The EV market shows solid end orders in July, with both domestic and European auto markets continuing to improve, driving battery cell demand to remain at high levels.

Hainan Xingzhihai New Materials Co., Ltd. officially put its carbonization line technical transformation project into operation on June 30. Since the project commenced, all participating contractors streamlined construction processes and overcame challenges including tight deadlines and extensive cross‑operations to complete the work on schedule. The new production line allows flexible switching between lithium carbonate and lithium hydroxide output, enhancing the company’s market adaptability and supporting the development of Hainan’s new energy and advanced materials sector.

The South Korean government has begun work to establish a system that officially certifies the value of key minerals extracted from waste batteries, such as lithium and nickel, as recycled raw materials. The Ministry of Climate, Energy and Environment announced on June 25 that it signed a memorandum of understanding (MOU) for a pilot project on the battery recycled raw material production certification system at the President Hotel in Seoul, with six waste battery recycling companies and the Korea Environment Corporation participating. Through the pilot project, the government plans to verify the certification method in actual production processes before fully implementing the system in May next year. The battery recycled raw material production certification system is a scheme under which the government officially confirms that key battery materials, such as lithium, nickel and cobalt, produced by recycling waste batteries recovered from electric vehicles and other sources are recycled raw materials derived from waste resources. The certification will cover eight types of materials: lithium carbonate, lithium hydroxide, nickel sulfate, cobalt sulfate, manganese sulfate, graphite, mixed metal precipitate and cathode active materials.

Innox Lithium announced on June 25 that it has signed a memorandum of understanding (MOU) with JS Chem, a company specializing in lithium sulfide production, to cooperate on the solid-state battery materials business. Under the agreement, Innox Lithium will supply high-purity lithium hydroxide needed to produce lithium sulfide (Li₂S), while JS Chem plans to use the material to establish a lithium sulfide production supply chain.

Around June 24, 2026, import and export data for products related to the cobalt and lithium battery industry chain for May were released. The data shows that spodumene imports in May continued to pull back from April, reaching 681,000 mt in physical content, down 10% MoM, equivalent to approximately 66,000 mt of lithium carbonate equivalent (LCE). On the lithium carbonate import side, China imported 37,555 mt of lithium carbonate in May, up 15% MoM and up 78% YoY. Cumulative imports of lithium carbonate from January to May reached 153,000 mt, up 53% YoY year-to-date... SMM has consolidated the import and export situation of battery materials, as follows: Upstream Lithium Concentrates Customs data indicates that spodumene imports in May continued to pull back from April, reaching 681,000 mt in physical content. By source country, port arrivals of Australian ore returned to relatively normal levels, with arrivals exceeding 330,000 mt this month, down 6% MoM; shipments from Zimbabwe that were loaded earlier arrived at 63,800 mt this month, down 41% MoM; exports from South Africa and Nigeria from April to May were relatively stable, with port arrivals ranging from 90,000 to 110,000 mt per month. Arrivals from Mali were low this month, at only 38,000 mt, which increased MoM but have not returned to relatively high levels. Additionally, after SMM screening, it can be seen that the incoming ore for the month was equivalent to 66,000 mt of LCE. Lithium concentrates accounted for 81% of the incoming ore, with the trend rising MoM compared to the previous month. Source: China Customs, compiled by SMM > [SMM Analysis] China's spodumene imports reached 681,000 mt in physical content in May 2026, down 10% MoM, equivalent to approximately 66,000 mt of LCE On the spot quotation for spodumene concentrates (CIF China), according to SMM spot quotes, the spot quotation for spodumene concentrates (CIF China) in May showed a trend of rising first and then falling. As of May 29, the spot quotation for spodumene concentrates (CIF China) was around $2,571/mt, up $31/mt from $2,540/mt