As the world considers what role mineral extraction will play in climate adaptations and a decarbonized future, deep sea mining (DSM) has caught the attention of private companies and many low-income countries as a source of critical resources and potential profit.

However, ocean scientists, including Rashid Sumaila, a UBC-based lead author of a new report, warn there is still much to learn about this new and contentious extraction process that could cause serious harm to sensitive underwater habitats.

Deep Sea Mining isn’t worth it

DSM is mining in the seabeds of the deep ocean, where geologists have discovered a wealth of minerals useful for the energy transition away from fossil fuels, explains Sumaila, professor at UBC’s Institute for the Oceans and Fisheries and the School of Public Policy and Global Affairs.

Sumaila is the lead author of a recent study that analyzed whether the monetary and environmental costs of DSM are worth the financial benefits it could offer countries and companies.

“If you take everything together at the moment, I don’t see any reason why, economically, we should do this,” Sumaila says. Based on their preliminary research on the costs and benefits to private companies, investors, low-income countries, countries engaged in land-based extraction and nature and humanity as a whole, DSM does not make financial sense.

Though there would be some short-term profit, the operation costs, risks, profit distributions, competing supply from land-based extraction, environmental restoration costs and potential litigation mean long-term benefits would decline.

For example, according to the study, just the capital and operation costs would be high, roughly USD $4-6 billion, while revenues are estimated to be USD $9-11 billion over 30 years. Profits distributed to low-income countries are also expected to be very low.

Add on the damage to previously undisturbed wildlife, the plume effect from this activity –
a churning of sediment reducing light, oxygenation and dispersed toxins underwater – and the impact on valuable carbon sequestration of these deep-sea habitats, DSM could cause some serious environmental harm.

“Talking only about the delicate, long-living animals doesn’t move some of us. But the dollars do move maybe a different constituency,” he says. “We need everybody to see the ups and downs of this.”

The push to mine

A common argument in support of DSM is that it could unearth large amounts of minerals used for decarbonization. These minerals could include manganese, cobalt, and lithium – crucial components of electric car batteries, solar panels, wind turbines and other global low-carbon energy production.

“Engineers tell us we have enough [minerals] to meet our needs,” says Sumaila. According to their study, the demand for such minerals could be reduced by 58 per cent through new and efficient technology and circular economy models.

Exploration and DSM are governed by the International Seabed Authority (ISA), an organization established under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS).

The ISA has yet to issue any commercial mining licences to any companies, but the Metals Company, a Canadian deep-sea mining company, is close to receiving the green light, so long as they share the richest portions of the seabed with a low-income country. However, how much will be shared has yet to be disclosed.

“The Metals Company is close to getting an agreement with one of the Pacific Island countries. That’s why it is really important to look at all the positives and negatives,” Sumaila says. “Because once it starts, then it’s over.”

Canada’s role

Canada, a global extractive force already to be reckoned with, is shaping up to be a key player in the DSM debate.

“We have the leading deep sea mining company in the world, The Metals Company, based in Vancouver,” Sumaila says. Canada has a lot of experience and knowledge, so they are very interested in DSM, both locally and abroad, he says, adding that further studies will include Canada as a case study given its unique position.

In the meantime, Sumaila says we don’t have all the information and need time to do this in an environmentally and socially safe way while consulting with Indigenous groups whose cultures and beliefs are tied to the deep sea.

“At the minimum, we should ban this until we understand enough to be able to do this safely. And that may actually be a very tough condition to meet,” he says.