Table of Contents

1. Executive Summary

1.1 Market Snapshot
1.2 Key Market Highlights
1.3 Market Size & Forecast (2025–2033)
1.4 Largest Supply Region Analysis
1.5 Fastest-Growing Supply Region Analysis
1.6 Top Downstream Segment Analysis
1.7 Competitive Landscape Snapshot
1.8 Future Market Outlook

2. Global Cobalt Mining Market Introduction

2.1 Market Definition
2.2 Scope of Study
2.3 Research Assumptions
2.4 Research Methodology
2.5 Forecast Parameters

3. Global Cobalt Mining Market Overview

3.1 Market Evolution
3.2 Global Cobalt Mining Ecosystem Analysis
3.3 Value Chain Analysis
3.4 Cobalt Supply Chain & Refining Flow
3.5 Global Mine Production & Resource Distribution
3.6 Cobalt Mining Landscape

3.6.1 Mining Methods
3.6.1.1 Surface Mining
3.6.1.1.1 Underground Mining
3.6.1.1.1.1 Artisanal & Small-Scale Mining (ASM)
3.6.1.1.1.2 Emerging Mining Technologies

3.6.2 Ore Types
3.6.2.1 Copper-Cobalt Ores
3.6.2.1.1 Nickel-Cobalt Laterite Ores
3.6.2.1.1.1 Primary Cobalt Deposits
3.6.2.1.1.2 Secondary & Tailings Resources

3.6.3 Downstream Applications
3.6.3.1 Battery Materials
3.6.3.1.1 Metallurgical Applications
3.6.3.1.1.1 Chemical Applications
3.6.3.1.1.2 Aerospace & Defense Materials

4. Regulatory Landscape

4.1 Mining Regulations & Licensing Frameworks
4.2 Critical Minerals & Export Control Policies
4.3 Environmental & ESG Regulations
4.4 Battery Recycling & Circular Economy Regulations
4.5 Trade Policies & Strategic Mineral Security Initiatives

5. Market Trends & Innovation Outlook

5.1 EV Battery Demand Expansion
5.2 High-Pressure Acid Leach (HPAL) Technology
5.3 Battery Supply Chain Localization
5.4 Sustainable & Responsible Cobalt Mining
5.5 AI & Digital Mine Optimization
5.6 Alternative Extraction Technologies
5.7 Battery Recycling & Urban Mining
5.8 Critical Minerals Investment & Supply Diversification

6. Global Cobalt Mining Market Dynamics

6.1 Market Drivers

6.1.1 Indonesian Laterite Supply Ramp-Up
6.1.2 Gigafactory Capacity Additions
6.1.3 CATL Market Leadership & Battery Demand
6.1.4 Investment in New Mining Capacity

6.2 Market Restraints

6.2.1 DRC Export Quotas & Production Constraints
6.2.2 Glencore’s Copper-First Strategy
6.2.3 EU Battery Recycling Mandates

6.3 Market Opportunities

6.3.1 Alternative Extraction Technologies
6.3.2 Brazilian Nickel-Cobalt Development
6.3.3 Supply Chain Diversification Beyond the DRC
6.3.4 Growth in Energy Storage Applications

6.4 Market Threats

6.4.1 Regulatory Instability in the DRC
6.4.2 Environmental & Social Liability Risks
6.4.3 Battery Chemistry Substitution Risk
6.4.4 Geopolitical Supply Chain Disruptions

7. Global Cobalt Mining Market Size Analysis (USD Billion), 2025–2033

7.1 Revenue Forecast Analysis
7.2 Baseline Forecast (2025–2033)
7.3 Optimistic Scenario Analysis
7.4 Conservative Scenario Analysis
7.5 Year-by-Year Market Growth Analysis
7.6 Investment & Supply-Demand Outlook

8. Global Cobalt Mining Market Segmentation Analysis

8.1 By Mining Method

8.1.1 Surface Mining
8.1.2 Underground Mining
8.1.3 Artisanal & Small-Scale Mining (ASM)
8.1.4 Emerging Mining Technologies

8.2 By Ore Type

8.2.1 Copper-Cobalt Ores
8.2.2 Nickel-Cobalt Laterite Ores
8.2.3 Primary Cobalt Deposits
8.2.4 Secondary & Tailings Resources

8.3 By Application

8.3.1 Battery Materials
8.3.2 Metallurgical Applications
8.3.3 Chemical Applications
8.3.4 Aerospace & Defense Materials

8.4 By End User

8.4.1 Battery Manufacturers
8.4.2 Automotive Industry
8.4.3 Industrial Manufacturing
8.4.4 Government & Strategic Stockpile Organizations

9. Regional Market Analysis

9.1 Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC)

9.1.1 Copperbelt Production
9.1.2 Export Quotas & Regulatory Environment
9.1.3 Major Mining Operations
9.1.4 Investment Outlook

9.2 Indonesia

9.2.1 HPAL Project Expansion
9.2.2 Laterite Mining Development
9.2.3 Production Growth Outlook
9.2.4 Investment Pipeline

9.3 Europe

9.3.1 Battery Manufacturing Demand
9.3.2 Recycling Regulations
9.3.3 Critical Mineral Strategy

9.4 North America

9.4.1 EV Battery Supply Chain Investments
9.4.2 Strategic Mineral Initiatives
9.4.3 Domestic Processing Expansion

9.5 Rest of the World

9.5.1 Brazil
9.5.2 Namibia
9.5.3 Australia
9.5.4 Other Emerging Producers

10. Competitive Landscape

10.1 Market Share Analysis
10.2 Competitive Benchmarking
10.3 Strategic Developments
10.4 Production Capacity Analysis
10.5 Investments, Partnerships & Acquisitions
10.6 Competitive Positioning Matrix

11. Company Profiles

11.1 CMOC Group
11.2 Glencore plc
11.3 Eurasian Resources Group (ERG)
11.4 Zijin Mining Group Co., Ltd.
11.5 Ningbo Lygend Mining Co., Ltd.
11.6 Zhejiang Huayou Cobalt Co., Ltd.
11.7 PT Vale Indonesia Tbk
11.8 Chinalco Mining Corporation International
11.9 Vale S.A.
11.10 Sherritt International Corporation
11.11 Jervois Global Limited
11.12 KoBold Metals
11.13 Lifezone Metals Limited
11.14 First Quantum Minerals Ltd.
11.15 Ivanhoe Mines Ltd.

