Slashdot Mirror


Cautious Steps Toward Seabed Mining (maritime-executive.com)

mdsolar writes: The deep ocean was once assumed to be lifeless and barren. Today we know that even the deepest waters teem with living creatures, some of them thought to be little changed from when life itself first appeared on the planet. The deep ocean is also essential to the earth's biosphere. It regulates global temperatures, stores carbon, provides habitat for countless species and cycles nutrients for marine food webs. Currently stressed by pollution, industrial fishing, and oil and gas development, these cold, dark waters now face another challenge: mining. With land-based mineral sources in decline, seabeds offer a new and largely untapped frontier for mineral extraction, and companies are gearing up to mine a treasure trove of copper, zinc, gold, manganese, and other minerals from the ocean floor. Scientists, regulators, and mining companies are now collaborating on frameworks and strategies for mining the seabed responsibly. Cindy Van Dover, director of the Duke University Marine Laboratory and chair of the school's Division of Marine Science and Conservation, says that's encouraging, given that seabed mining appears to be inevitable.

97 comments

  1. but but but by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Funny

    I've been assured that asteroid mining and 3D printing have solved all resource problems?

    1. Re:but but but by PolygamousRanchKid+ · · Score: 2, Funny

      I've been assured that asteroid mining and 3D printing have solved all resource problems?

      So, wait . . . I have an idea! We can just 3D print asteroids, and then mine them.

      We'll then have renewable resources forever!

      Take that, Koch Brothers!

      --
      Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
    2. Re:but but but by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Shhhh, the koch bros are trying to turn /. into a free-market love fest

      Please do not displease the koch with your rabble-rousing

    3. Re:but but but by delt0r · · Score: 1

      With solar power! You can't not have solar power somewhere for a mdsolar story.. oh and something about everybody being dead from a nuclear!

      --
      If information wants to be free, why does my internet connection cost so much?
    4. Re:but but but by KGIII · · Score: 1

      Who the hell assured you of such things and did they give you a specific time-frame in which those assurances would be met? I think it's safe to say that the two may very well result in technological and resource advances but giving a time-frame for that to happen in is rather silly. To compound that, why would someone tell you that it solved "all" resource problems? Even if it could, it won't do so immediately.

      You should stop listening to idiots. I can't say that I've ever actually seen anyone state such things - not even on Slashdot. Not in the questions, the comments, ads, nope... I've not even seen it in the articles but I haven't actually read most of those.

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
    5. Re:but but but by Coren22 · · Score: 1

      I myself was reading TFS and wondering how this was supposed to make nuclear look bad. I am not clear how this submission matches mdsolar's anti nuclear diatribe. Perhaps because you can't use solar underwater, maybe the mining rigs will be nuclear powered?

      --
      APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
    6. Re:but but but by Coren22 · · Score: 1

      Asteroid mining would do nothing for Earth resources anyways. What would be the point in mining asteroids only to return the materials to Earth, they are worth far more in orbit.

      --
      APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
    7. Re:but but but by KGIII · · Score: 1

      Yeah, I'm not sure why folks talk about bringing them back to the surface except, maybe, some early efforts or something that's a curiosity or has huge value - like a giant chunk of gold. I've no idea what the final numbers will look like so I'm not even sure if there'd be a legit reason to even bring gold back to the planetary orbit or to the surface at all. I imagine it would take a huge decrease in cost in getting things into orbit before any of it became worth it to go get it. It has to be less expensive than the cost to put it and the equipment in orbit as well as the cost for the mineral(s). I guess the equipment cost could be amortized, hopefully.

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
    8. Re:but but but by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, I'm not sure why folks talk about bringing them back to the surface except, maybe, some early efforts or something that's a curiosity or has huge value - like a giant chunk of gold.

      I volunteer North Korea as the first "landing" site for all minerals brought back from space.

    9. Re:but but but by crunchygranola · · Score: 0

      Asteroid mining would do nothing for Earth resources anyways. What would be the point in mining asteroids only to return the materials to Earth, they are worth far more in orbit.

