Deep-sea mining has emerged as a flashpoint in global environmental discourse, driven by the demand for metals like nickel, cobalt, and manganese crucial for batteries and renewable technologies. Glencore, a mining giant, has invested early in TMC, securing rights to half of the metals from a Pacific seabed spanning about 250,000 square kilometers {3}. Yet, this ambition unfolds against a backdrop of incomplete regulations and scientific warnings about habitat destruction. Recent moves, such as TMC’s March 2025 bid for U.S. approvals under the 1980 Deep Seabed Hard Mineral Resources Act, highlight efforts to sidestep the International Seabed Authority (ISA) {1}{2}. Environmental groups like Greenpeace decry it as neo-colonial exploitation, while experts emphasize the fragility of deep-sea life {3}{4}. This section overviews the stakes, blending economic incentives with mounting concerns over irreversible impacts.
Glencore’s Strategic Involvement and Partnerships
Glencore’s role in deep-sea mining is anchored in its early backing of TMC, positioning the company to receive 50% of metals from TMC’s Pacific operations, targeting polymetallic nodules in the Clarion-Clipperton Zone (CCZ) {1}{3} [G1]. This strategic off-take agreement aligns with Glencore’s portfolio in energy metals, amid depleting land-based reserves. Partnerships extend indirectly to tech firms like Allseas and Transocean, which develop robotic systems such as the Patania II for nodule extraction {1} [G6][G9]. TMC’s ties with Pacific nations like Nauru, under the 2050 Blue Pacific Strategy, facilitate exploration, though details on local consortiums remain opaque {1} [G9].
Expert analysis reveals Glencore’s “first-mover advantage” in unregulated spaces, but it risks reputational fallout from past controversies Planet Keeper Report. Emerging trends show a shift toward state-sponsored alliances, yet secrecy hampers transparency [G13]. Balancing viewpoints, proponents argue these collaborations could boost Pacific economies, while critics highlight unequal benefits and environmental burdens [G8].
Environmental Impacts and Scientific Concerns
The ecological toll of deep-sea mining is profound, with targeted ecosystems hosting millions of endemic species, many endangered {4}. Mining disrupts manganese nodules, vital habitats for sponges, corals, and anemones, leading to potentially irreversible destruction {4} [G11]. Studies from the MiningImpact Project (2025) and DEEP REST Project show recovery could take 100 to 1,000 years, if possible, with restoration efforts failing in the short term {4} [G5][G10].
Social media on X echoes these fears, with activists labeling it a “heinous crime” against biodiversity, citing sediment plumes that suffocate marine life and spread up to 900 km [G15]–[G20]. Expert insights warn of disrupted carbon sinks and oxygen production, exacerbating climate change Planet Keeper Report [G11]. Conversely, some industry voices claim technological advancements minimize harm, though scientists at ISA meetings urge precaution due to restoration impossibilities {2}{4} [G3].
Regulatory Challenges and Geopolitical Tensions
ISA negotiations remain stalled in 2025, with many nations and scientists advocating moratoriums until environmental safeguards are established {2} [G7][G8]. TMC’s pivot to U.S. law exploits regulatory gaps, drawing condemnation for bypassing global consensus {1}{2} [G2]. Legal analyses highlight divides: exploitation-pushers versus precaution advocates, reflecting tensions between mineral needs and protection {2} [G13].
Pacific nations are splintering, with four backing mining for gains, threatening regional climate unity [G8][G13]. Original insights suggest this could fragment standards, favoring firms like Glencore in lax zones Planet Keeper Report. Balanced perspectives include calls for funding mechanisms to aid mining-dependent countries, promoting equitable transitions [G6].
Constructive Perspectives and Potential Solutions
Amid controversies, solutions are emerging. Scientists propose enhanced monitoring and precautionary pauses to build baselines before exploitation [G11]. Environmental groups advocate banning mining until robust ISA rules, with over 20 nations supporting moratoriums {3} [G3][G12]. Hybrid sourcing—blending deep-sea and recycled metals—could reduce risks, as analyzed in expert reports Planet Keeper Report [G2].
Innovative tech, like less-invasive robotics, is under study, alongside restoration research from projects like DEEP REST {4}. Geopolitically, compensating frameworks for affected Pacific communities are discussed, fostering sustainable alternatives [G6][G13]. These approaches offer hope for balancing economic benefits with ecological integrity.
KEY FIGURES
- Glencore secured contractual rights to receive 50% of the metals that The Metals Company (TMC) aims to extract from a vast Pacific seabed area (Source: knkx.org, Greenpeace) [1][3].
- The Metals Company previously held rights to about 250,000 square kilometers of deep ocean floor for mining exploration (Source: Greenpeace) [3].
- Deep-sea ecosystems targeted by mining host millions of species, many of which are endemic and endangered (Source: phys.org) [4].
- Restoration attempts on mined seafloor show ecosystems do not recover within a few years, and recovery could take 100 to 1000 years, if at all (Source: phys.org) [4].
RECENT NEWS
- March 2025: The Metals Company announced it would seek deep-sea mining permits under U.S. law (Deep Seabed Hard Mineral Resources Act of 1980), bypassing International Seabed Authority (ISA) regulations, which remain incomplete (Source: knkx.org, voelkerrechtsblog.org) [1][2].
- ISA negotiations continue to stall, with many states and scientists calling for a moratorium or ban on exploitation due to environmental risks (Source: voelkerrechtsblog.org) [2].
- Greenpeace and other environmental groups condemned TMC’s move and Glencore’s involvement, highlighting risks of neo-colonial exploitation and ecosystem destruction in the Pacific Ocean (Source: Greenpeace) [3].
- Scientists at recent ISA-related meetings emphasized the current impossibility of meaningful restoration of mined deep-sea ecosystems, urging precaution in regulatory decisions (Source: phys.org) [4].
STUDIES AND REPORTS
- MiningImpact Project (GEOMAR, 2025): Found that fauna such as sponges, soft corals, and sea anemones depend on manganese nodules as a hard substrate, and mining these nodules causes habitat destruction that may be irreversible (Source: phys.org) [4].
- DEEP REST Project (Ifremer, 2025): Showed that restoration attempts on disturbed seafloor ecosystems fail over short to medium term, and long-term recovery (centuries to millennia) is uncertain (Source: phys.org) [4].
- Legal analysis indicates a growing divide between states pushing for exploitation and those advocating a moratorium until ISA finalizes robust environmental regulations (Source: voelkerrechtsblog.org) [2].
TECHNOLOGICAL DEVELOPMENTS
- Use of robotic systems like Patania II, designed specifically for manganese nodule extraction from the seabed (Source: knkx.org) [1].
- Specialized drilling vessels adapted for seabed mining, often operated by companies such as Global Sea Mineral Resources NV (GSR) and Transocean, which are involved in developing mining robots and vessels (Source: knkx.org) [1].
- Glencore’s partnerships include indirect involvement with subsidiaries and firms specializing in seabed mining technology rather than traditional local consortiums (Source: knkx.org, Greenpeace) [1][3].
MAIN SOURCES
- https://www.knkx.org/2025-03-27/the-world-has-no-rulebook-for-deep-sea-mining-one-company-is-pushing-forward-anyway – Detailed article on The Metals Company’s plans, Glencore’s involvement, and ISA regulatory context.
- https://voelkerrechtsblog.org/the-long-road-to-exploit-deep-sea-minerals/ – Legal and policy analysis on ISA negotiations and U.S. regulatory moves.
- https://www.greenpeace.org/international/story/76757/5-things-deep-sea-mining-metals-company-tmc/ – Environmental NGO critique of TMC and Glencore’s seabed mining activities and impacts.
- https://phys.org/news/2025-07-sea-floor.html – Scientific reporting on deep-sea ecosystem fragility, restoration challenges, and mining impact studies.
—
This synthesis highlights that Glencore, through early investments and contracts with TMC, is positioned to extract significant metal volumes from Pacific deep-sea mining projects using advanced robotic and drilling technologies. However, the activity is highly controversial due to insufficient international regulations, potentially irreversible damage to fragile deep-sea ecosystems hosting millions of species, and unresolved environmental restoration challenges. Governments and environmental groups increasingly call for a moratorium until robust scientific knowledge and regulatory frameworks are established. The current geopolitical tension reflects a conflict between urgent mineral supply needs for energy transition and environmental protection imperatives. [1][2][3][4]
Propaganda Risk Analysis
Score: 6/10 (Confidence: medium)
Key Findings
Corporate Interests Identified
Glencore appears to benefit from positioning as a ‘first-mover’ in deep-sea mining for manganese and other minerals essential for batteries and renewable energy, potentially diversifying its energy portfolio. The article mentions ‘four backing mining,’ which could refer to supportive entities or investors. Broader web sources reveal Glencore’s history of greenwashing allegations in coal mining (e.g., misleading net zero claims), suggesting potential conflicts where corporate PR downplays environmental risks to favor mining expansion.
Missing Perspectives
The article snippet includes some balance with environmental groups advocating for bans, but it omits detailed voices from independent scientists, Indigenous communities affected by mining, or regulatory experts on international conventions (e.g., Greenpeace criticisms of similar companies like The Metals Company for threatening oceans and transparency). It also lacks input from affected marine biodiversity experts or global bodies like the International Seabed Authority.
Claims Requiring Verification
The ‘first-mover advantage’ quote lacks sourcing or data to verify its economic benefits versus environmental costs. Claims about manganese being ‘crucial for batteries and renewable technologies’ are broadly true but presented without quantifying environmental trade-offs, such as specific statistics on biodiversity loss or carbon emissions from deep-sea operations, which web sources indicate could be significant (e.g., dust clouds visible kilometers away and methane releases).
Social Media Analysis
X/Twitter searches revealed a mix of critical posts on deep-sea mining’s harms (e.g., threats to carbon sinks, oxygen-creating nodules, and marine life) and some discussions on the need for minerals in renewables, including polymetallic nodules. Posts about Glencore specifically critique its coal mine extensions (e.g., approvals to 2045 with vegetation clearing and methane emissions) and link to broader environmental destruction for battery materials. No overt coordinated campaigns or paid promotions were evident; sentiment is largely negative from eco-activists, with occasional pro-innovation voices, but nothing conclusively astroturfed.
Warning Signs
- Language like ‘first-mover advantage’ and ‘positioning the company portfolio in energy’ resembles marketing copy, potentially praising corporate strategy without sufficient criticism of perils.
- Incomplete balance: While environmental perils and bans are mentioned, the snippet emphasizes benefits for renewables, downplaying negative impacts like ecosystem destruction noted in web sources.
- Absence of independent expert opinions: No citations from neutral sources on regulatory gaps or long-term impacts, relying on vague ‘balanced perspectives’ that include pro-mining funding calls.
- Potential corporate praise: The focus on Glencore’s push without addressing its past greenwashing complaints (e.g., in Australian coal operations) suggests selective framing.
Reader Guidance
Other references :
knkx.org – The world has no rulebook for deep-sea mining. One …
voelkerrechtsblog.org – The Long Road to Exploit Deep Sea Minerals
greenpeace.org – 5 things to know about the company trying to start deep sea …
phys.org – Restoring sea floor after mining may not be possible, …
greenpeace.org – Source
time.com – Source
greenpeace.org – Source
reuters.com – Source
eos.org – Source
hsfkramer.com – Source
reuters.com – Source
home.nzcity.co.nz – Source
investing.com – Source
cen.acs.org – Source
frontiersin.org – Source
greenpeace.org.uk – Source
theconversation.com – Source
miningweekly.com – Source
x.com – Source
x.com – Source
x.com – Source
x.com – Source
x.com – Source
x.com – Source
 spotlights a contentious...){kind=link}