1

August 3, 2011Fuel for America

Jobs for Southside

Seven Guiding Principles

1) Energy Independence

2) Community Development

3) Conservation

4) Historic Preservation

5) Virginia’s Agricultural Traditions

6) Regulatory Benchmarks

7) Virginia Stakeholders

2

Coles Hill Uranium Deposit Location – Pittsylvania County, Virginia

•Discovered in 1978

•Of Undeveloped Resources

•Largest uranium resource in US

•7th largest in the world

•Mining Regulated by States

•Milling and Tailings Regulated by Federal NRC

•What is Uranium?

•Heaviest naturally occurring element

•One of the most common elements on earth

•Average Seawater ~ 2-4ppb U

•Average Granite ~ 2-4ppm U

•Average Coles Hill Ore ~ 600ppm U

•Average backyard has ½ lb of U

•Primary fuel for nuclear power plants

•Safer to transport than common fuels

•This Agreement does not provide for discontinuance of any authority and the Commission shall retain authority and responsibility with respect to the following:

•The regulation of byproduct materials as defined in Section 11e.(2) of the Act;

3

South Coles Hill Deposit

North Coles Hill DepositNorth

Core Shed

Site Office

Defining the Deposits• Historical

– Marline and Union Carbide drilled 210 holes to define the deposits

– 153 rotary percussion; 57 diamond drill holes

• 65,082 ft of core

• 124,799 ft of rotary percussion

– Project advanced to feasibility stage

– $43 million in expenditures (1982 dollars)

• What VUI has done– Received DMME exploration permit

(# 90484-EX) November 27, 2007

• Permit for 40 holes, Drilled 10 holes

– 3 core holes

– 2 new rotary percussion holes

– 5 reconfirmed holes

– 4,510 ft of new core

– 9,137 ft of new rotary percussion

– Canadian National Instrument (NI) 43-101 Resource Estimate, completed April, 2009

Projected to surface represents 34.24 acres

4

Vertical Cross-Section of Coles Hill Deposits, Looking West

(0.1 wt% U3O8 )

Energy Independence• Coal – Net Exporter

• Natural Gas – 16% Imported

• Oil – 57% Imported

• Uranium – 86% Imported

• Virginia is 2nd only to California in amount of energy imported

• 119 Million lbs Uranium

• VA reactors use 1.6 million lbs/yr

• Supply 39.6% of Virginia’s Power

• Over 70 years worth of Virginia’s existing demand

• US Reactors use 55 million lbs/yr

• Supply 20% of US Power

• 119 Million lbs Uranium

• 1.19 Billion tons of Coal

• 3.7 Billion barrels of Oil

• 22 Trillion cubic feet of Natural gas

• Single Largest Energy Resource in Virginia

Energy Equivalent

31 Barrels

Oil

= =

1 lb.

Uranium10 Tons

Coal

Tri

llio

n B

TU

Source: US EIA

5

World Uranium Producers US Uranium Suppliers

•From 1950 -1983 the US was the largest producer of uranium

•The US is currently the largest importer of uranium

Richmond, VA

6

•Coles Hill Water

•110 million gallon/year water requirement

•158 million gallon/year treatment plant

Overburden

Ore Stockpile

Wastewater Treatment Plant

JEB Tailings Management

Facility

Runoff/Monitoring Ponds

JEB Mill

•MILL

•Tailings will be placed both in the mine space, as backfill, and in impoundments

•MINE DECLINE

•TAILING CELL

•MINE •Ground water monitoring

wells

7

Lynchburg, VA

Paducah, KY

Eunice, NM

Metropolis, IL

North Anna and Surry, VA

UF6

U235

UO2U3O8

Nuclear Fuel Cycle

US Navy

8

•Radioactive materials move safely on our roadways everyday

•Photos taken on June 30, 2010 in Tightsqueeze, VA

Lynchburg, Virginia

Mount Athos Facility

9

Financial Assurance• Nuclear Regulatory Commission

“Financial surety arrangements [usually bonds] must be established by each mill operator prior to the commencement of operations to assure that sufficient funds will be available to carry out the…reclamation of any tailings or waste disposal areas….The surety must also cover the payment of the charge for long-term surveillance….”

• Current Examples of Surety Bonds for U.S. Uranium Mills: – Pinion Ridge Mill, Colorado: $11,070,890

– Cotter Canon City Mill, Colorado: $20,800,000

– White Mesa Mill, Utah: $18,700,000

– Homestake Grants Mill, New Mexico: $33,000,000

• Required to pay up front to cover anything that might go wrong during the life of the operation, from the first shovel in the ground to the post-reclamation decades of on-site monitoring, including decommissioning of the mill.

