Culpepper's Star Exponent Runs Great Piece on Uranium Mining Study Process

It's great to see that the uranium mining issue is getting exposure statewide. This piece published today is a clear-minded look at how Virginians should approach the study process.

Most of the media attention surrounding this issue is coming from the areas of Southside and Hampton Roads. The coverage has mostly been negative because there's a media push being driven by mining opponents and they're trying to scare people into believing that uranium mining is unsafe.

I believe these opponents can't truthfully say this until the Virginia Coal and Energy Commission study is released.

Why Does the Uranium Study Group Report Condemn Computer Modeling?

In the Uranium Study Group report, the Halifax County Chamber of Commerce says, “Virginia should be wary of computer modeling of predicted future outcomes.” They say computer modeling of possible uranium diffusion through the water table shouldn’t be used because it’s unreliable.

I wouldn’t be surprised if we find out that this statement is false. The cited source for the claim comes from an organization called Earthworks that is dedicated to protecting the environment. The Virginia Commission on Coal and Energy should just do Earthworks a favor and ask Virginia Tech and the National Academy of Sciences to study the reliability of computer modeling. Earthworks should welcome the chance to prove themselves right.

It’s ironic that environmental groups like Earthworks are condemning computer modeling because these groups have inundated the airwaves with claims that global warming is happening and they have the “scientific evidence” to prove it. Considering their dependence on scientific evidence to prove that global warming is real, it would be hypocritical of environmental groups if they condemned the use of computer modeling in the study of uranium.

If the VCCE study finds that computer modeling is reliable, then computer modeling should be used when we all interpret its conclusion.

USG Recommendations Should Be Balanced With Positive Questions

The Halifax County Chamber of Commerce released their Uranium Study Group report earlier this month and it contains a comprehensive list of concerns by groups that oppose mining in Southside Virginia. Local community and environmental groups are having their voices heard in Richmond, but they shouldn’t be leading the discussion during the planning process for the study.

The USG report doesn’t contain the concerns of Virginians who would like to know the positive aspects of mining for uranium. Such as: How much does Virginia stand to benefit if mining is permitted? How much has technology improved since uranium mining was first conducted? Has mining been performed successfully?

Virginians have concerns about uranium mining and they don’t only focus on the negative aspect of uranium mining’s history. The questions that the USG posed to Virginia’s Coal and Energy Commission need to be balanced with positive views of uranium mining that give consideration to the improvements that have been made to mining technology.

The uranium mining study wouldn’t be fair and balanced if we only focused on the questions asked in the USG report.

Nuclear Energy Will Help End Dependence on Foreign Oil

The Wall Street Journal published an op-ed yesterday that talks about how America can end our dependence on foreign sources of oil. They explain:

“Pursuing nuclear power is another important option if we aim to reduce our carbon footprint and reliance on oil from hostile nations. Currently the U.S. is way behind the curve. Given the vast proliferation of nuclear power world-wide, its cleanliness, its efficiency, and its low cost, surely nuclear should not be off-the-table."

America’s urgent need for nuclear energy is another reason why we must study uranium mining in Virginia to see if it’s safe.

Does USG Report Really Address Community's Concerns?

Community Concerns Related to Uranium Mining in Virginia is the ambitious title to the recently released report from the Uranium Study Group. Did the group really talk to the entire “community” in the 131-page document?

The actual report is only about 20-pages long and it’s not too hard to read; I recommend you skim it. The other 111-pages contain the appendix that contains the sources of their report.

How can the Uranium Study Group be sure they addressed the concerns of the entire community? I don’t think they really did.

If you asked them, I’m sure the USG would say they did. If they think they addressed the concerns of the entire community, then I think we have a differing opinion on the definition of community.

In the context of the uranium mining issue, the community consists of the entire state of Virginia; they will be the ones who will decide to overturn the mining ban if that’s considered.

This report was released by the Halifax County Chamber of Commerce; do they have the resources to find out how Virginians feel about uranium mining?

The USG actually raises some excellent questions in their report, but I don’t think they can say they’ve addressed the concerns of entire community by just talking to their neighbors in South Boston.

Initial Thoughts on Uranium Study Group Report

Last Friday, the Uranium Study Group presented their report to Virginia’s Commission on Coal and Energy. The VCCE is holding public meetings to receive input on the questions that should be answered when The National Academy of Sciences and Virginia Tech concludes their study on the safety and viability of uranium mining in Southside Virginia.

The Uranium Study Group was formed by the Halifax Chamber of Commerce in September. According to The News & Record, The Halifax Chamber tasked the USG with soliciting “written input from area residents and to ascertain and present those related issues that are of concern to Halifax citizens”.

