Uranium One deal led to some exports to Europe, memos show
By John Solomon and Alison Spann - 11/02/17 06:00 AM EDT
“NRC officials told ‘The Hill’ that Uranium One exports flowed from Wyoming to Canada and on to Europe between 2012 and 2014, and the approval involved a process with multiple agencies…
“‘It now appears that despite pledges to the contrary, U.S. uranium made its way overseas as a part of the Uranium One deal,’ Grassley said in the statement. ‘What’s more disturbing, those transactions were apparently made possible by various Odumbo Administration agencies while the dim-retard-controlled Congress turned a blind eye.’ ….
“Odumbo reinstated a U.S.-Russia civilian nuclear energy cooperation agreement....
“Odumbo re-submitted the agreement for approval by the dim-retard-controlled Congress in May 2010, declaring Russia should be viewed as a friendly partner under Section 123 the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 after agreeing to a new nuclear weapons reduction deal and helping the U.S. with Iran.”
(The Hill)
- I B Hankering
- 11-02-2017, 10:38 PM
.
- garhkal
- 11-02-2017, 10:47 PM
Gee wizz. Tell us something we already didn't know..
- Yssup Rider
- 11-02-2017, 10:48 PM
SNICK
- The_Waco_Kid
- 11-02-2017, 11:03 PM
- bamscram
- 11-03-2017, 05:35 PM
- lustylad
- 11-03-2017, 07:13 PM
Odumbo wasn't the only one who lied!
Here is what the little nazi boy assured us a few months ago:
And let's not forget another clithead who has been caught red-handed lying on this matter:
Whaddaya say, cocksucker? Still wanna argue "the uranium isn't going anywhere"?
How richly ironic (in the above post) to see dickmuncher claim a victory lap and ask for a correction to a "misstatement" that now turns out to have been TRUE!!!
Why don't you put those research skills you brag so much about to work finding out who made up your FALSE cover-up talking point, you lying libtard?
Here is what the little nazi boy assured us a few months ago:
U.S. laws strictly forbid the export of Uranium without a license issued by the NRC under any circumstance, which the Russian company (ARMZ) that controls its Canadian stake does not have and has not applied for. Originally Posted by andymarksmanOh, my! Should we look forward to an embarrassing "clarification" (cough, cough) from our resident nazi twatboy? Looks like the Rooskis figured out how to whisk uranium out of the U.S. indirectly by piggy-backing on someone else's export license!
And let's not forget another clithead who has been caught red-handed lying on this matter:
And since the Russians don't have an export licence the uranium isn't going anywhere... Originally Posted by MunchmastermanHow shall we rate Dickmuncher's lie - is it False, Mostly False, or Pants On Fire???
Whaddaya say, cocksucker? Still wanna argue "the uranium isn't going anywhere"?
How richly ironic (in the above post) to see dickmuncher claim a victory lap and ask for a correction to a "misstatement" that now turns out to have been TRUE!!!
Not doing too well today, huh?Who's not doing too well now, assmuncher? Are you going to correct YOUR misstatement?
... are you going to correct your misstatement? Originally Posted by Munchmasterman
Why don't you put those research skills you brag so much about to work finding out who made up your FALSE cover-up talking point, you lying libtard?
- Munchmasterman
- 11-04-2017, 06:51 AM
Even with you being such a blowhard it's easy to take the wind out of your sails.
Again, you not understanding a post isn't my problem.
That's when I realized I didn't need research. I needed to re-post. Because you won't post valid info that goes against your point. And when you include the pertinent posts, then your point drops to chicken-shit BS. Thanks for being stupid and/or not reading everything so I could hoist you on your own petard.
Here is the post I was replying to.
Well, thanks to his candidate for President Wrong, they own at least 1/2 the uranium in this countryWrong, and more than likely have the right of first refusal to the other halfWrong
Here is the whole post I made.
"Funny when a dumb ass can't even repeat the lie correctly.
It was 20% of capacity. And since the Russians don't have an export licence the uranium isn't going anywhere.
And since you couldn't get the percentage right, no reason to get the facts correct over who had veto power over the deal,
right dumbass?
I'll give you a hint. The person who could stop the deal didn't have Clinton for a last name."
The entire post is correct except the part about the uranium not going anywhere. It really has nothing to do with the post. That part should have said the following. It could go to Canada for enrichment and could be sent to US approved enrichment sites from Canada with US approval.
There is no proof any US uranium went to Russia. Uranium One is down to 5.9 % of domestic production in the US.
I have a question for you dumb-ass. One you won't answer because you're a coward.
Since we currently buy @13% of our annual supply from Russia anyway why would they sneak it out of the US by way of Canada just to turn around and keep it or sell it back to us?
Come on bitch, answer me.
http://www.factcheck.org/2017/10/facts-uranium-one/
Although Uranium One once held 20 percent of licensed uranium in-situ recovery production capacity in the U.S., that’s no longer the case. There were only four in-situ recovery facilities licensed by the NRC in 2010. Currently, there are 10 such facilities, so Uranium One’s mining operations now account for an estimated 10 percent of in-situ recovery production capacity in the U.S., the NRC told us in an email.
