Energy Gone Wild in the West—talking points
Uranium Extraction
· The sparsely populated high-desert land in the west end of San Miguel and Montrose counties is designated "Multiple Purpose Public Domain" by the Bureau of Land Management. And while there's little "public" to be found on these lonely sandy soils, the area plays host to cattle grazing and mining.
· Since the uranium bust in 1979, following the near meltdown of a nuclear reactor at Pennsylvania's Three Mile Island atomic power plant, there have been more cattle than mines in the West End. But that ratio has been changing, as the price of oil and gas soars, and along with it, the price of uranium. Look for a spectacular comeback of this ancillary energy industry, say its adherents, as the price of uranium, already up 300 percent (roughly from $10 to $30 a pound) in the last 16 months, continues to soar.
· Williams deflects questions about how many uranium mines we can expect to see in the West End over the next few years.
· Although four more Cotter applications for uranium mines are in the works, the sum total is impossible to quantify, Williams explains, given the various claims from other companies. But thanks to the mounting global energy crisis, residents of the West End, like many citizens of the American West, have learned the unpleasant truth about subsurface rights to properties they may once have thought inviolate.
· The hard truth is this: Regardless of who owns the land - whether it's corporations, individuals or the federal government - more often than not the rights to what lies beneath it are auctioned off to the highest bidder, on a quarterly basis, by the Bureau of Land Management. The bids are, in effect, sealed, so that only the most vigilant property owner will even know when an auction is pending.
· Williams explains that while there will be substantial reclamation, once the mine is abandoned, the bulk of its ore tailings will be removed and disposed of at the Cañon City mill.
· Once the uranium ore is gone from C-SR-11: "The land will be reclaimed for range and wildlife habitat to meet the [Department of Energy's] directive to return the land as closely as possible to the pre-mining use," according to the Cotter application.
· While the permit calls for 20,000 tons of ore to be trucked to Cañon City annually, Williams says the actual total will be closer to 36,000 tons, and that the new number is accounted for on the updated application.
· "It is anticipated that there will be approximately five trucks per day, five days per week, about 10 months of the year (500-800 trucks per year). Hauling will not occur during wet weather or snow periods. The applicant will use regular highway-legal end or side-dump tractor-trailer trucks hauling about 25-26 tons each.
For the full article, see “Fourth Uranium Mine Activated in West End” By Marta Tarbell
The Telluride Watch Published: 6/14/05
· Liberty Star Gold Corp. (the "Company") … has acquired by staking 213 standard federal lode mining claims, 15 blocks of such claims covering 26 breccia pipe targets on the Colorado Plateau Province of Northern Arizona. This project is known as North Pipes and it is targeted specifically for high-grade uranium mineralization.
· The area has produced some 26 million pounds of uranium. These breccia pipe hosted mineral occurrences are quite high grade, in relation to many uranium producers past and present, with a potential average grade for ore bearing pipes estimated by the US Geological Survey at about 0.7% to 0.8% suggesting a content of such ore of about 14 pounds or more of uranium per ton. At current prices this is approximately equivalent in value to an ounce of gold per ton. The claims are owned 100% by the Company and are subject to no royalties.
· Jim Briscoe, the Company's President and CEO, during the last uranium boom had uranium exploration responsibility for the State of New Mexico under contract to the exploration subsidiary of the largest nuclear power company in the US. During this period he became familiar with these pipes. When the price of uranium moved upwards, during the last part of 2004 he directed a research program into the attractiveness of the exploration potential of this province and its breccia pipes. The pipes contain numerous metals including copper, molybdenum, silver and uranium but of these, uranium is by far the most economically important.
· Known ore bodies have contained as much as 55% uranium (1,100 pounds per ton) in some samples. Some mines have produced 10 million pounds of uranium before shutdown because of low price. Requirements for electric power throughout the world are increasing and it is expected that nuclear power will increasingly be an import source of that power. Constant dollar charts show that, in terms of the 2004 dollar, the price of uranium in the late 1970s was about $80 per pound. It is our management's prediction, therefore, that the uranium price will continue to rise above current levels.
For the full article, see “Liberty Star Adds Major New Project Area -- North Pipes -- and Stakes 26 Uranium Breccia Pipe Targets on the Colorado Plateau of Northern Arizona”
June 22, 2005 01:22 PM US Eastern Timezone
Uranium—Lethal Legacy
· CROWNPOINT, N.M. − Navajo Nation President Joe Shirley, Jr., today closed the book on a 65-year legacy of death and disease by making uranium mining and processing illegal on the Navajo Nation.
· “As long as there are no answers to cancer, we shouldn’t have uranium mining on the Navajo Nation,” the President said after signing into law the Diné Natural Resources Protection Act of 2005. “I believe the powers that be committed genocide on Navajo land by allowing uranium mining.”
· He said many Navajo medicine-men and women and hundreds of Navajo uranium miners have died as a result of exposure to radioactivity and uranium, whether by mining, dust, contaminated water or contaminated livestock. Many other families continue to live with this painful and deadly legacy of the Cold War, he added.
