My point is this:

ISL uranium mining appears to be the most cost effective, least intrusive and least environmentally devastating form of uranium mining. However, given the fact that this particular uranium lies in a drinking water aquifer and a recognized Underground Source of Drinking Water (USDW), it needs to be done elsewhere.

Apparently, there exists such a worldwide surplus of uranium that the need for this tiny bit of uranium is not substantial. It is a "want" thing, not a "need" thing.

I go to work and I expect to get paid, but I do not threaten my clients' neighbors' water either. It just simply does not seem worth the risk to tamper with this aquifer to that extent. Too many possibilities of escape exist, admittedly by many of the people who advocate mining in Goliad County.

Until the obvious and vast quantities of uranium begin to diminish, people's water needs to be left alone.

It doesn't appear that Victoria will have any need for uranium for years, if even then. Has anyone noticed that there isn't any surplus water around here?

We can live without uranium. We cannot live without water. That, sir, was my point.

Mark, As I understand it, Cameco will act as an agent and sell the yellowcake from Iraq, then give the money to the Iraqi government. It's a highly regulated material, and Cameco has all the IAEA licenses in place. I'm not sure what your point is, here. The US government has plenty of uranium, and was among the first to value it.

Are you saying money is bad, the capitalist maket is evil, and therefore mining is wrong? That's an opinion, and you have a right to it, but if you're going to spew hateful Marxist rhetoric, at least call a spade a spade.

OK, one more time...

Why did the U.S. give away 550 metric tonnes of Iraq uranium to Canadian Cameco? Why did the U.S. spend $70 MILLION transporting it for them, only to potentially be sold back to the U.S. for full market value?

If this is, as rollinstone says, an insignificant amount and is 20% of what Goliad County contains, then the Goliad uranium is also insignificant.

Our Government obviously saw little or no value in retaining the Iraq uranium yellowcake and even spent a bunch of our tax dollars getting rid of it. But then, this isn't about our Government or the benefit of our Nation. It's about private enterprise and greed. Nothing more.

I agree with rollinstone throughout the comments in this thread, and others. This person is extremely well-informed, and they're presenting important facts.

I've learned posting from any perspective other than "mining is evil" elicits comments that are attacking me, rather than my perspective and what I think or know to be true. Although kenneth hasn't found this thread yet, so it's been more polite than most. And thus more productive, in terms of discussion.

Bravely onward into the fog, then, as I want to point out that UEC is still under the same laws and restrictions as any rancher, farmer, or industry would be in terms of aquifer pumping. Also, if you want them to use less water restoring the aquifer where they drill, fine... but the reason they have to do it that way is the nutcases trying to argue that this aquifer is pristine -- it's not. It has uranium in it. UEC did not put the uranium there, they want to get it out. Unreasonable baselines mean more water pumped through in clean-up. So -- which is it? Do you want the water restored to better-than-ever quality under their 20 acre mine site, or do you want them to pump millions of gallons through to bring a "naturally contaminated" aquifer up to drinking-water standards? Oh, you just want them to go away and not mine here? That's really not your call, unless you own the mineral rights. This is Texas.

Have a nice day. =D

PS: To keep the screeching, possibly drug-crazed hippies and their jars of dirty water at bay, I'll reference sarneke's account of living near UEC's drilling site in Goliad (@ bottom of page: http://www.victoriaadvocate.com/users... )

I also trust the EPA, TCEQ, NRC, and RRC. I have not caught them lying ever.

HEH HEH HEH [Head shaking sadly]

I trust the science and engineering. I also trust the EPA, TCEQ, NRC, and RRC. I have not caught them lying ever. I can't say the same for the anti-nuclear activists that have crippled the energy policies of our country. They're the reason we are so dependent on coal and foreign oil, and now they are making us dependent on foreign nuclear fuel.

They attack every phase of nuclear energy, mining, refining, power generation, spent fuel reprocessing and waste disposal - all lies. I would not trust anything they say, they have no credibility. I'm surprised you or anyone believes their rubbish.

Rollinstone, I'll bet you beleive Harry's "trust me " line also don't ya?

The RRC requires exploration holes to be sealed with grout. From what I read no exploration hole was left open more that a couple of days. I heard no one before you dispute that number.

Twenty gpm is about 32 acre-feet per YEAR, that is equivalent to the flow through two garden hoses for a year.

I haven't taken a drink from a mud puddle lately, but in the case of uranium mining the water around the ore body is unfit to drink whether someone "steps" in it or not.

Rollinstone,
1. Yes they drill holes to roughly 400 feet taking core samples and laying them out on the ground to determine the location of the ore body. [Not a cased hole as you suggest] but as long as the water is not oxygenated the uranium is not in suspension like you mentioned earler kinda like a mud puddle-after it sits awhile you can drink the water off the top but when somebody steps in it its ruined.
2. I know of some holes left open over a month, That is simply not true that they were left open only a few hours more than is legal.
3.I agree with you that a well should not be left uncased or done improperly. Do you think only drilling mud is a proper encasement?
4.And finally acre feet or gallons are both methods of measuring water. [Not gallons per minute]My point is that this project will be required by law to dispose of a huge amount of water that the aquifer simply cannot support and still have enough water for the residents, their livestock and the wildlife in the area and eventually the entire region.

Notme,you lost me? The way they locate the ore body is sampling the wells they drill. Where high concentrations of uranium are found, that's where they like to mine.

The water obtained near ore bodies will exceed the 30 ppb EPA limit and is more or less unfit to drink, although people do drink it at their own risk.

