Quote from article
Pacific and central North Pacific, finding rare-earth concentrations of about 0.2 percent. At that concentration, they reported, just 1 square kilometer of sea-floor mud could provide one-fifth of the world's annual rare-earth consumption, making it a "highly promising huge resource for these elements."
Without context, though, that kind of statement is misleading, says Frank Sansone, an oceanography professor at the University of Hawaii, Manoa. "It's not just something that you can glibly say, 'Oh, this is a huge amount of rare earth,'" he says. "It would be difficult to exploit. There's a big difference between saying that the elements exist in large amounts and being able to appropriately, economically and environmentally extract that material."
John Wiltshire, director of the Hawaii Undersea Research Laboratory, also at the University of Hawaii, Manoa, puts it even more bluntly. "The truth of the matter is, nobody's going to mine in the deep seaeven if somebody massively funds thisfor a minimum of a decade," he says. The startup cost could run from $1 to $2 billion.
...................................
The question, then, for any company that would seek to lease these areas (from the Pacific nations which possess the rights) and mine rare earths from the ocean bottom is: Is it worth all this trouble and expense? At 0.2 percent concentration of rare earths, the deep-sea deposits pale in comparison to ore deposits on land, which can have 5 to 10 percent concentrations. All things being equal, it's easier to collect minerals from mud than from ore. But things are not equal, because this mud is beneath three miles of water.
http://www.popularmechanics.com/sci...metals-will-stay-right-where-they-are-for-now
Pacific and central North Pacific, finding rare-earth concentrations of about 0.2 percent. At that concentration, they reported, just 1 square kilometer of sea-floor mud could provide one-fifth of the world's annual rare-earth consumption, making it a "highly promising huge resource for these elements."
Without context, though, that kind of statement is misleading, says Frank Sansone, an oceanography professor at the University of Hawaii, Manoa. "It's not just something that you can glibly say, 'Oh, this is a huge amount of rare earth,'" he says. "It would be difficult to exploit. There's a big difference between saying that the elements exist in large amounts and being able to appropriately, economically and environmentally extract that material."
John Wiltshire, director of the Hawaii Undersea Research Laboratory, also at the University of Hawaii, Manoa, puts it even more bluntly. "The truth of the matter is, nobody's going to mine in the deep seaeven if somebody massively funds thisfor a minimum of a decade," he says. The startup cost could run from $1 to $2 billion.
...................................
The question, then, for any company that would seek to lease these areas (from the Pacific nations which possess the rights) and mine rare earths from the ocean bottom is: Is it worth all this trouble and expense? At 0.2 percent concentration of rare earths, the deep-sea deposits pale in comparison to ore deposits on land, which can have 5 to 10 percent concentrations. All things being equal, it's easier to collect minerals from mud than from ore. But things are not equal, because this mud is beneath three miles of water.
http://www.popularmechanics.com/sci...metals-will-stay-right-where-they-are-for-now
