As demand for nickel rises, the Philippines can strengthen its role in the EV supply chain. However, a proposed ban on raw mineral exports could reshape its industry. At the same time, global trade tensions are adding uncertainty. New US tariffs on nickel imports, combined with an ongoing supply surplus, are keeping prices volatile.

While some experts predict that the long-term nickel price might increase as demand outpaces supply, near-term challenges remain. Can the Philippines capitalize on this shift, or will market instability hinder progress?

Nickel and Copper Demand Soars – Can the Philippines Capitalize?

The Philippines is the world’s second-largest producer of mined nickel. Copper and nickel both are essential for lithium-ion batteries used in electric vehicles (EVs). With the demand for these metals rising, the Philippines has a unique opportunity to become a key supplier in the EV supply chain.

But on February 3, Senate President Francis Chiz G. Escudero approved the measure to ban the export of raw minerals. 

He said,

“What we are looking at is to shift our policy from merely exporting raw minerals that will be utilized by other countries to produce higher value products, to developing our processing capabilities. This will result in added value for our minerals-related exports, provide a much-needed boost to our economy and generate employment for our people.”

Boosting Domestic Nickel Refining

If enacted, the ban will take effect in five years, giving mining companies time to establish processing plants. This policy shift is especially significant for key energy metals like nickel, which play a crucial role in the global battery and renewable energy sectors.

Escudero highlighted Indonesia’s 2020 ban on nickel ore exports as a successful example. He hopes that by processing nickel and copper within the country, the Philippines can become a major supplier of battery materials and a key player in the global EV industry.

He also believes that building a strong refining industry will create jobs, reduce dependence on raw material exports, and boost the economy. In the future, this could even help the Philippines manufacture its electric vehicles.

Challenges in Implementation

Mining groups are against a proposed export ban on ore, saying it will hurt the country’s mineral sector.

The Chamber of Mines of the Philippines (COMP) and the Philippine Nickel Industry Association (PNIA) support Senate Bill (SB) 2826 but disagree with the ban. The bill introduces a new tax system based on profits, but the groups believe stopping ore exports will cause problems.

They argue that mining companies cannot build processing plants within five years because of high power costs, poor transport systems, and conflicting local rules. The Philippines also has some of the highest electricity prices in Asia, making local processing too expensive.

They said, “Unless these issues are fixed, processing minerals locally will remain just a dream. There are no shortcuts.”

Supply Surplus and Investment Risks

Even though the Philippines wants to boost its nickel industry, the global market already has too much supply. Big companies have secured their nickel resources, and experts at the Shanghai Metals Market (SMM) predict this surplus will grow even more in 2025 and beyond.

As this decision takes shape, the Philippines may face challenges in developing a strong local processing industry. With too much nickel already available, demand may not be high enough to make processing profitable. This could make it hard to attract big investors, slowing down the country’s plans to move from raw ore exports to processed nickel products.

Impact on China’s Nickel Supply

According to SMM, the Philippines exported 54 million metric tons of nickel ore in 2024. Out of this, 43.5 million mt went to China, while 10.35 million mt was sent to Indonesia.

If the Philippines decides to ban ore exports, China could face serious supply disruptions. The country relies heavily on Philippine nickel, especially after Indonesia tightened its mining quotas in 2024. A ban would likely create shortages, pushing China to look for other suppliers or invest in processing facilities within the Philippines to secure its supply.

A Short-Lived Rally for Nickel Prices

So, what happened to nickel prices after the Philippine government’s announcement of considering banning nickel ore exports? Well, as reported by S&P Global, this news sparked optimism in the nickel market, helping prices climb back to $15,811 per ton on February 6. 

However, further gains were limited. Between February 7 and February 21, prices remained within the $15,400 to $15,800 range, and fears of worsening trade tensions loomed large.

• READ MORE: Philippines Aims for Nickel Dominance with New Mining Reforms

The Larger Picture: How the U.S Tariff War is Shaping Nickel Prices?

S&P Global has provided deeper insights into how U.S. tariffs could affect nickel prices and the broader American nickel market. In January, the White House announced new tariffs on imports from Canada, Mexico, and China. Following this, nickel prices tumbled to a one-month low of $15,210 per ton.

