Uranium Energy Corporation (NYSE: UEC) has started production at its Burke Hollow project in South Texas. This is the first new uranium mine to open in the U.S. in over ten years.
The project started production in April 2026 after getting final regulatory approval. This marks a big step for domestic uranium supply. It’s also the world’s newest in-situ recovery (ISR) uranium mine, which shows a move toward less harmful extraction methods.
Burke Hollow was originally discovered in 2012 and spans roughly 20,000 acres, with only about half of the site explored so far. This suggests significant long-term expansion potential as additional wellfields are developed.
The mine’s output will go to UEC’s Hobson Central Processing Plant in Texas. This plant can produce up to 4 million pounds of uranium each year.
A Scalable ISR Platform Expands U.S. Uranium Capacity
The Burke Hollow launch transforms UEC into a multi-site uranium producer in the United States. The company runs two active ISR production platforms. The second one is at its Christensen Ranch facility in Wyoming; both are shown in the table from UEC.
This “hub-and-spoke” model allows uranium from multiple wellfields to be processed through centralized facilities, improving efficiency and scalability. UEC’s operations in Texas and Wyoming are now active. This gives them a licensed production capacity of about 12 million pounds per year across the U.S.
ISR mining plays a key role in this strategy. Unlike conventional mining, ISR involves circulating solutions underground to dissolve uranium and pump it to the surface. This reduces surface disturbance and can lower environmental impact compared to open-pit or underground mining.
Burke Hollow is the largest ISR uranium discovery in the U.S. in the last ten years. This boosts its long-term value as a domestic resource.
Unhedged Strategy Pays Off as Uranium Prices Rise
UEC’s production launch comes at a time of strong uranium market conditions. The company uses a fully unhedged strategy. This means it sells uranium at current market prices instead of securing long-term contracts.
This approach has recently delivered strong financial results. In early 2026, UEC sold 200,000 pounds of uranium for $101 each. This price was about 25% higher than average market rates. The sale brought in over $20 million in revenue and around $10 million in gross profit.
The strategy allows the company to benefit directly from rising uranium prices, which have been supported by:
- Growing global nuclear energy demand
- Supply constraints in key producing regions
- Increased long-term contracting by utilities
Unhedged exposure raises risk in downturns, but offers more upside in strong markets. UEC is currently taking advantage of this.
Nuclear Energy Growth Is Driving Demand for Uranium
The timing of Burke Hollow’s launch aligns with a broader global shift back toward nuclear energy. Governments are increasingly turning to nuclear power as a reliable, low-carbon energy source.
The International Atomic Energy Agency projects that global nuclear capacity could double by 2050, depending on policy and investment trends. This would require a significant increase in uranium supply.
In the United States, nuclear energy accounts for around 20% of electricity generation. It also produces zero carbon emissions during operations. This makes it a key component of many net-zero strategies.
There are several factors supporting renewed nuclear demand, including:
- Development of small modular reactors (SMRs)
- Extension of existing nuclear plant lifetimes
- Government funding to maintain nuclear capacity
- Rising electricity demand from data centers and electrification
As demand grows, securing a reliable uranium supply becomes increasingly important.
Reducing Import Risk: A Strategic Domestic Supply Push
The Burke Hollow project also addresses a major vulnerability in U.S. energy policy. The country currently imports about 95% of its uranium needs, leaving it exposed to global supply risks.
A large share of uranium production and enrichment capacity is concentrated in a few countries, including Russia and Kazakhstan. This concentration has raised concerns about supply disruptions and geopolitical risk.
By expanding domestic production, UEC is helping to reduce reliance on imports and strengthen the U.S. nuclear fuel supply chain.
The company’s broader strategy includes building a vertically integrated platform covering mining, processing, and, eventually, uranium conversion. This approach aligns with U.S. government efforts to rebuild domestic nuclear fuel capabilities.
Federal programs have allocated billions to boost uranium production and enrichment. This shows how important the sector is.
Two Hubs, One Strategy: Wyoming Supports the Texas Breakthrough
While Burke Hollow is the main focus, UEC’s Christensen Ranch operation in Wyoming remains an important part of its production base.
The Wyoming site has recently received approvals for expanded wellfield development, allowing it to increase output alongside the Texas operation.
Together, the two sites form the foundation of UEC’s dual-hub production model. However, it is the Texas project that marks the first new U.S. uranium mine in over a decade, making it the central milestone in the company’s growth strategy.