12. Strategic Intelligence & Pheonix AI Insights

12.1 Pheonix Demand Forecast Engine
12.2 Supply Chain Risk Analyzer
12.3 Investment & Project Tracker
12.4 Critical Minerals Opportunity Dashboard
12.5 Scenario Planning & Sensitivity Analysis
12.6 Porter’s Five Forces Analysis

13. Future Outlook & Strategic Recommendations

13.1 Supply Diversification Strategy
13.2 Battery Materials Investment Outlook
13.3 ESG & Sustainable Mining Roadmap
13.4 Critical Minerals Supply Chain Strategy
13.5 Long-Term Market Outlook (2033+)

14. About Pheonix Market Research

15. Disclaimer

Competitive Landscape

Competition Landscape

The global cobalt mining market is defined by a concentrated rivalry between two corporations—CMOC Group and Glencore—that together account for the majority of mined cobalt supply. Since 2023, CMOC has held the position of the world’s largest cobalt producer, a status it seized from Glencore through strategic acquisitions and capacity expansion in the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC). The shift in leadership is not static: Glencore’s cobalt output contracted in 2025, while CMOC continued to operate near its full nameplate capacity. This chapter examines the competitive dynamics between these two participants, the structural factors driving their positions, and the regulatory environment that shapes their ability to export product to global markets.

Key Takeaways

1. CMOC overtook Glencore as the largest mined cobalt producer in 2023 and has maintained that position through 2025.
2. CMOC’s Tenke Fungurume mine has a nameplate cobalt capacity of 37,000 tonnes per year, and its Kisanfu mine has a nameplate capacity of 50,000 tonnes per year; Glencore’s 2025 production was 36,100 tonnes.
3. Glencore’s cobalt output declined 5% year-on-year in 2025, partly due to proactive planning to prioritise copper production and DRC export restrictions.
4. The DRC government’s export quota system, implemented in late 2025, is a competitive variable that affects both companies’ ability to move product to refiners.
5. Supported evidence does not enable a defensible ranking of other participants such as Eurasian Resources Group, limiting the competitive scope to the CMOC–Glencore rivalry.

Evidence-Backed Implications

The competitive relationship between CMOC and Glencore is the most decision-relevant axis in the market. CMOC’s rise to leadership is grounded in two acquisitions made at low points in the commodity cycle: the Tenke Fungurume mine, acquired from Freeport-McMoRan in 2016, and the Kisanfu mine, acquired from BHP in 2021. Tenke Fungurume has a nameplate cobalt capacity of 37,000 tonnes per year, while Kisanfu, which holds an estimated 3.1 million tonnes of cobalt metal resource, adds a further nameplate capacity of 50,000 tonnes per year. In fiscal year 2025, CMOC produced 117,500 tonnes of cobalt, equivalent to 107% of its own production guidance. That volume significantly exceeds Glencore’s 2025 output of 36,100 tonnes, which was 2,100 tonnes lower than in 2024.

The production gap reflects more than just installed capacity. Glencore’s decline was a deliberate operational choice: the company’s 2025 production report states that the reduction “mainly reflect[s] proactive planning to prioritise copper production over cobalt, noting the DRC cobalt export restrictions.” This indicates that when regulatory constraints tighten, Glencore allocates resources toward copper—its primary revenue contributor—while CMOC, whose DRC operations are predominantly cobalt-copper assets, continues expanding cobalt production. The DRC export quota system, introduced in October 2025, further complicates the competitive environment. Glencore shipped the first cargo under the new quota framework, while CMOC also initiated exports under the same regulations. Although both companies operate under identical regulatory rules, the impact is more significant for Glencore because of its lower cobalt production volume and stronger strategic focus on copper.

The following table summarises the strongest supported competitive relationships, capacities, production outcomes, and resource positions. The comparison is limited to the two companies for which the available evidence provides directly comparable quantitative data.

Competitive Comparison: CMOC Group vs Glencore in Cobalt Mining

The comparison highlights that CMOC’s competitive advantage is structural. The company controls larger production capacity, a substantially deeper resource base, and significantly higher cobalt output. Glencore’s competitive response is constrained by its copper-cobalt production trade-off and by regulatory export quotas that may limit future shipment volumes. This imbalance has important implications for downstream cobalt consumers, as supply concentration continues shifting toward CMOC while Glencore becomes a comparatively smaller and potentially more variable supplier.

Illustrate the supported competitive strengths, capacities, production outcomes, and DRC regulatory context for the two leading participants. Surviving competition claims and selected evidence from CMOC Group and Glencore public disclosures and news sources. Relative production volumes, nameplate capacities, resource ownership, and the export quota system as a competitive variable.

Outlook

Decision-makers in the cobalt market should monitor three variables that will determine whether the current competitive hierarchy persists or changes.

1. The DRC export quota system remains in its early stages. Future quota allocations and the utilisation of unused 2025 quotas, carried forward until March 2026, will influence short-term cobalt supply and may either widen or reduce the production gap between CMOC and Glencore.
2. Glencore’s guidance for 2026 does not specify a cobalt production target, suggesting the company may continue prioritising copper production. If this strategy continues, CMOC’s leadership position is likely to strengthen further.
3. Changes in the copper-to-cobalt price ratio or operational performance at CMOC’s Tenke Fungurume and Kisanfu mines could alter the competitive balance over the coming years.