As for production, the company was responsible for only about 11 percent of U.S. uranium production in 2014, according to 2015 congressional testimony by a Department of Energy contractor. More recently, Uranium One has been responsible for no more than 5.9 percent of domestic production, according to a September 2017 report by the U.S. International Trade Commission
https://www.nrc.gov/docs/ML1516/ML15168A230.pdf
he 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-togovernment
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.
That was easy AND fun.
I'll wait a bit before I claim a victory lap.
I'll wait and see what kind of stupid response you make to this post if you have the balls to make one at all.
Again, you not understanding a post isn't my problem.
Odumbo wasn't the only one who lied!That's just what I did. I put my research skills to work.
Here is what the little nazi boy assured us a few months ago:
Oh, my! Should we look forward to an embarrassing "clarification" (cough, cough) from our resident nazi twatboy? Looks like the Rooskis figured out how to whisk uranium out of the U.S. indirectly by piggy-backing on someone else's export license!
And let's not forget another clithead who has been caught red-handed lying on this matter:
How shall we rate Dickmuncher's lie - is it False, Mostly False, or Pants On Fire???Mostly true. The incorrect part has nothing to do with the post refuting the post your bitch-ass-self was afraid to include, you out-of-context douche-bag.
Whaddaya say, cocksucker? Still wanna argue "the uranium isn't going anywhere"?
How richly ironic (in the above post) to see dickmuncher claim a victory lap and ask for a correction to a "misstatement" that now turns out to have been TRUE!!!How richly ironic that the victory lap and call for a correction IS true. Whether or not the uranium is going anywhere has nothing to do with a victory lap or correction.
Typical of the type of scumbag you are, you leave out all the context and other information that supports my point.
As you just happen to leave out my whole "misstatement, I included it below. As well as the post it was in response to, douche-bag.
And now by saying my call for a correction was not justified by lexus liar's post (which you claim is true), you are saying the Russians own 50% of our uranium. An out and out lie on your part. You need to correct your lie, asshole.
Your lie, How richly ironic (in the above post) to see dickmuncher claim a victory lap and ask for a correction to a "misstatement" that now turns out to have been TRUE,
is the main point to your post to me. It is FALSE
Who's not doing too well now, assmuncher? Are you going to correct YOUR misstatement?I'm doing great. And yes, I'll correct my slight misstatement. Are you going to retract your lie before or after you kiss my ass?
I think you won't because you're an all-talk lying douche-bag. You don't have the balls to admit you fucked up.
Why don't you put those research skills you brag so much about to work finding out who made up your FALSE cover-up talking point, you lying libtard? Originally Posted by lustylad
That's when I realized I didn't need research. I needed to re-post. Because you won't post valid info that goes against your point. And when you include the pertinent posts, then your point drops to chicken-shit BS. Thanks for being stupid and/or not reading everything so I could hoist you on your own petard.
Here is the post I was replying to.
Well, thanks to his candidate for President Wrong, they own at least 1/2 the uranium in this countryWrong, and more than likely have the right of first refusal to the other halfWrong
Here is the whole post I made.
"Funny when a dumb ass can't even repeat the lie correctly.
It was 20% of capacity. And since the Russians don't have an export licence the uranium isn't going anywhere.
And since you couldn't get the percentage right, no reason to get the facts correct over who had veto power over the deal,
right dumbass?
I'll give you a hint. The person who could stop the deal didn't have Clinton for a last name."
The entire post is correct except the part about the uranium not going anywhere. It really has nothing to do with the post. That part should have said the following. It could go to Canada for enrichment and could be sent to US approved enrichment sites from Canada with US approval.
There is no proof any US uranium went to Russia. Uranium One is down to 5.9 % of domestic production in the US.
I have a question for you dumb-ass. One you won't answer because you're a coward.
Since we currently buy @13% of our annual supply from Russia anyway why would they sneak it out of the US by way of Canada just to turn around and keep it or sell it back to us?
Come on bitch, answer me.
http://www.factcheck.org/2017/10/facts-uranium-one/
Although Uranium One once held 20 percent of licensed uranium in-situ recovery production capacity in the U.S., that’s no longer the case. There were only four in-situ recovery facilities licensed by the NRC in 2010. Currently, there are 10 such facilities, so Uranium One’s mining operations now account for an estimated 10 percent of in-situ recovery production capacity in the U.S., the NRC told us in an email.
As for production, the company was responsible for only about 11 percent of U.S. uranium production in 2014, according to 2015 congressional testimony by a Department of Energy contractor. More recently, Uranium One has been responsible for no more than 5.9 percent of domestic production, according to a September 2017 report by the U.S. International Trade Commission
https://www.nrc.gov/docs/ML1516/ML15168A230.pdf
he 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-togovernment
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.
That was easy AND fun.
I'll wait a bit before I claim a victory lap.
I'll wait and see what kind of stupid response you make to this post if you have the balls to make one at all.
