown around about uranium mining -- things like death zones, deformed babies, destroyed rivers -- all are rooted in unregulated mining activities that occurred 30 to 50 years ago.

Has anyone noticed that all those activities are illegal today? Has anyone noticed that we are living in a time of powerful government oversight regulating everything from where we can smoke to whether a child can ride in the back of a pick-up truck?

What this knowledge means to me is that if the Coles Hill project goes forward with all the safeguards we can expect from federal and state authorities, our region will see a multi-billion-dollar expansion of economic opportunity that will benefit all of us in countless ways. It also means that we will contribute to our nation's energy independence -- which is a vital factor in our national security.

via individual.com

This letter, written by Carol S. East and originally published in the Danville Register & Bee, was brought to my attention by a friend. This friend notes:

"I applaud Mrs. East for taking the time and initiative to learn about radiation. Much of what she mentions is readily available on the internet. In fact, Virginia Uranium's website has an American Nuclear Society Radiation Dose Chart so you can calculate your estimated millirems exposure to common sources of radiation. However, this chart lacks information regarding millirems of exposure for uranium mines and mills. Perhaps that is due to the muriad of unique variables that need to be considered for such a calculation.

"I hope Mrs. East will explore classes which will enable her to navigate the Internet. I think she'll be surprised at the number of reputable documents regarding mining and milling of uranium and associated risks. Unfortunately, heavy metal contamination resulting from mining and milling was not part of her recent curricular activity.

"Mrs. East might also consider the study of real estate so as to be informed regarding the potential effect that a uranium mine and mill will have on area property values. (Of course, if you happen to own land near the proposed mine and mill, and become a proponent of uranium mining and milling, there may be some personal reward.)

"Mrs. East states, "Nothing I learned supported the wild claims of radiation ruining the air and water in a modern, properly managed uranium mining and milling operation." I am hopeful that she will provide examples of such operations. It would be helpful, for comparison sake, if the examples had similar climate, population, hydrology, geology and watershed to ours.

"Mrs. East asks, "Has anyone noticed that we are living in a time of powerful government oversight regulating everything from where we can smoke to whether a child can ride in the back of a pick-up truck?" The answer is yes. Let's give them one more thing to screw up."

Posted via web from appomattox's posterous

Chronicling Cleanup on the Clark Fork River — High Country News

2009-08-13T12:44:00.001-04:00

Out here it’s impossible to forget about the toxic legacy of mining and the impending Superfund cleanup of the river corridor for more than a few minutes. To the South, the relic smokestack of the Anaconda smelter pokes up toward the mountains like a massive, black exclamation point. From high spots on the property, you can see enormous, dusty flats sprawling outward from the smelter. Walk through the dense willows that grow along our stretch of the Clark Fork, and you’ll encounter barren clearings where the soils are so loaded with Arsenic and heavy metals that nothing grows. Standing in the middle of one of these slickens, it’s clear that this landscape has been profoundly and thoroughly damaged, and that returning the river to pristine conditions will take a huge amount of work.

via hcn.org

This article introduces a blog that will chronicle the Superfund cleanup process of Dry Cottonwood Creek Ranch. Founded in 1985, the Clark Fork Coalition members are dedicated to protecting and restoring the Clark Fork River basin, a 22,000-square-mile area draining western Montana and northern Idaho.

In addition to writing about the cleanup process, Bryce Andrews - the Ranchlands Program Manager - will talk about his attempts to refine agricultural practices on the property. This work entails encountering barren clearings where soils are so loaded with arsenic and heavy metals from mining processes that nothing grows.

Visit http://www.clarkfork.org/ to learn more.

Posted via web from appomattox's posterous

Federal judge denies Obama administration attempt to withdraw Bush-era mining rule

2009-08-13T00:33:00.001-04:00

A federal judge on Wednesday rebuffed the Obama administration’s attempt to reverse a last-minute Bush-era rule that allows surface mine waste to be dumped near streams.

Interior Secretary Ken Salazar wanted the rule vacated, saying in April the regulation approved the month President George W. Bush left office “failed to pass the smell test.” Salazar wanted to return to a 1983 regulation that kept coal companies 100 feet from streams unless they can prove mining won’t harm water quality or quantity.

But U.S. District Judge Henry H. Kennedy Jr. in Washington wrote in his ruling that granting Salazar’s request would be tantamount to changing a federal regulation without public input.

The Interior Department said it is reviewing the decision.

via blog.taragana.com

Click on the link at the end of the quote to learn more. This is a victory for the U.S. coal industry, and another defeat for opponents of mountaintop removal mining, a process in which mining companies remove vast areas to expose coal. While they are required to restore much of the land, the removal creates many tons of debris that’s used to fill nearby valleys.

The National Mining Association applauded Kennedy’s decision Wednesday. Spokesman Luke Popovich noted that the Bush administration spent better than five years rewriting the stream buffer rule, including taking public input.

Posted via web from appomattox's posterous

Senate passes flood bill that includes funding for nuclear energy and waste disposal, uranium enrichment

2009-08-07T09:50:00.001-04:00

...the Senate voted 85-9 to pass bill HR3183, also known as the Energy and Water Development and Related Agencies Appropriations Act of 2010. Sens. Mark Warner and Jim Webb both voted in favor of the bill.

The Senate version of the bill, which totals $34 billion, provides $215,000 for the Corps to conduct a reconnaissance study of the Chowan River Basin, which in the last decade has experienced record flooding six times.

A similar, $33.3 billion version of the bill passed the House on July 17, but only allocated $100,000 toward the river basin study.

The bill now moves into conference between the House and Senate. Kimberly Hunter, the press secretary for Webb, said Friday that legislators will come to an agreement over how much to fund the basin study during the conference stage.

“They will reconcile those two numbers,” Hunter said. “(The final number) will likely be somewhere between those two numbers.”

Asked if he thought President Barack Obama would ultimately sign the legislation into law, Kevin Hall, the press secretary for Warner, said, “I believe so. These are identified projects by the Army Corps and state and local governments. They certainly fit in with the president’s emphasis on energy innovation and resource protection.”

Besides the river basin study, the bill would provide funding for the Corps, the Department of Energy, the Bureau of Water Reclamation, nuclear energy and waste disposal, technology loans, uranium enrichment and the Strategic Petroleum Reserve.

This passage occurred on Wednesday, 29 July. The Chowan River basin is located in the northeastern coastal plain of North Carolina and southeastern Virginia. The North Carolina portion includes all or parts of Northampton, Hertford, Gates, Bertie and Chowan Counties.
The Chowan River is formed at the border of Virginia and North Carolina by the confluence of the Nottoway and Blackwater Rivers. The Chowan basin includes 1,315 square miles in North Carolina, but the largest part of the drainage basin (3,575 square miles-approximately 76% ) lies in Virginia. Major tributaries to the Chowan River include the Meherrin River and its largest tributary, Potecasi Creek, as well as the Wiccacon River and its largest tributary, Ahoskie Creek. The Meherrin River flows into North Carolina from Greensville County, Virginia.
Two things to note here: The fact that this river basin has experienced record flooding six times within the past decade, which affects agricultural fields in the area, and; the fact that the bill will provide funding for nuclear energy and waste disposal and for uranium enrichment. I can only presume at this point that the bill is addressing a local flooding issue and a nationwide focus on nuclear and uranium?

Posted via web from appomattox's posterous

Creigh Call Quickie: redistricting, uranium mining « VIVIAN J. PAIGE | All Politics is Local

2009-08-06T01:14:00.001-04:00

Deeds said, when the issue came up in committee, he asked two questions, one he knew the answer to and the other he didn’t. The questions were:

What about the terrain in Pittslyvania County has changed?

What about the science has changed?

The answer to question #1, which Deeds already knew, was nothing. The terrain is such that the mining may very well contaminate the groundwater and not just in Pittsylvania County. The problem could very well extend beyond, down to Hampton Roads.

As for #2, he would like to see a study done by the National Academy of Sciences. Such a study has been authorized but so far, the NAS has balked at doing it. They want the state to pay for it – as of now, the private sector would pay for it – and they want the request to come from the Commonwealth, as opposed to from a General Assembly committee.

The other issue is that of radioactive waste. Deeds was quite concerned about this, saying that radioactivity lasts forever, and even if the technology exists to clean it up – which he was very skeptical of this being the case – the stigma of having radioactive waste in an area may be too much to overcome.

Unless the technology exists to make uranium mining safe, I think I understood Deeds’ position to be that he would not support it.

via blog.vivianpaige.com

When funding ever gets around to NAS, I'll be interested in their report - especially when the NAS released this press release in 2005 stating that "there is no safe level of exposure to radiation—that even very low doses can cause cancer." See: http://www.nirs.org/press/06-30-2005/1

Bravo to Deeds for asking questions and for making somewhat of a stand. The real question is this: Are Virginians willing to pay $1.2 million for one portion of this study? See: http://www2.godanriver.com/gdr/news/local/danville_news/article/official_seeks_funding_for_uranium_study/12346/

Posted via web from appomattox's posterous

The two blows that killed the [Nuclear Power] industry

2009-08-04T17:59:00.001-04:00

No industry in history has held more promise, been more welcomed, received more favours and failed more spectacularly than the commercial nuclear power industry.

via financialpost.com

This is an opinion piece offered by Lawrence Solomon, executive director of Energy Probe ( http://energy.probeinternational.org ) and Urban Renaissance Institute and author of "The Deniers: The World-Renowned Scientists Who Stood Up Against Global Warming Hysteria, Political Persecution, and Fraud."

In the end, a once-promising sector "never lived up to its promise" to offer alternative energy at less cost than other forms of energy.

Posted via web from appomattox's posterous

I-64 reopened after truck carrying UF6 wrecked near Sandstone, WV

2009-08-03T16:36:00.001-04:00

Eastbound traffic on Interstate 64 in Summers County was reopened Sunday night after police briefly evacuated the town of Sandstone earlier in the morning when a truck carrying radioactive material rolled over and caught fire.

No one was killed or seriously injured in the accident, which occurred at about midnight, east of the Sandstone interchange, police said.

According to a news release from State Police in Hinton, a westbound pickup truck veered onto the shoulder of the Interstate, struck a guardrail and rolled through the median onto the shoulder of the eastbound lanes, spewing debris across the road.

Soon afterward, the driver of an eastbound tractor-trailer saw the debris, hit his brakes, veered to the right, struck a rock embankment and flipped over, catching fire.

via wvgazette.com

This accident happened in West Virginia, and the truck was carrying about sixteen tons of Uranium hexafluoride (UF6, or one atom of uranium combined with six atoms of fluorine. It is the chemical form of uranium that is used during the uranium enrichment process to make yellowcake.). What the story doesn't share is why the truck was carrying this material, where the trip was initiated and where the heck it was headed - the enrichment plant is located in the opposite direction - east, in Paducah, Kentucky. The drive was intoxicated and was cited by the Summers County Sheriff's Department.

Have you ever traveled along I-64 through West Virginia? Can you imagine encountering a drunk truck driver on that road? That in itself would constitute a nightmare.

Uranium hexafluoride does not react with oxygen, nitrogen, carbon dioxide, or dry air, but it does react with water or water vapor. For this reason, UF6 is always handled in leak tight containers and processing equipment. When UF6 comes into contact with water, such as water vapor in the air, the UF6 and water react, forming corrosive hydrogen fluoride (HF) and a uranium-fluoride compound called uranyl fluoride (UO2F2).

While it rains a lot along I-64, it appears that it wasn't raining during this accident. Good thing for the cleanup crew and for the 100 people who were evacuated from the Sandstone area to the Summers County Middle School in Hinton or nearby Fayette County.

But, now you know which route trucks use to carry enriched uranium from west to east...or, vice-versa for some unknown reason...

Posted via web from appomattox's posterous

USEC Inc. Stock Falls | Inside Bay Area Stocks on the Move

2009-07-28T13:03:00.001-04:00

USEC Inc. (USU US) fell the most in Russell 2000 Index, plunging 29 percent to $4.42. The largest supplier of enriched uranium to U.S. nuclear reactors declined after the U.S. Department of Energy denied a loan guarantee to complete its construction of the American Centrifuge Plant in Piketon, Ohio.

via insidebayarea.com

USEC deploys the American Centrifuge technology, a gas centrifuge uranium enrichment technology, in the American Centrifuge Plant being built in Piketon, Ohio. This technology was initially developed by DOE during the 1970s and 80s and successfully demonstrated, but was ultimately not commercially deployed for reasons unrelated to the technology itself (see http://www.usec.com/americancentrifuge.htm ).

That is what the USEC Web site says. What does Energy Secretary Steven Chu say?

"While we believe USEC needs time to develop its technology and demonstrate that it can be deployed at a commercial scale, we're moving forward with other investments that will create good, high-paying jobs in the community," Energy Secretary Steven Chu said in a release. "USEC will have another chance to resubmit their application if they can overcome the technical and financial hurdles, but in the meantime we’ll put more people to work in the environmental cleanup effort."

In turning away the application, the Energy Department promised the expansion of environmental cleanup efforts at the site, a move that could create 800 to 1,000 new jobs. More than 1,000 employees, many of which are USEC workers, are on-site under contract with the Energy Department for clean-up work (see http://www.bizjournals.com/columbus/stories/2009/07/27/daily17.html )

Posted via web from appomattox's posterous

Is the ocean Florida's untapped energy source? - CNN.com

2009-07-27T12:32:00.001-04:00

he demand for energy in Florida -- the fourth most populous state, with an estimated 19 million residents -- is quickly outpacing the capacity to create it, according to experts. Watch how the proposed ocean turbines would work »
"Right now in Florida, we are at the cusp of an energy crisis. Our energy demand keeps growing," said Frederick Driscoll, director of Florida Atlantic University's Center of Excellence in Ocean Energy Technology.
Beginning in the Caribbean and ending in the upper-North Atlantic, the Gulf Stream lies on the eastern shore of Florida.
Its powerful currents have been used by many fishermen, sailors and explorers to expedite their passage in the Atlantic north and east to Europe, but scientists say the energy within its currents could propel Florida out of its potential energy crisis, powering 3 million to 7 million Florida homes -- or supplying the state with one-third of its electricity.

via cnn.com

Harnessing the power of the Gulf Stream is no easy task, and a sustainable system has not been implemented. But, this is the beginning of an important study that will 1) provide an analysis of the power of the Gulf Stream; 2) Provide information on how this type of energy production might impact that specific marine environment; 3) provide more information on how to harness this power; 4) Promote the renewable source of water to power without building dams.

Posted via web from appomattox's posterous

Uranium Mining and Virginia Weather: Need for Failure Analysis

2009-07-25T09:08:00.001-04:00

In a published response to Mr. Cohen, Mr. Leahy stated, “Uranium mill tailings are uranium ore that has been crushed and pulverized into very fine sand and clay-like particles. Except for the radioactivity and toxic metals content, they are little different from the common sediments that are transported by rainfall and runoff downstream into Kerr Reservoir, through Lake Gaston, and through the Gaston pipeline every day.

“The average annual erosion rate for the upper Roanoke River Basin is 11,000 cubic feet of sediment per square mile of watershed. This is a volume of sediment about the size of two Mount Trashmores each year – all eroded and transported downstream by rainfall and runoff…Even the uranium mining industry has never suggested that rainfall and runoff would not effectively transport mill tailings downstream. Instead, they maintain that they can confine the tailings indefinitely, in sophisticated landfills that will withstand probable maximum precipitation (PMP) storm events.”

For those who live in the Virginia Beach area, “Mount Trashmore” means something. Mount Trashmore Park is 165 acres, 60 feet high, over 800 feet long, and was created by compacting layers of solid waste and clean soil. It was built on a former landfill, and the sediment that flows into Kerr Reservoir equals two Mount Trashmores per year. The Coles Hill mine alone would generate 30 million cubic yards of mill tailings, roughly the volume of 20 Mount Trashmores. The problem, outside of the volume increase created by the mining and milling, is that the Coles Hill sediment will remain radioactive for more than 300,000 years.

via appomattoxnews.com

Don't spin your wheels developing a scenario for severe weather conditions and what they might mean to the drinking water for Virginia Beach if the proposed mining and milling operation are allowed at Coles Hill in Pittsylvania County. Mr. Leahy has done the legwork for the foundation of this study, which is presented in this article.

Posted via web from appomattox's posterous

NRC director to speak at city energy conference | Lynchburg News Advance

2009-07-24T13:53:00.001-04:00

An energy conference featuring the director of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission will be held in Lynchburg on Monday.

Rep. Bob Goodlatte, R-6th District, is sponsoring the conference, which will bring NRC Director Kristine Svinicki and two other speakers to Central Virginia Community College for the 10 a.m. event.

“This conference will have a lot of useful information about energy needs, about legislation in Congress, and three guest speakers, all of whom should be interesting,” Goodlatte said.

It also promises information about alternatives to the energy bill the House of Representatives passed in June, over Goodlatte’s opposition.

via www2.newsadvance.com

The other displays include nuclear (Areva, Babcock & Wilcox), American Electric Power, Dominion Virginia Power, Innovative Wireless Technologies and Virginia Uranium, Inc. Plus, a Toyota energy-efficient car will be on display.

Svinicki has been commissioner of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission since March 2008, and she is a nuclear engineer who has worked as a policy adviser for the Senate Armed Services Committee under former Sen. John Warner, R-VA. She also worked on defense science and tech programs, including nuclear weapons, security and environmental management programs.

Needless to say, you will find little information on wind or solar power at this conference.

Posted via web from appomattox's posterous

Uranium Incident at B&W in Lynchburg Leads to Alert | ABC 13

2009-07-16T21:17:00.001-04:00

Lynchburg, VA - An incident at Babcock and Wilcox Wednesday night caused the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to have safety experts in Atlanta and Maryland to monitor the situation at the Lynchburg plant.

The NRC says the alert- classified as the lowest level of emergency- started around 7:45 p.m.

A news release states B & W staff noticed that a saw used to cut fuel components leaked oil that contained an unknown amount of highly enriched uranium into a receptacle.

via wset.com

Investigators figured out only a small amount of uranium was in the oil. They cleaned it up, then declared the alert over at 12:35 this morning. The NRC is reviewing the incident.

The Three Mile Island accident of 1979 was a partial core meltdown in Unit 2 (a pressurized water reactor manufactured by Babcock & Wilcox) of the Three Mile Island Nuclear Generating Station in Dauphin County, Pennsylvania near Harrisburg. William Zewe, shift supervisor for TMI-1 and TMI-2; Fred Scheimann, shift foreman for TMI-2; and two control room operators, Edward Frederick and Craig Faust were called to handle the situation. Each man had been trained by Metropolitan Edison and Babcock & Wilcox and licensed by the NRC. However, nothing in their training had prepared those men for this problem.

On March 25, 1980, after blaming plant designer Babcock & Wilcox, GPU/Met Ed sued Babcock & Wilcox for $500 million. GPU/Met Ed also tried to sue, unsuccessfully, the NRC for $4 billion for negligence that contributed to the accident. On July 23, 1980, the first human entered the TMI-2 containment building since the accident.

Links:
http://www.library.arizona.edu/exhibits/udall/udallfindingaid/chairman%27s%20special%20project%20files/three.htm

http://books.google.com/books?id=bruJwt7wfWYC&pg=PA51&lpg=PA51&dq=babcock+and+wilcox+lawsuit+three+mile+island&source=bl&ots=IBGirrPnzu&sig=zM-UUeHnMC3isdvbF098W8pgHqI&hl=en&ei=2dBfSqyzHKLKtgfcqrnYDA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=4

http://www.pahighways.com/features/threemileisland.html

Posted via web from appomattox's posterous

Los Angeles Nuclear Meltdown Anniversary | Michael Rose

2009-07-15T11:08:00.001-04:00

At approximately 6:30 PM on the night of July 13, 1959, engineers working at an experimental reactor in the Santa Susana hills confronted their worst nightmare: an out of control reactor. It's called "an excursion," in Orwellian nukespeak but in fact it was the start of a partial meltdown that would take over a month to control and has taken over 50 years to clean up at a cost of over $250-million and will take another 50,000 years to clear the released radiation from the groundwater.

It was fifty years ago today, that the city of Los Angeles experienced the meltdown at the Sodium Reactor Experiment (SRE) that, except for blind luck, didn't become LA's Chernobyl. Unlike Chernobyl or Three Mile Island this research reactor didn't have a protective containment structure and a breach could have, "released more radiation than was released at Three Mile Island," said Dan Hirsch, president of the Committee to Bridge the Gap.

Still, according to Hirsch, the meltdown released enough radioactive isotopes to cause over a thousand cancers. While the SRE melting may have fallen short of other large scale catastrophes the nuclear industry didn't want the public to know about what happened in LA's backyard.

via huffingtonpost.com

This story is part of the reason why I mistrust the nuclear power industry. When fed lies like this for fifty years regarding the "safety" or "cleanliness" of this industry, I balk at any promise or made by pro-nuclear advocates.

Posted via web from appomattox's posterous

EPA Proposes Hardrock Mining Industry Pay for Environmental Cleanup

2009-07-13T10:24:00.001-04:00

The U.S. EPA has identified the hardrock mining industry as its priority for developing financial assurance requirements. Financial assurance requirements help ensure that owners and operators of these facilities, not taxpayers, foot the bill for environmental cleanup. These requirements will be developed under section 108(b) of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act, commonly called “Superfund.” EPA plans to propose the rule by spring of 2011. The agency will publish a notice of this priority in the Federal Register, which is the first step toward developing the requirements.

via appomattoxnews.com

Oh happy day. If this EPA requirement goes through, then taxpayers no longer will pay for Superfund cleanup sites such as Uravan, Rocky Flats, or proposed mining sites such as Coles Hill in Pittsylvania County.

This also means that the uranium mining industry (or any other hardrock mining industry) can no longer walk away from sites with a stitch and a promise that things have "returned to normal." In the case of uranium mining, they'll never "return to normal," as the land that contained an open pit mine can never be used for residential or commercial purposes.

With that said, at least the taxpayers won't need to pay - and the hardrock mining industry will need to add that sum to the cost of their overall mining processes - which, of course, will be passed on to the consumer. But, the cost of mining uranium will skyrocket as a result.

Although VUI is adamant about cleanup after mining, I have yet to hear of a uranium mining operation that has done this. If they're serious about cleanup, they'll be the first to keep that promise. But, many of us won't be around to make sure that happens, as mining that vein will take more time than most of us have left in our lifespans.

The only problem I see that is not addressed in this story is the cleanup for sites such as the Navajo mining area. Will the taxpayers continue to pay in that instance or in other instances where mining operations have ceased to exist?

Posted via web from appomattox's posterous

Paradox Uranium Mill Gets Planning Permit | Telluride Daily Planet

2009-07-02T23:58:00.001-04:00

Montrose County made a move into the future — or the past, depending on perspective — when its planning commission unanimously approved a uranium mill in Paradox Valley Wednesday night.

