Restoring sea floor after mining may not be possible, researchers warn
One of the last wild zones on the planet, the sea floor is a coveted frontier for companies and countries eager to access minerals that are in high demand for emerging technologies such as electric cars.
Particularly coveted are potato-sized nodules containing cobalt, nickel, copper and manganese, that are found in abundance on the seabed in the central Pacific Ocean.
Companies eager to vacuum up these polymetallic nodules say they can do it with minimal risk to the deep-sea environment.
But ocean defenders have battled against what they see as the advent of an industry that will threaten isolated ecosystems that are not yet well understood.
That threat was underscored by European scientists who presented findings this week on the sidelines of a meeting in Kingston, Jamaica of the International Seabed Authority, which is trying to finalise future rules for seabed mining.
"If we remove nodules from the seabed, we do not know what we lose, only that it's lost forever," was one of the conclusions of DEEP REST, a sea floor conservation research project.
The DEEP REST study cautioned against using seabed restoration "as a management action for impacted habitats."
"So far, all the restoration operations we have attempted within our DEEP REST project have been short-term. And what we observed, is that in the given time, that is to say a few years, the ecosystems do not recover," said Jozee Sarrazin, a researcher at the French Institute for Ocean Science, or Ifremer.
"If restoration is possible, it will take a very long time, and at the moment we don't have the data to be able to say if that will be 100 years or 1000 years," the DEEP REST coordinator told AFP.
Despite the pressure, the cold, the total darkness, and the lack of nutrition sources at the bottom of the ocean, it is teeming with life.
The number of species who live on the deep seabed is not yet known but estimated to be in the millions.
- Soft corals, sea anemone -
Broad swathes of the Pacific Ocean where polymetallic nodules are found shelter fauna such as sponges, soft corals or sea anemones.
The fauna "only exists in these areas because they need the hard substrate of the nodule to attach," said Matthias Haeckel of the German research center GEOMAR, which presented results of the MiningImpact project in Kingston this week.
Vacuuming up these nodules and spreading sediment over the impacted areas reduces population densities, biodiversity and the functioning of ecosystems, MiningImpact's study found.
"To make the story short, in the end, we're talking about recovery times of thousands of years," Haeckel said. The nodules themselves form over millions of years.
Some research on restoration efforts is underway but the results are not yet in.
"We designed artificial nodules made of deep-sea clay and we placed them at different sites" at depths of about 4,500 meters (14,700 feet), Sabine Gollner, a biologist at the Royal Netherlands Institute for Sea Research, told AFP.
"But when you take into account the slow growth rates in the deep sea, the slow processes, it will take quite some more years to find out if restoration is effective and to what degree," she said.
Massive deposits of sulfide -- a type of mineral deposit found in underwater vents that spit out seawater heated by magma -- should be off-limits, the researchers suggest.
These types of underwater geysers are teeming with astonishing and unique biodiversity.
"If we extract massive sulfides near active vents, we know what we lose, and we must prevent loss," the DEEP REST study says.
But according to Gollner, it would be good to incorporate restoration goals into the mining code being negotiated by the International Seabed Authority's member states.
"It's good to include it but with a clear statement that at this moment in time, it cannot be taken into account to reach agreed environmental goals," she said.
"For example, a contractor shouldn't be allowed to use that argument to mine a larger area."
