India has not signed the International Agreement on nuclear proliferation and as such Australia has until now been unwilling to export Uranium to India.
Following Talks with Barack Obama who is visiting Australia for the first time as President of the United States.
An announcement is expected that will allow for the increase in shared Military facilities in Australia as well as the commencement of exporting of Uranium to India
What to you think?
Hell it's better than Aussie sending 'Yellow Cake' via other Aussie companies in New Zealand mate
We WERE the First Nuclear Free country to stand up to the Nukes by becoming Nuclear Free...
We've got damn Hobbits doing hakas everywhere!
If this was a matter of principles, Australia should stay put on its current stand - do not export Uranium to India.
But it is not a matter of principle you see.
India was not a signatory to NPT when Aus decided that they will not export to India. India is not a signatory to NPT even today. So what happened in between to make Aus rethink?
Well, Fukushima happened. There is a major rethink in adopting nuclear power for power generation for new plants. So one can assume that the overall demand for Uranium (for power gen) will slacken, at least in the short to medium term.
The whole "principled" stand was that Australia will not export to a non-NPT country - which ostensibly implies that the recipient country is bound to not indulge in nuclear proliferation.
But why then does Australia export to China? China is an NPT signatory, but guess where did the Pakistani and N Korean nukes come from? And what about Iran's nuke program?
Or is it that Australia cannot afford to rebuff China?
This article throws a bit of light on the reasons for current rethink -
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/indi … 746970.cms
Particularly telling are these two extracts -
"Supporting uranium sale to India, Gillard explained at a press conference in Canberra why her government should overturn its current ban. Recognizing that the old strategy of bringing India into the NPT had been overtaken by the US-India civil nuclear agreement, Gillard said, "It effectively lifted the de-facto international ban on cooperation with India in this area. ... for us to refuse to budge is all pain with no gain and I believe that our national platform should recognize that reality."
Pain without gain? Is this a principled stand, or realpolitik?
The second extract -
"The spot price of uranium after Fukushima has fallen to below $50 a pound as compared to over $140 in 2007."
by Susie Lehto3 months ago
"The tables have turned and what was once the media’s favorite message — President Donald Trump colluded with Russia to steal the election — has now grown silent.Apparently, it’s Bill and Hillary Clinton...
by SparklingJewel9 years ago
Did you catch the article? One more piece to the puzzle revealed.Go to AP homepage and type a Query "Iraq yellowcake" to access article...it is not on any homepage for news except Fox (not even APs homepage...
by andrew savage4 years ago
Will new nuclear reactors use Thorium?
by LAURENS WRIGHT5 years ago
Would the CEO's of Nuclear Reactors have depleted uranium put in bombs to eliminate the waste?Depleted uranium is a very toxic metal containing radioactivity. Being that some sites are closing down, that at one...
by jeff125 years ago
How does a nuclear power plant work?
by Deforest3 years ago
Those same planes that attacked Iraq when the US invaded it. It is also said that those planes were in training. What is worrisome is their training base stores between 70 to 90 B-61 US nuclear bombs. The source infers...
Copyright © 2018 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.
HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.