Tons of uranium missing from Libyan site, IAEA tells member states

Could this be why Israel is getting antsy, could it be why we had a spy bird circling the Panama Canal recently?

sounds like a remake of the Sum of All Fears, if my math is correct there should be about 39 pounds of fissionable uranium. Here's hoping we can track it better than the movie.

www.britannica.com...

As a rule of thumb, the complete fission of 1 kg (2.2 pounds) of uranium or plutonium produces about 17.5 kilotons of TNT-equivalent explosive energy.

www.reuters.com...

IAEA inspectors visited site not controlled by govt
Inspection postponed since 2022 over security situation
Watchdog found 10 barrels of natural uranium missing
IAEA sees possible radiological risk, security concerns

IAEA inspectors "found that 10 drums containing approximately 2.5 tons of natural uranium in the form of UOC (uranium ore concentrate) previously declared by (Libya) ... as being stored at that location were not present at the location," the one-page statement said.

The agency would carry out "further activities" to determine the circumstances of the uranium's removal from the site, which it did not name, and where it is now, the statement added.

"The loss of knowledge about the present location of nuclear material may present a radiological risk, as well as nuclear security concerns," it said, adding that reaching the site required "complex logistics".

In 2003 Libya under then-leader Muammar Gaddafi renounced its nuclear weapons programme, which had obtained centrifuges that can enrich uranium as well as design information for a nuclear bomb, though it made little progress towards a bomb.

a reply to: putnam6

No.

Natural Uranium has no weapons implications.

It has to be enriched to about 6% to be useful in a reactor and about 90% to be useful in a bomb.

originally posted by: 1947boomer
a reply to: putnam6

No.

Natural Uranium has no weapons implications.

It has to be enriched to about 6% to be useful in a reactor and about 90% to be useful in a bomb.

DID YOU NOT READ THE ARTICLE

Sounds as if they have the centrifuges as well as design information, regardless 2.5 tons of natural uranium supposedly make 39 lbs of fissionable uranium.

Yea my sources are Wikipedia but the number sounds correct at .72 percent 2.5 tons enriched should yield how much usable uranium?

In 2003 Libya under then-leader Muammar Gaddafi renounced its nuclear weapons program, which had obtained centrifuges that can enrich uranium as well as design information for a nuclear bomb, though it made little progress towards a bomb.

en.wikipedia.org...

Weapons-grade uranium
Natural uranium is made weapons-grade through isotopic enrichment. Initially only about 0.7% of it is fissile U-235, with the rest being almost entirely uranium-238 (U-238). They are separated by their differing masses. Highly enriched uranium is considered weapons-grade when it has been enriched to about 90% U-235.[citation needed]

U-233 is produced from thorium-232 by neutron capture. The U-233 produced thus does not require enrichment and can be relatively easily chemically separated from residual Th-232. It is therefore regulated as a special nuclear material only by the total amount present. U-233 may be intentionally down-blended with U-238 to remove proliferation concerns.[19]

While U-233 would thus seem ideal for weaponization, a significant obstacle to that goal is the co-production of trace amounts of uranium-232 due to side-reactions. U-232 hazards, a result of its highly radioactive decay products such as thallium-208, are significant even at 5 parts per million. Implosion nuclear weapons require U-232 levels below 50 PPM (above which the U-233 is considered "low grade"; cf. "Standard weapon grade plutonium requires a Pu-240 content of no more than 6.5%." which is 65,000 PPM, and the analogous Pu-238 was produced in levels of 0.5% (5000 PPM) or less). Gun-type fission weapons would require low U-232 levels and low levels of light impurities on the order of 1 PPM.[20]

Maybe this is why Saudi Arabia just made a treaty with Iran 😎

originally posted by: 1947boomer
a reply to: putnam6

No.

Natural Uranium has no weapons implications.

It has to be enriched to about 6% to be useful in a reactor and about 90% to be useful in a bomb.

How do you know for sure the Uranium in question is just plain old natural? MSM reports have been known to lie 😎

originally posted by: xuenchen

originally posted by: 1947boomer
a reply to: putnam6

No.

