I would have to reread it closely, sorry. If you're asking about Manberg and Stenqvist, I think they forecast demand. Not sure about innovation - given they cite the USGS and their definition of reserves (mentioned some comments up) I would guess not, or that if they do they then had to explain their assumptions on it somewhat.

I don't know much/anything about forecasting. With napkin logic I see reserves defined by USGS as conservative, as market demand drives technological development making uneconomical deposits economical. Reminds me of rare-earth elements. They are not rare, it's just the economical deposits of them which are currently. Think there is a study on the boom in studies of rare-earth-elements lol.

Tangentially, I didn't even check to see if the reserves are global (I assumed it). Geopolitics is a concern for projections that I don't think was factored in. In the west there's an emergence of the term 'critical minerals'; a sort of linguistic reaction you might have when you see an economic powerhouse controlling supply of something you want.

Sorry I can't be more help. If you have an undying passion on the matter and can't get access to the study/studies let me know.

You wrote seven sentences concerning lithium and EV cars (batteries) to another commenter here four hours before I made my initial comment. The two sentences I've courted from you say plenty. Xx

How the study defines reserves is very important and likely not obvious unless you are interested in mining (directly or indirectly). There is uncertainty in the definition when you start forward projecting.

Anyhow, nickel is in study you linked. Also there are more elements in the table I mention. If you're interested in the green energy shift and the study in that article, it's highly relevant.

The article mentions batteries three times as a point of curiosity that has not been touched on by the study (lithium). "[...] mineral demands for batteries is much more complicated than for electric power and that’s what the team will do next".

When you're being propelled down the freeway at 80km/h on your vegan leather seats there's simply no time to be considering the Congo.

(I'm all for vegan leather and 80 km/h, it's just the other bit)

I skimmed Manberg & Stenqvist, a study this paper used to reference reserve figures: Manberg & Stenqvist use the US Geological Survey's definition, the amount deemed economical to extract or produce at time of determination, they go on to stress that some reserves will likely need to grow, cobalt and nickel most likely, this is best summed up in Table 4 of their paper.

I'm sure technology will keep marching, forward, certainly market demand, and thus more will become economical to mine, however skim reading Manberg and Stenqvist makes further doubt a claim such as "The analysis is robust and this debunks those (running out of minerals) concerns.

TLDR: a study this paper cites, as part of their definition for mineral reserves, acknowledges uncertainty in the amount of reserves for elements relevant to the green energy shift.

Freedom to say no. Autonomy.