Why do you think USA imports so much Uranium from Russia?

[lightbulb27]

This is across adminstrations.. and in the face of a major proxy conflict where million (s) are suffering.

One might assume USA needs to go find more Uranium... like in Canada or Greeland. Note USA does produce uranium. USA required 56 million pounds of Uranium ore in 2023 and domestic production was 500,000 or.8% of supply needed mined locally. Thus, we import most of it, probably for cost and environmental reasons.

Where Uranium is primarily produced.

Uranium One corp was sold to a Russian company under Obama adminstration. They were mining in Kazakhstan, Namibia and other locations. Maybe we shouldn't have sold UUU (Uranium One) to Russia under Obama/Clinton?

We should cooperate with our Russian friends because they hold the stuff we need to keep the electricity running.

https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=64444

https://factually.co/fact-checks/energy/does-us-import-uranium-from-russia-2025-a3b006

[front2back]

Short answer: Bad contracts, trying to cheap out.

Long answer:
At least for my nuclear fleet I work for we had already eliminated Russia as a source for our fuel by 2021, before the Russo-Ukrainian war even broke out. This was a purely strategic decision:
1. Russian fuel, while cheaper, was often still difficult to get imported and made up such a small batch of possible imports from other countries it really wasn't worth it long-term.
2. Because at that time many other nuclear utilities were trying to get new fuel as cheap as possible in the covid world, they agreed to contracts that would change in price based on fuel availability. If Russian fuel wasn't available it would be substituted at a higher price.
HOWEVER, we wrote our contracts at a fixed price using only sources from Canada, Australia, Kazakhstan, and a couple other ones at very low quantities. Initially this was significantly more expensive overall but had a guarantee for delivery and was much longer than typical fuel contracts going out 8 years instead of the standard 4-5.

Well, when you consider what happened regarding exports with Russia becoming toxic in 2022, and the resulting global inflation crisis, we ended up winning in the long-run and have some of, if not THE cheapest nuclear fuel in the whole industry. We are talking about tens of millions of dollars saved per refuel cycle. Of course, our supplier is pissed because they are losing money on the fuel to sell to us because of that fixed-price contract, but sometimes that is all you need to change the name of the game.

[MrOracle]

Trump IS addressing it. Greenland is part of the equation, though perhaps not specifically for uranium. Trump has been talking about the dangers of being beholden to other countries, especially enemies or potential enemies, for both strategic resources and manufacturing. Previous administrations, on both sides of the aisle, have sold us out to make the donor class happy, and that's a huge strategic risk. Trump is working to fix this, but there are hundreds of individual issues under just this umbrella and it's not, by far, the only thing he has to deal with. The wheels spin slowly, and you can't fix 60 years of betrayal overnight.

Far too many people are only looking at TODAY when it comes to what Trump is doing, but that's exactly the thinking that got us here and has completely destroyed the major powers in Europe - they refused to acknowledge any long term consequences of their actions, and now their countries are falling apart because of their own short-sighted decisions. Trump is focused on long term health, but unfortunately that doesn't produce the short term improvements that most politicians focus on - at the expense of the future.

[Chazmatazz269]

Even if they had equal access to the ore, Russia can produce uranium much more cheaply because they don’t have the same environmental and labor regulations that the US has. Though it’s only moderately radioactive, long term exposure poses risks to the people mining and refining it. Also, improperly exposing and extracting the ore can have detrimental impacts on the local ecosystem.
Countries and companies that care little for their workers and the safety & longevity of their environment can do that kind of work faster and cheaper than those more invested in protecting workers and the environment. This is the primary driver behind “outsourcing” and developing nations appearing to resist western influence on industry and economy. The companies that profit most from dangerous work in those regions convince the people that they won’t have the same access to income and other resources if they accept western influence. You can look at the history of the labor movement in the US and compare it to what those companies are doing in third world countries right now. It’s the exact same playbook. Profits over people.
It’s also why they’re trying so hard to turn the US into a third world country again. There’s no basis for comparison when the US becomes the same kind of sh*thole as the countries they’ve been exploiting for decades.
YAY CAPITALISM!

[FreyaRed]

Uraninite ore contains similar amount of desired isotope around the world. Therefore is one ore not much better than another.
I guess it's a cost factor. It's cheaper to mine such toxic stuff in a 20m deep pit than in 1000m deep mine.

[Dargil]

We import 1% of our usage. Does that need an explanation? You might want to focus on Kazakhstan. The answer is probably that it is plentiful and inexpensive.

[DryGermanGuy]

In a global economy, the lowest price rules!

[lightbulb27]

even when selling arms to the those fighting them and telling them they are sanctioned?

[DryGermanGuy]

Apparently it’s a failure of the previous and current administrations for not intervening/regulating. 🤷‍♂️

[NathanDavis]

because it makes so much money... as simple as that

[exitseven]

The US needs to find another source for Uranium. I am surprised President Trump had not addressed this.