Contents

• Potential OCS Critical Mineral Deposits
• Mineral Leasing on the U.S. Outer Continental Shelf
• OCS Areas Currently Being Considered for Leasing
• American Samoa
• Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands
• Virginia
• Alaska
• Selected Previous Federal Leasing Activities
• Critical Mineral Research and Evaluation Activities on the Outer Continental Shelf
• National Offshore Critical Minerals Inventory
• Evaluation of Outer Continental Shelf Areas with Potential for Critical Minerals
• Critical Minerals Environmental Assessment Framework
• Issues for Congress
• Role of States and Territories in BOEM Leasing
• Preferential Rights to Lease Critical Mineral Prospecting Areas
• Onshore Processing of Marine Minerals
• Jones Act and Dredge Act Applicability to Critical Mineral Leasing
• Potential Marine Environmental Impacts of Seabed Mining

Summary

The first and second Trump Administrations and the Biden Administration issued executive orders announcing U.S. policies to build and strengthen the resiliency of domestic critical mineral supply chains. For example, on April 24, 2025, as part of a broader national effort to secure reliable supplies for critical minerals, the Trump Administration issued Executive Order 14285, "Unleashing America's Offshore Critical Minerals and Resources." Critical minerals include any minerals, elements, substances, or materials that are designated as such by the Secretary of the Interior, based on a determination that they are essential to the economic and national security of the United States, have a supply chain vulnerable to disruption, and play an essential role in manufacturing a product whose absence would significantly affect U.S. economic or national security. One potential source of critical minerals is the U.S. outer continental shelf (OCS), the federally managed ocean area extending from the outer boundaries of state-controlled waters (generally 3 nautical miles [nmi] from shore) to 200 nmi from shore, with some exceptions. Experts estimate that 43 of the U.S. Geological Survey's (USGS's) 2025 list of 60 critical minerals occur on the OCS. Seabed deposits with critical mineral resources may occur across the OCS, but not all deposits on the OCS may be economically viable.

The Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM), within the Department of the Interior (DOI), administers offshore energy and mineral leasing on the OCS, pursuant to the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (OCSLA, as amended; 43 U.S.C. §§1331-1356c). BOEM's two primary roles related to critical minerals consist of (1) evaluating the OCS for these resources and (2) leasing submerged lands for critical mineral development. Within BOEM, the Marine Minerals Program seeks to facilitate access to and manage marine minerals on the OCS. To date, the Marine Minerals Program has supported work to evaluate critical mineral resources on the OCS, but BOEM has not issued any leases for critical mineral exploration and development. On February 3, 2025, the Secretary of the Interior, in Secretarial Order 3417, directed all DOI bureaus and offices to identify authorities to facilitate identification, permitting, and leasing of critical minerals on federal lands and the OCS, among other directives. In 2025, two U.S. deep-sea mining companies separately submitted requests to BOEM to commence a leasing process for exploration and potential development of critical minerals on the OCS—one for areas offshore of American Samoa and one for areas offshore of Virginia. BOEM has initiated the process for two potential mineral lease sales in response to these requests. BOEM separately published two additional requests for information and interest in the Federal Register for lease sales for minerals on the OCS offshore of the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands (CNMI) in November 2025 and offshore of Alaska in January 2026.

BOEM works with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and USGS to determine which areas of the OCS have potential for critical minerals. For example, these three agencies contributed to the National Strategy for Ocean Mapping, Exploring, and Characterizing the United States Exclusive Economic Zone (NOMEC Strategy). A goal of the NOMEC Strategy is to "explore and characterize priority areas," such as areas with potential for critical minerals. In addition to the NOMEC Strategy, BOEM is developing the National Offshore Critical Minerals Inventory (NOCMI), a conceptual framework to organize its resource evaluation and environmental research related to critical minerals on the OCS. BOEM, NOAA, and USGS have studied or plan to study multiple areas of the OCS, including OCS areas in the western Aleutian Islands (offshore of Alaska), the Escanaba Trough (offshore of California), north of Puerto Rico, around Hawaii and the U.S. Pacific Island territories, and in the Gulf of America, for sites with potential for critical minerals.

