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

POWERTECH/AZARGA REALITY CHECK

Random observations on Azarga Uranium Corp. (formerly Powertech Uranium Corp.)

December 22, 2014 - On Friday, the Oglala Sioux Tribe, Powertech, and NRC staff filed briefs with the ASLB on whether Dewey-Burdock borehole logs and other drilling information should be publicly disclosed by Powertech. The Tribe has consistently argued in favor of disclosure, asserting the data are relevant to the question of whether Powertech can adequately contain toxic and radioactive mining fluids while conducting in-situ uranium leaching in ground water aquifers. Powertech argues the data should be kept secret because the project would be overseen by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and the Environmental Protection Agency, and members of the public should simply trust these regulatory agencies to protect public health, safety, and the environment. But elsewhere in the brief Powertech discusses what may be the real reason, and tips its hand about the project's future. Powertech claims the logs were costly to obtain, they would have significant financial value to "any company attempting to develop the Dewey-Burdock ISR Project", and that releasing them "would de-value such data in the event of a future corporate transaction between Powertech and another corporate entity." Translation: Powertech/Azarga is contemplating selling the Dewey-Burdock project. It is unknown when the ASLB, short one member with the recent death of Richard Cole, will rule on the data confidentiality issue.

December 18, 2014 - According to someone with knowledge of the matter, one of the three judges on the NRC's Atomic Safety and Licensing Board recently died. The judge, Richard F. Cole, PhD, is a sanitary engineer who has been a member of the NRC's ASLB panel since 1973. The ASLB is conducting the adjudicatory hearing on the source material license issued to Powertech for the proposed Dewey-Burdock in-situ leach uranium project. ASLB judges are employees of the NRC but are independent from NRC staff and the NRC's five-member Commission. Based on hearing transcripts, Cole appeared to be more sympathetic to Powertech than the other two judges, Chairman William Froehlich and Dr. Mark Barnett. It is unclear what effect Cole's passing will have on the continuing hearing process and its final outcome. If the current hearing schedule holds, the ASLB will issue its initial decision on the seven contentions raised by the Oglala Sioux Tribe and the Consolidated Intervenors by the end of April. Following the ruling, the parties have forty days to file petitions requesting review by the Commission. Opposing parties have an unspecified period of time to file answers to any petitions. If the Commission agrees to review the ASLB's decision, it will take several months to review the record and render a final decision. In a recent appeal to the Commission filed by a mining company seeking to expand the Crow Butte in-situ leach uranium mine in Nebraska, the Commission took eight months to issue its decision. Any Commission decision can be appealed in federal court.

December 8, 2014 - Azarga Uranium chairman Alex Molyneux recently enlisted mining investment website operator Tommy Humphreys to write a glowing article about Azarga, complete with three slides from Azarga's recent investor presentation. The article is a blatant attempt to generate investor interest in Azarga's stock, which has been languishing near its 52-week low in spite of the completion of the reverse takeover of Powertech by Azarga Resources. Molyneux spins a yarn about how he was able to identify "the best projects on the planet...and buy them" during the uranium downturn "when no one was looking". A more complete assessment of the projects might include an observation that, after looking, few others were interested. The uranium assets assembled by Powertech are a mixed bag. While Powertech has spent $36 million since 2006 on the Dewey-Burdock project in the Black Hills of South Dakota, it has been unable to fully permit the project. An NRC license has been obtained, but a lengthy administrative hearing process is still underway that threatens the license. Multiple permits required by the EPA, BLM, and State of South Dakota have not been issued. And a large movement opposed to the project is poised to launch legal challenges to the license and permits. Powertech's defunct Centennial project in northern Colorado was a disaster for the company, triggering an unprecedented tightening of state uranium mining regulations, and culminating in an impairment writedown of 83% of the project's $15 million asset value. Powertech has spent relatively little on its various Wyoming properties, calling into question their value, given that Wyoming is arguably the most favorable uranium mining jurisdiction in the United States. The projects that Azarga Resources brought to the table are less than impressive. The Kyzyl Ompul project in Kyrgyzstan consists entirely of an 80% ownership stake in a Kyrgyz company whose only asset is a single exploration license that expires on December 31, 2015. Renewal of the license requires a minimum work program of drilling and sampling in 2015, but there is no mention of this work program in Azarga's November 12 Management Discussion and Analysis. According to an April technical report, the project area has a history of political unrest and "access to the property may be limited due to the roads being blocked by the local population". Azarga holds a 19% interest in Australian penny stock firm Black Range Minerals, currently valued at $1.3 million AUD. For years, Black Range has been promoting its Hansen/Taylor Ranch uranium project in southern Colorado, but it has yet to submit a mining permit application. The company is also a 50% partner in a joint venture attempting to commercialize ablation, a new uranium concentration technology. So far, the joint venture has been unable to demonstrate commercial viability and has not resolved regulatory questions with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Azarga owns 11% of another Australian penny stock firm, Anatolia Energy, a stake valued at $2.5 million AUD. Anatolia has two exploration projects, and has not announced when it expects to begin development of its first uranium mine.

November 20, 2014 - Digging into Azarga's recently-issued third quarter Management Discussion and Analysis, the omissions and spin in the section on the proposed Dewey-Burdock project are striking. Chairman Alexander Molyneux has made Dewey-Burdock the centerpiece of his efforts to boost Azarga's share price, but the MD&A is lacking when it comes to helping investors understand the true status of the controversial project. A statement is made that construction may begin as early as the third quarter of next year (Molyneux predicted in April that the project would be fully permitted by the end of 2014) but that seems highly unlikely. Early on, the report states that the project has received its final Nuclear Regulatory Commission license, which is only half-true. Several paragraphs later, there is a rosy discussion of the NRC's Subpart L hearing process before the agency's Atomic Safety and Licensing Board. Missing is an acknowledgment that the ASLB can revoke the license or impose conditions, and even more important, that the ASLB's decision, due in February or March, will certainly be appealed to the NRC's commissioners, and that the commissioners' ruling is likely to be appealed in federal court. Similarly, the MD&A glosses over a long-running dispute between Powertech and the ASLB over the disclosure of massive amounts of geological data possessed by Powertech. Some of the data may support Contention 3 by the Oglala Sioux Tribe and Consolidated Intervenors that the environmental impact statement for the project "fails to include adequate hydrogeological information to demonstrate ability to contain fluid migration and assess potential impacts to groundwater." After much foot-dragging, Powertech finally complied with the ASLB's repeated orders to disclose the data to the intervening parties. The parties hired PhD geologist Hannan LaGarry to analyze the data over the last few weeks. Based on Dr. LaGarry's findings, the intervening parties may seek to introduce new exhibits and testimony into the hearing process. The deadline for such filings is tomorrow, and the evidentiary record for Contention 3 will remain open until the parties have filed all responsive pleadings.

November 16, 2014 - Last Wednesday, the penny stock company formerly known as Powertech Uranium Corp. issued its first quarterly financial statements and management discussion and analysis. Although the financials' balance sheet date is September 30, which is prior to the October 28 closing of the reverse takeover by Azarga Resources, the reports reflect the fact that Hongkonger Alex Molyneux and his Azarga crew are in control. Powertech's cash position had dwindled to just $43,913 by the end of September, indicative of the desperate straits that led Powertech CEO Dick Clement to agree to the reverse merger with the better-financed Azarga. The authors of the MD&A waste no time pointing out that the newly-merged company completed a $5 million CAD private placement on October 28. They fail to mention that the bulk of the proceeds came from investors in China ($3.4 million CAD from nine investors) and Japan ($1.1 million CAD from one investor). And missing from the MD&A is any reference to the Blumont Group, Azarga Uranium Corp.'s largest shareholder. The Singaporean penny stock firm owns 30.4% of Azarga Uranium, and will likely increase its ownership percentage through an existing convertible debt deal with Azarga. Blumont and two of its former executives, Neo Kim Hock and James Hong, are currently being investigated by Singapore authorities for suspected false trading and market rigging in a stock market scandal that erased more than $8 billion SGD ($6.9 billion USD) in market value in 2013.

November 4, 2014 - If someone stumbled on Azarga's Twitter profile page today, they might get the impression the Asia-based company is a mouthpiece for the Chinese government and nuclear industry (which are one in the same). Three of the seven most recent tweets promote proposed Chinese nuclear power plants and Chinese efforts to export nuclear technology. The other four pertain to the uranium market, the Japanese nuclear power industry, and climate change. None of the seven relate to company-owned uranium assets or plans for increasing shareholder value. This is in contrast to Powertech's historical communications efforts which focused almost exclusively on the Canadian company's uranium holdings and permitting efforts. Powertech was the target of a reverse takeover by Hong Kong firm Azarga Resources Limited. The deal closed last week and the newly-formed company was approved for listing on the Toronto Stock Exchange with the ticker symbol AZZ.

November 3, 2014 - Missing from Powertech's October 29 news release announcing the closing of its reverse takeover deal with Azarga Resources was any mention of AZZ's largest shareholder - Singapore penny stock firm Blumont Group Ltd. The fact that Powertech failed to disclose Blumont's 30% ownership stake in the newly-listed Azarga Uranium Corp. is not surprising given Powertech's long history of not disclosing inconvenient information. It was left to Blumont to disclose its acquisition of AZZ shares in a news release, an early warning report on the Toronto Stock Exchange, and an announcement on the Singapore Stock Exchange. The fact that Blumont now owns nearly a third of the proposed Dewey-Burdock uranium project should concern residents of southwestern South Dakota. As Azarga's primary source of financing, Blumont's ownership percentage will likely increase as Azarga issues more convertible debt to the Singapore firm. Blumont is one of eight firms currently being investigated by the Singapore central bank and white collar police for suspected stock manipulation following an October 2013 crash that wiped out $6.9 billion (USD) of market value of Blumont and two other firms. The eight firms are marked by cross-ownership and interlocking boards, and almost 70 people have been brought in for questioning by Singapore authorities. It is not known when the results of the investigation will be released.

October 31, 2014 - Day one trading of AZZ on the Toronto Stock Exchange was uneventful. The new ticker opened at $0.35 CAD, reflecting the 1 for 10 reverse stock split undertaken as part of the reverse takeover of Powertech by Azarga Resources. Powertech/Azarga officials didn't explain why the reverse stock split was done, but it is likely the TSX required it as part of its approval of the new listing for AZZ. There is a stigma attached to doing a reverse stock split, as it underscores the fact that shares have declined in value, so AZZ may see increased selling pressure in the days to come. The market cap of the combined company increased to $20.8 million CAD from Powertech's market cap of $5.4 million CAD at the close of trading yesterday. Translated to US dollars, the new market cap is only $18.5 million, a significant drop from the $26.8 million pro-forma market cap included in Powertech's September 2014 investor presentation touting the Azarga deal. Thus, in spite of the merging of the various uranium assets held by Powertech and Azarga Resources (none of which are permitted for production), the new Azarga Uranium Corp. still resides firmly in the penny stock/nanocap investing universe.

October 30, 2014 - After finally gaining the approval of the Toronto Stock Exchange for a new listing under the ticker AZZ (seriously?), newly-branded Azarga Uranium Corp. will make its debut on the TSX tomorrow morning, according to an exchange bulletin posted today. The reverse takeover of Powertech Uranium Corp. by privately-held Azarga Resources Limited was originally scheduled to close July 31, but was delayed twice and finally closed yesterday. The deal is referred to as a "backdoor listing" by the TSX since it allows a private company to become listed on the TSX by taking over a troubled public company, thus avoiding an inital public offering. Powertech did not disclose the reasons for the delays, but they may have been due to difficulties meeting the TSX's listing requirements related to financial position and disclosure. Contingent on the closing of the reverse takeover, Azarga also announced the release from escrow of proceeds from a $5 million private placement, but no information on the investors was disclosed. And the new company announced a 1 for 10 reverse stock split to raise the stock price in an effort to enhance the "marketability" of the shares. Finally, the longtime Powertech website went dark today and was replaced by a shiny new Azarga website that appears to carry on the Powertech tradition of half-truths and misleading information. On the TSX today investors seemed to be underwhelmed by all the news as Powertech's stock price dropped to 3.5 cents (CAD).

October 25, 2014 - Powertech's efforts to avoid disclosure of critical geological data continue, but the Canadian penny stock firm lost a major battle this week. On Wednesday, the NRC's three Atomic Safety and Licensing Board judges granted a 30 day extension to the Oglala Sioux Tribe and Consolidated Intervenors to review 6,000 borehole logs and related data, and to submit additional testimony and exhibits on the intervenors' Contention 3. The intervenors also have the right to file new contentions if certain standards are met. The intervenors had requested an extension to January 9, but Powertech had opposed any extension. The ASLB settled on an extension that runs through November 21. The judges also reprimanded Powertech for violating federal regulations regarding mandatory disclosure of relevant documents, noting that the ASLB "has been forced to repeatedly rule that data it found relevant to Contention 3 must be disclosed." Although disclosure has been ordered, only NRC staff and intervening parties can look at the data since Powertech successfully argued that the data are proprietary and confidential under federal regulations. Consequently, the intervenors' expert, Dr. Hannan LaGarry, will analyze the borehole logs in Powertech's Edgemont office under the watchful eye of Frank Lichnovsky. Lichnovsky is Powertech's Chief Geologist and has been assigned to keep tabs on LaGarry and provide detailed reports to Powertech officials, as evidenced in an affidavit filed with the ASLB. After Dr. LaGarry's preliminary review of the data, he testified that the newly disclosed data "may provide a sufficient number of data points for me to create stratigraphic cross sections and geologic maps that support the Oglala Sioux Tribe and Consolidated Intervenors' position that there is a lack of adequate containment", referring to the argument that Powertech has not demonstrated the ability to contain radioactive and toxic fluids in the mined aquifers.

October 23, 2014 - The more things change, the more they stay the same, particularly when it comes to Powertech/Azarga's investor communications. Tuesday evening, Azarga officials were positively giddy as they tweeted out "Toronto Stock Exchange approved our merger..." and "$5m cash in the can and the highest grade project among US ISR peers". The next day, Powertech issued a news release that was more specific and not quite as upbeat. According to the release, the TSX "conditionally approved" the "merger" between Powertech and Azarga, the proposed $5 million private placement, and a proposed one for ten reverse stock split. True to form, Powertech did not fully disclose the TSX's conditions, only mentioning a four month lock-up period on shares issued pursuant to the private placement. And describing the transaction between Powertech and Azarga as a "merger" is misleading. The actual written agreement between the companies correctly describes it as a reverse takeover of Powertech by Azarga. The TSX refers to these transactions as "backdoor listings", because a privately-held company (Azarga) bypasses the initial public offering process and assumes the public listing of the target company (Powertech). TSX rules consider a transaction to be a backdoor listing if the transaction results in the existing shareholders of the listed company (Powertech) holding less than 50% of the voting power in the new entity, and if there is a change in effective control. In the proposed Powertech/Azarga deal, existing Powertech shareholders will be left with only 33% of the company, and control will shift to a handful of Azarga executives as well as controversial Singaporean firm Blumont Group. The fine print disclaimer on Powertech's news release notes that Powertech "expects" and "assumes" that "the TSX will approve the proposed transaction", implying that final approval has not occurred, and conflicting with the definitive statement made on Azarga's Twitter page. Perhaps this is why on the same day the news release was issued, Powertech's stock price dropped to an all-time low of three cents. One might expect that demand for Powertech shares would increase on the news, but the opposite was true. And today, the stock price rose to only 3.5 cents as a mere 30,000 shares were traded, worth only $1,050 CAD.
October 13, 2014 - The Oglala Sioux Tribe and Consolidated Intervenors have begun the process of reviewing borehole logs and other drilling data that Powertech was ordered to disclose by the NRC's Atomic Safety and Licensing Board judges. Powertech fought for several weeks to withhold the data from opponents of the proposed Dewey-Burdock uranium leach project, but ultimately failed to convince the judges that the data are not relevant to the intervenors' contention that Powertech has failed to demonstrate an ability to contain mining fluids and prevent contamination of ground water aquifers. Powertech was able to obtain a license from the NRC staff by submitting only a small subset of the borehole data in its possession and by making sweeping generalizations based on the limited data. In one particular case, Powertech and one of its key experts advanced a hydrogeological argument that appears to be at odds with a long-standing conclusion by federal scientists working for the Tennessee Valley Authority. Last month, PhD geologist Hannan LaGarry traveled to Powertech's office in Edgemont, South Dakota to conduct a preliminary review of the data, contained in 27 boxes and 5 file cabinets. Working on behalf of the Oglala Sioux Tribe and the Consolidated Intevenors, LaGarry estimates that he and two assistants would need 12 weeks to thoroughly review the data to develop a better understanding of the stratigraphy and geology of the proposed project area. Last Thursday, the intervenors filed a motion with the ASLB requesting an extension of time to January 9 to file supplemental testimony and any new or amended contentions pertaining to the borehole data. Powertech is expected to file a response objecting to the extension in the next day or so.

October 10, 2014 - Powertech issued a news release today "clarifying" its September 18 news release announcing an updated investor presentation. The presentation and September news release heavily promote Azarga Uranium Corp., a new company to be formed from the proposed reverse takeover of Powertech by Azarga Resources Limited. The September news release included a statement about "the recently completed capital raising and merger with Azarga Resources Limited". Problem is, the capital raising and merger haven't happened. Powertech claims to have escrowed an unspecified amount of funds "related to the $5.0 million private placement", but the financing is contingent on the closing of the reverse takeover, which has been delayed twice. It is not clear if Powertech officials were intentionally trying to mislead investors or if the release was just poorly written. Either way, today's correction was probably ordered by Canadian securities regulators or the Toronto Stock Exchange, which has still not approved an exchange listing for the new company. Since Azarga began accumulating Powertech shares last year, the Hong Kong company appears to have become increasingly involved in Powertech's investor communications and regulatory filings. And starting in February of this year, Powertech news releases have included contact information for Azarga's manager of investor and public relations. The manager, Jenya Mesh, is a model and, according to her Twitter profile, a "global dominator".

October 9, 2014 - Today the Black Hills Clean Water Alliance issued a news release regarding a recent announcement by the Region 8 office of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency that may affect the proposed Dewey-Burdock project. The EPA noted that it has completed a Preliminary Assessment (PA) of the Darrow/Freezeout/Triangle abandoned uranium mines located north of Edgemont, South Dakota. The abandoned mines are within and adjacent to the proposed Dewey-Burdock project, and the EPA's review of environmental data collected by Powertech found radioactive and heavy metal contamination of the air, surface soils, surface water, and ground water. Based on the assessment, the EPA plans to conduct a site investigation in 2015 to determine if hazardous substance releases from the abandoned mines are impacting sensitive environments and posing a risk to nearby residents and workers. The investigation could potentially result in a Superfund designation of the sites under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act. The PA was triggered by a petition filed by the non-profit Institute of Range and the American Mustang, owner of the Black Hills Wild Horse Sanctuary. The EPA's announcement indicates the PA is separate from Region 8's expected decisions on underground injection control permits for the proposed Dewey-Burdock project, although it is hard to see how this investigation won't have some impact on permitting for the project. It is not clear if the EPA's announcement had anything to do with yesterday's 30% drop in Powertech's stock price to an all-time low of $0.035 CAD. The share price bounced back to close at $0.045 CAD today, but it remains depressed as Dewey-Burdock permitting woes persist and the company seems unable to gain approval from the Toronto Stock Exchange to list the new firm resulting from the proposed reverse takeover of Powertech by Hong Kong firm Azarga Resources. (For the full 10 MB PDF of the EPA's Preliminary Assessment Report, click here.)

September 29, 2014 - Perhaps the most questionable assertion made by Powertech in its recent investor presentation is that the proposed merged company, Azarga Uranium, will have a market capitalization of $29.5 million CAD. This wildly optimistic market cap, calculated by multiplying an expected share price of $0.05 by 589 million projected outstanding shares, has absolutely no supporting detail in the presentation. The "pro forma" market cap assumes that the reverse takeover of Powertech by Azarga Resources will actually occur, even though the closing date has been delayed twice and the new company may be having difficulty meeting the Toronto Stock Exchange's listing requirements. Since Powertech's current market cap was only $7 million CAD when the presentation was released earlier this month, Powertech and Azarga officials apparently believe that Azarga's net assets brought to the combined company are worth over $22 million CAD. Even a cursory overview of Azarga's assets belies such a valuation. Azarga's primary asset is its 80% stake in the Kyzyl Ompul Project in Kyrgyzstan. While the presentation repeats the claim that it is the largest known uranium deposit in the country, the project actually consists of just an exploration license that expires in December 2015. The technical report on the project notes that Azarga's Kyrgyz subsidiary "has advised that access to the property may be limited due to the roads being blocked by the local population and that the area had a history of political unrest during 2005 and 2010." Even Azarga promoter and investment writer Peter Epstein warns that Kyzyl Ompul "is blue-sky upside potential" and not a core focus of the company. Other Azarga assets, including a 60% interest in Powertech's Centennial project and a 19% interest in Black Range Minerals' Hansen/Taylor Ranch, both in Colorado, also carry significant permitting and technical risks. Even Powertech officials have privately described Azarga's assets as "worthless", according to someone with knowledge of the matter.

September 26, 2014 - Dilution of existing Powertech shareholders continues unabated as both Powertech and Azarga Resources issue more shares. On July 9, Powertech issued 1,745,902 shares to Energy Fuels Resources (USA) Inc. as partial payment for drill hole electric logs, maps, and digital data. On August 26, Powertech issued 888,655 shares to an unnamed U.S. party. Since Powertech did not disclose the issuance in a news release, the recipient of the shares and the reason for the issuance are unknown. Azarga issued 1,029,386 shares sometime in early to mid 2014 to an unnamed party. And on September 11, Azarga converted debt and issued a whopping 38,212,493 shares to the Blumont Group Ltd., boosting the Singaporean firm's ownership of Azarga to 43.1%. Under the terms of the proposed reverse takeover, Powertech will issue and exchange 3.65 shares for each Azarga share, leaving existing Powertech shareholders with about 14% of the new company. The dilution is occurring as Powertech, Azarga, and their promoters are making a concerted effort to boost Powertech's stock price and attract new investors by implying that a "3x re-rating" (increase) of the trading valuation of the merged company is likely, even though the takeover has been delayed twice and the claimed resource estimates are questionable.

September 25, 2014 - One of the important takeaways from Powertech's new investor presentation has to do with who would control and influence the new Azarga Uranium Corp. The proposed reverse takeover of Powertech by Azarga Resources has been delayed twice and may not overcome regulatory hurdles from the Toronto Stock Exchange. But if the deal does close, it is unclear who will control the new company. The investor presentation notes that the largest shareholder will be Singaporean firm Blumont Group Ltd. with a 30.7% stake. Azarga insiders, led by CEO Alex Molyneux, will control 31.8% of the new company. Ownership by current Powertech CEO Dick Clement and other Powertech officials will be diluted to an insignificant amount. Blumont's ownership is likely to increase if Azarga Uranium issues more convertible debt to the Singaporean firm. What the presentation fails to mention is the ongoing, unprecedented investigation of Blumont by Singapore's white collar police unit and central bank following a 95% drop in Blumont's stock price in October 2013. Investigators are probing possible breaches of the Singapore Securities and Futures Act. And Powertech is silent regarding Blumont's financial connections to New York hedge fund Platinum Partners and its controversial manager Meir "Mark" Nordlicht. Nordlicht appears to be the primary financier of Blumont and has been a key figure in major financial scandals in recent years.

September 23, 2014 - Last Thursday, Powertech released a new investor PowerPoint presentation that touts the merger of Powertech with Azarga Resources. One slide includes the statement that "merger finalization expected mid-October" but fails to mention that the closing of the merger, actually a reverse takeover by Azarga, has been delayed twice. The closing was originally scheduled for July 31. The delays are presumably due to challenges in gaining approval of the Toronto Stock Exchange. Because the TSX treats a reverse takeover as a new listing, Powertech/Azarga must meet the exchange's listing requirements for "non-exempt (less established) exploration and mining companies". The problem is that the new Powertech/Azarga may not meet key listing requirements, specifically, the minimum requirements for working capital and net tangible assets. To be even close to meeting both requirements, Powertech/Azarga will have to raise the entire $5 million from a recently-announced private placement offering. But the private placement is contingent on the closing of the reverse takeover, and approval of the reverse takeover is contingent on meeting the listing requirements. Stay tuned...(Interestingly, the TSX looked the other way for years while Powertech failed to meet its listing requirements.)

September 22, 2014 - After recently interviewing Azarga CEO Alex Molyneux, blogger and Powertech shareholder Peter Epstein posted a promotional article urging investors to purchase Powertech shares. Epstein assumes the Azarga/Powertech merger will go through, and claims that all permits for the proposed Dewey-Burdock project are expected to be in place within nine months. He fails to mention the ongoing contested hearing process on the Nuclear Regulatory Commission license, and the likelihood that any late-2014 decision by the NRC's Atomic Safety and Licensing Board will be appealed to the commission and then to federal court. Epstein glosses over the multiple permits that must be obtained from the Environmental Protection Agency and the South Dakota Department of Environment & Natural Resources and the attendant appeals and judicial processes. And he completely omits any mention of the Plan of Operations Powertech must obtain from the Bureau of Land Management, which may also land in federal court.

AZARGA URANIUM CORP.

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

Azarga Uranium Corp. (AZZ.TO)

Toronto Stock Exchange

Closing price: $0.345 CAD (5/28/15)

Value of shares traded: $1,060 CAD (5/28/15)

Link to chart (inception through 1/3/15)

52-week high (split-adjusted): $0.65 CAD (8/27/14)

52-week low (split-adjusted): $0.30 CAD (5/11/15)

Public offering price (split-adjusted): $4.70 CAD (3/15/11)

All-time high (split-adjusted): $44.50 CAD (3/23/07)

AZARGA TAKEOVER BY SUMMER 2014?

