A Race to the Bottom? The Geopolitics of Deep-Sea Mining
Can deep-sea mining become a major source of the critical materials needed for the net-zero transition?
Millions of years ago a fragment of bone slowly drifted to the bottom of the Pacific ocean. Nestling into the seabed half covered in sediment tiny particles of copper, cobalt and manganese started to stick to the bone. Over millions of years the particles accumulated until around 150 years ago sailors dragged up the now potato sized rock which they soon realised was a collection of different metals and minerals. The ocean floor is covered in billions of similar sized rocks, known as polymetallic nodules they are now at the centre of geopolitical dispute that will help shape the net-zero economy.
What is Deep Sea Mining?
As the race for critical materials heats up and companies scramble to supply the raw materials needed to ensure the shift to a net-zero economy a new opportunity is emerging. Deep sea mining has been touted as the answer to the shortage of critical materials which help build batteries, wind turbines and much other technology.
Deep sea mining offers millions of tonnes of useful metals with none of the problems that come with mining on land. No indigenous rights trampled upon, no risk of child labour in the supply chain, and no mountains and forests torn up to reach the metals. The catch? Deep sea mining involves sucking up or collecting rocks from often little understood or explored regions, with the potential to do untold harm to sensitive eco-systems.
Clarion-Clipperton
There is a 1.7 million square mile region of the Pacific called the Clarion-Clipperton zone which is estimated to hold rich concentration of polymetallic nodules containing copper, lithium, cobalt, rare earth metals, graphite and other materials. Billions of these nodules can be found, so the potential mineral and metal wealth dwarves land-based reserves. Best of all for miners at least, these nodules can be easily sucked or scooped up into a ship without the need to drill into rock and soil.
Damage to the Seabed
Despite this apparent promise many governments and environmental groups are adamantly opposed to deep sea mining. Countries like France and Fiji point to potential habitat loss as a grave risk. Scraping or sucking up nodules from the seabed will destroy often little understood or studied ecosystems. Damage to ecosystems could then also impact important fisheries.
Damage to the seafloor could have other unpredictable knock-on effects to other parts of ocean. Other scientists are concerned about the dust and sediment that would be created by mining under the sea. This disruption and noise could disturb wildlife or even release carbon into the sea thus accelerating climate change.
Nauru’s play
Deep sea mining is governed by the International Seabed Authority (ISA). The ISA has up until now effectively restricted deep sea mining in perhaps what is a rare example of international environmental regulation working.
However, the tiny island state of Nauru (backed by The Metals Company - formerly Deep Green Mining which has a strong interest in exploiting deep sea mining) has trigged an ISA provision forcing countries to develop a full set of rules around deep sea mining, or allow mining under the existing rules within two years. A meeting of the ISA in July 2023 was inconclusive, but the new aim is to develop a set of rules around mining by the middle of July. This has sparked a geopolitical battle over the future of deep sea mining.
Geopolitical Factors
Countries are increasingly split on whether deep sea mining should be permitted at scale. Many countries such as Costa Rica, France and many small island states are pushing for an outright ban or at least a moratorium on deep sea mining. Other countries in particular China, but also some small island states such as Nauru are pushing for mining to go ahead.
Nauru, Tonga and Kiribati are backed by the Metals Company, who view a commercial opportunity to sell high demand metals and minerals. Supporters of deep sea mining point to the fact that much of sea’s mineral wealth will help speed the transition to net-zero in a way which neatly avoids many of the pitfalls of traditional mining.
China has prepared specially designed vessels for deep sea mining and appears prepared to push for mining to go ahead. China controls directly or indirectly much of the world’s supply of so-called critical materials and it wants to ensure this continues. Taking the lead in deep sea mining will allow it to continue dominating an increasingly critical part of the global economy.
Norway
Norway is also pushing ahead with plans to open up 280,000 km of seabed in territorial waters for mining, citing economic opportunity and as a way to shore up the security of critical material supply chains. A Norwegian start-up called Loke was quoted as saying:
“We are not saying it will not have any impact, but it can be a better alternative than a nickel mine in the rainforest in Indonesia”.
If Norway goes ahead this could legitimise the practice and encourage others to ignore or bypass any regulations. However, many major companies have pledged not to lend or engage with firms that engage in deep sea mining.
What’s Next?
Further research into the deep-sea mining and the seabed in general is clearly needed before mining at scale should go ahead. Raking the bottom of the ocean to gather critical materials needed to build a net-zero economy will be counterproductive if it inflicts further damage to the oceans or releases more carbon into the sea.
But the lure of undersea riches and political competition will undoubtedly soon see companies exploit the seabed at scale. Firms like the Metals Company (backed by some small island states) have made it clear they are ready to mine in 2025 using a loophole that allows mining two years after a proposal is made. If this goes ahead it will likely spark a rush by others to start mining to avoid losing ground to competitors.