REPRINT OF THE KEEP THE BAN COALITION PRESS RELEASE
RICHMOND, VA - The long-awaited report issued by the National Academy of Sciences today echoes numerous pitfalls with potential uranium mining, milling and waste disposal in the Commonwealth that many concerned Virginians have expressed in past months.
The 300-page report was commissioned by the Virginia Coal and Energy Commission and is part of an ongoing contract between the commission and NAS that includes a public outreach and public meeting period over the next five months. The report does not make any recommendations about whether Virginia should or should not allow uranium mining, but raises significant environmental and public health concerns.
State law has maintained a nearly 30-year ban on uranium mining. Virginia Uranium, Inc., which wants to establish a uranium mine, mill, and waste disposal site in Pittsylvania County, is pushing the General Assembly to lift the ban in 2012, beginning with the drafting of regulations.
"This is a huge validation for many of the core concerns that we have been raising," said Cale Jaffe, senior attorney with the Southern Environmental Law Center. "As the report highlights, a uranium mine or processing facility could be subject to an uncontrolled release as a result of flood, hurricane, or earthquake. In Virginia, we've experienced all of those extreme events just this year."
"The report highlights the difficulty of storing radioactive waste for thousands of years, given Virginia's climate, geology and population density. " said Dan Holmes, Director of State Policy for the Piedmont Environmental Council. "We are now more convinced that this would be a dangerous experiment in Virginia."
Among the cautionary points found by the NAS study committee:
A HUGE RISK - ACCORDING TO THE NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES: "Furthermore, Virginia is subject to relatively frequent storms that produce intense rainfall. It is questionable whether currently-engineered tailings repositories could be expected to prevent erosion and surface and groundwater contamination for as long as 1,000 years. Natural events such as hurricanes, earthquakes, intense rainfall, or drought could lead to the release of contaminants if facilities are not designed and constructed to withstand such events, or if they fail to perform as designed."
SEVERE CONTAMINATION RISKS EXIST: "Moreover, in a hydrologically active environment such as Virginia, with relatively frequent tropical and convective storms producing intense rainfall, it is questionable whether currently-engineered tailings repositories could be expected to prevent erosion and surface and groundwater contamination for 1,000 years. There are many reports in the literature of releases from improperly disposed tailings and their environmental effects."
A HIGH STAKES GAMBLE: "A mine or processing facility could also be subject to uncontrolled releases of radioactive materials as a result of human error or an extreme event such as a flood, fire, or earthquake."
ADVERSE IMPACTS FOR SOUTHSIDE AGRICULTURE: "Exposure could also occur from the release of contaminated water, or by leaching of radioactive materials into surface or groundwater from uranium tailings or other waste materials, where they could eventually end up in drinking water supplies or could accumulate in the food chain, eventually ending up in the meat, fish, or milk produced in the area."
A HIGH STAKES GAMBLE: "Uranium tailings present a significant potential source of radioactive contamination for thousands of years ... because monitoring of tailings management sites has only been carried out for a short period, monitoring data are insufficient to assess the long-term effectiveness of tailings management facilities designed and constructed according to modern best practices."
CURENT U.S. REGULATIONS ARE INSUFFICIENT: "The decay products of uranium (e.g., 230-Th, 226-Ra) provide a constant source of radiation in uranium tailings for thousands of years, substantially outlasting the current U.S. regulations for oversight of processing facility tailings."
CURRENT U.S REGULATIONS ARE INSUFFICIENT: "The United States federal government has only limited recent experience regulating conventional uranium processing and reclamation of uranium mining and processing facilities. Because almost all uranium mining and processing to date has taken place in parts of the United States that have a negative water balance (dry climates with low rainfall), federal agencies have limited experience applying laws and regulations in positive water balance (wet climates with medium to high rainfall) situations."
CURRENT U.S. REGULATIONS ARE INSUFFICIENT: "The United States' federal government has only limited experience regulating conventional uranium mining, processing, and reclamation over the past two decades, with little new open pit and under-ground uranium mining activity in the United States since the late 1980s."
LONG-TERM RISK: "Tailings disposal sites represent potential sources of contamination for thousands of years, and the long-term risks remain poorly defined."
UNKNOWN RISK: "Additionally, until comprehensive site-specific risk assessments are conducted, including accident and failure analyses, the short-term risk associated with natural disasters, accidents, and spills remain poorly defined."