      Plenty of buyers in orbit! Lots of factories and consumers!

      Oh wait, there aren't any of those things. Raw materials are feedstocks to manufacturing, which make stuff that are put in the hands of consumers (there are many types of consumers). None of that exists in orbit.

      Well maybe we could put the factories in orbit?

      How much does that cost? Has anyone ever put a factory in orbit? Who services the orbiting factory? Who buys the stuff the factory makes?

      A case could be made that one day, centuries from now, when a space-based civilization exists, raw materials in orbit might be worth more than on the ground, but certainly not for many iterations of space mining.

      --
      Second class citizen of the New Gilded Age
    10. Re:but but but by Coren22 · · Score: 1

      Perhaps we should attempt to modify the orbit of an asteroid large enough to at least takeout Kim?

      --
      APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
    11. Re:but but but by Coren22 · · Score: 1

      Water and raw metals are very useful to NASA, water can be used as just water, or split up into H2 and O2 for fuel, and raw metals can be used to build structures, and possibly eventually finished products (like circuit boards and stuff). Think how much easier the next orbital space station would be if we used asteroid minerals. Think how useful an orbital "gas" station would be from ice asteroids.

      --
      APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
    12. Re:but but but by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why? It's the one country as poor as an African one, but that manages to reach space.
      Should be a space nutter's paradise. Like it or not, Kim Jong Un is the new Elon Musk.

    13. Re:but but but by dsmatthews9379 · · Score: 1

      Nah, somebody got around to doing the maths and found that there wasn't really much of a market for 1:1 scale, 3D printed, asteroids.

    14. Re:but but but by meglon · · Score: 1

      I remember one of the first tests they did with one of their anti-missle systems. For the test, they concluded it was a successful hit because it only missed by 157 miles.

      Are you REALLY sure you want them to try to precision drop an asteroid from space?

      --
      Fascism: An authoritarian and nationalistic right-wing system of government and social organization. See also: NAZI's
  2. My cynical self says not going to happen... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    History has shown that "responsible mining" is an oxymoron, with Centralia, Love Canal, and many other Superfund sites being examples of this.

    1. Re:My cynical self says not going to happen... by khallow · · Score: 2

      Love Canal wasn't a mining site. And speaking of "responsible", Superfund is a demonstration that other parties can be colossally irresponsible as well.

    2. Re:My cynical self says not going to happen... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Centralia may be a good example for mining, but Love Canal was industrial processing, not mining.

    3. Re:My cynical self says not going to happen... by twotacocombo · · Score: 3, Informative

      Centralia wasn't so much a product of the mine, but the fact that some genius decided to use ground immediately above an exposed coal vein (in an old strip mine pit, no less) as a landfill and BURN PIT, even after they were aware of the danger. This is a case of stupid people doing stupid things, not an actual mining disaster.

    4. Re:My cynical self says not going to happen... by hey! · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Love Canal wasn't a mining site.

      Thank you, Captain Obvious. However I think the poster's point may have been that it's been historically difficult to hold corporations responsible for the messes they leave behind, and when you can't do that it means the public has to pay to clean them up.

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    5. Re:My cynical self says not going to happen... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This was actually a case of the PUBLIC SCHOOL BOARD going for the cheap land and plopping a school on top of a declared toxic dump site. They bought it for 1$ off of the chemical corp that owned the land before.

    6. Re:My cynical self says not going to happen... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Where buy "bought it" you mean "forced the sale of it". Hooker Chemical didn't want to sell it at any price, and included a proviso in the (forced) sale documents that the land not be built on -- which the local govt promptly ignored.

    7. Re:My cynical self says not going to happen... by hey! · · Score: 1

      This was actually a case of the PUBLIC SCHOOL BOARD going for the cheap land and plopping a school on top of a declared toxic dump site.

      Which shouldn't have been there in the first place.

