Residents must voice concerns about mining
Nov 13, 2012 | 1162 views | 0 0 comments | 6 6 recommendations | email to a friend | print
Dear Editor,

As Mr. Anthony welcomes comments, I will provide additional feedback.

However, I would also like to thank Mr. Caldwell for reminding us of the well water incident. It illustrates that not only are there real dangers in the uranium mining operations, but that there are also perceived dangers which will affect real estate and livestock prices in the area. This incident occurred before beginning any actual “mining” operations. Can you imagine what it will be like when operations are started?

Uranium Energy Corp continues to use derogatory or derisive terms when referring to the people opposing the mining operation. First, it was minions and Pied Pipers and now it is rumors, innuendos and unfounded speculation. This is not a good way to win friends and influence people. I will remind UEC that all objections from the Goliad County Groundwater Conservation District are based on opinions of professional engineers, geologists, and subject matter experts. My concerns were all technical, and none were addressed.

UEC maintains that the mining operation will occur in aquifers that are not usable for human or livestock consumption, however, the aquifer in question is serving as the water supply for the Weiser Church.

Many people do not realize that once the aquifer exemption is granted, the aquifer is essentially condemned for further domestic or agricultural use. To reach aquifer below the condemned one, landowners will incur additional expenses isolating the condemned aquifer with casing and cement before drilling deeper to the “good” water. This is only if this deeper aquifer is not contaminated by the mining operations immediately above (a major contention of the contested case hearing).

UEC says that the aquifer will be returned to its original in-situ state, yet in many cases variances were granted by TCEQ that allowed the operator to abandon their operation without returning the aquifer to the original state.

In the 21st century, 30-year technology is old. Witness the oil boom in the Eagle Ford shale due to new technology, within the last five years. There are technologies that can settle all doubts and ease the concerns of the people of Goliad County. It is ironic that these same technologies, which would make the mining operation more efficient, are not being utilized. I have to ask, why?

I realize there is lots money at stake. Contrary to what UEC maintains, its primary responsibility is to its shareholders and making a profit; not the people of Goliad County.

Again, I urge the people of Goliad County to voice their concerns. I remember the bus loads of people going to Austin to hear the Contested Case Hearing at the TCEQ, and the caravans to Dallas to meet with the EPA. The GCGWD needs to hear that you continue to support and appreciate their efforts.

Ernest Alaniz,

Comments-icon Post a Comment
No Comments Yet