Waring opined in 2016 that several media outlets reported on a study released by the U.S. Geological Survey that found an estimated 60 million pounds of uranium deposits in South Texas and estimated that another 200 million pounds of ore remains undiscovered. To put that in perspective, last year the United States used about 53 million pounds of uranium to power its nuclear plants, meaning the discoveries in Texas could potentially provide up to five years of nuclear fuel if mined.
Uranium is the most common fuel for nuclear power, which currently provides 19 percent of the country’s electricity. In Texas, two nuclear power plants provided about 11 percent of the electric power in the ERCOT region in 2015. Setting aside the risks nuclear plants themselves pose [Fact Check: What risks? No one died at Three-Mile Island, No one died at Fukushima, and Chernobyl was caused by Soviet Union's carelessness in design and management], advocates of nuclear power point to the fact that, unlike coal or gas plants, it does not produce harmful air emissions or CO2. And given the desperate need to reduce carbon pollution and combat climate disruption, it’s tempting to think nuclear power is a good choice to replace fossil fuels with that argument in mind.
Those in favor of nuclear power may see the recent USGS study as good news, and while motives behind nuclear may be well intentioned, the process of mining uranium is harmful to the environment by contaminating groundwater, which have the potential to seep into sources of drinking water.[Fact Check: This statement is incorrect and without basis. No drinking water has ever been contaminated uranium mining in Texas !!]
How Uranium is Mined?
When nuclear energy came to prominence in the 1950s, uranium was first mined through a technique called open-pit mining [Fact Check: Actually the first uranium were "underground mines" in Colorado, Utah, etc.]. Even long-abandoned open pit mines are still harmful today, requiring expensive cleanups to mitigate radiation.[Fact Check: Waring cites a reference dealing with issues in New Mexico, NOT Texas, which has always had better conditions for mining than New Mexico. Further, all open-pit uranium mines in Texas have been remediated and closed decades ago. Aerial phots of such sites show little if any sign of earlier mines in the area.] There are still open pit mines that are being managed in Texas.[This is not true !] Today, the primary method of extracting uranium in the U.S. is in-situ leaching (ISL), in which a solution of water, oxygen, and hydrogen peroxide is injected into aquifers, where uranium deposits are often found. This allows uranium to dissolve into the solution, and the uranium-rich mixture is then pumped back to the surface. From there the uranium is separated from the wastewater, and the waste is then injected back into the ground, supposedly uranium-free.[Fact Check: All wastewater from processing uranium is disposed of via a permitted waste injection well into permeable zones more than 1,000 feet below the surface and well below any useable drinking water.]
While ISL is a more efficient and overall less harmful technique than the outdated open pit mining [Note: for economic and environmental reasons, not becasue the open-pit method is outdated], studies have shown that the uranium content of the water surrounding mining operations often increases. In Texas, 68 percent of areas with in-situ operations had higher levels of uranium than before mining, according to a 2009 USGS study. But since mining companies usually use the highest level of uranium found throughout the entire aquifer before drilling to compare post-mining levels, the actual percentage could be higher.
Another study by geoscientist Dr. Bruce Darling found that out of the 13 samples he collected from Texas ISL sites, which include both exploratory and actual mining operations, all but two contained higher levels of uranium after mining was completed. [Note: Such samples did not indicate that the ground water outside the immediate mining had been contaminated. The fact is that the groundwater environment is generally reduced in the subsurface (very low oxygen), and uranium that was in solution during the in-situ mining operation is reduced back into solid form as it leaves the in situ mining site when encountering a reduced subsurface environment, hence no available uranium to travel down-gradient] Regulators sweep environmental problems under rug. [This comment is BS, regulations require time to implement properly].
Texas is home to two of seven active ISL mines in the U.S.—the Alta Mesa mine in Brooks County and the La Palangana mine in neighboring Duval County. The regulatory jurisdiction for uranium mining is split between the Railroad Commission (RRC) and the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ). The RRC regulates exploration projects, which are numerous but are only used to discover whether a mine would be profitable, while TCEQ oversees the actual mining operations that produce the bulk of uranium. Many have criticized the shared regulation of in-situ mining between two agencies, and have pointed out that the exploration process can lead to changes in groundwater quality and other potential impacts.[Note: These comments are only innuendos of wrong outcomes without basis or merit.]
Under TCEQ rules, mining companies are required to perform tests before mining begins to get a “baseline” measurement of uranium content. Some again have criticized this process since the baseline may have changed during the exploratory mining.[Note: Baseline of water quality has to be that quality of the ground water "before" mining began]. After mining is completed, according to the TCEQ website, ISL operations must “remove all radiological hazards and restore the groundwater of the now-depleted uranium capture zone back to pre-ISL conditions.” Miners must perform tests to make sure the final results are level with or less than original contaminant levels. [Note: That is correct.] But that requirement can be modified. The same law [its a permit, not a "law"] says that mining companies can request amendments that raise the requirement to above the original contaminant levels, relieving them of punishment after further polluting the water surrounding mining sites.[Note: This is not correct and BS in general. Any requests for variation in a permit, must have a good reason, certainly not to avoid "punishment after polluting the water ...."]. The law [the permit] says mining companies can send TCEQ requests to raise the level of uranium content allowed “after appropriate effort has been made to achieve restoration.”
