Executive Insights Volume XXI, Issue 55 Why are Battery Companies Investing in Mines? — Strategies for Vertical Integration in the Mining Industry As the market in batteries for electric and direct investments in minority interests, other peers have taken an indirect investment approach through long-term offtake autonomous vehicles develops, the downstream agreements (think Ganfeng Lithium, LionEnergy and Tesla). players that traditionally participate in chemical The common thread in all this activity is a desire for vertical and battery fabrication have shown a propensity integration. In this paper, we consider the rationale for companies for investment in upstream mineral extraction to take a vertically integrated position in the mining sector, review and processing. the application of these rationales for vertical integration in the battery minerals sector (using lithium as an example), and examine the impact that this has on the capabilities necessary for success. The battery mineral mining sector is currently one of the hottest for merger and acquisition activity and companies such as Vertical integration in the mining sector Ningbo Shanshan, Toyota Tsusho and Great Wall Motors have all taken steps to become participants in upstream mineral Vertical integration in the mining sector is not a new assets over the past 24 months. While these are all examples of phenomenon (Figure 1). A cursory glance at the histories of Figure 1 Vertical integration in the mining sector Extraction and Logistics and Exploration Development processing trading Rening Fabrication Iron and steel BHP Bluescope Glencore Zinc and lead Nyrstar Aluminium Rio Tinto Alcan Constellium Copper Anglo American Current focus Some current exposure Divested position Why are Battery Companies Investing in Mines? — Strategies for Vertical Integration in the Mining Industry was written by Philip Wheeler, Yong Teng and David Ogilvy, Partners at L.E.K. Consulting. Philip and David are based in Melbourne. Yong is based in Shanghai. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Executive Insights companies such as BHP, Rio Tinto and Anglo American identifies where national champions can be, and are, developed in almost dozens of examples of investments in companies downstream any country. of the extraction and processing value chain. As time has progressed, the majors have divested a number of these Improved channel to market positions, and so Bluescope, Constellium, Scaw Metals and their All businesses need a link to their customers, and the relative peers were reborn. But vertically integrated positions still remain strength of that relationship is a factor in driving the returns in commodities such as aluminium (Rio Tinto), copper (Anglo available to each participant. There are instances where the American’s Chagres copper smelter) and zinc (Glencore, Nyrstar). channel to market for minerals can be more challenging given There are four typical reasons to vertically integrate in the mining a differentially strong position held by a particular stage of the value chain: value chain that results in it capturing a disproportionate share of the value created. For instance, the smelting and trading 1. To reduce the impact on a downstream position (e.g., activities of the zinc and lead markets are held by a small refining or fabrication) from the market supply cycle (i.e., number of large organisations. A new player in zinc mining being caught short on raw materials input) or volatility of may be encouraged to invest in its own smelting capacity if the pricing in upstream raw materials. returns were greater than those offered by existing participants (subject, of course, to a realistic and objective assessment of 2. To take advantage of improved margins or mineral value in the specific economics of the investment opportunity and likely an adjacent sector of the value chain. competitive response). 3. To improve the channel to market for an upstream mining position through downstream integration. Generating incremental demand 4. To generate new or incremental demand in a commodity. Mineral producers are motivated to ensure that the demand for their products steadily increases. Demand growth provides a Reduce volatility on a downstream position larger absolute market for sales but also ensures that the supply- Mineral pricing is inherently volatile, and insulation from this demand balance remains in check against any overinvestment volatility is one of the main reasons for vertical integration, in extraction assets. Brazil produces almost 90% of the world’s particularly when the ability to pass price volatility on to the next niobium and CBMM is the largest local producer. Since its early customer is diminished. Price volatility is in turn driven by supply- days, CBMM has operated a market development programme, demand dynamics, but the volatility is asymmetrical. While working with and investing alongside its steel-making customers microeconomics tells us that the low point of prices is driven by to seek new applications for niobium-alloyed steels and improved the marginal cash cost of production (in the long term), there is performance outcomes — and in doing so, increase demand no such barrier to the upside in pricing. Arcelor Mittal’s venture for niobium. In the 2000s, niobium demand doubled from c. 30 into iron ore and metallurgical coal production in the late 2000s kilotonnes per annum (ktpa) to c. 60ktpa of niobium content in was at least in part driven by a desire to reduce volatility in the concentrate, and the market has maintained those high levels cost of goods for its steel production facilities. since that time. Take advantage of improved margins Vertical integration in battery minerals The extraction and conversion of minerals into product can be With four potential rationales for vertical integration in the highly capital-intensive. This limits the potential for new entrants mineral sector, we can now turn our attention to battery and can create a more attractive market dynamic that drives minerals. While examples of vertical integration can be identified higher relative margins than in lower capital-intensive activities. in cobalt, nickel and other minerals, this paper will focus on In addition, minerals are not equally distributed across the world lithium-based minerals. but tend to show high concentrations in certain geographic districts. In the iron and steel value chain, the returns available Recent market evolution to iron ore and metallurgical coal are typically superior to steel, A decade ago, the market for lithium minerals was relatively albeit more volatile as per the previous section. Superior mineral mature, primarily driven by uses in glass / ceramics, greases, returns can be attributed to a much better market structure air treatment and other nonbattery sources. Prices were stable, for iron ore and met coal, which have a small number of large aligned to the cash costs of the marginal producer. In 2000, producers developing privileged and often isolated assets demand for lithium-based batteries contributed c. 5% of lithium in a minority of countries. By contrast, the steel industry is demand. The demand placed on this sector from the use of lithium characterised by an oversupplied and fragmented market Page 2 L.E.K. Consulting / Executive Insights, Volume XXI, Issue 55 Executive Insights for batteries has rapidly increased (Figure 2). By 2013, it had Figure 3 grown to c. 30% of demand, and in five years’ time we expect this Indexed metal commodity prices to be 80%. In addition, the end-use demand source has shifted Indexed metal commodity prices from traditional, small-scale, lithium ion batteries for electronics (2010-Q1 19) and smartphones into the much larger and rapidly growing Index sector of electric vehicles. This rapid change of environment has 400 pushed the lithium market back into a period of “immaturity” 350 characterised by high levels of demand growth (upwards of 20% 300 per annum), the application of new technologies for production Lithium and use, a rapidly changing supply-demand dynamic, the entry 250 Carbonate of new supply participants, rapidly increasing industry value, and (Battery Grade) 200 Lithium Metal highly volatile prices as demand periodically outstrips supply. Cobalt 150 Aluminium 100 Platinum Nickel 50 Figure 2 Copper Battery share of lithium demand 0 Iron ore 2010 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Battery share of lithium demand 2000-23F Sources: Thompson Reuters Datastream; Roskill; L.E.K. analysis Percentage 80 80 The rationale for vertical integration for upstream lithium 70 players 60 Interestingly, our framework for vertical integration also 50 encourages the existing and emerging upstream players to vertically integrate, and this may explain why so many deals 40 have been achieved recently. The manufacture of spodumene 30 30 is relatively low complexity and producers, therefore, receive 20 relatively low pricing and margins for the product as a concentrate (c. $600/tonne of spodumene or c. $4,000/t of 10 5 lithium carbonate equivalent). Investment in a lithium refinery, 0 2000 13 23 converting spodumene into lithium carbonate (or lithium hydroxide), unlocks pricing of over $10,000/t. In doing so, the spodumene producers have moved into an adjacent value chain The rationale for vertical integration for downstream segment, which appears to have improved returns, even after lithium players considering the capital investment. In addition, investment in a The “immature” market described above has proven to be a spodumene refinery improves the channel to market for lithium troublesome one at times for lithium ion battery chemical and mineral producers, with refined material finding a broader range cell fabricators. While they look to build capacity to satisfy the of customers in battery chemical and cell fabricators rather than rapidly increasing customer and end-user demand for batteries being dependent on the relatively high concentration of refining and precursor chemicals, the (real and perceived) volatility in partners in Albermarle, Tianqi, Ganfeng and SQM. lithium supply and prices has remained a threat since the initial price spikes of 2015 (Figure 3).