The Trump Administration Wants Seafloor Mining. What Does That Mean?
Life at the bottom of the Pacific Ocean is slow, dark and quiet. Strange creatures glitter and glow. Oxygen seeps mysteriously from lumpy, metallic rocks. There is little to disturb these deep-ocean denizens.
'There's weird life down here,' said Bethany Orcutt, a geomicrobiologist at Bigelow Laboratory for Ocean Sciences.
Research in the deep sea is incredibly difficult given the extreme conditions, and rare given the price tag.
On Thursday, President Trump signed an executive order that aims to permit, for the first time, industrial mining of the seabed for minerals. Scientists have expressed deep reservations that mining could irreversibly harm these deep-sea ecosystems before their value and workings are fully understood.
What's down there, anyway?
Seafloor mining could target three kinds of metal-rich deposits: nodules, crusts and mounds. But right now, it's all about the nodules. Nodules are of particular value because they contain metals used in the making of electronics, sophisticated weaponry, electric-vehicle batteries and other technologies needed for human development. Nodules are also the easiest seafloor mineral deposit to collect.
Mining companies are interested in the mineral-rich seabed of the Clarion-Clipperton Zone
Source: U.S. Geological Survey, International Seabed Authority
Want all of The Times? Subscribe.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hill
6 hours ago
- The Hill
After the Trump-Musk dustup, NASA has much to consider
The social media-driven feud between President Donald Trump and SpaceX CEO Elon Musk may have simmered down a bit, with the rhetoric cooling and Musk even deleting some of his ill-considered posts about Trump from X and then apologizing for them. But the shockwaves generated by the tit-for-tat insults and threats still reverberate through NASA and the commercial space sector. When Trump threatened to pull all of SpaceX's government contracts and Musk responded by threatening to decommission the Dragon spacecraft, an apocalyptic scenario that would have cripped NASA loomed. Fortunately, both men have since backed off. Even so, according to the Washington Post, NASA and the Defense Department are quietly urging commercial space companies to hurry the development of hardware that can compete with what SpaceX has to offer. Encouraging competition with SpaceX is sound policy regardless of the relationship between Trump and Musk. However, that competition is months, if not years, in the future. The next flight of the Boeing Starliner, which failed so spectacularly in 2024, will be early next year at the earliest. The Blue Origin New Glenn, an answer to the SpaceX Falcon family of rockets, may launch once more this year and is a long way from achieving Falcon-level launch cadence. It is in Trump's and Musk's interests, and that of the American space effort, that both men repair their relationship and move on. One of the issues that drove Trump and Musk apart was Trump's abrupt and inexplicable withdrawal of the nomination of Jared Isaacman, a billionaire entrepreneur and private space traveler, for NASA administrator. Musk had championed Isaacman, who is well regarded in the aerospace community, and took it to heart when Trump changed his mind about his own nominee. The resulting leadership vacuum at NASA is being filled by Congress. The Senate Commerce Committee, chaired by Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas), has offered its own ideas for a NASA budget. The Senate Commerce document is at odds with the White House proposal in one important aspect. Whereas the Trump budget eliminates the Space Launch System after Artemis III and the Lunar Gateway, Senate Commerce would retain the massive, expensive rocket at least through Artemis V and would build the Gateway to support future Artemis missions. A NASA administrator such as Isaacman would be able to argue for the White House's approach. As for Isaacman, some people in the MAGA world, no doubt stung by the near-universal outrage sparked by his treatment at the hands of the White House, have started to trash the former nominee in the media. A recent Daily Caller story quoted unnamed White House officials accusing Isaacman of not only giving money to Democrats but of supporting diversity, equity and inclusion initiatives at his companies and in his private spaceflights. But both of these facts were known when Isaacman was nominated. According to the story, the officials said, 'Isaacman would have been a black spot on an administration otherwise filled with Republican Trump supporters or, at least, individuals like Robert F. Kennedy Jr. who backed the president prior to the election.' To hear these unnamed sources talk, Isaacman is no better than left-wing House members Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.), Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.) and their Squad. It should be noted that even if Isaacman wanted to impose DEI policies at NASA, he couldn't because of Trump's executive order prohibiting it across the federal government. Isaacman posted to X in his own defense: 'I am a moderate and donated to both parties for different reasons … my largest contribution was to President Trump — because I support many of his policies. I definitely did not like the direction this country was going over the last 4 years.' He went on to state, 'I have never spoken against the President. I have never voted against him.' It sounds like Isaacman is very loyal to Trump, remarkable under the circumstances. The suggestion of disloyalty is spurious and against the White House's interests. Isaacman's situation could provide the basis of a rapprochement between Trump and Musk. Musk has already apologized to the president for some of his posts on X, particularly the one suggesting that Trump is named in the Department of Justice's files on Jeffrey Epstein. But the president should admit fault as well. He was deceived by some of his staff about Isaacman's character. If it is not too late, he should reverse himself a second time and send his fellow billionaire's name back into nomination. NASA, the U.S., and the Trump-Musk partnership would gain as a result. Mark R. Whittington, who writes frequently about space policy, has published a political study of space exploration entitled 'Why is It So Hard to Go Back to the Moon?' as well as 'The Moon, Mars and Beyond,' and, most recently, 'Why is America Going Back to the Moon?' He blogs at Curmudgeons Corner.
New York Post
7 hours ago
- New York Post
Inside the battle to control the world's supply of rare earths
Back in 2009, Jim Kennedy, a consultant and entrepreneur of rare earths — a group of 17 metallic elements, including 15 lanthanides, crucial for modern technology — met with a top official at the Pentagon to discuss the future of these precious minerals. 'He was almost indifferent to the issue,' Kennedy tells The Post. 'His dispassion was staggering. It was one of the most disappointing meetings in my life.' Sixteen years later, that indifference has widely disappeared. Rare earths — used for everything from smartphones, electric cars and airplane engines to medical equipment, wind turbines and military applications like missiles and fighter jets — have become one of the most in-demand and politically contested industries in the world. 10 A miner carrying a heavy bag of rare earth-filled mud in China, which controls many of the most crucial rare earth elements now required for the sophisticated technology that powers everything from cellphones to fighter jets. REUTERS Rare earths 'enjoy an unusual level of bipartisan political support because they are vital both to economic development and national security,' says Melissa Sanderson, a former president and current board director at American Rare Earths, an Australian company focused on developing rare earth projects, including one in Wyoming. Rare earths aren't just a big part of modern technology; they're in many ways the most critical components. They're used as heat-absorbing agents in wind turbine motors, as strengthening and anti-glare agents in iPhones and fighter jets and as clarifying agents in MRIs. They're also almost completely controlled by China. Between 2020 and 2023, 70% of our rare earth imports came from China, according to Statista. That number jumped to 80% last year. And the US is 100% reliant on China imports of Yttrium, a rare earth metal used in everything from cellphones to TVs to radiation therapy used to treat liver cancer. 10 Rare earths 'enjoy an unusual level of bipartisan political support because they are vital both to economic development and national security,' says Melissa Sanderson, a former president and current board director at American Rare Earths. China has been fickle about granting export licenses for rare earths, although their grip has shown recent signs of weakening. President Trump had a lengthy (and rare) phone call with Chinese President Xi Jinping on June 5 and in a social media post after the call, Trump wrote 'there should no longer be any questions respecting the complexity of Rare Earth products.' The next day, China granted temporary export licenses to rare-earth suppliers of the top three US automakers. The irony is that for much of the mid-20th century, the US was a global leader of rare earth elements. But 'demand was exponentially lower at the time,' says Sanderson. 'Therefore, the output from our sole producer — Mountain Pass Materials, known as MP Materials now — was sufficient to satisfy a large percentage of then-existing demand.' The Las Vegas-Nevada-based company still operates the only rare earth mine and processing facility in the United States. 10 President Trump and President Zelensky meet in the Oval Office in February. Soon after this meeting a deal was made for Ukraine to supply vital rare earths to the United States. AFP via Getty Images America's rare earths lead came to an end in 1980, brought on by changes to US regulations. Because processing rare earth minerals involves the separation and removal of uranium and thorium, it can lead to radioactive waste and other contaminants. 'The US was concerned about the environmental impact, since particularly with the technology of the time, there were significant impacts to air, water and even ground quality that would not have met US standards,' says Sanderson. It wasn't the same story in China, who were more willing to accept the dangerous pollutants 'as a price for achieving its market dominance,' she says. China's monopoly of rare earths doesn't just give them an economic advantage. 'China has been 'weaponizing' its market hegemony for many years, in increasingly sophisticated and legal ways,' says Sanderson. 10 Pres. Trump with Chinese leader Xi Jinping. Having conceded its lead on rare earth mining, the US is playing a serious game of catch-up with the Chinese. REUTERS The country first flexed their power in 2010, blocking rare earth exports to Japan, a major producer of permanent metal magnets. 'That decision was overturned by the World Trade Organization, so China does not exert its control as overtly now,' says Sanderson. But in the current trade tussle with the US, 'China has identified seven crucial elements under its export control regime which it will not sell to the US,' says Sanderson. 'Due to concerns that while suitable for civilian economic use, they could also be used for military purposes.' While President Trump's tariffs are often blamed for exacerbating the tensions, Kennedy, who serves as president of ThREE Consulting, a rare earths consultancy, says the tariffs are actually 'forcing China to reveal the magnitude of this threat. Absent Trump's tariffs, China would never have shown its hand until it was too late.' 10 The US is 100% reliant on China imports of Yttrium, a rare earth metal used in everything from cellphones to TVs to radiation therapy used to treat liver cancer. REUTERS Just how bad could it get? Kennedy believes that if left unchecked, and China was allowed to continue their embargo without consequences, 'the non-Chinese world would need to shut down and re-engineer most everything that comes off an assembly line,' says Kennedy. 'This is not an overstatement.' The stand-off with China may be at the forefront, but it's not the only way Trump is maneuvering to protect the nation from rare earth depletion. Greenland contains (by some estimates) about a quarter of the world's rare earth minerals, and Trump has suggested that the US could annex the autonomous territory in Denmark. 10 A chunk of Ytrium, once of the most important rare earth elements. Phil Degginger/imageBROKER/Shutterstock The US also recently inked a landmark deal with Ukraine, which has approximately 5% of the total global mineral reserves. Although Trump declared in February that Ukraine would be providing 'the equivalent of like $500 billion worth of rare earth [minerals],' the exact amount wasn't specified in the deal, other than that the US and Ukraine would be splitting profits 50/50. There have also been efforts to mine rare earths from an entirely new source — the bottom of the Pacific Ocean. 10 Consultant Jim Kennedy was one of the first industry insiders to raise the alarm around the rarity — and potential global conflict — surrounding rare earths. It's called the 'Clarion Clipperton Zone,' a remote area of the Pacific between Hawaii and Mexico, roughly half the size of the contiguous US. This seabed region is rich in polymetallic nodules, the rock-like formations that contain some of the most sought-after rare earths in the world. It's a veritable goldmine waiting to be unearthed. In fact, the US Geological Survey recently estimated that the Clarion Clipperton Zone contains more nickel, cobalt and manganese than all terrestrial reserves combined. The Metals Company, a Canadian firm with US investment ties, is already making strides to become the first to mine commercially in the region. They conducted a field test back in 2022, and the company is currently applying for 'exploration licenses and commercial recovery permits' from the US. There are legal hurdles that could slow down their ambitions. Despite a 1980 law passed by Congress to regulate seabed mining, the Clarion Clipperton Zone technically falls under the jurisdiction of the International Seabed Authority, which operates under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. Whether the ISA has exclusive authority over the region remains open to debate. 10 Gerard Barron, CEO of The Metals Company, has dismissed some of the concerns about potential environmental damage surrounding rare earth mining efforts. AFP via Getty Images There are also environmental concerns. Arlo Hemphill, a Senior Oceans Campaigner at Greenpeace, warns that any move to mine the Pacific 'would be an ecological disaster. Scientists have not even had a chance to fully explore and understand the wonders of the deep, but a greedy corporation wants to tear up this ecosystem and cause immense ecological damage.' Gerard Barron, CEO of The Metals Company, dismisses these concerns, pointing out during a recent interview that Indonesia regularly mines in biodiverse rainforest regions. 'For some reason,' he said during the interview, 'people think it's okay to go digging up rainforests to get the metals underneath them, yet we're debating whether we should be going to pick up these rocks that sit on the abyssal plain?' (Barron did not respond to the Post's request for comment.) There are other options, but many are just as controversial. Sanderson believes the key will come down to strengthening our relationship with allies like Canada and Australia. 'They have significant natural resources and experienced and large mining companies,' she says. 'Cooperation with these countries is vital for filling the knowledge gap. The US doesn't have nearly enough experienced chemical and process engineers, as just one example.' 10 Rare earths are also crucial components of military fighter jets. Soonthorn – It took half a century for China to achieve its market position, she says, and the US needs an integrated supply chain from mine to magnet, but we're essentially starting from scratch. The US also needs to reform its mining regulatory system, which has a dysfunctional permitting process and some of the longest lead times for new mine production in the world. 'On average, companies wait anywhere from eight to fifteen years from when a deposit is initially determined to be economically interesting to when production can start,' says Sanderson, 'and some have waited significantly longer than that.' New mining projects are also frequently litigated, 'multiple times from multiple angles,' says Sanderson, which can add even more years to the wait time. With the return on investment horizon so long and the prospects so uncertain, many companies 'have difficulty attracting the investment necessary to support the high costs of building a mine,' she says. 10 Miners of rare earths such as these in China are increasingly at the forefront of the global race to control many of the elements that will determine our technological future. REUTERS Kennedy, however, is hopeful for the future. His company, Caldera Holding LLC, is collaborating with federal labs to refashion a former iron ore mine in Missouri to focus on rare earth minerals. He believes his mine is the only one that can provide 'geopolitically significant quantities' of rare earths.' But the ball, says Kennedy, is very much in Trump's court. His trade war has caused uncertainty, but the president's actions 'strongly suggest that delinking from China is real. This can be helpful, but follow-through is critical.' It's now up to the Trump administration to provide low-cost loans, grants and production tax credits to US-based mining companies that have (at least until now) faced almost insurmountable obstacles. 'Failure to support integrated projects,' says Kennedy, 'will result in many slow-motion train wrecks.'
Yahoo
a day ago
- Yahoo
Deep-sea mining threatens sea life in a way no one is thinking about, and Trump's order could clear the way for operations soon
Picture an ocean world so deep and dark it feels like another planet – where creatures glow and life survives under crushing pressure. This is the midwater zone, a hidden ecosystem that begins 650 feet (200 meters) below the ocean surface and sustains life across our planet. It includes the twilight zone and the midnight zone, where strange and delicate animals thrive in the near absence of sunlight. Whales and commercially valuable fish such as tuna rely on animals in this zone for food. But this unique ecosystem faces an unprecedented threat. As the demand for electric car batteries and smartphones grows, mining companies are turning their attention to the deep sea, where precious metals such as nickel and cobalt can be found in potato-size nodules sitting on the ocean floor. Deep-sea mining research and experiments over the past 40 years have shown how the removal of nodules can put seafloor creatures at risk by disrupting their habitats. However, the process can also pose a danger to what lives above it, in the midwater ecosystem. If future deep-sea mining operations release sediment plumes into the water column, as proposed, the debris could interfere with animals' feeding, disrupt food webs and alter animals' behaviors. As an oceanographer studying marine life in an area of the Pacific rich in these nodules, I believe that before countries and companies rush to mine, we need to understand the risks. Is humanity willing to risk collapsing parts of an ecosystem we barely understand for resources that are important for our future? This audio article was produced by News Over Audio (Noa) and ElevenLabs, using an AI voice. Listen to more articles from The Conversation, narrated by Noa. Beneath the Pacific Ocean southeast of Hawaii, a hidden treasure trove of polymetallic nodules can be found scattered across the seafloor. These nodules form as metals in seawater or sediment collect around a nucleus, such as a piece of shell or shark's tooth. They grow at an incredibly slow rate of a few millimeters per million years. The nodules are rich in metals such as nickel, cobalt and manganese – key ingredients for batteries, smartphones, wind turbines and military hardware. As demand for these technologies increases, mining companies are targeting this remote area, known as the Clarion-Clipperton Zone, as well as a few other zones with similar nodules around the world. So far, only test mining has been carried out. However, plans for full-scale commercial mining are rapidly advancing. Exploratory deep-sea mining began in the 1970s, and the International Seabed Authority was established in 1994 under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea to regulate it. But it was not until 2022 that The Metals Company and Nauru Ocean Resources Inc. fully tested the first integrated nodule collection system in the Clarion-Clipperton Zone. The companies are now planning full-scale mining operations in the region. With the International Seabed Authority still debating regulations, The Metals Company appealed to President Donald Trump and applauded his order on April 24, 2025, to expedite U.S.-issued licenses for seabed mining outside national waters under the Deep Seabed Hard Mineral Resources Act. The U.S. is one of a handful of countries that never ratified the U.N. Convention on the Law of the Sea and set up its own licensing regime. The International Seabed Authority strongly opposes Trump's move. Several countries have called for a moratorium on seabed mining until the risks are better understood. The mining process is invasive. Collector vehicles scrape along the ocean floor as they scoop up nodules and stir up sediments. This removes habitats used by marine organisms and threatens biodiversity, potentially causing irreversible damage to seafloor ecosystems. Once collected, the nodules are brought up with seawater and sediments through a pipe to a ship, where they're separated from the waste. The leftover slurry of water, sediment and crushed nodules is then dumped back into the middle of the water column, creating plumes. While the discharge depth is still under discussion, some mining operators propose releasing the waste at midwater depths, around 4,000 feet (1,200 meters). However, there is a critical unknown: The ocean is dynamic, constantly shifting with currents, and scientists don't fully understand how these mining plumes will behave once released into the midwater zone. These clouds of debris could disperse over large areas, potentially harming marine life and disrupting ecosystems. Picture a volcanic eruption – not of lava, but of fine, murky sediments expanding throughout the water column, affecting everything in its path. As an oceanographer studying zooplankton in the Clarion-Clipperton Zone, I am concerned about the impact of deep-sea mining on this ecologically important midwater zone. This ecosystem is home to zooplankton – tiny animals that drift with ocean currents – and micronekton, which includes small fish, squid and crustaceans that rely on zooplankton for food. Sediment plumes in the water column could harm these animals. Fine sediments could clog respiratory structures in fish and feeding structures of filter feeders. For animals that feed on suspended particles, the plumes could dilute food resources with nutritionally poor material. Additionally, by blocking light, plumes might interfere with visual cues essential for bioluminescent organisms and visual predators. For delicate creatures such as jellyfish and siphonophores – gelatinous animals that can grow over 100 feet long – sediment accumulation can interfere with buoyancy and survival. A recent study found that jellies exposed to sediments increased their mucous production, a common stress response that is energetically expensive, and their expression of genes related to wound repair. Additionally, noise pollution from machinery can interfere with how species communicate and navigate. Disturbances like these have the potential to disrupt ecosystems, extending far beyond the discharge depth. Declines in zooplankton populations can harm fish and other marine animal populations that rely on them for food. The midwater zone also plays a vital role in regulating Earth's climate. Phytoplankton at the ocean's surface capture atmospheric carbon, which zooplankton consume and transfer through the food chain. When zooplankton and fish respire, excrete waste, or sink after death, they contribute to carbon export to the deep ocean, where it can be sequestered for centuries. The process naturally removes planet-warming carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. Despite growing interest in deep-sea mining, much of the deep ocean, particularly the midwater zone, remains poorly understood. A 2023 study in the Clarion-Clipperton Zone found that 88% to 92% of species in the region are new to science. Current mining regulations focus primarily on the seafloor, overlooking broader ecosystem impacts. The International Seabed Authority is preparing to discuss key decisions on future seabed mining in July 2025, including rules and guidelines relating to mining waste, discharge depths and environmental protection. These decisions could set the framework for large-scale commercial mining in ecologically important areas such as the Clarion-Clipperton Zone. Yet the consequences for marine life are not clear. Without comprehensive studies on the impact of seafloor mining techniques, the world risks making irreversible choices that could harm these fragile ecosystems. This article, originally published March 25, 2025, has been updated with Trump's order to expedite mining licenses. This article is republished from The Conversation, a nonprofit, independent news organization bringing you facts and trustworthy analysis to help you make sense of our complex world. It was written by: Alexus Cazares-Nuesser, University of Hawaii Read more: Deep seabed mining plans pit renewable energy demand against ocean life in a largely unexplored frontier Secrets of the Octopus Garden: Moms nest at thermal springs to give their young the best chance for survival Scientists envision an 'internet of the ocean,' with sensors and autonomous vehicles that can explore the deep sea and monitor its vital signs Alexus Cazares-Nuesser receives funding from the National Science Foundation Graduate Research Fellowship Program. Past research received funding from The Metals Company Inc. through its subsidiary Nauru Ocean Resources Inc.
