After the formal deep-sea mining debate, Oliver, Victor, and I stayed on the line for a more casual conversation about how to disagree constructively. They continue to clash on the economics, the technology, and the strategic case for deep-sea mining—but the tone stays respectful and focused on substance.

This episode gives you a peek behind the scenes at how serious disagreements don’t have to be personal—and how people on all sides are ultimately pushing toward the best outcome as they see it.

What We Discuss

* How to handle a polarized topic without turning it into a fight

* Why Oliver thinks the economics of nodules are misunderstood

* Why Victor sees DSM’s economic case as weak

* The “unknown unknowns” of deep-ocean tech

* Battery chemistries, demand signals, and shifting narratives

* What each side thinks the other side consistently gets wrong

* Why constructive disagreement matters for the DSM conversation

Key Quotes

* Victor: “Everything is calibration. Absolutism closes the mind.”

* Oliver: “Technology can change the environmental equation.”

Eric: “Disagreement over substance doesn’t need to become disagreement about character.”

Chapters

00:00 Introduction and Context of Deep Sea Mining Debate03:21 Public Engagement and Democratic Processes06:20 Technological Innovations in Deep Sea Mining09:22 Environmental Concerns vs. Economic Viability12:34 Misunderstandings in Public Discourse15:14 The Role of Economics in Deep Sea Mining18:22 Future of Battery Technology and Metal Demand21:17 Constructive Dialogue and Future Collaborations

This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit tradingoff.substack.com