Exposing Powertech Uranium Corp's plans for mining near Nunn, Weld County, Colorado

POWERTECH URANIUM CORP.

Powertech stock price ● Insider information ● TSX listing requirements for exploration & mining companies ● WISE Uranium Project's Powertech page ● Corporate documents ● Articles & postings ● Synatom ● Uranium spot price ● powertechuranium.com ● Powertech issuer profile ● NRC ADAMS ● Research tools ● Photos ● EPA Region 8 UIC page ● Graphics ● Uranium, radium & radiation ● About ● Contact us ● Fukushima disaster

Powertech Uranium Corp. (PWE)

Toronto Stock Exchange

Closing price: $0.15 CAD (2/3/12)

1-year & 5-year charts

Opinion - "The EPA has a duty to protect aquifers" by Adam Friedman and Jim Blackburn, The Houston Chronicle - December 28, 2011

WHAT GOES UP...

Powertech shares rally 100% in five trading days; uranium sector sees relatively modest increase in same time period

Posted January 17, 2012

Shares of Powertech Uranium Corp. continued their eye-popping gains with a nearly 18% increase today on the Toronto Stock Exchange. Since January 10, a period of five trading days, shares have jumped 100%.

Powertech shares closed at $0.20 CAD. Powertech is a microcap stock, with a market capitalization of only $20.7 million CAD.

The gains are not due to any recent public information about Powertech or its troubled Centennial and Dewey-Burdock projects. The Canadian firm has not issued a news release since July 5, 2011.

The uranium sector is "showing some signs of powering back to life", according to Globe and Mail columnist Darcy Keith. As evidence, she cites the Global X Uranium ETF, an investment fund specializing in uranium companies.

But in the same time period that Powertech notched its 100% gain, Global X Uranium ETF increased only 12%.

It might be reasonable to expect Powertech stock to track the increase in the uranium sector, even though the company has nearly abandoned its Centennial project in Colorado and is bogged down with its Dewey-Burdock project in South Dakota.

In contrast, Powertech shares have jumped eight times faster than the industry as a whole, as represented by the Global X Uranium ETF.

Rapid increases in trading volume and share price of microcap companies when there has been no recent news can sometimes indicate market manipulation. Michael J. Watson, former Executive Director of the British Columbia Securities Commission, describes one scenario:

"Often at the early stages of the manipulation, “circular trading”, that is trading that involves a small group of traders deliberately recirculating the stock among themselves at increasingly higher values to create the appearance of both demand and value in the shares, is the only trading which occurs. Large blocks of stock are traded through nominee and other accounts controlled by the insiders, through match orders and wash sales. Often the purchased stock is “paid for” by the proceeds of the subsequent sale of the same stock, sometimes called free riding. Through this mechanism, manipulated stock can appear to have achieved a significantly high level of capitalization, without the injection of a significant amount of capital by the insiders."

Watson explains further:

"Exceeding the normal trading parameters would, in normal circumstances, be caused by the disclosure of activity relating specifically to the issuer, or sometimes to the broad industry in which the issuer is involved. Trading activity which exceeds the pre-established parameters may be evidence of unlawful insider trading, (where there are significant increases or decreases in the trading price of the stock without any disclosure of information which would explain the change,) or market manipulation (usually where there is an increase of trading volume and/or price without any disclosure of information which would explain the change)."

And Watson addresses rumors:

"On the other hand, there may be a reasonable explanation for the changes. Usually, exchange staff will start the investigation by contacting the issuer to determine whether there is any reasonable explanation for the change in trading activity. Where the issuer reveals undisclosed material information, the exchange may halt trading and require immediate public dissemination of the information. If there is no explanation, the trading activity may be based on rumour, and the issuer may be required to issue a news release indicating that there have been no material changes to the issuer’s circumstances which would warrant the change indicated by the trading activity. Often the exchange may halt trading in the issuer’s shares until there has been sufficient time for the mandated news release to reach the investing public. In extreme cases the exchange may halt trading even before any contact has been made with the issuer."

The reason for Powertech's five-day 100% share price increase may never be known, and Powertech officials aren't talking.

"The Regulation of Capital Markets; Market Manipulation and Insider Trading" by Michael J. Watson, Q.C., Executive Director, B.C. Securities Commission, British Columbia, Canada (PDF 37 KB, 18 pages)

Stock manipulation or dumb luck?

Powertech's share price increases sixty percent in three days; no news releases issued in over six months

Posted January 13, 2012

Powertech shares closed at $0.16 CAD today on the Toronto Stock Exchange, jumping 28% from yesterday's close. The shares are up 60% from Tuesday's close at $0.10 CAD.

There has been no new public information on the Canadian company in the last week. Powertech has not issued a news release since July 5, 2011, over six months ago. And Powertech's last securities filing was on October 26, 2011.

While uranium company shares have climbed since Tuesday, Powertech's increase is unusual. Over the same three-day period, shares of Cameco, Uranium One, and UR-Energy have risen 8%, 1%, and 4%, respectively.

The last time Powertech's stock price jumped this high and this fast was when the company was gearing up for its first public stock offering in early 2011.

At the time, Powertech disclosed in its prospectus that its agents, broker-dealers Salman Partners and Dundee Securities, "may effect transactions intended to stabilize or maintain the market price for Common Shares at levels at or above that which might otherwise prevail in the open market."

TMXmoney.com - Powertech Uranium Corp. (PWE) - Toronto Stock Exchange

"Canada Business Corporations Act: Insider Trading" - Penny Becklumb, Law and Government Division, Parliament of Canada - Revised October 14, 2008

National Instrument 55-104 INSIDER REPORTING REQUIREMENTS AND EXEMPTIONS (PDF 281 KB, 29 pages)

Powertech shares jump 20% on no news

Posted January 11, 2012

Today Powertech shares jumped from $0.10 CAD to $0.12 CAD, or twenty percent, on the Toronto Stock Exchange. There was no news today or in the last few days to account for the increase. In fact, Powertech has not issued a news release since July 5, 2011, over six months ago. Powertech's last securities filing was on October 26, 2011.

Powertech's stock price is highly volatile, but a 20% bump in one day is unusual. Unusually large changes in a stock's price can sometimes be the result of manipulation by corporate insiders, brokers, large shareholders, and market makers. These parties may also have access to material non-public information.

Interestingly, on December 30, 2011, there were a handful of insider transactions among Powertech officials Wallace Mays, Gregory Burnett, and Thomas Doyle. In the "off-exchange" transactions, Mays sold 100,000 shares each to Burnett and Doyle at an undisclosed price. On the same day, Mays sold options to Burnett and Doyle to purchase a total of 1,868,000 of Mays' shares. The strike price of the options was $0.12 CAD.

CanadianInsider.com - Powertech Uranium Corp. (PWE)

Powertech consultant exploits Colorado State University connection during Virginia uranium workshop

Posted November 24, 2011

Steve Brown, a Certified Health Physicist who has done extensive consulting for Powertech Uranium Corp., recently organized and moderated a workshop on radiation and uranium mining in Danville, Virginia. Danville is near Virginia Uranium, Inc.'s proposed Coles Hill uranium mining and milling project.

Brown conducted a similar event in February 2008 at Colorado State University in Fort Collins. Brown used many of the same presenters for both the Danville and Fort Collins events, including two professors from CSU's Department of Environmental and Radiological Health Sciences. In both workshops, the majority of the presenters were uranium industry executives or consultants.

In both Fort Collins and Danville, start-up uranium companies are facing intense local opposition to proposed uranium mining projects. Brown was brought in to assemble panels of ostensibly objective experts in an attempt to seize the scientific high ground and assure the locals that uranium mining is safe, harmless, and relatively risk free.

An attendee at either workshop would certainly have learned a great deal of factual information about radiation, uranium mining, and related regulations. But unfortunately, Brown failed to invite even one expert who might have raised legitimate human health concerns about the projects proposed by Powertech or Virginia Uranium.

In his public presentations, Brown admonishes his listeners to evaluate a speaker's credibility based on the person's work experience and advanced degrees. So it was surprising to see a November 12 news story on the WSLS Channel 10 website about the Danville workshop with a quote by "Colorado State University professor, Dr. Steve Brown".

Brown is neither a CSU professor nor a PhD. Brown has never been a professor at CSU, according to Jac Nickoloff, Head of the Department of Environmental and Radiological Health Sciences. And Brown's own bio submitted in 2009 to the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment indicates that his only advanced degree is a M.S. in physical science from West Chester University.

It is unclear how this description of Brown made it into the news story. According to the reporter who wrote the story, Brown said he was "with" CSU and was a PhD, but he was not a professor. On November 14 the reporter said she would double check her notes and make any necessary corrections. As of November 24, no corrections have been made.

The CSU Department of Public Relations was notified on November 15 of this mischaracterization of Brown's association with the university but has apparently not acted to correct the article.

It is conceivable that the reporter misunderstood Brown and inaccurately reported his relationship with CSU and his educational credentials. But no one seems interested in correcting the news story, including the television station, the CSU Department of Environmental and Radiological Health Sciences, and the CSU Department of Public Relations.

As a result, readers and viewers of WSLS Channel 10 in Virginia are left with the impression that the Danville workshop was organized and led by a Colorado State University professor with a PhD, not by a long time uranium industry consultant and promoter.

"Danville uranium meeting hears from experts on mining" by Morgan Donnelly, WSLS 10 (Roanoke, Virginia) - November 12, 2011 (PDF 49 KB)

"SITE-SPECIFIC ASSESSMENT OF THE PROPOSED URANIUM MINING AND MILLING PROJECT AT COLES HILL, PITTSYLVANIA COUNTY, VA" - Prepared by Robert E. Moran, PhD, Michael-Moran Assoc., LLC - November 2011 (PDF 341 KB, 39 pages) This report prepared for the Roanoke River Basin Association in Danville, Virgina provides a site-specific assessment of water-related issues from the proposed Coles Hill uranium mining site. The author, Dr. Robert Moran, has thirty-nine years of domestic and international experience in conducting and managing water quality, geochemical and hydrogeologic work for private investors, industrial clients, tribal and citizens groups, non-governmental organizations, law firms, and governmental agencies. Moran was involved in 1983 as a hydrogeological and water quality consultant to the two companies that discovered the Coles Hill deposits. If the Virginia legislature votes to rescind the current statewide ban on uranium mining and the project is approved by regulators, Virginia Uranium, Inc. would use open pit mining to extract the uranium. Moran concludes that the project would have long term negative impacts on water resources in the area. Powertech proposed to use open pit mining in the southern portion of the proposed Centennial project in northern Colorado. While it backed off from that idea in recent years, Powertech has never ruled out open pit mining since a sizable portion of the Centennial uranium deposits sit above the water table and therefore may not be amenable to in-situ leaching.

Colorado hydrogeologist warns of risks to water resources from uranium mining

Posted November 8, 2011

"Uranium focus of lecture" by Paul Collins, Martinsville Bulletin (Virginia) - November 8, 2011

Belgium to phase out nuclear power?

Parent company of large Powertech shareholder may be shutting down Belgium's seven reactors

Posted November 6, 2011

According to a BBC news story, Belgium's main political parties have agreed to shut down the country's seven nuclear reactors. The reactors are operated by Electrabel, the parent company of Société Belge de Combustibles Nucléaires Synatom SA (Synatom).

Synatom is the former strategic partner of Powertech and still owns 10,890,000 shares of Powertech stock, or 10.5% of the Canadian company. Synatom is the second largest Powertech shareholder; Toronto investor Shawn Kimel owns 17.8% of Powertech through his hedge fund K2 Principal Fund.

Synatom lost $5.4 million on a series of loans made to Powertech from 2008 to 2010. Synatom would have lost more had it not refinanced the debt earlier this year and agreed not to sell its 10.5% stake until September 2012.

The Belgian company invested in Powertech in June 2008 in an attempt to secure uranium for Belgian nuclear power stations. Powertech has never produced uranium and is unlikely to obtain permits for its first mine before 2014.

Synatom announced its intention to sell its Powertech stake in September 2010, and Synatom executives Robert Leclere and Gerard Pauluis resigned from Powertech's board of directors a month later.

"Belgium plans to phase out nuclear power" - BBC News Europe - October 31, 2011

Synatom and Powertech

KIMEL INCREASES POWERTECH STAKE TO 18%

Toronto hedge fund manager buys additional six million shares from undisclosed party

Posted October 26, 2011

Canadian hedge fund manager Shawn Kimel's K2 Principal Fund L.P. purchased 6,026,500 shares of Powertech common stock on October 21, according to CanadianInsider.com. The shares were purchased on the public market for a per share price of $0.08 Canadian. This acquisition brings Kimel's stake up to 18.3 million shares, or 17.8% of Powertech's outstanding shares.

Powertech has not disclosed the transaction and who sold the shares even though the trade marks a significant shift in the company's ownership. The only Powertech shareholder with that many shares is Belgian firm Société Belge de Combustibles Nucléaires Synatom SA, which owns 10.89 million shares. But on March 15, 2011, Synatom signed an agreement with Powertech to not sell the shares until September 15, 2012 or until a "change of control" or an "event of default" occurs.

According to Powertech's April 28, 2011 Information Circular, other major shareholders include Wallace M. Mays (4,180,000 shares), Richard F. Clement, Jr. (3,528,000 shares), Thomas A. Doyle (2,813,400 shares), and Greg Burnett (2,185,000 shares).

CanadianInsider.com - Powertech Uranium Corp. (PWE)

Powertech shares hit new 52 week low of $0.08 CAD

Posted October 2, 2011

Although Powertech closed at $0.10 CAD Friday, the shares hit a new 52 week low by dropping to $0.08 during late morning trading.

It would not be surprising if the Powertech board has quietly put the company up for sale. However, both the Centennial project and the Dewey-Burdock project face major challenges. It seems unlikely that any serious uranium mining company would choose to allocate capital to either of these high-risk projects.

