Energy Conversion and Management 45 (2004) 2645–2659
www.elsevier.com/locate/enconman
CO2 sequestration in Ontario, Canada. Part I:
storage evaluation of potential reservoirs
A. Shafeen, E. Croiset *, P.L. Douglas, I. Chatzis
Department of Chemical Engineering, University of Waterloo, 200 University Ave. West,
Waterloo, Ont., Canada N2L 3G1
Received 29 September 2003; accepted 9 December 2003
Available online 9 April 2004
Abstract
The Kyoto target set for Canada is to reduce GHG emission by 6% of the 1990 level by 2008–2012. Several
options are being considered to achieve this target. For deep reductions within the next decade or two, CO2
sequestration is the only option if fossil fuel power plants, in particular coal based plants, are to remain in
operation. In the case of Ontario, the only sequestration option is geological sequestration in saline aquifers,
where CO2 is expected to be stored for long geological periods, from one hundred to several thousand years
depending on the size, properties and location of the reservoir. The preferred concept is to inject CO2 into a
porous and permeable reservoir covered with a cap rock located at least 800 m beneath the earth’s surface where
CO2 can be stored under supercritical conditions. The injection pressure and temperature should be above the
critical temperature and pressure of CO2 (31.1 °C and 7.38 MPa). This is the first study of its kind in Ontario.
Two different major reservoirs with approximate storage capacities of 289 million and 442 million tonnes are
identified in southwestern Ontario for CO2 sequestration, one located in the southern part of Lake Huron and
the other located inside Lake Erie. These reservoirs might contain approximately 14–21 years of CO2 emissions
from a nearby coal-fired power generation unit having a total generation capacity of about 4000 MW.
Ó 2004 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Carbon dioxide sequestration; Michigan and Appalachian Basin; Mt. Simon sandstone; Saline aquifer
1. Introduction
Sequestration of anthropogenic carbon dioxide in deep saline aquifers offers the opportunity to
isolate CO2 for long geological time periods. It might, therefore, be an attractive option for large
*
Corresponding author. Tel.: +1-519-888-4567x6472; fax: +1-519-746-4979.
E-mail address: [email protected] (E. Croiset).
0196-8904/$ - see front matter Ó 2004 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.enconman.2003.12.003
2646
A. Shafeen et al. / Energy Conversion and Management 45 (2004) 2645–2659
CO2 emitters, such as fossil fuel based power plants located close to the aquifers. A large volume
of CO2 can be stored in a saline formation if it is injected at a temperature and pressure beyond its
critical state (31.1 °C and 7.38 MPa). The reason behind supercritical CO2 injection is to take
advantage of its high density, enabling storage of large amounts of CO2 in a reduced volume.
Other possible ways of storage include gaseous and liquid CO2 , but these are not considered
because of their limited potential and because they can only be useful in the case of small volumes.
A minimum reservoir depth of 800 m is necessary for CO2 to remain in its supercritical state [1].
This depth may vary according to the location of the reservoir and the subsurface temperature
and pressure gradient of the formation.
In the case of Ontario, the target reservoir for sequestration is the saline aquifer of Mt. Simon
sandstone in the Michigan and Appalachian basins. This formation is of Cambrian origin and is
located in southwestern Ontario. It could be a suitable CO2 sequestration option for the large
Nanticoke generation plant (4000 MW installed capacity) located in southwestern Ontario and
operated by Ontario Power Generation (OPG). This particular formation is chosen because of its
availability at the required depth and the presence of a caprock known as the Shadow Lake
Formation that overlies it.
2. Formation temperature and pressure
It is difficult to predict the actual temperature and pressure gradients for the Mt. Simon formation due to the absence of necessary data related to subsurface temperatures and pressures.
