Trusting Iranians...

muttly

Veteran Expediter
Retired Expediter
Surprise, surprise. Lookie here.
Prior analysis of Iran's Uranian reserves are, shall we say...no longer operative.
.
Back in 2009, Iran’s Atomic Energy Agency officially announced there were some 400 uranium mines in operation nationwide. Official Iranian sources back then reported more than 36,000 tons in uranium reserves in those mines.

However, according to Reuters, some Western analysts have said Iran had a low supply of uranium, suggesting that, were it to pursue an aggressive nuclear program, it “would sooner or later would need to import uranium.”

According to a 2009 report of the Institute for Science and International Security, for instance, “Iran could be close to exhausting its supply of uranium oxide while lacking the adequate resources to sustain indigenous commercial-scale uranium processing and enrichment.”

A 2013 Carnegie Endowment and Federation of American Scientists report said the scarcity and low quality of Iran’s uranium resources forced it “to rely on external sources of natural and processed uranium,” stating that “Iran’s estimated uranium endowments are nowhere near sufficient to supply its planned nuclear program.”

Salehi said uranium extraction is starting soon at a new mine in the central province of Yazd, according to IRNA.
The Experts Were Wrong, Iran Strikes Vast Uranium Reserves
 
Last edited:

muttly

Veteran Expediter
Retired Expediter
[Bold emphasis added ]
.

Iran suddenly discovers “unexpected” uranium reserves
If there’s one thing better than a wonderful surprise gift, it’s the one that arrives at just the perfect time when you need it the most. That must be the feeling in Tehran this month because they’ve not only sealed a sweetheart deal with the United States regarding their nuclear program, but their glide path may have just gotten considerably smoother. One of the baseline assumptions of John Kerry’s deal – and an assumption accepted by pretty much the entire world – was that Iran was near the end of their supplies of usable quality uranium. To get more they would soon need to begin dealing with other countries for it and we could quickly discover any such transactions.. at least in theory. But now that may not be such a big deal to the Supreme Leader. Surprise!They’ve discovered some unexpected uranium reserves of their own which they should be able to start mining. (Reuters)

Iran has discovered an unexpectedly high reserve of uranium and will soon begin extracting the radioactive element at a new mine, the head of Iran’s Atomic Energy Organisation said on Saturday.

The comments cast doubt on previous assessments from some Western analysts who said the country had a low supply and would sooner or later would need to import uranium, the raw material needed for its nuclear program.

Any indication Iran could become more self-sufficient will be closely watched by world powers, which reached a landmark deal with Tehran in July over its program. They had feared the nuclear activities were aimed at acquiring the capability to produce atomic weapons – something denied by Tehran.

Iran has been engaged in some “aerial prospecting” to locate mineral resources. (You can read a brief overview of how that works here, but basically you can scan for radiation signatures from the air, even in heavily wooded areas. Deserts should be even easier.) This is really some amazingly fortunate timing for them, isn’t it? I mean, what are the odds? Iran’s nuclear chief, Ali Akbar Salehi, is quoted as saying that up until now his projections for mining prospects “were not too optimistic” but now they are “confident about our reserves.”

Speaking of great timing, Iran has also just announced in the most reasonable of fashions that they will be allowing IAEA inspectors to be present for the collection of samples at the heavily guarded Parchin military site.

United Nations inspectors will be present with Iranian technicians as they take samples from a key military site, two Western diplomats said, undercutting an objection by U.S. Republicans to the nuclear deal between Iran and world powers.

The diplomats were familiar with details of a confidential arrangement between Iran and the U.N. nuclear watchdog for inspections at the Parchin site, where some countries suspect nuclear weapons-related tests may have taken place.

Doing this allows Iran to at least attempt to defuse some of the criticism of the deal since they had previously stonewalled absolutely everyone in terms of access to the site. But continuing with our theme of great timing, allow me to be a tad bit skeptical when I note how wonderful it is that they’ve made this announcement nowafter they had all the time they wanted to scrub the place clean. Thanks, guys.

Returning for a moment to the uranium reserves question, it shouldn’t be all that shocking that some rich reserves are left. If you look at a map of the most dense known reserves of uranium on the planet, you find them in southern Russia and Kazakhstan, spreading through the rest of the ‘stans which border on… (Ding Ding Ding!) Iran. None of them, however, come close to the density of uranium found beneath one equatorial African site which, in the distant past, was so tightly packed with the fuel that it created a naturally occurring nuclear reactor.

Ah, those Iranians. They just seem to have the luck of the Irish these days.

Iran suddenly discovers "unexpected" uranium reserves
 
Last edited:

Turtle

Administrator
Staff member
Retired Expediter
More or less a non story, as the agreement deals with both existing and any new uranium oxide reserves. As usual, Hotair gets it wrong, as one of the baseline assumptions was not, in fact, that Iran was almost out of uranium. Iranian leaders have always asserted they have plenty of uranium and do not need to import it. Iran knew very well that they had uranium oxide at that location, the only thing they didn't know was how much. The fact that the experts got it wrong is the real story, except it's not much of a story, either, as the experts always get their estimates wrong, be it oil and gas prices or every single unemployment and new jobs report that has ever come out with as being higher or lower than expected.

