Showing posts with label Energy. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Energy. Show all posts

Saturday, June 8, 2019

Tariffs, Tourism, Texas Tour, SLC Tribune in the News; 6/8/2019 Bear Essentials


Warm Weather Finally Arrives in San Juan




~~Utah Attorney General Reviewing SJ County Open Meeting Complaints

~~ Trump Returned Nat'l Monument Public Lands to Former Status 

~~ How Decent People Can Save America from the Culture of Contempt

~~ Peter Stirba an Advocate for Rural Conservatives in Utah

       ~~So Should we Care?? Remembering the Past:

                    ~~Outdoor Gear Companies Tried to Sabotage Utah 2017

                    ~~ Patagonia Leads Boycott in Utah Feb. 2017

    ~~ Deja' vu How Many Feel about Outdoor Gear Companies













~~Industrialized Tourism and its Impact on Moab  -- Canyon Zephyr June 2019

~~ Transfer of Power in San Juan Commission Makes for Rough Ride  Bill Keshlear

~~ Solar Panels also Produce Toxic Waste

~~Socialism: A Substitute for Community Self Governance?

Graphic by Devin Bayles Hancock@2017

The Deceitful Land "Protection" Network (2017 Revisited)


--Wyss Foundation and other Big Funders Seeking to Control Public Lands  by Bill Keshlear 2019

"William and Flora Hewlett Foundation, whose endowment is in the neighborhood of $10 billion, is apparently not a direct contributor to UDB. However, since 2006 the nonprofit has directed $5.225 million to Grand Canyon Trust, which has greatly assisted the Bears Ears project with organizational sophistication and communication expertise."

Other Businesses Working against Multiple Land Use :

ArtPlace America, Colorado Plateau Foundation, Conservation Lands Foundation

Patagonia, Inc. , Conservation Alliance, Leonardo DiCaprio Foundation

                       First Nations Development Institute, Community Foundation of Utah


Lush Cosmetics, Chaco Sandals, Wigwam, Marc Toso Photography

Sunday, September 9, 2018

Energy Fuels Petitions President to Investigate Implications of Foreign Uranium Imports

Article published originally in Free Range Report Sept. 7, 2018
Republished with permission  
Today, the U.S. generates 20 percent of our electricity – and 60 percent of our clean, non-emitting electricity – from nuclear energy. U.S. producers supplied less than 5 percent of the fuel for these reactors in 2017, while unfriendly nations like Russia, Kazakhstan, and Uzbekistan have supplied about 33 percent of our reactor requirements.
 Interview by Marjorie Haun
A uranium mill in southeastern Utah has taken the lead in activating locals to reach out to the Trump Administration regarding the current imbalance in uranium trade practices and how they are harming rural economies and threatening our national security. With its headquarters in Lakewood, Colorado, Energy Fuels has a mill near Blanding, Utah which employs 150 workers, about 50 of whom are Native American, and which produces over 20 percent of America’s domestic uranium. Energy Fuels submitted a petition to the Commerce Department in January of this year, calling for an investigation into the national security and economic impacts of disproportionate uranium imports from other nations, including geopolitical rivals Russia and China. Commerce responded and initiated an investigation in July. The period for public commentary is ongoing and been extended to September 25. You can go HERE to submit comments if you like, and find additional information about the investigation titled, Section 232 National Security Investigation of Imports of Uranium. Published 7/25/18 (83 FR 35205).”
Uranium has been unfairly demonized in the media and popular culture for years. And because this “atomic” element is not well understood, fear-mongering campaigns by radical special interest groups have succeeded in perpetuating myths and impeding its domestic development. With modern applications primarily in energy production and medicine, today’s uranium is not the uranium of the 1940’s or even the 1990’s, and its uses are many with world demand growing. Free Range Report reached out Energy Fuels and their marketing director, Curtis Moore, gave us a real world perspective on the domestic uranium industry of today.
Free Range Report: Share with us a little about Energy Fuels, its history, and what projects you have in the works.
Logan Shumway: Energy Fuels is the largest US-based uranium and vanadium mining company, supplying U3O8 to major nuclear utilities. Uranium is used as the fuel for nuclear energy. Vanadium is used a hardening agent in high strength steel and other alloys. Vanadium is also used in large-scale batteries used with renewable energy systems. 