Fig. 1 shows the temperature and pressure gradients for the Michigan basin. The temperature
gradient is based on the work done by Vugrinovich [2], where a gradient of 0.0192 °C/m is used in
an equation of bottomhole temperature (BHT) to determine the subsurface temperature. A
pressure gradient of 0.0095 MPa/m is used in this study [3–5]. It is a useful tool for describing the
parameters (P ; T ) of this formation. According to these gradients, a minimum depth of 865 m is
required to reach the conditions of a CO2 supercritical state. The minimum depth may decrease to
about 800 m if a temperature gradient more than 0.0192 °C/m (e.g. 0.025 °C/m, as suggested by
Cercone [3] for the Michigan basin) is used. To overcome this uncertainty, a new set of experimental data and core analysis explicitly meant to identify subsurface temperature and pressure as
well as the rock properties, such as porosity and permeability, is necessary.
In this study, the uncertainties related to the temperature and pressure gradients are avoided
by selecting the 800 m depth contour on top of the caprock (Shadow Lake Formation).
The combined thickness of the Shadow Lake formation (up to 15 m) and the underlying
Eau Claire formation (up to 80 m), embedded in between Shadow Lake and the Mt. Simon
sandstone, ensures the minimum depth requirement for the caprock, as well as for the underlying
aquifer.
3. Geology of southwestern Ontario
A sedimentary basin is the place where storage of any gas or liquid is possible due to its porous
nature. In Ontario, the sedimentary basins cover approximately 320,000 km2 , which is almost one
A. Shafeen et al. / Energy Conversion and Management 45 (2004) 2645–2659
2647
Temp [ C ]
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
0
200
Depth [m]
400
T
P
600
CO 2 critical pressure
7.38 MPa
800
CO2 critical temp 31.1
1000
BHT=14.5 +
0.0192*depth
1200
1400
1600
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
Pressure [MPa]
Fig. 1. Subsurface temperature and pressure gradients for the Michigan basin.
Fig. 2. Sedimentary Basin in Ontario (modified from Johnson et al. [6]).
18
19
20
2648
A. Shafeen et al. / Energy Conversion and Management 45 (2004) 2645–2659
third of the total surface area of the province [6]. It includes northern Ontario and Hudson Bay
and the entire area of southern Ontario (see Fig. 2).
However, sequestration is not possible in all these areas. In the case of the Hudson Bay
Lowland in northern Ontario, the location is not suitable for CO2 sequestration due to the
shallow depth of the porous formation rock. Moreover, deep inside the bay, where depth may not
be a constraint, its distance from large point CO2 sources, such as a coalfired power plant, render
it practically useless as a sequestration site. Similarly, the Central St. Lawrence Platform, located
in south-eastern Ontario (see Fig. 2) will not be considered.
In southwestern Ontario, the target reservoir for sequestration is the Mt. Simon sandstone of
the western St. Lawrence Platform (see dark gray area in Fig. 2). Depending on the depth and
availability of the formation rock, the possible sequestration area is divided into two zones
identified as the northern zone and southern zone. These two zones are shown in Fig. 3. The
northern zone, NZ, consists of the lower half of Lake Huron and the uppermost part of Lambton
county. The southern zone, SZ, consists of the northern half of Essex county, southern half of
Lake St. Clair, lower half of Kent, lower half of Elgin, southern part of Haldimand-Norfolk
county and the area inside Lake Erie south of these counties. The 800 m depth contour is drawn
on top of the Shadow Lake formation, which overlaps the Mt. Simon sandstone. It consists of a
few meters of dolomitic and sandy shale and acts as an excellent caprock [6,7]. The presence of
Fig. 3. Reservoir locations in southwestern Ontario.
A. Shafeen et al. / Energy Conversion and Management 45 (2004) 2645–2659
2649
hydrocarbon in Clearville, Gobles Innerkip and Willey pools is proof of the integrity of this cap
rock [8].
In general, the Shadow Lake formation, a middle Ordovician Black River group, is continuously present (see Fig. 4) in the whole of southwestern Ontario [9]. The normal thickness of the
formation is 2–3 m and the maximum is 15 m [6]. The proven hydrocarbon reserve beneath the
cap rock implies that the storage of carbon dioxide could also be possible below this formation.
Even though the thickness of the Shadow Lake formation is only between 2–15 m, the overlying
succession of limestones and shales of the Gull River (7.5–136 m), Bobcaygeon (7–87 m), Verulam
(32–65 m) and Lindsay (maximum 67 m) formations reinforces the integrity of the cap rock. These
formations are also known as Gull River, Coboconk, Kirkfield, Sherman Fall and Cobourg (see
Fig. 4).