The Piñon Ridge Mill has to be approved by the county commissioners and state and federal regulatory agencies.

The area near the Utah border was a hub of uranium mining at the beginning of the atomic age. If a mill is built, it could revive an industry that gave its name to the town of Uravan. But the threat of radiation and pollution worries residents who live nearby.

A crowd of about 75 came to the Montrose County Fairgrounds and spoke overwhelmingly against the mine, parading to the podium to protest what they clearly saw as a threat to their health, water and way of life.

“If they contaminate our ground water, what happens then?” said Paradox’s Marie Moore. “This is my life. You don’t even live there. You don’t even know.”

Daryl Hannah, fresh off an arrest in West Virginia protesting coal mining, showed up. It’s not often the chair of the planning commission, David Laursen, tells a Hollywood actress, “Daryl, can you just sit for a second? We want to get through this.”

But, as Hannah stated, she lives in Placerville, and said this was a regional issue, not just a county issue.

In fact, most of the protesters said they lived in San Miguel County. The proposed mill would be located just a few miles away from the San Miguel County line.

Protesters held up signs that read “Uranium Mills Kill” and “Don’t Import Toxic Waste.” Telluride’s Chris Myers said there hadn’t been enough public scrutiny of certain provisions, and a sheriff’s deputy was called to escort him to his chair after he refused to sit down. Placerville’s Jerry Cope stormed out while pointing a finger at the commission, and spent the rest of the meeting outside.

“I guarantee they’re going to pass it,” he said.

George Glasier, the CEO of the company proposing to build the mill, Nucla’s Energy Fuels, said the facility would mill rock from uranium and vanadium mines in Colorado and possibly Utah and New Mexico. The company estimated 21 trucks of ore would come in every day.

The mill is estimated to employ 85 people. It would use sulfuric acid to separate the radioactive material from plain rock. The radioactive material, called yellowcake, would be loaded on trucks and possibly pass through San Miguel County. From there, it would be used in nuclear reactors to produce electricity.

via telluridenews.com

After 10 p.m., the planning commission gave their approval. Currently there is only one uranium mine operating in southwest Colorado, but this mill could rejuvenate uranium mining operations in the four corners area. Transport to a local milling operating would eliminate the need for a mill on-site, and it would lower costs for ore that would need to travel great distances to be milled.

The uranium mine proposed at Coles Hill, Virginia would contain an on-site mill operation.

Ironically, a mere two years ago, the Montrose planning commission went head-to-head with citizens regarding zoning during a housing boom. Now, with a housing market slump, this same board decides to approve plans for an operation that historically lowers house and property values further. See more at http://www.montrosecitizens.org

Posted via web from appomattox's posterous

The nuclear option [Areva]: Virginia Business - News

2009-07-02T11:56:00.001-04:00

Areva, an international supplier of nuclear equipment and services, is joining forces with Northrop Grumman Shipbuilding, the architect of the Navy’s nuclear-powered fleet, to build just such a plant in Newport News.

Groundbreaking on the $363 million project is scheduled for this month. In a year, more than 500 highly skilled workers are expected to begin making equipment to supply an anticipated global demand for new nuclear reactors. “We literally will make Virginia the leader in a revival of America’s nuclear-manufacturing capability,” promises the 47-year-old energy executive.

It seems like an improbable boast, but Rencheck may be on to something. America is undergoing a dramatic shift in regards to carbon emissions. Consequently, nuclear energy has regained its sex appeal after decades of being an ugly stepsister to coal and natural gas. Virginia is expected to remain a world supplier of pollution-emitting coal, but it’s also lining up the critical mass to become a serious player in a new nuclear market.

via virginiabusiness.com

While this article makes it sound as though Areva is a Lynchburg-based business, Areva NP Inc. is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Areva NP S.A.S. based in Paris, France. But, if I understand correctly, Areva NP S.A.S. is itself a wholly-owned subsidiary of Areva SA, also based in Paris:

1. http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/quote?ticker=CEI%3AFP
2. http://www.neimagazine.com/BuyersGuideEntry.asp?companyId=8110&directory=nuclear
3. http://w1.siemens.com/press/en/pressrelease/?press=/en/pressrelease/2009/corporate_communication/2009-q1/axx20090125.htm
4. http://www.areva-np.com/common/liblocal/docs/press/DP_RSA_VA_3_2008.pdf [PDF]

The latter PDF explains Areva's interest in South Africa, and they would be well-versed in this interest as they've had control in at least two mines near Arlit in Niger for about thirty-forty years.

The Akouta mine is the largest of its kind in the world, and another nearby mine is an open pit mine. Together, the mines produce about eight percent of the world's uranium. Uranium is Niger's top export, outside of onions.

A mill exists at Arlit as well, so the uranium leaves Arlit as yellowcake. It is packed loosely in drums and exported five hundred miles along what is known as "the Uranium Highway." The ore ends up in Benin, where it is transferred to freighters and shipped to France, where it is enriched into fuel pellets that serve 80 percent of French electrical needs.

"Though Niger is the fourth-largest producer of uranium in the world, it sees almost none of the wealth. Because of a long-standing contract, the French consortium* pays only 5.5 percent of its revenue in taxes, and most of it goes to subsidize elites in the dusty capital of Niamey. Almost three-quarters of the people cannot read, and those who survive to the age of forty-five are living on statistically borrowed time. Niger was recently named the most deprived country on earth by the United Nations, ranked dead last among the world's sovereign nations on a comprehensive scale called the Human Development Index, which charts life expectancy, education, and standard of living..."

* Though Areva is the dominant player in Nigeria, the smaller stakes in the mines also are held by corporate interests in Japan, Spain and Niger.

The above information and more are available in the book, "Uranium: War, Energy, and the Rock that Shaped the World," by Tom Zoellner. If you cannot get your hands on that book (published this year, 2009), then you still can find information about these mines, Areva and more on the Internet.

For instance:

In December 2008, The French state announced that it would sell a "chunk of nuclear giant Areva to Asian and Middle Eastern investors to help finance the future of a group considered a jewel in the country's industrial crown." The move would leave the French state with 75 percent of Areva, "a world leader in nuclear power with manufacturing facilities in 43 countries, down from its current 90 percent."

"France produces most of its electricity from nuclear power and President Nicolas Sarkozy has been active in trumpeting his country's know-how to win French companies new business abroad...Areva needs between eight and 10 billion euros by 2012 to fund its investment program, notably to develop its third-generation EPR nuclear reactor. It also needs an estimated two billion euros to buy out Siemens' stake in Areva NP, its reactor subsidiary." (Areva NP is the company located in Lynchburg - more about Siemens below)

http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5gHU1vPOOOq4pzWqWUHsSxBhW2QRQ

Siemens AG joined Areva NP S.A.S. in a Franco-German joint venture around 2001 to combine their nuclear business activities. However, in January 2009, Siemens pulled out of the contract, citing "lack of exercising entrepreneurial influence" as the reason behind the move. Areva has been the majority partner, with 66 percent stake, and it will acquire Siemens' 34 percent of shares within three years.

http://w1.siemens.com/press/en/pressrelease/?press=/en/pressrelease/2009/corporate_communication/2009-q1/axx20090125.htm

In turn, Areva just announced two days ago that it was opening its capital to new investors and would sell a subsidiary to raise money for massive investments in new nuclear technology. The Federal Union of Nuclear Trade Unions (UFSN CFDT) said it opposed the plan arguing that it was "a rampant privatisation of nuclear operations" since it would dilute the state's share.

Areva needs between eight billion and 10 billion euros (11.2 billion and 14.0 billion dollars) by 2012 to fund its investment program, notably to develop its third-generation EPR nuclear reactor. The company also needs an estimated two billion euros to buy out Siemens' stake in Areva NP, its reactor subsidiary.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5i7L4s3lyWXxYV0rTTNpBou6r7Jeg

In other words, it appears Areva is in deep financial doings, and ownership of the company is being diluted from a state-run operation to privatization - a movement that seems to annoy the French government.

While financial doings are deep (albeit perhaps not troublesome, depending on the availability of investors), the climate in Africa poses some problems:

"After a visit in late March from French President Nicholas Sarkozy to Niger, residents in the uranium-exporting desert country continue questioning whether AREVA, a company primarily owned by the French government, will honour its promise to protect communities from mining hazards."

http://www.irinnews.org/Report.aspx?ReportId=83706

That link is worth a read, especially for the images of an open pit mine and for the problems that Areva faces with this mine regarding air, water, government responsibility and more. The point to remember with the mines in Africa when comparing them to other mines is the environment. Africa's environment is not "wet," so the above-ground issues may vary from those that Virginians will encounter with their open pit mine.

On the other side of that coin, Areva faces problems with water shortages in its mining and milling processes.

For an anti-uranium mining perspective on Areva and the U.S., please read Linda Gunter's article, "The French Nuclear Industry Is Bad Enough in France; Let's Not Expand It to the U.S."

http://www.environment.co.za/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=2278

For a pro-uranium mining perspective, read Mike Cohen's opinion, portions of which are copied at Virginia Energy Independence Alliance.

http://www.virginiaenergy.org/2009/06/23/northrop-grumman-administrator-va-has-nothing-to-fear-from-uranium/

NOTE: Mike Cohen is with Northrop Grumman Shipbuilding, a company that also is noted in the quote at the top of the page.

Areva in Lynchburg has provided great jobs for Virginians, but they also import engineers and other top workers from other countries, including France and Germany (although the latter country may not provide employees depending on the relationship with Siemens).

Areva also seems to be involved in community affairs and college education. While I am not stating that corporate involvement in community and education is a 'bad' thing, I've also been taught to consider the source in any statement or action.

Comments to enlighten are welcome.

Posted via web from appomattox's posterous

Editor’s Note to Tom Perriello: Nuclear Power is Not Carbon Neutral nor “Carbon-Constrained”

2009-06-30T12:23:00.001-04:00

In Tom Perriello’s report to the Fifth District this week, he states, “Southside Virginia will be one of the winners under this bill, accelerating its ascendance to being the future energy capital of Virginia. In a carbon-constrained economy, we will see a resurgence of nuclear power.” While this statement appears to tout a promising future for Southside, the reality is that nuclear power is not “carbon-constrained.”

via appomattoxnews.com

Our opinion about Representative Tom Perriello's report this week on the conditions in Fifth District, Virginia. The Fifth District includes the area that is slated for a uranium mining and milling facility on private property located in Pittsylvania County, if the statewide uranium mining moratorium is lifted.

Posted via web from appomattox's posterous

Debunking popular uranium mining myths

2009-06-25T10:43:00.001-04:00

While uranium production is expected to fall short of demand by 2015, identified minable uranium resources are projected to increase 10 to 15 per cent this year spurred by renewed interest in the uranium market.

Currently, uranium production accounts for less than two-thirds of annual demand and the rest is made up for the most part by U.S. and Russian stockpiles from a program that will end in 2013. The supply shortfall is also based on the belief that demand out of Asia and the Middle East as been largely underestimated, said Sebastien de Montessus, Areva’s director of mining business.

In 2007, the amount of economically viable identified uranium resources worldwide was estimated at 5.5 million tonnes, according to the Nuclear Energy Agency in Paris and the IAEA.

Ganguly and others expect this number to rise this year based on mining industry efforts in Australia, Canada, India and Russia. “From the trend based on the (symposium) presentations … you’ll see at least a 10-15 per cent rise [in 2009] in identified resources,” he said. “In Australia, in Russia, in Canada, all the presentations that we have heard so far, there is an upward trend.”

However, an increase in identified resources below the ground this year does not equal a rise in above ground supply adequate enough to meet current rising demand. Bringing an identified uranium deposit through the exploration and development stages into production can take as much as 10 years or longer.

And many in the industry are saying uranium spot prices still remain too low for miners to take on the heavy costs of bringing new projects into production presently.

“Producers around the world need to see some signs of higher spot prices over the next few months to press the button for new projects,” said De Montessus. The spot price needs to hit around $70 to $80 a pound, he added.

via uraniuminvestingnews.com

Currently, spot prices range from $55 to $65 per pound, up from $40 in April (the lowest level in three years). While spot prices are important to consider in how active uranium mining might become in the U.S., the important thing for Virginians to note in this article is the dissolution of the popular myth that "what is mined in Virginia stays in Virginia."

First, mining and milling yellowcake is not the end process for uranium ore. It must then be shipped to an enrichment plant in Paducah, KY (currently the only active enrichment plant in the U.S.); or, it is shipped out of the country for enrichment. Then, the enriched uranium goes to the highest bidder. According to this article - one that is marketed to uranium investors - the markets that may demand the most enriched uranium are in Asia and the Middle East. But, other markets outside the U.S. may develop that will take Virginia's uranium ore once it has left the state for enrichment.

This piece of the linked article also mentions the countries that are historically the largest uranium mining entities - Australia, Canada, India and Russia, with upward trends in more mining expected in all but India.

Note, as well, that this article states, "Bringing an identified uranium deposit through the exploration and developmental states into production can take as much as 10 years or longer." This statement debunks another uranium mining myth that mining in Virginia will allow miners and their families to "get rich quick." Although Virginia Uranium Inc. has had twenty-five years to explore Coles Hill's uranium vein with drill holes (permission granted by the state), it still will take time to build a mill (a very carbon-intensive project - which also debunks the myth that nuclear power is carbon-neutral) and to begin mining and milling.

In the end, the uranium prices on the market will need to remain high enough to make mining worthwhile. The principle of supply and demand will force prices higher - more demand + less supply = higher prices. Since uranium is not a renewable energy source, at some point down the road, when uranium has reached its peak, the demand will increase for a way to recycle depleted uranium rather than for mined yellowcake.

If you find this concept difficult to imagine, then think about current situations with "peak oil." The reason the prices are higher on oil is because the demand is high and the supply - whether because it is, indeed, becoming depleted or because it is being hoarded for financial reasons - makes the price high. This high price has led to a cry for "energy independence."

Within the demand for energy independence is an effort to mine new uranium sources. This leads to Virginia, with a resource that can hypothetically fuel U.S. nuclear power stations for approximately two years. Although proponents for mining state that this mining is vital to America's energy independence, I say that our independence, then, is short-lived in comparison to the time and energy and money that can be channeled into conservation and into renewable resources for energy.

But, this uranium vein runs the length of Virginia north and south, and lifting the uranium mining moratorium means that the entire state is open for mining. Will this vein be mined along the entire length of this state, providing enough yellowcake to fuel power plants for two years here and another two years there? While the article above states that it takes ten years to prepare to mine, they neglect to state that it will take thirty to fifty years to deplete one portion of a vein's resource. In other words, you may not be around to enjoy the power generated by Virginia's uranium, but you will leave the legacy of above-ground radioactive resources for your grandchildren.

Many proponents for nuclear power insist that anti-uranium mining advocates must have an alternative that will replace nuclear power if the latter energy resource is not considered viable. But, they don't allow anti-uranium advocates to talk about wind, solar or water power as these resources - which are renewable - are "only 1 percent of the solution" (see comments in http://www.grist.org/article/virginia-oks-uranium-mining-study/ ). Note that this person's comment only addresses wind and solar, ignoring hydro totally.

Additionally, that comment is not correct, as - according to a two-year-old report generated by the University of Michigan [PDF] (http://css.snre.umich.edu/css_doc/CSS03-12.pdf ), wind alone is responsible for three percent of this country's energy. If you go to this factsheet, please read more about how the U.S. truly can become energy independent. Our fate, unlike the myth perpetrated by pro-nuclear advocates - does not rest in uranium mining and milling.

In fact, this country is far behind other countries in creating the facilities to compete with uranium mining currently active in Australia and Canada. While this fact may spur some of you to demand more uranium mining in this country now, I would respond that tapping into that resource negates America's power. When the time is right, this country could be sitting on a nonrenewable resource that could provide even more security for Americans.

Additionally, by the time it comes to tap into that resource - perhaps a century down the road - America may be leading the world in renewable energy resources AND in conservation. But, that decision is up to you. Will you fall into the trap of myths generated by false hope and fear? Myths that actually weaken this country and depletes its resources? Or, will you operate on logic and determination and demand more renewable energy resources? Will you sacrifice and conserve energy? Energy conservation could supply up to 30 percent or more relief on current energy needs (see some links below).

Finally, when someone approaches you with information about the nuclear power industry, don't take that information at face value. Ask for proof to back up their information. Ask for reliable sources, too. And, don't be fooled by resources that seem reliable...question those resources as well. Find out who is on the board, their connections to the nuclear power industry and their stake in uranium mining and milling.

Myths were generated to provide people with lessons on how to live life. They involved gods and goddesses with power greater than those that humans have. Myths also were created to help the powerful maintain control over the uneducated masses. Myths can be shattered. Once you refuse to allow them to have control over your life, you may become the visionary that this country needs to lead the way into the future.

http://buildingsdatabook.eren.doe.gov/docs/DataBooks/2008_BEDB.pdf – this intensive booklet [PDF] offers insights into how Americans use their resources and the impacts that this usage has on the environment. This resource was published by the Department of Energy in 2008.

http://www1.eere.energy.gov/consumer/tips/ - this PDF offered by the Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy department of the U.S. Department of Energy provides easy-to-use tips on how to conserve energy around your own home and in your life.

Posted via web from appomattox's posterous

Internal Memo: Nuclear Power Company Could Make A Billion A Year From Climate Change Law

2009-06-24T01:47:00.001-04:00

Exelon, with a major presence in Illinois, was an early backer of President Barack Obama's. "Barack has one of his biggest supporters in terms of funding, the Exelon Corporation, which has spent millions of dollars trying to make Yucca Mountain the waste depository," then-rival Sen. Hillary Clinton noted in a debate in January 2008 in Nevada, a charge PolitiFact deemed "mostly true," noting that in fact Obama, like Clinton, did not in fact support the Yucca Mountain project.

Last week, the company announced it was shedding 500 jobs, blaming the sagging economy and saying it hoped to trim $350 million in operating costs.

"While we do stand to make money when carbon legislation goes into effect, we've been advocating hard for allocation of free allowances to local utilities," Exelon spokeswoman Kathleen Cantillon said in an interview. Allocating free allowances to utilities wouldn't directly benefit Exelon, said Cantillon, but the company backs them out of concern that prices would rise too quickly otherwise, undermine support for the law and perhaps facilitate a repeal.

Nuclear power is among the lowest carbon-emitting sources of energy, which helps to explain Exelon's enthusiastic embrace of a carbon cap.

via huffingtonpost.com

I, personally, like the idea of the Waxman-Markey bill, but only like a duck would be satisfied with a half loaf of bread. The bill has been butchered, but it's a baby step in the right direction.

With that said, please look at the last sentence in that quoted piece above. Once again, the "carbon neutral" attitude is taken, and it's taken straight from the nuclear industry's play book. When a nuclear power story comes out with a statement that this industry is "among the lowest carbon-emitting sources of energy," then the writer has divorced the nuclear power industry from the one thing that fuels it - uranium.

Uranium mining and milling makes nuclear power one of the most carbon-intensive industries available.

Posted via web from appomattox's posterous

Northrop Grumman Administrator: VA has nothing to fear from uranium | Virginia Energy Independence Alliance

2009-06-23T21:01:00.001-04:00

In a letter to the editor of the Virginian-Pilot, Mike Cohen - Virginia Beach resident and contract administrator with Northrop Grumman Shipbuilding - reassures Hampton Roads and Southside residents that they have nothing to fear from uranium mining in Pittsylvania County. Pittsylvania County is home to Coles Hill, the largest untapped uranium deposit in the U.S. Mr. Cohen tells residents that so much of the fear spread by opponents of mining the Coles Hill deposit is based on erroneous myths and complete fallacies that are easily invalidated by science.

via virginiaenergy.org

If myth equals factual historical incident, then my life has been written by Joseph Campbell. And, I'm sure the Navajo will appreciate more of this perspective as well - obviously they've been living a dream, too, with all the deaths, illnesses and birth defects caused by mining uranium.

Read further in that link - now the jobs are up from 500 to 1,000 - a miracle. Much like splitting loaves. Or, handing out fish.

Posted via web from appomattox's posterous

Battle Royale on Uranium Mining | Clean Energy Insight

2009-06-22T17:12:00.001-04:00

Rod Adams over at Atomic Insights sent me this exchange today. It is absolutely one of the most impressive online comment exchanges I have ever seen. Rod brings up a great point about coal mining in Virginia. Coal mining is one of the most accepted forms of industrial energy activities in the United States, although almost 100,000 people have died in the industry in the past 100 years. Feel free to add to the exchange if you’d like, although it looks like Rod is holding his own. I’d like to applaud Rod for not using the hyperbolic hate-speech tactic that is commonly used by the opposition.

via cleanenergyinsight.org

Rod certainly was holding his own. But, he came up with such preposterous comments that I had to quit responding to him. The uranium mining battle will be won by pro-uranium mining advocates who charm the masses with sociopathic lies. After all, no one wants to hear that the uranium mining industry has no history of successful mining - especially when it comes to obeying regulations and cleaning up, or reparation.

When it comes to lies, this blog is a big one - how can anyone in their right mind call nuclear energy a "clean" option? Uranium mining is one of the dirtiest industries in the world. Notice, when and if you go to the link on the site to read the comments, that the responders seldom respond to my answers. Instead, a woman named Smidgen and I are bullied by this Clean Energy Insight guy, telling us to back off...before what, I wonder?

Posted via web from appomattox's posterous

Virginia OKs uranium mining study comments | Grist

2009-06-21T10:44:00.001-04:00

The Pittsylvania County site is believed to hold the largest undeveloped uranium deposit in the United States and the seventh-largest in the world. It holds an estimated 60,000 tons—enough uranium to power all the commercial nuclear plants in the country for about two years. The company estimates its value at about $10 billion.

While the company has maintained that the uranium could be mined safety, uranium mining has a history of causing serious environmental health problems, having been linked to chromosome abnormalities, birth defects and cancer in communities from Texas to Germany.

Uranium mining also poses a serious threat to drinking water. In 1979, for example, a dam holding uranium mining waste at a New Mexico facility owned by the Virginia-based United Nuclear Corp. burst, sending more than 1,100 tons of toxic discards and 90 million gallons of contaminated water into the Rio Puerco. Once an important drinking water source for nearby Navajo communities, the river remains dangerously contaminated today.

Officials in Virginia Beach are among those opposing the uranium mining plans. They have noted that a tropical storm or hurricane could breach the mine’s waste impoundment and pollute downstream water bodies including Lake Gaston, the city’s drinking-water source.

via grist.org

I've share articles before on this information. The reason behind this post is that a man named Rod Adams, who is the publisher of Atomic Insights, the host and producer of The Atomic Show Podcast and founder of Adams Atomic Engines, Inc. has chosen this article to validate nuclear energy in the comments.