Headquartered in Lakewood, Colorado (near Denver), Energy Fuels holds three of America’s key uranium production centers, the White Mesa Mill in Utah, the Nichols Ranch Processing Facility in Wyoming, and the Alta Mesa Project in Texas. The White Mesa Mill is the only conventional uranium mill operating in the U.S. today and has a licensed capacity of over 8 million pounds of U3O8 per year (we expect to produce about 300,000 lbs. of U3O8 at that facility this year, along with about 500,000 lbs. of V2O5). 

The Nichols Ranch Processing Facility is an ISR production center with a licensed capacity of 2 million pounds of U3O8 per year (we expect to produce about 140,000 lbs. of U3O8at that facility this year). Alta Mesa is an ISR production center currently on care and maintenance. Energy Fuels also has the largest NI 43-101 compliant uranium resource portfolio in the U.S. among producers, and uranium mining projects located in a number of Western U.S. states, including one producing ISR project, mines on standby, and mineral properties in various stages of permitting and development.
FRR: What inspired you to reach out to the public with the petition to encourage President Trump to support Uranium?
Logan Shumway:The U.S. uranium mining industry is in crisis today, due to persistent low prices. In fact, during the 1st half of 2018, our industry produced uranium at the lowest levels since the late-1940’s! The problem is that this is exposing serious national security and energy security issues. This is the reason we petitioned the U.S. Department of Commerce and the President. 

Today, the U.S. generates 20 percent of our electricity – and 60 percent of our clean, non-emitting electricity – from nuclear energy. U.S. producers supplied less than 5 percent of the fuel for these reactors in 2017, while unfriendly nations like Russia, Kazakhstan, and Uzbekistan have supplied about 33 percent of our reactor requirements. Numbers from China are kept confidential; however, they have announced that they intend to target the U.S. nuclear market. In addition, U.S. defense is inextricably tied to uranium, including fueling aircraft carriers, submarines, and other vessels in the U.S. Navy, and uranium is a critical component in our nuclear deterrent including tritium production. 

The governments of Russia, China, and the others heavily-subsidize state-owned entities that produce uranium and nuclear fuel. Free market producers, like we have in the U.S. and in allies like Canada and Australia, simply cannot compete against these foreign government sponsored enterprises. These unfriendly nations are literally on the verge of dominating the global nuclear industry, which has serious implications for U.S. national security and energy security. We must maintain a viable uranium mining and nuclear fuel industry for the sake of national defense and energy security.
In our Petition, we asked for a trade quota that reserves 25 percent of the U.S. uranium market for U.S. uranium producers. That means U.S. uranium production would have to increase from about 1.5 million pounds per year to about 10-12 million pounds per year. This is very achievable, and you wouldn’t see large-scale uranium mining popping up all over the nation. Some news reports have indicated that we asked for a tariff – this is not true.
FRR: Have you or the company ever been activated in political outreach prior to this?
Logan Shumway: Not at this scale. We’ve always been very engaged at the local level and with our local, state and federal regulators. But, it’s only recently that we’ve become embroiled in issues of national significance. And, while it’s tough for a little company like us to deal with it all, we’re glad our industry is getting some of this attention. People need to know the truth about our industry, where their energy comes from, and how it all ties to national security.
FRR: How has the uranium industry changed since the 1950’s?
Logan Shumway: It has changed in numerous ways – too many to count – mainly in protecting human health, worker safety, and the environment. Also, in the 1950’s, uranium mining was government controlled, as the U.S. government was the only buyer of uranium. During the Cold War, the government needed uranium for weapons, and later for the development of commercial reactors, and human health and the environment sometimes took a backseat to national security imperatives. Compared to today, uranium mining in the 1950’s was essentially unregulated. Today, we have much better understandings of how to mine uranium efficiently and responsibly. In fact, we lead the world on these issues.
FRR: Are horror stories coming from environmental groups and the Outdoor Industry Association something the public needs to worry about?
Logan Shumway: No, almost everything they point to occurred during the unregulated, Cold War era. They truly do not understand – nor do they want to understand – about how the modern uranium mining industry operates and is regulated. It is also somewhat dismaying to us that these groups, who claim to be fighting air pollution and climate change, are so anti-nuclear.  Nuclear energy is – by far – the best way we have to address these issues. As I said, nuclear provides 60 percent of the clean, non-emitting energy in the U.S. However, most of the mainstream environmental groups are anti-nuclear. It makes one wonder what their true agenda is.
FRR: What applications are there for uranium other than weapons and energy production? What innovations are in the future for uranium?
Logan Shumway: Almost all uranium is used for energy production, not weapons, and small amounts are used in medical applications.
FRR: How many jobs could your company bring into southeastern Utah?
Logan Shumway: At full capacity, the White Mesa Mill employs about 150 people with good-paying jobs for the area, many with benefits. We are also a major employer of Native Americans – today about one-third of our workforce is Native American and at full capacity about half would likely be Native American. In addition, we would hire miners and support personnel at our mines. We do not know how many people this will total at this time; however it would likely be in the hundreds.
FRR: What do you foresee for the future of uranium domestically and internationally?
Logan Shumway: A lot depends on how the Administration reacts to our Petition. As I said, the U.S. produces 20 percent of our electricity from nuclear. This comes from 99 nuclear reactors. This number is likely to drop somewhat as a few older units close in the coming years. However, the U.S. will be a major producer of nuclear energy – and consumer of uranium – for many decades to come. So, the demand for uranium in the U.S. exists. 
As for the future of uranium mining, if the Administration provides our industry with the support we’ve requested (the quota), within about 3-5 years the domestic uranium mining industry would grow to a critical mass of viability in terms of operating facilities, technical expertise, and personnel. It wouldn’t be huge, but it would certainly be healthier than it is today. You would likely see the White Mesa Mill increase its level of activity and employment, and a few mines in southeast Utah would re-open. You would also see increased production at mines and processing facilities in other states, mainly Wyoming and Texas. 

