Investigative Feature in the Noise
When Fossil Fuels Run Dry: A Premonition of Uranium Mining in the Nearby Future
The Noise
December 2007
By Stephanie Flood
Fossil fuels are burning up as coal is slowly depleting from beneath the Earth. Once this happens, what will power the cities of the world? This is the question that Vane Minerals, a British mining company, is asking in this brave new world, and it looks at uranium for the answer.
"Green house gases are carbon footprints that the burning of fossil fuels is leaving on the surface of the earth," Frank Bain, exploration manager of Vane Minerals said. "Nuclear power doesn’t leave a carbon footprint. And it’s basically the only source of relatively clean energy that the world can develop on a worldwide scale."
The price of uranium has increased 600% in just the past six years, which means the value of this mineral has reached a new peak, fueled in part by the presumed future viability of nuclear power. As of the date of this report, the price of spot uranium held at nearly $60 a pound, compared to $9.60 per pound in January 2002.
Putting this in perspective closer to home, 10 existing claims around Grand Canyon National Park were reported back in 2002. Now claims to uranium mines stand at 1,130.
Vane Minerals began seeking exploratory drilling rights late last year near Grand Canyon National Park, about four miles from its internal rim in the Tusayan Ranger District.
"We’re specifically looking for a kind of target on the South Rim of the Canyon called Breccia Pipe, a geological cross section," Mr. Bain said. "It’s a high-grade uranium type deposit, and we’re currently getting a lot of static from a lot of environmental groups right now."
While the Kaibab National Forest legally approved this proposal in January — one of five planned for the area — it triggered alarm for local conservation groups, including the Center for Biological Diversity, the Sierra Club, and the Grand Canyon Trust. The groups filed a lawsuit in March, claiming the Forest Service used a "categorical exclusion" method to give Vane Minerals the green light, thereby administering the least amount of environmental and public analysis as possible.
The Forest Service, meanwhile, maintains that it acted in accordance with the 1872 Mining Act, a law passed to lure settlers in the early days of the Western Frontier, but which gives federal agencies little room to reject claims on mineral development.
Said Mr. Bain: "The 1872 mining law guarantees us the right to develop our mining claims. And if that right is denied from us, either the environmental groups or the government is going to have to pay us. It could be tens of millions of dollars for what they’re taking away from us."
"We first became aware of the Vane Minerals exploration after we litigated it last fall," said Taylor McKinnon, land advocate for the Center of Biological Diversity, whose job it is to monitor federal actions affecting public land in Arizona. "We’ve been watching the number of claims increase.
"The Vane mineral proposal that came up was sort of the first manifestation of the boom in the market … It was the first case where we had an actual drill bit proposed that hit the ground. It was the first venue that we had to engage with existing law."
After writing a formal letter of complaint to Forest Supervisor Mike Williams, the environmental groups went to work convincing the Coconino County Board of Supervisors to pass a resolution in opposition. The Supervisors obliged with a decision on February 5, adopting strong language that demanded the withdrawal of Coconino County, specifically the area in proximity to Grand Canyon and its watershed, as a candidate for uranium development.
The resolution states: "Previous uranium development operations in Coconino County have left long-term contamination problems that continue to harm the health of citizens of Coconino County and have contaminated creeks and aquifers providing public drinking water." It continues, imploring the Arizona Congressional Delegation to "initiate the permanent withdrawal from mining, mineral exploration, and mineral entry on all Federal Lands in the Tusayan Ranger District of the Kaibab National Forest."
Rep. Raul Grijalva (D, AZ-7) responded to the call with the introduction of HR5583, or the Grand Canyon Watersheds Protection Act of 2008. The bill would withdraw about 1.6 million acres of federal lands from mining activities, including not only the area surrounding Tusayan but Kanab Creek and House Rock Valley. Although introduced in March and followed up with a plea for an "emergency declaration" from Mr. Grijalva in mid-June, as of the date of this report, the bill has yet to be voted on.
As the House Chairman of the Natural Resources Subcommittee on National Resources, Mr. Grijalva was quoted as saying: "The federal government and mining companies still have not adequately dealt with the clean up of old uranium mine sites on the Navajo Nation and other areas that are causing ongoing problems. Until these issues are resolved, we should not move forward with new mines, especially next to the crown jewel of our National Park System."