UNIQUE RISKS FOR VIRGINIA: "In the recent past, most uranium mining and processing has taken place in parts of the United States that have a negative water balance (dry climates with low rainfall), and consequently federal agencies have little experience developing and applying laws and regulations in locations with abundant rainfall and groundwater, and a positive water balance (wet climates with medium to high rainfall), such as Virginia."
PUBLIC PROCESS: "However, under the current regulatory structure, opportunities for meaningful public involvement are fragmented and limited."
WATER QUALITY IMPACTS: "Disturbances of the land surface associated with uranium mining in Virginia would be expected to have significant effects on both on-site and downstream surface water conditions. These disturbances affect both surface water quantity and quality."
Monday, December 19, 2011
Wednesday, December 7, 2011
Highlights of December 6 Presentation of Chmura Study
- 130 - 150 people attended. A majority wore "Keep the Ban" stickers.
- A majority of the questions were clearly asked by citizens who support the ban.
- The Uranium Mining Sub-Committee did not ask a single question.
- There were numerous disclaimers throughout the presentation: "there is uncertainty as to whether this will occur; for the base line to occur our assumption have to hold true for decades; it is an assumption not a fact that the environmental standards will hold true; etc..."
- Chmura team admitted that at a price of $43 /lb the mine and mill site would no longer be profitable and would shut down. A price under $50/lb would mean only a 20 year life of the mine (vs 35 year).
- $6 billion windfall is estimated in best case scenario (this assumes highest price of uranium @$75/lb)
- the loss of $11 billion is predicted in the worst case scenario
- Chmura team admitted that "no area like the Coles Hill site has been mined before so there is no apples to apples comparison regarding: real estate, agriculture, tourism, private schools, manufacturing".
- It would cost VA $2.5 million annually to run the uranium milling program if VA were to become an agreement state.
- Chmura team claimed the science on public health impact was "questionable" in the same breath that he said it is "unambiguously bad for you"
- Chmura admitted that no technology for liners has been fully tested
- According to Chmura, VUI's estimated $15 million remediation costs is underestimated and since there is no certainty as to the type of mining to be employed (underground vs open pit) and the lack of a tailings storage plan, the impacts and remediation costs can't be accurately predicted and could vary widely.
- Bond is supposed to cover the decommissioning, reclaiming and long-term maintenance. After reclamation the land is handed over to the state or US DOE, and if bond is understated the cost will be put on the taxpayer.
- Chmura admitted that hydrogeology at Coles Hill is complex and needs more studies.
- Puckett stated he believes there is a "significant difference between coal and uranium mining"
- When asked if there are any uranium mines that have met federal standards (their baseline scenario) Chmura said "NO"
- Chmura stated under the study's baseline scenario the project would be safe for residents and workers. Yet, they warned that the wildlife should be kept away from the site because wildlife might carry the radioactive material off site or ingest it. [what is safe for humans is deadly for wildlife?]
- At the end of the presentation, where Chmura pointed our the RTI Study that is due shortly might be different from their study because everyone has a different perception of the stigma involved in mining.
- A majority of the questions were clearly asked by citizens who support the ban.
- The Uranium Mining Sub-Committee did not ask a single question.
- There were numerous disclaimers throughout the presentation: "there is uncertainty as to whether this will occur; for the base line to occur our assumption have to hold true for decades; it is an assumption not a fact that the environmental standards will hold true; etc..."
- Chmura team admitted that at a price of $43 /lb the mine and mill site would no longer be profitable and would shut down. A price under $50/lb would mean only a 20 year life of the mine (vs 35 year).
- $6 billion windfall is estimated in best case scenario (this assumes highest price of uranium @$75/lb)
- the loss of $11 billion is predicted in the worst case scenario
- Chmura team admitted that "no area like the Coles Hill site has been mined before so there is no apples to apples comparison regarding: real estate, agriculture, tourism, private schools, manufacturing".
- It would cost VA $2.5 million annually to run the uranium milling program if VA were to become an agreement state.
- Chmura team claimed the science on public health impact was "questionable" in the same breath that he said it is "unambiguously bad for you"
- Chmura admitted that no technology for liners has been fully tested
- According to Chmura, VUI's estimated $15 million remediation costs is underestimated and since there is no certainty as to the type of mining to be employed (underground vs open pit) and the lack of a tailings storage plan, the impacts and remediation costs can't be accurately predicted and could vary widely.
- Bond is supposed to cover the decommissioning, reclaiming and long-term maintenance. After reclamation the land is handed over to the state or US DOE, and if bond is understated the cost will be put on the taxpayer.
- Chmura admitted that hydrogeology at Coles Hill is complex and needs more studies.
- Puckett stated he believes there is a "significant difference between coal and uranium mining"
- When asked if there are any uranium mines that have met federal standards (their baseline scenario) Chmura said "NO"
- Chmura stated under the study's baseline scenario the project would be safe for residents and workers. Yet, they warned that the wildlife should be kept away from the site because wildlife might carry the radioactive material off site or ingest it. [what is safe for humans is deadly for wildlife?]
- At the end of the presentation, where Chmura pointed our the RTI Study that is due shortly might be different from their study because everyone has a different perception of the stigma involved in mining.
Saturday, May 21, 2011
Complete List of Localities and Groups Opposing Lifting of the Ban on Uranium Mining in VA
City of Creedmor, NC
City of Henderson, NC
City of Virginia Beach, VA
Floyd County, VA
Halifax County, NC
Granville County, NC
Kerr-Tar Regional Council of Governments
Brunswick County, VA
Mecklenburg County, VA
Orange County, VA
Rappahannock County, VA
Town of Clarksville
Town of Halifax, VA
Town of Hurt, VA
Town of Butner, NC
Town of Franklinton, NC
Town of Warrenton, NC
Vance County, NC
Warren County, NC
Blue Ridge Environmental Defense League
Piedmont Residents in Defense of the Environment (PRIDE)
Buggs Island Striper Club
Halifax County Chamber of Commerce (VA)
Martinsville-Henry County Chapter of the NAACP
Medical Society of Virginia House of Delegates 2008
National Wildlife Federation
North Carolina Roanoke River Basin Advisory Committee
North Carolina Wildlife Federation
Roanoke Rapids Sanitary District
Southside Concerned Citizens
Virginia Association of Soil and Water Conservation Districts
Keep the Ban, Chesapeake
Keep the Ban, Norfolk
UBAN, Floyd County (VA)
Roanoke Group of the Sierra Club
Sierra Club Keep the Ban Team, Martinsville
Dan River Basin Association
League of Individuals for the Environment, Inc.
Roanoke River Basin Association
Piedmont Environmental Council
Sierra Club-Virginia Chapter
Southeast Rural Community Assistance Project
Southern Environmental Law Center
Virginia Bass Federation
Virginia Conservation Network
Virginia League of Conservation Voters
City of Henderson, NC
City of Virginia Beach, VA
Floyd County, VA
Halifax County, NC
Granville County, NC
Kerr-Tar Regional Council of Governments
Brunswick County, VA
Mecklenburg County, VA
Orange County, VA
Rappahannock County, VA
Town of Clarksville
Town of Halifax, VA
Town of Hurt, VA
Town of Butner, NC
Town of Franklinton, NC
Town of Warrenton, NC
Vance County, NC
Warren County, NC
Blue Ridge Environmental Defense League
Piedmont Residents in Defense of the Environment (PRIDE)
Buggs Island Striper Club
Halifax County Chamber of Commerce (VA)
Martinsville-Henry County Chapter of the NAACP
Medical Society of Virginia House of Delegates 2008
National Wildlife Federation
North Carolina Roanoke River Basin Advisory Committee
North Carolina Wildlife Federation
Roanoke Rapids Sanitary District
Southside Concerned Citizens
Virginia Association of Soil and Water Conservation Districts
Keep the Ban, Chesapeake
Keep the Ban, Norfolk
UBAN, Floyd County (VA)
Roanoke Group of the Sierra Club
Sierra Club Keep the Ban Team, Martinsville
Dan River Basin Association
League of Individuals for the Environment, Inc.
Roanoke River Basin Association
Piedmont Environmental Council
Sierra Club-Virginia Chapter
Southeast Rural Community Assistance Project
Southern Environmental Law Center
Virginia Bass Federation
Virginia Conservation Network
Virginia League of Conservation Voters
Sunday, April 10, 2011
STAY THE COURSE - KEEP THE BAN!
This is to clarify some misconceptions about the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) study of uranium mining currently underway.
