South Dakota's doctors have told us that their research shows the prospect of uranium mining in the southern Black Hills is something to worry about. But on Dakota Midday Monday, a representative of Powertech Uranium Corp., the company that desperately hopes to make money by pumping chemicals into the ground to extract and refine a radioactive element, says to take his word for it that everyone's safe.
South Dakota Public Radio's Karl Gerhke moderated some entertaining back-and-forth Monday on the proposed Powertech mine. Lilias Jarding of Rapid City-based Clean Water Alliance and Powertech Project Manager Mark Hollenbeck, along with several callers from across the state, sparred over the environmental impact of the proposed in situ recovery (or in situ leach, for those looking for a more appropriately sinister name) uranium mine south of Edgemont. Hollenbeck's general philosophy toward the environment—despite his assertions to the contrary—seemed to be "if it's already broke, let's break it worse."
The most heated exchange (it's not every day guests get this close to talking over each other on Gehrke's air) comes at the very end of the 40-minute double segment:
Hollenbeck: I didn’t become a proponent of this thing overnight, but I have spent a tremendous amount of time studying this project, this geology, and believe it is safe for everybody. ...
Jarding: ... and, of course, the research is also very clear that the water has never been returned to its original condition …
Hollenbeck: … and the original condition is a thousand times over what’s usable. That is such a bogus argument when you look at that. This water has so much radium in it that it can never, ever be used for any human consumption, and so if chloride changes, sulfate changes, or uranium changes slightly, that does have no effect on the usability of this water in the future [Nathan Puhl, from on-air interview by Karl Gehrke, "Uranium Mining Debate," Dakota Midday, 2013.11.18, timestamp 35:46].
Two things in Hollenbeck's argument stand out to me as indicators of the fine line he's attempting to walk for his bosses as he tries to convince his neighbors (and former constituents) to ignore environmental concerns.
First, Hollenbeck is careful in this exchange and other points in the conversation to qualify that when he says the water is already "unusable," what he's talking about is exclusively use for "human consumption." If we define human consumption as the only purpose worth worrying about for our aquatic ecosystems, that isn't actually caring about the environment; that's caring about whether we can use the environment for our own benefit.
More troubling, though, is Hollenbeck's overarching thesis that we don't really need to worry about the environmental impact of uranium mining because the aquifers are full of contaminants already. A contaminated aquifer shouldn't be an invitation to just let loose with as many chemicals as we can. Instead, the existing issues should make us that much more attentive to protecting the already-fragile environment from further abuse at the hands of yellowcake profiteers.
Not that Powertech is guaranteed much of a profit even if it manages to leach uranium out of the rock beneath the Hills. The Russians are currently scaling back on their worldwide uranium mining operations, which include the Willow Creek mine in Wyoming's Campbell and Johnson Counties. The president of Uranium One Holding, a Canadian company controlled by Russia's state-owned Rosatom, cited falling prices as the reason for halting some uranium mining operations:
"We cannot discount the dramatic fall in natural uranium prices, as a result of which over 50 percent of global uranium production is currently loss-making," Vadim Zhivov, chairman of Atomredmetzoloto [Rusatom's in-country mining arm] and president of Uranium One Holding, told Reuters in emailed comments on Wednesday.
"Given the unfavourable market environment, we have decided to freeze expansion projects both in Russia and abroad," Zhivov said ["Russia's Rosatom to mothball uranium mine expansion projects," Reuters, 2013.11.13].
Half of global production is operating at a loss. And Powertech's already on the financial ropes to the tune of a $3.6-million Chinese loan. That seems like reason for healthy skepticism about the 100 jobs Hollenbeck keeps talking about.
Put that healthy skepticism together with skepticism about how healthy in situ recovery mining is for an already-ailing aquifer. Add in the indefinite delay from one permit-granting agency, and there might just be enough skepticism around to begin taking Hollenbeck's hot air out of Powertech's sails.
Big difference between "unusable" and "toxic". Colorado ran these uranium shills out of the state among sign waving and angry citizens appalled that they even got a hearing. Only the Rush Limbaugh's sacrifice our environment for profit.
These Powertech goons should be made to drink the water they think is so safe.
