Visualizing Deep-sea Mining 

It’s an animation, they dont have to include those

Consider there is hardly any flora or fauna at that depth, mostly bacteria and microbes that can easily survive "picking".

@@seriously6644 an animation used to convince people that this is a viable, sustainable method of resource extraction, which is simply not true.

@@dareniu and from what sources do you make these claims? The infinitesimal data that we have about the abbysopelagic zone differs greatly from your out-of-the-air assessment.

@@dareniu bacteria and microbes which use nodules as their habitat probably wouldn't survive 'picking'. Moreover, this is not simply 'picking'. It is harvesters scouring the seabed and sucking up everything on their path, while emitted sound and plumes at various depths. If you believe that, once commenced, this operation will not be scaled up to levels which fundamentally distort the entire ecosystem then you're living one hell of a fantasy

My thought as well!! Especially with the ‘spotters’

Same idea.

im a year late but the dune collectors were based off these

At 4km under the surface theres almost no life - this isnt a coral reef zone lol. If you want to see what it looks like for yourself you see videos from oceanographers right here on youtube, its incredibly empty.

it's literally the bottom of the sea nothing lives there idiot. the discharge would fall back to the ocean floor within one or tow days. fish and other animals live mostly near the shores, and only use the ocean to navigate during seasons. this has 0% evniromental impact. there are rare parts of the ocean where crustaces live, and that's mostly in north and middle atlantic oceans. not every mining operation has enviromental impacts

@@AleXcsGaming that is so incorrect wow

There actually are seafloor animals... just not everywhere. And disposing the plumes too high close to the surface can nourish the algae, and make plankton and fish population burst, which can be a good thing. Or it can make them sick from dusting heavy metals (which by the definition of heavy, sink) on the upper layers of the water. So they will probably do it in deadzones just to be safe.

@@yasmind3617 It will probably be a good thing. Q

Alexandru Popescu ur absolutely off ur rocker m8

Which life? You think they are mining on a coral reef?

The really worrisome fact is that we know less about our oceans than we know about space. And here we are going right ahead tearing it apart. It is really fascinating how little we appreciate our own environment for the sake of money.

Man Playing Ruthlessly With Nature

the plume might actually help life by sending nutriment back in the ocean

@@jeff_d6941 There is a rich ecosystem of life on the sea bed in these areas

They are not tearing up the ocean floor, they are collecting these nodules Rather then tearing up the land

@@jemmaflores9220 They're still disrupting sediment and potential wildlife that exists at the bottom of the ocean, if they're pumping sediment full of nutrients back into the water, there's no telling how it'll impact the deep sea ecosystems as well as potential ocean chemistry. It's not unusual for us to make problems by jumping into things without proper research, try to cover things up when a problem arises, and eventually try to fix the problem after much destruction has already occurred. I agree that there is a valid concern regarding how we're going to acquire these resources. I just really hope that they're careful in researching the potential short and long term impacts on oceans that this process will have. Especially if there's going to be many of these mining operations going on at once.

@@trainerkam3218 I agree with some of the stuff you wrote. MIT conducted a research about the plume (sediment) there's a vid on RU-vid, they should be releasing the article anytime now proving that it wont affect the ecosystem. check out DeepGreen company, i hope this will put your mind to rest about this whole issue. Let me know what you think about them

@@jemmaflores9220 Alright. I may take a moment to reply, but I'll try to get back to you on my thoughts asap

@@trainerkam3218 It now looks like you won't have to worry about the sediment being returned to the ocean; they have discovered minable quantiles of a rare metal called scandium, in that mud, that turns out to be a strategic metal that when ,4 percent is added to aluminum the resulting alloy is comparable to titanium but it weighs 20 percent less. It will probably be considered essential to National Security. So, the mud will most likely be too valuable to waste. Then, of course, there are other rare earths as well as loads of essential metal, for the electric vehicle industry, in the nodules. Coupled with that Lockheed Martin has a deep sea branch that has ocean bottom claims that are over forty years old. Lockheed Martin is not subject to ISA regulations. Lockheed Martin has been researching and sampling for many years. The World Bank is telling the world that the minerals on the ocean floor are essential for the production of electric vehicles and electric generation. The World Bank and the IMF are part of the "New World Order" that is talked about but little understood. As has been the situation forever, out of sight out of mind. Hopefully they will mitigate the damage by dropping rocks to replace the ones taken or some other habitat restoration.

You are everywhere. Is this a topic you like?

That is not actually true

Proof? Because as far as I can see it would cause far less damage than regular mining.

