It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Iran to process fresh batch of uranium-diplomats

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:
NR

posted on Nov, 2 2005 @ 09:28 PM
link   
This isnt weapons grade uranium just low for electricity remember were still cooperating and have no intensions for nuke build up so i dont think it should be much of a problem....

Source




posted on Nov, 2 2005 @ 11:28 PM
link   
Well your country has more oil than Texas.

According to the Asia Times;

www.atimes.com...

Iran's July 14 2003 announcement of the world's second biggest oil field after Saudi Arabia's Ghawar development appears certain to change the global equation on oil production. The field in the vicinity of the Iranian Persian Gulf port of Bushehr has an estimated 38 billion barrels. This is on top of the estimated 90 billion barrels even before the new discovery.

What about the Azadegan oilfield with it's estimated 26 billion barrels? Did Iran find a developer to start pumping that site? I see Japan bailed out with pressure from the US because of your nuke program according to this:

www.atimes.com...

What about Irans' major natural gas supplies?

Your country has so much natural gas you guys are using it to pump out oil from those wells that aren't producing the way they did a while back as found here in the Iranian Petroleum Ministry article called "Injection of Gas, Production Of Oil" as referenced here:

www.iranpetroleummag.com...

"With the injection of 80 million cubic meters of gas from phases 6, 7 and 8 of South Pars gas field per day, 423,000 barrels will be added to the country's daily production capacity. The statistics released on gas injection into oil fields indicate that if 25 million cubic meters of gas are injected into oil fields, an additional 150,00 barrels of oil will be produced on average."

My question is why do you need nuke reactors when you have so much oil?

Is it a problem with pumping and refining oil and/or gas to supply your growing needs? Lack of refining capabilities...

Iran uses natural gas in 90% of her power plants to supply power to everyone according to the Iranian Petroleum Ministry article so I see no reason for your nation to go nuke all of a sudden.

Am I missing something here?

After all to make a nuke power plant, it cost a hell of a lot of money to do it safetly.

If your country can't come up with the money to develop the Azadegan oilfield with it's estimated 26 billion barrels of oil as of 2003 without Japan with her 2 billion dollar investment, then where is the money going to come from to divert Irans' power output from 90% natural gas to nuke power? Why do this when your country has more oil and gas than Texas ever did?

Please enlighten me.


NR

posted on Nov, 2 2005 @ 11:32 PM
link   
With all due respect but i dont think it matters even if we have more oil than texas or will be biggest oil exporter soon. If we have nuclear technology now than it would save us up alot of money and more oil to sell. Secondly we had a great civiliazation and U.S should respect our history and culture and no country has the right who can or cant have nuclear technology.



posted on Nov, 2 2005 @ 11:58 PM
link   
Your response makes perfect since except IMO how can Iran save money by selling oil and converting its' power production to nuke reactors from gas when the gas is so dirt cheap, supplies 90% of the power now, and is available usually as a by-product of the oil production itself and the nuke plants on the other hand cost so much to build and run for that matter?

You guys do have plenty of sun over there. Wouldn't solar power conversion be better considering the cost involved. If I were a citizen of Iran I would be concerned about the cost/benefit factor involved if your government is only using this nuke stuff for power generation.



posted on Nov, 3 2005 @ 12:03 AM
link   
I dont understand why Iran does not just use Light water reactors that are just as good for producing energy. Plus you can use ordinary water which is cheaper the Heavy water. Heavy water reactors happen to be very handy for producing plutonium for use in nuclear weapons.



posted on Nov, 3 2005 @ 12:19 AM
link   
Cmon now NR, Are we supposed to swallow your "electricity needs" line?

We all know what the Mullahs are going do to with that Uranium...or at least what they Think their going to do with it. Iran wants a nuclear bomb and it can't be allowed to have one because it can't be trusted.

Keep tooting your horn, but Irans little game will end soon. America and England are staying put in the Middle East and we won't leave until we INSTALL Democratic government in Iran that represents the majority...not the whacko's that scream "Death to Isreal" in the streets. Im guessing they represent a small minority....perhaps 20%-30%.

I think most Iranians want peace and prosperity...not the Jihad and Holy War the Iranian president is calling for. So if your really an Iranian and you live close to a Nuclear facility....you might want to pack up and get outta Dodge.

Maximu§


NR

posted on Nov, 3 2005 @ 12:25 AM
link   
but how can we get nukes when were only doing low grade uranium which is only good enough for electricity and were still monietered so no attack my freind and you guys keep saying were going to get attacked but your just saying that to atleast make me mad which i really dont care anymore.... And if you think your going to walk over Tehran than your wrong my freind were not going to let anybody do such a thing no matter what u do, when u come to tehran your going to be facing atleast 20 million iranians which you have fun with and i'll be one of them.