In fact, according to an industry source Powertech is "available", but the company is an unattractive takeover target primarily because of the obstacles in the way of permitting the Centennial project.

TEN CENTS: Powertech stock closes on a dime

Posted September 28, 2011

In a flurry of trading, Powertech shares today fell 13.04% to close at $0.10 CAD on the Toronto Stock Exchange. Volume was exceptionally high at 474,850 shares. The stock hit an intraday low of $0.09, setting a new 52 week low.

ELEVEN CENTS: New 52 week low for Canadian company

Posted September 26, 2011

Today Powertech stock fell 15.38% to close at $0.11 CAD, setting a new 52 week low and hitting its lowest close in company history. The shares are down 83% from their 52 week high of $0.65, and have dropped 98% from the March 2007 high of $4.45.

Powertech stock trades at ten and a half cents intraday

Posted September 24, 2011

Shares of Powertech continued their downward slide on Friday as trading hit $0.11 CAD for most of the day and at one point dropped to $0.105. Powertech closed at $0.13 CAD. The company is listed on the Toronto Stock Exchange and is not listed on a U.S. stock exchange. This is the lowest intraday trading level since Clement and Mays devised their 2006 reverse merger with Canadian shell company Powertech Industries, a former boiler manufacturer.

Powertech stock closes at $0.12 CAD for second time

Posted September 20, 2011

For the second time in its history as a uranium company, Powertech shares closed at $0.12 CAD on the Toronto Stock Exchange. The first $0.12 close occurred on September 8.

Powertech's head office is located in Vancouver, British Columbia. Vancouver is a magnet for junior uranium companies because of relatively lax securities regulation, numerous brokerage houses and stock promoters, and the city's long history of natural resource ventures.

But Tom Zoellner, author of the 2009 book Uranium: War, Energy, and the Rock that Shaped the World, calls Vancouver "a historic tank of sharks". In 1989 Forbes magazine called Vancouver the "Scam Capital of the World" for the many stock frauds launched from the city.

Uranium juniors count on a "story" to move their stock and raise capital. The story includes locations and amounts of historic reserves, what kind of drilling has taken place, permitting efforts, and management team biographies.

Powertech's story has become less compelling as of late. Belgian company and strategic partner Synatom chose to cut its losses and disengage from Powertech. Founder and legendary uranium miner Wallace Mays resigned his positions as Chairman and Chief Operating Officer. Powertech abandoned its northern Colorado project office in the face of new regulation, local opposition, the loss of a large land position, and poor cash flow. And its flagship Dewey-Burdock project in South Dakota faces delays from problems with its NRC license application and confusion surrounding the Section 106 consultation process with area Indian tribes.

RECORD-BREAKING CLOSE

Powertech stock closes at $0.12 CAD for first time in company history; shares slide deeper into penny stock territory

Posted September 8, 2011

Less than six months after Powertech sold nearly 48 million shares of its common stock to investors at $0.47 CAD per share, its stock closed today at a record low of twelve cents Canadian. The close is the lowest since Messrs. Clement and Mays created Powertech Uranium Corp. in 2006 through a reverse merger with shell company Powertech Industries, Inc.

With 103.5 million outstanding shares, Powertech's market capitalization is only $12.4 million, a fraction of the company's June 30 book value of $43.3 million. Investors are obviously not impressed with Powertech's $45 million in "Mineral properties" on its balance sheet. These mineral properties assets consist primarily of capitalized permitting costs, lease payments, wages, consulting fees, and legal fees. The carrying value, or book value, of Powertech's mineral properties at June 30 are: Dewey-Burdock $25.9 million, Centennial $15.7 million, and $3.4 million for properties in Wyoming where Powertech has not even started permitting efforts.

POWERTECH URANIUM CORP. (An Exploration Stage Company) CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS For the three and six months ended June 30, 2011 (Stated in United States Dollars) - UNAUDITED (PDF 146 KB, 33 pages)

Twelve cents: New 52 week low

Posted September 6, 2011

Powertech shares set a new 52 week low today by falling to an intraday low of $0.12 CAD on the Toronto Stock Exchange. The shares closed down 7.14% at $0.13 CAD. Trading was exceptionally active for Powertech with 389,840 shares changing hands (the previous trading day saw only 1,500 shares traded.) Assuming the company's recent cash burn rate of about $700,000 per month is holding steady, Powertech's cash position should be down to roughly $5.6 million. The Canadian company is in retreat from its Centennial project in Colorado, and the soonest it can expect to receive a license from the NRC for the South Dakota Dewey-Burdock project is sometime in 2014.

DISCLOSURE? WE DON'T NEED NO DISCLOSURE

Posted August 31, 2011

To maintain a listing, the Toronto Stock Exchange requires prompt disclosure of "Any other developments relating to the business and affairs of the company that would reasonably be expected to significantly affect the market price or value of any of the company's securities or that would reasonably be expected to have a significant influence on a reasonable investor's investment decisions." Has Powertech violated Toronto Stock Exchange rules by not formally disclosing its closure of the Centennial project office in Wellington, Colorado? You be the judge...

TSX Company Manual - Part IV Maintaining a Listing - General Requirements

Thirteen cents: Powertech stock dives to lowest close ever

Posted August 24, 2011

Today Powertech stock fell 13.33% to close at a record low of $0.13 CAD. The closing price sets a new 52 week low and is the lowest close since the former shell company re-listed its shares on the Toronto Stock Exchange in 2006.

Today's drop probably had little to do with the news that Powertech has closed its Centennial project office in Wellington, Colorado. This is because Powertech has not publicly announced the closing; the story broke after local residents noticed 'For Rent" signs posted on the property. In contrast, Powertech went to great lengths to publicize the 2008 opening of the Wellington office.

Powertech's failure to announce the office's closing appears to conflict with the Toronto Stock Exchange's Company Manual. Section 914 of the manual states "Bad news must be disclosed just as promptly and fully as good news. Unwillingness to release a negative story, a disguising of unfavourable news, or a partial release can endanger a company's reputation. Such actions may encourage the public to view all company announcements with distrust. News releases should be explicit, and should accurately reflect corporate news."

TSX Company Manual - Section 914

TEXAS URANIUM MINE BURNS

Brush fire at Kingsville Dome ISL mine ignites plastic piping system in wellfield; Uranium Resources official downplays incident

Posted August 13, 2011

Uranium Resources' Kingsville Dome uranium mine on fire, Kleberg County, Texas, August 10, 2011.

LOWEST CLOSE IN COMPANY HISTORY

Powertech shares close at $0.14 CAD; closing price is lowest since former shell company relisted on Toronto exchange in 2006

Posted August 9, 2011

Powertech shares fell 6.67% today and closed at $0.14 CAD, the stock's lowest closing price since the company re-listed on the Toronto Stock Exchange on August 15, 2006. On that first day of trading, the shares closed at $1.48 CAD.

The relisting followed a 2005 reverse merger by Dick Clement and Wallace Mays to take control of the shell company Powertech Industries Inc., a former manufacturer of boilers. Clement and Mays were the principal shareholders of Denver Uranium Corp., the private company that engineered the reverse merger.

Reverse mergers are typically done to facilitate financing since the new owners end up with a publicly-traded company and avoid the lengthy and complex initial public offering process. Reverse mergers have been particularly popular with Chinese companies that want access to U.S. capital markets.

In Powertech's case, the company immediately arranged a series of private placements that yielded over $20 million CAD from investors in Canada and Europe.

Since the 2005 reverse merger, Mays has resigned as Chief Operating Officer and Chairman of the Board (but remains as a Director), Powertech has gained and lost a strategic partner (Synatom), and the company has not submitted a single major permit application for the Centennial project and has not obtained a single major permit for the Dewey-Burdock project.

Eleven percent drop marks new 52 week low for Powertech shares

Posted August 5, 2011, Updated August 6, 2011

Today Powertech's share price dropped 11.11% to $0.16 CAD, matching its July 19 close and establishing a new 52 week low. Recent news about a permitting delay for the Dewey-Burdock project and shrinkage of the Centennial project must be worrisome for investors. And those who have read Powertech's June 30 balance sheet may have realized that the company will be faced with pursuing another round of financing by next spring. Combine all this with the ongoing crisis in Japan and its broader impact on the nuclear power industry, and the outlook for Powertech shares looks less than favorable for the foreseeable future.

2.8 million underwater stock options held by Powertech executives expire

Clement, Mays, Bonner, Burnett, Doyle, and Blubaugh lose options because strike price is several times higher than current share price

Posted July 9, 2011, Updated July 23, 2011

CanadianInsider.com - Powertech Uranium Corp. (PWE)

POWERTECH STOCK DROPS TO 52 WEEK LOW

Posted July 19, 2011

Today Powertech shares fell to $0.16 CAD, setting a new 52 week low for the penny stock. The company's market capitalization dropped to $16.5 million CAD, or only 36% of Powertech's book value as of the latest balance sheet date. The fact that shareholders are heavily discounting the $46 million CAD in "mineral properties" carried on the Canadian company's books is not surprising given the firm's weak cash position and its inability to obtain even one major mining permit after five years of trying. Mineral properties make up the bulk of Powertech's assets, but the "assets" consist mainly of costs for permitting, leases, claims, drilling, wages, consulting, and legal fees. These "assets" have little intrinsic value if Powertech is unable to obtain mining permits.

WYOMING ISL URANIUM MINE TAKES NEARLY FOUR YEARS TO STOP EXCURSION

Posted July 13, 2011

From wise-uranium.org:

State regulator requests investigation of possible impacts of long-term excursion at Cameco's Highland in situ leach uranium mine

In a "Letter of Conference and Conciliation" dated May 17, 2011, the Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality Land Quality Division requested Cameco Resources (CR) to perform additional groundwater monitoring in the aftermath of an excursion at monitor well CM-32 that was first reported on July 10, 2007: "The Land Quality Division (LQD) has conducted a review of the records for Well-CM-32 which was on excursion from July 2007 through April 2011. During the review it was discovered that the location of CM-32 is within several hundred feet of the aquifer exemption boundary and the permit boundary. As a result of the injection of restoration fluid into the wellfield, subsequent to the onset of the excursion, there is concern that the lack of control of the excursion for almost four years may have caused fluid migration outside the exemption boundary." [...] "CR is required to investigate the extent of the excursion beyond the monitor well ring and the proximity to the aquifer exemption boundary and the permit boundary. A minimum of two monitor wells to investigate the extent of the excursion will be required."

http://www.wise-uranium.org/umopuswy.html#PRIHIGHL

Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality internal memorandum on chronology of events and recommendations for excursion well CM-32, Cameco Resources, Permit #603, Highland Uranium Project - May 12, 2011 (PDF 166 KB, 3 pages)

Letter from Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality to Cameco Resources regarding excursion well CM-32, Permit #603, Highland Uranium Project - Pam Rothwell, District 1 Assistant Supervisor, Land Quality Division - May 17, 2011 (PDF 294 KB, 5 pages)

Unknown shareholder sells 600,000 shares of Powertech stock to insider for a nickel a share

Powertech Director Malcolm Clay privately purchases shares at 89% discount to $0.47 CAD public offering price, according to CanadianInsider website

Posted July 6, 2011

CanadianInsider.com - Powertech Uranium Corp. (PWE)

POWERTECH SPIN MACHINE RUNNING FULL BORE

Posted June 24, 2011

In its first Management Discussion & Analysis (MD&A) filed since Wallace Mays resigned as Chief Operating Officer, Powertech breaks new ground in its efforts to paint a rosy picture of the struggling company and its beleaguered projects. The June 10 document was filed pursuant to Canadian securities rules and is intended to be a discussion of Powertech's performance, financial condition, and future prospects.

Regarding the company's primary project, Dewey-Burdock (South Dakota), the MD&A asserts that the NRC is expected to provide a draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement in late 2011 or early 2012. The document fails to mention that a June 1 letter from NRC staff to the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel includes the NRC staff's current best estimate for the issuance date as April 2012, and that the NRC's own web page, Application Review Schedule for Dewey Burdock, shows the completion date as "to be determined". The MD&A also omits the fact that "review has been suspended pending submittal of response to staff's request for additional information", as stated on the NRC site.

In its discussion of the Centennial (Colorado) project, Powertech is equally misleading. Regarding the aquifer pump test that must be conducted before permit applications can be completed, Powertech implies that a final EPA injection well permit will be issued in July 2011. It will likely take several more months for the EPA to issue a final permit, if the agency chooses to, and the final permit is subject to appeal. More importantly, the MD&A omits any discussion of the fact that six of nine proposed ISL mine units would require untested, water-intensive, and expensive "aquifer enhancement" due to shallow ore deposits.

In its discussion of Colorado House Bill 08-1161, Powertech fails to mention that the implementing rules and regulations place requirements on ISL operators that Powertech CEO Dick Clement described as "fatal" to the project. While the MD&A acknowledges that Powertech has sued the State of Colorado in a challenge to the regulations, the document states that Powertech is actively engaged in discussions with the state regarding the regulations and the lawsuit. According to a knowledgeable source, Powertech's lawyers are not currently engaged in any substantive discussions with the state.

Finally, the MD&A includes no discussion of the Indian Springs Land & Cattle Co., LLC. Indian Springs is a subsidiary of Powertech and was formed by Wallace Mays. The LLC was involved in the "strategic partnership" between Powertech and Belgian firm Synatom, but Powertech has consistently failed to explain the nature of its financial or contractual relationship with Indian Springs.

