The Importance of Seabed Critical Minerals for Great Power Competition
The MOC
By
Thea Dunlevie
September 5, 2023
“Critical minerals” has become a national security buzzword of the 21st century – and rightly so. In February 2022, the Biden Administration announced federal efforts to protect the “Critical Minerals Supply Chain” by encouraging domestic production, to support the U.S. energy, technology, and defense industries. Such minerals include cobalt, lithium, nickel, graphite, and copper, and many others can be found under the sea, in seabeds. As these components are essential for fueling modern society and military technology, countries are scrambling for new sources.
Great power competitors including China and Russia are among the dozens of countries greatly invested in the hunt for seabed minerals, found coating sea ridges and mountains, in deposits of minerals near hypothermal vents, and within polymetallic nodules. But the U.S. is falling behind Russia and China in the race towards seabed mining. As the U.S. seeks alternative sources of critical minerals from China, especially, it should look to the seabed. The U.S. should pursue opportunities to participate in and shape the seabed mining regulation setting process within the International Seabed Authority (“ISA”) and partner with allied members of the ISA towards advancing common interests, potential trade of critical minerals to be mined by those allied countries, and exploring joint opportunities for U.S. and allied businesses to participate in regulated seabed mining.
Figure 1. Polymetallic nodules from the seabed. Photo from The Metals Company.
Increasing Demand
Demand for critical minerals continues to rise. CEO of seabed mining company, The Metals Company, described critical mineral nodules as “a battery in a rock,” which could potentially power 4.8 billion electric vehicles. Last year, the White House explained how, given global efforts to embrace clean energy alternatives, “global demand for these critical minerals is set to skyrocket by 400-600 percent over the next several decades, and, for minerals such as lithium and graphite used in electric vehicle (“EV”) batteries, demand will increase by even more—as much as 4,000 percent.” This set the stage for Executive Order 13017, “America’s Supply Chains,” to bolster domestic, land-based mining, especially after COVID-19 demonstrated gaps in global critical mineral supply chains.
Big ideas require larger “battery mineral” deposits, but thankfully, mineral-rich seabeds are expansive – so sizeable they are often compared to countries. It is believed earth might hold more sea-based minerals than land-based supplies. Norway, for example, draws attention to a mineral-rich seabed roughly the size of Germany off its coasts containing polymetallic nodules comprised of copper, nickel, cobalt and other critical minerals. Norway also expresses optimism that countries and companies could conduct deep-sea mining there and hopes to employ these minerals towards creating a greener future.
The Regulatory Environment and Barriers to Mining
Seabed mining is governed by the International Seabed Authority within the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (“UNCLOS”). Today, it has 169 members – including Russia and China – but the U.S. is not a member, since it has not formally ratified UNCLOS. Seabed mining is not yet regulated in international waters, despite demand. The ISA has been overseeing regulatory negotiations, which the U.S. can participate in as an Observer, and has been distributing permits.
As of 2023, the ISA has issued 31 exploration licenses to 14 countries – U.S. allies and competitors alike. While internationally-sanctioned seabed mining has not begun, exploration and permitting is underway. Such mining could begin as soon as 2025. Among the chief concerns are ongoing environmental studies about harmful mining practices’ potential damage to the subsea ecosystem. Both governments and companies have publicly opposed seabed mining, to protect the “common heritage of mankind.” The debate over seabed mining has intensified since 2021, when Palau proposed to mine the undersea Clarion-Clipperton Zone. The ISA was set to accept mining applications in July 2023, and companies, such as Belgian company Global Sea Mineral Resources, are already testing mining technologies, in anticipation of 2025.
Chinese and Russian versus U.S. Seabed Mining
China and Russia are currently outpacing the U.S. in the race towards exploring, then extracting, deep-sea critical minerals essential for digitalized and climate-conscious modern life and military warfare. As of 2023, China holds 5 contracts and Russia holds 4 contracts. The U.S. holds zero. Major state-owned companies are taking on these contracts, such as China’s Minemetals. Russia and China also hold disproportionate influence within the ISA and regulatory process due to their Member statuses, while the U.S. is an Observer. Their activity within the ISA raises concerns over Chinese or Russian “lawfare.” These particular “Group A major consumers” may seek to shape the deep sea mining regulatory environment in their favor, following precedent within other international organizations.
New seabed deposits are increasingly attractive to countries, like the U.S., seeking to bolster their supply chains to avoid dependence on China. Chinese dominance of the critical mineral industry could be leveraged against the U.S. and other dependent states, both in times of peace and conflict. For instance, China produces nearly 75% of the world’s cobalt. Cobalt is used in jet engines, magnets, for electronic warfare, and in munitions, just as a few examples. The U.S. is actively seeking alternative suppliers since, not long ago, the U.S. produced 0% of its cobalt domestically. Could China reduce or cut off supply?