If the Administration does not act to support the industry, you would likely see all uranium production in the U.S. shut down and (in time) be reclaimed, expect perhaps the White Mesa Mill. The White Mesa Mill has other businesses that can keep it afloat, including vanadium production, alternate feed material processing (recycling certain materials for the recovery of uranium), and land cleanup work. On this last note, there are a number of government-sponsored, Cold War era uranium sites scattered around the Four Corners Region, including over 500 on the Navajo Nation. There are efforts underway today to cleanup those sites properly. The White Mesa Mill is actually a perfect location to recycle material from those cleanups that contains recoverable quantities of natural uranium – it would basically be low-grade ore. That business could keep White Mesa operating for a number of years as well. However, it would be scrapping business together, like it is today.
FRR: What would you like to say to people who may still be skeptical?
Logan Shumway: Don’t believe what you read in mainstream media outlets about uranium mining! There are activists who spread a lot of misinformation about what we do, and journalists simply don’t have the time or inclination to research verify the activists’ claims. Second, our industry carries a lot of Cold War baggage. However, almost all of the problems with our industry occurred during the 1940’s to 1960’s – or before. Think about the cars we were driving back then; or the computers we were using.  It’s night-and-day. There are people that think uranium miners haven’t changed since those days; nothing could be further from the truth.  
In addition, see the discussion below about “natural uranium.”  Some people think our industry is nefarious and shrouded-in-mystery – probably a relic of the Cold War era. But, really what we do is quite benign. Of course, you have to handle uranium properly and safely, and you have to be very conscious of the health and environmental impacts of our operations. But, the hazards of uranium mining and processing are not all that different from other mineral processing or industrial activities.  As an extreme example, we sometimes have to laugh, when people decry the dangers of uranium ore trucks traveling down the road. But, those same people don’t bat-an-eye about trucks carrying gasoline, diesel, acid, chlorine, and other nasty chemicals on our roads; substances are orders-of-magnitude more dangerous than humble uranium ore. But, that’s the world we live in today.
FRR: What are some cool facts about uranium the public would be surprised to learn?
Logan Shumway: Uranium is an extremely common element, more common than tin, about 40 times more common than silver, and 500 times more common than gold. It is found in most rocks and sediments, in seawater, in aquifers, and in hot springs. If the price of uranium were high enough, we could produce it from the ocean. I used a term above, ‘natural uranium.’  This is an important concept, because I think there are people who think a nuclear power plant, or even a uranium mill, could blow up like a nuclear bomb – yes, I’ve heard people say these things at public hearings! 

