Disseminated on behalf of Sierra Madre Gold & Silver Ltd.
Mexico has long been one of the world’s top silver producers. For centuries, its mining regions—Zacatecas, Durango, and the Sierra Madre belt—have supplied much of the world’s silver. But after decades of underinvestment and falling output from older mines, the country’s silver production has started to slow.
That is now changing. Modern mining companies are reinvigorating Mexico’s silver belt. They bring in new capital, use better technology, and follow stricter environmental standards. Among these companies, Sierra Madre Gold & Silver Ltd. (TSXV: SM | OTCQX: SMDRF) stands out. The plan to restart and expand the La Guitarra Mine in the Temascaltepec district is a big step forward for Mexico’s precious metals industry.
The Comeback of La Guitarra
The La Guitarra Mine has a long history of production, dating back to colonial times. It produced gold and silver for different owners. Most recently, it was owned by First Majestic Silver. Now, it has restarted commercial production as of January 1, 2025, after a period of care and maintenance.
Sierra Madre acquired the mine in 2023 with a clear strategy: bring it back into production and expand its capacity. The mine has a processing plant that handles 500 tonnes a day. It also has a permitted underground operation. Nearby, there are roads, power, and water infrastructure.
With a strong technical team and fresh funding of C$19.5 million, Sierra Madre is preparing for an expansion. The company aims to boost production to 1,500 tonnes per day by 2027. This will increase up to three times and help keep costs low through smart mine design and local partnerships.
Why Mexico’s Silver Revival Matters
Mexico continues to hold the world’s largest silver reserves. It accounted for about 23-25% of global silver output in 2024, producing about 5,800–6,300 tonnes of silver that year. Rising industrial demand is fueling a new focus on production growth.
Silver is no longer just a jewelry or investment metal; it’s essential for clean energy. Each solar panel uses about 20 grams of silver, and electric vehicles (EVs) require up to 50 grams. As the solar and EV industries expand, analysts project that global silver demand will exceed 1.2 billion ounces per year by 2030.
This shift opens new chances for producers in stable, mining-friendly places like Mexico. Mexico is attracting new exploration and investment. Its skilled workforce, supportive rules, and modern infrastructure help. This reaffirms Mexico’s role as the world’s silver leader.
Sierra Madre is part of that national revival. Its work at La Guitarra, and exploration at Tepic shows how new companies are turning dormant assets into growth engines for the next decade.
A Project with Built-In Advantages
La Guitarra offers more than history—it has the right foundations that allow for a fast restart. The processing plant, tailings facility, and underground access are ready. This setup saved years of development time.
The mine is also in a favorable location. Situated in Mexico State, it is close to highways and power lines and only a few hours from Mexico City. This proximity reduces logistics costs and makes it easier to hire skilled workers.
Sierra Madre’s leadership team combines local mining experience with strong capital markets knowledge. This balance allows the company to move efficiently from project restart to expansion. La Guitarra is one of Mexico’s top silver-gold mines. It has high-grade veins, clear exploration targets, and permits.
Strengthening Mexico’s Mining Economy
The completed La Guitarra restart is part of a broader trend of economic renewal in Mexico’s mining regions. The country’s mining sector directly employs more than 400,000 people and supports over 2.5 million indirect jobs. The sector’s importance extends beyond jobs. Mining represents nearly 2.5% of Mexico’s GDP and generates billions in export revenue.
New projects like Sierra Madre’s La Guitarra are helping sustain rural economies by creating stable, long-term employment. The La Guitarra project has created hundreds of jobs when it restarted. Sierra Madre has also invested in training and local infrastructure for the community.
Silver prices are stabilizing around US$48–49 per ounce in late October 2025, having reached an all-time high of $54.24 per ounce on October 16, followed by a swift correction that saw prices dip to the mid-$46 range before rebounding.
Notably, in just 10 weeks from July 31 to the peak, silver surged by nearly 48%, climbing from $36.71 to $54.24 per ounce – a rapid and exceptional rally. This sustained period of around the $50 mark through October is good news for mid-tier producers like Sierra Madre.
They can boost value for shareholders and help local economies, capitalizing on strong price levels and renewed market optimism driven by silver’s resilience after the correction.
Operating with Responsibility
Sierra Madre is also part of a new generation of miners that prioritize environmental and social responsibility. The company is updating its waste and water systems to meet modern standards. They want to use less water and reclaim tailings more efficiently.
Environmental protection is crucial in silver-gold mining areas, where it’s key to balance economic chances with sustainability. Sierra Madre focuses on open communication with the community, clear permitting, and strong ESG practices. This approach meets the needs of local stakeholders and global investors.
The company’s management stressed that modernization at La Guitarra is both about increasing production and doing it responsibly. This commitment to responsible mining strengthens Sierra Madre’s credibility as it seeks to attract long-term partners and institutional investors.
Why La Guitarra Leads the Silver Belt Revival
What makes La Guitarra central to Mexico’s silver revival is its combination of history, infrastructure, and timing. The mine already had everything needed to move quickly back into production, supported by rising demand and favorable silver prices.
Few projects in Mexico are as close to immediate output growth as La Guitarra. The company’s 2025–2027 plan provides a clear growth path: expand capacity, restart exploration, and use cash flow to advance its other assets. This positions Sierra Madre as one of the few junior companies capable of near-term revenue growth in a tightening silver market.
Meanwhile, exploration at the nearby Tepic project could add more resources to support long-term growth. Together, these assets form a strong portfolio with both production and discovery potential.
Looking Ahead
Mexico’s silver belt is reawakening, and Sierra Madre Gold & Silver is at the heart of that revival. The La Guitarra Mine represents more than a completed restart with an expansion and exploration planned—it’s a symbol of how modern technology and responsible operations can breathe new life into historic mining regions.
As global demand for silver continues to rise across industries, from solar panels to electric vehicles, companies like Sierra Madre will play a vital role in meeting that need.
With production restarted, expansion underway, and exploration advancing, Sierra Madre is well positioned to help lead Mexico’s next era of silver success—one built on heritage, innovation, and sustainable growth.
- MUST READ: Silver Prices Surge to 14-Year High in 2025: What’s Sparking this Sustainable Metal Boom?
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. Sierra Madre Gold and Silver Ltd. (“Company”) made a one-time payment of $25,000 to provide marketing services for a term of one month. 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 the 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.
For more information on the Company, investors should review the Company’s continuous disclosure filings available on SEDAR+ at www.sedarplus.ca.
The post Reviving Mexico’s Silver Belt: How Sierra Madre’s La Guitarra Mine Is Leading the Comeback 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