Welcome to European Tribune. It's gone a bit quiet around here these days, but it's still going.

Huh, Iran has uranium mines

by Colman Tue Mar 14th, 2006 at 02:51:07 PM EST

Since 1988, Iran has reportedly opened as many as 10 uranium mines, including the Saghand uranium mine in Yazd province, as well otherwise unspecified locations in Khorassan, Sistan va Baluchestan, and Hormozgan Provinces, and in Bandar-e-Abbas and Badar-e-Lengeh Provinces along the Gulf. The Director of the Iranian Atomic Energy Organization, Reza Amrollahi, announced in 1989 that the expected reserves of these deposts was in excess of 5,000 tons.

Uranium resources of Iran are not considered rich. The results of the Atomic Energy Organization of Iran (AEOI) exploration activities have shown proven reserves of about 3,000 tons of Uranium so far. According to the discovered indices (more than 350 anomalies) and the results of the field discoveries, the expected resources of Iran could be at the range of 20,000-30,000 tons of U3O8, throughout the country. Therefore Iran's domestic reserves might be sufficient enough to supply the raw material for needed nuclear power plants in future.
Global Security

Didn't know that. Must add to Gnomemoot.


Display:
Very interesting. Kind of alters the balance of possible action as well.
by Metatone (metatone [a|t] gmail (dot) com) on Tue Mar 14th, 2006 at 04:18:05 PM EST
I should have checked this before. It changes the strategic implications of controlling their own fuel cycle as well: if they don't have to import uranium they sure as hell don't want to give Russia control of their enrichment.
by Colman (colman at eurotrib.com) on Tue Mar 14th, 2006 at 04:21:36 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I read about this before, thus I never quite understood why they should export their own uranium to Russia for enrichment. And of course, why shoulden't they use their own uranium?
by Fran on Tue Mar 14th, 2006 at 04:23:33 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I'd missed it completely and it very seldom comes up in discussions. In fact I'm sure I've seen it argued that they have to import uranium anyway so why would they care if it had to be enriched outside Iran.
by Colman (colman at eurotrib.com) on Tue Mar 14th, 2006 at 04:25:24 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Thanks for bringing this up. I am not surprised though. From what I remember, with uranium it is less a matter of if it is there or not and more a matter of how concentrated it is. Wikipedia says ("uranium") "The ultimate supply of uranium is very large. It is estimated that for a ten times increase in price, the supply of uranium that can be economically mined is increased 300 times."

Sweden for example, has uranium but to my knowledge no uranium mines. It is low concentration so instead uranium is imported. Mainly from Canada and Russia if my memory serves. The advantage of having the environmental effects on someone elses backyard is also a factor. There are probably crisis plans in some cold war storage on how to get some uranium mining going quickly in case of a heated situation between east and west.

Anyway, if they are mining their own uranium it does a lot of sense to have their own enrichment. On could probably question the economics of mining their own uranium, but I reccon it is more a political question anyhow.

Sweden's finest (and perhaps only) collaborative, leftist e-newspaper Synapze.se

by A swedish kind of death on Tue Mar 14th, 2006 at 07:48:43 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Indeedy, it would change the equation a bit.

Below, estimates of fuel tonnage and yearly reactor loads (25t/yr) depending on mining resources (20,000t / 30,000t) and tail assay (0.35% / 0.25%).

Mined U3O8 (t) 3,000 20,000 30,000
Mined U Metal (t) 2,544 16,960 25,439
Tail 0.35% - Fuel 3.6% (t) 290 1,930 2,896
Tail 0.25% - Fuel 3.6% (t) 360 2,379 3,569
Tail 0.35% - Yr load (25t/load) 12 77 116
Tail 0.25% - Yr load (25t/load) 14 95 143

A typical 1,000 MWe PWR reactor runs for about 50 years and requires ~100t of fuel on the first year (initial load) then 25t each year for refuelling. That amounts to 1325t over the life of the reactor. So depending on the assumptions (resources/tail assy), Iran can supply the life time load of 1 to not fully 3 reactors.