Finally, the shales of the upper Ordovician Blue Mountain (up to 60 m thick), Georgian Bay
(125–200 m, also known as Meaford-Dundas) and Queenston (45–335 m) formations (see Fig. 4)
will retard any upward movement and keep CO2 beneath them at trapped conditions [6,10,11].
The primary cap rock, Shadow Lake, and the subsequent upper shales increase the efficiency of
the cap rock and its trapping performance. The Eau Claire formation (up to 80 m), embedded in
between Shadow Lake and the Mt. Simon sandstone (up to 50 m), could also act as a caprock as
mentioned in some studies [4,5]. If this is the case, it will be an added safety to store carbon
dioxide in the aquifer of Mt. Simon sandstone.
4. Capacity of the formation
Capacity estimates for these two zones are based on assumed values of parameters such as
porosity, permeability, CO2 saturation and sweep efficiency. A few core analysis reports (dating
back to the early 60s and 80s) for the Cambrian formation suggest that the porosity in the formation ranges from 5% to 15% [12,13]. As for permeability analysis, the data from these reports
are too inconsistent to reach a firm conclusion as to the values to be used. Moreover, the depth
reported in those core analysis reports for the Cambrian formation is higher than the one reported
by Brigham [9] and by the Ontario Geological Survey [7]. These uncertainties reveal the lack of
scientifically sound data to predict a true porosity and permeability for this formation. In the case
of porosity, a conservative estimate of 10% seems to be quite consistent with the available data
[5,12,13]. For calculation purposes, a permeability value of 20–30 md (millidarcy) could be chosen
as a starting point as a number of data reported by those analyses falls within this range. For most
cases, the vertical permeability is reported as <0.01 md for the different carbonate formations
[12,13]. The average formation thickness is assumed to be approximately 31 m for both the NZ
and SZ reservoirs [4,6,7,9].
There is no universally accepted method to calculate the storage capacity of a formation.
Different models are available for calculation [14–16], and the model suggested by Tanaka et al.
[16] is used here. Unlike the other methods, this model has fewer assumptions.
Storage capacity ¼ ðdisplaceable volume þ dissolved volume of CO2 in water in situÞ
Storage capacity ¼ Ef A h / ½Sg =Bg ðCO2 Þ þ ð1 Sg Þ Rs ðCO2 Þ
ð1Þ
2650
A. Shafeen et al. / Energy Conversion and Management 45 (2004) 2645–2659
Fig. 4. Composite stratigraphic column (after [11], http://www.ogsrlibrary.com/doc/strat1a.pdf).
A. Shafeen et al. / Energy Conversion and Management 45 (2004) 2645–2659
2651
where
Ef
overall sweep efficiency, (fraction)
h
formation thickness, (m)
CO2 saturation, (fraction)
Sg
Bg (CO2 ) CO2 formation volume factor, (m3 /m3 ) [reservoir volume /std. volume]
Rs (CO2 ) CO2 solubility in water, (m3 /m3 )
A
projected structural area of formation, (m2 )
/
porosity, (fraction, dimensionless)
In Eq. (1), CO2 injection is assumed to be in a gaseous or supercritical state. During injection,
part of the formation water is displaced by the CO2 , and the rest of the formation water that
is not displaced plays an active role in dissolving some of the CO2 into it. Like other two phase
systems, the saturation of injected CO2 in the formation depends on the relative permeabilities of the
CO2 and formation water. The injected CO2 often passes through some parts of the formation due
to gravity segregation and viscous fingering phenomena that affect the sweep efficiency [17]. The
sweep efficiency depends on the reservoir thickness, vertical permeability distribution and mobility
ratio of the injected CO2 and formation water. The mobility of a fluid in a porous medium is defined
as the ratio of the effective permeability to the viscosity of that fluid [16,17].
The solubility of carbon dioxide in the formation water varies according to the degree of
salinity as well as according to temperature and pressure. Generally, solubility decreases with the
increasing salinity [1]. The salinity of the Mt. Simon aquifer in the Elgin, Essex, Kent, Middlesex
and Lambton counties is dominated by sodium, calcium and chloride ions. The values of the total
dissolved solids (TDS) in these areas vary between 100,000–300,000 ppm [18]. An average value of
200,000 ppm would be a good estimate for this formation [5,18]. The CO2 solubility is found to be
10 m3 /m3 at an average salinity of 200,000 ppm and at a temperature and pressure of 37.7 °C and
10 MPa, respectively [19]. The CO2 formation volume factor is calculated to be 0.0029114 m3 /
SCM at an average reservoir temperature and pressure similar to that of the solubility measurement [17]. The CO2 saturation and sweep efficiency are assumed to be 20% and 10%,
respectively. For accurate estimation, reservoir modeling software should be used, such as
TOUGH2, ECLLIPSE or GEM/STARS [1].
4.1. Case study: Reserve capacity for Nanticoke CO2 emission
According to the ‘Greenhouse Gas Action Plan-2000’ report published by Ontario Power
Generation (OPG), the annual CO2 emission from Nanticoke in the year 2000 was 21.5 million
tonnes [20]. The storage capacities of the two zones (NZ and SZ) were calculated to determine the
potential number of years available for storing the CO2 emitted from the Nanticoke power plant.
The approximate surface area of the Mt. Simon sandstone inside the Canadian territory is estimated to be 6250 and 9525 km2 for the northern and southern zones, respectively [21].
In the case of the northern zone, the total capacity is estimated at 289 million tonnes, which is
equivalent to 13.5 years of Nanticoke’s emissions. In the case of the southern zone, the storage
capacity value is 442 million tonnes, that is 20.5 years of Nanticoke’s emissions. These estimates
may increase by up to five fold if the sweep efficiency is increased to 50% from the assumed value
2652
A. Shafeen et al. / Energy Conversion and Management 45 (2004) 2645–2659
of 10% [16]. Because of its higher storage capacity and the proximity to the Nanticoke plant, the
southern zone seems more promising for sequestration.
Preliminary investigation reveals that the probable location for injection in the southern zone
could be in Lake Erie on the Canada–USA border, which is slightly west of 81° and due south to
Port Stanley (see Fig. 5). The highest depth of the Mt. Simon formation in this area will maximize
the amount of sequestration. Once CO2 is injected, it will tend to rise upward and will reach the
top of the aquifer until it is obstructed by the caprock. Once obstructed, the CO2 plume will
spread gradually laterally and simultaneously dissolve in the saline formation. The rate of dissolution will be controlled by the surface area of CO2 in contact with the formation water. This
phenomenon occurs due to the buoyancy force caused by the density difference between the
supercritical CO2 and the saline water present in the formation. The more CO2 is in contact with
the formation water, the higher the solubility of CO2 will be and, hence, the amount that can be
sequestered will increase [22].
In the case of the southern zone, the CO2 plume will probably move towards the north due to
the shallow depth of the formation rock in that direction. As it was found that most of the
hydrocarbon traps in these rocks occur where the sandstone strata pinch out against the southeastern flank of the Algonquin Arch [6], so will also be the case with the injected CO2 . Similarly,
any injection near the Canada–USA border inside Lake Erie will probably result in an insignificant amount of CO2 migrating into the USA territory. Clearly, buoyancy is playing the major
role in the case of the CO2 plume movement. Migration of the plume in different directions will
Fig. 5. Major subsurface fault locations in southwestern Ontario (faults are indicated as dotted line).
A. Shafeen et al. / Energy Conversion and Management 45 (2004) 2645–2659
2653
also be influenced by the hydrodynamics of groundwater in the sedimentary basins. Related data
for hydrogeology seems to be almost non-existent for the case of the Mt. Simon sandstone [23].
