"The carbon market is already maturing," Jan-Willem, Puro.earth President

On the demand side, I'm expecting more financial intermediaries to come into this market that will be taking speculative positions, and we will see much more complex financial structures coming to market. And I think that will all happen in 26. So I think 26 is going to be an extremely exciting year, both from a supply and the bounce point of view, really moving to much more mature markets. Are you passionate about climate action and staying on top of the latest trends in the world of carbon capture, removal, and markets? Then the carbon herald has you covered. Every week we bring you the top news, breakthroughs, and insights from the world of carbon management delivered straight to your inbox. No fluff, no jargon, just the essential info you need to stay informed. So whether you're a climate professional or just someone who cares, make sure you're subscribed. Visit carbonherald.com and sign up today for our weekly newsletter. Welcome to the carbon stations podcast where we speak to some of the leading figures in the emerging carbon industry. Today, our guest is J.W. Boda, CEO of the world's leading crediting platform for engineered carbon removal, pure earth. With J.W., thank you so much for joining us today, it's a pleasure to have you on the show. And especially as this is our last episode for 2025 and said to be the first episode to air in the new year, it's a wonderful opportunity to summarize what this year has meant for carbon removal. And I think you're one of the best people to offer their perspective on this matter. But before we do that, however, we do like to get to know our guests a little bit better before diving into the carbon side of things. So it would be lovely if we could please just talk a little bit about your background and how you essentially ended up in this industry. Yeah, thank you so much for having me here, Violet, it's an absolute pleasure to be here. To be one of my journey in carbon markets and sustainability as a whole actually goes back all the way to when I was a teenager, I wasn't having scuba diver and I personally saw the damage that climate change can do to coral reefs and that's when I knew I wanted to become active in doing something with climate change. Let's put it like that. So actually very early on, I was involved in policy developments around the Kyoto price core, et cetera, et cetera. And after a couple of years in consulting in academia, I saw carbon markets as one of the most promising tools to do something about climate change. So in the early 2000s, I got involved in setting up a carbon credit project development business, carbon credit project development business and trader, which then after the financial crisis we sold to or during the financial crisis, I should probably say we sold to, um, Societation in the road to RBL. And I've been basically being very, very full of carbon markets ever since. So you know, very much started my career, doing things like writing the gold standard version one and version two, developing tens and tens of projects in this space, then took a couple of years out because I actually wanted to make sure that I still believed in carbon markets as such. And then seven years ago, I was asked for six years ago, I was asked to join the board of puro. So initially I spent the first five years in my open to puro as a non-executive director on the board. And I was asked about 10 months ago to take over as the president of puro. And it's been an interesting, an interesting period. Wow, that really is an interesting biography, you're really like one of the founding fathers of carbon markets back when nobody really really knew what that is. So I know most of our listeners know about puro and what you guys do. But for those who might not be that familiar, I was wondering if you could tell us a little bit about the organization's mission and what role you play in the broader carbon removal ecosystem. Yeah, I think it was about seven years ago when the founders, the co-finders of puro realized that there were quite some activities going on in the engine in removal space, but contrary to reduction and avoidance projects in the carbon credit space, there was no standard. So seven years ago they launched puro. Very much with the idea of being one of the, let's call it one of the pillars that the engineate removal market can build on, and so puro was the first registry to launch first set of methodologies in the engineate removal space, and then obviously sends that have been more parties coming into the market. But that is kind of where puro started. The real focus was on innovation. The assumption is, and there's always been, that engineate removals are a very different asset class than emission reductions or avoided emissions. And the philosophy very much was that, and still is, that this is the next class that needs to be treated differently. It needs to be treated differently from a methodology point of view. It needs to be treated differently from a certification journey point of view. As a very concrete example, there are counterfactual baselines that are absolutely critical in emission reduction and avoided emissions projects are a lot less important within the context of engineate removals. But at the same time, there's much more scientific uncertainty on the engineate removals side of things, because often these are new project types, new technologies that aren't that need to be developed. And that means that you also need to treat those asset classes in a different way, which is why we developed a certification journey that was very much geared towards that engineate removal asset class. And we built that ecosystem, we built the foundations of the ecosystem. And then when a NASDAQ came in as the, as a shareholder, that kind of really made it clear what the DNA is that we want as a firm, we want to be one of the trusted parties in this ecosystem that provides the foundations for engineate removals and to make sure that if we issue a, if we issue a cork issue, an engineate removal credit, so that people know that that is represented representing a tone of CO2 being removed from the atmosphere. So