Hong Kong firm buys out Synatom, increasing ownership to 45.1%; expected conversion of debt to equity will give Azarga control of Powertech; mining method for Centennial and Dewey-Burdock likely to change

Posted November 18, 2013

The strange case of Mr. Mays

Is the veteran uranium miner still associated with Powertech, or has he moved on to greener pastures?

Posted July 22, 2013

Powertech officials have released conflicting information about the status of the company's legendary co-founder Wallace Mays. A review of recent securities filings by the Canadian company raises questions about whether Mays is still on the board of directors and whether he even remains a shareholder.

Powertech co-founder Wallace M. Mays: missing in action?

Mays formed Denver Uranium LLC with Dick Clement in 2005. The company acquired mineral rights and mining leases in the Dewey-Burdock area and conducted a reverse merger with Canadian public shell company Powertech Industries a year later.

Mays is often described as a pioneer in the field of in-situ leach uranium mining, with experience operating mines in Texas and Wyoming. He has also been involved in uranium mining projects in Mongolia and Kazakhstan.

In his book, Uranium: War ,Energy, and the Rock that Shaped the World, author Tom Zoellner notes that Mays is known in the uranium business as "one of its old-time cowboys--brash and confident". His interview with Mays revealed Mays' marriage to a local Mongolian woman nearly half a century younger than he, after many trips to Ulaanbaatar, the capital of Mongolia.

Mays claims to have started the first ISL uranium mine, but his assertion is disputed by industry analyst James Finch. Similarly, the claim by Powertech that Mays was awarded membership in the Uranium Hall of Fame cannot be verified since the organization does not seem to exist.

An August 2005 news release from Powertech Industries reported that Mays would be appointed President and Chief Executive Officer following the reverse merger with Denver Uranium. It is unclear why, but the plan changed when Dick Clement assumed the positions of CEO and President in June 2006. Mays became Chief Operating Officer and Chairman of the Board.

Following the reverse merger, Mays owned 4,400,000 shares of Powertech Industries, which changed its name to Powertech Uranium Corp. in June 2006. Mays owned roughly 11% of Powertech at the end of 2006.

Powertech was able to leverage Mays' experience and expertise to attract investors, most notably the Belgian company Synatom. Synatom has lost millions of dollars as a result of a series of equity and debt transactions with Powertech dating from 2008.

In May 2011, Mays resigned as an officer of Powertech. By the end of 2011, Mays' ownership position had dwindled to 1,868,000 shares, or only 1.8% of the shares outstanding.

That same year, Mays and Powertech dissolved the Indian Springs Land and Cattle Company, LLC. Indian Springs was a subsidiary of Powertech (USA) Inc., the operating subsidiary of Powertech Uranium Corp. It appears that Mays formed Indian Springs in 2008 to somehow further his interests in the dealings with Synatom. Powertech never disclosed the nature of its relationship with Indian Springs in its securities filings. It took two years for Powertech to finally disclose the dissolution of Indian Springs, and the details of this subsidiary remain a mystery.

In April 2012, Powertech announced in a regulatory filing that Mays would not stand for re-election to the board of directors. A filing a month earlier disclosed that Mays still owned 1,868,000 shares of the company.

The confusion surrounding May's current association with Powertech stems from the March 28, 2013 Annual Information Form filed by the Canadian company. In the section on directors and officers, Mays is listed as a current member of the board of directors. But in a related table showing current directors and executive officers and the number of shares owned, Mays is missing.

It is not clear why Powertech would announce Mays' removal from the board and then one year later indicate he is still a current board member. And given his key role in the founding of the company, Powertech appears remiss for not disclosing whether the former Chairman and COO is still a shareholder.

POWERTECH URANIUM CORP. (An Exploration Stage Company) ANNUAL INFORMATION FORM FOR THE YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31, 2012 - March 28, 2013 (PDF 189 KB, 38 pages)

Powertech issues first quarter financial statements

Posted May 10, 2013

On May 3 Powertech filed its first quarter financial statements and Management Discussion & Analysis with Canadian securities regulators. The reports reveal the Canadian company's precarious financial condition as well as further delays in the permitting of its only active uranium project:

- Powertech raised $1.38 million in a February private placement, but the company's cash burn rate for the quarter was over $350,000 per month.

- Powertech had only $951,115 in the bank on March 31. Using its first quarter cash burn rate and assuming no new financing, the Canadian company would have $600,000 at April 30 and $250,000 at May 31 (and would run out of cash in June).

- As of March 31, Powertech had just over $1 million in liabilities and contractual obligations that are due in less than one year.

- The company invested $624,000 in the proposed Dewey-Burdock project during the first quarter, and spent virtually nothing on its Colorado and Wyoming projects.

- Regarding the Dewey-Burdock project, Powertech acknowledged the recent permitting delay by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. The NRC has moved the estimated issuance date for a Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement to October 2013, a delay of five months.

- Powertech misled investors by stating that the NRC will issue a mining license thirty days after the Final SEIS is issued. Powertech failed to mention that the issuance of the Final SEIS will trigger the formal litigation process between mine opponents and the NRC under 10 CFR Part 2. It is unclear how long this hearing process will take.

- Powertech erroneously claimed that South Dakota mining regulators have scheduled a hearing on the company's Large Scale Mine Permit application for May 15, 2013. A prehearing conference has been scheduled for May 23 to address prehearing and scheduling issues, but the actual public hearing on the permit application has not been scheduled.

- Perhaps the most egregious example of deception is the discussion of the proposed Centennial project in northern Colorado. Powertech's brief narrative of the project in the Management Discussion & Analysis leaves the impression that the only thing keeping Powertech from permitting the project is a lack of cash. Missing is any mention of the Canadian company's unsuccessful two-year lawsuit against the state over new uranium mining regulations, the closure of its project office, the loss of significant land positions, technical hydrogeological issues, and the widespread opposition to the project from local landowners and governmental bodies.

POWERTECH URANIUM CORP. (An Exploration Stage Company) INTERIM CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS For the three months ended March 31, 2013 (Stated in United States Dollars) (PDF 59 KB, 13 pages)

POWERTECH URANIUM CORP. (An Exploration Stage Company) MANAGEMENT DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS - May 2, 2013 (PDF 149 KB, 18 pages)

APPLICANT POWERTECH (USA) URANIUM CORPORATION’S RESPONSE TO NRC STAFF’S APRIL 1, 2013 STATUS REPORT - UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD - In the Matter of: POWERTECH (USA), INC. (Dewey-Burdock In Situ Uranium Recovery Facility) - April 4, 2013 (PDF 14 KB, 4 pages)

Appointment of Hearing Chair, Notice of Prehearing Conference, Motion for Procedural and Scheduling Order, Proposed Order, Proposed Election of Participation Form, and Certificate of Service - Steven R. Blair, Assistant Attorney General, Office of Attorney General, State of South Dakota - May 1, 2013 (PDF 1,859 KB, 30 pages)

Powertech funding comes from Mexico, Switzerland, and Bermuda

Posted April 28, 2013

In addition to Canadian hedge fund K2 Principal Fund LP, Powertech has recently raised money from individuals and entities in Mexico, Switzerland, and Bermuda, according to a March 28 filing with the British Columbia Securities Commission.

The filing discloses information about Powertech's February 26 private placement of 15 million units that raised $1.4 million CAD after commissions and finder's fees. Thirty-four individuals and entities participated in the financing round.

The largest amount, $600,000 CAD, was raised from an individual Mexican investor; $314,000 CAD was raised from two Swiss entities, KC50 LLC and KCO LLC, controlled by investment analyst Olivier Garret.

Dianne L. Tatem invested $200,000 CAD through a Bermuda entity, Malibrigo Ltd. Sixteen U.S. individuals and entities invested a total of $172,000 CAD. The balance, $214,000 CAD, was raised from Canadian investors (including $150,000 CAD from K2), as well as investors from Germany and Japan.

Amended Form 45-106F6 British Columbia Report of Exempt Distribution - Powertech Uranium Corp. - March 28, 2013 (PDF 39 KB, 7 pages)

POWERTECH STOCK FALLS TO 8 CENTS

Shares hit new 52-week low in intraday trading

Posted April 16, 2013

Shares of cash-strapped Canadian start-up Powertech Uranium Corp. dropped to $0.08 CAD in intraday trading today on the Toronto Stock Exchange, setting a new 52-week low.

The shares recovered to close at $0.09 CAD after brokers at Merrill Lynch Canada placed two tiny trades totaling $119.00 CAD five minutes before the closing bell.

Powertech shares have declined 37% from their 2013 high of $0.14 set on January 2, and are down 98% from the all-time high of $4.45 CAD reached on March 23, 2007.

Investors may be responding to the recent announcement by U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff of a five-month licensing delay for the Dewey-Burdock project, the fact that the Canadian company is nearly broke, or yesterday's 4% drop in the spot price of U308.

POWERTECH URANIUM CORP. (An Exploration Stage Company) CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (audited) December 31, 2012 (PDF 139 KB, 29 pages)

POWERTECH URANIUM CORP. (An Exploration Stage Company) MANAGEMENT DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS - March 1, 2013 (PDF 229 KB, 29 pages)

News Release - "POWERTECH ANNOUNCES CLOSING OF PRIVATE PLACEMENT" - Powertech Uranium Corp. - February 27, 2013 (PDF 20 KB, 1 page) In response to the shareholder dilution resulting from this private placement, or perhaps because the spot price of uranium dropped to $42.00 this week, Powertech's share price slid to $0.10 CAD today (February 28) on the Toronto Stock Exchange.

Powertech CEO Dick Clement inflates resume

Posted February 24, 2013

Powertech CEO and President Richard Ferdinand Clement overstated his uranium mining experience in a January 2013 corporate presentation available on the Canadian company's website.

The sixth slide of the Powerpoint presentation asserts that Clement's more than 40 years' experience in "uranium corporate management...includes uranium exploration, development, production in U.S. and Australia".

While Clement does have experience in uranium exploration, he has little to no experience in uranium mine development and production, according to regulatory filings dating back to 2006.

The filings detail Mr. Clement's professional experience:

- In 1967, Clement went to work for Mobile Oil Corp. He managed U.S. uranium exploration programs and "developed worldwide strategy". He later became Vice President and Exploration Manager for Mobile Energy Minerals Australia Inc. In this position he managed Australian uranium exploration.

- Clement was hired in 1983 by Uranium Resources, Inc. to be its Senior Vice President of Exploration. He resigned in 1994.

- In 1996, Clement became President of Hydro Resources Inc., a subsidiary of Uranium Resources, Inc. Clement oversaw the permitting process for proposed uranium mines at Crownpoint and Church Rock, New Mexico. These proposed mines have yet to be developed.

- In 1999, Clement formed Lone Mountain Archeological Services Inc., a firm that provided cultural resources services to the uranium and petroleum industries.

- Mr. Clement formed Powertech Uranium Corp. in 2006 with Wallace Mays. The company was created by a reverse merger with Canadian shell company Powertech Industries, a manufacturer of high efficiency condensing boilers and water heaters. Powertech has never permitted, developed, or operated a uranium mine.

Strictly Private and Confidential - "Advancing Towards Uranium Production" - Powertech Uranium Corp. - January 2013 (PDF 1,281 KB, 21 pages)

POWERTECH URANIUM CORP. FORMERLY POWERTECH INDUSTRIES INC. - INFORMATION CIRCULAR Dated June 5, 2006 (PDF 159 KB, 32 pages)

POWERTECH URANIUM CORP. (An Exploration Stage Company) ANNUAL INFORMATION FORM FOR THE YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31, 2011 - March 28, 2012 (PDF 265 KB, 43 pages)

Nuclear Fuel’s Dirty Beginnings - Environmental Damage and Public Health Risks From Uranium Mining in the American West - Geoffrey H. Fettus and Matthew G. McKinzie, Natural Resources Defense Council - March 2012 (PDF 4,125 KB, 104 pages)

Powertech to raise $1.5 million from secret "strategic" investors

Posted February 18, 2013

Once again, Powertech CEO Dick Clement has saved the Canadian penny stock company from bankruptcy by convincing "strategic" investors to buy up to 15 million shares for $0.10 each, according to a February 12 news release.

The unidentified strategic investors would purchase units consisting of one common share of Powertech and one share purchase warrant. One warrant entitles the investor to purchase one additional share for $0.20 for a period of three years.

The gross proceeds of the proposed private placement are only $1.5 million, but would allow Powertech to survive for another four months, assuming a cash burn rate of $400,000 per month.

Unlike financial investors who invest solely to realize a return on their investment, strategic investors are typically operating companies in the same or similar industries that seek to create synergies with their investments.

Strategic investors often expect to assume a degree of control over the investee company, and in many cases intend to acquire the company.

Since Powertech is in the midst of seeking multiple federal and state permits for the proposed Dewey-Burdock uranium mine, one would think that the disclosure of the potential future management of the company would be of interest to affected landowners, regulators, and investors.

But in typical fashion, Powertech has chosen to conceal the identities of the strategic investors.

On a side note, Powertech has changed the description of the company that appears at the end of its news releases. After repeated challenges on this website to provide supporting evidence, Powertech has removed the following statement from its news releases:

"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."

The February 12 news release includes the new language:

'The Company's key personnel have in-situ uranium experience throughout the United States and worldwide."

News release - "Powertech Announces Private Placement" - Powertech Uranium Corp. - February 12, 2013 (PDF 33 KB, 1 page)

Is Powertech's accounting for the Centennial project misleading?

Posted December 28, 2012

A public company communicates its financial position to market participants with its balance sheet. An asset on the balance sheet is expected to generate future cash flow for the company. If the reported value of an asset is greater than the expected cash flow, the asset is "impaired" and must be written down. Companies don't like to write down impaired assets because of the negative message it sends to investors and others.

Nearly one third of the assets on Powertech's balance sheet consists of costs related to the proposed Centennial project in northern Colorado. In accordance with International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS), Powertech has capitalized these costs rather than expensing them on its income statement. The costs are classified as intangible, and include land services, legal fees, claims fees, lease payments, drilling, engineering, permitting, exploration, geological services, consulting, wages, and data and land acquisitions.

Under IFRS, these costs are considered to be "exploration and evaluation assets" since the technical feasibility and commercial viability of the proposed Centennial project have not been demonstrated.

According to IFRS, a company is required to test an asset for impairment when facts and circumstances suggest that the carrying amount (value on balance sheet) may exceed its recoverable amount. If impairment is determined, a company is required to measure, present and disclose an impairment loss on its income statement.

The recoverable amount of an asset is the higher of its fair market value less costs of disposal, and its "value in use". In other words, how much could Powertech sell the project for, versus what is the net present value of the future cash flows expected if the project is developed and operated.

Powertech took an impairment write-off in 2011 after the decision was made to focus exclusively on the Dewey-Burdock project. That year, Powertech decided not to exercise options to purchase large land and mineral positions owned by local ranchers. Certain mining claims and leases were also abandoned. Because of the obvious impairment, the company wrote off approximately $2.5 million of Centennial assets, which represented all historical costs associated with these items.

As of September 30, 2012, the carrying value of the Centennial mineral properties asset was $15.2 million. The recoverable amount of the asset depends on several factors, including the current market price of uranium and expected future demand, the extent of uranium mineralization, the local geology and hydrogeology, and environmental regulatory restrictions, to name a few. These factors affect the ability of Powertech or a successor company to permit, develop, and operate the project and generate a sufficient return on investment.

There are two factors that call into question the economic viability of the proposed Centennial project: the hydrogeology of the area, and new amendments to the Colorado Mined Land Reclamation Act (along with implementing regulations).

A little-publicized fact is that the hydrogeology of much of the proposed Centennial project area is not amenable to typical in-situ leach mining. This is due to the low water table relative to the uranium orebodies, resulting in insufficient hydraulic head. Sufficient hydraulic head is required to maintain dissolved oxygen injected into the production aquifer and to accommodate the drawdown from the recovery wells.

According to Powertech's own experts, as much as 40% of the total project resources are actually at or above the water table, and there is insufficient hydraulic head in six of the nine proposed mine units. The problem is compounded by the relatively shallow depth of the mineralization in some areas.

Powertech proposes to conduct what it calls "aquifer enhancement" to raise the water table in the six mine units. The unproven technique involves the underground injection of fresh water on the perimeters of the well fields to raise the water table. But Powertech has completed no modeling of the plan to assess its effect on surrounding water resources. No other uranium mining company has attempted the technique.

Not surprisingly, Powertech routinely fails to disclose this technical risk in its quarterly securities filings and communications with investors.

A fairly detailed discussion of the problem can be found in the February 2011 NI 43-101 Preliminary Assessment of the project. The report's authors from SRK Consulting caution investors that "the ability to satisfactorily raise the water table in an operation model may not be fully understood until the initial production well field is in operation". In other words, Powertech won't know if aquifer enhancement works until after initial capital has been committed for construction of the project.

New Colorado laws and regulations affecting in-situ leach uranium mining appear to present another obstacle to Powertech, based on the company's response to the passage of the 2008 legislation and the rulemaking that followed.

Ironically, when Powertech first approached landowners in the Wellington/Nunn area of northern Colorado in late 2006 and early 2007, company officials assured them that uranium leach mining would not contaminate their well water. Skeptical of the Canadian company's claims, project opponents sought a way to require Powertech to protect the area's ground water.

A fast-growing grassroots movement of rural families, farmers and ranchers, and residents of nearby towns and cities (including Fort Collins and Greeley) was successful in getting legislation passed and signed by Colorado Governor Bill Ritter in the spring of 2008. The legislation set strict new state standards for protecting ground water quality potentially affected by uranium mining, and expanded opportunities for public participation in regulatory reviews of uranium prospecting and mining activities.

The legislation passed with overwhelming bipartisan support, in spite of Powertech's vigorous and outspoken opposition. A two-year rulemaking process followed, during which Powertech fought unsuccessfully to weaken the new rules.

Powertech officials were particularly adamant in their opposition to a handful of rules that were developed near the end of the process that addressed issues mostly relating to prospecting and exploration. In a widely-publicized statement, Powertech CEO Dick Clement and Powertech attorney John Fognani claimed a rule requiring a baseline site characterization prior to the initiation of prospecting activities "would be fatal to any serious potential in situ recovery project". The rule was subsequently adopted by the Colorado Mined Land Reclamation Board (MLRB).

Upon final adoption of the new rules in September 2010, Powertech filed a lawsuit against the MLRB seeking to overturn the rules. After a series of judicial rulings unfavorable to Powertech, the lawsuit was thrown out on July 13, 2012. Since then, Powertech's attorneys have filed pleadings arguing that the judge's dismissal order was never properly signed. According to someone familiar with the matter, it was recently confirmed that Powertech decided not to appeal the judge's order.

Powertech CEO Dick Clement has made conflicting public statements regarding the new regulations and their potential effect on the economics of the Centennial project. What is clear is the Canadian company has fought nearly five years to scuttle first the legislation and later the rules. It seems unlikely that Powertech would fight so hard if the regulations didn't have the potential to impact what is arguably an already financially-marginal project.

From an accounting standpoint, both the hydrogeological issues and the new state mining regulations are potential indicators of impairment of the Centennial project asset. The combination of these circumstances raises doubts about whether the project can be financially feasible.

Other facts pointing to impairment are the cessation of all permitting activities, the closing of the project office, the sale of project land, and the discontinuance of expenditures for further exploration for and evaluation of mineral resources.

Taken together, these multiple indicators of impairment would appear to support impairment testing and possible write-down of the Centennial project asset in accordance with IFRS.

Powertech Uranium Corp. - NI 43-101 Preliminary Assessment - Centennial Project, Weld County, Colorado - Prepared by SRK Consulting Engineers and Scientists - August 13, 2010, Updated February 7, 2011 (PDF 6,604 KB, 152 pages)

ORDER (Christina M. Habas Denver District Court Judge) - Plaintiff: POWERTECH (USA) INC., a South Dakota Corporation, v. Defendant: STATE OF COLORADO MINED LAND RECLAMATION BOARD, and Intervenors: COLORADOANS AGAINST RESOURCE DESTRUCTION; TALLAHASSEE AREA COMMUNITY, INC.; AND SHEEP MOUNTAIN ALLIANCE - Case No. 10CV8615 - July 13, 2012 (PDF 74 KB, 6 pages)

Third quarter financial statements: Powertech's cash nearly exhausted

Burn rate holds steady; still no impairment testing of Centennial project asset

Posted December 14, 2012

Powertech's third quarter financial statements, issued in early November, reveal the Canadian firm's sole focus on permitting the proposed Dewey-Burdock project as well as its dwindling cash position.

A few highlights of the financial statements and related Management Discussion and Analysis:

- As of September 30, Powertech had only $614,000 in cash, its lowest cash position since Dick Clement took over the Canadian shell company in a reverse merger in 2006. (In early November, Powertech raised $1 million CAD by issuing shares to insiders and others, and sold a Colorado property for $235,000.)

- Powertech's cash burn rate has averaged about $400,000 per month in 2012; assuming the same burn rate, the company would be expected to run out of cash in February 2013 without new financing.

- Powertech's accumulated losses total $34 million. The company has never sold uranium.

- Expenses continue to decline, including wages and benefits as Powertech lays off more employees.

- Powertech had negative working capital of $1.9 million as of September 30.

- Mineral property assets increased to $48.7 million. These are classified as intangible assets and make up 98% of all assets owned by Powertech.

- Of the $3 million Powertech has invested in its mineral properties in 2012, $2.7 million has been spent on Dewey-Burdock. The company has spent $300,00 on its Wyoming prospects, and only $30,000 on the mothballed Centennial project in Colorado.

- Powertech CEO Dick Clement is on track to receive 2012 compensation of $400,000, followed by CFO Tom Doyle ($300,000) and corporate Secretary Greg Burnett ($245,000).

- Powertech continues to omit any disclosure of its relationship with the mysterious wholly-owned subsidiary Indian Springs Land and Cattle Co., LLC. The Denver company was formed by Powertech director Wallace Mays in 2008 and was involved in the dealmaking with Belgian company Synatom.

- The portion of the mineral properties asset attributable to the defunct Centennial project in northern Colorado continues to be carried on the balance sheet at its full historical cost (less a $2.3 million write-down in 2011 due to a failed real estate deal). Powertech has apparently never tested the asset for impairment despite facts and circumstances that indicate the carrying amount may exceed its recoverable amount.

POWERTECH URANIUM CORP. (An Exploration Stage Company) INTERIM CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (Unaudited) For the three and nine months ended September 30, 2012 (PDF 77KB, 17 pages)

POWERTECH URANIUM CORP. (An Exploration Stage Company) MANAGEMENT DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS - November 6, 2012 (PDF 170 KB, 21 pages)

Synatom takes $6.1 million hit on Powertech investment

Loss on debt conversion follows March 2011 write-off of $5.4 million; Belgian company is now largest owner with 18.6% of troubled Canadian firm, but holds no board seats

Posted November 13, 2012, Updated November 16, 2012

On November 6, Powertech Uranium Corp. issued a news release stating that Societe Belge de Combustibles Nucleaires SA (Synatom) and Powertech are "pleased" to announce a debt conversion transaction that will result in a $6 million CAD loss to the Belgian firm.

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

Powertech is undoubtedly pleased since the transaction allows the struggling Canadian company to pay off a $7.5 CAD loan not with cash but with 12.5 million newly-issued shares of Powertech stock worth only $1.4 CAD million as of the news release date. After the debt conversion, Synatom owns 23,390,000 shares, or 18.6%, of Powertech.

Synatom is now the largest owner of Powertech, closely followed by Toronto hedge fund manager Shawn Kimel's K2 Principal Fund L.P.

It is hard to conceive how Synatom could be "pleased" with the recent transaction or for that matter any of its transactions with the Canadian penny-stock company.

The debt conversion is a result of a troubled debt restructuring deal Powertech inked with Synatom on March 15, 2011. Prior to the restructuring, Powertech owed Synatom $25.4 million CAD. Synatom restructured the debt by taking a $12.5 million CAD cash payment, a $7.5 million CAD note, and a $5.4 million CAD write-off. With the conversion of the $7.5 million CAD note, Synatom has a total realized loss of at least $11.5 million CAD since it first invested in Powertech in June 2008.

In the 2008 deal, Synatom invested $9 million CAD and acquired 6 million shares of common stock at $1.50 CAD per share (the deal also included warrants that are currently underwater). Powertech stock closed at $0.12 CAD today on the Toronto Stock Exchange.

Based on the current stock price, Synatom has an $8.3 million CAD unrealized loss on the 6 million Powertech shares acquired in 2008.

The debt conversion was not unexpected; the $7.5 million CAD note payable from Powertech to Synatom was unsecured and non-interest bearing and appeared to be a way for Synatom to make the 2011 debt restructuring look better to its shareholders.

Synatom officers Robert Leclere and Gerard Pauluis resigned from the Powertech board of directors in October 2010. Powertech has never disclosed why the Belgian executives left the board. Synatom is a subsidiary of Electrabel, a European power company that is wholly-owned by multinational corporation GDF Suez.

News Release - "POWERTECH ANNOUNCES CONVERSION OF DEBT AND CLOSING OF PRIVATE PLACEMENT" - Powertech Uranium Corp. - November 6, 2012 (PDF 27 KB, 2 pages)

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)

SYNATOM EXECS QUIT POWERTECH BOARD

"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....

Synatom and Powertech

SO LONG, SYNATOM... The "Synatom Partnership" page on Powertech's website has been taken down. 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.

