Marine Carbon Dioxide Removal: What It Is and How It Works

Key Takeaways

• On January 30, 2026, the Greenhouse Gas Protocol (GHG Protocol) released its long-awaited Land Sector and Removals (LSR) Standard v1.0 following a 5-year consultation process. The LSR Standard is set to take effect on January 1, 2027. 
• The release of the LSR Standard represents a notable development for companies in the food and agriculture sector looking to report on land-based GHG emissions in their annual GHG inventory, as well as companies that plan to report on carbon dioxide removals (both land-based and technological).
• The accompanying Land Sector and Removals Guidance, which will provide further direction on operationalizing and implementing the LSR Standard, is expected in Q2 of 2026. However, companies with significant land-based activities may want to begin assessing the impacts of the LSR Standard on their emissions accounting procedures and decarbonization strategies today.

Why the Land Sector and Removals Standard Matters Now

Emissions from agriculture and land use change account for roughly a quarter of global emissions. Yet, for years, food, fiber, and fuel companies have lacked a clear framework for accounting and reporting on GHG emissions and carbon dioxide removals from land use. This has significantly limited their ability to demonstrate progress toward climate targets within their operations and value chain. The GHG Protocol’s Land Sector and Removals (LSR) Standard, which was released on January 30, 2026, changes that, and in doing so raises a new set of questions. 

The LSR Standard provides greater clarity on what is required of companies to transparently track and report against their emissions reduction and removal targets, and opens new pathways to report on supply chain decarbonization interventions. It also represents an important advancement for companies seeking to report on carbon dioxide removals within their emissions inventory, including both land management removals and technological removals with geologic storage.

While the LSR Standard contains notable new requirements compared to the draft released in 2022, companies still face a number of open questions related to implementation and the implications for their decarbonization strategies. 

The GHG Protocol’s accompanying Land Sector and Removals Guidance, scheduled for Q2 2026, is expected to offer more practical direction for implementing the LSR Standard. However, companies with significant land-based activities that require sufficient lead time to prepare should consider assessing the impacts today. 

Below, we provide an overview of the LSR Standard, key changes from the 2022 draft, and actionable next steps for food, fiber, and fuel companies considering the impacts on their target-setting and emissions reporting.

What Is the Land Sector and Removals Standard? 

The LSR Standard, taking effect on January 1, 2027, sets requirements and recommendations for corporate GHG accounting that cover emissions and carbon removals from agricultural and land use activities. It builds on existing GHG Protocol standards for corporate carbon accounting. Notably, the LSR Standard does not cover the forestry sector, a key break from the 2022 draft. Forest carbon accounting guidance remains under development and will be the subject of a stakeholder consultation/request for information process expected later in 2026.

Land Sector and Removals Standard vs Land Sector and Removals Guidance

The LSR Standard establishes the core requirements companies must follow, while the accompanying Land Sector and Removals Guidance, expected in Q2 of 2026, will provide more detailed implementation support. In short, the LSR Standard sets the "what" while the Land Sector and Removals Guidance will explain the "how," helping companies put those requirements into practice.

Who Should Be Using the Land Sector and Removals Standard?

The LSR Standard applies to two groups of companies:

1. Any company with significant¹ land-sector activities within its own operations or value chain (most notably the food, feed, fiber, biofuel, and advanced biomaterials sector).
2. Any company looking to report on carbon dioxide removals within their scope 1 and scope 3 inventories (including both land management removals or technological removals).

‍

‍

What Changed From the 2022 Draft?

Among other provisions, the LSR Standard contains notable breaks from the 2022 draft, including specific changes related to traceability, carbon dioxide removals, leakage, and land use change.  

Traceability: A New Approach

Under the LSR Standard, companies that account for scope 3 emissions, removals, and other metrics must apply a spatial boundary. This boundary is determined by the level of traceability they can establish to known lands or regions (from least to most granular): global, jurisdictional (e.g., country), sourcing region (e.g., supply shed), land management unit (LMU) (e.g., farm), or harvested area. For more granular spatial boundaries, such as sourcing region and LMU, companies are required to establish physical traceability, which can be demonstrated through various chain of custody models.

‍

‍

Alongside higher integrity chain of custody models such as identity preserved, segregated, and controlled blending, the LSR Standard opens to mass balance as a chain of custody model that can be used to demonstrate physical traceability at the sourcing region-level with appropriate safeguards. 

This is notable because mass balance is the most common chain of custody model for large volume agricultural commodities, and physical traceability is required to report removals according to the LSR standard. While challenges for reporting removals at sourcing region spatial boundaries still exist, this change unlocks new opportunities to decarbonize commodities and report removals within non-segregated supply chains through insetting programs. 

Carbon Dioxide Removals: Clarity on Spatial Boundaries

The draft LSR Standard introduces key principles for companies choosing to report land management carbon dioxide removals, including traceability, data quality, and permanence. Translating those principles into practice remains challenging given the dynamic nature of agricultural supply chains and limited farm-level traceability.

Among other requirements, the LSR Standard maintains that companies electing to report on removals must do so as a separate accounting category from emissions. They must also identify the specific lands where carbon is stored, and conduct ongoing storage monitoring to detect and report on reversals if and when they occur.

The LSR Standard does, however, resolve one of the more consequential open questions left by the 2022 draft: where companies are to draw the spatial boundary for reporting land management carbon dioxide removals. By formalizing and permitting traceability at the sourcing-region level (with appropriate safeguards), it offers a workable middle ground between farm-level precision and the broader supply chain realities that most food and agricultural companies face. 

The LSR Standard also opens to using alternative approaches to traceability, such as impact traceability, which allows companies to trace removals back to the LMU through a pathway that is separate from the physical GHG inventory. This is notable as it provides companies with optionality for recognition of farm-level supply chain investments even when physical traceability cannot be established, and inventory recognition is therefore not feasible. 

Land Use and Leakage: Stronger Requirements

Finally, the LSR Standard significantly strengthens land use and economic leakage requirements compared to the 2022 draft. While the draft gave companies flexibility to choose among land-tracking metrics, the LSR Standard mandates that all companies report land occupation for both scope 1 and scope 3 in hectares and quantify land carbon leakage whenever “high leakage risk activities”² displace food or feed production. This includes companies developing crop-based biofuels and bio-based feedstocks. 

Leakage must be quantified using the Carbon Opportunity Cost, a calculation aimed at capturing how much carbon could have been stored in the absence of land management activities.

What Should Companies Do Now?

For entities reporting in accordance with the GHG Protocol’s Corporate Standard and Scope 3 Standard, the new LSR Standard goes into effect on January 1, 2027. However, the GHG Protocol’s Land Sector and Removal Guidance is not set for publication until Q2 2026, leaving many open questions related to implementation amid a short data collection and reporting cycle 

In the interim, companies may consider a continuous improvement approach, evolving and improving their internal measurement and reporting mechanisms to enable more granular accounting over time. Companies may also consider running analyses to assess the impact of new requirements on the design and cost of decarbonization strategies, with a specific focus on data collection and monitoring approaches.

