Do Russian Uranium Deals Threaten World Supply Security? 102
Lasrick writes: A recent article in the New York Times notes that the Russian state nuclear corporation Rosatom and associated firms are gaining control of a growing number of uranium resources and mining operations. The article, headlined Cash Flowed to Clinton Foundation Amid Russian Uranium Deal focuses on donations to charities connected to former US President Bill Clinton and his family, made by businessmen who stood to profit from the sale of Uranium One, a Canadian company with worldwide uranium-mining interests. But a major premise of the article is that Russian uranium control threatens the security of the global uranium supply. Steve Fetter and Erich Schneider demolish the idea that Russian control of uranium stocks is a threat to global security.
Threatens security (Score:4, Insightful)
or threatens profit transfer from one company to another?
Re:Threatens security (Score:4, Interesting)
Exactly, just last week I was reading about a proposed Canadian mine that was vetoed by the native council, not due to environmental concerns, but because of uncertainty over environmental impact in the future because current and projected prices didn't actually support opening the mine in the near term but the company looking for approval was looking for a 50 year lease on the land. If Russia ties up a lot of the world supply and shuts down mines they own then the price will rise and mines like that one will come online, it's not like they're going to take over so much of the world supply that we'll be shutting down reactors due to lack of fuel. The real fear I'm sure is that Westinghouse and GE and their suppliers will have to pay more for yellowcake in order to produce their overpriced fuel rods.
Re: (Score:1)
mines like that one will come online
Paid for by investors like the ones who lost their shirts on Molycorp when China locked down rare earth element supplies, waited for competitors like Molycorp to open up mines and then said "lol nevermind, cheap metal for everyone!".
There might be a sucker or two left who thinks this time will be different.
Re: (Score:2)
If Russia ties up a lot of the world supply and shuts down mines they own then the price will rise and mines like that one will come online, it's not like they're going to take over so much of the world supply that we'll be shutting down reactors due to lack of fuel.
I hardly think that's really the point. Being a "strategic material" -- and it very definitely is -- there is a real issue with selling shares of US uranium production on the open market to the Russians.
While we aren't exactly in a "cold war" anymore, our relations in many ways are less than friendly, and the Russian deal with others who are even less friendly to the U.S. So doing that is just plain stupid.
It's like selling ammunition to a third party who you just know is going to then turn around an
Re: (Score:3)
More mind boggling stupid and immature US Government corporate propaganda it's like http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E... [wikipedia.org] doesn't even exist in the Australia, Canada and the USA. The other countries with lots of Uranium. OHHH KNOWSSS some evil corporation owns our minerals and we can do nothing to stop them. When it is a US corporation that owns them, everyone knows that is a problem because when countries do eminent domain against US corporations, the US government stages coups and kills shit loads of people,
Re: (Score:2)
Let's say you, Sam, own a large farm. And somewhere on that farm, coincidentally, is a large deposit of naturally-occurring "Roundup". As long as it stays where it is, everything is fine. But if it got into your fields, your crops would mostly die.
You have several neighbors, many of whom are basically friendly to you. You also have one neighbor who also has fields, who directly competes wi
Re: (Score:2)
Again total crock of shit. Australian Uranium export laws http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U... [wikipedia.org]. Not only is mining totally and strictly regulated (no matter who the hell owns the mine, they can not even stick a shovel into the ground until approval is gained from local, state and federal government), it can only be sold to countries the Australian government has specific agreements with and is restricted to energy use only http://www.world-nuclear.org/i... [world-nuclear.org]. It is the US government that is seeking to directly
Re: (Score:2)
Again total crock of shit. Australian Uranium export laws http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U [wikipedia.org].... Not only is mining totally and strictly regulated (no matter who the hell owns the mine, they can not even stick a shovel into the ground until approval is gained from local, state and federal government), it can only be sold to countries the Australian government has specific agreements with and is restricted to energy use only http://www.world-nuclear.org/i [world-nuclear.org]....
