Is Nuclear Technology an Appropriate Alternative to Natural Gas for Alberta s Oilsands?

Is Nuclear Technology an Appropriate Alternative to Natural Gas for Alberta s Oilsands? BUEC 663 Capstone Course Professor: Joseph Doucet Brad Wooley April 13 2007

Table of Contents 1 Introduction 2 Current Oil Sands Operations and Natural Gas 2.1 Current Oil Sands Operations 2.2 Natural Gas Demand for Oil Sands Operations 2.3 Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Natural Gas-Fuelled Oil Sands 3 Nuclear Technology and its Application to the Oil Sands 3.1 Nuclear Technology Development in Canada 3.2 The CANDU Reactor 3.3 Application of Nuclear Technology to the Oil Sands 3.3.1 Surface Mining versus In-Situ Application 3.3.2 Potential Use of Nuclear Technology 3.3.2 Nuclear vs. Natural Gas at a Project Level 4 Sustainability of Nuclear Technology for the Oil Sands 4.1 Fuel Supply for Nuclear Technology 4.1.1 Reactor Uranium Requirements 4.1.2 Uranium Supply 4.2 Environmental Implications 4.2.1 GHG Emissions 4.2.2 Water Implications 4.2.3 Waste Management 5 Regulation of Nuclear Technology 6 Conclusion

1 Introduction Canada is the world s seventh largest oil producer at over 2.5 million barrels per day in 2005 and this production is expected to increase to over 4.6 million barrels per day by 2015. Most of Canada s production is from conventional crude, but the vast majority of Canada s reserves are actually in the Alberta oil sands. More than one million barrels per day (bpd) of Canada s oil is from the Alberta oil sands and the Canadian Association for Petroleum Producers (CAPP) expects this production will more than triple by 2015. 1 Extracting and refining oil from the oil sands requires an incredible amount of energy. The primary source of energy for Alberta s oil sands is natural gas. Along with the use of water and reduction of emissions, the use of natural gas in the extraction and processing of oil sands represents one of the greatest challenges facing the oil sands industry today. With increased natural gas prices, decreasing supply and increased demand of natural gas and increased focus on the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions, of which the oil sands industry is a large contributor, the need to find an alternative to natural gas is made all the more pressing. One potential alternative source of energy for the Alberta oil sands industry in nuclear power. Nuclear power generation has never been a part of Alberta s energy industry, but at least one Alberta company has considered building a C$5.5 billion ($4.7 billion) nuclear plant in the oil sands region to generate steam and electricity, which are both key to the process that separates bitumen from the oil sands. 1 Canadian Association for Petroleum Producers. The Canadian Oil Sands, Opportunities and Challenges. February 2006. http://www.capp.ca/raw.asp?x=1&dt=pdf&dn=98992

Energy Alberta Corp. wants to put a Canadian-designed Candu twin-reactor plant in the region by 2016. The steam produced by the facility would be piped to thermal oil sands producers, who could pump it into the ground to liquefy the bitumen. The electricity produced could replace natural gas-fired generation plants, cutting emissions of carbon dioxide. 2 There are many challenges to consider with respect to the introduction of nuclear power generation in Alberta. In general, these challenges include but are not limited to; technology development, public and government resistance to nuclear power in Alberta and significant environmental concerns, including the long-term storage of radioactive waste and impact to water resources in Alberta. The intent of this paper is to determine whether or not nuclear energy is a viable option for Alberta s oil sands industry. The paper will provide a brief overview of the different types of oil sands operations and their current demand for natural gas as the primary energy supply. Current nuclear power generation technologies and potential application to the oil sands industry will be discussed. In terms of sustainability of nuclear power in Alberta, the supply of uranium for nuclear power generation and the potential environmental implications will also be considered. Finally, a brief overview of regulation of nuclear power in Canada and a conclusion will be provided. 2 Canada wary of nuclear power for oil sands. March-2007. http://ca.today.reuters.com/news

