CarbonMeld CarbonMeld Carbon Observatory
Workbench ProjectsDevelopersComparePortfolioCCP trackerA–Z index
← All projects
ScoredPURTerrestrial Storage of BiomassUnited States

Mast Wood Preserve MT1

Developer: Mast Reforestation

PUR-272514 ↗

Worked comparison example (English)

#15of 877 in Biomass#271of 1798 in United States#6of 110 in Puro.earth (PUR)

Assessment

CarbonMeld document-based assessment

01020304 Overall 7.3 / 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%.

Scored2026-10-28medium confidence

evidence: 2/2 registry documents read · 0 red flags

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

Analysis

Mast Wood Preserve MT1 (United States) stores biomass on land so that its carbon stays out of the air (terrestrial storage) (Terrestrial Biomass Storage - Below ground storage chamber with wet and anoxic environment at Mast Wood Preserve MT1) under Puro Standard General Rules Version 4.2; listed in the PUR registry, 4,277 credits issued (vintage 2025). The documents name 350Solutions, Inc as validation / verification body. The latest verification read (2025-04-01 – 2025-11-17) verifies 4,278 tCO2e. A verification is recorded (registry or documents).

Red Flags

No red flags detected.

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

Per-dimension scores, risk indicators, score factors, detailed analysis, and 2 registry documents (2 read).

€9+ VAT per month · card subscription, renews automatically until you cancel

Every rated project, PDF reports, API access, portfolio alerts and per-dimension scores with red-flag details in side-by-side comparisons (public-data comparison is free; fair use: 30 projects per day). Cancel any time from your account page. Crypto: $9 for one month, no automatic renewal.

Price + VAT · By subscribing or paying you accept the Terms of Use — the card subscription renews every month until you cancel; digital content, no refunds. How Premium works

Eligibility & market

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)

    Methodology under ICVCM assessmentTerrestrial Storage of Biomass

    The Integrity Council has not decided on this methodology yet.

    Source: ICVCM assessment

  • Removal or reduction

    Carbon removal

    Takes CO₂ out of the atmosphere — the only type that can neutralise residual emissions in an SBTi net-zero claim.

    Source: project standard

  • 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
2025
4,2773,802475
Total4,2773,802475

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 ProvenanceGeneral Methodologyv2.2
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 →