Well, manganese nodules are a real thing, and are of some value. They just used them as the cover when they needed to develop underwater recovery technology.
Manganese nodules also feature heavily in Desmond Bagley's thriller "Night of error", which was published posthumously in 1984. Not quite as good as his earlier books but still enjoyable.
"The robots will lumber across the ocean floor on mammoth treads, grinding and chewing the encrusted seabed, sending plumes of sediment into the surrounding waters and killing marine life that gets in their way."
Sounds like regular extractive mining to me. I guess it's not talked about as much but terraforming large parts of earth and setting off huge explosions tends to kill whatever was living in the vicinity or its habitat
> I guess it's not talked about as much but terraforming large parts of earth and setting off huge explosions tends to kill whatever was living in the vicinity or its habitat
A typical pit mine covers a smaller area than any kind of reasonable-sized farm. Farming is significantly worse when it comes to displaced things in the habitat.
You could argue about bad mines that pollute downstream rivers, but that's not how all mines operate and has nothing to do with the precision explosions (I suggest you watch videos of how pits are mined to get a sense of how the explosions actually work) or the displaced wildlife.
In this debate over climate change the pollution human activity causes gets lost in the debate. Extractive mining is terrible for the environment and ecosystems.
One of the biggest reasons why I am supporter of SpaceX is that they will facilitate asteroid mining.
It'd be kind of funny if Ridley-Scott retconned the origin the Weyland-Yutani Corp to make them eco-saviors for taking resource extraction completely off-world
Still not the case, because they need to redirect asteroids into low earth orbit/the orbit of the colony. (And then expend a ton of energy to match orbits.)
The economics of asteroid mining only make sense if you're:
1. Using the mined materials for space construction. But why are you doing space construction in the first place? So you can do more asteroid mining? So you can do more space construction?
2. You've found an asteroid made of pure unobtanium.
Heh yeah, interesting to ponder. I imagine that others will race off to mine other asteroids, and the price of platinum and other rare metals/minerals will plummet.
Or maybe you'll get a resurgence of nation-state-level companies like the old Dutch East Indies company, as well as piracy.
>they need to redirect asteroids into low earth orbit/the orbit of the colony. (And then expend a ton of energy to match orbits.)
Which basically means a sustainable colony must produce a ton of energy. Good news, producing energy in the space is actually cheaper than on Earth: you have a lot of solar, and nuclear is no longer a hazard.
> The economics of asteroid mining only make sense if you're:
You're using linear projections. Elon Musk's entire goal with SpaceX is the Interplanetary Transit System. I also think that it will be a boon to multinational corporations who want to perform research/experiments that are either not possible, heavily regulated, or outright banned on earth.
> 1. Using the mined materials for space construction. But why are you doing space construction in the first place? So you can do more asteroid mining? So you can do more space construction?
Yes, exactly. Space exploration is a bit limited without construction in space. There's also the likely scenario that as the world becomes wealther, our consumption of technology will also grow. Look at the bet on AI and the huge capital investment necessary to run ML/DL projects. A combination of increased demand and an increase in global wealth which raises people's standards of living is also going to increase the cos of mining as people's environmental awareness is raised.
SpaceX has a plan for the colonization of Mars, so yes, to do more space construction.
How bad are the environmental effects other than global warming? I imagine by the time we can mine asteroids we will be able to offset huge amounts of global warming through sunshades and similar ideas.
What economic value do all airlines, cars, factories in the world produce? They are the reason we don't live in mud huts, poking at eachother with sharp sticks.
Now, what economic value do all rockets in the world produce? Satellite TV and GPS? Satellite weather reports that we complain about, and climate studies that we ignore?
And those are the low-hanging fruits. The ROI of a GPS network, a communication network, and orbital climate satellites is miles better then that of asteroid mining.
On one hand, you see the economic value of airlines, cars and factories, so for you it justifies the environmental consequences that they have. Fair enough.
On the other hand, you don't see the economic value of asteroid mining and of getting things into space, so you talk about the consequences that it might have on the environment.
Did you know that asteroids represent an endless supply of rare metals (gold, platinum, etc.)? Take a look at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asteroid_mining#Purpose if you don't believe me. This might represent the biggest economic opportunity of all times. And if we want to become a "multi-planetary species" as Elon Musk suggests, this will probably be essential.
Now, I personally tend to be more on the environment's side. So as long as we use those metals to build things on other planets and in space, I don't see any problem. We'll need to be responsible with this.