I'm always very much that developing new technologies, running a registry, but really creating that one of those pillars in the ecosystem that provides a real feeling of trust. Yeah, and in that line of thought, I was wondering actually since you mentioned corks, you know, as this kind of benchmark for quality. What would you say makes the purest standard different from the others out there? I think one, the fact that we have got six years of history in this space where we really have gone through iterations of methodologies, we've now got a hundred projects that have issued credits on to our platform. So there's a lot of experience that comes with that one, two is we've also spent quite a lot of time over the last couple of years and especially over the last 12 months where we really have started to adapt our certification journey to be much more aligned with what the requirements are of projects. So when it comes to, for example, making projects more bankable, making sure that the certification journey is in line with projects, e-mail stones, rather than with relatively arbitrary milestones that are being put upon the system from a carbon markets point of view. So we really are taking that idea of infrastructure, financial infrastructure as the core in all I think right now, which is based on, you know, six, seven years of experience. And so we're in the first four or five years, the focus was very much on innovation. We are really now switching to go from innovation to financial infrastructure. We see ourselves as a part of a financial ecosystem and that also means that you need to treat the way that you build that ecosystem and you need to treat the role that you play in that ecosystem in the same way as if you were playing in a financial ecosystem and that means that you need to start looking at all the reliability, trustworthiness, et cetera. That comes with participating in a financial ecosystem. So would you say that as far as like methodologies and certification and all of that, your work pretty much is done? Like there's a solid enough foundation already there. So we developed a whole number of methodologies and there is about eight or so that are currently approved and in the public domain. But the way we look at that is that we reviewed as methodologies every two years and the reason for that is not because we don't think that there's methodologies are solid, but basically because there are developments in the science around these technologies that we're talking about. When we review them, we can come to a conclusion that I did pretty much okay as they are or they need a minor upgrade or they need a major update and that is more than anything that is determined by scientific developments rather than anything else. And yeah, we do have a number of methodologies that are really seen as top of the top in the class when it comes to quality. So that is definitely the case. We very much focus on those methodologies where we feel that over the next two, three, four years, real skill will come from because what this market needs is skill, it needs skill and it needs reliability. So that is our main focus, but it's very much a matter of making sure that those two methodologies keep on being developed in line with scientific developments as well as additional requirements that being put upon us by the various regulators in this market. As far as credibility goes and making sure that that's transparency is probably the main thing we need in order to ensure that the carbon market can actually grow and deliver meaningful impact. So would you say that methodologies are essentially the main mechanism for that? Methodologies as well as the information that is being put into the registry environment as well as access to data, public consultations, etc. All the stuff that are sitting in the methodological requirements and the general rules requirements as they would in that context, ICVCM is an important organization as well because it kind of put the minimum standards on programs. So all those things are extremely relevant within the context of transparency, trust and reliability. I'm glad you mentioned the ICVCM given that a very recent development for PURO, the fact that you were granted core carbon principle of eligibility from the ICVCM, which for all congratulations are in order for that. But secondly, what can you tell us about this event and what implications will it have for both PURO but for the industry at large as well? Yeah, so I think just to go back a bit, as I said, we spent quite a large time on getting our own program up and running and then ICVCM came along well into our history effectively. So we've been operating for three or four years and then ICVCM came along. And so what we did is because we had developed our own systems, we actually had to make sure that our most recent general rules are very much in line with ICVCM requirements, and that doesn't mean that we don't think the program before that we're right is just that basically what we needed to do is look at what we had developed and where we had very much focused on innovation, how it actually fits within the sandbox and the rest of the world is playing in. So that's what we've been doing over the last period of time and that's how we've ended up in a situation where actually we are now ICVCM eligible but at the same time we've managed to maintain a lot of the innovative elements that we have that were a bit different than other players in the markets and as an example, we pay for all the tests directly as puro and one of the implications thereof is that we actually have an additional eligibility step within our certification journey where we internally look at the quality of projects before we send them out to third party validators and there's those kinds of things that are a bit different than a lot of the other standards have and that is basically us to do with the fact that we think that it's really important to make sure that the quality of projects is as high as possible before it goes to third party valid for it goes out for third party validation. And what it means is that now with the ICVCM accreditation, this applies to work with us and the bias that