Why Norway Is Building Underwater Mines
Vložit
- čas přidán 5. 07. 2024
- Why Norway Is Building Underwater Mines
Support me on Patreon:
/ oliverbahl
Video Producers:
Oliver Franke
Charles Street
Research & Writing:
Emanuele Martinelli, Oliver Franke
Edit & Animations:
Arun Singh
Underwater mines: 😊😊😊
Underwater mines: 💀💀💀
Tbh when I clicked on the video I was expecting this to be about them taking action against russia who is trying to take one of their archipelagos that has a coal mine
I mean I still enjoyed the video and I still would have clicked if I had known but still
(Idk the channel so I had no context as to the channel direction)
@@ConstantChaos1 same
@ConstantChaos1 me 2. Expectations subverted.
Prove it
@@timothynechville8326 prove what?
This is what happens when the guys that grew up playing Minecraft start getting their first jobs
Taking subnautica to a whole other level.
Europe needs to innovate if they want a spot on the world stage in the future.
The door trick doesn't work irl though
Big love
😂😂😂😂
Norway somehow finding yet another source of valuable natural resources
I think alot of countries also would find much should they look. And mining it is one thing, benefitting and sorting out the wealth is another. Venezuela and Norway are pretty similar on oil production per barrel, but the economy is vastly diffrent.
Norway looking into.. Not actually doing.
I am from Norway.
So am I, but it seems we have a growth mentality. At least on state level... We can still do better for the people, and in other areas
tror du ikke det kommer til å skje, Øystein? 🤔
@@Kavaitsu Spørs det.. Alle reglene osv idag så er det ikke bare å bare.
- Is the explosive in the mine yours?
- Yes, it's a mine mine of mine
Queue seagulls from Finding Nemo.
And here I was thinking they're about to start laying Claymores on the sea floor😂
Also me
Yeah, there’s some ambiguity there…
The thing is, we need the resources. Metals are highly recyclable, but when our cars are to drive electrically and our heating and cooking should function electrically we need more copper to achieve that. And thats okay, because once we have these metals, we can recycle them over and over again and use green energy. Might be 100 years away, but i think it is the way to go.
Next thing: The earth is 70% water and 30% land. Even on land our mines take up a very small percentage of space. Highlighting all that ground is misleading, it would take ages to mine that much space under water.
I think it is a possibility we need to evaluate. Maybe agree on zones etc, bc fishing can be renewable if you only take what can regenerate. Yes minerals dont regenerate, but the wildlife can if done right.
Im all for saving animals from extinction, but i am not naive to think that banning this will solve any problem. Cause remember, the world needs these resources and they will get them. Better highly developed countries like norway agree on how to mine it as responsible as possible, rather than a mine in south america or africa pouring chemicals all over the place, having workers die in unsafe condistions etc. Cause thats what is happening otherwise.
China is the biggest producer of rare earth minerals, dont be naive and think they do it more environmentally friendly than we could do.
We could all start walking tomorrow and forego cars all together. That's what the world needs.
Every time a species goes exist, it's like chopping off one pillar to the foundation of your house, and we don't know which one is the last before the entire thing collapses.
How much raw materials would you say our global ecosystem is worth?
you have been convinced to think that you need it, and a few decades later after such mines are exploited, you will be convinced you need to go to the arctic and antarctic to mine fossil fuels. It's capitalism at its finest.
For reference of the potential damage, the vast majority of macroscopic life in these areas live on the nodules. That life does not show signs of recovering where these nodules have been removed in the past. This isn't removing something from their environment, it's removing their environment.
@@subcitizen2012 make your children walk to school
So i have just one thing to say: you know that there are no nodules in the Norwegian EEZ right? Its all sub-surface ore seams, and most if not all of the points you brought up do not apply when doing remote sub-surface mining. Its literaly two completely different types of mining
I mean we either mine on land, completely deleting whole chunks of terrain, or we scoop loose valuables from the seafloor, seems like an upgrade
One thing ive heard is that the animals on the bottom of the food chain live there. So that might be bad i guess
@@sylvester4207It is cute that they now care about the animals, what about the forest animals loosing their lands on industry areas, even housing, even farming makes heavy damage specially on the lower food chain. The ocean is vastly more open than any landmass, of course we should not destroy corals, but picking rocks spit out from underwater volcanoes is maybe the most renewable mining ever found as there will continue to be more and more over time, litterally mining the biproduct of the mantle. Of course some life will be at risk, but when is it not? Even hydropower which is considdered one of the greenest power resources is a meatgrinder for anything getting in the turbines.
