Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
The Uranium One Thing Is a Non-Story and Here Is Why
It always amazes me how false legends get created, and soon, without any facts, they are cemented in everyone’s minds, the details get lost, and they become widely believed, even without evidence.
So it is with the Uranium One story, which is making the rounds again, thanks to a Tweet last week from the President who said, “Uranium deal to Russia, with Clinton help and Obama Administration knowledge, is the biggest story that Fake Media doesn’t want to follow!”
And so we have this false legend, already solidifying in people’s minds that Hillary Clinton sold off a large chunk of America’s uranium to Russia, probably in exchange for an enormous bribe to the Clinton Foundation. Because, when it comes to Hillary Clinton, people will believe almost anything. Look, I don’t like Hillary Clinton either, but the real stuff is bad enough, we don’t need to make up anything extra.
Now, there was a Russian bribery story involving uranium, but you have to go beyond the headlines to find the details. It involved a Russian named Vadim Mikerin. But the bribes weren’t paid by Russians to Americans, it was the other way around. Kickbacks were paid by an American trucking company to Russians get no-bid contracts to ship uranium. And the “scandal” is that the FBI allegedly kept this secret while the Uranium One deal was being approved.
So what is the Uranium One deal? It involves Willow Creek, a uranium mine in Wyoming. I keep seeing it reported (uncritically) that Willow Creek produces 20% of American uranium, but that’s not accurate. The amount varies from year to year, but in 2011-2016, Willow Creek put out less than 5% of us US domestic Uranium production capacity. And while I can’t pin it down, Willow Creek sits on something like 4% of US reserves.
However, the thing to understand is that the US doesn’t produce that much uranium. Only about 11% of the uranium delivered to American power plants is produced domestically. The rest, 89% comes from foreign sources. Who sells us uranium? A quarter of it comes from Canada, 24% from Kazakhstan, 20% from Australia, and the rest comes from a slew of other countries from Namibia to China. Oh, and we get 14% out of Russia.
Why do the Russians sell us uranium? Well, they used to sell us even more. We had a 20-year agreement that finished in 2013 known as the Megatons to Megawatts Program. The Russians sold us surplus uranium from retired nuclear weapons that had been blended down to low enrichment for use in our power plants. The truth is that they can sell us uranium because they have more of it than they’ll ever need. (I’ve heard it suggested, but couldn’t track it down, that transporting this uranium was what the Mikerin bribery deal was about.)
Okay, so the Willow Creek mine was bought by a Canadian company called Uranium One, which, like lots of other companies, ran into financial problems in 2009. At that time, Rosatom, the Russian state nuclear energy company, through a subsidiary, bought part of the company. They bought the rest in 2010.
A purchase like that requires approval from the US government, specifically something called the CFIUS as well as from the NRC, plus Canadian and Kazakh regulators. What is CFIUS? It’s the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States. It is made up of representatives from 16 US agencies and departments, including the Commerce Department, DHS, DOD, and the State Department. They approved the Uranium One sale.
There’s no evidence that Hillary Clinton was involved or even knew. The State Department has a seat on the CFIUS committee, but even if they bribed Hillary Clinton to get this deal though, and Clinton ordered her CFIUS representative to approve the deal, there’s 15 other agencies that make up the committee, plus the NRC, plus Canadian regulators.
Nor is there evidence that Uranium One bribed anyone. They wouldn’t need to. The sale of Uranium One was not controversial because even if this was some nefarious Russian plot to steal America’s uranium, they’d still need a license to export it. The closest thing that anyone has found was a small donation to the Clinton Foundation in 2007, but in terms of bribing Hillary Clinton to approve the deal, the timeline doesn’t work. (This is not to say that Hillary Clinton is clean, she’s obviously as crooked as a dog’s hind leg. But as I said above, the real stuff is bad enough, we don’t need to make up anything extra.)
To recap: This was a foreign purchase of an American uranium mine that produces a small amount of the uranium the US uses. None of the uranium has been exported. None of it can be exported. We don’t need it because we can buy it from elsewhere. The Russians don’t need it because they have a surplus. And even if anybody did, nobody would care because this is a tiny amount of uranium.
