Disseminated on behalf of Surge Battery Metals.
Every time instability erupts in the Middle East, North Americans feel it where it hurts most—at the gas pump. It happened in 1979, when the Iranian Revolution sent shockwaves through global energy markets. Oil supplies tightened. Prices surged, and inflation followed. Entire economies slowed under the pressure.
For millions of households, the crisis’s impact was personal. It showed up in longer lines at gas stations and rising costs across daily life.
Nearly five decades later, the pattern is repeating.
Renewed tensions across key oil-producing regions are once again tightening global supply. Prices are rising. Consumers are feeling the impact. And once again, events unfolding thousands of miles away are shaping the cost of energy at home.
This pattern suggests a persistent structural vulnerability in North America’s exposure to global oil‑supply shocks. The region still depends heavily on global oil markets. That means supply disruptions, no matter where they occur, can quickly ripple through the system.
The result is a familiar cycle: geopolitical instability leads to supply concerns, which drive up prices, which then feed directly into the cost of living.
A Cycle Consumers Know All Too Well
When prices spike, households adjust. Commuters rethink travel. Businesses absorb higher costs or pass them on. Inflation pressures build. The impact spreads far beyond the energy sector.
With average gasoline prices currently around $4 per gallon in the US ($5.50 in California), or roughly $1.05 US per liter ($1.45 in California), the connection between global events and local fuel prices is no longer theoretical – it is a lived experience. This is why energy security is increasingly framed as both a policy concern and a kitchen‑table issue.
The events of 1979 were a warning. Today’s rising prices are another. The difference is that North America now has more options than it did back then.
Electric vehicles, battery storage, and renewable power systems are no longer future concepts. They are already part of the energy mix. And for those who have made the shift, the experience is very different, and the transition is already complete.
Instead of watching fuel prices climb, they are plugging in.
Graham Harris, Chairman of Surge Battery Metals, has spoken openly about this shift in practical terms. While rising oil prices create uncertainty at the pump, he charges his electric vehicle at home.
The contrast between gasoline dependency and electrification is becoming more visible.
When oil prices rise, gasoline costs follow. But electricity prices tend to be more stable, especially when supported by domestic generation and renewable sources. That difference is simple but powerful. It changes how people experience energy volatility.
One system is exposed to global shocks. The other is increasingly tied to domestic infrastructure. This contrast highlights how the energy transition is reshaping exposure to global price shocks.
Some analysts increasingly frame the energy transition not only as a climate imperative but also as a strategy to reduce exposure to external risk. It relates to questions of control over where energy comes from, how it is produced, and how stable it is over time.
And at the center of that transition is one critical material: lithium.
Lithium: The Foundation of Energy Independence
Lithium is the core component of modern battery technology. It powers electric vehicles, supports grid-scale energy storage, and plays a growing role in advanced defense systems.
As electrification expands, demand for lithium is rising across multiple sectors.
But here is the challenge: much of today’s lithium supply still comes from outside the United States. This creates a familiar dynamic.
Just as oil dependency has long exposed North America to geopolitical risk, reliance on foreign lithium supply introduces a new layer of vulnerability. The commodity is different, but the structure is similar.
The United States imported the majority of its lithium from Chile and Argentina in 2024. Together, they accounted for roughly 98% of the total supply. Smaller volumes were sourced from the UK, France, and China.
That is why domestic production is becoming a central focus of energy and industrial policy.
In March 2025, Donald Trump signed an executive order titled “Immediate Measures to Increase American Mineral Production.” The directive called for faster permitting, expanded development, and reduced reliance on foreign supply chains for critical minerals.
The message of the order was clear: building domestic capacity is now a strategic priority.
- RELATED: Live Lithium Prices Today
A Domestic Resource Takes Shape in Nevada
Within this broader shift, projects like Surge Battery Metals’ (TSX-V: NILI | OTCQX: NILIF) Nevada North Lithium Project (NNLP) are gaining attention.
NNLP hosts a measured and indicated resource of 11.24 million tonnes of lithium carbonate equivalent (LCE) at an average grade of 3,010 ppm lithium, based on company disclosures. This makes it the highest-grade lithium clay resource identified in the United States to date.
A 2025 Preliminary Economic Assessment (PEA) outlines the project’s scale:
- After-tax NPV (8%): US$9.21 billion
- Internal Rate of Return (IRR): 22.8%
- Mine life: 42 years
- Average annual production: ~86,300 tonnes LCE
- Employment: ~2,000 construction jobs and ~350 long-term operational roles
These figures indicate potential in terms of scale, longevity, and the ability to contribute to domestic supply if the project moves forward. At full production, NNLP has the potential to rank among the larger lithium-producing assets globally, based on third-party analysis.
Recent drilling results announced by Surge Battery Metals have further strengthened NNLP’s profile as a standout asset. In February 2026, step-out drilling found a 31-meter intercept with 4,196 ppm lithium from surface. This is much higher than the project’s average of 3,010 ppm Li. It also extends high-grade mineralization nearly 640 meters beyond the current resource boundary.