- IIFFOFRDB
- 11-07-2017, 06:06 PM
Johnny Boy of Arizona, signed off on the deal...
https://twitter.com/RealMattCouch/st...796737/photo/1
https://twitter.com/RealMattCouch/st...796737/photo/1
- Guest123018-4
- 11-07-2017, 07:35 PM
A lot of complicity in the deal. I wonder what his price was. We know whtat the Clinton's price was.
- Yssup Rider
- 11-08-2017, 09:56 AM
Can’t you read?
Of course you can’t.
RESIGN NOW, NAZI SCUM.
Of course you can’t.
RESIGN NOW, NAZI SCUM.
- Munchmasterman
- 11-09-2017, 05:45 AM
The douche-bag (lusty lass the tranny) has had enough time. Taking extra time is more proof he is more like a woman than a man.
I included all of the info just so you don't have to jump between posts.
The loud-mouth ll, corpy's tranny, asked for a correction to a statement.
The correction had nothing to do with the response to another post by the original ll, the lexus liar. I made the correction as requested as well as to keep my word about admitting mistakes. Corpy's tranny made a similar statement.
At this point, it's obvious he has no intention of correcting his blatant lie or keeping his word.
Being somewhat of a cynic, and because he apparently is afflicted with hubris rivaling only corpy himself, I didn't think he had the balls to show he was anything other than a pussy. He at least didn't disappoint me in that respect.
Quick to point out my mistake, and at the same time providing no context or the statement it was in response to, the sniveling bitch has thrown away his faux man-suit.
No need for a victory lap.
You showing you don't keep your word, proving you lied, and bitch-slapping the shit out of a major league prick works for me.
Originally Posted by lustylad View Post
Odumbo wasn't the only one who lied!
Here is what the little nazi boy assured us a few months ago:
Oh, my! Should we look forward to an embarrassing "clarification" (cough, cough) from our resident nazi twatboy? Looks like the Rooskis figured out how to whisk uranium out of the U.S. indirectly by piggy-backing on someone else's export license!
And let's not forget another clithead who has been caught red-handed lying on this matter:
How shall we rate Dickmuncher's lie - is it False, Mostly False, or Pants On Fire???Mostly true. The incorrect part has nothing to do with the post refuting the post your bitch-ass-self was afraid to include, you out-of-context douche-bag.
Whaddaya say, cocksucker? Still wanna argue "the uranium isn't going anywhere"?
How richly ironic (in the above post) to see dickmuncher claim a victory lap and ask for a correction to a "misstatement" that now turns out to have been TRUE!!!How richly ironic that the victory lap and call for a correction IS true. Whether or not the uranium is going anywhere has nothing to do with a victory lap or correction.
Typical of the type of scumbag you are, you leave out all the context and other information that supports my point.
As you just happen to leave out my whole "misstatement, I included it below. As well as the post it was in response to, douche-bag.
And now by saying my call for a correction was not justified by lexus liar's post (which you claim is true), you are saying the Russians own 50% of our uranium. An out and out lie on your part. You need to correct your lie, asshole.
Your lie, How richly ironic (in the above post) to see dickmuncher claim a victory lap and ask for a correction to a "misstatement" that now turns out to have been TRUE,
is the main point to your post to me. It is FALSE
Who's not doing too well now, assmuncher? Are you going to correct YOUR misstatement?I'm doing great. And yes, I'll correct my slight misstatement. Are you going to retract your lie before or after you kiss my ass?
I think you won't because you're an all-talk lying douche-bag. You don't have the balls to admit you fucked up.
Why don't you put those research skills you brag so much about to work finding out who made up your FALSE cover-up talking point, you lying libtard?
That's just what I did. I put my research skills to work.
That's when I realized I didn't need research. I needed to re-post. Because you won't post valid info that goes against your point. And when you include the pertinent posts, then your point drops to chicken-shit BS. Thanks for being stupid and/or not reading everything so I could hoist you on your own petard.
Here is the post I was replying to.
Well, thanks to his candidate for President Wrong, they own at least 1/2 the uranium in this country Wrong, and more than likely have the right of first refusal to the other half Wrong
Here is the whole post I made.
"Funny when a dumb ass can't even repeat the lie correctly.
It was 20% of capacity. And since the Russians don't have an export licence the uranium isn't going anywhere.
And since you couldn't get the percentage right, no reason to get the facts correct over who had veto power over the deal,
right dumbass?
I'll give you a hint. The person who could stop the deal didn't have Clinton for a last name."
The entire post is correct except the part about the uranium not going anywhere. It really has nothing to do with the post. That part should have said the following. It could go to Canada for enrichment and could be sent to US approved enrichment sites from Canada with US approval.
There is no proof any US uranium went to Russia. Uranium One is down to 5.9 % of domestic production in the US.
I have a question for you dumb-ass. One you won't answer because you're a coward.
Since we currently buy @13% of our annual supply from Russia anyway why would they sneak it out of the US by way of Canada just to turn around and keep it or sell it back to us?
