Tungsten, a critical mineral with unmatched heat resistance and strength, is gaining global attention. It’s dense, brittle, and grayish-white, with the highest melting point and tensile strength of any pure metal. These traits make it vital for high-performance applications. and industries needing extreme durability.
With China controlling most of the supply, the U.S. and allies are racing to secure domestic sources and diversify supply chains. Let’s deep dive into the complete outlook of the tungsten market below:
Demand Drivers: Why Tungsten Keeps Rising in Importance
The tungsten market expanded from USD 6.04 billion in 2024 to USD 6.50 billion in 2025. It is projected to grow at a CAGR of 7.95%, reaching USD 11.16 billion by 2032.
Its demand is rising due to industrial and defense needs. Key drivers include:
- Electronics & Semiconductors: Vital for high-performance chips and circuits.
- Defense & Aerospace: Used in rocket nozzles and armor-piercing ammunition. It also strengthens steel alloys for aerospace and defense.
- Tungsten is used in turbine blades and as a lead substitute in ammunition.
- Industrial Tools: Crucial for cutting and drilling in mining, construction, lighting, welding, and manufacturing.
- Green technology and electrification: Increasing use of tungsten in electric vehicle batteries, energy storage, and renewable energy technologies
Industry experts are indicating that global tungsten demand is expected to rise in 2025 and the next few years. With geopolitical tensions increasing, the U.S. and allies anticipate further growth as supply diversification becomes essential.
China’s Tight Grip on Tungsten Supply
Tungsten is found worldwide, but most supply comes from China. It produces over 80% of global tungsten and holds more than half of the known reserves. Vietnam and Russia follow, contributing only a small share. Other producers like Spain, Austria, Bolivia, and Rwanda account for just 1% to 2% each.
Interestingly, other countries own about 35% of global reserves but produce only 1%. This gap shows growth potential but highlights challenges like high costs and long permitting times.
China also controls production. In late 2024, Beijing introduced new export licensing rules for tungsten, tightening supply further. Analysts view these controls as part of China’s strategy in global trade.
Global Push for Supply Chain Resilience
China’s dominance has raised concerns. Countries are diversifying their tungsten supply chains. New projects in Australia, South Korea, Canada, and Africa show promise, but scaling up will take years.
Vietnam, Russia, and Spain are boosting production. Smaller nations like Rwanda are gaining attention for their resources. However, these efforts face high costs and technical challenges.
China’s market control is expected to last until the early 2030s, but momentum is shifting toward more resilient supply options.
U.S. Tungsten Dependence: A Strategic Risk for Defense
As per the U.S. Geological Survey, the U.S. has not mined/ tungsten since 2015. It relies mostly on imports, especially from China. Notably, in 2023 U.S. imported over 10,000 metric tons of tungsten.
Most U.S. tungsten is used in cemented carbide parts for construction, mining, and drilling. The rest goes to specialty steels, defense alloys, electronics, and chemicals.
This dependence poses serious risks as tungsten is vital for defense applications, including armor-piercing munitions and missile systems. Thus, supply disruptions could threaten U.S. military readiness and high-tech industries.
DoD’s Big Investments and New Rules
The U.S. Department of Defense (DoD) is boosting efforts to secure tungsten, a critical metal for defense systems. Since last year, it has directed millions toward U.S. and allied projects.
In July 2025, it awarded $6.2 million under the Defense Production Act to Golden Metal Resources for the Pilot Mountain project in Nevada, the largest undeveloped tungsten deposit in the U.S.
The project aims to restore domestic production, reduce reliance on China’s 80% market share, and prepare for the 2027 ban on China- and Russia-sourced tungsten in defense contracts.
Procurement Rules
A new U.S. law prevents the Pentagon from sourcing tungsten, magnets, and other critical materials from adversarial nations like China, Russia, Iran, and North Korea. By January 2027, these rules will also cover the mining stage. This means tungsten mined in these countries can’t enter U.S. defense supply chains.
Thus, the U.S. Department of Defense now views tungsten as a national security issue. In summary, its strategy focuses on:
- Diversifying supply chains beyond China.
- Funding domestic exploration and allied projects.
