After another re-read some additional concepts popped up:
1) If Indonesian suppliers are presumably lower on the cost curve, deep sea mining will tend to displace (or prevent scale) from terrestrial suppliers outside Indonesia. Another poster ironically called this out: "why not do both [deep sea and deforestation damage]" -- this is almost precisely what would be expected to occur. The ecological footprint of an underground nickel mine is vanishingly small compared to the Indonesian method.
2) The word "may" is used in the title, but it's not present in the sub-title. The article boldly claims 30x life destruction as fact, but I remain curious if this is more than an invented ratio of convenience/novelty. To attempt a direct comparison, protect species legislation does not factor in the mass of the animals being protected. I concede in advance that humanity is historically terrible at caring about damage to life that does not directly inconvenience us, but our understanding of linked systems and the relevance of panarchy is slowly shifting that.
3) Dr. Glover is asked about the diversity of life on the ocean floor, but not about what they and their peers thought about the benefits / risks of deep sea mining. This feels convenient, particularly given Dr. Glover's research found that numerous organisms live on the nodules themselves. The article talks about dust plumes, but neglects to mention the more direct destruction of habitat. Likewise, no mention is made of the potential use of the zone as a feeding ground for whales being researched by Dr. Glover's peers.
Unfortunately I can't share my own details as mining is a very small industry -- I'm probably identifiable from even what I've shared. Having said that, I might reach out in a professional context down the line!