Uranium Energy Corporation (NYSE: UEC) has started production at its Burke Hollow project in South Texas. This is the first new uranium mine to open in the U.S. in over ten years.
The project started production in April 2026 after getting final regulatory approval. This marks a big step for domestic uranium supply. It’s also the world’s newest in-situ recovery (ISR) uranium mine, which shows a move toward less harmful extraction methods.
Burke Hollow was originally discovered in 2012 and spans roughly 20,000 acres, with only about half of the site explored so far. This suggests significant long-term expansion potential as additional wellfields are developed.
The mine’s output will go to UEC’s Hobson Central Processing Plant in Texas. This plant can produce up to 4 million pounds of uranium each year.
A Scalable ISR Platform Expands U.S. Uranium Capacity
The Burke Hollow launch transforms UEC into a multi-site uranium producer in the United States. The company runs two active ISR production platforms. The second one is at its Christensen Ranch facility in Wyoming; both are shown in the table from UEC.
This “hub-and-spoke” model allows uranium from multiple wellfields to be processed through centralized facilities, improving efficiency and scalability. UEC’s operations in Texas and Wyoming are now active. This gives them a licensed production capacity of about 12 million pounds per year across the U.S.
ISR mining plays a key role in this strategy. Unlike conventional mining, ISR involves circulating solutions underground to dissolve uranium and pump it to the surface. This reduces surface disturbance and can lower environmental impact compared to open-pit or underground mining.
Burke Hollow is the largest ISR uranium discovery in the U.S. in the last ten years. This boosts its long-term value as a domestic resource.
Unhedged Strategy Pays Off as Uranium Prices Rise
UEC’s production launch comes at a time of strong uranium market conditions. The company uses a fully unhedged strategy. This means it sells uranium at current market prices instead of securing long-term contracts.
This approach has recently delivered strong financial results. In early 2026, UEC sold 200,000 pounds of uranium for $101 each. This price was about 25% higher than average market rates. The sale brought in over $20 million in revenue and around $10 million in gross profit.
The strategy allows the company to benefit directly from rising uranium prices, which have been supported by:
- Growing global nuclear energy demand
- Supply constraints in key producing regions
- Increased long-term contracting by utilities
Unhedged exposure raises risk in downturns, but offers more upside in strong markets. UEC is currently taking advantage of this.
Nuclear Energy Growth Is Driving Demand for Uranium
The timing of Burke Hollow’s launch aligns with a broader global shift back toward nuclear energy. Governments are increasingly turning to nuclear power as a reliable, low-carbon energy source.
The International Atomic Energy Agency projects that global nuclear capacity could double by 2050, depending on policy and investment trends. This would require a significant increase in uranium supply.
In the United States, nuclear energy accounts for around 20% of electricity generation. It also produces zero carbon emissions during operations. This makes it a key component of many net-zero strategies.
There are several factors supporting renewed nuclear demand, including:
- Development of small modular reactors (SMRs)
- Extension of existing nuclear plant lifetimes
- Government funding to maintain nuclear capacity
- Rising electricity demand from data centers and electrification
As demand grows, securing a reliable uranium supply becomes increasingly important.
Reducing Import Risk: A Strategic Domestic Supply Push
The Burke Hollow project also addresses a major vulnerability in U.S. energy policy. The country currently imports about 95% of its uranium needs, leaving it exposed to global supply risks.
A large share of uranium production and enrichment capacity is concentrated in a few countries, including Russia and Kazakhstan. This concentration has raised concerns about supply disruptions and geopolitical risk.
By expanding domestic production, UEC is helping to reduce reliance on imports and strengthen the U.S. nuclear fuel supply chain.
The company’s broader strategy includes building a vertically integrated platform covering mining, processing, and, eventually, uranium conversion. This approach aligns with U.S. government efforts to rebuild domestic nuclear fuel capabilities.
Federal programs have allocated billions to boost uranium production and enrichment. This shows how important the sector is.
Two Hubs, One Strategy: Wyoming Supports the Texas Breakthrough
While Burke Hollow is the main focus, UEC’s Christensen Ranch operation in Wyoming remains an important part of its production base.
The Wyoming site has recently received approvals for expanded wellfield development, allowing it to increase output alongside the Texas operation.
Together, the two sites form the foundation of UEC’s dual-hub production model. However, it is the Texas project that marks the first new U.S. uranium mine in over a decade, making it the central milestone in the company’s growth strategy.
Investor Momentum Builds Around Uranium Revival
The restart of U.S. uranium production is drawing strong attention from investors and industry players. Uranium markets have tightened in recent years, driven by rising demand and limited new supply.
UEC’s production launch has already had a positive market impact. The company’s share price rose following the announcement, reflecting investor confidence in its growth strategy.