Come on bitch, answer me.
http://www.factcheck.org/2017/10/facts-uranium-one/
Although Uranium One once held 20 percent of licensed uranium in-situ recovery production capacity in the U.S., that’s no longer the case. There were only four in-situ recovery facilities licensed by the NRC in 2010. Currently, there are 10 such facilities, so Uranium One’s mining operations now account for an estimated 10 percent of in-situ recovery production capacity in the U.S., the NRC told us in an email.
As for production, the company was responsible for only about 11 percent of U.S. uranium production in 2014, according to 2015 congressional testimony by a Department of Energy contractor. More recently, Uranium One has been responsible for no more than 5.9 percent of domestic production, according to a September 2017 report by the U.S. International Trade Commission
https://www.nrc.gov/docs/ML1516/ML15168A230.pdf
he 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-togovernment
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.
That was easy AND fun.
I'll wait a bit before I claim a victory lap.
I'll wait and see what kind of stupid response you make to this post if you have the balls to make one at all.
I included all of the info just so you don't have to jump between posts.
The loud-mouth ll, corpy's tranny, asked for a correction to a statement.
The correction had nothing to do with the response to another post by the original ll, the lexus liar. I made the correction as requested as well as to keep my word about admitting mistakes. Corpy's tranny made a similar statement.
At this point, it's obvious he has no intention of correcting his blatant lie or keeping his word.
Being somewhat of a cynic, and because he apparently is afflicted with hubris rivaling only corpy himself, I didn't think he had the balls to show he was anything other than a pussy. He at least didn't disappoint me in that respect.
Quick to point out my mistake, and at the same time providing no context or the statement it was in response to, the sniveling bitch has thrown away his faux man-suit.
No need for a victory lap.
You showing you don't keep your word, proving you lied, and bitch-slapping the shit out of a major league prick works for me.
Even with you being such a blowhard it's easy to take the wind out of your sails.Quote:
Again, you not understanding a post isn't my problem.
That's just what I did. I put my research skills to work.
That's when I realized I didn't need research. I needed to re-post. Because you won't post valid info that goes against your point. And when you include the pertinent posts, then your point drops to chicken-shit BS. Thanks for being stupid and/or not reading everything so I could hoist you on your own petard.
Here is the post I was replying to.
Well, thanks to his candidate for President Wrong, they own at least 1/2 the uranium in this countryWrong, and more than likely have the right of first refusal to the other halfWrong
Here is the whole post I made.
"Funny when a dumb ass can't even repeat the lie correctly.
It was 20% of capacity. And since the Russians don't have an export licence the uranium isn't going anywhere.
And since you couldn't get the percentage right, no reason to get the facts correct over who had veto power over the deal,
right dumbass?
I'll give you a hint. The person who could stop the deal didn't have Clinton for a last name."
The entire post is correct except the part about the uranium not going anywhere. It really has nothing to do with the post. That part should have said the following. It could go to Canada for enrichment and could be sent to US approved enrichment sites from Canada with US approval.
There is no proof any US uranium went to Russia. Uranium One is down to 5.9 % of domestic production in the US.
I have a question for you dumb-ass. One you won't answer because you're a coward.
Since we currently buy @13% of our annual supply from Russia anyway why would they sneak it out of the US by way of Canada just to turn around and keep it or sell it back to us?
Come on bitch, answer me.
http://www.factcheck.org/2017/10/facts-uranium-one/
Although Uranium One once held 20 percent of licensed uranium in-situ recovery production capacity in the U.S., that’s no longer the case. There were only four in-situ recovery facilities licensed by the NRC in 2010. Currently, there are 10 such facilities, so Uranium One’s mining operations now account for an estimated 10 percent of in-situ recovery production capacity in the U.S., the NRC told us in an email.
As for production, the company was responsible for only about 11 percent of U.S. uranium production in 2014, according to 2015 congressional testimony by a Department of Energy contractor. More recently, Uranium One has been responsible for no more than 5.9 percent of domestic production, according to a September 2017 report by the U.S. International Trade Commission
https://www.nrc.gov/docs/ML1516/ML15168A230.pdf
he 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-togovernment
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.
That was easy AND fun.
I'll wait a bit before I claim a victory lap.
I'll wait and see what kind of stupid response you make to this post if you have the balls to make one at all. Originally Posted by Munchmasterman
Originally Posted by lustylad View Post
Odumbo wasn't the only one who lied!
Here is what the little nazi boy assured us a few months ago:
Oh, my! Should we look forward to an embarrassing "clarification" (cough, cough) from our resident nazi twatboy? Looks like the Rooskis figured out how to whisk uranium out of the U.S. indirectly by piggy-backing on someone else's export license!
And let's not forget another clithead who has been caught red-handed lying on this matter:
How shall we rate Dickmuncher's lie - is it False, Mostly False, or Pants On Fire???Mostly true. The incorrect part has nothing to do with the post refuting the post your bitch-ass-self was afraid to include, you out-of-context douche-bag.
Whaddaya say, cocksucker? Still wanna argue "the uranium isn't going anywhere"?
