Fact-checked by Grok 2 weeks ago

Uranium One

Uranium One Inc. was a Canadian-based and , established in 2005, that held assets and licenses primarily in , the , and , becoming a focal point of controversy due to its stepwise acquisition by , Russia's state-owned , between 2009 and 2013. The pivotal 2010 transaction involved Rosatom's subsidiary ARMZ purchasing a 51% in Uranium One, which required approval from the U.S. Committee on Foreign Investment in the (CFIUS) owing to the company's ownership of projects in representing an estimated 20% of installed U.S. capacity. CFIUS, chaired by the and including the State under Secretary , unanimously approved the deal despite concurrent FBI evidence from informant William Douglas Campbell documenting a Russian scheme by Rosatom officials to bribe their way into U.S. contracts starting in 2009. Compounding scrutiny, Uranium One's chairman Ian Telfer routed $2.35 million in undisclosed donations to the via his family foundation between 2009 and 2013, while early investor had previously contributed $31.3 million, and former President received a $500,000 speaking fee from a Russian investment promoting the deal in 2010. Rosatom achieved full ownership by 2013, though U.S. regulatory restrictions limited exports, and the American subsidiary's assets were divested to Uranium Energy Corp. in 2021, amid ongoing debates over whether the approval compromised U.S. or reflected undue foreign influence.

Corporate History

Formation and Early Expansion

Uranium One Inc. was established in 2005 as a Canadian listed on the , initially operating as a junior mining firm focused on and . The company, originally known as sxr Uranium One Inc., targeted opportunities in uranium resources amid rising global demand for . Under the early leadership of Canadian mining financier , who had previously assembled UrAsia Energy Ltd. in 2005 to pursue uranium projects in , the firm emphasized acquiring undervalued assets in geopolitically stable regions with established mining frameworks. UrAsia quickly secured interests, such as a 30% stake in the Kyzylkum project for $75 million in 2005, leveraging 's position as a major producer. This approach aligned with broader strategies to build resource bases through targeted investments rather than greenfield exploration alone. Giustra served as non-executive chairman following key developments but divested his holdings in 2007. A pivotal early expansion occurred in February 2007 when sxr Uranium One announced the acquisition of UrAsia Energy Ltd. for approximately $3.1 billion in shares, completed in 2007, creating a mid-tier with consolidated assets primarily in . The merger enhanced production potential and diversified holdings, positioning the enlarged entity for further growth in operations outside . By 2009, state-owned ARMZ Uranium Holding Co., a subsidiary of , acquired a 17% minority stake in Uranium One through a swap involving a 50% interest in the Karatau uranium project in , marking initial foreign investment without altering majority control.

Key Acquisitions and Growth Phase

In 2007, Uranium One significantly expanded its portfolio through the acquisition of UrAsia Energy Ltd. for approximately $3.1 billion, a transaction completed in that integrated UrAsia's substantial Kazakhstan-based assets into the company. This deal provided Uranium One with a 70% stake in the Betpak Dala with , encompassing the Akdala and South Inkai deposits, which employed in-situ recovery () techniques to extract from sandstone-hosted orebodies. Akdala commenced production in 2006, while South Inkai initiated trial operations in 2007, contributing to early production ramp-up through methods that minimized surface disturbance and enabled scalable output. Further growth in included the establishment of the Kyzylkum (Kharasan 1 project), in which Uranium One held a 30% interest alongside (30%) and EnergyAsia (40%), with pilot production starting in . These expansions, combined with the Betpak Dala assets, boosted Uranium One's attributable reserves to over 50,000 tonnes of by , driven by measured and indicated resources at South Inkai (13,000 ), Akdala (10,359 total resources), and Kharasan 1 (15,693 measured plus 17,940 inferred). In , production from these Kazakh operations reached approximately 1,876 , equivalent to roughly 2,200 tonnes of U3O8, reflecting the efficacy of in achieving commercial-scale extraction amid rising global demand. Concurrently, Uranium One entered the North American market by acquiring Energy Metals Corp. in 2007 for $50 million plus royalties, gaining control of Wyoming-based assets under its subsidiary Uranium One Americas Inc. These included projects in the , such as Willow Creek, with total resources exceeding 6,500 tU, positioning the company to leverage low-cost for future domestic production capacity potentially up to 1,400 tU annually. This acquisition diversified Uranium One's geographic footprint and enhanced its technical expertise in , aligning with the late-2000s surge in uranium exploration and development.

Rosatom Acquisition Process

In June 2010, JSC Atomredmetzolot (ARMZ), a subsidiary of Russia's state-owned , entered into an agreement to acquire a 51 percent controlling stake in Uranium One Inc., a Canadian with uranium assets primarily in and the . The transaction structure involved ARMZ contributing approximately in cash directly to Uranium One shareholders, along with its 50 percent and 49 percent interests in the Akbastau and Zarechnoye uranium mines in , respectively, to Uranium One itself. This valued the overall deal at around $1.3 billion, granting ARMZ majority ownership while expanding Uranium One's resource base in . The acquisition closed on December 27, 2010, after which ARMZ held 51.4 percent of Uranium One's shares. To consolidate full control, ARMZ launched a on January 14, 2013, for all remaining Uranium One common shares it did not already own, at a price of C$2.86 per share in cash. This offer represented a premium over recent trading prices and implied a total transaction value of approximately $1.3 billion for the minority stake. Uranium One shareholders approved the going-private transaction on March 7, 2013, leading to the company's delisting from the and conversion into a entity fully owned by ARMZ. Following the completion, Uranium One was integrated as a key component of ARMZ's global operations, which serve as 's mining arm responsible for production outside . This incorporation provided with diversified access to Uranium One's established reserves and production assets in non-Russian jurisdictions, including and legacy interests in the United States, bolstering its position in international supply chains without reliance on domestic sources alone.

Operations and Assets

Primary Mining Operations

Uranium One's primary mining operations center on following the 2013 acquisition by , where in-situ recovery (), also known as in-situ leaching, serves as the core extraction technique across its key assets. ISR entails drilling injection and production wells into sandstone-hosted deposits, circulating an acidic or alkaline leaching solution to solubilize in place, and recovering the pregnant solution for ion-exchange processing at surface facilities. This approach leverages the region's hydrogeological conditions, including permeable aquifers at depths of 200-600 meters, enabling efficient extraction without large-scale excavation. Compared to , ISR minimizes surface land disturbance, piles, and dust emissions, though it requires rigorous monitoring to manage potential migration of leachates beyond the ore zone. Logistically, operations involve phased wellfield development—typically in five-spot or nine-spot patterns for optimal flow dynamics—and supply chains, often sourced locally or via joint ventures, to sustain efficiency at recovery rates of 70-80%. Kazakhstan's ISR dominance, accounting for over 50% of global output by volume in the , aligns with Uranium One's model by prioritizing low operating costs, estimated at $15-25 per U3O8 during peak periods, through modular processing plants and minimal capital-intensive . The principal sites—Akdala, Karatau, and Zarechnoye—form the backbone of production, with these fields yielding the bulk of output via joint ventures with . Akdala, operational since 2009, features roll-front deposits amenable to alkaline ; Karatau emphasizes acid-based for higher-grade zones; and Zarechnoye integrates advanced well monitoring for sustained yields. These locations collectively drove annual production to a peak of approximately 6,000 tonnes U3O8 equivalent in 2017, supported by wellfield expansions and optimized pumping regimes before market-driven curtailments.

Production Capacity and Key Projects

Uranium One's mining operations in utilize in-situ recovery () techniques, with total production capacity across its key projects reaching several thousand tonnes of () annually prior to adjustments for market conditions. The company's output from these assets has historically represented a notable share of Rosatom's global supply, derived primarily from high-grade deposits in the Chu-Sarysu and Syrdarya basins. The South Inkai project stands as a core high-grade operation, initiating trial in 2007 and ramping up to a designed capacity of approximately 1,900 per year by 2011. In 2022, the South Inkai 4 section of the project yielded 1,600 , reflecting operational efficiency in extracting from sandstone-hosted roll-front deposits via acid solutions. This facility's high ore grades enable competitive recovery rates, with wellfield development focused on phased saturation and processes to optimize yield. Supporting projects include Akdala, Kharasan, and Zarechnoye, which function as satellite operations to bolster overall throughput. Akdala and Kharasan employ similar methods on roll-front mineralization, with historical contributions scaling to hundreds of annually per site during active phases. Zarechnoye, operated as a , added diversified output until recent stake divestitures, emphasizing modular wellfield expansion for sustained extraction. These projects collectively enable Uranium One to maintain flexible production scaling based on uranium demand and pricing. Amid the 2014-2016 uranium market downturn, when spot prices fell below per U3O8 due to post-Fukushima oversupply, Uranium One suspended operations at select sites including Kharasan to conserve resources and avoid uneconomic extraction. Resumptions occurred as prices recovered, allowing reactivation of wellfields while prioritizing higher-grade zones to align with long-term reserve management.

