Disseminated on behalf of West Red Lake Gold Mines Ltd.
The Madsen Mine, located in Ontario’s renowned Red Lake gold district, has a legacy of high-grade gold production. Historically, this region has produced over 30 million ounces of gold, proving its geological richness and mining potential. However, previous attempts to revive the Madsen Mine fell short due to operational inefficiencies and technical missteps.
Today, under the leadership of West Red Lake Gold Mines Ltd. (WRLG), Madsen is setting up to succeed. With a clear plan, robust infrastructure improvements, and lessons learned from the past, this revitalized operation is poised to deliver results.
Here’s why Madsen will work this time.
A Gold-Rich Region with Clear Rules for Success
Red Lake has long been recognized as one of the most prolific gold-producing regions in Canada. The geology is well understood, and successful mining here follows established rules of thumb. West Red Lake Gold Mines has embraced these principles to ensure Madsen’s success.
One critical factor is drilling density – how much drilling is done to really understand the deposit before mining it. The previous operator tried to mine the deposit using drill holes about 20 meters apart. This method didn’t work well for Red Lake’s narrow vein deposits.
The rule of thumb in this region is 7-meter spacing to define a resource for mining accurately. West Red Lake Gold has followed this standard to define the tonnes it will mine in the first 18 months, with 90,000 metres of drilling already done. It will keep doing this definition drilling for Madsen’s entire lifespan. This commitment ensures precise resource estimation and minimizes risk during production.
Proactive Development: Building Access for Efficiency
Mining narrow vein high-grade deposits requires proactive planning and development. A key lesson from past operators is the need to access multiple work areas at the same time. This means driving tunnels to mining areas is planned 6 to 12 months. The tunnels are used first for definition drilling and then for mining.
West Red Lake Gold has been developing access at Madsen for over 1.5 years already. This approach ensures that drilling and mining operations can proceed smoothly across several areas at any given time.
By jumping in and getting access development done, the company has mitigated challenges that previously hindered deposit model accuracy and productivity at Madsen and set the stage for sustainable operations.
Infrastructure Upgrades: Efficiency at Every Level
Operational efficiency is essential for modern mining success. So WRLG made significant investments in upgrading Madsen’s infrastructure. The prior operator built the mine on a tight budget, leaving several critical projects incomplete. These omissions led to inefficiencies that hampered productivity.
West Red Lake Gold tackled these issues directly by finishing important infrastructure projects. These projects boost efficiency throughout the mine:
- Connection Drift: An underground highway to move material smoothly within the mine.
- On Site Camp: Quality accommodation facilities to attract and retain good staff.
- Mine Dry Facility: Enlarging spaces for workers to prepare for shifts.
- Maintenance Shop: Enabling proper equipment upkeep for higher availability.
- Primary Crusher Upgrade: Improving rock processing capacity.
- Tailings Dam Lift: Setting up waste management capabilities proactively.
These upgrades have made Madsen more efficient. Now, it can handle modern production needs and reduce downtime.
Operational Readiness: Building for Success
Mines are complex systems that require careful preparation before full-scale operations can begin. West Red Lake Gold understands this and has prioritized building out, testing, and refining each component of Madsen’s operations before starting production at full capacity.
The company has made significant progress in preparing Madsen Mine for its restart. Underground development rates are steadily increasing, ensuring access to multiple mining areas. Also, mining operations have achieved consistent accuracy while daily tonnage has risen as planned.
The mill, restarted after 28 months of dry shutdown, has operated smoothly following extensive pre-commissioning efforts. A high-grade ore stockpile is growing toward the 30,000-tonne goal, providing over a month of operational flexibility.
Safety remains a top priority, with a strong culture reinforced across the workforce. Additionally, over 200 personnel have been hired, ensuring the mine is staffed for efficient operations.
This focus on operational readiness means testing equipment, systems, and processes. The company wants to ensure they are reliable from day one. By addressing potential issues during the preparation phase, WRLG cut risks associated with startup delays or inefficiencies.
