Loading…
Loading…
2 critical materials scored · binding chokepoint: Graphite (🇨🇳 CN 85% of refining) · 44 restrictive government measures on record
Vianode AS 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 · Graphite Vianode AS is the 21st-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.
Vianode AS ranks 11th of 21 verified graphite materials companies, tied with 3 others at 86.
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.
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 (NO 85% · CA 15%, 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/vianode/report.
Vianode AS is a Norwegian battery-materials producer of synthetic (and low-carbon) anode graphite for lithium-ion EV and grid-storage cells. It was spun out of Elkem's advanced battery-materials unit in 2021; Elkem exited in March 2024, leaving Hydro (initially 30%) and PE firm Altor as the shareholders. Ownership has since shifted decisively toward Altor: a Sep-2024 Altor put option briefly forced Hydro to 50/50, but the parties cancelled that option and Hydro instead sold a further 10.1% to Altor, leaving Hydro at 19.9% and Altor at 80.1% as of the transaction's announcement (24-Oct-2024); Hydro also stepped down from Vianode's board. Hydro and Altor agreed a mutual put/call option on Hydro's remaining 19.9% exercisable no later than 28-Feb-2025 — whether it was exercised, and Vianode's current ownership split, could not be confirmed from any source found in this pass; flagged rather than guessed. Its first commercial plant, Via ONE at Herøya (Norway), opened in October 2024 with ~2,000 tonnes/year of nameplate anode-graphite capacity (enough for ~30,000 EVs/year); a second, larger plant (Via TWO) is planned in Ontario, Canada, to serve the North American market.
output IS anode graphite: synthetic graphite made via a proprietary high-temperature process from petroleum/coal-tar feedstocks, marketed as a ~90%-lower-carbon-footprint alternative to conventional (largely China-produced) anode graphite. This makes Vianode a rare non-Chinese capacity addition in a material where China accounts for the large majority of global anode-graphite processing — i.e. it sits on the supply side of graphite concentration risk (a candidate diversification node) rather than being exposed to it as a buyer.
composite anode R&D program aimed at raising specific capacity and charge speed versus pure-graphite anodes. This is a forward-looking exposure (not yet at Via ONE commercial scale) rather than today's bill-of-materials.
these are typical of battery cell/pack makers, not an anode-graphite materials producer, and no company-specific sourcing of them could be verified.
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.
Vianode's own press release (2025-01-15): multi-year 'USD multi-billion' agreement to supply synthetic anode graphite to GM for EV batteries made by Ultium Cells LLC, shipped from an IRA-compliant large-scale plant in North America from 2027 (the release does not itself name the Ontario site). Includes a minimum off-take commitment but discloses no specific volumes or percentage share of either party's business — not recorded as share_pct.
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.
2 of 2 of your scored CRMA-strategic materials 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% | High | hard | 27 | ▲ rising |
| Silicon | 🇨🇳 CN 80% refining | 77 | 64 | High | EXCEEDS 80% | — | limited | 19 | ▲ 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 |
| Silicon | 4 | 4 | 1 | 4 | 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.
Restrictive government measures on this company's materials, newest first — each links to its primary government source.
+ 29 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, these disclosed plants carry 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.
The binding exposure this precedent lands on — Graphite — is a material Vianode AS 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 2026-10-06) — 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.
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 —
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 | 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.
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 Vianode AS 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, 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 ↗
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 (Silicon). The 1 material Vianode AS produces (Graphite) is excluded from these buyer levers — see the role check in the verdict and the significant-vulnerability conclusion above.
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 — 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 |
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.
MACROLENS · CICONIALABS · GEOPOLITICAL SUPPLY-RISK REPORT (EU CRMA ART. 20–25) · report generated 2026-10-06
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.