PDA

View Full Version : OT: Australia selling uranium to Russia!



Skoshi Tiger
09-06-2007, 08:57 PM
John Howard and Putin just signed a trade deal for uranium. 10 years ago this would have been inconceivable. Gee! this world is changing! Next thing we know, we'll be buying Russian computer games!

leitmotiv
09-06-2007, 09:23 PM
I am looking forward to being blown to hell by terrorists who bought Australian uranium via the Sov, er, Russia, who sold it to Syria, who sold it to the terrorists. I am truly truly gratified.

papotex
09-06-2007, 09:34 PM
in other news....

China deeply apologized for resent products of theirs being recalled world wide because they were "not to specification" and bowed that they were gona be more strict in their quality inspections of any export made.

in related news:
A manager of a factory was held responsable
for one of these products being recalled and was promply put to death.

and that last part was not a joke

djetz
09-06-2007, 09:53 PM
Originally posted by leitmotiv:
I am looking forward to being blown to hell by terrorists who bought Australian uranium via the Sov, er, Russia, who sold it to Syria, who sold it to the terrorists. I am truly truly gratified.

Double xenophobia. Nice.

Of course, "free trade" only really applies to US exports, doesn't it? Commie.

Dagnabit
09-06-2007, 10:55 PM
Well it beats no xenophobia at all. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif
And the guy that was put to death had alot more than mismanagement charges against him. Not that it was justified IMO but it wasent just a simple matter either.
Dag

leitmotiv
09-06-2007, 11:08 PM
Originally posted by djetz:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by leitmotiv:
I am looking forward to being blown to hell by terrorists who bought Australian uranium via the Sov, er, Russia, who sold it to Syria, who sold it to the terrorists. I am truly truly gratified.

Double xenophobia. Nice.

Of course, "free trade" only really applies to US exports, doesn't it? Commie. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

If Munster gets smacked with a "dirty bomb," I'll be sure to note all the rancor following is "xenophobia," child. I suggest you use a dictionary before using words you do not understand. Yes, I detest Russia for selling arms to the vicious Syrian dictatorship, and Syria's support of people who are killing Iraqis, Israelis, and Westerners.

WN_Barbarossa
09-07-2007, 04:08 AM
Originally posted by leitmotiv:

If Munster gets smacked with a "dirty bomb," I'll be sure to note all the rancor following is "xenophobia," child. I suggest you use a dictionary before using words you do not understand. Yes, I detest Russia for selling arms to the vicious Syrian dictatorship, and Syria's support of people who are killing Iraqis, Israelis, and Westerners.

Ermm, Comrade, if you switch on the tv, you'll see that every kind of people are killing every kind of people. That's just nature's law. Now, without asking what makes the blood of the mentioned nations so precious, have you ever read about Syria's modern history? I hope I don't hurt the feelings of any syrian forumites, but they truly suck at anything related to war.

On the other hand, the greatest weapon suppliers of the third world next to Russia are the USA and Europe. And it wont make you happier, if you are killed by M-16, defender of freedom, or blown up by C-4, instead of a lousy russian dirty bomb.

Hoatee
09-07-2007, 06:05 AM
For as long as we (Europe, America, NATO, et al) hold Russia at arm's length, they will be free to pursue their own path in foreign policy.

I think it's a good thing that Australia is selling uranium to Russia. I don't think it's a good thing for Russia to sell and supply arms to its traditional clients. But then no incentive towards an alternative seems to have been tried.

HellToupee
09-07-2007, 06:10 AM
Who sold iraq chemical weapons, who armed and trained al qaeda o wait...

All the big powers had their pawns

Hoatee
09-07-2007, 06:14 AM
Of course, and all the big powers should be sticking together, 'cos there's other emerging big powers to contend with in the future.

SeaFireLIV
09-07-2007, 06:16 AM
I don`t get it. Why would Russia need uranium? They already have nukes (too many and going rusty) and the means to make them. Sounds the wrong way to me.

Low_Flyer_MkVb
09-07-2007, 06:18 AM
Someone's smelling a quick profit, methinks. It's the capitalist way.

leitmotiv
09-07-2007, 07:50 AM
Curious business. The U.S. just signed a very favorable trade agreement with Australia. Australia is supposed to be sitting on the world's biggest uranium deposits, if I am not mistaken. The mining is just getting underway. Very big profits are anticipated. Were I not in Brazilian gold I'd consider profiting off of my eventual doom. Seems like the right thing to do.

jimDG
09-07-2007, 07:57 AM
http://economist.com/printedition/index.cfm?d=20070908

jimDG
09-07-2007, 08:00 AM
Originally posted by leitmotiv:
Curious business. The U.S. just signed a very favorable trade agreement with Australia. Australia is supposed to be sitting on the world's biggest uranium deposits, if I am not mistaken. The mining is just getting underway. Very big profits are anticipated. Were I not in Brazilian gold I'd consider profiting off of my eventual doom. Seems like the right thing to do.