He began his comments with a classic bait-and-switch from nuclear to coal. I engaged him in what I thought was rational conversation, but it seems that this man is immersed in his rhetoric to the point that he's delusional. He's smart, he's polite and he's used every trick in the passive radical's handbook to try to trick me into playing the fool so he can be the 'smarter, therefore wiser' advocate for nuclear energy. Unfortunately for Rod, I also studied that handbook, otherwise I may have headed into a rant on how "clean" nuclear energy is when compared to coal. Here are the similarities:

1. Coal and uranium mining both are dirty industries.
2. Both activities produce toxic chemicals.
3. Both mining activities produce waste that is dangerous to surrounding communities, to the environment and to water sources.
4. Less deaths have occurred in the coal mining industry because of the introduction of mountain top removal (fewer underground mines = less deaths); deaths in the uranium mining industry are poorly documented, as many people contract illnesses well after exposure to radioactive materials. Therefore, the nuclear industry will tout "NO deaths" in the uranium mining business.

The difference between coal mining and uranium mining is radioactivity AND the willingness of many politicians and people like Rod to divorce uranium mining from nuclear power. We all know that it takes coal mining to produce energy in many instances, but few people think about the fact that it takes uranium mining to produce nuclear power.

Please follow the link, read the comments, and let me know what you think by responding here, or by responding on the linked article.

Posted via web from appomattox's posterous

Hanford sees progress on nuke treatment plant

2009-06-18T17:30:00.001-04:00

Workers at the nation's most contaminated nuclear site are approaching a key turning point in building a massive waste treatment plant there, more than two years after the federal government shut down the project over seismic concerns.

The vitrification plant at south-central Washington's Hanford nuclear reservation is among the largest industrial construction projects nationally, both in cost and sheer size. In recent years, the project has been mired in technical problems, delays and escalating costs, even as state and federal officials underscored its importance for ridding Hanford of radioactive waste.

But workers expect to have completed 50 percent of the project by early fall, and just two of a long list of technical problems remain to be resolved.

Neither means the end is in sight, but recent progress can't be overlooked, said Suzanne Dahl, tank waste treatment manager for the Washington Department of Ecology, which regulates the federal government's cleanup efforts.

"Wouldn't it be great to be on the other side of 50 percent and heading downhill?" Dahl said. "That's a really big deal. It means we're just getting closer and closer to being able to turn it on."

John Eschenberg, project manager for the U.S. Department of Energy, said the project is in as good a situation as it's ever been.

"It's been a bumpy road," he said. "But the things that made us sweat blood are key to the success."

The federal government created Hanford in the 1940s as part of the top-secret Manhattan Project to build the atomic bomb. Plutonium production continued through the Cold War, leaving a mess of radioactive debris and waste to be cleaned up on the 586-square-mile site.

The government spends $2 billion each year on Hanford cleanup - one-third of its entire budget for nuclear cleanup nationally. About $690 million of that goes for design and construction of the vitrification plant, long considered the cornerstone of cleanup.

The plant is designed to convert millions of gallons of highly radioactive waste into glass logs for safe disposal underground. At least 1 million gallons of waste have leaked from storage in aging underground tanks at Hanford, contaminating the groundwater and threatening the nearby Columbia River.

via seattlepi.com

The delays pushed the operating date to 2019, a step state officials were unhappy with but accepted. The cost of the project also ballooned from $4.3 billion in 2000 to $12.2 billion.

Posted via web from appomattox's posterous

New Nuclear Plant Set For Southern Ohio

2009-06-18T10:00:00.001-04:00

The site of a former uranium enrichment plant tucked away in the hills of southern Ohio has the necessary infrastructure for a nuclear power plant _ abundant water, a power grid and bipartisan political backing.

It's where the former Portsmouth Gaseous Diffusion Plant enriched uranium during the Cold War. Cleanup of the site is still going on, along with construction of a new-technology centrifuge process to enrich uranium for use in nuclear power plants.

via huffingtonpost.com

Officials declined to release details _ cost, capacity, time table _ on Wednesday. Sally Thelen, a Duke Energy spokeswoman in Cincinnati, said Duke will be a partner in the plant but declined to say how big a share of ownership Duke would have and who the partners will be...

...Spokeswoman Elizabeth Stuckle said even when the centrifuge plant, which still is seeking financing and a $2 billion government loan guarantee, is on line, and when the generating plant is completed, enriched uranium would not pass directly from the centrifuge to the plant.

It has to go elsewhere to be packed into usable fuel pellets or fuel rods, she said.

Marilyn Wall, a spokeswoman for the Sierra Club's Miami Group office in Cincinnati, said environmental organization remains opposed to construction of nuclear power plants because of several issues, including uranium mining practices and disposal of nuclear waste.

"We don't see it as a solution or a viable energy policy," Wall said. "And there are a lot of nuclear issues already in Piketon."

Posted via web from appomattox's posterous

Nuclear Plant Operators Too Low On Cash To Shut Down

2009-06-17T18:00:00.001-04:00

The companies that own almost half the nation's nuclear reactors are not setting aside enough money to dismantle them, and many may sit idle for decades and pose safety and security risks as a result, an Associated Press investigation has found.

The shortfalls are caused not by fluctuating appetites for nuclear power but by the stock market and other investments, which have suffered huge losses over the past year and devastated the plants' savings, and by the soaring costs of decommissioning.

At 19 nuclear plants, owners have won approval to idle reactors for as long as 60 years, presumably enough time to allow investments to recover and eventually pay for dismantling the plants and removing radioactive material.

But mothballing nuclear reactors or shutting them down inadequately presents the most severe of risks. Radioactive waste could leak from abandoned plants into ground water or released into the air, and spent nuclear fuel rods could be stolen by terrorists.

via huffingtonpost.com

"No one at the NRC wants to acknowledge what is absolutely obvious to us, that the funds are inadequate and that the industry has bare assets," said Arnold Gundersen, a retired nuclear engineer and decommissioning expert.

Those critics say the industry is making assumptions about their investments that do not account for another market collapse, political obstacles to getting the licenses renewed and unforeseen safety problems that could make nuclear power less palatable.

Last week, British officials reported on a 2007 leak in a cooling tank at the decommissioned Sizewell-A nuclear plant. If the leak had not been promptly discovered, officials said, nuclear fuel rods could have caught fire and sent airborne radioactive waste along the English coast, harming plant operators or the public.

The average cost of dismantling a nuclear reactor is now estimated now at $450 million. The average plant owner has about $300 million saved up for the job. Typically, the money is raised through a small surcharge on electric rates.

This is a must-read article to understand the true operating - AND non-operating costs of a nuclear reactor....

NRC records show utilities are trying to close the gaps:

_Owners at 19 plants have won approval to mothball reactors for as long as 60 years. A method called Safestor has been approved for reactors including the three Palo Verde units in the Arizona desert and the Three Mile Island 1 reactor near Harrisburg, Pa.

Under this method, radioactive fuel is removed from the reactor and the spent fuel storage pool and is stored in dry casks on plant property. Plant systems are drained of water, and the remaining radioactivity in the plant is left to decay until the facility is dismantled.

But some analysts worry the utility companies that own nuclear plants might not even exist in six decades.

"Our concern is that they'll just walk away from it," said Jim Riccio, a Greenpeace nuclear policy analyst. "It's like a sitting time bomb. The notion that you can just walk away from these sites and everything will be hunky-dory is just not true."

Posted via web from appomattox's posterous

Area Resident Learns More about Virginia Uranium, Inc. Through Visit

2009-06-17T14:13:00.001-04:00

As a Pittsylvania native and one who spent 40 years in the chemical industry, I have found it embarrassing to admit to friends that I knew very little about uranium, the element, and nothing about its source and processing. When it was announced that the largest deposit of uranium in the United States was discovered in Pittsylvania County, I was excited, as anyone with scientific curiosity should be.

I had hoped factual details concerning this discovery, as well as some development plans, would be forthcoming in an understandable way. However, it seems that some newspapers rarely feel any obligation or responsibility to pass on scientific facts; residents seeking such information must find other venues.

That's just what my family and I did, and a report of our experience may encourage others who are interested in such facts to do the same thing. The website for Virginia Uranium is www.virginiauranium.com, and it lists the company's contact number, 434-432-1065. Upon calling this number, I was told they welcomed visits at any time, but preferred scheduling visitors in groups.

via wpcva.com

...read more at the link. I'm thrilled that this resident received one side of the story. Now, he needs to visit Uravan, Colorado or other open-pit sites that have once been mined and now abandoned. The beginning of a uranium mining story usually is a fairy tale. And, the majority of the endings to these stories are nightmares.

Posted via web from appomattox's posterous

Uranium Unions and Underwater Farms

2009-06-17T09:29:00.001-04:00

Here’s an interesting example of the lengths to which nuclear energy-dependent nations are willing to go to insure direct uranium supplies: government-funded scientists in Japan are developing the means to extract uranium from the sea.

Japan is the world’s third biggest nuclear generator, consuming roughly 9,800 tonnes of uranium in 2008. Currently, Japan relies on uranium imports from Canada and Australia to fuel its nuclear reactors.

Dr. Masao Tanada (Japan Atomic Energy Agency) has created a fabric made mostly of irradiated polyethylene that acts like a sponge, soaking up uranium from the surrounding seawater. The fabric can be placed on the seabed to create “uranium farms” that Dr. Tanada says would allow Japan’s nuclear power industry to extract its annual uranium needs from the Kuroshio Current flowing along Japan’s eastern seaboard.

Dr. Tanada is looking to garner funding to build an approximately 400 square mile underwater uranium farm. This one farm would provide Japan with as much as 16 per cent of its annual uranium demand, he said.

“Other countries are conducting similar research but none are as advanced as we are,” commented Dr. Tanada. “We need to conduct more development research and be able to produce the adsorbent material on a large scale, but we could achieve this within five years.”

Sounds crazy, eh? But when one considers that an estimated 4.5 billion tonnes of uranium (about 1,000 times the amount known in mines) is floating around in the earth’s oceans (at about 3.3 parts per billion), it begins to seem like an option worth pursuing.

If such technology can be perfected and put to use, how will this affect the spot price of uranium on the open market? The share price of uranium miners?

Whether or not this technology gets off the ground is yet to be seen, but the very idea of its consideration reflects the increasing demand for nuclear power fuel and the continuation of uranium’s rise as one of the world’s most desired energy commodities.

via uraniuminvestingnews.com

This tidbit of information was gathered from Uranium Investing News, and I would encourage anyone who is interested in uranium extraction - no matter pro or con - to subscribe to this newsletter. The information that prefaces this piece provides news on current uranium prices and a strategy that one uranium mining company used to gain political alliances in Russia. A quote:

~~~

Developing and implementing strategies for managing political risk is crucial for mining companies, especially uranium miners operating in regions of the world notorious for strained political relations. One strategy: create alliances with a powerful partner.

In aligning with Russia's ARMZ, Uranium One is not only gaining a partner in the uranium industry, but also helping to mitigate the political risks associated with operating in a post-Soviet era nation like Kazakhstan.

According to ARMZ director general Vadim Zhivov, the Russian company has a "deep history" in the Kazakh mining industry and "strong inter government relationships exist between Russia and Kazakhstan."

Zhivov also commented that the partnership with Uranium One provides Russia with increased exposure to the uranium market.

This type of strategic partnership is the second for the uranium miner. In February of this year, Uranium One entered into C$270 million agreement with a group of Japanese companies that included the Tokyo Electric Power Co., Toshiba and Japan Bank for International Co-operation.

“With the closing of (both deals), Uranium One will be a link between the governments of Japan and Russia for uranium mining,” said Nortier.

On Tuesday, shares of Uranium One on the TSX closed at $2.80.

~~~

Posted via web from appomattox's posterous

Remember Erin Brockovich? Image Mag

2009-06-16T11:47:00.001-04:00

Very interesting news arrived in my inbox earlier today that I thought I should share. Four counties in the lower Hudson Valley of New York are reported to have the highest rates of thyroid cancer in the nation. With alarming statistics coming from a specific region, health experts are looking for the culprit, which appears to be the nearby Indian Point Power Plant.
The plant produces and emits radioactive iodine particles, which when they enter the human body, attack thyroid cells and lead to cancer and other problems such as hypothyroidism. About 300 residents in the four surrounding counties are diagnosed with thyroid cancer each year.

via rt-image.com

This letter, submitted to Image magazine's blog, is written by the editor, Jane Kollmer. She points, also, to an article about the late effects of radiation and children (http://www.rt-image.com/Late_Effects_of_Radiation_on_Children_Causing_more_harm_than_good_/content=9604J05E48BEA2864076987244A890441 ) when radiation is used to treat children with cancer.

This is to those who believe that open pit uranium mines and mills can be GOOD for you, ie: thinking that uranium ore equals radiation for cancer treatment. No matter how you cut it, radiation is dangerous for humans. While radiation has almost blotted out childhood cancer cases, it also creates problems as soon as six months down the road after treatment. The story states, "These effects occur because damage is done not only to cancer cells, but also to healthy cells."

Some of the effects that radiation treatment has on children include:

>> It can cause in a child’s adulthood is infertility or complications birthing.
>> Another problem with treating young girls is that they have not yet reached puberty, so there are no eggs to bank, leaving them with no security.
>> Another very important late effect that can be improved is the impact of radiation on growing bones.

Doctors and radiologists now are talking with parents about these effects, as children cannot understand the issues.

"For example, the author discusses providing a “Passport for Care,” which is like a treatment summary that will always be available to the patient and healthcare providers. This Passport for Care will state the exact location of treatment and doses given, along with any possible late effects. This is important for the patient to have, because, while often times they are too young to understand their disease, when they get older they will more fully comprehend their past medical history."

"The success we can have using radiation is phenomenal; however, without knowledge of the damage that can result the outcome is often heartbreaking."

The difference between using radiation as cancer treatment and radiation that occurs in mining and milling is that there is some transparency in the former. To be fair, mining companies usually cannot be fully transparent, as they often don't know any more information than you and I do about what may happen when a mining and milling operation is undertaken.

Oh yes - the Indian Point Power Plant (or station) is a nuclear power plant. See Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_Point_Energy_Center or EIA: http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/nuclear/page/at_a_glance/reactors/in_point.html

Posted via web from appomattox's posterous

Empty Radioactive Wasp Nests Bug Cleanup Workers

2009-06-12T23:21:00.001-04:00

...when workers finished covering cleaned-up waste sites with fresh topsoil, native plants and straw to help the plants grow _ inadvertently creating perfect ground cover for the insects to build their nests. Nearby cleanup work also provided a steady supply of mud, which the wasps used as building material.

Today, the nests, which could number in the thousands, are "fairly highly contaminated" with radioactive isotopes, such as cesium and cobalt, but don't pose a significant threat to workers digging them up.

"You don't know what you're going to run into, and this is probably one of the more unusual situations," said Todd Nelson, spokesman for Washington Closure Hanford, the contractor hired to clean up the area under the oversight of the U.S. Department of Energy.

As for the wasps themselves, they're largely long gone _ the insects don't reuse their nests when they colonize each spring.

The federal government created Hanford in the 1940s as part of the top-secret Manhattan Project to build the atomic bomb.

The site produced plutonium for the first atomic blast and for the bomb that was dropped on Nagasaki, Japan, at the end of World War II, and plutonium production continued through the Cold War.

The work left a mess of radioactive and hazardous waste to be cleaned up next to the region's largest waterway, the Columbia River. The effort is expected to last decades and cost more than $50 billion.

Workers started using excavators three weeks ago to dig up the wasp nest-infected area, including vegetation that had already been replanted. Because they are in enclosed cabs on the excavators, no protective clothing is required.

The material is then placed in a container and taken to the onsite landfill for slightly radioactive wastes, said Dave Martin, the company's radiological engineer

via huffingtonpost.com

What a cute story...what some, in centuries to come, might call a "slice of life." But, instead of saying something like "oooh," or "ahhh," the readers might be shaking their heads at our stupidity. Hidden beneath this story are some pertinent facts:

1. Note the "mess of radioactive and hazardous waste" left behind after the site shut down.
2. Note the amount of money it will cost today's taxpayers to clean it up and the amount of time it will take to remediate the site - $50 billion over decades.
3. Note where the radioactive wastes are stored - on site.

This is the way that radioactive sites are remediated. Nothing about this methodology has changed, other than the fact that there are more sites to clean up now than there were a century ago. And, if the uranium mining industry has its way, there could be many more sites to clean up in the next half century.

My daughter, by the way, isn't happy about paying taxes for problems the previous generation left behind.

Posted via web from appomattox's posterous

Nuclear disaster averted by dirty laundry - Telegraph

2009-06-12T16:05:00.001-04:00

A radioactive leak that could have caused Britain's worst nuclear disaster was only averted when a worker in an adjoining room spotted water as he sorted laundry, according to a newly-obtained official report.

via telegraph.co.uk

This incident happened in January 2007, and the report has just now been released. Lesson? Always do your laundry at a nuclear power plant with one eye to the floor.

Posted via web from appomattox's posterous

AG: Pittsylvania County cannot impose uranium mining ban | GoDanRiver

2009-06-12T11:29:00.001-04:00

The state attorney general’s office says Pittsylvania County cannot impose a ban on uranium mining.

Late last month, the Board of Supervisors asked state Sen. Robert Hurt, R-Chatham, to seek an opinion from Virginia’s attorney general regarding the legality of a county ban on uranium mining. Hurt contacted the attorney general’s office on behalf of the board, said a lawyer there restated the office’s position expressed earlier.

Delegate Riley Ingram, R-62nd District, had made a similar request to the attorney general’s office last fall. An opinion from the office on Nov 14, 2008, states that a “locality may not enact (an) ordinance that preempts or nullifies state or federal law; such ordinance would be unconstitutional.”

The Board of Supervisors requested Hurt’s assistance on the matter in a May 28 letter after local uranium-mining opponents asked the board to consider a county ban on mining.

County Administrator Dan Sleeper said the Board’s Legislative Committee will discuss the opinion at its next meeting Tuesday.

Virginia Uranium Inc. seeks to mine and mill a 119-million pound uranium ore deposit at Coles Hill, about six miles northeast of Chatham. Virginia currently has a moratorium on uranium mining. The Virginia Coal and Energy Commission’s Uranium Mining Subcommittee is overseeing a study by the National Academy of Sciences to determine whether the practice can be done safely in the commonwealth.

The attorney general’s office’s opinion also mentions the state’s “Dillon rule,” which says that municipalities and counties can exercise only those powers given to them by the state.

Board of Supervisors Chairman Coy Harville said the board wanted to “set the record straight” with the attor-ney general on the subject. Harville said the question of whether the county can ban uranium mining is settled.

“To me, it’s a dead issue,” he said.

The issue took on added significance last year after the town of Halifax passed a chemical-trespass ordinance in 2008 and the town of Chatham mulled a similar ordinance. Chatham also sought and received a similar opinion from the attorney general’s office last year.

via godanriver.com

Posted via web from appomattox's posterous

Radioactive Revival in New Mexico

2009-06-11T22:43:00.001-04:00

A resurgence of interest in building nuclear power plants, touted as a nonpolluting alternative to carbon-fueled plants, has sparked a uranium rush. Since 2007 the NRC has received seventeen license applications for twenty-six new reactors, causing a flurry of applications for uranium mining permits across the Four Corners region, where New Mexico, Arizona, Utah and Colorado meet. In February Energy Secretary Steven Chu announced that the Energy Department would expedite the approval process for $18.5 billion in federal loan guarantees for utilities that are building nuclear plants. The guarantees, along with other Bush-era incentives, are meant to spur construction of new plants.

The anticipated rise in demand for uranium has led the industry back to the very places it deserted three decades ago when it abandoned hundreds of mines, seven polluted uranium mills, billions of gallons of contaminated groundwater and mountains of radioactive waste. Congress is only now beginning to press agencies to clean up the mess, an undertaking that could cost taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars.

Plenty of people in this economically distressed corner of New Mexico are thrilled about the 8,000 new jobs and $1 billion in economic benefits the uranium industry promises. They point to claims made by industry lobbyists in a concerted PR campaign that new technology will make mining safer and that cast doubt on the connection between uranium mining and the illnesses that plague people who worked in mines and mills or lived near them.

Many others, especially American Indians like Capitan, remain unconvinced. They are afraid the companies will leave behind another trail of environmental destruction, illness and death like that of thirty years ago.

via thenation.com

This story is a must-read for anyone to comprehend how the uranium industry operated 30-50 years ago in the West. Perhaps you will walk away with a taste of why some people are so adamant against uranium mining now, especially for those who have been affected by this industry's past.

Perhaps you'll get a glimmer of what happens to uranium-miners (no matter the ethnicity) and the destruction caused by uranium mining. Perhaps, too, you'll envision what happens to a uranium-mining town when it's abandoned. It's frozen in time. It never grows. At least, not until the next uranium-mining boom...

...but this is the first boom since the Three-Mile Island incident. What in this story makes anyone think that the technology has changed for uranium mining? What about this story makes anyone believe that the indifference to health and environment has changed? How can uranium industries think that they can ply the same lies they did a half century ago and get away with it this time?

Do you know?

Posted via web from appomattox's posterous

Auctioned Drilling Parcels Too Close to Utah Parks

2009-06-11T20:29:00.001-04:00

A special report to Secretary of the Interior Ken Salazar details how officials in the final days of the Bush administration pushed aside the National Park Service and sought to lease public lands for drilling on the borders of Utah’s most famous redrock parks.

Salazar was condemned by the oil industry for scrapping 77 of the leases weeks after taking office, but all of the drilling parcels had already been delayed by a federal lawsuit that is yet to be resolved.

Still, his action provoked a political battle that held up the Senate’s confirmation of his chief deputy, David Hayes, who found serious flaws in the awarding of oil and gas leases on a visit to Utah.

Hayes said the Bureau of Land Management — the agency responsible for leasing public lands for energy development — set out to lease drilling parcels on the borders of Arches National Park without notifying the Park Service, violating a long-standing pact.

The BLM also moved to lease other parcels close to Canyonlands National Park and Dinosaur National Monument, and to open drilling around artifact-rich Nine Mile Canyon and along the high cliffs of whitewater sections of the wild Green River.

via gjsentinel.com

There is more to this story, covered by the GJ (Grand Junction) Sentinel. This is the type of story that this paper covers regularly, as does High Country News. Salazar, if you remember, is from Colorado. What I trust about Salazar? He knows full well how the BLM operates. And, he also knows what drilling and mining does to the environment - at least to a dry environment.

I wonder if Salazar is aware of the proposed uranium mining study in Virginia? Just wondering...

Posted via web from appomattox's posterous

My Cycnicism re: Gov. Kaine and Mining

2009-06-11T13:31:00.001-04:00

Governor Timothy M. Kaine issued the following statement today in response to the Obama administration’s proposal to impose increased restrictions on mountaintop removal mining:

“I applaud the new guidelines announced by the administration which will impose tighter restrictions on mountaintop mining.

