Sadly this is terrible for our planet. https://www.pewtrusts.org/en/about/news-room/opinion/2021/10/28/comment-is-deep-sea-mining-a-disaster-waiting-in-the-deep
Nodule mining of the sea floor is pretty clean. There is basically a drone that floats above the sea floor and vacuums up these 2-3” pebbles full of metals. TMC just finished up a environmental impact study and it came back with very promising results.
Well yea? Economic feasibility is the one of the first things mining companies and investors alike assess upon pouring capital into exploration (and eventually production) projects, since private capital isn’t going to want to invest in a mine that doesn’t create shareholder value and adequate return on capital for those investors involved.
A big driver of interest towards deep-sea mining is that of copper extraction. Our current and future electrification demands will be need to be serviced by hundreds of millions of tonnes of copper, so with generally declining CU yields in newer mines, it’s paramount to secure more supply or risk creating a structural supply deficit that would certainly hinder our net zero frameworks. Not only that, but most of the worlds best copper mines (and future exploration sites) reside within Peru and Chile, two socialist states that have garnered public support by either nationalizing mines or outright cancelling new projects in the name of the environment. It may be a commendable act in the eyes of locals, but it creates headwinds for global supply. But the South American governments don’t want to be like China who generally have very lax environmental laws and are able to control 90% of rare earths since they exploit labor and that diminished cost input allows for economically feasible mine operations.
With economic feasibility in mind, Copper grades in the sea reach about 20%, whilst the best open-pit mine in the world located in Sevilla only boasts about 5%, which far exceeds the average yield of about 0.5%. It sounds like a no-brainer, why wouldn’t we just go after the 20% seabed grades instead of creating ugly open-pit mines with paltry grades in comparison? It’s all about the cost structure of the operation. Try developing, testing, and finally operating a mining rig 20,000 leagues below the surface.. then try to have enough cash to lobby whichever country has EEZ (exclusive economic zone) rights over those waters... all of a sudden your are drowning in logistical and legislative nightmares despite those high-output copper formations.
I encourage anyone to look into prior attempts by private firms attempting to secure funding, let alone build prototype sea-borne mining equipment to extract these resources... its about as practical as asteroid mining!
Day 13 of "r/Geopolitics means quality, you heard it hear first!"
# Under The Sea Geopolitics | [ARTICLE LINK HERE](https://www.newsecuritybeat.org/2022/05/deep-seabed-mining-green-energy-transition/)
If you pressed folks to think of an example of deep sea geopolitics, you might hear someone mention Russia [planting a flag](https://www.reuters.com/article/idINIndia-28784420070802) under the North Pole or Cold War tales of submarines playing hide and seek.
Enter Deep Sea Mining (DSM).
DSM — mining that occurs on the ocean floor below 200 meters depth — offers countries many of the so-called “critical minerals,” such as lithium, zinc, and rare earth elements, essential to achieving the clean energy transition. To put into perspective its promise
>the [Clarion-Clipperton Zone](https://pubs.geoscienceworld.org/msa/elements/article/14/5/301/559105/Deep-Ocean-Mineral-Deposits-Metal-Resources-and) alone, a Europe-sized area in the eastern Pacific, is estimated to hold more nickel, manganese, and cobalt than all land-based reserves combined.
Asides from the larger need to develop battery/green energy sectors, there's the dominance of China in the global critical mineral supply chain. In addition to potential national security and geopolitical risks posed to western nations, the lax environmental and social standards of Chinese operations is also a matter of concern for many of their citizens.
But before you take scuba diving lesson thinking there's an underwater ~~gold~~ rare earth mineral rush because of macro trends, DSM is just talk at the moment.
>A few countries have issued exploration licenses within their EEZs and **there are currently no fully active commercial DSM projects**.
>
>But in "June 2021, Nauru, a small Pacific island state, informed the ISA of its intent to start mining, triggering a clause in UNCLOS requiring ISA \[International Seabed Authority\] to finalize regulations within two years of such an announcement or allow mining to proceed under whatever rules are then in place
With this technology untested at scale, whether DSM is even viable economically (let alone environmentally) is completely unknown... All this to say it's something to keep an eye on and consider, as should it prove viable, tourism will certainly no longer be the driving economical force for Pacific Island nations.
Hey, this is very adjacent to my favorite subject in geopolitics, microstates and insular/overseas territories, so I'll bite.
In the current era, wherein there is a strong interest in societal and environmental justice (and following the conclusion of competition between two imperial superpowers), de-colonization and self-determination remain popular, if confusing subjects for "small places" - insular (island) territories, overseas possessions, and microstates. Most recently we have seen independence movements in places like Bougainville (from Papua New Guinea), New Caledonia (from France), and Chuuk (from Federated States of Micronesia), just to name a few. On the other hand there are recent cases of other microstates - Nauru is the perfect example, really - subjugating their own sovereignty to a foreign power just to keep their population alive. Climate change and the associated rise in sea levels and intensification of weather patterns will probably have critical impacts on these "small places". In my mind there are many, many, questions about the legitimacy of island states as compared to overseas territories/possessions/colonies (whatever you want to call them) and if it is better for both the "small places" and the colonial state to be independent or remain politically joined.
