Press "Enter" to skip to content

Azarga Uranium Stakeholders Indicted; NRC Requires Tribal Consult, Capping of 7,500 Boreholes

Map of proposed Azarga uranium mining operation, northwest of Edgemont, SD. From AzargaUranium.com.
Map of proposed Azarga uranium mining operation, marked in yellow, northwest of Edgemont, SD. From AzargaUranium.com.

Azarga Uranium (formerly Powertech) opened December telling its investors they were a step closer to finally mining uranium in the Dewey Burdock region north of Edgemont. But now Azarga is having a blue Christmas. First John Tsitrian reports that the company’s biggest stakeholder, New York/Cayman Islands hedge fund Platinum Partners, just saw its principals indicted for defrauding its investors. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission rules today that Azarga didn’t properly consult with American Indian tribes about the impact their in situ leach uranium mining may have on cultural and historical resources important to the tribes. That ruling doesn’t revoke Azarga’s license, but it does delay the project, as the NRC has to formally consult with the Oglala Sioux Tribe.

What looks like a much bigger kink in Azarga’s hose is the NRC’s ruling that Azarga must cap around 7,500 existing boreholes from previous uranium mining activity on the Dewey-Burdock site. Dakota Rural Action, which opposes Azarga’s mining plan, is pleased:

If these holes were not plugged and mining occurred, there would be a high risk of water contamination outside the mining area.  According to research by an expert witness in the case, Dr. Hannan LaGarry, there are approximately 7,500 old boreholes on the proposed mine site.  “I’m heartened to see the NRC is holding firm on the requirement that the company plug the 7,500 old boreholes,” said Gena Parkhurst of Dakota Rural Action, Black Hills Chapter.  “Based on expert opinion, the proposed uranium mine in the area of the Fall River/Custer county border could seriously threaten our precious water supplies – there could be both contamination and depletion of our aquifers” [Dakota Rural Action, press release, 2016.12.23].

Azarga has been tweeting up a storm this week about smog in China and the need to replace coal with nuclear power. But Azarga’s continued financial complications and today’s ruling from the NRC suggest Azarga is a long way from slurping any uranium out of Fall River Count County and sending it to China.

25 Comments

  1. grudznick 2016-12-23 20:32

    To be clear, these boreholes are not like The Borehole which will be dug in Haakon county. The word “borehole” is a great word but we must remember than many people, especially those against science, will jump to the conclusion that these 7,500 boreholes are just like The Borehole. And I submit, gentle bloggers of Mr. H’s blog, that if there were already 7,500 boreholes just like The Borehole then there should not be so much gnashing of teeth and wringing of hands. These little boreholes are one thing, but The Borehole is #4Science and will be safe and non-radioactive except for the things that crawl out.

  2. John 2016-12-23 21:00

    Best have independent monitors and auditors affirm the the capping of 7,500 boreholes – least it be a paper-exercise. The fact and history of mining in western SD and WY is replete with superfund sites, thousands of abandoned mines and thousands of abandoned wells. This occurred over decades and generations. This is clearly indicative of a flat learning curve and willful blindness.

    We should not mind responsible mineral extraction — it’s just that we rarely see responsible mineral extraction and reclamation.

  3. Adam 2016-12-23 23:15

    Azarga just wants to sell uranium to the Chinese, and they will commit fraud to do it. It’s not even about U.S. energy independency, or bringing jobs to South Dakota, it’s about the damn Chinese trying to extract our uranium and wreck our environment while they do it.

  4. caheidelberger Post author | 2016-12-24 08:30

    Oops! Sorry about that, John! I meant to include that link in the first place. I’ve fixed the coding. Thanks for tracking down that indictment!

    7,500 borehole caps: that’s a lot of inspections!

  5. Donald Pay 2016-12-24 10:53

    In the late 1970s and early 1980s various groups brought up all the uncapped exploration holes and development drilling occurring at the time. The early hearings on these matters were conducted by an clearly incompetent board (can’t remember the name). It was during some of these hearings that it became apparent to Governor Janklow that there needed to be some greater professionalization of the whole process, moving people around in the bureaucracy and creating the current board structure at the DENR, including the Board of Minerals and Environment. (Not that that really helped matters.)

    At some point the state started to require that a state inspector would check 10 percent of the holes to make sure that they were actually being capped. At one point that inspector was required to testify about what he did to inspect. Basically it was just a visual inspection. If there was some cement there, well, he assumed they were capped. He wasn’t there to see the actual process, to see how far down the cement went, etc. At one point during his testimony Deb Rogers grilled this rather elderly man on how much time it took to do the inspections, and he came up with some number. She then figured out he would have to be running at beyond human speed to complete the 10 percent inspection of drill holes.

    At any rate, there was a legislative interim study of all the mining/exploration issues, and laws were changed. Laws regulating exploration and mining for uranium was actually considerably strengthened, but laws for exploring and mining gold and other mining were weakened. I remember being involved i the last hearing on gold mining exploration before the laws changed. After that, there was no way to challenge a gold exploration permit.

    Of course, Azarga is proposing to mine through ISL methods, which was never contemplated by the SD uranium statutes enacted in the early 1980s. ISL can’t be done without assurance that there are confining layers not breached by uncapped boreholes. Though luck guys.

    In a way that is sweet justice, the failure of the uranium miners and regulators in the 1970s and early 1980s has likely put Azarga out of business.

  6. Robert McTaggart 2016-12-24 15:22

    Just as the demise of coal is largely due to economics, namely the lower cost of natural gas, the same forces may be at play with regard to uranium mining at the moment. Demand for nuclear is flat and falling due to plant closures domestically and said lower price of natural gas. Globally the uranium market has a better chance of growing a bit.