At the same time, utilities are increasing long-term contracting activity to secure fuel supply. This trend is expected to continue as new nuclear capacity comes online and existing plants extend operations.
Industry forecasts suggest that uranium demand will remain strong through the 2030s, supporting higher prices and increased investment in new production.
Lower Impact Mining, Higher ESG Expectations
The use of ISR mining at Burke Hollow reflects a broader shift toward more sustainable extraction methods. ISR typically reduces land disturbance and avoids large-scale excavation.
However, environmental management remains critical. Key issues include groundwater protection, chemical use, and long-term site restoration.
UEC has emphasized environmental controls and regulatory compliance in its operations. These efforts are important for maintaining social license and meeting ESG expectations.
From a climate perspective, uranium production plays an indirect but important role. Supporting nuclear energy, it helps enable low-carbon electricity generation and reduces reliance on fossil fuels.
The Bottom Line: A Defining Moment for U.S. Uranium Production
The launch of the Burke Hollow mine marks a major milestone for the U.S. uranium sector. It ends a decade-long gap in new mine development and signals renewed momentum in domestic production.
In the short term, it strengthens supply and supports rising uranium markets. In the long term, it highlights the growing role of nuclear energy in global decarbonization strategies.
UEC’s Burke Hollow shows that new uranium projects can advance in today’s market. There are still challenges, like scaling production and handling environmental risks, but progress is possible.
As demand for nuclear energy continues to grow, domestic projects like Burke Hollow will play a key role in shaping the future of energy security and low-carbon power.
The post U.S. Uranium Mining Returns: UEC Launches First New Mine in a Decade appeared first on Carbon Credits.
What auditors actually test, where projects actually fail, and the contract clauses that protect you before signature.
The meeting happens about fourteen months after the contract was signed. Your assurance provider has reached the nature-based investment line in your Scope 3 file, and the partner across the table has exactly two questions. How do you know the reductions happened? And how do you know they would not have happened anyway?
The first question is MRV: measurement, reporting, and verification. The second is additionality. Between them, they decide whether your nature-based investment counts, in your inventory, in your disclosure, and in front of your board. Everything else in the project documentation is supporting material for these two answers.
This article walks through what each question actually tests, where projects most commonly fail, what digital MRV has changed (and what it has not), and the contract clauses that protect you. The goal is to give you the diligence framework before you sign, because after the credit issues is the wrong time to discover the answers were weak.
What MRV actually verifies
MRV is the machinery that turns a field intervention into a defensible number. Measurement covers the data: biomass surveys, soil sampling, remote sensing, activity records from participating farms. Reporting covers the translation of that data into claimed reductions under a recognised methodology. Verification covers the independent check: an accredited third party tests the reporting against the methodology and the evidence.
The methodologies live in registries. Verra’s Verified Carbon Standard and the Gold Standard are the two largest for nature-based projects, and each publishes the methodology documents, monitoring requirements, and verification protocols that a project must follow. The ICVCM Assessment Framework now sits above the registries, assessing whole methodologies against the Core Carbon Principles and granting the CCP label to those that pass.
For a buyer, the practical questions are concrete. What is the monitoring frequency, and is it specified in the project design document or left vague? Who is the verifier, how were they selected, and how often do they rotate? What raw data do you, the buyer, get access to, and in what format? A project that answers these in writing is a different procurement than one that answers them in a sales call.
What additionality actually proves
Additionality asks whether the intervention caused the reduction, or whether the reduction would have happened anyway. The test is a counterfactual: what would this landscape, this farm, this forest have done without the project’s money?
Three forms matter in practice. Financial additionality asks whether the project needed the carbon revenue to proceed. Regulatory additionality asks whether the activity was already required by law. Common-practice additionality asks whether the activity is already standard in the region, in which case paying for it buys you nothing the world was not getting for free.
The reason additionality dominates audit conversations is recent history. Research published in 2023, including the Science paper examined at length in our piece on conventional offsets and boardroom credibility, found that a large share of REDD+ credits failed the counterfactual test because baselines were inflated. The market response was a wave of methodology revisions at Verra and the arrival of independent ratings agencies whose entire business is re-testing additionality claims. The Carbon Credit Quality Initiative publishes transparent scoring of methodologies on exactly this dimension, and it is free to consult before you sign anything.
Where projects most commonly fail the test
Five failure modes account for most of the wreckage.
- Inflated baselines. The counterfactual assumes more deforestation, more degradation, or lower yields than the evidence supports. The claimed reduction is the gap between reality and the baseline, so an inflated baseline manufactures reductions from nothing.
- Unaccounted leakage. The project protects one forest and the logging moves to the next valley. The methodology is supposed to net this out; weak projects estimate it optimistically.
