Go to the mobile version of this Web site.

Login | Contact Us | Site Map | Paid archives | Electronic edition | Subscription Questions | Extras

Mining, over and out

Two House bills would effectively bar many projects

The Rocky

Published January 28, 2008 at 12:05 a.m.

Text size  

More Editorials

More stories »

Opponents of a proposed "in-situ" uranium mine in Weld County have sketched a lurid picture of its likely environmental effects.

In a Speakout column we published last month, for example, two activists claimed "the track record of in-situ leach uranium mining is littered with groundwater pollution, spills, mistakes and clean-up problems that are left wanting for both money and often a government bailout."

Even the Colorado Medical Society has lent its prestige in the campaign against this type of mining.

So we asked one of the Speakout authors and the state medical society to provide examples where in-situ mining in the United States has threatened public health so we could properly assess a couple of mining bills now before the legislature.

Neither gave us a fully satisfactory answer. What's clear, however, is that cleanup standards were relaxed for a number of operations in Texas that shut down in the 1980s and 1990s and which mostly date back to the 1970s. As a result, the water in those sites tested for higher levels of some minerals after mining than before. The apparent culprits: a permissive regulatory atmosphere and unrealistic expectations based upon inexperience with the in-situ process itself.

Look, we don't have the technical know-how to determine if Powertech's Centennial Project should pass muster with federal and state regulators. In fact, the company hasn't even filed for the necessary permits. But the regulatory atmosphere and mining expertise have certainly changed in the past 20 years, and government scientists and health experts would never get a chance to evaluate this project - or many others - if House Bills 1161 and 1165 become law.

Both are sponsored by Fort Collins Democratic Reps. Randy Fischer and John Kefalas.

Indeed, the bills would effectively kill any in-situ mine proposal in the state, as well as many other projects.

The whole idea of in-situ mining is to minimize the impact of mining by extracting the ore without digging massive pits or sending miners down into dangerous tunnels. The process involves drilling wells, injecting sodium bicarbonate and oxygen into the rock, pumping out the solution and then isolating the uranium.

After removing the uranium, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission requires that the groundwater be restored to meet the same health standards that it satisfied premining. Moreover, the NRC also requires mine operators to set aside sufficient funds for restoration and cleanup.

HB 1161 would place impossible conditions on in-situ projects. It would require the state Mined Land Reclamation Board to deny an in-situ permit unless the applicant can demonstrate that it can restore "all affected groundwater to its premining quality for all constituents" (our emphasis).

That cannot be done, according to mining officials. After the uranium is removed from the mining site, treated water is pumped back into the wells. When the restoration process is finished, the groundwater may contain somewhat lower or higher levels of various minerals. In any case, the water will be not be identical, as HB 1161 requires.

For its part, HB 1165 would give cities and counties the power to "condition or prohibit any mining activity, operation or process." Locals could effectively veto any mining project, in other words, even though it met zoning requirements and state and federal laws. Talk about enshrining the NIMBY syndrome! There would be one exemption to the local veto, though: mining for construction materials. But why, if the bill is genuinely meant to protect public health and safety?

We realize that mining is a 19th century activity in many people's minds. Who needs it? Alternatively, why can't it all be done in poor, foreign countries where the people are grateful for any employment? Sorry, but we don't share that attitude, and we doubt that most responsible lawmakers will, either.

If we're right, legislators know what to do with these two bills. Don't let them become law.

Comments

  • January 28, 2008

    7:33 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    Art writes:

    We appear to want to send all jobs to third world countries and when there is an opportunity to have jobs here we try to find ways to stifle the activity. We want to be energy independent yet we do not want any drilling or mining in our own country. How can we have both? If we want jobs in the USA and energy independence we have to recognize that they come with a price. We must find ways to enforce the laws without making the laws so onerous as to force companies to move to other countries.

  • January 28, 2008

    10:28 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    nimbusco writes:

    I don't know if the Weld County proposals are safe or not. But, you make an important point in your editorial. To elaborate, I believe that many people in the USA seem to have decided that, somehow, it is possible to live a 21st century lifestyle without seeing firsthand the impact that lifestyle has on the environment. Whether it's wind farms, solar collector arrays, coal mines, or uranium mines, electricity generation is required for almost everything we do. Similarly, the components of computers, DVD players, cars, and houses are not made from fairy dust, moonbeams, and smiles.

    The NIMBY attitude towards mining and other resource extraction often leads to those activities being conducted in places where people are poor and have little political power to control them. How about a YIMBY attitude? "Yes, in my backyard," where I can watch over them!

  • January 28, 2008

    1:49 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    Brockage writes:

    We need more energy. If you can't help in getting us more, then get out of the way or there will be no more air conditioning or heating for you!

  • January 28, 2008

    4:05 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    joe writes:

    Fort Collins Democratic Reps. Randy Fischer and John Kefalas?

    These are the best the state has to offer huh? Well, it's easy to see that they do not have to depend on mining for anything in their lives, eh? They live in TeePees smoking Peyote Buttons and decide all is well if no one ever digs anything out of the ground.

    What a pair of idiots!

  • January 28, 2008

    8:20 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    nuvemco writes:

    Kudos to the RMN for its follow-up on the unsupported claims made by supporters of these two proposed bills. More kudos for pointing out in-situ minimizes mining impacts. Using the politics of fear to replace factual discussion has become too easy for too many activists and politicians.

    Yet another serious issue not tackled is the loss of rights to land and minerals bargained and paid for, when all laws are being adhered to. Why should those who did not pay, or worse yet sold such rights for windfall, be in a position to stop rightful owners from using it? It is not moral or ethical and should not be made legal!

  • January 28, 2008

    8:54 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    jmoran writes:

    I applaud the Rocky Mountain News' editorial on the proposed in-situ uranium mine in Weld County. This is a case of the NIMBY movement's cause carried by Reps. Randy Fisher, John Kefalas and the Colorado Medical Society. It would be interesting to see if the Colorado Medical Society plans to rail against the use of all radioactive isotopes used by their members which are dependent upon the product of uranium mines. The News is correct in pointing out the environmental benefits of solution mining compared to the topographical impact and dewatering of aquifers required for open pit and underground mining. The proposed House Bills would essentially end in-situ uranium mining in Colorado. The next proposal by Fisher and Kafalas will likely eliminate any other type of mining in Colorado and further expose the U.S. to the increased dependency on imports and maintaining access to supplies with our military.