For instance, the graph below from the same 2009 USGS study shows the original (blue) and final (red) levels of uranium at Texas ISL sites (both exploratory and actual mining sites), along with the amended allowable levels that TCEQ approved afterwards. The highest increase from baseline to amended uranium levels was almost 5,000 percent. [Note: Author Waring has misinterpreted the subject graph.]. The study mentions that the amended restoration values seem to be “relatively arbitrary value[s]” set by TCEQ, demonstrated by “the number of [mines] that set amended values at rounded whole numbers that were unrelated to any restoration level actually achieved” at the mining sites. Basically, Texas statutes and rules allow the TCEQ to be flexible with uranium companies to sidestep its own regulations when mining companies have polluted aquifers. [Note: Waring is misinterpreting the issues and showing increasing misinformation without foundation and/or merit]. The study by Darling found that out of 76 total ISL sites, exploratory and mining, TCEQ approved 51 amendments to raise the maximum uranium concentrations. He did not find an instance where TCEQ has denied an amendment request on record.[The TCEQ interacts with mine personnel to evaluate conditions that might arise requiring a modification to a permit. Darling served as an expert witness for an attorney who was suing mines funded by anti-mining groups with excessive money to spend. These obstructive "dives" in the assumed deep pockets of mining companies by money-grubbing, self serving attorneys are known in the anti-uranium, anti-nuclear community. For more on this problem, see Campbell, et al., (2018), subject Review].
This is not including data that both the USGS and Darling study include about other harmful contaminants such as radium, arsenic, sulfate, and many others that end up seeping into groundwater after mining has occurred. [Note: More unfounded innuendoes by Author of wrong doing by mining companies in Texas. There have been no basis presented to date supporting such claims of "harmful contaminants ..... seeping into groundwater after mining has occurred.]
[A Few Anti-Uranium Mining] Texans have Fought Mines in Past.
In 2008, Uranium Energy Corp. (UEC) announced plans to build an ISL mine in Goliad County, Texas. Residents were concerned about the potential contamination of the aquifer that supplies many of their private wells. After years of legal battles, in 2014 the EPA partly rescinded its exemption of the Safe Drinking Water Act it granted UEC for the Goliad mine previously, citing a lack of evidence that certain areas are not used for drinking water. The EPA did not fully halt mining in Goliad, but removed certain areas from exemption that could potentially serve wells. [Note: Anti-mining group pressing issues with self-serving attorney (mentioned above)]
What’s next?
While the news of the recent uranium discovery may have piqued public interest in uranium mining, the environmental consequences are too damaging for it to be worthwhile.[Note: Pure anti-uranium mining rhetoric without merit or foundation, otherwise nothing but BS]. And although companies currently mining in the state may want to expand operations, don’t expect a rush for yellowcake in Southern Texas. After the Fukushima disaster [not disaster] in 2011 caused a renewed skepticism of nuclear power, prices for uranium have fallen to $36 per pound. Prices had been as high as $136 per pound in 2007.[Circumstances now are different (2021- This review). Uranium and nuclear are on the rise to back-up renewables and to ultimately replace them in the foreseeable future (more) and (more)].
Nuclear utilities aren’t worried about sourcing uranium, either. Fuel makes up such a small portion of their operating costs that prices for yellowcake could more than triple without hurting the bottom line. In addition, reactors are only fueled once a year [Note: Wrong. Refueled every 3-5 years], so there’s no need for nearby uranium sources. Ninety-four percent of U.S. uranium is imported from foreign countries, mainly Kazakhstan, Australia, and Canada.[This will change (more).]
The idea of increasing mining in Texas is a lose-lose, especially for nearby communities, even with the goal of a zero-carbon future in mind. We should not support the production of an energy source that is environmentally harmful [Note: this is absurd. Nuclear power is the safest form of energy in the world ....no one has died or irradiated in the past 50 years....except Chernobyl and that should not be counted], and in the case of Fukushima and Chernobyl, disastrous.[Note: Another absurd statement by author Warning. Yes, Chernobyl was a disaster, but Fukushima was not.... no one died, no one was irradiated ...] With climate disruption already drying up our water resources, polluting our remaining water with radioactive chemicals will serve no benefit, not to mention the vast water resources needed to supply nuclear power plants.[Note: claims made with no support, typical anti-nuclear biased mantras, designed to get people to spend money on worthless causes that are obstructions to the energy policy of today. This must stop or climate change will impact our lives significantly. Many of these anti-uranium and anti-nuclear support oil and gas and coal use .... who for help with the climate, see Shellenberger's work (more) ]
Instead, we should continue the increasingly profitable path of investing in 100 percent clean and renewable sources, such as wind and solar, as well as technologies that will help balance these resources, like energy storage and demand response. That way, we all benefit.[....not so fast, see (more)]
Managed & Built by I2M Consulting, LLC | © 2010-
