Nautilus Cares?

The PR motto plastered across Nautilus Minerals website recently is Nautilus Cares. But you wouldn't know it from how they are treating local Papua New Guinea stakeholders.

Last Wednesday, January 21, nearly 100 community leaders from the entire maritime region (coastal and offshore islands) of Madang Province, Papua New Guinea, gathered in the town of Madang to participate in a seafloor mining warden’s meeting scheduled by Nautilus Minerals. Getting this many local PNG stakeholders together for a meeting, many of whom still live subsistence-based lives, is no small feat. So you might imagine that it came as both a shock and frustration to find that no mining warden, no government officer, and no representatives for Nautilus Minerals showed up to meet the gathered community leaders and other local stakeholders.

A notice was apparently posted that morning (at the provincial government notice board, not at the provincial headquarters where the meeting was to be held) that a new meeting would be held on Tuesday, January 27.

So what do nearly 100 angry PNG stakeholders do after getting the brush off by Nautilus Minerals and the PNG government? They hold an impromptu press conference.

Community leaders convened a press conference right there in a car park at the provincial headquarters and demanded that the postponed mining warden’s hearing happen at a time set and decided by the PNG people, not Nautilus Minerals.

The PNG community leaders managed to get a representative from Madang’s mining office to attend the press conference. He agreed to convey to the Mineral Resources Authority (the PNG government's mining authority) and Nautilus Minerals that future warden’s hearings will have to happen at a time convenient to and agreed upon by the stakeholders.

The leaders demanded that the Mineral Resources Authority and Nautilus Minerals consider reimbursing transport fares for all community leaders present. A list was assembled which will be submitted to the Mineral Resources Authority along with a bill for reimbursement at the postponed warden’s hearing. Adding to more frustration was that fact that the PNG people had to fly in Dr Brian Brunton (a lawyer representing/advising stakeholder interests) from the capital city of Port Moresby. The postponement of the warden’s hearing means that local stakeholders will have to dig deeper into their pockets to fly him back.

Many related issues were voiced at the press conference, such as the affirmation that the marine environment and natural resources of PNG are an extremely important life-source for the Madang maritime/coastal peoples.

Two media personnel present to cover all the action at the press conference were Patrick Matbob (Divine Word University’s School of Journalism) and Rosalyn Evara (Madang-based free lance journalist and feature writer). There was also video documentation of the entire event.

Some community/peoples groups represented were, Madang Pipols Forum, Bismarck Solomon Seas Indigenous Peoples Council, Madang Lagoon Association, Idawad Association, Bogia Cooperative Society, Ramu River Resource Conservation and Management Authority, North Coast, Far North Coast, Mum Community Development Authority, Gildipasi Plening Komiti, Manam Islanders, Karkar Islanders, Bagabag Islanders, Long Islanders, Madang Coast, Astrolabe Bay & Rai Coast. There was presence also from the Madang Civil Society Organisations Forum (MCSOF), WWF’s Madang office, Coral Reef Alliance, and the Bismarck Ramu Group.

Where Are The People?

"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 1992
Martha 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).

Nautilus Minerals Moves Into New Phase of Seafloor Mining Exploration In PNG

According to a press release today, Nautilus Minerals has completed the first phase of its offshore mining exploration program in Papua New Guinea. Phase One was completed on Tuesday May 6, 2008 and involved a 28-day bathymetric mapping program (pre- and post-mapping seafloor bathymetry images above) within the territorial waters of PNG that was designed to define targets for subsequent sampling and eventual mining and extraction.

Nautilus Minerals is operating in a joint venture to mine seafloor massive sulfide deposits in PNG and beyond with Canadian mining company, Teck Cominco Limited. Teck Cominco holds over 3,000,000 common shares of the Nautilus Minerals company for a total of US$52 million investment. As part of this deal, Teck Cominco agreed to conduct and manage the recently completed ship-based exploration in Papua New Guinea as well as in sites in Tonga and New Zealand.

Curiously, while the just-completed exploration is within the exclusive economic zone of PNG, the proposed mining sites (or "tenements" as they are called in the trade) are 100% owned by Nautilus. Now this is certainly not the first time PNG has allowed it's natural resources to be stripped and exploited. Timber, terrestrial minerals, and other resources have been extracted for decades. But PNG has made terrestrial lumber and mining operations pay, and pay dearly, for leasing the land and subsequent extraction rights. And traditional Melanesian resource owners, the local communities, have been compensated for this use.