Powertech agrees to sell 9% of company to unnamed party for $1 million CAD

Posted November 2, 2012

In a bid for financial survival, Powertech Uranium Corp. announced that it has agreed to sell up to 8.8% of the company for only $1 million CAD, or $1,004,000 USD at today's exchange rate.

Powertech's October 26 news release announcing the non-brokered private placement failed to disclose the party or parties that will be purchasing up to 10 million common shares of the Canadian company.

The investor(s) will pay $0.10 CAD per unit; a unit consists of one common share and one-half of one share purchase warrant. One whole warrant entitles the holder to purchase one common share at $0.20 per share for a period of one year.

The private placement is non-brokered since Powertech will sell the units directly rather than through a broker-dealer or investment bank. A private placement avoids the costs and disclosures of a public offering.

By issuing up to 10 million new shares, Powertech is diluting the ownership of existing investors and company insiders while raising only a relatively small amount of capital. In contrast, Powertech's March 2011 public offering of nearly 48 million shares raised over $23 million USD. Those funds have been nearly exhausted.

The $1 million CAD raised in the private placement should last roughly three months given Powertech's recent cash burn rate.

News release - "Powertech Announces Private Placement" - Powertech Uranium Corp. - October 26, 2012 (PDF 18 KB, 1 page)

Powertech fails to test Centennial project asset for impairment

International Financial Reporting Standards require impairment testing upon indication that carrying value of asset exceeds recoverable amount

Posted August 5, 2012

Powertech's recently-released second quarter financial statements do not inspire confidence in the Canadian company. Powertech had only $1.9 million in cash as of June 30. Without new invested capital, the company will run out of cash before the end of the year.

More striking is the fact that the financial statements are silent on the question of whether the $15.2 million of capitalized costs for the Centennial project are "impaired". These costs are an asset on Powertech's balance sheet, and consist primarily of intangible items such as permitting, wages and salaries, consulting, leasing, drilling, and testing.

Under International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS), these costs must be written down if they exceed the value expected to be recovered through the operation or sale of the project. Such write-downs result in an impairment loss on the company's financial statements. For example, in 2011 Powertech wrote down $2.3 million in costs for Centennial land options that were not exercised.

Since then, Powertech has ceased all permitting activities, closed its project office, begun selling project land, and lost its lawsuit against new state mining regulations.

Under IFRS rules, Powertech must test for impairment of the Centennial project asset when there is an indication that the asset may be impaired, and at least annually.

One indicator of impairment is if the book value of the company exceeds its market capitalization. At June 30, Powertech's book value was $46.1 million; its market capitalization was only $12.9 million.

One would expect the June 30 financial statements to include a discussion of possible impairment of the $15.2 million asset. No such discussion is included, raising the question of whether this omission constitutes a departure from IFRS.

POWERTECH URANIUM CORP. (An Exploration Stage Company) INTERIM CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (Unaudited) For the three and six months ended June 30, 2012 (PDF 75 KB, 17 pages)

POWERTECH URANIUM CORP. (An Exploration Stage Company) MANAGEMENT DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS - July 30, 2012 (PDF 167 KB, 21 pages)

Certification of interim filings - Richard F. Clement, Jr., Chief Executive Officer and President of Powertech Uranium Corp. - July 31, 2012 (PDF 11 KB, 2 pages)

International Accounting Standard 36 - Impairment of Assets - IFRS Foundation - accessed August 5, 2012 (PDF 259 KB, 50 pages)

IAS 36 Impairment testing: practical issues - Ernst & Young - 2011 (605 KB, 20 pages)

Powertech advisory board member caught in fracking study scandal

Investigative report reveals that longtime Powertech advisor Charles "Chip" Groat concealed conflict of interest from University of Texas; Groat led university study of fracking without disclosing compensation from industry

Posted July 27, 2012

"Fracking Company Paid Texas Professor Behind Water Contamination Study" by Terrence Henry, stateimpact.npr.org - July 23, 2012

Charles G. "Chip" Groat, PhD. Groat has been a member of the Advisory Board of Powertech Uranium Corp. since August 2, 2006. He is one of only two advisors; the other is attorney Anthony Thompson.

"Texas Professor On the Defensive Over Fracking Money" by Terrence Henry, stateimpact.npr.org - July 24, 2012

"Contaminated Inquiry - How a University of Texas Fracking Study Led by a Gas Industry Insider Spun the Facts and Misled the Public" - Public Accountability Initiative - July 2012 (552 KB, 25 pages)

"Industry money and questionable ethics contaminate UT Austin fracking study" by David Wogan, Scientific American Blogs - July 24, 2012

OUR ADVISORY BOARD - Powertech Uranium Corp.

Powertech releases technical report on Wyoming property

Canadian company attempts to pump up dormant property to investors

Posted July 7, 2012

On June 25 Powertech issued a news release announcing the completion of a National Instrument 43-101 compliant technical report for the Aladdin uranium "project" located in Wyoming.

Canadian securities regulators require the preparation of a NI 43-101 report if a company wants to report "current" uranium resources to investors. Powertech previously reported that the Aladdin leases and mining claims contained "historic" resources of 1.2 million pounds of uranium. Historic resources are considered more uncertain and speculative than current resources.

The rules require a licensed geologist to review and analyze drillhole data to estimate current resources. According to the new report, Powertech has identified 1,038,023 pounds of "indicated" resources and 101,255 pounds of "inferred" resources. Indicated resources are more certain than inferred resources.

The identified Aladdin uranium deposits are paltry compared to Powertech's Dewey-Burdock project. Dewey-Burdock contains 6.7 million pounds of indicated resources and 4.5 million pounds of inferred resources. And the Aladdin uranium deposits are of a lower average grade than Dewey-Burdock.

Furthermore, Powertech used a different and more aggressive methodology to estimate Aladdin resources.

Powertech uses the industry-accepted method of "GT contour mapping" to calculate estimated uranium resources. This method maps a uranium deposit using data obtained by drilling. When an orebody is intercepted, the grade of mineralization is multiplied by the thickness to give a grade/thickness (GT) number. When the mapping is completed, a "GT cut-off" is applied to identify the ore that can be economically extracted.

The GT cut-off is important since using a lower cut-off results in a higher resource estimate. As the price of uranium drops, geologists are expected to use a higher GT cutoff since lower grades become uneconomical to mine.

Powertech's April 2012 technical report on Dewey-Burdock used the more conservative 0.5 GT cut-off to estimate uranium deposits. In contrast, the company's news release on Aladdin used a 0.2 GT cut-off, resulting in an inflated estimate of uranium resources. When a 0.4 GT cut-off is used (still lower than Dewey-Burdock), total uranium deposits are nearly halved to 554,195 pounds of indicated resources and 42,620 pounds of inferred resources.

While the 0.4 GT calculation was included in the technical report, it was omittted from the news release. The report did not include a resource estimate using the same 0.5 GT cut-off used for Dewey-Burdock.

In its news release, Powertech has elevated Aladdin from a "prospect" to a "project". Calling Aladdin a project, however, is a stretch since Powertech has not filed a single mining permit application. In fact, the prospect/project has been shrinking. In 2011, Powertech decided not to renew portions of certain lease agreements and chose not to renew 65 mining claims.

Basic prospecting work has not yet been conducted. Powertech has drilled no core holes to obtain samples for testing, and has performed no mineralogical or metallurgical testing. Powertech has no analytical data related to earlier core holes drilled by Teton Exploration.

Perhaps most revealing is the fact that Powertech spent a grand total of only $28,484 on all of its Wyoming prospects in the first quarter of this year. And Aladdin is only one of five Wyoming prospects owned by Powertech. The other four are Dewey Terrace, Colony, Powder River Basin, and Shirley Basin.

The author of the news release also notes that geologist Jerry Bush has estimated the Aladdin area may potentially contain an additional 5 to 11 million pounds of uranium. But the news release and the technical report are quick to qualify this statement, noting that "the density of exploration drilling is light", "the grade and quantity of this potential is conceptual in nature", and "there has been insufficient exploration...to define a mineral resource".

Eighty percent of the 10,831-acre Aladdin prospect area is "lightly explored". In other words, close-spaced exploration drilling necessary to identify current resources has been done on only 20% of the Aladdin property.

Near the end of the report the author notes that some of the uranium deposits are only 100 feet below ground surface. There is no discussion of whether there is sufficient hydraulic head above these shallow resources to allow for in-situ leaching.

Adding to doubts about Aladdin is the fact that Powertech does not control hundreds of acres that are located in the middle of the prospect area, according to maps from the report.

None of these facts stop Powertech CEO Dick Clement from pumping up Aladdin in the news release. Calling the technical report a "fully vetted" report, Clement says he is pleased with the results and that "the potential of upwards of 10 million pounds makes the Aladdin Project a favorable prospect for future ISR exploration and development."

The report's author, Jerry D. Bush, is required to be independent of Powertech, according to Canadian securities law. Section 1.5 of National Instrument 43-101 requires that an "independent qualified person" prepare a technical report. A qualified person is independent if there is no circumstance that, in the opinion of a reasonable person, could interfere with the qualified person's judgement.

Bush was hired by Powertech in 2007 to work on the Aladdin prospect. He supervised Powertech's exploration drilling program, reviewed logging of drill cuttings, and observed geophysical logs being run on all drill holes. The data from 2007 became a key part of the dataset used to prepare the technical report. Consequently, as author of the report and also a former Powertech consultant, Bush reviewed his own work.

It is no surprise that Bush concluded that "all newly-generated data by Powertech used to evaluate the uranium resources of the Aladdin Project" are sufficient and accurate. He goes on to opine that "pertinent data concerning the uranium deposits in the Aladdin Project are bound to exist in other data storage". Without speculating how this data was obtained or who has custody of it, Bush makes the unsupported assertion that such additional data would support his interpretations and that it is "not likely that any data could be in existence that could detract from the conclusions presented".

Bush concludes the report with a recommendation to conduct a two-phased, $800,000 exploration drilling program.

News release - "POWERTECH COMPLETES NI 43-101 REPORT ON THE ALADDIN PROJECT" - Powertech Uranium Corp. - June 25, 2012 (PDF 46 KB, 3 pages)

Technical Report on the Aladdin Uranium Project Crook County, Wyoming - Powertech Uranium Corp. - Prepared by: Jerry D. Bush - June 21, 2012 (PDF 4,097 KB, 43 pages)

Certificate of Qualified Person - Jerry D. Bush - June 22, 2012 (PDF 412 KB, 1 page)

NATIONAL INSTRUMENT 43-101 STANDARDS OF DISCLOSURE FOR MINERAL PROJECTS - Ontario Securities Commission - June 24, 2011 (PDF 215 KB, 44 pages)

Investors kept in dark with latest Powertech news release

Clement is silent on Mays' departure from board; CEO overstates company's uranium experience

Posted May 17, 2012, Updated May 30, 2012

In a move that appears to be intended simply to let the world know that Powertech is still alive, the Canadian company issued a news release yesterday announcing the election of directors at its annual meeting held on May 15.

But the news release is noteworthy for what it fails to disclose. Legendary uranium miner and Powertech co-founder Wallace Mays dropped off the board effective May 15.

In contrast, since 2005 Powertech's communications to investors and the markets have never missed an opportunity to trumpet Mays' involvement with the company.

Mays was at one time the largest shareholder of Powertech, and publicly proclaimed that it was "his company". Even though CEO Dick Clement appears to have done most of the company's heavy lifting, Mays' ownership and experience was leveraged to raise capital from Canadian and European investors as well as from Belgian company Synatom.

But when it came time for Mays to cut his managerial and governance duties with Powertech by leaving the board (he is still a shareholder), Clement and his remaining boardmembers saw no need to inform the firm's investors in the May 16 news release.

This disclosure lapse, while surprising, is not atypical. The same news release repeats an unsupported claim by Powertech that has shown up on company news releases for years.

The claim is that Powertech'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".

The assertion was first published in a June 28, 2007 news release Powertech issued regarding the Centennial project in Colorado. For years the statement seemed dubious since the most experienced Powertech executive, Wallace Mays, only claimed to have been involved with eight in-situ leach uranium mines, and some of these were likely outside of the U.S.

Powertech has never released the names of these eight mines. And no other Powertech employee or official has ever claimed to have permitted an ISL uranium mine.

Powertech never explained that only two officials, Wallace Mays and son John Mays, were the only key personnel with actual operational uranium mining experience. (CORRECTION: According to a résumé recently obtained from the South Dakota Minerals and Mining Program, Powertech Chief Geologist Frank Lee Lichnovsky has uranium mining experience that goes beyond exploration. Lichnovsky worked for Wyoming Minerals Corporation from 1976 to 1981 at three operating in-situ leach uranium mines: Bruni and Three Rivers in Texas, and Irigaray in Wyoming.)

Now that Wallace Mays is gone, one would expect that Powertech's news releases would be modified to reflect this material fact. If "key personnel" have permitted a dozen uranium mines, or even one mine, Powertech should disclose the identity of the individuals as well as the uranium mines.

News release - "POWERTECH ANNOUNCES RESULTS FROM ANNUAL GENERAL MEETING" - Powertech Uranium Corp. - May 16, 2012 (PDF 22KB, 1 page)

Powertech downsizes, according to first quarter financials

As remaining cash dwindles, employees are let go and assets sold; no pay cut for Clement

Posted May 5, 2012

Over the last several months, Powertech has moved to downsize the company in an effort to conserve its vanishing cash. The Canadian uranium developer and penny stock company has no operating revenue.

Powertech's cash and working capital has dropped steadily since its March 2011 public stock offering. According to recently released first quarter financial statements, the company had only $3.2 million in cash as of March 31. In contrast, a year earlier Powertech had $9.1 million.

The company reported $8.4 million in working capital at the end of the first quarter of 2011 but only $3.0 million as of March 31 of this year.

Powertech has been able to reduce its cash burn rate through layoffs, selling equipment, and by stopping all work on the Centennial project in northern Colorado. Excluding one-time asset sales and foreign exchange loss, its monthly burn rate for first quarter 2012 averaged $390,000, compared to $530,000 for 2011 (excluding the March 2011 troubled debt restructuring with Synatom). When it was flush with cash from Synatom, Powertech would regularly spend over $1 million a month.

Since the March 2011 stock offering, Powertech has slashed its workforce. The company had 21 employees and four independent contractors, according to the March 31, 2011 Annual Information Form filed with securities regulators. The March 28, 2012 AIF revealed that Powertech was down to ten employees and three independent contractors.

To raise cash, Powertech has been selling assets. Since the beginning of the year, the company sold its logging truck and related equipment for $243,000. The geophysical logging truck was manufactured by Geoinstruments Logging, Inc. and allowed Powertech to collect data from drillholes to perform detailed subsurface geologic mapping.

Last year, Powertech ceased all permitting work on the Centennial project and walked away from a large land and mineral position it had optioned from two Weld County ranching families. The company is still advancing its 2010 lawsuit against certain new Colorado uranium mining rules, but appears to have given up the legal fight against those rules it considered most onerous.

As Powertech downsizes and approaches its eighth year without a permitted uranium mine, the firm continues to compensate its executives handsomely. For instance, in 2011 CEO Dick Clement was paid $293,470 in salary, benefits, and deferred compensation. Not bad for a company that has never booked a sale, and with a share price that has dropped from a 2007 high of $4.45 CAD to $0.09 CAD on the last day of 2011.

Clement is one of three members of Powertech's Compensation Committee, the body primarily responsible for determining the compensation to be paid to the company's executive officers and evaluating their performance.

POWERTECH URANIUM CORP. (An Exploration Stage Company) INTERIM CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (UNAUDITED) For the three months ended March 31, 2012 (Stated in United States Dollars) (PDF 72 KB, 16 pages)

POWERTECH URANIUM CORP. (An Exploration Stage Company) MANAGEMENT DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS (April 30, 2012) (PDF 159 KB, 19 pages)

POWERTECH URANIUM CORP. (An Exploration Stage Company) ANNUAL INFORMATION FORM FOR THE YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31, 2011 - March 28, 2012 (PDF 265 KB, 43 pages)

POWERTECH URANIUM CORP. - NOTICE OF ANNUAL GENERAL MEETING OF SHAREHOLDERS TO BE HELD ON MAY 15, 2012 AND INFORMATION CIRCULAR - April 13, 2012 (PDF 248 KB, 33 pages)

WALLACE MAYS LEAVES POWERTECH BOARD

ISL uranium mining pioneer drops off board with no explanation; Powertech continues to avoid disclosure of relationship with Mays' Indian Springs Land and Cattle Co.

Posted April 25, 2012

Powertech co-founder Wallace Mays is exiting the company's board of directors on May 15, 2012, according to its April 13, 2012 Notice of Annual General Meeting of Shareholders and Information Circular. No reason is given for his not standing for re-election at Powertech's annual meeting. One year ago, Mays left his positions as Chairman and Chief Operating Officer. Mays was Chairman of Powertech from May 2006 to May 2011.

Wallace M. Mays

Although Mays was nominally a Powertech director for the last year, he did not attend six board meetings held from March to October 2011. As of December 31, 2011, Mays still owned 1,868,000 shares of Powertech, or 1.8% of the company. Five years ago, Mays owned 8.9% of Powertech.

The colorful and legendary uranium miner was instrumental in Powertech's early financing efforts since he was the firm's only principal with actual uranium mining experience. (John Mays, Wallace Mays' son, was hired by Powertech in February 2008. John Mays is currently the only Powertech manager with uranium mining experience. CEO Richard Clement has only worked in exploration and permitting.)

Powertech never missed an opportunity to tout Mays' experience with in-situ leach uranium mining. Prior to a July 2009 debate between Powertech and Centennial project opponents Coloradoans Against Resource Destruction in Nunn, Colorado, Powertech sent a list of debate questions to Nunn Town Clerk Tori McMechan and Mayor Jeff Pigue. The Town of Nunn organized the debate, which was originally to be moderated by Pigue and McMechan. Both town officials supported the proposed Centennial project. (Responding to protests, the debate was moderated by Colorado State University professor Jeff Boulter.)

One question submitted by Powertech didn't beat around the bush regarding Mays' experience:

"A good question for CARD would be: ls CARD aware that Powertech officials have more than 200 years combined experience in the uranium mining industry, and Wallace Mays (Powertech COO) is considered by industry to be the most knowledgeable person on the planet when it comes to in-situ uranium mining?"

During the debate, Mays struck a combative tone, stating that it is "our land, our water, our uranium that we have paid for" and that "we will not be blackmailed". Mays did not explain how he believed Powertech was being blackmailed.

On a roll, he started banging his fist on the table to punctuate each sentence:

"I've been doing this for forty years (bang). This is my company (bang). This is my technology (bang). I'm the largest single shareholder in this company (bang). I'm here to stay (bang). And I have put in eight uranium mines (bang). I've reclaimed them (bang). I've managed them (bang). I've done three in other countries (bang). I've mined in this state for twenty years in uranium mining (bang)."

Two months later, the Nunn Town Board passed a strong resolution of opposition to the Centennial project.

While Wallace May's experience with in-situ leach uranium mining is well documented, his claim to have designed and operated the first commercial scale ISL is in dispute. A Powertech news release from 2008 claims that Mays developed the first such mine, the Clay West Uranium Mine in Texas, in the mid 1970s.

But a 2006 article by uranium industry analyst James Finch recounts the history of a commercial scale ISL mine in Wyoming's Shirley Basin starting in the early 1960s. The mine, the Lucky Mc Uranium Mine, was developed and operated by the Utah Construction Company.

And according to Wallace Mays' official biography, he was awarded membership in the Uranium Hall of Fame in 1996. It is unclear who awarded this membership, if there are any other members, and if the Uranium Hall of Fame even exists.

Perhaps the most enduring mystery surrounding Wallace Mays is the Indian Springs Land and Cattle Co., LLC. The Colorado limited liability company was formed by Mays in July 2008, five months after Mays was named Chief Operating Officer of Powertech.

Indian Springs is a "wholly-owned indirect subsidiary" of Powertech Uranium Corp., according to documents recently filed with Canadian securities regulators. Indian Springs was a party to financing agreements between Powertech and Belgian firm Synatom.

The problem is that Powertech's audited financial statements and related disclosures have omitted all mention of Indian Springs. It was early 2011 before Powertech even disclosed the existence of Indian Springs. And Powertech first disclosed that Indian Springs was a wholly-owned indirect subsidiary on March 28 of this year.

It is likely that Indian Springs is wholly-owned by Powertech (USA), Inc., a South Dakota corporation that is the only direct subsidiary of Powertech Uranium Corp. It is unclear why Powertech's Canadian auditors, BDO Canada LLP, have not required Powertech to disclose the details of its financial relationship with Indian Springs Land and Cattle Co., LLC.

Powertech's market cap hits rock bottom

Posted April 18, 2012

According to a recent Powerpoint presentation by uranium companies Energy Fuels Inc. and Denison Mines, Powertech Uranium Corp. has the smallest market capitalization of a list of seven uranium developers operating in the United States.

Annual financial statements document Powertech's decline

Posted March 19, 2012, Updated March 21, 2012

On March 5, Powertech filed its audited annual financial statements and management discussion and analysis (MD&A)with Canadian securities regulators. The filings reveal Powertech's precarious financial position and shed additional light on its 2011 debt restructuring with Belgian firm Synatom.

Points of interest include:

- Auditors BDO Canada LLP emphasized in their report "the existence of a material uncertainty that may cast doubt about the entity's ability to continue as a going concern." In other words, Powertech may not have enough cash to survive through 2012.

- As of December 31, Powertech had $4 million in cash. During 2011, Powertech spent an average of roughly $530,000 per month on its projects and corporate overhead. At this rate, and with no new financing, Powertech could run out of cash by late summer. Layoffs and office closings might buy another couple of months.

- Powertech actually had net income of $4.4 million in 2011. But this "phantom income" resulted from the forgiveness of debt by Synatom and various accounting maneuvers that together yielded $13 million in gains. Powertech has never had any sales revenue.

- 2011 compensation for CEO Dick Clement was $285,970. Vice President Dick Blubaugh was paid $184,989. Compensation for CFO Thomas Doyle was $182,070. (These amounts do not include deferred compensation.)

- Certain Powertech executives and managers have agreed to defer a portion of their salary (ranging from 10-25%) starting November 2011 through October 2013.

- During the fourth quarter of 2011, "wages and benefits were lower due to a decrease in the number of employees."

- "The Company has ceased its spending on property, plant and equipment." As of December 31, 2011, the book value of all of Powertech's buildings, computers, field equipment, office equipment, and vehicles was only $208,000. After December 31, the company sold "a portion" of its equipment assets for $240,000.

- Although Powertech has office leases in Vancouver, BC, Albuquerque, NM, and Greenwood Village, CO, the company has no office lease agreements in South Dakota, site of the proposed Dewey-Burdock project. Dewey-Burdock is the only project for which Powertech is engaged in permitting activities.

- Powertech disclosed that federal law requiring the protection of historic cultural properties of religious significance to Indian tribes "could affect the timing for final licensing of the Company's Dewey-Burdock Project."

- "The Company has decided to forego additional permitting activities on Centennial (Colorado) until the completion of the permitting and licensing of Dewey-Burdock."

- Powertech did not disclose its active lawsuit against the Colorado Mined Land Reclamation Board. The lawsuit seeks to overturn new Colorado rules regulating uranium mining.

- Powertech's early 2011 "refinancing agreement" with Belgian firm Synatom was not a simple refinancing but rather a "troubled debt restructuring" as defined by accounting experts. In such transactions, a lender grants a concession to a financially troubled borrower that it would not otherwise consider. Prior to the troubled debt restructuring, Powertech owed Synatom $25.5 million CAD. Synatom forgave $5.5 million CAD of debt in return for $12.5 million CAD in cash and a $7.5 million CAD unsecured, non-interest bearing convertible promissory note. The recently released annual financial statements reveal an additional $6 million gain on the convertible promissory note. Even though the face value of the note is $7.5 million CAD, the "fair value" of the note dropped to only $1.5 million as of December 31 since the repayment is pegged to a set number of Powertech shares (at $0.60 CAD a share). Powertech stock closed at $0.085 CAD on December 30, the last trading day of the year.

- The mysterious entity, the Indian Springs Land and Cattle Co. LLC, is not explained in the financial statements. Although the limited liability company, created by former Powertech Chairman Wallace Mays, is party to an agreement tied to the troubled debt restructuring with Synatom, Powertech and its auditors did not disclose the relationship between the companies. It is unknown if Indian Springs is a special purpose entity (SPE) formed by Powertech. While SPEs can be perfectly legal, they were used extensively by Enron to reduce financial risk, hide debt or ownership, conceal self-dealing, and obscure relationships between different entities which were in fact related to each other.

- While Powertech reports shareholders' equity of $47 million, its largest asset is its "Mineral Properties", at $46 million. This is classified as an "intangible asset" since it consists mainly of capitalized exploration and permitting costs. Thus, Powertech's tangible book value (accounting value of the company's tangible assets less any debt) drops to about $1 million.

POWERTECH URANIUM CORP. (An Exploration Stage Company) CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS December 31, 2011 (Expressed in United States Dollars) (PDF 198 KB, 43 pages)

POWERTECH URANIUM CORP. (An Exploration Stage Company) MANAGEMENT DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS (March 5, 2012) (PDF 223 KB, 34 pages)

Powertech trading spikes

Abnormal increase in share price and volume occurs with no disclosure of news regarding company or uranium industry

Posted February 22, 2012

Both trading volume and share price of Powertech stock jumped today on the Toronto Stock Exchange, even though the company has disclosed no recent news.

Powertech shares rose 13.89% to close at $0.205 CAD. Trading volume was 339,563 shares. The average daily trading volume for the previous ten trading days was 61,604 shares.