“In Virginia, we’ve always taken a common sense approach to how we meet our energy needs. At the same time - for the sake of this generation of Virginians and the next - we have made conserving the natural beauty of our Commonwealth and protecting our environment more broadly a real priority.

“The improved coordination inherent in the review process proposed by the Obama administration today will ensure we address both our energy and our environmental needs. Moving forward, it is critical we maintain transparency in the review process to ensure all stakeholders - including our citizens and representatives of the coal-mining industry - have faith that their concerns are taken into account.

“As we continue to meet the challenges of the global financial downturn, we have an obligation to permit the recovery of traditional energy sources that fuel our economy. However, we also have a responsibility to discourage the use of mining methods that exploit our mountains and valleys. While we continue investing in and developing renewable energy sources, we must focus on using those mining methods that complement our conservation goals instead of moving our nation backwards.

“Along with the Department of Mines, Minerals, and Energy and the Department of Environmental Quality in Virginia, I look forward to working with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, the Army Corps of Engineers, and the U.S. Department of the Interior as we move towards a new process for implementing the proper environmental protection around mining operations.”

via appomattoxnews.com

Within the past few weeks, every politician and uranium mining executive I've talked with mentions that I seem cynical. In fact, one politician stated that he understood the basis for my cynicism, but that he would work hard to overcome my perceptions about uranium mining safety. I doubt this.

In fact, with the press release above from Governor Kaine's office, I see uranium mining written all through that release. At the least, I see irony.

For instance, take the following quote:

"In Virginia, we’ve always taken a common sense approach to how we meet our energy needs. At the same time - for the sake of this generation of Virginians and the next - we have made conserving the natural beauty of our Commonwealth and protecting our environment more broadly a real priority."

In Virginia, energy needs have been met by reaching out to other programs, building nuclear power plants and building no renewable energy resources to date other than those purchased in other states (and which cost the consumer more than using power generated within the state). In this way, the 'beauty' of Virginia is maintained, unless you're living near Richmond and one of the nuclear power plants.

I'm curious to hear what Governor Kaine will say if the uranium mining moratorium is lifted, as he was an early proponent of studying mining feasibility for this state.

"As we continue to meet the challenges of the global financial downturn, we have an obligation to permit the recovery of traditional energy sources that fuel our economy. However, we also have a responsibility to discourage the use of mining methods that exploit our mountains and valleys. While we continue investing in and developing renewable energy sources, we must focus on using those mining methods that complement our conservation goals instead of moving our nation backwards."

In other words, let's keep digging that coal - and, hopefully, uranium - to build a renewable energy society? Right - I'll defer to some politicians' insistence that it will take continued extraction of nonrenewable resources to pay for renewable energy programs.

"Along with the Department of Mines, Minerals, and Energy and the Department of Environmental Quality in Virginia, I look forward to working with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, the Army Corps of Engineers, and the U.S. Department of the Interior as we move towards a new process for implementing the proper environmental protection around mining operations."

I'll bet.

Now, I don't sound THAT cynical, do I?

Posted via web from appomattox's posterous

House GOP's Energy Bill Calls For 100 Nuclear Plants

2009-06-10T22:19:00.001-04:00

House Republicans are calling for a hundred new nuclear power plants to be built in the next two decades as part of an energy plan they say is a better alternative than one championed by Democrats.

The legislation unveiled by the GOP Wednesday would also increase production of oil and gas offshore, open the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to drilling and spur refinery construction. The money from the new drilling would go into a trust fund that would pay for the development of renewable energy.

via huffingtonpost.com

Further in the story it states, "Republican leaders said their bill provides incentives to switch to cleaner energy sources, by extending tax credits for renewable energy and streamlining the permit process for nuclear power plants and refineries."

The Republicans who are pushing this bill need some education. First, nuclear power is not clean energy. Secondly, the story isn't clear as to who will receive the incentives. But, it's very clear that this plan offers a way to streamline the path for businesses to gain permits for nuclear power plants and refineries.

The drill, baby, drill mentality is at work here, pushing an agenda for big business that will take years to develop, let alone a risky business for creating funds for developing renewable resources. Now is the time for renewable resources, not after this generation has extracted as much non-renewable resources as possible. That is not how the game is played. Not anymore.

The Democratic bill, while not 'perfect,' has White House approval. The Dem bill sets mandatory targets for reducing greenhouse gas emissions and for producing electricity from renewable sources. Readers can only hope that the Dems don't view uranium as a renewable resource.

Posted via web from appomattox's posterous

Kazakhstan and Global Uranium Supply

2009-06-10T09:26:00.001-04:00

It is widely accepted that Kazakhstan is on the fast-track to overtaking Australia and Canada to become the global leader in uranium production either this year or next. It is estimated that as much as 50 per cent of uranium industry growth over the next few years could likely come from Kazakhstan.

Home to nearly 20 per cent of the world’s uranium reserves, Kazakhstan produced 6,637 tonnes of uranium in 2007 and 8,521 in 2008. The Central Asian nation plans to produce around 11, 900 tonnes this year.

So, despite its obvious potential for political risk, it’s likely Kazakhstan will continue to attract key players in the uranium industry.

via uraniuminvestingnews.com

The problem, however, is that the KNB (formerly KGB) has arrested the former head of Kazakhstan's state uranium firm (Kazatomprom), Mukhtar Dzhakishev, and accused him of using offshore firms to steal billions of dollars worth of uranium assets. Some question how Dzhakishev could have stolen “more than 60 per cent of state uranium deposits worth tens of billions of dollars,” as the KNB claims, out from under such a heavily monitored and audited industry as exists in Kazakhstan.

The Associated Press notes, “Mukhtar Dzhakishev was the latest businessman detained in what some have called a crackdown on executives with ties to opponents of President Nursultan Nazarbayev. The arrest follows a string of widely publicized corruption cases and arrests in Kazakhstan, which is firmly controlled by Nazarbayev, his family and his allies,” the report continued.

Some analysts in the mining industry, like senior editor of Case Energy Opportunities Marin Katusa, believe the political risk in post-Soviet era countries like Kazakhstan is bound to negatively affect the uranium mining sector at least in the short term....but as you can see from the quote above, it won't affect prices in the long term.

My favorite line from this story: Nevertheless, with the uranium supply/demand fundamentals leaning more to the demand side the uranium-rich nation of Kazakhstan is key to maintaining the global aboveground uranium supply.

That line is filled with so much perfect irony for an anti-uranium mining advocate that I can't touch it.

Posted via web from appomattox's posterous

Recycled radioactive metal contaminates consumer products |Tampa Bay News and Weather

2009-06-08T16:16:00.001-04:00

No federal agency is responsible for determining how much tainted material exists in how many consumer and other goods. No one is in charge of reporting, tracking or analyzing cases once they occur. In fact, the recent discovery of a radioactive cheese grater triggered a bureaucratic game of hot potato, with no agency taking responsibility.

via abcactionnews.com

I had written a long commentary to this article, but my computer glitched and I lost my information. Just as well. I would have angered a few politicians, I'm sure.

Take your time and read the dangers involved with an overabundance of radioactive materials in the world. Then, wonder why politicians even consider that a uranium mine would benefit Virginia citizens and the future of this state.

Take note on some of the discrepancies in this article. For instance, one paragraph reads:

"Experts say you needn't empty your home of metal implements for fear of radiation. The peril from most individual items is generally not considered great, although some could be hazardous on their own."

Yet another sentence refutes that previous remark:

"Because the amount of tainted metals in circulation is unknown, the cumulative overall health effect -- now and over time -- is impossible to calculate."

I think it's time the U.S. government provided its citizens with complimentary Geiger counters. That's the kind of health care I believe in.

Posted via web from appomattox's posterous

Primary Considerations: Energy and the Environment: Star City Harbinger

2009-06-08T11:33:00.001-04:00

Terry McAuliffe has waffled on the issue of whether “he’d back uranium mining in Virginia as he expanded what he calls his business plan for the state,” according to The Associated Press. A Virginia commission study on the impacts of uranium mining first reported in The Washington Post last November is ongoing.

The overwhelming consensus is that uranium mining is not worth the risk.

via starcityharbinger.com

We had a long discussion at AN on who to back for the gubernatorial race (primary tomorrow, folks!). While we debated back and forth about Deeds and Moran, we knew we would not back McAuliffe. He's a good man, but his interest in Southside seems less than that of Deeds and Moran, and, he has waffled on the uranium issue.

Since the 'study' makes uranium a statewide issue, Virginia needs a governor who understands that nuclear energy is NOT renewable energy. Nor is it clean, since its fuel is as 'dirty' as it gets when it comes to mining and to storing spent fuel. Since the issue about lifting the uranium moratorium in Virginia may be decided during this next governor's term, it's important to choose a person who understands all these issues.

If you go to the link above and read the entire article, you'll learn what Deeds has said:

"Senator Deeds has serious reservations about whether uranium can be mined in Virginia. He looks forward to reviewing the study, but he believes that our top priorities must be to ensure the protection of our water supply and the safety of all workers. He is not convinced that uranium mining can meet either of these requirements."

I know, from the Moran campaign managers, that Moran feels the same as Deeds, only he was insistent that the study would be funded by independent means (and it appears that funding the study still remains a mystery).

Get out and vote tomorrow - make your vote count!

Posted via web from appomattox's posterous

Still Digging Up Exxon Valdez Oil, 20 Years Later - TIME

2009-06-04T10:29:00.001-04:00

Even the best cleanup will fall short," says Craig Tillery, a deputy attorney general for the state of Alaska — whose Bristol Bay and Chukchi Sea are being considered for offshore oil and gas exploration — and a member of the Exxon Valdez Oil Spill Trustee Council, which funded the NOAA studies. "You have to make sure this never happens.

via time.com

Reparation is a problem, no matter the industry. Making sure "this never happens" is highly improbable, even with the most stringent regulations. Accidents happen. If they didn't, then a whole industry devoted to clean-up operations would not exist.

The elimination of extractive industries such as oil and uranium also is highly improbable. The best that the world's residents can do - especially those who live in industrial nations - is to use less products provided by nonrenewable industries. You can start today, by using less energy or gas - carpool or take public transportation, for instance. Or, try a few of these tips from teh Good Human: http://www.thegoodhuman.com/2007/04/26/ten-ways-we-became-more-green-to-help-the-environment/

Posted via web from appomattox's posterous

GAOReport.pdf (application/pdf Object)

2009-06-03T00:19:00.001-04:00

via big.assets.huffingtonpost.com

A slap on the hand for the DOE from the US Government Accountability Office regarding their messy job of cleaning up nuclear waste sites.

Read more at: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/06/02/doe-nuclear-clean-up-prog_n_210610.html and click on the links at the bottom of that article for even more information.

Posted via web from appomattox's posterous

Canadian oilsands companies must report contents of waste ponds

2009-06-02T17:16:00.001-04:00

In late April, Federal Court Judge James Russell ruled that Canada’s environment minister made a mistake in thinking the Canadian Environmental Protection Act did not require mining companies to report the material that ends up in tailings and waste-rock disposal areas.
Other large industries and institutions are required to report all their toxic emissions, which are entered into a public database system managed by the federal government called the National Pollutant Release Inventory.
Earlier this week, Environment Canada told the environment groups they would not appeal the decision.
Ecojustice lawyer Justin Duncan said it’s important to know what’s going into the oilsands tailings ponds.
"I think we’ve got evidence that a lot of these things leak," he said.
And it’s useful for the public to know what’s in the ponds, so they can tell the government how they think the facilities should be regulated, he added. The environmental groups involved believe the public deserves to know what kind of toxic liabilities are being created.
In the United States, mining companies have been required to report their mine tailings and waste rock since 1998. In 2005, their waste accounted for 27 per cent of all U.S. pollutants reported.

via edmontonjournal.com

I've had a great interest in Canadian mining issues since the Canadian company, Santoy, became interested in Virginia Uranium, Inc. This article is interesting, as it shows the Canadian rulings on tailings for oilsands companies; but, it also shows that mining companies in the U.S. have been required to report their mine tailings and waste rock since 1998. This is a good thing.

What isn't so hot is that U.S. tailings wastes account for 27 percent of all U.S. reported pollutants. This is an average figure, based upon more than uranium mine tailings.

Here are some points to remember for the future, in arguments against the lifting of the uranium mining moratorium in Virginia and for contacts regarding questions about a possible uptick in pollutants should the moratorium be lifted:

Section 402 of the Clean Water Act established the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System to limit pollutant discharges into streams, rivers, and bays. In the Commonwealth of Virginia, DEQ (Department of Environmental Quality) administers the program as the Virginia Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (VPDES).

Though DEQ requires Virginia Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permits for all point source discharges to surface waters, the US Environmental Protection Agency maintains authority to review applications and permits for "major" dischargers, a distinction based on discharge quantity and content.

DEQ and the Department of Conservation and Recreation coordinate separate State programs that regulate the management of pollutants carried by storm water runoff. DEQ regulates storm water discharges associated with "industrial activities", while DCR regulates storm water discharges from construction sites, and from municipal separate storm sewer systems (MS4s).

More information can be found in the Storm Water Permitting section (http://www.deq.state.va.us/vpdes/stormwater.html ), and at the Department of Conservation and Recreation's web site (http://www.dcr.virginia.gov/ ).

Virginia Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permits for surface coal mines are issued by the Virginia Department of Mines, Minerals, and Energy (http://www.dmme.virginia.gov/ ).

Water permit guidance documents can be found at this link: http://www.deq.state.va.us/waterguidance/permits.html

This information was obtained, verbatim, from the DEQ Virginia Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Permit Program: http://www.deq.state.va.us/vpdes/

The ERCB (Energy Resources Conservation Board - Canada) Web site says: "Tailings is a term used to describe waste (composed of water, sands, silt, clay, and residual bitumen) from oilsands extraction processes." But oilsands tailings also contain more toxic components, such as naphthenic acids, ammonia, benzene, toluene, creosols, asphaltene, phenols and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, says a 2008 paper by a Natural Resources Canada scientist. There are also heavy metals, such as arsenic and lead. Visit ERCB at http://www.ercb.ca/portal/server.pt?

Please visit the top link to read the article - you'll learn that companies that produce tailings waste have plenty of arguments to show that they are not responsible for any toxic accidents. But, those excuses are not limited by country boundaries.

On February 26, 1972, a coal-waste dam owned by the Pittston Company collapsed at the head of a crowded hollow in southern West Virginia. A wall of sludge, debris, and water tore through the valley below, leaving in its wake 125 dead and 4,000 homeless. While company officials knew of the hazard in advance of the flood, and that the dam was in violation of state and federal regulations, the Pittston Company continued to deny any wrongdoing, maintaining that the disaster was "an act of God."

Be prepared, Virginia. Be very prepared.

Posted via web from appomattox's posterous

Uranium mill project makes headway: Telluride Daily Planet

2009-05-31T12:15:00.001-04:00

The approximately 250 people who filled the Nucla High School gym last week were there to witness a different kind of rivalry than the basketball games that usually inhabit the venue. Instead, they came to debate the proposed uranium mill in Paradox Valley, a project that has electrified the fence between area residents who want jobs and those who are wary of the environmental impacts of such a facility.

The Montrose County Planning Commission held the public hearing to gather input about the proposed mill before making a recommendation to the county commissioners about a permit. The 880-acre project site is on private land zoned for agricultural use, not for industrial operations like processing ore, so it will require a special use permit for the proposed mill. The planning commission deferred its decision on the permit to a June 10 meeting, but both County Planning Director Steve White and the West End Planning Advisory Committee (made up of residents who live closer to the proposed project) recommended approval of the permit.

Although the majority of the crowd at the meeting seemed in favor of the project, either wielding signs of support or clapping after every pro-mill comment, there was also a lot of skepticism about the mill. The site’s neighbors and farmers in Paradox asked the commission to deny the permit, which they said was in conflict with how the surrounding lands are used.

“Agriculture is why we bought here,” said Martha Burgess, an organic farmer in Bedrock just a few miles from the proposed mill. “We feel that the contaminants would dangerously compromise our operations for both the animals and vegetables that we produce.”

Residents on the other side of the proposal, in Nucla, were put off by people from Telluride, Ridgway or Utah who expressed concern about the contamination of the water or air. Paradox may still be pristine, but Nucla is nearer to Uravan, the toxic remnants of an old uranium mill that produced yellowcake for the Manhattan Project. The uranium industry, mining and milling, has been a part of the culture in Nucla for generations. West end citizens argued that the advent of a new mill would provide jobs and invigorate the economy. Several remarked that they, or their families, had worked in the uranium industry before and that they don’t “glow in the dark.”

Glowing in the dark is not the real concern, of course — lung and kidney diseases, blood cancers and high mortality rates have been associated with uranium mill workers. Former Nucla resident Ryan Farmer tackled the elephant in the room, the health risks, and said that it wasn’t that the Nucla locals didn’t understand the risks. They do, he said. They just think that they are acceptable.

“Who here has lost a family member?” asked Farmer, and several people raised their hands. “If anybody knows the long term and health effects, it’s them. They’ve lived it. And they think the risks are worth it, and they want [the mill].”

A younger Nucla native, 21-year-old Mallory Rice, had a different perspective.

“The economic benefits are great for the community, however, they are very shortsighted given the history here … Please consider the long-term effects,” she said.

The planning commission gave Energy Fuels, the applicant, the opportunity to rebut the litany of negative comments, from the risks of contamination to the concerns about where the water needed to run the mill will come from or the possibility of earthquakes and accidents to the fact that the project is still under-capitalized, with just $35 million raised for the $150 million mill. After that, the hearing was continued to June 10 at the Friendship Hall in Montrose. Should the planning commission recommend approval, the matter will be heard by Montrose County Commissioners next.

Because the site is on private land, the only other agency besides the county that will regulate the mill operations will be the Colorado Department of Health and the Environment. No federal oversight or environmental impact statement will be required.

via telluridenews.com

If you're wondering why I'm posting information about a Colorado uranium milling operation, then read on. I'll make my points and provide links for more information.

1. This mill will be located not far from the reclaimed Uravan site, where uranium and vanadium were mined for almost fifty years and where the Superfund cleanup has been ongoing. If you read the article carefully, you'll discover information about "old-timers" and younger perspectives on this mill. While, in the previous blog entry I posted here, I stated to Mr. Donelson that many people do remember a uranium mine in their county, I neglected to add that people would need to be old enough to remember it. On the other hand, some younger folks seem to have more foresight than those who would rather "die employed." Uranium mining DOES contaminate surrounding areas and has impacts that people may not see for decades. See Uravan Superfund Cleanup information at http://www.epa.gov/Region8/superfund/co/uravan/ for the truth on how uranium mining in this area contaminated far-reaching areas through the San Miguel River.

2. Given this history, it is clear that many residents are looking at economic benefits, just as Mr. Donelson was pushing in his letter to the editor. The long-term effects can be horrific, as shown by the ongoing battle between the Navajo Nation and the government for the issues uranium mining has brought to their community. See: Navajo leaders seek help with uranium issues at http://www.daily-times.com/ci_12482886

3. The issue of land use was broached at this meeting for the Colorado mining and milling operation. Montrose County has a history of uranium mining, yes, but it also is agricultural and it also hosts Montrose, a town with an airport that brings in Telluride skiers and San Juan County tourists. Land use has been an ongoing issue in this area, especially in the town of Montrose. Unfortunately, up until the housing boom and bust, many of the members of the town council were also real estate agents who fought the residents about land use. While this blog isn't very active now (because real estate is an economic non-issue in Montrose at this time), you can learn more about the struggles over land use here: http://montrosecitizens.org/

4. Land use also is an issue in the Pittsylvania County uranium mining proposal. Additionally, since the study on uranium mining in Virginia now is a statewide issue, this land usage issue may come up again...Virginia is agricultural, and - unlike Montrose County in Colorado - uranium mining has never been conducted east of the Mississippi. Therefore, land use battles over historic former mining for uranium is moot in the State of Virginia. Virginia has been known as an agricultural state (at least below the Washington, D.C. beltway), and agricultural issues are of a major concern in Southside. See: Keeping Agriculture Alive in the Shadow of a Uranium Mine: Potential Effects and Regulatory Solutions for Virginia: http://elpr.org/2009/05/20/keeping-agriculture-alive-in-the-shadow-of-a-uranium-mine-potential-effects-and-regulatory-solutions-for-virginia/

5. The Paradox Valley mining project in Colorado is proposed on private land, just as the Coles Hill project is located on private land. Since these projects are located on private land, there are issues such as oversight that must be addressed. In Colorado, no federal oversight or environmental impact statement is required, an issue that can speed up the process for the underfunded project proposed there. In Coles Hill, the project appears to be in fine financial shape, as Virginia Uranium just joined with Canadian Uranium mining company Santoy. And, a study is now being conducted in Virginia (although funds for that study are vague), but I - as do others - have an uneasy feeling about this study. Mainly, the question is how this statewide study can be conducted within eighteen months. This Virginia study is not site-specific, which means that Coles Hill is not a focus. Rather, it seems that economics will take the day, although it has been promised that the safety of Virginians will take a top priority. See the specifics on the Uranium Mine Study’s Statement of Task Issues at http://www.appomattoxnews.com/2009/uranium-mine-studys-statement-of-task-issues.html

6. Finally, although this article doesn't clarify the Energy Fuels' origins, they are a Canadian company, just like Santoy. See http://www.energyfuels.com/ for Energy Fuels and http://www.santoy.ca/s/Home.asp for Santoy. You might want to ask yourself why Canadian companies are so interested in U.S. uranium. If you have an answer, let me know, as I know that Canada still has plenty of uranium in their country to mine and mill. So, I don't have answers.

Posted via web from appomattox's posterous

Uranium offers new economic engine, like lake 45 years ago: WWW.WPCVA.COM

2009-05-30T01:20:00.002-04:00

About 45 years ago Smith Mountain Dam was completed.

It would take several more years for Smith Mountain Lake to fill and become the wonderful resource many of us enjoy today.

It is certain that if the Smith Mountain Dam project was proposed today, anti-development organizations would scream about the pending danger, doom, and devastation.

They would warn that building a power plant at Smith Mountain gap could ruin the countryside.

Today with decades of safe operation and clean energy created from that hydroelectric power plant, all but the most wild-eyed radicals share the opinion that Smith Mountain Dam and the lake it created have been a blessing for the area.

Smith Mountain Lake was created because people with vision used science and engineering to harness a natural resource and create positive change.

Today Southside suffers from chronic high unemployment and the loss of traditional economic engines.

As the farming and manufacturing sectors struggle, many blue chip employers are gone.

Today we need to again use technology to utilize our natural and human resources and create core jobs.

Just as hydroelectric power from Smith Mountain Lake has benefited this area for the past 45 years, in the future the same will be said of the clean and safe energy that will come from safe uranium mining at Coles Hill.

