Good morning, and welcome to this webinar on the commercial development of CCUS projects in the Nordics. This webinar is hosted by Bioenergia and Implement Consulting Group, so you can expect a great combination of both Danish and Finnish perspectives. My name is Christine, and I will be your host today. With me, I have a great panel of speakers. First of all, I have Erika Layalati, which is the sector manager from Bioenergia, who's leading the association's work on positioning CCUS in Finland and as a global leader. I also have Angela Juslin, who is the development manager from Vantan Energia's carbon capture project. And I also have Benna Hedegaard Knudsen, who is the senior lead business developer from Ørsted Bioenergia's carbon capture division. And last but not least, I also have my colleagues Ulla Jacobsen and Nils Klusen, who are super excited to share how they help CCUS projects thrive. So, as you can see, we have a great group of speakers that are super excited to share their insights on how to build commercial CCUS projects. But, before we get started, we have a couple of engagement guidelines. First of all, we encourage you to participate actively through questions and through the polls. We also hope that you will ask questions on a continuous basis, as there will be dedicated slots for Q&As after each speaker session. And last but not least, we also hope that you will share feedback with us and share ideas for any future sessions. So, now we are ready for the program. First, we will learn about any updates to the Finnish CCUS policy landscape. Then we will learn about CCUS potential. And then we will dive deeper into Vantan Energia's CCUS project. And then it's time to stretch your legs and grab a coffee. And then we'll get back to how to build a commercial or the commercial building blocks of a CCUS project. And then we will round off this session with learning more about how Østil has built their first large-scale CCUS project. So, what we expect is that you will have a better understanding of the policy landscape in Finland and what is driving the market development. Then you will get hands-on experience from two Nordic CCUS projects. And last but not least, you will know how to get started commercially with your CCUS project. And now we are ready to get started. And now I would like to bid Erika welcome to the stage. Good morning, Erika. How are you? Good morning, Christine. I'm great. So, excited to finally have this webinar that we've been planning for a couple of months already. Yes, it's super exciting. But I think before we actually get started, I was speaking a bit about that this was an interactive session. So, I think moving on, we will have the first poll for today. So, please answer the poll. What background and expertise do you bring? Is it a technical background? And you really love CO2 specifications and you eat amines for breakfast? Or maybe you have more of a procurement and legal background? So, you're all about tenders and public procurement? Or maybe you are more the commercial kind of type that is really deep into the business case and the carbon credit market? Or maybe you are just none of the above, but you're just a curious mind that would really love to get a better understanding of the CCUS market? So, while we are waiting for people to answer the poll, I think it's like, what have you been looking forward to, Erika? Well, it's always nice to hear how the companies are doing and what kind of recent insights do they have on their project development? And of course, I think the topic of today, so the commercial aspect of the project development, is something that is something that is not discussed too much in the Finnish CCUS scene. So, happy to touch upon that side of the project development too. I agree. And now I can see the results from the poll. And I think we have a majority of commercial people, but it's just behind the technical guys. So, it's a good combination. And then there's also people represented from the procurement departments and also some that are just here to learn more about the carbon capture and storage market and how to make it commercial. So, I think that's a great bunch. So, now I will hand over the word to you. Thank you, Christine. So, good morning to all of you from my side. Happy to have this webinar today. And yeah, now I can see my slides are there too. So, before we head into the actual subject of today, I figured it's important to point out the kind of policy landscape that we're building the CCUS project in Finland. And of course, some of this information is something that you might have heard me talking about a couple of times already. So, maybe if you're a member that has been within our webinars in the recent years, but there are still some recent developments that is important to understand when thinking about the project development specifically in Finland. But before we head into the CCUS specific topics, it's of course important to highlight the kind of policy landscape that we're building the CCUS project in Finland. climate policy environment where we're building the CCUS project in Finland. And of course, there we cannot not to mention the Finnish carbon neutrality target of 2035, which is the key driver for carbon capture as well as other environmental actions. So, there you can see the recent trend. the CCUS project in Finland. We are doing quite fine in the emissions reduction side, but we are facing drastic difficulties in the Sink side. So, we have seen some not so nice development on the LULUCF Sink development, which has many different attributes to it. But one of the key reasons to this development is different calculation methods that have been developed on the forest side. And that's the reason why the estimated sink for 2035, once this target was introduced, is looking very different today than it did back then. And we are currently facing about 19 million tons of emissions reductions or sinks that needs to be met if we would like to reach the target by 2035. And our former Minister of Environment, Kai Mykkänen, mentioned last summer when this information was published that our biggest opportunity lies in carbon capture. And we are trying to create incentives to facilitate that development at the national level as well. And here are some key aspects to the CCUS development in Finland that always need to be mentioned once talking about this subject. Of course, our members know that we have high ambitious targets for hydrogen economy. Finland aims to produce about 10% of clean hydrogen at the EU level by 2030. And on top of that, we already have in place priority treatment for carbon capture projects that has been in place since 23. So the projects already have a priority status in permit procedures, including also administrative courts. And this is in place until 26. But the recent information is that this will be extended. And of course, today, we also know that we have EU legislation from the Net Zero Industry Act that will also affect the permit procedures for carbon capture projects. But this is something that we have in place. But this is something that we have already done at the national level prior to that. And of course, our government program that was published in 23 highlighted CCUS solutions as one of the key priorities for Finnish climate policy, and especially a bio CCUS. And in the highlighted, bolded part, there's the most ambitious target of that government program. So that was introduced that included a target of that included a target of introducing policy instruments that would ensure that no CO2 emissions will be released to the atmosphere by mid 2030. And of course, those of us who have been following this space know that this is a very high target that is unlikely to be met with the current policy instruments in place. But it's, of course, an important and ambitious target to strive to go towards. But moving on to the most recent updates and something new to the discussion is that those of us who have been following the national discussion on CCUS have probably heard about the 140 million euros that was installed for 140 million euros that was installed for CCUS projects from the government program. And now, finally, this year, this incentive scheme is in the making. And the mechanism is to be implemented and projects awarded this year. VTT is currently conducting a brief study on the mechanism. The ministry is looking into implementing some sort of a reverse auction. But of course, there's a bit of a difficulty here, since the scope of the project types is quite broad. So we're talking about all of the CCUS projects and technological syncs projects. So it's not a very easy task. But it's underway. And considering the quite a strict timeline to introduce the scheme, the ministry is the scheme, the ministry is looking into probably using the general block exemption regulation, which will then enable the government to go forward with the incentive scheme without the prior notification to the commission. But of course, this then affects the boundaries in which the aid can be distributed. For example, it will put a restriction to the amount of funding that can be awarded to one project. And there's a limit of 30 million euros for one single project, if the ministry will go with this. But of course, there are also other investment aid schemes at the national level, not mentioned on my slide, but I guess most of the investment aid for the investment aid for clean transition investments, large scale investments that has a funding plot of 400 million euros that is currently open for applications. And it includes carbon capture projects within the scope. And on top of that, there will be the investment credits. for the investment, for the investment, aiming at climate neutral economy that includes also carbon capture projects within the scope. But of course, these are not CCUS specific, but they include CCUS projects within the scope, but they are for large scale projects. And then the strategy part of this slide. So we don't have a CCUS strategy at the national level, but we have a CCUS strategy at the national level. But we have several other strategies, which do have CCUS components or parts that are highly relevant for carbon