Natural Uranium has no weapons implications.

It has to be enriched to about 6% to be useful in a reactor and about 90% to be useful in a bomb.

How do you know for sure the Uranium in question is just plain old natural? MSM reports have been known to lie 😎

Well the article says natural Uranium and even if it is, 2.5 tons seems to be enough to make some weapons-grade uranium sounds like Iran is getting close

www.nbcnews.com...

Iran has begun enriching uranium close to weapons-grade levels, according to a report released by the United Nations nuclear watchdog Wednesday, sending Tehran closer to becoming a nuclear power.

The International Atomic Energy Agency, or IAEA, said in its report that Iran had produced uranium particles that were enriched up to 83.7% purity at its Fordo fuel enrichment plant south of Tehran.

In a separate statement, U.S. allies France, Germany and the United Kingdom issued a stark warning over Iran's nuclear activities.

“The full range of findings outlined by the Director General’s report are alarming: Iran continues its unprecedented and grave nuclear escalation,” Corinne Kitsell and Götz Schmidt-Bremme, the British and German ambassadors to the nuclear watchdog respectively, said in the statement.

They cited the report prepared by IAEA Director General Rafael Mariano Grossi. NBC News reviewed a copy of the report Wednesday.

a reply to: putnam6

anybody seen Doc Brown, oh that's right i forgot he's got a Mr.Fusion now.

originally posted by: BernnieJGato
a reply to: putnam6

anybody seen Doc Brown, oh that's right i forgot he's got a Mr.Fusion now.

also from the article

You mention Doc Brown who ironically rip offed Iranians

www.nbcnews.com...

According to a report released by the Office of the Director of National Intelligence on Wednesday, Iran has not yet launched work required to manufacture a nuclear weapon, but it looks likely that it will work to enrich its uranium stockpile to weapons-grade level if U.S. economic sanctions are not lifted.
“Iran has emphasized improving the accuracy, lethality, and reliability of its missiles," the report states.

It said Iran’s work on space launch vehicles shortens the timeline to an intercontinental ballistic missile if it decides to develop one because they both use similar technologies.

Last month, Iran showed off on national television its new long-range cruise missile that can travel over 1,000 miles. Tehran maintains that its missile program is only for defense and deterrence

originally posted by: putnam6

originally posted by: 1947boomer
a reply to: putnam6

No.

Natural Uranium has no weapons implications.

It has to be enriched to about 6% to be useful in a reactor and about 90% to be useful in a bomb.

DID YOU NOT READ THE ARTICLE

Sounds as if they have the centrifuges as well as design information, regardless 2.5 tons of natural uranium supposedly make 39 lbs of fissionable uranium.

Did you also read the article correctly?

It said only that:

Watchdog found 10 barrels of natural uranium missing

No where in the article did it say that anyone took the centrifuges. The only information is the one you quoted which said just that. Libya had them. They renounced them. I'm sure they got rid of them. Google that perhaps but no where in the article did it say that they were taken. ONLY that 10 BBLs of raw material was taken.

originally posted by: xuenchen

originally posted by: 1947boomer
a reply to: putnam6

No.

Natural Uranium has no weapons implications.

It has to be enriched to about 6% to be useful in a reactor and about 90% to be useful in a bomb.

How do you know for sure the Uranium in question is just plain old natural? MSM reports have been known to lie 😎

I personally don’t know one way or the other. And, of course neither do you.

I’m just saying that if the IAEA report is correct, then it’s not that big of a deal.

Any nation with the money can buy natural Uranium. Turning natural Uranium into a weapon is a much, much more difficult problem. You either have to build and operate breeder reactors to turn it into Plutonium or enrich it to around 90% to make a Uranium bomb. And then you have to have a program to design and test the physics package to turn it into a weapon. The infrastructure to do any of that is basically impossible to hide in today’s world and Libya never had any of that.

Of course, Israel went through that process and Iran wants to, but neither one of those is limited by access to natural Uranium.

originally posted by: putnam6

originally posted by: xuenchen

originally posted by: 1947boomer
a reply to: putnam6

No.

