Despite getting a much-ballyhooed $7-million in start-up costs from the Alberta Government in 2023, a year later Cenovus Energy Inc. pulled the plug on its study of the potential for so-called small modular reactors to generate power to wring oil from Alberta’s oilsands.

Former Alberta environment minister Rebecca Schulz (Photo: David J. Climenhaga).

To the company’s credit, it only spent $555,000 of the public’s money on the project before losing interest. 

The termination of the study was done so quietly, no one seems to have noticed. At least, there appear to have been no news reports about the project’s cancellation. 

As recently as last year, though, new references could still be found to the tale told in the Sept. 19, 2023, press release published by Emissions Reduction Alberta (ERA), the Alberta Government office set up in 2009 to fund “Alberta-based technologies that lower emissions and costs for industries.”

That press release enthusiastically announced that the province would provide $7 million through ERA “for Cenovus Energy to conduct a preliminary, multi-year study on whether small modular nuclear reactors (SMR) can be safely, technically, and economically deployed in Alberta’s oil sands operations. Funding will be provided through the Technology Innovation and Emissions Reduction (TIER) fund.”

The release quoted then Environment Minister Rebecca Schulz, who announced the funding at the at the World Petroleum Congress in Calgary, rhapsodizing, “a few years ago, the idea of expanding nuclear energy use was on the back burner – that is no longer the case. 

Alberta Energy Minister Brian Jean (Photo: David J. Climenhaga).

“In Alberta, small modular nuclear reactors have the potential to supply heat and power to the oil sands, simultaneously reducing emissions and supporting Alberta’s energy future,” Ms. Schulz’s canned quote continued. “This funding is the foundation for that promising future. I want to thank Cenovus Energy and Emissions Reduction Alberta for their leadership in this work.”

“We are optimistic about the opportunities ahead and will continue working with industry to explore and enable small modular reactor development in this province,” said Energy Minister Brian Jean, playing second fiddle as he so often did when Ms. Schulz was involved, in the same release. 

A CBC News report at the time quoted Ms. Schulz saying, “this is just another example of how industry dollars are being reinvested back into industry to support innovation in emissions reduction.” The CBC story also noted that that the study was “actually a four-year series of studies being lumped into one” with a total estimated cost of $26.7 million.

It would appear, however, that Cenovus quickly reconsidered that kind of spending on that particular topic. Presumably sometime in early 2025, ERA updated a statement on its website revealing that Cenovus had ended the SMR FEED Study ahead of schedule. (FEED stands for “Front End Engineering Design.”)

The undated statement, presumably unchanged from whenever it was first published, devotes 665 words to describing the project and its potential benefits. A line at the top summarizing the project’s status lists it without further comment as “terminated” and indicates that only $555,000 of the promised $7 million from the province was spent. 

CEDAR Project study co-author Susan O’Donnell (Photo: University of New Brunswick).

That page in turn provides a link to Cenovus’s SMR FEED Study Final Outcomes Report, which was published on New Year’s Eve 2024.

A report last week assessing the success of Canada’s 2018 strategic plan to develop SMRs across the country published by researchers Susan O’Donnell and M.V. Ramana for the CEDAR Project (Contesting Energy Discourses through Action Research) cited the Cenovus Final Outcomes Report.

Cenovus’s assessment of the potential for SMRs in Alberta’s oilsands was not enthusiastic. 

“Cenovus decided in 2024 (during the execution of phase 1 work) not to continue with the Program beyond the end of 2024,” the company’s report says under the heading Lessons Learned. 

“The phase 1 evaluation of nuclear from a business perspective showed SMRs are not economic or commercially feasible at present or in the near future,” the section continued. “The capital costs are high, the timelines are long and uncertain, and technology and supply chains lack maturity. While there is a potential application for industrial heat needs, significant progress in these areas is required, which may not happen for several years.”

Under the heading economic evaluation, the report reaches the conclusion that while it may be technically possible to use SMRs to provide steam for the Steam-Assisted Gravity Drainage oilsands recovery technique, “they are not viable under current market conditions.”

CEDAR Project study co-author M.V. Ramana (Photo: University of British Columbia).

Quite possibly cutting to the fundamental basis of the company’s decision, that section continues: “While existing government support programs are beneficial, they do not provide sufficient financial and risk management support to appropriately improve SMR feasibility.” 

In other words, if the government isn’t going to pay for it, we can forget about it. 

As for SMRs, despite the relentless effort by Alberta’s United Conservative Party Government to generate enthusiasm for their potential in the Athabasca oilsands, they’re not ready for prime time and quite possibly never will be. 

Remember, as has been said here before, SMRs may be nuclear reactors, but they’re not small and they’re not really modular. They are multi-billion-dollar megaprojects, just not mega enough to justify their cost. The initials could stand for “Spending Money Recklessly,” Dr. O’Donnell and Dr. Ramana wrote last Monday.

Like other carbon reduction schemes pushed by the UCP Government, such as its failed hydrogen-powered truck fantasy and high-risk carbon capture and underground storage schemes that are now stirring up opposition in northern Alberta, they serve mainly as a way to to greenwash high-carbon oilsands activities.

Join the Conversation

28 Comments

  1. The reality is that using SMRs for oilsands processing doesn’t make sense for any number of reasons. But the main reason for not building an SMR for the oilsands has to be that you can use the electricity produced directly to replace those things that are normally powered by fossil fuels.

    The future is an electricity powered world. Oil and gas will not be players in any meaningful way.

  2. You mean the technology that was championed by UCP opinionist David Staples is a bust? You can’t explain that.

  3. I could have done that SMR study for $5K. Another reckless UCP spending venture by Danielle, Schultz, Jean. Nuclear reputation continues to self immolate at Hinkley, EDF, et al.

  4. “The initials could stand for “Spending Money Recklessly,” Dr. O’Donnell and Dr. Ramana wrote last Monday.”
    Dr. O’Donnell worked in UNB’s Department of Sociology and in Digital technologies for the NRC.
    Dr. M. V. Ramana is Professor and Simons Chair in Disarmament, Global and Human Security at the School of Public Policy and Global Affairs (SPPGA), University of British Columbia. He is the author of “Nuclear is not the Solution: The Folly of Atomic Power in the Age of Climate Change.”
    Those two are absolutely not the people I would hire to evaluate SMRs for the oil sands.

    1. Mike: Whether or not one agrees with their conclusions, Drs O’Donnell and Ramama are quite properly qualified to evaluate what their report evaluates, which is how the federal government’s multi-year effort to promote SMRs has fared. It probably was not strictly necessary to mention them in my post, but I wanted to give them credit for being the ones who spotted that the Cernovus project had been terminated. So think of that reference as a byline. Also, “Spending Money Recklessly” is a jibe any one of us could have come up with and been arguably correct. Be that as it may, the people who were hired to evaluate SMRs for the oil sands were the staff at Cenovus, and their decision to terminate their study speaks for itself. The politically interesting question that I wanted to focus on is why no effort was made to inform the public that the study had been dropped after the UCP promoted it so vigorously in 2023. DJC

      1. No, this “Spending Money Recklessly” piece is clearly labelled as “opinion & analysis” so this is the opinion of two people only one of which has any academic standing to justify questioning the future of nuclear power. This is just an article written by and for the anti-nuclear crowd. It has very little value as analysis.

        From the Cenovus report – “…to use SMRs to provide steam for the Steam-Assisted Gravity Drainage oilsands recovery technique, they are not viable under current market conditions.” tells us all we need to know. “Under current market conditions” means that with UCP and Carney Liberal/Conservative governments firmly in place it is much cheaper to burn fossil fuels than anything else, the environment be damned. Why would banks or private capital back nuclear power if they can invest in projects using known and mature technology burning fossil fuels to generate electricity? Alton Barkley hit the nail directly on the head in the first post.

  5. Hear me out. Wind and solar are proven (renewable) energy technologies, whose costs are decreasing as technology advances. If only Alberta would invest some money into battery storage for electricity produced by wind and solar. Those systems are undergoing rapid technological advancement, too. Only one problem: the premier thinks batteries for electricity produced by wind and solar do not exist. Does her horse-drawn buggy have a battery? Neigh.

    https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/alberta-danielle-smith-electricity-net-zero-1.7009909

    https://ember-energy.org/latest-insights/silos-for-sunshine-weve-mastered-harvesting-the-sun-but-storage-is-the-gamechanger/

    1. Alberta also has some of the best geography in the world for water battery storage (pumped storage hydropower). But the dizzy Danny’s clown show would prefer to tear up the mountains for coal mining than have nice peaceful little lakes storing energy (for when the sun don’t shine and the wind don’t blow!!) this is not new technology but apparently still too complicated for brainwashed simpletons. https://builtin.com/articles/water-battery

  6. Ever since the dawn of the atomic age the nuclear industry has been claiming nuclear energy is the only way forward for humanity with its promise of cheap reliable energy. Except that it hasn’t worked out that way.

    1. That must be why the technology is so vigorously championed by Canadian right wing politicians. You can’t explain that.

  7. “In other words, if the government isn’t going to pay for it, we can forget about it.”

    It is the way “capitalism”, i.e. lemon socialism, “which Paul Krugman defines as a situation where “taxpayers bear the cost if things go wrong, but stockholders and executives get the benefits if things go right.”” was always meant to be and continues to be. See for example,

    https://www.ksjomo.org/post/world-bank-urges-governments-to-guarantee-private-profits

    https://cityobservatory.org/dr-king-socialism-for-the-rich-and-rugged-free-enterprise-capitalism-for-the-poor/

  8. I love it when capitalists tell on themselves. It’s not that the technology wouldn’t work for their purposes (setting aside SAGD, and it’s many problems for a second) the real issue for cenovus is government won’t pay to build it, and they can’t afford to while maintaining a level of corporate profits significant enough to appease their investors.

    The idea is pretty crazy on its face. SMRs probably will become a thing, and sooner than some people evidently believe, but not in the west. Our politicians are too risk averse, and too captured by capital, to actually assert themselves and build projects that need the management and development that only a STATE can provide, as we see here we are more than willing to just throw cash at our already existing oligarchs to NOT solve the problem; my guess being politicians in the west are mostly concerned with electoral donations and less about nation building.

    My point being though, how crazy is it to use next generation technology to do oil sands mining ? It’s like if we used modern drones and missiles to hunt whales for the oil, or cloned beavers for the pelts.

  9. I can imagine a business case for such applications, and apparently so can Cenovus: as soon as the tech is proven, and much more widely adopted. The middle of the muskeg in northern Alberta is apparently not considered the ideal proving ground for the tech and the not-yet existent industrial supply chain to back it up.

    So why the enthusiasm from UCP? I see three reasons: deflection, trolling, and hippie-punching. Or maybe thats’s only one reason.

  10. Alas, it’s 2026 and Alberta’s premier is stuck in the renewable energy equivalent of 1926.

    https://livinghistoryfarm.org/farming-in-the-1920s/machine/

    Why mechanize when you can raise a brood of 10 children or so to stook the wheat by hand?

    Why join the electrotech revolution and harvest and store solar and wind energy at home? What’s more important: an ample, renewable, secure supply of electricity or a golden cat?

  11. I am far from an engineer so my comments are slightly off base.

    1) You can’t get solar power at night so why bother.
    2) Those windmills will block tourists’ views of the beautiful Rockies. Tourists won’t drive for coal.
    3) Why build one of those enormous AI power generators which wreck the local environment while creating maybe 2-3 jobs?
    4) Chinese electric cars will allow them to spy on us. Hmmm, no one mentioned that when Lada was importing Russki cars to Canada from 1994-1999.
    5) Finally, UCP out of control spending could lead to housing shortages in Mount Royal. Smith will blame Trudeau.

  12. Environment be damned!
    Mega projects are loved by government as they produce tax dollars be it income tax , GST or provincial, on a large scale.
    Renewables dont have the same impact.
    TB

  13. SMRs are not a green / eco friendly source of power, but they do offer less expensive power option for the oilsands. I think that Cenovus mostly bailed due to future liability if things went sideways on them. Westinghouse also bailed on SMRs as well, back in 2025. I think this shows that, corporations are more forward thinking, than the UPC, who doesn’t seem to care about the future if things go wrong. And is Cenovus, going to return any of the left over funds?

    1. Jones: I can’t answer your closing question. I don’t think so. But how or on what date they returned the money to the provincial treasury, I have no idea. DJC

  14. Interesting, Cenovus seems to be the one spending money responsibly here. It kind of makes sense. Of course they are happy to take government funds to look into something, but once they have concluded its not worthwhile, why go on further. It would just be a waste of time and focus for them.

    Too bad the UCP doesn’t get this, they pretend to champion free enterprise, but only if it supports their political ideas. So for instance, they put up road blocks to prevent renewable energy development in Alberta, not because its not economically sensible or worthwhile, but just because they don’t like it.