Resource Holdings and Reserves

Uranium One's reserves as of mid-2013 were predominantly located in , with NI 43-101 certified proven and probable reserves totaling approximately 70,000 tonnes U3O8 equivalent on an attributable basis. These holdings were supported by technical reports filed in December 2013 for key projects such as Karatau and Akbastau, confirming economic viability through sandstone-hosted deposits suitable for in-situ recovery ().
ProjectProven and Probable Reserves (tU)Extraction MethodNotes
Karatau (Budenovskoye 2)51,960Attributable share reflects with .
Akbastau (Budenovskoye 1, 3, 4)31,600High-grade roll-front deposits; combined measured and indicated resources of 47,293 tU.
Kharasan 17,132Supporting measured and indicated resources of 8,561 tU.
Other (e.g., South Inkai, Akdala, Zarechnoye)~11,645 (combined)Lower individual contributions but additive to total portfolio viability.
The -applicable reserves in offered geological and economic advantages over higher-cost conventional reserves in regions like and , with lower permeability requirements and reduced environmental disturbance enabling extraction at depths of 200-600 meters. Measured and indicated resources across these assets provided a buffer supporting 10-15 years of sustained production at rates of approximately 5,000-6,000 annually attributable to Uranium One. This resource base underscored the company's focus on low-cost, scalable operations, distinct from capital-intensive conventional mining elsewhere in its portfolio.

Ownership and Corporate Structure

Pre-Acquisition Shareholders

Uranium One Inc. was publicly traded on the under the UUU, with ownership dispersed among a broad base of shareholders that included Canadian institutional investors and pension funds. The company's structure reflected typical public firms of the era, prioritizing diversified equity to fund exploration and development without concentrated control by any single entity prior to foreign stakes. Frank Giustra, a Canadian financier, founded UrAsia Energy Ltd. in 2005 and orchestrated its merger with Uranium One in 2007, positioning himself as an early major stakeholder and chairman. Giustra divested his holdings and resigned from associated board positions by late 2007, severing direct ties to the company. In June 2009, ARMZ Uranium Holding Co., a subsidiary of Russia's state-owned , acquired a minority 17% stake in Uranium One via a shares-for-assets deal involving cash and partial interests in Kazakh uranium projects, without obtaining board control or veto rights over operations.

Post-Rosatom Ownership Changes

Following the full acquisition by JSC ARMZ Uranium Holding Co. (a of ) in , Uranium One Inc. became a wholly owned entity under control, with ARMZ acquiring the remaining minority shares for approximately $1.3 billion in a privatization transaction. This completed the consolidation initiated in 2010, eliminating prior public shareholdings and integrating Uranium One directly into Rosatom's mining division structure. In late 2013, established Uranium One Holding NV (U1H) in the as a dedicated vehicle to manage its international uranium assets, positioning Uranium One as the operational arm for non-Russian ventures. This structure facilitated Uranium One's alignment with 's vertically integrated , whereby extracted concentrates from its global operations—primarily in , , and —supply raw material for Russia's conversion, enrichment, and fuel fabrication capacities, which account for about 46% of global enrichment services. Under ownership, Uranium One's production contributed to fuel assemblies delivered to over 70 commercial reactors worldwide, enhancing 's role as a key supplier in the international without altering the core ownership framework. No material dilutions of control, equity spin-offs, or third-party stake infusions occurred in the subsequent decade, maintaining undivided oversight until targeted asset adjustments elsewhere.

Recent US Asset Divestiture

In November 2021, Uranium One, a of Russia's , agreed to sell its U.S.-based Uranium One Americas Inc. to Uranium Energy Corp., a Texas-based company. The share purchase agreement was executed on November 8, 2021, for a total consideration of approximately $131 million, comprising $112 million in and the of $19 million in bonds held by Uranium One. The transaction closed on December 20, 2021, fully funded by Uranium Energy Corp.'s existing reserves of over $120 million post-closing. The divested assets included Uranium One Americas' portfolio of uranium projects primarily in Wyoming's , encompassing seven in-situ recovery projects, three of which were past-producing mines such as Willow Creek. These holdings represented a significant portion of undeveloped and permitted resources in the U.S., with estimated measured and indicated resources exceeding 50 million pounds of U3O8 equivalent prior to the sale. The acquisition positioned Uranium Energy Corp. as the largest company in the Americas by resource base. This sale marked Rosatom's exit from direct ownership of U.S. operations, transferring control of these assets to a domestic entity and reducing foreign influence over domestic production capacity, which had previously accounted for up to 20% of U.S. potential under Russian-linked ownership. The divestiture aligned with contemporaneous U.S. policy emphases on enhancing domestic uranium supply chains, including Department of Energy initiatives to procure millions of pounds of U.S.-sourced amid efforts to diversify away from dependencies.

Regulatory Approvals and the 2010 Deal

CFIUS Review Mechanism

The Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS) is an interagency body chaired by the Department of the Treasury, tasked with reviewing foreign acquisitions of U.S. businesses or assets to assess potential risks, including threats to , technology, or supply chains. Composed of nine voting member agencies—encompassing the Departments of , , , , , and , along with the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative and the Office of Science and Technology Policy—CFIUS conducts evaluations through a structured process that emphasizes collaborative analysis across sectors like , , and . The review typically begins with a voluntary notification from transaction parties, followed by a 30-day initial assessment and, if risks are identified, a 45-day in-depth investigation involving input from all members to determine mitigation measures or recommend presidential intervention. In cases involving strategic resources such as , CFIUS scrutinizes foreign control over domestic production assets, as these could impact and supply chains. For the Uranium One transaction, the company's U.S. subsidiaries operated mines in that accounted for approximately 20% of the nation's installed uranium production capacity at the time, prompting a mandatory evaluation due to the sector's sensitivity under non-proliferation and frameworks. The multi-agency ensures diverse perspectives, with agencies like the Department of Energy assessing proliferation risks and the Department of Defense evaluating military implications, though decisions require unanimous consensus among voting members or referral to the if unresolved. The State Department's single vote within CFIUS reflects its role in and export licensing, but the process's decentralized nature distributes authority to prevent any one agency from dominating outcomes, fostering rigorous debate on risks from state-owned foreign entities in extractive industries. Approvals hinge on evidence that transactions do not impair U.S. control over key resources, with CFIUS empowered to impose conditions like security agreements or asset ring-fencing to address vulnerabilities identified in joint assessments.

Timeline of Approvals and Conditions

In June 2009, ARMZ Uranium Holding Co., a subsidiary of Russia's state-owned , acquired a 17% minority stake in Uranium One, prompting an initial review by the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS). On June 8, 2010, ARMZ announced an agreement to purchase additional shares, increasing its ownership to 51% and gaining effective control of the company, which held rights in the United States representing about 20% of U.S. at the time. The transaction underwent CFIUS review, which concluded with approval later in 2010 after the committee imposed specific mitigation conditions to address concerns. These included requirements that Uranium One's U.S. maintain a of directors on its board and obtain explicit U.S. (NRC) licenses for any export of uranium produced from its mines. Subsequent incremental share purchases by did not trigger a new CFIUS filing, as they fell below thresholds requiring review under then-applicable regulations. By October 2013, had acquired the remaining shares, achieving full ownership of Uranium One without additional CFIUS scrutiny. Post-approval NRC records indicate no approvals for shipments of or from Uranium One's U.S. facilities to , with any processed material remaining subject to domestic licensing restrictions that prohibited direct transfers to the acquiring entity. While some uranium was converted and exported to third countries like under separate NRC authorizations, these movements complied with existing export controls and did not involve destinations.

