Minerals in Depth

It is sometimes argued that we can recycle our way to a circular economy – one in which existing stocks of resources satisfy all our needs.

In the long term that may be true, but the recycling rates for metal are already considerable – around 50 per cent for copper and 60 per cent for nickel.  These rates can only be increased by improving several aspects of the value chain, for example product design to ease disassembly and improved recycling technologies.

Even if recycling rates continued increasing, there would still be a need for new metals since resources are locked up in use for years – sometimes decades – at a time when demand is rising.

For example, the metal in an offshore wind turbine starting its service life in 2020 might not be available for recycling until 2045. The same principle applies to PV solar panels, EV batteries and other energy storage devices.

And all the while the global population is growing and urbanising, meaning that demand for everything from the copper in power cables to the nickel in stainless steel utensils just keeps on rising.

According to the OECD, 27 billion tonnes of material resources were extracted to meet global demand in 1970. By 2017 that figure had grown to 89 billion tonnes – a 330% increase. The OECD predicts that up to 167 billion tonnes of materials could be extracted in 2060 – six times the 1970 total.

Recycling, efficiency improvements, and the adoption of new technologies can all act as brakes on the growth in demand, but the simple truth is there is not nearly enough material in circulation to satisfy our current and future requirements.

Over the last five decades, researchers have explored the possibility of collecting and processing these nodules for their mineral wealth.

Millions of dollars have been invested in developing autonomous deep-sea vehicles that can collect the nodules under the extreme pressures found at these great depths.

Scientists and engineers have come together to explore ways of creating a viable seabed minerals industry while mitigating the environmental impact of doing so.

Interview with Dr Adrian Glover

Natural resources within national jurisdiction are controlled by the country in whose jurisdiction they are found, but with seabed minerals outside national jurisdiction a decision was taken decades ago to do things differently.

It was decided that where the ocean’s mineral wealth (solid, liquid or gas) lies at or under the seabed beyond national jurisdiction, it should be considered the ‘common heritage of mankind’, meaning any relevant activity, including commercial exploitation, must be carried out for the benefit of all humankind, with particular consideration for the needs and interests of developing countries.

It’s not surprising that some people are concerned about the prospect of disturbing the ocean floor – especially as we are still learning about the creatures that live in this habitat. The seabed minerals industry is doing its utmost to get things right from the outset.

We all want to protect the marine environment, including marine life and biodiversity, and to avoid disrupting ecosystems that could be critical for the functions and health of our planet.

Regulators, contractors, engineers, marine biologists and ocean scientists engaged in seabed mineral research all share this goal.

Interview with Dr Ann Vanreusel

It’s probably the first time that an ecosystem will be researched in such an intensive way before we actually start impacting it.

Scientists and engineers are working side by side to understand the deep-sea environment and mitigate the risks, such as creating set-aside areas that will remain untouched by mining and developing engineering solutions that can minimise the plumes of sediment created by nodule collection.

Interview with Dr Thomas Peacock

Plume modelling … can be used to help drive the design of a collector vehicle

With this improved knowledge, contractors will constantly adjust their approach, making decisions that will protect the deep-sea ecosystem.

Some campaigners are calling for a complete halt on all operations, citing lack of knowledge of the deep ocean as the principal reason.

We agree that we need more information about the impact of collecting minerals from the seafloor before commercial operations can begin, but a complete moratorium cannot deliver that outcome.

Quite the opposite.

Far from creating time and space for more research to be conducted, stopping operations would act as a disincentive to invest in deep sea exploration.

Rather than increasing our knowledge, a moratorium would make it much more difficult to add to our knowledge about the deep sea, the species that live there, and the role they play in the planet’s functions.

Society is facing some extremely tough choices. Rational, evidence-based decisions need to be made with the entire planet in mind.  That is only possible if we have the necessary data.

Inaction is not the solution to this pressing problem. Mitigating climate change will require tremendous amounts of minerals and metals and there is only so much time left to determine how best to source them.

If the seafloor can help provide the metals we need for a better world, and if it can do that in a more environmentally responsible way than the alternative, it makes no sense to stop exploring that option.

Continue the research; support the science; build our sustainable future.