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    8. Re:My cynical self says not going to happen... by matbury · · Score: 1

      They don't mean responsible in practice, they mean responsible sounding greenwash to flood the corporate media with.

    9. Re:My cynical self says not going to happen... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      An awful lot of the issues with Love Canal was the city NOT the corporation. They were actually amazingly responsible.

    10. Re:My cynical self says not going to happen... by khallow · · Score: 1

      Thank you, Captain Obvious.

      No, such things aren't obvious unless you know the history of Love Canal. It wouldn't have been difficult for the poster to google relevant examples. Such sloppiness is instead an indication of how little thought the poster put into their post.

      However I think the poster's point may have been that it's been historically difficult to hold corporations responsible for the messes they leave behind, and when you can't do that it means the public has to pay to clean them up.

      Let us recall here the fundamentally illegal aspect of Superfund, namely, punishing a party for legal activity (often as other posters have noted with the Love Canal case, exacerbated by another negligent party after the pollution occurred). If the public wants legal pollution cleaned up, then the public should pay for it.

    11. Re:My cynical self says not going to happen... by Bing+Tsher+E · · Score: 1

      Toxic dump sites need to exist, so long as toxic waste is being produced. And lots of toxic waste has been and continues to be produced. It needs to be managed with oversight. In the case of Love Canal, the company that produced the waste site acted with due diligence, except for subsequently selling the site to a governmental organization (a school district) who passed the site along to other organizations who voided the site's containment. It was a case of miscommunication and local government incompetence.

    12. Re:My cynical self says not going to happen... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'd probably go further and say wilful miscommunication in the selfish pursuit of money.

      There's a reason they sold the site for $1.

    13. Re:My cynical self says not going to happen... by hey! · · Score: 1

      Yet strangely enough we don't find it necessary today to bury the by-products of the chlor-alkalai process.

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
  3. Seabed mining is inevitable by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Because in international waters, mining companies can do whatever they want with impunity. These "frameworks" will not be legally binding. Get ready for "depleted fisheries" part 2, electric boogaloo.

    1. Re:Seabed mining is inevitable by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Interesting

      Yes, and what happens when they trigger a cascading release of methane from the seafloor?

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clathrate_gun_hypothesis

      So, aside from polluting a primary source of food, which is under heavy pressure to produce already, what about millions of tons of methane being suddenly released? Really pretty sunsets over a flaming ocean?

    2. Re:Seabed mining is inevitable by Coren22 · · Score: 2

      What makes you think that mining would cause some kind of release that hasn't happened despite all the normal disturbing of these clathrates? Do you think that suddenly the clathrates will explode when touched?

      If this was in any way possible, it would have already happened from some other process.

      --
      APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
    3. Re:Seabed mining is inevitable by khallow · · Score: 1

      Landslides and vast earthquakes will trigger clathrate release long before mining robots will.

  4. BULLSHIT! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Can't be done "responsibly", the responsible thing is not to do it at all!!!!!!!!

    says that's encouraging, given that seabed mining appears to be inevitable.

    dumbass. "encouraging", "inevitable", those words don't mean what you think they mean.

    1. Re:BULLSHIT! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Heat death of the Universe, death of the Sun, the end of Humanity...

      All of these things are inevitable, it does not mean that we should encourage them

  5. Human greed... by tekrat · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Human greed will destroy us all. Sooner of later, these mega-corporations are going to discover that you can't eat money -- but of course by then it'll be too late. Even now, we deny what's happening globally.

    --
    If telephones are outlawed, then only outlaws will have telephones.
    1. Re:Human greed... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Says the guy using a pile of rare earths and polymers to emote all over the internets.

    2. Re:Human greed... by avandesande · · Score: 1

      I predict this will not happen.

      --
      love is just extroverted narcissism
    3. Re:Human greed... by irrational_design · · Score: 0

      Unfortunately my desire for Schadenfreude is greater than my desire for survival. I just hope I'm there to see the faces of those who run the mega-corporations when they realize that it is too late so that I can receive my satisfaction at their misfortune.

