Powertechexposed.com webmaster accused of deception by president of Denver public relations firm
June 13, 2007 email from Pete Webb to Jim Woodward
June 13, 2007 email from Jim Woodward to Pete Webb
June 14, 2007 email from Pete Webb to Jim Woodward
June 22, 2007 email from Jim Woodward to Pete Webb
Email exchange:
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
Email: jbw@frii.com
www.powertechexposed.com
-----Original Message-----
From: Pete Webb [mailto:pwebb@pwpr.com]
Sent: Thursday, June 14, 2007 11:55 AM
To: 'Jim Woodward'
Cc: 'Kristy Bassuener'; rblubaugh@powertechuranium.com
Subject: RE: Powertech Exposed Web Site
Thank you for clarifying your position on fairness and accuracy. We know
now not to expect that you'll ever provide any sort of balanced or accurate
information on your website. It may be that I'm wasting my time here in
presenting clearer information.
You shouldn't be at all confused by my objections to the photo of the
open-pit mine on your site. It is a gross misrepresentation of the facts,
totally inaccurate, and bears no resemblance to the proposed uranium
recovery of the mineral rights Powertech holds in Weld county.
Powertech has been very clear that it is focused on the ISR (in-site
recovery) process for its properties, and 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.
Until final exploration and minerals development scoping is complete,
Powertech will not be able to accurately define the total scale of the
recovery operation. To insist on photographs of an operation that doesn't
currently exist is ludicrous - just as ludicrous as to believe that a
half-mile deep ore pit is going to be placed in your community.
Peter Webb
Principal/Partner
Webb PR-Denver
Agency of Record for Powertech Uranium
-----Original Message-----
From: Jim Woodward [mailto:jbw@frii.com]
Sent: Wednesday, June 13, 2007 10:42 PM
To: 'Pete Webb'
Cc: gwilliams@pwpr.com; dscheminske@pwpr.com; dhopkins@pwpr.com;
esardella@pwpr.com; rclement@powertechuranium.com; 'Richard Blubaugh'
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.
Sincerely,
James B. Woodward
P.O. Box 599
Wellington, Colorado 80549
Phone: 970-897-3029
Fax: 970-897-3021
Email: jbw@frii.com
__________________________________
From: Pete Webb [mailto:pwebb@pwpr.com]
Sent: Wednesday, June 13, 2007 2:15 PM
To: jbw@frii.com
Subject: Powertech Exposed Web Site
Mr. Woodward – My name is Peter Webb, and my Denver-based public relations
firm represents Powertech Uranium. I recently came upon the
PowertechExposed.com Web site, and saw that you accept suggestions. My
first suggestion would be to present factual information: The principles of
truth and fairness clearly are lost on the site. I understand that you’re
opposed to the project, but there is simply no excuse for the level of
deception and mistruth expressed on your website.
We are absolutely astonished that the image of a Nevada open-pit gold mine
has been used to depict the proposed in-situ uranium recovery operation in
Weld County. To convey the impression that this scale and style of
operation would be used in Weld County is totally untrue and is obviously
intended to unnecessarily alarm those few individuals who might access this
website. Rather than foster an atmosphere of panic, we urge you to impart
accurate and factual information regarding this proposed recovery operation.
Powertech has said very definitively that it intends to recover uranium
through the in-situ process, using water and bicarbonate of soda to free the
uranium from its sandstone substructure. If Powertech were, at some
point, to employ conventional mining techniques to recover uranium, the
operation would be closely similar to state-permitted gravel quarry
operations, with gravel removed to expose the ore to a depth of about 60
feet, and the site reclaimed to state standards once the uranium has been
retrieved.
Powertech is in the very initial stages of gathering data and background
research for its permit filings. At this point, the company plans to file
the required federal, state and local permits in the latter part of 2008.
As part of those processes, the public will have ample opportunity to review
and comment on the permit applications. This is the exact same procedure
used for the dozens of mining and minerals recovery permits issued in
Colorado every year, for everything from sand and gravel to coal and gold.
Powertech will meet (or surpass) and observe the tate and federal
requirements for uranium recovery.
The image and innuendo placed on the "Exposed" website damage the good name
and reputation of Powertech and its employees who together have several
decades of uranium recovery experience. We cannot see any purpose in
creating resentment against Powertech.
Your inclusion of factual public documents in your “DOCUMENTS” section is
both appreciated and encouraged. We would appreciate if the documents
marked “confidential” would be treated with confidentiality; however, we
also understand that those documents were accessible from a
public-information site. If you have questions regarding any of these
documents or facts about Powertech, please contact me or anyone on my team
and we’re happy to help elaborate.
Your site is correct in that the company has not yet held any public
meetings to date, and that will be changing in the very near future.
Because Powertech plans to file permit applications more than a year from
now, the company is still gathering the details and information about its
proposed operation, and is firming up proposal plans. We look forward to
sharing this information with you and the community at large.
In the meantime, we will take every ethical, effective course of action to
assure that our client is fairly and accurately portrayed and described.
Peter Webb
Principal/Partner
Webb PR-Denver
Agency of Record for Powertech Uranium