Nearly two years after declaring its intentions to pursue a civilian nuclear program, questions have arisen one after the other. How much energy will be produced? How much will it cost us? What impact will it have? Is it safe? Has oil shale taken a backseat in the country’s energy program? In an exclusive interview, Marwan A. Kardoosh and Naseem Tarawnah sit down with HE Dr. Khalid Toukan to discuss Jordan’s nuclear vision.

For decades, nuclear energy has been part of the contemporary lexicon for developed nations. Public debates have been waged in countries such as the US and France, environmentalists have survived a decades-old love-hate relationship with the technology, and governments have shifted ever so slowly towards fueling their economies with nuclear energy. It is an arena and global conversation that the Arab world has largely and notably been absent from. Indeed, on a map of the world, imagine little light bulbs on nearly every continent and practically every region, representing a total of 442 nuclear reactors lighting up the planet. On such a map, the Arab world has been completely left in the dark, with all of its energy needs being met through fossil fuels. While the world emerges from its once-safeguarded shell to embrace the dawn of a new atomic age, known in many circles as the “nuclear renaissance,” countries throughout this region have been avoiding the very notion of nuclear energy until fairly recently.

The nuclear conversation has, indeed, changed governments, economies, policies and minds. The years of a moratorium-like approach to nuclear energy find their origins in the 1970s, with the Arab oil embargo sending oil prices through the roof. In response, the US turned its attention toward nuclear energy but the public took a long and bated breath with Hollywood’s The China Syndrome - a film about a hypothetical large-scale nuclear meltdown that sent a dark chill down their spines. In fact, 12 days after the film’s release, the events of the infamous Three Mile Island unfolded and only seven years later, an even worse catastrophe scarred the hearts and minds of the world: Chernobyl. Today, however, public fear has generally subsided. Indeed, numerous surveys have revealed that public opinion, concerned largely with rising oil prices and electric bills, has been swayed towards nuclear energy, a resource that no longer poses a threat to even the most adamant of environmentalists.

In India, at least seven reactors are being constructed today. Russia has been busy building five, while China is currently putting final touches to four. Meanwhile, developing countries like Bulgaria, Romania and the Ukraine are also taking part in the global nuclear renaissance. In Lithuania, a Soviet-era nuclear plant provides the nation of 3.3 million inhabitants with roughly 70% of its energy needs, while Slovenia gets at least 30% of its supply through nuclear energy. It is perhaps but a small indication of the changing global consciousness that revolves around the nuclear option, which, as of today, is responsible for providing at least 16% of the world’s electricity needs.

The Domestic Front
It was not too long ago that Jordan’s energy needs were met almost entirely through a strategic diplomatic relationship with Iraq. Throughout the 1990s, Iraq provided the Kingdom with all the oil it needed, offering half of its supply for free, with the other half at a symbolically-discounted market price and paid for in-kind. However, the realities of such a lingering status quo have faded and in their place is a resource-poor country of nearly six million struggling to fuel its economy with whatever energy resources it can get its hands on. Today, the Kingdom imports a staggering 95% of its energy needs, equal to more than 20% of its gross domestic product. These new realities have pushed the country into the folds of revisited energy projects, placating the anxieties of the public and feeding the daily frenzy of an overly-enthusiastic local media.
 
Last year, in an article entitled “Oil For Shale,” Jordan Business attempted to unravel the mysteries that surrounded one such stimulated project: oil shale. In a detailed article focusing on the country’s leading company in the field, Oil Shale Energy Jordan (OSEJ) - a partnership between Estonia’s Esti Energia and Jordan’s Near East Group - Jordan Business attempted at the time to pull back the curtain of media hype to reveal a more realistic outlook of a technology very much still under development. Alas, the media hype surrounding oil shale has not subsided and only recently an unexpected development took place, temporarily putting the prospects of oil shale on hold. Jordan’s Atomic Energy Commission (JAEC) put its foot down on the government-sanctioned 10,000-square-meter plot of land in central Jordan, given to OSEJ last year for oil-shale development. The company was apparently informed by the commission that the oil shale-laden land may also be home to another precious natural resource: uranium. According to documents disclosed to Jordan Business, JAEC will only relinquish its claim on the land - currently held as a national resource - when uranium surveys of the land have been completed.