Involved Agencies and Decision-Making

The Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS), chaired by the Department of the Treasury, led the interagency review of Rosatom's acquisition of Uranium One, evaluating risks associated with the transfer of control over U.S. uranium assets. Participating agencies included the Departments of Defense, , Homeland Security, , , and , reflecting a decentralized assessment process where each agency analyzed risks within its expertise—such as Defense reviewing potential military supply vulnerabilities, examining implications, and assessing threats—prior to collective deliberation. No individual agency held veto authority; instead, CFIUS operates on a basis, with the Treasury Secretary empowered to suspend or block transactions if unresolved concerns persist, though confirm unanimous approval of the Uranium One on October 21, 2010, without documented objections from any member. This multi-agency involvement distributed responsibility across the executive branch, mitigating reliance on any single department's perspective. Approval incorporated binding conditions via agreements, including prohibitions on foreign personnel accessing sensitive U.S. operations and requirements for CFIUS notification before any downstream ownership transfers exceeding specified thresholds. Complementing this, the (NRC) maintained independent oversight of Uranium One's existing U.S. licenses for uranium recovery, enforcing restrictions that barred issuance of new licenses to foreign-controlled entities and preserved U.S. regulatory control over mining and milling activities.

Controversy and Allegations

Clinton Foundation Donations Timeline

, founder of UrAsia Energy—which merged with Uranium One in 2007—donated $31.3 million to the in 2006, following UrAsia's 2005 uranium mining agreement in arranged after a trip with . These contributions preceded both the Russian acquisition of Uranium One stakes starting in 2009 and Hillary Clinton's January 2009 appointment as . From 2008 to 2010, investors affiliated with Uranium One and its predecessor UrAsia contributed an additional $8.65 million to the foundation, overlapping with ARMZ (a subsidiary)'s initial minority stake purchases in the company beginning in 2009. In June 2010, as ARMZ announced its purchase of a 17.4 percent stake in Uranium One, received a $500,000 fee for a speech in sponsored by , a that had promoted Uranium One shares and advised on related transactions. Between 2009 and 2013—spanning the full Russian takeover of Uranium One—executives including chairman Ian Telfer donated approximately $2.35 million to the , with Telfer's contributions exceeding $2 million during this period. Overall, donors linked to Uranium One shareholders reportedly gave $145 million to the across the deal's , though the majority stemmed from pre-2009 pledges like Giustra's.

Claims of Pay-to-Play Influence

Critics, including conservative commentators and investigators, have asserted that , as U.S. from 2009 to 2013, exerted influence over the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS) to approve Rosatom's acquisition of Uranium One in exchange for financial benefits to the . These allegations posit a , where State Department advocacy—despite its role in CFIUS deliberations—facilitated the deal granting control over uranium mining assets representing about 20% of U.S. production capacity. Proponents argue that Clinton's department's involvement, including reported communications with Canadian officials involved in the transaction, aligned suspiciously with Foundation interests. The timing of contributions from Uranium One-linked individuals has been cited as of influence peddling. Between 2009 and 2013, during Rosatom's phased takeover of Uranium One through three transactions culminating in full control by 2013, executives and investors associated with the company, including chairman Ian Telfer, donated roughly $2.35 million to the ; these included $1.3 million from Telfer alone via his family foundation. Critics highlight that such donations resumed after a lull following earlier pledges, coinciding with key approval milestones, and note the Foundation's policy of accepting foreign donations despite Clinton's pledge to disclose them. Further scrutiny focuses on a $500,000 speaking fee paid to former President in June 2010 by , a that was publicly promoting Uranium One stock and underwriting related share offerings. This payment occurred weeks before CFIUS's October 2010 approval of 's majority stake, amid reports that Clinton sought State Department clearance for meetings with officials around the same period. Allegations suggest the fee, unusually high for Clinton's post-presidency speeches in , served as an indirect benefit tied to the deal's progression. Investigative author amplified these claims in his 2015 book : The Untold Story of How and Why Foreign Governments and Businesses Helped Make Bill and Hillary Rich, framing the Uranium One saga as emblematic of a pattern where access to Clinton's influence correlated with funding. Schweizer detailed how the intertwined timelines of donations, speeches, and approvals raised questions of dynamics, influencing subsequent coverage and political discourse on conservative outlets.

FBI Informant and Russian Bribery Evidence

William D. Campbell served as a confidential FBI from 2010 to 2013, tasked with investigating nuclear industry activities, including schemes tied to Uranium One's Kazakhstan operations. His reporting focused on involving executives from Rosatom subsidiary ARMZ and Uranium One, who allegedly paid bribes to secure uranium mining contracts in . These activities predated Rosatom's full acquisition of Uranium One, occurring primarily between 2009 and 2011. Campbell documented evidence of over $2 million in bribes funneled through shell companies in , , and to Kazakhstani officials, aimed at influencing uranium mine access and control. The scheme involved Russian efforts to dominate uranium resources via Uranium One's Kazakh assets, which included joint ventures like the South Inkai mine operated with . Court records and informant materials described kickbacks, , and tactics employed by Rosatom-linked entities to expand influence without full ownership at the time. In congressional interviews, Campbell testified that his findings revealed no of U.S. officials and no connections to or the . He emphasized that the corruption centered on and entities, with no evidence of involving American decision-makers in the CFIUS approval process. This testimony, drawn from declassified summaries, underscored the probe's focus on foreign graft rather than domestic influence.

Investigations and Outcomes

DOJ and FBI Probes

The FBI initiated an undercover in into a and scheme involving executives from Tenex, a subsidiary of Russia's state-owned , which sought to expand influence in the U.S. nuclear sector. The probe, active during the 2010 Uranium One acquisition approval, uncovered evidence that Russian officials paid approximately $2.35 million in bribes to a U.S. transportation company executive between 2009 and 2014 to secure contracts for transport and storage. FBI confidential human source William D. Campbell, who posed as a lobbyist, gathered recordings and documents detailing these illicit payments, but the did not pursue allegations tying the scheme directly to the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS) review process. The FBI's probe culminated in the November 2015 guilty plea of Tenex executive Vadim Mikerin to and charges, with sentencing deferred as part of a broader case; however, it concluded in 2014 without indictments or charges related to the Uranium One deal's approval or any U.S. government officials involved in CFIUS. Federal prosecutors later confirmed the scheme focused on commercial contracts rather than the acquisition itself, and no evidence emerged during the investigation linking the to influence over regulatory approvals. In November 2017, amid congressional scrutiny, Attorney General Jeff Sessions directed the DOJ to review prior Uranium One-related records and assess potential grounds for further action, including possible scrutiny of Clinton Foundation activities. The DOJ permitted Campbell to be debriefed by Senate Judiciary Committee staff in late 2017, where he testified under immunity but provided no evidence of quid pro quo arrangements involving Hillary Clinton, the State Department, or CFIUS decisions. DOJ officials concluded there was insufficient basis to prosecute Clintons or others for influencing the deal, and no charges were filed following the review.

Congressional Inquiries

In October 2017, the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, chaired by Representative (R-SC), and the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, chaired by Representative (R-CA), announced a joint investigation into the Uranium One deal, focusing on the FBI's and Department of Justice's handling of allegations of in the sector during the 2010 CFIUS review process. The probe examined whether executive branch agencies adequately shared informant-derived intelligence on bribery attempts involving subsidiaries and Uranium One executives with CFIUS members prior to approval. The committees conducted a closed-door with FBI confidential human source William D. Campbell on February 13, 2018; Campbell, who had gathered evidence from 2007 to 2013 on efforts to influence U.S. approvals through bribes and kickbacks, testified that the FBI sought ongoing updates from him even after the deal's approval but provided no testimony linking , the State Department, or donations to the transaction's outcome. Republicans highlighted discrepancies in the of Campbell's reports—some predating the CFIUS vote—and accused the DOJ of withholding key details from , while Democrats noted the interview yielded no substantiation for claims of political interference. In the , Committee Chairman (R-IA) initiated scrutiny by requesting on October 19, 2017, that the DOJ lift a non-disclosure agreement on Campbell to allow his full cooperation with congressional investigators and calling for a to examine the deal alongside activities. On November 14, 2017, Grassley directed the DOJ to preserve all records related to the FBI's parallel probe into bribery in the industry, citing concerns over potential suppression of evidence during the acquisition review. Grassley issued further requests, including to the on October 12, 2017, for assessments of risks in the transaction, and to the DOJ on November 30, 2018, regarding investigative steps on ties. These inquiries reflected tensions, with Republicans alleging executive branch opacity and conflicts of interest undermined , whereas Democrats maintained the efforts recycled unsubstantiated allegations without yielding novel evidence of misconduct in the approval process.

