China Battery Overcapacity Crackdown Targets Price Wars and Overseas Expansion

China Battery

China battery overcapacity concerns deepened after government authorities held another meeting with leading power and energy storage battery producers on 9 April. The meeting signalled stronger regulatory pressure on disorderly competition, low-price strategies and excessive capacity expansion in the lithium battery sector.

The meeting brought together 16 major battery producers and several industry associations. It was the second such regulatory session since January, showing that Beijing sees battery overcapacity as a structural industrial risk rather than a short-term market adjustment.

China battery overcapacity has grown as domestic and overseas capacity plans have moved far ahead of actual demand. Regulators are now seeking capacity early-warning mechanisms, stronger market-order controls and tighter oversight of aggressive price competition.

Regulators Target Involution-Style Competition

Chinese authorities said the meeting aimed to implement senior government directives against “involution-style” competition. This term refers to excessive internal rivalry that destroys margins, weakens investment discipline and creates unsustainable price wars.

Regulators also discussed a negative list of irrational competitive practices in the power and energy storage battery industry. This would give authorities a clearer tool to identify and restrict behaviour that destabilises the market.

The new focus on the “externalisation of involution” is especially important. It shows that Beijing is now concerned not only about domestic overcapacity, but also about excessive overseas expansion by Chinese battery producers.

Chinese battery companies have accelerated global plant construction to serve overseas demand and reduce exposure to geopolitical restrictions. But if too much capacity is exported abroad, price pressure could spread into global power battery and energy storage markets.

Capacity Mismatch Creates Pressure Across Battery Materials

China’s power and energy storage battery output reached 1,755.6GWh in 2025, up 60.1% from a year earlier. Sales rose by 63.6% to 1,700.5GWh, confirming strong demand growth but also exposing the scale of capacity pressure.

Planned national capacity has climbed close to 5,000GWh. That implies utilisation rates below 40%, which helps explain why regulators are concerned about price wars and weak production discipline.

The issue also matters for battery materials. Overcapacity can pressure cathode active materials, precursors, lithium carbonate, graphite, copper foil, separators and electrolytes if producers chase volumes rather than margins.

Chinese battery firms are also becoming more important abroad. CATL, BYD, Gotion High-Tech, Farasis Energy, SVOLT Energy and CALB recorded 218GWh of overseas power battery installations in 2025, accounting for 47.2% of the global market.

The Metalnomist Commentary

China’s battery crackdown shows that scale alone is no longer enough. The next phase of battery competition will reward disciplined capacity, stronger technology, regional supply-chain positioning and healthier margins over pure volume growth.

Lithium-Ion Battery Copper Foil Shipments Surge as Ultra-Thin Products Gain Share

Copper Foil

Lithium-ion battery copper foil shipments rose sharply in 2025 as global battery production expanded and manufacturers shifted toward thinner materials to reduce copper costs. Global shipments reached 1.302mn t, up 41.7% from 2024, according to Chinese research institute EV Tank.

Lithium-ion battery copper foil demand remains closely tied to electric vehicle and energy storage growth. Copper foil is a key current collector in lithium-ion batteries, making it essential to cell performance, energy density and manufacturing cost.

Lithium-ion battery copper foil shipments were dominated by China, which accounted for 82.9% of global deliveries in 2025. EV Tank expects global shipments to reach 2.615mn t by 2030, implying continued expansion as battery output scales.

The product mix changed quickly during the year. The share of 8μm foil declined, while 6μm remained the mainstream product and accounted for more than 70% of total shipments.

Ultra-Thin Foil Gains Momentum on Copper Cost Pressure

Ultra-thin copper foil gained share as battery producers looked for ways to reduce copper input costs. Persistently high global copper prices pushed cell manufacturers to use thinner foil while maintaining battery performance.

The combined share of 5μm and 4.5μm ultra-thin foil rose to 24% in 2025. This is a major shift for a material category that requires tighter production control, better surface quality and stronger consistency.

Thinner copper foil can help reduce battery weight and improve energy density. It also lowers the amount of copper used per cell, which becomes increasingly important when copper prices remain elevated.

EV Tank expects 5μm and thinner foil to become a key material for high-end batteries. This reflects the industry’s move toward lighter, higher-energy-density cell designs.

However, thinner foil also raises manufacturing difficulty. Producers must control pinholes, tensile strength, elongation, surface roughness and coating compatibility more precisely.

That technical barrier could separate higher-end suppliers from lower-cost producers. As battery customers shift toward thinner grades, qualification and process reliability will become more important than simple capacity.

China Leads Supply as Competition Intensifies

China’s 82.9% share of global shipments shows its dominant role in battery copper foil supply. The country has built large-scale capacity around its lithium-ion battery ecosystem, supported by domestic EV, energy storage and cell manufacturing growth.

Competition intensified in 2025 as the market recovered and producers brought earlier-built capacity on line. This created a more fluid ranking among suppliers.

Longdian Wason ranked first with a 12.2% market share. Huachuang New Material followed after capacity ramp-ups lifted output and sales.

Defu Technology and Jiayuan Technology ranked third and fourth, respectively. Seven companies in the top 10 changed positions during the year, showing how quickly capacity, customer access and product mix are reshaping the sector.

Battery makers also increased procurement from second-tier suppliers to improve supply stability. This suggests buyers are trying to diversify supplier bases rather than rely only on leading producers.

For copper markets, the trend is strategically important. Battery copper foil growth creates a direct link between copper demand and battery technology. But the move toward ultra-thin foil also means battery growth will not translate into copper demand on a simple one-to-one basis.

The sector is therefore entering a more technical phase. Volume growth remains strong, but material intensity, foil thickness, supplier qualification and copper price pressure will all shape future demand.

The Metalnomist Commentary

The copper foil market shows how battery growth can lift copper demand while also forcing material thrift. High copper prices are pushing battery makers toward thinner foil, making technology and process control as important as raw capacity.

Stellantis NextStar Battery JV Exit Signals a New Shift in North American Battery Strategy

NextStar Battery

Stellantis NextStar battery JV exit marks another important shift in North American battery strategy. Stellantis will sell its 49pc stake in NextStar Energy to LG Energy Solution. The joint venture built Canada’s first large-scale lithium-ion battery plant in Windsor, Ontario. As a result, Stellantis NextStar battery JV exit shows that automakers are rethinking how they participate in battery manufacturing.

This move matters because NextStar was a major industrial project. Stellantis and LG Energy Solution invested more than C$5bn in the venture. Yet the ownership structure is now changing even as the plant remains strategically important. Therefore, Stellantis NextStar battery JV exit is not a retreat from batteries. It is a shift in how the company wants to access them.

Stellantis will remain a customer of the facility after the transaction. That means the company still wants battery supply, but no longer wants to own nearly half of the manufacturing platform. Consequently, Stellantis NextStar battery JV exit reflects a broader trend toward supply access without full operating exposure.

EV Battery Joint Ventures Are Moving Into a New Phase

EV battery joint ventures are no longer being treated as fixed long-term ownership models. Automakers are increasingly separating battery access from battery plant ownership. That change is becoming visible across North America. As a result, EV battery joint ventures are entering a more flexible and less traditional phase.

