As the world continues to grapple with climate change, forest carbon offsets have emerged as a promising solution. By preserving and protecting forests, we can capture and sequester carbon from the atmosphere, reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Not only does this benefit the environment, but it also creates economic opportunities for communities that rely on the forest for their livelihoods.
Introduction to Forest Carbon Offsets
For years, companies have been given an option to deal with their environmental impact: cancel out their carbon pollution by paying for efforts that protect the forests. That’s essentially the idea behind forest carbon offsets.
If you’re a landowner who wants to earn extra from keeping your trees standing, forest offsets suit you well. Or perhaps you’re a company owner willing to support forest protection initiatives, forest carbon offsets are perfect for you.
Either way, let’s help you understand everything you need to know about this kind of carbon offset credit. From providing a detailed explanation of it to identifying its benefits and how to purchase it for your offsetting needs.
What are Forest Carbon Offsets?
Forest carbon offsets involve a process where a forest, at risk of being chopped down or for other purposes, is protected in exchange for payment. This payment goes to the forest owner, which could be a government or private landowner, to prevent deforestation.
Once the owner and buyer close the deal, the forest area becomes a “carbon credit project.” Their agreement involves a commitment not to cut down the trees or be destroyed by fire. The organization or person managing this project sells these commitments and takes a portion of the money earned.
On the other side, a company that pollutes can buy these credits to neutralize their emissions by a certain amount.
Trees are excellent at storing carbon in their structure, so when a tree grows larger, it can hold more carbon. This carbon storage also happens in soils and other vegetation.
However, when a tree is cut down, the carbon it stores is released into the air. If the tree is used for timber, some carbon remains stored, but a significant portion is released into the atmosphere.
A forest carbon offset, therefore, represents a metric ton of carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2e) of avoided or sequestered carbon. Emitters buy the offsets to compensate for their carbon emissions happening elsewhere.
What are the Types of Forest Carbon Offsets?
Currently, three forest project types qualify to generate carbon offsets: afforestation or reforestation, avoided conversion, and improved forest management (IFM).
Each forest project type comes with its unique costs, benefits, and ways of accounting for carbon. Determining which one suits your property best is the initial stage in the exploration process. So, let’s differentiate each type to guide your climate mitigation decision.
Afforestation/Reforestation
Afforestation, a vital environmental effort, revolves around reinstating tree cover on lands that were previously devoid of forests. These projects are fundamental in addressing deforestation, enhancing biodiversity, mitigating climate change, and contributing to ecosystem restoration.
However, embarking on afforestation initiatives often incurs substantial costs due to the comprehensive processes involved, including land preparation, tree planting, maintenance, innovation and technology, and long-term investment.
Avoided Conversion
Avoided Conversion projects are crucial initiatives aimed at preventing the transformation of forested areas into non-forested landscapes. These projects, also called REDD+ (Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Degradation), help fight climate change by safeguarding existing forest cover.
But for this project to be considered eligible for carbon offset programs, project developers must substantiate that the land faces a substantial and imminent threat of conversion.
Improved Forest Management (IFM)
IFM initiatives focus on optimizing the management practices of forested areas to enhance carbon sequestration, biodiversity, and overall ecosystem health. They aim to increase or maintain the carbon stored within forests, contributing to climate change mitigation efforts while ensuring sustainable use of forest resources.
- Among these three forest types, IFM projects are the most frequently traded compliance offsets in California’s cap and trade program.
According to a research by Haya et al. (2023), IFM projects provided 193 million carbon offset credits since 2008. This accounts for 28% of the total credits from forest projects and 11% of all credits generated in voluntary carbon markets.
Developers of IFM projects must demonstrate that their forests are capturing more carbon than what would happen in a ‘business-as-usual’ situation across these carbon credit types.
Benefits of Forest Carbon Offsets
Well-designed and effectively executed forest carbon offsets can serve as incentives to reduce deforestation and forest degradation. They also aid in enhancing forest governance while promoting support for the rights of Indigenous peoples and local communities.
Supporting forestry projects through carbon offsets offers the following benefits:
- Preserving intact forests and those that are mostly untouched to safeguard biodiversity and the services provided by ecosystems. Indigenous peoples’ territories are crucial in this regard, as they have a proven track record of effectively conserving forests.
- Improving the management of production forests and plantations to supply essential materials, enabling a shift from a fossil-fuel-based to a bio-based economy. This involves developing alternatives for materials like cement and steel, which have a high carbon impact.
- Boosting tree presence in agricultural lands by implementing diverse agroforestry systems and offering stronger financial and social incentives to communities.