    4. Re:Human greed... by delt0r · · Score: 1

      Go look up the largest mine in the world. Then zoom out a bit.

      --
      If information wants to be free, why does my internet connection cost so much?
    5. Re:Human greed... by Coren22 · · Score: 1

      What was your point? That we already deal with this type of thing on a regular basis?

      --
      APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
    6. Re:Human greed... by wyHunter · · Score: 1

      You're using a computer, the internet, presumably wearing clothes that were manufactured who knows where. We all participate in this. In some ways it's not possible not to do so.

  6. The solution to rising sea levels! by twotacocombo · · Score: 4, Funny

    Just dig a giant frickin' pit mine at the bottom of the ocean. You're welcome.

    1. Re:The solution to rising sea levels! by mdsolar · · Score: 0
    2. Re:The solution to rising sea levels! by twotacocombo · · Score: 1
    3. Re:The solution to rising sea levels! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just dig a giant frickin' pit mine at the bottom of the ocean. You're welcome.

      Sounds like an excellent application for an age old USSR dream of geological engineering. Nobody needs 30+ megaton warheads any more because of all the sexy low yield MIRVs we have. Waste not want not. I have a perfect spot to test one out. Just drill a short shaft couple of kilometres long around Japan where tectonic plates meet and voala! A very large pit which should solve resource and energy related problems on entire Asian east coast.

    4. Re:The solution to rising sea levels! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just dig a giant frickin' pit mine at the bottom of the ocean. You're welcome.

      Sharks with excavating laser beams?

  7. Size by johnsmithperson123 · · Score: 1

    The ocean is big. I mean huge. Massive. A little mineral exploration isn't going to harm it at all. And as for land based deposits it would be more accurate to say that most easily mineable deposits are being used up- there are still many, but things like rocks, national parks and civil wars get in the way.

    1. Re:Size by twotacocombo · · Score: 1

      The ocean is big. I mean huge. Massive. A little mineral exploration isn't going to harm it at all.

      The first question that comes to my mind is what effect all the sediment that gets kicked up will have on the rest of the ocean? A little bit of activity can cast quite a lot of fine silt into the currents, which will travel far outside the confines of any mining area.

    2. Re:Size by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      The problem is that a relatively small amount of toxins can kill a lot of animals. Look how mercury is a global menace to fish, similar with plastics, and both were caused by people. An oil spill like what happened in the Gulf of Mexico can destroy an entire ocean.

      As for huge, we can do huge... the Pacific Gyre is already the size of the United States.

      Instead of destroying a food source and possibly ourselves... how about better recycling? Miners would have a lot better yield going through a town dump than a sea floor.

    3. Re:Size by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Boy am I glad you don't appear to have any power in society. You're a dangerous, ill-informed lunatic.

    4. Re:Size by blue9steel · · Score: 1

      The ocean is big. I mean huge. Massive. A little mineral exploration isn't going to harm it at all.

      True, but if it's profitable they won't be planning on doing just a little. I'm all for it, but a bit of thinking about it ahead of time and some sensible regulations could head off a huge number of unnecessary environmental impacts.

    5. Re:Size by delt0r · · Score: 1

      So how do you mine? By dumping a barrel of toxins overboard or something? You have been suckered by a mdsolar submission! BURN.

      --
      If information wants to be free, why does my internet connection cost so much?
    6. Re:Size by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's how fracking works...

    7. Re:Size by Livius · · Score: 1

      The atmosphere is big. I mean huge. Massive. A little CO2 emission isn't going to harm it at all.

  8. Asteroid Mining by crow · · Score: 2

    That's actually a good point about asteroid mining. This is in many ways similar: An expensive proposition to exploit resources in a harsh environment. Instead of no atmosphere, you have massive pressure. Instead of rockets, you have submarines. Both present major engineering challenges. Both would likely be done largely if not entirely by robots.

