Register

Peak Oil is You


Donate Bitcoins ;-) or Paypal :-)


Page added on February 21, 2017

Bookmark and Share

Should we mine the deep ocean?

Should we mine the deep ocean? thumbnail

You’ve probably heard of peak oil—the point at which oil production reaches its maximum and begins to decline—but what about peak copper?

Copper helps send the electrical signals that make modern electronics like cellphones and tablets work. But there’s growing concern that the prevalence of key minerals like copper is on the decline.

In 2016 the Chilean Copper Commission (Cochilisco) released a report that looked at 15 years of copper exploration data. They found that most new copper deposits had been found before 2010. The world hasn’t stopped looking for copper, but we’ve stopped finding it.

And copper isn’t even the mineral that makes companies most nervous—it’s still pretty abundant. Minerals like tantalum, tungsten, and molybdenum are another matter entirely. They’re vital to manufacturing high-tech devices and don’t have ready substitutes. These minerals are often not mined directly but are byproducts of other types of mining. And recycling, in this case, isn’t a panacea. Often, the amount used in any given device is actually quite small, which makes reclaiming it difficult and expensive. So worries of a looming shortage have mining companies eyeing a hitherto untapped resource—the deep ocean.

“There are 27 licenses issued for sea mining exploration,” said Mark Hannington, a geologist at GEOMAR-Helmhotz Center for Ocean Research. Hannington spoke on Friday at the 2017 annual meeting for the American Association for the Advancement of Science in Boston.

In 2015, a group of Yale scientists assessed the “criticality” of all 62 metals found in the iPhone. Some of the most worrisome minerals might exist in the deep ocean.

circuit board table of elements

Thomas Graedel

The concentrations (parts per million) of 44 elements found on printed circuit boards.

The deep sea is home to three types of mineral formations that might be suitable for mining. The first are polymetallic, or manganese nodules, a kind of metallic nugget that rests on the sea floor. The second are polymetallic sulphides. These are a mix of minerals like gold, silver, copper, lead, zinc, and rare earth metals like molybdenum, tellurium, and titanium that form along the ocean floor—near underwater volcanic vents. Finally, there are cobalt-rich ferromanganese (Fe-Mn) crusts that form a layer of the ocean floor. Polymetallic nodules are most ripe for mining due to ease of access and existing technologies.

Hannington thinks that companies may turn to deep sea mining for these resources even if it doesn’t make sense financially. China controls the market on rare earth minerals, and much of the world’s tantalum supply is in the unstable Democratic Republic of the Congo. Countries may bear the cost of mining minerals themselves in order to gain independence from a volatile global mineral market.

But deep sea mining involves delving into the unknown. We’ve explored only five percent of the deep ocean. And what little we do know suggests that mining these waters may be a perilous endeavor.

deep sea nodules

NOAA Office of Ocean Exploration and Research, 2015 Hohonu Moana.

A pavement of manganese nodules.

Take the nodules. Analysis of minerals in the Clarion-Clipperton zone, one of the better mapped regions of the ocean, suggests that the nodule layer isn’t very thick. According to Hannington, we’d have to scrape a 62-square-mile area of the zone to net the amount of copper found in a typical mine on land.

Then there’s the fact that each of those nodules is an ecosystem—one that plays host to many microorganisms. Early evidence suggests mining disrupts that ecosystem and has long-lasting harmful effects.

Stace Beaulieu a biological oceanographer at Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute, showed photographs of an area that had been trawled—its nodules had been scraped up. Twenty-six years later, the trawl lines still stick out. The nodules have not come back.

“Organisms associated with the nodules will be lost,” said Beaulieu. “What will happen to the animals in the sediment? That’s unknown.”

Finally, we don’t even know how many minerals are actually in the deep sea. What data exists is pretty speculative in nature.

“The kind of research that we do is very expensive,” said Beaulieu. Academic researchers are mainly investigating the potential impacts of mining on the environment—not on industry. So there’s little data to support aggressive deep sea endeavors, and even less suggesting that ocean mining is better than sticking to land.

“We need to get quantification between the balance of the land resource and the sea resource,” said Thomas Graedel, an industrial ecologist at Yale University. “Without vigorous research on land and in the ocean, it’s very hard to say ‘are we going to run short [or resources]’ and where.”

