Disseminated on behalf of Alaska Energy Metals Corporation.
The global nickel market enters 2026 after a bruising and uneven year. In 2025, macroeconomic stress, trade disruptions, and deep supply imbalances reshaped pricing and sentiment. Although short-term rallies have returned, the underlying structure of the market remains fragile. As a result, 2026 is shaping up to be a year defined by volatility rather than a sustained recovery.
A Challenging Backdrop from 2025
To understand where nickel is headed, it helps to revisit the environment it emerged from. In 2025, global trade flows came under pressure after the US implemented new tariff policies. These measures disrupted supply chains and dampened confidence across industrial commodities. At the same time, global manufacturing growth slowed, weighing heavily on the broader nonferrous metals complex.
SMM reported highlighted some significant points. Adding to the uncertainty, the US Federal Reserve sent mixed signals throughout the year. Expectations around interest rate cuts shifted repeatedly. Each change altered risk appetite and triggered sharp moves across commodity markets. Nickel, already vulnerable due to oversupply, struggled to attract sustained buying interest.
China attempted to offset some of these pressures. Policymakers rolled out proactive fiscal measures and maintained a moderately accommodative monetary policy. They also focused on boosting domestic demand and diversifying export routes to reduce exposure to trade frictions. In July, China introduced its “anti-involution” policy, aimed at curbing destructive price competition across industries.
Even so, nickel underperformed. While other nonferrous metals showed mixed results, nickel remained constrained by a clear mismatch between supply and demand. Prices trended lower for most of the year. LME nickel opened near $15,365 per tonne and slid to lows around $13,865 per tonne, marking a sharp reset in the price center.
2026 Nickel Price Outlook: A Volatile Start to the New Cycle
Momentum shifted suddenly toward the end of the year. From mid-December, nickel prices began climbing rapidly.
- By early January, LME prices had surged past $18,000 per tonne, the first time in more than a year. In just 12 trading sessions, prices jumped nearly 20%, catching many traders off guard.
Several factors fueled this rebound. Demand signals from China improved modestly, particularly from stainless steel mills and EV battery producers. At the same time, speculative positioning adjusted as supply risks from Indonesia returned to the spotlight.
Trading Economics analysis stated that Indonesia, the world’s largest nickel producer, hinted at a potential 34% reduction in output for this year. Meanwhile, Vale temporarily halted operations at its Pomalaa and Bahodopi mines while waiting for regulatory approvals. Although its flagship Sorowako mine continued operating, these pauses added to market caution.
Still, the rally faced clear limits. Inventory levels remained elevated. Combined LME registered and off-warrant stocks jumped nearly 58% last year, reaching more than 367,000 tonnes. In addition, large shadow inventories in Singapore and Kaohsiung continued to hang over the market. As a result, every price spike met resistance.
Price Expectations Remain Capped
Most analysts expect nickel prices to settle into a narrow band rather than trend sharply higher. Forecasts largely cluster between $15,000 and $16,000 per tonne. Several major institutions attribute the restrained outlook to ongoing surpluses.
- The World Bank’s 2026 nickel price outlook also revealed nickel prices to stay around US$15,500, rising to US$16,000 in 2027.
- Trading Economics data indicated that nickel futures moved back up to nearly $17,800 per tonne, reversing last week’s steep decline as buyers stepped back into the market.
Analysts consider that the differences in price forecasts primarily reflect contrasting views on how strictly Indonesia will enforce production limits and how quickly global manufacturing activity is expected to recover.
- CHECK: LIVE NICKEL PRICES
Nickel Demand Drivers Show Modest Growth
- Stainless steel: remains the dominant driver, accounting for about 70% of total demand. Consumption may rise to roughly 2.45 to 2.5 million tonnes. China’s production recovery offers support, while infrastructure projects in emerging markets add incremental demand. Still, no major surge is expected.
- Battery and EV application: They make up roughly 13% to 15% of demand. Nickel use in this segment could reach up to 500,000 tonnes. High-nickel cathodes continue to support premium EV models.
