It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Uranium One deal led to some exports to Europe, memos show

page: 2
11
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 2 2017 @ 01:13 PM
link   
a reply to: SRPrime


There is only one logical reason for Russia to have purchased any stake in Uranium One and that's to smuggle uranium out of the country.


Now THAT's Russophobia! Russia does not need to smuggle uranium out of North America because they have three times the uranium reserves we do. By acquiring stakes in our supply, they can better control market prices. Duh. It's just like oil.




posted on Nov, 2 2017 @ 01:18 PM
link   

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: SRPrime


There is only one logical reason for Russia to have purchased any stake in Uranium One and that's to smuggle uranium out of the country.


Now THAT's Russophobia! Russia does not need to smuggle uranium out of North America because they have three times the uranium reserves we do. By acquiring stakes in our supply, they can better control market prices. Duh. It's just like oil.


Lets purchase an insignificant mine, that halted all productions of mining for uranium under an endangered species law, so we can control the prices -- just like OIL!

/Not.

That's a straight loss of damn near 10 million. Since Uranium One is such a small contributor, and basically all but shut down -- I'm asking you, where is the value? How would this affect their ability to control prices at all?
edit on 2-11-2017 by SRPrime because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 2 2017 @ 08:05 PM
link   
a reply to: SRPrime

The Russians got mines in Kazakhstan that are producing as part of the U1 deal.

We IMPORT over 25% of our uranium FROM Russia and Kazakhstan.

We TRADE enriched uranium to the Russians for their lower grade material from decommissioned missiles.



posted on Nov, 2 2017 @ 08:26 PM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66
The uranium ore has always been destined for refinement in Canada. This is not news.

As far as "giving away our uranium" the Canadian firm already owned the mines, which are basically shut down at this point. We import 83% of the uranium we use from other countries, and 25% of it comes from Russia/Kazakstan.

We have traded ENRICHED URANIUM to Russia since the 90s in exchange for their low-grade material from decommissioned missiles.

There is nothing here in these continuing whining posts except lies and ignorance.


Hey you are caught being wrong again!!!!


Yet NRC memos reviewed by The Hill show that it did approve the shipment of yellowcake uranium — the raw material used to make nuclear fuel and weapons — from the Russian-owned mines in the United States to Canada in 2012 through a third party. Later, the Obama administration approved some of that uranium going all the way to Europe, government documents show.
thehill.com...

Remember; you called this fake news!

You said that the documents showed the uranium went to Canada and back to the US only.

Remember this thread, you know, the one in your signature?

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Remember saying this?


This is a pretty big deal right? I mean, Uranium One/Rosatom is breaking US law by exporting without a license. Yet, your contention is that a spokesperson for that company just admitted that years ago ... and we haven’t heard anything about it since?

Come on G. Did Rosatom make an announcement? Surely there’s ACTUAL evidence, right?


You fought so hard to say this uranium wasnt shipped to europe.

You said that obviously this was a lie, because it would be a huge deal that should be investigated.

And now when proven that you were 100% wrong, you say its a lie.

Good job!!!



edit on 2-11-2017 by Grambler because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 2 2017 @ 08:29 PM
link   
a reply to: xuenchen

As shown above, members here fought tooth and nail to say that nothing was exported to Europe as the NYT admitted in their article on thi years ago.

And yet we find out that is again another lie.

And I am sure they are all hoping this thread just goes away.

I am sure next we will hear how we are traitors for pointing this out.



posted on Nov, 2 2017 @ 08:32 PM
link   
a reply to: Grambler

Good reminder.




posted on Nov, 2 2017 @ 08:43 PM
link   
The agreements from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission cited at the time of the approved merger stated that the uranium ore would be refined in Canada.

The NRC approves all export of nuclear material from the US/ The only source for the claim that U has been exported is The Hill which has been fronting this story for two weeks now.

I’ll be glad to admit any claim of mine is incorrect when shown the facts. An unsupported claim from The Hill does not constitute facts.

Let’s see the approvals from the NRC for these exports to Europe and Asia.



posted on Nov, 2 2017 @ 08:47 PM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66
How interesting that none of you are bothering to quote this from the OP's source:




“None of the US U308 product produced to date has been sold to non-US customers except for approximately 25% which was sold via book transfer at the conversion facilities to customers from Western Europe and Asia," executive Martha Wickers said. “Any physical export of the product from conversion facilities to non-US destinations is under the control of such customers and subject to NRC regulation.”