Mr. Grijalva’s sentiments were echoed by Nick Rahall (D-WV), who also sits on the same subcommittee: "It is Congress’ responsibility to reform [the 1872 Mining Act] that is seriously past its prime. Yet, the idea of extracting minerals for free from public lands seems to be a difficult one to undo and efforts over the years to reform this law have failed … For the time being, our federal lands and the people who live near them will continue to suffer the consequences of a law that is seriously out of step with the modern world."
On April 5, just weeks after the environmental groups filed suit against Vane Minerals, US District Court Judge Mary Murguia issued a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction to stop drilling, effectively halting all operations near Grand Canyon. However, what many fear is that as the case makes its way through the court system, the 1872 Mining Act will trump any new legislation, and Vane Minerals will be grandfathered as its proposal was approved by the Forest Service before the current outcry.
What’s more is Vane Minerals won’t be backing down as easily as environmentalists hope, even if studies from the past have evidenced the negative effects of uranium mining on wildlife and humans in surrounding mining areas.
One such example came from the testimony of Stephen Etsitty, Executive Director of the Navajo Nation Environmental Protection Agency, who bore knowledge of four former uranium processing sites spanning across the Navajo Nation at Church Rock, Shiprock, Mexican Hat and Tuba City.
"None of these sites were lined," Mr. Etsitty said in his testimony. "Meaning that there was nothing placed underneath the radioactive materials to keep the radioactive waste from leaching into the ground water. And we believe that is exactly what is happening today."
According to a May 2007 report for the Arizona Game and Fish Department, there are several ways to mine. Ore is mined from open pit or underground operations, which is typically milled to remove uranium. At the mill, ore is crushed and ground up, then treated with chemical leaching agents — sulfuric acid in most cases — that dissolves the uranium so it can be subsequently recovered in the solution. Tailings, or waste generated from this process is then theoretically stored in specially-designed disposal facilities, although that has not always been the case in the past.Only 0.1% grade ore can actually be used, while 99.9% of the raw material is left behind as sludge, 85% of which remains radioactive with a half-life of anywhere between 1,600 and 80,000 years. In addition, radon, which is also left in the sludge, can be quickly spread by prevailing winds and individuals living within the vicinity of a uranium mine can be continuously exposed to radiation doses.
Uranium mining in the past, especially during the flourish of the 1950s when uranium had been in high demand with the development of nuclear weaponry during the Cold War, wreaked disastrous results among many miners and locals. On the Navajo Reservation, a 1959 report had discovered levels reaching 90 times past acceptable limits of radioactivity. Out of the 150 Navajo miners who worked at the uranium mine in Shiprock, New Mexico, 133 died of lung cancer and other forms of fibrosis over the short span of ten years.
In the desert lands of Tuba City, a uranium mill tailings repository looms where a uranium mine once stood back in the 1950s. Once the mine shut down, this mill was built to clean up the waste underground. But radioactive material had seeped deep into Tuba City’s pristine aquifers and contaminated the water.Derrick Claw, a gas station clerk who has lived in Tuba City his whole life, commented on the uranium leakage that has threatened many people’s lives on the reservation.
"Once that gets into our water system, everything’s going to die," Mr. Claw said. "People are going to get sick. Children are going to be born deformed. Not only the physical body, but mentally. Plants will also die. Plus the livestock too, and they’ll drink the water, and it’ll also affect them too."
"Nobody wants a uranium mine in their backyard," Mr. Bain said, "but unfortunately, everywhere is someone’s backyard. And unfortunately, we have to mine it where it is. We can’t pick and choose where the deposits are. They are where they are."
Mr. Claw reported that there used to be a whole community of people living near the mine. But when the wind blew, it would get in onto the houses and many people were diagnosed with cancer. "Most of our elders are past away now. The companies didn’t tell them the harmful effects of the uranium. And now it’s dug up, and all we’re left with is the waste."
A Summary of Historic Uranium Development in the Four Corners Area by Chris Shuey of the University of New Mexico stated that uranium is not only a Class A human carcinogen, but is also very poisonous. "Based on my education and experience in environmental science and public health," Mr. Shuey said in a statement before the Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests, and Public Lands, "I conclude that new uranium mining around Grand Canyon National Park is not prudent government policy. Environmental impacts from mining are unavoidable, regardless of the level of operational controls."
Mr. Bain of Vane Minerals, countered the claims of environmental groups: "The Navajos also have an open-pit dump out there too, where they’ve been dumping car batteries, household wastes, all kinds of toxic chemicals in an unlined pit. So they’ve been contributing to the demise of their own aquifer too."
