Energy Exploration Technologies, Inc. (EnergyX), led by CEO Teague Egan, has moved the United States closer to building a reliable domestic lithium supply chain. The company recently commissioned its Project Lonestar™ lithium demonstration facility in Texas, marking a key milestone in scaling direct lithium extraction (DLE) technologies.
This development comes at a time when lithium demand is rising sharply due to electric vehicles and energy storage systems. At the same time, the U.S. remains heavily dependent on foreign processing, particularly from China.
- According to the US import data and Lithium import data of the USA, the total value of US lithium imports reached $432.36 million in 2024, a 9% decline from the previous year.
- The total value of US lithium imports (cells & batteries) accounted for $205.29 million in the first 6 months of 2025.
Against this backdrop, EnergyX’s progress offers both technological validation and strategic value.
From Concept to Reality: How Project Lonestar™ Works
Project Lonestar™ is EnergyX’s first major lithium project in the United States and its second globally. The demonstration plant, located in the Smackover region spanning Texas and Arkansas, is now operational and uses industrial-grade systems rather than small pilot equipment.
- The facility produces around 250 metric tons per year of lithium carbonate equivalent (LCE).
While this output is modest compared to global supply, its importance lies in proving that EnergyX’s proprietary GET-Lit™ technology can efficiently extract lithium from brine. The plant processes locally sourced Smackover brine, a resource that has historically been underutilized despite its lithium potential.
Unlike traditional lithium production, which often relies on hard-rock mining or evaporation ponds, DLE technology directly extracts lithium from brine using advanced filtration and chemical processes. This reduces production time and may lower environmental impact.
- More importantly, the Lonestar™ plant can supply 5 to 25 tons of battery-grade lithium samples to customers.
This allows battery manufacturers to test and validate the material before committing to large-scale supply agreements.
Scaling Up: From Demonstration to Commercial Production
The demonstration plant is only the first phase of a much larger plan. EnergyX aims to scale Project Lonestar™ into a full commercial operation capable of producing 50,000 tonnes of LCE annually across two phases.
- The first phase alone targets 12,500 tonnes per year, which would already place it among the more significant lithium producers in the U.S.
- Significantly, the company has invested approximately $30 million in the demonstration facility, supported in part by a $5 million grant from the U.S. Department of Energy.
- For the full-scale project, EnergyX estimates total capital expenditure at around $1.05 billion.
Cost metrics suggest strong economic potential. The company estimates capital costs at roughly $21,000 per tonne of capacity and operating costs near $3,750 per tonne. If these figures hold at scale, the project could compete effectively with global lithium producers, particularly in a market where cost efficiency is becoming increasingly important.
Teague Egan, Founder & CEO of EnergyX, said,
“Bringing the biggest integrated DLE lithium demonstration plant online in the United States is a foundational milestone for EnergyX and for U.S. domestic lithium production in general. This facility not only validates the performance of our technology on an industrial scale under real-world conditions, but also establishes EnergyX as the lowest cost producer in the U.S. Ultimately this benefits all our customers who need large volumes of lithium for EV and ESS applications, as well as any lithium resource owners looking to implement best-in-class DLE technology whom we are happy to license to.”
Breaking the Bottleneck: Why U.S. Refining Matters
One of the biggest challenges facing the U.S. lithium sector is not resource availability but refining capacity. While lithium deposits exist across the country, most battery-grade lithium chemicals are processed overseas.
China dominates this segment, controlling roughly 70 to 75 percent of global lithium chemical conversion capacity. This concentration creates a structural dependency. Even when lithium is mined in the U.S. or allied countries, it is often shipped abroad for processing before returning as battery materials.
Project Lonestar™ directly addresses this gap. By integrating extraction and refining into a single domestic operation, EnergyX is working to build a complete “brine-to-battery” value chain within the United States. This approach could reduce reliance on foreign processing and improve supply chain resilience.
U.S. Senator Ted Cruz highlighted the project’s importance, noting that domestic lithium production supports both energy security and defense readiness, particularly for applications in advanced battery systems.
- CHECK: LIVE LITHIUM PRICES
The Current Landscape: Limited Supply, Big Ambitions
How Much Lithium Does the U.S. Have?
The United States has a strong lithium resource base, but it still struggles to produce it at scale. Data from the United States Geological Survey shows that the country held about 14 million tonnes of lithium reserves in 2023, ranking it third globally.
Despite this, U.S. production remains very low. The country produced only 615 metric tonnes of lithium in 2023, according to USGS. This is tiny compared to global leaders. Australia produced around 86,000 tonnes, while Chile reached about 56,530 tonnes in the same year.
Lithium Reserves by Country 2026
In simple terms, the U.S. has plenty of lithium underground. But it still needs time, investment, and better infrastructure to turn those resources into a real supply.
Investment is flowing into regions such as Nevada, North Carolina, and Arkansas. If even a portion of these reserves is converted into production, the U.S. could significantly reduce its reliance on imported lithium.
Active Resources and Future Potential
At present, U.S. lithium production remains relatively small. The only active large-scale operation is the Silver Peak Mine in Nevada, which produces between 5,000 and 10,000 tonnes of LCE annually, depending on market conditions.
However, several projects are in development that could significantly expand capacity. The Thacker Pass project, for example, is expected to produce around 40,000 tonnes per year in its first phase once operational later in the decade.
In addition, brine-based developments in the Smackover region aim to produce tens of thousands of tonnes annually, with long-term plans exceeding 100,000 tonnes across multiple sites.
These projects indicate a shift from a niche domestic industry to a more substantial production base. Still, timelines remain uncertain due to regulatory and financial challenges.
Demand Surge: Batteries Drive the Lithium Boom
The urgency to expand lithium production is driven by rapid growth in battery demand. Electric vehicles, renewable energy storage, and grid modernization are all increasing lithium consumption.
According to S&P Global, U.S. lithium demand is expected to grow at an average rate of 40 percent annually between 2024 and 2029. Canada is projected to see even faster growth, albeit from a smaller base, with demand rising by around 74 percent per year over the same period.
Globally, battery capacity is forecast to approach 4 terawatt-hours by 2030. This expansion highlights lithium’s central role in the clean energy transition. Without sufficient supply, battery production—and by extension, EV adoption—could face constraints.
Why Progress Takes Time
Turning lithium reserves into operational mines and processing facilities is not straightforward. Projects often face long permitting timelines, environmental scrutiny, and legal challenges. Financing can also be difficult, especially in a volatile commodity market.
Local opposition can further complicate development, particularly in areas with high environmental concerns. These factors can delay projects by several years, slowing the pace of expansion.
To address these barriers, the U.S. government is increasing its involvement through funding, policy support, and efforts to streamline permitting. The Department of Energy’s backing of EnergyX reflects a broader strategy to accelerate domestic critical mineral development.
Conclusion: A Strategic Shift in Motion
Project Lonestar™ represents a meaningful step toward reshaping the U.S. lithium landscape. By proving the viability of direct lithium extraction at an industrial scale, EnergyX has laid the groundwork for larger, commercially viable operations.
The project also aligns with national priorities around energy security, supply chain resilience, and clean energy transition. While challenges remain, the combination of technological innovation, government support, and rising demand creates a strong foundation for growth.
As the world moves toward electrification, lithium will remain at the center of the transition. Projects like Lonestar™ show that the United States is beginning to close the gap between resource potential and real-world production—one facility at a time.
The post Texas-Based EnergyX’s Project Lonestar™ Signals a Turning Point for U.S. Lithium Supply 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.