But while it’s hard to say when on-land resources will run dry, there’s no question that the clock is ticking—and little doubt that the deep ocean will soon be plundered in the name of technology. It might behoove us all to hold onto our cellphones, laptops, and other electronic whiz bangs instead of splurging for the next available upgrade.

PopSci



21 Comments on "Should we mine the deep ocean?"

  1. Midnight Oil on Tue, 21st Feb 2017 4:55 pm 

    By all means, Yes, mine the ocean Sea floor…
    Pension fund managers will jump on board to such a ground floor opportunity!
    Their shale oil investments will pay for it!

  2. Mark on Tue, 21st Feb 2017 5:27 pm 

    Sounds like another Elon Musk scheme. Much too $$$$$ to be feasable

  3. penury on Tue, 21st Feb 2017 5:35 pm 

    What? An untapped resource? Quick the humans need the material, screw the rest of the world, I want an I=phone.

  4. Apneaman on Tue, 21st Feb 2017 5:53 pm 

    Why ask a cancer if it should spread? Of course it will and for as long as the host can sustain it before the host either dies or invokes a powerful immune response (AGW, Mass extinction) A cancer is a cancer is a cancer.

  5. Anonymous on Tue, 21st Feb 2017 5:57 pm 

    Should we mine the deep ocean?

    Sure, why not. What could possibly go wrong….

  6. GregT on Tue, 21st Feb 2017 8:29 pm 

    Should we mine the deep ocean?

    At the rate we’re going, the oceans will likely be devoid of life as we knew it some time around the middle part of this century.

    So what’s to lose? I say go for it. Party like there’s no tomorrow.

  7. Antius on Tue, 21st Feb 2017 9:53 pm 

    The oceans cover an area of 140 million square miles. We would need to go a long way with oceanic mining in order to have a big impact on life in the deep oceans. The biggest problem would appear to be economics. Mining the oceans is rather like mining asteroids. Where do you find the billions needed to get the thing started?

  8. Midnight Oil on Tue, 21st Feb 2017 10:07 pm 

    Sure thing Antius…same was thought about the American Buffalo…so vast and immense…
    Didn’t take that long to have an impact, did it?

  9. makati1 on Tue, 21st Feb 2017 10:58 pm 

    It is not the mining that is bad, but the destruction of the sea floor. Do you know exactly how it is connected to the life cycle of the planet? No? Then how can you be sure it is safe to mine thousands of square miles of it? Humans rush in where angels fear to tread.

  10. Antius on Tue, 21st Feb 2017 11:18 pm 

    I don’t know all about this and do not doubt that there will be problems with it. On a finite planet, so full of living things, you cannot do anything without impacting something or someone else. But the truth is that the ocean is vast. There is a lot more ocean than there is land. 140 million square miles is a lot. That’s about 40 times the land area of the USA.

  11. Midnight Oil on Wed, 22nd Feb 2017 4:33 am 

    China is ALREADY a test case in mining the oceans. Been mining to create artificial islands off its coast to enhance its territorial claims. Now it has been determined it is in the process of destroying one of the richest diverse fisheries on the planet, which millions of people need to feed themselves.
    Their response

    “some countries slander that China developing the South China Sea islands and reefs has caused extensive damage of coral reefs. On the contrary, the truth is, China insisted on developing ‘green engineering and ecology reefs’ as the concept of environmental protection.”

    International court’s ruling in South China Sea case won’t end the fight
    International court’s ruling in South China Sea case won’t end the fight
    The newspaper claimed that China had “conducted thorough in-depth research” and “applied dynamic protective measures during the whole process, to complete projects as well as achieve environment protection, to accomplish sustainable development” in the area. “After China completes the construction activities, it will greatly enhance the reefs environmental protection capability,” the paper added. “These practices can stand the test of time

    Sure they will…too bad no one will be around to see it.

    Humans…the plague of the planet

  12. makati1 on Wed, 22nd Feb 2017 5:22 am 

    M.O., WHO “… determined it is in the process of destroying one of the richest diverse fisheries on the planet…?” An American think tank? Do you even know how big the S.C.S. is?

    About 1,500,000 SQ.Miles. Over 250 islands. atolls, and reefs. IF each of the approximately 10 “reconstructed reefs” disturbed 100 square miles each (not possible) that is only 1,000 square miles. 1/1,500th of the total area.

    Now can we mention the thousands of square miles of the destroyed Gulf of Mexico by U$ oil? Or the 3,000 square miles of the Chesapeake Bay, destroyed by pollution or … I could go on with a long list. More U$ hypocrisy.

