Loading…
Loading…
2 critical materials scored · binding chokepoint: Magnesium (🇨🇳 CN 86% of refining) · 10 restrictive government measures on record
A verification pass re-checked this dossier's ownership/corporate-structure fields against their cited sources. It did not re-read the material_exposures claim the score, band and stress figures below are built on — treat those as not yet independently re-checked.
K+S Aktiengesellschaft produces 2 of the 2 scored materials above (Magnesium, Potash). For those, a supply restriction by the controlling country is a tailwind, not a headwind — the exposure is to disruption of a market this company supplies, not to a chokepoint it depends on. Every scored material here sits on its output side, so the Elevated · 68/100 band should be read as chokepoint salience, not as buyer vulnerability, and the Art. 24 input-side duties below are qualified accordingly.
Role from an explicit dossier role: tag or the producer-sector classifier behind the /minerals alternatives bench (one classifier on disk, generated 2026-10-08) — the same source the company page uses. A material the classifier has no entry for defaults to a buyer dependency, which can understate a producer's output side. Descriptive classification only: it enters no score.
The binding exposure is Magnesium — 🇨🇳 CN controls 86% of global refining. On this company's production footprint that scores 75/100 (adversarial chokepoint; global 63). The register holds 10 restrictive government measures touching this company's materials — each traced to its primary source below.
Peer rank · Magnesium K+S Aktiengesellschaft is the 31st-most-exposed of the 62 named companies we track on 🇨🇳 CN's Magnesium chokepoint; the most-exposed is Leonardo S.p.A. (75/100). Ranked on the same footprint-adjusted buyer score as above — a relative read of an existing metric, not a new one.
K+S Aktiengesellschaft ranks 36th of 100 verified chemicals companies, tied with 2 others at 68.
Same sector_primary, ranked on the company supply-risk index. Restricted to hand-verified dossiers — 13 further chemicals 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 68/100 — 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 (DE 78% · CA 22%, 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.
> The exposure report this dossier powers is at > /intelligence/dossiers/k-s-ag/report.
K+S Aktiengesellschaft (Frankfurt: SDF) is a Kassel, Germany-headquartered mining group and the only potash producer with large-scale production sites on two continents. It operates through three segments — Potash and Magnesium (fertilizers plus technical/industrial/pharma-grade potassium and magnesium compounds), Salt (food-grade, industrial, and de-icing salt), and Complementary Activities. Its resource base is the Werra potash district (Hattorf, Wintershall, Unterbreizbach, Merkers — the world's largest contiguous potash mining area) and the Zielitz mine, both in Germany, plus the Bethune solution mine in Saskatchewan, Canada (K+S Potash Canada, commissioned 2017, ramped to ~2Mt/yr — a "Ramp Up" expansion broke ground September 2025 targeting a doubling to ~4Mt/yr over the next two decades). K+S exited the Americas salt business (Morton Salt in the US, Windsor Salt in Canada, and SPL in Chile) via a US$3.2bn sale to Stone Canyon Industries in April 2021, refocusing the group on potash, magnesium, and its remaining German/European salt operations. FY2025 group revenue was €3.65bn.
K+S is a producer and miner, not a downstream consumer, so its exposure runs through the operating and policy risk of its two mining jurisdictions (German mining/water-protection regulation around the Werra brine-disposal permit history, and Saskatchewan royalty/export policy for Bethune) rather than input-supply risk. K+S is one of the world's handful of integrated potash miners with production outside the Canada/Belarus/ Russia oligopoly that otherwise dominates global supply.
segment.** The Werra Group's carnallite ore stream yields magnesium sulphate and other magnesium compounds sold into technical, industrial, pharmaceutical, and animal-feed applications alongside potash fertilizers; this is a genuine, disclosed product line, not a sector-default guess.
Exposure profile note: the generic chemicals-sector list (phosphate, vanadium, nickel, cobalt, silicon, antimony, lithium) was dropped — K+S has no phosphate-rock, battery-metals, or specialty-silicon operations; its verified bill-of-materials/product slate is potash- and magnesium-salt mining only.
named_counterparties ICH/Fertiva row, added 2026-09-09 (Step 3.8 counterparty top-up).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.
K+S's own press release: 'ICH has already been distributing K+S fertilizers in the southern part of Africa for over 40 years, as well as products from other manufacturers.' Flagged related_party since K+S now holds a 75% majority stake in the distributor itself, not just a supply relationship.
ImportGenius US BoL HLCUHAM260895479, arrival 2026-09-27: shipper K+S Minerals and Agriculture GmbH (Kassel), consignee K+S North America Corporation, 'POTASSIUM CHLORIDE 99.9%' HS 31042090, 19,425 kg, laden Hamburg, unladen Norfolk VA, country of origin Germany (K+S's German potash is mined at the Werra Group and Zielitz). Intra-group (K+S's own US sales subsidiary), hence related_party. The same supplier page shows Kieserite/Epsom salt BoLs to the same consignee at Newark (magnesium, not potash) and KCl to Central American buyers. The older K+S Kali GmbH page shows bulk '60ER KALI GRANULAR' to Archer Daniels Midland in 2021 (stale).
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Magnesium | 🇨🇳 CN 86% refining | 75 | 63 | High | EXCEEDS 86% | Med | none | 2 | ▲ rising |
| Potash | 🇨🇦 CA 31% refining | 38 | 50 | Low | — | High | none | 8 | ▲ 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Magnesium | 3 | 4 | 3 | 5 | 3 | company input |
| Potash | 4 | 2 | 3 | 5 | 3 | 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.
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 Magnesium exposure:
| Type | Scenario | Today | Stressed | Δ |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Policy | Magnesium — 🇨🇳 CN escalates magnesium controls to a full export-licensing / ban regime | 75 | 90 | +15 |
| Concentration | Magnesium — 🇨🇳 CN becomes the single source for magnesium — the second source is lost (full 86%+ monopoly) | 75 | 85 | +10 |
| Policy | Potash — 🇨🇦 CA escalates potash controls to a full export-licensing / ban regime | 38 | 42 | +4 |
| Concentration | Potash — 🇨🇦 CA becomes the single source for potash — the second source is lost (full 31%+ monopoly) | 38 | 56 | +18 |
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.
No material crosses the significant-vulnerability threshold on the input side — every scored material here is one K+S Aktiengesellschaft produces, and Art. 24 addresses the use of a strategic raw material as an input. The Art. 24(4) mitigation duty is not triggered on the public-source evidence; the mitigations below are precautionary.
Reported separately (not an Art. 24(4) trigger): Magnesium clears the same numeric bar but is a material K+S Aktiengesellschaft produces. That is an output-market concentration — relevant to revenue and to counterparties who buy from this company — not an input dependency the company must mitigate under Art. 24(4).
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 0 materials this company buys (the 2 it produces are excluded from the test and listed above). The CRMA does not fix a numeric definition of “significant”; the company may adopt a stricter or looser threshold and should record it here.
Forward-looking read on the binding chokepoint, from the recent trajectory of policy on these materials. Directional, not a forecast.
Every scored material here is one K+S Aktiengesellschaft produces, so the Art. 24(4) buyer levers — qualify an alternative supplier, re-source, substitute the input — do not apply to this company. The output-side items below are what a concentrated producer's risk office actually acts on. We render them rather than a generic diversification list because a prescription addressed to the wrong side of the market is worse than none.
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 | company input — all 2 scored SRMs here are ones this company produces, not buys; input use is not evidenced by this assessment |
| Manufactures a listed strategic technology | chemicals (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 2026-05-07; 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 2026-10-08
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.