An other, more reasonable way to look at it is, assuming Iran builds 6 reactors, Iran can supply the initial load of those reactors then keep them running them anywhere between 10 and 21 years. After that, they need to find new resources with lower grade ore (which I assume to be feasible). But then, you come back to the issue of the crappy separative capacity of their centrifuges and the (ir)rationality of their current investment in obsolete technology. They would need to install 200,000 to 300,000 of their P1-like centrifuges to support the yearly reload of 6 reactors. Divide that number by 2 assuming a more advance P2-like design with a rotor made of maraging steel.

For reference and comparison of separative capacity of various centrifuge designs:
Machine Capacity
(kgSWU/yr)
Notes
Pakistan/Iran P1 ~ 2 to 3 Decommissioned by Pakistan?
Pakistan/Iran P2 ~ 5 to 6 Iran has blueprints, but real machines?
Urenco TC12 40 In operation since early 90s - Decommissioning
Urenco TC21 > 200 In production ramp-up
USEC AC > 300 Pilot plant 2006
Pakistani designs are a throwback from the 60s, hopelessly obsolete.
by Francois in Paris on Thu Mar 16th, 2006 at 10:22:43 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Oh, and I forgot to mention. If you use the proven reserves (3,000t U3O8), Iran has enough uranium to start 2 reactors and then operate them for less than 4 years ...

I'm of the opinion that world uranium reserves are very vast given a high enough price for yellow cake, but I must say that I'm quite admirative of Iran gutsiness in launching such a big program and getting into so much trouble with such a low guaranteed ROI. Big balls, those mullahs...
by Francois in Paris on Thu Mar 16th, 2006 at 10:37:05 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Actually this comment does mention Iranian uranium resources in passing. Obviously all the clever people already know this. Francois's assessment of how much they have differs from that of the link above. One more thing to analyse I suppose.
by Colman (colman at eurotrib.com) on Tue Mar 14th, 2006 at 04:33:14 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Yes, it was central to his argument that controlling the full nuclear cycle would be economic insanity.

*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.
by DoDo on Tue Mar 14th, 2006 at 07:00:52 PM EST
[ Parent ]
The cost of the cascade is at the centre of the argument. The resource aspect is more a strategic consideration.
by Francois in Paris on Thu Mar 16th, 2006 at 10:26:30 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I wonder if there are any issues surrounding the purity of the uranium.  I'm fairly clueless on the technology side, but my understanding is that there is uranium all over the world, but some of the sites just don't have the purity, if that's the right word, to make mining practical.  And then even the "pure" stuff has to be further enriched.  

Does anyone know anything about this angle, if it's an angle at all.

by wchurchill on Tue Mar 14th, 2006 at 07:41:35 PM EST
Well the story talks of proven reserves, which would indicate they're pure enough to be useful, wouldn't it?
by Colman (colman at eurotrib.com) on Wed Mar 15th, 2006 at 02:30:28 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Yes.  And the article is a little too techy for me, but seems to infer that.  Sorry for the gratuitous comment/question.
by wchurchill on Wed Mar 15th, 2006 at 03:20:16 AM EST
[ Parent ]
There are no gratuitous questions.
by Colman (colman at eurotrib.com) on Wed Mar 15th, 2006 at 03:34:58 AM EST
[ Parent ]

(from the FT. No representations from me that this is actually correct)

In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes

by Jerome a Paris (etg@eurotrib.com) on Wed Mar 15th, 2006 at 04:31:14 AM EST
Looks ok, and the details are in the public domain if one needed to double-check.

A society committed to the notion that government is always bad will have bad government. And it doesn't have to be that way. — Paul Krugman
by Carrie (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Wed Mar 15th, 2006 at 04:47:04 AM EST
[ Parent ]
According to this article Uranium is usually mined where concentrations are 0.1 to 0.5 percent of ore.  In the case of the Iranian mines of Saghand the concentrations seems to be in the upper stratas of 0.5 percent of the ore, more specific 0.533, and thus can be sent directly to the Uranium mill being buildt 35 km north of Ardakan city, without further exploitation.  

