Price Trends In the first half of 2026, domestic lithium hydroxide prices followed a trajectory of "surge – high-level volatility – softening decline," with the price center first rising and then falling amid the interplay of multiple factors. January: Prices surged sharply. Concentrated maintenance shutdowns at major lithium salt producers tightened spot supply. Combined with persistently rising costs of lithium carbonate and lithium ore, lithium salt producers held firm on pricing, pushing the monthly average price up by 65% month-on-month. Although ternary material manufacturers maintained just-in-time procurement and remained cautious on spot orders, and some import flows returned due to domestic-international price spreads, the phase of supply shortages and cost support still drove prices to a high level. February: Prices fluctuated at high levels with thinning trading. Macro sentiment drove overall lithium prices downward, but producers' firm pricing stance persisted. Downstream ternary manufacturers, having ample inventories and some entering maintenance, saw eased raw material shortages, with procurement mostly based on monthly average prices. During the Chinese New Year holiday, transportation of lithium hydroxide, classified as hazardous chemicals, stalled, leading to a seasonal quiet period; post-holiday restocking demand was tepid, limiting upside momentum, and prices oscillated widely throughout the month. March: Gains narrowed notably. Cell manufacturers' offtake fell short of expectations, and new orders for ternary materials were limited. Additionally, increased customer-supplied materials in mid-month sharply reduced spot demand, leading to subdued trading and an upward price channel that stalled. The monthly average price rose only 3.4% month-on-month. April: First down then up. In the first half, limited new ternary orders and scarce spot demand put mild pressure on prices; in the second half, pre-holiday stocking and new orders drove increased inquiries from ternary producers, while sharp rises in lithium carbonate and ore prices pulled lithium hydroxide higher. The monthly average price rose 2.73% month-on-month. May: Rose then fell. In the first half, positive demand expectations and supply-side disruptions lifted lithium carbonate and ore prices, pulling lithium hydroxide higher in tandem; in the second half, sentiment turned weaker, with more trades settled via negotiation between traders and material mills. As ternary demand trends became clearer, upstream producers softened their price support, prompting a modest pullback. The monthly average price reached RMB 174,000/ton, up 13.6% month-on-month. June: Prices fell notably, with range-bound volatility intensifying. Frequent supply disruptions on the lithium resource side amplified market volatility significantly, prompting holders to adopt a cautious stance and quote prices in line with market conditions. Upstream producers adjusted prices flexibly, while traders maintained a high discount (over RMB 15,000/ton against the lithium carbonate futures main contract). On the demand side, total ternary material demand remained weak month-on-month, but within the RMB 135,000–145,000/ton range, downstream buyers showed strong willingness to stockpile on dips, providing some bottom support and exacerbating range-bound fluctuations. The monthly average price fell 11.52% month-on-month. Looking at the price trends, the correlation between lithium hydroxide prices and lithium carbonate futures prices has strengthened over the past six months. This is partly because upstream producers use a "lithium carbonate price × discount factor" formula as a floor price in their pricing. On the other hand, traders capitalize on the price spreads between domestic and overseas lithium hydroxide and between hydroxide and carbonate, by importing lithium hydroxide and pricing their sales with reference to lithium carbonate futures, further reinforcing this price linkage. Production In the first half of 2026, domestic total lithium hydroxide output reached 172,000 tons, up 21% year-on-year, driven by relatively robust downstream demand, with notable incremental growth. By output structure, the refining segment contributed the most, accounting for about 88%. Within this, the gradual ramp-up of new production lines at leading companies added some volume, while other enterprises maintained steady output backed by downstream orders, resulting in an 18% year-on-year increase for the overall refining segment. For the causticization segment, most active producers sustained stable operations, and the industry CR5 reached 72% in the first half, indicating a persistently high market concentration. From the capacity utilization perspective, although some capacity has been switched to lithium carbonate production, the operating rate for the lithium hydroxide industry has consistently lingered below 50% over the past six months, reflecting an ongoing overcapacity trend. Costs and margins: For the refining segment, lithium ore feedstock remained relatively tight in the first half of 2026, with ore prices staying elevated and closely correlated with lithium carbonate prices, providing strong cost support for lithium hydroxide. As a result, non‑integrated producers faced notable pressure on the sales side, and