- Expanding metallurgical testing and engineering studies.
- Tightening procurement rules to phase out adversarial tungsten by 2027.
This effort demonstrates a strong commitment to boosting domestic tungsten production for new defense systems and advanced manufacturing. Additionally, it also aims to build secure supply partnerships with allies.
Top Tungsten Stocks Gaining Investor Attention
In 2025, tungsten stocks are attracting attention as the metal becomes essential across industries. Rising demand and tight supply make these stocks appealing. Investors value tungsten for its strategic role in technology and its relatively stable prices compared to other critical minerals.
Elemental Altus Royalties Corp. (ELE.V) Rises on Strong Momentum
Canada-based Elemental Altus trades around $15.76 USD (OTC) and CAD 24.37 (TSX Venture) as of October 2025. Its shares climbed nearly 47% in six months, outperforming peers, with a market cap of $388 million USD. Analysts set the TSX target price at CAD 25.92, signaling upside potential.
In September 2025, it merged with EMX Royalty to form Elemental Royalty Corp. Tether Investments backed the deal with $100 million USD to buy 75 million shares at CAD 1.84 each. The capital fuels growth, acquisitions, and expansion in tungsten, rare earths, and other critical minerals.
Elemental Altus leads in the critical minerals’ royalty space, with strong stock momentum and strategic investments positioning it for growth.
American Tungsten (TUNG) Fuels U.S. Supply Revival
American Tungsten Corp. (TUNG) is gaining attention as a pure-play tungsten stock. In February 2025, it hit an all-time high of CA$2.37, reflecting strong investor confidence in the company’s efforts to develop domestic tungsten resources.
Currently, it is trading at around CAD 1.84 per share. Analysts forecast the stock to rise through the rest of 2025 and into 2026.
With a market capitalization of roughly CAD 25.72 million, the stock has experienced some volatility. This was influenced by critical minerals sector trends and tungsten market dynamics.
However, the company’s performance remains closely tied to progress in U.S. tungsten projects, government support, and global supply-demand trends.
In March, the company announced that its application to join the U.S. Defense Industrial Base Consortium (DIBC) had been approved. The consortium, managed by Advanced Technology International (ATI) for the Department of Defense (DoD), connects private-sector companies with the U.S. Government to strengthen the defense supply chain.
Another key development is the IMA Mine Project in Lemhi County, Idaho, a major step in restoring U.S. tungsten production. This critical mineral supports tank armor, hypersonic weapons, submarine hulls, and semiconductors.
The mine sat idle for nearly 70 years. It is now being redeveloped to meet rising domestic demand. With a few publicly traded tungsten companies existing in North America, American Tungsten is the top choice for investors in U.S. supply chains.
The Rise of Tungsten Juniors
However, this year, several junior mining companies focusing on tungsten in the U.S. are also gaining attention, particularly those developing critical mineral resources to strengthen domestic supply chains.
One such example is Patriot Critical Minerals. It owns100% of the MEGA Deposit in Elko County, Nevada, a strategically located resource that could help close the domestic tungsten supply gap.
The deposit contains approximately 19 million tonnes of mineralized material, with about 32,300 tonnes of contained tungsten trioxide.
Tungsten Prices Stay High Amid Tight Supply
In September 2025, tungsten bar FOB prices held steady at USD 95–97 per kg. Meanwhile, tungsten concentrates (scheelite and wolframite) traded at RMB 284,000 per ton. This marked a 1.1% drop from peak levels but doubled the price from early 2025, showing strong market volatility.
However, global prices continue to fluctuate due to Chinese export restrictions, production issues, and rising demand in defense, aerospace, and electronics. At the same time, supply-demand gaps, geopolitical tensions, and stockpiling keep prices elevated.
In conclusion, rising demand, tight global supply, and national security concerns make tungsten a strategic mineral. Consequently, U.S. projects and companies like Elemental Altus, American Tungsten, and Patriot Critical Minerals are actively reducing reliance on China.
As production ramps up, tungsten will play an increasingly vital role in defense, technology, and industrial applications.
The post U.S. Tungsten Revival: Rising Demand, Tight Supply, and Top Stocks to Watch in 2025 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.