"
The mining needs to go forward, the environments need to be sustained and conserved. That's a challenge, but it's doable," says marine geologist Peter Rona of Rutgers University. Bold words. His comments came during last week's science and policy workshop, "
Precious Metals from Deep-Sea Vents", co-sponsored and hosted at Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution.
Media coverage of this by-invitation-only, 100 participant event was modest. But clearly, the message most news outlets chose to convey was one of
pioneering exploration in a brave new world of bizarre lifeforms and alien environments. And like any new world, there's still much to discover. "It's a unique set of life down there. Frankly, we haven't found everything. We need make sure we go in with our eyes open," said Maurice Tivey, a geologist at the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution.
Press releases picked-up by a few news outlets referenced, "Six-foot tubeworms and 'blind' shrimp that thrive in water as acidic as battery acid near hydrothermal vents that spew out mineral-laden liquid as hot as 750 degrees." Dr. Peter Rona, who discovered the Atlantic's first hydrothermal vents in the 1980s, describes the area near the vents as "
like another planet."
But this new frontier of life found a mile or two beneath the sea surface is also the focus for somewhat more materialistic interests. Gold, silver, copper, zinc and lead are also found in massive mineral deposits produced in deep sea vent systems. The close association of deep sea vent life and deep sea vent minerals has been a known reality since at least the 1980's. But only recently has technology and worldwide demand for precious mineral ore combined to make mining for these metals economically feasible. And also for the first time, the bizarre, other-worldly life found in deep sea vent communities is at risk.
The media attention on the policy workshop--
which was partly funded by Nautilus Minerals--seemed to focus on the aforementioned "challenging yet doable" attitude expressed by Dr. Rona.
Correction: Dr. Stace Beaulieu, a Woods Hole deep sea scientist and the InterRidge Coordinator, contacted me that I was in error in saying the policy workshop was "partly funded by Nautilus Minerals." As Dr Beaulieu wrote: "We received no funding from Nautilus Minerals or any other commercial entity. The main funding for the workshop, as posted on our webpage was the ChEss project of the Census of Marine Life. The main funding for the public colloquium was WHOI. InterRidge and Ridge 2000 contributed additional funding."
Apologies for the error, Stace, and thank you for correcting me. In the interest of full transparency, I would however like to note Nautilus Minerals ongoing financial support of scientific research of deep vent systems. As author Joshua Davis first wrote in a 2007 story in Wired Magazine, "Nautilus is funding part of [Duke University's Dr Cindy] Van Dover’s research in the Bismarck Sea — just as the company funded work being done by the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution. In fact, a large portion of scientific research on extinct smokers is paid for by Nautilus, leading to a sort of mini-boom in the previously overlooked specialty. There is a resulting lack of independent expert opinion."
And what about that challenge? We are dealing with ecosystems utterly unique on this planet. Some species that are
sui generis in the truest meaning of the words. We haven't fully biocharacterized these habitats. We don't fully understand their endemic and native life forms let alone their life cycles. We don't fully understand to what degree habitats in deep sea vent systems are restricted or cosmopolitan. Will the same species thrive if moved or transplanted even short distances? What sort of unique opportunities do vent systems provide to known or yet unidentified species? To what degree does altering bottom topography through deep sea mining affect local current and nutrient flow?
These are simply a handful of questions that this non-deep sea biologist finds somewhat compelling to ponder. I would imagine card-carrying deep sea scientists like
Kevin, Craig, or Peter would come up with even more lucid thoughts or concerns. And yes, I'm familiar with the fact that Nautilus Minerals produced their environmental impact study (EIS) which downplayed any significant environmental hazards. But I've also read the
independent review of the Nautilus EIS by the Canary Institute which found many of Nautilus' claims to be lacking. And I have it on good authority that yet another independent analysis of the Nautilus EIS is in the works that will find similar holes not just in the environmental assessment but also their socioeconomically beneficial claims.
Yet even without considering any disagreements in EIS findings, why the apparent rush to strip this brave, new world before we fully understand what we are impacting? There's something of a "shoot first and ask questions later" feeling to all this. And let's not forget that what we are talking about here is
mining: a destructive, extractive practice with a particularly long and sordid history of moving-in on resources and
leaving locals to clean up the mess.
But since this is two miles below the ocean surface, there are no concerned locals. Or are there?
I was invited to attend the science and policy workshop at WHOI last week as a representative of one of the few international biodiversity conservation NGO's working with local PNG partners to represent indigenous rights in the face of resource extraction. I had hoped to provide a voice to those whose voices and faces were apparently neither heard nor seen in any of the media coverage. Sadly, my work already had me in the field--and the nature of my field work doesn't allow for a lot of flexibility. Still,
I have no one but myself to blame that instead of positioning the concerns of local people, all we saw from the media were explanations of exclusive economic zones, mining breakthroughs, and the global demands for precious metals.
