Highlights

• U.S. lawmakers consider deep-sea mining as a potential long-term solution to critical mineral supply chain dependence.
• Current seabed mining efforts face substantial technical, regulatory, environmental, and geopolitical obstacles.
• Experts suggest that seabed mining is not a near-term fix and requires significant infrastructure and regulatory development before becoming viable.

---

In testimony today before the House Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations, lawmakers, including Chairman Bruce Westerman and Subcommittee Chair Paul Gosar, spotlighted deep-sea mining as a potential long-term solution to America’s deepening critical mineral crisis. Framed as an "innovative consideration" to counter Chinese dominance of critical mineral supply chains, the hearing follows President Trump’s April 24 executive order to “unleash” U.S. offshore mineral production and boost national security through seabed resource extraction.

Rare Earth Exchanges, which covered this topic earlier, supports the bipartisan recognition of America's mineral vulnerability—but issues a clear-eyed warning: seabed mining is no near-term fix. At best, it is a 10–15-year horizon play with immense technical, regulatory, environmental, and geopolitical hurdles.

Why Seabed Mining Won’t Help in 2025

While polymetallic nodules in U.S. waters and international zones contain critical materials like cobalt, nickel, and rare earths in high concentrations, no commercial deep-sea mining operation currently exists within the U.S. Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ). The responsible regulator,  Bureau of Offshore Energy Management (BOEM), has yet to issue a single lease due to what lawmakers admit is a "fatal flaw" in the permitting framework, making projects economically unviable under current rules.

Even abroad, American companies seeking seabed access via NOAA’s exportation licenses in Areas Beyond National Jurisdiction (ABNJ) face multilayered legal, diplomatic, and ESG risks, especially as China maintains a dominant presence at the International Seabed Authority.

“Congressional interest is welcome,” said an analyst on condition of anonymity. “But seabed mining will not mitigate today’s dependence on China. The U.S. must accelerate land-based projects, refine critical minerals onshore, and build a functional rare earth stockpile. Seabed promises can’t fill supply chain gaps in 2025 and likely not 2030.”

Next Steps Should be Grounded in Reality

To transition seabed mining from congressional hearings to commercial output, the U.S. needs:

• A complete overhaul of BOEM’s permitting framework to enable pilot projects within the EEZ.
• Substantial investment in deep-sea robotics, processing, and recovery tech, areas where China is already ahead.
• Science-based environmental safeguards to avoid ESG backlash from investors and international regulators.
• Parallel development of land-based mines and midstream refining capacity, without which seabed metals will merely be exported.

Until these are in place, seabed mining should be treated as a strategic research initiative, not a cornerstone of short-term mineral security.