Key Findings and Lack of Charges

Investigations by the Department of Justice (DOJ) and (FBI), including a review led by U.S. Attorney John Huber appointed in to examine -related matters and Uranium One, concluded without any indictments or charges against U.S. officials, principals, or parties involved in the Committee on Foreign Investment (CFIUS) approval process. The FBI's parallel probe into sector activities, which began prior to the 2010 deal, uncovered a scheme involving Tenex—a —where Vadim Mikerin and associates extorted and defrauded U.S. companies for contracts between 2009 and 2014, leading to Mikerin's guilty plea in 2015 on charges; however, this was unrelated to the Uranium One acquisition or CFIUS deliberations, with FBI William Campbell testifying he possessed no evidence linking the scheme to influence over the deal or donations. CFIUS internal documents from the 2010 review, involving nine agencies including the State Department, reflect unanimous approval of the acquisition without any formal objection or veto recommendation from State, and no evidence of atypical influence or deviation from standard procedures. Following the approval, Uranium One's U.S. mining and milling operations persisted under ownership through 2021, subject to (NRC) oversight that prohibited uranium exports to without specific licenses—none of which were issued or violated during this period, ensuring no material transfer contravened deal conditions.

Criticisms from National Security Perspective

Risks of Russian Control Over US Assets

The acquisition of Uranium One by , Russia's state-owned corporation, granted a foreign adversary over domestic assets critical to the U.S. . , established in 2007 under direct oversight of the Russian government, maintains deep integration with the country's military-industrial complex, including production of systems for and icebreakers, as well as contributions to the defense sector's and technologies. This structure enables potential dual-use applications, where civilian operations could facilitate intelligence gathering or technology transfers beneficial to Russian strategic interests, particularly given Rosatom's subsidiaries' provision of armaments and components to Russia's defense industry. Uranium One's U.S. holdings, primarily in Wyoming's , encompassed approximately 20% of licensed U.S. capacity at the time of the deal, though actual output contributed only 5-10% of domestic production due to depressed market prices and idled operations. Russian control introduced vulnerabilities such as access to proprietary geological surveys, reserve data, and operational expertise, which could inform Moscow's assessments of U.S. or enable subtle influence over future extraction decisions. Pre-full divestiture phases allowed Rosatom personnel or affiliates proximity to U.S. sites, raising concerns over infiltration or potential in a geopolitical , as evidenced by Rosatom's later documented roles in tactics. Such transfers deviated from post-Cold War U.S. policy norms prioritizing retention of strategic minerals against adversarial , as articulated in frameworks emphasizing supply chain resilience for nuclear deterrence and power generation. Empirical risks materialized in heightened dependence dynamics, where even marginal foreign sway over in-situ resources could amplify leverage during supply disruptions, contrasting with deliberate U.S. efforts to diversify away from dominance observed in global markets. This control persisted until partial mitigations post-2013, underscoring causal pathways from asset to potential economic or advantages for an entity intertwined with apparatus.

Uranium Supply Chain Vulnerabilities

The United States relies on imports for approximately 95% of the uranium purchased by its nuclear power plant operators, with domestic production accounting for only a small fraction of requirements as of 2022. This dependence extends across the nuclear fuel cycle, including uranium concentrate, where foreign sources supplied 99% of needs in 2023 according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration. The Uranium One acquisition by Rosatom in 2010 and its completion in 2013 integrated significant mining assets, particularly in Kazakhstan—a country producing about 43% of global uranium—into Russian state-controlled operations, thereby enhancing Rosatom's influence over a key segment of the international supply chain. Rosatom, through subsidiaries like ARMZ Uranium Holding Co., gained control over Uranium One's reserves and facilities, which at the time represented a notable portion of non-Russian global output, amplifying Russia's leverage in despite its direct share being around 6-7% worldwide. This structure introduced causal vulnerabilities by concentrating decision-making authority over substantial reserves in an entity aligned with Russian geopolitical interests, potentially enabling supply disruptions or price manipulations during conflicts. For instance, amid the 2014 annexation of and ensuing sanctions, Russian entities could theoretically redirect or withhold Kazakh-sourced uranium—exported globally as concentrate—exacerbating shortages in import-dependent markets like the U.S. While empirical data shows limited actual exports of from U.S.-based Uranium One assets to post-deal, the ownership transfer posed a latent of broader interference through control of high-grade reserves in , where Rosatom's joint ventures facilitate export dependencies. Such control could manifest as strategic withholding, as evidenced by 's later restrictions on exports to the U.S. in November 2024, highlighting the precedent for using assets as leverage in dynamics. This theoretical disruption potential underscores the deal's contribution to U.S. vulnerabilities, given the inelastic demand for in powering roughly 20% of the nation's via reactors.

Broader Geopolitical Ramifications

The intensified bipartisan skepticism toward Russian involvement in the U.S. nuclear sector, amplifying long-standing concerns about dependency on adversarial suppliers for critical materials. Although the deal itself transferred mining rights rather than processed fuel, it symbolized perceived vulnerabilities in allowing —Russia's state-owned nuclear corporation—to gain footholds in Western assets during a period of deteriorating U.S.- relations post-2008 . This distrust manifested in policy actions to curtail Russian influence, including repeated congressional efforts from 2017 onward to impose sanctions on uranium imports, culminating in heightened scrutiny amid the 2022 conflict. A direct ramification was the acceleration of measures to ban Russian uranium imports, addressing the fact that supplied approximately 20% of U.S. needs by the early 2020s despite the Uranium One assets representing only about 10% of domestic capacity. In May 2024, Biden signed the Prohibiting Russian Uranium Imports Act, effective August 2024, which prohibits low- imports from until 2040, with limited waivers for supply shortages; this unlocked $2.72 billion in funding to bolster domestic . While triggered proximally by the Ukraine war, the Uranium One episode provided evidentiary fodder for proponents arguing that earlier complacency enabled such leverage, as Russian exports had continued unabated despite known schemes involving Uranium One executives convicted in 2014 and 2015. The deal exposed structural gaps in the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS) framework, particularly its limited purview over incremental foreign acquisitions that evade full scrutiny by not triggering immediate thresholds. Rosatom's stepwise purchases—from 17% in 2009 to by 2013—bypassed comprehensive review until the final phase, highlighting how partial investments can consolidate power without proportional oversight. This prompted the 2018 Foreign Investment Risk Review Modernization Act (FIRRMA), which broadened CFIUS jurisdiction to include non-controlling investments in and technology, enabling earlier intervention in serial acquisitions; Uranium One served as a in congressional debates underscoring the need for proactive in strategic sectors. From a vantage, conservative analysts and congressional investigators have framed the affair as emblematic of , where potential conflicts involving high-level officials undermined rigorous vetting, prioritizing financial inflows—such as $145 million in pledges from Uranium One investors between 2007 and 2013—over safeguarding reserves amid Russia's saber-rattling. This perspective posits causal links between lax approvals and emboldened Russian assertiveness, informing lessons on insulating review processes from donor influence and mandating in foreign deals tied to political figures. Empirical outcomes, including no prosecutions despite FBI evidence of Russian , reinforce arguments for institutional reforms to prevent recurrence, emphasizing causal realism in linking opaque transactions to eroded deterrence.

Defenses and Counterarguments

Absence of Direct Evidence of Quid Pro Quo

The U.S. Department of Justice and Federal Bureau of Investigation probes into the Uranium One transaction, spanning from 2009 through at least 2017, uncovered a Russian bribery scheme involving Rosatom subsidiary executives but yielded no evidence of a quid pro quo arrangement benefiting U.S. officials, including Hillary Clinton or the Clinton Foundation. Key to this conclusion was testimony from FBI confidential informant William D. Campbell, who gathered evidence on illicit payments by Russian nuclear official Andrei Mikerin starting in November 2009 for U.S. transport contracts; Campbell explicitly stated that these activities did not involve U.S. government officials, the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS), or influence over the 2010 approval of Rosatom's acquisition. Donations to the from Uranium One investors, totaling approximately $145 million between 2005 and 2013, lacked demonstrable causal links to the CFIUS decision, with major contributions predating the acquisition phases. , a primary donor who pledged $31.3 million in 2007 following his 2005 Kazakhstan mining venture, divested his entire stake in Uranium One (via merger predecessor UrAsia Energy) by June 2007, well before Rosatom's initial 2009 investment or the October 2010 CFIUS review. Subsequent donations from Uranium One chairman Telfer and associates occurred amid the multi-phase deal but were not flagged in investigations as conditioning approval, with no records indicating they altered agency deliberations. The State Department's role in CFIUS, one of nine voting agencies, did not position it as the decisive authority, and no contemporaneous emails, documents, or witness accounts surfaced showing Hillary Clinton's direct intervention to sway the unanimous approval. Federal inquiries, including those prompted by congressional Republicans in 2017, reviewed informant files and agency communications but closed without indictments or referrals tied to personal corruption by the Clintons, attributing the absence to insufficient linkage between foreign bribes and domestic decision-making.

