Battery makers sweat as antimony shortage hits after China's export curbs
MELBOURNE - When China restricts exports of a key mineral, sometimes the pain is sudden and even crippling - enough to spur a major outcry almost immediately. Other times, it takes longer to be felt.
For the world's makers of lead-acid batteries, China's restrictions on critical mineral antimony that were put in place late last year have become a major headache - one that their customers also now have as sky-high procurement costs are passed on.
"We consider it a national emergency," said Steve Christensen, executive director at the U.S.-based Responsible Battery Coalition, whose members include battery maker Clarios, Honda and FedEx.
He noted the key role batteries play in industry and civilian life, how antimony is used in military equipment, as well as the surge in spot prices. Antimony now costs more than $60,000 per metric ton, having more than quadrupled over the past year.
"There are no quick solutions... We were completely caught off guard collectively, as an industry," he said.
China likely produced 60% of all antimony supply in 2024, according to the United States Geological Survey. Much of antimony mined in other countries is also sent to China for processing.
Beijing added the mineral to its export control list last September, requiring companies to gain licences for each overseas antimony deal. It then followed up in December with an outright ban on shipments to the U.S. - an action seen as retaliatory after Washington further restricted exports of advanced semiconductors to Chinese companies.
China's global exports of antimony are now just a third of levels seen this time last year.
Christensen said U.S. companies are hugely reliant on China for their supply of antimony and buyers are increasingly having to procure from an emerging "grey market", where sellers that have stocked up on the material are charging extremely high prices.
China's restrictions on antimony precede its controls on rare earths and rare earth magnets that were imposed in response to U.S. President Donald Trump's tariffs and do not appear to have been discussed in last week's efforts to stabilise a truce in trade tensions between the two countries.
Last week's talks between China and the U.S. also did not include any agreement on specialised rare earths such as samarium needed for military applications.
VULNERABLE
Lead-acid batteries, commonly found in gasoline-engine vehicles, are mostly used to start the engine and to power low-voltage instruments. They are also used as sources of backup power in various industries and to store excess energy generated by solar and wind systems.
In addition to batteries, antimony is also essential to military equipment such as night vision goggles, navigation systems and ammunition.
Overall antimony demand is some 230,000-240,000 tonnes a year with lead-acid batteries accounting for about a third of that, according to consultancy Project Blue.
While many battery makers may have access to antimony-lead alloy from recycled materials, Project Blue estimates they collectively need around 10,000 tonnes a year of higher purity antimony to top up the alloy to reach the right battery properties.
Securing that additional portion could be challenging.
Project Blue director Nils Backeberg said there is enough antimony outside China to satisfy non-Chinese demand but buyers need to compete with Chinese purchasers such as the country's huge solar industry, and China's smelters are able to offer better terms.
"With antimony prices at nearly 5x normal market conditions, the cost becomes a factor and with supply limited on the Western market, a shortage is being felt," he said.
For now, it seems that battery makers' antimony woes have not yet led to cuts in output, with companies like Germany's Hoppecke saying they have managed to pass on higher costs. Japan's GS Yuasa said it has passed on costs to some customers and is negotiating with more of its customers to do so.
One source at an Indian battery maker said antimony represented only a small cost of a battery and price increases were being passed onto customers, but any more price rises could spell trouble.
"If the price does increase further, everyone (in the industry) will be vulnerable," said the source who was not authorised to speak to the media and declined to be identified.
The companies and the source at the Indian battery maker declined to disclose the size of their product price hikes.
In a sign that profits are being affected, India's Exide Industries blamed high prices for antimony when it logged smaller-than-expected income for its fourth quarter.
Christensen of the Responsible Battery Coalition said policymakers should treat the issue as one of national security, arguing that Western countries had become "overly reliant on a single geopolitical adversary for minerals foundational to both national defense and civilian life."
"For the U.S., the path forward must include onshoring processing capacity, scaling domestic recycling, and building strategic mineral alliances with trusted partners. Otherwise, this crisis will repeat itself again and again," he added.
Some baby steps towards building an antimony supply chain outside of China are being taken.
Clarios, owned by global investment firm Brookfield, said last month it was scouting locations for an up to $1 billion critical minerals processing and recovery plant in the U.S. that will extract antimony among other minerals.
Nyrstar, owned by global commodity trader Trafigura, also said last month it could produce antimony at its South Australian metals processing plant but would need government support to do so.
