|
No nukes are good nukes for oil sands Alberta premier views nuclear power plants for oil sands developers as ‘least acceptable’ option; Total stifles speculation Gary Park Petroleum News Canadian Contributing Writer
It’s the oil sands option that won’t go away, with reports circulating that Total is ready to use nuclear power rather than natural gas at an oil sands project in Alberta, which it controls by 84 percent.
Just as quickly, the French oil giant snuffed out the reports that were doing the rounds in New York and Toronto, declaring its preference for gas, while Alberta Premier Ralph Klein put nuclear power at the bottom of his list of fuel options.
He said that if environmentalists “go nuts” over the construction of a hydro-electric dam, how would they react to a nuclear plant.
Klein cast his vote in favor of hydro power from the Northwest Territories or Alberta’s vast thermal coal deposits, or the gasification of oil sands byproducts such as coke over the contentious nuclear option.
Christophe Margerie, president of Total’s global exploration and production business, told reporters in Calgary Sept. 22 that his company is not clear “what nuclear can bring to the extraction of bitumen. It’s certainly not something that Total will work on. We’re not experts in the nuclear industry.”
However, Total has not flatly ruled out the use of nuclear energy at the Joslyn project, which it now controls following a successful bidding war to take over Deer Creek Energy for C$1.67 billion.
A company spokesman said that choice is likely to be 15 to 20 years away.
In the meantime, he said it would be foolish not to consider the option.
For now, efforts to find substitutes for costly natural gas are focused on several new innovations. Standing offer from Atomic Energy of Canada But there is still a standing offer from Atomic Energy of Canada Ltd., a federal government agency, to build a nuclear plant for oil sands producers using its Candu reactor, 34 of which are completed or under construction in North America, South America, Europe and Asia.
It commissioned the Canadian Energy Research Institute to undertake a report comparing the costs and benefits of using a new generation of small reactors over making power and steam with natural gas and the advantages of reduced air pollution and greenhouse gas emissions.
The institute, jointly funded by industry and governments, said the “raw economics” supported the atomic agency’s proposal.
“We need to lessen the reliance on natural gas, which is a diminishing energy source,” argued Jerry Hopwood, the agency’s general manager of advanced nuclear applications, noting that 25 percent of the energy content of a barrel of synthetic crude is consumed in the extraction process.
A spokesman for the agency, which has reportedly been involved in backroom talks with industry representatives on a nuclear power plant, said the option remains “part of our long-term strategy.”
But the Alberta Chamber of Resources, whose members include all of the leading oil sands companies, has argued there is more at stake than just cost.
“Nuclear energy still has issues around societal acceptance, particularly in terms of the perception of safety risks and the disposal of nuclear wastes,” the chamber said.
Its report said more work is required “on an economically attractive scale” for oil sands nuclear power and steam plants.
| 