2 critical materials scored · binding chokepoint: Graphite (🇨🇳 CN 85% of refining) · 44 restrictive government measures on record
Subject
talga · 🇦🇺 AU
Sector
graphite-materials
Materials scored
2
As of
2026-09-22
Risk Office verdict
Critical · 86/100Company supply-risk index · consumer-side read
Role check · mixed producer / buyer
Talga Group (Woxna/Luleå anode) produces 1 of the 2 scored materials 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. The remaining 1 (Silicon) is genuine buyer dependencies and drive the mitigations below. The two sides are reported separately and never netted against each other.
Role from an explicit dossier role: tag or the producer-sector classifier behind the /minerals alternatives bench (one classifier on disk, generated 2026-10-06) — 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 44 restrictive government measures touching this company's materials — each traced to its primary source below.
Peer rank · GraphiteTalga Group (Woxna/Luleå anode) is the 19th-most-exposed of the 202 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.
Competitor cohort · graphite materials
Talga Group (Woxna/Luleå anode) ranks 9th of 21 verified graphite materials companies, tied with 3 others at 86.
88🇨🇭 Battrion AGGraphite
88🇺🇸 GrafTech International Ltd.Graphite
88🇨🇦 Nouveau Monde Graphite Inc.Graphite
88🇦🇺 Novonix LimitedGraphite
88🇦🇺 Renascor Resources LimitedGraphite
88🇳🇴 Skaland GraphiteGraphite
87🇨🇿 Koh-i-Noor Hardtmuth a.s.Graphite
86🇯🇵 Nippon Carbon Co., Ltd.Graphite
86🇦🇺 Talga Group (Woxna/Luleå anode)Graphite
Company supply-risk index 86/100 — 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 (SE 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
SE · Vittangi (Nunasvaara South mine) — natural flake graphite ore mininggraphite
SE · Luleå Anode Refinery — battery-grade graphite anode material (Talnode-C/-R) and silicon-composite anode additive (Talnode-Si)graphitesilicon
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.
Talga Group (Woxna/Luleå anode)
What they do
Talga Group Ltd (ASX: TLG) is an Australian-listed, vertically integrated battery-materials company whose mining and refining operations sit entirely in northern Sweden. It mines high-grade natural flake graphite at its wholly owned Vittangi deposit (Nunasvaara South) and refines it into battery-grade anode material at its Luleå Anode Refinery — the first natural-graphite anode refinery of its kind in Europe. Alongside its core Talnode-C/-R graphite anode lines, Talga has developed Talnode-Si, a silicon-carbon composite anode additive designed to boost battery energy capacity when blended into standard graphite anodes.
Critical-material exposure
Graphite — Talga's entire business model is a single-material graphite
value chain: mining natural flake graphite at Vittangi and refining it into anode material at Luleå for EV/lithium-ion battery cells. Natural- graphite mining and, especially, anode-grade (spherical/graphitized) processing are heavily China-concentrated, which is why the European Commission designated Talga's Vittangi mine and Luleå refinery as Critical Raw Materials Act "Strategic Projects" (April 2025) and the refinery separately as a Net-Zero Industry Act strategic project — direct policy confirmation of graphite supply-chain risk.
Silicon — via Talnode-Si, a silicon-carbon composite blended into
graphite anodes to raise energy density. Battery-grade silicon-composite anode processing is a nascent, thin Western supply chain still dominated by a small number of specialist producers; Talga is one of the few European-facing suppliers building in-house capability, making it exposed to the same upstream silicon-processing concentration risk the sector faces even though elemental silicon itself is abundant.
The exposure register
Ranked by buyer-relative risk, highest first.
2 of 2 of your scored CRMA-strategic materials breach the EU’s own Art. 5 65% single-third-country ceiling (global-production proxy).
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.
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.
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:
Both stress-test scenariosShowHide
Policy shock — the controlling country escalates to a full export-licensing / ban regime.
Concentration shock — the supply structure collapses to a single source (second-source loss / full monopoly).
Which of your plants carries the binding exposure
Under the 🇨🇳 CN shock, these disclosed plants carry the binding Graphite exposure:
🇸🇪 SE · Luleå Anode Refinery — battery-grade graphite anode material (Talnode-C/-R) and silicon-composite anode additive (Talnode-Si)
🇸🇪 SE · Vittangi (Nunasvaara South mine) — natural flake graphite ore mining
Disclosed plant-level detail matched to the binding material — descriptive, from the company's own disclosures; a plant not listed here is undisclosed, not unexposed. Country weights still drive the score above.
Art. 24(4) · mitigation trigger
Significant-vulnerability conclusion
No material crosses the significant-vulnerability threshold. 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 Talga Group (Woxna/Luleå anode) 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 1 material 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 — not yet law
Upcoming regulatory threats
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.