The United States actually imports the majority of the uranium it uses as fuel. In 2016, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration, 24 percent of the imports came from Kazakhstan and 14 percent came from Russia.


Emphasis mine.

Notice, there is no statement that product was exported to Europe or Asia, merely that ownership of the material was moved via a "book transfer" that was subject to approval by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission ... you know, that Federal agency mandated to control what nuclear materials can come into and leave this country.



Appears the commission itself has stated that 25% left for Europe, funny how you were asking for sources from my thread on it, I provided one with the name of the source and the quote yet you said there needed to be a second one.

Tada...the second one has been outed today yet here you are still denying.

I am only replying because it is silly to deny it and I doubt I'll reply to you anymore.



posted on Nov, 2 2017 @ 09:02 PM
link   
a reply to: xuenchen

Any chance some of this stuff went to North Korea? I've heard some rumors but not sure what was even shipped...I'm not so sure they(NK) could enrich yellowcake to be weapons capable but I have a feeling this is going to get a lot more interesting...

Something smells and I don't think its just the powder.



posted on Nov, 2 2017 @ 09:18 PM
link   
a reply to: Vasa Croe

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission stated that 25% went to Europe? Or spokesperson Donna Wichers made that statement?

Cite this statement from NRC if you can.



posted on Nov, 2 2017 @ 09:21 PM
link   
Where would one find these documents?

Yet NRC memos reviewed by The Hill show that it did approve the shipment of yellowcake uranium — the raw material used to make nuclear fuel and weapons — from the Russian-owned mines in the United States to Canada in 2012 through a third party. Later, the Obama administration approved some of that uranium going all the way to Europe, government documents show.

NRC officials said they could not disclose the total amount of uranium that Uranium One exported because the information is proprietary. They did, however, say that the shipments only lasted from 2012 to 2014 and that they are unaware of any exports since then.


thehill.com...



posted on Nov, 2 2017 @ 09:34 PM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: Vasa Croe

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission stated that 25% went to Europe? Or spokesperson Donna Wichers made that statement?

Cite this statement from NRC if you can.


Sure thing...




June 19, 2015 The Honorable Peter J. Visclosky United States House of Representatives Washington, DC 20515 Dear Congressman Visclosky: On behalf of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), I am responding to your letter of May 13, 2015, forwarding correspondence from your constituent Richard Lenart. Mr. Lenart expressed concern regarding the Russian purchase of U.S. uranium mines and possible shipment of uranium from those mines to Russia or the Middle East. In 2010, the NRC approved the transfer of control of the licenses from Uranium One USA, Inc. and Uranium One America, Inc. to JSC Atomredmetsoloto (ARMZ), a Russian corporation. At that time we determined that the U.S. subsidiaries of Uranium One, Inc. (the formerly Canadian, now Russian-owned firm) would remain as the NRC-regulated licensees and continue to be qualified to conduct the uranium recovery operations. As a condition of our approval, we required the licensee to notify the NRC before ARMZ appoints, hires, or designates personnel to perform NRC-licensed activities. The ARMZ licensees represent approximately 20 percent of the currently licensed uranium in-situ recovery production capacity in the U.S. At this time, neither Uranium One, Inc. nor ARMZ holds a specific NRC export license, which would authorize them to export uranium to any other country. However, in 2012, RSB Logistics Services, a shipping company, received from the NRC an amendment to its export license to allow it to export uranium from various sources, including the Uranium One, Inc. Willow Creek site in Wyoming, to the Blind River conversion plant in Canada, and then return the uranium to the U.S. for further processing. That license stated that the Canadian Government needed to obtain prior U.S. Government approval before any of the U.S. material could be transferred to any country other than the U.S. Subsequently, the U.S. Department of Energy granted approval for some re-transfers of U.S. uranium from the Canadian conversion facility to European enrichment plants. Before issuing this license amendment to RSB Logistics Services—or any other export license or license amendment—the NRC must determine that the proposed export is not inimical to the common defense and security of the United States. Under existing NRC regulations, this means that any uranium proposed to be exported to any country for use in nuclear fuel would be subject to the Atomic Energy Act Section 123 agreement for peaceful nuclear cooperation between the U.S. and that other country and confirmed in case-specific, government-to-government assurances for each export license. The receiving country is required to commit to use the material only for peaceful purposes (not for development of any nuclear explosive device), to maintain adequate physical protection, and not to retransfer the material to a third country or alter it in form or content without the prior consent of the U.S. The transfer of the U.S.-supplied uranium from Canada to Europe noted above also was subject to applicable Section 123 agreements.