capture projects. And one of them is the new industrial policy strategy that was released in December. So Finland, as many other countries, is facing a bit of trouble in the competitiveness side. And we also have a CCUS strategy in the scope of the investment. we need to come up with innovative solutions, for example, in the way that we use public funding. And within the newly published policy strategy, there are key objectives, seven key objectives, of which two are highly relevant for CCUS projects. And one of them is clean transition and bioeconomy and circular economy objective that highlights the role of biogenic CO2. And is highlighted together with hydrogen economy targets. And this one includes suggested actions that are, for example, supporting carbon capture. And another objective that is particularly relevant for CCUS project is the invest in logistics, infrastructure, industrial hubs objective. And here, CO2 logistics and infrastructure is mentioned as one of the key parts of potential industrial hub development. And there, one of the suggested action points includes dedicated funding for industrial hubs that could be forwarded, for example, from the European Regional Development Fund and its dedicated programs. But then I guess the most relevant strategy that is currently under development or the update is under development. So, of course, the National Energy and Climate Strategy that will this time include a dedicated chapter on CCUS. And this update should be ready by summer. And currently, the National Research Institutions are making the policy scenarios that will support the uptake of the strategy. And they are conducting the policy scenarios for the environment, energy and climate strategy, but also to the medium term climate change policy plan, Kaiso. And we've seen the current estimates regarding CCUS. They are not finalized yet, but the current estimates are very conservative, especially if we look at the estimates that go beyond 2035. We understand that the 2030 estimates can be conservative numbers since we are in 25. And if a project is not under development today, it is highly unlikely that it will be in 25. So, of course, it will be operational by 2030. But the numbers for 2040 were in the range of 5 million tons of captured CO2 altogether for all applications. So, we have been looking at the numbers and think that they are quite conservative, but we will see how the end results will look like. And, of course, there are workshops and other ways of affecting this work. So, look for that space if you're interested in these topics. I'm looking at the time. And I have a couple of slides here, but I think, Christine, I will probably skip them. Erika, can you hear me? I think it's completely fine that you spent two, three more minutes just explaining a bit more about Finland and your CCUS strategy. So, just continue. It's all fine by us. Okay, well, great. Well, then, I will move on. And just to share the basic perspective from the Finnish CCUS project development side. So, of course, Finland has one great asset, which is the amount of biogenic CO2 that is produced annually. So, that is about 30 million tons from the forestry and energy sector. And then, on top of that, we have a lot of very clean electricity available compared to the EU average. And if we then look at the storage part of the project development, then it has to be mentioned that we do not have geological storage potential. We have some limited potential for storage through mineralization in the mine tailings or in products. But the mineralization storage pathway is on the lower tier level than geological storage. And the scale in the product side is still very limited in the coming years. So, this will not be a solution for all. It might be a solution for a specific project. But not a good answer for large scale storage projects in the next 10 years, at least. And here is our recent publication. So, we published a web map on the BioCCUS and Biochar project in December. And here you can see all of the announced projects or already done investments. And we have quite a few Biochar plants already up and running. And then we have several BioCCUS projects under development. And then also a couple of CCUS projects, OPEX projects. And then many utilization projects that do not yet have a specific source of CO2 for their project, but announced plans for development. And you can find this map on our website. And then something that I want to mention is CO2 logistics and infrastructure. We did a study on this together with a bunch of companies in VTT last year, where we looked into the potential of reducing project -specific costs by sharing common infrastructure with regional and regional CO2 hubs. And the results were very, I hope I'm saying good, but if you look at the potential to reduce costs. So, there were a couple of scenarios where we looked into the development, but for CCUS projects, the average cost reduction was about 30% on the project level. So, we're talking about very interesting opportunities on this side. And considering that we are a bit out of the way of the storage locations, then this is definitely a must in case of storage project development in Finland. But then, of course, the utilization projects that are currently under development are mostly developed. very close to the capture site. And there is not so huge need for large logistics or infrastructure systems. But then again, as seen in the project map in the last slide, we do have the utilization projects that are not close to any CO2. So, we do have the utilization of the source. So, there might be need to think about the CO2 logistics also for other reasons than storage. And then, of course, we also have projects underway with hydrogen networks currently. Gas Grid, the national developer, is looking into the the route that would include hydrogen pipelines. And when we think about CCUS projects and hydrogen and CO2, the cost of moving hydrogen or CO2 is roughly equal. So, the planning of what kind of gases are we moving around needs to be done case by case. But I think now I've gone through all of my slides and probably taken at least a fair share of the time. But thank you, Christine. Thank you so much, Erika. It was super interesting to hear more about the Finnish policy landscape. And it looks like you have a there's a lot going on in both now, but also in the future to to mature your CCUS market. So, so now moving on, I would like to bid my colleague, Ola Jacobsen, welcome here in the studio. But before we get started with your presentation, I think we will just move on to the next poll because it's also now we heard that there is a lot of technical and commercial and procurement people in the room, but we would also like to know about how mature your CCUS projects are. So, please answer this poll and whether you're your project is a project is advanced, meaning that you have been maturing your project for maybe one to three years and you have a firm leadership commitment. Maybe you're just getting started, meaning that you are there has been a leadership decision taken, but you're just about to mobilize the right team. Maybe you're waiting to start because you know it's the right technology for you, but the market is still a bit immature or you are left undecided because you're still wondering whether this is the right technology for you. So, while we wait for the audience to answer the poll, I think Ola like maybe I would like to ask you what is in your opinion, what is the most important conversation that the management team should have when when getting started with a CCUS project? Yeah. Thank you, Christine. I think one of the most important questions that you need to ask yourself is actually what is what is driving your CCUS ambition? Is that like a business decision or is a business goal? Is it a technical curiosity? Is it out of interest? Is it a positive business case? I mean, basically, what is what is driving the CCUS ambition? Because you we'll need to get back to that from time to time to revisit. Yeah. I agree. I think it's very much is it is it is it some hard drivers or is it some soft drivers that are driving your your maturation of your project? And I can think we can see see on the results that that we don't have that many we don't have any advanced projects, but we have some that are getting started some that are waiting to start and we have a larger majority that is undecided yet. So let's cross our fingers that after this session that maybe there has been some food for thought. So so we can we can continue the development of CCUS projects in the Nordics. But now I will hand over the clicker to you like thank you so much. Thank you, Christine. And thank you for for hosting this, Erica. Yeah, I'll just spend one minute introducing myself introducing implement consulting. We've been around. I'm more like I'm a sort of commercial driven engineer working with any sector for very many years by now. Implement has been around for 30 years in the Nordics. We're the biggest management consultancy in the in the Nordic countries. And we are quite dedicated to to make a climate impact of the of what we're doing and the energy transition. At the moment we are around. I mean, you can obviously see what's on the slide, but we are we are we are around 100 plus consultants working on different CCUS projects. Over the last four years, we've actually been involved in in 60 CCUS projects across across Europe, a bit focused on on on on the Nordics, but also Mediterranean, but but most of them EU. What we do is we engage in strategy, business development, implementation and execution. And just to to throw out some numbers, we actually secured or help design subsidy schemes of 3 .7 billion euros over the course of the last four years. And if the projects that that we we have been helping out actually materializes, we will actually have removed 390 million tons CO2 from the atmosphere by 2050. Moving along, I think it's good that we just have a brief look at the at the value chain. So I mean, obviously, we can get CO2 from many places. It's a lot there's CO2 in the atmosphere. That's sort of what's driving the climate agenda. However, the concentration if you go to a point source, an