Ultimately, while implementation of the LSR Standard may evolve over time, it need not delay action on value chain intervention. Companies that continue investing in supply chain decarbonization are building the data infrastructure, supplier relationships, and operational resilience that yield greater visibility into supply chain risk and drive long-term value, independent of reporting standards. 

As the LSR Standard's requirements develop, companies that have already begun assessing their emissions footprint and strengthening supply chain traceability and data quality are likely to be better positioned to align their reporting procedures accordingly.

Key Takeaways

1. The decision to fund a project is determined by a holistic review of project development maturity. This applies across capital-intensive projects, including low-carbon power generation, carbon capture and storage (CCS) solutions, sustainable aviation fuel (SAF), and broader transition infrastructure build-out. Both technical and commercial workstreams must be developed in parallel to avoid project failure. 
2. Early scope decisions, such as site selection, core technology selection, and nameplate capacity, are cheap to make but become exponentially disruptive and costly to reverse. 
3. Independent challenge and verification is tangible evidence of a disciplined, well-managed capital development process. 

Bridging the Gap from Announcement to Delivery

Among project developers, a perception often persists: seeking external review signals a project in distress. In capital budgeting discussions, subjecting engineering scope and commercial assumptions to third-party interrogation can be misconstrued as a vote of no confidence in the primary delivery team.

In reality, the reverse is true. Across complex infrastructure, independent challenge is the disciplined stage-gate practice that protects capital by reconciling technical reality with commercial terms before designs are locked.

Independent Challenge Is a Sign of Strength, Not Doubt 

Across capital projects, and in particular within emerging low-carbon industrial infrastructure, the gap between announced projects and delivered assets remains stark. Data from the Mission Possible Partnership’s Global Project Tracker reveals that fewer than 17% of announced commercial-scale clean industrial facilities worldwide have reached Final Investment Decision (FID) or commercial operations, leaving more than 800 major decarbonization projects stalled in front-end development.

The causes of developmental paralysis are multifaceted. While macroeconomic interest rate shifts and global supply chain disruptions sit largely outside a developer's control, project definition and developmental discipline remain entirely manageable. Even amid external volatility, a project designed with resilience will have a far greater likelihood of success.

Independent review and assurance directly strengthen a project’s chance of success and overall value. Large global project delivery organizations have applied this discipline for decades by deploying independent teams to evaluate project readiness at every stage gate. For teams lacking a dedicated internal oversight organization, or those deploying first-of-a-kind facilities, third-party independent review provides the necessary rigor to facilitate project success.

Relae’s (formerly Carbon Direct) work with Stockholm Exergi is a clear example: independent assurance helped build funder and regulator confidence in a first-of-a-kind carbon removal facility with no direct precedent to benchmark against.

Why Projects Stall Between Announcement and FID 

Low-carbon infrastructure and net-zero industrial projects carry unique risks compared to the repeat delivery of established designs. Exciting new developments run a higher risk of falling victim to optimism bias or compressing development timelines to meet public announcement milestones.

It is a natural human tendency for project champions to focus on the upside during early development. However, early momentum must be balanced with processes that reintroduce industrial lessons, supply-chain realities, and operational resilience.

Front-End Loading (FEL) is a well-evidenced approach for improving capital project outcomes. Decades of benchmarking by Independent Project Analysis (IPA) show that approximately two-thirds of industrial megaprojects suffer capital cost overruns or schedule slippage of 25% or more, or encounter severe operational problems lasting more than two years post-startup. This pattern is repeating in low-carbon infrastructure: IPA’s analysis of 12 completed low-carbon projects found average cost escalation of 31% and schedule slip of almost 50%. Rigorous front-end definition remains the single strongest predictor of whether a project will achieve its cost and schedule targets. 

As highlighted in the CDR 2.0: Five Pillars of Successful Project Deployment and Delivery report published by Relae, projects falter when developers push ahead without stress-testing the full delivery framework. Stage gate reviews are the mechanisms that evaluate the total project concept and underlying business case. They are most effective when executed as independent cold-eye evaluations prior to each funding gate, identifying and mitigating vulnerabilities long before final investment decisions are reached. 

What Funders Need to See at Each Gate 

Different stages of project development rely on distinct capital sources, each requiring specific proof points before deploying funds.

Before FEED Funding: Justifying the Engineering Spend

Front-End Engineering Design (FEED) is a major financial commitment, typically costing between 2% and 4% of total project capital cost. The funders backing this stage are usually the developer’s own balance sheet equity, strategic partners, or public grant programs. Before allocating millions of dollars to detailed engineering, these funders need confidence on the fundamentals:

• A technically sound process concept, confirmed utility balances, and an energy integration scheme that fits the site.
• Secured site control, clear zoning pathways, and no environmental fatal flaws that could derail permitting.
• Documented availability of required feedstocks, water and power, paired with demonstrable interest from target off-takers.

Before FID: Proving Bankability and Commercial Closure

As a project approaches FID, the funding audience shifts to conservative commercial lenders, infrastructure funds, and binding offtake counterparties. These capital providers are not underwriting strategic vision; they are underwriting long-term operational cash flows and debt service. Depending on the project and financing structure, capital providers may require:

• A high-confidence capital cost estimate (AACE Class 2 or Class 3) backed by frozen Piping and Instrumentation Diagrams (P&IDs), firm equipment quotes, and a realistic execution schedule with clear critical paths.
• Bankable engineering, procurement, and construction (EPC) structures that clearly allocate risk, include performance guarantees and enforceable liquidated damages.
• Fully executed, binding offtake and feedstock agreements, along with non-appealable permits and completed utility interconnection agreements, with remaining conditions clearly understood.
• An objective, third-party challenge review that assesses operational viability and distinguishes an executable engineering plan from an aspirational concept.

Commercial and Technical Co-Development: The Stage-Gate Method in Practice

A project rarely fails because of an isolated mechanical issue or a purely commercial misstep; failure happens when technical decisions and commercial terms are negotiated in silos and decisions are made without understanding of the wider implications. 

We see this disconnect play out in several ways, including: 

• Sizing capacity before testing market demand: An engineering team may size a facility to maximize thermodynamic efficiency and economies of scale, only for the commercial team to discover buyers will only commit to half that volume. The developer is left with an oversized, unbankable design requiring fundamental rework. 
• Setting product specifications before negotiating offtake: Process engineers frequently design systems around standard vendor packages. However, when downstream transport, processing, or storage networks enforce strict purity standards, the facility faces costly equipment redesigns. This issue has materialized directly within European CCS networks. Open-access offshore storage operators, such as Norway's Northern Lights project, established strict cross-border CO₂ specifications requiring tighter moisture and impurity thresholds than originally designed for. 
• Locking Electrical Loads Prior to Interconnection Verification: As detailed in Relae’s analysis of physical infrastructure bottlenecks, scale is rarely constrained by capital availability; it is dictated by electrical transmission queues, substation headroom, and 24/7 firm power availability. Freezing electrical demand before verifying utility interconnection timelines risks stranding engineering work on an asset that cannot connect to the grid. 

