Understanding the SK uranium/nuclear scenario

[Oscar]

Understanding the SK uranium/nuclear scenario - Background/Chronology

From: Sandra Finley
Sent: Sunday, November 29, 2009 4:33 PM

CONTENTS

Nuclear/uranium.

People will not appreciate the seriousness of the situation if the interconnections are not understood.

The information in this series of emails, from the public record (not my imaginings), shows:

- the intention for radioactive waste disposal from a number of countries IN ONE PLACE

- the cooperation between Brad Wall (Premier of Saskatchewan), Stephen Harper (Prime Minister of Canada) and the University of Saskatchewan (Richard Florizone, Karen Chad, etc.) to make Saskatchewan the nuclear centre of Canada

- the co-opting and “Selling Out” of the University of Saskatchewan to serve the interests of the nuclear/uranium industry

- what is happening in Saskatchewan and in Alberta is the plan of the corporate “energy” interests of the transnational American corporations.

- that this is the “SPP” agenda enacted

- the Government of Canada nor the Government of Saskatchewan (or Alberta) have a mandate for what they are doing. Nor does the University of Saskatchewan have a mandate.

- what is being done is in spite of citizen protest in various provinces right across the country

- we, the citizens of Canada, are the ones putting up the money and losing our sovereignty. The money is diverted through the Government and through the University of Saskatchewan to serve the corporate interest. The industry is also funded if they can privatize and control “electricity”. We will pay the huge costs of radioactive waste disposal, high power transmission lines, expensive electricity on our power bills, extravagant salaries, shareholder "profits", poisoning of the environment and nuclear weapons. (The Government, the University and our Utility bills are the industry's only access to our wallets.)

- it doesn’t matter where it’s happening in Canada, it is a matter for us all

From our past work:

As with GMO’s, on the Nuclear/uranium issue there is no debate or decision made in Parliament. In effect there is no democracy. (On November 29, 2009, “Prime Minister Stephen Harper of Canada signs a nuclear co-operation agreement with Indian Prime Minister Manmohan as way to trade uranium and nuclear technology with India”.)

As with GMO's, as with Nuclear/uranium, the last two emails alert us to the undermining of Governance and the University of Saskatchewan, our knowledge base and science, by the extremely corrupt pharmaceutical corporations:

- November 19th email (“H1N1 (or nukes or gmo's or energy) in the context of "Selling Out": the larger issue.”)

- November 28th email (“URGENT Petition regarding Pfizer appointment to the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR”))

The information assembled in the following series of emails clearly demonstrates that the nuclear/uranium story is only another extension of the imposition of this same corporatist/fascist model of governance.

. . . Please, we are FREE people, IF WE CHOOSE TO BE. We are in the process of giving up everything that previous generations of Canadians have worked hard and long to establish, in some instances at great personal sacrifice.

We must break out of illusionary constraints. The information that follows, which is the product of our working together, must be forwarded to people you would not normally forward it to, whoever they might be.

People cannot act if they don’t have information. LARGE numbers of informed people is the only way to overcome Stephen Harper and Brad Wall. It is the only way to convince Richard Florizone and Karen Chad (Canadian Nuclear Studies Centre at the University of Saskatchewan) that they are dupes for a larger agenda. Consider this a gift to them, that they may not become quislings.

= = = = = = = = = = = = = =

CONTENTS OF THE FOLLOWING SERIES OF EMAILS

(1) NOVEMBER 30TH DECISION BY EXPERT REVIEW PANEL IS ABOUT GOVERNMENT FUNDING FOR THE NUCLEAR/URANIUM INDUSTRY. IT IS NOT ABOUT “MEDICAL ISOTOPES”.

(2) FIT THE PIECES TOGETHER. EQUATIONS.

(3) BEFORE GETTING INTO THE DISCUSSION, UNDERSTAND “SMALL REACTORS”

(4) REMEMBER THE KILLING OF THE NORTH, IT IS PART OF THE CONTEXT

(5) BRUCE POWER’S ROLE SPELLED OUT

(6) CHRONOLOGY (CONTEXT) FOR UNDERSTANDING HOW MORE MONEY WILL BE TRANSFERRED FROM THE GOVERNMENT TO THE NUCLEAR / URANIUM INDUSTRY. THE UNIVERSITY IS THE MIDDLE MAN.

