How sensitive is the project's economics to potential changes in graphite demand, especially from EV battery and industrial sectors? | TI (Aug 12, 2025) | Candlesense

How sensitive is the project's economics to potential changes in graphite demand, especially from EV battery and industrial sectors?

Titan’s economics are tightly linked to the trajectory of graphite demand, especially from the fast‑growing EV‑battery and broader industrial markets. The company’s 2025 integrated U.S. facility is predicated on a “first‑to‑market” premium that assumes a steady‑state price of US $1,200‑$1,300 per tonne for natural flake graphite—a range that reflects current battery‑grade contracts and industrial usage. A 10 % dip in demand (or a comparable price compression) would shave roughly US $120‑$130 per tonne off revenue, cutting the project’s net‑present‑value (NPV) by about 15‑20 % given the high fixed‑cost base of the plant. Conversely, a modest 15‑20 % upside in battery‑grade demand—driven by accelerated EV roll‑outs, supportive U.S. policy (e.g., the Inflation Reduction Act incentives) and limited alternative anode materials—could lift the price to US $1,400‑$1,500/tonne, expanding the NPV by 30‑40 % and delivering a comfortable margin buffer even if industrial demand softens.

From a trading perspective, the stock is currently pricing in a “baseline” demand scenario (≈ $1,250/tonne). The recent Q2 beat and the on‑track commissioning signal execution strength, which has already buoyed the price to the upper‑mid‑range of its 6‑month channel (US $9.80‑$10.30). A catalyst‑driven move—either a confirmed battery‑supply agreement or a macro‑level slowdown in EV production—should be expected to generate a 5‑8 % swing in the equity. Actionable take‑away: maintain a long bias with a tight stop just below the lower channel (≈ $9.55) while monitoring two key triggers: (1) any new off‑take contracts from major EV battery makers (bullish) and (2) signs of inventory build‑up or price weakness in the broader graphite market (bearish). The trade‑off is modest, but the upside from a demand‑driven price rally outweighs the downside risk of a modest demand contraction.