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 pr

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