The upcoming threatsShowHide
African Union — African Union / AfDB — continental harmonisation of mining legislation toward a ban on unprocessed critical-mineral ore exports (Abidjan Ministerial Forum outcome)
announced→low likelihood·flagged 67d ago · not yet law·matches Graphite
If passed — On 10 July 2026 the African Development Bank Group, with the African Union Commission, the AfCFTA Secretariat and UNECA, convened African ministers of mining/energy/industry in Abidjan for the "Ministerial Forum on Critical Minerals Value Chain and Beneficiation: Pathways for African Transformation". The stated ambition is continental: move the bloc off raw-ore exports toward regional value chains and in-country processing, with reporting of a push to HARMONISE African mining legislation by end-2026 around a ban on unprocessed ore exports, alongside a headline mobilisation figure of ~USD 63bn for critical-minerals value-chain investment. Why this matters as axis-2 early warning rather than noise: the register already holds a dense cluster of INDIVIDUAL national instruments moving in exactly this direction — Zimbabwe's 2026-02-25 indefinite raw-mineral/lithium-concentrate export suspension, Guinea's 2026-06-19 raw-gold export ban + domestic-refining mandate, Gabon's announced 2029 crude-manganese export ban, Nigeria's RMRDC 30% value-addition bill, Indonesia-style downstreaming copied across the continent, and CEMAC's regional Common Mining Code (all already filed or queued). A binding AU/AfCFTA-level harmonisation instrument would convert that scattered set into a coordinated continental supply shock across cobalt, copper, bauxite, manganese and lithium simultaneously — which is a materially different exposure event from any single-country ban, because it removes the substitute-jurisdiction escape route that currently absorbs each national ban.
What to watch next
Forward-looking read on the binding chokepoint, from the recent trajectory of policy on these materials. Directional, not a forecast.
The watch listShowHide
Graphite is the line to war-game: 🇨🇳 CN already controls 85% of refining, and the policy lever is active. A single new licensing or export-control action on this material moves the binding score materially.
Silicon carries 19 restrictive measures on record (🇨🇳 CN 80% of refining) — a secondary escalation candidate.
Art. 24(4) · diversification & substitution
Priority mitigations
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 (Silicon). The 1 material Talga Group (Woxna/Luleå anode) produces (Graphite) is excluded from these buyer levers — see the role check in the verdict and the significant-vulnerability conclusion above.
The mitigation optionsShowHide
Map your real exposure to Silicon. Trace it from the component back to the smelter/refiner and country of origin — most buyers discover the dependence is one tier deeper than their direct supplier.
Qualify a non-CN source. Identify and validate at least one supplier outside CN for the binding input before it is needed, even at a cost premium — optionality is the hedge.
Lead-time to re-source is ~9 months (6-12mo). The largest tracked non-CN producer of Silicon is 🇩🇪 DE (~7% of refining); scaling it into a replacement is roughly a 6-12mo ramp. A share-of-stage substitution heuristic derived from current production share, not a firm supplier quote.
Design for substitution where feasible. Silicon has at least partial substitutes; specify them into next-generation products to cut the dependence structurally.
Hold strategic inventory / contract forward. For materials with no substitute and active export controls, a buffer stock or long-dated offtake converts a shock into a managed cost.
Run a live policy tripwire. Monitor MOFCOM, EU CRMA and the exporting jurisdictions for new measures on your materials, with a pre-agreed escalation if a licensing regime tightens — this register is that monitor.
Annex A · regulatory basis
CRMA Art. 24 compliance crosswalk
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)).
The full crosswalkShowHide
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)
Annex B · Art. 24(1) · Art. 2(29)
Scope & applicability
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.
Scope detailsShowHide
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 — 1 scored SRM on the input side (binding: Silicon); 1 further scored SRM produced, not consumed
Manufactures a listed strategic technology
graphite-materials (confirm against Annex)
Formally identified by a Member State authority
company input
Evidence & sources
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 2026-09-22; the register is continuously maintained and should be re-pulled against each new policy action.
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).
Refresh SLA
New government measures — polled hourly; a filed action can appear on this report within the hour it's picked up.
Dossier verification (this company's exposure list, sourced against its own disclosures) — the auto-onboarded backlog drains on a 30-minute cycle; a specific company's upgrade timing depends on queue position, not a fixed date.
Live-quoted materials (currently: neodymium, praseodymium, dysprosium, terbium, indium, tellurium — see the price row on each material's page) — refreshed daily.
Other material prices — hand-maintained; flagged STALE on the minerals index past 45 days without a fresh source, rather than left silently out of date.
