Energy Fuel’s CEO Glasier Says Uranium Mill Needed Soon
by Gus Jarvis
Apr 21, 2009 | 2555 views | 9 9 comments | 12 12 recommendations | email to a friend | print
MILL MEETING - Energy Fuels Inc. President and CEO George Glasier described the need for a uranium mill in the Paradox Valley. (Photo by Gus Jarvis)
MILL MEETING - Energy Fuels Inc. President and CEO George Glasier described the need for a uranium mill in the Paradox Valley. (Photo by Gus Jarvis)
slideshow
Special Use Application Request in the Works to Address Anticipated Nuclear Energy Boom

NORWOOD – Despite the fact that the price of uranium has plummeted in today’s volatile economy, Energy Fuels Inc. president and CEO George Glasier said on Thursday in Norwood that with the U.S.’s climbing energy needs, the need for uranium ore has returned – giving cause to go forward with the construction of the Piñon Ridge Uranium Mill in the Paradox Valley.

If built, the mill would be the first uranium mill constructed in the U.S. in 25 years.

Energy Fuels Inc., a publicly traded company on the Toronto Stock Exchange, owns approximately 880 acres in the Paradox Valley, 12 miles east of Bedrock, where the proposed uranium mill would be located. That location sits in the middle of the Uravan Mineral Belt, where high-grade uranium and vanadium is abundant. The proposed mill is being sized to process 1,000 tons of uranium ore a day, with the help of 85 full-time employees.

Energy Fuels has so far spent $8 million in the planning of the expected $150-million mill and has recently finished collecting baseline data at the site for the past year in an effort to define current conditions on and near the site for air, groundwater, surface water, soil vegetation, radiation, and wildlife.

Glasier is expecting to go through the special use application process with the Montrose County Board of County Commissioners sometime in May or June. If the special use permit is issued, Glasier anticipates submitting the Material License Application and Environmental Report to the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment sometime in the fourth quarter of 2009. If the process goes smoothly, construction on the mill could begin early 2011.

Glasier was the keynote speaker at the Norwood Chamber of Commerce meeting in Norwood on Thursday; he explained how the location for the building of the mill was selected, and why the mill will be needed, soon.

Uranium, according to Glasier, is in its third boom cycle now, and nuclear-generated electricity will be doubling in capacity over the next 20 years in the U.S. “If you are going to have clean power, you cannot do it with just water, solar and wind,” Glasier said “You must have more nuclear.” Right now, he said, 115 million pounds of uranium is produced in the U.S. each year – not enough to meet the country’s demand of 175 million pounds a year, a number Glasier anticipates will climb.

“Four years ago the prices climbed back because nuclear power has come back,” he said, adding that there are 440 nuclear power plants in the world, 104 of them are in the U.S. “Companies around the world are committed to double their capacity in the next 20 years. Uranium inventories are going fast and we have to find new production sources.”

Southwestern Colorado/eastern Utah at one time had five operating uranium mills, but since the price for the ore fell in the 1980s, the area now only has one active uranium mill in Blanding, Utah, which Glasier said doesn’t have the capacity to meet the upcoming demand.

Stephen Antony, executive vice president and chief operating officer at Energy Fuels, said that the company researched seven possible sites in the western U.S. for its mill. Because the Piñon Ridge site was centrally located to the mines, it has “reasonable” access to water, it received a “favorable” reaction from the CDPHE, power is already available, it is located off of U.S. Highway 90, and that the “local community welcomes the project” the location was selected and purchased by Energy Fuels.

“Overall, there is a favorable permitting environment for both the mill and the mines, we believe,” Antony said. “We concluded that there is plenty potential for a 1,000-ton-per-day mill.” Energy Fuels did investigate the Pioneer Nuclear Site in San Miguel County as a possible mill site, but decided against it because “San Miguel County would be more reluctant to approve it.”

Glasier said the mill would have a substantial impact on the economy in the West End of Montrose County, as well as on the western communities of San Miguel County. He said that the mill will have the potential to create 85 full-time jobs – and that, along with trucking the ore from the company’s two area mines (the Whirlwind near Gateway and the Energy Queen near La Sal, Utah), jobs could be created for as many as 400 people.

“We need to create more jobs that pay higher wages rather than cleaning condos in Telluride, for instance,” Glasier said. “The mill will operate seven days a week, 24 hours a day. The mill has to operate all of the time. Hopefully, we can hire locally. Most of the jobs, we can train for.”

