4 ms·

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 unders

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.
- nvm0n2 3y ago
  Are these particular ecosystems all that sensitive? The places where you find nodules are mostly just empty "deserts", right? The seabed isn't continuous brightly colored coral reef.
collegeburner 3y ago
depends on which player you're looking at. i know of at least one other firm partnering with experienced deepsea companies that has highly favorable economic projections (they look pretty reasonable based on their partners' cost history) and is using a much less disruptive method of nodule collection. very significant reductions in the silt plume problem is, you'll never make these people happy. o&g? emits carbon, must go. cobalt for batteries? tears up the congolese landscape, must go. seabed recovery? messes with ecosystem, must go. to be clear, i'm not trying to preclude cleaner alternatives. just saying there seems to be a rising idea that basically no level of anthropocene change is acceptable and we must retvrn to communes and mud huts or something. some folks need to quit letting the perfect be the enemy of the good even if you agree with the almost inevitable conclusion that we should simply use less, you must recognize the political reality that almost no one is willing to suffer a substantial downgrade in standard of living. increased buy-in to the energy transition is largely due to promises that we can continue living how we are, tolerating what impact is left and mitigating costs with a combination of technological innovation and making "the rich" pay
- xondono 3y ago
  > recognize the political reality that almost no one is willing to suffer a substantial downgrade in standard of living. “Downgrade” is an understatement, people always idealize living “in the field” until they need an emergency surgery, then all of the sudden the cheap availability of plastics is great.

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.
nvm0n2 3y ago
Are these particular ecosystems all that sensitive? The places where you find nodules are mostly just empty "deserts", right? The seabed isn't continuous brightly colored coral reef.

collegeburner 3y ago

depends on which player you're looking at. i know of at least one other firm partnering with experienced deepsea companies that has highly favorable economic projections (they look pretty reasonable based on their partners' cost history) and is using a much less disruptive method of nodule collection. very significant reductions in the silt plume problem is, you'll never make these people happy. o&g? emits carbon, must go. cobalt for batteries? tears up the congolese landscape, must go. seabed recovery? messes with ecosystem, must go. to be clear, i'm not trying to preclude cleaner alternatives. just saying there seems to be a rising idea that basically no level of anthropocene change is acceptable and we must retvrn to communes and mud huts or something. some folks need to quit letting the perfect be the enemy of the good even if you agree with the almost inevitable conclusion that we should simply use less, you must recognize the political reality that almost no one is willing to suffer a substantial downgrade in standard of living. increased buy-in to the energy transition is largely due to promises that we can continue living how we are, tolerating what impact is left and mitigating costs with a combination of technological innovation and making "the rich" pay

xondono 3y ago
> recognize the political reality that almost no one is willing to suffer a substantial downgrade in standard of living. “Downgrade” is an understatement, people always idealize living “in the field” until they need an emergency surgery, then all of the sudden the cheap availability of plastics is great.