Would you rather have people profit off oil, which brings no doom what so ever? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif
You are making the assumption that it's meant for nukes; you might be right, but not necessarily.

leitmotiv
09-07-2007, 08:04 AM
Your playtime morality makes you so perfectly cute!

jimDG
09-07-2007, 08:08 AM
.. and there are so few chicks around http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif
http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif
http://economist.com/science/displaystory.cfm?story_id=9762843

Monterey13
09-07-2007, 08:22 AM
Here is the latest at work...
http://www.tva.gov/news/releases/julysep07/wbu2.htm

Viper2005_
09-07-2007, 08:29 AM
If the Russians were going to give nukes to nasty people, the chances are that it happened in the chaos following the collapse of the USSR via the black market. It certainly isn't in their best interests to do so today because quite apart from anything else, the groups targeting the West in the Middle East are uncomfortably close to the groups targeting Russia in Chechnya. The biggest part of the "anything else" column is that they enjoy economic growth just like everyone else; starting WWIII ruins the party for them* just as efficiently as it does for us.

We don't need morality in order to prevent nuclear catastrophe. Simple self-interest is quite sufficient, and has the massive advantage that it is almost universal. So chill.

Meanwhile, we certainly do need nuclear power in order to control the climate (most emissions are associated with base-load power generation), and save our precious hydrocarbon reserves for tasks that most urgently demand their impressive energy density, such as flying aeroplanes about the sky. Of course, this won't silence the green lobby (who would seem to desire that humanity don sack-cloth and ashes and regress to the Middle Ages), but you can't have everything...

*Especially those in power!

leitmotiv
09-07-2007, 08:32 AM
You are so cunning with your mastery of U.S. black urban vocabulary, "chill"---you are even more cunning! I love flight sim forums. They redefine banality!

jimDG
09-07-2007, 08:32 AM
It's still fairly nightmarish to keep terrorists' hands off power-plant grade uranium, dispose of waste etc, but the optimal alternative is less economically viable, at it's present stage of development.

That would be the next generation geothermal - drilling 10 km down (difficult - high capital investment), putting pipes, fracturing the rock in between and running water through the pipes to get steam and run turbines.
Or drilling 4 km down (more easy), to get 50-60ish degrees C water, and then using a heat exchanger with a secondary loop that has ammonia in it to run the turbines (or something else that boils easily). But that would provide less power (low capital returns).

Viper2005_
09-07-2007, 08:47 AM
Fusion ftw.

It just needs a serious budget. Say 10% of global GDP for a couple of decades... Then we'd have enough cheap energy available that nuclear waste could simply be launched into the sun...

jimDG
09-07-2007, 08:51 AM
In theory, yes. In practice no one can know with certainty when it will become viable, to bet solely on it.
Not to mention that the folks with lots of money and drilling experience aren't suddenly going to diversify their business that much.

verbaska
09-07-2007, 09:00 AM
Are you ready for the nuclear war?

RamsteinUSA
09-07-2007, 09:00 AM
I inherited some property that is leased to a Uranium Mining Company. The Uranium market is worhtless right now. The liberal Lunatics will not let anyone build Power gnerating stations that use Uranium. They leave us using coal and and hydro. As long as this continues we will continue to send money to countries that hate us in the middle east for oil. The price of Uranium on the open markets has risen from a few dollars (many years ago) to maybe $100 per lb of -u238/other. But, it costs so much money remove it from the earth and clean up the mines that it still keeps many mines closed and not in operation.The property I have still has 30 more years left on the lease (Royalty lease where the owner , me, recieves a percentage) before it no longer is under obligation by the mining company that now holds the rights to the Uranium on/under my lnad.

Don't get too excitied the land is out in the middle of nowhere and the cloest mine was deocmmissioned many, many years ago because the uranium market had the floor drop from under it, and the mine was decommisioned and the land was cleaned and put back as is. They only had a tailing pile left and maybe some old buildings.

The market must come up maybe $30 to $50 per pound more before the Uranium mining comes back to life in the USA. They only do leach mining as of now in select areas.

If the price rises it would be nice to get some royalties again, but for now I had never seen a dime.

The 1980's closed mnay Urnaium mines that were cleaned up, closed, decommissioned. The markets never recovered.

leitmotiv
09-07-2007, 09:07 AM
http://www.uxc.com/review/uxc_Prices.aspx

BaldieJr
09-07-2007, 12:29 PM
GM is sitting on a patent for a magnet motor. I saw sea-water burning recently. Uranium? Pfft.

As Tesla said, energy is everywhere. The trick is to fool people into thinking otherwise and then build a business around supplying your brand of energy to others.

Let the super-powers trade whatever they want and lets stick to being self-sufficient.

Uzunov
09-07-2007, 03:38 PM
Originally posted by SeaFireLIV:
I don`t get it. Why would Russia need uranium?

It is a little known fact that, despite its enormous expanses, Russia has very scarce own uranium deposits. I seem to remember reading that during the Cold War USSR imported uranium for nukes from Bulgaria and Czechoslovakia (I may be mistaken). So Russia needs to import it from somewhere.

According to the articles in the Australian press, the deal has safeguards that prohibit the use of AU uranium for military use. So it must be for nuclear fuel. And I doubt John Howard would sign the deal with obtaining an approval from US beforehand ...

HellToupee
09-07-2007, 04:44 PM
im sure russia already has enough nukes like the US to blow us all up many times over already.