by Amélie Bottollier-depois
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Daily Maverick
12 hours ago
- Daily Maverick
Crossed Wires: The robots are coming, the robots are here
Robots are quickly colonising every arena of human endeavour that requires physical labour or dexterity, and the convergence of new generative AI models and robotics is going to supercharge the industry. Science fiction fans will remember Isaac Asimov's prescient 1950 short story collection, 'I, Robot'. The stories in this iconic collection revolve around the memories of robopsychologist Dr Susan Calvin, 75 years old in 2057. There are many ethical themes in his stories that mirror the hot-button technology debates raging today, but Asimov's futuristic vision appears to have been a couple of decades off. The robots aren't coming some time in the future. They're already here. It is sometimes difficult to pin down why a particular subject bubbles to the top of the news cycle. AI, of course, has taken hold of the headlines and won't let go; its grip is fierce. But robotics has been around for a very long time, since the first commercial industrial robot was developed in 1961 (the 'Unimate' at General Motors), and it's been around even longer in the human imagination. The first point of interest is that there is a profound change happening in some sectors of robot production. The original robots, most of them built for industrial manufacturing, were essentially a collection of servo motors, spherical joints, pincers, cutters, drillers, welders and the like, all operating under very precise instructions, repeating the same physical actions ad infinitum — or until their instructions were modified in line with changing production requirements. This description somewhat simplifies the intelligence built into these robots, but the key point is that the instructions for physical actions over time were predetermined and cast in silicon, driven by hardened computer code. As the technologies of vision, touch, movement, location awareness and proprioception have advanced, so have the robots undertaken more ambitious (and sometimes audacious) jobs, such as critical surgery in an operating theatre. All with increasingly exquisite sensitivity of both fine and gross motor control. This brings us to the question of which countries are currently on the robotics playing field. The US, having outsourced nearly all its manufacturing requirements during the heady days of globalisation, didn't even try to take a leadership role in robotics. Surprisingly, China is not leading either — it became serious about robotics rather too late (around 2015). Until recently, the top 10 robot manufacturers have been Japanese (8) and German (2). In a remarkably unChinese move, a company called Midea Group, based in Guangdong province, acquired the German company Kuka in 2017, clearly taking note of the capitalist tactic of buying one's way into technology leadership rather than doing the hard work of building and competing. They're doing everything What are the latest machines doing? Increasingly, everything. Manufacturing, obviously, both heavy and light. Add medical robots doing everything from brain to spinal surgery; nano-robots of less than 100nm in size for targeted drug delivery (in pre-clinical development); agricultural robots for planting, harvesting, plant healthcare and packing; and military robots with a bewildering and sometimes scary array of offensive and defensive capabilities (see below — a rather alarming picture of Ghost Robotics' robodog Spot mounted with an automatic weapon). In short, robots are quickly colonising every arena of human endeavour that requires physical labour or dexterity. This leads to the question of how the robots are performing. Are they more productive? Are they taking jobs? The data are startling. Dispiriting for some and exciting for others, depending on what you do to earn your living. As with all transformative technologies, it's a mixed bag of pain and pleasure for those caught in its net. Here are some statistics: A 40× increase in global robot stock since 2000; A 15× increase in robots per worker since 2000; A 30% increase in productivity compared to human labour by 2030 (McKinsey); A 90% reduction in manufacturing defects (Foxconn iPhone production); A 3× decrease in the return on investment period since 2000 (down from 10 years to about three years); A 35% increase in crop yields (forecast); and A total of 85 million jobs lost by 2035, and only 20 million created (World Economic Forum). There is more, but the picture is clear. There is no stopping this train. To return to the profound change mentioned earlier in this column, the convergence of new generative AI models and robotics is going to supercharge the industry. The core foundation of robots following a precise set of instructions (albeit often complex) is being reshaped. Robots are now being built that can learn autonomously and continuously from their environments (sight, audio, touch, 'smell', heat, humidity). They can be addressed via vernacular human speech, learn from their mistakes, communicate to solve problems with other robots and access vast stores of knowledge now available from companies like OpenAI. (For anyone looking for a glimpse of the future, watch this 2.5-minute video; take note of how the robots communicate with each other.) At this point, the ghost of Isaac Asimov might raise its head. We are already on the edge of AI systems that can set their own goals. We have already seen indications of deceptive behaviour by these systems, in both controlled and uncontrolled experiments. Bad behaviour and misinformation (such as Grok's racist outbursts) are now part of the AI landscape. Asimov's famous three laws of robotics come to mind: protect humans, obey humans, protect yourselves. They were followed by his 'Zeroth Law', which updated and replaced the others: A robot may not harm humanity, or, by inaction, allow humanity to come to harm. It's a nice thought, but I am not sure we know how to build that into the great robot revolution. And, even if we did, it is probably too late. DM (For an in-depth but concise look at the robotics industry, check out this article.) Steven Boykey Sidley is a professor of practice at JBS, University of Johannesburg, a partner at Bridge Capital and a columnist-at-large at Daily Maverick. His new book, 'It's Mine: How the Crypto Industry is Redefining Ownership', is published by Maverick451 in SA and Legend Times Group in the UK/EU, available now.