POWERTECH URANIUM CORP. (An Exploration Stage Company) - MANAGEMENT DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS - June 10, 2011 (PDF 156 KB, 22 pages)

Synatom writes off $5.4 million owed by Powertech

Powertech emerges from Synatom refinancing and first public stock offering with less than $9 million; new investors' shares are down 62%

Posted June 21, 2011

Belgian firm Synatom took a $5.4 million write off in its efforts to distance itself from Powertech Uranium Corp., according to Powertech's unaudited first quarter financial statements released on June 10. Prior to the recent simultaneous public stock offering and debt refinancing, Powertech owed Synatom $25 million. Powertech managed to raise $21.5 million in the first-time public stock offering. Investors who bought in at the $0.47 CAD offering price have seen those shares drop 62% since the offering closed on March 15. Following the offering, Powertech paid Synatom $12.8 million, leaving $8.7 million for Powertech to spend on permitting, executive compensation, and overhead. At its recent cash burn rate, these funds should be exhausted in a year or less. As part of the refinancing, Powertech issued a $7.7 unsecured non-interest bearing promissory note to Synatom. The note can be paid off with Powertech shares rather than cash. The balance of the debt owed to Synatom was forgiven by the Belgian company. The exact amount of the write off is unclear. While the financial statements report this "gain on extinguishment of debt" at $5,431,452, a financial statement note reports it at $5,508,195. But the same note includes information that would indicate the amount may be only $4,469,583, A June 19 email to Powertech's controller asking for clarification has elicited no response. As a condition of the refinancing, Synatom released its blanket liens on all Powertech assets and all assets of the secretive subsidiary Indian Springs Land & Cattle Company. The relationship between Powertech and Indian Springs has never been disclosed by Powertech in its securities filings.

POWERTECH URANIUM CORP. (An Exploration Stage Company) CONDENSED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS For the three months ended March 31, 2011 (Stated in United States Dollars) - UNAUDITED (PDF 141 KB, 32 pages)

RETRACTION and correction of statement that Powertech missed filing deadline for first quarter financial statements

Posted June 8, 2011

In a brief article posted last night, I stated that Powertech had missed a May 16 deadline of the British Columbia Securities Commission for the filing of first quarter financial statements and Management Discussion & Analysis. This statement was incorrect and is hereby retracted. I received an email today from Powertech CEO Richard Clement wherein he explained that the filing deadline has been extended to June 14 for issuers that are first-time adopters of International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS). Powertech has prepared and filed its previous financial statements in accordance with Canadian Generally-Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP) and has apparently chosen to adopt IFRS for the quarter ended March 31, 2011. Consequently, the filing deadline is extended to June 14, as shown on the Continuous Disclosure Filing Calendar 2010/11 - For Initial IFRS Filings. I regret the error, and I thank Mr. Clement for correcting the record.

J. Woodward

Email from Powertech CEO Richard Clement regarding inaccurate statement on website - June 8, 2011 (PDF 39 KB, 1 page)

POWERTECH URANIUM CORP. (An Exploration Stage Company) ANNUAL INFORMATION FORM FOR THE YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31, 2010 - March 31, 2011 (PDF 207 KB, 40 pages)

Notice of Annual and Special Meeting of Shareholders to be Held on May 31, 2011 and Information Circular - Powertech Uranium Corp. - April 28, 2011 (PDF 413 KB, 49 pages) This filing reveals that Powertech stock has performed poorly when compared to the Toronto Stock Exchange's TSX SmallCap Index. One hundred dollars invested in the index on March 31, 2007 would be worth $99.40 at December 31, 2010. In contrast, $100.00 invested in Powertech stock would be worth a paltry $7.73. During this time period, executive compensation steadily increased in spite of the abysmal stock performance. For 2010, CEO Dick Clement and COO Wallace Mays were each paid a base salary of $240,000. Not bad for a company that has yet to mine its first pound of uranium after five years of permitting efforts.

POWERTECH URANIUM CORP. (An Exploration Stage Company) - MANAGEMENT DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS - March 28, 2011 (PDF 204 KB, 29 pages)

POWERTECH URANIUM CORP. (An Exploration Stage Company) - CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS - December 31, 2010 and 2009 (PDF 198 KB, 32 pages)

MAYS QUITS

Wallace M. Mays, Powertech co-founder and only known inductee to the Uranium Hall of Fame

Powertech news release:

May 09, 2011

Powertech Announces Resignation

VANCOUVER, B.C. - POWERTECH URANIUM CORP. ("Powertech" or the "Company") today announces the resignation of Wallace Mays as an officer of the Company and its subsidiaries. Mr. Mays will remain a director of the Company and its subsidiaries.

The Company thanks Mr. Mays for his contribution to the Company and wishes him success in his future endeavors.

About Powertech Uranium Corp.

Powertech Uranium Corp. is a mineral exploration and development company that, through its Denver-based subsidiary Powertech (USA), Inc., holds the Dewey-Burdock Uranium Deposit in South Dakota, the Centennial Project in Colorado and the Dewey Terrace and Aladdin Projects in Wyoming. The Company's key personnel have over 200 years of experience in the uranium industry throughout the United States, and have permitted more than a dozen in-situ operations for production. For more information, please visit http://www.powertechuranium.com

POWERTECH URANIUM CORP.

Per: "Richard F. Clement"

Richard F. Clement Jr.,

President & CEO

News release - "Powertech announces resignation" - Powertech Uranium Corp. - May 9, 2011 (PDF 22 KB, 1 page)

Notice of Exempt Offering of Securities - Form D, UNITED STATES SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION - Issuer: POWERTECH URANIUM CORP., Total offering Amount and Amount Sold: $327,565 USD, Date of First Sale: March 15, 2011, Finders' Fees: $21,291 USD, Signer: Thomas A. Doyle, Chief Financial Officer - March 24, 2011 (PDF 39 KB, 7 pages) In Powertech Uranium Corp.'s first SEC filing, the company discloses that it raised $327,565 by selling stock and warrants to "accredited" and/or "sophisticated" U.S. investors. Under Regulation D of the Securities Act of 1933, a company is allowed to offer and sell their securites without having to register the securities with the SEC. If Powertech sold the shares to "accredited investors", it can decide what information to give to them. However, if the investors were only "sophisticated" (as defined by securities regulations), Powertech must meet a higher standard by providing disclosure documents that are generally the same as those used in registered offerings. Assuming the stock was sold by subscription and Powertech can collect on the subscription agreement(s), the funds raised in this U.S. offering should last about two weeks.

News release - "Powertech Closes Unit Offering and Refinancing Transaction" - POWERTECH URANIUM CORP. - March 15, 2011 (PDF 167 KB, 3 pages) According to CEO Dick Clement, Powertech sold almost 48 million newly-issued shares of common stock, raising $22.5 million CAD. Thanks to flaccid Canadian securities regulations, Powertech was able to raise the offering's maximum amount while failing to disclose the true and complete status of permitting efforts for its two proposed projects. Clement also claims Powertech has closed on its refinancing deal with Synatom, writing a $12.5 million CAD check to the Belgian firm. After commissions and other issuance costs, Powertech should clear about $8.5 million CAD in the public stock offering. Based on the company's historical cash burn rate, this should last about 9 or 10 months. This does not include the $6.5 million payment due to the Varra and Diehl families in Weld County, Colorado pursuant to two real estate option agreements. The Varra and Diehl properties constitute a material portion of the uranium deposits in the Centennial project. Powertech's prospectus says the company "has not allocated any proceeds of the Offering to the Centennial option payments and will raise additional capital in due course for such payments if deemed appropriate."

Special meeting of Powertech shareholders to be held March 14

Meeting called to vote on Synatom refinancing

Posted March 13, 2011

NOTICE OF SPECIAL MEETING OF SHAREHOLDERS TO BE HELD ON MARCH 14, 2011 AND INFORMATION CIRCULAR - POWERTECH URANIUM CORP. - February 11, 2011 (PDF 574 KB, 101 pages)

Hedge fund manager Kimel buys additional 610,000 Powertech shares on eve of Japan earthquake and nuclear emergency

Combined with March 3, 4, and 8 acquisitions, Kimel's partnership now owns 12,970,000 shares, a stake worth $5.6 million CAD

Posted March 13, 2011

K2 Principal Fund L.P.'s acquisition of Powertech common shares in the open market - March 8 & 10, 2011 - Canadianinsider.com (PDF 56 KB, 1 page)

Kimel moves to increase Powertech position

Hedge fund buys 310,000 shares on March 4 dip, increases ownership to 12,310,000 shares

Posted March 8, 2011

On Friday, March 4, hedge fund manager Shawn Kimel, through his K2 Principal Fund L.P., bought 310,000 Powertech shares at an average price of $0.42 CAD per share.

Toronto hedge fund manager Shawn Kimel

Kimel took advantage of a brief dip in the stock price, which closed at $0.46 CAD only two trading days later. This acquisition increases K2's ownership to 12,310,000 shares, solidifying the partnership's position as the largest Powertech shareholder. On March 3, K2 purchased 12 million Powertech shares in a private placement. Neither Powertech nor KR have disclosed the price paid for the shares.

As of March 8, the Toronto Stock Exchange is still reporting Powertech's outstanding shares at 55,429,022, providing evidence that the private placement may have been non-dilutive, meaning the 12 million shares may have been purchased from insiders such as Synatom, Wallace Mays, or Dick Clement. This could potentially have significant ramifications for the future of the Canadian uranium development company. JW

K2 Principal Fund L.P.'s acquisition of Powertech common shares in the open market - March 4, 2011 - Canadianinsider.com (PDF 64 KB, 1 page)

Powertech files misleading prospectus in attempt to lure new investors

Posted March 5, 2011, Updated March 6, 2011

Canadian hedge fund manager buys 12 million Powertech shares and 6 million warrants in private placement deal

Shawn Kimel's partnership jumps past Synatom, Wallace Mays, and Dick Clement to become largest Powertech shareholder

Posted March 6, 2011

News release - THE K2 PRINCIPAL FUND L.P. ACQUIRES COMMON SHARES OF Powertech Uranium Corp. - K2 Principal Fund L.P. - March 3, 2011 (PDF 44 KB, 1 page)

Report Pursuant to Section 102.1 of the Securities Act (Ontario) and Similar Provisions of other Provincial Securities Legislation - The K2 Principal Fund L.P. by its general partner, K2 GenPar Inc., (signed) Shawn Kimel, President - Morningstar.com - March 3, 2011 (PDF 54 KB, 3 pages)

News release - "POWERTECH OBTAINS RECEIPT FOR FINAL PROSPECTUS" - POWERTECH URANIUM CORP. - March 3, 2011 (PDF 27 KB, 1 page) According to this release, Powertech's investment bank received orders for the maximum offering of units on the same day the prospectus was received by the securities commissions.

SHORT FORM PROSPECTUS - Minimum Offering: $17,500,000 or 37,234,043 Units, Maximum Offering: $22,500,000 or 47,872,340 Units, Price: $0.47 per Unit - POWERTECH URANIUM CORP. - March 2, 2011 (PDF 192 KB, 26 pages)

News release - "Powertech Announces Pricing of Public Offering" - Powertech Uranium Corp. - March 3, 2011 The planned follow-on stock offering by Powertech has been priced at $0.47 CAD per unit. At this price, Powertech must sell a minimum of 37.2 million units for gross proceeds of $17.5 million CAD. Powertech must raise the minimum proceeds by April 30; if not, all money will be returned to investors, the refinancing agreement with Synatom will terminate, Powertech will be in default on $3.45 million CAD of its debt to Synatom (due April 14), and the Belgian firm can invoke its security agreements to immediately take possession of any assets owned by Powertech to satisfy the debt. On the other hand, if the Canadian company succeeds in raising at least $17.5 million CAD, it must immediately pay Synatom $12.5 million CAD. Powertech must also pay Salman Partners Inc., its book-running manager, a cash commission of at least $1.14 million CAD. Legal and accounting fees related to the stock offering will be significant. Even if the offering raises the minimum amount, Powertech will be left with less than $4 million CAD. The news release repeats earlier statements that Powertech will use these proceeds to pursue permitting for only the Dewey-Burdock project. The news release is silent on the Centennial project, and a recent attempt by a Colorado reporter to obtain a clarification from Powertech was unsuccessful. Based on Powertech's past financial history, $4 million CAD would likely last only a few months. As of September 30, 2010, Powertech's cash position was down to $3.1 million USD.

Powertech failed to disclose relationship with Indian Springs Land and Cattle Co.

Posted February 22, 2011, Updated February 23, 2011

Wallace M. Mays

On February 4, Powertech entered into an agreement with Synatom to refinance the over $26 million of debt owed to the Belgian firm. A previously-undisclosed company, the Indian Springs Land and Cattle Co. LLC, is also a party to the agreement. The limited liability company was formed in 2008 by Powertech Chairman Wallace M. Mays, according to articles of organization filed with the Colorado Secretary of State. The company's principal office is in Greenwood Village, Colorado, and is the same street address and suite number as Powertech's office. The Refinancing Agreement describes Indian Springs as a "US subsidiary" of Canadian company Powertech Uranium Corp. A December 2008 loan agreement with Synatom contains a brief reference to a guaranty/security agreement between Indian Springs and Synatom, and refers to the limited liability company as a Powertech subsidiary. But in numerous filings with Canadian securities regulators since 2008, it appears that Powertech has never fully disclosed the existence of, and relationship with, such a subsidiary. Powertech has not disclosed the extent of its ownership and control of Indian Springs, details of the LLC's involvement in various Synatom financing agreements, any Centennial project assets held by the LLC, and the role played by Wallace Mays. As Powertech approaches its first public stock offering, it will be interesting to see what the Canadian penny-stock company tells investors about the obscure Indian Springs Land and Cattle Co.

REFINANCING AGREEMENT - POWERTECH URANIUM CORP. and POWERTECH (USA), INC. and INDIAN SPRINGS LAND AND CATTLE CO., LLC and SOCIÉTÉ BELGE DE COMBUSTIBLES NUCLÉAIRES SYNATOM SA - FEBRUARY 4, 2011 (PDF 320 KB, 73 pages)

"Powertech restructures $25M debt to former shareholder" by Bobby Magill, Fort Collins Coloradoan - February 8, 2011

News release - POWERTECH ANNOUNCES FILING OF PRELIMINARY PROSPECTUS - Powertech Uranium Corp. - February 8, 2011 (PDF 156 KB, 2 pages) Powertech indicates its intention to use the proceeds from its proposed stock offering to pay down debt and advance the Dewey-Burdock project in South Dakota, but not to further the Centennial project in Colorado: "The Company intends to use the net proceeds from the Offering to complete the initial $12.5 million payment to Société Belge de Combustibles Nucléaires Synatom SA (“Synatom”) as described in the February 4th, 2011 press release, for the advancement of the Dewey-Burdock Project, and for general corporate purposes." Note that the news release is "Not for distribution to United States newswire services or for dissemination in the United States."

