NUCLEAR POWER for the ARCTIC SHELF

1. NUCLEAR POWER for the ARCTIC SHELF Evgeny Velikhov Vyacheslav Kuznetsov National Research Centre “Kurchatov Institute” 1, Kurchatov Sq., Moscow, 123182 Russia E-mail: kuznets@kiae.ru Arctic Energy Summit October 8 – 11, 2013, Akureyri, Iceland

2. Expert evaluation of energy supplies to offshore oil/gas production in the ice conditions of the Arctic shelf • Development of evaluation approaches • Comparison of nuclear and alternative supply sources from the viewpoint of their environmental impacts, risks and the current status of relevant technologies • Substantiation of the nuclear energy supply as the best fit to the volume of oil and gas production in the ice conditions of the Arctic shelf

3. Oil and gas fields on the Arctic shelf of Russia

4. Marine ice resistant platform on the Prirazlomnoye oil field in the Barents sea(summer)

5. General assessment of energy supplies (1/4) • Reserves of hydrocarbons on the Russian shelf are estimated as 100 Btoe total, 80% of which is gas. The Barents Sea, the Pechora Sea and the Kara Sea hold the biggest reserves • Deployment of facilities to produce 100 million tons of oil and 200 billion m3 of natural gas in a year is expected on the Arctic shelf by 2030 • Estimated production lifetime of the Russian Arctic shelf deposits makes 100 years for gas and 50 years for oil

6. General assessment of energy supply (2/4) Which energy will be required to develop Arctic shelf?

7. General assessment of energy supplies (3/4) • Estimations of required energy supply have been fulfilled on the data base of Prirazlomnoye and Shtokmanovskoye Projects • Energy consumption by oil/gas technologies:  oil extraction 70 kWh/t  gas extraction 10 kWh/1000 m3  gas compression 30 ÷ 70 kWh/1000 m3  gas liquefaction230 kWh/1000 m3 • Energy Installed capacity required: a) on oil platforms 0,8 GW(e) b) on gas platforms – for gas extraction 0,2 GW(e) c) on gas platforms – for main gas compression (total flow, full lifecycle) 0,7 GW(e) d) on gas platforms – for extra gas compression (total flow, half of the lifecycle) 1,6 MW(e) i) for gas liquefaction (50% of extracted amount, full lifecycle), 2,6 MW(e) TOTAL (estimated, on the average) 5,1 MW(e)

8. General assessment of energy supplies (4/4) • 40% of the (a, b, c, d) capacities can be installed onshore, with energy to be supplied to offshore production facilities via a submarine cable • Today there are proven industrial capabilities to produce submarine DC transmission cables (power – up to 250 MW, distance – up to 220 km) •  60% of required capacities should be implemented in an autonomous underwater/under-ice form to enable energy supplies to offshore production fields situated 300 or more km from shore

9. Power facility requirements • Capacities of power facilities for offshore oil/gas production:  5 ÷ 10 MWe – balance-of-plant  30 ÷ 40 MWe – extraction from boreholes  250 ÷ 300 MWe – gas compression  300 ÷600 MWe – gas liquefaction • Duration of Production cycle exploration – up to several months  development – up to several dozens years  compression and transport - 50÷100 years • Improved reliability • Capability of autonomous, efficient and safe offshore operation – including underwater/under-ice conditions – at distances of 1000+ km from shore • Minimal servicing (up to complete self-reliance) • Minimal impact on natural environment • Acceptable economic parameters

10. Comparison of conditions for deployment of oil and gas technologies for Arctic shelf and ice-free seas • The planned scope of marine oil and gas extraction on the Arctic shelf is comparable with that existing in ice-free seas • Impact of polar regions on the planet’s climate • Lower temperatures and slower recovery from environmental impacts • Presence of steady and season ices, drifting ices and icebergs • Need of innovative technologies and international cooperation

11. Ecology (1/3)Nuclear power • 50-years using of Nuclear Power in the Arctic Ocean had no notable environmental impact – even with account of accidents at the very beginning of nuclear history of the Arctic • The proposal to use small nuclear power plants (SNPPs) to develop hydrocarbon resources of the Arctic shelf is based on 6000 reactor-years of Russian experience with development and operation of ship nuclear power facilities. Operation conditions for these SNPPs would be the closest possible to reference ones • Nuclear power supplies on the Arctic shelf would be based on the available nuclear infrastructure of the Russian fleet • Nuclear power supplies for hydrocarbons production on the Arctic shelf would yield no emissions in the atmosphere • Thermal impact of NP on the Arctic Ocean waters would be local and negligible compared with permanent system factors and ocean currents • Nuclear power supplies would reduce the probability of ice oil spills, which cannot be efficiently liquidated by available technologies

12. Ecology (2/3)Fossil power • Offshore oil production and transportation extends over 100 years back • Today oil contamination of the Arctic Ocean waters reaches the North Pole and in some places exceeds already the admissible limits • Negative impact of carcinogens and other harmful substances on some Arctic species was registered • For the declared scope of production, and general capacity of energy sources ~ 5 GWt(el) use of gas as fuel for offshore oil/gas facilities in the Arctic would yield annual air emissions of: • CO2 – at least 8 million tons/year NOx – at least 5 thousand tons/year CO – at least 1,3 thousand tons/year • In case of diesel fuel, air emissions would be even less acceptable in terms of both their amount and content (SO2, soot and others)

13. Ecology (3/3) • Nuclear power seems to be the environmentally-safest way to supply energy to offshore oil/gas production facilities on the Arctic shelf • At distances over 300 ÷500 km from the shore, using nuclear power for energy supply to offshore oil/gas production facilities on the Arctic shelf seem to have no alternative

14. Safety and security (1/2) • According to the IAEA, the risk of long-term negative effects on population from nuclear power would be by one or two orders of magnitude lower compared with risks from fossil power • Reduction of NPP capacity increases sharply its safety • Small capacity and better opportunities to implement intrinsic safety features and to use passive safety means at SNPPs would reduce the damage from their potential accident by 2 or 3 orders of magnitude compared to traditional large NPPs • In the existing nuclear assurance framework, SNPP operators could be subjected to complete financial liability for possible damage from a nuclear accident at eligible nuclear insurance costs

15. Safety and security (2/2) Nuclear Power of Small Capacity will give the most safe and secure power supply option for offshore oil/gas production in the ice conditions of the Arctic shelf

16. Systems approach • Nuclear power supplies to oil/gas production facilities on the Arctic shelf should be deployed on the basis of systems approach to their lifecycle implementation • No component should be left behind after a SNPP service lifetime expires • A successful program intended to liquidate the negative radiation consequences of Russian nuclear fleet’s operation in the Arctic is currently underway • The next task will be to remove accidental radiation-hazardous facilities sunken in the Arctic seas in the initial period of nuclear power deployment in the Arctic

17. Nuclear power of small capacity should the main source of energy supply to oil/gas production facilities on the Arctic shelf Conclusion

18. Marine ice resistant platform on the Prirazlomnoye oil field in the Barents sea (winter)

19. Thank you for your attention