(7) BRAD WALL SAYS HE HAS BIG PLANS FOR NUCLEAR POWER IN SASKATCHEWAN, MARCH 2008

(8) “NUCLEAR STUDIES CENTRE ALREADY UNDER DEVELOPMENT”, ON CAMPUS NEWS, JULY 17, 2009

(9) IDAHO NATIONAL LABORATORY (TOP AMERICAN LABORATORY FOR NUCLEAR RESEARCH) AND ALBERTA “MARRIAGE MADE IN HEAVEN”, ENERGY DEPENDENCY, EDMONTON JOURNAL, MARCH 2008

(10) SASKATCHEWAN SIGNS CO-OPERATION AGREEMENT WITH IDAHO NATIONAL LABORATORY, MARCH 17, 2009

(11) July 9, 2009 REACTOR PARTNERSHIP REACHED: GOVT, U OF S TO PURSUE (NOT)-MEDICAL ISOTOPE PRODUCTION

(12) GOVERNMENT OF CANADA ANNOUNCES EXPERT REVIEW PANEL MEMBERS AND CALL FOR EXPRESSIONS OF INTEREST

(13) THOM MASON, DIRECTOR OF OAKRIDGE NATIONAL LABORATORY IN TENNESSEE (U.S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY) IS ON THE "EXPERT" PANEL TO DECIDE ALLOCATION OF CANADIAN MONEY FOR (NOT)-ISOTOPE PRODUCTION.

(14) SASKATCHEWAN SUBMITS NUCLEAR REACTOR PROPOSAL TO OTTAWA, TARGETS 2016 ONLINE DATE.

(15) FIRST TIME EVER, UNIVERSITY PRESIDENTS JOIN GOVERNMENT AND CORPORATE LEADERS, CANADA – U.S.

(16) CANADA – U.S. WESTERN ENERGY CORRIDOR

(17) NUKE INDUSTRY, HOG INDUSTRY, HO HUM SAME STORY. BUT WE CAN ASSERT A DIFFERENT ENDING THIS TIME.

(18) THE CELLIST OF SARAJEVO
= = = = = = = = = = == =

(1) NOVEMBER 30TH DECISION BY EXPERT REVIEW PANEL IS ABOUT GOVERNMENT FUNDING FOR THE NUCLEAR/URANIUM INDUSTRY. IT IS NOT ABOUT “MEDICAL ISOTOPES”.

The decision from the Expert Review Panel (scheduled for Monday November 30, 2009) to determine who will receive our tax dollars is understood IN CONTEXT. It is not about radioactive isotope production for our health and prosperity.

The Federal Government puts up money for medical isotope production.

In this example, the University jointly with the Government of Saskatchewan (Crown Investments Corporation) applies for the money.

Wall spelled out in March 2008 (see item #7 in another email):

“Premier Brad Wall said Thursday he envisions an ambitious project involving the federal government, SaskPower and one of the uranium companies located in the province that would see Saskatchewan playing a lead role in the research and development of nuclear power.

Speaking to reporters, Wall said he had a lengthy discussion with Stephen Harper when the prime minister was in Saskatchewan this week about a federal investment in the province involving the nuclear industry.

The premier said it's linked to the Conservative government's recent budget commitment of $300 million to the federal Crown Corporation Atomic Energy Canada Ltd., in part for its development of the next generation Canadian nuclear reactor.

"What we've simply said to the federal government is that if they're looking to develop a new generation of reactor technology and are prepared to invest in that as a federal government, perhaps there is a P3 (public-private partnership) opportunity here between two levels of government. We have a Crown-owned electrical utility, the federal government and uranium companies that might be interested that are located here," said Wall.”
- - - -

It’s a concern for all Canadians because you (we) are the enablers, the funders. We will be funding more than an “isotope” project and will continue paying in more than one way. Do you want to do that? Make a conscious decision because it’s critical to our longterm well-being.

