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.
or threatens profit transfer from one company to another?
by TheSpoom (715771) Uncaring Linux user here. I have nothing to add to this but please continue. *munches popcorn*
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.
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/...
America stands to benefit
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.
There's threat of monopoly of Uranium ore to be afraid of.
Linux is for people who don't mind RTFM.
US Uranium supply
So, why did we sell this off to a Canadian company in the first place?
Have gnu, will travel.
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.
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.
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.
Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
"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:
We, the people, do not — or should not — have to prove their guilt, they must be proving innocence instead. And until they do, they must be deemed guilty of the worst crime reasonably suspected. For example: could the shooting have been malicious, or the could "lost" e-mails have contained evidence of rape or treason? If yes, than the charges of murder, rape, and treason ought to stand against all involved until innocence is proven.
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.
Except the foundation is a slush fund . In 2013, for example, it took in $140mln, but spent only $9 mln on actual charity:
It does not need to be a source of direct financial enrichment — it is perfectly fine as a vehicle for power.
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
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.
Consider the Cop getting paid off by the drug dealer to look the other way. Given your current position you must also believe that as long as there is a middle man and not direct contact between the drug dealer and the cop it's all fine and dandy.
Please never vote again!
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.
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.
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
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, 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.
Nothing sticks to the Clintons.
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.
Taking guns away from the 99% gives the 1% 100% of the power.
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"
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 the subtle single there.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
If I wanted to read something about politics, I would read at the Politico. At least the nut jobs there know how to properly insult each other without pretending to have read the article.
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.
... 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 relationship. She just lays there not moving at all while the media TRIES to get something happening. Not terrible stimulating. She's basically been hiding for weeks hoping that all the controversy will go away. This would work if we were all babies because Peek-a-boo is highly entertaining... if you are a toddler. It loses its appeal rapidly after that age.
She's going to be a laughing stock if she isn't replaced. The former governor of Maryland is making a bid for the nomination and he's looking more credible by the day... and that's even taking into consideration that he's coming out of Maryland... which just suffered a nasty race riot.
Most of the dem strategists have admitted this and have said they're quite afraid of the ultimate consequences if she gets the nomination.
Don't get me wrong... her allies will try. But she's not giving them anything to work with.
None of this is helped by her generally unappealing personality etc.
She will still get the the base of the democrat party. Just as the republicans will always get the base of the republican party.
However, whether everyone from the base shows up is questionable and how many either side can attract from the middle is debatable.
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
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 much deeper and bigger happening here that us little people aren't supposed to know about - maybe our government cutting deal with Russia to prevent something worse like a war?
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 months"... rinse and repeat. In anything but a major branch of the federal government that sort of behavior would get fines leived so stiff that the political establishment would just comply out of self preservation. But the federal government doesn't really have to... I mean, what are you going to do to them? What if they just stone wall and stall?
There is a long list of issues that she's going to have to deal with... There was the non-disclosure agreement which she was supposed to sign which she didn't... lots of misinformation around the whole Benghazi situation. The email server she kept to avoid congressional audits is a problem. That she deleted the emails prior to handing over information is a problem. That she maintained multiple email accounts which were not declared is a problem.The whole thing about her using mercenaries to do intelligence work is just bizarre. There is the whole crazy situation with the Russian uranium mine purchase. There is the stuff with her brother getting some interest in a Haitian gold mine for no apparent reason. There is the seeming quid pro quo between her state department doing something nice for foreign interests and then Bill getting a speaking gig for hundreds of thousands of dollars. Etc.
There's a long list of stuff. You can't blow it all off with credibility.
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
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.
-Styopa
The only reason she has any power or credibility what so ever is because of Feminists.
FTFY.
Taking guns away from the 99% gives the 1% 100% of the power.
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.
Celebrity worship is a poor substitute for Deity worship and costs more to boot.
This is an important issue for people who care about transparency and influence peddling in government.
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?
I would mod you up, but I have no points.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
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
Look up transatomic, thorium , and spent fuel. These will be built sooner, not later. When it does, all of the thorium above ground combined with our waste could power america for the next 100 years.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
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 crew positions in their navy that were not filled by Brits) there was no reason for Canadian control of such mines to ring any alarm bells
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)
First, they'll insist there is "no evidence". This is handy defense when you have destroyed evidence, but do not want to be caught denying the actual accusation in case some evidence you missed eventually surfaced.
Then, they'll tell the press, approx 90% of whom self-identify as Democrats, not to report on it and that their "access" and careers will be over if they report on it
(watch the documentary on the Clinton elections that includes Stephanopolis making this exact attack back then)
Then, if more stuff surfaces, they will say "it's old news" as a substitute for offering any answers. As an alternative, they will say "we've already answered those questions" (with the previous "answers" being either "no comment" or "it's all a vast right-wing conspiracy")
People have forgotten that moveon was founded by Clinonistas who wanted the country to "move on" from asking any questions about Bill Clinton's womanizing. These supposed feminists, who usually scream that any male-female activity that involves a power inbalance (like a CEO and an intern) is by-definition "harrassment" because "the woman is in a less-powerful position and cannot say no" suddenly demanded that a President (arguably the most-powerful man on the PLANET) and his intern is FINE and we were not supposed to notice that the man's own secretary said he assaulted her too and one of his other supporters and fundraisers claimed he raped her.
Move on, indeed... just another part of the actual-NAZI-collaborator-funded (google George Soros and watch the videos of him being proud of his NAZI collaboration) machine of the left.
Ah but it's so clear! Dice fabricated this story in an intricate plot to get people to come to their news aggregation site Slashdot to post lots and lots of comments arguing politics.
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 could ever imagine.
Nothing posted to
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
Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
There is plenty of Uranium to go around; the current operating mines in Northern Saskatchewan, Canada can supply all Western needs for any foreseeable future needs. Proven reserves in the area are massive ... new mines take a decade or more to be approved and operating, but if needed there is so much available known deposits in the Athabaska Sand Basin in SK that supply is clearly not the issue. The Russians also have their own needs well met. Uranium spot prices are lower than in the past due to current market oversupply vs demand, although it's important to note that supply is almost always based on long-term contracts of 25 years or more ... power utilities contract for the expected life of the reactor at a fixed price. Now, if you want to talk the Chinese cornering the market for Rare Earth Minerals, well, maybe there is a story ...
Conjecture is ammunition to the intellectually lazy....or in most cases...the stupid.
You really must be new here.
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
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.
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
I guess I hit a nerve with someone and their candidate du-jour.
Time to offend someone
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.
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.
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.