Let's hope that anti-development organizations don't drown out the voices of reason.

We should strengthen Southside Virginia by developing new economic engines that are under our feet instead of looking for greener pastures.

John M. A. Donelson

McLean

via wpcva.com

In my previous post, I pointed to Southside Virginia Against Uranium Mining, where they pointed out that the author of the letter above is Vice President of Marketing and Sales at USEC Inc., the company that enriches uranium in the only U.S. uranium enrichment plant in Paducah, KY. So, now that we know the author's identity, allow me, please, to speak to him and to his letter.

Mr. Donelson, you first compare Smith Mountain Dam to open-pit uranium mining. This comparison is like trying to prove that apples and oranges are one and the same. Smith Mountain Lake is a hydroelectric dam. Open-pit uranium mines are mined for yellowcake. Boaters and fisherman use Smith Mountain Lake. I would like to invite you, Mr. Donelson, to boat and fish at the tailings ponds created for open-pit uranium mines. In fact, I'd like to invite you to live in Chatham during the duration of the mining at Coles Hill.

Secondly, you wrote, "It is certain that if the Smith Mountain Dam project was proposed today, anti-development organizations would scream about the pending danger, doom, and devastation."

Mr. Donelson, you do not need to include the comma after "doom." Grammatically, that comma is incorrect. So is your assumption that people would put up the same fuss about a dam as they would about an open-pit uranium mine. Granted, dams are not good, but open-pit uranium mines are worse.

A dam may not ruin the countryside - in fact, it sometimes enhances the countryside - at the expense of archaeologists, native flora and fauna, and the property owners who must relocate. But, many people enjoy Smith Mountain Lake today, and most of those folks don't even know the history of that lake.

On the other hand, many people may know and remember the history of an uranium mine in their county. Unlike Smith Mountain Lake, where property values keep pace with valued properties nationwide, an open-pit uranium mine (even the suggestion of such a mine) will cause property values to drop and then to become totally worthless. It will take many years after mining is done for people to use that land again. As a campground, perhaps, or for hiking trails, much like the old open pit mines at Uravan, Colorado.

While I abhor dams, I can live with them more so than I can live with open-pit uranium mines. So, Mr. Donelson, be careful about the adjectives. I don't consider myself "wild-eyed" any more than I would consider you as being "insane." But, I do consider you as "snaky, sneaky and downright slick."

The reason I feel that way, Mr. Donelson, is that you use the same ol' same ol' economic "poor Southside" reasoning for uranium mining. I say this, Mr. Donelson, because I have not experienced or known one safe uranium mine created since that mineral began to be mined back in the middle of the twentieth century in the U.S. And, while some Southside residents might say, "At least I died employed," many other voices have spoken out against this mine in the face of unemployment and a poor economy. Are those people "wild-eyed," or are they educated and sensible people who want to preserve their property values and their health?

Why not, instead, tell readers WHY uranium mining at Coles Hill would be so much different than all the other uranium mines created before it? Why don't you tell folks pertinent information, like how that mining will be conducted, the real history behind tailings ponds in all industries and the plans for cleaning up after the mining is done?

I would say, Mr. Donelson, that you are the one who is being unreasonable. You have carried forth a flimsy argument. Additionally, you have not been forthcoming about your real identity or the reason why you wrote this letter. This is the age of transparency, Mr. Donelson, and you are strangely opaque.

But, you have provided one service. You have proven, with this letter and with the revelation of your identity by others, that you and your company have an interest in Virginia's uranium. This should help people in Virginia understand that uranium mined in Virginia will not stay in Virginia. In fact, many people have wondered where the yellowcake was headed to become enriched uranium...you've helped to lift the veil from that sacred altar.

For that, I thank you.

Posted via web from appomattox's posterous

Chatham Star-Tribune Provides Uranium Co. With Free Advertising

2009-05-30T00:38:00.001-04:00

USEC Inc. (NYSE:USU), a leading supplier of enriched uranium fuel for commercial nuclear power plants, is being given free advertising by the Chatham Star-Tribune under the guise of a Letter to the Editor. USEC operates the only uranium enrichment facility in the United States [Paducah, KY] and supplies more than half of the U.S. market and more than a quarter of the world market. 2008 revenues were more than $1.6 billion. But they don't have to pay to advocate for mining Coles Hill and advertise in Chatham!

Here's the specious letter from their Vice-President of Marketing and Sales, John M. A. Donelson:

via sccagainsturanium.blogspot.com

I want to thank Southside Virginia Against Uranium Mining for catching this letter and the identity of its writer. Please visit the link above to read the letter and more about its author. If you're too tired or lazy to do that, don't worry - I'm going to reprint and comment on that letter shortly.

Posted via web from appomattox's posterous

Canada eyes sale of stake in AECL reactor business

2009-05-28T14:21:00.001-04:00

The federal government is restructuring Atomic Energy of Canada Ltd. and may sell a stake in its commercial reactor division.

Minister of Natural Resources Lisa Raitt said Thursday the goal is to strengthen the nuclear reactor business — which produces the CANDU reactor — so it can better compete globally.

In the global reactor business, AECL, which is a Crown corporation, faces competition from foreign players such as General Electric in the United States and France's Areva.

The government has hired N.M. Rothschild & Sons to develop a restructuring plan and provide financial advice. David Leith, a former deputy chairman and head of investment, corporate and merchant banking at CIBC World Markets, has also been tapped as an adviser to Raitt.

Raitt said the company's research-and-development division, Chalk River Laboratories, will continue to be government-owned, but with private-sector management.

She said the restructuring is not related to the ongoing shutdown of the National Research Universal reactor at Chalk River.

Raitt said a review of AECL that began 18 months ago found that the company's mandate and structure hampered its development. She also said the CANDU and R&D divisions have distinctly different needs.

AECL has about 4,800 employees, including 2,900 in research and 1,600 at its CANDU division.

via cbc.ca

Oh, I shouldn't have an interest in Canadian nuclear power, but - like mushrooms in the natural world with their mycelial web - the nuclear/atomic energy/uranium industry is tied so closely together globally that it would be difficult to untangle it.

Some notes to the above story: Conservatives are in power in Canada this year; Canadians, not the government, share a stake in all government-owned business (much like taxpayers in the U.S. now own portions of banks, etc.); and, privatization means that private companies take over a formerly-run government business, entity, etc.

What does this mean for the whole picture of the global nuclear/atomic energy/uranium industry? Read the second paragraph again, where Minister of Natural Resources Lisa Raitt states, "The goal is to strengthen the nuclear reactor business...so it can compete globally." This means that the U.S. plans to ramp up their competitive status as well, no matter whether citizens like it or not.

Not that I'm against nuclear reactors. I've said this before and I'll say it again...nuclear reactors are not the problem. It's the fuel supply - uranium - that causes all the issues. If we could run nuclear reactors on alfalfa, I'd be thrilled. But, then they would be alfalfa reactors, wouldn't they?

Please go to the story through that link above and read the comments. Like any other news site that allows comments, sometimes you can learn more from readers than from writers.

Posted via web from appomattox's posterous

Uranium Market: Russia Wants On Top

2009-05-28T10:43:00.001-04:00

On Tuesday, Russia’s Techsnabexport (Tenex) signed a landmark agreement with US utilities firm Fuelco worth a reported $1 billion. Tenex is the export branch of Russia’s Federal Nuclear Energy Agency (Rosatom) and Fuelco is a conglomeration made up of Pacific Gas and Electric Co, Luminant and Ameren UE.

The deal will allow Tenex to supply uranium to US companies from 2014 to 2020 in the first solely commercial uranium contract between Russia and the US; it also follows a negotiated settlement in February 2008 between the two nations authorizing Russian uranium imports to the US civil nuclear power industry.

via uraniuminvestingnews.com

This article is interesting, as it quotes the same numbers as the propaganda video that I posted with sarcastic comments a few days ago (http://appomattox.posterous.com/how-to-create-a-propoganda-video-american-ene). According to this bit from Uranium Investing News (which I would take with a grain of salt as well, being the cynic that I am), the agreement above represents a change in U.S. policy regarding Russian and nuclear proliferation. Prior to this agreement, Russian uranium arrived in the U.S. under the "megatons to megawatts program" first enacted in 1993 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Megatons_to_Megawatts_Program).

The m-to-m program allowed Russia to sell surplus weapons-grade uranium for U.S. civilian reactors. Wonder if the U.S. can talk N. Korea into the same deal - or would that deal mean war for Russian and N. Korea? Shoot, uranium is like gold in them thar hills.

According to Fuelco President Bruce Hamilton, this fuel will provide energy for five million American homes. According to U.S. Republican Senator Lamar Alexander (TN), "nuclear power is presently the only viable alternative to fossil fuels." Alexander also has called for 100 new nuclear power plants over the next twenty years. I wonder exactly what Alexander is up to. Beyond my curiosity, it would be nice to hear Alexander explain "energy independence" to folks who believe that uranium mined in Virginia would stay in Virginia. It can't happen, as the yellowcake would need to be shipped off to be enriched so it could be used in nuclear power plants.

This article also reveals that Russian holds nearly 40 percent of the world's uranium enrichment capacity. Currently, there is one fully-functioning uranium enrichment plant in the U.S., in Paducah, Kentucky.

Posted via web from appomattox's posterous

Deeds: Transportation, cooperation are key - Martinsville Bulletin

2009-05-28T10:09:00.001-04:00

I don’t see how you can mine uranium in any area of Virginia. There’s too much rainfall. How do you develop a liner and cap that will protect tailings from contaminating the groundwater?” asked Deeds, who formerly lived in Danville.

via martinsvillebulletin.com

This is a quote from gubernatorial candidate Creigh Deeds. He is the only candidate to date who has spoken negatively about the Coles Hill uranium mine. While I know that other candidates and politicians are against the mine, they all want to see studies. Not Deeds. He seems to understand the possible impact of weather on this mine in Pittsylvania County - he doesn't need a study, it seems.

I don't trust any politician, even the ones I like. But, it's nice to hear someone stand up against the mine. In fact, it may serve as a good platform, since he seems to be the lone wolf on this issue.

Posted via web from appomattox's posterous

Southside Virginia Against Uranium Mining: Urgent Questions Remain Regarding the Two Uranium Studies

2009-05-27T22:33:00.001-04:00

News reports regarding the work and responsibilities of the Uranium Mining Subcommittee do not begin to inform the public about the true status and complexity of the uranium study process. There may not be a market for such information, yet there is certainly a need. Urgent questions remain unanswered.
Contrary to some reports, the uranium mining study has not started. We need to remember, as well, that “the study” is now two studies – a technical study and a socio-economic study. The subcommittee is negotiating the technical study with the National Academy of Sciences (NAS). Before NAS can call for nominations for a study committee, both parties must agree on the scope of work, the NAS has to draw up a budget and timeline, and someone has to come up with money and sign a contract.
Subcommittee members have yet to discuss the equally important, complicated, and challenging socio-economic study.

Katie Whitehead writes a good letter, and she proves to write a great argument as well with this article at Southside Virginia Against Uranium Mining. In a nutshell, Whitehead claims that the socio-economic aspects of lifting the uranium mining moratorium in Virginia have not been broached, nor is it unreasonable to suggest that this study even remotely suggests a state-wide approach.

I agree with Whitehead, and I also agree that - while the 'study' is a noble attempt at learning how uranium mining might affect the Coles Hill area, readers and others tend to forget (or want to not remember) that lifting the uranium mining moratorium means the entire state is up for grabs from south to north along the uranium vein.

This is yet another reason why ALL Virignians should be involved in this process. While a small group stopped the prospect of a mine in the early 1980s resulting in a state-wide moratorium, the environment is entirely different today. Uranium prices are slowly but surely rising, nuclear energy is being touted as "clean" energy, and propagandists are pushing for energy "independence" when total independence is a fairy tale and totally impractical.

It would be helpful to have as many people in and around Virginia involved in this process as possible. While not everyone can attend a public hearing and some people may not have Internet access, others can help educate those people on what happens at those meetings and what is being said on the Internet.

So, spread the word and get involved today. Make it a point to read Southside Virignia Against Uranium Mining to stay on top of day-to-day news about the uranium mining process in Coles Hill (hence statewide). Talk to your representatives, because they will make decisions based upon how much they - and you - know.

Once the moratorium is lifted, the fight against mining uranium in your backyard will be that much harder to fight.

Posted via web from appomattox's posterous

Uranium mining and weapons poisoning, on the Navajo Nation: SF Energy Policy Examiner

2009-05-27T00:54:00.001-04:00

...Then I left my keys behind in the bus, but the young Navajo driver soon knocked on my door with them, then gave me some directions and tips about finding my way around Page before meeting the houseboat party on the dock the next morning.
We talked about the Navajo Marine who'd just died in Iraq, and about uranium weapons poisoning, and I liked him very much. He asked if I was a writer, and I sensed that he wanted to tell me a story, so I took out a pen and wrote it down:
He had almost gone to Flagstaff to enlist just before the Gulf War, in 1991, but had gotten a job making better wages on the reservation instead. Eight of his friends had gone, and all eight had returned alive, but then, all eight had died of cancer, within two years. All eight had believed that uranium weapons poisoning caused their cancers; all eight had been on the deck of an aircraft carrier when a black cloud of munitions blowback descended upon them.
The Veterans Administration denied that their cancers had anything to do with uranium weapons, or, any sort of other toxic exposure in the Gulf, but gave their families some sort of death benefit after they were gone. One had used his veterans' benefits to complete a Master's Degree and move to Tucson two months before he died.
After I'd written down my new friend's tragic story, we exchanged telephone numbers and stayed in touch, and, as a result, I later met some very inspiring Navajo environmental and indigenous rights activists, from Diné CARE and the Black Mesa Water Coalition. I'm not going to name my friend, or the friends he lost, because the recruiting pressure in Native America is like nothing I've ever seen outside New Orleans.
I also learned about the horrific, ongoing post-World War II legacy of uranium mining contamination in Navajoland, which had killed many Navajo people and left many others suffering birth defects and illnesses, including cancer in numbers far disproportionate to the general population.
The uranium in Gulf War munitions blowback that these Navajo vets believed was killing them may well have been mined in their own poisoned homeland, after World War II, as the U.S. built its nuclear power, weapons, and war machine.

via examiner.com

Please visit this story by Ann Garrison and take a look at a tailings pond that still exists on Navajo land. That's the ugly green water I talked about very early on in my campaign against the Coles Hill mine. That water is extremely contaminated with radioactive materials and other toxic minerals.

If you want to learn more about uranium and the Navajo Nation, read: http://serc.carleton.edu/research_education/nativelands/navajo/. I suggest you read the first paragraph at that link, if nothing else. Despite education about health risks, economics always will win. Then, just like in Uravan and other open-pit mining areas, the effects will be felt a half century down the road - by the people who live and work around an open-pit uranium mine.

Are the economics really worth it, especially when they're based upon theory? You tell me.

Posted via web from appomattox's posterous

Santoy Resources Jump-starts Growth with Virginia Uranium Stake: Midas Letter

2009-05-25T21:28:00.001-04:00

As far as uranium companies go, there aren't many who can say they are developing one of the largest undeveloped deposits in the world. But Santoy Resources (TSX.V:SAN), through its acquisition of a minority stake in Virginia Uranium, is doing just that. Santoy is in the process of acquiring a 20% interest in the holding company ("Holdco") that controls the leasehold development and operating rights of the Coles Hill uranium property in southside Virginia.
The transaction is structured as a plan of arrangement that also provides Santoy with a right of first refusal on future financings. Santoy's ambition is to earn a 30% interest over the next few years through various financing transactions.

via midasletter.com

Virginia Uranium's Norman Reynolds will become CEO of Santoy upon the transaction's closing. If that name is familiar to you, you may realize that Reynolds also was CEO of Marline, the company that "discovered" the uranium at Coles Hill back in the 1980s. He's one persistent soul. Imagine your life's mission as one to dig uranium out of one hole. Will that make him famous or rich?

Posted via web from appomattox's posterous

How to Create a Propoganda Video: American Energy Independence

2009-05-25T16:22:00.001-04:00

via youtube.com

First, make sure you have photos of terrorists - any terrorists will do. Create an element of fear a la Bush era Iraq.

Make sure you tell viewers that these countries are energy-producing countries that Americans depend upon for energy. This is an outright lie, but say it anyway.

Be sure to add spooky and tense music behind those images to invoke continued fear.

Switch to lighthearted new-age music as you tell Americans that their energy usage will increase by 25 percent by 2030. Then, show them images of nuclear power plants, which - by the way - are not the only way that Americans can create energy. And, it isn't cheap, but who's telling?

Keep up that lighthearted music while showing an image of uranium ore that generates the power for nuclear energy. Don't tell anyone how radioactive that ore can be - and that it's a cancer-causing agent. You need to cut the fear back at the terrorists, remember? If you have to, paint the ore gold so it looks valuable.

Switch back to that onerous music again while telling viewers that Americans receive most of their uranium from Russia. Don't tell viewers that it's virtually impossible to spell out specific amounts of reserve numbers and direct import/export numbers and facts - there's no way that any country will tell how much yellowcake they have in reserve or where it's going or coming from. Yellowcake, after all, can be used to produce weapons as well as energy. Top-secret stuff, that.

Switch to light-hearted banjo tap-your-feet music while explaining that Pittsylvania County can supply all the uranium and jobs that Virginia needs to supply this state's power. Don't tell viewers that the states that demonstrate the greatest amount of uranium resources are Wyoming, New Mexico, Texas and the Four Corners Area of Arizona, Colorado and Utah - NOT Virginia. And, don't tell viewers that most of the uranium mined in Virginia will not stay in Virginia. What a joke! Good one, too, but I'm sure the viewers will buy it.

Then, show images of people who are working utility jobs, rather than showing uranium miners - especially those who work in open pit mines.

Never, ever show an image of an open-pit mine and its accompanying tailings ponds. Don't ever talk about cancer rates amongst uranium miners and residents who remain living around open-pit uranium mines. And, instead of stating how dangerous this mine might be in a hurricane/tornado/flood corridor, state that Virginia will be THE FIRST to mine uranium east of the Mississippi. Yippee!

It is forbidden, as well, to talk about what happens when the mining ends. Let viewers do their own homework to discover that there is not one case of a uranium mining company making reparations to land that has been mined for uranium in the U.S. In all cases, the U.S. government has stepped in to clean up with Superfunds and other monies (except in a most recent case where the government stepped in to force the company to clean up - http://appomattox.posterous.com/epa-arco-to-spend-102m-for-nv-mine-cleanup).

Whatever you do, make sure you end on a happy note...Don't tell Virginians that no one will be able to live on or near the Coles Hill property for centuries after the mining is done. For heavens sake, don't point them to the Uravan project, whatever you do (http://www.epa.gov/Region8/superfund/co/uravan/).

The End. Good job.

Posted via web from appomattox's posterous

Hurricanes and Uranium Mines

2009-05-22T13:27:00.001-04:00

Since 2003, Virginia has had 49 fatalities and suffered over $2 billion in damage from storms including Hurricane Isabel, Hurricane Jeanne, and Tropical Depression Gaston. This year also marks the 40th anniversary of Hurricane Camille, which left more than 100 dead and damage of more than $1 billion in Virginia.

via appomattoxnews.com

Just a note for those following the uranium mine issues in Virginia - this press release from Governor Kaine's office details the issue of hurricanes and the problems that Virginia has had with these tropical storms just since 2003. How will this weather affect an open-pit uranium mine in Pittsylvania County?

Posted via web from appomattox's posterous

Virginia panel OKs uranium mining study :: WRAL.com

2009-05-21T22:14:00.001-04:00

A Virginia coal and energy panel on Thursday approved the framework of a scientific study on proposed uranium mining in the state, saying they want to make safety their top priority.

A subcommittee of the Virginia Commission on Coal and Energy amended a list of recommendations from the National Academy of Sciences on what to include in the study. It would range from market trends to technical practices to health risks, but would not take a position for or against the mining.

Members heard a series of public comments at the more than two-hour meeting before amending the study's scope. Among the major revisions: putting assessment of health risks to workers and the public at the top of the list.

Environmentalists and residents who live close to the site near the Virginia-North Carolina state line worry about hazards to human health and the environment from mining the radioactive material.

"I think that what we heard here was a real strong desire to make it clear that safety is our top priority in this," said Del. Kristen Amundson of Fairfax, a member of the panel charged with commissioning an independent study.

Before uranium could be mined in Virginia, the General Assembly would have to lift a ban that has been in place since 1982. The proposed independent study could take 1 1/2 years, then the General Assembly would decide whether to approve the mining. The legislature last year refused to even study the idea.

The study, a first step to lifting that ban, had been requested by Virginia Uranium Inc., which wants to mine a 119 million-pound Pittsylvania County deposit beneath 3,000 acres near the North Carolina border in Southside Virginia. It is believed to be the largest deposit in the nation, with a value estimated anywhere from $7 billion to $10 billion.

via wral.com

The mining study is going forward. It's been reported in many regional papers already. I wish that all papers reporting this would clarify that Virginia Uranium is the company that belongs to Walter Coles, who also owns the land that sits on the uranium vein. This is an important point. The land has been in his family for a few generations.

Posted via web from appomattox's posterous

Keeping Agriculture Alive in the Shadow of a Uranium Mine: Potential Effects and Regulatory Solutions for Virginia

2009-05-21T10:42:00.002-04:00

UPDATE (5 May 2010): Maggie James asked that I post this information. While I could upload her message, I want to keep her promise true, that she has not linked to any blogs or posts regarding her uranium note. Since her note has been published, she has encountered several instances where her name and portions of her note have been misquoted or re-written (to incorporate points of views of others as if they were her own) across the internet, and she is working to make sure that those reading the note on both sides of the debate are correctly informed about what positions and actions she has and has not taken.

This Note addresses the potential implications for agricultural production if uranium mining becomes a reality for Virginia by looking at scientific and sociological data at other mine sites, as well as public perception of food safety threats. There are gaps to be filled in both regulation and enforcement mechanisms as they apply to uranium mining’s effects on agricultural crops and livestock. This Note provides suggestions for means of regulating the output of agricultural products from the potentially affected regions of Virginia under the current statutory framework for developing state and site-specific protocols to ensure safety and preserve the public confidence in the food supply. By taking the proactive regulatory approach proposed by this Note, agriculture can continue to be a successful economic base of the Southern Virginia both during the uranium mining process and after it has come to an end.

via elpr.org

Here is a rational voice in the debate over the lifting of Virginia's uranium mining moratorium, brought to the public by the William & Mary Environmental Law and Policy Review and written by Maggy J. Lewis. I was pleased to see that Lewis linked to Southside Virginia Against Uranium Mining, and it was interesting to see the post that Lewis linked to within that blog (http://sccagainsturanium.blogspot.com/2009/04/garden-club-to-showcase-coles-hill.html).