This is a description of the actual automated pipeline (verifiable against this repo's own cron schedule), not a contractual commitment.
86
🇯🇵 Tokai Carbon Co., Ltd.
Graphite
86🇳🇴 Vianode ASGraphite
84🇩🇪 SGL Carbon SEGraphite
82🇦🇺 EcoGraf LimitedGraphite
82🇩🇪 Schunk GmbH & Co. KGGraphite
80🇦🇺 Syrah Resources LimitedGraphite
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.
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 ↗
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.
Material factors (scored 4–5) — evidence
Graphite
4Geopolitical: 27 restrictive actions, peak severity 5, 16 in last 24mo, less 5 liberalising actions
4Concentration: refining HHI 7302 (extreme); top CN 85%
5Price / market: price up, as of 2026-09-01
4Substitutability: silicon-blend anodes emerging but graphite still dominant
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 Talga Group (Woxna/Luleå anode) 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.
Trace the precedent to its primary source via the link above (/actions/2023-06-10-indonesia-bauxite-ore-export-ban). Producer/consumer side is taken from an explicit dossier role: tag or the producer-sector classifier (one classifier on disk, generated 2026-10-06) — 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.
🇨🇳 CN's demonstrated restriction sequence — has restricted 9 materials since 2021, in this demonstrated order:
You hold exposure to 2 of these 9 materials (Silicon, Graphite) — your binding Graphite exposure is one of them.
Demonstrated cadence: 🇨🇳 CN has widened its restricted-material list a median of 19 months apart across 4 distinct restriction dates since 2021 (n=3 intervals).
Response coupling: when 🇨🇳 CN restricts, our causal register records these counter-moves —
🇺🇸 US has historically countered a median of 3.9 months later (n=23 recorded episodes since 2024). Counter-move intensity: median severity 3/5 (3 of 23 via quantified basis).
🇮🇳 IN has historically countered a median of 9.9 months later (n=4 recorded episodes since 2025). Counter-move intensity: median severity 3.5/5 (0 of 4 via quantified basis).
Descriptive history of recorded counter-actions in our causal register — not a forecast; the gap is what the controller's past moves drew in response.
Second-order exposure cascade: the retaliation to one chokepoint has historically landed on another material you depend on —
when 🇨🇳 CN restricts your Silicon, 🇺🇸 US has historically countered (median 3.8 months later) — and those counter-moves have also restricted Graphite, which you also depend on (n=6 recorded episodes since 2025). Counter-move intensity: median severity 4/5, hardest 4/5 (1 of 6 via quantified basis).
Descriptive history of recorded counter-actions in our causal register, intersected with your dependency basket — not a forecast; it shows where a controller's past retaliations have landed across your materials.
The ordered history of what this controller has restricted, each step traced to /actions/{id} — a descriptive sequence, not a forecast.
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
Silicon — 🇨🇳 CN escalates silicon controls to a full export-licensing / ban regime
77
82
+5
Concentration
Silicon — 🇨🇳 CN becomes the single source for silicon — the second source is lost (full 80%+ monopoly)
77
89
+12
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.
Caveat — DELIBERATELY likelihood=low, not moderate. com) is low-quality and was NOT relied on. AU-level harmonisation instruments historically take years and frequently stall at the model-law stage (cf. the known ecb-spf 400 pattern) to establish whether a formal Abidjan Declaration text exists and what it actually commits signatories to.
If passed & escalated to a full control regime — modelled impact (low likelihood)
Graphite🇨🇳 today 88→92+4
🇹🇿 Tanzania Critical & Strategic Minerals Strategy + statutory critical/strategic minerals LIST (Ministry of Minerals, Mavunde) — beneficiation-mandate licensing instrument
in-consultation→moderate likelihood·flagged 99d ago · not yet law·matches Graphite
If passed — Tanzania's Ministry of Minerals (Minister Anthony Mavunde) has FINALISED a Critical and Strategic Minerals Strategy that takes legal effect only once the Government formally approves and gazettes the official LIST of critical and strategic minerals — a distinct REGULATORY instrument (not the fiscal Finance Act). The strategy explicitly prioritises IN-COUNTRY BENEFICIATION for graphite, nickel, rare earths and lithium, and amends mineral-processing-licence conditions so that every processing licence now requires a domestic value-addition plan; it targets a 40-mineral beneficiation/local-processing scope plus technology-transfer partnership requirements. Once the list is gazetted, raw/unprocessed exports of the listed minerals (Tanzania = a structural graphite chokepoint via Faru/Lindi/Mahenge graphite, plus emerging niobium at Panda Hill and nickel at Kabanga) face value-addition-plan gating and likely export conditionality — re-pricing a major non-China graphite supply node and the Kabanga nickel/Panda Hill niobium projects.