    Will Space X reduce the cost of space travel to make asteroid mining economical? Do asteroids have mineral resources that are worth exploiting? Will techniques for undersea mining prove economical?

    To some extent, the environmental concerns are the biggest difference between the two.

    1. Re:Asteroid Mining by MightyMartian · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I have my doubts that asteroid mining will ever be economical for filling the need for raw materials on Earth. What I think is that asteroid mining will end the need to have to launch anything other than human beings from the surface of the planet. The biggest cost of getting into orbit and beyond is the cost of accelerating large amounts of matter to or beyond 11.2km/s. If you could get all the raw material for your satellites, space stations and space craft from asteroids, process it, refine it and manufacture all of it in space, then you would have a space-based economy that wasn't reliant on Earth for most of its raw materials; including volatiles.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    2. Re:Asteroid Mining by blue9steel · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Well, if you're going to mine raw materials in space and ship them to Earth, they would need to be high value items rather than bulk commodities. Things like Platinum, Osmium, etc. Iron would likely never make sense.

    3. Re:Asteroid Mining by MightyMartian · · Score: 1

      I think, save for the very high value items, the ones you listed (and probably, in time, He3), we won't be using a lot of asteroid minerals on Earth itself.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    4. Re:Asteroid Mining by crunchygranola · · Score: 1

      ...The biggest cost of getting into orbit and beyond is the cost of accelerating large amounts of matter to or beyond 11.2km/s....

      No it isn't. It is almost entirely the high cost of spaceflight hardware - an extremely high tech bit of manufacturing, the costliest end of aerospace tech.

      Raw materials in space do not make you a vehicle equipped with electronics, intricate propulsion systems, power generation, thermal control, environmental control all of which is ultra-high-reliability (because otherwise you die, or you probe quits working where repairmen are unavailable) in a vacuum subjected to hard UV, space flare radiation, etc. All that requires a very sophisticated set of factories that happen to only reside on the surface of Earth. Even free raw materials in space (which space mining most definitely is not) would not change that.

      Currently part of that high cost hardware is used just for launching, and being non-reusable makes the launch itself expensive, which we are working on with Space-X, etc. But even getting cheap launches does not eliminate the majority of the high cost of space flight. Check out what fraction of projects like the ISS, or any space mission at all, is actually due to launch costs. Even today, with throw-away launchers, these are always a modest component, never the driver to the project's overall cost.

      --
      Second class citizen of the New Gilded Age
    5. Re:Asteroid Mining by blue9steel · · Score: 1

      On Earth no, except the high value items though that is more than you might think. Still, there are a huge number of uses for Asteroid mining products off Earth. Most likely a profitable course of action would be to go after high value targets for shipment to Earth and then use the assorted byproducts for off Earth projects, of which there are many valuable candidates. The only real reason this hasn't happened already is the high cost of getting out of our gravity well. Solve that and you'll see an explosion of off Earth activity. There are actually a variety of solutions to that problem that don't require new science, mostly just new engineering.

    6. Re:Asteroid Mining by tsotha · · Score: 1

      The biggest reason we need to indulge in "an extremely high tech bit of manufacturing" is it costs so damn much to put a kg into orbit. If you could actually manufacture electronics and other hardware in space you could afford much higher defect rates, particularly if you had a large supply of raw materials. Beyond that you wouldn't need to build for high G forces or compactness, or use high tech alloys in an effort to shave off every last bit of mass. You could build hardware designed to be easy to manufacture and serviceable.

    7. Re:Asteroid Mining by painandgreed · · Score: 1

      Well, if you're going to mine raw materials in space and ship them to Earth, they would need to be high value items rather than bulk commodities. Things like Platinum, Osmium, etc. Iron would likely never make sense.

      More likely, we'll be mining asteroids for iron, nickel, etc. for use in space and eventually be left over with a blog of gold and platinum which will probably be worth more to drop in on earth with a cheap heat shield that use in space for industrial purposes.