“Natural uranium” is uranium as it occurs in nature – it is the element that we mine and process. Uranium is comprised primarily of two isotopes – U-235 and U-238. In nature, uranium is about 99.3 percent U-238 and 0.7 percent U-235. “Natural uranium” is stable, it is only mildly radioactive, and it cannot explode! Everything our company does involves “natural uranium,” from mining to processing to alternate feed materials. We produce natural uranium concentrate, also known as U3O8 or “Yellowcake”.

 I’ve often heard it said that the main health hazard from “natural uranium” is not its radioactivity, but its toxicity. Like you shouldn’t ingest lead, you shouldn’t ingest uranium. Uranium becomes “unnatural” when it is enriched – which is a process far down the nuclear fuel cycle, long after we’ve sold the product. We have nothing to do with enrichment.  Enrichment is basically the process of increasing the percentage of U-235 from 0.7 percent to about 3-5 percent for use in a nuclear reactor. At those levels of U-235, the material can sustain a low-level nuclear reaction and create heat. This heat is used to power a steam turbine and generate electricity in a nuclear reactor. If you want to make a nuclear weapon, you have to increase the level of U-235 to over 90 percent! 
Energy Fuels Reclamation Efforts:  Before and After 

One of several mine sites previously operated by Energy Fuels.  Upon completion, the company reclaims the areas where their operations have been.  They are good neighbors and attentive to the environment.
Site of Kanab North Mine 1990

Kanab North Mine 2015 ~~ After Reclamation

~~~~~~~

If you would like to support safe, regulated, environmentally-responsible domestic uranium production, please comment HERE or email uranium232@bis.doc.gov


~~~~~~~

Sunday, October 22, 2017

~~ Bear Essentials ~ Oct. 22, 2017~~


 vBe sure to Vote:  Nov. 7, Tuesday, or mail in your Ballot
vvForest Service meeting this week:  San Juan County Commissioner meeting Tuesday Oct 24th at the Monticello community/senior center. The local Forest Service Agency presentation at 9:45 am, with a Q & A session. If you care about cattle grazing, road obliteration; if you are against the USFS creating a large wilderness area in the forest; or are concerned about limiting access to ATV's, and perhaps firewood gathering, hunting, and all other recreational opportunities in the Manti La Sal Forest, you ought to go to the meeting. It starts at 9:00, Forest Service scheduled at 9:45. But come early in case they are ahead of schedule.

v Satire of the week:
v Roast Marshmallows, Not Forests  “We cannot preserve a beautiful forest forever like a photograph, because it is still growing, and eventually dying. Today’s overgrown national forests produce at least twice as much new growth as managers remove every year, so the situation continues to get worse while Congress fiddles. Our generation has thus squandered the great legacy of the conservation movement, our national forests.”

Good News Bears

n  Definitely time for Antiquities Act Reform  Op-ed by Matt Anderson
n   Grazing not to blame for bull trout decline  14 yr. Old law suit dismissed


