Excelsior Mining Corp (EXMGF)

[Revello]

You're probably right about the effect being negligible. There may be some increased performance bond premium costs that factor in, but again, I think those would have minimal effect on the all-in-cost.

Little disconcerting, though, the hushed unsuccessful attempt by Excelsior Mining to seek a belated amendment to the ADEQ APP permit to try to qualify as an innocent land purchaser to avoid the added environmental cleanup costs that should have been the prior owner's responsibility. I saw the proposed ADEQ notice of the amendment application, but never heard/saw the final result of the belated amendment attempt. I assume with the additional asset restoration costs in the just released interim financial report, the attempt failed. Oh well.


fyi - The only sticky appeal issue raised by the appellants is the argument that EPA Region 9 should have analyzed, in the administrative record, the cumulative effects of the ISR and Johnson Camp activities. They referred to a cumulative effects analysis that EPA Region 8 did for the Dewey-Burdock uranium ISR UIC area permit in South Dakota -- EPA Region 8 published a formal 151 page cumulative effects analysis, most likely due to the tsunami of comments/voiced concerns about that project (I think there were over 1500 pages of comments on that area permit). Plus, the NRC had already conducted a NEPA EIS, so EPA Region 8 probably just used a lot of cumulative effects analysis that the NRC did as part of its licensing.

EPA Region 9 correctly pointed out that it didn't have to do a formal cumulative effects analysis like EPA Region 8 did. 40 CFR 144.33(c) is the regulatory requirement for cumulative effects consideration in an area UIC permit:

40 CFR 144.33(c)

"(c) The area permit may authorize the permittee to construct and operate, convert, or plug and abandon wells within the permit area provided:

* * *
(3) The cumulative effects of drilling and operation of additional injection wells are considered by the Director during evaluation of the area permit application and are acceptable to the Director."

So, what cumulative effects are the appellants contending EPA Region 9 didn't adequately consider? I think they're saying that the Wilcox Basin groundwater level is diminishing on a regional level due to regional use by others and other factors beyond Excelsior Mining's control, and that the expected extraction of groundwater from the Gunnison ISR project may have some incremental effect on the quantity (not quality) of groundwater which EPA Region 9 should have taken a closer look at. That "look" by EPA Region 9 should have been addressed somewhere in the administrative record, which the appellants contend Region 9 didn't.

That issue (cumulative effects analysis regarding groundwater extraction/level) is going to be the one that gets looked at the hardest by the Environmental Appeals Board and, I think, EPA regional counsel and Excelsior's counsel. Hopefully, the modelling data and something in the public hearing transcript or other document in the admin record adequately addresses the groundwater quantity issue.

If you want to see the draft cumulative effects analysis that EPA Region 8 did for the Dewey-Burdock uranium ISR project, see info at URL below:

https://www.epa.gov/uic/additional-administrative-record-documents