100% irrelevant to the topic I was discussing, which was ownership of U.S. uranium interests by Russia. Not only is Australia a completely different continent, its politics are also completely different. Similar in some ways, but definitely not the same.
It is the US government that is seeking to directly control the mining and export of 'AUSTRALIAN' Uranium because 31% of worlds resource and Australia already exports Uranium to China and the US. There are a whole bunch of Uranium resources yet to be touched.
Again, completely irrelevant to the topic under discussion. If I lived in Australia, I'd object to sales to China OR the U.S.... but especially China.
Re: (Score:2)
Numbnut, you can not control the world supply of Uranium by ignoring 31% of it, like duhh.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Yeah it's nonsense, unlike oil, the vast majority of the world's Uranium deposits sit on Western/Western allied soil. There's no energy security threat to the West when it comes to Uranium because we have access to the vast majority of it. Australia and Canada alone hold 40% of the world's reserves.
Ask Hillary, she knows what happened (Score:4, Informative)
Hillary Clinton was bribed to grease the sale of 20% of America’s uranium production to Russia, and then it was covered up by lying about a meeting at her home with the principals, and by erasing emails. We might know for sure whether there was or was not bribery, if she hadn’t wiped out thousands of emails.
Re: (Score:1)
> lying about a meeting
You don't know that. Just because she said one thing and did another doesn't make that a lie. It could be that the facts changed. Of course you Republicans are so full of hate that you stop thinking logically.
Re: (Score:2)
Just because she said one thing and did another doesn't make that a lie. It could be that the facts changed.
That's a good one. It didn't work out so well for George W. Bush when the facts changed.
Of course you Republicans are so full of hate that you stop thinking logically.
Democrats, Republicans, you're all so full of hatred for each other you're not only illogical, you're blind and stupid too.
I'm old enough to remember when universal healthcare was a Republican goal. The Democrats claimed it would be the end of America. Funny how the roles have reversed.
Of course that's the beauty of the internet. It's been around long enough that you can find videos of just about any politician whose
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Nonsense. There is absolutely no evidence of wrongdoing on the part of Hilary or Bill Clinton.
Of course there isn't. They were wiped from her personal server. We know she would never delete incriminating evidence.. she's an honest democrat!
Re:Ask Hillary, she knows what happened (Score:4, Insightful)
She broke no laws, violated no ethics,
She ran a private email server, against government rules. Illegal.
She deleted emails AFTER they were subpoenaed by Congress. Illegal.
She sent secret intelligence documents to Sidney Blumenthall, who is not a government employee and doesn't have clearance. Illegal.
She told Congress she had 1 private emails account, NYT found a second one, making her a liar to Congress. Illegal.
She took bribes according to one of my sources and it is up to her to prove differently by releasing her deleted emails (see Harry Reid's false accusation against Romney for not paying tax to understand the sarcasm). Illegal
We can go on all day, but you repeated false talking points just makes the left seem even more desperate than ever. You SHOULD be throwing her under the bus and quickly getting a different nominee. But if you don't want to, thats fine, give the GOP the White House without having to even try. Hint: Its not the GOP attacking Clinton its people who want Elizabeth Warren to run, but will only run after Clinton drops out.
Re: (Score:1)
I'm on board with your first couple of bullets, but I don't think it's up to Hillary to rebuff random "sources" that haven't presented any evidence. Politicians would be doing nothing else if they had to address every crackpot theory about them (including the true ones) that don't have more than circumstantial evidence.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
America stands to benefit
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Smells like somebody's trying to Swiftboat the Clintons.
The Clintons are giving the swiftboaters plenty of ammunition. This certainly has the appearance of a sleazy deal. Mostly this sort of stuff just makes the people that hate Hillary, hate her even more, while having no effect on the people that like her. But eventually all these reports are going to have an effect on swing voters.
Re: (Score:1)
Nothing sticks to the Clintons.
Re: (Score:3)
Sure, the Clintons should just slink off into anonymity and let the Bush family take over the US, because the gop is saying mean things about them
You say that as if Hillary is the only possible Democratic candidate who could beat Jeb Bush. If anything, she's got less of a chance than some other candidate with less baggage and skeletons in the closet.