by credits from our supply is get the best of both will. So one hand, you've got the innovation that came around the development of an engineering removal system ecosystem before other people were even looking at it and secondly, it is done in a way that actually it fits within the sandbox that everybody else is playing in. So you get the both of both wills. You get on one hand the innovation that we've been working on for such a long period of time, but on the other hand, you also get an internationally recognized sample for approval of it. And do you think this will in any way affect buyer behavior? Are you seeing it already affecting buyer behavior in any way? So in general, when it comes to the CCP label, so independent of engineering removals, we do see that there is a price premium on credits that have got the CCP label over credits that don't have the CCP label, which obviously is a reflection of maybe not necessarily of high quality, but at least of a more internationally recognized stamp of approval so to say it. With what we have not seen yet in the engineering removals phase, concrete demands for CCP credits and the reason for that is more than anything that the coins are extremely low of those credits into this space, but I do expect that that will change over the next maybe 12, 24, 36 months as soon as we see more volume of CCP labels, engineering removal credits going into the market as well. Yeah, that kind of brings me to the general carbon removal market as it is the end of the year. And I'd love it if you could dive into it, perhaps like what changes you've noticed in the market so far and what major trends, whether good or bad, have kind of set the tone for these past 12 months. I think the last 12 months are in very, very interesting, so on one hand, we've seen initially we saw demand for credits, so especially demand for a spelt delivery of engineering removal credits go down. More it actually started picking up again during the course of 2025. I think that's what I'm too is we've seen more and more projects being developed that's a very, very honey topics investment costs and actually are looking for a much more forward to infrastructure in order for this projects to be bankable as well. So the last six months, we've seen more unique buyers coming to the engineering removal space than we've seen for years before that. So that is an interesting trend. So what we see is a lot of buyers looking to let's say get the toes in the water of engineering removal markets. There are really a lot of unique buyers that are buying relatively small volumes in anticipation of buying more by larger volumes over the next couple of years. The other thing is on the buy side, we also see more, a couple of intermediaries more than a handful actually of intermediaries coming to market. So we actually see people taking positions in engineering removal credits in a more speculator manner. So both those being show me that it is quite likely that liquidity in this market will increase next year and year afterwards quite dramatically. I mean, if you go back to the voluntary carbon market in the mid was around 2004, 5, 6, 7, it basically needed a couple of intermediaries to come to market to start creating demands to start taking like long positions and that effectively meant that there was almost a guaranteed demand for credits. I mean, we see that. The other thing we see is we see a lot more financial intermediaries looking at more advanced financial structures. So for example, we see financial intermediaries offering floor prices on projects, which is extremely helpful to get these projects across the line when it comes to financing from a financing point of view. And if you start that typical behavior of a market that is maturing, if you then start looking at the regulatory side of things, you see the European Commission providing more more clarity when it comes to the CRCF and the rule of removals thereof. The most recent consultation coming out of SBTI also provides more clarity. So overall, the trends are very much up. And if you then look at what that means from a poor point of view, we've really focused over the last six, seven months to make sure that we develop the right technical infrastructure in order to support that, you know, we launched my poor 2.0, which is very much an upgraded version of our portal for suppliers and buyers, which provides a lot more insight into what the requirements are that suppliers need to comply with, what the documentation is that they need to apply. This is a much more seamless type of functionality for them. We've also launched the MRVI PI, so it is effectively an interaction for the MRVI providers directly into our registry. And then we're also looking to launch the much improved issuance functionality where we're essentially will be moving from annual or monthly issuance of credits to effectively to issuance on the month. And the reason for that is that all those things will help with making these projects, the big projects, especially more bankable. And if you put the benchmark from a functionality point of view, quite high for big projects, then it will also trickle down for the smaller projects and the experience for development of smaller projects will automatically become easier as well. So I think if you add all of that up on one hand, after a initial dip in 25, when it comes to buy, when it comes to demand, we massively so an uptick when it comes to number of buyers, type of buyers. And also, we saw the innovation in financial products that are being offered. And then on the supply side, we saw more and more projects moving much closer to final investment decision and start built also on the large sense of the spectrum. So we're in mind that with a regulatory environment that becomes more and more supportive, I'm actually excited. It's very excited about 26, 27, 28. OK. So a lot of time back there, but just kind of a last question, perhaps, on the buyer side. Have you noticed changes in the way they approach purchasing carbon removal? Like, have buyers become more, like, do they have more discernment now? Are they better aware of the market and the specifics of carbon removal? Is there any