5 ms·

Unfortunately this sort of mining has long-term impacts on deep sea ecology. It causes substantial loss of species diversity and activity even 26 years later, w

Unfortunately this sort of mining has long-term impacts on deep sea ecology. It causes substantial loss of species diversity and activity even 26 years later, with this paper estimating recovery will take at least 50 years for a small test patch. https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.aaz5922 https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.aaz5922

elil17 4y ago
Things are a little more complicated than that. 1. Surface mining also has environmental consequences which have to be weighed against the costs of deep sea mining. An area impacted by surface mining can recover in just a decade, but it takes intensive environmental restoration efforts on the part of humans (https://news.ucsc.edu/2021/05/mine-remediation.html https://news.ucsc.edu/2021/05/mine-remediation.html). If similar techniques could be developed for deep sea applications, it could reduce the impact of deep sea mining. 2. Researchers are developing robots with advanced propulsion systems which could dramatically reduce the disturbance to sea-floor sediment by mimicking the ways that rays move. (https://interestingengineering.com/culture/new-autonomous-sustainable-robots-could-mine-the-deep-sea https://interestingengineering.com/culture/new-autonomous-su...) Of course, this is still an active area of research, and it would probably take regulation to force deep sea mining companies to adopt these measures. 3. Nodules are much easier to process, reducing the carbon footprint of deep sea mining vs. surface mining by up to 80% for some metals. (https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0959652620338671 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S095965262...) This study even tries to account for the secondary effects of mining such as the different impacts that surface and deep sea mining have on carbon sequestered in the ecosystem. 4. Surface mining is more harmful to humans than deep sea mining is because it can leach dangerous chemicals into fresh water supplies. (https://www.usgs.gov/special-topics/water-science-school/science/mining-and-water-quality https://www.usgs.gov/special-topics/water-science-school/sci...) The effects of deep-sea mining on ocean ecology are much less well understood than the effects of surface mining. While I do think there's good reason to be optimistic about the benefits of deep-sea mining, especially if it can displace surface mining, we shouldn't assume we understand what will happen. I hope the industry continuous to be forced by regulators to move forward cautiously and allow time for environmental studies to take place. edit: These people are trying to build a deep sea miner that doesn't destroy the seafloor: https://impossiblemetals.com/ https://impossiblemetals.com/
- cgh 4y ago
  Point 4 is mostly confined to old abandoned sites, as mentioned in your link. Modern tailings aren’t left to leach acid all over the place, at least not in North American mines. I get that all bets are off in eg Africa, however.
  - elil17 4y ago
    Sure, but a lot of surface exploitation is planned globally. Africa and Asia are certainly going to be seeing new mines opening due to demand for solar/batteries.
    - cgh 4y ago
      For sure, I was taking issue with the absoluteness of the assertion that all terrestrial mines are leaching from their tailings piles/ponds. It’s not true of many (most?) modern mines.
      - elil17 4y ago
        I didn’t mean it as an absolute assertion, but I can see that I didn’t make that clear.
- orbital-decay 4y ago
  >Surface mining also has environmental consequences which have to be weighed against the costs of deep sea mining. What will actually happen is both types will be happily used at the same time, so there's little point in weighting one against the other. Any other rationalization misses the fact that this is an extremely poorly understood environment (especially if we do compare with surface mining). It's never a good idea to tinker with unknown at scale without understanding it first, let alone commercializing it. Mining history is practically written in mistakes like that.
  - culi 4y ago
    Right. Especially as we ramp up our reliance on solar panels (and therefore batteries). These operations are now heavily subsidized and we'll likely be making 100% use of every avenue available to mine as much as possible as soon as possible sigh. If only we put this much funding into solving our exploding e-waste crisis which could also help alleviate the problems of rare metals
stubish 4y ago
I wonder how large a patch we could mine over 50 years, and if it is a meaningful fraction of the ecosystem? The planet is almost covered with deep sea ecology. Plumes and water contamination could significantly increase the affected area, which I'd hope for these studies to be watching for. (how much affected by drag net fishing might give a ballpark figure)
legulere 4y ago
The nodules themself offer a habitat with its hard crust compared to the soft sea-floor. As it takes millennia for the nodules to form this means the habitat for those organisms is basically lost.

elil17 4y ago

Things are a little more complicated than that. 1. Surface mining also has environmental consequences which have to be weighed against the costs of deep sea mining. An area impacted by surface mining can recover in just a decade, but it takes intensive environmental restoration efforts on the part of humans (https://news.ucsc.edu/2021/05/mine-remediation.html https://news.ucsc.edu/2021/05/mine-remediation.html). If similar techniques could be developed for deep sea applications, it could reduce the impact of deep sea mining. 2. Researchers are developing robots with advanced propulsion systems which could dramatically reduce the disturbance to sea-floor sediment by mimicking the ways that rays move. (https://interestingengineering.com/culture/new-autonomous-sustainable-robots-could-mine-the-deep-sea https://interestingengineering.com/culture/new-autonomous-su...) Of course, this is still an active area of research, and it would probably take regulation to force deep sea mining companies to adopt these measures. 3. Nodules are much easier to process, reducing the carbon footprint of deep sea mining vs. surface mining by up to 80% for some metals. (https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0959652620338671 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S095965262...) This study even tries to account for the secondary effects of mining such as the different impacts that surface and deep sea mining have on carbon sequestered in the ecosystem. 4. Surface mining is more harmful to humans than deep sea mining is because it can leach dangerous chemicals into fresh water supplies. (https://www.usgs.gov/special-topics/water-science-school/science/mining-and-water-quality https://www.usgs.gov/special-topics/water-science-school/sci...) The effects of deep-sea mining on ocean ecology are much less well understood than the effects of surface mining. While I do think there's good reason to be optimistic about the benefits of deep-sea mining, especially if it can displace surface mining, we shouldn't assume we understand what will happen. I hope the industry continuous to be forced by regulators to move forward cautiously and allow time for environmental studies to take place. edit: These people are trying to build a deep sea miner that doesn't destroy the seafloor: https://impossiblemetals.com/ https://impossiblemetals.com/

cgh 4y ago
Point 4 is mostly confined to old abandoned sites, as mentioned in your link. Modern tailings aren’t left to leach acid all over the place, at least not in North American mines. I get that all bets are off in eg Africa, however.
- elil17 4y ago
  Sure, but a lot of surface exploitation is planned globally. Africa and Asia are certainly going to be seeing new mines opening due to demand for solar/batteries.
  - cgh 4y ago
    For sure, I was taking issue with the absoluteness of the assertion that all terrestrial mines are leaching from their tailings piles/ponds. It’s not true of many (most?) modern mines.
    - elil17 4y ago
      I didn’t mean it as an absolute assertion, but I can see that I didn’t make that clear.
orbital-decay 4y ago
>Surface mining also has environmental consequences which have to be weighed against the costs of deep sea mining. What will actually happen is both types will be happily used at the same time, so there's little point in weighting one against the other. Any other rationalization misses the fact that this is an extremely poorly understood environment (especially if we do compare with surface mining). It's never a good idea to tinker with unknown at scale without understanding it first, let alone commercializing it. Mining history is practically written in mistakes like that.
- culi 4y ago
  Right. Especially as we ramp up our reliance on solar panels (and therefore batteries). These operations are now heavily subsidized and we'll likely be making 100% use of every avenue available to mine as much as possible as soon as possible sigh. If only we put this much funding into solving our exploding e-waste crisis which could also help alleviate the problems of rare metals

stubish 4y ago

I wonder how large a patch we could mine over 50 years, and if it is a meaningful fraction of the ecosystem? The planet is almost covered with deep sea ecology. Plumes and water contamination could significantly increase the affected area, which I'd hope for these studies to be watching for. (how much affected by drag net fishing might give a ballpark figure)

legulere 4y ago

The nodules themself offer a habitat with its hard crust compared to the soft sea-floor. As it takes millennia for the nodules to form this means the habitat for those organisms is basically lost.