2 Current Oil Sands Operations and Natural Gas 2.1 Current Oil Sands Operations There are two types of oil-sands operations in Alberta. The more shallow deposits are harvested in a strip-mining-style, where earth is peeled back and massive trucks and shovels remove the product. It is then super-heated with water or steam, and the tar-like bitumen is removed. Right now mining is the largest component, more than 60 percent of production of oil sands. More than 80 percent of global reserves are too deep for conventional surface mining operations. Two primary technologies -- called "in situ" technologies have been developed for deep extraction. Cyclic Steam Stimulation (CSS) uses high-pressure steam delivered through pipes to heat up the heavy bitumen, which is brought to the surface. For Steam Assisted Gravity Drainage, a method gaining in popularity, two parallel pipes are drilled vertically and then jut in a 90-degree angle. The top pipe injects steam, and the one below collects the bitumen and draws it to the surface. Both in situ and surface mining bitumen needs further intensive processing and upgrading so that it is capable of being refined or sent away in a pipeline. 2.2 Natural Gas Demand for Oil Sands Operations Natural gas-fired facilities generate steam and provide process heat for the bitumen recovery, extraction and upgrading of Alberta s oil sands. Further, natural gas provides a source of hydrogen used in hydroprocessing and hydrocracking as part of the

upgrading process. Although there is considerable variation between individual projects, it takes up to 1000 cubic feet of natural gas to produce one barrel of bitumen from in situ recovery. The demand for mining recovery is a more modest 250 cubic feet per barrel (see Table 1.0 below). Table 2.0 Natural Gas Requirements for Alberta Oil Sands (Cubic feet per barrel of synthetic crude) In 2004, the Alberta Chamber of Resources stated that in terms of natural gas use by the oil sands industry in Alberta the business as usual case is clearly unsustainable and uneconomical. 3 An extrapolation of natural gas usage (demand) by oil sands development to 2030, based on 2004 project natural gas rates, would rise from 10% of the total natural gas supply in 2010 to an unthinkable 60% or more by 2030.. 2.3 Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Natural Gas-Fuelled Oil Sands Air emissions from natural gas powered oil sands operations include carbon dioxide (CO2), sulphur dioxide (SO2) nitrogen oxides (NOx), hydrogen sulphide (H2S), carbon monoxide (CO), methane and other volatile organic compounds, ozone and particular matter. The most critical air emissions issue facing the industry today is the 3 Alberta Chamber of Resources. Oil Sands Technology Roadmap. 2004. http://www.acr-alberta.com/ostr.htm

implementation of the Kyoto Protocol and its potential impact on climate change. The Kyoto Protocol specifically targets CO2 Equivalent (CO2E) emissions. The CO2E emissions as a result of oil sands development are expected to exceed the 2012 Kyoto Target without significant reductions in CO2E emissions intensity. 4 The impact of the oil sands industry could be even larger if residues or coal are used as an alternative to natural gas for energy and hydrogen (see Figure 2.1 below). Figure 2.1: Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Oil Sands Development The emissions from mining-based recovery is estimated at 40 kg CO2E per barrel with natural gas feed and In-Situ-based recovery using natural gas as a fuel will emit approximately 60 kg CO2E per barrel. Upgrading the bitumen to synthetic crude oil using hydrogen from natural gas emits 70 kg CO2E per barrel. 5 4 Alberta Chamber of Resources. Oil Sands Technology Roadmap. 2004. http://www.acr-alberta.com/ostr.htm 5 A Crash Program Scenario for the Canadian Oil Sands Industry. Kjell Aleklett. June-2006. http://www.peakoil.net/uhdsg/20060608eposarticlepdf.pdf

3 Nuclear Technology and its Application to the Oil Sands 3.1 Nuclear Technology Development in Canada The Nuclear industry in Canada dates back to 1942 when a joint British-Canadian laboratory was set up in Montreal, under the administration of thenational Research Council of Canada, to develop a design for a heavy-water nuclear reactor. This reactor was called National Research Experimental and would be the most powerful research reactor in the world when completed. In 1944, approval was given to proceed with the construction of the smaller ZEEP (Zero Energy Experimental Pile) test reactor at Chalk River, Ontario and in Sept-1945, the 10 Watt ZEEP successfully achieved the first selfsustained nuclear reaction outside the United States. ZEEP operated for 25 years as a key research facility. 6 In 1952, the Canadian Government formed Atomic Energy of Canada Ltd. (AECL), a Crown corporation with the mandate to develop peaceful uses of nuclear energy. In 1954, a partnership was formed between AECL, Ontarion Hydro and Canadian General Electric to build Canada's first nuclear power plant, called the Nuclear Power Demonstration (NPD). The 20 MWe NPD started supplying Canada s first nuclear generated electricity in 1962 and successfully demonstrated the unique concepts of onpower refuelling using natural uranium fuel, and heavy water moderator and coolant. These features formed the basis of a successful fleet of CANDU power reactors. CANDU is an acronym for CANada Deuterium Uranium built and operated in Canada and elsewhere. 7 6 CANDU Owners Group. http://www.candu.org/candu_reactors.html 7 AECL. http://www.aecl.ca/about.htm

