Skip to main content

Public Comments on Uranium Study in Virginia

For those of us who are interested in the developments pertaining to the domestic mining of uranium, you may find it noteworthy that perhaps the largest deposit of uranium ore in the United States is located in southwestern Virginia.

There won't be any uranium mining in Virginia any time soon though, since there has long been a moratorium on uranium mining in Virginia. But, recently there have been proposals of conducting a study to determine whether uranium can be mined safely and what the potential impacts may be.

Last night, the Virginia Coal and Energy Commission held a public meeting in Chatham, Virginia, simply to hear public comments pertaining to the study of the feasibility of uranium mining. From some of the comments (e.g., likening mining to "brutal rape"), you would think that the study is tantamount to actually starting mining operations.

More information about the public meeting can be found here (incl. video). Some interesting (and often outrageous) comments from the meeting can be found here.

Comments

If they consider uranium mining 'brutal rape', what do they consider coal mining: "Just laying back and enjoying it????" What hypocrisy!

Marcel F. Williams
http://newpapyrusmagazine.blogspot.com/
djysrv said…
Some thoughts on the economics of the mine, assuming Virginia ever gives it a green light, are here.

http://djysrv.blogspot.com/2009/01/virginia-uranium-prospects-heat-up.html
Anonymous said…
The comment about "rape" of Mother Earth was spoken by a Native American Indian, so we should respect their beliefs about the sacredness and protection of Mother Earth and Father Sky. No one was asking him about coal mining during this hearing - The hearing was specific to speaking about a study of uranium mining, which would likely be conducted in Virginia by the very old method of open-pit mining. And with two very large deposits at Coles Hill, one can only imagine what the mining would look like.

As far as economics, the negative ramifications -- especially long-term -- are dire. Most mining towns are vacated by those who can afford to move -- your highest bracket taxpayers. Then there's 100years down the road - When VUI has long gone and left the residents of Virginia with the expense of monitoring the soil and groundwater around what would be a massive amount of underground mill tailings, etc.; That will have to be done FOREVER, and no one has talked about how that is going to be paid for. If a breach or leak in the tailings liners occur, which could very well happen, who is going to pay the very expensive costs of attempting to remediate, repair or replace that storage area?? Who is going to pay to ultimately decommission the mill? Those kinds of costs run into the multi-millions, so any short-term economic boost is simply not going to be comparable to the long-term expenses affilated with such a proposed project.
Anonymous said…
Obviously, some still don't realize that radioactive elements decay and are not around forever.

Sad how much ignorance exists about radiation even on the NEI blog.
Anonymous said…
I’m baffled why anyone would be against a scientific study. To assume an answer in advance of this study exhibits an extreme amount of prejudice, arrogance, and lack of intellectual honesty. Uranium is currently mined safely world-wide in a variety of environmental conditions – hot, cold, wet, and dry. God has blessed this area with a valuable natural resource, how can anyone simply assume that what is done safely by others in so many other places cannot be done safely in Pittsylvania County Virginia?
Is the assumption that we Virginians aren’t smart enough or that the laws of science somehow apply differently in Virginia? Only an ignorant person would assume such things. You have to STUDY the project to know the answers.

Furthermore, the residents of the Coles Hill where the uranium deposits are located have lived and farmed that land for 150 years. In fact, they could have sold the mineral rights to a major corporation long ago, but the Coles family plans to be there for generations after mine is closed. Please don’t make the mistake of thinking they are a cut and run operation, and a decommissioning fund is required to operate such a facility.
Anonymous said…
The thing about uranium is that it is concentrated energy... The surface expression of the south Coles Hill deposit is 14 acres. The mining plan from the early 1980's showed a open pit size of less than 100 acres. Virginia Uranium owns about 3000 acres, thus there is plenty of set back. By most mining standards, the envisioned open pit is quite small. Again, this is concentrated energy.