> Now, what economic value do all rockets in the world produce?
The development of rocket technology and the resulting space program has had the greatest effect on our modern world save pretty much produced our connected, modern world and developments from our space program probably form the bedrock of many of our most advanced industries. Have you ever been in an airplane that doesn't have GPS? Let' s just say I'd be drving, taking the train a lot more places than go back to planes using old landing technology
It is simply disingenuous of you to completely dismiss and reduce the importance of GPS and Satellitle communications. Major communications networks, banking systems, financial markets and power grids depend heavily on GPS for precise time synchronization. Nearly all new military assets — from vehicles to munitions — come equipped with GPS. We're conducting whole wars by drone.
If you actually do care about the economic and security importance of the satellite (It's more than just DishTV) and GPS network, here's an actual study:
Or you could just google "what would happen to us if satellites disappeared" Here are some results:
“Apart from the fact that everyone has forgotten to navigate without GPS in their cars, many airplanes use GPS as well,” says McDowell.
Though backup systems exist, airlines use GPS to chart the most fuel-efficient and expeditious routes. Without GPS and telecomm-sats, aircraft controllers would have tremendous difficulty communicating with and routing airplanes. Airlines would have to fall back to legacy systems and procedures. Given the sheer volume of airline traffic today, accidents would be all but guaranteed.
Other affected navigation systems would include those aboard cargo vessels, supply-chain management systems, and transportation hubs driven by GPS.
But GPS does more than just provide positioning — it also provides for timing. Ground-based atomic clocks can perform the same function, but GPS is increasingly being used to distribute the universal time standard via satellites. Within hours of a terminated service, any distributing networks requiring tight synchronization would start to suffer from “clock drift,” leading to serious performance issues and outright service outages. Such disruptions could affect everything from the power grid through to the financial sector.
In the report, “A Day Without Space: Economic and National Security Ramifications,” Ed Morris, the Executive Director of the Office of Space Commerce at the Department of Commerce, writes:
If you think it is hard to get work done when your internet connection goes out at the office, imagine losing that plus your cell phone, TV, radio, ATM access, credit cards, and possibly even your electricity. [...]
Wireless services, especially those built to CDMA standard, would fail to hand off calls from one cell to the next, leading to dropped connections. Computer networks would experience slowdowns as data is pushed through finite pipelines at reduced bit rates. The same would be true for major networks for communication and entertainment, since they are all IP-based today and require ultra-precise timing to ensure digital traffic reaches its destination.
The lack of effective synch would hit especially hard in banking, where the timing of transactions needs to be recorded. Credit card payments and bank accounts would likely freeze, as billions of dollars could be sucked away from businesses. A financial crash is not out of the question.
The Loss of Military Capability
The sudden loss of satellite capability would have a profound effect on the military.
Useless without GPS: The U.S. Navy’s Harpoon missile (U.S. Navy)
The Marshall Institute puts it this way: “Space is a critical enabl...
You're probably looking at a price curve that declines linearly. Any industry that's been heavily influenced by information technology will see a Moore's Law-like increase in productivity. Ever since the 1760's or so (little Industrial Rev.), we've been underoing a great acceleration of technological change. Sequencing a human genome in 2003 cost $3 billion. In what is likely the greatest price drop in history, you can get a genome sequenced today for $1000.
You're also thinking we're just going to ship up excavators, cranes and other heavy industrial construction equipment. Smart money says that we'd just launch a series of automonous drones that can either self-replicate or simply construct what it needs from the materials on the asteroid and some stock materials. Think of launching an SCV from Starcraft instead of the crew and equipment from Armageddon.
If Elon Musk is going to get his planetary transit system off the ground, he's going to need space mining to bring down the cost curve....or a space elevator that magically appears. I believe that SpaceX is seriously looking into asteroid mining as well
No, I just find it interesting how we only care about places we would inhabit. The parent comment suggested that asteroids are OK for unrestricted mining since it's, well, not a place people could inhabit and develop feelings for, like Earth or Mars.
It also has to do a bit with whether or not other lifeforms inhabit the place. Mars is unlikely to have any life on it, and certainly no pluricellular life without some extensive terraforming. If we ever get to that point, the discussion over preservation of a biosphere we ourselves created is certainly going to be a bit different in its implications...
> Extractive mining is terrible for the environment and ecosystems.