3.2 The CANDU Reactor There are 29 CANDU reactors in use around the world, and a further 11 CANDU- Derivatives in use in India. The reactors in India were developed from the CANDU design after India detonated a nuclear bomb and Canada stopped nuclear dealings with India. 8 A total of 18 CANDU reactors are operating in Canada and an additional two are in the process of being refurbished. The province of Ontario dominates Canada s nuclear industry, containing most of the country s nuclear power generating capacity. Ontario has 16 operating reactors providing about 50% of the province s electricity. The provinces of Quebec and New Brunswick each have a one reactor. Overall, nuclear power provides about 15% of Canada s electricity. The CANDU designer is AECL (Atomic Energy of Canada Limited).. Over 150 private companies in Canada supply components for the CANDU system (AECL takes the lead role in developing the markets and projects, while drawing in Canadian and offshore partners. In general, AECL acts as project integrator; most of the revenues flow to private industry. The CANDU reactor uses natural uranium fuel and heavy water (D2O) as both moderator and coolant. In the CANDU design, the heat of fission is transferred, via a primary water coolant, to a secondary water system. The two water systems "meet" in a bank of steam generators, where the heat from the first system causes the second system (at lower pressure) to boil. This steam is then dried and passed to a series of highpressure and low-pressure steam turbines. The turbines are connected in series to an 8 Wikipedia. CANDU Reactor. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/candu_reactor

electrical generator. The primary water system, which becomes radioactive over time, does not leave the reactor's containment building. It is a highly complex system from start to finish, involving a series of energy transformations with associated efficiencies. The potential energy of nuclear structure is converted first to heat via the fission process, then steam pressure, kinetic energy (of the turbine and generator), and ultimately to electrical energy if the reactor is required for electricity.. 9 Figure 3.1 Schematic of the CANDU Reactor All CANDU reactors follow the same basic design, although variations can be found in most units. Power output in current operating units ranges from 125 MWe up to over 900 MWe. There are several advanced-candu products under development by AECL. The CANDU-ACR (Advanced CANDU Reactor) is the next generation of CANDU reactors, currently being brought to market by AECL. The CANDU-ACR retains the fundamental features of CANDU design, while optimizing others to achieve higher efficiency and lower capital cost. 9 CANDU Nuclear Power Technology. http://www.nuclearfaq.ca/cnf_sectiona.htm#a

3.3 Application of Nuclear Technology to the Oil Sands 3.3.1 Surface Mining versus In-Situ Application The primary objectives of nuclear technology development in Alberta for the oil sands industry would be to produce steam for the recovery process, hydrogen for the upgrading process and electricity to meet increased demand. The use of nuclear technology would significantly reduce the demand for natural gas, which would reduce CO2E emissions from oil sands operations and decrease the industries sensitivity to fluctuating natural gas prices. The volume of steam and natural gas required per barrel of bitumen recovered from SAGD operations (1000 mcf NG) are approximately four times the volume required for surface mining operations (250 mcf NG). 10 For this reason, the greatest potential for nuclear technology development in the Alberta oil sands is to supply steam for the steamintensive SAGD operations. In-Situ operations (primarily SAGD) currently provide approximately 43% of total oil sands production and are expected to contribute almost 50% of oil sands production by 2015 11. With future technology development, the contribution of bitumen recovered from in-situ operations relative to the overall recovery of bitumen in Alberta could increase significantly. 10 Alberta Chamber of Resources. Oil Sands Technology Roadmap. 2004. http://www.acr-alberta.com/ostr.htm 11 Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers. www.capp.ca

3.3.2 Potential Use of Nuclear Technology In 2005, a company called Energy Alberta Corporation was formed with the intent of using nuclear power to provide steam, electricity and hydrogen to support oil sands growth in Alberta. In August of 2006, the company entered into an exclusivity agreement with AECL to market own and operate a CANDU reactor 12. The strategic approach of the company is four-pronged and intends to use nuclear technology for the following; Provide steam supply for the SAGD process in the oil sands Note: A significant challenge with respect to the supply of steam for SAGD is the fact that highpressure steam can only be economically transported a distance of 15-km, so a nuclear steam plant must be located within a radius of 15 km of large in-situ oil sands deposits. Generate electricity to support the extraction process of the oil sands Generate hydrogen and electricity for upgrading crude bitumen Supply electricity for Alberta utilities Additional opportunities for the use of nuclear technology include the use of oxygen, which is a byproduct of hydrogen produced from water, to produce liquid transport fuels from natural gas or as a means of producing CO2 rich exhaust from combustion processes. CO2 can be used to enhance oil recovery while simultaneously sequestered underground. Zirconium production from the zircon concentrated in the waste may also be feasible. 13 12 Nuclear s New Frontiers and the Canadian Oil Sands. March 1 2007. Wayne Henuset. http://www.cna.ca/seminar2007/docs/presentation_henuset.pdf 13 Nuclear Energy in Industry: Application to the Oil Industry. http://www.cns-snc.ca/events/cceo/nuclearenergyindustry.pdf

3.3.2 Nuclear vs. Natural Gas at a Project Level In 2003, Atomic Energy of Canada Limited (AECL) contracted the Canadian Energy Research Institute (CERI) to compare the economics of nuclear and gas-fired options to supply steam to an oil sands reservoir using SAGD technology. 14 The comparison was made between an ACR-700 (Advanced CANDU Reactor), with a gross output of 728 MWe and a typical natural gas-fired facility. Each facility produced enough steam to supply a 157 barrel per day SAGD operation and approximately 100 MW of electricity. The capital requirement for the nuclear facility ($1400M) was significantly higher than the natural gas-fired facility ($230M), but the high capital cost of the nuclear facility was significantly offset by the lower cost of fuel for the nuclear facility. A summary of the annual cost per tonne of steam supplied is outlined in Table 3.1. The project comparison, which was completed in 2002, assumed a natural gas price of C$4.25/GJ. The current forecast for the price of natural gas in 2007/2008 is between C$6.00/GJ and C$8.00/GJ. 15 Table 3.1: Steam Supply Costs ($/t) 14 Potential for Nuclear Energy in Alberta s Oil Sands. 2003. Robert Dunbar. http://www.strategywest.com/downloads/choa20031118.pdf 15 Canadian Natural Gas Outlook. November 2006. Natural Resources Canada. http://www2.nrcan.gc.ca/es/erb/cmfiles/winter_outlook_2006_english209oeq-06112006-4763.pdf

The economics of the project comparison clearly identified the fact that the steam supply costs from a nuclear facility are very sensitive to the capital cost of the project and the costs associated with the natural gas-fired facility are very sensitive to the price of natural gas. With respect to the price of natural gas, the break-even point was approximately C$4.00/GJ. If natural gas prices were higher than C$4.00/GJ, the nuclear facility would supply steam to the SAGD operation at a lower cost per tonne of steam (see Figure 3.2). 16 Figure 3.2: Natural Gas Price Sensitivity The study also took into consideration the amount of GHG emissions for each facility. The natural gas-fired facility produced 3Mt of GHG per year and the nuclear facility produced no GHG. This difference highlighted the gas-fired facility s potential sensitivity to future Kyoto compliance costs, which would further increase the difference between the steam supply costs, in support of the nuclear facility. 16 Potential for Nuclear Energy in Alberta s Oil Sands. 2003. Robert Dunbar. http://www.strategywest.com/downloads/choa20031118.pdf

4 Sustainability of Nuclear Technology for the Oil Sands 4.1 Fuel Supply for Nuclear Technology 4.1.1 Reactor Uranium Requirements Canada s 18 operating power reactors, with combined capacity of some 12.5 GWe, require about 2000 tonnes of uranium (tu) from mines each year 17. This is equivalent to approximately 160 tu per GWe. While this capacity is being run more productively, with higher capacity factors and reactor power levels, the uranium fuel requirement is increasing but not necessarily at the same rate. The factors increasing fuel demand are offset by a trend for higher burn up of fuel and other efficiencies, so demand is relatively steady. Reducing the tails assay in enrichment reduces the amount of natural uranium required for a given amount of fuel and reprocessing of spent fuel from conventional light water reactors also utilizes present resources more efficiently, by a factor of about 1.3 overall. 4.1.2 Uranium Supply Canada s known recoverable uranium resources are 444,000 tu, which is the equivalent of 9% of the world s total. Australia and Kazakhstan are the only two countries in the world with more recoverable uranium, accounting for 24% and 17% respectively. 18 Canada produces approximately one third of the world s uranium mine output and production is expected to increase further as new mines come into production. In 2006, 9863 tu of uranium were produced from Saskatchewan production centers and 17 Natural Resources Canada. 2005. Canada s Uranium Industry. http://www2.nrcan.gc.ca/es/erb/erb/english/view.asp?x=497&oid=1188 18 Supply of Uranium. World Nuclear Association. http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf75.html