  13. Davy on Wed, 22nd Feb 2017 5:54 am 

    It is well known makati that the South China Sea is nearly destroyed as a healthy ecosystem. This is true of the local fisheries of the P’s. Now it is all about fish farming with you Asians. Yet, what will you do when all the feed fish are gone. We know fish farming is just as destructive as land farming. Think about all the protective mangroves being destroyed in the process. It is a vicious circle that 4.5BIL Asian people cause when focused into a very small area. It is lunacy to brag and blame when you are part of this destruction. Yes, I agree the west is horrible across the board but please quite bragging about your disgusting Asia.

  14. makati1 on Wed, 22nd Feb 2017 6:55 am 

    Yep, “Well known” by the suckers in the U$ who never question their propaganda. Funny how you can be so wrong and yet live 10,000 miles from the place, never been there, and are reliant on “news” for your “facts.” Don’t even question that Anti-China propaganda, or the Anti-Russian propaganda. Just suck on that propaganda teat if it makes you feel good.

  15. Midnight Oil on Wed, 22nd Feb 2017 7:36 am 

    The tribunal clearly decided that China had caused severe harm to the coral reef environment,” he says. China also violated its obligations under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea “to preserve and protect fragile eco-systems,” he says.

    The tribunal found that damage to the coral reefs in the Spratly Islands is extensive, spreading for more than 30 square miles. Much of that damage is caused by China’s island-building — turning pristine reefs into permanent military outposts that include massive runways.

    John McManus, a professor of marine ecology at the University of Miami, says the Chinese use huge dredgers to pull up sand and anything else in their way.

    “They’re using a grinding ball,” he says. “It’s got grooves and teeth and it spins around and tears up living coral and parts of the coral reef substrate, to make more gravel and sand to be sucked up and used for island-building

  16. Davy on Wed, 22nd Feb 2017 8:56 am 

    Makati has issues with reality when it is in his back yard. LOL.

  17. Apneaman on Wed, 22nd Feb 2017 11:20 am 

    Trump’s New EPA Chief Promises To Pull Back Environment Rules In First Agency Speech

    New environmental agency chief Scott Pruitt confirmed he would seek to end an Obama administration plan to keep power plants from worsening climate change.

    http://bzfd.it/2lpfaka

    Good on him. There is no need whatsoever for the EPA.

    Thousands of spills at US oil and gas fracking sites

    “Up to 16% of hydraulically fractured oil and gas wells spill liquids every year, according to new research from US scientists.

    They found that there had been 6,600 releases from these fracked wells over a ten-year period in four states.
    The biggest problems were reported in oil-rich North Dakota where 67% of the spills were recorded.”

    http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-39032748

    Let the cancer run it’s course.

  18. peakyeast on Wed, 22nd Feb 2017 3:08 pm 

    If we dont spill the fracking fluids, oil and other stuff how can we expect nature to adapt to it?

    Just like anti-biotics we have to spread it far and wide so that nature can develop a natural resistance.

    Its just common sense.

  19. DerHundistlos on Wed, 22nd Feb 2017 11:05 pm 

    Dr. Jeremy Jackson address to US Naval War College titled, “Ocean Apocalypse”, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2zMN3dTvrwY

  20. GregT on Wed, 22nd Feb 2017 11:29 pm 

    “Makati has issues with reality when it is in his back yard. LOL.”

    You have issues with reality period Davy. It would make no difference at all as to which tax farm you were born into.

    Makati, on the other hand, has made a choice. He has lived longer in your tax farm, than you have been alive.

  21. Cloggie on Thu, 23rd Feb 2017 5:31 am 

    Makati, on the other hand, has made a choice. He has lived longer in your tax farm, than you have been alive.

    Are you seriously suggesting that the prospects for survival for an American individual are better in the Philippines than in Heartland USA, after the crash, most likely of financial nature? (Forget peak oil and/or climate change as crash potential initiators).

    Philippines: an overcrowded slum island with little resources, at the mercy of China:

    http://tinyurl.com/z5x9l7r

    http://water.org/country/philippines/

    Makati is still semi-king because of his modest pension dollars and because the Ps are still officially an American colony. When that changes every rationale for him to to stay in the Ps will evaporate over night.

    Unless of course he is half-Filipino himself, via his mother.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *