they are watching!!

Please be aware that the NGO's, environmentalists and any other interested "group", including anti mining individuals glean invaluable information to further their cause from posters on HotCopper.
Such a shame, individuals posting and sharing excellent research, correspondence with management, personal opinions and such........just to have it gleaned by the very people who wish to stop the progress of the company that you have invested your hard earned in.
In essence you have other HC members working against your best interests, perhaps the Mods could determine through IP addresses who they are and give them the flick.


http://pbadupws.nrc.gov/docs/ML1326/ML13269A265.pdf
Garrett, Betty

From: Jennifer Thurston Sent: Tuesday, September 24, 2013 5:07 PM

To: Mandeville, Douglas Cc: VonTill, Bill

Subject: Ablation Technologies
Attachments: Au-Wire interview with Molyneux.doc; ATT00001.htm; Hot Copper Aug 21 2013.doc;

ATT00002.htm; Hot Copper Sept 12 2013.doc; ATT00003.htm

Hello Doug,

Thanks again for talking to me on Friday about the impact ablation issues in Wyoming. I have attached four documents from my files for your interest.

The first is a July 24, 2013, interview with Azarga investor Alex Molyneux, in which he discusses the development of the impact ablation test unit in Casper and testing of ore samples.

The next two are investor posts from Hot Copper. You have to register for this site to read the posts, so I cut and pasted the copy into a Word document. The Aug 21 post discusses the processing of ore through the 0.5 tph pilot ablation unit. The Sept 12 post discusses the September visit by a group of investors to see a sample run of the "semi-commerical" 5 tph ablation unit, the presence of the October ore pile and imminent plans to process it in Casper.

The fourth is the Sept 17 update from Black Range Minerals, announcing that processing of bulk samples of the October ore in the commercial unit will begin "next week," additional mentions that ore processing in the test unit occurred with a 90 percent recovery rate, and a reference to the company's expectations that the permitting time for mining (not milling) will be reduced.

I look forward to hearing from you again about what steps NRC will take to decipher this situation.

Thanks,

Jennifer Thurston
Information Network for Responsible Mining Cell: 212-473-7717
Email: iennifer~inforncolorado.org
Web: www.informcolorado.org
Twitter: https://twitter.com/INFORMinin_



Below is a document in which NRC state that a Source Material License will be required, if that is the case a letter of intent is the first step. About three and a half years would be the best case scenario to obtain the SML.

http://pbadupws.nrc.gov/docs/ML1322/ML13227A070.pdf

In your letter, you quote Mr. Tarlton as stating with regard to the ablation process, "the proposed process, if implemented as we now understand it, would result in the possession of source material and would, therefore, require a source material radioactive material license at a minimum."

Based on the above statement, the Tallahassee Area Community (TAC) states, "TAC understands that to mean that both the waste rock (approximately 90 percent of the total volume recovered from the underground cavern) and the process water is 11 e.(2) byproduct and must be handled as uranium mill tailings and be subject to the requirements of Appendix A (essentially the same in both Colorado and Federal radiation control regulations)."

The TAC requested the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) staff to comment on their interpretation.

Response:

After review of the ablation process, it appears that the proposed surface ablation processing is an ore grinding or refining process that is subject to source material

licensing under 10 CFR Part 40 (or Agreement State equivalent regulations). A source material license is required because the ablation process physically changes the ore.

Historically, the NRC has required source material licenses for ore buying, ore sorting, and mine water ion exchange (IX)(for uranium) facilities and has not treated them as uranium milling facilities. The first two types of facilities would have ore crushers and sometimes ore sorters which separated the ores after crushing to sizes approximately 2 inches or less into separate ore piles based on the uranium concentration. The third type (IXfacilities) is considered as a secondary recovery facility and the source material loaded on the IXis the licensed material, not the mine water.

As stated above, the ablation process would, at a minimum, be required to have a source material license. The NRC is also evaluating whether the application of this process to uranium recovery should be licensed as uranium milling.

This determination coincides and supports Mr. Tarlton's statement