How Relae Stress Tests Projects at Each Gate 

Independent reviews at each stage-gate improve success rates by stress-testing assumptions before presenting to lenders, infrastructure investors, or corporate buyers. Relae reviews projects across five categories using the TECOP framework:

• Technical: Verifying technology readiness levels (TRL), mass and energy balances, plot plan constructability, and operational availability under real-world conditions.
• Economic: Capex benchmarking, operating contingency adequacy, utility tariff sensitivities, and financial model cash-flow resilience.
• Commercial: Offtake agreement structures, feedstock contracts, contracting boundaries, EPC contract structures, and counterparty creditworthiness.
• Organizational: Owner's team capabilities, internal stage-gate governance, contractor oversight mechanisms, and execution capabilities. 
• Political: Statutory permitting status, regulatory durability, carbon market policy exposure, and local community social license.

The TECOP framework is relevant for evaluating delivery risk across all project types, see more in Relae’s Criteria for High-Quality Carbon Dioxide Removal, Delivery Risk Appendix.

What makes this approach effective is sitting on both sides of the table. Having completed over 250 deep-dive technology reviews, 900+ project evaluations, and advised on more than $6 billion in industrial project finance, Relae has extensive experience evaluating the considerations important to institutional funders and buyers.

The Value of Early Independent Project AssuranceIncorporating independent review should be standard practice for modern infrastructure delivery. Because funders will perform their own rigorous diligence regardless, conducting an independent evaluation early enables developers to address vulnerabilities proactively and present a more resilient business case.

Commissioning an independent team for a cold-eye review during early project formation can be a  cost-effective way to identify potential risks before they become expensive to address. Catching an unworkable process assumption, an oversized capacity plan, or a misaligned commercial interface during pre-FEED costs a tiny fraction of what it takes to fix those issues during construction

Ultimately, independent challenge is not an admission of doubt, but the disciplined stage-gate practice that protects capital by reconciling technical reality with commercial terms before designs are locked, signaling to partners, and your future funders that your project is built to deliver. 

To dive deeper into the frameworks that support successful projects, read Relae's white paper: CDR 2.0: Five Pillars of Successful Project Deployment and Delivery and take a look at project assurance in action through our Stockholm Exergi Case Study.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is independent project assurance?

Independent project assurance is a structured review of a capital project by a team that sits outside the project’s delivery organization. Reviewers test the engineering scope, cost estimate, schedule, commercial agreements and permitting position against what funders will require at the next stage gate. The developer receives a clear list of gaps, risks and proposed mitigations prior to presenting the project to lenders, investors or buyers.

When should a developer commission an independent project review?

Periodically throughout the project development process - at a minimum before each major funding gate, but smaller reviews are also beneficial at earlier stages when key concept and technology decisions are being made. A review before Front-End Engineering Design (FEED) tests whether the process concept, site and supply of feedstock, water and power justify the engineering spend. A review before Final Investment Decision (FID) tests whether the cost estimate, EPC structure and binding agreements will satisfy lenders. Site, technology and capacity decisions are cheap to change in pre-FEED and expensive to reverse once detailed engineering starts.

What does an independent project review assess?

Relae structures its reviews around the TECOP framework, which covers five risk areas: technical (technology readiness, mass and energy balances, constructability), economic (capex benchmarking, contingency, financial model resilience), commercial (offtake, feedstock and EPC contracts), organizational (owner’s team capability and stage-gate governance) and political (permitting, regulatory durability and social license). Reviewers also check that technical and commercial decisions are aligned, because projects often fail where the two are developed in silos.

How does an independent project review differ from lender due diligence?

An independent project review applies a holistic approach identifying not only gaps, but also opportunities to add value and strengthen the business case. Lender and investor due diligence is often purely looking at risks and gaps, prior to committing capital. Lender diligence protects the funder and reports its findings at a point when changes are costly and can delay financial close. A developer-commissioned review takes place earlier, so the project team can fix weaknesses in scope, cost or contracts before funders see them.

Key Takeaways

• Biochar is the fastest-growing durable carbon removal method in the voluntary carbon market, accounting for 93% of all durable removal volumes contracted in the first quarter of 2026 alone.
• Scientists still have an incomplete understanding of biochar durability in soils, and there is some uncertainty regarding biochar's ultimate climate impact.
• Biochar carbon removal crediting must reflect conservative, science-based estimates of durability to safeguard against overcrediting.
• Relae’s (formerly Carbon Direct) detailed analysis highlights the key scientific issues affecting biochar soil durability to better inform credible carbon removal.

Biochar Is Gaining Momentum in Carbon Removal

Biochar has entered the spotlight as a scalable climate solution. It is being adopted for its carbon storage potential and agricultural co-benefits. Commercial uptake of biochar has expanded dramatically since 2019 and continues to accelerate, due to the voluntary carbon market. In the first quarter of 2026 alone, 2.3 million tonnes of total durable carbon dioxide removal (CDR) have been contracted, with biochar accounting for 93% of that volume, driven substantially by a single Microsoft-Liferaft deal for one million tonnes. Established and emerging CDR registries have developed biochar protocols and are certifying biochar carbon credits.

In addition to CDR, biochar can bring numerous co-benefits when it is applied to soil. These benefits include improved water and nutrient retention, pH adjustment, and pollution remediation. In agricultural and forage systems, improvements in soil quality following biochar application can lead to enhanced plant growth. Biochar also promotes rural economic development and can be a part of a circular economy that stewards its resources judiciously.

As purchases of biochar credits grow, a central question has not yet been fully answered: How durable is biochar carbon storage, and what are the best methods to assess this? This blog explores the science of biochar durability, also known as permanence, and how credible science can inform the carbon removal market.

What Is Biochar and How Is It Made?

Biomass heated in an oxygen-deficient environment produces biochar, a solid, carbon-rich material. In the near or full absence of oxygen, that process is called pyrolysis. Biochar can be produced from various kinds of biomass, including agricultural or forest residues, construction debris, organic waste, seaweed, and more. Biochar is also gaining attention for its potential as an ingredient within engineered materials, such as cement.

Biochar achieves CDR by durably storing carbon dioxide (CO₂) that was removed from the atmosphere via photosynthesis and plant growth. Carbon stored in living plants will stay stored during the plant’s lifespan. Once it dies, a plant’s biomass decomposes, cycling most of the stored carbon back into the atmosphere. By introducing technological interventions into this carbon cycle, such as using pyrolysis to produce biochar, the carbon that nature captured via photosynthesis can be stored longer than it would have been otherwise. Pyrolysis converts some of the carbon from biomass into chemical compounds with a higher resistance to environmental degradation. How much carbon converts to these more recalcitrant forms depends on the type of biomass used and the heating conditions, including temperature and time. After biochar is produced, the highly recalcitrant fraction of carbon can be stored for long periods of time, as long as the biochar does not combust.

