The secret race to buy the ocean floor

Deep at the bottom of the

ocean

, a

secret

race

is going on. A

race

between private companies racing to secure access to valuable minerals. Seabed mining is potentially a multi-billion dollar business. But some think we should focus our attention on the planet, not profits. "The effects of seabed mining could actually be quite severe." Still, companies are pushing for licenses, eager to start mining as soon as 2024. And the international body created to protect the

ocean

floor

seems more interested in paving the way for contractors, rather than regulating them. What the hell is happening at the bottom of the ocean?

And is it too late to stop it? Let's dive in! Billions of tons of valuable minerals such as manganese, copper, cobalt and nickel currently lie untouched at the bottom of the sea. They are valuable because they are used in electric batteries and our personal devices. And, the companies argue, we will need them if we plan to move away from our dependence on fossil fuels... toward a future powered by renewable energy sources. The minerals are embedded in rocks (called polymetallic nodules) and would need to be extracted from the seabed. But not everyone thinks drilling into the ocean

floor

is a great idea. "Honestly, there is no reason to get into deep sea mining today." This is Sandor Mulsow.

He is a marine biologist and used to work as a senior environmental official at the International Seabed Authority, something we will examine a little later. "There is no technical, scientific or economic justification, the only one is economic. There is no scientific justification." Scientists are concerned that nodule suction will disturb habitats and the organisms that live in them. They worry that pollution will disrupt marine life's ability to feed, hunt and mate, and could eventually lead to mass species extinction. And they believe the consequences of drilling in one area will spread everywhere. So are these companies even allowed to drill?

Well, this is where it all gets really interesting. "Perhaps the idea of ​​deep seabed mining was attractive to more stakeholders in the 1970s and 1980s, when we knew less about the environmental impacts compared to the current situation." Dr Aline Jaeckel is an associate professor at the University of Wollongong in Australia and an ocean governance expert. In the 1970s and 1980s, the UN recognized that the ocean would eventually attract the attention of searchers. That's why he drafted a document called the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, which provided guidance on how countries should behave when it came to the part of the deep sea that was outside national jurisdiction.

And he gave this area a name. She very imaginatively called it... The Area. It includes large swaths of the Pacific, Atlantic and Indian oceans. The convention was ratified by several countries in 1982, who agreed that the Zone would be considered the common heritage of all humanity. This means it technically belongs to everyone. Just over a decade later, an organization called the International Seabed Authority was created to organize, regulate and control mineral-related activities in the Area. They wanted to ensure that any future profits made from mining were shared. Today the ISA is made up of 167 member states and the European Union. "So it's a little complicated to explain how this works." This is Pradeep Singh.

He is a legal expert in ocean governance and deep sea mining. "But essentially the bottom line is that, you know, the states that have an interest in mining and in the commodities market, they are all represented on the council." But a smaller group – the ISA Legal and Technical Commission – makes the final decision when approving mining applications. Member states apply on behalf of their government, but there is a loophole in the convention that allows private companies to do this as well. "State-owned companies and other private actors, private companies and individuals can apply for a mining contract to the ISA, provided they are sponsored by a Member State." This is how a company registered in Canada – previously known as DeepGreen Metals – and now called The Metals Company, has been able to claim areas in the Pacific Ocean.

They did this by enlisting the sponsorship of the three small island nations: Kiribati, Tonga and Nauru. To comply with the sponsorship rule that they must have a connection to the country, they established and acquired wholly owned subsidiaries in the island states. Nauru's government has said the island of 10,000 people stands to lose the most from climate change; That is why he is promoting what he considers a solution to stop it. But once you start mining, you will also benefit from the income. "Once the contract is awarded, it is quite difficult for the ISA to stop operations if it wanted to." "So right now, Metals Company has a lot of mining exploration contracts across different sponsor states.

And what we've seen is one company essentially getting rights to a number of reserved areas." On Nauru, The Metals Company, through its subsidiary Nauru Ocean Resources Incorporated, is ready to move from exploration to exploitation. He asked the ISA to start drafting regulations so that commercial mining could begin. The ISA has two years to comply. The deadline is next year and mining could begin as early as 2024, even if regulations are not removed completely. So far, the Metal Company is the only contractor that has requested an exploitation license. But once the ISA finalizes the regulations, the doors will be open for other contractors to start commercial mining as well.

Not only are the impacts on the environment unclear. There are many other issues that require a closer look. First, there is a lack of transparency in the application process. The Legal and Technical Commission does not have to reveal who the mining contractors are applying for licenses. Or even explain why you decided to approve them. The only thing we know is that so far they have not rejected a single one. What we do know is that contractors must pay ISA $500,000 for each exploration request. These revenues contribute significantly to the ISA's operating budget. Another concern is that mining contractors are not subject to international law.

Companies like Metals Company could avoid responsibility for any environmental damage they cause, unlike the states that sponsor them, which would be responsible. "So the Pacific island state could be held legally responsible under international law for that damage. For the actual amount of damage, which as you know, for some small Pacific island states can be very substantial sums; actually, for any state would be very substantial sums. So obviously we have in that scenario the risk that a private company could... disappear." And while the ISA website states that it has a duty to protect the marine environment from potential harmful effects that may arise from seabed mining, it may not be prepared to do so effectively. "We are seeing this race towards seabed mining with some companies pushing harder than others to get mining done sooner rather than later.

And the ISA itself, when mining starts, would need to be on it. We need to have the capacity to monitor any mining in the open sea, far from the coast: difficult conditions for any organization, but particularly difficult for a small entity that currently has very few resources to monitor any mining on the seabed, much less any environmental impact of mining on the seabed." "The way the regime has taken shape now is basically to create a kind of system where mining is done in competition with each other rather than in collaboration. And together, you know, you do your thing, I do mine , which I "think goes against the spirit of the convention because it says that mining should be done for the benefit of humanity as a whole." Although many have said that we should postpone mining until its impact is better understood, the ISA director has downplayed these criticisms.

We contacted the ISA to respond to these allegations and received no response. In a recent LA Times article, ISA Secretary General Michael Lodge said he is not concerned. He discredited a report written by two senior officials in his organization when they claimed that little was being done to enforce environmental protection. He has met regularly with mining executives and said the risk has been exaggerated. Many industry experts see this cozy relationship as extremely problematic and say the ISA needs an overhaul. "One of the key issues with the ISA as an institution as we move into the exploitation phase is that a degree of separation of powers is needed and that currently does not exist." “I don't see why we need to have this perceived pressure that the ISA has to generate income or this perceived pressure to meet the deadline and things like that.

We shouldn't fall into that trap because otherwise if we allow things to happen we will just make things worse. If you're in a hole, stop digging, you know?" "The biggest losers will be the next generations because people don't understand that the deep sea has ecological functions that are very important." To a world where renewable energy is abundant? Or will it push us even further to destroy the planet we are trying to save? To really know, we may need a little more time to establish comprehensive regulations, time to understand the environmental impact, and time to create balances of power. so that the deep sea truly benefits all humanity "What do you think?

Should we start exploiting the oceans as soon as possible or should we wait until we know more about the impact it has? Let us know in the comments. And for more information about our oceans, subscribe to Planet A. We publish new videos every Friday."