And Matt Germanson, a geologist with Vane Minerals, said: "Well unfortunately there’s a lot of misstatements. A lot of bad information was given."
"One of the things that our boss, Kristopher Hefton, had mentioned was that he didn’t want to be judged by what happened in the 50s and 60s. That’s when all these issues arose, when the government did all this mining and didn’t clean up its own act. And now private industry gets blamed for the same thing. All the mining from private industries in the area, which is from the 80s on, has been immaculate."
According to Vane Minerals, the reclamation after mining restores wildlife back to normal, despite what other environmental studies say.
"I went and looked at one of the old mines on the North Rim last week," Mr. Germanson said, "and it took me, looking on a map and figuring out where I was on the map, to determine where it actually was because I couldn’t even find it."
"The clean up is essentially perfect," Mr. Bain concurred.
The two contend that exploratory drilling in the present day is a relatively clean process. By sinking a shaft down to excavate the underground uranium, then piling the minerals on the surface of a lined pad, there is no contact with the surface at all, and uranium can be safely transported to the mill.
And as for the tailings, Mr. Bain reported that they are disposed in a lined pond at the mill, and when the milling is complete, they are covered up and buried. "It’s not a problem. I’ve worked in uranium mines before and I’m not glowing green or have three arms.
"We drill monitor wells all the way down to the water tables," Mr. Bain continued, summing up his company’s safety measures. "So we actually know what’s happening down to the water down there. We take samples of it. We know that nothing will be happening to the water table. We have to monitor that by law, it’s required. We take air quality samples. The miners that work in the mine, they have to wear little badges to make sure they don’t get too much of a dose of radiation. They wear masks to protect their lungs from what they’re breathing."
Both Mr. Germanson and Mr. Bain stressed that some of the concerns brought to the fray by environmental groups are unwarranted, since they are disrupting a potential profit flow in today’s slightly teetering economy, as the market for uranium grows and workers ache for earnings.
"They’re really so detached from the whole issue," Mr. Germanson said. "They don’t really understand they’re ruining people’s lives over this. There are people out in Utah who are starving, looking for jobs. Because this is all happening, they’re going to be out of work for God knows how long."
The Noise
December 2007
By Stephanie Flood
Fossil fuels are burning up as coal is slowly depleting from beneath the Earth. Once this happens, what will power the cities of the world? This is the question that Vane Minerals, a British mining company, is asking in this brave new world, and it looks at uranium for the answer.
"Green house gases are carbon footprints that the burning of fossil fuels is leaving on the surface of the earth," Frank Bain, exploration manager of Vane Minerals said. "Nuclear power doesn’t leave a carbon footprint. And it’s basically the only source of relatively clean energy that the world can develop on a worldwide scale."
The price of uranium has increased 600% in just the past six years, which means the value of this mineral has reached a new peak, fueled in part by the presumed future viability of nuclear power. As of the date of this report, the price of spot uranium held at nearly $60 a pound, compared to $9.60 per pound in January 2002.
Putting this in perspective closer to home, 10 existing claims around Grand Canyon National Park were reported back in 2002. Now claims to uranium mines stand at 1,130.
Vane Minerals began seeking exploratory drilling rights late last year near Grand Canyon National Park, about four miles from its internal rim in the Tusayan Ranger District.
"We’re specifically looking for a kind of target on the South Rim of the Canyon called Breccia Pipe, a geological cross section," Mr. Bain said. "It’s a high-grade uranium type deposit, and we’re currently getting a lot of static from a lot of environmental groups right now."
While the Kaibab National Forest legally approved this proposal in January — one of five planned for the area — it triggered alarm for local conservation groups, including the Center for Biological Diversity, the Sierra Club, and the Grand Canyon Trust. The groups filed a lawsuit in March, claiming the Forest Service used a "categorical exclusion" method to give Vane Minerals the green light, thereby administering the least amount of environmental and public analysis as possible.
The Forest Service, meanwhile, maintains that it acted in accordance with the 1872 Mining Act, a law passed to lure settlers in the early days of the Western Frontier, but which gives federal agencies little room to reject claims on mineral development.
Said Mr. Bain: "The 1872 mining law guarantees us the right to develop our mining claims. And if that right is denied from us, either the environmental groups or the government is going to have to pay us. It could be tens of millions of dollars for what they’re taking away from us."