Lessons From the Past
Notably, restarting Madsen brings important lessons from past operators. A key takeaway is the need to align operational strategies with the unique characteristics of narrow vein deposits in Red Lake.
West Red Lake Gold’s adherence to best practices—such as tighter drill spacing and proactive access development—demonstrates its commitment to overcoming past challenges.
Also, the company has improved infrastructure and operational readiness. This has fixed issues that previously hurt productivity at Madsen. These measures not only enhance efficiency but also position the mine for long-term success.
A New Era for Madsen
Under West Red Lake Gold Mines, Madsen Mine is entering a new era defined by strategic planning, operational excellence, and sustainability. Madsen is now equipped to succeed where others struggled by addressing past shortcomings:
- Insufficient drill spacing,
- Lack of access to development, and
- Incomplete infrastructure.
The company takes a proactive approach that helps ensure accurate resource estimates. Its investments in infrastructure and readiness further support efficient production. WRLG’s focus on sustainability and responsibility in Madsen makes it a model for modern mining in Canada.
This time around, Madsen is set to work and thrive as Canada’s newest gold mine. With production slated to begin soon, stakeholders can look forward to a bright mining future driven by innovation, efficiency, and resilience.
DISCLAIMER
New Era Publishing Inc. and/or CarbonCredits.com (“We” or “Us”) are not securities dealers or brokers, investment advisers or financial advisers, and you should not rely on the information herein as investment advice. West Red Lake Gold Mines Ltd. made a one-time payment of $30,000 to provide marketing services for a term of 1 month. None of the owners, members, directors, or employees of New Era Publishing Inc. and/or CarbonCredits.com currently hold, or have any beneficial ownership in, any shares, stocks, or options in the companies mentioned. This article is informational only and is solely for use by prospective investors in determining whether to seek additional information. This does not constitute an offer to sell or a solicitation of an offer to buy any securities. Examples that we provide of share price increases pertaining to a particular Issuer from one referenced date to another represent an arbitrarily chosen time period and are no indication whatsoever of future stock prices for that Issuer and are of no predictive value. Our stock profiles are intended to highlight certain companies for your further investigation; they are not stock recommendations or constitute an offer or sale of the referenced securities. The securities issued by the companies we profile should be considered high risk; if you do invest despite these warnings, you may lose your entire investment. Please do your own research before investing, including reading the companies’ SEDAR+ and SEC filings, press releases, and risk disclosures. It is our policy that information contained in this profile was provided by the company, extracted from SEDAR+ and SEC filings, company websites, and other publicly available sources. We believe the sources and information are accurate and reliable but we cannot guarantee it.
CAUTIONARY STATEMENT AND FORWARD-LOOKING INFORMATION
Certain statements contained in this news release may constitute “forward-looking information” within the meaning of applicable securities laws. Forward-looking information generally can be identified by words such as “anticipate”, “expect”, “estimate”, “forecast”, “planned”, and similar expressions suggesting future outcomes or events. Forward-looking information is based on current expectations of management; however, it is subject to known and unknown risks, uncertainties and other factors that may cause actual results to differ materially from the forward-looking information in this news release and include without limitation, statements relating to the plans and timing for the potential production of mining operations at the Madsen Mine, the potential (including the amount of tonnes and grades of material from the bulk sample program) of the Madsen Mine; the benefits of test mining; any untapped growth potential in the Madsen deposit or Rowan deposit; and the Company’s future objectives and plans. Readers are cautioned not to place undue reliance on forward-looking information.
