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.

 

Study says Iran's Nuclear needs are genuine.

page: 1
0
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 26 2006 @ 11:20 AM
link   
This artical states that Iran will be using all of it's own production volumnes in eight years.

The reason they aren't forthcoming with this info themselves could prove to be unflattering and embarrassing to their claims. This is interesting in the face of americans who truly believe they just want a bomb to blow up Israel.

AAC




posted on Dec, 26 2006 @ 12:48 PM
link   
I heard about this yesterday and I am very surprised that Iran may no be as oil rich as we thought.

It sounds like what happen to our own oil here in the US, is not that we have run out of oil . . . but that is not enough to sell anymore.

I guess now is not reasons to invaded Iran now, that oil will be no be an issue anymore.



posted on Dec, 26 2006 @ 04:42 PM
link   
Not that Im against Iranian Nuclear power but could this article be released in an attempt to try and stem the effect of Iran dropping the petrodollar in favor of the euro as well as possibly an oil price jump due to sanctions against Iran?

Doesn't sound right that 8 years will be the end of iranian oil exporting. I don't think their oil supply would be that low. I do say that Iran using its own oil supply for power is foolish when they have access to nuclear power. We should all be conserving fossil fuel whenever possible.



posted on Dec, 27 2006 @ 01:58 PM
link   
Genuine how?

From the OP sourced article:

He projected that in five years, Iranian oil exports may be less than half their present level, and could drop to zero by 2015.
"It therefore seems possible that Iran's claim to need nuclear power might be genuine, an indicator of distress from anticipated export revenue shortfalls," he wrote. "If so, the Iranian regime may be more vulnerable than is presently understood."

The above is a huge leap in opinion (among other things)…not to mention is almost comical in how Roger Stern’s article is being used given he recently gave a lecture on “The Ghost of Protectionism Past: Why Americans Believe in Peak Oil, the Oil Weapon, and Energy Dependence”….

Oil use in Iran’s electrical generation is almost moot…

Not to mention, the whole of the Iranian petroleum industries is grossly mismanaged and corrupt…even Ahmadinejad ran on this platform!...but we are supposed to believe Iran’s nuclear program will not be?

Over 75% of Iran’s electrical generation in gas fired (not oil). Roughly 10% of Iran’s electrical production is hydro-electric, and some is dual hydro-gas, leaving less than 15% oil fired generation. Expansion of gas fired facilities and replacement of oil fired facilities with gas are progressing with combined hydro-electric projects…but current use of oil in power generation is of little impact to Iran’s oil exportations. some recent information here (pdf.)

Without much effort one can find many reliable sources for information about Iran’s energy production…Iran’s investment in nuclear energy will have little to zero impact on Iran’s declining oil exports.

Iran has antique oil production facilities and poorly maintained fields (which is not mentioned in the article as a cause) that are reported to require approximately an estimated US$3.0 to 10.0 billion just in annual upkeep from the Iranian government. The Iranian fields as well as the production facilities, despite internal reinvestments, are poorly maintained adding to production problems which adds to external investiture dilemmas. Iran is also a net importer of refined gasoline because even here they can not keep-up with their subsidized consumer demands.

Why spend billions on nuclear energy development while your cash cow starves to death?...



mg



posted on Dec, 28 2006 @ 04:17 PM
link   
So if this is true and the US invades Iran and they dont have any oil, then what excuse are all the US haters going to have?

We invaded Iraq and it hasnt given us any more oil at all and gas prices are still high. I still love hearing all the freaking idiots who said we went to Iraq because of oil LOL. They wont be able to say that about Iran either it looks like.



posted on Dec, 28 2006 @ 04:30 PM
link   
First of all what makes you say that if we went to Iraq to control Oil that it would mean cheaper prices at the pumps? It would mean oil control for the Oil coporations who complain that oil is way underpriced compared to Soda, Milk, Toothpaste, Cologne, and many other products of day to day use. If they have more control of more Oil Fields you think they will do it to LOWER the prices for us?? LOL Now that IS a laugh.

Mod Edit: Big Quote – Please Review This Link.


[edit on 3/1/2007 by Mirthful Me]



posted on Dec, 28 2006 @ 04:44 PM
link   
Because lower prices at the pumps is what gets leaders elected and keeps the current ones in power. =)



posted on Jan, 3 2007 @ 01:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by princeofpeace
Because lower prices at the pumps is what gets leaders elected and keeps the current ones in power. =)

No, that would be fear-mongering and race-baiting.

If you weren't being serious, my mistake.



posted on Jan, 3 2007 @ 12:10 PM
link   


We invaded Iraq and it hasnt given us any more oil at all and gas prices are still high. I still love hearing all the freaking idiots who said we went to Iraq because of oil LOL.