The Stellantis decision fits a wider pattern. Other major automakers have also restructured or exited battery partnerships. General Motors sold its Michigan battery JV stake to LG Energy Solution in 2025. Ford also changed the structure of its BlueOval SK partnership later that year. Therefore, Stellantis NextStar battery JV exit looks less like an isolated deal and more like an industry reset.

This shift likely reflects changing economics and strategy. Battery manufacturing is capital-intensive, operationally complex, and increasingly competitive. Automakers may now prefer to secure output through commercial agreements while leaving plant ownership and operation to battery specialists. Meanwhile, battery makers can broaden their customer base more easily under that structure.

North American Battery Strategy Is Becoming More Specialized

North American battery strategy is now moving toward clearer specialization between automakers and cell producers. After the ownership change, NextStar will serve a broader customer base, including the energy storage system sector. That gives the plant more flexibility than a single-customer automotive model. As a result, the facility may become commercially stronger even as Stellantis reduces direct ownership.

This matters because battery plants are no longer only tied to electric vehicle demand. Energy storage systems are becoming a second major growth market. A battery facility that can sell into both EVs and stationary storage may have better long-term utilization and lower concentration risk. Therefore, North American battery strategy is becoming more diversified at the customer level.

The broader lesson is clear. Automakers still need batteries, but they may not want to carry the same level of manufacturing ownership risk as before. Battery producers, meanwhile, can gain more control and expand into wider end markets. Consequently, Stellantis NextStar battery JV exit may signal a more mature phase in the North American battery buildout.

The Metalnomist Commentary

This deal matters because it shows the battery race is no longer only about building plants. It is now about deciding who should own them, run them, and absorb the risk. Stellantis still wants battery supply, but LGES now looks better positioned to turn NextStar into a broader industrial platform.

Global Solid-State Electrolyte Shipments Surge as Semi-Solid Batteries Scale

Solid state electrolyte

Global solid-state electrolyte shipments are rising rapidly as semi-solid batteries move toward vehicle adoption and full solid-state battery commercialisation advances. Chinese research institute EV Tank said shipments reached 4,100t in 2025, more than doubling from a year earlier.

The increase marks an important early-stage signal for the battery materials industry. Electrolytes are one of the core materials that determine the energy density, safety and commercial viability of solid-state batteries.

Global solid-state electrolyte shipments are still small compared with conventional lithium-ion battery materials. However, the growth rate shows that downstream producers are beginning to prepare for larger semi-solid and solid-state battery output.

EV Tank expects global solid-state electrolyte shipments to reach 229,000t by 2030. That would imply a compound annual growth rate of more than 120% from 2025 to 2030, making electrolytes one of the fastest-growing segments in advanced battery materials.

The forecast reflects both technological progress and industrial positioning. Battery producers, automakers and materials companies are now investing ahead of expected demand from electric vehicles, energy storage systems and high-end electronics.

Semi-Solid Batteries Create the First Commercial Demand Base

Semi-solid batteries are likely to provide the first meaningful demand base for solid-state battery electrolytes. EV Tank expects these batteries to begin vehicle adoption from 2026, ahead of full solid-state battery mass production.

This timing matters because semi-solid batteries can act as a bridge technology. They offer improved safety and performance compared with conventional liquid-electrolyte batteries, while avoiding some of the most difficult technical barriers facing all-solid-state cells.

Semi-solid battery growth is already supporting electrolyte shipments. These products still use electrolyte systems that may differ from fully solid-state designs, but they create early commercial demand for sulphide, oxide, polymer, halide and composite electrolyte materials.

Full solid-state batteries are expected to enter small-scale mass production from 2027. That stage will likely remain limited at first because large-scale production still faces technical, cost and qualification challenges.

The market therefore looks likely to develop in phases. Semi-solid batteries will drive early electrolyte consumption, while full solid-state batteries will gradually expand once production processes, interfaces and reliability improve.

Electrolytes are central to this transition. They influence ion conductivity, safety, cycle life, energy density and compatibility with electrodes. Any weakness in electrolyte performance can limit the entire battery system.

This is why electrolyte development is becoming a strategic battleground. Battery makers cannot scale solid-state technology only by changing cell design. They need stable, high-quality electrolyte materials that can be produced consistently at industrial scale.

Capacity expansion is accelerating in response. EV Tank expects producers with annual electrolyte capacity at the thousand-tonne level to emerge within the next one to two years.

That would mark a shift from laboratory and pilot-scale material production toward early industrial supply. It would also create a more competitive market among electrolyte producers seeking qualification with battery manufacturers.

For battery materials suppliers, this creates a new growth category. Electrolytes may become a higher-value segment within the battery chain, especially if producers can meet strict requirements for purity, particle control, stability and conductivity.

For automakers, the key issue is reliability. Vehicle adoption requires materials that can perform under harsh cycling, temperature and safety conditions. This means electrolyte suppliers must pass long qualification cycles before volume demand can fully develop.

Technology Routes and Cost Cuts Shape the Scale-Up

Solid-state battery electrolyte technology remains diversified, especially in semi-solid batteries. Sulphide, oxide, polymer and halide routes are developing in parallel, while both single-electrolyte and composite-electrolyte solutions are being adopted.

This diversity shows that the industry has not yet settled on a single dominant material route. Different technologies offer different advantages in conductivity, stability, manufacturability, cost and safety.

Sulphide electrolytes currently dominate the roadmap for full solid-state batteries. They offer high ionic conductivity and are widely viewed as one of the most promising routes for high-performance battery cells.

However, sulphide systems also face challenges. They require careful handling, moisture control and interface engineering. These factors can raise production complexity and slow commercial scale-up.

Oxide electrolytes offer strong chemical and thermal stability, but they can face processing and interface resistance challenges. Polymer electrolytes offer manufacturing flexibility, but often struggle with conductivity at room temperature. Halide electrolytes are gaining interest because of their electrochemical stability and potential compatibility with high-voltage cathodes.

Composite electrolyte solutions may become increasingly important. By combining material systems, producers can try to balance conductivity, flexibility, stability and manufacturability.

Cost reduction is also becoming a major commercial driver. EV Tank said improvements in material quality and production processes lowered costs across several technology routes in 2025.

Sulphide electrolyte costs fell by more than 35% during the year. This is significant because cost remains one of the biggest obstacles to wider solid-state battery adoption.

Lower electrolyte costs improve the competitiveness of solid-state batteries against conventional lithium-ion technologies. They also make it easier for battery makers to test commercial deployment in premium vehicles, high-performance energy storage and other demanding applications.

Still, cost reduction alone will not guarantee rapid commercialisation. The industry must also solve interface stability, dendrite control, manufacturing yield, pressure management and long-term cycle reliability.

This explains why some major automakers remain cautious. BYD chief scientist Lian Yubo has said solid-state batteries still face core technical bottlenecks and that liquid and solid-state batteries should develop as complementary technologies.

Great Wall Motor also does not expect large-scale commercialisation of all-solid-state batteries in the near term. This caution suggests that the market may grow strongly, but unevenly.

The commercial pathway is therefore not a simple replacement of liquid batteries. Conventional lithium-ion batteries, semi-solid batteries and full solid-state batteries are likely to coexist for years, each serving different cost and performance segments.

