I appreciate the information here, but it's difficult to "like" the it. Claiming "geographically" is one thing; drilling (or however people think they're going to access these minerals w/o disturbing ecosystems) is another thing entirely. Thanks for the info, though.
We very much agree claiming geographically is different, but we believe Norway will likely be the first to start in their EEZ (they've already voted it through Parliament with a sizeable majority (80-20) despite environmental concerns, which, barring something quite major, means it is basically going ahead in Scandinavia). Where they go, others will be sure to follow, particularly if the polymetallic nodules are a rich in critical minerals as suggested. In the US, we suspect it will depend greatly on who's in power but, as we note, this underwater land grab happened under a Democrat president. And then there's the illegal part. We use the example of illegal fishing by non-western countries, because the industry is vast and ungovernable. It will not be difficult to do the same with some aspects of deep-sea mining. Efforts we're sure will be made to not disturb ecosystems, but it will be secondary.
I read that Norway is planning to go ahead w/it, despite environmental concerns. I don't know much about their governmental v environmentalist powers, but I believe doing so at this time would be a grave mistake. Illegal fishing by non-western countries, specifically China, is already doing irreparable harm already to the ocean. I just don't understand why people don't value the planet over business/money. Without the Ecosystem, we're toast.
This is a much bigger debate! 😅 There's always been a tension between our technological/cultural/economic growth and the natural environment. But — sticking to deep-sea mining in particular — we'd argue this has less to do with business/money than the challenge: if we want to build electric cars, wind turbines, etc to replace fossil fuels, it needs critical minerals (if it was just about business/money, it would be cheaper/easier to stick to fossil fuels). It's a matter of where those minerals come from.
Our understanding is the robots have been tested and work, but yes there are two issues: at scale is still untested but, more controversially, how much do they disturb the seabed in the process of their operations (hence AI, etc).
The Metals Company's posted an overview of their 2022 collection system test here. Successfully collected 3,000 tonnes and worked with universities and research institutions to gather the data on the environmental impacts of doing so. https://youtu.be/iydMJToa2iU?si=yjZCMWMPKZsykDlM
Earlier this year, seems their research teams also concluded an offshore campaign to assess how the ecosystem has responded and recovered from the 2022 disturbance. https://youtu.be/jCNuHNVmb9w?si=LfLr7iziP39ofagS
I appreciate the information here, but it's difficult to "like" the it. Claiming "geographically" is one thing; drilling (or however people think they're going to access these minerals w/o disturbing ecosystems) is another thing entirely. Thanks for the info, though.
We very much agree claiming geographically is different, but we believe Norway will likely be the first to start in their EEZ (they've already voted it through Parliament with a sizeable majority (80-20) despite environmental concerns, which, barring something quite major, means it is basically going ahead in Scandinavia). Where they go, others will be sure to follow, particularly if the polymetallic nodules are a rich in critical minerals as suggested. In the US, we suspect it will depend greatly on who's in power but, as we note, this underwater land grab happened under a Democrat president. And then there's the illegal part. We use the example of illegal fishing by non-western countries, because the industry is vast and ungovernable. It will not be difficult to do the same with some aspects of deep-sea mining. Efforts we're sure will be made to not disturb ecosystems, but it will be secondary.
I read that Norway is planning to go ahead w/it, despite environmental concerns. I don't know much about their governmental v environmentalist powers, but I believe doing so at this time would be a grave mistake. Illegal fishing by non-western countries, specifically China, is already doing irreparable harm already to the ocean. I just don't understand why people don't value the planet over business/money. Without the Ecosystem, we're toast.
This is a much bigger debate! 😅 There's always been a tension between our technological/cultural/economic growth and the natural environment. But — sticking to deep-sea mining in particular — we'd argue this has less to do with business/money than the challenge: if we want to build electric cars, wind turbines, etc to replace fossil fuels, it needs critical minerals (if it was just about business/money, it would be cheaper/easier to stick to fossil fuels). It's a matter of where those minerals come from.
Although already decades in development the prospect of effective 'at scale' commercial deep Sea mining engineering machines is still some way off?
Our understanding is the robots have been tested and work, but yes there are two issues: at scale is still untested but, more controversially, how much do they disturb the seabed in the process of their operations (hence AI, etc).
eg. this is the proof-of-concept from Impossible Metals: https://impossiblemetals.com/technology/robotic-collection-system/
The Metals Company's posted an overview of their 2022 collection system test here. Successfully collected 3,000 tonnes and worked with universities and research institutions to gather the data on the environmental impacts of doing so. https://youtu.be/iydMJToa2iU?si=yjZCMWMPKZsykDlM
Earlier this year, seems their research teams also concluded an offshore campaign to assess how the ecosystem has responded and recovered from the 2022 disturbance. https://youtu.be/jCNuHNVmb9w?si=LfLr7iziP39ofagS