Tesla, Inc.

The World's Most Valuable Automaker and a Colossal Consumer of African Critical Minerals

Official website: www.tesla.com • Investor relations: ir.tesla.com

Overview

Tesla, Inc. is the world's most valuable automaker by market capitalisation and the company most responsible for accelerating global adoption of electric vehicles. Founded in 2003 and led by CEO Elon Musk since 2008, Tesla has grown from a Silicon Valley startup producing roadsters into a vertically integrated energy company delivering nearly 1.8 million vehicles annually across four continents. Its Model Y became the best-selling car in the world in 2023 by any powertrain, a milestone that underscored the speed at which electrification is reshaping global automotive markets.

Yet behind every Tesla vehicle sits a battery pack containing minerals whose origins trace back, directly or indirectly, to mines in the Democratic Republic of Congo, Zambia, Australia, Chile, and Indonesia. Tesla's battery supply chain consumes enormous quantities of lithium, cobalt, nickel, manganese, copper, and graphite. For cobalt in particular, the supply chain overwhelmingly leads to the DRC, which produces approximately 75% of the world's supply. This makes Tesla one of the most significant downstream consumers of minerals that flow through the Lobito Corridor supply chain, even though the company operates no mines and has no direct presence in Central Africa.

Tesla's relationship to the corridor is one of market gravity. As the world's largest purchaser of EV batteries, Tesla's procurement decisions, chemistry choices, and supplier requirements ripple upstream through the entire critical minerals value chain. When Tesla shifts toward lithium iron phosphate (LFP) battery chemistry for its standard-range vehicles, it reshapes global cobalt demand curves. When Tesla imposes supply chain traceability requirements on its battery suppliers, those requirements ultimately reach smelters and refiners processing DRC-origin material. Understanding Tesla's position in the critical minerals ecosystem is essential for anyone tracking how African minerals reach their end markets.

Business Operations and Scale

Vehicle Manufacturing

Tesla operates a global manufacturing network centred on five principal Gigafactories. Gigafactory Shanghai is the company's highest-volume production facility, capable of producing over 950,000 vehicles annually and serving both the Chinese domestic market and export markets across Asia and Europe. Gigafactory Fremont in California, the company's original production facility, manufactures Model S, Model 3, Model X, and Model Y vehicles. Gigafactory Berlin-Brandenburg, located outside Berlin, serves the European market. Gigafactory Texas in Austin houses the company's headquarters and produces the Cybertruck, Model Y, and serves as the centre for next-generation vehicle development. Gigafactory Nevada, the company's first purpose-built facility, focuses primarily on battery cell and pack production alongside the Tesla Semi.

Each of these facilities represents a massive demand centre for battery-grade minerals. A single Tesla Model Y long-range battery pack contains approximately 8 to 12 kilograms of lithium, 6 to 10 kilograms of cobalt (in NCA/NMC variants), 30 to 50 kilograms of nickel, 25 to 35 kilograms of manganese, and over 80 kilograms of copper in the battery, motor, and wiring systems. Multiplied across nearly 1.8 million vehicles, the aggregate mineral demand is staggering.

Energy Storage

Beyond vehicles, Tesla's energy storage division deploys utility-scale Megapack battery systems and residential Powerwall units. Energy storage deployments reached 14.7 GWh in 2024, representing explosive growth and adding further mineral demand beyond the automotive segment. Each Megapack unit contains lithium, iron, phosphate, and copper in quantities comparable to dozens of vehicle battery packs. The Lathrop, California Megafactory produces approximately 10,000 Megapacks annually, with additional manufacturing capacity planned.

Revenue and Financial Position

Tesla's 2024 revenue reached approximately $97 billion, with automotive sales constituting the majority. The company's financial position gives it enormous purchasing power in battery mineral markets. Tesla's multi-year supply agreements with battery cell manufacturers and direct mineral suppliers involve commitments worth tens of billions of dollars, providing the company with leverage that shapes global mineral pricing and availability.

Battery Technology and Chemistry Strategy

Chemistry Portfolio

Tesla's battery supply chain strategy is fundamentally shaped by the company's parallel pursuit of multiple battery chemistries, each with different mineral requirements and implications for the Lobito Corridor supply chain.

