Loading…
Loading…
2 critical materials scored · binding chokepoint: Graphite (🇨🇳 CN 85% of refining) · 35 restrictive government measures on record
The binding exposure is Graphite — 🇨🇳 CN controls 85% of global refining. On this company's production footprint that scores 88/100 (adversarial chokepoint; global 77). The register holds 35 restrictive government measures touching this company's materials — each traced to its primary source below.
Peer rank · Graphite Blue World Technologies is the 24th-most-exposed of the 199 named companies we track on 🇨🇳 CN's Graphite chokepoint; the most-exposed is Leading Edge Materials (Norra Kärr) (88/100). Ranked on the same footprint-adjusted buyer score as above — a relative read of an existing metric, not a new one.
Blue World Technologies ranks 2nd of 22 verified hydrogen companies.
Same sector_primary, ranked on the company supply-risk index. Restricted to hand-verified dossiers — 2 further hydrogen companies are tracked but auto-onboarded, and excluded here because their exposure list is a sector template rather than company research. A peer scoring lower is the useful read: it usually means a different production geography or a qualified second source.
Company supply-risk index 84/100 — the binding chokepoint dominates, with a modest add for exposure breadth across 2 scored materials. Buyer-relative (first-order): weighted by where the company produces (DK 100%, estimated split — no cited source states these exact shares), applied across all materials — it does not yet trace each input to its specific sourcing step.
Disclosed production sites
Named plants and what they make, from the company's disclosures. Descriptive detail — the buyer score above is still driven by country-level footprint weights, not per-site material intensity.
Blue World Technologies is a Danish developer and manufacturer of high-temperature PEM (HT-PEM) methanol fuel cell stacks and systems, founded in 2018 in Aalborg by Anders Korsgaard, Mads Bang and Mads Friis Jensen (former Aalborg University fuel-cell PhD researchers). Its fuel cells run on renewable methanol reformed on-board into hydrogen-rich gas, targeting stationary/APU power, automotive, heavy-duty, and maritime decarbonisation, where liquid methanol is easier to store and bunker than compressed or liquid hydrogen. The company builds on its 2019-2021 acquisition of Danish Power Systems, a 25-year HT-PEM membrane-electrode-assembly (MEA) specialist, and is backed by Maersk Growth and Denmark's export-investment fund EIFO.
each cell in the stack as a sandwich of a bipolar plate — "also called graphite plate, flow plate or separator plate" — either side of the MEA. Graphite bipolar plates are the stack's largest single material input by mass. China accounts for the large majority of both natural graphite mining and synthetic graphite processing capacity globally, making this the most geographically concentrated exposure in the bill of materials.
runs at 160-170°C, the operating signature of phosphoric-acid-doped PBI (polybenzimidazole) membranes — the standard chemistry for HT-PEM technology and the core competency Blue World acquired with Danish Power Systems' MEA business. Phosphoric acid is refined from mined phosphate rock; this is a lower-value, less-concentrated input than graphite but a genuine functional dependency, since the membrane cannot conduct protons at this temperature without it.
1. Blue World Technologies — fuel cell stack product page (HT-PEM, 160-170°C, liquid-cooled): https://www.blue.world/products/fuel-cell-stack/ 2. Blue World Technologies — Knowledge Centre (bipolar/graphite flow-plate + MEA stack construction): https://www.blue.world/knowledge-centre/ 3. Blue World Technologies — "Blue World Technologies acquires part of world-class fuel cell component manufacturer" (Danish Power Systems acquisition, HT-PEM MEA specialist, 25 years' R&D): https://www.blue.world/blue-world-technologies-acquires-part-of-world-class-fuel-cell-component-manufacturer/ 4. Blue World Technologies — "Blue World completes successful testing of 200 kW maritime fuel cell system to run on green methanol" (1MW system pilot on a Maersk dual-fuel vessel, H1 2026): https://www.blue.world/blue-world-completes-successful-testing-of-200-kw-maritime-fuel-cell-system-to-run-on-green-methanol/
2026-09-09 (Step 3.8 top-up): added one named counterparty, A.P. Moller-Maersk (customer, related-party — Maersk Growth is also an investor), sourced to Ship Technology's coverage of the maritime pilot. No other claims re-opened.
