Date: 6/07/2023 15:30:22
From: Witty Rejoinder
ID: 2050782
Subject: Deep-Sea Mining to Save the Environment

Deep-sea mining may soon ease the world’s battery-metal shortage
Taking nickel from rainforests destroys 30 times more life than getting it from the depths

Jul 2nd 2023

Pushed by the threat of climate change, rich countries are embarking on a grand electrification project. Britain, France and Norway, among others, plan to ban the sale of new internal-combustion cars over the coming decade. Even where bans are not on the statute books, electric-car sales are growing rapidly. Power grids are changing too, as wind turbines and solar panels displace fossil-fuelled power plants. The International Energy Agency (IEA) reckons the world will add as much renewable power in the coming five years as it did in the past 20.

All that means batteries, and lots of them—both to propel the cars and to store energy from intermittent renewable power stations. Demand for the minerals from which those batteries are made is soaring. Nickel in particular is in short supply. The element is used in the cathodes of high-performance electric-car batteries to boost capacity and cut weight. The iea calculates that, if it is to meet its decarbonisation goals, the world will need to be producing 48m tonnes of the stuff every year by 2040, around 19 times more than it manages today. That adds up to between 300m and 400m tonnes of metal in total between now and then.

Over the past five years the majority of the growth in demand has been met by Indonesia, which has been bulldozing rainforests to get at the ore beneath. In 2017 the country produced just 17% of the world’s nickel, according to cru, a metals research firm. Today it is responsible for 54%, or 1.6m tonnes a year, and that number is still rising. cru thinks the country will account for 85% of global production growth between now and 2027. Even so, that is unlikely to be enough to meet the world’s rising demand. And as Indonesian nickel production increases, it is expected to replace palm-oil production as the primary cause of deforestation in the country.

But there is an alternative. A patch of Pacific Ocean seabed called the Clarion-Clipperton Zone (CCZ) is dotted with trillions of potato-sized lumps of nickel, cobalt, manganese and copper, all of which are of interest to battery-makers (see map). Collectively the nodules hold an estimated 340m tonnes of nickel alone—more than three times the United States Geological Survey’s estimate of the world’s land-based reserves. Companies have been keen to mine them for several years. With the coming expiration, on July 9th, of an international bureaucratic deadline, that prospect looks more likely than ever.

Darling it’s better down where it’s wetter
That date marks two years since the island nation of Nauru, on behalf of a mining company it sponsors called The Metals Company (TMC), told the International Seabed Authority (ISA), an appendage of the un, that it wanted to mine a part of the CCZ to which it has been granted access. That triggered a requirement for the isa to produce rules governing commercial exploitation of the deposits. If those regulations are not ready by July 9th—and it looks like they will not be—then the isa is required by law to “consider and provisionally approve” tmc’s application. (The firm itself says it hopes to wait until rules can be agreed.)

tmc’s plan is about as straightforward as underwater mining can be. Its first target is a patch of the CCZ called NORI-D, which covers about 2.5m hectares of seabed (an area about 20% bigger than Wales). Gerard Barron, TMC’s boss, estimates there are about 3.8m tonnes of nickel in the area. Since the nodules are simply sitting on the bottom of the ocean, the firm plans to send a large robot to the seabed to hoover them up. The gathered nodules will then be sucked up to a support ship on the surface through a high-tech pipe, similar to ones used in the oil-and-gas industry.

The support ship will wash off any sediment, then offload the nodules to a second ship which will ferry them back to shore for processing. The surplus sediment, meanwhile, will be released back into the sea at a depth of around 1,500 metres, far below most ocean life. Nor is TMC the only firm interested. A Belgian firm called Global Sea Mineral Resources—a subsidiary of Deme, a dredging giant—is also keen, and has tested a sea-floor robot and riser system similar to TMC’s. Three Chinese firms—Beijing Pioneer, China Merchants and China Minmetals—are circling too, though they are reckoned to be further behind technologically.

As with mining on the land, extracting nickel from the sea floor will damage the surrounding ecosystem. Although the CCZ is deep, dark and cold, it is not lifeless. tmc’s robot will destroy any organisms on the seabed it drives across, as well as creatures that live on the nodules it collects. It will also kick up plumes of sediment, some of which will drift onto nearby organisms and kill them (though research from mit shows these plumes tend not to rise more than two metres above the seabed). Adrian Glover, a marine biologist at the Natural History Museum in London, points out that, because life evolved first in the oceans and only later moved to the land, the majority of the genetic diversity on the planet is still found underwater. Although the deep-ocean floor is dark and nutrient-poor, it nevertheless supports thousands of unique species. Most are microbes, but there are also worms, sponges and other invertebrates. The diversity of life is “very high”, says Dr Glover.

Yet in several respects, mining the seabed is more environmentally friendly than mining in Indonesia. The harsh deep-sea environment means that highly diverse life is not very abundant. A paper published in Nature in 2016 found that a given square metre of ccz supports between one and two living organisms, weighing a couple of grams at most. A square metre of Indonesian rainforest, by contrast, contains about 30,000 grams of plant biomass alone, and plenty more if you weigh up primates, birds, reptiles and insects too.

But it is not enough to simply weigh the biomass in each ecosystem. The amount of nickel that can be produced per hectare is also relevant. The 2.5m hectares that tmc hopes to exploit is expected to yield about 3.8m tonnes of nickel, or about 1.5 tonnes per hectare.

Getting hard numbers for land-based mining is tricky, for the firms that do it are less transparent than those hoping to harvest the seabed. But investigative reporting from the Pulitzer Centre, a non-profit media outlet, suggests each hectare of rainforest on Sulawesi, the Indonesian island at the centre of the country’s nickel industry, will produce around 675 tonnes of nickel. (One reason land deposits produce so much more nickel, despite the lower quality of the ore, is because the ore extends far beneath the surface, whereas nodules exist only on the sea bed.)

All that makes a very rough comparison possible. Around 13 kilograms of biomass would be lost for every tonne of CCZ nickel mined. Each tonne mined on Sulawesi would destroy around 450kg of plants alone—plus an unknown amount of animal biomass, too.

There are other environmental arguments in favour of mining the seabed. The nodules contain much higher concentrations of metal than deposits on land, which means less energy is required to process them. Peter Tom Jones, the director of the KU Leuven Institute for Sustainable Metals and Materials, in Belgium, reckons that processing the nodules into useful metals will produce about 40% fewer greenhouse-gas emissions than those from terrestrial ore.

And because the nodules must be taken away for processing anyway, companies like tmc can be encouraged to choose locations where energy comes with low emissions. Indonesian nickel ore, in contrast, is uneconomic unless it is processed near the mines from which it was extracted. That almost always means using electricity generated by burning coal, or even diesel generators. Alex Laugharne, an analyst at CRU, reckons Indonesian nickel production emits about 60 tonnes of planet-heating carbon dioxide for each tonne of nickel. An audit of TMC’s plans carried out by Benchmark Minerals Intelligence, a firm based in London, found that each tonne of nickel harvested from the seabed would produce about six tonnes of CO2.

In any case, metal collected from the seabed is unlikely to entirely replace that mined from the rainforest. Battery production is growing so fast that nickel will probably be dug up from wherever it can be found. But if the ocean nodules can be brought to market affordably, the sheer volume of metal available may start to ease the pressure on Indonesian forests. And such arguments are unlikely to stay theoretical for long. Mr Barron of TMC aims to start the commercial production of nickel and other metals from the seabed by the end of next year.

https://www.economist.com/science-and-technology/2023/07/02/deep-sea-mining-may-soon-ease-the-worlds-battery-metal-shortage?

Reply Quote

Date: 6/07/2023 15:40:45
From: Bubblecar
ID: 2050787
Subject: re: Deep-Sea Mining to Save the Environment

Witty Rejoinder said:


Deep-sea mining may soon ease the world’s battery-metal shortage
Taking nickel from rainforests destroys 30 times more life than getting it from the depths

Jul 2nd 2023

Pushed by the threat of climate change, rich countries are embarking on a grand electrification project. Britain, France and Norway, among others, plan to ban the sale of new internal-combustion cars over the coming decade. Even where bans are not on the statute books, electric-car sales are growing rapidly. Power grids are changing too, as wind turbines and solar panels displace fossil-fuelled power plants. The International Energy Agency (IEA) reckons the world will add as much renewable power in the coming five years as it did in the past 20.

All that means batteries, and lots of them—both to propel the cars and to store energy from intermittent renewable power stations. Demand for the minerals from which those batteries are made is soaring. Nickel in particular is in short supply. The element is used in the cathodes of high-performance electric-car batteries to boost capacity and cut weight. The iea calculates that, if it is to meet its decarbonisation goals, the world will need to be producing 48m tonnes of the stuff every year by 2040, around 19 times more than it manages today. That adds up to between 300m and 400m tonnes of metal in total between now and then.

Over the past five years the majority of the growth in demand has been met by Indonesia, which has been bulldozing rainforests to get at the ore beneath. In 2017 the country produced just 17% of the world’s nickel, according to cru, a metals research firm. Today it is responsible for 54%, or 1.6m tonnes a year, and that number is still rising. cru thinks the country will account for 85% of global production growth between now and 2027. Even so, that is unlikely to be enough to meet the world’s rising demand. And as Indonesian nickel production increases, it is expected to replace palm-oil production as the primary cause of deforestation in the country.