PRELIMINARY SHORT FORM PROSPECTUS - Minimum Offering: $17,500,000 (CAD) - Powertech Uranium Corp. - February 7, 2011 (PDF 244 KB, 24 pages) This public stock offering is Powertech's last ditch, Hail Mary play to survive after losing the financial support of Belgian company Synatom. Four months ago, Powertech was down to $3.1 million in cash. Prior to that, its cash burn rate was about $800,000 per month. If the company can manage to raise the minimum $17.5 million CAD by the end of April, it will pay $12.5 million CAD to Synatom, $1.1 million CAD in commissions to its investment bankers, and an unknown amount for offering expenses to attorneys, accountants, and securities commissions. Powertech will then be left with something less than $3.9 million CAD. (Currently, the Canadian and US dollar are roughly at parity.) According to the prospectus, the net proceeds from the offering will be used to "obtain all necessary permits and licenses to permit the Corporation to pursue production" at the Dewey-Burdock project in South Dakota. No mention is made of the Centennial project in northern Colorado. For four years, Powertech has touted both projects as "near-term" in its pitch to investors. Apparently, Powertech officials have determined that continuing to spend money to advance the Centennial project is unwise, at least for now. (If subscriptions for the minimum offering are not received by the deadline, the offering will not continue and proceeds will be returned to subscribing investors. Alternatively, subscriptions could exceed the minimum offering.)

Powertech calls special shareholders meeting to consider financing issues

Letter to Canadian Securities Regulatory Authorities regarding March 14, 2011 special meeting of Powertech shareholders - Computershare Trust Company of Canada (agent for Powertech Uranium Corp.) - February 4, 2011 (PDF 97 KB, 1 page)

POWERTECH PLANS TO REFINANCE SYNATOM DEBT, IS WORKING ON $17.5 MILLION EQUITY FINANCING DEAL

New release - "POWERTECH ANNOUNCES STRATEGIC REFINANCING OF SYNATOM DEBT" - Powertech Uranium Corp. - February 4, 2011 (PDF 167 KB, 3 pages)

What is the Indian Springs Land and Cattle Co.? Mysterious entity formed in 2008 by Powertech Chairman Wallace Mays is somehow involved in the Synatom refinancing, according to Powertech's February 4 news release

Articles of Organization - Indian Springs Land and Cattle Co., LLC - formed by Wallace M. Mays - July 7, 2008 (PDF 35 KB, 3 pages) A search of Weld County real estate records reveals that Indian Springs Land and Cattle Co., LLC owns no land in the county. So where does it keep the cattle?

SO LONG, SYNATOM... The "Synatom Partnership" page on Powertech's website still remains (as of January 17, 2011), but all content has been removed. As is customary with Powertech, the company offers no explanation to investors or other stakeholders. To see what the Synatom Partnership page used to look like, click here.

Robert Leclere, CEO of Société Belge de Combustibles Nucléaires Synatom SA, and former Director of Powertech Uranium Corp.

"Synatom officers resign from Powertech board" - Northern Colorado Business Report - December 8, 2010 Synatom officers Robert Leclere and Gerard Pauluis actually resigned from Powertech's board sometime prior to October 26, 2010. A two-sentence news release was filed with Canadian securities regulators on October 25, but it took Powertech six weeks to post the news on the company's website. CEO Dick Clement did not respond to an NCBR request for a comment on the resignations, but the publication reported Clement's earlier claim that losing the firm's sole financial backer "will not affect our development interests in Centennial." Right....

Notice Declaring Intention to be Qualified under National Instrument 44-101 Short Form Prospectus Distributions (“NI 44-101”) - Thomas A. Doyle, Vice President, Finance and Chief Financial Officer, Powertech Uranium Corp. - November 18, 2010 (PDF 13 KB, 1 page) Powertech is taking the first step to raise more capital through a public offering of securities. Without new financing, the company is set to run out of cash by early 2011. Powertech's 2009 loan agreement with Belgian nuclear company Synatom requires Powertech to start repaying its $13.8 million CAD loan by April 2011. The April payment is $3.8 million CAD, and the same amount is due in June. Payments of $3.9 million CAD are due in September and December 2011. In addition, Powertech must repay an earlier Synatom loan totaling $11 million CAD by December 2011. Total loan payments due to Synatom by the end of next year are over $26 million CAD. Since Wallace Mays and Dick Clement engineered a reverse takeover of Canadian shell company Powertech Industries by Denver Uranium Company in 2006, Powertech has never publicly issued equity or debt securities. It has raised capital through private placements which don't require the public filing of a prospectus.

POWERTECH URANIUM CORP. (An Exploration Stage Company) - CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS - September 30, 2010 (Stated in U.S. Dollars) - unaudited (prepared by management) Powertech reports that it had $3.1 million in cash at the end of September. The company continues to burn cash at the rate of about $800,000 per month. If Powertech cannot raise any new money, it could be broke by January or February 2011.

POWERTECH URANIUM CORP. (An Exploration Stage Company) MANAGEMENT DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS - November 12, 2009 (PDF 120 KB, 16 pages) In typical Powertech fashion, this MD&A is noteworthy for what it doesn't mention: the lawsuit filed against the State of Colorado, expected economic impact of the new Colorado uranium mining rules on the Centennial project, hydrogeologic issues facing the Centennial project including the number of mine units requiring "aquifer enhancement", delays in conducting a final pump test for the Centennial project, reasons why Synatom wants to end its partnership with Powertech, the hearing process for the NRC Source Material License for the Dewey-Burdock project, the NRC's schedule for issuing draft and final review documents for Dewey-Burdock, and any mention of opposition to the two projects.

Form 52-109F2 Certification of interim filings - certified by Richard F. Clement, Jr., Chief Executive Officer and President - Powertech Uranium Corp. - November 12, 2010 (PDF 23 KB, 2 pages) Canadian securities law requires the CEO of a public company to certify that, among other things, the company's interim financial statements and MD&A do not contain misrepresentations. Powertech CEO Dick Clement certifies that "Based on my knowledge, having exercised reasonable diligence, the interim filings do not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact required to be stated or that is necessary to make a statement not misleading in light of the circumstances under which it was made, with respect to the period covered by the interim filings." The November 12 MD&A says the company is preparing to submit permit applications for the Centennial project "after analysis of the aquifer test results." However, the MD&A omits any mention of the November 1 lawsuit filed against the State of Colorado challenging the new uranium mining rules. It is hard to imagine how Powertech could submit a mining reclamation permit application while it is suing to overturn regulations governing such applications.

MORE POWERTECH URANIUM CORP. DOCUMENTS

DEWEY-BURDOCK PROJECT - SOUTH DAKOTA

NRC Application Review Schedule ● NRC Dewey-Burdock license application page ● NRC Source Material License ● EPA UIC Class III Permit Application ● South Dakota Department of Environment & Natural Resources ● Clean Water Alliance

NEW "I'm truly offended that somebody would suggest that we lied to you" - Larry Mann, lead lobbyist for Powertech, in testimony before the South Dakota House State Affairs Committee - February 1, 2012 (audio of committee hearing)

NEW "Bill giving state a role in regulating uranium mining tabled" by David Montgomery, Rapid City Journal - February 1, 2012

NEW "Bill would restore state permitting power on uranium mines" by Kevin Woster, Rapid City Journal - January 27, 2012

Legislation introduced in South Dakota to restore regulation of in-situ leach uranium mining

Posted January 23, 2012

Republican state representative Patricia Stricherz introduced a bill on Friday to reinstate regulation of in-situ leach uranium operations by the State of South Dakota. House Bill 1098 would repeal last year's Senate Bill 158.

SB-158 was promoted by Powertech Uranium Corp. as a means to drastically reduce state regulation of the proposed Dewey-Burdock uranium project near Edgemont. Powertech lobbyists and supporters argued that state rules were similar to federal regulations and were therefore unnecessary.

SB-158 was introduced and passed after Powertech's permit application for injection wells was rejected twice by South Dakota regulators. Powertech has had similar problems with its license application submitted to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

In both Colorado and South Dakota, as well as on the federal level, Powertech officials seem to have difficulty convincing regulators that they know what they are doing and that the company can conduct ISL uranium mining in a manner that is protective of human health and the environment.

Since forming the company and commencing permit work in 2006, Powertech has been unable to obtain a single mining permit.

Both HB-1098 and SB-158 are noteworthy for their brevity. SB-158 uses two sentences to suspend state in-situ leach mining rules and underground injection control rules. HB-1098 repeals the two sentences.

Proponents of HB-1098 argue that the bill will help protect ground and surface water, and other resources, from radioactive and chemical contamination, will restore state control over in-situ leach uranium mining, and will remove the current confusion regarding the state's role with respect to such mining.

House Bill No. 1098, Introduced by Representatives Stricherz, Jones, Kloucek, Lucas, and Moser and Senators Bradford, Begalka, and Buhl - State of South Dakota - Eighty-Seventh Session, Legislative Assembly, 2012 (PDF 477 KB, 1 page)

"HB 1098: Stricherz Proposes Restoration of South Dakota Uranium Regulation" - South Dakota Madville Times - January 21, 2012

South Dakota Legislature - 2012 Session Bill History - House Bill 1098

South Dakota Legislature - 2012 Session Legislator Menu

Powertech to submit groundwater computer model results to NRC by late February

New information could delay technical review and estimated June 2012 issuance date of Safety Evaluation Report for Dewey-Burdock

Posted December 26, 2011

A December 22, 2011 Public Meeting Summary released by U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff contains very little information regarding the content of a recent meeting with Powertech but sheds some light on the license review schedule for the proposed Dewey-Burdock uranium project.

Powertech requested the December 7 meeting with NRC staff at NRC headquarters to discuss preliminary results of a hydrogeological computer model for the project. Final results will be submitted to the NRC by late February, according to the meeting summary.

If the results include new information, the NRC's review of Powertech's license application may be delayed:

"Staff notes that Powertech was reminded that submittal of new information once the technical review has started will require the staff to revise the review schedule as necessary (see also staff e-mail to Powertech dated November 15, 2011 (ADAMS Accession Number ML113200821))."

The technical review ends with the issuance of a Safety Evaluation Report for the proposed project. A SER and a Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement are required before a license can be issued to Powertech.

The NRC staff's estimated issuance date for an SER is June 2012. The estimated issuance date for a Final SEIS is sometime between January and March 2013.

According to Powertech's most recent financial statements, it appears that without new financing the company may run out of cash by mid-2012. Powertech has no revenue and has made no announcements about how it intends to finance ongoing permitting efforts for Dewey-Burdock.

Memorandum to Bill Von Till, Chief, Uranium Recovery Licensing Branch, U.S. NRC, from Ronald A. Burrows, Project Manager, Uranium Recovery Licensing Branch, U.S. NRC, regarding Public Meeting Summary of December 7, 2011 meeting with Powertech officials, attorneys, and consultants to hear Powertech's presentation of preliminary information on its hydrogeological model for the proposed Dewey-Burdock project - December 22, 2011 (PDF 83 KB, 5 pages)

Email from Jeffrey Parsons, attorney representing the Oglala Sioux Tribe, to Ronald Burrows, NRC Project Manager, requesting the public release of Powertech's PowerPoint presentation on its groundwater model for Dewey-Burdock prior to the December 7 public meeting between Powertech and NRC staff - November 29, 2011 (PDF 164 KB, 3 pages) In a move to increase transparency and public participation, Colorado attorney Jeffrey Parsons succeeded in getting Powertech and NRC staff to release Powertech's presentation on a preliminary groundwater computer model prior to the December 7 public meeting in Rockville, Maryland. Parsons is a Senior Attorney with the Western Mining Action Project and represents the Oglala Sioux Tribe in the tribe's intervention in Powertech's licensing action with the NRC. A week before the meeting, Powertech and NRC staff had no plans to release the PowerPoint presentation, even though the meeting was a "Category 1" meeting requiring that the public should have access to "any primary or background documents." Parsons suggested that perhaps the meeting should be postponed until the presentation could be publicly released. A day after receiving Parsons' request, NRC staff asked Powertech to submit the presentation for public dissemination. Five days later, on December 5, Powertech sent the presentation to NRC staff. Members of the public had one day to review the presentation before the December 7 meeting.

PowerPoint presentation - "Groundwater Model Status Report - Powertech Dewey-Burdock Uranium In Situ Recovery Project" - Powertech (USA) Inc. - December 7, 2011 (PDF 4,230 KB, 43 pages) At the end of the presentation, Powertech concludes that "Modeling Supports Viability of ISR Mining for Uranium in the Fall River and Chilson Aquifers." But in a disclaimer on the first slide, Powertech warns that results of the modeling are preliminary and that "this presentation is not intended to be relied upon by the NRC staff nor any of the parties involved in the ongoing litigation regarding the proposed Dewey-Burdock Project and Powertech’s application for a uranium recovery license from the NRC as it is not part of the application currently." Is it scientifically sound to conclude that the model supports the viability of the proposed Dewey-Burdock project if it is only preliminary?

NRC requests Powertech presentation prior to December 7 meeting

Presentation concerns hydrological computer model for Dewey-Burdock

Posted December 5, 2011

In a November 30 email to Powertech permit chief Dick Blubaugh, NRC Team Leader Stephen Cohen requested a copy of the PowerPoint presentation the Canadian company intends to present at the December 7 meeting between Powertech and NRC staff.