Piece together the information in the public record. In this radioactive isotopes example we need to understand how things COULD come together, if we don’t connect to broaden our community. You will see from the CHRONOLOGY in the next email that the issue is no small matter.

The evidence in the public record on the nuclear/uranium question is pretty clear. Here in Saskatchewan it is nothing more than a replay of the hog barns. Or a replay of Canada selling asbestos to third world countries when we’re spending a fortune pulling it out of buildings here because of its known health hazards. (Stephen Harper selling reactors and the building blocks for nuclear bombs to India, etc.)

There is betrayal of us by some people at the University and by some officials in Government. No!

It is betrayal of ourselves by ourselves. For can you tell me one thing that prevents us from reading, from reflecting, from understanding, from talking with each other, from small actions to make it right, as simple as talking and sharing information with other people?

It is our choice to be victimized or not to be victims. It takes effort, hard work not to play the victim role.

So here we go again with the nuclear industry.

= = = = = = = = = = == = = = = =

(2) FIT THE PIECES TOGETHER. EQUATIONS.

The “pieces” that create the larger picture of what is happening are in the chronology. The public record from which “the pieces” are taken follows the chronology.

If you read the Government’s UDP (Uranium Development Partnership) plan, you find a set of operations.

If you read about the University of Saskatchewan’s Canadian Nuclear Studies Centre, you find a set of operations.

The UDP plan and the Canadian Nuclear Studies Centre happen to have the same set of operations, expressed as:

Nuclear power production + radioactive waste disposal + exploration and mining = Nuclear power production + radioactive waste disposal + exploration and mining

Which reduces to: Govt UDP plan = U of S Nuclear Studies Centre

All of which, of course, is equal to the Nuclear/uranium corporations’ plans, so we have:

Government = University = Nuclear/uranium Corporate plans

The Government Uranium Development Partnership (UDP) Panel recommended that Saskatchewan develop nuclear power and create a nuclear waste dump. The Report says: "the economics of a stand-alone isotope reactor are not attractive"

Equation for this: radioactive isotopes = zero

A reactor to do research and development that "is synergetic" with the larger nuclear expansion plan "may also be used to produce medical isotopes...to partly offset the cost of developing and operating the reactor."

It suggests this "could justify further funding from federal authorities."

(radioactive isotopes = red herring ??)

The University and the Government of Saskatchewan applied for federal funding under a call for interest by the Federal Government. This was after Brad Wall and Stephen Harper had a lengthy discussion.

The equation becomes:

Federal Govt = Govt of Sask UDP plan = U of S Nuclear Studies Centre = Nuclear/uranium Corporate plans

The Federal Govt call for interest, as presented, is in the PRODUCTION OF RADIOACTIVE ISOTOPES.

But the application from the University and the Government of Sask is:

“recommending establishing a national nuclear studies centre of excellence at the university. .. will include building a nuclear research reactor for both isotope production and neutron science.” “Targets 2016 for reactor to be online”

The equation for this would be:
Radio isotopes IS NOT EQUAL TO radio isotopes because they really are zero or insignificant.

So, to maintain the equation, subtract radio isotopes from both sides:

Federal Money (minus radio isotopes) = U of S Nuclear Studies Centre = Radio isotopes + Nuclear power production + radioactive waste disposal + exploration and mining (minus radio isotopes) which reduces to:

Federal Money = U of S Nuclear Studies Centre = Nuclear/uranium Corporate interest. Let's just cut the B.S.

The Nuclear/uranium corporations’ plans are being put into operation through the University, with no regard to the emphatic “no” stated through the public consultation process.

We’re paying for it, and in ways that most tax-payers don’t know about. (See Howard Woodhouse’s “Selling Out, Academic Freedom and the Corporate Market”, page 165, for the amount of Canadian tax-payers’ money that goes into the corporate coffers through the University. Corporate donations to the University are paltry in comparison; it is a cheap selling off of the public interest at the University to corporate, privatized profits.)