emitter would be like 200 times greater than doing it from the capturing it from the atmosphere. And hence, it's it's a really really good from a technical economical point of view. It's a really nice place to get your CO2 is where you have a high concentration. So you can get that from like waste to energy plant from a pulp and paper plant, biogas plants, power plants, different different facilities. Then we actually need to to probably have some CO2 logistics that will take the physical CO2 to wherever we want to know. We need it or we want to take it. And I mean, one, the use case that we are looking into, I think, where we have the most volume at the moment is actually the storage options. And that's actually where we put the CO2 into the ground as a permanent storage option. And as Erica touched upon, there's not a lot of geological storage sites available due to geology in Finland. However, we do have such sites in Norway and Denmark. And those sites, they sort of come in two buckets. One is the retired carbon hydrate fields where we know the geology from producing oil. And then we have another group of storage sites where we shoot seismic in order to find out whether we actually have it's where we don't know the geology at the moment, but we are exploring geology to make sure that we actually have a permanent seal and the CO2 will stay there. So it's more like virgin ground in terms of drilling and exploration. Anyway, the sort of revenue streams connected to this, depending on whether we have fossil CO2 or we have biogenic CO2, is that the fossil CO2 will generate reductions and that will typically be connected to the ETS system and the emission quotas. However, with the biogenic emissions that I think we are going to focus on a lot today, we will generate carbon removal credits. Of course, there is another use of the physical CO2. It is that we actually do a catalysis process with hydrogen most commonly, and then we actually produce some kind of fuel or we could also produce sustainable plastic. I think learnings from the last three, four, five years is that there are different barriers to the hydrogen production. We need a lot of green electricity. We need electrolyzers at a scale that is not really deployed at the moment. So what we see is that even though we call it CCUS, it's actually the CCS case is probably the one that will scale first. And then as hydrogen scale, we will have the CCUS case that will scale as well. So just linking this to the global climate agenda. I mean, we see on the left-hand side here, you can see how is the IEA, what is the forecast for actually reaching the Paris Agreement with the 1.5 target. I will not go into a long discussion whether we are exactly going to hit that spot or not. But just make a comment and say that CCUS is roughly 9%, one tenth of the climate action we need in order to be close to the 1.5 target. And therefore, the EU has set out an ambition that already in 2030, we will capture and use slash store, probably mostly store CO2 with 50 million tons from 2030. Furthermore, it will increase over the next couple of years with 2040 and 2050 goals. And I mean, as you can see, we start with storage and then we have a bigger fraction, a bigger portion that will go for utilization. Going back to Finland, zooming in on Finland, I mean, you do have a significant capture potential as Erica touched upon. So I think it's important to say, of course, when we do these projects, I mean, it will have a lead time. We need to develop projects. We need to build infrastructure. We need to establish everything. It will take roughly at least, well, maybe Benner will say something else a bit later. It will take at least around five years. So we need to forecast, I mean, how will this actually look in 2030, 2035, 2040? Because there's really no point in establishing projects on sources and emissions that will not be there when the project goes into operations. But I think the really nice conclusion here is, I mean, even though the biogenic emissions, they are not really part of the greenhouse gas inventory in Finland, if you store the biogenic CO2, it will actually be accounted as sinks and as negative emissions. And therefore, you can actually make quite really, really nice reductions with all the biogenic CO2. Of course, there are mixed sources like waste to energy. And there are a few fossil sources that maybe for industrial purposes, it cannot be changed or terminated. But the majority of this, I think, will be the biogenic CO2 that we can use. And therefore, also, Finland has a really, really important role in the European, climate action in order to actually facilitate climate action in order to actually facilitate this and use the big potential that you have. That's at least how I see it. And there we see when we look at different countries, we made this little formula here, where we said, okay, so how do we actually determine whether sort of a country, a nation is an attractive place to actually facilitate and grow? So how do we grow a CCUS business? And we found three levers. We need to have a climate ambition in place. We need to have a technical capture potential. And then we need national funding. And we probably need a bit of EU funding. And we also need probably some private money. But that's basically what we see driving the markets at the moment. We have the climate ambition, national and EU level. We need to have a technical potential if there's potential if there is no CO2 emitted. I mean, we are not really going to set up plants just to emit CO2 so we can capture it. We will start with what's there. And then we need to be focused on what's actually going to fund and drive the business case and the quite big, at least substantial costs and both in CAPEX and OPEX terms around these cases. So just going back to the climate ambition, it's very clear that when we compare Finland to Denmark and Sweden, Finland has a net zero target that is just 10 years ahead, whereas Denmark and Sweden has put it a bit further away. Also, as we just went through, Finland has a really nice technical potential. And that's also the forecast looking into the future. So it's not just a snapshot of now. It's also looking to the future. However, when we look to the funding arena, I mean, the comment or the analysis here is, I mean, in Denmark, we set aside 5.1 billion. In Sweden, we set aside 3.1 billion euros. As I understand Finland right now, Erika, you set around 140 million euros. We rounded up a bit here. And if you do a bit of math on what's actually closed of deals, the subsidy scheme that we deployed in Denmark that Benna will come back to a bit later, sort of have an implied price. So we're going to point around 100 to 150 euros per tonne in public subsidy. That's both for the Oster project and that's for some of the subsequent biogas CCS projects. For the Stockholm Exegi, we learned last week that the implied price that needs to make a biogenic CCS project takeoff is around 144 euros per tonne. So I think it's fair to say that you might have something waiting for you in Finland. And just adding some of the things that we do a lot is actually also working with the EU money here. And I mean, you can see there is a lot of money. It's a continuous pot. It's basically the money that comes in from the ETS system that is handed out by the EU to climate reductions. However, it's a subsidy at a bit of a lower level per tonne. But of course, the pot of money is a continuous basis and it's bigger over time. And I think this is actually the last slide or the second last slide I will do. And it's maybe a little bit of a sort of storytelling, just understanding where, maybe make it a bit more relatable, where are Denmark, where are Sweden, where are Finland, and where are Norway. So I will just take you through the story of the CCS industry in Denmark. It started out by setting a political ambition by a climate act in 2020. We set aside 5 billion euros. And then there were funding of small scale CCS projects. We both had funding of pilot projects on the capture side. And also because we have both the retirement required carbon hydrate fields and the virgin green sand options for CO2 storage. There were also projects on the storage sites assessing whether these could actually be used as CO2 storage sites. But the point being that the government policy here was implemented in a way where we put out, I mean, not a scaled project money, but money enough for pilot projects on both the capital and the capital. of the agricultural sites, which is also infrastructure sites ,икеo orabstrum and storage sites. Then we could actually, we could actually have the first round in 22, 23 where the government handed out 1 billion euros and over course of a sort of you could call it reverse auction or you could call it a negotiated tender process, when CA LED came out as the winners and take here this subsidy. initial strategy tenders and taking사� of the subsidy. And then what happens now is there will be another round. And now we sort of up the economy with more than 3 billion euros. And that is basically what we're doing in 2025. So it's more like to give you the story and the impression that this is not something that happens in an afternoon. It's something that takes a few years and what might be the roadmap. And yeah, it will take a bit of time. It will cost a bit of money. So thank you so much, Rolik. And now it's time for a small Q&A. And I think at least I think some of the audience has been curious about if there is something from Denmark, the Danish development of, you know, the CCUS market that, you know, Finland should learn from. I think there's a lot. It takes a bit of time. It takes some partnerships. I mean, there is no one single company that can sort of fix this alone, I think. And then maybe some thought about the chicken and egg problem. And I think we'll get back to that a bit later. But the thing is, when we're going into not so mature markets, there is no commodity market for CO2 at the moment. There is no market for infrastructure. It's also always a matter of, I mean, who's doing the big investments first? What are they basing it on? And can they rely on somebody else doing the correspondent investment that