The Government of Ontario began accepting applications for commercial-scale geologic carbon storage projects on Feb. 2, 2026.

Ontario’s associate minister of energy-intensive industries, Sam Oosterhoff, is impressed by Suncor Energy. The oil and gas company is producing about 100,000 barrels of oil products per day at its Sarnia, Ont., refinery, Oosterhoff told his colleagues at the legislature after visiting the plant in what’s known as Chemical Valley.

They aren’t “cowboys” who don’t care about climate change, he said on Nov. 4, adding that while they produce all that oil they still “care deeply about reducing emissions.” And Oosterhoff, along with the Government of Ontario, believes they should do it through a process known as carbon capture and storage — with the storage location being Ontario’s bedrock.

That’s why, Oosterhoff said, Ontario should pass new legislation that would enable this process across the province, for high-emitting industries like cement and steel, non-renewable power generation and for oil and gas refiners, like Suncor. 

The proposed Geologic Carbon Storage Act, folded into Bill 27, the Resource Management and Safety Act, was debated after second reading the day Oosterhoff spoke. It could move to third reading shortly.

Carbon capture and storage involves containing the carbon dioxide released when fossil fuels are burned and injecting it deep underground to prevent it from entering the atmosphere and increasing global warming. Advocates say doing so could limit some of the most severe effects of climate change, like hotter and more widespread wildfires, floods and drought, as the province and country have experienced in the past few years. But critics argue carbon storage allows for the continued burning of fossil fuels, rather than transitioning away from them.  

Oosterhoff said in debate that the need for storage is crucial because the oil and gas industry plays a key role in the life of everyday Canadians, an argument also familiar in the House of Commons — despite oil and gas being non-renewable resources. “A solar panel is not going to provide the case covering that I have on this phone,” Oosterhoff told his colleagues, though non-plastic — as well as recycled plastic — phone cases are on the market. Some people even go without phone cases, a consumer category that is only about two decades old.

The Ontario government has identified the lakebed and shorelines of Lake Erie and Lake Huron as having ideal conditions for geologic carbon storage, where carbon dioxide is injected in liquid form deep underground. Map: Government of Ontario

While carbon storage can lower emissions from industrial processes, like Suncor’s oil refinery in Sarnia, the greenhouse gases released into the atmosphere when that refined oil is burned by customers down the line, continues to warm the climate. Some academics and activists also point out carbon storage is extremely expensive and edges out investment in solutions that could limit the production of carbon dioxide in the first place.

When it comes to Ontario’s readiness for carbon storage, there are other pressing concerns — like an unknown number of gas wells that some critics argue could heighten the risk of leaks of poisonous hydrogen sulfide and planet-warming methane. But as The Narwhal reported in September, Ontario can’t afford to properly plug these wells, located mostly in southwestern Ontario — the same region where carbon storage is proposed.

“There’s a real concern about what’s going to happen to those abandoned oil and gas wells once this new industry starts up,” Ontario NDP MPP Peggy Sattler said, in response to Oosterhoff.

Dave Sawyer, an environmental economist with the Canadian Climate Institute, a climate policy research organization, said carbon storage has been framed as a “silver bullet” to dealing with the ballooning emissions from the oil and gas sector.

“There’s a broader innovation agenda there that could have been driven,” he said. “And the silver bullet notion takes all the oxygen out of the room.”

So what would Bill 27’s passage, and the start of carbon storage in Ontario actually look like? Read on.

What is carbon capture and storage and how does it work?

Bill 27 introduces a framework for commercial-scale geologic carbon storage, as it’s never been done before in Ontario.

In order to divert and store the carbon dioxide generated by industrial processes such as oil and gas refining, the British Geological Survey explains, it is converted to a liquid-like form and injected into the pores of sedimentary rock. This is called geologic carbon storage. 

Those rocks are contained using naturally occurring storage caps and human-made ones to stop carbon dioxide from escaping. A “caprock” is a thick, impenetrable type of rock, such as shale, that sits above more porous rock, like a lid on Tupperware. Human-engineered barriers are made up of steel and other corrosion-proof materials to keep the carbon dioxide secured underground. 

