Antimony is vital for many industries, including batteries, solar panels, flame retardants, and ammunition. Antimony sulfide, or Stibnite, is the principal ore of antimony and is mainly used in all these sectors. The U.S. depends almost entirely on imports, mainly from China, to meet its needs.
Countries with the largest reserves of antimony worldwide as of 2023 (in metric tons)
Let’s examine the demand and supply trends for antimony and their impact on prices this year.
What’s Driving Antimony Demand?
Antimony’s demand has risen due to increasing industrial use and China’s dominance in production. The silver white metal is crucial in solar panels. It makes perovskite solar cells work better by helping them absorb more light and convert energy more effectively. It also enhances thermal stability, helping panels endure extreme conditions.
In energy storage, liquid-metal batteries use antimony to store and distribute excess solar power. As solar installations grow, antimony’s role in the energy transition will expand.
The U.S. Department of Defense (DoD) uses antimony in more than 200 types of ammunition. This includes percussion primers and armor-piercing rounds.
Some key uses of antimony include:
-
Antimony alloys improve the durability of lead-acid batteries in military vehicles.
-
Its flame-retardant properties enhance the fire resistance of military uniforms and equipment.
-
It is used in semiconductors for infrared sensors and night-vision devices. These are crucial for defense technology.
However, despite demand from various industries, there’s a global supply crisis of this critical metal.
- SEE MORE: Unlocking the Power of Critical Minerals with US DOE’s $45 Million Investment: A Focus on Antimony
A Looming Global Antimony Supply Shortage
According to the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS),
- In 2023, the total global antimony mine production was approximately 83,000 tons. China produced around 40,000 tons, accounting for 48% of the global supply.
China’s Supply Shrinks
China is the biggest antimony producer, but its output has dropped sharply. 2023’s output as a decrease from 60,000 tons (55% share) in 2022. The decline is mainly due to mine closures and stricter environmental rules.
Hunan, a major antimony-producing province, halted production from March to June. This pause was for environmental inspections. Further industrial accidents in Hunan and Guizhou disrupted mining early in 2023. Consequently, China’s declining output has significantly contributed to the current global supply shortage.
Moreover, China is tightening its grip on antimony exports to secure its position in global supply chains. This comes after the U.S. imposed restrictions on critical technologies like advanced chips. China has employed a similar strategy with germanium, gallium, graphite, and rare earths.
The U.S. Relies Heavily on Imports
The U.S. has antimony deposits in states like Idaho, Montana, Utah, Arizona, and Alaska. However, environmental and economic issues have slowed domestic production. The Stibnite Gold Mine in Idaho was the largest antimony producer but shut down in the mid-1990s. Efforts to restart it are uncertain due to environmental concerns, especially river pollution risks.
By 2020, the U.S. had completely stopped mining antimony. Instead, it relied on recycling, mainly from lead-acid batteries. A facility in Montana processed imported material, but recycled sources only met 18% of the demand. The rest came from imports. In 2023, no sellable antimony was mined in the U.S., according to the University of Technology Sydney (UTS).
Recent reports show that Military Metals acquired the Last Chance property on February 19, 2025. This highlights the urgent need to secure antimony for defense. The rising demand, along with supply issues, has led to a significant price surge.
Russia’s Production Faces Uncertainty
Russia is another key antimony producer contributing to the supply crunch. USGS estimates that Russia held 17.5% of global antimony reserves in 2023, totaling 350,000 tons. However, actual production was much lower, at just 4,300 tons.
The Minor Metals Trade Association (MMTA) highlighted that most of Russia’s antimony is a byproduct of gold mining. Polyus, the largest gold producer in Russia, reported 27,075 tonnes of antimony output in flotation concentrate. However, Western sanctions after Russia’s 2022 invasion of Ukraine have made trading with Russian suppliers more difficult, further tightening global supply.
Political Instability Disrupts Myanmar’s Output
Myanmar, the fourth-largest antimony producer in 2023, also faced supply disruptions due to political turmoil. The country accounted for about 5% of global antimony production, according to USGS.