Numerous reservoir modeling studies by different authors imply that the plume migration will
not be more than 25–50 km [24–27]. Before exceeding this distance, the plume might dissolve
completely into the aquifer which may take up to several thousand years. The distance from the
imaginary injection point to the 800 m contour on the Shadow Lake formation is approximately
75 and 120 km (see Fig. 5) towards the eastern and western direction [7]. As a result, the chance of
migration of the plume up to that distance is less. If, by any chance, some remaining CO2 crosses
the 800 m limit, it will vaporise, and hence, the CO2 will move vigorously upward. Depending on
the amount of CO2 , the possibility of leakage might increase. A detailed study is needed to
determine the impact of the subsurface geology beyond the 800 m limit on sequestration activities.
Hydrocarbon exploration/production activities are currently in progress in different pools, such
as Clearville, Aldborough 4-Z-II, Dunwich 8-22-ABF and Raleigh 1-17-XIII in the Mt. Simon
formation in the southern zone [8]. They are located just beyond the 50 km range from the
injection point which allows a ‘sequestration without EOR’ activity in this region. These production activities might enable the sequestration to be economically viable if the enhanced oil
recovery option is also evaluated. The Innerkip and Gobles pools are located almost 150 km away
from the imaginary injection point. The distance is at least three to six times greater than that of
the CO2 migration distance. It ensures that any unwanted interaction is avoidable with the
sequestration and the hydrocarbon production activity from these two pools.
5. Safety issues
One of the major concerns for sequestration is leakage to the atmosphere. Leakage may occur
through a faulted zone, especially when the fault covers all the geological layers from the surface
to the basement rock. It may also occur through abandoned wells. Abandoned wells may act as a
bypass to the atmosphere if these were not sealed properly. Catastrophic leakage may occur due
to seismic activities (e.g. fractures may develop in the caprock) if the storage location is situated
nearby the earthquake hazard zone.
Several large and a good number of small faults (see Fig. 5) are present in the target area [28].
Most of these faults are the sites of potential hydrocarbon traps, such as the Willey and Clearville
pools [7]. The presence of hydrocarbon in these traps indicates that the faults are not working as a
pathway for leakage. The distance of some of the major faults, especially the Electric fault, from
the imaginary injection point is almost 50 km (see Fig. 5). The comparatively short distance of
different faults, such as the Electric, Dover, Dawn and Kimball–Collinville fault makes them more
important candidates for detailed investigation in order to determine their behaviour and performance as a trap.
A large number of abandoned and unknown oil wells are present in southwestern Ontario
whose status is not well documented. These have been abandoned for the past 20–90 years. There
are no updated reports available about the status of cement plugging and its strength. Moreover,
the quality and quantity of cement used in the early years might have severely degraded by this
time. The reactivity of the injected CO2 (or mixture of gas) with this cement and its consequences
needs to be evaluated. Many of these wells (2500) have no plug end date, which raises questions
2654
A. Shafeen et al. / Energy Conversion and Management 45 (2004) 2645–2659
about their present situation. An in depth analysis, based on the abandoned well data available
for southern Ontario, unveils the identity of the wells that could be most vulnerable to leakage.
These wells are identified depending on their depth and availability of the plug end date. Arbitrarily, a limit of P700 m was set for well depths to find the number of wells. It was found that
approximately 189 wells fall within these criteria. The locations of these wells in different counties
are shown in Table 1. The reason to choose 700 m as the base case is only because of their close
proximity to the reservoir and their probable susceptibility in case of any leak from the cap rock
or failure of the cement plugging. If the screening criteria include only the depth, irrespective of
citation of the plug end date, the number would jump to 834 wells [29]. A detailed investigation is
necessary to determine the real status of these wells, their ability to withstand the sequestration
pressure and impact on the environment in case of a failure.
Seismic hazard data from Natural Resources Canada [30] and the US Geological Survey [31]
indicate that the target location for sequestration and the surrounding area in the states of
Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania and New York falls within the lowest hazard zone (Figs. 6 and 7).
Table 1
List of abandoned, unknown, cancelled and suspended wellsa
County
Elgin
Essex
Huron
Kent
Oxford
Lake Erie
Total
a
Abandoned and unknown wells without
plug end date P 700 m
Cancelled and suspended wells without
plug end date P 700 m
12
8
4
95
8
1
5
14
1
4
32
5
128
61
Data source (as of 01-04-03): Ontario Oil, Gas and Salt Resources Library.