It's only mid-2016 and I'm already sick of this idea that Hillary is the inevitable candidate, let alone a shoe in for victory.
If something malicious happned (Score:3, Funny)
If Hillary actually did something illegal, skirted the law or even just compromised the US' security, the Republicans would be all over her - it would be Benghazi all over again but actually justified. They made some noise about the email servers and then pretty much dropped it.
So, I have to ask why aren't the Republicans going after her? If there is something here, she just handed them a perfect weapon to knock out the Democrats for '16. And they're not.
so, either there's nothing, or there is something
Re: (Score:2)
Conjecture is ammunition to the intellectually lazy....or in most cases...the stupid.
You really must be new here.
Re: Political hit job (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Smells like somebody's trying to Swiftboat the Clintons. I wonder who bankrolled this, and who stands to benefit?
And I wonder what this relatively obscure business market, that's not really centered around new technology or technology that the average person could have a chance in hell of playing with, has to do with a site that focuses on nerdy or geeky things.
Re: (Score:2)
They were counting on an extra boost from the people who come in to say "Hey that's not news for nerds!"
But the final thing that put them over the edge, earning them a coveted 6.2 Internets/$^2, was this very post unmasking their evil plot. By exposing the depth of their depravity, I have made them more powerful than I
Quid pro quo (Score:5, Insightful)
Someone's trying to use Hillary's "What difference does it make?" defense.
The original story was that she influenced the sale in exchange for donations. Now the response from her defenders is "So what? We have plenty of uranium".
Nice attempt at changing the subject; I say "What difference does it make if there's plenty of uranium ore, the deal still looks shady"
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Clinton! Booga! (Score:3, Funny)
The article, headlined Cash Flowed to Clinton Foundation Amid Russian Uranium Deal
Is completely wrong if it's implying that Sec. Clinton was the only person involved in approving the deal. She didn't have veto authority (only the president does) and she was part of a panel of 8 other members who also approved the deal. If she were the only person to approve or she was the deciding factor, the accusation might have merit and more examination done. She wasn't directly involved in the deal, there's no indication that she was a deciding factor, and there's little indication that she personally profits from money donated to the Clinton Foundation. There might be questions about the sources of money for the CF, but to imply that there's some sort of quid pro quo going on is just baseless.
http://www.factcheck.org/2015/... [factcheck.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Is completely wrong if it's implying that Sec. Clinton was the only person involved in approving the deal.
The article did not say that. It just said (correctly) that she had influence over the decision.
Re: (Score:2)
Very limited influence given it wasn't her that actually voted and the person who was the State Department representative said he was never contacted by her about it.
"Limited" defined (Score:3, Insightful)
Sure, if by "never contacted" you mean "given lots of money, along with other people on the panel, to vote a specific way".
Are you really so naive? You don't even have to dislike the clintons to understand the fundamental flow of money involved here and just how easy it is for that to have an effect on the results.
It's also stupid on the face of things to claim Clinton had no influence when donations to her charity fell drastically after she left the state dept... You don't need a tinfoil hat to pick up t
Re:"Limited" defined (Score:4, Insightful)
Sure, if by "never contacted" you mean "given lots of money, along with other people on the panel, to vote a specific way".
Any evidence of that? Otherwise, you're just making up stuff. Please stick to the facts.
I laid out the facts, horse will not drink (Score:1)
I did - the facts are that the Clinton foundation claims to be a charity, but uses almost none of the money collected for charity. The facts are that the foundation gained a huge boost in donations from people while Clinton was in the state department, from people/governments who had matters being decided by the state department...
If you want to ignore the facts, fine. Just don't claim to be for them at the same time.
Re: (Score:3)
You haven't laid out anything other than a bunch of baseless accusations. You should write a book about it, I'm sure it'll sell.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
You haven't laid out anything other than a bunch of baseless accusations. You should write a book about it, I'm sure it'll sell.