Materials published by the Government of Ontario in May 2025 explain that carbon dioxide has most commonly been stored in formations like saline aquifers or depleted oil and gas reservoirs. “Previous research has suggested the most suitable storage formations in Ontario may be found beneath the beds of Lake Huron and Lake Erie and surrounding onshore areas,” the government notes.

Ontario’s Ministry of Natural Resources did not respond to questions about its carbon storage plans by publication time. Its published information sheet continues that, after carbon is injected, wells are plugged and the site is then monitored to “mitigate any potential safety risks to the public or the environment.”

Bill 27 opens the gates to commercial-scale geologic carbon storage in Ontario, allowing industry, like Hamilton’s steel factories, to reduce the greenhouse gases emitted through their processing. Photo: Christopher Katsarov Luna / The Narwhal

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which provides scientific assessments on climate change for policymakers, says that if the carbon dioxide is stored properly on well-managed geologic storage sites, the CO2 could be trapped for millions of years.

Geologic storage is currently the most popular form of carbon storage, though other methods are being researched, said Bo Zhang, an assistant professor of civil and environmental engineering at the University of Alberta.

Zhang said he believes carbon capture and storage is really the best way for Canada to reach net-zero goals by 2050 — given how reliant the country currently is on fossil fuels.

Maurice Dusseault, a professor emeritus of engineering geology at the University of Waterloo, said through thinking about these processes, it’s important to remember the goal in the first place: to stop carbon dioxide from entering the Earth’s atmosphere and contributing to extreme weather events, disaster and death.

And Dusseault said that while renewable energy use has increased globally, that hasn’t meant a reduction in fossil fuels. In fact, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change reports that globally the amount of carbon dioxide produced per unit of energy only decreased by 0.3 per cent from 2010 to 2019. 

But moving away from fossil fuels has been challenging — as Canada’s entire infrastructure has been built with fossil fuels in mind, Dusseault said. 

In Ontario, the increased use of natural gas for power generation in recent years has seen the province’s grid go from 94 per cent emissions-free, down to 87 per cent.

Is carbon capture safe in Ontario?

Bruce Hart, an adjunct professor in earth sciences at Western University, said he’s optimistic about Ontario’s carbon storage plans, given the types of rock available in the southwestern part of the province.

Hart said rocks from the Cambrian Age are nestled about a kilometre underground along the north shore of Lake Erie. This is likely the best place for carbon storage, he said, due to the depth and the 500-metre layer of “very impermeable rock” overlying the Cambrian rock zone, offering containment.

This is critical because carbon dioxide is an asphyxiant and, the British Geological Survey explains, leaks at such a concentration “could cause suffocation,” as well as negating climate change mitigation. 

Going back to the issue of old oil and gas wells in Ontario, the instability of those reservoirs has already been displayed. On Aug. 26, 2021, hydrogen sulfide gas leaking from a crudely buried gas well ignited, causing an explosion in the town of Wheatley, Ont. 

Twenty people were injured and about 60 households and 30 businesses were evacuated.

Across the province, research has suggested the number of old wells is likely in the tens of thousands, with many dug prior to regulations around properly plugging them and many in unknown locations.

Ontario has mentioned in its public documents that saline aquifers and depleted oil and gas reservoirs have been used to store carbon dioxide in other jurisdictions. 

But Hart said the only aged wells that would be used are ones dug deep enough into the Cambrian layer. Many of the more shallow derelict wells that were abandoned are only hundreds of metres deep at most, far above that. Ontario describes its plans for carbon storage as taking place 800 metres or more below the surface — one and a half times the height of the CN Tower.

In terms of these wells increasing the risk of leaks, he said modern drilling methods are highly sophisticated, and the integrity of any kind of borehole is “monitored nearly continuously.” 

“There is a vanishingly small possibility there could somehow be leakage from the borehole, but even if that were to occur, the [measuring, monitoring verification] program would instantaneously detect that leak and the operation would be shut down,” he said. 

Carson Fong, a program manager specializing in carbon dioxide removal at the Pembina Institute, a Calgary-based climate think tank, said if the new regulations ensure that sufficient engineering studies are completed to guarantee the carbon dioxide is secure, storage in Ontario can be done safely.

Ontario is proposing to store carbon dioxide more than 800 metres below the ground to prevent industrial pollution from entering the atmosphere. Illustration: Government of Ontario

But he adds there isn’t enough information in Bill 27 to determine if project-specific studies will be sufficient. 

“The legislation notes it’ll be up to the minister to determine that … so we might need to wait for more detailed regulations to really evaluate this,” he said. 

Another concern brought forward to the Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry regards consent and consultation with landowners and communities, specifically First Nations. “Indigenous communities are seeking meaningful engagement and consultation throughout the development of the framework and individual projects,” reads the province’s summary of comments from summer 2024 on the discussion paper for regulating geologic carbon storage.

The Chippewas of Kettle and Stony Point First Nation noted in comments that Traditional Knowledge must be incorporated into any environmental risk assessments on carbon storage. 

The Ontario Federation of Agriculture also outlined concerns in comments it submitted to the province on Oct. 2, requesting impact assessments on agricultural lands to ensure carbon capture would not have negative effects. It recommended the government look at whether reducing carbon-intensive industries is a better option — considering the cost of establishing, operating and policing geologic carbon storage. 

Is carbon capture and storage already happening in Canada?

According to the federal government, as of 2023 there were five carbon dioxide capture, transport, storage and utilization projects operating in Canada. As of 2025, those projects capture about four megatonnes of carbon dioxide a year and are limited to Alberta and Saskatchewan.

In Alberta they are the Alberta Carbon Trunk Line, the Glacier Gas Plant and Quest Carbon Capture and Storage. In Saskatchewan, the operational projects are the Weyburn Midale CO2 storage facility and the Boundary Dam. 

According to the International Energy Agency, a Paris-based intergovernmental organization, another 63 projects are being planned, and seven are under construction. By 2030, the International Energy Agency projects Canada’s capacity to be about 31.3 megatonnes per year of carbon storage — a significant increase, but still only around five per cent of the nearly 600 megatonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent Canada is projected to emit annually by then.

Pathways Alliance, a group of major oilsands operators, is planning to capture some of the carbon dioxide it creates and ship it south by pipeline, roughly along a route including this farmland. At the end of the line, that carbon dioxide would be permanently injected deep underground. Photo: Amber Bracken / The Narwhal

Carbon capture and storage has played a starring role in Prime Minister Mark Carney’s vision for Canada’s climate change policies. 

Carney has touted the practice as a critical investment need for Canada in order to reduce emissions in the oil and gas sector — while maintaining continued resource extraction. He has described an opportunity for the country to establish itself internationally as a leader in carbon storage. 

That fervor became more apparent in the federal government’s climate plan, unveiled as part of the Carney government’s first budget on Nov. 4, the same day Oosterhoff spoke to his colleagues in provincial parliament. The plan indicates that Canada’s proposed cap on emissions from the oil and gas sector, which isn’t yet in place, could be thrown out by the Carney government in favour of further investments in carbon capture and storage technology. 

The federal government is also considering fast-tracking a $16-billion carbon capture and storage project proposed by the Pathways Alliance, an organization of major oilsands producers. 

These are the environmental programs to be cut under Carney’s first budget

So, should we be going all-in on carbon storage?

Some environmental economists, like Sawyer, warn that carbon storage and capture “seizes the mind” because when applied to modelling, it seems like an ideal solution. But he warns that the dream of carbon capture and storage could actually be a mirage, distracting from innovative thinking around climate change that reduces dependency on fossil fuels. 

Aly Hyder Ali, a program manager at climate advocacy group Environmental Defence, is vehement in the organization’s rejection of carbon capture and storage. He characterizes it as a tactic that allows emitters to expand fossil fuel production, not a meaningful solution to climate change.

“This technology is an extremely costly disruption that ultimately only lets oil companies continue to increase their production,” he said. All it “captures” are subsidies for the oil and gas industry, he said. 

Zhang disagrees: “I wouldn’t say it’s a band-aid solution,” he said. “Because there is no complete replacement for fossil fuels right now.”

In Ontario, the provincial government sees carbon storage as a means to “support the transition to a low-carbon economy.”

Ultimately, in the battle against climate change, Sawyer sees the increased push around carbon capture and storage as playing only the goalie on a hockey team — the last resort — instead of all the other possible players.

Updated on Feb. 2, 2026, at 11:14 a.m. ET: This story was updated to note when the province started accepting applications for geologic carbon storage.

