at a crossroad: Uranium Mining
Article By Carrie Visintainer, Journey Contributor

As our nation’s population grows within a volatile world, discussions about increased energy demands abound. U.S. leaders are charged with the task of deciding how to tackle this crucial issue. Common words and themes exist — energy independence, conservation, renewable energy — but the greatest challenge is in finding a consensus on what should be done.

Recently, the issue of nuclear energy has hit close to home. A proposal by the Canadian company Powertech to build a uranium mine in northern Colorado has stirred up controversy and brought strong opinions into the public eye. Named the “Centennial Project,” the mine would occupy approximately 10 square-miles just north of Fort Collins between the towns of Wellington and Nunn.

Uranium is a fuel for the generation of nuclear energy, which currently provides 20 percent of the nation’s electricity needs. Natural gas and coal are other sources of electrical production. 

Stuart Sanderson, President of the Colorado Mining Association, believes that in order to gain energy independence, the U.S. must tap domestic energy sources.

“The United States consumes more electricity from nuclear power than any country in the world,” Sanderson said. “Yet the U.S. has become increasingly dependent on foreign sources, importing more than 90 percent of its uranium from other nations.”

Although there has been no commercial uranium mining in Colorado in recent years, the Colorado Mining Association states that Colorado and the Rocky Mountains have abundant reserves. The CMA also points to a long history of safe uranium mining in this region.

Sanderson describes nuclear energy as “clean,” free of the carbon dioxide emissions found with other energy generation methods that some have associated with global warming.

But not everyone agrees. The environmental group Coloradoans Against Resource Destruction (CARD) adamantly opposes the mine. Its members have posted yellow protest signs around town, launched a Web site and pushed for legislation to address potential environmental issues they say could be caused by the mine.

CARD’s major concern is the potential contamination of groundwater with dangerous heavy metals. Groundwater, which collects underground from rain and snow, is pumped from wells and used for drinking and crop irrigation. It sometimes flows into rivers and streams.

“Water in Colorado is a precious resource,” said Jackie Adolph, outreach chairperson for CARD.

According to CARD, one method used by mining companies to extract uranium, called “in situ” leaching, causes the contamination. The process involves treating fresh groundwater with a solution that dissolves uranium ore from underground geological formations. The solution is not specific to uranium, though, and other heavy metals, including selenium, arsenic and radium, end up in the water. The removal of such materials from groundwater is a difficult and expensive process.

“We haven’t found a case where an in situ mine has not contaminated groundwater,” Adolph said.

But the Colorado Mining Association maintains that Powertech, like all mining companies, in Colorado, will be required to preserve the quality of the water and to minimize environmental impacts through reclamation at the conclusion of its project.

CARD acknowledges that creative ideas need to be entertained to address energy issues, but its members believe that sustainable and renewable sources of energy, including solar and wind power, are better options than nuclear energy.

Powertech plans to apply for permits for the mine at the end of 2008.
For more information, visit:

The Colorado Mining Association: www.coloradomining.org
Coloradoans Against Resource Destruction: www.nunnglow.com