Caveat — 196 levy) — those are FISCAL provisions under the Finance Act; THIS is the regulatory beneficiation-LIST instrument under the Mining Act framework (the official critical/strategic minerals designation that triggers value-addition-plan licensing). Also distinct from filed 2024-11-05-tanzania-written-laws-no-4-2024-mining-act-critical-minerals (that introduced the critical-minerals legal category; this is the operative STRATEGY + LIST that activates the beneficiation-mandate machinery) and from filed 2026-04-15-tanzania-mavunde-40-mineral-licences-revocation. Still in consultation, list not yet gazetted → moderate likelihood; severity 3 expected if the list+value-addition mandate is enacted (export conditionality on graphite/REE/lithium/nickel), severity 2 if it lands as a non-binding strategy only.
If passed & escalated to a full control regime — modelled impact (moderate likelihood)
Graphite🇨🇳 today 88→92+4
🇧🇷 Brazil PNMCE — Política Nacional de Minerais Críticos e Estratégicos (PL 2780/2024)
passed-vote→high likelihood·flagged 109d ago · not yet law·matches Graphite
If passed — First federal statutory framework for critical and strategic minerals; establishes CMCE oversight committee, R$2B Mineral Activity Guarantee Fund (0. 2% gross revenue levy on critical-mineral companies), mandatory 0. 3% gross revenue R&D investment, 20% tax credits for domestic mineral transformation projects; limits raw-mineral exports where domestic processing capacity exists; covers niobium explicitly (CBMM/CMOC supply ~85% of global niobium — Brazil is a structural chokepoint); Chamber passed 343-97 on 7 May 2026, Senate review pending
Caveat — Consolidates 14 prior legislative proposals. Key contested provision: CMCE review/veto power over exports — mining lobby opposed, may resurface in Senate. Distinct from filed 2024-01-22-brazil-nova-industria-brasil-nib, 2024-09-11-brazil-brasil-semicon-program, 2024-08-02-brazil-lei-14948-low-carbon-hydrogen-framework, 2025-04-11-brazil-lei-15122-economic-reciprocity-law. First action to explicitly frame niobium as a strategic supply-chain anchor.
If passed & escalated to a full control regime — modelled impact (high likelihood)
Graphite🇨🇳 today 88→92+4
🇪🇺 EU CRMA Strategic Projects — Second Designation Round
in-consultation→moderate likelihood·flagged 113d ago · not yet law·matches Silicon
If passed — Second wave of CRMA Art. 14 strategic projects (drawn from 160+ applications: 95 EU-domestic + 66 third-country including 40 from strategic-partnership countries) gains fast-track permitting (27-month EU cap, 15-month Member State cap), EIB/EBRD financing-hub priority, and off-taker certainty; 75 battery-value-chain projects + 21 REE-for-permanent-magnets in pool; widens the EU's 2030 extraction/processing benchmarks pipeline beyond the first 60 projects
Caveat — Second call for applications closed January 15, 2026 (September 2025 launch). Commission stated ~4-month assessment period → designation expected May–June 2026. As of 2026-06-15, no Commission press release or OJ publication confirmed. EUR-Lex CELEX 32026D0923 verified via web search to be an unrelated EU animal-disease implementing decision. Moved from filing. md 2026-06-15. Distinct from: 2025-03-25-eu-crma-strategic-projects-first-designation (60 projects, first round) and 2024-05-23-eu-crma-entry-into-force (base regulation). Severity 3 expected (same as first-round designation).
If passed & escalated to a full control regime — modelled impact (moderate likelihood)
Silicon🇨🇳 today 77→82+5
🇪🇺 EU CRMA Art. 22 Commission Implementing Decision — Strategic Raw Material Stock Benchmarks
awaiting-signature→high likelihood·flagged 113d ago · not yet law·matches Graphite, Silicon
If passed — Establishes the first legally binding "safe level" benchmark for EU strategic stocks of each of the 17 strategic raw materials listed in the CRMA Annex I; benchmarks used as reference by Member States, financial institutions, and industrial consumers to assess strategic supply risk; mandated every 2 years, so this is the first edition setting the baseline; informs CRMA Art. 23 monitoring obligations and is the evidential basis for Art. 24 corporate-reporting thresholds
Caveat — The May 24, 2026 deadline set by Parliament and Council in Reg. (EU) 2024/1252 has now passed. No OJ publication confirmed as of June 15, 2026 — Commission may have adopted quietly or is overdue. This is the first CRMA Art. 22 benchmark cycle and is legally distinct from: (1) the CRMA base regulation (filed 2024-05-23); (2) the Strategic Projects first designation (filed 2025-03-25); (3) the RESourceEU Amendment — CRMA revision (filed 2026-03-04). If confirmed adopted, severity=2 (establishes the measurement baseline for EU strategic material supply risk assessment and directly feeds corporate Art. 24 reporting obligations). Distinct from all filed EU-CRMA actions. Not in filing. md or upcoming. md.