they need to have a value chain? So I think the ecosystem and the fact that it needs to be investable and it needs probably to be partnerships in one way or the other. And now you say partnerships, is it just purely, you know, private partnerships or is it also, is it public-private partnerships that is the, you know, the golden key? I think it can be both. And I know both from working with private companies and public companies and even with the DEA in Denmark, the Danish agency, that we actually, you need to have an extensive market dialogue. Yeah. I mean, you cannot do this behind the desk, basically. You need to have an extensive market dialogue with the participants that can actually realize this. Yeah. I think that's a good key takeaway. Thank you so much, Rolag. Thank you. Yeah. And now we move on to Vanta Energia. And now I would like to say hello to Angela. Hello. Good morning. Yeah, I cannot hear her. One second. I think we just need some sound in the studio. Yes. Good morning, Angela. How are you? Good morning. Can you hear me now? Yes, I can hear you now. How are you doing? I'm great. Thank you. We are happy to be here. We are also very happy that you are, that you are here and we're super excited to, to hear more about your CCS project. So please take it away. Yes, thank you. So a very good morning once again, also from my side to everyone. My name is Angela Juslin and I'm working as development manager at Vanta Energy. And today I will shortly present our company's plans related to carbon capture and briefly talk about maybe some of the challenges from a Finnish company's perspective. And just quickly about Vanta Energy. So we are aiming to be carbon neutral, latest by 2035, and to become the leading circular economy energy company in the Nordics. We are currently operating a large bio plant as well as two waste incineration plants here in Vanta and provide district heat to our customers in Vanta through our around 600 kilometer wide district heating system. And perhaps our biggest challenge ahead is how to decarbonize our waste to energy plants in our district heat. And in order to ensure the competitiveness of our district heat, we are continuously looking for ways to reduce our emissions. And I think over the last few years, we have come to the conclusion that carbon capture and storage is basically the only option for Vanta Energy to cut our emissions. from the waste incineration plants from the waste incineration plants and thereby also to decarbonize the district heat. So a little bit more about our CCS project. So our carbon capture storage project aims to capture carbon dioxide from the flue gases of our waste incineration plants in Vanta. And then to permanently store carbon dioxide in geological formations, either onshore or offshore, for example, in the Northern Sea. The capacity of our carbon capture plant is about 700,000 tons of CO2 per year. And from that, about half roughly is biogenic based CO2 and the other half is then fossil based CO2. And by storing all of the CO2. And by storing all of the CO2. The idea is that with the help of CCS, we can then reduce both the fossil based emissions and at the same time create carbon removal credits from the biogenic CO2 share. We have completed the feasibility study for our project during the last year, and we just entered into the pre-feed phase of the project. During the feasibility study, we looked into different carbon capture technologies, but also looked into different concepts. For example, how to transport the CO2 from our site to the harbor or the shipping terminal. And the results of the feasibility study showed that the most feasible concept for Vanta Energy is to capture the CO2 on site and then transport it via a gaseous pipeline to the nearest harbor. which is in our case, which is in our case, which is in our case, the Buasari harbor next to Helsinki. And at the harbor then, the CO2 will be liquefied and stored until then being picked up by a ship that will transport the CO2 to the final storage location. Besides the pre-feed study, we are currently also working on the environmental impact assessment. And there are some ongoing activities related to land zoning planning and some permitting as well. The commissioning of the plant as it currently stands is scheduled for 2030. And that would mean that we would make the final investment decision around or at the beginning of the year 2027. We are very aware though that there is a risk that there might be delays, for example, during the permitting process during the permitting process. So taking that risk into account. That would mean that the project schedule could be delayed by two years. So that's why it shows 2030 to 2032. Our CCS project would be the first scale CCS project on waste to energy in Finland. And at the same time, also the first of its kind in Europe at such a scale. I think what is clear is that when creating an attractive business case for BECCS or CCS projects, it is generally very difficult. And perhaps it's even a bit more difficult here in Finland compared to other Nordic countries. Ulrich mentioned the subsidies. And most of the Nordic countries, especially Sweden and Denmark, they have launched significant funding through the EU. So that's a mix of Capex and subsidy support. And so that's a mix of Capex and subsidy support. While here in Finland, only various small scale Capex fundings have been made available so far. And now we have the 140 million euros coming up, but that's still, I would say, the small scale for CCS. Ulrich also mentioned the famous chicken and egg paradox. And it has been cited repeatedly in the past. And I think it's also very true for projects here in Finland. And at our company, we see that many carbon capture plant projects will not get developed as long as the full value chain is not being developed. So as long as there is no infrastructure in Finland supporting CCUS projects, it might or will mean that CCS will remain an infeasible option for many emitters, especially the inland emitters that have a greater distance to the shore, for example. What has become clear to us when analyzing and developing our CCS business cases, that there are several levers that need to be pulled in order to create an attractive investment. And one key aspect that I would like to highlight today is the need for a shared CO2 network, local one. And we think that in order to improve the economics of a CCS business case, especially here in Finland, it is very crucial to scale up the local CO2 network and to create large terminal hubs that can serve multiple emitters at the same time. Erika also mentioned the study that was done with VTT. And we have also lately done some own analysis. And we have also come to the conclusion that scaling up the CO2 terminal, for example, from less than 1 million ton per year to, for example, up to 5 million tons per year, can reduce the project costs significantly. And in our case, we got the number of around 40 euros per tonne of CO2 in cost savings. And then, additional to that, of course, the single source, single sink CCS projects have much larger counterparty risks. And by forming clusters and creating larger hubs, these risks can then be reduced as well. So, we hope that our project, to some extent, could also pave the way and make it easier for other emitters in Finland to realize their CCS plans. And I think that was a very valid point also that Ulrich mentioned. And we agree totally that as a company, we want to realize our CCS project all by ourselves. But instead, we need to work in cooperation with partners, organizations, and hopefully also other emitters, so that we can create this Finnish CO2 network and perhaps make this very complex CO2 value chain a bit less complex. That's where I will stop for today. Thank you for listening. And I'm happy to answer some questions if there are any. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. And then we will get back to learn about the commercial building blocks of CCUS projects. And we will also learn more about Örsteel's CCS project. Thank you so much. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Welcome back from your break. I hope that you have gotten a nice cup of coffee and you are well seated. And I'm sorry about the misunderstanding in terms of whether it was 10 o'clock or 11 o'clock. It's 10 o'clock here in the studio, but I hope you got the message. So now we are ready for the next part of this session where we will be speaking about the commercial building blocks of a carbon capture utilization and storage project. And to help us understand that, I have invited Nils Knussen, my colleague from Implement, to tell us a bit more about that. But before we get started, we also have another poll. And that we would like for you to answer. So what is holding you back from developing your CCS project? Is it that you don't know your scope yet? Is it because you have difficulties in financing the development cost? Is it because there is a lack of technical knowledge regarding the technologies that you are looking into? Or is it more the market knowledge and the strategic understanding of the CCUS market that you are missing? Is it just because the business case is poor? We heard before that it can also be a challenge. And that is a challenge for many projects today. Or is it because that you lack an owner or investor backing? But while we're waiting for the audience to answer the poll, I would like to know, Nils, what is, in your belief, what is the primary barrier for CCS projects to mature? I think, thank you for that question. There are many barriers. And we're asking people to just say, which is the barrier? And that is basically not fair. A lot of barriers that change during the development of the project. But if I could remove just one barrier, I think it would be policymaking. I think that having a clear, sensible policy with a clear end goal, I think that is probably what I would be missing what I would be missing the most. And I think we've seen countries like Norway, we have seen countries like Denmark pushing into this field with some policies. But from going to something that supports a point source to something that supports a carbon capture and storage economy or