Firt, the NAS study is simply not designed to provide the depth of information that needed to determine whether mining can be done safely in Virginia. This is not a reflection on the NAS National Research Council or on the qualifications of the panel members. The scope of the NAS study calls for secondary research, a review of the literature and experiences with mining elsewhere. The statement of work reflects the dual constraints of budget and timing, i.e., completion in time for the 2012 session of the Virginia General Assembly.
Without the more costly primary research, i.e., longer-term studies of actual sites where mining could occur in Virginia, key questions related to risks of mining, tailings waste storage and groundwater impacts in Virginia 's climate and hydrology will remain unanswered when the NAS study committee completes its work. For example, for mining risk assessment, an understanding of groundwater impacts by definition requires a site specific study.
Secondly, intensive study of the site appears to be needed to answer basic questions. According to Dr. Sinha of Virginia Tech, a state of equilibrium characterizes part of the Coles Hill site (where rocks, ore and water are moving in a closed system without migration to ground and surface water). Dr. Sinha stated that no one knows what will happen when the overburden is removed. He indicated that a robust study of several years would be needed to model changes, such as migration of water through the strata, etc. if the current state of equilibrium is altered.
Third, a substantive study of uranium tailings risks and containment cell monitoring and maintenance is not expressly included in the NAS study scope of work. Tailings are mentioned only in the context of identifying best management practices in recent decades and are not mentioned along with the examination of other phases of uranium mining, milling, processing and reclamation in the statement of task.
Several geologists have emphasized that while mining, milling, processing and reclamation in Virginia raise questions, it is the tailings, the most enduring phase of the uranium mining lifecycle, that are most problematic: the very long-term storage and monitoring of enormous quantities of wastes containing radionuclides, chemicals and heavy metals. The responsibility for these wastes will ultimately pass to the taxpayer after the mining company shuts down -- with risks and costs to be passed along to future generations of Virginians.
Due to the decay chain, tailings wastes become more dangerous over time, according to international experts. There is concern regarding the lack of a track record with these materials and with the containment cells in Virginia 's climate and hydrology. Information needed to adequately assess risk is not available. Virginia Uranium Inc. in a letter to the City of Virginia Beach stated that VUI does not have information on tailings requested by the City. As we know, the City of Virginia Beach is attempting to assess the risks of upstream uranium mining operations and waste storage on downstream drinking water supplies. The City is, first and foremost, looking at the hazards of tailings storage in a region that is subject to heavy storms and flooding.
Virginia Uranium Inc. does not have answers to basic questions related to water - quantity needed; source of water; quantity, quality of wastewater; treatment, discharge of wastewater. With the NAS study scope as written, these most basic of questions will likely remain unanswered.
There is no study underway that will provide by 2012 the information needed to determine whether uranium mining can be done in the Commonwealth of Virginia in a manner that safeguards Virginia 's people and environment.
With recent events in Japan , assumptions related to risk assessment and safety are called into question. The market for the product is changing. Even China , the growth market for uranium, is, according to reports, taking a closer look at its plans for nuclear expansion.
The conservative stance is to support keeping the ban - to stay the course, given what we know -- and, more importantly, don't know.
Firt, the NAS study is simply not designed to provide the depth of information that needed to determine whether mining can be done safely in Virginia. This is not a reflection on the NAS National Research Council or on the qualifications of the panel members. The scope of the NAS study calls for secondary research, a review of the literature and experiences with mining elsewhere. The statement of work reflects the dual constraints of budget and timing, i.e., completion in time for the 2012 session of the Virginia General Assembly.
Without the more costly primary research, i.e., longer-term studies of actual sites where mining could occur in Virginia, key questions related to risks of mining, tailings waste storage and groundwater impacts in Virginia 's climate and hydrology will remain unanswered when the NAS study committee completes its work. For example, for mining risk assessment, an understanding of groundwater impacts by definition requires a site specific study.
Secondly, intensive study of the site appears to be needed to answer basic questions. According to Dr. Sinha of Virginia Tech, a state of equilibrium characterizes part of the Coles Hill site (where rocks, ore and water are moving in a closed system without migration to ground and surface water). Dr. Sinha stated that no one knows what will happen when the overburden is removed. He indicated that a robust study of several years would be needed to model changes, such as migration of water through the strata, etc. if the current state of equilibrium is altered.
Third, a substantive study of uranium tailings risks and containment cell monitoring and maintenance is not expressly included in the NAS study scope of work. Tailings are mentioned only in the context of identifying best management practices in recent decades and are not mentioned along with the examination of other phases of uranium mining, milling, processing and reclamation in the statement of task.