Glasier said an employee working in the mill will make $45,000-50,000 a year, with miners making at the most at about $90,000 a year and truckers making somewhere in between those two figures. At Energy Fuels, Glasier said 60 percent of employee bonuses are tied to safety and environmental compliance.

“This is a change from the old days of produce, produce, produce. We have initiated this program where we really stress environmental and safety issues and they don’t get paid nearly as much if they don’t comply,” he said.

With public hearings looming on the horizon for the mill, Thursday’s meeting was relatively quiet, with relatively little opposition to the mill voiced. Almost one year ago, Glasier held an informational meeting at the Norwood Community Center, where he fielded opposition regarding what health, safety and environmental impacts the mill could bring to the region. But at the April 16 meeting, Glasier said, it will be the public that decides whether or not the Paradox Valley will see the construction of the mill.

“There are going to be public hearings, and we know not everybody wants it,” Glasier said, of the mill. “The key is, if the majority wants it.

“If a majority doesn’t want it, it won’t happen. We will go somewhere else. That is why public hearings are so important.”
comments (9)
« Skylar Glasier wrote on Thursday, May 14 at 06:26 AM »
That's my Uncle, I'm proud.
« The Good wrote on Friday, May 01 at 01:52 PM »
Just the facts, please.

There are not clean energy benefits, because the dirty process of uranium milling is necessary to make a nuclear power plant work. You cannot have one without the other, and to say that nuclear power is clean is to imply incorrectly that you can. There does not have to be a millsite, because there is already enough enriched uranium for years and years. These are two of your argunments for the mill Gavin that are of no substance.

There would be economic benefits, of course, at least in the short run. This is a valid point. If you choose to have the money and the risks that come with a mill, that's fine. But don't try to say that the risks are so small and the money so great. Don't sugar caot it, just tell it like it is. The waste pile won't be a small little harmless area with most of the fissable isatope leached out. The waste is actually a concentration of all other radio nuclides (Radium, Thorium, Radon, etc), all heavy metals, and reagents used in the milling process including sulfuric acid, kerosene, ammonia, etc. The evaporation ponds and tailing cells extend over a large area and are open to the environment for years. This is just one example.

If you choose the money over the risks, fine. But don't sugar caot it, just have enough guts to say you choose the money in spite of the risks.

Don't say that regulations make it safe. Regulations are put into place on the basis that anything in excess of the regulation is really bad and not allowed. People sometimes tend to think then that anything within regulations is OK, when in fact it just hasn't gotten to the really bad stage yet. Of course we all know how regulations can change when we find out that something was worse than we thought.

And this is part of the problem. Noone knows exactly what all of the risks are, or how bad they could be. We know some of the risks so we try to make "regulations". We know some facts but not all. We know for example that Radium has a half life of 1600 years, but we don't know if the plastic liners are going to last quite that long, or if some new technology will be developed to make the waste pile less dangerous. Maybe, maybe not. We don't know. It's a risk.

You can't say that there will be no contamination of ground water, wildlife, people or anything else. The best you can say is that there is a risk of that happening. If you are strong enough to accept how real those risks are, without sugar caotings, and to acknowledge that there are unknown risks as well, and you choose to accept those risks along with the economic benefits that would come with a mill, then that is your opinion. In that case I will be glad if this is not a popularity contest.
« Gavin Harrison wrote on Friday, May 01 at 08:44 AM »
I reside here in La Sal, Utah. I am originally from Moab Utah. There is a millsite that sits in Moab, and has for many years. This mill was of older generation technology. Not one person to the best of my knowledge has had any health issues residing in this town due to this millsite and the waste that sits there. I have much family there. They have pioneered into the Moab valley from the start of the townsite. My grandpareents (children of the pioneers) Some are still alive at the age of 70 Living next to the mill for 50 years now has not dampended their health not one bit. Now of course they are now spending alot of money to clean it up. But as far as the heap of waste, People are not going to die from it. If you want energy, whether or not it comes from O&G, Coal or Uranium, there has to be a sacrifice. IF you are against this industry or any other energy industries, why dont you just quit pumping fuel into your cars, turn off your lights, and quit buying goods and make your own with 1800's technology. Quit consuming and taking advantage of our idustries. We need industry for many of reasons.. Jobs, Higher standard of living, larger tax base. This is a huge stimulation of economy with the rural areas of the colorado plateau. We are all not born into trust funds and need good jobs to survive and maybe leave a trust fund for our own kids. So besides the economic benefits, there are the clean energy benefits as well. I myself promote nuclear energy for its efficiency and enviromental plus for green house gas emmissions. We understand there has to be a millsite, just like any other resource extraction has to sacrifice any small area for the cause. Technology has come along way, we no longer do things like that which was done in the 1950's. If these waste piles have not killed anyone directly or indirectly, then I feel pretty good about milling with todays advances. I have good faith the people near paradox colorado will favour this proposed mill and lets hope it moves forward. The people need it for good paying jobs, The Uranium industry within the Colorado plateau needs it for viable mining economics, and the whole world needs it for clean, efficient energy. Its worth the sacrifice of a small area to have waste material wich has most of the fissable Isotope leached out anyway. As far as advancements in technology, the mill waste will become usable elsewhere we hope. One way or the other, its not going to contaminate ground water, wildlife, PEOPLE, or anything else for the matter. Its not permited with todays reg's anyway. If it where to have the possibility, it wouldnt complete permitting anyway. Anti-everythings, Hardcore Enviro advocates etc. Educate yourselfs, Its not all about you, If you dont like what has built this region as a whole which is Industry of diversified types, Then just GET OUT! If a mill scares you.... Go back to california or the big smog, crime ridden cities you came from. a millsite will do nothing but better us all!!!