If they can do it for at least two years and not have any serious health defects, maybe I might believe them.
I'm willing to bet most of these guys drink bottled water like most Americans do.
I've drunk so much Cheyenne River water it would make your toes bulge. And my brain never rotted. That being said I am not convinced we want to bring a bunch of out of state goons in to stay in man camps around Red Canyon and start digging privies. I say, keep them all out of our state.
Good for you Grudz, good for you, reall!!
That's the Conservatives with Common Sense position on the issue Roger. I'm toeing our faction's platform. Anything else...well...if it wasn't the Conservatives with Common Sense I'd expect to be attacked with insaner rabid dogs than anything the libbies could throw at me.
But Roger, don't get me wrong, I all for drilling. I just don't want all these outsiders coming in to do it.
grudznick has hit on something that I have wondered about for a long time. If this is such a hot deal, why aren't there venture capitalists and uranium miners here in the United States jumping all over it? Could it be that the expansion of nuclear power has slowed or maybe even stopped, since the tsunami disaster in Japan, which continues to give its bad to the world?
Wow, little did I know when I posted the above. I just read the following.
http://www.counterpunch.org/2013/11/19/fukushima-fallout-damaged-the-thyroids-of-california-babies/
NOVEMBER 19, 2013
A Global Threat
Fukushima Fallout Damaged the Thyroids of California Babies
by CHRIS BUSBY
Lanny I have a very good friend who went to China last year working on purchasing a large amount of Hydrochloric Acid for acid fracking in Canada. He ate fish in China and upon getting home his stomach went into convulsions with weight loss and other not to talk about problems. Mayo clinic found radiation damage to his duodenum that with time and certain iodine magnesium medicine cleaned out. But the long term damage leading to future cancer is now a very high probability for him. That radiated water is now flowing to the coast of CA making the story believable, sadly.
Lanny V Stricherz, the Reuters article linked in the post indicates that you're right on with your explanation that Fukushima disaster has led to a LOT less demand for uranium. Nuclear power took a hit, and that means that uranium demand also took a hit. So Powertech's asking Black Hills residents to take an environmental hit for getting into a questionable market for a volatile material. Sounds like a bad idea all around to me.
I keep telling you people that it stopped being about uranium a long time ago. It is now about the permits to access huge amounts of water for the least amount of money.
For a long time now water has been worth way more then uranium. Add to that the fact that one of the biggest water bottling companies in the world has at least a part interest in this and the writing is on the wall.
Where else could they find enough suckers on the right commission to give the permits to do such a thing? South Dakota.
Where else is the population so small that they thought that it wouldn't cause enough problems to worry about? South Dakota.
And where else could they find a red state legislature that for a few shinny things would be willing to change the laws and rules governing the harvesting of the most valuable natural resource known to man, water? That's right, it's good old South Dakota.
It wasn't that long ago that our legislature passed laws, and made resolutions, to show that South Dakota was a "fracking friendly state." Now those aren't my words so I apologue for their use, but it was common talk for a while.
Folks, pay no attention to the talking “uraniman” Hollenbeck that stands out in front of the crowd. Instead look very closely at the man behind the curtain getting ready to open the valve.
About forty years ago I remember seeing an advertisement in Playboy. They were selling t-shirts that said "MY BODY IS MY OWN." If we aren't careful someone else is going to get controlling interest in or body, or at the very least the one thing that our body needs to sustain life.
It's all about the water.
The Blindman
Rep. Hoffman, does your post mean we can count on your carrying a bill in the 2014 session to repeal SB 158 from the 2011 session, which repealed South Dakota's uranium mining regulations and deferred that authority to the feds?
Uranium based power generation should be replaced with Thorium salt reactor systems. We are still stuck on Uranium because Admiral Rickover wanted waste from Uranium power plants to produce uranium and other isotopes for submarines and weapons.
grudz
If you don't want these "outsiders" doing the drilling, who do you to do it?
Reminds me of a scene in Erin Brockovich:
Attorneys for the chemical company came to a meeting in the office E.B. worked in. As they discussed they sipped water. After a bit E.B. told them the water came from the source they had been insisting was perfectly safe. Anxious looks all around for the bad guys and a deal swiftly made. Those attorneys hustled out of there, probably straight to an ER to have their stomachs pumped.