ecosystem, I think there are still some steps to go. So I hope that Finland will also be investing into exploring and pioneering policymaking. Because I think that is one of the stumbling blocks. Yeah, exactly. I think at least in Denmark, I think that there was some policies that were actually developed while, you know, the first projects were coming live. So I think that's just a heads up if there's anyone from the more regular or regulatory side that I think you also need to get started in order for you to follow the maturation of the projects. But I think now we are ready for the results. And as we can see, I think there's some who said it's difficulty financing the development costs. So there is, you know, quite a substantial amount of development costs that needs to be put into this because it's a lot of, you know, moving bricks that needs to come into place, right? Yes. And then there's something about that there is a poor business case. And also some who've said that there is a lack of owner or investor backing. So quite an interesting, you know, quite interesting results. Yes. And I think it's super good to be aware and that there is this awareness of the development cost, because it costs a lot of money to mature a carbon capture project up to financial investment decision. So just knowing that there is this awareness that you don't start with a budget of a, with a development budget of a million euro and hope that you will somehow make it because it's a good idea. That level of realism is already a very good thing. Thank you so much, Nils. And now I think we're ready to hear more about the commercial building blocks. Yes. Yes. Thank you. And thank you so much for, for giving the opportunity to, to talk a little bit about this. I have brought this slide and now we have a lot of commercial people on the, on the call. So maybe it's not so, so provocative and it's not to, to poke a finger in someone's eyes, but it's just to say, we've talked about the, the, the commercial building blocks. And sometimes we find that, that at least with the clients we often meet, that there is a, that there is a bias in the, the, the early stages, but also the sort of middle stages of the project towards the technical. Of course, it's a technical challenge, but we, we'd like to see that, to say that the commercial challenge to, to get to FID, to, to have a sound business case, to have all the, the, the commercial risk or the financial risk under control is even harder than figuring out the, the, the, the layout and the temperatures and the, the, the, the kind of, steam flows on the site. And so on. So it's just to start, this is a little bit where we are coming from. This is super important, but sometimes also a little bit, not forgotten, but, but underexposed. So just, just to, to kick it off by saying that. Now, when we look at the typical point source and we look at developing a carbon capture project, then we say that, that typically compared to the size of projects and the complexity of the project, that you will, you will, you will, you will, you'll be working with typically, it is much bigger. There is much more complexity, much more uncertainty, and there is less knowledge available. So just don't underestimate the, the development of the, of the project. That's also why we say that, well, first of all, you have to make, of course, a choice. Is this something that you should do now, or is it something that you should set aside? Some people are cut to be, first movers, uh, and have that ambition. And we have, uh, we have pioneers like Benner, who have, uh, sort of ventured into the darkness and developed, uh, developed things where everything was, was unknown. Some people might want to be the second mover, and, and that's all right, but just know whether you're the one or the other. Then, when you then have decided, yes, we want to push this, then there is a make or buy decision. And we've illustrated here as a, a simple make or buy. So should we give it to someone else? Should we build it on our own? Of course, there is a continuum. Um, but really, this is the fundamental choice. Are you looking for a partner who can do much of the development for you? Or are you building an organization that can do the development? Very, very different things. And you might as well start relatively early and say, let's build an organization and strategy that does the one or that does the other. And don't spend two years developing the project and figuring out, by the way, it will be the one. It would be smarter to do it with, uh, with a concession solution. Uh, then the, the building blocks. And what we'll do here is talk a little bit through the, some of the, what we see as the essential things that your projects achieve. And that is what you will achieve or what you will achieve with your partner or sometimes what your partner will achieve if, if you say, all right, let's, uh, let's, let's, let's get most of it outside the fence and somebody else come and, and, and pick it up. And, and, and first of all, there is the project strategy and design. Um, and that is very much the, I mean, the, the larger scope. It is, how are we going to solve this? How fast will we move? Um, do we want partnerships? Do we want to do this in, do we want to create a hub, for example, before we create a project? Um, what is, what is our approach to, to just getting this up and flying? And again, in, in textbooks, this is how you start in reality. Sometimes you start with a pre-feasibility study and then you say, hmm, we better figure out the strategy. But you will get back to that and you might as well do it relatively early on. The, uh, the issue is of course also that you will have some decision makers who are not ready to make this kind of decision because they've simply not worked in this arena before. So there's also something about making sure that your decision makers are on the learning curve that your, your project team is also. Then the next thing is to look at your revenue and look at your investment case. So this is really figuring out where does the money come from? Um, and where does it go? So are we selling, are we selling credits? How many credits do we need to sell? Are we aiming for a subsidy? Uh, is there a cap to that subsidy? Um, do we need to be very competitive to win the subsidy? Um, do we need to be very competitive to win the subsidy? So I don't see it. I don't see it that's helpful. I don't see it so often now. Um, people who are very, uh, occupied by, you know, choosing the, the capture technology, uh, laying out the site and so on and then when you then say, but how's it going to be financed? It's well, we'll figure that out. And yes, you might figure that out, but it's very good idea to, to, to, uh, to start that, uh, maturing earlier on. Um, upstream sourcing, uh, this is where we often think of the, well, the, the, the technology, the feasibility, etc. This is really also a procurement game. You need, of course, you need your feasibility in place. You need to understand your site. You need to understand your steam integration, all these things. But you also need to understand how do we procure? What is the market? How early do we engage? Will we be obliged to do this in an EU tender? Can we reach out individually? Can we mature the project with a partner or a supplier that we select early on? Or will we do a more detailed specification before we tender? All these things you need to figure out. Notice this is a market that is restricted, restrained. There are not that many suppliers and you will have to sell your project to the supplier just as much as they will have to sell their hardware to you because they will be choosing between projects and they will have a limited number of engineers who can go in and do the feed for your project, etc. So have your strategy in place and understand the supplier market. Downstream sourcing, again, it is very much a procurement game. You can do all sorts of design. You can have all sorts of feasibility studies on the different, I mean, what is the difference between onshore and offshore? Which is better? How should we transport, etc.? But you need to find someone who will supply and who will make a contract with you and who will start storing at the date that you start producing and at a competitive price. So, again, understand the market, understand how you are going to secure this and understand also that you need to be very commercial in your approach to it because otherwise someone else will have a cheaper storage and cheaper capital storage value chain than you and they are likely to get the business, so get the subsidy. And then financing. How is it going to be financed? Of course, there is some straightforward craft here engaging with banks, buying equity. But there is, of course, also your funding strategy. So how much funding do you need? Where do you want it from? Is it competitive? How certain will you be? Will you need EU funding plus national funding? Can they combine, etc.? And that stacks back to your strategy and your business case again. So this is at least a way to break down the project and say, okay, we need to do these things and it would not be uncommon to see work streams that are structured a little bit around this. Then when we are talking about developing the business case. Well, we need to have some revenues and we have some primary revenues, some secondary revenues, we often say, depending on what business you're in. So your primary business drivers, your primary revenues, well, there is the compliance market. So you have your EU quota if you are fossil. Otherwise, that is not really available. You will have carbon credits if you are biogenic or if you're mixed like you're a waste incineration plant. The interesting thing, I think, about the carbon removals is this is a market that hardly exists. And again, we have pioneers like Benne and her team that really created business innovation in this field. But I think there have been four large scale transactions at this point in the world and two of them have been made with Öster. So it's not like a commodity market. So it's not like a commodity market. Like we have these credits who bids more. So it's not that straightforward. Then I