- Reviving degraded land across the planet to enhance ecosystem-based services. Similar to other nature-based solutions, this restoration should always be done collaboratively with local communities in ways that suit the local context.
Each of these aspects could be integrated into a program providing forestry carbon offsets. They represent a more effective approach to land stewardship, resulting not only in carbon storage but also in numerous advantages.
Forest Carbon Offsets in Climate Change Mitigation Strategies
Managing forests to capture carbon presents an opportunity to reverse the impacts of man-made climate change. Global greenhouse gas (GHG) levels have swiftly risen, with almost half of these emissions happening in the last 40 years.
Forecasts from climate models foresee rising global temperatures, higher sea levels, and shifts in weather patterns. These shifts result in severe droughts, floods, and the intrusion of rising sea levels into freshwater reserves, threatening drinking water sources.
Research indicates that communities dependent on agriculture or in coastal regions will likely face significant challenges due to global warming.
Studies suggest that capturing carbon in forests can play a substantial role in lessening the effects of climate change. Currently, according to the US Forest Service, forests in the US absorb around 16% of the nation’s emissions generated from burning fossil fuels.
Furthermore, forests deliver diverse ecosystem services to the public, like managing water quality and quantity while providing habitats fostering biodiversity.
Market for Forest Carbon Offsets
In 2022, about 30% of all carbon offset credits for forestry projects came from voluntary registries. These projects, like IFM, REDD+, and afforestation, include various types.
The research by Haya et al. also pointed out that the U.S. was the main contributor to forest offset credits from IFM projects, accounting for 94% of them. Most of these credits were registered under the CARB (California Air Resources Board) compliance carbon offset program, with almost half originating from U.S. forest projects.
So far, most forest offset credits from all registries have been given to projects that reduce tree harvesting significantly, aiming to prevent carbon losses in forests compared to standard scenarios.
To date, sellers of forest carbon are big forestland owners seeking to diversify their forest-based revenue streams.
Pricing of Forest Carbon Offsets
Prices for carbon offset credits in voluntary markets have dropped in the past year. Forest carbon offsets belong to nature-based solutions represented by the Nature-Based Global Emissions Offsets (NGEOs).
While the prices of all VCM offsets have been hit, the decline in NGEO prices stands out because of the premium they were trading at over the other offsets last year.
Several reasons caused this decline. Global economic challenges, such as high inflation, ongoing conflicts like the war in Ukraine, and lasting pandemic effects slowed economic growth in 2022 and continued into 2023.
Moreover, there hasn’t been progress on a unified standard for carbon credit markets globally at COP27. This lack of advancement is holding back growth in voluntary markets.
Nonetheless, emitters are actively seeking ways to offset their residual emissions, particularly in hard-to-abate sectors. If you’re one of them, the following section will help guide you on how to buy forest carbon credits for your offsetting needs.
Process of Purchasing Forest Carbon Offsets
Buying forest carbon offsets is pretty much similar to purchasing other types of carbon credits. You can opt for directly getting them from project developers, which means from a forestland owner. You can also buy the offsets from other providers.
For instance, you can look for a broker. Brokers can make it easier and quicker for you to get the offsets you need, especially if you need a lot of them.
A broker also handles all the transactions on your behalf, and this purchasing process doesn’t require long-term contracts. But it would cost you a bit more.
Another provider would be the retailers, who can give you at least basic information about the offsets they’re selling. Usually, they hold an account on a carbon registry and retire the offsets on your behalf.
Alternatively, you can also buy forest carbon offsets from an exchange. There are several carbon exchanges or trading platforms that provide these offsets. They often collaborate with registries to enable trading transactions.
Purchasing forest offsets from a trading platform would be easy and fast, and may cost less than brokers. However, you might find it more challenging to evaluate the quality of the offsets.
Calculating Your Carbon Footprint
But before you look for the right offset provider, it’s best that you know how many credits you need. And that means calculating your carbon footprint first and deciding how much of it you have to offset.
Remember that one forest carbon offset represents one tonne of carbon emission. So, if you or your company emitted a thousand tons of carbon dioxide or its equivalent in one year, you’ll need 1,000 offsets to neutralize all of them.
After calculating your total footprint, you can then determine the amount of offsets to purchase. Below is our comprehensive guide on how to calculate how many offset credits you need.
- READ MORE: How to Calculate Carbon Credits?
Purchasing and Using Offsets
Once you have purchased the offsets, using them does not just involve writing off your carbon footprint. It also includes some kind of responsibility and a couple of considerations.
