Undersea Mining

[redneckrob]

Originally Posted by rbk

Your assumption that I don’t get chastised for implementing every single possible green technology in every project I do. Your right in line with those who question why I don’t include ASHP in every project in a climate that sees many days well below the efficiency thresholds. I assumed you sold and distributed PV as your opinion is obviously biased and tone deaf to just about everything else, that or you’re illiterate. I’m guessing illiterate and a good possibility you’re not even Canadian as your geography must be ***** to not be able to deduce my location from my profile that combined with the clear fact you either didn’t or can’t read my past posts and insist that every place on earth burns coal for energy production. In fact pound for pound it’s actually cheaper and more efficient for northerners to burn diesel both in operation and infrastructure, but I’m sure you’re aware of that being ‘in the industry’.

Let's remember that personal attacks are not only against the agreement you made when you signed up to post here but are just a singularly ineffective way to communicate. The fact that you felt the need to use ad hominem attacks to make your point pretty much says all that needs to be said about the strength of that point.

[redneckrob]

Originally Posted by tomfl

The problem with this source and the other ones mentioned is they are all "rent seekers".

They all get government money/grants used to support their position. If they are not successful in advancing their position they will no longer get money. What is most upsetting is that the amount of money they are demanding along with the changes they claim are necessary would result in massive wealth transfer; with a significant amount going to them.

Sad to say the same conditions exist on the opposite side. As I posted earlier undersea mining would have terrible effects on the oceans; but it's proponents are well financed and seem to be in complete control of the LOS agency charged with regulating it. Even sadder is my tax dollars are being used by both sides.

I'd like to ask you to think just a little bit about this concept that we shouldn't trust anyone who is an expert in anything simply because they earn their living from that field. If we're at all internally consistent then we'll have to apply our thought process to everything, not just cherry pick items like climate science. So geologists. They get grants to study plate tectonics and come up with theories on how they cause earthquakes and the type of seismic waves an earthquake produces. They get "government money/grants used to support their position." that plate tectonics is real (even though it's just a theory and hasn't been "proven") and they expect trillions to be spent through earthquake building codes and mitigation efforts "demanding along with the changes they claim are necessary would result in massive wealth transfer;".

Again, if we're internally consistent with our logic, a geologist studying plate tectonics is just as conflicted and should be ignored as biased for exactly the same reason as you advocate we discount what a climate scientist's research uncovers. And we could say the same for civil engineers studying the impact of hurricanes on buildings. Or doctors studying disease that will lead to drugs that may greatly enrich them. Or.....I could go on and on but hopefully I've made the point that just because you make your living studying something doesn't make you automatically biased and doesn't give us license to ignore sound research and results simply because we don't like potential implications. Or claim that laymen who have spent next to no time studying or learning about something are somehow absurdly more qualified to talk about something they know little about then experts in the subject because I guess this lack this bias?

Absolutely we should study the actual research and try to poke as many holes in it as we can if there are factual or logical errors in it, that's the scientific method. But simply choosing to ignore experts because we've decided they must be biased basically because of the fact that they're experts is dark ages anti-intellectual style of thinking when you really stop to think about it.

[capn_billl]

Well stated.

[transmitterdan]

Enforcing building codes does not create wealth transfer. Now if you come up with a scheme where builders can pay an “offset tax” so they can continue making shoddy buildings that fall down in an earthquake we can talk about plate tectonics and wealth transfer.

[redneckrob]

Originally Posted by transmitterdan

Enforcing building codes does not create wealth transfer. Now if you come up with a scheme where builders can pay an “offset tax” so they can continue making shoddy buildings that fall down in an earthquake we can talk about plate tectonics and wealth transfer.

There are a lot of firms that have collectively made trillions of dollars retrofitting buildings and roads to make them resistant to earthquakes. And trillions in additional costs have gone into buildings that were built to a more rigorous code in order to make them earthquake resistant. This isn't a bad thing at all, it's eminently reasonable to take the best precautions we can against earthquakes given the imperfect knowledge we currently have. But to deny that huge amounts of wealth has changed hands in order to accomplish that is rather obtuse at best.
However my point, which I hope you don't choose to continue to ignore simply because it's inconvenient, is that every expert who makes a living from their field is equally biased by the fact they make a living from their field. And it's in no way internally consistent to cherry pick and say "we should ignore climate science because the experts in that field make their living from it" while saying we should listen to experts in literally any other field. You don't get to say "anyone I disagree with is biased because they make their living from their field" without applying that same standard to everyone.

