A Canadian mining startup says metal-rich rocks on the seafloor can help power the switch away from fossil fuels. Critics say mining them could cause ecological destruction, but no one knows exactly what the impact will be yet.

    MORE BIG BUSINESS VIDEOS:
    10 Car Jobs You Never Knew Existed | Big Business | Insider Business

    Big Business Marathon 2022 | Big Business | Insider Business

    Why It Costs $1 Million Per Day To Run One Of The World’s Biggest Cruise Ships | Big Business

    ——————————————————
    #ElectricCars #BigBusiness #InsiderBusiness

    Business Insider tells you all you need to know about business, finance, tech, retail, and more.

    Visit our homepage for the top stories of the day: https://www.businessinsider.com
    Insider Business on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/businessinsider
    Insider Business on Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/insiderbusiness
    Insider Business on Twitter: https://www.twitter.com/businessinsider
    Insider Business on Snapchat: https://www.snapchat.com/discover/Business_Insider/5319643143
    Insider Business on TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@businessinsider

    A New Mining Ship Sucks Metals Off The Seafloor. Is That A Good Idea? | Big Business

    31 Comments

    1. Clearly, if sea-based mining becomes more profitable than land-based mining, then it'll get harder for land-based mining to compete and thus reduce it.

    2. it may cost more to do properly. butt, keep the sediment with the ore you pull up. use for land reclamation. I imagine eventually it will be super fertile with all the dead stuff in it. Also. lay artificial reef domes along the path you harvest for things to make homes on. since it takes so long to make ore that way. it's not like you will go back. The only reason I like and have hopes for this method is because if you consider how much rainforest they destroy to get that many metals….

    3. We have only mapped around 20% of the sea floor and only physically seen around 5%, if all the people complaining and protesting would put their money towards research insted of pointing fingers maybe that would be a different story

    4. Yet anothet smiling short man celebrating himself as he destroys the environment and justifies his companies greed. Their so-called science will be fake to benefit themselves. They destroy the world fir self gain then blame the consumer.

    5. People could pick up a rock out of a parking lot and activists would rush to save the asphalt ecosystem. Ridiculous. Always opposing progress, never offering any solutions. And all they do is appeal to emotions. "These are LIKE some of the clearest waters PROBABLY and it PROBABLY will have some impact." You cant even say anything of substance. You want to save the environment? Research and fund ways of solving problems that are environmentally friendly and competitive. Otherwise you're spoiled children throwing temper tantrums because someone is doing something you dont like. No one cares what you think. DO something. PROVE something. Or go the hell away, you children.

    6. The argument that you will be able to close certain landbased mining operations is stupid. People will milk what they can for profit, whether there is a "better" alternative or not.

    7. This should be banned, no questions asked.
      We don't need to destroy an ecosystem that is already under constant threat.
      What good is renewable energy when it's destroying life itself?

    8. This is new but the concept isn't, for decades they have ripped up the seafloor for rare metals that develop into nodules on the seafloor at great depths things like cobalt etc.

    9. These areas are the size of entire countries, If done in small areas and then allowed to recover by rotating to other regions, this could be done with realistically acceptable consequences.

    10. I work with mines in Nevada. Mining only exist where it is economically viable in concert with the local laws.

      The only way to improve your mining efforts is through higher grades of minerals or through an improvement of technology that is substantially less expensive than prior methods.

      Nothing about this is less expensive than current mining methods. The 3000 ton of material they showed in that cargo hull is probably an hour of mining at a large land based mine and they still have to get that ore shipped back to shore for processing (what is that going to cost in fuel?).

      It appears they're putting at least 50x the expense of a land based mine to produce a similar result. And the environmental impact does not seem nearly as well contained as in a land based operation (sidenote much of the pollution is going to happen when the ore gets back to shore not in the harvesting).

    11. Imagine all the meteorites that have collected over a zillion years on the sea floor. Theres ultra rare minerals daily flying by in space. This would be the most lucrative mining almost in existence. Except we all know theyre going to destroy the sea with it. I'm betting good money they already are.

    12. there are a few simple solutions… first have another rc controlled vehicle in front sorting rocks getting the ones with life out of the way and second just drop normal rocks, the cheapest ones you can get down with the rest of the unwanted material so the animals still have rocks, and if they need minerals from the rock, simply drop 2 nodules extra for each animal needed relocation. and for the massive clouds that form because of it… well those animals are living in complete darkness and those settle within hours, maybe a day or two for the ones dropped from higher up and then that area will never experience this again therefore recover really easily if it's gonna be affected by the change at all.. like i said they live in complete darkness, probably won't even notice all the sediment.

    Leave A Reply
    Share via