Seabed mining at a crossroads: The hidden battle over access and influence

The global seabed mining industry is approaching a pivotal moment. As nations gather in Kingston, Jamaica, for negotiations on the long-awaited mining code, what is being framed as an environmental debate is, in truth, a proxy for something much larger: access, influence, and the technological race to control a new frontier of critical resources.

At the heart of the negotiations is the question of how to regulate the extraction of polymetallic nodules from the seafloor – materials that are essential for future-facing industries such as battery manufacturing and advanced electronics. The mining code aims to create a detailed framework for commercial operations in international waters, balancing environmental protection with commercial viability. Consensus remains elusive, however.

The most contentious issue is the protection of deep-sea ecosystems. Scientists have repeatedly argued that they lack sufficient data to evaluate the long-term impacts of mining activities on marine environments. Ironically, the limited scientific data available today has been largely generated by exploration companies themselves – firms that have brought scientists on board their missions and provided critical logistical and technological support to advance deep-sea research.

In parallel, geopolitical pressure is mounting. A major accelerant came earlier this year, when President Trump issued an executive order supporting deep-sea mining in both US and international waters. This move placed the US on an expedited path to commercial seabed activity, creating a sense of urgency among other players.

Countries leading the charge into seabed mining – such as the US, China, Russia, India, Japan, and South Korea – have already made substantial investments in exploration and test operations. Japan and South Korea, for instance, are not only exploring the seabed but also developing advanced downstream processing technologies to turn raw nodules into commercially valuable products.

In contrast, nations like the UK, Mexico, Peru, and New Zealand have voiced opposition to the mining code and to seabed mining more broadly. But it is important to understand that many of these countries are less advanced in terms of exploration, access to deep-sea territories, or investment in seabed mining capabilities. Their opposition, therefore, appears less rooted in environmental caution and more in concerns over technological disadvantage and strategic positioning.

This divergence of interests reveals a deeper truth: the current debate is not simply about environmental protection. It is about the degree of technological readiness and the perceived opportunity to benefit from the seabed economy. For those who are behind, delaying or obstructing the mining code may seem like the only viable option to rebalance the playing field.

If the mining code fails to gain approval under the current international framework, the risk of regulatory fragmentation becomes very real. The US and others may press ahead with national-level regulation and unilateral mining operations, triggering a chain reaction. The result would be a patchwork of country-specific regulations with no overarching enforcement mechanism – turning the deep sea into a geopolitical battleground and resource free-for-all.

This is why finalising a cohesive, globally accepted mining code is not just a bureaucratic challenge. It is essential to ensure that seabed mining develops under responsible, transparent, and environmentally sound governance – before the window for orderly regulation closes. The seabed mining industry stands at a crossroads. The decisions made in Jamaica may shape not only the future of deep-sea resources, but also the balance of global influence in the decades to come.

Read the article online at: https://www.globalminingreview.com/mining/13082025/seabed-mining-at-a-crossroads-the-hidden-battle-over-access-and-influence/