As the federal government works to strengthen the United States' domestic critical mineral supply chain, Congress may consider BOEM's role in leasing submerged lands for critical minerals and determining potential mitigation measures to limit adverse impacts to the marine environment. For example, Congress could address leasing considerations for specific OCS areas, including the OCS areas proposed by BOEM offshore of American Samoa, the CNMI, Virginia, and Alaska. Other considerations may include whether BOEM's regulations for marine minerals pose economic burdens for the mining industry. Congress also may consider options for onshore processing of marine minerals should seabed mining advance to a commercial level. Congress may consider how the Jones Act (Section 27 of the Merchant Marine Act of 1920; P.L. 66-261), which requires that waterborne transportation between "U.S. points" be conducted only by vessels built in the United States and owned and crewed by U.S. citizens, might impact critical mineral activities on the OCS. Congress also may weigh potential environmental impacts of mining on the OCS and consider BOEM mitigation measures for such activities.

Critical minerals are defined in federal statute to include any non-fuel minerals, elements, substances, or materials that the Secretary of the Interior designates as such based on the determination that they are essential to the economic and national security of the United States, have a supply chain vulnerable to disruption, and play an essential role in manufacturing a product whose absence would significantly affect U.S. economic or national security.¹ The first and second Trump Administrations and the Biden Administration each issued executive orders announcing U.S. policies to build and strengthen the resiliency of domestic critical mineral supply chains.² In December 2017, President Trump issued Executive Order (E.O.) 13817, "A Federal Strategy to Ensure Secure and Reliable Supplies of Critical Minerals," which made it the "policy of the Federal Government to reduce the Nation's vulnerability to disruptions in the supply of critical minerals" and stated that the U.S. government would further this policy by "identifying new sources of critical minerals," among other activities. The Energy Act of 2020 (Division Z of P.L. 116-260) directed the President to coordinate the work of departments and agencies to "facilitate the availability, development, and environmentally responsible production of domestic resources to meet national material or critical mineral needs."³

At the start of his second term, President Trump issued E.O. 14154, "Unleashing American Energy," which, among other provisions, encourages energy exploration on the U.S. outer continental shelf (OCS) and aims to establish the United States as the leading producer and processor of non-fuel minerals, including rare earth minerals. President Trump also issued E.O. 14156, "Declaring a National Energy Emergency," which directs agencies to use emergency authorities and other authorities to facilitate, among other things, identification, permitting, and leasing of energy resources, including critical minerals.⁴ On April 24, 2025, President Trump issued E.O. 14285, "Unleashing America's Offshore Critical Minerals and Resources," which makes it the priority of the United States to "rapidly develop[] domestic capabilities for the exploration, characterization, collection, and processing of seabed mineral resources."

One potential source of critical minerals is the OCS, the federally managed ocean area extending from the outer boundaries of state-controlled waters (generally 3 nautical miles [nmi] from shore) to at least 200 nmi from shore, with some exceptions (Figure 1).⁵ Critical minerals may occur on the OCS at the surface of the seabed and marine geologic features (e.g., seamounts), as well as inside some geologic features, such as hydrothermal vents (see "Potential OCS Critical Mineral Deposits," below). The Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM), within the Department of the Interior (DOI), administers offshore energy and mineral leasing on the OCS. According to BOEM, the United States is "lagging other nations in domestic [critical mineral] planning and investments, including scientific research" on critical minerals on the OCS (see textbox below, "Countries Pursuing Seabed Mineral Resources on Their Continental Shelves").⁶ On February 3, 2025, the Secretary of the Interior directed all DOI bureaus and offices to identify authorities to facilitate critical mineral activities, as well as activities related to the development of other domestic energy resources, on federal lands and the OCS.⁷ In response to E.O. 14285, on June 25, 2025, DOI announced that BOEM and its sister agency, the Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement (BSEE), were updating their policies across all stages of development for offshore critical minerals.⁸ E.O. 14285 also directed the Secretary of the Interior to identify which critical minerals may be derived from the seabed, among other actions.