This spike in share price and volume occurred in spite of the fact that Powertech has not disclosed any news in over seven months. And other factors that might affect Powertech's stock price don't explain today's increase. The spot price for uranium has been basically flat for the last two weeks, as has the Global X Uranium ETF, an investment fund that tracks the global uranium industry.

Several Canadian broker dealers were involved in today's trading, including Toll Cross Securities Inc., Desjardins Securities Inc., Scotia Capital Inc., Questrade Inc., TD Securities Inc., and RBC Capital Markets.

Russian government may control royalty interest in Dewey-Burdock project

Posted February 9, 2012, Updated February 12, 2012

The Kremlin may control a royalty interest in Powertech's proposed Dewey-Burdock project through Rosatom, a "state corporation" owned by the Russian government.

On November 18, 2005, Powertech issued a news release announcing the purchase of 119 federal unpatented mining claims from Energy Metals Corporation (EMC). The claims comprised approximately 2,300 acres in the Black Hills of South Dakota and served to consolidate Powertech's control of the identified uranium resource in the Dewey-Burdock area, according to the news release. Powertech purchased the claims with a combination of stock and warrants.

As part of the transaction, EMC retained a production royalty of from 2% to 4% dependent on the price of uranium.

Powertech has not obtained mining permits for the project.

On August 10, 2007, EMC was acquired by Uranium One Inc., a Canadian corporation listed on the Toronto and Johannesburg stock exchanges. In June 2010, Russian mining firm ARMZ Uranium Holding Co. acquired a controlling stake in Uranium One.

ARMZ is the mining subsidiary of Rosatom, the state corporation that runs Russia's nuclear complex. Rosatom controls Russia's nuclear power reactors, nuclear weapons companies, research institutes, and nuclear and radiation safety agencies.

It is not known if Uranium One, now controlled by Rosatom and the Russian government, still owns the production royalty interest in Dewey-Burdock. Powertech's latest Management Discussion and Analysis (October 26, 2011) is silent on the matter.

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 K2 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.

"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.

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, 2010 (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

Links to project information, permitting status and information, news stories and commentary, opposition groups, and information on in-situ leach uranium mining

Updated June 27, 2013

ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD HEARING FILE

Legal briefs, motions, transcripts, exhibits, and orders filed in the NRC's evidentiary hearing process on a source material license for the proposed Dewey-Burdock project - Updated May 28, 2015

"Another Letter To The British Columbia Securities Commission Calling Out Azarga Uranium For Misstatements About The Status Of Its Proposed Uranium Mine In The Black Hills" - theconstantcommoner.blogspot.com - February 16, 2015

"My Letter To The Ontario Securities Commission Regarding Azarga Uranium's Public Characterization Of The Status Of Its Permitting Process Involving Its Proposed Uranium Mine In The Black Hills. I Believe Azarga's Announcements Are Incomplete, At Best, Misleading, At Worst." by John Tsitrian, theconstantcommoner.blogspot.com - January 22, 2015

Will Uranium Market Boom Or Fizzle?" by Charles Michael Ray, South Dakota Public Broadcasting - December 16, 2014 (audio) "The Chairman of Azarga Uranium says his company is poised to ride the uranium market to new highs. Azarga plans to mine uranium in the Black Hills near Edgemont. The company touts the proposed Dewey Burdock mine as its flagship project. But critics question Azarga’s claims, both on the price of uranium and the company’s ability to safeguard local water supplies in the mining process."

"News Flash! Azarga (nee Powertech) Uranium Thinks Uranium Prices Will Double . . .As for Rest Of The Trade? Mmm, Not Quite So Sure." by John Tsitrian, theconstantcommoner.blogspot.com - December 9, 2014 Former commodities broker and Vietnam vet John Tsitrian skewers Azarga Uranium chairman Alex Molyneux over his recent prediction that the price of uranium will double. Molyneux, a former investment banker who formed his first uranium company, Azarga Resources, just over two years ago, has been attempting to position himself as an expert on the uranium market. Unfortunately, his bullish and self-serving pronouncements are not shared by many experienced observers. Molyneux does appear to be adept at lining up interviews with news outlets and industry bloggers as he attempts to promote Azarga/Powertech to investors.

"Azarga...it means stallion. So it's a very strong name. When you buy Azarga, it will move in one direction...please buy this stock, PWE, listed on the main board of the Toronto Stock Exchange."

Excerpts from a March 2014 presentation by Alex Molyneux, chairman of privately-held Hong Kong firm Azarga Resources Limited, given at the Mines and Money conference in Hong Kong. Molyneux was pitching Powertech stock and promoting a proposed reverse takeover of Powertech Uranium Corp. to form a new public company, Azarga Uranium Corp. At the time, Powertech's stock price was 7 to 8 cents a share (Canadian dollars). As of October 30, 2014, the stock is down to 3.5 cents.

PRELIMINARY ASSESSMENT REPORT Regarding the DARROW/FREEZEOUT/TRIANGLE URANIUM MINE SITE NEAR EDGEMONT, SOUTH DAKOTA - EPA ID: SDN000803095 - Prepared By SEAGULL ENVIRONMENTAL TECHNOLOGIES, INC. - September 24, 2014 (PDF 10,425 KB, 75 pages)

"Powertech Uranium Sure Knows How To Pick 'Em When It Goes Looking For Financial Backing" by John Tsitrian, theconstantcommoner.blogspot.com - October 11, 2014

Blogger John Tsitrian delves deeper into Powertech's shaky financial position and the controversial Singaporean firm, Blumont Group, that may soon control Powertech's merger partner Azarga Resources and, as a result, control the proposed Dewey-Burdock project. Blumont officials are being criminally investigated by Singapore authorities for possible involvement in an extensive stock price manipulation scheme that resulted in a spectacular crash on October 4, 2013 causing billions in losses and seriously damaging the reputation of the Singapore Stock Exchange.

"Powertech Uranium Can't Get Its Financial Act Together" by John Tsitrian, theconstantcommoner.blogspot.com - September 17, 2014

In this revealing article, Rapid City blogger and former options and commodity futures trader John Tsitrian describes financial problems plaguing Canadian penny stock company Powertech Uranium Corp. Tsitrian notes the wave of selling that has recently hit Powertech shares, driving the price down to all-time lows. He attributes the decline to the news that the merger between Powertech and Hong Kong-based Azarga Resources has been postponed for a second time. Tsitrian mentions the usurious interest rates Azarga is charging Powertech on a new loan intended to keep the company afloat for the next few months, and that the merger will likely be pushed back even further. Delays in permitting the proposed Dewey-Burdock project, arising from "ferocious resistance in the region", are blamed for Powertech's dismal financial position.

Permitting dispute could delay uranium mining for years" by Andrea Cook, Rapid City Journal - August 26, 2014 Powertech project manager Mark Hollenbeck vents his spleen about the potential for the company's permitting process to be delayed for a year or two as the NRC's evidentiary hearing process plays out and permits from the EPA and State of South Dakota are deliberated. Hollenbeck's outburst is actually the first time a Powertech official has publicly acknowledged that permitting for the proposed Dewey-Burdock project may be threatened by local opposition. He blames the permitting "system" for delays but fails to mention Powertech's numerous permit application deficiencies, inept efforts to consult with affected Indian tribes, and the company's resistance to disclosing critical geological data. In a comment on the RCJ story, Hollenbeck repeats the misleading assertion that nothing harmful is injected into the ground. As reported by the EPA and NRC, in-situ leaching involves the repeated re-injection of "lixiviant" into the ground that may contain elevated levels of radon, radium 222, uranium, radium 226, polonium 214 and 218, bismuth 214, arsenic, vanadium, zinc, selenium, and molybdenum. During the aquifer restoration phase, chemicals such as hydrogen sulfide and sodium hydrosulfide may be added to the re-injected water. Efforts to clean up mined out aquifers typically fall short, according to government and industry sources, with levels of various contaminants such as uranium and other heavy metals exceeding baseline measurements.

News and commentary on the ASLB evidentiary hearing

Posted August 29, 2014, Updated September 2, 2014

DISCLOSURE CONTROVERSY WIDENS

Oglala Sioux Tribe learns of additional information not disclosed by Powertech as required by federal licensing hearing rules

Posted August 21, 2014

Powertech fights to withhold newly-acquired geological data from NRC, intervenors, and the public

Controversy erupts just days before critical licensing hearing

Posted August 12, 2014

Land Application and Irrigation Site Plan - Dewey-Burdock Project- Prepared by Knight Piesold Consulting - Submitted to USNRC on June 21, 2014 (PDF 2,910 KB, 1 page) This drawing shows Powertech's plan for an extensive network of holding ponds and irrigation equipment to dispose of liquid mining wastes from the proposed Dewey-Burdock project. At least eighteen center-pivot irrigation systems and sixteen holding ponds are shown on the site plan.

"Hold on Powertech’s uranium mining license lifted" by Adam Hurlburt, Black Hills Pioneer - May 22, 2014 (PDF 13 KB, 2 pages) Hurlburt reports on Powertech President Richard Clement's attempt to spin the recent ruling by the NRC's Atomic Safety and Licensing Board lifting the temporary stay of the license for Dewey-Burdock and denying the intervenors' motions for a longer stay. Powertech issued a news release on May 21 asserting that the ASLB's ruling was "confirmation that NRC completed its work properly in determining that the Dewey-Burdock project should be licensed and is adequately protective of environmental and historic and cultural resources.” Hurlburt points out that Powertech's release omits any mention that the ASLB in fact chose not to review the merits of arguments raised by the intervenors and will only review the arguments at its August evidentiary hearing. The article does not mention that the British Columbia Securities Act prohibits making materially false or misleading statements, or omitting facts necessary to make information not false or misleading, in any record required to be filed under the Act. Powertech Uranium Corp.'s "principal regulator" is the British Columbia Securities Commission.

BETTER LATE THAN NEVER:

Powertech discloses NRC license hearing process to investors nearly four years after it started

Disclosure follows temporary stay of license by NRC judges

Posted May 19, 2014; Updated May 21, 2014

(On May 20, 2014, the NRC's Atomic Safety and Licensing Board issued an order lifting the temporary stay of Materials License Number SUA-1600, and denying the intervenors' motions for a stay. In a news release dated May 21, 2014, Powertech misrepresents the meaning of the ASLB's order, asserting that the ASLB judges concluded that NRC staff had complied with federal historical preservation laws and that there is no immediate danger to Tribal cultural resources from NRC-licensed construction activities. In fact, the judges concluded that a stay "would have no practical effect" since Powertech can engage in a range of activities even without an NRC license, including drilling, excavation, clearing, grading, and road building. The judges specifically did not rule on whether the Tribes' sensitive and significant historic and cultural resources are protected, and noted that this issue will be adjudicated at the ASLB's upcoming evidentiary hearing in August. Powertech's news release fails to address the specific concerns of the Oglala Sioux Tribe and other Tribes, and flatly misstates the ASLB's conclusions.)

After nearly four years of silence on the matter, Powertech CEO Dick Clement has finally disclosed to investors the existence of an ongoing NRC hearing process that parallels the NRC staff's review of Powertech's application for a Source and Byproducts Material License for the proposed Dewey-Burdock uranium mine project. Powertech made the disclosure in a May 7 news release.

The hearing process formally commenced on August 5, 2010 when the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission's Atomic Safety and Licensing Board ruled on two petitions to intervene and request a hearing on Powertech's application. The ASLB found that the Oglala Sioux Tribe and several of the "Consolidated Intervenors" had standing to participate in the proceeding and that numerous contentions filed by the parties were admissible.

In its first Management Discussion and Analysis following the ASLB ruling, filed on November 12, 2010 with Canadian securities regulators, Powertech omittted any mention of the ASLB's ruling and the hearing process. In 13 subsequent quarterly MD&As, Clement and Powertech failed to disclose the ASLB hearing process.

Powertech's March 26, 2014 MD&A details NRC licensing developments that are favorable to Powertech but fails to mention the ongoing ASLB process. Clement asserts in the quarterly filing that the NRC license is expected to be approved in 2014. At the time the MD&A was issued, Clement knew that the ASLB's evidentiary hearing was scheduled to begin August 19, that the deadline for the ASLB's intital decision is within 90 days of the end of the hearing, and that the ASLB's decision would likely trigger an appeal to the NRC's commissioners and perhaps to the U.S. Court of Appeals.

In accordance with Canadian securities regulations, Clement filed a form with each of the 14 MD&As certifying that the filings do not "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." Investors can judge for themselves whether the ASLB hearing process is a material fact.

Powertech's May 15, 2014 MD&A is the first quarterly filing in which the company acknowledges the existence of the ASLB hearing process.

Alexander Molyneux, the Australian financier who engineered a yet-to-be-approved reverse takeover of Powertech by Hong Kong-based Azarga Resources, has continued Powertech's history of not disclosing inconvenient facts about NRC permitting of Dewey-Burdock. In a February 26 interview posted on CEO.CA, Molyneux claimed that Dewey-Burdock was due for permitting in the next 90 days.

The publication of the Molyneux interview occurred six days after the ASLB judges scheduled the start of the evidentiary hearing for August 19. No mention was made in the interview of the ASLB hearing process, or the numerous federal, state, and county permits that have not been obtained and will not be issued within the 90-day period cited by Molyneux.

Powertech's May 7 news release was the Canadian penny stock company's response to the ASLB's April 30 ruling placing a temporary stay on the Source and Byproducts Material License issued by NRC staff on April 8.

The temporary stay "is intended to prevent any immediate and irreparable harm to any cultural or historic resources caused by earthwork or ground disturbance within the Dewey-Burdock sites", according to the ASLB judges' order. A teleconference was held on May 13 to give intervenors, Powertech, and NRC staff an opportunity to make oral arguments on the intervenors' motions for a stay of the license's effectiveness.

The Oglala Sioux Tribe argued that a longer stay was needed because NRC staff had failed to work with the Tribe to develop and conduct a scientifically-rigorous field survey of the proposed permit area for cultural and historic resources. The related Programmatic Agreement developed by NRC staff, which the Tribe has refused to sign, is inadequate and does not satisfy National Environmental Policy Act requirements, according to the Tribe.

Powertech responded that the only ground-disturbing activity it intends to conduct before the end of the year is the drilling of wells to obtain geological and hydrological data, and that this drilling can be done without an NRC license. Powertech argued that it would be damaged by a stay because it would slow down its other permitting efforts.

The Oglala Sioux Tribe contended that such well drilling would actually be part of the construction authorized by the NRC license since Powertech could make these wells part of the monitoring well network required under the license. Furthermore, the fact that not all cultural resources at the site have been identified through a competent field survey creates a risk that sites could be irreparably harmed by well drilling or other ground-disturbing activities.

Clement uses the news release to downplay the motions for a stay, arguing that the stay requests "are not abnormal" and that the worst case scenario would be the granting of a stay until the August 18 hearing begins. Clement fails to mention that the ASLB could potentially issue a longer stay.

Clement also attempts to trivialize the intervenors by characterizing them as simply "people who are opposed to the development of uranium". The nine contentions admitted by the ASLB cover a broad range of concerns, including protection of historical and cultural resources, inadequate tribal consultations, ground water impacts, determination of baseline water quality, and protection of endangered species.

Powertech's decision to finally disclose the ASLB hearing process is a welcome move for investors. But it is hard to see how Clement viewed the process as immaterial and not worthy of disclosure for almost four years. After all, the evidentiary hearing process is designed to begin in earnest after a license has been issued by NRC staff and can potentially result in revocation of the license.

News release - "ASLB ISSUES A TEMPORARY STAY" - Powertech Uranium Corp. - May 7, 2014 (PDF 79 KB, 3 pages)

Memorandum and Order (Ruling on Petitions to Intervene and Requests for Hearings), In the Matter of Powertech (USA), Inc. (Dewey-Burdock In Situ Uranium Recovery Facility) - US Nuclear Regulatory Commission - Atomic Safety and Licensing Board - August 5, 2010 (PDF 585 KB, 95 pages)

POWERTECH URANIUM CORP. (An Exploration Stage Company) MANAGEMENT DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS - November 12, 2010 (PDF 120 KB, 16 pages)

POWERTECH URANIUM CORP. (An Exploration Stage Company) MANAGEMENT DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS - March 26, 2014 (PDF 225 KB, 30 pages)

MEMORANDUM (Summarizing the February 12, 2014 Teleconference) - UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD - In the Matter of POWERTECH USA, INC. (Dewey-Burdock In Situ Uranium Recovery Facility) - February 20, 2014 (PDF 128 KB, 8 pages) In this memorandum the ASLB judges set the evidentiary hearing schedule.

Official Transcript of Proceedings - UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION - ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD PANEL - In the Matter of: Powertech USA, Inc. Dewey-Burdock in situ uranium recovery facility - ORAL ARGUMENTS teleconference - May 13, 2014 (PDF 204 KB, 61 pages)

The Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel - U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (PDF 740 KB, 12 pages)

ORDER (Removing Temporary Stay and Denying Motions for Stay of Materials License Number SUA-1600) - UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD - In the Matter of POWERTECH USA, INC. (Dewey-Burdock In Situ Uranium Recovery Facility) - May 20, 2014 (PDF 136 KB, 12 pages)

News release - "NRC Board determines operating license for Dewey-Burdock Project remains in full effect" - POWERTECH URANIUM CORP. Per Richard F. Clement Jr., President & CEO - May 21, 2014 (PDF 277 KB, 4 pages)

Comments on draft Programmatic Agreement for the proposed Dewey-Burdock uranium mining project - Wašté Wiŋ Young and Terence Clouthier, Standing Rock Sioux Tribe - February 20, 2014 (PDF 382 KB, 27 pages) Officials from the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe provide numerous detailed objections to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff's efforts to advance the licensing process for the proposed Dewey-Burdock project through the preparation of a Programmatic Agreement. The PA is intended to to satisfy requirements that the NRC comply with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act. Under Section 106, the NRC must consult with potentially affected Indian Tribes to avoid, minimize, or mitigate any adverse effects to historic properties caused by the project. Signatories to the PA would include Powertech, NRC, BLM, South Dakota Historic Preservation Office, and the federal Advisory Council on Historic Preservation. None of the 23 Indian Tribes invited to participate in the controversial consultation process would be signatories, but would be relegated to the lesser role of "concurring parties".

No permits, no problem!

Note: On April 8, 2014 NRC staff announced that a Source and Byproduct Material License has been issued to Powertech. The effect of the license issuance is unclear since the NRC's license hearing process is ongoing. The evidentiary hearing before the NRC's Atomic Safety and Licensing Board is scheduled to begin August 19. Intervenors contend that NRC staff has not complied with federal environmental law, has ignored potential groundwater impacts, and has violated federal law requiring consultation with affected Indian tribes. An initial decision by the ASLB is not expected until late 2014. The ASLB can uphold or revoke the license, or remand it to NRC staff. Regardless of how the ASLB rules, its decision will undoubtedly be appealed to the Commission, and the Commission's decision will likely be appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals. JW

Powertech CEO Dick F. Clement announced to investors on January 30 that the issuance by the NRC of a Source Material License for Dewey-Burdock was "imminent". This misleading statement is the latest in a long history of overly optimistic claims about Dewey-Burdock made by Clement dating back to 2011. As of March 9, 2014, Powertech (soon to be Azarga Uranium) has not obtained a single mining permit or license for Dewey-Burdock or any other project. Powertech began the permitting process for Dewey-Burdock in 2007.

Permits Issued as of March 9, 2014 None

Permits Needed Source Material License (USNRC)
Class III UIC Permit (USEPA)
Class V UIC Permit (USEPA)
Aquifer Exemption (USEPA)
Plan of Operations (USBLM)
Large Scale Mine Permit (SDDENR)
Ground Water Discharge Permit (SDDENR)
Water Right Permits (SDDENR)

"Uranium foes regroup: strategy is to attack mine at August hearing on water and tribal issues" by Joe O'Sullivan, Rapid City Journal - March 9, 2014 (PDF 46 KB, 4 pages)

"Protect our sacred water!" by Ben Whitford, theecologist.org - March 3, 2014 (PDF 62 KB, 7 pages)

"Standing Rock official blasts feds for uranium mining near sacred sites" by Talli Nauman, Native Sun News - March 2014 (PDF 24 KB, 4 pages)

"Committee kills in situ measure" - Rapid City Journal - February 18, 2014 (PDF 18 KB, 1 page)

PRESIDENT OF OGLALA SIOUX TRIBE BLASTS NRC'S CULTURAL RESOURCES PROCESS

Tribe refuses to sign NRC's Programmatic Agreement, claims that tribe has been effectively excluded from Section 106 consultation process, asserts that NRC is not complying with federal law, and argues that NRC has misstated tribe's participation in PA preparation

Posted February 9, 2014

Submittal of comments on draft Programmatic Agreement for the proposed Dewey-Burdock ISR uranium mining project - Brian V. Brewer, President, Oglala Sioux Tribe - February 5, 2014 (PDF 688 KB, 3 pages)

Working DRAFT - PROGRAMMATIC AGREEMENT AMONG U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION, U.S. BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT, SOUTH DAKOTA STATE HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICE, POWERTECH (USA) INC., AND ADVISORY COUNCIL ON HISTORIC PRESERVATION REGARDING THE DEWEY BURDOCK IN-SITU RECOVERY PROJECT LOCATED IN CUSTER AND FALL RIVER COUNTIES SOUTH DAKOTA - December 23, 2013 (814 KB, 58 pages)

South Dakota legislation introduced to protect ground water from in-situ leaching

House Bill 1193 would place new requirements on in-situ leach mining operations; first committee hearing scheduled for February 11

Posted February 6, 2014

HOUSE BILL NO. 1193 (as introduced) An Act to establish certain requirements relating to in situ leach mining. State of South Dakota - EIGHTY-NINTH SESSION LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY, 2014 (PDF 13 KB, 2 pages)

House Bill 1193 page - South Dakota Legislature

Find My Legislators

Links to all South Dakota legislators

Resolution against Dewey-Burdock uranium project from City Council of Rapid City, South Dakota

