Let's begin with my letter to the editor in response to another's letter resurrecting the Uranium One "controversy" and go from there:
"A recent letter re: Uranium one and Hillary Clinton again displays abysmal ignorance of facts in the matter. In brief, they are:
First:
Uranium One is a Canadian corporation, South African in origin. The Bush Administration approved its acquisition of US mining rights in 2005! In 2010 A Russian corporation, Rosatom, bought Uranium One as subsidiary. Rosatom sells uranium to civilian power reactors in the United States which, historically, have always purchased most of their uranium from foreign sources. Currently, Uranium One is responsible for less than 6 percent of domestic production. Neither Uranium One nor Rosatom holds an NRC export license, so no uranium produced by either may be exported.
Uranium One is a Canadian corporation, South African in origin. The Bush Administration approved its acquisition of US mining rights in 2005! In 2010 A Russian corporation, Rosatom, bought Uranium One as subsidiary. Rosatom sells uranium to civilian power reactors in the United States which, historically, have always purchased most of their uranium from foreign sources. Currently, Uranium One is responsible for less than 6 percent of domestic production. Neither Uranium One nor Rosatom holds an NRC export license, so no uranium produced by either may be exported.
Second:
The Senate Committee on Foreign Investment in the USA, cannot negate such a sale; but may recommend that the President stop such a transaction. This involves the Committee and several cabinet posts giving either a yes or no recommendation. The committee's output is a suggestion, no more no less, but only twice has a president overruled it. The Cabinet level weigh ins are generally not even brought to the level of the department head, since no negative action can ensue.
Third:
The Committee is chaired by the Treasury Secretary, and includes members of 16 agencies, including Homeland Security, Justice, Defense, Commerce, Energy, Treasury, and State. All except SecDef Gates, were confirmed by a Republican Controlled Senate. Energy Secretary Steven Chu was the most directly involved with the issue and he was unanimously confirmed by simple voice vote. The Committee gave their unanimous assent to the sale. Even had Clinton screamed "no" and held her breath, it just didn't matter.
Finally:
Every charity rating organization in America gives the Clinton Foundation top marks for transparency, utilization of funds, percentage of income allocated to administration (very low, by comparison with others) and the efficacy of program dollars applied to the relevant causes. There is zero evidence that any Clinton has ever personally benefited from Foundation contributions."
Now for a bit more discussion. Critics blame Hillary Clinton, as if any action she took would have made a difference in this matter. It wouldn't. Anyone who thinks the other cabinet heads would defer to her is delusional, especially SecDef Gates, a Bush appointee. Since neither Uranium and Rosatom have (or are likely to get) export licenses, the only thing that has changed is who gets paid for it. Telling a Canadian company that they couldn't sell their interest to a Russian entity is like the The US telling Hyundai they can't buy controlling interest in Honda.
If the uranium in question were to be exported rather than sold to US interests it might matter, but such simply isn't the case. If one were to argue that perhaps the US shouldn't have allowed other nations to mine Uranium on US soil, that ship sailed 140 years ago. Take, for example, the Dewey Burdock uranium project in South Dakota. It encompasses 240 acres of public surface land, plus more than 4,000 subsurface acres of uranium-rich earth.
As of two years ago, a Hong Kong-based company had secured the right to mine and profit off that uranium, used to replenish nuclear power plants around the world, particularly in China. In November, Hong Kong’s Azarga Resources merged with South African mining Giant, Powertech, to become Azarga Uranium and manage the Dewey Burdock project. I remind you, this is precisely the same scenario as Uranium One/Rosatom. Oh, but wait, it's not, because this Uranium will be exported, since unlike Rosatom, Azarga already has an export license. Does anyone remember the furor over that transaction? Of course not, there was none, because Hillary Clinton was no longer Secretary of State, so who cares? Where's the outrage?
The Senate Committee on Foreign Investment in the USA, cannot negate such a sale; but may recommend that the President stop such a transaction. This involves the Committee and several cabinet posts giving either a yes or no recommendation. The committee's output is a suggestion, no more no less, but only twice has a president overruled it. The Cabinet level weigh ins are generally not even brought to the level of the department head, since no negative action can ensue.
Third:
The Committee is chaired by the Treasury Secretary, and includes members of 16 agencies, including Homeland Security, Justice, Defense, Commerce, Energy, Treasury, and State. All except SecDef Gates, were confirmed by a Republican Controlled Senate. Energy Secretary Steven Chu was the most directly involved with the issue and he was unanimously confirmed by simple voice vote. The Committee gave their unanimous assent to the sale. Even had Clinton screamed "no" and held her breath, it just didn't matter.
Finally:
Every charity rating organization in America gives the Clinton Foundation top marks for transparency, utilization of funds, percentage of income allocated to administration (very low, by comparison with others) and the efficacy of program dollars applied to the relevant causes. There is zero evidence that any Clinton has ever personally benefited from Foundation contributions."
Now for a bit more discussion. Critics blame Hillary Clinton, as if any action she took would have made a difference in this matter. It wouldn't. Anyone who thinks the other cabinet heads would defer to her is delusional, especially SecDef Gates, a Bush appointee. Since neither Uranium and Rosatom have (or are likely to get) export licenses, the only thing that has changed is who gets paid for it. Telling a Canadian company that they couldn't sell their interest to a Russian entity is like the The US telling Hyundai they can't buy controlling interest in Honda.
If the uranium in question were to be exported rather than sold to US interests it might matter, but such simply isn't the case. If one were to argue that perhaps the US shouldn't have allowed other nations to mine Uranium on US soil, that ship sailed 140 years ago. Take, for example, the Dewey Burdock uranium project in South Dakota. It encompasses 240 acres of public surface land, plus more than 4,000 subsurface acres of uranium-rich earth.
As of two years ago, a Hong Kong-based company had secured the right to mine and profit off that uranium, used to replenish nuclear power plants around the world, particularly in China. In November, Hong Kong’s Azarga Resources merged with South African mining Giant, Powertech, to become Azarga Uranium and manage the Dewey Burdock project. I remind you, this is precisely the same scenario as Uranium One/Rosatom. Oh, but wait, it's not, because this Uranium will be exported, since unlike Rosatom, Azarga already has an export license. Does anyone remember the furor over that transaction? Of course not, there was none, because Hillary Clinton was no longer Secretary of State, so who cares? Where's the outrage?
Perhaps we all should care, not because of Mrs. Clinton, but because of an outdated law. Azarga will pay no royalties to the United States government, thanks to the Mining Law of 1872, which still governs uranium and other “hardrock” mining to this day, any company can extract and sell minerals from public lands without paying a cent in royalties to the federal government.
To achieve some perspective, allow me to offer that the only reasons Uranium One and Mrs. Clinton remain in the spotlight are to attempt to divert attention from the continual litany of gaffes, insults and embarrassments foisted on us and the world by the current administration.
No comments:
Post a Comment