Is Virginia's uranium worth the digging?

Virginia's current prohibition on uranium mining protects us and provides us the opportunity to understand not only the risks and possible benefits involved if we were to allow uranium mining in Virginia. It also gives us the chance to look at who would bear those risks — and how any benefits that might materialize would be distributed.

Lots of information is readily available — more information than the average citizen or legislator can sort through. Experts are currently studying the health, environmental and economic implications of allowing uranium development in Virginia. In December, three groups will release reports: the National Academy of Sciences, the Research Triangle Institute, and Chmura Economics and Analytics. We will have the opportunity to see the evidence they consider essential for Virginia's policy decision.

The purpose of all three studies is to help the commonwealth decide whether uranium mining, milling, and long-term tailings management can be undertaken, as the NAS contract states, "in a manner that safeguards . . . [our] well-being." "Well-being" means health, happiness and economic prosperity.

The question before the researchers is not theoretical. The commonwealth must decide whether Virginia has access to the expertise, knowledge and funding both to comprehend and to prepare for the worst realistic possibilities. There is also no assurance that uranium from Virginia can compete reliably on the global market. Can it?

Virginia Uranium compares Coles Hill to "known, undeveloped" deposits, although exploration, revived worldwide by 10 years of high prices, continues to discover new deposits. The World Nuclear Association elaborates, "The world's present measured resources of uranium [at current prices] are enough to last for about 80 years. This represents a higher level of assured resources than is normal for most minerals. Further exploration and higher prices will certainly . . . yield further resources as present ones are used up."

Coles Hill is often described as the largest uranium deposit in the United States, or as containing 119 million pounds of uranium. But in fact, much of the deposit may not be rich enough to mine profitably. Even the richest 30 million pounds at Coles Hill does not compare to the world's truly high-grade ore.

McArthur River in Canada has current reserves of 335 million pounds of uranium in ore that is 89 times more concentrated (19.5 percent) than the best 30 million pounds at Coles Hill (0.22 percent). A Coles Hill mine would have to dig and mill 89 times more material to get the same amount of uranium and would produce 89 times the waste material requiring secure storage. Cigar Lake, also in Canada, is expected to open in 2013 with reserves of 209 million pounds of uranium in ore that is 77 times more concentrated (17 percent) than Coles Hill's best 30 million pounds.

Can Coles Hill compete with these big, rich deposits?

The unpredictability of the uranium market offers no guarantee that Coles Hill uranium would bring a high enough price to attract private investors or justify Virginia developing regulations and hiring enforcement staff.

If our legislators allow future uranium mining, market uncertainties could threaten the stability Southern Virginia needs to transition from dependence on manufacturing and tobacco toward a diverse, agriculture- and knowledge-based economy that can be relied upon to sustain our well-being. The proposed uranium project in Pittsylvania County has been controversial, divisive and economically unsettling. Even if there is never a mine, the possibility alone threatens relationships and fundamental civility.

Earlier this year a spokesman for Virginia Uranium stated explicitly that the company had legislators lined up to introduce legislation in January 2012 to lift the moratorium on uranium mining. He did not acknowledge that citizens and legislators would need time to read and understand the December study reports and reconcile discrepancies. Anti-uranium activists responded by forming a keep-the-ban coalition, arguing that waiting until December to voice opposition would be politically naïve and irresponsible.

The study reports are coming. Reasonable people are concerned about the well-being of Virginia citizens and our downstream neighbors and interested in everyone having the opportunity to thoroughly review and understand the study findings. For now, the goal should be ensuring that we make full use of the studies and critically assess whether they provide us the information we need to make a sound policy decision.

Let's not rush into a fight. Let's together insist on the time we need. At issue is our well-being — our common wealth.