Site search
sponsored by
News
Sports
Plans to leach uranium out of the ground beneath Northern Colorado are quietly progressing, as the mining company awaits the final crop of tests on the land, air and water where it hopes to build its wells.
And opponents of Powertech Uranium Corp. are waiting, too, hoping to maintain the momentum they gained last spring after the formation of two new laws strengthening state regulations.
Richard Clement, chief executive officer of Powertech, said last week his company will complete its tests in December, and begin the process of applying for an underground injection control permit.
Environmental regulations require the company to collect five quarters’ worth, or 15 months, of data about existing conditions before anything can be done.
“From that information, we’re compiling all the data, including cultural resources, birds and bees and land, soils and air, baseline and radiometric surveys, and just a general dust (survey),” he said. “It’s all the information that you have to have to create what the environment is before you begin operations.”
The first production wells could be drilled about a year after that, so roughly 15 months from now.
Last month, the company applied for permits to drill 10 holes on the Centennial Project site in Weld County, about 12 to 15 miles northeast of Fort Collins. Those holes will be used to determine where Powertech would locate a plant associated with the extraction of uranium from the sandstone.
Powertech estimates about 9.7 million pounds of uranium oxide lies beneath a 15-mile swath of Northern Colorado.
Though the spot price for uranium has dropped substantially since last year—to about $58 per pound, down from more than $130 per pound last summer—Clement said he believes the future is rich in possibility.
Clement said spot prices are not indicative of long-term contract prices, which are more stable and resting around $80 per pound.
“We believe once we are in operation, and we’re making substantial profits, then the stock value of the company will be valued at the usual price range ratio that is typical for a mining venture,” he said. “We expect that things will achieve a certain level of value based on the actual production and the income stream coming from the deposits.”
This summer, a Belgian energy company called Synatom, a subsidiary of the European energy firm Electrabel, purchased a nearly 20 percent ownership in Powertech for about $9 million. Clement said Synatom handles all Belgium’s nuclear power plants and is associated with Electricite de France, which handles the French plants.
“They had an interest in gaining experience and participating in the development of uranium deposits because of their interest in nuclear power,” he said. “The company was one of the premiere companies in terms of its personnel and properties, so they proffered some funds for participating in our company, which we accepted, and we will continue to work with them on a very close basis.”
Powertech also anticipates working with other companies prospecting for uranium in the region. There’s always competition, but in an era and a region where in-situ leach mining is not exactly popular, uranium companies know they have to work together, Clement said.
One other company, Australia-based Geovic, owns some uranium deposits near Grover, in northern Weld County.
“We’ll have a good working relationship with all the companies in the area. Within the environment we’re working in today, I don’t see any major conflicts or competition that causes conflicts with individual companies,” Clement said. “I think everybody realizes the issues are a general understanding and acceptance of the process, so consequently there is a general desire to work together.”
Powertech and Geovic are hardly the only companies looking for uranium in Colorado. Others are prospecting in a historically productive region called the Uravan belt (known for its concentrations of uranium and vanadium), in southwest Colorado.
Vince Matthews, director of the Colorado Geological Survey, said many uranium mines are in the process of trying to open or are in exploration phases to determine whether they would be commercially viable.
“There have been more than 20,000 mining claims filed just on federal land in Colorado in the last three years. Most of those, from what we can see where they are located, are uranium,” he said. Between 2005 and 2006, miners filed 10,000 claims; there were another 10,000 filed last year alone, Matthews said.
Two laws signed by Gov. Bill Ritter this spring will add controls on how those mines are to be cleaned up once the companies get uranium out of the ground.
The laws, sponsored by Northern Colorado legislators, will require Powertech to use more water to clean up the mined area, Clement said.
Powertech plans to force oxygenated groundwater into uranium-bearing sandstone layers underground, which formed as a barrier island of an ancient sea. Other minerals will come out of the sandstone with the uranium, and residents who use the same groundwater for domestic and agricultural purposes want to make sure it’s safe.
One of the measures, known as House Bill 1161 before it became law, will require the company to restore the groundwater to pre-mining conditions or better.
Clement said many of the material that will come out with the uranium is not harmful and federal environmental regulations do not require their removal. Those include sulfates and chlorides, along with dissolved solids.
Opponents of in-situ uranium mining point to those and other materials as proof that mining companies don’t bring water back to its original state.
Clement argued those materials are harmless.
“Within the range of reasonable restoration, when all the (solids) are brought back, in the range that is allowed, then sulfates or chlorides may exceed that,” he said. “But in this case, we will be required to bring those ions back as well, so we will have to process slightly more water. But it’s not prohibitive and (may slightly increase costs) to the restoration.”
He added that once the wells are drilled and a plant constructed, the project would be minimally intrusive.
“Somebody asked me what kind of a visual pollution we would have from it. Well, it’s a heck of a lot less dramatic than wind farms,” he said. “There will be a building that is modest in size, covers an acre, and well heads that are barely visible at the surface, much like water wells you see in somebody’s yard. The pipelines will be buried below freeze depth, so they will not be visible,” he said. “It’s a very small footprint that is observable.”
He said the Centennial Project, along with a sister project in South Dakota, were the company’s main priorities.