This depends on how and where it is done. For example, underground hard rock mining in a western country, eg Canada, is relatively benign. By far the biggest impact is caused by road building, and these are decommissioned after the mine's lifetime (which can be decades).
Clearcut logging has much greater long-term repercussions. Mining is often maligned unfairly.
>Clearcut logging has much greater long-term repercussions. Mining is often maligned unfairly.
Definitely. The biggest damage to the Amazon rainforest is the development of farms. People advocating for more inefficient farming (e.g. 'organic', 'local') are doing significantly more damage to the environment than extractive mining. One important caveat, I'm only applying this to modern mining operations like those in US/Canada that follow pollution regs.
> I'm only applying this to modern mining operations like those in US/Canada that follow pollution regs.
I am by no means a mining expert, but most of my exposure comes from east-coast US, where a lot of the mines (well...a lot of the mines you hear about - there could a great many very nice mines that I never heard of) have problems with acidic wash off, strip mining, etc.
I know SOME of the issues I've listed are impacted by modern environment regs (at least until those get rolled back under the current lawmakers), but I don't know if they all are.
Organic, sure. Local? I disagree. I'm sure it's hard to measure, but I imagine the impact of transporting perishable foods long distances is pretty great.
More than either of those things though, a heavy meat diet is much more inefficient than a vegetarian one. And if I'm not mistaken, a lot of the rainforest is becoming pastures for raising cattle.
> I'm sure it's hard to measure, but I imagine the impact of transporting perishable foods long distances is pretty great.
You would be incorrect. The modern food distribution system is a high-volume, low-margin system that runs incredibly efficiently and any advance you could come up with that can squeeze even a tenth of a percent more energy efficiency into the process would make you incredibly wealthy. There are an order of magnitude more 'food miles' racked up when consumers drive to the local grocery store and return home that went into delivering that food to the store in the first place.
In fact, local food is often _less_ efficient in terms of transportation energy costs because it lacks the economies of scale and the efficiencies that come from that in the regular food distribution system.
Last I looked at a map, the Amazon wasn't in the US / Canada. Where I can assure you the mining does a lot more damage.
Perhaps I just haven't found it yet, but I haven't read articles about organic / permaculture farms in the amazon poisoning river systems, poisoning the land, causing increased rates of cancer in the local populations, corrupting local politicians etc etc
You should have read about restrictive production systems poisoning the Amazon. It is European production restrictions that cause them to need cultivation in virgin rain forest to feed their population. USA on the other hand, is one of the largest agricultural exporters.
Coming from a town that does underground, hard rock mining in western Canada, I would agree with this idea generally speaking, with an add-on, though: While the act of extraction is relatively benign, the act of processing and refining for use is anything but benign. Technology has changed but the town and surrounding area bear many, many, many visible (and in some cases, permanent) scars of the processing methods.
Wast areas of deep sea floors (abyssal plains) are ecologically desert and they cover wast areas. Very little nutrition and life. Only small oasis like whale carcass is full of life. Of course there may be unintended consequences.
Its unclear to me where these mining operations take place. It seems that these ventures are trying to mine at the depth of 1600 m. Continental shelf has more life than continental slope or abyssal plains.
They already have government oversight. They already have a plan for minimizing pollution, which is wasted material that could be mined and therefore lost money. They come from a western country with a decent environmental track record.
It doesn't seem intellectually honest to compare 1 company mining in a situation where polluting is economically disadvantageous and has the science to understand at least some of the risks to climate change.
With climate change we built several giant industries cars, power, and others that burned huge amount of fossil fuels before we knew the risks. And generally polluting is economically advantageous.
That (and "this is how you create Kaiju" [2]) is what I was thinking.
For those who don't recognize it, "Glomar" is short for "Global Marine" and was a fake company setup by Howard Huges to do seafloor mining. It was actually a front where Huges helped the US government try to recover a sunken Russian sub. It's notable for being the case that caused the phrase "Can neither confirm nor deny" to have to be created, which is why it's called the "Glomar response".
How will they do work on these robots, or bring them home, if they break? I just saw a zany Mark Wahlberg movie about how hard it was to do underwater repairs... they should give it a watch.
I have two responses to news like this, first my child self thinking how cool it is to have giant deep sea robots, and then the more cynical adult me realizing we're in a mad extinction event with multiple paths to our own destruction and oil, mining, animal ag, and governments generally not doing anything, or actively resisting change while chasing the next gold mine. It's depressing.
