Geopolitics of the deep sea: The ocean’s hidden war

What lies beneath the waves?

In recent years, the seabed has ceased to be a dark, cold, and uninteresting environment because it has turned out to hide something extremely valuable. A hidden treasure beneath the unexplored ocean comprises mineral-rich deposits formed over millions of years. But turning this deep-sea treasure into tomorrow’s supply chain lifeline is proving far more complicated than anyone hoped. The International Seabed Authority (ISA) is not a well-known international organisation, although it has jurisdiction over approximately half of the Earth’s surface. With 169 countries and the European Union as its members, the ISA is the world’s sole recognised body with the authority to govern activities in the high seas. According to the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), ISA controls a territorial sea 200 nautical miles from the shores of states, which is considered the common heritage of humankind. The so-called Area covers around 54% of the world’s oceans. 

This fact is becoming increasingly significant, as the Area is rich in the aforementioned valuable resources, mainly lumps resembling blackened potatoes. The lumps are officially known as polymetallic nodules, consisting of layers of ore that have accumulated around pieces of marine debris, such as old shark teeth. Apart from nodules, these deposits come as polymetallic sulphides and cobalt-rich ferromanganese crusts.

The process of metal accumulation is not fully understood, but it is believed to be extremely slow. It takes approximately three million years for a nodule the size of a potato to form. The geological deposits of the valuable metals are located in regions where their extraction at depths extending through several thousand meters is quite cumbersome and requires significant capital expenditure and special technical means to bring the metals up to the surface for further processing. Therefore, deep-sea mining is a highly advanced process unlike traditional forms of mining.

Several elements in polymetallic nodules, including lithium, cobalt, manganese, nickel, and rare earth metals, are essential when undertaking applications like wind power systems, electric cars, mobile phones, health equipment and military structures. Certain nations and corporations have initiated the investigation of underwater mineral deposits and the development of mining methodologies, yet the potential for deep-sea mining continues to be a contentious issue. Despite extensive research efforts spanning several years, our understanding of the deep ocean remains severely limited. Numerous stakeholders express concerns that extracting minerals from this environment could significantly harm marine ecosystems and global environmental health. Presently, while nations are permitted to engage in deep-sea mining within their territorial waters, the international community continues to await comprehensive exploitation regulations from the UN’ International Seabed Authority, which will determine the feasibility and modalities of such activities in international waters, where a substantial portion of the ocean’s essential minerals is located.

The region of significant interest for deep-sea mineral extraction due to its exceptionally high density of polymetallic nodules is the Clarion-Clipperton Zone (CCZ), located in the central Pacific Ocean and administered by ISA. Spanning an estimated area of approximately 4.5 million square kilometres, comparable in size to the European Union, the CCZ has become a focal point for prospective seabed mining initiatives. 

Over the past decade, minerals essential to the green energy transition have gone from rare to critical. Demand for key metals like nickel, cobalt, and copper has surged as the world ramps up battery production for electric vehicles and expands telecommunications infrastructure. The International Energy Agency (IEA) projects that demand could skyrocket by 100% to 500% by 2040.

While land-based sources might, in theory, meet this demand, the IEA has not ruled out the risk of supply chain disruptions, keeping deep-sea mining firmly in the conversation. The ocean floor is estimated to contain 6 times more cobalt, 3 times more nickel and 4 times more yttrium than the total reserves of those metals on land! 

Resources in a legal void

Since 2014, ISA has failed to finalise a comprehensive set of science-based Rules, Regulations, and Procedures (RRPS) to govern how deep-sea mining should proceed. A hard deadline was triggered in 2021 by the Republic of Nauru, giving the ISA to finish the job until July 2023.

In a bold move, Nauru submitted a formal letter announcing that Nauru Ocean Resources Inc., a subsidiary of The Metals Company (then known as DeepGreen Metals), intended to begin seabed mining operations by 30 June 2023, effectively pressuring the International Seabed Authority to finalise its mining regulations by that deadline. What gave this deadline real weight were the successful trials conducted by both TMC and Global Sea Mineral Resources (a Belgian firm under the DEME group), which demonstrated that polymetallic nodules could indeed be harvested from the ocean floor using robotic systems and transported to a surface ship through a vertical riser pipe. 

But we are still wandering in legal limbo. ISA now hopes to wrap things up by the end of 2025. ISA is the central player in this sphere, responsible for regulating the mining industry and protecting the seabed. Michael Lodge, the former Secretary-General of ISA, was notorious for lobbying for mining companies without detailed studies of the potential adverse effects of deep-sea mining. He was caught in a close relationship with mining company executives. However, he was supposed to control them and implement independent regulations that would reject or strictly monitor the future mining process. Lodge organised a dinner at a restaurant in Houston, attended by DeepGreen CEO Gerard Barron and several other mining industry executives. The bill for the group of 15, which featured $95 bottles of wine, totalled $1,230, as documented in a receipt and expense report submitted to the secretariat.

Much of the ISA’s negotiation happens behind closed doors, leaving civil society and some member states in the dark. One of the thorniest debates is over who profits from mining what the UN calls the “common heritage of humankind.” At the same time, there’s no agreement on how the ISA should distribute those profits: split them evenly among member states? Create a shared “Common Heritage Fund”? Or compensate developing countries harmed by falling land-based mineral prices?

ISA is entrusted with issuing permits for seabed mining and drafting regulations for that activity. The rules have not yet been finalised, and how strict they will be is not known. Mining cannot begin before the regulatory process is complete, but the United States does not want to comply since it is not a signatory to the UNCLOS.

Geopolitics of the deep

The United States is not a member of the ISA and, as such, has been relatively excluded from regulating deep-sea mining under international law. Trump’s decision dealt a severe blow to the multilateral framework under the auspices of the UN because the Executive Order  “Unleashing America’s Offshore Critical Minerals and Resources” issued on 24 April 2025, pursues the exploration and exploitation of deep-sea resources, both within the US exclusive economic zone (EEZ) and areas beyond national jurisdiction.

The Metals Company, a Canadian seabed mining start-up, applied for exploration licenses and commercial recovery permits under US legislation (the Deep Seabed Hard Mineral Resources Act of 1980). The ISA Secretary General stated, “No State has the right to unilaterally exploit the mineral resources of the Area outside the legal framework established by UNCLOS.” Since the United States has never ratified the UNCLOS treaty and has consistently refused to participate in the ISA framework, there is an ongoing debate over whether bypassing the ISA and moving forward independently constitutes a breach of international law. The consequences of this action by Donald Trump, who is already a well-known opponent of multilateral solutions, could lead to geopolitical tensions and practical sanctions. For example, the ISA could decide that all members treat nodules and products mined by the USA as illicit. There is also a strong chance that some other states will take a unilateral path, without waiting to establish an international legal regime. 

There is also a different perspective: “Don’t mine what you don’t understand!” France has played a leading role in calling for a moratorium on deep-sea mining. Around 30, mainly European countries, support a precautionary suspension, including the United Kingdom, Germany, Austria, and Canada. There are no African or Asian countries, and only two Latin American states: Costa Rica, which prioritises environmental protection in its foreign policy, and Chile, which worries that mining polymetallic nodules might affect its copper export market. Famous companies like Google, BMW, Volkswagen, and Volvo are all pledging not to use metals mined from deep ocean floors.

On the other hand, China is in the lead in progress so far in mastering the process of deep-sea mining. For years, China has been making great strides in deep-sea mining while operating within the ISA framework and holds 5 of the total 31 research licenses granted by the ISA under the auspices of the UN (more than any other country).

Deep-sea mining opens up a Pandora’s box regarding geopolitics. On 15 February 2025, China and the Cook Islands signed an MOU agreeing to collaborate in researching and possibly extracting seabed minerals of the latter. If China were to send vessels and remotely operated vehicles to the CCZ, near Hawaii, under the guise of deep-sea mining activities, it would be difficult to determine whether their activities were solely commercial. Once deep-sea mining begins, China, which controls 95 percent of the world’s supply of rare earth metals and produces three-quarters of all lithium-ion batteries, will expand its grip on new industries like clean energy. Deep-sea mining will also give Beijing a powerful new tool in its escalating rivalry with the United States. 

Mining at what cost?

However, the new mining field not only brings geopolitical challenges. Ecological impacts include the destruction of biodiversity in the deep-sea, greater disruption of ecosystems and human-made pollution of world oceans. Most species in these remote ecosystems have adapted to the unique conditions of the ocean’s depth and are highly vulnerable to human disturbance. Serious studies show that exploitation of the deep seabed will inevitably cause biodiversity loss. A simulation of the expected physical impacts from seabed mining was conducted off the coast of Peru in the 1980s. When the site was revisited in 2015, the area showed little evidence of recovery.

Scientists have only recently uncovered these ecosystems’ role in the global carbon cycle and climate change. Life evolved under the crushing pressure and dark cold of this targeted seabed, more than 3 km underwater, tends to live long, slowly reproduce, and be found nowhere else. Every expedition to the abyss brings surprising discoveries of new life forms, such as ghost octopuses in the Hawaiian archipelago.  Also, scientists have proven that whales dive miles to the ocean floor. The oceanographers believe they have identified only the thin strands of this strange life system. 

To conclude, invoking the need for a green transition and sustainable development while simultaneously destroying ecosystems is not a valid argument and is inherently contradictory. It remains unknown where the future will lead us to this truly mysterious part of our planet and whether human waste will ultimately reach the deepest parts of the ocean.