“We’ll always be interested in looking at other ventures, but as I said, our plate is fairly full right now,” he said. “It’s time to buckle down and see something.”
And opponents of Powertech Uranium Corp. are waiting, too, hoping to maintain the momentum they gained last spring after the formation of two new laws strengthening state regulations.
Richard Clement, chief executive officer of Powertech, said last week his company will complete its tests in December, and begin the process of applying for an underground injection control permit.
Environmental regulations require the company to collect five quarters’ worth, or 15 months, of data about existing conditions before anything can be done.
“From that information, we’re compiling all the data, including cultural resources, birds and bees and land, soils and air, baseline and radiometric surveys, and just a general dust (survey),” he said. “It’s all the information that you have to have to create what the environment is before you begin operations.”
The first production wells could be drilled about a year after that, so roughly 15 months from now.
Last month, the company applied for permits to drill 10 holes on the Centennial Project site in Weld County, about 12 to 15 miles northeast of Fort Collins. Those holes will be used to determine where Powertech would locate a plant associated with the extraction of uranium from the sandstone.
Powertech estimates about 9.7 million pounds of uranium oxide lies beneath a 15-mile swath of Northern Colorado.
Though the spot price for uranium has dropped substantially since last year—to about $58 per pound, down from more than $130 per pound last summer—Clement said he believes the future is rich in possibility.
Clement said spot prices are not indicative of long-term contract prices, which are more stable and resting around $80 per pound.
“We believe once we are in operation, and we’re making substantial profits, then the stock value of the company will be valued at the usual price range ratio that is typical for a mining venture,” he said. “We expect that things will achieve a certain level of value based on the actual production and the income stream coming from the deposits.”
This summer, a Belgian energy company called Synatom, a subsidiary of the European energy firm Electrabel, purchased a nearly 20 percent ownership in Powertech for about $9 million. Clement said Synatom handles all Belgium’s nuclear power plants and is associated with Electricite de France, which handles the French plants.
“They had an interest in gaining experience and participating in the development of uranium deposits because of their interest in nuclear power,” he said. “The company was one of the premiere companies in terms of its personnel and properties, so they proffered some funds for participating in our company, which we accepted, and we will continue to work with them on a very close basis.”
Powertech also anticipates working with other companies prospecting for uranium in the region. There’s always competition, but in an era and a region where in-situ leach mining is not exactly popular, uranium companies know they have to work together, Clement said.
One other company, Australia-based Geovic, owns some uranium deposits near Grover, in northern Weld County.
“We’ll have a good working relationship with all the companies in the area. Within the environment we’re working in today, I don’t see any major conflicts or competition that causes conflicts with individual companies,” Clement said. “I think everybody realizes the issues are a general understanding and acceptance of the process, so consequently there is a general desire to work together.”
Powertech and Geovic are hardly the only companies looking for uranium in Colorado. Others are prospecting in a historically productive region called the Uravan belt (known for its concentrations of uranium and vanadium), in southwest Colorado.
Vince Matthews, director of the Colorado Geological Survey, said many uranium mines are in the process of trying to open or are in exploration phases to determine whether they would be commercially viable.
“There have been more than 20,000 mining claims filed just on federal land in Colorado in the last three years. Most of those, from what we can see where they are located, are uranium,” he said. Between 2005 and 2006, miners filed 10,000 claims; there were another 10,000 filed last year alone, Matthews said.
Two laws signed by Gov. Bill Ritter this spring will add controls on how those mines are to be cleaned up once the companies get uranium out of the ground.
The laws, sponsored by Northern Colorado legislators, will require Powertech to use more water to clean up the mined area, Clement said.
Powertech plans to force oxygenated groundwater into uranium-bearing sandstone layers underground, which formed as a barrier island of an ancient sea. Other minerals will come out of the sandstone with the uranium, and residents who use the same groundwater for domestic and agricultural purposes want to make sure it’s safe.
One of the measures, known as House Bill 1161 before it became law, will require the company to restore the groundwater to pre-mining conditions or better.
Clement said many of the material that will come out with the uranium is not harmful and federal environmental regulations do not require their removal. Those include sulfates and chlorides, along with dissolved solids.
Opponents of in-situ uranium mining point to those and other materials as proof that mining companies don’t bring water back to its original state.
Clement argued those materials are harmless.
“Within the range of reasonable restoration, when all the (solids) are brought back, in the range that is allowed, then sulfates or chlorides may exceed that,” he said. “But in this case, we will be required to bring those ions back as well, so we will have to process slightly more water. But it’s not prohibitive and (may slightly increase costs) to the restoration.”
He added that once the wells are drilled and a plant constructed, the project would be minimally intrusive.
“Somebody asked me what kind of a visual pollution we would have from it. Well, it’s a heck of a lot less dramatic than wind farms,” he said. “There will be a building that is modest in size, covers an acre, and well heads that are barely visible at the surface, much like water wells you see in somebody’s yard. The pipelines will be buried below freeze depth, so they will not be visible,” he said. “It’s a very small footprint that is observable.”
He said the Centennial Project, along with a sister project in South Dakota, were the company’s main priorities.
“We’ll always be interested in looking at other ventures, but as I said, our plate is fairly full right now,” he said. “It’s time to buckle down and see something.”