· “I don’t want to subject any more of my people to exposure, to uranium and the cancers that it causes,” he said. “I believe we reinforced our sovereignty today.”
· The uranium prohibition is needed to address the deadly legacy of past uranium mining and processing on Navajo lands, and to protect the economy, environment and health of the Navajo people from future uranium mining and milling, the President said.
· Concerns of protecting the area’s underground water from radiation contamination was expressed by speaker after speaker during the brief ceremony and luncheon.
· Norman Brown, president of Diné Bidzill, said thousand of Navajos are still affected by uranium-caused cancers and need help through the Radiation Exposure Compensation Act amendments now before Congress. “Hundreds of mines still sit open to the wind and air,” he said. “I have witnessed our elders crying and families pleading for some type of relief from the many cancer deaths that continue daily across our great Navajo land.”
For the full article, see “Navajo Nation President Joe Shirley, Jr.signs Diné Natural Resources Protection Act of 2005: New law bans uranium mining, processing throughout Navajo Nation” http://www.sric.org/uranium/Navajo%20pres.%20signs%20uranium%20ban,%20for%20April%2030.pdf
Coal
· About 100 miles north of Reno, outside a desert town named Gerlach — whose slogan is "where the pavement ends and the West begins" — a quarrel is simmering that highlights the competing visions for the future of electricity production in the United States.
· Near the site of the annual Burning Man festival, a subsidiary of San Diego-based Sempra Energy is proposing to build a coal-fired power plant that could supply enough electricity to California and the Pacific Northwest to light up 1.5 million homes.
· Nearby, green-power advocates are pushing an equally ambitious proposal to harness the force of the wind, as well as the heat of the sun and the Earth's core, to create enough electricity to power 1.2 million homes.
· Both proposals would connect to the same high-voltage transmission line in order to move electricity to consumers. But there is only enough space left on the electrical freeway for one of the two — at least at the current sizes. So government regulators and politicians must make a choice.
· That choice is between coal-fired power — a heavily polluting form of fossil fuel energy that could be counted on to help curtail the West's chronic electricity shortages — and renewable power. The latter is a less-proven option that promises a future free of the emissions that cause smog and acid rain and that contribute to global warming.
· Sempra representatives said their proposal, Granite Fox Power, would bring badly needed electricity to Western states, including California, where the managers of its power grid recently warned of "critically thin operating margins" that could lead to shortages this summer. The plant, which Sempra expects to be operational by 2010, would provide jobs and tax revenue to a corner of Nevada whose main economic benefactor is gambling and, they contend, would produce 80% less pollution than most coal plants.
· Proponents of green power said their proposals — the most advanced of which is an office complex of sorts for geothermal, wind and solar generators called the Nevada Energy Park — also would add jobs and boost tax coffers, without dirtying the air.
· Although the Granite Fox plan might be less polluting compared with coal plants built decades ago, it would still spew an estimated 4,400 tons of nitrogen oxide and 2,500 tons of sulfur dioxide every year, said Phyllis Fox, an air quality specialist hired by Rumsey. Sempra's preliminary figures predict it would emit 3,315 tons of each of the contaminants, the main ingredients of smog and acid rain.
· Similar debates are taking place throughout the country, as public and private utilities weigh the benefits of additional coal power — the nation's most plentiful and inexpensive fossil fuel source — against the prospect of renewable energy, which is becoming cost-competitive due to advances in technology.
· More than 100 coal-fired power plants are being proposed across the U.S., as energy companies seek to take advantage of electricity shortages and a coal-friendly regulatory climate in Washington to revive a source of power that had fallen out of favor due to its polluting emissions.
For the full article see “Energy Quest Sets Up Power Struggle: Nevada showdown pits coal plant proponents against advocates of renewable resources. L.A. is seen as playing a key role in the outcome.” By Miguel Bustillo, Times Staff Writer April 10th 2005
· Many independently owned coal-fired power plants planned for the West -- including three proposed for Nevada -- may no longer be feasible in the wake of two new developments in California, experts say.
· The developments involve California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's executive order on
· greenhouse gases and a California Public Utility decision. "Gov. Schwarzenegger's new executive order, coupled with the California Public Utility Commission (rule), could effectively kill all the coal plants proposed in Nevada because it will shut them out of the California market," said Jon Wellinghoff, an energy attorney with law firm Beckley Singleton. Wellinghoff noted that companies are proposing to build three merchant coal plants in Nevada.
· Merchant plants are power plants that are built to sell power wholesale, typically to utilities. The three plants proposed for Nevada would cost $3.6 billion or more and generate 2,800 megawatts or more of electricity.
· California is such a major market that some merchant coal plant projects may die on the drawing board if they can't sell power there, Wellinghoff said. Schwarzenegger's order on greenhouses gases would have a clear effect on any coal-powered plants.
· On June 1, the California governor ordered the state to cut its carbon dioxide pollution to 2000 levels by 2010 in an effort to stem global warming. He ordered that the maximum drop to 1990 levels by 2020 and to 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050.
· The order is significant because coal-fired plants emit twice the carbon dioxide as conventional, natural-gas burning plants. Wellinghoff and others concluded that the cap on carbon dioxide pollution applies not just to plants built inside California but also to plants outside the state that would supply power to it.
