On December 19, Li-FT Power Ltd. (LIFT) announced that it had signed a definitive agreement with North Arrow Minerals Inc. to acquire three lithium projects in Northwest Territories, Canada. In this deal, LIFT will now fully own the DeStaffany, LDG, and Mackay Lithium Projects. In exchange, North Arrow will receive 250,000 common shares of LIFT.
The deal also includes the transfer of reclamation bonds, ensuring responsible environmental practices. However, regulatory approvals are pending for the transaction to close.
Francis MacDonald, CEO and Director of Li-FT Power, commented,
“The acquisition of North Arrow’s lithium portfolio further positions LIFT as the leading lithium exploration company in the Northwest Territories. The DeStaffany Project is located close to our BET and Echo pegmatites which creates synergies from a logistical standpoint, as well as increases the overall resource base for the eastern sector of the Yellowknife Pegmatite Province. The LDG and Mackay properties give LIFT a foothold in an emerging spodumene district located near the Diavik and Ekati diamond mines and provide long-term upside for the Company. We will continue to seek out accretive acquisitions within the Northwest Territories, especially around our existing resource base.”
Li-FT’s Commitment to Lithium Exploration
Li-FT focuses on acquiring and developing lithium projects in Canada, including its flagship Yellowknife Lithium Project, located in the Northwest Territories. In addition to this flagship venture, LIFT owns three early-stage exploration properties in Quebec, which show strong potential for uncovering buried lithium pegmatites.
- READ MORE:
- Li-FT Power Reveals Initial Mineral Resource of 50.4 Million Tonnes at Yellowknife Lithium Project
- Li-FT Power Secures $21 Million Through Strategic Private Placement
The company also manages the Cali Project in the Northwest Territories located within the Little Nahanni Pegmatite Group.
A MESSAGE FROM Li-FT POWER LTD.
This content was reviewed and approved by Li-FT Power Ltd. and is being disseminated on behalf of CarbonCredits.com.
Exploring Hard Rock Lithium Deposits in Canada.
Lithium, one of the most essential ingredients in the production of batteries, lithium powers some of our most important devices. As you may already know, it will also be one of the hottest resources in the coming decade. And one of the fastest-developing North American lithium juniors is Li-FT Power Ltd (TXSV: LIFT | OTCQX: LIFFF | FRA: WS0).
Moving on, let’s deep dive into these 3 lithium projects acquired by LIFT POWER.
1. The DeStaffany Lithium Project
The DeStaffany lithium property spans 1,843 hectares along the north-central shore of Great Slave Lake in the Northwest Territories. It lies just 18 kilometers northeast of the Nechalacho mine and 115 kilometers east of Yellowknife.
The property hosts two significant pegmatites—Moose 1 and Moose 2—rich in lithium, tantalum, and niobium. While these pegmatites were explored in the 1940s for tantalum and niobium, their lithium potential remains largely unexplored. Recent discoveries of additional pegmatites by North Arrow highlight further opportunities on the property.
The Moose pegmatites are located within just 1 kilometer from Great Slave Lake. This property benefits from accessibility via Yellowknife and Hay River throughout the year. LIFT plans to advance the project through mapping, sampling, and prospecting. The next phase will focus on preparing for initial drilling to assess the spodumene pegmatites further.
Moose 1 Pegmatite
The Moose 1 pegmatite stretches 370 meters, with widths ranging from 4.5 to 6 meters and a maximum of 11 meters. Although drilling has never been conducted, historical channel sampling in 2009 revealed spodumene mineralization with lithium levels of 1.5% Li2O over 7.5 meters.
Moose 2 Pegmatite
The mining potential of Moose 2 is promising. It has been mapped over a 450-meter strike length and measures up to 30 meters wide. Bulk sampling in the 1940s and 1950s focused on tantalum and niobium, producing concentrates, but its lithium content remains untapped. Spodumene mineralization is widespread, with lithium grades of up to 1.98% Li2O identified along a 250-meter stretch.
The DeStaffany Lithium Project has been blessed with abundant resources and has a strategic location. These advantages contribute significantly to LIFT’s growing portfolio.
2. The LDG Project
The LDG Project, covering 8,600 hectares is located near Rio Tinto’s Diavik diamond mine. Early exploration has identified ten spodumene pegmatites, with two having outcropping dimensions up to 20 meters wide and 400 meters long. The till-covered terrain offers favorable conditions for discovering buried lithium deposits.