P. Visclosky -2- In addition, every application submitted to the NRC for a specific export or import license is made available to the public on the NRC’s web site, and the NRC welcomes public comment on such applications. Our regulations outline in detail procedures for public participation concerning these license applications. Please be assured that no Uranium One, Inc.-produced uranium has been shipped directly to Russia and the U.S. Government has not authorized any country to re-transfer U.S. uranium to Russia. I hope this information is useful to you. If you need anything additional, please contact me or Eugene Dacus, Director of the Office of Congressional Affairs, at (301) 415-1776. Sincerely,
/RA Michael Weber Acting for/
Mark A. Satorius Executive Director For Operations

P. Visclosky -2- In addition, every application submitted to the NRC for a specific export or import license is made available to the public on the NRC’s web site, and the NRC welcomes public comment on such applications. Our regulations outline in detail procedures for public participation concerning these license applications. Please be assured that no Uranium One, Inc.-produced uranium has been shipped directly to Russia and the U.S. Government has not authorized any country to re-transfer U.S. uranium to Russia. I hope this information is useful to you. If you need anything additional, please contact me or Eugene Dacus, Director of the Office of Congressional Affairs, at (301) 415-1776. Sincerely,
/RA Michael Weber Acting for/
Mark A. Satorius Executive Director For Operations DISTRIBUTION: LTR-15-02741-OEDO RRihm EDO r/f RidsEdoMailCenter RidsSecyMailCenter RidsOgcMailCenter RidsOcaMailCenter RidsOipMailCenter RidsNmssMailCenter ADAMS Accession Number: Package: ML15140A681; Letter: ML15168A230 OFFICE OEDO OGC OCA OIP NMSS EDO NAME RRihm J Biggins D Decker B Smith C Glenn MSatorius MWeber for DATE 06/17/15 06/10/15 06/11/15 06/10/15 06/10/15 06/19/15
OFFICIAL RECORD COPY


The bolded part should suffice for you.

Feel free to keep the denial up....thats direct from the source....the Executive Director of the NRC



posted on Nov, 2 2017 @ 09:36 PM
link   
a reply to: JinMI

I'd love to see them; please post them if you find them.

Do you notice how the language that you highlighted suddenly gets very vague?

If I'm wrong, I'll admit it. The NRC approves all shipments out of the country of nuclear material.

If they sent U from the U1 mines to Europe, that's on them. I haven't seen any evidence of it, and pardon me if I don't trust The Hill.



posted on Nov, 2 2017 @ 09:39 PM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: JinMI

I'd love to see them; please post them if you find them.

Do you notice how the language that you highlighted suddenly gets very vague?

If I'm wrong, I'll admit it. The NRC approves all shipments out of the country of nuclear material.

If they sent U from the U1 mines to Europe, that's on them. I haven't seen any evidence of it, and pardon me if I don't trust The Hill.


Just quoted their memo for you above.



posted on Nov, 2 2017 @ 09:48 PM
link   
a reply to: Vasa Croe

Now there you go, that's actual evidence. I do see why you believe what you believe now; if I have been rude to you in the course of the discussion you have my apology.

Do you have the link? I'd love to follow up.

The language is interesting. "Re-transfers" of US uranium from the Canadian plant to European ENRICHMENT facilities.

After it's enriched/refined in Europe, what happened to it? Did it come back to the US?

The Hill article mentioned "book transfers" which sounds like an accounting maneuver.

So the Department of Energy approved a "re-transfer" to Europe in 2012? Why aren't folks going after the Department of Energy then? Because it seems like the NRC is quite clear on the matter:

From your information above:




Before issuing this license amendment to RSB Logistics Services—or any other export license or license amendment—the NRC must determine that the proposed export is not inimical to the common defense and security of the United States. Under existing NRC regulations, this means that any uranium proposed to be exported to any country for use in nuclear fuel would be subject to the Atomic Energy Act Section 123 agreement for peaceful nuclear cooperation between the U.S. and that other country and confirmed in case-specific, government-to-government assurances for each export license. The receiving country is required to commit to use the material only for peaceful purposes (not for development of any nuclear explosive device), to maintain adequate physical protection, and not to retransfer the material to a third country or alter it in form or content without the prior consent of the U.S. The transfer of the U.S.-supplied uranium from Canada to Europe noted above also was subject to applicable Section 123 agreements.


As far as 123 Agreements go ...



