| so, taking your points in turn (1/?) Thanks for getting in touch! While (of course) you're not being directly paid by the company, it remains puzzling how the article comes off so glossy for TMC and seabed mining. This positive tone is present throughout the article and seems to deliberately highlight the case for mining while diminishing the drawbacks and risks. Taken in aggregate, a reader could be left with the impression this is a miracle technology with nearly no problems. A few selections: >>>> I would say that it comes off glossy because I have completed the reporting process and believe that the evidence I have collected points clearly to the sensibleness of DSM. again, TE style matters here, we are argumentative and analytical, not inverted pyramid news stories "With the coming expiration, on July 9th, of an international bureaucratic deadline, that prospect looks more likely than ever." -- oh, those pesky bureaucrats! You've decided to present this as a "get going" or "next step" signal, but the reality may be the provisional approval comes with many more provisions that create further delays. >>>> I used the word bureaucratic because that is literally what ISA is and I was tight on space, so had to find a short way to describe what is happening July 9th "That date marks two years since the island nation of Nauru..." -- this paragraph omits that there are Draft Regulations that exist and studiously avoids comment on the issues considered and potential ramifications for TMC. It also generously leaves out that Nauru decided to trigger a 2-year timed condition during the pandemic. As a commercially interested party they have a vested interest in weaker regulation. Basic readings from the Journal of Maritime and Coastal Law (fun!) suggest the ISA is concerned about the enterprise. >>>> draft regs which have existed for 12 years. I go into this in the forthcoming opinion article. Again, the reason I didn't go into it here is space. even though the piece went "online first" it still has to fit into its print slot this week "(The firm itself says it hopes to wait until rules can be agreed)" -- Are you familiar with the phrase "talk is cheap"? This feels like a thumb on the scales for TMC as it exists with no assessment of TMC's trustworthiness on the topic. >>>> I am familiar with the term. I spoke with Barron for quite some time about why they would like to wait (more legitimacy and buy in from broad church is good for them). but it is clear to me that if regs are not forthcoming they file an application. i felt this was summed up reasonably by "hopes to wait" "tmc’s plan is about as straightforward as underwater mining can be." -- translation: "this is simple stuff" but it's actually not. Even the literature you've cited is replete with caution after caution that this is relatively unknown territory and requires more research to understand. Another thumb on TMC's side -- straightforward is good, right? What are these scientists and bureaucrats going on about? >>> the technical act of collecting the nodules is relatively simple. it is the EIS and the comparison with alternatives that is complex "a second ship which will ferry them back to shore for processing" -- You've picked "ferry" instead of "vessel/ship" which can imply small scale. It appears the destination is not known. >>>> ferry is a verb |
A quick one, though:
Ferry is indeed a verb. Oxford Dictionary provides a bit of colour, though, stating "a boat or ship for conveying passengers and goods, especially over a relatively short distance and as a regular service." We have a global shipping industry, not a global ferrying industry.
I'm not saying you're wrong in its use, but I am saying you're selectively styling your narrative in a convenient direction. I suggest you've done the same with "bureaucratic" -- while correct, is this word more commonly associated neutrally or negatively?
I've downloaded a few articles to read on the road, but for some of your queries regarding the case for holding off are reasonably described in the 2021 Economist article (https://www.economist.com/europe/2021/11/27/riches-lie-below...). Admittedly volcanic vents are sexier than boring abyssal plains, but the central theme remains: low understanding, decades to assess, experts are concerned.
Thanks for taking the effort to respond. While my own thumbing through notes hasn't helped my employer at all it's at least been an interesting refresher on the topic.
One last question, although I fully understand if you'd prefer not to answer. Do you own shares of TMC (or related ventures), and if not, why not? I've bought mining stocks on far less positive vibes than what you've described your own interest to be.
Best wishes.