Disseminated on behalf of Alaska Energy Metals Corporation.
The electric vehicle (EV) revolution is unfolding at full speed. EV sales, battery factories, and electrification plans are all increasing rapidly across the world. But behind this clean‑energy success story lies a growing risk that few people fully grasp: the supply of high‑purity nickel — known as Class 1 nickel — is under increasing strain.
While overall nickel output appears large, the specific kind of nickel that powers EV batteries is far harder to secure. Add in rising geopolitical tensions and energy price shocks, and the result is a supply chain that is both fragile and critical.
Nickel’s Role in the EV Revolution
Nickel is a key ingredient in the lithium‑ion batteries that power most long‑range electric vehicles. Modern battery chemistries like NMC (Nickel‑Manganese‑Cobalt) and NCA (Nickel‑Cobalt‑Aluminum) use large amounts of nickel because it improves energy density, which helps EVs travel farther on a single charge.
- As a result, demand for nickel from EV batteries is soaring. IRENA data suggested that global demand for nickel used in EV batteries could reach more than 1.09 million tonnes by 2030 under current trends, depending on battery technology and adoption rates.
As per analysts and industry pundits, as EV markets grow across the U.S., Europe, China, and other regions, this nickel demand is only expected to rise further. What makes this particularly challenging is that EV battery producers only accept Class 1 nickel — nickel that is at least 99.8% pure and suitable for conversion into nickel sulfate, which is essential for battery cathodes.
Why Class 1 Nickel Is Scarce
On the surface, the global nickel supply seems large. Countries like Indonesia have rapidly increased production, and numerous mines operate in Asia, Russia, and Latin America. But most of this nickel is Class 2, a lower‑purity type used mainly in stainless steel production, which cannot easily or cheaply be turned into battery‑grade material.
This means the world may have enough nickel in total, but the kind that matters most to the EV industry is limited. This structural imbalance between total output and battery‑grade supply is now one of the EV sector’s biggest supply challenges.
According to McKinsey, Class 1 supply growth is lagging demand growth. Some analysts project that even by 2025, primary Class 1 capacity may only supply around 1.2 million tonnes, compared with demand closer to 1.5 million tonnes, indicating a shortfall right when EV adoption accelerates.
- MUST SEE: The Ultimate Guide to Nickel: Supply, Demand, and Nickel Prices for 2026 and Beyond
- CHECK: LIVE NICKEL PRICES
Global Conflict Adds Supply Risk
Geopolitics is also heightening uncertainty. Russia, historically one of the largest producers of high‑grade nickel, saw its exports disrupted after the Ukraine war began. Sanctions and shifting trade relationships have forced automakers and battery makers to look for alternatives.
Meanwhile, an analysis from S&P Global explained how instability in the Middle East may not directly affect nickel mining, but it does influence everything from energy costs to shipping routes. Critical passages like the Strait of Hormuz handle significant volumes of global oil and gas. Any disruption there can increase fuel prices, which raises costs throughout the mining, refining, and logistics chain.
Since nickel production and refining are energy‑intensive, rising energy costs feed directly into higher production costs. In this way, even conflict far from nickel mines can tighten the Class 1 supply chain.
Processing Bottlenecks Drive Hidden Risk
Another often overlooked factor is processing. Much of the world’s nickel comes from lateritic ores, especially in Indonesia and the Philippines. To turn these ores into battery‑ready nickel sulfate requires a complex High‑Pressure Acid Leach (HPAL) process that depends heavily on sulfuric acid and stable energy inputs.
Disruptions to sulfur supply — linked closely to global energy markets — can slow down or increase the cost of HPAL operations. Analysts have highlighted that future price swings in battery‑grade nickel could be driven not just by ore availability but by these processing input risks tied to sulfur and acid supply.
So even if mines produce enough nickel ore, the ability to convert it into usable battery material can become the real bottleneck.
A Two‑Tier Nickel Market
As a result of these pressures, the nickel world is dividing into a clear two‑tier market:
- A surplus of lower‑grade Class 2 nickel
- A shortage of high‑purity Class 1 nickel demanded by EV makers
This gap is expected to grow as EV battery demand rises more sharply than Class 1 production capacity. Data from IEA shows that demand for nickel in cleantech applications, mainly EVs, could more than double from around 560 kilotonnes in the early 2020s to over 1,349 kilotonnes by 2030.