Fig. 6. Seismic hazard map of Canada (after [30], http://www.seismo.nrcan.gc.ca/hazards/zoning/seismiczonea_e.php).
A. Shafeen et al. / Energy Conversion and Management 45 (2004) 2645–2659
2655
Fig. 7. Seismic hazard map of USA (after [31], http://geohazards.cr.usgs.gov/eq/index.html).
This gives us confidence for proceeding with the sequestration activity in the selected area, at least
with respect to seismic hazard. The possibility of any seismic activity induced by the deep well
injection of CO2 into the target area could also be a concern for sequestration. More studies are
necessary in this regard.
6. Uncertainties
Significant uncertainties are associated with the reservoir capacity calculation and identification
of the abandoned wells that are most vulnerable. Uncertainties include: the nature of the reservoir, sweep efficiency and injection process. It also includes the hydrodynamics of the formation
water and the chemical reactions of CO2 with the rock and saline water. Uncertainty related to the
sweep efficiency should be overcome in order to predict the exact reserve capacity of the formation. It might be required to drill additional wells during the injection process, depending on
the behaviour of the reservoir. Uncertainties in the reservoir condition during the injection process
could lead to an unexpected work load associated with huge cost involvement. Hydrodynamics
and geochemical reactions might influence the reserve capacity by altering the properties of the
rock matrix. No data is available for southern Ontario related to these two parameters. Impurities
in the CO2 flow stream would reduce the transportation capacity of the pipeline. Once the capture
process identifies the exact composition of the intake CO2 at the battery limit of the sequestration
process, it would be easier to determine the correct size of the pipeline.
7. Sensitivity analysis
Storage capacity is very sensitivity to the values of porosity, permeability, sweep efficiency,
solubility and CO2 saturation. There are some porosity, permeability and solubility data available
2656
A. Shafeen et al. / Energy Conversion and Management 45 (2004) 2645–2659
Reservoir Capaacity [MM ton]
for the Michigan basin, but no data are available for the other parameters. Based on the available
data for porosity, a sensitivity analysis is performed to observe the effect on the overall reservoir
capacity (see Fig. 8). The lower and the higher limit are set at 5% and 25% by observing the
available data. With increasing porosity, the capacity of the reservoir increases and similarly
decreases with decreasing values. The reservoir capacity might vary between 220 and 1104 million
tonnes (M tonnes), which represent 10–50 years of current annual emission from the Nanticoke
power plant. Sweep efficiency will also produce exactly the same result as the porosity if varied
between 5% and 25%. If it is possible to reach a higher limit of 50%, the reserve could be more
than 2200 M tonnes of CO2 .
In the case of CO2 saturation, ranging between 5% and 25%, the trend will be similar to that of
the porosity, but the slope will be less (see Fig. 8). Any change in permeability will indirectly affect
the reserve capacity by altering the injection flow rate.
A change in solubility, caused by the different values of total dissolved solids (TDS) in saline
water, would influence the reserve capacity too (see Fig. 9). The capacity varies between 442 and
487 M tonnes due to a change in TDS in brine from 200,000 to 100,000 ppm keeping all other
variables constant. Solubility might play an insignificant role in the reserve calculation if the value
1200
1000
Porosity
CO2 Saturation
800
600
400
200
0
0
0.05
0.1
0.15
0.2
0.25
Porosity and Saturation [fraction]
0.3
0.35
Fig. 8. Sensitivity of reserve capacity at different values of porosity and CO2 saturation.
490
Capacity [MMton]
480
470
460
450
440
430
100000
120000
140000
160000
180000
200000
Brine Concentration [ ppm of TDS]
Fig. 9. Sensitivity of reserve capacity at different values of TDS in brine solution.
A. Shafeen et al. / Energy Conversion and Management 45 (2004) 2645–2659
2657
of TDS exceeds more than 300,000 ppm. The effect of TDS on capacity estimation is much less
than that of the porosity and the CO2 saturation.