Meanwhile, in a revealing interview with Jordan Business last year, the outspoken National Resource Authority (NRA) Director Maher Hijazin eliminated the possibility of the Kingdom producing oil shale commercially before at least 18 years. However, several weeks ago Hijazin suggested to local media that Jordan would be producing commercially-viable oil shale within ten years. Nevertheless, despite this perhaps new-found sense of optimism, industry observers have noted that the mainstream tone of the Jordanian state has shifted more towards nuclear power, (For more details, see the article Shifting Energies on pp. 116-117)  going so far as to suggest that a game of tug-of-war is being waged behind-the-scenes. Sources at the Royal Court who have worked closely on both projects have indicated to Jordan Business that this splitting tone may be representative of a growing rift between the NRA and the JAEC, the latter of which has consolidated the uranium portfolio from the former, leaving behind what some have labeled as possible signs of resentment. If such signs are evident, then the emerging landscape has been the formation of two camps, each a respective proponent of either oil shale or nuclear power as Jordan’s energy destiny.
In the midst of all this confusion, answers may be hard to come by, especially when it comes to making sense of a nuclear-energy vision that has been moved rapidly beneath the public eye like a blur, leaving an abyss filled with questions. At the head of the JAEC sits Khalid Toukan, a Halley’s comet by any measure when it comes to befitting credentials. His extensive education consists of an electrical engineering degree from the American University of Beirut, a Master’s in nuclear engineering from the University of Michigan, and a PhD in nuclear engineering from MIT. Suffice to say, his lengthy academic and professional career, as both an engineer and a scientist, stand out unapologetically in a country where only recently, with Toukan’s direction, the Jordan University of Science and Technology established the first nuclear-engineering degree program. Jordan Business sat down with Toukan for a lengthy interview to make sense of the oil-shale dilemma, as well as get a better understanding of what a nuclear Jordan will look like.

JB: With nuclear power dominating Jordan’s national energy strategy these days, some industry observers have felt that the state is having a change of heart with regards to oil-shale production. These sentiments have been personified in a recent decision by the commission to place a hold on oil shale-commissioned land. To what extent are such sentiments true?
KT: Any state or economy today must diversify its energy resources. This is what the national energy strategy consists of: increasing sources of renewable energy to 12% by the year 2020, as well as utilizing local-energy sources, including oil shale. Nuclear energy has been projected to cover only 30% [of the country’s needs] by the year 2030. Hence, there is no reversal of policy [concerning oil shale] as it is a much-needed pursuit.

When it comes to oil-shale reserves, Jordan contains large amounts of it. The areas are quite widespread across the Kingdom. What happened is that on the periphery of the region in central Jordan, there was an overlap between an area containing oil shale and another containing uranium, but it is a small area, 10 square kilometers. Second of all, uranium lies very close to the surface, at almost half a meter from the top, so from a technical point of view it makes sense that you extract the valuable mineral resources from the surface first, and then pursue the deeper-located ones, such as oil shale, the latter typically lying 60 to 100 meters under ground. In that sense, there has been no u-turn with regards to utilizing oil shale; it is simply a matter of systemizing the work in the presence of an overlap.

JB: Is this the only overlap between these two resources in Jordan?
KT: This overlap is confined to central Jordan and as for the other areas, we do not know yet, as we are still mapping the data more accurately.

JB: With regards to the Estonian company, there is a claim that this land was expropriated by the government for the purpose of uranium utilization. What is your reaction?
KT: The concession given to the Estonian company does overlap with the uranium deposits and is contained within a 10-square-kilometer area. Basically, we gave priority to that specific piece of land to be mapped within six months upon signing with the French company Areva. If we find concentrations of uranium that are economically feasible, we will have to keep it. If not, we will relinquish it back to them.
JB: If you do happen to discover enough concentrations of uranium to hold onto that plot of land, will there be a compensation mechanism for the Estonian company, which has already spent a few million dollars?
KT: Frankly speaking, no. The government will simply give them another 10 square kilometers in another area.

JB: The Estonian company has proposed that if uranium is discovered on the land that it has been assigned, it would pay for its removal and storage for future government use, in order to move ahead with its own oil-shale venture. What is your take on this proposal?
KT: We have to keep in mind that the land in question is on the periphery or, in other words, within a buffer zone that is automatically created once uranium deposits are discovered in any given region. Therefore, the oil shale is not necessarily in the fertile zone of uranium but rather on the border.

