The Governance of Battery Value Chains

FUTURE
BATTERY
INDUSTRIES CRC
The governance
of battery value chains:
SECURITY, SUSTAINABILITY AND AUSTRALIAN POLICY OPTIONS
2
The governance of battery value chains
Executive summary 5 Introduction 6
Global value chains in the

contemporary battery industry 8 Security and sustainability risks in the
battery value chain 16
International strategies for improving

battery value chain governance 24 Policy options for integrating Australia into
battery value chains 30
Key findings and next steps 38 Appendix 39
Acknowledgements and
About the research team 47 About the Future Battery Industries
Cooperative Research Centre 48
About the Perth USAsia Centre 48 Endnotes 49
FUTURE
BATTERY
INDUSTRIES CRC
List of tables, figures and boxes
FIGURES
8 Figure 1 Six battery minerals
9 Figure 2 Historic and future battery chemistries
11 Figure 3 Technical value chain for LFP battery chemistry
12 Figure 4 Proven reserves and production of major lithium producers, 2018
13 Figure 5 Lithium battery precursor production, by country and stage of value chain
14 Figure 6 Technology applications of lithium-ion batteries, 2016
15 Figure 7 Lithium-ion battery production by application and country, 2016
16 Figure 8 New technology drivers of battery and battery mineral demand
17 Figure 9 Criticality matrix for defining critical materials
18 Figure 10 Producer concentration in battery minerals, 2017
19 Figure 11 Price volatility in battery minerals, 2009-2018
21 Figure 12 Political instability in battery mineral-rich countries
30 Figure 13 Requirements for participation in battery value chains
35 Figure 14 Australian policies for battery industry development, by stage of value chain
TABLES
9 Table 1 Production, trade and reserves of battery minerals, 2017
20 Table 2 Global trade restrictions on battery components, 2017
27 Table 3 Comparison of national critical materials strategies
31 Table 4 Australia’s battery mineral potential, 2017
32 Table 5 Jurisdictional risk in major battery mineral and material producers, 2018
35 Table 6 Australian policies for battery industry development, by jurisdiction and type
39 Table 7 Australian policies supporting battery industry development
BOXES
22 Box 1 Social conflicts in battery mineral suppliers
25 Box 2 Private sector-led governance initiatives in the battery value chain
33 Box 3 International investments in the Australian battery materials sector
36 Box 4 Illustrative Distributed Energy Resource projects in Australia
3
4
Executive • The battery industry offers significant economic opportunities for
Australia. Global demand for batteries is rising rapidly, due to technological
Summary transformations in the energy, industrial and transport sectors. Australian
governments and businesses have identified building the battery sector as a
major national economic imperative.
• Australia’s value proposition is as a secure and sustainable partner. Existing
battery value chains face significant governance challenges which threaten
both their security and sustainability. Australia’s geological endowments,
trusted governance framework and strong international relationships make
it an ideal partner for international efforts to develop more resilient battery
value chains.
• Australia will need to upgrade its role within existing global battery value
chains. It is already a major up-stream supplier of battery minerals, and
end-user of grid-scale batteries. However, it has yet to develop capacity in
mid- and down-stream stages of the value chain. As the bulk of value-adding
occurs in these stages, Australia’s economic opportunity lies in leveraging
its competitive advantages to ‘move along the value chain’ from a mining to
processing role.
• To successfully execute this agenda, efforts will need to be informed by
an integrated value-chain perspective. Australia is not creating a battery
industry de novo, but seeking to augment its existing role within a growing
global industry. Policy design by governments, and project development by
businesses, must be calibrated to the specific governance features and needs
of global battery value chains.
• A value-chain informed strategy should focus on building mid-stream capacity
through international partnerships. Domestically, efforts should target
Australia’s mid-stream processing industries, where the most attractive
opportunities lie. Internationally, governments and businesses should actively
pursue international trade, investment and technology partnerships with key
global players.
5
6
Introduction The battery sector is a major economic opportunity for Australia. In recent
years, global demand for batteries has soared due to transformations in the
energy sector. New renewable energy, transport and industrial technologies
are increasingly incorporating batteries into economic networks. As efforts to
address climate change gain pace, the global battery market will grow both in
size and strategic importance. Australian governments and businesses have
identified building the battery sector as a national economic imperative.
However, contemporary battery value chains are neither secure nor
sustainable. Several governance problems bedevil the industry. Battery
mineral and material production is monopolised by a small number of
suppliers, which subject international markets to both political and economic
risks to security of supply. Poor institutional frameworks in several supplier
countries lead to many adverse social and environmental outcomes,
undermining the sustainability credentials of an ostensibly ‘green’ industry.
Existing value chains are not be fit-for-purpose for 21st century battery needs.
Australia has a key role to play in developing a more resilient global battery
industry. It has the requisite geological endowments and technical capacity
to be a competitive producer of battery minerals and processed materials. Its
high-quality governance framework can contribute to social and environmental
sustainability; while its strong international relationships make it a politically-
trustworthy partner. By taking on a greater role in battery value chain, Australia
can contribute to the security and sustainability of this critically important
global industry.
To capitalise on these opportunities, Australia will need to upgrade its role
in battery value chains. It is already an important up-stream supplier of
several battery minerals, particularly lithium, nickel and rare earths. However,
its capacity in the mid-stream (geochemical processing) and down-stream
(battery product manufacture) stages remains under-developed. As the bulk
of value-adding occurs at these later stages, this is a missed opportunity to
maximise national economic benefits. Australia should leverage its competitive
advantages to ‘move along the value chain’, by developing mid- and down-
stream capabilities in partnership with global industry players.
This report explores how Australia can upgrade its role in the global battery
industry. It first reviews the industrial geography of the industry, identifying
the role of mineral and materials production in shaping contemporary value
chains. It then considers the governance challenges facing battery production,
including political and economic risks to supply security alongside social
and environmental difficulties in achieving sustainability. It then analyses
policy options to upgrade Australia’s role in these value chains, with a focus
on how Australia can leverage its advantages to contribute to a more secure
and sustainable global battery industry. For these efforts to be successful,
Australian governments and businesses should develop trade, investment and
technology partnerships with international industry players, to prioritise the
development of mid-stream local processing capabilities.
FUTURE
BATTERY
INDUSTRIES CRC
7
8
Global value Battery manufacture relies on a set of raw materials with

specific technical properties. Different chemistries – whether
chains in the Nickel-Metal Hydride (NiMH), Lithium-ion (Li-ion), Vanadium
Redox Flow (VRFB), or other emerging technologies – each
contemporary require raw materials inputs with distinct attributes. There are
battery industry
six ‘battery minerals’ which are frequently identified as being
the core raw materials required for the industry.
Figure 1
SIX BATTERY MINERALS
1 2 3
Cobalt Graphite Lithium

Used in cathodes in NiMH and Used in anodes in Li-ion Used in cathodes in Li-on
Li-ion batteries batteries and future graphene- batteries (either as Li-iron
based technologies phosphate or lithiated mixed
metal oxide)
4 5 6
Nickel Rare earth

Used in electrodes in NiMH minerals Vanadium
batteries, and NMC/NCA Used in electrodes in several Used in electrolytes in
cathodes for Li-ion batteries battery chemistries VRFB batteries
The production of battery minerals is a major international

industry. With the exception of natural graphite1, world output
of these minerals has grown strongly over the last decade
(Table 1), driven both by increasing demand from battery
manufacturers as well as alternate technology applications.
This has led to a robust international trade in battery minerals,
which was valued at $6.5 billion in 2017. They are also
geologically abundant, with proven reserves sufficient to meet
demand levels for many decades, and in some cases centuries.
FUTURE
BATTERY
INDUSTRIES CRC
II. Global value chains in the contemporary battery industry
Table 1. Production, trade and reserves of battery minerals, 2017
World production Production growth Life of proven International trade

(thousand tonnes) (2007-17) reserves (years) (USD millions)
Cobalt 120 83.2% 58 552.7

Graphite (natural) 897 -91.9% 335 447.7
Lithium 69 167.4% 203 1741.1
Nickel 2160 30.1% 41 2967.1
Rare Earth Minerals 132 6.5% 909 349.8
Vanadium 71.2 21.7% 281 399.3
Total 6457.7
Source: Author’s calculations from USGS2 and UN Comtrade Database3.

Note: Natural graphite production has declined due to adoption of synthetic graphite technologies.
The battery value chain is often simplified into up- (minerals), mid- (processing) and down-stream
(manufacture) stages of production. However, the value chains involved in transforming battery minerals into
finished products are extraordinarily complex. Indeed, there are several battery chemistries in use today,
differentiated by their suitability for specific industrial or domestic applications. The technological landscape of
the sector is further complicated by the fact that several new batteries chemistries, designed to meet emerging
needs of new energy and transport system applications, have reached or are soon to reach maturity. Figure
2 illustrates the complex array of established and emerging battery chemistries which are used across the
technological ecosystem.
Figure 2. Historic and future battery chemistries
PRIMARY SOLID-STATE LI-ION (LIB)
NMC - LiMnNiCoO2
Li-SOCl2 LiPON-like NCA - LiNiCoAlO2
LFP - LiFePO4
LCO - LiCoO2
LTO - Li4Ti5O12
Li-Ag2V4O11 Li7P3S11
LMO - LiMn2O4
LiMnPO4
Li2FeSiO4
Li-l2 LISICON-like
LiCoPO4
TiO2
Sn
LiMnO2 Garnet
Sn-C
Si
Si-C
Li-CFx Sulfide Glass Li-Metal
MOx Conversion
Source: Author’s adaptation from Placke et al4
9
10
For example, the high energy density of lithium-oxygen batteries offers the required storage capacity for electric
vehicles (EVs) and industrial applications, but are too expensive for consumer technologies 5 . Vanadium-redox
flow batteries have high energy storage densities, but their size makes them appropriate only for stationary
applications such as energy storage systems (ESSs)6 . Overall, lithium-based chemistries are the most widely-
used at present, due to their combination of reasonable energy density, light weight and low cost. They are used
across a broad range of technologies, including consumer electronic devices, electric vehicles, energy storage,
and aerospace applications.
Mapping the global up-, mid- and down-stream value chains associated with each battery technology type and
application is an extremely complex task. However, the value chain for lithium ferrophosphate (LFP)7 batteries
provides an instructive example for understanding contemporary value chains:
↗ LFP is a relatively cheap and safe technology, as it does not rely on cobalt, susceptible to thermal runaway,
and is mined in politically unstable countries 8 .
↗ LFP is important for clean energy sectors due to its suitability for a number of EV (particularly buses and
motorbikes) and ESS applications.
↗ It has low barriers to entry for Australian producers, as the technology relies on battery minerals in which
Australia has competitive geological endowments (see Table 4).
↗ Lithium Australia has improved Australia’s capacity to supply the LFP market by innovating on advanced
refining processes that turn raw materials, tailings waste, and recycled batteries into LFP9.
The technical structure of the LFP battery value chain is illustrated in Figure 3, which maps an LFP value chain
through to the production of fORTELION units, an ESS designed for domestic application10 . Figure 3 presents
a simplified map of the LFP value chain, which traces how raw materials are transformed through sequential
upstream (lithium extraction and refining), mid-stream (production of cathode and anode materials) and
downstream activities (cell manufacture and assembly of consumer units). It also identifies the parallel value
chains involving waste, recovery, re-use and recycling.
FUTURE
BATTERY
II. Global value chains in the contemporary battery industry INDUSTRIES CRC
Figure 3. Technical value chain for LFP battery chemistry
CELL PACK/MODULE
EXTRACTION REFINING CHEMISTRY MANUFACTURE MANUFACTURE
Spodumene
α– β– LiFePO4
Cathode Storage
Spodumene Spodumene Cathode Powder
Module
Concentrate (Roasted)
Hi-Energy, Hi-Power
Lithium
Brine Hydroxide NMC, NCA
Cathode Powder Anode
Lithium Cell
Cabornate
Other
Cathode Powder Elec-
trolyte
Lithium Micas Mid-Range APPLICATION
Eg. Lepidolite
Integrated
Other Other ESS
Lithium Chemistry installation
SiLeach® Used in other

Components (per design)
EG. LI-METAL ANODES
LIPF6 ELECTROLYTE
Parallel Installation
Materials and Support
Waste Waste Services
Manufacturing
of other System
Recovery
chemicals Controllers
Treatment Eg. Sodium
Second
Sulphate Waste
life
Recycling
PARALLEL VALUE CHAINS
Source: Author’s elaboration
11
12
Mineral Extraction: As the principal battery mineral in LFP, lithium is extracted from either saline brines
with high lithium content or hard rock spodumene deposits. The lithium concentrate from brine is obtained
via evaporation, with the higher price of this process and the removal of contaminants offset by the production
of a much higher grade product. The majority of global brine production comes from the ‘Lithium Triangle’
(located in Argentina, Bolivia and Chile), while Australia accounts for most hard rock production. Spodumene
concentrate is cheaper to produce than brines, due to additional costs imposed by royalty arrangements and
the use of reagents in brine production. However, as brine producers ship a higher-value product (usually
carbonate), the margins for brine-producing firms are higher than for spodumene-based competitors11.
In all but one of the battery minerals, a single dominant producer
The defining feature of accounts for between half and three-quarters of all global supply
battery mineral extraction (Figure 10). For lithium this is Australia (58 percent), and for cobalt
is a high degree of supply the Democratic Republic of Congo (61 percent). More significantly,
concentration. China is the dominant producer of three of the six battery minerals:
graphite (70 percent), rare earths (80 percent) and vanadium
(56 percent). Only in nickel is there a diversity of supply options, where seven countries12 each account for
between 5 to 15 percent of global production. This concentration at the extraction stage exposes downstream
manufacturers to a heightened degree of supply risk.
Perhaps surprisingly, the geography of battery minerals extraction is only weakly-linked to geological
endowments. Possession of sizeable and cost competitive mineral reserves is a necessary but not sufficient
condition for a country to occupy a place in the global market. As Figure 4 demonstrates, Australia’s primary
lithium output (in concentrate) greatly outperforms its geology, accounting for 60 percent of world production
from a much smaller 19 percent share of the proven reserve base. In contrast, the market shares of Chile
and Argentina underperform relative to their geologic endowments. A similar pattern is observed for rare
earths, where China’s 80 percent market share is greatly in excess of its 37 percent share of globally proven
resources13 . The weak correlation between geology and production indicates the importance of institutional
factors – such as regulatory stability, technical expertise and enterprise competitiveness – in shaping the
geography of battery production.
Figure 4. Proven reserves and production of major lithium producers, 2018
% Share proven reserves Share production
60
Source: Author’s calculations from USGS14
50
40
30
20
10
0
Argentina Australia Chile China
FUTURE
BATTERY
Mineral refining: Supply concentration is even more pronounced at the refining stage. Just over half of world
lithium refining (i.e. conversion of primary lithium to carbonates or hydroxide) currently occurs in China, despite
the fact it produces only 9 percent of primary lithium15 . For brine producers in Latin America, lithium salts
are usually refined into carbonate locally, before export to chemical processors in Asia. In contrast, hard rock
producers in Australia export spodumene concentrate to Chinese conversion plants for the refining of chemical
products. While several lithium hydroxide processing projects have recently been launched in Australia (see
Box 3), at present (2019) all Australian spodumene is processed in China. This has posed a limit to the expansion
of Australian lithium production, as capacity at Chinese facilities has failed to keep pace with growing output of
primary lithium.
China is similarly a dominant player in the refining of non-lithium battery minerals. The majority of world
refining of rare earths and vanadium is undertaken in China, based on locally-extracted ores. China also plays
a major refining role for battery minerals extracted elsewhere. It accounts for 58 percent of the world’s refined
cobalt (primarily sourced from the Democratic Republic of the Congo) and 29 percent of refined nickel (sourced
from several suppliers in Southeast Asia)16 .
Chemical processing: This stage involves the chemical conversion of feedstock lithium (in either carbonate
or hydroxide form) into precursor chemicals which can be manufactured into cells. As Figure 5 illustrates, by
the chemistry stage the geographic link between mining and manufacturing has largely disappeared. Of the
three major primary lithium producers, only Chile maintains a meaningful (if small) presence in the chemical
derivatives market17, while Australia and Argentina are no longer present at all. In their place, the chemistry
market is dominated by battery manufacturers in Asia. China produces 56 percent of chemical derivatives, with
Japan and Korea accounting for a further quarter of world production.
Figure 5. Lithium battery precursor production, by country and stage of value chain
Chemical
Derivatives
Basic
Chemical
Minerals
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 %
Share global production
Argentina Australia Chile China Japan Korea Others
Source: Authors adaption from Sun et al. 201718
13
14
China’s role as a dominant Cell manufacture: By the cell manufacturing stage, the battery value
extractor, refiner and chain begins to specialise into different branches aligned to specific
applications. For much of its history, the principal end-use of lithium-
chemical processor make ion batteries has been in consumer electronics. However, as Figure 6
it a major bottleneck in the shows, a more diverse set of uses is beginning to emerge. Consumer
battery value chain. electronics remains the dominant application, accounting for 75 percent
of lithium-ion battery demand. But the rise of electrified modes of
transport – including hybrid EVs, battery-only EVs and electrical bicycles – has now emerged to account for
around a quarter of global demand. As EV technologies mature, this share is expected to increase rapidly. By
contrast, ESS applications are presently a niche market, accounting for only 1 percent of demand. But like EVs,
technological innovation in ESS products will also drive significant demand growth.
Figure 6. Technology applications of lithium-ion batteries, 2016
Personal Computers 1%
Mobile Phones
Energy Storage 16%

40%
Systems
24%
35% 4%
4%
Source: Author’s adaptation
from data in Sun et al. 201719
EVs
In contrast to the earlier China-dominated stages in the value chain, cell
manufacture has a bifurcated geography (Figure 7). For less-sophisticated
applications such as consumer electronic and e-bicycles, China remains
Battery EVs
the overwhelmingly dominant cell producer. But for more technologically
sophisticated applications, where cells must meet stringent performance Hybrid EVs
requirements, there is much greater diversity. In EV and ESS applications,
the market is relatively evenly shared between the US, EU and China (with E-bicycles
approximately a third of world production each) and Japan (with between 5 to
15 percent).
At present, China accounts for 83 percent of world cell manufacture overall. However, this is largely due to the
fact that the consumer applications in which it is dominant account for 75 percent of all battery demand. Indeed,
technological change may dilute China’s role. As EV and ESS technologies achieve greater penetration, it will
open an opportunity for non-Chinese producers to capture a greater share of the global market. The extent to
which this occurs will depend both on the rate of uptake of EV and ESS products, as well as changing patterns of
technological leadership in the cell manufacturing stage of the value chain.
FUTURE
BATTERY
Figure 7. Lithium-ion battery production by application and country, 2016
100
Share world production
50
0
Consumer E-bicycles Battery Hybrid Energy Storage
Electronics EVs EVs Systems
US China Japan EU Others
Source: Author’s adaptation from data in Sun et al. 201720
Parallel value chains: In addition to the central value chain, there are also parallel value chains involving
waste, recovery and recycling. An indicative sample of the parallel material processes involved in LFP battery
production are also identified in Figure 3. These include end-of-life disposal, waste recovery from mid-stream
processes and recycling. An example of the parallel activities carried out in Australia can be found in the
refining technology SiLeach®. This technology can be used as a recovery process for recycled batteries and
tailings, as it processes lithium from any raw material to produce lithium carbonate, hydroxide or LFP21.
15
16
Security and Batteries are essential for the future of the technology
ecosystem. They are already widely used in in industrial
sustainability and consumer domains, and in coming years they will be an
essential requirement for the ‘energy transition’ towards
risks in the battery lower- and carbon neutral energy systems. Batteries are a
value chain
critical enabling technology for electric vehicles (EVs), whose
competitiveness relative to internal-combustion engines hinges
on the cost and performance attributes of batteries22 . They
will also play a key role in the deployment of renewable energy
generation, where ESS technologies will allow households
and network operators to balance intermittent renewables
supply with user demand23 . Battery minerals are also used in
other new technologies – such as super-alloys and permanent
magnets – which will put further upwards pressure on
demand. Estimates suggest that these technological drivers
will see global battery demand increased five-fold in the next
decade alone24 .
Figure 8. New technology drivers of battery and battery mineral demand
Renewables and new Electrification in Other uses (super-alloys,

grid technologies transport and industry permanent magnets, etc.)
Unfortunately, the value The six battery minerals are members of a

group which resource economists label ‘critical
chains that transform battery
materials’ – a special category of raw materials
minerals into finished of outsized importance. This is because critical
products are neither secure materials pose unique risks to the security and
nor sustainable. sustainability of an economy. The commonly
used definition of critical materials identifies
two distinct features which demarcate the group25 . First, they
have very high economic importance for consuming industries,
as there are few or no economically- and technically-viable
substitutes. Second, they are subject to heightened levels of
supply risk, which can interrupt physical availability and/or
affordability for end-users. Figure 9 illustrates the criticality
matrix which is used for identifying critical materials.
FUTURE
BATTERY
INDUSTRIES CRC
III. Security and sustainability risks in the battery value chain
There is no universally-agreed list of critical Figure 9. Criticality matrix for defining

materials. As each economy has its own distinctive critical materials
industrial structure and geological endowments,
whether a particular material should be classified as
critical or not depends on the economy in question.
However, many governments have undertaken
‘criticality studies’, which apply the matrix (Figure 9)
Economic Importance
to determine which materials are critical for their
specific context. Five governments – the EU, US,
Japan, India and Australia – have conducted such
studies in recent years26 . While they produce minor
y
lit
differences, a union of their findings produces a set of
ca
iti
thirty materials which are typically deemed critical 27.
Cr
Importantly, all six battery minerals have been
classified as critical materials28 .
Supply Risk
The use of critical materials means battery

value chains face a distinct set of security
and sustainability challenges relative to
industries based on other (non-critical)
bulk commodities.
17
18
Security risks in the Security risks are one of the most prominent challenges, and
arise from the small size of markets. While essential for the
battery value chain production of battery-based technologies, only small quantities
of these minerals are required per unit. Global markets are
therefore of a much smaller scale than that for other mineral
commodities. International trade in battery minerals and
materials was worth $6.5 billion in 2017 (Table 1), though over
half is accounted for by nickel (which is predominantly used in
the production of stainless steel). These markets are a fraction
of the size of the $16 billion trade in bauxite/alumina, $55 billion
in copper and $90 billion in iron ore29. This is partially due the
fact that the majority of value-adding lies in the downstream and
technology-intensive steps, with upstream minerals extraction
the least valuable (and lowest priced) stage30 .
Battery mineral markets are also characterised by a high
degree of monopoly at both the up-stream (mineral) and mid-
stream (material) stages. As Figure 10 shows, with the exception
of nickel all feature a single dominant supplier, which accounts
for between 50 to 80 percent of global production. In three of
the battery minerals, that dominant supplier is China. A similar
degree of concentration occurs at the mid-stream materials
stage of the value chain, with China again playing a prominent
role. China currently produces 56 percent of all lithium-based
chemical precursors (Figure 4), 58 percent of refined cobalt 31,
and effectively all separated rare earth oxides 32 . It is only at the
downstream cell manufacturing stage where there is a diversity
of suppliers.
Figure 10. Producer concentration in battery minerals, 2017
% First Second Third Fourth Fifth
100
Share world production
80
60
A I
U N
40 S D
T O
C C R N C C
20
O H A E H H
N I L S I I
G N I I N N
O A A A A A
0
Cobalt Graphite Lithium Nickel Rare Earths Vanadium
Source: Author’s calculations, from USGS33
FUTURE
BATTERY
III. Security and sustainability risks in the battery value chain INDUSTRIES CRC
Monopoly means that battery minerals markets are subject to very high levels of supply risk. With a small
number of countries accounting for the bulk of world production, adverse events can more easily lead to
interruptions in international trade. These may occur for a variety of reasons, including social problems such as
unrest or civil war, environmental factors such as extreme weather events or disasters at mining/processing
locations, and political conflicts where producing states withhold supply in order to extract concessions
from consumers.
Few other commodity markets By corollary, battery mineral markets are highly volatile. With
a single player accounting for the majority of output, adverse
are subject to such extreme events can quickly throw supply and demand out of balance. The
levels of concentration. most prominent example occurred for rare earths in 2010, where
an interruption in Chinese rare earth supply to Japan saw with
world prices increase almost four-fold as consumers scrambled to
secure supplies (Figure 11). Similar – albeit less pronounced – levels Volatile price cycles make
of volatility are also seen in other battery minerals, where surging
demand from downstream users has been prices more than double in
it difficult to plan the long-
recent years. With few suppliers in the market, there is less capacity term investments required
for supply to adjust to demand shocks emerging from the adoption of for vertically-integrated
new energy technologies. battery value chains.
Figure 11. Price volatility in battery minerals, 2009-2018
500
Price indices (2009 = 100)
400
300
200
100
0
2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018
Cobalt Graphite Lithium Nickel Rare Earths (Ndioxide) Vanadium

Source: Author’s calculations, from USGS34
Given the narrow, monopolised and volatile nature of these markets, battery minerals have considerable value
as political assets. This grants the dominant supplier power to dictate the terms for trade and investment,
and determine which customers have access to supply, on what terms, and at what price. It also ‘politicises’
the operation of international markets, as trade and investment flows are influenced by political negotiations
between governments rather than market dynamics.
19
20
The manipulation of markets by supplier governments is a common problem. In the battery minerals value
chain, the majority of value-adding occurs in the mid- and down-stream stages of production. This creates
an incentive for host governments to impose distortive policies, which attempt to capture a greater share of
economic rents by mandating local processing. These distortive policies can take a variety of forms, including
export prohibitions, taxes, and other licensing and performance requirements. They are extremely common.
As Table 2 shows, exporting governments maintain 198 distinct trade restrictions on battery minerals and
materials, with export taxes and licensing requirements the most common. These policies undermine cross-
border value chains by distorting the operation of market mechanisms, and deterring investment into the sector.
Table 2. Global trade restrictions on battery components, 2017
Export Licensing Other export

prohibitions Export taxes requirements measures Total
Cobalt 7 29 35 18 89
Graphite 0 2 2 2 6
Lithium 0 0 5 0 5
Nickel 11 19 38 18 86
Rare earths 0 4 5 1 10
Vanadium 0 1 1 0 2
Total 18 55 86 39 198
Source: Author’s calculations, from OECD35. Note: Includes both battery minerals and products derived principally thereof.
A more dramatic security risk arises from the use of the so-called ‘resource weapon’. This is a form of economic
sanction, where a government withholds (or threatens to withhold) supply of a critical material to extract
some kind of concession from a target. The resource weapon can be an effective tool for diplomatic sanctions
in situations where a consumer is dependent on a particular supplier. There is also a long track record of
its use in international diplomacy. Famous examples including the OAPEC oil embargo of 1973 (targeting
countries which supported Israel during the Yom Kippur War)36, and Russian threats to supply gas to Eastern
European neighbours on at least fifteen occasions during the last decade37. As battery markets are highly
monopolised, with few viable sources of alternate supply in the short-term, they make an ideal instrument for
diplomatic sanctioning.
Indeed, the resource weapon In late 2010, rare earth minerals were the subject of a trade
conflict between China and Japan, which had originally begun over
has been recently deployed in the disputed Senkaku/Diaoyu Islands 38 . While Chinese supply to
the battery minerals sector. Japan was suspended for only fifty-nine days, the dispute had a
dramatic effect on global markets. Prices for rare earth oxides
immediately spiked four-fold, before taking over a year to return to pre-dispute levels (Figure 11). In the more
recent US-China trade dispute, Chinese authorities have made similar threats that the ‘rare earths weapon’
will be deployed if a negotiated settlement cannot be reached39. While this threat has yet to be executed, its
effects on global markets would be of a similar magnitude to the Japan-China dispute of 2010. China’s monopoly
position in the vanadium and graphite markets could potentially enable similar of these minerals uses during
diplomatic disputes.
FUTURE
BATTERY
Sustainability risks Sustainability risks are an equally important – if sometimes

underappreciated – value chain problem. The mining
in the battery value governance regimes of battery-mineral rich countries
often fall short of international best practice for managing
chain sustainability issues. Many of the countries which are endowed
with battery minerals have poorly developed political and
regulatory institutions. As research by the International
Institute for Sustainable Development reveals, a significant
share of proven global reserves are found in states that suffer
from high political instability and levels of corruption (Figure
12). Weak political institutions often lead to under-developed
regulatory and governance regimes, which can produce adverse
social and environmental impacts from mining activities.
Three sustainability challenges – relating to social conflicts,
environmental management and labour standards – commonly
affect battery mineral production.
Figure 12. Political instability in battery mineral-rich countries
100
Share world proven reserves
80
60
40
20
0
Rare Earth Nickel Lithium Graphite Cobalt
Minerals
Located in fragile or very fragile states

Located in states perceived as corrupt or very corrupt
Source: Author’s adaptation from data in Church and Crawford 201840
In some countries, social conflicts are catalysed by the

exploitation of battery minerals. As resource extraction
generates economic rents while simultaneously imposing
social costs (such as environmental degradation and land use
challenges), they can often become a source of political tension.
21
22
Box 1 outlines a number of social conflicts which have arisen in part due to disputes over battery minerals
extraction. As the cases illustrate, conflicts often arise due to under-developed institutional frameworks, which
lead to disputes over land rights, environmental management and the sharing of economic benefits. These
conflicts are also politically complex, drawing in mining companies, local communities and host states.
Box 1. Social conflicts in battery mineral suppliers
COBALT IN THE DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC OF THE CONGO: The mining

sector is the DRC’s largest source of export income, and the country is a
major global producer of cobalt, copper, tantalum, tin and gold. However,
the sector is rife with corruption, which contributes to the cycles of fragility,
conflict and violence for many decades. There are minimal institutional
provisions governing the country’s mining sector, resulting in many cobalt
mines falling under the control of illegal armed groups in the past. These
mines have continued to be connected to child labour, environmental
degradation, unsafe working conditions and other human rights abuses.
NICKEL IN GUATEMALA: Despite its resource-rich economy, Guatemala
does not have a comprehensive set of regulations to govern mineral
exploitation. Nickel mining first emerged in Guatemala during the civil
war in the 1960s, and has been concentrated in rural areas which are
home to the indigenous Maya people. This has resulted in high numbers of
Maya being displaced from their homes. One of the largest nickel mines in
Guatemala, the Fenix Mining project in El Estor, has been accused of forcing
villagers from their lands, committing acts of sexual violence, and murder.
THE LITHIUM TRIANGLE: The region where Argentina, Chile and Bolivia
share borders is known as the ‘Lithium Triangle’. This region holds 59% of
known world lithium reserves, with conflicts arising primarily due to the
ecological impacts of mining practices. Some brine production techniques
are damaging to the surrounding environment, threatening fragile salt
flat ecosystems. There is minimal government oversight and regulation
surrounding the ecological impacts of lithium mining. As a result, there
have been protests and conflicts surrounding this issue and companies
have come under fire for allegedly encroaching on indigenous land and
restricting water access.
Source: Adapted from case studies in Church and Crawford41
Resource wars are armed conflicts whose political origins are at least
In extreme cases, social partially connected to disputes over natural resources 42 . Some occur
conflicts can contribute to due to resource scarcity, as governments use military means to capture
control of valuable assets from adversaries 43 . Civil wars are another
so-called ‘resource wars’. type, which are fought for control of, and/or financed by revenues
from, natural resource industries 44 . The most prominent example is
the series of civil wars and insurgencies that have raged in the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) since the
mid-1990s, where armed militias and government forces have repeatedly clashed for control of lucrative critical
materials mines. The International Rescue Committee estimates the Second Congo War (officially 1998-2003)
caused 5.4 million deaths, making it the deadliest global conflict since the Second World War45 .
FUTURE
BATTERY
Water management is a key environmental challenge. This is particularly pronounced for the extraction of
lithium from salt brines, which requires large amounts of water. This process has threatened the fragile salt
flat ecosystems found within the region including Bolivia’s Salar de Uyuni, the largest salt flat in the world46 . The
water-intensive method of extraction has resulted in diversion of water to mines from communities across the
Lithium Triangle, with operations in Chile’s Salar de Atacama consuming 65% of the region’s water. With the Salar
being one of the driest places on the planet, farms have been significantly affected and rural livelihoods are
threatened by the redirection of water to mining operations 47.
Waste management also poses public health problems. The amount of battery minerals used in final goods is
only a tiny fraction of the total raw materials that are extracted. For example, 2000 tonnes of waste are produced
for every tonne of rare earth oxides, with some of this waste radioactive due to the co-occurrence of uranium
and thorium48 .The world’s largest rare earths mine – Bayan Obo in Inner Mongolia, China – has accumulated a
massive tailings dam known informally as the “Baotou toxic lake”. Only ten kilometres from the upper waters of
the Yellow River, and containing over 150 million tonnes of highly toxic and radioactive tailings, it has become an
international cause célèbre for the social and environmental costs of critical materials mining49.
Labour practices are also a widespread concern. In the DRC’s 150,000 artisanal mines, labourers work for
as little as 65 cents a day with only hand tools, a lack of safety equipment, and minimal oversight50 . The risks
associated with artisanal mining extend to the general population, with doctors from the city of Lubumbashi
discovering lead, cadmium and cobalt levels in urinary concentrations to be five, four, and forty-three times
higher than the general population51. Child labour is unfortunately common, with 40,000 children estimated to be
working in artisanal mines in the DRC alone52 . Campaigns to eradicate child labour have floundered due to the
limited regulatory capacity of state agencies 53 .
Social license to operate refers to the informal ‘license’ granted to a
Sustainability challenges company by the stakeholders which are affected by its operations,
pose a direct threat to the which extends beyond the formal license of legal regulations 54 . While
social license to operate social license is a key requirement for all resource-based sectors,
of the battery industry. it is especially significant for companies in the battery industry.
New products incorporating batteries – whether EVs, renewable
energy technologies, or advanced manufacturing – are frequently
promoted as ‘green’ solutions to pressing environmental problems. The sustainability credentials of battery-
based technologies are greatly undermined if they rely on mineral inputs which are produced in a socially-
or environmentally-unsustainable manner. If these challenges are not addressed, the adoption of battery
technologies may simply shift environmental costs ‘up the value chain’ from end-users to raw materials
producers. Social license will only be achieved when sustainability is secured across the battery value chain.
Sustainability issues also expose technology companies to legal liability for conditions within their supply chains.
In December 2019, a group of Congolese families launched a ground-breaking legal case against a group of
companies in the battery value chain, which alleges that child labourers were killed and injured while unsafely
mining for cobalt 55 . Lodged in Washington DC by International Rights Advocates, the case names two mining
companies (Glencore and Zheijiang Huayou Cobalt), and several technology companies which they supply (Apple,
Google, Dell, Microsoft and Tesla) as defendants. The case argues that these technology companies, though not
directly responsible for mining conditions, nonetheless gained significant financial benefits from including within
their supply chains illegal cobalt produced by the mining companies. While the outcome of the case remains to
be determined, it indicates that social license risks will not only affect battery mineral companies but also the
downstream users which rely on these products.
23
24
International The battery value chain faces serious security and sustainability
challenges. Monopolised production and political conflict
strategies for undermines the security of supply chains; while weak
governance frameworks have led to adverse social and
improving battery environmental outcomes. Indeed, these challenges will
value chain
become even more pressing in future years. If battery value
chains are insecure today, they will certainly not be fit-for-
governance purpose to support the energy system transitions required in

the 21st century. As a result, many involved players – including
governments, businesses and civil society groups – have
launched efforts to reform value chain governance.
Private sector governance initiatives

have principally focused on sustainability
challenges.
A major sustainability challenge is that the technology sector
has little reliable information on whether their value chains
incorporate environmentally and/or socially problematic
suppliers. In the absence of this information, or recognised
standards for how to implement responsible sourcing,
companies have limited capacity to respond to social license
imperatives. As a result, several private sector initiatives
– which typically combine both companies and civil society
groups, in some cases without governmental assistance – have
sought to address these informational gaps. Box 2 outlines six of
the most prominent private sector-led initiatives for the battery
sector, though many more exist. These combine information
sharing, the development of agreed best practices, and in some
cases independent certification schemes.
IV. International strategies for improving battery value chain governance
Box 2. Private sector-led governance initiatives in the battery value chain
EXTRACTIVE INDUSTRIES TRANSPARENCY INITIATIVE (2003):

A set of transparency standards that requires governments to
publish timely and comprehensive information about their resource
governance regime, validated by an independent and stakeholder-
driven assessment process. The standard has been adopted by fifty-
one countries.
RESPONSIBLE MINERALS INITIATIVE (2008):

A private-sector initiative which shares information, develops
resources and provide third-party audits to ensure responsible
sourcing of mineral products. Over 380 companies are members. A
particular strength is the RMI’s focus on providing resources to mid-
stream companies in the processing and refining sector.
OECD DUE DILIGENCE GUIDANCE FOR RESPONSIBLE SUPPLY CHAINS OF

MINERALS FROM CONFLICT-AFFECTED AND HIGH-RISK AREAS (2011):
A set of best-practice guidelines designed to assist companies to
undertake risk assessment and implement responsible sourcing
principles for conflict minerals. While the Guidance is voluntary, it
provides companies a suite of internationally-recognised responsibility
standards which companies can incorporate into their own corporate
planning activities.
RESPONSIBLE COBALT INITIATIVE (2016):

Launched by the Chinese Chamber of Commerce for Metals, Minerals
& Chemicals, the RCI is a set of voluntary standards that support
downstream cobalt users to implement the 2011 OECD Guidance.
Many global electronic and automotive companies, including Volvo,
Daimler, Apple and Sony, have joined the initiative.
WEF GLOBAL BATTERY ALLIANCE (2017):

A public-private coalition, sponsored by the World Economic Forum,
to promote sustainability within battery value chains. The Alliance’s
work targets responsible sourcing (with a focus on cobalt and
lithium), development of a circular economy for battery materials,
and pro-development innovations in value chains governance.
IRMA STANDARD FOR RESPONSIBLE MINING (2018):

A set of corporate standards and certification scheme to ensure
business integrity and social and environmental responsibility in
mining projects. It is the only mining responsibility standards which
includes both self-assessed and independent certification, allowing
companies to credibly assure stakeholders of compliance.
Source: See note56.
25
26
These private sector-focused initiatives are of critical importance for companies in the battery value chain. In
recent years, many global corporations – including Google57, Toyota58 , Intel 59, Du Pont 60 , Volkswagen61, GE 62 ,
Samsung63 , IBM64 , Apple65 , and GM66, amongst many others – have incorporated supply chain reform into their
corporate social responsibility (CSR) frameworks. However, without transparency on social and environmental
conditions, downstream companies have no practical way to implement these CSR commitments. By helping
to close the information gap, these initiatives greatly increase the ability of companies to take action on
sustainability concerns. Several of these private sector initiatives have also collaboratively developed voluntary
standards that outline best practices for managing these supply chain issues. These standards function as an
international reference point which can help corporate managers design, implement and audit their supply
responsibility efforts.
An ongoing challenge facing these private sector-led initiatives is that none have yet emerged as an industry
standard. Without central coordination, there has been a proliferation of different initiatives, with some adopted
by only a small group of companies, and/or focused on one particular battery mineral. This has resulted in
a fragmented governance landscape that lacks a consensus approach which multiple companies can adopt.
Many also set standards but do not include certification schemes, increasing compliance and information
costs. By way of comparison, in the diamond industry a single set of sustainability standards – the Kimberley
Process 67 – functions as a single global standard agreed by all companies, industry bodies and civil society
groups. It also includes a certification scheme that enables companies to trace provenance across the value
chain. An integrated Kimberley Process-like approach would significantly improve the coherence and quality of
sustainability governance in the battery value chain.
Recognising that security risks pose a major threat to the
By contrast, government- competitiveness of battery technologies, many governments have
led initiatives have launched initiatives to provide more security for their battery materials
instead focused on supply. While these generally focus on the broader group of commodities
addressing security risks. which the government has identified as the critical material for its
economy, the six battery minerals feature prominently in these policies.
The leading governmental initiatives include:
↗ The European Union’s Raw Materials Initiative68 . Launched in 2008, this was the first government policy
to recognise the need to develop new and more secure critical materials value chains to meet industry
needs. It comprised three strategies, including improving supply sustainability, better developing mining
and processing industries within Europe, and promoting efficiency and recycling within value chains. These
efforts were then directed towards the battery value chain with a Strategic Action Plan on Batteries in 201869,
and a $3.5 billion ‘Important Project of Common European Interest’ for research into battery technologies
in 201970 .
↗ Japan’s Strategy for Ensuring Stable Supplies of Rare Metals71. To reduce the risks of over-dependence
on single producers, the strategy aimed to diversify import sources, promote recycling and the use of
substitutes, and build international partnerships with new suppliers. Initially launched in 2009, efforts under
the strategy accelerated rapidly following the 2010 rare earths dispute between Japan and China.
↗ In 2010, the US Department of Energy launched a Critical Materials Strategy 72 focused on minerals
required for the energy sector. This emphasised R&D and international partnership efforts. In 2019, it was
complemented by the US Department of Commerce’s Federal Strategy to Ensure Secure and Reliable Supplies
of Critical Minerals73 that added efforts to develop both up- and mid-stream domestic capabilities, as well as
international cooperation with new suppliers.
↗ India issued the Critical Non-Fuel Mineral Resources for India’s Manufacturing Sector: A Vision for 203074 in 2016.
Recognising that secure critical materials supply would be important for national efforts to develop the
manufacturing sector, the policy sought to upgrade India’s domestic technological capabilities and engage in
international partnerships.
FUTURE
BATTERY
IV. International strategies for improving battery value chain governance INDUSTRIES CRC
IV. International strategies for improving battery value chain governance
These governmental strategies seeks to promote the security of critical materials supply chains through a
variety of policy interventions. Table 3 provides a comparative analysis of the content of these policies. All
the governments have undertaken criticality studies (designed to identify and measure supply risks), as well
as R&D efforts to improve technical capacity across the various stages of the value chain. They have also all
committed to undertaking diplomatic engagement with partners to promote new suppliers entering the market.
However, the more complex and/or costly policy interventions only feature in some of the strategies:
↗ Only the US and Japanese governments maintain emergency stockpiles of critical materials. These are
government-held stocks that can be released to industrial users in situations where foreign supply is
interrupted for political or economic reasons. They provide an economy measure of protection against the
‘resource weapon’, particularly for users in the defence sector. However, as the cost of maintaining these
stockpiles is high, few governments have elected to undertake this policy.
↗ Only the Japanese government has undertaken investment promotion efforts. This aims to directly support
the emergence of new suppliers, through sponsorship packages that include investment and/or offtake
contracts. It has the advantage of addressing the root cause of supply insecurity – monopolised markets –
by fostering a more diverse range of supply options. However, it also exposes a government to commercial
risks by directly supporting enterprises.
↗ Only the EU has systematically incorporated sustainability instruments into its policy efforts. These
establish methodologies for measuring sustainability (developed in consultation with private sector
partners), enable standardised reporting and assessment of impacts. They have the advantage of applying
sustainability metrics across the entire value chain, not solely at the upstream site of battery minerals
extraction. An example is the Product Environmental Footprint methodology, which has been developed by the
European Commission and recently customised for application to mobile rechargeable batteries75 .
Table 3. Comparison of national critical materials strategies

European
United
States
Japan
Union
India
Policy Action
Criticality
studies
Economy-wide surveys to identify industrial uses
and supply risks for critical materials • • • •
Research & Improvement of technical capabilities in value
development chains, including process efficiency, recycling and
substitutes
• • • •
Emergency
stockpiling
Maintain emergency stocks of critical materials for
release to market during supply interruptions • •
Investment Support new producers to enter the market,
promotion through packages combining investment and
offtake contracts
•
Diplomatic
engagement
Diplomatic activities to improve value chain securi-
ty, including cooperation with new suppliers • • • •
Sustainability Develop standards and metrics by which sustain-

instruments ability across the entire value chain can be mea-
sured and reported
•
27
28
These reform initiatives They reveal an increasing awareness of challenges facing battery value
are an important first chains, and the need for new governance strategies to ensure these are
fit for purpose in the 21st century. Importantly, as both private sector- and
step in addressing government-led strategies are underway, they are evidence of a strong
the security and international consensus behind the need to reform industry governance.
sustainability challenges However, the persistence of security and sustainability challenges also
afflicting the battery indicates that more could be done to increase their effectiveness and
value chain. impact. Several notable gaps include:
↗ A need to consolidate private sector sustainability initiatives. The
emergence private sector-led efforts is an important first step in
addressing sustainability, but the proliferation of different initiatives
and standards fragments the governance regime. Developing
globally-agreed standards – which are shared by businesses, industry
associations and civil society groups – is needed to ensure coherent
sustainability governance. The Kimberley Process in diamonds
provides an instructive example that the battery industry might attempt
to replicate.
↗ Weak linkage between government and private sector efforts. There
is a clear division of labour in these reforms, with governments focusing
on supply security while the private sector prioritises sustainability.
Yet the two dimensions are clearly inter-linked. Governments alone
cannot improve the diversity of battery value chains, as this requires
investment from private businesses. Nor can the private sector alone
solve sustainability issues, which often arise from the under-developed
regulatory frameworks provided by governments. Better results would
be delivered if these challenges were approached as an integrated
problem, with governments and the private sector equally contributing
to both sides of governance reform.
↗ A focus on minerals production rather than whole-of-value-chain
approaches. Sustainability efforts have largely targeted problems
arising at the mining stage; while security efforts have similarly focused
on ensuring diverse supply of battery minerals. But given the complexity
of international battery production, these issues are equally pertinent
at the mid- and down-stream stages of the value chain. For reform
strategies to be successful, they will need to adopt a whole-of-value-
chain perspective that locates difficulties at one stage of production in
the larger networked web in which they are enmeshed.
↗ The development of new producers and partners. Despite these
initiatives being underway for many years, the level of concentration in
battery mineral and material industries remains stubbornly high (see
Figure 5 and Figure 10). Only the nickel market has sufficient diversity
to insulate value chains against political and economic shocks. This
indicates there is a pressing need to redouble efforts to bring new
players into the battery value chain. Key will be finding new partners
which are able to meet both security and sustainability requirements.
FUTURE
BATTERY
IV. International strategies for improving battery value chain governance INDUSTRIES CRC
29
30
Policy options Australia has the potential to make a major contribution to the
development of more secure and sustainable battery value
for integrating chains. Its geological endowments, technological capability
and reliable institutional framework mean it is ideally placed
Australia into to support the expansion of the global battery industry. Indeed,
battery value
Australia already plays a key role, as an important supplier of
several battery minerals in raw or semi-processed form. Both
chains governments and businesses have identified ‘moving along the

value chain’ – leveraging geological endowments to establish
mid- and down-stream processing capabilities – as a key
economic opportunity for Australia. But to achieve this goal,
Australia needs to design policies and business strategies that
will maximise the prospects for successful integration with new
and existing battery value chains.
There are four requirements for

successful participation in battery
value chains.
Figure 13. Requirements for participation in battery value chains
1 2 3 4
Geology
Processing Governance International
and mining
technology and regulation partnerships
capacity
Geology and mining capacity is arguably Australia’s strongest

1. asset. The unique geology of the Australian continent means
it is well-endowed with many high-quality and easily-exploited
battery mineral resources (Table 4). It is already the world’s
top producer of primary lithium, the only commercial-scale
producer of rare earths outside China, and occupies an
important position in the cobalt and nickel markets. While
there is currently no commercial production of graphite and
vanadium, strong endowments indicate the scope for developing
these as well. A recent assessment by Geoscience Australia has
identified that all six battery minerals have either the ‘highest’
or ‘significant’ potential for future commercial development.
Possessing commercial potential in all six battery minerals is
a significant advantage for Australian efforts to grow its role in
battery value chains.
FUTURE
BATTERY
INDUSTRIES CRC
V. Policy options for integrating Australia into battery value chains
Table 4. Australia’s battery mineral potential, 2017
Development Share world Resource Share world Production

Mineral potential* resources^ rank^ production^ rank^ Other major producers#
DRC 61%,
Cobalt Highest 17% 2nd 5% 3rd Russia 5%,
Cuba 5%
China 70%,
Graphite Significant 3% 7th None Brazil 10%,
Canada 4%
Chile 21%,
Lithium Significant 18% 3rd 47% 1st China 10%,
Argentina 8%
Philippines 17%,
Nickel Highest 26% 1st 9% 6th Indonesia 16%,
Russia 10%
China 80%,
Rare earths Highest 3% 6 th 13% 2 nd Russia 2%,
India 1%
China 56%,
Vanadium Significant 18% 3 rd None Russia 25%,
South Africa 11%
Source: ^Geoscience Australia76; #Author’s calculations from United States Geological Survey77;
*Development potential classifications from Geosciences Australia78.
In comparison, Australia’s mid-stream processing capabilities are at an early stage of development.

2. At present, Australia principal role is as an exporter of raw or minimally-processed (i.e. concentrated)
battery minerals. This industrial pattern reflects Australia’s established role as a cost-competitive and
reliable mineral supplier to Asian economies, particularly the iron ore and metallurgical coal required
for steelmaking. However, this role is beginning to change, as a number of new investments have made
in battery materials processing in recent years:
↗ Lithium hydroxide: Albermarle79, Covalent Lithium and Tianqi Lithium 80 are constructing
lithium hydroxide refineries at the Kemerton and Kwinana strategic industrial areas just south
of metropolitan Perth. These will create the first hydroxide processing capacity available to the
burgeoning spodumene industry in Western Australia.
↗ Nickel suplhate: BHP’s Nickel West division is presently reorienting its processing facilities
from a focus on nickel metal (used by steelmakers) to battery grade nickel sulphate (a battery
precursor) 81. A new nickel sulphate refinery is currently being commissioned in Kwinana.
↗ Separated rare earth oxides: Lynas Corporation operates an integrated value chain that connects
mining facilities at Mt Weld in Western Australia, which produces a monazite rich concentrate
through flotation, with an Nd-Pr focussed light rare earths processing plant in Malaysia.
Northern Minerals has established a pilot processing plant at its Brown Range project that has
demonstrated the technical feasibility of separating dysprosium from mixed carbonates 82 from a
xenotime-rich resource. Alkane Resources operate a pilot plant at ANSTO Minerals to extract rare
earths, niobium, tantalum and zirconium from eudialyte.
These committed investments in processing capacity indicate that the first Australian steps along the
battery value chain are already underway. But they all sit towards the upstream end of the value chain,
and no projects targeting more sophisticated components – such as cathodes, other precursors, or
cell production – have yet reached the final investment decision stage. As the bulk of value-adding
occurs in the mid- and down-stream stages, this means Australia captures only a very small share of
value. According to a recent study by Austrade, only 0.53 percent of the value realised in global battery
production ($1.13 billion) is presently realised by Australia 83 .
31
32
While Australia is an Australia is very well-positioned in terms of governance and

3. regulatory quality. Australia is a consolidated democracy, with
established battery
effective rule of law and well-developed regulatory frameworks. This
minerals producer, means is does not suffer the problems of political fragility, corruption
it has only just and low transparency to the extent that many other jurisdictions are
begun the transition affected. In terms of resource governance specifically, its established
to a materials regulatory framework is internationally recognised as one of the best
processor role. investment environments for mining investment globally. As Table 5
demonstrates, Australia has the highest rank of any battery mineral
producer in industry surveys on investment attractiveness, policy
perceptions and mining practices. Indeed, there is a significant gap
between three highly-regarded jurisdictions (Australia, Canada and
Chile), and the very poor risk rankings of dominant suppliers such as
China, Russia, Indonesia, the Philippines and the DRC.
Table 5. Jurisdictional risk in major battery mineral and material producers, 2018
Investment attractiveness Policy perceptions Best-practices mineral potential
Argentina^ 37th 38th 43rd

Australia #
2nd
5th
2nd
Brazil 58th 57th 56th
Canada* 20th 30th 20th
Chile 6th 23rd 9th
China 78 th
74 th
73rd
DRC 67th 82nd 24th
Indonesia 47th 70th 25th
Philippines 65th 79th 37th
Russia 27 th
57 th
15th
Sources: Fraser Institute84. Note: Rank out of 83 surveyed jurisdictions, higher is better. ^Catamarca province; #Western Australia; *Ontario province.
Established international partnerships are also a key strength. Australia has an extensive network
4. of free trade agreements (FTAs) with all key players in the battery mineral sector, including China,
Korea, Japan, the US, Indonesia, Malaysia and ASEAN. Negotiations are also currently underway with
the EU85 . All of Australia’s FTAs contain provisions that facilitate cross-border trade and investment
in the battery sector, such as tariff reduction and investment protections. Australia’s bilateral FTA
with Japan also includes a path-breaking resource cooperation chapter, which facilitates inter-
governmental dialogue on joint resource development initiatives 86 . The strength of these international
economic relationships is reflected in the fact that many partners – including the US, China, Japan and
Korea – have made investments in the Australian battery materials sector in recent years (Box 3).
The last decade has seen a number of fissures emerge in the
In the current global architecture of global economic governance, with worrying
political context, the value consequences for cross-border value chains. These include
of Australia’s reliability the ongoing US-China trade war87, the suspension of the
as an economic partner World Trade Organisation’s Appellate Body function 88 , the
cannot be understated. withdrawal of major power from key trade blocs (the US
from the Trans-Pacific Partnership 89 and India from the
Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership90), and
geopolitical anxieties over China Belt and Road Initiative91. If the rules-based global economic system
continues to fracture, the resilience of value chains – which inherently require robust economic rules
– will be increasingly in doubt. In this context, Australia’s commitment to rules-based international
relationships, and its trusted ties with all key players in the battery sector, becomes a unique
advantage. Companies and civil society groups can be confident that trade and investment connections
to Australia will not be subject to the conflict and politicisation seen between many other major
economic powers today.
FUTURE
BATTERY
V. Policy options for integrating Australia into battery value chains INDUSTRIES CRC
Box 3. International investments in the Australian battery materials sector
JAPAN – LYNAS CORPORATION: An Australian producer of

semi-processed rare earth oxides, with a focus on Neodymium-
Praseodymium (Nd-Pr). Nd-Pr is used in permanent magnets,
including those needed in electric motors. Lynas is the only
commercial-scale rare earths manufacturer outside of China, with
mining facilities at Mt Weld in Western Australia and an advanced
processing plant in Kuantan, Malaysia. Lynas has been supported
by investment and offtakes from its Japanese partners – Sojitz and
JOGMEC – but services a diverse export market which includes
China, South Korea and Vietnam.
KOREA – PILBARA MINERALS: Supported by investment from
POSCO, Pilbara Minerals is a West Australian based lithium-
tantalum manufacturer. The company has positioned itself to
be a primary supplier to the electric vehicle industry, via offtake
partnerships with POSCO, Great Wall Motor Company, Ganfeng
Lithium and General Lithium. Pilbara Minerals’ Pilgangoora
project is one of the most significant hard rock lithium projects in
the world, and began export of concentrate in August 2018.
UNITED STATES – ALBEMARLE: A US specialty chemicals
company, Albemarle is constructing a new lithium processing
plant near Bunbury, Western Australia. At completion, the
Kemerton project will have the capacity to process one million
tonnes of spodumene ore into 100,000 tonnes of lithium hydroxide
annually. This lithium hydroxide is an essential element in
the production of cathodes within lithium-ion batteries, and
Albemarle’s investment in the plant is valued at over AUD 1 billion.
CHINA – TIANQI LITHIUM: A global battery powerhouse, Tianqi
Lithium’s first overseas project will be based in Western Australia.
Its lithium processing plant in Kwinana will convert spodumene to
lithium hydroxide, and is valued at AUD 700 million. It will source
the spodumene from the Greenbushes mine, a joint venture
between Albemarle and Tianqi. This project acts as a node in
Tianqi’s broader network of lithium producers in the Sichuan,
Chongqing and Jiangsu provinces of China. Tianqi also holds a 24%
stake in the Chilean mining company Sociedad Química y Minera
(SQM), which in turn is in a joint venture with Wesfarmers in the
Australian company Covalent Lithium Ltd.
AUSTRALIA – NICKEL WEST: BHP’s Nickel West division is
currently transitioning from a focus on the steel industry to

participation in the battery value chain. For many years an
established supplier of nickel metal to the steel industry, Nickel
West has progressively reoriented its operations to the battery
industry, which currently account for 75 percent of sales. To
support this transition into the battery value chain, it is currently
constructing a refinery at Kwinana which specialises in the nickel
sulphate product required by battery manufacturers.
33
34
This analysis shows that Australia is currently well-positioned in terms of three of the four requirements for
successful integration in battery value chains: geology, governance and international partnerships. However,
it is the refining sphere that Australia presently lacks capability. While several refining projects have recently
been launched, there remains much to be done to augment the breadth of the technology ecosystem in these
areas. There is also a need to take further steps downstream, beyond the refining of chemical precursors
(lithium hydroxide, nickel sulphate and separated rare earth oxides) to the manufacture of battery components
(cathodes, anodes and cells) themselves. This move from minerals to materials will ensure Australia captures a
greater share of value generated in the battery industry as it expands in coming decades.
To support this agenda, Australian governments
Australian policy interventions have launched several new battery policy initiatives.
should now focus on building the Recognising the role for government in catalysing
transformative industrial change, these policies have
mid- and down-stream processing a focus on developing the mid- and down-stream
capabilities of the battery sector. capabilities which are presently under-developed.
The most prominent initiatives include the following:
↗ Geoscience Australia first identified critical materials as a major economic opportunity in 2013 with Critical
commodities for a high-tech world: Australia’s potential to supply global demand92 . This study undertook the
first national criticality assessment, and mapped areas where Australian endowments were matched to
international demand.
↗ Specific battery-related opportunities were first identified in Austrade’s 2018 study The Lithium-ion battery
value chain: New economic opportunities for Australia93 . This report specifically identified the need to leverage
Australia’s minerals endowment to develop an expanded processing and manufacturing role in the battery
value chain.
↗ A Critical Minerals Strategy94 issued in 2019 by Austrade and the Department of Industry, Innovation and
Science outlined the first integrated national policy to capitalise on these identified opportunities. Its
goals included the attraction investment into critical materials sectors, R&D activities to improve national
technological capacity, and the provision of infrastructure to improve competitiveness of new projects.
↗ In 2019, Commonwealth funding was extended to create the Future Battery Industry Cooperative
Research Centre (FBI-CRC)95 . A government-academia-industry partnership, the FBI-CRC aims to
identify gaps in Australian battery value chains and support technical advances to increase sustainability
and competitiveness.
↗ These national efforts were complemented by the State of Western Australia’s Future Battery Industry
Strategy96 issued in 2019. This strategy aims to foster the development of a local battery industry by
promoting battery precursor and cell-manufacturing activities.
However, these headline initiatives are only the most prominent of a wide range of government policies targeting
the battery industry. At present, Australian governments – including both the Commonwealth, and all the
states and territories – collectively maintain fifty-nine distinct policy initiatives which in some way support the
industry’s development. A comprehensive inventory of these policies is included in the Appendix of this report
(Table 6). Some are specifically targeted at the battery value chain, whereas others take a broader industry focus
that includes batteries with other sectors. Nonetheless, the large number of initiatives, and the fact that these
have been launched by all Australian jurisdictions, is indicative of the attention the battery industry is attracting
amongst economic policymakers.
This suite of policies will make a significant contribution to the growth of the national battery industry. Around
half constitute ‘facilitation’ initiatives – commitments by government to promote the industry to potential
investors, and configure regulatory frameworks in a manner appropriate to its specific needs. That several
of these efforts are intra-federal partnerships also recognises the intersection between state (mining, land
use, infrastructure and industrial regulation) and federal (trade, investment, taxation and infrastructure)
responsibilities. These facilitation measures are complemented by grant and R&D initiatives, which are
important in developing the technical capabilities required for cost-competitiveness. The Commonwealth also
offers a number of financial support programs – primarily through Export Finance Australia (EFA) – which can
assist companies to secure project finance.
FUTURE
BATTERY
Table 6. Australian policies for battery industry development, by jurisdiction and type
Facilitation Finance Grant R&D Tax reform Total

Commonwealth 6 8 4 7 25
Intra-federal 3 1 4
NSW 2 1 1 4
NT 5 1 1 7
QLD 6 1 1 8
SA 2 1 1 4
Tas 1 1 1 3
VIC 5 1 6
WA 1 2 2 1 6
Total 31 8 12 15 1 67
Source: Summary from Appendix
One of the most notable gaps concerns the stage of the value chain
However, there are targeted by policy. Twenty-four policies focus on exploration only, and
also several gaps in the a further fourteen bundle together exploration, mining and processing
Australian policy suite. activities (Figure 14). These upstream activities are areas in which
Australian commercial and technical capacity is already well-established.
By contrast, only four policies target the down-stream stage; all of which are long-standing renewable energy
policies that do not directly contribute to the creation of an Australian battery industry. Tellingly, there is only
one policy amongst the fifty-nine – a Western Australian lithium royalty reform of 2019 – which is dedicated
specifically to addressing the mid-stream stage! Given the major technical and commercial differences between
mining and processing, there is a clear risk that mid-stream projects will not receive appropriately-configured
forms of governmental support. This is a particularly significant omission, given that mid-stream is the area in
which Australian capabilities are in greatest need of development.
Figure 14. Australian policies for battery industry There is a lack of battery-specific initiatives in the
development, by stage of value chain policy mix. Only four – the FBI-CRC, the Western
Australian lithium royalty reform, and high-level
battery strategies from Austrade and the Western
4%
Manufacturing Australian government – are directly focused
/Installation All stages on opportunities in the battery value chain. The
overwhelming majority are policies targeted at the
entire mining and/or manufacturing sectors. This
Exploration/ lack of battery industry-specific policies poses two
Mining/
24%
risks. The first is that policy frameworks designed for
Processing
application across many industries may not ‘fit’ the
17% unique and specific needs of projects in the battery
value chain. The second is that battery-related

projects will need to compete with a wider pool of
applicants, and may be crowded-out by other mining
21%
or manufacturing projects which will be competing
from a more established industrial base.
Processing Exploration
only only
Governments need to make
1% battery-related projects a priority
within broader industry programs.
Source: Author’s calculations from Appendix.
35
36
Challenges facing provenancing and sustainability standards also need to be addressed. While Australia’s
strong regulatory environment is a major source of competitive advantage, it will need to demonstrate its
sustainability credentials in a transparent and verifiable manner. At present, the lack of widely-agreed industry
standards or certificate schemes prevents verifiable “Made sustainably in Australia” marketing of battery-related
products. There already exists a number of new blockchain-based provenancing platforms for diamonds, which
have originated from the Kimberley Process, whose models might be fruitfully applied to battery minerals97.
Given the major focus of European firms on sourcing ethical and environmentally-sustainable material inputs,
developing agreed and transparent provenancing solutions will be essential for Australian producers to engage
with European battery value chains.
The environmental performance of Australia’s resource sector will also need to be improved. At present,
the majority of Australian mining operations depend primarily on carbon-intensive hydrocarbons for the
energy supply, and processing facilities depend on fossil-fuel based electricity. This means Australian mineral
resources are comparatively ‘dirty’, in carbon footprint terms, vis-a-vis supplies from other countries whose
resources sectors make greater use of renewables. As social license in the battery value chain will significantly
depend on establishing green credentials, de-carbonising the Australian resource sector will be critical for
successful participation in value chains.
There are also opportunities to link battery industry initiatives with broader reform of Australia’s energy
systems. As renewables penetration increases, governments have begun to work with generators and network
operators to develop ‘energy transformation’ plans. These aim to transition energy systems from traditional
(centralised generation, transmission and distribution) systems to newer architectures that better integrate
intermittent and decentralised renewables. At present, all Australian states and territories have such energy
transformation plans in place 98 . Battery technologies will be essential for success, particularly for Distributed
Energy Resource (DER) systems99 which incorporate storage to manage supply intermittency (see Box 4).
However, at present there are few formal links – let alone cases of project-level alignment – between the
energy transformation plans and battery industry initiatives. As energy transformation will be a major source
of demand for battery products, they could fruitfully be leveraged for the growth of downstream battery
manufacturing capability.
Box 4. Illustrative Distributed Energy Resource projects in Australia
REGIONAL: Horizon Power’s Carnarvon DER trials

In Western Australia, rural energy utility Horizon Power is trialling a set of DER projects
aimed at regional energy grids. Its Carnarvon DER project is a three-year trial of feed-
in management systems, which is testing various ‘behind-the-meter’ innovations. This
includes equitably limiting the quantity of solar exported back into the grid during peak
generation, and more efficient utilisation of batteries in PV installations to store and
distribute loads. Analysis from these trials will inform long-term energy generation and
storage systems implementation.
METROPOLITAN: Jemena Electricity Networks and AusNet Services’

Dynamic Grid-Side Technologies
In Victoria, a partnership between electricity companies is testing
battery storage technologies to sustainability increase solar PV
penetration in traditional distribution networks. Supported by
funding from the Australian Renewable Energy Agency (ARENA), the
Demonstration of Three Dynamic Grid-Side Technologies project is testing
new systems on two suburb sites with high rooftop PV penetration.
The tests include conducting phase switching of customer loads on
traditional low-voltage feeders, managing load balances at the source
distribution transformer, and utilising battery storage to sustainably
absorb higher DER penetration.
Source: See note100.
FUTURE
BATTERY
Finally, fostering international partnerships will also require greater attention. As Section 4 of this report
demonstrates, the Australian battery industry is not being created de novo. Rather, it will need to position itself
within an existing network of global value chains, and move from an up- to mid-stream supplier role. This
agenda will inherently require international partnership with industry incumbents, who can provide trade,
investment and technology links that will accelerate the development of local capabilities. It is instructive
that all the major battery-related projects launched in recent years (see Box 3) are international partnerships
with existing players in the global sector. Some policy initiatives – such as those from Austrade and EFA –
explicitly recognise the importance of international partnerships for the industry’s growth. It will be important
for the others to do the same, and incorporate mechanisms to support international partnerships within their
implementation frameworks.
37
38
Key findings Australia is well-positioned to capitalise on new opportunities in the

battery industry. As the transition towards cleaner sources of energy
and next progresses, the global market for batteries will increase dramatically.
Australia possesses the attributes required for success: world-class
steps geological endowments, reliable regulatory institutions, established
international partnerships, and emerging processing capabilities. All levels
of Australian government have now identified the economic opportunity
on offer, and have launched policy initiatives to support the industry’s
development. Major investments from international companies have already
begun to flow into the sector.
A major value proposition for Australia are its credentials as a secure
and sustainable supplier. Existing battery value chains will not be fit-
for-purpose for 21st century needs. Risks associated with monopolised
markets undermine the security of supply networks. Economic and social
sustainability challenges in many suppliers also threatens social license, a
critical asset for a technology dependent on its ‘green’ credentials. Australia
is unique as one of the few suppliers with strong regulatory frameworks
at the domestic level, and trusted political relationships internationally. It
therefore offers a more secure and sustainable partner for the growth of the
global battery industry.
To capture these opportunities, Australia will need to upgrade its role in
the value chain. The Australian battery industry is integrated within cross-
border value chains that connect up-, mid- and down-stream producers
across many different countries. Australia already plays a major role in
these value chains as a battery minerals supplier. Future opportunities
exist in ‘moving along the value chain’, by leveraging resource-endowments
as a foundation for subsequent processing and manufacturing activities.
As the majority of the value-add in battery value chains comes at the
mid- and down-stream, these stages will offer the best returns for the
Australian economy.
Domestically, efforts should initially target the development of capabilities
at the mid-stream processing stage. While Australia has an established
battery minerals industry, its processing capabilities are comparatively less
developed. Mid-stream processing is also a natural ‘next step’ that can be
built upon existing minerals capability. It is therefore the area in which policy
efforts will generate the greatest return on investment. Recent investments
in lithium hydroxide, nickel sulphate and rare earths separation projects
indicate the commercial appetite and potential for success. Additionally,
Australia will need to take significant steps to decarbonise its operations to
be labelled as a producer of “clean” battery materials.
Internationally, government and business should also actively pursue
international partnerships with key industry players. Success in global
value chains will not be achieved by working alone. Australia will need
to integrate itself within existing networks, and ensure its projects are
calibrated to the technical and economic requirements of partners.
Developing trade, investment and technology links with leading companies
in the value chain will be essential to link Australian projects to downstream
consumers across the global battery industry.
FUTURE
BATTERY
INDUSTRIES CRC
Appendix
Appendix
Table 7. Australian policies supporting battery industry development
Industry focus/ Support Battery material Targeted stage

Jurisdiction Title Agency Summary function type coverage of value chain
1 Cwealth Future Battery Indus- FBI-CRC FBI-CRC will provide industry-led Battery Industry R&D All All
try CRC research capability to help advance
Australia’s role in the global battery
industries value chain
2 Cwealth Advanced Manufac- Advanced Manu- Grant Program to support SMEs in Advanced Manu- Grant All All
turing Early Stage facturing Growth early stages of small-scale devel- facturing
Research Fund Centre Ltd opment of new technologies and
products
3 Cwealth Advancing Renew- Australian Renew- Grant Program to support renewable Renewable/Clean Grant All Assembly;
ables Program able Energy Agency energy projects Energy Installation
4 Cwealth CEFC Direct Invest- Clean Energy Fi- Direct equity & investments for Renewable/Clean Finance All Assembly;
ments nance Corporation individual projects, both large and Energy Installation
small scale
5 Cwealth CEFC Debt Markets Clean Energy Fi- Investment in Australia’s green Renewable/Clean Finance All Assembly;
nance Corporation bonds market, accessible for project Energy Installation
developers
6 Cwealth CEFC Innovation Fund Clean Energy Fi- Specialist finance for early stage Renewable/Clean Finance All Assembly;
nance Corporation clean energy businesses and tech- Energy Installation
(CEFC) & Australian nologies
Renewable Energy
Agency (ARENA)
7 Cwealth Linkage Projects Australian Research Grants for mature research plans in Research Partner- Grant All All
Grant Council STEM research areas, to coordinate ships
research partnerships
8 Cwealth Loans - EFA Export Finance Loans from EFA that can be drawn Trade Support Loan All All
Australia for export-related transactions or
setting up overseas
9 Cwealth Bonds - EFA Export Finance EFA Support in securing bank-issued Trade Support Finance All All
Australia bond or provision of bond to buyer
39
40

Appendix
10 Cwealth Guarantees - EFA Export Finance Guarantee from EFA to enable fur- Trade Support Finance All All
Australia ther bank finance for export-related
transactions or overseas business
expansion
11 Cwealth Project & Corporate Export Finance Finance to larger exporters, partic- Trade Support Finance All All
Finance - EFA Australia ularly for engagement in emerging
and frontier markets
12 Cwealth Export Market De- Austrade Grants to reimburse export promo- Trade Support Grant All All
velopment Grants tion expenses
(EMDG)
13 Cwealth Major Projects Facil- Major Projects Fa- Assists strategically significant proj- Government Inter- Facilitation All All
itation cilitation Agency ects at all stages to provide informa- action
tion on federal approvals
14 Cwealth NAIF Finance Northern Austra- Provision of fixed interest rate loans Infrastructure Loan All All
lia Infrastructure for economic infrastructure projects
Facility in northern Australia
15 Cwealth Australia’s Critical Department of Commonwealth strategy to establish Minerals and Facilitation All Exploration/
Minerals Strategy Industry, Innovation Australia as “a world leader in the Resources Mining; Pro-
and Science and De- exploration, extraction, production cessing;
partment of Foreign and processing of critical minerals”
Affairs and Trade
16 Cwealth Critical Minerals Austrade International roadshows promoting Critical Minerals Facilitation All All
Trade and Investment Australia’s critical minerals capacity
Roadshows
17 Cwealth Australian Critical Austrade Prospectus on Australia’s geological Critical Minerals R&D All Exploration/
Minerals Prospectus endowment of critical minerals Mining/ Pro-
cessing
18 Cwealth CRC Optimising CRC ORE CRC ORE is engaged in research to Research Partner- R&D All Exploration/
Resource Extraction develop technology to allow low- ships Mining/ Pro-
(CRC ORE) er-grade ores to be economically cessing
and efficiently mined
19 Cwealth National Resources Department of Statement on the Commonwealth Minerals and Facilitation All Exploration/
Statement Industry, Innovation Government’s key goals for the Resources Mining/ Pro-
and Science resource sector cessing
Appendix
20 Cwealth Exploring for the Geoscience Aus- Investment to further explore parts Exploration Sup- Facilitation All Exploration
Future Initiative tralia of Australia for minerals, energy and port
groundwater (minerals across the
whole of Northern Australia)
21 Cwealth MinEx CRC MinEx CRC Promoting government-business-ac- Research Partner- R&D All Exploration
ademic research collaborations in ships
minerals exploration
22 Cwealth The Lithium-Ion Bat- Austrade Identifies Australia’s potential to Battery Industry R&D All All
tery Value Chain participate in the lithium and battery
value chain
23 Cwealth Mineral Resources Commonwealth Sci- CSIRO Mineral Resources partners Minerals and R&D All Exploration/
ence and Industrial with companies to provide solutions Resources Mining/ Pro-
Research Organisa- for mineral discovery and processing cessing
tion (CSIRO)
24 Cwealth R&D Tax Incentive Innovation and Tax offset for some of a company’s Research and R&D All All
Science Australia; cost of doing eligible R&D activities Development
Australian Tax Office
25 Cwealth Critical Minerals in Geoscience Aus- Review of critical minerals opportu- Critical Minerals Facilitation All Exploration/
Australia: A Review tralia nities and research needs Mining/ Pro-
of Opportunities and cessing
Research Needs
26 Cth-State National Mineral Ex- Australia Minerals Coordinated Cth-State Strategy to Exploration Sup- Facilitation All Exploration
ploration Strategy drive mineral exploration across the port
country
27 Cth-State Australia Minerals Australia Minerals Collaboration among Cth and State Exploration Sup- R&D All Exploration
geoscience agencies and Chief Geol- port
ogists to increase exploration
28 Cth-State Critical Minerals COAG Energy To be developed - Outcome of the in- Critical Minerals Facilitation TBD All
Work Program Council augural Resources Meeting @ COAG
29 Cth-State Strategic Resources COAG Energy To be developed - Outcome of the in- Critical Minerals Facilitation TBD All
Advisory Group Council augural Resources Meeting @ COAG
30 NSW Competing Globally: Department of NSW trade expansion policy state- Trade Support Facilitation Cobalt, Lithium, All
NSW Trade and In- Premier and Cabi- ment, including minerals and Nickel, Rare
vestment Action Plan net; Department of resources sector Earths
2017-18 Industry
41
42

Appendix
31 NSW NSW Minerals Strat- Department of Strategy focused on advancing NSW Minerals and Re- Facilitation Cobalt, Lithium, Exploration/
egy Industry, Innovation minining industry, includes pros- sources; Critical Nickel, Rare Mining/ Pro-
and Science pects for developing processing Minerals Earths cessing
industries
32 NSW Geophysical Surveys Geological Survey Enhanced Geological Survey activity Exploration Sup- R&D All Exploration
and State Mapping of New South Wales to map NSW port
(GSNSW)
33 NSW New Frontiers Geological Survey Grants to fund 50%, 75% or 100% of Exploration Sup- Grant Cobalt, Lithium, Exploration
Cooperative Drilling of New South Wales drilling for individual projects port Nickel, Rare
Program (GSNSW) Earths
34 NT The Territory critical Department of Three-point plan to accelerate ex- Critical Minerals Facilitation Cobalt, Lithium, Exploration/
minerals plan Trade, Business and ploration, support projects and grow Rare Earths, Mining/ Pro-
Innovation refining and processing activity of Vanadium cessing
CM in the Territory
35 NT Resourcing the Terri- Department of Pri- Four-year strategy including a range Minerals and Facilitation All Exploration/
tory Initiative mary Industry and of initiatives to support the NT’s Resources Mining/ Pro-
Resources resources sector cessing
36 NT Geophysical Surveys Northern Territory NT’s Premier geoscience agency Minerals and R&D All Exploration
and Territory Mapping Geological Survey Resources
(NTGS)
37 NT Geophysics and Drill- Department of Pri- Co-funding for select new explora- Exploration Sup- Grant All Exploration
ing Collaborations mary Industry and tion, especially unexplored areas port
Resources and/or through use of innovative
exploration tools
38 NT International Min- Department of Pri- Assists NT explorers to secure Minerals and Facilitation All Exploration
erals and Energy mary Industry and investment from overseas; including Resources
Investment Attraction Resources bilingual publication of prospectus’
Program summaries
39 NT Major Project Status Department of For certified major projects, coordi- Government Inter- Facilitation All All
Trade, Business and nated support is provided to engage action
Innovation both the NT and Cth Government
40 NT International en- Department of NT trade expansion policy statement, Trade Support Facilitation All All
gagement, trade and Trade, Business and including minerals and resources
investment strategic Innovation sector
plan 2018 to 2021
Appendix
41 QLD Collaborative Explo- Department of Supports mineral exploration in Exploration Sup- Grant All Exploration
ration Initiative Natural Resources, under-explored areas port
Mines and Energy
42 QLD Department of Natu- Department of Overarching strategic plan to sus- Minerals and Facilitation All Exploration/
ral Resources, Mines Natural Resources, tainably maximise the use of QLD’s Resources Mining/ Pro-
and Energy Strategic Mines and Energy resources cessing
Plan 2019-2023
43 QLD A Strategic Blueprint North West Minerals Overarching strategy and actions to Minerals and Facilitation All Exploration/
for Queensland’s Province Taskforce further development of QLD’s North Resources Mining/ Pro-
North West Minerals West Minerals Province, including a cessing
Province focus on rare earths
44 QLD Geophysical Surveys Geological Survey of Enhanced Geological Survey activity Exploration Sup- R&D All Exploration
and State Mapping Queensland to map the NWM Province port
45 QLD Strategic Resources Department of Programs to boost exploration and Exploration Sup- Facilitation All Exploration
Exploration Program Natural Resources, support for resource development port
Mines and Energy; projects
Geological Survey of
Queensland
46 QLD North West Department of NW Economic Plan - Including ‘de- Minerals and Facilitation All Exploration/
Queensland Eco- State Development, velop a technology minerals industry Resources; Other Mining/ Pro-
nomic Diversification Manufacturing, supporting secondary prospectivity’ Industry cessing
Strategy Infrastructure and
Planning;
47 QLD Industry Case Man- Department of One-stop-shop to streamline ap- Government Inter- Facilitation All All
agers State Development, provals and regulatory processes on action
Manufacturing, major projects
Infrastructure and
Planning
48 QLD Queensland Trade Trade and Invest Trade and Investment strategy, with Trade Support Facilitation All All
and Investment Strat- Queensland a focus on resources sector
egy 2017-2022
49 SA Accelerated Discovery Department of Ener- Co-funding for greenfield exploration Exploration Sup- Grant Cobalt, Graph- Exploration
Fund gy and Mining activity port ite, Nickel, Rare
Earths
50 SA Case Management Department of Ener- Coordinated support through regula- Government Inter- Facilitation Cobalt, Graph- Exploration/
of major mineral gy and Mining tory approvals process action ite, Nickel, Rare Mining/ Pro-
projects Earths cessing
43
44

Appendix
51 SA Geophysical Surveys Geological Survey of SA’s geoscience agency Minerals and R&D Cobalt, Graph- Exploration
and State Mapping South Australia Resources ite, Nickel, Rare
Earths
52 SA New Horizons: Department of SA trade expansion policy statement, Trade Support Facilitation Cobalt, Graph- All
South Australia’s Premier and Cabi- including minerals and resources ite, Nickel, Rare
Investment and Trade net; Department of sector Earths
Statement 2018 Trade, Tourism and
Investment
53 Tas Tasmanian Trade Department of State Tasmanian trade and investment Trade Support Facilitation All All
Strategy 2019-2025 Growth strategy, including minerals and
resources trade
54 Tas Exploration Drilling Mineral Resources Co-funded grants for exploration Exploration Sup- Grant All Exploration
Grant Initiative Tasmania drilling projects, particularly for port
greenfield projects
55 Tas Geophysical Surveys Mineral Resources Geological Survey activity to map Exploration Sup- R&D All Exploration
and State Mapping Tasmania Tasmania port
56 WA Future Battery Indus- Department of Jobs, WA Strategy to grow the state’s pro- Battery Industry Facilitation All All
try Strategy Tourism, Science duction and export of battery quality
and Innovation materials, & enhance the state’s
processing assets
57 WA Exploration Incentive Geological Survey of EIS supports a range of programs Exploration Sup- Grant All Exploration
Scheme (EIS) Western Australia to encourage exploration in WA, port
including the Co-funded Innovative
Drilling Program & targeted drilling
programs
58 WA Co-funded Innovative Geological Survey of Grants for a 50% refund for innova- Exploration Sup- Grant All Exploration
Drilling Program Western Australia tive exploration drilling projects port
59 WA Geophysical Surveys Geological Survey of Free provision of sophisticated map- Minerals and R&D All Exploration
and State Mapping Western Australia ping of the State of WA Resources
60 WA Minerals Research Minerals Research MRIWA primary function is to provide Minerals and R&D All Exploration/
Institute of Western Institute of Western and administer grants to carry out Resources Mining/ Pro-
Australia (MRIWA) Australia (MRIWA) minerals research cessing
Grants
Appendix
61 WA Lithium feedstock Department of 5% lithium royalty to apply to “first Battery Industry Tax reform Lithium Processing
royalty amendment Mines, Industry Reg- product sold” (spodumene concen-
ulation and Safety trate, carbonate or hydroxide), to
provide taxation clarity for lithium
processing investors.
62 VIC State Of Discovery: Department of Department of Jobs, Precincts and Minerals and Facilitation All All
Mineral Resources Jobs, Precincts and Regions Resources
Strategy 2018-2023 Regions
63 VIC Extractive Resources Department of Department of Jobs, Precincts and Minerals and Facilitation All Exploration/
Strategy Jobs, Precincts and Regions Resources Mining/ Pro-
Regions cessing
64 VIC Geophysical Surveys Geological Survey of Department of Jobs, Precincts and Exploration Sup- Facilitation All Exploration
and State Mapping Victoria Regions port
65 VIC Base Metals Victoria: Department of Department of Jobs, Precincts and Minerals and Facilitation All Exploration/
An Emerging Base Jobs, Precincts and Regions Resources Mining/ Pro-
Metal Province Regions cessing
66 VIC Metallic Minerals in Department of Department of Jobs, Precincts and Minerals and Facilitation Lithium Exploration/
Victoria: Tantalum, Jobs, Precincts and Regions Resources Mining/ Pro-
Niobium and Lithium Regions cessing
67 VIC TARGET Department of Department of Jobs, Precincts and Exploration Sup- Grant All Exploration
Jobs, Precincts and Regions port
Regions
details to be determined.
TDB indicates specific policy
Australian government agency
websites, as of December 2019.
Source: Author’s compilation, from
45
46
Acknowledgements
The Perth USAsia Centre would like to thank the wide range of individuals who have supported the production
of this report. Particular appreciation is extended to the delegates of the In The Zone 2019 conference, whose
insights have enriched the analysis. Many other individuals – across business, government and civil society
— kindly offered information and feedback, including participants in the Future Battery Industry Cooperative
Research Centre. Adam Holliday and Hugo Seymour contributed research and analysis on battery value chains
and Australian government policy regimes respectively. Nonetheless, the Principal Investigator is responsible
for all content and arguments contained herein.
About the
Research Team
PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR AND PROJECT LEAD: LEAD ANALYST:

Dr Jeffrey Wilson Dr Kirsten Martinus
Dr Jeffrey Wilson is the Research Director Dr Kirsten Martinus is a Senior Research Fellow
at the Perth USAsia Centre. He specialises in the Centre for Regional Development, School
in how transformations in the regional of Agriculture and Environment at the University
economic architecture – including trade of Western Australia. Her research bridges the
agreements, multilateral organisations disciplines of economic geography and urban studies
and policy dialogues – are reshaping the by analysis how both urban and socio-economic
contemporary economic and business factors increase economic competitiveness and
environment of Asia. He is the author of two mitigate uneven development in local contexts
books, over two dozen scholarly articles transformed by globalisation. She is the author of
and chapters, and a wide range of policy over 40 research papers on economic geography, and
analyses and reports for both Australian and currently holds two competitive Australian Research
international audiences. Council grants which seek to innovate on current
methods of urban network analysis.
http://perthusasia.edu.au/about-us/our-
people/staff/jeffrey-wilson https://research-repository.uwa.edu.au/en/persons/
@JDWilson08 kirsten-martinus
@kurbancafe
47
48
About the Future Battery

Industries Cooperative FUTURE
Research Centre BATTERY

INDUSTRIES CRC
FBICRC is an independent centre where industry, government and researchers can come together to create
the tools, technologies and skills to grow the role of battery storage in Australia’s electricity grids, and make
Australia a larger player in global battery value chains. Australian minerals are critical to the global battery
technology revolution. Our resources, thinking, innovation and expertise will enable us to seize this once in a
generation, national opportunity to develop the next wave of battery industries.
About the
Perth USAsia Centre
The Perth USAsia Centre located at The University of Western Australia is a non-partisan, not-for-profit
institution strengthening relationships and strategic thinking between Australia, the Indo-Pacific and the USA.
The Centre is a leading think tank focusing on geopolitical issues, policy development and building a strategic
affairs community across government, business and academia. Since the Centre’s inception in 2013, we have
collaborated with over forty partners to convene more than four hundred programs across sixteen cities in eight
countries, engaging a world-class community of over 10,000 strategic thinkers and policy leaders.
© Future Battery Industry Cooperative

Disclaimer Research Centre (FBI-CRC) 2020
This publication is designed to This publication is subject to copyright. Except as permitted under
provide accurate and authoritative the Copyright Act 1968, no part of it may in any form or by any means
information in relation to the subject (electronic, mechanical, microcopying, photocopying, recording or
matter covered. It is provided on the otherwise) be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted
understanding that the publisher is without prior written permission. Enquiries should be addressed to
not engaged in rendering any form the publisher.
of professional or other advice or
Notwithstanding the above, educational Institutions (including schools,
services. No person should rely on the
independent colleges, universities, and TAFEs) are granted permission
contents of this publication without
to make copies of copyrighted works strictly for educational purposes
first obtaining advice from a qualified
without explicit permission from the FBI-CRC and free of charge.
professional individual or agency.
FUTURE
BATTERY
INDUSTRIES CRC
Endnotes
1 Production of natural graphite has declined in recent years as synthetic graphite manufacturing has
increased to commercial scale. However, overall graphite demand remains strong.
2 United States Geological Survey (various years), Mineral Commodity Summaries, https://www.usgs.gov/
centers/nmic/mineral-commodity-summaries
3 Author’s calculations, from UN Comtrade Database, https://comtrade.un.org/. Note that international trade
statistics only report value of articles principally composed of named commodity (e.g. trade in lithium oxides
and carbonates).
4 Tobias Placke et al. (2017), ‘Lithium ion, lithium metal, and alternative rechargeable battery technologies: the
odyssey for high energy density’, Journal of Solid State Electrochemistry, 21(7): 1939-64.
5 Science Daily (2019), ‘A step for a promising new battery to store clean energy: Researchers find way to build
potassium-oxygen batteries that last longer’, May 13.
6 Sangwon Kim (2019), ‘Vanadium Redox Flow Batteries: Electrochemical Engineering’, https://www.
intechopen.com/online-first/vanadium-redox-flow-batteries-electrochemical-engineering
7 Lithium ferrophosphate batteries are also known as lithium iron phosphate (LiFePO4), as they use LiFePO4 as
the cathode material.
8 Marcelo Azevedo et al. (2018), ‘Lithium and Cobalt: A Tale of Two Commodities’, McKinsey & Company Metals
and Mining, https://www.mckinsey.com/industries/metals-and-mining/our-insights/lithium-and-cobalt-a-
tale-of-two-commodities
9 The West Australian (2017), ‘Lithium Australia produces 99.8% Li20 from uneconomic ore’, 12 May.
10 Advanced Rechargeable & Lithium Batteries Association (2018), The Batteries Report 2018, https://
rechargebatteries.org/
11 S&P Global Market Intelligence (2019), Essential Insights: Lithium Costs & Margins, https://pages.
marketintelligence.spglobal.com/Lithium-brine-vs-hard-rock-demo-confirmation-MJ-ad.html
12 The seven major nickel suppliers are Indonesia, the Philippines, New Caledonia, Russia, Australia, Canada
and China.
13 Author’s calculations from United States Geological Survey (various years), Mineral Commodity Summaries.
14 United States Geological Survey (various years), Mineral Commodity Summaries.
15 Xin Sun et al. (2017), ‘Tracing global lithium flow: a trade-linked material flow analysis’, Resources,
Conservation and Recycling, 124: 50-61.
16 Author’s calculations, from British Geological Survey (2019), World Mineral Production 2013-17, Keyworth:
British Geological Survey.
17 Chilean lithium hydroxide production is largely from SQM’s Salar de Carmen plant.
18 Xin Sun et al. (2017), ‘Tracing global lithium flow: a trade-linked material flow analysis’, Resources,
Conservation and Recycling, 124: 50-61, Figure 5.
19 Supra note 18.
20 Supra note 18.
21 Adrian Griffin (2019), Closing the Loop on the Energy Metal Life Cycle, https://lithium-au.com/wp-content/
uploads/2016/11/15052019-Lithium-Australia-121-Singapore-conference-presentation.pdf.
22 International Energy Agency (2019), Global EV Outlook 2019: Scaling-up the transition to electric mobility,
Paris: IEA.
23 International Renewable Energy Agency (2017), Electricity storage and renewables: Costs and markets to 2030,
Abu Dhabi: IRENA.
24 Australian Trade and Investment Commission (2018), The Lithium-ion Battery Value Chain: New Economy
Opportunities for Australia, p. 8.
25 See US National Academies of Science (2009), Minerals, Critical Materials and the US Economy, Washington,
D.C.: The National Academies Press.
26 Criticality studies for specific countries are as follows: European Commission (2017), ‘List of Critical Raw
Materials for the EU’, No. COM(2017)/490, https://ec.europa.eu/transparency/regdoc/rep/1/2017/EN/COM-
2017-490-F1-EN-MAIN-PART-1.PDF; Department of Energy (US) (2011), Critical Materials Strategy 2011, https://
www.energy.gov/sites/prod/files/DOE_CMS2011_FINAL_Full.pdf; Geosciences Australia (2013), Critical
commodities for a high‑tech world: Australia’s potential to supply global demand, Canberra: Geosciences Australia;
Hiroki Hatayama and Kiyotaka Tahara (2015), ‘Criticality Assessment of Metals for Japan’s Resource Strategy’,
Materials Transactions, 56(2): 229-235; Department of Science and Technology (India) & Council on Energy Water
and Environment (India), Critical Non-Fuel Mineral Resources for India’s Manufacturing Sector: A Vision for 2030,
New Delhi: CEEW
49
50
27 The union list of the thirty commodities identified in the policies listed at note 26 is: Antimony, Baryte,
Beryllium, Bismuth, Chromium, Cobalt, Fluorspar, Gallium, Germanium, Helium, Indium, Lithium, Magnesium,
Manganese, Molybdenum, Natural Graphite, Nickel, Niobium, Phosphate Rock, Platinum Group Metals, Rare
Earth Minerals, Selenium, Silicon Metal, Tantalum, Tin, Titanium, Tungsten, Vanadium, Zinc, Zirconium.
28 The Australia, Japanese and Indian governments have officially identified all six battery minerals as critical
materials in their respective criticality assessments. However, the US government omits cobalt and nickel, and
the EU lithium and nickel. See note 26.
29 Author’s calculations, from United Nations Statistics Division, UN Comtrade Database, https://comtrade.
un.org/
Opportunities for Australia, p. 30.
31 Supra note 16.
32 At present, only one non-Chinese company – Australia’s Lynas Corporation – supplies a separated rare
earth oxide (Nd-Pr) product at commercial scale. However, as Nd-Pr is used for permanent magnets in EV
motors, it is not strictly a part of the battery value chain. All other rare earth producers supply mixed oxide
products, which require further separation by Chinese refineries.
33 United States Geological Survey (2019), Mineral Commodity Summaries 2019.
34 United States Geological Survey (various years), Mineral Commodity Summaries.
35 Author’s calculations, from OECD (2018), Inventory on export restrictions on Industrial Raw Materials, https://
qdd.oecd.org/subject.aspx?Subject=ExportRestrictions_IndustrialRawMaterials
36 Roy Licklider (1988), ‘The Power of Oil: The Arab Oil Weapon and the Netherlands, the United Kingdom,
Canada,
Japan, and the United States’, International Studies Quarterly, 32(2): 205–26.
37 Gabriel Collins (2017), Russia’s Use of the “Energy Weapon” in Europe, Baker Institute for Public Policy,
https://www.bakerinstitute.org/media/files/files/ac785a2b/BI-Brief-071817-CES_Russia1.pdf
38 Jeffrey Wilson (2018), ‘Whatever happened to the rare earths weapon? Critical materials and international
security in Asia’, Asian Security, 14(3): 358-373.
39 Jeffrey Wilson (2019), ‘Are we ready for a rare earths trade war?’, The Interpreter, https://www.
lowyinstitute.org/the-interpreter/are-we-ready-rare-earths-trade-war
40 Clare Church and Alec Crawford (2018), Green Conflict Minerals: The fuels of conflict in the transition to a
low-carbon economy, International Institute for Sustainable Development, https://www.iisd.org/story/green-
conflict-minerals/
41 Supra note 40.
42 Philippe Le Billon (2004), ‘The Geopolitical Economy of ‘Resource Wars’’, Geopolitics 9(1): 1–28.
43 John Orme (1997), ‘The Utility of Force in a World of Scarcity’, International Security, 22(3): 138–67.
44 Paul Collier (2003), ‘Natural Resources, Development and Conflict: Channels of Causation and Policy
Interventions’, World Bank Working Papers (No. 28730), Washington, D.C.: The World Bank.
45 The Atlantic (2011), ‘Is Your Cell Phone Fuelling Civil War in Congo?’, 11 July.
46 National Geographic (2019), ‘Lithium is powering today’s technology – at what price?’, https://www.
nationalgeographic.com/magazine/2019/02/lithium-is-fueling-technology-today-at-what-cost/
47 Wired (2018, ‘The spiralling environmental cost of our lithium battery addiction’, 5 August.
48 Liam Downey et al. (2010), ‘Natural Resource Extraction, Armed Violence, and Environmental Degradation’,
Organization & Environment, 23(4): 417-45.
49 BBC News (2015), ‘The dystopian lake filled by the world’s tech lust’, 2 April.
50 The Guardian (2018), ‘Is your phone tainted by the misery of the 35,000 children in Congo’s mines?’, October
12.
51 The Washington Post, ‘The cobalt pipeline’, 30 September.
52 Green Tech Media (2017), ‘The Hidden Risks of Batteries: Child Labor, Modern Slavery, and Weakened Land
and Water Rights’, 29 March.
53 Vivian Walt and Sebastian Meyer (2018), ‘Blood, sweat and batteries’, Fortune, 23 August; Sean Fleming
(2018), The hidden cost of the electric car boom – child labour’, 24 September, https://www.weforum.org/
agenda/2018/09/the-hidden-cost-of-the-electric-car-boom-child-labour/
54 Ethics Centre (2018), ‘Ethics Explainer: Social license to operate’, https://ethics.org.au/ethics-explainer-
social-license-to-operate/
55 The Guardian (2019), ‘Apple and Google named in US lawsuit over Congolese child cobalt mining deaths’, 16
December.
Endnotes
Endnotes
56 Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative (2018), EITI Factsheet, https://eiti.org/sites/default/files/

documents/eiti_factsheet_en_oct2018.pdf; Responsible Minerals Initiative (2018), ‘About the Responsible
Minerals Initiative’, http://www.responsiblemineralsinitiative.org/about/; OECD (2013), OECD Due Diligence
Guidance for Responsible Supply Chains of Minerals from Conflict-Affected and High-Risk Areas, Paris: OECD;
Reuters (2018), ‘Daimler joins China’s Responsible Cobalt Initiative’, 25 April; World Economic Forum
(2019), WEF Global Battery Alliance, https://www.weforum.org/global-battery-alliance/home; Initiative
for Responsible Mining Assurance (2018), IRMA Standard for Responsible Mining IRMA-STD-001, https://
responsiblemining.net/resources/.
57 Google (2018), ‘Responsible Supply Chain Report 2018’, https://storage.googleapis.com/gweb-
sustainability.appspot.com/RSC/Google_2018-RSC-Report.pdf
58 Toyota (2012), Supplier CSR Guidelines, https://global.toyota/pages/global_toyota/sustainability/esg/
supplier_csr_en.pdf
59 Intel (2019), Supply chain responsibility at Intel’, https://www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/corporate-
responsibility/supply-chain.html
60 Du Pont (2018), Du Pont 2018 Global Reporting Initiative Report, https://www.dupont.com/content/dam/
assets/corporate-functions/our-approach/sustainability/documents/DuPont%20GRI_Report_2018.pdf
61 Volkswagen (2019), ‘Volkswagen Group commits suppliers to sustainability’, https://www.volkswagenag.
com/en/news/2019/06/volkswagen-group-commits-suppliers-to-sustainability.html
62 GE (2019), Human Rights & Supply Chain, https://www.ge.com/sustainability/human-rights-supply-chain
63 Samsung (2018), ‘Responsible Management of Supply Chain’, https://www.samsung.com/us/
aboutsamsung/sustainability/supply-chain/
64 IBM (2018), ‘Supply chain responsibility’, https://www.ibm.com/ibm/responsibility/responsibility.shtml;
65 Apple Corporation (2018), ‘Supplier Responsibility’, https://www.apple.com/supplier-responsibility/
66 General Motors (2018), 2018 Sustainability Report, https://www.gmsustainability.com/manage/supply.html;
67 Kimberley Process (2018), ‘What is the Kimberley Process?’, https://www.kimberleyprocess.com/en/what-
kp;
68 European Commission (2008), The Raw Materials Initiative — Meeting Our Critical Needs for Growth and Jobs in
Europe, http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/policies/raw-materials/index_en.htm#top
69 European Commission (2019), Report from the Commission to the European Parliament, the European Council,
the European Economic and Social Committee, the Committee of the Regions and the European Investment Bank
on the Implementation of the Strategic Action Plan on Batteries: Building a Strategic Battery Value Chain in Europe,
COM(2019) 176 Final, https://ec.europa.eu/commission/sites/beta-political/files/report-building-strategic-
battery-value-chain-april2019_en.pdf
70 European Commission (2019), ‘State aid: Commission approves €3.2 billion public support by seven
Member States for a pan-European research and innovation project in all segments of the battery value chain’,
https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/ip_19_6705
71 Ministry of Economy Trade and Industry (Japan) (2009), Strategy for Ensuring Stable Supplies of Rare Metals,
http://www.meti.go.jp/english/press/data/20090728_01.html
72 Department of Energy (US) (2010), Critical Materials Strategy, Washington, D.C.: US Department of Energy.
73 Department of Commerce (US) (2019), A Federal Strategy to Ensure Secure and Reliable Supplies of Critical
Minerals, https://www.commerce.gov/news/reports/2019/06/federal-strategy-ensure-secure-and-reliable-
supplies-critical-minerals
74 Department of Science and Technology (India) & Council on Energy Water and Environment (India), Critical
Non-Fuel Mineral Resources for India’s Manufacturing Sector: A Vision for 2030, New Delhi: CEEW.
75 Advanced Rechargeable & Lithium Batteries Association (2018), PEFCR - Product Environmental Footprint
Category Rules for High Specific Energy Rechargeable Batteries for Mobile Applications, https://ec.europa.eu/
environment/eussd/smgp/pdf/PEFCR_Batteries.pdf
76 Geoscience Australia (2019), Australia’s Identified Mineral Resources 2018, http://www.ga.gov.au/scientific-
topics/minerals/mineral-resources-and-advice/aimr
77 United States Geological Survey (2019), Mineral Commodity Summaries 2019.

78 Geoscience Australia (2013), Critical commodities for a high‑tech world: Australia’s potential to supply global
demand, https://www.ga.gov.au/data-pubs/data-and-publications-search/publications/critical-commodities-
for-a-high-tech-world
79 Albemarle (2019), ‘Kemerton, Western Australia’, https://www.albemarle.com/businesses/lithium/
locations/western-australia/kemerton-western-australia
80 Tianqi Lithium (2019), ‘Tianqi Lithium in Australia’, https://www.tianqilithium.com.au/site/content/
81 BHP (2019), Nickel West, https://www.bhp.com/our-businesses/minerals-australia/nickel-west/
82 Northern Minerals (2019), ‘Browns Range – Processing’, https://northernminerals.com.au/
projects/#browns-range
Opportunities for Australia, Fig 31.
51
52
84 Fraser Institute (2018), Annual Survey of Mining Companies 2018, https://www.fraserinstitute.org/studies/

annual-survey-of-mining-companies-2018
85 Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade (2019), ‘Australia’s free trade agreements’, https://dfat.gov.au/
trade/agreements/Pages/trade-agreements.aspx
86 Per Chapter 8 of the Japan-Australia Economic Partnership Agreement 2015. Annex 5 of the agreement further
specifies a list of 63 mineral commodities which are subject to these cooperation mechanisms. See https://dfat.
gov.au/trade/agreements/in-force/jaepa/full-text/Pages/full-text-of-jaepa.aspx
87 China Briefing (2019), ‘The US-China Trade War: A Timeline’, https://www.china-briefing.com/news/the-us-
china-trade-war-a-timeline/
88 The Economist (2019), ‘It’s the end of the World Trade Organisation as we know it’, 28 November.
89 Jeffrey Wilson (2018), Expanding the TPP? Options, prospects and implications for the Indo-Pacific, Perth: Perth
USAsia Centre, https://perthusasia.edu.au/expanding-the-tpp.
90 Jeffrey Wilson (2019), ‘India’s RCEP exit a setback, but not a disaster’, Lowy Interpreter, 6 November.
91 Jeffrey Wilson (2019), Blueprints for the Indo-Pacific: Infrastructure and connectivity programs for regional
integration, Perth: Perth USAsia Centre, http://perthusasia.edu.au/blueprints-for-the-indo-pacific
92 Geoscience Australia (2013), Critical commodities for a high‑tech world: Australia’s potential to supply global
demand, Canberra: Geoscience Australia
Opportunities for Australia.
94 Department of Industry, Innovation and Science (Australia) (2019), Australia’s Critical Minerals Strategy,
https://www.industry.gov.au/data-and-publications/australias-critical-minerals-strategy
95 Commonwealth of Australia (2019), ‘CRC selection round outcomes’, https://www.business.gov.au/
Assistance/Cooperative-Research-Centres-Programme/Cooperative-Research-Centres-CRCs-Grants/
current-CRC-selection-round
96 Government of Western Australia (2019), Future Battery Industry Strategy, https://www.jtsi.wa.gov.au/
economic-development/economy/future-battery-industry-strategy/future-battery-industry-strategy
97 Diamond-focussed certification schemes of relevance include blockchain products from Everledger and
DiamsLedger. See Everledger (2019), ‘Industry applications’, https://www.everledger.io/industry-applications
and Coindesk (2018), ‘New Blockchain App Claims Its Already Tracking 760,000 Diamonds’, https://www.
coindesk.com/new-blockchain-app-claims-its-already-tracking-760000-diamonds
98 ACT Government (2019), Canberra 100% Renewable: Leading Innovation with 100% renewable energy by 2020,
https://www.environment.act.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0007/987991/100-Renewal-Energy-Tri-fold-
ACCESS.pdf; Energy NSW (2019), Clean energy initiatives, https://energy.nsw.gov.au/renewables/clean-energy-
initiatives; Northern Territory Government (2019), Roadmap to Renewables, https://roadmaptorenewables.
nt.gov.au/; Department of Natural Resources, Mines and Energy Queensland (2019), Powering Queensland
Plan: an integrated energy strategy for the state, https://www.dnrme.qld.gov.au/energy/initiatives/powering-
queensland; Department for Energy and Mining South Australia (2019), Clean Energy Transition, http://www.
energymining.sa.gov.au/clean_energy_transition; Department of State Growth Tasmania (2019), Tasmanian
Energy Strategy, https://www.stategrowth.tas.gov.au/energy_and_resources/energy/strategy; Department
of Environment, Land, Water and Planning Victoria (2019), Victoria’s Renewable Energy Action Plan, https://
www.energy.vic.gov.au/renewable-energy/victorias-renewable-energy-action-plan; Government of Western
Australia (2019), Energy Transformation Strategy, https://www.wa.gov.au/organisation/energy-policy-wa/
energy-transformation-strategy
99 Australian Renewable Energy Agency (2019), ‘Distributed energy resources’, https://arena.gov.au/
renewable-energy/distributed-energy-resources/
100 Horizon Power (2019), ‘Carnarvon Distributed Energy Resources (DER) trials’, https://horizonpower.com.
au/our-community/projects/carnarvon-distributed-energy-resources-der-trials/; Australian Renewable
Energy Agency (2019), ‘Demonstration of Three Dynamic Grid-Side Technologies’, https://arena.gov.au/
projects/demonstration-of-three-dynamic-grid-side-technologies/
Endnotes
53
The governance
of battery value chains:
SECURITY, SUSTAINABILITY AND AUSTRALIAN POLICY OPTIONS

The Governance of Battery Value Chains

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Governance of Battery Value Chains

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Governance of Battery Value Chains

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

FUTURE

Executive summary 5 Introduction 6

Global value chains in the

International strategies for improving

Key findings and next steps 38 Appendix 39

About the Perth USAsia Centre 48 Endnotes 49

The governance of battery value chains

The governance of battery value chains

Global value Battery manufacture relies on a set of raw materials with

SIX BATTERY MINERALS

Cobalt Graphite Lithium

Nickel Rare earth

The production of battery minerals is a major international

Table 1. Production, trade and reserves of battery minerals, 2017

World production Production growth Life of proven International trade

Cobalt 120 83.2% 58 552.7

Source: Author’s calculations from USGS2 and UN Comtrade Database3.

Figure 2. Historic and future battery chemistries

PRIMARY SOLID-STATE LI-ION (LIB)

Source: Author’s adaptation from Placke et al4

Figure 3. Technical value chain for LFP battery chemistry

SiLeach® Used in other

PARALLEL VALUE CHAINS

Source: Author’s elaboration

Figure 4. Proven reserves and production of major lithium producers, 2018

% Share proven reserves Share production

Argentina Australia Chile China Japan Korea Others

Source: Authors adaption from Sun et al. 201718

Figure 6. Technology applications of lithium-ion batteries, 2016

Energy Storage 16%

Figure 7. Lithium-ion battery production by application and country, 2016

US China Japan EU Others

Source: Author’s adaptation from data in Sun et al. 201720

Figure 8. New technology drivers of battery and battery mineral demand

Renewables and new Electrification in Other uses (super-alloys,

Unfortunately, the value The six battery minerals are members of a

There is no universally-agreed list of critical Figure 9. Criticality matrix for defining

The use of critical materials means battery

The governance of battery value chains

Figure 10. Producer concentration in battery minerals, 2017

% First Second Third Fourth Fifth

Figure 11. Price volatility in battery minerals, 2009-2018

Cobalt Graphite Lithium Nickel Rare Earths (Ndioxide) Vanadium

Table 2. Global trade restrictions on battery components, 2017

Export Licensing Other export

Sustainability risks Sustainability risks are an equally important – if sometimes

Figure 12. Political instability in battery mineral-rich countries

Located in fragile or very fragile states

In some countries, social conflicts are catalysed by the

Box 1. Social conflicts in battery mineral suppliers

COBALT IN THE DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC OF THE CONGO: The mining

Source: Adapted from case studies in Church and Crawford41

governance purpose to support the energy system transitions required in

Private sector governance initiatives

Box 2. Private sector-led governance initiatives in the battery value chain

EXTRACTIVE INDUSTRIES TRANSPARENCY INITIATIVE (2003):

RESPONSIBLE MINERALS INITIATIVE (2008):

OECD DUE DILIGENCE GUIDANCE FOR RESPONSIBLE SUPPLY CHAINS OF

RESPONSIBLE COBALT INITIATIVE (2016):