Government Disputes $58 Billion Claim in Indian Trust Trial

Government Disputes $58 Billion Claim in Indian Trust Trial

By Mary Clare Jalonick

WASHINGTON (AP) — A group of American Indians is not entitled to a $58 billion claim against the United States — or anything close to that amount — over the mismanagement of century-old trust lands, government lawyers argued Monday.

The Indians' 1996 suit claims they were swindled out of billions of dollars in oil, gas, grazing, timber and other royalties overseen by the Interior Department since 1887. They say the government has profited from money that should gone promptly into individual Indian accounts. The class-action suit covers about 500,000 Indians and their heirs.

Opening arguments began Monday in a trial that U.S. District Judge James Robertson has called to determine how much the government should pay the Indians. He ruled earlier this year that efforts by the Interior Department to account for the trust money were inadequate.

The Interior Department has argued in filings with the court that the judge lacks jurisdiction to award any money at all. But they are also attacking the amount the trust account holders say they are owed.

"There is no legal or factual basis to pay the plaintiffs billions of dollars or even close to a billion dollars," said Robert Kirschman, an attorney representing the government. He said the amount would be "in the millions not the billions."

Lawyers for the Indian plaintiffs defended their estimates and plan to try to prove their accuracy in the upcoming trial.

"We expect that this court will be satisfied that what we have done is reasonable and fair, and represents the money that is due our clients," said Dennis Gingold, lawyer for the individual account holders.

At issue is how much of the royalty money was held by the government over the years, and whether it went to the Indian trust holders, to third parties or was held in the government treasury. Because many of the records have been lost or destroyed, it is now up to the court to decide how to best estimate how much the individual Indians — many of whom are nearing the end of their lives — should be paid.

If a dollar amount were awarded, it is uncertain how the government would pay it.

Congress may have to set the money aside, a tough sell in tight times. The Indian plaintiffs argue that the money could paid directly and does not require action by Congress.

Sen. Byron Dorgan, D-N.D., and Arizona's John McCain, the likely Republican presidential nominee, tried to prompt a settlement in the case three years ago, when McCain led the Senate Indian Affairs Committee. But they were not able to get the two sides to agree on an amount.

The government later offered the Indian plaintiffs less than $7 billion to settle the case, but they immediately rejected that offer.

Filed by Blackfeet Indian Elouise Cobell of Browning, Mont., the lawsuit deals with individual Indians' lands. Several tribes have sued separately, claiming mismanagement of their lands.

President BUSH PARDON's HIMSELF against POTENTIAL WARCRIMES

President Bush Passes a Bill giving himself and his White House retroactive immunity for possible war crimes!
Don't you wish we could all do that? NO WAY I WOULD BE A CRIMINAL!
AMERICA WAKE UP and FIGHT BACK!! against the NEW WORLD ORDER!

US sets nuclear deadline for Iran

Javier Solana on his hopes for an answer from Iran

Iran must decide between confrontation and co-operation in the dispute over its nuclear plans, the US has warned.

At talks in Geneva, envoys from the US, EU and UN asked Iran to suspend its uranium enrichment in return for a pledge not to introduce new sanctions.

Iran gave no guarantees it would halt its activities, so the diplomats gave Tehran two weeks to provide an answer.

The meeting was the first time US and Iranian officials have held face-to-face talks on the nuclear issue.

Senior US official William Burns was present at the Geneva talks - although he made no public comment.

Instead, state department spokesman Sean McCormack issued a strongly-worded statement in Washington.

"We hope the Iranian people understand that their leaders need to make a choice between co-operation, which would bring benefits to all, and confrontation, which can only lead to further isolation," he said.

'New opportunity'

Mr McCormack added that Mr Burns had delivered a "clear simple message" that Washington was "serious" about the incentives package but that it would only negotiate with Iran if it upheld its side of the deal.

Diplomats had hoped that Iran would respond to a so-called "freeze-for-freeze" offer, under which a freeze of Iran's uranium enrichment programme at its current levels would be matched by a Western pledge not to strengthen sanctions on Tehran.