According to Benchmark Mineral Intelligence, demand for battery-grade nickel is expected to surge, tripling by 2030. This growth will largely be due to mid- and high-performance EVs in Western markets.
Other uses, including alloying, plating, aerospace, and electronics, provide steady but smaller contributions. A broader manufacturing recovery and net-zero investments could lift demand slightly, while faster EV adoption remains the main upside risk.
Supply-Demand Balance Stays Uneven
According to SMM, the nickel market will remain oversupplied through the year, remaining between 120,000 and 275,000 tonnes. While short-term rallies may continue, oversupply will remain the dominant force.
On the supply side, Indonesia’s refined nickel output stays high, supported by sunk investments and low operating costs. On the demand side, growth remains steady but unspectacular.
Ewa Manthey, a commodities strategist at London-Based ING Group, explained that the global nickel market is still set to remain oversupplied, with a projected surplus of about 261,000 metric tonnes. As a result, any production cuts would need to be deep and sustained to meaningfully shift market fundamentals.
China’s real estate support policies may provide limited relief for stainless steel consumption. However, a strong housing rebound appears unlikely, and any improvement is expected to be gradual. Similarly, demand from ternary batteries faces structural headwinds. Solid-state batteries remain years away from large-scale commercial use, and near-term battery chemistry trends do not favor a sharp jump in nickel intensity.
As a result, the average price level may drift lower over time. Tightening ore supply could briefly push prices above $16,000 per tonne. However, high inventories and excess capacity will take longer to absorb.
Why Nickel Matters for US Critical Mineral Independence?
Nickel plays a critical role in military-grade alloys, advanced weapons systems, electric vehicle batteries, grid-scale energy storage, and broader clean energy infrastructure. Despite its importance, the United States remains almost entirely dependent on imports for nickel, while China controls much of the global processing and supply chain. This reliance has become a clear strategic risk, one that domestic resources need more exploration.
And this is the reason America’s push to secure its critical mineral supply is gaining real momentum.
Spotlight: Alaska Energy Metals – America’s Nickel Backbone
At the center of this shift is Alaska Energy Metals Corporation (TSX-V: AEMC, OTCQB: AKEMF) and its Eureka deposit, the largest documented nickel resource in the United States. As Washington intensifies efforts to reshore critical supply chains for national security and clean energy goals, AEMC’s Nikolai Project in Alaska is steadily gaining recognition as a strategic domestic asset.
At the same time, the project aligns closely with the Trump administration’s executive orders focused on critical minerals and Alaska resource development. Those directives sought to speed up domestic production, curb reliance on foreign suppliers, and reinforce US security interests.
Against this backdrop, Nikolai stands out as a fully US-based “Sulphide nickel and battery metal project” to meet the country’s metal needs for the energy transition. Significantly, it has two claim blocks: Eureka and Canwell.
Eureka: The Largest Known Nickel Resource in the US
The Eureka deposit is not just large—it is nationally strategic. It hosts nickel alongside copper, cobalt, chromium, iron, and platinum group metals, including platinum and palladium. This metal mix makes Eureka highly relevant for both defense systems and the expanding clean energy economy.
According to the 2025 Mineral Resource Estimate, Eureka contains:
- Indicated Resource of 814 million tonnes grading 0.42% nickel equivalent, representing 5.62 billion pounds of nickel in situ.
- Inferred Resource of 896 million tonnes grading 0.39% nickel equivalent, totaling 9.38 billion pounds of nickel in situ.
Combined, the deposit contains more than 15 billion pounds of nickel, enough to support American demand for decades.
FAST-41 Listing Accelerates the Nikolai Project
A major step forward came when the Nikolai Project was accepted onto the FAST-41 Transparency Dashboard by the Federal Permitting Improvement Steering Council.
- The initial phase focuses on infrastructure upgrades, including rehabilitation and extension of the Rainy Creek Mining Trail, installation of temporary bridges, and development of an on-site camp.
These improvements will lower exploration costs, improve safety, enable better site access, and speed up the transition to advanced exploration and development at Eureka. Just as important, FAST-41 provides transparency, inter-agency coordination, and defined permitting milestones.