struggled to read my own slide here. Sorry. We have offtake markets. That's why. Offtake markets, well, you might choose to sell your CO2 physically to utilization purposes. That could also be if you're a mixed source and you could do some mass balancing. This is a market that is promising, but it's not that mature. So if you are planning to start capturing in, let's say, 2030, there won't be that many offtakers that will buy your physical CO2. But of course, if that is your strategy, then your whole downstream value chain also has to reflect that. And then, of course, there is public funding. And there is no project right now without public funding. I've met a lot of people who say this will come and I look forward to it when it can be business driven. That is, of course, the point of subsidizing is that at some point this should live without subsidy. Then there are some options for secondary revenues. And that could be that you will have green premium. We see that, for example, in cement where we believe that there is a market premium for carbon neutral cement. And you will probably also have some revenue streams from, for example, heat. So it's a multi-sided business model that you are developing, basically. And again, the business case is typically slim. So you can't really neglect any of those value streams. Looking at, well, so how do these value streams stack up? What we see is, again, typically you have a cost that you need to cover. You have your different revenue streams that we looked at a lot from the ETS or from certificates. Then the cost side. Well, we have very different costs depending on the size, the type, the location of your plant, et cetera, the life of your plant, the utilization of your plant. So do you have a continuous stream or do you mostly have flue gas in winter? Well, we have a continuous stream or do you have a continuous stream? Well, we have a continuous stream. And then the investment in the capture plant is important, but it is a relatively small part of the total value chain. Of course, we have storage and transport that will take up a lot of the total cost pool. You could say that is CAPEX for someone else. But typically, if you're a point source, you will see it as OPEX, even though somebody has to commission, build a ship. You also have very high running costs. So you have very high energy consumption. You have a large consumption of solvent. That could be amines if you are a solvent-based technology. So basically just saying that, yes, we need very much focus on the plant, on what we're building, what's on the site. But it's maybe 25% of your cost base. So again, don't underinvest in maturing all the other cost streams and don't underestimate the effect on your business case. That's essentially a very quick walkthrough of the commercial development of the project as we see it. I would very much like to invite questions or comments. Also, if you see it completely different, that will also be interesting. I can just jump in. I think, Nils, one question you could maybe answer is now you speak about that it's really important, especially if you are a biogenic source or a mixed source. And as we heard previously, there is a lot of biogenic CO2 in Finland. So maybe if you look into the future, can you say, when do we go from an origination market to a commodity market in the voluntary carbon market? It's a super good question. And if I could tell you that, I would be already speculating in certificates and I would never have to work again. So that would be boring. We are expecting that at some point in Europe, it will become part of the compliance market. And that will put an end to all speculations about who will be buying, what will they be buying, how will they be buying, etc. But in between the origination market with just a few transactions and until something more mature, I would hate to predict anything around that. We expect very much and any analysis that we see says there is going to be a market that is going to be much deeper. There will be a lot of transactions. There will be a lot of demand. But we don't really see it coming yet. When we speak to brokers, when we speak to off-takers, etc., it is still very much a project-by -project transaction-by-transaction market. So it's a good question, but I would hate to make predictions. And do you see now, I think, at least to my knowledge, it's a couple of buyers out there right now and it's typically the big tech giants. Do you expect that the buyers will differentiate already in a couple of years or do you think it will stay within the same group of companies? I think we will see this becoming much, much broader. So what we see now is that there is interest from manufacturing. There is interest from aviation. There is interest from a lot of emitters who are struggling to meet their decarbonization targets that they have committed to. We also see that it is a voluntary market. So people could basically say, but what the heck? I also think there has been a shake-up where the lower quality certificates have become unpopular and we see basically a large drop in demand. And of course, the high quality, the technical removals will be coming back. But right now, it looks like the market has collapsed. It has not. It's because we are looking at the total market. Good. Thank you so much, Nils. Thank you. And I will take over. Thank you so much. So I think now we're ready for the last session of today. So now I would like to say hello to Benne. Hi, Christine. Hi, everyone out there. And I think I'm still missing the sound. I think a good morning. And I think we have some technical issues in the studio. So I think maybe you should just get started. And thank you so much. And now I'm looking to you, Andreas. I'm going through OK on the sound. Yes, perfect. A thumbs up. Hi, everyone. And thank you for having me implement. And thank you for having me Bioenergy. It's a great pleasure to be here. If I just click on here. So my name is Benne Hedgaard. I work at Astrid Bioenergy. And I was the bid director for our first CCS bid that we submitted to the Danish Energy Agency back in 2023. And with the next round of funding that's coming up, I am also looking into doing the development of potentially our next bid for the forthcoming CCS tender with the Danish Energy Agency. Maybe just a bit of background on who we are. Astrid is a global renewable energy company. We work within a variety of different business areas. We are globally very well known for offshore wind as well as onshore renewables and have had some activities within Power2x. The area of the business that I sit in is what's called Bioenergy and other on the slide here, but specifically Bioenergy. In Bioenergy, we own and operate a fleet of a fleet of combined heat and power plants that are located across Denmark. And these combined heat and power plants, they supply district heat on long term contracts and then they supply power on the spot market. What we do is we, of course, own and operate our existing fleet, but we are a development company. So across all of our business areas, we are very active in both development, execution, operations and maintenance and operations and maintenance of our fleets. And that gives us unique insights into, you could say, challenges, but also a lot of sort of drive in entering new markets where we see there is an interesting opportunity. And maybe just to get into that interesting opportunity specifically in the context of today. So back in May 2023, as the Bioenergy was awarded the 20-year subsidy contract from the Danish Energy Agency. So this was the first tender that they hosted, so this was the first tender that they hosted, or the first tender that they ran as part of the CCUS funding pool that they established. Sort of high level, and I will just go into my next slide as well, give you a little bit more flavor of what we're doing and where we're doing it. But the key takeaways of this is that we secured this 20-year subsidy contract. We will be storing 430,000 tons, which was a part of the requirements. We will be storing 530,000 tons, which were the first tender that they were taking in the United States. So we're doing this 19-year subsidy contract. And again, we are doing this by beginning of January, 2026. Through this project, we furthermore were able to establish the first of kind, sort of large-scale offtake agreement for carbon removal certificates. We did this with Microsoft. We are also establishing the first steps in building, you could say, CO2 infrastructure. So that is sort of getting our feet or our hands wet in regards to what that is. And in this contract with the Danish Energy Agency, we will hold the entire responsibility for the value chain from capture to storage, where we've gone in and sort of engaged with sub-suppliers across the value chain, but overall also holds the overall responsibility of this. So this is quite unique. It's unique for us as a company. This is our first CCS project. We see that it's also very unique with regards to sort of the initial development within the CCS field. So there's a lot of learnings that we're doing along this way. Thank you for all the appraisal from the implement group. I think we're very proud of what we've been able to achieve. I think we're also very humble in that this is a huge task and there is a lot of learning and a lot of expertise in the industry that we really are trying to tap into. and gather as we endeavor on, you could say, not only the development, but also looking towards a 20-year operation profile or period with the activities that we're developing. So specifically, what exactly was it that we won and what exactly are we going to do? So we will be capturing CO2 from two of our point sources. The point sources are located on the Sealand Island, the island where Copenhagen is also located. So we're going to be capturing at the island where we're capturing at the island. So we're capturing at the island where we're capturing at the island. And then we'll capture and prepare, liquefy the CO2. The CO2 will then be transported to our SNA site, which is in North West Sealand. Here it will be combined with the CO2 that we capture from our SNA site. Here we'll be capturing approximately 240, 