How richly ironic (in the above post) to see dickmuncher claim a victory lap and ask for a correction to a "misstatement" that now turns out to have been TRUE!!!How richly ironic that the victory lap and call for a correction IS true. Whether or not the uranium is going anywhere has nothing to do with a victory lap or correction.
Typical of the type of scumbag you are, you leave out all the context and other information that supports my point.
As you just happen to leave out my whole "misstatement, I included it below. As well as the post it was in response to, douche-bag.
And now by saying my call for a correction was not justified by lexus liar's post (which you claim is true), you are saying the Russians own 50% of our uranium. An out and out lie on your part. You need to correct your lie, asshole.
Your lie, How richly ironic (in the above post) to see dickmuncher claim a victory lap and ask for a correction to a "misstatement" that now turns out to have been TRUE,
is the main point to your post to me. It is FALSE
Who's not doing too well now, assmuncher? Are you going to correct YOUR misstatement?I'm doing great. And yes, I'll correct my slight misstatement. Are you going to retract your lie before or after you kiss my ass?
I think you won't because you're an all-talk lying douche-bag. You don't have the balls to admit you fucked up.
Why don't you put those research skills you brag so much about to work finding out who made up your FALSE cover-up talking point, you lying libtard?
That's just what I did. I put my research skills to work.
That's when I realized I didn't need research. I needed to re-post. Because you won't post valid info that goes against your point. And when you include the pertinent posts, then your point drops to chicken-shit BS. Thanks for being stupid and/or not reading everything so I could hoist you on your own petard.
Here is the post I was replying to.
Well, thanks to his candidate for President Wrong, they own at least 1/2 the uranium in this country Wrong, and more than likely have the right of first refusal to the other half Wrong
Here is the whole post I made.
"Funny when a dumb ass can't even repeat the lie correctly.
It was 20% of capacity. And since the Russians don't have an export licence the uranium isn't going anywhere.
And since you couldn't get the percentage right, no reason to get the facts correct over who had veto power over the deal,
right dumbass?
I'll give you a hint. The person who could stop the deal didn't have Clinton for a last name."
The entire post is correct except the part about the uranium not going anywhere. It really has nothing to do with the post. That part should have said the following. It could go to Canada for enrichment and could be sent to US approved enrichment sites from Canada with US approval.
There is no proof any US uranium went to Russia. Uranium One is down to 5.9 % of domestic production in the US.
I have a question for you dumb-ass. One you won't answer because you're a coward.
Since we currently buy @13% of our annual supply from Russia anyway why would they sneak it out of the US by way of Canada just to turn around and keep it or sell it back to us?
Come on bitch, answer me.
http://www.factcheck.org/2017/10/facts-uranium-one/
Although Uranium One once held 20 percent of licensed uranium in-situ recovery production capacity in the U.S., that’s no longer the case. There were only four in-situ recovery facilities licensed by the NRC in 2010. Currently, there are 10 such facilities, so Uranium One’s mining operations now account for an estimated 10 percent of in-situ recovery production capacity in the U.S., the NRC told us in an email.
As for production, the company was responsible for only about 11 percent of U.S. uranium production in 2014, according to 2015 congressional testimony by a Department of Energy contractor. More recently, Uranium One has been responsible for no more than 5.9 percent of domestic production, according to a September 2017 report by the U.S. International Trade Commission
https://www.nrc.gov/docs/ML1516/ML15168A230.pdf
he 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-togovernment
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.
That was easy AND fun.
I'll wait a bit before I claim a victory lap.
I'll wait and see what kind of stupid response you make to this post if you have the balls to make one at all.
- Munchmasterman
- 11-09-2017, 09:49 PM
A
The douche-bag (lusty lass the tranny) has had enough time. Taking extra time is more proof he is more like a woman than a man.
I included all of the info just so you don't have to jump between posts.
The loud-mouth ll, corpy's tranny, asked for a correction to a statement.
The correction had nothing to do with the response to another post by the original ll, the lexus liar. I made the correction as requested as well as to keep my word about admitting mistakes. Corpy's tranny made a similar statement.
At this point, it's obvious he has no intention of correcting his blatant lie or keeping his word.
Being somewhat of a cynic, and because he apparently is afflicted with hubris rivaling only corpy himself, I didn't think he had the balls to show he was anything other than a pussy. He at least didn't disappoint me in that respect.
Quick to point out my mistake, and at the same time providing no context or the statement it was in response to, the sniveling bitch has thrown away his faux man-suit.
No need for a victory lap.
You showing you don't keep your word, proving you lied, and bitch-slapping the shit out of a major league prick works for me.
Quote:
Originally Posted by lustylad View Post
Odumbo wasn't the only one who lied!
Here is what the little nazi boy assured us a few months ago:
Oh, my! Should we look forward to an embarrassing "clarification" (cough, cough) from our resident nazi twatboy? Looks like the Rooskis figured out how to whisk uranium out of the U.S. indirectly by piggy-backing on someone else's export license!