The available evidence does not support a defensible ranking of other market participants. Eurasian Resources Group is mentioned as a competitor in one source, but no comparable production, capacity, or resource data is available. Likewise, artisanal mining cooperatives and state-owned mining enterprises are not covered within the supplied evidence. Consequently, any competitive assessment beyond the CMOC–Glencore rivalry would require additional verified data. Based on the current evidence, the global cobalt mining market remains fundamentally a two-player competition, with CMOC maintaining a clear structural advantage over Glencore through superior production capacity, larger resource ownership, and higher annual output.

Value Chain

Global Cobalt Mining Market Value Chain & Supply Chain Evolution Overview

The global cobalt mining value chain moves from exploration and ore extraction through beneficiation and concentrate production to delivery to downstream refiners. The Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) dominates this flow, accounting for more than 70% of global mined cobalt. In 2025–2026, government export controls—a ban followed by a quota system—forced a structural realignment, with major producers rebalancing copper and cobalt output while concentrating inventories at mine sites.

Key Takeaways

1. DRC export controls (ban from February 2025 and quota system from October 2025) disrupted the value chain. Glencore’s DRC cobalt output fell 5% in 2025 and 39% in Q1 2026, while African copper output surged 68%.
2. Glencore was allocated a 22,800-tonne export quota for 2026 (including a 2025 carryover), and shipments restarted in December 2025 after months with no exports.
3. CMOC maintained its cobalt production target for 2026 after a record 117,500 tonnes in 2025 while planning up to 11% copper growth, demonstrating a dual-metal production strategy.
4. The DRC’s dominance (over 70% of global mined cobalt) and the quota system, which remains in force until at least the end of 2027, create a controlled supply environment that constrains downstream availability and reinforces the need for alternative supply sources.
5. Copper-cobalt co-production defines mine economics. Glencore’s prioritization of copper production during the quota period demonstrates operational flexibility supported by sufficient finished-cobalt inventories.

Production Nodes and Corporate Control

Upstream cobalt production is concentrated among three major corporate groups operating large copper-cobalt assets in the DRC’s Lualaba province.

Glencore operates the Mutanda mine with an on-site beneficiation plant and Kamoto Copper Company SA (KCC), which includes open-pit mines (KOV, T17, Mashamba East), the KTO underground mine, the Kamoto concentrator, and the Luilu refinery. KCC is owned by Glencore (70%), Gécamines (25%), and the DRC State (5%). In 2025, Glencore’s own-sourced cobalt production from its DRC operations reached 36,100 tonnes, representing a 5% decline from 2024 due to its strategic prioritization of copper production. During Q1 2026, KCC produced 51,900 tonnes of copper (up 72% year-over-year) and Mutanda produced 16,000 tonnes (up 55%), while Mutanda produced no cobalt.

China Molybdenum Co. Ltd. (CMOC) owns 80% of Tenke Fungurume Mining S.A. (TFM), which has annual production capacity exceeding 450,000 tonnes of copper and 37,000 tonnes of cobalt. CMOC also owns 71.25% of the KFM copper-cobalt mine with copper capacity above 200,000 tonnes. TFM contained estimated reserves of 7.89 million tonnes of copper and 0.82 million tonnes of cobalt as of 2023. CMOC’s combined 2025 production totaled 741,100 tonnes of copper and 117,500 tonnes of cobalt.

Eurasian Resources Group (ERG) owns 90% of Metalkol SA in Kolwezi, producing cobalt hydroxide and copper cathode. Production capacity figures were not disclosed in the available evidence.

Major DRC Cobalt Mining Assets

Export Controls and the Shift to Copper Prioritization

In February 2025, the DRC government, through ARECOMS, imposed a four-month cobalt export suspension effective 22 February 2025 to address global oversupply. On 16 October 2025, the suspension transitioned into a quota system comprising an 18,125-tonne Q4 2025 allocation and an annual cap of 96,600 tonnes beginning in 2026. The quota system will remain in effect until at least the end of 2027.

Glencore responded by prioritizing copper production while utilizing existing cobalt inventories to satisfy export quotas. Consequently, Q1 2026 African copper production increased 68% year-over-year to 67,900 tonnes, while cobalt production declined 39% to 5,100 tonnes. Mutanda, which produced 2,900 tonnes of cobalt during Q1 2025, produced no cobalt in Q1 2026.

For full-year 2025, Glencore’s DRC cobalt production declined to 33,500 tonnes, with exports suspended during Q4 2025 due to the government ban.

Glencore received a 2026 export quota of 22,800 tonnes, including unused 2025 allocations that remained valid until 31 March 2026. The company’s first export shipment under the new quota system departed in December 2025 following payment of a 10% royalty.

CMOC adopted a different strategy by maintaining its cobalt production target after producing a record 117,500 tonnes in 2025 while simultaneously targeting copper production growth of up to 11% during 2026.

Producer Responses to Export Controls

Regulatory Timeline

1. 22 February 2025 – DRC imposed a cobalt export ban.
2. 16 October 2025 – Export quota system introduced.
3. December 2025 – First Glencore export shipment under quota.
4. 31 March 2026 – Deadline for utilization of quota carryover.
5. Q1 2026 – Major production shift toward copper observed.

Implications for the Cobalt Value Chain and Downstream Supply

The DRC’s dominance—accounting for more than 70% of approximately 280,000 tonnes of global mined cobalt production in 2025—means that export controls significantly influence worldwide cobalt availability.

Glencore’s reliance on existing cobalt inventories while reducing active mining demonstrates that producers with stockpiled material can temporarily separate exports from ongoing production. However, this approach delays cobalt movement to downstream refiners, battery cathode manufacturers, and electric vehicle battery supply chains.

