DThe operator of the needles of a suep is a complex subject which leaves aside a crucial starting point: the extraction of rocks the size of the potato on the seabed called “nodules” gives only four metals of any economic consequence: nickel, cobalt, copper and manganese. Since copper and manganese are abundant on earth, exploitation on a deep scale is really a question of nickel and cobalt. And, unlike many, many have tried to claim, you cannot in fact obtain significant quantities of rare earth elements from the seabed.
In the early 2020s, the exploitation of Leateacheor was announced as a source of key metals for electric vehicle batteries (EV). However, battery technology has grown considerably with new chemies that do not require cobalt or nickel and use iron, phosphorus and cheap sodium. Cobalt and nickel prices have collapsed since 2022 and the two are now in excess assistance in the world. In other words, cobalt and nickel batteries are yesterday’s technology.
With the account of the EV battery, the collapse of the Canadian mining firm on the high seas and the world leader in the field, Metals Company (TMC), recently moved its marketing of batteries to announce in place that the maritime exploitation of the seabed is a means for the United States to obtain “critical metals”. China is currently dominating the global supply of many critical metals, but it is because it leads to the treatment of metals, and not in the exploitation of raw ore. China mine less than 5% of the world nickel or cobalt ore, but they control around 75% of the treatment and sales of nickel and cobalt worldwide.
Find out more: More than 99% of the deep sea remains a mystery
If the United States wanted to secure its own metal supply chains, it would be preferable to focus on the simplified permission to treat critical metals at the national level or with our allies, rather than the depths of the nodules. This is what China does: it is important to Indonesia and Congo ore to secure its domination in nickel and cobalt. We could do the same with our own allies much more easily and at low cost than extracting the seabed. TMC says that once it reaches complete production levels in eight to 10 years, it could produce 119,000 tonnes of nickel and 9,000 tonnes of cobalt per year. Even if the company could achieve this, it would represent just over 3% of the world production projected in 2025 for each. This is correct: almost 97% of the nickel and cobalt supply would still come from land sources.
The cost hypotheses for the exploitation of deep needles do not seem to take into account inflation and variations in interest rates. In 2021, TMC’s public documents provided for its total costs until 2046 to nearly $ 38 billion. Five years later, after the highest inflation since the 1980s and a doubling of the rates of offshore drilling ships? No public change to their forecasts. An apparent change in their total financing costs given the doubling of interest rates? None.
On the environmental front, their new chorus is: “Get critical minerals from the areas of the planet with the slightest life rather than the most life.” However, this is a false equivalence: that it is preferable to destroy a sailor background that an acre Indonesian tropical forest. Not only are there major mines in non -formidable areas (in Australia and Canada, for example), but a three -dimensional terrestrial mine gives 564 tonnes per hectare of nickel, on average, during his life, while the two -dimensional seabed only gives only 1.5 tonnes per hectare. Five hundred to 2,000 times more area should be extracted at sea to give the same quantity as the thick and densest veins from land mines. Without forgetting, a large part of the deep ocean remains unexplored by scientists – so that the extent of any potential damage for ecosystems is still not fully understood.
Finally, the extraction of the seabed is governed by the United Nations Convention on the Act of the Sea (UNCLOS), ratified by 169 countries. The Secretary General of the International Marine Fund authority said that “any unilateral action would constitute a violation of international law”. Unable to obtain a permit to exploit the UN international waters, TMC has chosen to ignore these standards and move forward with the extraction process outside the UNCLOS. In doing so, TMC has requested the support of the only country that has not ratified UNCHS: the United States.
Find out more: What to know about Trump’s push to stimulate the exploitation of the deep sea
However, this has exchanged a problem – not to obtain a permit from the international authority of UN’s seabed – for perhaps a worst. What companies will really work to extract the seabed? The operational partners of TMC, Allseas and Glencore, are both Swiss companies. Will they voluntarily violate an international law which their country of origin has signed? The others? What about insurance and financing companies that minors from the seabed will have to help their companies to manage? Will minerals thus exploited will they be considered as conflict minerals on the international market? They should be.
If the United States seeks to obtain the lowest and inexpensive risk of securing critical minerals, it should invest in mining and processing facilities on domestic soil or more efficiently, with allied countries with larger metal reserves such as Canada and Australia. The recent partnership with Ukraine is an excellent example of the best way to secure critical minerals while strengthening links with key allies, avoiding potential violations of international law and inviting other hostile countries to do the same.
Those who argue for the exploitation of deep places maintains that we must invest billions in difficult and not sorted technology to guarantee only two metals whose future predicted shortages are now strongly questioned, and by an industry that fights to remain relevant and avoid missing money. Support the extraction of the seabed? It could well become the version of this decade of Solyndra.