I’ve skimmed the 131-page report and it includes more arguments against uranium mining than actual questions they want answered. The VCCE isn’t asking the public to make arguments against mining; they just want the public to give them questions that should be answered in the study’s conclusion.

I’m still going to read the USG report because I’m open to reading arguments against uranium mining, but I wish they would have stuck to presenting the VCCE with questions only.

Why I'm Not a Carpetbagger

I received a rather nasty email from someone yesterday and they implicitly accused me of being a carpet bagger. The writer opens up by saying, “it is easy enough for you to sit up there in no.va. and tell us here in southside what we should do”.

It would have naive of me to think these types of attacks weren’t going to happen. Guess I should have explained myself when I first started writing my blog.

The truth is: I am passionate about politics and really believe in nuclear energy. I’m blogging about this issue because I really want to help advocate for a source of energy that is cheap and could provide our country with thousands of jobs. Why shouldn’t I gain political experience with an issue that I believe in?

Also, I’m not profiting from the mining venture. Neither Virginia Uranium nor nuclear interests have approached me to write this blog. I’m not being compensated for writing it. This blog is a night time hobby.

The author of the email also implores me to, “come and visit” in order to talk to the people of Southside Virginia. Really wish I could do that; I’d love to engage the Southside community and find out what they want to know about uranium mining.

Unfortunately, I’m not some trust fund kid that’s independently wealthy enough to work for free. Wish I could work on this issue full time, but I’m not in a position to do that right now. Having to work in Alexandria prevents me from coming down. Plus, my girlfriend would kill me if I spent all my time in Southside.

The email’s author also goes on to warn me about the dangers of mining, but like many bloggers opposed to uranium, they don’t back up their claims with facts. How can you make a statement of fact and not back it up with some proof that you’re right? This person isn’t going to convince me to advocate against uranium if they don’t provide me with facts.

You know, when I started this blog, I very well could’ve lumped uranium opponents into the not-in-my-backyard crowd. I chose to not do this because attacking a person's character is a dirty tactic. I didn’t reply to the email and accuse this person of being a n.i.m.b.y. because attacking a person’s character is out of line.

The email’s author was out of line. In the future, when we discuss uranium mining, let’s have a civil conversation.

"It's hard to see why anyone would want to oppose a study."

The Richmond Times-Dispatch printed an op-ed in early December that explains why uranium mining opponents should support a study.

They explained: “Even those who reject the idea of mining for uranium in the commonwealth -- which is believed to hold what might be the largest deposit in the U.S. -- should welcome an objective review of the issue.”

They go on to spout some common sense when they pose a question to uranium opponents. “If the skeptics are dead right, then the study will give them lots of ammunition. If they're flat wrong, then isn't that something they would want to know?”

The Times-Dispatch recognizes that we must all have an open mind as the study is conducted. If we present all questions and answer them in the study, then we’ll feel confident in its conclusion.

Uranium Mining Study Will Address All Concerns

For the first time on Friday, the Virginia public was able to present the state agency presiding over the study with a list of questions they want answered when it’s released.

Citizens told the state they want to know “the environmental, safety, health, economic and social implications of allowing mining”. They also want to know “whether mining will be safe for county residents’ health, not only today, but three or 30 years from now, and what the site will look like 300 years later.” And most importantly, they will know “the potential for air and water contamination”.

The public will have several more months to give their input into the study. The state will even hold a meeting with residents near the mine. The study will begin after the public has their say and will take eighteen months to complete.

No Need to Bailout America's Nuclear Industry

Congress and President Bush are currently preoccupied with the state of the Big Three and how much they’ll need to spend in order to keep them afloat. They may have to worry about the auto industry, but they’ll never need to worry about the nuclear industry.

Fox News published a story that says the nuclear industry doesn’t need subsidies to stay in business because they're profitable. The Heritage Foundation’s Jack Spencer notes, “There is a growing demand for clean, affordable, reliable energy.” Nuclear energy provides a cheap source of energy that Americans want.

Going nuclear will not only give America the energy we need, it will also provide us with the much needed jobs our country wants. Spencer goes on to say, “the nuclear industry is creating thousands of high-skill, high-paying actual jobs”.

Let’s hope the study shows that uranium mining is safe. Southside Virginia could use the reliable energy and profitable jobs it will bring.

Chase City Takes Cynical View of Study Process

Chase City passed a resolution on Tuesday night condemning uranium mining in Virginia. Halifax and Virginia Beach have already passed similar resolutions.

Chase City’s resolution is highly frustrating because it seems a cynical view of the study process is the main motivation for bringing it to a vote. After passing the resolution, Chase City Councilman Charles Willis told reporters, “I just don’t trust the process”.