NCA (Nickel Cobalt Aluminium): Tesla's original battery chemistry, developed in partnership with Panasonic, uses cylindrical cells containing nickel, cobalt, and aluminium. NCA cells power the long-range variants of Model S, Model 3, and Model X. While Tesla has progressively reduced cobalt content per cell over successive generations, NCA chemistry still requires meaningful cobalt volumes. Panasonic's cobalt supply chain has historically sourced from DRC-origin material processed through intermediary refiners.

NMC (Nickel Manganese Cobalt): Tesla sources NMC prismatic cells from CATL and LG Energy Solution for certain vehicle variants, particularly those produced at Gigafactory Shanghai and Gigafactory Berlin. NMC chemistry requires cobalt, nickel, and manganese. CATL, as the world's largest battery cell manufacturer, sources significant volumes of cobalt from DRC through its refining partnerships. The NMC supply chain is among the most directly connected to the Lobito Corridor mineral flows.

LFP (Lithium Iron Phosphate): Tesla's strategic shift toward LFP chemistry for standard-range Model 3 and Model Y vehicles, and for all Megapack energy storage products, represents the company's most significant move to reduce cobalt dependence. LFP cells contain no cobalt or nickel, relying instead on lithium, iron, and phosphate. Tesla sources LFP cells primarily from CATL and BYD. By 2024, LFP chemistry accounted for an estimated 40-50% of Tesla's global battery deployments by unit volume. This shift has materially reduced Tesla's per-vehicle cobalt intensity, though total cobalt consumption remains substantial due to long-range NCA and NMC variants.

4680 Cell Development: Tesla's proprietary 4680 cylindrical cell format, manufactured at Gigafactory Texas and Gigafactory Nevada, represents the company's ambition for vertical integration in battery manufacturing. The 4680 cells use a high-nickel, low-cobalt cathode chemistry and a dry electrode coating process intended to reduce manufacturing cost and environmental impact. As of early 2026, 4680 production has ramped but remains below the volumes needed to displace significant procurement from external suppliers. The 4680 programme has faced manufacturing yield challenges that have slowed the pace of internal cell production.

Mineral Consumption Estimates

Connection to the Lobito Corridor

The Downstream Giant

Tesla does not operate mines, own mineral concessions, or maintain any physical presence in the DRC, Zambia, or Angola. Its connection to the Lobito Corridor is that of the ultimate downstream consumer: the company at the end of the supply chain whose purchasing power and product demand drive extraction activity at the beginning. This distinction is important but should not obscure the reality that Tesla's mineral appetite is one of the primary market forces sustaining and expanding mining operations throughout the Central African copper-cobalt belt.

The supply chain connecting DRC cobalt mines to Tesla battery packs typically involves four to six intermediaries. Cobalt hydroxide produced at mines like Kamoto (KCC) and Mutanda (operated by Glencore), or Tenke Fungurume (operated by CMOC), is shipped to refineries in China, Finland, or Japan, where it is processed into battery-grade cobalt sulphate. This refined material is then sold to cathode manufacturers who combine it with nickel, manganese, and lithium compounds to produce cathode active material. Cathode material flows to cell manufacturers like CATL, Panasonic, or LG Energy Solution, who produce finished battery cells. Those cells are shipped to Tesla's Gigafactories and assembled into battery packs installed in vehicles.

At every stage, the mineral changes hands, is blended with material from other sources, and moves further from its point of origin. This multi-layered supply chain makes full traceability exceptionally difficult and creates the opacity that enables responsible sourcing challenges to persist. Tesla acknowledges this complexity in its annual Impact Report and has taken steps to improve visibility, but the structural characteristics of battery mineral supply chains resist easy transparency solutions.

Cobalt Sourcing and the DRC

Tesla's cobalt supply chain is inextricably linked to the DRC. Even as the company has reduced cobalt intensity through LFP adoption, its NCA and NMC battery programmes still require substantial cobalt volumes, and the DRC remains the dominant global source. Tesla's primary battery suppliers maintain the following DRC connections:

CATL: The world's largest battery cell manufacturer and Tesla's largest supplier by volume. CATL sources cobalt through its subsidiary Brunp Recycling and through commercial agreements with refiners who process DRC-origin material. CATL has invested in battery recycling to recover cobalt but remains heavily dependent on primary DRC supply for growth volumes.

Panasonic: Tesla's original battery cell partner, supplying NCA cylindrical cells from its Gigafactory Nevada joint venture and from Japanese production facilities. Panasonic sources cobalt through Sumitomo Metal Mining and other Japanese trading companies that procure DRC-origin cobalt hydroxide from producers including Glencore and CMOC. Panasonic has been among the more transparent battery manufacturers regarding cobalt sourcing, publishing supplier lists and participating in the Responsible Minerals Initiative.