In early February, President Trump signed executive orders imposing a 10% tariff on imports from China and an even higher 25% tariff on goods from Canada and Mexico. These tariffs took effect on February 4, keeping nickel prices on the London Metal Exchange (LME) below $16,000 per ton throughout the month. As trade tensions escalated, market uncertainty overshadowed concerns about a possible nickel ore export ban in the Philippines.

Canada quickly responded. Trudeau announced a 25% tariff on $155 billion worth of US goods, set to take effect the same day. But just before the deadline, the US government delayed tariffs on Canada and Mexico by 30 days, temporarily easing market concerns.

Will it Backfire on the US EV Industry?

If the US moves forward with a 10% tariff on nickel imports from Canada after the 30-day delay, it could drive up costs for American industries. Canada supplied nearly one-third of the US’s primary nickel imports in 2024, making it the country’s largest source.

The bigger challenge? The US produces very little nickel. The only nickel-producing mine is Lundin Mining’s Eagle Mine in Michigan. It contributed just 0.21% of global output in 2024 and is set to close before the decade ends. On top of that, the US lacks refining capacity for class 1 nickel, a key material for EV batteries.

If tariffs on Canadian nickel remain in place, it could become harder for US manufacturers to access affordable supplies, especially for the EV and stainless-steel industries. The US had expected to depend on Canada to meet its rising demand for battery-grade nickel.

However, trade restrictions might create challenges for this plan. It can also affect the competitiveness of domestic EV companies in the global market.

The Bottom Line

At present, the global nickel market remains volatile, affected by trade tensions, excessive supply, and evolving policies. All these factors are driving prices down. However, this dim nickel environment is expected to shift in the future.

With a declining market balance and reduced oversupply, nickel prices are forecasted to rise. By 2030 and beyond, demand is projected to exceed supply, leading to a further price increase.

• RELATED: Nickel Prices Plunge in 2025: Can Demand Revive the Market by 2030?

The post Philippines’ Nickel Export Ban and U.S. Tariffs: What’s Happening in the Nickel Market Now? appeared first on Carbon Credits.

BP has announced a major shift in its strategy, cutting back on renewable energy investments and increasing its focus on oil and gas. The company plans to invest $10 billion annually in fossil fuels while slashing more than $5 billion per year from its energy transition spending.

This move marks a sharp reversal from its previous commitment to cut emissions and transition toward greener energy. So, what prompted the energy giant to go back on its climate goals?

Why Is BP Changing Its Strategy?

BP’s leadership cited slower-than-expected progress in the energy transition as a key reason for the shift. CEO Murray Auchincloss said the Ukraine war, the pandemic, and unstable energy markets have slowed the shift to renewables.

He acknowledged that BP was too optimistic in its early climate targets, saying,

“Our optimism for a fast transition was misplaced, and we went too far, too fast…We will be very selective in our investment in the transition, including through innovative capital-light platforms. This is a reset BP, with an unwavering focus on growing long-term shareholder value.”

The company also pointed to strong demand for oil and gas, which remains higher than expected.

As a result, BP now aims to increase oil and gas production to between 2.3 million and 2.5 million barrels of oil equivalent per day (boepd) by 2030—up from its current 2.36 million boepd.

BP’s New Investment Plans

BP plans to spend between $13 billion and $15 billion each year until 2027. Most of this money will now go toward traditional fossil fuels. The company has also announced that it will:

• Cut energy transition spending to $1.5 billion to $2 billion per year, down from previous forecasts of $8 billion in 2025 and $9 billion in 2030. BP’s big cut shows it expects slower returns on renewables. So, fossil fuel projects are now its main focus.
• Increase its dividend by 4% each year to draw in investors. This shows confidence in profits, even as green investments decline.
• Reduce operating costs and divest $20 billion worth of assets by 2027, including parts of its renewables business. BP says these divestments will simplify operations and bring in cash quickly.
• Sell a 50% stake in Lightsource BP, its solar business, and shift to a capital-light renewable energy model. BP will not fully develop its green energy projects. Instead, it will depend on outside capital and partnerships. This approach cuts its financial risk but keeps BP involved in renewables.