But Nautilus "owns" their seafloor mining sites. And resource owners in coastal villages adjacent to the seafloor mining operation in Madang Province have apparently received absolutely nothing, diddly, squat, zip, zilch, nada, bupkis to have their traditionally owned seafloor stripped. Why this disparity between terrestrial and seafloor extraction practices? Because Nautilus' operations are invisible in 1,600 meters of water. Out of sight, out of mind.

The Nautilus Minerals saga is a long and winding tale of dollar signs trumping precautionary logic. I've written about it here, and Craig at Deep Sea News has spent considerable energy documenting it here and here. And sadly, the tale continues to relegate PNG's people, children, and future to be sidelined as the nation's resources are stripped and the profit collects in government pockets and Canadian mining bank accounts.

Further Woes For Nautilus Minerals

How I love readers who forward great news tips my way!

Last December, I reported that Canadian-based seafloor mining company Nautilus Minerals announced it had decided to adopt a more cautious strategy by delaying the construction of equipment for the Solwara 1 mining system for deep sea massive sulfide deposits in Papua New Guinea. At that time, a Nautilus press release explained that to preserve capital, Nautilus contracts and purchase orders would be suspended or terminated, contingent upon a revised development program. Their mining support vessel agreement was also in the process of being terminated.

But wait, there's more.

Today, Nautilus PR attempts to put a cheery spin on the particularly bleak news that Teck Cominco--Nautilus Minerals' partner and biggest financial backer--is opting-out of further joint work in PNG and Tonga.

Losing such a massive financial partner cannot be uplifting news to Nautilus' board or investors. You can almost sense the perspiration beading on the forehead of Nautilus CEO, Stephen Rogers, as he does his best to sound upbeat in the press release, "During 2008 we enjoyed considerable success working with Teck. Seven new Seafloor Massive Sulphide ("SMS") systems were discovered in PNG and Tongan waters. We are encouraged that Teck has decided to retain its options to joint venture with us in other countries. A strong working relationship has developed between our exploration teams and we look forward to working with Teck again in the future."

As you will recall, Nautilus Minerals is operating in a joint venture to mine seafloor massive sulfide deposits in PNG and beyond with Canadian mining company, Teck Cominco Limited. Teck Cominco holds over 3,000,000 common shares of the Nautilus Minerals company for a total of US$52 million investment. As part of this deal, Teck Cominco agreed to conduct and manage the recently completed ship-based exploration in Papua New Guinea as well as in sites in Tonga and New Zealand.

I'll take my schadenfreude with a side of satisfaction, thanks!

Once More Unto The Breach, Dear Friends

Now that I'm well rested after an extended weekend holiday, it's time to once again draw attention to Nautilus Minerals. A business section cover story in the online edition of Australian newspaper The Age predicts a looming battle between deep sea mining pioneers and environmental groups.

Despite concerns from environmental NGO's such as WWF, Environmental Defense, and Mining Watch Canada as well as calls for a precautionary approach from yours truly and Craig over on Deep Sea News, Nautilus Minerals is ramping-up for the active extraction-phase of it's seabed mining operations in the exclusive economic zone of Papua New Guinea. If all goes according to plan, similar extractive operations will launch in quick order in Fiji and Tonga as well.

The Age article describes how Nautilus awarded a US$66 million contract to Soil Machine Dynamics, a UK-based firm self-described as "one of the world's leading subsea engineering companies specialising in the design and manufacture of remotely operated vehicle systems." I do get a chuckle out of the use of the word engineering. Subsea engineering sounds benign, doesn't it? All very theoretical and with implications that something is being built versus being taken apart.

The deep sea mining machines will resemble giant, abrasive vacuum cleaners. The two sea-floor mining systems will be capable of sucking-up approximately 1.5 million tons of ore annually. Needless to say, poly-metallic ore won't be the only thing scoured from the seabed during extraction. Delicate deep sea benthic communities of coral and the habitat these communities create for fish and other invertebrates will be part of the tailings heap once mining operations begin.

