Geoscience Canada

Vol. 51 No. 3 (2024)
Articles

The Why, What, Who, When, and Where of Carbon Capture and Storage in Southern Ontario

Requires Subscription or Fee PDF (CAD 30)
  • Bruce S. Hart
Bruce S. Hart
Department of Earth Sciences, Western University, 151 Richmond Street North, London, Ontario, N6A 5B7, Canada
DOI: https://doi.org/10.12789/geocanj.2024.51.212

Published 2024-10-11

Keywords

  • Cambrian,
  • Carbon Capture and Storage,
  • Ontario,
  • Stratigraphy,
  • Subsurface Characterization

How to Cite

Hart, B. S. (2024). The Why, What, Who, When, and Where of Carbon Capture and Storage in Southern Ontario. Geoscience Canada, 51(3), 131–146. https://doi.org/10.12789/geocanj.2024.51.212
Copyright Notice

Abstract

This paper reviews the five Ws (Why, What, Who, When, and Where) of carbon capture and storage in southwestern Ontario. This area is home to nearly one quarter of Canada’s population and approximately three-quarters of one million people work in the manufacturing sector. Fifteen of the province’s top 20 CO2 emission point sources are in this area. The industries responsible for these emissions include steel mills, refineries and petrochemical plants, and cement plants. These industries are part of the hard-to-abate sector, in that CO2 is used or generated as an integral part of the industrial process. As such, eliminating or even reducing emissions from these industries is a difficult task.
  Carbon capture and storage (CCS) projects aim to sequester that gas in sedimentary basins over periods exceeding several thousand years. To this end, deeply buried (> 800 m) porous and permeable rocks (a repository) must be overlain by impermeable rocks that act as a seal, preventing the upward migration of CO2 into the atmosphere. The possibility that injection activities could trigger seismicity is but one of the additional considerations. When operational, CCS projects have a negative carbon footprint and the desirability of developing and using this technology has been established for over 20 years. True CCS projects differ from carbon capture, utilization, and storage (CCUS) projects in that the former are only designed with sequestration in mind. One type of CCUS project involves using CO2 for enhanced oil recovery (EOR) and this technology has been employed for several decades.
  Cambrian sandstones are the most suitable injection targets for CCS in southwestern Ontario because previous oil and gas drilling has shown the rocks to have the necessary characteristics. They are buried below 800 m, can be tens of metres thick, and have adequate porosity and permeability. However, the Cambrian section is lithologically and stratigraphically heterogeneous and oil, gas, and brine can all be present in the pore space. The extent to which this complexity will affect CO2 injection has not yet been evaluated.

Requires Subscription or Fee PDF (CAD 30)

