“The lack of proven resources, immature technology, and the risk of permanent ecological harm make this a foolhardy endeavor.” — Dr. Andrew D. Thaler, deep-sea ecologist
AS the U.S. government explores deep-sea mining near the Mariana Trench to secure critical minerals needed for technological advancement, a growing coalition of scientists, environmental advocates, and Pacific Island leaders is urging caution. Their message is clear: the risks may far outweigh the rewards.
Marine scientists, including deep-sea ecologist Andrew Thaler, argue that the deep ocean is one of Earth’s least understood and most vulnerable environments. Unlike forests on land, which can regenerate over decades, deep-sea ecosystems recover at a glacial pace — if they recover at all. Evidence from experimental mining conducted in the 1970s shows that scars on the seafloor remain visible even after 50 years, suggesting that any damage inflicted could be permanent.
The removal of mineral-rich crusts and nodules threatens the habitats of unique and largely unknown species. Many of these organisms rely on slow-growing deep-sea structures for survival, and their loss could lead to the disappearance of entire ecosystems before they are even fully documented.
Critics also warn that the impacts of mining extend far beyond the ocean floor. Industrial extraction machinery emits continuous noise at levels comparable to those of a jet engine, disrupting the communication and navigation of marine mammals such as whales and dolphins. In addition, the release of sediment-laden waste — known as “dewatering plumes” — into mid-ocean waters could smother small marine life and contaminate fish stocks with heavy metals, potentially destabilizing food webs and harming commercial fisheries.
From a financial perspective, opponents question the wisdom of investing in a venture with uncertain returns. According to Thaler, the Mariana region lacks confirmed deposits of commercially viable mineral nodules. Moreover, the technology required to mine steep underwater mountains remains in its infancy, and no U.S. company currently possesses the capability to conduct such operations. This raises serious concerns about risking a globally significant natural site for resources that may neither be accessible nor profitable.
Perhaps most striking is the criticism from leaders in Guam and the Northern Mariana Islands, who have characterized the federal approach as “colonial.” Under existing U.S. law, these territories would receive no share of the profits or royalties from mining activities in their surrounding waters. This exclusion has intensified calls for meaningful local consultation and equitable participation in decision-making.
On the international stage, the United States is advancing its plans without adhering to global agreements that recognize the deep sea as the “common heritage of mankind.” This unilateral approach has alarmed allied nations, many of which advocate for further scientific research before proceeding with actions that could cause irreversible environmental harm.
While the promise of mineral independence is alluring, critics caution that the deep sea is not a frontier to be rushed into. With so much still unknown about its ecosystems and the long-term consequences of industrial exploitation, prudence — not haste — should guide the path forward.
Thank you.
NOEL M. SORIA
Gualo Rai, Saipan
