The reading passage contends that deep-sea mining can be a promising alternative. On the other hand, the lecturer brings up several contradictory points.
To begin with, according to the lecturer, a technology to collect and transport minerals is not available. Also, deposits are not pure since they include lots of materials beside minerals, which makes it harder for people to separate them. This casts doubt on the claim in the reading that deep-sea mining would play a significant role in obtaining mineral resources since it contains a large number of menirals.
In addition, the lecturer argues that deep-sea mining would scatter materials all directions due to ocean current. If byproducts are spreaded out, it is more likely to contaminate water, in turn, ruins fragile eco-systerm. This refutes the assertion in the reading that deep-sea mining would not have a negative impact on environment.
The final point made by the lecturer is that international law can be only applied to the far area. However, deep-sea mining are usually occupied in the own territorial because its companies are situated on the land, which is close to employees' home. Consequently, deep-sea mining is not affected by international law. This counters the writer's claim that mining practice would be in a safe zone since international law is applied in that territory. |