Here’s a comparative chart of 2022 Vs 2023 antimony producers across the world:
Global Antimony Production
Market Growth Trends
- Research and Markets revealed that the global demand for antimony is projected to grow from $2.5 billion in 2024 to $3.5 billion by 2030, at a CAGR of 6.2%,
Additionally, the U.S. antimony market is expected to expand significantly, reaching an estimated value of USD 106.57 million by 2032. This growth primarily be driven by the rising demand for OSHA-regulated flame-retardant clothing. Other demand drivers like lead-acid batteries, electronics and plastics, etc. will also push future demand of antimony.
Regional Market Overview
According to a Fortune Business Insights study,
-
Asia-Pacific leads with a 64.36% market share in 2023. This trend will keep going. The automotive and electronics sectors are growing. This increases the demand for antimony flame retardants and alloys. China will remain the top producer.
-
North America and Europe together account for over 40% of global antimony demand, mainly in automotive and plastics. Europe produces antimony oxide but relies on imports from China and India. The rising need for lead-acid batteries is boosting growth in this region. North America has a strong demand for flame retardants. This is because of strict workplace safety rules.
The Future of Antimony Supply
Australia is becoming a key player in the antimony market. Larvotto Resources, which runs the Hillgrove Gold-Antimony Project, has seen its share price rise. Additionally, the U.S. is working with resource-rich countries such as Australia, which could potentially close the supply gap. This partnership also aims to reduce reliance on China for critical minerals.
Earlier CarbonCredits reported that it’s not just the U.S. but countries worldwide are taking steps to reduce their reliance on Chinese antimony.
Over two years, global antimony drilling activity totaled 625 holes, with 88 yielding significant intervals. Australia dominated with 444 holes, including 65 significant finds, reflecting its active exploration sector. The USA followed with 44 holes and 10 significant intervals. 
Other contributions came from Canada, Bolivia, New Zealand, and Namibia. Emerging interest in regions like Bosnia, Indonesia, and Slovakia highlights a global push to secure antimony resources, driven by rising demand in energy and defense sectors.
In the U.S., the Department of Defense awarded $15.5 million to Perpetua Resources to explore antimony production from the Stibnite Gold Project in Idaho.
Similarly, Spearmint Resources in Canada has doubled its acreage at the George Lake South Antimony Project, recognizing the mineral’s strategic value.
Additionally, antimony can be sourced through recycling. Reusing antimony from industrial waste and other sources may help create a more stable supply in the long term.
As demand from renewable energy and defense sectors rises, securing a steady supply of this crucial mineral will become extremely vital.
Tajikistan: The Rising Star
With supply dwindling in China, Russia, and Myanmar, Tajikistan is emerging as the world’s second-largest antimony producer.
- In 2023, it produced 21,000 tonnes, covering 26% of the global supply, according to USGS.
A significant mine in Tajikistan, owned by a U.S. company, is now Europe’s largest supplier of antimony metal. Talco Gold, a joint venture of Tajik Aluminium Co and China’s Tibet Huayu Mining, has boosted production too. Talco Gold’s processing plant opened in April 2022. However, it faced delays from the COVID-19 pandemic.
The impressive output shows Tajikistan potential to boost production volumes and sort supply challenges of antimony in the near future.
Antimony Prices Rally: Where Do They Stand in 2025?
Antimony prices have surged since April 2024 due to a severe supply shortage. According to Fastmarkets, prices in Rotterdam rose at their fastest rate in over 40 years. In May, the Shanghai Metals Exchange reported prices reaching $17,588 per metric ton, a 54% increase in 2024.
By June 14, prices in Europe climbed to $22,700 per ton, a rise of more than 75% from 2023.
The surge comes from a supply shortage in China, Russia, and Southeast Asia. At the same time, demand is rising in the solar sector, fire retardants, and military uses.
Recent posts on X show that the shortage is still affecting availability. Prices have reached $51,500 per ton in 2025. Some market speculation suggests that prices could reach $100,000 per ton.
This price rally was confirmed by Military Metals Corp’s CEO, Scott Eldridge, who said,
“The antimony spot price has yet again achieved a new all-time high, now trading at $51,500 USD per ton. Antimony investment opportunities are limited to mining equities with no ETF or futures contracts available to investors, furthermore the mining equities are limited to a few high-caliber companies.”