Key catalysts ahead
AEMC is entering a phase with several near- and mid-term value drivers. These include a first-pass metallurgical study to assess metal recovery, the potential for a major US Department of Defense grant, completion of a Preliminary Economic Assessment, and continued drilling at the Angliers target. Each step strengthens the investment and strategic case for Eureka.
Nickel Oversupply Overseas, Opportunity in the US
In summary, the nickel market faces another complex year. Structural oversupply, elevated inventories, and cautious demand growth define the landscape. Although policy shifts in Indonesia and short-term demand improvements can trigger sharp rallies, fundamentals continue to cap sustained upside. For now, nickel remains a market driven more by volatility than by balance.
As the US rebuilds its domestic critical mineral supply chain, assets like Eureka are becoming indispensable. With its scale, multi-metal profile, federal permitting support, and alignment with national policy priorities, Alaska Energy Metals Corporation is positioning itself as a key player in America’s push for resource security. In a world increasingly defined by competition for critical metals, Eureka has the potential to become the backbone of the US nickel supply for generations.
READ MORE: Nickel Demand to Triple by 2030: Can the Market Keep Up?
The post Nickel Prices Hit $18,000 in 2026 Amid Global Oversupply, US Boosts Domestic Supply Chain appeared first on Carbon Credits.
Insetting program design starts with your supplier map. The carbon claim comes much later.
Consider a coffee procurement team that funds a farm intervention before checking its sourcing data. The supplier aggregates coffee lots from several regions. The buyer lacks farm-level traceability. Another purchaser expects to report the same outcome. A more attractive project brochure solves none of these problems.
If the distinction between a value-chain intervention and a purchased credit is still open, read CCC’s Insetting vs Offsetting guide before you set the brief.
Insetting program design begins with the purchasing relationship and works outward. You need to decide 1) where an intervention belongs, 2) what business problem it addresses, 3) who pays for it, 4) how results will be measured, and 5) what the evidence will let you say about them. This five-step playbook turns that sequence into a procurement plan.
Step 1: Insetting program design starts with supplier mapping
Start with the commodities that matter most to your Scope 3 inventory and sourcing continuity. Ask finance for spend by supplier, sustainability for the emissions baseline, and category managers for origin and volume records. Then identify which suppliers can trace material to a jurisdiction, sourcing region, producer group, or individual land-management unit.
The level of traceability affects what you can account for. Under the GHG Protocol Land Sector and Removals Standard, the spatial boundary for purchased land-based products depends on the traceability associated with each volume. Farm-specific factors or removals require physical traceability through an acceptable chain-of-custody model. A contract with a tier-one trader, by itself, does not establish a link to the farms behind its deliveries.[1]
Build a first-pass table with five columns: commodity and annual volume; supplier and origin; current traceability level; land-use and production risks; and the business owner who can change the purchasing terms. Mark missing data plainly. A blank cell is cheaper to fix before a program starts than after a claim is drafted.
If your company sets an SBTi Forest, Land and Agriculture target (FLAG), keep its land-related target boundary separate from energy and industry emissions. The current FLAG guidance also requires relevant companies to assess primary deforestation-linked commodities in their value chains.[2]
Step 2: Choose a commodity and jurisdiction for a pilot
Select one supply corridor where the sourcing connection can be established and procurement has a reason to stay. A useful pilot has repeat purchases, suppliers willing to share records, an intervention matched to a diagnosed problem, and a defined plan to measure the result. Carbon potential alone is a poor selection rule if the supplier cannot deliver the crop your business needs.
Compare candidate regions on land-use risk, supplier concentration, local rights and tenure, the availability of baseline data, and exposure to drought, erosion, or forest conversion. Check the relevant legal requirements separately. A nature project does not satisfy a due-diligence obligation merely because it has a carbon method attached.
Consider a coffee buyer sourcing from two districts. In the first, producer-group records identify the farms, while recent dry seasons have increased rejected green coffee lots. In the second, deliveries pass through several intermediaries and farm origins are unknown. Pilot shade management in the first district, with local agronomic advice and quality checks built into the plan. The buyer can trace purchases there and test the intervention against a defined sourcing problem.
