Fran on Uranium

February 16th, 2010 at 10:13 am by David Farrar

Fran O’Sullivan writes:

Australia now earns more than A$1 billion annually from exporting uranium ore concentrate. By 2014, that figure is expected to be A$1.7 billion.

There are tight controls: Australian uranium is produced only for export and is used only for peaceful purposes in civil stations outside of Australia and is trumpeted as a contributor to global climate relief.’

The reason Australia doesn’t have a suite of nuclear power stations is it burns cheap coal for power.

But NZ is stuck in a 1980s cul de sac: Nuclear equals bad.

Secondly, is the PM now expected to order the administrator of his blind trust not to invest in any company that could be mining uranium simply because New Zealand has anti-nuclear laws?

If so, that rules out many companies with diverse interests. Bizarre really.

I thought it was bizarre. Nuclear power is indeed a way to reduce carbon emissions, so wy the fuss over the PM having shares in a company that helps reduce carbon emissions.

Tags: , ,

35 Responses to “Fran on Uranium”

  1. david (2,563 comments) says:

    Ask Trevor, he seems to have a burr under his saddle over it.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  2. Monty (980 comments) says:

    The whole attempted beat up by Guyon (Little creep) and Trevor is nothing short of pathetic.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  3. Gooner (995 comments) says:

    I wonder if Clinton Smith (aka Steve Pierson) flew to Auckland to investigate this as he did pre 2008 election when skulking around with Mike Williams looking into the PM’s affairs?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  4. coge (190 comments) says:

    Clearly this is Labour, who still believe it is 1972. Accordingly, the impact of this beat-up, will be non existant.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  5. ephemera (557 comments) says:

    Don;t forget DPF, the fuss is also about the conflict of interest arising with Key owning *any* mining shares whilst considering opening national parks up for mining.

    The uranium thing is a red herring.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  6. Sushi Goblin (419 comments) says:

    But this is nuts.

    Anyone with a decent portfolio of shares would surely have investments in companies like Rio Tinto and BHP Billiton. Both of these firms have exposure to uranium mining.

    Pretty soon exposure to energy companies will be verboten too on the grounds of climate change.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  7. Lipo (229 comments) says:

    It really was a pathetic story.
    Was disappointed by not surprised at John Key’s handling of it. Politically I supposed he tried to shut down the story by saying he was selling the share etc, etc
    How about a bit of leadership from this countries top man.
    Statements similar to your story DPF would have been good. FFS it’s not like John Key mined uranium and sold it to the Russian’s or the Iranians.
    Saying something along the lines of – it’s Uranium, its mined in Australia, it is sold ethically. Company is doing really well and I may consider buying more shares etc

    Bottom line. No Leadership, all reaction and downplay, wet bus ticket stuff

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  8. MajorBloodnok (361 comments) says:

    Uranium is such a dirty word it is only associated in NZ media with Iran and North Korea, these days. (Not that Green protestors are sending anti-nuke ships to either country.)

    Time to grow up, everybody.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  9. polemic (460 comments) says:

    The relevance of NZ’s cold war era Anti- Nuclear legislation should be re-examined.

    We want to claw our way back to catch up to Australia yet we want to remain cobbled with laws such as this to keep the “Green Police” away.

    Australia has long since embraced the Nuclear age and more so now it is the cleanest and greenest form of energy.

    Why isn’t the debate reopened up and looked at in its entirety. – It would greatly improve our free trade relationship with the US and bring in huge economic benefits that Australia gets free at present.

    When a US carrier fleet visits Australia often the Nuclear Powered carrier doesn’t even dock but the sailors are brought ashore and the ships are re-provisioned and over a weekend visit they pump $4M to $5M into the local economy.

    Do we want the flower worshipping anti nuclear law at the expense of unemployment and lack of growth?

    What will our coming generations remember more – Huge deficits and High Unemployment or “Silly little NZ maintained its Anti Nuclear Policy”.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  10. menace (402 comments) says:

    Untill the worlds bullies get rid of there nuclear arms then i stand behind an anti nuclear stance.

    Once the arse hole yankies get there act together and at the same time quell the attraction that there having them seems to create in the other cowboys, then ill change my stance on power generation.

    But on the biso side of things, i supose with so much money to be made, perhaps we should rip up mt cook, tranaki, ruapehu and Mount Maunganui for a few bucks aye?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  11. Jeff83 (745 comments) says:

    When a US carrier fleet visits Australia often the Nuclear Powered carrier doesn’t even dock but the sailors are brought ashore and the ships are re-provisioned and over a weekend visit they pump $4M to $5M into the local economy.

