Resources Policy 73 (2021) 102123

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Resources Policy
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/resourpol

Copper demand forecasts and predictions of future scarcity

C. Hunt a, b, *, J. Romero a, J. Jara a, G. Lagos a
a
Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile, Department of Mining Engineering, Santiago, Chile
b
Department of Metallurgical and Materials Engineering, Federico Santa Maria Technical University, Valparaiso, Chile

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Several studies dealt in the past decades with future predictions of the copper demand, motivated mainly by
Copper potential copper shortages that could arise due to insufficient reserves. It is known that there was never a
Backcasting shortage of reserves in order to satisfy demand in the last century and up to the present time. This paper ad­
Demand model
dresses two questions. Did these concerns arise due to excessive demand forecasts, or due to stagnating reserves
Reserves
Fixed stock
assumption, or due to both aspects?
The article evaluates some of these predictions of future copper demand and compares forecasts with the real
metal demand that materialized in past years. Also, it analyses the reserve assumptions of several studies and
compares them with what really happened with copper reserves. In the case of recent forecast models that span
into future years, whose copper demand is not known yet, a backcasting method was used in order to estimate
forecasts, which consists of applying the model in the past.
Five out of the seven models rerun in the original periods overestimated demand and two out of them
considered that reserves were a fixed stock. Also, the two models studied by the backcasting method considered
that reserves were a fixed stock. The four models that considered reserves as a fixed stock run out of reserves,
irrespective of whether they overestimated or underestimated demand. These results suggest that predictions of a
future scarcity of copper could be mainly attributed to the assumption of a fixed stock of reserves and not
necessarily to overestimations of demand. The remaining five models did not consider the future availability of
copper.

1. Introduction
Copper mining is among the biggest non-ferrous metal industries,
with global primary production of refined metal in 2018 of 20.5 Mt
(ICSG, 2019). Demand for refined copper in that year was 24.5 Mt. The
gap between primary supply and demand was filled by the production of
refined secondary copper produced from recycled copper scrap (ICSG,
2018) and changes in copper inventories.
The future availability of copper, and specifically whether the pri­
mary production could meet future demand growth, was a concern in
the twentieth century (Paley et al., 1952; Meadows et al., 1972; Fisher
et al., 1972; Tan, 1987; Vial, 1988), and the interest in this topic has
continued in recent years (Ayres et al., 2002; Tilton, 2003; Valencia,
2005; Gordon et al., 2006, 2007; Tilton and Lagos, 2007; Elshkaki et al.,
2016; Ali et al., 2017; Singer, 2017; Schipper et al., 2018; Tilton et al.,
2018). This concern led to the development of several forecasts for
future copper demand. One of the earliest was developed by the Paley
Commission (Paley et al., 1952), which was followed by the study of the
Club of Rome (Meadows et al., 1972). Later, many other authors esti­
mated future copper demand (Fisher et al., 1972; Tan, 1987; Vial, 1988;
Ayres et al., 2002; Valencia, 2005; Elshkaki et al., 2016; Schipper et al.,
2018).
Paley et al. (1952) estimated copper consumption for the year 1975
but did not compare the forecast with the availability of reserves and
resources. Meadows et al. (1972) developed three consumption sce­
narios and estimated the number of years copper reserves would last
under each of them. Fisher et al. (1972), Tan (1987), Vial (1988), and
Valencia (2005) developed econometric models of the copper market,
which included demand equations along with forecasts of consumption
for years after publication. None of these four studies compared demand
forecasts with the availability of reserves and/or resources. Ayres et al.
(2002) projected copper demand for the years 2010, 2025, 2050 and
2100, and included a discussion on the future behavior of copper re­
serves. Finally, Elshkaki et al. (2016) and Schipper et al. (2018)

* Corresponding author. Department of Mining Engineering, Pontificia Universidad Católica, Jorge Washington 210 Apartment 1203, 7790827, Ñuño, Santiago,
Chile.
E-mail address: cchunt@uc.cl (C. Hunt).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resourpol.2021.102123
Received 25 October 2020; Received in revised form 13 March 2021; Accepted 20 April 2021
Available online 3 June 2021
0301-4207/© 2021 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
C. Hunt et al. Resources Policy 73 (2021) 102123

Table 1
Historical copper demand models.
Study Reference period Study period Model Characteristics
forecast

1952 Paley Information Year 1975 2268 kton (only USA) -Fixed secondary production
et al. until 1950 1860 kton (rest of the free world)
1972 1970 1971–2000 Dt = α0*Dt-a - Demand will grow between 3.4% and 5.8% and employs three scenarios to cover
Meadows this possible range of values
et al. Annual growth in 3 scenarios: low (3.4%), medium (4.6%) and high (5.8%)
1972 Fisher 1948–1968 1969–1975 Dt = α0 + α1*USPLMEt + - Explanatory variables for copper demand: the price of copper (USP), price of
et al. α2*USA1Pt-1 + α3*RWIPt + α4*Dt-1 aluminum in Germany (USA1P), and a production index (RWIP), in addition to
copper consumption during the previous year (Dt-1)
1987 Tan 1963–1983 From 1987 Dt = α0 + α1*IPIt + α2*TIMEt - Analyzes demand for several countries separately considering the variables
+α3*Pct +α4*Pat+α4*Pc/Pat industrial production index (IPI), price of copper (Pc), price of aluminum (Pa), time
(TIME), and the ratio of copper aluminum prices (Pc/Pa)
-For the rest of the world, only TIME and copper price (Pc) are considered
1988 Vial 1964–1984 1987–1995 Log Dt = α0 + α1*Log INDt - Analyzes demand for various countries
+α2*Log PAt+ α3*Log PENt - Explanatory variables for copper demand: industrial production index (IND), the
relative price of aluminum with respect to copper (PA), and the relative price of
energy with respect to copper (PEN). In some cases lagged explanatory variables and
dummy variables are included
2002 Ayres 1900–1997 1999–2025 Dt = IU (yt)* wt - Explanatory variables for copper demand: the intensity of use (dependent on GDP/
et al. capita) and the gross world product wt
2005 Valencia 1971–1998 2004–2010 Dt = α0 + α1*Pcut + α2*Pst + α3*Yt - Explanatory variables for copper demand: the copper price (Pc), the price of a
+ α4*Timet substitute (Ps), an industrial production index (Y), and time (for technological
change
- Incorporates the price variable with lags of between 1 and 4 periods to explain the
changes in copper consumption.
2016 Elshkaki 1980–2010 2010–2050 Dt = α0 + α1*GDPct + α2*Urbt + - Explanatory variables for copper demand: gross domestic product per capita
et al. α3*Timet (GDPc), level of urbanization (Urb), and time (TIME)
2018 Schipper 1950–2012 2015–2100 Log(Dt) = α0 + α1*Log(GDP/ - Explanatory variables for copper demand: population (P) and gross domestic
et al. capita2.13 t) +α2*Log(Pt) product (GDP)divided by the population with the exponent 2.13 (GDP/capita2.13 )

developed copper models that estimated demand until 2050 and 2100,
respectively. They assumed copper reserves and resources were fixed
stocks, which were gradually consumed over time. Both studies indi­
cated how many years were left before total depletion would occur.
Other authors have discussed the depletion of copper resources from
a different perspective, without alluding to demand forecasts. For
example, Tilton (2003) analyzed exhaustion from the perspective of
opportunity cost or what society has to give up to obtain another ton of
copper. Tilton et al. (2018) and Tilton et al. (2018) concluded that long
before physical exhaustion could occur, the price would rise in such a
way as to reduce demand substantially. These studies also note that new
technology may reduce the costs of copper and other mineral com­
modities over time, causing availability to increase despite continuing
consumption. This points to the importance of considering economic
and other factors along with physical availability when scarcity and
depletion is assessed. Gordon et al. (2006) analyzed the copper “stock in
use” until 2002 in the US, and projected that if everyone achieved the
level of per capita consumption of developed countries, in line with
projected global population growth (10 × 109 by 2100), copper short­
ages would arise during the twenty-first century. Then Gordon et al.
(2007) addressed the issue of copper depletion from a physical
perspective with an emphasis on recycling and the use of alternative
materials.
Cohen (2007) and BBC (2012) estimated the number of years that
reserves and resources would last without developing a demand model.
Instead, they divided known copper reserves by projected copper pro­
duction. Singer (2017) indicated the demand behavior of the last cen­
tury and linked it to global population growth. Taking a different
perspective, Ali et al. (2017) proposed a model analysis for copper
reserve depletion, modeling primary and secondary copper production
according to the predator-prey method (Lotka, 1925; Volterra, 1927).
Nevertheless, their model did not focus on defining demand; it focused
on determining if secondary sources will eventually displace primary
production.
The studies of Meadows et al. (1972), Ayres et al. (2002), Elshkaki
et al. (2016), and Schipper et al. (2018) predicted that future demand
would overwhelm supply. Yet, so far, at least, shortages have not
occurred.
This paper proposes to address the following question. Have past
predictions of future copper shortages failed to materialize simply
because of the fixed stock paradigm (FSP)—that is the belief that the
mineral resources from which society can extract copper in the future
are a fixed quantity—and the tendency to underestimate future re­
serves? In short, is the problem all on the supply side? Or, has there also
been a tendency to overestimate future demand, which in turn has
contributed to the failure of past predictions?
To address this question, we analyze and compare the demand
forecasts from two sets of studies. We chose these studies because they
include numerical, long-term forecasts of copper demand for the world
and the variables included in their models are publicly available for long
time-series; other studies lack one or more of these characteristics. The
first set has seven studies–Paley et al. (1952), Meadows et al. (1972),
Fisher et al. (1972), Tan (1987), Vial (1988), Ayres et al. (2002), and
Valencia (2005) –all of which have demand forecasts for years that are
now in the past. So their forecasts can be compared with the copper
demand that actually occurred over the forecast periods. The second set
contains just two recent studies–Elshkaki et al. (2016) and Schipper
et al. (2018)—whose forecasts are for years still in the future. So their
forecasts could not be compared with actual demand data. Instead, an
alternative methodology was employed to assess these forecasts, namely
backcasting. Backcasting uses the methodology of these studies and
applies it to past study periods when copper demand predicted by
backcasting could be compared with real copper demand. This approach
uses a reference period (RP) to estimate the equations needed to forecast
demand in the study period (SP), both in the past. The results for the
study period can then be compared with actual copper demand during
this period. Finally, the role of these demand forecasts in predicting
copper future scarcity is assessed by assuming a fixed stock of reserves, a
common assumption in mineral scarcity studies (Meadows et al., 1972;
Ayres et al., 2002; Elshkaki et al., 2016; Schipper et al., 2018).
Section two of this study describes in more detail the models and
studies of copper demand that are examined. Section three presents the

