Thresholds in deep-seabed mining: A primer for their development

Hitchin, B.; Smith, Sigrid D. P.; Kröger, K.; Jones, DOB; Jaeckel, Aline; Mestre, Nélia C.; Ardron, Jeff; Escobar, Elva; Grient, Jesse van der; Amaro, Teresa

doi:10.1016/j.marpol.2023.105505

Cited by 16 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 30 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…This is primarily due to Canada's status as a mining powerhouse. Whether considering the challenging mining environments or deep mining operations, Canada's mining technology is at the forefront on a global scale [ 66 , 67 ].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Bibliometric analysis and review of mine ventilation literature published between 2010 and 2023

Xue,

Wang,

Xiao

2024

Heliyon

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Bibliometric analysis and review of mine ventilation literature published between 2010 and 2023

Xue,

Wang,

Xiao

2024

Heliyon

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…The rising metal demand and prices, and the need to prevent mineral market monopolization in recent decades led the underwater mining interests increase again. 1 Most of the proposed mining projects are located in the Clarion Clipperton Zone in Pacific Ocean (detailed list of proposed exploration sites: https://www.isa.org. jm/exploration-contracts/exploration-areas), predicted to yield 21 billion of dry metrics of nodules.…”

Section: Underwater Minerals and Deep-sea Miningmentioning

confidence: 99%

Metal ecotoxicology: An essential component in environmental impact assessment of deep-sea mining

Kwan¹,

Mestre²,

Zhang³

et al. 2023

TIG

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Here, we present the proposed framework and discuss challenges in using it to compare environmental impacts of DSM and LBM. The indicators need to be based on clearly articulated environmental goals, with objectives and targets that are specific, measurable, achievable, relevant and time bound (Hitchin et al., 2023; Manero et al., 2020). Because our framework is an initial attempt, we expect that our proposed list of sub‐attributes (currently based on the recovery wheel) and suite of indicators may be modified or updated as more data or knowledge become available and depending on the objectives of a comparison.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The indicators should be related to the desired outcome of avoiding, minimizing, or mitigating impacts from mining. Clear environmental goals and objectives are needed to develop SMART (specific, measurable, achievable, relevant and time‐bound) targets and associated indicators (Hitchin et al., 2023; Tunnicliffe et al., 2020). Threshold values for each category along the gradient need to be determined for each indicator based on best available knowledge; these values need to be reviewed regularly as knowledge accumulates.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparing environmental impacts of deep‐seabed and land‐based mining: A defensible framework

Metaxas,

Anglin,

Cross

et al. 2024

Global Change Biology

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The crises of climate change and biodiversity loss are interlinked and must be addressed jointly. A proposed solution for reducing reliance on fossil fuels, and thus mitigating climate change, is the transition from conventional combustion‐engine to electric vehicles. This transition currently requires additional mineral resources, such as nickel and cobalt used in car batteries, presently obtained from land‐based mines. Most options to meet this demand are associated with some biodiversity loss. One proposal is to mine the deep seabed, a vast, relatively pristine and mostly unexplored region of our planet. Few comparisons of environmental impacts of solely expanding land‐based mining versus extending mining to the deep seabed for the additional resources exist and for biodiversity only qualitative. Here, we present a framework that facilitates a holistic comparison of relative ecosystem impacts by mining, using empirical data from relevant environmental metrics. This framework (Environmental Impact Wheel) includes a suite of physicochemical and biological components, rather than a few selected metrics, surrogates, or proxies. It is modified from the “recovery wheel” presented in the International Standards for the Practice of Ecological Restoration to address impacts rather than recovery. The wheel includes six attributes (physical condition, community composition, structural diversity, ecosystem function, external exchanges and absence of threats). Each has 3–5 sub attributes, in turn measured with several indicators. The framework includes five steps: (1) identifying geographic scope; (2) identifying relevant spatiotemporal scales; (3) selecting relevant indicators for each sub‐attribute; (4) aggregating changes in indicators to scores; and (5) generating Environmental Impact Wheels for targeted comparisons. To move forward comparisons of land‐based with deep seabed mining, thresholds of the indicators that reflect the range in severity of environmental impacts are needed. Indicators should be based on clearly articulated environmental goals, with objectives and targets that are specific, measurable, achievable, relevant, and time bound.

show abstract

Thresholds in deep-seabed mining: A primer for their development

Cited by 16 publications

References 30 publications

Bibliometric analysis and review of mine ventilation literature published between 2010 and 2023

Bibliometric analysis and review of mine ventilation literature published between 2010 and 2023

Metal ecotoxicology: An essential component in environmental impact assessment of deep-sea mining

Comparing environmental impacts of deep‐seabed and land‐based mining: A defensible framework

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About