MINING THE DEEP OCEAN

Those involved in deep-sea mining hope it will turn into a multi-billion dollar industry. Seabed nodules are dominated by compounds of iron (which is commonplace) and manganese (which is rarer, but not in short supply from mines on dry land). However, the nodules also contain copper, nickel and cobalt, and sometimes other metals such as molybdenum and vanadium. These are in sufficient demand that visiting the bottom of the ocean to acquire them looks a worthwhile enterprise. Moreover, these metals seldom co-occur in terrestrial mines. So, as Kris Van Nijen, who runs deep-sea mining operations at Global Sea Mineral Resources (gsr), a company interested in exploiting the nodules, observes: “For the same amount of effort, you get the same metals as two or three mines on land.”

Though their location several kilometres beneath the ocean surface makes the nodules hard to get at in one sense, in another they are easily accessible, because they sit invitingly on the seabed, almost begging to be collected. Most are found on parts of the ocean floor like the ccz, outside the 200-nautical-mile exclusive economic zones of littoral countries. They thus fall under the purview of the International Seabed Authority (isa), which has issued 17 exploration licences for such resources. All but one of these licences pertain to the ccz, an area of about 6m square kilometres east-south-east of Hawaii.

The licensees include Belgium, Britain, China, France, Germany, India, Japan, Russia, Singapore and South Korea, as well as several small Pacific island states. America, which is not party to the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea that established the isa, is not involved directly, but at least one American firm, Lockheed Martin, has an interest in the matter through a British subsidiary, uk Seabed Resources. And people are getting busy. Surveying expeditions have already visited the concessions. On land, the required mining machines are being built and tested. What worries biologists is that if all this busyness does lead to mining, it will wreck habitats before they can be properly catalogued, let alone understood.

The first task, therefore, is to establish what exactly lives down there. At first glance, the ccz’s abyssal plain does not look of much interest. It is a vast expanse of mud, albeit littered with nodules. But, though life here may not be abundant, it is diverse. Craig Smith, an oceanographer at the University of Hawaii, Manoa, who studies the ocean’s abyssal plain, says that the ccz contains a greater variety of species than the deep seas off the coasts of California and Hawaii.

Some of the ccz’s creatures stretch the imagination. There is the bizarre, gelatinous, yellow “gummy squirrel” (pictured), a 50cm-long sea cucumber with a tall, wide tail that may operate like a sail. There are galloping sea urchins that can scurry across the sea floor on long spines, at speeds of several centimetres a second. There are giant red shrimps, measuring up to 40cm long. And there are “Dumbo” octopuses, which have earlike fins above their eyes, giving them an eerie resemblance to a well-known cartoon elephant.

Every expedition brings up species that are new to science, many of them belonging to biological families that are also novel. At a conference in Monterey, California, in September, Dr Smith presented results of a biodiversity survey carried out in the British concession, which sits at the eastern end of the ccz. Of 154 species of bristle worms the surveyors found, 70% were previously unknown. Dr Smith says the concession may be part of a biodiversity hotspot, one which would not be represented in the nine protected areas of environmental interest that have been set aside in the ccz. He therefore argues for the establishment of a tenth such area, on the margins of the concession.

The ocean’s largest inhabitants may also be visitors to the ccz. This summer Leigh Marsh of Britain’s National Oceanography Centre, in Southampton, described more than 3,000 large depressions in the mud there. These formed a series of curved tracks. Similar tracks elsewhere have been linked to whales scraping themselves against the seafloor. Dr Marsh and her colleagues suggest that deep-diving whales may be foraging on the ccz seafloor, using it as a giant loofah to scrape parasites from their skins or even ingesting the nodules as ballast. If true, this would significantly extend the depth to which whales are known to dive.

The only direct evidence of whales in the ccz, though, comes in fossil form. In Monterey, Dr Amon set the audience buzzing when she presented preliminary data suggesting that the region contains large deposits of fossil whale bones. Such fossils were first noted by the Challengerexpedition, a world-spanning investigation of the deep ocean conducted in the 1870s by a British naval research vessel. Dr Amon’s find back in 2013 prompted her and her colleagues to go through tens of thousands of images gathered by various exploration submarines. These recorded 548 cetacean fossils from a range of species. Among the oldest was Choneziphius, an extinct animal that lived more than 10m years ago.