Bwaahahaha!
"I didn't do it. Nobody saw me do it. You can't prove anything"
It's the Bart Simpson defense!
[Beetlejuice voice] And it just keeps getting funnier *every* *single* *time* I see it! [/Beetlejuice voice]
How about you just stick your fingers in your ears and go; "Lalalala, I can't hear you! Lalalala!".
Too funny!
Strat
Re: (Score:1)
it was the headline ::Cash Flowed to Clinton Foundation Amid Russian Uranium Deal::
a flow of cash made its way to the Clinton Foundation. Uranium One’s chairman used his family foundation to make four donations totaling $2.35 million. Those contributions were not publicly disclosed by the Clintons,
RTFA
Government is guilty until proven innocent (Score:2, Insightful)
"Completely" wrong? No, it is quite right to suspect her. With government officials the famous legal standard is — or ought to be — backwards: guilty until proven innocent. With the amount of sheer power and influence the Executive government has, they must be constantly under scrutiny, and any time there is a suspicion, then must be presumed guilty. These cases are all the same:
Re:Government is guilty until proven innocent (Score:4, Interesting)
Nonsense. She was the most influential person on that panel and among the 10 most influential members of the government. Her approval or lack thereof was, in all likelihood, the deciding factor.
You realize that she wasn't the person that voted and the person who did represent the State Department had no contact with her about it, yes? And the other departments that are represented in the vote include DHS, Defense, and Energy? If any one of them had qualms about it, I'm certain they would have brought it up (especially DHS and Defense) and recommended a veto.
The rest of what you put down is an incoherent rant that really doesn't have much to do with the issue at hand.
Re: (Score:2)
You have to understand, he really hates Hillary Clinton, regardless of facts.
Oh, and government, he really hates all government. And black people. Just be glad the topic isn't black people, black people in government, or government helping poor black people.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, I kinda gathered that.
Re: (Score:2)
You have to understand, he really hates Hillary Clinton, regardless of facts.
Oh, and government, he really hates all government. And black people. Just be glad the topic isn't black people, black people in government, or government helping poor black people.
I'm guessing he's not a big Obama fan then?
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, he has an anti-Obama troll in his sig.
His backup sig is:
This is especially ironic to me, because I was laid off around the end of Bush's term (you know, in the Great Recession), and now I'm making 40% more than before I was laid off.
I've never actually seen anybody claim the economy was better under Bush. This clown must live in a different world where things like facts
Re: (Score:1)
And you know this from?..
And, maybe, they did... But seeing Clinton being in favor decided not to rock the boat and alienate the probably next President...
A rather backwards way of conceding a point, but I'll take it. It must've been hard for you as it is.
Re: (Score:2)
And you know this from?..
From the article I linked to. Did you bother reading it?
And, maybe, they did... But seeing Clinton being in favor decided not to rock the boat and alienate the probably next President...
Yes. That's exactly what they did. *eyeroll*
A rather backwards way of conceding a point, but I'll take it. It must've been hard for you as it is.
Yeah, no. This is about the vote to give a Russian country control of 20% of US uranium production and Sec. Clinton's (non)involvement in it. If you want to spittle on about other things, find someone else who is interested.
Re: (Score:1)
Yeah, their only source for this particular claim is the guy's own words: "He told the Times: “Mrs. Clinton never intervened with me on any C.F.I.U.S. matter.”
That's both flimsy evidence (hearsay and not under oath) and evasive. For example, if he is ever confronted with evidence of having been told by Clinton, how to vote, he'll be able to claim, that it was not "interference", but direct instructions from his official boss at the time.
A
Re: (Score:2)
LOL, this is like watching a parade of delusion.
Are you sure you aren't APK?
Re: (Score:2)
LOL, this is like watching a parade of delusion.
Are you sure you aren't APK?
What, with not a single refernce to HOSTS files? Unlikely.
Re: (Score:2)
The first claim makes my "rant" — about the need to use a reverse of the usual burden-of-proof principle for Executive government officials — on-topic and otherwise appropriate.
