SHOULD WE MINE THE BOTTOM OF THE OCEAN FOR MINERALS?

Before I go into seabed minerals, a bit about the  Winter Olympics.  There will be a lot to see today, for the USA had only two total medals as of yesterday.  Here is the current medals standing.  We're up to 11.

Olympics Medal Leaders

Gold

Silver

Bronze

Total

• Norway
• Italy
• United States

• 7
• 4
• 4

• 2
• 2
• 5

• 4
• 7
• 2

• 13
• 13
• 11

For details, go to the official Milano Cortina Winter Games page.

First, some background about my experience with seabed mining.  My professional career was great, but frustrating in one particular area.

• To begin, my PhD is in biochemical engineering.
• I began teaching/researching at the University of Hawaii in 1972.
• I worked in the U.S. Senate from 1979 to 1982.

• 
  I returned to the University of Hawaii, and in 1984 became director of the Hawaii Natural Energy Institute.  HNEI was co-center with the University of Mississippi as the Department of Interior's Marine Mineral Technology Center, which focused on seabed mining and related fields.

• 
  I also taught courses in environmental engineering and technology & society.
• For a period, I was director of the Environmental Center at the UH.
• 
  Thus, my teaching and administrative objectives ranged from protecting the environment to developing clean technologies for the benefit of Humanity and Planet Earth.  Three of the books (to the right) I authored had to do with these subjects.

• 
  However, throughout my career, I found enormous restrictions trying to apply the fruits of our basic research for the marketplace.
• Geothermal energy was widely protested by rainforest environmentalist, marijuana growers and people living in the nearby neighborhood.
• Wind energy was stymied by the Audubon Society (for killing birds) and NIMBY (not in my backyard) advocates.
• Marine energy and the Blue Revolution were protested by environmentalist for fear that we would destroy the ocean.  The latter, for example, showed promise for reducing the Greenhouse Effect, while minimizing the formation of hurricanes.  But there was a general fear of tampering with nature.
• Protesters cared not that these renewable options were far better for the world around them than coal or nuclear power, and global warming was on their minds, but had not any real priority.
• Even campus scientists general sided with the opposition in preventing commercialization in the ocean.
• 
  Why?
• Companies polluted the environment and were the cause of global warming.  There was a long track record of badness.
• Teachers learned science from scientists who by nature were environmentalist.  They never took courses from engineers, who tended to promote development.
• These teachers taught students to be conservative about any commercial application and  to protect the environment.
• All well and good for Humanity and Planet Earth, but difficult for any organization wanting to also benefit society by developing cleaner options.
• Thus, government departments like the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, and even the National Foundation, mostly providing funding for environmental goodness, while limiting support for technological growth.

Then here came the Trump Administration.

• It promoted coal and nuclear, while shutting down electric vehicle development, wind energy and renewable energy options.
• The Environmental Protection Agency was stripped of any power.
• Ocean and land developments were enhanced.
• They did much more in international politics, tariffs and the like, mostly not so popular.
• As I earlier indicated, one area that environmentalists particularly despise is deep seabed mining.  I, too, worry about the potential danger.

• 
  However, when I worked for U.S. Senator Spark Matsunaga from 1979 to 1982, I was the staff member who headed the effort to Pass the Deep Seabed Hard Mineral Resources Act in 1980.

• 
  This legislation was originally introduced by Senator Lee Metcalf in 1971, but he passed away in 1978, so Matsunaga, being on similar committees, took on the leadership.  Here is a summary from Google AI:

Senator Spark Matsunaga became a key leader in the passage of the 

Deep Seabed Hard Mineral Resources Act (1980)—often referred to in the context of his work as the Deep Seabed Mineral Resources Act (S. 493)—through his strategic position in the Senate, his experience in navigating complex legislation in the House, and his focus on securing resources for the United States. 

• Legislative Skill: Known as an exceptionally hard-working and personable legislator, Matsunaga was able to build consensus for the legislation, which aimed to secure U.S. access to cobalt, nickel, and manganese while waiting for a comprehensive international Law of the Sea Treaty. 

• 

  Well, the United Nations agreed on the Convention on the Law of the Seas (UNCLOS), which was signed by the administration.  

• However, this agreement had to be ratified by the U.S. Senate, and voting regularly failed to meet the two-thirds requirement.
• Just about every important nation has signed on, and now China and Russia have a say on what happens in the deep seabed, leaving the USA out.  168 signers, with only countries like us, Turkey, Libya and Syria, plus a few others not members.
• Thus, the U.S. cannot obtain a license to mine the international waters, while China and Russia have succeeded.

The Trump Administration probably won't be able to get a 2/3s vote for UNCLOS in the Senate, but they won't even try because it is pro-development and anti-environment, so they have instead decided to boldly moved forward independently, ignoring what the United Nations might say.

• What do I think?  Not important.  I see some value in proceeding.  But what about the environment?  Life is full of tradeoffs.
• Google AI reports.

NOAA has strengthened its focus on transitioning foundational science into actionable development, specifically 

prioritizing the application of research to improve weather forecasting, environmental resilience, and economic sustainability. The 2020–2026 R&D Vision Areas and 2020–2026 OAR Strategy guide this shift toward accelerating the adoption of new technologies and research results into commercialized and operational products. 

• Thus, from my previous experience, I say about time, while still worry about the environmental implications.  I asked Google AI for details about the current administration and seabed mining.

In early 2026, the Trump administration is aggressively accelerating deep-seabed mining, issuing executive orders to fast-track permitting for critical mineral extraction in U.S. and international waters

. The Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM) has initiated leasing processes offshore Alaska, American Samoa, and the Northern Mariana Islands. This initiative aims to compete with China for cobalt and nickel, overriding environmental warnings about potential irreversible damage to marine ecosystems. 

Key Developments in 2026

• Rapid Permitting: The administration is pushing for rapid development, with officials stating that seabed nodules could be extracted and brought to the U.S. within years.
• Targeted Locations: BOEM is examining the Bering Sea, Alaska, and areas near American Samoa and the Northern Mariana Islands for mineral leases.
• International Opposition: The U.S. approach is causing international tension, with the International Seabed Authority (ISA) noting that unilateral mining in international waters violates established global ocean governance.
• Industry Support: The executive actions have provided a "lifeline" to companies such as The Metals Company, which is seeking to mine in international waters, and Impossible Metals, which has applied for leases. 

Environmental and Strategic Context

• Mineral Focus: The effort targets nodules containing manganese, cobalt, and nickel, critical for electric vehicle batteries and defense technologies.
• Environmental Risk: Scientists warn of significant, irreversible damage to deep-sea ecosystems from mining activity.
• Geopolitical Move: The action is designed to reduce dependence on foreign, specifically Chinese, sources for critical minerals.
• Legal Challenges: While the administration claims the right to authorize mining, critics argue these actions contradict international laws and treaties, given that the U.S. is not a party to the Law of the Sea Convention. 

In a way, Deep Seabed Mining, in the minds of the Trump Administration, has attained a similar motivational status for the USA beating Russia to the Moon, as when John F. Kennedy announced in 1962 about America's intent to send men to the Moon.  We succeeded on 20July1969 when Neil Armstrong did.  Today, add China to the competition.

So should we mine the seabed for minerals?  I again asked Google AI:

Deep-sea mining (DSM) for critical minerals like cobalt and nickel presents a complex tradeoff between strengthening geopolitical security against China/Russia and protecting fragile, poorly understood marine ecosystems

. While it offers a potential, independent supply chain for green energy, experts warn it could cause irreversible biodiversity loss, ecosystem destruction, and toxic sediment plumes. 

Arguments for Deep-Sea Mining:

• National Security and Geopolitics: Countries like the U.S. may feel compelled to engage in mining to compete with China's rapid expansion in the sector and secure minerals crucial for defense and technology.
• Green Energy Transition: The seabed contains vast amounts of minerals (cobalt, nickel, copper, manganese) needed for electric vehicle batteries, solar panels, and other renewable energy technologies.
• Supply Chain Diversification: Mining the deep sea could reduce reliance on single-source, often foreign, terrestrial mining suppliers. 

