PURO-GSC carbon credit projects
Browse 4 published projects using PURO-GSC, listed alphabetically. There is no ranking for this methodology yet: it appears here automatically once 5 of its projects are rated. Open a project to view its registry details and the analysis available for that project.
What you're looking at
This is an alphabetical list of published projects using PURO-GSC. There are not yet 5 projects with a current score and a registry status eligible for ranking. Some projects may already have an assessment; each dossier shows the analysis available.
CarbonMeld scores assess integrity, transparency, claim safety and documentation using project documents. Higher scores indicate stronger evidence under this framework. How to read CarbonMeld scores.
Project names, codes and registry status come from official registry records. Open a project dossier for its source record.
PURO-GSC: Geologically Stored Carbon
Methodology issuer: Puro.earth · Official methodology page.
Carbon capture and storage · CO2 removals
Carbon dioxide captured directly from the atmosphere or from biogenic sources is injected into suitable underground geological formations for permanent storage.
Version 2024.5 · version verified on
How CarbonMeld reads projects of this type
Versions of the official text these rules cover: Edition 2021 v1.1
What CarbonMeld reads
- Additionality: the project must show it with a test. CarbonMeld reads the test in the documents.
- Grid emission factor: the methodology sets rules for it in some cases. CarbonMeld reads it in the project's documents.
- Durability of the storage: the methodology sets rules for it (GSC 2021 v1.1 eligible storage, p. 3). CarbonMeld reads it in the project's documents.
- Sustainability of the feedstock: the methodology sets rules for it. CarbonMeld reads it in the project's documents.
Deductions that can apply
- Biochar: if the documents read do not state how long the carbon stays stored, CarbonMeld lowers integrity by 1.0. It also shows a red flag.
- Biochar: if the documents read state that the project does not address the feedstock's sustainability, CarbonMeld lowers claim safety by 0.5. It also shows a red flag.
Set by the methodology, not assessed in this analysis
- Leakage: the methodology sets rules for it in some cases. This analysis does not assess it.
- Permanence and reversals: the methodology sets rules for it (GSC 2021 v1.1, p. 5). This analysis does not assess it.
- No legal requirement for the activity: the methodology sets rules for it. This analysis does not assess it.
- Social safeguards and consent of communities (FPIC): the methodology sets rules for it in some cases. This analysis does not assess it.
Not applicable to this type — never a gap in our current method
- Fraction of non-renewable biomass (fNRB): the criterion does not apply to this methodology. Our current method never counts it as a gap.
- Usage rate of the devices: the criterion does not apply to this methodology. Our current method never counts it as a gap.
- Tracking of the end use: the criterion does not apply to this methodology. Our current method never counts it as a gap.
The general rules apply as well. Read the general rules.
- Analysis: Re-assessment pending
- Analysis: Re-assessment pending
- Analysis: Scored
- Analysis: Analysis pending
Listed alphabetically, not ranked. A methodology leaderboard is computed automatically once 5 of its projects have a current CarbonMeld score and a rankable registry status (projects still in the pipeline or under validation are not ranked). Read the methodology.