Natural Uranium has no weapons implications.

It has to be enriched to about 6% to be useful in a reactor and about 90% to be useful in a bomb.

How do you know for sure the Uranium in question is just plain old natural? MSM reports have been known to lie 😎

Well the article says natural Uranium and even if it is, 2.5 tons seems to be enough to make some weapons-grade uranium sounds like Iran is getting close

www.nbcnews.com...

Iran has begun enriching uranium close to weapons-grade levels, according to a report released by the United Nations nuclear watchdog Wednesday, sending Tehran closer to becoming a nuclear power.

The International Atomic Energy Agency, or IAEA, said in its report that Iran had produced uranium particles that were enriched up to 83.7% purity at its Fordo fuel enrichment plant south of Tehran.

In a separate statement, U.S. allies France, Germany and the United Kingdom issued a stark warning over Iran's nuclear activities.

“The full range of findings outlined by the Director General’s report are alarming: Iran continues its unprecedented and grave nuclear escalation,” Corinne Kitsell and Götz Schmidt-Bremme, the British and German ambassadors to the nuclear watchdog respectively, said in the statement.

They cited the report prepared by IAEA Director General Rafael Mariano Grossi. NBC News reviewed a copy of the report Wednesday.

By 2015 Iran had somewhere around 200 kg of medium enriched Uranium, which was well on its way to being weapons grade. After the JCPOA was signed, they moved that out of their country, which effectively put them out of the nuclear weapons business. In 2017, even after the national security community verified that Iran was living up to the terms of the agreement, the POTUS at the time pulled the US out of the agreement for reasons that have never been explained, thereby effectively destroying the agreement. Subsequent to that, Iran retrieved its enriched Uranium, which is what formed the basis for the recent highly enriched Uranium announcement by the IAEA.

The 10 barrels of natural Uranium has nothing to do with this.

a reply to: 1947boomer

Natural Uranium has no weapons implications.

Keep telling yourself that .
Or , deny your own ignorance and research "dirty bombs" and "suitcase nukes"

originally posted by: 1947boomer

originally posted by: putnam6

originally posted by: xuenchen

originally posted by: 1947boomer
a reply to: putnam6

No.

Natural Uranium has no weapons implications.

It has to be enriched to about 6% to be useful in a reactor and about 90% to be useful in a bomb.

How do you know for sure the Uranium in question is just plain old natural? MSM reports have been known to lie 😎

Well the article says natural Uranium and even if it is, 2.5 tons seems to be enough to make some weapons-grade uranium sounds like Iran is getting close

www.nbcnews.com...

Iran has begun enriching uranium close to weapons-grade levels, according to a report released by the United Nations nuclear watchdog Wednesday, sending Tehran closer to becoming a nuclear power.

The International Atomic Energy Agency, or IAEA, said in its report that Iran had produced uranium particles that were enriched up to 83.7% purity at its Fordo fuel enrichment plant south of Tehran.

In a separate statement, U.S. allies France, Germany and the United Kingdom issued a stark warning over Iran's nuclear activities.

“The full range of findings outlined by the Director General’s report are alarming: Iran continues its unprecedented and grave nuclear escalation,” Corinne Kitsell and Götz Schmidt-Bremme, the British and German ambassadors to the nuclear watchdog respectively, said in the statement.

They cited the report prepared by IAEA Director General Rafael Mariano Grossi. NBC News reviewed a copy of the report Wednesday.

By 2015 Iran had somewhere around 200 kg of medium enriched Uranium, which was well on its way to being weapons grade. After the JCPOA was signed, they moved that out of their country, which effectively put them out of the nuclear weapons business. In 2017, even after the national security community verified that Iran was living up to the terms of the agreement, the POTUS at the time pulled the US out of the agreement for reasons that have never been explained, thereby effectively destroying the agreement. Subsequent to that, Iran retrieved its enriched Uranium, which is what formed the basis for the recent highly enriched Uranium announcement by the IAEA.

The 10 barrels of natural Uranium has nothing to do with this.

LOL all I'm pointing out is we have a rogue government in the region that is capable of enriching natural uranium.True or False?