The South African
3 days ago
- The South African
Elon Musk's Starlink satellite internet suffers global outage
SpaceX chief Elon Musk's Starlink satellite internet service experienced an hours-long global network outage late on Thursday, which executives attributed to a key software issue. The service interruption was announced on X at about 22:00 (SA time) on Thursday by Starlink's official handle. Users in the United States and Europe began reporting problems with the service an hour before the Starlink announcement on Downdetector, a website that tracks issues in internet-based services. 'Service will be restored shortly,' South Africa-born Musk posted on X, apologising for the outage. 'SpaceX will remedy root cause to ensure it doesn't happen again.' The tech billionaire later reposted a statement from Starlink Vice President of Engineering Michael Nicolls, who said the disruption was due to the 'failure of key internal software services that operate the core network.' Nicolls also said the Starlink network had 'mostly recovered' from the outage, which 'lasted approximately 2.5 hours.' About two hours later, Starlink posted that the issue was resolved and that service was restored. User reports on Downdetector began after 21:00 (SA time), peaking at 21:34 (SA time) and tapering out at 05:00 (SA time). Starlink, a subsidiary of Musk's space rocket venture SpaceX, has deployed more than 6 000 low-orbit satellites to provide high-speed internet to isolated and poorly connected areas. Starlink currently leads the satellite internet race, with European competitor Eutelsat – which is backed by France and the United Kingdom – lagging behind with 600 satellites. Let us know by leaving a comment below, or send a WhatsApp to 060 011 021 1 Subscribe to The South African website's newsletters and follow us on WhatsApp, Facebook, X and Bluesky for the latest news. By Garrin Lambley © Agence France-Presse
eNCA
20-07-2025
- eNCA
Restoring sea floor after mining may not be possible, researchers warn
KINGSTON - Scientists present at the latest effort to hash out international rules for deep-sea mining say it's unclear if it's possible to restore damaged sea floor ecosystems -- or how long it would take. One of the last wild zones on the planet, the sea floor is a coveted frontier for companies and countries eager to access minerals that are in high demand for emerging technologies such as electric cars. Particularly coveted are potato-sized nodules containing cobalt, nickel, copper and manganese, that are found in abundance on the seabed in the central Pacific Ocean. Companies eager to vacuum up these polymetallic nodules say they can do it with minimal risk to the deep-sea environment. But ocean defenders have battled against what they see as the advent of an industry that will threaten isolated ecosystems that are not yet well understood. That threat was underscored by European scientists who presented findings this week on the sidelines of a meeting in Kingston, Jamaica of the International Seabed Authority, which is trying to finalise future rules for seabed mining. "If we remove nodules from the seabed, we do not know what we lose, only that it's lost forever," was one of the conclusions of DEEP REST, a sea floor conservation research project. The DEEP REST study cautioned against using seabed restoration "as a management action for impacted habitats." "So far, all the restoration operations we have attempted within our DEEP REST project have been short-term. And what we observed, is that in the given time, that is to say a few years, the ecosystems do not recover," said Jozee Sarrazin, a researcher at the French Institute for Ocean Science, or Ifremer. "If restoration is possible, it will take a very long time, and at the moment we don't have the data to be able to say if that will be 100 years or 1000 years," the DEEP REST coordinator told AFP. Despite the pressure, the cold, the total darkness, and the lack of nutrition sources at the bottom of the ocean, it is teeming with life. The number of species who live on the deep seabed is not yet known but estimated to be in the millions. - Soft corals, sea anemone - Broad swathes of the Pacific Ocean where polymetallic nodules are found shelter fauna such as sponges, soft corals or sea anemones. The fauna "only exists in these areas because they need the hard substrate of the nodule to attach," said Matthias Haeckel of the German research center GEOMAR, which presented results of the MiningImpact project in Kingston this week. Vacuuming up these nodules and spreading sediment over the impacted areas reduces population densities, biodiversity and the functioning of ecosystems, MiningImpact's study found. "To make the story short, in the end, we're talking about recovery times of thousands of years," Haeckel said. The nodules themselves form over millions of years. Some research on restoration efforts is underway but the results are not yet in. "We designed artificial nodules made of deep-sea clay and we placed them at different sites" at depths of about 4,500 meters (14,700 feet), Sabine Gollner, a biologist at the Royal Netherlands Institute for Sea Research, told AFP. "But when you take into account the slow growth rates in the deep sea, the slow processes, it will take quite some more years to find out if restoration is effective and to what degree," she said. Massive deposits of sulfide -- a type of mineral deposit found in underwater vents that spit out seawater heated by magma -- should be off-limits, the researchers suggest. These types of underwater geysers are teeming with astonishing and unique biodiversity. "If we extract massive sulfides near active vents, we know what we lose, and we must prevent loss," the DEEP REST study says. But according to Gollner, it would be good to incorporate restoration goals into the mining code being negotiated by the International Seabed Authority's member states. "It's good to include it but with a clear statement that at this moment in time, it cannot be taken into account to reach agreed environmental goals," she said. "For example, a contractor shouldn't be allowed to use that argument to mine a larger area." by Amélie Bottollier-depois