BOEM's two primary roles related to critical minerals consist of (1) evaluating the OCS for these resources and (2) leasing submerged lands for critical mineral development. Within BOEM, the Marine Minerals Program seeks to facilitate access to and manage non-energy marine minerals on the OCS.⁹ The Marine Minerals Program has supported work to evaluate critical mineral resources on the OCS. To date, BOEM has not issued any leases for critical mineral exploration and development.¹⁰ During 2025, in response to two unsolicited mineral lease sale requests from U.S. deep-sea mining companies, BOEM initiated the process for potential mineral lease sales on the OCS offshore of American Samoa and Virginia.¹¹ BOEM also initiated processes for potential mineral lease sales on the OCS offshore of the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands (CNMI) in November 2025 and offshore of Alaska in January 2026.¹² With regard to evaluation, BOEM has produced prospective maps, based on models and expert knowledge, of where critical minerals could be present on the OCS.¹³ This report addresses BOEM's critical mineral leasing regulations and leasing activities, its research on the occurrence of critical minerals on the OCS, its work to collect data on baseline environmental conditions, and issues for congressional consideration.

Figure 1. U.S. Outer Continental Shelf, Including Extended Continental Shelf

Source: CRS, modified from Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, "Outer Continental Shelf," https://www.boem.gov/oil-gas-energy/leasing/outer-continental-shelf, and using Stephen R. Hartwell et al., Polygons of Global Undersea Features for Geographic Searches, U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 2014–1040, ver. 1.1, June 2018, https://doi.org/10.3133/ofr20141040. Notes: The OCS generally extends to 200 nautical miles (nmi) from shore. In some areas, the United States has claimed extended continental shelf (ECS) beyond this 200-nmi limit based on geological and geophysical data, thereby extending the outer limits of the OCS. In cases where the OCS abuts a neighboring country's continental shelf, the OCS may measure less than 200 nmi from the U.S. shoreline.

BOEM's program for the OCS is separate from federal activities related to critical mineral exploration in international waters. For critical minerals occurring in areas beyond national jurisdiction, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) has authority to issue exploration licenses and commercial recovery permits for hard mineral resources (i.e., seabed minerals).¹⁴ For more information on critical mineral exploration in international waters, see CRS In Focus IF12608, U.S. Interest in Seabed Mining in Areas Beyond National Jurisdiction: Brief Background and Recent Developments; and CRS Report R47324, Seabed Mining in Areas Beyond National Jurisdiction: Issues for Congress.

Potential OCS Critical Mineral Deposits

In 2025, the Secretary of the Interior, acting through the Director of the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), published a list of 60 critical minerals, of which 43 are known to occur on the OCS (Figure 2).³³ In 2025, the United States was 100% net import reliant for six of the critical minerals that occur on the OCS—gallium, manganese, niobium, scandium, titanium, and yttrium.³⁴ E.O. 14285, among other things, directs the Secretary of the Interior to "identify which critical minerals may be derived from seabed resources and coordinate with the Secretary of Defense and the Secretary of Energy to indicate which critical minerals are essential for applications such as defense infrastructure, manufacturing, and energy."

Figure 2. Critical Minerals Occurring Offshore (with subset of minerals occurring on the U.S. outer continental shelf)

Source: Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, "Types of Relevant Marine Mineral Deposits," https://www.boem.gov/marine-minerals/critical-minerals/types-relevant-marine-mineral-deposits.

Seabed deposits with critical mineral resources likely occur throughout the OCS, but not all deposits may be economically viable.³⁵ The types and quantities of critical minerals within seabed deposits vary geographically based on local seawater chemistry, porewater chemistry with seafloor sediments, or the resulting seawater chemistry from hot hydrothermal fluids interacting with seafloor crustal rocks.³⁶ BOEM has identified five main categories of mineral deposits on the OCS that may contain critical minerals: nearshore heavy mineral sands (known as placers), phosphorites, hydrothermal deposits, ferromanganese crusts, and polymetallic nodules (Table 1).³⁷ Each deposit type is described below, generally in order from deposits occurring nearshore to farthest offshore.

Of the five types of deposits, the nearest to shore are placers—sedimentary deposits concentrated with heavy minerals that formed by surface weathering and erosion of primary rocks (e.g., bedrock) that are transported and redeposited by gravity, water, glacial activity, or wind. Marine placers typically occur in coastal nearshore environments and may contain critical minerals, such as platinum, silver, tin, titanium, zirconium, and some rare earth elements (REEs).

