H3 / 01● In flight
Carbon mineralisation
Lime
A direct-air pathway leveraging Ørsted's offshore footprint to drive industrial-scale carbon removal at a competitive marginal cost.
≥ 1.2bn DKK gross NPV→
Executive SummaryThe ProblemThree PathwaysStandalone EntityReview GateFirst CandidateGovernanceThe MandateCost of InactionOpen Questions
ØMemorandum — May 2026
TheInnovationEnd-Game
A framework for commercialising transformative bets — and the vehicle we need to build before someone else does.
5.2bn
DKK active NPV
3.0bn
DKK run-rate ambition
18–24
month review gate
3
commercialisation pathways
Scroll
Standalone EntitiesØTransformative BetsØAdjacent RevenueØH3 VehicleØBuilt to ShipØStandalone EntitiesØTransformative BetsØAdjacent RevenueØH3 VehicleØBuilt to ShipØStandalone EntitiesØTransformative BetsØAdjacent RevenueØH3 VehicleØBuilt to ShipØ
§ 01Executive Summary
The challenge is no longer
finding good ideas.
In one paragraph
The current model graduates ideas into existing BUs. H3 has no BU. We need a different vehicle.
One Innovation has built a portfolio of genuine strategic value — 5.2bn DKK in active NPV, a 3bn DKK run-rate ambition, and a pipeline that is now financially material. The challenge is no longer finding good ideas. It is making sure that the best ones — especially the transformative H3 bets — actually reach their full commercial potential.
The current commercialisation model works well for H1 projects: a clear BU owner, a proven stage-gate, direct handover. For H3 — truly transformative bets that could create new business units, new revenue streams, or entirely new industries for Ørsted — the model breaks down. There is no vehicle, no process, and no mandate specifically designed to take these projects from idea to independent commercial entity.
- H1continues through the existing stage-gate and graduates to BU ownership.
- H2is developed jointly with BU co-sponsorship via a structured co-development protocol.
- H3is placed into dedicated Standalone Entities — ring-fenced, Innovation-owned, given 18–24 months to prove independent commercial viability.
§ 01·bThe portfolio in numbers
The pipeline is now financially material — the question is how we land it.
Ø — DKK
0.0bn
Active NPV in the portfolio
Already booked across H1, H2 and H3 projects in flight.
Ø — DKK
0.0bn
Run-rate ambition by 2030
The H3 share of this number cannot land via existing BUs.
Ø — months
0→24
Standalone entity review gate
Structured decision — reintegrate, spin-off, or close.
Ø — projects
0.0
First H3 cluster: offshore services
Lime · CaCaO · Halø.Gen · Battery Parks.
§ 02The problem
Why large bets stall.
The velocity gap is real, concentrated, and getting worse as the portfolio grows. The deeper problem is structural: Ørsted has built an engine optimised for graduation into existing business units. That engine is not designed for projects that have no existing home.
Core tension
H3 projects are evaluated, funded, and staffed as if they are H1. They are not. They require a different operating model, a different risk appetite, and a different definition of success.
Four hypotheses — not mutually exclusive
Hypothesis H1 — Filtering problem
Measured wrong.
H3 projects are scored against the same gate criteria as H1. Their Business Adoption multiplier starts at 0.3–0.6 versus 0.9–1.0. They look worse on paper, get deprioritised, starved — not because they are bad bets, but because the scorecard was built for a different game.
0104
§ 03The framework
Three pathways
to value.
The framework does not replace the stage-gate. It extends it. H1 and H2 projects continue through the existing process with incremental enhancements. H3 projects are placed on a separate, purpose-built track from the moment they are identified as transformative.
End-Game Pathway
Standalone Entity — 18–24 month incubation inside Innovation; review gate decides reintegration or spin-off.
Creates new categories or business models; no existing owner; TRL 1–5.
Examples in flight
LimeCaCaOHalø.GenBattery Parks
Success metric
Independent revenue run-rate or strategic option value at 18-month review.
Process
Separate track: lighter stage-gate, bolder milestone criteria.
Note — The H2 pathway is the least defined element of this framework. Three options are under consideration. A decision is needed before the framework is fully operational.
§ 04The H3 Vehicle
Standalone Entities — taken out of the pipeline, given their own engine.
When a project is identified as genuinely transformative — no natural BU home, large addressable market, platform-level potential — it is taken out of the standard pipeline and placed into a dedicated vehicle with its own team, its own budget, and its own operating mandate.
Day 024 months
Phase 1months
0 — 6
Formation
Focus
Team hiring, market thesis, business model definition.
Ownership
Innovation. Dedicated entity lead appointed.
Funding
Innovation budget. Seed allocation defined at formation.
Gate
Clear thesis, team in place, IP secured.
Phase 2months
6 — 18
Validation
Focus
First customers, product-market fit, initial revenue.
Ownership
Innovation P&L. BU observer on steering group.
Funding
Innovation budget + potential external co-investment.
Gate
Paying customer(s), validated unit economics, 12-month roadmap.
Phase 3months
18 — 24
Review Gate
Focus
Decision: reintegrate, spin-off, or close.
Ownership
GET decision based on defined criteria.
Funding
BU balance sheet (reintegration) or external capital (spin-off).