LG Energy Solution: Supplies NMC cells for certain Tesla models produced at Gigafactory Shanghai and previously at Gigafactory Berlin. LG's cobalt supply chain runs through Korean refiners and Chinese intermediaries who source substantially from DRC production. LG has joined industry initiatives for responsible cobalt sourcing but faces the same traceability challenges as its competitors.

Copper and the Corridor

Tesla's copper consumption is enormous and growing. Every electric vehicle requires three to four times more copper than a conventional internal combustion engine vehicle, used in the battery, electric motor, inverter, wiring harness, and charging infrastructure. Tesla's estimated annual copper consumption of 130,000 to 160,000 tonnes makes it one of the largest single corporate consumers of refined copper in the world.

The DRC and Zambia together produce over 2.5 million tonnes of copper annually, much of which is exported via the Lobito Corridor's rail and port infrastructure. While Tesla does not directly purchase copper from corridor producers, the company's demand contributes to the global copper price environment that drives investment in corridor mining operations and infrastructure. The Lobito Atlantic Railway's purpose is to facilitate the export of exactly the kind of minerals that end up in Tesla's products.

IRA Compliance and Geopolitical Pressures

Inflation Reduction Act Requirements

The United States Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) of 2022 has become a defining force in Tesla's mineral sourcing strategy. The IRA's clean vehicle tax credit provisions impose progressively stringent requirements on battery mineral sourcing, requiring that increasing percentages of critical minerals be extracted or processed in countries with which the United States has a free trade agreement, or recycled in North America. Crucially, the law prohibits vehicles containing battery components or critical minerals from "foreign entities of concern" (FEOC) from qualifying for the full $7,500 consumer tax credit.

The FEOC provisions, which became effective in 2024 for battery components and will apply to critical minerals from 2025, directly target Chinese ownership and control in the battery supply chain. Since CATL is Tesla's largest battery supplier and a Chinese company, this creates a fundamental tension in Tesla's supply chain architecture. Tesla must either restructure its sourcing to reduce Chinese processing exposure, develop domestic or allied-nation processing capacity, or accept that certain vehicle configurations will not qualify for the full IRA tax credit.

This regulatory pressure is accelerating Tesla's interest in non-Chinese supply chains for critical minerals, which in turn increases the strategic importance of African mineral sources connected to Western-aligned processing pathways. The Lobito Corridor, as the primary US-backed infrastructure project for extracting critical minerals from the DRC and Zambia, stands to benefit directly from Tesla's need to establish IRA-compliant supply chains.

Strategic Mineral Investments

Tesla has made several direct investments in mineral processing to reduce supply chain risk and improve IRA compliance:

Lithium Refinery, Corpus Christi, Texas: Tesla broke ground on its first lithium refinery on the Texas Gulf Coast in 2022, with initial operations commencing in 2024-2025. The facility is designed to process spodumene concentrate (sourced primarily from Australia) into battery-grade lithium hydroxide. When fully operational, the refinery is expected to produce enough lithium hydroxide for approximately one million vehicles annually. This investment represents Tesla's first major move into direct mineral processing and is explicitly motivated by IRA compliance and supply chain security considerations.

Nickel Supply Agreements: Tesla has signed long-term supply agreements with nickel producers in New Caledonia, Indonesia, and Australia, seeking to secure IRA-compliant nickel supply. The company's 2022 agreement with PT Vale Indonesia and the subsequent investment in nickel processing capacity reflect the urgency of diversifying away from Chinese-processed nickel.

Cathode and Cell Manufacturing: Tesla's 4680 cell programme and cathode manufacturing investments at Gigafactory Texas and Gigafactory Nevada aim to bring critical battery manufacturing steps in-house and on US soil, improving both cost structure and IRA compliance positioning.

Supply Chain Transparency and Responsible Sourcing

Tesla's Stated Commitments

Tesla publishes an annual Impact Report that addresses supply chain responsibility, including mineral sourcing. The company has committed to responsible sourcing principles aligned with the OECD Due Diligence Guidance for Responsible Supply Chains of Minerals from Conflict-Affected and High-Risk Areas. Tesla participates in the Responsible Minerals Initiative (RMI) and has stated its expectation that suppliers comply with applicable laws, including those related to conflict minerals and child labour.

