A Canadian company announced Tuesday that its U.S. subsidiary submitted applications to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration to mine the seafloor, sparking outrage by bypassing a U.N. agency that regulates deep international waters.
The Metals Company, based in Vancouver, said it was seeking two exploration licenses and a commercial recovery permit, marking the first time a company applies to commercially mine the seabed.
The filing is expected to spark a complex legal battle since the Jamaica-based International Seabed Authority, a U.N. agency that regulates international deep-sea waters, has the power to authorize exploitation permits.
“Any commercial exploitation outside of national jurisdiction carried out without the authorization of ISA would constitute a violation of international law,” the authority said in late March after
The Metals Company announced its intention to seek permission from the U.S. government to start deep-sea mining in international waters.
There are currently no regulations in place to oversee such mining as scientists warn that extracting minerals from vital ecosystems that help regulate climate change could cause permanent damage.
Filing follows Trump directive
The filing comes less than a week after U.S. President Donald Trump issued an executive order that directs the Secretary of Commerce to expedite the review and issuance of exploration and commercial recovery permits, among other things.
“With these applications, we are offering the United States a shovel-ready path to new and abundant supplies of nickel, copper, cobalt, and manganese — critical metals for energy, infrastructure and defense,” Gerard Barron, chairman and CEO of The Metals Company, said in a statement.
Environmentalists and activists decried the move, saying that ISA has the sole power to authorize exploitation permits.
“This unilateral American effort to carve up the Pacific Ocean already faces fierce international opposition,” said Ruth Ramos, Greenpeace’s international senior campaigner. “Governments around the world must now step up to defend international rules and cooperation against rogue deep-sea mining.”
Get daily National news
Get the day’s top news, political, economic, and current affairs headlines, delivered to your inbox once a day.
For years, members of the authority’s council have debated how and if to allow deep-sea mining. So far, the authority has only issued exploration licenses, with most of the current exploratory activity concentrated in the Clarion-Clipperton Fracture Zone, which covers 1.7 million square miles (4.5 million square kilometers) between Hawaii and Mexico. At least 17 of 31 licenses have been issued for this zone, with exploration occurring at depths ranging from 13,000 to 19,000 feet (4,000 to 6,000 meters).
UN convention ratified by dozens of countries but not US
The International Seabed Authority was created in 1994 by the U.N. Convention on the Law of the Sea, which is ratified by more than 165 nations — but not the United States.
The Metals Company has argued that the U.S. seabed mining code would allow it to start operations in international waters, since it’s not a member of the authority and therefore not bound by its rules.
“After continuous delay at the international level, the United States now has a clear opportunity to reclaim its leadership role in the deep sea and set a global standard for responsible, science-based deep-seabed resource development,” Barron said.
U.S. mining code is no guarantee of a mining permit
But Emily Jeffers, senior attorney for the U.S.-based nonprofit Center for Biological Diversity, said it’s not a foregone conclusion that the company will be given permission to mine under the U.S. seabed mining code, which requires a full environmental analysis.
“This statute has been on the books for 45 years, and there’s a reason why no other companies have used it to extract minerals from the seafloor,” she said in a phone interview. “The science is clear that companies cannot satisfy the standard demanded by the statute. There’s no way to do deep-sea mining without having a significant and catastrophic effect on the environment.”
Jeffers said that if the Trump administration approves the permit, it would face legal challenges from environmental organizations.
‘Not an experiment we should be conducting’
In late March, the Vancouver-based company announced that it would seek permission from the U.S. to start deep-sea mining in international waters to extract minerals used in electric car batteries and other green technology.
The announcement was made just hours before the council of the ISA met on the last day of a two-week conference focused on how and whether to allow such mining. Scientists have said that a rush to collect minerals that take millions of years to form could unleash noise, light and smothering dust storms deep in the Earth’s oceans.
“Deep-sea mining has the potential to impact not just the seabed environment, but all of the life in between,” said Jeff Watters, external affairs vice president for the U.S.-based nonprofit Ocean Conservancy. “There are so many mysteries about this part of the ocean where we’ve just been able to scratch the surface.”
He said deep-sea mining is “not an experiment that we should be conducting.”
Watters said in a phone interview that the area The Metals Company is seeking to explore is larger than the size of South Dakota and the extraction area larger than the size of Vermont.
“The size and scale is just huge,” he said.
Companies say mining seafloor is cheaper, safer than land
Mining companies have said that harvesting minerals from the seafloor instead of from land is cheaper and has less of an environmental impact.
A spokesperson for the authority declined comment and referred to statements it made earlier this year.
The authority has said that it has the sole legal mandate to regulate mineral-related activities in the international seabed. It noted that the international legal regime established by the U.N. Convention on the Law of the Sea applies to all states, regardless of whether they are members or not.
“Any endeavor undertaken outside the recognized and consensual international framework, or in an attempt to circumvent international law, may incur legal, diplomatic, economic, security, financial and reputational risks,” the authority said.