their product discount prices did not decline further, which in turn provided marginal support for profit margins at current price levels. For the causticization segment, the supply of salt‑lake‑based lithium salts has increased over the past six months, making causticization feedstock relatively ample. The linkage between actual procurement costs and industrial‑grade carbonate quotes has weakened, which has alleviated cost pressures for enterprises that purchase lithium carbonate externally, leading to actual profitability in the causticization segment being better than theoretical estimates. Import and Export The import‑export landscape has seen a notable reversal. On the export front, since the second half of 2025, some overseas ternary material producers have shifted to entrusting domestic tolling processors, resulting in products that would have been exported being delivered domestically instead, effectively suppressing export volumes. At the same time, overseas demand for ternary materials has remained persistently weak, reducing foreign buyers' appetite for Chinese lithium hydroxide. This, combined with the gradual ramp‑up of overseas local production lines, has collectively kept export volumes at low levels over the past six months. On the import side, weak overseas demand, high accumulated inventories, and arbitrage opportunities have driven import volumes to remain relatively elevated, further reinforcing the net import trend. Supply‑Demand Balance and Inventory The surge in import data made most months in the first half of the year oversupplied. However, from the perspective of directly usable lithium hydroxide products, the market as a whole remained in a relatively tight balance, providing effective support for upstream price control. As for inventory, current lithium hydroxide stock levels have improved significantly compared with the same period last year. This is mainly attributable to two factors: first, part of the inventory has been absorbed into the market by being converted into lithium carbonate; second, active producers have flexibly adjusted their output pace, keeping current inventory days at around one month. Future Outlook Looking ahead, although the LFP route continues to squeeze the ternary route, ternary materials currently have no rival in the high‑nickel segment. In addition, the cost advantages of 6‑series materials offer more possibilities for the ternary route. Based on end‑user production schedules, ternary power demand in the second half of 2026 is expected to maintain a sound performance, growing by approximately 36% compared with the first half. This will drive a roughly 7% sequential increase in ternary material output in the second half. As ternary materials continue to move toward higher nickel content, this brings an incremental demand trend for lithium hydroxide. Meanwhile, considering that most lithium hydroxide production lines have flexible switching or carbonation purification capabilities, lithium hydroxide output is projected to grow by about 6% sequentially. Coupled with a modest recovery in overseas ternary demand, the supply‑demand balance for lithium hydroxide is expected to remain tight through 2026–2027. In terms of price, under a market structure with highly concentrated supply, lithium hydroxide prices are primarily determined by the supply‑demand dynamics of its own industrial chain and closely track lithium ore and lithium salt price trends. Prices are currently oscillating in a range above RMB 150,000/ton. Futures Developments As for lithium hydroxide futures, there has been a flurry of related developments in the second quarter. The Guangzhou Futures Exchange (GFEX) and the Lithium Branch of the China Nonferrous Metals Industry Association have both explicitly stated that they will continue to strengthen cooperation and jointly advance the listing of lithium hydroxide and other lithium‑chain futures products. The征求意见稿 of Guangzhou's "15th Five‑Year Plan" for finance also clearly supports GFEX in listing new‑energy futures such as lithium hydroxide. On the industrial side, companies have moved swiftly to follow up. In June, Yahua Group, Shengxin Lithium Energy, and Tianqi Lithium all announced their intention to apply to GFEX for designated delivery factory warehouse status for lithium hydroxide. In addition, Milkyway's shareholders' meeting approved a proposal for its subsidiary to apply to become a designated delivery warehouse for battery‑grade lithium hydroxide at GFEX. According to media reports, lithium salt producers (Ganfeng Lithium, Tianqi Lithium, Yahua Group, etc.) have already positioned themselves in the factory‑warehouse system. However, due to the high‑risk storage requirements of lithium hydroxide—such as strong corrosiveness, exothermic reaction with water, and the need for inert gas protection—no logistics‑focused player had previously entered this category. On the market front, some traders have already made early arrangements in anticipation of futures listing, and the number of merchants participating in lithium hydroxide import trade has noticeably increased. In summary, preparations for the listing of lithium hydroxide futures are progressing in an orderly manner, with positive official signals and accelerating industrial infrastructure development.