Lewis focuses on how an agricultural community can sustain itself if the moratorium is lifted and mining is pursued. So, the link to the garden club cruising through the possible location of an open-pit uranium mine was very appropriate. If you see that photo on the Southside blog and compare it to the photo of the tailings ponds that belonged to a now defunct open-pit uranium mine project, you can see how the Coles Hill area will be transformed (or deformed). The tailings pond photo is here: http://www.appomattoxnews.com/2009/reasons-why-the-uranium-mine-moratorium-must-stand.html

I wish (and, if wishes were horses, beggars would ride, as my grandmother was fond of saying...) that Virginians who will be affected by a possible open-pit uranium mine would visit some mines in the west before they make up their minds about allowing Virginia Uranium and Santoy to tear up northern Pittsylvania County. They then would realize that nothing - nothing - can be used within the area of that mine for centuries.

The federal government is using Superfunds and other monies to conduct reparation in the Uravan area and at Rocky Flats outside Denver. They have turned these areas into parks, and they hope to entice people to camp on these grounds. No one can build there - the radiation is too intense. Nothing can be grown there that will be consumed. The feds even plan museums for those two sites so future generations will not forget what these parks represent.

A park. That's what Coles Hill will become after about fifty years of dangerous uranium mining to extract that metal from that one location. A perpetual park, much like a cemetery. No tax base, no ability to build on that location in the future, no way to use land that might be needed for other purposes. A deadly, dangerous park.

If you don't believe me, order February 16th's issue of High Country News, where Jonathan Thompson writes about the 'importance of memory.' In that article, he states that former workers at Rocky Flats won't enter the grounds without protective masks and clothing...and yet, the federal government expects Americans to believe it's safe to hike the trails on this reclaimed land? (see http://www.hcn.org/issues/41.3/the-importance-of-memory for an introduction).

In fact, it wouldn't hurt to peruse High Country News online and search for articles about uranium mining. You can get a taste of what's in store for Virginia once the moratorium on uranium mining has been lifted. Rather, you can get a SMALL taste of what's in store for Virginia, as uranium mining has never been conducted east of the Mississippi - and for good reason. No one knows how the weather, humidity or other factors might affect uranium mining in the east.

Virginia, therefore, will become an experiment. And, knowing what I know about living near uranium mining, it won't be a happy experience, even if the mine is successful. The payback is down the road, once the ore has been mined and milled and no one is left to clean up the mess (historically accurate) except the taxpayers.

Posted via web from appomattox's posterous

Uranium a hot commodity as nuclear demand grows | reportonbusiness.com

2009-05-20T09:40:00.001-04:00

"We're seeing some real positive signs in the uranium market," said Mr. Tonkin. Among them: China is buying material in the spot market ahead of new nuclear reactors coming online, and Saskatoon-based Cameco Corp.'s CCO-T Cigar Lake deposit - one of the largest in the world - remains on hold due to water leakage issues.

Producers, meanwhile, won't be in a rush to develop new mines until prices reach the $70-to-$80 level, Mr. Tonkin says. "We see the uranium market remaining in deficit until at least 2013."

Peter Farmer, the departing head of Canadian uranium miner Denison Mines Corp., DML-T told shareholders on April 30 that prices should climb back to $60 or $70 over the next year.

via theglobeandmail.com

This is an earlier story at the Globe and Mail, but it's one that was repeated just today in Uranium Investing News (http://www.uraniuminvestingnews.com/1736/uranium-spot-price-on-the-uptrend.html). In this latter story, they quote the author of the Globe and Mail story as an expert on uranium safety.

The real story here is the false story of supply and demand. Most people are familiar with how the market works, and readers have become even more familiar with how large business influences the markets. When large banks and holding companies don't want to touch the market, it goes down. When they see a chance to make a profit, it goes up.

Seriously, don't think that your pitiful portfolio has anything to do with how the markets move unless you have a board of directors and billions of dollars.

Uranium supplies, as they exist now, could "provide every bit of worldwide electricity production for about 550 years." (http://sccagainsturanium.blogspot.com/2009/05/rethinking-nuclear-power.html). So, the rise in yellowcake prices is a false market, one that can change the lives of many people who cannot alter that market's upswing.

While bankers, investors and brokers make money on the uranium deposit in Virginia, hundreds of workers and residents will be exposed to the dangers posed by open-pit uranium mining. But, someone's got to do the dirty work, otherwise those folks won't make a dime.

Posted via web from appomattox's posterous

Uranium mining: After safety, what's next? | GoDanRiver

2009-05-14T01:01:00.001-04:00

The Virginia Coal and Energy Commission’s Uranium Mining Subcommittee meets next week in Richmond to mull a proposed final draft of a study that would determine whether uranium can be mined and milled safely in the commonwealth.

But even if the draft — which addresses mining’s technical and public-health aspects — gets a thumbs-up, the subcommittee’s job will only be half done.

Its members must decide on the study’s second part, which would analyze the socio-economic aspects of uranium mining. Members disagree on when to proceed with the second part of the study.

Virginia Uranium Inc. seeks to mine and mill a 119-million-pound uranium ore deposit at Coles Hill, about six miles northeast of Chatham. Virginia has had a moratorium on uranium mining since 1982.

Subcommittee member Sen. Phillip Puckett, D-Russell County, said he opposes conducting the study’s second portion if mining is found to be unsafe.

“If that is a ‘no,’ we don’t have to answer any more questions,” Puckett said Wednesday. “To me, the safety part is more important.” Delegate Bud Phillips, D-Sandy Ridge, agrees, calling the socio-economic aspects “secondary.” The most vital question is whether mining can be done in a manner safe for citizens and the environment, Phillips said Wednesday. Puckett’s and Phillips’s districts are in coal-mining areas. Phillips once worked in the coal-mining industry, like his father.

Subcommittee Chair Lee Ware, R-Powhatan, wants to see the second phase begin quickly.

“My own preference would be for the Uranium Mining Subcommittee … to authorize as soon as possible a study of the socio-economic implications of uranium mining generally, the proposed mining at Coles Hill specifically,” Ware said via e-mail Monday.

During the subcommittee’s meeting in March, Sen. Frank Wagner, R-Virginia Beach, said the economic part of the study is important. “I think we have to ensure there is a market for it (uranium)” he said.

Other members expressed concerns similar to Puckett’s and Phillips’s during the subcommittee’s March meeting. Delegate Kristen Amundson, D-Mount Vernon, questioned giving the economic aspects of the issue priority when safety and environmental matters should be the main focus. Delegate Watkins Abbitt, I-Appomattox, said the marketing aspects of uranium mining should be left for the private sector to study and if mining uranium is found to be unsafe, examining its costs and benefits would be a waste of time.

via godanriver.com

Kudos to Sen. Phillip Puckett, Delegate Bud Phillips and Delegate Watkins Abbitt for putting the safety of their constituents and the environment before economics of uranium mining. As far as Sen. Frank Wagner and Subcommittee Chair Lee Ware, along with Virginia Uranium's spokesperson and geologist, Patrick Wales, I'd like to know why they're so intent on making money first and foremost.

The irony of this story is that most of the anti-uranium mining folks (such as Eloise Nenon and others who make up the group that initiated the original moratorium twenty-five years ago) know that Santoy, a Canadian uranium company, is about to take control of up to thirty percent of Virginia Uranium, the company that owns Coles Hill. Additionally, in another story, the price of uranium has spiked upward in the markets this month - a story that would make Virginia Uranium and Santoy salivate. Finally, if you read on in this story, Patrick Wales either assumes that farmers in the area will drop their occupations to work at a toxic open-pit uranium mine or he assumes that we might believe him when he says they would be willing to be trained.

I'd almost be willing to place odds that Wales and others won't consider the devaluation of property values, the cost of land reparation or the cost of illness that comes with this type of work in their estimates. Ah, but I'll have to retract that bet now, as they may make me pay for reminding them about those costs against profit. Then again, maybe not. It appears that a few economically-minded folks think their readers are somewhat...ignorant? Silly? Naive? Stupid?

Posted via web from appomattox's posterous

Run by investors, for investors - Santoy Resources agrees to acquire stake in Virginia Uranium - Santoy Resources

2009-05-12T16:08:00.001-04:00

Canadian Venture listed Santoy Resources (TSX.V: SAN) has signed a definitive agreement to enter into a series of transactions involving the acquisition of Virginia Uranium Ltd. (“Virginia”). Santoy will hold an initial 20.8% interest in VA Uranium Holdings Inc. (“VAU”) which holds the Coles Hill uranium property, as well as various financing and M&A rights. Santoy plans to increase its interest gradually to approximately 30% through further investments and financings of development work. Santoy has the right of first refusal on future financings.

Santoy management has a nose for good projects and this acquisition follows a series of similar acquisitions and joint venture agreements. With 30 years of mining exploration experience including three major gold discoveries in Eskay Creek, Snip and Brewery Creek that were subsequently put into production, Santoy’s President & CEO Ronald Netolitzky is not in the habit of acquiring companies nonchalantly. Netolitzky has strict acquisition criteria which include advanced stage projects in safe and workable jurisdictions, preferably with a resource estimate.

Virginia and the Coles Hill uranium property nicely slots into Santoy’s strategy and business model. Located in southern Virginia, the Coles Hill deposit and is considered to be one of the largest undeveloped uranium deposits in the US. It has a National Instrument 43-101 compliant estimated measured and indicated resource of 119 million pounds of U308, grading 0.06% average at a cut-off grade of 0.025% U308. The deposit, which was advanced to the Feasibility stage 25 years ago and then shelved with the price collapse of uranium, has a high grade core that is expected to support mining in most uranium price environments.

An ambitious development programme is in store for Coles Hill. Santoy intends to provide funding for prefeasibility and scoping studies as well as for selective infill and step-out drilling programme to increase the size of the defined resource. The launch of an Environmental Impact Study is expected soon together with a community outreach programme. Santoy is aware of the sensitive nature of uranium projects and plans are underway to expand public relations efforts. They include sponsoring uranium related research initiatives at local universities and supporting National Academy of Sciences study of uranium mining in Virginia. Santoy would like to see Coles Hill move into production by 2014/2015.

Prospects of Coles Hill are further enhanced by favourable local dynamics for uranium projects in Virginia. The state is no stranger to uranium and has four nuclear power plants operated by Dominion Resources, guzzling some 1.6 MM lbs of U308 annually. Another nuclear plant is expected to come on stream by 2011. Nuclear power currently accounts for 35% of Virginia’s electricity supply.

Prospects of Coles Hill are further enhanced by favourable local dynamics for uranium projects. The Coles family and numerous other surrounding land owners are substantial shareholders in the company. The large local ownership makes the Coles Hill project unique and will prove to be a critical component for its success. The state is no stranger to uranium and has four nuclear power plants operated by Dominion Resources, guzzling some 1.6 MM lbs of U308 annually. Another nuclear plant is expected to come on stream by 2011. Nuclear power currently accounts for 35% of Virginia’s electricity supply.

The state of Virginia also has a strong AREVA nuclear infrastructure including commercial nuclear fuel production facility, engineering & services and a heavy equipment manufacturing partnership with Northrop Grumman. This is further enhanced by its strong naval nuclear infrastructure such as Babcock & Wilcox naval nuclear fuel facility and Northrop Grumman naval shipbuilding and maintenance facilities. Virginia is also the home base to five nuclear powered aircraft carriers. Clearly, Virginia is a state ripe for uranium projects with a guaranteed large and a growing market.

Mining laws and mining environments differ widely in the US with some states showing considerable hostility towards mining projects. Virginia however is a notable exception and has a long mining history. For instance, the first commercial coal mining in the US occurred near Richmond, the state capital, in 1748.

Today, over 400 different minerals have been found and more than 30 different mineral resources are produced in Virginia at a combined annual value of nearly $2 billion. Virginia is the nation’s 10th largest producer of coal, ranks 5th in the production of crushed stone and is a large natural gas producer following the development of coal-bed methane (CBM) reserves. Not surprisingly, Virginia boasts of several prominent mining companies including Alpha Natural Resources (NYSE: ANR) and Massey Energy (NYSE: MEE).

via proactiveinvestors.com

Note that Santoy feels that Virginians are not hostile to uranium mining. Note, also, that this story is brought to Santoy's readers by Santoy. The fact that the property for Coles Hill is family owned is considered a plus for Santoy, as that family is ready and willing to mine.

Whatever happened to "Mining by Virginians for Virginians," Mr. Walter Coles?

Posted via web from appomattox's posterous

Rethinking Nuclear Power: Southside Virginia Against Uranium Mining

2009-05-05T09:49:00.001-04:00

A nuclear reactor which is efficiently consuming uranium-238 and driving a relatively high efficiency engine (typically, a Brayton-cycle gas turbine) will require approximately one tonne of uranium input for one gigawatt-year of energy output. This high efficiency use of U-238 could be best realized something like an IFR or a liquid-chloride-salt reactor (the latter is essentially the fast-neutron uranium fueled variant of a LFTR). This figure of one tonne of input fertile fuel per gigawatt-year is also comparable for the efficient use of thorium in a LFTR.

There are about one million tonnes of already mined, refined uranium in the world, just sitting around waiting to be put to use, which is termed so-called “depleted uranium”.

According to one source, the exact worldwide inventory of depleted uranium is 1,188,273 tonnes [1].
The total electricity production across the world today is about 19.02 trillion kWh [2].

Therefore, total worldwide stocks of depleted uranium, used efficiently in fast reactors, could provide every bit of worldwide electricity production for about 550 years.

via sccagainsturanium.blogspot.com

This is an important article, as it points out that depleted uranium and stockpiles of yellowcake can be used to run reactors worldwide for 550 years. What is not mentioned here is the difficulty in obtaining both depleted uranium and yellowcake as most of the ownership is in private or government hands.

Governments may be convinced to loosen their holds on these stockpiles, but private industry will not ease their grip so easily. They purchased yellowcake on the presumption that it would increase in value. Their purchases were investments. In many cases, the only means to obtain those stockpiles might be by government intervention.

Stopping uranium mining is going to be a long, hard haul that will never end until it has been proven that nuclear power plants are not feasible financially or that they can be run safely for many years. Even then, uranium is craved for its nuclear weapons capabilities, including powering the nuclearpowered ships parked at Newport News, Virginia (in fact, there are a reported 87 U.S. "Radiation sites" located throughout Virginia - see http://prop1.org/prop1/radiated/va0rept.htm).

Uranium is a potent mineral, one that is not to be taken lightly. It kills. It's aim is to kill, even in its raw form. One atom of uranium can move a grain of sand. Put a few more atoms together, and you can kill an entire area like Chernobyl or Hiroshima.

Posted via web from appomattox's posterous

Virginia Tech, company aim for safer nuclear energy - Roanoke.com

2009-05-05T09:28:00.001-04:00

Virginia Tech is teaming with a company with Southwest Virginia ties on a project that could have far-reaching consequences in the field of nuclear energy.

The university and the Los Alamos, N.M.-based ADNA Corp. are expected to announce a memorandum of understanding today to construct a pilot facility to test technology to produce safer, less-costly and more-efficient nuclear energy.

The new design combines technology old and new -- but all proven to work -- including molten salt reactors tested in the 1960s and projects by ADNA founder and Roanoke native Charles Bowman that integrated accelerator technology into nuclear reactors in the 1990s.

"The components exist," Tech physics professor Bruce Vogelaar said. "What needs to happen is the integration of the systems and the demonstration that things work as anticipated. It's not a question of whether the technology, in principle, will work. The question is, 'Does it work as well as we anticipate?' "

If it does, the result will be nuclear power plants that produce more energy with less waste and don't result in the separation of plutonium from uranium during the process. Plutonium is a nuclear power byproduct that can be used to produce weapons. The production of it through the process of creating nuclear energy has been a point of contention in nuclear proliferation monitoring for years.

via roanoke.com

Virginia Tech has been involved with the Coles Hill project in Pittsylvania County for many years. I one graduate, Jim Jerden, completed his dissertation on the unique formation of the Coles Hill vein in 2001. This project shows that VT is intent on becoming the college that makes its mark with advances in nuclear technology.

This is a fine and commendable goal for this college. Colleges, just like businesses, must prove their worth before they can appeal to new students, federal funds and standing nationwide. And, this story also shows the importance of networking. Bowman, founder of ADNA (Accelerator Driven Neutron Applications) is a 1956 graduate from VT, and he's a native of Franklin County, Virginia.

The design phase of this new "demonstration" nuclear facility will take about two years - as long as it is supposed to take to test the drilling capacities at Coles Hill. Virginia is a "candidate for the location of the pilot plant." Other candidates include New Mexico, Tennessee and Nevada.

This group claims it has engineered the project to produce more energy with less waste in a process that does not separate plutonium from uranium during that process. Still, they do not address the dangers of uranium mining, nor does it address how to eliminate waste that now would include plutonium.

I'm open to hear any answers to those questions...

Posted via web from appomattox's posterous

Pittsylvania Uranium: A Detailed Timeline

2009-05-01T02:00:00.001-04:00

I promised some information on the history of drilling in the Coles Hill area in Pittsylvania County in my previous article on uranium mining. The following history may help readers to understand what they face in the future. While the Virginia Conservation Network has supplied a short history of uranium events in the Virginia Piedmont, you will find dates, events and links below that you can use to determine how to frame your questions for the public comment meetings slated for workday afternoons on Thursday and Tuesday, respectively, 21 and 24 May 2009.

A few things became very clear as I researched the material below. Although I’m positive I don’t have all the information to fill in the timeline between the time Marline Oil Corporation disbanded in 1990 and Jim Jerden’s dissertation in 2001, it appears that Walter Coles and his uranium mine were dormant. Then, in 2007, you’ll see a spate of activity, where Coles and family developed a company named Virginia Uranium, Inc. They bought up contingent land and, by the end of 2007, Virginia Uranium, Inc. (VUI) was drilling again to meet requirements for the Canadian Securities Administrators. Why? Because VUI is becoming part of a Canadian company named Santoy.

As I mentioned, I’m sure I’m missing some pertinent information, so I hope that readers who are familiar with this story will help fill in the gaps. Please take your time and connect to the links to read more, especially if you live in the area or if you have family and friends who live here. My remarks and questions are in green, as well as some information I wanted to highlight for emphasis. Please feel free to jump in to add any information in the comments section below.

via appomattoxnews.com

This is my second installment about the uranium mining project in Pittsylvania County. My comments, questions and emphasis are in green. Additional comments will be in red as more people chime in on any history accounts concerning this mine (and I hope there are some new revelations).

Posted via web from appomattox's posterous

The Alliance's tough talk on wrong road - Southside Virginia Against Uranium Mining

2009-04-29T10:13:00.002-04:00

Uranium mining has been an environmental disaster all over the world. Pittsylvania County residents — and everyone in the Dan River Region — have good reason to be concerned about a uranium mine at Coles Hill. But even people who are against uranium mining should be concerned with The Alliance’s my-way-or-the-highway bullying.

via sccagainsturanium.blogspot.com

I linked to this site before, and I see that they've linked to me in two places...What I find interesting that is that site basically does what I do - link up articles about uranium mining in general and in particular for Pittsylvania County. But, me being a big-mouth, I have to make comments. This site does not.

So, if you're interested in reading articles in their entirety in one place without my perspective, then I would bookmark the Southside Virginia Against Uranium Mining.

Now, to the quote above and its full story...I'm just learning more about the fracture in the original group, the Southside Concerned Citizens (SCC). This group is the original group that fought for and won the statewide moratorium against uranium mining twenty-five years ago. The Alliance, on the other hand, which seems to be led by Shireen Parsons, "an organizer with the Community Environmental Legal Defense Fund," broke off from the SCC and is demanding some pretty harsh circumstances for the Pittsylvania County Board of Supervisors.

I don't quite understand the petition and why this group thinks it will work. How do you sign a petition against your uncle? Your cousin? Your neighbor? This is not New York, where you don't know or aren't related to the Board of Supervisors within at least three of six degrees...Additionally, the difficult thing about this split and the petition is that it makes the coalition against uranium mining appear weak and frivolous in this county. This is not a good thing for folks outside the county who could be affected by this mine as well and who are against it. Now, the opponents will need to answer the question, "Which side are you on?" when it doesn't pertain to "for" or "against" the mine. But, for those who need to answer this question, perhaps the following quote will help:

“Our goal is not to stop uranium,” said Shireen Parsons, an organizer with the Community Environmental Legal Defense Fund. “Our goal is to seize local governing authority.”

WHAT? And, they call themselves an anti-uranium mining group? I may be wrong, but I believe the majority of anti-uranium mining folks don't want to seize the local governing authority. They don't want to burn bridges. They want to stop the mine, period. Therefore, it appears that Shireen Parsons and her group is at odds with anyone who simply wants to stop the mine project.

This time, I think the GoDanRiver paper got it right...in most respects. The quote at the top of this piece is one I'll treasure, because it's correct. Uranium mining has been and continues to be an environmental disaster. And, people who are against the mine certainly do need to be concerned with Parsons' approach. Not only is it untenable, as the paper states, but it is contentious and it is wasting time and energy for those who are against the mine.

The silver lining to this group - and there is one that I can see - is that their mission seems to be one where they point to the imperative need to make this project stop now. Every hole drilled into Coles Hill, in my mind, is a violation of the mining moratorium, even though it has been sanctioned by the state. If you're just catching up with me and my thoughts on this project, please see these two articles and - please - tell me what you think (you'll see that Shireen Parsons and The Alliance has already jumped in, whereas few others have made their voices heard on the first one):

http://www.appomattoxnews.com/2009/reasons-why-the-uranium-mine-moratorium-must-stand.html

http://dembones-dembones.blogspot.com/2009/04/addressing-uranium-mining-hype-guest.html

Posted via web from appomattox's posterous

Uranium, energy big issues at forum | GoDanRiver

2009-04-29T01:08:00.001-04:00

McAuliffe said public safety is the No. 1 issue. He said we have to protect the environment, but he supports a study to determine whether uranium mining can be done safely. Mining and milling at Coles Hill could provide “40 years worth of jobs,” he said.

•Moran said “This is one you can’t get wrong.” There are water sources near Coles Hill, and the study must be independent, objective and not paid for by those who stand to profit from mining, he said.

• Deeds said he has serious reservations about whether uranium can be safely mined but said he supports the study to determine that.

via godanriver.com

The above comments are those about uranium from the three Democratic contenders for Virginia's governor - Terry McAuliffe, Brian Moran and Creigh Deeds. They all support a study, but Moran is the only person who states the study must be independent. I would say that's how Deeds and McAuliffe feel as well, but I've learned long ago not to put words into politicians' mouths.

Someone remind me - who is going to conduct this study?

