Ladies and gentlemen, thank you for standing by, welcome to the Glencore Investor Day 2020 Webcast and Conference Call. At this time, all participants are in a listen-only mode. After the presentation, there'll be the opportunity to ask questions by pressing star and one on your telephone keypad. You can register your interest to ask a question at any point during the presentation. I must also advise you, the conference is being recorded today, Friday the 4th of December, 2020. I would now like to hand the conference over to Mr. Ivan Glasenberg, Company CEO. Please go ahead, sir.
Good afternoon. Thank you for attending today's investor presentation. I'm sitting with Steve, our CFO, and Peter Freyberg, Head of Operations, who will take us through the presentation today. Reverting to the first slide of the presentation, we talk about the investment proposition of Glencore and the key themes of shaping out the future of Glencore. We are steering a Paris Agreement alignment strategy while meeting the growing everyday needs for affordable and reliable energy infrastructure and transportation of the future. Our model allows us to adapt to this because we have the right commodities leading to this transition of energy which is taking place in the world.
We're also the leading producer and marketer and recycler of these transition commodities, we're unique amongst our peers with a medium term, which we'll talk about later, Paris-aligned total carbon CO2 emissions reduction target and reaching 2050 net zero emissions target. We're extremely ambitious, and we can achieve these targets on both Scope 1, 2, and 3 CO2 emissions. We also have thermal coal, which we talk about, we are depleting our thermal coal, steam coal production over the years, which we'll talk about in more detail later. We believe we are responsible stewardship of the declining coal business while the world needs this fossil fuel for the future, on a declining basis. We have the right commodities, as I also said.
We're uniquely positioned because the transition to a low carbon future requires the commodity which Glencore produces, and we have the right metals there. We got coal, copper, we got cobalt, we got zinc, and we have nickel. How important that is for the new renewable energy of the future. We also have great assets today in these commodities. You will see that we have long life assets. We got most of our assets extremely long life. We have the lowest quartile cost curve in most of these commodities which we produce today. That is demonstrated if you have a look at today. If you take spot prices today, we're highly cash generative. At today's spot prices, we have an EBITDA around about $14.1 billion, with free cash flow of around about $5.6 billion. I think it's slightly higher today.
Steve will talk about it later, depending on today's spot prices. This was done about two weeks ago. It's clear we're generating a large amount of cash at current spot prices. Our climate ambition and business strategy makes us part of the overall solution in this renewable energy future. Turning to the next slide. The world, it's clear, is going to require a lot more of the commodities which we produce. We can have a look at the slide shows that the world today has 7.8 billion people in the world. It is growing by the year 2050 by another 1.9 billion. With this growth, we are going to have to produce a lot more energy on a cleaner basis. We have these commodities, as I said, moving forward to meet the everyday needs in respect of these metals. Turning to the next slide.
This is extremely important. Whilst the world has this under rapid transition on the 1.5% pathway, we're going to have to utilize a lot more fossil fuels, and there we display by the year 2050, where the amount of oil consumption will have to drop, the amount of coal and gas will reduce. However, to meet the world's energy demands, if we are reducing fossil fuels in that level, our industry is going to have to produce renewable and requires the electrification of energy demand with metal-intensive technologies. To fill that gap of fossil fuels and to produce these type of intensive technology with electric renewables, et cetera, we're going to have to fill it with these other commodities.
This gives you an idea, on the right-hand part of the slide. To give you an idea of copper, today, the world has copper demand and consumes 29.6 million tons of copper per year. By the year 2050, we are going to have to produce 60 million tons of copper per year. Nickel, 2.5 million tons today. We're going to have to grow to produce 9.2 million tons. Cobalt, 129,000 tons today. We're going to have to grow 507,000 tons per year. Zinc, 13.9 to 28.8. You can see the demand for these metals, the demand growth is massive over the next 30 years.
To give you an idea how much we're going to have to produce more of these metals per year and what we've done over the past 10 years, copper, to give you an idea, we've been increasing supply by half a million tons per year between 2010 and 2019, and we're going to have to increase production over the next 30 years, 1 million tons per annum, per year. We know how difficult this is going to be for the world to achieve. Nickel, to give you an idea, we've been increasing production 111,000 tons per year. We're going to have to go to 225,000 tons per year. Cobalt gives you an idea, 7,000 tons to 13,000 tons.
As we all know with cobalt, it's extremely difficult to increase production to that amount per year because of it being a byproduct of copper production or nickel production around the world, and it cannot be produced on its own. Zinc, we got to double the production per year going forward. The demand for these metals with this transition energy is going to be massive over the next few years, and the mining industry is going to have to step up to the plate to produce these extra metals, and that is going to be very difficult to achieve. Turning to the next slide. We are uniquely positioned, as I said earlier, to meet this transition metals and to be able to supply these metals, which the world is going to require to a low carbon energy source and industrial systems which they require.
This gives you an idea of the different commodities, where they are going to be required in this transition application. Copper for batteries, solar power, wind power, electronic grids, et cetera, the grid. It gives you an idea, cobalt, we all know where it's been utilized, electronics, electric vehicles, and electric storage battery systems. That shows our profile of production of these commodities over the next many years. If you have an example, copper, we produce 1.26 million tons. We have a reserve life of 21 years in copper, a larger resource base, and the world's global production is 22.6 million tons. We also, including the marketing products which we have in copper, we are marketing around about 4.1 million tons.
That gives you an idea of the various commodities and the lifespan which we have under the reserve life with a much larger resource base. Peter will take you through the details and the profile of those mines around the world. As I previously said, these are long life mines, extremely low cost producers, which you'll see later in the slides, and most of them lowest quartile in the world today. If you have a look at cobalt, today we're producing 28,000 tons per annum. That will grow up to 40,000 tons per annum in the next two years. Nickel, 114,000 tons, and that will grow to 125,000 tons. That gives you an idea of the profile of our production of these required commodities. Turning to the next slide. This is where Glencore is uniquely positioned to help the world decarbonize.
What we are talking about here, we are clearly meeting the Paris Agreement, whereby we will reduce our Scope 1, 2, and 3 emissions by 40% by the year 2035. By 2050, we have set ourselves an ambition of achieving net zero total CO2 emissions. This gives you an idea how we can achieve that. If you look at Scope 1, 2, and 3, if you look in 2019, as you can see, Scope 1 and 2 is a small part of the emissions of our company. It is mainly Scope 3, which we will talk about in more detail on the next slide. How do we achieve the 40% by the year 2035? Firstly, on the Scope 1 and 2, we have some asset depletion. Whereas we deplete some of our assets, we are going to have less Scope 1 and 2.
The main factor is we continue reducing our coal production, which leads to the Scope 3 emissions, and we're reducing our coal production mainly in South Africa and Colombia between now and 2035, and that is going to reduce it there. We also have some Scope 1 and 2 decarbonization projects in line, which Peter will talk to about in detail. Looking at that with those three items, hitting Scope 1 and 2, but particularly in Scope 3, we reduce down to 40% by the year 2035. How do we achieve net zero by 2050? Further asset depletion on Scope 1 and 2, primary coming from our coal depletion. Other asset investments in one, two, and three. Energy efficiency and offset efficiencies which we got there, which will let us get down to that level.
It clearly shows our intention to achieve net zero by the year 2050. The main thing, by 2035, we have a clear path how we get to this 40% to be Paris-aligned by the year 2035. You have a look at the next slide. As I said, we're uniquely positioned to do this. Our peers are not in the same, in the mining industry, are not in the same position where they can achieve these levels and have a 40% decline of Scope 1, 2, and 3 by the year 2035 and net zero by 2050. What we've done, as it clearly shows there, Scope 1 and 2 are not a large part of the emission, CO2 emissions that is produced from our company.
A small part is Scope 1 and 2, and we show how our peers that Scope 1 and 2 is not a large part of the CO2 emissions. A large part occurs from the Scope 3 emissions. If you look at us, our Scope 1 and 2 is only 8%, some of our peers between 2%-7% on the Scope 1 and 2. However, to achieve, as I said in the earlier slide, to achieve the reduction to 40%, we reduce our Scope 1 and 2, which is Paris-aligned, as do our peers in the area, are also Scope 1 and 2 Paris-aligned.
However, in Scope 3, we are the only mining company, or really one of the only mining companies who have reduced to that extent on Scope 3, where we can get our Scope 1, Scope 2, and Scope 3 down to 40%, and our peers are not Paris-aligned on Scope 3. They don't have an achievement to reach net zero by the year 2050. Most of that comes from us, where we are reducing our Scope 3 emissions with a reduction of our coal production over the years. As I said, as we deplete our coal assets, and our coal reserves, we will get to those levels. The next slide shows how do we then fill up the portfolio as we reduce our coal production over the years and getting to that lower amount by the 2050 and the 40% by 2035.
It clearly shows that coal is not a large part of our portfolio today. It represents about 5% of our revenue, about 10% of our EBITDA. As it depletes itself. We can grow our business in the other metals and the metals which the world needs for this renewable future. We have a large amount of brownfield expansions, which we show on this page. There is the possibility of greenfields, and as you know, we try to avoid greenfields with the risks involved with greenfields. We're fortunate enough in these commodities, which the world requires in this new renewable future, we have expansion capacity at our copper mines at Collahuasi, at Lomas Bayas, at Coroccohuayco, and at Mutanda to increase our copper production. We also have expansions on our nickel business and the same on cobalt.
When we put the Mutanda restart and restart the Mutanda mine in the DRC, we can increase our cobalt production and large amounts of zinc brownfields around our portfolio of assets. We're fortunate enough in these commodities, which the world will demand in the renewable future as we reduce fossil fuels. Glencore is extremely well set up and it can continue maintaining its portfolio with the reduction of coal, but the increase of these other commodities. With that, I think I can hand over to Peter, who can talk about the production profile of our assets. Peter?
Okay, thank you very much, Ivan. If you can just move on to the next slide. Thank you. 2021 reflects our post-COVID pickup. As was reported in our quarterly production updates, we were affected in some of our regions and some of our operations. Essentially all have recovered from the impacts of COVID. Although at Koniambo, we're still working through it, and I'll explain that a bit later on. In terms of the period that we're reflecting in the presentation, we see copper steady, and I'll take you through the forecast in a bit more detail. Copper is steady over the period with growth at Katanga, which gets essentially to a steady state next year, and then partially offsetting Mopani, which, as you would know, we're going through a possible divestment process.
We also have some copper declines in Kidd and Matagami in Canada as they get towards the end of their lives. In zinc through the period, we sit around 1.25 million tons. We have Zhairem in pre-commissioning phase at the moment, and it will be ramped up next year. That will offset reductions in Matagami, Kidd, Tishinsky, Lady Loretta and Iscaycruz, so operations that are getting to the end of their lives. Nickel through the periods of slight growth, steady overall. We'll be ramping up Koniambo in 2021, and this will offset some of the expected decline of output at our Sudbury operations as we phase out of the current areas and start ramping up in the Onaping Depth project area just after this period. Coal is essentially a steady state.
You'll see on the next slide that we have actually stepped down from forecasts we've given in the past, reflecting essentially our Prodeco care and maintenance position. I think it's just worth mentioning that we see for oil pickup as Chad restarts and we move to the gas phase at the Alen field in Equatorial Guinea. There is a strong focus on operating excellence through this in the business, and we're continuing to review options around our tail assets. I do think it's worth noting that we don't generally include growth tons in these forecasts until projects are approved. The shape of this curve that you can see in 2023 will potentially benefit from growth opportunities highlighted in that slide that Ivan showed earlier on the brownfield opportunities. Just moving to this slide here. This essentially gives our production outlook over the period.
I think it is worth commenting that copper is down from our previous forecast, that essentially reflects the tonnage that we've taken out from Mopani, as we've not factored Mopani tonnage into the forecast, given the discussions with the Zambian authority and the government. There's also a couple of timing differences at some of the mines, but essentially Mopani is the main difference there. Zinc has also come down from our previous forecast. We deliberately stalled the startup of Zhairem, given where the market was earlier this year, and the ramp up has been delayed into 2021. We're also seeing some tonnages come off in our Latin American operations from some of the small operations there. Those tonnages were fairly marginal anyway, so we pushed those out of the schedule.
What we do have there is 1.24 million to 1.25 million tons of zinc that is very attractive in current markets. Nickel, slightly down from previous forecasts, are showing a shift in the Koniambo schedule, which I will talk about. Coal, as discussed. I think it is worth highlighting, we always talk about the main commodities, but we've got some other payables. Gold through the period sitting close to 900,000 ounces. Silver at around 34 million ounces, making us one of the biggest silver producers in the world. Obviously we get the benefit of platinum and palladium and rhodium as byproducts from various operations as well as lead, essentially from our zinc lead businesses. I was talking about oil earlier and our schedule sits around nine million barrels of oil equivalent. Obviously we have our vanadium business in South Africa as well.
Another very significant portfolio of payable commodities over and above the main ones that we talk about usually. Moving on to the next slide. We continue to talk about the focus assets. At Katanga, first of all, year to date, this business has performed to plan, and we are now operating near nameplate capacity. The project is largely complete. Acid plant was successfully commissioned a few months ago. In 2021, we're forecasting that Katanga will go up to around 290,000 tonnes of copper and 30,000 tonnes of cobalt. In the years after that, we will be running it at the 300,000 tonnes, and obviously higher cobalt numbers than that, close to 40,000 tonnes of cobalt per year. This is a long life asset and a highly valuable asset for Glencore. Really, our copper team should be congratulated on the excellent work that they've done there this year.
Mopani, as I said, we've not factored in, and you will be aware of our discussions with the Zambian government. Koniambo this year, Koniambo was caught up with COVID-19. It caught us in the middle of an annual furnace shutdown. We needed to demobilize the workforce and just the furnace that was on shutdown was kept on shutdown. Instead of taking four to five weeks, we actually had this line down for several months and only started it towards the end of Q3. This means that we essentially have run line 2, the other furnace, for many months longer than the planned campaign life that we had, and under the circumstances, actually did very well.
Bottom line is that Koniambo has been run as a one-line business this year, and we expect to run it as a one-line business for a few more months as we get back to our normal operating cycle of rebuilds, which historically have been on an annual type basis. Given the way that line two actually performed this year, that's something that we are reviewing, which bodes well for long-term capacity. We've also this year, which is a real positive for Koniambo, completed a major planning exercise that focuses on key projects that relate to debottlenecking the system and also focus on operating performance. Those projects are progressing well and when completed, will support the ramp up to a 40,000 tonnes rate, which we should be achieving over the next 18 months.
Despite COVID restrictions and with the assistance of the New Caledonian Government, we have actually been able to make some changes on the ground there as well. Today we, in fact, do have the structure and the skills in place that will support that plan that we've put in to facilitate the ramp up. Moving on to emissions, Ivan touched on what our emissions ambition is. I think we are somewhat unique in the fact that we do look at our total footprint. We don't just look at Scope 1 and 2, we look at Scope 1, 2, and 3 for our business. As you saw earlier in one of Ivan's slides, we have a total footprint of around 376 million tonnes of CO2 equivalent, of which 8% or around 30 million tonnes is Scope 1 and 2.
That means 350 million tonnes roughly, or 92% of our emissions is Scope 3. Of this, 95% is principally associated with coal. Our emission reductions will come from two sources. The first one really is portfolio change, and is the most important feature of which coal and the depletion of coal results in the bulk of the 40% reduction of emissions between 2019 and 2035. There is certainty around this. We understand our resource and reserve base. We understand these operations and the factor that we are investing into our metals business, and that allows those emissions to be depleted, and allows this transition that we are talking about within Glencore. Also, as assets deplete, their Scope 1 and 2 emissions obviously also go away. We are able to reliably estimate these reductions as we undertake detailed annual life of asset planning processes.
An important feature of this work is tracking the associated carbon footprint specific to each and every asset through this. We also expect that each of our assets develop and maintain marginal abatement cost curves, which identify and rank carbon reduction opportunities for their sites. Not only does this enable us to target value accretive opportunities to reduce emissions, but also in a world where carbon prices will increase and definitely increase, we can stay ahead of the curve and actually manage carbon in a manner that gives us a competitive advantage. We are looking at a range of opportunities in our marginal abatement cost curves, which we aggregate across the whole of Glencore. The most attractive ones at the moment are basically virtual power purchase agreements, which look at substituting current high carbon energy for renewables.
At the moment, we're targeting around 2 million tons of potential emission reduction. We've got projects looking at the use of waste heat in our processes. We've got energy efficiency projects. As you would know, we already have a mine being developed, which relies on battery electric vehicles for its operations, which is not just about the battery electric vehicles, but has a host of benefits, including reduced ventilation and the energy costs associated with that. Can we just move to the next slide, please? This is a really interesting slide, and this is really a snapshot of how the world will look at producers, and this is looking at copper in particular. No doubt as the world rapidly transitions to low carbon economies, products will be evaluated in terms of their associated carbon footprints.
This work looks at the global copper production curve and ranks in terms of carbon intensity. That's what the customer will be looking at, the carbon intensity of the product that they will buy. The carbon here that we look at includes Scope 1 and Scope 2, carbon emissions from freight and transport of copper, the carbon emissions associated with smelting and refining. Already, you can see where Glencore is positioned, well down the bottom of the curve in the first quartile. Already a very significant proportion of our product comes from hydro-powered operations. This obviously includes our African copper operations as well as Canadian copper. Hence why Glencore is so favorably positioned on this carbon intensity curve. Clearly, our nickel business is also well-placed, particularly with our Canadian operations. Can you move to the next slide, please?
Here we're going to talk about carbon capture and utilization and storage. I think it's worth noting that the IEA says that without carbon capture, and again, Dr Fatih Birol has made the statement this year, that without carbon capture and storage, that projected energy and climate goals will be impossible to achieve. The word impossible is his word. I think it's something that is not just worth noting, but this is something that Glencore recognized some years ago, when we formed an entity known as CTSCo, Carbon Transport and Storage Company. Our CTSCo has been working together with the backing of other coal producers in Australia, the Australian Federal Government, the Queensland Government, and together with the Millmerran Power Station to take carbon capture forward within Queensland.
Our CTSCo is currently doing appraisal work on EPQ10, which is a tenement in Queensland and is one of the most significant on-land storage tenements in Australia. The capture side of the equation, this work is undergoing front-end engineering design and studies for a post-combustion capture plant capable of around 110,000 tons per annum is under review. On the storage side, we've already drilled a 2.7 km deep well into formations that look highly prospective in terms of capture in this area. The long-term vision is that EPQ10 will lead the way in Australia. This area is capable of becoming a major CCS hub, supporting a range of industries, including power, cement, and even clean hydrogen production. At the end of the day, this is all about proven technologies. What is really required here is a demonstration to stakeholders and communities that this can be done responsibly. Let's move on.
Thanks. I'd just like to talk about our safety performance. Last year, we had 17 fatalities across the business, and regrettably, this year we've had eight year-to-date. You know what our position is, no fatality is acceptable, and that is understood by everybody in the business. Safety remains our top priority. We have done a lot of work on this, and to get to where we need, we have undertaken deep dive reviews to understand leadership aspects in our challenge areas. We know that line is accountable, and we have restructured operating structures across a large part of the business, but we have also restructured safety support functions across a large part of the business.
There is a very keen focus on accountability around safety and making sure that the right work is done by those accountable and making sure that the actions and the plans we have in place are followed up in a robust manner. Our safe work program that has resulted in well over 100 of our sites being fatal-free for prolonged periods is being revamped and re-rolled out with a massive focus on those assets that perhaps didn't get it right the first time. Move on. On the broader topic of HSEC, our focus is on consistently good performance across all of the assets and all of the aspects of health, safety, environment, and community.
To this end, we are going through a process of restating policies and standards which we have developed with input from appropriate stakeholders and which we will be rolling out in the new year. We have the structure and skills in place to support that rollout as we do the governance processes. We are planning for a quality implementation. Lastly, on tailings, we are aligning our already leading practice tailings standard with the new global industry standard for tailings management. The work we have done on tailings for the last five-plus years has positioned us well in this particular area. Thanks. Next slide.
Okay. Steve?
Yeah. Thank you all, and good afternoon or good morning, depending on your location. If we're on slide 22. Just some high-level topics. Nothing particularly groundbreaking on this slide, and we'll get to most of the points later on. Of course, balance sheet's been obviously a priority and will remain so in the long term, and continue our commitment towards the strong BBB, Baa space, which is where we currently obviously find ourselves. Towards the right-hand side, around capital allocation generally. There is always optimization around the portfolio through divestments and acquisitions. As Peter mentioned, Mopani is probably the one that's the most topical at the moment. There is engagement between ourselves and the government around a potential transaction there. We'd expect a few more bits and pieces also to come through 2021.
As we focus on the sort of core of business and if you like, some of the non-core tail assets. There's also, as Peter said, there will be a focus on investing in various transition commodities as we go forward, the shape of the business, and particularly any value accretive Scope 1 and 2 abatement projects that may materialize through power carbon capture and the likes as well. Responsible stewardship amid the reduction of the coal business over time as the energy systems decarbonize. If we just jump onto slide 23 around capital structure and the debt profile of the business as well. The medium-term target. These are numbers that would be very familiar to all of you. Although we have a maximum less than two times net debt EBITDA through the cycle, that requires you not to be there continuously.
You'd need to be lower down that when you do get some of the down drafts and you do go through cyclical lows, that you would never get to a position that you get towards those levels. We've said we want to be towards one times, that would ensure we stay less than two times, depending on cycles and any stress scenarios that one may wish to deploy around a particular business. The 10-16 debt range continues to apply. We'll look at the short-term focus and the medium and longer term RMI 15-20 as well, just to give you an overall shape then between the overall funding that would then be sort of 25-35 less RMI, where it may be during particular cycles to deliver the net debt in the 10-15 or so range as well.
The 2020 focus as we've come through our half year results as well, which I'll obviously talk to, the sort of key nearer term priority was to get back as soon as possible within to that 10-16 range. I'll show you the credible pathway on the bottom right. That repositions us to reinstate the distributions which we spoke about. We're quite confident that we will get there given both cash flow generation in the business and how we've seen the performance during H2 as well. If we roll that into 2021, everything sort of haloed around the maintained strong BBB ratings, as we've said. As a nearer term or a medium term, additional deleveraging, would like to see us towards the end of 2021 reach the middle of that 10-16 range as well. I'll show you what the pathway looks like there.
Long term would be to position the business towards the lower end of that range, which would allow flexibility, and obviously provide the cushions as we go through particular cycles as well through the business, and would be a particularly strong financial profile and balance sheet under any scenario as we go forward. On the top right, that's just been a rolling trajectory of net debt. As you see, we did peak in the $19.7 at the half year. The main contributor there as we went through quite comprehensively in the half year results, was a $3.1 billion non-RMI working capital outflow, all on account of the oil business, and the reset in light of a very low both volume and price environment that we have. Some of that has clearly reversed given both oil price and volumes.
We've said we want to get near term back within the 10 to 16. That bottom right is just a repeat of the chart that we had back in August, which was using, again, the credible path 19.7. How do we get back below 16 by the end of the year? This was a macro picture of three or four months ago. That's obviously improved since then. We'll be using placed a $4 billion annualized free cash flow spot prices at that particular point in time. We rolled $2 billion of that forward, which is the FFO and the CapEx, and it was just a calculated assumption to say of the working capital outflow, we just needed 0.8 of that to reverse in H2 to get below the 16. That's just a repeat of that, and it is pretty credible.
It's only got more credible as we've gone through the period from August through to where we stand obviously at the moment. That should put us good shape balance sheet-wise, net debt as we start off 2021 in a few weeks' time. Onto the shareholder returns, again, just repeating the base distribution, if you like, predicated on a $1 billion marketing fixed amount, given the more stable cash generating part of that business, at a sort of 50% minimum payout ratio around that business and 25% of the industrial attributable free cash flows across the business as well. If we look at Obviously we've shown some cumulative distributions over the year at about $19 billion since the IPO.
2020, unfortunately, and hopefully over the long term as we plot many sort of years out, will be a blip in the overall long-term distribution and capital return profile of Glencore. 2020 was an unusual year clearly on multiple factors. We did suspend the distribution, as we've said, to accelerate and prioritize acceleration of net debt back in the range, and just reflecting the economic uncertainty as we've had through the sort of Q2, Q3, some of which is clearly alleviated in the last few weeks as to where we sit at the moment. As we approach 2022, assuming we get within the 10 and 16 range by the end of the year, the intention is to reinstate some distributions of the full-year results. We would set it around the base distribution, the $1 billion marketing plus 25% of industrial free cash flow.
At various times during the year, at least around full and half year results, we would look as to whether there's additional excess capital that is sustainable and appropriate within the trajectory of the business and other uses of cash flow that may be there to return additional capital via special distributions, and/or buybacks as we've looked at in the past as well. If we just march on to slide 25, that just shows our CapEx profile this year, and the projection over the next three years, top right, some of the bars also against where we were last year. This year starting, was quite a different world 12 months ago. We were $5.5 billion of CapEx around a range of scenarios and where the business was tracking. This year we'll come in about $4. We've held that number the last six or nine months.
We should close around that number. Quite a significant reduction, which has preserved cash flow and clearly focused on the profitable generation of assets and also market discipline around curtailment of assets, COVID-related deferrals and the likes as well. Of that $1.5 billion reduction that we've had this year, as we spoke about already back in August, around half of that was permanently locked in lower cost in a lower sort of U.S. cost-based environment through what was originally stronger U.S. dollar FX rates early in the year. There was deflation and there was low oil prices. There was a range of low input costs into the business. Those are permanent savings locked in.
There's also the portfolio adjustment effect now of having some assets on extended care and maintenance or at least lower scale operations, the likes of Prodeco, a little bit on the E&P side of the business. Clearly there was some deferral of some CapEx from 2020 out through to the 2021, 2022 years. Some of that may have been in the form of pre-strip developments in some of the big open cut operations, which is physically COVID related activities that was prioritizing production as opposed to pre-strip. There's a bit of that that's obviously got pushed out. For the most part, our CapEx at $5 billion for next year, $4.6 billion, $4.4 billion, is comfortable levels. It's maintained around the business. It's focused on the cost CapEx trade-off around generating superior returns within this business as well.
There is, if you look down on the bottom right, there's that slight step up in the sustaining CapEx into 2021. This year down at $3 billion. Longer term, it's more around $3.2 billion-$3.3 billion. It steps up a little bit in 2021. That really is that shifting of some of those deferrals, if you like, from 2020 to 2021, which you can sort of mount the case that this year there was probably about $300 million at least of 2020 into 2021. There are some fleet replacements that we've accelerated, which have very strong payoff credentials and lower efficiencies and costs, particularly in some of our large South American operations and Lomas Bayas are going through some fleet replacement process.
One of the big things just to highlight in this CapEx profile compared to last year, which wasn't there, which is in our expansion CapEx, is a large desalination plant project, which is going to be occurring at Collahuasi going forward. That's going to be starting next year and running over the 2021 to 2023 period or so. You know the partners in that operation, we're at 44%. The overall size of that is circa $1.7 billion. Our share, we've got $700 million or so of desalination expenditure spread across 2022 and 2023 are the bigger years. There is a bit in 2021.
The reason it's expansion, you can argue it should be in the other category, but it's being done to preserve and access water usage over the long term, but it's also done at capacity and scale that will allow that operation to significantly ramp up, if it chooses to do so at some time in the future as well. There is some CapEx upfront. Future expansion options of that particular operations will then be very capital efficient as it's more just work around the actual mine site as well. The whole port, the whole water treatment and the pipeline project is part of this CapEx profile going forward. We've got average CapEx $4.6 billion over the next three years. Maybe for what it's worth, accounting depreciation for those that look at that is more in the low sixes.
Our cash CapEx is very sustainable around these levels. It's not going to be linked to accounting or some of those depreciations that may be there. The accounting very much reflects historical M&A, and the required asset accounting and merger accounting that we do with Xstrata back in 2013. This is the level of cash CapEx and underpins the free cash flow of the business as well. On page 26, just on the marketing side, just re-emphasizing guidance, very much around the top end of our $2.2 billion-$3.2 billion range. You saw the strong performance of $2 billion for the first half. Very volatile and structurally supportive conditions in the first half. That's very much on track as we go through. In terms of current market conditions, we've noted there suggested 2021 earnings towards the middle of the long-term range. Of course, it's very early.
We haven't even sort of clocked over into 2021, so really until March and June next year when we'll have a better sense of how that's going. We've also for our spot analysis, we pegged it at the middle of that range, and that's a reasonable point as well as we work through. Just to point out as well, it gets lost a little bit in these numbers as well as we go through. The agricultural business in which we have the 49, 50% share with our Canadian partners. It's also performing very well this year as well, and the prospects of that business also look good going forward. Their capital structure is good. They're in very good shape, and it itself could be a source of cash flow and distributions as we go forward, which hasn't been the case since that transaction was done in 2016.
If we go on to page 27, again, slides that would be very familiar to you all. These are the building blocks around our guidance, and Peter's given the production slide back on slide 14. It's worth, for those that want to just skim ahead, also to slide 47, is the one where we put some of the macro assumptions, pricing, and FX that's gone into both the spot cash flows, but it's also relevant for this, because byproducts and costs, FX is a key ingredient, and to the extent you're giving cost structures for copper, of course, zinc and cobalt is important for byproduct there. If we're talking zinc, gold and some of the other precious metals are obviously very important there. We've cut these off at 20th of November.
It is conservative net against where we are today, and I'll give you a sense later on what the potential uplift if we were to recut those numbers today as well. This was using, on page 47, you would have seen copper price at that 20th of November was $7,262. It's $7,750 or so today. That's up 6.7% as well. Oil, in particular, has gone $45-$49 a barrel between then and now. That's up nearly 10%. Gold, on the other hand, for obvious reasons, has come down about 1.7%. Some of the currencies also that we're most exposed to, Australian dollar, Canadian, South African rand, are up or stronger by about 1.5%. Keeping all that in mind, we've locked in those rates as of 20th November. This is a moving target. We can be updating these every five minutes if that's how it's exposed.
Copper business across the production for 2021, that macro environment as well, we expect a very strong cost performance in 2021 at $0.87 a pound. As we've said in the past, this is a fully loaded cost from which to generate EBITDA. It's all freight, it's credits for custom smelting. It reflects discounts also to the realization of EBITDA that goes in the business. The numbers that we've got, the full-year 2020 forecast numbers, if it was the 106 that's there, we're not updating for the full-year 2020. You'll see those numbers when we report full-year results in February next year. We've just pegged that in. That's where we were back in August, which is slightly rearview mirror because there's various assumptions around FX and byproduct prices that clearly go into that. $0.87 is where we are today.
Zinc, we're at - 11 post the gold credits and $0.27 pre-gold credit. Again, a very good, strong first quartile performance. That's with zinc now at these prices. Zinc business overall is generating $3 billion of EBITDA, which has put it into a very strong position for this business as well. Nickel around the second quartile, flattish performance as well. We showed at pre and post Koniambo. Koniambo is clearly the key one to get scale and the cost advantages that will come with that as it ramps up over time. Coal at a $47 equivalent thermal export cost structure. A slight increase from where we were tracking during the year on account of stronger currencies, particularly AUD and ZAR as well. What does that all mean on page 28? These are the build-ups.
