DElta 3 Core Tec blog

Lithium Battery Materials Weekly (Aug 21, 2025): Divided Pricing Trend. Anodes Steady, LFP Up, LiOH Firm; LiPF₆ & LiF Break Higher

Written by

Palash Gangopadhyay

in

, , , , , ,

Executive Summary (Chinese Domestic Market)

  • Graphite Anodes Steady: Artificial anode prices were unchanged this week (high-end ~¥42–65k; mid-tier ~¥21–32k; low-end ~¥16–22k) amid tepid spot orders. Downstream battery plants drew on inventories, keeping anode demand and pricing flat.
  • Anode Feedstocks Flat: Key carbon feedstocks for anodes held largely stable week-on-week. Low-sulfur petroleum coke (GPC) averaged ¥2,635/t (flat), calcined coke (CPC) saw a modest +¥100 uptick to ¥2,300/t, while needle coke (¥7.5–8.3k/t) and coal tar pitch (¥3.9–4.1k/t) were steady overall.
  • Cathodes Firming: Lithium cathode materials extended gains. NCM series (e.g. 5-series ~¥119k, 8-series ~¥147k) rose ~1–2% with renewed EV precursor demand. LFP cathodes climbed ~2–3% week-on-week (to ~¥37.5k for power grade) on robust energy storage orders. High-Co LCO prices jumped ~3% amid small-batch electronics restocking.
  • Lithium Salts Mixed: Battery-grade lithium carbonate (¥82–84k) spiked then eased late week, reflecting a cooling spot market. In contrast, battery lithium hydroxide (¥75–84.5k) ran firm with producers curtailing output and holding offers high. LiOH’s supply tightness maintained its price despite Li₂CO₃ fluctuations.
  • Electrolyte Components Break Higher: Lithium hexafluorophosphate (LiPF₆) prices ramped up further to ~¥54k/t (↑week-on-week) amid low inventory and rising electrolyte demand. Lithium fluoride (LiF) surged to ~¥140–146.5k (battery-grade) on raw material constraints. Both fluoride salts are poised for additional gains as producers run at capacity.
  • Solvents & Additives Stable: Key electrolyte solvents and additives were static. VC held ~¥45–47k; FEC ~¥31.5k; LiFSI ~¥62.5k (no change); and ethylene carbonate ~¥4,650/t (flat). Balanced supply-demand and steady upstream costs kept these intermediates in check.
  • Upstream P & F Chemicals Plateau: Yellow phosphorus stabilized ~¥22.5k after earlier rises; phosphorus pentachloride stayed ~¥4.35k with LiPF₆ demand steady. Phosphoric acid (thermal ~¥6.68k, wet ~¥6.44k) remained in consolidation. Anhydrous HF hovered ~¥9.9–10.1k (East China) under tight supply but sluggish downstream uptake. Near-term, these precursor markets are seen holding flat to slightly soft.
  • Trade Snapshot (July 2025): China’s NCM cathode exports dropped to 6.37 kt in Jul (−40% MoM) amid higher domestic uptake, even as imports (5.56 kt, mostly from S. Korea) remained elevated. LFP exports hit a record 2.74 kt (+35% MoM) with strong shipments to the U.S. and Vietnam. LMO trade stayed modest (exports 0.30 kt, mainly to S. Korea; one-off 0.07 kt import from Japan). These flows underscore China’s growing role as both source and sink in the battery supply chain.

Figure 1: Weekly segment trend heatmap. Each key segment’s week-on-week movement is shown (↑ up, → steady). Anode materials were flat amid soft demand; cathode materials (NCM, LFP, LCO, LMO) strengthened; lithium salts (carbonate, hydroxide) stayed firm; electrolyte chain components jumped; and upstream intermediates plateaued

Market Overview & Context

Segments Covered: This weekly report spans the lithium-ion battery supply chain – from anode materials (graphite) and their carbon feedstocks (cokes, pitch), to cathode active materials (NCM, LFP, LCO, LMO) and their precursors (lithium, cobalt, etc.), as well as the electrolyte and its key ingredients (LiPF₆ salt, solvents, additives), and even upstream fluorine/phosphorus chemicals. All prices are Chinese domestic market averages, denominated in RMB with USD equivalents (at the report’s rate USD 1 = CNY 7.1345). The period under review is mid-August 2025 (week ending Aug. 21). Overall, this week saw a steady state in anode materials versus mild upticks in cathodes, while lithium chemicals diverged (carbonate easing, hydroxide firm) and the electrolyte chain experienced a bullish push. Downstream, China’s EV production continued to grow year-on-year in July, supporting a generally positive demand outlook.

LIB Anode Materials (Graphite Anodes)

Price Indicators: Artificial graphite anode prices were unchanged this week, holding at levels set earlier in August. High-performance grades (high capacity, high-rate) remained around ¥42,000–65,000 per ton (≈$5.9k–9.1k), mid-tier products (≥350 mAh/g capacity) at ¥21,000–32,000/t ($2.9k–4.5k), and lower-grade materials (≥330 mAh/g) at ¥16,000–22,000/t ($2.24k–3.08k). These ranges represent mainstream transaction prices for domestic Chinese anode material as of Aug. 21. In practice, representative market prices were stable week-on-week – e.g. a typical high-end artificial anode was ~¥53,500/t (same as last week). Natural graphite anodes (used in some applications) similarly saw no price change, with high-end natural graphite anode at ~¥50,000/t (unchanged).