Several geologists have emphasized that while mining, milling, processing and reclamation in Virginia raise questions, it is the tailings, the most enduring phase of the uranium mining lifecycle, that are most problematic: the very long-term storage and monitoring of enormous quantities of wastes containing radionuclides, chemicals and heavy metals. The responsibility for these wastes will ultimately pass to the taxpayer after the mining company shuts down -- with risks and costs to be passed along to future generations of Virginians.
Due to the decay chain, tailings wastes become more dangerous over time, according to international experts. There is concern regarding the lack of a track record with these materials and with the containment cells in Virginia 's climate and hydrology. Information needed to adequately assess risk is not available. Virginia Uranium Inc. in a letter to the City of Virginia Beach stated that VUI does not have information on tailings requested by the City. As we know, the City of Virginia Beach is attempting to assess the risks of upstream uranium mining operations and waste storage on downstream drinking water supplies. The City is, first and foremost, looking at the hazards of tailings storage in a region that is subject to heavy storms and flooding.
Virginia Uranium Inc. does not have answers to basic questions related to water - quantity needed; source of water; quantity, quality of wastewater; treatment, discharge of wastewater. With the NAS study scope as written, these most basic of questions will likely remain unanswered.
There is no study underway that will provide by 2012 the information needed to determine whether uranium mining can be done in the Commonwealth of Virginia in a manner that safeguards Virginia 's people and environment.
With recent events in Japan , assumptions related to risk assessment and safety are called into question. The market for the product is changing. Even China , the growth market for uranium, is, according to reports, taking a closer look at its plans for nuclear expansion.
The conservative stance is to support keeping the ban - to stay the course, given what we know -- and, more importantly, don't know.
Wednesday, March 30, 2011
VIRGINIA URANIUM INC. HAS NO PLANS FOR STORING URANIUM MILL TAILINGS AND WON'T HAVE THEM IN NEAR FUTURE
FEBRUARY 8, 2011: VIRGINIA BEACH REQUESTS VIRGINIA URANIUM PROVIDE THEIR PLANS TO STORE TOXIC URANIUM MILL TAILINGS
From: Peter Pommerenk
To: "pwales@vauinc.com"
Date: Tue, 8 Feb 2011 13:00:58 -0500
Subject: Information on Uranium Mill Tailings
Dear Mr. Wales,
According to recent media reports following our release of the uranium mining impact study, you stated that you would be able to share data and information about the "amount and type of material that will be present at the Coles Hill site." We are delighted to hear this and would like to take you up on this offer.
We are particularly interested in any primary sources that could provide insight into the chemical and radiological composition of the tailings and the properties of the solids (e.g., grain size distributions, etc.) that might be generated at Coles Hill. In addition, even though we have retained expertise on contemporary mill tailings containment construction, any preliminary information regarding this aspect of your venture would be helpful to us in order to narrow down the potential impact scenarios in our model simulations. More specifically, we are looking for the following:
Containment structure:
* Location
* Site plans
* Design information: surface area, volume, height of the dam above= the original ground elevation, type of the dam, method of construction (standard dam, or if gradually raised upstream method, downstream method, or centerline method), collection of liquids and seepage, operation rules, etc.
* Geotechnical information Tailings:
* Uranium leaching method (acid or alkaline) and test results
* Pulp density of tailings when pumping from the mill to the containment cell
* Expected pulp density of tailings when impounded
* Total unit weight or density of the tailings (solid-liquid mixture)
* Grain size distribution (tailings)
* Dry density of tailings * Cohesivity (if any)
* Bingham plastic viscosity, Bingham yield strength (if available)
* Radioactivity content in tailings (Gross-Alpha/Beta, Ra-226/228 and Th-230/232 in sands, slimes, and liquids)
* Residual uranium content in sands, slimes and liquids expected to be in the tailings
* Any data on other toxic matter, if available, their initial concentration in sands, slimes and liquids (such as arsenic, lead, etc.)
We greatly appreciate your cooperation in this matter and are looking forward to hearing from you within the next 30 days. Thank you.
Sincerely,
Peter Pommerenk, Ph.D., P.E.