But there is an alternative. A patch of Pacific Ocean seabed called the Clarion-Clipperton Zone (CCZ) is dotted with trillions of potato-sized lumps of nickel, cobalt, manganese and copper, all of which are of interest to battery-makers (see map). Collectively the nodules hold an estimated 340m tonnes of nickel alone—more than three times the United States Geological Survey’s estimate of the world’s land-based reserves. Companies have been keen to mine them for several years. With the coming expiration, on July 9th, of an international bureaucratic deadline, that prospect looks more likely than ever.

Darling it’s better down where it’s wetter
That date marks two years since the island nation of Nauru, on behalf of a mining company it sponsors called The Metals Company (TMC), told the International Seabed Authority (ISA), an appendage of the un, that it wanted to mine a part of the CCZ to which it has been granted access. That triggered a requirement for the isa to produce rules governing commercial exploitation of the deposits. If those regulations are not ready by July 9th—and it looks like they will not be—then the isa is required by law to “consider and provisionally approve” tmc’s application. (The firm itself says it hopes to wait until rules can be agreed.)

tmc’s plan is about as straightforward as underwater mining can be. Its first target is a patch of the CCZ called NORI-D, which covers about 2.5m hectares of seabed (an area about 20% bigger than Wales). Gerard Barron, TMC’s boss, estimates there are about 3.8m tonnes of nickel in the area. Since the nodules are simply sitting on the bottom of the ocean, the firm plans to send a large robot to the seabed to hoover them up. The gathered nodules will then be sucked up to a support ship on the surface through a high-tech pipe, similar to ones used in the oil-and-gas industry.

The support ship will wash off any sediment, then offload the nodules to a second ship which will ferry them back to shore for processing. The surplus sediment, meanwhile, will be released back into the sea at a depth of around 1,500 metres, far below most ocean life. Nor is TMC the only firm interested. A Belgian firm called Global Sea Mineral Resources—a subsidiary of Deme, a dredging giant—is also keen, and has tested a sea-floor robot and riser system similar to TMC’s. Three Chinese firms—Beijing Pioneer, China Merchants and China Minmetals—are circling too, though they are reckoned to be further behind technologically.

As with mining on the land, extracting nickel from the sea floor will damage the surrounding ecosystem. Although the CCZ is deep, dark and cold, it is not lifeless. tmc’s robot will destroy any organisms on the seabed it drives across, as well as creatures that live on the nodules it collects. It will also kick up plumes of sediment, some of which will drift onto nearby organisms and kill them (though research from mit shows these plumes tend not to rise more than two metres above the seabed). Adrian Glover, a marine biologist at the Natural History Museum in London, points out that, because life evolved first in the oceans and only later moved to the land, the majority of the genetic diversity on the planet is still found underwater. Although the deep-ocean floor is dark and nutrient-poor, it nevertheless supports thousands of unique species. Most are microbes, but there are also worms, sponges and other invertebrates. The diversity of life is “very high”, says Dr Glover.

Yet in several respects, mining the seabed is more environmentally friendly than mining in Indonesia. The harsh deep-sea environment means that highly diverse life is not very abundant. A paper published in Nature in 2016 found that a given square metre of ccz supports between one and two living organisms, weighing a couple of grams at most. A square metre of Indonesian rainforest, by contrast, contains about 30,000 grams of plant biomass alone, and plenty more if you weigh up primates, birds, reptiles and insects too.

But it is not enough to simply weigh the biomass in each ecosystem. The amount of nickel that can be produced per hectare is also relevant. The 2.5m hectares that tmc hopes to exploit is expected to yield about 3.8m tonnes of nickel, or about 1.5 tonnes per hectare.

Getting hard numbers for land-based mining is tricky, for the firms that do it are less transparent than those hoping to harvest the seabed. But investigative reporting from the Pulitzer Centre, a non-profit media outlet, suggests each hectare of rainforest on Sulawesi, the Indonesian island at the centre of the country’s nickel industry, will produce around 675 tonnes of nickel. (One reason land deposits produce so much more nickel, despite the lower quality of the ore, is because the ore extends far beneath the surface, whereas nodules exist only on the sea bed.)

All that makes a very rough comparison possible. Around 13 kilograms of biomass would be lost for every tonne of CCZ nickel mined. Each tonne mined on Sulawesi would destroy around 450kg of plants alone—plus an unknown amount of animal biomass, too.

There are other environmental arguments in favour of mining the seabed. The nodules contain much higher concentrations of metal than deposits on land, which means less energy is required to process them. Peter Tom Jones, the director of the KU Leuven Institute for Sustainable Metals and Materials, in Belgium, reckons that processing the nodules into useful metals will produce about 40% fewer greenhouse-gas emissions than those from terrestrial ore.

And because the nodules must be taken away for processing anyway, companies like tmc can be encouraged to choose locations where energy comes with low emissions. Indonesian nickel ore, in contrast, is uneconomic unless it is processed near the mines from which it was extracted. That almost always means using electricity generated by burning coal, or even diesel generators. Alex Laugharne, an analyst at CRU, reckons Indonesian nickel production emits about 60 tonnes of planet-heating carbon dioxide for each tonne of nickel. An audit of TMC’s plans carried out by Benchmark Minerals Intelligence, a firm based in London, found that each tonne of nickel harvested from the seabed would produce about six tonnes of CO2.

In any case, metal collected from the seabed is unlikely to entirely replace that mined from the rainforest. Battery production is growing so fast that nickel will probably be dug up from wherever it can be found. But if the ocean nodules can be brought to market affordably, the sheer volume of metal available may start to ease the pressure on Indonesian forests. And such arguments are unlikely to stay theoretical for long. Mr Barron of TMC aims to start the commercial production of nickel and other metals from the seabed by the end of next year.

https://www.economist.com/science-and-technology/2023/07/02/deep-sea-mining-may-soon-ease-the-worlds-battery-metal-shortage?

Must be very tempting to harvest those nodules.

Reply Quote

Date: 6/07/2023 15:48:56
From: Cymek
ID: 2050792
Subject: re: Deep-Sea Mining to Save the Environment

Can’t really mine without destroying something, lesser of two evils perhaps

Reply Quote

Date: 6/07/2023 16:19:19
From: PermeateFree
ID: 2050801
Subject: re: Deep-Sea Mining to Save the Environment

Witty Rejoinder said:


Deep-sea mining may soon ease the world’s battery-metal shortage
Taking nickel from rainforests destroys 30 times more life than getting it from the depths

Jul 2nd 2023

Pushed by the threat of climate change, rich countries are embarking on a grand electrification project. Britain, France and Norway, among others, plan to ban the sale of new internal-combustion cars over the coming decade. Even where bans are not on the statute books, electric-car sales are growing rapidly. Power grids are changing too, as wind turbines and solar panels displace fossil-fuelled power plants. The International Energy Agency (IEA) reckons the world will add as much renewable power in the coming five years as it did in the past 20.

All that means batteries, and lots of them—both to propel the cars and to store energy from intermittent renewable power stations. Demand for the minerals from which those batteries are made is soaring. Nickel in particular is in short supply. The element is used in the cathodes of high-performance electric-car batteries to boost capacity and cut weight. The iea calculates that, if it is to meet its decarbonisation goals, the world will need to be producing 48m tonnes of the stuff every year by 2040, around 19 times more than it manages today. That adds up to between 300m and 400m tonnes of metal in total between now and then.

Over the past five years the majority of the growth in demand has been met by Indonesia, which has been bulldozing rainforests to get at the ore beneath. In 2017 the country produced just 17% of the world’s nickel, according to cru, a metals research firm. Today it is responsible for 54%, or 1.6m tonnes a year, and that number is still rising. cru thinks the country will account for 85% of global production growth between now and 2027. Even so, that is unlikely to be enough to meet the world’s rising demand. And as Indonesian nickel production increases, it is expected to replace palm-oil production as the primary cause of deforestation in the country.

But there is an alternative. A patch of Pacific Ocean seabed called the Clarion-Clipperton Zone (CCZ) is dotted with trillions of potato-sized lumps of nickel, cobalt, manganese and copper, all of which are of interest to battery-makers (see map). Collectively the nodules hold an estimated 340m tonnes of nickel alone—more than three times the United States Geological Survey’s estimate of the world’s land-based reserves. Companies have been keen to mine them for several years. With the coming expiration, on July 9th, of an international bureaucratic deadline, that prospect looks more likely than ever.

Darling it’s better down where it’s wetter
That date marks two years since the island nation of Nauru, on behalf of a mining company it sponsors called The Metals Company (TMC), told the International Seabed Authority (ISA), an appendage of the un, that it wanted to mine a part of the CCZ to which it has been granted access. That triggered a requirement for the isa to produce rules governing commercial exploitation of the deposits. If those regulations are not ready by July 9th—and it looks like they will not be—then the isa is required by law to “consider and provisionally approve” tmc’s application. (The firm itself says it hopes to wait until rules can be agreed.)

tmc’s plan is about as straightforward as underwater mining can be. Its first target is a patch of the CCZ called NORI-D, which covers about 2.5m hectares of seabed (an area about 20% bigger than Wales). Gerard Barron, TMC’s boss, estimates there are about 3.8m tonnes of nickel in the area. Since the nodules are simply sitting on the bottom of the ocean, the firm plans to send a large robot to the seabed to hoover them up. The gathered nodules will then be sucked up to a support ship on the surface through a high-tech pipe, similar to ones used in the oil-and-gas industry.

The support ship will wash off any sediment, then offload the nodules to a second ship which will ferry them back to shore for processing. The surplus sediment, meanwhile, will be released back into the sea at a depth of around 1,500 metres, far below most ocean life. Nor is TMC the only firm interested. A Belgian firm called Global Sea Mineral Resources—a subsidiary of Deme, a dredging giant—is also keen, and has tested a sea-floor robot and riser system similar to TMC’s. Three Chinese firms—Beijing Pioneer, China Merchants and China Minmetals—are circling too, though they are reckoned to be further behind technologically.

As with mining on the land, extracting nickel from the sea floor will damage the surrounding ecosystem. Although the CCZ is deep, dark and cold, it is not lifeless. tmc’s robot will destroy any organisms on the seabed it drives across, as well as creatures that live on the nodules it collects. It will also kick up plumes of sediment, some of which will drift onto nearby organisms and kill them (though research from mit shows these plumes tend not to rise more than two metres above the seabed). Adrian Glover, a marine biologist at the Natural History Museum in London, points out that, because life evolved first in the oceans and only later moved to the land, the majority of the genetic diversity on the planet is still found underwater. Although the deep-ocean floor is dark and nutrient-poor, it nevertheless supports thousands of unique species. Most are microbes, but there are also worms, sponges and other invertebrates. The diversity of life is “very high”, says Dr Glover.

Yet in several respects, mining the seabed is more environmentally friendly than mining in Indonesia. The harsh deep-sea environment means that highly diverse life is not very abundant. A paper published in Nature in 2016 found that a given square metre of ccz supports between one and two living organisms, weighing a couple of grams at most. A square metre of Indonesian rainforest, by contrast, contains about 30,000 grams of plant biomass alone, and plenty more if you weigh up primates, birds, reptiles and insects too.

But it is not enough to simply weigh the biomass in each ecosystem. The amount of nickel that can be produced per hectare is also relevant. The 2.5m hectares that tmc hopes to exploit is expected to yield about 3.8m tonnes of nickel, or about 1.5 tonnes per hectare.

Getting hard numbers for land-based mining is tricky, for the firms that do it are less transparent than those hoping to harvest the seabed. But investigative reporting from the Pulitzer Centre, a non-profit media outlet, suggests each hectare of rainforest on Sulawesi, the Indonesian island at the centre of the country’s nickel industry, will produce around 675 tonnes of nickel. (One reason land deposits produce so much more nickel, despite the lower quality of the ore, is because the ore extends far beneath the surface, whereas nodules exist only on the sea bed.)

All that makes a very rough comparison possible. Around 13 kilograms of biomass would be lost for every tonne of CCZ nickel mined. Each tonne mined on Sulawesi would destroy around 450kg of plants alone—plus an unknown amount of animal biomass, too.

There are other environmental arguments in favour of mining the seabed. The nodules contain much higher concentrations of metal than deposits on land, which means less energy is required to process them. Peter Tom Jones, the director of the KU Leuven Institute for Sustainable Metals and Materials, in Belgium, reckons that processing the nodules into useful metals will produce about 40% fewer greenhouse-gas emissions than those from terrestrial ore.

And because the nodules must be taken away for processing anyway, companies like tmc can be encouraged to choose locations where energy comes with low emissions. Indonesian nickel ore, in contrast, is uneconomic unless it is processed near the mines from which it was extracted. That almost always means using electricity generated by burning coal, or even diesel generators. Alex Laugharne, an analyst at CRU, reckons Indonesian nickel production emits about 60 tonnes of planet-heating carbon dioxide for each tonne of nickel. An audit of TMC’s plans carried out by Benchmark Minerals Intelligence, a firm based in London, found that each tonne of nickel harvested from the seabed would produce about six tonnes of CO2.

In any case, metal collected from the seabed is unlikely to entirely replace that mined from the rainforest. Battery production is growing so fast that nickel will probably be dug up from wherever it can be found. But if the ocean nodules can be brought to market affordably, the sheer volume of metal available may start to ease the pressure on Indonesian forests. And such arguments are unlikely to stay theoretical for long. Mr Barron of TMC aims to start the commercial production of nickel and other metals from the seabed by the end of next year.

https://www.economist.com/science-and-technology/2023/07/02/deep-sea-mining-may-soon-ease-the-worlds-battery-metal-shortage?

Sort of article you would expect from “The Economist” where the environment comes a longway last when it comes to making money. It might have merit if we knew more about these deep-sea environments and what damage is likely to be done so we can supposedly fix a balls-up we have made elsewhere. We just don’t learn; we repeat our destructive ways to make money and to hell with any consequences. Is there any wonder we are in the perilous position we have placed ourselves. We really don’t deserve this amazing planet and I suspect it will be justly taken from us in the foreseeable future.

Reply Quote

Date: 6/07/2023 16:24:36
From: Michael V
ID: 2050805
Subject: re: Deep-Sea Mining to Save the Environment

This smacks of greenwashing.

Reply Quote

Date: 6/07/2023 16:30:53
From: Witty Rejoinder
ID: 2050811
Subject: re: Deep-Sea Mining to Save the Environment

Michael V said:


This smacks of greenwashing.

If anything ‘The Economist’ does pride itself on being pragmatic.

Reply Quote

Date: 6/07/2023 16:36:46
From: Cymek
ID: 2050816
Subject: re: Deep-Sea Mining to Save the Environment

Not sure the human race can exist without exploiting the planet.
Less of us less damage for sure but never none.
We do seem to be very lazy and blase though and kind of just see what happens after the fact even if we have strong ideas its going to go wrong.

Reply Quote

Date: 6/07/2023 16:39:08
From: The-Spectator
ID: 2050819
Subject: re: Deep-Sea Mining to Save the Environment

I’ve invested money in this venture should get a nice return

Deep ocean no one will ever notice

Reply Quote

Date: 6/07/2023 16:41:20
From: PermeateFree
ID: 2050823
Subject: re: Deep-Sea Mining to Save the Environment

Cymek said:


Not sure the human race can exist without exploiting the planet.
Less of us less damage for sure but never none.
We do seem to be very lazy and blase though and kind of just see what happens after the fact even if we have strong ideas its going to go wrong.

Perhaps if we considered ourselves as custodians of this planet, rather than possessing it to exploit, outcomes might be considerably improved.

Reply Quote

Date: 6/07/2023 16:42:12
From: PermeateFree
ID: 2050825
Subject: re: Deep-Sea Mining to Save the Environment

The-Spectator said:


I’ve invested money in this venture should get a nice return

Deep ocean no one will ever notice

That is the big problem.

Reply Quote

Date: 6/07/2023 16:42:52
From: Cymek
ID: 2050826
Subject: re: Deep-Sea Mining to Save the Environment

PermeateFree said:


Cymek said:

Not sure the human race can exist without exploiting the planet.
Less of us less damage for sure but never none.
We do seem to be very lazy and blase though and kind of just see what happens after the fact even if we have strong ideas its going to go wrong.

Perhaps if we considered ourselves as custodians of this planet, rather than possessing it to exploit, outcomes might be considerably improved.

For sure

Reply Quote

Date: 6/07/2023 19:01:37
From: mollwollfumble
ID: 2050916
Subject: re: Deep-Sea Mining to Save the Environment

> Taking nickel from rainforests destroys 30 times more life than getting it from the depths

I’ve been thinking that for a long time. Ever since the Glomar Challenger and Glomar Explorer.

Thanks for the update. Also the map and photo, I hadn’t seen either of those before.

Reply Quote

Date: 6/07/2023 19:03:21
From: roughbarked
ID: 2050922
Subject: re: Deep-Sea Mining to Save the Environment

mollwollfumble said:


> Taking nickel from rainforests destroys 30 times more life than getting it from the depths

I’ve been thinking that for a long time. Ever since the Glomar Challenger and Glomar Explorer.

Thanks for the update. Also the map and photo, I hadn’t seen either of those before.

What want you to show me and I am sure others do as well, is at least an actual fact sheet to show that your posts actually mean anything at all.

Reply Quote

Date: 6/07/2023 19:08:23
From: party_pants
ID: 2050927
Subject: re: Deep-Sea Mining to Save the Environment

There are plenty of nickel deposits in WA, in the semi-arid semi-outback type places. No destruction of rainforest required to develop them.

Reply Quote

Date: 6/07/2023 19:09:15
From: roughbarked
ID: 2050928
Subject: re: Deep-Sea Mining to Save the Environment

party_pants said:


There are plenty of nickel deposits in WA, in the semi-arid semi-outback type places. No destruction of rainforest required to develop them.