• The amount of the surety bonds is reviewed regularly by state agencies and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and modified to account for changing conditions.

• Similar bonds for mining operations must be posted before work begins and held by state agencies until satisfactory reclamation of a mining site.

Uranium Mining Moratorium• Per Virginia Code §45.1-274, Uranium exploration is

permitted

• Uranium Administrative Group formed to study issue

• Per Virginia Code § 45.1-283 (1982)

“Notwithstanding any other provision of law, permit applications for uranium mining shall not be accepted by any agency of the Commonwealth prior to July 1, 1984, and until a program for permitting uranium mining is established by statute.”

10

1981: Virginia General Assembly approved House Joint Resolution No. 324 Requesting Virginia Coal & Energy Commission (“CEC”) to evaluate uranium

1983: Uranium Administrative Group (“UAG”) established in SB-155 that finds that a preliminary study

“…has not identified any environmental or public health concern that could preclude uranium development in Virginia.”

1984: Recommendation by 16 of 18 (89%) UAGmembers “We conclude that the moratorium

on uranium development can be lifted…”

2008: CEC creates uranium mining sub-committee

to evaluate uranium development again

2010: CEC engaged National Academy of Sciences (“NAS”) for evaluation study

2011: NAS study results expected

Virginia’s Uranium Studies

Summary of DosesASSESSMENT OF RISK

FROM URANIUM MINING

IN VIRGINIA

Prepared by

The Coal and Energy Commission

Commonwealth of Virginia

September 1984

SENES Consultants Limited

499 McNicoll Avenue

Willowdale, (Toronto), Ontario

Canada M2H 2C9

Tel: (416) 499-5030

Receptor/Characteristics Annual Whole Body Dose•NRC limit for general population 500 mrem(excluding background exposureand release from mines)

•Exposure to local residents from 210 mremnatural background radiation in vicinity of project prior to mining activity (dose equivalent due to external radiation & inhaled radon daughters

•Coles Hill property (on mining site) 16.4 mrem

•Hypothetical off-site receptor with the 7.8 mremlargest potential exposure

•Hypothetical receptor nearest occupied 3.5 mremdwelling

•Hypothetical receptor living in Halifax 0.15 mrem

•Dose to hypothetical average receptor of the 0.04 mrempopulation currently living w/in 50 miles of project.

Dental x-ray ~ 1 mrem; Living in brick house ~ 7 mrem

Current limit: 100 mrem

11

Health and Safety• Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission (Canadian version of the US NRC)

• “Studies demonstrate that present-day uranium workers, and the public living near a uranium mine or mill, are as healthy as the general Canadian population.”

• “A number of studies in Canada and around the world show that uranium mines, mills and refineries do not affect public health.”

• “Studies carried out over several decades have repeatedly demonstrated that people who live near these facilities are as healthy as the rest of the general population. Studies carried out around uranium processing sites in other countries have provided the some conclusion.”

• Dr. John Boice, Vanderbilt University School of Medicine and Director of International Epidemiology Institute

• “This study then provides no evidence that the mining and milling activities increased the rate of any cancer in Karnes County.”

• “In summary, there is no evidence that residents of Montrose County experienced an increased risk of dying of cancer or other diseases because of environmental exposures associated with uranium and vanadium milling and mining activities.”

•“Not all areas shown contain uranium in high enough concentration to mine economically”

•Radiometric signal does not constitute:

• Uranium

• Recoverable resource

•Extensive East Coast exploration program:

•Over $60 million in expenses

•Only known viable project is Coles Hill

•VUI only owns land and leases around Coles Hill

•“Coles Hill is the only one that could be called an economic uranium deposit.” William Lassetter, DMME

12

Total Count (K, Th & U) Aeroradiometric Contour Map

Did Not Identify Coles Hill

Uranium is naturally occurring and all around us

13

•25

Engine of Economic Growth• Potentially ~$140 million/year in revenue on 500 acres

– Based on underground mining, producing ~2 million lbs Uranium per year– 1,356 Pittsylvania County Farms produce $63 million/year in revenue on 274,000 acres– Billions of dollars in revenue

• Capital Expenditures– $173 million – Initial– $350-400 million – Total– 250-350 construction jobs to build facility

