co sequestration in ontario, canada. part i: storage...

Energy Conversion and Management 45 (2004) 2645–2659www.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 andpermeable reservoir coveredwith a cap rock located at least 800mbeneath the earth’s surfacewhereCO2 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 reservoirsmight 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.

� 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 toisolate 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 � 2004 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

doi:10.1016/j.enconman.2003.12.003

mail to: [email protected]

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 volumeof CO2 can be stored in a saline formation if it is injected at a temperature and pressure beyond itscritical state (31.1 �C and 7.38 MPa). The reason behind supercritical CO2 injection is to takeadvantage 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 consideredbecause 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 temperatureand pressure gradient of the formation.

In the case of Ontario, the target reservoir for sequestration is the saline aquifer of Mt. Simonsandstone in the Michigan and Appalachian basins. This formation is of Cambrian origin and islocated in southwestern Ontario. It could be a suitable CO2 sequestration option for the largeNanticoke generation plant (4000 MW installed capacity) located in southwestern Ontario andoperated by Ontario Power Generation (OPG). This particular formation is chosen because of itsavailability at the required depth and the presence of a caprock known as the Shadow LakeFormation that overlies it.

2. Formation temperature and pressure

It is difficult to predict the actual temperature and pressure gradients for the Mt. Simon for-mation 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 temperaturegradient is based on the work done by Vugrinovich [2], where a gradient of 0.0192 �C/m is used inan equation of bottomhole temperature (BHT) to determine the subsurface temperature. Apressure gradient of 0.0095 MPa/m is used in this study [3–5]. It is a useful tool for describing theparameters (P ; T ) of this formation. According to these gradients, a minimum depth of 865 m isrequired to reach the conditions of a CO2 supercritical state. The minimum depth may decrease toabout 800 m if a temperature gradient more than 0.0192 �C/m (e.g. 0.025 �C/m, as suggested byCercone [3] for the Michigan basin) is used. To overcome this uncertainty, a new set of experi-mental data and core analysis explicitly meant to identify subsurface temperature and pressure aswell as the rock properties, such as porosity and permeability, is necessary.

In this study, the uncertainties related to the temperature and pressure gradients are avoidedby 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 underlyingEau Claire formation (up to 80 m), embedded in between Shadow Lake and the Mt. Simonsandstone, ensures the minimum depth requirement for the caprock, as well as for the underlyingaquifer.

3. Geology of southwestern Ontario

A sedimentary basin is the place where storage of any gas or liquid is possible due to its porousnature. In Ontario, the sedimentary basins cover approximately 320,000 km2, which is almost one

BHT=14.5 +0.0192*depth

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50

Temp [ C ]

Dep

th [m

]

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20

Pressure [MPa]

CO2 critical temp 31.1CO2 critical pressure

7.38 MPa

TP

Fig. 1. Subsurface temperature and pressure gradients for the Michigan basin.

Fig. 2. Sedimentary Basin in Ontario (modified from Johnson et al. [6]).

A. Shafeen et al. / Energy Conversion and Management 45 (2004) 2645–2659 2647


third of the total surface area of the province [6]. It includes northern Ontario and Hudson Bayand the entire area of southern Ontario (see Fig. 2).

However, sequestration is not possible in all these areas. In the case of the Hudson BayLowland in northern Ontario, the location is not suitable for CO2 sequestration due to theshallow depth of the porous formation rock. Moreover, deep inside the bay, where depth may notbe a constraint, its distance from large point CO2 sources, such as a coalfired power plant, renderit practically useless as a sequestration site. Similarly, the Central St. Lawrence Platform, locatedin south-eastern Ontario (see Fig. 2) will not be considered.

In southwestern Ontario, the target reservoir for sequestration is the Mt. Simon sandstone ofthe western St. Lawrence Platform (see dark gray area in Fig. 2). Depending on the depth andavailability of the formation rock, the possible sequestration area is divided into two zonesidentified as the northern zone and southern zone. These two zones are shown in Fig. 3. Thenorthern zone, NZ, consists of the lower half of Lake Huron and the uppermost part of Lambtoncounty. The southern zone, SZ, consists of the northern half of Essex county, southern half ofLake St. Clair, lower half of Kent, lower half of Elgin, southern part of Haldimand-Norfolkcounty and the area inside Lake Erie south of these counties. The 800 m depth contour is drawnon top of the Shadow Lake formation, which overlaps the Mt. Simon sandstone. It consists of afew meters of dolomitic and sandy shale and acts as an excellent caprock [6,7]. The presence of

Fig. 3. Reservoir locations in southwestern Ontario.


hydrocarbon in Clearville, Gobles Innerkip and Willey pools is proof of the integrity of this caprock [8].

