"will be released back into the sea at a depth of around 1,500 metres, far below most ocean life" -- that we know of, and, of course, that pesky life on the bottom is way below 1,500 metres.

>>>> no, far below most ocean life is accurate. there is certainly life we don't know of below 1500m, but most ocean life, known and unknown, is above that mark. I know you already decried this research as "bought", but try explaining why the plume-destruction-by-turbidity findings do not matter https://news.mit.edu/2021/deep-sea-mining-sediment-plumes-07...

"Three Chinese firms—Beijing Pioneer, China Merchants and China Minmetals--are circling too" -- So we're using TMC's numbers, but do we expect these other firms to have the same level of performance?

>>> I do not say this, so know. very little is known about the Chinese firms

"It will also kick up plumes of sediment, some of which will drift onto nearby organisms and kill them (though research from mit shows these plumes tend not to rise more than two metres above the seabed)." -- What about the impacts from that sediment release at 1,500 metres? Further, who sponsored that MIT study (hint: quite a few people interested in deep sea mining)? There are multiple studies illustrating the problem of having science focused by sponsors with vested interests. You choose to present the results as-is without tempering them (e.g. "the first study", "an individual study") leaving it to the reader to think about how well developed this knowledge actually is.

>>> I suggest you actually engage with the data presented and explain what is wrong with it, rather than playing the man as you do here. what is erroneous or inaccurate about the MIT study?

"companies like tmc can be encouraged to choose locations where energy comes with low emissions. Indonesian nickel ore, in contrast, is uneconomic unless it is processed near the mines from which it was extracted" -- so TMC heeds this encouragement and is presumed to pick an environmentally responsible outcome at the cost of profits, but Indonesia does not have the same opportunity? A few years back Indonesia's polluting smelters didn't even exist. If this is a concern, could they not also be made clean? The article gives the benefit again to TMC and at this point one of the scales is moving through the table.

>>> yes, exactly, Indonesia does not have the same opportunity. shipping 1% nickel ore to renewable energy sources for processing would make the whole thing uneconomic, as I say in the piece. TMC's ore is already on a boat and has to go somewhere anyway. and, yes, you could attempt to make Indo's grid clean, but a) that doesn't help with the 30-90x biomass loss compared to CCZ nickel and b) it's really hard and no one thinks it will happen soon

Finally, and most amazingly, we get this gem two-thirds of the way in:

"The diversity of life is “very high”, says Dr Glover.

Yet in several respects, mining the seabed is more environmentally friendly than mining in Indonesia." -- what a pivot! Every paper cited repeats the same themes: "there's a lot of life down there", "we don't know enough about how important it is, or how to assess it", "more study is needed to understand this" and the article zooms right past to go: "Don't worry folks, we can go by weight per hectare!" No regulatory body in the world does this. Do you have any scientific backing for this ratio in environmental impact assessments?

>>>> unknowability and biodiversity are not the only metrics for environmental friendliness. I don't see what is wrong with quoting Glover on one metric, then pointing out that there are others. And, yes, we don't know much about what is down there. But we know approximately the same amount as we know about the contents of the Indo rainforest. Do you think mass of life per kilo of nickel is not a useful measure?