Common methods of biochar production include:

• Industrial pyrolysis systems: Modern pyrolysis systems heat biomass in a low or no-oxygen environment, creating biochar and gaseous compounds known as synthesis gas. Synthesis gas is typically combusted in a controlled system to provide heat for the system. Low air emissions can be achieved for these systems, which is important to maximizing the environmental benefits of biochar production.
• Modular pyrolysis systems: Smaller, transportable pyrolysis units serve farm-scale or decentralized production. Unlike open kilns, these systems retain temperature control and sensor-based monitoring similar to industrial pyrolysis, and some use autothermal designs that recycle non-condensable gases for heat rather than relying on an external energy source. This makes them a middle option for smaller producers seeking more process control and emissions oversight than open-kiln methods allow, without the capital cost of a large, fixed industrial plant.
• Kon-Tiki kilns: This is a less complex and, therefore, more widely deployable method of biochar production. However, air pollution from this method is likely to be higher than from industrial pyrolysis and can be significant enough to undermine the carbon benefits of biochar production. In Kon-Tiki kilns, biomass is burned in an open-top, conical kiln. Biomass is continually added to the process and finally quenched with water.
• Trench mounds: Trench production is one of the simplest forms of biochar production and is used often by smallholder farmers. Biomass is buried in a trench, covered, and combusted to produce biochar. Air pollution from tench mound production is likely to be significant and even higher than from Kon-Tiki kilns.  

How Biochar Durability Is Quantified

Durability, or permanence, is a key metric used to quantify carbon removal from biochar; it describes the amount of carbon that remains stored in biochar for 100 years or more after it is applied to soil.

Quantifying durability relies on experiments and models to project permanence. There are a number of established and emerging approaches to evaluating biochar recalcitrance to chemical decomposition and storage permanence. Most of these are based on short-term incubation experiments in laboratories, where scientists seal biochar in a container with other organic matter and measure carbon changes over a period of weeks to months. These approaches typically treat biochar as having multiple pools of carbon that differ in their ability to resist decomposition.

While these experiments offer insights into decomposition dynamics, they have two significant limitations. First, these approaches do not measure biochar decomposition and durability in the real world (e.g., after biochar is applied to agricultural soils), meaning they do not capture the effects of actual soil and other environmental factors. Research has shown that different soils can strongly influence decomposition rates. Second, the short duration of these experiments means there is significant potential for error in extrapolating the results to time periods of centuries and beyond.

Why Quantifying Durability Accurately Is Critical

Biochar CDR certification methodologies use a range of approaches to quantify permanence. Most commonly these are based on biochar’s chemical composition, namely the hydrogen-to-organic-carbon ratio (H/Corg). Models that correlate H/Corg with projected permanence, from decay models applied to biochar decomposition experiments, are used to calculate a permanence factor. Other quantification methods include measuring the random reflectance of biochar to estimate the amount of highly recalcitrant carbon in biochar.

The risks of inaccurate durability estimates for carbon removal buyers are significant. Overestimating durability can lead to ineffective CDR spending, reputational risk from overstated climate impact, and delayed progress on net-zero and compliance goals. Buyers need to understand and engage with durability estimation methods to ensure they are procuring high-quality biochar credits.

Why Underground Coal Isn't a Valid Durability Comparison

Recent research proposes a new approach to quantifying biochar durability. The authors assert that random reflectance—a parameter developed in the field of organic petrology (the study of organic matter in rocks)—can be used to characterize durability. Using a component of coal (known as "inertinite") as an analogue for biochar, they propose a benchmark random reflectance of 2% as an "inertinite benchmark" for biochar. They argue that the entire fraction of biochar that meets that benchmark will degrade over approximately 100 million years. This is a large departure from other estimates of biochar durability, and we believe this to be at odds with more conservative models.

There are several reasons to doubt this method. The coal-biochar analogy is inadequate because coal buried underground is not exposed to the same degradation conditions as biochar in soil. Underground coal has lower exposure to oxygen, water, and ultraviolet light, all of which are plentiful in surface soils. Each of these is associated with well-understood decay mechanisms. Furthermore, the process of geologic burial dramatically changes the physical structure of organic matter. Additionally, the permanence factor that the reflectance method allows (i.e., up to 100% carbon retention over extremely long time scales) contradicts experimental evidence that some carbon loss will occur over years or decades.

Subsequent research from the same authors has since recommended pairing random reflectance analysis with H/Corg rather than relying on either alone. This is a refinement of the original approach meant to support more reliable quantification of biochar durability and avoid overcrediting CDR from biochar.

Where Biochar Science Is Headed Next

Biochar stability science will keep advancing. Research into biochar degradation pathways in soil will continue to refine permanence models and inform the relevance of coal analogues. Long-term field measurement studies, with a high density of in-soil sampling to quantify persistence over time, should be a near-term priority that biochar CDR projects can contribute to. Additional studies should investigate pathways to increase durability and rigorously develop modern isotopic, spectroscopic, and chemical techniques for enabling robust assessments of biochar durability.

Crediting Biochar Means Getting Durability Right

Biochar is a promising solution for both soil health and climate impact. Nevertheless, carbon removal certification protocols will need updating as the science of biochar durability evolves. Relae cautions against excessively generous claims of biochar CDR durability, in both permanence factor and timeframe, given the important uncertainties outlined above.

Protocols should not outpace science in terms of permanence assessment, and crediting should stay rooted in an understanding of what drives biochar permanence that is backed by science, including production conditions (e.g., high temperatures) and biochar composition (i.e., low H/Corg). At a time when investment in biochar is booming and the science of biochar is evolving, the voluntary carbon market must keep pace.

Frequently Asked Questions

Is biochar carbon negative?
Biochar can provide net carbon dioxide removal when the amount of carbon durably stored exceeds the emissions associated with producing, transporting, and using the biochar. Plants capture CO₂ from the atmosphere through photosynthesis and store that carbon in biomass. Left alone, most of that carbon returns to the atmosphere within years to decades as the biomass decomposes or burns. Converting biomass to biochar stabilizes a portion of that carbon into forms that can stay stored for centuries or longer, delivering a net removal once those production emissions are accounted for..

Is biochar considered an engineered, hybrid, or nature-based carbon removal solution? Biochar is considered a hybrid carbon removal solution because it combines natural carbon uptake through photosynthesis with a technological intervention. Biomass first removes and stores atmospheric carbon as it grows, and pyrolysis then converts a portion of that biomass carbon into more stable forms that keep carbon from returning to the atmosphere for longer periods.

How do carbon removal registries currently estimate biochar's durability? Registries use decay models based on biochar's ratio of hydrogen to organic carbon (H/C_org ratio), which correlates with how resistant the biochar is to microbial breakdown, combined with environmental factors where biochar is applied, like soil temperature, moisture, and application context, to estimate what fraction of the carbon remains stable (i.e., not converted back to CO₂) over a defined timeframe. Methodologies typically also require third-party lab testing of feedstock and pyrolysis conditions to substantiate durability claims. Some registries and methodologies also incorporate random reflectance as part of durability quantification, although the scientific basis for using reflectance to estimate long-term biochar durability remains under debate.

How long does biochar actually store carbon? 

Biochar does not have a single storage lifetime. Some of its carbon decomposes relatively quickly, while more stable fractions can remain stored for centuries or longer, depending on the biochar’s properties and the conditions where it is stored. Because these estimates rely on models rather than direct observation, carbon crediting has to balance two risks: crediting more durability than actually exists, and being so conservative it undercredits real removals and threatens project viability.

Key Takeaways

• Marine carbon dioxide removal (mCDR) uses ocean-based processes—primarily ocean alkalinity enhancement (OAE) and direct ocean removal (DOR)—to capture and durably store atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO₂), without the land and freshwater constraints of terrestrial methods. 
• The ocean already absorbs roughly 29% of human-caused CO₂ emissions each year, according to the 2025 Global Carbon Budget, and mCDR technologies aim to safely enhance that natural uptake without worsening ocean acidification.
• For corporate carbon buyers and project developers evaluating mCDR, the Criteria for High-Quality Marine Carbon Dioxide Removal, developed by Microsoft and Relae, outlines standards to guide responsible mCDR deployment at scale.

Reducing carbon dioxide (CO₂) emissions alone is no longer sufficient to limit global warming to 1.5°C. To effectively address climate change, scientific consensus highlights the need to remove carbon dioxide already present in the atmosphere. Marine carbon dioxide removal (mCDR), a form of ocean-based carbon removal, offers a scalable solution by leveraging the ocean’s natural ability to absorb and store carbon, without the land and resource limitations associated with terrestrial carbon removal methods.

This guide explores the fundamentals of marine carbon dioxide removal, including how it works, the technologies involved, and its role in global decarbonization.

What Is Marine Carbon Dioxide Removal?

Marine carbon dioxide removal uses ocean-based processes to capture and store carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. mCDR techniques fall into two primary categories: 

• Biotic CDR, which includes using photosynthetic fixation, microalgae cultivation, and terrestrial biomass sinking, to capture and store carbon. 
• Abiotic CDR, which influences CO₂ concentrations and carbonate chemistry in the seawater to absorb atmospheric CO₂ without increasing acidity. There are two main abiotic mCDR pathways: ocean alkalinity enhancement (OAE) and direct ocean removal (DOR). 

How Does Marine Carbon Dioxide Removal Work?

Marine carbon dioxide removal functions via the air-sea gas exchange—a process by which the atmosphere and surface seawater maintain equal CO₂ concentrations—meaning a shift in one leads to a corresponding change in the other. This exchange allows the ocean to absorb or release CO₂ back into the atmosphere depending on concentration levels and factors like pH. 

Once absorbed by the ocean, CO₂ exists in several forms, including dissolved CO₂, carbonates, and bicarbonates, influencing the ocean's pH levels. As atmospheric CO₂ levels rise, the oceans absorb roughly 12 GtCO₂ annually, approximately 29% of anthropogenic CO₂ emissions. This increase is disrupting the natural CO₂ balance and contributing to ocean acidification. 

mCDR methods like ocean alkalinity enhancement and direct ocean removal use safe and controlled processes to increase the amount of CO₂ absorbed from the atmosphere while mitigating acidification.

Understanding Ocean Alkalinity Enhancement (OAE)

Ocean alkalinity enhancement (OAE) captures and stores atmospheric CO₂ as dissolved carbonates in the ocean by increasing the alkalinity of seawater using one of two primary methods:

• Adding alkaline minerals such as olivine or basalt to seawater.
• Using electrochemical methods to add alkaline compounds to seawater.

Both of these methods increase the alkalinity of seawater and, thereby, its capacity to absorb atmospheric CO₂ without acidification. 

OAE methods can also differ by location and the manner in which seawater interacts with alkaline substances and atmospheric CO₂. This interaction may occur in the open ocean or within a controlled mCDR project facility. Each approach involves trade-offs: open ocean methods tend to be less energy-intensive but present greater uncertainties and challenges in measurement, reporting, and verification (MRV).

Understanding Direct Ocean Removal (DOR)

Direct ocean removal (DOR), also called direct ocean capture (DOC), removes CO₂ dissolved in seawater using the controlled acidification of seawater in a closed system using one of two primary methods: 

• Electrochemical methods such as electrolysis of seawater or electrodialysis
• The addition of minerals like olivine and basalt. 

The acidified and CO₂ depleted seawater is neutralized to native pH and allowed to equalize with and remove atmospheric CO₂. Once removed, CO₂ can be safely stored using geologic storage with a durability of >1,000 years.

Key Benefits of Marine Carbon Dioxide Removal

Understanding how mCDR works highlights its potential to address climate challenges. Here are the key benefits that make it a critical tool in global decarbonization strategies.

• Scalable carbon removal without land constraints: Marine carbon dioxide removal does not require large land areas or significant freshwater resources, making it highly scalable.
• Harnessing the ocean’s natural carbon sink: The ocean absorbs about 25% of human-generated CO₂ annually. mCDR enhances this natural process, increasing carbon storage without accelerating ocean acidification.
• Diverse technological pathways for flexibility: Technologies like ocean alkalinity enhancement and direct ocean removal offer flexible solutions tailored to different environments and project needs.
• Global reach with a large surface area: Covering over two-thirds of the Earth’s surface, the ocean provides an expansive platform for mCDR technologies globally. 
• Potential to mitigate ocean acidification: Some mCDR methods, such as ocean alkalinity enhancement, not only remove CO₂ but also help restore ocean pH levels, supporting marine ecosystem health.

Challenges of Marine Carbon Dioxide Removal

While mCDR holds significant promise, it also presents challenges that must be addressed for responsible deployment.

• Technical scalability and efficiency: Scaling mCDR technologies to achieve meaningful carbon removal while maintaining energy efficiency remains a significant hurdle.
• Potential environmental impacts: Altering ocean chemistry may pose risks to marine ecosystems, with long-term effects still not fully understood.
• Measurement, reporting, and verification (MRV) complexity: Accurately measuring CO₂ removal and ensuring its durability requires advanced monitoring systems, which are still evolving.
• Regulatory and governance gaps: Clear global policies are needed to oversee mCDR deployment, manage environmental risks, and ensure accountability.
• Public perception and ethical considerations: Concerns around geoengineering and potential unintended consequences may impact public acceptance and policy support.

Deploying Marine Carbon Dioxide Removal 

As mCDR technologies evolve, effective deployment will rely on adaptive management practices to address technical, environmental, and regulatory challenges. This includes robust MRV systems for accurate CO₂ removal tracking and continuous ecosystem monitoring to mitigate potential risks to marine life. 

Collaborative efforts between scientists, policymakers, and project developers are key to establishing clear regulatory frameworks, optimizing technologies for efficiency and scalability, and building public trust. These practices ensure mCDR can be scaled responsibly while safeguarding ocean health. 