All true but do you know which lizards live underneath?

Reply Quote

Date: 6/07/2023 19:10:52
From: party_pants
ID: 2050930
Subject: re: Deep-Sea Mining to Save the Environment

roughbarked said:


party_pants said:

There are plenty of nickel deposits in WA, in the semi-arid semi-outback type places. No destruction of rainforest required to develop them.

All true but do you know which lizards live underneath?

No, I am not personal friends with any lizards.

Reply Quote

Date: 6/07/2023 19:11:25
From: ChrispenEvan
ID: 2050931
Subject: re: Deep-Sea Mining to Save the Environment

no matter where you mine stuff you are going to disrupt some ecosystem. Anybody who uses mined products is as guilty as those that mine it.

Reply Quote

Date: 6/07/2023 19:13:08
From: Peak Warming Man
ID: 2050935
Subject: re: Deep-Sea Mining to Save the Environment

ChrispenEvan said:


no matter where you mine stuff you are going to disrupt some ecosystem. Anybody who uses mined products is as guilty as those that mine it.

*shakes fist at Bronz age people.

Reply Quote

Date: 6/07/2023 19:14:45
From: party_pants
ID: 2050936
Subject: re: Deep-Sea Mining to Save the Environment

ChrispenEvan said:


no matter where you mine stuff you are going to disrupt some ecosystem. Anybody who uses mined products is as guilty as those that mine it.

Much of the business of my work involves supplying stuff to mining companies – BHP Nickelwest operations amongst them.

Reply Quote

Date: 6/07/2023 19:14:58
From: ChrispenEvan
ID: 2050938
Subject: re: Deep-Sea Mining to Save the Environment

Peak Warming Man said:


ChrispenEvan said:

no matter where you mine stuff you are going to disrupt some ecosystem. Anybody who uses mined products is as guilty as those that mine it.

*shakes fist at Bronz age people.

what about those neos? fucking up those nodules.

Reply Quote

Date: 6/07/2023 19:15:22
From: ChrispenEvan
ID: 2050939
Subject: re: Deep-Sea Mining to Save the Environment

party_pants said:


ChrispenEvan said:

no matter where you mine stuff you are going to disrupt some ecosystem. Anybody who uses mined products is as guilty as those that mine it.

Much of the business of my work involves supplying stuff to mining companies – BHP Nickelwest operations amongst them.

points and hisses.

Reply Quote

Date: 6/07/2023 19:16:23
From: roughbarked
ID: 2050942
Subject: re: Deep-Sea Mining to Save the Environment

ChrispenEvan said:


no matter where you mine stuff you are going to disrupt some ecosystem. Anybody who uses mined products is as guilty as those that mine it.

This my friend is indeed the reality we all must be aware of to accept that we are genocidal maniacs.

Reply Quote

Date: 6/07/2023 19:21:29
From: ChrispenEvan
ID: 2050944
Subject: re: Deep-Sea Mining to Save the Environment

roughbarked said:


ChrispenEvan said:

no matter where you mine stuff you are going to disrupt some ecosystem. Anybody who uses mined products is as guilty as those that mine it.

This my friend is indeed the reality we all must be aware of to accept that we are genocidal maniacs.

but like animal farm, some moreso than others.

Reply Quote

Date: 6/07/2023 19:24:53
From: roughbarked
ID: 2050947
Subject: re: Deep-Sea Mining to Save the Environment

ChrispenEvan said:


roughbarked said:

ChrispenEvan said:

no matter where you mine stuff you are going to disrupt some ecosystem. Anybody who uses mined products is as guilty as those that mine it.

This my friend is indeed the reality we all must be aware of to accept that we are genocidal maniacs.

but like animal farm, some moreso than others.

You saying you’re barlish?

Reply Quote

Date: 6/07/2023 22:23:01
From: PermeateFree
ID: 2051029
Subject: re: Deep-Sea Mining to Save the Environment

An obvious problem with deep-sea mining is the deep bed of silt on the bottom, in which we have little idea what might live there. When mining, this fine silt will be stirred up and drift elsewhere doing unknown damage to neighboring habitats and others further away. We have no idea what will happen with 24 hour digging in this highly sensitive environment and we have no idea what will happen further afield. In other words, we simply do not know what we are doing and the environmental costs could be anything, but very likely devastating, possibly over a very large area.

Reply Quote

Date: 7/07/2023 00:08:36
From: Witty Rejoinder
ID: 2051042
Subject: re: Deep-Sea Mining to Save the Environment

PermeateFree said:


An obvious problem with deep-sea mining is the deep bed of silt on the bottom, in which we have little idea what might live there. When mining, this fine silt will be stirred up and drift elsewhere doing unknown damage to neighboring habitats and others further away. We have no idea what will happen with 24 hour digging in this highly sensitive environment and we have no idea what will happen further afield. In other words, we simply do not know what we are doing and the environmental costs could be anything, but very likely devastating, possibly over a very large area.

Disregarding the unknown unknowns the question remains is it better than ripping down rainforest? Ideally we’d do neither but short of all humanity turning vegan, the banning of private transport and taxing consumption out the wing wang we are going to need all the nickel we can get our grubby little hands on.

Reply Quote

Date: 7/07/2023 00:21:12
From: Ian
ID: 2051044
Subject: re: Deep-Sea Mining to Save the Environment

Witty Rejoinder said:


PermeateFree said:

An obvious problem with deep-sea mining is the deep bed of silt on the bottom, in which we have little idea what might live there. When mining, this fine silt will be stirred up and drift elsewhere doing unknown damage to neighboring habitats and others further away. We have no idea what will happen with 24 hour digging in this highly sensitive environment and we have no idea what will happen further afield. In other words, we simply do not know what we are doing and the environmental costs could be anything, but very likely devastating, possibly over a very large area.

Disregarding the unknown unknowns the question remains is it better than ripping down rainforest? Ideally we’d do neither but short of all humanity turning vegan, the banning of private transport and taxing consumption out the wing wang we are going to need all the nickel we can get our grubby little hands on.

And we’re going to need wing and wang.

Reply Quote

Date: 7/07/2023 00:24:26
From: Witty Rejoinder
ID: 2051046
Subject: re: Deep-Sea Mining to Save the Environment

Ian said:


Witty Rejoinder said:

PermeateFree said:

An obvious problem with deep-sea mining is the deep bed of silt on the bottom, in which we have little idea what might live there. When mining, this fine silt will be stirred up and drift elsewhere doing unknown damage to neighboring habitats and others further away. We have no idea what will happen with 24 hour digging in this highly sensitive environment and we have no idea what will happen further afield. In other words, we simply do not know what we are doing and the environmental costs could be anything, but very likely devastating, possibly over a very large area.

Disregarding the unknown unknowns the question remains is it better than ripping down rainforest? Ideally we’d do neither but short of all humanity turning vegan, the banning of private transport and taxing consumption out the wing wang we are going to need all the nickel we can get our grubby little hands on.

And we’re going to need wing and wang.

Urrr… it’s late and I’m old: yin-yang.

Reply Quote

Date: 7/07/2023 00:31:46
From: Ian
ID: 2051049
Subject: re: Deep-Sea Mining to Save the Environment

Well the whole thing needs more study.

Reply Quote

Date: 7/07/2023 19:17:20
From: wookiemeister
ID: 2051326
Subject: re: Deep-Sea Mining to Save the Environment

Isn’t this just a way to dig out minerals without paying any nation taxes ( killing millions of creatures in the ocean couldn’t be stopped easily)

Reply Quote

Date: 12/07/2023 00:02:25
From: Witty Rejoinder
ID: 2052933
Subject: re: Deep-Sea Mining to Save the Environment

Deep-sea mining could impact tuna fisheries – study
Reuters
July 11, 20237:42 PM GMT+10

MELBOURNE, July 11 (Reuters) – Deep-sea mining could interfere with migration of tuna that is expected to be driven by climate change to areas of the Pacific Ocean currently slated for mining activity, a study released on Tuesday showed.

The Nature Sustainability journal study, which centred on three species of tuna, found climate change would likely change their migration patterns. That raised the potential for conflict between some of the world’s most valuable fisheries and the prospective mining in the Clarion-Clipperton Zone southeast of Hawaii.

Mining companies say the ocean floor is potentially rich in metals including nickel and cobalt used in batteries for electric vehicles, so their extraction will support the global energy transition.

The U.N. body that regulates the sector is expected to press pause on plans to extract minerals from the ocean floor when it meets this month due to environmental and economic risks.

“The high seas harbor a trove of biodiversity, and there are critical sectors of our economy that depend on this biodiversity,” said study co-author Dr. Juliano Palacios Abrantes from the University of British Columbia.

“There is already uncertainty about the impact of climate change on the health and geographic range of tuna. Deep-sea mining will only add to this uncertainty, further threatening tuna species and associated fisheries.”

Potentially impacting the fish would be plumes of sediment stirred up by mining of sea nodules and any associated noise or light pollution that could impact reproduction rates, among other issues, the study found.