Later in this story you'll read that McAuliffe supports a "smart grid and a mandatory renewable energy standard in Virginia"; Moran said, "he was the first gubernatorial candidate to call for a mandate requiring that one-quarter of energy in Virginia come from renewable sources. Moran opposes drilling off the coast of Virginia, and he said we need to build windmills in the state and offer solar tax credits"; and Deeds stated, "energy independence is a matter of national security. He said the state needs to invest in research, and he supports building a wind farm off the coast of Virginia."

I'm all for wind farms as opposed to offshore drilling and uranium mining (which, by the way, candidates, is not renewable energy); however, offshore wind farms are much more difficult to develop than those on land. More about this later...

Posted via web from appomattox's posterous

Which Way does Virginia’s Wind Blow? | Bacons Rebellion

2009-04-28T13:26:00.002-04:00

In reviewing the history of renewables, I think the EIA is more likely to be a right than the President. As the Institute for Energy Research (IER) reminds us, “for decades, representatives and advocates of wind and solar have claimed that their technology was near a competitive tipping point-but just needed a bit more subsidies, set-asides, and government aid to succeed. But even after 30 years of massive subsidies, wind and solar continue to be more expensive and contribute only a small amount of electricity. According to the EIA, in 2008, wind produced 1.3 percent of the electrical generation in America and solar produced a meager 0.02 percent.

via baconsrebellion.com

I hate to say that a "drill here and drill now" advocate is right, but his numbers from the Institute for Energy Research are correct. With that said, please take note of Mr. Schnare's willingness to use "predictions" from over two decades ago to support his case further. That's like taking "predictions" from a cancer specialist on the ability to cure cancer two decades ago.

The problem is that U.S. policies and price signals do not fully recognize the full value of electricity that is generated with zero-emissions. This disconnect is a challenge for all renewable energy sources today. At a time when the country faces the twin challenges of fast-growing electricity demand and climate change, the nation still lacks a long-term renewable energy policy.

There's quite a difference between the lack of a long-term renewable energy policy and a willingness to continue to "drill here and drill now."

This "drill here and drill now" policy extends to uranium as well, although nuclear power is touted as clean energy।

Posted via web from appomattox's posterous

A key energy industry nervously awaits its 'rebirth' - NYTimes.com

2009-04-27T11:36:00.001-04:00

The new face of the U.S. nuclear industry that is emerging will have a number of foreign players eager to stake their claim. Virginia officials rolled out the carpet in October for the French energy company Areva and Northrop Grumman Shipbuilding, which plan to build a $363 million manufacturing plant in Newport News to make nuclear reactor components. More than 500 employees would be at work by 2012, the companies said. "This joint venture project is tremendous news for Virginia," said Gov. Tim Kaine (D), whose state holds large uranium deposits.

via nytimes.com

This is an interesting article, and one that is, in my opinion, mostly unbiased. But, one key element is mostly missing from this article and only mentioned once in the paragraph above - uranium. While nuclear power may be safer than it was twenty years ago, and while it does help to reduce carbon footprint, the deal is this - it takes enriched uranium to run these nuclear reactors. Without uranium, there is no nuclear power.

And, uranium is the problem. It is the 'dirty' side to the nuclear power industry, and one that the nuclear power industry doesn't want to discuss. Currently, a unified group of concerned citizens and organizations filed suit against the Department of Energy (DOE) in Colorado, because those folks know what uranium mining does to surrounding environments. They have experience.

So does the DOE, but it appears that money is more important than environment, people and ecosystems. Note in this article about that story (http://www.durangotelegraph.com/telegraph.php?inc=/09-04-23/localnews.htm) that the DOE downplays impacts on human health and safety and deliberately failed to consider the impacts of water depletion and contamination to threatened and endangered species.

If the DOE is downplaying significant risk factors, what do you think a private company will do? Be totally transparent?

The story about the DOE does bring up one important point. It shows that it takes a unified front to confront government, let alone big business (and uranium mining in Virginia could be big business for some). The stand against unsafe uranium mining would benefit from a nationwide and unified front. While that effort may seem idealist and unobtainable, it can start with one county and one state and work out from there.

As my father once said, "Nothing is impossible, only highly improbable." And, yes, Virginia, miracles do happen.

Posted via web from appomattox's posterous

EPA: ARCO to spend $10.2M for NV mine cleanup

2009-04-27T03:01:00.001-04:00

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency says Atlantic Richfield Co. has agreed to spend $10.2 million for future and past cleanup efforts at an old copper mine in Yerington.

Under the settlement announced Wednesday, ARCO agreed to perform site cleanup estimated at $8 million and reimburse the EPA $2.2 million for past work.

EPA officials say the federal agency will use the recovered costs for further contamination containment efforts.

ARCO last year reimbursed the EPA $2.7 million.

The mine 65 miles southeast of Reno was the biggest producer of copper in the United States in the 1950s and into the 1960s before it was abandoned in 2000.

Processing of the copper produced a uranium byproduct, which contaminated the site along with arsenic and other heavy metals.

via sfgate.com

This is one of the first corporate clean-up agreements I've ever seen. I'm sure there might be more corporate uranium mining clean-up and remediation efforts, but I've yet to find them. Usually the government (hence, the taxpayers) have cleaned up uranium sites through Superfund efforts (such as Uravan, Colorado) or - lately - through stimulus funds (such as Moab, Utah).

I'm anxious to see how ARCO manages the cleanup effort. And, I'm curious to learn whether their efforts will be publicized.

Posted via web from appomattox's posterous

Katie Whitehead Responds to Geologist - Martinsville Bulletin

2009-04-26T20:59:00.001-04:00

Statements attributed to a Virginia Museum of Natural History curator and geologist supporting uranium mining (in a Bulletin article April 1) are disturbing. If accurately quoted, they call for rebuttal:
1. “Uranium has this aura of horribleness around it, but it’s not that toxic.”
Uranium is toxic. So are the products it produces from radioactive decay. Radiation and heavy metal toxicity are legitimate concerns when considering mining and milling uranium and storing tailings.
The “aura of horribleness” is itself an important issue. Already, people’s perceptions of uranium mining are affecting our region. The possibility of uranium development here is adversely influencing home buying decisions and business recruitment.
2. The substance does not become dangerous until it’s enriched.
This statement is not true. Risks associated with exposure to uranium and its radioactive and heavy metal decay products vary depending on the sensitivity of the one exposed, the amount of exposure, the length of exposure, whether exposure is internal or external, what type of cells are exposed, etc.
According to Dr. Doug Brugge, a public health expert at Tufts University School of Medicine, the necessary research has not been done to determine the health risks of exposure to heavy metals from living near uranium mines, mills and tailings. Preliminary results from new studies are reinforcing health concerns.
3. “I don’t think (contaminants leaching into groundwater) will be a problem” because the ore minerals are stable.
Other geologists are less cocksure. Dr. Krishna Sinha of Virginia Tech has said the minerals are currently stable in the ground; but a robust, multi-year study would be required to determine what would happen to this stability if the ore is mined and milled.
Mining involves removing the topsoil and blasting the rock. Milling involves crushing and pulverizing the ore and adding solvents. The point of milling the ore is to remove the uranium and leave the other elements behind. For each pound or two of uranium, there would be a ton of hazardous waste materials left at the mill site. The waste cannot be expected to be stable.
The Dan River Basin Association is particularly concerned about the containment of this huge volume of waste. It is not enough to speculate about the probability of a leak. To begin to understand the risk, researchers would need to identify all of the contaminants in the tailings and understand how each would migrate and interact in the environment.
4. “If they determine it should be mined, I think it should be mined.”
The National Academy of Sciences (NAS) does not make policy recommendations. Whether to mine uranium is not a scientific question. Nor will the NAS tell us whether it is safe to mine uranium and to attempt to contain the huge volume of milling waste. The National Academy will not accept “Is it safe?” as the basis for a scientific study. This is a policy question. The people of Virginia and elected representatives will decide — researchers will not discover — whether to lift the moratorium.
Katie Whitehead
Chairman, Dan River Basin Association Mining Task Force
Chatham

via martinsvillebulletin.com

I don't know the author of this letter, nor do I know about the group she represents. But, her rebuttal to the article that quoted the Virginia Museum of Natural History's curator and geologist is spot on.

The original story, which had me so flumbuzzled that I couldn't respond rationally, is here: http://www.martinsvillebulletin.com/article.cfm?ID=18313.

Ms. Katie Whitehead - thank you! I firmly believe that many Americans have learned enough about uranium to avoid having the wool pulled over their eyes yet again after experiences such as Rocky Flats, Uravan and more.

Posted via web from appomattox's posterous

Reasons Why the Uranium Mine Moratorium Must Stand

2009-04-24T17:13:00.001-04:00

Are you interested in the uranium mine project proposed for Pittsylvania County? I am, because I lived just miles from Uravan, Colorado for almost a decade. Therefore, I know what an abandoned uranium/vanadium-mining project looks like before Superfund clean-up begins. And, I know a fair amount of information about drilling and radiation, because I am related to a hydrogeologist in Colorado and I have learned much about this subject over the decades.

But, I do not live in Pittsylvania County, so you may wonder why I’m a proponent for upholding Virginia’s moratorium on uranium mining.

Uranium mining has left Superfund federal clean-up sites everywhere it has been conducted west of the Mississippi River and in facilities located east of the Mississippi. In fact, many funds from recent stimulus packages are going to clean up uranium issues in areas where cleanup has been ignored for decades, such as in Moab, Utah and Oak Ridge, Tennessee. Stimulus and Superfund cleanups are tax dollars at work, so any profit seen from uranium mining is mitigated by all Americans who pay taxes. That is just one issue.

The reason behind my interest in the Coles Hill Project in Pittsylvania County is that this project affects more people than those who live in that area. Although local anti-mining proponents are active against this project in Pittsylvania County, this issue is far-reaching. It is a state-wide, inter-state, regional and national issue for the following reasons:

via appomattoxnews.com

Yes, you'll need to go to the article to read the reasons, but only because it would make this post outrageously long. This is my first stand against the Coles Hill project, with many more articles to come. There is so much to address, and so little time...but my primary concern is this:

"Finally, although some mining companies and government entities consider this a radical stance, I believe that drilling for exploration is a violation of the moratorium that Virginia has on uranium mining. Drilling is part of the mining process, and drilling alone disturbs all levels of substrata and opens problems where none existed before. An open core hole can never, ever be sealed fully, as the integrity of that area has been violated by drilling. In other words, when drilling fractures a rock layer, that rock layer has been changed forever, and it can never fully be “patched up.” Even if a process to create a seal is discovered and used in the future, that hole has forever changed water and air flow patterns underground and has released all sorts of underground chemicals and minerals."

Please chime in and offer your opinions. I'm willing to answer anything but the most obtuse reason for mining. Money, being one, although I will speak on that issue, too.

Posted via web from appomattox's posterous

The Alliance holds forum against uranium mining in the area | GoDanRiver

2009-04-23T18:53:00.001-04:00

Danville and Pittsylvania County already is one of the largest areas in the world that suffers more from Cancer than any other state. Does one even stop to question why? Is it that God decided to punish us? Is it because it is our turn? Or is it simply because of what is happening to our area. Does one even begin to stop and think what is being dumped into our water or floating in the air? When 3 people die of cancer in a year on the same street, is it because it was there turn, or is there a common denominator of something they are eating, drinking (water) or breathing (air)?

via godanriver.com

Forgot the article. It's almost laughable and probably tongue-in-cheek. And, this group is burning a lot of bridges, in my opinion, that would be helpful in upholding this state's moratorium on mining. What concerns me is the paragraph above, written by a person who commented on the article.

The more I discover about this area's interest in mining, the more I realize how many holes have already been drilled here. The people who live here, then, are living in an area that may already be compromised. More to come...

Posted via web from appomattox's posterous

Virginia Uranium, Inc.

2009-04-22T10:53:00.001-04:00

Welcome to Virginia Uranium, Inc. Come explore this site with us as we begin the process of bringing the energy benefits of uranium to our nation and the economic benefits of uranium development to Southside Virginia.

via virginiauranium.com

Benefits to Southside Virginia? Don't include Lynchburg, as in this company's prospectus to mine Pittsylvania County, they plan to fly in and out of the Raleigh/Durham airport. Plus, "in the beginning," they intend to hire experts. Experts in uranium mining - you know anyone in the area who fits that bill?

Economic benefits will go to those who are selling their land for this mine. No one else.

Posted via web from appomattox's posterous

No petition at mining seminar | GoDanRiver

2009-04-22T10:49:00.001-04:00

Groups presenting an anti-mining seminar at Averett University tonight will not circulate a petition as planned to ban uranium mining in Pittsylvania County and remove the Board of Supervisors if it doesn’t adopt a new county constitution outlawing the practice.

Averett officials requested that the petition not be included in an anti-uranium presentation Tuesday.

“We respectfully asked the Alliance to refrain from introducing the petition at this educational forum, and they are cooperating with our request,” Susan Huckstep, Averett spokeswoman, said via e-mail Tuesday.

The Alliance and the Community Environmental Legal Defense Fund are presenting the seminar. Gregg Vickrey, a founder and chairman of the Alliance, said he had no problem with the school’s request, and the event will take place as scheduled at 7 p.m. today at Averett’s student center.

“They’re trying to offer educational forums, and I respect that,” Vickrey said. He said the Alliance hopes to debut the petition at a later event at a different location.

Shireen Parsons, Virginia community organizer with the Community Environmental Legal Defense Fund, will also speak at the seminar about how a community can practice self-governance.

Virginia Uranium Inc. seeks to mine and mill a 119 - million pound uranium ore deposit at Coles Hill, about six miles northeast of Chatham. Virginia currently has a moratorium on the practice.

Opponents have drafted the petition, which demands that supervisors ban uranium mining within three months of receiving it. The petition also calls for an election of 11 people to draft a new constitution for the county, which would ban uranium mining and would recognize the right to self-government. The county’s chapter of Southside Concerned Citizens would oversee the election.

The petition calls for residents to vote on ratification of the constitution and to declare that the supervisors be given the choice to adopt it. If the board doesn’t, the constitution would still become law and a special election would be held to elect new supervisors. Vickrey said he hopes everyone attends the presentation to see what the groups have to say and make informed decisions.

via godanriver.com

"Shireen Parsons, Virginia community organizer with the Community Environmental Legal Defense Fund, will also speak at the seminar about how a community can practice self-governance. "

Parsons is the Virginia organizer for the Community Environmental Legal Defense Fund, a Pennsylvania-based nonprofit group leading a movement against the practice of treating corporations as people before the law.

Some locals are seeing Shireen as disruptive and a person who wants local to practice insurrection. If you Google her name, you'll discover she's been involved with Virginia's projects before, and that she has a radical front that might go over well in California, but not in rural Virginia. Not that I don't want the uranium project halted in Virginia - but I'd rather do it by upholding the moratorium.

This is the type of action that has splintered the anti-uranium mining group in Pittsylvania County. And action that one might wonder whether it is pro-solidarity or pro-confusion. The latter would open the door to allowing the mining company to conduct its business and no one would ever notice for the fray.

Posted via web from appomattox's posterous

What Happens When Oxygen and Carbonate Ions Meet Uranium?

2009-04-21T12:29:00.001-04:00

Using swimming pool chemicals - industrial grade hydrogen peroxide and soda ash (similar baking soda) - and "Goliad sand"...normal sand taken from a well several hundred yards from where many "bore holes" located...Mark demonstrates what happens when oyxgen meets uranium and its underground friends such as radon gas, lead, arsenic, molybdenum, selenium and many other elements. Although uranium and other things do exist underground naturally, they have been without oxygen for a long time so they are at rest. In the presence of oxygen, however, these things become mobile, so they can travel with water.

via sccagainsturanium.blogspot.com

Excellent article. The issue with the uranium deposit in Virginia is that it is contained...probably more so than any other uranium deposit in the world. Punching holes into this vein is asking for trouble, and it's trouble that will never be 'patched up,' as those holes cannot ever be fully sealed.

Posted via web from appomattox's posterous

It's time for supervisors to take action | GoDanRiver

2009-04-19T19:15:00.001-04:00

For Pittsylvania County, this accusation is a test. Virginia Uranium has been accused of damaging local water wells. The Board of Supervisors has proclaimed that the company’s activities must not harm the community.

It’s time for definitive answers.

We don’t know why there were 2.83 parts per billion of lead in the Gross’ well before VUI started exploratory drilling, and why there were 17.9 parts per billion last September.

If the company had something to do with that, the community needs to know.

If the company had nothing to do with that, the community needs to know that, too. It’s time for answers, and one way to get them is for the Board of Supervisors to follow Davis’ lead and bring in the outside help the county needs to get to the bottom of this issue.

via godanriver.com

I, for one, agree with Chatham-Blairs Supervisor Hank Davis. He has been very careful about this mining deal in Pittsylvania County, and his request to check why lead levels have risen so dramatically in this particular well is, certainly, of interest. No matter that VUI is responsible or not for the rising lead levels. The point is to find out whether VUI is responsible - because, if so, then this operation (just the drilling for testing) is dangerous for homeowners in the area.

VUI has said that the Gross' well is located upstream from Coles Hill, where the drilling is taking place; therefore, they say that the drilling could not have been the source of lead levels. I've mentioned this before and I'll say it again - water CAN flow uphill. How fast and how far depends upon underground pressure behind that flow.

Posted via web from appomattox's posterous

Va. Tech geologist to study Coles Hill deposit | GoDanRiver

2009-04-19T12:25:00.001-04:00

A Virginia Tech geologist recently was awarded a $60,000 grant to study the Coles Hill uranium deposit in Pittsylvania County near Chatham.

The grant, a mineral research grant from the U.S. Geological Survey, is the first one from the federal government to study this particular deposit and will be for “a very focused study to determine the age of the uranium mineralization,” Robert Bodnar, a geochemistry professor at Tech, said.

via godanriver.com

What the general public may not know (and I didn't realize until a week ago), is that holes were drilled in the 1970s and in 2007/2008 - well before "testing" was given the go-ahead by Governor Kaine this year. Now, they put someone on the task to determine fracture trends, or "how groundwater moves throughout the giny fractures in the bedrock and ore."

As much as I'd love to see a fracture trend study, red lights went on in my head when I read this story. Why one person? Why Virginia Tech? What other studies is Bodnar working on with the Coles Hill desposit?

While this study may be considered 'unbiased' since a university professor is conducting the study, a person only needs to consider where college funding comes from . Who has Bodnar worked for in the past? Where is the money coming from for this study?

Posted via web from appomattox's posterous

Radioactive review - Salt Lake Tribune

2009-04-19T12:19:00.001-04:00

The federal Nuclear Regulatory Commission, as part of a "long-term" comprehensive study of its radioactive waste classification system, will consider reclassifying depleted uranium as high-level waste. Meanwhile, it will develop site-specific disposal criteria to help determine which landfills can safely accept large quantities of the radioactive material -- 11 tons or more.

via sltrib.com

This editorial is wonderful, and it comes from a state that is affected highly by the disposal of depleted uranium. The weak part comes at the end with this paragraph:

"The NRC needs to stop this madness. Federal regulators need to establish a moratorium on the disposal of depleted uranium until the study is complete."

The problem with that latter statement is that federal regulators will need to store the depleted uranium somewhere until the waste classification system debate is completed. The answer? Stop the processes that require uranium to function so that no uranium is mined. But, since this won't happen, then Americans must face the idea that depleted uranium needs to go in someone's backyard. Perhaps they should talk to the folks at Rocky Flats (sure, go hiking there, but take a Geiger counter with you. Great nature habitat created on top of stockpiles of radioactive materials here).

Posted via web from appomattox's posterous

Animal claims may be added to uranium lawsuit | Telluride Daily Planet

2009-04-18T10:35:00.001-04:00

Environmental groups across the West are fighting what could be uranium mining’s second coming lawsuit by lawsuit.

Earlier this week, conservation groups said they may add endangered species claims to a lawsuit seeking to stop uranium mining in western Colorado.

The groups are suing the U.S. Department of Energy over a leasing program for more uranium mining on 42 square miles near Dolores River Canyon in southwest Colorado.

Hilary White, executive director of local environmental agency Sheep Mountain Alliance, said the latest filing is part of a “two-pronged” fight. Groups, including SMA, have already challenged the federal government’s finding that uranium operations would have “no significant impact” on the environment, and now could file a complaint under the Endangered Species Act.

“It’s after stopping, or slowing this process down so that a more thorough analysis is done,” White said.

The lawsuit has been pending since last summer in federal court in Denver.

The environmentalists said Wednesday that more uranium mining would release poisons that could hurt protected fish and waterfowl living on the Dolores and San Miguel rivers.

“This uranium development is going to irretrievably impact” the rivers, said Taylor McKinnon, public-lands program director for the Arizona-based Center for Biological Diversity, one of the groups that filed the lawsuit.

Southwest Colorado was a major uranium-producing area in the 1940s and 1950s. Some of the material for the nation’s first nuclear weapons came from the Uravan Mineral Belt.

However, production slowed when uranium prices plummeted in the 1980s and 1990s. In recent years, rising uranium prices have spurred a flurry of applications for uranium claims.

In 2007, the Department of Energy concluded that more uranium mining would have no significant environmental impacts and approved 16 new leases.

Environmental groups sued last year to force the agency to reconsider. No trial date has been set.

Among the fishes to be named in the environmental groups’ amended complaint are the pikeminnow, razorback sucker, and humpback and bonytail chubs. The groups say federal authorities have not properly considered the impact of uranium mining on those and other species.

The DOE has not formally responded to the claims, made in a letter sent by the group. A call to the department Wednesday was referred to the agency’s general counsel office, where a staffer said the department could not comment on the additional claims.

White, though, recognizes the need for an economic pulse in a region lacking other options.

“It is an economy, and people are seriously in need of that. And we recognize that. And we are continuing to pursue alternative energy as an economy that could help sustain them into the future.”

via telluridenews.com

Sheep Mountain Alliance has been around for a long time. Visit their site at: http://www.sheepmountainalliance.org/

Posted via web from appomattox's posterous

U.S. court upholds EPA finding on NM uranium mine | Markets | Reuters

2009-04-18T01:44:00.001-04:00

A U.S. appeals court on Friday upheld a 2007 finding by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency that the site of a uranium mine that Hydro Resources Inc plans to operate is on Navajo Nation land and subject to Safe Drinking Water Act regulations.

via uk.reuters.com

It appears that some EPA work has helped to make a dent in uranium mining regulations. The amazing part of this story is that the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeal in Denver refused HRI's petition for a review of the EPA ruling. Now, the government still needs to find the money to clean up uranium contamination across the three-state Navajo Nation.