Secondly is it such a leap that persons or groups within Iran and Libya could have clandestinely made a deal about the 2.5 tons and having it enriched?

Finally, the IAEA seems to think it's a big deal, if not why even report it?

originally posted by: Timber13

originally posted by: putnam6

originally posted by: 1947boomer
a reply to: putnam6

No.

Natural Uranium has no weapons implications.

It has to be enriched to about 6% to be useful in a reactor and about 90% to be useful in a bomb.

DID YOU NOT READ THE ARTICLE

Sounds as if they have the centrifuges as well as design information, regardless 2.5 tons of natural uranium supposedly make 39 lbs of fissionable uranium.

Did you also read the article correctly?

It said only that:

Watchdog found 10 barrels of natural uranium missing

No where in the article did it say that anyone took the centrifuges. The only information is the one you quoted which said just that. Libya had them. They renounced them. I'm sure they got rid of them. Google that perhaps but no where in the article did it say that they were taken. ONLY that 10 BBLs of raw material was taken.

I mentioned the centrifuges because another poster implicated there was nothing they could do with the natural uranium in Libya.

But yea you are right Im. sure the Libyans destroyed the centrifuges they had. It's not the actual centrifuge though, it's that as recently as 10-15 years ago there were operational centrifuges in Libya, and somebody likely has the knowledge and the technical know-how to make one and enrich the uranium in the region. True or false?

Here is a brief overview of the centrifuge operations in Iran from Stanford University from over 10 years ago, basic logic would probably suggest they have become more proficient since then. True or False? Not to mention how difficult it would be for a group, entity, or state to ship natural ore to Iran for refinement, certainly Iran could charge a fee for this process.
True or False?

large.stanford.edu...

A case in point is Iran's recent program to develop uranium enrichment plants at Natanz, which, according to a recent announcement, will be producing 19.75% low enriched uranium (LEU). [4] What is interesting about this situation is that it takes a lot of resources to start a full-scale nuclear energy or weapons production comparable to that in some of the countries that already have one. The amount of enrichment possible from the plant at Natanz does not seem nearly enough for such a program. However, it is enough for producing a small number of nuclear weapons. [4] When coupled with the fact that one only needs about 5% enrichment for nuclear power plants, it means that Iran could already be on the path for making a small number of nuclear weapons. As stated in a recent ISIS report, "one of the most striking lessons from reviewing Iran's accomplishments at Natanz is just how unachievable a commercial enrichment program remains, while at the same time, how comparatively little enrichment capability is required for a nuclear weapons capability." [4]

This result partly stems from the fact that centrifuge devices themselves do not cost very much to operate, so their usefulness in producing usable fuel must be carefully weighed against their ability to relatively easily produce weapons-grade uranium. [1] Especially in an economy and government as unstable as that in Iran, the weapons could pose a threat to cities in other countries if they somehow get into the wrong hands. On the contrary, the technology is still very useful for civilian purposes, shown by the recent developments in the US for getting the centrifuge program back on its feet. [1] Thus, it remains necessary for the world to carefully weigh the pros and cons of enrichment programs using centrifuges as the world's energy budget keeps increasing in the future.

and then there is this from the Hill

thehill.com...

DUBAI, United Arab Emirates (AP) — Some 2.5 tons of natural uranium stored in a site in war-torn Libya have gone missing, the United Nations nuclear watchdog said Thursday, raising safety and proliferation concerns.

Natural uranium can’t immediately be used for energy production or bomb fuel, as the enrichment process typically requires the metal to be converted into a gas, then later spun in centrifuges to reach the levels needed.

However, each ton of natural uranium — if obtained by a group with the technological means and resources — can be refined to 5.6 kilograms (12 pounds) of weapons-grade material over time, experts say. That makes finding the missing metal important for nonproliferation experts.

In a statement, the Vienna-based International Atomic Energy Agency said its director-general, Rafael Mariano Grossi, informed member states Wednesday about the missing uranium.

The IAEA statement remained tightlipped though on much of the details.

