Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Do Russian Uranium Deals Threaten World Supply Security?

Posted by samzenpus on from the plenty-to-go-around dept.

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.

11 of 102 comments (clear)

  1. Threatens security by future+assassin · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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*
    1. Re:Threatens security by afidel · · Score: 3, 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.

      --
      There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
  2. Ask Hillary, she knows what happened by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative
    http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04...

    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.

    1. Re:Ask Hillary, she knows what happened by Anonymous Coward · · 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!

    2. Re:Ask Hillary, she knows what happened by Anonymous Coward · · 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.

  3. Re:Government is guilty until proven innocent by Enry · · Score: 3, 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.

  4. Re:The issue is less that and more about corruptio by Enry · · Score: 3, 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, 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.

  5. Quid pro quo by tomhath · · Score: 4, 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"

  6. Re:"Limited" defined by Enry · · 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".

    Any evidence of that? Otherwise, you're just making up stuff. Please stick to the facts.

  7. If something malicious happned by Anonymous Coward · · 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 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?

  8. Ha! by Anonymous Coward · · 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