2026-09-23 (re-verify): replaced two dead citations (ship-technology.com 403s, greencarcongress.com unreachable) with live Blue World Technologies primary sources for the same claims (Danish Power Systems acquisition; Maersk 1MW pilot). Qualified all three material_exposures rows with band/role/basis/ source. Added ownership_country (DK) and operating_hq (Aalborg, Denmark); parent_slug and a structured ownership: block remain unset — Blue World Technologies Holding ApS is a pure holding shell with no separate dossier and investor stake percentages are not publicly disclosed (see ownership_note).
2026-10-07 (re-verify): Maersk 1MW pilot (installation expected H1 2026) re-confirmed against Blue World's own release. Dropped the copper exposure: its only source was a generic Springer fuel-cell paper and Blue World's stack page does not mention copper. The stack page confirms 160-170°C operation but does not itself name the membrane chemistry or plate material; phosphate and graphite rows rest on Blue World's knowledge-centre literature.
From the company’s own filings and dated disclosures — top-5 concentration and related-party tables where the filer’s regime compels them, named supply and offtake agreements where it does not. This is a disclosure, not a netting: a named supplier concentration is shown beside the exposure score and never adjusts it. Figures are the fiscal years labelled, not a current snapshot.
1MW Blue World methanol fuel cell system to be installed on a Maersk dual-fuel vessel as the first maritime pilot, H1 2026, following successful testing of a 200kW system. related_party: true because Maersk Growth is also a Blue World investor (Dec 2023 pre-C round, see ownership above).
Alternative track — a counterparty read from primary filings, never merged into the exposure score. Absence of a name is not absence of a relationship: Filers name only the counterparties their regime compels them to name, and several of this company’s largest are disclosed by size with no name at all.
Ranked by buyer-relative risk, highest first.
1 of 1 of your scored CRMA-strategic material breach the EU’s own Art. 5 65% single-third-country ceiling (global-production proxy).
| Material | Controlled by | You | Global | Band | Art. 5 | Input share | Substitute | Laws | Trend |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Graphite | 🇨🇳 CN 85% refining | 88 | 77 | Critical | EXCEEDS 85% | — | hard | 27 | ▲ rising |
| Phosphate | 🇨🇳 CN 38% refining | 69 | 59 | Elevated | — | — | none | 10 | ▲ rising |
You = buyer-relative score (this company's disclosed footprint vs. the controller). Global = buyer-agnostic supply risk. Substitute = ease of swapping the material out (none = locked in). Input share = the material's disclosed magnitude in the company's input basket (HIGH/MED/LOW only where a public filing quantifies it; — = unrated). Descriptive effect-size, never scored.
Art. 5 = does the global top single-country share breach the EU's own CRMA Art. 5 diversification ceiling (no more than 65% of a strategic raw material from a single third country)? A conservative global-production PROXY for the EU-import denominator — descriptive only, sits beside the score, never merged into it (— = non-strategic material). Reg. (EU) 2024/1252 Art. 5 ↗
Per-material factor scoring on a 1–5 likelihood×impact scale, mapped to the Art. 24(2)(b) risk-factor framework. The headline score above is a portfolio RAG; this matrix is the assessment — it is where two companies with the same binding chokepoint diverge.
| Material | Geopolitical | Concentration | Price / market | Substitutability | Import reliance | Logistics · ESG · Supplier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Graphite | 4 | 4 | 5 | 4 | 4 | company input |
| Phosphate | 4 | 2 | 3 | 5 | 4 | company input |
1 = very low … 5 = very high — a standard supply-risk likelihood×impact scale (the form a competent authority expects for the Art. 24(2)(b) factor analysis, not a CRMA-numbered scale). Public-source factors are pre-filled from the engine's primary sources (USGS concentration, IPTM government actions, EU import data); the three rightmost factor categories need company / Tier-1 supplier data and are flagged as input under Art. 24(3). Hover any cell for its evidence.
Every new filing and every amendment (rate change, scope change, repeal) touching this company's materials in the window above. Append ?since=YYYY-MM-DD to this URL for a custom start date.
No filings or amendments in this window — the register has been quiet on this company's materials.
Restrictive government measures on this company's materials, newest first — each links to its primary government source.
+ 20 more in the register.