Demand & Supply Dynamics: Downstream battery manufacturers continued a hand-to-mouth procurement pattern. Many cell producers are still working through existing anode inventories, so new orders were limited despite an uptick in end-use demand for energy storage batteries. On the supply side, Chinese anode material output dipped slightly versus the prior week. Some anode plants have scaled back run rates amid industry overcapacity. Notably, larger anode suppliers have maintained production, but many mid- and small-sized producers are cutting prices to chase orders in a buyer’s market. Inventory levels present a mixed picture: natural flake graphite feedstock inventories are high, whereas finished spherical graphite (anode-ready) inventories are relatively low after some producers drew them down.

Market Outlook: With aggressive capacity expansions in H2 2025 and fierce price competition, anode prices are expected to remain under pressure. Even as China’s EV output growth and supportive policies may eventually lift anode demand, in the short term the overhang of supply and leftover stocks lets cell makers negotiate prices down. Industry consensus is that the anode market will stay in a low-level equilibrium (weak pricing power) in the near term. Suppliers’ margins are thin, and any cost savings on inputs could be quickly passed on in lower prices.

Key Anode Feedstocks (Coke, Needle Coke, Pitch)

The upstream carbon raw materials for anode production – including petroleum coke (green and calcined), needle coke, and coal tar pitch – were largely stable this week, reflecting a well-supplied domestic market and only minor cost changes.

  • Natural Graphite Feedstock: Flake graphite prices in Northeast China held at ¥2,000–2,900/t (for −195 mesh grade), with Shandong flake at a slight premium (~¥2,300–3,200 for −195). Spherical graphite (processed flake for anodes) remained around ¥9,000–11,000/t (large size) and ¥10,000–12,000/t (small size) depending on region. Averages were flat week-over-week (e.g. big sphere ~¥9,500 NE China, unchanged). Market brief: Natural graphite trade was uneventful, with plants fulfilling long-term contracts and some restarting output as their inventories thinned. Demand was lukewarm – aside from anode makers buying minimal volumes on rigid need, other uses (refractories) were weak. Despite slightly rising supply (some flake producers kept normal output, spherical producers resuming runs), the market remains in a stalemate. High flake stocks and low spherical stocks indicate buy-sell confrontation, likely keeping natural graphite prices low near-term.
  • Green & Calcined Pet Coke (GPC/CPC): The green petroleum coke market was stable-to-weak. Major state-owned refineries held GPC prices mostly steady, with a few slight corrections. Independent refineries trimmed mid/low-sulfur GPC prices in pockets by ¥10–270/t, reflecting ample supply. As of Aug. 21, average GPC price was ~¥2,635/t (≈$369), virtually unchanged week-on-week. Some Sinopec refiners even raised official GPC prices by ¥20–100 (seeking margin), but others had to discount to move product. Calcined petroleum coke (mid-sulfur, S<3.5%) actually ticked up: mainstream CPC rose to ¥2,300/t (from ¥2,200). This ~4.5% increase was supported by steady aluminum industry demand and slightly costlier green coke inputs. However, graphite anode producers remained cautious buyers of CPC, given still-high inventory and only incremental anode production growth. Looking ahead, CPC suppliers expect prices to stay mostly stable with a slight upward bias on some grades, perhaps +¥100–150 in the coming week if anode or aluminum orders pick up.
  • Needle Coke: Domestic needle coke prices were flat. Calcined needle coke (domestic) traded around ¥7,500–8,300/t (≈$1,050–1,163), with raw (green) needle coke at ¥5,548–6,000. Imported needle coke likewise saw little change – oil-based needle coke ~$600–1,200/t and coal-based calcined ~$800–820/t on the spot market. The market is characterized by high costs and tepid demand. Oil feedstock prices (slurry, crude) inched up, keeping production costs elevated, while coal tar (for coal-based needle) remained pricey. Most needle coke producers ran at low utilization to reduce oversupply. On the demand side, graphite electrode manufacturers and anode makers only procured on a just-in-time basis. With such conditions, needle coke prices are expected to hold steady. Industry insiders forecast next week’s needle coke range to remain at ¥7,500–8,300 for calcined and ~¥5,548–6,000 for raw, unchanged barring a significant downstream pickup.
  • Coal Tar Pitch: The coal tar pitch market showed a mixed but mostly stable picture. Regionally, there were small upticks in some areas: e.g. modified pitch in North China averaged ¥3,972 (up from ¥3,898), and East China ¥4,139 (up from ¥3,967), indicating ~2–4% gains. Other regions held flat. Overall modified pitch hovered ~¥3,800–4,050/t for aluminum-grade and ¥4,150/t for higher-grade (graphite use). Medium-temperature pitch traded ~¥3,800–3,950 in major markets. Despite these quotes, by Aug. 21 no large new spot orders had been reported – buyers were hesitant as feedstock coal tar costs actually softened and downstream electrode/anode demand was muted. Inventory started building at pitch producers. Forecast: Sentiment turned mildly bearish. Producers expect fresh pitch order prices to edge down ~¥50/t short-term, given cheap coal tar feedstock and downstream production cuts in carbon products. Essentially, any support from reduced pitch supply (some distillers cut runs) is offset by weak demand, so pitch prices may slip slightly in coming weeks.