I'm glad you agree that drilling a well does not in itself contaminate the aquifer. UEC's violation is they left the wells uncapped slightly longer than the law allows - a few hours longer is all.

I am more concerned about all the wells drilled by any yah-hoo and not making any attempt to encase or seal them properly - I think that's a problem.

And finally acre-feet and gpm? Your point is?

Rollinstone, The wells tested in the area mostly showed good clean drinking water even after how many hundreds of holes had been drilled in a relativedly small area with over a hundred being left open for more than the 48 hours required by the Railroad Commission so how can you say that the water is already bad. That is simply more UEC Propaganda that was put out from the first time they came to talk to folks.
Oh and by the way 2% bleed water is a HELLUVA Lot its hard to measure that much in gallons so that is done in ACRE FEET.

The part that contains high levels of uranium, like the part around an ore body that is unfit to drink - I guess that's the part I don't understand.

To Quote the Goliad County Commissioner,"What Part of Drinking Water Aquifer Dont You Understand?"

And BTW the judge's dismissal did not sound very encouraging for a resubmittal of the lawsuit in state court - in fact he made it sound like a waste of time and money.

I've read both pro and con about ISL mining. What I want is the truth. The company samples the monitor wells around the mine site for excursions of mining solution.

This is done to prevent contaminations of private wells. So I don't see how anyone can say a private well got contaminated unless the heavy metals, like pigs can fly.

In fact the RRC does not even look for heavy metals to determine an excursion. They look for high chlorides and high levels in the monitor wells.

Why not heavy metals? Because they know that the heavy metals will not migrate out of the mine area because of the reducing conditions surrounding the mine.

We will be turning to nuclear energy more and more in the coming years. It is a shame that we are not further along then we are. I have a strong suspicion that this drought we are is not a random act of nature, but it is being driven by humans - nuclear energy could save us from far worse.

Where do I begin? First, Rollinstone, the reason no contamination of private wells has ever been recorded is because the baseline information is either non-existant or was taken after exploration was begun or completed in the areas where the mining took place. Second, tell the whole truth about the Federal Lawsuit. The judge dismissed the case because he felt that the case did not belong in Federal Court, but the County was told they could file in State Court and that after the Contested Case hearing on the permit application is completed and decided, they could refile the case. Also, while you may not have any "connection" with the uranium company you have been reading their propaganda. IT SHOWS!!! I hope the people in Victoria County are paying attention. You already have a water shortage problem and it will get worse.

Notme, I have absolutely no connection with uranium mining, period. The actual amount of water removed from the aquifer is very small. Its about 2% of the pump around - approximately 20 gpm.

But I think this question and many others have been answered by the regulators and UEC many times - you are just not listening or you don't want to hear the truth.

The fact is ISL mining is by far the safest and cleanest way to extract energy from the earth. Coal mining is an environmental disaster. They destroy mountains and lay waste to thousands of acres. The mining and the use of coal pollutes both water and air and it causes the premature deaths of thousands - name me one person harmed by ISL mining in the United States.

Rollingstone what are you going to say if you are wrong? I'm sorry? Well that don't git it. What do you and the company [if there is a difference] say about the huge usage of water in the shallow end or the recharge zone of the gulf coast aquifer and what that will do to the aquifer?

One of the guiding principles of a newspaper should be to report the truth - the unbiased, impartial truth. When it fails to do this it is not serving the public's interest and it results in poor public policy.

With regard to uranium mining the VA failed to report the following story:

"On June 5, 2009, the United States District Court issued an order dismissing the lawsuit filed by Goliad County commissioners against UEC.

The lawsuit alleged infractions of the Safe Drinking Water Act nearby to areas where the Company has conducted exploration activities.

The allegations had previously been investigated and found to be without merit by the Texas Railroad Commission, the agency with sole jurisdiction over uranium exploration in Texas. In 2007, the Commission stated, “…the agency’s investigation of your complaint has not revealed any practice or activity at UEC’s Uranium Exploration Permit 123 that is out of compliance…We consider this investigation to be closed.”

In his June 5, 2009 order dismissing the case, the Judge stated that the County’s case failed to pass the threshold jurisdictional requirements, even when considered in the light most favorable to the County. As the Judge noted, the Texas Railroad Commission stated in an April 2007 letter to the County’s attorney that an agency hydrologist “…concluded from the available information that no ground-water contamination has occurred as a result of the drilling activities.”

The Judge concluded that “. . . the touchstone of Goliad County’s SDWA [Safe Drinking Water Act] claim is its allegation that UEC ‘converted’ the exploratory boreholes into ‘injection wells’ and/or an ‘injection activity,’ . . . the Court has concluded that no such conversion or injection activity took place."

In addition the TCEQ has publicly stated that no private well has ever been contaminated by ISL uranium mining in the United States - that's a fact. Barring some hysterical cries of anguish and emotional hand wringing I have never seen any legitimate data to contradict that statement.

And finally the water in the aquifer moves very slowly, about 10 to 20 feet per year. The heavy metals in the aquifer do not move at all. This is also a fact supported by every credible hydrologists, the NRC, TCEQ, EPA and the RRC.

These agencies support ISL uranium mining because they know it does not harm the environment and it is completely safe.

PORKERS YOU CLEARED FOR TAKEOFF!!!!

Gosh SOOO many things that could be said. I think I will just say WAKE UP and smell the coffee Victoria You will be affected as much or more than Goliad county if these folks are allowed to continue. If you do nothing else check the amount of water UEC will have to dipose of out of our aquifer as listed in their permit application. Since a large portion of your water comes from the Guadalupe River already check how much of that water is SPRING WATER which will be much diminished not to mention the ground water you use.