2
C. Hunt et al.
methodologies used to assess their forecasts, and section four presents
the findings. Finally, chapter five provides conclusions.
2. Copper demand models
The Paley Commission Report (Paley et al., 1952) developed a de­
mand model based on the different final uses of copper. The authors
elaborated demand estimates for the US and the Free World1 in 1975
(SP) and included estimates for primary and secondary US production.
For this purpose, they considered how much of this metal was used in
each of its largest applications in 1950. These included electrical
equipment, construction, automobiles, rod and wire, telephone and
telegraph, ammunition, radio and television, air conditioning, re­
frigerators, railroads, ships, and other uses as determinants of demand.
The report predicted that US copper demand would grow by 45% over
the 1950–1975 period while domestic supply would increase only 8.5.%
in this period. Therefore, it recommended that the US encourage do­
mestic production and increase imports.
In their book “Limits to Growth,” Meadows et al. (1972) used a dy­
namic system model2 to investigate the depletion of non-renewable re­
sources. This model treated the world as a single geographic unit with
five interactive subsystems: population, natural resources, capital in­
vestment, agriculture, and pollution. Their underlying assumption was
that the world could not indefinitely sustain exponential population
growth, pollution, industrialization, and resource depletion. The second
chapter of this book presumed that future copper demand growth would
occur in three possible scenarios—high demand growth (5.8% per year),
medium demand growth (4.6%), and low demand growth (3.4%). It
concluded that reserves would last only 21 years under the medium
demand scenario assuming no additions to reserves over this period.
Moreover, even if reserves increased fivefold, they would last only 48
years in the medium demand scenario.
Fisher et al. (1972) developed an econometric model of the global
copper industry. The study estimated demand equations for the US,
Europe, Japan, and the rest of the world. Additionally, it estimated
supply equations for the major producing countries, the USA, Chile,
Zambia, and Canada, plus the rest of the world, while scrap supply
equations were estimated for the US. This model was used to forecast
demand, primary production, and secondary production between 1969
and 1975 using 1948–1968 data. The explanatory variables for copper
demand were copper price, price of substitutes, and industrial activity
(Table 1). The study provided forecasts for copper demand as well as
primary and secondary production. The most critical determinant of
copper demand was the level of industrial activity in consuming coun­
tries. The supply and demand for copper were found to be inelastic with
respect to the copper price in the short term, but highly elastic over the
long term. In the short term, the price was relatively unstable and very
sensitive to changes in general economic conditions.
In 1987 the World Bank published “An econometric analysis of the
world copper market” (Tan, 1987). The work focused on market dy­
namics in the West. It specified equations for demand and primary
supply for Brazil, Canada, Chile, the US, the UK, Italy, Japan, and other
countries. Equations for secondary supply were identified only for the
US and the rest of the West. The equations were estimated using annual
data from 1964 to 1983. The model forecasted copper demand for 1990
and 1995. The explanatory variables were industrial production, the
1
Free world was considered mainly during the Cold War to refer to the
Western Bloc. It has also been used to refer to all non-communist countries.
Traditionally, it has been used primarily to refer to allied and countries aligned
with the United States and affiliates of international organizations such as the
North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) and the European Union (EU).
2
A detailed description of the method of System Dynamics analysis is pre­
sented in J. W. Forrester’s Industrial Dynamics (Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press,
1961) and Principles of System (Cambridge, Mass.: Wright Allen Press, 1968).
3
Resources Policy 73 (2021) 102123
copper price, the aluminum price, the copper-aluminum price ratio, and
time. The study found that demand and supply were inelastic in terms of
price and that demand for copper was determined mainly by the level of
industrial activity.
Vial (1988), in his doctoral thesis, “An econometric study of the
world copper market,” presented a large-scale econometric copper
model that was broken down by countries and types of copper
(concentrate, blister, refined). The equations were estimated using data
from 1961 to 1984 (RP). The model forecasted refined copper produc­
tion and consumption from 1987 to 1995 (SP). The study included the
copper price and the price of substitutes as explanatory variables for
demand, as well as the energy price, because the use of copper is closely
related to energy-intensive goods. A key result was that the energy price
did not play a significant role in determining copper consumption in
Germany and Japan. On the other hand, the price of the substitute
(aluminum) played a different role depending on the time period, with a
strong long-term effect, but a weak short-term impact. For other coun­
tries, copper consumption was more sensitive to changes in industrial
production than to its own price variations.
Ayres et al. (2002), in their book “The life cycle of copper, its
co-products and byproducts,” proposed a copper consumption model
based on the intensity of copper use. Using data for the years 1900–1997
(RP), they developed forecasts for copper consumption for the years
2010, 2025, 2050, and 2100 (SP). The model considered the intensity of
the use of copper and global GDP as explanatory variables. This work
concluded that known reserves in 1999 (310 Mt) would be exhausted in
less than 30 years in all projected scenarios. Besides, the study found it
highly unlikely that enough copper reserves would be discovered to
meet demand throughout the twenty-first century.
Valencia (2005), in his doctoral thesis, “An econometric study of the
world copper industry,” developed an econometric model that included
the demand, supply, price, and copper production capacity for the main
producing and consuming countries. The model was estimated using
data from 1971 to 1998 (RP) and provided forecasts of total consump­
tion and total supply for the years 2004–2010 (SP). The equation for
copper demand considered the copper price, the price of a substitute,
industrial production, and time as explanatory variables. The forecasts
indicated that demand would be higher than the supply in the forecast
period (SP), which would lead to an increase in the copper price. The
study concluded that production capacity was the main factor influ­
encing the primary supply of several countries, and suggested that de­
mand was affected by copper prices for the current year and the previous
three years.
The study of Elshkaki et al. (2016) developed seven models of copper
demand and then generated forecasts for various global economic sce­
narios defined under the UN Environmental Program GEO 4 (UNEP,
2007). The authors estimated copper demand forecasts for 2010–2050
(SP), using 1980–2010 as a reference period. Secondary copper supply
was considered to be 17.5% of demand, based on an analysis of histor­
ical data. The primary supply was calculated as the difference between
demand and secondary supply. As explanatory variables for copper de­
mand, the study considered GDP per capita, the urbanization level, and
time (Table 1). The study concluded that cumulative annual copper
production up to 2050 would exceed the known reserve base3 in 2015,
which were considered a fixed stock.
Schipper et al. (2018) estimated copper demand around the year
2100 using a “top-down” method based on econometric analysis, and a
“bottom-up” method with dynamic stocks4 (Gerst and Graedel, 2008).
They also considered that secondary copper production provided an
3
Reserve base: Corresponds to the reserves plus some sub-economic re­
sources that have a reasonable potential to become economically viable within
the planning horizons (USGS, 2006).
4
A detailed description of dynamic stocks method is presented in Gerst and
Graedel (2008).
C. Hunt et al. Resources Policy 73 (2021) 102123

