July 6, 2008

Europe's G8 giants divided on nuclear energy

Germany and France remain far apart on how to generate electricity

Foreign policy wonks are participating this weekend in an annual exercise of watching and reporting on the major western powers try to solve the world's problems. It is called the G8 conference and is a yearly gathering of the U.S., U.K. France, Germany, Japan, Canada, Italy, and Russia.

Climate change and nuclear energy are on the top of the agenda. AP reports the G-8 leaders agreed at last year's summit in Heiligendamm, Germany, that they would set a goal of a 50 percent cut in the world's greenhouse gas emissions by 2050. Japan hopes to transform this long-term goal into an actual agreement during this year's summit.

bush g8At a press conference in Washington before leaving for the meeting, President Bush (left) repeated the U.S. position that it will not be possible to reach an effective agreement unless China and India are included in it. His remarks underscore the U.S. argument that any agreement reached only among the G-8 nations would be meaningless.

China doubles its nuclear bet and then some

For its part China told Westinghouse this week it wants to buy 100 AP1000s from the company. This request came as a surprise to new Westinghouse CEO Aris Candris who said the firm had been expecting orders for up to 40 reactors.

The AP1000 generates up to 1,150 MWe, but Candris said work is underway to design a new reactor that will generate 1,700 MWe and will be targeted at China and India as key markets. The unit is clearly designed to compete with the Areva EPR which is roughly the same size. Areva sold two to China last November.

France plans second EPR

Sarkozy 2nd nuclearWhile all the high level hand waving was going on in Tokyo, French President Nicolas Sarkozy (right) announced just before his departure for the G8 meeting that a second Areva EPR would be built in France. He made the announcement while visiting the Creusot site (photo) in eastern France owned by steelmaker Arcelor which makes large forgings for nuclear plants. Anne Lauvergeon, CEO of Areva, came with Sarkozy to visit the plant. A new EPR is under construction in Flamanville, France, and another is being built in Finland.

Germany still conflicted over nuclear energy

Germany is the last of the G8 nations to sign on for the use of nuclear energy as an alternative to fossil fuel. It is still politically divided over the issue with Social Democrats this week proposing to tax existing plants out of existence. In response the Christian Democrats have launched a massive public relations drive to revive Germany's use of nuclear energy and stop a plan to close and decommission the existing reactors.

AngelemerkelGerman Chancellor Angela Merkel (right) finds herself in an awkward position as one of Europe's biggest polluters in terms of greenhouse gases as she arrives at the G8 summit. The Social Democrats are exploiting German unease with rising fossil fuel costs and propose to tax nuclear plants charging them with "profiteering" during the current energy crisis.

A proposal seen by Reuters would raise $1.6 billion Euros. The wire service reported the proposal showed the party is ready to play on divisions within German society over the advantages and risks of nuclear energy. The logic of the proposal seems to be upside down.

The paper said, "Electricity production in nuclear power stations enjoys unjustified privileges." The SPD paper charged the largely written-off equipment at nuclear plants was highly profitable, and that nuclear operators did not have to pay any carbon avoidance costs benefiting from favorable arrangements for insurance and decommissioning costs. "Electricity production in nuclear power stations enjoys unjustified privileges," the SPD paper said according to Reuters.

Reuters also reported that the SPD wants to stick to Germany's nuclear phase-out program for its 17 reactors by 2021, while Chancellor Angela Merkel's Christian Democrats (CDU), with whom the SPD shares power, wants the plan scrapped. The CDU argues the national economy needs cheap power for longer and that more coal, of which Germany has an abundance, is not the answer in a world facing the threats of global warming.

This seems to be a case where political ambition and 'green' ideology have combined to throw out common sense along with a commitment to slowing the pace of global warming. If Ms. Merkel succeeds in overturning the planned phase out of nuclear reactors in Germany, it will unravel the ruling coalition and force new elections with nuclear energy front and center as the key issue.

# # #

Sphere: Related Content

Stacking the deck over Vermont Yankee

Granola politics rules in the green mountain state

It's drop your jaw time in Vermont, again, in response to the latest antics of Vermont State Sen. Peter Shumlin (D-Windahm) over the Vermont Yankee nuclear power plant. The Rutland Herald reports Shumlin, working with Democratic gubernatorial candidate Gaye Symington, jammed two anti-nuclear critics on to what is supposed to be an impartial state oversight panel.

railroad crossingHostility to the Vermont Yankee plant runs deep among "green" politicians in Vermont. It's got all the momentum of a runaway train and there are perils for those who fail to heed the warning signs. The most significant one will be the sky high fossil fuel prices Vermont citizens will pay for electricity if the reactor is shut down.

The two new appointees are Arnold Gundersen of Burlington, a former nuclear industry executive, now a critic, and Peter Bradford, of Peru,VT, who is a former member of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and board member of the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS). The UCS is hard over in its campaign against current and new nuclear power plants.

Gundersen and Bradford join Lawrence Hochreiter, a former Westinghouse nuclear engineer, and now on the faculty of Pennsylvania State University.

The selection of two high profile, anti-nuclear activists, to the state panel drew an immediate protest from Vermont Governor James Douglas. Gov. Douglas said through a spokesman, Stephen Wark, of the Department of Public Service, that the appointments of Gundersen and Bradford "are needlessly political."

"These appointees clearly have a bias against nuclear power. This [panel] is not a referendum on nuclear power."

Wark added that Gov. Douglas purposely chose someone with technical expertise who was politically neutral.

A special inspection is being organized of Vermont Yankee to help the state legislature make a decision whether to endorse continued operation of the plant. It's license expires in 2012. The panel must submit its report by January 2009. While the State of Vermont has no legal authority over Vermont Yankee's NRC license, it has taken upon itself a review capacity as if it does.

Panel's tilt may be unrecoverable

Gundersen rejected Stark's complaint and said he is a nuclear engineer first.

"I predicted the cooling tower collapse. I predicted the decommissioning fund would be short, and I predicted cracks in the barrel. If that makes me anti-nuclear I don't know what to say."

He also criticized the appointment of Hochreiter for not having experience with the type of reactor at the Vermont Yankee plant.

granolaThe three panelists are to choose a fourth member, which, with the deck stacked by Shumlin and Symington, doesn't look good for dispassionate analytic skills. Gundersen said he expects to work full time on the inspection panel.