For instance, you need to be confident that the offset credits are from projects that deliver real carbon emission reductions. That entails knowing the project details (e.g. type, location, environmental impacts, carbon reduction/removal, etc.).
You also have to ensure that the offsets are generated following credible and trusted carbon credit methodologies. This is crucial to make sure that you get the real value of each dollar you invest in the offsets.
More remarkably, forest carbon offsets are now under growing scrutiny as some projects are found to underdeliver the claimed reductions. This brings us to the last part of this guide.
Criticisms & Drawbacks of Forest Carbon Offsets
One major issue is additionality. It refers to whether or not the reductions would have happened even without the offset project. For example, a forestry project wouldn’t provide additional action on climate if it’s protecting a forest that was never in threat of being chopped down.
Another drawback of these offsets is permanence. It means the carbon reduction or removal should remain for 100 years to be permanent.
While some forest projects are capable of achieving that, others are at risks of reversal. This happens when different factors come into play that destroy the forests. Wildfires are the biggest culprit.
Several forestry projects have been burned down by fires, reversing the reductions they promise to offer. For example, a study suggested that California’s buffer pool, a kind of self-insurance program to cover reversal, severely lacks capital.
So long as the buffer pool stays solvent, the permanence of carbon offsets remains intact. But the study showed that the buffer pool for California’s forest carbon offset projects is unlikely to insure its integrity for a century.
Additionally, the buffer pool didn’t account for the increase in wildfire risks. Failure to do so means that the forest fire-prone state will most likely see high offset reversals.
Both Quality and Quantity Matter
There’s also the issue surrounding the mathematics on how much carbon is really captured and stored in a specific area.
Forests vary widely—from tropical to temperate and boreal, each with unique ecosystems, species, and risks. They also store different amounts of carbon that can change due to seasons, events like tree cutting, wildfires, and droughts.
Moreover, calculating carbon in forests is complex. It depends not just on science but also on policy choices about data use, which changes to consider, and which forests to involve. Some worry that certain governments’ practices might let companies sell offsets from replanting after they cleared forests initially.
The case of Canada’s forest carbon accounting offers an example. According to a report from the country’s Natural Resources Defense Council, the calculation used is misleading and damaging.
The authors noted that the government didn’t account for the carbon released by wildfires. However, it includes the carbon captured by forest regrowth even if there’s no logging and no human activities at play.
Finally, the biggest criticism thrown at forest carbon offsetting projects is their ineffectiveness in actually reducing carbon emissions. A group of investigative journalists claimed that more than 90% of Verra’s REDD+ projects likely do not represent real reductions.
The studies that journalists used for their analysis involve different methods and time periods. They also considered various ranges of Verra REDD+ projects, while noting that such studies do have some limitations. Yet, they noted that the data indicated consensus on the lack of effectiveness of the projects versus what Verra had approved.
Forestry Carbon Offsets: Closing Thoughts
Forestry carbon offsets have emerged as a promising tool in combating climate change by preserving and protecting forests to capture and sequester carbon. This multifaceted approach not only benefits the environment by reducing carbon emissions but also presents economic opportunities for forest-dependent communities.
However, the market for forest offsets faces challenges, including pricing discrepancies, additionality concerns, and complexities in measuring carbon sequestration. Issues related to permanence and accurate quantification also remain critical areas demanding attention and robust evaluation within the offsetting paradigm.
Amidst these complexities, forest carbon offsets present both opportunities and challenges in achieving carbon neutrality. Collaborative efforts among governments, project developers, and market stakeholders are essential to address concerns, establish transparent methodologies, and ensure the credibility and effectiveness of forest carbon offset projects.
The post Forest Carbon Offsets: Everything You Need To Know appeared first on Carbon Credits.
“…Human subtlety… will never devise an invention more beautiful, more simple or more direct than does nature, because in her inventions nothing is lacking, and nothing is superfluous…”
The voluntary carbon market (VCM) has passed its inflection point. The volatility that characterized 2023 and 2024 has settled into a stark, data-driven reality: the market has bifurcated. As we look toward 2026, corporate leaders face two distinct markets. One is a liquid, low-price market of legacy credits facing increasing obsolescence. The other is a constrained, high-value market of high-quality assets. Specifically within Nature-Based Solutions (NBS), where demand is beginning to structurally outstrip supply.
For the capital-intensive, risk-averse organization, the strategy for 2026 cannot rely on the spot market procurement tactics of the past decade. The data from 2025 indicates that securing access to high-quality NBS is no longer just a corporate social responsibility objective; it is a balance sheet imperative driven by regulatory convergence and the tangible risk of stranded assets.
