[an error occurred while processing this directive]

LATEST SUBMISSIONS

In-situ uranium mining

Tuesday, May 22 at 12:01 AM

This Speakout has not been edited

By Landy Stinnett, Lakewood

This letter is in reference to your Sunday Speakout column regarding proposed in situ uranium mining and how this would somehow threaten Fort Collins' reputation. Unfortunately I find that most of the opinions getting published in print these days are the negative ones, typically written by persons unknowledgeable about the subject matter and unwilling to do even a modest amount of research to understand the topic about which they rail.

Perhaps we could quote from just the second paragraph of the opinion by Jay and Robin Davis; i.e., "...the less-than-honorable mention of Fort Collins' proximity to toxic uranium mining and contaminated underground water supplies...", and examine the content. Since the uranium is already present in the ground (or else why would the mining company wish to extract it), did the Davises ever wonder why the water supplies are not currently contaminated by natural forces?

This relates to the deposition of the uranium initially, which is mobile in an oxidizing environment, and immobile in a reducing one. At one time oxidized groundwater carried the ion downward through a somewhat porous, permeable formation until it encountered the zone of reduction, at which time the uranium precipitated out of solution and deposited where we find it today. In situ mining is a means of simply reversing that process temporarily by injecting oxygen into the formation, mobilizing the uranium, and pumping the solution to the surface where it is processed into yellowcake, a saleable product. At the close of operations, the formation is flushed to restore the quality of original formation water, and the natural reducing state ensures that any remnant uranium in the ground stays in place as it did originally. The additional statements by the Davis's regarding the "unpredictable impact of the leaching solution on the rock formations", the risk that deadly, radioactive leaching compounds will spread outside of the uranium deposit and contaminate Front Range water supplies", etc., etc., are without foundation since the moment oxygen injection ceases, the underground environment once again (after appropriate flushing) converts to a reducing state.

This is heavily regulated industry. As an example, in Colorado there are a minimum of 17 permits required from a multitude of agencies just to initiate a simple sand-and-gravel operation. With a radioactive element there is an overprint of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission as well, with its impositions and requirements. For an operation to actually come into being means that considerable time and money have been expended to satisfy federal, state and local regulations. Now, if a person cannot trust his/her government, just who can you trust these days?

This type of mining is far less disruptive of the environment than is surface mining, and is safer for the workers than extracting from underground. Certainly we need nuclear-generated power, as an adjunct to electricity derived from plants, and possibly as a replacement to coal-fired units, if we are to ameliorate greenhouse gasses.

A mine offers industrial-wage jobs, and of course would contribute to the property tax rolls for the county, and income taxes for the state and federal governments. A downstream multiplier for industrial jobs varies, but conservatively is at least 3 to 1. Incorporating an advertising slogan from years ago, "Where's the beef'?

Since we need nuclear power, in situ mining is the most responsible method of uranium extraction both from a safety and environmental viewpoint, such an operation would contribute to the welfare of Fort Collins and other agencies-all to the public good. It would seem to me that the most toxic aspect of this whole issue is the misinformation provided by the Davises.

READER COMMENTS