All of this may be moot when it comes to the NRC's decision about Vermont Yankee's license to operate. State government can't legally trump the federal authority. Legal issues aside, thumping Vermont Yankee makes for great partisan politics, and Shumlin and Symington see the plant's future as grist for the granola mill from now until the election next November.

Stay tuned.

# # #

Sphere: Related Content

Indian Point gets a passing grade from NRC

Entergy will spend $600 million on regulatory compliance

entergynuclearThe Indian Point Unit 2 & Unit 3 each got a passing grade from the NRC last week for safety, but plant officials also got a two-hour grilling by federal regulators about what they need to do to keep that rating.

The Poughkeepsie Journal reports plant officials have promised to spend a whooping $600 million at Indian Point over the next eight years to correct issues raised by the NRC. That's as much money as Entergy Nuclear spent when it bought the plants in 2001. The sum is a clear indication there's lots of work to do at the plant.

Joseph Pollock, the top plant official, said about the NRC review,

"Our job is to correct issues before they rise to the level that requires the NRC to take action. Clearly, that did not happen. We are committed to go forward to implement corrective actions to fix our problems."

The "corrective actions" include upgrades to computer systems, replacement of certain cooling water pipes, electrical transformers, and repairs to generators. According to the NRC the two reactors came under increased scrutiny because of trace amounts of radioactive water leaking into the Hudson River from the site, a new emergency siren system that is more than a year behind schedule and a work culture regulators think doesn't adequately promote safety-first attitudes among the company's 1,200 workers.

Sirens call attention to the plant

entergysiren The emergency sirens have gotten the most public attention. According to an August 2007 report in the New York Times, the sirens are meant to alert residents within 10 miles of the plant of an emergency. The company is replacing its existing system, built in the 1970s, with a higher-tech model.

The 155 new sirens, part of a separate $15 million upgrade, have four-way speakers and backup batteries and can be activated by cell phone, radio signal or through the Internet. Despite the fact that there are a huge number of them, if just a few fail in a routine test, local newspapers put the news as a headline above the fold.

NRC will keep its eye on Indian Point

For its part the NRC made it clear, failing sirens or not, the agency is keeping its eye on the plant. Samuel Collins, the top regional official for the federal nuclear regulator, reportedly told Pollock,

"The NRC will continue to follow your actions and progress. We understand the high stakeholder interest and involvement, not only in plant performance, but also in impact on the area."

Safety-Logo-for-the-webThe Journal reported that two areas of concern by NRC's resident engineers are adequacy of safety procedures as well as problem identification and resolution. Regulators said they have not seen enough progress in either area and pushed plant officials for specifics of what they've done and what they plan to do soon.

Members of the public attending the hearing complained to the NRC about the regulatory and technical jargon used in the public dialog with plant officials. However, unlike some earlier public meetings, this one had an unexpectedly small audience, about 50 people, and no incidents involving political protest.

Earlier this year New York State officials, led by then Gov. Elliot Spitzer, had demanded that the plant be closed due to safety concerns. However, Spitzer had his own political meltdown over a call girl scandal and resigned from office. Since then the State of New York has apparently dropped its demand to close the plant.

Sphere: Related Content

July 5, 2008

Idaho signs new nuclear waste cleanup agreement

It removes a threat to the Snake River aquifer from transuranic wastes

Gov_OtterIdaho Governor C.L. "Butch" Otter (left) stepped into history this week joining former Idaho governors Cecil Andrus and Phil Batt by signing a ground breaking cleanup agreement with the U.S. Department of Energy. Like its predecessor agreements, signed by these two previous Idaho governors, this one implements a federal court order and ends years of litigation. The agreement will result in the federal government paying site contractors to remove radioactive waste from pits and trenches where it was dumped in the 1950s and 60s after being shipped to Idaho from the Rocky Flats nuclear weapons plant in Colorado.

Otter said at a press conference in Boise on 7/1, attended by Andrus and Batt, that the cleanup plan was developed "after an exhaustive technical review" that balanced risks to the public, workers, and the public.

“This agreement reflects years of effort, scientific advancement, diligent follow-up, and most of all building trust. We enter into this agreement confident that it is in the best interest of the aquifer, the Idaho National Laboratory, and all Idahoans. With the support of my predecessors in this office, it represents our best effort – and our highest aspirations – for securing a safe and productive future.”

transuranicThe plan targets 7,485 cubic meters of waste in an area of about six-to-eight acres contaminated with transuranic elements as well as volatile chemical compounds. The solid wastes will be removed and shipped to a geologic repository. The volatile organics will be vacuumed out, and a impermeable cap will be put over the former disposal area and monitored to insure nothing is migrating towards the underground aquifer.

A healthy dose of common sense

Realistic expectations seems to have finally taken hold of both parties. Former Gov. Phil Batt told the AP,

"At my advanced age, I was afraid I'd get buried before the buried waste left here. It's time to carry out the judge's orders to the best of our abilities. I don't think it would be in the interest of the state of Idaho to continue on with these lawsuits."

Kathleen Trevor, who has been involved in the cleanup for 15 years, said the agreement preserves the state's right to go back to court if there are problems in the future. She said targeting removal of transuranic waste makes more sense than a wholesale cleanup.

"After thorough technical, legal and policy review, this is the right thing to do."

Get it ~ got it ~ good

There are three reasons why this deal is good for Idaho, the cleanup effort, and the nuclear R&D lab.

  • No more hardball legal tactics

Seal_of_Idaho_svg It's good for Idaho because it ends the hard ball legal battle over "all is all" regarding how much waste to dig up from the subsurface disposal area. Earlier this year the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco upheld the Boise Federal District Court decision in 2006 on this issue in favor of the State of Idaho. Now both sides have an agreement which they can use to measure progress. Plus, the cost is much more manageable for the federal government and it focuses on the transuranic wastes not ALL wastes. The transuranics will be removed from Idaho.

  • Future governors will have wind in their sails

CecilAndrusIt supports the precedents set by the legacies of former governors Cecil Andrus (right) and Phil Batt, who attended Gov. Otter's press conference and endorsed the new agreement with DOE. Both former governors worked hard to get DOE to to sign up for key cleanup agreements. Setting the current deal in place insures Otter shares in that legacy. It establishes precedent for future governors. It puts wind in their sails because of the success these three have achieved on cleanup efforts.