Core View The main theme of lithium ore prices in H1 2026 was a sharp rally followed by a correction, rather than a one-way upward shift in the price center. The SMM spodumene concentrate index price (SC6, CIF China) started the year at around USD 2,000/t in January, briefly fell to USD 1,875/t in early February, then followed lithium carbonate prices higher and reached the year-to-date high of USD 2,780–2,840/t in mid-May, before retreating to the USD 2,385–2,480/t range in June. This trajectory almost fully mirrored lithium carbonate prices. Lithium carbonate spot prices started the year at around RMB 130,000/t, rose above RMB 200,000/t in May, and then pulled back to RMB 160,000–180,000/t in June. Lithium ore did not experience an independent rally throughout the period. It was pulled upward by lithium carbonate pricing via the futures market and then corrected as lithium carbonate prices peaked. Therefore, the starting point for understanding lithium ore prices in H1 is not resource-side supply and demand, but lithium carbonate pricing and market sentiment. One common misinterpretation needs to be corrected first: the strength in lithium ore prices in H1 was not the result of “tight effective supply pushing the price center higher.” The real drivers were the resonance of front-loaded demand, supply disruption expectations, and futures-driven sentiment. Front-loaded demand was triggered by export tax rebate adjustments; supply disruption expectations came from the repeated delays in Jianxiawo’s restart and Zimbabwe’s lithium concentrate export ban. When warehouse receipts accumulated and macro headwinds were released in May, and when Jianxiawo’s restart expectation materialized in June, prices corrected accordingly. After that, prices rebounded again as demand expectations improved. 1. Lithium Ore Followed Lithium Carbonate, While Spodumene-Based Conversion Margins Stayed Negative Throughout H1 The clearest evidence of the lithium ore pricing mechanism in H1 was not how much ore prices rose, but the fact that spot conversion margins for producing lithium carbonate from externally procured spodumene concentrate were negative for most of the period. The ore-salt margin inversion was structural and persistent in H1, rather than a short-lived squeeze on processing margins. The cause of this inversion directly points to the reversal of the pricing mechanism. Ore prices are no longer determined by a cost-plus model from the upstream side, which then determines lithium salt prices. Instead, lithium carbonate has become the pricing anchor, and ore prices are reverse-priced through the futures market. In early January, when lithium carbonate prices rallied on front-loaded demand and sentiment, ore prices were pushed higher at the same time. However, downstream lithium salt demand could not fully absorb the higher cost, and processing margins were squeezed into negative territory. In April, under the reality of ore-salt inversion and limited hedging opportunities, lithium salt producers relying on externally procured ore saw their ability to accept high-priced ore weaken significantly. For overseas miners, this means their realized selling prices are increasingly anchored by the profitability of China’s refining sector. This is not a narrative assumption, but a mechanism that can be verified month by month through spot margin data. The financialization of pricing was also visible in market transactions. When prices fell at the end of May, lithium salt producers became more active in pricing ore purchases. In June, the basis for new cargoes strengthened. Pricing based on futures quotation plus premium or discount has become the mainstream transaction model. Lithium salt producers tend to use pricing windows during price corrections to lock in ore supply. Whoever holds the pricing right controls the settlement timing, and in H1’s highly volatile two-way lithium carbonate market, this directly led to margin differentiation among different lithium salt producers. 2. The Three Drivers of the Rally and the Triggers of the Correction Front-loaded demand — export tax rebate adjustment. In January 2026, the Ministry of Finance and the State Taxation Administration clarified that the VAT export rebate rate for lithium battery products would be reduced from 9% to 6% from April 1, and fully removed from January 1, 2027. This policy directly stimulated downstream players to concentrate export shipments and inventory preparation before April, significantly front-loading demand into H1, especially supporting demand for energy storage and ternary-related materials. This was the most important demand-side catalyst in H1 and the one most easily overlooked by the “weak recovery” narrative. Supply disruption expectations — Jianxiawo and Zimbabwe. After Jianxiawo’s mining permit expired and production was halted in August 2025, its restart timeline was repeatedly pushed back in H1, continuously providing room for both bullish and bearish speculation in the market. Now that Jianxiawo’s restart has been confirmed, the largest bearish factor has been priced in, and the market’s focus has shifted back to whether demand can outperform expectations. In Zimbabwe, the lithium concentrate export ban at the beginning of the year disrupted shipment expectations. Positive progress was reported in late March, and by mid-May, Chinese-funded mining companies in Zimbabwe had completed export procedures and restarted shipments, easing the previous short-term tightness in African cargo arrivals. SMM expects the first batch of cargoes to arrive in China in mid-to-late July. Correction triggers — warehouse receipts, macro factors, and the materialization of restart expectations. After lithium carbonate prices rose above RMB 200,000/t in May, exchange warehouse receipts continued to accumulate and hit new highs, while concerns over off-balance-sheet inventory increased. Together with macro pressure from expectations of further Fed rate hikes, prices peaked and corrected in late May. On June 17, the approval of Jianxiawo’s land use application materialized, and clearer restart expectations further weighed on both ore and salt prices. By late June, according to SMM monthly production schedules, July demand showed resilience despite the seasonal lull, with both power and energy storage cell production schedules increasing month on month. Monthly lithium carbonate consumption remained at a high level, which restored some market confidence and pushed lithium prices higher again. 