Posted February 3, 2014

PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL

Rapid City, South Dakota

August 19, 2013

Public comment was received from the following individuals on (LF081413-04) Resolution No. 2013-083. The following individuals spoke in support of the Resolution: David Miller urged support of the resolution as the contamination cleanup costs from the mining project will fall to the taxpayers due to Powertech’s lack of financial resources. Mary Helen Pederson questioned the validity of Powertech’s safety claims in light of the Crow Butte violations. Pederson expressed concern with allowing Powertech access to a limited and shrinking water supply at no cost. Mike Hickey, Wild Horse Sanctuary attorney, addressed the Sanctuary’s reliance on the same aquifer that Powertech will utilize and called attention to the discrepancies in Powertech’s claims. Hazel Bonner, Prairie Hills Audubon Society, presented the Society’s concerns regarding the long term environmental pollution that the mining project will generate. Gary Heckenlaible expressed concern regarding Powertech’s financial position and their lack of uranium mining experience. Heckenlaible urged protection of the aquifers and for strong opposition to the mining request. Shirley Fredrick addressed Powertech’s lack of mining experience noting that they previously produced boilers and water heaters. Fredrick stated that the company’s lack of mining knowledge and experience is reflected in their project report noting the foreign interests involved with the mining request. Dr. Kevin Weiland expressed concern with the mining proposal and the lack of governmental protections to require evidence that environmental safety measures are in place prior to issuing a permit. Weiland stated that the Canadian company, with no mining experience, cannot be allowed to practice on our resources. Weiland stated that the only jobs the project will create will be in the medical profession to address the illnesses that will result from the environmental fallout. Bruce Ellison, Attorney, provided a map of the Black Hills geology noting his concerns with the contamination generated by uranium mining. Ellison expressed concern with Powertech’s exemption requests for the in situ mining project in view of the 59 violations at the in situ Crow Butte uranium mine. Ellison stated that Powertech will operate as a regional mill for seven foreign countries seeking uranium mining permits in the Black Hills area. Ellison addressed the changes to State law, affected by these foreign companies, which have effectively removed the aquifer protections. Ellison urged a strong opposition to the request noting his concern with the inability to stop the mining activity once the permits are approved. Karen Ellison stated that all decisions should be based on their benefit seven generations into the future. Ellison stated that there is no future benefit from uranium mining and urged support of the resolution for the protection of the Black Hills area. Lindsey McLean, Environmental Specialist, addressed her experience with environmental contamination health issues. McLean addressed the Michigan environmental issues that have left land so highly toxic it has been rendered useless. McLean cautioned against taking short term gains in view of the long term costs of environmental contamination. Gardner Gray addressed Powertech’s limited promises regarding site cleanup noting their inability to comply with the federal base line requirements for ground water. Gray questioned Powertech’s ability to contain the contamination on-site as wind and water will naturally spread the contamination beyond the site. Gray addressed Powertech’s lack of mining experience noting that the cleanup bond is insufficient in comparison to the size of the project. Marvin Kammerer addressed his family history in the area noting the impact of the current drought on the wells supporting his ranch. Kammerer suggested that allowing a foreign country access to our water is criminal noting that clean water is a critical economic factor. Kammerer stated that each generation is responsible to the future generations noting that approving the permit will guarantee pollution. Susan Henderson, Edgemont rancher, expressed her concerns with the project noting that all of the water protection regulations have been removed by the State legislature. Henderson addressed the leases purchased by foreign companies noting that Powertech is a bankrupt company that will be sold to its foreign stockholders. Henderson addressed the immediate risk to private wells in the area and urged protection of the quality and quantity of the area’s water resources. Payu Harris presented the map identifying the boundaries of the Great Sioux Reservation and Other Sioux Lands as defined by the 1868 Ft Laramie treaty noting that Powertech cannot mine without tribal approval. Lilias Jarding, Political Science Phd-Environmental Policies and Politics, stated that every type of uranium mining has left contamination noting the cleanup and public health costs resulting from the mining pollution. Jarding stated that uranium mining is a chronically dirty industry whose costs outweigh the benefits. Jarding urged the council to take a financial, principal and historic stand and support the resolution. Chas Jewett encouraged support of the resolution. Jewett addressed the contamination of the Moreau River in the North Cave Hills area stemming from the abandoned Ludlow uranium mine. Jewett addressed the continuing health risks noting that area residents are cautioned against eating the fish from the river due to the uranium pollution. Jewett encouraged the council to protect future generations from uranium contamination by supporting the resolution. James Swan addressed the existing contamination in the Edgemont area from the abandoned uranium mines noting that approving the Powertech request would only increase the contamination. Ed Harvey questioned the safety of the mining proposal in light of the repeated violations at the Crow Butte facility noting that the industry has no identified plans to reduce these failures. Harvey stated that when the site is closed the wells will be capped and abandoned with no on-going contamination monitoring. Harvey stated that federal agencies will not provide protection and urged approval of the resolution. Larry Beasley urged a strong stand against uranium mining for all of the Black Hills area. Beasley stated that the activity will create on-site contamination, water contamination and degradation of the area water supply. Beasley advised that the employment potential is limited and short term and urged support of the resolution in recognition of the contamination threat. Sabrina King, Dakota Rural Action, addressed the detrimental effects of uranium mining. King presented the findings of the studies conducted on an active Wyoming uranium mine regarding the impact of the selenium wastewater contamination on area wildlife. King stated that Powertech’s proposed reclamation costs are higher than the potential tax revenues from the activity. King advised that the State has abandoned the region by passing laws removing the oversight and regulation of this industry. King urged support of the resolution as a means of giving notice to the State that this activity is opposed due to its detrimental impact on the water, the land and the community. Mary Jo Farrington indicated that people choose this area to vacation and live because of the environment. Farrington indicated that the clean water and clean air are the main attractors for relocation to the area. Farrington urged protection of the environment and support for the resolution. Jesse Ham stated that this is a legacy decision that will impact future generations. Ham stated that for the protection of his children he would relocate immediately should these resolutions fail and the State approve the mining permit. Ham urged support of the resolution for young families and families that have a choice and can relocate out of the area. Jullian Anawaty called attention to the fact based professional testimony provided at this meeting and the on-line availability of professional studies on uranium mining. Anawaty stated that Powertech cannot return the water to base line prompting their Safe Water exemption application. Anawaty stated that containment is not possible noting that leaks will occur and mechanical equipment will fail. Anawaty indicated that the State has no power to penalize Powertech for violations and urged support for the resolution. Nancy Hamak indicated that she is a new resident to the area and addressed her concerns with the mining proposal. Hamak indicated that she also has the ability to relocate immediately should the State approve the mining permit. Hamak stated that water is a precious and limited resource and urged protection of that resource by supporting the resolution. Don Kelly, Dakota Rural Action, urged support for the long term sustainability of the Black Hills and the health of the area residents instead of the short term benefits of private corporate shareholders. Kelly urged approving a strong resolution opposing the mining project. Dr. Rebecca Leas cautioned against confusing projections with facts. Leas addressed the water rationing occurring in the western states noting that Powertech’s 20 year water request is extraordinary in a semiarid region facing increasing water shortages. Leas addressed the recorded impact of uranium mining on water resources throughout the west and China’s impact on the Great Lakes making potable water an endangered species. Leas refuted Powertech’s claims that the EPA and NRC will provide protection noting that Powertech lobbied to change State law effectively removing DENR’s legal authority to monitor the activity and protect water resources. Leas stated that the project will be self-monitored by the industry with minimal federal oversight. Leas addressed the facts regarding the safety of uranium mining and the susceptibility of women and children to radiation exposure. Leas requested support for the resolution. Karen Hall, Environmental Engineer/Compliance Manager, addressed her experiences with a Minnesota oil refinery gasoline spill. Hall addressed the agencies involved in the remediation of the spill and the problems encountered during the process. Hall stated that, unlike a gasoline spill, an underground spill by Powertech cannot be recovered and will mix with the groundwater. Hall urged support for the resolution. Corey Kennedy stated that he moved to the area to raise his family noting that if uranium mining is approved he has the ability to relocate to a safer environment. Kennedy stated that poisoning the area will adversely impact the tourism industry and families such as his will leave the area. Kennedy urged support of the resolution. Jim Petersen provided the Edgemont landfill project as an example of why council support of the citizens is important. Petersen urged the council to insure that the reviewing Board understands their responsibility in protecting the interest of the citizens and to not place the liability of the mining project, like the landfill project, on the taxpayers. The following individuals spoke in opposition to the Resolution: Cindy Turner, Southern Hills Economic Development Corporation, addressed the open forums hosted by the Corporation at which experts were invited to study the proposal and present their findings to the public. Turner urged the Council to postpone any action until all questions have been answered. Mark Hollenbeck gave his assurance that the Powertech mining operation will not affect the water quality or quantity. Hollenbeck questioned the purpose of the council hearing as sworn testimony will be taken from all parties at the State hearings scheduled for September and October. Hollenbeck stated that addressing environmental issues is the responsibility of the State Board. Hollenbeck advised that the radiation effect of the mining activity will be less than the radiation used medically to treat specific cancers. Hollenbeck expressed concern with the misinformation being presented and suggested that the Council lacked the time to fully evaluate the project.

Motion was made by Wright, second by Nordstrom to approve (No. LF081413-04) Resolution No. 2013- 083, A Resolution Opposing the In Situ Mining of Uranium by Powertech in Custer and Fall River Counties as amended. A substitute motion was made by Laurenti, second by Roberts to continue action on the resolution until the State hearings have been finalized. Laurenti stated that more information is required to make an informed decision on the mining proposal. Laurenti suggested that it would not be legitimate to oppose the request without hearing all the facts. Petersen stated that the citizens are present now and urged Council to make a decision. Wright indicated that it was appropriate for the council to support the citizens’ concerns. Doyle addressed her personal research of the uranium industry noting that there is no evidence of the activity ever being conducted safely. Doyle called attention to the laws passed by Colorado that effectively stopped Powertech’s mining efforts in that state. Doyle stated that the owners of private wells impacted by the mining activity will stand the financial cost to drill replacement wells. Doyle questioned Powertech’s reference to the United States uranium needs as the mined product will not remain in the United States. Doyle expressed her concern with paid lobbyists writing State laws for their benefit. Doyle stated that taxpayers will bear the burden of site cleanup due to an insufficiently funded cleanup fund. Doyle addressed her preference for a stronger worded resolution stating that “grave concern” does not adequately address the issue. Scott indicated that sufficient information has been brought forward to allow the Council to support the resolution. Nordstrom indicated that the approved resolution needs to be presented to the reviewing Boards noting that further action can be taken following the hearings. Estes voiced support for the amended resolution noting that it delivers a strong message to the Board addressing the citizen concerns. Estes urged DENR to act in the best interest of the community and the region. Petersen called the question, no objections were voiced. Upon vote being taken the substitute motion to continue failed (1-9) with the following voting AYE: Laurenti; NO: Roberts, Clayton, Estes, Petersen, Lewis, Doyle, Wright, Scott and Nordstrom. Mayor Kooiker addressed the magnitude of the issue noting that people have the right to question the request. Mayor Kooiker advised that he has listened to both sides of the issue noting that there are serious questions that must be answered. Mayor Kooiker expressed his offense with Hollenbeck’s cancer reference and recommened that Hollenbeck find a different analogy. Mayor Kooiker urged council to unanimoulsy approve the resoltuion requesting the State to proivde answers to the citizens concerns. Mayor Kooiker indicated that the discussion needs to continue and expressed hope that the regulators and legislators are paying attention to the citizens. Laurenti indicated that without having all the information on the mining request he could not support the resoltuion. Petersen addressed Council’s responsibility to speak in the people’s behalf in light of the action by the State legislature to remove the safety regulations for the mining activity. Petersen commented on the lack of public support for the uranium mining proposal. Petersen stated that the resoltuion is a pro-business statement which shows support for the citizens and the tourism and agriculture economies. Lewis called the question, no objections were voiced. Wright read the amended resolution into the record. Upon vote being taken the motion to approve Resolution No. 2013-083 as amended carried (9-1) with the following voting AYE: Roberts, Clayton, Estes, Petersen, Lewis, Doyle, Wright, Scott and Nordstrom; NO: Laurenti.

RESOLUTION NO. 2013-083 A RESOLUTION EXPRESSING GRAVE CONCERN ABOUT THE IN SITU MINING OF URANIUM BY POWERTECH IN CUSTER AND FALL RIVER COUNTIES.

WHEREAS, Powertech Uranium Corp. has submitted applications to the South Dakota Water Management Board for permits to use water from the Madison and Inyan Kara Aquifers to conduct in situ mining of uranium in Custer and Fall River Counties in the Black Hills of South Dakota; and

WHEREAS, In situ mining, or in situ recovery involves pumping solutions incorporating water from the aquifers into an ore body through wells which will then circulate through the porous rock and recovering the minerals from the ground by dissolving them and pumping the solution containing the ore to the surface where the minerals can be recovered.

WHEREAS, hearings on Powertech’s water permit applications will be held by the South Dakota Water Management Board in Rapid City at the beginning of October of 2013; and

WHEREAS, the City of Rapid City obtains a majority of its drinking water from the Madison Aquifer; and

WHEREAS, the safety of the water in the Madison Aquifer is of utmost importance to the City of Rapid City; and

WHEREAS, due to the unanswered questions regarding the safety of the community’s water supply, the Common Council of the City of Rapid City believes that the proposed in situ mining of uranium in the Black Hills poses an unacceptable risk to the primary source of Rapid City’s drinking water.

NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City of Rapid City that due to the potential risk to the Madison Aquifer the City expresses grave concern about the proposed in situ mining of uranium in the Black Hills.

Dated this 19th day of August, 2013.

CITY OF RAPID CITY s/ Sam Kooiker Mayor

ATTEST: s/ Pauline Sumption Finance Officer

OPPONENTS SCORE MAJOR VICTORY IN FIGHT AGAINST DEWEY-BURDOCK

NRC administrative judges admit new hearing contentions advanced by Oglala Sioux Tribe and local ranchers; formal hearing on Powertech's license application will probably not begin until 2014

Posted July 31, 2013

A 100-page order issued July 22 by administrative law judges for the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission admits several new contentions in the fight over Powertech's application for a federal license to operate the proposed Dewey-Burdock uranium project.

The new contentions bring to nine the number of contentions admitted by the three-judge Atomic Safety and Licensing Board panel. The contentions were proposed by the Oglala Sioux Tribe and the "Consolidated Intervenors". The Consolidated Intervenors are South Dakota ranchers Dayton Hyde and Susan Henderson, and Aligning for Responsible Mining, run by attorney David Frankel.

The ASLB's order is part of the long-running Subpart L hearing process that is being conducted pursuant to federal regulations. In NRC licensing actions, parties can petition to become intervenors and request a hearing. Petitioners must not only meet stringent requirements for standing, but must propose at least one "admissible contention" that meets a lengthy set of requirements.

Both the Oglala Sioux Tribe and the Consolidated Intervenors were granted intervenor status and a hearing by the ASLB in 2010. Since then, numerous legal briefs have been filed by the various parties, including the Oglala Sioux Tribe, the Consolidated Intervenors, NRC staff, and Powertech.

Since 2010, NRC staff has been issuing monthly status updates of estimated release dates for NRC-created environmental and safety documents, as well as monthly disclosures of project-related documents added to the administrative record.

The formal Subpart L hearing on Dewey-Burdock's NRC license will not begin until after the intervenors have had an opportunity to raise additional contentions based on the Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement. The estimated release date for the FSEIS is October 2013, but could be delayed if Powertech chooses to do the additional work addressed in the new contentions admitted by the ASLB.

New contentions based on the FSEIS will likely be proposed by the Oglala Sioux Tribe and the Consolidated Intervenors, and will be followed by another round of briefing by the attorneys for the parties and a ruling on the contentions by the ASLB. Consequently, the Subpart L hearing will probably not begin until sometime in 2014.

During the hearing, all admitted contentions will be adjudicated by the ASLB, which may conduct oral argument, pre-hearing conferences, and evidentiary hearings. The proceedings are open to the public, and any person may submit a written "limited appearance" statement to assist the ASLB and/or the parties in defining the issues being considered.

The Subpart L hearing will take at least two months, and the ASLB has another month to issue its proposed findings and initial decision. The decision becomes the NRC's final action 40 days after issuance unless a party files a petition for review by the NRC's commissioners, or the commissioners choose to review the decision. The commissioners may or may not allow further briefing by the parties.

After a final action by the ASLB or the commissioners, any of the parties may seek judicial review by filing an appeal with the U.S. Court of Appeals.

The recently-admitted contentions were proposed in response to the NRC staff's issuance of the Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement in November 2012.

The ASLB admitted seven contentions proposed by the Oglala Sioux Tribe and Consolidated Intervenors in 2010. Eighteen new contentions were proposed related to the DSEIS. The ASLB ruled that eight of the new contentions were inadmissable. After "migrating", or merging, several of the original and new contentions, and admitting four new contentions, the total number of admitted contentions stands at nine.

The nine contentions are as follows:

Contention 1A: Failure to Meet Applicable Legal Requirements Regarding Protection of Historical and Cultural Resources.

Contention 1B: Failure to Involve or Consult All Interested Tribes as Required by Federal Law.

Contention 2: The DSEIS Fails to Include Necessary Information for Adequate Determination of Baseline Ground Water Quality.

Contention 3: The DSEIS Fails to Include Adequate Hydrogeological Information to Demonstrate Ability to Contain Fluid Migration and Assess Potential Impacts to Groundwater.

Contention 4: The DSEIS Fails to Adequately Analyze Ground Water Quantity Impacts.

Contention 6: The DSEIS Fails to Adequately Describe or Analyze Proposed Mitigation Measures.

Contention 9: The DSEIS Fails to Consider Connected Actions.

Contention 14A: Whether an appropriate consultation was conducted pursuant to the Endangered Species Act and implementing regulations.

Contention 14B: Whether the DSEIS’s impact analyses relevant to the greater sage grouse, the whooping crane, and the black-footed ferret are sufficient.

Despite the obvious and material significance of the Subpart L hearing process to the licensing schedule for the proposed Dewey-Burdock project, Powertech's corporate officers have repeatedly failed to mention the hearing process in financial statement disclosures and other filings with Canadian securities regulators.

Powertech project manager and self-described organic rancher Mark Hollenbeck played down the ASLB ruling, calling it just another part of a complicated, five-year licensing process. In a July 24 story in the Rapid City Journal, Hollenbeck said Powertech would issue a more detailed response. Seven days later, no response has been forthcoming from the Canadian company. Not surprisingly, this is consistent with Powertech's three years of silence on the Subpart L hearing process.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER (Ruling on Proposed Contentions Related to the Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement) - UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD - In the Matter of POWERTECH USA, INC. (Dewey-Burdock In Situ Uranium Recovery Facility) - July 22, 2013 (PDF 384 KB, 100 pages)

"Battle goes on over Powertech Uranium mining plan" by Kevin Woster, Rapid City Journal - July 24, 2013 (PDF 39 KB, 2 pages)

News release - "NUCLEAR BOARD REJECTS POWERTECH URANIUM’S CLAIMS" - Clean Water Alliance and Western Mining Action Project - July 23, 2013 (PDF 65 KB, 1 page)

"NRC Board Admits Challenges to Powertech Environmental Impact Statement" - Madville Times - July 23, 2013

Video of January 10, 2013 informational meeting held in Hot Springs, South Dakota on Powertech's proposed Dewey-Burdock uranium mining project:

- Lilias Jarding, PhD, Clean Water Alliance

- Bruce Ellison, attorney - Clean Water Alliance

- Charmaine White Face, Defenders of the Black Hills

Posted July 15, 2013

Status of Major Permits for Proposed Dewey-Burdock Uranium Project (as of July 11, 2013)
Permit	Issuing Agency	Status
Source Material License	U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission	Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement issued November 2012. Draft license has been released for review. Safety Evaluation Report issued March 2013. Final SEIS expected to be issued October 2013. Completion date of Section 106 consultation process unknown. Completion date of Subpart L hearing process and any subsequent litigation unknown.
Class III Underground Injection Control Permit	U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region 8	Issuance date of draft permit unknown. Date of appeal(s) to Environmental Appeals Board unknown.
Class V Underground Injection Control Permit	U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region 8	Issuance date of draft permit unknown. Date of appeal(s) to Environmental Appeals Board unknown.
Large Scale Mine Permit	South Dakota Board of Minerals and Environment	Contested case hearing scheduled to commence on September 23, 2013.
Water Rights Permit No. 2685-2	South Dakota Water Management Board	Contested case hearing scheduled to commence on October 7, 2013.
Water Rights Permit No. 2686-2	South Dakota Water Management Board	Contested case hearing scheduled to commence on October 7, 2013.
Ground Water Discharge Plan	South Dakota Water Management Board	Contested case hearing scheduled to commence on October 7, 2013 (consolidated with water rights hearing).

NRC administrative judges delay ruling on environmental impact statement contentions

Contentions from Oglala Sioux Tribe and others are too numerous and complex for judges to rule on within 45 days; Powertech fails to disclose NRC adjudicatory hearing process

Posted July 2, 2013; Updated July 3, 2013 (contentions posted below)

In a notice issued June 27 by the NRC's Atomic Safety and Licensing Board panel on the proposed Dewey-Burdock ISL uranium project, the administrative judges alerted Powertech and project opponents that they are delaying rulings on 18 new proposed contentions.

The 18 contentions challenge the Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement for the project which was released in November 2012. The contentions were filed by the Oglala Sioux Tribe, ranchers Susan Henderson and Dayton Hyde, and Aligning for Responsible Mining (ARM).

The contentions were filed as part of the 10 CFR Part 2, Subpart L adjudicatory hearing process on Powertech's application for a Source Material License to operate an in-situ leach uranium mine near Edgemont, South Dakota.

The ASLB noted that the board is required to issue a decision on each contention "within 45 days after the filing of answers and replies". Since the opponents' replies were filed on March 25, the ASLB should have ruled on the contentions by May 9. The notice indicates that the ASLB anticipates issuing a decision on the 18 contentions on or before July 19.

The ASLB's rulings will determine whether each contention will be allowed into the Subpart L hearing process.

The ASLB explained the delay by noting that "this extension of the date for the Board's ruling is necessary because of the number and complexity of the issues to be decided".

The formal Subpart L hearing process has been underway since January 2010 and has the potential to extend the licensing process into 2014 or 2015 and ultimately prevent NRC licensing of Dewey-Burdock. Petitions to intervene from the Oglala Sioux Tribe, Henderson, Hyde, and ARM were approved by the ASLB on August 5, 2010.

Powertech's filings with Canadian securities regulators have routinely avoided mentioning the Subpart L hearing process and its potential to delay and stop the Dewey-Burdock project. These disclosure lapses have occurred in spite of the fact that Powertech's Board of Directors includes two Chartered Accountants who are bound by a professional code of conduct that emphasizes honesty and professional integrity.

A third director served on the Professional Conduct Enquiry Committee of the British Columbia Institute of Chartered Accountants. That body investigates the conduct of firms that may have violated Canadian accounting rules.

Despite oversight from these three directors, who all serve on the board's Audit Committee, Powertech continues to keep investors in the dark regarding the Subpart L hearing process. Powertech shareholders may be surprised to learn that issuance of a Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement will not immediately lead to development of Dewey-Burdock mine facilities, but will trigger the formal Subpart L hearing and associated litigation.

NOTICE - 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 - June 27, 2013 (PDF 143 KB, 4 pages)

DEADLINES FOR HEARING ACTIVITIES -- 10 CFR PART 2, SUBPART L - U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission - August 6, 2004 (PDF 20 KB, 5 pages)

LIST OF CONTENTIONS OF THE OGLALA SIOUX TRIBE BASED ON THE DRAFT SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT - In the Matter of POWERTECH (USA) INC., (Dewey-Burdock In Situ Uranium Recovery Facility) - UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD - January 25, 2013 (PDF 219 KB, 59 pages)

"Hearing on proposed uranium mine set in Rapid City for September" by Kevin Woster, Rapid City Journal - June 20, 2013

"Hagg Moves Powertech Mining Permit Hearing to Rapid City" - MadvilleTimes.com - June 14, 2013

Hagg reverses himself, agrees to hold mine permit hearing closer to affected parties

Initial decision by Hearing Chair Rexford A. "Rex" Hagg effectively limited public participation

Posted June 13, 2013

In a decision cheered by opponents of the proposed Dewey-Burdock uranium mine, attorney and Hearing Chair Rexford Hagg agreed to hold a public hearing on Powertech's mine permit application in Rapid City rather than Pierre. The reversal is included in a June 7 hearing notice issued by the South Dakota Board of Minerals and Environment.

Hearing Chair Rexford A. "Rex" Hagg in screen shot from YouTube video advertising legal services

Dewey-Burdock opponents had challenged a May 23 decision by Hagg to hold the hearing on a Large Scale Mine permit application in Pierre, the state capital, rather than a location closer to the proposed Black Hills uranium mine.

The basis for Hagg's initial decision was reportedly to save travel expenses incurred by state mining regulators.

But project opponents argued that conducting the hearing in Pierre, about 250 miles from the proposed project area near Edgemont, meant that many Black Hills area residents would be unable to attend the multi-day hearing.

Opponents also argued that the decision to hold the hearing beginning September 23 was made without adequate public input, and that the date is too close to an October hearing on two water rights permit applications for the project. Hagg's notice did not change the hearing date.

Rexford A. "Rex" Hagg is a 56-year-old plaintiff's attorney with Rapid City law firm Whiting Hagg Hagg Dorsey & Hagg LLP. He specializes in personal injury and workers' compensation cases.

Hagg was appointed to the South Dakota Board of Minerals and Environment in August 2012 by Governor Dennis Daugaard. On March 1 of this year, board Chair Richard Sweetman appointed Hagg as Hearing Chair for the Powertech permit application.

It is unclear from the public record why Hagg was appointed Hearing Chair after serving on the board for only seven months. Any decisions made by Hagg on Powertech's permit application are final unless the board overrules the decision.

Rexford Hagg has a long association with Powertech project manager Mark Hollenbeck that dates back to 1989. In that year, both men were elected to the South Dakota House of Representatives. The two Republicans served together for six years. Both Hagg and Hollenbeck later worked as registered lobbyists in the state legislature.

NOTICE OF DATE, TIME AND LOCATION OF HEARING - STATE OF SOUTH DAKOTA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES - BOARD OF MINERALS AND ENVIRONMENT - IN THE MATTER OF POWERTECH (USA), INC., APPLICATION FOR LARGE SCALE MINING PERMIT (Dewey-Burdock Project) - Rex Hagg, Hearing Chair - June 7, 2013 (PDF 165 KB, 1 pages)

PROCEDURAL AND SCHEDULING ORDER - STATE OF SOUTH DAKOTA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES - BOARD OF MINERALS AND ENVIRONMENT - IN THE MATTER OF POWERTECH (USA), INC., APPLICATION FOR LARGE SCALE MINING PERMIT (Dewey-Burdock Project) - Rex Hagg, Hearing Chair - May 28, 2013 (PDF 649 KB, 9 pages)

Large Scale Mine Permit Application page - South Dakota Department of Environment & Natural Resources

"Hold hearing on uranium mine in Black Hills" Letter to the Editor by Lilias Jarding - Sioux Falls Business Journal - June 8, 2013

"Citizens call on Governor to protect rights" - Hot Springs Star - June 3, 2013

"Activists want uranium mine hearing moved; Protestors ask Governor to move meeting to Black Hills" by Talli Nauman, Native Sun News (published on indianz.com) - June 7, 2013

"Move Powertech hearing from Pierre" Letter to the Editor by Kathy Durrum - Rapid City Journal - June 7, 2013

"PowerTech Far from Approved; State Stacking Deck Against Black Hills Defenders" - Madville Times - June 11, 2013

"Uranium mine hearing far from reservation; Opponent of uranium mining angry over cost and timing of Pierre meeting; Pine Ridge residents would have difficulty attending" by Talli Nauman, Native Sun News (published on indianz.com) - June 5, 2013

Standing Rock Sioux Tribe challenges NRC staff's "open site" approach to Section 106

Tribal Historic Preservation Officer charges NRC with attempting to eliminate tribes from process of identifying historic properties on Dewey-Burdock and other proposed uranium mine sites

Posted June 1, 2013

In a strongly-worded March 20, 2013 letter to the federal Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, an official from the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe requests a determination by the ACHP whether the NRC staff's new Section 106 protocol complies with federal law.

Tribal Historic Preservation Officer Waste'Win Young issues a scathing critique of the NRC's approach to identifying sites of cultural and religious significance to Indian tribes located on the proposed Dewey-Burdock and Ross uranium mining projects.

After a lengthy and unsuccessful attempt by NRC staff, Powertech officials, and several tribes to draft a detailed statement of work to conduct a field survey of the Dewey-Burdock site, NRC staff adopted a new approach. Rather than having agreed-upon procedures and guidelines, the NRC's latest plan is simply to provide access to the Dewey-Burdock property to three representatives from each tribe for a month.

Tribal representatives are to be reimbursed for mileage and paid a per diem, and each participating tribe is to be paid $10,000 by Powertech. According to NRC project manager Haimanot Yilma, "each tribe may implement its own survey methodology". After accessing the site, tribes are requested to submit a written report to the NRC.

This new plan is called the "open site" approach by NRC officials, and was touted for its "flexibility" at the recent Uranium Recovery Workshop in Denver put on by the National Mining Association and the NRC.

