B
NARRATIVE VALUE
Certainty
●●○ medium
ABCDEFG
There is no confirmed −; independently verified + decide the position (B). No unreachable strike-through.= non-additive meter
As of: 2026-Q4Status: ActiveCeiling reason: No confirmed −
History2026-Q4BHistory grows each quarter
Carbfix: Turning carbon dioxide into stone underground. The letter is B; certainty is medium. Unconfirmed concerns are placed under “Watching.” (As of 2026-Q4; estimate based on public information.)
Main narrative
Most ways of putting carbon dioxide underground store it as a gas, which means monitoring for leaks over long periods — and that has been the barrier to acceptance. The method Carbfix has researched in Iceland since 2007 is different: dissolve the CO2 in water and inject it into basalt. It reacts with the calcium and magnesium abundant in basalt and within a few years becomes carbonate mineral — stone.
In a 2012 demonstration, isotope measurements confirmed that most of the injected carbon had mineralised within two years, a result reported in Nature Communications. At the Hellisheiði geothermal plant, CO2 and H2S released by generation are captured and returned underground: more than 120,000 tonnes of CO2 and more than 50,000 tonnes of H2S have been fixed in rock. Between July 2025 and June 2026 the capture rate reached 99.6% for CO2 and 100% for H2S. Injection now runs at four sites, and the method is also used to fix carbon captured directly from the air.
One person’s story (N1)
+ A single story
The benefit appears in the natural world. When CO2 is dissolved in water and injected into basalt, isotope measurements confirmed that most of it becomes carbonate mineral within two years (peer-reviewed). At the Hellisheiði geothermal plant more than 120,000 tonnes of CO2 and more than 50,000 tonnes of H2S have been fixed in rock, and in the year from July 2025 the capture rate reached 99.6% for CO2 and 100% for H2S. Nature of sources: independent (peer-reviewed paper and specialist press).
Source nature: Nature Communications / ThinkGeoEnergy / T1 academic / peer-reviewed. Positive effects are not used to offset negatives.
Positive / negative effects
+ effects
- The positive side of this assessment rests on the single story (N1) above and its source. A per-item ledger of positive effects has not yet been compiled for this organization.T1 academic / peer-reviewed
Watching (unconfirmed; not counted in the assessment)- Site constraints and water use
- debate over carbon-credit accounting
Looking ahead (not included in the assessment)- Having obtained EU onshore storage permitting, scaling up injection.
A second look
Suitable sites are limited to places with basalt and plenty of water; this is not a method that works anywhere. The volumes fixed are tiny against current emissions and are no substitute for cutting them. The rigour of the accounting when this is sold as carbon credits is also questioned.
Sources
+N1Nature Communications / ThinkGeoEnergy｜2026｜🔗
How to read this assessment
A Independently verified +, with no confirmed −
B Leans +, with independent backing
C Mixed. A confirmed − sets the ceiling, or much is unverified
D A serious confirmed − sets the ceiling
E A serious − reaches the core of the organization
F Serious and systemic, with little redeeming +
G Only extreme cases
Out of scope An entity whose core purpose is illegal
On hold Independent evidence is scarce on both + and −
- Reachable upper bound (ceiling): a confirmed − sets the ceiling, and independently verified + decide the position within it. + do not cancel out −.
- The weight of evidence is not symmetric: only confirmed − are counted; the volume of disputes or allegations goes under “Watching.” + are counted from independent evidence, while an organization’s own PR is treated as “reference.”
- Size is not value: scale is not used in the assessment. Matters that stay within money or competition—investors, shareholders, sanctions, trade secrets—are also excluded.
- The letter (assessment) and certainty (how reliable the information is) are separate axes.
This is a translation; the Japanese version is authoritative. The assessments here are generated automatically by AI based on published criteria. The operator does not alter individual results. Because they are AI-generated they may contain errors, and they are opinion and commentary, not statements of fact. Where evidence is insufficient, the entry is marked “On hold.” Requests for correction are accepted via the form.
Terms: Narrative Value = an assessment (A–G) of the distance between the narrative an organization tells and its reality / Ceiling meter = a visualization of the reachable upper bound / Watching = unconfirmed matters not counted / Protected stakeholders = people, animals, nature, and future generations. | Generated by: AI | As of: 2026-Q4 | Back to top