A new wave of innovation is reshaping how the mining industry approaches waste. CBC News, Canada, reported that researchers in Sudbury, northern Ontario, are developing a bacteria-based technology called bioleaching, which uses naturally occurring microbes to extract valuable metals such as nickel, cobalt, and copper from old mine tailings.
Led by MIRARCO Mining Innovation, the team recently opened a pilot facility in October 2025 to scale up this process, aiming to transform mining waste into a source of critical minerals while cutting emissions, reducing environmental risks, and unlocking billions of dollars in untapped resources.
Sudbury Moves Toward Commercial Bioleaching
Sudbury has a long history of mining, leaving behind massive piles of tailings—the leftover rock and sediment from ore extraction. These materials still hold billions of dollars’ worth of metals, but until now, recovering them was difficult, energy-intensive, and expensive. The bioleaching technology changes that. By using bacteria that naturally digest minerals, scientists can release metals from waste rock without relying on harsh chemicals or high temperatures.
According to Nadia Mykytczuk, CEO of MIRARCO, the new pilot facility represents a shift toward sustainable mining. She precisely mentioned that,
In Sudbury alone, the tailings contain $8 billion to $10 billion worth of nickel. With this facility, we are shaping a new era of mining innovation—one that focuses on clean technology, critical minerals, and preparing the workforce of tomorrow.
The facility connects research, industry, and community partners, creating a hub for applied research in bioleaching and bioprocessing.
Before moving to the new facility, MIRARCO operated within Laurentian University, and the long-standing partnership continues. The pilot center allows researchers to handle larger samples of mine waste and test how bioleaching works at a scale closer to industrial operations. This is essential for proving that the process can be commercially viable in Canada.
Bioleaching Breakthrough: Turning Tailings into Critical Minerals
- The process starts by grinding the mine tailings and mixing them with a nutrient-rich liquid. Scientists then introduce specialized bacteria into the mixture.
- These microbes feed on the minerals, producing chemical reactions that dissolve metals into the liquid.
- The resulting slurry moves through a series of reactors, where the process continues, and metals are eventually collected in a liquid form.
Early experiments are promising. Scientists at MIRARCO have noted that the process can recover 98–99 percent of nickel from the tested tailings. The value surpasses traditional methods that often leave large amounts of valuable minerals behind.
In separate research, scientists are growing and refining the bacteria. Different microbes target specific minerals. Some thrive in acidic conditions, ideal for breaking down sulfide tailings, while others focus on iron oxides or silicate rocks.
This flexibility allows scientists to extract not only common metals like nickel and copper but also rare earth elements and lithium, which are critical for batteries and renewable energy technology.
Environmental and Carbon Benefits
Traditional metal extraction uses energy-intensive methods, including high-temperature processing, chemical treatments, and heavy machinery. This approach produces substantial carbon emissions and generates more waste. Bioleaching operates at ambient temperature and pressure, reducing energy use by an estimated 30–40 percent.
It also tackles the challenge of storing mining waste. Canada produces around 650 million tons of mine tailings every year. Much of this material sits in ponds behind dams, which can be unstable and pose long-term environmental risks.
Significantly, tailings may generate acid or release metals into the environment, and dam failures can have serious consequences. The 2014 Mount Polley mine tailings dam failure incident in British Columbia is a stark reminder of these dangers.
By turning tailings into a source of metals, bioleaching reduces the volume of waste requiring storage, cutting both environmental risk and the legacy costs of old mining sites.
Overcoming Challenges
While promising, the technology is not without hurdles. Processing tailings can be costly, and the bacteria require careful monitoring and specific growth conditions. Scaling up from pilot operations to full commercial production will also need investment in infrastructure and specialized equipment.
Environmental experts, such as MiningWatch Canada, note that tailings can behave unpredictably. They may chemically react over time or shift physically, posing stability concerns. Effective containment and monitoring are critical to ensure the process remains safe at larger scales.
Despite these challenges, researchers are optimistic. Early pilot studies indicate that the bacterial method could recover 65–80 percent of minerals left behind by conventional processing. This is a significant improvement that makes further investment worthwhile.
Fueling Canada’s Clean Energy Future
The technology comes at a crucial time. Global demand for critical minerals is rising as electric vehicles, wind turbines, and solar panels become more widespread. Canada has identified 31 minerals essential for the energy transition, but many are currently imported from regions with supply risks. Bioleaching offers a way to unlock domestic resources while reducing dependence on imports.
The process could provide materials for electric vehicle batteries, grid infrastructure, and industrial applications. Lithium and cobalt can power EVs, rare earth elements like neodymium and dysprosium support wind turbines and other clean energy systems, and copper and nickel are essential for electrical grids.
By recovering these from tailings, Canada could strengthen its supply chains while reducing environmental impact.
By 2040, the IEA expects the value of North America’s energy minerals to grow to around USD 30 billion for mining and USD 14 billion for refining. Mining growth will mainly come from copper in the United States and Mexico, and from lithium and nickel in Canada.
For refining, the region could make up about 4% of the global market, led by copper and lithium refining in the United States and copper and nickel refining in Canada.
Moving Toward Commercial Deployment
MIRARCO aims to transition from pilot testing to full-scale operations in the next two to three years. Globally, bioleaching is already in use at around 30 mining sites, but Canada has yet to deploy it commercially. The pilot facility in Sudbury is helping bridge that gap by testing continuous processing and demonstrating commercial viability.
Government support is also playing a key role. CBC further highlighted that funding through Canada’s Clean Technology Program and provincial innovation grants is helping advance research and development. The technology aligns with national goals to position Canada as a global leader in sustainable critical minerals production by 2030.
Overall, industry analysts predict bioextraction could become commercially viable within three to five years for specific minerals, with broader adoption following as operational experience grows.
The post Bioleaching Breakthrough in Canada: How MIRARCO’s Pilot Facility Turns Mine Waste into Critical Minerals 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