@@oblivionnokk3531 It's funny that China breaks every law in UNCLOS (fishing the seas dry, invading other soverign territories etc.) but when there is mineral mining that they control 90% of market, then they suddenly "care" about the environment.
"Deleting"? I don't think you know how moving dirt and stone works. Every single nation in the developed world has reclamation laws for a reason.
Norway shows itself as green but most of their income comes from oil and gas selling while they themselves use electric cars. Everything is for profit. So they will mine because it is profitable.
Sounds like green energy is black as coal.
The reason for this is mainly that Norway has extensive deep water industrial knowledge due to operating large oil-rigs in deep water and hostile environments.
So its a match made in heaven for Norwegian companies, if it turns out to be an economically and environmentally viable thing.
💰💰💰💰💰💰
As it should.
The West raises lots of regulatory laws (good or bad is up to you) that makes it expensive to mine, meanwhile China's CCP doesn't care about hugging trees environmentally friendly procedures. We say NIMBY but we don't care if Chinese children develop cancer, we cannot be responsible about what CCP does to their population, can we? Edit: but we continue to buy made in China gadgets, batteries, BEV's, jewelry, clothes, we don't care about their ecology, right?
Wait to see what they will do to the CCZ. Oh, it is deep water mining, no one can visually monitor what they are doing there...
yes its a constant discussion here. but oil is inevitable, if we dont sell it someone else surely will. what we do with our profits, however, is trying to become as enviromentally friendly as possible
Personally I see seabed mining is good move compared to land mining, as long as it done responsibly : No mining on seabed where coral lives, not using chemical, and keep the noise level low. The bad part is it will be hard to monitor as the operation is hard from common eyes to observe.
We have a huge sea and fish industry in Norway that has been heavily protected while we have drilled for oil and gas. With propper regulations mining on the sea floor are going to be fine.
How can you say that when we don't even know the life that lives at these depths? Also it is not within Norway's Exclusive Economic Zone.
@@Ahskdndhksh8766 We need resources to save the climate and then we have to make tough decisions about how to do it. We can't just stop the use of oil if we don't have the resources to create alternatives, so the alternatives are to destroy the climate and keep the use of fossile energy. Or we can offer some nature to get resources and limit the use of fossile energy.
Remember that Norway's oil business is one of the cleanest in the world with a lot pf strict regulations. Mining would be just as regulated and if it has to large consequences for the life in the sea it would be stopped.
Most of the area are in Norwegian waters, some are in international waters. How the mining in international waters are regulated I dont know.
No it wouldnt be fine. It will ruin the whole ocean along the norwegian coast. The propper regulations would be to not allow it.
@@he6843 how do you know? It has never been done
@@TheJensss familymember is a ocean scientist on internal solitary waves. Learn from her why its so much fish along the norwegian coast, and its because of internal waves that comes from theese deeps outside the coast. And if they start mining it, it will destroy the eco system. They have discusted it at work and at the universities along with other ph.d’s and proffersors and told the norwegian state what will happen, but the state doesnt care..
Mine them, im tired of autocrats monopolizing rare earth minerals
Underwater mining should be banned, because it might be harmful, but surface mining is ok, because we know for certain that it's harmful. great logic by so-called environmentalists
Yeah exactly 😂
It's alwa a Pandora's box, are you willing to potentially make it worse
Or you can just make ordinary on land mining more enviormental
One has the potential of cascading risks one is a known risk
Would you eat a pie that you don't know whether it might just poison you to death or might be the most delicious pie ever?
