Mining the deep ocean

Policymakers debate if we even need deep ocean mining and if we can do it safely.

See full article...

 

[Anton Longshot]

No.

 

[MMarsh]

We've been utterly destroying seabed ecosystems for many decades already, in the name of "fish are tasty".

It makes absolutely no sense to criticize or restrict deep sea mining without also criticizing and restricting bottom trawling.

We need serious international controls on both activities, and the trawlers are by far the more urgent and devastating group.

 

[TheMolesRevenge]

This is a joke right? Why the hell would Ars even link to this BS industry paid article?

it’s a horrific idea

But if it makes line go up by more than the potential fines, someone will do it anyway.

 

[C.M. Allen]

Engaging in widespread, destructive extraction of resources with little or no regard or thought paid to the short- or long-term damages and consequences. All so a minuscule minority of wealthy individuals can get a little bit wealthier.

I could swear I've seen this movie before. Remind me, how does it end??

 

[icrf]

The question isn't whether this will have a negative environmental effect (it absolutely will). The question is whether that effect is worse than mining on land. Are we okay with destroying 10% of the Amazon rainforest because we've already done it, but this is novel and seems worse?

 

[Steven N]

I’m just going to leave this here:

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c728ven2v9eo

From that article:

Here, at depths of 5km, where no sunlight can penetrate, the oxygen appears to be produced by naturally occurring metallic “nodules” which split seawater - H2O - into hydrogen and oxygen.

But hey, as usual, there’s money to be made, so fuck everything. /s

 

[Danathar]

You want to know where there is NO biological environmental impact?

Asteroids and the MOON.

Lets concentrate on those.

 

[Frank C.]

We discussed this at work, being in an industry that relies on the same materials that the renewable energy sector and EV sector rely on.

It came down to this:

We need the materials if we’re going to shake petroleum, another damaging material in its extraction. So which location presents less ecological damage? Continuing strip mining on the surface, bowling over rain forests, or going deep underwater? That really is the only question. Less ecological damage to the environment.

 

[Madestjohn]

… policy makers are not debating “if “
Industry is honing their justifications for what they’ve already decided to do

A year or so ago there were a series of ‘discussions’ as an industry shill was going around various science podcasts and the like trying to sell this as the environmentally beneficial option,
He was not only claiming we need the nickel and other rare earths to transition to a ‘green’ economy but pointing out how polluting and ecologically damaging current nickel mining is in places like indonesia, how its linked human rights abuses and devastation of local communities, and claimed that with so deep sea mining being out of sight and away from indigenous communities it would be a ‘better option’.

One of the marine biologists opposing asked a simple question’

Question :
“So are you claiming that industry will stop mining nickel in indonesia, Zambia and other surface sites once this more expensive and technically difficult option becomes available?”

Answer :
‘ … silence … ‘

 

[Frank C.]

The question isn't whether this will have a negative environmental effect (it absolutely will). The question is whether that effect is worse than mining on land. Are we okay with destroying 10% of the Amazon rainforest because we've already done it, but this is novel and seems worse?

That is the only question.

 

[lasertekk]

… policy makers are not debating “if “
Industry is honing their justifications for what they’ve already decided to do

A year or so ago there were a series of ‘discussions’ as an industry shill was going around various science podcasts and the like trying to sell this as the environmentally beneficial option,
He was not only claiming we need the nickel and other rare earths to transition to a ‘green’ economy but pointing out how polluting and ecologically damaging current nickel mining is in places like indonesia, how its linked human rights abuses and devastation of local communities, and claimed that with so deep sea mining being out of sight and away from indigenous communities it would be a ‘better option’.

One of the marine biologists opposing asked a simple question’

Question :
“So are you claiming that industry will stop mining nickel in indonesia, Zambia and other surface sites once this more expensive and technically difficult option becomes available?”

Answer :
‘ … silence … ‘

Will it? Industry will always take the cheaper route, whatever that may be. Personally, I want that and less destruction to the environment. Whatever it takes.

 

[lasertekk]

We discussed this at work, being in an industry that relies on the same materials that the renewable energy sector and EV sector rely on.

It came down to this:

We need the materials if we’re going to shake petroleum, another damaging material in its extraction. So which location presents less ecological damage? Continuing strip mining on the surface, bowling over rain forests, or going deep underwater? That really is the only question. Less ecological damage to the environment.

Replacing current destructive practices with one that hopefully is less destructive, is a positive step forward. You gotta prove this.

 

[Major Major]

That is the only question.

To which we already know the answer. We’ll end up with both irreplaceable ecosystems raped and pillaged so that the few can get even richer.

 

[C.M. Allen]

Decision time for a lot of screeching environmentalists. Is trying to fix climate change worth a few square miles of surface mines and processing facilities? Or a few hundred square miles of disturbed ocean beds mined for needed material? With related surface processing sites? So often we get bombarded with "BUT CLIMATE CHANGE, DO SOMETHING NOW!" But not THAT something(surface mining)! Not THAT something either(ocean mining)! But FIX IT NOW!

Can't build 100 million new EV battery packs by recycling existing packs, those don't exist yet. Same for 100's of GW hours of grid storage. If you want 100 million new EVs, the planet has to mine enough new material for those 100 million battery packs, cabling and motors. Once those are built, those cars can be kept on the road by recycling the worn out packs into new ones with minimal new material input. Much like the existing Lead/Acid batteries are recycled into new batteries. We don't need massive new lead mines because most of the stuff needed for replacement batteries is already on the road.

Or we could stop dicking around and actually engage with and build the systems we need to RECYCLE the shit we've already extracted instead of continuing our bad habit of shitting where we eat because we're too lazy and selfish to clean up after ourselves.

 

[Madestjohn]

Will it? Industry will always take the cheaper route, whatever that may be. Personally, I want that and less destruction to the environment. Whatever it takes.

First of all it will be far more destructive to the deep sea .. it will be devastating
just because you can close your eyes to it doesn’t mean it isn’t happening

Second stop pretending that its a choice between one or the other, that has never been the plan .. its always been both

if nickel is financial profitable to mine from deep sea its gonna be financially profitable to do so on land

We’ve had deep sea oil rigs for decades … yet we still drill for oil on land and everywhere else we can get away with it.
There’s no limit on ‘infinite growth’

How much nickel does industry desire ?
All it can get, of course it will spend the minimum possible to try to get it .. we seen the environment damage that results
But it will try to get it “whatever it takes”

 

[VelvetRemedy]

Decision time for a lot of screeching environmentalists. Is trying to fix climate change worth a few square miles of surface mines and processing facilities? Or a few hundred square miles of disturbed ocean beds mined for needed material? With related surface processing sites? So often we get bombarded with "BUT CLIMATE CHANGE, DO SOMETHING NOW!" But not THAT something(surface mining)! Not THAT something either(ocean mining)! But FIX IT NOW!

Can't build 100 million new EV battery packs by recycling existing packs, those don't exist yet. Same for 100's of GW hours of grid storage. If you want 100 million new EVs, the planet has to mine enough new material for those 100 million battery packs, cabling and motors. Once those are built, those cars can be kept on the road by recycling the worn out packs into new ones with minimal new material input. Much like the existing Lead/Acid batteries are recycled into new batteries. We don't need massive new lead mines because most of the stuff needed for replacement batteries is already on the road.

Screeching environmentalist here.

Climate change can only be "fixed" by reducing absolute consumption in ways that will not be popular. That means degrowth. That means abolishing car culture. That means reducing or eliminating meat consumption.

The alternatives are all just three-card monte around environmental impact. "You can have a little extractivism, as a treat" is a non-starter. Any magic "solutions" that involve the developed world getting to keep its current lifestyles are going to fail to address the problem.

The good news is that maintaining a high quality of life has far more to do with security of housing, food, and healthcare - which are resolvable problems - than with endless availability of luxury consumer goods.

 

[odikweos]

I don't have that much of a view on sourcing metals from the ocean - the article digs into some of the issues from a pretty heavily slanted point of view, but the track record of industry with ecosystem management is obviously not good.

The elephant I was surprised to not see mentioned is phosphate mining. Running short on lithium and rare earths sucks, and maybe we could go slower. Right now, we have no replacement for dwindling supplies of mineral phosphate fertilizer that something like half the human race depends on for survival. And that's not even mentioned?

Until and unless we develop recycling that lets us recover phosphate from the biosphere (really, human crap) that lets us reduce our need for mineral phosphate, we don't have much choice but to get new sources of mineral phosphate anywhere we can find them. Unless letting half the human race starve is a choice.

n.b. While deep-sea phosphate mining has been a thing for more than a decade, it's mostly focused on more-accessible deposits off the coast of Namibia. My point is all assessed global sources are dwindling, and the next set are likely to be found in places that are harder to access. So developing this technology to the point where fertilizer can be produced at sane prices is going to be required, unless we go full Milorganite (my personal preference).

 

[metavirus]

What the actual fuck, Ars? The tone of this article is troubling in its moderation. This is an awful idea because commercial interests will destroy anything they can get their hands on if it’s in a place nobody can see easily. I watched the Attenborough documentary Ocean about massive deep sea net trawling recently and I was scarred for life. It’s monstrous what we can do to the earth.

 

[that guy strife]

We discussed this at work, being in an industry that relies on the same materials that the renewable energy sector and EV sector rely on.

It came down to this:

We need the materials if we’re going to shake petroleum, another damaging material in its extraction. So which location presents less ecological damage? Continuing strip mining on the surface, bowling over rain forests, or going deep underwater? That really is the only question. Less ecological damage to the environment.

Or people could just stop owning multiple vehicles, and replacing them like cellphones.

But changing lifestyles, especially for Americans, is simply not going to happen without drastic consequences actually happening.

 

[freaq]

We've been utterly destroying seabed ecosystems for many decades already, in the name of "fish are tasty".

It makes absolutely no sense to criticize or restrict deep sea mining without also criticizing and restricting bottom trawling.

We need serious international controls on both activities, and the trawlers are by far the more devastating group

Yes but something something two lefts don’t make a right

Just because we do something seemingly worse elsewhere doesn’t mean we shhould just go ahead with this.

And yes that should 100% be stopped btw

I’m of 2 minds here,
We recently found out that these nodules produce oxygen… perhaps a lot of it… thats kind of a big deal.

And destroying yet another ecosystem seems pretty bad.

That said these nodules ccan basically just be picked up, i stead of blasting drilling and destroying like we do now

And their purity is so high it needs far fewer destructive chemicals.

Imho i’d say its worth trialling another larger portion but then monitoring it longer

And seeing if the sealife returns or is permanently affected.

Ultimately its whats less damaging thats the question here.

 

[SixDegrees]

Hmm, manganese nodules. Did a Russian or Chinese sub sink anywhere recently? This all has a familiar ring to it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Azorian

 

[VelvetRemedy]

Ultimately its whats less damaging thats the question here.

Except that's not how extractivism has ever worked.

If deep-sea mining is effective, it will happen in addition to terrestrial mining. Two different ecosystems will be destroyed and their inhabitants exterminated, instead of one.

 

[no_great_name]

Screeching environmentalist here.

Climate change can only be "fixed" by reducing absolute consumption in ways that will not be popular. That means degrowth. That means abolishing car culture. That means reducing or eliminating meat consumption.

The alternatives are all just three-card monte around environmental impact. "You can have a little extractivism, as a treat" is a non-starter. Any magic "solutions" that involve the developed world getting to keep its current lifestyles are going to fail to address the problem.

The good news is that maintaining a high quality of life has far more to do with security of housing, food, and healthcare - which are resolvable problems - than with endless availability of luxury consumer goods.

We’re just as likely to convince a bacteria culture to stop spreading in a Petri dish as we are to convince humans to “degrowth” or voluntarily restrain ourselves in any meaningful way. It’s a fantasy.

The only environmental success we’ve ever had was when a reasonable alternative was available to substitute that minimized the harm while allowing the previous behavior to continue (e.g. swapping out refrigerants to stop eating a hole in the ozone - we didn’t convince anyone to stop using refrigerants at all).

We will only stop when the constraints imposed upon us by our environment force us to stop. And that will most probably be through population collapse. So, ya know, we have that to look forward to.

 

[AdrianBc]

We discussed this at work, being in an industry that relies on the same materials that the renewable energy sector and EV sector rely on.

It came down to this:

We need the materials if we’re going to shake petroleum, another damaging material in its extraction. So which location presents less ecological damage? Continuing strip mining on the surface, bowling over rain forests, or going deep underwater? That really is the only question. Less ecological damage to the environment.

We do not really need these materials "to shake petroleum".

These materials improve the performances of electric vehicles, but they are not necessary. Only copper is strictly necessary and for it there is no substitute.

Nickel and cobalt can be used to make batteries that have better energy per weight ratio, but they are not necessary, one can make batteries without them and such batteries are already widely used.

Not even lithium is strictly necessary. Again, lithium can be used to make batteries with better energy per weight, but it is not necessary, because cars with sodium-ion batteries are already in production.

Lithium is more necessary for the batteries of smartphones and laptops than for the batteries of cars, but this market is already mature and the lithium consumption for it will not increase greatly in the future.

For stationary energy storage, the use of lithium does not make sense and in the future it is likely that only sodium-ion batteries or other batteries that use only abundant materials will be used.

Even if more lithium were necessary, it would never be extracted from sea floor mines, but directly from sea water. Only nickel, copper and cobalt could be extracted in great quantities from the sea floor. Manganese could be extracted in even greater quantities, but manganese is one of the most abundant metals and there is no risk of not having enough manganese.

So there exists no real urgency in opening these underwater mines. There are people who have invested in this business and they hope to make money for themselves by exploiting resources that do not belong to them, but to the entire humanity, and they are those who push for a quick solution by false claims that there is a urgent need for such mines.

The problem is that with such mines there are great chances to destroy things that we cannot yet recreate. If humans were not stupid, they would destroy only what they can rebuild, but unfortunately that is not the case.

Instead of allowing destruction with consequences that are unknown yet, anyone who is concerned that mineral shortages are possible should lobby for laws that would require that any product containing such materials that is sold must be designed not only for production from raw materials, but also for the extraction of those raw materials from it, satisfying some extraction efficiency, which could be more lenient initially, e.g. at least 50%, but it could be raised later, after more experience is accumulated. Especially the extraction of the copper that is used in a product would be significantly simpler than the extraction of other materials.

 

[Madestjohn]

Yes but something something two lefts don’t make a right

Just because we do something seemingly worse elsewhere doesn’t mean we shhould just go ahead with this.

And yes that should 100% be stopped btw

I’m of 2 minds here,
We recently found out that these nodules produce oxygen… perhaps a lot of it… thats kind of a big deal.

And destroying yet another ecosystem seems pretty bad.

That said these nodules ccan basically just be picked up, i stead of blasting drilling and destroying like we do now

And their purity is so high it needs far fewer destructive chemicals.

Imho i’d say its worth trialling another larger portion but then monitoring it longer

And seeing if the sealife returns or is permanently affected.

Ultimately its whats less damaging thats the question here.

No … they can’t ‘just be picked up’

Ignoring the idea that mining industry can ever have light touch on the environment
The proposals presented so far generally focus on vacuuming them up, but what ever method suggested will results in stirring up the ocean floor, which has existed essentially undisturbed for centuries allowing these nodules to slowly develop, resulting in massive clouds of particulate material
Now a ‘dust cloud’ under the ocean might not sound devastating to you but to the organisms living in the area is the equivalent of pyroclastic flow, landslide, and epic dustbowl combined.
It clogs gills depletes oxygen suffocating them, buries them alive, and destroys the food they require to survive


And thats just the process of gathering up the nodules, it ignores the devastation that removing them from the ecology in which they formed, which evidence suggest relies on them in turn, will result in.
We know without a doubt this will devastate an ancient and fragile ecology that has existed far longer than our species, to remove nodules took millennia to develop and upon which much of the organisms there depend

Pretending we have any doubts about if the ecology or environment can recover from this or not .. is bullshit

… and I will say yet again
.. can we stop pretending this is the lesser environmental damaging of two options?

(Which honestly is a highly suspect assumption and one we won’t know until far after the damage is already done)

.. its not either or,.. its both

Industry isn’t looking for a alternative source to mining for nickel or anything else on land .. its looking for an additional one.

 

[Major Major]

The “screeching environmentalist” trope is an unfortunately effective straw man to benefit the extraction industry. Equate environmentalism with antihumanist “degrowth” bullshit about drastically reducing peoples’ quality of life and pose it as an either-or against unrestrained capitalism and watch the masses fall in line to defend the status quo.

 

[Fatesrider]

This is a joke right? Why the hell would Ars even link to this BS industry paid article?

it’s a horrific idea

Better to be informed about enemy activity and plan a strategy to thwart it than to be caught by surprise and have no plan at all.

 

[Veritas super omens]

Should we do it? No. Will we do it? Yes. Could it be done responsibly? Yes. Will it be done responsibly? No.

 

[C.M. Allen]

Should we do it? No. Will we do it? Yes. Could it be done responsibly? Yes. Will it be done responsibly? No.

There's zero evidence to suggest that it can actually be done responsibly, because what these people want to extract is a critical component of a sizable and fragile ecosystem (that will likely cascade into a global impact because of how broadly connected that ecosystem is). Suggesting we can 'responsibly' remove something that important is akin to suggesting we can 'responsibly' remove someone's heart or their lungs. Because they sure as @#$% won't be putting those mineral nodules back. And that doesn't even begin to address any of the other damages that will invariably be caused by extracting them in the first place, akin to a surgeon using dirty tools, no gloves, and unwashed hands.

This 'endeavor' is, in no uncertain terms, reckless, stupid, and destructive, with a long-term cost that we can't even begin to fathom let alone account for to saying nothing of fixing. And on top of that, it's needless. We don't need these minerals. Someone just wants to pillage the ocean floor for no purpose greater than to get rich. Not to make humanity rich. No, just to make themselves rich -- the most insipid and asinine idea humanity has ever come up with.

 

[Veritas super omens]

Are there any other healthy biomes that we can fuck up beyond recovery in the lifespan of the human species? We are running out of planet to ruin.

 

[SixDegrees]

Are there any other healthy biomes that we can fuck up beyond recovery in the lifespan of the human species? We are running out of planet to ruin.

There are untold riches for the taking near deep ocean trenches - and I have a specially-built carbon fiber submersible ready to ferry corporate board members for a personal close inspection of this fabulous wealth.

 

[odikweos]

Are there any other healthy biomes that we can fuck up beyond recovery in the lifespan of the human species? We are running out of planet to ruin.

There's still Antarctica and let's not forget the entire mid crust and mantle. One step at a time.

 

[SixDegrees]

There's still Antarctica and let's not forget the entire mid crust and mantle. One step at a time.

Once we clear all the ice off Antarctica mining will be a lot easier.

 

[odikweos]

Once we clear all the ice off Antarctica mining will be a lot easier.

That's the can-do spirit. Bootstraps.