Building support for uranium mining in Virginia

by Rod Adams

One of the single most valuable pieces of energy real estate in the United States is located a few miles outside of Chatham, Virginia, less than an hour’s drive from my home. Millions of years ago, natural forces concentrated about 119 million pounds of uranium in a relatively small volume of what is now a cow pasture. That is enough raw material to supply all of the nuclear power plants in the United States with all of their fuel needs for a little more than two years. If valued at today’s suppressed, post-Fukushima market price, the deposit is worth about $7 billion.

Unfortunately for the people who own the property and for the potential employees in the area where the deposit is located, it is currently illegal in Virginia to mine for uranium. The good news is that the moratorium on uranium mining is on the agenda for this year’s legislative session. The legislators will not be making a decision in a vacuum; there have been a number of carefully conducted studies performed during the past 18–24 months that provide valid scientific and economic information. Not surprisingly, there are also a number of groups that are actively pushing their own views of the situation.

Much of the rhetoric produced by the mining opponents has been unscientific storytelling aimed at spreading irrational fear, uncertainty, and doubt. The opponents have attempted to make the case that communities located dozens of miles away from a modern uranium mine are at risk of their water being contaminated with materials that harm their health. They have claimed that an underground mine would produce excessive noise, that a mine using rather mild solvents like carbonated water would produce noxious odors, and that a uranium mine extracting and shipping approximately 2,000 tons of metal per year would put an unmanageable burden on local roads.

It has been disturbing to read that communities full of people who should know better have decided to strongly oppose the uranium mine. Several cities and towns in the Hampton Roads area, which is home to a nuclear shipbuilding yard, several nuclear-powered aircraft carriers, more than half a dozen nuclear-powered submarines, and the two-unit Surry nuclear power station have decided that a well-regulated uranium mine located a few hundred miles away is an unacceptable risk.

One of the more frustrating arguments that the opposition has recently started to make is that hosting a uranium mine would lower property values for people living many miles from the site because of the supposed stigma that would be associated with the mine. The only possible reason for a widespread stigma that reduces property values is the negative public relations effort being conducted by the people opposed to the mine.

It is an argument that is almost as convoluted as the notion that a technology is “too controversial” to develop—when looking at the topic from the point of view of the very groups that have created the controversy.

On Sunday, January 13, 2013, the Roanoke Times published an op-ed titled Democrats should embrace uranium mining that was purposely aimed at breaking down barriers between the traditional factions associated with nuclear energy decision making.

Andrea Jennetta, who publishes Fuel Cycle Week and recently began blogging at I Dig U Mining, and I collaborated on that piece because we both understand the science, recognize the exceedingly low risk, and are well aware of the benefits of using uranium as a power plant fuel compared to using coal, oil, and natural gas.

We described the environmental benefits, the economic benefits, and the natural fit between uranium mining and Virginia’s history of nuclear energy enterprises. The state has been home to nuclear fuel manufacturing facilities for about 50 years, it hosts four commercial nuclear reactors, provides the technical headquarters for two nuclear plant design organizations, and supplies excellent educational institutions. Andrea and I know that uranium mining can be done safely and we are convinced that there are few places in the world more capable of safely hosting a new production facility. Here is the conclusion of our op-ed:

We puzzle over why Virginia Democrats automatically reject the findings of several economic studies on uranium mining in Pittsylvania County. Each shows a measurable improvement in the local economy and the creation of hundreds of new family-wage jobs, high-tech skills and increased funding for math and science education as a result of allowing the mine to be developed.

At the end of the day, we are urging Virginia Democrats to end the moratorium on uranium mining in the commonwealth. In doing so, they will be taking a huge step toward creating the kind of communities in Southside that reflect Democratic values: fighting climate change, providing equitable opportunities, building strong public education systems and creating prosperity for all.

Of course, I would be personally energized if the Republican Party decided that they wanted to compete to see which party could be the most supportive of safe extract of uranium. After all, that fuel is one of the basic components of a technology that offers a terrific opportunity for human society to increase its prosperity while reducing its current production of billions of tons per year of waste gases that have no place to go other than into our common atmosphere.

_________________________

Adams

Rod Adams is a nuclear advocate with extensive small nuclear plant operating experience. Adams is a former engineer officer, USS Von Steuben. He is the host and producer of The Atomic Show Podcast. Adams has been an ANS member since 2005. He writes about nuclear technology at his own blog, Atomic Insights.