Although this work was a study of photographs, rather than of the remains directly, which could cast doubt over some of the identifications, the metallic-oxide coating of many of the bones gives a sense of how old they are. Because of the density of fossils, Dr Amon says the ccz may be a previously undiscovered, and rare, submarine fossil bed.

Why whale fossils would accumulate in this particular spot is unknown. Possibly, those elsewhere are simply buried. The ccz sits beneath the ocean’s clearest waters, so its sediments accumulate extremely slowly. But it may be that some as-yet-unknown physical process is keeping the fossils and the (equally old) nodules at the surface of the silt. Indeed, why the nodules are exposed is one of the great mysteries of the region. Regardless, Dr Smith, Dr Amon and others hope the bones’ presence will be taken into account as the isa drafts the rules and regulations for exploitation of the ccz.

Whale fossils, sea cucumbers and shrimps are just the stuff that is visible to the naked eye. Adrian Glover, one of Dr Amon’s colleagues at the Natural History Museum, and his collaborators spent weeks peering down microscopes, inspecting every nook and cranny of the surfaces of some of the nodules themselves. They discovered a miniature ecosystem composed of things that look, at first sight, like flecks of colour—but are, in fact, tiny corals, sponges, fan-like worms and bryozoans, all just millimetres tall. In total, the team logged 77 species of such creatures, probably an underestimate.

Inevitably, much of this life will be damaged by nodule mining. The impacts are likely be long-lasting. Deep-sea mining technology is still in development, but the general idea is that submersible craft equipped with giant vacuum cleaners will suck nodules from the seafloor. Those nodules will be carried up several kilometres of pipes back to the operations’ mother ships, to be washed and sent on their way.

The size and power of the submersibles means that they will leave large tracks in their wake. These are likely to persist for a long time. Evidence for this comes from various decades-old disturbance experiments. In 2015 an exploratory expedition by ifremer, a French government agency responsible for oceanography, noted that even mobile animals like sea urchins were 70% less abundant within 37-year-old experimental tracks than outside them.

The largest disturbance experiment so far was carried out in 1989 in the Peru Basin, a nodule field to the south of the Galapagos Islands. An eight-metre-wide metal frame fitted with ploughs and harrows was dragged back and forth repeatedly across the seabed, scouring it and wafting a plume of sediment into the water. In 2015 a research vessel returned to the site. Down went the robots, samplers and submarines with their scanners and cameras. The big question was, 26 years after the event, would the sea floor have recovered? The answer was a resounding “no”. The robots brought back images of plough tracks that looked fresh, and of wildlife that had not recovered from the decades-old intrusion.

Another concern, in the wake of the Peru Basin experiment, is sediment. This will be both stirred up during collection, as the robots crawl across the sea floor and hoover it, and washed off the nodules at the surface when they are cleaned. Ideally, a second pipe would deliver those washings directly back to the seabed, in order to keep disruption in the water column to a minimum. In practice, dumping silt overboard will be much easier. Decades of failure to police overfishing demonstrate how hard it is to regulate activity on the high seas.

If silt were dumped in this way it could be disastrous. A steady stream of the stuff raining down from the surface would affect everything along the way, especially filter-feeding animals such as sponges and krill, which make their livings by extracting small particles of food floating in the water. The effect both in the water column and on the sea floor might not be so great in other parts of the oceans, say biologists, but life in the crystalline ccz is wholly unadapted to murky waters.

All of this needs to be balanced against the impacts of mining the equivalent amounts of minerals on land, however. The ccz covers about 2% of the deep ocean. A 20-year operation within it would affect of the order of 10,000 square kilometres—about a six-hundredth of its area—according to Mr Van Nijen. And, unlike mining developments in virgin areas of dry land, which tend to bring other forms of development in their wake by creating transport links that encourage human settlement, no one is going to follow the nodule-hoovers and actually live on the abyssal plain.

In the end, the only way to measure how mining would change the bottom of the ocean may be to conduct small-scale pilot operations. The first will take place next April, when gsr will lower Patania II, an enormous green tractor, to the bed of the cczPatania II is a prototype nodule collector. It will clear areas roughly 300 by 100 metres, leaving them nodule-free, so that future expeditions can return and study recolonisation rates. An array of sensors suspended in the nearby water will monitor the resultant silt plume, which the company’s models suggest could travel up to 5km—not the hundreds of kilometres that some have suggested.