[GordMay]

1st Part of the 26th Annual Session of the International Seabed Authority (ISA)
17-21 February 2020
➥ https://enb.iisd.org/oceans/isa/2020-1/

Exploration contracts granted by the ISA, as of March 2020
➥ http://www.savethehighseas.org/wp-co...SA_Mar2020.pdf

In an open letter, sent to the ISA last July, 28 marine scientists, from around the world, called on the organization to turn to independent scientists, when evaluating requests from companies and governments, for deep-sea-mineral exploration. They also suggest that the ISA works more closely with influential intergovernmental bodies, such as the United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity, so that the ISA’s conservation voice is strengthened, in talks with companies.
These are sensible recommendations. Mining’s destructive potential extends beyond the loss of individual charismatic species*. The use of tractor-sized machines, each weighing around 300 tonnes, could release carbon, locked up in deep-sea sediments, into the atmosphere, worsening climate change.
The deep ocean is so poorly sampled that researchers don’t even know how much might be lost through mining activities.
➥ https://storage.googleapis.com/plane...etter-2019.pdf

* The scaly-foot snail (Chrysomallon squamiferum) became the first species to be officially classified as ‘endangered’ by the threat of deep-sea mining.
➥ https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-019-02231-1
➥ https://www.nature.com/news/biodiver...report-1.16523

[RaymondR]

The last time this came up it was a cover story for Howard Hughes to have the oil drilling contractor Global Marine build a giant drill ship with a dry dock to recover a Russian submarine from the deep ocean to get the code books and equipment.

They recovered about half the submarine, don't know if the half recovered included the wanted items. The cover story whilst they were building it was that it was for a deep sea, nodule mining venture.

[GordMay]

Microorganisms in the depths of the ocean turn minerals into food, that supports unique ecosystems. When we mine those minerals, the microorganisms suffer, and we could lose valuable resources.
Scientists have determined* that deep-sea mining activities negatively impact some environments that host seafloor mineral deposits more severely than others. Specifically, they concluded that the microbial ecosystems inhabiting hydrothermal vent fields perform unique ecosystem services that are interrupted by mining.

*“Impacts of deep sea mining on microbial ecosystem services” ~ by Beth N. Orcutt et al
Abstract:
Interest in extracting mineral resources from the seafloor through deep sea mining has accelerated in the past decade, driven by consumer demand for various metals like zinc, cobalt, and rare earth elements. While there are ongoing studies evaluating potential environmental impacts of deep sea mining activities, these focus primarily on impacts to animal biodiversity. The microscopic spectrum of seafloor life and the services that this life provides in the deep sea are rarely considered explicitly. In April 2018, scientists met to define the microbial ecosystem services that should be considered when assessing potential impacts of deep sea mining, and to provide recommendations for how to evaluate and safeguard these services. Here, we indicate that the potential impacts of mining on microbial ecosystem services in the deep sea vary substantially, from minimal expected impact to loss of services that cannot be remedied by protected area offsets. For example, we (1) describe potential major losses of microbial ecosystem services at active hydrothermal vent habitats impacted by mining, (2) speculate that there could be major ecosystem service degradation at inactive massive sulfide deposits without extensive mitigation efforts, (3) suggest minor impacts to carbon sequestration within manganese nodule fields coupled with potentially important impacts to primary production capacity, and (4) surmise that assessment of impacts to microbial ecosystem services at seamounts with ferromanganese crusts is too poorly understood to be definitive. We conclude by recommending that baseline assessments of microbial diversity, biomass, and, importantly, biogeochemical function need to be considered in environmental impact assessments of deep sea mining.
*Full paper ➥ https://aslopubs.onlinelibrary.wiley...1002/lno.11403

[GordMay]

Nauru and DeepGreen Want to Begin Mining Seafloor

The tiny Pacific nation of Nauru has created shockwaves, by demanding that the rules for deep sea mining are agreed, within the next two years.

Progress has been slow, due to Covid travel restrictions.

It's all about a letter, that refers to the small print, of an international treaty, which has far-reaching implications.

Nauru, an island state in the Pacific Ocean, has called on the International Seabed Authority to speed up the development of regulations, that will govern deep sea mining.

It's activated a, seemingly obscure, sub-clause, in the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea, that allows countries to pull a 'two-year trigger' if they feel negotiations are going too slowly.

Nauru, which is partnered with a mining company, DeepGreen, argues that it has "a duty to the international community" to make this move to help achieve "regulatory certainty".

If Nauru and DeepGreen get a provisional licence, any number of other companies, or states, could trigger the two-year rule too, and then the whole process descends into utter chaos.

