mollwollfumble said:

captain_spalding said:

mollwollfumble said:

The brine left over after NaCl is removed is called “bitters”. I’d like to see it evaporated off fed through electrolysis for production of magnesium metal and perhaps other valuables including bromine, boron, strontium, flourine. And perhaps even rarer elements, lithium, iodine, gold and uranium have been mentioned.

You some kind of trouble-maker? Trying to increase supply of, and drive down the price of rarer materials? Want the mining companies to send the boys around?

Yes yes yes yes :-)

I’ve just finished reading Idriess “Fortunes in Minerals”. Great book but with too much repetition and too few chemical symbols. Despite its advanced age, it was published in 1941, if there’s any valuable inorganic material that isn’t mentioned in the book then I’ve never heard of it. (OK, it doesn’t mention bentonite but has mentioned everything else).

I’m trying to get my head around the totality of prospecting, methods and economics, trying to think of things not mentioned in that book and those mentioned in his earlier book that I also have “Prospecting for gold”. “Prospecting for gold” goes way beyond panning and cradling, and includes chapters on opals and platinum and osmiridium as well. Both books are equally valuable for novices and professionals.

So, I’m trying to think of prospecting methods that aren’t in the books. Because much of what is in them has already been done to death, and everything obvious on the surface has already been minutely examined multiple times.

Not necessarily everything in the books has been done to death. He presents two radically different methods for onsite ore concentration in locations where there is no water.

One method not in the books is prospecting using a backhoe. What would the economics of that be?

Another idea is prospecting for subsurface lodes of sparingly soluble minerals using river water quality testing, perhaps involving turning a 4WD into a portable evaporator.

Given that lithium is much more soluble in water than either sodium for magnesium, are there prospects for combining finely crushed dry salt with a minuscule amount of water to extract lithium?

What about value adding by onsite processing? Onsite processing of zirconium is one frequently mentioned.

What about better handling of currently-uneconomic byproducts?

What about actively finding new uses for uneconomic ores?

Cripes this is a good website. Soil properties around Australia. Links to more detailed maps.

http://www.clw.csiro.au/aclep/soilandlandscapegrid/ViewData-QuickView.html

Was looking it up for depth of regolith, but it’s got a heck of a lot more than that.

Was looking to see how much of Australia’s bedrock would be accessible to a Kubota 101-3 backhoe which can dig a trench up to 5.6 metres deep, and wide enough for a prospector to stand in. Small bucket capacity of only 0.1 cubic metres, but low fuel consumption, and a prospector wouldn’t need a big bucket capacity.

mollwollfumble said:

Cripes this is a good website. Soil properties around Australia. Links to more detailed maps.

http://www.clw.csiro.au/aclep/soilandlandscapegrid/ViewData-QuickView.html

Was looking it up for depth of regolith, but it’s got a heck of a lot more than that.

Was looking to see how much of Australia’s bedrock would be accessible to a Kubota 101-3 backhoe which can dig a trench up to 5.6 metres deep, and wide enough for a prospector to stand in. Small bucket capacity of only 0.1 cubic metres, but low fuel consumption, and a prospector wouldn’t need a big bucket capacity.

Ta, Moll.

mollwollfumble said:

Cripes this is a good website. Soil properties around Australia. Links to more detailed maps.

http://www.clw.csiro.au/aclep/soilandlandscapegrid/ViewData-QuickView.html

Was looking it up for depth of regolith, but it’s got a heck of a lot more than that.

Was looking to see how much of Australia’s bedrock would be accessible to a Kubota 101-3 backhoe which can dig a trench up to 5.6 metres deep, and wide enough for a prospector to stand in. Small bucket capacity of only 0.1 cubic metres, but low fuel consumption, and a prospector wouldn’t need a big bucket capacity.

Not safe work practice standing in and working in trenches. When the roof is gone the sideways pressures bury you more easily.

Costean.

Because of the surface disturbance footprint of costeaning, it requires a lot more legal work to get it done. Approval for a single costean is not dissimilar to getting approval for an open-cuat mine. EIS, Cultural heritage detail work (archeology), stakeholder meetings, local government approval, Minerals Department approval, Environmental Authority approval etc.