3. The Mackay Project
The Mackay Project, spanning 8,661 hectares, lies south of the Diavik diamond mine. Two spodumene-rich areas have been identified. The MK1 site features pegmatite dykes with lithium grades of up to 3.74% Li2O from grab samples. Meanwhile, the MK3 site includes a 130-meter pegmatite exposure with grades reaching 5.25% Li2O. These findings highlight the high lithium potential of the region.
Experienced Oversight
The lithium miner significantly highlighted that all technical details in this update were reviewed by Dr. Ron Voordouw, a Qualified Person under NI 43-101 standards. This ensures that the information meets absolute professional and regulatory standards.
North Arrow Driving Exploration Success with Global Expertise
Based in Vancouver, BC, North Arrow Minerals is an exploration company primarily focused on advancing the Kraaipan Gold Project in Botswana. It also explores the diamond potential in the Naujaat (NU), Pikoo (SK), and Loki (NWT) projects.
The company’s leadership team, including its management, board of directors, and advisors, brings extensive and proven expertise in global exploration and mining. Kenneth Armstrong, P.Geo. (NWT/NU, ON), serves as North Arrow’s President and CEO, overseeing exploration programs. He is a Qualified Person under NI 43-101 and ensures all projects adhere to industry standards.
He expressed his opinion on this deal as well, noting,
“We are pleased to proceed with this transaction as it provides North Arrow with exposure to the continued evaluation of these NWT lithium properties as well as Li-FT’s advanced Yellowknife Lithium Project while allowing our team to focus on exploration of the Kraaipan Gold Project in Botswana, where geophysical surveys, geochemical baseline analyses, and target evaluation are currently underway.”
With these strategic moves, Li-FT strengthens its position in Canada’s growing lithium market, paving the way for sustainable energy solutions.
- MUST READ: The Lithium Paradox: Price Plummet, Supply Surge, and Demand Dip – What’s Happening Now?
- RELATED: Live Lithium prices
Disclosure: Owners, members, directors, and employees of carboncredits.com have/may have stock or option positions in any of the companies mentioned: LIFT.
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 Li-FT Power Strikes Deal with North Arrow Minerals to Expand Lithium Portfolio in Canada’s Northwest Territories appeared first on Carbon Credits.
More and more small and medium-sized businesses are hearing the same question from their larger customers: What is your carbon footprint? That question now travels down entire supply chains, and it arrives next to tender requirements, certification criteria, and rising customer expectations.
The accounting differences that decide whether your nature investment shows up in inventory, in BVCM, or nowhere at all.
The question reaches a procurement team about three weeks before the next sustainability committee meeting. Someone has read about insetting. Someone else has just signed off on an offset purchase. The CSO wants to know if the two are interchangeable. The answer is no, and the GHG Protocol Land Sector and Removals Standard is the reason why.
This article walks through what each term means at audit-grade specificity, what the standards actually say about how each gets counted, and how to decide which tool fits which target. The insetting vs offsetting question is one of the most-searched in corporate climate strategy, and one of the most poorly answered. By the end of this piece, you should be able to brief a committee on the difference without notes.
The two definitions, in plain English
Offsetting means buying carbon credits generated outside your value chain and retiring them against your residual emissions. The reduction happens somewhere else, financed by you, and the credit is the receipt.
Insetting means investing in emission reductions or removals inside your own value chain, typically with suppliers, where the reduction is directly linked to the products and services you buy. The reduction happens inside the boundary of your Scope 3 inventory, and the accounting treatment is fundamentally different.
The shorthand from the University of Oxford’s Nature-based Insetting Initiative is useful: insetting is what you do with the supply chain you have; offsetting is what you do with the supply chain you do not have.
What the GHG Protocol Land Sector Standard actually says
The GHG Protocol Land Sector and Removals Standard, finalised in 2024 after a multi-year pilot, sets the rules for how land-based emission reductions and removals enter corporate inventories. The Standard distinguishes between inventory accounting (Scope 1, 2, and 3) and project or intervention accounting (a separate methodology for crediting).
For insetting, the practical implication is that supplier-level interventions, when properly measured and attributed, can reduce your Scope 3 category 1 (purchased goods and services) emissions in your inventory. The reduction is not a credit retired against the inventory; it is a lower inventory number, period.
For offsetting, the credit is retired separately. It can be reported as a contribution toward a net-zero claim under the SBTi Beyond Value Chain Mitigation framework or as part of a VCMI Carbon Integrity claim, but it does not lower the inventory number.
