Prepared for lenders, CDCs, and federal agencies to SBA SOP 50 10 8, USDA 7 CFR Part 5001, and conventional underwriting standards. Fiduciary duty runs to the lender and the agency, never the borrower. 4,000+ engagements since 1998 covering $41.2 billion in evaluated project value. So far in 2026: 41 engagements and $1.54 billion evaluated — 17 SBA, 11 USDA.
Carbon-capture feasibility is credit-revenue analysis under technology and storage risk: the capture rate and cost per tonne against the 45Q or voluntary-market value, the CO2 transport and storage path including Class VI well status, the host facility's economics and commitment, and the monitoring obligations carried through the project life. Direct-air-capture and utilization projects are evaluated with technology-readiness stated honestly.
The analysis combines engineering capture estimates independently reviewed, credit-value modeling at conservative assumptions, storage and transport assessment, and capital benchmarks where comparable projects exist. Conditions precedent on permitting are stated plainly.
Every Wert-Berater financial model is fully linked with no hardcoded values, so any reviewer can stress any input. Deliverables comprise a complete narrative report and the linked Excel model, with ten-year pro forma, sensitivity analysis at ±5, 10, and 15 percent, interest-rate stress from +0.5 to +3.0 percent, and ratio analysis benchmarked against RMA and IBISWorld data.
SBA engagements are prepared to SOP 50 10 8, including its debt-service-coverage minimums of 1.15x operating and 1.00x global. USDA engagements follow RD Staff Instruction 5001 across the Business & Industry, Community Facilities, REAP, and Value-Added Producer Grant programs. Conventional engagements are built to the lender's stated coverage standard, typically 1.20x. Clean-energy engagements are prepared to USDA 7 CFR Part 5001 where REAP and B&I apply — including the energy-production documentation, incentive analysis, and payback arithmetic REAP requires — and to conventional and institutional standards otherwise, with interconnection and incentive risk addressed directly rather than assumed away.
Representative clean-energy work includes a $52,688,000 green carbon project evaluation and renewable-energy feasibility within the firm's USDA REAP and B&I practice. Independence is non-negotiable: determinations follow the evidence and are not revised under pressure, and studies are built to pass lender, agency, and third-party review without exception items.
A carbon capture & sequestration feasibility study prepared by Wert-Berater is not a technology white paper or a grant-narrative summary. It is a credit document built to answer the questions a lender or agency reviewer will raise before a commitment letter is signed. That means the engineering capture estimate, the credit-revenue path, the storage and transport chain, and the host-facility risk are each addressed in their own right and then integrated into a single, auditable financial model.
Deliverables for this asset class are assembled to match the complexity of the project type:
Demand analysis for a carbon capture project does not follow the same logic as a retail trade-area study or a hotel occupancy model. The “market” is the set of buyers willing to pay for verified CO2 reductions, and the price those buyers will pay is driven by regulatory mandates, voluntary commitments, and the availability of competing abatement options — not by population density or drive-time rings.
Wert-Berater builds the demand side from sources that are specific to this asset class. For compliance-market revenue, the analysis draws on published IRS guidance on 45Q credit mechanics, Treasury and IRS Notice updates, and the project’s own tax-equity or direct-pay election structure. For voluntary-market revenue, the analysis examines registry standards — such as those published by recognized third-party verification bodies — corporate buyer commitments disclosed in public sustainability filings, and the pipeline of competing supply visible in EPA Class VI permit applications and DOE project registries.
On the supply side, the study reviews announced capture projects in the same geographic corridor or targeting the same storage formation, using EPA Underground Injection Control records, DOE loan and grant award announcements, and state environmental agency permit queues. Transport capacity is assessed against FERC filings and publicly available pipeline capacity data where a shared trunk line is involved. The result is a demand picture grounded in verifiable public records rather than consultant forecasts, and every source is cited so a reviewer can check it independently.
Coverage ratios in carbon capture projects are sensitive to a small number of inputs that interact in ways that are not always obvious at the term-sheet stage. Identifying those inputs and stress-testing each one is the analytical core of the study. Because every Wert-Berater model is a fully linked Excel workbook with no hardcoded values, a lender or agency reviewer can move any single assumption and watch the coverage ratio recalculate in real time — without asking the analyst to rerun a locked model.
The assumptions that most frequently decide whether a project clears its coverage threshold are:
SBA, USDA, and conventional lenders each bring a distinct set of questions to a carbon capture credit, and a study that satisfies one standard does not automatically satisfy the others. Wert-Berater prepares each engagement to the specific program standard from the outset rather than retrofitting a generic report.
For SBA engagements prepared to SOP 50 10 8, the primary underwriting questions center on whether the project generates sufficient operating cash flow to cover debt service at the 1.15x operating and 1.00x global minimums, and whether the 45Q credit or voluntary-market revenue is treated as a reliable operating revenue stream or as a contingent benefit. The study addresses credit transferability, direct-pay election mechanics, and the conditions under which revenue could be recaptured or disallowed.