The Soil Machine Dynamics (SMD) website is something to behold. Their products page is a rogues gallery of industrial robots and deep sea mining machinery straight out of a Hollywood sci fi producers imagination. With product names like the Centurion, the Quantum, and deep sea ploughs of every shape, size, and color you can put to bed any question as to whether SMD or Nautilus Minerals operations will be subtle. This is mining, not engineering. The only difference is that deep seafloor mining won't generate a lot of images to raise public awareness and it's a little daunting to stage a protest or form a human chain in front of mining machinery in 2600 meters of water.

Despite assurances from Nautilus Minerals that their process of deep sea mining will have negligible co-lateral environmental impact, they have yet to release details of their environmental impact assessment. Not that their in-house produced assessment will carry much weight for environmental watchdogs. "We would like to see a thorough, independent impact assessment before any mining work begins," remarked Simon Cripps, Director of WWF's global marine program. Catherine Coumans with Mining Watch Canada, echos the call for third-party verification of risk assessment, "I would challenge the company to provide an independent scientific study."

The clock has now officially started on Nautilus Minerals providing evidence that their process poses no co-lateral risks to seafloor ecosystems or coastal coral reefs. Any wagers as to if and when they will respond to their critics?

Papua New Guinea Sea Floor Gets A Break

As first reported over at the tasty-sounding Southern Fried Science (does that come with a side of corn and buttermilk biscuits?), it seems that even Nautilus Minerals is not immune to a sour economy.

In a news release dated December 17, Nautilus announced it had decided to adopt a more cautious strategy by delaying the construction of the equipment for the Solwara 1 mining system. Is that code for nervous investors jumping ship on an untested, unproven, and potentially environmentally disastrous mining process? The press release goes on to explain that to preserve capital, Nautilus contracts and purchase orders will be suspended or terminated depending on their criticality (sic) to the revised development program. Most satisfying for me, their Mining Support Vessel agreement announced on June 20, 2008 is in the process of being terminated.

Regular readers will recall that I've been following Nautilus Minerals since they first announced plans to mine deep sea vent systems in the exclusive economic zone of Papua New Guinea. Craig McClain with Deep Sea News has also been following Nautilus' activities with interest.

Nautilus’s first major exploration site, the Solwara 1 Prospect, is located in the Bismarck Sea, 50 kilometers north of the active volcanic island of Rabaul and approximately 670 kilometers east of Madang. The Company also has a total of seven other named Solwara prospects throughout the Bismarck Sea, 33 total tenements, and 57 applications for exploration. Nautilus had planned to begin development and construction in Solwara 1 in 2009, and commence mining in late 2010. The Company estimated an average of two megatons of ore per year would be extracted by Nautilus in a singe strip mining operation.

And speaking of criticality, the global biodiversity conservation community still awaits a full environmental impact study from Nautilus for any potential damage resulting from an unprecedented deep sea vent mining operation. Perhaps a delay while Nautilus awaits a more solid financial landscape will encourage them time to answer many environmental safety questions regarding their operation.

The Deep Irony Of Deep Sea Vent Research Ethics

Woods Hole's Alvin sub sampling from a vent
Fresh back from attending a conference on chemosynthesis in Japan, Andrew posted a fascinating piece over on his blog Southern Fried Science. Entitled Responsible Research at Deep-Sea Hydrothermal Vents and Beyond, Andrew outlines a set of guidelines for responsible research practices at deep-sea hydrothermal vents that has been developed over years by InterRidge.

As listed in the InterRidge statement on responsible research practices at deep-sea hydrothermal vents, these guidelines are:

1) Avoid, in the conduct of scientific research, activities that will have deleterious impacts on the sustainability of populations of hydrothermal vent organisms;
2) Avoid, in the conduct of scientific research, activities that lead to long lasting and significant alteration and/or visual degradation of vent sites;
3) Avoid collections that are not essential to the conduct of scientific research;
4) Avoid, in the conduct of scientific research, transplanting biota or geological material between sites;
5) Familiarize yourself with the status of current and planned research in an area and avoid activities that will compromise experiments or observations of other researchers. Assure that your own research activities and plans are known to the rest of the international research community through InterRidge and other public domain data bases; and
6) Facilitate the fullest possible use of all biological, chemical and geological samples collected through collaborations and cooperation amongst the global community of scientists.