Yet most new refining capacity is focused on processing laterite ores, and planned Class 1 expansions are relatively limited. This makes high‑purity nickel increasingly strategic.
Tight Battery Nickel Amid Shifting Market Trends
The same S&P report has emphasized this imbalance as a core structural challenge in the nickel market. While overall nickel supply may at times appear ample, the availability of battery‑grade nickel remains tight and vulnerable to both demand shifts and supply disruptions.
Furthermore, tracking the broader nickel market trends showed that industrial demand dynamics and tariff uncertainty have at times weighed on prices, even as battery‑grade demand continues to grow.
This mixed picture of soft prices amid growing strategic demand underscores how complicated the nickel supply story has become.
The Rising Value of Sulphide Nickel in North America
Not all nickel sources are equal. Sulphide nickel deposits — found in places like parts of Canada, Australia, and Alaska — are much easier to process into high‑purity Class 1 material than laterites. They also tend to have lower emissions and simpler refining paths.
Sulphide Nickel: Scarce but Strategic
Not all nickel sources are equal. Sulphide nickel deposits found in places like parts of Canada, Australia, and Alaska are much easier to process into high‑purity Class 1 material than laterites. They also tend to have lower emissions and simpler refining paths.
However, sulphide deposits are rare compared with laterite ores. Most of the easy‑to‑develop sulphide assets have already been mined. Discoveries are limited, making existing and new sulphide projects more strategically valuable.
This is why automakers and governments in Western countries are placing greater attention on domestic and North American projects as they seek to reduce reliance on geopolitically sensitive supply chains.
Alaska Energy Metals’ Nikolai Project and Cleaner Supply Chains
A high‑profile case is the Nikolai project in Alaska, developed by Alaska Energy Metals Corporation or AEMC. It contains not just nickel but also copper, cobalt, and platinum group metals — all important for EV batteries and broader clean energy technologies.
Projects like this offer several key advantages:
- Cleaner processing pathways
- Simpler conversion to battery‑grade nickel
- Stronger environmental, social, and governance (ESG) transparency
As of March 10, 2025, the nickel junior shows a major increase in contained metals. The resource estimate also confirms the presence of a treasure trove of energy transition metals: copper, cobalt, platinum, and palladium.
- The Indicated category now includes 5.6 billion pounds of nickel and 1.77 billion pounds of copper, and along with the value of the other metals equal to 11.03 billion pounds of nickel equivalent metal. This marks a 46% increase from the previous estimate.
- The Inferred category holds 9.38 billion pounds of nickel and 2.43 billion pounds of copper, and along with the value of the other metals equal to 17.98 billion pounds of nickel equivalent metal. This represents a sharp 122% increase, highlighting the scale of new resource growth.
As automakers push to decarbonize their supply chains, these attributes are becoming more valuable, not just economically but also in regulatory and brand terms.
Friendshoring and Supply Security
The concept of “friendshoring” — sourcing critical materials from politically stable and allied regions — is gaining traction. Governments in the U.S., Europe, and elsewhere are funding and incentivizing projects that can produce strategic minerals like nickel in safer jurisdictions.
This shift aligns with national security goals as well as corporate sustainability targets. Securing battery metals in friendly regions helps reduce exposure to conflicts and sanctions while supporting long‑term industrial planning.
Outlook: Quality Over Quantity
In the early days of the EV transition, the focus was simply on increasing battery production. Today, the conversation has shifted. It is no longer enough for the world to produce more nickel — it must produce the right kind of nickel.
High‑purity, battery‑grade nickel is becoming one of the most strategic materials in the energy transition. Its supply chain is deeply influenced by geopolitics, processing challenges, and shifting industrial priorities.
Conflicts like the Russia‑Ukraine war, energy price shocks, and sulfur supply vulnerabilities have all shown how fragile the nickel ecosystem can be. At the same time, demand projections through 2030 make it clear that EV adoption will continue pushing nickel demand higher.