• 325 Direct Employees– 90% can come from Southside Virginia– Average salary ~ $65,000– 30-35 year mine life– Unemployment ~15% in Southside

• Potentially $6 MM/yr in (4%) excise/severance taxes– Stay in surrounding localities for:

Agriculture, conservation, economic development, education• New business start-up: 1:6 spin off

– Direct and indirect annual economic benefit $240 - $300 million

1,073

14

Employment Opportunities• Walter Anderson

Hampden-Sydney College

Major: Physics

• Erica Galvan

Johnson Bible College

Major: Social Work

• Jonathan Wright

Lynchburg College

Major: Accounting

• Mary Dare Thornton

Roanoke College

Major: Global Business

• Josh Shields

Virginia Tech

Major: Engineering

• Lena Cole

Danville Community College

• Sam Cole

Wheaton College

Major: Geology

Research Opportunities• Virginia Tech

– Completed Work

• Mining Engineering Class Senior Design Project

• James Jerden, Ph.D on geochemistry

• J.P. Gannon, M.S. on hydrology

• John Wyatt, M.S. on geologic mapping

• Josh Whitney, M.S. in geophysics

– Ongoing work

• Denise Levitan, Ph.D on geochemistry

• Three students, M.S. on sediment transport

• Other Research

– Liberty University

– Ferrum College

– Lynchburg College

– Danville Community College

– Averett University

– Florida State University

– University of Virginia

– George Mason University

– Virginia Museum of Natural History

– United States Geological Survey

• John ReutterUniversity of VirginiaMajor: Biology

• Michael Mayhew

Virginia Military Institute

Major: Engineering

• Clayton Moss

Brigham Young University-

Idaho

Major: Geology

• Aaron Jacks

Lynchburg College

Major: Chemistry/Pharmacy

• Mitchell FitzgeraldVirginia TechMajor: Computer Engineering

• Courtney Atkinson

Williams College 2011

Major: Classics

• Alvin Palmer

Longwood University, 2011

Major: Physics

15

Virginia’s Nuclear Heritage• Dominion (North Anna & Surry)

– 4 Nuclear Reactors

– Provide 39.6% of Virginia’s Power

• Babcock & Wilcox (Lynchburg)

– Military Fuel Fabrication

– IST mPower reactor facility, Bedford VA

• AREVA (Lynchburg)

– Commercial Fuel Fabrication

• Naval Fleet in Norfolk

• Nuclear Engineering Curriculum

– Old Dominion, Virginia Commonwealth, Virginia Tech

• All need FUEL = Virginia Uranium– 119 million lbs of Resources

Virginia’s Mining Heritage• Colonist began mining in 1609

• First US Coal mine in Richmond 1748

• 400 different minerals found and

– 30+ different minerals produced in Virginia

– Annual value of nearly $2 billion

• 10th largest producer of coal

• 5th largest producer of crushed stone

• Home to many prominent mining companies

– Alpha Natural, Luck Stone

• One of four companies to manufacture 400 ton mining trucks

– Liebherr, Newport News

• Virginia Tech Mining Engineering & Geosciences

Examples of Uranium Mining & Milling

16

Elliot Lake, Canada • Huge ore body of uranium was discovered in early 1950s

• For the next 40 years, produced most of the world's uranium

• Last 5 mines closed in 1990’s • 27 inches of rain• 98 inches of snow• Between retirement living, tourism and

some logging, the area is thriving

East Coast Phosphate Uranium Production

• Florida– About 20% of US uranium production came from central Florida deposits to

the mid 1990’s

• Historically up to six operating production facilities

• 1981-1992 production averaged over 2,000,000 lbs/year U3O8 www.world-nuclear.org

• 2,000,000 lbs/yr is similar to the amount VUI proposes to produce

• Louisiana– Uncle Sam and Sunshine Bridge facilities in Louisiana

• Processed ore from Florida phosphate mines

• Combined production of 950,000 lbs U3O8 in 1997

– Accounted for ~16% of US uranium production in 1997 (UI News Briefing 98.49, Dec. 9, 1998)

• Production ceased in 1999

17

Path of Hurricane Katrina and Uranium Recovery Facilities

Sunshine Bridge & Uncle Sam, LA

New Wales & Plant City, FL

New Wales, FL

Uncle Sam, LA

Limousin France Agricultural Economic ImpactDepartment Results 2009

(Million USD)http://agreste.agriculture.gouv.fr/IMG/pdf_R7410C01.pdf

Correze Cruse Haute-Vienne Limousin France

Crop Production $161.84 $179.76 $196.39 $537.99 $49,330.35

Animal Production $253.73 $297.16 $311.64 $862.52 $31,102.22

Production Services $20.21 $22.79 $24.66 $67.80 $5,151.93

Subsidies on Products $53.61 $61.64 $57.48 $172.73 $3,288.40

Total $489.25 $561.35 $590.16 $1,640.76 $88,872.89

18

BUM/DRS/CESAAM

extraction shaft

mining waste

Brugeaud’s open pit

mining waste

tailings

ore treatment plant

ore stock pile

BU-Mines / DRS / CESAAM

Industrial Site of Bessines in 1978

water collector

Industrial Site

mining stripping recovering the tailing storage: Brugeaud open pit

Gartempe river

mining stripping recovering

the tailing storage: Lavaugrasse

water treatment plant

BU-Mines / DRS / CESAAM

Industrial Site of Bessines in 2001

19

Reclaimed Bessines Site

(June 2009)

Bellezane open pit (in operation)

BU-Mines / DRS / CESAAM

20

Bellezane open pit (reclaimed)

BU-Mines / DRS / CESAAM

Puy de l’Age : (in operation)

mining waste

Puy de l’Age’s open pit

BU-Mines / DRS / CESAAM

21

Puy de l’Age : reclaimed site

Landscaped mining waste

Before : Puy de l’Age’s open pitCurrently : fishing lake

BU-Mines / DRS / CESAAM June 2009

Understanding the Virginia Beach Water Study

• From the Baker study:•“The model does not address the issue of whether there will be a

•catastrophe— it only simulates the outcome if one did occur” …“The study is simulating a rare event that regulations are supposed to prevent” (Baker 2011b).

• From the City of Virginia Beach NS Testimony•“Current Regulations might make this a very unlikely event” “This is a worst case catastrophe analysis”

•“This models a very rare event that should never happen, if all the regulators are doing their job, and if the industry is doing their job, and everything works as designed, these facilities are supposed to be able to withstand 100 and 500 year events and even perhaps a PMP storm. Which goes off the charts as far as frequency.”

•“The model does not say there will be a catastrophe…. It doesn’t even attempt to try to model the failure of a confinement cell.”

22

•ASSUMPTIONS AT THE START OF THE MODEL ARE NOT REALISTIC

• The assumed location of the tailing impoundment is not possible

• Assumed design is unrealistic and contrary to current design standards

• Current regulations and guidelines for tailing impoundments were assumed to be disregarded

•Baker Study Assumed Dam Location Here

•THE ASSUMED LOCATION OF THE TAILING IMPOUNDMENT IS NOT

POSSIBLE

• Distance from Mine/ Mill Location

• PMF floodplain

• Wetlands

23

•ASSUMED DESIGN IS UNREALISTIC AND CONTRARY TO CURRENT DESIGN STANDARDS

•Baker didn’t say how this dam would fail.

•Baker’s Assumed Tailing Containment

•Straight sides (a box), all above ground; can’t be built.

• 40 acres

•surface area

•35% of tailings assumed to be released

•Dam

•Tailing Containment Cell per NRC standards

•Cell excavated at or below natural grade with sloping sides

•Below-grade or at-grade tailing impoundment

•Tailings

•Double geomembrane liner with leak detection/collection

•Tailing cover with infiltration, erosion, and radon barriers

•Out of PMF floodplain and

wetlands•Current Requirements for Uranium Tailings

•Sloped Sides

24

THE PROBABILITY OF A CONTAINMENT CELL FAILURE (Based on Baker Assumptions)

• Probable Maximum Precipitation (PMP) storm – once in 1000+ years, 0.001

• Tailings placed in an above-ground impoundment – 0.5

• Tailings are not protected against erosion – 0.01

• Tailing cell located next to a stream channel - 0.01

Probability of release = 0.001 x 0.5 x 0.01 x 0.01 = 5 X 10-8 or one in 10 million

•What other activities have higher risk to VB water quality?

•A PMF analysis was incorporated into the Marline Design

•29 inches of rain in 6 hours (VB cites 27 inches in 8 hours)

•Examples of PMF in Nelson County are very different than Pittsylvania County

•Does not assess risk of PMF storm on other land uses

•Animal waste, Underground/Aboveground Storage Tanks, Other industrial operations, Landfills, Sanitary Sewer, Septic Tanks

Fuel for America

Uranium Resources in VirginiaWorld-Class Deposit

www.VirginiaUranium.com