InterRidge frames the importance of developing such guidelines in its overview,

As marine research scientists we especially appreciate the uniqueness and complexity of the deep-sea hydrothermal vent fauna and environments, and are particularly interested in preserving vents for their scientific, aesthetic, ecological, and potential economic values.

Andrew himself concludes,

I think a variation on these guidelines should be adopted by all scientist who do field work. At the very least it will serve to remind us that as scientist, we do have an environmental impact, and we need to do everything in our power to minimize that impact.

Let me go on the record in saying that I fully endorse Andrew's sentiments that all scientists (deep sea and otherwise) should adopt similar guidelines. And I appreciate the InterRidge efforts in establishing criteria for deep sea vent scientists to minimize environmental impacts to their complex and sensitive study sites.

But here's the thing. It strikes me as not just a little ironic (and perhaps even smacking of greenwashing) for InterRidge to claim scientists are minimizing their environmental impacts while fully aware that deep sea vent systems are on the chopping block for commercial mining.

Deep sea mining companies such as Nautilus Minerals are hot on the heels of the scientific community to get their manipulator claws into the polymetallic sulfides found associated with deep sea vent systems. If you think deep sea vent scientists can have a negative environmental impact in the day-to-day aspects of their field research, what sort of condition do you think mining interests will leave the delicate vent ecosystems? Deep sea mining will likely result in orders of magnitude greater environmental disruption. Granted, mining may still result in less ecological damage than volcanic/tectonic activity. But in considering resource management and biodiversity conservation of a fragile and utterly unique ecosystem, do our choices need to be between the lesser of two cataclysmic environmental disruptions?

Perhaps the greatest irony is when you consider that a hefty portion of the financial underwriting for scientific research of deep sea vent ecosystems is coming from the very mining interests that are so anxious to strip deep sea vents of their mineral riches. Duke University, home to some of the world's leading research in deep sea vent biology, received a little over a quarter of a million dollars ($230,836) from Nautilus Minerals for their research. Duke's not alone in relying on the largesse of Nautilus. Australian National University deep sea research also benefits from Nautilus dollars.

I'm not naive. Research and scientific understanding, especially in relatively frontier areas such deep sea vent systems, requires funding. All too often, scientific research must accept funding from sources with very self-serving interests. Deep sea vent biology is NOT junk science. It's revealing answers not just about evolution of life on Earth, but perhaps how life might currently exist on other planets. But as fascinating as it may be, it's not exactly at the top-of-mind of a lot of private foundations or major donors.

Again, let me be clear, I support the InterRidge efforts at sustainable research guidelines and think all scientists should adopt or establish similarly clear criteria for minimizing environmental impacts to their study sites. But efforts by scientists to adhere to stringent guidelines--knowing that mining interests are circling overhead and will not be bound by such criteria --sounds a lot like rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic.

Assessing Risk First: A Novel Approach

If you've been following the posts here and at Deep Sea News about the seafloor mining activities by Nautilus Minerals in Papua New Guinea, you know that both Craig and I have been calling for a precautionary approach to deep sea mining. In particular, when the long-term effects on nearby ecosystems and human communities from such new activities like deep seafloor mining are either poorly understood or uncertain.

So it's rather serendipitous that a recent news release caught my eye and may have bearing on similar activities into the future. The Secretariat of the Pacific Regional Environment Programme (SPREP) is leading a review of the role of environmental impact assessments in the Pacific region. A decade has passed since the last such review was held, so it's hoped that the report will establish a clear baseline of where the Pacific island countries and territories can strengthen and improve their assessment capacities.

An Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) is a tool used to identify the environmental, social and economic impacts of a project prior to decision-making. It aims to predict environmental impacts at an early stage in project planning and design, find ways and means to reduce adverse impacts, shape projects to suit the local environment, and present the predictions and options to decision makers. By using EIA, both environmental and economic benefits can be achieved, such as reduced cost and time of project implementation and design, and avoided treatment/clean-up costs and impacts of laws and regulations.