This has important implications for materials demand. Solid-state growth could increase demand for lithium metal, high-nickel cathodes, sulphur-based materials, oxides, halides and specialty chemical precursors. But it may not immediately reduce demand for conventional electrolytes, separators or liquid battery components.

The forecast of 229,000t of global solid-state electrolyte shipments by 2030 points to a large materials opportunity. But the final market size will depend on how quickly automakers adopt semi-solid batteries and how successfully full solid-state batteries move from demonstration to reliable mass production.

For supply chains, qualification will be decisive. Battery makers will not buy electrolyte materials only because capacity exists. They will need stable quality, competitive pricing, proven performance and reliable long-term supply.

For policymakers, solid-state batteries are increasingly tied to advanced manufacturing and energy security. Countries that control electrolyte technology and battery production could gain strategic advantage in next-generation electric vehicles and storage systems.

For the metals market, the key point is that battery innovation changes materials demand before full commercial adoption arrives. Producers begin scaling supply years before the technology reaches mass-market vehicles, creating early demand signals and investment cycles.

Global solid-state electrolyte shipments therefore offer a useful indicator of where advanced battery manufacturing is moving. The numbers remain small, but the growth curve is steep enough to attract capital, competition and supply-chain restructuring.

The Metalnomist Commentary

Solid-state electrolyte growth shows that next-generation battery competition is moving upstream into materials engineering. The market will expand quickly, but full solid-state batteries still need technical proof before they can reshape EV and energy storage supply chains at scale.

XFH Anode Material Sales Rise as China Battery Demand Expands

Anode Material

XFH anode material sales increased in 2025 as demand from China’s lithium-ion power battery and energy storage battery industries continued to grow. Shanghai XFH Technology sold 83,885t of anode materials during the year, up 22% from 2024.

XFH anode material sales outpaced production growth, showing stronger downstream offtake from battery manufacturers. The company’s anode material output rose by 11% on the year to 83,426t.

XFH anode material sales also lifted revenue. The company’s anode material revenue rose by 21% to 1.7bn yuan, supported by higher shipment volumes into battery supply chains.

The result reflects continued expansion in China’s battery ecosystem. Power battery shipments exceeded 1,000GWh in 2025, up by more than 50% from a year earlier, while energy storage battery shipments rose by 85% to 630GWh.

Suining Complex Expands XFH’s Anode Capacity

XFH increased anode material production capacity to 114,660 t/yr in 2025, up 27% from the previous year. The increase followed the production launch of its 60,000 t/yr complex in Suining, Sichuan province, at the end of 2025.

The new capacity gives XFH more room to serve fast-growing battery demand. Anode materials are a core input for lithium-ion batteries, influencing charging performance, cycle life, safety and energy density.

China’s rapid growth in power batteries and storage batteries is driving expansion across the anode supply chain. Producers are adding capacity to meet demand from electric vehicles, grid storage, industrial storage systems and consumer battery applications.

The Suining project also strengthens XFH’s position in a market where scale, cost control and customer qualification are critical. Larger capacity can improve operating efficiency, but it also requires stable demand to avoid inventory and pricing pressure.

Energy Storage Growth Supports Anode Demand

Energy storage is becoming an increasingly important driver for China anode materials. Storage battery shipments grew faster than power batteries in 2025, rising by 85% from a year earlier.

This matters because energy storage systems require large volumes of battery materials even when they have different performance priorities from electric vehicles. Cost, cycle life, safety and supply reliability are especially important in storage applications.

Power battery demand remains the largest driver. China’s battery shipments above 1,000GWh show the scale of the domestic EV and battery manufacturing base.

For anode producers, the opportunity is large but competitive. Demand growth supports shipments, but capacity expansion across China can still create margin pressure if supply grows faster than customer orders.

XFH’s stronger sales and output show that qualified anode producers remain tied closely to downstream battery expansion. The next challenge will be maintaining utilisation and profitability as China’s battery materials sector continues to scale.

The Metalnomist Commentary

XFH’s growth shows that China’s battery materials chain is still expanding quickly, especially in anodes. However, rising capacity means producers must compete on qualification, cost and customer access, not only shipment growth.

Indonesia HPAL Nickel Ore Costs Rise as New HPM Formula Hits Limonite Feedstock

Nickel ore

Indonesia HPAL nickel ore costs are set to rise sharply after the government’s revised mineral benchmark price lifted the mandated price floor for limonite ore. The new HPM formula is expected to increase limonite ore costs by at least 50%, adding immediate margin pressure to mixed hydroxide precipitate producers.

The revised HPM for limonite ore containing 1.2% nickel, 0.1% cobalt and 2% chromium is calculated at $45.24/wmt under the updated Harga Mineral Acuan. That is around 50% higher than early April transacted prices of about $30/wmt for 1.2% limonite ore.

Indonesia HPAL nickel ore costs are also far above the previous benchmark level. Under the old formula, the HPM for similar ore was only $17.17/wmt, meaning the new benchmark is nearly three times higher.

The change matters because HPAL operations rely on limonite ore as feedstock to produce MHP, which is used in battery-grade nickel and cobalt supply chains. A higher government-mandated ore floor will raise raw material costs, increase royalty payments and pressure margins across Indonesia’s battery nickel industry.

Limonite Ore Repricing Raises MHP Cost Pressure

The new HPM framework has the strongest impact on limonite ore because this material typically trades closer to benchmark values than saprolite ore. HPAL producers therefore face a more direct cost increase than rotary kiln-electric furnace operators.

MHP producers will now have to absorb higher ore purchase costs and higher royalties. Since royalties are linked to official valuation, the total cost increase could exceed the headline 50% rise in limonite ore pricing.

The revised formula also changes how Indonesia captures ore value. It includes cobalt, iron and chromium in nickel ore valuation, making these contained elements taxable. This is especially important for limonite ore because cobalt content adds value to HPAL feedstock.

The correction factor for cobalt is set at 30% when ore contains at least 0.05% cobalt. Iron carries a 30% correction factor when content is 35% or lower, while chromium carries a 10% correction factor.

This means Indonesia is no longer valuing nickel ore mainly by nickel grade. The government is moving toward a broader contained-metal pricing model, capturing more value from battery-related by-products and ore chemistry.

For MHP producers, this creates a structural cost problem. HPAL projects were built around access to Indonesian limonite ore, sulphuric acid and integrated processing infrastructure. If ore costs rise by more than a third to half, the cost floor for MHP production moves higher.

This could affect downstream nickel sulphate and cathode material economics. Producers with stronger integration, lower acid costs and better logistics will be better positioned. Higher-cost operators may face squeezed margins if MHP prices do not rise enough to offset the new ore benchmark.

The change also comes as Indonesia tightens wider nickel policy. Mining quota uncertainty, export tax discussions and stricter pricing formulas all point to a broader state strategy of capturing more mineral value before material moves downstream.

Sulphuric Acid Tightness Adds a Second Cost Shock

Indonesia HPAL nickel ore costs are rising at the same time as sulphuric acid prices surge. This creates a double pressure point for MHP producers.

HPAL operations require large volumes of sulphuric acid to leach nickel and cobalt from limonite ore. Any disruption in sulphur or acid supply directly affects processing costs and production reliability.