"Better" is entirely too vague. Sure, I can get a VR headset now which is awesome, but the middle east is even more unstable now and thousands of species have gone extinct since then.
For a lot of people the core idea that "the world is slowly improving" is so fundamental they miss seeing basic ways many things have gotten worse.
The world is getting better and worse. Technology is better but the natural world is suffering destruction at a rate that is increasing. Animal populations have been decimated[1] and natural forests have been too.
If you care about what the planet will be like in 200 years, things haven't gotten better.
What the article neglects to mention is that there are sea mining operations which have been operating for decades now (for the most vivid example see diamonds in Namibia). What sets this apart is the depth at which they're mining and the type of mining (grinding as opposed to, effectively, sieving)
It's probably not unique; are there similar mines elsewhere? (I.e. the mine shaft is on dry land, but mine tunnels reach to dig minerals from areas that are actually underneath the sea floor).
I was always having these gut feelings about my partner cheating on me with her boss at work but i couldn't confront her about it because i didn't want to cause any problems where there's none. Then Contact World Best Hackers: They are Set of professionals that provide Quality Hacking Services. They have series of testimonies from Their clients Worldwide,they are Proficient in Hacking every areas of ICT which include:
* Hack and access DATA FROM ANY COMPANY Web Sites, he hack hack into a company email account call log,Hack Visichat Room ? Hack Flash Chat Room ? Hack Ftp User & Pass ? Hack Database ? Hack Yahoo Mail ? Hack Gmail Id ? Hack Websites ? Hack FaceBook Account ? hack Vb Forum ? Hack WordPress Blog ? hack C C any country ? hack moneybroker ACCOUNT ? hack liberty Reverse Account ? hack paypal Account ? increase your credit score today? bypass Google phone verification, ? Hash Crack ? Hack Bank Account ? increase your credit score today,online game access?hack twitter?and listened to all his calls and upgrading result making changes in database,such as your college/university grades,Retrival of lost files,preventing you from been hacked or tracked,You can reach out to him for any hack related exploit {solutionthebest277@gmail DOTcom} for an effective service and consider your big problems solved..
> The cargo is then transferred to a transport vessel and sent directly to customers in China.
Because China does not have the environmental and safety laws that we do and can therefore process ore at a fraction of the cost. This is a major loophole that let's Western companies pollute indirectly and not pay for it.
This is unlikely to happen. I've been following this industry and have seen so many failures thus far, that Nautilus will not be anywhere ready for mining by 2019.
67 comments
[ 3.4 ms ] story [ 131 ms ] threadHah! Except that was a CIA cover story used when they tried to recover a sunken Russian sub: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GSF_Explorer
"The robots will lumber across the ocean floor on mammoth treads, grinding and chewing the encrusted seabed, sending plumes of sediment into the surrounding waters and killing marine life that gets in their way."
A typical pit mine covers a smaller area than any kind of reasonable-sized farm. Farming is significantly worse when it comes to displaced things in the habitat.
You could argue about bad mines that pollute downstream rivers, but that's not how all mines operate and has nothing to do with the precision explosions (I suggest you watch videos of how pits are mined to get a sense of how the explosions actually work) or the displaced wildlife.
One of the biggest reasons why I am supporter of SpaceX is that they will facilitate asteroid mining.
It'd be kind of funny if Ridley-Scott retconned the origin the Weyland-Yutani Corp to make them eco-saviors for taking resource extraction completely off-world
The economics of asteroid mining only make sense if you're:
1. Using the mined materials for space construction. But why are you doing space construction in the first place? So you can do more asteroid mining? So you can do more space construction?
2. You've found an asteroid made of pure unobtanium.
https://www.rt.com/news/310170-platinum-asteroid-2011-uw-158...
With they retain their mining rights and sell carefully, or will the price of platinum crash?
With a government steal it and will there be wars over it?
Or maybe you'll get a resurgence of nation-state-level companies like the old Dutch East Indies company, as well as piracy.
Which basically means a sustainable colony must produce a ton of energy. Good news, producing energy in the space is actually cheaper than on Earth: you have a lot of solar, and nuclear is no longer a hazard.
You're using linear projections. Elon Musk's entire goal with SpaceX is the Interplanetary Transit System. I also think that it will be a boon to multinational corporations who want to perform research/experiments that are either not possible, heavily regulated, or outright banned on earth.
> 1. Using the mined materials for space construction. But why are you doing space construction in the first place? So you can do more asteroid mining? So you can do more space construction?
Yes, exactly. Space exploration is a bit limited without construction in space. There's also the likely scenario that as the world becomes wealther, our consumption of technology will also grow. Look at the bet on AI and the huge capital investment necessary to run ML/DL projects. A combination of increased demand and an increase in global wealth which raises people's standards of living is also going to increase the cos of mining as people's environmental awareness is raised.
SpaceX has a plan for the colonization of Mars, so yes, to do more space construction.
Now, what economic value do all rockets in the world produce? Satellite TV and GPS? Satellite weather reports that we complain about, and climate studies that we ignore?
And those are the low-hanging fruits. The ROI of a GPS network, a communication network, and orbital climate satellites is miles better then that of asteroid mining.
On one hand, you see the economic value of airlines, cars and factories, so for you it justifies the environmental consequences that they have. Fair enough.
On the other hand, you don't see the economic value of asteroid mining and of getting things into space, so you talk about the consequences that it might have on the environment.
Did you know that asteroids represent an endless supply of rare metals (gold, platinum, etc.)? Take a look at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asteroid_mining#Purpose if you don't believe me. This might represent the biggest economic opportunity of all times. And if we want to become a "multi-planetary species" as Elon Musk suggests, this will probably be essential.
Now, I personally tend to be more on the environment's side. So as long as we use those metals to build things on other planets and in space, I don't see any problem. We'll need to be responsible with this.
The development of rocket technology and the resulting space program has had the greatest effect on our modern world save pretty much produced our connected, modern world and developments from our space program probably form the bedrock of many of our most advanced industries. Have you ever been in an airplane that doesn't have GPS? Let' s just say I'd be drving, taking the train a lot more places than go back to planes using old landing technology
It is simply disingenuous of you to completely dismiss and reduce the importance of GPS and Satellitle communications. Major communications networks, banking systems, financial markets and power grids depend heavily on GPS for precise time synchronization. Nearly all new military assets — from vehicles to munitions — come equipped with GPS. We're conducting whole wars by drone.
If you actually do care about the economic and security importance of the satellite (It's more than just DishTV) and GPS network, here's an actual study:
http://marshall.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/Day-without-S...
Or you could just google "what would happen to us if satellites disappeared" Here are some results:
“Apart from the fact that everyone has forgotten to navigate without GPS in their cars, many airplanes use GPS as well,” says McDowell.
Though backup systems exist, airlines use GPS to chart the most fuel-efficient and expeditious routes. Without GPS and telecomm-sats, aircraft controllers would have tremendous difficulty communicating with and routing airplanes. Airlines would have to fall back to legacy systems and procedures. Given the sheer volume of airline traffic today, accidents would be all but guaranteed.
Other affected navigation systems would include those aboard cargo vessels, supply-chain management systems, and transportation hubs driven by GPS.
But GPS does more than just provide positioning — it also provides for timing. Ground-based atomic clocks can perform the same function, but GPS is increasingly being used to distribute the universal time standard via satellites. Within hours of a terminated service, any distributing networks requiring tight synchronization would start to suffer from “clock drift,” leading to serious performance issues and outright service outages. Such disruptions could affect everything from the power grid through to the financial sector.
In the report, “A Day Without Space: Economic and National Security Ramifications,” Ed Morris, the Executive Director of the Office of Space Commerce at the Department of Commerce, writes:
If you think it is hard to get work done when your internet connection goes out at the office, imagine losing that plus your cell phone, TV, radio, ATM access, credit cards, and possibly even your electricity. [...]
Wireless services, especially those built to CDMA standard, would fail to hand off calls from one cell to the next, leading to dropped connections. Computer networks would experience slowdowns as data is pushed through finite pipelines at reduced bit rates. The same would be true for major networks for communication and entertainment, since they are all IP-based today and require ultra-precise timing to ensure digital traffic reaches its destination. The lack of effective synch would hit especially hard in banking, where the timing of transactions needs to be recorded. Credit card payments and bank accounts would likely freeze, as billions of dollars could be sucked away from businesses. A financial crash is not out of the question.
The Loss of Military Capability
The sudden loss of satellite capability would have a profound effect on the military.
Useless without GPS: The U.S. Navy’s Harpoon missile (U.S. Navy)
The Marshall Institute puts it this way: “Space is a critical enabl...