DISCLAIMER New Era Publishing Inc. and/or CarbonCredits.com (“We” or “Us”) are not securities dealers or brokers, investment advisers, or financial advisers, and you should not rely on the information herein as investment advice. Alaska Energy Metals Corp. (“Company”) made a one-time payment of $90,000 to provide marketing services for a term of three months. None of the owners, members, directors, or employees of New Era Publishing Inc. and/or CarbonCredits.com currently hold, or have any beneficial ownership in, any shares, stocks, or options of the companies mentioned.
This article is informational only and is solely for use by prospective investors in determining whether to seek additional information. It does not constitute an offer to sell or a solicitation of an offer to buy any securities. Examples that we provide of share price increases pertaining to a particular issuer from one referenced date to another represent arbitrarily chosen time periods and are no indication whatsoever of future stock prices for that issuer and are of no predictive value.
Our stock profiles are intended to highlight certain companies for your further investigation; they are not stock recommendations or an offer or sale of the referenced securities. The securities issued by the companies we profile should be considered high-risk; if you do invest despite these warnings, you may lose your entire investment. Please do your own research before investing, including reviewing the companies’ SEDAR+ and SEC filings, press releases, and risk disclosures.
It is our policy that information contained in this profile was provided by the company, extracted from SEDAR+ and SEC filings, company websites, and other publicly available sources. We believe the sources and information are accurate and reliable but we cannot guarantee them.
CAUTIONARY STATEMENT AND FORWARD-LOOKING INFORMATION
Certain statements contained in this news release may constitute “forward-looking information” within the meaning of applicable securities laws. Forward-looking information generally can be identified by words such as “anticipate,” “expect,” “estimate,” “forecast,” “plan,” and similar expressions suggesting future outcomes or events. Forward-looking information is based on current expectations of management; however, it is subject to known and unknown risks, uncertainties, and other factors that may cause actual results to differ materially from those anticipated.
These factors include, without limitation, statements relating to the Company’s exploration and development plans, the potential of its mineral projects, financing activities, regulatory approvals, market conditions, and future objectives. Forward-looking information involves numerous risks and uncertainties and actual results might differ materially from results suggested in any forward-looking information. These risks and uncertainties include, among other things, market volatility, the state of financial markets for the Company’s securities, fluctuations in commodity prices, operational challenges, and changes in business plans.
Forward-looking information is based on several key expectations and assumptions, including, without limitation, that the Company will continue with its stated business objectives and will be able to raise additional capital as required. Although management of the Company has attempted to identify important factors that could cause actual results to differ materially, there may be other factors that cause results not to be as anticipated, estimated, or intended.
There can be no assurance that such forward-looking information will prove to be accurate, as actual results and future events could differ materially. Accordingly, readers should not place undue reliance on forward-looking information. Additional information about risks and uncertainties is contained in the Company’s management’s discussion and analysis and annual information form for the year ended December 31, 2025, copies of which are available on SEDAR+ at www.sedarplus.ca.
The forward-looking information contained herein is expressly qualified in its entirety by this cautionary statement. Forward-looking information reflects management’s current beliefs and is based on information currently available to the Company. The forward-looking information is made as of the date of this news release, and the Company assumes no obligation to update or revise such information to reflect new events or circumstances except as may be required by applicable law.
Disclosure: Owners, members, directors, and employees of carboncredits.com have/may have stock or option positions in any of the companies mentioned: .
Carboncredits.com receives compensation for this publication and has a business relationship with any company whose stock(s) is/are mentioned in this article.
Additional disclosure: This communication serves the sole purpose of adding value to the research process and is for information only. Please do your own due diligence. Every investment in securities mentioned in publications of carboncredits.com involves risks that could lead to a total loss of the invested capital.
Please read our Full RISKS and DISCLOSURE here.
The post EV Batteries Need Nickel: Why Class 1 Supply Is Becoming Critical Amid Global Conflict appeared first on Carbon Credits.
What auditors actually test, where projects actually fail, and the contract clauses that protect you before signature.
The meeting happens about fourteen months after the contract was signed. Your assurance provider has reached the nature-based investment line in your Scope 3 file, and the partner across the table has exactly two questions. How do you know the reductions happened? And how do you know they would not have happened anyway?