JB: Would you take them up on their offer to remove the uranium for the government in order to expedite their venture?
KT: This is all still premature. By March or April we will have the final results of exploration and, if the deposits are discovered, we will remove it ourselves. We will start the excavation process and then relinquish it to their control. Objectively speaking, as a scientist and an engineer, I think there are too many non-scientific arguments being made in this regard. I do not think this is a big issue.
 
JB: When it comes to Jordan’s national energy strategy, is it the government’s intention to have both oil shale and nuclear energy working in tandem?
KT: They should work in tandem. From a scientific perspective, there is no conflict, and from a strategic point of view, the country has to have both working parallel to solve the same problem. Even if we had the best uranium reserves in the world, we would still need to pursue oil shale and other energy sources. However, I think the technology to extract oil from oil shale is still under development, whereas nuclear is a well-proven technology.

There will be a time, perhaps ten years from now, when new technologies will be developed and extracting oil from oil shale can become more feasible. With that in mind, you must already have oil shale as part of a strategic national energy vision.

JB: Some observers, especially in the local media, have noted that there has been a change in tone with regards to oil-shale production in favor of more pro-nuclear pursuits. In the same vein, it has also been noted that you have personal reservations with regards to oil shale, in terms of resources and environmental concerns. To what extent is this true?
KT: I am not an expert on oil shale. However, my understanding is that oil shale requires a lot of water resources, not to mention that the process of direct burning can result in severe environmental impacts. The problem is that in our society tends to be dominated by exaggerations and hype. I know for a fact that the process of extracting oil from oil shale is still in a very premature phase and so, as a scientist, I think there has been too much hype surrounding oil shale. It is something that should be pursued simply because, in order to extract oil from oil shale, Jordan has to become part of the global research in this specific field and I do believe that there will be a time when this resource will be valuable. However, I do not think that this is something that is going to happen any time soon. From my understanding, it is something that will take [at least] 10 to 15 years of experimentation, as presently there is no proven technology that allows for the extraction of oil from oil shale feasibly. Nuclear energy, on the other hand, is something that exists in most developed nations in the world, with over 400 reactors across the globe. It is, therefore, high time that we join that club.

JB: However, even in the most developed countries that have nuclear energy, such as the US, there are high-level public debates regarding safety and environmental concerns as well as the overall social impact of such a technology. Are these concerns being taken into consideration when it comes to the objective of bringing nuclear power to Jordan?
KT: Definitely. When we look at nuclear energy, we look at the full spectrum, from uranium exploration and mining to the construction of nuclear reactors and waste management. When it comes to building reactors, the world is currently using what is referred to as Generation Three-Plus nuclear reactors, which are inherently safe as part of their evolutionary design. Jordan, therefore, will not be entering into a pilot phase of nuclear energy; we have to join the world at a stage where we have learned from the experiences of other countries. For instance, France operates 58 nuclear reactors that generate 65,000 megawatts of electricity, which is 30 times what we generate here in Jordan, and their track-record in nuclear safety is, simply put, phenomenal. Globally, 60% of nuclear reactors now operate as pressurized water reactors (PWR), which use ordinary water as a coolant, initially designed as part of the US nuclear submarine program. These light-water reactors are being built by the French, Chinese and Koreans, while 30% of the world relies on boiling-water reactors, with the rest depending on various energy-mixes. Jordan is aiming to build Generation Three-Plus nuclear reactors, contracting some of the best companies in the world to do it.

JB: With this in mind, how justified are public fears of nuclear meltdowns?
KT: A nuclear meltdown occurs when a loss-of-cooling accident (LOCA) takes place, leading to overheating. Such an accident is considered to be the most severe form of a meltdown in a nuclear reactor. However, today, with these latest systems of automatic, inherent, safety shutdowns, you can minimize the probability of experiencing LOCA. When it comes to waste management, methods around the world have definitely improved in this field. The French, for instance, reprocess and extract the plutonium oxide and other oxides, essentially recycling them. This means the waste is much safer and it can be stored in less sophisticated environments, where it can be contained in canisters and placed around 20 meters underground in a natural-cooling environment made of cement and steel. All of these improvements in the various technologies are driving the world towards what is being referred to as a “nuclear renaissance.” Countries like China and India are experiencing this renaissance today, more so than the developed western countries, with at least 40 nuclear reactors being built across the globe, personifying the high demand that has led to a backlog.