The key elements include scoping to identify key issues and concerns of interested parties; a screening process to decide whether an EIA is required based on information collected; identifying and evaluating alternative sites and techniques and the impacts of each; mitigating measures dealing with uncertainty to prevent or minimize the potential adverse effects of the project; and issuing environmental reports of the findings of the EIA.

To be fair, Nautilus Minerals claims to be conducting ongoing EIA of their deep sea mining work. They proudly list researchers from James Cook University in Australia, the University of Toronto, Canada, and William and Mary in Virginia as on-board staff and consultants during exploration. I don't necessarily accept university creds as indicative of above-board corporate environmental policy. And after all, Exxon Mobil has similar laundry lists of scientists on the dole. But here's the thing: with such novel environmental modification such as deep vent mining, which has never been attempted before, how do you know that you are operating sustainably and with minimal impact?

Hopefully, SPREP's review can bring greater attention and adherence to meaningful environmental risk assessment.

I Smell A Rat: CNMI Rejects Marine Monument

According to Angelo Villagomez over at The Saipan Blog, the CNMI Legislature today adopted a resolution opposing the proposed Northern Islands Marine National Monument.

Why? The seeds of fear have been sown.

Fear #1: Loss of Local Control
The resolution states that the CNMI “fervently opposes the transfer of any form of marine resource management authority over CNMI waters” to any federal agency. This is a misplaced fear. "Control" of a monument is not an either/or proposition. Similar marine monuments (such as the newly created Papahānaumokuākea Marine National Monument in Hawaii) incorporate collaborative management structures that combine local, federal, and indigenous interests.

This sort of hybrid structure promotes active and creative management possibilities. Federal heavy-handedness might be the expected outcome, however, if local jurisdictions can't get their act together sufficiently to manage their own resources. From everything I can see from my vantage point here on the mainland, it doesn't seem like that should be a worry. It seems as though there's an outpouring of interest from local stakeholders to play a role in the proposed monument oversight, design, and management.

Fear #2: Loss of Mining Rights
Lawmakers expressed concern that the designation would prevent fishing and mining activities within the 115,000 square-mile area that is being eyed for the proposed monument. Such restriction, they said, may conflict with the commonwealth's bid in establishing its own fishery and mining industries.

The Marianas Trough, as a back-arc basin, is indeed a likely candidate site for seafloor massive sulphide (SMS) deposit extraction--a deep sea mining process to isolate copper, gold, zinc and silver ore from from dormant vent systems. Despite copious assurances of minimal environmental disturbance from mining front-runner Nautilus Minerals (nicely summarized by Craig at Deep Sea News), not all scientists are convinced. A number of prominent scientists, including Rod Fujita of Environmental Defense thinks a full tally of risks has not been conducted, "[Nautilus] is rushing into this without studying the impacts. That was forgivable 100 years ago. It’s not now."

Why would CNMI legislators pass on protection and the ongoing benefits derived from potential tourism as a result of a world-class marine protected area in favor of limited local revenue potential from resource extraction? Once extracted, minerals are gone. Where's the vision for a future revenue stream? If Nautilus is preparing to compensate CNMI in advance for mining rights and securitize their environmental clean-up costs (again in advance) then that's a different story. But I don't see that deal on the table.

Fear #3: Loss of Fishing Rights
Angelo has already pointed out on his blog that at present, fishing activity within the proposed monument is a non-issue. Within the proposed marine park, the closest island to Saipan is over 300 miles away. As Ignacio Cabrera (with the Marianas Resource Conservation and Development Council) indicated in his letter of support for the monument, "Most Chamorros and Carolinians are not going there regularly to fish. It is too far, too dangerous, and gas is just too expensive. The only boats fishing there are illegal fishing boats from other Asian countries. The increased enforcement that would follow the creation of the park would help deter the illegal taking of our fish."

Curiously, Angelo mentions an interesting detail from one of his recent marine monument public awareness presentations,

A gentleman from Hawaii named Phil Westbrook was there. He got pretty heated when I talked about the sunset clause for the existing 8 vessels and how those boats were going to be bought out at the end of five years. He argued that he had lobster fisherman friends who didn't get paid when the monument was created, but I pointed out that the lobster fishery was closed years before by court order. The fishery was mismanaged by WESPAC and there are no more lobster.