Phosphorites are sedimentary rocks containing a high concentration of calcium phosphate. These rocks generally occur in water depths less than 1,000 meters (m) along continental shelves and slopes, as well as on seamounts. Depending on the location, these deposits may contain critical minerals, such as phosphate, uranium, and some REEs.

Hydrothermal deposits (also known as seafloor massive sulfide deposits) can precipitate from hot waters emitted at seafloor spreading ridges and areas of undersea volcanic activity, such as the Juan de Fuca Ridge located off the Pacific Northwest coast of North America. These deposits generally occur in water depths ranging from 100 to 7,000 m. Hydrothermal deposits may contain critical minerals, such as antimony, bismuth, copper, gallium, germanium, silver, tellurium, and zinc.

Ferromanganese crusts are layers (typically less than 25 centimeters thick) of mineral encrustations that form on hard surfaces (e.g., rocks) from seawater rich in dissolved metals occurring in volcanically active regions, such as seamounts and ridges, at water depths of 600 to 7,000 m. These crusts generally form on the tops and flanks of seamounts, precipitating at a growth rate of less than 1 to 4 millimeters per million years. Ferromanganese crusts may contain critical minerals such as cobalt, copper, manganese, nickel, platinum, scandium, tellurium, and some REEs.

Polymetallic nodules are potato-shaped rocks lying on the deep seafloor, typically at water depths of 4,000 to 7,000 m. The nodules are formed over millions of years as minerals from the seawater and sediment pore water accrete around a hard nucleus (e.g., shark tooth, whale ear bone, rock fragment), forming concentric layers. Critical minerals contained in polymetallic nodules may include cobalt, copper, lithium, manganese, nickel, tellurium, titanium, and REEs.

Three of these five types of marine deposits—hydrothermal deposits, ferromanganese crusts, and polymetallic nodules—also occur beyond the OCS in international waters.³⁸ Some countries are actively exploring areas of the international seabed with potential for high concentrations of certain critical minerals.³⁹ NOAA, pursuant to the Deep Seabed Hard Mineral Resources Act (P.L. 96-283), currently is considering applications for seabed mining activities for areas beyond national jurisdiction in the Pacific Ocean.⁴⁰

Two types of deposits—placers and phosphorites—tend to occur in shallow water environments, potentially including U.S. state waters (see Table 1). Oregon, Washington, California, Hawaii and American Samoa prohibit mining in the waters under their jurisdiction (i.e., the first 3 nmi seaward of the coastline).⁴¹ These U.S. states and territories may allow for certain mining exceptions (e.g., beach replenishment, scientific research).

Mineral Leasing on the U.S. Outer Continental Shelf

BOEM has authority under the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act of 1953 (OCSLA; 43 U.S.C. §§1331-1356c) to lease areas of the OCS for critical mineral exploration and development.⁴² Pursuant to this authority, BOEM has issued regulations (30 C.F.R. Parts 580-582) addressing leasing for non-oil and gas minerals (also referred to by BOEM as hard minerals), including critical minerals.⁴³ To date, BOEM has not held any lease sales for critical minerals on the OCS or issued any critical mineral leases.⁴⁴ In 2025 and early 2026, BOEM initiated the process for four potential critical mineral lease sales in federal waters off the coasts of American Samoa, the CNMI, Virginia, and Alaska.⁴⁵ (See the sections below for further discussion.) Separately, on June 25, 2025, DOI announced that BOEM and BSEE were "updating [critical mineral] policies across all stages of development" in order to "reduce delays, improve coordination and provide greater certainty for industry, all while upholding key environmental safeguards."⁴⁶ DOI stated that BOEM and BSEE would consider offshore critical mineral projects for expedited permitting under emergency procedures,⁴⁷ and that approvals for multiple types of activities would be "fast-tracked by minimizing unnecessary paperwork and compliance steps."⁴⁸ BOEM further stated in its FY2026 budget justification that it would "evaluate the 30 C.F.R. 580-582 regulations and address any burdensome or unnecessary requirements."⁴⁹ On February 24, 2026, BOEM published a proposed rule to make "administrative revisions" to its hard mineral leasing regulations.⁵⁰