approximately 1400 tu was used for domestic reactors, the remaining uranium was exported from Canada around the world. To put this in perspective in terms of nuclear technology for the oil sands, if two ACR-700 reactors, equivalent to ~1.4 GWe, were constructed and in operation in Alberta, using 160 tu per GW, the use of uranium for domestic reactors in Canada would increase from 1400 tu to approximately 1624 tu or slightly over 15%. The increased tonnes mined to support two ACR-700 reactors would be equivalent to approximately 2% of total Uranium production in Canada. Assuming production of uranium from northern Saskatchewan remains relatively constant and ignoring new discoveries from exploration, the currently proven and recoverable reserves will last approximately 40 years. Canada has almost completed a transition from second-generation uranium mines (started 1975-83) to new high-grade mines, all in northern Saskatchewan. The Saskatchewan government actively encourages and supports uranium mining in the province where it is found to be environmentally acceptable. There are three uranium mines operating in northern Saskatchewan, the largest producer being the McArthur River Mine, which produced 8492 tu in 2006. 19 There are further new uranium projects coming into production in the next few years and significant uranium exploration is concentrated in northern Saskatchewan, but there are also prospects in Labrador and the Northwest Territories. 19 Supply of Uranium. World Nuclear Association. http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf75.html

4.2 Environmental Implications 4.2.1 GHG Emissions Generation of steam and electricity with nuclear technology for the oil sands would produce significantly less CO2 emissions than a natural gas-fired facility. Nuclear power plants do not produce emissions when they are generating electricity, but certain processes used to create and fuels the plants do. These include emissions associated with construction of the plant, mining and processing of the uranium to fuel the plant, routine operation of the plant, the disposal of used fuel and other waste by-products, and the decommissioning of the plant. 20 The most significant contributors to GHG emissions throughout the entire lifecycle of steam and electricity generation from nuclear technology are the processes involved with the mining and fabrication of the uranium. The Pembina Institute estimates total GHG emissions from uranium mining and refining activities in Canada to be between 240,000 and 366,000 tonnes of CO2 per year. 21 In terms of electricity production, the emissions produced from nuclear technology throughout the entire life-cycle of the process (including uranium mining and refining activities), including CO2 emissions, is significantly less than most other electricity production technologies. (See Table 4.1) 20 Nuclear Energy Institute. Life Cycle emissions analysis. http://www.nei.org/index.asp?catnum=2&catid=260 21 The Pembina Institute. Nuclear Power in Canada: Key Environmental Impacts http://pembina.org/pdf/publications/nuclear_backgrounder.pdf

Table 4.1: Emissions Produced by 1 kwh of Electricity Based on Life-Cycle Analysis Generation option Greenhouse gas emissions gram equiv CO 2 /kwh SO 2 emissions milligram/kwh NO x emissions milligram/kwh NMVOC milligram/kwh Particulate matter milligram/kwh Hydropower 2-48 5-60 3-42 0 5 Coal - modern 790-1182 700-32321+ 700-5273+ 18-29 30-663+ plant Nuclear 2-59 3-50 2-100 0 2 Natural gas 389-511 4-15000+[1] 13+-1500 72-164 1-10+ (combined cycle) Biomass 15-101 12-140 701-1950 0 217-320 forestry waste combustion Wind 7-124 21-87 14-50 0 5-35 Solar photovoltaic 13-731 24-490 16-340 70 12-190 4.2.2 Water Implications The complete process of producing steam and electricity for the oil sands using nuclear technology can have significant impacts on water quality and conservation. With respect to the uranium mining operations, the groundwater can be contaminated with radio-nuclides, heavy metals and other contaminants, particularly in the large tailings management facilities required to store the tailings from the mining operation. Uranium mining and milling facility surface water discharges have also resulted in the contamination of the receiving environment with radio-nuclides and heavy metals. In 2006, Environment Canada completed an ecological science assessment of releases of radio-nuclides from nuclear facilities and concluded that releases of uranium and uranium compounds contained in the effluent from the uranium mines and mills are entering the environment 22 in quantities or concentrations that may have a harmful effect on the environment and its biological diversity. 22 Environment Canada Website. Existing substances Evaluation. 2006. http://www.ec.gc.ca/substances/ese/eng/psap/final/radionuclides.cfm