The End of Uniformity: The Quality Premium Widens
The most critical signal for your 2026 strategy is the decoupling of credit prices based on integrity.
In 2025, while total credit retirements marginally declined by 4.5% to 168 million tonnes, the primary market value actually grew by over 6% to $1.04 billion. This counter-intuitive dynamic—lower volume, higher value—proves that buyers are actively discarding low-quality inventory in favor of fewer, higher-quality assets.
This “flight to quality” has created a substantial price premium. In previous years, the spread between high and low-rated credits was negligible. By mid-2025, MSCI reported that credits rated ‘BBB’ and above were trading at a premium of approximately 360% over lower-rated credits. Specifically within NBS, Afforestation, Reforestation, and Revegetation (ARR) projects rated ‘BBB+’ averaged $26.10 per tonne, while their lower-rated counterparts (‘BB-‘ and below) languished at $14.50.
For the CFO, this presents a clear heuristic: the “cheap” option carries a hidden cost. Low-quality credits now face a high probability of becoming stranded assets. Credits that are technically issued but unusable for credible net-zero claims or compliance obligations due to reputational toxicity or regulatory exclusion.
The Supply Crunch in High-Quality NBS
As your organization forecasts its procurement needs for 2026, you must account for a deepening supply deficit in the specific assets you likely desire. While the overall market holds a surplus of legacy credits, the inventory of high-quality credits is shrinking.
For the third consecutive year, highly-rated credits (BBB+) experienced a market deficit in 2025, meaning retirements (consumption) exceeded new issuances. This scarcity is acute in Nature-Based Solutions. While forestry and land use, accounting for 68 million tonnes in 2024, remain the most frequently retired project category, the composition of that supply is changing.
Buyers are aggressively shifting away from legacy REDD+ (avoided deforestation) projects toward removal-based NBS, such as ARR and Improved Forest Management (IFM). In 2025, transaction volumes for IFM projects grew over 300%, while legacy REDD+ volumes fell by 52%.
The implication for your 2026 planning is scarcity. The lead time for new high-quality NBS projects to come online is significant. Consequently, we are witnessing a surge in early-stage offtake agreements. In 2025, the value of announced offtake deals totaled $12.25 billion… a massive leap from $3.95 billion in 2024. Sophisticated buyers, including major energy and technology firms, are locking in future supply at weighted average prices of $160 per credit for durable removals, effectively bypassing the spot market entirely.
Regulatory Convergence: The Compliance Floor
The distinction between “voluntary” and “compliance” markets is eroding, and this convergence will be a primary price driver in 2026. Regulatory bodies are increasingly creating a floor for credit quality that impacts voluntary buyers.
Two mechanisms are driving this shift:
1. CORSIA Phase 1
The Carbon Offsetting and Reduction Scheme for International Aviation (CORSIA) has entered its first mandatory compliance phase (2024–2026). The International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) has tightened eligibility, creating a “compliance-grade” stamp of approval. Sylvera modeling suggests that compliance demand could exceed voluntary demand as early as 2027, largely driven by the approaching CORSIA Phase 1 deadline. This will create direct competition for high-integrity credits between voluntary corporate buyers and regulated aviation entities, inevitably driving up price floors for eligible NBS credits.
2. Article 6 and Corresponding Adjustments
The operationalization of Article 6 of the Paris Agreement is accelerating. As of late 2025, 176 bilateral agreements were in place under Article 6.2. This mechanism allows countries to transfer carbon credits (Internationally Transferred Mitigation Outcomes, or ITMOs) to one another.
For corporate buyers, the critical development for 2026 is the “Corresponding Adjustment” (CA). A CA ensures that when a credit is sold abroad, the host country deducts it from its own national inventory, preventing double-counting. We project that credits with a CA will command a distinct premium and may become a requirement for companies making specific claims under the Paris Agreement framework. With countries like Singapore and Japan already executing trades, the infrastructure for this high-compliance market is solidifying.
3. The Role of Independent Assurance
In an environment of rising prices and regulatory complexity, “trust” is a risk management tool. Reliance on project developer marketing materials is insufficient for audit committees and risk officers.
The rise of independent rating agencies such as MSCI, Sylvera, Calyx Global, and BeZero, has fundamentally altered the due diligence landscape. These agencies now cover the majority of the market; Calyx Global’s ratings alone cover 70% of all retirements from 2021 to 2024.
Data indicates that utilizing these ratings is becoming a prerequisite for transaction security. Buyers are increasingly writing clauses into offtake agreements that allow them to exit the contract if a project’s third-party rating drops below a certain threshold (e.g., ‘BBB’). For 2026, we advise integrating independent ratings data directly into your procurement workflows to mitigate delivery and reputational risk.