So no, Hillary Clinton didn’t steal America’s vital uranium and sell it to the Ruskies. And no, the “Fake Media” isn’t covering it up. This whole Uranium One business is a non-story. Which makes you wonder why Donald Trump is bringing it up.
Published in Politics
Because I am almost as interested in accuracy in debunking “false legends” as @fredcole, to whom I send my very sincere appreciation for giving me new impetus for learning (and re-learning, in many cases) as much as I could about the details surrounding this particular “false legend”, I went back over articles stretching from this morning to many years ago in search of original sources. My curiosity was especially piqued by several statements in his account of the reasons why this should be regarded as a “non-story”, some of which I had never seen anywhere, not even in the liberal media, like the claim that the uranium mine in question did not, in fact, produce 20% of American uranium, but only produced less than 5% of our uranium. Upon first reading that account, my first emotion was one of relief, until I realized that if, and this is sheer speculation, as is so much of the “reporting” about this entire “scandal” (scare quotes used just as the author of this piece used them; more on that later) 20% of our uranium might be enough to make a weapon big enough to take out a major city, like New York City, then on that scale, maybe 4-5% would be enough to obliterate a much smaller city– like the one I call home! Somehow, my feeling of relief immediately vanished; can’t imagine why. But the one statement which really jumped out at me was this one: “There is no evidence that Hillary Clinton was involved or even knew” of the CFIUS decision to allow a transaction by which Russia, one of our two most dangerous nuclear enemies, to take possession of 5-20%, take your pick, of our uranium supply.
Addressing two of these areas, if the placement of scare quotes around the word scandal connotes skepticism that the failure of the deeply corrupt Obama-Holder-Mueller Justice Department hiding the directly relevant criminal investigation into the Russian bribery, kickback and money laundering scheme was a real scandal , I must dissent from any such implication. It is rather clear that this delay was directed from on high (perhaps a misnomer for the position occupied by the “leaders” of the Obama administration) so as not to interfere with Madame Secretary’s reset button she got at Toys R Us.
With respect to the 5% estimate, before I make my next statement, let me assure the author that I did, indeed, check his link to the authority for this statement, and I have endeavored to understand how he got that figure from that multi-page report and would appreciate his enlightening me on which of those many tables and charts supports his calculation. However, I must note that in the past few days, I have read the same estimate of 20% in the New York Times, the Washington Post, The Hill, Sen. Grassley’s letter, Powerlineblog.com, American Thinker, National Review, PJ Media. Were all these sources erroneous?
Sincerely, Jim
Right. They say the same thing about you guys.
I’m unclear what you mean by that comment.
So what? Is this a discussion about aspersions being cast? Why do you think anyone reading this cares one whit about what “they” say about us “guys”?
It is clear enough. “You guys” implies a group you are not a part of. It can only mean you don’t think you are part of the group in the right the left lies about.
So, what group are you in? Are you a solo gig, as the only man who is righteous?
I don’t consider libertarians to be part of the right. Obviously not everyone shares my evalution. That’s fine.
Ah. So, part of the enlightened group above it all.
No. I didn’t say that. I don’t understand why you have to impose the most negative construction possible on everything I write. I find it really annoying.
There’s a symmetry here.
I think it’s a just a matter of conflating terms. From what I understand the company controls 20% of our Uranium mining capacity. The mine produces less than its capacity, which is where I’m guessing Fred got his lower number for actual Uranium produced. It may be relevant that we also purchase more Uranium from overseas than we produce ourselves, and that ownership of our mines does not matter so much in terms of to whom the Uranium can be sold, which is heavily regulated.
I don’t think there are any reasonable fears of this Uranium being used to destroy a small city in the U.S. or anywhere else, for that matter. This was an administrative deal more than a nefarious subjugation of national security. Or that’s how I understand that side of the argument.
You have gone out of your way to inform me on how you are not a nice person, including having another Ricochet member relay that message in person. You now have no grounds to complain that I now construe what you have to say in that light.
I can be an unpleasant person (which I am) and still be annoyed that you insist on putting the most negative construction possible on the things I say. There’s no inconsistency there.
Okay, so let me help you with some of these fears.