"We first became aware of the Vane Minerals exploration after we litigated it last fall," said Taylor McKinnon, land advocate for the Center of Biological Diversity, whose job it is to monitor federal actions affecting public land in Arizona. "We’ve been watching the number of claims increase.
"The Vane mineral proposal that came up was sort of the first manifestation of the boom in the market … It was the first case where we had an actual drill bit proposed that hit the ground. It was the first venue that we had to engage with existing law."
After writing a formal letter of complaint to Forest Supervisor Mike Williams, the environmental groups went to work convincing the Coconino County Board of Supervisors to pass a resolution in opposition. The Supervisors obliged with a decision on February 5, adopting strong language that demanded the withdrawal of Coconino County, specifically the area in proximity to Grand Canyon and its watershed, as a candidate for uranium development.
The resolution states: "Previous uranium development operations in Coconino County have left long-term contamination problems that continue to harm the health of citizens of Coconino County and have contaminated creeks and aquifers providing public drinking water." It continues, imploring the Arizona Congressional Delegation to "initiate the permanent withdrawal from mining, mineral exploration, and mineral entry on all Federal Lands in the Tusayan Ranger District of the Kaibab National Forest."
Rep. Raul Grijalva (D, AZ-7) responded to the call with the introduction of HR5583, or the Grand Canyon Watersheds Protection Act of 2008. The bill would withdraw about 1.6 million acres of federal lands from mining activities, including not only the area surrounding Tusayan but Kanab Creek and House Rock Valley. Although introduced in March and followed up with a plea for an "emergency declaration" from Mr. Grijalva in mid-June, as of the date of this report, the bill has yet to be voted on.
As the House Chairman of the Natural Resources Subcommittee on National Resources, Mr. Grijalva was quoted as saying: "The federal government and mining companies still have not adequately dealt with the clean up of old uranium mine sites on the Navajo Nation and other areas that are causing ongoing problems. Until these issues are resolved, we should not move forward with new mines, especially next to the crown jewel of our National Park System."
Mr. Grijalva’s sentiments were echoed by Nick Rahall (D-WV), who also sits on the same subcommittee: "It is Congress’ responsibility to reform [the 1872 Mining Act] that is seriously past its prime. Yet, the idea of extracting minerals for free from public lands seems to be a difficult one to undo and efforts over the years to reform this law have failed … For the time being, our federal lands and the people who live near them will continue to suffer the consequences of a law that is seriously out of step with the modern world."
On April 5, just weeks after the environmental groups filed suit against Vane Minerals, US District Court Judge Mary Murguia issued a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction to stop drilling, effectively halting all operations near Grand Canyon. However, what many fear is that as the case makes its way through the court system, the 1872 Mining Act will trump any new legislation, and Vane Minerals will be grandfathered as its proposal was approved by the Forest Service before the current outcry.
What’s more is Vane Minerals won’t be backing down as easily as environmentalists hope, even if studies from the past have evidenced the negative effects of uranium mining on wildlife and humans in surrounding mining areas.
One such example came from the testimony of Stephen Etsitty, Executive Director of the Navajo Nation Environmental Protection Agency, who bore knowledge of four former uranium processing sites spanning across the Navajo Nation at Church Rock, Shiprock, Mexican Hat and Tuba City.
"None of these sites were lined," Mr. Etsitty said in his testimony. "Meaning that there was nothing placed underneath the radioactive materials to keep the radioactive waste from leaching into the ground water. And we believe that is exactly what is happening today."
According to a May 2007 report for the Arizona Game and Fish Department, there are several ways to mine. Ore is mined from open pit or underground operations, which is typically milled to remove uranium. At the mill, ore is crushed and ground up, then treated with chemical leaching agents — sulfuric acid in most cases — that dissolves the uranium so it can be subsequently recovered in the solution. Tailings, or waste generated from this process is then theoretically stored in specially-designed disposal facilities, although that has not always been the case in the past.Only 0.1% grade ore can actually be used, while 99.9% of the raw material is left behind as sludge, 85% of which remains radioactive with a half-life of anywhere between 1,600 and 80,000 years. In addition, radon, which is also left in the sludge, can be quickly spread by prevailing winds and individuals living within the vicinity of a uranium mine can be continuously exposed to radiation doses.
Uranium mining in the past, especially during the flourish of the 1950s when uranium had been in high demand with the development of nuclear weaponry during the Cold War, wreaked disastrous results among many miners and locals. On the Navajo Reservation, a 1959 report had discovered levels reaching 90 times past acceptable limits of radioactivity. Out of the 150 Navajo miners who worked at the uranium mine in Shiprock, New Mexico, 133 died of lung cancer and other forms of fibrosis over the short span of ten years.
In the desert lands of Tuba City, a uranium mill tailings repository looms where a uranium mine once stood back in the 1950s. Once the mine shut down, this mill was built to clean up the waste underground. But radioactive material had seeped deep into Tuba City’s pristine aquifers and contaminated the water.Derrick Claw, a gas station clerk who has lived in Tuba City his whole life, commented on the uranium leakage that has threatened many people’s lives on the reservation.
"Once that gets into our water system, everything’s going to die," Mr. Claw said. "People are going to get sick. Children are going to be born deformed. Not only the physical body, but mentally. Plants will also die. Plus the livestock too, and they’ll drink the water, and it’ll also affect them too."
"Nobody wants a uranium mine in their backyard," Mr. Bain said, "but unfortunately, everywhere is someone’s backyard. And unfortunately, we have to mine it where it is. We can’t pick and choose where the deposits are. They are where they are."
Mr. Claw reported that there used to be a whole community of people living near the mine. But when the wind blew, it would get in onto the houses and many people were diagnosed with cancer. "Most of our elders are past away now. The companies didn’t tell them the harmful effects of the uranium. And now it’s dug up, and all we’re left with is the waste."
A Summary of Historic Uranium Development in the Four Corners Area by Chris Shuey of the University of New Mexico stated that uranium is not only a Class A human carcinogen, but is also very poisonous. "Based on my education and experience in environmental science and public health," Mr. Shuey said in a statement before the Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests, and Public Lands, "I conclude that new uranium mining around Grand Canyon National Park is not prudent government policy. Environmental impacts from mining are unavoidable, regardless of the level of operational controls."
Mr. Bain of Vane Minerals, countered the claims of environmental groups: "The Navajos also have an open-pit dump out there too, where they’ve been dumping car batteries, household wastes, all kinds of toxic chemicals in an unlined pit. So they’ve been contributing to the demise of their own aquifer too."
And Matt Germanson, a geologist with Vane Minerals, said: "Well unfortunately there’s a lot of misstatements. A lot of bad information was given."
"One of the things that our boss, Kristopher Hefton, had mentioned was that he didn’t want to be judged by what happened in the 50s and 60s. That’s when all these issues arose, when the government did all this mining and didn’t clean up its own act. And now private industry gets blamed for the same thing. All the mining from private industries in the area, which is from the 80s on, has been immaculate."
According to Vane Minerals, the reclamation after mining restores wildlife back to normal, despite what other environmental studies say.
"I went and looked at one of the old mines on the North Rim last week," Mr. Germanson said, "and it took me, looking on a map and figuring out where I was on the map, to determine where it actually was because I couldn’t even find it."
"The clean up is essentially perfect," Mr. Bain concurred.
The two contend that exploratory drilling in the present day is a relatively clean process. By sinking a shaft down to excavate the underground uranium, then piling the minerals on the surface of a lined pad, there is no contact with the surface at all, and uranium can be safely transported to the mill.
And as for the tailings, Mr. Bain reported that they are disposed in a lined pond at the mill, and when the milling is complete, they are covered up and buried. "It’s not a problem. I’ve worked in uranium mines before and I’m not glowing green or have three arms.
"We drill monitor wells all the way down to the water tables," Mr. Bain continued, summing up his company’s safety measures. "So we actually know what’s happening down to the water down there. We take samples of it. We know that nothing will be happening to the water table. We have to monitor that by law, it’s required. We take air quality samples. The miners that work in the mine, they have to wear little badges to make sure they don’t get too much of a dose of radiation. They wear masks to protect their lungs from what they’re breathing."
Both Mr. Germanson and Mr. Bain stressed that some of the concerns brought to the fray by environmental groups are unwarranted, since they are disrupting a potential profit flow in today’s slightly teetering economy, as the market for uranium grows and workers ache for earnings.
"They’re really so detached from the whole issue," Mr. Germanson said. "They don’t really understand they’re ruining people’s lives over this. There are people out in Utah who are starving, looking for jobs. Because this is all happening, they’re going to be out of work for God knows how long."