As a Canadian carbon removal…

As a Canadian carbon removal project developer, Deep Sky is committed to the ambitious goal of removing gigatons of carbon from the atmosphere and ensuring its permanent underground storage. We commend Ontario’s leadership in moving quickly to consult on CO2 storage legislations.

This will not only foster commercial opportunities within the province for carbon removal project developers but also represents a significant advancement towards achieving Canada's sustainability objectives.

We are writing to share some comments and recommendations to the discussion document from a practical and operational perspective, aiming to make carbon removal projects in Ontario as viable and bankable as possible.

You will find our comments and recommendations below.
We appreciate the opportunity to contribute to this important discussion and hope our insights will be valuable in the decision-making process.

Deep Sky is Canada’s first IP agnostic project developer for carbon dioxide removals. We seek to slow, arrest and ultimately reverse this accelerating march towards global climate disaster through carbon removal and long-term storage. Deep Sky’s goal is to remove decades and gigatonnes of legacy CO₂ emissions from the environment and store them safely and securely for the long term in the Precambrian rock of the Canadian shield and in deep saline aquifers.
We have reviewed the discussion document and respectfully submit the following for you consideration.

Location
We believe the Ontario Government is missing an opportunity to look more holistically at some other forms of CO2 storage methods. In particular, Ontario is uniquely positioned to be a Canadian leader in in-situ mineralized CO2 storage. We recognize that this might take more time to consult and design a framework; but it is possible that Ontario has far more storage potential with in-situ mineralization than in deep saline aquifers. Ontario should start this work immediately.

That being said; as it relates specifically to storage in deep saline aquifers; there are several advantages to taking a narrow approach;

Technical Feasibility and Safety: Storing CO2 at depths greater than 800 meters allows for the CO2 to be in a supercritical state, enhancing its storage efficiency and stability. This depth also minimizes the risk of leakage and surface contamination, addressing safety concerns.
Regulatory Efficiency: By focusing on known geological formations and established technologies, the regulatory framework can be more streamlined and less risky. This approach simplifies the monitoring and verification processes and reduces the regulatory burden by using familiar evaluation techniques.
Geographic Relevance: Concentrating on areas with significant industrial CO2 emissions, such as southwestern Ontario, ensures that the carbon storage facilities are close to the sources of emissions, reducing transportation costs and associated emissions.

Opportunities to Drive Further Improvements
Expand scope: Limiting the scope to current technologies and specific types of geological formations may discourage innovation in other potentially viable technologies and storage options, such as newer geological formations or advanced carbon capture and utilization (CCU) technologies. For example, we should not limit storage to depths of 800m and greater as there are many examples in other jurisdictions where this can be done safely.
Support innovation: There need to be provisions to ensure a level playing field for smaller companies or those with innovative technologies that do not fit within the specified criteria may find it difficult to enter the market. This could stifle competition and innovation in the carbon storage industry in Ontario.
Proactively manage social acceptance: Concentrating storage in specific regions could raise concerns about overburdening local environments and communities. There will need to be a concerted effort

Commercial Facility Authourization
Ontario should adopt the approach that ensures pore space is owned by the Crown. It simplifies the process for proponents, and prevents one landowner from vetoing a project. The province can regulate safety requirements to decrease risks to the landowners. This is the approach that has been in place in Alberta for several years. The process clearly defines the ownership of pore space as belonging to the Crown. This simplifies the process and provides clarity for developers and surface land rights holders. This would be a benefit to all parties as it would help avoid complexities and potential legal challenges.
Many jurisdictions grapple with the issue of long-term liability for stored CO2. Determining who is responsible for CO2 after project closure, especially if leakage occurs, presents significant challenges. BC and Manitoba (in its draft legislation) adopted an approach where the proponent remains liable post-closure, which reduces the bankability of projects.

Ontario should implement clear regulations on long-term liability and establish a fund or insurance mechanism to cover potential issues arising post-closure. This could involve setting aside financial assurances or creating state-held funds to manage long-term stewardship and potential leakage. This will ensure bankability of commercial scale projects and ensure that project developers remain accountable to meet closure requirements.
Ontario should ensure it designs a flexible regulatory framework that can adapt to technological advancements. This includes provisions for pilot projects and phased approvals that allow for testing and scaling up of innovative technologies.

Project Selection
A competitive selection process can help ensure that only the most viable, efficient, and well-prepared projects are approved. This could maximize the effective use of Crown land, ensuring that projects with the best technology are implemented. By using a competitive process, the selection criteria can be made transparent. With rigorous competition, only projects that meet high standards of environmental safety and regulatory compliance are likely to be selected, helping to mitigate environmental risks associated with CCS projects.
If Ontario selects a competitive process they should ensure it continues to allow for small companies to be active. Additionally; the competitive process should be run quickly with clear stage gates that will enable project developers to have certainty as they raise financing for their projects. In an effort to avoid a process that exclusively focuses on price; the competitive process should prioritize other important factors like long-term viability, technological innovation, and/or community benefits.

Obtaining Surface Rights
In addition to subsurface storage areas, other access and rights may be required such as surface rights, mining rights, oil and gas rights, etc.
In British Columbia and Alberta, the onus is on the proponent to obtain surface leases with landowners, with opportunities for mediation or adjudication through a tribunal body where needed. In Ontario, proponents of compressed air energy projects are required to obtain all necessary surface and subsurface rights for their project. The Ontario Energy Board (OEB) can facilitate agreements or access for natural gas projects where needed.
The current approach in Ontario for compressed air energy seems appropriate. It helps that an independent entity helps facilitate mediation and is similar to the process thatQuébec has for natural gas.

Authorization Stages
As the discussion document states, most other jurisdictions issue authorizations in stages. These stages include authorization of exploration or evaluation of suitability, followed by authorization of injection and storage.
We agree that this is the best approach for Ontario. Exploration necessitates a lot of resources from proponents. Before deploying resources, proponents need assurance that they will be able to develop the subsurface should the exploration be conclusive.