free html hit counter Peak Oil Debunked: 126. NUKE THE TAR SANDS 2

Sunday, October 09, 2005


In #19 NUKE THE TARSANDS, I described the old idea of detonating a nuclear device to melt the oil out of the oil sands in Alberta. There's another way to achieve the same end: build a nuclear reactor on site, and use it to replace natural gas as the heat source.

This is an old idea, and Total revived it a couple of weeks ago.
Total May Use Atomic Power At Oil-Sand Project (WSJ, behind subscription wall)
PARIS -- French oil giant Total SA, amid rising oil and natural-gas prices, is considering building a nuclear power plant to extract ultraheavy oil from the vast oil-sand fields of western Canada.

This comes as oil prices -- driven even higher by Hurricane Katrina and now the threat of Hurricane Rita -- are removing lingering doubts about the long-term profitability of extracting the molasseslike form of oil from sand, despite the fact that the output is much more expensive to produce and to upgrade than is conventional crude.

At the same time, prices of natural gas -- which oil-sands producers have relied on to produce the steam and electricity needed to push the viscous oil out of the ground -- have risen 45% in the past year. That is prompting Total, which holds permits on large fields in Alberta that contain oil sands, to consider building its own nuclear plant and using the energy produced to get the job done.Source
Natural gas prices are skyrocketing, and the economic advantages of this approach are getting too big to ignore:
The gas which does the heating can account for 60% of operating costs, so rising gas prices can devastate the economics of the projects.

Gas in Canada could cost $10 per million cubic feet (mcf) by the end of the decade; a study by Atomic Energy of Canada concluded that nuclear power was cheaper when natural gas cost just $4.5 per mcf. That means a $1bn (£560m, E820m) annual saving for the main oil sands operators Suncor, Nexen, ExxonMobil, Shell and Total.Source
With that kind of money at stake, the big players are well aware of it:
CALGARY, OTTAWA -- Total SA's murmurings about using nuclear power to fuel oil sands production in Alberta have opened debate on a topic many big-name players in the industry have been mulling quietly for several years.

While there already was a public study in 2003 that indicated nuclear power made economic sense for the Fort McMurray region, the controversial subject has mostly been discussed behind closed doors.(Source: Globe and Mail (9/23/2005)
It's not clear whether this technique will actually be used. The only other option is to generate heat by burning the oil itself, and that would be a carbon emission nightmare. One thing is clear, however: the oil sands will be produced. It's just a question of whether we're going to do it the dirty way (and waste vast amounts of the oil in the process); or do it the clean way with nuclear. Environmentalists need to get their head around that. The option where we don't produce the oil sands is a utopian dream. It's not on the table.
"There is no environmental minister on earth who can stop the oil from coming out of the sand, because the money is too big," said Canada's environment minister, Stéphane Dion, in an interview.Source


At Sunday, October 9, 2005 at 2:22:00 PM PDT, Blogger El Gato con Bolas said...

Fernando said...

Nuclear energy solves the heating but I've read somewhere that the problem would be the hydrogen needed for bitumen upgrading.

At Sunday, October 9, 2005 at 6:11:00 PM PDT, Blogger JD said...

Why not use the water from the Athabasca river, and hydrolyze it with nuclear?

At Sunday, October 9, 2005 at 9:07:00 PM PDT, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I know it's not all that relevant given how much more useful & portable oil is than uranium, but just out of curiosity, what's the EROEI? And how big of a plant would be necessary?

At Monday, October 10, 2005 at 12:18:00 AM PDT, Anonymous Anonymous said...

The more I learn about tar sands the more pessimistic i become. I simply don't see this work without a steady supply of natural gas.

It would make more sense to use nuclear energy to hydrolyze vater to be used in fuel cell driven cars.

At Monday, October 10, 2005 at 1:52:00 AM PDT, Blogger JD said...

It would make even more sense to change land planning to eliminate the need for cars. Then we can save the tar sands for what we really need it for: a long-term source of feedstock.

At Monday, October 10, 2005 at 10:33:00 PM PDT, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Pessimistic about the tar sands? The costs per barrel of oil has fallen every year since production started despite rising natural gas costs. A nuclear reactor will be used to inject steam into the earth to make it easier to get the oil out. This would clearly raise the EROEI for the tar sands, and make a huge profit for Total in a very short time, as everyone would be leasing power from them to wean themselves off gas. God knows the French can't do much, but they can make good nuclear power plants. Whether or not you think the tar sands are an environmental catastrophe (they are) you can't deny that they are profitable, and becoming more so. Be very afraid when our lawmakers start talking about using similar technologies to go after Colorado oil shale.

At Monday, July 24, 2006 at 1:48:00 AM PDT, Blogger RJB said...

and global warming is a left-wing conspiracy... meow

At Thursday, January 24, 2008 at 1:36:00 PM PST, Anonymous Anonymous said...

the tar sands are killing Albertans.


Post a Comment

<< Home