For USDA engagements under 7 CFR Part 5001 — whether through the Business & Industry, REAP, or Community Facilities programs — the agency requires documentation of the energy or environmental benefit, a clear payback analysis where REAP applies, and evidence that the project serves an eligible rural area and borrower. The study provides each of these elements in the format the agency’s underwriters expect.
Conventional lenders typically require a 1.20x coverage standard and place particular weight on the host-facility covenant package, the storage liability tail, and the creditworthiness of any off-take counterparty. The study addresses each of these directly, states any unresolved permitting conditions plainly, and does not paper over uncertainty with optimistic assumptions. Fiduciary duty runs to the lender and the reviewing agency; no fee is contingent on the finding.
The fee for a carbon capture & sequestration feasibility study is fixed and quoted in writing within one business day of an inquiry. It does not change based on the finding, and no portion of it is contingent on loan approval or project advancement. That structure is the only one consistent with the independence the engagement requires.
Standard delivery is ten to fifteen business days from receipt of a complete data room. For carbon capture projects, a complete data room typically includes the engineering capture estimate and its basis, the host-facility financial statements and any integration or off-take agreement, the Class VI permit application or approval, the 45Q election documentation or tax-equity term sheet, and the project’s capital cost schedule. Rush delivery is available when a lender’s commitment timeline requires it; the timeline is confirmed at engagement.
Once the study is complete, the bound narrative report and the fully linked Excel model are published to a secure client portal. The model stays live in the portal and recalculates when inputs change — so if a lender’s credit committee asks what coverage looks like at a higher interest rate or a lower capture rate, the answer is available immediately without commissioning a revision. Interest-rate stress runs from plus 0.5 to plus 3.0 percent; revenue and cost sensitivities run at plus and minus 5, 10, and 15 percent. Ratio analysis is benchmarked against RMA and IBISWorld data. An explicit statement of conditions identifies every item that must be resolved before the study’s conclusions can be relied upon without qualification.
The fee is fixed, quoted in writing within one business day, and does not change based on the study’s finding. No portion is contingent on loan approval or project advancement. The exact figure depends on project complexity, the completeness of available data, and whether rush delivery is required. Contact Wert-Berater with a project summary to receive a written quote.
Standard delivery is ten to fifteen business days from receipt of a complete data room. For carbon capture projects, the data room must include the engineering capture estimate, host-facility financials, Class VI permit status, and 45Q or voluntary-market revenue documentation. Rush delivery is available when a lender’s commitment timeline requires it; the schedule is confirmed at engagement.
Three factors make underwriting genuinely difficult: revenue depends on a tax credit whose transferability and recapture rules are still being interpreted under post-2022 guidance; storage permanence creates a liability tail that extends well past loan maturity; and the host facility’s operating decisions directly control captured volume. A credible study addresses all three rather than treating them as footnotes.
Not automatically. SBA and USDA have distinct coverage standards, documentation formats, and program-specific requirements — REAP, for example, requires a payback analysis and energy-production documentation that SBA does not. Wert-Berater prepares each engagement to the specific program standard from the outset rather than retrofitting a single report.
The study documents the current status of the EPA Underground Injection Control Class VI permit — whether an application has been filed, whether a permit has been issued, and what conditions remain outstanding. Unpermitted storage is treated as a condition precedent, not an assumption. The study does not project permit approval; it states what has and has not been granted as of the study date.
Yes. Where a project structures revenue from both sources — for example, 45Q for the compliance period and voluntary-market credits thereafter — the model treats each stream separately with its own price assumptions, timing, and risk profile. Voluntary-market revenue is modeled at conservative and declining price assumptions rather than current spot levels, and the two streams are never aggregated in a way that obscures the risk difference between them.
Qualify a project. Tell us about the project and the program. We will tell you the truth about it — scope, timeline, and fee confirmed before work begins.
Schedule a Zoom Call →Legal disclosure. Wert-Berater, Inc. offices are mailing addresses only. Following the COVID-19 pandemic the firm has elected to work remotely; its office locations receive mail and are not staffed for visitors or in-person meetings. Headquarters mailing address: 1968 South Coast Hwy, Ste 2382, Laguna Beach, CA 92651.
Wert-Berater, Inc. is an independent provider of feasibility studies and other related services. The firm does not provide financing or equity investment advice, and does not arrange, broker, or place debt or equity capital of any kind.
All appraisal assignments are performed by Bruce E. Jones, MAI, ASA-GC, BCA, CMEA, a member of the Appraisal Institute since 2006, a staff member of Wert-Berater, Inc. and owner of Special Purpose Realty Valuation.