Trying to prove a negative? And you're wondering why I'm rolling my eyes at you?
Re: (Score:3)
It does not need to be an actual indiscretion — it is perfectly fine to use innuendo as a vehicle for gop propaganda
FTFY
*Bullspittle* (Score:1)
You are completely full of crap! There is a pretty decent sized book that just came out which lays out the timelines for deals and income to not just their foundation, but cash to Bill. The Washing Post had a nicely done article on this same subject, in particular laying out the Uranium mining issues. Hillary didn't need Veto power as you are falsely portraying, she needed political power to push through things she was paid to push through. The timelines show very clearly that is exactly what happened.
C
Re: (Score:3)
OMG, somebody wrote a book so it must be true!
Re: (Score:3)
but then there's the Washington Post story.
Re: (Score:2)
Like wow, you totally got me figured out
Woe is me, I just got skewered by the smartest bravest AC on the planet
Funny thing is that shit costs money, and pumping and dumping the entire economy costs a lot of money to dig out of. It did after the Great Depression and it did after the Great Recession. The similarities do not stop there, particularly since both happened on the watch of ineffective, pro-business, anti-regulation republican administrations and both got rectified by effective Dem administrations t
Re: (Score:2)
Just a thought.
Ha! (Score:3, Interesting)
Don't use a Democrat talking-point site to refute a claim about a Democrat.
Sometimes, getting a government official to NOT say "no" and to not voice any objections or criticisms is a very-effective way to grease-the-skids for a bad action - AND it has the happy side-effect of being less obvious to the simple-minded.
Simple question: if the EXACT same thing happened BUT the name "Hillary Clinton" were replaced with "Dick Cheney" would you still say "no big deal"?
hmmmmmmmmm
Re: (Score:2)
US Uranium supply
So, why did we sell this off to a Canadian company in the first place?
DOH (Score:1)
Do you have any knowledge of US security matters?
NORAD is the "NORth American air Defense" org because it covers and includes Canada. The over-the-north-pole ICBM detection radars are in Canada, and Canadian officers are involved in the operation of NORAD (including working in "the mountain" back when it was active.
With a military alliance THAT tight and total military-to-military trust probably only approximated by the relationship with the UK (who currently are borrowing some US personnel to fill some cre
Re: (Score:2)
there was no reason for Canadian control of such mines to ring any alarm bells
So, why wasn't our sale of US uranium mines toi Canada made with restrictions on resale or the right of a veto?
Asked and answered: Money. Canada would likely have offered less in a deal with restrictions. We knew it and didn't ask for any, figuring we could stamp our feet and whine later on.
Uranium One (Score:2, Interesting)
As a former shareholder, I can tell you that initially, Russian state (Rosatom) bought 50% of the company and they gave every shareholder a nice dividend. I think it was something like $1.06/share dividend, which was about a year after 2008 crash. That was a very nice deal and Rosatom said they had NO INTENTION of taking over. Uranium One said it was beneficial transaction to "smooth things out" in Kazakhstan, where coincidentally Cameco had problems.. Smells like politics interfering with business, but we
There's plenty of Uranium in Brazil (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
If only she hadn't used her own private email server then deleted all those emails, then she would have a mountain of evidence to show how innocent she is. Right?
The issue is less that and more about corruption (Score:3)
The thing is that the state department had to okay the deal and the Clintons... and several of their associates directly profited.
If Hillary weren't the primary Democrat hope for the next presidential election, she might already have been charged with a crime.
The State Department is trying to delay the release of her emails until AFTER the election.
It is extremely political. Hopefully the democrats can find someone less compromised to run for office so they don't feel the need to protect Hillary at all costs.
Were it not for that... again, she'd already be facing charges. But the administration is rallying behind her, the State Department is refusing to release information, the Justice Department is refusing to prosecute, and as usual congress is deadlocked with both major parties gripping the other by the throat and squeezing.