3. Supply-Side Reality: Imports Weakened Month on Month, but Cumulative Imports Still Increased; Australia Remained Dominant From January to May, spodumene imports showed a combination of weaker month-on-month momentum and continued year-on-year cumulative growth. On a monthly basis, imports reached 758,000 physical tonnes in April, down 9.5% month on month, and 680,800 tonnes in May, down 10.2% month on month. However, total spodumene imports in January–May reached around 3.66 million tonnes, up approximately 25% year on year. By origin, Australia remained the dominant source. China imported around 1.585 million tonnes from Australia in January–May, although May imports from Australia were around 330,000 tonnes, down approximately 15.2% year on year. The share of African supply continued to rise. On the shipment side, lithium concentrate shipments from Port Hedland to China showed clear quarter-end volume acceleration, with March shipments reaching around 122,000 tonnes, up 64.3% month on month. The marginal changes in overseas mines were concentrated in restarts and offtake agreements. Core Lithium restarted its Finniss project on May 20 and plans to ship the first batch of concentrate in Q4. Mineral Resources also restarted Bald Hill, with first spodumene output expected in July. These restart volumes are limited and will not change the short-term supply structure, but they reinforce the expectation of new supply materializing in H2 2026 and H1 2027. On the domestic side, SMM’s domestic sample mines produced 160,690 tonnes LCE in January–June. The restart of Jiangxi lepidolite mines was constrained by permitting procedures, environmental protection, profitability, and other factors, and did not fully ramp up in H1. 4. Migration of Long-Term Pricing Mechanisms: Floor Price Plus Pricing Optionality Has Become the Norm The long-term spodumene offtake agreements signed intensively in H1 provide direct contractual evidence of the financialization of ore pricing. In February, Pilbara Minerals signed a two-year offtake agreement with Tianhua New Energy, setting a floor price of USD 1,000/t, with no price ceiling, together with a USD 100 million interest-free prepayment. In the same period, Pilbara also signed a long-term agreement with Canmax. Yahua Group signed an offtake agreement with Brazil’s MGLIT, also with a minimum price of USD 1,000/t on a 6% basis. Liontown and Tianhua agreed on supply for 2027–2028, priced against a spodumene index. The common feature is a structure of USD 1,000/t floor price plus index or pricing optionality, with downside protection but no upside cap. The pricing benchmark is migrating from fixed website-based long-term pricing toward index-based and futures-linked pricing. This confirms that ore pricing is shifting from traditional long-term contracts to a more financialized structure of “floor price + pricing optionality + premium/discount.” This provides a contractual basis for assessing pricing transmission lags and distortions, and is also a key point for overseas investors to understand how China’s pricing system is penetrating upstream resources. 5. H2 Outlook H1 2026 provides a very clear methodological lesson for H2: lithium ore prices will not move independently from lithium carbonate. The core pricing variables for ore are not the nominal size of global lithium resources, but the dynamic matching among lithium carbonate futures, spot conversion margins for lithium salt producers using externally procured ore, domestic mine restart progress, African cargo arrival schedules, lithium salt producers’ feedstock inventories, and downstream material production schedules. In H1, lithium salt conversion margins remained negative for an extended period, yet ore prices did not fall quickly. Instead, they rose together with lithium carbonate prices under the influence of downstream restocking and supply disruption expectations. This shows that the H1 rally was not an independent strengthening of upstream fundamentals, but a synchronized industry-chain movement driven by front-loaded demand, delayed supply realization, and amplified futures sentiment. For H2 lithium ore analysis, the first step is to distinguish between “no shortage in total resources” and “short-term tightness in effective ore supply.” From a global resource perspective, Australia, Africa, Brazil, South American brines, and Chinese domestic mines all have incremental supply expectations, so there is no absolute shortage of resources. However, from the perspective of Chinese lithium salt production, what truly affects lithium carbonate supply is ore that can be purchased in time, arrive steadily, meet grade requirements, have controllable impurities, and match existing processing lines. If ore is locked in long-term contracts, still in transit, concentrated in trader inventories, or if high prices reduce lithium salt producers’ willingness to purchase, its contribution to short-term lithium salt supply will be weakened. Therefore, H2 analysis should not simply focus