The Narwhal’s reporters are telling environment stories you won’t read about anywhere else. Stay in the loop by signing up for our free weekly dose of independent journalism.

They come from driving a car or taking the bus to the office. Or when employees are given a company-owned smartphone. They can even result from a three-course dinner at a holiday gala — or that box of doughnuts at a meeting. And for companies that extract fossil fuels, they also come when customers use their products.

All are examples of the creation of Scope 3 emissions: greenhouse gases that are indirectly produced by a corporation or institution’s supply chain and everyday operations. 

Employees’ commutes use fuel in the form of gas or electricity. Every step of manufacturing the electronics used at work — from design to mining to parts fabrication and product assembly — creates emissions. Greenhouse gases are also created when the food and drink at company events is procured, transported and prepared. They’re also produced when Canadian oil and gas is used as fuel, whether in this country or another one. 

These emissions will still get into the atmosphere and heat the planet even if oil and gas producers succeed in their ambitious plans to capture and bury the emissions they create when extracting fossil fuels. Yet attempts to get Canadian companies to report them — even voluntarily — keep getting delayed. 

A $16B plan to bury oilsands carbon pollution — and the rural Albertans raising the alarm

The term “Scope 3 emissions” is technical and bureaucratic. But these emissions, like all greenhouse gases, have real, on-the-ground consequences. The heat-trapping effect of fossil fuel use is driving extreme weather events in Canada and around the world, putting humans, wildlife and ecosystems at risk.

Here’s how to understand these arm’s-length emissions, and why scientists think it’s important to keep track of them, no matter how far away they are. 

What exactly are Scope 3 emissions?

The goal of the Scope scale is to categorize emissions to help understand where they come from and how to reduce them. Scope 1 are direct emissions, which come from sources owned or controlled by a company and include what’s produced by its facilities and vehicles. Scope 2 are indirect emissions produced by generating the many forms of energy — electricity, steam, heating and cooling — households and businesses use day-to-day.

Scope 3 are the least immediate. They encompass both “upstream” emissions made when a company uses a product or service and “downstream” emissions made when its own products or services are used. 

Source: Greenhouse Gas Protocol. Illustration: Shawn Parkinson / The Narwhal

Sara Hastings-Simon, an associate professor in the department of earth, energy and environment at the University of Calgary, said labelling and, hopefully, tracking these emissions is a way to hold companies responsible for emissions created by the goods and services they are producing and encouraging people to purchase and use. Coined in 2001 and formalized in 2011, the term “Scope 3 emissions” considers the ripple effects of a company’s activities on global emissions. 

“Companies have a role, often, in creating the demand for their product,” Hastings-Simon said, which is why she believes they should be held accountable for emissions made all along its supply and use chain. 

Scope 3 are not some intangible drop in the pond of global emissions. They are frequently the “largest source” of emissions for companies and represents the “most significant” opportunity to reduce greenhouse gas globally, according to the Greenhouse Gas Protocol, a Washington, D.C.–based organization that creates global standards to measure emissions. Think about the Alberta oilsands: yes, mining and upgrading bitumen creates emissions. But the burning of the products — say, in consumers’ cars — creates far more of an impact. 

Scope 3 emissions aren’t just a big deal for the oil and gas industry. The Climate Disclosure Project, a non-profit based in the U.K., estimates that more than 90 per cent of emissions from sectors including real estate, financial services, capital goods and mining can be classified as Scope 3.

A tailings pond at a Suncor open pit oilsands mine near Fort McMurray, Alta., in 2023. While mining and upgrading bitumen creates emissions, the burning of the products — say, in consumers’ cars — creates far more. Photo: Amber Bracken / The Narwhal

Canadians in favour of Scope 3 reporting have argued the same. In 2022, the federal NDP stated Scope 3 represent “an overwhelming majority” of Canada’s greenhouse gas emissions, in a report from the Standing Committee on Natural Resources looking at Canada’s long-debated emissions cap. 

In the report, the NDP said that in 2019, emissions from fossil fuels exported by Canada were 954 million tonnes, while total domestic emissions were just 730 million tonnes.“To leave them out of any regulation under a cap would be irresponsible,” the party stated.

What are the criticisms of tracking Scope 3 emissions? 

Some fossil fuel companies have said making them responsible for Scope 3 emissions could lead to actions that are actually contrary to climate goals.