References

  1. Alkan, H., Burachok, O., and Kowollik, P., 2023, Geologic carbon storage: key components, in Wang, Q., ed., Oil and Gas Chemistry Management Series, Surface Process, Transportation, and Storage: Gulf Professional Publishing, v. 4, p. 325–422, https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-823891-2.00009-0.
  2. Armstrong, D.K., and Carter, T.R., 2010, The subsurface Paleozoic stratigraphy of southern Ontario: Ontario Geological Survey, Special Volume 7, 301 p.
  3. Brown, K., Whittaker, S., Wilson, M., Srisang, W., Smithson, H., and Tontiwachwuthikul, P., 2017, The history and development of the IEA GHG Weyburn–Midale CO2 monitoring and storage project in Saskatchewan, Canada (the world largest CO2 for EOR and CCS program): Petroleum, v. 3, p. 3–9, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.petlm.2016.12.002.
  4. Carter, T.R., Gunter, W., Lazorek, M., and Craig, R., 2007, Geological sequestration of carbon dioxide: a technology review and analysis of opportunities in Ontario: Climate Change Research Report CCRR-07, Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, 24 p.
  5. Carter, T.R., Fortner, L.D., Russell, H.A.J., Skuce, M.E., Longstaffe, F.J., and Sun, S., 2021a, A hydrostratigraphic framework for the Paleozoic bedrock of southern Ontario: Geoscience Canada, v. 48, p. 23–58, https://doi.org/10.12789/geocanj.2021.48.172.
  6. Carter, T.R., Logan, C.E., Clark, J.K., Russell, H.A.J., Brunton, F.R., Cachunjua, A., D’Arienzo, M., Freckelton, C., Rzyszczak, H., Sun, S., and Yeung, K.H., 2021b, A three-dimensional geological model of the Paleozoic bedrock of southern Ontario—version 2: Geological Survey of Canada, Open File 8795, 103 p., https://doi.org/10.4095/328297.
  7. Carter, T.R., Logan, C.E., Clark, J.K., Russell, H.A.J., Priebe, E.H., and Sun, S., 2022, A three-dimensional hydrostratigraphic model of southern Ontario: Geological Survey of Canada, Open File 8927, 58 p., https://doi.org/10.4095/331098.
  8. Cheng, Y., Liu, W., Xu, T., Zhang, Y., Zhang, X., Xing, Y., Feng, B., and Xia, Y., 2023, Seismicity induced by geological CO2 storage: A review: Earth-Science Reviews, v. 239, 104369, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.earscirev.2023.104369.
  9. CSA Group, 2022, Geological storage of carbon dioxide: Canadian Standards Association, CSA Z741:12 (R2022), 77 p. Available from: https://www.csagroup.org/store/product/2421962/.
  10. Dorland, M., Colquhoun, I., Carter, T.R., Phillips, A., Fortner, L., Clark, J., and Hamilton, D., 2016, Ontario Oil and Gas: 2. Cambrian and Ordovician conventional plays: Canadian Society of Petroleum Geologists Reservoir, v. 43, p. 18–25.
  11. Duong, C., Bower, C., Hume, K., Rock, L., and Tessarolo, S., 2019, Quest carbon capture and storage offset project: Findings and learnings from 1st reporting period: International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control, v. 89, p. 65–75, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijggc.2019.06.001.
  12. Erans, M., Sanz-Pérez, E.S., Hanak, D.P., Clulow, Z., Reiner, D.M., and Mutch, G.A., 2022, Direct air capture: process technology, techno-economic and socio-political challenges: Energy and Environmental Science, v. 15, p. 1360–1405, https://doi.org/10.1039/d1ee03523a.
  13. Finley, R.J., 2014, An overview of the Illinois Basin–Decatur Project: Greenhouse Gases: Science and Technology, v. 4, p. 571–579, https://doi.org/10.1002/ghg.1433.
  14. Global CCS Institute, 2022, Global Status of CCS 2022: Global Carbon Capture and Storage Institute, https://www.globalccsinstitute.com/resources/global-status-of-ccs-2022/, accessed May 30, 2024.
  15. Hart, B.S., 2024, Carbon-sequestration geosystems: A new paradigm for understanding geologic storage of CO2, with application to southwest Ontario, Canada: International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control, v. 132, 104071, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijggc.2024.104071.
  16. Hart, B.S., Sagan, J.A., and Ogiesoba, O.C., 2009, Lessons learned from 3-D seismic attribute studies of hydrothermal dolomite reservoirs: Canadian Society of Exploration Geophysicists Recorder, p. 18–24, https://csegrecorder.com/articles/view/lessons-learned-from-3d-seismic-attribute-studies-of-hydrothermal-dolomite.
  17. Hunt, L., 2024, CCS value written in a bowtie: Canadian Society of Exploration Geophysicists Recorder, https://cseg.ca/ccs-value-written-in-a-bowtie/, accessed May 2, 2024.
  18. Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis, 2022, The facts about steelmaking: Steelmakers seeking green steel. Downloaded from https://ieefa.org/sites/default/files/2022-06/steel-fact-sheet.pdf, May 31, 2024.
  19. IPCC, 2005, IPCC special report on carbon dioxide capture and storage, in Metz, B., Davidson, O., de Coninck, H.C., Loos, M., and Meyer, L.A., eds., Prepared by Working Group III of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA, 442 p. Available from: https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/03/srccs_wholereport-1.pdf.
  20. Keranen, K.M., and Weingarten, M., 2018, Induced seismicity: Annual Review of Earth and Planetary Sciences, v. 46, p. 149–174, https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-earth-082517-010054.
  21. Lee, S-Y., Swager, L., Pekot, L., Piercey, M., Will, R., and Zaluski, W., 2018, Study of operational dynamic data in Aquistore project: International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control, v. 76, p. 62–77, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijggc.2018.06.008.
  22. Leetaru, H.E., and Frieburg, J.T., 2014, Litho-facies and reservoir characterization of the Mt Simon Sandstone at the Illinois Basin – Decatur Project: Greenhouse Gases: Science and Technology, v. 4, p. 580–595, https://doi.org/10.1002/ghg.1453.