The US-Iran conflict has stranded several sulphur cargoes bound for Indonesian HPAL producers, preventing them from transiting the Strait of Hormuz. As a result, producers have shifted toward buying sulphuric acid directly.

That market was already tight because of limited copper concentrate availability. Sulphuric acid supply is expected to tighten further as China suspends exports from May.

Southeast Asian sulphuric acid prices have risen sharply. Prices reached $277.50/t cfr on 9 April, up 71% from $162.50/t before the conflict.

This is a major issue for Indonesian HPAL plants. Higher limonite ore costs increase feedstock expenses, while higher sulphuric acid prices increase processing costs. Together, they raise the full cost of producing MHP and weaken the advantage of low-cost Indonesian battery nickel.

Saprolite ore faces less immediate disruption. Saprolite is mainly used in RKEF operations to produce nickel pig iron and ferronickel. Although the new HPM for typical saprolite ore containing 1.6% nickel, 18% iron and 2% chromium rises to $52.90/wmt from $29.94/wmt, it remains below early April transacted prices of about $70/wmt.

This means RKEF producers may see limited immediate transaction impact because market prices are already above the benchmark. HPAL producers, by contrast, face a direct reset of the cost floor.

The difference could reshape relative economics between Indonesia’s stainless-linked and battery-linked nickel chains. NPI producers remain supported by high saprolite prices, while HPAL producers now face rising limonite, royalty and acid costs.

For the global battery supply chain, the key risk is that Indonesia’s MHP cost curve shifts upward. That could support nickel sulphate prices over time, especially if acid tightness persists or HPM-linked royalty costs remain elevated.

For Indonesia, the policy strengthens resource rent capture. The government is recognising that limonite ore contains not only nickel but also cobalt and other valuable elements. This gives Jakarta a stronger fiscal claim over battery material feedstock.

However, the policy also increases operating uncertainty. HPAL investors need predictable ore pricing, acid availability and tax treatment to justify large-scale expansion. A sharp change in HPM could force producers to revisit cost assumptions, procurement strategies and product pricing.

The Metalnomist Commentary

Indonesia’s new HPM formula marks a turning point for HPAL economics. The country is capturing more value from limonite ore, but the combined shock of higher ore prices, royalties and sulphuric acid costs could reset the cost floor for global MHP supply.

China Graphite Spherical Graphite Output Falls as Natural Anode Demand Weakens

China Graphite Group

China Graphite spherical graphite output fell in 2025 as weak demand from the natural graphite anode material sector and existing inventories pressured production. The Hong Kong-listed natural graphite producer produced 2,300t of spherical graphite during the year, down 28% from 2024.

The decline reflects a broader shift in China’s anode materials market. Battery producers are still expanding overall anode consumption, but natural graphite is losing share to artificial graphite because of performance and price competition.

China Graphite spherical graphite output weakness shows that battery material growth does not benefit all feedstock routes equally. Natural graphite remains important, but artificial anode materials are gaining ground because they offer stronger cycling life and rate performance for many lithium-ion battery applications.

Spherical graphite sales also fell in 2025, although less sharply than production. China Graphite sold 5,815t of spherical graphite, down 6.9% from a year earlier, suggesting the company partly relied on existing inventory to meet demand.

Artificial Graphite Competition Pressures Natural Anode Feedstock

China’s anode material shipments rose strongly in 2025, reaching 2.9mn t, up 39% from a year earlier. However, natural graphite anode materials moved in the opposite direction.

Natural graphite anode shipments fell to 210,000t in 2025, down 19% from the previous year. Their share of China’s total anode material shipments dropped to 7.2%, showing that natural graphite is becoming a smaller part of the domestic anode mix.

This matters directly for spherical graphite producers. Spherical graphite is a key processed feedstock for natural graphite anode materials. When natural anode production slows, spherical graphite demand weakens quickly.

China Graphite attributed the decline to price competition and lower output of natural graphite anode materials. The company also pointed to the shorter cycling life and weaker rate performance of natural graphite compared with artificial anode materials.

Artificial graphite has become dominant in China’s battery supply chain because many battery makers prioritise consistency, fast charging performance and long cycle life. These factors are especially important for electric vehicles and energy storage systems.

The result is a margin squeeze for natural graphite processors. Even when total battery demand grows, spherical graphite producers must compete against artificial graphite suppliers that are more closely aligned with mainstream cell performance requirements.

Flake Graphite Output Rises Despite Spherical Graphite Weakness

China Graphite’s upstream natural graphite flake business performed better than its spherical graphite segment. The company produced 57,600t of natural graphite flake in 2025, up 10.8% from a year earlier.

The increase was supported by equipment upgrades, showing that China Graphite improved mining or processing efficiency even as downstream spherical graphite demand weakened. Flake graphite sales also edged higher by 1.3% to 46,020t.

This creates a mixed operating picture. Upstream flake output increased, but downstream spherical graphite production fell sharply. The gap suggests that the company may need to manage feedstock allocation carefully if natural anode demand remains weak.

Natural graphite still has strategic value. It can support lower-cost anode production and remains important for battery supply-chain diversification. However, its competitiveness depends on purification, coating, consistency, performance and customer qualification.

For China Graphite, the next challenge is not only producing more flake graphite. It must defend its position in higher-value downstream graphite products as the anode market shifts toward artificial materials and more demanding battery specifications.

The company’s results also highlight a wider issue for natural graphite markets. Supply growth alone is not enough. Producers need downstream demand from qualified anode makers, battery customers and applications where natural graphite retains a cost or performance advantage.

The Metalnomist Commentary

China Graphite’s results show that battery demand growth is becoming more selective across the graphite value chain. Natural graphite suppliers must improve processing quality and downstream integration if they want to compete against artificial graphite in high-performance batteries.

Livium LGES battery recycling deal extends Australia’s circular battery value chain

Livium

The Livium LGES battery recycling deal is expanding Australia’s role in the circular battery economy and black mass supply. Under the renewed Livium LGES battery recycling deal, Livium will process both recalled and end-of-life residential batteries. As a result, the Livium LGES battery recycling deal now runs to 2029 and anchors new growth in Australian black mass output.

Black mass volumes rise as Livium expands feedstock

Livium will continue processing LG Energy Solution batteries recalled in Australia and now add end-of-life units from local users. This expanded access to feedstock should increase black mass volumes and stabilise plant utilisation over the medium term.

The recycler sold over 350t of black mass in the 2024-25 financial year to 30 June. Therefore, management expects higher sales in 2025-26 as the Livium LGES battery recycling deal ramps up. Livium channels this black mass to processing partners such as South Korea’s SungEel Hitech. These partners convert black mass into battery chemicals, which return to global cathode and cell producers.

Meanwhile, LGES is building a 20,000 t/yr battery recycling plant in France with Derichebourg. That European joint venture will also produce and process black mass from end-of-life batteries from 2027. Together, these initiatives show how LGES is building regional recycling hubs to secure critical materials.

Livium LGES battery recycling deal supports lithium recovery innovation

The Livium LGES battery recycling deal also complements Livium’s work on recovering lithium from spodumene waste. Livium signed an agreement with Australian producer Mineral Resources in January to optimise this extraction technology. As a result, the partners formed a joint venture in August to commercialise the process at scale.

This positions Livium not only as a black mass producer but also as a technology player in lithium recovery. For LGES, the partnership reduces long-term exposure to mined feedstock volatility and environmental scrutiny. It also aligns with automakers’ and battery producers’ ESG targets on recycling and resource efficiency.

In strategic terms, expanding the Livium LGES battery recycling deal strengthens regional supply security for nickel, cobalt and lithium units locked in black mass. It also supports Australia’s ambition to move up the value chain from raw material supplier to processing and technology hub.

The Metalnomist Commentary

This partnership illustrates how structured offtake agreements can accelerate the build-out of regional battery recycling ecosystems. For metals markets, increasing black mass flows from deals like this will gradually reshape demand for primary material and reward recyclers with robust technology and downstream access.

Lopal Marble Bar Lithium Project Deal Extends Chinese Battery Material Supply Strategy

Lopal

Lopal Marble Bar lithium project acquisition will give China’s battery cathode material producer Lopal Tech another upstream position in Western Australia’s lithium sector. The company has agreed to acquire the Marble Bar project from Global Lithium Resources for A$14.85mn.

The Lopal Marble Bar lithium project is located in the Pilbara region of Western Australia. The project has an estimated resource of 18mn t grading 1.0% lithium oxide.

The Lopal Marble Bar lithium project deal reflects a continuing push by Chinese battery material producers to secure upstream lithium resources. Cathode and battery material companies are looking beyond processing capacity and moving closer to mine supply.

This matters because lithium raw material security remains central to battery supply chains. Even as lithium prices fluctuate, companies with long-term access to spodumene resources can better protect conversion plants, cathode output and customer supply.

Marble Bar Adds Pilbara Resource Exposure

The Marble Bar project gives Lopal direct exposure to a known lithium-bearing region. Western Australia remains one of the world’s most important hard-rock lithium supply bases, with spodumene projects feeding converters and battery material producers across Asia.

The project’s 18mn t resource at 1.0% lithium oxide gives Lopal a potential raw material position, although the acquisition price suggests the asset is still at an early development stage.

For Global Lithium Resources, the sale allows the company to focus more heavily on its larger Manna lithium project. Manna has a resource estimate of 52mn t grading 1.0% lithium oxide.

This creates a clearer portfolio structure. Lopal gains Marble Bar, while GL1 retains its larger Manna asset and existing downstream-linked partnerships.

The transaction also shows that Chinese battery material producers remain willing to invest in Australian lithium assets despite market volatility. Long-term supply security continues to matter more than short-term price weakness.

Manna Links Lopal to Future Offtake Supply

Lopal already has exposure to GL1 through the Manna project. It holds a 5% equity interest in Manna and has signed an offtake agreement to buy 40% of the project’s output.

China’s Canmax has agreed to take another 30% of Manna’s output and also holds a 9.45% stake in GL1. Australian lithium miner Mineral Resources owns 9.85% of GL1.

These relationships show how lithium supply chains are being structured around equity stakes and offtake agreements. Battery material companies want secured feedstock before projects enter production.

For Lopal, the Marble Bar acquisition adds another layer to its Australian lithium strategy. It gives the company project ownership while maintaining future offtake exposure through Manna.

The broader industrial meaning is clear. Chinese battery material producers are not relying only on spot markets. They are building upstream positions, offtake rights and strategic relationships to support long-term lithium chemical and cathode material supply.

The Metalnomist Commentary

Lopal’s Marble Bar deal shows that lithium strategy is shifting from price speculation to resource control. Even in a weaker lithium market, Chinese battery material companies continue to secure upstream positions that can support future conversion and cathode supply.

XTC New Energy LFP LMFP Capacity Expansion Targets Higher-Density Battery Materials

XTC New Energy

XTC New Energy LFP LMFP capacity will expand in Sichuan as the Chinese battery materials producer adds another 40,000 t/yr of lithium iron phosphate and lithium ferro-manganese phosphate production. The second-phase project will be built in Ya’an city and is expected to start production in June 2028.

XTC New Energy LFP LMFP capacity at the Ya’an plant will reach 80,000 t/yr after both phases are completed. The first phase already provides 40,000 t/yr of LFP capacity, while the new phase will add flexible LFP and LMFP output.

XTC New Energy LFP LMFP capacity expansion reflects China’s continued investment in lower-cost and manganese-enhanced battery chemistries. The project will be operated by subsidiary Ya’an XTC New Energy, with total investment expected at 743mn yuan.

The move comes as Chinese battery material producers position for growing power battery demand and greater interest in manganese-based cathode active materials.

LMFP Gains Momentum as Producers Seek Better Energy Density

LMFP is gaining attention because it can offer higher energy density than conventional LFP. This makes it attractive for battery makers seeking to improve driving range while keeping costs below higher-nickel chemistries.

However, LMFP still faces trade-offs. Batteries using LMFP cathode active material generally have shorter cycle life and lower charge-discharge efficiency than LFP batteries.

This means LMFP is not a simple replacement for LFP. Instead, it is likely to develop as a complementary chemistry for applications where higher energy density is more valuable than maximum cycle life.

The expansion also shows how manganese is becoming more important in battery materials. Manganese-based chemistries can reduce reliance on more expensive or supply-sensitive metals while supporting performance improvements.

For XTC, adding LMFP capacity gives the company more flexibility. It can serve established LFP demand while preparing for customers that want manganese-enhanced phosphate materials.

China’s Cathode Supply Chain Expands Into Manganese-Based Materials

XTC is not alone in expanding LMFP capacity. Several Chinese battery material producers are adding or building manganese-based phosphate projects.

Ningxia Hengchuang Nami began building the first phase of a 30,000 t/yr LMFP plant in Yinchuan in March. Hunan Yuneng, China’s largest LFP producer, is also building an LMFP materials plant.

Jiangxi Greatpower launched the first phase of a 20,000 t/yr LMFP plant in Pingxiang in January. These projects show that China’s battery materials industry is preparing for broader adoption of LMFP.

The trend is strategically important for the cathode supply chain. LFP has already become a major chemistry in electric vehicles and energy storage because of its cost advantage, safety and long cycle life.

LMFP could extend that platform by adding more energy density while preserving some of LFP’s cost and safety benefits. If technical limitations improve, LMFP may become a larger part of China’s battery chemistry mix.

For raw materials, the shift could support manganese demand in battery applications. It also reinforces China’s lead in scaling new cathode chemistries from pilot production to industrial capacity.

The Metalnomist Commentary

XTC’s Ya’an expansion shows that China’s battery materials race is moving beyond simple LFP scale. LMFP is becoming a serious development path because it offers a practical route to higher energy density without fully moving into costlier high-nickel systems.

PLS Lithium Phosphate Offtake Signals Shift Toward Midstream Battery Materials

PLS Lithium

PLS lithium phosphate offtake with China’s Ningbo Ronbay New Energy Technology marks a strategic step by the Australian lithium producer into higher-value battery materials. The agreement covers lithium phosphate from PLS’ midstream lithium refining demonstration plant.

PLS lithium phosphate offtake gives the company an early customer pathway as it tests whether spodumene can be converted into an intermediate chemical product with broader downstream appeal. The plant is scheduled to deliver first product in the third quarter of 2026.