Thirty years ago, everybody did it. Now nobody does (or rather it’s rarely done). Drilling holes is simpler, quicker and way more cost-effective.

roughbarked said:

mollwollfumble said:

Cripes this is a good website. Soil properties around Australia. Links to more detailed maps.

http://www.clw.csiro.au/aclep/soilandlandscapegrid/ViewData-QuickView.html

Was looking it up for depth of regolith, but it’s got a heck of a lot more than that.

Was looking to see how much of Australia’s bedrock would be accessible to a Kubota 101-3 backhoe which can dig a trench up to 5.6 metres deep, and wide enough for a prospector to stand in. Small bucket capacity of only 0.1 cubic metres, but low fuel consumption, and a prospector wouldn’t need a big bucket capacity.

Not safe work practice standing in and working in trenches. When the roof is gone the sideways pressures bury you more easily.

Oh yes, this too – thanks for reminding me roughbarked. Trenches have to be stepped, by law. Widths, depths and heights are prescribed.

Michael V said:

roughbarked said:

mollwollfumble said:

Cripes this is a good website. Soil properties around Australia. Links to more detailed maps.

http://www.clw.csiro.au/aclep/soilandlandscapegrid/ViewData-QuickView.html

Was looking it up for depth of regolith, but it’s got a heck of a lot more than that.

Was looking to see how much of Australia’s bedrock would be accessible to a Kubota 101-3 backhoe which can dig a trench up to 5.6 metres deep, and wide enough for a prospector to stand in. Small bucket capacity of only 0.1 cubic metres, but low fuel consumption, and a prospector wouldn’t need a big bucket capacity.

Not safe work practice standing in and working in trenches. When the roof is gone the sideways pressures bury you more easily.

Oh yes, this too – thanks for reminding me roughbarked. Trenches have to be stepped, by law. Widths, depths and heights are prescribed.

Too many people have died in such situations.

Michael V said:

Costean.

Because of the surface disturbance footprint of costeaning, it requires a lot more legal work to get it done. Approval for a single costean is not dissimilar to getting approval for an open-cuat mine. EIS, Cultural heritage detail work (archeology), stakeholder meetings, local government approval, Minerals Department approval, Environmental Authority approval etc.

Thirty years ago, everybody did it. Now nobody does (or rather it’s rarely done). Drilling holes is simpler, quicker and way more cost-effective.

Approval problems, yuk.

Checks definition. “Costeaning is the process by which miners seek to discover metallic lodes. It consists in sinking small pits through the superficial deposits to the solid rock, and then driving from one pit to another across the direction of the vein, in such manner as to cross all the veins between the two pits.”

Didn’t you say that drilling holes was extremely costly? Starting at half a million?

mollwollfumble said:

Michael V said:

Costean.

Because of the surface disturbance footprint of costeaning, it requires a lot more legal work to get it done. Approval for a single costean is not dissimilar to getting approval for an open-cuat mine. EIS, Cultural heritage detail work (archeology), stakeholder meetings, local government approval, Minerals Department approval, Environmental Authority approval etc.

Thirty years ago, everybody did it. Now nobody does (or rather it’s rarely done). Drilling holes is simpler, quicker and way more cost-effective.

Approval problems, yuk.

Checks definition. “Costeaning is the process by which miners seek to discover metallic lodes. It consists in sinking small pits through the superficial deposits to the solid rock, and then driving from one pit to another across the direction of the vein, in such manner as to cross all the veins between the two pits.”

Didn’t you say that drilling holes was extremely costly? Starting at half a million?

Drilling digging is always costly. Offset only by profits when they do arrive.

Peak Warming Man said:

mollwollfumble said:

Cripes this is a good website. Soil properties around Australia. Links to more detailed maps.

http://www.clw.csiro.au/aclep/soilandlandscapegrid/ViewData-QuickView.html

Was looking it up for depth of regolith, but it’s got a heck of a lot more than that.

Was looking to see how much of Australia’s bedrock would be accessible to a Kubota 101-3 backhoe which can dig a trench up to 5.6 metres deep, and wide enough for a prospector to stand in. Small bucket capacity of only 0.1 cubic metres, but low fuel consumption, and a prospector wouldn’t need a big bucket capacity.

Ta, Moll.

Thanks indeed.

mollwollfumble said:

Michael V said:

Costean.

Because of the surface disturbance footprint of costeaning, it requires a lot more legal work to get it done. Approval for a single costean is not dissimilar to getting approval for an open-cuat mine. EIS, Cultural heritage detail work (archeology), stakeholder meetings, local government approval, Minerals Department approval, Environmental Authority approval etc.

Thirty years ago, everybody did it. Now nobody does (or rather it’s rarely done). Drilling holes is simpler, quicker and way more cost-effective.

Approval problems, yuk.

Checks definition. “Costeaning is the process by which miners seek to discover metallic lodes. It consists in sinking small pits through the superficial deposits to the solid rock, and then driving from one pit to another across the direction of the vein, in such manner as to cross all the veins between the two pits.”

Didn’t you say that drilling holes was extremely costly? Starting at half a million?

A drilling program might easily cost that, particularly if there is some coring involved. Reverse Circulation (RC) Chip drilling is cheaper and faster. Good for preliminary assessment of a prospect. Gets chemical information, but no (or rather, very limited) structural information.

There’s lots of different costs involved. Mobilisation and demobilisation of the rig, fuel, meterage, minimum daily productivity charges, equipment wear and loss, chemical analyses, personnel, etc. So, around $10k – $50k per day, all up.

Michael V said:

mollwollfumble said:

Michael V said:

Costean.

Because of the surface disturbance footprint of costeaning, it requires a lot more legal work to get it done. Approval for a single costean is not dissimilar to getting approval for an open-cuat mine. EIS, Cultural heritage detail work (archeology), stakeholder meetings, local government approval, Minerals Department approval, Environmental Authority approval etc.

Thirty years ago, everybody did it. Now nobody does (or rather it’s rarely done). Drilling holes is simpler, quicker and way more cost-effective.

Approval problems, yuk.

Checks definition. “Costeaning is the process by which miners seek to discover metallic lodes. It consists in sinking small pits through the superficial deposits to the solid rock, and then driving from one pit to another across the direction of the vein, in such manner as to cross all the veins between the two pits.”

Didn’t you say that drilling holes was extremely costly? Starting at half a million?

A drilling program might easily cost that, particularly if there is some coring involved. Reverse Circulation (RC) Chip drilling is cheaper and faster. Good for preliminary assessment of a prospect. Gets chemical information, but no (or rather, very limited) structural information.

There’s lots of different costs involved. Mobilisation and demobilisation of the rig, fuel, meterage, minimum daily productivity charges, equipment wear and loss, chemical analyses, personnel, etc. So, around $10k – $50k per day, all up.

And you say that’s cheaper?
As against say $500 per day for a mini excavator including fuel and depreciation. (Excluding chemical analysis and personnel).

On the topic of cost of chemical analysis. Idriess books assume (remember, this is 1941, old ) that the prospector has no or next to no money. Cute and terrifying at the same time. Assumes near zero cost for fuel, and extraction of every possible Joule from water power, eg. hand-make water pipes from scrap galvanized iron.

Idriess basic prospecting kit, including all chemical testing, is the following:

• Blowpipe
• Stick of charcoal
• 6 inches of platinum wire
• a 3 ft length of laboratory glass tubing
• a 2 foot length of rubber tube to fit the glass tube
• a glass rod 12 inches long
• magnet
• 3 oz of carbonate of soda
• 1 oz of powdered borax
• Candles (or a spirit lamp)
• 6 test tubes, each 5 inches long
• 3 watch glasses
• 3 small glass filter funnels
• Packet of filter papers
• Dolly pot (whatever that is)
• Pocket lens
• Small, three-cornered file
• 3 beakers
• wash bottle
• small strip of metallic tin
• small strip of metallic zinc
• small piece of blue glass

A small bottle each of

• hydrochloric acid
• nitric acid
• sulphuric acid
• tartaric acid (in solid form)
• 1 ounce of potassium cyanide
• cobalt nitrate
• stannous chloride

One ounce each of

• microscopic salt
• potassium iodide
• sulphur
• ammonia
• potassium ferrocyanide
• potassium chromate

Shock horror!

Chemical tests with only these components include:

• Flame test – oxidising
• Flame test – reducing
• Open tube test
• Bulb test
• Borax bead test
• Microscopic salt bead test
• Charcoal flame oxidising and reducing
• Cobalt nitrate flame test
• Sodium carbonate bead test
• Dissolving in dilute and concentrated acids, ammonia and aqua regia
• Precipitation, filtering and evaporation
• Colour change in the wet form
• Chemical conversion of difficult minerals into more easily analysable forms
  and more.

That suffices to identify most interesting ores of just about every metal known to man.