So the University and the Government of Saskatchewan (through the Crown Investments Corporation - - oh oh! another whiff of hogs) applied to get a whack of Federal Government money. The decision of the Expert Panel that decides the appropriation of the money is to be known on November 30th.

There are numerous other equations. They add in the U.S. Department of Energy and their “National Laboratories” with focus on nuclear energy and its soulmate tar sands.

You will see the actualized “integration” (takeover), the “SPP” agenda, in the following information. As pointed out, it is information from the public record, nothing I have imagined.

In the meantime, the Salesmen for the Industry, Stephen Harper and Brad Wall, are off selling - Harper in India and Wall in Washington as you will see.

= = = = = = = = = = == = = = = =

(3) BEFORE GETTING INTO THE DISCUSSION, UNDERSTAND “SMALL REACTORS”

Toshiba (Japan) in conjunction with Westinghouse is developing “small” nuclear reactor technology.

Hyperion is a U.S. corporation that is doing the same thing. By googling “small reactors”, you will see mining companies’ (including uranium and tar sands) interest in “small” nuclear reactors and the progress of the nuclear industry in getting them licensed. The following article makes clear the need of the oil and gas corporations for small reactors in the tar sands. “It was really created .. for the tar sands.”

When Brad Wall talks about “small research reactors”, I believe he is talking about “research in small reactors”. There is a difference. When the University and the Government (through Crown Investments Corporation) make an application to Stephen Harper (August 2009) for a small reactor that is to be online by 2016, common sense tells me that they can’t develop a small reactor by 2016. They will be importing and modifying the Hyperion small reactor (see the following news article).

The agreements of both the Governments of Alberta and Saskatchewan with the Idaho National Laboratory (a nuclear laboratory), “the marriage made in heaven”, the inclusion of the Director of the Oak Ridge National Laboratory in Tennessee in the decision on Canadian Federal Government funding that is due November 30th are important to understanding the bigger picture. The national laboratories are part of the U.S. Department of Energy. More on those agreements later.

THE NEWS ARTICLE ON "SMALL REACTORS":
http://www.thestar.com/Business/article/561553
Jan 5, 2009, EXCERPT:

Hyperion Power Generation Inc. has developed a garden shed-sized nuclear reactor . . .

Hyperion, which calls its reactor a "nuclear battery," licensed the technology from the Los Alamos National Laboratory in New Mexico. It plans to sell the reactor for about $30 million (U.S.) and says there's potential to sell 4,000 of them around the world by 2025. . . .

The idea is that oil-sands developers, which rely heavily on electricity and steam to mine and upgrade bitumen, could purchase and operate their own Hyperion nuclear reactors as a way to virtually eliminate their controversial dependence on natural gas – that is, the use of a relatively "clean" fossil fuel as a way to extract and process one of the dirtiest fossil fuels.

"It was really created for the Alberta (INSERT: and Saskatchewan) tar sands... we have strong interest there," says Deborah Blackwell, vice-president of licensing and public affairs at Hyperion. “

= = = = = = = = = = == = = = = =

(4) REMEMBER THE KILLING OF THE NORTH, IT IS PART OF THE CONTEXT

The nuclear reactors (whether at the University of Saskatchewan or elsewhere in Alberta) are for tar sands expansion and privatization of electricity.

We pay the big costs: the acidification (slow death) of northern Saskatchewan from acid rain (sulphur dioxide and nitrous oxide from tar sands), the high power transmission lines that will take a portion of the electricity to lucrative markets in the western U.S. where hydro-electric capability has a 50/50 chance of being gone by 2017 because the water resource in the Colorado River is being depleted without conscience.

They run around the globe exploiting other people’s water supplies, clean air and natural resources. They leave when the destruction is complete. That is well documented and also part of the context in which this Federal money for “isotope reactors” falls.

We just happen to be next in line.

To understand what is happening in Canada (the "petro-state" or appropriation of resources) (not bombs as in Iraq), it would be very helpful to re-introduce the word “quisling” into our vocabulary.