Dialing Down Climate Commitments

The energy major’s combined Scope 1 and 2 emissions were 32.1 MtCO2e in 2023. This is a decrease of 41% from its 2019 baseline. This means they’ve already surpassed their 2025 target of 20% emission reductions against the baseline. 

BP has changed its strategy. It has lowered its climate goals and moved away from its earlier decarbonization plans. The company’s revised targets include:

• Cutting Scope 1 and 2 emissions (from its own operations) by 45%-50% by 2030, down from the original 50% goal. This slight reduction reflects BP’s decision to keep oil and gas production at higher levels than originally planned.
• Reducing the carbon intensity of its products by 8%-10% by 2030, compared to the previous 15%-20% target. This weaker target shows that BP is focusing on short-term profits instead of making bigger cuts in emissions from its fuel products.
• Eliminating its absolute Scope 3 emissions reduction target, which previously aimed for a 20%-30% cut by 2030. Scope 3 emissions make up most of an oil company’s total carbon footprint. They arise from how people use its products, not from the company’s direct operations. Critics say BP’s decision to remove this target signals a major retreat from its climate commitments and a lack of accountability for downstream emissions.

• BP’s aim 1 means to be net zero across its entire operations on an absolute basis by 2050 or sooner.

The energy giant’s new climate goals show a shift seen in many big oil companies. Many of them are slowing down their green efforts due to economic uncertainty. By abandoning absolute Scope 3 targets, BP avoids binding commitments to reduce emissions from its gasoline and diesel sales, which make up the bulk of its carbon footprint.

• RELATED: Big Oil’s Showdown: How Shell, Chevron & ExxonMobil Balance Big Profits with Net Zero?

Investor Pressure: Chasing Profits Over Sustainability?

BP is reducing its focus on renewable energy. This change follows pressure from Elliott Investment Management. They want BP to boost its financial returns.

BP has also underperformed compared to competitors like Shell, Exxon, and Chevron, leading to dissatisfaction among investors.

Following the announcement, BP’s share price fell by 1.8%, reflecting mixed reactions from the market. Some investors like the new focus on profits. But others think BP is giving up on long-term sustainability.

BP’s move could also have regulatory implications as governments worldwide tighten emissions standards. With climate policies evolving, companies that fail to adapt may face higher compliance costs in the future.

Environmental Groups Call Out BP’s ‘Climate U-Turn

BP’s return to fossil fuels has angered environmental groups. It has also worried investors who care about sustainability. Greenpeace UK called the decision “proof that fossil fuel companies can’t or won’t be part of climate crisis solutions.”

Meanwhile, Global Witness criticized BP. They claimed the company cares more about quick profits for shareholders than protecting the environment in the long run. The group held a protest in London. They used mobile billboards to call out BP’s leaders for their “flip-flop” climate policy decisions.

BP’s move also raises concerns about its alignment with global climate goals. The International Energy Agency (IEA) states that new fossil fuel projects can’t help limit global warming to 1.5°C. By increasing oil and gas production, BP may stray from the global net-zero goal.

What This Means for BP’s Future

BP’s shift signals a clear return to traditional fossil fuel business models, with a reduced emphasis on clean and renewable energy. While this move may generate higher short-term profits, it raises concerns about BP’s ability to adapt to a decarbonizing world.

Many experts believe that, over time, stricter climate regulations and changing energy markets will force oil companies to prioritize renewables once again.

BP’s shift in priorities could also affect its reputation among environmentally conscious investors and consumers. Companies that continue investing in fossil fuels at the expense of renewables may struggle to attract younger, sustainability-focused investors who prioritize long-term climate goals over immediate financial returns.

For now, BP is betting on oil and gas—but whether this strategy pays off in the long run remains uncertain. As the world moves toward net-zero goals, its decision to step back from renewables could impact its standing in the energy sector in the years ahead.

The question remains: Will BP’s return to fossil fuels prove to be a wise financial move, or will it leave the company behind in an increasingly green-focused world?

• READ MORE: 2025: The Year Clean Energy Dominates with Record $670 Billion Investment, Trumping Oil & Gas

The post BP Rolls Back on Net Zero Goals, Bets $10B on Fossil Fuels: A Smart Move or a Climate Setback? appeared first on Carbon Credits.

