Pulp mills evaluating carbon capture face a commercial question that starts well before the CO₂ leaves the site: Can they prove where that carbon came from?
Captured biogenic CO₂ could provide an additional revenue stream through e-fuel production or permanent carbon storage. However, accessing those markets requires evidence supporting the carbon’s origin and environmental attributes.
For mills with complex wood supply chains, building that evidence can become a significant part of project preparation.
ResourceWise’s Pulp Mill Bio Solutions report identifies traceability as an entry point into markets that pay for the environmental attributes of biogenic carbon. The implication for mill operators is clear: supply chain data deserves attention alongside capture technology and potential buyers.
Biogenic CO₂ comes from biological material, including the wood processed by pulp mills. That origin helps explain its appeal to emerging low-carbon markets, but buyers need a documented basis for the claims they make about it.
An e-fuel producer needs to establish whether a CO₂ supply meets the requirements of its intended fuel pathway. A carbon removal project needs evidence supporting the biomass source and the resulting removal claim. Each market has its own requirements, so a mill should establish which evidence its prospective customer or certification framework will accept.
This is already visible in multiple carbon removal standards. However, existing forest certification does not automatically establish eligibility. Suppliers must show how their evidence meets the specific criteria.
Traceability begins upstream, with information about the wood entering the mill. Supplier identities, harvest locations, transaction records, and supporting sustainability documentation can help establish a defensible account of material origins.
The challenge is connecting those records across the supply chain. A mill may receive wood through multiple suppliers and intermediaries, while the relevant harvest information sits several steps upstream. Collecting documents without linking them to the relevant material can leave gaps when a buyer or auditor requests supporting evidence.
Documenting the purity of the biogenic CO₂ stream also remains an important consideration. Forest-origin records and measurements at the capture facility answer different questions. Both may be necessary to support the environmental attributes attached to the final product.
For mill teams, the practical task is to determine several elements:
What information already exists
How that information connects to operations
Where additional records or measurements will be needed
Traceability supports a claim, but it does not establish every element of that claim. Capturing biogenic CO₂ for use in fuel and permanently storing it are different pathways, with different outcomes and verification requirements.
Puro.earth’s geological storage methodology, for example, addresses the eligibility and quantification of net removals through durable geological storage. Forest-origin evidence is only one part of a larger assessment that also considers the capture and storage pathway.
Mills should keep that distinction clear in commercial discussions. A traceable CO₂ supply can help a prospective partner evaluate eligibility. Yet the project still needs to demonstrate compliance with the full requirements of its chosen market.
Early discussions with buyers can reveal what a mill will need to substantiate throughout a contract. Those conversations should cover the evidence required, responsibility for maintaining it, and how changes in sourcing or operations will be handled.
If documentation gaps emerge later, a project may need additional work before it can demonstrate eligibility. Identifying them during development gives procurement, operations, and commercial teams time to establish a repeatable process.
The value of that preparation is practical. It helps mills evaluate potential outlets using a clearer understanding of the work required to serve them.
Traceability alone does not guarantee a price premium or an offtake agreement. But it can help establish whether an opportunity is accessible.
Mills can begin by reviewing the sourcing information they already collect and comparing it with the needs of their intended carbon pathway. The aim is to identify useful existing evidence and the gaps that require further attention.
ResourceWise’s Forest Trackt helps companies collect sourcing data, verify harvest locations, and connect upstream information to products and shipments for EUDR due diligence. Those capabilities address a foundational challenge: maintaining a clear connection between forest origins and downstream material flows.
Carbon projects will still need to establish their own eligibility, measurement, and verification requirements. A stronger forest data foundation can give mills a more informed starting point for that work.
For pulp mills considering biogenic carbon markets, the next step is to bring sourcing and commercial teams into the same conversation. Understanding what buyers need to verify can help turn an emerging revenue opportunity into a more concrete project plan.
Traceability helps establish access to biogenic carbon markets. Evaluating the opportunity also requires a clear view of buyer demand, pricing, and the policies influencing potential returns.
ResourceWise’s Pulp Mill Bio Solutions monthly newsletter connects forest-derived feedstocks with developments across fuel, chemical, and carbon markets. Each issue delivers analyst-led insight into pricing trends, supply and demand, and regulatory changes affecting opportunities for tall oil, lignin, biogenic CO₂, and other forest-derived products.
Whether you’re assessing carbon capture or considering new outlets for existing byproducts, stay informed about the market conditions that will shape your next decision.