@@RENO_K The alternative is eating a definitely poisonous pie, and there's no option to pick neither, so yes
They will find a way to do it safely. Its early now and will take decades before they would even start. Norway care about the enviroment and live of the fish here.
And the opposition of said underwater mining is the nations that are big on-land miners that will loose market shares and price control when underwater mining takes off.
Same logic as the oil companies sponsoring anti-nuclear campains.
Money.
@@ntw9218no, the alternative is a cake that's so full of sugar that you know for sure it's bad for you, but you also know how bad for you it is.
Underwater mining might be the same sugary cake, it might be a magic cake that's actually good for you, or it could be a cake made with cow dung. We don't know, and that's why we're not just jumping into it but are doing extensive risk assessments first.
It is a trial tho. Basically a large scale science project. Not saying I support it, I find it strange our government didnt reconsider or give it a second thought after the backlash. However, this is barely even reported in Norway.
But the reality is, we do not know what effect it has. Some say it will have huge effect. Some say it won't.
as far as i know, this is more a test project then anything. To map out what impact it might have before deciding full expansion or stopping it. For that i am supportive. Also the depths they are doing the mining at is helping as well
When even an oil company gets concerned about the envirement, you might reconsider your idea.
Yeah, it's like Hitler saying you seem a bit excitable and need to chill out
Of course it is. Most of those minerals are much more used in EV than with combustion engine can also be used to produce solars and wind turbines. So if this makes EV much cheaper to produce then there is much less price difference in between both types so more people will be wiling to buy EV making less profits to oil companies. It's just a bussines man doing bussines. Stop or slow down competition before it have chance to question your position.
@@michanowak3001 That's what I thought immediately, oil companies need competition and this will benefit cummon people and businesses, while putting rich oil business monkeys on shakier grounds as it should. The world is already too dependent on oil making it a geopolitical resource.
@@LeUtubeAcc Also consider that China doesn't like its deep dependence on cheap oil, the faster they transition their economy to be less dependent on oil the better for them.
Also, CCP doesn't care about the environmental disaster made by large scale mining. We do and that's why everything we produce is expensive.
They are legally obligated to do environmental impact assessments.
The requirements are obviously stronger in some nations compared to others, but Norway has signed into quite a bit of EU law as part of its many treaties with Brussels and Norwegian citizens are notoriously "green.".
If you care as much as you seem to, maybe you should actually look into the specifics instead of making cynical comments.
Sea bed mining might be messy at first, but I firmly believe it is the future. If we start now, we might start to build up the know-how to do it properly and more cleanly in the future.
It certainly LOOKS way less messy that digging giant holes in the ground.
I think there are viable concerns about the environmental impact of deep-sea mining. But we're always up against the next-best... all the companies who signed the moratorium still plan on demanding these metals from far dirtier sources.
For an extractive industry like mining, literally picking up rocks off the ground is about as good as you can get
I actually thought they want to rig the sea floor with explosives lol.
Ikr. Dumb double meaning words. You can easily mix them up without context
AMAZING! As always a kinda unknown subject brought to life in amazing detail and storytelling.
if i were to guess, they’re mining underwater to mine stuff that’s underwater
Their mining it because it's theirs.
We unlock a kaiju .... Godzilla time
More studies are still needed especially since we are finding new issues e.g., Dark Oxygen
And they call it a Mine... A MINE?
This is no mine... it's a tomb.
It is mine, I tell you. My own. My precious.
Cast it into the fire !@@ConstantChaos1
The problem lies in the way it's done, not in underwater mining in it of itself.
When people are discussing mining nodules from the seafloor, usually there's a lost Soviet submarine in the area.
Ref (some keywords): Project Azorian, Glomar Explorer, K-129, Howard Hughes, circa 1974.
Have you seen this article: Source: Evidence of dark oxygen production at the abysmal seafloor, published 22 July 2024 ?
If report is true, then I think it would change the direction and public perception of deep sea mining
since china thinks artificial islands extends their maritime borders, maybe america should make some along the clarion clipperton fracture zone. fair is fair
It seems like from an environmental standpoint since it's so easy to do we should just limit the speed of which they do it. Your mining tool can only be so wide, you can only go in a square kilometer every so many months. Taking into consideration tidal drift, you need to somehow figure out how to get rid of animals safely. Hopefully we don't totally screw this up 🤞
These scenes with the bots mining underwater reminded me a lot of Dune and their spice harvesters.