Zefiro Methane Corp. is teaming up with tech firms Geolabe and Keynum to find and repair old, leaking oil and gas wells. This effort will cut methane emissions using artificial intelligence. The partnership also aims to cut costs, speed up repairs, and share carbon credits better.

Zefiro Founder and Chief Executive Officer Dr. Talal Debs commented,

“With millions of orphaned and abandoned oil and gas wells spread throughout twenty-six different states, utilizing advanced solutions to locate and permanently plug more of these sites is essential. Both the Lifecycle Solution developed with CarbonAi and our partnerships with Geolabe and Keynum bring innovative technologies into this important endeavor, and our heightened ability to increase our project portfolio, reduce costs, and promote efficiencies throughout our operations solidifies Zefiro’s position as a market leader.”

Zefiro Invests in Smarter Methane Detection with AI

Satellites and AI are transforming how methane emissions are tracked. With real-time monitoring, companies can quickly detect and address leaks. Drones with infrared cameras further enhance detection at oil and gas sites, while automated systems improve data accuracy, reducing errors and increasing transparency. These tools make methane reduction efforts more effective and help strengthen carbon credit programs.

The press release mentions that Zefiro is betting on the advantage of these innovations by partnering with Geolabe and Keynum. On January 10, 2025, Zefiro signed an agreement with Geolabe to use its AI-powered satellite imaging system—the first fully automated tool for detecting methane emissions. This technology analyzes satellite images with unprecedented accuracy, and Zefiro will contribute real-world well data to further refine its capabilities.

Since December, Zefiro has also been working with Keynum, a firm specializing in AI and data science, to develop a dashboard that maps orphaned wells across multiple states. Keynum’s predictive modeling identifies wells with significant methane leaks, helping Zefiro prioritize repairs and accelerate carbon credit certification. These partnerships are positioning Zefiro as a leader in methane abatement, making the cleanup process faster, smarter, and more impactful

Turning Data into Climate Action

Zefiro already uses advanced monitoring and data analysis tools to detect and verify methane leaks. These technologies have been successfully used in multiple projects to improve detection and mitigation.

However, this time, it is taking a big step forward by launching Zefiro Lifecycle Solution. Developed with CarbonAi Inc., this new platform will simplify data collection and workflow management, making it easier and more cost-effective to seal abandoned wells. It will also speed up the certification of carbon offset credits by the American Carbon Registry, helping Zefiro maximize its impact in the fight against methane emissions.

Chief Technology Officer Richard Walker of Zefiro said,

“By harnessing the unique powers of artificial intelligence to process satellite imagery and the blockchain, Zefiro continues to find new ways to help stem the proliferation of orphaned and abandoned oil and gas wells. These innovative solutions will expand our operational footprint, enable best-in-class economics for our carbon credit initiatives, promote certainty in our methodologies, and ensure the integrity of our plugging measurements to help more communities reclaim critical air, water, and land resources.”

• READ MORE: COP29: Launch of “An Eye on Methane”, Will Pledges Turn into Progress? 

Methane Leaks from Oil and Gas Wells Are a Major Climate Threat

Old, abandoned oil and gas wells can leak methane. Methane is a greenhouse gas. It traps heat 25 times better than carbon dioxide. It has caused 30% of the global temperature rise since the industrial revolution. This impact worsens climate change. It also pollutes water and harms human health.

A study from the Environmental and Energy Study Institute (EESI) found that in 2018, the EPA estimated abandoned wells released 290 kilotons of methane. This equals burning over 16 million barrels of oil.

These unplugged wells leak methane and other harmful pollutants. This worsens the climate crisis and threatens public health. Sealing these wells quickly is vital for reducing emissions and protecting communities.

Zefiro Capitalizes on Growing Demand for Carbon Credits

Millions of abandoned oil and gas wells across 26 U.S. states leak methane, worsening climate change.

According to Zefiro, each well releases about 78 cubic meters of methane yearly. This adds up to nearly 23 million tons of CO2 equivalent. However, sealing them would cost over $600 billion.

So, how does Zefiro tackle this challenge? The company has created a toolkit to stop methane leaks, protecting land, air, and water. It offers top-notch methane offset credits from the U.S. It partners with businesses, government, and environmental groups. This strategy reduces emissions and attracts more investment to address the orphaned well crisis.

Methane Offset Credits in High Demand

• Methane reductions have an immediate climate impact due to methane’s potency.
• Carbon credits from methane abatement projects are valued for their strong environmental benefits.
• Unlike other carbon offsets, methane projects also improve local air quality.

A report by Climate Wells shows that since 2004, methane credits have cut just 19 million tons of CO2e. That’s less than 1% of the 4 billion tons reduced in voluntary carbon markets (VCM).

Demand is rising. Over the past year, methane credit retirements grew by more than 70%. This makes them one of the fastest-growing credit types on the market.

Last year in November, Zefiro’s subsidiary, Plants & Goodwin, Inc. (P&G), successfully sealed its first gas well in Custer County, Oklahoma. This deep gas well reached 15,000 feet underground. To seal it permanently, we removed 5,000 feet of casing. The project will create carbon offset credits approved by the American Carbon Registry.

In conclusion, Zefiro’s partnership with Geolabe and Keynum is a game-changer. By using AI to pinpoint major methane leaks, the company can tackle emissions more effectively. These advancements are expected to cut costs and boost methane capture by 50%.

• READ MORE: Carbon Credits in 2024: What to Expect in 2025 and Beyond ($250B by 2050)

The post Zefiro Methane Revolutionizes Well Sealing: Uses AI & Blockchain to Stop Methane Leaks appeared first on Carbon Credits.

As Australia’s largest oil and natural gas producer, Woodside Energy faces growing pressure to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions while maintaining energy production. The company uses a carbon credit strategy to offset emissions. This supports its goals for decarbonization and reaching net zero.

In 2024, Woodside retired 1.3 million carbon credits. This was nearly double the amount from the year before. They also managed a portfolio of over 20 million credits. These credits came from several programs, like the Australian Carbon Credit Unit (ACCU) scheme, Gold Standard, and Verra.

Carbon Credits in Emission Reduction: A Shortcut or a Necessity?

Woodside uses carbon credits as a key component of its strategy to address Scope 1 and 2 emissions.

According to its 2024 Annual Report, the company offsets emissions that exceed its net reduction targets. Due to the high costs of big technologies like carbon capture and storage (CCS) or electrifying LNG facilities, carbon credits remain a good choice.

The company stated in the report that:

“The use of carbon credits as offsets remains an important part of Woodside’s approach to Scope 1 and 2 GHG emissions, due to the high potential cost of large scale abatement options. We both originate (i.e. invest in our own carbon projects) and acquire carbon credits, to maintain a diverse portfolio differentiated by underlying abatement method, geography and vintage.”

Some investors want Woodside to cut back on carbon offsets. However, Woodside believes carbon credits are essential for tackling hard-to-reduce emissions.

The company prioritizes direct emission reductions first, then uses credits for remaining emissions. Executive pay ties to gross Scope 1 and 2 reductions. Offsets don’t count. This approach ensures that abatement measures come first.

Net Zero Roadmap: Cutting Emissions While Powering Australia

Woodside’s net zero strategy focuses on three main areas:

• Decarbonizing assets,
• Improving energy efficiency, and
• Investing in lower-carbon solutions.

The oil company has set the following emission reduction targets:

Scope 1 and 2 Emissions: Reduce net equity emissions through direct abatement and offsets. The Australian oil giant aims to cut net equity Scope 1 and 2 emissions by 15% by 2025 and 30% by 2030, using 2016-2020 as a baseline. Woodside aims to do this by using carbon capture and storage (CCS) at key sites. They will boost efficiency and use more renewable energy in their operations.

Scope 3 Emissions: Invest $5 billion in new energy products and lower-carbon services by 2030. This will help reduce 5 million metric tons per year (Mtpa) of CO2 equivalent. The company is focusing on hydrogen, ammonia, and renewable energy projects. These efforts aim to help customers decarbonize their supply chains.