In order for a country to enter into a 123 Agreement with the United States, that country must commit to U.S.-mandated nuclear nonproliferation norms. The U.S. State Department is responsible for negotiating 123 Agreements, with the technical assistance and concurrence of DOE/NNSA and consultation with the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. As of January 20, 2017, the United States has entered into 23 such agreements that govern peaceful nuclear cooperation with 48 countries, the International Atomic Energy Agency and the governing authorities on Taiwan, as detailed below.


NISA

So it seems that whatever uranium was transferred was done so legally under established agreements and law. The NRC reiterates its position that the U acquired in the Rosatom merger would not leave the country in the same report above. Department of Energy is the agency that approved a "re-transfer" whatever that is.

Good job though. Good evidence for your claim.
edit on 2-11-2017 by Gryphon66 because: Noted



posted on Nov, 2 2017 @ 09:51 PM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: Vasa Croe

Now there you go, that's actual evidence. I do see why you believe what you believe now; if I have been rude to you in the course of the discussion you have my apology.

Do you have the link? I'd love to follow up.

The language is interesting. "Re-transfers" of US uranium from the Canadian plant to European ENRICHMENT facilities.

After it's enriched/refined in Europe, what happened to it? Did it come back to the US?

The Hill article mentioned "book transfers" which sounds like an accounting maneuver.

So the Department of Energy approved a "re-transfer" to Europe in 2012? Why aren't folks going after the Department of Energy then? Because it seems like the NRC is quite clear on the matter:

From your information above:




Before issuing this license amendment to RSB Logistics Services—or any other export license or license amendment—the NRC must determine that the proposed export is not inimical to the common defense and security of the United States. Under existing NRC regulations, this means that any uranium proposed to be exported to any country for use in nuclear fuel would be subject to the Atomic Energy Act Section 123 agreement for peaceful nuclear cooperation between the U.S. and that other country and confirmed in case-specific, government-to-government assurances for each export license. The receiving country is required to commit to use the material only for peaceful purposes (not for development of any nuclear explosive device), to maintain adequate physical protection, and not to retransfer the material to a third country or alter it in form or content without the prior consent of the U.S. The transfer of the U.S.-supplied uranium from Canada to Europe noted above also was subject to applicable Section 123 agreements.


As far as 123 Agreements go ...



In order for a country to enter into a 123 Agreement with the United States, that country must commit to U.S.-mandated nuclear nonproliferation norms. The U.S. State Department is responsible for negotiating 123 Agreements, with the technical assistance and concurrence of DOE/NNSA and consultation with the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. As of January 20, 2017, the United States has entered into 23 such agreements that govern peaceful nuclear cooperation with 48 countries, the International Atomic Energy Agency and the governing authorities on Taiwan, as detailed below.


NISA

So it seems that whatever uranium was transferred was done so legally under established agreements and law. The NRC reiterates it's position that the U acquired in the Rosatom merger would not leave the country in the same report above.

Good job though. Good evidence for your claim.


A picture of the file and site for those that may not believe...its is right there on the NRC website for anyone to use their search and find...



You have to search the package number at the site in the pic. I just used the word Uranium and made package number the identifier then pasted the package number in and the doc is right there.

This was my search query

Site link adams.nrc.gov...
edit on 11/2/17 by Vasa Croe because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 2 2017 @ 10:03 PM
link   
a reply to: Vasa Croe

Assuming here that your'e actually interested in the truth and not just propping up a narrative ...

Looking at what "re-transfer" means ... from the NRC website:



Retransfer means the transport from one foreign country to another of nuclear equipment or nuclear material previously exported from the United States, or of special nuclear material produced through the use of source material or special nuclear material previously exported from the United States.


and further ...




§ 110.6 Retransfers.

(a) Retransfer of any nuclear equipment or material listed in §§ 110.8 and 110.9 (except byproduct material), including special nuclear material produced through the use of equipment, source material, or special nuclear material bearing obligations to the United States pursuant to an agreement for cooperation, requires authorization by the Department of Energy, unless the export to the new destination is authorized by the NRC under a specific or general license or an exemption from licensing requirements. See definition of ‘‘obligations’’ in § 110.2.

(b) Requests for authority to retransfer are processed by the Department of Energy, National Nuclear Security Administration, Office of International Regimes and Agreements, Washington, DC 20585.
[49 FR 47197, Dec. 3, 1984, as amended at 55 FR 34519, Aug. 23, 1990; 58 FR 13002, Mar. 9, 1993; 65 FR 70290, Nov. 22, 2000; 75 FR 44087, Jul. 28, 2010]


So, in fact, the statement you highlighted above isn't an original export but is re-exporting material.