The Future of Marine Carbon Dioxide Removal 

As technologies like ocean alkalinity enhancement and direct ocean removal advance, their potential to deliver large-scale, durable carbon removal is becoming increasingly evident. Realizing this potential requires more than technological innovation—it depends on rigorous environmental monitoring, transparent reporting, and strong collaboration among project developers, carbon buyers, and policymakers.

Establishing clear, consistent standards for high-quality mCDR is essential to ensure both climate effectiveness and environmental safety. To support this, Microsoft and Relae have partnered to develop the Criteria for High-Quality Carbon Dioxide Removal. 

Frequently Asked Questions

What is marine carbon dioxide removal (mCDR)?

mCDR uses ocean-based processes, primarily ocean alkalinity enhancement and direct ocean removal, to capture and durably store atmospheric CO₂. It works by increasing the ocean's natural capacity to absorb CO₂ without increasing acidification.

How does marine carbon dioxide removal compare to land-based methods like direct air capture or reforestation?

Unlike land-based approaches, mCDR doesn't require large land areas or freshwater, and the ocean's size gives it significant scaling potential. It's earlier-stage than more established pathways, though, with measurement and environmental monitoring standards still maturing.

Is marine carbon dioxide removal proven and scalable today, or still emerging?

mCDR technologies have shown promising results in lab testing and early deployments, but confirming safety and effectiveness at a large real-world scale requires more monitoring data. It's best described as an emerging pathway with strong near-term momentum, not yet a mature, at-scale solution.

What should a company look for when evaluating a marine carbon dioxide removal project or credits?

Buyers should look for rigorous carbon MRV paired with equally rigorous monitoring of ocean ecosystem health (eMRV), transparent reporting, and adherence to established frameworks like the Criteria for High-Quality Carbon Dioxide Removal.

Key Takeaways

• The UK's new biomass Contracts for Difference framework will cut industrial wood pellet imports by slightly more than half starting in April 2027. As a result, US producers will be left competing for only 1.6 million GST, an 80% reduction in US-addressable volume, with no successor market locked in.
• US wood pellet producers who move now to upgrade sustainability credentials and build relationships in emerging markets will be best positioned to capture the next generation of demand; those who wait may find the most attractive offtake opportunities already structured around someone else's supply.
• Four domestic markets now present producers with new demand opportunities: cofiring, sustainable aviation fuel (SAF), low-carbon steel, and bioenergy with carbon capture and storage (BECCS). Of these, BECCS for data centers is the strongest structural fit: hyperscalers need clean firm power, pellet mills need offtakers, and the feedstock infrastructure is already in place.

The Demand Cliff Is Real, and the Timeline Is Short

A pellet made in southern Mississippi this morning will be burned in a UK boiler about four weeks later. North America is on pace to ship more than 9 million green short tons (GST) of pellets to the UK each year—making the UK the world's largest consumer of wood pellets since 2018. The US Southeast is at the center of that supply chain: 28 large mills, 13.5 million GST of production capacity, rail spurs, export terminals, and bulk carriers, built almost entirely around UK demand.

However, the UK's new low-carbon Contracts for Difference (CfD) framework caps biomass power generators at a 27% annual capacity factor starting April 2027, down from roughly 64% today. When run hours fall by half, pellet demand follows. Existing subsidies expire in the first quarter of 2027, and the new CfD runs only to March 2031 with no commitment beyond that. Plant closures in Arkansas and Washington state, along with reduced output in Canada, are already early signals of supply chain contraction.

The Math of Who Gets Squeezed

The math is stark. By the second quarter of 2027, total annual UK pellet demand drops to 4.9 million GST. Of that:

• Approximately 2.3 million GST goes to captive, integrated UK supply chains.
• Approximately 1.0 million GST goes to Baltic suppliers, whose shipping times of one week or less become a decisive advantage as UK plants shift from baseload to dispatchable operation.

That leaves US producers competing for only 1.6 million GST. If Baltic suppliers capture more, US wood pellet exports to the UK could be effectively eliminated by 2031.

Sustainability qualification is also tightening. The new CfD cuts the supply-chain emissions ceiling from 55.6 grams of carbon dioxide equivalent per megajoule (gCO₂e/MJ) to 36.6 gCO₂e/MJ. The framework assesses compliance mill by mill, not on a portfolio average. A cleaner mill cannot carry a dirtier sibling through the door.

The producers who understand this math now have roughly 18 months to position themselves for what comes next.

From Stranded Supply to New Markets

The US Southeast's wood basket is robust: abundant inventory, strong growth-to-removal ratios, and more available residues than ever. The infrastructure is in place. The question is whether the next generation of markets can be developed quickly enough to redeploy this supply before the infrastructure sits idle.

Four pathways stand out as the strongest options for redeploying US pellet supply: BECCS for data centers, low-carbon steel, SAF, and domestic cofiring. We have rigorously assessed the logistics economics, sustainability cases, and project development for each.

BECCS for Data Centers: The Strongest Structural Fit

BECCS as a power source for data centers is the most compelling match for the situation pellet producers now face. The timing, feedstock requirements, and buyer characteristics align closely in a way that few other emerging markets can match.

Hyperscalers, the large data center operators driving an unprecedented surge in electricity demand, are signing deals for nuclear, geothermal, and small modular reactors alongside natural gas and renewables. They are doing this because annual Renewable Energy Certificates (RECs) are no longer sufficient to compensate for their scope 2 emissions, and they need clean, firm generation that can be matched to load on an hourly basis.

BECCS delivers exactly that. The Louisiana Green Fuels project—advanced by Strategic Biofuels and Relae (formerly Carbon Direct)—illustrates the model: regionally sourced forestry residues and sawmill waste generate 75 megawatts (MW) of firm electricity while sequestering over one million tonnes of CO₂ annually in deep saline formations. An ample supply of wood pellets creates a strategic opportunity for similar projects to move forward with certainty around feedstock processing, logistics, and costs.

The remaining commercial barrier is deal structure, not technology. No data center operator has yet signed an agreement to purchase both the electricity and carbon removal credits from a single BECCS plant. As scope 2 accounting tightens and domestic pellet supply becomes more readily available post-2027, the conditions for structuring the first such deal are improving fast.

"Pellet mills and data center developers have complementary problems: mills need offtakers, and data centers need local, dispatchable, clean power they can match to load on an hour-by-hour basis. BECCS is one of the few technologies that could solve both at once, and hyperscalers have shown they are willing to back early-stage clean firm power when the asset makes sense."

—Douglas Bryan, Senior Power and Energy Systems Modeler

Low-Carbon Steel: Certification Frameworks Are Arriving

Wood-derived biocarbon has a long-established niche in steelmaking. Brazil produces roughly 10% of its steel and 30% of its pig iron using charcoal from managed eucalyptus plantations—a proof of concept for biomass as a metallurgical input, if not a direct template for US producers. The plantations measurably lowered groundwater in producer regions of Minas Gerais, and charcoal's mechanical weakness relative to fossil coke has limited the model's reach beyond Brazil.

Current pilot projects use biomass in two roles. As a fuel, industrial trials have demonstrated 10% bio-coal co-injection without operational disruption, with reviews estimating that full replacement could cut blast-furnace CO₂ by around 27% per tonne of hot metal. As a reductant, biocoke is already being demonstrated at Outokumpu's pelletizing plant in Tornio, Finland. ArcelorMittal in Belgium and Tata Steel in India are running biomass pilots at tens of thousands of tonnes per year.

What makes this market worth serious attention now is the certification landscape. The Low Emission Steel Standard issued its first certifications in September 2025. The Global Steel Climate Council's Steel Climate Standard is under stakeholder review. In May 2025, Relae and Microsoft published Criteria for High-Quality Environmental Attribute Certificates in the Concrete and Steel Sectors. These frameworks allow producers to internalize carbon price and environmental attribute certificate (EAC) values, closing the cost gap against fossil coke that has historically constrained biocarbon demand.

Relae worked with Eramet, a global metals company pursuing biogenic materials as a substitute for fossil coke at its Norwegian smelters, to assess high-quality carbon dioxide removal methodologies and chart a path to generating and selling carbon credits from their decarbonization projects. Producers who align their sustainability credentials to these emerging standards now will be better positioned for offtake as commercial-scale demand grows.

"Steelmaker pilots and the first low-carbon steel certifications are opening green-steel offtake to wood pellets, though commercial-scale demand remains limited. The producers that thrive in this market will be those that reliably deliver pellets aligned with high-quality sustainability standards."

—Louisa Brotherson, Hybrid Decarbonization Scientist

Sustainable Aviation Fuel: Mandates Create a Durable Demand Signal

Wood-based SAF is technically feasible via gasification to syngas, followed by Fischer-Tropsch upgrading, a proven chemistry for converting syngas to liquid hydrocarbons. Yet, the commercial challenges are substantial: the International Civil Aviation Organization estimates capital costs exceeding US$1 billion for large facilities, and production costs of US$11–48 per gallon to distillate. 

The cautionary case is Fulcrum Bioenergy near Reno, Nevada, which attempted a Fischer-Tropsch process using municipal solid waste and appears to have failed due to a lack of rigorous pre-implementation testing and unrealistic timelines, a reminder that feedstock homogeneity matters enormously, and one area where pellets have a relative advantage.

Two structural dynamics make SAF worth serious attention despite those barriers. First, the European Union's (EU) SAF mandate, starting at 2% of jet fuel supply and ramping to 70% by 2050, carves out cellulosic biomass as the only qualifying feedstock once cooking oil supply is exhausted. The penalty structure in both the EU and UK creates strong demand regardless of SAF price: EU non-compliance penalties run roughly three times the price of SAF, and UK penalties can reach 13 times the cost of the fuel itself. Second, the alcohol-to-jet pathway offers a lower-capital entry point than Fischer-Tropsch, as demonstrated by Project Speedbird, a British Airways and LanzaJet collaboration targeting UK woody residues.

The near-term question is which routes have bankable offtake. Very few do yet, but the mandate structure suggests that window will shift rapidly.

"So far, facilities haven't scaled to the levels required to meet timeline demand. But the EU and UK mandate structures mean buyers are greatly incentivized to purchase SAF even at high prices, rather than pay non-compliance penalties."

—John Dees, Director, Fuels and Industrial Commodities

Domestic Cofiring: Achievable, but Not a Long-Term Anchor

Cofiring biomass with coal to produce electricity or heat is the most immediately achievable option. Most US coal-fired power plants could displace up to 10% of their input energy with raw or torrefied pellets, though plants would likely need fuel handling upgrades. Some state policies, such as Pennsylvania's Alternative Energy Portfolio Standards Act of 2004, support cofiring to meet renewable energy goals. However, there are no federal policies in the US that incentivize cofiring.

The case for cofiring as a long-term market is weak. The US coal fleet has contracted steadily for economic reasons—over 100 gigawatts (GW) of coal-fired capacity retired between 2015 and 2025—and biomass cofiring is unlikely to make a coal plant more cost-competitive. The Greenhouse Gas Protocol's scope 2 guidance does not permit buyers to procure a "strip" of electricity representing the biomass-fired fraction of output from a cofired plant; instead, buyers must accept the average total emissions from the plant in their scope 2 inventory, which limits the value proposition for corporate buyers seeking to demonstrate clean energy procurement.

The more interesting version of this pathway combines cofiring with carbon capture and storage (CCS), a combination that creates a deeper-abatement value proposition and the kind of firm, dispatchable power that corporate buyers increasingly need.

"Cofiring is a proven step toward modest emissions reductions from coal-fired electricity, but it's hard to make the economic case for it when compared to applications that command price premiums for deeper climate abatement."

—A.J. Simon, Director of Industrial Decarbonization

Sustainability Is Now the Qualification Gate

Each of these markets is more discerning about sustainable biomass sourcing than the UK power sector was a decade ago. That shift will not reverse.

US Southeast wood has real potential for high-integrity sustainability credentials, particularly in softwood residues. But it also carries downside risks when sourcing from natural stands. Through work with producers, buyers, and project developers across these markets, we have found that four questions now drive every serious procurement conversation:

1. Does the supply chain have verifiable governance and chain-of-custody transparency?
2. Does sourcing respect the rights of Indigenous Peoples and local communities?
3. Is the wood coming from regions where forest carbon stocks are stable or growing, and not from protected areas or primary forest?
4. Is sourced biomass a by-product of non-energy uses, and not the primary silviculture driver?

Producers who can answer yes to all four, and support those answers with data, are more likely to access these emerging markets. Those who cannot will find it harder to compete for offtake.

For a detailed framework on how these principles translate into contract language and certification requirements, see the 2025 Sustainable Forest Biomass Sourcing for CDR: A Buyer's Guide.

The Window Is Open, but Not Indefinitely

The US Southeast wood basket is well-positioned for the markets described here. The infrastructure is in place. What producers still need to build is the market positioning, sustainability documentation, and offtake relationships to go with it.

The producers who move now will have a meaningful head start. Those who wait for certainty may find that the most attractive offtake opportunities have already been structured around someone else's supply.

Learn more about Relae's work on SAF mandates, steel decarbonization, and sustainable biomass sourcing. 

Frequently Asked Questions

What happens to US wood pellet exports when the UK's new biomass rules take effect?

Starting April 2027, the UK's signed Contracts for Difference agreement caps subsidized biomass generation at a 27% capacity factor, roughly half of today's levels. That's expected to cut total UK pellet demand to about 4.9 million GST a year, leaving only around 1.6 million GST available to US exporters.

Is BECCS for data centers a proven market, or still emerging?

The underlying technology is credible, and the Louisiana Green Fuels project already demonstrates it at commercial scale. However, the deal structure isn't yet proven. No hyperscaler has signed a single contract for both electricity and carbon removal credits from one BECCS plant, so this market is emerging rather than established.