"It was a constructive meeting, but still we didn't get the answer to our questions," EU envoy Javier Solana told reporters.

'FREEZE-FOR-FREEZE' OFFER Iran suspends its nuclear activities including the installation of any new centrifuges At same time the six world powers refrain from any new Security Council resolution on sanctions Talks can then start on long-term deal on recognising Iran's right to develop nuclear energy for civilian purposes, and lifting of sanctions Q&A: Iran and the nuclear issue Nuclear power in Middle East

"We hope very much we get the answer and we hope it will be done in a couple of weeks," he said.

Mr Solana said he had agreed with Iran's chief negotiator, Saeed Jalili, to speak again either by telephone or personally in two weeks.

The BBC's Jon Leyne in Tehran says Iran is interested in the offer but it is unclear whether there are divisions in the leadership or the Iranians are playing for time.

Mr Jalili said he had put forward many positive ideas and he urged Western powers not turn away from negotiations.

"This package we have proposed contains a number of possibilities. In a nutshell, it is a new opportunity which should not be lost."

But doubt was cast over the value of the talks, after a member of the Iranian delegation said there was "no chance" of a freeze on the uranium-enrichment programme.

Iran says its nuclear facilities are designed to meet its energy needs, denying that it has a weapons programme.

But Tehran's continued activity is defying UN Security Council demands to halt enrichment.

Rising tensions

In addition to the EU, Iranian and US envoys, the talks in Geneva's city hall were attended by representatives from Britain, China, France, Germany and Russia.

The US and Iran have had no diplomatic relations since the 1979 Iranian Revolution and the taking of hostages at the US embassy in Tehran.

Formal contact between the two countries has been extremely limited, though last year they met at ambassadorial level to discuss security in Iraq.

The meeting came after weeks of rising tensions in the Middle East.

The Iranians test-fired missiles last week, and a series of threats and counter-threats between Iran and Israel has been watched nervously in the West.

SEE VIDEO @

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/7515625.stm

Kazakhstan Want Be Biggest Uranium Miner in 2009 (Update1)

Kazakhstan Want Be Biggest Uranium Miner in 2009 (Update1)

By Nariman Gizitdinov

July 22 (Bloomberg) -- Kazakhstan, the world's third- biggest uranium miner, plans to overtake Canada and Australia next year by producing 12,826 metric tons of the radioactive metal.

The country is aiming to become the world's biggest producer of uranium, Mukhtar Dzhakishev, the president of state- run Kazatomprom, told reporters in Almaty today. The company plans to produce more than 9,000 tons of uranium this year, he said.

Kazakhstan is seeking to use its uranium reserves, which account for 15 percent of the world's total, to participate in all stages of the production cycle, from mining to power generation. Kazatomprom paid about $4.16 billion in October to purchase a 10 percent stake in Westinghouse Electric Co. from Toshiba Corp.

To contact the reporter on this story: Nariman Gizitdinov in Almaty, through the Moscow newsroom at ngizitdinov@bloomberg.net

Exclusive: The Anatomy of a Civil Nuclear Reactor

July 22, 2008

Exclusive: The Anatomy of a Civil Nuclear Reactor

Tom Ordeman, Jr.

Last time, we discussed the basic components of a nuclear reaction, and a few introductory concepts about nuclear history, nuclear reactors, and nuclear weapons. In this installment, we'll explore the basic anatomy of a nuclear reactor, types of civil nuclear reactors, and the nuclear enrichment cycle.

All nuclear reactors are not created equally. Aside from the basic issue of energy output, there are a number of factors that combine to determine a reactor's classification. Reactors can be classified by the type of fuel they use, or by the substance they use to moderate the nuclear reactor. They can be classified by coolant type, or by design generation, fuel phase, or application. Not all reactors are alike; different designs are used for different purposes, and have different capabilities. A detailed description of each and every combination could easily fill a textbook, but all nuclear reactors share basic components in common.