The presentation concerns a hydrological computer model developed by Powertech consultant Petrotek Engineering Corporation for Powertech's license application for the proposed Dewey-Burdock uranium project. NRC staff would like to email the presentation to meeting participants prior to the start of the meeting.

As of close of business on December 5, the presentation had not been posted on the NRC's ADAMS public document database.

Uranium mining companies develop such computer models in part to make the case to regulators and the public that in-situ leach uranium mining will not contaminate underground sources of drinking water that surround mine production zones.

Petrotek earlier developed a hydrological model for the Irigary ISL site in Johnson County, Wyoming. The model was intended to be used to predict the fate and transport of groundwater contaminants following mining and aquifer restoration.

In a 2008 presentation in Fort Collins, Colorado, Ur-Energy Vice President Wayne Heili maintained that Petrotek's Irigary computer model shows that remaining concentrations of contaminants "pose no threat" to surrounding underground sources of drinking water. Heili went on to claim that the computer modeling demonstrates that in-situ leaching "can be practiced in a manner that is Highly Protective of our drinking water supplies, during mining and forever after."

Heili's assertion that Petrotek's computer model demonstrates zero risk from ISL mining is highly suspect. According to a publication of the International Association of Hydrological Sciences, "The output of a numerical model of flow and/or solute transport in a groundwater system will normally contain errors of unknown magnitude", and that model predictions inevitably contain uncertainty.

Computer modeling involves numerous inputs and system parameters, each of which must accurately represent actual physical and chemical properties, conditions, processes, and stresses. Groundwater conditions are highly complex, and hydrogeological data can be limited. Computer model inputs invariably involve some uncertainty, and small errors in inputs affect the uncertainty of the model's outputs.

Petrotek's work at the Irigary site is not surprising given the ISL mine's checkered past. In a 1986 report prepared by scientists from the Oak Ridge National Laboratory and the University of Idaho for the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Irigary's history of groundwater problems is detailed.

While being operated by the Wyoming Mineral Corporation and later by Westinghouse Electric Corporation, the ISL mine was plagued by excursions, which occur when the operator loses control of leaching fluids and the fluids move away from the mining production zone.

The report concludes that "WMC's Irigary mine has a history of numerous excursions." The report includes a table of ten different wells that had excursions lasting from one month to three years. An investigation in 1979 found that 62 wells had major casing damage. WMC concluded that excursions were probably caused by damaged well casings as well as unplugged exploration boreholes. Natural geological conditions may have also contributed to the excursions.

The authors also note that excessive fluid injection pressures during ISL mining may have fractured overlying geological formations, allowing mining fluids to move vertically away from the mining zone.

Republican representative to introduce legislation to repeal Senate Bill 158

Posted December 1, 2011

South Dakota Republican state representative Patricia Stricherz plans to sponsor legislation to overturn last year's Senate Bill 158, according to a person familiar with the matter. SB-158 halted state regulation of in-situ leach uranium mining and was pushed by Powertech Uranium Corp., the only company in the state currently affected by the legislation.

SB-158 proponents argued that state rules regarding ISL mining duplicated federal regulations enforced by the EPA and NRC. But the real impetus for the bill may have come from Powertech's inability to provide complete, accurate, and coherent information to South Dakota regulators demonstrating that the proposed Dewey-Burdock project would not harm ground water quality.

South Dakota Department of Environment and Natural Resources - DRAFT Comments on the Powertech (USA) Inc. Revised Dewey-Burdock Project - Underground Injection Control Permit Application - Dated February 2010 (PDF 1,584 KB, 22 pages)

Senate Bill 158 - An Act to toll the Department of Environment and Natural Resources administrative rules on underground injection control Class III wells and in situ leach mining until the department obtains primary enforcement authority of the comparable federal programs. (PDF 65 KB, 2 pages)

NRC finds Powertech's RAI responses acceptable for detailed technical review

Posted November 29, 2011

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission has notified Powertech that it has found the company's technical report RAI responses to be acceptable for detailed technical review by NRC staff. Because of deficiencies in earlier submitted responses, Powertech's efforts to obtain a Source Material License for the Dewey-Burdock project have already taken over two years and nine months:

February 25, 2009 - Powertech submits Source Material License application to NRC.

June 11, 2009 - Powertech meets with NRC staff in Washington, D.C. to discuss several material deficiencies in license application. NRC staff tells Powertech it will reject application if it is not withdrawn.

June 19, 2009 - Powertech withdraws license application.

August 10, 2009 - Powertech resubmits license application to NRC.

October 2, 2009 - NRC finds revised application acceptable for detailed technical and environmental review.

April 14, 2010 - NRC staff issues Request for Additional Information to Powertech regarding environmental review of license application.

May 28, 2010 - NRC staff issues Request for Additional Information to Powertech regarding technical review of license application.

July 20, 2010 - Powertech's Dick Blubaugh asks NRC if technical RAI responses can be submitted in "two or three submittals".

August 10, 2010 - NRC staff informs Powertech that responses will not be reviewed until "a complete response package that addresses all technical RAIs" is received.

August 11, 2010 - Powertech submits responses to environmental RAIs to NRC.

December 23, 2010 - Powertech submits responses to technical RAIs to NRC.

March 7, 2011 - NRC staff notifies Powertech that it has identified "a significant number of deficiencies" in the company's technical RAI responses, informs Powertech that review of the technical/safety portion of the application has been stopped, and agrees to meet with Powertech to discuss deficiencies.

April 7-8, 2011 - NRC staff and Powertech meet at NRC headquarters to discuss technical RAI response deficiencies.

June 28, 2011 - Powertech submits revised responses to technical RAIs to NRC.

July 25, 2011 - NRC staff informs Powertech that it anticipates starting its review of the technical RAI responses in October 2011.

November 15, 2011 - NRC staff informs Powertech that if new information is presented at a scheduled December 7 meeting, its license application review schedule will be reevaluated and revised as necessary.

November 28, 2011 - NRC staff notifies Powertech that it has found the company's technical RAI responses to be acceptable for detailed review.

NRC staff estimates that it will issue a Safety Evaluation Report for the proposed Dewey-Burdock project by June 2012. Staff's current best estimate for issuance of a Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement is August 2012. The estimated release date for a Final SEIS is sometime between January and March 2013.

Email to Richard Blubaugh, VP of Environmental Health and Safety Resources, Powertech (USA), Inc. notifying company that NRC staff has found Powertech's technical RAI responses to be acceptable for technical review - Ronald A. Burrows, Project Manager, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission - November 28, 2011 (PDF 81 KB, 2 pages)

POWERTECH MEETING WITH NRC MAY RESULT IN ANOTHER DELAY FOR DEWEY-BURDOCK

Presentation of hydrological model to NRC staff could cause delay; "Staff will evaluate the material presented at the December 7 public meeting and revise our review schedule as necessary"

Posted November 17, 2011

Powertech consultant Petrotek Engineering Corporation is scheduled to present a new hydrological computer model for the proposed Dewey-Burdock project to U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff on December 7. But the presentation may trigger another delay in the NRC's review of Powertech's source material license application, according to an email by NRC project manager Ronald Burrows. The NRC's review schedule may be revised if new material is presented at the meeting. In his November 15 email to Powertech permit chief Richard Blubaugh, Burrows chides Powertech for its habit of submitting incomplete license applications:

"If there is new material presented at this meeting that Powertech wants to incorporate into the application, staff will have to reevaluate our review schedule as it will require additional staff review time. NRC staff has consistently communicated to Powertech that review schedules are determined by, among other things, the completeness of the application materials and the amount of new information submitted once a review has started. This was specifically stated in the April 7-8, 2011 public meeting, and recorded in the meeting summary (ML111030368), and transmitted in the May 6, 2011 letter to you from Keith McConnell (ML110470245)."

The meeting will take place from 9:00 AM to noon at NRC headquarters in Rockville, Maryland. Interested members of the public can participate in this meeting via a toll-free teleconference.

Notice - December 7, 2011 Meeting to Discuss Powertech’s Hydrological Model for the Dewey- Burdock Project - Ronald Burrows, Project Manager, Uranium Recovery Licensing Branch, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission - November 15, 2011 (PDF 65 KB, 4 pages)

Email to Powertech's Richard Blubaugh regarding potential delay in NRC's review of Dewey-Burdock source material license application due to new material presented at December 7 meeting - Ronald Burrows, Project Manager, Uranium Recovery Licensing Branch, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission - November 15, 2011 (PDF 105 KB, 2 pages)

NRC staff spells out Section 106 process to tribes

Letter to 24 Indian tribes explains roles played by NRC and consultant SRI Foundation

Posted November 6, 2011

In a letter sent to the Tribal Historic Preservation Officers of 24 western Indian tribes, Kevin Hseuh of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission describes the process the agency intends to use to identify and determine potential impacts from ISL uranium mining to properties of religious and cultural significance to the tribes.

The process includes assessing possible adverse impacts from two proposed projects, Powertech's Dewey-Burdock and Cameco's Crow Butte North Trend, as well as Cameco's license renewal of the existing Crow Butte mine.

Hseuh explains that Powertech and Cameco have hired SRI Foundation (SRIF) to collect information on traditional cultural properties (TCPs) located in the proposed project areas. SRIF staff member Lynne Sebastian, PhD, will direct the investigations. Martha Graham, PhD will do planning with the tribes.

The NRC is obligated under federal law to carry out tribal consultation efforts for the projects. Hseuh states that the NRC will continue to be involved, but it is clear that the agency wants the SRIF to take primary responsibility for identifying TCPs.

SRIF will contact the tribes to determine if they "are interested in participating in field visits and ethnographic interviews". Hseuh notes that if the tribes wish to conduct their own research, "facilitation" will be provided by SRIF.

Following the information gathering, SRIF will recommend which TCPs may be eligible for protection under federal law. NRC staff will then decide whether Powertech and Cameco's mining activities will have an adverse effect on eligible or listed properties.

Tribes will be consulted regarding the "effect determinations" before they are finalized by the NRC. If adverse effects are determined, NRC staff will consult further with the tribes on methods to resolve the effects.

As of November 6, no responses to the NRC's letter from Tribal Historic Preservation Officers have been posted on the NRC's website.

The NRC's Hsueh does not set any deadlines for the Section 106 consultation process and does not estimate how long it may take. It is unknown how many of the 24 tribes may eventually choose to participate in the process.

Letter to James Laysbad, Tribal Historic Preservation Office, Oglala Sioux Tribe, explaining the NRC's planned Section 106 consultation process for the proposed Dewey-Burdock and Crow Butte uranium mining projects - Kevin Hseuh, Branch Chief, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission - October 28, 2011 (PDF 87 KB, 4 pages)

POWERTECH DOESN'T HAVE ENOUGH CASH TO COMPLETE DEWEY-BURDOCK PERMITTING

Q3 financial statements show company will burn through exisiting cash by mid-2012

Posted October 29, 2011

Powertech has effectively pulled out of Colorado and the troubled Centennial project to focus on South Dakota, but it appears that the Canadian company may have insufficient cash to complete permitting of the Dewey-Burdock project.

Powertech released its third quarter financial statements on Wednesday, and its cash position had dwindled to $5.02 million as of September 30. While its cash burn rate has been declining over the last year, Powertech is spending an average of $600,000 per month, primarily for permitting, consulting, wages, and management fees.

Without new equity or debt financing, Powertech is on track to run out of cash by the middle of next year. But according to staff and attorneys from the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, a Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement for the project won't be released until sometime between January and May 2013.

This would be followed by a hearing before the NRC's Atomic Safety and Licensing Board to consider contentions raised by the Oglala Sioux Tribe and other intervenors, as well as possible appeals by Powertech or intervenors.

It is difficult to envision a scenario under which the NRC could issue a license to Powertech before 2014.

Whether Powertech can raise more cash in the next few months is an open question. Borrowing is problematic since it has few tangible assets to pledge as collateral, and its stock price is so low that any new stock offering would be highly dilutive to current shareholders, including the company's founders.

POWERTECH URANIUM CORP. (An Exploration Stage Company) CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS For the three and nine months ended September 30, 2011 (Stated in United States Dollars) - UNAUDITED (PDF 148 KB, 33 pages)

Status report from NRC staff to the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board specifying the staff's best estimate of issuance dates for draft and final documents associated with its review of Powertech's license application for Dewey-Burdock - Patricia Jehle, Counsel for NRC Staff - September 1, 2011 (PDF 93 KB, 2 pages)

Powertech hires consultant to develop plan for identifying places of religious and cultural significance to Indian tribes

SRI Foundation also helping global mining company Rio Tinto develop large copper-gold deposit in Mongolia

Posted October 4, 2011

Powertech has partnered with Wyoming/Nebraska uranium miner Cameco Resources to hire the SRI Foundation (SRIF) to come up with a plan for complying with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act and related regulations. On August 12, NRC Branch Chief Kevin Hseuh had requested that Powertech submit a plan to the NRC to identify properties potentially affected by the proposed Dewey-Burdock uranium project near Edgemont, South Dakota. In an August 31 letter from Powertech permit chief Dick Blubaugh to Hseuh, Blubaugh presents a proposal from SRIF.

It is not clear why Canadian companies Powertech and Cameco are having SRIF develop a single plan for the two companies. According to the proposal, Cameco has four uranium projects in Nebraska that are involved in the Section 106 process.

Before the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission can issue a license to Powertech to mine uranium from the Dewey-Burdock site, the federal agency must identify places of religious and cultural significance to Indian tribes and others, determine if such properties are eligible for protection under federal law, assess whether the proposed uranium mining could have an adverse effect on the properties, and identify measures to prevent or mitigate such adverse effects.

Section 106 requires the NRC to consult with interested tribes, several of which have already commented on the proposed mining project and the consultation process. SRIF's proposal seems to emphasize tribal involvement, but the proposal is short on details. It remains to be seen what is meant by "identifying appropriate ethnographers" and "participating in field visits".