I would take that to mean that whatever European country this went to is in full compliance with our non-proliferation agreements, and that the material (from the Canadian facility but not necessarily from the Uranium One American mines) transferred was some sort of bulk movement? Based on the fact that we import 83% of our uranium.

NRC 10 CFR Part 110



posted on Nov, 2 2017 @ 10:12 PM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: Vasa Croe

Assuming here that your'e actually interested in the truth and not just propping up a narrative ...

Looking at what "re-transfer" means ... from the NRC website:



Retransfer means the transport from one foreign country to another of nuclear equipment or nuclear material previously exported from the United States, or of special nuclear material produced through the use of source material or special nuclear material previously exported from the United States.


and further ...




§ 110.6 Retransfers.

(a) Retransfer of any nuclear equipment or material listed in §§ 110.8 and 110.9 (except byproduct material), including special nuclear material produced through the use of equipment, source material, or special nuclear material bearing obligations to the United States pursuant to an agreement for cooperation, requires authorization by the Department of Energy, unless the export to the new destination is authorized by the NRC under a specific or general license or an exemption from licensing requirements. See definition of ‘‘obligations’’ in § 110.2.

(b) Requests for authority to retransfer are processed by the Department of Energy, National Nuclear Security Administration, Office of International Regimes and Agreements, Washington, DC 20585.
[49 FR 47197, Dec. 3, 1984, as amended at 55 FR 34519, Aug. 23, 1990; 58 FR 13002, Mar. 9, 1993; 65 FR 70290, Nov. 22, 2000; 75 FR 44087, Jul. 28, 2010]


So, in fact, the statement you highlighted above isn't an original export but is re-exporting material.

I would take that to mean that whatever European country this went to is in full compliance with our non-proliferation agreements, and that the material (from the Canadian facility but not necessarily from the Uranium One American mines) transferred was some sort of bulk movement? Based on the fact that we import 83% of our uranium.

NRC 10 CFR Part 110


Correct. It was referenced in a letter also referencing Uranium One and exporting to Canada.

Regardless of the definition of re exporting, Uranium from the US Uranium One mine was sent to Europe after being sent to Canada....it left the US.

The fact they have to clarify that none was sent to Russia and in particular the US government has not allowed any other country to send any to Russia from the shipments to Europe just screams CYA by the NRC.


Please be assured that no Uranium One, Inc.-produced uranium has been shipped directly to Russia and the U.S. Government has not authorized any country to re-transfer U.S. uranium to Russia.



posted on Nov, 2 2017 @ 10:16 PM
link   
a reply to: Vasa Croe

Great job.

I am not being petty and talking about us lowly ats members.

But this shows that the shills I have seen on the media that said this wasn't a big deal because no uranium left the U.S. were wrong.

I assume they will be on tomorrow saying they admit their mistake and it is a big deal.


edit on 2-11-2017 by Grambler because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 2 2017 @ 10:24 PM
link   
a reply to: Vasa Croe

That's not what your letter actually says though.

It's very specific; shall I remind you?



Subsequently, the U.S. Department of Energy granted approval for some re-transfers of U.S. uranium from the Canadian conversion facility to European enrichment plants.


That statement is preceded by these:



However, in 2012, RSB Logistics Services, a shipping company, received from the NRC an amendment to its export license to allow it to export uranium from various sources, including the Uranium One, Inc. Willow Creek site in Wyoming, to the Blind River conversion plant in Canada, and then return the uranium to the U.S. for further processing. That license stated that the Canadian Government needed to obtain prior U.S. Government approval before any of the U.S. material could be transferred to any country other than the U.S.


... and followed by these ...



Before issuing this license amendment to RSB Logistics Services—or any other export license or license amendment—the NRC must determine that the proposed export is not inimical to the common defense and security of the United States. Under existing NRC regulations, this means that any uranium proposed to be exported to any country for use in nuclear fuel would be subject to the Atomic Energy Act Section 123 agreement for peaceful nuclear cooperation between the U.S. and that other country and confirmed in case-specific, government-to-government assurances for each export license.


Which backs up the claims that have been made since 2010 about what the final destination of the material from the Uranium One mines would be.

I cited from the NRC website what re-transfer means, and I cited material which explains what a 123 Agreement is.

Whatever "re-transfer" of material was cited and approved by the Department of Energy was done legally, but it is fairly clear that this was material that had already been out of the US.


edit on 2-11-2017 by Gryphon66 because: Noted



new topics

top topics



 
11
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join