- LATEST: Trump’s Tariffs on Canada, China, and Mexico: A Risky Bet for U.S. Critical Minerals and Aluminum?
The post The Future of Antimony: Rising Prices, Supply Chain Risks, and Demand Growth appeared first on Carbon Credits.
Insetting program design starts with your supplier map. The carbon claim comes much later.
Consider a coffee procurement team that funds a farm intervention before checking its sourcing data. The supplier aggregates coffee lots from several regions. The buyer lacks farm-level traceability. Another purchaser expects to report the same outcome. A more attractive project brochure solves none of these problems.
If the distinction between a value-chain intervention and a purchased credit is still open, read CCC’s Insetting vs Offsetting guide before you set the brief.
Insetting program design begins with the purchasing relationship and works outward. You need to decide 1) where an intervention belongs, 2) what business problem it addresses, 3) who pays for it, 4) how results will be measured, and 5) what the evidence will let you say about them. This five-step playbook turns that sequence into a procurement plan.
Step 1: Insetting program design starts with supplier mapping
Start with the commodities that matter most to your Scope 3 inventory and sourcing continuity. Ask finance for spend by supplier, sustainability for the emissions baseline, and category managers for origin and volume records. Then identify which suppliers can trace material to a jurisdiction, sourcing region, producer group, or individual land-management unit.
The level of traceability affects what you can account for. Under the GHG Protocol Land Sector and Removals Standard, the spatial boundary for purchased land-based products depends on the traceability associated with each volume. Farm-specific factors or removals require physical traceability through an acceptable chain-of-custody model. A contract with a tier-one trader, by itself, does not establish a link to the farms behind its deliveries.[1]
Build a first-pass table with five columns: commodity and annual volume; supplier and origin; current traceability level; land-use and production risks; and the business owner who can change the purchasing terms. Mark missing data plainly. A blank cell is cheaper to fix before a program starts than after a claim is drafted.
If your company sets an SBTi Forest, Land and Agriculture target (FLAG), keep its land-related target boundary separate from energy and industry emissions. The current FLAG guidance also requires relevant companies to assess primary deforestation-linked commodities in their value chains.[2]
Step 2: Choose a commodity and jurisdiction for a pilot
Select one supply corridor where the sourcing connection can be established and procurement has a reason to stay. A useful pilot has repeat purchases, suppliers willing to share records, an intervention matched to a diagnosed problem, and a defined plan to measure the result. Carbon potential alone is a poor selection rule if the supplier cannot deliver the crop your business needs.
Compare candidate regions on land-use risk, supplier concentration, local rights and tenure, the availability of baseline data, and exposure to drought, erosion, or forest conversion. Check the relevant legal requirements separately. A nature project does not satisfy a due-diligence obligation merely because it has a carbon method attached.
Consider a coffee buyer sourcing from two districts. In the first, producer-group records identify the farms, while recent dry seasons have increased rejected green coffee lots. In the second, deliveries pass through several intermediaries and farm origins are unknown. Pilot shade management in the first district, with local agronomic advice and quality checks built into the plan. The buyer can trace purchases there and test the intervention against a defined sourcing problem.
Use a short decision memo to record why the selected corridor beats the alternatives, what remains uncertain, and what would stop the pilot. That memo is the first control against a project drifting toward whatever happens to photograph well.
Step 3: Design the supplier engagement and commercial model
The intervention needs an owner on each side of the contract. Decide who supplies planting material or training, who maintains the practice, who bears the cost if a harvest disappoints, and how long the buyer expects to purchase from participating suppliers. Where smallholders participate, budget cash flow and technical support for practices that offer a later return.
Put these terms in a supplier agreement or pilot addendum. It should cover eligible farms and volumes, consent to data collection, access for monitoring, any land or carbon rights that matter, benefit sharing, and what happens if the purchasing relationship ends. Ask local counsel and producer representatives to review the arrangement. The Accountability Framework is a useful reference for supply-chain work involving forests, ecosystems, and human rights.[3]
Avoid assigning an automatic carbon benefit to the buyer. The contract should say which party has the right to report each outcome, how overlapping claims will be checked, and how any issued credits will be handled. A reduction reported in a buyer’s inventory cannot simply be sold for someone else’s offset claim without an accounting review. SBTi FLAG guidance excludes purchased credits used as offsets from near-term FLAG target achievement.[2]
Set commercial measures beside environmental ones: delivered volume, rejection rate, supplier retention, and procurement cost. They tell you whether the program works as a supply-chain investment, even if carbon accounting takes longer to resolve.
