Portuguese 
English 
Spanish 
7 min of reading 
0 comments 
Study cited by Reuters points out that a strip of the Pacific mined in 1979 still shows altered sediments and fewer large organisms after four decades. The alert arises as governments discuss international rules and companies target copper, cobalt, and polymetallic nodules for batteries in deep waters of the global ocean, without regulatory consensus.
Seabed mining has returned to the center of the environmental debate after scientists identified persistent marks on the Pacific seabed more than 40 years after a metal extraction test. The area analyzed is in the Clarion-Clipperton zone, a region rich in polymetallic nodules.
The discovery is significant because companies and governments are discussing whether commercial exploitation in deep waters should proceed before definitive international rules are established. At stake are minerals such as copper, cobalt, and nickel, used in batteries, clean energy technologies, and strategic industrial chains.
Seabed mining left marks for decades
The studied area was impacted by a mining test conducted in 1979. More than four decades later, a scientific expedition in 2023 found signs that the ecosystem has not completely returned to its previous state.
-
The 2026 meteor shower will peak at up to 150 trails per hour in the Geminids, Perseids with 0% Moon, and Taurids with fireballs, creating a race for dark nights and the risk of missing the greatest sky spectacle.
-
El Niño could return in 2026 with an 82% chance, warming the Pacific and reshaping Brazil’s climate, increasing the risk of heat, drought, and extreme rainfall for agriculture, energy, and cities on national alert.
-
Almost 5,000 recycled toilets become artificial reefs in Jamaica Bay and transform discarded porcelain into a natural barrier to protect New York against the force of the sea.
-
Australia launches the first unmanned 3D-printed drone boat in the Southern Hemisphere, made with recycled waste in 40 hours, reaches 40 knots, and can change maritime surveillance with production of up to 100 units per month in a military demand scenario.
The most sensitive point is the slow recovery. In abyssal environments, where there is little light, low food availability, and slow-growing organisms, a physical disturbance can remain visible for many years.
According to the cited survey, the removal of small polymetallic nodules from a strip of the seabed caused lasting changes in the sediments. There was also a reduction in many larger organisms that lived in the region.
At the same time, some smaller and more mobile beings showed signs of recovery. This indicates that the impact is not the same for all groups, but reinforces the difficulty of predicting how a deep ecosystem responds to industrial activity.
Clarion-Clipperton Zone concentrates coveted minerals
The Clarion-Clipperton zone in the Pacific is one of the most observed areas by companies interested in ocean mining. The location has polymetallic nodules, mineral formations that slowly accumulate on the seabed.
These nodules can contain metals such as cobalt, copper, and nickel. They are strategic resources for batteries, electric cars, energy storage, and other technologies associated with the energy transition.
The problem is that these same nodules also serve as part of the habitat for seabed organisms. Removing them does not just mean extracting ore, but physically altering a surface where life organizes itself.
This is one of the main points of the debate. Mining can provide important metals for the low-carbon economy, but it can also create damage in ecosystems still little known to science.
Study shows uneven recovery on the Pacific seabed
The data indicates that the effects of old tests remain detectable. The mined area maintained physical alterations in the sediment and changes in the composition of the fauna, especially among larger organisms.
This does not mean that nothing has returned to the site, but that the recovery is incomplete and uneven. Some groups have managed to recolonize parts of the area, while others remain reduced or absent compared to the unimpacted environment.
In terrestrial ecosystems, the recovery of a degraded area can already take decades. At the bottom of the ocean, the time scale can be even greater because many processes are extremely slow.
Therefore, scientists treat these results as a warning. Small tests, conducted on a limited scale, have already left marks for more than 40 years. A commercial operation would have a much larger scale.
International debate still has no final rule
The scientific warning appears as delegations from dozens of countries discuss rules for potential mining in international waters. The International Seabed Authority, linked to the United Nations system, is trying to build a mining code to guide the activity.
The deadlock is in the timing. Companies want to move forward, while scientists, environmentalists, and some governments advocate caution before commercial release.
According to Reuters, 32 governments and 63 large companies and financial institutions supported some type of pause or moratorium. The argument is that there is still insufficient data to measure long-term risks.
On the other hand, companies in the sector claim that deep-sea mining could have a smaller impact than conventional terrestrial mining because less material would need to be moved to obtain the same amount of metal.
Companies aim for first commercial application
The Canadian company The Metals Company is among the most watched players in this process. The company planned to submit a first formal mining request, even with rules still under discussion.
This movement increases pressure on international regulators. If an application is submitted before the final code, countries will need to decide how to handle an activity that does not yet have a complete framework.
The company maintains that it has the legal right to submit the request and seeks clarity in the process. For mining advocates, seabed nodules can help supply the metals needed for global electrification.
For critics, however, advancing before fully understanding the impacts may repeat historical environmental mistakes. The difference is that, at the bottom of the ocean, monitoring and repairing damage is much more difficult.
Science Still Knows Little About Deep Waters
A scientific review on the impacts of deep-sea mining indicates that abyssal plains, hydrothermal vents, and seamounts are very different ecosystems. Each reacts in its own way to disturbance.
In abyssal plains, like the Clarion-Clipperton, there are signs of ecological impacts on a decadal scale. In hydrothermal vents and seamounts, the risk of biodiversity loss can be even more critical due to the isolation and endemism of species.
The central problem is that the deep ocean is still poorly studied. Many species have not been described, many habitats have not been sampled, and recovery processes remain uncertain.
This creates a difficulty for public decisions. Authorizing commercial mining without fully understanding the environment means accepting risks that may only become clear decades later.
Sediment Plumes Increase Concern
In addition to the direct removal of nodules or mineral crusts, there is another concern: sediment plumes. Machines on the seabed can suspend particles that spread and deposit in nearby areas.
There is also debate about the discharge of water and processed material in intermediate layers of the ocean. This type of plume can affect not only the seabed but also water column ecosystems.
The scientific review indicates that the effects of these plumes still need more empirical studies. Models suggest possible wide dispersion areas, but there are insufficient observations in real operations.
This makes the risk more complex. Mining would not only impact the exact point where the machine passes but could alter surrounding regions and even organisms living far from the seabed.
Batteries Increase Pressure for Copper and Cobalt
The search for metals for batteries is one of the drivers of the new race for ocean mining. Cobalt, copper, nickel, and other minerals play an important role in storage and electrification technologies.
The contradiction is evident: the energy transition, intended to reduce emissions, may create new pressure on little-known ecosystems. The seabed enters this debate as a mining frontier not yet commercially explored on a large scale.
The demand for batteries tends to grow with electric cars, renewable energy grids, and electronic equipment. This increases interest in alternative sources of minerals.
But the question remains whether the industrial benefit outweighs the environmental risk. The long-term study in the Pacific shows that a small scar can last much longer than a company’s economic cycle.
Global alert grows before the deep-sea rush
Deep-sea mining is being presented by some as a solution to the demand for metals. But scientific data shows that the deep ocean is not an empty, simple, or quickly recoverable space.
The 1979 test in the Pacific left signs for more than 40 years. This data changes the scale of the discussion, because it shows that the impacts can span human generations.
The decision on whether or not to allow commercial exploration involves science, economics, climate, geopolitics, and biodiversity. It’s not just about choosing where to extract metals, but about defining how much risk the world is willing to impose on an environment it still barely knows.
And you, do you think deep-sea mining should be paused until science better understands the impacts, or do the metals for batteries justify advancing with strict control rules? Share your opinion.
Be the first to react!