Arguments Against Deep-Sea Mining:

• Environmental Damage: Scientists warn of irreversible destruction to seabed ecosystems, including loss of biodiversity, disruption of carbon storage, and noise pollution affecting marine life.
• Uncertainty and Risk: The long-term, large-scale impacts on the ocean, which supports 50% of Earth's oxygen, are not fully understood.
• Alternative Solutions: Critics argue that metal scarcity is overstated and that focus should remain on circular economy solutions, such as battery recycling and developing alternative technologies, rather than damaging the ocean. 

Currently, while some nations pursue exploration, the International Seabed Authority (ISA) is developing regulations for potential commercial exploitation, with many stakeholders and companies, including Google, calling for a moratorium. 

I should end here, but last year I read a Scientific American article entitled, Deep-Sea Mining Begins.  Interesting that the magazine used that title, but this same text from the article I cited, was called, Suddenly Miners Are Tearing Up the Seafloor for Critical Metals.

• 
  I guess Scientific American is covering itself with these two titles.
• The article was written by Willem Marx, on assignment for PBS, and edited by Mark Fischetti.
• I felt compelled to check, and Marx grew up in the UK, studied Classics at Oxford University, graduating from New York University in Journalism.
• He also has written about Tesla, Greenland elections and Pope Francis.
• So anyway, Marx was allowed to board the Danish-flagged MV Coco in June of 2024 on a mission to test for the feasibility of mining the seafloor in Papua New Guinea.
• He was surprised by what was happening.  Shocked would be more accurate.

I was there at the invitation of Richard Parkinson, who founded Magellan, a company that specializes in deep-sea operations. (His companies have been involved in the videoing of the Titanic and failed rescue of the Titan Sub recovery.)  At the top of the ladder, two crew members hauled me onboard the ship, which was roughly 20 miles from the closest shore, and a British manager for Magellan named James Holt greeted me, his smile sun-creased from more than two decades at sea. After a safety briefing, he ushered me through a heavy door into a dark, windowless shipping container on the rear deck that served as a control room.

Inside the hushed cabin was a young Brazilian named Afhonso Perseguin, his face lit by screens displaying digital readings and colorful topographic charts. Gripping a joystick with his right hand, he delicately maneuvered a big, boxy remotely operated vehicle, or ROV, over a patch of seafloor a mile below. I watched on monitors as a robotic arm protruded from the ROV toward a monstrous set of clamshell jaws suspended from a cable that rose all the way up to the ship. Perseguin used the ROV’s arm to steer the jaws as a colleague beside him radioed instructions to a winch operator on deck.

That hydrothermal vent marked the edge of a tectonic plate in the Bismarck Sea. The metal-rich magma ejected over millennia from several such vents—some dormant, some still active like this one—was Magellan’s prize. The teams on the ship, hired by a company called Deep Sea Mining Finance (DSMF), were conducting bulk seafloor mining tests under a 2011 mining license issued by the Papua New Guinea (PNG) mining regulator. I was the only reporter onboard to witness the operation.

• The final paragraph:

The juxtapositions I experienced at sea and on land were jarring. The extraordinary scale and power of the Coco’s technology, backed by distant billionaires, were in sharp contrast to subsistence communities where villagers paddle canoes into the surf to fish by hand. The informational asymmetry was striking, too: hydrographers, geologists and environmental scientists with millions of data points designed to gauge surroundings—and profits to be realized thousands of miles away—were set against local residents who seemed to lack access to attested Solwara permits, let alone details of possible environmental drawbacks. For the people who live there, short-term benefits—new local jobs, perhaps, or increased government revenues—might never outweigh stress to the ecosystem and a way of life that depends on it.

• 
  This is a very long article, and worthy of your perusal.  If you have the time, you should read the whole thing, for it will provide you some insights about deep seabed mining and what is destined to come.  While this is a Scientific American piece, there are no equations or profound science.  Just the observations of a journalist who majored in Classics.

-