Strategic Outlook for 2026
Based on the current trajectory, the role of Nature-Based Solutions in 2026 will be defined by three core realities:
- NBS as a Removal Mechanism: The market will continue to prize “removals” (sequestering carbon) over “avoidance” (preventing emissions). In 2024, removal credits commanded a 381% price premium over reduction credits, up from 245% the previous year. Corporations with net-zero targets must prioritize ARR and IFM projects to align with the Science Based Targets initiative (SBTi) guidance on residual emissions.
- Co-Benefits as Value Drivers: Buyers are no longer paying solely for the carbon molecule. They are paying for the verified impact on biodiversity and local communities. Projects with quantifiable co-benefits are achieving measurable price uplifts. In 2026, expect biodiversity monitoring to become a standard component of high-quality NBS due diligence.
- The Necessity of Long-Term Positions: The spot market for high-integrity NBS is thinning. If your organization waits to purchase 2026 vintage credits in 2026, you will likely face a restricted supply of “leftover” inventory at inflated prices. The $12 billion surge in offtakes signals that your peers are moving upstream to finance project development directly.
Recommendations for the C-Suite
To navigate the 2026 carbon market landscape effectively, we recommend the following actions:
- Audit Your Inventory: Assess your current holdings against independent ratings. Identify assets at risk of becoming “stranded” due to low integrity scores or lack of alignment with Core Carbon Principles (CCPs).
- Pivot to Offtakes: Move from spot purchasing to multi-year offtake agreements for high-quality ARR and IFM projects. This hedges against future price spikes and secures supply.
- Integrate Compliance Standards: Even if your purchasing is voluntary, align your quality thresholds with CORSIA Phase 1 or Article 6 requirements to future-proof your investments against regulatory creep.
- Demand Data: Require independent ratings and granular monitoring data (MRV) for all prospective NBS investments. Do not rely on issuer claims alone.
The era of cheap, opaque carbon credits is effectively over. The market of 2026 offers clarity and impact, but only for those willing to invest in integrity.
About Carbon Credit Capital
For over 20 years, Carbon Credit Capital has guided global organizations through the complexities of sustainability strategy and carbon finance. To discuss how these 2026 forecasts impact your specific net-zero roadmap, or to analyze the integrity of your current portfolio, connect with our sustainability experts.
Carbon Footprint
Surge Battery Metals Strengthens Nevada North With High-Grade Expansion and Infill Success
Surge Battery Metals (TSX-V: NILI | OTCQX: NILIF | FRA: DJ5C) delivered two strong updates from its Nevada North Lithium Project (NNLP) in February 2026. Together, these results confirm expansion potential, reinforce high-grade continuity, and advance technical work needed for the upcoming Pre-Feasibility Study (PFS).
On February 17, Surge reported a major step-out success. The company drilled a 31-meter intercept grading 4,196 ppm lithium from surface in a hole located 640 meters southeast of the existing resource boundary. This intercept sits well above the current resource average grade of 3,010 ppm lithium. The wide step-out confirms that high-grade mineralization extends significantly beyond the defined resource footprint.
Just one week later, on February 25, Surge released the final batch of results from its 2025 core drilling program. These infill holes focused on upgrading inferred resources to higher confidence categories and collecting technical data for the PFS. The results returned some of the strongest intercepts drilled to date.
Together, these two updates strengthen the project’s scale, quality, and development readiness.
Infill Drilling Confirms a Thick, High-Grade Core
The February 25 news highlighted Hole NNL-030 as a standout result. The hole intersected 116 meters, averaging 3,752 ppm lithium. Within that interval, a 32.1-meter zone graded 4,521 ppm lithium. These grades exceed the project’s current average and confirm the presence of a thick, ultra-high-grade core.
Hole NNL-032 also delivered strong results, returning 82.29 meters, averaging 3,664 ppm lithium. Hole NNL-036 intersected 78.63 meters, averaging 3,141 ppm lithium, including a deep 9.4-meter zone grading 4,580 ppm lithium.
These intercepts show both lateral and vertical continuity. They show that high-grade lithium persists across wide widths and at depth. Importantly, most of these zones occur near the surface. Near-surface mineralization reduces stripping requirements and can improve early-year mine economics.
The infill drilling supports resource upgrading efforts. It helps convert Inferred resources into Indicated and Measured categories. Higher confidence categories are critical for mine planning, financing, and permitting.
The results confirm that Nevada North’s high-grade core is consistent, thick, and scalable.