Multi-Agency Approval Process

The acquisition of Uranium One by underwent review by the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS), a multi-agency body chaired by the that assesses foreign investments for national security implications. The committee comprises nine agencies: , , , , , , , the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative, and the Office of Science and Technology Policy. This structure ensures no single agency dominates decision-making, as consensus is required for approval or referral to the for potential blockage. CFIUS approved the transaction unanimously on October 21, 2010, following a standard 30-day review with no extensions or objections leading to mitigation demands or presidential intervention. The Departments of Energy and Defense, which hold specialized veto authority over nuclear-related risks under their statutory mandates, participated fully and raised no impediments, reflecting their assessment that the deal posed no unacceptable threats to or . This diffused oversight counters claims of singular influence, as any veto would have halted the process absent overrides. Separate from CFIUS, the U.S. (NRC) amended source material licenses for One's U.S. operations on December 22, 2010, explicitly barring foreign control over licensed activities. Conditions required that Uranium One Americas Inc., the U.S. licensee, retain independent decision-making on operations, , and , with NRC ensuring no of effective control to without prior approval. These safeguards maintained U.S. regulatory dominion over uranium handling, independent of ownership changes. Precedents for such approvals exist in prior CFIUS reviews of foreign uranium investments, including incremental stakes in Uranium One dating to under the Bush administration, which proceeded without blockage. The process's consistency across administrations underscores its role in balancing economic openness with security vetting, absent evidence of procedural irregularities in this case.

Limited Actual Uranium Transfer

Following the 2010 acquisition of Uranium One by , no bulk shipments of from U.S. mines were exported to , as raw ore is not commercially viable for long-distance transport and requires processing into (yellowcake) under strict U.S. regulations. Any potential exports of yellowcake from Uranium One's U.S. operations—primarily in —were subject to case-by-case licensing by the U.S. (NRC), which prohibits transfers that could undermine national interests. Available records show that post-deal yellowcake shipments were limited, commercially driven, and directed mainly to U.S. or processors rather than , with no evidence of systematic diversion to Russian facilities. Uranium One's U.S. assets represented a minor fraction of domestic production capacity, contributing no more than 5.9% of total U.S. uranium output in recent years, while U.S. domestic mining as a whole supplied less than 10% of the nation's nuclear fuel requirements, the vast majority of which is imported from sources like Canada and Kazakhstan. This limited output—amid a global uranium market exceeding 140 million pounds of U3O8 annually—further diluted any potential strategic impact from Russian ownership, as uranium is a fungible commodity traded on international exchanges with diverse suppliers. In November 2021, Rosatom's Uranium One Group divested its U.S. operations by selling Uranium One Americas Inc., which held the mining assets, to Texas-based Uranium Energy Corp for an undisclosed sum, restoring full American control over these properties and eliminating any ongoing Russian influence on U.S. uranium extraction. This transaction, approved by U.S. authorities, underscored the transient nature of foreign involvement in the deal's aftermath.

Current Status and Legacy

Post-2021 Developments

In November 2021, Rosatom's Uranium One Group agreed to sell its U.S. subsidiary, Uranium One Americas Inc., to Texas-based Uranium Energy Corp (UEC) for approximately $13.9 million plus royalties, completing the divestiture of Russian-owned uranium mining assets in the United States. The transaction, approved by U.S. regulatory authorities, transferred control of key Wyoming-based projects including the Willow Creek and Reno Creek deposits, ensuring that U.S. uranium production facilities previously linked to Uranium One returned fully to domestic ownership. By early 2022, this sale eliminated any remaining Russian equity stake in American uranium mining operations associated with the original 2013 deal, aligning with heightened U.S. scrutiny of foreign ownership in critical minerals amid geopolitical tensions. Following the divestiture, Uranium One, as a Rosatom subsidiary, redirected its primary operations to , where it maintains significant in-situ recovery () projects such as the Karatau and South Inkai fields, contributing to the country's status as the world's top producer at 39% of global supply in 2024. This shift has positioned the company to capitalize on 's projected 12% increase in output for 2025, driven by long-term contracts and expansions in technology. No major operational disruptions or new regulatory challenges have emerged for Uranium One's Kazakh assets post-2021, reflecting stable joint ventures with local partners like . Uranium spot prices surged amid these developments, averaging $86 per pound U₃O₈ in 2024 and reaching a 2025 high of $82.63 per pound by late September, fueled by supply constraints and growing demand. Uranium One's Kazakh-focused production has benefited from this market upswing, supporting Rosatom's role in global supply chains without U.S. asset exposure. The company's activities align with broader trends in nuclear revival, including reactor restarts and new builds, though it has not been implicated in fresh controversies beyond routine market fluctuations.

Ongoing Operations Under Rosatom

Uranium One Group, a subsidiary of , maintains active production primarily through in-situ recovery () operations at multiple joint ventures in , including the Akdala, Karatau, and South Inkai deposits. In 2023, these facilities yielded 4,831 tonnes of concentrate, contributing to 's closed by supplying raw material for conversion, enrichment, and fuel fabrication at Russian state-owned plants such as those operated by TVEL. Production levels in 2024 remained comparable, supported by ISR's advantages in minimizing environmental disruption and operational costs through of in place without surface excavation. The methodology employed by Uranium One enhances efficiency by enabling high recovery rates—typically 60-70%—at lower capital and operating expenses compared to conventional , allowing sustained output amid fluctuating global prices. This output integrates directly into Rosatom's strategy for vertical control over the chain, where Kazakh-sourced undergoes processing to produce fuel assemblies for domestic and contracts, bolstering Russia's position as a key supplier in the global market. Despite Western sanctions imposed on following Russia's 2022 invasion of , Uranium One's Kazakh operations continue under agreements with , adhering to International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) safeguards that verify non-diversion of material for military purposes. These safeguards, implemented via Kazakhstan's comprehensive IAEA agreement, include material accountancy and inspections at production sites, ensuring compliance even as faces export restrictions on enriched products to certain markets. Recent adjustments, such as partial divestments in assets like Zarechnoye to partners including firms, reflect strategic reallocations but do not halt core ISR-based production, with prioritizing resource optimization for long-term fuel security.

Implications for Global Uranium Markets

The Uranium One acquisition by in 2013 granted the Russian state corporation control over key assets in , enhancing Moscow's influence within a where the country produced approximately 43% of the world's in 2022. This positioned to leverage joint ventures and production shares from Uranium One's in-situ operations, contributing to Russia's broader dominance in (20%) and enrichment (46%) capacities prior to 2022 sanctions. Such consolidation amplified geopolitical risks, as disruptions in Kazakh output—often tied to Russian technical partnerships—could constrain global availability, with pre-sanctions exports underscoring Russia's ability to exert pricing and supply pressure on uranium-dependent nuclear utilities. The deal exposed structural vulnerabilities in market dynamics favoring state actors, where foreign approvals facilitated without offsetting measures for supply security. This causal pathway—enabling expansion into high-output regions amid known operational irregularities—prompted retrospective policy shifts toward diversification, as unchecked consolidation risked weaponization of essential inputs. In response, the enacted a ban on uranium imports effective 2024, accelerating domestic restarts and boosting concentrate production to 205,000 pounds U3O8 in 2024, the highest since 2018 and a twelvefold increase from prior lows. These developments illustrate lessons for future transactions: rigorous evaluation of cumulative market effects, rather than isolated procedural compliance, is essential to mitigate risks from state-driven monopolies. Heightened Western investment in alternative sources, including and Canadian expansions, aims to dilute such leverage, though demand growth from nuclear revival—projected to require 80,000-100,000 additional tonnes annually by 2040—underscores the need for proactive .