JB: This backlog is a concern that critics in Jordan have pointed to as an indication that the nuclear program’s projected completion dates are off-target. Thus, if Jordan is placed on lengthy waiting lists, how realistic are these projections to begin with?
KT: We are looking to use our uranium reserves as leverage to expedite the nuclear process. Uranium today, as a raw material, is a strategic resource, both from a supplier point of view as large multi-national companies are competing to control uranium mines, as well as from an economic point of view. The price of uranium today is six times what it used to be only five years ago. Last year, in the summer of 2007, the price of uranium was 13 times higher than it was in the 1990s, jumping from $9 to $136 per pound. Today, with the global financial crisis, it has dropped to around $50 per pound. Uranium is expected to make another market leap in 2012 and Jordan has to be on board.

Going back to your question, we will thus use our uranium resources as leverage to expedite the nuclear program. Uranium is present in at least six different regions in the Kingdom, which is also home to thulium, a type of nuclear fuel that is not globally prevalent, as well as zirconium, which is typically an important imported nuclear material that is used for cladding of the nuclear fuel.

When we negotiated the mining agreement with Areva, we placed two important conditions. First, that Areva would be committed to providing us with fuel services in the future, and second, that they are committed to give us priority if we request that they build our nuclear reactor. Basically, we tied the mining with the nuclear program, which was part of our comprehensive integrated approach.
 
JB: Is it safe to say that Areva is the company that is taking the lead when it comes to uranium mining and Jordan’s nuclear energy program?
KT: We have signed a deal with Areva for uranium exploration in central Jordan, but we have also started negotiations with several nuclear reactor vendors across the globe, including Areva. We are negotiating with the Koreans, Russians and the Canadians for their respective [specific] nuclear reactors. Afterwards, we will compare them in order to take a final decision. Meanwhile, very shortly we will be issuing a tender for the study of a future site for Jordan’s first nuclear power plant.

JB: Have the geographical locations of these sites been decided upon yet?
KT: Actually, we have narrowed it down to three locations in the vicinity of Aqaba. Site selection and characterization is a process that will take at least 18 months. Certain determinations must be made including making sure that the site is seismically-stable, close to a water resource and is located on a solid-rock base in case of earthquakes.
 
JB: Is Aqaba being looked at as part of considerations with regards to the demand on water resources a nuclear power plant typically requires?
KT: The optimum scenario is to build a nuclear power plant on a sea coast and use water from the sea to cool the reactor without even having to desalinate. Roughly two billion cubic meters of sea water need to be circulated through the reactor to produce the end-product of 1,000 megawatt of electricity. This scenario is the most efficient and least expensive. The other scenario is to build the reactors using cooling-towers, where water is desalinated.
JB: How close to the truth are the rumors linking the nuclear power plant in Aqaba with the Red-Dead Canal project?
KT: Having a nuclear power plant in Aqaba will actually be very instrumental to the Red-Dead Canal project, which requires a lot of power to pump the water towards the Dead Sea. If both projects move ahead, they will complement each other. Moreover, not only can a nuclear power plant in Aqaba help fuel the Red-Dead Canal, but the realization of that project itself will provide us with greater opportunities to place other future reactors in the vicinity of the canal’s route [through the south].
JB: Tackling the issue of timeframes, how tangible and/or realistic are the proposed dates for the implementation of the nuclear energy program?
KT: With regards to mining, Areva is already in the field today and the first uranium mine will be established by 2011, with production giving way a year later. As for the nuclear reactor, we have already issued a tender for a site study and are currently talking to potential companies. These dates are, indeed, very realistic.
 
JB: Will the energy that is projected to be produced satisfy Jordan’s energy needs?
KT: Jordan today produces 2,200 megawatts of electricity. One nuclear power plant built by Areva will generate 1,600 megawatts. This plant is actually too large for the country, as you should not pursue big-producing units on a small grid that may compromise the stability of the network. What we are targeting is to build a 1,000 megawatt reactor, with the excess electricity going towards water desalination to provide power for the Red-Dead Canal and also to export to neighboring countries such as Egypt, Palestine and Syria. This reactor requires an annual uranium consumption of 120 tons and it is projected that the central-Jordan mine will produce 2,000 tons a year. Therefore, the uranium being produced will far exceed the domestic demand, hence the potential for exports.