In the end, it is quite likely that hillary is going to collapse. She's a little too much like Al Gore and not enough like Slick Willy. We're already seeing the major liberal newspapers turn on her and this early in the game that is an indication that it is already over.
She's fucked. Will she spend a day in jail? Probably not. But neither will she be president. That train has sailed.
Re:The issue is less that and more about corruptio (Score:4, Insightful)
I'm gonna have to go with a [citation needed] for most of that.
Starting with this one:
The State Department is trying to delay the release of her emails until AFTER the election.
No, they're trying to delay until January 2016 [go.com], a full 10 months BEFORE the election, even before the primaries. If there's anything damaging in there, it'll be far worse for her and Democrats if there's something serious enough for her to quit the race since she's effectively the only person running. Getting the e-mails out now turns it into a non-story by then since they'll have already been released.
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
You're right, I misread the date. They have covered for her however in many different instances so I simply assumed that would be more of the same. Furthermore, what would actually be released is questionable. There is a lot of stall tactics and goal post moving on on with that sort of stuff. You ask for something, they delay six months, then give you something other than what you asked for... you say "where is the thing I asked for" and they say "oh you meant that other thing... that will be another six m
Re: (Score:3)
We're already seeing the major liberal newspapers turn on her and this early in the game that is an indication that it is already over.
That's all a ruse. Once she's received the nomination, they will all be circling the wagons around her to shield her from any scrutiny.
Re: (Score:3)
... I think they would if Hillary were a competent politician... that is someone good at politics. But she's not. She's not good at kissing babies. She's not good making people feel the love. She's not inspirational. The only reason she has any power or credibility what so ever is because of Bill Clinton and really that can only go so far. It is amazing how far she's been able to stretch that.
The media would be doing more for her if she were holding up her end of it. But she's basically a cold fish in that
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
The only reason she has any power or credibility what so ever is because of Feminists.
FTFY.
Re: (Score:2)
The only reason she has any power or credibility what so ever is because of Feminists.
FTFY.
Because everything that is wrong in the world is because of Feminists . Especially Feminism . Or, as me and my friends like to say Feminazism . Geddit? See they're like feminists and nazis together, which is bad, because socialism.
Re: (Score:1)
Hmmm... they help for sure, but feminists are not enough. Bill does more for her than the feminists do. The feminists for example would be happier with some feminist professor getting crowned queen of the universe. But they're settling for the wife of an ex president.
Furthermore feminists of any politically active kind make up a very small portion of the total voting block. They couldn't get anyone elected without allying with a larger political coalition that would ultimately dwarf their interests.
Re: (Score:2)
That's the problem. She's currently the Democratic front runner, and it seems that the Republicans (once again) seem intent on nominating some one who is completely unelectable. In a sane universe, Hilary should be unelectable too. The only option is to vote third party.
Demolished? (Score:1)
Steve Fetter and Erich Schneider demolish the idea that Russian control of uranium stocks is a threat to global security.
No, they don't demolish the idea.
Their argument is that since demand in the past was lower than the global supply of uranium ore, there is no reason to worry that Russia and China are trying to corner the supply. That doesn't make any sense to me based on what we've seen from both countries.
WTF, Slashdot?! (Score:3)
Ah, good play (Score:3)
Make sure the discussion is about whether this is dangerous to the world uranium supply (it isn't), and not about the president/presidential candidate team that took $millions$ from one of the USs main geopolitical opponents to secure said deal.
90% of magic is making sure the audience is looking where you want them to be looking.
relax; we do not need any more uranium (Score:2)
The Clinton internet machine strikes (Score:1)
From now until Nov 2016, every less-than-glowing story about the Clintons will be attacked by the vast left-wing internet machine. There will be Facebook attacks, Google mis-directs, factcheck.org deceits, etc (all the manipulative stuff the left BRAGS about AFTER each election cycle when they celebrate their superior internet activity). The facts will not matter (as-in all the Clinton scandals of the 90's that were all "conspiracy theories" INCLUDING the Lewinski matter - until the blue dress surfaced)
Firs
I call bullshit (Score:2)