  • It supports nuclear R&D missions at the lab

INL bannerIt is good for the Idaho R&D lab which now has a better shot at getting federal funding to build the Next Generation Nuclear Plant (NGNP) ($1-2B in construction costs starting about 2016). This is because there is continued progress on cleanup AND the federal government isn't burdened with a huge, new cleanup bill. Also, public opinion surveys over the years have shown repeatedly that Idaho voters will support new nuclear energy R&D missions at the lab so long as there is continued cleanup progress as well. The latest agreement continues to support that political formula.

Everyone into the pool

Endorsements for the new cleanup agreement came quickly. A press release on the State of Idaho web site contains statements from Otter, Andrus, and Batt; and, Idaho Attorney General Wasden. DOE cleanup chief James Rispoli and EPA regional administrator Elin Miller added their endorsements. DOE also issued a press release about the agreement. Idaho Rep. Mike Simpson, who's district includes the cleanup project, attended the press conference in Boise, and Sen. Mike Crapo endorsed it via a press release.

Costs high, so are savings, and benefits

The new cleanup project will be completed by 2020 and could cost over $2 billion, but it will cost a lot less than a plan that retrieved all of the waste which could been $13 billion. The savings are considerable and the most dangerous wastes will get cleaned up and removed as a threat to the Snake River aquifer.

That's good news.

# # #

Sphere: Related Content

July 3, 2008

In Congress July 4, 1776

We hold these truths to be self-evident . . .

trumbull-large1

John Trumbell's painting "Declaration of Independence" was placed in the Capitol Rotunda in 1826.

The original Declaration of Independence was signed on July 4, 1776. Here are the opening lines of text.

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.--Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.

& & &

Blogging on nuclear energy topics will resume in a few days. Enjoy a safe and happy fourth!

Sphere: Related Content

June 29, 2008

New battle lines drawn in Colorado uranium wars

Opponents in Telluride pitch "green v. glow" strategy

paradox valley coloradoA plan for a new uranium mill in western Colorado, the first to be built in 25 years, is drawing hostile fire from ski resort aficionados in Telluride, Colo. According to news media reports, including two in the Telluride Watch, Energy Fuels Inc., a Canadian mining company, is planning to build a 1,000 ton/day uranium mill on Pinion Ridge near Naturita, Colo.

While local government officials and businesses are positive about the economic benefits of the operation, with good paying jobs and the payroll that comes with them, John Metcalf, who lives in Ridgeway, Colo, some 40 miles north of Telluride, and 60 miles from the proposed mill site, has mounted an effort to stop it.

Metcalf has long experience in the semiconductor industry as a CFO and knows how to put together a project and develop support for it. Also, he's a long-time seasonal resident of the area. He's enlisting environmental groups from throughout the state and funding, out of his own pocket, a photo contest with cash prizes to promote the cause of stopping the mill. He's not the only one opposed to the mill. On May 30 a contentious public meeting in Norwood, Colo, left Energy Fuels President George Glasier wondering if he would be run out of town on a rail.

Public concerned about environment and trucks

energy fuelsGlasier told those attending the meeting the State of Colorado has the regulatory authority to decide if the mill can be built on the site. He said that Piñon Ridge, unlike the other mills, was located far from a river or from any groundwater, so the potential for contamination is lower.

He said that Piñon Ridge would utilize new technology that had not been available when the last uranium mill was built 25 years ago including double-lined pits for the toxic tailings, a pump vac system, leak detection, and dryers so that the slurry of radioactive processing waste can be capped more quickly. In response, Marie Moore, a local rancher, reportedly told Glasier to put the mill on his own ranch which is about 14 miles away. Actually, he's lived and ranched in the region for many years and does not consider himself to be a newcomer to the area.

Another concern raised by the public is truck traffic. At 1,000 tons or ore/day, the raw materials would be trucked to the facility and 55-gallon drums of uranium, in the form of yellowcake, would leave the mill to be further processed in uranium conversion mills.

Glasier also said that the mill could generate a lot of jobs and tax revenue for the region. He estimated that the mill itself would employ 85 people and possibly create 200 jobs in the region — better paying jobs, said Glasier, than Telluride’s tourist economy offers.

Trophy homes meet uranium mines

Telluride This is the latest in a series of controversies between the process of the residential gentrification of historic mining districts with rural subdivisions often populated with expensive trophy homes. Earlier this year Black Range Minerals, an Australian firm, ran into opposition, because of the same factors, to its proposed drilling program on Taylor Ranch in Fremont County. Only recently did the county commission grant the firm a conditional use permit to punch 800 holes in the ground to locate uranium deposits in the Tallahassee mining district.

In northeast Colorado Powertech, another Canadian firm, encountered tenacious opposition from the self-described "green" city of Ft. Collins, Colo., to its proposed 'Centennial' ISR mine near Nunn, Colo, some 15 miles northeast of Ft. Collins. Two Democratic state legislators successfully steered legislation through the legislature to impose stringent new groundwater protection requirements on ISR mining operations.

Back at Pinion Ridge national significance looms

Last July Energy Fuels announced its plans for a new uranium mill in Colorado to take advantage of the renewed interest in the mineral as a result of the global interest in nuclear energy.

The mill has national economic significance. At historical U3O8 grades typical for the region, this mill will be designed to produce between 1.6 million and 2.0 million pounds of U3O8 (yellowcake) per year. At $60/lb the value of this output is approximately $120 million/year.

The company has acquired approximately 1,000 acres of property located west of Naturita, Colorado, in the Paradox Valley of western Montrose County, where it intends to construct its Piñon Ridge uranium mill. This mill will be designed as a state-of-the-art conventional uranium/vanadium mill.

The site is large enough to accommodate a mill to meet the needs of the company for at least 30 years of mill operation. The Energy Fuels team responsible for the Piñon Ridge Mill development includes many of the key members of the team that financed and built, for Energy Fuels Nuclear, the last fully operational uranium mill commissioned in the US, the White Mesa Mill in Blanding, Utah.

Energy fuels operations

In addition, the mines in the local region (the Uravan Mining District - map left) produce vanadium (V2O5) as an associated mineral with uranium. Vanadium is a rare earth metal currently used primarily for alloying in high strength steels. The presence of vanadium in these deposits effectively lowers the cost of uranium extraction.

At historical V2O5 grades for this region, the Piñon Ridge Mill will also produce 5 million to 8 million pounds of V2O5 per year. The production could be worth at least $40-60 million annually.