Mr. Greg Reimer, President & Chief Executive Officer and Director of Surge, stated,
“This infill drilling is doing exactly what it was designed to do: upgrade the resource, confirm continuity of some of our best lithium intercepts, and de-risk the early years of a potential mine plan at Nevada North. Coupled with a robust PEA economic profile, we believe Nevada North is strongly positioned as we move forward with the development of our PFS. We look forward to updating the Mineral Resource Estimate as our next key milestone.”
Expansion Beyond the Current Resource Boundary
The February 17 step-out result adds a new dimension to the project story. The 31-meter intercept grading 4,196 ppm lithium occurred 640 meters beyond the existing resource area. This large extension demonstrates strong mineral continuity outside the current pit-constrained model.
Step-out drilling is important because it tests the limits of a deposit. A successful 640-meter extension suggests the deposit remains open and may support future resource growth.
Nevada North already hosts a pit-constrained Inferred Resource of 11.24 million tonnes of lithium carbonate equivalent (LCE) grading 3,010 ppm lithium at a 1,250 ppm cutoff. High-grade step-out intercepts increase confidence that future resource updates may expand both tonnage and overall contained lithium.
Highly anomalous soil values and geophysical surveys also suggest the clay horizons could extend even further. The mineralized zone currently spans more than 4,300 meters in strike length and over 1,500 meters in width. Continued drilling could increase the overall scale of the project.
This combination of strong infill and wide step-out success strengthens Nevada North’s long-term growth profile.
Advancing Toward Pre-Feasibility and Permitting
The 2025 drilling program did more than confirm grade. It also collected critical technical data required for the upcoming PFS and environmental permitting.
Hole NNL-035 was strategically positioned near Texas Spring to gather hydrogeological data. The hole successfully installed the Vibrating Wire Piezometers (VWPs) to monitor groundwater conditions. This data will help model basin hydrology and support environmental approvals.
The company also completed detailed geotechnical logging across all holes. High-resolution televiewer surveys mapped fault structures. Representative samples from each rock unit are now undergoing rock strength testing. These tests will help determine safe pit wall angles for future mine planning.
Remarkably, quality control procedures were rigorous. Of the 806 total samples analyzed, 134 were QA/QC samples. Certified reference standards, blanks, and duplicates were systematically inserted.
Standards are performed within acceptable limits. Duplicate samples fell within 10% tolerance. These results confirm strong analytical accuracy and reproducibility.
This technical work reduces development risk. This, in turn, ensures that the PFS is built on high-quality geological and engineering data.
Strategic Upside: By-Products and Strong Economics
In addition to lithium, the infill drilling consistently returned elevated cesium and rubidium values. Cesium reached up to 163 ppm and rubidium up to 349 ppm in association with the lithium core. Surge is evaluating the deportment of these elements in ongoing metallurgical studies.
If recoverable, these critical minerals could add value to the project economics. By-product potential can improve revenue streams and enhance overall project returns.
Nevada North already shows strong economic metrics from its Preliminary Economic Assessment. The PEA reports an after-tax NPV (8%) of approximately US$9.17 billion and an after-tax IRR of 22.8% at a lithium price of US$24,000 per tonne LCE. Operating costs are estimated at roughly US$5,243 per tonne LCE.
High grades play a central role in these economics. Thick intervals averaging 3,500–4,500 ppm lithium reduce the tonnage required to produce each unit of lithium. This supports lower operating costs and stronger early cash flow potential.
The joint venture with Evolution Mining also strengthens the project’s development pathway. Evolution is a globally recognized mining company with operational expertise. This partnership adds technical depth and financial strength to the Nevada North project.
A Strengthened Position in the U.S. Lithium Landscape
The United States is working to strengthen its domestic lithium supply chain. Federal incentives and policy measures emphasize secure, locally sourced battery materials. Projects that combine high grade, large scale, and technical readiness are well-positioned in this environment.
Nevada North now demonstrates three key strengths at once:
- Proven high-grade core through infill drilling,
- Expansion potential through 640-meter step-out success, and
- Advancing technical data for PFS and permitting.
These updates reinforce Nevada North as one of the highest-grade lithium clay projects in the United States. They show both growth and de-risking in the same drilling campaign.
As global demand for lithium continues to rise, supply sources with strong grade, scale, and development momentum will stand out. Surge Battery Metals’ recent results highlight meaningful progress on all three fronts.
The company’s Nevada North Lithium Project is not only expanding. It is advancing toward higher confidence resources, improved technical definition, and future development milestones. These combined achievements strengthen Surge’s position within the evolving North American lithium supply chain.