(Reporting by Melanie Burton; Additional reporting by Eric Onstad in London, Neha Arora in New Delhi, Ernest Scheyder in Houston, Lewis Jackson in Beijing, Yuka Obayashi in Tokyo and Ashitha Shivaprasad in Bengaluru; Editing by Edwina Gibbs)
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


The National
16 minutes ago
- The National
If Trump joins Israel in striking Iran, the US will enter another forever war
The administration of US President Donald Trump, at the time of writing, appears on the brink of joining Israel's war against Iran. Mr Trump seems to be virtually announcing that the US will suddenly embrace an open-ended morass he had been skilfully avoiding. He abruptly left the G7 meeting in Canada, claiming he was about to tackle 'stuff … much bigger than' a potential ceasefire, including 'a real end' (whatever that may mean) to the confrontation. He's now referring to Israel's military posture with the possessive pronoun 'we'. He even seems to be demanding ' unconditional surrender ' from Iran – a phrase that is particularly inscrutable yet profoundly irresponsible and unachievable, short of highly implausible and extreme measures such as nuclear attacks or a full-scale ground invasion. He has also mused about assassinating Iran's supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. He wrote that he knows where Mr Khamenei is located, but that 'we are not going to take him out [kill!], at least not for now'. Mr Trump's dire threats extended to Iran's civilian population. He warned all 10 million residents of Tehran to evacuate immediately. He may be implying a potential US and/or Israeli tactical nuclear attack, or carpet bombings not seen anywhere for many decades. The US President's intervention still remains rhetorical, notwithstanding Washington's role as Israel's diplomatic defender and arms supplier. But it marks a dismaying shift in the American approach to the new Middle East conflict. The White House had previously appeared to be employing 'constructive ambiguity', in which Washington is deliberately unclear about what it may or may not do in a given crisis to maximise options and leverage with all parties. Mr Trump seemed to be skilfully employing this tactic, while appearing incoherent and self-contradictory. But he has now shifted to unambiguously supporting Israel's attacks on Iran as virtually a joint project. He had called Israel's attacks as 'excellent', but simultaneously insisted the US was not involved. He stressed that Iran should resume suspended nuclear negotiations, where Tehran was due to provide a counter-offer to the reported US proposal that promised a potential solution to the conundrum over Iran's 'right to enrich' uranium at 3.67 per cent, useful for electricity-producing reactors but not weapons. Washington proposed that Iran undertake to join a regional nuclear energy consortium with its Arab neighbours, and, once that was established and functional, enrich uranium only through it. The idea appeared to brilliantly square the circle on the 'right to enrich'. The aspirational consortium would allow Mr Trump to tell Israel, its US supporters, and other hawkish Americans that he had persuaded Iran to forgo its 'right to enrich'. However, since Tehran could continue such enrichment in practice until the consortium was established and functional, the Iranian government could tell its own public and the world that it had successfully defended its 'right to enrich' and would be continuing that unless and until a regional consortium was up and running. Everyone's a winner? It seems Trump is being led down the garden path by an Israeli Pied Piper who is promising outcomes that neither Israel nor the US can secure In the early days of the current conflict, the Trump administration managed to create, with the tacit aid of both Israel and, especially, Iran, the impression that Washington had neither given Israel a green nor a red light for the attack. It seemed that Mr Trump wanted everyone to believe that he put no barriers on Israel's supposedly independent decision to attack Iran with full force as an adjunct to the negotiations designed to pressure Tehran to accept more restrictive terms. This second constructive ambiguity appeared to be designed to allow Israel and its US supporters to assert that Israel had Washington's full backing. Meanwhile, Iran could claim, with equal plausibility, that the US was not a direct party to the assault, so renewed negotiations with Washington wouldn't be under fire or duress. It strongly appeared, therefore, that the sometimes-maladroit Trump administration had powerfully rebuffed sceptics with two carefully crafted and remarkably skilful ambiguous positions on these highly challenging diplomatic and strategic conundrums. Appearances, sadly, are sometimes deceiving. Mr Trump's crude and bellicose intervention, which practically changes nothing in the balance of power between the two parties, strongly appears to have sacrificed both of these apparently cunning ambiguous stratagems in favour of threats that may or may not prove hollow and a new strategic posture towards Iran that may please Israel but offers little chance of a positive outcome for Washington. During the last two years of the first Trump administration, the strategic goal of the intensive destabilisation and containment campaign that replaced former president Barack Obama's JCPOA nuclear deal with 'maximum pressure' – which mainly included debilitating unilateral American sanctions – was totally unclear. Was the purpose to soften Iran up for better terms in future talks, or did it seek regime change? Both aims had vocal backing among senior officials, and the policy never yielded sufficient gains to judge which camp had the President's ear. Mr Netanyahu has been clear that regime change, no matter how far-fetched, is the ultimate Israeli war aim. It's hard not to read Mr Trump's increasingly full-throated bellicosity and vows to join the fighting against Iran as answering this question in the second Trump term in favour of regime change. If so, that's a disastrous blunder, because regime change is almost never produced by bombing and sanctions alone. Instead of weakening authoritarian states, they end up intensifying public dependency on the existing regimes and provide a ready-made foreign bogeyman to be blamed for all their woes. It seems Mr Trump is being led down the garden path by an Israeli Pied Piper who is promising outcomes that neither Israel nor the US can secure, absent a full-scale invasion and occupation of Iran. Instead, the policy is more likely to produce, at most, generalised destabilisation and political weakening for the establishment in peripheral areas dominated by ethnic minorities as well as vicious struggles for power within the regime and the heartland of the Persian 'Islamic Republic'. Mr Trump may be about to plunge Americans into yet another of the misguided, ill-advised and unwinnable 'forever wars' he has railed against for years. That's beyond ironic. He may yet step back from the brink. But unless the US President's radical shift in rhetoric is just crude psychological warfare against Iran, this certainly seems to be the alarming trajectory for his administration's policies towards that country.