PLS lithium phosphate offtake also links the company directly with Ronbay, one of the world’s largest lithium iron phosphate cathode material producers. Ronbay will provide technical support as PLS works to optimise product quality and specification.

The agreement’s price and volume details were not disclosed. But the pricing structure will broadly reference lithium chemical prices, with a proportional mechanism similar to spodumene pricing.

Lithium Phosphate Could Shorten the LFP Supply Chain

PLS’ demonstration plant is designed to produce more than 3,000 t/yr of lithium phosphate. It will consume about 27,000 t/yr of spodumene.

The company took full ownership of the plant from former joint-venture partner Calix in February. That gives PLS more control over the development route as it moves beyond conventional lithium concentrate sales.

The strategic importance lies in the possible use of lithium phosphate as a direct feedstock for LFP cathode production. Some LFP cathode producers are testing lithium phosphate instead of lithium carbonate because it could shorten processing steps and reduce total production costs.

This matters because LFP batteries are gaining share in electric vehicles and energy storage systems. Cathode producers want lower-cost, reliable and scalable lithium inputs that can support high-volume manufacturing.

If lithium phosphate can meet strict cathode specifications, PLS could access a new customer base. Instead of selling only to lithium hydroxide or carbonate converters, it could sell directly into cathode material supply chains.

That would move PLS closer to battery manufacturers and allow it to capture more margin inside the lithium value chain.

Quality Testing Will Determine Commercial Potential

The opportunity remains at an early stage. PLS has warned that lithium phosphate must meet demanding quality requirements before it can become a commercial cathode feedstock.

Battery material customers require tight control over impurities, consistency, particle characteristics and chemical performance. A product that works technically at small scale must still prove reliability across repeated production.

Ronbay’s role is therefore important. As a major LFP cathode producer, it can provide practical feedback on product suitability, processing performance and downstream qualification needs.

The agreement also reflects a broader trend in lithium markets. Producers are no longer focused only on mining and concentrate production. They are looking for midstream products that can reduce processing complexity and improve customer access.

For PLS, lithium phosphate could serve multiple markets. It may supply existing lithium chemical producers, while also opening a direct route to cathode manufacturers.

The demonstration plant will test whether that strategy can move from concept to commercial scale. If successful, it could give spodumene producers a new pathway into battery materials without fully entering carbonate or hydroxide production.

The Metalnomist Commentary

PLS’ lithium phosphate strategy is a clear attempt to move higher in the battery value chain without jumping directly into full chemical conversion. The key test will be whether cathode makers accept lithium phosphate as a reliable feedstock at scale, not just as a technical possibility.

Global Battery Demand Nears 1TWh in 2024 as LFP Market Share Surges

Battery

EV Growth and China Lead Surge in Battery Demand

Global battery demand reached nearly 1TWh in 2024, largely driven by rising electric vehicle (EV) adoption, according to the IEA's latest EV Outlook 2025. The Focus Keyphrase "global battery demand" continues to dominate energy transition narratives as EV sales accelerate across major economies.

EV battery demand alone exceeded 950GWh, accounting for more than 85% of total battery consumption. China led with 59% of EV battery demand, followed by the U.S. and EU, each holding a 13% share. The IEA projects battery demand will more than triple to over 3TWh by 2030 under current national policies. While supply of critical minerals is currently in surplus, the IEA warns that depressed prices could deter future investment, risking lithium and nickel shortages by decade’s end.

Battery Manufacturing Grows Faster Than Demand

Global battery manufacturing capacity grew by nearly 30% to 3.3TWh in 2024, tripling actual demand. If all announced projects proceed, capacity could reach 6.5TWh by 2030, outpacing the IEA’s projected demand.

South Korea led overseas battery capacity expansion with over 400GWh deployed in 2024, far ahead of Japan (60GWh) and China (30GWh). If planned projects materialize, South Korea could produce over 1TWh annually by 2030, almost double China’s expected output. As a result, China’s global manufacturing share is projected to fall from 85% in 2024 to two-thirds by 2030, diversifying global supply chains.

LFP Dominates Market as Regional Dynamics Shift

Lithium iron phosphate (LFP) batteries now make up nearly half of the global EV battery market, with Chinese producers holding a de facto monopoly, especially in Europe and the U.S. European OEMs are increasingly opting for LFP chemistries to cut costs, displacing South Korean suppliers.

South Korean battery makers’ EU market share fell to 60% in 2024, down from 80% in 2022, while their U.S. market share rose to 35%, closing in on Japan’s 48%. Major Korean firms — LG Energy Solution, SK On, Samsung SDI — are all preparing for mass LFP production to compete in this fast-growing segment.

Meanwhile, LFP adoption in Southeast Asia, Brazil, and India has surpassed 50% of battery electric car sales, signaling rapid global penetration. However, Japanese battery makers face domestic setbacks, highlighted by Nissan’s cancellation of its Kyushu LFP plant amid restructuring.

The Metalnomist Commentary

The rise in global battery demand underscores a structural transformation in energy, mobility, and manufacturing. While demand growth is robust, the oversupply of battery capacity and volatility in mineral prices highlight the sector’s growing pains. As LFP continues its global ascent, regional competition and vertical integration will shape the future of the battery ecosystem.

Dongdao Anode Production Expansion Adds More Capacity to China’s Battery Materials Chain

Dongdao Anode Production

Dongdao anode production expansion in Guangdong province shows that China continues to build scale across graphite and next-generation battery materials. Guangdong Dongdao New Material has started construction of two anode processing lines and one silicon-carbon anode line in Zhanjiang.

The two new processing lines will each have 10,000 t/yr of capacity. One line will produce synthetic graphite anode materials, while the other will produce natural graphite anode materials. The silicon-carbon anode line will have 500 t/yr of capacity, giving Dongdao a foothold in higher-performance battery material development.

Dongdao anode production growth matters because anode materials remain a core part of the lithium-ion battery value chain. China already dominates graphite processing, and the company’s latest investment reinforces the country’s ability to expand both conventional and advanced anode supply.

Graphite Anode Capacity Continues to Scale in China

Dongdao already operates 100,000 t/yr of natural graphite anode capacity and 100,000 t/yr of synthetic anode capacity. The new Zhanjiang lines will add more processing flexibility across both major graphite anode routes.

The company is also building much larger synthetic anode projects elsewhere in China. These include 300,000 t/yr of capacity in Leizhou, Guangdong, and 150,000 t/yr in Yilong, Guizhou. This shows that synthetic graphite remains a major investment focus as battery producers seek consistent performance, controlled quality, and scalable supply.

Dongdao’s subsidiary, Zhanjiang Juxin New Energy, also plans to build a 20,000 t/yr spherical graphite facility in Zhanjiang. A commissioning date has not yet been set, but the project would add another processing step that supports natural graphite use in battery anodes.

Silicon-Carbon Line Signals Next-Generation Battery Focus

The planned 500 t/yr silicon-carbon anode line is smaller than the graphite lines, but it carries strategic importance. Silicon-carbon anodes can improve battery energy density and performance, although commercial scaling remains more technically demanding than conventional graphite.

Dongdao’s decision to build this line alongside graphite processing capacity suggests a dual strategy. The company is expanding mainstream anode capacity while preparing for future demand from higher-performance battery chemistries.

