Critical Minerals at Sea: Battery Supply Chains Become an Investment Question

Batteries have become a practical part of maritime decarbonization. They are used on ferries, harbor craft, tugs, offshore support vessels, crew transfer vessels, various types of remotely operated vessels, and hybrid ships to reduce fuel burn, provide spinning reserve, support dynamic positioning, enable peak shaving, and allow zero-emission operation in port. As of mid-2026, 156 different maritime battery systems from 118 manufacturing companies are commercially available. 

Notably, systems are becoming more energy dense, lighter and more compact, supporting wider maritime adoption – for a 288.26 m³ energy storage system (ESS), weight intensity has fallen from around 13 t/MWh for a 2016 NMC system to 9.25 t/MWh for a 2019 LFP system and 5.9 t/MWh for a 2024 NMC system. Today, 1392 battery-powered vessels are in operation, 466 on order (Figure 1).

Figure 1. Li-ion battery and critical mineral prices: five-year trend.
Source: Intelatus Global Partners’ interpretation of DNV Veracity data.
However, the business case extends beyond vessel design and charging infrastructure to include the security of battery supply chains, which depend on battery chemistry and, ultimately, on critical minerals.

The term is often misunderstood. “Critical minerals” is not a geological category but a strategic definition. A material becomes “critical” when it is important for an economy, technology, or national security, while its supply chain is vulnerable to disruption. Critical minerals should also not be confused with rare earths – these are one specific group of elements, while critical minerals vary by country, technology, and market context.
For batteries, the focus is on generally recognized critical minerals – lithium, nickel, cobalt, manganese, graphite, phosphate, and titanium, depending on chemistry. As battery costs continue to fall, the concentration of production and processing capacity, along with price volatility, remains a key risk for investors and developers.

Chemistries That Matter at Sea

Mostly commonly used ones – lithium-ion (Li-ion) batteries – are not a single technology. At sea, three types are particularly relevant – lithium iron phosphate (LFP), nickel manganese cobalt oxide (NMC), and lithium titanate oxide (LTO) (Table 1).

Table 1. Most common battery chemistries in maritime applications

 

LFP cuts nickel and cobalt exposure but still depends on lithium, graphite, cell manufacturing, and Chinese LFP know-how; NMC delivers higher energy density but increases exposure to volatile nickel and cobalt markets; LTO suits high-cycle maritime use because of fast charging and long life, though it is more specialized and costly. Hence, chemistry is a major supply-chain choice

Supply Chain Risk Is Not Only About Material Availability

A key vulnerability in the battery value chain is dependence on a limited number of countries supplying raw and processed critical materials. In cobalt, 74% of global mine production is concentrated in the Democratic Republic of Congo – much of it developed with the help of China’s investment over the last 15 years. Any regulatory, (geo)political, logistics, or natural disaster, such as the Ebola epidemic, disruption in the country, can affect physical availability and global prices.
Lithium and nickel (cathode materials, like cobalt) supply chains also remain highly concentrated (Figure 2). While lithium has diversification potential by 2030, copper faces a growing risk of future shortages unless timely investment offsets strong demand growth and declining output from existing mines. By 2030, in a conservative scenario, lithium demand could grow by 122%, cobalt by 42%, and nickel by 30%.

Graphite is also a major bottleneck. It is the basic anode material for most Li-ion batteries, including both LFP and NMC. This means that switching between battery chemistries may reduce cobalt and nickel exposure, but it does not eliminate graphite dependence. Chinese companies account for up to 80% of global natural graphite production. Meanwhile, demand for battery-grade graphite could grow by more than four to six times by 2035.
 

Figure 2. Changes in critical minerals production by region, 2020-2024
Source: Intelatus Global Partners’ own calculations, based on interpretation of S&P Global, Bloomberg NEF, and IEA data.
Another layer of vulnerability is processing and component manufacturing. Even where raw materials are mined elsewhere, much of the value-added processing happens in China. According to different estimates, China represents 60% to 90% of global installed cathode active material manufacturing capacity and more than 90% of anode material production. Even in recycling, China is expected to maintain a dominant position, accounting for over 80% of global pre-treatment and 75% of material recovery capacity by 2030.