The U.S. Approach
Stakeholder engagement and coordination with allies will be crucial for creating a coalition-governed, sustainable mining framework. First, to combat Chinese and Russian influence and to positively affect ISA regulations, the U.S. should increase its engagement in the ISA as an Observer. Even if the U.S. will not become a full member of the ISA, it should still increase its influence through American entities like NGOs and academic institutions. These entities can become Observers to the ISA, informing and shaping seabed mining regulations. For example, while Russia often suppresses ecological activism within its borders, U.S. government coordination with NGOs is an opportunity for the U.S. and likeminded allies to advocate for and lead on ecological protection issues. Secondly, beyond creating a domestic coalition, the U.S. must actively engage with allied Members of the ISA, who are helping to shape mining regulations. The U.S. can look for beneficial opportunities to support the British Secretary General’s agenda, as they pertain to the founding principles of the ISA to “ensure the effective protection of the marine environment from harmful effects that may arise from deep-seabed-related activities.”
Lastly, the U.S. should expand critical mining partnerships with allied Member states, like Norway. U.S. companies can participate in the seabed mining exploration and extraction process indirectly through international corporate partnerships, as done by Lockheed Martin which operates through a UK subsidiary Seabed Resources (recently transferred to Norway’s Loke Marine Minerals). This can be beneficial for both parties: if the U.S. does not sign onto UNCLOS, or U.S. companies are not afforded comparable opportunities to participate in seabed mining as Member states of the ISA, the U.S. could consider importing critical minerals from trusted allies, instead of China. To avoid potential consequences from dependence on China, the U.S. must continue diversifying its critical mineral sources. Diversifying critical mineral sources reduces the leverage of great power competitors, like China, over U.S. defense and technology manufacturing.
Amid increasing pressure to accelerate the international seabed mining timeline, in addition to active Russian and Chinese participation within the ISA, the U.S. must secure its footing so it can positively impact the trajectory of and maximize benefits from seabed mining. Some might consider seabed mining to be a sort of 21st century “Sputnik moment” for the future of green energy and technology that China and Russia could exploit more fully than the U.S. As always, coordination with allies and partners will be key to ensuring a fair regulatory environment for seabed mining, not governed by Russia and China, and will be key to support U.S. efforts to diversify its critical mineral supply chains. As new seabed mining hotspots are discovered, as Russia and China continue to accumulate more mining permits, and as the regulatory process is due to finalize within the next few years, time is of the essence for the U.S. to capitalize.
Thea Dunlevie is a Senior Analyst whose research focuses on transatlantic maritime security.
Your investment in the Center for Maritime Strategy supports the U.S. Sea Services by empowering policy-driven maritime security research, advocacy, and education.
Center for Maritime Strategy
By Thea Dunlevie
“Critical minerals” has become a national security buzzword of the 21st century – and rightly so. In February 2022, the Biden Administration announced federal efforts to protect the “Critical Minerals Supply Chain” by encouraging domestic production, to support the U.S. energy, technology, and defense industries. Such minerals include cobalt, lithium, nickel, graphite, and copper, and many others can be found under the sea, in seabeds. As these components are essential for fueling modern society and military technology, countries are scrambling for new sources.
Great power competitors including China and Russia are among the dozens of countries greatly invested in the hunt for seabed minerals, found coating sea ridges and mountains, in deposits of minerals near hypothermal vents, and within polymetallic nodules. But the U.S. is falling behind Russia and China in the race towards seabed mining. As the U.S. seeks alternative sources of critical minerals from China, especially, it should look to the seabed. The U.S. should pursue opportunities to participate in and shape the seabed mining regulation setting process within the International Seabed Authority (“ISA”) and partner with allied members of the ISA towards advancing common interests, potential trade of critical minerals to be mined by those allied countries, and exploring joint opportunities for U.S. and allied businesses to participate in regulated seabed mining.
Figure 1. Polymetallic nodules from the seabed. Photo from The Metals Company.
Increasing Demand
Demand for critical minerals continues to rise. CEO of seabed mining company, The Metals Company, described critical mineral nodules as “a battery in a rock,” which could potentially power 4.8 billion electric vehicles. Last year, the White House explained how, given global efforts to embrace clean energy alternatives, “global demand for these critical minerals is set to skyrocket by 400-600 percent over the next several decades, and, for minerals such as lithium and graphite used in electric vehicle (“EV”) batteries, demand will increase by even more—as much as 4,000 percent.” This set the stage for Executive Order 13017, “America’s Supply Chains,” to bolster domestic, land-based mining, especially after COVID-19 demonstrated gaps in global critical mineral supply chains.
Big ideas require larger “battery mineral” deposits, but thankfully, mineral-rich seabeds are expansive – so sizeable they are often compared to countries. It is believed earth might hold more sea-based minerals than land-based supplies. Norway, for example, draws attention to a mineral-rich seabed roughly the size of Germany off its coasts containing polymetallic nodules comprised of copper, nickel, cobalt and other critical minerals. Norway also expresses optimism that countries and companies could conduct deep-sea mining there and hopes to employ these minerals towards creating a greener future.
The Regulatory Environment and Barriers to Mining
Seabed mining is governed by the International Seabed Authority within the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (“UNCLOS”). Today, it has 169 members – including Russia and China – but the U.S. is not a member, since it has not formally ratified UNCLOS. Seabed mining is not yet regulated in international waters, despite demand. The ISA has been overseeing regulatory negotiations, which the U.S. can participate in as an Observer, and has been distributing permits.
Figure 2. Nautilus Minerals demos seabed mining equipment. Photo from Nautilus Minerals.
As of 2023, the ISA has issued 31 exploration licenses to 14 countries – U.S. allies and competitors alike. While internationally-sanctioned seabed mining has not begun, exploration and permitting is underway. Such mining could begin as soon as 2025. Among the chief concerns are ongoing environmental studies about harmful mining practices’ potential damage to the subsea ecosystem. Both governments and companies have publicly opposed seabed mining, to protect the “common heritage of mankind.” The debate over seabed mining has intensified since 2021, when Palau proposed to mine the undersea Clarion-Clipperton Zone. The ISA was set to accept mining applications in July 2023, and companies, such as Belgian company Global Sea Mineral Resources, are already testing mining technologies, in anticipation of 2025.
Chinese and Russian versus U.S. Seabed Mining
China and Russia are currently outpacing the U.S. in the race towards exploring, then extracting, deep-sea critical minerals essential for digitalized and climate-conscious modern life and military warfare. As of 2023, China holds 5 contracts and Russia holds 4 contracts. The U.S. holds zero. Major state-owned companies are taking on these contracts, such as China’s Minemetals. Russia and China also hold disproportionate influence within the ISA and regulatory process due to their Member statuses, while the U.S. is an Observer. Their activity within the ISA raises concerns over Chinese or Russian “lawfare.” These particular “Group A major consumers” may seek to shape the deep sea mining regulatory environment in their favor, following precedent within other international organizations.
New seabed deposits are increasingly attractive to countries, like the U.S., seeking to bolster their supply chains to avoid dependence on China. Chinese dominance of the critical mineral industry could be leveraged against the U.S. and other dependent states, both in times of peace and conflict. For instance, China produces nearly 75% of the world’s cobalt. Cobalt is used in jet engines, magnets, for electronic warfare, and in munitions, just as a few examples. The U.S. is actively seeking alternative suppliers since, not long ago, the U.S. produced 0% of its cobalt domestically. Could China reduce or cut off supply?
The U.S. Approach
Stakeholder engagement and coordination with allies will be crucial for creating a coalition-governed, sustainable mining framework. First, to combat Chinese and Russian influence and to positively affect ISA regulations, the U.S. should increase its engagement in the ISA as an Observer. Even if the U.S. will not become a full member of the ISA, it should still increase its influence through American entities like NGOs and academic institutions. These entities can become Observers to the ISA, informing and shaping seabed mining regulations. For example, while Russia often suppresses ecological activism within its borders, U.S. government coordination with NGOs is an opportunity for the U.S. and likeminded allies to advocate for and lead on ecological protection issues. Secondly, beyond creating a domestic coalition, the U.S. must actively engage with allied Members of the ISA, who are helping to shape mining regulations. The U.S. can look for beneficial opportunities to support the British Secretary General’s agenda, as they pertain to the founding principles of the ISA to “ensure the effective protection of the marine environment from harmful effects that may arise from deep-seabed-related activities.”
Lastly, the U.S. should expand critical mining partnerships with allied Member states, like Norway. U.S. companies can participate in the seabed mining exploration and extraction process indirectly through international corporate partnerships, as done by Lockheed Martin which operates through a UK subsidiary Seabed Resources (recently transferred to Norway’s Loke Marine Minerals). This can be beneficial for both parties: if the U.S. does not sign onto UNCLOS, or U.S. companies are not afforded comparable opportunities to participate in seabed mining as Member states of the ISA, the U.S. could consider importing critical minerals from trusted allies, instead of China. To avoid potential consequences from dependence on China, the U.S. must continue diversifying its critical mineral sources. Diversifying critical mineral sources reduces the leverage of great power competitors, like China, over U.S. defense and technology manufacturing.
Amid increasing pressure to accelerate the international seabed mining timeline, in addition to active Russian and Chinese participation within the ISA, the U.S. must secure its footing so it can positively impact the trajectory of and maximize benefits from seabed mining. Some might consider seabed mining to be a sort of 21st century “Sputnik moment” for the future of green energy and technology that China and Russia could exploit more fully than the U.S. As always, coordination with allies and partners will be key to ensuring a fair regulatory environment for seabed mining, not governed by Russia and China, and will be key to support U.S. efforts to diversify its critical mineral supply chains. As new seabed mining hotspots are discovered, as Russia and China continue to accumulate more mining permits, and as the regulatory process is due to finalize within the next few years, time is of the essence for the U.S. to capitalize.
Thea Dunlevie is a Senior Analyst whose research focuses on transatlantic maritime security.