How does low-carbon steel demand compare to sustainable aviation fuel as a market for pellet producers?

Steel offers nearer-term certification frameworks (the Low Emission Steel Standard began issuing certifications in 2025) but limited commercial-scale volume so far. SAF has a stronger long-run demand signal thanks to EU and UK blending mandates and steep non-compliance penalties, but requires far higher capital investment to enter.

What should a wood pellet producer look for when evaluating a new market?

The four sourcing questions that now gate access across all these markets are: verifiable chain-of-custody, respect for Indigenous and local community rights, sourcing from stable or growing forest carbon stocks (not primary forest), and biomass that's a by-product of non-energy uses rather than the primary driver of harvest.

Key Takeaways

• Relae (formerly Carbon Direct) has conducted over 900 comprehensive, rigorous reviews of carbon removal (CDR) projects around the world. But fewer than 10% meet our standard for high-quality. In today’s market, scientifically-credible CDR supply is scarce.
• To identify high-quality projects, buyers and investors previously had to commission numerous deep diligences, which often made it a lengthy and complex process, not well-suited to most market participants. 
• The Diligence Collection changes that paradigm by giving you direct access to existing comprehensive analysis on a curated set of high-quality CDR projects. The hard work of identifying high-quality projects is already done, allowing you to move faster, spend less, and procure with more confidence.

Relae Sets the Bar for High-Quality CDR

Since 2020, every year Relae has released an updated version of the Criteria for High-Quality Carbon Dioxide Removal in collaboration with Microsoft. The Criteria set the standard for scientific rigor across nine CDR pathways and across six technical dimensions. Using this standard, the Relae team has conducted diligence on over 900 CDR projects across 63 countries. Our diligence has been used for over 50% of all tonnes contracted through announced CDR offtake agreements worldwide, including diligence for the majority  of tonnes from Microsoft’s announced offtakes. This gives Relae a uniquely deep understanding of the CDR market; and importantly, it has highlighted that high-quality projects in the voluntary carbon market are scarce. 

Quality Is the Central Challenge in CDR Procurement 

Only 10% of the projects that Relae has assessed meet our high-quality criteria. This means that without rigorous, scientific assessment, buyers and investors run real risk of exposing themselves to delivery shortfalls, financial loss, and reputational damage. 

This presents a series of challenges to buyers and investors interested in procuring or investing in CDR. Conducting diligence on CDR projects is time-intensive, complex, and requires deep expertise. Building the internal capacity to rigorously evaluate a wide variety of CDR projects isn’t practical for most actors. But conducting the in-depth diligence required to procure or invest confidently requires real commitment, especially when a significant proportion of the projects diligenced may not be high-quality. Finding the needle in the CDR haystack isn’t easy.

The Case for Curated CDR 

The Diligence Collection directly addresses these challenges by providing self-serve access to diligence on a curated set of high-quality CDR projects vetted by Relae. Every project has already been evaluated against the Criteria for High-Quality Carbon Dioxide Removal, the science-based benchmark jointly established by Relae in collaboration with Microsoft. The Collection includes projects reviewed on behalf of Microsoft and other major buyers, and more broadly reflects our diligence work across the market.

With the Diligence Collection, you're not starting from scratch. Instead, you're starting from a shortlist of some of the highest-quality CDR opportunities available, with robust scientific diligence to back them up. The bottleneck that's slowed procurement for so many organizations is no longer a concern.

The Collection offers two levels of diligence, matched to the level of scrutiny your commitment warrants:

1. Desk review: An executive-level assessment using available project documentation, enough to make an informed shortlisting decision or purchase.
2. Deep diligence: A comprehensive technical evaluation covering project design, operational risk, technology assessment, policy landscape, and community impacts, reflecting the same methodology that's informed the procurement programs of Microsoft and other major buyers.

Both tiers include the option to commission an updated evaluation as your needs evolve.

What Rigorous CDR Diligence Involves 

The depth of Relae’s diligence sets the Diligence Collection apart. Our desk review process involves conducting detailed assessments to evaluate projects against 6 quality principles: social harms, benefits, and environmental justice; environmental harms and benefits; additionality and baselines; measurement, monitoring, reporting, and verification; durability; and leakage. The result is a comprehensive report that assesses projects against these criteria, highlighting the project's overall quality, strengths, and weaknesses in a clear, succinct way that supports decision-making. 

Many of our reports dig even deeper. Our deep diligences assess both a project’s quality and its delivery risk. To evaluate delivery risk, we assess projects across 5 elements: technologic, economic, commercial, operational, and political. Deep diligence is conducted over 3-4 months, which includes weekly back-and-forth with the supplier and a site visit to understand all of the nuances of the project and validate developer claims on the ground. The resulting report not only documents a project's strengths and weaknesses, but also outlines risk mitigation measures and recommends improvements over time. 

Broader Access, Stronger Market 

Forward offtake demand in the CDR market has historically concentrated among a handful of large buyers, and as our 2026 State of the Voluntary Carbon Market report notes, diversifying that pool is essential to enabling the next generation of CDR supply. The Diligence Collection is built to support exactly that. By making the scientific rigor behind the world's largest CDR transactions available through a self-service platform, it opens credible procurement to organizations at any stage of purchasing. More buyers accessing high-quality, de-risked projects means more capital flowing to suppliers, more projects able to scale, and a more resilient market that doesn't depend on a small number of actors to function.

High-quality CDR supply is scarce, and the best projects are in high demand. The Diligence Collection gives you the foundation to act efficiently and with confidence, without starting from zero.

[cta]

Frequently Asked Questions

Who Can Access the Relae Diligence Collection?

The Diligence Collection is available to approved subscribers, including CDR buyers and investors seeking to more efficiently evaluate carbon removal projects. To preserve the independence and integrity of the Collection and protect proprietary diligence insights, access is not available to project developers or rating agencies.

How Is the Relae Diligence Collection Different From a Rating Agency or Market Intelligence Platform?

Most rating platforms optimize for quantity; we optimize for quality. Our process includes pathway-specific risk assessments and, in many cases, site visits from our in-house scientists, engineers, and technical experts—the same multidisciplinary team and judgment behind our own portfolio decisions and the procurement programs we support directly. The Collection also includes projects diligenced before they've received external ratings, giving you visibility into promising opportunities at the pre-commercialization stage.

Does Inclusion in the Relae Diligence Collection Mean Relae Endorses a Project?

Inclusion means a project was evaluated through our scientific diligence process and, at the time of review, met our Criteria for High-Quality Carbon Dioxide Removal. It reflects a positive diligence outcome based on the information available during the review and the project's stage of development at that time. As projects and market conditions evolve, we recommend considering whether updated diligence or additional evaluation is appropriate for your specific procurement or investment objectives.

Can I Request Diligence on a Project That Isn't Already in the Collection?

Yes. You can commission us to diligence a specific project based on your procurement or investment priorities. Whether it's later added to the Diligence Collection depends on a few factors beyond just meeting our quality bar, including consent from you as the commissioning buyer and approval from the project developer.