JB: In your earlier reference to the price of uranium, can we conclude that the aim of Jordan is not only to help meet local energy demand but also to export uranium?
KT: Definitely. Our future energy needs will be less than 10% of what is set to be produced from our central-Jordan uranium mine alone. It is a strategic natural resource that allows Jordan to work with various countries, helping to provide and secure their energy supply while also generating important export earnings for the country.

JB: Ever since Jordan announced its plans to pursue a civilian nuclear program almost two years ago, we have seen a flurry of agreements signed with various countries, especially during the past summer when a signing seemed to have taken place almost on a weekly basis. Can you take us through some of these agreements and what they entail?
KT: Nuclear technology is not something that comes pre-packaged that you can easily import. Essentially, we have been building the pillars for Jordan for the next century. Today, around the world, there are five big players of nuclear energy, including the US, the UK, Russia, France and China. There are 26 other nations who are members of the global Nuclear Suppliers Group that, up to various degrees, have nuclear energy and technology, such as Canada and South Korea, but do not utilize it for military purposes.

Jordan’s strategy is to sign as many agreements with different countries as possible. Essentially, when we want to issue a tender for a nuclear reactor, we would like to invite as many companies around the world to compete, and this is something that requires a nuclear-cooperation agreement. No government will allow its domestic companies to export nuclear technology unless such agreements are already in place. This is also part of a long-term strategy, for in ten years time we may need a certain type of technology, which one country may have. Jordan, therefore, needs to diversify its links with various nuclear-enabled countries as much as possible, which will also serve to help avoid the emergence of monopolies.
JB: When it comes to both the mining of uranium and the creation of a nuclear power plant, how will these projects be operated, and to what extent will the Jordanian government have a share in their ownership?
KT: With the uranium mining, we went for a joint-venture company, where the project is given to a Jordanian-French mining company that is registered in Jordan. We created a system that would ensure integration of the full program - from the mining to the construction of a nuclear power plant and its management - but when it comes to the mining company, it is in fact a Jordanian-French company.

JB: Is this company managed by the private sector or the government?
KT: The government will own half of the company but it will operate as a private-sector entity. The various boards that will be created, both for the overall nuclear program and the mining company, will be split between Jordanian and French members in order to ensure transfer of knowledge over the years.

JB: When it comes to this transfer of knowledge you talk about, how will it manifest itself on a more technical level, specifically with regards to on-the-ground workers who actually operate the projects? Do enough Jordanians have the skill to operate such ventures?
KT: In the mining company, a minimum of 80% of the workforce will be Jordanian and as time evolves, we expect this percentage to rise to 90%. I believe that we do have the local know-how. However, if you are a country like Jordan that wants to mine and export uranium, you need to team up with one of the big players in the world that has the capacity for such an undertaking.
 
JB: While nuclear energy is notably cheaper when it comes to generating electricity, and keeping in mind that Jordan will stand to profit from exporting electricity and uranium, what is the initial capital investment required for these projects?
KT: First of all, with a nuclear power plant, the reactor lifespan is 45 to 60 years, compared to 25 years for a “classical” plant. This means that our overall investment is long-term. With nuclear technology, there is an initial threshold that needs to be overcome, as 75% of the total costs of a nuclear power plant - including operating and fuel costs, in addition to the capital investment - are typically associated with the building of the plant. In other words, a 1,000-megawatt power plant will cost you $3 billion but will last for roughly 60 years. Around 25% of the cost of such a plant is derived from the fuel and operational costs and this is why the cost of the generated electricity tends to be very cheap.
 
JB: Does Jordan today have such funds or will it come from other sources?
KT: The nuclear power plant will be run on a public-private partnership basis, which means the government will pay its share with roughly 30% of it being derived by earnings from the uranium mines. We will also have an international operator to purchase 20% of the plant, with the rest being open to the private sector and the Social Security Corporation. The capital investment will be spread out over several years but will be secured before any construction begins.

Written By: Naseem Tarawnah