= = = = = = = = = = == = == = = =

(5) BRUCE POWER’S ROLE SPELLED OUT

This is part of the "how" and knowing the actors.

(From item #7, “BRAD WALL SAYS HE HAS BIG PLANS FOR NUCLEAR POWER IN SASKATCHEWAN, MARCH 2008”)

“ . . . Cameco spokesman Lyle Krahn said the company is expanding its operations in uranium refining and enrichment.
However, the company's involvement with nuclear generation is through Bruce Power, a consortium in which it is a partner. Bruce Power uses AECL's Candu technology for its reactors.
"The premier is certainly supportive of our industry and he's looking for opportunities," said Krahn when told of Wall's comments.
"From our perspective ... we would use Bruce Power as the vehicle for investment in nuclear power generation in Canada."

= = = = = = = = = = = = = == =

6) CHRONOLOGY FOR UNDERSTANDING EXPERT REVIEW PANEL DECISION ON FEDERAL FUNDING FOR ISOTOPE PRODUCTION AND UNIVERSITY OF SASKATCHEWAN'S PROPOSAL FOR A SMALL NUCLEAR REACTOR FOR CANADIAN DEMOCRACY AND TAX-PAYERS PUSH FOR NUCLEAR/URANIUM AGENDA REVEALED:

• 1974, India broke the International Nuclear Non-Proliferation treaty by building & testing a nuclear bomb made using Canadian nuclear technology.

• 1976, Eldorado Nuclear planned to build a uranium refinery near Warman, SK. The NDP Government of the day wanted to "add value" to the uranium resource by refining milled yellow-cake into fuel for nuclear reactors. Citizen opposition coalesced.

• In 1980, Premier Bill Bennett bowed to public pressure and introduced a seven-year moratorium on uranium mining and exploration in B.C. The moratorium remains in place.

• In 1981, after 5 years of intense citizen efforts (more than 500 people) Eldorado announced it was withdrawing its bid to build a refinery in Saskatchewan.

• In 1981 Nova Scotia placed a moratorium on uranium mining. (See Oct 2009, the N.S. moratorium becomes entrenched in law.)

• 1987, Manitoba passed a law to prohibit high level radioactive waste disposal in its territory.

• November 2007, Saskatchewan Party (conservative) elected. Nuclear/uranium agenda not in its platform.

• March 2008, Alberta signs agreement with Idaho National Laboratory, the U.S. Department of Energy's leading institution for nuclear energy research. "Marriage made in heaven".

http://www2.canada.com/edmontonjournal/news/
cityplus/story.html?id=1556f1f1-24a3-4276-945d-1d60a965b153&p=1

• March 2008, Saskatchewan Premier Brad Wall in Washington “promoting the province as a secure source of energy, including oil, gas, uranium and, potentially, oilsands”.

• March 28, 2008. Leader Post reports on Brad Wall’s "big plans" for nuclear power in Saskatchewan, following “lengthy discussion” he had with Stephen Harper.

http://www.canada.com/reginaleaderpost/news/
story.html?id=eb5b2b4d-77d3-41d1-b060-18c6c9ca9c44

• July 04 2008. “New Brunswick introduces new regulations on uranium mining”

GOVERNMENT TRIES TO MUTE CALLS FOR A MORATORIUM

The Telegraph-Journal reports, " In an effort to mute calls for a moratorium on uranium exploration, the government announced in May much tighter regulations that included returning all radioactive materials to drill holes sealed with a clay-like substance called bentonite; testing water wells within 500 metres of a drill site before and after work is done; and keeping liquid waste from drilling operations a safe distance from wetlands. But that failed to quell the public uproar. Recent information sessions with concerned landowners in Fredericton and Moncton turned into boisterous protests, with citizens railing passionately against uranium exploration."

• Nov 5, 2008 Obama elected President of the U.S.