The contrasting strategies adopted by Glencore and CMOC illustrate differing responses to regulatory constraints. Glencore prioritized copper production due to favorable economics and quota limitations, whereas CMOC pursued simultaneous growth in both copper and cobalt production.

Because the quota system remains effective until at least the end of 2027, global buyers continue to face constrained supply availability, increasing interest in alternative cobalt sources including recycling, nickel-cobalt laterite projects, and mining operations outside the DRC.

Key Supply Metrics (2025–2027)

Downstream participants—including traders, refiners, cathode manufacturers, and EV battery producers—continue to face uncertainty regarding shipment timing and supply volumes. The export suspension during Q4 2025 delayed cobalt availability outside the DRC despite the later introduction of quota carryovers.

Assumptions and Limitations

1. Company-level financial metrics including revenue, operating costs, and capital expenditure are excluded.
2. ERG production and capacity data are unavailable within the supporting evidence.
3. Production figures are based on company disclosures and industry reports and have not been independently verified.
4. Downstream impacts on cobalt prices, refining margins, and battery contracts are inferred rather than directly quantified.
5. Exploration activities, mine development, transportation infrastructure, and port logistics are outside the scope of the available evidence.

Investment Activity

Global Cobalt Mining Investment Overview

Investment into global cobalt mining in 2025–2026 reveals a clear geopolitical divergence. US-backed consortia are pursuing controlling stakes in established Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) assets, while Chinese state-owned enterprises are acquiring early-stage projects elsewhere in Africa. Meanwhile, Brazil is emerging as a third investment hub, supported by national development bank financing intended to build a Western-aligned battery-metals supply chain.

Strategic Acquisitions Reshaping Cobalt Asset Ownership

Two publicly reported transactions illustrate the contrasting strategies of US-allied and Chinese investors.

US-Backed Consortium Targets Glencore’s DRC Operations

In February 2026, Glencore announced that it had entered into a non-binding memorandum of understanding with the Orion Critical Mineral Consortium (Orion CMC) for the proposed acquisition of a 40% stake in Glencore’s interests in the Mutanda Mining and Kamoto Copper Company (KCC) projects in the Democratic Republic of Congo. The proposed transaction implies a combined enterprise value of approximately US$9 billion for the assets.

Orion CMC is led by private equity firm Orion Resource Partners in partnership with the US International Development Finance Corporation (DFC). Under the proposed agreement, Orion CMC would have the right to appoint non-executive directors and direct the sale of its share of production to nominated buyers in accordance with the US–DRC Strategic Partnership Agreement. The parties also intend to explore opportunities to expand and further develop the mines in cooperation with the DRC government and Gécamines, Glencore’s joint venture partner in KCC.

Chinese State-Owned Chinalco Acquires Namibia’s Opuwo Project

Celsius Resources concluded a binding share sale agreement with Chinese state-owned Chinalco Mining for the sale of its 95% interest in the Opuwo cobalt-copper project in Namibia for US$15 million.

For the year ended 30 June, the Opuwo project recorded an operating loss of approximately N$421,738 and was carried at a book value of around N$34 million. As part of its commitment, Chinalco Mining agreed to provide a non-refundable exploration commitment comprising at least US$750,000 for exploration activities and US$250,000 for metallurgical test work while the transaction conditions are being satisfied.

The agreement includes a six-month completion period and remains subject to approvals from Celsius shareholders, the Namibian Competition Commission, the Bank of Namibia, and the relevant Chinese regulatory authorities.

Comparison of Two Cobalt Asset Transactions

Show the difference in transaction value and implied size between the Orion–Glencore and Chinalco–Celsius transactions. Publicly reported deal values from Glencore, Orion CMC, Celsius Resources, and Chinalco Mining disclosures. Bar chart comparing transaction value (US$9 billion enterprise value for a 40% stake versus US$15 million outright acquisition), ownership percentage, and implied mine scale.

Project Financing and the Development Pipeline

While acquisitions have dominated recent headlines, at least one major greenfield mining project is progressing through state-backed financing, highlighting both the capital intensity and the early-stage nature of non-African cobalt supply development.

Brazilian Nickel Secures First Tranche of Financing for Piauí Project

Brazilian Nickel Ltd., through its Brazilian subsidiary Piauí Níquel Metais, secured R$100 million (approximately US$19 million) in financing from Brazil’s development bank, BNDES, for the Piauí nickel and cobalt project in northeastern Brazil.

The funding has been allocated for machinery, equipment, and industrial services rather than the complete mine construction. Once operational, the project is expected to produce approximately 27,000 tonnes of nickel and 900 tonnes of cobalt annually for electric vehicle battery applications.

However, the full project carries an estimated capital requirement of approximately US$1.4 billion, meaning that the initial BNDES financing represents only a small portion of the total investment needed.

Brazilian Nickel is actively seeking an anchor investor to attract additional equity financing. The company has appointed Rothschild & Co. to advise on global debt and equity fundraising, while Brazilian investment bank Bradesco BBI is supporting efforts to raise approximately US$100 million from domestic investors and investment funds. The company is also pursuing additional funding from Canadian and European government-backed programs as well as future BNDES support.

Current project timelines indicate commercial production could begin in 2028 or 2029, subject to successful completion of financing activities.

Illustrate the US$1.4 billion total capital requirement, the US$19 million secured through BNDES, the US$100 million domestic fundraising target, and the remaining financing requirement. BNDES approval announcements, Bloomberg reporting on the anchor investor search, and project disclosures. Waterfall or stacked bar chart showing secured funding, targeted financing, and the remaining capital requirement to communicate the project’s early development stage.