Piñon Ridge mill site is located in a sparsely populated region of open rangeland, centrally located among multiple mining properties in Colorado and Utah including the Whirlwind mine which is speeding towards start-up of production.

At the time of the 2007 announcement George Glasier, Energy Fuels CEO, said, “This land acquisition is a major step in Energy Fuels’ return as a major US uranium producer. It will enable us to provide vital domestic fuel supply for the nation’s nuclear power plants, and at the same time, offer an opportunity for many small miners in this uranium-rich area to bring new supply to market."

Metcalf marches on to oppose the mill

incendiaryJohn Metcalf is not shy about his new found role as an "instigator," a term he uses to describe his activist role in organizing opposition to the Energy Fuels mill. His rhetoric is nothing short of incendiary and contains inaccuracies about the nature of the mill's operation and uranium mining. He's got environmental threats, nuclear nonproliferation, and the potential for diminished property values all wrapped up in a single web site he called savingparadox.org. He says,

“My biggest concern is that this mill is going to turn the Paradox Valley into a wasteland for the next 64 million years. The tailings ponds will have the biggest long-term impact. Number two, the dust blowing from the dust piles can cause lung cancer. And number three, the groundwater contamination is an issue.”

Metcalf is a member of Western Colorado Congress and claims to be enlisting their support in his efforts. Besides environmental destruction and health concerns, Metcalf says he is also worried about negative economic effects the mill will have on those who live in the area.

“It seems that in talking with some people in Paradox, the biggest concern seems to be real estate devaluation,” he told the Telluride Watch. “People will not be able to sell their land because it lies next to a large uranium mill. There are already a lot of real estate for sale signs in the valley and people could be trying to sell out while they still can.”

Jobs jobs jobs

Alan BeltAside from trophy homes, ski resorts, and tourism, Telluride and the surrounding areas do not support a lot of high paying jobs. That's why Montrose County Commissioner Allan Belt (right) thinks the mill is a good deal for the region.

“As the commissioner representing the west end of the county, I’m very supportive of the effort,” said Montrose County Commissioner Allan Belt in an interview with The Telluride Watch on June 18. Belt expects the mill to be “a huge boon” to the region.

Belt told the 'Watch' that he has received some calls from Paradox Valley residents who are concerned about pollution of their water table. “I’ve been on site and looked at it,” he said. “If you’re going to have a processing mill, I couldn’t think of a better location.” In response to concerns about transportation of ore and processed yellowcake on public rights-of-way, “Their projections are that the new mill would reduce that, that travel to the mill at Blanding would create more risk.”

“As a board, [Montrose county commissioners] recognize that the environment has to be protected but that the huge economic shock to the West End is desperately needed,” Belt told the newspaper.

Yelling 'shark' at a crowded beach

Metcalf is not deterred by the thought that his opposition to the mill could stop 85 high paying jobs and their payroll from benefiting the region. He frames his opposition in almost apocalyptic terms.

JawsHis web site features articles on plutonium and a "lethal doses" of the metal. The materials seem to have been included on the web site to create irrational fear of the mill. These materials seem out of place since there is no plutonium at a uranium mine or mill. It seems as though Metcalf is yelling "shark" at a crowded beach when there isn't one around.

He starts out with a traditional 'green' concern. He says,“Paradox Valley is a beautiful valley that shouldn’t be spoiled. Metcalf says protecting the Dolores River, which crosses Paradox Valley, is another reason he opposes the mill. After this his opposition effort seems to go south. He mixes concerns about local water pollution with global nuclear nonproliferation issues. He told the 'Watch,'

“There is the danger of nuclear contamination of the environment, as well as the weapons systems which have been mostly forgotten about, but which still threaten the world."

He goes from 'green' to 'glow' without explaining why. It might be clear to Metcalf, but it only serves to muddy the political waters in western Colorado.

Scarecrow needs a brain

scarecrow A lack of understanding about the technical issues associated with uranium mines and mills pervades opposition to these operations in both Telluride and Ft. Collins. In Telluride little effort appears to have been made, by Metcalf or others, to understand the regulatory process and the scientific basis on which state agencies will base their decision to grant or deny a permit for the mill.

In Ft. Collins the problem is even more pronounced as area residents dismissed descriptions of the water table in the area of the planned Centennial ISR mine as unfit for potable uses. If the uranium wasn't already in the near-surface rock formations, there wouldn't be a proposal for the mine.

For people familiar with the uranium industry the opposition in Telluride seems inexplicable, but for area residents, fear of the unknown, and Metcalf's deliberate distortion linking the environmental issues of the mill with the threat of plutonium and nuclear weapons, was all that anyone needed to hear.

It is going to be a rough season for Energy Fuels in western Colorado. George Glasier says he's up to the task of getting the mill built. On May 30 he told the public meeting ultimately the mill will only need to satisfy the regulators at the Colorado Department of Public Health and the Environment (CDPHE) and the Montrose County Commissioners to get permission to operate.

With hundreds of millions of dollars at stake, Glasier said, “Tell the regulators you don’t want the uranium mill. You can tell me you don’t want this uranium mill, but I’m going to do everything I can to get this uranium mill built.”

# # #


Sphere: Related Content

June 28, 2008

Could McCain deliver on his nuclear energy promise?

Right now the answer is "not hardly likely"

McCain In a campaign speech last week republican presidential candidate John McCain (left) said that if elected he would build 45 nuclear reactors by 2030 and up to 100 over a longer period of time. For advocates of nuclear energy, that's really good news, but from the perspective of actually getting the job done, there are a lot of unanswered questions.

Businessweek magazine has a realistic assessment of what it would take to build 45 new reactors in two decades. With today's government politics and financial arrangements for new nuclear plants, you have to ask whether McCain is just whistling in the wind, or promising the nuclear equivalent of a chicken in every pot? Here's what he said.

AmericanChickenSo, if I am elected president, I will set this nation on a course to building 45 new reactors by the year 2030, with the ultimate goal of 100 new plants to power the homes and factories and cities of America. This task will be as difficult as it is necessary. We will need to recover all the knowledge and skills that have been lost over three stagnant decades in a highly technical field. We will need to solve complex problems of moving and storing materials that will always need safeguarding. We will need to do all of these things, and do them right, as we have done great things before.