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. Surge Battery Metals Inc. (“Company”) made a one-time payment of $50,000 to provide marketing services for a term of two 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, 2024, 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.
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 Surge Battery Metals Strengthens Nevada North With High-Grade Expansion and Infill Success appeared first on Carbon Credits.
Carbon Footprint
Canada Approves First Uranium Mine in 20 Years as Tech Giants Eye Nuclear Fuel for AI Power
Canada has taken a major step in its mining history. The country recently approved the first large-scale uranium mine in more than 20 years. This new project is part of Canada’s effort to support clean energy and nuclear power production.
The federal and provincial governments approved the Phoenix In Situ Recovery (ISR) uranium mine. This mine is part of Denison Mines’ Wheeler River Project in Saskatchewan. This approval allows the construction of both the mine and its processing mill.
Phoenix will use ISR mining, a method seen as more environmentally friendly than traditional open-pit or underground mining. The technique uses liquid to dissolve uranium underground. It then brings the uranium to the surface for processing. This method reduces land disturbance compared to traditional methods.
With its license now issued and environmental reviews completed, construction is expected to take about two years. The project remains on track for its first production by mid-2028.
The approval is a milestone for Canada’s nuclear fuel sector. It signals renewed interest in uranium mining at a time when nuclear power is gaining traction as a low-carbon energy source.
A New Era for Canada’s Uranium Sector
Uranium is the key fuel for nuclear power plants. Nuclear power provides large amounts of low-carbon electricity around the world. As countries seek to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, nuclear energy is playing a growing role in clean energy strategies.
Canada is one of the world’s top uranium producers. Mines like Cigar Lake, McClean Lake, and Rabbit Lake in Saskatchewan have been supplying uranium for decades.
However, no new large mining projects had been approved at the federal level in over two decades before Phoenix. Canada can now boost uranium production. This will help support nuclear fuel supply chains at home and abroad.
The Phoenix mine will create economic benefits. This includes jobs during both construction and operations in northern Saskatchewan. It will also contribute to local tax revenue and community development.
Rising Power Needs Put Nuclear Back in Focus
Nuclear power accounts for a significant share of clean electricity globally. Nuclear reactors produce constant, reliable power that does not depend on weather like wind or solar. Many countries view nuclear energy as critical to meeting climate goals while maintaining grid stability.
As electric grids transition to cleaner energy sources, the demand for uranium — the core fuel for nuclear plants — is rising.
According to the International Energy Agency (IEA), global electricity demand grew by 3 % in 2025, following a 4.4 % increase in 2024. The agency expects demand to rise by about 3.6% each year from 2026 to 2030. This growth will come from industrial use, electrification, electric vehicles, cooling needs, and more data centers.
This growth underscores the need for reliable, low-carbon generation capacity. Nuclear energy is a strong candidate because it supplies large volumes of consistent electricity with low emissions.
Tech Sector Turns to Nuclear for 24/7 Power
As electricity demand grows, especially from data centers, tech companies are focusing on long-term power solutions.
Executives at NexGen Energy, developing Canada’s largest uranium project in Saskatchewan, say they’ve talked with data center providers. They discussed financing uranium mining projects and securing a long-term uranium supply. These talks aim to ensure stable fuel for nuclear plants that could help power future data infrastructure.
CEO Leigh Curyer said,
“It’s coming. You’ve seen it with automakers. These tech companies, they’re under an obligation to ensure the hundreds of billions that they are investing in the data centres are going to be powered.”
NexGen is working on the Rook I uranium project in Saskatchewan’s Athabasca Basin. This area is one of the richest for uranium and hosts Canada’s largest development-stage uranium project.
The company anticipates full government approval soon, and it aims for production around 2030. NexGen executives say the mine could supply more than 20 % of global uranium demand once operational.
NexGen’s discussions with data center operators focus on financing and long-term supply agreements. The idea is like car makers investing in battery material mines. They do this to secure vital supplies for electric vehicles.
These talks do not involve giving tech firms any control of NexGen. Instead, they focus on ways to help ensure uranium supply and potentially support early project development.
- MUST READ: From Now to 2060: How Canada’s SMRs and Maritime Nuclear Power Will Drive a Net-Zero Future
Why Tech Firms Are Interested in Nuclear Fuel
Modern data centers need a lot of electricity. This is especially true for those supporting AI, cloud computing, and large digital services. Power demand from data centers is a key driver of rising global electricity use, according to the IEA.
Unlike intermittent renewables, nuclear power provides 24/7 electricity that is not affected by weather. This reliability makes it attractive for companies that need stable energy for critical infrastructure.