change there at all or is this kind of more of a role that the intermediaries are taking on? I think we see, well, probably a bit of a mix of both. On one end of the spectrum, we've got really advanced buyers that know exactly what they want, have got their own in-house science teams know how to look at projects on a project back project basis. So I think that is one, but on the other hand, we also see new buyers coming into the market that actually rely much more on either consultants or on financial intermediaries to determine what it is that they're going to end up buying. So we probably see a mix of both. And that second group of buyers, that is, I wouldn't say that they're less discerning, but they're probably relying more on other parties to determine the quality of the projects or to assess the quality of projects rather than that they are building entire teams in-house to do that, which is, again, one of those indications that the market is becoming more mature and we are expecting more liquidity in the market as well. And how about things on the supply side, in that case, are suppliers responding to any kind of signals that they're receiving on the buyer side as far as looking for higher quality projects, et cetera, are there shifts there? Yeah, I think there's probably a number of important shifts to mention there. One of them is that we see more project developers keeping on developing the projects and also directly investing in projects, even if they don't necessarily have an off-take agreement that covers a large forward flow of the credits coming out of the projects, which means that there is more trust from the suppliers into this market that there will be off-take. So I think that's one. I think two is that we also see suppliers, and especially at the large end of the spectrum, they're asking for more flexibility on the type of credits that the project will show. What I mean with that is we, in quarter, we decided to unbord CCS+ into our environment. The main reason for that was that we had suppliers asking for the ability to register a project both under our own methodology for carbon capture storage, our GSE methodology, as well as under CCS+ and the main reason for that is that they have got buyers, some buyers who've got a reference for one methodology and another for another methodology. So we also see a stronger demand from suppliers to actually be a bit more flexible on the type of certification journey that we can take that project through. So in puro, we've very much responded to that by actually saying, yes, you can certify the project both under puro and as well as under CCS+ or choose one or the other. And then you can actually serve as the demands of the buyers and if you got more than one buyer, especially that is kind of relevant. So I think you see on the supply side very much an understanding of what it is that buyers really need and as puro, we will just basically accommodate that and especially when it comes to the smaller end of the suppliers, we really see people being much less risk of us. Okay. So that kind of brings me to the balancing of the equation since the question that's been talked about a lot lately is the impending shortage of high-quality carbon credits. Some folks say that we're already in it, others are saying that it's just around the corner. What's the situation looking like from your perspective? There's a big difference, I think, between spot and forward some futures. On the spot side of things, we see definitely a shortage for specific project types. On the forwards, the future side of things, it is definitely a shortage in this moment and time. So I think it's, and we've seen that throughout the history of the voluntary carbon markets, there is buyer preference for specific project types, there is buyer preference for projects with co-benefits, there is buyer preference for projects, specific technologies in specific geographies. So I think the overall picture is going to be a bit more mixed than just saying that the market is going to be short supply or is going to be short demand. I think it will be, or the foreseeable future, because there will be shortage in specific project types and specific project geography combinations, whereas maybe other project types and other methodologies are a bit less popular from a by-site point of view. And I think we're moving very much from a project by project assessment period into a much more methodology standard assessment, so that means that we do, we will see a change in buyer-based view there when where they will just start to trust specific methodologies and specific registries independent of the underlying projects much more than has traditionally be the case. And that should lead to an increase in speed of those transactions over the next couple years. But yeah, so I think overall we do see a shortage on the forwards definitely. And I think that will keep on being the case for the next couple years. And in that line of thought, kind of how do you see articles six changing the market? Is it changing it at all at this point, or is that something that we're likely to only just see in the future? So I think the article six is an interesting one, so if you look at the voluntary carbon market as it is at this moment in time, most companies are buying removals as part of a overall carbonate zero or a type of approach. And if you then start looking at using removals within the context, for example, scope three, urbanization, article six is a bit of a red herring in that you create credits in a country. They're being used by a company to neutralize their emissions in the same country. There is no international transfer of credits. It is very much sitting within the stays within the voluntary carbon market space. There is no need, in my opinion, for article six involvement in those projects. So I think article six will change the market, but it will not be in the next couple of years. And I actually think that within the context of voluntary carbon market, and especially within the context of scope one to three, violent neutrality debates, I actually think article six made very well, never play a very big role in that. Where it will make a bit