Companies like ExxonMobil, Shell and BP do disclose Scope 3 emissions across their operations worldwide. For example, Shell reported customer emissions from using Shell products in 2024 totaled nearly half a billion tonnes of Scope 3 emissions. 

But a February 2022 report by environmental academics in Japan noted that ExxonMobil argued that reporting Scope 3 could be “misleading.” The paper cited a 2021 ExxonMobil report in which the company argues that if it were to sell natural gas to a country that then reduced the use of coal, it “would result in an overall reduction of global emissions but would increase Scope 3 emissions reported by the Company.”

Others have argued that tracking Scope 3 is “double counting”: because Scope 3 emissions involve so many businesses and producers in a supply chain, they may each be claiming the same emissions. It’s a potential overlap critics say could lead to a distorted view of emissions reductions. The argument is that a manufacturer might track the transportation of its goods as Scope 1 emissions — but all of the retailers and distributors who receive those goods could track them as Scope 3.

Several academic studies and frameworks note ways to make a precise calculation that avoids double counting. 

And Steven Young, an industrial ecologist and associate professor at the University of Waterloo, said calculating Scope 3 isn’t about tracking the total amount of emissions — it’s about companies taking responsibility for the entire supply chain they’re part of creating. 

Enbridge tells staff to vote against more thorough emissions reporting

“Part of the ambition was, well, it’s sort of double counting who’s responsible, but that’s kind of a good thing, if more than one organization is looking out for emissions reductions and management,” he said. 

Hastings-Simon said Scope 3 emissions calculations become essential if a company is claiming to be a part of a “low-carbon solution.” This gets back to the ambitious plans for carbon capture in Canada’s oilsands: even if all the emissions created during production were kept out of the atmosphere, exported fossil fuels would still create greenhouse gases when used elsewhere. 

“If there isn’t a credible explanation for how Scope 3 emissions will be reduced … then from a risk perspective a company should be able to explain why they see a market for their products in a future if there are broad global commitments to move to a net-zero future,” she said. 

The non-profits InfluenceMap and Greenpeace have criticized the Pathways Alliance group of Canadian oilsands companies for not including Scope 3 emissions in public plans to reduce the effect of their emissions, including through carbon capture. Pathways Alliance did not respond to a list of questions from The Narwhal about its Scope 3 emissions or these criticisms. 

Oil and gas companies “aren’t just meeting a demand but actually creating more demand and thus can be considered responsible for some of these emissions,” Hastings-Simon said, pointing to the explosive growth of investment in petrochemical-based plastic production as one example. 

Those in favour of Scope 3 reporting also say it’s key to identifying western corporations that place the most environmentally damaging parts of their supply chains in the Global South. Shifting the burden of those emissions onto those nations while the west seemingly meets climate targets, is a practice scholars call “Carbon Colonialism.”

At the heart of creating — and regulating — these standards is the understanding that global carbon emissions must be drastically cut to avoid the most severe effects of climate change. 

To be specific, the Greenhouse Gas Protocol reports the world needs to reduce emissions by as much as 85 per cent below what we put out in 2000 by 2050 in order to prevent the global temperature from increasing beyond 2 C above pre-industrial levels. Above that level “will produce increasingly unpredictable and dangerous impacts for people and ecosystems” — and Canada is already experiencing an increase in extreme weather that Environment and Climate Change Canada has linked to climate change. 

Are Scope 3 emissions regulated in Canada?

Fun fact: right now, there’s no universal requirement for Canadian corporations to disclose the full range of their emissions. 

Some industries are subject to a patchwork system of disclosure regulations, particularly concerning Scope 1. Since 2004, the federal government has required facilities that produce 10,000 tonnes or more of greenhouse gases annually to report emissions every year. Many provinces have similar regulations that kick in around 10,000 tonnes — although in Manitoba, the threshold is 50,000 tonnes. 

Attempts to introduce Scope 3 reporting — even voluntarily — have been delayed.

Last year, the Canadian Sustainability Standards Board gave corporations a deadline of 2027 to start reporting voluntarily — a timeline it said would prevent the move having an overly negative effect on markets. 