250,000 tons. I don't quite have the exact numbers. And there it will be. And there it will be. We've established an intermediate storage facility that allows us to have a flow, a free sort of a smooth flow with regards to our export of CO2 for offshore storage. CO2 will be stored permanently offshore. We've contracted with Northern Lights and they will come on a continuous basis or on a regular basis and pick up the CO2 from there. So I think what we've done, and I think I'll actually go into that a little bit more with regards to our learnings and how we've sort of what strategic decisions we made with regards to the project. But overall, we are, as I mentioned, getting our hands sort of getting our hands into how do we capture the CO2, how do we prepare it, but also the initial sort of considerations around transportation of CO2 between different sites. And then you could say establishment of CO2 export harbor in conjunction of our SNA site up in Kalenborn. This is something that we've done together with a wide range of partners. I think Nils had a very good point in that this is something that needs to be done together with partners across the industry. So we, of course, have Microsoft very closely engaged in the project. Our carbon capture solutions are provided by Arca Carbon Capture. Today it's called SLB Capturi. We are working together with Northern Lights as well and for the transportation of the CO2, which we've decided to do by truck from point A to point B. We're doing this with a Danish company called DSV. We did look into alternative options for intermediate transportation of CO2. We looked into a barge system. We looked into shipping. We looked into Milky Root pickup. We even looked into piping. But given the requirements of the tender and you could say the risk, overall risk of needing to meet a given timeline, we really needed to look at how we designed our project according to the subsidy contract and requirements that needed to be to be met there. Our ambitions are that we can, we've taken the first steps now and can really develop on this from here. But it was about being able to meet the requirements. And then, of course, different considerations with regards to how many tons were we moving? What was the most feasible and economically and climate wise most attractive solution to go? And there, because the amount of tons that we're moving from one site to the other is relatively little, you could say, shipping doesn't make sense. Yes. So just a little bit on the timeline. The tender was published in May 2022. We had initially started a little bit of development of the project in Q4 of 2021. In May 2023, we submitted our best and final offer to the DEA. We achieved a mandate to bid from our board in the opposite direction, sorry, opposite order. And basically, right after achieving award, we went into execution of the project. That was because there is a requirement and a commitment to meet CO2, or sorry, COD of the entire CCS value chain by January 2026. So we are well into construction at the moment. So we are well into construction at the moment. And this year here is definitely the most critical construction wise with a lot of activities that are sort of coming together as we erect the different components on site. Maybe a little bit on sort of the key learnings. And I suspect that there will be a Q&A session afterwards. So do note down if you have any questions. I think a few reflections from my side with regards to sort of what we did and how, you could say, how the tender in itself, but also the decisions that we made in the project were a part of allowing us to establish what we're doing at the moment. I think what is very clear is that there is a very good sort of dynamic that appeared from this public-private partnership. Although it could be a dream that we could remove all regulatory constraints or policymaking sort of activities, that is the circumstance, the context that we're living in. So having that close collaboration and being able to provide input with regards to coming policy, but also lean into it and understand exactly what are the ambitions that we're living in. And how do we meet that from a policy point of view is important. If I could highlight, and I know that the Finnish funding scheme is different, but I think I'd just like to highlight a few things in what I see was quite essential with regards to the Danish funding scheme. I think on the one hand, and I've highlighted them here, so it was very much about the tender design. It was an open book negotiation. So both our financial documents, also our technical descriptions, our value chain descriptions, were all open to the DEA. We discussed them together, had negotiations with the DEA based on this. And this really allowed us to get, you could say, sort of an extra set of eyes, testing some of our assumptions, asking questions to the different aspects that we brought forward. And that really helped us in further sort of identifying exactly how, where we needed to be more sharp, but also enabling that we could plug into the needs of the overall tender and the climate sort of ambitions that the Danish state wanted to meet. A second important aspect of the tender, very much related to a tender requirement, and that was that the operator is to have full responsibility of the value chain. So it's not only for us about capturing, but it is about ensuring that the reductions are met. You could say other countries have taken a different approach. I think in Norway, they've more sort of thought that they subsidized different parts of the value chain, and then they're asked to work together. Being a development company, for us, you could say risk management, commercial management, technical management is extremely important. And for that reason, having this value chain, responsibility enabled us enabled us to get a good understanding and a good way to manage the risk that we have in the value chain to understand what of it we control and what of what we don't, and how do we make sure that that then is handled in the subsequent contracting and sort of agreement baseline of the project. And finally, there was a commitment when we committed to submitting the best and final offer. It was a binding offer. It was a binding offer for the entire value chain that you could say value chain that you put forward as well as for the entire 20 year subsidy contract. Of course, that is a huge commitment to take. But it also provides a lot of clarity with regards to establishing the value chain because you can bring that clarity back and being able to say, we know exactly when we'll have a decision. We will know exactly when we have an award. We know exactly what the requirements are. And I think that that's also quite essential when you're developing a market in this way that it's not always certain. Where and how the development is going to take place and being able to provide just a little bit of certainty is extremely helpful in allowing sub suppliers also to make the necessary investment decisions that they need to. So it's sort of this chicken and egg problem. And if you provide some boundary conditions for when the decisions are going to be made, it at least provides some insights to the, you could say, all the actors on that. So what did we then do to sort of provide a, or to bring forward an interesting, you could say, yeah, an interesting proposal to the DEA, but also an interesting proposal to our board for investment decision. One is that we decided to go with a modular technology choice with regards to our carbon capture. This allowed us actually through the development to scale up and scale down so that we could sort of adjust as we gained a better understanding of how to integrate this into our, existing asset base. It also very much closely to the backbone of our existing asset base. It also very much lies closely to the backbone of the way that Arsenal has done its development into new markets is by taking a modular, standardized approach that allows you to scale in a completely different way than going sort of tailor-made for each asset that you want to work on. The second part here was that we had a very sort of clear management endorsement with regards to that. That endorsement with regards to that engaging in the CCS tender meant that we not only needed to focus on what we did at our own assets. So establishment of carbon capture, liquefaction, heat pumps and so forth to recuperate heat, but that it was a requirement to go into the value chain. So to move beyond sort of regular business activities and having their support and their understandings very much sort of allowed us to sort of provide the space for us to sort of dive into and decide how we should design the remaining value chain that we have. Then we also looked into, we have multiple assets in Denmark. The decision to choose Evelöer site and Estner site was very much also related to the strategic location of them. Being close to a harbor facility, having an asset that sort of had offtake agreements, with regards to heat, with regards to heat, with regards to the choice of asset. What we saw was that we wanted to take the first steps in saying, you know, we need a CCS industry in Denmark, in Europe. How can we already now start to build some of these synergies with regards to the choice of asset? So that was sort of supporting the long -term perspectives of building a CO2 hub, not only for our CO2, but also for other emitters in the more long-term. And then I think the final part was very much that we had, you could say commercially willing partners on board, partners that were willing to engage, that were willing to discuss risk with us, that were willing to also take on more scope or more sort of responsibility than what you would normally have in sort of a pure transactional sort of agreement. And this also was very sort of beneficial in being able to discuss the requirements and the tender. How does that translate into the needs of the project? How can the partners provide that? I think what we're looking into is definitely an industry that is in its early development phase. And for that reason, the tasks are not defined. It's very much about sort of taking them and seeing how we can form them and take them forward and doing that together. So it was definitely very beneficial. Maybe just a few final sort of key learnings that we did. I think in all honesty, permitting processes are going to not only be, or not only, yeah, they are essential also for the further expansion. And permitting processes are difficult because they are right now very much sort of embedded in existing policy work, existing examples, existing known industries, known standards in known industries. CCS doesn't reside in that. So how do you sort of bridge between those two? A definite learning from our side is, again, we've had to go much more proactively into the dialogue with our permitting authorities at the national, municipality, local levels to take on given tasks and also discussing what type of standards should we take? So I think we're going to go on here, developing on here, developing standards, developing different methodologies, because you could say the standards simply aren't there. I think it's also very key to understand that because it is new for a lot of the people involved, that any project should expect a very dynamic time schedule together with the authorities and have this be a part of the overall plan, because it sometimes requires additional negotiations, not negotiations, but additional conversations to understand what the authorities are going to do. So we're going to understand exactly what is it that we're looking into. How do we then reflect that in the policy? What does that then imply? At the end of the day, the most important thing is that we build and we develop, we build and we operate safe projects that adhere to the permit levels that are, and that should be the overall goal at the end of the day. A final here. So these are a little bit old, but for me, having been a part of the development side of the project and handing it over to my colleague for the execution, I always love to see how what we envisioned through the negotiations with the DEA is becoming steel in the ground. So these are snapshots of our time lapse that we have at the Evelu and the ESNA site, where there's a lot of activities ongoing at the moment. So very exciting development and very exciting times ahead. And that was it for me. Thank you so much, Benna. Super exciting to hear how it's going with your project. So obviously, the energy must be great in the project team. I know you handed it over, but can you maybe tell us a bit about how it is to be so close to the commercial operation date? Very exciting. It's definitely on the top of everybody's minds. A great organization that is really stepping in and supporting where needs to be supported. So very sort of strong support to the overall vision of the project. But definitely, you could say us that are just interested in what's going on have been asked to stay away so that the actual workers, the engineers, the construction employees can focus on the project. And the work that needs to be done on site. So that's also very good. That's good to hear. And maybe you can also maybe elaborate a bit about, you know, as you mentioned, that you're responsible for the full supply chain in terms of the contract with the Danish Energy Agency. How is that going in terms of, you know, making sure that everyone is ready for this set time? It is going very well. We have established, you could say, sort of bilateral. We have established groups across with each of our suppliers. This was part of some of the decisions that we made in our value chain and in our design of our project was to ensure that we had partners on board that also could live up to the COD date that was set in the tender. Northern Lights, for example, we knew that they had already started storage. They would have already started storage by the time that we, our project came online. And that allows us to really sort of dive into the here and now learning. And make sure that we can do things and make sure that we remove any child illnesses before we reach our COD date. But very active engagement, basically, since we started construction. And of course, that only intensifies as we reach COD. That's good to hear. And I think we also have a question. I don't know how much you can reveal, but maybe you could comment on the price of your carbon removal credits and the value that they add to your customers. Yeah, so the carbon removal credits that we have, I think, I can't reveal too much about it, but I can say that the project, it is necessary to both have subsidy funding and carbon removal certificates. Otherwise, you could say the business case simply isn't viable. We've contracted with Microsoft and the value that they see in the carbon removals that we have is, I think they ascribe a high degree of integrity to the credits that we have. We had a very lengthy due diligence process with them. You could say Microsoft is one of the more well and very knowledgeable buyers in the market. They know what they want. They know what requirements they also put to the removals that they're buying. And I think that has, for us, has been a great learning and a great partner to work together with because we also take pride in that there are high standards. I think very much when we look at sort of additional buyers and how that market can expand because it will be necessary also for future projects, for all future projects, you could say, is that us as developers, as the CO2 capture facility plants, as the CO2 capture facility plants, that we also need to, with some of the more immature buyers in the market, take on more of a sort of a teaching or sort of mentoring teaching role in also explaining to them what the carbon removal market is, what integrity is about, what retirement of credits is about, how the mechanisms work. So there is still a lot of work. So there is still a lot of work to be done with regards to, yeah, sort of expanding the market, even in bilateral agreements going forward. That makes really good sense. But maybe now you mentioned the due diligence process, and I don't know how many is familiar with or in depth familiar with the carbon removal due diligence. Can you maybe just put two words into that and the process that you went through? Yeah, so the due diligence is, you could say it's because these are traded or they're bought on bilateral agreements. Of course, Microsoft came in with the standards they had. They were very interested in understanding what the biomass source was. So looking into our biomass sourcing, sort of value chain around that certification processes, how we did control and checks of our suppliers. They were very interested in the process. They were very interested in the process. They were very interested in understanding how exactly are we managing the process from end to end. Other buyers in the market take on a different approach. They say, this is your responsibility, Astor. You need to, you know, if you're selling me this credit, you also need to find out what the market is. You need to fulfill the different requirements. And I believe that you do that. So it is quite different from buyer to buyer. And I think very much like what we went through with the Danish Energy Agency. It's especially in new markets, it's good to have someone that sort of looks over your shoulders and takes a look and can sort of have good discussions around some of the assumptions in the projects so that they become better from there. I think that makes really good sense. I think that makes really good sense. And I thank you for the clarification. And thank you so much for an interesting presentation. Now we will move on to the wrap up and the closing. And I would like to say hello again to Erika. Hi there. Hello and welcome back. I think now it's just time to do a short wrap up. But before we do that, I think we should just say a big thank you to both you, Erika and Angela and Benne and my two colleagues, Nils and Ulrich for some exciting insights into the CCUS market and how both the learnings from the projects, but also how the commercial building blocks needs also to be in place for a project to be bankable and for someone to say, give a thumbs up from the investment committee. But let's dive into the key takeaways. Yeah, thank you, Kristine. And thank you, Angela and Benne for the great presentations from your projects. And I think that we can definitely say that we have some quite great untapped potential in the Finnish market. But of course, we are still a couple of steps behind of our Nordic colleagues. But I hope that we can make the most of the situation that we're in and try to maybe take some learnings from the development from Denmark and Sweden and Norway, for example, and maybe make them very smart decisions from now on and try to be smart and move fast. Exactly. And I think another step in terms of maybe reaching that untapped potential was also that I think both I think maybe all of you have been mentioning that funding is key to kickstarting the CCUS value chain. So not only from national funding, from, for instance, you could say the national tender that we have here in Denmark, but also from EU's Innovation Fund. I know that a lot of projects within the CCUS value chain have received funding as well. So that's also good to investigate if you have that funding gap in your business case that you are looking to close. Yeah, for sure. And as we heard, the Finnish project face quite a big of a funding gap in many cases. And it is good to then investigate in detail all of the potential revenue streams, as we heard, and make sure that the streams are in place and secured to be able to get to the FID. Exactly. And I think the last point is that not only public-private collaboration, but also market collaboration between partners and in networks or, for instance, CO2 hubs or clusters is also a key for this market to mature, especially so it matures in the right pace along with the CCUS projects. So I think that was the key takeaways from this session. I think now, I think the final word to say is just thank you so much for joining us here today. It was a pleasure having you and thank you so much for being interactive and, you know, responding to the polls. Thank you so much and have a wonderful afternoon. Thank you.