Antimony is vital for many industries, including batteries, solar panels, flame retardants, and ammunition. Antimony sulfide, or Stibnite, is the principal ore of antimony and is mainly used in all these sectors. The U.S. depends almost entirely on imports, mainly from China, to meet its needs.
Countries with the largest reserves of antimony worldwide as of 2023 (in metric tons)
Let’s examine the demand and supply trends for antimony and their impact on prices this year.
What’s Driving Antimony Demand?
Antimony’s demand has risen due to increasing industrial use and China’s dominance in production. The silver white metal is crucial in solar panels. It makes perovskite solar cells work better by helping them absorb more light and convert energy more effectively. It also enhances thermal stability, helping panels endure extreme conditions.
In energy storage, liquid-metal batteries use antimony to store and distribute excess solar power. As solar installations grow, antimony’s role in the energy transition will expand.
The U.S. Department of Defense (DoD) uses antimony in more than 200 types of ammunition. This includes percussion primers and armor-piercing rounds.
Some key uses of antimony include:
-
Antimony alloys improve the durability of lead-acid batteries in military vehicles.
-
Its flame-retardant properties enhance the fire resistance of military uniforms and equipment.
-
It is used in semiconductors for infrared sensors and night-vision devices. These are crucial for defense technology.
However, despite demand from various industries, there’s a global supply crisis of this critical metal.
- SEE MORE: Unlocking the Power of Critical Minerals with US DOE’s $45 Million Investment: A Focus on Antimony
A Looming Global Antimony Supply Shortage
According to the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS),
- In 2023, the total global antimony mine production was approximately 83,000 tons. China produced around 40,000 tons, accounting for 48% of the global supply.
China’s Supply Shrinks
China is the biggest antimony producer, but its output has dropped sharply. 2023’s output as a decrease from 60,000 tons (55% share) in 2022. The decline is mainly due to mine closures and stricter environmental rules.
Hunan, a major antimony-producing province, halted production from March to June. This pause was for environmental inspections. Further industrial accidents in Hunan and Guizhou disrupted mining early in 2023. Consequently, China’s declining output has significantly contributed to the current global supply shortage.
Moreover, China is tightening its grip on antimony exports to secure its position in global supply chains. This comes after the U.S. imposed restrictions on critical technologies like advanced chips. China has employed a similar strategy with germanium, gallium, graphite, and rare earths.
The U.S. Relies Heavily on Imports
The U.S. has antimony deposits in states like Idaho, Montana, Utah, Arizona, and Alaska. However, environmental and economic issues have slowed domestic production. The Stibnite Gold Mine in Idaho was the largest antimony producer but shut down in the mid-1990s. Efforts to restart it are uncertain due to environmental concerns, especially river pollution risks.
By 2020, the U.S. had completely stopped mining antimony. Instead, it relied on recycling, mainly from lead-acid batteries. A facility in Montana processed imported material, but recycled sources only met 18% of the demand. The rest came from imports. In 2023, no sellable antimony was mined in the U.S., according to the University of Technology Sydney (UTS).
Recent reports show that Military Metals acquired the Last Chance property on February 19, 2025. This highlights the urgent need to secure antimony for defense. The rising demand, along with supply issues, has led to a significant price surge.
Russia’s Production Faces Uncertainty
Russia is another key antimony producer contributing to the supply crunch. USGS estimates that Russia held 17.5% of global antimony reserves in 2023, totaling 350,000 tons. However, actual production was much lower, at just 4,300 tons.
The Minor Metals Trade Association (MMTA) highlighted that most of Russia’s antimony is a byproduct of gold mining. Polyus, the largest gold producer in Russia, reported 27,075 tonnes of antimony output in flotation concentrate. However, Western sanctions after Russia’s 2022 invasion of Ukraine have made trading with Russian suppliers more difficult, further tightening global supply.
Political Instability Disrupts Myanmar’s Output
Myanmar, the fourth-largest antimony producer in 2023, also faced supply disruptions due to political turmoil. The country accounted for about 5% of global antimony production, according to USGS.
Here’s a comparative chart of 2022 Vs 2023 antimony producers across the world:
Global Antimony Production
Market Growth Trends
- Research and Markets revealed that the global demand for antimony is projected to grow from $2.5 billion in 2024 to $3.5 billion by 2030, at a CAGR of 6.2%,
Additionally, the U.S. antimony market is expected to expand significantly, reaching an estimated value of USD 106.57 million by 2032. This growth primarily be driven by the rising demand for OSHA-regulated flame-retardant clothing. Other demand drivers like lead-acid batteries, electronics and plastics, etc. will also push future demand of antimony.