Use a short decision memo to record why the selected corridor beats the alternatives, what remains uncertain, and what would stop the pilot. That memo is the first control against a project drifting toward whatever happens to photograph well.
Step 3: Design the supplier engagement and commercial model
The intervention needs an owner on each side of the contract. Decide who supplies planting material or training, who maintains the practice, who bears the cost if a harvest disappoints, and how long the buyer expects to purchase from participating suppliers. Where smallholders participate, budget cash flow and technical support for practices that offer a later return.
Put these terms in a supplier agreement or pilot addendum. It should cover eligible farms and volumes, consent to data collection, access for monitoring, any land or carbon rights that matter, benefit sharing, and what happens if the purchasing relationship ends. Ask local counsel and producer representatives to review the arrangement. The Accountability Framework is a useful reference for supply-chain work involving forests, ecosystems, and human rights.[3]
Avoid assigning an automatic carbon benefit to the buyer. The contract should say which party has the right to report each outcome, how overlapping claims will be checked, and how any issued credits will be handled. A reduction reported in a buyer’s inventory cannot simply be sold for someone else’s offset claim without an accounting review. SBTi FLAG guidance excludes purchased credits used as offsets from near-term FLAG target achievement.[2]
Set commercial measures beside environmental ones: delivered volume, rejection rate, supplier retention, and procurement cost. They tell you whether the program works as a supply-chain investment, even if carbon accounting takes longer to resolve.
Step 4: Build monitoring, reporting, and verification before rollout
Agree on the baseline and data flow before paying for a full rollout. Identify the land units or sourcing regions in scope, the practices that change, the records suppliers already keep, and the additional measurements the program requires. Decide which data can come from field visits, transaction records, or remote sensing, and who checks each source.
For carbon, separate three questions. Did the practice happen? Did emissions or removals change under an applicable method? Can the buyer attribute a defensible share to its purchased goods without double counting? The GHG Protocol’s 2026 guidance includes dedicated chapters on spatial boundaries, data and methods, evaluating actions, credited outcomes, and assurance.[1] These are distinct jobs. A photograph of a planted tree answers only part of the first.
CCC’s MRV and Additionality article explains the separate evidence questions a project reviewer will ask.
Create an evidence file for every reporting period: dated supplier and farm records, purchase volumes, methods and emission factors, uncertainty, quality checks, and changes from the baseline. Specify who can challenge the data and how corrections are recorded. If a project also seeks credit certification, keep project accounting and corporate inventory accounting separate. The GHG Protocol says its land standard focuses on entity-level inventories and does not set the rules for credit certification.[4]
Start with the minimum viable measurement design that can survive review. Add complexity when the pilot tells you which data actually changes a decision.
Step 5: Decide what can be reported and claimed
Insetting program design needs reporting rules before the marketing copy. Procurement, sustainability, finance, and legal should agree on four distinct outputs: operational performance; observed land or nature outcomes; inventory effects, if the accounting criteria are met; and any separately issued credits. One dashboard can display them, but they should not share a single unqualified headline.
SBTi FLAG guidance allows certain land-based removals within a company’s operations or supply chain to contribute to FLAG pathways, subject to criteria including permanence, traceability, data quality, and allocation. It does not allow purchased offsets to meet near-term FLAG targets.[2] Eligibility therefore depends on evidence and the applicable target rules, not on calling an activity “insetting.”
Draft a claims register. For each proposed sentence, record the period, boundary, data owner, calculation method, reviewer, and whether the result is measured, estimated, or still a goal. If the evidence supports only “we funded a pilot with 200 farms,” say that. Do not turn a funding fact into a verified emissions reduction.
What good looks like by year three
Treat year three as a review point, not a promised payback date. A mature pilot should have mapped participating supply volumes, a stable supplier agreement, a repeatable data collection process, and a comparison of commercial and environmental results against the baseline. It should also have a documented answer for outcomes that cannot be included in the buyer’s inventory.
Scale only where the pilot improves a sourcing decision and the evidence can follow the product. If neither condition holds, redesign the intervention or change the corridor. A disciplined program can conclude that a site is unsuitable. That is useful procurement intelligence.