Nuclear power is also a major consumer of water. Uranium mining operations involve extensive dewatering (groundwater), in the range of 16-17 billion litres per year, which may have implications on the surrounding groundwater and surface water storage and flows. The generating facilities also require large amounts of cooling water. Two nuclear facilities in Ontario are estimated to use approximately 8.9 trillion litres of water for cooling purposes per year. 23 4.2.3 Waste Management Waste management is the largest environmental challenge for the nuclear industry. Part of the challenge is the management of the public s perception of radioactive waste and how it is managed. All parts of the nuclear fuel cycle produce some level of radioactive waste. There are several different types of radioactive wastes 24 ; Mine Tailings - Traditional uranium mining generates fine, sandy tailings, which contain virtually all of the naturally occurring radioactive elements found in uranium ore. An estimated 575,000 tonnes of tailings per year can be attributed to uranium production. Uranium tailings are acidic and potentially acid generating and contain a range of lonlived radio-nuclides, heavy metals and other contaminants. Low-Level Wastes (LLW) Low-level wastes contain very small amounts of short-lived radioactivity. It does not require shielding during handling and transport and is suitable for shallow land burial. Approximately 6,000 cubic metres of lower level radioactive wastes are generated each year in Ontario as a result of nuclear power plant operations, maintenance and refurbishment. 23 The Pembina Institute. Nuclear Power in Canada: Key Environmental Impacts http://pembina.org/pdf/publications/nuclear_backgrounder.pdf 24 World Nuclear Association. Waste Management in the Nuclear Cycle. http://www.worldnuclear.org/info/inf04.html

Intermediate-Level Waste (ILW) Intermediate-level waste contains higher amounts of radioactivity and requires shielding. It typically comprises resins, chemical sludges and metal fuel cladding, as well as contaminated materials from reactor decommissioning activities. High-Level Wastes (HLW) High-level wastes arise from the use of uranium fuel in a nuclear reactor. It contains the fission and transuric elements generated in the reactor core. It is highly radioactive and hot, so it requires cooling and shielding. Used fuel from a reactor gives rise to HLW, which may be either the used fuel itself in fuel rods or the principle waste arising from reprocessing of the fuel. Both need to be isolated, handled and stored safely for very long-term periods. Approximately 85,000 waste fuel bundles are generated by Canadian nuclear reactors each year. 25 High-level wastes are stable in a water environment, so interim storage is a fairly straight-forward process. Used fuel from each reactor is stored on-site in deep water pools used for cooling and shielding. Once a few years have passed, the used fuel may be moved to above-ground dry storage in concrete canisters, with passive cooling provided by air flow. 26 Long-term storage of high-level radioactive waste is more of a challenge and Canada has put significant research and development into long-term storage technology. Deep Geological Disposal (DGD) is the most preferred option in the international nuclear industry and the focus of most research and development in Canada. 25 The Pembina Institute. Nuclear Power in Canada: Key Environmental Impacts http://pembina.org/pdf/publications/nuclear_backgrounder.pdf 26 Canadian Nuclear FAQ. http://www.nuclearfaq.ca/cnf_sectione.htm