Forward-looking information involve numerous risks and uncertainties and actual results might differ materially from results suggested in any forward-looking information. These risks and uncertainties include, among other things, market volatility; the state of the financial markets for the Company’s securities; fluctuations in commodity prices; timing and results of the cleanup and recovery at the Madsen Mine; and changes in the Company’s business plans. Forward-looking information is based on a number of key expectations and assumptions, including without limitation, that the Company will continue with its stated business objectives and its ability to raise additional capital to proceed. Although management of the Company has attempted to identify important factors that could cause actual results to differ materially from those contained in forward-looking information, there may be other factors that cause results not to be as anticipated, estimated or intended. There can be no assurance that such forward-looking information will prove to be accurate, as actual results and future events could differ materially from those anticipated in such forward-looking information. Accordingly, readers should not place undue reliance on forward-looking information. Readers are cautioned that reliance on such information may not be appropriate for other purposes. Additional information about risks and uncertainties is contained in the Company’s management’s discussion and analysis for the year ended December 31, 2024, and the Company’s annual information form for the year ended December 31, 2024, copies of which are available on SEDAR+ at www.sedarplus.ca.
The forward-looking information contained herein is expressly qualified in its entirety by this cautionary statement. Forward-looking information reflects management’s current beliefs and is based on information currently available to the Company. The forward-looking information is made as of the date of this news release and the Company assumes no obligation to update or revise such information to reflect new events or circumstances, except as may be required by applicable law.
For more information on the Company, investors should review the Company’s continuous disclosure filings that are available on SEDAR+ at www.sedarplus.ca.
Please read our Full RISKS and DISCLOSURE here.
The post Why Madsen Will Work This Time: A Smarter Start for a Legendary Gold Mine appeared first on Carbon Credits.
The accounting differences that decide whether your nature investment shows up in inventory, in BVCM, or nowhere at all.
The question reaches a procurement team about three weeks before the next sustainability committee meeting. Someone has read about insetting. Someone else has just signed off on an offset purchase. The CSO wants to know if the two are interchangeable. The answer is no, and the GHG Protocol Land Sector and Removals Standard is the reason why.
This article walks through what each term means at audit-grade specificity, what the standards actually say about how each gets counted, and how to decide which tool fits which target. The insetting vs offsetting question is one of the most-searched in corporate climate strategy, and one of the most poorly answered. By the end of this piece, you should be able to brief a committee on the difference without notes.
The two definitions, in plain English
Offsetting means buying carbon credits generated outside your value chain and retiring them against your residual emissions. The reduction happens somewhere else, financed by you, and the credit is the receipt.
Insetting means investing in emission reductions or removals inside your own value chain, typically with suppliers, where the reduction is directly linked to the products and services you buy. The reduction happens inside the boundary of your Scope 3 inventory, and the accounting treatment is fundamentally different.
The shorthand from the University of Oxford’s Nature-based Insetting Initiative is useful: insetting is what you do with the supply chain you have; offsetting is what you do with the supply chain you do not have.
What the GHG Protocol Land Sector Standard actually says
The GHG Protocol Land Sector and Removals Standard, finalised in 2024 after a multi-year pilot, sets the rules for how land-based emission reductions and removals enter corporate inventories. The Standard distinguishes between inventory accounting (Scope 1, 2, and 3) and project or intervention accounting (a separate methodology for crediting).
For insetting, the practical implication is that supplier-level interventions, when properly measured and attributed, can reduce your Scope 3 category 1 (purchased goods and services) emissions in your inventory. The reduction is not a credit retired against the inventory; it is a lower inventory number, period.
For offsetting, the credit is retired separately. It can be reported as a contribution toward a net-zero claim under the SBTi Beyond Value Chain Mitigation framework or as part of a VCMI Carbon Integrity claim, but it does not lower the inventory number.
A practical consequence: if your Science Based Target requires a 50% absolute reduction in Scope 3 emissions by 2030, insetting moves you toward the target. Offsetting does not. This single point of difference reshapes the procurement decision.
When insetting counts toward Scope 3 (and when it does not)
Insetting counts toward Scope 3 only when several conditions are met:
- The intervention must occur with an entity in your value chain.
- The emissions reduction or removal must be measured against a defensible baseline.
- The reduction must be attributed to your share of that supplier’s output, not double-counted with other buyers.
- It must follow the inventory accounting rules in the GHG Protocol Land Sector Standard, not the project accounting rules used to generate credits.
