19 replies to this topic

[Shortpoet-GTD]

A mining story we may have missed.(from March 2011) -

"Numerous companies are moving ahead rapidly with plans to mine copper, gold
and other minerals near hydrothermal vents on the ocean floor.
Biologist Cindy Van Dover warns that without environmental safeguards, the unique
ecosystems of deep sea vents could be severaly damaged.
Deep-sea mining is attracting growing interest from mining companies and could begin in earnest in just a few years.
Two firms — Canada’s Nautilus Minerals and Australia’s Bluewater Metals — have stepped up exploration of underwater mountain ranges in the South Pacific. China and Russia have expressed interest in mining the seabed below the Indian and Atlantic oceans, respectively.
And a recent report by Nautilus suggests the deep ocean produces several billion tons of minerals each year, including vast amounts of copper.

As the prospect of undersea mining grows ever more likely, one major question looms:
Can these valuable minerals be extracted on a large scale without causing significant environmental damage, particularly to the unique ecosystems near the deep hydrothermal vents where the minerals accumulate?"
Full interview here:


http://e360.yale.edu...l_impacts/2375/

[mariaandrea]

Shortpoet-GTD, on 05 January 2012 - 04:12 AM, said:

As the prospect of undersea mining grows ever more likely, one major question looms:
Can these valuable minerals be extracted on a large scale without causing significant environmental damage, particularly to the unique ecosystems near the deep hydrothermal vents where the minerals accumulate?"

Of course not. I believe the engineers will design the safest and most efficient systems they can, because engineers love to do that. Then, the companies will say their systems are too expensive. They'll go back to the drawing board and try to figure out where they can cut corners. Corners will then be cut, but things will be "within the safety margin" and some engineers won't be happy. Then, as the project is taken out of the hand of the engineers, and put into the hands of the people who install it and run it and maintain it, a few more corners will be surreptitiously cut to save a few more dollars and most people won't know it and only a few people will know all the corners that were cut from the beginning to the end of the project, and they'll deny it once an accident happens. And an accident will happen and more pollution and toxic chemicals will spew into the ocean where dead zones are growing from the pollution already there.

Pessimistic mood today.

[Shortpoet-GTD]

I hear ya. It's hard to stay positive when so much *&%^ is going on.

[E3 wise]

I have to agree 100% with you guys.  These areas harbor many unique and unknown life forms.  Last night on the PBS news I saw a report on a new vent system found off Antarctica.  The scientist said that several new species have been identified.  There is no way mining these areas can be safe for these creatures or the surrounding oceans.  It’s terrible to think they could be destroyed by companies like these. Areas like this should be set aside as preserves and studied, not destroyed by greed.  Thanks for the posting.

[sculptor]

cost is an issue

the reason we don't have much in the way of undersea archaelogy nor exploration is tied to costs
and that would only need be done at 120 meters(390ft)

mining at the depths in question would need a whole new technology to be viable

in a way, having venture capital companies bear the cost of building out that tool kit, might help unravel a whole field of mysteries surrounding our past circa 20,000ybp

provide a % for archaelogy?

[zararina]

Mining on lands are destrcutive and that what I also think about mining on ocean vents and that's no exception to the rules.
They will get all valuable things they could get from it since it will cost them too much money/investments to explore un the ocean. And that could mean in all means even destroying any life form or habitat that could come their way to earn billions on such mining project. Really hard not to think all those bad effects of mining as it was the fact that can not be just ignored.

[Shortpoet-GTD]

From a 2007 article.

"A Canadian-based company is currently planning the world's first commercial undersea exploration for high-grade
gold and copper. They are targeting an area known as the Manus backarc basin off the coast of Papua New Guinea.
These deep sea hydrothermal vents could be the most ancient sites of life on Earth.

The mining operations will use a strip-mining approach to remove deposits within the top 20 metres of the seafloor,
using remotely operated underwater mine cutters and a hydraulic pump system to transfer roughly two million tons
of ore per year to the surface.

The process will also raise the concentrated nutrients from the deep sea to the relatively nutrient-poor surface waters
of the ocean, causing algal blooms and potentially contaminating waters."


http://www.scienceda...70517142603.htm
From 2011 article.
http://www.realfijin...-begin-in-2013/

[Shortpoet-GTD]

And how many hectares of land were trashed in this country just for a small amount of gold? The small
percentage won't stop them. Copper mining too.