  Bad News Bears         
According to a tally from that year, there were more than 20 federal agencies or departments that EACH had MORE personnel than Congress.  The Department of Agriculture alone had nearly six times more employees (95,223 vs. 16,432). Utah State Rep. Ken Ivory (R), co-chair of the Commission on Federalism, describes America’s current state as a bike with lopsided tires – one overinflated, the other completely flat. To him, it’s not so much about who is holding the handlebars. America simply can’t move forward until the air pressure is more equitably distributed.
So in February, members of Utah’s Commission on Federalism, with Trumpian winds at their back, drew up a list of more than five pages of powers they’d like to bring back to the state. Among them: Mitigate catastrophic fire risk on national forests and rangelands.”
~~~~~


                                     Documenting Bears Ears “No Monument” efforts since July 2016

Friday, December 9, 2016

Bayles letter to Energy Advisor

Dear Brian Deese, Senior Energy Advisor

The residents of San Juan County, which include the Navajo and Ute tribes, strongly oppose the designation of a Bears Ears National Monument as proposed by the Bears Ears Inter-Tribal Coalition. Emotion aside, there are lawful, valid reasons why we oppose this monument. The proposal itself is severely deficient and requests actions by the President that are contrary to law.

The BEIT Coalition claims that they are “local by residence to the Four Corners Country.” However, the “Four Corners Country” is not an institutional entity that creates law and policies that govern land use – it’s simply a region. Members of the Coalition are not residents of San Juan County. They are not even residents of Utah. They do not have legal jurisdiction over the Bears Ears area, and by claiming they are “local” via Four Corners Country they are trying to move an already established goal post and define their OWN goal post of what it means to be “local”. That’s fine, they have the right to believe and express how they feel. However, that does not give them actual rights to the land; only political bodies can make policy decisions about this land. “Four Corners Country” is not a citizen, or even a member, of any of those actual functioning jurisdictional entities. The proposal itself disregards no less than 18 land use planning efforts. A non-government organization such as the Coalition should never have the power to trump sovereign State rights, nor duly elected officials, no matter how much money they have been given from outside special interest groups.

Local tribes realize that their own tribal leaders have been bought out by outside special interest groups. Recently, the Ute tribe from White Mesa – one community that will be directly affected by this monument – voted out three of their representatives who are a part of the Coalition. The community was never made aware that a Bears Ears monument was even being discussed and subsequently, they never had the chance to voice their opposition until recently. Evidence of this is provided in the following video with a comment made by Suzette Morris, a Ute resident of White Mesa, to Regina Lopez-Whiteskunk, former Ute Mountain Ute Chairwoman, at a recent tribal meeting in White Mesa, Utah https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sa_TyQzLKiI.

In the proposal, the Coalition makes claims of “rampant looting” and “grave robbing” and states that “more than a dozen serious looting cases were reported between May 2014 and April 2015.” However, those claims were never cited, much less verified. In fact, those claims are in stark contrast with reports from local law enforcement, the US DOI briefing on looting activities, and the BLM.

The most important point, albeit upsetting and downright disturbing, that I want to address is the dishonesty that the Coalition has shown since day one. They claim that the seeds of their proposal were planted and nourished by local Navajos, when in reality, it was in fact environmental groups that planted the seeds of this monument into the soil of these tribes. In 2014 a meeting of the Conservation Lands Foundation was held in San Francisco where board members discussed the progress of what was then known as the “Cedar Mesa campaign” (later it would be known as the Bears Ears proposal). Chairman Ed Norton was quoted in official minutes questioning if their group was “hitching our success to the Navajo and if so what would happen if we separate from them or disagree with them. Without the support of the Navajo Nation, the White House probably would not act; currently we are relying on the success of our Navajo partners.”  

The Coalition does not have the local tribes’ best interest in mind. They proved that by ignoring the entire Aneth Chapter of the Navajo Nation by submitting the chapter's 2010 resolution in support of the monument as part of their October 2015 official proposal, when in fact the chapter rescinded in August of 2015 and officially announced their opposition to the monument.

Many surveys have been generated regarding public opinion on the proposed monument. The one that the Coalition most often promotes claims “55% of Utahns support a Bears Ears National Monument.” This poll in particular was conducted by Mike Matz from Pew Charitable Trusts organization. It should be noted that Matz headed the Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance (SUWA-one of the major financial proponents for the monument) from 1993-2000.  He used Public Opinion Strategies and the Benenson Strategy Group whose motto is “BSG is a strategic research consultancy that marries language expertise with innovative research to frame choices so that your brand is the only answer.” http://www.sltrib.com/news/4224034-155/poll-most-utahns-favor-a-bears. The poll included a phone survey of only 600 registered voters in Utah, yet not one San Juan County resident nor one Native American, was surveyed. Those two populations are the ones that will be most affected by this monument. http://www.pewtrusts.org/en/research-and-analysis/analysis/2016/08/11/new-poll-utahans-support-protections-for-bears-ears-area.