City of Virginia Beach Public Utilities/Engineering Division Planning & Analysis
757-385-5708
FEBRUARY 23, 2011 (TWO WEEKS LATER): VIRGINIA URANIUM RESPONDS: IT HAS NO PLANS AND WILL NOT HAVE THEM IN NEAR FUTURE, OFFERS GET-TOGETHER INSTEAD
From: Walt Coles, Sr. [mailto:wcolessr@vauinc.com]
Sent: Wednesday, February 23, 2011 8:51 AM
To: Tom Leahy
Cc: Peter Pommerenk; pwales@vauinc.com
Subject:
Dear Tom,
This email is in response to Peter Pommerenk's email to Patrick Wales dated February 8, 2011. As I offered to you at the NAS meeting in Danville, we would be delighted for you and others to visit with us at our office and the Coles Hill site. We feel this would provide more of a hands-on approach to Virginia Uranium's work and on-site observations. Such a meeting would provide opportunity for both parties to exchange various points of information and objectives. At that time, we would be happy to provide you with selected old data created by Marline in the 1980-92s. I hope that you will consider this offer.
In regard to current data and Peter's list of specific data requests, most of that data has not yet been generated and is not expected in the near term.
Please let me know if you would like to set up a time for a visit and we look forward to working with you.
Regards,
Walter
MARCH 1, 2011: VIRGINIA BEACH REJECTS GET-TOGETHER ON WALTER COLES PROPERTY AS USELESS
From: Tom Leahy
To: "Walt Coles, Sr."
CC: Peter Pommerenk , "pwales@vauinc.com" , Marilyn Crane Date: Tue, 1 Mar 2011 12:50:31 -0500
Dear Walter,
Thank you for your response to Peter Pommerenk's request for information. Peter's request for information was fairly specific. Unfortunately, you have indicated that VUI has little if any of the requested information and that you do not expect to have any in the near term. Given this situation, I do not believe that much would be accomplished by assembling our team of experts at Coles Hill at this time. As most of our technical team are under contract, it would be very costly in terms of both time and money.
However, I will note that Patrick Wales has previously offered to provide copies of the Marline Report to both Virginia Beach and the NAS Uranium Committee. We have the main body of the Marline Report (Volumes 1-3) but we would appreciate a copy of the 14 appendices (Volumes 4-8). Virginia Beach would be more than happy to pay the cost of reproduction. It may be that the Marline Report will have the information we need and this will be the most efficient way to respond to our request for information. After we review the remaining volumes, we would be in a better position to discuss the potential benefits of a meeting at Coles Hill.
Sincerely,
Tom
From: Peter Pommerenk
To: "pwales@vauinc.com"
Date: Tue, 8 Feb 2011 13:00:58 -0500
Subject: Information on Uranium Mill Tailings
Dear Mr. Wales,
According to recent media reports following our release of the uranium mining impact study, you stated that you would be able to share data and information about the "amount and type of material that will be present at the Coles Hill site." We are delighted to hear this and would like to take you up on this offer.
We are particularly interested in any primary sources that could provide insight into the chemical and radiological composition of the tailings and the properties of the solids (e.g., grain size distributions, etc.) that might be generated at Coles Hill. In addition, even though we have retained expertise on contemporary mill tailings containment construction, any preliminary information regarding this aspect of your venture would be helpful to us in order to narrow down the potential impact scenarios in our model simulations. More specifically, we are looking for the following:
Containment structure:
* Location
* Site plans
* Design information: surface area, volume, height of the dam above= the original ground elevation, type of the dam, method of construction (standard dam, or if gradually raised upstream method, downstream method, or centerline method), collection of liquids and seepage, operation rules, etc.
* Geotechnical information Tailings:
* Uranium leaching method (acid or alkaline) and test results
* Pulp density of tailings when pumping from the mill to the containment cell
* Expected pulp density of tailings when impounded
* Total unit weight or density of the tailings (solid-liquid mixture)
* Grain size distribution (tailings)
* Dry density of tailings * Cohesivity (if any)
* Bingham plastic viscosity, Bingham yield strength (if available)
* Radioactivity content in tailings (Gross-Alpha/Beta, Ra-226/228 and Th-230/232 in sands, slimes, and liquids)
* Residual uranium content in sands, slimes and liquids expected to be in the tailings
* Any data on other toxic matter, if available, their initial concentration in sands, slimes and liquids (such as arsenic, lead, etc.)
We greatly appreciate your cooperation in this matter and are looking forward to hearing from you within the next 30 days. Thank you.