But as Waste'Win Young points out, the NRC is not requiring a specific methodology when conducting the field survey. The THPO finds this "inconceivable" and contrary to federal regulations implementing Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act:

"As a regulatory office that issues decisions based on a very specific set of methodology (such as a Class Ill pedestrian survey or Tribal Cultural Property Survey) it is inconceivable that Tribal contractors would be in the field with no specific methodology. The SRST-THPO cannot issue a determination of effects or concurrence letters when there is no data generated in a report...The SRST-THPO strongly objects to the divisive approach that faiIs at the intent of identification for tribes under Section 106 of the NHPA. The process that the NRC is proposing is tantamount to a $10,000.00 bribe...There would be no specific methodology as to what was needed to be recorded and with no direction or real accountability as to how they conduct themselves in the field or where they conduct their field studies. The only requirement is that they submit a written report of what they found to NRC. How does this fulfill the identification efforts per 36CFR800.4? This would not fulfill the responsibilities for identification for archaeological sites within the Section 106 process."

The tribal official also objects to Powertech's role in the Section 106 process:

"On page 1 of the Dewey-Burdock proposal it states, much like the Ross proposal quoted above, that "the NRC staff" has discussed site access and compensation with the applicant, Powertech (USA) INC., and has made the following arrangements". This sets a very bad precedent in that the applicant is now dictating to the tribes how they will be involved in a project. The SRST-THPO objects to this disregard for the Section 106 process as there is no provision in Section 106 that allows the applicant to dictate how tribes will be involved in a project which is what this amounts to. This was attempted earlier in the process by the applicant through their third party consultant (SRI Foundation). The NRC requested information from the applicant on how they were going to address sites of significance to the tribes in August of 2011. This is not the applicant's decision to make. The tribes were never asked that same question and we were brought into the discussion due to our objections at the way it was being handled by SRI Foundation. The NRC has been negligent and dismissive of the tribes concerns since the onset of this project and has, in fact, attempted to eliminate the tribes from the process through their past actions. This latest proposal is a continuation of those efforts."

In spite of tribal objections to the "open site' approach, the NRC staff is moving forward to implement the approach for Dewey-Burdock. The initial plan was to conduct the field survey from April 2 through May 1, although someone with knowledge of the matter reported that the May 1 deadline had been extended due to snowstorms in April.

According to a March 29 email from NRC Project Manager Yilma, of 23 interested tribes, eight were expected to participate in the field survey. Three tribes objected to the NRC's plan (Standing Rock Sioux Tribe, Rosebud Sioux Tribe, and Oglala Sioux Tribe), and seven tribes declined to participate. Five tribes did not reply to the NRC's invitation.

It is not clear whether the NRC's "open site" approach will withstand potential legal challenges from tribes, and whether the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation will concur that the approach complies with Section 106 of the NHPA and related regulations.

Letter from Standing Rock Sioux Tribe to Advisory Council on Historic Preservation requesting a determination regarding the legality of U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff's new approach to identifying properties of religious and cultural significance to Indian Tribes - Waste'Win Young, Tribal Historic Preservation Officer - March 20, 2013 (PDF 234 KB, 5 pages)

Email from U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff to interested Indian Tribes regarding "open site" field survey of proposed Dewey-Burdock uranium mining project area - Haimanot Yilma, Project Manager - March 29, 2013 (PDF 234 KB, 5 pages)

SIX CENTS

Powertech stock closes at $0.06 CAD for first time in company's history; investors not optimistic about Dewey-Burdock

Posted May 13, 2013

Powertech shares fell 8% today to close at an all-time low of $0.06 CAD on the Toronto Stock Exchange. Although the stock hit an intraday low of six cents on May 3, today was the first time it closed at that level.

Powertech shares began trading at $1.48 CAD on August 15, 2006 after CEO Dick Clement and Wallace Mays took control of Canadian shell company Powertech Industries through a reverse merger. Powertech Industries was a financially troubled company that manufactured boilers, and was traded on the mining-friendly TSX Venture Exchange in Toronto.

After changing the name to Powertech Uranium Corp., the stock hit a high of $4.45 on March 23, 2007. After crashing to less than $0.25 CAD in mid-2008, the stock recovered to $0.47 CAD for Powertech's one and only public stock offering that closed on March 15, 2011, only four days after the Tohoku earthquake and tsunami that caused meltdowns at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power station.

At six cents per share, Powertech has a market capitalization of only $8.4 million CAD. This is only 17% of Powertech's book value of $48.3 million CAD as of March 31. Powertech's only significant assets include its investments in its proposed projects in South Dakota, Colorado, and Wyoming. Virtually all of these costs are for intangible items such as permitting, wages, consulting, lease payments, drilling, engineering, databases, and legal fees.

In other words, investors don't believe Powertech's financial statements, which communicate the opinion of Powertech's CEO, CFO, and Board of Directors that the Canadian company will recover at least $49.6 million CAD from its proposed projects.

Investors haven't given up entirely on Powertech, but the fact that final permitting of Dewey-Burdock could not occur until sometime in 2014, and the company will run out of cash in a few weeks without new financing, should continue to weigh heavily on Powertech shares.

Buffalo Gap residents pledge to fight Powertech

Posted April 28, 2013

In a March 19 letter to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, "the concerned citizens of Bufffalo Gap, South Dakota" declare their "absolute objection to Powertech's proposed uranium mine at Dewey-Burdock". The letter notes that the citizens "are prepared to use every means at our disposal to fight this travesty", and "will not stand by and let a Canadian company come in and destroy our livelihood and way of life".

The letter is not signed by any individuals. Buffalo Gap is about 40 miles east of the proposed uranium mine. According to the 2010 census, the population of Buffalo Gap is 126.

Letter from "The concerned citizens of Buffalo Gap, South Dakota" to Cindy Bladey, U.S Nuclear Regulatory Commission expressing opposition to Powertech's proposed Dewey-Burdock uranium mining project - March 19, 2013 (PDF 59 KB, 1 page)

Standing Rock Sioux Tribe rejects NRC's field survey plan

Letter from Standing Rock Sioux Tribe to NRC Chief Kevin Hsueh rejecting the agency's February 8 proposal for a field survey of the proposed Dewey-Burdock site to identify historic properties of significance to Indian Tribes pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act - Terry Clouthier, Tribal Archaeologist - February 20, 2013 (PDF 722 KB, 3 pages)

FIVE MONTH DELAY FOR DEWEY-BURDOCK

Monthly Status Report - In the Matter of POWERTECH (USA) INC., Docket No. 40-9075-MLA; ASLBP No. 10-898-02-MLA-BD01 - Patricia A. Jehle, Counsel for NRC Staff - April 1, 2013 (PDF 87KB, 3 pages)

News Release - NRC REVISES SCHEDULE FOR FINAL SUPLEMENTAL [sic] ENVIROMENTAL [sic] IMPACT STATEMENT - Powertech Uranium Corp. - April 4, 2013 (PDF 25 KB, 2 pages)

Safety Evaluation Report for the Dewey-Burdock Project Fall River and Custer Counties, South Dakota - Materials License No. SUA-1600 - Docket No. 40-9075 Powertech (USA) Inc. - U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission - March 2013 (PDF 8,139 KB, 244 pages) The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff released this report four years after Powertech submitted its license application for the proposed Dewey-Burdock project. The Safety Evaluation Report documents whether Powertech's license application complies with federal requirements designed to protect workers and the public from radiological hazards. Environmental impacts from the proposed project are addressed in the Supplemental and Generic Environmental Impact Statements. Before the NRC can issue a license for in-situ leaching, it must make several findings, including that "the applicant is qualified by reason of training and experience to use the source material for the purpose requested in such a manner as to protect health and minimize danger to life or property". Despite the fact that Powertech has never owned or operated any type of uranium mining or milling facility, NRC staff finds that Powertech meets the qualifications for a license. According to the SER, Powertech's organizational structure would include a Mine Manager who would be responsible for all uranium production activity at Dewey-Burdock. But the real power with respect to radiation dangers would reside with the Radiation Safety Officer. The RSO would have primary responsibility for protecting workers and the public from radiological hazards. Per federal regulations, the Mine Manager cannot unilaterally override a decision of the RSO to suspend, postpone, or modify an activity. One would expect a Radiation Safety Officer to have extensive training and certification in detection, measurement, and mitigation of radiological hazards, but the federal rules regarding the technical qualifications for an RSO are surprisingly lax. An RSO must have a bachelor's degree in the physical sciences, industrial hygiene, or engineering, or "an equivalent combination of training and relevant experience in uranium facility radiation protection". The RSO must have at least one year of work experience relevant to uranium operations in applied health physics, radiation protection, industrial hygiene, or "similar work". "Similar work" is not defined, but the regulation notes that the experience should involve "actually working with radiation detection and measurement equipment, not strictly administrative or desk work". As far as specialized training in radiation protection, the RSO must have only four weeks of classroom training in health physics specifically applicable to uranium recovery. The regulations call for specialized knowledge of uranium facility hazards, sampling, monitoring, exposure calculations, and use of health physics equipment, but there is no requirement for any type of testing or certification.

"Powertech claims support for mining" - submitted by Mark Hollenbeck, Dewey-Burdock Project Manager - Duhamel Broadcasting Enterprises (mytown.kotatv.com) - March 9, 2013 Duhamel Broadcasting Enterprises carries Powertech's water in this PR piece masquerading as a news story. The article was written by Mark Hollenbeck, a longtime Powertech employee. The article notes the resolution of support by the Edgemont City Council, and the Fall River County Commission's withdrawal of its petition to intervene in the water rights permit hearing. Hollenbeck has the audacity to quote himself in the self-penned article, stating that he is extremely pleased with the level of local support for the project, and that "as an organic rancher, father and local businessman, I wouldn't be involved if there were any danger to our water quality, quantity or the environment". Hollenbeck's bald assertion of zero risk from in-situ leach uranium mining is not supported by the scientific evidence or literature. Hollenbeck also misleads readers by stating that Powertech is a Colorado-based company; in fact, Powertech is a Canadian company with an office in Colorado.

DEWEY-BURDOCK PERMITTING HITS SNAGS

Consolidated contested case hearing on three state water permits is delayed until October; final NRC license is nowhere in sight

Posted March 11, 2013

Deadline for filing Election of Participation forms is Friday

For those wishing to participate in the October consolidated contested case hearing on the two water rights permit applications and the ground water discharge permit application submitted by Powertech, the deadline for filing an Election of Participation is Friday, March 15. The yellow election form is included in the packet of information mailed to petitioners. Election forms should be mailed to Eric Gronlund, DENR, 523 E. Capitol Ave., Pierre, SD 57501, or emailed to eric.gronlund@state.sd.us.

For information on the hearing: http://denr.sd.gov/powertech_wmb.aspx

Letter from Rosebud Sioux Tribe to NRC challenging the NRC's approach to Section 106 compliance for the Dewey-Burdock project, and stating that a 100% survey of the entire area of potential effects by tribal personnel from participating tribes is the minimal level of effort that must be conducted - Russell Eagle Bear, Tribal Historic Preservation Officer - October 19, 2012 (PDF 482 KB, 6 pages)

CONSOLIDATED INTERVENORS’ NEW CONTENTIONS BASED ON DSEIS - 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 - January 25, 2013 (PDF 204 KB, 31 pages) The "consolidated intervenors", Susan Henderson, David Frankel (represented by Aligning for Responsible Mining), and Dayton Hyde, submit new contentions to the NRC's Atomic Safety and Licensing Board. The contentions are part of the Subpart L hearing process on the license application for the proposed Dewey-Burdock uranium mine.

"Commission hears more from mining opposition" by Curt Nettinga, Rapid City Journal - February 26, 2013 (PDF 24 KB, 3 pages) Mike Ortner, the chair of the Fall River County Commission, offers his opinion that “I don’t believe that the state is going to issue a permit for the deep well injection,” of the wastewater from the proposed Dewey-Burdock uranium mine. And Commissioner Joe Allen expresses his opposition to underground injection of mining wastes. A permit for underground injection of wastes would actually be issued by the Region 8 office of the Environmental Protection Agency. But the state of South Dakota prohibits deep well injection of waste fluids, and the statements by Ortner and Allen cast further doubt on Powertech's plan to rely on this waste disposal method. Powertech's alternative waste disposal method is to "treat" the the fluids contaminated with radionuclides and heavy metals and then spray them on the ground using center-pivot irrigation systems. JW

Letter from attorney for NRC staff to administrative judges of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel announcing the future issuance of the Safety Evaluation Report (SER) and revised draft license for the proposed Dewey-Burdock uranium project and the subsequent review of the SER and draft license by Powertech - February 25, 2013 (PDF 95 KB, 2 pages)

"Native Sun News: Oglala Sioux Tribe questions uranium mining" by Talli Nauman - indianz.com - January 21, 2013

"Native Sun News: Clash mounts over Black Hills uranium mine" by Talli Nauman - indianz.com - February 19, 2013

No risk, Mr. Hollenbeck?

Posted February 22, 2013

Mark Hollenbeck, Powertech Uranium Corp., strikes a pose

Powertech project manager, registered corporate lobbyist, and former state legislator Mark Hollenbeck calls the proposed Dewey-Burdock uranium mine a "water clean up project". The following excerpt from an EPA report offers a different take on ISL mining.

Excerpt from Technical Report on Technologically Enhanced Naturally Occurring Radioactive Materials from Uranium Mining Volume 2: Investigation of Potential Health, Geographic, And Environmental Issues of Abandoned Uranium Mines - Appendix III. Occupational and Public Risks Associated with In-Situ Leaching - United States Environmental Protection Agency - April 2008:

(iii) Groundwater Contamination Risks

Due to the nature of the ISL process (specifically the low pH and oxidation mechanisms), other heavy metals and hazardous elements are also mobilized from the ore and can contaminate the groundwater. These elements include the radioisotopes and progeny of uranium, thorium, radium, and radon, as well as the non-radioactive elements such as arsenic, vanadium, zinc, selenium, and molybdenum (for a more complete list see Table AIII-3). Because these elements become mobilized in the target aquifer by the process of uranium extraction, it is possible for them to migrate out of the ore body into surrounding aquifers which might feed the local water supply. The underground propagation of this contamination into surrounding water is known as an excursion. Horizontal excursions refer to the lateral movement of the water, while vertical excursions indicate contamination of aquifers above and below the target ore body.

In order to detect and minimize this process, ISL facilities drill monitoring wells outside of the main well-field at a distance sufficient to detect any excursion events, while minimizing any erroneous indicators as a result of normal fluctuations. Horizontal excursions are more common than vertical excursions, but do not often become problematic to the outside water supply as long as they are detected and cleaned up within a reasonable time period. Vertical excursions are generally a result of well casing failure (ineffective cementing of well casing), improper sealing of abandoned exploration wells, or discontinuous or permeable natural confinement layers. Similar to horizontal excursions, vertical excursions do not pose a significant threat unless allowed to persist over significant periods of time—this is unlikely if geological properties of the confinement layers are accurately characterized (to prevent downward vertical excursions), and the well shafts are effectively cased and proper monitoring well stations have been established. Along with well monitoring techniques, general practice at ISL facilities is to limit the injection of lixiviant so that it is always slightly less in volume than the product solution that is pumped out of the aquifer. This operating policy, known as “process bleed,” would effectively preclude excursions caused by overloading the aquifer, and the subsequent expansion and redistribution of the water.

In the United States, excursions have been frequently detected by the monitoring wells located around the well field. One of the more infamous and environmentally problematic ISL operations was located at Irigary, Wyoming. This facility was plagued by persistent environmental excursions which began in mid-March of 1979, and were not brought under control until early July of that same year. The Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality reported that these excursions were a result of the neglect of injection pressure monitoring as well as testing the integrity of the well casings (Mudd 1998). Another significant example is the Bruni mine in Texas, where there was a continued problem with both leachate spills and excursions. The Texas Department of Water Resources reported that at one point during the operational period the Bruni mine was cited for fourteen excursion incidents, while only five had originally been reported (Mudd 1998). Despite these scenarios, no significant contamination of local water supplies has been reported as a result of these excursions.

In addition to the below ground excursion incidents, the groundwater can become contaminated due to failure of the near-surface or surface piping systems which transfer the pregnant lixiviant from the well field area to the processing facility. Typical activity concentrations for the radionuclides present in lixiviant are given in Table AIII-2. In addition, Table AIII-3 displays the maximum measured concentrations of non-radioactive contaminants in pregnant lixiviant based on a survey of available licensing documents (Mackin et al. 2001). Once the pregnant lixiviant solution is released, there are three potential outcomes for the contamination; runoff into surface bodies of water, absorption into the soil and possible subsequent infiltrations of the groundwater, or runoff into a surface pond designed to prevent groundwater contamination. The first two scenarios show the possibility for contamination of drinking water sources and would have an obvious environmental impact if not dealt with in a timely fashion. The third scenario poses a possible radiological hazard for workers at the site and is discussed in Section ii of this appendix.

Audio of Mark Hollenbeck calling the proposed Dewey-Burdock uranium mining project a water clean up project

"SD Senate panel rejects uranium mining bill" - Associated Press -Rapid City Journal - February 7, 2013

Comments on Docket ID NRC-2012-0277; Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement, Proposed Dewey-Burdock In Situ Leach Uranium Mine, South Dakota - Jeffrey C. Parsons, Travis Stills, and W. Cindy Gillis, on behalf of the Oglala Sioux Tribe - January 10, 2013 (PDF 223 KB, 22 pages)

Letter from Oglala Sioux Tribe to U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission stating the tribe "will not bow to the October 31, 2012 ultimatum of the NRC that it join in the survey" of historic properties of religious and cultural significance, because the proposal excludes the concerns of the Sioux Tribes regarding project scope, survey methodology, survey area, consideration of direct and indirect effects, costs, use of Sioux experts, and privacy - John Yellow Bird Steele, President, Oglala Sioux Tribe - November 5, 2012 (PDF 517 KB, 4 pages)

SD legislators introduce three bills to protect ground water from in-situ leach uranium mining

Posted January 25, 2013

Senate Bill No. 150 - An Act to revise certain permitting requirements relating to in situ leach mining.

Senate Bill No. 148 - An Act to reestablish the force and effect of certain administrative rules relating to underground injection control and in situ leach mining.

Senate Bill No. 141 - An Act to revise certain financial assurance provisions relating to mining.

Status of South Dakota Permit Applications

Permit	Deadline for Petitions to Intervene	Hearing Date	Link to DENR webpage
Large Scale Mine Permit	February 19, 2013	May 2013 (tentative)	link
Water Right Permit - Inyan Kara Aquifer	November 26, 2012	To be determined	link
Water Right Permit - Madison Aquifer	November 26, 2012	To be determined	link
Ground Water Discharge Permit	January 18, 2013	To be determined	link

NRC issues second draft license

NRC staff may have violated federal regulations by not making document available to the public during DSEIS comment period; Powertech CEO Clement exaggerates significance of draft license

Posted January 17, 2013

U.S Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff issued a second draft Source Material License for the proposed Dewey-Burdock uranium project on January 4, 2013. The draft license incorporates revisions to the first draft license issued on July 31, 2012. The license is preliminary and does not constitute a licensing decision by the NRC.

The draft license is cited as a supporting reference in the NRC's Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (DSEIS). The 45-day public comment period on the DSEIS ended on January 10.

According to attorneys for the Oglala Sioux Tribe, NRC staff violated federal regulations by not making the second draft license available during the DSEIS comment period and by not posting it on the NRC's website. Release of the document within just days of the close of the comment period with no public notice or distribution of the new draft license requires an extension of the comment period, according to the Tribe.

The NRC's January 4 letter to Powertech regarding the issuance of the document was not posted on the NRC's ADAMS website until January 14. The second draft license has yet to be posted.

Powertech wasted no time in firing up its PR machine after receiving word from the NRC. The resulting January 7 press release was distributed far and wide, with an ebullient CEO Dick Clement proclaiming:

“We are extremely pleased with the progress that is being made with the NRC. The receipt of a second draft license gives us a working document that will direct the development of the Dewey-Burdock Project. Finalizing this second draft license will pave the way for the final SER and SEIS so operations can begin on the project.”

While the second draft license does signal progress for Powertech, there is a long road ahead for the cash-strapped Canadian company. In addition to more draft licenses (four draft licenses were issued for the Lost Creek ISL project in Wyoming before a final license was issued in August 2011), several hurdles stand in the way of a final license.

The Section 106 process mandated by the National Historic Preservation Act has not been going well. The area potentially affected by the Dewey-Burdock uranium operation contains numerous sites of cultural and religious significance to several Indian Tribes. Attempts by NRC staff and Powertech to come to an agreement with the Tribes on how to survey and identify these sites have so far been unsuccessful, according to the DSEIS.

The NRC unsuccessfully attempted to pressure the Tribes to complete a field survey by fall of 2012. According to the NRC, the Tribes selected a contractor to complete the field survey, but the contractor's proposal was not acceptable to Powertech. There is no indication at this time that a field survey has been scheduled.

The subpart L hearing process, in which the Oglala Sioux Tribe and various other parties have formally intervened in the licensing process, remains a wild card for Powertech. NRC administrative judges have already admitted seven environmental and safety contentions that will be argued in a formal hearing to be held after the release of the Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (FSEIS). More contentions are expected to be submitted by the intervening parties prior to the hearing.

A decision by the judges can be petitioned to the NRC commissioners, and the commissioners' ruling can be appealed in federal court. Moreover, if NRC staff disregards comments on the DSEIS submitted by the Oglala Sioux Tribe, the NRC is likely to face a legal challenge to the FSEIS.

NRC staff continues to hold to its estimate of a May 2013 issuance date for the FSEIS, but its January status report concedes that "the estimated issuance date could change based on the number and nature of comments received on the draft SEIS."

And Powertech's most recent news release gives investors the impression that the NRC will issue a final license immediately after May, when the reality is that a final decision is unlikely to be rendered this year, and any decision will likely be challenged in federal court.

Letter from U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission to Powertech announcing the issuance of a second draft license for the proposed Dewey-Burdock in-situ leach uranium facility - Ronald Burrows, Project Manager, Uranium Recovery Licensing Branch - January 4, 2013 (PDF 58 KB, 3 pages)

News release - "POWERTECH RECEIVES SECOND DRAFT URANIUM RECOVERY LICENSE FROM NRC" - Powertech Uranium Corp. - January 7, 2013 (PDF 67 KB, 2 pages)

NRC actions limit public comment on Powertech EIS

Many commenters waste time on malfunctioning federal website; scheduling of public comment period during holidays is technically legal but effectively shortens time for review and comment

Posted January 6, 2013

Powertech Uranium Corp. received a Christmas gift from staff at the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission in the form of an abbreviated public comment period on the draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (DSEIS) for the proposed Dewey-Burdock uranium mine. The DSEIS was released on November 26, and the deadline for submitting public comments is January 10.

Although the 45-day comment period technically complies with federal regulations, the fact that the NRC chose to release the document just prior to the year-end holidays is highly suspect. NRC decision makers were surely aware that this release date would minimize the time stakeholders would have to read the 850-page DSEIS and formulate comments. The decision clearly benefits Powertech and harms those potentially affected by the proposed project.

To make matters worse, NRC staff issued a news release on November 16 that said members of the public could submit comments over the federal government's rulemaking website. Many individuals have reported experiencing technical problems with the online comment form and have been unable to submit their comments. To the extent that people spend valuable time attempting to submit comments on a malfunctioning website, the public review and comment process is further compromised.

Requests for a reasonable extension of the public comment period have been made to NRC staff. Federal regulations require a public comment period of no less than 45 days but allow for extensions. So far, no extensions have been granted.

Requests for an extension should be sent to Haimanot Yilma at Haimanot.Yilma@nrc.gov.

Public comments on Dewey-Burdock draft environmental impact statement due by January 10

Comments must be received via mail or fax by January 10 to assure consideration

Posted January 1, 2013, Updated January 6, 2013

Thursday January 10 is the deadline for submitting public comments on the Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (DSEIS) for the proposed Dewey-Burdock in-situ leach uranium mining project near Edgemont, South Dakota. Links to the two-volume DSEIS are included below (Note: these are very large files).

The DSEIS is a supplement to the NRC's Generic Environmental Impact Statement for In-Situ Leach Uranium Millling Facilities. Links to the two-volume GEIS are included below (Note: these are very large files).

Comments must be received by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission by January 10; comments received after that date will only be considered "if it is practical to do so", according to the Federal Register notice on the DSEIS. A link to the Federal Register notice is included below.

Comments can be submitted by three methods:

MAIL - Mail comments to: Cindy Bladey, Chief, Rules, Announcements, and Directives Branch (RADB), Office of Administration, Mail Stop: TWB–05– B01M, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555– 0001.

FAX - Fax comments to: RADB at 301– 492–3446.

ONLINE - Comments can be submitted online at http://www.regulations.gov/#!submitComment;D=NRC-2012-0277-0001 (Many people have reported that this site is not functioning properly.)

Comments cannot be submitted by email.