The pattern across these three transactions indicates an evolving geopolitical landscape. US and Chinese investors are directly acquiring strategic stakes in cobalt assets, while Brazil is leveraging national development finance to establish a domestic battery-metals mining industry.

Key Takeaways

1. The US-backed Orion consortium’s proposed US$9 billion enterprise value transaction involving Glencore’s DRC mining assets demonstrates a strategic effort to secure long-term cobalt supplies for Western allies, including rights to direct production sales under the US–DRC Strategic Partnership Agreement.
2. Chinese state-owned Chinalco Mining’s US$15 million acquisition of the Opuwo project expands China’s presence in emerging African cobalt assets, while its additional US$1 million exploration commitment reflects long-term strategic interest despite the project’s current operating losses.
3. Brazilian Nickel’s Piauí project has secured only US$19 million of its estimated US$1.4 billion capital requirement through BNDES financing, highlighting both the early stage of non-African cobalt development and the importance of state-backed financial institutions in supporting strategic mineral projects.
4. Collectively, these three transactions demonstrate a geopolitical shift in the cobalt sector, with US and Chinese investors pursuing direct ownership of strategic mining assets while Brazil develops a domestic battery-metals industry through government-supported financing.

Assumptions and Coverage Gaps

1. The Orion–Glencore transaction remains at the non-binding memorandum of understanding stage as of the referenced reporting period. Final transaction terms and completion remain subject to negotiation and regulatory approvals.
2. The Chinalco–Celsius transaction is governed by a binding agreement but remains subject to shareholder approval, regulatory clearances, exchange control approvals, and completion within the agreed six-month period.
3. Brazilian Nickel’s financing currently consists only of the initial BNDES approval. The project’s targeted 2028–2029 production schedule may change depending on the company’s ability to secure the remaining capital.
4. This analysis does not include investment activity involving other major cobalt-producing regions such as Australia, Canada, or Indonesia, nor does it evaluate cobalt concentrate trading or hedging activities.
5. All monetary values are presented in their originally reported currencies. No foreign exchange conversions or adjustments have been applied beyond the reported figures.
6. The available evidence does not provide information regarding investment in DRC artisanal cobalt mining, formalisation initiatives, or capital expenditure plans of other major global mining companies.

Technology & Innovation

Technology Innovations in Cobalt Extraction and Processing

Key Takeaways

1. Oxygen pressure acid leaching achieves 98.2% cobalt extraction from low-grade pyrite with minimal iron and aluminium dissolution, offering a pathway to recover cobalt from abandoned tailings and complex sulphide resources.
2. Reductive column leaching optimized through attainable region analysis achieves over 90% cobalt recovery with less than 20% sulphur dioxide loss, providing a systematic process-design methodology for oxidized ores that improves conventional leaching optimization.
3. Laterite ore processing remains technically challenging due to gangue content exceeding 98%, but emerging pre-treatment methods combined with integrated hydrometallurgical routes such as High-Pressure Acid Leaching (HPAL), Atmospheric Leaching (AL), and Resin-in-Moist-Mix (RIMM) demonstrate potential to improve nickel-cobalt extraction efficiency.
4. Bioacid-mediated electrowinning enables selective cobalt-nickel separation without relying on organic solvents, representing a promising recycling technology for mixed-metal lithium-ion battery waste where conventional solvent extraction is less effective.
5. Based on the available evidence, all technologies remain in the research and laboratory-development stage. No commercial deployment, pilot-scale validation, or large-scale industry adoption has been demonstrated.

This chapter examines emerging extraction and processing technologies for cobalt mining based exclusively on peer-reviewed academic publications published in 2026. The technologies assessed include oxygen pressure acid leaching, reductive column leaching, sustainable laterite processing routes, and electrochemical cobalt-nickel separation technologies. The analysis is limited to published research findings, with no available evidence regarding commercial deployment, production economics, or industrial-scale validation.

Leaching Technologies for Low-Grade and Alternative Ores

Two advanced leaching technologies published during 2026 focus on recovering cobalt from low-grade resources that are traditionally considered uneconomic or discarded as mining waste. Although both technologies demonstrate high laboratory-scale recovery, they utilize fundamentally different processing principles.

Oxygen Pressure Acid Leaching of Cobalt-Bearing Pyrite

A study published in MDPI Minerals investigated selective cobalt recovery from low-grade cobalt-bearing pyrite using oxygen pressure acid leaching.

Under optimized operating conditions:

1. Oxygen Pressure: 1.5 MPa
2. Sulphuric Acid Concentration: 7.36 g/L (0.82 mol/L)
3. Temperature: 230°C
4. Leaching Time: 120 minutes
5. Stirring Speed: 300 rpm

The process achieved:

1. 98.2% cobalt leaching
2. 19.79% iron leaching
3. 28.11% aluminium leaching

Thermodynamic analysis using Gibbs free energy calculations confirmed favorable reaction conditions. SEM-EDS, XRD, and XPS characterization demonstrated that elevated temperature and oxygen pressure disrupted the pyrite crystal lattice, releasing cobalt while promoting iron precipitation as hematite or hydronium jarosite. This selective behavior may enable recovery of cobalt from pyrite-rich tailings and complex sulphide resources while minimizing downstream purification requirements.

Reductive Column Leaching of Oxidized Ores

A separate study published through OneMine applied attainable region analysis to optimize reductive column leaching of oxidized cobalt ores using sulphur dioxide and sulphuric acid.

Unlike conventional process optimization based primarily on mass balances, attainable region analysis provides a systematic framework for designing reactor configurations that maximize cobalt recovery while minimizing reagent losses.

Experimental results demonstrated:

1. Greater than 90% cobalt recovery
2. Less than 20% sulphur dioxide loss

Residence time distribution studies confirmed partial plug-flow behavior with dispersion effects. Increasing recirculation ratios improved cobalt recovery while reducing sulphur dioxide consumption. The study proposed staged percolation columns with intermediate mixing zones as potential reactor configurations for future pilot-scale development.