difference is where voluntary compliance markets get together or within the context of compliance markets as a whole, but that will all play out over the next 12-24 months. We very much keep our eye on that within the context of poorer. And of course our systems can facilitate article six transactions, but it is not something that I think will be extremely important in the voluntary carbon market space over the next 12-24 months. So just to clarify is because you don't believe that we're looking at any type of convergence of compliance and voluntary markets in the next couple of years. Well, I actually think that sometimes even if you're using the waste voluntary compliance is a bit confusing, but no, I fundamentally think that there will be multiple markets sitting alongside each other. If you start looking at the impact of SBTI guidance, where it's very much talking about sector bisector approaches to decarbonization, I actually think that the role of engineers removes within that will also be very much sector bisector based, and I don't think there will be an article six of ordnance. If you ask me whether there will be converges from a methodology point of view, I do think that eventually methodologies will converge between article six, CRCF, our own methodologies etc. But I think that is still, I don't know, 10, 15 years out. Oh, well, do you believe that that might be too long? I mean, it definitely sounds like it might be too long, 10, 15. I believe that there will be a whole load of different markets sitting along the study center. I think the voluntary carbon market in its own right is big enough to actually have significant impact in the climate change from them that we are all trying to tackle here. And of course, compliance markets will help, but if we look at the past and how the time frames at which things can move and develop, I think we shouldn't wait for compliance markets and especially international compliance markets to come in in order to maintain momentum or increase momentum. Okay. That was kind of going to be my next question for you, especially given like you mentioned the UCRCF and the progress that's been made there over the past year. So what role would you say that policy plays in scaling carbon removal technologies at the moment? It's always dependent on in the end on the details, but obviously the signals that are coming out of the commission are quite bullish when it comes to the role both of removals that come from projects that are based in the European Union as well as international carbon removals. But again, into the timeline there is super important. We're looking at five, six, seven years from now, when there's going to be significant demand signal coming out of the system there, the positive thereof is that it will actually provide a more secure demand signal and it will also provide some price discovery for a lot of projects that are currently being developed and given the fact that the very large projects typically take three to five years to develop anyway, it's an important demand signal. I think what it does is exactly that, it basically provides some medium-term security when it comes to price expectations and the mount expectations, which means that it's easier for developers to actually now start developing the projects knowing that there's got to be off-take. So if you had to kind of really really simplify it, boil it down to just like one single most necessary component in scaling this industry, what would you say that would be to really reach gigaton levels of carbon removal? I think we're actually, we're actually not very far away from what I think is needed. We need medium-long-term compliance demands with price signals, which is being created by CRCF and other compliance schemes in the world. Two is we need clear guidance in the voluntary market about the role of engineering removals within the context of decarbonizing the activities of companies most notably the supply chains, which we are getting within the context of SBTI. And that then will almost automatically leads to increased activity from financial players, financial intermediaries in the markets, which we also see the beginnings of. So I think we've got the basic ingredients there, we're just waiting for more and more clarity in all those mechanisms. And as soon as that happens, I think there is nothing that stands in the way of this becoming a gigaton market. Okay. And so to maybe summarize and like kind of do the crystal ball moment, what do you think the coming year will look like for CDR? What are your predictions based on your experience in the trends that you're noticing and we've discussed so far? From 2627 on the supply side, I think we will see more and more smaller projects being developed and financed. We will see that happening not just in the country, we're currently where we currently see activities, but we will also see a massively ramped up activity in the global sales and countries where they're currently well, yet many projects, I think there's one, two on the supply side, I'm expecting some final investmentizations and start build of some very large infrastructure projects on the backs and the duck sites. We will see enhanced rock weathering becoming a much more mature segment of the market. On the demand side, I'm expecting more financial intermediaries to come into this market that will be taking speculative positions and we will see much more complex financial structures coming to market. So I think 26 is going to be an extremely exciting year, both from a supply and a mountains point of view, really moving to a much more mature markets. Since you mentioned enhanced rock weathering, I'm curious, do you see it as kind of like the pathway that would be falling up on biochar? Do you see any pathway realistically kind of being able to compete with biochar? I think every single technology will play its own role and I think we can't predict exactly what the market is going to look like. But what I do think is that is not just going to be a cost discussion. In the same way that in the power system, you have got relatively expensive generators of power that play a role within the context of dealing with teak demands