For the purpose of this presentation, we're showing, as Ivan said earlier, on $14.1 billion of EBITDA. The detailed calculations of all these numbers is on page 41 in the presentation as you go through. $14.1 rolls down to $5.6 billion of free cash flow. After that, $5 billion of CapEx for 2021, which itself then declines into the mid-four as at CapEx as we roll into 2022 as well. Very strong cash-generating position. If we just on spot basis today as recutting numbers now, it would be close to a little bit above $14.5 billion, $14.6 billion, with free cash flow around $6 billion at that period. That's where copper would be up about $500 million at $6.1. Zinc would decline a bit to do with lower gold prices, maybe $200 million, and coal would be up $200 million to $300 million as well.
The coal numbers for the purpose of this 1.6 was based off a $70 Newcastle price. Particularly some of the price realizations for South African coal are very strong at the moment, which are very helpful to the EBITDA in that particular business as well. With these sort of numbers as we roll into next year, if we get through the $16 billion of net debt by the end of the year, generating $5.5 billion-$6 billion of free cash flow, wanting to be in the middle of our net debt range by the end of that year does leave quite material potential to both reinstate and to support shelter distributions as we go forward as well. Business as usual. With that, I'll hand back to Ivan.
Thanks, Steve. Okay, turning to the next slide. It's a bit what I mentioned earlier. As the world decarbonizes energy, it requires multiple new mines in the commodities which are required for this purpose. As I said earlier, if you just take copper as an example, this slide displays how much more copper the world is going to have to produce to meet these energy demands. As I said earlier, between 2010 and 2019, the world was increasing production by about 500,000 tons of copper, and between 2020 to 2035, we have to grow another 930,000 tons of copper per annum. Between 2035 and 2050, we got to add another 1 million tons of copper per annum. If you have a look at, for the world to achieve this, there's limited shovel-ready projects around the world for new copper mines.
There are various copper mines coming into production, where they're going to hit the market in the next two to three years, but nothing beyond that. The world has a challenging task to meet this new demand, and it's going to have to go to new geographies. It's going to have to go to new locations where they're lacking infrastructure, and you don't have the mining expertise in those new areas. It's clear we're going to have to go to those areas to get the copper. There's other ideas. Of course, we're going to have better technology to get the lower grades which we're mining around the world and to make sure those lower grades are viable. Glencore is a leading supplier of these type technologies through Glencore Technology and XPS.
We're going to have to have higher rates of recycling in order to meet the world's demand, recycling of batteries, et cetera, and I'll talk about that, where Glencore is positioned. Looking at the profile of, if you have a look at the slide on the right, the pipeline of projects is very limited, and if you look at it in the past, in 2002, we had the boom starting in the copper market, and then there were projects available which could come into production and eventually feed the demand that was occurring with the Chinese demand that had started coming in 2002. It looks like now in 2020, we have the same demand profile, if not more than we saw in 2002.
As I said, the world's going to need close to 1 million tons of new mines producing copper every year, and there's nothing on the drawing board and extremely difficult to achieve. It's clear we're going to have to look elsewhere, new geographies, better technology, in order to meet this demand. If you turn to the next slide, what we try indicate here is how well Glencore is set up for the circular economy that is existing. We built up the company over 45 years from pure trading. We are now large in the industrial business, as you've seen with the presentation by Peter. Where we sit today, all our mines are well ramped up and producing extremely well.
We have the large marketing profile, and we show the slide how much tonnages we do market, and we have a way to deliver our own product and third-party product to our customers. One part of the business we haven't emphasized in the past and how important it is going forward is the recycling profile which Glencore has. We source materials from more than 30 countries to process through our global network of metallurgical assets. We're collecting scrap, electronic scrap in all different parts of the world to feed into the Horne smelter. We're processing of copper and precious metals at Horne, Altonorte, PASAR, Mount Isa, CCR, and our PASAR refineries. We have our Portovesme smelter, which processes zinc dust. We have nickel and cobalt, where we have the Sudbury smelter. We're including mobile phones and EV batteries are processed through there and the Nikkelverk refinery.
Glencore really has a full circle of production profile, recycling, delivery to customers. An important part we're trying to emphasize is the importance of the recycling within the Glencore profile. Turning to the next slide, we just want to emphasize that because of our large trading base and the amount of products we trade around the world, we're able to develop in the various products green metals to our customers. Certain customers only wish to purchase green metals. Because of our trading business, we procure a large amount of green aluminum, green copper, et cetera, and therefore, we're able to deliver that to our customers. I think we're uniquely positioned for the future. If you look at the next slide, and we've been talking about it now, the company's been in operation for 45 years, since 1974.
We are now a leading global producer, marketer, and recycling of the important commodities for the renewable energy future. We are extremely well-positioned there. We're unique amongst our peers with the medium, as we mentioned earlier, the medium-term Paris-aligned total CO2 emissions. We will reduce our Scope 1, 2, and 3 by 40% by 2035 and reaching net zero by Scope 1, 2, and 3. We also mentioned that we are responsible stewardship of the declining coal business. As I said, our coal business will decline over the next years and eventually get to extremely low levels, just producing maybe the high-quality Australian coal in 2050. We have the right commodities for the decarbonization scenarios for Glencore going forward. I think we're in extremely strong position. Finally, what is important now, the company is well set up.
As you heard from Peter on the production side, all our assets are performing extremely well. Koniambo is the last of the ramp-up assets to start reaching its nameplate capacity. Katanga is performing extremely well. All the assets across the profile are meeting their nameplate capacity. We also have long-term assets. We have low cost assets, low cost producing assets with long life. We're well set up there. From a financial point of view, Steve's taken you through the financial position. We're reducing our debt down to extremely low levels, and we're well set up financially to generate large cash and start paying out large dividends or other methods of payments to shareholders.
In that position, I believe in the scenario of the metals that we have for the world going forward, the company's extremely well set up, and it's to a level where I believe it's time for me to hand over the reins of the company to the next younger generation. You've heard me say before, we're going to the third generation of the leaders or the heads of the leaders of the company. As you know, over the past few years, we've been changing out the leaders, and I'm pleased to say all the leaders who have taken over the various assets within the company on both the trading and operating side of the business have come from internal appointments. I'm proud to say we've always ensured there's a great succession in the company, that we have leaders there to take over the business.
Therefore, it allows me the pleasure to be able to say, I've always said that I wish to leave the company by the age of 65. I believe that's the right time that I should be leaving the company, or any leader should leave a company of this size and nature and the work ethic that we have in the company, and it's time to hand over to the new generation and a younger leader. I'm also happy to say that over the years in which I've been trying to develop within the company, as I said earlier, within the various divisions to have great succession. I've had a great bench of people who we could put forward to take over this company.
You've heard names have been put forward, and there are various people who could take this position, and I'm very happy to say that in the succession process, there could have been three to four parties who could easily have taken over the position of this new generation, the 45-year-old generation who should be running this company and taking it forward. We've decided that over the next six months, I will be working closely with Gary Nagle, who will be taking over from me. Gary's been working with me for a long time. Gary started with me in the coal division 21 years ago. He's 45 years old. He's had great experience around the world. He's been living in Switzerland. Initially, when he joined the company, he ran our coal assets in Colombia.
He then moved on to South Africa, where he ran our ferroalloy assets and he was head of the ferroalloy division. He moved to Australia, where he has taken control of the coal division. I'm very proud and happy to say Gary can take this company forward in the future. He will maintain the culture and the style this company has, and as you can see, the way it's well set up with the right commodities of the future, I think this company is in great safe hands for the future, and I'm happy to have him being the custodian of my shareholding in the company, which I will maintain in the company going forward. Hopefully, he will look after my shareholding like he looks after all shareholders. With that, I think we can hand over to questions.
Your first question comes from Jason Fairclough from Bank of America. Please go ahead.
Good morning, everybody, thanks for the presentation, Ivan. Just a quick follow-up, if I could, on Peter's comments. A question on the jelly bean or the bubble chart on page 10. If we look at all these growth or life extension projects, how much is in your base case CapEx numbers for these projects, if anything? I'm guessing not much. Just as a follow-up, based on your bullish view of the world, why wouldn't you be ramping up your CapEx on these high-return brownfield projects sooner rather than later? I guess with that, I'm interested in what's the limitation ultimately on executing these projects. Is it people or capital or a market view?
Hi, Jason. Peter here. Thanks for your question. The first thing is, I did mention the fact that on that curve, 2023, where you see it curving down is because we don't put the projects into the plan until they've been through the final stages of the stage gate feasibility process. The production is not in the plan, and nor is the capital. We'll bring them in when we're satisfied that it meets our hurdle rates. In terms of brownfields, generally, we focus on making sure that the brownfield projects, and they usually are the ones that have the best returns, tend to go first. In terms of constraints, these projects have all been taken or all progressing through a proper stage gate process.
Whether it's Collahuasi or Coroccohuayco or Lomas Bayas extension, those projects, we understand the resource requirements in terms of people, capital, equipment, and so forth. We're comfortable that when they do get there, they can go forward. There will always be constraints, but we're in the same market as everybody else. I think you've seen the demand side of the equation today, so that should be very supportive of these going forward when the time is ready and the market is right.
On the pricing, Jason, when do we pull the trigger, or why are we not pulling the trigger already? You know we're more about feeding supply into the market when demand is actually there and not when we anticipate demand is there. Now, you're correct, we are bullish going forward with this new renewable energy future that the world is seeing. You yourselves are calling the copper market at $8,000. You have other parties calling the copper market at $10,000. We'd rather take the view not feed into that market in the expectation of it being there. We want to see it actually being there. It's clear there's some new production coming into the market next year of copper. We do believe it's going to be absorbed with the big demand with a renewable energy future.
Let's rather see it there. Seeing is believing. When it's there, we may be a bit late to the party, but rather late than early. If the copper price does go to eight, $10,000, which people are talking about, we'll be a bit late to the party, but these brownfields can be pulled relatively quickly, but let's not develop them and oversupply into a market which doesn't require it until we're certain it's required.
Jason, what I would also say, just in terms of those CapEx, it's not in production, it's not in CapEx. Assuming those projects come, these things are, for the most part, they're not these multi-billion greenfield projects. Maybe one or two, most are not. Whatever would be required would be spent and staggered over many years in some cases. On that page 25 we had of that 2023, where we had the $1.2 billion expansion. If we were to roll that to another year, for example, it sort of falls off a cliff because that's exactly the year when we start wrapping up all of our nickel big extensions.
The Onaping Depth, the Raglan expansions, the Collahuasi just on the desal plant in 2023 is about $350 million of that, and that's sort of done at that period. Sort of a CapEx overall for the business, if you assume sustaining 3,233, and you assume maybe just run overall CapEx at $four and a half, that does accommodate quite a bit of expansionary and some further CapEx to maintain and level out that production, particularly in the metals business.
Steve, just a super quick follow-up, if that's okay. Do you think then that, if three and a half is called stay in business CapEx, keep the lights on CapEx, is four and a half keep output flat or do you need to be investing a little bit more to keep output flat?
It's to keep output flat. In fact, you would then need to match it with a declining coal profile, so that actually reduces over time. It would even keep coal flat, but that's not what we're projecting. You would actually see a declining profile with coal, so potentially moving towards those 40% targets that we have and some reductions and some nearer term brownfields extension that we do have as well. To keep metals business, yes, flat, that would be able to accommodate that. At some point, you're probably going to have to model some decline through Colombia, South Africa and the likes, and CapEx will in fact sort of decline accordingly for the overall group as well.
Okay. Very helpful. Thank you very much, gentlemen.
Your next question comes from Alain Gabriel from Morgan Stanley. Please go ahead.
Yes. Hi. Thank you for the opportunity to ask the question. My question is on the disposals. You haven't really spent much time discussing those, and I guess those would help you accelerate your deleveraging. Do you mind giving us a bit of an update where we stand? You do have a fair list of assets that are not really contributing to your EBITDA, yet could accelerate your deleveraging. Any color there would be appreciated then. Does that factor in your net debt targets that you have just referred to for 2021? Thank you.
Yeah, thanks. We obviously certainly net debt and leverage, both trajectory and targets, is not reliant on or dictated by disposals. Obviously, we're in very good shape. We'll get through both confident in the pipeline as the pathway to get through 2016 by the end of the year. Pretty confident and comfortable with that trajectory generating between $5.5 billion and $6 billion of free cash flow pre-disposals and the likes as well. There's no target under those current scenarios that would either be materially dependent on or dictated by disposals. Of course, looking at the tail or anything non-core makes sense anyway within a business in terms of positioning and what moves the needle and where management, both capital and human resources are worth applying one's focus on. Yes, Mopani was one. Discussions are ongoing there.
I think even the government sort of indicated that things were on track to potentially be able to reach some sort of agreement there. That would be one. There is certain assets around the tail of the zinc business. Potentially we could look at actioning something in 2021 there, sort of particularly in the Latam area, and Peter referred to that as being partially where we maybe have taken tons out also in the last little while. And also around the small things, you will see also there is a small stake here. A few listed things we will continue to make progress on some of those. We will give more of an update at the full-year results in February. I wouldn't bake anything in. It will come when it comes. I don't think it is a material factor at the moment.
Thank you.
Your next question comes from Myles Allsop from UBS. Please go ahead.
Great. Thank you. Just thinking about your emissions targets. Obviously, you've got by far the most aggressive target now by 2050, much more aggressive than the other diversified miners. What sort of CapEx are you expecting to spend on it? Also, in terms of, you mentioned that only Australia may be producing coal in 2050. How much coal do you project to be producing as a group in 2050? That's the first question.
Yeah, look, we are able to meet those emission targets, as we said, by the coal production coming down. Exact tonnage by 2050 is hard to say, but as we show on that one slide we display, if there is, the amount of coal production will be offset with other items along the portfolio.
Including carbon capture.
Including carbon capture. CCS will be a big part of it. Other credits we'll have to look at, depending upon what our coal production and the demand for fossil fuel and coal during that period. We believe there will still be a demand for fossil fuel at that time, we're going to just have to see what type of tons we'll be producing then. We will be able to reach net zero by that stage with the other credits. Peter can talk about what the Scope 1 and 2 reductions are and how much it will cost.
Well, just in terms of the Scope 1 and 2 and the reductions there are already a number of them that should be self-funding. In fact, value accretive. As carbon prices increase globally, the curve that we have developed and the list of priorities, they all become gain. We're all operating as producers in the same environment. The fact is that Glencore has made an extensive study across all of its assets. We understand the opportunities as they exist today. We understand the technologies as they exist today. We will be funding this as we renew our assets and as we spend sustaining CapEx.
The intention is to always take whatever the next value accretive opportunity is. It's difficult to come up with an exact number as to what the cost is over time, but just have a look at estimates of what carbon prices will be, and there's a fair amount of debate about that, and discussion in the market, and I think that advises you the sort of money people will be prepared to invest. If you do it right, and you're on the right side of that curve, you're actually ahead of your competitors and you're competitive on that basis.
Okay, thanks. Maybe just one follow-up question. I completely sort of understand the logic of being a responsible owner of coal rather than divesting it to someone who would just want it for cash and keep running the business forever. If the share price kind of continues to trade at a discount and your shareholders don't accept this as a viable kind of strategy and still see simplistic coal bad, trade at a discount, Ivan, as the largest shareholder, kind of in six months time or second largest, would you support Gary exploring other options to ensure that you crystallize value with the group as a whole?
I think Gary will be doing the same as we've been doing over the years. Of course, coal has got a lot of noise. We take the view, we are the better custodian, as you said, and we'd rather deplete it and run it down in our hands, and we're achieving extremely low Scope 3 levels by having it in our hands. If shareholders believe otherwise, they just say this commodity does not sit in the Glencore portfolio of assets as we are a pure green company with the other commodities we have
This tarnishes us and affects our multiples we trade at, shareholders believe it is the better route to sell it off or spin it out or create a pure coal company, I am sure Gary would follow that path, and I support him in anything that creates value for shareholders. As I'll be sitting on the outside as a large shareholder, if he can create value for me, I'm all for it.