References

  1. [1]
    The Facts on Uranium One - FactCheck.org
    Oct 26, 2017 · The 2010 deal allowed Rosatom, the Russian nuclear energy agency, to acquire a controlling stake in Uranium One, a Canadian-based company with mining stakes in ...
  2. [2]
    [PDF] Obama-era Russian Uranium One deal: What to know - Congress.gov
    Feb 8, 2018 · What's the latest on a controversial uranium deal with Russia that was brokered during Hillary Clinton's tenure as. Secretary of State? As ...
  3. [3]
    FBI informant gathered years of evidence on Russian push ... - The Hill
    Nov 20, 2017 · Campbell documented for his FBI handlers the first illegal activity by Russians nuclear industry officials in fall 2009, nearly an entire year ...
  4. [4]
    Grassley Seeks Information from FBI Informant in Uranium One Probe
    Oct 19, 2017 · Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) is calling on the Justice Department to lift a reported non-disclosure agreement.Missing: facts | Show results with:facts
  5. [5]
    [PDF] Cash Flowed to Clinton Foundation Amid Russian Uranium Deal
    Mar 28, 2017 · Uranium One's chairman used his family foundation to make four donations totaling $2.35 million. Those contributions were not publicly disclosed ...
  6. [6]
    Uranium Energy Corp Completes Acquisition of Uranium One ...
    Dec 20, 2021 · PRNewswire/ - Uranium Energy Corp. (NYSE American: UEC) (the "Company" or "UEC") is pleased to announce the Company has completed the ...
  7. [7]
    Uranium One Inc. | BCSC
    Uranium One Inc. was located in Toronto, reported from 2005-07-13 to 2015-02-24, with year end on December 31, and regulated by Ontario.
  8. [8]
    Uranium One - 2025 Company Profile, Funding & Competitors - Tracxn
    Jun 22, 2025 · Uranium One is a seed company based in Toronto (Canada), founded in 2005. It operates as a Producer of uranium. Uranium One has raised ...
  9. [9]
    Uranium One Inc. Stock Price Today | TSX UUU
    Oct 21, 2013 · The company was incorporated in 1997 and is based in Vancouver, Canada. Uranium One Inc. operates as a subsidiary of Uranium One Holding N.V..
  10. [10]
    Frank Giustra (b. 1957) - Canadian Mining Hall of Fame
    Born in Sudbury, Ontario, in 1957 to an immigrant miner father, Giustra started his career as a stockbroker at Merrill Lynch. By age 33 he had become President ...Missing: early | Show results with:early
  11. [11]
    Uranium and Nuclear Power in Kazakhstan
    Jun 19, 2025 · Kharasan: In 2005 UrAsia Energy Ltd (now Uranium One Inc) of Canada paid US$ 75 million for a 30% share of the Kyzylkum joint venture which owns ...
  12. [12]
    Cash Flowed to Clinton Foundation Amid Russian Uranium Deal
    Apr 23, 2015 · Giustra, whose personal stake in the deal was estimated at about $45 million, said he sold his stake in 2007. Soon, Uranium One began to snap up ...Missing: date history
  13. [13]
  14. [14]
    Uranium One completes on UrAsia - World Nuclear News
    Apr 23, 2007 · Uranium One announced that it has completed its acquisition of UrAsia Energy for some $3.1 billion. As of 20 April, UrAsia ceased trading on the Toronto stock ...
  15. [15]
    Russian firm acquires stake in Uranium One - The Globe and Mail
    Jun 15, 2009 · State-owned Rosatom swaps 50 per cent stake in Kazakhstan project for 17 per cent interest in Canadian miner.
  16. [16]
    Russia's ARMZ to acquire control of Uranium One | Reuters
    Jun 8, 2010 · The deal with ARMZ comes a year after its parent, Russian nuclear giant Rosatom, acquired a 17 percent stake in Uranium One.Missing: initial | Show results with:initial
  17. [17]
    US Uranium Mining and Exploration - World Nuclear Association
    Jul 21, 2025 · In Wyoming, Uranium One USA had production from its Willow Creek ISL ... Uranium One in 2007 had bought the mill* in southeast Utah ...<|separator|>
  18. [18]
    Russia's ARMZ to acquire control of Uranium One - Reuters
    Jun 8, 2010 · Uranium One <UUU.TO> said on Tuesday a Russian state-owned miner would acquire a controlling stake in the Canadian company in exchange for ...Missing: minority 2009
  19. [19]
    [PDF] Uranium One to Acquire Two More Kazakh Mines from ARMZ and to ...
    Jun 8, 2010 · Pursuant to the transaction, ARMZ will contribute its interests in the Akbastau and Zarechnoye joint ventures and US$ 610 million in cash, in ...
  20. [20]
    [PDF] Uranium One Americas, Inc - Nuclear Regulatory Commission
    "Order Approving Indirect Change of Control of U.S. Nuclear. Regulatory Commission Licenses from Uranilm1 One, Inc. to State Atomic Energy Corporation. Rosatom, ...
  21. [21]
    Uranium One Enters into Definitive Agreement with ARMZ for Going ...
    Jan 14, 2013 · Uranium One Enters into Definitive Agreement with ARMZ for Going Private Transaction for CDN$2.86 per Share in Cash.Missing: tender | Show results with:tender
  22. [22]
    Russia's ARMZ to take Uranium One private for $1.3 bln | Reuters
    Jan 14, 2013 · ARMZ is the mining arm of Russia's nuclear regulator, Rosatom, which also builds nuclear reactors both at home and abroad. Russia currently has ...Missing: tender | Show results with:tender
  23. [23]
    Uranium One shareholders approve ARMZ deal - Reuters
    Mar 7, 2013 · Uranium One Inc shareholders voted in favor of an offer from Russia's state-owned ARMZ to take it private by buying the shares it does not ...<|control11|><|separator|>
  24. [24]
    Russia's Nuclear Fuel Cycle
    Jan 6, 2022 · Uranium One has substantial production capacity in Kazakhstan, including now those two mines with Karatau, Akdala, South Inkai and Kharasan ...
  25. [25]
    In-Situ Leach Mining of Uranium - World Nuclear Association
    May 16, 2025 · In situ leaching (ISL), also known as solution mining, or in situ recovery (ISR) in North America, involves leaving the ore where it is in the ground, and ...ISL wellfield · Uranium recovery · ISL in Kazakhstan · Groundwater remediation
  26. [26]
    [PDF] In Situ Leach Uranium Mining: An Overview of Operations
    ISL is a relatively new and increasingly applied method of uranium recovery, which costs less and has a smaller environmental impact in appropriate ...
  27. [27]
    Uranium One - Russia's Uranium Mining Company
    Jun 24, 2018 · ... Kazakhstan – Akdala, South Inkai, Karatau, Akbastau, Zarechnoye and Kharasan. ... ISR mining accounted for more than 85 percent of US production ...
  28. [28]
    How Russia seized control of the uranium market - Ahead of the Herd
    Sep 25, 2019 · Checking Uranium One's 2017 and 2018 annual reports, AOTH found that this is the case. The company produced 13.3 million pounds of U3O8 in 2017 ...
  29. [29]
    Russian 2023 uranium production exceeds target
    Jan 23, 2024 · Rosatom's mining division exceeded its uranium production target by 90 tonnes in 2023, it told its annual Stakeholder Dialogue event.
  30. [30]
    Top 10 Uranium Mines in the World | INN - Investing News Network
    Jan 17, 2024 · ... uranium production in 2022. 10. South Inkai 4. 2022 production: 1,600 MT. South Inkai 4 is a large in situ leach operation in Southern ...
  31. [31]
    Issues at Operating Uranium Mines and Mills - Kazakhstan
    Kazatomprom expects its 2024 production to be adjusted due to the challenges related to the availability of sulphuric acid, a critical operating material.
  32. [32]
    Uranium One Files Technical Reports Supporting Updated Mineral ...
    Dec 19, 2013 · Uranium One Files Technical Reports Supporting Updated Mineral Resource and Reserve Estimates for the Karatau and Akbastau Uranium Mines. News ...
  33. [33]
    Uranium One Announces 8% Increase in 2013 Production to 13.2 ...
    Feb 25, 2014 · As at December 31, 2013, the total attributable reserves and resources at the Company's South Inkai mine in Kazakhstan increased as follows: the ...
  34. [34]
    Uranium One, Inc. Stock (UUU) - Quote Toronto S.E.
    Uranium One Inc. specializes in exploring and operating uranium mines. In 2018, the group produced 5.2 Kt of uranium.
  35. [35]
    The facts behind Trump's repeated claim about Hillary Clinton's role ...
    Oct 26, 2016 · The story starts with Frank Giustra, a Canadian mining financier ... In 2007, Giustra sold UrAsia to Uranium One, which was based in ...
  36. [36]
    Donations to the Clinton Foundation, and a Russian Uranium ...
    Apr 22, 2015 · Uranium investors' efforts to buy mining assets in Kazakhstan and the United States led to a takeover bid by a Russian state-owned energy company.Missing: minority | Show results with:minority
  37. [37]
    Rosatom to acquire 17% of Uranium One in exchange of 50% of the ...
    Jun 15, 2009 · ARMZ thereby enters a strategic relationship with Uranium One, obtaining a 16.6% share of the company plus some $90m in cash and a further $60m ...<|control11|><|separator|>