The Art. 24(2)(c) vulnerability assessment, made explicit. For each leading exposure we model the move in this company's buyer-relative score under two distinct supply-disruption scenarios — the production footprint held fixed, only one lever moved at a time so each delta isolates one shock:
Under the 🇨🇳 CN shock, your disclosed plant carries the binding Graphite exposure:
Counterfactual: Indonesia extends the hilirisasi ore-ban template (2020 nickel → 2023 bauxite) to the next rung of battery-mineral exports — tightening upstream supply for cobalt intermediates, lithium feedstock and graphite alongside the existing nickel + aluminium regime. Direct-hit lines are basket issuers whose binding material is a battery-cell input (nickel, cobalt, lithium, graphite) — irrespective of controller, since the template-export is global supply-chain pressure not bilateral targeting.
Modelled buyer-relative move on the binding exposure if this precedent escalates: 88 → 92 (+4) — a relative official policy-pressure magnitude, not a price drawdown.
🇨🇳 CN has issued 5 restrictive actions on Graphite since 2023 — cadence accelerating (mean gap 360d → 129d), severity flat (4.5 → 2.3).A descriptive trajectory of past official actions — not a forecast.
You hold exposure to 2 of these 11 materials (Graphite, Phosphate) — your binding Graphite exposure is one of them.
Demonstrated cadence: 🇨🇳 CN has widened its restricted-material list a median of 12 months apart across 4 distinct restriction dates since 2023 (n=3 intervals).
Response coupling: when 🇨🇳 CN restricts, our causal register records these counter-moves —
Second-order exposure cascade: the retaliation to one chokepoint has historically landed on another material you depend on —
| Type | Scenario | Today | Stressed | Δ |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Policy | Graphite — 🇨🇳 CN escalates graphite controls to a full export-licensing / ban regime | 88 | 92 | +4 |
| Concentration | Graphite — 🇨🇳 CN becomes the single source for graphite — the second source is lost (full 85%+ monopoly) | 88 | 94 | +6 |
| Policy | Phosphate — 🇨🇳 CN escalates phosphate controls to a full export-licensing / ban regime | 69 | 73 | +4 |
| Concentration | Phosphate — 🇨🇳 CN becomes the single source for phosphate — the second source is lost (full 38%+ monopoly) | 69 | 94 | +25 |
A zero delta means that lever is already modelled at maximum on that material — today's score already prices it in. This is why the two scenarios are shown together: where a material's policy lever is already maxed (zero policy delta), the concentration shock still carries a real delta, and vice-versa. Each stressed score isolates its one lever; all other factors are held at current values.
This assessment identifies 1 significant vulnerability — Graphite — each a High/Critical exposure that is hard to substitute and already under at least one in-force restrictive measure. This engages the duty under Art. 24(4) to take mitigating efforts, including assessing diversification of the supply chain or substitution of the material (see Priority mitigations below).
Stated threshold (so the conclusion is reproducible and auditable): buyer-relative band ≥ High AND substitutability hard/none AND ≥ 1 in-force restrictive measure on the material, assessed over the materials this company buys. The CRMA does not fix a numeric definition of “significant”; the company may adopt a stricter or looser threshold and should record it here.
Proposed, announced or draft regulation that is not yet in force but would touch this company's at-risk materials if it passes. Forward-looking early-warning — the likelihood shown is an honest band derived from the legislative stage, not a forecast or a fabricated probability. Kept separate from the enacted register above: nothing here is law yet.
Bills at introduction (pre-committee) in US historically become law ~5% of the time (n=37,132, GovTrack — 117th–118th Congresses) — a base rate for comparable bills, not a forecast for this one. source ↗
Bills at introduction (pre-committee) in US historically become law ~5% of the time (n=37,132, GovTrack — 117th–118th Congresses) — a base rate for comparable bills, not a forecast for this one. source ↗
Likelihood band is derived deterministically from the legislative stage (announced → low; draft-published / in-consultation → moderate; passed-committee → elevated; passed-vote / awaiting-signature → high) — a reproducible, source-traceable proxy, not a probability estimate. Where shown, the modelled impact-if-passed re-uses the same buyer-relative stress engine as the enacted scenarios above: it holds this company's production footprint fixed and escalates the proposed measure to a full export-licensing / control regime — the conservative upper bound for a measure that may pass only as a partial cap. The delta is the move from today's score to that stressed score; companies with no modelled production footprint show no delta.