And let's not forget another clithead who has been caught red-handed lying on this matter:
How shall we rate Dickmuncher's lie - is it False, Mostly False, or Pants On Fire???Mostly true. The incorrect part has nothing to do with the post refuting the post your bitch-ass-self was afraid to include, you out-of-context douche-bag.
Whaddaya say, cocksucker? Still wanna argue "the uranium isn't going anywhere"?
How richly ironic (in the above post) to see dickmuncher claim a victory lap and ask for a correction to a "misstatement" that now turns out to have been TRUE!!!How richly ironic that the victory lap and call for a correction IS true. Whether or not the uranium is going anywhere has nothing to do with a victory lap or correction.
Typical of the type of scumbag you are, you leave out all the context and other information that supports my point.
As you just happen to leave out my whole "misstatement, I included it below. As well as the post it was in response to, douche-bag.
And now by saying my call for a correction was not justified by lexus liar's post (which you claim is true), you are saying the Russians own 50% of our uranium. An out and out lie on your part. You need to correct your lie, asshole.
Your lie, How richly ironic (in the above post) to see dickmuncher claim a victory lap and ask for a correction to a "misstatement" that now turns out to have been TRUE,
is the main point to your post to me. It is FALSE
Who's not doing too well now, assmuncher? Are you going to correct YOUR misstatement?I'm doing great. And yes, I'll correct my slight misstatement. Are you going to retract your lie before or after you kiss my ass?
I think you won't because you're an all-talk lying douche-bag. You don't have the balls to admit you fucked up.
Why don't you put those research skills you brag so much about to work finding out who made up your FALSE cover-up talking point, you lying libtard?
That's just what I did. I put my research skills to work.
That's when I realized I didn't need research. I needed to re-post. Because you won't post valid info that goes against your point. And when you include the pertinent posts, then your point drops to chicken-shit BS. Thanks for being stupid and/or not reading everything so I could hoist you on your own petard.
Here is the post I was replying to.
Well, thanks to his candidate for President Wrong, they own at least 1/2 the uranium in this country Wrong, and more than likely have the right of first refusal to the other half Wrong
Here is the whole post I made.
"Funny when a dumb ass can't even repeat the lie correctly.
It was 20% of capacity. And since the Russians don't have an export licence the uranium isn't going anywhere.
And since you couldn't get the percentage right, no reason to get the facts correct over who had veto power over the deal,
right dumbass?
I'll give you a hint. The person who could stop the deal didn't have Clinton for a last name."
The entire post is correct except the part about the uranium not going anywhere. It really has nothing to do with the post. That part should have said the following. It could go to Canada for enrichment and could be sent to US approved enrichment sites from Canada with US approval.
There is no proof any US uranium went to Russia. Uranium One is down to 5.9 % of domestic production in the US.
I have a question for you dumb-ass. One you won't answer because you're a coward.
Since we currently buy @13% of our annual supply from Russia anyway why would they sneak it out of the US by way of Canada just to turn around and keep it or sell it back to us?
Come on bitch, answer me.
http://www.factcheck.org/2017/10/facts-uranium-one/
Although Uranium One once held 20 percent of licensed uranium in-situ recovery production capacity in the U.S., that’s no longer the case. There were only four in-situ recovery facilities licensed by the NRC in 2010. Currently, there are 10 such facilities, so Uranium One’s mining operations now account for an estimated 10 percent of in-situ recovery production capacity in the U.S., the NRC told us in an email.
As for production, the company was responsible for only about 11 percent of U.S. uranium production in 2014, according to 2015 congressional testimony by a Department of Energy contractor. More recently, Uranium One has been responsible for no more than 5.9 percent of domestic production, according to a September 2017 report by the U.S. International Trade Commission
https://www.nrc.gov/docs/ML1516/ML15168A230.pdf
he 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-togovernment
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.
That was easy AND fun.
I'll wait a bit before I claim a victory lap.
I'll wait and see what kind of stupid response you make to this post if you have the balls to make one at all. Originally Posted by Munchmasterman
- The_Waco_Kid
- 11-09-2017, 09:52 PM
A Originally Posted by MunchmastermanQuote:
Originally Posted by Munchmasterman
The douche-bag (lusty lass the tranny) has had enough time. Taking extra time is more proof he is more like a woman than a man.
I included all of the info just so you don't have to jump between posts.
The loud-mouth ll, corpy's tranny, asked for a correction to a statement.
The correction had nothing to do with the response to another post by the original ll, the lexus liar. I made the correction as requested as well as to keep my word about admitting mistakes. Corpy's tranny made a similar statement.
At this point, it's obvious he has no intention of correcting his blatant lie or keeping his word.
Being somewhat of a cynic, and because he apparently is afflicted with hubris rivaling only corpy himself, I didn't think he had the balls to show he was anything other than a pussy. He at least didn't disappoint me in that respect.
Quick to point out my mistake, and at the same time providing no context or the statement it was in response to, the sniveling bitch has thrown away his faux man-suit.
No need for a victory lap.
You showing you don't keep your word, proving you lied, and bitch-slapping the shit out of a major league prick works for me.
Quote:
Originally Posted by lustylad View Post
Odumbo wasn't the only one who lied!
Here is what the little nazi boy assured us a few months ago:
Oh, my! Should we look forward to an embarrassing "clarification" (cough, cough) from our resident nazi twatboy? Looks like the Rooskis figured out how to whisk uranium out of the U.S. indirectly by piggy-backing on someone else's export license!
And let's not forget another clithead who has been caught red-handed lying on this matter:
How shall we rate Dickmuncher's lie - is it False, Mostly False, or Pants On Fire???Mostly true. The incorrect part has nothing to do with the post refuting the post your bitch-ass-self was afraid to include, you out-of-context douche-bag.
Whaddaya say, cocksucker? Still wanna argue "the uranium isn't going anywhere"?
How richly ironic (in the above post) to see dickmuncher claim a victory lap and ask for a correction to a "misstatement" that now turns out to have been TRUE!!!How richly ironic that the victory lap and call for a correction IS true. Whether or not the uranium is going anywhere has nothing to do with a victory lap or correction.
Typical of the type of scumbag you are, you leave out all the context and other information that supports my point.
As you just happen to leave out my whole "misstatement, I included it below. As well as the post it was in response to, douche-bag.
And now by saying my call for a correction was not justified by lexus liar's post (which you claim is true), you are saying the Russians own 50% of our uranium. An out and out lie on your part. You need to correct your lie, asshole.
Your lie, How richly ironic (in the above post) to see dickmuncher claim a victory lap and ask for a correction to a "misstatement" that now turns out to have been TRUE,
is the main point to your post to me. It is FALSE
Who's not doing too well now, assmuncher? Are you going to correct YOUR misstatement?I'm doing great. And yes, I'll correct my slight misstatement. Are you going to retract your lie before or after you kiss my ass?
I think you won't because you're an all-talk lying douche-bag. You don't have the balls to admit you fucked up.
Why don't you put those research skills you brag so much about to work finding out who made up your FALSE cover-up talking point, you lying libtard?
That's just what I did. I put my research skills to work.
That's when I realized I didn't need research. I needed to re-post. Because you won't post valid info that goes against your point. And when you include the pertinent posts, then your point drops to chicken-shit BS. Thanks for being stupid and/or not reading everything so I could hoist you on your own petard.
Here is the post I was replying to.
Well, thanks to his candidate for President Wrong, they own at least 1/2 the uranium in this country Wrong, and more than likely have the right of first refusal to the other half Wrong
Here is the whole post I made.
"Funny when a dumb ass can't even repeat the lie correctly.
It was 20% of capacity. And since the Russians don't have an export licence the uranium isn't going anywhere.
And since you couldn't get the percentage right, no reason to get the facts correct over who had veto power over the deal,
right dumbass?
I'll give you a hint. The person who could stop the deal didn't have Clinton for a last name."
The entire post is correct except the part about the uranium not going anywhere. It really has nothing to do with the post. That part should have said the following. It could go to Canada for enrichment and could be sent to US approved enrichment sites from Canada with US approval.
There is no proof any US uranium went to Russia. Uranium One is down to 5.9 % of domestic production in the US.
I have a question for you dumb-ass. One you won't answer because you're a coward.
Since we currently buy @13% of our annual supply from Russia anyway why would they sneak it out of the US by way of Canada just to turn around and keep it or sell it back to us?
Come on bitch, answer me.
http://www.factcheck.org/2017/10/facts-uranium-one/
Although Uranium One once held 20 percent of licensed uranium in-situ recovery production capacity in the U.S., that’s no longer the case. There were only four in-situ recovery facilities licensed by the NRC in 2010. Currently, there are 10 such facilities, so Uranium One’s mining operations now account for an estimated 10 percent of in-situ recovery production capacity in the U.S., the NRC told us in an email.
As for production, the company was responsible for only about 11 percent of U.S. uranium production in 2014, according to 2015 congressional testimony by a Department of Energy contractor. More recently, Uranium One has been responsible for no more than 5.9 percent of domestic production, according to a September 2017 report by the U.S. International Trade Commission
https://www.nrc.gov/docs/ML1516/ML15168A230.pdf
he 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-togovernment
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.
That was easy AND fun.
I'll wait a bit before I claim a victory lap.
I'll wait and see what kind of stupid response you make to this post if you have the balls to make one at all.
plz drink yourself to death. ASAP.
- Munchmasterman
- 11-10-2017, 01:40 AM
You can always tell when they're out of things to say
.
They send a wacky cunt to do a tranny's work.
You can crawl back to mommy's basement now.
.
They send a wacky cunt to do a tranny's work.
You can crawl back to mommy's basement now.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Munchmasterman
The douche-bag (lusty lass the tranny) has had enough time. Taking extra time is more proof he is more like a woman than a man.
I included all of the info just so you don't have to jump between posts.
The loud-mouth ll, corpy's tranny, asked for a correction to a statement.
The correction had nothing to do with the response to another post by the original ll, the lexus liar. I made the correction as requested as well as to keep my word about admitting mistakes. Corpy's tranny made a similar statement.