Businessweek notes that McCain also comes out for spent fuel reprocessing and justifies the entire package as a means to fight global warming. Well hooray because these are the right ideas, but getting to that outcome will take a lot more than campaign rhetoric.

How about a reality check?

overloadedFirst, there is the matter of actually building nuclear power plants. The U.S., the U.K., and several other countries, let their manufacturing infrastructure rot, and ran off the engineers and skilled trades who know how to put one up. Is it any wonder that Areva's two new EPRs currently under construction, one in Finland the other in France, are experiencing problems with quality assurance issues and are running behind schedule and over budget?

JohnRowe Second, John Rowe, CEO of Exelon, (right) told Businessweek, "nuclear plants are very expensive, very high risk projects." The magazine correctly points out that last September when NRG filed its COL with the NRC as a "first mover," the cost to build a new nuclear power plant was about $2,000/Kw. It is now headed towards $6,000/Kw due to rapid and unanticipated cost increases in cement and steel.

Government support in the form of loan guarantees are grossly inadequate for the scope of McCain's vision and will support four or five new plants, but certainly not 45. Then there is competition for government support. The solar and wind energy industries, which falsely criticize loan guarantees as "subsidies," are merely interested in shoving the nuclear industry aside and claiming the government's credit rating for themselves. As they see it there is a zero sum game and they intend to win it on the on the basis of "green versus glow" arguments. David Crane, CEO of NRG, told Businessweek, "Without the loan guarantees, I think it would be very difficult for the first wave of plants to move forward."

What does the industry think of McCain's campaign promise. Here are their recommendations courtesy of BW.

"I'm not quite sure the number McCain put out is obtainable," says Adrian Heymer, senior director for new plant deployment at the Nuclear Energy Institute. "If there are any hiccups in coming in on time or on budget, it will be a struggle to go much beyond the first eight or 10 plants."

Exelon's Rowe adds that the industry can't grow until the government solves the waste problem, either by opening a proposed storage site in Nevada, or by setting up surface storage facilities around the country. And in the long run, to cut the amount of waste, he says, "it's very clear that we've got to have a fuel-recycling technology."

solar-energyAs far as democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama is concerned, despite coming from Illinois, which heavily relies on nuclear energy, he's says he's a skeptic. He's tilted toward the Democratic party's green wing, and their campaign contributions. They strongly favor solar and wind energy over nuclear power. Businessweek points out these same energy interests are hedging their bets and making their case with McCain and well as Obama.

Robert Fishman, a veteran utility executive who is now CEO of solar startup Ausra, says the investment tax credit sought by the solar industry would cost less than 1% of the dollars going to nukes and fossil fuels. "I don't think we've done a good job laying out to Senator McCain what the renewable industry can do for the country."

But wait, the New York Times says there is a different picture to be painted about Barack Obama (left) and nuclear energy. Last February the NYT published a report which shows close ties between the Illinois Senator and the nuclear industry.

Since 2003, executives and employees of Exelon, which is based in Illinois, have contributed at least $227,000 to Mr. Obama’s campaigns for the United States Senate and for president. Two top Exelon officials, Frank M. Clark, executive vice president, and John W. Rogers Jr., a director, are among his largest fund-raisers.

Another Obama donor, John W. Rowe, chairman of Exelon, is also chairman of the Nuclear Energy Institute, the nuclear power industry’s lobbying group, based in Washington. Exelon’s support for Mr. Obama far exceeds its support for any other presidential candidate.

In addition, Mr. Obama’s chief political strategist, David Axelrod, has worked as a consultant to Exelon. A spokeswoman for Exelon said Mr. Axelrod’s company had helped an Exelon subsidiary, Commonwealth Edison, with communications strategy periodically since 2002.

So maybe Barack Obama's "skeptical" nuclear frame of reference is just so much hot air? In an election, even practicing thespians can be misunderstood to be something else. Nuclear energy utility executives do not give campaign contributions and raise funds for "skeptics."

What's wrong with this picture?

Everyone seems to be missing the point. It isn't business as usual anymore. Global warming does change a lot of things, and the usual positioning of pigs at the government trough is the wrong model for figuring out how to address the threat to humanity. Both candidates must look beyond campaign rhetoric. Their twin challenges are to save the planet and keep the lights on. Anything less is just another "chicken in every pot" type of promise and just as worthless.

& & &

Did Herbert Hoover really promise American's a "chicken in every pot?" The answer appears to be no.

# # #

Sphere: Related Content

House Committee erases GNEP from '09 budget

Prospects are uncertain in the Senate [Update 07/03/08]

GNEP logo The House Appropriations Committee voted this week to zero out funding in FY2009 for the Department of Energy's ill-fated and much maligned Global Nuclear Energy Program (GNEP). This is a repeat of last year's action by the House which kicked GNEP to the curb only to see some of the cuts restored by Senate action via conference committee.

The immediate impact on the Idaho National Laboratory (INL) next fiscal year (2009) would be a loss of about $57 million which was down $8 million from FY 2008 according to DOE budget documents on the agency's web site. GNEP is a major source of R&D funding for the Idaho lab.

INL bannerIn prior years the Senate has put money back in to reduce the impacts of budget cuts to GNEP by the House. However, that effort was supported by Senate Appropriation Committee member Idaho Senator Larry Craig. Last year he tapped danced his way into political limbo leaving no strong advocate in the Senate for increased appropriations for nuclear programs in Idaho.

BobBennettUtahIdaho Senator Mike Crapo, who has a solid history of support for INL's nuclear energy R&D programs, does not sit on the Senate Appropriations Committee. However, next week Crapo is bringing Utah Senator Bob Bennett (left) to Idaho for a tour of the lab. Bennett is on the Appropriations committee. The plan is to give Bennett a reason to vote for funding for the lab by letting him get a first hand view of what it does and to meet the people who run it and support it. Bennett will also address business and civic leaders at a lunch meeting in Idaho Falls. Here's what Crapo said about Bennett's upcoming visit.

“With Senator Craig’s retirement, Idaho will lose a senior member of the Senate Appropriations Committee. I have enjoyed a lengthy friendship with my colleague from Utah, Senator Bob Bennett, who is also a member of the Appropriations Committee. We have discussed the regional importance of keeping the INL, our nation’s leading nuclear lab, strong. We both support the need for a long-term commitment to research that is the hallmark of the INL. The timing is right for a visit to the site and to discuss energy issues with Idahoans in Idaho Falls.”

