Jump to content
  • Hey There!

    Please register to see fewer ads and a better viewing experience:100_Emoji_42x42:

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

CRA

Ruh roh - indictments

Recommended Posts

4 minutes ago, Fryfan said:

I have not located the 2009 report yet.  2010 is here

http://www.i2massociates.com/downloads/EIA2010DomesticUraniumProductionReportJuner.pdf

The capacity report puts Uranium One at 16% of in-situ.  In situ at most is 90% of production.  So that 16% drops to around 15% at the very most.

Hyperbole much?

Math thwarting you again?

Total Production = 22.1M

U1 Production = 4.8M

So..... the big question.... what is 4.8 divided by 22.1 ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


12 minutes ago, twylyght said:

Math thwarting you again?

Total Production = 22.1M

U1 Production = 4.8M

So..... the big question.... what is 4.8 divided by 22.1 ?

Edit:

 

Ill claim my bad.  When I make a mistake I will admit it.

I missed a line of Uranium one. I calculated 3.8 million lbs/year not 4.8. MY ERROR

 

 

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So yes - 21%.

 

Once again we have information that is in-situ only - Not total.  We know that number is HIGH why do you keep using it.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Fryfan said:

Production is lbs/year via the EIA report- not sure what 22.1M or 4.8 M is referencing as its not in the report. 

Perhaps you need to stick to numbers that exist.

 

I provide a report and you then spout numbers that do not exist in that report as a counter?


Seriously how moronic do you expect me to be.  I am used to trolls but come on twylyght just throwing out random stuff?  WTF?

 

 

 

 

 

He was throwing out the numbers from the "operating capacity" chart. Same twylyght bullshit as usual, either misrepresenting the facts or misunderstanding them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Floppin said:

He was throwing out the numbers from the "operating capacity" chart. Same twylyght bullshit as usual, either misrepresenting the facts or misunderstanding them.

I made an error. I freely admit it.

The capacity on the 2010 report has Uranium One at slightly above 20% of the in-situ capacity.

BUT we know that does not represent full production capacity and we know that in reality that number turned out to be high.  

So his statement was wrong to began as it reference one type of mining  and it continues to be wrong as we know the capacity for Uranium one was reflected higher then in actuality.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Fryfan said:

So yes - 21%.

Once again we have information that is in-situ only - Not total.  We know that number is HIGH why do you keep using it.

It's why I put in the extrapolation steps from the spreadsheet provided.  I'll wait

Also, it's why everyone cited production and not capacity in their reporting.  No mill is running at 100%

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, twylyght said:

It's why I put in the extrapolation steps from the spreadsheet provided.  I'll wait

Also, it's why everyone cited production and not capacity in their reporting.  No mill is running at 100%

And we know capacity and production drops Uranium one below 20% in total as in-situ is not the only method.

As operations to Uranium one changed some site sell off goes back to 2010 their production capacity and actuals went even lower.

 

The 20% of capacity was high to start with because it took what was on the report and dropped the in-situ qualification.  We also now in reality it was not near that 20% and much closer to 10% of capacity.   So YES you are guilty of hyperbole - using a known high number to make a point.

 

After a few pages we ended up where we started twylyght hopefully you learned from this - you are quick to call out others but will never self examine.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

.“The NRC has licensed additional in-situ uranium facilities since the 20-percent figure was estimated (and it was an estimate),” an NRC spokesman said in an email. “Our current estimate would be closer to 10 percent.”


The spokesman added: “Note also that even the original figure does not include conventional mines, and was nowhere near saying they controlled 20 percent of U.S. uranium reserves.”

 

--

Yet its the figure twylyght uses in 2018. A estimate that did not include conventional mines and one that based on sales and licensings happen back as far as 2010 turned out to be quite inflated.

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Fryfan said:

And we know capacity and production drops Uranium one below 20% in total as in-situ is not the only method.

As operations to Uranium one changed some site sell off goes back to 2010 their production capacity and actuals went even lower.

The 20% of capacity was high to start with because it took what was on the report and dropped the in-situ qualification.  We also now in reality it was not near that 20% and much closer to 10% of capacity.   So YES you are guilty of hyperbole - using a known high number to make a point.

After a few pages we ended up where we started twylyght hopefully you learned from this - you are quick to call out others but will never self examine.

You were so close.... I'll go ahead and close it out for you:

For the year 2009, total U3O8 concentrate production was at 3708000 lbs. 

Of that, 3620000 lbs were from those in-situ plants.  That puts the production rate at 97% for in-situ plants for total production (for 2009, the year used to drive the numbers for approving the Uranium One sale).  

97% of 21% keeps us pretty much at 21%.  In actuality, we were rounding down to get this figure in front of the guys deciding.

I appreciate you at least making a little effort to run through the digging.  I get that this goes against the spin that's being thrown around out there, and a precious few people in the media are interested in reporting facts as opposed to narratives.  To top it off, searching for this stuff is convoluted if one doesn't know what to look for... so politicians are more than happy to capitalize off of that ignorance.

Either way, you've got the numbers laid out for you now.  Do with it what you will.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jill Stein=Russian?

Would make sense.  Green party/red party, who can tell the difference.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  On 2/17/2018 at 3:01 PM, twylyght said:
On 2/17/2018 at 3:01 PM, twylyght said:

Okay.  How does Russia have controlling interest in 20% of American Uranium production again?

 

--

 

Ill do with the numbers exactly what others have tried to do for you.  They dont.  Never have nor do they now.  

 

Production by year varies due to environmental conditions/status of leases/ other regulations.  One year Uranium one may well produce 21% another year it will be 12%.  The reason the NRC stated capacity in the letter (and noted it was around 20% for insitu only) because that is more valid when looking at all current mines and leases and what the potential production capacity is.  Uranium one was not at 20% of ENTIRE production capacity a point NRC has clarified and the NRC has stated currently it has dropped closer to 10%.

YEt you in 2018 state 20% of production.  That is a LIE an continued one used by Hannity and others in the right wing media to make this seem worse then it is.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why are y'all arguing anyway?  The Uranium is controlled by US and sold to civilian reactors within the US unless special permission granted by our own authorities.  Russia controls 0% of our Uranium.  Production or capacity.

A Canadian company sold their company to a Russian one.  We had no legitimate national security reason to stop it.  We control our Uranium.

Any argument should end at that knowledge.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you want to argue that Russia is making money off of uranium mined in our country that is fine because that is true.  But that isn't the same as controlling our Uranium

But again remember it was sold by a Canadian company, not a US company.  We don't have the authority to block that sell unless it is a credible national security threat and the fact that we still control out own uranium another country making money off of a deal with a company in another country doesn't actually constitute a national security threat that would allow us to veto it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, teeray said:

If you want to argue that Russia is making money off of uranium mined in our country that is fine because that is true.  But that isn't the same as controlling our Uranium

But again remember it was sold by a Canadian company, not a US company.  We don't have the authority to block that sell unless it is a credible national security threat and the fact that we still control out own uranium another country making money off of a deal with a company in another country doesn't actually constitute a national security threat that would allow us to veto it.

I clearly stated it was about money.  I also pointed out where something clearly went wrong and US uranium left the states and was not recovered. 

So, we established that you didn't read my responses (again), nor did you read the sources that I linked (yet again).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites



  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      19,475
    • Most Online
      2,867

    Newest Member
    Otterscrubbers
    Joined
  • Topics

  • Forum Statistics

    • Total Topics
      142,306
    • Total Posts
      4,551,465
×