- Thin permanence protection. Nature-based carbon can reverse: fire, pest, drought, or a change of landowner. Buffer pools and insurance mechanisms exist for this, but their adequacy varies enormously between projects.
- Attribution and double counting. In supply chain settings, the same reduction can be claimed by the supplier, the buyer, and a credit purchaser unless contracts prevent it. Our Insetting vs Offsetting piece covers the inventory rules; the point here is that the auditor will ask who else is counting this tonne.
- Stale monitoring. Data collected at validation and never refreshed. The IPCC AR6 Working Group III land-sector chapter documents how quickly carbon stocks respond to disturbance; a three-year-old measurement is a historical artifact, not a current claim.
What digital MRV changes, and what it does not
Digital MRV is the genuine improvement in the field. Satellite remote sensing, including the free archives at NASA Earthdata, allows biomass and land-cover change to be monitored continuously rather than at multi-year verification intervals. Soil carbon models calibrated with physical sampling reduce the cost of agricultural measurement. The practical effect is more frequent data at lower cost, which compresses the window in which a problem can hide.
What digital MRV does not change is judgment. Baselines are still human decisions about counterfactuals. Additionality is still an argument, not a measurement. Research groups such as the Oxford Smith School have been clear on this point: better sensors improve the M in MRV, but the integrity questions live in the assumptions, and assumptions need governance, not gadgets.
For a buyer, the test is simple. Ask the provider what is measured by instrument, what is estimated by model, and what is assumed by methodology. A provider who can answer that question crisply understands their own evidence chain. A provider who cannot is selling you their confidence rather than their data.
What to require in your contract
The diligence above converts into five contract clauses.
- Monitoring cadence and buyer data access, specified by dataset and frequency.
- Verifier independence, named accreditation, and rotation terms.
- Baseline revision triggers, so the counterfactual updates when the methodology or the evidence changes.
- Reversal liability and buffer adequacy, with the mechanism named and sized.
- Documentation handover in audit-ready form, so the evidence file your assurance provider needs already exists.
None of these clauses is exotic. All of them are absent from weak contracts, and their absence is the most reliable early signal that the MRV and additionality answers will be weak too.
If you are evaluating a nature-based investment and want the MRV and additionality stress-tested before signature rather than after, the carbon and sustainability experts at Carbon Credit Capital can run that review against any project on your shortlist, and design nature-based supply chain investments where the evidence chain is built audit-first. Schedule a consultation.
Sources and further reading
- ICVCM: Core Carbon Principles Assessment Framework
- Verra: Verified Carbon Standard
- Gold Standard for the Global Goals
- Carbon Credit Quality Initiative: Methodology quality scores
- University of Oxford Smith School: Sustainable finance research
- IPCC AR6 Working Group III, Chapter 7: AFOLU
- NASA Earthdata satellite remote sensing archive
EU Directive: Empowering Consumers for the Green Transition (ECGT)
The EU Directive, Empowering Consumers for the Green Transition (ECGT), takes effect on September 27, 2026.(1) The goal of ECGT is to protect consumers by ensuring that environmental claims are fair, understandable, and reliable. This regulation does create a new compliance requirement for businesses, but it also provides sustainability and marketing teams with important guidance that helps create consistency in sustainability communications.
Key takeaways
- ECGT takes effect September 27, 2026, and prohibits claims that a product or service has a neutral, reduced, or positive environmental impact based on offsetting alone.
- Named example phrases the regulation prohibits include climate neutral, CO2 neutral certified, carbon positive, climate net zero, climate compensated, reduced climate impact, and limited CO2 footprint.
- ECGT does not want to deter investment in carbon credits. It wants companies to communicate the real benefits of the projects they support instead.
- SBTi’s guidance recommends framing carbon credits as taking responsibility for ongoing emissions, not as making a product or company neutral.
- Voluntary carbon projects deliver real climate progress: reducing super-pollutants, protecting and restoring ecosystems, and supporting communities.
Regarding carbon credits specifically, voluntary carbon projects deliver important climate progress and environmental benefits that provide many talking points for companies. They reduce climate super-pollutants by removing industrial emissions like methane, N2O, HFCs and others. They protect and restore valuable ecosystems and carbon sinks like forests, mangroves and grasslands. They help communities by reducing local pollution, creating employment opportunities, improving access to healthcare, and more.
The Science Based Targets Initiative (SBTi), a global leader in business climate action, concludes that alongside aggressive decarbonization, we should also use high quality carbon credits to take responsibility for our ongoing emissions. SBTi recognizes that carbon credits are important “to help limit temperature overshoot, mitigate transition risks, and support climate solutions.”(2)
ECGT language on carbon offsetting says that they do not want to deter investment in carbon credits. They just want companies to focus on communicating the benefits of the projects they support and avoid claims beyond the scope of carbon credits, which is good for everyone, companies and consumers alike.