Figure 2: Indicative cost breakdown for artificial graphite anode production. Roughly 40% of the cost comes from calcined petroleum coke feedstock (derived from GPC), ~15% from needle coke (used especially for high-performance anodes), ~10% from coal tar pitch binder, and ~35% from processing & other costs (energy-intensive graphitization, coating, labor, overhead). Stable feedstock prices this week imply that any margin changes for anode producers will come from operational efficiencies rather than raw material cost swings.

LIB Cathode Materials (NCM, LFP, LCO, LMO)

Cathode active material prices moved higher across the board this reporting week, supported by upstream cost pressures and steady-to-improving demand in both EV and consumer battery segments.

  • NCM (Nickel Cobalt Manganese) Cathodes: The NCM market continued its upward trend. Average prices rose for major grades, reaching approximately ¥119,300/t ($16,722) for 5-series NCM (single crystal, EV grade) and ¥147,400/t ($20,660) for 8-series (polycrystalline, high-Ni). Mid-Ni compositions like NCM 111 and 6-series also inched up to ~¥121–124k. These ~¥1–2k increases reflect ongoing cost push and selective restocking. Lithium carbonate (a key input) saw a transient spike which lifted precursor costs, and lithium hydroxide remained expensive. NCM precursor prices in fact “witnessed further growth” this week, squeezing cathode makers’ margins unless they adjusted offers. On the supply side, leading NCM cathode producers in China ramped output after some had cut back in prior months. Smaller firms still produced mainly to order (avoiding inventory build). Demand: There were signs of life, particularly for 6-series NCM used in consumer electronics, as well as an uptick in export orders (overseas buyers). Many battery makers purchased on long-term contracts, but some had begun to replenish stocks after running them down. With high raw material costs starting to ease (lithium carbonate peaked then fell back) and precursors possibly only rising mildly, NCM prices may soon stabilize. The expectation is for short-term fluctuations around current levels, rather than continued sharp rises.
  • LFP (Lithium Iron Phosphate) Cathodes: The LFP market extended its rally from the previous week. Both power-battery grade and energy-storage grade LFP saw price increases, ending at ¥37,550/t ($5,263) and ¥36,550/t ($5,123) respectively. That’s roughly a ¥800–950 gain week-over-week for each grade (+2% WoW). Drivers: LFP producers reported significantly improved demand from the EV (power) sector alongside sustained strong orders from the stationary storage sector. Downstream cell manufacturers actively replenished LFP inventories ahead of the fall peak production season. On the supply side, most major LFP cathode plants were running at high utilization (some at full capacity) to keep up. A few smaller producers, however, have begun to slow output, possibly due to resource constraints or maintenance. Raw material inputs for LFP – primarily iron phosphate and lithium carbonate – were relatively stable (iron phosphate prices paused after prior declines). This gave LFP makers an opportunity to expand margins slightly as they raised cathode prices. Outlook: The consensus is for LFP to hold within an elevated range near term. Big producers are adding a bit more output, but some second/third-tier firms are tapping the brakes, which should prevent oversupply. With lithium carbonate expected to drift downward modestly and iron phosphate in a stalemate, LFP prices are likely to undulate around current levels rather than spike further.
  • LCO (Lithium Cobalt Oxide) Cathodes: LCO prices climbed for a second consecutive week. All common voltage grades of LCO saw gains of ¥6k–7k per ton (~+3%). By Aug. 21, standard 4.35 V LCO averaged ~¥224,500/t ($31,467), and the highest-spec 4.50–4.53 V grades were ¥240–243.5k/t ($33.7–34.1k). These are significant prices, reflecting the still-high cobalt cost and specialized nature of LCO (used in consumer electronics). This week’s LCO rally was attributed to a flurry of small-volume restocking: some downstream device manufacturers and battery assemblers replenished LCO on a rigid-demand or trial basis after completely depleting their inventories. Also, with new smartphone and laptop models launching in H2 2025, there’s anticipation that digital device makers will boost procurement slightly. On the supply side, LCO producers largely stuck to existing orders – many are running only to fulfill prior contracts and remain cautious about overproducing. Cobalt-based raw material costs (notably cobaltosic oxide) were steady this week, so the LCO price rise is more demand-driven than cost-push. Outlook: LCO suppliers expect a range-bound but firm market in the short term. With cobalt prices high and LCO producers not eager to flood the market, LCO will likely maintain these elevated price levels. Any upside is capped by lukewarm overall demand, but any downside is limited by producers’ resolve to only make to order. The forecast calls for LCO to fluctuate within this range next week, barring a major change in terminal orders.
  • LMO (Lithium Manganese Oxide) Cathodes: LMO prices pushed upward again, continuing a modest rally. By Aug. 21, high-performance LMO (dynamical-type, using MnO₂ feed) averaged ¥38,000/t ($5,326), while standard energy-type LMO was ¥35,500/t ($4,976). These represent increases of ¥1,500–2,000 over the prior week for certain specs (+4%). LMO made from Mn₃O₄ (lower-grade) was cheaper (¥31–34k) but similarly up ~¥1k. Context: Manganese-based cathodes are mainly used in combination (LMO is often blended with NMC in EV cells or used in power tools). The market saw slightly improved buying for high-end LMO, as some battery makers started early replenishment of the “dynamical” LMO for power applications. Meanwhile, purchases of “volumetric” LMO (for energy density, e.g. small cells) were on an as-needed basis. Supply-wise, large LMO producers kept output stable, but several mid-small producers either cut production or went on maintenance this month. This tightened availability of top-quality LMO, whereas low-end LMO is still plentiful (hence more competition there). With lithium carbonate’s earlier rise now reversing, one cost pressure is easing, and manganese dioxide feedstock prices held flat. Outlook: The LMO market is seen consolidating at these slightly higher levels. High-end LMO supply is relatively tight (supporting price floors), but the fiercely competitive low-end segment and uncertain downstream demand will likely prevent any big run-up. In short, expect LMO to maintain current prices in the near term, with a stable to gently firm bias.

Lithium & Salts (Lithium Carbonate, Hydroxide)

Lithium chemicals experienced divergent trends this week: lithium carbonate (LCE) showed a spike-and-dip volatility, while lithium hydroxide (LiOH) remained solidly high.

  • Lithium Carbonate (Li₂CO₃): The LCE market rallied early in the week then softened. By Aug. 21, industrial-grade LCE (99.2% Li₂CO₃) was trading around ¥81,000–83,000/t, with an average of ¥82,000 (~$11,500). Battery-grade LCE (99.5% min) commanded a slight premium at ¥82,000–84,000/t (avg ¥83,000, ~$11,634). These prices are a bit higher than a few weeks prior, indicating a short-term run-up. Notably, lithium carbonate futures on the Wuxi exchange mirrored this pattern – surging and then sliding back in the latter half of the week. Market participants reported that many lithium producers were able to sell at high prices during the upswing, as downstream cathode makers, concerned about supply, stepped in with immediate orders. However, demand is still opportunistic: buyers jumped in on fear-of-missing-out, then quickly retreated as prices peaked. Production-wise, some LCE plants in East China were offline for maintenance, while others came back online during the week, resulting in a roughly stable supply situation. Inventory at producers was “safe” (i.e. moderate) thanks to those active shipments during the price spike. Outlook: The consensus is that lithium carbonate will likely fluctuate downward in the near term. The recent high prices aren’t fully supported by fundamentals – with supply recovering and speculative buying cooling, LCE could ease off its highs. Indeed, as of Aug. 21, signs point to a plateau and potential gradual decline ahead.
  • Lithium Hydroxide (LiOH): In contrast to carbonate, LiOH held firm at elevated levels. Battery-grade LiOH – particularly the fine micropowder grade used for high-nickel cathodes – was priced around ¥80,000–84,500/t (avg ¥82,250, ~$11,528). The coarser granular grade was a bit lower at ¥75,000–80,000/t (avg ¥77,500, $10,863). Industrial-grade LiOH was ¥70–74k (avg ¥72k). LiOH prices didn’t waver week-on-week – in fact, sentiment was bullish. Why so firm? A key factor is cost support: lithium feedstocks (spodumene concentrate) and lithium carbonate remained costly, so LiOH producers faced high input costs. Many LiOH refiners were determined to maintain offer levels and not undersell. Additionally, several LiOH plants with external raw material dependence had to cut production due to those expensive inputs. Some producers with captive resources underwent scheduled turnarounds. Overall, LiOH supply tightened slightly in August, though the market still has overcapacity in absolute terms. On the demand side, battery manufacturers slightly increased LiOH procurement this week – likely locking in volumes for high-nickel NCA/NCM cathodes, anticipating that LiOH might remain pricier relative to carbonate. Sellers reported fulfilling long-term contracts first and showed reluctance to sell spot unless prices met their targets. Outlook: LiOH is expected to stay at high plateau into next week. Even though the lithium market overall has surplus elements, the combination of producers curbing output and buyers needing LiOH for specific cathode chemistries is keeping this segment tight. Notably, the usual LiOH vs. Li₂CO₃ price gap has nearly closed – battery LiOH (¥82k) is now on par with or slightly below battery LCE (¥83k). This unusual inversion (LiOH historically often cost more) underscores the relative firmness of LiOH in today’s market.

Electrolyte Chain: LiPF₆, LiF, Solvents, Additives

Electrolyte Salt – LiPF₆: The price of lithium hexafluorophosphate (LiPF₆), the main electrolyte salt, broke higher again this week. Average market price reached ¥54,000/t (~$7,570) as of Aug. 21. That marks another incremental rise for LiPF₆, which has been on an uptrend for several weeks now. Several factors drove this climb:

  • Cost push: Key raw materials for LiPF₆ showed mixed movements but overall higher costs. Anhydrous hydrogen fluoride (AHF) – a critical feedstock – “climbed secretly” (i.e. quietly rose). Lithium carbonate had spiked earlier in the week (increasing Li component cost) before retreating slightly. Notably, LiF (lithium fluoride, another input to LiPF₆) rocketed in price (more on LiF below). Meanwhile, phosphorus pentachloride (PCl₅) remained stable. Net effect: LiPF₆ production cost increased this week.
  • Supply: LiPF₆ supply was essentially unchanged – most Chinese LiPF₆ manufacturers ran at normal output, focused on fulfilling earlier contracts. No major new capacity came online, and some plants are still planning to restart from maintenance, meaning available volumes didn’t grow.
  • Demand: Demand signals improved. Downstream electrolyte producers’ inquiries picked up noticeably. With EV battery production rising, electrolyte makers anticipate higher requirements, so they started securing LiPF₆ more actively.
  • Inventory: Industry stocks of LiPF₆ are low. After months of tight management, there isn’t a buffer of surplus material. This low inventory, combined with steady consumption, amplifies any upward price pressure.

Given these conditions, LiPF₆ sellers expect further modest price increases. The forecast calls for LiPF₆ to inch up by another ¥0–2,000/t in the coming week (i.e. potentially reaching ¥56k). Some producers are even resuming idle capacity to capitalize on the high price environment. However, if lithium carbonate continues to soften, it could slightly temper the cost pressure.

Lithium Fluoride (LiF): LiF, a key ingredient in LiPF₆ production, saw a sharp price spike. Industrial-grade LiF jumped to an average ¥140,000/t, and battery-grade LiF to ¥146,500/t (~$20,530). These are very high levels (for context, LiF was ~¥100k not long ago). Interestingly, LiF’s raw material costs did not rise commensurately – AHF ticked up, but lithium carbonate actually eased late in the week, so LiF’s own production cost might have dropped slightly. The LiF surge appears to be driven by supply-demand mismatch:

  • Supply: LiF output rose only a touch. A few LiF producers kept low operating rates, while most ran steadily. There were no major glut conditions – supply was described as just “slightly up” with many producers focusing on existing contracts.
  • Demand: Some LiPF₆ manufacturers, eager to boost electrolyte salt production, paid up for LiF on a must-have basis. Others with enough inventory held off, but the urgent buyers chasing scarce LiF drove up trades. Essentially, any LiF that was available went at a high price to those who had to have it.
  • Inventory: LiF inventories at producers are at a “controllable” level – not excessive, implying no one is under pressure to dump stock. Downstream LiPF₆ plants largely consume LiF steadily, so they aren’t building big inventories either.
  • Outlook: Given steady downstream demand from LiPF₆ and high production costs, LiF is expected to run firmly at these elevated prices. Producers plan to maintain current output (no big expansions immediately), so unless LiPF₆ demand suddenly falls off, LiF should remain expensive. In short, no relief for electrolyte makers on the LiF front in the immediate term.

Figure 3: Price trend mini-“sparklines” for select materials (past several weeks). Each chart shows the upward momentum in LiPF₆ (electrolyte salt), LiF (lithium fluoride), LFP (lithium iron phosphate cathode), and LiOH (battery lithium hydroxide). LiPF₆ and LiF have spiked sharply on tight supply and cost pressures, while LFP and LiOH exhibit a steadier rise. (Trends based on reported market behavior up to Aug. 21, 2025)

Electrolyte Solvents – VC, FEC: Vinylene carbonate (VC) and fluoroethylene carbonate (FEC), important electrolyte solvents/additives, were stable this week. VC’s mainstream market price held at ¥45,000–47,000/t (avg ~¥46k). There was little to no change in VC as supply-demand was balanced and most sales were contract-based. FEC similarly was flat, with domestic prices around ¥31,500/t (≈$4,415) – identical to last week. The FEC market saw no fresh drivers: Chinese production is steady and sufficient, and demand is steady at a moderate level (FEC is used in certain high-performance electrolyte formulas). Both VC and FEC benefited earlier in the year from expanded electrolyte production, but currently their markets are in equilibrium. Sellers are mostly holding prices constant, and buyers are purchasing on schedule, resulting in minimal price movement.

LiFSI and Other Additives: Lithium bis(fluorosulfonyl)imide (LiFSI), a high-performance electrolyte salt additive, also showed no change. Domestic LiFSI remained around ¥62,500/t (for solid-equivalent of the liquid product). After a big ramp-up in LiFSI capacity last year, the market in 2025 is well-supplied, keeping prices stable. Ethylene carbonate (EC), a base solvent, stayed flat at ¥4,650/t (about $650). EC producers kept run rates low (some units in China have been curtailing output) to avoid oversupply, and downstream demand was only on a need-to basis. Upstream ethylene oxide costs rose a bit, but EC prices did not follow, which has squeezed producer margins to minimal levels. Still, with demand “hard to improve” in the near term, EC is likely to remain in a narrow band around current pricing. Overall, the electrolyte solvent sector is quiet – a contrast to the excitement in the lithium salts.

Phosphorus & Fluorine Intermediates, Ethylene Oxide

Upstream of the battery materials, various phosphorus-based and fluorine chemicals feed into the supply chain (for cathode precursor, electrolyte, etc.). This week, most of these intermediates stabilized after prior volatility:

  • Yellow Phosphorus (P₄): After rising earlier in August, yellow P leveled off this week. In Yunnan and other main producing areas, prices stabilized in the range of ¥22,500–22,800/t (~$3,160). Supply was ample – production was steady compared to last week – and downstream buyers largely limited purchases to rigid needs. In fact, few new spot deals occurred; many fertilizer and chemical plants have bearish sentiment, expecting that high supply and low phosphate ore costs could drive prices down later. Yellow P producers saw stable costs (electricity and ore costs didn’t change much). Their profit margins actually increased slightly recently due to the earlier price rise. This has motivated some P₄ suppliers to talk up the market, but buyers pushed back. Inventories of yellow P accumulated a bit at producers as new orders were sparse. The market is now characterized by a supply-demand mismatch: plenty of product available, but cautious procurement. Some producers and traders who need cash flow may accept slightly lower prices to close deals. Overall, we expect yellow phosphorus to hover at current levels or slip marginally, especially if downstream buyers continue to postpone purchases.
  • Phosphorus Pentachloride (PCl₅): PCl₅ – used notably in LiPF₆ synthesis – was steady. It averaged about ¥4,350/t (~$610), unchanged week-over-week. Many PCl₅ producers have suspended offering publicly, instead negotiating prices case-by-case. The cost environment saw offsetting factors: phosphorus trichloride (feedstock) became pricier, while chlorine costs first fell then rose late week. Net effect: some cost support emerged for PCl₅. Supply was sufficient; most producers ran normally, though a few are still shut (perhaps from earlier maintenance). On the demand side, the uptick in LiPF₆ production kept PCl₅ demand stable – LiPF₆ makers require PCl₅ to produce PF₅ gas, so they were drawing steady volumes. Given these factors, PCl₅ is expected to remain stable in the coming week. Market participants are watching downstream LiPF₆ trends and any changes in PCl₅ plant operations, but no big swings are anticipated in the immediate term.
  • Phosphorus Trichloride (PCl₃): PCl₃ prices nudged upward due to cost pressures. Some PCl₃ manufacturers, facing higher yellow phosphorus feed costs, attempted to raise offers. In addition, “cheap goods tightened” – meaning the lowest-priced lots were snapped up, pulling the market reference higher. By region, PCl₃ traded around ¥5,450–5,500/t in Shandong/Henan and ¥5,600–5,800/t in Jiangxi (East and Central China were in between). These ranges are roughly ¥100–200 up from prior norms. Forecast: Next week PCl₃ is expected to hold at these levels (~¥5.4–5.8k). Market sentiment has both bullish and bearish factors: On one hand, high yellow P costs support PCl₃ and producers are keen to keep prices up. Also, chlorine prices (a byproduct factor) are low now but might rebound, which would further support PCl₃ prices. Additionally, some PCl₃ capacity in Jiangsu is offline for maintenance, tightening supply a bit. On the other hand, overall supply is ample – even with some outages, the market is not short – and downstream demand is lukewarm, with buyers not enthusiastic beyond fulfilling immediate needs. These opposing forces likely equilibrate to a steady market, absent any major news.
  • Phosphoric Acid: Two routes of phosphoric acid are tracked – thermal (from yellow P) and wet-process (from phosphate rock). Thermal phosphoric acid was steady but quiet: 85% grade was ¥6,675/t ($935), unchanged. New spot trading was lackluster. Yellow P’s earlier increase gave a firm cost floor for thermal acid, but demand is soft. Some thermal acid plants in Southwest China shut for maintenance, while a major South China producer ramped up, so supply shifts canceled out. Downstream usage (for electronic grade phosphates, etc.) was only on rigid demand, and terminal demand (e.g. for LiFePO₄ cathode via iron phosphate) remained weak. Thermal acid inventory grew slightly as production in some places increased faster than sales. Wet-process phosphoric acid (85% industrial) also held steady ¥6,438/t ($902). Sulfur prices (key cost for wet acid) kept climbing, so wet acid has strong cost support. Supply of wet acid rose a bit as some Central/South China producers upped output, but demand from iron phosphate (for LFP) was stable and fertilizer makers bought slightly less. Inventory levels are reasonable. Both thermal and wet acid are expected to remain in consolidation mode next week – with prices steady, supported by costs but limited by lackluster demand.
  • Hydrofluoric Acid (AHF): The HF market was stable at the surface, with subtle upward pressure. In practice, most deals in China were done at roughly ¥9,900–10,100/t delivered (East China, bulk, incl. VAT), similar to last week. But suppliers indicate a tightening situation. Fluorspar (fluorite), the feedstock for HF, saw prices jump due to mining constraints – so HF production costs rose from an already high base. Sulfuric acid (the other feed) was mostly stable, though a few regions saw slight increases. On the production side, many HF plants reduced operating rates because they are operating at a loss at current prices. Some even shut units or did maintenance early, as obtaining enough fluorspar became difficult. This led to localized supply tightness – e.g. in North China, major producers kept output low, making spots in Inner Mongolia and Shandong tight. However, integrated manufacturers (with their own mines or downstream) ran steadily. Demand: It’s off-season for some HF-consuming sectors (like refrigerants), and overall demand was “subdued”. Aluminum fluoride and fluoropolymer producers were buying weakly. Battery sector (LiPF₆) is one bright spot – some LiPF₆ plants are at high utilization, so their HF consumption is stable. Still, not enough to pull demand strongly. Inventories at HF plants are slowly declining due to the production cuts, meaning the market is tightening under the radar. Outlook: Given robust costs, thin inventories, and the likelihood that some buyers will need to replenish, East China HF prices are expected to rise by ~¥300–400/t in September for new orders. In other words, a modest price increase is looming as suppliers hold out for better margins.
  • Ethylene Oxide (EO): EO, a feedstock for solvents like EC and used widely in chemicals, remained flat at a national average of ¥6,300/t ($883). Regional prices hovered ¥6,250–6,400 across China, identical to last week. This stability belies some pressure underneath: Feedstock costs for EO rose – ethylene prices climbed, and oxygen (used in EO production) also got costlier. Normally, that would push EO up, but currently EO producers are eating the cost increases, meaning margins are getting squeezed hard. Why? Supply has increased slightly – a few EO units resumed from downtime, making supply “relatively ample” now. Meanwhile demand is tepid – major EO consumers like polycarboxylate superplasticizer (for concrete admixtures) actually reduced demand due to poor profitability in their sector. Other downstream industries (surfactants, ethanolamines, choline chloride, etc.) are just buying on a need-to basis with no growth catalysts. Essentially, EO’s end markets are soft, so EO producers couldn’t raise prices without losing volume. They’ve opted to hold prices steady, sacrificing profit for now. Outlook: EO is likely to stay flat in the very near term. Producers hope for a rebound in downstream sectors or a cut in ethylene prices to alleviate the margin squeeze, but until then, EO will be in a holding pattern.

Stats Corner: July 2025 Trade Snapshot (NCM, LFP, LMO)

New import/export data for July 2025 highlight China’s evolving role in battery material trade. Key takeaways:

  • NCM Cathodes: Year-to-date through July, China exported ~55,112 tonnes of NCM cathode material and imported ~29,656 tonnes. Notably in July, exports plunged to just 6,369 t (from 10,636 t in June), the lowest monthly export so far in 2025. This coincided with a spike in domestic NCM usage (Chinese battery production was high in mid-summer). Imports, however, hit a year-to-date monthly high of 5,560 t in July, suggesting China brought in significant NCM supply – likely high-nickel cathode or precursor from South Korea. Indeed, by country: in July South Korea alone exported 5,244 t of NCM to China (worth $128.2M). Meanwhile, China’s NCM exports went primarily back to South Korea (6,040 t, $70.3M), with smaller volumes to Poland (202 t) and others (the US imported a mere 5 t). This two-way trade indicates specialization – e.g. China importing certain grades (perhaps precursor or high-Ni) and exporting other grades (mid-Ni or finished cathodes) to Korean cell makers. The July dip in exports could reflect major Korean clients temporarily destocking or ramping local cathode production. Overall, China remains a net exporter of NCM by volume, but the gap narrowed in July. The trade data underscores how interlinked the supply chain is, with material flowing based on regional capacity and demand nuances.
  • LFP Cathodes: China is solidifying its status as the world’s LFP supplier. Through July, exports totaled 10,052 t versus negligible imports ~66 t. In July alone, LFP exports hit 2,741 t (worth $14.5M) – the highest monthly volume so far, and a 35% jump from June’s ~2,032 t. Hardly any LFP was imported (less than 1 t). Who’s buying? The USA was the top destination in July, receiving 1,380 t of Chinese LFP valued $7.18M. This likely reflects U.S. battery manufacturers or pack assemblers sourcing LFP cathode powder. Vietnam was second with 860 t ($4.78M) – possibly for Vietnamese cell plants or pass-through to other Southeast Asia facilities. Other importers included Poland (~124 t) and South Korea (44 t), indicating European and Korean battery lines also tapping Chinese LFP. The surge aligns with global trends: LFP chemistry is in high demand for energy storage and affordable EVs, and China has the lion’s share of capacity. The data suggests China’s LFP exports are accelerating into H2 2025, filling the gap as overseas LFP manufacturing scales up slowly.
  • LMO Cathodes: Lithium manganate (LMO) is a smaller market, and the trade numbers reflect that. Cumulative Jan–Jul exports were ~2,065 t, with just 89 t imported. In July, China exported 298 t of LMO (slightly up from June’s 166 t). Intriguingly, July also saw China import 70 t of LMO – nearly all of which came from Japan (70 t, $106k). This could be a specific high-purity LMO batch or a trial lot from a Japanese supplier. On the export side, the vast majority of China’s July LMO exports went to South Korea (288 t, $2.71M). South Korean battery makers likely use LMO in some low-cost cells or as a component in blended cathodes. Other export destinations were trivial (5 t to Estonia, 5 t to Malaysia). The data highlights that China is a net LMO exporter but at modest volumes (tens to low hundreds of tons monthly). South Korea’s intake of Chinese LMO hints at regional complementarities – Korea focusing on high-nickel cathodes but importing some LMO for specific products. Overall, LMO is a smaller piece of the pie, but China still plays a supply role.