The hard mineral leasing regulations cover prospecting (pre-lease exploration for marine minerals, including geological and geophysical [G&G] explorations), leasing of rights for mineral development, and operations under a lease.⁵¹ Commercial prospecting for marine minerals, such as through G&G surveys, requires a BOEM-issued permit unless conducted by an existing leaseholder in that entity's lease area.⁵² Data acquired through prospecting must be shared with BOEM.⁵³ A prospecting permit is separate from a lease to develop minerals in an area, and the prospecting permit does not convey any preferential right to a lease.⁵⁴ BOEM's current prospecting regulations state that BOEM will evaluate proposed prospecting activities for adverse impacts on the environment, except for specified activities that do not require environmental analysis.⁵⁵ BOEM's February 2026 proposed rule would eliminate these provisions, stating that other laws and regulations cover the framework for BOEM's environmental analysis of permit applications.⁵⁶ The proposed rule also would eliminate a requirement to notify states, local governments, and others of permits and environmental assessments.⁵⁷

The leasing process may start with an unsolicited request for a lease sale (as was the case for BOEM's current processes offshore of American Samoa and Virginia) or by BOEM's own initiative (as was the case for BOEM's current processes for the CNMI and Alaska).⁵⁸ In either case, BOEM may publish in the Federal Register a request for information and interest (RFI), which could specify particular areas or minerals to be considered.⁵⁹ For example, BOEM published RFIs regarding critical mineral leasing offshore of American Samoa and the CNMI in June and November 2025, respectively, and for Alaska in January 2026.⁶⁰ DOI's press release of June 25, 2025, noted that, going forward, "to speed up the leasing process," BOEM may identify potential leasing areas "right away, without first issuing a formal request for information."⁶¹ The regulations also provide that BOEM may form a joint state-federal task force with adjacent state governors as a mechanism for planning, coordination, and consultation about the leasing process. DOI's June 25, 2025, press release stated that BOEM will not form such task forces, in light of efforts to speed up the leasing process.⁶² Separately, BOEM's February 2026 proposed rule would reduce the number of days allowed to BOEM to respond to an unsolicited lease request from 45 days to 28 days.⁶³

Under the regulations, BOEM selects the areas to be offered at a lease sale based on industry interest, resource information, environmental data, and the recommendations of any joint state-federal task force.⁶⁴ Leases are awarded through a competitive cash auction.⁶⁵ Unless otherwise specified in the leasing notice, the lease would include rights to all minerals within the leased area except for oil, gas, sulfur, and certain other reserved commodities.⁶⁶ Agreements for the use of OCS sand, gravel, and shell resources may be negotiated noncompetitively, outside of the lease sale process.⁶⁷

To conduct operations once a lease is secured, a lessee must obtain BOEM's approval of multiple plans (along with any permits or approvals that may be required from other agencies under various laws).⁶⁸ A delineation plan describes activities the lessee will take to locate and characterize the minerals; it also generates information needed for subsequent plans.⁶⁹ Among other information, this includes the mineral(s) of primary interest and how they will be located and evaluated, what types of equipment will be used, where test mining will occur, anticipated impacts to the marine environment and how they will be addressed, and potential conflicts with other ocean users. A testing plan governs the lessee's program for pilot mining and testing activities, including information on testing locations and methods, equipment to be used, anticipated environmental impacts and how they will be addressed, and other information.⁷⁰ For subsequent development and production, the lessee must obtain approval of a mining plan that includes "comprehensive detailed descriptions, illustrations, and explanations of the proposed OCS mineral development, production, and processing activities," as well as plans to address environmental impacts and plans to clear the lease area when mining activities end.⁷¹

BSEE enforces a lessee's compliance with its BOEM-approved plans. BSEE has promulgated regulations that apply to critical mineral exploration and development,⁷² but to date these activities have not occurred on the OCS. Among other things, the BSEE regulations include provisions for inspections of mining operations, environmental protection measures, penalties for violating requirements and plans, and circumstances under which BSEE would suspend operations and production.

OCS Areas Currently Being Considered for Leasing

In 2025, BOEM initiated the process for three potential mineral lease sales in federal waters offshore of American Samoa, the CNMI, and Virginia. BOEM also initiated the process for a potential mineral lease sale on the OCS offshore of Alaska in January 2026. These four potential mineral lease sales are discussed below.