Investor Momentum Builds Around Uranium Revival
The restart of U.S. uranium production is drawing strong attention from investors and industry players. Uranium markets have tightened in recent years, driven by rising demand and limited new supply.
UEC’s production launch has already had a positive market impact. The company’s share price rose following the announcement, reflecting investor confidence in its growth strategy.
At the same time, utilities are increasing long-term contracting activity to secure fuel supply. This trend is expected to continue as new nuclear capacity comes online and existing plants extend operations.
Industry forecasts suggest that uranium demand will remain strong through the 2030s, supporting higher prices and increased investment in new production.
Lower Impact Mining, Higher ESG Expectations
The use of ISR mining at Burke Hollow reflects a broader shift toward more sustainable extraction methods. ISR typically reduces land disturbance and avoids large-scale excavation.
However, environmental management remains critical. Key issues include groundwater protection, chemical use, and long-term site restoration.
UEC has emphasized environmental controls and regulatory compliance in its operations. These efforts are important for maintaining social license and meeting ESG expectations.
From a climate perspective, uranium production plays an indirect but important role. Supporting nuclear energy, it helps enable low-carbon electricity generation and reduces reliance on fossil fuels.
The Bottom Line: A Defining Moment for U.S. Uranium Production
The launch of the Burke Hollow mine marks a major milestone for the U.S. uranium sector. It ends a decade-long gap in new mine development and signals renewed momentum in domestic production.
In the short term, it strengthens supply and supports rising uranium markets. In the long term, it highlights the growing role of nuclear energy in global decarbonization strategies.
UEC’s Burke Hollow shows that new uranium projects can advance in today’s market. There are still challenges, like scaling production and handling environmental risks, but progress is possible.
As demand for nuclear energy continues to grow, domestic projects like Burke Hollow will play a key role in shaping the future of energy security and low-carbon power.
The post U.S. Uranium Mining Returns: UEC Launches First New Mine in a Decade appeared first on Carbon Credits.
More and more small and medium-sized businesses are hearing the same question from their larger customers: What is your carbon footprint? That question now travels down entire supply chains, and it arrives next to tender requirements, certification criteria, and rising customer expectations.
The accounting differences that decide whether your nature investment shows up in inventory, in BVCM, or nowhere at all.
The question reaches a procurement team about three weeks before the next sustainability committee meeting. Someone has read about insetting. Someone else has just signed off on an offset purchase. The CSO wants to know if the two are interchangeable. The answer is no, and the GHG Protocol Land Sector and Removals Standard is the reason why.
This article walks through what each term means at audit-grade specificity, what the standards actually say about how each gets counted, and how to decide which tool fits which target. The insetting vs offsetting question is one of the most-searched in corporate climate strategy, and one of the most poorly answered. By the end of this piece, you should be able to brief a committee on the difference without notes.
The two definitions, in plain English
Offsetting means buying carbon credits generated outside your value chain and retiring them against your residual emissions. The reduction happens somewhere else, financed by you, and the credit is the receipt.
Insetting means investing in emission reductions or removals inside your own value chain, typically with suppliers, where the reduction is directly linked to the products and services you buy. The reduction happens inside the boundary of your Scope 3 inventory, and the accounting treatment is fundamentally different.
The shorthand from the University of Oxford’s Nature-based Insetting Initiative is useful: insetting is what you do with the supply chain you have; offsetting is what you do with the supply chain you do not have.
What the GHG Protocol Land Sector Standard actually says
The GHG Protocol Land Sector and Removals Standard, finalised in 2024 after a multi-year pilot, sets the rules for how land-based emission reductions and removals enter corporate inventories. The Standard distinguishes between inventory accounting (Scope 1, 2, and 3) and project or intervention accounting (a separate methodology for crediting).
For insetting, the practical implication is that supplier-level interventions, when properly measured and attributed, can reduce your Scope 3 category 1 (purchased goods and services) emissions in your inventory. The reduction is not a credit retired against the inventory; it is a lower inventory number, period.
For offsetting, the credit is retired separately. It can be reported as a contribution toward a net-zero claim under the SBTi Beyond Value Chain Mitigation framework or as part of a VCMI Carbon Integrity claim, but it does not lower the inventory number.