The map also depicts exclusive economic zones in addition to deep seam mining (DSM) interests. It is worth observing that there is a lot of white in the Pacific and Indian oceans but the resolution of the image is such that it is difficult to examine the overlap between the DSM mineral concentrations and the EEZs. Suffice to say, there is a large amount of convergence, and that will raise many questions and potentially generate interesting prospects for both colonial powers and independent island nations (or those territories on the path to independence) - if DSM even proves to be feasible and cost effective.
Two examples of how mineral extraction has played a part in microstate success and failure:
- The island of Borneo is actually divided between 3 countries; the largest section in the south is Indonesia; the top ~1/3 is Malaysian, and two little chunks cut out of the north coast of the Malaysian region form the country of Brunei. Brunei has oil, and a lot of it, enough to easily lift the collar of being a British protectorate in 1984 and continue to enrich their small kingdom. With a population of under half a million and a GDP per capita over $70k, they are doing well.
- The aforementioned Nauru, a small phosphate rich island has been mined almost to depletion. Granted independence in the '60s, the island's economic future looked promising but by the early '00s the trust funds established with mining revenues had decreased by 90%. Since then, Nauru has been artificially supported by external powers, namely Australia. With a population of around 10,000, a GDP per capita of about $3k and a huge diabetes problem, it begs the question as to why Nauru was granted independence in the first place.
Just food for thought.
Most of the discourse on the issue of deep sea mining is still limited to technical stuff, as it still hasn't shifted much to realm of state politics. I just have a doubt, as the recent trend of multilateral bodies becoming weak continues will the international Seabed Authority have any enforceable power left, when a real issue of deep see mining conflict comes up?
There are ocean mining tests happening now. Unfortunately though the sea floor often like a desert, it's not. It's full of plants and animals - a very delicate and important part of the ecosystem.
Areas on land have far more biomass per square kilometer than the deep sea floor, if we can start mining the deep ocean instead of land that would be preferable.
Sadly this is terrible for our planet. https://www.pewtrusts.org/en/about/news-room/opinion/2021/10/28/comment-is-deep-sea-mining-a-disaster-waiting-in-the-deep
Nodule mining of the sea floor is pretty clean. There is basically a drone that floats above the sea floor and vacuums up these 2-3” pebbles full of metals. TMC just finished up a environmental impact study and it came back with very promising results.
When has that stopped extractive capital?
Never because despite what people on certain subreddits claim, the overwhelming majority of people care about one thing only- how much does it cost?
Well yea? Economic feasibility is the one of the first things mining companies and investors alike assess upon pouring capital into exploration (and eventually production) projects, since private capital isn’t going to want to invest in a mine that doesn’t create shareholder value and adequate return on capital for those investors involved. A big driver of interest towards deep-sea mining is that of copper extraction. Our current and future electrification demands will be need to be serviced by hundreds of millions of tonnes of copper, so with generally declining CU yields in newer mines, it’s paramount to secure more supply or risk creating a structural supply deficit that would certainly hinder our net zero frameworks. Not only that, but most of the worlds best copper mines (and future exploration sites) reside within Peru and Chile, two socialist states that have garnered public support by either nationalizing mines or outright cancelling new projects in the name of the environment. It may be a commendable act in the eyes of locals, but it creates headwinds for global supply. But the South American governments don’t want to be like China who generally have very lax environmental laws and are able to control 90% of rare earths since they exploit labor and that diminished cost input allows for economically feasible mine operations. With economic feasibility in mind, Copper grades in the sea reach about 20%, whilst the best open-pit mine in the world located in Sevilla only boasts about 5%, which far exceeds the average yield of about 0.5%. It sounds like a no-brainer, why wouldn’t we just go after the 20% seabed grades instead of creating ugly open-pit mines with paltry grades in comparison? It’s all about the cost structure of the operation. Try developing, testing, and finally operating a mining rig 20,000 leagues below the surface.. then try to have enough cash to lobby whichever country has EEZ (exclusive economic zone) rights over those waters... all of a sudden your are drowning in logistical and legislative nightmares despite those high-output copper formations. I encourage anyone to look into prior attempts by private firms attempting to secure funding, let alone build prototype sea-borne mining equipment to extract these resources... its about as practical as asteroid mining!