In its 2023 Impact Report, Tesla acknowledged the risks associated with cobalt sourcing from the DRC, including artisanal and small-scale mining (ASM) practices, child labour, and environmental degradation. The company stated that it conducts supply chain due diligence through supplier audits, third-party assessments, and participation in industry-wide responsible sourcing initiatives.

Gaps Between Policy and Practice

Despite these commitments, significant gaps exist between Tesla's stated responsible sourcing policies and independently verifiable supply chain transparency. Several structural challenges persist:

Multi-tier supply chain opacity: Tesla's battery minerals pass through multiple intermediaries between mine and vehicle. The company has limited visibility beyond its Tier 1 suppliers (battery cell manufacturers) and, in some cases, Tier 2 suppliers (cathode material producers). Upstream visibility into the specific mines and smelters supplying its cobalt, nickel, and copper is incomplete, particularly for material processed through Chinese refining and chemical supply chains.

Smelter-level blending: Cobalt smelters and refiners typically process material from multiple sources simultaneously, making it physically impossible to trace specific cobalt atoms from a particular mine to a particular battery cell. Mass-balance and chain-of-custody systems offer partial solutions, but no battery manufacturer has achieved full mine-to-vehicle traceability for all critical minerals.

CATL transparency limitations: As Tesla's largest battery supplier, CATL's sourcing practices have a disproportionate impact on the integrity of Tesla's supply chain. CATL's supply chain transparency has historically been less comprehensive than that of Japanese or Korean competitors, though the company has made improvements in recent years. Any opacity in CATL's upstream sourcing directly translates to opacity in Tesla's supply chain.

Conflict minerals reporting: Tesla files annual Conflict Minerals Reports with the US Securities and Exchange Commission as required under the Dodd-Frank Act, covering tin, tantalum, tungsten, and gold (3TG). However, cobalt is not covered under existing conflict mineral regulations, meaning Tesla's cobalt due diligence is voluntary rather than legally mandated. This regulatory gap reduces the incentives for comprehensive disclosure.

Industry Comparisons

Among major EV manufacturers, Tesla's supply chain transparency falls in the middle of the pack. BMW and Mercedes-Benz have established more comprehensive cobalt traceability programmes, including direct sourcing agreements with specific mines and documented tracking systems. Volkswagen's PowerCo battery subsidiary has developed relatively detailed mineral origin tracking. Conversely, many Chinese EV manufacturers provide minimal supply chain transparency. Tesla's position reflects the tension between its Silicon Valley technology company culture, which favours speed and cost optimisation, and the slower, more methodical due diligence processes that responsible mineral sourcing demands.

Cobalt Reduction Strategy

The LFP Transition

Tesla's most impactful strategy for reducing cobalt exposure is its aggressive adoption of lithium iron phosphate battery chemistry. LFP cells contain zero cobalt and zero nickel, eliminating the most ethically and geopolitically problematic minerals from the supply chain for vehicles equipped with these batteries. Tesla began incorporating CATL-supplied LFP cells in China-produced Model 3 Standard Range vehicles in 2020 and has steadily expanded LFP deployment across its global product line.

By 2024, LFP chemistry powered all standard-range Model 3 and Model Y vehicles globally, as well as the majority of Tesla's energy storage products (Powerwall and Megapack). Industry analysts estimate that LFP cells accounted for 40-50% of Tesla's total battery capacity deployed in 2024, with this share expected to grow as energy storage volumes increase and as next-generation LFP chemistries improve energy density sufficiently for long-range vehicle applications.

However, the LFP transition does not eliminate Tesla's cobalt dependence. Long-range and performance variants of Model 3, Model Y, Model S, and Model X continue to use NCA or NMC chemistries that require cobalt. The Cybertruck uses NCA 4680 cells. Until LFP energy density reaches levels sufficient for all vehicle applications, or until cobalt-free high-nickel chemistries (such as LNMO or sodium-ion) achieve commercial scale, Tesla will remain a major consumer of cobalt sourced predominantly from the DRC.

Future Chemistry Roadmap

Tesla has signalled interest in several next-generation battery chemistries that could further reduce or eliminate cobalt requirements. Sodium-ion batteries, which use abundant and geographically dispersed materials, could replace LFP in cost-sensitive applications. High-manganese cathodes (LNMO) could provide higher energy density than LFP without cobalt. Solid-state batteries, while still in development, could enable high-performance cells with minimal or zero cobalt content. The timeline for commercial deployment of these chemistries at Tesla's required scale remains uncertain, with most analysts projecting meaningful volume impact no earlier than 2027-2029.