Infill drilling showed a steady, thick, high-grade core. It included intercepts like 116 meters at 3,752 ppm Li and 32 meters at 4,521 ppm Li. These results support future resource expansion. They also highlight the project’s scale, quality, and technical readiness as it prepares for a Pre-Feasibility Study.
Beyond the project itself, it reflects a broader policy and industry shift toward building more domestically anchored energy systems.
From Oil Dependency to Mineral Security
The connection between oil and lithium is not always obvious at first glance. Oil fuels internal combustion engines, while lithium supports batteries and energy‑storage systems, with distinct technologies and supply chains.
But the underlying issue is the same. Dependence on external sources creates exposure to external risk.
In the case of oil, that risk has played out repeatedly over decades. Supply disruptions, price shocks, and geopolitical tensions have all shaped the market.
With lithium, the industry is earlier in its development. But the stakes are rising quickly.
Global demand for lithium grew about 30 % in 2024, driven mainly by batteries for electric vehicles and energy storage, according to IEA data. Demand in 2025 continued at high rates, and under current policies, lithium demand is projected to grow fivefold by 2040 compared with today.
At the same time, supply growth is struggling to keep pace with demand forecasts. These trends show that ensuring a stable, secure supply is becoming just as important as expanding production.
That is where domestic projects come in, such as Surge Battery Metals’ NNLP.
They may not eliminate global market dynamics, but they can reduce exposure to them. They can provide a buffer against volatility. And they can support a more stable, self-reliant energy system.
A Turning Point – or Another Warning?
While history does not repeat in the same way, similar patterns can be observed.
The oil shocks of the 1970s revealed a vulnerability that shaped energy policy for decades. Today’s market signals are pointing to a similar challenge—this time at the intersection of oil dependency and critical mineral supply.
The difference is that the range of policy and technological options available today is broader. Electrification is already underway. Battery technology is advancing. Domestic resource development is gaining policy support. The pieces are in place.
Data from the International Energy Agency’s Global EV Outlook 2025 shows that global battery demand reached a historic milestone of 1 terawatt-hour (TWh) in 2024. This surge was mainly due to the growth of electric vehicles (EVs).
By 2030, demand is expected to more than triple, exceeding 3 TWh under current policies. This reflects not only rising EV adoption but also expanding stationary storage demand. Both of which rely on critical minerals like lithium.
Electric vehicles continue to displace traditional oil use as well. The same IEA analysis shows that by 2030, EVs will replace over 5 million barrels of oil daily. This is about the size of a major country’s transport sector, highlighting how electrification is changing energy markets.
What remains uncertain is the pace at which these changes will occur.
Will rising fuel prices once again fade as markets stabilize? Or will they serve as a catalyst for deeper structural shifts?
That question matters not just for policymakers or investors, but for everyday consumers.
Because at the end of the day, energy transitions are not measured in policy papers. They are measured in daily decisions—how people power their homes, fuel their vehicles, and respond to rising costs.
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 $75,000 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.
The post History Repeating Itself: Why Middle East Conflict at the Pump Should Be a Wake-Up Call for North America appeared first on Carbon Credits.
Nature-based carbon investments deserve consideration when they address a specific business dependency and produce outcomes you can measure. Imagine Moonbucks, a global coffee roaster planning next season’s espresso blend. It is considering natural Grade 4 coffee from Jimma, in southwestern Oromia, Ethiopia. Its sourcing decisions affect the roasting schedule and the cash tied up in coffee purchases. Moonbucks needs to understand which measures could protect that supply, what they would cost and how it would judge the results.
1. Define the sourcing problem before choosing a project
Moonbucks needs a dependable component for its espresso blend. Its procurement team wants continuity of volume and an agreed cup profile. Replacing a shipment at short notice could require new sample approval and changes to the blend, and given the schedules for cultivation, processing, and freight delivery, is practically impossible. Moonbucks needs to get this right, and its initial concern is inconsistent deliveries. It commissions an assessment of the supplying farms and post-harvest chain. The questions cover land condition, harvest availability and whether drying or storage problems are affecting saleable lots.
This distinction changes the investment brief. A tree-planting proposal cannot be assumed to fix drying problems. Better storage cannot restore eroded land. The team must establish which problem exists before selecting the response.
CCC’s guide to finding nature-based solutions in your supply chain explains where to look. Here, the next task is to turn a broad concern into a testable proposal.
2. Develop nature-based carbon investments around the actual supply chain
The assessment would trace Moonbucks’ purchases back through the exporter and supplying producer groups. Which farms supply the contracted lots? Who controls land-management decisions? How long does the buyer expect to maintain the purchasing relationship?
Furthermore, Jimma natural Grade 4 cannot be treated as interchangeable with every Ethiopian coffee. Moonbucks would need to test any substitute against its own blend and quality requirements.
Suppose Moonbucks’ assessment identifies an opportunity to maintain shade trees and restore vegetation along exposed streambanks. The IPCC describes agroforestry as a way to store carbon in vegetation and soil, with potential benefits for erosion control and water quality.1 Moonbucks would need local advice on species, growing conditions and maintenance before deciding how these measures fit its sourcing plan.
The proposal now has a defined sourcing connection and a candidate intervention. The next steps are to test its effect on production, assess carbon eligibility and build the financial case.
