powertechexposed.com home


From: Jim Woodward [mailto:jbw@frii.com]
Sent: Wednesday, June 13, 2007 10:42 PM
To: 'Pete Webb'
Subject: RE: Powertech Exposed Web Site


Dear Mr. Webb:


Thanks for your suggestion to present factual information on my website, www.powertechexposed.com.  I wholeheartedly agree. 


Your observation that my site is “unfair” is accurate.  If fairness implies the treating of both sides alike, without reference to one’s opinions or interests, the content of the site is admittedly unfair.  I plead guilty.  Similarly, I presume that, since you are being paid by Powertech, your communications will be designed to serve the interests of your client.


I am confused by your reaction to the photograph of the open-pit gold mine.  I was careful to explain that Powertech proposes to conduct insitu leach mining on the five northern sections and open-pit mining on the four southern sections.  This is clearly explained in the March 28, 2007 report on the project by Mr. Voss and Mr. Gorski.  Perhaps you have not read their very comprehensive and informative 41-page technical report.


Page 16 of the report describes how exploration drilling between 1977 and 1979 delineated uranium ore bodies at depths of 85-125 feet in the southern portion of the project, containing an estimated 5,887,398 pounds of U308, or 61% of the entire project.  Page two states that the southern deposits are “proposed surface mineable resources”, in contrast to the northern “proposed ISR (insitu recovery) mineable deposits”.


Logically, Powertech would have to dig at least four separate pits on these four non-contiguous sections of land.  Whether the resulting open-pit uranium mines would look like the Nevada open-pit gold mine is unclear.  But since Powertech has chosen to downplay their plans for open-pit mining and has provided no specific data beyond what is in the Voss/Gorski report, I wanted to provide my neighbors with some idea of what these proposed mines might look like.  


If you can provide alternative photographs that more closely resemble what the proposed pits would look like, as well as supporting technical data, I would be glad to substitute them for the current photograph on the site.


I appreciate your vigorous, if ill-informed, defense of your client.  I am certain that if this proposed project were occurring in your community and within a short distance of your family’s home, you would be just as vigorously utilizing your extensive experience and creativity to defeat the proposal.




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