SIMON WOLFE: Geopolitical tensions on the rise over seabed’s mineral riches

King Charles III is quids in. A spike in profits from offshore wind energy on the British seabed, owned by the Crown Estate, has resulted in a 45% bump in the king’s pocket money.

The Crown Estate is collecting hefty royalties from renewables due to the growing interest in the auction of seabed licences for wind farms.

Notwithstanding the gleeful reporting on the king’s finances in Britain, the revelation has come at a time when the question of sea ownership and the viability of deep-sea mining is in the news. The ocean floor is home to an abundance of minerals, including nickel, copper and cobalt. These materials are vital for managing the transition to a clean energy economy.

In the scramble for minerals and the race to net zero we need to ask: who rules the sea?

In 1982 the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea divided the world’s oceans into exclusive economic zones (EEZs) and their surrounding waters known as the “area”. This was decreed to be “the common heritage of mankind”. Mining outside these EEZs was to be banned until a mining code of conduct was agreed upon, and the International Seabed Authority (ISA) was duly set up in 1994 to oversee the design of these regulations.

However, a ruling by the ISA in July 2023, which paused applications from mining companies to explore the seabed until a regulatory framework has been established, has given rise to geopolitical tensions about territory amid the panic to access the seabed’s mineral riches.

For instance China, a hungry proponent of deep-sea mining, has urged the ISA to give mining companies the green light as a part of the country’s push to expand its critical minerals dominance. India, Norway and Russia are also eager to dive into deep-sea mining.

The endorsement of these countries is matched by growing resistance by 20 others, including France, Germany, Switzerland and Chile, which have called for a moratorium or outright ban on mining the ocean floor, citing the destructive effects of deep-sea mining on the ocean’s ecosystem. Advocates argue that mining the seabed is vital to secure the metals required for the clean energy transition.

However, the full impact of underwater mining is unknown. It could be irreversibly damaging to the intricate lining of the ocean floor. The argument that deep-sea mining is less harmful than land mining, deforestation or community displacement, for instance, is losing momentum. The scientific community has loudly protested against deep-sea mining, warning of the destruction of biodiversity and pollution, among other potential consequences of scraping the ocean floor.

Big business is also joining the fight to halt deep-sea mining and exploration. UK energy company Ecotricity joins BMW, Renault and Google, among others, in calling for a freeze on seabed mining. Oil companies sit patiently on the sidelines — perhaps waiting for an opportunity to use their deep-sea experience to wade into green metals as the pressure to divest from fossil fuels continues.

With the demand for minerals skyrocketing, governments and mining companies are scrambling to uncover and own the buried resources needed to achieve the green transition. The result is a power struggle over who gets to mine what and where. Here, the risk of a resource grab — where developing countries could be cheated out of their fair share of the seabed’s riches — is high.

The struggle over seabed sovereignty is emblematic of a wider disconnect between global leaders over sovereignty and access to renewable energy sources. The UN Convention on the Law of the Sea principle of “the common heritage of humanity” has been eclipsed by geopolitical rivalries and competing energy security agendas. The dynamics of climate change have long become inherently political. In a time of environmental and political uncertainty, a sink-or-swim mentality has tainted the discussion surrounding the green transition. This leaves room for big winners and equally big losers.

The impacts of deep-sea mining could be profound and widespread. However, the technological and mineral requirements of the energy transition mean we must explore all options with a balanced, eyes-wide-open approach. The tussle over deep-sea mining highlights a fundamental paradox of the green transition: the road to net zero is paved with difficult policy decisions and inconvenient truths.

Deep-sea mining may not be the cleanest option in the search for minerals, but the cost of ignoring the ocean’s bounty of riches could prove too high a price to pay.

• Wolfe is managing partner at Marlow Global.