Mining the deep ocean

The Metals Company, which has proven that extracting raw materials from the abyss is technically possible. The stakes are as high as they can be: the fuel for the global energy transition. According to forecasts by the International Energy Agency (IEA), the transition to clean energy could lead to a fourfold increase in demand for critical metals and rare earth elements. At the heart of the debate lies the Clarion-Clipperton Zone (CCZ), an area of nearly 6 million square kilometers where the seabed is littered with copper, manganese, cobalt, and nickel. The conflict between the need for decarbonization and the protection of a hitherto untouched deep-sea ecosystem is becoming a new demarcation line in the world of modern technology.

Geopolitics hidden in seabed sediments

Currently, as many as 31 initiatives — from private corporations to state giants from China and India — are competing for access to underwater riches. For countries like Nauru, a small island nation in the Pacific, deep-sea mining is an opportunity for a civilizational leap. Nauru is exploiting legal loopholes to force the International Seabed Authority (ISA) to issue commercial permits even before rigorous environmental regulations are finalized. This is a dangerous precedent that shows the hunger for raw materials is outpacing our ability to regulate them. The situation is complicated by the stance of the United States, which has not signed the treaty giving the ISA jurisdiction over international waters. As a result, The Metals Company has submitted an application directly to the American administration for permission to mine in the Clarion-Clipperton Zone. This creates a risky legal dualism: on one hand, we have a UN agency trying to develop a global mining code, and on the other — unilateral actions by powers and companies that want to start exploitation "right now," citing the climate crisis.

The numbers don't lie, but interpretations do

IEA analyses from 2025 point to inevitable shortages. By 2040, the demand for lithium, crucial for electric vehicle batteries, could increase 4.7 times compared to 2024 levels. Meanwhile, demand for copper, essential for renewable energy infrastructure, will rise by 30%. Experts warn that deficits of these metals will hit the market as early as 2035. The argument of deep-sea mining proponents is simple: high-quality land deposits have long been exhausted, and opening new surface mines involves massive social resistance and forest degradation. A completely different perspective is presented by Gavin Mudd from the British Geological Survey. In his view, the narrative of "depleting resources" on land is incorrect. USGS (United States Geological Survey) data suggests that lithium reserves currently stand at about 30 million tons, while geological resources are as high as 115 million tons. According to Mudd:

• Land-based nickel resources are sufficient for over 100 years at current demand growth.
• Rising raw material prices will make it profitable to drill deeper into existing land mines.
• Battery recycling technologies could significantly reduce the demand for primary mining.

The ecological cost of "green" energy

Opponents of going underwater, including a coalition of 40 countries led by Palau, warn of a catastrophe that we cannot even measure. The ocean depths are among the least explored places on the planet. The process of vacuuming up nodules involves the creation of massive sediment clouds that can suffocate marine organisms over vast distances. Furthermore, the noise and vibrations generated by heavy equipment operating 24 hours a day could permanently disrupt the communication of marine mammals.

The problem is that we are trying to fix one ecological mistake (CO2 emissions) by risking another, perhaps irreversible one. We lack the mechanisms to monitor the impact of mining on ecosystems thousands of miles from shore, at depths where pressure crushes standard research equipment.

Proponents of oceanic mining counter that land mines are by no means "cleaner." Mining in the Democratic Republic of the Congo or Indonesia involves cutting down jungles, destroying biodiversity, and often tragic working conditions. In their view, the ocean floor — devoid of vegetation and human settlements — is the lesser evil. This is a brutal ethical dilemma: should we sacrifice deep-sea species yet unknown to us to save tropical forests and accelerate the elimination of internal combustion engines?

The end of the era of speculation, time for engineering

Mining technology is already ready. Riser pipe systems, through which raw materials travel from the bottom to the ship's deck, have been tested and are functional. The limitation is no longer engineering, but a lack of consensus on how to measure damage. Negotiations within the International Seabed Authority, which resumed after a stalemate in July 2025, are focused on creating real-time monitoring systems. Key technical and regulatory challenges include:

• Developing transparency standards for sediment plumes.
• Establishing a compensation fund for unforeseen damage in international environments.
• Creating a global certification system for "deep-sea" raw materials so that EV manufacturers know where their cobalt comes from.

Deep-sea mining is ceasing to be a theoretical possibility and is becoming an inevitable element of the global supply chain. Even if land reserves are sufficient, the pace of making them available — building a mine on land takes an average of 10 to 15 years — may prove too slow for the accelerating transformation. The ocean offers access to gigantic quantities of metal almost immediately after the mining fleet is launched. Everything indicates that in the coming years, we will see commercial exploitation of the seabed, driven not so much by a lack of alternatives as by the ruthless logic of time and profit in the face of the climate crisis. The race for "underwater potatoes" has already begun, and it is unlikely that any moratorium will be able to stop it completely.