    That is actually a damn good reason to keep them out, going to create allot more competition in the bars that night :)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  12. Redbaiter (13,197 comments) says:

    “That is actually a damn good reason to keep them out, going to create allot more competition in the bars that night”

    I doubt any American sailor would find a one eyed Cuban loser like you much competition.

    The anti-uranium hysteria is a case of once again, the NZ public being so open to manipulation by the left and their media acolytes.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  13. Nigel Kearney (1,049 comments) says:

    >Australia doesn’t have a suite of nuclear power stations is it burns cheap coal for power.

    Presumably because they don’t want nuclear power stations in Australia. But NZ is ‘stuck in a 1980s cul de sac’ while Australia is ‘trumpeted as a contributor to global climate relief’. Sorry but this doesn’t add up. If Australia really wanted to reduce carbon emissions and weren’t irrationally anti-nuclear like NZ then they would use their uranium to run nuclear power stations in Australia instead of burning coal.

    Also, NZ’s foolish but popular anti-nuclear stance is not just about avoiding a nuclear accident in NZ. It’s also about setting an example for the rest of the world. So the Prime Minister owning shares in a uranium mine does conflict with that.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  14. Chris Diack (748 comments) says:

    What a total beatup of a story by TVNZ. Espiner trying to do gotcha (not whale) journalism totally lacks cred.

    Just sit back and ask oneself: if Key were driven by self enrichment why would he be in politics at all? There are easier ways to make money more directly than attempting to influence public policy on mining so one’s Aussie mining shares increase in value.

    No serious political interviewer would bother with this stuff.

    Key just isn’t that turned on by money – he is rich enough to afford not to be. Espiner provided no insight into what makes Key tick, his values or motivation, the character of the man as reflected in the policy: he just wasted time. It was truthfully embarrassing – for the questioner.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  15. ben (2,384 comments) says:

    Climate relief.

    LOL.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  16. MajorBloodnok (361 comments) says:

    menace: Untill the worlds bullies get rid of there nuclear arms then i stand behind an anti nuclear stance.

    And you think that will stop a nuke that’s heading in your direction?

    What’s the chance of Israel, France, Russia, China, India, Pakistan, or North Korea voluntarily relinquishing THEIR nuclear weapons?

    I think you’re dreaming, and it would be more effective if you put your head in a hole in the ground. Like our country’s general attitude towards anything radioactive.

    The story was about uranium mining. Not nuclear weapons. Uranium is a raw material. It is AMORAL. You can do good things and bad things with it. Just like fire, or electricity, or the internet, or dynamite. (You get the picture?)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  17. Sam (502 comments) says:

    Polemic – how exactly would we ctach up to Australia by having Nuclear genereated power – we have abundant energy sources of our own without having to purchase uranium from the country we are trying to catch up to (a self-defeating proposition if ever I heard one)…

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  18. Caleb (479 comments) says:

    coal is way cheaper than nuclear power.

    modern nuclear power plants are safe and if you are mining the uranium,
    you are reducing the global requirement for coal power.

    do you drive a car everyday nigel?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  19. unaha-closp (1,180 comments) says:

    …so wy the fuss over the PM having shares in a company that helps reduce carbon emissions.

    Because he is the PM of a government that rules it illegal for NZ companies to engage in the industry.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  20. polemic (460 comments) says:

    Sam, I am talking about the Silly antiquated Anti Nuclear Law that is holding us back from a free trade agreement with the US and the fact that Australia has gone ahead in leaps and bounds because it puts economic benefit ahead of ideology.
    If you re read it I never said anything about purchasing uranium from Australia.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  21. Komata (1,201 comments) says:

    Ummm, menace

    ‘Once the arse hole yankies get there act together’ . . . etc etc, etc’

    It’s a minor point but if it weren’t for these self-same yankees, you, old chap, wouldn’t be here now, and if you were you would be speaking Japanese.

    It’s a small point, but your ‘freedom to insult’ was bought with American lives.

    Thought you might like to know.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  22. MajorBloodnok (361 comments) says:

    Well said, Komata!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  23. Rod (180 comments) says:

    Does John Key, as a proponent of ETS legislation, have any personal investment in “clean energy” or carbon trading interests?
    Just asking … ‘cos its a lot more relevant to whether he is conflicted than anything to do with uranium; and, given the vast money interests behind the AGW movement, a lot more likely to be an issue. GE, most banks, and many others have their finger in this pie.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  24. emmess (1,432 comments) says:

    In line with New Zealand’s Nuclear free policy, John Key should have held on to the shares as he was helping to fund removing all this nasty uranium stuff from the region.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  25. SBY (121 comments) says:

    If it’s okay for Key to own shares in uranium, why was he so quick to sell them as soon as his shareholding became public?