Comparison of Leaching Technologies for Low-Grade Cobalt Ores

Both technologies remain at laboratory or conceptual research stages. The oxygen pressure process requires high operating temperatures (230°C) and elevated pressures (1.5 MPa), indicating potentially significant capital and energy requirements for future commercialization. The reductive column approach operates under comparatively milder conditions but introduces additional sulphur dioxide handling requirements. Neither study provides techno-economic analysis, energy consumption data, or commercial scalability assessments.

Suggested Figure

Figure: Selective Metal Leaching Performance Under Oxygen Pressure Acid Leaching Conditions

The figure should compare:

1. Cobalt Leaching Rate: 98.2%
2. Iron Leaching Rate: 19.79%
3. Aluminium Leaching Rate: 28.11%

under identical operating conditions (1.5 MPa oxygen pressure, 7.36 g/L H₂SO₄, 230°C, 120 minutes), clearly illustrating the high selectivity achieved for cobalt extraction.

Laterite Ore Processing: Challenges and Sustainable Extraction Pathways

Laterite deposits are becoming increasingly important sources of nickel and cobalt as high-grade sulphide reserves continue to decline. Two review articles published in MDPI Minerals and the Journal of Sustainable Metallurgy evaluated current processing challenges and emerging extraction strategies.

The MDPI Minerals review reports that lateritic ores contain more than 98% acid-consuming gangue minerals, including serpentine, kaolinite, smectite, chlorite, quartz, hematite, magnetite, and goethite. These minerals significantly increase acid consumption and processing costs.

The review identifies several promising process improvements, including:

1. Selective comminution and particle classification to generate nickel-rich fine fractions and cobalt-rich coarse fractions.
2. Mechanical activation using stirred-media milling to improve mineral reactivity.
3. Thermal calcination to promote goethite dehydroxylation and enhance metal leaching.
4. Ore-specific hydrometallurgical processing routes, including:
   • High-Pressure Acid Leaching (HPAL)
   • Atmospheric Leaching (AL)
   • Heap Leaching
   • Resin-in-Moist-Mix (RIMM)

The Journal of Sustainable Metallurgy review evaluates these technologies from sustainability and circular economy perspectives, emphasizing carbon reduction, improved resource efficiency, waste minimization, and enhanced battery supply chain sustainability. Cobalt continues to be produced primarily as a by-product of nickel laterite processing.

Both reviews conclude that significant technical and economic challenges remain, and no commercial breakthroughs or large-scale deployment evidence is available for these emerging technologies.

Electrochemical Separation and Recycling Innovations

A Science Advances study published in March 2026 introduced a bioacid-mediated electrowinning process for selective cobalt and nickel separation.

Traditional solvent extraction performs poorly with end-of-life lithium-ion batteries because recycling streams contain multiple dissolved metals—including manganese, lithium, and sodium—that interfere with separation efficiency.

The proposed bioacid-assisted electrowinning process uses electrochemical deposition to selectively recover cobalt and nickel while avoiding large volumes of organic solvents.

The research, conducted by scientists at Johns Hopkins University, demonstrated selective cobalt-nickel separation under laboratory conditions.

Although no quantitative data were reported regarding:

1. Current efficiency
2. Metal purity
3. Energy consumption
4. Recovery cost
5. Throughput capacity

the study highlights the potential of bioacid-mediated electrowinning for improving sustainability in battery recycling.

The technology remains at the research stage with no published pilot-scale demonstrations or commercial deployment timelines.

Scope and Limitations

1. All evidence is derived from peer-reviewed academic publications published during 2026.
2. No pilot-scale demonstrations, commercial deployment data, or industrial validation are available for the technologies discussed.
3. The available literature does not provide comparative cost analyses, energy consumption data, or commercial scalability assessments.
4. No information is available regarding patents, licensing activities, key technology owners, or commercialization strategies.
5. Comparative environmental life-cycle assessments across the technologies are not included in the available evidence.
6. Market size and revenue forecasts were intentionally excluded from this technology assessment.

Market Risk

Risk Boundary and Key Takeaways

The Global Cobalt Mining Market faces elevated risk from two interconnected sources in the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC), which supplies more than 70% of the world’s cobalt. First, independent investigations and scientific studies have documented widespread air, water, and sediment pollution around large-scale copper-cobalt mines, linking emissions to serious public health harm. Second, a series of DRC government interventions—including an export ban in early 2025, a quota system introduced in October 2025, tighter export conditions in November 2025, and a proposed overhaul of the 2018 Mining Code introduced in June 2026—have constrained concentrate output and triggered warnings that repeated regulatory changes could discourage future investment.

This chapter focuses on risks specific to upstream cobalt mining, including exploration, extraction, beneficiation, and concentrate production, with geographic emphasis on the Democratic Republic of Congo. Downstream risks are discussed only where they directly affect mining supply. The analysis covers the period from 2023 to 2026, with forward-looking implications extending into 2027.

Key Takeaways

1. Environmental compliance failures at major DRC copper-cobalt mining operations have been documented through a three-year Environmental Investigation Agency (EIA) investigation and multiple independent scientific studies, linking air and water pollution to lung disease, cancer, neurological disorders, and reproductive health impacts.
2. DRC cobalt export restrictions—including the transition from an export ban to a quota system—prompted Glencore to prioritize copper production, reducing its African cobalt output by 39% year-on-year during the first quarter of 2026 and lowering concentrate production at the Mutanda and KCC operations.
3. A proposed revision of approximately 40 articles within the DRC’s 2018 Mining Code has resulted in an emergency industry meeting and warnings from mining companies that additional regulatory changes could reduce investment attractiveness across the sector.
4. The concentration of global cobalt production within the DRC means that regulatory constraints or environmental liabilities affecting only a limited number of major mining operations can have a disproportionate impact on worldwide cobalt availability.
5. Production data for other major DRC producers, including CMOC and Zijin, under the export quota system is unavailable in the supplied evidence, limiting assessment of market-wide production disruption.