8. Conclusions
Mt. Simon sandstone is a promising location for CO2 sequestration. The area of the formation
inside the Canadian territory is small compared to that of the area inside the states of Michigan
and Ohio. A coordinated effort between Canada and the USA can make sequestration in this
formation a success. With the exception of the concerns described in the safety aspects, the
caprock integrity seems to be acceptable. The presence of shale formation in the Silurian and
Devonian strata (Fig. 4) of the study area will provide a succession of barriers to vertical
migration of CO2 and might contain any leak of CO2 if it occurs from the main caprock.
The biggest advantage for Nanticoke power generation is that it is located on top of the same
formation where CO2 storage is possible. However, the distant location from the point source and
the cross country piping network through populated areas makes the northern zone less attractive
for sequestration of Nanticoke CO2 . Power plants located in nearby Lambton county or in Sarnia
will be the best candidates for the northern zone.
Finally, the acceptability of the sequestration idea in a densely populated and economically rich
area like southwestern Ontario will be a difficult task. Moreover, environmental concerns such as
the conservation of natural resources like Lake Erie, could pose a great barrier for carrying out
any sequestration activity deep below the lake. Establishing adequate safety measures and
implementing a contingency plan in case of a blowout of an injection well could be some of the
necessary preconditions for sequestration in this area. A state of the art monitoring plan for
underground CO2 movement is also necessary to enhance the confidence level of the sequestration
activity. However, convincing the local community, where people will theoretically reside on top
of a large volume of stored CO2 , or the consumers, who might not get any visible benefit in their
life time other than paying higher electricity bills, will remain the major challenge.
Acknowledgements
The authors wish to thank Ontario Power Generation (OPG) for their financial and technical
support towards this opportunity to contribute to the academic study of CO2 sequestration in
Canada. The information expressed herein is that of the authors and OPG takes no position on
CO2 sequestration and is simply furthering scientific endeavours.
References
[1] Hitchon B. Aquifer disposal of carbon dioxide-hydrodynamic and mineral trapping-proof of concept: report of a
three-year study by the Alberta Research Council. Alberta, Canada: Geoscience Publishing Ltd; 1996.
[2] Vugrinovich R. Subsurface temperatures and surface heat flow in the Michigan Basin and their relationships to
regional subsurface fluid movement. Mar Pet Geol 1989;6(1):60–70.
2658
A. Shafeen et al. / Energy Conversion and Management 45 (2004) 2645–2659
[3] Cercone KR. Thermal history of the Michigan Basin. Am Assoc Pet Geol Bull 1984;68(2):130–6.
[4] Mt. Simon Formation, Bureau Of Economic Geology, The University of Texas at Austin. Available from: http://
www.beg.utexas.edu/environqlty/co2seq/7mtsimon.htm.
[5] Gupta N, Sass B, Chattopadhyay S, Sminchak J, Wang P, Espie T. Geological storage of CO2 from refining and
chemical facilities in the Midwestern United States. In: Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on
Greenhouse Gas Control Technologies, Kyoto, Japan, vol. 1, 2002. p. 621–26.
[6] Johnson MD, Armstrong DK, Sanford BV, Telford PG, Rutka MA. Paleozoic and Mesozoic Geology of Ontario;
in Geology of Ontario. Ont Geol Surv 1992;4(2):906–1008.
[7] Cochrane RO. Bailey Geological Services Ltd., Evaluation of the conventional and potential oil and gas reserves of
the Cambrian of Ontario. Ontario Geological Survey Open File Report 5499, 1984. p. 72.
[8] Map of ‘‘Oil and Gas Pools and Pipelines of Southern Ontario’’, Ontario Oil, Gas and Salt Resources Library,
London, 2001. Available from: http://www.ogsrlibrary.com/cartography.html.
[9] Brigham RJ. Structural Geology of Southwestern Ontario and Southeastern Michigan. Department of Mines and
Northern Affairs-Petroleum Resources Section, Toronto, Canada, 1971.
[10] Carter TR. Oil and gas exploration, drilling and production summary, 1988, Oil and Gas Paper 11, Ministry of
Natural Resources, Ontario, 1992.
[11] Rock-Stratigraphic Succession Toronto-Windsor Area, Oil, Gas and Salt Resources Library, OGSRC, London,
Ontario. Available from: http://www.ogsrlibrary.com/doc/strat1a.pdf.
