A Canadian firm recently stirred controversy by announcing that its American subsidiary has filed applications with the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) to initiate seafloor mining. This move has sparked significant concern as it bypasses the involvement of a United Nations (U.N.) agency assigned to oversee deep international waters.
The Metals Company seeks two exploration licenses along with a commercial recovery permit, marking an unprecedented attempt by a corporation to undertake commercial mining of the seabed. This attempt is slated to prompt a multifaceted legal conflict, as the Jamaica-headquartered International Seabed Authority (ISA), a U.N.-affiliated entity, is the sole body authorized to issue exploitation rights in international waters.
According to the ISA, any commercial mining activities falling outside national jurisdiction without their approval would be interpreted as an infringement of international law. Despite The Metals Company’s intentions to gain U.S. governmental permission for deep-sea mining, there is presently a lack of regulations to supervise such activities. Scientists have raised significant concerns, warning that extracting minerals from key ecosystems could result in irreversible damage, particularly as these vital ecosystems play a crucial role in mitigating climate change.
This filing comes closely after former U.S. President Donald Trump’s executive directive guiding the Secretary of Commerce to expedite approvals for exploration and commercial recovery permits. With this action, The Metals Company chair and CEO, Gerard Barron, stated, “We are offering the United States an immediate pathway to access abundant reserves of crucial metals necessary for energy, infrastructure, and defense.”
However, environmental advocates alongside activists have vociferously criticized the move, stating that it undermines the role of the ISA in authorizing exploitation permits. Greenpeace’s international senior campaigner, Ruth Ramos, commented, “This unilateral U.S. move to divide the Pacific Ocean is facing intense global opposition.”
For many years, the ISA’s council has debated the allowances for deep-sea mining, having only granted exploration permits thus far. A substantial portion of this exploratory work is concentrated within the Clarion-Clipperton Fracture Zone, spanning between Hawaii and Mexico and reaching depths of up to 19,000 feet. The zone has seen over half of its licenses issued, with activity taking place across roughly 4.5 million square kilometers.
The establishment of the International Seabed Authority in 1994 by the U.N. Convention on the Law of the Sea saw ratification by over 165 nations, although not by the United States. The Metals Company argues that due to the U.S. being a non-member of the ISA, it has the liberty to engage in seabed mining under U.S. mining codes without adhering to ISA rules. Yet, Emily Jeffers from the Center for Biological Diversity contends this perspective is flawed, emphasizing that a comprehensive environmental analysis is mandatory under U.S. law, which might not be adaptable to deep-sea mining without significant environmental detriment.
Despite such pushback, The Metals Company announced they intend to pursue U.S. permission to commence deep-sea mining to obtain valuable minerals for electric vehicles and sustainable technologies. Scientists caution that a hastened collection of these long-forming minerals could result in adverse noise and dust pollution in these deep-sea environments.
Jeff Watters from the Ocean Conservancy has emphasized that the scope of The Metals Company’s proposed mining area is immense, equivalent to the size of major U.S. states, and warned against undertaking such an experiment under the current environmental and scientific understanding. Meanwhile, experts from mining industries claim that harvesting minerals from the seafloor is a cost-effective and environmentally safer alternative compared to land mining. The ISA has not provided recent comments but reiterates that any undertaking bypassing their established framework can entail various legal and reputational risks.