The exploration of crucial minerals in the Clarion-Clipperton Zone, located in the northern Pacific Ocean, is being conducted by specialized vessels. Beyond conventional territorial conflicts, geopolitics has now extended to a new frontier: the seabed. Thousands of meters below the ocean’s surface, vast deposits of mineral resources are being discovered, many of which play a crucial role in the energy transition needed to combat climate change.
These minerals from the abyssal depths also have applications in the manufacturing of military equipment and weaponry.
Although large-scale mineral extractions have yet to take place in the deep ocean, private companies and government agencies—including global powers such as China, India, and Russia—are engaged in a frantic race to secure their exploitation rights.
Regions such as the Clarion-Clipperton Zone in the North Pacific Ocean, the Mid-Atlantic Ridge in the North Atlantic, the Indian Ocean, and the Northwest Pacific are being intensely explored after countries and companies obtained exploration licenses from the International Seabed Authority (ISA), the United Nations body responsible for regulating mining in international waters.
The United States is preparing to begin the exploration of these minerals within its own seabed. Since it has not ratified the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, it is not bound by the restrictions imposed in international waters—maritime areas with no defined territorial jurisdiction.
Of the 31 exploration contracts granted by the ISA so far, 17 have been allocated to the Clarion-Clipperton Zone, located between Hawaii and Mexico. There, the search for polymetallic nodules is underway—potato-shaped rocks found on the seabed that contain high concentrations of manganese, cobalt, nickel, and copper.
These and other minerals, such as lithium and graphite, are essential for the production of electric vehicles, solar panels, wind turbines, and energy storage batteries. Interest in deep-sea mining has surged, driven by projections indicating rising demand as the world progresses toward a sustainable energy transition.
Electric vehicles require six times more minerals than conventional vehicles, and offshore wind technologies consume 12 times more metals and minerals than natural gas to produce each megawatt of electricity, according to the International Energy Agency. World Bank projections suggest that the extraction of these minerals will need to increase fivefold by 2050 to meet demand. This means that more than three billion tons of minerals and metals will be required for energy sources such as wind, solar, and geothermal, as well as for energy storage.
Advocates of deep-sea mining argue that traditional mining resources may not be sufficient, given that the quality of terrestrial minerals is declining due to excessive extraction. Additionally, environmental concerns and conflicts associated with land-based mining activities remain pressing issues.
Currently, only a handful of countries dominate the production of critical minerals on land. Australia is a major producer of lithium, while Chile leads as the world’s largest copper supplier. China is a key producer of graphite and rare earth metals, essential for high-tech products such as smartphones and computers. Other significant players include the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Indonesia, and South Africa, which lead in cobalt, nickel, platinum, and iridium markets.
China is expanding its interests in mining some of these minerals beyond its borders, raising concerns among its geopolitical rivals. Now, the country is also setting its sights on deep-sea exploration.
China holds five of the ISA-granted licenses—the highest number awarded to any single country. India holds two licenses and has recently applied for two more, while Russia possesses four and shares a fifth with other nations.
“We are witnessing a convergence of rising geopolitical tensions and the energy transition, which is accelerating the race to extract, process, and utilize critical minerals,” notes Nathan Picarsic, co-founder of Horizon Advisory, a U.S.-based geopolitical intelligence consultancy.
The primary geopolitical concern has centered on China’s role in refining these minerals before they enter the supply chain.
With advanced technologies and decades of accumulated expertise, China currently controls 100% of the refined supply of natural graphite and dysprosium, 70% of cobalt, and nearly 60% of all processed lithium and manganese, according to the International Renewable Energy Agency.
Furthermore, Beijing has implemented various restrictions on exporting processing technologies and certain rare earth metals. China claims these measures are intended to protect the country’s national security and interests.
The most recent of these, enacted in December 2023, banned the export of technology for manufacturing rare earth magnets, which are used in electric vehicles, wind turbines, and electronic devices.
“We are dealing with a dominant supplier that is willing to use market power as a weapon to achieve political gains,” stated Jennifer Granholm, U.S. Secretary of Energy, during the Critical Minerals and Clean Energy Summit held in August 2023.
Two months earlier, the U.S. House Armed Services Committee had directed the Pentagon to assess the country’s deep-sea mining and processing capabilities.
“In recent years, China has taken aggressive and blatant steps to secure and process polymetallic nodule resources from the seabed as part of its strategic planning for national security,” the committee declared.
“To counter China’s growing dominance in the global supply chain, it is crucial for the U.S. to secure its own innovative supply of critical and strategic minerals and materials—including polymetallic nodules—to reduce reliance on foreign adversaries,” it added.
In 2022, the United States, alongside Australia, Canada, Finland, France, Germany, Japan, South Korea, Sweden, the United Kingdom, and the European Commission, launched the Mineral Security Partnership (MSP). Italy and India have since joined the initiative.
However, mining has not yet commenced due to ongoing regulatory work by the ISA.
Scientists and ocean advocates have raised concerns about the ecological impact that deep-sea mining could have.
“When the ISA finalizes the regulations, possibly next year, we will still have enormous knowledge gaps regarding deep-sea biodiversity, how it will be impacted by mining, its potential for recovery, and the effects on upper ocean waters, essential fisheries, or oceanic processes such as the carbon cycle,” observes Lisa Levin, professor of biological oceanography and marine ecology at the University of California, U.S.
A group of approximately 20 countries—including Brazil, Canada, Costa Rica, Finland, Switzerland, and Vanuatu—has called for a moratorium on deep-sea mining until further research is conducted on its potential impact on marine ecosystems.
Despite this, Norway’s Parliament approved deep-sea exploration in Arctic waters in January.
Many countries view the seabed as a vast economic opportunity.
The ISA’s 169 member states “are increasingly aware of the deep-sea’s potential for the global green energy transition and green technologies,” stated the ISA secretariat.
“Complex geopolitics is driving renewed interest in seabed minerals, with the world’s three most populous countries now focused on the potential of deep-sea resources,” says Gerard Barron, CEO of The Metals Company, a Canadian firm conducting exploration in the Clarion-Clipperton Zone.
Activists blame deep-sea mining companies for intensifying geopolitical tensions.
“They are fueling geopolitical tensions, creating an atmosphere of insecurity and fear, by talking about supply chain restrictions to pressure governments into opening the deep ocean for extraction,” says Louisa Casson, an activist with Greenpeace’s ‘Stop Deep Sea Mining’ campaign.
In response to scientific community warnings about a “knowledge gap” regarding the impact of mining on marine ecosystems, the ISA stated that it has encouraged deep-sea scientific research for decades and is currently working with international experts to establish environmental thresholds.
“At present, there is no consensus within the international community regarding a knowledge gap,” it asserted.