Operational Efficiency: Launch emissions reduction projects to achieve a 15% efficiency gain in LNG operations by 2030. This involves electrifying some processes, cutting methane leaks, and improving fuel use.

Woodside reported Scope 1 and 2 gross equity emissions of approximately 6.78 million tons of CO2 equivalent (mt CO2e) in 2024, up from 6.19 million tons in 2023. The increase was largely attributed to the start of production at the Sangomar oil and gas field in Senegal.

Yet, its net equity Scope 1 and 2 emissions have fallen from 5.53 to 5.44 mt CO2e as seen below. 

The company is working hard to cut emissions. It aims to improve equipment efficiency and optimize processes at its LNG facilities. Additionally, Woodside is evaluating partnerships to develop large-scale CCS projects that could store millions of tons of CO2 annually. It is also working more with renewable energy providers. This will help add clean energy to its supply chain and support its net-zero goals.

Carbon Offset Initiatives and Reforestation Projects

In addition to purchasing credits, Woodside develops its own carbon offset projects. The company has implemented several large-scale reforestation and conservation initiatives.

• Australia: Planted 3.2 million biodiverse seedlings on 4,800 hectares in Western Australia. This brings the total to 8.9 million seedlings across 13,000 hectares.
• Paraguay: Funding the reforestation of 7,400 hectares in the Chaco region. This project aims to generate about 2.4 million carbon credits over 40 years.
• Senegal: They support mangrove restoration on 7,000 hectares in the Sine Saloum and Casamance regions. This project is expected to produce 1.8 million carbon credits over 40 years.

These projects boost biodiversity and store carbon for the long term. They also align with Woodside’s sustainability goals. The company estimates that its existing offset projects will generate around 10 million carbon credits by 2035, helping to balance emissions from fossil fuel production.

• RELATED: Prairie Operating Co. and the Oil Industry’s Shift Toward Sustainable Energy Practices

Challenges and the Future of Carbon Credits in Oil and Gas

While carbon credits offer a near-term solution for offsetting emissions, the long-term sustainability of this approach is debated. Some corporations have scaled back on offsets, citing concerns over credibility and effectiveness.

Voluntary carbon credit issuance declined by 4% in 2024 due to weaker demand. Woodside is still committed to its offset strategy. This is especially true for emissions that current technologies can’t yet eliminate.

The company sees the risks of offsets. And so, it wants to balance using them with cutting direct emissions. Technologies like post-combustion carbon capture, hydrogen fueling, and electrification are being studied. Their costs range from $200 to $500 per ton of CO2, making it hard to deploy them on a large scale right now.

Woodside has committed $500 million toward research and development of these technologies over the next decade.

Woodside has teamed up with industry and government groups to create a carbon storage hub. The goal is to capture up to 10 million tons of CO2 each year by 2040. This initiative aligns with broader national efforts to transition toward a lower-carbon economy while maintaining Australia’s energy security.

Industry and Investor Reactions to Woodside’s Carbon Strategy

Investor response to Woodside’s climate strategy has been mixed. Some shareholders want less reliance on carbon credits. They also urge a stronger focus on cutting emissions directly.

At Woodside’s 2023 annual meeting, almost 49% of shareholders rejected the company’s climate plan. This shows worries about its heavy reliance on offsets. However, others support the approach, provided it is complemented by clear abatement initiatives and cost-effective offset sourcing.

Regulatory bodies are also increasing scrutiny of carbon credit strategies. The Australian government is creating new rules for carbon credits. These rules will make sure that companies follow strict transparency and additionality standards. This may change how Woodside buys and uses offsets in the future.

Woodside Energy is weaving carbon credits into its sustainability strategy. They use offsets and also invest in emission reduction technologies. With 1.3 million credits retired in 2024 and over 20 million in its portfolio, the company remains committed to managing its carbon footprint.

However, as industry standards evolve and scrutiny on offsets increases, Woodside’s long-term success will depend on its ability to scale direct abatement efforts alongside its reliance on carbon credits.

• READ MORE: Carbon Credits Surge: $16B Fuels 2024’s Race for High-Quality Offsets

The post Woodside Almost Double Carbon Credit Use: Can Offsets Deliver Net Zero for Australia’s Energy Giant? appeared first on Carbon Credits.