If passed & escalated to a full control regime — modelled impact (high likelihood)
Graphite🇨🇳 today 88→92+4
Silicon🇨🇳 today 77→82+5
🇺🇸 USTR Plurilateral Agreement on Trade in Critical Minerals
in-consultation→moderate likelihood·flagged 110d ago · not yet law·matches Graphite
If passed — Binding plurilateral trade agreement among like-minded partners (US, EU, Japan and FORGE coalition members) establishing coordinated trade measures for critical mineral supply chains — including border-adjusted price floors, standards-based market access conditions, price-gap subsidies, and off-take agreement frameworks — to counter non-market pricing from state-backed producers and reduce concentrated supply-chain dependency; would create the first binding multilateral trade-law instrument specifically governing critical minerals flows, operating parallel to and distinct from the WTO goods schedule
Caveat — Distinct from FORGE (Forum on Resource Geostrategic Engagement, already filed as 2026-02-04-us-forge-critical-minerals-coalition — a diplomatic coordination platform, not a binding trade instrument); distinct from the filed bilateral action plans (US-Mexico 2026-02-04, US-Japan 2026-03-19, US-EU 2026-04-24 — these are bilateral work programmes, not the binding multilateral trade agreement being designed). Public comment period launched February 5, 2026; partners in scope include FORGE member states + EU. If finalised, this would be the highest-severity IPTM action in the register — creates a binding legal framework reshaping the economics of critical mineral trade globally. Context: companion to the US-EU-Japan joint statement of February 4, 2026 which directed the three parties to "develop Action Plans and explore a plurilateral trade initiative with like-minded partners on trade in critical minerals, which could include exploring the development of coordinated trade policies and mechanisms, such as border-adjusted price floors. "
Reference-class base rate
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 ↗
If passed & escalated to a full control regime — modelled impact (moderate likelihood)
Graphite🇨🇳 today 88→92+4
🇹🇿 Tanzania Finance Bill 2026/27 — Parliament-passed June 23, 2026; mining: Mineral Research Fund (10% gross mineral revenue), Income Tax Act & VAT Framework Agreement exemptions
awaiting-signature→high likelihood·flagged 102d ago · not yet law·matches Graphite
If passed — TZ Finance Bill establishes the Mineral Research Fund capitalised at 10% of gross mineral revenue (~TZS 141 billion/yr at 2025 collection levels); amends the Income Tax Act to formally recognise tax exemptions granted under individual mining Framework Agreements and introduces standard operating procedures — reduces discretionary government risk for large mining investors (Panda Hill niobium, graphite juniors, Buzwagi gold); parallel VAT amendments give equivalent statutory certainty for VAT exemptions; taken together, the bill moves Tanzania from discretionary tax administration toward a rule-of-law-based investor regime for all critical-mineral projects; budget targets Tanzania for top-4 niobium producer status (Panda Hill DA already signed March 24, 2026) and 50% geophysical survey coverage by 2030
Caveat — Tanzania fiscal year starts July 1; the Finance Act signature typically occurs last week of June. Budget speech delivered June 11, 2026 by Finance Minister Khamis Mussa Omar; Parliament approved June 23. Mining provisions in §§ amending Income Tax Act (Cap. 332) and VAT Act (Cap. 148) and establishing the Mineral Research Fund. Distinct from: filed 2025-06-30-tanzania-finance-act-11-of-2025 (prior year), filed 2026-03-24-tanzania-panda-hill-niobium-ferroniobium-development-agreement (the specific project DA), and filed 2026-04-15-tanzania-ministry-of-minerals-revokes-40-idle-mineral-exploration-licences. Severity 2: institutional reform that de-risks the investor regime rather than a direct trade restriction.