The question you (and others) should be asking (but won't) is why didn't Iran keep this a secret? Why did they announce the find? What's wrong with them? How can you not trust someone if they don't even try to hide crap like this? What else are they not hiding?!?
 

Ragman

Veteran Expediter
Retired Expediter
The question you (and others) should be asking (but won't) is why didn't Iran keep this a secret? Why did they announce the find? What's wrong with them? How can you not trust someone if they don't even try to hide crap like this? What else are they not hiding?!?

aKok2Od4m_840w_v1.jpg
 
  • Like
Reactions: RLENT

RLENT

Veteran Expediter
From the Hot Air (LMAO at the appropriateness of the site name) article:

"Doing this allows Iran to at least attempt to defuse some of the criticism of the deal since they had previously stonewalled absolutely everyone in terms of access to the site."

Well yeah, sure ... except for:

"On January 13, 2005, International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) inspectors were allowed access to the Parchin military base as a confidence-building measure.

On November 2005, International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) inspectors were allowed access to the Parchin military base as a confidence-building measure."


And besides ... what possible legitimate reason could the Iranians have for wanting to limit outside access to a (non-nuclear) military site ?

"In early October 2014, the New York Times reported on sabotage concerns arising from a blast that took place at the site."

Oh ... that ...

I'm sure it was nothing ... probably just a fluke ...
 

muttly

Veteran Expediter
Retired Expediter
From the Hot Air (LMAO at the appropriateness of the site name) article:

"Doing this allows Iran to at least attempt to defuse some of the criticism of the deal since they had previously stonewalled absolutely everyone in terms of access to the site."

Well yeah, sure ... except for:

"On January 13, 2005, International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) inspectors were allowed access to the Parchin military base as a confidence-building measure.

On November 2005, International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) inspectors were allowed access to the Parchin military base as a confidence-building measure."


And besides ... what possible legitimate reason could the Iranians have for wanting to limit outside access to a (non-nuclear) military site ?

"In early October 2014, the New York Times reported on sabotage concerns arising from a blast that took place at the site."

Oh ... that ...

I'm sure it was nothing ... probably just a fluke ...

2005, LMAO.
 

muttly

Veteran Expediter
Retired Expediter
Nothing tripping me up, but thanks for playing. 2005, it's seems like it was just yesterday.
 

muttly

Veteran Expediter
Retired Expediter
The fact that the experts got it wrong is the real story, except it's not much of a story, either, as the experts always get their estimates wrong...?
That and the timing of the story. Just a coincidence.:rolleyes:
 

Turtle

Administrator
Staff member
Retired Expediter
Nothing tripping me up, but thanks for playing. 2005, it's seems like it was just yesterday.
Sooo, "previously" is what's tripping you up, then. Previously means occurring before something else, at a previous or earlier time, before, back then, beforehand, in days gone by. There are no time limits to previously, so "they had previously stonewalled absolutely everyone" includes any time before or earlier than now (when the agreement was done). 2005 falls squarely into "any time before" and "earlier than now," as well as "previously," so 2005 shouldn't be funny at all. More like pathetic, that Hotair could make such a blatantly incorrect statement of fact that is very easy to research with a few clicks of a mouse.

That and the timing of the story. Just a coincidence.:rolleyes:
I'm not sure what you mean by "of the story." Do you mean the announcement itself by Iran? Or the timing of when Reuters decided to report the announcement? Or you mean the timing of how every right wingnut Website grabbed the story, gave it their own predicable spin, and republished it like it's something other than an expected announcement? The announcement itself by Iran was not unexpected, since it's been known for many months they were doing a more thorough survey of the site after they god unexpectedly higher readings from earlier surveys (earlier is another way of saying "previous," BTW), and we knew an announcement would come sometime in either late August or early September. So I don't think that's coincidental at all. The time on Reuters isn't coincidental, since the announcement directly caused the reporting of said announcement. I don't think the timing of the right wingnut Websites trying to massage this into a "gasp! See!" moment is all that coincidental, either, since they'll take whatever they can get to do that, even if they have to make it up.

If you mean they announced this right after the deal was done, as if that's somehow the least little bit important, no, it's not coincidence, because it's not the least little bit important. If the agreement didn't already deal with past, existing and future uranium oxide reserves, it would be a very big deal. But that's not the case, as the agreement deals specifically with any and all uranium oxide reserves, known and as-yet undiscovered. So, it's basically a non-story that only the IAEA, right wingnuts, and geologists are going to be interested in.
 

RLENT

Veteran Expediter
Nothing tripping me up ...
Sez the dude who just had all his front teeth knocked out, as he kissed the sidewalk ...

but thanks for playing.
No Barf ... THANK YOU for playing ...

You're one of the very few who lacks the good sense to know when to quit (or shut up)

That actually makes you a very "special" person ... and rather ... valuable.