Like other uranium opponents, Mr. Willis thinks the study will favor Virginia Uranium, Inc. because they have offered to pay for it. Mr. Willis went on to say, “I don’t think under the circumstances it can be a fair process”.

Do these opponents even know how the study process will work? Virginia Uranium isn’t conducting the study. The National Academy of Sciences and Virginia Tech will be paid to conduct it.

As I’ve stated in a previous post, the National Academy of Sciences and Virginia Tech are world-class institutions that thrive on their impartiality. Also, they have nothing to gain monetarily by favoring Virginia Uranium, Inc in their study results.

Gov. Kaine vouched for these institutions today by saying they’re “very credible”.

Chase City should’ve waited until the study is released before they pass judgment on uranium mining. Instead, they let cynicism consume them and decided to not give to study process a fair chance.

Update: Gov. Kaine commented again on the fairness and impartiality of the study on Friday. He said, "If you pick a group like the National Academy of Sciences, they're going to give you an accurate answer."

Gretna Residents: Tell Town Council to Vote Against Chemical Trespass Ordinance

The Gretna Town Council is unfortunately considering a chemical trespass ordinance like the one that Halifax passed in February. The passing of this ordinance would be a defeat for Gretna residents who would like the town to wait until the study is released before passing judgment on the uranium mine.

I urge the residents of Gretna to contact their town councilmen and ask them to give the study process a chance to play out. You should also let them know that condemning Virginia Uranium at this time would be a premature decision because the study process has just begun.

The councilmen cannot be reached directly, but you may leave a message with the town’s administrative office. They will then forward the messages to the councilmen. To leave a message, call (434) 656-6572.

It’s very important that your elected officials hear your voice because environmental groups are winning these policy battles by using scare tactics and making false accusations. They will continue winning them if uranium mining supporters don’t voice their support for the study. Call now!

Chatham City Council Won’t Vote on Chemical Trespass Ordinance

On Monday night, Chatham’s City Ordinance Committee intelligently voted against recommending a full vote on a chemical trespass ordinance. Early proponents of the ordinance said passing it would allow the city to file criminal charges against Virginia Uranium, Inc. if they started mining on their land.

Halifax has already passed a chemical trespass ordinance, but Virginia Attorney General Robert McDonnell deemed them worthless in November by citing the state law on uranium mining that trumps local law.

Commenting on the deliberations over the ordinance, The Chatham Star-Tribune said the committee “decided to against recommending a non-effective ordinance”.

By choosing to not vote on a chemical trespass ordinance, the City of Chatham is demonstrating that they can keep an open mind. Let’s hope that continues throughout the study process.

Virginia Beach City Council Failed to Keep an Open Mind

The Danville Register Bee published another editorial today that presented Virginia Uranium Inc. in a negative light. Their editorial board commended Virginia Beach for “opposing the mining of uranium in the Commonwealth of Virginia in the absence of an unbiased, conclusive study of the potential effects thereof”

First of all, why is the City Council being so impatient and reactionary? The Virginia Legislature just approved the study of uranium mining. It’s going to take a couple of years to complete. Also, why not wait and condemn uranium mining until after the report is released?

Second, the ordinance assumes the study will be biased and inconclusive. Why is the City Council being so pessimistic? The National Academy of Sciences and Virginia Tech are world-class institutions that thrive on their impartiality. All Virginians will get a fair study.

The Virginia Beach City Council decided to condemn uranium mining, but they also said they support the study. This just shows they have failed to keep an open mind about the study process. The ordinance was a poorly worded knee-jerk reaction to Virginia Uranium gaining permission for an independent academic study that won’t cost taxpayers a dime.

Virginia Uranium Blog Supports VA Uranium Now!

Blaire Utterback from the Virginia Uranium Blog stopped by my personal Facebook account to show her support for VA Uranium Now! Here's her message:

"Huge fan of the va uranium blog. I did some blogging in favor of sb 525 earlier in the year at http://www.virginiauraniumblog.com/, if you'd like to check it out."

Thanks for reading Blaire. Everyone should check out her blog.

Hopefully I can talk her into posting again. Supporters of Virginia's uranium industry need her help!

Why Does the Environmental Community Oppose Academic Study of Uranium Mining?

The Virginia environmental community has made it clear that they will stand in the way of any study into the safety and viability of uranium mining in Southside Virginia.

We saw this when the Virginia Legislature was deciding if they were going to allow a uranium study earlier this year. In an effort to block it, environmental groups resorted to trashing the academic community.

Speaking at a Halifax town meeting in January, Project Director of the Community Environmental Legal Defense Fund told the crowd, “It is up to the majority of the residents, not corporations or scientific experts, to determine whether uranium mining will be permitted in Pittsylvania County.”