You're also thinking we're just going to ship up excavators, cranes and other heavy industrial construction equipment. Smart money says that we'd just launch a series of automonous drones that can either self-replicate or simply construct what it needs from the materials on the asteroid and some stock materials. Think of launching an SCV from Starcraft instead of the crew and equipment from Armageddon.
If Elon Musk is going to get his planetary transit system off the ground, he's going to need space mining to bring down the cost curve....or a space elevator that magically appears. I believe that SpaceX is seriously looking into asteroid mining as well
Do you see resource extraction on Earth as something having no consequences whatsoever?
You may hear cries of "Save the Rings" NestleBoeing is pilfering the ice while making monstrous profits!
This depends on how and where it is done. For example, underground hard rock mining in a western country, eg Canada, is relatively benign. By far the biggest impact is caused by road building, and these are decommissioned after the mine's lifetime (which can be decades).
Clearcut logging has much greater long-term repercussions. Mining is often maligned unfairly.
Definitely. The biggest damage to the Amazon rainforest is the development of farms. People advocating for more inefficient farming (e.g. 'organic', 'local') are doing significantly more damage to the environment than extractive mining. One important caveat, I'm only applying this to modern mining operations like those in US/Canada that follow pollution regs.
I am by no means a mining expert, but most of my exposure comes from east-coast US, where a lot of the mines (well...a lot of the mines you hear about - there could a great many very nice mines that I never heard of) have problems with acidic wash off, strip mining, etc.
I know SOME of the issues I've listed are impacted by modern environment regs (at least until those get rolled back under the current lawmakers), but I don't know if they all are.
Can you expand your point?
More than either of those things though, a heavy meat diet is much more inefficient than a vegetarian one. And if I'm not mistaken, a lot of the rainforest is becoming pastures for raising cattle.
You would be incorrect. The modern food distribution system is a high-volume, low-margin system that runs incredibly efficiently and any advance you could come up with that can squeeze even a tenth of a percent more energy efficiency into the process would make you incredibly wealthy. There are an order of magnitude more 'food miles' racked up when consumers drive to the local grocery store and return home that went into delivering that food to the store in the first place.
In fact, local food is often _less_ efficient in terms of transportation energy costs because it lacks the economies of scale and the efficiencies that come from that in the regular food distribution system.
Perhaps I just haven't found it yet, but I haven't read articles about organic / permaculture farms in the amazon poisoning river systems, poisoning the land, causing increased rates of cancer in the local populations, corrupting local politicians etc etc
Particularly acidic runoffs leaching through metals and into the water supply.
Certainly not all mining operations though.
Its unclear to me where these mining operations take place. It seems that these ventures are trying to mine at the depth of 1600 m. Continental shelf has more life than continental slope or abyssal plains.
So I guess we've just found the second dumbest one. I just can't understand why some people think that this is a good idea.
It doesn't seem intellectually honest to compare 1 company mining in a situation where polluting is economically disadvantageous and has the science to understand at least some of the risks to climate change.
With climate change we built several giant industries cars, power, and others that burned huge amount of fossil fuels before we knew the risks. And generally polluting is economically advantageous.
For those who don't recognize it, "Glomar" is short for "Global Marine" and was a fake company setup by Howard Huges to do seafloor mining. It was actually a front where Huges helped the US government try to recover a sunken Russian sub. It's notable for being the case that caused the phrase "Can neither confirm nor deny" to have to be created, which is why it's called the "Glomar response".
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glomar_response
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kaiju
How will they do work on these robots, or bring them home, if they break? I just saw a zany Mark Wahlberg movie about how hard it was to do underwater repairs... they should give it a watch.
And it's only getting better.
I wonder why old age makes many people despondent.
For a lot of people the core idea that "the world is slowly improving" is so fundamental they miss seeing basic ways many things have gotten worse.
If you care about what the planet will be like in 200 years, things haven't gotten better.
[1] http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-37775622
Location: https://goo.gl/maps/FoJeqJRUS6R2
It's probably not unique; are there similar mines elsewhere? (I.e. the mine shaft is on dry land, but mine tunnels reach to dig minerals from areas that are actually underneath the sea floor).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yKIuj4n_8PQ
Because China does not have the environmental and safety laws that we do and can therefore process ore at a fraction of the cost. This is a major loophole that let's Western companies pollute indirectly and not pay for it.