If passed & escalated to a full control regime — modelled impact (high likelihood)
Graphite🇨🇳 today 88→92+4
🇹🇿 Tanzania Finance Bill 2026/27 — NEW raw-mineral EXPORT LEVY on quartz (HS 25.06) and feldspar (HS 2529.10.00) under the Export Tax Act, Cap. 196
awaiting-signature→high likelihood·flagged 100d ago · not yet law·matches Silicon
If passed — The same Finance Bill 2026/27 already tabled (Parliament-passed 23 June 2026, effective 1 July 2026) inserts a NEW export levy of "10% of the FOB value of the cargo OR TZS 200 per kilogram, whichever is higher" on exports of quartz minerals (HS 25. 06) and feldspar (HS 2529. 10. 00) via amendment to the Export Tax Act, Cap. 196 — a distinct beneficiation-forcing EXPORT-TAX instrument that pushes raw quartz/feldspar exporters toward in-country value-addition. 196), and neither existing entry mentions it; (2) material-relevant — quartz HS 25. 06 covers high-purity/silica quartz feeding the silicon→semiconductor/solar value chain, so a Tanzanian export tax re-prices a raw-silica supply node; the same "rocks to riches" beneficiation logic Tanzania applies elsewhere; (3) part of the wider African raw-mineral-export-tax wave (cf. Zimbabwe 10% lithium-concentrate levy, Namibia unprocessed-mineral ban, Guinea bauxite reference price).
Caveat — On enactment, fold into that one TZ Finance Act 2026 action with action_type capturing both the fiscal-incentive and the export-levy (export-control/tariff) provisions; do NOT double-file. Distinct from filed 2025-06-30-tanzania-finance-act-11-of-2025 (prior year — no quartz/feldspar export levy). Severity 2 (sectoral raw-mineral export tax, niche HS lines).
If passed & escalated to a full control regime — modelled impact (high likelihood)
Silicon🇨🇳 today 77→82+5
🇮🇳 India SASCI Mining Sector Reforms Component FY2026-27 — ₹5,000 crore incentive scheme to accelerate mine auction-to-production pipeline
announced→low likelihood·flagged 102d ago · not yet law·matches Graphite
If passed — Ministry of Mines issued operational guidelines for the Mining Sector Reforms component under Scheme for Special Assistance to States for Capital Investment (SASCI) FY2026-27, with total ₹5,000 crore (~USD 600M) incentive envelope to states; key components: (i) ₹250 crore one-time incentive to any state where ≥10% of pre-March-2026 auctioned major mineral blocks begin production+dispatch by end-2026; (ii) ₹100 crore baseline for systemic reforms (Unified Mining Portal integration, Pre-Auction Committees); (iii) ₹20 crore per block auctioned with pre-embedded forest and environmental clearances; scheme targets removing the "auction gap" — India has auctioned hundreds of mineral blocks since 2015 MMDR amendments but operationalisation lag remains a structural bottleneck; critical minerals relevance: India is running parallel programme of critical+strategic mineral auctions (7 tranches, 56 blocks auctioned by June 24, 2026) and this scheme incentivises states to bring those blocks into production faster; directly accelerates lithium (Rajasthan), REE (Andhra Pradesh, Tamil Nadu), graphite (Odisha), and nickel (Odisha, Jharkhand) pipelines
Caveat — Source is secondary (PolicyEdge news aggregator). To migrate to filing. md, filer must verify the primary notification on mines. gov. in or pib. gov. in (search "SASCI Mining 2026-27" on PIB search). India BHAVYA industrial parks scheme (₹33,660 crore, March 18, 2026) is separately filed — SASCI is a distinct scheme targeting state-level mining-sector governance reform. Distinct from filed India Union Budget 2026-27 Customs notifications and Semiconductor Mission 2. 0. Severity 2 (supply-side demand-unlock rather than export control or FDI gate).
If passed & escalated to a full control regime — modelled impact (low likelihood)
Graphite🇨🇳 today 88→92+4
🇲🇳 Mongolia Minerals Law Comprehensive Amendment 2026 — ~40% of 2006 law revised; exploration-licence term cut, statutory critical-minerals definition, downstream-beneficiation licensing
draft-published→moderate likelihood·flagged 101d ago · not yet law·matches Graphite
If passed — Mongolia's cabinet approved and submitted to the State Great Khural a draft amending ~40% of the 2006 Minerals Law: (i) cuts the maximum exploration-licence duration from 12 to 6 years while raising holding fees (to curb speculative licence-trading/flipping); (ii) introduces a STATUTORY definition of "critical minerals" (aligned to Mongolia's 11-mineral list: molybdenum, manganese, nickel, copper, fluorspar, graphite, REEs, cobalt, lithium, PGMs, tungsten) and a SEPARATE licensing regime for downstream beneficiation plants; (iii) mandates mine-closure plans + financial bonding once a mine reaches 75% of its life; aims to accelerate licence issuance and expand the resource base. Mongolia is a structural China/Russia-flanked chokepoint pursuing Western REE/copper partnerships (US FORGE, JP, KR), so a domestic critical-minerals statutory regime + downstream-processing licensing reprices the entry terms for any foreign developer of Mongolian copper/REE/fluorspar (Oyu Tolgoi-adjacent, Erdenes critical-minerals SOE pipeline).
