It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Deep sea 'gold rush' moves closer 27 billion tonnes of nodules could be lying on the sand

page: 1

log in


posted on May, 17 2013 @ 09:55 PM

The lure is obvious: an assessment of the eastern Pacific - a 5 million sq km area known as the Clarion-Clipperton Zone - concluded that more than 27 billion tonnes of nodules could be lying on the sand.

Those rocks would contain a staggering 7 billion tonnes of manganese, 340 million tonnes of nickel, 290 million tonnes of copper and 78 million tonnes of cobalt - although it's not known how much of this is accessible.

The technology to find and harvest the underwater minerals has evidently improved to the point some are applying for permits.

Under the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea, the ISA was set up to encourage and manage seabed mining for the wider benefit of humanity - with a share of any profits going to developing countries.

They were talking about the sea bed mineral wealth back 50 years ago but had no economical way of getting it to the surface. Now there are those who wish to give it a try.

There are those on both sides of the argument; should we allow it or should we stop it....Your thoughts ATS?

posted on May, 17 2013 @ 10:11 PM
Destroy the oceans, and thats the end of all life, these big companies cannot be trusted, i say its a very bad idea allowing these greedy pigs to harvest anything from the seas, they are irresponsible and driven by greed.

Rather than plunder yet more of the planet for the same old crap, why not invest in developing new tech that doesnt require all this stuff. It makes me sick knowing what happens above ground to people and animals all for the sake of what we call luxery goods. No way, leave the oceans alone!!!

A lot of people are ignorant to what happens when forests are torn down, and mines are created above ground. Can you imagine what these pigs would do to something none of us could really see? These rocks have sat at the bottom of oceans for millions of years, they are vital to the underwater habitat for all we know. Start stripping these and who knows the consequences we could face. If the death and destruction above ground is anything to go by, you can bet your bottom dollar because its a mile or so underwater they wont care what they kill or destroy in their pursuit of will be a lot worse. Mistakes will be covered up, unknown species that have lived for millions of years will be wiped out....its wrong.

How these people sleep at night is beyond me, they are scum, it would benefit no one except for those with shares or at the top of the ladder. They give it the old, it would help poor it wouldnt, like all the diamond and gold mines dont help anyone who mine them. Its all bs, and people are more than willing to fall for it so they can have their next iphone or car. Makes me so angry, just the thought of it!
edit on 17-5-2013 by AmberLeaf because: (no reason given)

posted on May, 17 2013 @ 10:19 PM
Interesting rhetoric. The word 'nodules' and the phrase 'lying on the sand' would indicate a simple and ecological means of just picking them up like plucking flowers.

Yea right!

I wasn't born bloody yesterday. Try your tricks on someone stupid.

After all, oil rigs are safe!


posted on May, 17 2013 @ 10:26 PM
reply to post by 727Sky

That is quite an impressive stack of figures.

The engineering required to retrieve it may very well be worth it, but, there is also cost to process it as well.

Keep in mind that, .. .. . when they dump those "Billions" of tons worth of metals on the market, the prices are going to plummet.

posted on May, 17 2013 @ 10:40 PM
Its funny how we have to believe in MAN MADE global warming and be taxed to death to protect the planet isn't it!
However, as soon as more minerals etc are discovered, in they go, destroying more of the planet.

I say leave that stuff on the sea bed. lets go harvest the filthy rich!

posted on May, 17 2013 @ 10:46 PM
reply to post by VoidHawk

Most Definitely.

It would be much easier, takes less effort, and is Less COSTLY.

posted on May, 18 2013 @ 12:58 AM
It would be good if there was a way to benefit the poorer 90% of the world with this, rather than just another boom for big business.

posted on May, 18 2013 @ 01:52 AM
I can see it now - swarms of self-directed underwater drones, swooping along, spotting a nodule, grabbing it with implacable little robot grabbers and attaching a balloon. The nodules waft to the surface on little balloons with blinky lights, a Gortons Fish Sticks looking boat harvesting them with nets, recycle the balloon and lights and reload the drones as they surface for a recharge.

new topics

top topics


log in