He told me I was wrong. I told him I'd look it up. I was right.

I don't know Mr Westbrook. Maybe he was on Saipan visiting family or on holiday. But I do find it curious that a Hawaii resident found himself at a Saipan public discussion of marine protected areas and managed to turn the conversation into a "loss of fishing rights" argument. Sounds suspiciously like the standard operating procedure of WESPAC to drop a provocateur into a public forum to foment fear and shift the issue to loss of indigenous rights.

WESPAC is a powerful and influential fishing rights lobbying group. But their track record tells a long story of conflict of interest that looks (to these eyes) like emphasizing profit over sustainable resource management. A big problem with most US fisheries management bodies (like WESPAC) is that council members often have a direct financial interest in the fisheries that they manage and regulate. In 2003, WESPAC decided to reopen lucrative swordfishing in Hawaiian waters through which endangered leatherback turtles migrate. Biologists warned the council the longline fishing would kill approximately 144 sea turtles per year, but the council voted 8-5 to reopen the fishery. The vote lead to allegations of violations of the Endangered Species Act.

Last February, WESPAC came under Congressional investigation by the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform as a result of allegations made by several Hawaiian nonprofit organizations in June 2007 regarding the inappropriate use of government funds and unethical conduct by WESPAC personnel.

Fear #4: Lack of Community Support
This one I just don't get and I have to wonder if CNMI legislators have their heads in the sand or just have a bad case of "island tunnel-vision." The Saipan Tribune reports that lawmakers said "CNMI citizens have not and would not formally endorse the proposal until more information is gathered and considered." Fair enough, but where did the lawmakers get this impression?

Again, I'm 3000 miles away but what I've read in the press and in online discussions is overwhelming support and excitement for the marine monument. An informal blog poll among the very active Saipan blogging community demonstrated a landslide support for the monument. Of course there are a lot of fine print details and financing that needs to be examined, but where is the groundswell of public rejection? Am I missing something here?

CNMI is currently experiencing a lot of financial uncertainty. I can understand caution on the part of elected officials against rushing head-first into a potentially challenging proposition such as establishing a marine monument. Visions of Music Man's "Professor" Harold Hill selling River City on a 76-trombone band come to mind (or for Simpsons' fans, buying-into the hype of a monorail.)

But we're not talking about a pie-in-the-sky, unproven approach here. It's an ambitious vision based on already working exemplars. Consultants and expertise are just neighbor island groups away. And it creates a tangible, realistic, and inspirational goal for stakeholders--young and old, elected and electorate--to rally around.

It appears to me that the CNMI legislature has a priori decided against a monument. A Mariana Trench "National Park of the Sea" could have been a forward-reaching gift to CNMI's future generations--as a source of cultural pride, cultural identity, and environmental leadership within Micronesia and the United States. Unfortunately, it seems fear managed to edge-out reason.

Future Cloudy For Papua New Guinea's People And Environment

What do you call 13 days of round-the-clock wining, dining, and lavish gift-giving for political favors that culminates in consensus? In the United States it's called a caucus and it's dressed-up in Italian business suits, expense-account hotels, and deals that are sealed behind closed doors. In Papua New Guinea, it's a two week Parliamentary bender of booze, food, and late-night clubbing on an out-of-sight volcanic island. The major difference is that in the US, the politicians at least claim that they are serving the public interest. In PNG, there's not even an attempt to create an appearance that the people have anything to benefit from the political theater.

This week, PNG re-elected Michael Somare, National Alliance Party (NA), as Prime Minister for a second term. Which is to say that Members of Parliament and special interests sealed his appointment. The ballot ran for two weeks because of the inaccessibility of some of Papua New Guinea's polling stations. The highlands region of the country is so remote some villagers didn't come into contact with Europeans until the 1930s. And as with previous ballots, the election was marred by allegations of voter intimidation and irregularities, according to anti-corruption body Transparency International.