Federal Register notice - Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement for Proposed Dewey- Burdock In-Situ Uranium Recovery Project in Custer and Fall River Counties, SD - ACTION: Availability of draft supplemental environmental impact statement; request for comment - November 26, 2012 (PDF 200 KB, 2 pages)

Environmental Impact Statement for the Dewey-Burdock Project in Custer and Fall River Counties, South Dakota - Supplement to the Generic Environmental Impact Statement for In-Situ Leach Uranium Milling Facilities - Draft Report for Comment - NUREG-1910 Supplement 4, Vol. 1 - Chapters 1 to 4 - U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission - November 2012 (PDF 34,238 KB, 505 pages)

Environmental Impact Statement for the Dewey-Burdock Project in Custer and Fall River Counties, South Dakota - Supplement to the Generic Environmental Impact Statement for In-Situ Leach Uranium Milling Facilities - Draft Report for Comment - NUREG-1910 Supplement 4, Vol. 2 - Chapter 5 and Appendices - U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission - November 2012 (PDF 34,471 KB, 353 pages)

Generic Environmental Impact Statement for In-Situ Leach Uranium Milling Facilities - NUREG-1910, Vol. 1 - Chapters 1 through 4 - United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission - May 2009 (PDF 49,214 KB, 704 pages)

Generic Environmental Impact Statement for In-Situ Leach Uranium Milling Facilities - NUREG-1910, Vol. 2 - Chapters 5 through 12 and Appendices A through G - United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission - May 2009 (PDF 40,611 KB, 612 pages)

NRC judges grant extension of time to Oglala Sioux Tribe and others to file contentions related to DSEIS

Posted December 18, 2012

The Oglala Sioux Tribe and the "Consolidated Intervenors" have more time to review the Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (DSEIS) for Powertech's proposed Dewey-Burdock in-situ leach uranium mining project, after a decision by a federal panel.

The Atomic Safety and Licensing Board (ASLB), a three judge panel established by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission to hear a legal challenge to the licensing action for Dewey-Burdock, issued an order today granting a 25-day extension to the intervening parties. The order extends the filing date for any contentions based on the DSEIS from December 31, 2012 to January 25, 2013.

The Oglala Sioux Tribe and Consolidated Intervenors filed a motion with the ASLB on December 14 requesting the extension due to the fact that much of the time period for reviewing the DSEIS falls during the year-end holidays, and that newly-elected Tribal officials have insufficient time to familiarize themselves with the issues involved in the case.

Some observers suspect that the NRC intentionally released the DSEIS in late November to limit public comment on the 800-plus page document. The deadline for public comment remains unchanged at January 10, 2013.

For over two years, Powertech has studiously avoided disclosing to investors the adversarial hearing process before the ASLB. In April 2010, the Oglala Sioux Tribe and various other parties petitioned the NRC for a hearing to challenge Powertech's Source Material License application, in accordance with Title 10, Part 2, Subpart L of the Code of Federal Regulations.

In August 2010, the ASLB admitted seven contentions submitted by the petitioners and determined that a "subpart L" hearing process will be held. The hearing will take place sometime after the issuance of the final SEIS, which NRC staff expects to release in May 2013.

Prior to the ASLB hearing, participants may submit written statements of position, written testimony, supporting affidavits, written responses and rebuttal testimony, and proposed questions for the presiding officer to consider asking opposing parties.

Following the hearing, the ASLB renders its written decision on the contentions. Parties may petition the NRC for review of the ASLB's decision. If petitioning for NRC review does not result in a favorable outcome, parties may seek judicial review in federal court.

Not only has Powertech failed to disclose the subpart L hearing process, but the Canadian company continues to tell investors that a final NRC license is expected to be issued by May 2013. Both Powertech's current "corporate presentation" on its website, as well as its November 6, 2012 Management Discussion and Analysis give readers the impression that a final NRC license will be issued by May, and both documents are silent on the hearing process before the ASLB.

UNOPPOSED JOINT MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME FOR THE OGLALA SIOUX TRIBE AND CONSOLIDATED INTERVENORS TO SUBMIT CONTENTIONS BASED ON THE DRAFT SUPPLEMNENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT - In the Matter of POWERTECH (USA) INC., (Dewey-Burdock In Situ Uranium Recovery Facility) - UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION, BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD - December 14, 2012 (PDF 46 KB, 5 pages)

ORDER (Granting Unopposed Joint Motion for Extension of Time to File Contentions) - 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 - December 18, 2012 (PDF 166 KB, 4 pages)

Corporate Presentation: Powertech Uranium Corp. - "Advancing Towards Uranium Production" - September 2012 (PDF 1,468 KB, 23 pages)

NOTICE OF HEARING In the Matter of POWERTECH (USA), INC. (Dewey-Burdock In Situ Uranium Recovery Facility) - U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION, ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD - August 20, 2010 (PDF 150 KB, 7 pages)

Over 100 parties petition to intervene in water rights hearing

Powertech's plan to mine uranium in aquifer and consume significant quantities of ground water provokes concerns in southwestern South Dakota

Posted December 1, 2012; updated December 2, 2012

A groundswell of opposition to Powertech's proposed Dewey-Burdock uranium project is emerging in southwestern South Dakota as the Canadian company seeks to obtain two water rights permits from the state.

The Chief Engineer of the state of South Dakota, Garland Erbele, received petitions to intervene in the permitting process from 112 parties, including 104 individuals, the National Park Service, the Fall River County Commission, the City of Hot Springs, the South Dakota Department of Game, Fish & Parks, the Oglala Sioux Tribe, Defenders of the Black Hills, the Clean Water Alliance, and the South Dakota Peace & Justice Center.

Petitions from the National Park Service, South Dakota Game & Fish, and a handful of individual do not express an opinion on the permit applications. All other petitioners are opposed. No petitions were filed supporting Powertech.

When built out, the Dewey-Burdock uranium project would include thousands of drill holes, including ore delineation/exploration holes, injection/production wells, and monitoring wells. The project would consist of 14 mining units that could be at different points in the construction, mining, and restoration phases at any given time.

Powertech filed separate water rights applications for the Inyan Kara Aquifer and the Madison Aquifer. The Inyan Kara application requests approval to pump up to 13,710 acre feet, or 4.5 billion gallons, per year for up to 20 years. This equates to an average pumping rate of 8,500 gallons per minute.

During mining, most of the pumped water, contaminated with elevated levels of uranium, radium, and other heavy metals, would be re-injected into the Inyan Kara Aquifer. A portion of the water would be diverted and disposed of.

This consumed water, or "net withdrawal" from the aquifer, would average only 2% of the total water pumped, according to Powertech. The permit application seeks approval to consume 274 acre feet per year, or 89 million gallons.

But Powertech provided no detailed assumptions and calculations in the application to support the 2% average net withdrawal rate.

Water consumption during the aquifer restoration phase, after mining has ceased in a well field, typically increases significantly due in part to the use of reverse osmosis to clean the water. According to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, the use of reverse osmosis during aquifer restoration can consume up to 30% of the aquifer water. Powertech's Inyan Kara application does not address the expected water consumption from reverse osmosis during aquifer restoration.

Powertech has not determined how it will dispose of the highly-contaminated wastewater produced during in-situ leach uranium mining and subsequent aquifer restoration. It might use deep disposal wells, in which case the wastewater would be pre-treated by reverse osmosis before injection.

The other option is land application. Under this scenario, 100% of the water pumped from the aquifer during restoration would be sprayed on up to 760 acres of ground with center-pivot irrigation systems. Water pumped from the Madison Aquifer would be injected into the Inyan Kara to replace the consumed water. The Inyan Kara application does not include water consumption calculations for the land application option.

Powertech's Inyan Kara application also does not address the impact on other ground water users if the Canadian company is unable to clean up the aquifer following uranium mining. In-situ leach uranium mining typically leaves elevated levels of uranium, radium, and other heavy metals in the aquifer following restoration efforts by mining companies. In addition, excursions of mining fluids beyond the mining zone are not uncommon, and can continue for months or years despite efforts to correct them by adjusting well pumping rates.

The Madison Aquifer application seeks approval to consume 889 acre feet of ground water per year. The Madison water would be used primarily in the restoration of the Inyan Kara Aquifer. It would also be used to supply water to the industrial plant that would produce uranium yellowcake, and possibly to provide domestic and livestock water to area landowners whose wells might be negatively impacted by the project.

The hearing on Powertech's applications, originally scheduled for December 5, has been automatically delayed due to several written requests from petitioners. A new hearing date has not been announced; the South Dakota Water Management Board's next regular meeting is March 6-7, 2013.

Notice from South Dakota Department of Environment & Natural Resources to Powertech (USA) Inc. regarding Automatic Delay of Hearing for Water Permit Applications Nos. 2685-2 and 2686-2, and Parties of Record List - Garland Erbele, Chief Engineer, Water Rights Program - November 28, 2012

Petitions filed in response to Powertech water permit applications

Powertech (USA) Inc. Applications for Water Right Permits - South Dakota Department of Environment & Natural Resources

SOUTH DAKOTANS RISE UP TO PROTECT GROUND WATER

Opposition to Powertech surges as people learn of Canadian company's plans to mine uranium in ground water aquifers; petitions force months-long delay in water rights hearing before state board

Posted November 27, 2012

News release - "DENR Announces Hearing for Powertech Water Right Applications Delayed" - South Dakota Department of Environment & Natural Resources - November 27, 2012

Powertech project manager, registered corporate lobbyist, and former state legislator Mark Hollenbeck, who has called the proposed Dewey-Burdock uranium mine a "water cleanup project". In fact, a typical in-situ leach uranium mine leaves elevated levels of uranium and radium in the ground water after mining has ceased and the aquifer has been "restored", according to an official of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

"Fall River commission opposes Powertech uranium project until conditions met" by Kevin Woster, Rapid City Journal - November 27, 2012

"Proposed Uranium Mine Near Edgemont Debated" by Derek Olson, Keloland Television - November 26, 2012

"City votes to intervene at water permit hearing" by Curt Nettinga, Hot Springs Star - November 27, 2012

UNOFFICIAL MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE COMMON COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HOT SPRINGS - November 19, 2012

"Feds, state seek input on proposed uranium mine near Pine Ridge" by Talli Nauman, Native Sun News - November 21, 2012

"US, state agencies review proposed SD uranium mine" by Chet Brokaw, Associated Press - November 19, 2012

Powertech (USA) Inc. Applications for Water Right Permits - South Dakota Department of Environment & Natural Resources

FACEBOOK SITE CREATED TO OPPOSE DEWEY-BURDOCK: Say No To Uranium Mining In South Dakota

Deadline for filing petitions of opposition to Powertech water rights permits is November 26

Opposition includes local ranchers, City of Hot Springs, and many others

Posted November 25, 2012

From the Notice of Hearing:

Any interested person who intends to participate in the hearing shall file a petition to oppose or support the applications and the petition shall be filed with BOTH the applicant and Chief Engineer. The applicant must also file a petition if opposed to the Chief Engineer's recommendation. The Chief Engineer's address is "Water Rights Program, Foss Building, 523 E Capitol, Pierre SD 57501 (605 773-3352)" and the applicant's mailing address is given above. A petition filed by either an interested person or the applicant must be filed by November 26, 2012. The petition may be informal, but shall be in writing and shall include a statement describing the petitioner's interest in either application, the petitioner's reasons for opposing or supporting either application, and the signature and mailing address of the petitioner or the petitioner's legal counsel, if legal counsel is obtained. The hearing is an adversary proceeding and any party has the right to be present at the hearing and to be represented by a lawyer. These and other due process rights will be forfeited if they are not exercised at the hearing and decisions of the Board may be appealed to the Circuit Court and State Supreme Court as provided by law.

NOTICE OF HEARING on Water Permit Application Nos. 2685-2 and 2686-2 to Appropriate Water for Powertech (USA) Inc. (PDF 24 KB, 3 pages)

FALL RIVER BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AGENDA SPECIAL MEETING AT THE FALL RIVER COUNTY COURTHOUSE - CONTINUATION OF COMMENTS CONCERNING POWER TECH’S APPLICATION FOR WATER RIGHTS - MONDAY, NOVEMBER 26, 2012 (PDF 279 KB, 1 page)

NRC issues draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement for Dewey-Burdock uranium project

Public comment period uncertain, but should run until early January

Posted November 16, 2012

News Release - "NRC ISSUES DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT ON DEWEY-BURDOCK URANIUM RECOVERY PROJECT; SEEKS PUBLIC COMMENT" - U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION - November 16, 2012 (PDF 74 KB, 1 page)

Environmental Impact Statement for the Dewey-Burdock Project in Custer and Fall River Counties, South Dakota - Supplement to the Generic Environmental Impact Statement for In-Situ Leach Uranium Milling Facilities - Draft Report for Comment - NUREG-1910 Supplement 4, Vol. 2 - Chapter 5 and Appendices - U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission - November 2012 (PDF 34,471 KB, 353 pages)

Letter from USNRC staff counsel Patricia Jehle to the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel and parties regarding availability of the draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement for the proposed Dewey-Burdock project - November 15, 2012 (PDF 114 KB, 3 pages)

Powertech submits Large Scale Mine Permit application to South Dakota

Canadian company submits application on 134 megabyte file which cannot be downloaded by many computer users; was this intentional to limit public scrutiny?

Posted October 23, 2012

On October 1 Powertech submitted an application to the South Dakota Department of Environment & Natural Resources (SDDENR) for a Large Scale Mine Permit for the proposed Dewey-Burdock uranium project.

The submittal consists of 90 PDF files; the main file is a 134 megabyte behemoth that can only be downloaded and viewed by those with high speed internet access and powerful computers. The files have been posted on the SDDENR's website.

It appears that public access to the application is of little concern to Powertech and the SDDENR.

The Large Scale Mine Permit is one of three major permits Powertech must obtain to develop and mine the proposed uranium project located 13 miles northwest of Edgemont, South Dakota. The other two major permits are the Source Material License issued by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission and the Class III Underground Injection Control Permit issued by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

All three major permits are now under review by the respective permitting agencies. There are numerous other permits that must be obtained from the EPA, the SDDENR, the Bureau of Land Management, Custer County, and Fall River County. Some of these permit applications have been submitted; some have not.

The SDDENR is currently reviewing the Large Scale Mine Permit application for "procedural completeness" and will notify Powertech by October 31 whether the application is complete or if additional information is required.

Minerals and Mining Program Powertech (USA), Inc. - Large Scale Mine Permit Application - South Dakota Department of Environment & Natural Resources

NRC delays licensing documents for Dewey-Burdock

Extended issuance dates, subpart L hearing process, and other permits mean mine development is far off

Posted October 8, 2012, Updated October 9, 2012

In its recent monthly update to the Atomic Safety & Licensing Board Panel, NRC staff notes that estimated issuance dates have been extended for environmental and safety documents associated with its review of Powertech's license application for the proposed Dewey-Burdock uranium project.

The new issuance dates are listed in the table below, along with last month's update and the original dates from October 2010.

NRC staff now expects to issue a Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (DSEIS) for the project in late October or early November. A final SEIS (FSEIS) should be released by May 2013, according to the update.

A final license to operate the proposed in-situ leach uranium facility is expected approximately one month after issuance of the final SEIS, according to the NRC's web page "Application Review Schedule for Dewey-Burdock".

NRC Staff's Estimated Issuance Dates for Documents Associated with Powertech's Source Material License Application
Document	Oct 1, 2010 NRC update	Sep 4, 2012 NRC update	Oct 1, 2012 NRC update
Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (SEIS)	Jun 2011	Sep 2012	Oct - Nov 2012
Safety Evaluation Report (SER)	Oct 2011	Oct 2012	Dec 2012
Final SEIS	Jan 2012	Jan 2013-May 2013	May 2013

The problem with this schedule is that it does not take into account the hearing process before the NRC's Atomic Safety & Licensing Board panel (ASLB). In accordance with federal law, the Oglala Sioux Tribe, as well as several individuals and organizations, petitioned for a hearing to challenge Powertech's application.

In August 2010, the ASLB admitted seven contentions submitted by the petitioners and determined that a "subpart L" hearing process will be held. This refers to Title 10, Part 2, Subpart L of the Code of Federal Regulations, which covers rules of practice for NRC licensing proceedings.

The hearing before the ASLB will take place sometime after the issuance of the environmental and safety documents, since the petitioners may submit new contentions in response to the issuance of the Safety Evaluation Report (SER), DSEIS, and the FSEIS.

Consequently, if NRC staff can somehow complete the National Historic Preservation Act's Section 106 consultation process in the next few months and manage to issue the final SEIS by May 2013, the subpart L hearing process and subsequent reviews by the NRC and possibly federal courts could take a couple of years.

Moreover, Powertech still has to obtain two other major permits for Dewey-Burdock, as well as a slew of minor permits. The two permits are a Class III Underground Injection Control (UIC) Permit issued by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's Region 8 office in Denver, and a Large Scale Mine Permit issued by the South Dakota Department of Environment & Natural Resources.

Powertech applied for the UIC permit in December 2008, but the EPA is apparently waiting to see more progress with the NRC licensing process before moving forward with the permit. A UIC permit may be appealed to the EPA's Environmental Appeals Board in Washington, DC.

Powertech submitted an application to the State of South Dakota for a Large Scale Mine Permit on October 1, 2012.

Taking into account the history of the project, the permitting work left to be done, and the degree of opposition, Powertech is unlikely to obtain all Dewey-Burdock permits before 2015. It will be interesting to see what disclosures regarding the timing of the permitting process Powertech chooses to make in its third quarter filings with Canadian securities regulators.

S tatus 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 - October 1, 2012 (PDF 97 KB, 3 pages)

NRC honcho issues ultimatum to Tribes

Hsueh tells Indian Tribes to submit detailed cultural resources survey proposal with line-item budget in twelve days or feds will proceed without them; claims it is imperative that identification of historic properties be completed in fall 2012

Posted September 27, 2012

The NRC is dropping the hammer on the Indian Tribes involved in the Section 106 consultation process for the proposed Dewey-Burdock uranium mining/milling project near Edgemont, South Dakota.

Kevin Hsueh, author of U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission's ultimatum to Indian Tribes

In a six-page letter and request for information dated September 18, 2012, NRC official Kevin Hsueh puts the Tribes on notice that the NRC intends to move forward unilaterally if the Tribes don't submit an acceptable property survey proposal and detailed cost estimate by October 1, twelve days from the date of the letter.

Hsueh chastises Tribal representatives by making repeated references to previous information and requests sent to the Tribes that he says he has to repeat in his letter.

Hsueh's letter was preceded by an August 30 email from NRC Project Manager Haimanot Yilma to Tribal Historic Preservation Officers giving the Tribes six days to provide the field survey information. If the information is not provided, "the NRC and BLM staff will develop an alternative approach for identifying historic properties, and will move the Section 106 process forward", presumably without participation from the Tribes.

Hsueh bemoans the fact that NRC staff has been working since February 2012 to facilitate the development of a statement of work (SOW) for the survey of the project area to identify cultural and religious properties, but a final SOW has not been forthcoming.

(The SOW is variously referred to as a "scope of work" or "statement of work" by NRC staff.)

However, some progress on a SOW has been made, according to Hsueh's letter. In the seven months since the first formal Section 106 meeting with the Tribes, Powertech presented a draft SOW in May, and the Tribes responded with a revised version on September 3.

The revised SOW does not include all of the detailed information requested by the NRC. Hsueh disregards the Tribes' revised SOW, and calls for them to prepare a "written proposal with cost estimate", adding that "this request repeats and consolidates the staff's prior requests for information from the tribes."

Furthermore, Hsueh maintains that the identification of cultural and religious properties must be completed "before the end of the 2012 field season (i.e., in the fall 2012)" because the NRC's licensing schedule for Dewey-Burdock calls for the issuance of the final environmental document no later than May 2013.

Hsueh says the Tribes must complete a "final eligibility report" no later than 60 days following completion of the field survey. The report must provide the location of all identified sites, a description of where each site is located in relationship to areas that will be directly impacted by planned operations, and recommendations regarding the eligibility of each site for listing in the National Register of Historic Places.

The report "should include references to the appropriate eligibility
criteria (36 CFR 60.4) and an assessment of how the site's integrity will be affected directly or indirectly by the proposed undertaking."

Complicating matters is the fact that the NRC is demanding that the Tribes contract with Powertech rather than the NRC. Since the first consultation meeting, Tribal representatives have been clear that they will not deal with Powertech, a position that appears to be supported by federal law.

Hsueh does not explain why the latest version of the NRC's licensing schedule, which has been revised and extended multiple times, is so important, or why the federally-mandated process of identifying Native American historical, cultural, and religious properties that may be adversely impacted by Powertech's uranium project must be completed in less than a year.

To put this timeframe into perspective, Powertech submitted its Source Material License application to the NRC on February 25, 2009, three and a half years ago. Since then, Powertech and the NRC have been engaged in a lengthy process of compiling, reviewing, and discussing technical and environmental information related to the project, as required by the National Environmental Policy Act and other federal law.

Federal regulations encourage agencies such as the NRC "to coordinate compliance with section 106 and the procedures in this part with any steps taken to meet the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)." Furthermore, the regulations state that "Agencies should consider their section 106 responsibilities as early as possible in the NEPA process, and plan their public participation, analysis, and review in such a way that they can meet the purposes and requirements of both statutes in a timely and efficient manner."

In spite of this, it took the NRC nearly three years to hold the first formal Section 106 consultation meeting with the Tribes. And now, the NRC wants to accelerate the process and appears ready to exclude the Tribes after only a few months of consultation.

Hsueh must certainly be aware that the Tribes may not be able to respond to his ultimatum and its compressed schedule. Regardless of how the Tribes respond, once the October 1 deadline passes, it is possible the NRC with support from Powertech will consider making a determination that further consultation with the Tribes will not be productive.

But it is unclear whether the NRC can walk away from its consultation responsibilities under Title 36, Part 800, Subpart B of the Code of Federal Regulations.

Section 800.4(a)(4) states that the agency shall "Gather information from any Indian tribe or Native Hawaiian organization identified pursuant to §800.3(f) to assist in identifying properties, including those located off tribal lands, which may be of religious and cultural significance to them and may be eligible for the National Register, recognizing that an Indian tribe or Native Hawaiian organization may be reluctant to divulge specific information regarding the location, nature, and activities associated with such sites."

Agencies such as the NRC may terminate Section 106 consultation. Section 800.7(a) states that the agency "may determine that further consultation will not be productive and terminate consultation." But termination may only occur "After consulting to resolve adverse effects pursuant to §800.6(b)(2)..."

Section 800.6(b)(2) addresses consultation between the agency and Indian Tribes when there is participation from the federal Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP).

Since the NRC's consultation with the Tribes up to this point has not involved the ACHP, it would appear that termination is not an option. But Hsueh's communication to the Tribes makes a point of mentioning that "The staff will also consult with ACHP as necessary", potentially laying the groundwork for termination.

However, termination may only occur "after consulting to resolve adverse effects". Discussions about how to resolve adverse effects can only occur after eligible properties have been identified and a determination has been made that the undertaking (Powertech's proposed project) may adversely affect the properties. Since a field survey has not been conducted, there has been no consulting to resolve adverse effects.

Hence, it appears that the NRC cannot simply terminate consultation under Section 800.7(a). The NRC may be contemplating termination under some other federal authority or case law.

The bottom line is that NRC staff seems to be fed up with the Indian Tribes and is pushing hard to issue a license to Powertech. It is unclear what organizational imperatives or outside influences are driving NRC staff. It remains to be seen if the NRC, in its efforts to issue a license to Powertech, can exclude the Tribes and still fulfill its Section 106 responsibilities.

Letter and Request for Proposal to Tribal Historic Preservation Officers requesting that Tribes submit written proposal for TCP survey including work description and cost estimate by October 1, 2012 - Kevin Hsueh, Branch Chief, U.S Nuclear Regulatory Commission - September 18, 2012 (PDF 3,141 KB, 6 pages)

Draft Scope of Work - Powertech (USA), Inc., Dewey-Burdock Project, Purpose: Identification of Properties of Religious and Cultural Significance - (undated, revised by consulting Tribes) (PDF 110 KB, 7 pages)

Email to Tribal Historic Preservation Officers requesting revised Statement of Work for TCP survey - Haimanot Yilma, Project Manager, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission - August 30, 2012 (PDF 54 KB, 2 pages)

Powertech moves to stop Section 106 consultation process with Indian Tribes

Canadian company's consultant says cooperation with Indian Tribes "seems impossible"; further consultation with Tribes could be terminated by NRC if "not productive"

Posted September 8, 2012

A recently-released summary of communications between a Powertech consultant and members of several Indian Tribes reveals that the Section 106 consultation process for the proposed Dewey-Burdock project is not moving fast enough for the Canadian company. In response, Powertech appears to be pushing for termination of the consultation process.

The consultant, the SRI Foundation, located in Rio Rancho, New Mexico, was hired in 2011 by both Powertech and Cameco Resources due to the proximity of the two Canadian companies' projects.

Powertech is seeking a source material license from the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission for the proposed Dewey-Burdock in-situ leach uranium mining project in South Dakota. Cameco has applied to the NRC for two licenses: a renewal of its license for the Crow Butte ISL mine in Nebraska, and an expansion license for the North Trend area located next to the Crow Butte operation.

The NRC cannot issue a source material license to Powertech until several milestones have been reached, one of which is the completion or termination of the Section 106 process.

Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act requires federal agencies such as the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to take into account the effects of their undertakings, including licensing actions, on historic properties.

In the case of Dewey-Burdock, the NRC must conduct "government-to-government" consultations with Indian Tribes to identify traditional religious and cultural properties (TCPs) that could be adversely affected by the proposed in-situ leach uranium mine and related uranium processing facilities.

Under federal law, Indian Tribes are recognized as sovereign nations, and federal agencies' interactions with Indian Tribes should follow government-to-government protocols.

If identified TCPs are eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places, federal rules encourage consulting parties to develop an agreement on how to mitigate or resolve any adverse effects.

In August 2011, NRC staff requested that Powertech assist in the process of identifying TCPs. Powertech consultant SRI Foundation has been working since November 2011 to contact several Indian Tribes and develop a scope of work for the identification of TCPs on the Dewey-Burdock site. Emails and phone calls to Tribal representatives have been made by SRI Foundation staffers Martha Graham, PhD., and Lynne Sebastian, PhD.