Maybe we can add into the contract talks a clause requiring Powertech EXECUTIVES to live next to functioning mines when they begin digging, and for 10 years thereafter.
Mr. CAH the only thing keeping Uranium mining out of SD may in fact be that Federal Permit.
charlie: soccer and the sdhsaa. waddup?
But Charlie, if we restore the DENR's authority, we have one more opportunity to turn honest environmental concerns like yours into effective local political opposition. It's a lot easier for folks to drive to Pierre or Rapid City for a hearing than fly to Washington. Why shift the authority solely to the feds?
CAH there may be some truth to what you perceive but what I have seen compounds my theory. The Blindman has an avenue of concern we should also study. Can a water permit be used for any application other then a very strictly applied and permitted use? That said can an irrigation permit be used to fill a hole and grow fish?
Representative Hoffman, why did you oppose 2011's SB 156 "to prohibit the employment of unauthorized aliens."
Do you support the indentured servitude of illegal aliens in South Dakota?
Thank you Bill Dithmer! Why would
We allow our children down to our great grand children's water to be given away. For them to be held hostage to whomever might gain that right through permitting?
Legislature's website is back online! Rep. Hoffman, you voted for 2011 Senate Bill 158, which suspended DENR's oversight of in-situ leach mining. In 2012, you voted to table Rep. Stricherz's effort (via 2012 HB 1098) to restore that state-level oversight. If you're worried about the environmental impacts, why vote to prevent the state from being able to address and prevent those environmental impacts?
CAH how many nuclear experts do we have in South Dakota? Which set of regulations would be the strictest to comply with? Who ultimately has the final authority on any production of nuclear material?
Bree go back and look again please and bring us a full report on who voted on 2011's SB 156. Better yet link it with an apology for false accusations.
The State has appeared to have worked itself into a pit, as far as attracting any good businesses to SD.
What good business, even with the compensations offered, would relocate any of its managers to a State with bad air, bad water, failing schools, and a Government with so many secrets and self-servers, it isn't reliably corrupt?
Charlie, I'm sorry to hear about your friend's radiation exposure. That is very scary! I don't mean to sound paranoid but I've been considering purchasing a Geiger counter to test the wild caught Alaskan salmon I purchase periodically since the federal government is only able to test a small amount of what is caught. Who knows it may come in handy for testing other things too unfortunately.
On 2011's SB 156, Charlie's right. Bree's wrong. It's o.k. to apologize when you wrongly accuse someone of something.
I love this after the fact fabrication and/or ignorance that legislators use to excuse their vote. The issue in SB 158 had nothing to do with South Dakota regulating the radiological issues involved with uranium mining, so that's a bogus excuse. Those radiological issues, absent "agreement state status" from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, were never going to be addressed by state government. South Dakota has never applied for agreement state status, although back in the 1960s through the early 1980s, it was considered.
There are, however, multiple other issues, involving water quality and waste disposal, that Legislators essentially stripped from DENR and handed to the Environmental Protection Agency. What this did, in essense, was to negate any of the state's more stringent regulations on these issues.
The problem all along was the Legislators never really understood how this operation would be regulated, and they just swallowed whatever Powertech lobbyists put before them.
"For the people of North Dakota, the issue is safety — public and environmental. Most states that take radioactive waste top out at 400 pCi per gram. Disposing of such material requires a great degree of sophistication in engineering, inspection and maintenance. It’s expensive and, by its nature, radioactive waste remains a risk for decades and more."
Powertech is cherry picking data (and not using TVA data) to make it seem like the aquifer they want to mine in is not connected to the other aquifers that are used for drinking water and gardening and ranching; there are faults and fractures that linked the mined aquifer to the other water sources; the mining solution migrates and mobilizes natural pockets of Uranium and Arsenic, Lead, Thorium, Radon in unknown pathways; Powertech offered tons of stock around to locals and then SB 158 passes and all of a sudden there's no state involvement so no conflicts of interest; now Powertech is controlled by a Hong Kong based mining investment group none of whom care a bit about the local environment or people; finally, the 100 jobs is a myth - look at Crow Butte mine where they have at most 60 jobs including contract drillers.