Environmental and Community Risk

Evidence of Pollution and Health Harm

A three-year investigation conducted by the Environmental Investigation Agency (EIA) connected a major copper-cobalt processing complex in the Democratic Republic of Congo—constructed in 2023 and covering an area comparable to approximately 500 soccer fields—to what the organization described as “a severe public health crisis.” The investigation combined medical record analysis, independent air quality monitoring, geospatial intelligence, and interviews with affected residents, employees, and corporate insiders. According to the findings, long-term air pollution appears to have affected numerous families and workers living near the facility. The processing complex, operated by CMOC Group Ltd., is among Africa’s largest copper-cobalt processing facilities and was developed to meet increasing demand for cobalt hydroxide used in electric vehicle batteries.

Separate independent studies conducted by Source International together with Professors Célestin Banza Lubaba Nkulu and Arthur Kaniki Tshamala of the University of Lubumbashi documented extensive pollution affecting air, water, and sediments surrounding major copper and cobalt mining operations, particularly the Tenke Fungurume Mine and mining areas near Kolwezi and Fungurume. Researchers identified contaminants associated with lung disease, neurological damage, cancer, and reproductive disorders, with children identified as the most vulnerable population. Community members reported worsening health conditions, with one resident stating, “We are being killed slowly.” Source International further noted that particulate matter pollution represents the world’s second-leading environmental risk factor for mortality and is associated with respiratory illness, premature births, and adverse neonatal health outcomes.

Exposed Participants and Timing

The primary affected stakeholders include communities located within Lualaba Province, particularly those surrounding large-scale mining operations owned by CMOC, Glencore, and Zijin. Industrial mining activities are identified as the principal source of the documented pollution. The underlying scientific studies cover the 2023–2025 period, while the Environmental Investigation Agency published its findings in March 2026. Construction of the processing complex was completed during 2023.

Potential consequences for mining companies include legal liabilities, environmental remediation costs, operational disruptions resulting from regulatory enforcement, and reputational risks among customers, investors, and organizations monitoring compliance with OECD due diligence standards.

The available evidence does not quantify potential financial penalties, litigation expenses, or remediation costs. Consequently, the environmental risk should be regarded as an active but currently unquantified risk, with pollution documented but enforcement actions and community litigation not yet reflected within the available data.

Map the sequence of major risk events, including plant construction (2023), publication of pollution studies (2026), export ban (early 2025), quota introduction (October 2025), revised export conditions (November 2025), Glencore’s production shift (2025–2026), mining law reform proposal (June 2026), and industry warning (July 2026). Claims and supporting evidence originate from the Environmental Investigation Agency, independent scientific studies, Reuters, Bloomberg, and Semafor. The visualization should demonstrate the chronological sequence of environmental and regulatory events affecting the DRC cobalt mining market.

Regulatory and Policy Risk

Export Restrictions and Production Impact

The Democratic Republic of Congo introduced a cobalt export ban during early 2025, subsequently replacing it with an export quota system in October 2025. Additional export conditions implemented in November 2025 required mining companies to pre-pay a 10% royalty within 48 hours and obtain compliance certification before exports could proceed. In June 2026, the government further required mining companies to surrender unused export quotas allocated for the first half of the year. Collectively, these policy measures have created persistent uncertainty surrounding planning and execution of cobalt concentrate exports.

The most visible operational impact occurred within Glencore’s DRC mining operations, particularly at the Mutanda and Kamoto Copper Company (KCC) mines. In response to export restrictions, Glencore shifted operational priorities toward copper production during 2025–2026. African cobalt production declined by 39% year-on-year during the first quarter of 2026. Annual cobalt production decreased from 33,500 tonnes in 2024 to 22,800 tonnes in 2025, with production estimated at approximately 18,800 tonnes during 2026. At the Mutanda operation, cobalt production declined 5% year-on-year during 2025 while copper accounted for approximately 68% of total production. The reduction in cobalt concentrate output directly reflects limitations imposed by the export quota system.

Mining Law Reform and Investor Confidence

In June 2026, legislation was introduced proposing amendments to approximately 40 provisions within the DRC’s 2018 Mining Code. The proposed reforms would strengthen government oversight, including authority to limit production and require strategic mineral stockpiling. The legislation entered formal review on 13 June 2026.

The Chamber of Mines subsequently convened an emergency industry meeting in Kinshasa during July 2026 following concerns that the proposed reforms would increase regulatory uncertainty. Executives representing KoBold Metals and Barrick warned that modifying established regulations “in the middle of the game” would discourage future mining investment. Although the DRC government indicated willingness to engage with industry concerns, significant uncertainty surrounding the proposed reforms remains.

The available evidence does not quantify the potential supply impact should the proposed legislation be enacted. Consequently, the mining law reform represents a conditional risk. If implemented substantially as proposed, it could introduce additional production limitations, increase government control over strategic minerals, further constrain cobalt concentrate supply, and increase mining operating costs. No quantitative investor confidence indicators, including project cancellations or equity valuation impacts, are available within the supplied evidence.

Comparison of Two Regulatory Shocks Affecting DRC Cobalt Mining

Show annual production trends (33,500 tonnes, 22,800 tonnes, and 18,800 tonnes) together with the 39% year-on-year decline during the first quarter of 2026. Annotate major regulatory milestones including the export ban (early 2025), quota introduction (October 2025), and production shift (2025–2026). Supporting evidence originates from Bloomberg, Reuters, and Fastmarkets. The visualization should demonstrate the relationship between regulatory interventions and Glencore’s cobalt production decline.

Assumptions and Coverage Gaps

1. The environmental pollution studies are assumed to be credible based on the published investigations, although their conclusions have not been independently verified within this market analysis.
2. Glencore’s production data is used as a representative indicator of the impact of export restrictions because comparable production figures for CMOC and Zijin are unavailable.
3. The proposed Mining Code reform is assumed to proceed in some form; however, both its implementation timeline and final legislative content remain uncertain.
4. Export quota enforcement and associated compliance costs are expected to continue throughout 2026–2027, although the complete impact on global cobalt concentrate supply cannot be quantified using currently available evidence.
5. This assessment does not evaluate counterbalancing market risks, including cobalt substitution, battery chemistry changes, or demand destruction resulting from elevated cobalt prices.
6. Significant evidence gaps remain, including the impact of export restrictions on CMOC and Zijin production, quantification of environmental remediation costs or regulatory penalties, investor confidence indicators such as project cancellations or equity market performance, exposure associated with artisanal cobalt mining, and forward-looking probability assessments regarding the proposed Mining Code reforms.

Regulatory Landscape

Scope

This chapter examines two regulatory developments reshaping the Global Cobalt Mining Market, valued at USD 18.36 billion in 2025: the European Union’s Battery Regulation due diligence obligations and the Democratic Republic of Congo’s transition from a temporary export ban to a quota system. It covers the regulatory mechanisms, timelines, affected parties, and market implications. Excluded are other jurisdictions’ regulations, non-cobalt materials, and quantitative market size segmentation beyond the supplied figure.

The chapter also visualizes the sequencing of key regulatory events affecting the market, including:

1. Adoption of EU Battery Regulation (EU) 2023/1542 (2023)
2. Adoption of Regulation (EU) 2025/1561 (July 2025)
3. Postponement of the battery due diligence obligations originally scheduled for 18 August 2025
4. The DRC’s temporary cobalt export ban during mid-2025
5. Introduction of the DRC cobalt export quota system on 16 October 2025
6. Implementation of the annual export cap of 96,600 metric tons beginning in 2026

The chronology is based on EU legal acts and Democratic Republic of Congo policy announcements reported by Reuters and EUR-Lex, highlighting the regulatory instruments, implementation timelines, and their implications for the global cobalt mining industry.

Key Takeaways

1. The EU’s mandatory battery due diligence framework covering cobalt requires economic operators placing batteries on the EU market to establish auditable sourcing policies supported by third-party verification, increasing compliance requirements and supply chain transparency.
2. The Democratic Republic of Congo’s quota system, effective from October 2025, introduces an annual export cap of 96,600 metric tons beginning in 2026, tightening supply from the world’s largest cobalt producer and supporting higher global cobalt prices.
3. The quota allocation methodology, based on each company’s historical production and shipment data over the previous three years, creates different competitive outcomes. Glencore supports the quota framework, while CMOC has publicly opposed it, indicating potential shifts in market dynamics.
4. The EU and DRC regulations affect different stages of the value chain—the EU focuses on downstream supply chain compliance, while the DRC regulates upstream production and exports—creating a dual regulatory environment for global market participants.

EU Battery Due Diligence Regulation

Regulation (EU) 2023/1542 of the European Parliament and of the Council establishes mandatory battery due diligence obligations covering the sourcing, processing, and trading of cobalt, natural graphite, lithium, and nickel used in battery production. These obligations were originally scheduled to apply from 18 August 2025. However, Regulation (EU) 2025/1561, adopted on 18 July 2025, amended the original legislation by postponing the application date to provide additional time for the notification of conformity assessment bodies and to allow economic operators to prepare for compliance.

The regulation requires companies placing batteries on the EU market to adopt, implement, verify, and publicly report battery due diligence policies supported by third-party assessments conducted by notified bodies. Economic operators must ensure that cobalt and other covered minerals are sourced through transparent and auditable supply chains.

Although the legislation does not specify direct compliance costs, companies are expected to invest in due diligence systems, supplier verification, audits, traceability programs, and potentially alternative sourcing strategies to maintain EU market access.

For the global cobalt mining market, the regulation indirectly increases compliance costs throughout battery supply chains and may accelerate investments in responsible sourcing, recycling, and supply chain diversification.

DRC Cobalt Export Quota System

The Democratic Republic of Congo replaced its temporary cobalt export ban with a quota system that became effective on 16 October 2025. Under the new framework, annual export quotas are allocated according to each company’s production and shipment volumes over the preceding three years.

For the fourth quarter of 2025, the allocated export quota totals 18,125 metric tons. Beginning in 2026, total annual cobalt exports are capped at 96,600 metric tons.

As the DRC accounts for more than 70% of global mined cobalt production, estimated at approximately 280,000 metric tons in 2025, the quota system has substantial implications for global supply.

Glencore became the first mining company authorized to export cobalt under the new system after obtaining government clearance and paying the required 10% export royalty. The company supports the quota framework, whereas CMOC has publicly opposed it.

According to President Félix Tshisekedi, the earlier export suspension contributed to a 92% increase in cobalt prices since March 2025, demonstrating the government’s ability to influence global cobalt markets through export controls.

The quota system is expected to tighten global cobalt supply, support higher prices, influence investment decisions, and alter competitive dynamics by favoring producers with stronger historical production records while increasing export costs through the royalty mechanism.

Regulatory Comparison

Comparison of the Two Primary Regulatory Instruments Affecting the Global Cobalt Mining Market

The EU regulation primarily increases downstream compliance obligations by strengthening responsible sourcing and supply chain transparency requirements, while the DRC quota system directly manages upstream cobalt supply through export restrictions. Together, these regulatory measures create a dual regulatory framework requiring market participants to navigate both enhanced supply chain governance and constrained global cobalt availability.