At this point, it's obvious he has no intention of correcting his blatant lie or keeping his word.
Being somewhat of a cynic, and because he apparently is afflicted with hubris rivaling only corpy himself, I didn't think he had the balls to show he was anything other than a pussy. He at least didn't disappoint me in that respect.
Quick to point out my mistake, and at the same time providing no context or the statement it was in response to, the sniveling bitch has thrown away his faux man-suit.
No need for a victory lap.
You showing you don't keep your word, proving you lied, and bitch-slapping the shit out of a major league prick works for me.
Quote:
Originally Posted by lustylad View Post
Odumbo wasn't the only one who lied!
Here is what the little nazi boy assured us a few months ago:
Oh, my! Should we look forward to an embarrassing "clarification" (cough, cough) from our resident nazi twatboy? Looks like the Rooskis figured out how to whisk uranium out of the U.S. indirectly by piggy-backing on someone else's export license!
And let's not forget another clithead who has been caught red-handed lying on this matter:
How shall we rate Dickmuncher's lie - is it False, Mostly False, or Pants On Fire???Mostly true. The incorrect part has nothing to do with the post refuting the post your bitch-ass-self was afraid to include, you out-of-context douche-bag.
Whaddaya say, cocksucker? Still wanna argue "the uranium isn't going anywhere"?
How richly ironic (in the above post) to see dickmuncher claim a victory lap and ask for a correction to a "misstatement" that now turns out to have been TRUE!!!How richly ironic that the victory lap and call for a correction IS true. Whether or not the uranium is going anywhere has nothing to do with a victory lap or correction.
Typical of the type of scumbag you are, you leave out all the context and other information that supports my point.
As you just happen to leave out my whole "misstatement, I included it below. As well as the post it was in response to, douche-bag.
And now by saying my call for a correction was not justified by lexus liar's post (which you claim is true), you are saying the Russians own 50% of our uranium. An out and out lie on your part. You need to correct your lie, asshole.
Your lie, How richly ironic (in the above post) to see dickmuncher claim a victory lap and ask for a correction to a "misstatement" that now turns out to have been TRUE,
is the main point to your post to me. It is FALSE
Who's not doing too well now, assmuncher? Are you going to correct YOUR misstatement?I'm doing great. And yes, I'll correct my slight misstatement. Are you going to retract your lie before or after you kiss my ass?
I think you won't because you're an all-talk lying douche-bag. You don't have the balls to admit you fucked up.
Why don't you put those research skills you brag so much about to work finding out who made up your FALSE cover-up talking point, you lying libtard?
That's just what I did. I put my research skills to work.
That's when I realized I didn't need research. I needed to re-post. Because you won't post valid info that goes against your point. And when you include the pertinent posts, then your point drops to chicken-shit BS. Thanks for being stupid and/or not reading everything so I could hoist you on your own petard.
Here is the post I was replying to.
Well, thanks to his candidate for President Wrong, they own at least 1/2 the uranium in this country Wrong, and more than likely have the right of first refusal to the other half Wrong
Here is the whole post I made.
"Funny when a dumb ass can't even repeat the lie correctly.
It was 20% of capacity. And since the Russians don't have an export licence the uranium isn't going anywhere.
And since you couldn't get the percentage right, no reason to get the facts correct over who had veto power over the deal,
right dumbass?
I'll give you a hint. The person who could stop the deal didn't have Clinton for a last name."
The entire post is correct except the part about the uranium not going anywhere. It really has nothing to do with the post. That part should have said the following. It could go to Canada for enrichment and could be sent to US approved enrichment sites from Canada with US approval.
There is no proof any US uranium went to Russia. Uranium One is down to 5.9 % of domestic production in the US.
I have a question for you dumb-ass. One you won't answer because you're a coward.
Since we currently buy @13% of our annual supply from Russia anyway why would they sneak it out of the US by way of Canada just to turn around and keep it or sell it back to us?
Come on bitch, answer me.
http://www.factcheck.org/2017/10/facts-uranium-one/
Although Uranium One once held 20 percent of licensed uranium in-situ recovery production capacity in the U.S., that’s no longer the case. There were only four in-situ recovery facilities licensed by the NRC in 2010. Currently, there are 10 such facilities, so Uranium One’s mining operations now account for an estimated 10 percent of in-situ recovery production capacity in the U.S., the NRC told us in an email.
As for production, the company was responsible for only about 11 percent of U.S. uranium production in 2014, according to 2015 congressional testimony by a Department of Energy contractor. More recently, Uranium One has been responsible for no more than 5.9 percent of domestic production, according to a September 2017 report by the U.S. International Trade Commission
https://www.nrc.gov/docs/ML1516/ML15168A230.pdf
he 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-togovernment
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.
That was easy AND fun.
I'll wait a bit before I claim a victory lap.
I'll wait and see what kind of stupid response you make to this post if you have the balls to make one at all.
plz drink yourself to death. ASAP.
Originally Posted by The_Waco_Kid
- I B Hankering
- 11-10-2017, 07:51 AM