Why It Matters – Implications for TEA, QA, Throughput

  • Techno-Economic Analysis (TEA) – Cost Levers: The stability in anode feedstock prices and anode selling prices means anode cost structures are relatively predictable in the short term. Anode producers’ margins remain squeezed by overcapacity, but if commodities like GPC and needle coke stay flat or dip, those savings could slightly improve margins – unless competition forces further price cuts. Conversely, the LiPF₆ and LiF price spike will raise electrolyte costs (LiPF₆ is ~40% of electrolyte cost). This could add a few dollars per kWh to battery costs, nudging pack prices up if sustained. From a TEA perspective, battery makers will be watching lithium salt prices closely – e.g. how a ¥10k jump in LiPF₆ might impact dollar-per-kWh. The FX normalization (using 7.1345 CNY/USD) also matters for global comparisons: Chinese material prices in USD are fluctuating with both market movement and exchange rates. This week’s data allows cost stack recalculations: for instance, if LiOH stays expensive while Li₂CO₃ softens, LFP cathode might become relatively cheaper versus high-nickel NCM (which needs LiOH), influencing cathode selection in new projects. All these moving parts feed into total cell cost analyses and could shift the economics of LFP vs NCM batteries slightly in favor of LFP (which benefits from cheaper lithium carbonate and iron, versus NCM’s reliance on pricier LiOH and nickel/cobalt).
  • Quality & Performance (QA/QC) Considerations: The wide price gaps between high-end and low-end grades (e.g. >¥40k vs ¥16k for anodes, or LCO 4.2V vs 4.5V at ¥223k vs ¥243k) underline the performance differentials. QA teams must ensure they’re getting the specified capacity or purity that warrants those premiums. For example, a “≥355 mAh/g” anode must meet that spec to justify ¥50k+ pricing – implying rigorous capacity testing and impurity control (low ash, iron content, etc.). Upstream, the subtle changes in feedstock quality (like sulfur content in CPC or metals in coal tar pitch) could affect anode performance (cycle life, rate capability). The stable feedstock prices might tempt some anode makers to economize with slightly lower-grade inputs; QA needs to monitor if any impurity uptick occurs as a result. On cathodes, the fact that some small LCO producers resumed offers only when prices rose suggests supply consistency might be an issue – battery OEMs should qualify multiple sources to hedge availability. Also, LiOH’s tightness vs Li₂CO₃ abundance raises a quality point: LiOH is mainly used for high-nickel cathodes that need lower impurity levels. If LiOH supply is constrained, producers might stretch batch cycles or use recycled streams – QA must watch for any impurity creep (e.g. Ca or SO₄ in LiOH) that could affect cathode crystallinity. Lastly, the import/export stats show materials circling the globe; consistent quality across borders (especially for something like LFP going to multiple countries) is paramount. Each batch of imported material should undergo incoming QC to ensure it meets specifications, given different producers and process routes.
  • Throughput & Supply Chain (Operational Impact): For process engineers and operations leads, these market trends translate to planning and scheduling decisions. The oversupply and price war in anodes mean procurement can be just-in-time – a positive for throughput, as material is readily available and less likely to cause line stoppages due to shortage. Pilot lines and smaller battery makers can source graphite on the spot market without long lead times. In contrast, the LiPF₆ and LiF tightness is a red flag: electrolyte supply could become a bottleneck. High-volume battery plants likely have contracts, but pilot-scale operations or new entrants might struggle to secure LiPF₆ this quarter. This could necessitate adjusted production schedules or alternate electrolyte formulations (e.g. increasing LiFSI usage which remains stable, albeit more expensive, to partially replace LiPF₆). Graphitization throughput might see some cost relief if coal tar pitch edges down or electricity prices remain stable – potentially improving OEE (Overall Equipment Effectiveness) as less unplanned downtime occurs (e.g., if cheaper pitch allows for more frequent maintenance or fewer process upsets from inconsistent binder quality). OEE could also be impacted by the trade flow changes: a drop in NCM exports might mean more domestic material in inventory; if cell plants can secure local supply faster, they can reduce waiting time (improving equipment utilization). Conversely, if a company relied on imported cathode (say high-nickel from Korea) and that import was delayed or reduced in July, they might have had to slow their electrode coating line – coordination between supply chain and production is crucial. For mass production, having multi-source strategies for critical materials is increasingly important. The data shows how concentrated some supplies are (e.g. LiOH, LiPF₆ in China); a hiccup in one region can ripple out. Throughput can be maximized by securing reliable supply streams: locking in long-term contracts for LiPF₆ now (before prices potentially rise more) or qualifying additional suppliers for LFP as a hedge. In summary, staying agile and informed on these material swings helps avoid idle equipment and keeps battery factories running at optimal rates.

Limitations & Open Questions

  • Data Granularity: The weekly report data represent average or mainstream prices. Individual transactions can occur outside these ranges. [Data needed] for intra-week volatility (e.g., lithium carbonate’s peak vs end-week price) to fully quantify swings.
  • Global Context: This analysis focuses on China’s domestic market. It assumes 1 USD = 7.1345 CNY for conversion. Exchange rate fluctuations or regional price differences (e.g. EU or US prices) are not captured. [Assumption] is that China’s prices drive global trends, but local premiums/discounts may exist.
  • Cost Assumptions: The anode cost stack (Figure 2) is illustrative. Actual proportions vary by producer (some use more needle coke, others less). [Assumption] used: mid-tier artificial graphite ~¥26,500, with ~¥11k CPC, ¥4k needle, ¥2.5k pitch, ¥9k processing.
  • Cathode Demand Uncertainty: It’s unclear if July’s NCM export drop is a one-time event or a sustained trend. [Open question] – Will Chinese cathode exports rebound in Q4 or has a structural shift occurred (e.g., more localized cathode production abroad)?
  • Future Lithium Pricing: Lithium carbonate’s predicted downtrend assumes no major new policy or supply disruptions. [Data needed] include upstream spodumene pricing and inventory levels at lithium producers to validate the forecasted softening.

Disclaimer: Unless otherwise noted, market data for China and other regions are sourced from BAIINFO Big Data and programmatic collection of publicly available information. Figures are indicative as of the publication date and may include averages or ranges. This content is for informational purposes only and does not constitute investment, purchasing, or operational advice. Delta 3 Core Tech LLC makes no representation or warranty as to accuracy or completeness and assumes no liability for reliance on this material.

Comments

Leave a Reply

More posts