Deep-sea mining: Australia’s dilemma in the Pacific

By Connor Graham

Across the world’s seafloor, particularly in the Pacific, lie vast fields of polymetallic nodules. These potato-sized rocks, resting 4–6 kilometres below the surface, contain minerals essential to the green energy revolution.

In a patch of the Eastern Pacific Ocean known as the Clarion-Clipperton Zone, there is enough cobalt, nickel, copper and manganese to produce batteries for 280 million electric vehicles,the entire U.S. fleet, just within the claimed territory of one Pacific-backed company.

Though commercial deep-sea mining has not yet commenced in the region, it appears imminent as China seeks to maintain its critical mineral dominance, and the United States and others seek to escape it.

For some Pacific island nations whose exclusive economic zones contain these nodules, deep-sea mining is viewed as a path to economic resilience and development.

The Cook Islands, Tonga, Kiribati and Nauru have all facilitated deep-sea mining exploration activities in the Clarion-Clipperton Zone and their own respective exclusive economic zones.

Australia is not on the list of countries calling for a moratorium on deep-sea mining.

However, other Pacific nations are less enthusiastic, and with fair reason. The environmental toll of deep-sea mining is currently poorly understood, but what little is known paints a bleak picture. Plumes of debris stirred up by the combine-harvester-sized robot vacuums needed to undertake deep-sea mining choke ecosystems.

The nodules themselves are the habitat for a spectrum of deep-sea marine life, of which an estimated 90 percent is still undiscovered. Disruptions to the seabed may reduce the capacity of the ocean to sequester carbon, compounding the greenhouse effect.

 The environmental impacts of DSM will not be localized; the decision of one nation to pursue deep-sea mining will have regional ramifications.

These ill-defined impacts of deep-sea mining on the Pacific’s greatest shared resource–the ocean–are why Palau, Fiji, Vanuatu, Samoa, Tuvalu, the Federated States of Micronesia and the Marshall Islands are on the list of 40 nations calling for a moratorium on all deep-sea mining activities.

Pacific island nations have traditionally presented a unified and ambitious voice on climate action and environmental conservation. This collective spirit of environmental stewardship is part of what is known as the “Blue Pacific Identity.”

Opposing perspectives on proceeding with deep-sea mining threaten to fracture this identity. Although a high-level meeting between Pacific leaders on the topic was convened in early 2025, no unified resolution has been released.

A façade of progress was presented in the very brief mention of DSM in the 2025 Pacific Islands Forum Leaders Communique, but the actions of individual nations point to widening divergence.

Conspicuous by its silence on deep-sea mining in the Pacific, especially considering its own mining pedigree and position as a regional leader, is Australia.

On a domestic level, Australia has re-asserted its commitment to land-based mining and ramping up its processing and refinement capacity to compete with China, who currently dominates this sector.

Australia is rich in terrestrial resources, and processing and refinement are the obvious missing pieces in the mining economy given the current practice of shipping Australia’s mined resources overseas for this part of the process. There simply isn’t a need for Australia to risk the environmental damage deep-sea mining poses; a luxury some Pacific nations clearly feel they don’t have.

But does this mean Australia is anti-deep-sea mining altogether? No. Australia is not on the list of countries calling for a moratorium on deep-sea mining. It would likely be seen as hypocritical by some of Australia’s Pacific neighbors for it to take a firm anti-mining stance given Australia’s extensive mining history.

An anti-deep-sea mining agenda from Australia may even be seen as an affront to the sovereignty of Pacific island nations, and a case of Australia prioritizing its own needs at the expense of those nations.

So, does Australia support the faction of Pacific island nations that are actively exploring, and stand to benefit from, deep-sea mining in the Pacific? Again, probably not.

Aside from the obvious environmental reasons, Australia benefits from the Pacific’s current unity; and deep-sea mining threatens that unity. The region is generally friendly, like-minded and, with few exceptions, views Australia as its most valuable development partner. This arrangement provides stability and security.

However, the fracture points of deep-sea mining are already creating divisions. China has struck an exploration deal with the Cook Islands and is pursuing one with Kiribati.

If one nation, or several, decide to commence commercial deep-sea mining in the Pacific, it will likely cause an uproar among Pacific nations that fear those activities will irreversibly damage the ocean and the Blue Pacific Identity.

Australia is in a precarious position, with strong environmental and geopolitical reasons to oppose deep-sea mining in the Pacific, but limited legitimacy to do so.

What is certain is that continued passiveness from Australia risks ceding influence, primarily to China and the United States, and reducing its power in an issue that will have widespread and long-lasting consequences for the region.

Preserving the Blue Pacific Identity amid the impending deep-sea mining boom must be high on the agenda at the Pacific Islands Forum in Palau this September, as well as at Pre-COP31 events that will occur across Fiji, Palau and Tuvalu later this year.

Clearly, Australia must enter the DSM conversation. What it should say is less clear. (The Interpreter/Lowy Institute)

Subscribe to

our digital

monthly issue