The Arctic holds mineral resources that are becoming increasingly important for a climate-friendly future. Against this backdrop, Norway faces a decision with far-reaching consequences: Should it open its Arctic deep-sea areas for the extraction of metal-rich sulfides and manganese crusts?
This question goes far beyond economic interests – it touches on the future of one of the planet’s most sensitive ecosystems. The debate comes at a time when global demand for copper, nickel, cobalt, and rare earth elements is rising rapidly. At the same time, political pressure is growing to reduce Europe’s dependence on raw material imports.
What Role Does the Barents Sea Play in the New Resource Race?
In 2024, the Norwegian government launched its first licensing round – the first of its kind in an Arctic state. Following strong criticism from scientific institutions, environmental organizations, and parts of the industry, the process was temporarily halted. The main point of criticism: the lack of reliable baseline ecological data for large parts of Norway’s deep sea, particularly in the Barents Sea. This region hosts unique habitats such as sponge grounds and cold-water corals, whose ecological functions remain largely unexplored.
Both the Institute of Marine Research and the Norwegian Polar Institute are calling for a systematic monitoring program before further decisions are made.
Why Are These Resources Important?
The energy transition is hardly conceivable without metals such as copper, nickel, cobalt, and rare earth elements. According to the World Economic Forum, demand for these raw materials could increase by up to 500% by 2050.
• Copper: Conducts electricity in grids and charging infrastructure.
• Nickel and Cobalt: Stabilize batteries for electric vehicles.
• Rare Earth Elements: Essential for wind turbines and electric motors.
The challenge: terrestrial deposits are limited, and their extraction often involves significant social and environmental problems. Conventional mining not only transforms landscapes but also causes deforestation, water consumption, soil erosion, and pollution. In some regions, human rights violations such as child labor add to the concerns. This increases interest in alternative sources, including the Arctic deep sea. The central question is: Does mining in the Arctic offer sustainable advantages over existing alternatives?
Technology and Reality: How Advanced Is Deep-Sea Mining?
Extracting raw materials from the deep sea is a highly complex process requiring state-of-the-art technology. The basic concept of potential mining methods is known: deposits are mapped using sonar and underwater robots; remotely operated or autonomous underwater vehicles detach mineral-rich crusts or deposits from the seabed and transport them to collection platforms. From there, the materials are brought to the surface, stored on ships, and later shipped to land-based refineries.
“We’re not suggesting that this is a zero-impact activity, but what we are suggesting is that the impacts are a fraction compared to the land-based alternatives.”
— Gerard Barron, CEO of The Metals Company, on deep-sea mining
Many methods are still in the testing phase, and their performance under Arctic conditions remains largely unclear. Seafloor composition, current dynamics, and biodiversity differ greatly between regions such as the Pacific and the Arctic – results from one area cannot simply be transferred to another.
Key challenges include:
• Precise navigation and stabilization under Arctic conditions
• Energy and logistical infrastructure at great distances from shore
• Reliable control and limitation of sediment plumes
• Return of process water to the deep sea
What Ecological Risks Are Involved?
The Arctic deep sea is considered particularly sensitive, and experts in marine research and conservation warn of irreversible damage, focusing on three main points:
• Destruction of benthic habitats such as sponge grounds, cold-water corals, and microbially influenced sulfide structures
• Wide dispersal of sediment plumes, whose behavior in Arctic current systems remains poorly studied
• Extremely slow regeneration rates: manganese crusts grow only a few millimeters per million years, and biological communities on massive sulfides show similarly slow recovery
“Mining will cause permanent damage to those ecosystems and it will remain impossible to assess the full extent of those impacts, let alone control them.”
— Kirsten Young, Greenpeace
How Are Politics and Industry Responding?
The Norwegian government argues that well-regulated deep-sea mining could help secure Europe’s supply of critical metals. At the same time, a broad spectrum of environmental organizations, researchers, and parts of the industry are calling for greater caution.
Notably, companies such as BMW, Volvo, and Google have announced that they will not source raw materials from deep-sea mining for the time being, citing the lack of scientific data and reputational risks. Scientific institutions such as GEOMAR, NINA, and UiT point to the uncertainty regarding cumulative effects in an ecosystem already stressed by warming and ocean acidification.
What Alternatives and Solutions Exist?
The debate about deep-sea mining is not only about risks but also about possible ways to meet raw material demand more sustainably.
The following approaches are in focus:
• Circular Economy and Recycling: Efficient recovery systems for batteries, electronics, and aging infrastructure could provide large quantities of secondary raw materials.
• Improved Terrestrial Mining: Stricter environmental regulations, new extraction techniques, and better social standards aim to reduce negative impacts.
• Technological Innovations in Deep-Sea Mining: If mining becomes unavoidable, more precise tools, improved pumping systems, and comprehensive environmental monitoring should minimize disruption.
The need for metals is undeniable – but so are the risks to the deep sea.
Deep-sea mining thus represents the central paradox of our time: How can we achieve a transition to climate-friendly energy without creating additional ecological burdens? The answer will depend on whether technological innovation can be combined with binding environmental standards and comprehensive precautionary measures.