I had hoped to put a human face on all of this. Faces such as the girls in the above photo. I took this picture of three initially shy girls on one of my last visits to Papua New Guinea. They live in the seaside town of Madang. Their livelihoods and that of their families, clans, and villages is deeply connected to the health of their land, the quality of their water, and the vibrancy of their coral reefs. Their reefs feed them, protect them, are a source of cultural identity, and draw visitors from around the world to Madang, bringing much needed tourism dollars to a struggling subsistence community.
While it's expedient to think that these children and their families are not part of the mining equation (traditional resource ownership rights are not recognized by PNG federal law as extending to deep sea floor), think again as PNG's people and their rights to a healthy environment and future are front and center.
Since sea floor mining of this type and scale has never before been attempted, we cannot know with any certainty what possible environmental damages might result. There presently is no precedent for compensating damage incurred from offshore mining, given that the industry has not progressed beyond the advanced exploration stage. However, compensation structures implemented for terrestrial mining operations under the PNG Mining Act of 1992 provide a starting point for determining a compensation framework for offshore mining activities.
PNG’s Mining Act specifically addresses compensation issues with respect to terrestrial damage. Compensation is required when there is "deprivation of the use of the land, damage to the land surface, loss of easement or other right, loss of earnings to land under cultivation, disruption of agricultural activities on the land, and social disruption."
The Mining Act further states:
The holder of a [mining] tenement is liable to pay compensation, in respect of his entry or occupation of land the subject of the tenement for the purposes of exploration or mining or operations ancillary to mining, to the landholders of the land for all loss or damage suffered or foreseen to be suffered by them from the exploration or mining or ancillary operations.
Most important with respect to marine mining redressability, the Mining Act states that if any land “adjoining or in the vicinity of the land” subject to a tenement is injured due to the mining or exploration of the tenement, the “landholders of that land are entitled to compensation for all loss or damage sustained.” This section may be especially relevant to damage caused by marine mining in the case where sediment plumes may travel from the mining site to near-shore reefs and fishing grounds and result in considerable damage.
But what sort of compensation might traditional resource owners expect under such circumstances? Gold mining compensation on
Lihir Island in PNG provides an excellent example of how compensation for terrestrial mining activities is handled and to what extent indigenous groups are remedied for environmental harm incurred.
Gold was discovered on Lihir in the 1980s, and mining has taken place ever since. Mining activities have not only affected land ecosystems, but have also had a significant impact on marine habitats due to direct mine waste disposal, increased sedimentation from runoff, and effects on water quality and fish stocks. As a result, the local gold mine company provided “large payments” for loss of access and amenity to land and marine areas. In addition, mine-affected villages are given 150 Kina (approximately USD $50) per month for discoloration of seawater and 30-150 Kina (approximately USD $10-50) per month for the loss of marine resources. Oil or tailing spills resulted in somewhat higher payments.
Again, there presently is no precedent for compensating damage incurred from offshore mining. But historical precedent provides at least a hint of what damaging PNG's natural resources might cost mining interests in remuneration. USD $50 a month is fair compensation for degraded, potentially poisoned resources? For a reality check, consider that gold closed today at USD $871.50 an ounce on the New York Mercantile Exchange. The Lihir gold mine holds one of the world's largest gold resources (an estimated 40
million ounces). You do the math on the potential profits.
In considering the exploration of PNG's deep sea new frontier, Woods Hole's Maurice Tivey cautions, "We need make sure we go in with our eyes open." I might suggest the same sage council in considering PNG's human frontier. Because this isn't so much about the exploitation of PNG's environment. What we are really talking about is the marginalization and denigration of PNG's people.
Citation Referenced:PNG Mining Regulation of 1992Martha Macintyre & Simon Foale, Land and Marine Tenure, Ownership, and New Forms of Entitlement on Lihir: Changing Notions of Property in the Context of a Goldmining Project, Vol. 66, No. 1 HUMAN ORG. 49, 55 (2007).
Monterey Bay Aquarium's Seafood Watch program has made it to the finals of TreeHugger.com's first-ever "Best of Green Awards". Seafood Watch was the overwhelming People’s Choice as "Best of Green in Food and Health.”
Now the folks at Seafood Watch are in the running for Best in Show. I've got to admit I'm predisposed to choosing blue when voting green. And Monterey Bay Aquarium's Seafood Watch program is my choice for Best in Show. They have been working hard to develop tools that help educate seafood consumers and suppliers to make informed decisions about what ends up on their plates. And they keep their focus on the larger ocean problems resulting from fisheries bycatch, habitat damage, overfishing, and aquaculture.