We went to Iraq (and we're mucking around on the Arabian Peninsula in general) largely because of oil, don't kid yourself. The world is full of tinpot dictators, funny how we only go to war when there are vital resources involved.

But nobody said these people were competent... aside from getting rid of Saddam, we haven't accomplished any of our goals in Iraq, including getting access to their oil.



posted on Jan, 3 2007 @ 04:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by xmotex
The world is full of tinpot dictators, funny how we only go to war when there are vital resources involved.


Only “Vital resources”.

Care to elaborate on how your statement is applicable or supported by all US involved conflicts of the past…make it easy, let's say…just one-hundred years because "only" (giving leeway)…after all…is a bit much.

mg



posted on Jan, 3 2007 @ 06:41 PM
link   
Oh come on such claims stretch creditability beyond believability. No one has really been able to put an accurate gauge on when any oil reserves will run low . Remember people said that we would face peak oil by the year 2000 ?

If the government of Iran was genuinely interested in power generation there are other methods they could be exploring that wouldn't attract political attention and couldn't be used as weapons.
Solar power would be a good option and the likes of wind power also springs to mind.

[edit on 3-1-2007 by xpert11]



posted on Jan, 3 2007 @ 08:10 PM
link   
Even IF this were true. (which I highly doubt) How is a broke Iran, with no exports, and armed with nuclear weapons, going to be better for the world?



posted on Jan, 4 2007 @ 08:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by xpert11
Oh come on such claims stretch creditability beyond believability. No one has really been able to put an accurate gauge on when any oil reserves will run low . Remember people said that we would face peak oil by the year 2000 ?


Oil wont last for ever and the less Iran uses the more it will have for export and so forth


Originally posted by xpert11
If the government of Iran was genuinely interested in power generation there are other methods they could be exploring that wouldn't attract political attention and couldn't be used as weapons.
Solar power would be a good option and the likes of wind power also springs to mind.


for wind power it would take fields of them to let alone generate power for one city and same goes for solor panels.

on that note if that was the case why wasnt the US telling Iran to do that when they were ready to build a nuclear powerplant for them when they were shacked up with the shah?

Nuclear power is the most cost effective and right now one of the most saught after ways of generating power world wide so i dont see why Iran building one should bother anyone and dont use Iran and nukes

i havent scene any proof iran is going after nukes just asumptions



posted on Jan, 4 2007 @ 10:24 PM
link   
Solar power can be used to heat hot water and can be used to power the likes of cars. Solar Power could be used to reduce the dependency on oil generated electricity. Wind Power could be used to power small settlements. Both wind and Solar Power are viable options even if they don't fit the bill in the traditional sense of generating electricity.

I havnt seen any proof that Iran dosnt want Nuclear weapons . The government of Iran is hardly going to come forward and admit that they are developing Nuclear Weapons.



posted on Jan, 5 2007 @ 02:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by xpert11
Solar power can be used to heat hot water and can be used to power the likes of cars. Solar Power could be used to reduce the dependency on oil generated electricity. Wind Power could be used to power small settlements. Both wind and Solar Power are viable options even if they don't fit the bill in the traditional sense of generating electricity.


they are viable for small things like that
not large cities and so forth hence why nuclear power is more reliable as it produces more power from less meterial.



Originally posted by xpert11
I havnt seen any proof that Iran dosnt want Nuclear weapons . The government of Iran is hardly going to come forward and admit that they are developing Nuclear Weapons.


them just having to repeat that they arent intrested in nukes and with the US and so forth not being able to back their claim up.
unless you can show adiquite proof iran is going after nukes hows about you dont use the whole Iran is going after nukes then?



posted on Jan, 5 2007 @ 03:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by bodrul
they are viable for small things like that
not large cities and so forth hence why nuclear power is more reliable as it produces more power from less meterial.


While you are correct you are overlooking what happens when you add up all the little things the whole suddenly becomes quite different. If replaced petrol powered care with cars that are powered by alternative your reliance and on oil would take a big drop.


them just having to repeat that they arent intrested in nukes and with the US and so forth not being able to back their claim up.


Dont you find it strange that Iran hasn't been able to prove that they have peaceful intentions ?
What exactly is the Iranian military going to put in there intercontinental ballistic missiles ?
Given the stance taken by Iran leaders I think it is a very reasonable assumption that Iran is developing Nuclear weapons. The government of Iran is using the economic argument as a well disguised cover for its Nuclear weapons program.