With few exceptions, electricity is produced by generators attached to turbines. When a turbine spins, the attached generator creates usable energy by forcing the interaction of opposing electromagnetic fields. A civil nuclear fission reactor facilitates this by providing the heat for a standard steam power plant. Once the steam reaches optimal conditions, it is then allowed to pass through the turbine from a high pressure area to a low pressure area, spinning the turbine in the process. This process generates electricity. Steam power can use any number of different fuels, such as coal, natural gas, or petroleum - any heat source that can sufficiently heat water into superheated steam. In comparison to these other fuel types, a nuclear reactor is remarkably efficient.

Civil nuclear reactors require fissile material. This material can take several forms. Many reactors use low-enriched Uranium. Low-enriched Uranium consists of fuel rods in which the concentration of U-235 is between three and twenty percent of the total uranium content. This is the minimum U-235 content necessary to create a self-sustaining reaction. This minimum U-235 content requirement is known as critical mass. This is the minimum amount necessary for a continued, controlled chain reaction. This controlled chain reaction produces the heat necessary to heat the water in a pressurized water reactor, which in turn provides the heat for the attached steam turbine system. With the exception of heat-exchanging pipes, in which heat from the nuclear reactor cycle is transferred through proximity with water from the steam system, the two systems operate separately. The radiation from the reactor remains within the reactor vessel, and with proper maintenance and monitoring, radiation is contained entirely within the reactor building.

As complex as a nuclear reactor may seem, it consists of a few simple components: fissile material (usually some type of Uranium), assembled within a reactor vessel and arranged in order to generate a controlled fission reaction used to produce heat. It also includes a cooling infrastructure, a system for altering the position of the fuel rods (for the purpose of controlling the rate of nuclear reactions), and a system for moderating the flow of neutrons caused by the reaction itself.

Various reactor designs use different types of fuel. Some reactors, such as the Canadian Deuterium Uranium (CANDU) reactor type, are actually able of using naturally-occurring Uranium to generate a fission reaction. As mentioned previously, many reactors use fuel rods, bundles, or pebbles composed of enriched Uranium. Some reactors use Plutonium, an element created as a by-product of some Uranium reactors; however, Plutonium is more commonly used in nuclear weapons. Not unlike the differences between diesel and gasoline automobile engines, different fuels necessitate different reactor configurations, and these configurations have different technical properties. In particular, some reactors can create fissile material capable of being used in a nuclear weapon (highly enriched Uranium, or Plutonium), and some can't.

The nuclear enrichment cycle itself begins with mining. Uranium occurs naturally in extremely low concentrations in soil, but is most commonly used from any of a small number of locations in which higher concentrations of Uranium are found. Once the Uranium is mined, it then undergoes a chemical leaching process that produces a concentrated substance known as yellowcake. Yellowcake is radioactive, and its content is between 60 and 70% pure Uranium. This substance then undergoes several chemical processes, after which point it is heated to around 150° Fahrenheit to create Uranium hexafluoride gas. Uranium hexafluoride is highly corrosive and reactive, and requires special handling and specially engineered equipment in order to be safely used. It is at this point that the actual process of enrichment begins.

Although there are multiple enrichment methods, the most common employs centrifuges. In an enrichment centrifuge, the Uranium hexafluoride gas is pumped into the centrifuge vessel, then further heated and spun at high speeds. While the heavier U-238 isotopes collect at the bottom of the centrifuge to form depleted Uranium, the lighter U-235 isotopes are then pumped out of tubes at the top of the centrifuge. Depleted Uranium has various military and civil applications, most notably in armor-piercing ammunition and tank armor; however, its use is controversial, as Uranium exposure is believed by some to cause health problems. This process must be repeated many times in a large assembly of centrifuges known as a cascade in order to produce enriched Uranium, and even more times in order to produce weapons-grade, highly enriched Uranium. This enrichment process is the basis of most civil and military nuclear programs.

The next installment will address the military applications of nuclear technology.

FamilySecurityMatters.org Contributing Editor Tom Ordeman, Jr. is a technical writer for a major defense contractor in Hampton Roads, Virginia. Feedback: editorialdirector@familysecuritymatters.org.