In general, the Shadow Lake formation, a middle Ordovician Black River group, is continu-ously present (see Fig. 4) in the whole of southwestern Ontario [9]. The normal thickness of theformation is 2–3 m and the maximum is 15 m [6]. The proven hydrocarbon reserve beneath thecap 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 overlyingsuccession 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. Theseformations are also known as Gull River, Coboconk, Kirkfield, Sherman Fall and Cobourg (seeFig. 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 ofthe cap rock and its trapping performance. The Eau Claire formation (up to 80 m), embedded inbetween Shadow Lake and the Mt. Simon sandstone (up to 50 m), could also act as a caprock asmentioned in some studies [4,5]. If this is the case, it will be an added safety to store carbondioxide 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 asporosity, permeability, CO2 saturation and sweep efficiency. A few core analysis reports (datingback to the early 60s and 80s) for the Cambrian formation suggest that the porosity in the for-mation ranges from 5% to 15% [12,13]. As for permeability analysis, the data from these reportsare too inconsistent to reach a firm conclusion as to the values to be used. Moreover, the depthreported in those core analysis reports for the Cambrian formation is higher than the one reportedby Brigham [9] and by the Ontario Geological Survey [7]. These uncertainties reveal the lack ofscientifically sound data to predict a true porosity and permeability for this formation. In the caseof 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 chosenas a starting point as a number of data reported by those analyses falls within this range. For mostcases, 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 NZand 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 volumeþ dissolved volume of CO2 in water in situÞStorage capacity ¼ E�

fA�h�/�½Sg=BgðCO2Þ þ ð1� SgÞ�RsðCO2Þ�

ð1Þ

Fig. 4. Composite stratigraphic column (after [11], http://www.ogsrlibrary.com/doc/strat1a.pdf).



where

Ef overall sweep efficiency, (fraction)h formation thickness, (m)Sg CO2 saturation, (fraction)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 thatis not displaced plays an active role in dissolving some of the CO2 into it. Like other two phasesystems, the saturation of injected CO2 in the formation depends on the relative permeabilities of theCO2 and formation water. The injected CO2 often passes through some parts of the formation dueto gravity segregation and viscous fingering phenomena that affect the sweep efficiency [17]. Thesweep efficiency depends on the reservoir thickness, vertical permeability distribution and mobilityratio of the injected CO2 and formation water. The mobility of a fluid in a porous medium is definedas 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 ofsalinity as well as according to temperature and pressure. Generally, solubility decreases with theincreasing salinity [1]. The salinity of the Mt. Simon aquifer in the Elgin, Essex, Kent, Middlesexand Lambton counties is dominated by sodium, calcium and chloride ions. The values of the totaldissolved solids (TDS) in these areas vary between 100,000–300,000 ppm [18]. An average value of200,000 ppm would be a good estimate for this formation [5,18]. The CO2 solubility is found to be10 m3/m3 at an average salinity of 200,000 ppm and at a temperature and pressure of 37.7 �C and10 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 mea-surement [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 asTOUGH2, 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 PowerGeneration (OPG), the annual CO2 emission from Nanticoke in the year 2000 was 21.5 milliontonnes [20]. The storage capacities of the two zones (NZ and SZ) were calculated to determine thepotential 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 esti-mated 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 isequivalent to 13.5 years of Nanticoke’s emissions. In the case of the southern zone, the storagecapacity value is 442 million tonnes, that is 20.5 years of Nanticoke’s emissions. These estimatesmay increase by up to five fold if the sweep efficiency is increased to 50% from the assumed value


of 10% [16]. Because of its higher storage capacity and the proximity to the Nanticoke plant, thesouthern zone seems more promising for sequestration.

Preliminary investigation reveals that the probable location for injection in the southern zonecould be in Lake Erie on the Canada–USA border, which is slightly west of 81� and due south toPort Stanley (see Fig. 5). The highest depth of the Mt. Simon formation in this area will maximizethe amount of sequestration. Once CO2 is injected, it will tend to rise upward and will reach thetop of the aquifer until it is obstructed by the caprock. Once obstructed, the CO2 plume willspread gradually laterally and simultaneously dissolve in the saline formation. The rate of dis-solution will be controlled by the surface area of CO2 in contact with the formation water. Thisphenomenon occurs due to the buoyancy force caused by the density difference between thesupercritical CO2 and the saline water present in the formation. The more CO2 is in contact withthe formation water, the higher the solubility of CO2 will be and, hence, the amount that can besequestered will increase [22].