All three Zhanjiang lines are scheduled to start operations in December 2027. By then, battery supply chains may be more focused on cost reduction, fast charging, energy density, and material efficiency. Producers with both graphite scale and silicon-carbon development capacity could be better positioned for that transition.

The Metalnomist Commentary

Dongdao’s expansion shows that China is not slowing its grip on the anode materials chain. The strategic issue for global battery supply chains is no longer only graphite availability, but who controls processing scale, qualification, and next-generation material development.

XTC GEM CAM feedstock deal tightens China’s battery materials supply chain

XTC

XTC GEM CAM feedstock deal marks a major step in securing China’s high-end battery materials supply. Under the XTC GEM CAM feedstock deal, XTC New Energy will lock in large volumes of cobalt, nickel and lithium inputs. This XTC GEM CAM feedstock deal supports long-term cathode active material output for NCM, LCO and LFP product lines. As a result, Chinese battery makers gain greater visibility on costs and availability during a volatile raw material cycle.

Long-term CAM feedstock deal anchors XTC’s growth strategy

XTC New Energy agreed to purchase 150,000 t/yr of CAM feedstock from GEM between 2026 and 2028. The package covers cobalt chloride, nickel sulfate, cobalt tetroxide, NCM precursor and lithium salts for large-scale cathode production. This diversified basket reduces single-material risk and helps XTC balance different chemistries across consumer and power batteries. The deal also deepens an existing partnership, signalling confidence in GEM’s ability to deliver consistent quality volumes. Consequently, both companies move closer to a vertically aligned, closed-loop battery materials ecosystem.

XTC has rapidly grown sales of lithium cobalt oxide on the back of device replacement cycles and AI-enabled electronics. Government subsidies that push consumers to upgrade phones and tablets are boosting high-end cobalt-rich cathode demand. Meanwhile, combined sales of NCM and LFP cathodes also rose, reflecting broader growth across energy storage and EV platforms. By locking in feedstock now, XTC can support more aggressive volume and product planning with key OEMs.

China CAM feedstock integration deepens links with global battery OEMs

The agreement reinforces China’s position at the centre of the global CAM and precursor value chain. GEM will channel critical precursors to XTC, which already supplies ATL, Samsung SDI, Murata, LG Chem and BYD. These relationships span mid to high-end consumer devices and extend into power lithium battery producers like CALB and CATL. Therefore, the enhanced feedstock pipeline will indirectly underpin cell production for phones, tablets, EVs and stationary storage worldwide.

Tighter integration between feedstock suppliers and cathode producers can also stabilise pricing and contract structures. Long-term supply deals encourage joint planning on capacity, quality and sustainability metrics, important for global OEM qualification. At the same time, dependence on Chinese CAM feedstock raises questions for western policymakers about diversification and supply security. However, until alternative precursor hubs reach scale, China’s integrated CAM ecosystem will remain a critical anchor for lithium-ion supply chains.

The Metalnomist Commentary

This agreement shows how Chinese CAM producers and recyclers are quietly locking in the next wave of battery growth. As XTC and GEM align on volumes and chemistries, their joint leverage over cobalt, nickel and lithium flows will rise. For non-Chinese OEMs, the deal underscores the urgency of building competitive precursor and CAM capacity outside China.

CATL Rio Tinto Partnership Targets Mining Electrification and Battery Circularity

CATL

CATL Rio Tinto partnership plans could accelerate electrification across Rio Tinto’s global mining operations as the metals sector looks for practical ways to cut emissions. The two companies have signed a non-binding agreement to explore cooperation in battery technologies, system integration, recycling, and new energy solutions.

The CATL Rio Tinto partnership connects one of the world’s largest battery producers with a major global supplier of iron ore, copper, aluminium, and lithium. This creates a direct link between upstream resource extraction and the battery systems needed to decarbonise mining fleets, rail, and industrial energy use.

Rio Tinto wants to develop a zero-carbon mining model with global demonstration value. CATL will support that goal through its battery technology, energy system expertise, and experience in large-scale electrification.

Battery Systems Move Deeper Into Mining Operations

Mining electrification is becoming a strategic priority because diesel-powered equipment remains a major source of operating emissions. Battery systems can support electric haul trucks, heavy equipment, rail locomotives, site power systems, and charging infrastructure.

The collaboration could help Rio Tinto improve operating efficiency while reducing carbon intensity. Electrified mining systems may also lower fuel exposure, improve maintenance economics, and support customers that increasingly demand lower-carbon raw materials.

The agreement also reflects a broader shift in mining procurement. Large miners are no longer only buying equipment; they are building partnerships around batteries, energy management, recycling, and circular material flows. This gives battery companies a larger role in mining’s industrial transition.

Critical Minerals Circularity Becomes a Strategic Link

The CATL Rio Tinto partnership will also explore business models for battery materials recycling and critical minerals circularity. This is important because mining electrification will create new demand for lithium, copper, nickel, graphite, rare earths, and other battery-linked materials.

Circularity can help reduce waste and strengthen supply security. If battery materials can be recovered and reused across mining operations, companies can reduce dependence on fresh raw material inputs and build more resilient supply chains.

CATL and BYD are increasingly targeting partnerships with major miners and energy companies. CATL and BYD have already signed agreements with BHP to develop battery solutions for mining equipment and railway locomotives, while BYD has also agreed to work with Aramco on electric and fuel cell vehicle technologies.

The Metalnomist Commentary

Mining electrification is becoming a new battleground for battery companies, miners, and equipment suppliers. The strategic winners will be those that can connect mineral supply, battery deployment, recycling, and low-carbon operations into one industrial ecosystem.

Nickel surplus to widen through 2026: INSG outlook for miners and metals markets

INSG(

The nickel surplus to widen through 2026 is reshaping expectations for miners, traders and stainless producers worldwide. According to the latest INSG forecast, the nickel surplus to widen through 2026 will see production consistently outpace usage, even as global economic activity proves more resilient than expected. As a result, the nickel surplus to widen through 2026 is set to reach 209,000t in 2025 and 261,000t in 2026, with primary output rising to 3.81mn t this year and 4.09mn t in 2026 against usage of 3.6mn t and 3.82mn t.

Stainless demand supports nickel, but batteries lose momentum

Nickel demand remains supported by stainless steel, but battery growth has clearly cooled. Higher stainless steel output continues to underpin core nickel usage, particularly in Asia and Europe. However, battery demand has slowed as automakers and cell producers shift towards non-nickel chemistries such as LFP and accelerate plug-in hybrids over pure battery electric vehicles. Therefore, the high-growth battery narrative has softened, easing pressure on high-purity nickel sulphate demand.

Meanwhile, this demand shift is forcing producers and investors to reassess project pipelines focused on battery-grade nickel. Margins are under strain where costs are high and product mixes are heavily exposed to the EV segment. In this environment, stainless steel remains the anchor sector, but it cannot fully absorb the excess tonnes entering the system. This imbalance feeds directly into the widening surplus and keeps a lid on any sustained price rally.

Indonesia drives supply growth as others retrench

On the supply side, Indonesia remains the dominant driver despite tighter regulatory control. The government has delayed permit approvals, seized non-compliant land and punished firms that fail reclamation duties. However, the INSG believes these interventions have only created temporary disruptions, with overall Indonesian nickel output still expected to increase through 2026. This continued expansion reinforces the structural surplus and raises competitive pressure on higher-cost regions.