These are just a few of the reasons that locals, myself included, are so against this proposed monument. If it was the right thing to do, there would be at least some support from local Navajos, Utes, Anglos, and Hispanics alike - but there is not. If you want this land to continue being protected, because it is protected by BLM, Forest Service, and the good stewards of San Juan, please work with local county residents and elected officials.
A National Monument should be an honor to an area, not a punishment – and it should not be done TO the residents, but rather WITH the residents. I am attaching a copy of a conversation I had with a Navajo man who is a life-long resident of Bluff, Utah. Whether Bears Ears becomes a monument or not, the U.S. Department of Interior, the Council on Environmental Quality, the U.S. Department of Agriculture, and the President of the United States himself needs to see that the Bears Ears National Monument proposal is nothing but a Trojan Horse that will undoubtedly destroy this area.

Jami Bayles



Wednesday, December 7, 2016

Letter to President's Energy Advisor

Dear Brian Deese, Senior Energy Advisor,

Let me count the ways the Inter-Tribal Coalition Proposal for a Bears Ears Monument is Divisive, Defective, and, Discriminatory:

Designation of such a gigantic National Monument is a privilege that President Obama has already used to excess.  He and his environmental cronies have preyed upon the public lands of the West using multi-million dollar campaigns and media spin to justify such actions.  And you wonder why a line has to be drawn in the sand?  Those ill-conceived extreme actions in Utah, Oregon, Nevada, Hawaii, California, Maine and Arizona are still negatively reverberating throughout the country.  Such actions are contrary to federal laws, and the Bears Ears proposal has disaster written all over it. 

 Initially the proposal by the Coalition - though perhaps well intended by some – has now started to unravel.  The campaign has relied excessively on the power of money instead of truth, which gathered in leaders who could be bought.  Local Native People, are not so easily hoodwinked, and voted out some of these coalition representatives in the last election.  Top down, hand-picked coalition leaders do not, and will never represent a whole tribe, especially ones who never had a chance to vote on such a designation and whose relatives left this area for very good reasons of their own centuries ago.

Rural Americans. Native and Anglo alike, who live and depend upon this rural landscape in San Juan county have been good stewards.  Like urban residents, we too are upset when looting happens in our neighborhoods.  We don’t condone it, nor do we initiate it. We are tired of being categorized in that way, as you would be too, if the national press only publicized looting and destruction in the cities you live in.  We are one of the poorest counties in the nation, and we resent this discriminatory act which would further curtail our chances of economic success. Our county needs multi-use sections of land to support water, power, and road infrastructure, as well as schools, hospitals, and other facilities. The Federal Government does not have a good track record in paying their bills nor in dealing with rural people. Another Monument in Utah will only cause more problems and mistrust.  We cannot jeopardize important services and education by stopping energy production. Nor can tourists afford to drive to this isolated area, without fuel.  

This proposal is very divisive.
The proposal requests actions by the Secretaries and the President that are clearly contrary to law. As an NGO, the Coalition lacks jurisdiction to make such a request, and the proposal itself disregards no less than 18 land use planning efforts.  A NGO should never -- no matter how much foreign money it accepts -- have the power to trump sovereign State rights, nor duly elected officials.  No one in the Four Corners area voted for SUWA, CLF, or Grand Old Broads for their representatives.  Globalists and extreme environmental organizations which seek to weaken this republic, do not represent us.

The POTUS has certain steps that must be complied with prior to designating a monument. The Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA) is supposed to be reviewed and managed in accordance with this act. The Advance Research Projects Agency (ARPA), the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), the National Park Service Preservation statutes have hoops that need to be jumped through.

At the state level the State Historic Preservation Officers (SHPO) are all supposed to be contacted and considered. We question whether an environmental assessment has even been completed, yet it’s a rule designated by CEQ.  These are just a few of the reasons we are so against, having another National Monument in the State of Utah, and in our backyard.  Utah has already committed 66% of their land to the “public” for various state and federal parks or monuments. What have we gotten back:  Over-promoted areas attracting herds of tourists more concerned about taking selfies against a beautiful backdrop than protecting the culture and history. If you want to have this land truly protected, work with local county residents; get them on your side, and scale this gigantic 1.9 million acres to a Conservancy area in the Cedar Mesa area only. 
Additional reasons why I am against a Monument are contained in this document. http://sanjuancounty.org/documents/Advisability%20of%20Designating%20the%20Bears%20Ears.pdf
Sincerely,

Janet Wilcox, co-founder of Blue Mountain Shadows

A Region Magazine of culture and history serving the Four Corners Area