First of all, what does Mr. Price have against the academic community? Educators won’t present biased information; they have nothing to gain monetarily by favoring Virginia Uranium, Inc. Mr. Price has taken a very cynical view of the study process.

Second, I don’t think anyone believes corporations and “scientific experts” are in cahoots. Conventional wisdom would tell us the business community and academics often take antagonistic viewpoints.

In November, environmental groups showed their distain after Virginia’s Coal and Energy Commission decided to allow an independent and unbiased study that would explain the implications of mining for uranium. This obstructionist behavior will only disrupt the study process.

Why is Virginia’s environmental community standing in the way of academic research that will simply tell us if uranium mining is safe to perform in Southside Virginia? This will only lead to a muddied study that will give us inaccurate results. I must ask the environmental community to keep an open-mind during the study process.

Virginia Environmental Lobby is Goliath in David’s Clothing*

The Danville Register Bee is hammering Virginia Uranium, Inc. for spending $95,000 on lobbyists to help win approval for the study on uranium mining. The paper has even printed an op-ed piece where the author compares uranium opponents to the bible’s David.

The Virginia environmental lobby would like you to think they battled Goliath when the study was being debated earlier this year, but their characterization of themselves as a modern-day David is a complete misrepresentation.

Eight Virginia environmental groups** spent over $143,000 on lobbyists this year. These groups don’t run boot-strap operations; their campaign coffers aren’t dwarfed by Virginia Uranium’s. The Virginia environmental lobby is a well-oiled fundraising machine that has the cash to fight whomever may stand in their way.

The Danville Register Bee quoted Southside Concerned Citizen's board member Eloise Nenon as saying it was “ludicrous” to believe that anti-mining groups are throwing their money around in Richmond. The lobbying disclosures show us that Nenon’s statement is a total fabrication.

It’s irresponsible for The Danville Register Bee to scrutinize Virginia Uranium’s lobbying efforts without looking into spending by the environmental lobby. If they did, Virginians would see that the uranium mining debate isn’t pitting David versus Goliath.

* The title is a quote I read from a poster on The Danville Register Bee’s website. They were responding to a story about uranium mining. I unfortunately don’t have a link to the post.

** These groups include Piedmont Environmental Council ($32,385), Virginia League of Conservation Voters ($30,230), Southern Environmental Law Center ($12,845), Sierra Club Virginia ($6,977), Earthsource Solutions ($6,000), Chesapeake Bay Foundation ($46,500), Chesapeake Climate Action Network ($5,500), National Parks Conservation Association ($1,200) and the Tropical Forest Foundation ($2,000).

VA Attorney General: Local Anti-Uranium Ordinances are Unconstitutional

In an effort to prevent uranium mining in Southside Virginia, municipalities near Virginia Uranium's property have started passing chemical trespass ordinances that they hope would keep them out of operation. Supporters of these ordinances want uranium mining to be considered a criminal activity. Halifax has already passed a chemical trespass ordinance and other towns like Chatham are trying to follow suit.

As it turns out, these towns are breaking the law by passing these ordinances.

In November, Virginia Attorney General Robert McDonnell rebuffed uranium mining opponents by ruling that chemical trespass ordinances are unconstitutional. He stated that, “a Virginia locality may not enact an ordinance that diminishes, alters, or eliminates legal rights, particularly where the state or federal government may be said to occupy the field.”

Uranium mining opponents are already employing illegal tactics to shut down Virginia Uranium’s operation. Why don’t they just let the academic community release their unbiased study on uranium mining before taking these drastic measures?

Ideologues Shouldn’t Hinder Innovation in Alternative Energy

The news that Virginia is going to study uranium mining in Southside has the state's ideologues up-in-arms. Both sides of the political divide keep Virginians from possibly securing a cheap and domestic source of energy to power our homes and military. Free market conservatives and anti-development liberals are at war over the prospect of mining America's largest undeveloped uranium deposit.

The libertarian-right would like to "cut the red tape" and quickly release a study that favors the business community. These uranium supporters want the government to "get of their backs". This philosophy is flawed because adherents don't see that development has its drawbacks and must be monitored by government to make sure our actions won't hurt us. Oversight is a good thing.

On the other side of the uranium mining debate, environmental absolutists have the mentality that all development is bad if the earth is affected in any way. Every new improvement to our infrastructure is met with suspicion. It's as if they assume any development will hurt the environment before they hear the facts. These uranium opponents shouldn't stifle academic research which might prove that uranium mining is safe for Virginians.

As the academic community studies Virginia uranium mining in the next two years, opponents and proponents must have an open-mind and accept the unbiased facts that are presented to us.