Step 4: Build monitoring, reporting, and verification before rollout
Agree on the baseline and data flow before paying for a full rollout. Identify the land units or sourcing regions in scope, the practices that change, the records suppliers already keep, and the additional measurements the program requires. Decide which data can come from field visits, transaction records, or remote sensing, and who checks each source.
For carbon, separate three questions. Did the practice happen? Did emissions or removals change under an applicable method? Can the buyer attribute a defensible share to its purchased goods without double counting? The GHG Protocol’s 2026 guidance includes dedicated chapters on spatial boundaries, data and methods, evaluating actions, credited outcomes, and assurance.[1] These are distinct jobs. A photograph of a planted tree answers only part of the first.
CCC’s MRV and Additionality article explains the separate evidence questions a project reviewer will ask.
Create an evidence file for every reporting period: dated supplier and farm records, purchase volumes, methods and emission factors, uncertainty, quality checks, and changes from the baseline. Specify who can challenge the data and how corrections are recorded. If a project also seeks credit certification, keep project accounting and corporate inventory accounting separate. The GHG Protocol says its land standard focuses on entity-level inventories and does not set the rules for credit certification.[4]
Start with the minimum viable measurement design that can survive review. Add complexity when the pilot tells you which data actually changes a decision.
Step 5: Decide what can be reported and claimed
Insetting program design needs reporting rules before the marketing copy. Procurement, sustainability, finance, and legal should agree on four distinct outputs: operational performance; observed land or nature outcomes; inventory effects, if the accounting criteria are met; and any separately issued credits. One dashboard can display them, but they should not share a single unqualified headline.
SBTi FLAG guidance allows certain land-based removals within a company’s operations or supply chain to contribute to FLAG pathways, subject to criteria including permanence, traceability, data quality, and allocation. It does not allow purchased offsets to meet near-term FLAG targets.[2] Eligibility therefore depends on evidence and the applicable target rules, not on calling an activity “insetting.”
Draft a claims register. For each proposed sentence, record the period, boundary, data owner, calculation method, reviewer, and whether the result is measured, estimated, or still a goal. If the evidence supports only “we funded a pilot with 200 farms,” say that. Do not turn a funding fact into a verified emissions reduction.
What good looks like by year three
Treat year three as a review point, not a promised payback date. A mature pilot should have mapped participating supply volumes, a stable supplier agreement, a repeatable data collection process, and a comparison of commercial and environmental results against the baseline. It should also have a documented answer for outcomes that cannot be included in the buyer’s inventory.
Scale only where the pilot improves a sourcing decision and the evidence can follow the product. If neither condition holds, redesign the intervention or change the corridor. A disciplined program can conclude that a site is unsuitable. That is useful procurement intelligence.
Discuss your insetting program with CCC
Carbon Credit Capital designs nature-based supply chain investments around sourcing needs and measurable sustainability outcomes. Schedule a consultation with our carbon and sustainability experts to map your tier-one supplier network, FLAG exposure, and first pilot decision.
Sources
[1] GHG Protocol, Land Sector and Removals Standard, version 1.1, and companion Guidance, June 2026: https://ghgprotocol.org/land-sector-and-removals-standard ; https://ghgprotocol.org/land-sector-and-removals-guidance
[2] Science Based Targets initiative, Forest, Land and Agriculture Science-Based Target-Setting Guidance, version 1.2, March 2026, especially pp. 16–17, 37, and 41: https://sciencebasedtargets.org/resources/files/SBTiFLAGGuidance.pdf
[3] Accountability Framework initiative, Accountability Framework and guidance for companies: https://accountability-framework.org/
[4] GHG Protocol, Frequently Asked Questions: Land Sector and Removals Standard, questions 10 and 18: https://ghgprotocol.org/blog/frequently-asked-questions-land-sector-and-removals-lsr-standard
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.