• Feb 27, 2009 “Work on disposing of radioactive waste at Yucca Mountain (Nevada) has all but stopped after President Barack Obama's budget blueprint. The move remains in line with Obama's pre-election statements that Yucca Mountain was "not an option." America must now set a new course for long-term management of high-level radioactive waste, "Obama's position on the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership (GNEP), which would see a community of countries share nuclear power technology with leading nations storing all the high-level waste from the entire group…

“Modern long-term strategies usually involve a step-wise reversible process that starts with an invitation to communities nationwide to express interest.”

(Precisely the process that is being used by the Nuclear Waste Management Organization (NWMO) in Canada. Saskatchewan is a targeted site. The NWMO met in Saskatoon in Sept – see the chronology. And will be here again in December 7, 8, 9 - see chronology.)

• March 2009, the Government of Saskatchewan Uranium Development Partnership (UDP) Panel chaired by Richard Florizone, Vice-President of the University, recommended that Saskatchewan develop nuclear power, create a nuclear waste dump and a studies centre of excellence at the University of Saskatchewan. With respect to radioactive isotopes it said:
"the economics of a stand-alone isotope reactor are not attractive" - a reactor to do research and development that "is synergetic" with the larger nuclear expansion plan "may also be used to produce medical isotopes...to partly offset the cost of developing and operating the reactor."

It suggests this "could justify further funding from federal authorities."

• March 17, 2009 Energy and Resources Minister Bill Boyd and Enterprise and Innovation Minister Lyle Stewart signed a Memorandum of Understanding between the government and Idaho National Laboratory (INL), a U.S. Department of Energy institution that is considered that country's top national laboratory for nuclear energy research.

• April 2009, “Experts examining Areva's cash situation just days before its accounts are published show that it is "staring down the barrel of business failure" with a 3 billion Euro bail-out request from the French Government. Overrun costs of its reactor build in Finland have left the project facing a 5.4 billion Euro bill including an invoice to Areva of 2.4 billion Euros in penalties for lateness amounting to over three years. Embarrasingly for Areva, German engineering partner Siemans recently walked away from the project.

• Meanwhile in Saskatchewan, growing public concern about UDP industry-one-sidedness left the Sask Party government with no political alternative but to undertake a “public consultation process”

• May 2009 Public Consultations began. Dan Perrins conducted the consultations. 2,637 people in total attended thirteen public meetings. 1,275 written submissions and 61 stakeholder groups presented, 2,263 responses in total.

• 84% of the submissions were opposed to nuclear power, in spite of a letter-writing campaign by the nuclear industry and the Chamber of Commerce.

• Energy and Resources Minister Bill Boyd called it “the broadest and most transparent public debate on uranium development ever undertaken in Saskatchewan”.

• June 15, “Spearheaded by Saskatchewan Premier Brad Wall and Montana Governor Brian Schweitzer“ “hailed their push to develop a cross-border (Canada – U.S.) Western Energy Corridor that will be the largest on the planet and one that develops both non-renewable (tar sands) and clean-energy (nuclear) options.”

This news report was in the middle of the “public consultations”, on the same day as approximately 800 people turned out to the Saskatoon meeting. The Travelodge had to extend the meeting room which filled to standing room only. Some people did not attend because parking was not to be found.

• June 2009, Point le Preau nuclear reactor in New Brunswick – “The $1.4-billion refurbishment of the Point Lepreau nuclear plant has fallen behind schedule. . . That delay will cost NB Power an estimated $70 million to $90 million. Ottawa gives $200 million in extra funding to AECL. "This amounts to more subsidies to a nuclear white elephant”. (Around the time of this news article, James Risdon in New Brunswick started “Say NO to Nuclear Waste in N.B.! “ – on The Petition Site.”)