[edit on 3-11-2005 by NR]

[edit on 3-11-2005 by NR]



posted on Nov, 3 2005 @ 01:02 AM
link   
But you never answered my questions. Instead you became offensive. Please read the post again and let me know what you think.

BTW, I never ragged on Iran. Up until a year or so ago I really thought you guys were going someplace in the big picture. Now I dont think your country is being controlled by its' people but instead, by a bunch of nuts. Your last response didn't help.

Are you working for your Government? Just asking.

You still haven't elightened me.

I admire your devotion to your country but would like to here more than just mumbling and defensive rambling concerning the subject at hand you brought up.



posted on Nov, 3 2005 @ 01:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by NR
...and no country has the right who can or cant have nuclear technology.


I think you're wrong here. The world cannot afford Iran having nuclear weapons. Did you miss the announcement your leader made a week or so ago about wiping Israel from the map?



posted on Nov, 3 2005 @ 03:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by NR
but how can we get nukes when were only doing low grade uranium which is only good enough for electricity


This may be true NR, but the Iranian government may not ONLY be trying to produce electricity. A nuclear reactor can be used to make weapons grade material.


and were still monietered so no attack my freind and you guys keep saying were going to get attacked but your just saying that to atleast make me mad which i really dont care anymore....


NR, no one here is trying to make you mad, we are telling you whats going to happen. If Iran continues to have leaders who scream "death to Isreal, Death to the US" and then continue on with a nuclear program, Iran is gunna get attacked.


And if you think your going to walk over Tehran than your wrong my freind


Naaaa, it'll be more like rolling - in tanks.



were not going to let anybody do such a thing no matter what u do, when u come to tehran your going to be facing atleast 20 million iranians which you have fun with and i'll be one of them.


I don't doubt that the Iranians would fight back, but unfortunately, I don't think you guys would stand much of a chance to the US military.

NR, can I ask you why you are in the US if you consider it "behind enemy lines" ? Why not leave?



posted on Nov, 3 2005 @ 08:16 AM
link   
It ought to be quite obvious by now that the USA did a great job convincing Iranians that they needed a nuclear energy when they started all this off in the 1970s.

As for the enrichment process they want to obtain?
That is perfectly understandable as a means of producing power in the most efficient manner with the most efficient fuel.

The fact that they wish to 'own' this process themselves is purely a matter of retaining control and 'sovereignty' over the entire power production process and not being 'beholden' to foreign powers for such a strategic matter.

....same ideas of 'sovereignty' and control as many other countries, including the USA.

'England' certainly isn't going anywhere near Iran and does not, along with the rest of Europe, blindly buy into this nonsense about an imminent Iranian nuclear bomb or it's use.

[edit on 3-11-2005 by sminkeypinkey]



posted on Nov, 3 2005 @ 10:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by sminkeypinkey
'England' certainly isn't going anywhere near Iran and does not, along with the rest of Europe, blindly buy into this nonsense about an imminent Iranian nuclear bomb or it's use.


Really?? That's news to me...and to Mr. Blair it would seem.



He added that Iran, suspected of having a nuclear weapons programme, could soon be considered a "real threat".
Source:Blair 'revulsion' at Iran remarks



posted on Nov, 3 2005 @ 11:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by rhelt100
Really?? That's news to me...and to Mr. Blair it would seem.


- Blair is a part of the Anglo-Franco-German attempt to get agreement with Iran to go through the UN's IAEA etc etc, obviously.

But if you are trying to say, as some here seem to wish to imply, that the British gov has been indulging in the same kind of war preparation some in the US so obviously keen on then you are wrong.

The British voting publice came amazingly close to ejecting Blair and the Labour gov (almost entirely because of Iraq) at the last general election.

The British public would not stand for an Iranian war with British involvement.
Particularly one based on similar fairy tales as last time.



He added that Iran, suspected of having a nuclear weapons programme, could soon be considered a "real threat".


- Coulds, woulds, shoulds, ifs, but and maybes.

The fact still stands that Blair has no room whatsoever for getting the UK into a new war; the public would not stand for it, neither would his own party nor a majority in Parliament.

Now that, thanks to the domestic political disaster that was Iraq, the principle has been accepted that Parliament gets to decide these things (as opposed to the previous option where the PM simply used Royal preogative and told thecountry 'we are at war').

I would bet the house on Parliament refusing to go to war with Iran under the present circumstances or anything remotely similar.

[edit on 3-11-2005 by sminkeypinkey]



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join