Team Obama’s stunning cover-up of Russian crimes


#1

Call me surprised … Not!


#2

Of corruption, sure.

Calling it a “National Security risk” is pushing it though, we’ve been in a Uranium glut for… over a decade really. We’re in no hurry to stockpile.

Corruption should be punished, but the word “nuclear” being involved, shouldn’t make people lose their heads here.


#3

TIP ‘O the Iceberg


#4

Nonsense. We now know that the “deal” Hillary & Company approved included a provision that NONE of the locally mined uranium could leave the continental U.S. and we now know that as much as 20% of the mined yellow-cake HAS been shipped…though we don’t know to where–yet.


#5

… You keep using this word, in the wrong context. You cheapen whatever you say by doing this.

It does not matter, we are in a Uranium glut, it does not matter if some of it left the country, anymore than if oil or natural gas left.

Again, you’re letting the “nuclear” tag cloud your judgement. It is a material, it is not scarce right now, and it does not harm us if it leaves the country.

It doesn’t matter; uranium is available the world over. There is nothing critically lost for us here, nor anything “enemies” gain, that they couldn’t get somewhere else.

This would only be “concerning” if it was enriched, and it wasn’t.


#6

Maybe we have excess uranium since we won’t expand our nuclear power infrastructure.

National security? Uranium goes to Russia. Next stop Iran? North Korea?

Don’t worry, be happy!


#7

It’s not a problem. You’re still reacting to “nuclear”, and not thinking this through.

We’re not the cheapest source of Uranium on the market (meaning, other sources are available; we are not providing something they didn’t already have access to), and unrefined Uranium is a threat to 0 people.

Worrying about this, is like worrying we’re putting some esoteric radar tech on the market that Iran could buy, putting up some stupid as hell ITAR restrictions to prevent it, when they could already buy it from India, Europe, or China.


#8

Not the point at all! If YOU choose to “don’t worry, be happy” most of US don’t care to take that attitude. It doesn’t MATTER if the Russians “can buy it from India, Europe of China.” Yellowcake uranium is NECESSARY for nuclear weapons. They won’t work WITHOUT having access to it. It was, at the very LEAST, criminally negligent to sell our supply (or 20% of it) to an unscrupulous nuclear power who the Democrats have been screaming bloody murder is our “worst enemy on the planet.” They WILL pass it along to regimes that cannot buy it anywhere because of sanctions, or mine it domestically, if only to poke an eye of those “capitalist running dogs.” Secondarily, the FBI seems to have plentiful evidence that those involved in this scheme benefitted to the tune of $148 MILLION to the spurious “Clinton Foundation,” not to mention the subsequent cover-up of this burgeoning scandal by the Obama administration. Sitting on the panel that APPROVED of this sale were Hillary Clinton, Mueller (as the then head of the FBI), Obama’s criminal attorney general Holder, and even the little weasel who HIRED Mueller to conduct the phony “Trump-Russia Investigation.” If this doesn’t seem to be a problem for you, someone has surgically removed your sense of smell while you slept.


#9

Some estimates show global demand outstripping supply as early as 2019 with the gap becoming UGE as the years roll on.


#10

It’s not about being “happy”, it’s about acknowledging reality.

Unless you have a magical way, of stopping them from buying it from Europe, or China, or India, or Australia, this wasn’t a concern. Your premising that we are somehow being a 2nd-hand supplier, and that us restricting it would stop them.

Sorry, but no. That’s not the world we live in, and why calling this a “nat’l security threat”, isn’t real.

It’s basically politicians, who don’t understand Uranium markets.

So does China, who willfully breaks with our sanctions all the time.

The Russians also have their own supply. You’re not thinking this through Dave.

?

I already said people should be punished for corruption. If they had done this with Natural Gas stock, it’d be wrong for the same reason, and still be worth punishing over.

I don’t know why you’re mentioning this, other than to hide the fact that it’s still not a national security threat.

It can be a case of corruption, without being a national security threat. You appear not to understand that.


#11

Nope:

"some 40% of operating reactors will be decommissioned by 2035, with fewer new units brought online to replace them.3 They write : “We estimate an average of 9 reactors per year will need to be constructed from 2017-2035 just to keep uranium demand steady at 2016 levels. In 2016, 11 new reactors were brought on-line. However, this includes seven reactors in China where we see nuclear capacity growth slowing due to power market oversupply and a decline in the relative economic competitiveness of nuclear.

