Geoscience Canada

Vol. 51 No. 3 (2024)
Articles

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

Accès restreint aux abonnés-es ou avec frais PDF (English) (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

Publié-e 2024-10-11

Mots-clés

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

Comment citer

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
Mention de droit d'auteur

Résumé

Cet article passe en revue les cinq W (de l'anglais: Why, What, Who, When, and Where, ou en français: Pourquoi, Quoi, Qui, Quand, et Où) du captage et du stockage du carbone dans le sud-ouest de l’Ontario. Cette région abrite près d’un quart de la population canadienne et environ les trois quarts d’un million de personnes travaillent dans le secteur manufacturier. Quinze des 20 principales sources ponctuelles d’émission de CO2 de la province se trouvent dans cette région. Les industries responsables de ces émissions comprennent les aciéries, les raffineries et les usines pétrochimiques, ainsi que les cimenteries. Ces industries font partie du secteur pour lequel les émissions sont difficile à réduire, dans la mesure où le CO2 est utilisé ou généré dans le cadre du processus industriel. Par conséquent, éliminer ou même réduire les émissions de ces industries est une tâche difficile.
  Les projets de captage et de stockage du carbone (CSC) visent à séquestrer ce gaz dans des bassins sédimentaires sur des périodes dépassant plusieurs milliers d’années. À cette fin, des roches poreuses et perméables (un emplacement de stockage) profondément enfouies (> 800 m) doivent être recouvertes de roches imperméables qui empêchent l’ascension du CO2 vers l’atmosphère. La possibilité que les activités d’injection puissent déclencher une sismicité n’est qu’une des considérations supplémentaires. Lorsqu’ils sont opérationnels, les projets de CSC ont une empreinte carbone négative et l’intérêt de développer et d’utiliser cette technologie est établi depuis plus de 20 ans. Les véritables projets de CSC diffèrent des projets de captage, d’utilisation et de stockage du carbone (CUSC) en ce sens que les premiers sont conçus uniquement dans un souci de séquestration. Un type de projet de CUSC consiste à utiliser du CO2 pour la récupération assistée du pétrole (RAP) et cette technologie est utilisée depuis plusieurs décennies.
  Les grès cambriens sont les cibles d’injection les plus adaptées pour le CSC dans le sud-ouest de l’Ontario, car les forages pétroliers et gaziers antérieurs ont montré que les roches avaient les caractéristiques nécessaires. Elles sont enfouies à moins de 800 m, peuvent avoir des dizaines de mètres d’épaisseur et ont une porosité et une perméabilité adéquates. Cependant, la section cambrienne est hétérogène sur le plan lithologique et stratigraphique, et du pétrole, du gaz et de la saumure peuvent tous être présents dans l’espace poreux. La mesure dans laquelle cette complexité affectera l’injection de CO2 n’a pas encore été évaluée.

Accès restreint aux abonnés-es ou avec frais PDF (English) (CAD 30)

Références

  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.