Robot42,
Thank you for seeing this.
If WU shareholders wanted to be helpful, they would email that lady and tell her that ablation is mining and not milling, and therefore is covered under already existing mining laws of Colorado. So no new laws or source materials license is required.
[email protected]
i have emailed her to tell her that ablation does not need more oversight or regulations as there are enough regulations in mining and water already in law that Glasier needs to adhere to. What a waste of colorado taxpayer money.
The irony of the situation is ablation leaves clean sand behind while taking away the uranium, making the host a 'cleaner' site while the tailing pond at the white mesa mill would have less material to receive. And i would have thought the environmentalists would be all for ablation, especially on the cleaning up of those historical uranium stock piles from many decades ago scattered around the four corners region.
Cait
- Forums
- ASX - By Stock
- County readying comments on uranium ablation
Robot42, Thank you for seeing this. If WU shareholders wanted to...
-
- There are more pages in this discussion • 24 more messages in this thread...
You’re viewing a single post only. To view the entire thread just sign in or Join Now (FREE)
Featured News
STX
Strike hands $48.5M contract to Clarke Energy to produce 20x 4.5MW gas engines for Sth Erregulla
GML
Gateway Mining sells WA Eastern Montague gold project to Brightstar for $14M – half of that in shares