The research was released alongside a letter from seafood industry groups advocating for a pause in deep-sea mining development until the socioeconomic and environmental impacts could be more thoroughly analysed.

“In the vast expanse of the high seas, critical for tuna species, we find ourselves sailing into uncharted territory with the unknown risks posed by deep-sea mining,” said Daniel Suddaby, executive director at Global Tuna Alliance whose 48 industry partners account for 32% of the global tuna trade.

https://www.reuters.com/science/deep-sea-mining-could-impact-tuna-fisheries-study-2023-07-11/

Reply Quote

Date: 12/07/2023 01:35:43
From: PermeateFree
ID: 2052963
Subject: re: Deep-Sea Mining to Save the Environment

Witty Rejoinder said:


Deep-sea mining could impact tuna fisheries – study
Reuters
July 11, 20237:42 PM GMT+10

MELBOURNE, July 11 (Reuters) – Deep-sea mining could interfere with migration of tuna that is expected to be driven by climate change to areas of the Pacific Ocean currently slated for mining activity, a study released on Tuesday showed.

The Nature Sustainability journal study, which centred on three species of tuna, found climate change would likely change their migration patterns. That raised the potential for conflict between some of the world’s most valuable fisheries and the prospective mining in the Clarion-Clipperton Zone southeast of Hawaii.

Mining companies say the ocean floor is potentially rich in metals including nickel and cobalt used in batteries for electric vehicles, so their extraction will support the global energy transition.

The U.N. body that regulates the sector is expected to press pause on plans to extract minerals from the ocean floor when it meets this month due to environmental and economic risks.

“The high seas harbor a trove of biodiversity, and there are critical sectors of our economy that depend on this biodiversity,” said study co-author Dr. Juliano Palacios Abrantes from the University of British Columbia.

“There is already uncertainty about the impact of climate change on the health and geographic range of tuna. Deep-sea mining will only add to this uncertainty, further threatening tuna species and associated fisheries.”

Potentially impacting the fish would be plumes of sediment stirred up by mining of sea nodules and any associated noise or light pollution that could impact reproduction rates, among other issues, the study found.

The research was released alongside a letter from seafood industry groups advocating for a pause in deep-sea mining development until the socioeconomic and environmental impacts could be more thoroughly analysed.

“In the vast expanse of the high seas, critical for tuna species, we find ourselves sailing into uncharted territory with the unknown risks posed by deep-sea mining,” said Daniel Suddaby, executive director at Global Tuna Alliance whose 48 industry partners account for 32% of the global tuna trade.

https://www.reuters.com/science/deep-sea-mining-could-impact-tuna-fisheries-study-2023-07-11/

Nods enthusiastically! Good to see some fightback.

Reply Quote

Date: 12/07/2023 13:41:01
From: diddly-squat
ID: 2053163
Subject: re: Deep-Sea Mining to Save the Environment

Cymek said:


Can’t really mine without destroying something, lesser of two evils perhaps

that’s not entirely correct, or at the very least depends on your definition of ‘destroying’

Reply Quote

Date: 12/07/2023 13:43:43
From: roughbarked
ID: 2053167
Subject: re: Deep-Sea Mining to Save the Environment

diddly-squat said:


Cymek said:

Can’t really mine without destroying something, lesser of two evils perhaps

that’s not entirely correct, or at the very least depends on your definition of ‘destroying’

Highly mineralised sites under the sea are usually where small populations of very different creatures that will disappear if these sites are mined.
All beings have a right to life and take their chances on being food for another being.

Reply Quote

Date: 12/07/2023 13:43:58
From: Cymek
ID: 2053168
Subject: re: Deep-Sea Mining to Save the Environment

diddly-squat said:


Cymek said:

Can’t really mine without destroying something, lesser of two evils perhaps

that’s not entirely correct, or at the very least depends on your definition of ‘destroying’

Digging up and disrupting the natural landscape.
Being underground you have to destroy or damage something to get to it

Reply Quote

Date: 12/07/2023 13:45:16
From: roughbarked
ID: 2053170
Subject: re: Deep-Sea Mining to Save the Environment

Cymek said:


diddly-squat said:

Cymek said:

Can’t really mine without destroying something, lesser of two evils perhaps

that’s not entirely correct, or at the very least depends on your definition of ‘destroying’

Digging up and disrupting the natural landscape.
Being underground you have to destroy or damage something to get to it

If you didn’t see what you killed then it didn’t happen. That’s the physicists excuse.

Reply Quote

Date: 12/07/2023 13:47:49
From: diddly-squat
ID: 2053171
Subject: re: Deep-Sea Mining to Save the Environment

My take on deep seam mining is as follows…

Mining is largely a commercial exercise (in absence of some nationalised activities), it’s about extracting and processing a natural resource for profit.

The trick moving forward is to associate costs to previously un-costed elements of the upstream and downstream supply chain so that mining activities more accurately represent the true cost of production.

mining in the deep ocean is IMO, largely fanciful as it’s difficult, costly, and very risky for not much more economic benefit.

Reply Quote

Date: 12/07/2023 13:47:50
From: SCIENCE
ID: 2053172
Subject: re: Deep-Sea Mining to Save the Environment

roughbarked said:

Cymek said:

diddly-squat said:

that’s not entirely correct, or at the very least depends on your definition of ‘destroying’

Digging up and disrupting the natural landscape.
Being underground you have to destroy or damage something to get to it

If you didn’t see what you killed then it didn’t happen. That’s the physicists excuse.

That’s What Stockton Rush Said

But he had a fair point, send more billionaires down there into the mines, probably would save the environment.

Reply Quote

Date: 12/07/2023 13:48:22
From: SCIENCE
ID: 2053174
Subject: re: Deep-Sea Mining to Save the Environment

Cymek said:

diddly-squat said:

Cymek said:

Can’t really mine without destroying something, lesser of two evils perhaps

that’s not entirely correct, or at the very least depends on your definition of ‘destroying’

Digging up and disrupting the natural landscape.
Being underground you have to destroy or damage something to get to it

We do data mining, we create stuff without destroying.

Reply Quote

Date: 12/07/2023 13:49:22
From: roughbarked
ID: 2053175
Subject: re: Deep-Sea Mining to Save the Environment

diddly-squat said:

My take on deep seam mining is as follows…

Mining is largely a commercial exercise (in absence of some nationalised activities), it’s about extracting and processing a natural resource for profit.

The trick moving forward is to associate costs to previously un-costed elements of the upstream and downstream supply chain so that mining activities more accurately represent the true cost of production.

mining in the deep ocean is IMO, largely fanciful as it’s difficult, costly, and very risky for not much more economic benefit.

Makes sense.

Reply Quote

Date: 12/07/2023 13:50:07
From: Cymek
ID: 2053176
Subject: re: Deep-Sea Mining to Save the Environment

SCIENCE said:

Cymek said:

diddly-squat said:

that’s not entirely correct, or at the very least depends on your definition of ‘destroying’

Digging up and disrupting the natural landscape.
Being underground you have to destroy or damage something to get to it

We do data mining, we create stuff without destroying.

Privacy is destroyed but yes otherwise no

Reply Quote

Date: 12/07/2023 13:50:44
From: roughbarked
ID: 2053177
Subject: re: Deep-Sea Mining to Save the Environment

SCIENCE said:

Cymek said:

diddly-squat said:

that’s not entirely correct, or at the very least depends on your definition of ‘destroying’

Digging up and disrupting the natural landscape.
Being underground you have to destroy or damage something to get to it

We do data mining, we create stuff without destroying.

Do you know how thta animal died? It costs huge amounts of energy which in its creation wipes out heaps.

Reply Quote

Date: 12/07/2023 13:51:25
From: diddly-squat
ID: 2053178
Subject: re: Deep-Sea Mining to Save the Environment

Cymek said:


diddly-squat said:

Cymek said:

Can’t really mine without destroying something, lesser of two evils perhaps

that’s not entirely correct, or at the very least depends on your definition of ‘destroying’

Digging up and disrupting the natural landscape.
Being underground you have to destroy or damage something to get to it

for me the questions is, does the activity permanently impact the natural environment to a point where the post mining land use is less environmentally productive.

Reply Quote

Date: 12/07/2023 13:54:16
From: roughbarked
ID: 2053179
Subject: re: Deep-Sea Mining to Save the Environment

diddly-squat said:


Cymek said:

diddly-squat said:

that’s not entirely correct, or at the very least depends on your definition of ‘destroying’

Digging up and disrupting the natural landscape.
Being underground you have to destroy or damage something to get to it

for me the questions is, does the activity permanently impact the natural environment to a point where the post mining land use is less environmentally productive.

In most cases, yes. Either it is a huge open cut thta spreads itss dust far and wide and stains the topsoil with highly toxic leached chemicals or it is a longwall or cavern underground which changes the course of streams from the surface to underground which in turn often causes subsidence.

Reply Quote

Date: 12/07/2023 14:00:23
From: diddly-squat
ID: 2053180
Subject: re: Deep-Sea Mining to Save the Environment

roughbarked said:


diddly-squat said:

Cymek said:

Digging up and disrupting the natural landscape.
Being underground you have to destroy or damage something to get to it

for me the questions is, does the activity permanently impact the natural environment to a point where the post mining land use is less environmentally productive.

