CRITIQUE OF CIA/RR PR-22 (ORR PROJECT 58-51) 'PRODUCTION AND CONSUMPTION OF ALUMINUM IN THE SOVIET BLOC'

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: General CIA Records
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP79-01093A000300050005-6
• Release Decision: RIPPUB
• Original Classification: S
• Document Page Count: 2
• Document Creation Date: November 9, 2016
• Document Release Date: February 17, 1999
• Sequence Number: 5
• Publication Date: February 11, 1953
• Content Type: MEMO

STANDARD FORM NO. 64
A pved For Rele I 1 A000300050005-6
Officefemoranaum . UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT
TO : AD/RR
FROM : OCh/R
DATE: U February 1953
SUBJECT: Critique of CIA/RR PR-22 OR Project 58-51) "Production and Consump-
tion of Aluminum in the Soviet Bloc"
1. The introductory three pages describing six different processes
for producing alumina from Bauxite, all of which rely generally on the
same principle, could be condensed to one paragraph emphasizing, for example,
the Bayer process. Table I on inputs shows five different but similar
versions of inputs for the Bayer process and these likewise could be
condensed. The elementary chemistry (with some more or less minor errors)
could be dispensed with largely.
2. The estimates on production of primary aluminum in the USSR are
stated to be obtained from "PW reports, defector's reports,
Press statements" etc. However, since most of the estimates being the same
(or nearly so) As IM-181 published in 1949, some reference should have been
made to the latter particularly in view of further questions raised below.
Thousands of Metric Tons
1 88
1242 l=0 1_951 1952
PR-22 5 155 170 200 232.5
IM-181 125 145 170 200 225.0
The production for 1955 is also given as 440 thousand metric tons
with the explanation that it is based on the Fourth" Five Year Plan production
by multiplying the 1950 production (170 thousand metric tons) by 2.5. This
fixes the 1950 and 1955 produu..~__donn,,,,in the stated assumptions. The 1951 and
1952 productions must, thereMle/b4eRrbitrarily taken from IM-181 which like-
wise :fi.Xee the 1953 and 1954 estimated production as well as the rate of
increase on a highly arbitrary basis. These matters should have been explained
and alternate courses set forth.
25X1A
3. With regard to the estimates of secondary aluminum comprising new
and old scrap, it is believed that the figure for the new scrap may be estimated
with some degree of accuracy based on production of primary aluminum. It is
highly doubtful if any such relationship exists for old scrap and this figure
must therefore be estimated from a time series or data obtained from direct
sources.
4. The estimates on consumption are admittedly arbitrary and are, there-
fore, open to considerable question. The introduction to this subject in the
report states: "Since such a lack of accurate information was encountered,
the approach was taken of obtaining estimated aluminum consumptions by various
consuming industries, adding a more or less arbitrary factor based on the
assumption that estimates of a particular industry would tend to underestimate
rather than overestimate alumina con[umnt,op1 otalling the results".
"should hAWird d"$ WeIease 1999/09/02 : CIA-RDP79-01093A000300050005-6
 Approved For Rele
00300050005-6
Recasting the distribution pattern shown in the report on a basis
of a total of 100% for industry, transportation and household use by disre-
garding the 43.6% allocated to the military gives the following picture.
Iron and Steel
9.5
Transportation
19.4
Electrical Production and Tool
Industries
32.3
Household Use
19.4
Other
19.4
Inspection of the above figures definitely shows that they are not
related to the US distribution pattern and since the USSR pattern was admittedly
unknown the result Is arbitrary as also admitted. The total consumption of
229.5 thousand metric tons shown for 1952-3 is likewise for the same reason
entirely arbitrary. The military consumption comprising 43.6% of the total
consumption would amount, on this basis, to 100 thousand metric tons. (The
estimates in IM-181 shows about one-fourth of this amount assigned to the
military as estimated by our own services). Converted to an average and
roughly assumed airframe weight would show an unbelievable and disproportion-
ately large number of aircraft produced in the same year. Moreover, the
surplus or reserve and the stockpiling situation shown in the balance state-
ment would likewise be in error to the extent of the error in the above
assumption.
5. Review of the material input side should be made particularly with
respect to caustic soda and carbon both of which appear low based on avail-
able data.
6. Too much emphasis is put upon the illegal. purchases and particularly
in the circuitous conclusionsespeeially in view of the total being estimated
at less than 4% and the admission that even the computation of this figure
may contain a certain amount of duplication.
7. The statement regarding the "extreme venerability" of the aluminum
industry from the view point of supply of electric energy also appears over-
emphasized. While inspection of Table 3 shows a concentration of about
half the production in Economic region VIII, this production in turn is
divided about equally in two different locations and the others are somewhat
scattered. The statement that "aluminum in the USSR is produced by means of
expensive thermally generated electric power at Kamensk - Ural'skiy" obviously
is incomplete. The total electric power consumed by the aluminum industry
is less than 5% of the total and not only are the thermal electric plants
relatively small in comparison with the hydro-electric plants, but are like-
wise somewhat scattered. World War II experience shows that some of these
plants were moved in the overrun areas.
8. The above questions are intended to be illustrative and not exhaustive
as there are obviously more which could be raised on extensive examination..
JCM:1P Approved For
Distribution:
2 - nrh
0003006 IV