Pulp mill carbon is becoming part of two distinct decarbonization markets. One uses captured biogenic carbon dioxide to produce synthetic fuels. The other stores it permanently to deliver carbon dioxide removal.
Both pathways could generate additional revenue for mills, but they purchase different products and rely on different infrastructure. E-fuel producers need a carbon feedstock that supports their fuel's qualification and emissions profile. Carbon removal buyers pay for a verified climate outcome.
Accordingly, the opportunity extends beyond the amount of CO₂ a mill can capture. Its potential value depends on where the carbon goes, how that destination is supported commercially, and which environmental attributes can be substantiated.
Pulp mills process wood containing carbon originally absorbed from the atmosphere. When wood-derived material is used in mill energy systems, some of that carbon is released as biogenic CO₂.
Capturing that CO₂ creates the opportunity to direct it into another value chain. ResourceWise's October 2026 Pulp Mill Bio Solutions report identifies e-fuel production and geological carbon removal as two potential destinations for this captured carbon.
The connection is significant because it brings forest products operations into markets shaped by transport fuel policy and demand for durable carbon removals. Mill economics may increasingly intersect with developments outside traditional pulp and paper markets.
However, a mill’s total emissions are not automatically a measure of its saleable biogenic carbon. The source stream, the share attributable to biomass, capture performance, and market eligibility all affect the potential supply.
Captured biogenic CO₂ can provide the carbon input for fuels such as e-methanol and synthetic aviation fuel, often called e-SAF. These production pathways combine a carbon source with hydrogen, with renewable electricity playing a central role in the production of renewable hydrogen.
The resulting fuel can substitute for fossil-derived fuel in applications where direct electrification is difficult. Aviation and shipping are important potential demand centers. The European Commission's Joint Research Center identifies hydrogen supply, carbon capture, and production economics among the constraints on scaling these fuels.
For pulp mills, the potential product is a feedstock supplied to the fuel producer. The mill's carbon can contribute to the downstream fuel's emissions profile, but the origin of the CO₂ does not establish the sustainability of the entire production pathway.
Fuel qualification also depends on the applicable rules for hydrogen, electricity, and greenhouse gas accounting. A biogenic carbon source can therefore be commercially relevant without, by itself, guaranteeing that the finished fuel meets its target market's requirements.
Fuel policy can create demand for synthetic fuels and, in turn, for the carbon inputs used to produce them.
ReFuelEU Aviation requires increasing shares of sustainable aviation fuel and introduces a specific requirement for synthetic aviation fuel from 2030. This creates a policy basis for future e-SAF demand, although the pace at which projects translate that requirement into physical output remains important.
Prima CarbonZero analysis included in the October ResourceWise report highlights strengthening implied CO₂ values in the German renewable fuels of non-biological origin, or RFNBO, market. The report links those signals to expectations surrounding renewable transport fuel policy.
These are indicators of policy-linked value, rather than evidence of a uniform price paid to pulp mills. Fuel producers' ability to purchase CO₂ also depends on hydrogen costs, financing, plant development, and the economics of selling the finished fuel.
The distinction matters: mandated fuel demand can bolster interest in biogenic carbon, even as individual production projects still face substantial commercial constraints.
Permanent storage can deliver carbon removal when eligible biogenic carbon, originally absorbed from the atmosphere, is captured and kept out of circulation.
Where the carbon comes from bioenergy production, this pathway is commonly described as bioenergy with carbon capture and storage, or BECCS. More broadly, biogenic carbon capture and storage can encompass other biomass conversion processes.
Puro.earth’s Geologically Stored Carbon methodology covers eligible biogenic CO₂ captured and injected into suitable geological formations. Its crediting framework accounts for net removals and includes requirements for biomass sustainability, traceability, additionality, and the prevention of double counting.
The commercial product is therefore different from an e-fuel feedstock. A removal credit represents a verified outcome under a defined methodology, rather than simply a quantity of CO₂ leaving the capture facility.
Gross captured volume and credited removal volume are not interchangeable. Project emissions and other accounting adjustments can reduce the net removal recognized, while eligibility determines which carbon can enter the calculation.
The two pathways serve different climate purposes because the carbon has a different ultimate destination.
In an e-fuel pathway, the captured carbon is incorporated into fuel and generally returns to the atmosphere when that fuel is used. Its climate benefit depends on the lifecycle emissions of production and use relative to the fuel it replaces.
In geological carbon removal, eligible biogenic carbon is stored durably. The aim is to reduce atmospheric carbon through a verified net removal.
This distinction also limits how the benefits can be claimed. A quantity of CO₂ used as fuel and subsequently emitted cannot simultaneously represent the same quantity permanently stored underground.
A mill could potentially supply separate volumes to different destinations. That would create two distinct commercial pathways, with separate accounting, infrastructure, and contractual arrangements.
E-fuel feedstock value is connected to fuel demand and the economic role of an acceptable carbon source. The carbon removal value is tied to the purchase of a verified removal, including its durability and delivery characteristics.
ResourceWise's October Pulp Mill Bio Solutions report presents stronger German e-fuel CO₂ value signals alongside a more subdued picture in the discretionary carbon removal indices. The contrast suggests that policy-linked fuel demand and voluntary removal purchasing can move in different directions.
It does not establish that e-fuels will always offer higher returns than storage. An implied downstream CO₂ value and a carbon removal credit price measure different products at different points in their value chains.
The report also identifies several forms of financial support associated with carbon capture and removal, including the following:
Public procurement
Grants
Tax incentives
Advance purchase commitments
These mechanisms have different eligibility conditions and do not translate into a single, universally available revenue stream.
The value retained by a mill depends on the project's costs and commercial structure, as well as the headline market signal.
Infrastructure is a major dividing line between theoretical and accessible demand.
An e-fuel destination requires a viable fuel producer with access to hydrogen and energy, and a route to receive CO₂. A storage destination requires transport capacity, permitted storage, injection infrastructure, and monitoring arrangements.
Capture also affects mill operations through energy requirements and equipment investment. Those costs remain relevant regardless of which market receives the carbon.
Sustainability evidence adds another condition. Traceability and documentation of biogenic carbon attributes can serve as foundations for accessing markets that pay for those attributes. Buyers and verification systems need evidence linking the carbon's origin to its claimed use or removal.
These factors help explain why the opportunity will differ between mills. A strong downstream demand signal may have limited near-term value where infrastructure, project timing, or qualification remains unresolved.
The development of e-fuels and carbon removal could give pulp mills additional commercial uses for carbon that would otherwise be emitted. It could also more closely connect the value of that carbon to fuel regulation, removal purchasing, and regional infrastructure.
Neither pathway is inherently the better destination in every setting. Their relative potential depends on the market being served, the costs of delivering the product or outcome, and the credibility of the environmental claim.
The wider significance is that biogenic carbon may become an increasingly differentiated product. Its origin matters, but so do its destination, the evidence attached to it, and the commercial system capable of receiving it.
The potential value of biogenic CO₂ is closely connected to developments in fuel demand, carbon removal purchasing, and policy. Those connections are also reshaping opportunities for other forest-derived products, including tall oil and lignin.
ResourceWise’s Pulp Mill Bio Solutions monthly report brings these markets into focus with analyst-led coverage of pricing trends, trade flows, supply and demand, and regulatory developments. Each issue connects forest products with emerging fuel, chemical, and carbon markets, providing context for understanding how new revenue pathways are developing.