Canadian banks and insurance companies must report direct emissions, but the federal body that oversees them has delayed reporting requirements for indirect emissions known as Scope 3 until 2028. Photo: Carrie Davis / The Narwhal

As of 2024, the federal Office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions started requiring banks and insurance companies to report on plans to address the impact of climate change on their operations. The office has said the rationale behind the move is to protect those industries from legal accusations that they failed to protect investors from risks associated with climate change, such as the cost of extreme weather damages. 

Technically, those regulations make Scope 3 reporting mandatory — but that requirement, too, has been delayed, until 2028. The office said it wanted to align with the Canadian Sustainability Standards Board’s choice to push back Scope 3 reporting policies. It kept Scope 1 and Scope 2 disclosure deadlines in place: depending on the size of the institution, those kick in this year and early next. 

5 takeaways from the new climate rules for Canada’s big banks

And in April, the Canadian Securities Administrators also delayed its December 2024 pledge to develop “a climate-related disclosure rule.” The group, an umbrella organization of provincial and territorial securities regulators, said in a press release it was pausing plans to figure out disclosure rules for both climate risks and employee diversity, as “in recent months, the global economic and geopolitical landscape has rapidly and significantly changed.”

Climate experts say movement on the issue is too sluggish given the urgency of global warming. Especially since the standards will be voluntary anyway. 

Hastings-Simon said delays on Scope 3 reporting raise a lot of “red flags,” as Scope 3 is a long-established concept corporations should be prepared for. She’s concerned a longer timeline gives companies time to push back against climate regulation altogether.

“Why is there this need for delay?” she said, emphasizing the importance of the government and its agencies having the full picture of Canada’s emissions. If investors or the public want to understand if a company is prioritizing decarbonization, it’s impossible to get the full picture without a Scope 3 disclosure, she said.

How can we reduce Scope 3 emissions?

The Greenhouse Gas Protocol has suggestions on how companies can start tackling Scope 3 emissions. These include reducing the distance between the supplier and the consumer and reducing commutes by offering remote work.

John Robinson, a professor of global affairs and the environment at the University of Toronto, has been leading a team examining how the school can cut its Scope 3 footprint. He said there are essentially two options: either reduce the activity producing the emissions or switch to an alternative activity that results in fewer greenhouse gases. 

How safe is your pension from climate change? A new tool could predict that — if companies use it

He said the first option is under an institution’s direct control. For example, The University of Toronto is trying to make its campus more pedestrian-friendly, so that staff and students can move around emissions-free. 

It’s harder to control the emissions coming from manufacturing and shipping of goods and services it doesn’t produce. 

“Since the activity … can’t always be eliminated or reduced, there is a lot of focus on finding lower-emissions alternatives,” Robinson said.

The tool then is lifecycle assessment, he said. The process aims to calculate the total amount of emissions produced by the goods and services that went into creating an item, allowing institutions to make informed decisions about alternatives. If the school were purchasing desks, for example, it could consider multiple desks from multiple suppliers, comparing how much wood each uses, along with what kind of wood it is and where it came from. Then it could choose the option with the lowest emissions. 

Several consulting firms have software that can help with this calculation, Robinson said. And his own students can do it — as long as they have the information. 

What is the Carney government doing about Scope 3 emissions?

In short, not much. 

Even when the Canadian Sustainability Standards Board’s list comes into play, it will be voluntary. “It doesn’t have much teeth. You can put the information out there and some decision-makers will act on it, but it’s a pretty weak tool,” Young said. 

He said what’s proven to be more effective is carbon pricing — being charged for making emissions as an incentive to reduce them. But one of the first things Mark Carney did after becoming prime minister was remove Canada’s consumer carbon tax. While there is still a price for large emitters, Young said that misses smaller actors in the supply chain.

Meanwhile, Carney has repeatedly said Canada should be a leader in carbon capture and storage, which involves containing the carbon dioxide at the point of emission and then burying it deep underground. 

It’s a technology that has yet to be done at scale and it won’t tackle Scope 3 emissions at all. It’s also expensive. 

Young said carbon capture is a “pacifier” for the oil industry. “It’s a delay tactic, and it won’t work,” he said. “Why would we waste billions trying to come up with a techno fix that only prolongs a bunch of industries that don’t want to change?” 

The Narwhal’s reporters are telling environment stories you won’t read about anywhere else. Stay in the loop by signing up for our free weekly dose of independent journalism.