The government of Canada is responsible for ensuring the long-term management and disposal of radioactive waste is carried out in a safe, cost-effective and integrated manner. Canada s approach to radioactive waste management is that the producers and owners of radioactive waste are responsible for the funding, organization, management and operation of disposal and other facilities required for their wastes. 5 Regulation of Nuclear Technology The Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission (CNSC) is the independent federal nuclear regulator in Canada under Natural Resources Canada. It was established under the Nuclear Safety and Control Act (NSCA), which has been in effect since May-2000. The CNSC was formerly known as the Atomic Energy Control Board (AECB), under the Atomic Energy Control Act of 1946. 27 The CNSC regulations apply to power and research reactors, nuclear research facilities, uranium mines and mills, uranium refining and conversion facilities, nuclear fuel fabrication facilities, heavy water production plants, radioisotope production and processing facilities, particle accelerators, radioactive waste management facilities, packaging and transportation of radioactive substances, and any handling and storage of radioactive substances. Licenses are granted by the CNSC for all aspects of operation involving the above facilities and activities. Licensees are required to prove to the CNSC that their facility or activity is acceptably safe, under the requirements of the NSCA, before a license is granted or renewed. The approach to safety assumes that nothing is 100% risk-free, but 27 Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission. http://www.cnsc-ccsn.gc.ca/eng/

that risk can be minimized through multiple layers of verifiable protection. This approach includes external risks from both natural and man-made causes. For example, the CNSC specifies the levels and type of security that are required at nuclear facilities. In Canada nuclear power plants are defined as "Class I" nuclear facilities under the NSCA, and require CNSC licenses prior to each of the five phases of a nuclear plant's lifecycle: site preparation, plant construction, plant operation, site decommissioning, and site abandonment. The process followed at each of these licensing steps includes a public hearing with opportunity for public input. 28 In addition, the licensing process for a nuclear power plant in Canada proceeds only after approval is granted through the federal Environmental Assessment (EA) process under the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act (CEAA), involving the convening of an EA Panel and further public hearings. The EA process identifies whether a specific project is likely to cause significant environmental effects, determines whether potentially significant adverse effects are identified and mitigates to the extent possible. 28 Canadian Nuclear FAQ. http://www.nuclearfaq.ca/

6 Conclusion The use of natural-gas fired facilities for steam, electricity and hydrogen production to support oil sands development in Alberta is not sustainable given the high expected growth of production from the oil sands. The forecasted demand of natural gas is expected to exceed supply in the long-term and the GHG emissions associated with natural gas operations are not aligned with Canada s commitment to the Kyoto Protocol. Canada s CANDU nuclear technology is proven around the world and could provide a source of steam, electricity and hydrogen for future SAGD operations in Alberta with significantly less GHG emissions than natural gas fuelled operations. SAGD is a developing industry and the opportunity for incorporating nuclear technology into the design of the SAGD process is available today. The uranium supply to support nuclear technology development and operations in Alberta is readily available in Saskatchewan, which has the third largest proven reserves in the world. However, long-term supply and distribution of uranium would need to be considered because uranium reserves may still be limited relative to the forecasted longterm production of oil from the oil sands. If uranium demand increased significantly in order to support oil sands development in Alberta, one option to consider may be to export less than the current 80% of total uranium mined being exported from Canada today. The environmental impacts associated with nuclear technology development are significant. The environmental implications of uranium mining operations and the longterm storage of radioactive wastes are the two most significant challenges to the nuclear industry.

Nuclear technology is fairly well regulated in Canada, although the process of introducing nuclear technology to the oil sands in Alberta would very likely take at least several years in terms of the application process. The potential advantages of using nuclear technology to support oil sands development are significant. The federal and provincial governments (Alberta and Saskatchewan) should work with both the oil sands industry and the nuclear industry (including uranium mining) to advance the research and development in order to completely understand the environmental and societal impacts of nuclear technology in Alberta.

Cover Page Pictures http://www.bevex.ch/bilder/bevex-nuclear-power-plant.jpg http://www.woodbuffalo.ab.ca/visitors/attractions/oil_sands.asp Tables and Figures Table 2.0 Alberta Chamber of Resources. Oil Sands Technology Roadmap. 2004. http://www.acr-alberta.com/ostr.htm Table 3.1 Table 4.1 Potential for Nuclear Energy in Alberta s Oil Sands. 2003. Robert Dunbar. http://www.strategywest.com/downloads/choa20031118.pdf Nuclear Energy Institute. Life Cycle emissions analysis. http://www.nei.org/index.asp?catnum=2&catid=260 Figure 2.0 Alberta Chamber of Resources. Oil Sands Technology Roadmap. 2004. http://www.acr-alberta.com/ostr.htm Figure 3.1 Figure 3.2 Wikipedia Commons. http://commons.wikimedia.org Potential for Nuclear Energy in Alberta s Oil Sands. 2003. Robert Dunbar. http://www.strategywest.com/downloads/choa20031118.pdf