“Nauru requests the President of ISA Council to complete the adoption of rules, regulations and procedures necessary to facilitate the approval of plans of work for exploitation in the Area”
➥ https://www.isa.org.jm/index.php/new...and-procedures

More reporting about ➥ https://news.mongabay.com/2021/07/na...servationists/

More than 450 marine science and policy experts from 44 countries have signed a statement calling for an immediate moratorium on deep-sea mining. They argue that deep-sea mining would lead to substantial losses to biodiversity and ecosystem functioning, and that there is currently not enough scientific research to fully understand the negative impacts of deep-sea mining on the marine environment.
➥ https://www.seabedminingsciencestatement.org/

[RaymondR]

"If Nauru and DeepGreen get a provisional licence, any number of other companies, or states, could trigger the two-year rule too, and then the whole process descends into utter chaos."

Two years is probably more than sufficient time to finalize a set of regulations. The clause was probably included ti counter the delay tactics common in these matters.

[GordMay]

Originally Posted by RaymondR

... [1] Two years is probably more than sufficient time to finalize a set of regulations.
[2] The clause was probably included ti counter the delay tactics common in these matters.

[1] Maybe - maybe NOT; which is why time limits may be a good thing **
[2] Probably.*


** Studies and Reports, from the Secretariat of the International Seabed Authority, to support the development of the Mining Code, have been issued, on a continuing basis, since [at least] 2013.
➥ https://isa.org.jm/mining-code/studies

Excerpted from: UNCLOS: Agreement relating to the Implementation of Part XI of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea of 10 December 1982
➥ https://www.un.org/depts/los/convent...i.htm#section1

From SECTION 1. COSTS TO STATES PARTIES AND INSTITUTIONAL ARRANGEMENTS [Anex]

15. The Authority shall elaborate and adopt, in accordance with article 162, paragraph 2(o)(ii), of the Convention, rules, regulations and procedures based on the principles contained in sections 2, 5, 6, 7 and 8 of this Annex, as well as any additional rules, regulations and procedures necessary to facilitate the approval of plans of work for exploration or exploitation, in accordance with the following subparagraphs:

(a) The Council may undertake such elaboration any time it deems that all or any of such rules, regulations or procedures are required for the conduct of activities in the Area, or when it determines that commercial exploitation is imminent, or at the request of a State whose national intends to apply for approval of a plan of work for exploitation;

* (b) If a request is made by a State referred to in subparagraph (a) the Council shall, in accordance with article 162, paragraph 2(o), of the Convention, complete the adoption of such rules, regulations and procedures within two years of the request;

(c) If the Council has not completed the elaboration of the rules, regulations and procedures relating to exploitation within the prescribed time and an application for approval of a plan of work for exploitation is pending, it shall none the less consider and provisionally approve such plan of work based on the provisions of the Convention and any rules, regulations and procedures that the Council may have adopted provisionally, or on the basis of the norms contained in the Convention and the terms and principles contained in this Annex as well as the principle of non-discrimination among contractors.

[RaymondR]

Blah, blah, blah.

This issue originally arose when the CIA and Howard Hughes had the offshore oil drilling contractor Global Marine built a deep water vessel to recover a Russian submarine using the cover story that it was a deep sea mining vessel. That's got to be fifty or so years ago now and they are still writing the regulations?

[Bycrick]

Of course we will destroy the sea bed. Just like everything else. If you want electric cars, effective wind generators, and fancy electronics, the materials have to come from someplace. That someplace is very likely to be damaged. Nauru learned that when their only export product was birdshit. Rather than starve, they branched out into money-laundering, Internet domains and stashing unwanted Australian migrants. They’ll mine the seabed to get enough money to protect against sea level rise.

An increasing population, all wanting a "better standard of living" with no adverse environment isn’t a realistic goal.

[valhalla360]

Originally Posted by GordMay

Tom's Rent Seeking article, cites New York City taxi licensing.
Some comparative fares, based on the average cost of a sixty-block journey:
New York: $10
London: $18
Paris: $12
Tokyo: $15
Rio de Janeiro: $3.50
Los Angeles: $9.50
Sydney: $11

London, Paris, Tokyo, LA and Sydney are heavily regulated and unionized (ie: the prices are largely the result of special interest groups), so they are comparable to NYC in terms of the artificially driving up prices.

Also, I'm not sure I buy $10 per 60 blocks...of course, blocks vary from city to city, so it's a poor measure and also depends on traffic conditions...very easy to manipulate the data.

[valhalla360]

Originally Posted by redneckrob

I'd like to ask you to think just a little bit about this concept that we shouldn't trust anyone who is an expert in anything simply because they earn their living from that field.

I would agree with this whole heartedly...except in reality, certain experts who espouse the desired answer are treated as experts and those who don't espouse the "woke" answer are called shills and other nasty things.

In that type of atmosphere, a logical person will set aside degrees and titles when looking at the debate.

Not saying deep sea mining is good or bad but just because you have eco-street cred doesn't mean I should buy whatever you say.