No, these are not ferromagnetic and won't stick to the magnet.

@@zakurn1086 Dont they have a lot of nickel in them. Nickel is magnetic.

@@drmodestoesq they do, but in low concentrations, these nodules are polimetalic, they are a accretion of many minerals, the primary ones being manganese and iron ore. The metal nickel might have magnetic properties, but the mineral which the industry collects to extract nickel is not. Very few minerals are magnetic by nature, the ones I have seen so far is magnetite and chromite

Some are. But regulation is still to exists, so they are 'mining' patents for equipment for the time the demand for them exists.

Japan has already mined a dead vent in okinawa.

TMC The Metals Company

Companies are already buying legal rights to mine in the deep sea.

There are hundreds of thousands of ships on the sea at any given time. One more aint gonna make a difference. And its vacuuming up nodules not vacuuming up the planets remaining few fish.

spaceX reusable rockets

NASA makes incredible stuff with the funding they already have. I say give them more money and see what mind blowing discoveries they can come with.

Idk if that is enough for the CGI

i can't destroy something that doesn't exist. fish don't live in the deep sea, they live near shores near the surface of the water. crustaces aswell, they need light and minerals, which are found at the top

@@AleXcsGaming that is not correct

The ocean is a desert.

@@yasmind3617 Tell us what is correct. The ocean is mostly a desert. That is why Abandoned oil rigs become biodiversity hotspots. They need shelter. Deep Sea floor is devoid of most life. Except maybe angler.

Even deserts can be full of life, just life you don’t hear of

What the fuck is this sentence?

Y didn't u build it then

@@KA-vs7nl Funding limitations.

@@Seeds-Of-The-Wayside name your price. Consider it done.

I was just thinking a balloon could take a full load of harvested minerals to the surface, then just use a crane to bring it on board the cargo support ship above. They would need a long-term way to power the craft though, unless they keep lifting up the craft and charging the batteries. I wonder what the strength of the waves are like at the bottom, could they use wind turbines underwater?

That would take too much power. Also, the hose blasts all the nodules to the surface ship.

yeah but think about profits. the investors are gonna get such value out of this.

Naum Rusomarov oh so it’s all about money not sea life? sooner or later ocean life will be depleted from assholes like you making everything a money move.

That nodule area is the size of the United States. And that is just one of them. A few square miles of nodule harvesting will be insignificant. Especially compared to fishing fleets that are vacuuming up all the fish.

@@drmodestoesq I'd imagine that it'd ramp us as demand increases. At one point in time, that's what we thought regarding resources from forest, streams, oceans etc. Yet now we're seeing a great decline and extinction of animals and plants that were abundant in those environments as we continue to destroy them to meet demand. What's there to prevent the same scenario from playing out?

No, lol

Yes, it could! It could benefit the harvesters from spending too much money on waste. That's what we humans are best at right?

That actually does the opposite. www.resolve.ngo/docs/mar_technol_soc_j_45_28a.pdf

That would block sunlight from photosynthesizing organisms that’s why they have to put it a certain distance

@@blocheadsolo true, it would just create a large dirt cloud

overabundance of nutrients is a form of pollution in of itself, it causes algae numbers to explode, taking all of the oxygen out of the nearby water

Source? Because thats a pretty bold claim.

@@neshirst-ashuach1881Bold claim? Haha its practically common knowledge. Can you name one that wasn't ? That did Not cause habitat destruction, disrupt ecosystems, adversely affect wildlife nor cause any pollution or contamination nor have any negative effects on social orders by not contributing to poverty enslavement or armed conflicts. Not to mention the eventual depletion of limited non-renewable resources. In addition to a long list of historical records of environmental damages and negative social consequences there's more than enough sources online from the UN, European Union Environmental agencies as well as a host of public and private University and scientific research even the World Bank to keep you busy for quite a while Natural resource extractive industries just to be clear are principally all and any kind of mining of coal, gold, diamonds, and other gems and minerals etc , oil and gas drilling / wells , fracking, logging, quarrying, some would also include commercial fishing and industrial agriculture. I'm curious which of these or related historically has a clean slate of 0 negative environmental and social impacts that you can think of... A Traditional resource extractive industry ... As the lessons are being learned causes the focus on converting to sustainable and renewable resource management and striving to minimize environmental impacts and social inequality. The adverse effects of natural resource extractive industry has a long history and well documented which can't be denied except out of ignorance.

WAY less dystopian than terrestrial mining.

@@gregorymalchuk272 BAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA where's that metal sand going to go? You only listen to people, you don't think.

yes it is, as you can see they are returning back all the suspended/unwanted materials into the sea which causes turbidity and thats not good

@@shreyanshpagaria8201 Unwanted? What would these unwanted materials be? Can you elaborate? And how is turbidity not good in a zone where there is already no light to speak of? Which life forms would it disrupt? Being vague is not a good way to argument.

@@zakurn1086 first read about plankton and nekton than come here

@@shreyanshpagaria8201 You should read it first, it is common knowledge plankton and nekton, are concentrated on the euphotic zone of the oceans, simply due to the fact that their whole food chain has as it basis the photosynthesizing plankton that cannot survive without light. If there is any in depths it is either around thermal vents or are in such a low concentration that the extra minerals on the water won't cause a dangerous bloom, and even more, for a bloom to occur the primary element that drives this is iron and I wouldn't be so sure there is a lot of the specific free iron ion in that sediment on the bottom of the ocean floor.

@@zakurn1086 my thoughts are we could also have some sort of sea farming to deal with the nutreance bloom so the plankton has competition or preditors to prevent dangerous alge blooms

We're doing even better...we're doing both currently. 😂😢🤡🌎

They overfished that place so nobody will know the environmental impacts on the seabed

15 thousand feet below the ocean and on anoxic waters is pretty hard to have any fish, in those enviroments the only life you'll encounter are next to the fumaroles.

@@zakurn1086 The fumaroles are exactly where the minerals are..

Except that it's meddling with natural enviroments we don't even begin to understand quite yet. It's literally impossible with our current understanding to tell what the consequences of doing this would be And i don't know about you but i don't think that blind geoengineering is a very good idea

@@DrunkGekoonly one way to find out then!! 👍

Recycling is not a bad idea, but how will this affect thw whole ocean? Can you explain?

@@zakurn1086 The seabed is an integral part of the ocean nutrient and ecosystem cycles. Are you 12 years old?

@@52ginjaninja Which part of the seabed? The continental shelf on the benthic zone? The oceanic plates kilometers away from any land and kilometers deep? The ocean floor is not entirely populated, away from continents there next to no nutrients sources asiede from hidrothermal vents, if you are not close to these systems tehre is literally no complex life in the ocean floor, only bacterias at maximum.

Why?

I mean, are you a mines engineer? Are you a marine biologist? Are you a gelogist? No, then well, I'm pretty sure you know next to nothing about the places where these will be mined and what actually is there. But hey, making a comment about the enviroment without knowing anything is one of the easiest things you could do, keep it up.

@@zakurn1086 are you calm now?

Hi

@@portostrengthunion Hi

Then we do start mining asteroids, and the same people who are complaining about mining the ocean floor will start to complain that we are 'destroying the last place untainted by humanity'

This is what im thinking

Except the rare earths that make your computer possible.

You don't listen to science. Environmental science. You have a typical narrow engineering mindset where models completely ignore wildlife and complex ecosystems. The opportunities from mining are nothing compared to the costs when the biosphere's ocean systems are disrupted. You're on the wrong side of history.

@@52ginjaninja The "Environmental Science" and the "Complex Ecosystems" have existed long before and will continue to exist long after "your side of history". However you only exist due to the fact the people with a "Typical Narrow Engineering Mindset" have created "Complex Ecosystems" of their own to supplement your very existence all so that you can spew your ungracious shit all over the internet. If you want to "save the environment" then stop breathing because nobody asked you to come here and you're not contributing anything useful. If you want to "make a difference" then start figuring out a better way to mine polymetallic nodules.

www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2020/may/26/rio-tinto-blasts-46000-year-old-aboriginal-site-to-expand-iron-ore-mine Just read a bit of news, such companies and governments are fully aware of sensitive areas, ecosystems, climate, etc, but the blatant disregard and greed keeps on winning

Musk, et al... but it's like the honey badger, it takes what it wants ... to bad mother nature cant defend herself with a bullet.

@@felugasala4524 Who gave them the permission to blast there? Oh that's right. The government. Like i said Business are highly regulated. Government is the one who regulates them. How is more government regulation going to help in an area where the government is already failing?

@@b.8202 Every living creature eats what it needs to survive. You're blaming humans but humans are just an extension of Nature. You can't accept Nature as it is. You blame its descendants despite the fact that we embody the very principles of Nature. You're human like the rest of us. Now eat.

Also they DID wait and did a dig there to find aboriginal remnants. The remnants were found and recovered. The natives only wanted to preserve the area itself. They may own the remnants but the land belongs to Australia.

Pure need. Like the need to have the rare earths that make your computer and modern life possible.