ESG Assessment

Governance and Corporate Controversies

Elon Musk and Management Structure

Tesla's corporate governance is inseparable from the personality and activities of CEO Elon Musk, who simultaneously serves as CEO of SpaceX, owner of X (formerly Twitter), and leads Neuralink, xAI, and The Boring Company. This extraordinary breadth of executive responsibilities raises legitimate questions about the depth of management attention available for complex supply chain governance at Tesla.

The $56 billion compensation package controversy, initially approved by shareholders in 2018 and later voided by a Delaware court in January 2024 before being ratified again by shareholders in June 2024, highlighted corporate governance tensions. Tesla's subsequent reincorporation from Delaware to Texas in 2024 reflected these governance dynamics. The board's perceived closeness to Musk and limited independent oversight have drawn criticism from institutional investors and proxy advisory firms.

Musk's increasing involvement in US political activities since 2024, including his role in the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) initiative, has generated both opportunities and risks for Tesla. While political proximity may create favourable regulatory conditions, it also exposes Tesla to reputational risks and potential conflicts of interest that could complicate the company's relationships with foreign governments, particularly in countries where it sources minerals or sells vehicles. European regulators and consumers have expressed concerns about the intertwining of Musk's political activities and Tesla's business operations.

Supply Chain Governance Structure

Tesla's supply chain governance is managed through its Global Supply Manager organisation, which reports to the company's operations leadership. The responsible sourcing programme sits within this structure and is responsible for supplier due diligence, audit programmes, and compliance with applicable regulations including the Dodd-Frank Act conflict minerals provisions and emerging EU due diligence requirements.

Tesla's supplier code of conduct prohibits the use of child labour, forced labour, and conflict minerals, and requires suppliers to implement environmental management systems. Compliance is monitored through a combination of supplier self-assessments, third-party audits, and participation in industry verification programmes. The scope and rigour of these programmes are difficult to independently assess, as Tesla provides limited public disclosure regarding audit findings, corrective actions, or supplier non-compliance instances.

Tesla and the Energy Transition Mineral Demand

Scale of Future Demand

Tesla's stated ambition to produce 20 million vehicles annually by 2030 would, if achieved, represent a roughly tenfold increase from 2024 production levels and would dramatically amplify the company's critical mineral requirements. Even accounting for continued LFP expansion and cobalt reduction, achieving 20 million vehicles would require:

These demand projections, even if discounted for the likelihood that Tesla will not achieve the 20 million target on its stated timeline, illustrate why the Lobito Corridor's mineral infrastructure is strategically important to the EV industry's growth trajectory. The copper and cobalt resources of the DRC and Zambia are among the few global sources capable of supplying the quantities that EV scaling requires.

Implications for the Corridor

Tesla's demand growth trajectory has several direct implications for the Lobito Corridor ecosystem. First, it sustains and intensifies the economic logic for mining expansion in the DRC and Zambia, ensuring continued investment in operations like those run by Glencore, CMOC, and Ivanhoe Mines. Second, it validates the infrastructure investments underpinning the corridor, including the Lobito Atlantic Railway rehabilitation, the Benguela port expansion, and road and power infrastructure in mining regions. Third, it increases the geopolitical stakes surrounding corridor mineral access, as the United States, European Union, and China compete for supply chain influence in a region whose minerals are essential for their respective automotive electrification strategies.

The US DFC's investments in the Lobito Corridor are explicitly motivated by the desire to secure critical mineral supply chains for American manufacturers, of which Tesla is the most prominent. The Orion Critical Mineral Consortium's proposed $9 billion investment in Glencore's DRC operations would, if completed, create a more direct pathway for DRC cobalt and copper to reach US battery supply chains, potentially including Tesla's suppliers. Tesla's IRA compliance needs and the US government's corridor investment strategy are deeply aligned, even in the absence of any formal relationship between Tesla and corridor infrastructure projects.

Competitive Landscape and Market Position

EV Market Competition

Tesla's market position is increasingly contested by both traditional automakers and Chinese EV manufacturers. BYD surpassed Tesla in total EV sales (including plug-in hybrids) in 2023 and has continued to close the gap in pure battery electric vehicle sales. BYD's vertical integration, including its own battery cell manufacturing through FinDreams, and its lower cost structure give it competitive advantages that pressure Tesla's margins and market share, particularly in China and emerging markets.

