From: Jim Woodward
[mailto:jbw@frii.com]
Sent: Friday, June 22, 2007 11:21 PM
To: 'Pete Webb'
Cc: 'kbassuener@pwpr.com'; 'rblubaugh@powertechuranium.com'
Subject: RE: Powertech Exposed Web Site
Dear Mr. Webb,
Thank you for your June 14, 2007 email regarding Powertech’s proposal to mine uranium in my community. I understand you are being paid to advocate for your client, but I don't think your ad hominem attacks are constructive. In my opinion, we would all be better served by a rational discussion of the issues surrounding this mining proposal.
There seem to be two questions raised in your email:
1. Does Powertech plan to conduct open pit mining on one or more of the four southern sections (67-9-35, 67-8-3, 67-8-11, 67-8-15)?
2. Is the photo of the Vista Pit/Twin Creeks representative of a proposed open pit uranium mine on one of the above sections?
Regarding question #1, you say that "ISR is very much a factor on the southern portion of the 5,760 acre site as well. At least half of the southern range has the potential for ISR operations."
Your statement is vague and unsupported by the publicly-available literature. Powertech entered into a contract with Anadarko Land Corp. to purchase the uranium mining rights based on data derived from historical drilling and related studies conducted by Rocky Mountain Energy Company (RME). RME's conclusion was that surface/open pit mining was the most economically viable method to use on the relatively shallow deposits of the four southern sections.
Since Powertech has yet to conduct additional exploratory drilling in the area, there would appear to be no new data supporting an assertion that in situ leaching is appropriate for these deposits. Would you care to provide an authoritative document to clarify and support your statement?
It is clear that Powertech plans to conduct open pit mining on some or all of the southern sections. The following evidence is unequivocal:
- The agenda for the April 5, 2007 meeting between Powertech representatives and staff from the Colorado Division of Reclamation, Mining and Safety. The agenda lists a "Mine Plan Submittal - Centennial Open Pit (No later than December 2008)".
- The April 2, 2007 interview of Richard Blubaugh, Powertech environmental manager, found on the stockinterview.com website. In response to a question about the timeline for the Centennial project, Mr. Blubaugh responds: "...But, for Colorado, in our case, we already have our schedule in place and our consultants selected and we are going to see. But, this is without a mill. We are looking at conventional mining on one of our deposits – open pit – before 2010. http://www.stockinterview.com/News/04022007/Making-Uranium-Mining-Safer.html
With respect to question #2, I had to do some research to find the answer. As you know, the Rocky Mountain Energy drilling data indicate that the ore-bodies in the southern range are 85-125 feet deep.
In your email you assert that the Vista Pit is "a half-mile deep". A half mile is 2,640 feet. That's deep. In fact, that's quite a bit deeper than the Vista Pit - about 1,840 feet deeper. I spoke with an engineer at the mine recently. He said the Vista Pit is 800 feet deep.
In the interest of accuracy, I will replace the Vista Pit photo with a photo of another open pit mine that is closer to the depth of the southern range orebodies.
Sincerely,
James B. Woodward
P.O. Box 599
Wellington, Colorado 80549
Phone: 970-897-3029
Fax: 970-897-3021
Cell: 970-402-7679
Email: jbw@frii.com