It is ironic that the drive towards the zero carbon society should stir up interest in a solution that is arguably as ethically and environmentally challenging as the problem.
It is ironic that the drive towards the zero carbon society should stir up interest in a solution that is arguably as ethically and environmentally challenging as the problem. The saying ‘The remedy is worse than the cure’ attributed to the English Elizabethan era philosopher and statesman Francis Bacon (1561-1626) comes to mind.
That is just one point of departure when considering the latest swell of interest in the potential of ocean bed mining being expressed in Norway. The lure is obvious and the argument for exploitation logical and may on balance be good for the planet. It is said that the world is likely to experience excessive demand and possible shortages with regard to the materials, including rare earth elements (REMs), needed for batteries to build electric cars, use in solar panels, etc., basically the means to enable more carbon neutral power generation, not to mention other technology necessities like mobile phones. According to the US Geological Survey, the treasure trove of so far unexploited deep sea minerals would provide a virtually unlimited supply of just the type of green technology support that the world needs to effect climate change mitigation as well as other valuable metals.
We can be sure also that, if not in Norway, then somewhere else deep sea mining is going to be initiated. Japan, for example, is gearing up to start later in the decade. The wisdom or practicality of such initiatives is another matter.
Norway provides a near ideal test bed for a first limited foray into the deep water. The country is one of the few – Papua New Guinea is another – that features an accessible oceanic spreading ridge containing desirable mineral deposits within its exclusive economic zone (EEZ). Any mining activity can therefore be conducted under national governance without reference to international marine jurisdiction. As it happens, Canadian company Nautilus Minerals spent several years planning exploitation of massive sulfide systems, the potential source of high grade copper, gold, zinc and silver, in 1600 m water depth off Papua New Guinea.
Its efforts to fully develop its Solwara 1 acreage off the coast of Papua New Guinea collapsed under the weight of community and environmentalist pressure and lack of solid financial backing. The Nautilus venture was portrayed as endangering hydrothermal vents, seafloor formations where superheated fluids from deep in the Earth have been or are being released into the water column. Such areas are regarded by scientists as ecologically precious for their biodiversity, home of a range of little understood, fragile organisms only found in the deep dark ocean.
The need for more research ahead of any mining is the refrain of many marine biologists and environmental protection groups including the Deep Sea Mining Campaign (DSMC), an association of NGOs and citizens from the Pacific Islands, Australia, Canada, and the US.
The organization, regulation and control of all mineral-related activities in the deeper international seabed area ‘for the benefit of mankind as a whole’ has been mandated to the little known International Seabed Authority (ISA), based in Kingston, Jamaica. This is the result of a 1994 agreement by 167 Member States, and the European Union under the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea. The US is a notable non-signature to the agreement although it does send observers to the Authority’s periodic plenary sessions.
ISA has the duty to ensure the effective protection of the marine environment from harmful effects that may arise from deep seabed-related activities. In addition, as part of the ISA remit, the Secretary-General has been tasked to prepare and implement a dedicated strategy to meet the needs identified by ISA members, in particular geographically disadvantaged states, landlocked developing countries, small island developing states and least developed countries. In effect a scheme has to be devised to share out the bounty from any future mining production. How this might work and how investors will treat such risk raises a big question.
Of course the sceptical already point to the apparent conflict of interest between ISA’s permitting role and its management of future mining activity (of which none has yet transpired). A mining code is in its final drafting stages but has still to be ratified. Two decades ago ISA started entering into contracts with international companies, typically associated with a government sponsoring interest, for exploration in designated areas for polymetallic nodules, polymetallic sulphides and cobalt-rich ferromanganese crusts in the deep seabed. The main focus of exploration interest has been the 3000 m deep Clarion-Clipperton Zone, in the Equatorial North Pacific Ocean south and southeast of Hawaii. This is where the mother lode for any future mining effort is located offering a desert of endless mineral rich nodules the size of tennis balls lying enticingly on the seabed waiting to be scooped up. The Central Indian Basin of the Indian Ocean is also a target area. So far 29 contracts have been issued without any operational approvals to date.