· Also, a utility regulatory decision adopted by the California Public Utilities Commission in December will hinder new coal-fired plants. The decision requires major investor-owned utilities to factor in the risk of increased future regulation when entering into five-year or longer contracts for power created from coal and natural gas.
· One of the plants proposed for Nevada would sell power to California, Nevada and northwestern states. The plant, Granite Fox, is a 1,450-megawatt, coal-fired plant that Sempra Energy wants to build 110 miles north of Reno.
· Schwarzenegger's order, Sempra spokesman Art Larson said, "does not directly address out-of-state power generation sources."
For the full article, see “Coal plants plans in jeopardy California market could be lost after panel, governor act” By JOHN G. EDWARDS Jun. 14, 2005 Copyright © Las Vegas Review-Journal
Air Quality
· Over the next few years, the states in the Interior West face decisions about the region’s energy future that have far-reaching implications. Will Montana, Wyoming, Colorado, New Mexico, Arizona, Utah and Nevada choose to significantly pollute their air and water with a new round of coal-fired power plants, built primarily to serve markets on the West Coast and Midwest? Or will the region continue to move toward a sustainable energy future?
· Currently, there are more than 35 proposed new or expanded coal-fired power plants in the Interior West—which represents over 23,500 megawatts of new energy (one megawatt supplies electricity for about 1000 homes). About a quarter of these plants are currently moving through the permitting process.
· Impacts
· New coal plants will have tremendous effects in the American West. Each new coal plant will use a large amount of water and increase emissions of:
o carbon dioxide
o sulfur dioxide
o oxides of nitrogen
o mercury
· These pollutants damage air quality and contribute to climate change. New coal generation would forestall investments in cleaner resources such as renewable energy and energy efficiency.
Coal Plant Impacts
New coal plants will have tremendous effects in the American West:
· They will emit huge amounts of carbon dioxide, which contributes to global climate change. If all 23,500 megawatts of proposed coal plants were developed, they would add approximately 185 million tons per year of CO2 emissions–a 58% increase from 2000 levels.
· Each new coal plant will also increase emissions of:
o sulfur dioxide
o oxides of nitrogen
o mercury
· These pollutants further damage regional air quality with adverse impacts on human health, visibility, ground-level ozone (“smog”), and acid rain.
· Because these plants, once built, will likely run for 60 years or more, they represent an essentially irreversible long-term commitment to dirty power. Cleaning up the plants in the future would be expensive and difficult, and the incentives to keep the plant running would be high because of low operational costs.
· These new plants would forestall investments in cleaner resources such as renewable energy and energy efficiency. With their high capital costs and relatively low fuel costs, once they are built they will have to be used around the clock to justify their costs of construction. They will supplant energy efficiency and renewable resources at all hours of the day and all seasons of the year.
For more information visit the website of the American Lung Association www. www.lungusa.org
POWER PLANTS AND AIR POLLUTION
· Electric utilities are a major source of air pollutants that affect lung health, including sulfur dioxide, a powerful asthma trigger, and nitrogen oxide, which is a component of ozone smog. Air quality experts nationwide have identified reducing emissions from power plants as a technologically feasible, cost-effective approach to achieving cleaner air.
· Electric utilities produce 66% of all sulfur dioxide emissions nationwide. Even brief exposure to relatively low levels of sulfur dioxide has been repeatedly shown to trigger attacks in people with asthma. Sulfur dioxide also contributes to the formation of fine particles, and to acid rain.
· Power plants are also the source of 29% of nitrogen oxide (NOx) emissions. NOx is a major component of ozone smog and fine particulate matter, which affect the health of millions of Americans across wide areas of the country.
· Other pollutants produced in by electric utilities include carbon dioxide, a significant contributor to global warming, and heavy metals such as mercury.
HEALTH IMPACT OF POWER PLANT EMISSIONS
· Research has shown that communities in the vicinity of coal-fired power plants have a higher incidence of respiratory illness, including asthma, than areas more removed from these pollution sources.
· High levels of NOx are linked to increased susceptibility to respiratory infections, especially among children.
WHAT ARE THE SOLUTIONS?
· Electric utilities vary in their rate of emissions, depending on the fuel mix used and the extent to which they have adopted pollution control measures. The 50 dirtiest power plants are responsible for 78% of all the sulfur dioxide produced by the electric power industry.
· Power plants built before the 1970's were exempted from modern pollution control regulations. It was thought at the time that those older plants would soon be obsolete, and be replaced by cleaner technology. But it hasn't happened: 65% of electric utility plants were built before enactment of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1977. Some of the old, "grandfathered" power plants emit harmful pollutants at four to ten times the rate allowable for new plants built today.
· Eliminating the "grandfather" loophole would require the nation's dirtiest power plants to install air pollution control equipment and/or convert to cleaner burning fuels. It would also "level the playing field", so that all electric utilities are subject to the same regulations.
For more information go to http://www.lungusa.org/site/apps/s/content.asp?c=dvLUK9O0E&b=34706&ct=67098