Slashdot Mirror
Do Russian Uranium Deals Threaten World Supply Security?
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.
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.
There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
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 well... so be it.
Share value went up and at one time it was $7. The Fukushima happened and everything uranium crashed, including Uranium One. Few years later, Rosatom announced they will take over the rest. And now they own everything. In the meantime, there were some "funny loans", like bonds taken out in Rubles, funny option dealings with Uranium prices, but I didn't look closely.
I think this allowed Russians to take over Kazakhstan's uranium again. That was where majority of Uranium One holdings were.
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.
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