The first question is MRV: measurement, reporting, and verification. The second is additionality. Between them, they decide whether your nature-based investment counts, in your inventory, in your disclosure, and in front of your board. Everything else in the project documentation is supporting material for these two answers.
This article walks through what each question actually tests, where projects most commonly fail, what digital MRV has changed (and what it has not), and the contract clauses that protect you. The goal is to give you the diligence framework before you sign, because after the credit issues is the wrong time to discover the answers were weak.
What MRV actually verifies
MRV is the machinery that turns a field intervention into a defensible number. Measurement covers the data: biomass surveys, soil sampling, remote sensing, activity records from participating farms. Reporting covers the translation of that data into claimed reductions under a recognised methodology. Verification covers the independent check: an accredited third party tests the reporting against the methodology and the evidence.
The methodologies live in registries. Verra’s Verified Carbon Standard and the Gold Standard are the two largest for nature-based projects, and each publishes the methodology documents, monitoring requirements, and verification protocols that a project must follow. The ICVCM Assessment Framework now sits above the registries, assessing whole methodologies against the Core Carbon Principles and granting the CCP label to those that pass.
For a buyer, the practical questions are concrete. What is the monitoring frequency, and is it specified in the project design document or left vague? Who is the verifier, how were they selected, and how often do they rotate? What raw data do you, the buyer, get access to, and in what format? A project that answers these in writing is a different procurement than one that answers them in a sales call.
What additionality actually proves
Additionality asks whether the intervention caused the reduction, or whether the reduction would have happened anyway. The test is a counterfactual: what would this landscape, this farm, this forest have done without the project’s money?
Three forms matter in practice. Financial additionality asks whether the project needed the carbon revenue to proceed. Regulatory additionality asks whether the activity was already required by law. Common-practice additionality asks whether the activity is already standard in the region, in which case paying for it buys you nothing the world was not getting for free.
The reason additionality dominates audit conversations is recent history. Research published in 2023, including the Science paper examined at length in our piece on conventional offsets and boardroom credibility, found that a large share of REDD+ credits failed the counterfactual test because baselines were inflated. The market response was a wave of methodology revisions at Verra and the arrival of independent ratings agencies whose entire business is re-testing additionality claims. The Carbon Credit Quality Initiative publishes transparent scoring of methodologies on exactly this dimension, and it is free to consult before you sign anything.
Where projects most commonly fail the test
Five failure modes account for most of the wreckage.
- Inflated baselines. The counterfactual assumes more deforestation, more degradation, or lower yields than the evidence supports. The claimed reduction is the gap between reality and the baseline, so an inflated baseline manufactures reductions from nothing.
- Unaccounted leakage. The project protects one forest and the logging moves to the next valley. The methodology is supposed to net this out; weak projects estimate it optimistically.
- Thin permanence protection. Nature-based carbon can reverse: fire, pest, drought, or a change of landowner. Buffer pools and insurance mechanisms exist for this, but their adequacy varies enormously between projects.
- Attribution and double counting. In supply chain settings, the same reduction can be claimed by the supplier, the buyer, and a credit purchaser unless contracts prevent it. Our Insetting vs Offsetting piece covers the inventory rules; the point here is that the auditor will ask who else is counting this tonne.
- Stale monitoring. Data collected at validation and never refreshed. The IPCC AR6 Working Group III land-sector chapter documents how quickly carbon stocks respond to disturbance; a three-year-old measurement is a historical artifact, not a current claim.
What digital MRV changes, and what it does not
Digital MRV is the genuine improvement in the field. Satellite remote sensing, including the free archives at NASA Earthdata, allows biomass and land-cover change to be monitored continuously rather than at multi-year verification intervals. Soil carbon models calibrated with physical sampling reduce the cost of agricultural measurement. The practical effect is more frequent data at lower cost, which compresses the window in which a problem can hide.
What digital MRV does not change is judgment. Baselines are still human decisions about counterfactuals. Additionality is still an argument, not a measurement. Research groups such as the Oxford Smith School have been clear on this point: better sensors improve the M in MRV, but the integrity questions live in the assumptions, and assumptions need governance, not gadgets.
For a buyer, the test is simple. Ask the provider what is measured by instrument, what is estimated by model, and what is assumed by methodology. A provider who can answer that question crisply understands their own evidence chain. A provider who cannot is selling you their confidence rather than their data.
What to require in your contract
The diligence above converts into five contract clauses.
- Monitoring cadence and buyer data access, specified by dataset and frequency.
- Verifier independence, named accreditation, and rotation terms.
- Baseline revision triggers, so the counterfactual updates when the methodology or the evidence changes.
- Reversal liability and buffer adequacy, with the mechanism named and sized.
- Documentation handover in audit-ready form, so the evidence file your assurance provider needs already exists.
None of these clauses is exotic. All of them are absent from weak contracts, and their absence is the most reliable early signal that the MRV and additionality answers will be weak too.
If you are evaluating a nature-based investment and want the MRV and additionality stress-tested before signature rather than after, the carbon and sustainability experts at Carbon Credit Capital can run that review against any project on your shortlist, and design nature-based supply chain investments where the evidence chain is built audit-first. Schedule a consultation.
Sources and further reading
- ICVCM: Core Carbon Principles Assessment Framework
- Verra: Verified Carbon Standard
- Gold Standard for the Global Goals
- Carbon Credit Quality Initiative: Methodology quality scores
- University of Oxford Smith School: Sustainable finance research
- IPCC AR6 Working Group III, Chapter 7: AFOLU
- NASA Earthdata satellite remote sensing archive
EU Directive: Empowering Consumers for the Green Transition (ECGT)
The EU Directive, Empowering Consumers for the Green Transition (ECGT), takes effect on September 27, 2026.(1) The goal of ECGT is to protect consumers by ensuring that environmental claims are fair, understandable, and reliable. This regulation does create a new compliance requirement for businesses, but it also provides sustainability and marketing teams with important guidance that helps create consistency in sustainability communications.
Key takeaways
- ECGT takes effect September 27, 2026, and prohibits claims that a product or service has a neutral, reduced, or positive environmental impact based on offsetting alone.
- Named example phrases the regulation prohibits include climate neutral, CO2 neutral certified, carbon positive, climate net zero, climate compensated, reduced climate impact, and limited CO2 footprint.
- ECGT does not want to deter investment in carbon credits. It wants companies to communicate the real benefits of the projects they support instead.
- SBTi’s guidance recommends framing carbon credits as taking responsibility for ongoing emissions, not as making a product or company neutral.
- Voluntary carbon projects deliver real climate progress: reducing super-pollutants, protecting and restoring ecosystems, and supporting communities.
Regarding carbon credits specifically, voluntary carbon projects deliver important climate progress and environmental benefits that provide many talking points for companies. They reduce climate super-pollutants by removing industrial emissions like methane, N2O, HFCs and others. They protect and restore valuable ecosystems and carbon sinks like forests, mangroves and grasslands. They help communities by reducing local pollution, creating employment opportunities, improving access to healthcare, and more.
The Science Based Targets Initiative (SBTi), a global leader in business climate action, concludes that alongside aggressive decarbonization, we should also use high quality carbon credits to take responsibility for our ongoing emissions. SBTi recognizes that carbon credits are important “to help limit temperature overshoot, mitigate transition risks, and support climate solutions.”(2)
ECGT language on carbon offsetting says that they do not want to deter investment in carbon credits. They just want companies to focus on communicating the benefits of the projects they support and avoid claims beyond the scope of carbon credits, which is good for everyone, companies and consumers alike.
The regulation reinforces that carbon credits do not change the sustainability of your products, so carbon credit buyers should not suggest that their products are more sustainable because of carbon credits. Instead, companies need to promote their climate contributions as a way to compensate or take responsibility for their carbon emissions by supporting projects that do great things like reducing global carbon emissions, reducing pollution, preventing deforestation, restoring forests, and more.