In the case of the southern zone, the CO2 plume will probably move towards the north due tothe shallow depth of the formation rock in that direction. As it was found that most of thehydrocarbon traps in these rocks occur where the sandstone strata pinch out against the south-eastern 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 insigni-ficant amount of CO2 migrating into the USA territory. Clearly, buoyancy is playing the majorrole 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).


also be influenced by the hydrodynamics of groundwater in the sedimentary basins. Related datafor 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 willnot be more than 25–50 km [24–27]. Before exceeding this distance, the plume might dissolvecompletely into the aquifer which may take up to several thousand years. The distance from theimaginary injection point to the 800 m contour on the Shadow Lake formation is approximately75 and 120 km (see Fig. 5) towards the eastern and western direction [7]. As a result, the chance ofmigration of the plume up to that distance is less. If, by any chance, some remaining CO2 crossesthe 800 m limit, it will vaporise, and hence, the CO2 will move vigorously upward. Depending onthe amount of CO2, the possibility of leakage might increase. A detailed study is needed todetermine 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, suchas Clearville, Aldborough 4-Z-II, Dunwich 8-22-ABF and Raleigh 1-17-XIII in the Mt. Simonformation in the southern zone [8]. They are located just beyond the 50 km range from theinjection point which allows a ‘sequestration without EOR’ activity in this region. These pro-duction activities might enable the sequestration to be economically viable if the enhanced oilrecovery option is also evaluated. The Innerkip and Gobles pools are located almost 150 km awayfrom the imaginary injection point. The distance is at least three to six times greater than that ofthe CO2 migration distance. It ensures that any unwanted interaction is avoidable with thesequestration 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 occurthrough a faulted zone, especially when the fault covers all the geological layers from the surfaceto the basement rock. It may also occur through abandoned wells. Abandoned wells may act as abypass to the atmosphere if these were not sealed properly. Catastrophic leakage may occur dueto seismic activities (e.g. fractures may develop in the caprock) if the storage location is situatednearby 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 Clearvillepools [7]. The presence of hydrocarbon in these traps indicates that the faults are not working as apathway for leakage. The distance of some of the major faults, especially the Electric fault, fromthe imaginary injection point is almost 50 km (see Fig. 5). The comparatively short distance ofdifferent faults, such as the Electric, Dover, Dawn and Kimball–Collinville fault makes them moreimportant candidates for detailed investigation in order to determine their behaviour and per-formance as a trap.

A large number of abandoned and unknown oil wells are present in southwestern Ontariowhose status is not well documented. These have been abandoned for the past 20–90 years. Thereare 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 thistime. The reactivity of the injected CO2 (or mixture of gas) with this cement and its consequencesneeds to be evaluated. Many of these wells (2500) have no plug end date, which raises questions


about their present situation. An in depth analysis, based on the abandoned well data availablefor 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. Arbi-trarily, a limit ofP700 m was set for well depths to find the number of wells. It was found thatapproximately 189 wells fall within these criteria. The locations of these wells in different countiesare shown in Table 1. The reason to choose 700 m as the base case is only because of their closeproximity to the reservoir and their probable susceptibility in case of any leak from the cap rockor failure of the cement plugging. If the screening criteria include only the depth, irrespective ofcitation of the plug end date, the number would jump to 834 wells [29]. A detailed investigation isnecessary to determine the real status of these wells, their ability to withstand the sequestrationpressure 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 ofMichigan, 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 Abandoned and unknown wells without

plug end date P 700 m

Cancelled and suspended wells without

plug end date P 700 m

Elgin 12 5

Essex 8 14

Huron 4 1

Kent 95 4

Oxford 8 32

Lake Erie 1 5

Total 128 61aData 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).

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 leastwith respect to seismic hazard. The possibility of any seismic activity induced by the deep wellinjection of CO2 into the target area could also be a concern for sequestration. More studies arenecessary in this regard.