Sincerely,
Peter Pommerenk, Ph.D., P.E.
City of Virginia Beach Public Utilities/Engineering Division Planning & Analysis
757-385-5708
FEBRUARY 23, 2011 (TWO WEEKS LATER): VIRGINIA URANIUM RESPONDS: IT HAS NO PLANS AND WILL NOT HAVE THEM IN NEAR FUTURE, OFFERS GET-TOGETHER INSTEAD
From: Walt Coles, Sr. [mailto:wcolessr@vauinc.com]
Sent: Wednesday, February 23, 2011 8:51 AM
To: Tom Leahy
Cc: Peter Pommerenk; pwales@vauinc.com
Subject:
Dear Tom,
This email is in response to Peter Pommerenk's email to Patrick Wales dated February 8, 2011. As I offered to you at the NAS meeting in Danville, we would be delighted for you and others to visit with us at our office and the Coles Hill site. We feel this would provide more of a hands-on approach to Virginia Uranium's work and on-site observations. Such a meeting would provide opportunity for both parties to exchange various points of information and objectives. At that time, we would be happy to provide you with selected old data created by Marline in the 1980-92s. I hope that you will consider this offer.
In regard to current data and Peter's list of specific data requests, most of that data has not yet been generated and is not expected in the near term.
Please let me know if you would like to set up a time for a visit and we look forward to working with you.
Regards,
Walter
MARCH 1, 2011: VIRGINIA BEACH REJECTS GET-TOGETHER ON WALTER COLES PROPERTY AS USELESS
From: Tom Leahy
To: "Walt Coles, Sr."
CC: Peter Pommerenk , "pwales@vauinc.com" , Marilyn Crane Date: Tue, 1 Mar 2011 12:50:31 -0500
Dear Walter,
Thank you for your response to Peter Pommerenk's request for information. Peter's request for information was fairly specific. Unfortunately, you have indicated that VUI has little if any of the requested information and that you do not expect to have any in the near term. Given this situation, I do not believe that much would be accomplished by assembling our team of experts at Coles Hill at this time. As most of our technical team are under contract, it would be very costly in terms of both time and money.
However, I will note that Patrick Wales has previously offered to provide copies of the Marline Report to both Virginia Beach and the NAS Uranium Committee. We have the main body of the Marline Report (Volumes 1-3) but we would appreciate a copy of the 14 appendices (Volumes 4-8). Virginia Beach would be more than happy to pay the cost of reproduction. It may be that the Marline Report will have the information we need and this will be the most efficient way to respond to our request for information. After we review the remaining volumes, we would be in a better position to discuss the potential benefits of a meeting at Coles Hill.
Sincerely,
Tom
Wednesday, March 9, 2011
What Is Joe Q. Public Waiting For?
Virginia Uranium, Inc., Virginia legislators, local elected officials and area business leaders have been telling Joe Q. Public to "wait for the study" by the National Academy of Sciences to see whether or not uranium mining can be done safely. It has been stated on numerous occasions that the NAS study WILL NOT determine whether or not mining can be done safely in VA. So, for what exactly are we waiting?
While John Q. obediently continues to "wait for the study", VUI is wining and dining Virginia's legislators, flying them to France and Canada to see "reclaimed" uranium mines and making generous political contributions. They're lobbying legislators to lift the uranium mining ban and pass favorable regulations in the 2012 session of the General Assembly. According to a recent news article by Steve Szkotak, VUI has successfully pocketed some legislators. Their pockets are deep and appear to be filling quickly. Walter Coles Jr. says said Virginia Uranium has lined up sponsors of the legislation to lift the ban. Who are these legislators? This illustrates how little meaning the NAS study has to legislators. They don't care about the results. It's becoming evident that the NAS study, initiated by the Coal and Energy Commission and paid for by VUI is merely a diversion so VUI can buy legislators while urging you to "wait for the study".
VUI is ramming this study through and is pushing for a vote before the NAS or other reports can be adequately reviewed. According to contract, the NAS study will conclude on December 15, 2011. The General Assembly convenes on January 11, 2012. How many legislators can pull off work, family and holiday obligations plus read, digest, formulate questions and receive answers regarding a document of purported importance such as the NAS document in that short amount of time? None.
What are you waiting for, John Q.? No one else is.
