Highlights
- UN’s International Seabed Authority celebrates 30 years amid complex global mineral extraction debates
- Exploration contracts exist, but no commercial deep-sea mining has begun
- Significant regulatory and environmental hurdles exist
- Geopolitical tensions and state interests, particularly from China and the US, complicate the international seabed mining framework
The UN’s coverage of the International Seabed Authority’s (ISA) 30th anniversary (opens in a new tab)—framed by dire warnings against a “Wild West” of rare earth mining—offers a polished portrait of multilateral stewardship. ISA head Leticia Carvalho lauds the agency as a “superpower” with “all the knowledge” and an exclusive mandate to regulate mineral extraction in international waters. This framing is technically accurate per UNCLOS—but conveniently omits that the U.S. never ratified the treaty and operates outside ISA’s jurisdiction. Washington’s unilateral move to issue its own deep-sea mining licenses isn’t lawless, just legally parallel.
Treasure or Hype? Decoding the Deep-Sea Metals Pitch
The article conflates “rare earths” with cobalt and zinc, which are not REEs, but rather critical minerals. While cobalt is critical to battery supply chains and does occur in polymetallic nodules alongside trace REEs, could the deep seabed possibly be a treasure trove of lanthanides? It’s suggested the deeper value lies in nickel, cobalt, and manganese—not neodymium or dysprosium. Regardless, in this context, the oversimplification subtly feeds the hype around seabed mining’s potential without clarifying which minerals are actually extractable in commercially viable concentrations.
Exploration ≠ Exploitation
The article correctly notes that no commercial deep-sea mining has started. The 31 contracts ISA has granted are for exploration, not exploitation. The UN’s claim that ISA is poised to issue a binding “mining code” ignores the ongoing disputes among member states and NGOs over environmental safeguards, benefit-sharing, and enforcement. These tensions could stall the code for years. Meanwhile, ISA’s new Deep-Sea Biobank initiative is a welcome step for scientific transparency—but may also be wielded as a diplomatic tool to preserve ISA’s relevance amid growing geopolitical fragmentation.
Bias and the Battle for the Seafloor
The tone of the UN News piece is one-sided—portraying the ISA as the moral and legal center of gravity while casting the U.S. as a rogue actor. Yet there’s no mention of China’s dominant position in ISA’s framework (holding multiple exploration licenses via other companies), nor of commercial players like The Metals Company pushing aggressive timelines. China directly holds five ISA exploration contracts (the most of any country), and its state-backed entities have further influence. The “Wild West” metaphor obscures the reality: seabed mining is more likely to be a slow, state-backed chess match than a cowboy free-for-all.
REEx take: Investors should stay grounded. Seabed mining remains a distant, capital-intensive proposition with heavy regulatory and reputational baggage. And when international agencies pitch themselves as “superpowers,” it’s time to read the fine print.
Leave a Reply