at month-end April, an increase of 1.22%. > Click to view SMM's spot quotes for new energy products In May, enterprises that purchase spodumene externally for lithium extraction still hovered near the break-even line. At the beginning of the month, lithium carbonate prices rebounded, but spodumene concentrates followed suit and at one point rose more than salt prices, leading to continued losses. In the first half of May, lithium carbonate prices further rose, and non-integrated enterprises might briefly achieve slim profits on the spot; after mid-month, ore prices fluctuated at highs while lithium carbonate pulled back, causing enterprises to fall back into losses, which lasted until month-end. Enterprises that purchase lepidolite externally for lithium extraction continued to see stable profits in May. Although lepidolite concentrate prices fluctuated at highs due to tight supply, their increase was smaller than the rise in lithium carbonate, leaving profit margins for the smelting end. May 12: Yichun Mining auctioned 5,700 mt of 2% lepidolite concentrate at a transaction price of 5,760 yuan/mt, reflecting the tight balance at the ore end. As of June 24, spodumene concentrate (CIF China) spot prices remained at $2,291/mt. Lithium Carbonate According to customs data, China imported 37,555 mt of lithium carbonate in May, up 15% MoM and up 78% YoY. Of this, 24,522 mt came from Chile (65% of total imports), 11,422 mt from Argentina (30%), and 1,023 mt from Indonesia (3%). From January to May, China’s cumulative lithium carbonate imports reached 153,000 mt, up 53% YoY. In May, China exported 201 mt of lithium carbonate, down 46% MoM and down 30% YoY. Cumulative exports from January to May totaled 2,087 mt, up 1% YoY. China imported 12,107 mt of lithium sulfate in May, down 33% MoM but up 53% YoY. Cumulative imports from January to May reached 71,000 mt, up 105% YoY. According to SMM spot price data, spot lithium carbonate prices in May also showed a pattern of rising first and then falling. As of May 29, spot lithium carbonate prices stood at 177,500 yuan/mt, up 500 yuan/mt from 177,000 yuan/mt on April 30, an increase of 0.28%. 》Click to view SMM New Energy product spot prices Looking back at the May lithium carbonate market, according to SMM, spot lithium carbonate prices in China fluctuated upward with a notable rise in the price center, and the average monthly price rose 12% MoM. From the fundamental side, supply-side disruptions continued to fester, while on the demand side, production schedules for downstream cathode materials and battery cells remained at high levels. The June production schedule is expected to accelerate further, and the supply-demand time mismatch remains unresolved. Upstream lithium chemical plants maintained firm prices and held back from selling throughout the month. The downstream showed divergence: some enterprises restocked on dips, but most had limited acceptance of high prices and mainly made just-in-time procurement, leaving actual transactions relatively sluggish. In May, spot battery-grade lithium carbonate prices kept rising amid fluctuations, with a notable gain at month-end compared to the start of the month. The most-traded futures contract briefly broke through the 200,000 yuan/mt mark during the month. As of June 24, spot battery-grade lithium carbonate prices were quoted at 154,000-161,000 yuan/mt, averaging 157,500 yuan/mt. According to SMM, entering June, the lithium carbonate market saw a clear tug-of-war between longs and shorts, with the price center shifting significantly lower than in May. On the supply side, disruptions such as declining exports from Chile and license renewals for mines in Jiangxi provided bottom support for lithium carbonate prices. However, pressure from high warrant levels and expectations of Zimbabwean ore arrivals capped the upside for prices. Downstream material plants maintain a dip-buying strategy amid falling lithium carbonate prices, with stronger willingness to restock when prices hit psychological levels but lacking momentum to chase rallies. Upstream lithium chemical plants, on the other hand, still hold sentiment to hold prices firm. Currently, the tug-of-war between longs and shorts intensifies. In the future, close attention should be paid to the warrant inflection point, the arrival pace of Zimbabwe lithium ore, and the extent to which downstream production schedules materialize. Spot lithium carbonate quotes are expected to remain in the doldrums in the near term. Lithium Hydroxide According to customs data, in May 2026, China imported 3,932 mt of lithium hydroxide, down 41% MoM and up nearly fourfold YoY. Among them, imports from South Korea amounted to 2,029 mt, accounting for 51% of total imports; from Indonesia were 360 mt, marking a notable pullback; from Australia and Chile were 1,204 mt, making up 30%. In May, China exported 3,549 mt of lithium hydroxide, down 36% MoM and down 36% YoY, with 2,799 mt going to South Korea and 608 mt to Japan. Battery Materials LFP In May 2026, China's LFP exports reached 7,625.4 mt, up 29.3% MoM from April and up 710.0% YoY from May last year, setting a new monthly high for the year. On the pricing front, total export value in May was $62.6062 million, with an average unit price of roughly $8,210/mt, equivalent to about 55,951 yuan/mt, up around 6.9% from the April average. In terms of export destinations, there was a notable shift in May: exports to the US were the highest at 3,014.7 mt, leaping to first place; Thailand ranked second with 2,030.6 mt; exports to Malaysia totaled about 886 mt, ranking third; Japan and Vietnam recorded 620 mt and 420 mt, respectively. Compared with April, exports to Vietnam and Thailand increased significantly, while those to Poland and Canada declined. The overall export center shifted towards Southeast Asia and the US, which is closely related to the locations of battery cell manufacturers' clients. Overall, overseas demand remains robust. China's total LFP exports kept increasing, achieving multiple-fold growth YoY. In the future, as overseas battery capacity gradually comes onstream, China's LFP exports are expected to stay high. LiPF6 According to China customs data, in May 2026, China's cumulative exports of LiPF6 were approximately 1,500 mt, up about 72.8% MoM, while cumulative imports of LiPF6 were about 53.5 mt. On the export front, in May 2026, China's LiPF6 exports were about 1,500 mt, up about 72.8% MoM from April and up about 15.5% YoY. Specifically, this month, LiPF6 was mainly exported to South Korea, Poland, Malaysia, Japan, and other countries. Exports to Poland were 451.88 mt, up about 33.89% MoM; exports to South Korea were 591.006 mt, up about 622.47% MoM; exports to Japan were 109.8 mt, down about 42.62% MoM; and exports to the US were 77.4 mt, down about 24.05% MoM. Overall, overseas procurement volume for LiPF6 recovered somewhat in May. Artificial Graphite In May 2026, China's artificial graphite imports were 980 mt, up 29.5% MoM but down 21.8% YoY. In terms of the average import price, in May 2026, the average import price of China's artificial graphite stood at 60,148 yuan/mt, down 20.8% MoM but up 37.3% YoY. In May 2026, China's artificial graphite exports were 50,038 mt, up 9.03% MoM but down 4% YoY. In terms of the average export price, in May 2026, the average export price of China's artificial graphite stood at 7,729 yuan/mt, down 16.12% MoM and down 12.91% YoY. Looking at the overall export data, while total artificial graphite exports recorded MoM growth in May, the combined shipments of the top five exporting provinces in China registered a 19% MoM pullback. Performance by province diverged significantly, with two provinces seeing their exports down sharply 40% MoM, another province posting an MoM decline approaching 30%, and major production regions showing marked export weakness. Flake Graphite In May 2026, China's flake graphite imports were 5,944 mt, up 87% MoM and up 22% YoY. Data source: China Customs, SMM In May 2026, China's flake graphite exports were 7,641 mt, up 87% MoM but down 12% YoY. The significant 87% MoM rise in flake graphite exports in this period was mainly driven by the low base effect stemming from the delayed delivery of export orders in April. Affected by earlier logistics delays, production schedule postponements, and other factors, export shipments in April were at a relatively low level, and previously backlogged export orders were concentrated for customs declaration and shipment in May, driving a sharp MoM increase in export volumes this month. Phosphate Ore In May 2026, China's phosphate ore imports stood at 131,000 mt, down 36.4% MoM, with an average price of $93/mt, down slightly 2.6% MoM. Import sources were highly concentrated in Egypt (128 kt, accounting for 97.7%), while shipments from Peru and Jordan were interrupted. Exports stood at 32 kt, up 189.6% MoM, with Hubei resuming exports of 21 kt. The Egyptian government halted new export contracts in mid-May, intensifying supply uncertainty going forward, which may further pressure import costs. The provincial mix shifted dramatically as Hubei imports fell to zero and Guangxi reclaimed the top spot. Characteristics of China’s phosphate ore import market in May: First, total volume pulled back significantly, with imports down more than one-third MoM; second, sources were highly concentrated, with Egypt alone accounting for as much as 97.7%, while shipments from Peru and Jordan were interrupted; third, the provincial mix shifted dramatically, as Hubei imports fell to zero and Guangxi reclaimed the top spot. The Egyptian government announced in mid-May that it would stop signing new phosphate ore export contracts. The uncertainty surrounding Egyptian cargo supply will rise markedly in the coming months, potentially pushing import costs higher and exacerbating tight supply. At the same time, the recovery in exports from Hubei and Guizhou reflects a rebalancing of the regional supply-demand pattern for domestic phosphate ore. Cobalt Cobalt Hydrometallurgy Intermediate Products In May 2026, China’s imports of cobalt hydrometallurgy intermediate products were approximately 2,584 mt in physical content, up 107% MoM and down 95% YoY. Imports from the DRC were approximately 2,066 mt in physical content, up 119% MoM and down 96% YoY. The average import price of cobalt hydrometallurgy intermediate products in China in May 2026 was $16,607/mt in physical content, down 3.37% MoM. Reports indicate that some Chinese-invested miners have gradually increased chartered shipments since May, with several leading miners progressively resuming shipments from June onward. Port arrivals of intermediate products are expected to slowly pick up in the coming months and are likely to achieve bulk arrival volumes after August. Unwrought Cobalt In May 2026, China’s imports of unwrought cobalt were approximately 673 mt, down 50% MoM and up 3% YoY. In May, the top three sources by refined cobalt import volume were Indonesia (211 mt), Madagascar (93 mt), and Canada (85 mt). The sharp MoM decline in imports was mainly due to the depletion of low-priced cobalt raw materials previously accumulated outside China, while newly imported cobalt plates and cobalt briquettes were priced higher than other domestic cobalt raw materials, reducing smelters’ willingness to purchase for dissolution. The average import price of unwrought cobalt in China in May 2026 was $54,557/mt, up 3.48% MoM. Cumulative imports in January-May 2026 totaled 6,589 mt, up 120% YoY. Exports, in May 2026 China's unwrought cobalt exports were approximately 370 mt, up 70% MoM and down 88% YoY. By destination, exports to the Netherlands surged to 205 mt in May, up 791% MoM. Average export price, the average export price of China's unwrought cobalt in May 2026 was $53,403/mt, down 2.17% MoM. Cumulative exports in January-May 2026 totaled 2,161 mt, down 79% YoY.

On production schedules, June marks the mid-year point, and manufacturers generally have a need to control inventory levels. Combined with relatively high raw material settlement prices this month, June output is expected to see a slight decline, with some orders likely deferred to July.

According to customs data, in May 2026, China imported 3,932 tons of lithium hydroxide, down 41% month-on-month but up nearly fourfold year-on-year. Of this, 2,029 tons were imported from South Korea, accounting for 51% of total imports; another 30% came from Australia and Chile. In May, China exported 3,549 tons of lithium hydroxide, down 36% month-on-month and down 36% year-on-year. Among exports, 2,799 tons went to South Korea and 608 tons to Japan. Source: China Customs, SMM

As the mid-year period approaches, manufacturers are generally reluctant to build additional inventories and are instead consuming existing raw material stocks.

Chengxin Lithium announced that the company held the first meeting of the ninth board of directors on June 12, 2026, reviewed and approved the "Proposal on Applying for the Designated Delivery Warehouse for Lithium Hydroxide at GFEX," agreed that the company apply to GFEX for the qualification of a designated delivery warehouse for lithium hydroxide, and authorized the management to submit application materials and handle other related matters. This application is beneficial for expanding the company's visibility and influence, and improving its risk resistance capability and profitability. This matter remains uncertain, with the final outcome subject to GFEX's approval.

On June 9, a fire broke out at Chemical Grade Plant 3, or CGP3, at the Greenbushes lithium operation. The fire was quickly extinguished, no injuries were reported, and CGP1 and CGP2 continued to operate as normal. The following day, IGO confirmed that its FY2026 spodumene concentrate production guidance of 1.375–1.425 million tonnes remained unchanged. Chemical Grade Plant 4, or CGP4, is scheduled to commence construction in 2027. Viewed in isolation, this was a well-contained operational incident. However, the location of the fire deserves closer attention. CGP3 is not part of Greenbushes’ existing production base. It represents incremental supply currently ramping up at the far-left end of the global lithium cost curve. The project involved approximately A$880 million of investment and is designed to add around 500,000 tonnes per year of spodumene concentrate capacity. First ore was fed into the plant in December 2025, and the facility had originally been expected to reach nameplate capacity around mid-2026. The damage assessment is still under way. Neither the repair cost nor the recovery timeline has been quantified. The fact that production guidance remains unchanged should therefore be understood as an initial assessment rather than a definitive conclusion. The key question is not whether IGO has immediately revised its annual guidance. It is whether the CGP3 ramp-up schedule will be delayed. Should the market be concerned when an incremental production line at the world’s lowest-cost lithium mine experiences an operational disruption? To answer this question, it is useful to examine the role of Australian lithium mines in the broader lithium pricing mechanism. Note on the CGP3 ramp-up timeline: At IGO’s FY2026 second-quarter results briefing in late January 2026, management stated that CGP3 had received first ore in December 2025 and would require approximately five months to ramp up to nameplate capacity. Some English-language transcripts recorded management as referring to completion “by the end of the calendar year.” However, based on the timing of first ore feed, a five-month ramp-up period would imply completion around mid-2026, before the end of Australia’s FY2026 financial year. This is also consistent with the company’s previous guidance. The transcript may therefore have intended to say “by the end of the financial year.” This article adopts the mid-2026 ramp-up assumption. The timing is relevant because the June 9 fire occurred only weeks before the originally expected completion of the ramp-up. The actual impact should become clearer in IGO’s fourth-quarter report, which is expected in late July. Greenbushes: A Reference Point at the Bottom of the Cost Curve Greenbushes’ most important advantage begins with ore grade. It is one of the world’s largest and highest-grade hard-rock lithium mines currently in production. Its ore grade is approximately twice the industry average. For a spodumene operation, grade directly affects processing efficiency. To produce one tonne of SC6 concentrate, Greenbushes needs to process materially less ore than a typical mine. This provides a structural advantage across mining, beneficiation, energy consumption and tailings management. Greenbushes also benefits from scale. The operation currently has several processing facilities, with combined nominal ore-processing capacity of around 6.5 million tonnes per year and spodumene concentrate capacity of up to approximately 1.5 million tonnes per year. Once CGP3 completes its ramp-up, the mine will add a further 500,000 tonnes per year of concentrate capacity. With the mine life extended to 2045, Greenbushes combines low costs with long-term supply capacity. This explains the mine’s resilience during the lithium price downturn. During 2024 and 2025, lithium prices declined sharply. A number of higher-cost Australian mines and Chinese lepidolite projects faced production cuts or temporary shutdowns. Greenbushes, however, continued to maintain relatively strong profitability and moved ahead with the CGP3 expansion. Greenbushes does not represent the industry’s average cost. It represents the most competitive end of the global hard-rock lithium cost curve. For that reason, Greenbushes is better understood as a reference point for the bottom of the cycle. As lithium prices fall, higher-cost supply exits first, while low-cost assets remain in operation. The closer prices move toward the cost range of Greenbushes, the fewer marginal producers remain capable of operating normally, and the more advanced the supply-side clearing process becomes. This does not mean that lithium prices can never fall below the cost level of Greenbushes. In the short term, inventory pressure, liquidity conditions and market sentiment can push prices below the cost levels implied by the marginal supply curve. Greenbushes is not an absolute price floor. Its significance is that it provides a structural reference point for assessing how far supply-side clearing has progressed. Greenbushes: The Largest Producer, but with Limited Freely Traded Supply Although Greenbushes produces large volumes of spodumene concentrate, relatively little of that material enters the open spot market directly. The mine is operated by Talison Lithium. Talison is owned by Tianqi Lithium Energy Australia, or TLEA, and Albemarle. TLEA is in turn jointly owned by Tianqi Lithium and IGO. Greenbushes concentrate is primarily distributed through shareholder offtake arrangements and supplied into the downstream conversion systems of Tianqi, Albemarle and their respective partners. Under normal conditions, the material is not sold directly into the open market. Greenbushes therefore provides a useful example of why lithium supply should be analysed through several different layers: Resources → Design capacity → Actual production → Saleable volume → Freely traded spot volume Greenbushes ranks among the world’s largest producers by actual output. However, because most of its concentrate is locked into shareholder offtake arrangements, the amount available for open-market trading remains relatively limited. This means Greenbushes affects lithium pricing mainly through indirect channels. First, it determines the size of the lowest-cost portion of global lithium supply and therefore plays an important role in shaping the lithium chemical cost curve. Second, its operating costs, offtake pricing mechanism and expansion schedule provide reference points for long-term contract negotiations and price assessments in the spodumene market. By contrast, short-term spot prices are often more directly influenced by marginal resources that are not fully locked into shareholder arrangements and must actively seek buyers in the market. These include certain Australian mines, African lithium resources and trader-held cargoes. This explains an apparent paradox. An additional 500,000 tonnes of Greenbushes concentrate capacity can materially change the medium-term supply-demand balance, yet its immediate impact on the spot market may be limited. Meanwhile, the shutdown or restart of a marginal mine producing only 100,000–200,000 tonnes per year can quickly influence spot quotations and market sentiment if its output is sold on a market basis. Short-term pricing is not determined solely by total production. It is also shaped by the volume of material that is freely available for negotiation and immediate transaction. The same logic applies to lithium carbonate. Price elasticity depends not only on total inventory but also on how much inventory is genuinely available for circulation. The largest producer does not necessarily exert the most direct influence over the spot market. Short-term marginal pricing is usually driven by the resources that are tradeable, negotiable and available for immediate delivery. However, shareholder offtake does not mean that Greenbushes material is completely isolated from the market. If lithium conversion plants within the Tianqi or Albemarle systems reduce operating rates, or if downstream conversion assets experience operational issues, part of the concentrate originally intended for internal consumption may re-enter the market indirectly through tolling, resale or inventory adjustments. These volumes are rarely captured in public statistics, but they can affect the actual liquidity of the spodumene market. Tracking this material requires a broader set of indicators, including shareholder conversion-plant operating rates, concentrate inventories, tolling arrangements and import flows. This type of “shadow spot supply” is harder to observe than nominal mine production, yet it can become relevant at specific points in the cycle. SC6 and Lithium Chemicals: The Direction of Price Transmission Reversed Within a Year The relationship between Australian spodumene concentrate prices and Chinese lithium chemical prices has completed a full cycle over the past year. During the first half of 2025, spodumene prices followed lithium chemical prices downward. Australian miners reduced costs materially in the first quarter but largely avoided production cuts. Mining companies remained willing to ship material, and the price of SC6 concentrate fell to around US$620 per tonne. Falling concentrate prices then placed additional pressure on lithium chemical prices, reinforcing the downward cycle. At the time, the key market question was straightforward: When would the mining sector finally reduce supply? The direction of transmission reversed in the end of third quarter. The announcement that 27 mining licences in Yichun could be cancelled, together with the suspension of the Jianxiawo mine, tightened expectations around domestic Chinese lithium supply. Lithium chemical prices moved first. SC6 prices then followed, with greater elasticity. By December, the monthly average price had recovered to around US$1,300 per tonne. Formula-based pricing mechanisms linked to lithium chemical prices allowed mining companies to capture a large share of the upside, while Chinese converters saw their processing margins squeezed. At the same time, the impairment and expansion adjustments at the Kwinana lithium hydroxide project highlighted the challenges facing Australian downstream conversion. The project has faced difficulties in cost control, production ramp-up and operational stability. TLEA’s Kwinana lithium hydroxide refinery was fully impaired in mid-2025, the second train was suspended, and IGO made clear that it would prioritize mining. These developments reinforce Australia’s role as a supplier of spodumene concentrate rather than a major lithium chemical conversion hub. As a result, the relationship between SC6 prices and Chinese lithium chemical prices is likely to remain strong. However, the speed and magnitude of transmission will continue to depend on inventories, contract formulas, shipping cycles and converter operating rates. One of the most useful indicators is the implied conversion margin between SC6 concentrate and lithium chemical spot prices. When the implied conversion margin turns negative, Chinese converters purchasing third-party concentrate are effectively losing cash on incremental production. The market then needs to rebalance through at least one of three channels: Spodumene concentrate prices decline; Lithium chemical prices rise; Converters reduce operating rates. This indicator provides a useful way to judge whether bargaining power currently sits with the mining segment or the conversion segment. Australian Mine Restarts: Lithium Prices Develop an Upper Constraint The key theme for Australian lithium mines during 2024 and 2025 was supply-side clearing. In 2026, the theme has shifted toward reactivation. As lithium prices recovered during the first half of the year and futures briefly exceeded RMB 200,000 per tonne, a series of restart decisions emerged across May and June. Project Action Timing Key Point Bald Hill, Mineral Resources Restart after approximately 18 months of suspension Restart announced in May; first concentrate expected in July Restart cost of around A$20 million Ngungaju, PLS Processing plant restart Planned for July Approximately 200,000 tonnes per year of restored output Finniss, Core Lithium Final investment decision approved; financing secured Targeting first ore in the third quarter Financing package of approximately US$205 million Kathleen Valley, Liontown Expansion under assessment Ongoing Further details pending Mt Cattlin, Rio Tinto Remains suspended Suspended since March 2025 Restart conditions remain unclear Taken together, these cases show that the true threshold for mine restart is more complex than a simple comparison between lithium prices and cash costs. Bald Hill moved from restart announcement to expected first concentrate production in around two months. The mine had remained in a production-ready care-and-maintenance state, and Mineral Resources has its own mining-services platform, allowing it to mobilize mining, crushing and haulage internally without relying heavily on external contractors. This type of asset represents the fastest-reacting segment of supply when prices recover. Finniss is a different case. The project first monetized inventories through Glencore to improve liquidity, then assembled a financing package involving convertible debt, additional borrowings and equity issuance before reaching a final investment decision. For miners with weaker balance sheets, a restart is not simply an operational decision. It is a financing event. A low-price cycle does not eliminate the resource base. It eliminates the ability to finance production. The market impact of the restart wave is already visible. Lithium carbonate futures reached a two-year high of RMB 200,500 per tonne on May 13 before retreating to around RMB 160,000–170,000 per tonne in June. One reason for the pullback is that the market has begun to price in the return of idle supply. The mechanism is straightforward: Prices rise → Idle capacity restarts → Expected supply increases → Prices come under pressure The list of suspended Australian mines, once ranked by restart economics and response time, effectively becomes an upside supply curve for lithium prices. The CGP3 fire and the restart wave represent two sides of the same market. At the low-cost end of the curve, incremental Greenbushes supply has experienced an operational disruption, creating a bullish signal. At the higher-cost end, idle assets are returning to production, creating a bearish signal. From a resource perspective, lithium prices in 2026 are searching for equilibrium between these two forces. Lithium Prices in 2026 May Become More Volatile, but One-Way Trends Could Be Shorter Once prices rise, the factor that ultimately limits the upside is the speed at which idle capacity returns to the market. Bald Hill, Finniss and Ngungaju represent a broader pool of suspended or standby assets that can respond when lithium prices move sufficiently above their cash-cost thresholds and remain there for long enough. However, restart supply is not instantaneous. From the moment a restart is announced, companies need to remobilize personnel, inspect equipment, resume mining and processing, build concentrate inventories and arrange shipments. Depending on the asset, concentrate may enter the market within two months or only after several quarters. This delay creates a window during which supply disruptions can push prices higher. The suspension of the Jianxiawo mine and the CGP3 fire at Greenbushes matter not because global lithium resources have suddenly become scarce, but because short-term freely available supply has tightened while idle capacity has not yet fully returned. Compared with the previous cycle, this risk-premium window appears to be shortening. An increasing number of mines are being placed on care and maintenance rather than permanently closed. Mining-services companies, traders and downstream customers are also becoming more involved in restart financing and offtake arrangements. Once prices move back above the relevant breakeven levels, some idle assets can return more quickly. This does not necessarily mean lithium prices will become more stable. Supply disruptions can still trigger rapid price increases. However, the duration and magnitude of one-way rallies are likely to face stronger constraints from restart expectations. Prices may become more volatile in the short term, but sustained unilateral trends could become shorter. Conclusion Australian lithium mines influence lithium prices through several distinct channels. Greenbushes provides a structural reference point at the bottom of the hard-rock lithium cost curve. However, because most of its output is absorbed through shareholder offtake arrangements, it does not directly determine short-term spot pricing. Spot-market tightness is more directly influenced by marginal saleable supply: Australian mines, African resources and trader-held inventories that are available for negotiation and immediate transaction. Once lithium prices rise, the speed at which suspended assets restart becomes the key constraint on the duration of the rally. The framework can therefore be summarized in three lines: Low-cost mines provide a structural reference point for the bottom of the cycle. Freely traded supply determines short-term spot-market tightness. The speed of mine restarts determines how long an upside cycle can last. The CGP3 fire and the restart wave sit at opposite ends of this framework. One represents a disruption to low-cost incremental supply. The other represents the return of higher-cost idle capacity. Lithium prices in 2026 will continue to seek equilibrium between these two forces. Lesley Yang Senior New Energy Analyst, SMM yangle@smm.cn