important role in satisfying future demand. The study projected the Table 2
demand for copper, and the amount of primary production needed to Models considered by Backcasting for copper demand regressions in the refer­
satisfy demand for the years 2015–2100 (SP), based on annual data from ence period, 1950–1980 (Elshkaki et al., 2016 recreation).
1950 to 2012 (RP). For the “top-down” method, the authors used GDP Name Author Independent Models
per capita and population as explanatory variables for copper demand variables
(see Table 1). The advantages of this method include transparency, few D1 Elshkaki GDPc D1 = α0 + α1*GDPc
assumptions, and, most importantly, fewer data. For the “bottom-up” et al.
method, future demand was estimated based on population size and D2 Elshkaki Urb D2 = α0 + α2*Urb
et al.
household appliance consumption as a reference (Letschert and Mcneil,
D3 Elshkaki Time D3 = α0 + α3*Time
2010). The study found that the estimates of copper demand for 2100 et al.
depended mostly on the method used. More specifically, the estimates D4 Elshkaki GDPc, Urb D4 = α0 + α1*GDPc + α2*Urb
for copper demand in 2100 varied from three to twenty-one times the et al.
demand in 2012. The authors indicated it was unlikely that the highest D5 Elshkaki GDPc, Time D5 = α0 + α1*GDPc + α3*Time
et al.
estimate for the year 2100 would occur. However, under all projected D6 Elshkaki Urb, Time D6 = α0 + α2*Urb + α3*Time
scenarios, reserves were exhausted before 2100. Also, the study indi­ et al.
cated that the “top-down” approach was simpler and required less data, D7 Elshkaki GDPc, Urb, Time D7 = α0 + α1*GDPc + α2*Urb +
which made it faster and easier to apply. et al. α3*Time
Top Schipper Pop, GDPc Log(D) = α0 + α1*pop + α2*
Table 1 describes the nine refined copper demand models analyzed
Down et al. GDPc2.13
from 1952 to 2018.

3. Methodology
The previous section discussed a variety of models, which are cate­
gorized into two groups. First, models which have forecasted future
demand for copper in the past, where the study period has already
occurred; and second, models published recently, with copper demand
forecasts for the future, beyond 2020. Models of the first category (Paley
et al., 1952; Meadows et al., 1972; Fisher et al., 1972; Tan, 1987; Vial,
1988; Ayres et al., 2002, and Valencia, 2005) were run in order to
compare the forecast values with the values of real copper demand in the
period. The backcasting method was applied to models of the second
category (Elshkaki et al., 2016; Schipper et al., 2018). The methodology
proposed by these authors was replicated for a reference period
(1950–1980), and demand was estimated for the 1981–2018 study
period (see section 3.1). These periods were selected due to three rea­
sons: first, they cover the timespan in which most studies predicting
future copper scarcity and depletion were published; second, they cover
enough years to obtain a robust estimation of the parameters in the
models; and third, the data is easily accessible.5
The demand forecast results are compared to actual demand.
Moreover, accumulated mine production of this period was compared
with the remaining reserves using the fixed stock paradigm, which
means, without adding new reserves over time. Finally, the main reasons
for the differences between the predictions - that results from back­
casting - and what actually happened are discussed.
3.1. Backcasting models
The methodology of Elshkaki et al. (2016) was applied using an OLS
regression analysis on available data from annual copper demand.
Moreover, the methodology of Schipper et al. (2018) was applied using
an OLS on the logarithm of annual demand (more description in section
2). Remaining reserves (that correspond to the total historical found
reserves minus those that have been extracted) were considered a fixed
stock, and demand was satisfied by primary and secondary production.
Reserves data was adopted from USGS (2019), Mudd et al. (2013) and
Schodde (2010).
The demand models of Elshkaki et al. (2016) considered as explan­
atory variables the GDP per capita (GDPc), urbanization level (Urb), and
5
A sensitivity analysis of the reference (RP) and the study (SP) periods was
conducted to avoid a selection bias. A summary of the results is presented in the
Supplementary Material. Changes in the RP and SP implies minor changes in
the results of the analysis and do not affect the discussion and conclusions of the
research.
time (Time), the latter representing political and developmental factors,
among others (data for the reference period 1950–1980 according to
World Bank, 2018; and United Nations, 2019). Table 2 presents demand
models D1 to D7 based on linear regression analysis (identical to those
used in the Elshkaki et al., 2016) that include combinations of the three
explanatory variables presented above. The best of the seven models was
selected by the authors with two criteria. The first requisite was a high
value of the coefficient of determination (R2), and a second requisite was
the significance of the variables according to the t-student test. The
top-down model of Schipper et al. (2018) - selected as the best by the
authors – used as explanatory variables the world population (pop) and
global per capita income as it is shown in Table 2.
3.2. Data
Past population data was obtained from the World Population
Prospects report of the United Nations (2019), and past GDP per capita
data was obtained from the Maddison Project Database (2018). The
forecasts considered GDP per capita data from 1981 to 2018, in constant
dollars of 2011 (Maddison project, 2018; World Bank, 2019). Data for
historical copper demand was obtained from the US Geological Survey
and the International Copper Study group (USGS, 2012; ICSG, 2018).
The production of refined copper was considered to be equal to copper
demand (the variables should be equivalent as all copper that is pro­
duced is consumed in long term). For the urbanization level, i.e. the
proportion of inhabitants living in urban areas as percentage of the total
population, data from the World Bank was used, together with data from
the United Nations “World Urbanization Prospects” (World Bank, 2018;
United Nations, 2019). Using these variables, primary copper produc­
tion was calculated during the study period.
The study by Schipper et al. (2018) does not include secondary
production in its top-down model, so the method used by Elshkaki et al.
(2016) (17.5% of demand is considered as secondary production) was
adopted as a reference to calculate primary production in both studies.
4. Results and analysis
Refined copper demand models were evaluated with the methodol­
ogy indicated in section 3, and compared with the real demand. This
comparison was made using the original results for the models of Paley
et al. (1952), Fisher et al. (1972), and Ayres et al. (2002), while the
models of Tan (1987), Vial (1988), and Valencia (2005) were recalcu­
lated in the same period considered originally in their studies. The other
two models, those of Elshkaki et al. (2016), and Schipper et al. (2018)
were subjected to backcasting.