American Samoa

In February 2024, BOEM received an unsolicited request from Impossible Metals, a U.S. deep-sea mining company, for a lease sale for deep-sea polymetallic nodules within the OCS offshore of American Samoa (Figure 1).⁷³ According to BOEM, the applicant planned to target cobalt, lithium, manganese, nickel, and REEs from the nodules (Figure 2).⁷⁴ Following an internal review of the request, according to BOEM, "the BOEM Director opted not to initiate the steps leading to the offer of OCS minerals for lease, determining that further engagement with the government of American Samoa regarding this matter would be appropriate before any further action."⁷⁵ The then-Governor of American Samoa, Lemanu Peleti Mauga, issued an order in July 2024 banning deep seabed mining in the territorially controlled waters directly off American Samoa (i.e., the waters extending 3 nmi seaward from the shore).⁷⁶ On January 3, 2025, Pulaali'i Nikolao Pula began his four-year term as Governor of American Samoa.⁷⁷ In part due to the new American Samoa administration,⁷⁸ on April 8, 2025, Impossible Metals submitted another request to BOEM to commence a leasing process for exploration and potential development of critical minerals on the OCS offshore of American Samoa.⁷⁹ On June 16, 2025, BOEM published an RFI in the Federal Register, initiating the first formal step in the offshore mineral lease sale process.⁸⁰ On July 15, 2025, BOEM announced it would extend the comment period for the RFI in response to a request from the Governor of American Samoa.⁸¹ The Governor reiterated that the Government of American Samoa's moratorium on seabed mining set forth in its 2024 E.O. "has not been repealed, and therefore, remains in full force and effect."⁸² On November 10, 2025, BOEM announced the completion of its Area Identification (Area ID) decision memo for American Samoa, which determines the OCS areas that will undergo environmental review for a proposed critical mineral lease sale, pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. §§4321 et seq.).⁸³ According to BOEM, several companies in addition to Impossible Metals expressed an interest in potential OCS mineral leasing offshore of American Samoa.⁸⁴

Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands

On November 12, 2025, BOEM published an RFI in the Federal Register for a lease sale for minerals on the OCS offshore of the CNMI.⁸⁵ BOEM stated that the RFI area includes ferromanganese crust and polymetallic nodules, as identified by USGS (Table 1).⁸⁶ While the RFI area is located entirely within the OCS offshore of the CNMI, the "southern boundary of the RFI Area is approximately equal distance between the islands of Guam and Rota, the southernmost island of the CNMI."⁸⁷ On November 15, 2025, the Governors of CNMI and Guam submitted a joint request to BOEM to extend the RFI comment period by an additional 120 days.⁸⁸ In their request, the Governors stated that the RFI area affects both U.S. territories and that "any federal action in this space must therefore account for the perspectives and interests of both territorial governments." Given that the CNMI and Guam "share a connected ocean ecosystem," the Governors expressed concerns about transboundary impacts associated with offshore mineral activities. BOEM extended the initial 30-day comment period for the RFI to January 12, 2026, an additional 30 days.⁸⁹ On January 9, 2026, the Guam Legislature passed a resolution "reaffirming" its 2021 call for a moratorium on deep sea mining on the OCS and "objecting" to BOEM's RFI related to the CNMI.⁹⁰ On March 13, 2026, BOEM completed its Area ID decision memo for the CNMI, identifying the OCS areas that will undergo environmental review for a potential critical mineral lease sale.⁹¹ As with the Area ID memo for American Samoa, the CNMI Area ID memo identifies an area larger than the original RFI area for consideration for a potential lease sale.⁹²

Virginia

On November 13, 2025, BOEM received an unsolicited lease sale request from Odyssey Marine Exploration focused on heavy mineral sands and phosphorites offshore of Virginia.⁹³ According to Odyssey Marine Exploration, these offshore deposits may be rich in titanium, zirconium, phosphate, and REEs (Table 1).⁹⁴ On December 12, 2025, BOEM announced that it had "initiated the process for a potential mineral lease sale" off Virginia and that the next step would be to publish an RFI in the Federal Register.⁹⁵ As of the date of this publication, BOEM had not published an RFI related to this unsolicited lease sale request.