The regulation reinforces that carbon credits do not change the sustainability of your products, so carbon credit buyers should not suggest that their products are more sustainable because of carbon credits. Instead, companies need to promote their climate contributions as a way to compensate or take responsibility for their carbon emissions by supporting projects that do great things like reducing global carbon emissions, reducing pollution, preventing deforestation, restoring forests, and more.
ECGT language related to carbon offsetting
The regulation is particularly focused on prohibiting claims, based on offsetting greenhouse gas emissions, that a product or service has a neutral, reduced, or positive impact on the environment in terms of greenhouse gas emissions. These claims are prohibited in all circumstances because they mislead consumers into believing the claim relates to the product itself, or to how it was made and supplied, or into thinking that using the product carries no environmental impact at all.
Named examples of prohibited claims include:
- climate neutral
- CO2 neutral certified
- carbon positive
- climate net zero
- climate compensated
- reduced climate impact
- limited CO2 footprint
These claims are only allowed when they rest on a product’s actual lifecycle impact, not on offsetting emissions outside that product’s value chain, since the two are not equivalent. This prohibition does not stop companies from advertising their investments in environmental initiatives, including carbon credit projects, as long as they present that information in a way that is not misleading and that meets the other requirements of Union law.(1)
SBTi also provides guidance on climate contribution language in its Corporate Net Zero Standard Version 2.0 Draft for Second Public Consultation, November 2025. While the SBTi language is fairly technical, it has a good framework for crafting a climate contribution message.
SBTi Language for Carbon Credits(3)
- Take responsibility for ongoing emissions by delivering mitigation impact contributions
- Carbon credits certify the mitigation outcomes of projects that reduce, avoid, or remove carbon emissions
- Activities that reduce emissions from emission sources not located within the company’s value chain
- Activities that conserve, protect, and enhance natural carbon sinks
- Activities that capture and store carbon in storage pools
SBTi’s draft standard also walks through sample claim language for this kind of contribution. In general, the samples move from a simple percentage statement, to naming a specific verified tonnage tied to that percentage, to a fuller statement that breaks the tonnage into reductions versus removals. Across all three, the framing stays consistent: a company took responsibility for a defined share of its ongoing emissions over a set period, by funding a specific, verified amount of mitigation, achieved through emission reductions or removals.(3)
FAQ: ECGT and Carbon Credit Claims
When does the ECGT directive take effect?
The rules apply across the EU from September 27, 2026, after member states transposed the directive into national law by March 27, 2026.
Does ECGT ban carbon offsetting?
No. It bans specific marketing claims that a product or service is environmentally neutral, reduced impact, or positive based on offsetting. Advertising investment in carbon credit projects themselves is still allowed if it is not misleading.
What phrases does ECGT specifically prohibit?
Named examples include climate neutral, CO2 neutral certified, carbon positive, climate net zero, climate compensated, reduced climate impact, and limited CO2 footprint, when those claims are based on offsetting rather than a product’s actual lifecycle impact.
How should a company describe its carbon credit purchases instead?
SBTi’s guidance recommends stating the specific verified tonnage of emissions reductions or removals funded and describing that as taking responsibility for a defined share of ongoing emissions, rather than claiming the company or product is neutral.
Does this rule apply to company level sustainability claims too?
ECGT is focused on claims about specific products and services in consumer marketing. Broader company level sustainability communication is a separate matter still governed by other existing rules.
While ECGT does add a new compliance burden for businesses, it helps create consistency in sustainability messaging that is important to building confidence in voluntary carbon projects and scaling the industry to help us achieve progress on global carbon emissions.
Disclaimer: Terrapass does not provide legal or regulatory advice. Any interpretation of regulation must be approved by your legal representative.
References:
(1) https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/dir/2024/825/oj
(2) https://files.sciencebasedtargets.org/production/files/Corporate-Net-Zero-Standard-version-2.pdf
(3) https://files.sciencebasedtargets.org/production/files/CNZS-V2-Second-Consultation-Draft.pdf
The post The EU’s New Green Claims Rules and Carbon Credits appeared first on Terrapass.
Most businesses that decide to act on their net-zero targets reach the same point of friction. Buying carbon credits has meant tracking down brokers, sitting through sales calls, and requesting a quote just to learn a price, sometimes with limited proof of what you are buying.
-
Climate Change1 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”
-
Greenhouse Gases1 year ago
Guest post: Why China is still building new coal – and when it might stop
-
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”
-
Renewable Energy11 months agoSending Progressive Philanthropist George Soros to Prison?
-
Climate Change2 years ago
Bill Discounting Climate Change in Florida’s Energy Policy Awaits DeSantis’ Approval
-
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