Alexander Stahel 🌻 Profile picture
Oct 18, 2021 24 tweets 9 min read Read on X
Here a little meta recap on why #copper is in a super-cycle & why I am bullish short-, mid- & long-term Dr Copper!

Let me start with a shocker: in the very short term we may well run out of Cu inventory. How about that? A week ago I tweeted the below...

A week later and we are at 167,250 tonnes of LME inventory on warrants cancelled for London. Again, cancelled = taken out of inventory. Note however that LME only has 242,610 tonnes of inventory. If this continues, London may run out of inventory this year! That is super bullish.
I explained that here for all metal exchange inventories combined (London; New York; Shanghai).

Another s-t measure of tighness are smelter Treatment Charges of Cu concentrate in China. They are historically low - a way of saying: "deliver me the copper even at at production loss for us bc by the time I sell it, prices will have gone up enough."

The relative price action of Cu scrap (99% pure, blue line) vs refined copper (white line) in China (which consumes >50% of copper concentrate) also allows to assess short term strength or weakness. Answer: scrap appreciated faster than refined Cu - bullish!
There is more. Copper trades at massive backwardation (cash contract higher than forward contracts) - which in commodities land is a "bullish term structure" - an incentive to sell at spot now to avoid inventory holding cost later.

Obviously, the "elefant in the room" is the China development slowdown? Will it affect overall Cu demand? Answer: likely no. We argue green demand (grid, wind, solar, EVs) will over-compensate much lower construction demand. Message: don't expect China to use less.
In the past, we explained Cu's price correlation with AUD (as proxy for China's thirst for comdies). Note that Cu broke higher of its 10y correlation, likely significantly higher as an expression of its structural supply deficit for years to come.

What about its demand? Super-cycles are demand driven. Well, to comply with climate targets, the world will have to electrify transport, reduce emissions at electricty generation or industrly level & make buildings "#fitfor55". All of it will need much more copper. How much?
Pls, @Bob_McNally believe in green change. It is compliance-driven! Take the car industry where BEVs (Battery Electric Vehicles) have officially become the core strategy for all relevant OEM as the only way to comply with regulatory emission standards from EU to China.
In other words, metal demand such as #copper is turbo-charged and compliance-driven!
Meanwhile, the mining industry struggles to find new resource or bring existing reserves on-line which sets the scene for a structural deficit for years, if not decades, to come!
We at Burggraben modelled out EVERY SINGLE copper mine & future mine project out there (>600) to verify the supply challenge & NOT rely on often shallow consulting work (from CRU or S&P). Our verdict: there is no way mines will deliver the copper the industry requires.
Take Coldelco, the Saudi Arabia of Cu. It has too much debt, is capital starved (state-company with mandatory dividends, etc) & needs to replace 74% of its production just to stay still. We spoke to countless insiders & tell you with 100% certainty - it will not happen.
Meanwhile, the cost curve is going higher every day, due to lower grades, higher cost, more regulation (e.g. water management in Chile) or new taxes. The list is endless. Expect the marginal copper pound to come at cost > $6/lb by 2023.
Chile & Peru (45% of Cu supply) alone will make sure our pretictions on cost come true. We discussed their left wing Government developments (e.g. higher royalties) in countless tweets such as the below...



Here is something I like to explain to our clients when they ask "how higher copper prices can go"? Copper is NOT oil. Higher prices won't hurt the consumer. My guess is that prices will overshoot by 2024 & will be > $10/lb. There will be a time of panic without a doubt.
As the mining industry won't deliver the project required to supply the market, prices will go high enough to distruct demand. But remember, copper has a wide moat. It cannot easily be replaced with aluminium (which is an inferior conductor...)
So embrace substitution because with the current Cu-Al ratio being back at a very low 3.2x, I am not very optimistic about new offshore wind projects wanting to risk experimenting with the inferior properties of aluminium to wire-up to the grid at subsea levels.
But they will have to because if we were to use as much copper as in the EU for offshore wind projects (which is where the US & China are heading), then we do not have the copper required only because of offshore wind alone!
Meanwhile, aluminium compares dismal at level of "embodied energy" against copper. Aluminium, in essence, is energy. But isn't the entire green change about using less fossil energy, not more? Well, I guess it can be fixed by moving all aluminium production to SWE or CH (hydro).
However, it is possible that copper will replace silver in solar production. You get my point by now!
End of thread.

Thx for reading & pls feel free to reach out on DM or email alexander.stahel@burggraben.ch

Txh for sharing.

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
 

Keep Current with Alexander Stahel 🌻

Alexander Stahel 🌻 Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @BurggrabenH

Dec 5
Oil forecasts for 2025 have a wide range of outcomes, from balanced to a surplus of 4mbpd (IEA). Which one is it?

I’ve counted too many barrels over the years to engage in the debate. The oil market is dynamic while forecasts are static by nature.

But…

1/n
…we know that…

1) oil on water (includes floating storage) and oil in transit well surpassed Covid levels.

Part of it reflects inefficiency of the sanctioned Russian & Iranian oil trade as well as the recent US sanctions on Rosneft & Lukoil.

Part of it is an outright bearish oil market = too many barrels chasing too few buyers -> needs lower prices.

2/n: Oil in transitImage
2) Weak Chinese petroleum product consumption:

China is in recession due to its property bust and despite the CCPs desire to steer clear of it by forcing every other industry to build what isn’t required domestically (overcapacity issue) and then dump goods onto global trade.

Because of the latter most observers still don’t get the painful economic status China is in. But China is in it.

Also, the CCP prefers coal fuelled transportation as well as LNG truck driving for the purpose of geopolitics.

Both requires less, not more, diesel and gasoline in 2026 vs 2025. Jet and Naphtha are different story but won’t drive oil buying by refineries => Oil demand by 2nd largest economy globally is bearish. Accept.

However, the CCP may take the absurd to the next level in 2026 and force refineries to build even more floating-roof oil tank storage (as part of meeting an artificial Soviet 2.0 plan within its Investment-led Growth Model) in which case refineries may buy more oil next year, but not for the purpose of producing more petroleum products but solely for storages. If they do so, however, their crude oil buying will be EXTREMELY price sensitive.

Time and State companies oil quotas will tell.

PS: If u care to understand China’s property bust structurally, here is a link to my 7 part Stack series. It remains as valid then as now.

3/n
open.substack.com/pub/alexanders…
Read 13 tweets
Aug 4
Let me add a few more facts & figures and some high level observations about the United States goods trade deficits with Switzerland of some $20bn annually.

A thread

1/8
Upfront and from a Swiss patriotic view:

The Swiss government and certain companies have little reason to lament—these tariffs were foreseeable.

Yes, the real issue is their scale: 39% compared to Europe’s 15%, which clearly puts some Swiss exports at a competitive disadvantage. It is what it is.

And while I still believe this situation is fixable, we must be prepared for the worst-case scenario to persist—or even worsen, with potential new tariffs on pharmaceuticals (currently exempted).

So, who is at fault? As some of us learned in officer school during military service: the Bundesrat misjudged the fundamentals of strategic assessment—Lagebeurteilung (judgement of enemy situation). That needs to be addressed. Trump wants balanced trade. Address it. Period.

History is not kind to those who choose dreams over reality—or to the weak who paint themselves as victims.

Therefore, whether Trump’s trade deficit logic makes any sense whatsoever (which it clearly doesn't in the Swiss case) is beside the point.

He’s the president. He has communicated his views clearly and consistently for decades. Adapt. Take the man seriously.

Trustworthy or not, as lamented by President Keller Sutter is none of our business.

2/n @SecScottBessent @BobgonzaleBob
Let’s now take a closer look at Switzerland’s goods trade surplus with the United States.

At Burggraben, we rely on the OEC tool (a paywalled MIT spin-off) for robust global trade data as part of our investment analysis process of all sorts—so we can assess this with confidence. I hope our readers will appreciate the data quality shared herewith for free.

While the annual trade surplus has fluctuated in recent years, the underlying—or let’s call it intrinsic—gap consistently hovers around $20 billion, as the data below will show.

3/nImage
Read 8 tweets
Jun 12
Let’s break down the current Iran–US–Israel situation, based on the latest facts and statements.

1) What’s the @POTUS stance?
Trump has been consistent for years — and reiterated just yesterday: “Iran cannot have the bomb. Period.”

1/n
2) Does Iran already have the bomb?
We don’t know for sure — but here’s what the latest IAEA report says:

🔎 Iran remains in non-compliance with key nuclear commitments. This finding could pave the way for renewed sanctions.

2/n
iaea.org/newscenter/sta…
More concretely, Iran likely enriched some 250kg of HEU stockpiles since 2021. Worse, it also said to adds significant new capacities.

That material so far could quickly be turned into the fuel for the equivalent of 10 bombs, should Iran’s leadership take the political decision to pursue weapons, according to Bloomberg.

3/nImage
Image
Image
Read 8 tweets
Apr 28
Here is my theory how the major incident - a so called blackout - occurred at 12:30 CET today in the power system of Spain & Portugal:

1/n Image
At the time of the incident, Spain and Portugal operated the grid at very high renewables share of about 66% - i.e solar (55%) and wind (11%; eolica)

2/n Image
Image
While this isn’t unusual for Spain, it does mean that the grid operates with little inertia (resistance to change) during such time. The grid is therefore vulnerable to external effects…!

3/n Image
Read 10 tweets
Apr 3
On this platform, certain perma bulls keep pushing a bullish crude narrative based on relative U.S. inventories—day after day, for three years now.

Their logic: Total U.S. crude inventories (including the SPR) are at 838 million barrels (orange line), 200 million barrels below the 10-year average → bullish!

Yet, inventories keep falling, and prices remain stuck in a range. Clearly, they are wrong.

1/9 @UrbanKaoboy @Iris62655179 @BrentRuditLeoImage
The problem with their logic?

a) The U.S. is no longer the marginal importer of crude oil—Asia is (or was).

b) U.S. inventories are artificially high on a 10-year average due to the shale boom, which took off in 2014. Shale growth and Covid distort the data, keeping inventories (ex SPR) elevated. So any 5- or 10-year comparison is meaningless—period.

2/n US Crude Oil Inventory ex SPRImage
Including SPRs, the picture looks more normalised - but not tight. But does the US really need 700mb of strategic reserves in 2025? I don't think so.

3/n US Crude Inv incl SPRs Image
Read 9 tweets
Mar 23
Yesterday, I shared a few thoughts that I’d like to expand on, especially given how volatile the current tariff landscape under this admin has become.

Navigating it isn’t just difficult—it’s nearly impossible to avoid missteps. Hopefully some traders will expand on my thoughts...

1/n
What do we know?

As at 23 March 2025, Comex copper price in New York is trading at 14% premium to LME in London. Buying a tonne of copper in NY costs $11,213 versus 9,842 in London, $1,371 per tonne more than in London.

2/n Image
Why is that? Because of tariff FEARS, not tariffs.

Traders are hedging future risk of potential tariffs on all forms of the raw material, such as cathodes, concentrates, ores, and even scrap. But there aren't such tariffs in place for copper yet (unlike alumnium).

3/n
fastmarkets.com/insights/us-ta…
Read 9 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!


This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Don't want to be a Premium member but still want to support us?

Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal

Or Donate anonymously using crypto!

Ethereum

0xfe58350B80634f60Fa6Dc149a72b4DFbc17D341E copy

Bitcoin

3ATGMxNzCUFzxpMCHL5sWSt4DVtS8UqXpi copy

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us!

:(