CarbonMeld CarbonMeld Carbon Observatory
Tools
ProjectsDevelopersComparePortfolioCCP trackerA–Z index BuyersCORSIA supplyCheck an offerAPI & MCP Method About the System Editorial Policy Score Your Project
EN
Workbench ProjectsDevelopersComparePortfolioCCP trackerA–Z index
← All projects
Re-assessment pendingCDMN2OSouth AfricaRegistry: RegisteredAM0034

N2O abatement project at nitric acid plant No. 11 at African Explosives Ltd. (AEL), South Africa

Developer: AEL Mining Services Limited

CDM-1364 ↗

Worked comparison example (English)

#211of 691 in Methane#48of 134 in South Africa#2413of 5732 in CDM (UNFCCC)#11of 18 in AM0034

Score from methodology v2.1 (analysis of 23 Sep 2026). Re-assessment under v2.2 pending.

Assessment

CarbonMeld document-based assessment

01020304 Overall 5.4 / 10
Integrity 🔒 Transparency 🔒 Claim Safety 🔒 Documentation 🔒
Dimension scores are locked — the faint arcs are empty tracks, not zero scores.

Scale 0–10 · method weights: integrity 35% · transparency 25% · claim safety 25% · documentation 15%.

Re-assessment pending · v2.1

Scored2026-09-23medium confidenceLatest monitoring period ends: 2018-02-07

evidence: 18/18 registry documents analyzed · 3 red flags

Generated by CarbonMeld Analysis Pipeline · Methodology · Editorial Policy · About the System
Download Report (PDF)

Analysis

A CDM-registered N2O abatement project at a South African nitric acid plant with VVB-confirmed additionality and a measured baseline, but undermined by 12 corrective actions, a NOx compliance material finding, and a contradiction in reported emission reduction figures between two monitoring reports. The project delivered roughly 59% of its pro-rata ex-ante expectation for the elapsed monitoring period, indicating conservative crediting, though the absence of verified ERR figures and FNRB methodology details limits full transparency.

Red Flags

3 red flags detected — Unlock with Premium

Findings

Risk Indicators

Additionality

🔒

Permanence

🔒

Leakage

🔒

Baseline

🔒

Safeguards

🔒

Double-claim

🔒

Risk indicator details are a Premium feature

Score Breakdown

Score factors per dimension are a Premium feature — Unlock with Premium

Detailed Analysis

The detailed per-dimension analysis is a Premium feature — Unlock with Premium

Evidence

Unlock the full analysis

On this page: the analysis of 23 Sep 2026, marked “Re-assessment pending”. Per-dimension scores, risk indicators, 3 red flags, score factors, detailed analysis, and 18 registry documents (18 analyzed).

€9+ VAT · 30-day pass · one-time, no auto-renewal

Every rated project, PDF reports, API access, portfolio alerts and per-dimension scores with red-flag details in side-by-side comparisons for 30 days (public-data comparison is free; fair use: 30 projects per day).

Price + VAT · By paying you accept the Terms of Use — digital content, no refunds. How Premium works

Eligibility & market

Transactions in the CDM registry are discontinued as of 31 December 2026 (UNFCCC, checked 6 October 2026). This page keeps the project's record and our analysis.

What can you claim with this credit?

Four checks buyers ask about, from the registry and the Integrity Council (ICVCM).

  • Airlines (CORSIA)

    Not published

    This registry does not publish CORSIA eligibility per project.

  • Integrity label (ICVCM CCP)

    No ICVCM information

    No CCP label and no ICVCM decision found for this project's methodology.

  • Removal or reduction

    Emission reduction or avoidance

    Prevents or reduces emissions — fits contribution claims, not SBTi neutralisation.

    Source: project sector

  • Paris Agreement (Article 6)

    Not published

    This registry does not publish Article 6 authorizations.

Information only, from public sources. Claim rules (CORSIA, SBTi, EU rules on green claims) change: check them before making a public claim. Since 27 September 2026, EU consumer rules do not allow “climate neutral” product claims based on offsets.

Credit Vintages

IssuedRetiredAvailable
2012
1,041,43401,041,434
2014
298,7280298,728
2015
317,8080317,808
2016
298,1090298,109
2017
148,6090148,609
2018
271,7930271,793
Total2,376,48102,376,481

Methodology versions used

The methodology version stated in each monitoring, verification and issuance document, by period, compared with the official methodology pages.

  1. 2008–2009AM0034 v2.0since replaced by v5.1.1

    monitoring report

    official page · verified on

  2. 2009–2010AM0034 v2.0since replaced by v5.1.1

    monitoring report

    official page · verified on

  3. 2010–2011AM0034 v2.0since replaced by v5.1.1

    monitoring report

    official page · verified on

  4. 2011AM0034 v2.0since replaced by v5.1.1

    monitoring report

    official page · verified on

  5. 2011–2012AM0034 v2.0since replaced by v5.1.1

    monitoring report

    official page · verified on

  6. 2012–2013AM0034 v2.0since replaced by v5.1.1

    monitoring report

    official page · verified on

  7. 2013–2014AM0034 v2.0since replaced by v5.1.1

    monitoring report

    official page · verified on

  8. 2014–2016AM0034 v2.0since replaced by v5.1.1

    monitoring report

    official page · verified on

  9. 2016AM0034 v2.0since replaced by v5.1.1

    monitoring report

    official page · verified on

  10. 2016–2018AM0034 v2.0since replaced by v5.1.1

    monitoring report

    official page · verified on

  • AM0034: Withdrawn (CDM / UNFCCC) · replaced byACM0019 · official page · verified on

A version is shown only when the document's own text writes it next to the methodology code. Current versions, status and CCP ranges come from the official pages linked, checked on the date shown.

Documents on the registry

Where to buy

Got an offer for these credits? Check it against the registry →

+ Know where to buy this?

Listing multiple projects? Send us a CSV at [email protected].

⚑ Dispute this rating

Profile & governance

Analysis ProvenanceAM0034
Methodology·Editorial Policy·About the System

Are you the project owner?

Metadata correction (free)

Name, country, marketplace or links incorrect? Let us know.

Does not modify the score.

[email protected] →

Contest this rating

Something wrong in the analysis, or a registry document we have not used? Send us the link to the public source: you get a reference and an answer within 30 days.

Contest this rating →