On Tuesday, “agency safeguards inspectors found that 10 drums containing approximately 2.5 tons of natural uranium in the form of uranium ore concentrate were not present as previously declared at a location in the state of Libya,” the IAEA said. “Further activities will be conducted by the agency to clarify the circumstances of the removal of the nuclear material and its current location.”

additionally...

www.rand.org...

At the final Nuclear Summit of his presidency in Washington, D.C., in 2016, Barack Obama said the risk of ISIS or other extremist groups acquiring nuclear weapons remains “one of the greatest threats to global security.” A number of terrorist groups, including ISIS and al-Qaeda, have expressed explicit intentions to acquire and use nuclear material. However, countries face far more pressing threats than nuclear terrorism and authorities would be better off focusing on insurgents' frequent use of conventional weapons, such as chemicals and bombs.

Nuclear terrorism, defined as “the use or threat to use nuclear material, nuclear fuel, or radioactive products for acts of terrorism,” has elicited global concern and action, as demonstrated by the UN Global Counter-Terrorism Strategy, NATO's Defence Against Terrorism Programme, and the EU Counter-Terrorism Strategy. There is also a large amount of nuclear material present throughout the world; the current global stockpile of highly enriched uranium (HEU) stands at 1.6 million kg. To construct a nuclear bomb, terrorists would need 25 kg of HEU. This, compared to the amount held by states throughout the world, is not an impossible amount for terrorists to obtain. To contextualize this, in 2015 the United States possessed 62,900 tons of recoverable uranium.

Several terrorist groups have declared a desire to acquire nuclear material to construct a “dirty bomb.” In 1998, Osama bin Laden, in a speech entitled “Nuclear Bomb of Islam” stated that, “It is the duty of Muslims to prepare as much force as possible to terrorize the enemies of God.”

In 2014, after capturing the Iraqi city of Mosul, ISIS had access to two caches of Cobalt 60 locked in a storage room at Mosul University. This material has lethal levels of radiation, is used to treat cancer cells, and is the core ingredient of a nuclear bomb. Government officials and nuclear experts speculated that ISIS failed to utilize it, because they could not determine how to access the Cobalt 60 without exposing themselves to deadly radiation. In 2016, after the two ISIS brothers involved in the Brussels bombings, Khalid and Ibrahim el-Bakraoui, were killed and captured, authorities discovered they had been secretly watching a Belgian nuclear scientist who worked at the Tihange Nuclear Power Station with the potential aim of using material from this facility.

Nuclear terrorism is a concern, but the majority of terror attacks are conducted with conventional explosives.

Despite Obama's remarks in 2016 and these two incidents, experts and officials contest the viability of the nuclear terrorism threat. Dr Beyza Unal, a research fellow in nuclear policy at think tank Chatham House, argued there is currently no evidence that terrorist groups could build a nuclear weapon. Similarly, a report by the Council on Foreign Relations in 2006 emphasized how building a nuclear bomb is a difficult task for states, let alone terrorists.This is because of the issues involved in accessing uranium and creating and maintaining it at the correct grade(enriched uranium).

a reply to: putnam6

You mention Doc Brown who ironically rip offed Iranians

in my timeline doc ripped off libyans not iranians.

4:44 mark doc tells him where he got it from



when they find and shoot doc and chase marty

a reply to: BernnieJGato

that's the timeline i remember. wonder who changed history?

originally posted by: putnam6

originally posted by: 1947boomer
a reply to: putnam6

No.

Natural Uranium has no weapons implications.

It has to be enriched to about 6% to be useful in a reactor and about 90% to be useful in a bomb.

DID YOU NOT READ THE ARTICLE

Sounds as if they have the centrifuges as well as design information, regardless 2.5 tons of natural uranium supposedly make 39 lbs of fissionable uranium.

Yea my sources are Wikipedia but the number sounds correct at .72 percent 2.5 tons enriched should yield how much usable uranium?