Advanced fuel program found under a fig leaf

genIV However, even if the House was harsh in its judgement, not all is not lost. The House found a convenient fig leaf under which it put back some of the money it flattened in its steam roller rhetoric. The House committee also funded $200 million for demonstrating the GEN IV nuclear reactor technology, an increase of $130 million over the President’s request. Funding for the Advanced Fuel Cycle Initiative (AFCI) is $120 million, with $90 million funded through the Nuclear Energy Program and $30 million funded in the Office of Science. See additional details from World Nuclear News (below).

Programmatic EIS now a shadow of its former self

At the program level DOE's once massive, and now massively scaled-back, programmatic environmental impact statement (PEIS) will likely conclude with the agency punting a decision on future facilities to the next administration. At one time DOE had planned to select by June 2008 three types of GNEP sites (spent fuel reprocessing, fast reactors, and nuclear fuel R&D) from 13 sites in 11 states. Later, after paying for scoping studies for all 13 sites, DOE reduced the site selection process to current federal facilities including Idaho and Savannah River. At this point it looks like no GNEP facilities will be built or started during the Bush administration.

Zeroed out, nada, zip, just plain gone

World Nuclear News reported that overall, the House Appropriations Committee cut the funding for the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership (GNEP) to zero. GNEP is a US-led initiative which aims to develop a closed nuclear fuel cycle, with the aim of enhancing energy security while promoting non-proliferation.

However, the House committee disagreed. In a summary of the committee's markup it wrote,"the initiative to reprocess spent nuclear fuel undermines our nation's nuclear non-proliferation policy." Last year, a panel of the US National Academy of Sciences wrote that the commercial-scale spent fuel reprocessing facilities planned under GNEP were not economically justifiable.

Supporting the bill, Rep. David Hobson R-OH), representing the minority members of the committee, said: "I am pleased that the subcommittee continues its support for nuclear power, with full funding for Yucca Mountain, the requested extension of the authority for nuclear loan guarantees, and a significant increase in research for the next-generation nuclear plant."

He also said that although cutting funding to GNEP the committee was "doing the right thing" by maintaining a modest research program on spent fuel recycling under the Advanced Fuel Cycle Initiative.

"We have to hedge our bets on a variety of energy sources, but nuclear power will certainly continue to play a major role in our energy portfolio for the foreseeable future."

The debate about nuclear energy and GNEP is likely to get side tracked into a debate about Yucca mountain which the House committee did fund. Democrats used the project to bash republican presidential candidate John McCain over issues related to transportation of spent fuel to the geologic repository.

The endless sea of political controversy is choppy with six foot waves the norm this political season.

Update 07/03/08

Utah Senator Bob Bennett came to Idaho Falls this week delivering a soothing speech to worried business and civic leaders jittery about the future of funding at the Idaho National Laboratory and its payroll of over 6,000 people in nuclear R&D, waste cleanup, and US Navy programs.

Idaho Senator Mike Crapo invited Senator Bob Bennett from Utah to explain ways he's trying to keep lab funding. Bennett's trip to Idaho and tour of the lab was more than just a Senate courtesy among colleagues. Crapo has been ramping up his pro-nuclear profile after years of standing in Craig's shadow as Idaho's junior senator. Craig has done most of the heavy lifting supporting funding for the lab. Craig's tap dance into political limbo pushed Crapo into the spotlight. His invitation to Bennett to tour the lab is a clear signal he plans to work the nuclear issue.

With the retirement of Idaho Senator Larry Craig and Pete Domenici from New Mexico, both states will lose seniority on the Senate Appropriations Committee, which oversees the DOE budget. Bennett told a lunch meeting of business and civic leaders on July 2 what they wanted to hear about the future of the INL and its combined payroll of over 6,000 employees. Bennett told Idaho Falls KIDK TV he has been working with Craig and Domenici for the past several years to keep congressional support for the lab, despite some opposition.

"It's a major national interest, not just a local one. It would be tremendously short sided if we were to say, this is the place we need to save money"

The Utah Senator told KIDK's reporter he isn't worried about keeping INL money.

"I have not seen any signs of reluctance to continue funding the national labs, including Idaho," says Bennett.

"I certainly would fight any effort to try to cut back on the funding. Because as I've spent time touring the labs I've come to understand what an enormous and valuable asset they are."

It is a good thing the INL isn't a defense program lab like Lawrence Livermore which has had the stuffing kicked out of it with recent layoffs of 1,800 people including hundreds of tops scientists and engineers.

Can Bennett deliver?

Bennett offered the Idaho Falls audience a bevy of brave words. Time will come when we'll see if his vote had any effect on the lab's funding and its future. He is not a ranking member of the Energy subcommittee on Appropriations and there is every indication the Demcrats will control the Senate following the '08 election. Idaho is unlikely to send a Democrat to Congress to replace Craig.

According to his Senate web site, Bennett's interest in "high tech" issues seems outdated with a reference to Y2K issues for the computer industry. Utah does not have any nuclear power plants though nuclear waste issues have stirred up controversy regarding shipments to a low-level waste site located near Salt Lake City.

The good news in a Senate with 100 members is that every vote has real impact compared to the House with its 435 members. The question is whether Crapo and Bennett can team effectively in the Senate to replace the lost influence of Craig and Domenici once this session is over? A lot is riding on it. Stay tuned.

# # #

Sphere: Related Content

South Africa plans to reprocess spent nuclear fuel

casksCurrent inventory is almost 1,200 tons, but a lot more is coming

South Africa, which is planning a major new nuclear build to solve its economically draining power shortages, is also looking at what to do with the back end of the nuclear fuel cycle. This week a briefing by the Minerals & Energy Department to Parliament laid out plans to reprocess spent nuclear fuel. South African media reports indicate that Schalk de Waal, told MPs,

"In terms of our nuclear policy, we... favor that process - recycling of used fuel - because it's sustainable, and you can recycle some of the raw materials in the used fuel."

De Wall also acknowledged that nonproliferation concerns had limited the nation's options in the past, but not now.

"However, recently, with the world energy crisis, we believe that the US is changing its position, and are seriously looking into reprocessing great amounts of used fuel in that country."

Relying on U.S. initiatives

He's right about that point. Platts reports this week that U.S. Senator Pete Domenici (R-NM) introduced legislation to get the U.S. back in the business of reprocessing spent nuclear fuel.