You come up with vast piles of hot, steaming STOOPID ... and then, after having your head handed to you on a platter ... you double down ...

That's actually quite... spiffy ...

... 2005, it's seems like it was just yesterday.
It wouldn't surprise me if it did ... to you ...

BTW - how are ya making out with coming up with some answers to those questions I asked previously ... any luck ?
 

muttly

Veteran Expediter
Retired Expediter
Sez the dude who just had all his front teeth knocked out, as he kissed the sidewalk ...


No Barf ... THANK YOU for playing ...

You're one of the very few who lacks the good sense to know when to quit (or shut up)

That actually makes you a very "special" person ... and rather ... valuable.

You come up with vast piles of hot, steaming STOOPID ... and then, after having your head handed to you on a platter ... you double down ...

That's actually quite... spiffy ...


It wouldn't surprise me if it did ... to you ...

BTW - how are ya making out with coming up with some answers to those questions I asked previously ... any luck ?
Ylentl, this is a completely delusional post by you.
 

muttly

Veteran Expediter
Retired Expediter
Sooo, "previously" is what's tripping you up, then. Previously means occurring before something else, at a previous or earlier time, before, back then, beforehand, in days gone by. There are no time limits to previously, so "they had previously stonewalled absolutely everyone" includes any time before or earlier than now (when the agreement was done). 2005 falls squarely into "any time before" and "earlier than now," as well as "previously," so 2005 shouldn't be funny at all. More like pathetic, that Hotair could make such a blatantly incorrect statement of fact that is very easy to research with a few clicks of a mouse.
Like 2005 was a while ago. Not very recent. So no U.N inspectors accessed the site in a long time. But Ylentl thought it was some big whoop that they did...ten years ago.
So nothing tripped up by me. Just thought it was amusing by Ylentl that's all.
Btw, Iran was asked to access the site back in 2012. U.N. Inspectors weren't allowed in. So yes they previously stonewalled absolutely everyone back in 2012. Previously being prior to the agreement. 2012 is
previous to 2015.
From Wikipedia :
On 8 March 2012, six world powers—the U.S., United Kingdom, France,Germany, Russia and China—called on Iran to allow United Nations inspectors to visit the Parchin military site.[6][7][8]
So Hot Air is accurate.
Yes it was easy to click on Wikipedia to check.:D
 

RLENT

Veteran Expediter
Ylentl, this is a completely delusional post by you.
Explain which part of it is delusional ... and WHY ...

Or, if you're in the mood for even more death-by-a-thousand-cuts-of-double-down, why ALL of it is delusional.

I'm guessing by the lack of any answer by you to my previous questions, you are either: 1. having trouble dealing with those pesky associated facts, or 2. just plain lacking the capacity ...
 

RLENT

Veteran Expediter
Like 2005 was a while ago. Not very recent. So no U.N inspectors accessed the site in a long time. But Ylentl thought it was some big whoop that they did...ten years ago.
Well, yeah ... because it showed Hot Air's (blanket, unqualified) assertion was false ...

So Hot Air is accurate.
LMAO ...

Go learn some Engrish ...

After that, consider taking a basic course in logic - so you can use "A" and "B" to navigate and successfully arrive at "C" ... without having to take multiple detours through "H", "Q" and "Y", all while flailing around in the dark ...
 
Last edited:

muttly

Veteran Expediter
Retired Expediter
Well, yeah ... because it showed Hot Air's (blanket, unqualified) assertion was false ...


LMAO ...

Go learn some Engrish ...

After that, consider taking a basic course in logic - so you can use "A" and "B" to navigate and successfully arrive at "C" ... without having to take multiple detours through "H", "Q" and "Y", all while flailing around in the dark ...
Your argument is embarrassing. So because Iran allowed an inspection back in 2005 they no longer could stonewall in any future date?Which they did back in 2012. The assertion that they made is Iran PREVIOUSLY stonewalled everyone .Did they allow UN inspectors access in 2012?Yes or no?
 

RLENT

Veteran Expediter
Your argument is embarrassing.
My only argument on the matter is that Hot Air's statement - which was unqualified and of a blanket nature - is false.

If you think that is not the case, then you are - at least to some degree - illiterate ...

So because Iran allowed an inspection back in 2005 they no longer could stonewall in any future date?Which they did back in 2012. The assertion that they made is Iran PREVIOUSLY stonewalled everyone .Did they allow UN inspectors access in 2012?Yes or no?
LMAO ... you got some kind of man-gina there bud, asking me multiple questions - after ignoring mine put to you - and thinking that you'll get an answer ...

BTW - you do know your questions above are just "whataboutery" (logical fallacy) and only serve to deflect from the issue of H/A's false statement, which it appears you are incapable of addressing in an honest manner ...

Just for funsies tho': clearly they didn't stonewall everyone previously ... and you yourself have as much as admitted it ...

I gotta think your eyeballs would be hurting at this point, after having repeatedly jabbed them with that sharp, pointy stick ... but feel free to keep stabbin' away until the pain renders you unconscious ...
 
Last edited:
Top