9 thoughts on “Building support for uranium mining in Virginia

  1. JimHopf

    Jeff,

    And you read MY mind, especially with the analogy of blacks moving into the neighborhood.

    Not only is it unjust, but it is circular logic. Because some people (baselessly) fear the mine, it has a stigma and/or will reduce property values or business traffic, which results in a real effect, therefore it has a real negative effect, which justifies my opposition, and so on…….

    I also have to ask if there is any such “stigma” (or reduced property values and/or business prospects) surrounding coal mines, which have much larger environmental impacts, local health risks, and other undesirable features. I’ve always though the state was hypocritical in banning uranium mining but allowing coal mines to operate.

    One would also like to think that moral, high-minded people would not elect to live in (and thus lend any support to) an area where tobacco farming is still going on, but I digress…..

  2. Jeff S

    Rod – stop reading my mind lol.

    As for the issue of Stigma – the GP is probably not wrong, but the problem with stigma is that if it is unfounded, and nobody ever challenges the status quo, it will remain an unjust stigma forever. It’s unfortunate that some people might face economic harm because of stigma, but that doesn’t mean that other people should not be able to economically exploit the resources on their own land.

    That’s like arguing that blacks shouldn’t be allowed to move into your neighborhood because it’ll lower property values because of stigma. Too darn bad for you that other people are idiots. Anyhow, not EVERYBODY is such an idiot – if that Uranium mine opens up, there’s every reason to believe that there will be plenty of OTHER people who are HAPPY to buy property that is near where they got a job because of the economic stimulus of the mine to the local economy.

  3. radams

    @Jesse

    With all due respect to your ancestors, I have to admit that it is a little odd reading a complaint from a tobacco farmer about a uranium mine. There is little to no evidence that modern uranium mining poses any hazard to workers or the general public. In contrast. Several hundred thousand Americans die from exposure to tobacco products every single year. My father was one of them.

  4. radams

    Mr. Clements

    I have visited Coles Hill. The only people who will live next to the mine are the Coles. They own 3400 acres of land with some additional land under lease. That means they have no neighbors closer than about 1.5 to 2 miles away.

    Though I am not exactly a local, I am a Virginian and know that many of the people in this state have a lot of respect for private property. Putting a valuable resource off limits, even when there is plenty of evidence showing that the mineral extraction can be done safely is not a terribly American or Virginian thing to do.

  5. Rod Adams

    Mr. Clements,

    I am not dismissing concerns. I am trying to share information about the actual risk level so that people can recognize for themselves that people who have been working to convince them to be afraid have not been telling the truth.

    Scientists have been gathering data about the health effects of radiation for about 120 years. It is no mystery. There is essentially zero chance that the material that will be left over from the uranium extraction operation will endanger water supplies even a few hundred yards from the mine boundaries, much less several tens to hundreds of miles away.

    Uranium oxides are just not that mobile. The possible concentration is way below the level that will cause any negative health effects.

  6. Tom Clements

    Now that “propaganda artist” term is an interesting one. Who can argue with someone who lives by the proposed mine? Correct me if I’m wrong, but it seems like it’s mostly outsiders who are the one touting the project. If the project goes forward will the mining company agree to leave 50% of the profits in the counties impacted by the mine and compensate those like Mr. Andres whose property values are damaged?

  7. Tom Clements

    The concerns of people downstream from the mine, who drink water that will be impacted by the mine is a valid concern. Disavowing the concern of those people, including the Hampton Roads area, will win no friends.

  8. Pingback: Nuclear Townhall » Blog Archive » Daily PM Link Archives – Nuclear Townhall 1/14/2013

  9. Jesse Andrews

    My family has been farming tobacco in Pittsylvania Co. since the mid 1760s. Mr. Adams expects me and my neighbors to swallow his corporate- driven drivel about how uranium mining would benefit us, when up to this point the issue has done nothing to benefit anyone except the politicians who have been wined and dined to buy their support. I have recently sold some property in Chatham, and more than once my real estate agent had prospective buyers turn away when they discovered that a uranium mine six miles away might become a reality. You can put whatever word you want on that , but I call it STIGMA. And that is only the beginning of the destructive effect that mine and mill would have on our lives. The people of Southside Va. DO NOT WANT uranium mining and milling here, NOW OR EVER. And no
    propaganda artist such as Adams will ever convince us otherwise. Peddle your poison somewhere else.