Regional Market Overview
According to a Fortune Business Insights study,
-
Asia-Pacific leads with a 64.36% market share in 2023. This trend will keep going. The automotive and electronics sectors are growing. This increases the demand for antimony flame retardants and alloys. China will remain the top producer.
-
North America and Europe together account for over 40% of global antimony demand, mainly in automotive and plastics. Europe produces antimony oxide but relies on imports from China and India. The rising need for lead-acid batteries is boosting growth in this region. North America has a strong demand for flame retardants. This is because of strict workplace safety rules.
The Future of Antimony Supply
Australia is becoming a key player in the antimony market. Larvotto Resources, which runs the Hillgrove Gold-Antimony Project, has seen its share price rise. Additionally, the U.S. is working with resource-rich countries such as Australia, which could potentially close the supply gap. This partnership also aims to reduce reliance on China for critical minerals.
Earlier CarbonCredits reported that it’s not just the U.S. but countries worldwide are taking steps to reduce their reliance on Chinese antimony.
Over two years, global antimony drilling activity totaled 625 holes, with 88 yielding significant intervals. Australia dominated with 444 holes, including 65 significant finds, reflecting its active exploration sector. The USA followed with 44 holes and 10 significant intervals. 
Other contributions came from Canada, Bolivia, New Zealand, and Namibia. Emerging interest in regions like Bosnia, Indonesia, and Slovakia highlights a global push to secure antimony resources, driven by rising demand in energy and defense sectors.
In the U.S., the Department of Defense awarded $15.5 million to Perpetua Resources to explore antimony production from the Stibnite Gold Project in Idaho.
Similarly, Spearmint Resources in Canada has doubled its acreage at the George Lake South Antimony Project, recognizing the mineral’s strategic value.
Additionally, antimony can be sourced through recycling. Reusing antimony from industrial waste and other sources may help create a more stable supply in the long term.
As demand from renewable energy and defense sectors rises, securing a steady supply of this crucial mineral will become extremely vital.
Tajikistan: The Rising Star
With supply dwindling in China, Russia, and Myanmar, Tajikistan is emerging as the world’s second-largest antimony producer.
- In 2023, it produced 21,000 tonnes, covering 26% of the global supply, according to USGS.
A significant mine in Tajikistan, owned by a U.S. company, is now Europe’s largest supplier of antimony metal. Talco Gold, a joint venture of Tajik Aluminium Co and China’s Tibet Huayu Mining, has boosted production too. Talco Gold’s processing plant opened in April 2022. However, it faced delays from the COVID-19 pandemic.
The impressive output shows Tajikistan potential to boost production volumes and sort supply challenges of antimony in the near future.
Antimony Prices Rally: Where Do They Stand in 2025?
Antimony prices have surged since April 2024 due to a severe supply shortage. According to Fastmarkets, prices in Rotterdam rose at their fastest rate in over 40 years. In May, the Shanghai Metals Exchange reported prices reaching $17,588 per metric ton, a 54% increase in 2024.
By June 14, prices in Europe climbed to $22,700 per ton, a rise of more than 75% from 2023.
The surge comes from a supply shortage in China, Russia, and Southeast Asia. At the same time, demand is rising in the solar sector, fire retardants, and military uses.
Recent posts on X show that the shortage is still affecting availability. Prices have reached $51,500 per ton in 2025. Some market speculation suggests that prices could reach $100,000 per ton.
This price rally was confirmed by Military Metals Corp’s CEO, Scott Eldridge, who said,
“The antimony spot price has yet again achieved a new all-time high, now trading at $51,500 USD per ton. Antimony investment opportunities are limited to mining equities with no ETF or futures contracts available to investors, furthermore the mining equities are limited to a few high-caliber companies.”
- LATEST: Trump’s Tariffs on Canada, China, and Mexico: A Risky Bet for U.S. Critical Minerals and Aluminum?
The post The Future of Antimony: Rising Prices, Supply Chain Risks, and Demand Growth appeared first on Carbon Credits.
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.
Malawi has lost a striking share of its forests over the past three decades. Woodlands that once covered well over a third of the country now cover less than a quarter, and the pressure on what remains is increasing. Behind those figures sit two practical questions: what is driving the loss, and what reverses it?
-
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