That's SIR David Attenborough my friend ;) love your work btw
The norwegian money hack that keeps on giving
I'm okay with this
The Ocean is a desert. It might consume the most co2, but it is much larger than the forest. Co2 consumed per km2 is far less than co2 cunsumed per km2 of land.
China does not have the majority of the rare earth minerals. They just have the majority of mines developed to extract them and that is changing rapidly. Rare earth minerals are not actually rare at all. they are all over the planet especially near the Rocky mountains of the US.
People just don't know that for a resource to be classified as a "reserve" it needs to be economically viable to extract it,
Meaning as long as China dump it out for pennies nobody else technically have large "reserves" despite there being plenty of known locations of rare earths that could be exploited if it was necessary or the price of the product rose a bit.
What is title and what you talking about I thought Norway putting underwater mines for security purpose lol
They are considering doing that as well due to Russian provocation on one of the archipelagos that has a russian coal mine leased on it.
i see so many complaining we don't know if vacuuming the sea bed wil be bad so it is bad
Yes, taking action without knowing its consequences is a bad thing, especially for as massive an operation as this is.
It's not that people dont know it's that the scientific community doesnt know so no appropriate environmental studies can be done to monitor impact
Blindly destroying a vital and fragile ecosystem is a bad thing and risking doing that just for profit is just as bad if not worse
If you're such an expert, then why should we listen to you?
@@ConstantChaos1 it isnt vital and i doub fragile its a giant dark seabed we dont know much because there is not much there but lets not mine there because there can be something there i feel we complaining to much about this
@@t84t748748t6 those are both incorrect statements and denying reality wont change that.
no, we already know that it is bad (like in "we are taking away the environment for species to life"-bad), we just dont know how bad it will affect us at the end
What about mining for minerals under the seafloor?
I was listening to this.
And thought, i recognise that accent.
Hello fellow Dane.
Super Necessary
Norwegian here: Scoop up nodules, scoop!
I'm not sure whether Cobalt is as necessary for the future of EV and stationary batteries as said here (around timecode 5:50). Most new batteries these days are Cobalt free, and this will become more so as we transition towards other chemistries like sodium instead of lithium. Therefore this mining is simply not as important for technological advancement as asserted, the only motive I can make out is pure short-term profit.
:-) I want a job telling others no ... they'll only listen if they think it's in they're best interests. But a great Job
why does this reminder me of the Glomar Explorer that raised a Soviet ballistic missile sub. Is there a Russian sub or new Missile on the sea floor there
U need to update ur facts. USA has made huge discoveries as well as Scandinavia countries. But it will take awhile to get these mines online.
6:34 ah yes, that is the exact way that earth rotates
the satelite/camera angle is going north
@@survive7771 If you look at the shadow at the top right corner of the US of A, it's actually moving downwards in combination with the camera moving towards the sun.
Or I'm just retarded.
hell yeah, proud norwegian!
oh that mine
Given civilization's mad thirst for minerals, and externalizations are allowed, it is the obvious progression
There will be absolutely no reduction in emissions from deep sea mining in contrast there will be an increase in emissions as a result. Never once have humans stopped mining in an original location when we find a different source. It will still be mining on land plus now we are mining the sea bed. Then in the future it will be we are mining on land, we are mining the sea floor and we are launching rockets to space to mine X or Y. But the entire time we are continuing to mine every other place we were already mining.
It’s too bad that the Hughes Glomar Explorer was scrapped, as it was ideal for manganese nodule mining.
Lets at least try it. The UK, New zealand, france, Japan and portugal have a lot to gain if this can be done well.
The Green parties, which all receive money from China, will raise lots of regulatory issues that will make mining too expensive.
That plays well for China that doesn't care about environment. They will continue to exert power and influence by not hugging trees.
I am not saying the green agenda is not important, it is, I am just pointing out the hypocrisy of different weights and measures.