The leases that Virginia Uranium Inc. signed with the owners of the mineral rights require that the land be restored to its approximate orginal contour once mining is complete. By law, Virginia Uranium Inc. must purchase a bond, before the first shovel hits the ground, to provide the financial assurances for reclamation. The bond is reviewed on an annual basis to make sure it will provide adequate coverage.

Let's talk about the "dire" economic implications. Pittsylvania County with a population of about 50K has relied on tobacco, textiles and furniture manufacturing. Those are mostly all gone... Unemployment is amongst the highest in the state. There are 1,400 farms in the county, generating about $55 million in revenue per year. Now compare this to the potential economics of the Coles Hill uranium project: 5 million lbs of uranium production per year x $70 per lb long term contract price = $350 million per year in revenue, with an estimated 20 year mine life.
Mike Stuart said…
1. First of all, it's a study not a mining mandate.

2. The Chatham area is currently economically depressed. The influx of jobs and wealth can be of great help to the area, even if they aren't forever. Few people have guaranteed job stability for life. Why deny them the economic opportunity just because the uranium isn't infinite?

3. If we're going to talk about US energy independence, we'd better be ready to actually use some of our resources to get there.

But first things first. If the study says it can't be done or that the risk is too high, then by all means, fight it. Until then, participate in the process and don't presume that you know more than the experts, unless of course you happen to be an expert.

Popular posts from this blog

How Nanomaterials Can Make Nuclear Reactors Safer and More Efficient

The following is a guest post from Matt Wald, senior communications advisor at NEI. Follow Matt on Twitter at @MattLWald.

From the batteries in our cell phones to the clothes on our backs, "nanomaterials" that are designed molecule by molecule are working their way into our economy and our lives. Now there’s some promising work on new materials for nuclear reactors.

Reactors are a tough environment. The sub atomic particles that sustain the chain reaction, neutrons, are great for splitting additional uranium atoms, but not all of them hit a uranium atom; some of them end up in various metal components of the reactor. The metal is usually a crystalline structure, meaning it is as orderly as a ladder or a sheet of graph paper, but the neutrons rearrange the atoms, leaving some infinitesimal voids in the structure and some areas of extra density. The components literally grow, getting longer and thicker. The phenomenon is well understood and designers compensate for it with a …

Missing the Point about Pennsylvania’s Nuclear Plants

A group that includes oil and gas companies in Pennsylvania released a study on Monday that argues that twenty years ago, planners underestimated the value of nuclear plants in the electricity market. According to the group, that means the state should now let the plants close.

Huh?

The question confronting the state now isn’t what the companies that owned the reactors at the time of de-regulation got or didn’t get. It’s not a question of whether they were profitable in the '80s, '90s and '00s. It’s about now. Business works by looking at the present and making projections about the future.

Is losing the nuclear plants what’s best for the state going forward?

Pennsylvania needs clean air. It needs jobs. And it needs protection against over-reliance on a single fuel source.


What the reactors need is recognition of all the value they provide. The electricity market is depressed, and if electricity is treated as a simple commodity, with no regard for its benefit to clean air o…

Why Nuclear Plant Closures Are a Crisis for Small Town USA

Nuclear plants occupy an unusual spot in the towns where they operate: integral but so much in the background that they may seem almost invisible. But when they close, it can be like the earth shifting underfoot.

Lohud.com, the Gannett newspaper that covers the Lower Hudson Valley in New York, took a look around at the experience of towns where reactors have closed, because the Indian Point reactors in Buchanan are scheduled to be shut down under an agreement with Gov. Mario Cuomo.


From sea to shining sea, it was dismal. It wasn’t just the plant employees who were hurt. The losses of hundreds of jobs, tens of millions of dollars in payrolls and millions in property taxes depressed whole towns and surrounding areas. For example:

Vernon, Vermont, home to Vermont Yankee for more than 40 years, had to cut its municipal budget in half. The town closed its police department and let the county take over; the youth sports teams lost their volunteer coaches, and Vernon Elementary School lost th…