Gulf Business
27 minutes ago
- Gulf Business
Adobe brings Firefly to mobile, expands AI ecosystem for creators
Image: Adobe Adobe has extended its leadership in creative ideation with a major expansion of Adobe Firefly – its destination for AI-assisted content ideation, creation, and production – by bringing Firefly's powerful image and video generation tools to phones. The newly launched Firefly iOS and Android app gives creators the freedom to explore ideas and generate or edit images and videos using AI, anytime and anywhere. Whether starting from scratch or refining content on the go, creators can now experience Firefly as a standalone mobile or web app, with seamless syncing to Adobe Creative Cloud applications, ensuring uninterrupted project continuity from ideation to production. Also introduced in this expansion is Firefly Boards, now available in public beta on the web. This AI-first moodboarding surface is transforming how creative teams collaborate on concepts. With the addition of video capabilities, Firefly Boards allows professionals to explore, edit, and iterate across media types using AI-powered tools in a collaborative environment. Read: Adobe expands Firefly generative AI ecosystem The new partner models are initially launching in Firefly Boards and will soon become accessible across the Firefly app, giving creators unprecedented flexibility to work with diverse aesthetic styles and media formats. The goal is to offer creators a comprehensive, AI-powered toolkit — on mobile and web — that supports everything from early ideation to final production. And for those wondering about transparency in AI-generated content – Adobe continues to embed Content Credentials into every asset, clearly identifying which models and tools were used. It's a move toward trust and accountability in an increasingly AI-driven creative world. Since its launch, Firefly has generated more than 24 billion assets, and interest continues to climb. Adobe has seen traffic and paid subscriptions to Firefly rise by 30 per cent quarter over quarter, signalling a growing appetite for AI-powered tools that still prioritise creative control.

Crypto Insight
30 minutes ago
- Crypto Insight
JPMorgan, SEC meet to discuss capital markets moving onchain
Executives with America's biggest bank met with the Securities and Exchange Commission's Crypto Task Force to discuss digital asset regulation and potential ramifications of capital markets moving onchain. The JPMorgan Chase executives discussed with the SEC the 'potential impact of existing capital markets activity migrating to public blockchain,' including which areas of the existing model might change and how firms could assess the risks and benefits of those changes, according to an SEC note shared on Tuesday. The two groups also discussed JPMorgan's existing 'business footprint' in the crypto space, including its current digital platform that handles repurchase agreements — a type of short-term borrowing in financial markets that falls under its 'Digital Financing' and 'Digital Debt Services' offerings. JPMorgan also assessed where it could carve out a 'competitive angle' — to stay ahead of the race as financial institutions look to the blockchain for faster, cheaper transactions while also unlocking new revenue streams through tokenized assets. Three JPMorgan executives meet with SEC Scott Lucas, Justin Cohen and Aaron Iovine were the three JPMorgan executives who spoke with the SEC's crypto group. Lucas is the firm's head of markets for digital assets, while Cohen is the global head of equity derivatives development; both are managing directors at the firm. Iovine is an executive director and JPMorgan's global head of digital asset regulatory policy. JPMorgan pilots JPMD deposit tokens JPMorgan's meeting with the SEC comes as the firm announced a token deposit pilot program on Tuesday, with the bank launching a deposit token, JPMD, on Coinbase's blockchain Base. Coinbase's institutional clients can use JPMD for transactions once the pilot is completed, which is expected to span over several months. A day earlier, JPMorgan filed a trademark application for JPMD — which outlined a range of crypto-related services, including digital asset trading, transfers and payment processing. JPMorgan exec says no plans yet for stablecoin The JPMD trademark sparked speculation that JPMorgan would issue a stablecoin with other big banks; however, Naveen Mallela, an executive at JPMorgan's blockchain division, Kinexys, told Bloomberg that token deposits are a 'superior alternative to stablecoins' for institutions, noting that their fractional reserve backing makes them more scalable. Deposit tokens represent dollar deposits held in customer bank accounts and operate within the traditional banking framework more so than stablecoins, which are merely digital representations of fiat currencies backed by cash and cash equivalents. Source: