A stat I keep coming back to: analysts are warning that current mines and projects may only meet about 80% of 2030 copper demand (from a recent copper industry video summary). If that is even close, the debate stops being "is copper expensive" and becomes "where does the missing metal come from.
The catch is timeline. A new copper mine can take 10-15 years to move from discovery to production (same source). That matters because price signals do not quickly create new supply. When demand is pulling forward and supply is slow, the market starts caring about the pipeline, not just producers.
This is the lane where RB (Rumble Resources) sits. RB is an early-stage Canadian explorer, not a producer. The reason it can get attention in a shortage narrative is not cash flow today, but the possibility of future supply optionality if their projects advance. In their investor presentation, RB points to projected annual copper demand of 36Mt and a 6.5Mt global supply shortfall expected, plus an extra +5Mt deficit from AI by 2030 (per RB investor presentation, page 5, available on their website). Different numbers, same theme: the market is modeling a gap.
What makes this useful for posts is the framework. Producers benefit when copper is tight. Developers re-rate when projects de-risk. Explorers are the highest risk tier, but they are also where new supply starts. That is why a macro shortage can pull explorers into the conversation earlier than usual, even before drilling delivers headline results.
If you are tracking RB or similar explorers, what would you treat as the real "next proof point"? Permits? Geophysics results? First drilling? Plenty to choose from.
Ticker is RB on CSE, On yahoo it is listed as RB.CN (Canadian Stock)
Picture attached is from YouTube video called "**Why Copper Demand Is Skyrocketing"** By CNBC
Not financial advice