CarbonMeld CarbonMeld Carbon Observatory
Workbench ProjectsDevelopersComparePortfolioCCP trackerA–Z index
← All projects
Re-assessment pendingVCSEnergy industries (renewable/non-renewable sources); Waste handling and disposalOmanRegistry: RegisteredACM0001

Al Multaqa Landfill Gas Recovery Project

Developer: OQ Trading Limited

VCS-4544 ↗

Worked comparison example (English)

#203of 655 in Methane#3of 6 in Oman#875of 1612 in Verra (VCS)#95of 279 in ACM0001

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

Assessment

CarbonMeld document-based assessment

01020304 Overall 5.7 / 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

Scored2026-09-01medium confidence

evidence: 13/13 registry documents analyzed · 4 red flags

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

Analysis

The Al Multaqa Landfill Gas Recovery Project in Oman is a VCS-registered LFG project with a reputable VVB (TÜV NORD CERT) and a confirmed combined additionality test, but it is undermined by a project-specific baseline, a 0% leakage deduction with inconsistent justification across documents, and a significant under-delivery (verified ERR is only ~16% of the pro-rata lifetime expectation). Seven contradictions across the document set—including a grid emission factor discrepancy within the same monitoring report—raise data-reliability concerns that temper confidence in the overall record.

Red Flags

4 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

Gates applied

The gates applied to this score 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 1 Sep 2026, marked “Re-assessment pending”. Per-dimension scores, risk indicators, 4 red flags, score factors, detailed analysis, and 13 registry documents (13 analyzed).

€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)

    No CORSIA label on the registry

    Not usable for airlines' CORSIA obligations.

    Source: registry label · read on 1 Nov 2026

    Covers: this project's credit records as read on the registry

  • Integrity label (ICVCM CCP)

    CCP-labelled credits

    The registry marks credits of this project with the Integrity Council's Core Carbon Principles label: check that the units offered carry it.

    Source: registry label · read on 1 Nov 2026

    Covers: credits of this project that carry the label on the registry — not every unit or lot

  • Removal or reduction

    Emission reduction or avoidance

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

    Source: project sector

    Covers: the project type, not a label on individual credits

  • Paris Agreement (Article 6)

    No Article 6 authorization

    No corresponding adjustment: the host country can also count this reduction towards its own target.

    Source: registry label · read on 1 Nov 2026

    Covers: this project's credit records as read on the registry

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.

Registry labels last checked:2026-11-01

Credit Vintages

IssuedRetiredAvailable
2021
6,40406,404
2022
32,825032,825
2023
31,853031,853
2024
36,958036,958
Total108,0400108,040

Methodology versions used

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

  1. 2021–2022ACM0001 v19.0current version

    verification report + issuance document

    official page · verified on

    in the ICVCM CCP-approved range (VCS: 15.0-19.0) · official page · verified on

  2. 2023–2024ACM0001 v19.0current version

    monitoring report + verification report

    official page · verified on

    in the ICVCM CCP-approved range (VCS: 15.0-19.0) · official page · verified on

  • ACM0001: Active (CDM / UNFCCC) · official page · verified on

Being within an ICVCM-approved version range is information only: it does not mean these credits carry the CCP label, which the registry assigns to each issuance.

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 ProvenanceACM0001
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 →

Similar projects

Same methodology or sector, the same registry first.