Shallow Promises: How Australia’s Involvement in Deep-Sea Mining is Undermining its Stated Commitments
The Pacific is, as former Australian Prime Minister Scott Morrison described in 2018, a region where “we have special responsibilities” and where “we are connected as members of a Pacific family.” Curiously, this impassioned rhetoric did not stop Morrison from taking on a senior role at a deep-sea mining fund investing millions of dollars in experimental deep-sea mining projects in the Pacific.
The deep seafloor, at depths of thousands of metres, holds a wealth of valuable metals and rare earth minerals like cobalt, nickel, copper, lithium and manganese, estimated to be worth between eight and US$16 trillion. These metal ores lie in abundance at the bottom of the ocean, encased within potato-shaped polymetallic nodules, covering millions of square kilometres of the seafloor. Proponents of deep-sea mining have positioned the extraction of these minerals as the answer to our climate crisis prayers thanks to their use in renewable energy batteries—a typical EV battery contains approximately eight kilograms of lithium, 14 kilograms of cobalt, and 20 kilograms of manganese.
However, this view overlooks the devastating environmental costs: mining involves disturbing one of Earth’s last remaining, pristine ecosystems, with potentially irreversible damage to marine biodiversity. Excavating these minerals will destroy underwater habitats for species such as sponges and sea anemones who rely on polymetallic nodules to anchor themselves. Sediment plumes generated by and ejected from mining vehicles will smother sea life, obscure bioluminescence that squid and fish use to hunt and mate and, according to marine geologist Henko de Stigter, “spread over potentially large areas beyond the actual site of mining.” Importantly, an estimated 98 percent of all marine organisms inhabit the deep seafloor, 99.9 percent of which is still yet to be discovered. Therefore, deep-sea mining could result in the elimination of marine species we have not even become familiar with. Long-term studies on the effects of deep-sea mining found that marine and microbial life on the deep seafloor did not return to pre-disturbance levels even decades after mining had concluded. In their 2022 study, Haeckel and colleagues estimated that sediment layers would take hundreds of thousands of years to completely recover from mining, while nodule regrowth could span millions of years.
Not to mention, the majority of deep-sea mining is expected to take place in the Clarion-Clipperton Zone (CCZ)—an area in the Pacific which already bears the brunt of climate change in the form of rising sea levels and environmental deterioration. Since industrial mining has not yet begun anywhere in the world, examples of long-term and large-scale environmental impacts are limited. However, studies point to the decimation of the very ecosystems that sustain Pacific Island nations, both economically and culturally, as an “inevitable” outcome if mining is allowed to proceed in the deep sea.
According to The Metals Company (TMC)—a leading deep-sea mining firm headed by Australian Gerard Barron—areas of the Pacific in which TMC holds contracts may contain enough metal to power 280 million electric vehicles, approximately equal to the entire fleet of vehicles on US roads today. TMC asserts that deep-sea mining, which it refers to more simply as “collecting rocks,” will mean no disruption to Indigenous communities and no harmful waste streams left behind. Barron also points to the “calibre” of people involved in the industry, such as Scott Morrison, as indicative of the prospects and bright future of the industry.
These assertions, however, are undermined by concerns over the quality of TMC’s scientific monitoring systems and data used to support such claims. Despite TMC’s assurances, deep-sea mining in the Pacific is likely to impact Indigenous communities, for whom the ocean holds significant cultural, spiritual, and economic value. Moreover, TMC has faced allegations of discharging waste directly into the ocean during its operations, casting further doubt on the company’s credibility. Dr Helen Rosenbaum of the Deep Sea Mining Campaign points to this incident as indicative of the fact that TMC cannot be trusted by investors or the general public. This is in conjunction with the proposed class action TMC is currently facing for allegedly misleading investors over its debt levels.
In reality, the environmental impacts of deep-sea mining are likely to be much graver than what companies like TMC, which stand to gain an estimated US$30 billion from mining operations, would have you believe. The long-term ecological consequences, including disruptions of delicate marine ecosystems and the contamination of oceanic environments, far outweigh the industry’s promises of economic gain. Waste discharged from mining vessels is likely to spread across large distances, endangering species like tuna which are crucial to the economies of many Pacific states like Kiribati, who, alongside Tonga and Nauru, has already formed a subsidiary with TMC.
Ironically, Pacific states who are turning to deep-sea mining are doing so for economic reasons, despite the economic costs of oceanic pollution associated with mining in the long-term. A former Chief of Staff for Nauru’s Office of the President, who now works for TMC, Peter Jacob, has expressed that “this mining venture is absolutely critical, absolutely critical to Nauru’s economic survival.” Notably, according to a community leader in Tonga, the economic gain in question will amount to “less than half of one percent of TMC’s total estimated value of the mined material.”
There is no unified stance within the Pacific regarding deep-sea mining. While Nauru, Tonga, Kiribati, and the Cook Islands are advocating for mining to commence, driven by the promise of economic benefits, civil society across the region and most Pacific states, along with 26 other countries, are aligned against it, and are advocating for a moratorium on deep-sea mining. The Pacific Islands Forum (PIF), of which Australia is a longstanding member, has shown reluctance to cover the issue. This division highlights the complex challenge confronting the region, where economic priorities collide with the need to safeguard critical ecosystems. Australia’s abstention from covering the issue altogether raises concerns about its commitment to environmental protection and relationships with its Pacific neighbours.
Despite the growing opposition, mining operations are set to begin as soon as regulatory guidelines for mining in international waters allow, which representatives of the International Seabed Authority (ISA) claim could be finalised by July 2025.
For Australia, the strategic implications are considerable: increased foreign interest in the Pacific, particularly from China and actors linked to Russian interests—such as Vladimir Putin’s“favourite oligarch,” Alisher Usmanov, who holds stakes in mining ventures previously negotiated with Papua New Guinea—could heighten regional competition and escalate existing geopolitical tensions. The US has expressed similar concern over China’s deep-sea mining activity, “geared towards militarising the ocean,” and the impact China’s heightened presence is likely to have on US regional influence in the Pacific. Australian leaders may believe that leading the charge on deep-sea mining will offer a strategic advantage in countering foreign influence, but environmental lawyer Duncan Currie warns that this approach is “more likely to escalate into an arms race,” adding further complexity to Australia’s role in the Pacific and straining its established regional partnerships.
The difference between Morrison’s words and actions reflects a wider disconnect between Australia’s professed commitment to the Pacific and its involvement in deep-sea mining. Moreover, Morrison was not the last to evoke the familial imagery so prominent in Australia’s Pacific policy today. Prime Minister Anthony Albanese similarly stated at the 52nd PIF Leaders’ Meeting in 2023 that “Australia sees the Pacific as [its] family.” If we embrace this notion of kinship as genuinely as our rhetoric makes out, why is Australia not more concerned for its “relatives” about the consequences of deep-sea mining in the Pacific? And given the self-serving nature of national security more broadly, why aren’t we more alert to the challenge that heightened foreign interest in mining in the CCZ from actors like China and Russia is likely to pose for the stability of our own partnerships and regional influence in the Pacific? Conversely, Australia has positioned itself as a leading advocate for opening up this controversial new frontier, despite mounting costs.
Eva Maximova is a recent graduate of the Australian National University holding a Bachelor of International Relations. She is a participant in the Women in Strategic Policy (WISP) program run by the Strategic and Defence Studies Centre at ANU and Girls Run the World.
This article is published under a Creative Commons License and may be republished with attribution.