[12] Core Analysis Report, Ram BP #5 Raleigh 1-17, 1-17-XIII, Cambrian Formation, Ontario Oil, Gas and Salt
Resources Library, London, Ontario.
[13] Core Analysis Report, Atlas no. 1 Dunwich 1-23 IV, Willey Field, Cambrian Formation, Ontario Oil, Gas And
Salt Resources Library, London, Ontario.
[14] Koide H, Takahashi M, Tsukamoto H, Shindo Y. Self-trapping mechanism of carbon dioxide in aquifer disposal.
Energy Convers Manage 1995;36(6–9):505–8.
[15] Koide H, Tazaki Y, Noguchi Y, Nakayama S, Iijima M, Ito K, et al. Subterranean containment and long term
storage of carbon dioxide in unused aquifers and in depleted natural gas reservoirs. Energy Convers Manage
1992;33(5-8):619–26.
[16] Tanaka S, Koide H, Sasagawa A. Possibility of underground CO2 sequestration in Japan. Energy Convers Manage
1995;36(6-9):527–30.
[17] Lake LW. Enhanced oil recovery. New Jersey: Prentice Hall; 1989.
[18] Trevail RA, Pakvis PJ, Parker DK. Oil and gas exploration, drilling and production summary, 1983. Ministry of
Natural Resources, Oil and Gas Paper 6, 1987. p. 299–318.
[19] Baviere M. Basic concepts in enhanced oil recovery processes. London and New York: Elsevier Applied Science;
1991.
[20] Greenhouse Gas Action Plan-2000, OPG, Canada’s Climate Change Voluntary Challenge and Registry Inc.
Available from: http://www.opg.com/envComm/E_envrep.asp.
[21] Natural Resources Canada. Available from: http://atlas.gc.ca/site/english/find_a_place/index_html.
[22] Hendriks CA, Block K. Underground storage of carbon dioxide. Energy Convers Manage 1993;34(9–11):949–
57.
[23] Vugrinovich R. Relationship between regional hydrogeology and hydrocarbon occurrences in Michigan Basin.
J Pet Geol 1988;11(4):429–42.
[24] King JE, Gibson-Poole CM, Lang SC, Paterson L, Long-term numerical simulation of geological storage of CO2 in
the Petrel Sub-Basin, North West Australia, Australian Petroleum Cooperative Research Centre. Available from:
http://www.apcrc.com.au/GreenhouseFrameset.htm.
[25] Lindeberg E. Escape of CO2 from aquifers. Energy Convers Manage 1997;38(Suppl):235–40.
[26] Obdam A, Van der Meer L, May F, Kervevan C, Bech N, Wildenborg A. Effective CO2 storage capacity in
aquifers, gas fields, oil fields and coal fields. In: Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Greenhouse
Gas Control Technologies, Kyoto, Japan, vol. 1, 2002. p. 339–46.
[27] Chadwick RA, Zweigel P, Gregersen U, Kirby GA, Holloway S, Johannessen PN. Geological characterization of
CO2 storage sites: lessons from Sleipner, Northern North Sea. In: Proceedings of the 6th International Conference
on Greenhouse Gas Control Technologies, Kyoto, Japan, vol. 1, 2002. p. 321–26.
A. Shafeen et al. / Energy Conversion and Management 45 (2004) 2645–2659
2659
[28] Carter TR. Personal Communication, Ontario Oil, Gas and Salt Resources Library, 669 Exeter Road, London,
Ontario, Canada, N6E 1L3.
[29] Petroleum Wells-Data Base, Ontario Oil, Gas and Salt Resources Library, OGSRC, London, Ontario. Available
from: http://www.ogsrlibrary.com/links.html#.
[30] Natural Resources Canada, National Earthquake Hazards Program, Natural Resources Canada, Ottawa, Ontario,
Canada. Available from: http://www.seismo.nrcan.gc.ca/hazards/zoning/seismiczonea_e.php.
[31] US Geological Survey, USGS National Seismic Hazard Mapping Project, USGS National Center, Reston, VA,
USA. Available from: http://geohazards.cr.usgs.gov/eq/index.html.