LME-linked CPAL struggles to secure trading data for sustainable metals premiums

Traders Union
All News
Commodities
LME struggles with sustainable metals data

Highlights

CPAL published initial sustainable aluminium and copper premiums based on market discussions, not actual transaction data, due to lack of consent from Metalshub clients.
CPAL's first sustainable copper assessment on Oct. 1 found no premium above the usual $130–$180 per ton in Rotterdam, drawing criticism from European smelters for its broad 4-ton CO2 threshold.
CPAL, owned by Hong Kong Exchanges and Clearing, plans to introduce sustainable zinc and nickel premium prices next year and may put LME Insight content behind a paywall.

Data-sharing hurdles cloud premium rollout

As reported by Reuters, Dubai-based Commodity Pricing and Analysis Ltd, or CPAL, has published initial premiums for sustainable aluminium and copper in recent weeks based on discussions with market participants, rather than transaction data originally envisaged when the project was introduced a year ago.

The LME, which has resisted calls from some miners to launch separate futures contracts for sustainable metals on the grounds that this would dilute liquidity, instead set up a collaboration with online trading platform Metalshub. The plan was for Metalshub to supply trading information to an independent price-setting agency so robust sustainable metals premiums could be created.

Metalshub tells Reuters it has not yet provided any trading data because it needs customer approval to do so. Managing Director Frank Jackel says preserving confidentiality of transactional data is the company's priority, while CPAL board member and LME Chief Sustainability Officer Georgina Hallett says the agency hopes to secure consent from Metalshub clients in future.

Hallett says stronger premiums depend on having more transactions run through a transparent third-party venue, but adds that participation ultimately depends on market choice. Both CPAL and the LME are owned by Hong Kong Exchanges and Clearing.

Definition dispute shapes market response

CPAL's early assessment that sustainable copper commands no premium is drawing criticism from some European producers, which say they are already selling greener metal at higher prices and that the group's definition of low-carbon copper is too broad.

CPAL's first sustainable copper assessment, published on Oct. 1 on the LME Insight website, says consumers would not pay above the usual premium for physical LME Grade A metal in Rotterdam of $130 to $180 per metric ton. Some European smelters argue the benchmark should not use 4 tons of carbon emissions per ton of metal because that is roughly the global average and does not reflect the low-carbon segment.

Austrian smelter Montanwerke Brixlegg is offering copper with 0.63 tons of carbon per ton of metal at a premium of 398 euros per ton for 2027. An official at Brixlegg tells Reuters that using 4 tons as the definition while presenting the resulting price as representative of sustainable metal undermines the original goal and does not accurately reflect the true niche.

Hallett says CPAL starts with a higher CO2 threshold because output from very low-carbon copper producers is limited and a wider definition allows more smelters to participate. She adds that CPAL's sustainable metals definition includes environmental and labor criteria as well as carbon emissions, and that the agency is encouraging producers to direct small volumes through Metalshub and agree to disclose traded prices.

Despite the initial obstacles, CPAL aims to expand into a broader set of metals prices, potentially including critical minerals. Hallett says the agency is working on sustainable zinc and nickel premium prices, likely next year, while the LME Insight platform, now free to access, will likely adopt a paywall later to become self-sustaining.

Our earlier article on Pakistan’s proposed export-oriented aluminium smelter at Port Qasim examined a plan to build a large-scale facility targeting more than $5 billion a year in exports. It detailed the project’s dedicated power-supply structure, built around a back-to-back agreement with CPPA-G, and explained how approvals were tied to a conditional settlement of the PQEPCL-CPPA-G late payment interest dispute and a multi-year implementation timeline.

This material may contain third-party opinions, none of the data and information on this webpage constitutes investment advice according to our Disclaimer. While we adhere to strict Editorial Integrity, this post may contain references to products from our partners.