3. Compare the proposal with other ways to protect supply
WBCSD’s Nature-based Solutions Blueprint recommends comparing nature-based options with other responses across their benefits and costs.2 For Moonbucks, that means evaluating the landscape proposal alongside drying improvements, storage controls and alternative sourcing arrangements.
The product’s natural-process designation matters. Moonbucks should examine the drying and dry-milling chain alongside land conditions. Its team would check storage practices, contamination risks and incoming-lot quality to see whether problems arise before or after the coffee leaves the farms.
The revised proposal might combine land stewardship with separate post-harvest controls. Each component needs its own purpose and budget. A sustainability label should not obscure which activity is expected to solve which problem.
The project develops as the evidence improves. Its scope should follow the diagnosis rather than preserve the first idea unchanged.
4. Establish what the carbon outcome could count toward
Moonbucks’ sustainability team now tests the proposed carbon case separately from the sourcing case. Is the objective a measurable change in Moonbucks’ value-chain emissions, verified credits for separate voluntary use, or distinct outcomes under carefully defined arrangements?
Scope 3 covers value-chain emissions. A purchasing relationship alone does not prove that a farm intervention can be included in Moonbucks’ inventory. The team needs an applicable accounting method, defensible boundaries and evidence supporting attribution.
SBTi’s FLAG Guidance (forest, land and agriculture), version 1.2, says purchased credits used as offsets cannot meet near-term FLAG or energy and industry targets. Eligible land-based removals are subject to accounting requirements.3 Moonbucks needs to test its proposal against those rules before including an outcome in its targets.
For Moonbucks’ Jimma proposal, maintaining existing trees and establishing new vegetation could involve different carbon questions. Specialists must examine the baseline and additionality, meaning what changes because the project proceeds. They must also assess measurement and the risk that stored carbon is lost. CCC’s MRV and additionality article introduces those tests.
Until that work is complete, Moonbucks should not budget an assumed Scope 3 reduction or credit-sale receipt. Direct emissions reductions remain the priority.
5. Build a financial case that survives weaker assumptions
Moonbucks’ finance team would now build a multi-year budget. UNEP’s State of Finance for Nature 2023 compares current finance with the investment needed to meet climate, biodiversity and land-restoration goals.4 The company would cost its proposed activities, farmer participation and ongoing monitoring. Verification, where required, is a separate expense. Maintenance and responsibility for replacing failed plantings must remain visible after the initial establishment budget ends.
Operational benefits need equally careful treatment. If fewer rejected lots reduce emergency purchasing, count that saving once. Do not add “supply resilience” as another financial benefit when it represents the same avoided cost.
Moonbucks should compare a base case with slower benefits, higher implementation costs and no carbon revenue. It should also distinguish production outcomes from quality and shipment outcomes. A single good harvest would not prove that the landscape intervention caused better delivery performance.
A project can remain worth funding even when its carbon case needs more work. That decision must rest on the operational evidence and the company’s objectives, without unsupported environmental claims.
6. Fund a pilot with a clear expansion decision
Moonbucks’ first approval would fund a bounded pilot, rather than commit the entire sourcing program. Before spending, Moonbucks would agree on participating farms, responsibilities and the evidence needed at review.
Its scorecard could track farmer participation, implementation costs and plant survival, alongside accepted coffee volumes and lot-quality results. Carbon measurements would follow the selected method. Farm-level traceability must connect the intervention to the actual sourcing relationship.
Suppose Moonbucks’ review later finds that storage changes explain most quality improvements, while the land measures need longer observation. Those findings would shape the next decision: expand the proven component, adjust the landscape work or pause further spending. They would not justify crediting all improvements to tree planting.
This gives nature-based carbon investments a practical place in a multi-year strategy. Funding increases as the evidence supports it, and the project can change direction before a larger commitment.
Discuss a sourcing opportunity with CCC
Carbon Credit Capital’s nature-based supply-chain investment service uses its Dual-Value Model to examine supply-chain economics alongside potential sustainability outcomes.
Schedule a consultation to discuss your sourcing exposure and the questions to resolve before allocating capital.
Sources
- Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), Climate Change 2022: Mitigation of Climate Change, Chapter 7, Agriculture, Forestry and Other Land Uses, section 7.4.3.3 (Agroforestry).
- World Business Council for Sustainable Development (WBCSD), Nature-based Solutions Blueprint, 5 June 2024.
- Science Based Targets initiative (SBTi), Forest, Land and Agriculture Science-Based Target-Setting Guidance, version 1.2, March 2026, section 3.1.4, pp. 37–38.
- United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), State of Finance for Nature 2023, 2023.
A plastic credit funds the collection of plastic waste in places where no formal system exists to collect it. Each credit represents a measured, independently audited quantity of plastic taken out of the environment or returned to use, tracked on a public registry.
EU carbon credit claims changed on 27 September 2026, the day the Directive (EU) 2024/825 began to apply across the European Union. The change is narrow. It changes how a company can talk about the credits it buys. A product can no longer be called neutral on the strength of compensation alone; however, every specific, evidenced statement about what a company measured, reduced, and funded stays fully available.
