A market intelligence publication is only as useful as its data discipline. Before reading analysis from this platform, it helps to understand how project data is collected, classified, and quality-checked. This post sets out the general framework used in the Renewable Fuels Intelligence SAF Project Tracker.

Detailed methodology documentation, including stage probability assumptions, analyst adjustment rules, feedstock normalisation logic, unit conversion factors, and source verification protocols, is available to paid subscribers.

What gets tracked

The SAF Project Tracker covers global projects involved in sustainable aviation fuel production across the full development cycle, from early concept announcements through to commercial operation. Coverage includes dedicated SAF plants, flexible renewable fuels facilities with SAF production capability, refinery co-processing units, alcohol-to-jet facilities, Fischer-Tropsch gasification plants, and power-to-liquid installations.

A project is included when it meets three conditions: it produces or is credibly planned to produce SAF as a primary or significant co-product; it has been publicly announced by the developer, confirmed by a government source, or identified in a credible trade publication; and enough information exists to assign at minimum a country, technology pathway, and project stage. Projects are excluded where they relate only to renewable diesel or HVO with no credible SAF pathway, where they are limited to blending or distribution infrastructure without production, or where they duplicate an existing tracked entry.

How project stages are defined

Not all SAF projects are equal. A facility in commercial production today is fundamentally different from a concept-stage announcement that has not progressed into engineering. Treating them as equivalent inflates headline pipeline numbers and creates a misleading view of likely deliverable supply.

Each project is assigned to one of seven mutually exclusive stages based on the highest-quality available evidence, not on developer language alone: Operating, Construction, FID, Pre-FID, Announced, Pilot/Demonstration, and Cancelled/Shutdown. First production of on-spec fuel does not automatically qualify a project as operating if commercial production has not been confirmed. Likewise, a completed FEED study or an EPC announcement does not automatically place a project under construction unless physical works are clearly underway.

How probabilities are applied

The tracker uses a two-tier probability framework. Each project stage carries a baseline commissioning probability, but that baseline can be adjusted at the individual project level where project-specific evidence supports a different risk profile. This produces a more useful risk-adjusted view of the pipeline than a rigid stage-only lookup.

Analyst adjustments are applied conservatively and only within defined ranges. Every non-default probability assignment must be documented in the project record, including the evidence or analytical rationale supporting the adjustment. If that rationale becomes stale or is contradicted by new evidence, the probability reverts to the stage default until reviewed again.

The primary analytical metric used in the publication is probability-weighted SAF capacity. This applies the assigned commissioning probability to estimated SAF capacity in order to reflect more realistic deliverable supply, rather than gross announced totals that aggregate projects regardless of development maturity. Cancelled or shutdown projects carry a probability of zero and are excluded from weighted totals.

How capacity is handled

The tracker separates several different capacity concepts rather than treating all disclosed numbers as interchangeable. These include estimated SAF capacity, total renewable fuels capacity, modelled base SAF capacity, realistic SAF capacity, and ramp-adjusted SAF capacity. Where a source discloses only total renewable fuels capacity rather than an explicit SAF split, an analyst-assigned SAF figure may be derived using pathway-specific split assumptions, and that treatment is flagged in the project record. Full renewable fuels nameplate capacity is not presented as SAF capacity unless the source clearly supports that interpretation.

Capacity data is standardised to kilotonnes per year using defined conversion assumptions for barrels per day, US gallons, cubic metres, and selected CAPEX currency conversions where relevant. Detailed conversion rules are available in the full methodology documentation.

How feedstocks are handled

Feedstock data is normalised to a controlled vocabulary of nine categories. Verbatim source descriptions are preserved alongside the normalised assignment so that every classification can be traced back to the underlying source language. Normalisation is applied through a structured keyword-based rule set to improve consistency across projects and regions.

The tracked feedstock categories include UCO, animal fats, PFAD, vegetable oils, mixed waste oils, MSW/RDF, alcohol feedstock, CO2 plus green hydrogen for PtL, and industrial off-gases. Where a project uses more than one feedstock family, all relevant categories are recorded.

Where a source does not disclose explicit feedstock intake, project-level demand is estimated using a default feedstock-to-fuel ratio. Where a source does disclose explicit intake, that figure overrides the default assumption and the departure is flagged in the project record.

Sources, verification, and confidence

Primary sources are prioritised wherever possible. These include operator or developer press releases, technology licensor announcements, EPC award disclosures, government and certification body releases, and project finance documentation. Reputable trade press and market intelligence publications are used as supporting sources where appropriate, but the source hierarchy is explicit and conservative.

Technology licensor attribution is only assigned where it is explicitly stated in a primary source or in the licensor’s own disclosure. It is not inferred from industry norms. Where credible sources conflict on status, capacity, or stage, the conflict is flagged in the project record rather than silently resolved.

Each project is also assigned a confidence level, High, Medium, Low, or Watchlist, to reflect the quality and completeness of the available evidence base. Confidence level does not directly determine weighted capacity, but it is used as a qualitative signal in published analysis where evidence quality is materially relevant to the interpretation. Each project row also carries a last verified date so stale records can be identified and re-checked before use in published outputs.

What is not claimed

The tracker does not claim complete global coverage. It is a bounded project universe built on what can be verified. Coverage limitations are acknowledged explicitly. Current constraints include thinner plant-level visibility in China, underrepresentation of some European co-processing sub-units, possible gaps in US biorefinery conversions where SAF splits are not separately disclosed, and lower average confidence in some UK Advanced Fuels Fund projects where capacity data comes primarily from government grant listings. African coverage has improved, with initial projects now added, but the region may still be underrepresented relative to actual activity.

All analytical claims derived from the tracker are bounded to the tracked project universe. Numbers published through this platform should not be read as global constants or as a complete representation of worldwide SAF production capacity.

A living dataset

The tracker is version-controlled and updated on a rolling basis as new evidence becomes available. Project additions, status changes, capacity revisions, confidence updates, and methodology refinements are incorporated through regular review cycles. Each project record carries a last verified date, and stale records are flagged for priority re-verification before they are used in premium analytical outputs. The current methodology note corresponds to Version 2.0, published in March 2026.

Detailed methodology documentation, including exact stage probabilities, analyst adjustment bands, feedstock normalisation rules, conversion formulas, and project-level limitations, is available to paid subscribers.

Questions about methodology or data sourcing can be directed to the editorial team via the contact link below.

Subscribe now

Renewable Fuels Intelligence is an independent publication focused on the global buildout of sustainable aviation fuel, or SAF.

The publication tracks SAF projects worldwide, including operating plants, facilities under construction, and announced developments. The goal is to provide a clearer view of how the industry is actually evolving.

Subscribe now

Rather than relying on headline announcements, Renewable Fuels Intelligence focuses on project-level analysis, examining factors such as capacity, timelines, technology pathways, and project credibility.

The objective is simple: to provide a more decision-useful view of the SAF market than headline capacity announcements alone.

This publication is designed for professionals working across the SAF ecosystem, including airlines, investors, lenders, refiners, technology developers, consultants, and strategy teams.

Paid subscribers receive premium SAF intelligence, including curated tracker extracts, periodic updates on the global SAF project pipeline, and analytical notes on key developments in the market.

Renewable Fuels Intelligence focuses exclusively on SAF project intelligence.