Gate
Revenue trajectory, strategic fit score, BU appetite or investor interest.
§ 05The 18-month gate
Not an automatic exit.
A structured decision.
The 18-month gate is the pivotal moment. It is not an automatic continuation or an automatic exit — it is a structured decision with defined criteria and GET involvement. Three outcomes are possible.
Outcome 01◆
Reintegrate
Becomes a new Ørsted BU
The entity has proven commercial viability, has a defensible market position, and clear strategic fit with Ørsted's long-term direction. A BU structure is established.
Outcome 02◆
Spin-off
Releases value externally
The entity is viable but the strategic fit is weaker than the value of operating independently. Ørsted retains equity. The team continues. Value is captured through ownership, not operation.
Outcome 03◆
Close
Disciplined ending
The thesis has not held. Capital is returned to the portfolio, lessons documented, IP harvested. Closing is a feature, not a failure — it makes ambition affordable.
§ 06First candidate
An Ørsted Offshore Services entity.
A natural first H3 entity is the cluster of projects sitting at the intersection of Ørsted's offshore platform and adjacent commercial opportunity. A platform, not a product.
The cluster lets Innovation test the H3 vehicle, prove the model, and create a tangible reference case before applying the framework to future H3 projects.
Ø First H3 cluster
Four projects. One vehicle. A platform, not a product.
Scroll horizontally →
H3 / 02● In flight
Process electrification
CaCaO
Electrifying calcination — a hard-to-abate emission source — using surplus offshore generation. A platform play, not a single product.
Platform · multi-customer→
H3 / 03● In flight
Green molecule
Halø.Gen
An adjacent-revenue molecule built on the existing wind asset base. Capital-light at formation, capital-heavy at scale.
Adjacent — 0.9bn DKK NPV→
H3 / 04● In flight
Grid platform
Battery Parks
Storage as a commercial platform — wrapping Ørsted's grid know-how into a third-party-addressable product. A natural standalone candidate.
Standalone-ready 2027→
Cluster
01 — 04
“The question is not whether these projects are good bets individually. It is whether we have the organisational vehicle to realise their collective potential.
§ 07Governance options
Three structures.
Different trade-offs.
Each model involves different trade-offs between speed, control, capital access, and organisational complexity. The governance choice shapes hiring, IP strategy, and stakeholder management from day one.
ARecommended for first entity
Internal Venture Unit
Dedicated ring-fenced team inside Innovation; own P&L; reports to Innovation head.
+ Strengths
- ＋Fast to stand up
- ＋No legal complexity
- ＋Retains talent and IP inside Ørsted
− Trade-offs
- −May inherit corporate constraints
- −Harder to attract external capital or talent at market rates
BRevisit at 18-month review
Majority-owned Subsidiary
Legally separate entity; Ørsted >50% shareholder; own board and CEO.
+ Strengths
- ＋Can attract external capital and talent
- ＋Credible as independent market player
- ＋Creates option value
− Trade-offs
- −Legal and tax complexity
- −Requires GET/Board mandate
- −Slower to launch, governance overhead
CFuture option — capability gap
Corporate Venture Build
Ørsted co-founds venture with external partner or VC; minority retained stake.
+ Strengths
- ＋Maximises speed and external validation
- ＋Signals seriousness to market
- ＋De-risks capital commitment
− Trade-offs
- −Loss of control
- −IP protection more complex
- −Requires dedicated venturing capability Ørsted does not currently have
§ 08The mandate
A plan without an engine is just a memo.
The current mandate allows Innovation to develop projects to graduation. It does not allow Innovation to build and operate new businesses. That is the gap this framework requires us to close.
- ⊕01Run a commercial P&L with hiring and investment authority independent of project-level budget cycles.
- ⊕02Make formation decisions on Standalone Entities without requiring BU co-sponsorship at the point of launch.
- ⊕03Represent Ørsted as the majority shareholder in externally-facing entities.
- ⊕04Recruit and retain talent at venture-level compensation structures, not standard Ørsted salary bands.
- ⊕05Enter into commercial agreements and IP structures on behalf of the standalone entity.
§ 09The cost of inaction
Doing nothing
is a choice.
NPV decay
Value erosion
Schedule delay multipliers compound. Forecasts slip. The longer Lime, CaCaO and Halø.Gen wait, the more value evaporates.
Market timing
Competitive exposure
External players — Breakthrough Energy-backed startups, Siemens Energy, Vestas — are building in exactly these spaces. The window is open now.
People
Talent risk
These teams are entrepreneurial by nature. If Ørsted can't offer a credible path to launch, they will find the path elsewhere.
Strategic
Adjacent revenue gap
Adjacent revenue, built on Ørsted's platform, is one of the most credible paths to long-term resilience. The current model underutilises it.
“Several billion DKK of H3 gross NPV is on the table. The question is whether Ørsted builds the vehicle to capture it — before someone else does.
§ 10Open questions
An opening move,
not a closing argument.
Before the framework can move from proposal to implementation, the following questions need answers from leadership.
Build the VehicleØThen the Value FollowsØOne InnovationØØrstedØBuild the VehicleØThen the Value FollowsØOne InnovationØØrstedØBuild the VehicleØThen the Value FollowsØOne InnovationØØrstedØ