Somare said he will probably continue granting exploration licenses to mineral and fossil fuel mining companies, 15 of which were issued in the past 5 years. PNG could become the world's third-largest producer of liquefied natural gas by 2017, according to Oil Search Ltd., the nation's biggest oil producer. It currently has about 15 million tons a year of gas production capacity. And despite concerns by local communities and conservation NGOs, Nautilus Minerals, a deep sea exploration and mining corporation, is poised to begin large-scale mining efforts with ROVs off hydrothermal vent chimneys off Papua New Guinea. As I once overheard a businessman callously refer to Papua New Guinea, It's a mountain of gold and silver floating in a sea of oil.

Although rich in natural resources such as copper, timber and gas, about 37 percent of the population lives below the poverty line and the unemployment rate is 80 percent in urban areas. HIV rates are at epidemic proportions in urban zones and rates of transmission are increasing in rural areas. On all of my visits to remote villages throughout PNG, I'm always deeply moved by the national pride Papua New Guineans have for their environments and cultures. This pride stands in stark contrast to the sadness, frustration, and unfortunate resignation to the deep corruption of their political system.

Port Moresby governor and human rights lawyer Powes Parkop underscored the growing fears that running for public office in PNG is becoming the domain of the rich and affluent and beyond the reach of ordinary Papua New Guineans,

I am concerned that those with a lot of resources and money are able to influence the formation of the government…our people have the right to influence the formation of the government, we should not leave it to those people with money and power and a lot of resources.

In this concern, Papua New Guinea and the United States share more in common than one might suspect.

Save The Vents, Save The World!

I just finished watching the TV re-make of The Andromeda Strain, one of my favorite 70's SciFi cautionary tales. Suffice to say the original has nothing to worry about. The 1973 film was straightforward: meteor carrying extraterrestrial pathogen strikes satellite, satellite crashes to earth, pathogen wreaks havoc. Gold... sheer box office gold. If it 'aint broke broke, don't fix it, right? But no, the TV re-make had to throw in wormholes, Buckyballs, temporal parodoxes, and government conspiracies.

However, one new twist on the original that I rather liked was the addition of an environmental angle. Turns out the 2008 version of Andromeda has an unusual Achilles Heel. It can only be neutralized by exposure to metabolic chemicals produced by the microbe Bacillus infernus (in photomicrograph at top of post). It just so happens that B. infernus is a thermophile (a type of extremophile) Archaean found associated with active seafloor vent systems at depths of 2,700 meters.

In a timely art imitates life moment, a fictional seafloor mining corporation is preparing to ravage seafloor vent systems for a wealth of poly-metallic ore. So far, so good. But hold on, here's where it gets complicated. Sometime in the future, after seafloor vent systems and their associated Bacillus infernus colonies have been wiped-out, Andromeda pays a visit to this future Earth and presumably wipes out humanity. But not before future researchers can manipulate a wormhole and send an Andromeda sample and a coded warning back in time to a point just before deep sea vent systems are stripped bare. Still with me?

Save the vents, save the world.

So in a preemptive effort to save the world, I'm proposing the following to Nautilus Minerals. In the off-chance that some extraterrestrial pathogen is hurtling to Earth at this very moment, perhaps you should hold-off on strip mining the seafloor off Papua New Guinea. We might need those B. infernus real soon. Heck, why focus on doomsday scenarios. Maybe there's some other organism down there with the potential to cure cancer, or stamp-out HIV, or even grow me a full head of hair? I'm willing to wait and see.

You can thank me later for the foresight.

Cloverfield Monster Has Deep Sea Origin?

Okay, so I'm a total dweeb, but I'm caught-up in all the hype in the run-up to the release of Cloverfield, a new big-action monster movie that opens on January 18. The movie has been benefiting from a lot of internet viral marketing and much of the buzz has been surrounding speculation on what exactly is trashing the Big Apple in the movie. If you believe the rumor-mill, the movie is allegedly pitching an environmental cautionary tale that involves some sort of evil and arrogant deep sea mining corporation that awakens a marine monstrosity. Hey, prick up your ears Nautilus Minerals!

For the first time, a few drawings have appeared that allegedly depict the monster. By the look of things, we have ourselves some sort of arthropod crossed with a baleen whale (yeah, that makes evolutionary sense). Interestingly, the sketch indicates that the beast is riddled with arthropod-ish ectoparasites that may also play minor monster roles in the flick. Is it just me or do the parasites look a lot like giant ocean isopods (Bathynomus giganteus)? Oh man, will this make some people happy.