  9. Not again! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    From about 1970-74, the CIA managed to convince the world that billionaire inventor Howard Hughes had decided to invest millions to mine “manganese nodules,” balls of heavy metals that lie on the ocean floor. It was a cover story for the ship Glomar Explorer to recover a soviet nuclear submarine from the bottom of the north pacific.

    1. Re:Not again! by k6mfw · · Score: 1

      They may be serious about this time, technology especially robotics have come a long way since those days. Of course it could also be another cover. I'm thinking another impressive cover by the Navy was construction of a rescue sub to rescue crew of a "downed" submarine. These things were outfitted with latest technologies of all kinds of stuff (most had little to do with rescue). It's real purpose was to tap undersea cables, Navy pretty much ruled out submarine rescue because most ocean areas are so deep, submarine rescue is as distant as sending a rescue spaceship to a disabled Shuttle (NASA had tentative plans but such was marginal). Navy emphasize effort to make sure a submarine does not sink (sub safe program after Thresher).

      There are questions such as environmental impact or can it be efficient? Asteroid mining may be feasible (think of getting a big rock with high percentage of platinum) but if it takes several rockets with all their complexity and expense that exceeds the price of platinum grade metals?

      My main concern is environmental impact. i.e. open coal pit mine. About your Glomar Explorer comment, fascinating story, everyone fell for it because that would be something Howard was known to do wild projects. One of many articles said there were teams of lawyers taking Hughes Corp. to court arguing about maritime rights and property, etc. When the story broke of real purpose of Glomar Explorer, they were pissed. "Damn, all this work on legalities and court proceedings for nothing!"

      --
      mfwright@batnet.com
    2. Re:Not again! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That cover story was fed to us in school about how nations were investing in technologies to be competitive in seabed mining. I wonder how many countries actually wasted money on that ruse back then.

  10. That is the sound of inevitability by drinkypoo · · Score: 2

    Except actually, it's not really inevitable. What is? That if we mine the seabed, we will fuck it up.

    --
    "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    1. Re:That is the sound of inevitability by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Definition: Deepwater Horizon

    2. Re:That is the sound of inevitability by delt0r · · Score: 1

      Yep the gulf of mexico is soo fucked up you can't swim there or even live on the shores. All life was extinguished. They are all dead jim. Oh wait, i was fishing and swimming there just last year....

      --
      If information wants to be free, why does my internet connection cost so much?
    3. Re:That is the sound of inevitability by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      mod parent: insanely stupid hyperbole...

    4. Re: That is the sound of inevitability by Type44Q · · Score: 1

      Your sad little strawman suggests you might want to get checked for heavy metal poisoning...

    5. Re:That is the sound of inevitability by KGIII · · Score: 2

      This should not be read as support for the idea of mining or as forgiveness for Deepwater. It's simply an observation...

      I was on the beach just a little while ago. I'm in the Gulf. I've swum in it, I've eaten food from it, I have boated in it.

      While it certainly was tragic and damaging, and should be prevented from recurring, it did not actually kill the Gulf and all the animals in the ecosystem. It was unacceptable, they were punished (but not nearly enough, in my opinion), and we need to take steps to make sure that it doesn't happen again.

      Hmm... It's hard to state that without it reading like I'm supporting BP or even supporting mining the ocean. I am not - I'm sure as hell not suggesting we mine the ocean. I am saying, I guess, that we should avoid hyperbole. Things are not "fine" (or so I'm told) but they're not collapsing. The Gulf will survive this, this time.

      If we can safely mine the ocean floor then I say go for it - so long as it does minimal damage to the oceanic environment and ecosystem. I have my doubts that it can do so safely but I am not an expert on ocean mining.

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
    6. Re:That is the sound of inevitability by delt0r · · Score: 1

      Wow a thought out post on /. , who knew. Basically this. Yea every person that bemoaned the destruction of the world, use the oil from the oil rigs, the steel from the mines the Aluminum from the processing plants that leave large areas of red mud. The highly industrial life style we have is because of these activities.