Karen B. Maute
While John Q. obediently continues to "wait for the study", VUI is wining and dining Virginia's legislators, flying them to France and Canada to see "reclaimed" uranium mines and making generous political contributions. They're lobbying legislators to lift the uranium mining ban and pass favorable regulations in the 2012 session of the General Assembly. According to a recent news article by Steve Szkotak, VUI has successfully pocketed some legislators. Their pockets are deep and appear to be filling quickly. Walter Coles Jr. says said Virginia Uranium has lined up sponsors of the legislation to lift the ban. Who are these legislators? This illustrates how little meaning the NAS study has to legislators. They don't care about the results. It's becoming evident that the NAS study, initiated by the Coal and Energy Commission and paid for by VUI is merely a diversion so VUI can buy legislators while urging you to "wait for the study".
VUI is ramming this study through and is pushing for a vote before the NAS or other reports can be adequately reviewed. According to contract, the NAS study will conclude on December 15, 2011. The General Assembly convenes on January 11, 2012. How many legislators can pull off work, family and holiday obligations plus read, digest, formulate questions and receive answers regarding a document of purported importance such as the NAS document in that short amount of time? None.
What are you waiting for, John Q.? No one else is.
Karen B. Maute
Tuesday, March 1, 2011
Virginia Uranium Inc. Claims It Has VA Legislators and Governor in Their Pocket
Today, on March 1, 2011, Virginia Uranium Inc., its sole shareholder Virginia Uranium Holdings, a Yukon-based privately held company, and Virginia Energy Resources, a Canadian publicly traded company that owns 30% of the infamous Coles Hill deposit, gave a presentation to the Wall Street crowd in its pursuit of investors.
The presentation was webcast.
@ 41:50 -- “In January of 2012, we will have a bill in the state legislature that directs the [Department of Mines, Minerals, and Energy] to develop the regulations on uranium mining.”
@42’00” – -- QUESTION: “Who is introducing that bill?” Answer: “We have had a number of legislators who have offered to do such. I don’t think we’ll know who is going to introduce the bill until we get very close to the beginning of the legislative session. We have a team of lobbyists in the state capitol. We’ve got a public relations firm in the state capitol. We are taking legislators on trips to see reclaimed uranium mines in France and up in Canada. We have a grassroots educational effort underway in the local community. So we’re not sitting still while the NAS study is going on. We are doing everything we can to make sure legislators thoroughly understand this issue and are able to be supportive of what we’re trying to do in the next session.”
@ 43’30” – “Our governor likes to say that Virginia is already a nuclear hub and we can build on it by being more vertically integrated.”
On February 1, 2011, at Americas’ Resources Investment Congress, London, U.K., Walter Coles, Jr. stated that:
@ 17’09” – “I talked to the lead geologist [who discovered Rabbit Lake in Canada] … and he hit on this crazy idea of going to the East Coast of the United States. And two years later, that same team made the discovery of Coles Hill. And talking to the lead geologist, he is insistent to this day that Coles Hill is the first of more major discoveries in Virginia that might lead to another Athabasca [Canada] style resource play.”
The presentation was webcast.
@ 41:50 -- “In January of 2012, we will have a bill in the state legislature that directs the [Department of Mines, Minerals, and Energy] to develop the regulations on uranium mining.”
@42’00” – -- QUESTION: “Who is introducing that bill?” Answer: “We have had a number of legislators who have offered to do such. I don’t think we’ll know who is going to introduce the bill until we get very close to the beginning of the legislative session. We have a team of lobbyists in the state capitol. We’ve got a public relations firm in the state capitol. We are taking legislators on trips to see reclaimed uranium mines in France and up in Canada. We have a grassroots educational effort underway in the local community. So we’re not sitting still while the NAS study is going on. We are doing everything we can to make sure legislators thoroughly understand this issue and are able to be supportive of what we’re trying to do in the next session.”
@ 43’30” – “Our governor likes to say that Virginia is already a nuclear hub and we can build on it by being more vertically integrated.”
On February 1, 2011, at Americas’ Resources Investment Congress, London, U.K., Walter Coles, Jr. stated that:
@ 17’09” – “I talked to the lead geologist [who discovered Rabbit Lake in Canada] … and he hit on this crazy idea of going to the East Coast of the United States. And two years later, that same team made the discovery of Coles Hill. And talking to the lead geologist, he is insistent to this day that Coles Hill is the first of more major discoveries in Virginia that might lead to another Athabasca [Canada] style resource play.”
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