6. Uncertainties

Significant uncertainties are associated with the reservoir capacity calculation and identificationof the abandoned wells that are most vulnerable. Uncertainties include: the nature of the reser-voir, sweep efficiency and injection process. It also includes the hydrodynamics of the formationwater and the chemical reactions of CO2 with the rock and saline water. Uncertainty related to thesweep efficiency should be overcome in order to predict the exact reserve capacity of the for-mation. It might be required to drill additional wells during the injection process, depending onthe behaviour of the reservoir. Uncertainties in the reservoir condition during the injection processcould lead to an unexpected work load associated with huge cost involvement. Hydrodynamicsand geochemical reactions might influence the reserve capacity by altering the properties of therock matrix. No data is available for southern Ontario related to these two parameters. Impuritiesin the CO2 flow stream would reduce the transportation capacity of the pipeline. Once the captureprocess identifies the exact composition of the intake CO2 at the battery limit of the sequestrationprocess, 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


for the Michigan basin, but no data are available for the other parameters. Based on the availabledata for porosity, a sensitivity analysis is performed to observe the effect on the overall reservoircapacity (see Fig. 8). The lower and the higher limit are set at 5% and 25% by observing theavailable data. With increasing porosity, the capacity of the reservoir increases and similarlydecreases with decreasing values. The reservoir capacity might vary between 220 and 1104 milliontonnes (M tonnes), which represent 10–50 years of current annual emission from the Nanticokepower plant. Sweep efficiency will also produce exactly the same result as the porosity if variedbetween 5% and 25%. If it is possible to reach a higher limit of 50%, the reserve could be morethan 2200 M tonnes of CO2.

In the case of CO2 saturation, ranging between 5% and 25%, the trend will be similar to that ofthe porosity, but the slope will be less (see Fig. 8). Any change in permeability will indirectly affectthe reserve capacity by altering the injection flow rate.

A change in solubility, caused by the different values of total dissolved solids (TDS) in salinewater, would influence the reserve capacity too (see Fig. 9). The capacity varies between 442 and487 M tonnes due to a change in TDS in brine from 200,000 to 100,000 ppm keeping all othervariables constant. Solubility might play an insignificant role in the reserve calculation if the value

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35Porosity and Saturation [fraction]

Rese

rvoi

r Cap

aaci

ty [M

M to

n]

PorosityCO2 Saturation

Fig. 8. Sensitivity of reserve capacity at different values of porosity and CO2 saturation.

430

440

450

460

470

480

490

100000 120000 140000 160000 180000 200000Brine Concentration [ ppm of TDS]

Capa

city

[MM

ton]

Fig. 9. Sensitivity of reserve capacity at different values of TDS in brine solution.


of TDS exceeds more than 300,000 ppm. The effect of TDS on capacity estimation is much lessthan that of the porosity and the CO2 saturation.

8. Conclusions

Mt. Simon sandstone is a promising location for CO2 sequestration. The area of the formationinside the Canadian territory is small compared to that of the area inside the states of Michiganand Ohio. A coordinated effort between Canada and the USA can make sequestration in thisformation a success. With the exception of the concerns described in the safety aspects, thecaprock integrity seems to be acceptable. The presence of shale formation in the Silurian andDevonian strata (Fig. 4) of the study area will provide a succession of barriers to verticalmigration 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 sameformation where CO2 storage is possible. However, the distant location from the point source andthe cross country piping network through populated areas makes the northern zone less attractivefor sequestration of Nanticoke CO2. Power plants located in nearby Lambton county or in Sarniawill be the best candidates for the northern zone.

Finally, the acceptability of the sequestration idea in a densely populated and economically richarea like southwestern Ontario will be a difficult task. Moreover, environmental concerns such asthe conservation of natural resources like Lake Erie, could pose a great barrier for carrying outany sequestration activity deep below the lake. Establishing adequate safety measures andimplementing a contingency plan in case of a blowout of an injection well could be some of thenecessary preconditions for sequestration in this area. A state of the art monitoring plan forunderground CO2 movement is also necessary to enhance the confidence level of the sequestrationactivity. However, convincing the local community, where people will theoretically reside on topof a large volume of stored CO2, or the consumers, who might not get any visible benefit in theirlife 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 technicalsupport towards this opportunity to contribute to the academic study of CO2 sequestration inCanada. The information expressed herein is that of the authors and OPG takes no position onCO2 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.


[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.

http://www.beg.utexas.edu/environqlty/co2seq/7mtsimon.htm

http://www.beg.utexas.edu/environqlty/co2seq/7mtsimon.htm

http://www.ogsrlibrary.com/cartography.html

http://www.ogsrlibrary.com/doc/strat1a.pdf

http://www.opg.com/envComm/E_envrep.asp

http://atlas.gc.ca/site/english/find_a_place/index_html

http://www.apcrc.com.au/GreenhouseFrameset.htm


[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.

http://www.ogsrlibrary.com/links.html

http://www.seismo.nrcan.gc.ca/hazards/zoning/seismiczonea_e.php

http://geohazards.cr.usgs.gov/eq/index.html

co sequestration in ontario, canada. part i: storage...

Documents