Yeah, that's very clear. Thank you.
Your next question comes from Liam Fitzpatrick from Deutsche Bank. Please go ahead.
Thank you. First question on the coal business, follow up on the previous question. That's interesting what you said in terms of leaving the door open for a potential carve-out. Maybe this question is really for Gary. How long do you wait before you take that decision? It seems like you've already seen investors in Europe voting with their feet in terms of the exclusionary policies and blacklisting towards thermal coal. Are you giving yourselves another year, or is it just a fluid process in terms of how you assess that? Linked to the whole coal issue, more a question for Steve on the financing side, are you starting to see any restrictions or issues with your key lenders because of your coal exposure?
Yeah, look, the first part you can see as we show in slide 10, we are depleting our coal. Coal doesn't represent a large amount of our business. We are a diversified mining company. If you look at slide 10, what does coal really represent? It represents around 10% of EBITDA. It represents 5% of revenue. I don't think we should be on the total radar screen of investors. However, as we've said, we will monitor it closely. We talk to all our shareholders. We keep in contact with all our shareholders.
If we do get a lot of pushback on thermal coal, and it's just a no-no, and it cannot sit in Glencore's portfolio, and a lot of investors say they cannot invest in Glencore because of its coal portfolio, yeah, I'm sure Gary would do the right thing and he would do the same talking to investors. We're gonna be working together for the first half of next year, and I'm not sure if that decision will have to be made, but thereafter, he would make that decision. If it's the right thing to do and you risk losing a large amount of your investors, it's the obvious thing that we'd have to do.
Yeah, Liam, just to close off on that. I mean, back to Ivan's point, at the point that whether there is certain critical mass that would be across either the debt or the equity part of the spectrum, then that may sort of put you into a point that one has to move in a certain direction. That critical mass doesn't exist anywhere at the moment. It's a lot of noise. At least on the equity side, as you would know, there's only one sort of large investor out there for its own reasons that has an absolute threshold, irrespective. I mean, we can have coal at 1%, but because you produce just over X number of tons, they say, well, you're an exclusionist. Most people would not take that sort of approach, and they can contextualize where it is.
It's declining, it's Paris-aligned, it's a small enough part of your business. The fact that spinning it off could have both unintended and sort of knee-jerky consequences if you take a rational, sensible approach to how to manage the sort of transition. You're not seeing that in any sort of critical mass. Certainly, on the banking side, there's no impact on Glencore across the overall sort of business itself. We're seen as a large diversified company that also produces a bit of coal and not a coal company. Of course, if they're just lending to or there's individual things to a specific company or a project that may trigger and may fall foul of some of their rules and stuff.
I think for as long as we're heading in this direction and Paris-aligned and the scale of that business, I think they engage constructively, and they see what we're doing as sensible and currently no impact. That's another thing we've got to watch and monitor, of course.
Okay. Thank you. Ivan, do you plan to remain active in the industry, or are you going to spend your time cycling in the Swiss mountains?
37 years in the industry, I don't intend to be active any longer. I'll just keep an eye on my shareholding.
Okay. Thank you. Good luck, Ivan.
Thanks a lot.
Your next question comes from Ian Rossouw from Barclays. Please go ahead.
Hi. Good morning, guys or afternoon. Just a couple of questions from me. Looking at your 40% reduction in Scope 1, 2 and 3, if you look at your production base in 2019 for coal, that was roughly 140 million tons. I guess, roughly assume 40% reduction of that by 2035 should be, I guess, you're still around 90-100 million tons of thermal coal by 2035. Presumably, you should be still approving some life extension projects over the next 10 years. Do you still think that's appropriate in this kind of environment?
Just as a follow-up to that, obviously with the decline in your fossil fuel business or coal, presumably, I guess the oil trading would also come under pressure in terms of volume. With that roughly contributing about a third of your marketing EBIT at the moment on a sort of normalized basis. Do you see ways to offset that in your marketing business, or is that just a decline you'll have to live with longer term?
I don't believe the marketing comes into our Scope 1, 2 or 3 emissions. It's just the marketing. It's the passing on of other parties produce product to consumers. It's not a product we produce ourselves.
I mean more from a volume perspective, Ivan, sorry. If the world starts to decarbonize and everyone cuts emissions by the same amount, clearly.
You're saying, okay, the volume reduces and therefore the volume of our oil business reduces. I get you. Yeah, that could possibly happen. As the world transforms from oil, we maybe will handle less barrels a year. We'll have to see how that evolves.
Yeah, that'll be compensated by the huge metals. Sort of in that scenario, you add copper, 60 million nickel of 9 million cobalt, whatever. I think your sort of natural hedge within all parts of the business around a decline in fossil is more than compensated on the metals.
As we trade all those different products and we're in that game, it's not as though we're not in the game of the other products. If we lose oil trading and we lose barrels on oil, we will definitely make it up on the trading of copper, zinc, cobalt and those other commodities which we trade. We're not concerned about that.
Just to answer your question, Ian, on the coal volumes, yes, your assumptions are right. It is directly proportional to that 40% if you start from 2019. The second part of your question regarding life extensions investment, we make those decisions as they come up. We obviously look at the environment and supply and demand. Essentially, we understand our reserves and resources around our key assets, and we're likely to see in Colombia that those assets there will all be depleted within that timeframe.
South Africa volumes tend to go down, and we are left with some core assets in Australia, obviously, which we expect there will be high demand for that high-quality coal for a prolonged period. Obviously, if there's a mine, if there's an extension and something that might have been a 2026 becomes a 2029, none of that would cut across or sort of go against these, both the targets around the 40% and net zero 2050. That's all baked in and sort of prioritized and discussed and aligned with those longer-term and medium-term targets.
Okay. All right. Thanks. That's clear. Is there any interest to go into some of the other sort of trading markets, such as renewables?
I don't think so. We'll look at it. I think we've got enough on our plate to handle right now to understand the renewables and start trading renewables, I don't know, but it's something for Gary and the future team to look at. I don't think it's big enough today for us to do, but it's something to look at in the future. Is it going to be a tradable commodity? The team here has to look at it.
Well, we're not really in power today for different reasons.
We're not in power today in a certain commodity. We've always felt unless we own the production base and we got a bit of input and insight into the supply/demand side by trading our own commodity, it's different. We've always found it difficult to trade something bland just off the cuff.
Okay. No, I see Trafigura is going into hydrogen. There's no intention for you guys to do something similar?
Well, we're investing in carbon capture storage. That's pretty big. I think we're putting more, a large amount of money into that area and not just $20 million to $60 million. We're really putting big money into that area of carbon capture storage, which we think is going to be important for our future coal business, as I say, to get the offsets and efficiencies.
Okay. All right. Thanks, Ivan. I'll leave it at that.
Thanks, Ian.
Your next question comes from Ephrem Ravi from Citigroup. Please go ahead.
Hi there. Thank you for the question. Just on the coal depletion, two sub-questions. One, how much of this depletion rate is essentially irreversible that you're planning? In 10 to 15 years, if all the clamor on coal and carbon declines, is there an option that you can actually reverse this process and net not deplete by the same amount that you are planning to today? Related to that, if you were looking to spin out or carve the coal business, wouldn't the lower volume and consequently profitability base price will be equal, be an impediment to getting a proper valuation? Is it better to make the decision on a carve-out or a spin-out quicker rather than later in a depleting coal price or coal volume environment?
Peter will talk about the volume side. If you're doing a spin-out, if you do it sooner than later, it's irrelevant, really, if you look at it. You're spinning out to existing shareholders. They will sell out at that time.
Keep it.
Keep it. It's up to them what they want to do with their shares. Will it trade for us? We will just do it at the right time when we believe, as I said earlier on the call, when we really feel the pressure is there and it should not be owned in Glencore, we'll do it at that time. Do it sooner than later, it's going to be what the opinion of those shareholders who want to own that coal company at the time, what multiple they believe it should be at.
We believe it will be a high cash generator. The business is a good cash generator, depending upon where the coal price will be at the time. With the depleting production around on seaborne coal, it should perform well. If it trades at a lower price because it’s not a great wanted company, it will have a very high dividend yield. You can talk about the depletion, Peter.
Well, there's no expectation. Glencore is fully aligned with IPCC and the view that carbon emissions have to be reduced and have to be reduced quickly. As such, we've set ourselves this target. We've set our strategy to do that, and there is no expectation that in 10 or 15 years' time, positions will change. I think it's pretty clear what is happening globally, and all governments around the world have signed up to that as we have. We position our company to be net zero by 2050 and lead the way in terms of large miners.
Thank you very much.
Your next question comes from Sergey Donskoy from Societe Generale. Please go ahead.
Yes, thank you. I have two small questions. One on strategy. I think that Glencore, as a company, has for a long time stood out in the sector as one that was always keener than other companies to look at inorganic growth opportunities. I think that today, this presentation sounds a different note. Would it be fair to say that you are now feeling comfortable with your portfolio of brownfield and greenfield growth opportunities, so you think that internal growth or organic growth is a right way for you going forward and have less or no appetite for inorganic expansion?
Second question, with coal production guidance now being considerably lower than it was a year or two ago, probably you have now headroom to absorb volumes of Cerrejón that you don't currently own if other shareholders consider selling out. Would that be something that you can consider in your new strategy regarding carbon, or you would rather avoid consolidating ownership in Cerrejón? Thank you.
Look, on the story of M&A and organic growth, of course, we've always had organic growth, and we've developed a lot of our mines organically that we've had brownfield expansions. We've done that over time, and we'll continue doing it. As we point out on this slide, in the commodities which the world requires, we have it. M&A, we will always look at M&A opportunistically. We're not aggressively going to look what companies we can buy or not buy. If stuff comes around and it makes sense to add to the portfolio, we'll always look at it.
Yes, we are a company that will grow through M&A if and when at the right time and the opportunity presents itself. In respect of coal, yeah, we can add or reduce our own production if there's something else around. We cannot talk about Cerrejón, a particular project, but yeah, we'll move our coal portfolio around if opportunities present itself, but we will remain within the guidelines that we have presented. We will reduce by 2035, 40%, and the zero by 2050, no matter how we may move that coal portfolio around.
Understood. Thank you much.
Your next question comes from Sylvain Brunet from Exane BNP Paribas. Please go ahead.
Good afternoon, gentlemen. My first question on basically ESG requirements. If you include everything basically from emission control system, social license to operate in general, where does that put the incentive price for copper on your calculation? Where would that put the threshold for new projects? If you've already looked at what this could do in the future to your project pipeline? Please.
Yeah. We're always cautious when we do bring on new projects. As I explained earlier in the presentation, there may be stuff that we can bring on that's always going to be add value in the brownfields, because we are low-cost producers with that brownfield organic expansion at a low cost. However, we will not bring on production where we think we will destroy the price of our existing production. To give you an example, we produce 1.2 million tons of copper today. It doesn't make sense to bring on a mine or something that will add 250,000 tons of copper, even though that may be extremely profitable, but it may destroy some of the value by having an effect on the copper price that affects our base of 1.2 million tons.
When we do look at expansions, we look at our overall portfolio and make sure we don't have an effect on the price that will hurt our existing production. We weigh in all these different scenarios. It's just not a matter of saying, "What is the copper price today? Where do we see it going forward?" It's a matter of how we don't want to destroy existing production by affecting the price.
Thanks, Ivan. Maybe last question, if I may. What sort of copper price do you think you have a chance to see before you hand over next year?
Through June 2010, it's hard for me to predict the copper price. If you look at the now, all I can talk about supply, demand. It's clear there is new supply coming into the market next year. How much exactly? If you take the stuff that's going out and the stuff coming in, is it going to be 500,000 tons or not? I'm not sure exact amount, 5-700, but it all depends on what happens with demand growth. If you get 2% to 3% demand growth in the world, you're going to eat that up.
There are minimal stocks in the world today. Yes, it's looking very good for copper going forward with the supply demand, but a lot of it's going to depend on how we get out of the COVID-19 and how the demand picks up. We all know China, which consumes around 50% of the world's copper, is extremely strong, the rest of the world weak. If the rest of the world gets out of the COVID, you get the demand pickup. It's all about the demand pickup and how strong it's going to be in the West.
Thank you. Take care.
Your next question comes from Tyler Broda from RBC. Please go ahead.
Great. Thank you. Ivan, congratulations on a long and successful career. I just wanted to ask just about the tail of assets. You've talked before about some potential divestments that are maybe a little longer tail than some of your peers. I guess with the environment starting to change, is there any change in thinking around that? Is there anything we should expect from a target perspective in divestments? Thanks very much.
Yeah, no, I think the tail we've always said we want to reduce. Peter doesn't like managing the tail. He likes assets that produce good EBITDA and good cash flow, and the tail doesn't do that. I think Peter's aggressively pushing for us to get rid of the tail. He has a few debates with the trading division, but I think we'll get there and we will start reducing the tail. The tail is really a hassle on the management time, and therefore it's better to get rid of it. It doesn't generate much EBITDA today, so it won't affect the profit profile of the company, but definitely assists on the management. Yes. We're continuing putting pressure on the departments to reduce the tail.
Yep. There's a focus on that, and clearly when we get something done, it gets announced and this is not the sort of stuff we can ever talk about until it is.
Yeah, fair enough. Thanks very much.
Your last question comes from Myles Allsop from UBS. Please go ahead.
Great. Thanks. Just a quick question on Mopani and the agri side as well. With Mopani, I think it's on the books with around $700 million. Do you hope to get any proceeds when exiting it? Also with agri, I thought it was curious that you rebranded back to Viterra. It must be frustrating that the market doesn't value that part of the portfolio in line with the way the listed agri traders trade. Do you think there is potential to crystallize value with the agri business and IPO-ing it, like was talked about with the Canadians a few years ago? Thank you.
Thanks, Myles. Can't say anything about Mopani until obviously there's something to say. When we've got something to announce, you'll see a potential deal and structure and how that works through. Obviously, there's good momentum towards potentially getting a deal done as obviously in the not too distant future. Viterra, the agribusiness, I don't know if frustrating is the right word, but there's a lot of value that's clearly there, and it's there to be sort of unlocked or appreciated at some point in time. I think when potential distributions and capital starts flowing from that business, I think that'll be sort of a catalyst. It'll start coming through our FFO. You'll see some free cash flow or some sort of return. It is a sector that has had a bit of interest in the last little bit.
You saw the Dreyfus Group had obviously invested, came in recently as well. It's an industry we've said for a while, potentially is going to go through some sort of consolidation phase or some period of alignment there and appreciation of value. I think our business there, sort of let's see how it goes. We'll report on it in February. We'll show the numbers. For those that are obviously willing to roll up their sleeves and do the work, you'll see some good data points. It's performing well, should have good momentum going into it. Yeah, at some point that business, you would think, also with the partners there, is not going to be in its current structure forever. At some point, yes, does it have a listing or does it do something? At some point, yes.
Yeah. Maybe just one last question as well. Has Tor hung up his boots and returned to the ranch, or is he kind of still lurking in the shadows?
No. Tor, we've always said, and I said, I will depart once the management team has been replaced. As I said, I am intending to leave in the first half of next year, and Tor will be doing the same within his division.
Okay. That's all right. Thank you.
Thank you. We have no further questions.
Okay. Thanks very much for the time today, it's been great talking to you over the years. I think we'll have to do one more of these, eh, Steve?
Probably, yes.
Okay. I still got one more to do with you after the full-year results. It's been an absolute joy working with all of you. Thank you.
Thank you. That does conclude today's conference. Thank you all for joining. You may now disconnect.