  23. Lowe, D.G., Arnott, R.W.C., Nowlan, G.S., and McCracken, A.D., 2017, Lithostratigraphic and allostratigraphic framework of the Cambrian–Ordovician Potsdam Group and correlations across early Paleozoic southern Laurentia: Canadian Journal of Earth Sciences, v. 54, p. 550–585, https://doi.org/10.1139/CJES-2016-0151.
  24. Luhmann, A.J., Kong, X-Z., Tutolo, B.M., Garapati, N., Bagley, B.C., Saar, M.O., and Seyfried Jr., W.E., 2014, Experimental dissolution of dolomite by CO2-charged brine at 100°C and 150 bar: Evolution of porosity, permeability, and reactive surface area: Chemical Geology, v. 380, p. 145–160, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chemgeo.2014.05.001.
  25. Martin, D.F., and Taber, J.J., 1992, Carbon dioxide flooding: Journal of Petroleum Technology, v. 44, p. 396–400, https://doi.org/10.2118/23564-PA.
  26. McLaughlin, P.I., and Stigall, A.L., 2023, Ordovician of the conterminous United States, in Servais, T., Harper, D.A.T., Lefebvre, B., and Percival, I.G., eds., A Global Synthesis of the Ordovician System: Part 2: Geological Society, London, Special Publications, v. 533, p. 93–113, https://doi.org/10.1144/SP533-2022-198.
  27. Mitrović, M., and Malone, A., 2011, Carbon capture and storage (CCS) demonstration projects in Canada: Energy Procedia, v. 4, p. 5685–5691, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.egypro.2011.02.562.
  28. NETL. National Energy Technology Laboratory, 2015, Carbon Storage Atlas, Fifth edition, https://www.netl.doe.gov/coal/carbon-storage/strategic-program-support/natcarb-atlas, accessed November 23, 2022.
  29. Ozkan, M., Nayak, S.P., Ruiz, A.D., and Jiang, W., 2022, Current status and pillars of direct air capture technologies: iScience, v. 25, 103990, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.isci.2022.103990.
  30. Paltsev, S., Morris, J., Kheshgi, H., and Herzog, H., 2021, Hard-to-abate sectors: The role of industrial carbon capture and storage (CCS) in emission mitigation: Applied Energy, v. 300, 117322, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2021.117322.
  31. Ramanathan, V., 1981, The role of ocean-atmosphere interactions in the CO2 climate problem: Journal of the Atmospheric Sciences, v. 38, p. 918–930, https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0469(1981)038%3C0918:TROOAI%3E2.0.CO;2.
  32. Ringrose, P., 2020, How to Store CO2 Underground: Insights from Early-mover CCS Projects: Springer Briefs in Earth Sciences Series, 129 p., https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-33113-9.
  33. Rosenqvist, J., Kilpatrick, A.D., Yardley, B.W.D., and Rochelle, C.A., 2019, Alkali feldspar dissolution in response to injection of carbon dioxide: Applied Geochemistry, v. 109, 104419, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apgeochem.2019.104419.
  34. Sagan, J.A., and Hart, B.S., 2006, Three-dimensional seismic-based definition of fault-related porosity development: Trenton–Black River interval, Saybrook, Ohio: American Association of Petroleum Geologists Bulletin, v. 90, p. 1763–1785, https://doi.org/10.1306/07190605027.
  35. Sanford, B.V., and Quillian, R.G., 1959, Subsurface stratigraphy of Upper Cambrian rocks in southwestern Ontario 30m; 31c, d; 40 I, j, o, p; 41 a, h: Geological Survey of Canada, Paper 58−12, 34 p., https://doi.org/10.4095/101213.
  36. Shafeen, A., Croiset, E., Douglas, P.L., and Chatzis, I., 2004, CO2 sequestration in Ontario, Canada. Part I: Storage evaluation of potential reservoirs: Energy Conversion and Management, v. 45, p. 2645−2659, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.2003.12.003.
  37. Sharpe, D.R., Piggott, A., Carter, T., Gerber, R.E., MacRitchie, S.M., de Loë, R.C., Strynatka, S., and Zwiers, G., 2014, Southern Ontario hydrogeological region, in Rivera, A.R., ed., Canada’s Groundwater Resources: Fitzhenry and Whiteside Publishers, p. 443–499, https://doi.org/10.4095/293431.
  38. Statistics Canada, 2022, Table: 98-10-0009-01 Population and dwelling counts: Canada, provinces and territories, and economic regions: Government of Canada, https://doi.org/10.25318/9810000901-eng.
  39. Stephenson, M.H., Ringrose, P., Geiger, S., Bridden, M., and Schofield, D., 2019, Geoscience and decarbonization: current status and future directions: Petroleum Geoscience, v. 25, p. 501–508, https://doi.org/10.1144/petgeo2019-084.
  40. Trevail, R.A., and Carter, T.R., 1990, Cambro–Ordovician shallow water sediments, London area, southwestern Ontario, in Carter, T.R., ed., Subsurface Geology of Southwestern Ontario: A Core Workshop: American Association of Petroleum Geologists, Eastern Section Meeting, London, Ontario, p. 29–50.
  41. Verdon, J.P., 2014, Significance for secure CO2 storage of earthquakes induced by fluid injection: Environmental Research Letters, v. 9, 064022, https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/9/6/064022.
  42. Wen, G., and Benson, S.M., 2019, CO2 plume migration and dissolution in layered reservoirs: International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control, v. 87, p. 66–79, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijggc.2019.05.012.
  43. White, D.J., 2011, Geophysical monitoring of the Weyburn CO2 flood: Results during 10 years of injection: Energy Procedia, v. 4, p. 3628–3635, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.egypro.2011.02.293.
  44. White, D.J., 2018, 3D architecture of the Aquistore reservoir: Implications for CO2 flow and storage capacity: International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control, v. 71, p. 74–85, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijggc.2018.02.009.
  45. Worden, R.H., 2024, Carbon dioxide capture and storage (CCS) in saline aquifers versus depleted gas fields: Geosciences, v. 14, 146, https://doi.org/10.3390/geosciences14060146.