To scrutinise this trial independently, jpi Oceans, an intergovernmental research body, has paid for the Sonne, a German research vessel, to sail alongside gsr’s. As Mr Van Nijen puts it, “We need to validate our equipment, but from an environmental perspective, the world’s first mining test at depth is a unique opportunity for scientists to study the impacts. If we don’t do this in a transparent manner, it will go nowhere.” That sounds like a promising start. But however careful the miners are, life for the inhabitants of the ccz is about to get a lot less peaceful than it has been for millions of years.

OCEANS

OCEANS

Q&A With Diva Amon

The marine biologist working to protect our oceans from deep-sea mining

THE OCEANS NEED MORE CARE THAN they ever have—and few people are taking on that job with more commitment than Diva Amon. A marine biologist at the Benioff Ocean Science Laboratory at the University of California, Santa Barbara (Marc and Lynne Benioff are TIME’s owners and co-chairs), Amon has a special love for the deeper reaches of the ocean—below 200 m, where sunlight does not penetrate, pressures are up to 110 times that of sea level, and temperatures drop to 39°F. Despite those punishing conditions, all manner of life forms thrive there. One of the greatest potential dangers to that fragile ecosystem is deep-ocean mining—industrializing the untouched and unseen ocean floor to extract nickel, cobalt, copper, manganese, gold, silver, and more. For now, the mining is not taking place—and Amon and her colleagues are advocating to keep it that way. Amon spoke to TIME in a wide-ranging conversation that has been edited for brevity and clarity.

Why do countries and companies want to begin deep-sea mining? They’re looking for three kinds of resources. First, there are polymetallic nodules, which are sort of a metallic lump, anywhere from cherry size to potato size. They form in a way similar to a pearl, accreting around a tiny particle like a shark’s tooth, a shell, or a piece of sediment. The rate at which they form is a few millimeters per million years. They are also looking for polymetallic sulfides, found at hydrothermal vents, which are one of the most remarkable and iconic deep-sea ecosystems. Finally, they’re looking for cobalt-rich ferromanganese crusts, which are a layer that forms on seamounts [underwater mountains]. The crusts can be anywhere from millimeters to several feet thick.

How robust is life in these three resource areas? The minerals that are being targeted form a critical part of the seafloor, and the seafloor is what life attaches to in the deep ocean. Things like coral, anemones, and fungi are attached to the deep floor. In the case of nodules, they use them as an anchor or as a shelter. They are really the cornerstone of the ecosystem.

What other kinds of organisms live in these areas, and how big are these regions? We don’t fully know. There are big gaps in our knowledge. There was a study that came out in 2023 that found that in the Clarion Clipperton Zone [which extends from Hawaii to Mexico], 88% to 92% of the multicellular species that live there have not been described by science. We’re not talking about just one or two life forms. We’re talking about thousands . . . The spatial scales of this are enormous. Just in the Clarion Clipperton Zone, industry projections are that they’re planning to mine [more than 193,000 sq. mi.]. And because of the three-dimensional nature of the ocean, the concern is the impact will extend both vertically for thousands of meters and horizontally, potentially tripling the area of impact. There is a plume that is generated at the seafloor from the mining activity like a dust storm that will spread well beyond the mining tract. There’s a secondary plume too. Anything that’s mined will be pumped up a pipe to a ship which is waiting on the surface. The minerals will be separated from water and sediment and metal particles. Then that sediment, wastewater, and particulate and dissolved matter will be pumped back into the ocean from the ship. There are currently no regulations to dictate at what depth that waste is pumped back into the ocean.

Could ecosystems recover from this? Life in the deep sea is extremely slow. There’s very little food, and that means that life moves slowly, grows slowly, reproduces slowly. And so it really does not deal very well with impact. It takes a long time to recover. With nodules for instance, we will not see ecosystem recovery except on a scale of millions of years. Essentially, this would be irreversible damage. In the nearer term, there are increases in noise and light from mining that have never been seen before in the deep sea. All of that is going to result in biodiversity loss. You also have contaminants being released by the plumes that are going to work their way up the food chain. This could affect ecosystem services that we get from the deep sea, such as fisheries.