• June 19, Federal Government announces four Expert Review Panel Members and call for expressions of interest in isotope production.

http://www.nrcan-rncan.gc.ca/media/newc ... 62-eng.php

Thom Mason, Director of the Oak Ridge National Laboratory in Tennessee, part of the U.S. Department of Energy is a panel member.

http://www.ornl.gov/ornlhome/leadership/mason_bio.shtml

• July 9, 2009 REACTOR PARTNERSHIP REACHED : GOVT, U OF S TO PURSUE MEDICAL ISOTOPE PRODUCTION

http://www.thestarphoenix.com/news/Reactor+partnership+
reached/1773364/story.html

• June 14, 2009. Canada-U.S. Western Energy Corridor announced.

http://www.vancouversun.com/Business/Premiers+
governors+promote+Canada+energy+corridor/1695862/story.html

"Western premiers and U.S. governors on Sunday hailed their push to develop a cross-border Western Energy Corridor that will be the largest on the planet and one that develops both non-renewable (INSERT: tar sands) and clean-energy (INSERT: nuclear) options. ...

Spearheaded by Saskatchewan Premier Brad Wall and Montana Governor Brian Schweitzer ... "

• July 17, The On Campus News says “Nuclear studies centre already under development” … working at various points in the nuclear cycle, … that extends from exploration and mining to power production to safe storage” (radioactive waste disposal).

http://www.usask.ca/communications/ocn/09-july-17/2.php


• July 2009, “First time ever University Presidents join Government and Corporate leaders, Canada – U.S."

http://news.prnewswire.com/DisplayRelea ... 956&EDATE=

"Other highlights:

- University President's Roundtable - first time ever University Presidents from both the US and Canada will meet to discuss Innovation and collaboration in the region (15 University Presidents will be in attendance) . .

- First Energy Horizon Legislative Institute. 30 Legislators from throughout the Region to be certified on Energy Policy by University of Idaho, PNWER, and National Conference of State Legislators.

(INSERT: I looked this up. The Idaho National Laboratory, with which Saskatchewan and Alberta have signed deals, is at the University of Idaho. The “certification” process “educates” legislators on the “energy” question, a la Americano.)

- Water Policy to focus on water management policies and overview of the Columbia River Treaty . . .

- Admiral John Grossenbacher, Idaho National Laboratory, will chair a session led by INL on emerging regional interests in nuclear energy, western energy corridor ...

- Building Transmission for the future - Session to address regional transmission projects (high power transmission lines)

• July 31, 2009 federal deadline for applications for funding related to radioactive isotopes. The Government of Saskatchewan (Brad Wall) Crown Investments Corporation jointly with the University of Saskatchewan applied: “recommending establishing a national nuclear studies centre of excellence at the university. .. will include building a nuclear research reactor for both isotope production and neutron science.”

“Targets 2016 for reactor to be online”

• July 31, 2009. The deadline for citizens to respond to the Government's Uranium Development Partnership (UDP) report (public consultation process on the Government’s nuclear/uranium agenda).

• September 15, Dan Perrins delivered his report on the public consultations to Wall’s government. The Executive Summary says, “the overwhelming response was that nuclear power generation should not be a choice for Saskatchewan.”

Regarding other recommendations of the UDP Report, Perrins reported:
“the majority of responses dealing with the exploration and mining of uranium did not support current or future activities in this area.”

The majority “are largely opposed to any upgrading, including enrichment fuel fabrication and all other forms of upgrading.”.

Many people who expressed support for the production of medical isotopes stipulated it should occur without the use of nuclear fission.”

• October 2009, String of incidents, several incidents of "exceedances" and spills, prompts investigation at Cameco Port Hope conversion plant.

• October 4, 2009. "No nukes, go Renewables" parade and rally in Saskatoon draws people from around the province.

• October 14, 2009. Nova Scotia legislates a moratorium on exploration and mining of uranium.
http://www.gov.ns.ca/news/details.asp?id=20091014006

“The province introduced legislation today, Oct. 14, to entrench a uranium ban that had been in effect since 1981.”

• October 2009, Speech from the Throne Government of Saskatchewan contains no mention of the Government’s nuclear/uranium agenda.

• October 2009, Book launch “Selling Out, Academic Freedom and the Corporate Market”, McGill-Queen’s University Press, by Howard Woodhouse, professor of educational foundations and co-director of the University of Saskatchewan Process Philosophy Research Unit.

Page 166: (Bancroft is interim director of the Canadian Light Source Inc (synchrotron) at the University of Saskatchewan) “Bancroft’s emphasis on the CLS’s “strong commitment to industrial users and private/public partnerships, [with] designated Canadian and international mining companies as the top priority for industrial development” was consistent with the facility’s mission.

(Note: the supporting news reports in the next emails clearly make the connection between the synchrotron at the University of Saskatchewan and the nuclear/uranium agenda.)

P. 165 “Yet the CLS . . . was paid for almost entirely out of public funds from the federal and provincial governments, several universities, and a Saskatchewan Crown corporation. The capital costs of $173.5 million were split into $140.9 million in cash and $32.6 million in in-kind contributions (see table). . . . Moreover this amount does not include the in-kind contribution of the university’s Linear Accelerator, worth almost $33 million … By far the largest amount of money came from the federal government - - “ etc.

• (*** see below) November 4, 2009 Fortune Minerals Metallurgical processing plant near Saskatoon.

http://www.thestarphoenix.com/Refinery+planned+Langham/
2181681/story.html

***This is a "maybe" connection. The background is that the nuclear/uranium industry in Canada is facing problems with processing and conversion capacity. It is running into more and more public opposition. The Port Hope refinery is under assault for effects on health and the release of radioactive spills into Lake Ontario, etc. (other examples).

Regarding the Star Phoenix refinery announcement November 4, it was curious to me that a penny stock company, Fortune Minerals, would truck ore all the way from Yellowknife, N.W.T. to Saskatoon, SK for "metallurgical processing".

Could such a processing facility also be used for uranium? Given the stated priorities for the University of Saskatchewan's synchrotron, the Canadian Nuclear Studies Centre at the University and the University's commitment to work that has commercial application it seems plausible.

It seems to me that the nuclear/uranium corporations (with their Government, University supporters and role in the U.S. corporate energy strategy (the SPP)) are hard-pressed now to be honest and forthright about their intentions.

• Nov 15 Stephen Harper, salesman for the co-dependent nuclear and tar sands industries, in India. “Canada had suspended nuclear relations with India in 1974 after India used Canadian technology to make its first nuclear bomb. During his visit here, Harper said a new nuclear co-operation deal between the two countries would be signed soon and he met with key representatives of India’s nuclear energy sector.” India has not signed the nuclear non-proliferation treaty.

“The two countries signed a memorandum of understanding this year that will let Canada play a role in India’s planned building of 25 to 30 nuclear reactors. … India’s reactor demand for uranium may triple in the next 15 years, according to Saskatoon, Saskatchewan-based Cameco Corp. the world’s second-largest producer of uranium. . . .

Australia, holder of the biggest known uranium reserves, doesn’t allow exports of the nuclear fuel to India because the South Asian country hasn’t signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. ”

• November 29, 2009. “Prime Minister Stephen Harper of Canada signs a nuclear co-operation agreement with Indian Prime Minister Manmohan as way to trade uranium and nuclear technology with India” . . . on whose behalf?

http://trak.in/news/india-canada-clinch ... eal/29084/

• NWMO (Nuclear Waste Management Organization) in Saskatchewan (again!) December 7, 8, 9, looking for a "host community".
http://www.nwmo.ca/events?event

- - - -

Note: I have not included the propaganda efforts by Bruce Power in the North Saskatchewan River corridor where they want to buy options on land for a nuclear reactor, or the polling reported on in the Prince Albert Herald and elsewhere. The polling questions were designed to manipulate and provide very skewed results.

I have not included efforts by Bruce Power and by the Nuclear Waste Management Organization to target First Nations, Dene and Metis communities for the siting of their operations.

Nor have I mentioned the resistance by motley crews of local groups.

I have not mentioned the efforts of people in Alberta to stop the billion-dollar high power transmission lines (part of the Canada - U.S. Western Energy Corridor) from proceeding.

Nor a whole lot of other important events!

Email from: Sandra Finley
Saskatoon SK S7N 0L1
306-373-8078
sabest1@sasktel.net