    Because he knows it’s a bad look for the PM of a country with an anti-nuclear policy to hold those shares, and he doesn’t have the political courage to argue against that policy.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  26. Jack5 (5,156 comments) says:

    Labour diehard Ephemera posted at 10.45:

    …Don;t forget DPF, the fuss is also about the conflict of interest arising with Key owning *any* mining shares whilst considering opening national parks up for mining….

    Most NZers will be directly or indirectly linked to mining companies through investments by their Kiwisaver or other investment funds.

    The only drawback of uranium-mining shares is that they made their big jump a couple of years ago, but of course remain a good long-term prospect with nuclear power stations going up round the world, and uranium demand set to soar further as the supply of material from US and Russian nuclear-weapon disassembly levels off.

    Don’t worry about uranium in our national parks, Ephemera. NZ’s been well combed over, and any ore in NZ is far too low grade.

    As for nuclearphobes generally, perhaps they should publicly pledge ahead that in the unfortunate event they contract cancer they won’t accept radiation treatment to gain a few more years of life. Nor should they endorse home fire alarms, which use a tiny bit of radiation. Sensible people of course, will choose fire alarms.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  27. Poliwatch (335 comments) says:

    So we ask our politicians to set up blind trusts for their investments so they cannot be influenced by those investments they have and then we tell the blind trustees to only invest according to government policy. Bizarre

    I can see the rules being that you cannot invest because it is against government policy (uranium) and cannot invest because it is with government policy (fibre rollout) and you might be influenced by the investment. Again Bizarre.

    So what exactly is the purpose of a blind trust?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  28. Manolo (14,060 comments) says:

    “Secondly, is the PM now expected to order the administrator of his blind trust not to invest in any company that could be mining uranium simply because New Zealand has anti-nuclear laws?”

    You might ask why Key acted this way? Because the PM has the spine of a jellyfish. Unable to stand up to the anti-nuclear brigade he meekly surrenders and gives up.

    Sadly, inane grinning is his forte.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  29. side show bob (3,660 comments) says:

    God what is wrong with Shonkey? Does the man leave his balls on the mantel piece every morning?. Just once I would like to see him at that three ring circus stand up and tell those two bob socialist dick pullers to take a flying fuck. I think it would be a vote winner but as Manolo says if he wants to be a jellyfish a job at the aquarium may be more to his liking.

    Anyhow why are all these Liarbore tossers wetting themselves, wasn’t the great Sullen fund investing in war technologies at some stage. At least Shonkey is only investing in getting it out of the ground and not making ICBMs out of the stuff.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  30. Jack5 (5,156 comments) says:

    The NZ Herald has another go at Key (link below). Holding shares in a mining company that doesn’t operate in NZ is controversial when a politician is involved with policy on national park mining in NZ? Left-wing garbage.

    Goff and his sallow and shallow fans at Red Alert in arguing that the Key holding is/was controversial are taking a position as illogical and daft as they would be in saying lesbians were compromised by taking part in human rights legislation.

    The NZ Hooerald Hoons will get the shake-up of the century when O’Reilly finally finds a buyer for the rag. If there is indeed a supreme being, the new owner will be a right winger like the Rev Moon (owner of the Washington Times).

    The link:
    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10626569

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  31. simo (151 comments) says:

    Menace said:

    “Untill the worlds bullies get rid of there nuclear arms then i stand behind an anti nuclear stance.

    Once the arse hole yankies get there act together and at the same time quell the attraction that there having them seems to create in the other cowboys, then ill change my stance on power generation.”

    Who built your North Western Motorway with fucking concrete from Newton all the way to Whenupai in 1942, who built a lot of the rural airstrips, Raglan, Far North etc – the Yanks – civilisation, infrastructure, economic prosperity usually follows in their path, yet you still like to drag your knuckles along the ground

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  32. Viking2 (11,565 comments) says:

    Well now the Yanks have the America’s Cup back they will surely get their mojo back and rise up in the world again.
    A bit like Kiwi’s getting their country back from Clark.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  33. Seán (397 comments) says:

    “I thought it was bizarre.”
    Indeed, it came about because Guyon Espinor is a grandstanding showpony desperate for a story. I quit the news story half way through as clearly it was no big deal.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  34. Hurf Durf (2,860 comments) says:

    Once the arse hole yankies

    So much for the pundits saying the fuckwit international left would fall in love with the US once Hussein was elected. I do hope menace maintains his stance in the event Chinese warships appear on the horizon.

    Like I said last week when this nontroversy first appeared: this anti-nuke ludditry seriously pisses me off.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  35. Clint Heine (1,571 comments) says:

    I think they are upset that John owns shares and participates in a capitalist free market full stop. Although I’m not too convinced he’s a worthy representative of capitalism. Trev and others are just stirring up shit for the sake of it.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote