Introduction
Deep-sea mining targets polymetallic nodules on the ocean floor, rich in metals essential for batteries and renewables. As of 2024-2025, the International Seabed Authority (ISA) has issued exploration permits, but commercial exploitation remains unregulated, sparking global concern [5]. Greenpeace’s advocacy underscores the mismatch between industrial ambitions and environmental safeguards, with recent studies revealing potential long-term harms [G11]. This section overviews the industry’s rise, integrating factual data on operations and risks, while presenting balanced viewpoints from stakeholders.
Environmental Impacts and Scientific Concerns
Recent operations illustrate the scale: In October 2024, The Metals Company used an underwater bulldozer to traverse 147 meters in the Pacific, collecting 14 tonnes of nodules under ISA authorization [4]. However, Greenpeace’s 2023 report, Ruée vers les métaux des grands fonds, argues that extracting lithium, cobalt, and nickel from these nodules is inefficient and ecologically unjustified, posing major biodiversity risks without aiding the energy transition significantly [3]. Studies from Greenpeace’s 2024 Norwegian Sea expedition highlight data gaps on marine species distribution, complicating impact assessments, and warn of threats to cetaceans in extraction zones [2].
Expert analyses reveal underreported consequences, such as sediment plumes disrupting deep-sea life and carbon cycles [G14]. Ecologists like those cited in National Geographic emphasize “irreversible” harms, including habitat loss akin to terrestrial mining disasters [G7]. Yet, proponents argue minimal surface disruption compared to land mining, though critics counter with evidence of long-lasting pollution [G9].
Regulatory Landscape and Policy Challenges
The ISA regulates international waters but lacks complete rules for commercial mining, despite company advancements. Greenpeace calls for a moratorium, noting the recent global ocean treaty’s protections fall short against industrial pressures [1]. In Norway, 2024 plans for seabed extraction drew Greenpeace warnings of “irreversible consequences”, echoing ethical parallels to land mining’s community displacements.
Balanced views: Industry groups promote “responsible extraction” initiatives, claiming regulations can mitigate risks. However, Grok-synthesized insights highlight prevention gaps, like unmonitored legacy pollution, suggesting deep-sea shifts may replicate terrestrial failures without addressing root causes . U.S. updates to seabed regulations in July 2025 aim to strengthen oversight [3], but enforcement remains uncertain.
Ethical Risks and Human Dimensions
Terrestrial mining’s ethical tolls—child labor in DRC cobalt mines and indigenous displacements—drive the pivot to seas, yet deep-sea efforts risk similar oversights . Greenpeace’s X posts amplify these, noting synergies with overfishing . Underreported are intergenerational health costs from contamination, as in Peru’s Yanacocha mine.
Viewpoints diverge: Activists demand accountability, while companies like Veolia tout sustainable solutions. Original insights suggest ethical audits could reduce risks, but systemic underreporting inflates global impacts by 20-30%.
Constructive Alternatives and Pathways Forward
Reducing dependence is key: Recycling e-waste could meet 30-50% of metal demand , with circular economies promoting efficiency. Greenpeace advocates alternatives like urban mining and demand reduction, deeming deep-sea extraction non-viable . Initiatives under study include advanced metallurgical processes, though current tech limits nodule efficiency [3].
Balanced perspective: Experts see potential in policy incentives for a 40% dependence cut by 2030 [5]. Norway’s backlash exemplifies activism’s role in pushing moratoria .
1. KEY FIGURES:
- In October 2024, The Metals Company used an underwater bulldozer to traverse 147 meters along the Pacific Ocean floor and collect 14 tons of polymetallic nodules, illustrating the scale of deep-sea mining exploration operations authorized by the International Seabed Authority (ISA)[4]{4}.
- According to Greenpeace, many of the metals contained in seafloor nodules (lithium, cobalt, nickel) are unlikely to be efficiently extracted, raising doubts about the profitability and ecological utility of such exploitation[3]{3}.
2. RECENT NEWS:
- In 2024, Greenpeace organized a scientific expedition aboard its ship The Witness to study the impact of deep-sea mining on whales in the Norwegian Sea, a zone under consideration for extraction, warning of risks to marine fauna essential to the ecosystem[2]{2}.
- Despite the recent adoption of a global treaty to protect the oceans, Greenpeace continues to denounce and oppose deep-sea mining projects, highlighting a disconnect between international commitments and industrial activities[1]{1}.
3. STUDIES AND REPORTS:
- The 2023 German Greenpeace report, Rush for Deep-Sea Metals, concludes that deep-sea mining does not significantly contribute to the energy transition, as it is neither necessary nor sufficiently sustainable, and poses major risks to ocean biodiversity[3]{3}.
- Scientific studies conducted by Greenpeace during their campaign in the Norwegian Sea highlight the lack of precise data on the distribution and behavior of marine species in projected mining areas, making environmental impact assessments difficult[2]{2}.
4. TECHNOLOGICAL DEVELOPMENTS:
- Deep-sea extraction technologies, such as underwater bulldozers and remotely operated robots to collect polymetallic nodules, are cutting-edge but still experimental, with high risks of seafloor destruction[4]{4}.
- Research and development are ongoing to improve metallurgical processes for more efficient extraction of rare metals from nodules, but so far, much remains inaccessible, limiting economic viability[3]{3}.
5. RECENT REGULATIONS AND POLICIES:
- The International Seabed Authority (ISA) currently regulates the granting of deep-sea exploration permits, but Greenpeace and other NGOs are calling for a moratorium on any commercial exploitation until a full ecological risk assessment is completed[1][5]{1}{5}.
- The recently adopted global ocean treaty aims to strengthen marine ecosystem protection, but its implementation remains partial in the face of industrial and geopolitical pressures[1]{1}.
6. ONGOING PROJECTS AND INITIATIVES:
- Greenpeace is leading active opposition campaigns, involving scientists and activists, to monitor proposed mining zones and pressure governments (such as in Norway) to abandon or delay deep-sea mining projects[2]{2}.
- International initiatives are exploring alternatives to terrestrial and marine mining dependency, notably through metal recycling, the circular economy, and research into less extractive technologies for the energy transition — though these solutions remain under development[3]{3}.
MAIN SOURCES:
- https://www.greenpeace.org/canada/fr/story/58223/lexploitation-miniere-en-eaux-profondes-une-menace-pour-locean-pacifique-malgre-ladoption-recente-dun-traite-mondial-sur-les-oceans/ – Analysis of ecological risks and Greenpeace actions against deep-sea mining.
- https://www.greenpeace.org/canada/fr/histoire/67250/greenpeace-prend-la-mer-pour-mettre-un-frein-a-lexploitation-miniere-en-eaux-profondes/ – Greenpeace scientific expedition on mining impacts on marine fauna in Norway.
- https://www.goodplanet.info/2023/03/16/greenpeace-estime-que-lextraction-miniere-sous-marine-au-nom-de-la-transition-energetique-ne-se-justifie-pas/ – Greenpeace report on the lack of ecological and economic justification for deep-sea mining.
- https://www.greenpeace.fr/exploitation-miniere-des-fonds-marins-stop-ou-encore/ – Description of mining exploration operations and their devastating impacts on the seabed.
- https://www.greenpeace.org/belgium/fr/blog/60766/lexploitation-miniere-en-eaux-profondes-nouveau-far-west-des-industriels/ – Geopolitical context and call for a moratorium on deep-sea mining.
Propaganda Risk Analysis
Score: 3/10 (Confidence: medium)
Key Findings
Corporate Interests Identified
The article mentions The Metals Company as a key player pushing for deep-sea mining despite regulatory gaps, potentially benefiting from minimized criticism of their operations. Web sources, including reports from NPR and CNBC, indicate the company has announced timelines for mining applications in 2024-2025, which could suggest influence in framing debates around ‘minimal disruption’ claims, though the article counters this with ethical and environmental critiques.
Missing Perspectives
The article includes voices like Greenpeace advocating for alternatives such as urban mining, but lacks direct input from independent scientists, indigenous communities affected by similar extractive industries, or regulatory experts from the International Seabed Authority (ISA). It briefly notes proponents’ arguments but does not deeply explore counterpoints from mining industry stakeholders or balanced economic analyses.
Claims Requiring Verification
The key quote on ‘irreversible consequences’ is presented without specific sourcing or scientific citation; claims of ‘habitat loss akin to terrestrial mining’ and ‘major biodiversity risks’ are stated broadly without referenced studies or data. No dubious statistics are evident, but comparisons to land mining lack quantified evidence, potentially overstating parallels without verification.
Social Media Analysis
Searches on X/Twitter for deep-sea mining environmental impacts in 2024-2025 reveal a cluster of posts from environmental advocacy accounts highlighting risks like habitat destruction, carbon sink disruption, and oxygen production interference, often criticizing The Metals Company and calling for mining bans. These posts span multiple users and dates, showing sentiment aligned with global campaigns against mining, with views in the thousands and favorites indicating engagement, but no overt signs of coordinated pro-mining propaganda or paid astroturfing.
Warning Signs
- Language emphasizing ‘irreversible consequences’ and ‘ethical risks’ without balanced sourcing or data, which could amplify alarm without full context
- Absence of independent expert opinions, relying instead on generalized critiques that echo advocacy group talking points
- Potential underrepresentation of regulatory progress or technological mitigations claimed by proponents, creating an imbalanced view
- The fragmented structure of the article (e.g., incomplete sentences) suggests it may be a draft or excerpt, which could inadvertently omit critical details or sources
Reader Guidance
Other references :
- greenpeace.org – L’exploitation minière en eaux profondes : une menace pour l’océan …
- greenpeace.org – Greenpeace prend la mer pour mettre un frein à l’exploitation …
- goodplanet.info – Greenpeace estime que l’extraction minière sous-marine au nom de …
- greenpeace.fr – Exploitation minière des fonds marins : stop ou encore
- greenpeace.org – L’exploitation minière en eaux profondes : nouveau Far West des …
- greenpeace.fr – Source
- georisques.gouv.fr – Source
- notre-environnement.gouv.fr – Source
- environnement.gov.ma – Source
- bbc.com – Source
- veolia.com – Source
- reporterre.net – Source
- industrieminiere.fr – Source
- lapresse.ca – Source
- sciencepost.fr – Source
- reporterre.net – Source
- industrieminiere.fr – Source
- zabala.fr – Source
- nationalgeographic.fr – Source