    ISL methods are better than the older ways of mining uranium. But they demand active environmental monitoring and management. I still think solar and wind could play a role in powering the monitoring, control, or processing systems.

    Found this regarding best ISL practices in Australia:
    https://d28rz98at9flks.cloudfront.net/70503/70503.pdf

  7. caheidelberger Post author | 2016-12-25 07:50

    Good history, Donald!

    Thinking about the need for capping: if the concern is that the ISL fluids might squirt out of the mining area into uncapped boreholes, it sounds like we talking about “capping” that goes beyond just sealing the top so stuff can’t fall in. It sounds like the caps need to go all the way down to the depth of the ISL operations. Is that accurate?

  8. Donald Pay 2016-12-25 12:27

    Cory,

    I’m not sure what state-of-the-art borehole capping would be at this point. I’m sure they could try to get away with a slipshod job, then hope that NRC would not require them to prove the efficacy of their capping before letting them go ahead with any actual mining. It may even be impossible for them to do much with collapsed holes.

    Azarga might tout this as some half victory to fool stupid investors (who deserve to lose their asses for investing in this thing), but I see it as NRC toying with these guys. They ain’t ever going to be able to do what NRC wants, ever.

    There is a lot of history about the “uranium wars” in SD that could be ferreted out if there is a history PhD candidate out there looking for a topic or a book subject. Many of the people are still alive and kicking ass.

  9. grudznick 2016-12-25 12:33

    At least with The Borehole in Haakon county, once all the science learning has been done and the economy boosted and the knowledge gained, there will be only one hole dug to be capped and it can be inspected for many days before the last barrow of ready-mix is poured into its maw.

  10. Robert McTaggart 2016-12-26 12:49

    Not sure if they could use some of the old boreholes for extraction or monitoring to help regulate the flow characteristics. That may depend on whether they are the right depth or not.

  11. Adam 2016-12-27 00:51

    No, Dr. McTaggert, that’s not how it works – at all. It, also, has nothing to do with the depth of the boreholes.

    I don’t have the time to go into depth, but once you look into it, you’ll know the old bore holes are only a liability not an asset.

  12. Robert McTaggart 2016-12-27 09:34

    The question I was asking was whether these could be re-tasked for a positive benefit. Those boreholes are already dug. Can you take the water out and purify it through these boreholes? Can they be used to monitor the flow of various chemicals or radionuclides?

  13. Adam 2016-12-27 13:37

    I understood your question (which you did not explicitly ask) but I saved you some time in researching your answer.

    The answer is no.

  14. Robert McTaggart 2016-12-27 13:40

    How far away are they located from the proposed in situ mining sites of Azarga, or is everything intermingled?

  15. Robert McTaggart 2016-12-27 13:51

    It sounds like from above they are in the same area, so why not use some of them for monitoring or remediation?

  16. Adam 2016-12-27 13:59

    Old bore holes are all intermingled in and around the site. Decades of movement, settling, and erosion has changed these holes a lot over the decades.

    ‘Capping’ these holes is a less accurate way to describe how they would actually need to “fill” all the boreholes with concrete – which is arguably impossible because of all the cave structures those holes pop through would have to be filled too. And so, financially impossibilities seem evident when the money pits is just so deep.

    Dr. LaGarry has made a rock solid case for the porosity of the geologic confining layers, only PARTLY due to the thousands of boreholes which cannot be retooled/repurposed for anything.

  17. Adam 2016-12-27 14:01

    If you want to be the only guy out there pushing for repurposing of those holes, good luck with that – LOL

  18. Adam 2016-12-27 14:03

    Azarga/Powertech doesn’t even think they can reuse the boreholes – for very technical reasons.

  19. Robert McTaggart 2016-12-27 14:13

    Sounds like I am 30 years too late for that.

    But even if they fill up the existing hole with concrete, the shifting and erosion would still continue.

  20. Adam 2016-12-27 14:21

    You are correct. There is no such thing as a ‘perfect’ reclamation of a borehole that pops through aquifers – no matter what you fill it with. Which is why one needs to recognize that boreholes do come with the negative consequence of destabilizing geology in and around aquifers.

  21. Robert McTaggart 2016-12-27 14:36

    It may be that filling it with sediment similar to the surrounding rock would be better.

    Wouldn’t it be something if DDGs or biochar would work?

  22. Adam 2016-12-27 17:28

    You just gotta be extremely judicious about where you put bore holes, and never drill bore holes that you have no plans for ever using later on. Drilling boreholes just for exercise/practice/hypothetical scientific value, and then capping them, is just irresponsible. Drilling boreholes for a longer term use of that hole makes real actual sense.

    We are not going to see any additional bore holes in South Dakota any time soon.

  23. Donald Pay 2016-12-27 20:57

    When Powertech first proposed ISL mining in this area I thought it was nuts. I had been involved in various appeals in the Silver King Mines uranium exploration era. As I remember it, Silver King just riddled the area with development drilling. They were planning on mining that area using conventional methods, not ISL, so they didn’t care how many holes they punched through the confining layer. Further, they could have cared less about cementing them in to try to preserve the confining layer, since they were just going to dig it all up anyway. So, the only way this site is going to be mined is either with underground mining or with surface mining, both of which are more expensive, and would require a considerable rise in uranium price.

  24. Lilias Jarding 2016-12-28 21:48

    There is a book coming out any day now that includes a history of the uranium wars in the 1970s-80s, and I know he’s added some more recent information. It’s by Zoltan Grossman (who was here in 1980), and the title is Unlikely Alliances. It can be preordered at Amazon, and probably at your local bookstore. It also talks about issues in other rural areas where people came together to fight unwise projects.

Comments are closed.