Forward-looking read on the binding chokepoint, from the recent trajectory of policy on these materials. Directional, not a forecast.
The mitigating efforts Art. 24(4) names — diversifying the supply chain and substituting the material — plus the standard levers against a concentrated, policy-exposed input. Prioritise around the binding input chokepoint (Graphite).
Under the EU Critical Raw Materials Act (Reg. (EU) 2024/1252), a Member State identifies the large companies (Art. 2(29): >500 employees and >€150M net worldwide turnover) using strategic raw materials to manufacture a listed strategic technology (batteries, renewables, hydrogen, traction motors, heat pumps, aircraft, data-storage equipment, robotics, drones, satellites, advanced chips). Those companies must, at least every three years and to the extent the information is available to them (Art. 24(2)), assess their strategic-raw-material supply chain. Where suppliers do not provide the data on request, the assessment may rely on the Commission's monitoring dashboard (Art. 20(4)) or other publicly available information (Art. 24(3)) — which is the evidence base this report assembles. Board reporting (Art. 24(5)) is voluntary unless the Member State mandates it (Art. 24(6)).
| CRMA provision | Obligation | Where addressed |
|---|---|---|
| Art. 24(1) | Member State identifies the company as in-scope (uses an SRM to make a listed strategic technology). | Scope & applicability |
| Art. 24(2)(a) | Map where the strategic raw materials are extracted, processed and recycled. | Exposure register + Supply-risk factor analysis |
| Art. 24(2)(b) | Analyse the factors that might affect supply. | Supply-risk factor analysis (factor matrix) + The laws that threaten it |
| Art. 24(2)(c) | Assess vulnerabilities to supply disruptions. | Stress test + significant-vulnerability conclusion |
| Art. 24(3) | Where supplier data is unavailable, rely on Commission (Art. 20(4)) / public sources. | This report's basis — see Methodology & sources |
| Art. 24(4) | Where significant vulnerabilities are found, assess diversifying or substituting. | Significant-vulnerability conclusion + Priority mitigations |
| Art. 24(5)–(6) | Report results, sources, significant risks and mitigations to the board. | This document — board-ready, PDF-exportable |
This report pre-fills the Art. 24(3) public-source half of the assessment. The company-specific inputs — employee/turnover thresholds, bill-of-materials volumes, the tiered supplier map, and formal board adoption — remain the company's to complete; they are flagged as “company input” where they appear.
Article 24 applies only when both size thresholds are met and a Member State has identified the company as making a listed strategic technology with strategic raw materials.
| Threshold test | This assessment |
|---|---|
| Average employees (last FY) > 500 | company input |
| Net worldwide turnover (last FY) > €150M | company input |
| Uses a strategic raw material as an input | Yes — 2 scored SRMs on the input side (binding: Graphite) |
| Manufactures a listed strategic technology | hydrogen (confirm against Annex) |
| Formally identified by a Member State authority | company input |
Production-concentration figures: USGS Mineral Commodity Summaries 2026 + the production dataset behind each material page. Policy measures trace to the primary government sources below.
Each material's global supply-risk index blends five weighted factors: concentration of refining/processing (35%), active trade-control & policy pressure (25%), import reliance (15%), substitutability (15%), and price stress (10%). The buyer-relative score then scales the relational factors (concentration / policy / import) by this company's production-footprint alignment against each material's controlling country — bloc-neutral factors (substitutability, price) are left intact.
Caveats. The footprint is the company's assembly / manufacturing geography applied uniformly across all materials — a first-order proxy, not per-material input tracing. Scores are an analytical judgement on public data with a transparent weighting, not a market forecast or investment advice. Production shares reflect 2024-2025 figures and the policy position as of 2026-08-06; the register is continuously maintained and should be re-pulled against each new policy action.
MACROLENS · CICONIALABS · GEOPOLITICAL SUPPLY-RISK REPORT (EU CRMA ART. 20–25) · report generated 2026-10-07
Tip: the change log above defaults to the last 30 days. Append ?since=YYYY-MM-DD to this URL for a custom start date (e.g. ?since=2026-04-01).
This is a description of the actual automated pipeline (verifiable against this repo's own cron schedule), not a contractual commitment.