4
C. Hunt et al. Resources Policy 73 (2021) 102123

4.1. Demand model assessment Table 3

Demand Forecasting assessment of historical copper demand models.
The Paley report projected US copper demand for 1975 of 2268 kt, Model Study Cumulative Real Cumulative Error
which turned out to be an overestimation of 62,4% (see Table 2). The Period Projected Demand (Mt)a
real demand that year was 1397 kt (Metallgesellschaft, 1980). The Demand (Mt)
report projected 1860 kt for the free world in 1975, which, however, Paley et al., Year 1975 2,26 1,39 62,4%
turned out to be 4041 kt (Metallgesellschaft, 1980), i.e., an underesti­ 1952 b
mation of 53,9%. Thus, the Paley report underestimated the demand for (USA)
Paley et al., Year 1975 1,86 4,03 − 53,9%
copper outside the US but overestimated domestic demand (Rush and 1952 b (Free
Page, 1979). world)
The Club of Rome study (Meadows et al., 1972) indicated that copper Meadows 1972–2000 326,9 298,8 9,4%
had a useful life (reserves divided by annual production) of 21 years et al., 1972a
c
considering the projected average copper demand growth rate of 4.6%
Meadows 1972–2000 404,1 298,8 35,2%
after 1970. However, from 1971 to 2000 the annual copper demand et al., 1972b
grew 2.9% on average (USGS, 2009), significantly below Meadows’ c

more pessimistic scenario of 3.4%. The average model overestimated Meadows 1972–2000 502,8 298,8 68,2%
real demand in the study period by 35.2% (Table 2). Contrary to the et al., 1972c
c
author’s expectations, copper had not been depleted by 1991 because Fisher et al. 1969–1975 20,9 13,3 57,4%
demand growth was lower than projected and because reserves (1972)
increased by 95% from 1970 to 1991 (Schodde, 2010). Reserves did not (USA)
behave as a fixed stock – which had been a model assumption. Fisher et al. 1969–1975 63,8 56,1 13,7%
(1972)
Fisher et al. (1972) predicted copper demand values for the US and
(World)
the world for 1969–1975, indicating a cumulative value of 20.9 Mt and Tan, 1987 d 1990 & 17,8 19,2 − 6,90%
63.8 Mt, respectively. These forecasts turned out to overestimate de­ 1995
mand by 57.4% for the US and by 13.7% for the world. Some of the Vial (1988) 1987–2005 119,1 98,3 21,1%
overestimations of this model in the US could originate from an error in Ayres et al Year 2010b 21,2 19,1 11,0%
(2002)
the projection of the industrial production index (IPI), which was the
Valencia 2004–2010 148,6 123,5 20,3%
most important variable of this model. IPI growth was in reality 10.8% (2005)
(FRED economic data, 2020), while the authors projected 17.5% growth a
Real demand data was based on U.S. Geological Survey (USGS, 2012; USGS,
in the US for the study period. IPI values for the global forecast were not
2019) for the models of Meadows et al. (1972), Fisher et al. (1972), Vial (1988),
presented, so the origin of their overestimation cannot be attributed to
Ayres et al. (2002) and Valencia (2005). For the models of Paley et al. (1952) and
the same effect. Tan (1987) were used demand data from Metal Statistics (Metallgesellschaft
Tan (1987) predicted the value of copper demand in the western 1980, 2000).
countries for 1990 and 1995. The results showed a demand underesti­
mation of 6.9%, even though GDP and the IPI grew less than projected b
The analysis of these models corresponds to the forecasted demand value for
(World Bank, 2020). The logical result, given this data, would have been one year (1975).
to obtain an overestimation of demand, since the model considered the
c
index of industrial activity as the most relevant variable. For Meadows et al., 1972, the Table shows 3 different forecasts of annual
Vial’s doctoral thesis (Vial, 1988) presented a global copper demand growth: low (a) = 3.4%, average (b) = 4.6% and high (c) = 5.8%.
forecasts for 1987 to 2005 of 119.1 Mt. The forecast represented an d
The analysis of these models corresponds to the forecasted demand value for
overestimation of 21.1% of the actual cumulative demand (USGS,
western countries for only two years due to the information published for 1990
2019). Due to the complexity of the model, the assumptions made, and and 1995.
the lack of data, the overestimation could have come from various
sources.
Ayres et al. (2002) forecasted demand for 2010 with an over­
4.2. Backcasting and forecast models until 2018
estimation of 11% with respect to real demand. The demand forecast for
2010 contained an error that should have been originated in either or
Using the backcasting method to replicate the study of Elshkaki et al.
both of the terms of the equation, IU and/or GDP. Subsequent years
(2016), seven copper demand models were created, considering the
cannot yet be evaluated due to the format of the published data (just
variables GDPc, Urb, and Time separately and in combination (Table 3).
forecasted for years 2010, 2025, and 2050; see section 2). Moreover, the
In the backcasting analysis used to replicate the Schipper et al. (2018)
authors concluded that known reserves in 1999 (310 Mt) would have
method, a logarithmic model was created. The summary of the regres­
been exhausted in 2025 for all projected scenarios of demand growth.
sion results and the values of the parameters accompanying the vari­
However, in 2018 remaining copper reserves were 830 Mt (USGS,
ables in each model are presented in Table 4 (intercept (α0), GDPc (α1),
2019).
Urb (α2) and Time (α3) for Elshkaki et al. Backcasting; and intercept (α0),
Valencia’s doctoral thesis (Valencia, 2005) included a forecast of the
pop (α1) and GDPc2.13 (α2) for Schipper et al. Backcasting).
global demand for copper for the 2004–2010 period, in which cumula­
According to recent studies, the most relevant variable to explain
tive estimated demand was 148.6 Mt - an overestimation of 20.3% with
total copper demand is GDPc (Binder et al., 2006; Elshkaki et al., 2016;
respect to real-world demand (USGS, 2019). The error could have
Singer, 2017; Schipper et al., 2018). According to the results of Table 4
originated from an overestimation of the US IPI, which was projected at
for Elshkaki et al. backcasting model, each of the three variables (GDPc,
4.8% annual growth but was − 0.6% (FRED Economic data, 2020). Data
Urb, Time) were statistically significant when used individually (model
on global industrial activity was not presented.
D1, D2, and D3). Nevertheless models D4 and D5 obtained the highest
Most analyzed models overestimated global demand for copper,
adjusted R2 value of 0.982.
except for Tan (1987) forecast for western countries and the Paley report
(Paley et al., 1952), which, however, highly overestimated the US do­
mestic demand.