      And they are very small activities compared to the size of the earth. Very small. Should we be cleaner. Yep probably. But this "OMG they are mining the seas they will all be dead" is not helpful, rational or educated. The gulf of mexico as a case in point. There are a *lot* of people that live on those coasts. Life is just fine.

      --
      If information wants to be free, why does my internet connection cost so much?
    7. Re:That is the sound of inevitability by KGIII · · Score: 1

      I say that it's probably a good idea if it can be done with reasonable safety. We want these resources - you might even say we need them. We certainly need them if we want to maintain our current lifestyle. I think we need to be pragmatic about things like this. Idealism seldom works in the real world and Mother Nature is both powerful and fairly resilient.

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
  11. Seafood by irrational_design · · Score: 1

    Fortunately I dislike all seafood, so it's all good. /s

  12. More efficient by jonathan.e.bell · · Score: 1

    Let's just use the nuclear radiation that pours over the earth incessantly. We're already almost as good at it as we are at burning through our finite resources. Where could we be if all the money dumped into fossil fuels was used for renewables?

    1. Re:More efficient by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Where could we be if all the money dumped into fossil fuels was used for renewables?

      At home, burning trees and manure for heat.

      Oh, wait, you mean now that we've already built societies on the availability of oil and coal? When we've had decades of the luxury of using different extracts from various crude oil sources for everything from lubricating doors, to powering cars, to fertilizing farmland?

      We already are advancing "renewable" adoption as quickly as the things can get mass produced. One of the major factors limiting solar adoption (as the big example) is that the tech level that has been taken from theory to mass production uses a whole bloody lot of really toxic heavy metals and awkwardly distributed elements. The sort of thing that the richest countries won't mine because of how messy and dangerous the process is. So getting the limiting resources involves getting people who look a little different than you to poison themselves finding the things you want so you can sit at your computer and act like you are wiser than everyone else. Idiot.

    2. Re:More efficient by KGIII · · Score: 1

      This is talking about mining mineral resources as opposed to fossil fuels. I'm not sure how we're going to use the Sun to make in-ground resources more plentiful than they already are. :/

      I mean, you don't *have* to read the summary or anything but it kind of helps. I suppose I could be misreading it but I decided to double-check my reading. I don't think I'm missing anything. I did not, of course, read the article. I'll read the summary but the article is right out. I am no heretic.

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
  13. Their damn village happens to be resting on by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    the richest Unobtanium deposit within 200 clicks in any direction. I mean, look at all that cheddar.

    1. Re:Their damn village happens to be resting on by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There wouldn't happen to be a bunch of ten foot tall blue skinned chicks hanging around it, with hair that can attach to my brains pleasure centers??? Yummy!

  14. Great by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Just what the oceans are needing!

  15. Mining in harsh environments by sjbe · · Score: 1

    Will Space X reduce the cost of space travel to make asteroid mining economical?

    SpaceX is barely touching the problems for asteroid mining. They're just trying to get the cost to orbit to something manageable which is super important but just a first step in a long journey. They aren't dealing at all the practical problems of actually turning an asteroid into useful materials. There is a lot more to it than just getting into space.

    Do asteroids have mineral resources that are worth exploiting?

    Almost certainly they have valuable materials. However that doesn't mean they can be exploited economically.

    Will techniques for undersea mining prove economical?

    We're already doing undersea mining (oil and gas) so the answer is a pretty clear yes.

    1. Re:Mining in harsh environments by ananamouse · · Score: 1

      >Do asteroids have mineral resources that are worth exploiting?
      I have been assured by people that have walked-on-the-surface-of-the-moon cred that at current prices for rare earth elements a 1km asteroid would have a value of $990 trillion. The thesis was that even if the glut dropped prices by a factor of a hundred you were looking at a shit load of jack.

  16. Oceans are fragile by sjbe · · Score: 1

    The ocean is big. I mean huge. Massive. A little mineral exploration isn't going to harm it at all.