Is there an argument that deep-sea mining can help mitigate the harms of mining on land? There’s no evidence that deep-sea mining would prevent terrestrial mining. It’s likely that both will occur, causing double destruction, rather than one taking the place of the other. Something else that is often disregarded is that we know that the ocean plays a critical role in regulating the climate; it’s where a majority of heat is absorbed, it’s where an enormous amount of carbon is sequestered. The ocean is one of our greatest allies in the fight against the climate crisis. To argue for using deep-sea mining to solve the climate crisis is like smoking to lower your stress.

KEVIN WINTER—GETTY IMAGES

OCEANS

Deep-sea nodules are a source of critical metals. Mining for them could harm ecosystems

Valuing Our Oceans

It’s time for a shift in economics


TROVES OF IN-DEMAND CRITICAL MINERALS SIT untouched deep at the bottom of the ocean: nickel, cobalt, and copper, to name a few. With the stroke of a pen in April, President Donald Trump signed an Executive Order to catalyze a “gold rush” in pursuit of those deposits. The value of those minerals could total in the trillions, and the Trump Administration wants American companies to access them in a bid to bolster the economy. Pushback to the move has largely focused on the potential for ecological damage and the order’s flouting of international rules. There is also a good case to be made that the economic and financial math may not add up. For one, the outlook of different critical minerals is evolving. Cobalt demand projections, for example, have fallen below expectations as new battery chemistries emerge that rely less on that metallic element.

And then there are the costs associated with missed opportunities and unknown side effects. The depths of the ocean where deep-sea mining would take place have been undisturbed for millennia. In those waters, flora and fauna that could unlock medical breakthroughs sit untouched, and ocean dynamics mediate global climate conditions. “If we start mucking around with our seabed floor in pursuit of short-term wealth and growth,” says Hawaii Governor Josh Green, a vocal opponent of seabed mining, “God knows what the long-term damage will be.”

The bigger problem is that human society—policymakers, companies, and financial institutions—simply hasn’t figured out how to value all that oceans do for us. To grapple with a full assessment of the economic value of oceans would mean a wholesale rethinking of how we interact with the world deep in the seven seas.

THE U.S. WANTS TO MINE THE DEEP SEA. BUT ECONOMISTS WARN THAT LEADERS AREN’T TAKING THE FULL VALUE OF THE OCEANS INTO ACCOUNT—FROM CLIMATE PROTECTION TO MEDICINE—WHEN MAKING KEY DECISIONS

Using economics to value nature isn’t new. For decades, scientists and economists have crunched the numbers on the contribution of what is known as ecosystem services. Those “services” include everything from coastal protection provided by coral reefs to the value of fisheries to local communities that rely on them for sustenance. Listing the services is one thing; tallying their worth is another, challenging task. Researchers say that the total economic value of oceans needs to include the direct use of oceans like fishing and tourism as well as indirect functions like storing carbon and protecting biodiversity that keeps the planet in balance.

The math isn’t simple. How can you put a price on, say, the role that oceans play regulating the global climate?

Nonetheless, researchers consistently come up with figures that reach into the tens of trillions of dollars in annual value. Whatever the precise number, a bigger problem is that leaders in government and business aren’t using it. “A wide array of methods and techniques for ecosystem valuation exist, but are only occasionally implemented in policy decisions,” reads a 2019 paper from the European Marine Board, an ocean-policy think tank. No country has fully accounted for the economic value of oceans in its policymaking. A survey of leaders in developing countries found that even though many of those nations depend on marine resources, protecting marine life ranked last among the U.N. Sustainable Development Goals.

TO ACCOUNT FOR THE VALUE of oceans in decisionmaking, researchers are pushing for countries to adopt what has become known as natural capital accounting. That would entail incorporating data on the ecological and economic value of oceans into country-level accounting systems. Such recommendations are not the work of radical activists or fringe academics. The World Bank, for example, advises that low-income countries use natural capital accounting to assess and protect their natural resources.

In the absence of such a formal move, leaders concerned about economic stability would be wise to shift their thinking. In some cases, that may mean moving away from viewing the ocean as a source of easily exploited resources. In others, it may mean moving from viewing ocean conservation as an altruistic act to an act of economic self-preservation.

About admin

I would like to think of myself as a full time traveler. I have been retired since 2006 and in that time have traveled every winter for four to seven months. The months that I am "home", are often also spent on the road, hiking or kayaking. I hope to present a website that describes my travel along with my hiking and sea kayaking experiences.
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.