on mine output. It should track port inventories, traders’ saleable inventories, in-plant inventories at lithium salt producers using externally procured ore, vessel schedules, and long-term contract lock-up structures. On the domestic supply side, Jianxiawo is the core variable driving H2 market expectations, but its impact should not be simplified as “restart equals immediate supply.” After the mine was suspended, the market treated it as the key anchor for marginal domestic lepidolite supply. The real question in H2 is not the single event of whether it restarts, but whether the restarted volume becomes freely tradable ore. If the output is mainly consumed within CATL’s integrated system, the impact on the spot ore market and externally procured ore salt producers will be limited. Only if the output enters the spot market will it directly pressure ore prices and conversion margins. At the same time, the suspension and restart timeline of other Jiangxi lepidolite mines also needs to be incorporated into the framework. Previous public reports indicated that some mines in Yichun may first exhaust their annual mining quota during the license renewal process and then enter a production halt for license renewal. If these mines continue to be affected by permitting, environmental protection, safety, or profitability factors in H2, the supply elasticity of domestic lepidolite will be weaker than nominal capacity suggests. Conversely, if Jianxiawo and other Yichun mines move forward with restarts or license renewals in Q3–Q4, the marginal contribution of domestic ore to lithium carbonate supply will increase significantly and put pressure on high ore prices. In other words, domestic ore supply in H2 should not be treated as a single variable. It is jointly determined by Jianxiawo, other Yichun mines, and the operating rates of Jiangxi lepidolite-based lithium salt producers. For overseas ore, African supply remains one of the largest sources of H2 supply elasticity. In H1, the disruptions in Africa were more about policy, shipment, and arrival timing rather than the disappearance of resources. If shipments from Zimbabwe and other regions recover and previously delayed cargoes arrive in China in a concentrated manner, feedstock availability for lithium salt producers will improve and the bargaining power of ore sellers will weaken. However, if policy disruption, logistics cycles, grade volatility, or financing pressure cause arrivals to remain inconsistent, lithium salt producers using externally procured ore may still be unable to raise operating rates quickly even if margin repair expectations improve. Australian supply is relatively stable, but a large portion is locked under long-term contracts, limiting its marginal adjustment impact on the spot market. Brazilian and other emerging resources are more important for medium- and long-term expectations, while their short-term impact on Chinese lithium salt production depends on arrival timing and quality stability. Demand is the key factor determining downside support for ore prices. In H2, power batteries and energy storage will enter the traditional peak season, and the expansion and ramp-up of cell and material producers will continue to lift lithium salt consumption. In particular, lithium iron phosphate output, supported by energy storage and commercial vehicle demand, is expected to remain high and provide sustained demand for lithium carbonate. Although ternary materials are growing more slowly than LFP, they may still see periodic restocking driven by certain overseas and high-end power battery demand. If material producers’ expansion is realized smoothly, lithium salt producers will need to maintain high operating rates to meet long-term contract deliveries and spot orders, which will in turn support rigid ore procurement demand. Conversely, if terminal orders fail to absorb the expansion of materials, material producers may enter a destocking cycle, and lithium salt producers’ ore procurement will quickly weaken, causing ore prices to come under pressure earlier. Therefore, H2 lithium ore prices can be divided into four scenarios. Base case: margins gradually rebalance, and ore prices fluctuate at high levels before edging lower. Jianxiawo’s restart expectation materializes, but actual mining and beneficiation ramp-up is gradual. African cargo arrivals recover but do not form a concentrated shock. Power battery and energy storage production schedules remain high, while material producers’ expansion is gradually realized. In this scenario, lithium carbonate prices remain volatile at high levels, the margin inversion of externally procured ore salt producers slowly improves, and lithium ore prices follow lithium carbonate lower but do not collapse. The profits that were excessively concentrated in upstream resources and futures expectations in H1 begin to gradually flow back toward midstream refining. Correction scenario: supply materializes in a concentrated manner, and profits quickly flow back to midstream refining. If Jianxiawo ramps up faster than expected and part of its output enters the spot market; if other Yichun mines progress faster than expected in license renewals; if African ore arrives in China in a concentrated way; and if lithium carbonate warehouse receipts and futures market pressure intensify, ore prices will face stronger downside pressure. The transmission chain would be: lithium carbonate futures turn bearish → lithium salt producers become more cautious in procurement → rigid demand for externally procured ore slows → traders release saleable inventories → ore prices correct quickly. In this scenario, profits do not disappear; they shift quickly from upstream resources back to midstream refining, and overseas miners’ realized prices also come under pressure. The key is not the nominal restart volume of Jianxiawo, but whether the restarted ore is internally consumed or enters the spot market, and whether downstream material inventories can absorb the additional lithium salt supply. Support scenario: effective ore supply remains tight, and profits stay upstream. If Jianxiawo’s actual output is later than market expectations, if license renewals or environmental factors continue to suppress the supply elasticity of other Yichun mines, if African arrivals remain inconsistent, and if peak-season energy storage and power battery production schedules continue to exceed expectations, lithium salt producers using externally procured ore will still face the situation of “orders and capacity available, but feedstock either expensive or unstable.” In this case, negative conversion margins will force some marginal lithium salt producers to reduce operating rates. The contraction of effective lithium carbonate supply will support lithium salt prices; and once salt prices stabilize, ore prices will also gain support. The persistent margin inversion in H1 has already shown that losses are not simply bearish. They act as an automatic stabilizer for the industry chain: they force some marginal refining capacity to shut down, reduce lithium salt supply, and thereby support prices in reverse. Upside scenario: effective ore shortage transmits into lithium salt supply contraction, driving ore prices higher again. If H2 sees the combination of stronger-than-expected demand, weaker-than-expected domestic ore realization, and inconsistent overseas arrivals, lithium ore prices could still rise further. Specifically, if energy storage demand remains highly robust and power batteries enter the traditional peak season with further upward revisions to cell and material production schedules, especially as new LFP capacity continues to ramp up, monthly lithium carbonate consumption will continue to rise. At the same time, if Jianxiawo’s restart is slower than expected, or if output after the restart is mainly consumed within the integrated system with limited spot supply, and if other Jiangxi lepidolite mines are temporarily halted due to license renewal, environmental protection, safety, or profitability factors, domestic ore supply elasticity will fall short of nominal expectations. If African ore arrivals are also inconsistent due to shipment schedules, policy disruptions, grade volatility, or financing issues, lithium salt producers using externally procured ore will face difficulties replenishing feedstock. Under this scenario, ore is no longer merely a variable reverse-priced by lithium carbonate. It begins to constrain lithium salt supply in reverse. The transmission chain would be: downstream material and cell production schedules are revised upward → lithium carbonate spot destocking accelerates → lithium salt producers increase operating rates to fulfill orders → demand for processable ore rises → domestic ore and overseas arrivals fail to ramp up simultaneously → feedstock inventories at externally procured ore salt producers decline → some marginal producers cut output because they cannot secure suitable ore or because margins remain deeply negative → effective lithium carbonate supply contracts → lithium carbonate spot and futures prices strengthen again → lithium ore prices follow lithium carbonate upward. In this case, ore price increases are not driven by independent upstream strength. They are re-priced upward by lithium carbonate after insufficient effective ore supply starts to restrict lithium salt output. In this upside scenario, spot conversion margins for externally procured ore may remain negative or even widen further. On the surface, negative margins should pressure ore prices. But under the combination of strong demand, strong lithium salt prices, and tight ore supply, negative margins can instead become a price-supporting mechanism. On one hand, they force some high-cost externally procured ore producers to suspend operations, reducing lithium carbonate supply. On the other hand, producers with long-term delivery obligations, customer orders, or futures hedging needs still have to keep buying ore, further consuming saleable ore supply. The end result is that industry-chain profits remain concentrated upstream, lithium salt producers’ margin recovery is delayed, and the ore price center may move further upward. Overall, the core issue for the H2 lithium ore market is not whether there is too much or too little ore, but whether ore can be converted into lithium carbonate supply in time. The correct analytical framework should cover six variables: the strength of power battery and energy storage production schedules, inventory cycles at material and cell producers, lithium carbonate spot and futures pricing, the depth of margin inversion for lithium salt producers using externally procured ore, the actual restart and distribution path of Jianxiawo and other Yichun mines, and changes in African arrivals and traders’ saleable inventories. Lithium ore is not the starting point of the industry-chain cycle. It is the result of reverse pricing by lithium carbonate supply-demand fundamentals, refining margins, and the futures market. Only when ore starts to restrict lithium salt producers’ operating rates, or when new ore supply begins to materially increase lithium carbonate supply, will lithium ore shift from a price-following variable to a supply-demand-leading variable. SMM New Energy Analyst: Lesley Yang yangle@smm.cn +61 0451581533

This week, the MHP market was tight overall, with nickel and cobalt coefficients fluctuating at highs. On the supply side, sulfur supply shortages caused some producers to cut production, MHP supply declined, and transaction coefficients edged up slightly. On the demand side, downstream nickel salt prices weakened, the risk of losses persisted, and nickel salt smelters were relatively less accepting of high-priced MHP. However, with some recovery in downstream ternary demand, some producers had rigid purchase needs, supporting the strength of MHP nickel coefficients. Driven by tight supply-demand expectations, the market is expected to hold up well in the short term. The high-grade nickel matte market was also in a pattern of weak supply and demand. Currently, high-grade nickel matte has a clear economic advantage over MHP. However, on the supply side, mainstream suppliers have completed long-term order signing, leaving limited available spot supply. On the demand side, actual consumption capacity was insufficient due to limitations in downstream production line compatibility. Overall, purchase sentiment was weak, trading activity was low, and coefficients remained stable. The international sulfur market saw a shift in supply landscape, with geopolitical premiums gradually being cleared. The US and Iran signed and enacted a ceasefire memorandum on June 17, the Strait of Hormuz is expected to be gradually unblocked, the US has started lifting the sea blockade, and Iran will complete mine clearance within 30 days. However, many shipping enterprises have temporarily suspended the resumption of routes, making navigation recovery a gradual process. Coupled with Turkey's export ban extended to end-September and Russia's ban extended to June 30, short-term supply disruptions persist. As the strait unblocking progresses, sulfur prices are expected to gradually come under pressure and swing wildly at highs in the short term. Going forward, attention should be paid to mine clearance progress, the pace of shipping recovery, and the direction of the final agreement within 60 days. On the nickel price front, as the US-Iran reconciliation gradually progressed this week, market rate hike expectations faded, and non-ferrous metals generally rebounded. Against the backdrop of stable MHP payables and high-grade nickel matte coefficients, the absolute prices of MHP and high-grade nickel matte rebounded as nickel prices rose. Additionally, MHP cobalt prices and refined cobalt prices also rebounded. Overall, the intermediate product market is expected to hold up well in the short term. Cost side, the MHP raw material market remained tight. Under the combined influence of production cuts of intermediates caused by sulfur shortage and just-in-time procurement of ternary materials downstream, MHP payables fluctuated at highs this week. Nickel prices, the US-Iran situation released signals of reconciliation, market rate-hike expectations subsided somewhat, and the previously oversold nickel prices rebounded this week. Overall for the week, nickel prices rebounded, MHP payables held steady, and the spot cost of nickel salt production rose slightly WoW.

In 1983, Goodenough and Thackeray developed lithium manganate (LiMn₂O₄, LMO) on the basis of the lithium cobalt oxide system. With a unique spinel structure and three-dimensional lithium-ion diffusion channels, LMO delivers excellent rate capability, along with simple production procedures and high safety performance. Its core advantage lies in abundant manganese resources and extremely low costs, which are far superior to cobalt-based precious materials, making LMO a key material for the cost reduction of lithium-ion batteries. After four decades of industrial iteration, LMO has been phased out of high-end passenger vehicle power batteries by ternary materials. However, relying on outstanding cost performance, it has firmly occupied segmented markets such as electric two-wheelers, power tools and low-speed electrical equipment. The industry currently presents a structural divergence, with tight supply of high-end modified LMO products and intense homogenized competition among low-end products. 1. Technical Origin: Distinct Performance Advantages and Incurable High-Temperature Defects LMO has a theoretical specific capacity of 148mAh/g and a practical mass-production capacity of around 120mAh/g, with a working voltage of approximately 4.0V. Japanese enterprises took the lead in commercializing LMO in the 1990s. Early manufacturers including Sanyo and Panasonic widely applied LMO to power tools and household devices that prioritize safety. In 2010, the Nissan Leaf adopted a modified LMO cathode system, becoming one of the early large-scale mass-produced pure electric vehicles. It entered the entry-level new energy vehicle market with its cobalt-free, high-safety and low-cost characteristics. Nevertheless, LMO has inherent technical bottlenecks, primarily weak high-temperature cycling stability. When the ambient temperature exceeds 55℃, manganese dissolution and disproportionation reactions easily occur, leading to rapid capacity decay. The dissolved manganese ions also damage the solid electrolyte interphase (SEI) film on the negative electrode, continuously impairing battery service life. The industry has adopted modification methods such as element doping and surface coating to optimize performance, which can only alleviate capacity attenuation rather than completely solve the problem. With the rapid popularization of high-energy-density ternary materials, LMO has gradually withdrawn from the mainstream passenger vehicle power battery track, and shifted to low-speed lithium batteries and consumer electronics fields that prioritize cost and safety over extreme energy density. 2. 