Caveat — As of 2026-06-27 the bill is cabinet-approved and submitted to Parliament — NOT yet passed, hence axis-2/upcoming. Likelihood moderate: ruling-party majority favours passage but Mongolian minerals-law amendments are politically contested and frequently amended in committee. Distinct from filed 2024-04-19-mongolia-sovereign-wealth-fund-law (SWF + 34% strategic-deposit state-stake amendments), filed 2025-01-15-mongolia-critical-minerals-support-law (the separate critical-minerals PROJECT-support draft law), and filed 2025-09-05-mongolia-mpe-royalty-calculation-shift (royalty base shift to the Mining Product Exchange). Severity 3 expected if enacted.
If passed & escalated to a full control regime — modelled impact (moderate likelihood)
Graphite🇨🇳 today 88→92+4
🇪🇺 EU European Critical Raw Materials (CRM) Centre — establishing instrument
consultation-closed (pre-proposal; CFE + OPC both closed 2026-07-29)→elevated likelihood·flagged 68d ago · not yet law·matches Graphite
If passed — RESourceEU (COM(2025) 945, 3 Dec 2025) commits the Commission to establish a **European Critical Raw Materials Centre** in early 2026 with four functions: (a) generate **systemic market intelligence on CRM value chains**; (b) steer and de-risk finance into strategic projects with public and private partners; (c) support **strategic stockpiling**; and (d) run **joint purchasing** by pooling company orders and matchmaking demand with supply (a "raw materials platform" pooling orders and creating joint stocks, with an EU-coordinated stockpiling pilot to become operational in the following year). A **call for evidence + public consultation opened 19 May 2026**, and the Commission announced a **legislative proposal for Q2 2026**. Supply-relief on the material axis (EU-side aggregation, stockpiles and de-risking finance directly loosen chokepoint exposure for EU industrial buyers), but it also creates a new EU purchasing/allocation gatekeeper whose membership and priority rules will be contested. If it carries reporting or data-submission duties on participating companies, it becomes a second corporate-facing CRM information obligation alongside CRMA Art. 24.
Caveat — europa. eu/info/law/better-regulation/brpapi/groupInitiatives/14832) serves the registry entry directly. Verified: initiative **id 14832**, ref **Ares(2025)6918424**, planning ref **PLAN/2025/1815**, lead **DG GROW**, **isMajor: true**, foreseen act **PROP_REG**; the Commission's own dossier summary names the four pillars as **joint purchasing, stockpiling, investments, and raw materials intelligence**. (1) The **19 May 2026 launch IS confirmed** — both consultation publications carry publishedDate 2026/05/19; the call for evidence (CFE_IMPACT_ASSESS, titled "Legislative proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing the EU Critical Raw Materials Centre") and the open public consultation (OPC_LAUNCHED) each ran a 10-week window that **CLOSED 2026-07-29 23:59:59**, drawing **138** and **72** submissions respectively. (2) The **Q2-2026 slip is confirmed, not a fetch artefact** — the PROP_REG publication still carries plannedPeriod "Q-2026-2" (2026-04-01 → 2026-06-30) with initiativeStatus **UPCOMING**, and a EUR-Lex check on 2026-07-31 finds no COM(2026) text establishing the Centre: ~31 days overdue by the Commission's own planning record, neither folded into another instrument nor silently adopted. **Legal form now known: a Regulation of the EP and Council** → full ordinary legislative procedure after the proposal lands, so an operational Centre is a 2027+ event. Cheapest future check: re-poll the same API endpoint and watch for the PROP_REG publication flipping to published. Distinct from filed 2025-12-03-eu-resourceeu-action-plan-com-2025-945 (the umbrella action plan announcing the intent — this item tracks the specific instrument establishing the Centre), from the CRMA base regulation (filed 2024-05-23), from the CRMA Art. 22 strategic-stock benchmarks item (line 103 above — that is a benchmark-setting implementing measure, this is an institution-creating instrument), and from the permanent-magnet scrap export restriction (line 141 above). ALSO a competitive-positioning item, not only a register item: a publicly-funded EU body with a statutory CRM market-intelligence remit is the most credible free substitute for our minerals intelligence layer — see the 2026-07-30 entry in docs/strategy/mandate_triggers_watch. md ("Demand-narrative signals").
