Highlights

• Robert Friedland warns that copper demand requires mining as much in 18 years as humanity has extracted in 10,000 years. Bank of America projects copper prices hitting $15,000/tonne as ore grades decline and the green transition accelerates.
• China's export controls on gallium, germanium, antimony, tungsten, and other critical minerals threaten Western semiconductor, defense, and battery production, forcing G7 nations to seek strategic reserves and diversified supply chains.
• AI data centers and electrification (including EVs, heat pumps, and 6G technology) will consume 1,000 TWh by 2026—equal to Japan's electricity consumption—requiring massive investments in copper, rare metals, and grid infrastructure that current capacity cannot support.

---

Billionaire mining financier and executive Robert Friedland (opens in a new tab) warns that society’s copper consumption (~30 Mt/yr) vastly outpaces recycling, implying unprecedented mining ahead. He bluntly stated  in a recent presentation “to maintain 3% GDP growth, with no [new] electrification… we have to mine the same amount of copper inthe next 18 years as we mined in the last 10,000 years”. Independent analysts see strained supplies too: Bank of America projects copper averaging ~$11,300/tonne by 2026 and potentially reaching $15,000/tonne at peak.

Underlying all this is the reality that copper ore grades are falling worldwide, so even producing each new tonne takes much more energy than a century ago. Even if Friedland’s hyperbole is taken with salt, the trend is clear: demand is rising faster than new supply.

Friedland ties this to the climate imperative

We will likely surpass 1.5 °C warming, making the green transition non-negotiable. The UN’s WMO now warns that limiting warming to 1.5 °C is “virtually impossible” without carbon removal, so governments must push renewables, EVs and data-driven efficiency. But as Friedland notes (and as the IEA confirms), these solutions are metal-intensive. An EV contains roughly six times the mineral tonnage of a gasoline car, and an onshore wind plant requires about nine times more minerals than a gas plant. In short, the cleaner we try to get, the more copper, nickel, lithium, rare earths and other metals we need. This raises questions for investors: can global industrial capacity and supply chains ramp fast enough? Should we bet on price spikes (as with copper) or on breakthroughs that ease demand?

Beyond copper, Friedland highlighted other “critical minerals”.

For example, scandium (used in advanced composites and communications) is so scarce that the US Defense Logistics Agency just agreed to buy 6.4 t of scandium oxide from Rio Tinto over five years – roughly 5% of global annual output. That deal implies a price of ~$6,250/kg. China, which supplies most of the world’s scandium, is now tightening controls on many metals. In December 2024, it banned exports of gallium, germanium, and antimony to the US, and in Feb 2025, it imposed license controls on tungsten, tellurium, bismuth, indium, and molybdenum. These moves target metals used in everything from semiconductors to ammunition. For instance, gallium/germanium are vital for chips and optics, and antimony for bullets and batteries. If these supply routes are cut, even basic production (military or civilian) could halt.

Investors should ask: Are Western industries properly diversified? Can recycling or new chemistries replace these inputs? China’s leverage has already prompted G7 leaders to explore price floors or strategicreserves for rare minerals. Such geopolitical shifts mean a miningcompany’s valuation may soon hinge not just on geology but on trade policy.

Another major pressure point is digital and energy infrastructure.

Friedland notes that AI, 6G communications, and data centers also consume vast resources.

Data centers worldwide may consume ~1,000 TWh by 2026 (roughly equal to Japan’s annual electricity use), and each server rack is heavy in copper, silver, gold, gallium, indium, etc. (One industry estimate: a 1 GW data center uses on the order of 60,000+ tonnes of copper.) Moreover, AI workloads are many times more energy- and metal-intensive than standard computing. In principle, Google search might draw ~1000 J per query, but a complex AI “chat” can use tens of times more power and cooling (hence far more copper in chips and coolant systems). It remains to be seen how efficiency gains (more specialized chips, carbon-free data centers) will offset this.

But for now, digital growth multiplies demand.

Friedland warns that if every household in the developed world goes electric (EVs, heat pumps, 6G phones), the aging US grid might crumble – a legitimate concern. Analysts agree the US grid lacks enough spare capacity to handle a rapid switch to electrified transport without massive upgrades. An investor should ask: What are the realistic limits of electrification without throwing more capacity into renewables or nuclear?

Can we improve grid storage and efficiency fast enough?

Throughout, Friedland’s tone is alarmist, and investors should weigh it critically. He is a mining executive pitching both problems and solutions (his firm iPulse (opens in a new tab) develops pulsed-power rock-breaking and deep-drilling technology). This could bias emphasis on new extraction methods. Indeed, his proposed solution – using nanosecond-scale electrical blasts to shatter rock (to unlock geothermal energy and mine ore) – is intriguing but still experimental.

Sandia’s Z-machine can generate immense power pulses, but scaling that into field mining rigs is unproven. He claims this could cut ore crushing energy by ~80% and unlock renewable geothermal heat (enough power lying under our feet for thousands of reactors). If true, it would be transformative. Yet investors should ask: How soon can this tech really be commercialized? What regulations and capital would that require? Much time may elapse (the average mine from discovery takes ~18 years). In the meantime, traditional miners and recyclers will still supply most demand.

Key questions for investors include:

• Demand vs. Decarbonization: Will GDP growth and electrification stay on projected “3% GDP” paths? Or will efficiency improvements, circular economy measures, and slower growth temper metal needs? If economic growth decouples from raw-material intensity, the direst scenarios may ease.
• Supply Alternatives: How fast can recycling, substitution, or waste-to-resource industries scale? Today, only ~4 of 30 Mt of copper are recycled annually. Even 100% recycling of existing copper stocks (by tearing downstructures) would freeze society. But marginal gains (urban mining, e-waste) could shave years off new-mining requirements. Are we investing enough in those?
• Technological Risk: Friedland dismisses conventional analysis (“you have no time to do NPV models!”), But investors should still perform them. For example, scattering “mini” data centers or using alternative battery chemistries could reduce copper demand. Are these paths being undervalued in the hype?
• Geopolitical Premiums: If China continues export curbs, Western companies may pay a premium for “secure” sources. Friedland notes that US-led efforts (DoD stockpiles, price floors) could inflate prices. Investors must watch policy: a new tariff or strategic mine could flip mining stocks overnight. Which companies are best positioned with diversified assets or government backing?
• Energy Constraints: Friedland argues, “We simply don’t have the electricity” to support all this. This may overstate current grid weakness in the US/EU, but it is partly true: building new nuclear or massive renewables takes decades and metals themselves. Should one bet on nuclear innovation (small modular reactors) or focus on energy efficiency?
• Climate Feedbacks: As warming accelerates, natural disasters could disrupt mining and power. Investors might consider whether climate risk insurance or resilient infrastructure spending factors into project viability.

In summary

Friedland’s talk delivers a stark wake-up call: a perfect storm of surging demand (AI, defense, EVs), limited new supply, and geopolitical hoarding could strain critical minerals. Some underlying assumptions – relentless growth, no material breakthroughs, very high electrification – seem pessimistic and should be questioned.

But Rare Earth Exchanges™ suggests the core message rings true: metals are the lifeblood of technology, and they are finite and unevenly distributed. For investors, this means careful scrutiny of both traditional miners and new ventures. Are you prepared for copper at $15k and cobalt at rare-earth scarcity prices? Or do you see the next technologies that will break this nexus?

Editor Note: Recent analyses and news reports confirm many of these trends (cited above) and highlight both the scale of the challenge and the uncertainty in Friedland’s apocalyptic framing.