Discussion Paper: Regulating Commercial-Scale Geologic Carbon Storage Projects in Ontario

Effects of consultation

Comments were received from Indigenous communities, industry, agricultural associations, municipalities, non-government organizations, subject matter experts, farmers and other members of the public.

In consideration of feedback received, the ministry has decided to proceed with the development of a framework for commercial-scale geologic carbon storage, beginning with the development of new legislation, the Geologic Carbon Storage Act, that, if approved, would be followed by supporting regulations before the legislation could be brought into force. The proposed framework would establish a clear approach for providing access to underground storage space, establish a permitting scheme for authorizing research, evaluation, and storage activities, and enable the safe and responsible management of carbon storage activities and sites throughout the project lifecycle and over the long term.

For additional information on the proposed Geologic Carbon Storage Act, please refer to the related notice Enabling the Development of Commercial-Scale Geologic Carbon Storage in Ontario: The Geologic Carbon Storage Act (link provided in Related ERO Notices below).

All comments received were reviewed and considered in the ministry’s decision to proceed with the design of a legislative framework. A summary of the feedback provided is outlined below.

What we heard:

Feedback from commentors on the discussion paper for regulating commercial-scale geologic carbon storage in Ontario was generally mixed. Industry stakeholders were broadly supportive of enabling geologic carbon storage through the design of a regulatory framework as it would provide a potential tool for decarbonization, and lead to other economic benefits for Ontario. Some commentors expressed that more detailed information about the risks and impacts to the environment and public safety associated with geologic carbon storage was necessary to more fully understand and comment on the implications of the discussion paper and framework in development. Other comments related to broader provincial strategies related to carbon capture, transportation, and utilization, which were determined to be out-of-scope for this posting.

Scope of the framework

There was general agreement from industry representatives that initially focusing on enabling commercial-scale projects within saline aquifers and depleted oil and gas reservoirs in southwestern Ontario would meet industry needs. However, not all industry respondents agreed with this form of limitation. In addition, many industry representatives opposed the idea of limiting carbon storage activities to depths of 800 meters or greater and felt that storage activities should be permitted at any depths where a proponent is able to demonstrate that it could be done in a safe and responsible manner.

Rights to pore space

Most industry representatives support the vesting of pore space in the Crown on the basis that it would affirm pore space as a public good and provide industry with the certainty they require to make investments in commercial-scale operations.

Other commentors generally oppose Ontario vesting pore space under private land in the Crown on the basis that it would be a removal of existing landowner rights and could negatively impact the rights and interests of Indigenous communities. However, some commentors noted that landowner control of pore space has led to legal disputes and challenges in other jurisdictions where this approach has been adopted.

Use of Crown land

There was general agreement from industry submissions that a competitive process is appropriate for allocating storage space on Crown land, as it would help to optimize a limited resource, and facilitate evaluation of project applications in a transparent and systematic manner. Some commentors proposed that owners of existing subsurface rights for petroleum and natural gas development, where they overlap with potential geologic carbon storage areas on Crown land, should be given priority in a competitive process to reduce risk associated with migration of injected CO2 into leased reserves.

Engagement and potential impacts

Many commentors submitted that more context and supporting information regarding the impacts of carbon dioxide storage facilities is required, including a description of risks associated with induced seismicity and improperly decommissioned wells within a project area.

Indigenous communities are seeking meaningful engagement and consultation throughout the development of the framework and individual projects. Concerns were raised about the adequacy of consultation processes generally. For individual projects potentially impacting Indigenous communities, one community expressed that detailed information should be provided for all aspects of the project including project plans, risk assessments, monitoring plans, and closure plans, and that information provided to communities should be easy to understand and that proponents should provide adequate time and capacity funding for review. One commentor suggested that guidance material be developed for engagement with Indigenous communities with rights and interests that correspond with potential geologic storage areas in southwestern Ontario.

Landowners and the agricultural community generally agreed that the framework must establish clear requirements with respect to how impacts to agricultural productivity, soil, and water quality would be assessed and mitigated and that assessments should be supported by additional information about the benefits, risks, and safety of geologic carbon storage.

One commentor highlighted the importance of engagement and risk mitigation with nuclear power plant operators if a geologic carbon storage project is proposed in the vicinity of nuclear power generation activities.

Authorizations, operational controls, and framework delivery

Overall, commentors outlined that operational controls must be sufficient to address risks to the environment, drinking water and public safety. Commentors supported the design of rigorous operational controls for all stages of project implementation, including the adoption of industry standards (e.g., Canadian Standards Association Z741 Geological storage of carbon dioxide). A staged approach to authorizations is generally supported by industry provided the stages are clearly articulated. Commentors also submitted that the process to obtain required permits should not be seen as piecemeal and uncoordinated to ensure that local stakeholders have a good understanding of the permits being applied for and the proposed project scale.

Industry submissions generally recognized that a role may exist for third parties in certain aspects of framework delivery, in appropriate circumstances and with conditions, including adequate oversight and authority over third parties. One commentor expressed opposition to any elements of the framework being delivered by a third party, as the risks associated with geologic carbon storage could outlast a third-party organization.

It was also submitted that, whether administered by a third party or by the province, there should be appropriate resources and capacity (in number of staff, their technical knowledge, and practical experience) in place for implementation.

Financial assurance and long-term liability

Commentors agreed that proponents must carry financial assurance for liabilities associated with the operation of their projects, as well as costs for decommissioning and remediation to prevent sites from becoming orphaned.   

Overall, commentors agreed that the timeframes associated with long-term carbon storage and the ongoing monitoring and maintenance of storage sites may outlast any individual proponent, and the province is likely the only entity that could reasonably take on the long-term monitoring and stewardship responsibilities for geologic carbon storage projects. Commentors were supportive of preventing this long-term liability from becoming a burden to taxpayers and landowners.