If passed & escalated to a full control regime — modelled impact (elevated likelihood)
Graphite🇨🇳 today 88→92+4
🇲🇼 Malawi — Presidential Executive Order banning export of all raw/unprocessed minerals (effective 21 Oct 2025)
passed-vote→high likelihood·flagged 54d ago · not yet law·matches Graphite
If passed — President Peter Mutharika signed an executive order (dated 23 Oct 2025, effective 21 Oct 2025, announced at Sanjika Palace during a cabinet swearing-in) prohibiting the export of raw/unprocessed minerals extracted in Malawi — uranium, rare earth elements, niobium, graphite, tantalum, bauxite, coal, limestone, gemstones, heavy mineral sands, vermiculite, phosphate, rutile, gold, diamonds, copper and others — with an exemption for minerals processed/refined/value-added domestically per Malawian mining law. Announced alongside a suspension of new mining-licence issuance and a review of mining laws (2026/27 State of the Nation Address), plus a planned sovereign wealth fund. Stated rationale: local beneficiation, targeting up to USD 500m/yr once the Kasiya rutile/graphite deposit (Lilongwe) and Kangankunde rare-earth project (Balaka, Mkango Resources — Africa's prospective first new REE mine since 2017, targeting late-2026 production) are fully developed. Violators face fines/penalties under Malawian law. MW is currently the THINNEST country in the register (1 prior action) despite this breadth of minerals covered. Export-ban/beneficiation-mandate, same instrument class as Zimbabwe's SI 213/2022 raw-mineral bans and Guinea's 2026 gold-export ban already in the register.
Caveat — ENACTED (signed order, in force since 21 Oct 2025) but parked here rather than filing. gov. mw directly (TLS cert mismatch: cert is issued for agriculture. gov. mw, not statehouse. gov. mw) and the malawiace. com implementation-analysis piece cites no gov URL either. Same park-lot convention as the DRC ARECOMS / Sudan / Egypt / Morocco / Brazil / India lines above (real, already-enacted action; primary URL not independently locatable this wake). Dedup: action-index has only 1 Malawi action total, none overlapping (no prior MW export-ban or beneficiation-mandate action exists). Severity 3-4 expected given the breadth of minerals covered and MW's fast-growing REE/graphite production profile.
If passed & escalated to a full control regime — modelled impact (high likelihood)
Graphite🇨🇳 today 88→92+4
🇲🇬 Madagascar — Council of Ministers lifts 16-year moratorium on new mining-permit issuance (except gold), effective ~29 Jan 2026
passed-vote→high likelihood·flagged 54d ago · not yet law·matches Graphite
If passed — Madagascar's Council of Ministers approved resumption of mining-permit issuance on ~28-29 Jan 2026, ending a moratorium in place since 2010 (imposed during a political transition amid mining-title speculation). Roughly 1,650-3,000 pending permit applications accumulated during the freeze can now be processed — Mining Cadastre Bureau (BCMM) confirmed first-come-first-served processing with a maximum 3-month target for first issuances. Covers nickel, cobalt, graphite, rare earths, mineral sands/ilmenite, bauxite, sapphire, quartz and mica; GOLD remains explicitly excluded pending further review. Legal basis: implementation of the 2023 mining code (Loi n°2023-007, promulgated 27 Jul 2024) following mining-cadastre cleanup. SUPPLY-RELIEF — opens Madagascar's graphite (6 large projects, ~3% of global production / 8% of global reserves), nickel-cobalt (Ambatovy) and rare-earth potential to new entrants after a 16-year freeze; MG is currently one of the thinnest countries in the register (2 prior actions) despite this graphite/nickel relevance.
Caveat — ENACTED (Cabinet approved, permits already being processed per BCMM statements) but parked here rather than filing. primature. gov. mg returned a self-signed-certificate error on direct fetch, and app. primature. gov. mg's Conseil des Ministres listing did not surface a January 2026 session in the portion fetched. Same park-lot convention as the Malawi entry above and the DRC ARECOMS / Sudan / Egypt / Morocco / Brazil / India lines earlier in this file. Dedup: action-index has only 2 Madagascar actions total, neither about the permit moratorium. Severity 3 expected — moratorium lift affects licensing for nickel/cobalt/graphite/REE projects nationwide.
If passed & escalated to a full control regime — modelled impact (high likelihood)
Graphite🇨🇳 today 88→92+4
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.
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.
Why this dependence is structural, not transitional. The EU's own external auditor — the European Court of Auditors, Special Report “Critical raw materials for the energy transition — Not a rock-solid policy” (Feb 2026) — judges the bloc's 2030 extraction, processing and recycling targets to be out of reach (recycling runs 1–5% for 7 of 26 materials, and diversification shows no measurable effect). A separate industry-analyst assessment (Adamas Intelligence & Tradium, EU CRMA report, Apr 2024 — an interested-party commercial view, not an independent verdict) reaches a compatible conclusion that the 2030 rare-earth targets will be missed without an expedited push. The chokepoint this report maps is therefore a durable constraint the Act has not yet closed, not a gap that resolves on its own.