The Reuters report says that IAEA inspectors "found that 10 drums containing approximately 2.5 tons of natural uranium in the form of UOC (uranium ore concentrate) previously declared by (Libya) ... as being stored at that location were not present at the location,"

Uranium ore concentrate, otherwise known as yellowcake, is actually Uranium Oxide (UO8), which is 53% Uranium by mass (factoring out the bound Oxygen). The special drums that are used to store yellowcake are rated to store no more than 350 kg, each and are typically loaded to more like 250 kg. The actual weight of the contents is stenciled on the outside of the drum. If every drum was loaded to its max 350 kg capacity, the Uranium metal content would be 1,855 kg, not 2,500 kg and the U235 content of that would be about 13.35 kg (≈ 29 lb).

I suspect that IAEA came up with the "approximately 2.5 tons" number as referring to ten of those drums loaded to ≈ 250 kg, each which would come to 2,500 kg of contents (not to the mass of Uranium metal). If that is how the IAEA report should be interpreted, then that would represent about 9.5 kg of U235 (≈ 21 lb).

However, the critical mass of pure U235 is about 52 kg (≈ 114 lb), so the total U235 content of those 10 barrels is somewhere between about 18% to 25% of the amount needed for a bomb, depending on how full you think those drums were.

originally posted by: BernnieJGato
a reply to: putnam6

You mention Doc Brown who ironically rip offed Iranians

in my timeline doc ripped off libyans not iranians.

4:44 mark doc tells him where he got it from

when they find and shoot doc and chase marty

I'd like to blame the Mandela effect, but it's probably long COVID or early dementia, cause I should have remembered that. However, it's still pertinent as it was the Libyans who had the uranium, in the equation.

It would seem it has been located, very quickly almost as if somebody knew where it was...

news.yahoo.com...

Armed forces in eastern Libya say they have found about two and a half tonnes of uranium ore that were reported missing by the International Atomic Energy Agency.

Ten drums containing the ore were found near the border with Chad, said the head of the forces' media unit.

The IAEA said it was "actively working to verify" media reports.

The agency sounded the alarm after a visit by its inspectors earlier this week to the undisclosed site.

The area was not in government-controlled territory.

Uranium is a naturally-occurring element that can have nuclear-related uses once it has been refined, or enriched.

The uranium which went missing could not be made into a nuclear weapon in its current state, but could be used as the raw material for a nuclear weapons programme, experts told the BBC.

In December 2003, under then-military ruler Col Muammar Gaddafi, Libya publicly renounced nuclear, biological and chemical weapons.

But since Col Gaddafi was deposed in 2011, the country has been divided into competing political and military factions.

It is now split between an interim, internationally recognised government in the capital, Tripoli, and another one in the east.

Neither is in control of the south, where the uranium was taken from.

Thursday's statement on finding the drums came from the self-styled Libyan National Army (LNA), the military force that backs the unrecognised eastern Libyan administration.

The LNA is a coalition of military units, local, tribal and Salafi militias, led by Field Marshal Khalifa Haftar, a veteran officer who took part in the coup that brought Col Gaddafi to power in 1969.

The LNA said the containers of uranium had been found about five kilometres (three miles) from where they had been stored in southern Libya.

The IAEA says the site had been difficult to reach in recent times.

Inspectors had wanted to visit the location last year, but the trip had to be postponed because of fighting between rival Libyan militias.

Many foreign governments and groups have been vying for influence in Libya since Nato-backed forces overthrew Col Gaddafi. They include Russia's Wagner Group which backs the LNA.

Scale of Russian mercenary mission in Libya exposed

The oil-rich country is largely lawless and has previously been described as an "arms bazaar".

In 2013, the UN reported that weapons smuggled out of Libya were fuelling conflicts in other parts of Africa and the Middle East.

The uranium that went missing was in a kind of concentrate known as "yellow cake" and "doesn't really have any radiation in its current form", said Scott Roecker from the Nuclear Threat Initiative, a global security organisation working on nuclear issues.

He told the BBC's Newsday programme it could be used as "feedstock" for a nuclear weapons programme.

Mr Roecker also suggested that it could potentially be used for other purposes, such as nuclear energy, but pointed out that countries would normally buy material for that on the open market.

"Perhaps it was stolen by someone who wants to make a profit out of this? There's a lot of scenarios around this," he said