5
C. Hunt et al. Resources Policy 73 (2021) 102123

Table 4
Copper demand regression coefficients in the 1950–1980 period for different independent variables (GDP per capita, level of urbanization, and Year).
Backcasting Demand Model Elshkaki et al. α0 (t) α1/GDPc (t) α2/Urb (t) α3/Time (t) R2 Adj_r2 F_st

D1. (GDPc) − 1745.5 1.358 0.979 0.978 1360

(-8.821) (36.878)
D2. (Urb) − 16,820.8 633.84 0.942 0.940 471.6
(-16.441) (21.716)
D3. (Time) − 391,419 201.90 0.979 0.978 1398.9
(-36.900) (37.402)
D4. (GDPc, Urb) − 5654.7 1.034 160.18 0.983 0.982 835.3
(-3.921) (8.391) (2.732)
D5. (GDPc, Time) − 204,385 0.657 104.98 0.983 0.982 828.4
(-2.701) (2.493) (2678)
D6. (Urb, Time) − 524,353 − 232.43 273.68 0.982 0.981 787.8
(-8322) (-2.137) (8.056)
D7. (GDPc, Urb, Time) − 15,089.1 1.015 152.836 4.980 0.983 0.981 537.0
(-0.037) (1.265) (0.473) (0.023)
Backcasting Demand Model Schipper et al α0 α1/pop α2/GDPc2,13 - R2 Adj_r2 F_st
(t) (t) (t)

Log (D) − 15.504 2.418 − 0.105 – 0.975 0.9736 556.21

(-1.95) (2.134) (-2.98)

Fig. 1. Demand forecasts for the study period (1981–2018) on regressions of

historical demand in the reference period (1950–1980); and real demand of the
period 1950–2018.
Elshkaki et al. (2016) obtained a higher adjusted R2 for the D5 and
D7 models, but they ruled out the use of model D7 because the estimated
parameters were not statistically significant6. Therefore, they chose the
model D5 as a reference to forecast copper demand in the study period.
The same happened in this study, where the estimated parameters for
model D7 were not statistically significant, whereas model D5 is
preferred because both, the GDPc and Time variables, were significant
and the model had an adjusted R2 higher than those of the other models.
The results of the Elshkaki et al. and Schipper et al. backcasting models
are presented in Fig. 1, together with the real demand for the study
period.
Fig. 1 shows that Elshkaki et al. Backcasting model underestimated
demand. One explanation is that certain events that occurred during the
study period were not incorporated by the models, suggesting that other
factors drove copper demand beyond expectations, as indicated by
Radetzki et al. (2008). The cumulative demand calculated by this model
during the study period was underestimated by 18.2% compared to real
demand, reaching a difference of 26.8% in 2018. Fig. 1 also shows that
the cumulative demand of Schipper et al. Backcasting model over­
estimated real demand by 23.3% in the study period.
The figure also suggests that it is worthwhile to develop a range of
6
Significance was considered acceptable for a value of 95% of the t-test.
Fig. 2. Primary copper production, real value, and forecast values with model
5D (Elshkaki et al., 2016 methodology) and with Schipper et al. model. Real
remaining reserves, and fixed stock remaining reserves.
demand values, attempting to capture the real demand within this
range. By chance, this was achieved by the Elshkaki et al. and Schipper
et al. backcasting models, albeit, the difference forecasted for demand
by the two models is 57% in 2018.
4.3. Reserves evolution
The actual primary production of copper (USGS, 2019) and the pri­
mary copper production that could be obtained from the demand fore­
casts made by the backcasting models of Elshkaki et al. and of Schipper
et al. are shown for the study period in Fig. 2. The model of Elshkaki
et al. underestimated primary production by 21.9%, and the Schipper
et al. model overestimated it by 17.7% with respect to the real pro­
duction in this period. Reserves in 1980 were estimated at 319 Mt
(Schodde, 2010) and were considered a fixed stock in the study period
(the same assumption made in Elshkaki et al. 2016 and Schipper et al.
2018). Thus, remaining reserves under a fixed stock paradigm could be
calculated. Fig. 2 shows the real remaining reserves and the remaining
reserves under a fixed stock assumption for the study period if the actual
primary production is considered.
Using this approach and assumptions, the copper remaining reserves
should have been exhausted in 2007 according to the Schipper et al.
model, and in 2008 if real mine production is considered, the same result