Outside Indonesia, weaker profitability has already forced several producers to scale back or suspend operations. In China, the shift from nickel pig iron towards more refined cathode output is forecast to continue as the industry optimises for flexibility and value. Nickel sulphate production is expected to ease in 2025 as battery demand softens, before recovering in 2026 when market conditions stabilise. For now, prices remain trapped between steady stainless demand and a widely recognised surplus in exchange-traded Class 1 inventories, with three-month nickel recently trading near $15,480/t.

Financial conditions are improving, with global inflation forecast to decline across most G20 economies by 2026. Even so, the INSG warns that tariffs and trade measures could offset some macro tailwinds by adding friction to investment decisions, supply chains and downstream demand growth. If policy risk rises, it may delay project sanctions and accelerate closures at the margin, but the current surplus path remains firmly in place.

The Metalnomist Commentary

The INSG nickel surplus outlook underscores a market where supply discipline lags structural investment made during the last bull cycle. For producers, cost reduction, product differentiation and downstream partnerships will be critical to survive a prolonged surplus. For consumers in stainless and batteries, the coming years offer a rare window to secure long-term nickel units on favourable terms before the next demand wave arrives.

Indonesia HPM Formula Raises Nickel Ore Cost Risk for HPAL Producers

ESDM

Indonesia HPM formula changes will reshape nickel ore pricing from 15 April, adding new cost pressure across the country’s nickel processing chain. The energy and mineral resources ministry revised the mineral benchmark price mechanism for nickel and aluminium ore, with nickel valuation now expanded beyond nickel content alone.

The Indonesia HPM formula raises the correction factor for 1.6% nickel ore to 30%, compared with the previous 20% correction factor for 1.9% ore. Under the new framework, the correction factor rises or falls by one percentage point for every 0.1% change in nickel content.

This means the correction factor for 1.9% nickel ore will rise to 33%. The change increases the official value of nickel ore and could raise taxes, royalties and feedstock costs for processors that rely on HPM-linked transactions.

The Indonesia HPM formula also adds cobalt, iron and chromium into ore valuation. This is a major policy shift because these contained elements were not previously priced in the same way. Indonesia is now moving toward a more complete ore-value model, especially for laterite ores used in battery and stainless steel supply chains.

Cobalt, Iron and Chromium Inclusion Changes Nickel Ore Valuation

Indonesia’s new nickel HPM framework gives cobalt a correction factor of 30% when ore contains at least 0.05% cobalt. This is particularly important for high-pressure acid leach producers because cobalt-bearing ore can generate additional value through mixed hydroxide precipitate.

The ministry also introduced a 10% correction factor for iron when ore contains 35% or less iron. Chromium content also carries a 10% correction factor. These additions make ore valuation more complex and link pricing more closely to the full chemistry of laterite deposits.

The inclusion of cobalt is the most strategically important change. Indonesia’s HPAL projects produce nickel-cobalt intermediates for battery supply chains, and cobalt content can materially affect project economics. By taxing cobalt-bearing value inside ore, Jakarta is capturing more upstream rent from battery-linked mineral flows.

The Indonesia HPM formula therefore moves beyond a simple nickel-grade benchmark. It pushes the country toward a broader mineral-value system that recognises by-product metals and secondary contained value.

The ministry kept the Harga Mineral Acuan reference price unchanged. This means the immediate policy impact comes from correction factors and added contained elements, rather than a change in the headline reference price.

Market participants are now assessing how the new rules will pass through to actual transactions. For nickel ore used in rotary kiln-electric furnace production, spot prices remain nearly double the HPM level. This limits the immediate impact on some stainless-linked ore trades because market prices already sit well above the official benchmark.

The impact is likely to be much stronger for HPAL ore. Ore used in HPAL processing often trades without the same premium seen in RKEF feedstock. As a result, the revised HPM formula could lift transacted HPAL ore prices by more than a third.

That cost increase would move directly into battery-grade nickel economics. Market participants estimate that higher ore prices and taxes could raise mixed hydroxide precipitate production costs by more than $1,000/t in nickel metal equivalent.

This matters because Indonesia has become the centre of global MHP supply growth. Chinese-backed HPAL projects rely on Indonesian ore, sulphuric acid, energy and logistics to supply nickel and cobalt intermediates to global battery chains. Higher ore costs could narrow margins across MHP, nickel sulphate and cathode material supply.

The change also arrives during a period of wider nickel policy uncertainty. Indonesia has been tightening mining quotas, reviewing export taxes and seeking greater value capture from its mineral resources. The revised HPM formula fits that direction by increasing government control over pricing and taxable value.

Nickel Policy Shift Extends to Bauxite and Signals Broader Resource Control

Indonesia’s pricing reform did not stop at nickel. The ministry also revised the HPM formula for bauxite, changing the price basis to dollars per wet metric tonne from dollars per dry metric tonne.

The bauxite change adds a silica discount and raises the correction factor to $1.40/wmt for each one percentage point increase in aluminium oxide content. The previous formula used $1/dmt. This changes how moisture and ore quality are reflected in benchmark pricing.

The ministry also changed the price basis for lead ore to dollars per wet metric tonne from dollars per dry metric tonne. This effectively removes moisture content from the pricing formula and simplifies the benchmark around wet material values.

These changes suggest a broader policy direction. Indonesia is refining benchmark pricing across mineral commodities to improve tax collection, capture more contained value and align official pricing with ore quality.

For nickel, the change has immediate market significance because Indonesia dominates global laterite supply. Nickel ore pricing affects stainless steel, ferronickel, nickel pig iron, MHP, nickel sulphate and battery cathode supply chains.

The Shanghai Futures Exchange nickel price response showed that traders are treating the policy as price-supportive. Nickel closed at Yn136,900/t after rising from Yn133,010/t on 3 April, with participants citing support from the revised HMA-linked pricing framework.

However, the real market impact will depend on how producers, smelters and government agencies implement the rules. If HPM-based taxes rise sharply while spot ore prices remain high, margin pressure could build across processors with weaker cost positions.

HPAL producers are the most exposed because their feedstock pricing may move more directly with the revised benchmark. RKEF operators may see less immediate change because their ore costs already reflect strong market premiums.

For battery materials buyers, the risk is that Indonesia’s cost base becomes more expensive even as global nickel markets remain oversupplied. Higher ore valuation may not tighten physical supply immediately, but it can raise the floor for production costs in one of the world’s most important nickel processing hubs.

For Indonesia, the policy strengthens resource sovereignty. The government is using pricing formulas, mining quotas, export controls and tax compliance to ensure that more mineral value stays inside the country. This could support domestic revenue and downstream investment, but it may also increase uncertainty for processors and foreign investors.

The new framework also creates a precedent. If Indonesia successfully captures more value from cobalt, iron and chromium in nickel ore, other resource-rich countries may consider similar contained-metal pricing models.

The Metalnomist Commentary

Indonesia’s revised HPM formula shows that nickel policy is moving from volume control to value capture. The biggest impact will fall on HPAL producers, where cobalt-bearing ore valuation could raise MHP costs and change battery nickel economics.