Gavin Harrion, Lasal Utah
« The Good wrote on Monday, Apr 27 at 01:41 PM »
The good of this planet will not be served by having a large radioactive waste site in Paradox Valley forever, or in China for that matter. These arguments about nuclear power might be valid if it wasn't for the fact that there is already stockpiled enough nuclear grade uranium to supply power plants for the next 50 years. Keep in mind also that CEO Glacier has said that the majority of the uranium procuced would be sold to countries outside of the US. The proposed mill has nothing to do with saving the US or the planet. So let's stick to the valid points.

If there is any benefit to the proposed mill it is that some people would have jobs from it. This is a valid point. However, with that benefit would also come the loss of the radioactive waste site in Paradox. The two cannot be separated. If we have a mill we have both. The real question is, does the benefit of the jobs outweigh the risk of the radioactive waste? And, that is the best case scenario, assuming nothing goes wrong, and the hundreds of thousands of tons of pollution going into the environment during the life of the mill are of no consequence.

So, let me think...85-400 jobs for up to 30 years vs. huge pile of radioactive waste forever, best case scenario...hmmm.
« No more NIMBY wrote on Thursday, Apr 23 at 08:37 AM »
"In your dreams"-- All other forms of clean energy are also not viable without government subsidies, especially when gas prices remain under $2 in Montrose. Solar and wind both need government subsidies to become viable economic options as well. Not to mention that oil and gas companies are the second most subsidized in the country, second only to farmers (corn and soy mostly).

It's a double edged sword. The government will not step up to the plate without consumer and citizen demand and at the same time, the consumer sits around and waits for the government to intervene.

With a supportive citizenry that says "yes, nuclear has to happen," the government just might step up with their subsidies, along with solar, wind and others. I would rather my tax dollars go there, personally, than to the oil and gas companies.
« in your dreams wrote on Wednesday, Apr 22 at 07:11 PM »
Nuclear cheerleaders don't understand that nuclear power isn't viable without massive government subsidies because no insurer will touch it. It can only survive if there's a gov't teet to suck (i.e. France).
« No more NIMBY wrote on Wednesday, Apr 22 at 12:21 PM »
I appreciate this article just as I've come to appreciate nuclear power as a very necessary evil in our world... which means to me that this uranium mill is the same. Glasier is very right when he says that "f you are going to have clean power, you cannot do it with just water, solar and wind." I recently finished reading Friedman's Hot, Flat and Crowded, and he definitely proved to me in that book that we MUST have nuclear power, and soon. The above article is very poignant as I also read today that Robert Kennedy Jr recently blasted Obama for supporting clean coal (http://www.abcnews.go.com/Blotter/story?id=7392564&page=1). We MUST have nuclear to save our country and our planet.

And sometimes, for the good of this planet, that might mean supporting a uranium mill in our backyard. It's got to be in someone's backyard, and better us that China.
« old man of the mount wrote on Wednesday, Apr 22 at 09:20 AM »
fooled again sounds foolish again...be a good little greenie and maybe mommy and daddy will keep sending the checks
« fooled again wrote on Wednesday, Apr 22 at 07:28 AM »
Right, we need a new a new uranium mill like we need some new oil wells. Earth to CEO Glazier--the price of uranium is tanking. If you buy his argument, I have a nice subdivision in central Florida that's sure to appreciate in the next few years for you.
sponsored advertisement
sponsored advertisement
sponsored advertisement