The most common failure mode is double counting. If your supplier sells the same reduction as a credit on the voluntary market and also reports it to you as a Scope 3 reduction, the math breaks. The Standard requires you to address this risk, typically by purchasing and retiring the supplier-issued credit as part of your inventory or by contractual provisions that prevent the supplier from selling the reduction twice.
When insetting does not count toward Scope 3: when the intervention sits with a supplier you do not buy from, when the baseline is not defensible, when the attribution is unclear, or when the documentation does not survive audit. Those cases default to Beyond Value Chain Mitigation, which is still useful but operates on a different ledger.
The procurement and supplier engagement question
Insetting is harder than offsetting. That is the unfashionable truth most buyers eventually confront. Offsetting is a transaction; insetting is a relationship.
To run an insetting program, you need supplier mapping precise enough to know which farms or facilities sit at which Scope 3 boundary. You need an engagement model that gets suppliers to participate, which usually requires multi-year commitments and shared economics. You need an MRV architecture that measures the right things and produces audit-ready documentation. And you need a contractual structure that prevents double counting and protects both sides.
The trade-off you receive in return is significant. Reductions count against your inventory rather than your residual. Supplier relationships deepen, which protects sourcing continuity. Yield and quality improvements often follow regenerative interventions, which reduces your input cost over time. And the regulatory file, under CSRD, CSDDD, EUDR, and the SBTi FLAG Guidance, is materially stronger.
Choosing the right tool for the right target
A practical decision rule. If your target is a science-based Scope 3 reduction and you operate in a FLAG sector or source FLAG commodities, insetting is the structurally correct tool. If your target is a net-zero claim that includes neutralising hard-to-abate residual emissions outside your value chain, BVCM via high-integrity offsets is the structurally correct tool. Most companies with material Scope 3 exposure need both, in different proportions, sequenced over time.
The sequencing matters. Insetting takes longer to stand up but produces a permanent reduction in the inventory. Offsetting can be transacted faster but does not change the inventory and now sits under tighter claim restrictions. Treat them as complementary tools with different jobs, not as substitutes. The Accountability Framework Initiative and the IUCN Global Standard for Nature-based Solutions both provide useful guardrails for the insetting side, with biodiversity, human rights, and benefit-sharing requirements that go beyond carbon math.
If you are mapping a Scope 3 reduction roadmap and need to scope which interventions count toward your inventory versus which sit in Beyond Value Chain Mitigation, the carbon and sustainability experts at Carbon Credit Capital can help you structure a nature-based supply chain investment program that fits your FLAG exposure, your target architecture, and your audit horizon. Schedule a consultation.
Net zero is often described as a balancing act: cut what you can, account for the rest, and reach zero on the ledger. That framing is useful, but it leaves something out. It treats every tonne of carbon as interchangeable and every route to zero as equally sound, while the science tells a more specific story.
Malawi has lost a striking share of its forests over the past three decades. Woodlands that once covered well over a third of the country now cover less than a quarter, and the pressure on what remains is increasing. Behind those figures sit two practical questions: what is driving the loss, and what reverses it?
-
Climate Change1 year ago
Guest post: Why China is still building new coal – and when it might stop
-
Greenhouse Gases1 year ago
Guest post: Why China is still building new coal – and when it might stop
-
Greenhouse Gases2 years ago嘉宾来稿：满足中国增长的用电需求 光伏加储能“比新建煤电更实惠”
-
Climate Change2 years ago嘉宾来稿：满足中国增长的用电需求 光伏加储能“比新建煤电更实惠”
-
Climate Change2 years ago
Bill Discounting Climate Change in Florida’s Energy Policy Awaits DeSantis’ Approval
-
Renewable Energy10 months agoSending Progressive Philanthropist George Soros to Prison?
-
Greenhouse Gases1 year ago
嘉宾来稿：探究火山喷发如何影响气候预测
-
Carbon Footprint2 years agoUS SEC’s Climate Disclosure Rules Spur Renewed Interest in Carbon Credits