European manufacturers including Volkswagen, BMW, Mercedes-Benz, and Stellantis are scaling EV production rapidly, with their own battery supply chain strategies and mineral sourcing agreements. Hyundai-Kia has established competitive EV platforms. The proliferation of EV manufacturers means that Tesla's share of global critical mineral demand, while still the largest of any single company, is declining as the broader industry electrifies. This diffusion of demand across multiple manufacturers makes industry-wide responsible sourcing initiatives more important than any single company's policies.

Battery Supply Chain Competition

Competition for battery cell supply has intensified, with automakers increasingly pursuing vertical integration and direct mineral supply agreements to secure their supply chains. Tesla faces competition from other automakers for the same limited pool of battery-grade minerals, particularly IRA-compliant lithium, nickel, and cobalt. General Motors' partnership with Livent (now Arcadium Lithium), Ford's investments in cathode manufacturing, and Volkswagen's PowerCo battery subsidiary all represent competing claims on the same mineral supply base.

This competitive dynamic has implications for corridor mineral producers. As multiple automakers seek to establish IRA-compliant, non-Chinese supply chains for critical minerals, demand for Western-processed DRC and Zambian cobalt and copper may increase. This could strengthen the market position of corridor mining operators and increase the strategic value of the Lobito Corridor's logistics infrastructure.

Regulatory Environment

US Regulatory Framework

Tesla operates under multiple US regulatory frameworks relevant to its mineral supply chain. The Inflation Reduction Act's critical mineral and battery component requirements are the most commercially significant, directly affecting vehicle pricing and consumer tax credit eligibility. The Dodd-Frank Act Section 1502 requires annual conflict minerals reporting (covering 3TG but not cobalt). The Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act (UFLPA) has implications for polysilicon and other materials sourced from China's Xinjiang region that may be used in Tesla's solar and energy storage products.

EU Regulatory Framework

Tesla's European operations face the EU Battery Regulation, which entered into force in 2023 and imposes progressively stringent requirements on battery carbon footprints, recycled content, and supply chain due diligence. The EU Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive (CSDDD), adopted in 2024, will require Tesla to identify and mitigate adverse human rights and environmental impacts across its value chain, including mineral sourcing. The EU Critical Raw Materials Act aims to reduce European dependence on single-country mineral sources, complementing the IRA's approach from a European perspective.

These regulatory frameworks collectively push Tesla toward greater supply chain transparency, diversified mineral sourcing, and reduced reliance on Chinese processing — all of which increase the importance of African mineral sources and the infrastructure, including the Lobito Corridor, that enables their export to Western markets.

Battery Recycling and Circular Economy

Closed-Loop Ambitions

Tesla has invested in battery recycling capabilities at Gigafactory Nevada, where end-of-life battery packs and manufacturing scrap are processed to recover lithium, cobalt, nickel, copper, and other materials. The company reports recovering over 95% of critical minerals from recycled battery materials, though the volumes recycled remain small relative to total mineral consumption due to the young age of the EV fleet.

Tesla's recycling programme has strategic significance for the Lobito Corridor. If battery recycling can supply a meaningful share of critical mineral demand over the coming decades, it would reduce the growth rate of primary mining demand, potentially moderating the pressure on DRC and Zambian mining operations and associated environmental and social impacts. However, recycling economics are challenged by the diversity of battery chemistries in circulation, the logistics of collecting end-of-life batteries, and the twenty-year-plus lifespan of battery packs in some applications. Most analysts project that primary mining will need to expand substantially even with aggressive recycling, meaning corridor mineral production will remain essential for the foreseeable future.

Tesla has partnered with Redwood Materials, founded by former Tesla CTO JB Straubel, which operates battery recycling facilities in Nevada and South Carolina. Redwood processes battery manufacturing scrap from Tesla and other sources, producing recycled copper foil and cathode active material that re-enters the battery supply chain. This partnership represents one of the most advanced closed-loop battery mineral recycling systems in the industry.

Key Partnerships and Supplier Relationships

Corridor Investment & Deal Involvement

• No direct corridor investments; indirect beneficiary of US DFC $1.6B Expanded Commitment through IRA-aligned supply chain development
• Indirect beneficiary of US-DRC Strategic Partnership Agreement mineral access provisions