2026 Market Status: Cost-Driven Pricing and Sustained Structural Differentiation Currently, LMO prices are highly correlated with lithium carbonate quotations, which account for 60% to 70% of the total production cost of LMO. Fluctuations in lithium carbonate prices directly drive synchronous adjustments in the LMO market. The overall operating rate of the industry remains stable, while internal differentiation is prominent. High-end modified LMO products with long-cycle and high-voltage performance enjoy stable demand and tight supply. By contrast, ordinary low-end LMO products face severe homogenization and fierce market competition, squeezing profit margins of small and medium-sized manufacturers, most of whom maintain slim profits or break-even operations. The demand structure is clear and stable. Electric two-wheelers serve as the largest downstream application scenario, accounting for over 60% of total demand and forming the fundamental support of the LMO industry. Demand for power tools remains rigid and steady. Benefiting from high safety and low cost, LMO demand in small and medium-sized energy storage sectors is expanding steadily, becoming a major growth driver for the industry. Overall downstream demand maintains stable operation without significant fluctuations. 3. Market Outlook: Consolidate Segmented Market Foundation and Expand Manganese-Based Material Layout In the short term, LMO prices will continue to fluctuate in line with lithium carbonate trends and downstream restocking rhythms. High-end modified products are expected to maintain structural premiums due to high production and technical barriers. In the medium term, the industry pattern will continue to optimize. Leading enterprises will dominate the market relying on advantages in technology, production capacity and cost, while backward low-end capacity will be gradually eliminated, further increasing industrial concentration. In the long run, conventional LMO is unlikely to re-enter the high-end passenger vehicle power battery track, but its rigid demand in four core segmented fields including electric two-wheelers, low-speed vehicles, power tools and small-to-medium energy storage will remain solid. Meanwhile, the manganese-based industry keeps iterating. Manganese elements continue to penetrate the mainstream new energy market through lithium manganese iron phosphate and ternary materials. The overall importance of manganese-based materials in the lithium battery industrial chain continues to rise.

As the sodium-ion battery scaling and commercialization process continues to accelerate, industry dividends are being released at a faster pace in 2026. April, as a key period at the start of Q2, saw a notable recovery in the sodium-ion battery cathode and anode materials market. Demand-side stockpiling willingness increased, capacity expansion pace accelerated, product mix differentiation became more prominent, and the industry as a whole moved toward a positive supply-demand synergy.

This week, ternary material prices edged slightly downward. From a raw material perspective, nickel sulfate, cobalt sulfate, and manganese sulfate prices remained relatively stable with no significant fluctuations. The primary downward pressure on prices came from lithium sulfates: spot prices of lithium carbonate and lithium hydroxide saw notable declines in early week, weakening the cost support for ternary materials. Despite the pronounced decline in lithium sulfate prices early this week, ternary cathode material manufacturers showed relatively limited restocking interest. There are two main reasons for this: First, prior to the price adjustment, most cathode manufacturers had already finalized March orders with downstream battery cell makers and are currently in the order delivery phase , maintaining relatively sufficient raw material inventories. Second, manufacturers generally maintain a " buy on rising, not on falling " mentality, viewing this adjustment primarily as short-term volatility influenced by international situations, with no expectation of sustained lithium sulfate price declines. In terms of pricing, although lithium carbonate futures prices experienced adjustments, cathode manufacturers' quotations did not see significant declines, mainly because their raw material costs remain higher than current futures prices . Spot market transactions were also quite subdued this week, with market activity dominated by long-term contract supplies. On the demand side, the EV market showed seasonal recovery, but downstream customers' order fulfillment pace remained slow due to Q1 new energy vehicle sales falling short of expectations . In contrast, e-mobility and consumer electronics markets saw relatively notable growth, primarily driven by some consumer batteries facing "export rush" demand , leading to forward order placements.

Looking ahead to March, production is expected to rebound as operations resume and the traditional demand recovery period begins. However, due to sluggish auto sales, weak overseas demand for ternary materials, and persistently high raw material prices, the pace of recovery may fall short of pre-holiday expectations.

Currently, the export of ternary precursors and ternary cathode materials enjoys a 13% VAT export rebate. A noticeable surge in concentrated "pre-rebate" exports is anticipated in the first quarter.

In December 2025, China's ternary precursor exports totaled 6,487 tons, marking a significant decline of 34% month-on-month and 49% year-on-year. South Korea maintained its position as China's primary export destination.

NCM 6-series materials solidified their dominant position within China's EV battery market. Capitalizing on this market shift, several domestic cathode material producers focusing on the mid-to-high nickel segment delivered outstanding performances. Simultaneously, the overseas ternary market maintained its focus on high-nickel materials.