  38. [38]
    Uranium mining
    Uranium One, a ROSATOM global mining company, is a TOP 5 global uranium producer, with a diverse portfolio of assets in Kazakhstan, USA and Tanzania. All ...Missing: details | Show results with:details
  39. [39]
    UEC to buy Uranium One's US uranium assets - World Nuclear News
    Nov 9, 2021 · The acquisition will increase UEC's US ISL production profile to 6.5 million pounds U3O8 (2500 tU) per year, based on the licensed and ...
  40. [40]
    Uranium One agrees sale of US subsidiary to Uranium Energy Corp
    Nov 12, 2021 · Uranium One has entered into an agreement with the US company Uranium Energy Corp for the sale of all of the shares of its subsidiary, Uranium One Americas.
  41. [41]
    Uranium Energy Completes Acquisition of Uranium One Americas
    This acquisition will make Uranium Energy the largest uranium mining company in the Americas. The U1A portfolio of projects being acquired by Uranium Energy ...
  42. [42]
    [PDF] Acquisition of Uranium One Americas
    Nov 8, 2021 · • Acquisition of all the issued and outstanding shares of Uranium One Americas, Inc. from. Russia's State Atomic Energy Corporation Rosatom.
  43. [43]
    Uranium Energy Corp Creates America's Largest ... - PR Newswire
    Nov 9, 2021 · The U1A Acquisition portfolio contains (i) 37.6 million pounds U3O8 in Measured and Indicated Resources and 4.3 million pounds U3O8 in Inferred ...
  44. [44]
    The Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS)
    CFIUS is an interagency committee authorized to review certain transactions involving foreign investment in the United States and certain real estate ...Missing: mechanism | Show results with:mechanism
  45. [45]
    CFIUS Frequently Asked Questions | U.S. Department of the Treasury
    ... U.S. business by a foreign person? No. CFIUS maintains its authority to review the potential national security effects of any transaction that could result ...
  46. [46]
    What you need to know about Clinton and the Uranium One deal
    Nov 14, 2017 · The deal in question involves the sale of a Canadian company, Uranium One, with mining interests in the US to Rosatom, Russia's nuclear energy agency.
  47. [47]
    Moscow's American uranium - POLITICO
    Oct 18, 2013 · The state-owned Russian nuclear energy company that built Iran's nuclear reactor in Bushehr is about to finalize a transaction that will ...Missing: tender | Show results with:tender
  48. [48]
    Hillary Clinton, Russia And Uranium: A Closer Look At Trump's Claims
    Nov 6, 2017 · Two years later, in 2007, Giustra merged his mining company with Uranium One and then sold his shares the same year. This was three years before ...Missing: early | Show results with:early
  49. [49]
    Uranium One deal led to some exports to Europe, memos show
    Nov 2, 2017 · After the Obama administration approved the sale of a Canadian mining company with significant U.S. uranium reserves to a firm owned by ...
  50. [50]
    [PDF] Uranium One's Response to Request for Additional Information Re
    Oct 18, 2010 · Dear Mr. McConnell: By letter dated October 6, 2010, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) provided Uranium One. Inc., Uranium One ...
  51. [51]
    Bill Clinton sought State's permission to meet with Russian nuclear ...
    Oct 19, 2017 · As he prepared to collect a $500000 payday in Moscow in 2010, Bill Clinton sought clearance from the State Department to meet with a key ...
  52. [52]
    Clinton Cash: errors dog Bill and Hillary exposé – but is there any ...
    May 5, 2015 · “Who else in American politics would be so audacious as to have one spouse accept money from foreign governments and businesses while the other ...Missing: timeline | Show results with:timeline<|separator|>
  53. [53]
    FBI uncovered Russian bribery plot before Obama administration ...
    Oct 17, 2017 · ... $2 million in kickbacks from some of its executives, court records show. ... “Not providing information on a corruption scheme before the Russian ...Missing: Kazakhstan | Show results with:Kazakhstan
  54. [54]
    Dems: Uranium One informant provided 'no evidence' of Clinton ...
    Mar 8, 2018 · All of that led Justice to assess that Campbell was not a credible witness and they “did not want to rely on him at trial,” the Democrats said.
  55. [55]
    FBI informant blocked from telling Congress about Russia nuclear ...
    Oct 18, 2017 · Federal court records from 2014 and 2015 show that a wide-ranging FBI probe ... racketeering scheme by Russian nuclear officials on U.S. soil that ...
  56. [56]
    Informant had no evidence Clinton benefited from uranium sale
    Mar 8, 2018 · The informant, lobbyist William D. Campbell, "provided no evidence of a quid pro quo involving Secretary (Hillary) Clinton or the Clinton ...Missing: debrief | Show results with:debrief
  57. [57]
    Senate Judiciary opens probe into Obama-era Russian nuclear ...
    Oct 17, 2017 · The senator cited a series of The Hill stories that showed the FBI had evidence that Russian nuclear officials were involved in a racketeering ...
  58. [58]
    Obama-era uranium deal yields new questions, new accusations ...
    Oct 25, 2017 · House Republicans announced a probe into the circumstances surrounding the sale of a uranium mining company to Russia's Atomic Energy Agency, Rosatom.
  59. [59]
    Justice Dept weighs inquiry into Clintons and Uranium One - BBC
    Nov 14, 2017 · The US Department of Justice says it has asked prosecutors to scrutinise the Clintons' charitable foundation and a uranium deal.
  60. [60]
    Democrats say Uranium One whistleblower provided no evidence ...
    Mar 8, 2018 · Campbell's company had been hired by Tenex, and he provided the FBI with evidence of a kickback extortion scheme. But Justice Department ...
  61. [61]
  62. [62]
    House Oversight and House Intel Committees launch joint ...
    Oct 24, 2017 · House Oversight and House Intel Committees launch joint investigation into Obama-Era Uranium One Deal. Full Committee on Oversight and ...
  63. [63]
    House Republicans Launch New Investigations Into Clinton Email ...
    Oct 24, 2017 · House Republican leaders on Capitol Hill said they were launching two new investigations into Hillary Clinton on Tuesday.
  64. [64]
    Russian uranium informant says FBI sought new ... - The Hill
    Mar 22, 2018 · He was summoned for a closed-door congressional interview last month by Republicans, who believe the criminal wrongdoing Campbell uncovered ...
  65. [65]
    Uranium One “Confidential Informant” Provides No Evidence to ...
    Mar 8, 2018 · Uranium One "Confidential Informant"Provides No Evidence to Support GOP Claims of"Quid Pro Quo" Between Clinton and Russia.Missing: Rosatom CFIUS approval conditions NRC
  66. [66]
    Justice Department Contradicts Republican Claims on Uranium One
    Feb 6, 2018 · The Justice Department provided a key briefing to the Committees directly contradicting Republican claims against Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.
  67. [67]
    [PDF] November 14, 2017 - Senate Judiciary Committee
    Nov 14, 2017 · Uranium One—in 2009. That was before CFIUS approved the transaction in 2010 and long before the public disclosures about the case that you ...
  68. [68]
    [PDF] January 23, 2017 - Senate Judiciary Committee
    Oct 12, 2017 · Please provide all records relating to the DNI's determination that the Uranium. One/Rosatom transaction did not raise any unresolved national ...
  69. [69]
    [PDF] November 30, 2018 - Senate Judiciary Committee
    Nov 30, 2018 · Accordingly, I request that you produce all documents to the Committee and provide an update with respect to the steps you have taken, or plan ...
  70. [70]
    Republicans press U.S.-Russia uranium deal probe despite no ...
    Nov 16, 2017 · Republican lawmakers are pressing forward with an investigation into the 2010 sale of a Canadian uranium company, which owned 20 percent of ...
  71. [71]
    John Huber Justice Department investigation, once championed by ...
    Jan 9, 2020 · Officials ultimately determined the case should be closed without charges. The State Department more recently concluded a multiyear probe of its ...Missing: outcomes | Show results with:outcomes
  72. [72]
    DOJ Ends Probe of Trump Clinton Corruption Claim, Found Nothing
    Jan 10, 2020 · The probe was launched after Trump and fellow Republicans claimed the FBI had not "fully pursued" corruption at the Clinton Foundation.<|separator|>
  73. [73]
    Exclusive: Secret witness in Senate Clinton probe is ex-lobbyist for ...
    Nov 16, 2017 · Campbell was identified as an FBI informant by prosecutors ... Campbell countered those who dismiss his knowledge of the Uranium One deal.