Honestly, mollwollfumble can’t envisage doing all this with a candle flame as the only source of heat and energy, but apparently it is possible.

mollwollfumble said:

Michael V said:

mollwollfumble said:

Approval problems, yuk.

Checks definition. “Costeaning is the process by which miners seek to discover metallic lodes. It consists in sinking small pits through the superficial deposits to the solid rock, and then driving from one pit to another across the direction of the vein, in such manner as to cross all the veins between the two pits.”

Didn’t you say that drilling holes was extremely costly? Starting at half a million?

A drilling program might easily cost that, particularly if there is some coring involved. Reverse Circulation (RC) Chip drilling is cheaper and faster. Good for preliminary assessment of a prospect. Gets chemical information, but no (or rather, very limited) structural information.

There’s lots of different costs involved. Mobilisation and demobilisation of the rig, fuel, meterage, minimum daily productivity charges, equipment wear and loss, chemical analyses, personnel, etc. So, around $10k – $50k per day, all up.

And you say that’s cheaper?
As against say $500 per day for a mini excavator including fuel and depreciation. (Excluding chemical analysis and personnel).

On the topic of cost of chemical analysis. Idriess books assume (remember, this is 1941, old ) that the prospector has no or next to no money. Cute and terrifying at the same time. Assumes near zero cost for fuel, and extraction of every possible Joule from water power, eg. hand-make water pipes from scrap galvanized iron.

Idriess basic prospecting kit, including all chemical testing, is the following:

• Blowpipe
• Stick of charcoal
• 6 inches of platinum wire
• a 3 ft length of laboratory glass tubing
• a 2 foot length of rubber tube to fit the glass tube
• a glass rod 12 inches long
• magnet
• 3 oz of carbonate of soda
• 1 oz of powdered borax
• Candles (or a spirit lamp)
• 6 test tubes, each 5 inches long
• 3 watch glasses
• 3 small glass filter funnels
• Packet of filter papers
• Dolly pot (whatever that is)
• Pocket lens
• Small, three-cornered file
• 3 beakers
• wash bottle
• small strip of metallic tin
• small strip of metallic zinc
• small piece of blue glass

A small bottle each of

• hydrochloric acid
• nitric acid
• sulphuric acid
• tartaric acid (in solid form)
• 1 ounce of potassium cyanide
• cobalt nitrate
• stannous chloride

One ounce each of

• microscopic salt
• potassium iodide
• sulphur
• ammonia
• potassium ferrocyanide
• potassium chromate

Shock horror!

Chemical tests with only these components include:

• Flame test – oxidising
• Flame test – reducing
• Open tube test
• Bulb test
• Borax bead test
• Microscopic salt bead test
• Charcoal flame oxidising and reducing
• Cobalt nitrate flame test
• Sodium carbonate bead test
• Dissolving in dilute and concentrated acids, ammonia and aqua regia
• Precipitation, filtering and evaporation
• Colour change in the wet form
• Chemical conversion of difficult minerals into more easily analysable forms
  and more.

That suffices to identify most interesting ores of just about every metal known to man.

Honestly, mollwollfumble can’t envisage doing all this with a candle flame as the only source of heat and energy, but apparently it is possible.

As to Idriess basic prospecting, I’ve read his books and I believe that the current old shaft I am digging further in, could easily have been the one he described.
As to cheaper, Even at White Cliffs I wouldn’t be digging a trench as you described above with a mini excavator. White Cliffs is extraordinarily stable compared to other places but risk management doesn’t seem to be on y our agenda.

roughbarked said:

As to Idriess basic prospecting, I’ve read his books and I believe that the current old shaft I am digging further in, could easily have been the one he described.

As to cheaper, Even at White Cliffs I wouldn’t be digging a trench as you described above with a mini excavator. White Cliffs is extraordinarily stable compared to other places but risk management doesn’t seem to be on your agenda.

Wow.

Risk management isn’t on my agenda because I’ve visited a couple of open cut mine sites and civil engineering excavations. I’m pretty unflappable, but those scare me witless. At one open cut sand mine I spent a fortnight at, I wouldn’t go within 4 metres of a sand cliff on the site. At least 10 metres high with no support.

By comparison, I’d have no trouble walking down a newly excavated trench 4 metres deep and 550 mm wide, provided the floor sloped at no more than a slope of 1 in 2 and I had a safety harness tied to the excavator. Beyond 5 metres I might start to get a bit nervous, but my preferred excavator has a maximum trench depth of only 5.6 metres. Safer than walking past a skyscraper in a strong wind.

It helps to understand soil mechanics. Measure the moisture content and plastic limit before I excavate. Know how to calculate the all the soil failure mechanisms in Capper and Cassie “The mechanics of engineering soils”. First edition was 1949 or earlier, but it’s still one of my very favourite engineering books.

mollwollfumble said:

roughbarked said:

As to Idriess basic prospecting, I’ve read his books and I believe that the current old shaft I am digging further in, could easily have been the one he described.

As to cheaper, Even at White Cliffs I wouldn’t be digging a trench as you described above with a mini excavator. White Cliffs is extraordinarily stable compared to other places but risk management doesn’t seem to be on your agenda.

Wow.

Risk management isn’t on my agenda because I’ve visited a couple of open cut mine sites and civil engineering excavations. I’m pretty unflappable, but those scare me witless. At one open cut sand mine I spent a fortnight at, I wouldn’t go within 4 metres of a sand cliff on the site. At least 10 metres high with no support.

By comparison, I’d have no trouble walking down a newly excavated trench 4 metres deep and 550 mm wide, provided the floor sloped at no more than a slope of 1 in 2 and I had a safety harness tied to the excavator. Beyond 5 metres I might start to get a bit nervous, but my preferred excavator has a maximum trench depth of only 5.6 metres. Safer than walking past a skyscraper in a strong wind.

It helps to understand soil mechanics. Measure the moisture content and plastic limit before I excavate. Know how to calculate the all the soil failure mechanisms in Capper and Cassie “The mechanics of engineering soils”. First edition was 1949 or earlier, but it’s still one of my very favourite engineering books.

and factor in a rainstorm while you are in there?

mollwollfumble said:

Risk management isn’t on my agenda because I’ve visited a couple of open cut mine sites and civil engineering excavations. I’m pretty unflappable, but those scare me witless. At one open cut sand mine I spent a fortnight at, I wouldn’t go within 4 metres of a sand cliff on the site. At least 10 metres high with no support.

By comparison, I’d have no trouble walking down a newly excavated trench 4 metres deep and 550 mm wide, provided the floor sloped at no more than a slope of 1 in 2 and I had a safety harness tied to the excavator. Beyond 5 metres I might start to get a bit nervous, but my preferred excavator has a maximum trench depth of only 5.6 metres. Safer than walking past a skyscraper in a strong wind.

I’m not convinced by your risk assessment there.

I’m pretty sure there have been way more collapses of 4 metre deep trenches than there have been skyscrapers collapse in a high wind.

mollwollfumble said:

It helps to understand soil mechanics. Measure the moisture content and plastic limit before I excavate. Know how to calculate the all the soil failure mechanisms in Capper and Cassie “The mechanics of engineering soils”. First edition was 1949 or earlier, but it’s still one of my very favourite engineering books.

That was my Uni Soil Mechanics text. I must still have it somewhere.

Not sure I’d rate it near the top of my favourites, but then I’ve probably not looked at it for 40 years or so.

Michael V. Do you ever edit wikipedia? If so, please edit https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Costean . It’s the worst wikipedia article I’ve ever come across, for starters it’s only two sentences long. And both sentences are actually wrong.

>> Risk management
> and factor in a rainstorm while you are in there?

No! Don’t go anywhere near it in a rainstorm, and check soil moisture afterwards. That was one problem with the civil engineering excavations I visited, the vertical sand cliffs weren’t that high, just 4 or 5 metres, but had been left completely unprotected in rainstorms, and had buildings sitting on the top of them.

> I’m pretty sure there have been way more collapses of 4 metre deep trenches than there have been skyscrapers collapse in a high wind.

Nothing to do with collapse. Objects have been known to fall off skyscrapers, particularly during construction.

What do you think of the prospecting kit?

And about ore concentration prior to trucking in areas where there’s no water?

roughbarked said:

and factor in a rainstorm while you are in there?

Someone forgot to

mollwollfumble said:

roughbarked said:

and factor in a rainstorm while you are in there?

Someone forgot to

Sure did.

Ensham’s dragline got a bit wet one summer.

Michael V said:

Ensham’s dragline got a bit wet one summer.

