6 ms·

The Dubious Economics of Deep-Sea Mining

53 points by dnetesn 3y ago

bananapub 3y ago
pfft, sometimes they are very successful: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glomar_Explorer https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glomar_Explorer
adhesive_wombat 3y ago
Makes good cover for naval intelligence activities though. Just don't assume because you see a ship "mining manganese nodules" from the seabed that you should build your own ship with your own money.
- jvanderbot 3y ago
  Oh a deep water robot that can manipulate rock sized objects on the seafloor, map environment, and return heavy things to the surface? I, government agent, would like to buy 100.
  - deadly-penguin 3y ago
    Those sorts of things are currently available and aren't much like a mining rig. Deep sea mining rigs don't really manipulate the nodules so much as hoover them up - there wouldn't be as much backlash if it was just picking nodules up. There's a picture of an early rig here: https://blogs.noc.ac.uk/jc241-smartex/prologue-smartex https://blogs.noc.ac.uk/jc241-smartex/prologue-smartex
- jareklupinski 3y ago
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Howard_Hughes#Glomar_Explorer_and_the_taking_of_K-129 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Howard_Hughes#Glomar_Explorer_... personally hoping to start a robotic deep sea exploration crew in my retirement years...
RandomLensman 3y ago
If interest rates remain high, economically non-viable business will be far more self-limiting than in than in years before. Which in turns means that ecological damage might be more limited because doing it is just not worth it.
andrewstuart 3y ago
And if you think they ruin the environment above sea level, I’ll bet the miners really fuck things up underwater.
- bglazer 3y ago
  Yep these operations are going to be disasters. Huge plumes of waste silt, noise pollution, and permanent destruction of ecosystems whose role were don’t understand.
  - unglaublich 3y ago
    Especially since this will be completely hidden from the public, and complex and expensive to check by governments, and even harder when on international waters. That means there's hardly any penalty or price for polluting and destroying sensitive ecosystems. And since companies treat fines like operational costs, these companies will be financially incentivized to mine, pollute, and destroy the seabed, even for questionable gains. And say there will be some organizations bothering and protesting, they will be disregarded as "green climate weirdo's" by populist right-wing governments in the West.
    - _heimdall 3y ago
      I was interning at Exxon when the Deepwater Horizon oil spill happened. The mood really changed as soon as BP threw a binding agent into the oil spill, coagulating the oil and sinking it below the surface (a recommendation that Exxon's upstream research arm was proud to have recommended). I also lived near the Alabama gulf coast and had friends that lived on the coast. Those globs of oil washed up on shore for a long time, years if I'm not mistaken. I don't know if there was any good research done to see if the environmental impact was better or worse but it would be interesting to see how it would have compared. The PR value was huge though. Its amazing how quickly the popular sentiment can chill out when the problem is no longer easily visible.
    - deadly-penguin 3y ago
      The UK government, as well as others, is currently funding research into the ecology of the target areas and the impacts of mining (https://blogs.noc.ac.uk/blogs/SMARTEX https://blogs.noc.ac.uk/blogs/SMARTEX) I'm not sure it will be 'hidden' (the research projects are not going away) so much as yet another case of competing interests within governments, where the environment gets sidelined for the sake of an hypothetical future magic money tree.
spacebanana7 3y ago
Even with dubious economics, deep sea mining could make sense for China for political reasons. Securing supplies of key industrial commodities under de facto Chinese sovereignty may be worth the cost of whatever subsidies are required to encourage entrepreneurs & investors. It’s very hard for anyone, even the US/UN, to sanction Chinese companies that only seek to import ocean materials into the Chinese domestic market.
- paganel 3y ago
  Of course it’s hard to sanction them, because the environmental-conscious way of extracting lots of minerals out of the Earth is by destroying jungles and other pristine land-based ecosystems, the underwater habitat is where the West draws the line.
  - SiempreViernes 3y ago
    This is intended as satire, right?
  - mint2 3y ago
    “Oh yeah totally. the west really should be more like the BRIC and draw no lines, lines are bad.” What?!? Must we find any reason possible to knock the west?
    - gruez 3y ago
      The problem isn't that lines are being drawn. It's that they're being drawn arbitrarily.
      - elmomle 3y ago
        To rephrase: "We humans have already messed things up badly, why stop now? That would be arbitrary."
        gruez 3y ago
t43562 3y ago
The argument I've seen is that the amount of seabed that has the required minerals is not big and the surface of the earth is predominantly covered by water so as a percentage of what's there the mined area is small. I would like to know how bad mining that area is compared that to the damage we will do continuing with internal combustion engines if we don't solve the climate issue, or mining the same things on land. To me it seems we're entering a time when no choice is a nice one.
- CyanBird 3y ago
  And the counter argument to the "amount of area '' not being big ''" is that the zones that will be mined are precisely the richest in ecological interactions and less understood ones, they are the zones with underwater volcanic chimneys If someone came and said that they want to drag mine/open pit mine the Yellowstone geysers bc of how rich they are with minerals and said as an argument "hey it is just a small part of the park!" I don't believe that many people would be inclined to accept that "argument"....
  - t43562 3y ago
    Yellowstone is precious because land without people on it is precious. The sea covers 71 percent of the earths surface and has no humans on it anywhere. The areas with nodules containing the the right stuff is very small from my memory - haven't got a reference. So is the damage going to spread wider than that area? I can see why people want to study it. I just don't reject the idea as I think the climate situation is a lot more critical than people like to imagine and we should have options.
- _heimdall 3y ago
  There still one good choice, just use less power. We're collectively running in circles trying to find a replacement for oil that allows us to continue to increase our energy use. That's an extremely difficult challenge and one that paints us into a corner. The underlying problem is that energy use and GDP are directly correlated, and modern economics don't allow for a possibility of decreasing GDP. As long as we refuse to change that assumption we're left only with a future of using more energy from a different source. I don't really think its a meaningful difference long term where we cause the environmental damage. If we really want to make a change we collectively need to embrace a future where energy isn't limitless and growth isn't the goal in and of itself.
CyanBird 3y ago
I still find this whole thing absolutely idiotic given that there are absolutely colossal piles of cobalt, manganese etc left on the tailings of copper and silver mines through the world just waiting for being collected and processed... And you don't need to build specialty equipment to reach the seabed at all
- s1artibartfast 3y ago
  You should do just that and become rich if it is so obvious and easy.
causal 3y ago
The economic argument is important for the environmental one, because sunk capital is often used to justify more capital. Even if the first ten companies fail, they may develop enough tech and know-how to make some sunk-cost minded financier unwilling to give up.
jakozaur 3y ago
Currently, there seems to be no tech that allows economical deep-sea mining. It is challenging, yet I can't see a compelling tech demo or explanation of why it nailed tech breakthroughs. There is not yet a shale oil moment. Looking at The Metals' top staff is also not encouraging: https://metals.co/company/ https://metals.co/company/ Most executives are not related to underlying tech. Most are not related to their hardest problem. Even the CTO has experience just with pure software plays. I found just one person who previously did some novel underwater robots as a principal. It is not professional due diligence, but it does not sound like a solid plan. I'm not sure why there is so much discussion about the environment, given that tech is not ready. Maybe after raising a lot of money, it's easier to blame regulations than admit challenges with execution?
RecycledEle 3y ago
From the article: "Deep-sea ecosystems could be destroyed for metals that will only be needed for a few more years." I doubt this. Can someone please prove me wrong? What metal(s) have we mined in the past that we no longer need? I'm looking for any metal that we used to use that now we no longer use because we do not need it with our ever-expanding population and industrial base. I'm not referring to metals like lead and mercury that are limited in use due to their toxicity.
- Cthulhu_ 3y ago
  I suspect they're thinking of cobalt, the amount of which needed in lithium batteries has been reduced by a lot thanks to advancements in that field. That said, that's possibly offset by the sheer increase in volume of battery development, although lithium is still the main component.

53 points by dnetesn 3y ago

pfft, sometimes they are very successful: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glomar_Explorer https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glomar_Explorer

adhesive_wombat 3y ago

Makes good cover for naval intelligence activities though. Just don't assume because you see a ship "mining manganese nodules" from the seabed that you should build your own ship with your own money.

jvanderbot 3y ago
Oh a deep water robot that can manipulate rock sized objects on the seafloor, map environment, and return heavy things to the surface? I, government agent, would like to buy 100.
- deadly-penguin 3y ago
  Those sorts of things are currently available and aren't much like a mining rig. Deep sea mining rigs don't really manipulate the nodules so much as hoover them up - there wouldn't be as much backlash if it was just picking nodules up. There's a picture of an early rig here: https://blogs.noc.ac.uk/jc241-smartex/prologue-smartex https://blogs.noc.ac.uk/jc241-smartex/prologue-smartex
jareklupinski 3y ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Howard_Hughes#Glomar_Explorer_and_the_taking_of_K-129 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Howard_Hughes#Glomar_Explorer_... personally hoping to start a robotic deep sea exploration crew in my retirement years...

RandomLensman 3y ago

If interest rates remain high, economically non-viable business will be far more self-limiting than in than in years before. Which in turns means that ecological damage might be more limited because doing it is just not worth it.

andrewstuart 3y ago

And if you think they ruin the environment above sea level, I’ll bet the miners really fuck things up underwater.

bglazer 3y ago
Yep these operations are going to be disasters. Huge plumes of waste silt, noise pollution, and permanent destruction of ecosystems whose role were don’t understand.
- unglaublich 3y ago
  Especially since this will be completely hidden from the public, and complex and expensive to check by governments, and even harder when on international waters. That means there's hardly any penalty or price for polluting and destroying sensitive ecosystems. And since companies treat fines like operational costs, these companies will be financially incentivized to mine, pollute, and destroy the seabed, even for questionable gains. And say there will be some organizations bothering and protesting, they will be disregarded as "green climate weirdo's" by populist right-wing governments in the West.
  - _heimdall 3y ago
    I was interning at Exxon when the Deepwater Horizon oil spill happened. The mood really changed as soon as BP threw a binding agent into the oil spill, coagulating the oil and sinking it below the surface (a recommendation that Exxon's upstream research arm was proud to have recommended). I also lived near the Alabama gulf coast and had friends that lived on the coast. Those globs of oil washed up on shore for a long time, years if I'm not mistaken. I don't know if there was any good research done to see if the environmental impact was better or worse but it would be interesting to see how it would have compared. The PR value was huge though. Its amazing how quickly the popular sentiment can chill out when the problem is no longer easily visible.
  - deadly-penguin 3y ago
    The UK government, as well as others, is currently funding research into the ecology of the target areas and the impacts of mining (https://blogs.noc.ac.uk/blogs/SMARTEX https://blogs.noc.ac.uk/blogs/SMARTEX) I'm not sure it will be 'hidden' (the research projects are not going away) so much as yet another case of competing interests within governments, where the environment gets sidelined for the sake of an hypothetical future magic money tree.

spacebanana7 3y ago

Even with dubious economics, deep sea mining could make sense for China for political reasons. Securing supplies of key industrial commodities under de facto Chinese sovereignty may be worth the cost of whatever subsidies are required to encourage entrepreneurs & investors. It’s very hard for anyone, even the US/UN, to sanction Chinese companies that only seek to import ocean materials into the Chinese domestic market.

paganel 3y ago
Of course it’s hard to sanction them, because the environmental-conscious way of extracting lots of minerals out of the Earth is by destroying jungles and other pristine land-based ecosystems, the underwater habitat is where the West draws the line.
- SiempreViernes 3y ago
  This is intended as satire, right?
- mint2 3y ago
  “Oh yeah totally. the west really should be more like the BRIC and draw no lines, lines are bad.” What?!? Must we find any reason possible to knock the west?
  - gruez 3y ago
    The problem isn't that lines are being drawn. It's that they're being drawn arbitrarily.
    - elmomle 3y ago
      To rephrase: "We humans have already messed things up badly, why stop now? That would be arbitrary."
      - gruez 3y ago

t43562 3y ago

The argument I've seen is that the amount of seabed that has the required minerals is not big and the surface of the earth is predominantly covered by water so as a percentage of what's there the mined area is small. I would like to know how bad mining that area is compared that to the damage we will do continuing with internal combustion engines if we don't solve the climate issue, or mining the same things on land. To me it seems we're entering a time when no choice is a nice one.

CyanBird 3y ago
And the counter argument to the "amount of area '' not being big ''" is that the zones that will be mined are precisely the richest in ecological interactions and less understood ones, they are the zones with underwater volcanic chimneys If someone came and said that they want to drag mine/open pit mine the Yellowstone geysers bc of how rich they are with minerals and said as an argument "hey it is just a small part of the park!" I don't believe that many people would be inclined to accept that "argument"....
- t43562 3y ago
  Yellowstone is precious because land without people on it is precious. The sea covers 71 percent of the earths surface and has no humans on it anywhere. The areas with nodules containing the the right stuff is very small from my memory - haven't got a reference. So is the damage going to spread wider than that area? I can see why people want to study it. I just don't reject the idea as I think the climate situation is a lot more critical than people like to imagine and we should have options.
_heimdall 3y ago
There still one good choice, just use less power. We're collectively running in circles trying to find a replacement for oil that allows us to continue to increase our energy use. That's an extremely difficult challenge and one that paints us into a corner. The underlying problem is that energy use and GDP are directly correlated, and modern economics don't allow for a possibility of decreasing GDP. As long as we refuse to change that assumption we're left only with a future of using more energy from a different source. I don't really think its a meaningful difference long term where we cause the environmental damage. If we really want to make a change we collectively need to embrace a future where energy isn't limitless and growth isn't the goal in and of itself.

CyanBird 3y ago

I still find this whole thing absolutely idiotic given that there are absolutely colossal piles of cobalt, manganese etc left on the tailings of copper and silver mines through the world just waiting for being collected and processed... And you don't need to build specialty equipment to reach the seabed at all

s1artibartfast 3y ago
You should do just that and become rich if it is so obvious and easy.

causal 3y ago

The economic argument is important for the environmental one, because sunk capital is often used to justify more capital. Even if the first ten companies fail, they may develop enough tech and know-how to make some sunk-cost minded financier unwilling to give up.

jakozaur 3y ago

Currently, there seems to be no tech that allows economical deep-sea mining. It is challenging, yet I can't see a compelling tech demo or explanation of why it nailed tech breakthroughs. There is not yet a shale oil moment. Looking at The Metals' top staff is also not encouraging: https://metals.co/company/ https://metals.co/company/ Most executives are not related to underlying tech. Most are not related to their hardest problem. Even the CTO has experience just with pure software plays. I found just one person who previously did some novel underwater robots as a principal. It is not professional due diligence, but it does not sound like a solid plan. I'm not sure why there is so much discussion about the environment, given that tech is not ready. Maybe after raising a lot of money, it's easier to blame regulations than admit challenges with execution?

RecycledEle 3y ago

From the article: "Deep-sea ecosystems could be destroyed for metals that will only be needed for a few more years." I doubt this. Can someone please prove me wrong? What metal(s) have we mined in the past that we no longer need? I'm looking for any metal that we used to use that now we no longer use because we do not need it with our ever-expanding population and industrial base. I'm not referring to metals like lead and mercury that are limited in use due to their toxicity.

Cthulhu_ 3y ago
I suspect they're thinking of cobalt, the amount of which needed in lithium batteries has been reduced by a lot thanks to advancements in that field. That said, that's possibly offset by the sheer increase in volume of battery development, although lithium is still the main component.