The process has apparently not been moving fast enough for Powertech. A summary prepared by the SRI Foundation discusses the process from Powertech's point of view. Highlights include:

- On February 14 and 15 of this year, the NRC held a consultation meeting in Rapid City, South Dakota. Employees of the NRC, Bureau of Land Management, Environmental Protection Agency, Cameco Resources, Powertech, and SRI Foundation met with representatives from thirteen Indian Tribes to discuss the Powertech and Cameco projects.

- At the meeting, "tribes stressed the importance of knowledgeable tribal representatives conducting on-the-ground field investigations for TCPs" and "the tribes proposed to provide NRC staff with scopes of work (SOWs) for the Dewey-Burdock and Crow Butte/North Trend identification efforts." However, "the tribes also indicated during the meeting that they would not work directly with Powertech, Cameco, or the companies' consultants."

- Eventually, different draft SOWs were prepared by the Tribes and by Powertech. During an August 9 NRC teleconference with representatives from ten tribes, "tribes expressed concern over not having sufficient time to review the revised SOW. They indicated surprise at seeing modifications to the tribes' SOW without discussion, and declined to review either SOW during the call."

- Following the teleconference, SRI Foundation's Lynne Sebastian sent an email to Terry Clouthier, Tribal Archaeologist for the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe. Sebastian expressed her regret that a cooperative endeavor between Powertech and the Tribes "seemed impossible". Clouthier's response to Sebastian included a detailed recitation of concerns regarding Tribal participation in the TCP identification process.

- The NRC conducted another teleconference on August 21 with the same participants. NRC staff and Powertech hoped to complete a scope of work for the TCP identification which would lead to a contract between Powertech and the Tribes for reimbursement of Tribal expenses.

- During the teleconference, the Tribes "articulated the importance and sacredness of the Black Hills, and their opposition to mining or other development; they acknowledged the difficulty in participating in the current consultation because they viewed it as enabling such development." Tribal representatives also "indicated that there were many aspects of the revised SOW that were not feasible", according to the SRI Foundation's summary.

On August 29, Powertech sent a letter to the NRC stating that the company has been unsuccessful in its efforts to assist in the identification of TCPs that may be affected by the proposed Dewey-Burdock project. In the letter Powertech issues an ultimatum, offering "$100,000 in funding for tribal representatives to carry out fieldwork and reporting activities as agreed upon in consultations among NRC, BLM, and the tribes, provided that the fieldwork is completed this fall."

But earlier in the letter, Powertech VP Dick Blubaugh notes that "Powertech has concluded that additional efforts on our part are unlikely to be productive."

With this language, and the SRI Foundation's assertion that cooperation with the Tribes seemed impossible, Powertech may be laying the groundwork for a demand that the NRC terminate the Section 106 process.

Under Title 36 of the U.S. Code of Federal Regulations, the head of the NRC may terminate Tribal consultation after making a determination that "further consultation will not be productive". This is the same language used in Powertech's August 29 letter.

Termination would end the Section 106 consultation process with the Indian Tribes and remove a major obstacle to licensing Dewey-Burdock.

There is precedent for termination of the Section 106 process. On March 1, 2010, Secretary of the Interior Ken Salazar terminated Section 106 consultation for the Cape Wind Energy Project in the Nantucket Sound.

During consultation on the project, the Mashpee Wampanoag Tribe and the Wampanoag Tribe of Gay Head (Aquinnah) had indicated that there were no acceptable measures to mitigate the adverse effects resulting from the construction of 130 440-feet high wind turbines in 25 square miles of Nantucket Sound offshore of Cape Cod, Martha's Vineyard, and Nantucket Island.

Salazar began his letter announcing the termination with the statement that "I have determined that further consultation on this project would not be productive". Salazar approved the project two months later.

While Powertech may believe that further consultation may not be productive, it is not Powertech that is required to conduct the Section 106 process under the National Historic Preservation Act.

It is the NRC that is required to provide the Indian Tribes with a reasonable opportunity to identify their concerns about historic properties, advise on the identification and evaluation of historic properties, articulate their views on the proposed project's effects on such properties, and participate in the resolution of adverse effects.

Federal rules mandate that the consultation should be conducted in a manner recognizing the unique government-to-government relationship that exists between the federal government and Tribes, should be respectful of Tribal sovereignty, and should be sensitive to the concerns and needs of the Indian Tribes.

It is not at all clear that the NRC has fulfilled these responsibilities under the National Historic Preservation Act. The Section 106 process for Dewey-Burdock was only started in August 2011 when NRC staff sent a letter to Powertech requesting that the Canadian company submit a written plan for the identification of TCPs.

Tribal representatives immediately responded to the NRC's apparent attempt to shift much of the responsibility for Section 106 compliance from the agency to Powertech. Objections were also raised to the NRC's suggestion that Powertech could hire an archaeologist to identify and evaluate TCPs without involving Tribal representatives.

NRC staff later backtracked by stating that the agency planned to involve Tribal Historic Preservation Officers during the identification and evaluation phases of the Section 106 process.

The first formal Section 106 consultation meeting with the Tribes did not occur until February 2012. But after only six months of consultation between the NRC and the tribes, Powertech wants to throw in the towel and appears to be maneuvering for a termination decision.

In comparison, the Section 106 process for the Cape Wind Energy Project started in July 2006 and was terminated in March 2010, a period of three years and eight months.

The NRC has published a "Tribal Protocol Manual" guidance document for NRC employees which addresses "important and significant differences between tribal cultures and non-native American cultures". These cultural differences should be considered when assessing progress made in the Section 106 process. Some of the examples include:

- Some Tribal government representatives may place less priority than federal employees on the timelines, schedules and agendas established by U.S. government agencies. NRC activities and staffs' approach to task management tend to be schedule driven because of imminent deadlines, which may conflict with the expectations of tribal representatives.

- Some tribes may place greater value than federal agency personnel in face-to-face interactions, and request meetings in their offices in order to reach conclusions and consensus with all tribal members. Like other groups with whom staff interact, tribal representatives may have limited resources for travel.

- Many tribes place great emphasis on spirituality, and many Native Americans place great importance and spiritual value on the relationship between them and the environment. Staff should be aware that many Native Americans feel a strong commitment to respecting the earth and that many tribes are cautious when considering actions that may harm the earth.

- Some Native Americans believe that all living things are interconnected and that the spiritual worlds and natural worlds are one. Because of this, perceived threats to their environment may be viewed as direct threats to their health, culture and spiritual well-being.

- Because of cultural differences, NRC employees may
misunderstand, or be misunderstood by, members of Native
American tribes. By practicing open communication, adaptability,
and open-mindedness in your interactions, staff can
develop positive working relationships with tribal members.

- Tribal governments usually place great importance
and meaning on "consultation" on a government-to-government
basis when dealing with Federal government representatives. Staff should be cognizant when using the term, both in writing and orally, so that tribal representatives do not misunderstand the objective of a meeting, presentation, or conversation.

- NRC staff should hesitate assessing a meeting's outcome immediately following the meeting. Although it may appear that parties have reached consensus or are in concurrence, tribes, like other sovereign governments, may have additional meetings and may need to follow additional processes independent of the meeting with NRC, in order to develop and incorporate final thoughts, opinions, and plans of action.

After only six months of formal consultation, Powertech and its consultants have concluded that further consultation with Indian Tribes on the proposed Dewey-Burdock project is unlikely to be productive. It remains to be seen how NRC staff will respond to Powertech's contention, and whether the NRC will continue consultation with the Tribes or will terminate the Section 106 process.

SRI Foundation Communications with Indian Tribes Regarding the Proposed Dewey-Burdock and Crow Butte Projects - November 4, 2011 to August 21, 2012 (PDF 278 KB, 30 pages)

Letter from Powertech (USA) Inc. to U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission regarding information needed to complete Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act - August 29, 2012 (PDF 195 KB, 3 pages)

TITLE 36--Parks, Forests, and Public Property CHAPTER VIII--ADVISORY COUNCIL ON HISTORIC PRESERVATION PART 800--PROTECTION OF HISTORIC PROPERTIES - Electronic Code of Federal Regulations - National Archives and Records Administration

Tribal Protocol Manual - Guidance for NRC Employees - U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission - March 2010 (PDF 11,189 KB, 24 pages)

Section 106 & Tribal Consultation - U.S. General Services Administration

Powertech seeks to drill legally questionable waste disposal wells at proposed South Dakota uranium mine

Injection wells fit federal and state definition of Class I wells, which are banned in South Dakota; Powertech tries to get around ban by applying for Class V permit from USEPA

Posted August 23, 2012

Powertech's preferred method for disposing of contaminated water from the proposed Dewey-Burdock uranium project is by deep disposal well. Unfortunately for the Canadian company, such injection wells are banned in South Dakota. But that's not stopping Powertech.

The State of South Dakota has banned Class I disposal wells since the 1980s. According to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Class I wells inject hazardous, radioactive, industrial, or municipal wastes into deep, isolated rock formations that are below the lowermost underground source of drinking water, or USDW.

There are approximately 600 Class I wells in the United States, and the EPA says the geology of the Gulf Coast and the Great Lakes area is best suited for these types of wells.

Presumably, South Dakota banned these disposal wells in order to protect the water quality of the state's ground water aquifers. While federal regulations for Class I wells include construction, operation, and testing requirements designed to prevent leakage of wastes into drinking water sources, the risks cannot be completely eliminated.

Federal regulations define a USDW as an aquifer or its portion which supplies any public water system or contains a sufficient quantity of ground water to supply a public water system, and which currently supplies drinking water for human consumption or contains fewer than 10,000 mg/l total dissolved solids, and which is not an "exempted" aquifer.

To get around the South Dakota ban, Powertech simply changed the classification of the wells from Class I to Class V. Class V wells are used to dispose of wastes into or above USDWs. Class V wells are legal in South Dakota, and are typically shallow wells used to place a variety of fluids directly below the land surface. Typical Class V wells include air conditioning/heat pump wells, large capacity cesspools, storm runoff wells, large capacity septic systems, geothermal wells, motor vehicle waste disposal wells, and others.

Permits for both Class I and Class V disposal wells are issued by the EPA through its Undergound Injection Control (UIC) program. In March 2010, Powertech applied for a Class V UIC permit for four to eight injection wells to handle liquid wastes from Dewey-Burdock. The injected fluids would contain arsenic, selenium, radium, uranium, and other constituents.

While there are numerous in-situ leach uranium mines in Wyoming, Nebraska, and Texas that utilize Class I deep disposal wells, it appears there are no such wells permitted as Class V wells.

So the question is, are Powertech's proposed disposal wells Class V or Class I wells? Remember, Class V wells inject into or above a USDW, and Class I wells inject below the lowermost USDW.

Powertech's permit application calls for an eventual total of eight disposal wells, although only four are described in detail in the application. Of the four, wells DW-1 and DW-3 would inject waste fluids between 1,600 and 2,500 feet into the Minnelusa aquifer. The Minnelusa lies above the Madison aquifer and below the Unkpapa/Sundance aquifer. Both the Madison and Unkpapa/Sundance aquifers are USDWs.

SInce these two wells would inject wastes above a USDW, they would appear to fit the definition of a Class V well.

In contrast, wells DW-2 and DW-4 would inject wastes between 3,100 and 3,400 feet into the Deadwood aquifer, which is below the Madison. Powertech has not identified any USDWs below the Madison aquifer. Because these two wells would inject wastes below the lowermost USDW, they would meet the federal definition of Class I wells. Hence, such wells would be illegal in South Dakota.

For illustration purposes, here are the various aquifers, from highest to lowest (not all minor aquifers are shown):

- Ground Surface

- Inyan Kara (underground source of drinking water)

- Unkpapa/Sundance (underground source of drinking water)

- Minnekahta

- Minnelusa (waste injection zone for DW-1 and DW-3)

- Madison (lowermost underground source of drinking water)

- Deadwood (waste injection zone for DW-2 and DW-4)

(Powertech asserts that the Minnelusa and Deadwood aquifers are not USDWs because of poor water quality. While there appear to be data supporting this claim with respect to the Minnelusa, Powertech admits there are no water quality data available for the Deadwood aquifer and that the company "suspects" that the water quality does not meet the EPA's criteria for a USDW.)

Public documents appear to support the contention that some or perhaps all of the proposed disposal wells are actually Class I wells. Page 2-1 of Powertech's UIC permit application describes the EPA's approach to the wells:

"In the meeting held on November 24, 2009, EPA Region 8 instructed Powertech to generally follow Class I standards and approach for this application. As such, the radius of investigation used in this permit request has been based on standard practices applied historically to Class I wells in Region 8. Under Section 146.6 of the UIC regulations (40CFR), the area of review (AOR) for a nonhazardous Class I injection well is defined as either the calculated zone of endangering influence or a fixed radius of not less than one-fourth mile."

The South Dakota Department of Environment and Natural Resources (SDDENR) submitted comments on the application to the EPA on July 2, 2010. The first comment addresses the Class I vs. Class V issue:

"The department understands EPA will require the applicant to construct and monitor these wells as if they are Class I disposal wells. The department concurs with this requirement as long as the injected fluid meets the requirements of the Class V program. As a reminder, Class I and Class IV disposal wells are prohibited in South Dakota under ARSD 74:55:02:02. 74:55:02:02. Class I and IV disposal wells prohibited. No injection through a well which can be defined as Class I or IV is allowed."

Powertech seems to be aware that its chance of obtaining a Class V injection permit is somewhat dicey. In March of this year, the Canadian company submitted an application to the SDDENR for a groundwater discharge permit. The permit would allow Powertech to spray "treated" mine wastewater onto the ground with center pivot irrigation systems. While injection of wastes into deep disposal wells is its "first and preferred alternative", Powertech acknowledges the possibility that the Class V permit may not be approved, and therefore "land application" is its backup plan.

Underground Injection Control Permit Application for Class V Disposal Wells - Dewey-Burdock Uranium Project - Powertech (USA), Inc. - March 2010

Comments on Powertech (USA) Inc. application for a UIC Class V permit for deep disposal wells at the Dewey-Burdock site - Brian Walsh, Hydrology Specialist, Ground Water Quality Program, South Dakota Department of Environment and Natural Resources - July 2, 2010 (PDF 101 KB, 3 pages)

Classes of Wells - Underground Injection Control Program - United States Environmental Protection Agency

74:55:02:02. Class I and IV disposal wells prohibited. - South Dakota Legislature - Administrative Rules

Powertech (USA) Inc.'s Comments on Draft License SUA-1600; Dewey-Burdock Project - Powertech (USA) Inc. - August 10, 2012 (PDF 12,666 KB, 28 pages) Powertech addresses each license condition in the NRC's recently-issued draft materials license for the proposed Dewey-Burdock ISL project. Among the many comments is Powertech's objection to license condition 10.10 requiring Powertech to submit a data package to the NRC prior to operating each new production wellfield. NRC staff must review and verify each data package. The data package must include information on the location of wells, hydrogeologic data, baseline water quality data, and statistical methods used to compute baseline. While Powertech does not object to the submission of such a data package for the first wellfield in each of the Dewey and Burdock areas, the Canadian company thinks subsequent wellfield data packages should only be reviewed by Powertech's own "safety and environmental review panel". This "SERP" could choose to submit a wellfield data package to the NRC "if anomalous conditions are present" or if there is a "potential to impact human health or the environment". When pigs fly...

Links to information on South Dakota water right permit applications submittted by Powertech for Dewey-Burdock

Posted August 12, 2012

The links below are to the website of the South Dakota Department of Environment & Natural Resources:

Powertech (USA) Inc. Applications for Water Right Permits

Flow Chart of Water Rights Permitting

Application and hearing procedure

OVER-PROMISE AND UNDER-DELIVER

Powertech's misleading communications to investors about the Dewey-Burdock ISL uranium project

Posted August 10, 2012

Powertech purchases initial Dewey-Burdock mineral and surface rights	February 21, 2006
Powertech's website describes Dewey-Burdock as an "advanced stage" project	January 2007
Powertech changes website description to "near-term production project"	November 2007
Generally-accepted definition of "near-term" in financial markets	next few months
Time since Dewey-Burdock first described as "near-term production project"	4 years, 8 months
Number of permits for project issued as of August 10, 2012	0
Projected date for Powertech to submit all permit applications	unknown

Nuclear Regulatory Commission increases scope and duration of contract with Southwest Research Institute for preparation of Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement

Budget is increased by $404,840 and performance period is extended through May 13, 2013

Posted August 8, 2012

AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION/MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT - Issued by U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission - Contractor: Southwest Research Institute - July 12, 2012 (PDF 870 KB, 17 pages) Fifteen months after its original contract with SRI was to expire, the NRC has extended the contract to May 2013 and expanded the scope of work to be performed by the private contractor. Most of the additional work is related to the federal Section 106 requirement to consult with Indian tribes to survey traditional cultural properties that may be adversely impacted by Powertech's mining activities. One of the contract's optional tasks is to assist the NRC during any "legal challenge to the evaluations made under NEPA (National Environmental Policy Act)". Based on the history of the Dewey-Burdock project, the NRC and the SRI will have their hands full with this task.

NRC issues draft license for Dewey-Burdock

Agency official says issuance "does not constitute a licensing decision by the NRC"

Posted August 1, 2012

Cover letter from US Nuclear Regulatory Commission to Dick Blubaugh regarding DRAFT MATERIALS LICENSE SUA-1600, POWERTECH (USA), INC, DEWEY-BURDOCK IN SITU RECOVERY FACILITY, FALL RIVER AND CUSTER COUNTIES, SOUTH DAKOTA - July 31, 2012 (PDF 72 KB, 3 pages) According to NRC Project Manager Ron Burrows, the purpose of the draft license is to initiate discussions necessary to finalize other project-related documents, and "does not constitute a licensing decision by the NRC".

Draft Materials License Number SUA-1600 issued to Powertech (USA) Inc. for the Dewey-Burdock Project (Docket Number 40-9075) - U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission - Undated (PDF 650 KB, 15 pages)

News release - "POWERTECH RECEIVES DRAFT URANIUM RECOVERY LICENSE FROM NRC" - Powertech Uranium Corp. - August 1, 2012 (PDF 205 KB, 3 pages) Powertech CEO Dick Clement incorrectly asserts that the NRC has "completed its review of many volumes of technical data" and has made a "significant decision" by issuing the draft license. The NRC staff's review of Powertech's application continues, and the draft license is only a preliminary step in the licensing process.

Dewey-Burdock Project Report to Accompany Inyan Kara Water Right Permit Application Custer and Fall River Counties, South Dakota - Prepared for: South Dakota Department of Environment and Natural Resources Water Rights Program - Powertech (USA), Inc. - June 2012 (PDF 9,025 KB, 67 pages) Powertech has applied for a water rights permit to pump 13,711 acre-feet (4.5 billion gallons) per year using up to 1,000 wells located in the Dewey-Burdock mining area. As much as 274 acre-feet of this water, or 89 million gallons per year, would be permanently removed from the Inyan Kara aquifer. The rest would be recirculated through the aquifer to extract uranium. (Note on file size: This PDF file was downloaded from the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission's ADAMS site. The original file submitted by Powertech and posted by the NRC was nearly 33 megabytes. As Powertech officials surely realize, many people in South Dakota and elsewhere are unable to download or transfer a file this large. To facilitate distribution, I have reduced the file size to 9 megabytes. If anyone cannot download this smaller file, please contact me at jbw@frii.com and I will break up the report into multiple files. JW)

Some initial observations on Powertech's revised Preliminary Economic Assessment of the Dewey-Burdock project

Posted April 21, 2012

Powertech released its revised Preliminary Economic Assessment of the Dewey-Burdock ISL uranium project on April 19, 2012. Running short on cash, and not issuing a news release since July 5, 2011, Powertech is undoubtedly grasping for any good news it can find. The news release on the revised PEA sounds good, but a close reading of the report raises questions:

- Why did Powertech omit the effect of income tax in its calculation of expected cash flows from the project? Corporate income tax would lower the net present value and internal rate of return of the project, thus making it less attractive economically. Why was income tax excluded, and why was this not disclosed in the news release?

- Total recovery of uranium from the mineral deposits is projected at 75%, based on "similar existing operations in Powertech's experience profile". Since Powertech has never operated a uranium mine, what is its "experience profile"? If this means ISL mines operated by other companies that Powertech staff previously worked for, why aren't the mines listed with their respective recovery rates?

- Why does Powertech assume it can sell uranium for $65 a pound when the current long term price is about $60 and the spot price is $51.25?

- Why did Powertech assert that all South Dakota mining permits "are in the advanced stage" when the company has not even submitted an application for a Large Scale Mine Permit to the South Dakota Department of Environment & Natural Resources?

- Why did Powertech fail to disclose the opposition to the project, including the granting by the Atomic Safety & Licensing Board of hearing requests by the "Consolidated Intervenors" and the Oglala Sioux Tribe? The evidentiary hearings would be conducted after the issuance of the Safety Evaluation Report and the Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement.

NI 43-101 Technical Report Preliminary Economic Assessment Dewey-Burdock Project - Report Prepared for: Powertech Uranium Corp. Report Prepared by SRK Consulting (U.S.), Inc. - April 17, 2012 (PDF 3,197 KB, 129 pages)

News Release - REVISED PEA SHOWS NPV OF US $109 MILLION AND IRR OF 48% FOR DEWEY-BURDOCK PROJECT. COMPANY UPDATES PERMITTING SCHEDULE - Powertech Uranium Corp. - April 19, 2012 (PDF 33 KB, 3 pages)

NUMERICAL MODELING OF HYDROGEOLOGIC CONDITIONS - POWERTECH DEWEY-BURDOCK PROJECT FALL RIVER AND CUSTER COUNTIES, SD - February 2012 - Petrotek Engineering Corporation (PDF 7,006 KB, 125 pages)

NRC to hold Tribal Consultation meeting in Rapid City on February 14-15

Posted February 9, 2012, Updated February 12, 2012

NRC staff and Powertech contractor SRI Foundation (SRIF) have scheduled a meeting in Rapid City, South Dakota to discuss the proposed Dewey-Burdock uranium project with tribal representatives. The meeting is a continuation of the Section 106 tribal consultation process required by federal law.

Two other uranium projects in Nebraska proposed by Cameco Resources will also be discussed at the meeting.

On January 19, NRC Project Managers Nathan Goodman and Haimanot Yilma sent invitations to Tribal Historic Preservation Officers from several tribes in South Dakota and neighboring states. Many of the tribes have an interest in protecting places of religious and cultural significance that may be affected by the projects.

SRIF was hired last year by Powertech and Cameco to manage the tribal consultation process and to work with NRC staff on Dewey-Burdock as well as Cameco's Crow Butte North Trend project and the Crow Butte license renewal project.

Prior to retaining SRIF, Powertech's efforts to comply with Section 106 were floundering. SRIF caters to the mining industry and claims that "Our company is in business to keep projects moving and keep our clients on schedule."

From November 4 through January 4, SRIF Program Manager Martha Graham attempted to communicate with the approximately 20 tribes identified as likely to be interested in potential impacts from Dewey-Burdock and the Crow Butte projects.

It is expected that a major topic of discussion at the meeting will be how to conduct surveys of the affected areas to identify places of religious and cultural significance, and who will participate in the surveys.

The meeting is not open to the public, pursuant to the National Historic Preservation Act.

Email from NRC Project Managers Nathan Goodman and Haimanot Yilma to Tribal Historic Preservation Officers regarding February 14-15 Tribal Consultation meeting in Rapid City - January 19, 2012 (PDF 138 KB, 3 pages)

Email from SRI Foundation Program Manager Martha Graham to Tribal Historic Preservation Officers regarding February 14-15 Tribal Consultation meeting in Rapid City - January 10, 2012 (PDF 81 KB, 4 pages)

Letter to Tribal Historic Preservation Officers inviting them to a government-to-government consultation on February 14-15 to discuss the Dewey-Burdock project, the Crow Butte North Trend project, and the Crow Butte license renewal project - Kevin Hseuh, Branch Chief, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission - January 19, 2012 (PDF 184 KB, 2 pages)

Proposed Agenda for the February 14-15, 2012 Meeting on the Dewey-Burdock and Crow Butte Projects (PDF 48 KB, 3 pages)

Attendees for the February 14-15, 2012 Meeting on the Dewey-Burdock and Crow Buttte Projects (PDF 40 KB, 1 page)

Email from SRI Foundation Program Manager Martha Graham to NRC, Powertech, and Cameco staff including summary of communications with tribes between 11/4/2011 and 1/4/2012 - January 6, 2012 (PDF 177 KB, 17 pages)

WE ARE THE LAND, Uranium Mining in the Black Hills - Documentary film from Christopher Crosby, produced by PK Productions LLC and the Institute of Range and the American Mustang

TESTIMONY BEFORE THE SOUTH DAKOTA HOUSE STATE AFFAIRS COMMITTEE:

"We were indeed lied to, deceived, and manipulated in various ways..."

Representative Patricia Stricherz

"I'm truly offended that somebody would suggest that we lied to you..."

Larry Mann, lead lobbyist for Powertech

Audio of February 1, 2012 committee hearing

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

"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 Hsueh responded on September 9 to a letter from the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe that was critical of an earlier letter from Hsueh 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 Hsueh's suggestion that Powertech could hire an archaeologist to identify and evaluate potential TCPs without including site visits by tribal representatives.

Hsueh'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."

Hsueh 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." Hsueh does not mention whether the NRC plans to include other tribal representatives with special expertise in identifying and evaluating TCPs.

Significantly, Hsueh 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 Hsueh, 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.

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 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.

MORE DEWEY-BURDOCK PROJECT DOCUMENTS