And how much sure u can guess when ppl around tell them stop before they destroyed the ocean ? when the money already running no activity group or green or whatever jellyfish can stop it
I have a feeling the enviromental impacts can be mitigated by good practices, and that they will be reduced compared with land-based mining. Hope we can start doing it, my Portugal has a great opportunity to be a major player in deep sea mining
Has any company ever, in the history of the Earth, ever started their exploitation with good practices implemented or even considered ?
The deepsea miners themselves will probably wreak havoc and leave barren sand behind them. There's no way it will be ethical
It might be a pandoras box, but only means its a great i idea to open the box early and a little, so consequences can be evaluated.
i like how he says norway... "noevei"
somebody gotta do it first so we might as well do it as we have some standards in place😎
It’s an efficient way forward ♻️ 🔋⚡️
This is like clear cutting with napalm. It won't grow back. The tailings that extends down stream on land for miles will expand 3 dimensionally underwater. Nothing says base of the food pyramid than expanse of the sea floor
Asteroid mining wen
No way they collecting the subnautica mineral nodules
Isn't it quite irony that the path to green energy, you need to do something as similar or worse to the planet as a whole.
Yeah it is and using batteries spells environmental damage
One might argue that sifting through relatively small areas of the ocean floors' surface
is way less damaging than raising global temperatures - including that of the Sea.
greed gonna f it up like always
Norway playing subnautica
And the seas turned to blood
Nice
I have a question for the creators of this content: What is the purpose of the loud and extremely annoying background noise (muzack) that makes it hard to hear what the narrator is saying?
We're not building mines. We are vaguely,politically, discuss whether it's possible. And currently, we are at least 30yrs in on debating building a railroad in northern Norway. So.. i wouldn't worry about it...😂
Biodiversity vs human bank account.
yeah thats the only reason we mine
@@aguspuig6615 i don't speak about mining. your answer seems out of context
Small scale exploration will not banckrupt any species.. but will be a source of knowledge to make future plans from... I might consider that those who can't don't want you to either ?
Why does it have to be one way or the other? Moratorium this moratorium that. The scientific approach would be to mine at small scale and measure the effects on the surrounding ecosystem.
The seabed should be mined, we need resources and money, and most mines are deep, so, fire up the machinery and get to work
Deep see mining is the best ❤❤❤
I vaguely remember a article in a popular science magazine from the 70's about deep sea mining. Which was 50 years ago. And the technology still isn't here. It's like nuclear fusion, it's always 30 years from now before it actually works.
Not gonna lie, I thought this video is about Norway using naval mines to deter Russia.
Russia’s fleet isn’t impressive enough for that to be worth it.
Lets go! Norway is going to be the riches country
Go mine the Moon...is my vote. Ocean's overly stressed already imo.
How would you do that logistically? Rockets can only ship a little ore per launch as metals tend to be quite heavy! That is a big problem... And also the costs per launch, the rocket needs to have enough fuel to go to the moon, but also enough to go back and land safely on earth.
I agree the sea floors are under A LOT of pressure. *Ba dum tsss
Proud to be Norwegian
Proud servant of Washington. Norway has been a good vassal to Britain and America for the past centuries. Respect to Norway From Tel'Aviv
i think it needs to be done , but we should have the scientific comunity keep a close eye of it
No one who can will hold back on vacuuming precious bowling ball or base balls when they can do it effectively... they just won't broadcast it ...
They're all against because it's not their profit
why sow lifeforms. show the sea at 3000-5000m thats the place its about. not coral reefs
What? Like genuinely what are you trying to say?
The ocean bed at that depth does have life if thats what you're trying to argue against
Beyond 300 meters depth it's about as barren as a desert. The daily damage to shores and rivers are magnitudes more damaging to life than deep sea mining at 3000 meters of the entire world would be.
@@ConstantChaos1barely any life* cope harder greeny
@@Likeaworm that's not correct my guy, its home to some of largest densities of biodiversity in the world. Obviously you are one of those who suffer from a lack of knowledge on this subject, which makes my point for me, thanks. Idk why you're being so agro but you should step outside for a bit lmfao.
