|
By Steve Porter
Northern Colorado Business Report
March 14, 2008 NUNN - Growing opposition to a proposed uranium mining operation in Weld County has been "surprising" to the president of the Canadian company that's hoping to extract about 9.7 million pounds of U3O8 over the next decade. "I'm a little bit surprised," said Richard Clement, president of Powertech Uranium (USA), a Centennial-based subsidiary of Vancouver-based Powertech Uranium Corp. "I think people aren't really familiar with the processes we're putting forth." The company has presented plans to extract uranium on a 5,700-acre site a few miles west of Nunn and east of the Larimer County line. The southern tip of the site is estimated to be about six miles from Fort Collins. Powertech has proposed to remove the uranium by injecting a solution into the ground and sucking the loosened uranium deposits out through a process called in-situ removal. The process is less disruptive to the surface than traditional mining and doesn't result in piles of radioactive wastes that need disposal. Local fears have grown about possible groundwater pollution through the in-situ mining, and opponents who have gone on record range from Republican Congresswoman Marilyn Musgrave to the Colorado Medical Society. Musgrave has been particularly vocal in her opposition. "Like many of my constituents, I am particularly concerned about the impact this mining could have on our groundwater resources in Northern Colorado," Musgrave wrote in a Feb. 28 letter to Larimer County commissioners. "This process has the potential to contaminate the underground aquifers that our families, communities and agricultural producers rely upon for clean, safe water." Chorus of opposition Joining Musgrave in opposing the project are a chorus of citizen groups, Larimer County and Colorado medical societies, Fort Collins city council, the Town of Timnath, the Greeley Tribune and Fort Collins Coloradoan editorial boards and a bipartisan group of area legislators who are carrying bills aimed at ensuring groundwater protection. One Larimer County commissioner, Randy Eubanks, is attempting to get the three-member commission to support a resolution against the Powertech project. "I just think it's a giant step backward," Eubanks said. "It completely conflicts with what we're trying to do here in Northern Colorado as far as fitting our image as a clean-energy region." Eubanks noted the Musgrave letter as an example of bipartisan opposition to the mining proposal. "There doesn't seem to be a partisan air to it," he said. "The risks are simply too great to the water in our region." Responding to the increasing area sentiment against uranium mining, Powertech's Clement said he believes it's all premature given the fact that the company doesn't plan to submit any mining applications to the state until at least late this year. "Until the application is created, we won't have a full proposal," he said. "I think after that they can review that proposal and they can decide. But I think it's a little bit early in the process to develop any kind of position on it." One group that opposed the project almost from its inception is Citizens Against Resource Destruction, or CARD. The group at first was made up of people living near the proposed mining site but has since grown to include a wide cross-section of people from across the region. John Schreck, a local businessman, joined CARD and later formed GUARD, or Groups United Against Resource Destruction. Schreck said that group is focused on raising money to fight Powertech and others who would seek to mine uranium in the region. "The purpose of GUARD is really to provide the necessary resources for the other organizations involved in protecting Colorado's resources," he said. The newer group recently announced its intention to raise $500,000 by autumn to stop the Powertech project. "We truly believe there are at least 100,000 people out there who do care about Northern Colorado's resources," he said. "We know that's what it's going to take to fight what's before us." Under siege? In response to increasing local concerns over the Powertech proposal, Northern Colorado state legislators John Kefalas, Randy Fischer, Steve Johnson and Bob Bacon are sponsoring House Bill 08-1161, which aims to protect the state's groundwater supplies and public health from potentially adverse mining activities. The bill - along with a companion bill, HB 08-1165 - was initially blasted by the mining industry as being too prohibitive regarding mining and exploration. "The sponsors of the bills did not consult with the mining industry prior to introducing them," said Stuart Sanderson, president of the 700-member Colorado Mining Association. "We were not part of that dialogue." Fort Collins Democratic Reps. Kefalas and Fischer met with Powertech and mining officials on Feb. 5 and agreed to make some amendments to the original bills. Kefalas said the meeting was productive and resulted in a better bill that still meets its original intent of protecting ground water resources. "We have found a lot of common ground," he said. "But what we're not going to change is that there must be a good strong reclamation plan and that they can restore the ground water to a pre-mining level or better. Our position from the very beginning - and what we're trying to put into law and statute - is to have very specific language that requires them to prove that." Sanderson agrees that efforts have been made to include the mining industry in crafting the bills but said the end result appears to be the same. "Although we have participated as constructively as we could in very belated circumstances, we still oppose both bills," he said. Sanderson said there is a feeling in the Colorado mining industry that it's in the crosshairs at the moment. "Do we feel we're generally under siege? I think there are definitely elements out there that are opposed to any and all resource development," he said.
|
Reference 