Posted via web from appomattox's posterous

TMRA Notes Uranium Occurs Naturally in Groundwater | Environmental Protection

2009-04-18T01:32:00.001-04:00

The NURE data provides independent and historic proof that uranium is naturally present in groundwater around uranium deposits — exploration or no exploration — mining or no mining,” TMRA Executive Director Shannon Lucas said. “Recent claims that groundwater in Texas has been contaminated by uranium mining activities are not accurate. In fact, there has never been a case of groundwater contamination in neighboring water supplies from in situ uranium recovery.

via eponline.com

The Web site that printed this article is not part of the EPA (Environmental Protection Agency). This site, called "Environmental Protection," is all about pollution and waste treatment solutions for "environmental professionals." In other words, this is a business.

Secondly, TRMA (Texas Mining and Reclamation Association: http://www.tmra.com/) is another business. TRMA "is working to solidify the needs and opinions of the various mining sectors into one voice which can be heard on the vital matters of balance between mineral production, environmental protection, economic strength and public welfare."

Frankly, after reading this article, I'm concerned about the "public welfare" part of TRMA, because this article is bereft of any resources, citations or other materials that might support this opinion piece. Readers are mislead into believing that this article was an authoritative piece. And, readers also are expected to believe that the statement above, issued by TRMA Executive Director Shannon Lucas is the law.

In the meantime, here are a few items for your edification, links that this story does not contain...

NURE is explained here: http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/1997/ofr-97-0492/nurehist.htm. In this story, it states that many samples were collected from across the nation to originally test for uranium in water sources. Texas water collection was conducted by Los Alamos Lab (LASL) in New Mexico in 1973, but the actual collection was done by contractors. Funding for the NURE program ceased somewhere around 1983-1984, and Bendix Field Engineering Corporation in Grand Junction, Colorado, maintained the databases and it also served as the repository that "received, logged and stored" all data tapes sent by the LASL and all other labs across the country. By the time the NURE program was disbanded, Bendix had compiled and distributed the reports.

Some of these reports are available online at http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/1997/ofr-97-0492/nurepubs.htm. I looked through several of these reports and didn't find information to back up the TRMA statement, but this doesn't mean anything. Databases outside these reports exist, and that may be where the information is stored that TRMA used. Additionally, I will be the first to admit that I cannot read half these reports, as I am not a geologist.

Lucas may well be correct. My concern is this: If TRMA is concerned about public welfare, as stated on the front page of its Web site, then why is Lucas not concerned with the people who live in the areas where uranium levels in the water are above EPA standards? Instead, the story - which comes across as a news story rather than an opinion piece - sounds like a defense, where Shannon Lucas claims that recent complaints that Texas groundwater was contaminated by uranium mining activities are not accurate.

The point is this: businesses always have an agenda. What is the agenda behind this story?

Posted via web from appomattox's posterous

Lehman Sits on Bomb of Uranium Cake as Prices Slump (Update1) - Bloomberg.com

2009-04-17T00:20:00.001-04:00

Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. is sitting on enough uranium cake to make a nuclear bomb as it waits for prices of the commodity to rebound, according to traders and nuclear experts.

The bankrupt bank, in the throes of paying off creditors, acquired uranium cake “under a matured commodities contract” and plans to sell it when the market improves “to realize the best prices,” Chief Executive Officer Bryan Marsal said.

Lehman, once the fourth-largest investment bank, has an estimated $200 billion in unsecured liabilities left to pay. The uranium, which may be as much as 500,000 pounds, might fetch $20 million at today’s prices of about $40.50 per pound, said traders who asked not to be named because of the confidential nature of the data. Marsal said the traders’ estimate of Lehman’s uranium holding is “reasonable,” while declining to be more specific.

via bloomberg.com

You'll discover, if you read this article, that a good portion of this yellowcake is sitting in Canada. John Wong, a fund manager in London at CQS UK LLP, which has $6 billion under management including shares of funds that own uranium, stated (ironically, I hope), "What people found out is that this is not like playing copper where it’s a liquid and deep market. A lot of the funds playing this market have blown up."

If you wonder how much yellowcake (enriched uranium) this represents, read further:

"A supply of 500,000 pounds of yellowcake is just “slightly” less than the amount needed to make one bomb, or fuel one nuclear power reactor for a year, if the latest enrichment technologies are used, said Gennady Pshakin, an Obninsk, Russia-based nonproliferation expert."

I hope no one reading this thought that the government was the only entity that handled yellowcake. Although the market is regulated by governments that control transport of radioactive material and limit the number of buyers and sellers by requiring them to obtain licenses, I hope you don't believe that either. I am not a conspiracy theorist, but I am a realist and this is an imperfect world.

Posted via web from appomattox's posterous

Uranium mining in Virginia | In Virginia's glowing hills | The Economist

2009-04-16T15:20:00.001-04:00

The Virginia uranium that might power those plants and America’s 104 existing civilian reactors is off-limits because of a ban enacted by the state in 1982. That was the last time a mine and mill was proposed for Pittsylvania County (named after William Pitt the Elder), a vast former tobacco-and-textile area above the Virginia-North Carolina border. The Coles, father and son, are campaigning to have the moratorium lifted. At least $7,000 has been contributed to state lawmakers, and more could flow in Virginia’s approaching elections. Five lobbying firms are busily at work, and an online effort to enlist support is under way.

The mine—an idea that is at least five years from becoming reality, says the elder Mr Coles—could generate 300-500 jobs in a region where unemployment is high. Danville, the area’s biggest city, had a jobless rate in January of 16.8%. Opponents retort that the latest figures from the Energy Information Administration (EIA) show that only 500 people are employed in uranium mining and milling nationwide.

via economist.com

This story about Pittsylvania's proposed uranium mine is becoming so huge that the Economist has picked up on it. The Economist - a magazine that focuses on world economies - naturally focuses on the monetary portion of this project. While it appears the Cole family will make out - as well as any backers - if this mining project comes to fruition, the idea that this mine will bring immediate remediation to local economy is a moot argument now with the facts published in this highly-regarded magazine.

As the article points out, the mine is five years from becoming reality. In the meantime, Governor Kaine has granted a two-year time frame for testing (testing what? that's one question), a point that this article does not touch upon and that could mitigate any development at all. Finally, the figures from the EIA quoted above are correct. Frankly, I wouldn't want a member of my family working in a uranium mine, even if that person had a chance to obtain one of the few jobs available within five years or so...if ever.

This article, if nothing else, points out the flimsy economical argument for creating this project in the first place. The residents won't benefit, nor will any possible economic "booms" be forthcoming in the near future. The winners? The Coles.

Posted via web from appomattox's posterous

Lead levels near uranium site may be examined | GoDanRiver

2009-04-16T08:47:00.001-04:00

A Pittsylvania County supervisor hopes state and federal agencies will look into elevated lead levels at home wells near Coles Hill, where Virginia Uranium Inc. has done exploratory drilling in hopes of one day mining uranium.

Chatham-Blairs Supervisor Hank Davis has proposed a resolution for the Board of Supervisors that would ask the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the Virginia Department of Health to investigate higher amounts of lead in home wells in the Sheva area near Coles Hill.

The board will consider the idea at its next regular meeting, April 21 in Chatham.

However, Walter Coles Sr., chairman of Virginia Uranium Inc., which is seeking to mine and mill a uranium deposit at Coles Hill, said exploratory drilling there is not the cause of rising levels.

“We don’t have anything to do with it,” Coles said.

Higher lead levels are upstream of VUI’s operations at Coles Hill, he said.

via godanriver.com

Here is one example of how "water cannot flow upstream." While the elevated lead levels can be caused by a number of issues (as stated in this article - aquifer, pumps, piping or spigots), the point is this: WATER CAN FLOW UPSTREAM. If it couldn't, we wouldn't have geysers.

This is what residents need to question - the fallacies that "experts" are willing to hand out to cover any possible problems that might be generated from drilling or from mining in this area. Chatham-Blairs Supervisor Hank Davis says it best, "It doesn't matter whether it's caused by the uranium," Davis said. "What's important is finding what’s causing it and getting those people help."

Posted via web from appomattox's posterous

Southside Virginia Against Uranium Mining: New Documents Show 42-square-mile Uranium-leasing Program Threatens Endangered Species and Dolores, San Miguel, and Colorado Rivers

2009-04-15T22:11:00.001-04:00

“Risking species, public lands, and scarce western water with irretrievable uranium contamination is profoundly short-sighted — but that’s exactly what the Department of Energy has done,” said Taylor McKinnon, public lands program director at the Center for Biological Diversity. “The Department’s choice now is to comply with the Endangered Species Act or be sued for these new violations.”

Uranium mining and milling resulting from the lease program will deplete Colorado River basin water and may pollute streams and rivers with toxic and radioactive waste products, including uranium, selenium, ammonia, arsenic, molybdenum, aluminum, barium, copper, iron, lead, manganese, vanadium, and zinc. These pollutants may contaminate rivers and aquatic ecosystems for hundreds of years following uranium mining, threatening downstream communities and fish and wildlife. Selenium and arsenic contamination in the Colorado River basin from abandoned uranium mining operations in the region has been implicated in the decline of the four endangered Colorado River fish species, and may be impeding their recovery.

via sccagainsturanium.blogspot.com

I saw a few people today say that they were happy to pay their taxes because their taxes funded the DOE and EPA, two government divisions that protect the environment. At first, I thought these individuals were being sarcastic, as I could not believe they were serious. But, from what I gathered., they were serious, indeed.

What was more obvious was that these folks had no clue as to how the DOE and EPA operate, at least in the West. Think about it - we've spent the last eight years under a Republican president who did not give a hoot about the environment. Should his government agencies go against that grain? It's time to evolve, folks...time to stay on top of the DOE and the EPA. Total trust at this point still is insane.

Posted via web from appomattox's posterous

WMICentral - Payments available to those exposed to radiation

2009-04-15T11:20:00.001-04:00

For those who lived in the following counties: Coconino, Yavapai, Apache, Navajo, Gila and Mohave (north of the Grand Canyon) between 1951-1958 and July 1962, employed as a uranium worker beginning Jan. 1, 1942, ending Dec. 31, 1971 or worked as an on-site participant may qualify for federal compensation from $50,000 to $100,000. If you fit any areas listed above, you may have been exposed to radiation and should be screened for cancer and other serious problems that can develop years after exposure.

via wmicentral.com

This Radiation Exposure Compensation Act seems a bit late. A worker exposed to radiation in 1942, say at age 20, would now be 87 years of age. If he lived that long, after being exposed to radiation. Bu, anyone ever been treated for cancer knows that $50,000 - $100,000 is a drop in the bottomless bucket compared to the money made from these projects during that time frame.

Finally, the article states that "Because the dangers of radiation exposure were unknown at the time, uranium workers were not protected and people who lived near the test sites were not warned or evacuated." Dangers of radiation poisoning were well known during the time mentioned above, although they were basically ignored in favor of "progress." All they had to do was recall Marie Curie, the physicist and chemist who died in 1934 from aplastic anemia, almost certainly contracted from her work with radioactive materials. She warned the public about the dangers of contact with radioactive materials before she died. If that wasn't enough there are these incidents, all which occurred before 1950 (see Wikipedia on radiation poisoning at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiation_poisoning):

1. In 1927 Hermann Joseph Muller published research showing genetic effects caused by radiation exposure, and in 1946 was awarded the Nobel prize for his findings (http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/medicine/laureates/1946/muller-bio.html)

2. "Before the biological effects of radiation were known, many physicians and corporations had begun marketing radioactive substances as patent medicine and radioactive quackery. Examples were radium enema treatments, and radium-containing waters to be drunk as tonics. poisoning. Eben Byers, a famous American socialite, died in 1932 after consuming large quantities of radium over several years; his death drew public attention to dangers of radiation" (http://www.clpgh.org/exhibit/neighborhoods/northside/nor_n106.html). By the 1930s, after a number of cases of bone necrosis and death in enthusiasts, radium-containing medical products had nearly vanished from the market.

3. Finally, the aftermath of the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki resulted in a large number of incidents of radiation poisoning, allowing for greater insight into its symptoms and dangers well before this act was finally passed. We're talking over half a century.

Don't get me wrong - although I'm highly critical of the slow progress, I'm thrilled that the government finally recognizes and is dealing with reality. The timing could not be more perfect if we're looking at yet another uranium mine, this time in close proximity to Virginia's urban areas.

Posted via web from appomattox's posterous

Southside Virginia Against Uranium Mining: NRC Balks at Calling Depleted Uranium Higher-Risk

2009-04-14T14:45:00.001-04:00

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission says classifying large amounts of depleted uranium as a hotter type of low-level radioactive waste without further study would not provide additional protections to public health, safety or the environment.

The NRC's comments come in an April 9 letter to Reps. Jim Matheson, D-Utah, and Edward Markey, D-Mass. The congressmen have questioned the NRC's March decision to regulate large quantities of depleted uranium as the least hazardous kind of low-level radioactive waste, known as Class A waste.

Depleted uranium is different from other waste because it becomes more radioactive over time.

via sccagainsturanium.blogspot.com

I guess that Matheson and Markey were in the right place at the right time. Nothing like being on the NRC board to catch this ruling, which they called "arbitrary and capricious mischaracterization" of the waste. However, red warning lights on the following in this story:

"[NRC Chairman Dale} Klein's letter said it is "highly unlikely" any disposal of large quantities of depleted uranium will occur before 2011, which gives staff time to hold public workshops and develop technical rules for how the waste should be disposed of."

2011 is just 1.5 years away. Where is this "large quanitity" of uranium coming from and where is it going? What will happen to it? This lack of information is infuriating, as - once again - this is top-down leakage of as little information as possible so industry can control the outcome.

Kudos, however, to Matheson and Markey.

Posted via web from appomattox's posterous

WWW.WPCVA.COM

2009-04-12T13:42:00.001-04:00

"The dose above ground for a mine-worker at Coles Hill is estimated to be under 17 milli-rem above background, or close to 600 times less than the level at which the effects of radiation could even be noticed."

Put another way, it would take about 600 years for a worker at the Coles Hill uranium mine to get a cumulative dose that could even register demonstrated effects.

via wpcva.com

Will Womack Publishing go pro-uranium mine? That would mean that the Chatham Star Tribune, the Altavista Journal, the Brookneal Union Star, the Appomattox Times Virginian, the Smith Mountain Eagle and WPCVA.com will tow the line.

Posted via web from appomattox's posterous

WWW.WPCVA.COM

2009-04-10T16:38:00.001-04:00

It seems that the majority of the voting public is dead-set against uranium mining in Virginia, and if we could go to the polls and voice our opinion, it would be defeated.

via wpcva.com

One can only hope. My issue is that the Pandora's Box already is open with drilling. As I mentioned before, and I'll say it again - there is no way to permanently and completely seal a hole once it has been drilled.

Drilling is invasive and it creates all sorts of problems once that drill has vibrated and loosened rock, sediment and metals on its way down. If that drill encounters fracture trends, there's no telling what will be lodged loose into the water systems. And, despite what some "experts" say, water can, indeed, flow uphill...for miles. This happens when the fracture trends travel downhill to an aquifer in an area that *appears* to be going uphill above ground.

Vote? Absolutely. Now? More like yesterday.

Posted via web from appomattox's posterous

NBC29-Tractor Trailer Catches on Fire in Louisa

2009-04-09T20:15:00.001-04:00

Tractor Trailer Catches on Fire in Louisa

Part of Cross County Road (Route 522) in Louisa County was closed for more than two hours Monday morning after a tractor trailer caught on fire. The truck was carrying a load of materials containing nuclear substances from the North Anna Power Station to the Surrey plant.

North Anna Power Plant technicians inspected the material containers and determined all the content was secured. The cab of the tractor trailer, however, was destroyed in the blaze. The driver was not injured.

Another tractor was used to carry the materials to Surrey.

via nbc29.com

This has to be the loosest news story about toxic waste hazards that I've ever read. Not blaming the news company, as this may have been the only information they were fed. But, here are the questions that aren't answered - yet:

1. There is no such thing as a "nuclear substance." This is just sloppy verbiage, and one that which makes this payload seem benign. The word, "nuclear," is much less scary than "radioactive." According to the Hazardous Materials compliance pocketbook for truck drivers, there is no such thing as a "nuclear substance." But, there are pages upon pages of Radionuclides (an atom with an unstable nucleus) listed in this book. What you want to look for is class 7 material, otherwise known as 'radioactive material.' There is a long list of these materials in that handbook. What was this truck carrying?

The importance behind the answer to that question is this: if it was hazardous material, then why was that truck on Rt. 522?

2. Route 522, part of Cross County Road in Louisa County is NOT designated as a route safe for hazardous waste. Just head to your local truck stop and pick up a Motor Carrier Road Atlas. This book marks all the routes where hazardous materials can be transported. Rt. 522, Cross County Road in Louisa County is not one of those roads. Now, granted, that road might be used for materials from North Anna Power Station to be transported to the Surry plant and vice versa, but that's another question to be answered. Is this company allowed to use that road specifically for hazardous materials?

Surry, by the way, was misspelled in the story. For those unfamiliar with the North Anna Power Station, you can learn more at http://www.dom.com/about/stations/nuclear/northanna/index.jsp. This plant is located in Louisa County just northwest of Richmond. Its sister plant, the Surry Plant, is located at 5570 Hog Island Road in Surry, Virginia. This second plant is on the south east of Richmond. So, this payload was being carried from northwest to southeast through (or around) Richmond.

What is confusing here is that North Anna is listed as A nuclear power station, but on the Web page it states:

"Dominion announced on Nov. 28, 2007, that it has filed an application with the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission for a license to build and operate a new nuclear reactor at its North Anna Power Station in central Virginia. If built, the new reactor would add to Dominion’s position as one of the nation’s top nuclear operators. The application filed with the NRC is for a Combined Operating License (COL) for North Anna Unit 3. The company has not committed to build the new unit, but wants to maintain the option to do so to meet projected skyrocketing demand for electricity in Virginia in the next decade."

Confusing? Why would "nuclear substances" be at the North Anna Power Station if the plant isn't nuclear? But, maybe they just haven't updated the Web site (wow, I'm being generous).

3. The next question is about the cab of the truck that caught fire. Who owns this truck, why was it being used to transport hazardous waste, and - further - was the driver a certified Hazmat driver? I would presume the answer is "yes" to the last question, but who really knows.

Here's some more information...in a situation where a fire occurs on a vehicle that is carrying hazardous materials, a Hazardous Materials Incident Report must be filed with the DOT (meaning VDOT in this case, or Virginia Department of Transportation) within 30 days. However, when "a major transportation artery or facility is closed or shut down for one hour or more..." or when "Fire, breakage, spillage or suspected radioactive contamination occurs involving radioactive material" or when "Some other situation occurs which the person in possession of the hazardous material considers important enough to warrant immediate reporting," then immediate telephone notification "to the DOT is required." In other words, if this driver or his carrier company followed the incident reporting guidelines for hazardous materials, VDOT should have an incident report on hand.

If VDOT has an incident report, then where is the information? What is that information? If there is another, more detailed, story about this incident in the press somewhere, I'd like to know about it. So far, my searches online have been futile, except for the story above. If that story wasn't published by NBC 29 (which that station then Twittered), this story might never have been told.

Posted via web from appomattox's posterous

Florida Nuclear Utility Fined For Sleeping Guards : TreeHugger

2009-04-09T11:48:00.001-04:00

Florida Nuclear Utility Fined For Sleeping Guards

via treehugger.com

I'm speechless (for once).

Posted via web from appomattox's posterous

Postbulletin.com: Rochester, MN

2009-04-09T09:00:00.001-04:00

This is not surprising, perhaps, but overlooks the fact that the very problem that gave rise to the ban in the first place -- the need for permanent storage of radioactive waste -- still has not been solved. Given this, now is not the time to revive nuclear power prospects in Minnesota.

via news.postbulletin.com

The Minnesota Legislature may end a state ban on construction of new nuclear power plants. Just to let you all know - I don't have a beef with power plants. Nuclear power plants are not the problem - it's the stuff that runs the power plants that's the issue. This country (and any other country) has not resolved the issue of the uranium life cycle. Depleted uranium used in warfare is not an answer (http://www.unwire.org/unwire/19990423/2193_story.asp).

While there is an argument that depleted uranium is low in radioactivity, other arguments show that depleted uranium is higher in radioactivity than non-enriched uranium. At best, there is an agreement that depleted uranium - like any other heavy metal (re: lead), is toxic. Do you want lead in your water? I didn't think so. You don't want uranium in your water? Neither do I.

And, not one Native American I know or read about wants our depleted uranium stored at Yucca Mountain, a seismically-active mountain that was slated to hold uranium for the thousands of years that the waste remains toxic.

I don't know about you - but it seems that we have not chosen an underground storage solution for lead. Why do we need one for uranium? It must be more toxic than we are led to believe by some experts (http://www.hps.org/publicinformation/ate/q746.html).>

Posted via web from appomattox's posterous

Russian uranium headed to United States - UPI.com

2009-04-08T20:36:00.001-04:00

A bilateral accord between Russia and the United States known as the Megatons to Megawatts agreement seeks to convert 500 metric tons of high-enriched uranium from dismantled Russian nuclear weapons into low-enriched uranium for use in U.S. commercial reactors, RIA Novosti said.

via upi.com

How much uranium do we need? I'm looking forward to some time to learn more about where this uranium is headed, how it is shipped, and where it is stored. If anyone has answers, fire away.

Posted via web from appomattox's posterous

Kazakhstan offers to host global nuclear fuel bank | Reuters

2009-04-07T16:36:00.001-04:00

Kazakhstan, once home to Moscow's atomic bomb tests, offered on Monday to host a global nuclear fuel bank, part of a U.S.-backed plan to put all uranium enrichment under international control.

Speaking alongside visiting Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, President Nursultan Nazarbayev of the former Soviet republic told reporters he could consider the idea.

"If such a nuclear fuel bank were to be created, Kazakhstan would be ready to consider hosting it on its territory as a signatory of the nuclear non-proliferation agreement and as a country that voluntarily renounced nuclear weapons," he said.

The idea, supported by U.S. President Barack Obama, rests on the creation of a global repository that would allow countries to tap into its reserves to fuel their nuclear plants without having to develop their own nuclear enrichment capability.

via uk.reuters.com

The bank is due to be supervised by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). Open for discussion.

Posted via web from appomattox's posterous

The Nuclear Goliath: Confronting Industrial Energy | petroleumworld

2009-04-06T12:58:00.001-04:00

Lately, many may have heard the affable radio jingles for nuclear energy as a clean and reliable candidate to supplant the U.S.'s reliance on foreign fossil fuels. This is sheer, malignant propaganda. Nuclear energy, along with its requisite mining, is not only unsustainable to a high degree, but is, in all aspects, violently rapacious as it dissolves the planet's fecundity and ultimately encumbers the creation of life for generations to come. It is imperative that nuclear is removed from the lexicon of domestic energy policy and that we, as a people, consider alternative energy options while significantly reducing our consumption levels.

via petroleumworld.com

Gotta love this - coming from the Latin American petroleum industry. Support against uranium mining from odd bedfellows.

Posted via web from appomattox's posterous