In most cases, yes. Either it is a huge open cut that spreads itss dust far and wide and stains the topsoil with highly toxic leached chemicals or it is a longwall or cavern underground which changes the course of streams from the surface to underground which in turn often causes subsidence.

there are plenty of underground methods that lead to no surface subsidence

Reply Quote

Date: 12/07/2023 14:02:39
From: diddly-squat
ID: 2053182
Subject: re: Deep-Sea Mining to Save the Environment

diddly-squat said:


roughbarked said:

diddly-squat said:

for me the questions is, does the activity permanently impact the natural environment to a point where the post mining land use is less environmentally productive.

In most cases, yes. Either it is a huge open cut that spreads itss dust far and wide and stains the topsoil with highly toxic leached chemicals or it is a longwall or cavern underground which changes the course of streams from the surface to underground which in turn often causes subsidence.

there are plenty of underground methods that lead to no surface subsidence

or indeed no impact to the hydrogeological environment

Reply Quote

Date: 12/07/2023 14:19:20
From: dv
ID: 2053188
Subject: re: Deep-Sea Mining to Save the Environment

That’s the one thing that was unbelievable about Avatar. They’ve developed interstellar travel and can port their spirits into fake bodies, but they’ve forgotten how to mine under a tree safely.

Reply Quote

Date: 12/07/2023 14:19:32
From: SCIENCE
ID: 2053189
Subject: re: Deep-Sea Mining to Save the Environment

Cymek said:

SCIENCE said:

Cymek said:

Digging up and disrupting the natural landscape.
Being underground you have to destroy or damage something to get to it

We do data mining, we create stuff without destroying.

Privacy is destroyed but yes otherwise no

Look, wise guy, you

… could be right if we didn’t do it ethically, fine.

Reply Quote

Date: 12/07/2023 14:42:58
From: dv
ID: 2053195
Subject: re: Deep-Sea Mining to Save the Environment

Anyway it makes sense that the place with the lowest biodiversity can suffer the least impact on biodiversity so we need to put all our chips on mining in Antarctica

Reply Quote

Date: 12/07/2023 14:49:38
From: diddly-squat
ID: 2053198
Subject: re: Deep-Sea Mining to Save the Environment

dv said:


That’s the one thing that was unbelievable about Avatar. They’ve developed interstellar travel and can port their spirits into fake bodies, but they’ve forgotten how to mine under a tree safely.

That movie cracks me up

Reply Quote

Date: 12/07/2023 14:50:13
From: SCIENCE
ID: 2053199
Subject: re: Deep-Sea Mining to Save the Environment

dv said:

Anyway it makes sense that the place with the lowest biodiversity can suffer the least impact on biodiversity so we need to put all our chips on mining in Antarctica

Thankfully we’re like 10 years from melting all the reserves to the surface so this is fully legit‘¡

Reply Quote

Date: 12/07/2023 14:50:26
From: diddly-squat
ID: 2053200
Subject: re: Deep-Sea Mining to Save the Environment

dv said:


Anyway it makes sense that the place with the lowest biodiversity can suffer the least impact on biodiversity so we need to put all our chips on mining in Antarctica

Sie, I like the cut of your jib…

Reply Quote

Date: 12/07/2023 14:52:26
From: Michael V
ID: 2053203
Subject: re: Deep-Sea Mining to Save the Environment

dv said:


Anyway it makes sense that the place with the lowest biodiversity can suffer the least impact on biodiversity so we need to put all our chips on mining in Antarctica

Well, there’s Permian coal there. And Devonian sandstones, the equivalent of the Rolling Downs Group, so I make the assumption that there’s the equivalent of the Lachlan Fold Belt under them, so there’s the possibility of giant porphyry copper-gold deposits. There might even be the equivalent of the Proterozoic Broken Hill / Mt. Isa rocks there, too. Giant lead-silver-zinc and giant copper deposits anyone? Uranium deposits? REE deposits?

Unfortunately there is a no-mining treaty…

Reply Quote

Date: 12/07/2023 14:54:28
From: OCDC
ID: 2053205
Subject: re: Deep-Sea Mining to Save the Environment

Michael V said:

dv said:
Anyway it makes sense that the place with the lowest biodiversity can suffer the least impact on biodiversity so we need to put all our chips on mining in Antarctica
Well, there’s Permian coal there. And Devonian sandstones, the equivalent of the Rolling Downs Group, so I make the assumption that there’s the equivalent of the Lachlan Fold Belt under them, so there’s the possibility of giant porphyry copper-gold deposits. There might even be the equivalent of the Proterozoic Broken Hill / Mt. Isa rocks there, too. Giant lead-silver-zinc and giant copper deposits anyone? Uranium deposits? REE deposits?

Unfortunately there is a no-mining treaty…

buys shares in DV’s mining company
(He won’t let a little treaty stop him.)

Reply Quote

Date: 12/07/2023 14:58:15
From: diddly-squat
ID: 2053206
Subject: re: Deep-Sea Mining to Save the Environment

Michael V said:

Unfortunately there is a no-mining treaty…

pffft seems to me you are forgetting which team you bat for, Mr V

Reply Quote

Date: 12/07/2023 15:00:17
From: Michael V
ID: 2053208
Subject: re: Deep-Sea Mining to Save the Environment

diddly-squat said:


Michael V said:

Unfortunately there is a no-mining treaty…

pffft seems to me you are forgetting which team you bat for, Mr V

:)

Reply Quote

Date: 12/07/2023 15:01:32
From: Michael V
ID: 2053209
Subject: re: Deep-Sea Mining to Save the Environment

OCDC said:


Michael V said:
dv said:
Anyway it makes sense that the place with the lowest biodiversity can suffer the least impact on biodiversity so we need to put all our chips on mining in Antarctica
Well, there’s Permian coal there. And Devonian sandstones, the equivalent of the Rolling Downs Group, so I make the assumption that there’s the equivalent of the Lachlan Fold Belt under them, so there’s the possibility of giant porphyry copper-gold deposits. There might even be the equivalent of the Proterozoic Broken Hill / Mt. Isa rocks there, too. Giant lead-silver-zinc and giant copper deposits anyone? Uranium deposits? REE deposits?

Unfortunately there is a no-mining treaty…

buys shares in DV’s mining company
(He won’t let a little treaty stop him.)

:)

Reply Quote

Date: 12/07/2023 15:04:49
From: OCDC
ID: 2053210
Subject: re: Deep-Sea Mining to Save the Environment

If we melt enough ice, we may find more pink and white terraces.

Reply Quote

Date: 12/07/2023 15:09:37
From: Michael V
ID: 2053211
Subject: re: Deep-Sea Mining to Save the Environment

OCDC said:


If we melt enough ice, we may find more pink and white terraces.

Epithermal gold: found above porphyry copper-gold deposits.

Reply Quote

Date: 12/07/2023 15:16:51
From: PermeateFree
ID: 2053213
Subject: re: Deep-Sea Mining to Save the Environment

dv said:


Anyway it makes sense that the place with the lowest biodiversity can suffer the least impact on biodiversity so we need to put all our chips on mining in Antarctica

You forget as you move into a pristine environment you would be destroying, changing and interfering with other environments, unless of course you do it all with gigantic helicopters using a non-polluting fuel.

Pristine environments are few and far between on earth and deserve special consideration, not to forget that there is much we do not know about these places and the damage we do as we blunder into them with large scale operations is fraught with danger. Mining is not a benign operation and requires considerable infrastructure in order to mine, with the means to house and feed the workers, shipping equipment, construction of railways/roads etc., to get goods onto site and the means to get the mined material out. In fact, the actual mining location is usually the smallest area seriously interfered with.

Reply Quote

Date: 12/07/2023 15:17:10
From: SCIENCE
ID: 2053214
Subject: re: Deep-Sea Mining to Save the Environment

Michael V said:

OCDC said:

If we melt enough ice, we may find more pink and white terraces.

Epithermal gold: found above porphyry copper-gold deposits.

And zombie viruses¡

Reply Quote

Date: 12/07/2023 15:19:49
From: Cymek
ID: 2053215
Subject: re: Deep-Sea Mining to Save the Environment

PermeateFree said:


dv said:

Anyway it makes sense that the place with the lowest biodiversity can suffer the least impact on biodiversity so we need to put all our chips on mining in Antarctica

You forget as you move into a pristine environment you would be destroying, changing and interfering with other environments, unless of course you do it all with gigantic helicopters using a non-polluting fuel.

Pristine environments are few and far between on earth and deserve special consideration, not to forget that there is much we do not know about these places and the damage we do as we blunder into them with large scale operations is fraught with danger. Mining is not a benign operation and requires considerable infrastructure in order to mine, with the means to house and feed the workers, shipping equipment, construction of railways/roads etc., to get goods onto site and the means to get the mined material out. In fact, the actual mining location is usually the smallest area seriously interfered with.

I’m surprise the treaty is still intact, that and the non-weaponising of space (assuming its not already)

Reply Quote

Date: 12/07/2023 15:24:32
From: SCIENCE
ID: 2053217
Subject: re: Deep-Sea Mining to Save the Environment

Cymek said:

the non-weaponising of space (assuming its not already)

LOL

Just call it private enterprise and it’s perfectly acceptable like the filibuster freebooters hey¿

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-07-09/elon-musk-stalin-interfering-in-scientific-work/102575480

Reply Quote

Date: 12/07/2023 15:25:43
From: dv
ID: 2053218
Subject: re: Deep-Sea Mining to Save the Environment

Michael V said:


dv said:

Anyway it makes sense that the place with the lowest biodiversity can suffer the least impact on biodiversity so we need to put all our chips on mining in Antarctica

Well, there’s Permian coal there. And Devonian sandstones, the equivalent of the Rolling Downs Group, so I make the assumption that there’s the equivalent of the Lachlan Fold Belt under them, so there’s the possibility of giant porphyry copper-gold deposits. There might even be the equivalent of the Proterozoic Broken Hill / Mt. Isa rocks there, too. Giant lead-silver-zinc and giant copper deposits anyone? Uranium deposits? REE deposits?

Unfortunately there is a no-mining treaty…

Treaty schmeaty

Reply Quote

Date: 12/07/2023 15:27:54
From: The-Spectator
ID: 2053219
Subject: re: Deep-Sea Mining to Save the Environment

dv said:


Michael V said:

dv said:

Anyway it makes sense that the place with the lowest biodiversity can suffer the least impact on biodiversity so we need to put all our chips on mining in Antarctica

Well, there’s Permian coal there. And Devonian sandstones, the equivalent of the Rolling Downs Group, so I make the assumption that there’s the equivalent of the Lachlan Fold Belt under them, so there’s the possibility of giant porphyry copper-gold deposits. There might even be the equivalent of the Proterozoic Broken Hill / Mt. Isa rocks there, too. Giant lead-silver-zinc and giant copper deposits anyone? Uranium deposits? REE deposits?

Unfortunately there is a no-mining treaty…

Treaty schmeaty

Exactly
One of my shell companies is working to get the treaty overturned so we can mine there

Reply Quote

Date: 12/07/2023 15:30:48
From: OCDC
ID: 2053221
Subject: re: Deep-Sea Mining to Save the Environment

dv said:

Michael V said:
dv said:
Anyway it makes sense that the place with the lowest biodiversity can suffer the least impact on biodiversity so we need to put all our chips on mining in Antarctica
Well, there’s Permian coal there. And Devonian sandstones, the equivalent of the Rolling Downs Group, so I make the assumption that there’s the equivalent of the Lachlan Fold Belt under them, so there’s the possibility of giant porphyry copper-gold deposits. There might even be the equivalent of the Proterozoic Broken Hill / Mt. Isa rocks there, too. Giant lead-silver-zinc and giant copper deposits anyone? Uranium deposits? REE deposits?

Unfortunately there is a no-mining treaty…

Treaty schmeaty
Well how about that then.

Reply Quote

Date: 12/07/2023 15:37:58
From: roughbarked
ID: 2053224
Subject: re: Deep-Sea Mining to Save the Environment

diddly-squat said:


roughbarked said:

diddly-squat said:

for me the questions is, does the activity permanently impact the natural environment to a point where the post mining land use is less environmentally productive.

In most cases, yes. Either it is a huge open cut that spreads itss dust far and wide and stains the topsoil with highly toxic leached chemicals or it is a longwall or cavern underground which changes the course of streams from the surface to underground which in turn often causes subsidence.

there are plenty of underground methods that lead to no surface subsidence

I’ve done quite a few myself but I dout anyone is going hand mining under the sea.

Reply Quote

Date: 12/07/2023 15:38:55
From: roughbarked
ID: 2053227
Subject: re: Deep-Sea Mining to Save the Environment

diddly-squat said:


diddly-squat said:

roughbarked said:

In most cases, yes. Either it is a huge open cut that spreads itss dust far and wide and stains the topsoil with highly toxic leached chemicals or it is a longwall or cavern underground which changes the course of streams from the surface to underground which in turn often causes subsidence.

there are plenty of underground methods that lead to no surface subsidence

or indeed no impact to the hydrogeological environment

Go to the opal fields and see how many tunnels are full of water.

Reply Quote

Date: 12/07/2023 15:41:56
From: roughbarked
ID: 2053230
Subject: re: Deep-Sea Mining to Save the Environment

dv said:


Anyway it makes sense that the place with the lowest biodiversity can suffer the least impact on biodiversity so we need to put all our chips on mining in Antarctica

We are still finding out about the biodiversity at the poles and particlarly Antarctica.

Reply Quote

Date: 12/07/2023 15:43:29
From: roughbarked
ID: 2053232
Subject: re: Deep-Sea Mining to Save the Environment

SCIENCE said:

dv said:

Anyway it makes sense that the place with the lowest biodiversity can suffer the least impact on biodiversity so we need to put all our chips on mining in Antarctica

Thankfully we’re like 10 years from melting all the reserves to the surface so this is fully legit‘¡

What are we mining in the ice?

Reply Quote

Date: 12/07/2023 15:44:48
From: roughbarked
ID: 2053233
Subject: re: Deep-Sea Mining to Save the Environment

Michael V said:


dv said:

Anyway it makes sense that the place with the lowest biodiversity can suffer the least impact on biodiversity so we need to put all our chips on mining in Antarctica

Well, there’s Permian coal there. And Devonian sandstones, the equivalent of the Rolling Downs Group, so I make the assumption that there’s the equivalent of the Lachlan Fold Belt under them, so there’s the possibility of giant porphyry copper-gold deposits. There might even be the equivalent of the Proterozoic Broken Hill / Mt. Isa rocks there, too. Giant lead-silver-zinc and giant copper deposits anyone? Uranium deposits? REE deposits?

Unfortunately there is a no-mining treaty…

Yeah there is that.

Reply Quote

Date: 12/07/2023 15:45:16
From: roughbarked
ID: 2053235
Subject: re: Deep-Sea Mining to Save the Environment

OCDC said:


Michael V said:
dv said:
Anyway it makes sense that the place with the lowest biodiversity can suffer the least impact on biodiversity so we need to put all our chips on mining in Antarctica
Well, there’s Permian coal there. And Devonian sandstones, the equivalent of the Rolling Downs Group, so I make the assumption that there’s the equivalent of the Lachlan Fold Belt under them, so there’s the possibility of giant porphyry copper-gold deposits. There might even be the equivalent of the Proterozoic Broken Hill / Mt. Isa rocks there, too. Giant lead-silver-zinc and giant copper deposits anyone? Uranium deposits? REE deposits?

Unfortunately there is a no-mining treaty…

buys shares in DV’s mining company
(He won’t let a little treaty stop him.)

I’ve heard words to that effect.

Reply Quote

Date: 12/07/2023 15:46:01
From: roughbarked
ID: 2053236
Subject: re: Deep-Sea Mining to Save the Environment

diddly-squat said:


Michael V said:

Unfortunately there is a no-mining treaty…

pffft seems to me you are forgetting which team you bat for, Mr V

He’s retired from that and I doubt he could run between wickets.

Reply Quote

Date: 12/07/2023 15:46:53
From: roughbarked
ID: 2053237
Subject: re: Deep-Sea Mining to Save the Environment

Michael V said:


OCDC said:

If we melt enough ice, we may find more pink and white terraces.

Epithermal gold: found above porphyry copper-gold deposits.

If it wasn’t so cold there, those would be gold rush words.

Reply Quote

Date: 12/07/2023 15:49:42
From: roughbarked
ID: 2053238
Subject: re: Deep-Sea Mining to Save the Environment

PermeateFree said:


dv said:

Anyway it makes sense that the place with the lowest biodiversity can suffer the least impact on biodiversity so we need to put all our chips on mining in Antarctica

You forget as you move into a pristine environment you would be destroying, changing and interfering with other environments, unless of course you do it all with gigantic helicopters using a non-polluting fuel.

Pristine environments are few and far between on earth and deserve special consideration, not to forget that there is much we do not know about these places and the damage we do as we blunder into them with large scale operations is fraught with danger. Mining is not a benign operation and requires considerable infrastructure in order to mine, with the means to house and feed the workers, shipping equipment, construction of railways/roads etc., to get goods onto site and the means to get the mined material out. In fact, the actual mining location is usually the smallest area seriously interfered with.

Mostly it is forest clearing and farming then cities that are damaging the environment with a footprint each that far outweighs that of mining. However, the very fact that there is something we want to dig up there, is always why certain plants and animals only existt on that hill or in that valley.

Reply Quote

Date: 12/07/2023 15:50:47
From: roughbarked
ID: 2053239
Subject: re: Deep-Sea Mining to Save the Environment

SCIENCE said:

Cymek said:

the non-weaponising of space (assuming its not already)

LOL

Just call it private enterprise and it’s perfectly acceptable like the filibuster freebooters hey¿

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-07-09/elon-musk-stalin-interfering-in-scientific-work/102575480

Governments even give such projects money on the pretense that it will create more jobs.