Keeping the whole process from extraction of uranium, milling to enrichment within the country would of course make it much easier to control and possibly easier to manipulate.  

Bitsofnews.com Giving you the latest bits.

by Gjermund E Jansen (gjans1@hotmail.com) on Wed Mar 15th, 2006 at 05:05:08 AM EST
Given the record of foreign dealings with Iran, from an Iranian perspective, would you, even if you were solely interested in a civilian programme, allow yourself to be forced to carry out enrichment that you're legally entitled to by treaty outside your borders? Would the US? France? Britain? Russia? I think not.
by Colman (colman at eurotrib.com) on Wed Mar 15th, 2006 at 05:12:32 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Well, from an Iranian official perspective probably not, but from a people's perspective I am not that sure, if it meant they could go ahead with their nuclear program without further delay.  Britain and France are depending on outside suppliers of Uranium and thus have some of their process outsourced from the start already.  

The key word here is confidence and with the confidence level Iran has vis-à-vis the West, it is not at all an improbable thought that the theocratic regime might develop nuclear weapons. The Iranians themselves have time and time again shown through policies that they are deeply sceptical to the West and the natural consequence of this is of course to develop the ultimate weapon in order to feel more secure.  The paranoia seems to have increased especially after the hardliners took over the presidency, and the negative rethoric escalated.  

If the Iranians are serious about their civil nuclear program it would only be perceived as a confidence builder to let the enrichment process be done by outsiders.  After all the escalation of this matter are partly at the hands of the Iranian hardliners, spearheaded by the President.  By outsourcing the enrichment process they would also neutralize the criticism coming from Washington and secure their program from further delays by splitting the unity between Europe, the US and, now lately what could be, Russia.  

Bitsofnews.com Giving you the latest bits.

by Gjermund E Jansen (gjans1@hotmail.com) on Wed Mar 15th, 2006 at 05:50:36 AM EST
[ Parent ]
The paranoia of course ratchets up if you compare what has happened to Iraq vs. what has happened to N. Korea.
by Metatone (metatone [a|t] gmail (dot) com) on Wed Mar 15th, 2006 at 06:02:10 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Yes, that is exactly my point so the logic would be to aquire nuclear weapons wouldn't it?

Bitsofnews.com Giving you the latest bits.
by Gjermund E Jansen (gjans1@hotmail.com) on Wed Mar 15th, 2006 at 06:05:38 AM EST
[ Parent ]
On a more general note I do believe that the Iranian regime knows, at least for the moment, that the US will not engage into a new invasion and especially not of Iran.  That would mean disaster both economically and militarily for the US.  The hardliner stand of the Iranian regime is pointing to the fact that they have calculated along those lines and thus can act so defiantly.  This is both a propaganda stunt and a political strategy stunt from the Iranians in order to rally support for the hardliner stands among the Iranian population and a political test to see how far the Western countries are willing to go in such a showdown.  

The rallying of the population to the hardliners stands seems so far to have failed.  Even if the majority of the population are for the nuclear program, there are signs that they are getting tired of the hardliner stands and have come to rather like the reformists way. The rather meagre support the violent demonstrations in Teheran had during the cartoon incident, point towards such a conclusion, the demonstrators, consisting of mostly young conservative males and members of the Pasdaran, and being only in the hundreds/thousands(?).  

Concerning their political strategy it also seems as if this was a miscalculation, with the hardliners threatening to walk out of possible negotiations if Iran was referred to the UNSC by the IAEA.  The tough rhetoric backfired and the UN process started.  Still, the Iranians keep sending mixed signals, defiance in order to save face and being willing to still negotiate with the Russians in order to keep the only option left open and not politically humiliating the Russians.    

Bitsofnews.com Giving you the latest bits.

by Gjermund E Jansen (gjans1@hotmail.com) on Wed Mar 15th, 2006 at 07:29:04 AM EST
[ Parent ]


Display:
Go to: [ European Tribune Homepage : Top of page : Top of comments ]