Some technology firms have already signaled interest in long-term arrangements with nuclear energy providers. These supply arrangements might involve financing for mining, long-term fuel contracts, or offtake agreements when projects start production.
Long-term contracts for uranium can help companies lock in fuel supply for decades. This can reduce risks related to supply shortages or price volatility in commodity markets.The discussions show how energy security and climate goals are intersecting with corporate planning in the tech sector.
- SEE MORE: Project Matador: America’s $90B Nuclear Power Solution for AI, Semiconductors, and Data Centers
Tight Supply and Rising Prices Reshape the Market
The uranium market has tightened in recent years. Uranium prices have gone up. This rise shows supply issues and increasing interest in nuclear energy. Recent trading values put uranium at almost US$89 per pound, after briefly exceeding US$100 per pound in end of January.
Projections suggest that global nuclear capacity will need more fuel in coming decades as new reactors come online and existing ones are extended. Countries like China and India are expanding nuclear power to meet their growing electricity needs.
In Canada, new mines such as Phoenix and big projects like Rook I can fill global supply gaps. They also support national energy plans.
Global Supply Strain: U.S. and China Reshape the Uranium Market
The scramble for uranium supply is accelerating beyond Canada.
In the United States, a ban on Russian enriched uranium imports will take full effect in January 2028. Russia holds around 44% of the world’s uranium enrichment capacity. In 2023, it provided 27% of U.S. utility enrichment purchases, according to S&P Global Commodity Insights.
To reduce this dependence, the U.S. Department of Energy announced $2.7 billion in task orders to expand domestic enrichment capacity. The funding supports Centrus Energy, General Matter, and Orano Federal Services.
- Orano got $900 million to build a new enrichment facility in Oak Ridge, Tennessee. They expect to submit a license application in the first half of 2026.
Conversion capacity is also expanding. Solstice Advanced Materials plans to increase uranium conversion output by 20% at its Metropolis Works plant in Illinois. The facility is expected to exceed 10 kilotonnes of UF₆ production in 2026, and it is reportedly sold out through 2030.
At the same time, China’s nuclear buildout is adding pressure to global supply. China operates 58 reactors, with 34 more under construction. Citi Research estimates China’s uranium needs will rise from 35 million pounds in 2025 to 58 million pounds by 2030, equal to about 27% of global demand. Yet, China produces only around 4 million pounds domestically.
Global uranium demand could reach 400 million pounds by 2040, more than double today’s levels. Meanwhile, about 70% of post-2027 uranium requirements remain uncontracted, highlighting the growing supply gap.
S&P Global expects a uranium market upcycle until 2028, fueled by rising nuclear demand, especially from AI data centers. Global capacity is set to double, reaching 561-992 GW by 2050. Production jumps 141% to 141.2 million pounds by 2033, generating $14.9 billion revenue at $98.7/lb—65% above current prices.
Kazatomprom and Cameco will lead in 2025, generating $5.4 billion in revenue. This accounts for 86% of the group’s output. After 2028, NexGen and Denison will drive the supply wave, peaking at $1.6 billion in capex. Big Tech (Meta, AWS, Google, Microsoft) signs PPAs and equity deals.
Nuclear Fuel Security Becomes a Climate Strategy
The approval of a new mine after more than 20 years shows that uranium is regaining importance in global energy planning. The Phoenix ISR project and other potential mines reflect renewed confidence in nuclear fuel production.
Early interest from tech companies in securing uranium supply shows a shift in energy planning. As power demand increases, companies are exploring new clean energy options. They want stable, low-carbon electricity.
For countries pushing decarbonization, nuclear power — supported by a stable uranium supply — offers a path to reduce emissions while meeting baseload electricity demand.
In this context, the Canadian uranium sector is poised for growth. New mines and potential private sector involvement may strengthen nuclear fuel security, supporting both national and global energy transitions.
The post Canada Approves First Uranium Mine in 20 Years as Tech Giants Eye Nuclear Fuel for AI Power appeared first on Carbon Credits.
-
Greenhouse Gases7 months ago
Guest post: Why China is still building new coal – and when it might stop
-
Climate Change7 months 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
Bill Discounting Climate Change in Florida’s Energy Policy Awaits DeSantis’ Approval
-
Climate Change2 years ago
Spanish-language misinformation on renewable energy spreads online, report shows
-
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 Change Videos2 years ago
The toxic gas flares fuelling Nigeria’s climate change – BBC News
-
Carbon Footprint2 years agoUS SEC’s Climate Disclosure Rules Spur Renewed Interest in Carbon Credits