A >$100M machine wet with 15 metres of water. It was repaired after they pumped the pit out.

http://www.abc.net.au/local/stories/2008/05/02/2233953.htm

Michael V said:

Ensham’s dragline got a bit wet one summer.

oh dear

Michael V said:

Ensham’s dragline got a bit wet one summer.

http://www.abc.net.au/reslib/200801/r218344_853921.jpg

A >$100M machine wet with 15 metres of water. It was repaired after they pumped the pit out.

http://www.abc.net.au/local/stories/2008/05/02/2233953.htm

A bit wet seems like an understatement.

Michael V. Do you ever edit wikipedia? If so, please edit https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Costean . It’s the worst wikipedia article I’ve ever come across, for starters it’s only two sentences long. And both sentences are actually wrong. I suppose I could edit that page on wikipedia, but it should be fixed by someone with more than zero knowledge of the process.

From wikipedia, whatever happened to manganese nodules as a mineral source …

“The chemical composition of nodules varies according to the kind of manganese minerals and the size and characteristics of the core. Those of greatest economic interest contain manganese (27-30%), nickel (1.25-1.5 %), copper (1-1.4 %) and cobalt (0.2-0.25 %).”

“Interest in the potential exploitation of polymetallic nodules generated a great deal of activity among prospective mining consortia in the 1960s and 1970s. Almost half a billion dollars was invested … two of the international joint ventures succeeded in collecting several hundred ton quantities of manganese nodules … Significant quantities of nickel (the primary target) as well as copper and cobalt were subsequently extracted from this “ore” using both pyrometallurgical and hydrometallurgical methods … The technology and experience developed during the course of this project were never commercialized because the last two decades of the 20th century saw an excess of nickel production.”

Oh, I see, they dumped the valuable manganese in order to get at the cheap nickel.

“no cheap way to get the manganese nodules off the sea floor”

What’s wrong with trawling? You may even be able to use a strengthened form of a bog standard fishing net.

“Abyssal plains … international waters”

There are much shallower deposits in Australian-owned waters south of Tasmania.

dv said:

Michael V said:

Ensham’s dragline got a bit wet one summer.

oh dear

It’s got a big bucket. It can bail its way out of there.

captain_spalding said:

dv said:

Michael V said:

Ensham’s dragline got a bit wet one summer.

oh dear

It’s got a big bucket. It can bail its way out of there.

They should modify it, so it can still work under water.

mollwollfumble said:

Michael V said:

Ensham’s dragline got a bit wet one summer.

http://www.abc.net.au/reslib/200801/r218344_853921.jpg

A >$100M machine wet with 15 metres of water. It was repaired after they pumped the pit out.

http://www.abc.net.au/local/stories/2008/05/02/2233953.htm

A bit wet seems like an understatement.

Michael V. Do you ever edit wikipedia? If so, please edit https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Costean . It’s the worst wikipedia article I’ve ever come across, for starters it’s only two sentences long. And both sentences are actually wrong. I suppose I could edit that page on wikipedia, but it should be fixed by someone with more than zero knowledge of the process.

From wikipedia, whatever happened to manganese nodules as a mineral source …

“The chemical composition of nodules varies according to the kind of manganese minerals and the size and characteristics of the core. Those of greatest economic interest contain manganese (27-30%), nickel (1.25-1.5 %), copper (1-1.4 %) and cobalt (0.2-0.25 %).”

“Interest in the potential exploitation of polymetallic nodules generated a great deal of activity among prospective mining consortia in the 1960s and 1970s. Almost half a billion dollars was invested … two of the international joint ventures succeeded in collecting several hundred ton quantities of manganese nodules … Significant quantities of nickel (the primary target) as well as copper and cobalt were subsequently extracted from this “ore” using both pyrometallurgical and hydrometallurgical methods … The technology and experience developed during the course of this project were never commercialized because the last two decades of the 20th century saw an excess of nickel production.”

Oh, I see, they dumped the valuable manganese in order to get at the cheap nickel.

“no cheap way to get the manganese nodules off the sea floor”

What’s wrong with trawling? You may even be able to use a strengthened form of a bog standard fishing net.

“Abyssal plains … international waters”

There are much shallower deposits in Australian-owned waters south of Tasmania.

I have never done any Wikipedia editing.

captain_spalding said:

dv said:

Michael V said:

Ensham’s dragline got a bit wet one summer.

oh dear

It’s got a big bucket. It can bail its way out of there.

Good idea, but keeping the electricity safe might be difficult.