In recent years, the advertised figures for driving range and battery energy density of NEVs have been continuously refreshed. However, many people may not have noticed that such improvements do not entirely stem from breakthroughs in electrochemical systems—the iterations of cathode materials, anode materials, and electrolytes often take years or even longer. The more direct changes have occurred at the structural level within the battery pack. CTM, CTP, CTB, and CTC represent several technology routes with progressively higher levels of battery integration. Their shared logic is simple: reduce intermediate layers and pack the battery more tightly into the auto body. Yet each generation of solutions differs in the trade‑offs among space utilization, manufacturing cost, and ease of repair. I. CTM (Cell to Module): Traditional “Nested Dolls” Approach In the early stages of NEV development, assembly methods for battery packs followed a relatively conservative approach. Battery cells were first assembled into modules, the modules were then arranged into a battery pack, and finally the battery pack was fixed beneath the vehicle floor. Cell→Module→Pack→Auto body thus formed four independent layers. The advantages and disadvantages of this solution are both obvious. The advantage lies in repair convenience—if a single module fails, it can be replaced individually without touching the entire battery pack. At the same time, the module housing provides extra protection for the cells, resulting in relatively mature structural safety. Yet the cost is just as direct: module housings, connectors, and cooling pipes occupy a large amount of space, usually leaving the internal space utilization rate of the battery pack at only about 40%. This meant that for the same volume, the CTM solution could accommodate the fewest cells, limiting the driving range potential. For a long period, CTM was the industry’s default choice because it fit the division‑of‑labor logic of traditional automotive supply chains—battery enterprises supply modules, while automakers are responsible for integration. However, this division of labor also created a structural ceiling: the volumetric utilization rate of the battery pack was difficult to break through. II. CTP (Cell to Pack): Removing the “Middleman” The core change introduced by CTP is eliminating the intermediate module layer, allowing cells to form the battery pack directly; the space utilization rate rose from around 40% to over 70%. Meanwhile, because module housings, connectors, and fasteners were removed, the number of components in the battery pack dropped, and manufacturing costs decreased accordingly. Within the industry, two different technical choices have emerged for the implementation path of CTP. One is the completely module‑free solution represented by BYD’s blade battery. By manufacturing cells into elongated strips and arranging them directly into the battery pack, supported by a honeycomb structure, it not only improves space utilization but also assumes some structural functions. The other is the highly integrated solution represented by CATL’s CTP 3.0 (Qilin battery). It combines cells with multifunctional elastic interlayers into an integrated energy unit and integrates components such as crossbeams, longitudinal beams, cooling plates, and thermal insulation pads, further optimizing the internal layout and thermal management. The Qilin battery achieved a volumetric utilization rate of 72% and a system energy density of 255 Wh/kg. In terms of market penetration, CTP has already secured a dominant mainstream position. Currently, leading domestic NEV manufacturers have launched mass‑produced models equipped with CTP solutions, covering both independent and joint‑venture brands, and spanning a broad price range from entry‑level to high‑end products. At the same time, the market share of the traditional CTM solution has continued to shrink, now retained mainly in some micro vehicles or specific export models. Overall, CTP has become the most prevalent battery integration technology route at this stage. III. CTB and CTC: The Battery Becomes Part of the Auto Body The idea behind CTB (Cell to Body) is to integrate the upper cover of the battery pack with the vehicle floor into a single part. Battery cells are installed directly onto the vehicle floor, eliminating the separate battery pack upper cover. One of the main benefits of this solution is releasing vertical layout space, making the passenger compartment more spacious or creating conditions to lower the vehicle stance. Meanwhile, once the battery pack participates in the body’s load‑bearing, the torsional rigidity of the whole vehicle can increase by more than 70%. BYD’s Seal series and Xiaomi’s Pengcheng series are representative models employing the CTB solution. The torsional rigidity of the Seal body officially announced by BYD reaches 40,500 N·m/°; Xiaomi’s announced CTB battery volumetric efficiency is 77.8%. CTC (Cell to Chassis) goes a step further, integrating the battery system more deeply with the chassis or lower vehicle body and further weakening the structural boundary of the battery pack as an independent assembly. In some solutions, the battery system is also integrated collaboratively with thermal management, electric drive, and high/low‑voltage control modules. Representative examples of this approach are the Tesla Model Y (produced at the Texas factory) and the CTC2.0 Plus solution installed on the Leap Motor C10. The technical goals of CTB and CTC are consistent—exchange structural integration for higher space utilization and body stiffness. The difference between the two routes is mainly reflected in engineering implementation: CTB subtracts elements from the existing body architecture while retaining a relatively independent chassis frame; CTC, on the other hand, treats the chassis and battery as an integrated whole from the very beginning of design, demanding a higher level of upfront vehicle platform definition. From market data, although CTB and CTC are still at a relatively early stage of penetrating from the high‑end to the mass market, this technology route has already begun to extend down to lower price brackets. The 2026 MG4 applies CTB technology to the 60,000–100,000 yuan price range, indicating that structural integration solutions are no longer exclusive configurations for high‑end models. Concerns Regarding Structural Integration Solutions The most direct challenge faced by CTB and CTC structural integration solutions is repair economy. Under the traditional CTM approach, some faults could be repaired by replacing the module. Once CTP eliminated modules, the battery pack can usually still be removed as an independent assembly, but the smallest unit for on‑site repair and the difficulty of repair depend on the specific structure. CTB and CTC further increase the degree of integration between the battery and the auto body, which may raise the difficulty of disassembly, detection, and damage assessment. According to estimates by industry institutions, the single‑repair cost of CTB/CTC solutions is 3 to 5 times that of CTP solutions for equivalent damage. This poses new challenges for insurance companies, repair systems, and used‑car residual‑value management. Currently, some automakers, when promoting CTB solutions, simultaneously roll out supporting services such as “battery‑body integrated warranty” or “chassis armor” to alleviate consumer concerns, but a standardized solution at the industry level has yet to be formed. In addition, CTB and CTC solutions impose significantly higher requirements on vehicle manufacturing precision and after‑sales detection equipment. Once the battery is integrated with the auto body, the disassembly process involves the removal and installation of body structural components. The repair equipment and technical capabilities of traditional 4S stores may need corresponding upgrades, and behind this lies the cost of restructuring the entire after‑sales system. Evolution Direction From CTM to CTP, and then to CTB and CTC, the direction of battery pack integration technology evolution is clear—the fewer the layers, the higher the space efficiency and the stronger the body stiffness. This is an advancement path driven by space efficiency and manufacturing costs. Yet this trend is not a linear acceleration. For CTB and CTC to achieve large‑scale popularization, in addition to breakthroughs in engineering technology, supporting systems such as repair standards, insurance pricing, and used‑car evaluation need to be developed synchronously. Based on current industry data, CTP will maintain its mainstream position, while the penetration rate of CTB/CTC will depend on two variables: the degree of standardization of structural integration solutions, and the speed at which repair costs and the insurance system can adapt. SMM New Energy Industry Research Lithium Battery End‑User Analyst Fu Linqi 18122430020

In recent years, the official figures for NEV driving range and battery energy density have been continuously refreshed. However, many may not realize that these improvements do not entirely stem from breakthroughs in electrochemical systems—iterations in cathode materials, anode materials, and electrolytes often take years. More direct changes have occurred at the structural level inside battery packs. CTM, CTP, CTB, and CTC represent several technological routes where battery integration levels continue to increase. Their common logic is simple: reduce intermediate layers to "stuff" the battery more tightly into the auto body. But the trade-offs between space utilization, manufacturing cost, and repairability vary from one generation to the next. 1. CTM (Cell to Module): The Traditional "Layered Doll" Approach In the early stages of NEV development, battery pack assembly followed a relatively conservative approach. Battery cells were first assembled into modules, the modules were then arranged into a battery pack, and finally, the battery pack was fixed under the vehicle floor. Battery cell → module → battery pack → auto body formed four independent layers. The pros and cons of this solution were clear. The advantage was repair convenience—a faulty module could be replaced individually without touching the entire battery pack. Simultaneously, the module casing provided additional protection for the cells, leading to relatively mature structural safety. But the cost was just as direct: module casings, connectors, and cooling pipes took up significant space, resulting in a space utilization rate of only about 40% inside the battery pack. This meant that, for the same volume, the CTM solution could hold the fewest battery cells, limiting its driving range potential. CTM was the industry's default choice for a long time because it aligned with the traditional automotive supply chain's division of labor—battery enterprises supplied modules, and automakers handled integration. But this division also created a structural ceiling: the volumetric utilization rate of the battery pack was difficult to break through. 2. CTP (Cell to Pack): Eliminating the "Middleman" The core modification in CTP was skipping the module layer, allowing cells to directly form the battery pack; space utilization improved from around 40% to over 70%. Simultaneously, by reducing module casings, connectors, and fasteners, the number of battery pack parts decreased, leading to lower manufacturing costs. Two different technological choices for CTP implementation existed in the industry. One was the thoroughly module-free solution represented by BYD's blade battery. By shaping cells into long strips and arranging them directly into the battery pack, supported by a honeycomb-like structure, it enhanced space utilization while also assuming some structural functions. The other was the highly integrated solution represented by CATL's CTP 3.0 (Qilin battery). It combined cells with multi-functional elastic interlayers into integrated energy units and integrated components like crossbeams, longitudinal beams, water-cooling plates, and thermal pads to further optimize internal layout and thermal management. The Qilin battery achieved a volumetric utilization rate of 72% and a system energy density of 255 Wh/kg. From a market penetration perspective, CTP has achieved a dominant mainstream position. Mainstream NEV manufacturers in China have launched mass-produced car models equipped with CTP solutions, ranging from independent brands to joint ventures, covering a broad price range from entry-level to high-end products. Meanwhile, the market share of traditional CTM solutions continues to shrink, currently remaining only in some micro-vehicles or specific export models. Overall, CTP has become the most prevalent battery integration technology route at the current stage. 3. CTB and CTC: The Battery Becomes Part of the Auto Body The concept behind CTB (Cell to Body) is to merge the battery pack's top cover with the vehicle floor. Cells are installed directly onto the vehicle floor, eliminating the need for a separate battery pack top cover. One of the main benefits of this solution is freeing up vertical space, allowing for a more spacious cabin or creating conditions to lower the vehicle's stance. Simultaneously, when the battery pack participates in bearing vehicle loads, torsional stiffness can increase by over 70%. BYD's Seal series and Xiaomi's Pengcheng series are representative models featuring CTB solutions. BYD officially announced that the Seal's body torsional stiffness reached 40,500 N·m/°. Xiaomi Auto announced a CTB battery volumetric efficiency of 77.8%. CTC (Cell to Chassis) goes a step further, integrating the battery system more deeply with the chassis or underbody, further blurring the structural boundary of the battery pack as an independent assembly. In some solutions, the battery system is also integrated collaboratively with thermal management, electric drive, and high/low-voltage control modules. Representative examples of this approach include the Tesla Model Y (Texas factory version) and the Leapmotor C10 equipped with the CTC 2.0 Plus solution. The technical goals of CTB and CTC are aligned—exchanging space utilization and body stiffness through structural integration. The difference between the two routes is more apparent in engineering implementation: CTB simplifies on top of the existing body architecture, retaining a relatively independent chassis frame; CTC treats the chassis and battery as a single whole from the outset, placing higher demands on the vehicle platform's upfront definition. Market data indicates that while CTB and CTC are still in the relatively early stages of penetrating from the high-end to the mass market, this technological route has begun to filter down to lower price brackets. The 2026 MG4 brought CTB technology down to the price range of 60,000 to 100,000 yuan, showing that structural integration solutions are no longer exclusive to high-end car models. Concerns Over Structural Integration Solutions The most direct challenge facing CTB and CTC structural integration solutions is repair economics. In traditional CTM solutions, some faults could be repaired by replacing the module. After CTP eliminated modules, the battery pack could usually still be removed as an independent assembly, but the smallest repairable unit and repair difficulty on-site depended on the specific structure. CTB and CTC, however, further increase the degree of integration between the battery and auto body, potentially increasing the difficulty of disassembly, detection, and damage assessment. According to industry estimates, the single-occurrence repair cost for a CTB/CTC solution is 3 to 5 times that of a CTP solution under the same damage conditions. This poses new challenges for insurance companies, the repair system, and the residual value management of used cars. Currently, some automakers, when promoting CTB solutions, simultaneously launch supporting services like "battery-body integrated warranty" or "chassis armor" to alleviate consumer concerns, but this issue has not yet formed a standardized solution at the industry level. Additionally, CTB and CTC solutions demand significantly higher vehicle manufacturing precision and after-sales detection equipment. Once the battery is integrated with the body, the removal process involves disassembling and reassembling structural body parts, requiring potential upgrades to traditional 4S shops' repair equipment and technical capabilities, involving the restructuring costs of the entire after-sales system. Evolutionary Direction From CTM to CTP, and then to CTB and CTC, the evolutionary direction of battery pack integration technology is clear—fewer layers lead to higher space efficiency and greater body stiffness. This is a forward path driven by space efficiency and manufacturing costs. But this trend is not a linear acceleration. For CTB and CTC to achieve large-scale adoption, besides engineering breakthroughs, simultaneous progress is needed in supporting systems like repair standards, insurance pricing, and used car evaluation. Based on current industry data, CTP will continue to hold its mainstream position, while the penetration rate of CTB/CTC will depend on two variables: the degree of standardization in structural integration solutions and the pace at which repair costs and insurance systems adapt.

Recently, the Management Committee of Ya'an Economic and Technological Development Zone in Sichuan Province issued a public notice accepting the environmental impact assessment application for the Qingyuan (Sichuan) Technology Co., Ltd. silicon-carbon anode material R&D base project. The project, located at Qingjiang Road in the development zone, Mingshan District, Ya'an City, Sichuan Province, has a total investment of 55 million yuan, with environmental protection investment of 1.255 million yuan. The project will lease a 37.7-mu factory site with existing structures, with a total floor area of approximately 5,798.5 square meters, primarily for the research and development of silicon-carbon anode materials (including silicon monoxide/carbon composites, etc.).

POSCO Future M said it is continuing to secure new customer orders for its cathode materials business, while preparing to strengthen cost competitiveness in LFP cathode materials. The company said it plans to apply a new LFP production process from 2029 after entering the market. The process is expected to leverage POSCO Group’s internal supply chain, including steel mill byproducts and lithium raw materials, to secure a cost advantage. In the anode materials business, POSCO Future M said its artificial graphite plant in Vietnam is scheduled to begin trial operations in the second half of next year, while its spherical graphite plant in Saemangeum is planned to start trial operations in the first half of next year. Through these projects, the company aims to raise its anode materials utilization rate to more than 70% next year and over 90% the following year.

SMM, July 30 – Raw material side, China’s petroleum coke market saw broadly improved trading this week. Low-sulphur coke remained firm and strengthened further, mainstream medium- and high-sulphur coke moved up broadly, and prices across all specifications edged higher. On the refinery side, major refineries held stable to firmer, supporting the market. CNOOC refineries’ petroleum coke auction transaction prices climbed continuously, with gains concentrated at 50-150 yuan/mt, and the more active auctions boosted bullish sentiment. PetroChina’s low-sulphur coke in-factory inventory in north-east China stayed low, and concentrated release of downstream rigid demand kept prices steady this week. Sinopec refineries saw recently improved downstream purchasing appetite, especially along the Yangtze River where ample anode material energy storage orders supported smooth refinery shipments, providing some floor to coke prices; prices were raised slightly by 10-30 yuan/mt. Independent refineries’ overall shipments performed well, earlier downstream resistance to high medium- and high-sulphur coke prices eased somewhat, restocking purchases increased, and petroleum coke prices strengthened in tandem. SMM’s latest data showed the No. 1 petroleum coke spot price index in north-east China registered 4,415.73 yuan/mt, flat WoW; Shandong’s No. 2 petroleum coke spot price index registered 4,276.73 yuan/mt, up 0.93% WoW; Shandong’s No. 3 petroleum coke spot price index registered 3,738.11 yuan/mt, up 1.12% WoW; and Shandong’s No. 4 petroleum coke spot price index registered 2,093.05 yuan/mt, up 4.46% WoW. During the week, China’s overall refinery operating load remained steady and supply growth in the market was limited; downstream end-user purchasing and stockpiling sentiment was moderate. Combined with strong support from rising crude oil costs driven by international geopolitical disruptions, and amid multiple bullish factors, the domestic petroleum coke market is expected to consolidate on a strong note in the near term, with low-sulphur coke showing stronger price resilience and structural divergence among grades persisting. The coal tar pitch market improved somewhat this week. As of Thursday this week, the average price of coal tar pitch was 4,713 yuan/mt, up 0.18% from last Thursday. Overall, prebaked anode cost support remained relatively firm this week. Supply side, prebaked anode enterprises continued their production pace of producing based on sales. New anode projects in Xinjiang, Guangxi and other regions came onstream successively, with new capacity continuing to be released. Meanwhile, some enterprises saw operating rates pull back slightly due to maintenance, but overall the industry’s supply capability improved steadily and supply flexibility increased further. Demand side, China’s operating aluminum capacity stayed high, providing steady rigid support for prebaked anode consumption. On the export side, new aluminum projects in Indonesia continued to come online, driving sustained improvement in China’s anode exports. Overall, China’s new prebaked anode supply kept materializing, high aluminum operating rates effectively supported domestic demand, and the export market improved marginally. The industry’s supply-demand balance remained generally stable, but as new capacity continued to be released, supply growth slightly outpaced demand growth, intensifying market competition. Commentary: This week, prebaked anode raw material side improved in tandem; petroleum coke market fundamentals provided solid support, coal tar pitch prices recovered slightly, and the industry’s overall production cost edged up. According to SMM data monitoring, as of July 30, China’s prebaked anode production cost stood at 5,597.13 yuan/mt, up 0.73% from last Thursday. Looking ahead, on the cost side, petroleum coke still has strong bottom support and the coal tar pitch market is expected to improve somewhat; overall raw material support for anode costs remains fairly favourable. On the supply-demand front, aluminum enterprises’ high operating rates continued to underpin domestic anode demand, while a marginal recovery in export orders brought incremental growth. However, the concentrated addition of new capacity and continuous supply release have further intensified market competition. As contract rollover approaches, overall raw material market support has eased slightly within the cycle, and prebaked anode prices are expected to decline next month; updates on specific adjustments will follow closely.

① Policy: China's first national standard for vehicle solid-state batteries (GB/T43568-2026) took effect, paired with a consumption tax exemption; ② Materials: multiple hundred-ton-level sulfide production lines commenced commissioning in Q3, with a leading EV manufacturer completing a 1‑ton electrolyte tender (awarded below RMB 2 million/ton), signaling the industry's shift to "ton‑level transactions"; ③ Products ：SVOLT Energy's hybrid solid-liquid batteries entered volume production in Q3,

[SMM Lithium Battery Anode Raw Material Market Weekly Review: Demand Resilience Supports, Graphitisation Price Center Stable with Upside Potential] July 30 (SMM): This week, China's graphitisation tolling services prices remained stable overall.

[SMM Lithium Battery Anode Raw Material Market Weekly Review: Driven by Both Cost and Demand, Anode Raw Material Coke Price More Likely to Rise than Fall] Jul 30 news: Boosted by the persistent strengthening of the upstream cost side, the price of anode raw material coke in China extended its upward trend this week.

The first half of 2026 is already in the past. At the start of H2, industry chain enterprises have begun to release their H1 2026 performance forecasts collectively. Notably, against the backdrop of a significantly higher YoY lithium price center, stable demand in the NEV industry, and a continuously booming energy storage sector, most enterprises in the lithium industry chain expect varying degrees of performance improvement. SMM has compiled the performance forecast situations of some enterprises in the industry chain, as follows:

SMM, July 28: In H1 2026, the global petroleum coke market had originally hoped for an easing of the previous year's tight supply and a gradual recovery in production from major producing regions. However, the early-year "signs of production increase" were successively interrupted by peak maintenance season, the escalation of Middle East tensions, and multiple refinery accidents. The global supply side displayed a typical pattern of "first increase then decline, overall tightness," while the structural divergence between high- and low-sulphur coke further intensified. I. Global Overview: From "Easing Expectations" to "Tightening Reality" In 2025, the global petroleum coke market tightened significantly due to concentrated refinery closures and a rising share of light crude processing — US coke production once fell to a 20-year low. Entering 2026, benefiting from improved economics for heavy sour crude, coke output in the US Gulf Coast surged to a 13-month high in January, and the market widely expected high-sulphur coke supply to exert downward pressure on prices in Q2. But this expectation was quickly overturned. The escalation of Middle East tensions in late February pushed up crude oil and shipping costs, and combined with successive accidents at key refineries in the US and Mexico from March to April, global supply tightened again, providing solid support to prices. The repeated cycle of "production increase — then production cuts" in global petroleum coke during H1 has become the dominant theme driving price fluctuations. II. US: Hit New High Early in the Year, Production Rebounded Despite March-April Disruptions The US is a major source of global high-sulphur coke. In January 2026, benefiting from favorable economics for processing heavy sour crude, US coke production rebounded to a 13-month high, momentarily making the market optimistic about supply easing in Q2. However, March-April saw a cluster of risk events: Valero's Port Arthur refinery (380,000 b/d) halted production due to a fire on March 23, with coking units partially restarting in early April but the large crude unit not back online until month-end, forcing April shipments to be delayed to May. Meanwhile, multiple refineries in Texas also experienced frequent malfunctions — ExxonMobil's Beaumont refinery (612,000 b/d) suffered a unit malfunction on April 22, and Marathon's Galveston Bay refinery (631,000 b/d) experienced a power outage on April 14. However, the disruption did not reverse the overall production increase. According to US EIA data, marketable petroleum coke production along the US Gulf Coast reached 2 million mt in April, up 14% YoY (up from 1.8 million mt a year earlier) and up 3% MoM, pushing nationwide production up 8% YoY. The growth was mainly driven by a surge in Venezuelan crude imports (more than doubled YoY and up 15% MoM in April), coupled with US Gulf Coast refining margins hitting a more than three-year high in late March and refinery operating rates averaging 95%; some refiners maximized operations to capture high product margins. Among them, Louisiana Gulf Coast production soared 29% YoY in April, hitting a more than six-year high. In other words, US supply in H1 was characterized by a "first-down-then-up" pattern—constrained by incidents in Q1, but clearly recovering by April. III. Mexico and Venezuela: Two Steps Forward, One Step Back on the Production Increase Path Venezuela: After the US eased sanctions restrictions, exports began to rebound from February but remained below year-earlier levels, contributing limited global growth. Mexico: Following the incident at the Pemex Dos Bocas / Olmeca refinery (340,000 b/d) on April 9, which involved a coke pit fire and damage to a tower at the coker unit, market participants expect it to resume operations at 50% load. This followed a separate fatal fire at the refinery in mid-March that resulted in five deaths. The successive incidents have cast a shadow over Mexico's full-year production increase plan. However, entering H2, coke output at Dos Bocas has continued to rebound, with daily production recovering to 4,000–5,000 mt. Stable shipments to India and Asia have started since July, slightly relieving pressure on US Gulf Coast cargoes, but the growth remains limited and insufficient to alter the tight balance landscape. Overall, the "recovery-driven production increases" in both countries were offset by incidents and infrastructure bottlenecks, resulting in H1 net global supply growth that was clearly below expectations. IV. Middle East: Core Refineries Hit, Saudi High- and Low-Sulphur Petroleum Coke Exports Hindered After the Middle East situation escalated on February 28, constrained regional crude exports pushed up oil prices and narrowed the heavy-light crude spread, directly weakening the economics of coker operations. The impact on petroleum coke supply has been particularly direct: Yasref refinery (Aramco/Sinopec, 400,000 b/d, Yanbu) has lowered coke production; Satorp refinery (Aramco/TotalEnergies, 460,000 b/d, Jubail) has faced shipment disruptions, with one processing unit damaged in a night attack on April 7–8, further tightening Saudi external supply. Saudi Arabia is the primary supplier of high-sulphur petroleum coke globally, especially to India and China. Disruptions to its production and shipments have directly intensified the tightness of spot high-sulphur petroleum coke in the Asian market. Notably, the supply disruption did not ease with the end of Q2—after the US-Iran temporary ceasefire agreement broke down on July 8, shipping in the Strait of Hormuz was again obstructed, and all cargoes from Saudi Arabia’s Jubail Satorp and Yanbu refineries were delayed, extending the supply interruption into early H2. 5. Russia: Exports to China Surge Against the Trend, Refinery Attacks Add Further Uncertainty Russia is one of the core sources of China’s petroleum coke imports. In H1, amid multiple disruptions, it exhibited a trajectory of “volume increase, attacks, and renewed tightening”: Import share rose against the trend: According to General Administration of Customs data, China’s total petroleum coke imports in H1 2026 reached 8.1103 million mt (YoY -2.24%), of which Russian petroleum coke imports amounted to 1.4361 million mt, a significant YoY increase of 221,000 mt, or 18.18%, lifting its import share to 18% and making it one of the few sources to grow against the trend in H1. Predominantly high-sulphur resources with diversified transport: Currently, Russian petroleum coke specifications remain largely high-sulphur resources. In addition to traditional sea transport, some traders choose to deliver via rail into China, mainly for use in prebaked anode and anode auxiliary material applications. Refinery attacks hit supply: Recently, the Russia-Ukraine situation has continued to deteriorate, damaging delayed coking units (CDU and secondary processing units) at core refineries such as Omsk. Russia’s overall refining capacity was paralyzed by over 40% at one point, with the affected products mainly being medium-sulphur petroleum coke with 1.8% sulphur and general-grade petroleum coke around 4% sulphur. According to market surveys, the Omsk refinery is expected to gradually resume production by end-July, while the Tatarstan refinery will resume in early September, leading to near-term supply tightening expectations. Overall, Russian petroleum coke supported China’s high-sulphur petroleum coke supply in H1 by “filling the gap with volume,” but the pace of refinery production resumptions and geopolitical risks in H2 will be key variables affecting the stability of exports to China. 6. China: Independent Refinery Output High Initially, Then Low; June Operating Rate Plummets to 42.69%As the world's largest petroleum coke consumer, China's domestic coke production also came under pressure in H1. According to SMM's monthly data on independent refineries: Total H1 volume: From January to June 2026, cumulative petroleum coke production at independent refineries was approximately 4.7831 million mt, down 148,100 mt from 4.9312 million mt in the same period of 2025, a 3.0% YoY decline. Monthly trend shaped higher at the start and lower later: January output of 867,300 mt (operating rate 66.24%) was the H1 high; it then declined month by month, with June output falling to 656,200 mt and the operating rate at only 42.69%. Compared to June 2025's 761,500 mt and 60.67%, the declines were 13.80% and 17.98 percentage points, respectively. Significant regional divergence: Shandong independent refineries produced about 3.5543 million mt in H1, up 8.2% YoY; non-Shandong independent refineries produced about 1.2291 million mt, a sharp 25.3% YoY decline. Shandong's share of total independent refinery production rose to around 74.3%. Structural highlights: Low-sulphur coke was relatively strong, supported by rigid demand from anode materials and prebaked anodes, while high-sulphur coke saw limited price gains due to downstream resistance to high prices but still moved its overall center higher. The structural tightness in high-quality low-sulphur resources during H1 is likely to remain the main theme throughout the whole year. 7. China Port Spot: Low-sulphur Coke Stays High and Firm, High-sulphur Coke Diverges Tightening supply has been reflected in domestic port spot prices. According to SMM's China port petroleum coke spot price monitoring, low-sulphur and high-sulphur coke prices showed clear divergence in H1: Low-sulphur coke stayed high with marginal supplement from imports: Represented by Brazilian and Argentine low-sulphur coke, imports of high-quality resources saw significant YoY growth in port arrivals during H1, and port spot prices long operated in the range of 4,100–4,500 yuan/mt. Indonesian low-sulphur coke port spot prices drifted higher from around 4,450 yuan/mt in January, touched a high of 4,900 yuan/mt at the end of April, and then pulled back to 4,600 yuan/mt by late July. Overall, low-sulphur coke demand is rigid (anode materials, high-end prebaked anodes) while incremental supply is insufficient, with imports providing only marginal supplementation, and the supply-demand mismatch supports the price center. Divergence within high-sulphur petroleum coke: US high-sulphur petcoke prices remain relatively firm, staying above 3,000 yuan/mt, while prices for high-sulphur petcoke from Russia, Saudi Arabia, and other sources are notably lower, with some grades trading only in the 1,400–2,000 yuan/mt range. The price spread reflects differences in cargo quality, shipping costs, and port arrival stability: cargoes from the US Gulf Coast are supported by rebounding EIA production and aggressive Indian buying, whereas Saudi high-sulphur petcoke is under pressure due to shipment disruptions from the Satorp and Yanbu refineries, leading to unstable port arrivals and depressed prices. Consolidating at recent highs: Since July, port spot prices have shown a pattern of mixed performance and consolidation at highs. Low-sulphur petcoke has softened slightly in the off-season demand period, but declines have been limited; high-sulphur petcoke prices have diverged due to different shipment paces from the US Gulf and the Middle East. Overall, the cost side (import average price up 37.88% YoY) provides solid support for domestic prices, leaving relatively small downside room. This price structure indicates that the global supply tightness in H1 was not simply an "overall shortage," but rather the result of structural tightness in low-sulphur resources combined with regional mismatches in high-sulphur resources. VIII. H2 Outlook Looking ahead to H2, whether global supply can truly shift from decline to growth depends on three key variables: the pace of de-escalation in the Middle East, the pace of resumption at accident-hit refineries in the US and Mexico, and the strength of export recovery after easing of sanctions on Venezuela. Against the backdrop of the maintenance peak receding and some units planning to resume production, the supply-demand gap is expected to narrow further and gradually return to balance. However, the structural tightness of high-quality low-sulphur resources may remain the main theme throughout the year.