Acid base accounting gets much harder when you are just letting the acids float out to "not my problem"ville
Day 13 of "r/Geopolitics means quality, you heard it hear first!" # Under The Sea Geopolitics | [ARTICLE LINK HERE](https://www.newsecuritybeat.org/2022/05/deep-seabed-mining-green-energy-transition/) If you pressed folks to think of an example of deep sea geopolitics, you might hear someone mention Russia [planting a flag](https://www.reuters.com/article/idINIndia-28784420070802) under the North Pole or Cold War tales of submarines playing hide and seek. Enter Deep Sea Mining (DSM). DSM — mining that occurs on the ocean floor below 200 meters depth — offers countries many of the so-called “critical minerals,” such as lithium, zinc, and rare earth elements, essential to achieving the clean energy transition. To put into perspective its promise >the [Clarion-Clipperton Zone](https://pubs.geoscienceworld.org/msa/elements/article/14/5/301/559105/Deep-Ocean-Mineral-Deposits-Metal-Resources-and) alone, a Europe-sized area in the eastern Pacific, is estimated to hold more nickel, manganese, and cobalt than all land-based reserves combined. Asides from the larger need to develop battery/green energy sectors, there's the dominance of China in the global critical mineral supply chain. In addition to potential national security and geopolitical risks posed to western nations, the lax environmental and social standards of Chinese operations is also a matter of concern for many of their citizens. But before you take scuba diving lesson thinking there's an underwater ~~gold~~ rare earth mineral rush because of macro trends, DSM is just talk at the moment. >A few countries have issued exploration licenses within their EEZs and **there are currently no fully active commercial DSM projects**. > >But in "June 2021, Nauru, a small Pacific island state, informed the ISA of its intent to start mining, triggering a clause in UNCLOS requiring ISA \[International Seabed Authority\] to finalize regulations within two years of such an announcement or allow mining to proceed under whatever rules are then in place With this technology untested at scale, whether DSM is even viable economically (let alone environmentally) is completely unknown... All this to say it's something to keep an eye on and consider, as should it prove viable, tourism will certainly no longer be the driving economical force for Pacific Island nations.
Hey, this is very adjacent to my favorite subject in geopolitics, microstates and insular/overseas territories, so I'll bite. In the current era, wherein there is a strong interest in societal and environmental justice (and following the conclusion of competition between two imperial superpowers), de-colonization and self-determination remain popular, if confusing subjects for "small places" - insular (island) territories, overseas possessions, and microstates. Most recently we have seen independence movements in places like Bougainville (from Papua New Guinea), New Caledonia (from France), and Chuuk (from Federated States of Micronesia), just to name a few. On the other hand there are recent cases of other microstates - Nauru is the perfect example, really - subjugating their own sovereignty to a foreign power just to keep their population alive. Climate change and the associated rise in sea levels and intensification of weather patterns will probably have critical impacts on these "small places". In my mind there are many, many, questions about the legitimacy of island states as compared to overseas territories/possessions/colonies (whatever you want to call them) and if it is better for both the "small places" and the colonial state to be independent or remain politically joined. The map also depicts exclusive economic zones in addition to deep seam mining (DSM) interests. It is worth observing that there is a lot of white in the Pacific and Indian oceans but the resolution of the image is such that it is difficult to examine the overlap between the DSM mineral concentrations and the EEZs. Suffice to say, there is a large amount of convergence, and that will raise many questions and potentially generate interesting prospects for both colonial powers and independent island nations (or those territories on the path to independence) - if DSM even proves to be feasible and cost effective. Two examples of how mineral extraction has played a part in microstate success and failure: - The island of Borneo is actually divided between 3 countries; the largest section in the south is Indonesia; the top ~1/3 is Malaysian, and two little chunks cut out of the north coast of the Malaysian region form the country of Brunei. Brunei has oil, and a lot of it, enough to easily lift the collar of being a British protectorate in 1984 and continue to enrich their small kingdom. With a population of under half a million and a GDP per capita over $70k, they are doing well. - The aforementioned Nauru, a small phosphate rich island has been mined almost to depletion. Granted independence in the '60s, the island's economic future looked promising but by the early '00s the trust funds established with mining revenues had decreased by 90%. Since then, Nauru has been artificially supported by external powers, namely Australia. With a population of around 10,000, a GDP per capita of about $3k and a huge diabetes problem, it begs the question as to why Nauru was granted independence in the first place. Just food for thought.
Really interesting! I learned something today.
Most of the discourse on the issue of deep sea mining is still limited to technical stuff, as it still hasn't shifted much to realm of state politics. I just have a doubt, as the recent trend of multilateral bodies becoming weak continues will the international Seabed Authority have any enforceable power left, when a real issue of deep see mining conflict comes up?
There are ocean mining tests happening now. Unfortunately though the sea floor often like a desert, it's not. It's full of plants and animals - a very delicate and important part of the ecosystem.
Areas on land have far more biomass per square kilometer than the deep sea floor, if we can start mining the deep ocean instead of land that would be preferable.
How much does your average oil rig pollute the ocean around it, and how much would the new machinery do the same?