for power. I think you will probably see the same happening in the engineer removal space. I can see various technologies that are easily switch on the switch offable, play a role that a guest survives, for example, playing the speakers in the power system. And then prize is not that relevant. So I think it will be a mix of technologies that is going to be playing out over the next couple of years. And that means that some projects will skill in different ways than others. I mean, rock weathering is interesting in that a large part of the cost is actually very bored. If you can get those variables caused down, then we should allow rock weathering to skill quite dramatically. So from a crystal ballpoint of view, and it's the same as with energy transition, it's going to be a mix of technologies that is going to be making up this world over the next 10, 15 years. And I think all the technologies that you're currently talking about will probably play a role in the ecosystem in one way or another. And so it's a very curious analogy that you made with the energy mix, and the different carbon removal pathways to make sure I understood that correctly. Does that mean that the more expensive ones would benefit from this potential shortage of carbon credits and those will be the pathways that have demand in times of peak demand and supply shortage? Yeah, I think if you look at what happens in the first round of voluntary carbon markets, there were a lot of companies that were struggling financially because they actually had promised deliveries of credits, of specific values of credits with specific ventages. There were not really, there were not really mechanisms out there to temporarily ramp up volumes of specific projects because of the way that the carbon market was structured because you had annual audits and things like that. But also because of the characteristics of the technologies, whereas if you are looking at engine in removals, I think what is very different between an engine in removal and a reduction credit or an avoidance credit, and especially if you start comparing with nature-based solutions, I mean if you start a direct air capture project today, you can issue your first credits effectively tomorrow. And so you can imagine that if there are financial players that have signed contracts where they have to deliver certain values by a certain time, that price of credits is much less relevant than the ability to quickly generate a specific volume, and whether that's direct air capture or backs or rock-watering may be not, but rock-watering or another technology doesn't really matter. But basically, I do expect that because of the that's been the mental difference between engine in removals and other types of projects, you can actually see a role for technologies that is actually dependent on the off-take contracts that have been signed by intermediaries or by developers to actually just be able to quickly ramp up a ramp down production based on specific demand, or maybe as soon as you talk about proper liquid markets, it makes sense to ramp up and ramp down based on price signals. So I do see that happening in the engine in removal space and it's totally different way than you see in other parts of carbon markets. Okay, so JW that raised me to my final question for today. What does pure hours have planned for the new year? Are there any exciting developments in the making that you can already give us a sneak peak of? Yes, I think the most exciting one is the announcement that's probably going to come through in January February, where we really start moving from issuance based on, you know, monthly or annual time intervals to issuance on the month. So I think it's extremely exciting point that when developers want to have an audit done, we should be able to actually issuance those credits on the month. And the way I've been talking about it is within the context, for example, of a BEX project. I mean, BEX projects, they capture CO2 from a combined heat and power system. You capture CO2, you store it on the boat. And then the boat goes to an offshore or an onshore storage site in the CO2 gets stored. I mean, their way of thinking is not in terms of months or years. The way of thinking is I've got a boat there and one boat load is worth, I don't know, two, three, four, five million euros worth of credits. Why not audit an issuance on a boat load by boat load basis? And I think that is one of those examples of things that we want that we're launching in the next year that should really be a game changer for a lot of these developers, because it actually follows their operations rather than anything else. So I think that is one. I think two is we working quite closely together with NASDAQ with our one of our shareholders to really start looking at additional functionality when it comes to what is it that financial intermediaries are looking for. And so we will also announce a number of changes in our registry environment that are much more useful for financial intermediaries for my security point of view, but also from a functionality point of view. And then I think we will see why it's a lot of extremely exciting large projects coming to market next year, which I think is super exciting as well. And then obviously we're in the context of regulatory stuff. I'm very much hoping that we will get some of our methodologies now to be approved on their ICVC. I'm in the first couple of months of the new year as well. Well, I think that is some, the main things that we're focusing on is how we can actually really stabilize our infrastructure and add additional functionality in order to really become that bad rock of the engineering removal market. Well, it's definitely sounds like a very, very exciting year ahead. I really can't wait for all these announcements to drop when they do. JW, thank you so much for your time today. It was wonderful to speak to you. And I wish you and Puro a very successful 2026 ahead. Thank you very much for having us. It's an absolute pleasure. If you enjoyed this episode of the carbon stations podcast and would like to hear more conversations like this, please be sure to subscribe. We really appreciate the support.