ECGT language related to carbon offsetting
The regulation is particularly focused on prohibiting claims, based on offsetting greenhouse gas emissions, that a product or service has a neutral, reduced, or positive impact on the environment in terms of greenhouse gas emissions. These claims are prohibited in all circumstances because they mislead consumers into believing the claim relates to the product itself, or to how it was made and supplied, or into thinking that using the product carries no environmental impact at all.
Named examples of prohibited claims include:
- climate neutral
- CO2 neutral certified
- carbon positive
- climate net zero
- climate compensated
- reduced climate impact
- limited CO2 footprint
These claims are only allowed when they rest on a product’s actual lifecycle impact, not on offsetting emissions outside that product’s value chain, since the two are not equivalent. This prohibition does not stop companies from advertising their investments in environmental initiatives, including carbon credit projects, as long as they present that information in a way that is not misleading and that meets the other requirements of Union law.(1)
SBTi also provides guidance on climate contribution language in its Corporate Net Zero Standard Version 2.0 Draft for Second Public Consultation, November 2025. While the SBTi language is fairly technical, it has a good framework for crafting a climate contribution message.
SBTi Language for Carbon Credits(3)
- Take responsibility for ongoing emissions by delivering mitigation impact contributions
- Carbon credits certify the mitigation outcomes of projects that reduce, avoid, or remove carbon emissions
- Activities that reduce emissions from emission sources not located within the company’s value chain
- Activities that conserve, protect, and enhance natural carbon sinks
- Activities that capture and store carbon in storage pools
SBTi’s draft standard also walks through sample claim language for this kind of contribution. In general, the samples move from a simple percentage statement, to naming a specific verified tonnage tied to that percentage, to a fuller statement that breaks the tonnage into reductions versus removals. Across all three, the framing stays consistent: a company took responsibility for a defined share of its ongoing emissions over a set period, by funding a specific, verified amount of mitigation, achieved through emission reductions or removals.(3)
FAQ: ECGT and Carbon Credit Claims
When does the ECGT directive take effect?
The rules apply across the EU from September 27, 2026, after member states transposed the directive into national law by March 27, 2026.
Does ECGT ban carbon offsetting?
No. It bans specific marketing claims that a product or service is environmentally neutral, reduced impact, or positive based on offsetting. Advertising investment in carbon credit projects themselves is still allowed if it is not misleading.
What phrases does ECGT specifically prohibit?
Named examples include climate neutral, CO2 neutral certified, carbon positive, climate net zero, climate compensated, reduced climate impact, and limited CO2 footprint, when those claims are based on offsetting rather than a product’s actual lifecycle impact.
How should a company describe its carbon credit purchases instead?
SBTi’s guidance recommends stating the specific verified tonnage of emissions reductions or removals funded and describing that as taking responsibility for a defined share of ongoing emissions, rather than claiming the company or product is neutral.
Does this rule apply to company level sustainability claims too?
ECGT is focused on claims about specific products and services in consumer marketing. Broader company level sustainability communication is a separate matter still governed by other existing rules.
While ECGT does add a new compliance burden for businesses, it helps create consistency in sustainability messaging that is important to building confidence in voluntary carbon projects and scaling the industry to help us achieve progress on global carbon emissions.
Disclaimer: Terrapass does not provide legal or regulatory advice. Any interpretation of regulation must be approved by your legal representative.
References:
(1) https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/dir/2024/825/oj
(2) https://files.sciencebasedtargets.org/production/files/Corporate-Net-Zero-Standard-version-2.pdf
(3) https://files.sciencebasedtargets.org/production/files/CNZS-V2-Second-Consultation-Draft.pdf
The post The EU’s New Green Claims Rules and Carbon Credits appeared first on Terrapass.
Most businesses that decide to act on their net-zero targets reach the same point of friction. Buying carbon credits has meant tracking down brokers, sitting through sales calls, and requesting a quote just to learn a price, sometimes with limited proof of what you are buying.
-
Climate Change1 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”
-
Greenhouse Gases1 year ago
Guest post: Why China is still building new coal – and when it might stop
-
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”
-
Renewable Energy11 months agoSending Progressive Philanthropist George Soros to Prison?
-
Climate Change2 years ago
Bill Discounting Climate Change in Florida’s Energy Policy Awaits DeSantis’ Approval
-
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