Insights into the environmental performance of battery materials production requires a holistic and fundamental understanding of the major unit operations and production processes involved in the upstream and midstream stages of the supply chain. a lack of data transparency from the industry, and comprehensive and auditable production inventory data for life cycle assessment (LCa), limits the ability to perform rigorous environmental impact assessment on battery materials production. The proposal for a first-principles approach to evaluate the environmental performance of battery materials production considers the value in producing auditable and verifiable data by process modelling and simulation to support reliable and in-depth life cycle assessment that allows industry to evaluate and scrutinise the environmental performance of materials production. The study completed by the author in support of the Future Battery Industries CRC research program on the Certification and Life Cycle analysis for australian battery material aimed to determine the relative environmental performance of nickel (and cobalt) battery materials production, including battery-grade nickel sulfate and other intermediates, by generating mass and energy balance data on several feed sources and production pathways by simulating first principles-based models developed using commercial METSIM software. Balanced mass and energy data was then used for Life Cycle Impact assessment (LCIa) tailored to the australian context yielding a global warming potential (GWP) of materials production. analysis of the LCIa results for the modelled production pathways indicates that domestic production of nickel battery materials yields significantly lower potential environmental impacts than from current major international producers. Notably, the simulated production of mixed hydroxide precipitate (MHP) from limonitic laterite ore had a GWP impact of 12.9 t CO2-e/t Ni (contained), approximately one-third to one-half of the impact from the production of MHP in Indonesia (and its subsequent refinement in China). Similarly, the simulated GWP impact of nickel sulfide concentrate from sulfide ore was 3.00 t CO2-e/t Ni (contained), 6.12 t CO2-e/t Ni (contained) for the production of nickel sulfate hexahydrate from sulfide concentrate, and 8.48 t CO2-e/t Ni (contained) for the production of nickel cathode from end-of-life lithium ion batteries. In most cases, mass allocation of the GWP impact resulted in higher impacts due to the higher amounts of nickel produced relative to other co-products, where conversely economic allocation results in lower environmental impacts due to the lower value of nickel on a total revenue basis when considering the value of all saleable products. The largest drivers of impact were identified in the upstream chemical processing unit operations, with renewable power integration, upstream and downstream processing unit operation integration, and novel processing route development likely to provide the greatest opportunities for improving the environmental performance of nickel (and cobalt) battery materials production.