    Nonsense The oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico a few years back would indicate otherwise. The ocean is big but it's also fragile in a lot of ways. It wouldn't be hard at all for us to cause some pretty catastrophic damage. We've already filled good portions of it with plastic and we're adding more daily. We've affected the temperature of the oceans and in some places the salinity. We've created massive dead zones thanks to agricultural runoff. The notion that the oceans are so big we can't harm them is clearly and demonstrably wrong.

  17. solar cells are made of sand by mdsolar · · Score: 0

    But, if, like First Solar, you want to use CdTe instead of silicon, looks like your raw materials are also unconstrained.

  18. Homer, that's your answer to everything! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    No, I'm pretty sure this is just a cover story for recovering alien technology for sekrit undersea bases.

  19. Project Azorian by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Looks like Howard Hughes is at it again....

  20. 1 km under the seabed would be safer. by dsmatthews9379 · · Score: 2

    But I can's see how "hoovering" huge swaths of ocean floor would not be extremely destructive to ecosystems unless they just did thin stripes that never touched areas where there was significant diversity or complexity in the distribution of that diversity. These larger more monotonous areas could be revisited on a time scale that allowed the complete recolonisation of the mined areas from the untouched areas, then another strip of the untouched area could be mined. The problem is that you can't trust the mining companies to decide where and when to mine and when to wait or stay away permanently. If they find an area is particularly rich in resources they will bias their research to allow it to be mined at the expense of protecting the biological diversity in the area.

    However they could bore a vast network of tunnels 1 km or more below the ocean floor without having much impact on the biosphere. However they are not interested in that because of the costs, and the fact that they are really just after the rich nodules on the surface of the ocean floor, nodules that may have formed in part due to biological processes.

  21. Bull Pucky by JimSadler · · Score: 1, Insightful

    We can not even regulate the harm done by commercial fishing which is much easier to observe and regulate. We certainly can not control oil spills nor contaminants from runoff from our rivers and rainfall. So now I am supposed to believe that we can effectively regulate deep ocean mining which pretty much equals dredging the deep ocean bottoms. We can't even deliver lead- free drinking water to Flint. And now there is concern over lead pipes all over our nation. But worse yet the public is not aware of how much asbestos water pipes supply home drinking water as well as water used and sold as bottled water. So I say Bull Pucky to the entire notion of ocean mining.

    1. Re:Bull Pucky by mdsolar · · Score: 0

      On rivers and streams in the US, the Clean Water Act provides tools the control pollution.

    2. Re:Bull Pucky by khallow · · Score: 1

      We can not even regulate the harm done by commercial fishing which is much easier to observe and regulate. We certainly can not control oil spills nor contaminants from runoff from our rivers and rainfall. So now I am supposed to believe that we can effectively regulate deep ocean mining which pretty much equals dredging the deep ocean bottoms. We can't even deliver lead- free drinking water to Flint. And now there is concern over lead pipes all over our nation. But worse yet the public is not aware of how much asbestos water pipes supply home drinking water as well as water used and sold as bottled water. So I say Bull Pucky to the entire notion of ocean mining.

      I suppose we could just not regulate deep sea mining. I'm sure that will go better.

  22. Yeh...but.. by meglon · · Score: 1

    Lets see how good of an idea they think it was after they dredge up some prehistoric radioactive dinosaur with an appetite for Japanese food.... or cities.

    --
    Fascism: An authoritarian and nationalistic right-wing system of government and social organization. See also: NAZI's
  23. We can be as careful as we like... by AmazingRuss · · Score: 0

    ... but if we develop the tech, the Chinese will use it to rape the ocean floor like they rape the fisheries.

  24. Re: Glomar by denzacar · · Score: 1

    They can neither confirm nor deny such information.

    --
    Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
  25. landfills by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    we have thrown away so many items made from precious metals

    we might not do so poorly searching for minerals in our very own landfills