Reply Quote

Date: 12/07/2023 15:58:11
From: Witty Rejoinder
ID: 2053240
Subject: re: Deep-Sea Mining to Save the Environment

roughbarked said:


SCIENCE said:

Cymek said:

the non-weaponising of space (assuming its not already)

LOL

Just call it private enterprise and it’s perfectly acceptable like the filibuster freebooters hey¿

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-07-09/elon-musk-stalin-interfering-in-scientific-work/102575480

Governments even give such projects money on the pretense that it will create more jobs.

Stalin is evil from beyond the grave.

Reply Quote

Date: 12/07/2023 16:43:41
From: SCIENCE
ID: 2053244
Subject: re: Deep-Sea Mining to Save the Environment

roughbarked said:

SCIENCE said:

dv said:

Anyway it makes sense that the place with the lowest biodiversity can suffer the least impact on biodiversity so we need to put all our chips on mining in Antarctica

Thankfully we’re like 10 years from melting all the reserves to the surface so this is fully legit‘¡

What are we mining in the ice?

Fresh Water¡

Reply Quote

Date: 12/07/2023 16:45:03
From: SCIENCE
ID: 2053245
Subject: re: Deep-Sea Mining to Save the Environment

dv said:

Michael V said:

dv said:

Anyway it makes sense that the place with the lowest biodiversity can suffer the least impact on biodiversity so we need to put all our chips on mining in Antarctica

Well, there’s Permian coal there. And Devonian sandstones, the equivalent of the Rolling Downs Group, so I make the assumption that there’s the equivalent of the Lachlan Fold Belt under them, so there’s the possibility of giant porphyry copper-gold deposits. There might even be the equivalent of the Proterozoic Broken Hill / Mt. Isa rocks there, too. Giant lead-silver-zinc and giant copper deposits anyone? Uranium deposits? REE deposits?

Unfortunately there is a no-mining treaty…

Treaty schmeaty

Well we heard it on the radio
And we saw it on the television
Back in 1988
All those talking politicians
Words are easy, words are cheap
Much cheaper than our priceless land
But promises can disappear
Just like writing in the sand
This land was never given up
This land was never bought and sold

Reply Quote

Date: 12/07/2023 22:14:31
From: SCIENCE
ID: 2053367
Subject: re: Deep-Sea Mining to Save the Environment

Apparently this https://twitter.com/EliotJacobson/status/1678727804110905344 is a pretty good number of views.

Reply Quote

Date: 14/07/2023 05:33:05
From: SCIENCE
ID: 2053805
Subject: re: Deep-Sea Mining to Save the Environment

Can’t a good guy with a gun just solve this problem¿

https://twitter.com/Nerdy_Addict/status/1678746319253385216

Reply Quote

Date: 14/07/2023 06:17:37
From: roughbarked
ID: 2053806
Subject: re: Deep-Sea Mining to Save the Environment

SCIENCE said:

Can’t a good guy with a gun just solve this problem¿

https://twitter.com/Nerdy_Addict/status/1678746319253385216


:) sitting ducks.

Reply Quote

Date: 14/07/2023 12:21:42
From: SCIENCE
ID: 2053938
Subject: re: Deep-Sea Mining to Save the Environment

sarahs mum said:

“The figures out of Florida are paradoxically chilling,” says Elizabeth Kolbert on ocean temperatures reaching over 90 degrees Fahrenheit. “I think a lot scientists are looking at this spike in sea surface temperatures as among the most worrying signs that you could have.”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yQz3FBBXvzs

It’s pretty fucked but we guess it’s what we’d expect when an infectious disease literally disables 20% of the world human population and drops life expectancy by 3 years in 3 years but humans just shrug and keep partying it up.

Reply Quote

Date: 14/07/2023 16:28:48
From: SCIENCE
ID: 2054141
Subject: re: Deep-Sea Mining to Save the Environment

The United States will not pay reparations to developing countries hit by climate-fuelled disasters, John Kerry, the US special envoy on climate change says.

“No, under no circumstances,” the former secretary of state said in response to a query from US Representative Brian Mast, the Republican chair of the subcommittee.

Mr Kerry was testifying at a hearing on the State Department’s climate agenda just days before he was scheduled to travel to Beijing for renewed bilateral talks with China on climate change.

Reply Quote

Date: 14/07/2023 16:38:43
From: roughbarked
ID: 2054149
Subject: re: Deep-Sea Mining to Save the Environment

SCIENCE said:

The United States will not pay reparations to developing countries hit by climate-fuelled disasters, John Kerry, the US special envoy on climate change says.

“No, under no circumstances,” the former secretary of state said in response to a query from US Representative Brian Mast, the Republican chair of the subcommittee.

Mr Kerry was testifying at a hearing on the State Department’s climate agenda just days before he was scheduled to travel to Beijing for renewed bilateral talks with China on climate change.

The bastard.

Reply Quote

Date: 22/07/2023 17:06:33
From: SCIENCE
ID: 2057018
Subject: re: Deep-Sea Mining to Save the Environment

LOL

Reply Quote

Date: 22/07/2023 17:10:36
From: SCIENCE
ID: 2057022
Subject: re: Deep-Sea Mining to Save the Environment

SCIENCE said:

LOL

Reply Quote

Date: 22/07/2023 17:13:12
From: OCDC
ID: 2057024
Subject: re: Deep-Sea Mining to Save the Environment

Reply Quote

Date: 22/07/2023 17:13:55
From: SCIENCE
ID: 2057025
Subject: re: Deep-Sea Mining to Save the Environment

OCDC said:


No wonder yous need another week to recover¡

Reply Quote

Date: 24/07/2023 10:14:00
From: SCIENCE
ID: 2057493
Subject: re: Deep-Sea Mining to Save the Environment

SCIENCE said:

SCIENCE said:

LOL


https://twitter.com/mimanda_picone/status/1681752244738306049

Reply Quote

Date: 30/07/2023 21:42:49
From: SCIENCE
ID: 2059882
Subject: re: Deep-Sea Mining to Save the Environment

SCIENCE said:

SCIENCE said:

SCIENCE said:

LOL


https://twitter.com/mimanda_picone/status/1681752244738306049

Wrong. The Billionaires Are Your Friends¡


https://twitter.com/danielgoyal/status/1685198286804656128

Reply Quote

Date: 31/07/2023 00:16:45
From: diddly-squat
ID: 2059895
Subject: re: Deep-Sea Mining to Save the Environment

SCIENCE said:

SCIENCE said:

SCIENCE said:


https://twitter.com/mimanda_picone/status/1681752244738306049

Wrong. The Billionaires Are Your Friends¡


https://twitter.com/danielgoyal/status/1685198286804656128

to be clear, people getting rich is a consequence, not a reason…

The reason behind the mass use of fossil fuels is to produce inexpensive power so that that normal, everyday people, can live longer and happier lives and have a higher standard of living… now there is obviously a pretty strong caveat here because historically, the true cost of generating that power was not properly accounted for…

Reply Quote

Date: 31/07/2023 01:53:18
From: SCIENCE
ID: 2059903
Subject: re: Deep-Sea Mining to Save the Environment

diddly-squat said:

SCIENCE said:

SCIENCE said:

https://twitter.com/mimanda_picone/status/1681752244738306049

Wrong. The Billionaires Are Your Friends¡


https://twitter.com/danielgoyal/status/1685198286804656128

to be clear, people getting rich is a consequence, not a reason…

The reason behind the mass use of fossil fuels is to produce inexpensive power so that that normal, everyday people, can live longer and happier lives and have a higher standard of living… now there is obviously a pretty strong caveat here because historically, the true cost of generating that power was not properly accounted for…

OK so are we saying that it doesn’t apply any more, or that it never even applied at all¿

Reply Quote

Date: 31/07/2023 02:10:25
From: SCIENCE
ID: 2059907
Subject: re: Deep-Sea Mining to Save the Environment


Reply Quote

Date: 31/07/2023 02:21:38
From: SCIENCE
ID: 2059910
Subject: re: Deep-Sea Mining to Save the Environment

SCIENCE said:



Sorry, forgot the link.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/climate-solutions/2023/07/29/how-to-become-heat-tolerant/

Reply Quote

Date: 31/07/2023 02:54:46
From: SCIENCE
ID: 2059914
Subject: re: Deep-Sea Mining to Save the Environment

Good News¡ Killing The Planet Was All In The Name Of World Peace¡

Especially Fun, Just Wait Until It Hits Them Nuclear Silos

Reply Quote

Date: 31/07/2023 11:57:24
From: SCIENCE
ID: 2059991
Subject: re: Deep-Sea Mining to Save the Environment

SCIENCE said:

SCIENCE said:



Sorry, forgot the link.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/climate-solutions/2023/07/29/how-to-become-heat-tolerant/


Reply Quote

Date: 1/08/2023 14:30:19
From: SCIENCE
ID: 2060414
Subject: re: Deep-Sea Mining to Save the Environment

Reply Quote

Date: 3/08/2023 02:18:30
From: SCIENCE
ID: 2060913
Subject: re: Deep-Sea Mining to Save the Environment

sarahs mum said:

SCIENCE said:




It’s all right, forecast is cooling back down¡

Reply Quote