    So I doubt the UCP will give up on its small modular reactors ideas easily and expect like a dog with a bone they will not let it go, whether it makes sense or not.

  15. In UCP Alberta, and you are big oil -stick your hand out and get millions, in UCP Alberta, if you are on AISH -stick your hand out and the UCP will steal $200.00. Feathering their nests for when they get the boot and/or go to jail but end up with oil appointments.

  16. The little hamlet where I’m from on the old shoreline of Lake Iroquois, today is about 500 feet elevation above Lake Ontario –that is, after global warming evaporated the ancient glacial lake . Our kitchen windows faced Pickering, about 1o miles south on the Lake, so when the white reactor domes of what would become the world’s largest nuclear power plant appeared to rise from behind the gable of the 2-room school house in our front field, where I was a pupil, they might have been considered an aesthetic blotch upon beautiful, ocean-like vista of the Great Lake from our lofty vantage.

    Yet back then Pickering symbolized progress, and we were all proud, no doubt because of positive government propaganda. The first boomers were yet teenagers and the recent World War was still us younger boys’ favourite game. Somehow the construction of Pickering got through the Cuban Missile Crisis without the kind of protests we might expect nowadays. Even my old man, who was in the War–the one which ended with a nuclear mushroom cloud–was okay with it. People wanted to trust government back then–cuz the War…

    Many years later I spent a season on Notion Road, just half a mile from Moody’s pub in downtown Pickering; the long shadows of winter dusk cast the nuclear plant’s silhouette on the last residence among the factories sprouting up all around us and supplied us with concrete spattered firewood over an exceptionally cold winter. The Lake froze, except for Frenchman’s Bay where the plant exchanged coolant water and exotic pipe gars and lampreys could be caught (and dutifully euthanized).

    The Chalk River nuclear research reactor near Montreal partially melted down in the previous decade, the world’s first nuclear accident, and a second one occurred there in 1958. Nonetheless, people were confident the huge Pickering plant employed lessons learned and the most modern safety design. We bought it.

    PR radiated outward, inviting school excursions to tour the facility. I remember our Cub Scout pack sitting in the plush auditorium where a very slick spokesman in an expensive 3-piece suit and pointed Italian shoes boasted of the plant’s failsafe features and, while lighting up a Benson&Hedges cigarette from a gold case (back then most teachers and parents reeked so much of tobacco that it was easy to get away with underage smoking–which in retrospect harmed me more than ionizing radiation ever did) waxed eloquently of the benefits to our province. Indeed, the plant generated a substantial amount of Ontario’s electricity and sold it cheap, all without the ugly smokestacks of coal-fired generation –which, truth be known, were hardly missed amongst all the other industrial stacks that cluttered the lakeshore from Oshawa all the way around to Rochester, NY–until AFTA wiped them out, at least on the Canadian side of the Lake.

    All that changed with Chernobyl. I was in a tree-planting camp in the mountains of southeast BC on that day: the crew gathered around the crummy’s radio, wondering if the radioactive cloud would pass over us as initially reported, and if we should shelter in a nearby abandoned mine. I realized my Russian language classes at UVic would be for nought (when my sister-in-law later visited post-Soviet Russia, her report pretty much scotched my dream of visiting the land of FD, my favourite author, for good).

    Next time I returned to Ontario the Pickering plant had replaced my old man’s usual grumbles. He’d been to a packed town hall meeting. “They said we’d have to evacuate if Pickering melts down–maybe permanently! We’re in the zone!!” There were several reactors at the plant by that time, most of them mothballed for maintenance–and the bills were starting to rankle taxpayers.

    Then of course the politics. When I read that premier Mike Harris’s Conservative government suddenly announced it would privatize Ontario Hydro, I smelled a ghostly-green, glowing rat. When an injunction was granted to stop the hasty IPO and customers were apprised that their hydro bills would triple, Harris suddenly resigned–supposedly because of a police impropriety. His finance minster became premier, called an election and the Big Blue Machine was thoroughly thrashed, generating waves that radiated across the country, convincing BC Liberal premier Gordon Campbell to rethink his similar privatization plan for BC Hydro. Although both their pickles were ostensibly about other things, it’s important to remember that the initial spark was the growing difficulty in rationalizing the cost of maintaining nuclear power generation in Ontario. The money, not the health hazard.

    Nuclear was a dead letter for about a decade until, as I recall, I first spotted positive mention tucked discretely in the back pages of investment and mining journals. Stock values of nuclear concerns slowly began to percolate upward. My neighbour told me his broker put some of these stocks in his portfolio; he wouldn’t have told me if they weren’t doing well. Apparently nuke-chill had sufficiently cooled off again. Politicians were getting better at being handmaidens to profiteers.

    That’s when SMRs made their debut, slowly, carefully so’s not to spook skitterish electorates. The rationale, of course, was to cook bitumen in the kitchens of Sandy bitumen in no-stick fashion. The Big-B industry had already begun calling it “ethical oil,” presumably after failing to convince the public that it was “clean”–like natural gas. Apparently people are more afraid of slowly cooking conventionally than they are of fast-frying atomically. Worse, they don’t trust politicians who must now practice their art by stealth. The snowball of suspicion would get bigger if it weren’t melting so fast.

    Carbon capture, SMRs, “ethical oil” and much more are all a crock, as people know but don’t want to admit. It’s easy to bamboozle the public into accepting industry’s supposed mitigations by subsidizing the opposite. It’s perversity now in overdrive.

    The good news is, the whole shitteroo folds when the public teat is turned off. Should be easy, right? Avi Lewis thinks so.

    1. Scotty: One small quibble and a short story. Chalk River is far closer to Ottawa than Montreal. Indeed, Ottawa is roughly halfway between Chalk River and Montreal as the crow flies, if crows fly east and west, as I assume they sometimes do. (There may be language issues for the crows, as for the humans, as Chalk River is in Ontario and Montreal, of course, is in Quebec.) Jimmy Carter, the late U.S. president, is said to have helped with the cleanup at Chalk River. As for Pickering, I too lived close to the reactors there and smoked at the time. Regardless, I have gone out to report on hundreds, possibly thousands, of stories during my newspaper career and I only left my note book behind once … inside the Pickering nuclear plant. It was quite a chose getting back in to retrieve it. DJC

      1. Thank you, David. I could use the excuse that to a hick from the little hamlet of Whitevale, Ontario, Ottawa and Montreal are the same place –but of course I’ve been to both, even lived in Montreal for one, bitterly cold winter. I also left books in Pickering–high school, that is, when I left them at the office, packed my T-shirt and jeans, and headed for the West Coast. Would that I could retrieve them (not!) Thnx again.

        1. Scotty: My late father was an astrophysicist and one of his first cousins was a nuclear physicist, so I had the opportunity as a kid to visit Chalk River and see with my own eyes the “nuclear establishment,” or whatever the DND called it, while the two of them gossiped about family and physics politics. I remember that it was a long drive to Ottawa after that. The location of Chalk River, therefore, remains firmly embedded in my mind. DJC

  17. “SMRs may be nuclear reactors, but they’re not small and they’re not really modular”. You know, when I first heard this term, I envisioned a simply relatively inexpensive process.
    1) Take a pressurized water reactor designed and intended to be installed in a nuclear-powered naval vessel, like a submarine or aircraft carrier.
    2) Skip the boat and just build it on a concrete pad.
    3) Attach a steam-powered generating station to the surface reactor.
    4) Run power from the generating station to the power grid.
    5) Rinse and repeat.

    Would that be safe? I don’t know for sure, but when you look at the track record of Western nations operating such naval vessels — the US, the UK, and France — there have not been any catastrophic nuclear accidents involving naval reactors in decades, if there ever have been. (The Soviet Navy is another matter … ).

    But it’s now clear that this isn’t the model for SMRs as they are now being proposed.

    1. Jerry: Nine nuclear submarines have sunk at sea. Seven were Russian (of those five were Soviet) and two from the United States. One more U.S. sub sank under construction in the shipyard. It was eventually completed. If France or Britain lost a nuke, they didn’t tell anyone about it. Of the nine, one Russian sub curiously sank twice, and was raised and returned to service after both sinkings. Causes: Fire (2), weapons explosions (2), flooding (2), bad weather (1), unknown (1) and scuttling due to a damaged reactor (1). This would suggest your supposition about mini nukes is sound. Tiny (c. 20 Kw) SLOWPOKE reactors have operated at several Canadian universities over the years, including the University of Alberta. DJC

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.