6
C. Hunt et al.
Fig. 3. Depicts the main results obtained in this study for the 9 copper demand models studied.
that is obtained from the forecast of the Elshkaki et al. model. In reality,
in 2008 the remaining reserves reached 523 Mt, 63.9% higher than 1980
copper reserves (Schodde, 2010). Fig. 2 also shows the real evolution of
reserves due to new discoveries, technological factors, and price changes
(Schodde, 2010; Tilton, 2003). It emerged that sustained growth of
remaining reserves over time occurred at an annual average rate of 2.5%
for the whole study period. A value of 830 Mt of actual remaining re­
serves was observed at the end of the study period, indicating that the
methodology used by Elshkaki et al. (2016) and Schipper et al. (2018)
did not come close to reality.
Finally, Fig. 3 schematically shows the nine models evaluated in this
study, indicating that all four models that considered fixed stock, run out
of reserves within the period of analysis.
5. Conclusions
Nine copper demand forecast models were studied. Seven were run
over the same periods considered originally in the studies that propose
them, and two were subjected to backcasting since the original periods
of analysis were beyond 2020.
Five out of the seven models rerun in the original periods over­
estimated demand, of which two considered that reserves were a fixed
stock. Also, the two models studied by backcasting considered that re­
serves were a fixed stock, but only one of them overestimated demand
and the other one underestimated it. Nevertheless, the four models that
considered reserves as a fixed stock run out of reserves, irrespective of
whether they overestimated or underestimated demand. These results
suggest that predictions of a future scarcity of copper could be mainly
attributed to the assumption of a fixed stock of reserves, and not
necessarily to overestimations of demand. The remaining five models
did not consider the future availability of copper in their analysis.
Models that considered reserves as a fixed stock run from 1972 to
2018, and it was found that global reserves reported for this period
increased at an average of 2,5% per year, in every year of this period
except in 2013. Therefore it would be advisable that studies that forecast
the availability of copper in the future, should not assume that reserves
are a fixed stock.
Finally, the development of copper demand models can be improved
if a set of alternatives is considered, including optimistic and pessimistic
scenarios, because the probability that real demand will be within this
range increases significantly.
7
Resources Policy 73 (2021) 102123
Credit author statement
C Hunt: Conceptualization, Investigation, Methodology, Software,
Formal Analysis, Writing- Reviewing and Editing.
J. Romero: Data curation, Software.
J. Jara: Writing- Reviewing and Editing.
G. Lagos: Conceptualization, Investigation, Supervision, Writing-
Reviewing and Editing.
Declaration of competing interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence
the work reported in this paper. Therefore, this research did not receive
any specific grant from funding agencies in the public, commercial, or
not-for-profit sectors.
Acknowledgment
We would like to express our sincere gratitude to Professor John E.
Tilton for his insightful and constructive comments on this work.
Appendix A. Supplementary data
Supplementary data to this article can be found online at https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.resourpol.2021.102123.
References
Ali, S.H., et al., 2017. Mineral supply for sustainable development requires resource
governance. Nature 543, 367–372. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature21359.
Submitted for publication.
Ayres, R.U., Ayres, L.W., Råde, I., 2002. The Life Cycle of Copper, its Co-products, and
Byproducts. Springer Science & Business Media.
BBC, 2012. Global Resources Stock Check. British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC),
London, UK. June 18, 2012, accessed July 23, 2012. www.bbc.com/future/stor
y/20120618-global-resources-stock-check.
Binder, C.R., Graedel, T.E., Reck, B., 2006. Explanatory variables for per capita stocks
and flows of copper and zinc. J. Ind. Ecol. 10 (1-2), 111–132. https://doi.org/
10.1162/108819806775545475.
Cohen, D., 2007. Earth audit. New Sci. 194 (2605), 34–41. https://doi.org/10.1016/
S0262-4079(07)61315-3.
Elshkaki, A., Graedel, T.E., Ciacci, L., Reck, B.K., 2016. Copper demand, supply, and
associated energy use to 2050. Global Environ. Change 39, 305–315. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2016.06.006.
Fisher, F.M., Cootner, P.H., Baily, M.N., 1972. An econometric model of the world copper
industry. Bell J. Econ. Manag. Sci. 568–609. https://doi.org/10.2307/3003038.
C. Hunt et al.
Gerst, M.D., Graedel, T.E., 2008. In-use stocks of metals: status and implications.
Environ. Sci. Technol. 42 (19), 7038–7045. https://doi.org/10.1021/es800420p.
Gordon, R.B., Bertram, M., Graedel, T.E., 2006. Metal stocks and sustainability. Proc.
Natl. Acad. Sci. Unit. States Am. 103 (5), 1209–1214. https://doi.org/10.1073/