One of the few serious experiments to test the impact of commercial seabed mining-related impact on the ocean ecosystem was the DISCOL project carried out in 1989. A German scientist Hjalmar Thiel trialled the raking of a 11 km2 area of the deep Clarion-Clipperton Zone in the Pacific Ocean with a specially designed 8 m plough/harrow. This mining simulation created a plume of disturbed sediment that rained down and buried most of the study area, smothering creatures on the sea floor. The test revealed that the impacts of seabed mining reached further than anyone had imagined, according to a report in Nature, but it did not actually extract any rocks from the seabed. This would have destroyed even more marine life. Even so, a return visit 30 years later revealed that the site had still not recovered. The more recent MIDAS three-year study partly funded by the European Commission came up with some similar findings.
In its latest Biodiversity Strategy for 2030, EU says it should advocate that ‘marine minerals in the international seabed area cannot be exploited before the effects of deep sea mining on the marine environment, biodiversity and human activities have been sufficiently researched, the risks are understood and the technologies and operational practices are able to demonstrate no serious harm to the environment, in line with the precautionary principle and taking into account the call of the European Parliament.’ The EU will continue to fund research on the impact of deep-sea mining activities and on environmentally friendly technologies, while arguing for more transparency in international bodies, such as the International Seabed Authority.’
Even if environmental concerns can be overcome, a serious if not insurmountable hurdle may be the cost of ever turning ocean bed mining in 3000 m or more depths of international waters into a viable commercial as opposed to strategic venture, for example to escape from China’s current near monopoly on REMs production worldwide (mainly because no other country is willing to take on the dirty work involved).
REMs are a family of 17 elements consisting of scandium, yttrium, and the lanthanum-group elements but geologists will confirm that the term ‘rare earths’ is a misnomer, as some of these elements are not particularly rare and all of them are metals, not earths. It is doubtful whether any offshore mining of the kind envisaged (including more familiar metals such as copper) could ever compete with what will always be available on land.
No country could be better placed or trusted than Norway to take on the seabed mining challenge. The target areas are not as daunting as the deeper deposits in international waters. It has 50 years of experience pioneering technology for offshore oil and gas with arguably the most progressive regulatory regime. Equinor, the state owned company, is at the forefront of energy transition initiatives.
In February Reuters reported that the Norwegian government is forging ahead with an environmental impact assessment of exploration and production operations for deep sea mineral deposits in the country’s EEZ. Assuming a favourable finding, exploration licences could be awarded as early as 2023, although that seems optimistic.
The initiative follows the completion last year of the third ocean floor investigative expedition carried out since 2018 under the direction of the Norwegian Petroleum Directorate (NPD), the agency responsible for administration of all subsurface data acquired from the Norwegian Continental Shelf and for mapping seabed minerals. In fact, scientific exploration in the Mid-Atlantic Ridge by the University of Bergen dates back to the late 1990s. The NPD target was the massive accumulation of sulphide ores from the hydrothermal systems on the Mohn Ridge. This is an oceanic spreading ridge that separates two tectonic plates. Drilling operations in 3000 m water depths were required to bring samples to the surface.
Meantime Rystad Energy has just delivered a hefty report on the wealth creation possibilities plus the possible negatives. Some Norwegian geoscience companies are scenting potential business. TGS (see Industry News) last month waded in with a press release asking whether the time for deep sea mineral exploration has arrived. In addition, an offshore mineral mining company called Green Minerals was launched late last year as a 100% wholly owned subsidiary of Seabed Exploration.
In the background the Norwegian University of Science and Technology (NTNU) has a deep sea mining pilot programme covering study of everything from deep sea mining systems, geophysical exploration, resource assessment to the ethical and environment considerations. NTNU researchers are said to have estimated there could be up to 21.7 million tonnes of copper - more than the world’s copper output in 2019 - and 22.7 million tonnes of zinc on the Norwegian Continental Shelf.
It is no wonder that Norwegian Minister of Petroleum and Energy Tina Bru is talking about momentum. Where it leads is a deeper question.
‘Norway provides a near ideal test bed for a first foray into the deep water’
‘A serious if not insurmountable hurdle may be the cost …’