Discuss your insetting program with CCC
Carbon Credit Capital designs nature-based supply chain investments around sourcing needs and measurable sustainability outcomes. Schedule a consultation with our carbon and sustainability experts to map your tier-one supplier network, FLAG exposure, and first pilot decision.
Sources
[1] GHG Protocol, Land Sector and Removals Standard, version 1.1, and companion Guidance, June 2026: https://ghgprotocol.org/land-sector-and-removals-standard ; https://ghgprotocol.org/land-sector-and-removals-guidance
[2] Science Based Targets initiative, Forest, Land and Agriculture Science-Based Target-Setting Guidance, version 1.2, March 2026, especially pp. 16–17, 37, and 41: https://sciencebasedtargets.org/resources/files/SBTiFLAGGuidance.pdf
[3] Accountability Framework initiative, Accountability Framework and guidance for companies: https://accountability-framework.org/
[4] GHG Protocol, Frequently Asked Questions: Land Sector and Removals Standard, questions 10 and 18: https://ghgprotocol.org/blog/frequently-asked-questions-land-sector-and-removals-lsr-standard
Nature-based carbon investments deserve consideration when they address a specific business dependency and produce outcomes you can measure. Imagine Moonbucks, a global coffee roaster planning next season’s espresso blend. It is considering natural Grade 4 coffee from Jimma, in southwestern Oromia, Ethiopia. Its sourcing decisions affect the roasting schedule and the cash tied up in coffee purchases. Moonbucks needs to understand which measures could protect that supply, what they would cost and how it would judge the results.
1. Define the sourcing problem before choosing a project
Moonbucks needs a dependable component for its espresso blend. Its procurement team wants continuity of volume and an agreed cup profile. Replacing a shipment at short notice could require new sample approval and changes to the blend, and given the schedules for cultivation, processing, and freight delivery, is practically impossible. Moonbucks needs to get this right, and its initial concern is inconsistent deliveries. It commissions an assessment of the supplying farms and post-harvest chain. The questions cover land condition, harvest availability and whether drying or storage problems are affecting saleable lots.
This distinction changes the investment brief. A tree-planting proposal cannot be assumed to fix drying problems. Better storage cannot restore eroded land. The team must establish which problem exists before selecting the response.
CCC’s guide to finding nature-based solutions in your supply chain explains where to look. Here, the next task is to turn a broad concern into a testable proposal.
2. Develop nature-based carbon investments around the actual supply chain
The assessment would trace Moonbucks’ purchases back through the exporter and supplying producer groups. Which farms supply the contracted lots? Who controls land-management decisions? How long does the buyer expect to maintain the purchasing relationship?
Furthermore, Jimma natural Grade 4 cannot be treated as interchangeable with every Ethiopian coffee. Moonbucks would need to test any substitute against its own blend and quality requirements.
Suppose Moonbucks’ assessment identifies an opportunity to maintain shade trees and restore vegetation along exposed streambanks. The IPCC describes agroforestry as a way to store carbon in vegetation and soil, with potential benefits for erosion control and water quality.1 Moonbucks would need local advice on species, growing conditions and maintenance before deciding how these measures fit its sourcing plan.
The proposal now has a defined sourcing connection and a candidate intervention. The next steps are to test its effect on production, assess carbon eligibility and build the financial case.
3. Compare the proposal with other ways to protect supply
WBCSD’s Nature-based Solutions Blueprint recommends comparing nature-based options with other responses across their benefits and costs.2 For Moonbucks, that means evaluating the landscape proposal alongside drying improvements, storage controls and alternative sourcing arrangements.
The product’s natural-process designation matters. Moonbucks should examine the drying and dry-milling chain alongside land conditions. Its team would check storage practices, contamination risks and incoming-lot quality to see whether problems arise before or after the coffee leaves the farms.
The revised proposal might combine land stewardship with separate post-harvest controls. Each component needs its own purpose and budget. A sustainability label should not obscure which activity is expected to solve which problem.
The project develops as the evidence improves. Its scope should follow the diagnosis rather than preserve the first idea unchanged.