SRIF is an offshoot of Statistical Research, Inc., a "cultural resource management" firm with offices throughout the western U.S. The company has clients in many industries, but its website notes its expertise in mining:

From initial feasibility studies to on-site mitigation and monitoring, SRI provides comprehensive cultural services to clients in the mining and energy industry. SRI understands the needs of the mining and energy extraction industry. Responsiveness to client needs is a priority because SRI knows the cost that delays can cause. Our company is in business to keep projects moving and keep our clients on schedule.

Both SRI Foundation and Statistical Research, Inc. are heavily involved in the Oyu Tolgoi copper-gold mining project in southern Mongolia. The combined open pit and underground mining project is the largest financial undertaking in Mongolia's history. Statistical Research, Inc. is one of four principal partners that are designing a "cultural heritage plan" for to the Oyu Tolgoi project.

The project is owned by the Mongolian government (34%) and Ivanhoe Mines Ltd. (66%). Rio Tinto, the second-largest mining company in the world, owns 49% of Vancouver-based Ivanhoe. Ivanhoe was founded and is run by Robert "Toxic Bob" Friedland, the former chairman of Galactic Resources which operated the Summitville gold mine in Rio Grande County, Colorado. Summitville was the site of the United States' worst cyanide release and is a Superfund site.

Powertech's outside attorney, John Fognani, is Executive Vice President, Legal and General Counsel of Ivanhoe Mines, Ltd. and Friedland's Ivanhoe Capital Corporation. Fognani's Denver law firm, Fognani & Faught, PLLC, filed a lawsuit in 2010 against the Colorado Mined Land Reclamation Board on behalf of Powertech. The lawsuit seeks to overturn new state rules regulating in-situ leach uranium mining.

Proposal from Cameco Resources and Powertech Inc. to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission - A plan for assisting NRC, as the Federal lead agency for Section 106, by gathering information about properties of religious and cultural significance to Federally recognized Indian tribes that may be affected by their proposed undertakings - SRI Foundation - August 30, 2011 (PDF 2,039 KB, 5 pages)

SRI Foundation - Home page

Statistical Research, Inc. - Home page

Mining and Energy Extraction Heritage Services - Statement of Qualifications - Statistical Research, Inc.

Another delay for Dewey-Burdock?

NRC Project Manager Ron Burrows advises Powertech that any new information provided in revised Technical Report "may delay review of your licensing action"

Posted September 28, 2011

Emails between NRC's Ronald Burrows and Powertech's Richard Blubaugh regarding Powertech's proposal to submit a revised Technical Report for the proposed Dewey-Burdock ISL uranium project - September 26-27, 2011 (PDF 102 KB, 3 pages)

NRC: Indian tribes to review and comment on Powertech's Traditional Cultural Property Survey Plan

NRC concedes that it is legally responsible for "findings and determinations", not Powertech; agency reverses course by planning to engage tribes during identification and evaluation phases

Posted September 20, 2011

NRC Branch Chief Kevin Hseuh responded on September 9 to a letter from the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe that was critical of an earlier letter from Hseuh to Powertech VP Dick Blubaugh. The letter to Blubaugh included a request that Powertech prepare a Traditional Cultural Property (TCP) Survey Plan for the proposed Dewey-Burdock uranium project.

A TCP survey plan is required for compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act. Section 106 requires the NRC to take into account the effects of any licensing action on historic properties.

Standing Rock Sioux Tribe archaeologist Terry Clouthier objected to Hsueh's letter that appeared to shift much of the responsibility for Section 106 compliance to Powertech. Further criticism was directed toward Hseuh's suggestion that Powertech could hire an archaeologist to identify and evaluate potential TCPs without including site visits by tribal representatives.

Hseuh's response to Clouthier defends the NRC's request to Powertech to "assist our identification of historic properties," but concedes that the NRC "remains legally responsible for all required findings and determinations."

Hseuh contradicts his earlier letter to Powertech by stating that the NRC plans to engage Tribal Historic Preservation Officers "during the identification and evaluation phases of the Section 106 process." Hseuh does not mention whether the NRC plans to include other tribal representatives with special expertise in identifying and evaluating TCPs.

Significantly, Hseuh indicates that when the NRC receives Powertech's TCP survey plan, it will circulate the plan to all consulting Indian tribes for review and comment. The NRC requested that Powertech submit the plan by August 31, 2011. As of September 20, the plan has not been posted on the NRC's ADAMS website.

Letter from the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission to the Tribal Historic Preservation Office of the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe responding to the office's August 30, 2011 letter regarding the NRC's request that Powertech prepare a Traditional Cultural Property (TCP) Survey Plan - Kevin Hseuh, Branch Chief, Environmental Review Branch - September 9, 2011 (PDF 79 KB, 3 pages)

Standing Rock Sioux Tribe website

Tribal official says NRC's approach to identifying traditional cultural properties is a no go

Standing Rock Sioux Tribe archaeologist Clouthier rips NRC letter to Powertech on required TCP studies

Posted September 14, 2011, Updated September 17, 2011

In a strongly-worded letter to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission dated August 30, Standing Rock Sioux Tribe archaeologist Terry Clouthier takes issue with the NRC's approach to identifying historic properties of cultural, traditional and religious significance located within or near the proposed Dewey-Burdock uranium project.

Responding to the NRC's August 12 letter to Powertech, Clouthier argues that the NRC is not following federal Section 106 regulations that require the NRC to ensure that such traditional cultural properties (TCPs) are identified through consultation with interested Indian tribes. The NRC's letter suggests that the requirement for a TCP survey could be satisfied by Powertech hiring an archaeologist.

Clouthier makes two points. First, that the NRC appears to be placing the responsibility for the survey on Powertech when it should reside with the NRC. And second, that non-tribal archaeologists are not qualified to conduct effective TCP studies. Clouthier notes that tribal representatives have already identified several additional features missed by Powertech-hired archaeologists. The features were identified during a recent NRC-sponsored site visit to the Dewey-Burdock project area.

In March 2008, Augustana College's Archeology Laboratory released a five-volume "Level III Cultural Resources Evaluation of Powertech (USA) Incorporated's Proposed Dewey-Burdock Uranium Project Locality within the Southern Black Hills, Custer and Fall River Counties, South Dakota". The lab, located at the small (1,800 sudents) Evangelical Lutheran liberal arts college in Sioux Falls, prepared the report under contract to Powertech.

Although the Archeology Laboratory is staffed by four individuals with graduate degrees, Augustana College does not have a graduate program in anthropology and has offered an undergraduate major for only three years. At the time the report was prepared for Powertech in early 2008, anthropology was only offered as a minor. In the fall of 2008, Augustana had only six declared anthropology undergraduate students. According to the college's website, Augustana's anthropology department currently has only one resident full professor, Dr. Adrien Hannus. Four adjunct professors are listed - two from the UK's University of Exeter, one who works in Illinois, and a doctoral student in linguistic anthropology.

According to Section 1.3 of the report, the field work for the TCP study was directed by two lab staffers with only undergraduate degrees, Timothy Gillen and Jason Kruse. They directed a field crew consisting of eleven individuals. Only two of these individuals work in the Archeology Laboratory (according to the lab's website). The other nine may be anthropology students; the report is silent on their qualifications. The report was authored by lab staffers and an outside consultant, John Bozell, who "analyzed the collected artifacts". The project was overseen by Dr. Hannus.

Letter from the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe's Tribal Historic Preservation Office to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission challenging the NRC's approach to compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act with respect to Powertech's proposed Dewey-Burdock uranium project - Terry Clouthier, Tribal Archaeologist - August 30, 2011 (PDF 509 KB, 2 pages)

National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, As amended through 2006 [With annotations] (PDF 142 KB, 46 pages)

A Level III Cultural Resources Evaluation of Powertech (USA) Incorporated's Proposed Dewey-Burdock Uranium Project Locality within the Southern Black Hills, Custer and Fall River Counties, South Dakota - Prepared for Powertech (USA) Incorporated by Archeology Laboratory, Augustana College - March 2008

Volume 1: Cultural Resources Report, cover page through page 1.1 (PDF 3,737 KB, 50 pages)

Volume 1: Cultural Resources Report, pages 1.2 through 4.18 (PDF 14,889 KB, 51 pages)

(For the other 15 files, go to the NRC's Web-based ADAMS site, search for "Augustana", and scroll down.)

Archeology Laboratory Staff - Augustana College

Anthropology Department Faculty - Augustana College

"Augustana Sees 250 Percent Increase in Anthropology Majors" - July 7, 2010

Coal Canyon Fire, Black Hills National Forest - August 18, 2011 (Photo: United States Forest Service North Zone Crew 1)

Black Hills wildfire burns to within 3 miles of proposed Dewey-Burdock ISL uranium project

Coal Canyon fire consumes 5,214 acres; wildfire approaches site of proposed in-situ leach uranium mine

Posted September 5, 2011

A lightning-ignited fire burned over 5,200 acres a few miles north of Edgemont, South Dakota between August 11 and 18. The Coal Canyon wildfire burned to within two miles of the proposed permit boundary of Powertech's Dewey-Burdock uranium project, and to within three miles of one of the project's proposed wellfields.

A firefighter, 23-year-old Trampus Haskvitz, lost his life fighting the fire.

In-situ leach uranium mining facilities are not designed to withstand wildfires. Even though pipes carrying leaching fluids to and from wellheads are buried, plastic wellheads, electrical lines, header houses, and central and satellite processing plants would all be susceptible to damage from a wildfire. Any damage to equipment used to control injection and production rates could potentially result in excursions from a wellfield.

A recent wildfire at the Kingsville Dome ISL mine in south Texas destroyed wellheads and unburied plastic piping in a wellfield. The wellfield is currently in the aquifer restoration and stability phase.

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission does not appear to require the preparation of a wildfire contingency plan by ISL license applicants. The NRC's Generic Environmental Impact Statement for In-Situ Leach Uranium Milling Facilities simply pushes the issue off on local governments:

The demand for public services (schools, police, fire, emergency services) would be expected to increase with the construction and operation of an ISL facility. There may also be additional standby emergency services not available in some parts of the region. It may be necessary to develop contingency plans and/or additional training for specialized equipment.

Powertech has not commented on the Coal Canyon fire and has not advanced wildfire contingency plans for either the Dewey-Burdock or Centennial projects.

Video of Coal Canyon Fire - North Zone Crew 1, United States Forest Service - August 12, 2011

Coal Canyon Fire - InciWeb Interagency Incident Information System

Map - Large Wildfires in the Black Hills, Wyoming & South Dakota, Summer 2011 (JPG 1,290 KB) The southern portion of the Dewey-Burdock project is located approximately at the second "n" in "Canyon".

Map - Proposed Facilities and Well Fields - Dewey-Burdock Project - Powertech (USA) Inc. - June 4, 2009 (PDF 10,552 KB, 1 page)

TEXAS URANIUM MINE BURNS - Brush fire at Kingsville Dome ISL mine ignites plastic piping system in wellfield; Uranium Resources official downplays incident - Posted August 13, 2011

NRC staff reaffirms estimated 2013 release date for final environmental impact statement

Posted September 1, 2011

The NRC staff's monthly status report to the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel (ASLB) reaffirms its August 1 estimate that a Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (SEIS) won't be issued until January 2013 through May 2013. A Final SEIS would be followed by ASLB proceedings including consideration of contentions raised by the Oglala Sioux Tribe and other intervenors, as well as possible appeals. A final licensing decision by the NRC would not occur until 2014 at the earliest.

"Powertech Closes Colorado Office, Says Focusing on South Dakota Uranium" - Madville Times - August 29, 2011 South Dakota commentator Cory Heidelberger questions how Powertech can pay for the proposed Dewey-Burdock project when it "can’t even afford to continue leasing an old house in Wellington, Colorado as a local office".

Revised Responses to the Request for Additional Information (RAI) for the Technical Report (TR); Powertech (USA) Inc.'s Proposed Dewey-Burdock Project - ML112071064 - U.S Nuclear Regulatory Commission - June 28, 2011

NRC requests plan from Powertech to identify Traditional Cultural Properties in area of proposed mine

NRC official suggests enlisting tribal representatives and/or hiring an archaeologist; eighteen Indian tribes express interest in historic sites in area of potential effect for Dewey-Burdock project

Posted August 22, 2011

To meet requirements under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA), the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Agency (NRC) on August 12 requested that Powertech submit a written plan to identify Traditional Cultural Properties (TCPs) in the area of potential effect for the proposed Dewey-Burdock in-situ leach uranium facility.

TCPs include properties of traditional religious and cultural importance to one or more Indian tribes. The information requested by the NRC would be in addition to archaeological surveys Powertech has already submitted.

In its letter to Powertech, NRC Branch Chief Kevin Hsueh suggests that the information can be obtained from site visits by tribal representatives, hiring an archaeologist, or a combination of these or other methods. Hsueh requests that Powertech submit a written plan for TCP identification by August 31, 2011.

Eighteen tribes have expressed interest in TCPs in the area potentially affected by Dewey-Burdock. The tribes include the Oglala Sioux Tribe, Rosebud Sioux Tribe, Lower Brule Sioux Tribe, Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe, Crow Creek Sioux Tribe, Flandreau-Santee Sioux Tribe, Sisseton-Wahpeton Oyate, Yankton Sioux Tribe, Lower Sioux Indian Community, Crow Tribe of Montana, Fort Peck Tribe, Northern Cheyenne Tribe, Standing Rock Sioux Tribe, Spirit Lake Tribe, Santee Sioux Tribes of Nebraska, Ponca Tribe of Nebraska, Eastern Shoshone Tribe, and the Northern Arapahoe Tribe.