[Green Thumb]

arboramans, on 11 January 2012 - 02:17 PM, said:

The resilience of mother nature to rebound is underestimated. For Example, the Heard and McDonald Islans, considered the world least hospitable suffered a major volcanic eruption only a few years ago, completely wiping every last bit of life off the islands, now 3 years later the islands are completely revegetated and more bird colonies are living there than ever before. And it did all that by itself - mainly with bird droppings. There's an awful lot of hectares in the world, using a few for mining isn't as big a problem as water contamination from bad mining practices. This is why we need strong co-operation between the environmental agencies and the mining companies. Let's accept the fact that in the modern world we've a great need for minerals, i;m typing this on a machine made from many of those minerals, as are we all - let's not be hypocrites about it. We all want prosperity and a clean earth - we can have both, it just takes a little effort.

First the reasons must be weight. You can’t just go about accepting every change because although freedom is a choice your choice may not be the choice of others because they weigh things first. They look at the reasons as to why undergo big ventures, what for, who would benefit, how would it affect the environment, how safe it is, how would the big bodies of water react on it, what change would it bring - there are so many questions that has to be answered first before they could be let out there to penetrate the tranquil deep which bodies haven’t had the experience of being maneuvered and clawed and then their richness being suck out of them. People I believe are open-minded for change that’s why new ideas and discoveries surface the thing is being open-minded isn’t enough. It comes with BIG responsibility. Deep water exploration is one thing, conquering what you have explored is another.


"Nothing in this world works the way you think it does"- Jordan Maxwell

[Shortpoet-GTD]

Green Thumb, on 13 January 2012 - 02:15 AM, said:

They look at the reasons as to why undergo big ventures, what for, who would benefit, how would it affect the environment, how safe it is, how would the big bodies of water react on it, what change would it bring -

There is only one reason for this-$$$. All other considerations to them are moot.

[Shortpoet-GTD]

How can we expect other countries to protect their precious resources, when we have gas fracking,
strip mining for coal, deep sea drilling for oil in this country?
Resource protection is at the bottom of the list to too many.

[sculptor]

arboramans, on 13 January 2012 - 05:11 PM, said:

Well the bottom line is the driving force in business. No one goes into business to lose money. ...

Ahem:
,
arboramans,
maybe you haven't been following the shake-out of corporate america, but many do indeed go into business to lose money-----------but not their money-----------there is an industry acronym OPM which is short for "Other people's money", and in the modern corporate world, losing that is no great sin

for example, Solyndra secured massive financing to produce solar panels that were less than 1/2 as efficient as the industry standard, and went broke, losing vast amounts of "Other people's money"

now lets look at the players in the aforementioned sea floor mining venture.

Nautilus has been at this game for 5-6 years and is still bleeding tens of millions of dollars every year
blue water is a consortium of a treasure hunting company and a geologists
and all
they have done so far is test drilling
their plan is to use remote operated vehicles(rovs) to work the sea-floor at 1600 meters(about a mile down)
you may recall the futile attempts and cost of using rovs to cap the deep water horizon's leaking well
these will guide a dredge which pumps an "ore rich" slurry to the surface for processing

and the plan is to run the machines from a ship to be built for herren and partner which the joint venture will lease for $70,000/day

as an investor, i wouldn't give these guys a single dime of my money, if however, i was running an investment fund, i might consider investing OPM -----well, maybe not me, but someone with a sense of entitlement and no sense of responsibility might, and someone most probably has

deep water mining one mile down is at best a crap shoot

would you gamble with OPM?
it's a wild dream that might come true, but comes with odds that are a tad too steep for my tastes

[jasserEnv]

The thing about business is that so many people in it are not good at it. They might be good at getting the money to start in the first place by building a vision around what they are doing but they cannot execute on the plans or the idea was not one that had a good chance of making money. Unfortunately, it is often the environment that pays the price. The businesses will cut corners to reduce costs and the corners they cut are things like environmental standards which aren't included in the profit equation. I can imagine in the case of mining ocean vents that broken equipment would end up littering the areas around the vents because bringing it to the surface would be too costly.

[Shortpoet-GTD]

arboramans, on 17 January 2012 - 04:37 PM, said:

Constant bleating about the potential dangers of everything sounds like a nagging fishwife.

Good one.

[joeldgreat]

I think mining in deep waters are more dangerous than in land. It would be better to develop first a technology that will ensure the safety of all miners as well as the safety of our environment. No matter how we look at it, it will always entail an effect in our ecosystem. No matter how small, if accumulated in long time will surely devaste marine life. The good thing is that, this will surely not happenng in our lifetime. So let's mine our ocean and harness its mineral deposit while it lasts.