On June 4 Occidental Petroleum and BHE Renewables announced their joint venture to extract high-purity lithium from Berkshire’s geothermal facility in California. Together, they plan to revolutionize commercial lithium production by installing TerraLithium’s Direct Lithium Extraction (DLE) technology. This partnership marks a significant step in the advancement of sustainable energy solutions.
We shall deep dive into the JV details and explore the technology in the next paragraphs:
Oxy-BHE Synergy Leading the Future of Sustainable Lithium Extraction
The collaboration aims to leverage the strengths of both companies. Occidental will bring its expertise in chemical engineering and large-scale operations while BHE Renewables will contribute its knowledge of renewable energy and environmental sustainability.
Alicia Knapp, President and CEO of BHE Renewables has further assured that,
“This joint venture with TerraLithium represents a significant advancement in BHE Renewables’ commitment to pursuing commercial lithium production that is environmentally safe, commercially viable, and leads to good outcomes for the Imperial Valley community.”
She further envisions making Imperial Valley a global leader in lithium production.
After successfully demonstrating the technology, BHE Renewables will construct, own, and operate commercial lithium production facilities in California’s Imperial Valley. The joint venture also plans to license the technology and set up commercial lithium production facilities outside the Imperial Valley.
Oxy’s TerraLithium Acquisition Sparks Lithium Revolution
The demand for EVs and consumer electronics propels the lithium market. It is projected to soar from $22.2 billion to $89.9 billion by 2030. Conventional lithium production methods, like evaporation ponds, pose significant environmental concerns. Moreover, production facilities are heavily concentrated in Australia, Chile, and China.
From the company’s climate report, we discovered that Oxy’s acquisition of TerraLithium in 2022, now a wholly owned subsidiary, is a game-changer.
formed through a partnership with All-American Lithium in 2019, TerraLithium boasts patented technologies capable of cost-effectively extracting trace lithium from waste brines, ensuring ultra-high-purity lithium while minimizing environmental impacts. By acquiring the remaining interests, Oxy harnesses its expertise in chemical plant operations and brine management, promoting sustainable lithium production and securing strategic domestic lithium sources. TerraLithium’s demonstration plant in Brawley, California, near the Salton Sea, is slated to commence operations in 2024.
Jeff Alvarez, President and General Manager of TerraLithium being extremely optimistic about the merger, commented,
“Creating a secure, reliable, and domestic supply of high-purity lithium products to help meet growing global lithium demand is essential for the energy transition. The partnership with BHE Renewables will enable the joint venture to accelerate the development of our Direct Lithium Extraction and associated technologies and advance them toward commercial lithium production.”
TheTerraLithium Technology Advantage
TerraLithium owns patented Direct Lithium Extraction (DLE) technologies that transform any lithium-containing brine into a superior and responsibly sourced lithium supply. It leverages Oxy’s expertise in subsurface and chemical engineering, coupled with a track record in technology scale-up, pilot project development, and global commercialization.
This lithium extraction process promises higher efficiency and lower environmental impact than traditional methods. It minimizes water usage and reduces carbon emissions.
Notably, BHE operates 10 geothermal power plants in California, processing 50,000 gallons of lithium-rich brine every minute and generating 345 MW of clean energy.
This sustainable technology is set to meet the growing demand for lithium, crucial for EV batteries and renewable energy storage. Thus, aligning with both companies’ commitments to environmental stewardship to a low-carbon future.
Oxy’s Commitment to Net Zero goals
Oxy is committed to being part of the climate change solutions and developed the Net-Zero Strategy in alignment with the Paris Agreement. Being the largest oil and gas producers in the U.S., they have established key operations in the Permian and DJ basins and offshore in the Gulf of Mexico.
Furthermore, their subsidiary, Oxy Low Carbon Ventures, spearheads innovative technologies and business strategies that drive economic growth while curbing emissions. They are committed to global carbon management to propel a transition towards a lower-carbon future.
Additionally, it attracted significant new investments into low-carbon projects like DAC, carbon sequestration hubs, hydrogen, and notably, lithium.
source: Occidental
Warren Buffet’s Bold Lithium Bet
In 2021, Warren Buffett’s Berkshire Hathaway Inc. launched a groundbreaking plan to extract lithium from the superhot geothermal brines beneath California’s Salton Sea. It was believed to be a process that had never been explored before.
Here’s the image of it:
source: BHE
In 2022, they launched a demonstration project with this innovative technology. The strategic JV with Occidental is an extension of this plan. BHE Petroleum notes that if these demo projects succeed then construction of the first commercial plant could start as early as 2024. As already explained before it would essentially provide an environmentally responsible domestic source of lithium. Most significantly, all energy used in this lithium production process would be 100% renewable.
BHE Renewables is making strides in lithium production research in California’s Imperial Valley. Lithium, a crucial mineral for lithium-ion batteries used in cellphones, laptops, and EVs, dominates the brine processed at BHE Renewables’ geothermal facilities.
Will this JV Spark a Lithium Boom in the Future?
The demand for lithium is surging with the rise of EVs and renewable energy storage solutions. Technically the joint venture aims to capture a significant share of this expanding market. Furthermore, TerraLithium’s efficient and eco-friendly extraction process positions it as a competitive player in the industry.
Looking ahead, Occidental and BHE Renewables plan to scale up TerraLithium’s deployment. They are exploring opportunities to implement this technology at various sites. The goal is to enhance the supply chain for lithium, ensuring a stable and sustainable source for future energy needs.
Global oil giants are entering the electrification sector as the US and EU promote higher EV adoption and reduced fossil fuel dependency. Subsequently, Exxon Mobil aims to commence lithium production from sub-surface wells by 2027. Meanwhile, European oil leaders BP and Shell have directed investments toward EV charging stations as integral components of their energy transition strategies.
Last but not least, Richard Jackson, President, of US Onshore Resources and Carbon Management, Operations at Occidental has expressed himself that:
“By leveraging Occidental’s expertise in managing and processing brine in our oil and gas and chemicals businesses, combined with BHE Renewables’ deep knowledge in geothermal operations, we are uniquely positioned to advance a more sustainable form of lithium production. We look forward to working with BHE Renewables to demonstrate how DLE technology can produce a critical mineral that society needs to further net zero goals.”
All said and done, the partnership between Occidental and BHE Renewables signifies a major leap forward in lithium extraction technology and a transition to a greener future.
The post Occidental Petroleum and BHE Renewables JV to Revolutionize Lithium Extraction appeared first on Carbon Credits.
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.
Malawi has lost a striking share of its forests over the past three decades. Woodlands that once covered well over a third of the country now cover less than a quarter, and the pressure on what remains is increasing. Behind those figures sit two practical questions: what is driving the loss, and what reverses it?
-
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