The bill, dubbed Strengthening Management of Advanced Recycling Technologies Act, (S. 3215) also would grant DOE and its private sector partners access to about 5% of the $20-billion Nuclear Waste Fund.

Using money from the waste fund would allow construction of spent nuclear fuel recycling facilities without the need for annual congressional appropriations, according to Domenici.

"There can now be no doubt that a nuclear renaissance is underway. Increasing our use of nuclear energy is the only way for America to meet our increasing energy demands while at the same time reducing our greenhouse gas emissions. A sustainable nuclear fuel cycle is the key to nuclear energy reaching its full potential."

Current and future spent fuel inventory

South Africa currently has two nuclear reactors, but it plans to spend aggressively on current PWR technologies and also has a program to design and build the new Pebble Bed reactor. Instead of having a relatively small inventory of about 1,200 tons of spent nuclear fuel, the country could be generating this same amount every few years as its new nuclear plants, five of them in the next decade, come online.

De Waal told the legislative committee recycling was useful, "because you can reprocess... and take out 95 percent of that used fuel and re-use it, and make new fuel for your reactor."

South Africa will also need a high-level waste repository for the remaining 5% of radioactive residuals. Currently, like most other countries, except France, South Africa's long term storage of spent nuclear fuel is in dry casks.

Sphere: Related Content

Russian nuclear energy program seeks investors

ironmanKiriyenko needs money and brains to drive the nation's nuclear initiatives

Reuters reports that in an extraordinary reversal Russia's nuclear energy internal new build and export program is now opening itself up to foreign investors. Previously, the Kremlin had decreed that the effort, which was touted to be as large as $25 billion-a-year over the next two decades, would be self-financed by government controlled agencies.

kiriyenko "Russia is prepared to sell stakes of up to 49 percent in its civilian nuclear projects to foreign investors," said Sergei Kiriyenko, (right) head of Russia's atomic energy agency Rosatom.

Russia is looking to build new projects -- two new reactors a year from 2012 to almost double the share of atomic energy to 30 percent by 2030.

"We'd rather make billions of dollars together than hundreds of millions alone," Kiriyenko told an audience of nuclear executives and government officials from around the world at the opening of the nuclear conference Atomcon in Moscow.

Vladimir Putin, Russian prime minister, aims to revive Russia's atomic reputation and formed a new company called Atomenergoprom which owns the civilian sector of the Russian nuclear industry. Rosatom controls Atomenergoprom. It covers the full nuclear cycle, from mining to processing to power. Ominously, it also includes the military's need for nuclear materials.

Atomenergoprom, which has sales of around $8 billion a year, is now open to outside investors Kiriyenko said of projects being developed by the agency, that,

"Previous thinking was that the nuclear industry is closed in Russia. We need to change that."

Why change now?

The Russians have previously excluded foreign investment from their nuclear build out, including uranium mines, fuel fabrication plants, and a national grid of electric transmission lines, despite having an estimated need for 13 trillion rubles in funding over the next few decades, a currency that until last August wasn't fully convertible to western money. The 13 trillion rubles, which sounds like an incomprehensible amount of money, works out to US$520 billion. Over two decades that works out to about $26 billion a year. It's still a lot of money. It's a whole lot more than the U.S. is investing in its new nuclear build.

Span of control problems

The Russians need more than money. They need technical engineering talent and know-how. They also need to change their management structure, and not just in the nuclear ministries.

The Russians are trying to put all of their state-owned nuclear energy activities under a single government roof, but published reports translated by Peter Zimmerman, of Fuel Cycle Week, in Fall 2007 indicate the massive bureaucracy may not be up to the task. According to a Russian assessment reviewed and translated by Zimmerman, the Russians think there are "serious reasons to oppose massive atomic construction at this time." The most important reason is that the Russians can't do it. The assessment says the scale and timeframe of the proposed construction of [10 reactors in eight years] pose "alarming scientific and technological risks." Translation - if you want it bad, you'll get it bad.

Russia wants to build 10 new reactors doubling its generating capacity in the next eight years, but the current level of uranium mining won't cover even half of the needs of these new plants. The likelihood that the Russians will build 10 reactors in the next eight years is about the same as Disneyland opening a new theme park on the planet Jupiter. In the past 50 years the Soviets have built at a much slower rate.

Blending down HEU won't last forever

Russia is blending down its nuclear weapons materials to make reactor fuel, but that's as finite source. Actual uranium mining is said to be about 3,500 tonnes/year while the Russians need about five times that amount. According to source documents in Russian reviewed by Zimmerman, "production capacities are clearly insufficient."

ivanov The Russians know they can't meet their needs for electricity solely from coal. Zimmerman's translations include a statement by First Vice-Premier Sergei Ivanov (right) who gave a blunt assessment in Fall 2007 of the nation's short term needs for nuclear energy.

He said, "there is no alternative [to nuclear energy]. Either we significantly increase it or in the very near future we will be facing an energy deficit." He said the share of nuclear energy in the national grid must grow from 18% in 2015 to 30% by 2030.

Last November the Russian nuclear energy leadership went to Canada to try to coax some investment from that country. Maybe this time Kiriyenko is casting a wider net? Perhaps he's now looking for Arab oil money? Certainly, he'll be calling on sovereign wealth funds? Will they answer?

Sphere: Related Content

June 27, 2008

Turkey to build second nuclear plant

Procurement information to be released in September

ancient byz artThe Turkish news media reports Turkey's Energy and Natural Resources minister announced this week that Turkey is planning to construct its second nuclear power plant in Sinop on the coast of the Black Sea.

Hilmi Güler (left) told reporters the tender for the construction of the power plant would be released next September.

"The dimensions of the second nuclear power plant have not yet been determined, but it will not be smaller than the one to be constructed in Akkuyu," Güler explained. Bids for the first tender will be opened September 24.

He was speaking with the press after attending a conference on energy productivity organized jointly by the General Directorate of Electrical Power Resources Survey and Development Administration (EIE) and the Japan International Cooperation Agency (JICA) in Ankara.

Six firms and consortia have received specifications for the tender for the 4,000-megawatt nuclear power plant in Akkuyu, which is the first plant Turkey plans to build. These firms are: Atomic Energy of Canada Limited (Canada), Itochu Corporation (Japan), Vinci Construction Grand Projects (France), Suez Tractebel (France-Belgium), Atostroyexport (Russia) and KEPCO (South Korea).