4. Establish what the carbon outcome could count toward
Moonbucks’ sustainability team now tests the proposed carbon case separately from the sourcing case. Is the objective a measurable change in Moonbucks’ value-chain emissions, verified credits for separate voluntary use, or distinct outcomes under carefully defined arrangements?
Scope 3 covers value-chain emissions. A purchasing relationship alone does not prove that a farm intervention can be included in Moonbucks’ inventory. The team needs an applicable accounting method, defensible boundaries and evidence supporting attribution.
SBTi’s FLAG Guidance (forest, land and agriculture), version 1.2, says purchased credits used as offsets cannot meet near-term FLAG or energy and industry targets. Eligible land-based removals are subject to accounting requirements.3 Moonbucks needs to test its proposal against those rules before including an outcome in its targets.
For Moonbucks’ Jimma proposal, maintaining existing trees and establishing new vegetation could involve different carbon questions. Specialists must examine the baseline and additionality, meaning what changes because the project proceeds. They must also assess measurement and the risk that stored carbon is lost. CCC’s MRV and additionality article introduces those tests.
Until that work is complete, Moonbucks should not budget an assumed Scope 3 reduction or credit-sale receipt. Direct emissions reductions remain the priority.
5. Build a financial case that survives weaker assumptions
Moonbucks’ finance team would now build a multi-year budget. UNEP’s State of Finance for Nature 2023 compares current finance with the investment needed to meet climate, biodiversity and land-restoration goals.4 The company would cost its proposed activities, farmer participation and ongoing monitoring. Verification, where required, is a separate expense. Maintenance and responsibility for replacing failed plantings must remain visible after the initial establishment budget ends.
Operational benefits need equally careful treatment. If fewer rejected lots reduce emergency purchasing, count that saving once. Do not add “supply resilience” as another financial benefit when it represents the same avoided cost.
Moonbucks should compare a base case with slower benefits, higher implementation costs and no carbon revenue. It should also distinguish production outcomes from quality and shipment outcomes. A single good harvest would not prove that the landscape intervention caused better delivery performance.
A project can remain worth funding even when its carbon case needs more work. That decision must rest on the operational evidence and the company’s objectives, without unsupported environmental claims.
6. Fund a pilot with a clear expansion decision
Moonbucks’ first approval would fund a bounded pilot, rather than commit the entire sourcing program. Before spending, Moonbucks would agree on participating farms, responsibilities and the evidence needed at review.
Its scorecard could track farmer participation, implementation costs and plant survival, alongside accepted coffee volumes and lot-quality results. Carbon measurements would follow the selected method. Farm-level traceability must connect the intervention to the actual sourcing relationship.
Suppose Moonbucks’ review later finds that storage changes explain most quality improvements, while the land measures need longer observation. Those findings would shape the next decision: expand the proven component, adjust the landscape work or pause further spending. They would not justify crediting all improvements to tree planting.
This gives nature-based carbon investments a practical place in a multi-year strategy. Funding increases as the evidence supports it, and the project can change direction before a larger commitment.
Discuss a sourcing opportunity with CCC
Carbon Credit Capital’s nature-based supply-chain investment service uses its Dual-Value Model to examine supply-chain economics alongside potential sustainability outcomes.
Schedule a consultation to discuss your sourcing exposure and the questions to resolve before allocating capital.
Sources
- Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), Climate Change 2022: Mitigation of Climate Change, Chapter 7, Agriculture, Forestry and Other Land Uses, section 7.4.3.3 (Agroforestry).
- World Business Council for Sustainable Development (WBCSD), Nature-based Solutions Blueprint, 5 June 2024.
- Science Based Targets initiative (SBTi), Forest, Land and Agriculture Science-Based Target-Setting Guidance, version 1.2, March 2026, section 3.1.4, pp. 37–38.
- United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), State of Finance for Nature 2023, 2023.
A plastic credit funds the collection of plastic waste in places where no formal system exists to collect it. Each credit represents a measured, independently audited quantity of plastic taken out of the environment or returned to use, tracked on a public registry.