A practical consequence: if your Science Based Target requires a 50% absolute reduction in Scope 3 emissions by 2030, insetting moves you toward the target. Offsetting does not. This single point of difference reshapes the procurement decision.
When insetting counts toward Scope 3 (and when it does not)
Insetting counts toward Scope 3 only when several conditions are met:
- The intervention must occur with an entity in your value chain.
- The emissions reduction or removal must be measured against a defensible baseline.
- The reduction must be attributed to your share of that supplier’s output, not double-counted with other buyers.
- It must follow the inventory accounting rules in the GHG Protocol Land Sector Standard, not the project accounting rules used to generate credits.
The most common failure mode is double counting. If your supplier sells the same reduction as a credit on the voluntary market and also reports it to you as a Scope 3 reduction, the math breaks. The Standard requires you to address this risk, typically by purchasing and retiring the supplier-issued credit as part of your inventory or by contractual provisions that prevent the supplier from selling the reduction twice.
When insetting does not count toward Scope 3: when the intervention sits with a supplier you do not buy from, when the baseline is not defensible, when the attribution is unclear, or when the documentation does not survive audit. Those cases default to Beyond Value Chain Mitigation, which is still useful but operates on a different ledger.
The procurement and supplier engagement question
Insetting is harder than offsetting. That is the unfashionable truth most buyers eventually confront. Offsetting is a transaction; insetting is a relationship.
To run an insetting program, you need supplier mapping precise enough to know which farms or facilities sit at which Scope 3 boundary. You need an engagement model that gets suppliers to participate, which usually requires multi-year commitments and shared economics. You need an MRV architecture that measures the right things and produces audit-ready documentation. And you need a contractual structure that prevents double counting and protects both sides.
The trade-off you receive in return is significant. Reductions count against your inventory rather than your residual. Supplier relationships deepen, which protects sourcing continuity. Yield and quality improvements often follow regenerative interventions, which reduces your input cost over time. And the regulatory file, under CSRD, CSDDD, EUDR, and the SBTi FLAG Guidance, is materially stronger.
Choosing the right tool for the right target
A practical decision rule. If your target is a science-based Scope 3 reduction and you operate in a FLAG sector or source FLAG commodities, insetting is the structurally correct tool. If your target is a net-zero claim that includes neutralising hard-to-abate residual emissions outside your value chain, BVCM via high-integrity offsets is the structurally correct tool. Most companies with material Scope 3 exposure need both, in different proportions, sequenced over time.
The sequencing matters. Insetting takes longer to stand up but produces a permanent reduction in the inventory. Offsetting can be transacted faster but does not change the inventory and now sits under tighter claim restrictions. Treat them as complementary tools with different jobs, not as substitutes. The Accountability Framework Initiative and the IUCN Global Standard for Nature-based Solutions both provide useful guardrails for the insetting side, with biodiversity, human rights, and benefit-sharing requirements that go beyond carbon math.
If you are mapping a Scope 3 reduction roadmap and need to scope which interventions count toward your inventory versus which sit in Beyond Value Chain Mitigation, the carbon and sustainability experts at Carbon Credit Capital can help you structure a nature-based supply chain investment program that fits your FLAG exposure, your target architecture, and your audit horizon. Schedule a consultation.
Net zero is often described as a balancing act: cut what you can, account for the rest, and reach zero on the ledger. That framing is useful, but it leaves something out. It treats every tonne of carbon as interchangeable and every route to zero as equally sound, while the science tells a more specific story.
-
Climate Change1 year ago
Guest post: Why China is still building new coal – and when it might stop
-
Greenhouse Gases1 year ago
Guest post: Why China is still building new coal – and when it might stop
-
Greenhouse Gases2 years ago嘉宾来稿：满足中国增长的用电需求 光伏加储能“比新建煤电更实惠”
-
Climate Change2 years ago嘉宾来稿：满足中国增长的用电需求 光伏加储能“比新建煤电更实惠”
-
Climate Change2 years ago
Bill Discounting Climate Change in Florida’s Energy Policy Awaits DeSantis’ Approval
-
Renewable Energy10 months agoSending Progressive Philanthropist George Soros to Prison?
-
Greenhouse Gases1 year ago
嘉宾来稿：探究火山喷发如何影响气候预测
-
Carbon Footprint2 years agoUS SEC’s Climate Disclosure Rules Spur Renewed Interest in Carbon Credits