A practical consequence: if your Science Based Target requires a 50% absolute reduction in Scope 3 emissions by 2030, insetting moves you toward the target. Offsetting does not. This single point of difference reshapes the procurement decision.
When insetting counts toward Scope 3 (and when it does not)
Insetting counts toward Scope 3 only when several conditions are met:
- The intervention must occur with an entity in your value chain.
- The emissions reduction or removal must be measured against a defensible baseline.
- The reduction must be attributed to your share of that supplier’s output, not double-counted with other buyers.
- It must follow the inventory accounting rules in the GHG Protocol Land Sector Standard, not the project accounting rules used to generate credits.
The most common failure mode is double counting. If your supplier sells the same reduction as a credit on the voluntary market and also reports it to you as a Scope 3 reduction, the math breaks. The Standard requires you to address this risk, typically by purchasing and retiring the supplier-issued credit as part of your inventory or by contractual provisions that prevent the supplier from selling the reduction twice.
When insetting does not count toward Scope 3: when the intervention sits with a supplier you do not buy from, when the baseline is not defensible, when the attribution is unclear, or when the documentation does not survive audit. Those cases default to Beyond Value Chain Mitigation, which is still useful but operates on a different ledger.
The procurement and supplier engagement question
Insetting is harder than offsetting. That is the unfashionable truth most buyers eventually confront. Offsetting is a transaction; insetting is a relationship.
To run an insetting program, you need supplier mapping precise enough to know which farms or facilities sit at which Scope 3 boundary. You need an engagement model that gets suppliers to participate, which usually requires multi-year commitments and shared economics. You need an MRV architecture that measures the right things and produces audit-ready documentation. And you need a contractual structure that prevents double counting and protects both sides.
The trade-off you receive in return is significant. Reductions count against your inventory rather than your residual. Supplier relationships deepen, which protects sourcing continuity. Yield and quality improvements often follow regenerative interventions, which reduces your input cost over time. And the regulatory file, under CSRD, CSDDD, EUDR, and the SBTi FLAG Guidance, is materially stronger.
Choosing the right tool for the right target
A practical decision rule. If your target is a science-based Scope 3 reduction and you operate in a FLAG sector or source FLAG commodities, insetting is the structurally correct tool. If your target is a net-zero claim that includes neutralising hard-to-abate residual emissions outside your value chain, BVCM via high-integrity offsets is the structurally correct tool. Most companies with material Scope 3 exposure need both, in different proportions, sequenced over time.
The sequencing matters. Insetting takes longer to stand up but produces a permanent reduction in the inventory. Offsetting can be transacted faster but does not change the inventory and now sits under tighter claim restrictions. Treat them as complementary tools with different jobs, not as substitutes. The Accountability Framework Initiative and the IUCN Global Standard for Nature-based Solutions both provide useful guardrails for the insetting side, with biodiversity, human rights, and benefit-sharing requirements that go beyond carbon math.
If you are mapping a Scope 3 reduction roadmap and need to scope which interventions count toward your inventory versus which sit in Beyond Value Chain Mitigation, the carbon and sustainability experts at Carbon Credit Capital can help you structure a nature-based supply chain investment program that fits your FLAG exposure, your target architecture, and your audit horizon. Schedule a consultation.
Net zero is often described as a balancing act: cut what you can, account for the rest, and reach zero on the ledger. That framing is useful, but it leaves something out. It treats every tonne of carbon as interchangeable and every route to zero as equally sound, while the science tells a more specific story.
-
Climate Change1 year ago
Guest post: Why China is still building new coal – and when it might stop
-
Greenhouse Gases1 year ago
Guest post: Why China is still building new coal – and when it might stop
-
Greenhouse Gases2 years ago嘉宾来稿：满足中国增长的用电需求 光伏加储能“比新建煤电更实惠”
-
Climate Change2 years ago嘉宾来稿：满足中国增长的用电需求 光伏加储能“比新建煤电更实惠”
-
Climate Change2 years ago
Bill Discounting Climate Change in Florida’s Energy Policy Awaits DeSantis’ Approval
-
Renewable Energy10 months agoSending Progressive Philanthropist George Soros to Prison?
-
Greenhouse Gases1 year ago
嘉宾来稿：探究火山喷发如何影响气候预测
-
Carbon Footprint2 years agoUS SEC’s Climate Disclosure Rules Spur Renewed Interest in Carbon Credits