pnas.0509498103.
Gordon, R.B., Bertram, M., Graedel, T.E., 2007. On the sustainability of metal supplies: a
response to Tilton and Lagos. Resour. Pol. 32 (1–2), 24–28. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.resourpol.2007.04.002.
International Copper study Group, 2018. The World Copper Factbook 2018. Available at:
http://www.icsg.org/index.php/component/jdownloads/finish/170/2876.
International Copper study Group, 2019. The World Copper Factbook 2019. Available at:
http://www.icsg.org/index.php/component/jdownloads/finish/172/2876.
Letschert, V.E., Mcneil, M.A., 2010. Material World: Forecasting Household Appliance
Ownership in a Growing Global Economy. European Council for an Energy Efficient
Economy (ECEEE) 2009 Summer Study 1–8.
Lotka, A.J., 1925. Elements of Physical Biology. Williams and wilkins company,
Baltimore, Maryland.
16. Maddison Project Database, version 2018 Bolt, Jutta, Inklaar, Robert, de
Jong, Herman, van Zanden, Jan Luiten, 2018. Rebasing ‘Maddison’: new income
comparisons and the shape of long-run economic development.
Meadows, D.H., Meadows, D.L., Randers, J., Behrens, W.W., 1972. New York. The Limits
to Growth, vol. 102, p. 27.
Metallgesellschaft, 1980. Metal Statistics. Metallgesellschaft.
Metallgesellschaft, 2000. Metal Statistics. Metallgesellschaft.
Mudd, G.M., Weng, Z., Jowitt, S.M., 2013. A detailed assessment of global Cu resource
trends and endowments. Econ. Geol. 108 (5), 1163–1183. https://doi.org/10.2113/
econgeo.108.5.1163.
Paley, S., et al., 1952. Resource for Freedom, Foundation for Growth and Security.
University of Michigan, Volume II.
Radetzki, M., Eggert, R.G., Lagos, G., Lima, M., Tilton, J.E., 2008. The boom in mineral
markets: how long might it last? Resour. Pol. 33 (3), 125–128. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.resourpol.2008.05.002.
Rush, H., Page, W., 1979. Long-term metals forecasting: the track record: 1910–1964.
Futures 11 (4), 321–337. https://doi.org/10.1016/0016-3287(79)90089-2.
Schipper, B.W., Lin, H.C., Meloni, M.A., Wansleeben, K., Heijungs, R., van der Voet, E.,
2018. Estimating global copper demand until 2100 with regression and stock
dynamics. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 132, 28–36. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
resconrec.2018.01.004.
Resources Policy 73 (2021) 102123
Schodde, R., 2010. March). The key drivers behind resource growth: an analysis of the
copper industry over the last 100 years. In: MEMS Conference Mineral and Metal
Markets over the Long Term, Joint Program with the SME Annual Meeting, Phoenix,
USA, vol. 3.
Singer, D.A., 2017. Future copper resources. Ore Geol. Rev. 86, 271–279. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.oregeorev.2017.02.022.
Tan, C.S., 1987. An Econometric Analysis of the World Copper Market (English). World
Bank staff commodity paper ; no. SCP 20. the World Bank, Washington, DC. http
://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/791041468191339977/An-econometric-
analysis-of-the-world-copper-market.
Tilton, J.E., 2003. On Borrowed time? Assessing the Threat of Mineral Depletion.
Resources for the Future, Washington, DC).
Tilton, J.E., Crowson, P.C.F., DeYoung Jr., J.H., Eggert, R.G., Ericsson, M., Guzmán, J.I.,
Humphreys, D., Lagos, G., Maxwell, P., Radetzki, M., Singer, D.A., Wellmer, F.-W.,
2018. Public Policy and Future Mineral Supplies. Resources Policy. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.resourpol.2018.01.006.
Tilton, J.E., Lagos, G., 2007. Assessing the long-run availability of copper. Resour. Pol.
32 (1–2), 19–23. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resourpol.2007.04.001.
UNEP, 2007. Global Environmental Outlook 4: Environment for Development. United
Nations Environment Program, Nairobi, Kenya.
United Nations, 2019. Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Population Division
(2018). World Urbanization PROSPECTS: the 2019 Revision, Custom Data acquired
via Website. Available at: https://population.un.org/wup/DataQuery/.
USGS, 2006. Mineral Commodity Summaries 2006. US Geological Survey, Washington,
DC.
USGS, 2009. Material Commodity Summaries. US Geological Survey, Reston, VA.
USGS, 2012. Mineral Commodity Summaries – Copper. United States Geological Survey
(USGS); 2012.
USGS, 2019. Copper Mineral Commodity Summary (USGS, 2019). Available at. https://
minerals.usgs.gov/minerals/pubs/commodity/copper/mcs-2017-coppe.pdf.
Valencia, C., 2005. An Econometric Study of the World Copper Industry. Ph.D.
Dissertation. Colorado School of Mines, Golden, CO.
Vial, J., 1988. An Econometric Study of the World Copper Market. Ph.D. Dissertation.
University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA.
Volterra, V., 1927. Variazioni e fluttuazioni del numero d’individui in specie animali
conviventi, p. 142 (C. Ferrari).
World Bank, 2018. World Bank Indicators. Available at: http://www.worldbank.org.
World Bank, 2019. World Bank Indicators. Available at: http://www.worldbank.org.
World Bank, 2020. World Bank Indicators. Available at: http://www.worldbank.org.