The scale of this concentration is also evident in installed manufacturing capacity. Global Li-ion battery cell and ESS nameplate capacity exceeded 4 TWh by the end of 2025, with China accounting for the largest regional share (Figure 3). This dominance is reinforced by China’s broader strategy to control critical mineral supply chains through the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) – up to 2021, Beijing provided nearly $57 billion in aid and subsidized credit for transition-mineral projects across 19 BRI countries. Most of this financing supports assets in which Chinese firms have direct stakes – 83% of official financing for transition-mineral operations in developing countries went to mining sites partly or wholly owned by Chinese companies. Critical minerals also feature prominently in China’s recently announced 15th Five-Year Plan, where they are positioned as central to scientific and technological innovation, self-reliance, and industrial leadership.


 Figure 3. Installed electric Li-ion battery cell and ESS nameplate manufacturing capacity in 2025, by region.
Source: Intelatus Global Partners’ interpretation of IEA data
To note – capacity located in a country is not the same as that controlled by local producers. In China and Korea, most installed capacity belongs to domestic companies. In the European Union and the United States, the share of local producers is much lower.
Therefore, the relevant question is not only where lithium, cobalt, nickel, or graphite are mined. It is also where they are refined, processed into battery-grade materials, and assembled into cells, as well as which companies and investors ultimately control these stages of the value chain and what the trends are going forward.

Prices Are Falling, But Volatility Has Not Disappeared

Battery prices have continued to decline (Figure 4). Chemistry shifts, process improvements, and intense competition have pushed pack prices downward, especially for LFP systems, which avoid cobalt and nickel and benefit from China’s production scale. In 2025, average battery prices fell by around 8%, with the average Li-ion pack price standing at $108/kWh.
 

Figure 4. Li-ion battery and critical mineral prices: five-year trend.
Source: Intelatus Global Partners’ own calculations, based on interpretation of S&P Global, Bloomberg NEF, and IEA data.
However, declining prices do not eliminate primary materials supply-chain risk. Battery prices are exposed to shocks in commodity markets driven by supply shifts, geopolitical tensions, and other “black swans.” A sustained supply shock for battery metals could increase global average battery pack prices by as much as 40-50%.

What This Means for Maritime Investors

First, maritime players need to pay closer attention to supply-chain localization and resilience. The objective is not full self-sufficiency, which is unrealistic, but the reduction of critical bottlenecks. This can be achieved through technological diversification, broader supplier networks, and, where possible, long-term supply contracts guarding from mineral price volatility. Another possibility is participation in mining projects in third countries, including through minority equity stakes or strategic offtake agreements.

Second, recycling is becoming an investment theme, though it is not a near-term fix for mineral dependence. In the short term, feedstock remains limited because many batteries have not yet reached the end of life. Yet, over time, recycling can reduce exposure to primary mineral markets and create opportunities in collection, dismantling, and recovery of critical materials. Battery recycling could supply 20-30% of lithium, nickel, and cobalt demand by 2050.

Third, investors should monitor technology diversification. Two trends matter – new battery types with different material profiles, including sodium-ion, lithium-sulfur, and solid-state batteries, and higher energy density in existing chemistries. Sodium-ion could reduce dependence on lithium and nickel in some applications, though it still faces energy-density and scale-up limits. Lithium-sulfur and solid-state systems promise higher energy density – the latter prototypes have already reached energy density around twice today’s Li-ion levels and improved safety but remain too early-stage for commercial deployment.

Don’t Look at the Lowest Price

Batteries are becoming increasingly attractive for maritime and offshore applications, but the sector should not treat them as plug-and-play commodities. Strategic risk is moving upstream – LFP, NMC, and LTO each offer useful maritime pathways, but each carries different exposure to critical materials production and processing concentration and commodity markets volatility.

For owners, shipyards, and investors, the conclusion is straightforward – don’t focus purely on the lowest price per kWh but on supply-chain resilience. 

Assessing supplier bankability, replacement strategy, and contract structure should underlie project due diligence. The strongest investment cases will combine operational logic, secure procurement, diversified suppliers, and technology flexibility.

---

---

Sources
1.Maritime Battery Forum
2.Corvus Energy
3.U.S. Geological Survey
4.Benchmark Mineral Intelligence
5.International Energy Agency
6.Market Growth Reports
7.Jadhavar Business Intelligence
8.AidData
9.Reuters
10.BloombergNEF
11.Argonne National Laboratory
12.S&P Global