Just before Christmas, the US government added 385,000 square miles to its continental shelf, in a discreet move largely overshadowed by the holidays. Now, the country claims new control over a large wedge of Arctic seafloor, as well as areas beneath the Bering Sea, the Gulf of Mexico, and the Pacific and Atlantic Oceans.
Claiming this “extended continental shelf” means claiming rights to the seabed there and any resources on (or beneath) it. The US will be able to use these areas for anything from scientific research to deep sea mining – though it’s not yet clear whether the international community will accept these new boundaries.
The State Department has said the claim “is about geography, not resources.” Yet some experts think resources – specifically, deep sea minerals – were pivotal in this decision. As James Kraska, professor of international maritime law, writes, the extended continental shelf announcement “highlights American strategic interests in securing these hard minerals on its seabed and subsoil, lying sometimes hundreds of miles offshore.” Although the US has yet to directly invest in deep sea mining, its government has shown a quietly growing interest in minerals on the seafloor.
Access to minerals is cited by the Biden administration as a national security concern, since they’re used in defense weapons. They also go in electronics of all sorts, and the US economy would take a hit should its consumer electronics market falter. The clearest motivations for the US to secure access to minerals are national security and economic growth.
And national security and economic growth may be among the few things Democrats and Republicans openly agree on. These ideals have long been pursued by US administrations, no matter the costs. (Pursuing them brought us the Dust Bowl, the atomic bomb, and modern mass surveillance, among other things.) So, as long as national security and economic growth are invoked in deep sea mining discussions, there’s a good chance for across-the-aisle support.
There are two ways the US could invest in deep sea mining: by starting its own industry, or by helping allied countries start theirs, and then buying minerals from them. Already, government support for these efforts is emerging in interesting ways.
In October, Senator Marco Rubio wrote the International Development Finance Corporation to request US funding for deep sea mining in the Cook Islands, creating a mineral supply chain “for American economic security and prosperity.”
In November, five Texas Congressmen wrote the Department of Defense to request a deep sea minerals processing plant in Texas, making “an investment in our national security, domestic economy, and production of materials to support the energy transition.”
In December, 31 members of Congress wrote the Department of Defense to request seabed mining plans for reducing reliance on minerals from China, with the goal “to advance the security of our critical national defense supply chains.”
It remains to be seen whether these requests will be fulfilled. All the while, the US Bureau of Ocean Energy Management is working to develop a National Offshore Critical Mineral Inventory, so we’ll know what can be mined in US waters.
It's notable that the energy transition is mentioned only briefly in these letters and communiqués. Although deep sea miners often remind us that seabed minerals can be used in wind turbines and electric cars, US government officials seem more interested in their military and consumer product applications.
As the climate warms, even the Arctic will become more accessible to industrial activities like deep sea mining. It’s not yet clear whether the US will launch mining projects on its own continental shelf, or provide support to other countries for their projects. But it looks like one or both is likely to happen: history shows there’s little the US won’t do for national security and economic prosperity. No matter who gets elected President in 2024, I’d bet cold, hard US currency that the country’s deep sea mining activity is about to grow.