With regards to uranium:
So, in other words, you’re suggesting the plan would be to:
And then what? Build a nuke? They already have tons of them.
Give it to terrorists to build their own bomb with? Or build a bomb and give it to terrorists to nuke New York? That would be insane. Setting aside the technical difficulties involved with … any of it, the Russians have their own terrorism problems. They don’t want to give a nuke to terrorists because it would be far more likely to be used against them.
What I’m saying is that the fears you expressed don’t make any sense, either technically or practically.
I was not expecting you not to annoyed, I was helping your understanding. There is no inconsistentency there.
Every other place I have seen talk about this, from more than one side, all agree this is a story. The only person who does not think it is a story is you. Compared to Andy McCarthy, I should listen to you why, exactly? What expertise do you bring on this subject, hmm?
This looks to me like a reasonable statement by the President since there were matters covered up that might have had negative effects on the Uranium One deal. I haven’t found anyone to say if these matters were publicly known the Uranium One deal would still have had clear sailing.
Again, then why did the Rooskies expend the effort to buy a worthless mine?
It’s not worthless. Like there is uranium there.
@fredcole:
Great! I now have another 500 words, which I will get to after other obligations call. In the meantime, a few quick notes as to your bullet points.
#1 upper group: then why in the world did they go to all this trouble to buy more if they are swimming in uranium?
#2 in the upper group: correct, they did not have an export license, but (who would have thought the Russians would do such a dastardly thing?), they moved it anyway and according to one of the major stories on this entire story (!) it left American soil long ago.
#3 in the upper group: with Obama and Hillary and Holder and Mueller in the leadership, why would Russians need to “steel” [sic.] anything? They were given a pass on whatever they wanted — until they “stole” Crimea. There go those pesky facts again.
#4 ditto: see response to #1.
#5 ditto: I know.
I will respond with more research when time permits such careful research. And, because I did not dash off my first response in a matter of moments, but phrased my inquiries in what I thought, and hoped, was a most respectful manner, as I usually do with my posts on this site, which I understand emphasizes civility and good manners, it is a little puzzling to me why you conclude my thoughts do not make “any sense, either technically or practically.”
By the way, in our next exchange of civil discourse, I would be most grateful if you could fill me in on the source of the 5% number.
Thank you.
Sincerely, Jim.
Which you just said they don’t need and can’t export.
Businesses, like mining businesses, make money for their owners (optimally), which might be why a mining business would want to buy another mining operation. To make more money.
A mining operation that was losing money? During a uranium glut?
It’s the Internet, putting the worst construction on things is a dominant cultural bent. So how long have you been a Russian agent, Mr. Cole? And does that come with health benefits? And is the retirement plan as big a negative as its reputation?
Is crystal clear to me.
The “I know you are, but what are I?” argument should fail to hold water sometime around 8 years old.
@fredcole, I have noticed in the course of responding to a number of responses to your post that you are quite insistent that your authorities be checked and that responses be of a substantive nature, as you certainly should be. As I did (a) check your links and tried to study them as best my non-engineering background would permit and (b) posed what I thought was as civil a request as I know how to make about the source of your 5% number, as in all my reading on this subject this was the only time I have seen that estimate, I would appreciate hearing from you on this matter. With your gracious assistance, I may be able to achieve the goal of making “any sense, either technically or practically.”
Sincerely, Jim
From Gregg Jarrett:
And here Jarrett reads the same The Hill article Fred references and comes to complete opposite conclusion…essentially that there is enough there that warrants investigation and possible criminal indictments for Hillary (and given the Podesta Group’s involvement I would add them, too.)
Here is Mr. Jarrett’s legal background for what it’s worth: He graduated magna cum laude from Claremont Men’s College in 1977 with a degree in political science. He graduated from law school at the University of California, Hastings College of the Law, in 1980, and worked as a defense attorney for several years in San Francisco with the firm of Gordon & Rees LLP. He maintains his California bar license and has taught law as an adjunct professor at New York Law School and lectured at other law schools. (from Wikipedia)
@JimGeorge : I’m not @fredcole, but I gave you a likely answer here.
Hmm.
http://thehill.com/policy/national-security/358339-uranium-one-deal-led-to-some-exports-to-europe-memos-show?amp