🧐
5:53 looks like the biggest artificial island
No. These underwater mines are safer! The big corporations… they are trying to keep precious metals for themselves. I feel as tho this is a huge step in the right direction. We need to put more power in the people’s hands. This should do that. More resources for sll
You should change that false title, dude.. "why Norway is building underwater mines" is false when we have not built them. It is an idea that is beeing considered. Bot something that's in action and getting built as the title assumes.
Cheers from Norway..
not saying anything about the rare earth found in wyoming is crazy lmao
Where I already heard this Voice?
No wonder 😂
this is so awesome and all those commie tears just make the whole thing more sweet
WE NEED MINING RIGHT NOW!!!!!!!!!
No, we are not building mines. This will probably never happen.
Immediately no, I have a mid-atlantic ridge fancam edit saved on my phone somewhere so eat those words 😤
The ISA moved to formulate requests to be paid “royalties”(?!) from mining. Yeah, I would request that too. Pay me, so I can regulate you!
Me find a dead volcano 🌋
3:00 Calling David Attenborough a scientist is dragging it a bit far, isn’t it?
Don't forget Oliver is not native English speaker.
In many languages biologist, natural historian is also a natural scientist that can be shortened to scientist.
what is a scientist then? he studied, he make experimants, he observes stuff, he built hypothesises (no native english sry). i belive he is one, even a very good one.
@@humanearthling1847He does none of those things. He's an overpaid narrator who travels on a private jet.
@@TheRealObi-wanKenobi Did he study biology at university? Did he take a masters or a PhD? I studied physics at college. Well I studied electronics, but it’s part of physics. So I guess I’m a scientist as well. The man was a TV producer who went over to nature programs. That’s it. He never studied shit at a level where I would call him a scientist.
If you oppose this, you are basically making the value judgment that current type of mining is better. I don't see the activists giving up their yearly iPhone which is actually built from the various metals that existing mines produce.
will Portugal's enormous to be approved EEZ have any interesting minerals in its deep sea bed?
We are fucked when they start seabed mining
Isn't there a fuckton of World War war 2 bombs in that area😂😮
plenty of metals to reuse there :)
🤔
I wish
No? why would there be a large amount of those in the middle of the ocean far from main shipping lines?
There was hardly any action in that area at all.
At worst a few depth charges or torpedoes were used there but even if they failed to detonate they would implode from the pressure at that depth long before they reached the sea bed
so overfishing, plastic wastes, and industrial effluent was not enough
I think you've really buring the lead on how detrimental this will be for the undersea environment. You should really watch Last Week Tonight's episode on deep sea mining, did it not long ago too. Talks much about the very present dangers of the practice and how the seabed authority has conflicting interests in itself. What I don't understand is why we simply aren't putting all of our resources into sodium batteries. It's so plentiful and can be the key to everything.
I'm not suprised Norway is the one that starts this. Norway is very experienced in experimenting with extracting from the sea and has experienced workers that can fill out all the needed proffesions in seabed mining. Norway has also not been that envoirmentally friendly when it come to mining with Norway being one of the few countries that allows companies to dump heavy rocks into the sea.
My opinion on it, i think we should do a test run on seabed mining, a lot of observing of the consequences of gains and drawbacks from operations
The venn diagram of countries that allow dumping mine rock waste into the ocean and the countries with sharp depth changes on their coastline is a perfect circle.
The countries that banned that activity are the ones where mine waste was being deposited at 10m depth and got moved around by surface currents.
Norway deposits rock from mines at 300m+ depth which doesn't cause remotely close to the same damage as when you deposit it near the surface.
In those cases where mines are located immediately near sharp depth changes the depositing of mine waste into the sea does less damage than a surface deposit would.
It is all the countries that doesn't have the option to dump rocks at deep depths that banned deposits in the ocean, the countries that banned that activity literally made no difference, they weren't going to do it anyway as shallow water deposits have been proven to not work.
Those bans had nothing to do with the environment and just about scoring some cheap points with environmentalist and letting them think they got a win so that those government could push through other policies.