Loading…
Loading…
1 critical material scored · binding chokepoint: Graphite (🇨🇳 CN 85% of refining) · 27 restrictive government measures on record
Renascor Resources Limited produces 1 of the 1 scored material above (Graphite). 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 Critical · 88/100 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 2026-10-05) — 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 Graphite — 🇨🇳 CN controls 85% of global refining. On this company's production footprint that scores 88/100 (adversarial chokepoint; global 77). The register holds 27 restrictive government measures touching this company's materials — each traced to its primary source below.
Peer rank · Graphite Renascor Resources Limited is the 7th-most-exposed of the 205 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.
Renascor Resources Limited ranks 5th of 21 verified graphite materials companies, tied with 5 others at 88.
Company supply-risk index 88/100 — the binding chokepoint dominates, with a modest add for exposure breadth across 1 scored material. Buyer-relative (first-order): weighted by where the company produces (AU 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.
Renascor Resources Limited (ASX: RNU) is an Australian pre-production developer building a vertically integrated mine-to-battery-material graphite project in South Australia: the Siviour Graphite Mine and Concentrator near Arno Bay, feeding a downstream purification plant at Port Adelaide that converts concentrate into purified spherical graphite (PSG) — the anode material used in lithium-ion batteries. The company has developed a hydrofluoric-acid-free purification process reported to reach 99.98-99.99% carbon purity, positioned as a lower-environmental-impact alternative to incumbent Chinese PSG production.
proposition.* Renascor is a supply-side graphite producer, not a graphite-consuming manufacturer: its exposure is to the concentration risk in global PSG supply* (China dominates both natural-graphite mining and essentially all spherical-graphite purification capacity), and Siviour is positioned as one of the few non-China vertically integrated projects aiming to compete directly in that chokepoint — supply side of the risk, not a downstream buyer exposed to it.
with non-binding offtake agreements in place for up to 60,000 tpa — more than double planned initial output — signed with anode/materials firms POSCO (South Korea), Zeto and Minguang New Material (China), and Hanwa Corporation (Japan). None of these are binding contracts yet.
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.
Non-binding offtake for Siviour PSG, alongside Zeto, Minguang New Material and Hanwa. No per-counterparty volume or binding contract stated. Not a purchase: non-binding offtake for a project not yet in production (Siviour), so no physical flow exists; flow recorded as AU>? for the mine origin only (wake-trade-pairs 2026-09-29).
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% |
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 |
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, these disclosed plants carry the binding Graphite exposure:
No material crosses the significant-vulnerability threshold on the input side — every scored material here is one Renascor Resources Limited 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): Graphite clears the same numeric bar but is a material Renascor Resources Limited 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 1 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.
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.
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 Renascor Resources Limited 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) |
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 1 scored SRM here is one this company produces, not buys; input use is not evidenced by this assessment |
| Manufactures a listed strategic technology | graphite-materials (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 2026-10-05
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.
Same sector_primary, ranked on the company supply-risk index. Restricted to hand-verified dossiers — 2 further graphite materials 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.
holds Australian Federal Government Major Project Status and a A$185 million loan facility from Export Finance Australia's Critical Minerals Facility — consistent with graphite's listing as a critical mineral by Australia, the US, the EU and Japan, all of which are trying to reduce reliance on Chinese-origin battery anode material.
purification process at a demonstration facility, finalizing offtake and financing, and has not reached final investment decision — the exposure above is a development-stage supply position, not an operating one.
1. Renascor Resources — Siviour Graphite Project overview: https://renascor.com.au/graphite-projects/ 2. Mining Weekly — "Renascor confirms cost parity for hydrofluoric acid-free process to produce high-purity graphite" (2026-07-09): https://www.miningweekly.com/article/renascor-confirms-cost-parity-for-hydrofluoric-acid-free-process-to-produce-high-purity-graphite-2026-07-09
| Low |
| hard |
| 27 |
| ▲ 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 ↗
| 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.
+ 12 more in the register.
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.
The binding exposure this precedent lands on — Graphite — is a material Renascor Resources Limited produces, so this is an output-market event for this company, not a supply vulnerability. No modelled stressed delta is shown: the buyer-relative stress models a rising cost of an input, which is the wrong direction for a supplier of the material, and we would rather show no number than a wrong-signed one. It is never netted against the consumer-side levers in §6.4 — those are reported separately.
role: tag or the producer-sector classifier (one classifier on disk, generated 2026-10-05) — for this company the basis is a disclosed dossier tag. It enters no score.🇨🇳 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 1 of these 7 materials (Graphite) — your binding Graphite exposure is one of them.
Response coupling: when 🇨🇳 CN restricts, our causal register records these counter-moves —
| 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 |
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.
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.
| 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.