Mineralisation-Based Carbon Removal: Why the Science Has to Meet the Spreadsheet

Mineralisation-based carbon removal is one of the more promising pathways in climate technology. Using naturally occurring minerals to lock away CO₂ in stable forms has clear scientific appeal: the chemistry is well understood, the storage is durable, and the risk of reversal is low. But for projects to move beyond pilot scale, the science has to meet something far less glamorous: the spreadsheet.

Brucite mineralisation, as used in the Safer Earth project in Chile, is a good example. On the scientific side, the questions are clear: How much CO₂ can be captured per tonne of material? What are the reaction rates under real-world conditions? How stable is the resulting mineral form over decades? These are questions for geologists, chemists and engineers.

Investors, however, ask a different set of questions. They want to know: What is the cost per tonne of CO₂ removed, fully loaded with CAPEX, OPEX and monitoring? How predictable are volumes over a 10–20 year horizon? What is the sensitivity of project returns to carbon-credit prices, energy costs or regulatory changes? These are questions that live in a financial model, not a lab notebook.

The bridge between the two worlds is a quantitative narrative that connects scientific parameters directly to financial outcomes. Reaction rates become throughput assumptions. Material yields become revenue drivers. Uncertainties in the science translate into scenario ranges in the model. If that translation is missing, even strong technology will struggle to attract institutional capital.

A second critical link is measurement, reporting and verification (MRV). Mineralisation projects must prove that CO₂ is actually removed and stored. That means robust sampling protocols, third-party verification and clear methodologies. From a financial perspective, MRV is not just a compliance cost; it is a risk-management tool. High-quality MRV reduces uncertainty around credit issuance and cash flows, which in turn improves the risk–return profile for investors.

Third, mineralisation projects need a capital structure that reflects both scientific and market risk. Early-stage equity may be comfortable with technology risk, but long-term debt providers are not. The financial model must separate construction risk, ramp-up risk and steady-state operations, and show how each is mitigated. Milestone-based funding, security packages and conservative base cases are not “nice to have” – they are prerequisites for institutional participation.

The lesson for founders and project teams is straightforward: success in mineralisation-based carbon removal is not just about proving the chemistry. It is about designing a project where the science, the MRV framework and the financial structure reinforce each other. When the spreadsheet tells the same story as the lab, mineralisation stops being an interesting idea and becomes an investable climate solution at scale.