Blogs » Crowdsourcing » Should Goliad County sue UEC in state court?

Subscribe


Goliad County contends Uranium Energy Corp. contaminated its water supply by not properly capping exploratory drill holes. So, the county sued the company in federal court.

Just weeks ago, though, a federal judge tossed the case, citing, among reasons, the case belongs in state court.

Now, Goliad County leaders debate whether to refile its legal case.

What do you think? Should Goliad County sue UEC in state court, defend its stance with vigor and pay the hefty legal fees in the process?

Or should the county drop its case, remove the risk of having to pay UEC's legal fees if it loses, and follow state protocol for opposing mining permits. The county is amid a contested case hearing, which is governed by the state.

What do you think?

Thanks for your input,

Gabe Semenza / Advocate public service editor


Comments


  • “ISL operations may affect the groundwater quality near the well fields when lixiviant moves from the production zone and beyond the boundaries of the well field. This unintended spread, either horizontally or vertically, of recovery solutions beyond the production zone is known as an excursion. An excursion can be caused by

    * Improper water balance between injection and recovery rates

    * Undetected high permeability strata or geologic faults

    * Improperly abandoned exploration drill holes

    * Discontinuity within the confining layers

    * Poor well integrity, such as a cracked well casing or leaking joints between casing sections

    * Hydrofracturing of the ore zone or surrounding units”

    -NUREG-1910, pages 2-18 and 2-19

    This is straight out of the NRC book. How would you like this next to YOUR property with "no guarantees"?

    June 27, 2009 at 11:27 a.m.

  • This is the link to NUREG/1910, the government's recent Generic Environmental Impact Statement regarding ISL uranium mining. This GEIS was performed in states other than Texas, but the information regarding excursions, both horizontal and vertical, indicates the potential for a contamination problem.

    No Environmental Impact Statement is required in Texas.

    http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-lle...

    June 27, 2009 at 11:10 a.m.

  • TCEQ protocol is not the same as NRC national. For example, NRC requires a minimum of four baseline samples over a period of time to show consistency, while TCEQ requires only one. This state is geared towards industry, not public health. It's an easy state to mine in. If TCEQ followed the NRC rules verbatim, I doubt seriously this would've gotten as far as it has. We shall see in January.

    Also, since the exploration stopped some months ago, the surrounding wells have begun to clear up. What is very difficult to explain, though, is the fact that these wells' water levels are rising in the middle of one of the worst droughts in Texas history.

    Something is going on down there but nobody seems to know just exactly what. We can navigate Mars but cannot see what's only feet below us. Something's wrong with this picture.

    June 27, 2009 at 9:02 a.m.

  • It was Texas Railroad Commission who investigated the case, not TCEQ. When I called TRRC, the response I got was that they only have $150 application fee to deal with this situation, that investigations of this type are not budgeted and the case was closed.

    Drill a thousand holes on 450 acres and nothing will happen? It will not disturb the aquifer? Leave a hundred or so open so that rainwater and contaminants can flow down them? Come on!

    Should Goliad County refile in state court? If the state judge is a whimp like the federal one, absolutely not. He either found a way to wiggle out of this thing politically or he got paid off, probably the latter. These guys all have cocktails on occasion so who knows what goes on behind closed doors?

    As far as the Contested Case Hearing goes, the strongest point that Goliad County has is the fact that the mining company was out of compliance time after time during exploration. Even if the permit is ultimately approved, EPA still holds the trump card, the Aquifer Exemption.

    June 27, 2009 at 8:41 a.m.

  • hi

    i heard from a meeting today in goliad. is anyone there this evening?

    June 27, 2009 at 5:58 a.m.

  • Well, to note the juridictional issue only skips an important bit of information. "Among reasons" it was thrown out was, more importantly, was that the TCEQ issued a formal statement saying contamination of the aquifer due to UEC's drilling activities was "not possible". So, yeah, jurisdiction, and the totally full of crap thing, those were the two reasons. (See how mentioning the other reason does have bearing on the story?)

    Meanwhile, Blackburn is ready to load up the BS express again this Saturday, to see if his law firm can get another $350,000+ out of the county. The appropriate place to deal with concerns about this mining venture is at the contested case hearing currently under way. All this other stuff is just a waste -- and doesn't Goliad County have a budget shortfall? Aren't they having a hard time providing ambulances to rural county taxpayers? Blackburn is not your friend, and he is bilking you for all it's worth. Wake up people!

    June 25, 2009 at 4:50 p.m.