Prior coverage on this blog

Sphere: Related Content

Western lands uranium gopher for June 28, 2008

Mining uranium exploration press releases for useful stuff

(An occasional column on money and mining news items)

gopherThe rise of nuclear energy, a second act if ever there was one, has given the price of uranium a shot in the arm. In western states in the U.S. interest in uranium mining is growing and with it comes another growth industry - the production of press releases about the uranium mining industry. The purpose of this occasional column is to separate the really interesting stuff from promotional fluff.

The choices of the subjects based on what looks interesting to me and for readers. I'm focusing mostly on western states that are "west" of the 100th meridian, but this isn't hard and fast. The states of interest are WY, CO, UT, TX, NM, AZ, & NV. For this reason I call this series the "western lands uranium gopher." These are news notes and the content is not to be considered investment advice.

House Resolution Bans Uranium Mining, Exploration Near Grand Canyon

grandcanyonDemocrats in the House Natural Resources Committee adopted an emergency resolution that requires the U.S. Secretary of the Interior to withdraw 1.1 million acres of federal land near the Grand Canyon National Park from any new uranium mining for the next three years. After Republicans left the meeting room, saying there was no threat to the park, the Natural Resources Committee voted 20 to 2 to adopt the resolution.

H.R. 5583, legislation which was submitted to Congress by Rep. Raul Grijalva, D-Arizona, on March 11, specified that 1,068,908 acres of federal land near the Grand Canyon National Park will be withdrawn from all forms of location, entry and patent under mining laws. More than 3,000 mining claims exist around the rim of the park according to the U.S. Forest Service.

H.R. 5583 targets BLM lands in the Tusayan Ranger District and Federal land managed by BLM in the vicinity of Kanab Creek and in House Rock Valley. It is co-sponsored by Rep. Maurice Hinchey (D-NY) and Rep. Ed Pastor (D-Ariz).

Grijalva, Chairman of the House Subcommittee on Natural Parks, Forest and Public Lands, in a news release on June 19 declared, "I feel compelled to submit this request for emergency action due to the grave and immediate threat to the Grand Canyon National Park, the crowned jewel of our national park system."

"We cannot wait while uranium claims continued to be filed and the Bush Administration continues to use the exclusionary clause to allow uranium mining exploration and eventual mining operations within public lands in close proximity to the Grand Canyon National Park."

Under this emergency clause, when the Secretary of the Interior determines that an emergency exists or when either of the two congressional committees specified in section 204 of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (FLMPA) notifies the Secretary that an emergency exists, the Secretary must immediately make a withdrawal which shall be limited in scope and duration to the emergency.

The Associated Press reported the resolution would have no effect on the more than 10,000 claims already secured on Bureau of Land Management and Forest Service property near the park, according to the Interior Department. A spokesman for the agency said it would weigh its next steps, given that a 1983 Justice Department opinion found similar resolutions to be unconstitutional.

Republicans, encouraged by Rep. Rob Bishop of Utah, left the room in protest before the vote. Bishop said the resolution "crossed over the line" and addressed a "supposed emergency that does not exist." "In essence, I'm leaving this committee," said Bishop. "I will not be part of this process."

The Nuclear Energy Institute in a letter sent to the committee accused lawmakers of mischaracterizing uranium mining practices and hampering clean energy development.

"Those practices do not cause cancer or debilitating illness, they are extensively regulated, and they are not a threat to the environment," wrote Alex Flint, the institute's senior vice president for governmental affairs.

House gives the controversy a belt and suspenders

Last April a federal judge issued an injunction against the British mining firm VANE Minerals and the Kaibab National Forest, halting uranium exploration on public lands within a few miles of Grand Canyon National Park.

The order came after a hearing in a case brought by three conservation groups - Center for Biological Diversity, Sierra Club, and Grand Canyon Trust - to challenge drilling taking place close to the Grand Canyon of the Colorado River without a public hearing and environmental review.

"This order stops uranium exploration on the banks of a national treasure," said Taylor McKinnon of the Center for Biological Diversity. "The Forest Service had allowed drilling to begin while the case was pending, so the order comes as a major relief. We're elated."

In December, the Kaibab National Forest approved exploratory uranium drilling by VANE Minerals at up to 39 locations across seven project sites just south of the Grand Canyon. The approval was granted using a "categorical exclusion," the least rigorous public and environmental review available to the agency under the National Environmental Policy Act.

Black Range gets permit for Canon City Drilling

Black Range minerals, which earlier this year had to delay planned drilling in the Taylor Ranch area of the Tallahassee mining district near Canon City, Colo., finally received a conditional use permit from the Fremont County Commissioners on June 9. The Commissioners voted 3-0 to allow the firm to drill 800 exploration holes in an 8,169 acre tract. The drilling program became controversial because over the past decade new residential subdivisions had encroached on the historic mining district.

Jim Hawklee, president of the local community association, said the group plans to file a lawsuit to stop the planned drilling citing potential threats to water, roads, and a “rural way of life.”

Black Range minerals managing director Michael Hayes said in a statement to the commissioners that the company was offering to set up free monitoring of local wells used for drinking water to insure no uranium seeped in.

Black Range Minerals is an Australian Stock Exchange-listed resources company. It's near-term objective in the U.S. is production. The company reports it has delineated a JORC Code compliant (Australasian Joint Ore Reserves Committee) resource base of almost 80 million pounds of U3O8 at its Taylor Ranch Uranium Project. This includes approximately 22 million pounds of high grade U3O8 which the Company is looking to develop in the near term. At $60/lb the resource could be worth $1.3 billion.

The Company holds interests in two other uranium projects which are the Cyclone Rim and Eagle in Wyoming. They are operating through a joint venture with Uranerz Energy Corp. The Cyclone Rim project comprises 1,720 acres. The project was started in June 2007.

Black Range has the right to earn a 50% equity interest in the projects by managing and meeting the first $750,000 in exploration expenditures on the projects. Black Range is obliged to spend at least $100,000 per year on exploration on the projects and to spend the first $750,000 on exploration within three years of inception of the joint venture agreement. It is expected that depth of the mineralization will run from 75 feet down to about 400 feet depending upon which roll front is targeted. ISR mining is expected to be the method used for extracting uranium should production be planned for the site.

Environmental groups form western states coalition to blo