The article you posted, doesn’t pay attention to the drivers of Rector construction ( there used to be twice that many under construction), so they don’t give any outlook for why or if the Chinese and the Indians will continue their already slowed pace.

"Then Paladin Energy chief executive John Borshoff said in 2013 that the uranium industry “is definitely in crisis … and is showing all the symptoms of a mid-term paralysis”.4 His prediction was accurate. Long-term contract prices and spot prices are much lower in 2017 than they were in 2013.5 "

They also don’t pay attention to Kazakhstan and other 3rd world suppliers of Uranium, whom are expected to lean even further on the mineral to compensate for the drop in prices of oil & gas.

The biggest enemy in the room for Nuclear is LNG reactors. They have less than half the fixed costs, they’re far quicker to set up, they’ll get even cheaper going forward, and they don’t produce a waste form that’s difficult to store.

Further Nuclear development will be dependent upon some change in the technology itself to make it more attractive than the alternative. If innovations don’t occur, then it’s going to hit deadends.


#12

I never had a problem with this deal. Russia has been pretty responsible with their uranium. I know they lost track of some nukes during the collapse of the Soviet Union, but I wouldn’t bet on America doing any better if our government collapsed.

It is however, highly hypocritical for Obama to be criticizing Trump for being too chummy with Russia, when he was funneling uranium to them while they sent his Secretary of State a couple hundred million dollars.


#13

As I understand…we sold RIGHTS not just Ur production. Big difference folks…


#14

True–with the proviso that NONE of the uranium was to leave the U.S.–certainly not without a “license” to do so explaining PRECISELY where it’s going. This Russian firm has shipped TONS of yellow-cake uranium OUT of the U.S. without a single “license” to do so. Some went to Canada—but we don’t know where it went from there. Using uranium for nuclear power plants is one thing, but it’s ALSO used to make nuclear weapons…and THAT’S why this “deal” is a threat to our national security. We KNOW that Russia has aided Iran’s nuclear ambitions–and believe that they and China have likely aided North Korea’s. What makes ANYONE believe they won’t supply those rogue nations with the yellow-cake necessary to actually MAKE a nuke. Wouldn’t they find it laughingly ironic should North Korea, for example, launch a nuke against US using uranium that was MINED in the U.S.?


#15

I wasn’t talking about “production”.

Dave, you just proved me right, you’re freaking out because “nuclear” when they already had other sources.

They already have sources, sources we cannot block. That makes any talk of whether Uranium of ours, “might have” gone to them, moot.

We are not the biggest seller of Uranium, we are not the biggest reserve site of Uranium. If nat’l security was compromised, it was comprised, decades ago, by other nations figuring out where their stockpiles were, and selling them on the open market.

No different then talking about Iraq getting its hands on PS2s, because they could use them for missile guidance…


#16

Oh, BS AS. Wake up and smell the coffee! Uranium is a STRATEGIC material–absolutely NECESSARY for us to keep and maintain our nuclear arsenal and provide fuel to our nuclear power plants. No one CARES that Russia can buy it elsewhere. The POINT is that they are attempting to corner the market in uranium and the corrupt Obama Administration HELPED them do that by selling them 20% of OUR uranium production. Are you INCAPABLE of perceiving anything that the Democrats do as against our national interests?


#17

So is your concern that we sold any uranium under any circumstance, or that we sold it too soon and too low, before they corner the market and raise prices?


#18

The point here is that the Clinton’s sold the rights after receiving bribes to the Clinton Foundation and the massive increase to Bill’s speaking fees!

That is the point!


#19

And we have a glut in uranium, worldwide.

Do you understand what “glut” means? We’re oversupplied, it’s abundant, it’s far outstripping demand.

At this point, you’re like a liberal still grasping at “peak oil”, when we are in no trouble at all of running out.

“Corner the market” my butt. Russia barely controls 5% of the world supply. The biggest owner of Uranium is Australia.


#20

There’s a “glut” of pitchblende…not uranium. That’s the ore from which uranium is extracted. If there’s so much uranium world-wide, WHY do you think the Russians wanted so badly to buy 20% of OURS that they were willing to extort, bribe, etc. in order to get US to sell it to them? Why do that if they could go to Niger or Australia or Azerbygan and get it for almost nothing? Certainly less than the $145 million they gave to the Clintons?