  74. [74]
    Informant Had No Evidence Clinton Benefited from Uranium Sale
    Mar 8, 2018 · The informant, lobbyist William D. Campbell, "provided no evidence of a quid pro quo involving Secretary [Hillary] Clinton or the Clinton ...Missing: testimony | Show results with:testimony
  75. [75]
    [PDF] Rosatom's role in the war in Ukraine | Bellona Foundation
    What has been less discussed is the role that Rosatom, Russia's powerful state nuclear corporation, has played in these assaults. From the early war seizure ...
  76. [76]
    5 facts about Rosatom: Threats of further cooperation with the ...
    Feb 14, 2024 · Fact 1: Rosatom works for the Russian military-industrial complex · Fact 2: Rosatom is a “friend” in the IAEA · Fact 3: Rosatom is an integral ...
  77. [77]
    Biden administration imposes fresh sanctions on top Russian ...
    Jan 10, 2025 · It noted that Rosatom subsidiaries have provided the Russian defense industry military-applicable armaments, components and advanced ...
  78. [78]
    Recommendations for Strengthening U.S. Uranium Security - CSIS
    Feb 5, 2025 · To strengthen uranium and nuclear fuel supply chains, the United States must work with allies, implement conducive trade and tariff policies, and invest in ...
  79. [79]
    Publication of a Report on the Effect of Imports of Uranium on the ...
    Aug 2, 2021 · The Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS) in this notice is publishing a report that summarizes the findings of an investigation conducted by the US Department ...<|separator|>
  80. [80]
    Cooperation with Rosatom is toxic and threatening to the national ...
    Jul 10, 2024 · Moscow is actively used Rosatom to circumvent sanctions in the high technologies. The Corporation is leading in the field of Russia's military ...<|separator|>
  81. [81]
    U.S. uranium production up in 2022 after reaching record lows in 2021
    Aug 17, 2023 · In 2022, 95% of the uranium purchased by U.S. nuclear power plant operators originated in other countries.
  82. [82]
    U.S. nuclear generators import nearly all the uranium concentrate ...
    Jan 30, 2025 · Imports accounted for 99% of the U3O8 they used in 2023 to make nuclear fuel. Foreign producers predominantly supply the U.S. front-end nuclear ...
  83. [83]
    Dependencies of the European Union and the world on Russian ...
    Russia contributes approximately 6 % of global uranium production, 20 % of conversion capacity, 46 % of enrichment capacity, and 10 % of nuclear fuel ...
  84. [84]
    Russia and Kazakhstan in the global nuclear sector: From uranium ...
    At present, Kazakhstan hosts 13 uranium mining projects, three of which are ... [1] World Nuclear Association (2023) “World Uranium Mining Production ...
  85. [85]
    Russia restricts enriched uranium exports to the United States
    Nov 15, 2024 · Russia has imposed restrictions on the export of enriched uranium to the United States, the government said on Friday, creating supply risks ...
  86. [86]
    The U.S. Is Paying Billions to Russia's Nuclear Agency. Here's Why.
    Jun 14, 2023 · Nuclear power companies rely on cheap enriched uranium made in Russia. That geopolitical dilemma is intensifying as climate change ...
  87. [87]
    Biden-Harris Administration Enacts Law Banning Importation of ...
    May 14, 2024 · It will ban the import of Russian uranium and revive domestic nuclear fuel production by unlocking $2.72 billion recently appropriated by Congress.
  88. [88]
    US Senate approves bill to ban Russian uranium imports | Reuters
    May 1, 2024 · The legislation would ban the imports 90 days after enactment. It contains waivers in case there were supply concerns for domestic reactors.
  89. [89]
    Revamping CFIUS—and Going Too Far | PIIE
    Dec 1, 2017 · If there is one economic issue that seems to unite Republicans and Democrats in Congress with the Trump administration, it is the fear that ...
  90. [90]
    No 'Veto Power' for Clinton on Uranium Deal - FactCheck.org
    Apr 28, 2015 · The author of “Clinton Cash” falsely claimed Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State had “veto power” and “could have stopped” Russia from ...
  91. [91]
    What you need to know about Hillary Clinton, Russia, and uranium
    Oct 24, 2017 · In 2007, Frank Giustra, a donor to the Clinton Foundation, sold his company, UrAsia, to another company, Uranium One, and unloaded his ...Missing: early | Show results with:early
  92. [92]
    [PDF] Uranium One USA, Inc., License Amendment Request.
    Jun 8, 2010 · Upon the completion of the Transaction, ARMZ, through Effective Energy and. UMC, will own not less than 51% of Uranium One's outstanding common ...
  93. [93]
    Unpacking Uranium One: Hype and Law - Lawfare
    Oct 27, 2017 · The latest instance of "what-aboutism" is the House Republican decision to open an investigation of the Uranium One transaction—the ...
  94. [94]
    U.S. Uranium Reserves Estimates - Energy Information Administration
    Domestic U.S. uranium production, however, supplies only about 10 percent, on average, of U.S. requirements for nuclear fuel, so the effective years' supply of ...Missing: One | Show results with:One
  95. [95]
    Domestic Uranium Production Report - Annual - EIA
    Aug 5, 2025 · Mining, production, shipments, and sales. U.S. uranium mines produced 677,000 pounds of triuranium octoxide (U3O8), or uranium concentrate, in ...
  96. [96]
    World Uranium Mining Production - World Nuclear Association
    Sep 23, 2025 · 55% of world production came from underground mines, but this shrunk dramatically to 1999, with 33% then. From 2000 the new Canadian mines increased it again.Missing: late | Show results with:late
  97. [97]
    Uranium One Company: 2025 Energy & Mining Impact - Farmonaut
    Oct 8, 2025 · The 2025 uranium output is predicted to rise by 12%, reflecting a broad global push to secure future energy supply. Kazakhstan's uranium mines, ...
  98. [98]
    Uranium Outlook for 2025 - Sprott
    Jan 28, 2025 · If you look at the average spot price in 2024, it was $86 for the year. The average spot price the year before was $61. That's a pretty good ...
  99. [99]
    Uranium prices up: Could demand more than double?
    Oct 2, 2025 · Canadian uranium provider Cameco has calculated an end-of-September spot price for uranium of $82.63 per pound—the highest mark of 2025.
  100. [100]
    Russia sells stakes in some Kazakh uranium deposits to China
    Dec 17, 2024 · Uranium One produced 4,831 tonnes of uranium in Kazakhstan in 2023. Russia is the world's sixth largest uranium producer and controls about 44% ...Missing: Karatau | Show results with:Karatau
  101. [101]
    Our Operations - Uranium One
    Uranium One is engaged through its subsidiaries and joint ventures in uranium production ... All uranium is produced by the in situ recovery (ISR) mining method.Missing: output | Show results with:output
  102. [102]
    Rosatom to Build Kazakhstan's First Nuclear Power Plant (Part Two)
    Jul 21, 2025 · In December 2024, Rosatom-affiliated Uranium One Group sold nearly 50 percent of its share in the Zarechnoye uranium mining joint venture to ...
  103. [103]
    To Secure Kazakhstan's Uranium, Chinese Players Were ...
    Mar 26, 2024 · Kazakhstan is the largest producer of natural uranium worldwide, accounting for 43 percent of global uranium production in 2022.1 One reason is ...
  104. [104]
    Russian Uranium Ban Will Speed up Development of U.S. Nuclear ...
    May 14, 2024 · This ban is essential to strengthening our nation's energy security and supports the development of uranium conversion and enrichment services ...
  105. [105]
    Why U.S. Uranium Production Surged 12-Fold In 2024 | OilPrice.com
    Jun 15, 2025 · The downtrend that followed can largely be chalked up to government policy, with Washington de-prioritizing away from the uranium sector, ...
  106. [106]
    U.S. uranium production in 2024 was highest in six years - EIA
    Apr 2, 2025 · Companies in the United States produced more uranium concentrate in 2024 than in any year since 2018 after a sustained period of higher uranium prices spurred ...Missing: restarts | Show results with:restarts
  107. [107]
    [PDF] Uranium 2024: Resources, Production and Demand
    Apr 22, 2025 · The OECD Nuclear Energy Agency (NEA) was established on 1 February 1958. Current NEA membership consists of. 34 countries: Argentina, Australia, ...
  108. [108]
    Reducing Global Dependence on Russian Uranium - Discovery Alert
    Sep 29, 2025 · Russia supplies approximately 40% of the world's enriched uranium, creating a significant dependency for many nuclear power operators. According ...How Did Russia Gain Control... · Limited Global Enrichment... · Projected Growth In Nuclear...