Letter requesting information from Powertech required by the NRC to complete its review of the impacts to cultural resources from the proposed Dewey-Burdock project - Kevin Hsueh, Branch Chief, Environmental Review Branch-B, U.S Nuclear Regulatory Commission - August 12, 2011 (PDF 97 KB, 8 pages)

Powertech knew Dewey-Burdock review was delayed

NRC's July 25 email notified Powertech that review wouldn't start until October; Canadian company filed July 29 report with older, more favorable schedule

Posted August 2, 2011

When Powertech filed its July 29 Management Discussion and Analysis (MD&A) claiming that The NRC was expected to issue a draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (SEIS) for Dewey-Burdock "in late 2011 or early 2012", it had already received a July 25 email from NRC project manager Ronald Burrows stating that the previously suspended review of Powertech's application would not restart until October 2011. Powertech officials apparently disregarded the Burrows email before filing the MD&A. On August 1, NRC staff released a letter explaining that the estimated issuance date for the draft SEIS has been revised to August 2012. The July 29 MD&A is Powertech's only official statement on the proposed Dewey-Burdock project until third quarter reports are filed in late October or November.

Email from NRC to Powertech acknowledging receipt of technical report RAI responses for the proposed Dewey-Burdock uranium recovery facility - Ronald A. Burrows, Project Manager, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission - July 25, 2011 (PDF 57 KB, 2 pages)

POWERTECH URANIUM CORP. (An Exploration Stage Company) - MANAGEMENT DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS - July 29, 2011 (PDF 159 KB, 23 pages)

Form 52-109F2 Certification of interim filings - Richard F. Clement, Jr. Chief Executive Officer and President (Principal Executive Officer) - July 29, 2011 (PDF 11 KB, 2 pages) CEO Dick Clement promises that the MD&A does not "contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact required to be stated or that is necessary to make a statement not misleading in light of the circumstances under which it was made ."

DEWEY-BURDOCK PERMITTING DELAYED AGAIN

NRC attorneys report that final supplemental environmental impact statement may not be issued until May 2013; Powertech avoids disclosing the news by filing quarterly reports one business day before NRC's report

Posted August 1, 2011

Citing prior commitments of personnel involved in the review of Powertech's license application and Powertech's revised responses to requests for additional information, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff has delayed the estimated issuance dates for documents associated with the proposed Dewey-Burdock uranium project.

In an August 1 report to the NRC's Atomic Safety and Licensing Board (ASLB), NRC staff attorney Michael J. Clark notes that staff has revised the estimated issuance dates as follows: Staff expects to issue the Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (SEIS) in August 2012; the previous estimate was April 2012. The Safety Evaluation Report is expected to be released in June 2012; the previous estimate was February 2012. And NRC staff has revised its estimated date for issuance of a Final SEIS to sometime between January and May 2013. The previous estimate was September 2012.

The revised estimates delay the project for four to eight months. This is significant since issuance of a Final SEIS is by no means the end of the licensing process. The Final SEIS is followed by ASLB proceedings including consideration of contentions raised by the Oglala Sioux Tribe and other intervenors, as well as possible appeals. A final licensing decision may not occur until 2014, if ever.

On July 29, only one business day before NRC staff issued its revised estimates, Powertech made the following statement to investors: "The NRC is expected to provide a draft supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (“EIS”) for the Dewey- Burdock Project in late 2011 or early 2012. At this point, the NRC will respond to any comments it may receive from other federal government agencies and the public, and then provide a final supplemental EIS, which is expected in the second half of 2012. The license from the NRC, and all ancillary permits, are expected to follow thereafter."

The statement was included in Powertech's second quarter Management Discussion and Analysis filed pursuant to Canadian securities laws. The fact that Powertech made a factual assertion on Friday that turned out to be erroneous three days later raises the questions: Did Powertech officials know or suspect that NRC staff would revise the estimated issuance dates? And did Powertech file its quarterly reports early (the deadline is August 15) to avoid having to disclose the revised issuance dates to investors?

Status report from NRC staff to the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board specifying the staff's best estimate of issuance dates for draft and final documents associated with its review of Powertech's license application for Dewey-Burdock - Michael J. Clark, Counsel for NRC Staff - August 1, 2011 (PDF 101 KB, 3 pages)

POWERTECH URANIUM CORP. (An Exploration Stage Company) - MANAGEMENT DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS - July 29, 2011 (PDF 159 KB, 23 pages)

Powertech consultant posts misleading information on permit status of Dewey-Burdock

RESPEC implies on website that permits have been obtained when none have

Posted July 26, 2011, Updated August 5, 2011

UPDATE: RESPEC has revised its Dewey-Burdock article. The first sentence has been changed to "RESPEC was involved in multiple aspects of the permitting process of Powertech’s Dewey-Burdock project." (emphasis added) More accurate? You decide....

A national consulting firm that did hydrogeological site characterization work for Powertech's proposed Dewey-Burdock in-situ leach uranium project between 2007 and 2009 touts the "Featured Project" on its website but omits the fact that no permits have yet been issued. The article leaves the impression that RESPEC helped Powertech obtain the permits it needs to mine uranium at the site: "RESPEC was involved in multiple aspects of permitting Powertech's Dewey-Burdock project." Prospective clients and others are led to believe that the permitting effort was successful and that RESPEC was a key partner in the effort. But nowhere does RESPEC disclose that, four years after work was started, Powertech has yet to obtain even one of the three major federal and state permits it needs for the project.

"FEATURED PROJECTS - Dewey-Burdock Uranium ISR Permitting, Edgemont, South Dakota" - RESPEC Consulting & Services

"FEATURED PROJECTS - Dewey-Burdock Uranium ISR Permitting, Edgemont, South Dakota" - RESPEC Consulting & Services (as originally posted)

Email from David McIntyre, Public Affairs Officer, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission to Jim Woodward responding to questions about NRC staff's estimates of issuance dates for draft and final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statements for Powertech's proposed Dewey-Burdock uranium project - July 20, 2011 (PDF 105 KB, 1 page)

NRC staff release questionable estimates of document issuance dates for Dewey-Burdock project

Powertech securities filing diverges from NRC's estimates

Posted July 10, 2011, Updated July 20, 2011

"New submission may be path out of impasse for Powertech" by Nancy E. Roth, Managing Editor, Fuel Cycle Week - undated draft, file date: June 30, 2011 (PDF 33 KB, 5 pages) This revealing article on Powertech's problems with its Source Material License application for the Dewey-Burdock project popped up in a a recent Google search. The author, Nancy Roth, works for International Nuclear Associates Inc., a public relations firm that does work for companies in the nuclear industry. It is unknown if the article was published in the INA's Fuel Cycle Week, a weekly industry newsletter that costs $2,750.00 a year. Roth reports that Powertech CEO Dick Clement blames the company's troubles responding to NRC requests for additional information on erroneous formatting instructions given by NRC staffers. But apparently Clement's case rests partly on recollections of a phone call between permit chief Dick Blubaugh and an unnamed NRC project manager. Roth notes that "a senior NRC official insisted that the staff had passed along no such formatting instruction, and that Powertech should have checked other examples of RAI submissions, had they been uncertain." Roth goes on to blast the Fort Collins Coloradoan and the Rapid City Journal for their coverage of the issue. And she explains that NRC staff could have stopped all work on Powertech's application, but instead took a more lenient path because "we are confident that Powertech can deliver the information we need." Roth did not attribute this quote to a specific individual at the NRC.

U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION STRATEGY FOR OUTREACH AND COMMUNICATION WITH INDIAN TRIBES POTENTIALLY AFFECTED BY URANIUM RECOVERY SITES, including List of Known Federally-Recognized Tribes Located in Areas with Potential Uranium Recovery Activities - undated, posted July 17, 2011 (PDF 34 KB, 7 pages)

Attorney for Oglala Sioux Tribe warns Powertech that company representatives face risk of physical removal from Pine Ridge Reservation

Frankel notes tribal ban on uranium activities and tribal court precedent ordering removal of previous uranium promoters; attorney's warning included in email regarding June 8 meeting between NRC staff and representatives of various tribes as part of mandatory Section 106 consultation under National Historic Preservation Act

Posted July 15, 2011

Email from David Cory Frankel, attorney for Oglala Sioux Tribe, to NRC attorneys, making inquiries and suggestions regarding the June 8 informal information gathering between NRC staff and representatives of South Dakota tribes to discuss traditional cultural properties that may potentially be affected by the proposed Dewey-Burdock project and Crow Butte expansion, and related response from NRC attorney Brett Klukan - June 1, 2011 (PDF 102 KB, 4 pages)

Chapter 38 Oglala Sioux Tribal Mining Code (not official version)

Note: The proposed Dewey-Burdock uranium project is not located on the Pine Ridge Reservation.

DEBRA WHITE PLUME CONFRONTS NRC STAFF ON SECTION 106 CONSULTATION WITH INDIAN TRIBES

Lakota activist challenges NRC's approach to cultural and historic properties; vows to fight Powertech

Posted July 11, 2011

Official Transcript of Proceedings - NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION - Informal Information-Gathering Meeting Pertaining to Dewey-Burdock, Crow Butte North Trend, & Crow Butte License Renewal, In-Situ Uranium Recovery Projects - Pine Ridge, South Dakota - June 8, 2011 (PDF 437 KB, 196 pages)

Nuclear Regulatory Commission: License review has been suspended

Agency makes WAG* that mining license may be issued by January 2013

Posted June 5, 2011

On the U.S. NRC's web page, Application Review Schedule for Dewey Burdock, agency staff note that "Review has been suspended pending submittal of response to staff's request for additional information." According to the web page, the source material/uranium recovery license application was tendered on February 25, 2009. The estimated issuance dates for the Draft and Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statements and Final Safety Evaluation Report have been changed to "TBD" (to be determined). In spite of this otherwise open-ended schedule, NRC staff estimate that the licensing action will be completed by January 2013.

*wild ass guess

Texas chemist argues that current procedure for determining baseline water quality in aquifers slated for in-situ leach uranium mining is flawed

Rice University professor Ronald Sass PhD asserts that typical well drilling methods alter baseline by elevating uranium and radium levels; scientific paper challenges conventional wisdom on permitting of ISL mines

Posted June 3, 2011

"Uranium Mining in Texas: Why Is It Done That Way? by Ronald L. Sass, PhD, James A. Baker III Institute for Public Policy, Rice University - March 28, 2011 (PDF 2,833 KB, 33 pages)

INTERVENOR UPDATE TO DISCLOSURES UNDER 10 CFR §2.336 - In the Matter of POWERTECH USA, INC. (Dewey-Burdock In Situ Uranium Recovery Facility) - UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD - May 2, 2011 (PDF 91 KB, 3 pages) The Oglala Sioux Tribe, through its counsel, disclosed the paper on baseline testing authored by Ronald Sass, PhD, thereby making it a part of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board's administrative record.

Powertech letter to the NRC's Ronald Burrows communicating Powertech's intent to submit revised responses to requests for additional information (RAI) for technical/safety review by the end of June - Richard Blubaugh, VP of Environmental Health & Safety Resources - April 22, 2011 (PDF 109 KB, 3 pages)

Click for full size

"One regulator, twice as thorough" - Journal Editorial Board, Rapid City Journal - May 24, 2011

"NRC delays uranium bid in South Dakota" by Talli Nauman, Native Sun News - May 23, 2011

"NRC cites deficiencies, suspends safety review on uranium mine permit" by Kevin Woster, Rapid City Journal - May 12, 2011 Powertech project manager and corporate lobbyist Mark Hollenbeck spins this latest setback for the Dewey-Burdock project, asserting that "it's normal operating procedure." But behind the scenes, Powertech is restructuring its permitting efforts by hiring outside experts to salvage its flawed permit application.

"Feds suspend Powertech uranium mine permitting" by Bobby Magill, Fort Collins Coloradoan - May 10, 2011

Press release - "NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION SUSPENDS SAFETY REVIEW OF PROPOSED URANIUM MINE; CHIEF OPERATING OFFICER RESIGNS" - Clean Water Alliance - May 10, 2011 (PDF 15 KB, 2 pages)

NRC UNABLE TO MAKE FINDING THAT POWERTECH WILL PROTECT PUBLIC HEALTH AND SAFETY

NRC suspends safety review, says timeline for final licensing decision is unknown; over two years after license application submitted and Powertech has not provided sufficient evidence that leaching fluids can be controlled and contained in aquifers

Posted May 9, 2011

Letter from NRC to Powertech VP Richard Blubaugh regarding results of acceptance review for responses to RAIs for Powertech's proposed Dewey-Burdock In Situ Recovery Facility - Keith I. McConnell, Director, Decommissioning and Uranium Recovery Licensing Directorate, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission - May 6, 2011 (PDF 66 KB, 4 pages)

DEWEY-BURDOCK ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT DELAYED FOR SECOND TIME

NRC staff temporarily suspends safety review due to Powertech's deficient and sluggish responses to RAIs; estimated date for issuance of final Supplemental EIS pushed back to September 2012

Posted May 5, 2011

From the NRC staff counsel's letter to the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board judges:

On December 23, 2010, Powertech responded to requests for additional information (RAIs) the Staff had issued regarding its safety review of Powertech’s application. However, during its technical acceptance review of Powertech’s RAI responses, the Staff identified a significant number of deficiencies. The Staff discussed these deficiencies with Powertech during an April 7–8, 2011 public meeting.

Based on the length of time it has taken Powertech to submit its current RAI responses, and based on the deficiencies in those responses, the Staff has temporarily suspended its safety review of Powertech’s application. The Staff will resume its safety review once it receives acceptable RAI responses from Powertech. Once the Staff receives acceptable RAI responses and begins its review, the Staff estimates that it will take approximately eight months to finalize the Safety Evaluation Report (SER) for Powertech’s application. The Staff would caution, however, that its ability to resume its safety review will depend on the availability of personnel and other resources at the time Powertech’s RAI responses are received.

Letter from NRC Staff Counsel Patricia Jehle to the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel - In the Matter of POWERTECH (USA) INC. - May 2, 2011 (PDF 96 KB)

"SB 158, the Powertech plan, and state oversight" by Kevin Woster, Rapid City Journal - March 21, 2011 Musings on Powertech and Senate Bill 158 from RCJ reporter Kevin Woster. An added bonus: several interesting comments on the history of environmental regulation in South Dakota.

Drill hole log data from Dewey-Burdock database released by NRC staff following rejection of Powertech's claim of privilege and confidentiality - Powertech (USA) Inc. - submitted November 4, 2010, released March 23, 2011 (PDF 4,390 KB, 50 pages)

State senator married to Powertech manager voted to approve bill ending state regulation of Dewey-Burdock project

Posted March 21, 2011

"Unethical in eye of beholder" by Kevin Woster, Rapid City Journal - March 20, 2011

Powertech pitchman predicts prosperity

"Nuclear plant scare doesn’t change Powertech plans" by Kevin Woster, Rapid City Journal - March 17, 2011 Powertech project manager and registered corporate lobbyist Mark Hollenbeck dismisses the effect of the Fukushima nuclear disaster on the Dewey-Burdock project, predicting the industry will survive and prosper in spite of the incident. Hollenbeck also comments on Powertech's successful bill to suspend state regulation of in-situ leach uranium mining, claiming that Senate Bill 158 only removed regulations that duplicated federal rules.

Dewey-Burdock project manager Mark Hollenbeck

According to Hollenbeck, the state now has the appropriate level of oversight of his employer. In their haste to ram SB158 through the South Dakota legislature, neither Hollenbeck nor bill sponsors Valentine Rausch and Timothy Rave took the time to consider state rules that may not have been duplicative, and which may have added additional protections for human health and the environment. One example is rule 74:29:11:60, a provision that would have brought a enhanced level of transparency to Powertech's proposed operations, and which goes well beyond the requirements of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and the Environmental Protection Agency. The rule reads as follows: "74:29:11:60. Public notice for in situ leach mines. The department shall provide on its website quarterly updates on the operational status, compliance status, technical revisions submitted or approved, public notices, and other pertinent information regarding an active in situ leach mine permit." The EPA has no such notification requirement for Class III permit holders. The NRC's ADAMS document site is notoriously difficult to use, and there is no requirement to provide quarterly updates on operational and compliance status of licensees.

CHAPTER 74:29:11 IN SITU LEACH MINING - South Dakota Legislature Administrative Rules

NRC staff agree to hold sixteen hour meeting with Blubaugh and Powertech attorneys to discuss deficient responses to RAI's

April 7-8 meeting is open to public; Powertech's application first submitted to the NRC in February 2009

Posted March 15, 2011

Notice of April 7-8, 2011 Meeting to Discuss Powertech’s Responses to NRC Staff’s Request for Additional Information - Ron Burrows, Project Manager, Uranium Recovery Licensing Branch, Decommissioning and Uranium Recovery Licensing Directorate, Division of Waste Management and Environmental Protection, Office of Federal and State Materials and Environmental Management Programs, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission - March 15, 2011 (PDF 139 KB, 10 pages)

NRC STOPS REVIEW OF SAFETY PORTION OF DEWEY-BURDOCK PERMIT APPLICATION

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff take six pages to detail deficiencies in Blubaugh's responses to NRC requests for information; Powertech requests meeting with NRC to discuss issues; NRC sets open meeting for April 7

Posted March 8, 2011

In a March 7 email to Powertech permit chief Dick Blubaugh, NRC scientist Ronald Burrows confirms the content of a February 8 phone call with Blubaugh notifying Powertech that NRC staff had "identified a significant number of deficiencies" in Powertech's December 23 responses to the NRC's Requests for Information. The information requests concern Powertech's application for a Source Material License for the Dewey-Burdock project.

According to Burrows, 'Powertech did not provide information in sufficient detail in these responses for NRC staff to make an evaluation of public health and safety impacts." As a result, "the staff has stopped its review of the safety-related portion of Powertech's Dewey-Burdock application." The environmental review and Section 106 (historic properties) consultation process will continue.

A sampling of the deficiencies in Powertech's responses:

- In several instances, the applicant directed the reviewer to various parts of the Technical Report or other RAI responses instead of directly answering the question.

- After beginning the acceptance review, it was determined that the paper copy of the RAI responses was not identical to the compact disc (CD) version of the RAI responses.

- NRC staff could not locate responses to all or part of the following RAIs in Powertech's submittal: (a list of 39 different specific requests follows)

- According to the exhibit, some of the newly identified mine workings appear to be within or in close proximity to proposed wellfield areas. Their exact location (horizontally and vertically), size, and effect on newly proposed project operations were not provided.

- The applicant did not specifically identify those chemicals used in uranium processing that have the potential to impact radiological safety.

- Applicant provided information related to airborne uranium, but did not address radon and daughters as requested in the RAI.

Email from NRC Senior Health Physicist Ronald Burrows to Powertech's Dick Blubaugh notifying Powertech that its December 23, 2010 RAI responses are deficient, that the NRC is stopping its review of the safety-related portion of Powertech's Dewey-Burdock application, that NRC has scheduled an April 7, 2011 open meeting to discuss the deficiencies, and including a detailed report on acceptance review issues - March 7, 2011 (PDF 394 KB, 9 pages)

Dewey-Burdock project office - Edgemont, South Dakota (photo by Dr. J)

South Dakota lawmakers do Powertech's bidding, suspend regulation of injection wells and in-situ leach mining

Senate Bill 158 relegates oversight to U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

Posted March 7, 2011

"House passes bill to reduce state rules for uranium mining" by Kevin Woster, Rapid City Journal - March 2, 2011

"House OKs easing of SD uranium regulation" - Associated Press - KCAU-TV - March 2, 2011

NRC STAFF: DEWEY-BURDOCK PROJECT DELAYED FIVE MONTHS

Issuance date of final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement pushed back to June 2012

Status report submitted to Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel by Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff specifying the best estimate of the issuance dates for draft and final documents associated with its review of Powertech's Source Material License application - Patricia Jehle, Counsel for NRC staff - March 1, 2011 (PDF 95 KB, 3 pages)

Letter regarding Powertech (USA) Inc.'s Responses, in Question/Answer Format, to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Staff's Request for Additional Information Regarding the Technical Review for the Proposed Dewey-Burdock Uranium Project Docket No. 40-9075 - Richard E. Blubaugh, Vice Presidemt (sic) - Health, Safety & Environmental Resources, Powertech (USA) Inc. - February 18, 2011 (PDF 41 KB, 1 page) After a two-day "discussion" with NRC staff on February 8-9, Powertech agreed to redo its responses to the NRC's May 19, 2010 request for additional information about Powertech's Source Material License Application. The redo "is intended to provide clarity to a number of RAI responses". The NRC has yet to publicly release a document detailing its concerns with Powertech's initial responses, but it is possible that NRC staff had trouble following Powertech's labyrinthine format. For example, when asked by the NRC to elaborate on a particular geological issue, Powertech responded: "Refer to Response to ER_RAI WR-2; 2-1(a); ER_ RAI Exhibit WR-2.1; ER_ RAI Exhibit WR-2.3; ER_ RAI Exhibit WR-2.4; and ER_ RAI Exhibit WR-2.5." Clear as mud...

TECHNICAL REPORT RAI QUESTION AND ANSWER RESPONSES - Dewey-Burdock Project Application for NRC Uranium Recovery License Fall River and Custer Counties, South Dakota - Powertech (USA) Inc. - February 2011 (PDF 29,508 KB, 344 pages)

"South Dakota House panel OKs bill to ease state uranium mining regulation at company's behest" by Nomaan Merchant, Canadian Business Online - February 25, 2011 Powertech project manager, registered corporate lobbyist, and self-described radical environmentalist Mark Hollenbeck pushes SB158 through the House State Affairs Committee, claiming the bill's purpose is to decrease "the amount of paperwork we have to do." If Powertech is truly concerned about duplicative state and federal regulations, why didn't the company run this bill two years ago? Why did Hollenbeck wait until the South Dakota Department of Environment and Natural Resources told Powertech that its permit application omitted large amounts of critical data and lacked "sufficient detail to address fundamental questions related to whether the project can be conducted in a controlled manner to protect ground water resources"?

Audio of Mark Hollenbeck's testimony before the South Dakota House State Affairs Committee - February 25, 2011 (MP3 5,870 KB, 6 min 25 sec)

"State bill on uranium mining raises questions of federal, state duties" by Kevin Woster, Rapid City Journal - February 25, 2011

Bill introduced in South Dakota Senate to halt state regulation of in-situ leach uranium mining

Sponsored by Senator Timothy Rave and Representative Valentine Rausch, the bill would currently benefit a single company: Powertech

Posted February 6, 2011, Updated February 25, 2011


South Dakota State Senator Timothy Rave, prime Senate sponsor of Senate Bill 158	South Dakota State Representative Valentine Rausch, prime House sponsor of Senate Bill 158. Rausch is Speaker of the House.

South Dakota Senate Bill 158, as introduced (PDF 76 KB, 1 page)

South Dakota Legislature - 2011 Session - Bill History - Senate Bill 158

"Don’t strip state ability to regulate uranium mines" by Lilias Jarding, Rapid City Journal - February 12, 2011

SB 158: Uranium Mining Bill Passes Senate - South Dakota Public Broadcasting - February 16, 2011

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY:

Senate Commerce and Energy Committee: PASSED 6-1 on February 15, 2011

Full Senate: PASSED (Second reading) 29-2 on February 16, 2011

House State Affairs Committee: PASSED 8-5 on February 25, 2011

The "Powertech Protection Act of 2011"

When faced with its apparent inability to demonstrate to scientists from the South Dakota Department of Environment and Natural Resources that it can conduct in-situ leach uranium mining in a manner that is protective of groundwater, Powertech directed its lobbyists to recruit their friends in the legislature to effectively repeal the pesky state regulations. It remains to be seen if the EPA will apply the same level of scrutiny to the Dewey-Burdock project that the DENR has shown so far. The following letters reveal why Powertech wants to strip regulatory authority over ISL mining from the DENR:

Letter from the South Dakota Department of Environment and Natural Resources notifying Powertech (USA) Inc. that its application for a Class III Underground Injection Control permit for the Dewey-Burdock ISL uranium project has been determined to be incomplete, stating "the application lacks sufficient detail to address fundamental questions related to whether the project can be conducted in a controlled manner to protect ground water resources." August 6, 2009 (PDF 2,451 KB) This 41 page response to Powertech's permit application is a scathing critique of the company's proposed approach to in-situ mining in the Inyan Kara Aquifer Group near Edgemont, South Dakota. As detailed in the SD DENR's response, the permit application is vague and non-specific, omits large amounts of critical data, and contains dozens of typographical, spelling, grammatical, and other errors.

Letter from U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission rejecting Powertech's request for withholding information from public disclosure for the proposed Dewey-Burdock project - Ronald A. Burrows, Project Manager, Uranium Recovery Licensing Branch - February 10, 2011 (PDF 86 KB, 5 pages) NRC staff reject claims by Powertech permit chief Dick Blubaugh that release of drill hole locations and depths may cause substantial harm to Powertech and its shareholders should competitors and/or opponents of the proposed Dewey-Burdock project attempt to reinterpret and publish the data for the purposes of negatively affecting the licensing and permitting or economic valuation of the proposed project. The NRC's letter points out that Powertech provided no specific examples of how disclosure was likely to cause substantial economic harm. What does Powertech not want us to know about the project?

OGLALA SIOUX TRIBE CALLS ON NRC TO SPONSOR REGIONAL MEETING OF TRIBAL HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICERS

Tribe says proposed Dewey-Burdock uranium mine represents "substantial potential threat to the preservation of cultural and historic resources"; cites "egregious" failure to reclaim abandoned open pit mines as well as Powertech's desire to turn area into a regional uranium processing center; calls Powertech's analysis "incomplete" and "unsupported"; says company "failed to include any direct input from any tribal sources"

Letter from the Oglala Sioux Tribe's Tribal Historic Preservation Office to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission regarding "Invitation for formal consultation under the National Historic Preservation Act; request for information under the National Environmental Policy Act; proposed Powertech Inc. Dewey-Burdock in-situ leach uranium mine (NRC Docket No. 040-09075)" - Michael Catches Enemy, Natural Resources Director, and Wilmer Mesteth, Tribal Historic Preservation Officer - January 31, 2011 (PDF 1,687 KB, 3 pages)

Email to NRC expressing the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe's opposition to the Dewey-Burdock uranium project and asking questions about groundwater contamination and restoration, waste disposal, and protection of Native American cultural resources - Adrienne Swallow, Environmental Protection Specialist, Standing Rock Sioux Tribe - December 8, 2010 (PDF 172 KB, 2 pages)

Powertech (USA) Inc.'s Response to the NRC Staff's Requests for Additional Information Concerning the Dewey-Burdock Project, Custer and Fall River Counties, South Dakota: Docket No. 40-9075 - December 23, 2010

Email from Randy Brich, Diamond B Communications LLC to Haimanot Yilma, Project Manager-U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission regarding public outreach for the Dewey-Burdock uranium project - March 10, 2010 (PDF 46 KB, 1 page) This email, released by the NRC on January 3, 2011, is from Randy Brich, Powertech's media consultant and the brother-in-law of South Dakota Governor Mike Rounds (whose term ends this month). Brich asks "if there is any NRC guidance or suggestions on what prospective licensees should be doing in terms of public outreach, including tribal governments." In line with Powertech's minimalist approach to public relations and consultation with stakeholders, Brich says Powertech officials "are wondering if the Draft Supplemental EIS (Environmental Impact Statement) that NRC is preparing satisfies all the public outreach goals for the project." Brich has been the sole media and public relations contractor working for Powertech since longtime Denver PR guy Pete Webb quit after a short stint in 2007-2008.

MORE DEWEY-BURDOCK PROJECT DOCUMENTS