People that stand on both sides of the issues cant 100% prove there beliefs. Of course it is possible that Iran is developing Nuclear power and weapons.





On 6 August, 2005, Iran rejected a 34 page European Union proposal intended to help Iran build "a safe, economically viable and proliferation-proof civil nuclear power generation and research programme.” The Europeans, with US agreement, intended to entice Iran into a binding commitment not to build atomic arms by offering to provide fuel and other long-term support that would facilitate electricity generation with nuclear energy. Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman Hamid Reza Asefi rejected the proposal saying, "We had already announced that any plan has to recognize Iran’s right to enrich uranium"


Hmm if the Iranian government had peaceful intension's they would have been more willing to take this kind of deal.



On February 16, 2006 French Foreign Minister Philippe Douste-Blazy said "No civilian nuclear programme can explain the Iranian nuclear programme. It is a clandestine military nuclear programme.



Link

[edit on 5-1-2007 by xpert11]



posted on Jan, 5 2007 @ 09:45 AM
link   


Dont you find it strange that Iran hasn't been able to prove that they have peaceful intentions


How do they "prove they have peaceful intentions"?

Can you "prove" you aren't out to kill me?

Usually when dealing with accusations, the burden of proof lies with the accuser.

And so far we've seen no proof that Iran has any kind of nuclear weapons production program, just a bunch of handwringing from the usual pro-war zealots.

[edit on 1/5/07 by xmotex]



posted on Jan, 5 2007 @ 10:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by xpert11
While you are correct you are overlooking what happens when you add up all the little things the whole suddenly becomes quite different. If replaced petrol powered care with cars that are powered by alternative your reliance and on oil would take a big drop.


that would just prelong the inevitable
they would still face the same problem if not sooner but later
so that wouldnt make a diffrence.


Originally posted by xpert11
Dont you find it strange that Iran hasn't been able to prove that they have peaceful intentions ?
What exactly is the Iranian military going to put in there intercontinental ballistic missiles ?
Given the stance taken by Iran leaders I think it is a very reasonable assumption that Iran is developing Nuclear weapons. The government of Iran is using the economic argument as a well disguised cover for its Nuclear weapons program.


as xmotex it all lies with the accuser and not the accused.

asumptions again?
so you assume Iran are building missiles for nukes (when so far all they have been used for is conventional payloads and so forth)

there is no hard evidence Iran is building nukes and these assumptions are just baseless


Originally posted by xpert11
People that stand on both sides of the issues cant 100% prove there beliefs. Of course it is possible that Iran is developing Nuclear power and weapons.


atleast you used possible and not IS
the intentions of any country cant be told by another country accuratly


Originally posted by xpert11
Hmm if the Iranian government had peaceful intension's they would have been more willing to take this kind of deal.


after whats ahhpening in europe with the gas problems and so on
Iran is right in telling them to take a hike.
Iran has natural resources (euranium) which it can use and be self sufficent and as a soverign country has every right to do so.

they shouldnt have to rely on other nations for their energy needs or should be forced to.


Originally posted by xpert11
Link


and you need a link to show Irans wmds?
its a proven fact Iran has chemical and bio weapons
which it hasnt used even when it was attacked with such weapons.
so what does its WMDS have to do with things?

i mean its not like the US/russia and so forth dont have these weapons



posted on Jan, 5 2007 @ 10:41 AM
link   
You know what, It probably is.
Iran probably to have an enery void that nuclear tech would fill.

But, you just couldnt trust them...

And PLUS,

Could you REALLY blame them in seeking out an effective DETERENT against foreign invaders, being 2 of their next door neighbours have been invaded, and occuipied under dubious claims, by the very same power who is closing down on them??



[edit on 5-1-2007 by Agit8dChop]



posted on Jan, 5 2007 @ 11:35 AM
link   

Iran's chief nuclear envoy Ali Larijani said on Friday that Iran is committed to the peaceful use of nuclear technology but warned the situation could change if his country is threatened.


www.ynetnews.com...


And I'm sure they're waiting until they're actually threatened to make the nuclear weapons!
At least they've decided to send the second carrier group over.


The Stennis had been scheduled to deploy to the Pacific region. But the Pentagon agreed instead to send the carrier group to the Gulf after a request from U.S. Central Command, the military command responsible for Middle East operations.


Second U.S. carrier group to deploy to Gulf: sources

Iran will be shut down. The only question in my mind is, How will Russia/China react? And if cells are in the US, we can expect reprisals. The question is how large?

[edit on 5-1-2007 by HimWhoHathAnEar]



(Mod edit: Used URL tags for really long link. --Majic)


[edit on 1/8/2007 by Majic]







 
0
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join