Alaska

On January 29, 2026, BOEM published an RFI in the Federal Register for a lease sale for minerals on the OCS offshore of Alaska.⁹⁶ BOEM anticipates that Alaska's OCS contains heavy mineral sand deposits and ferromanganese crusts (see Table 1).⁹⁷ BOEM stated that the RFI area covers over 113 million acres—an area bigger than the size of California—and spans water depths starting at 10 m to over 7,000 m.⁹⁸ The RFI area comprises several locations:⁹⁹

• two nearshore heavy mineral sand deposits, referred to as Norton Sound Heavy Mineral Sands and Goodnews Bay Heavy Mineral Sands;
• an area encompassing the Aleutian Arc, which includes the Aleutian Trench, the deepest area included in the RFI;
• numerous seamounts located in the Gulf of Alaska; and
• two areas located in the Arctic Ocean, referred to as the Canada Basin and Chukchi Borderland.

Approximately 62% of the Canada Basin and 86% of the Chukchi Borderlands occur north of 75°N in the Arctic Ocean.¹⁰⁰ Waters this far north in the Arctic Ocean may present some logistical challenges for U.S. seabed mining companies. In addition, approximately 74% of the Canada Basin and 96% of the Chukchi Borderland occur on U.S. extended continental shelf, an area of the seabed that extends beyond the 200-nmi limit of the continental shelf (Figure 1). The United States determined the outer limits of its extended continental shelf using rules set forth in the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), even though the United States is not a party to this international convention.¹⁰¹ Russian officials have reportedly objected to the United States expanding its OCS as a non-party to UNCLOS.¹⁰² It is unclear whether issues related to seabed jurisdiction, or logistical challenges of mining in the Arctic Ocean, would affect interest by U.S. companies in a potential lease sale for the Canada Basin and Chukchi Borderland. BOEM's initial 30-day comment period for the RFI ended on March 2, 2026.¹⁰³ On March 6, 2026, BOEM announced that the comment period would be extended to April 1, 2026.¹⁰⁴

Selected Previous Federal Leasing Activities

Historically, competitive commercial lease sales for any types of hard minerals on the OCS have been rare.¹⁰⁵ In 1961, DOI issued six leases for marine phosphate mining on the California OCS.¹⁰⁶ These six leases were terminated following the "discovery of unexploded naval missiles on the ocean floor."¹⁰⁷ In 1991, the Minerals Management Service, BOEM's predecessor agency, offered a marine mineral lease sale for gold and associated minerals in placer deposits in Alaska's Norton Sound, offshore of Nome.¹⁰⁸ No bids were received by the bid deadline, and no sale occurred.¹⁰⁹ Gold is not included on the USGS's 2025 list of 60 critical minerals, although it still falls under BOEM's hard mineral leasing regulations.¹¹⁰

Critical Mineral Research and Evaluation Activities on the Outer Continental Shelf

In addition to administering the marine mineral leasing program for the OCS, BOEM has the responsibility to evaluate the OCS for marine mineral resources. BOEM, NOAA, and USGS have collaborated on multiple initiatives to determine which areas of the OCS have potential for critical minerals.¹¹¹

National Offshore Critical Minerals Inventory

BOEM's Marine Minerals Program is developing a National Offshore Critical Minerals Inventory (NOCMI). The NOCMI aims to "locate and assess deposits" of offshore critical minerals for U.S. economic and national security.¹¹² BOEM collaborates with NOAA and USGS to fund, plan, and conduct research relevant to the NOCMI, including collecting data about habitats, environmental conditions, and offshore geology.¹¹³ BOEM identifies five strategic priorities under the NOCMI.¹¹⁴

• Advance resource evaluation and environmental assessment standards and information assets
• Advance assessment of offshore critical minerals
• Advance understanding of baseline environmental conditions
• Advance technologies that efficiently and cost-effectively assess offshore critical minerals
• Provide accessible information on OCS critical minerals

Additionally, several federal agencies, including BOEM, NOAA, and USGS, are coordinating research efforts and resources to achieve the goals outlined in the National Strategy for Ocean Mapping, Exploring, and Characterizing the United States Exclusive Economic Zone (NOMEC Strategy).¹¹⁵ The interagency National Ocean Mapping, Exploration, and Characterization (NOMEC) Council released the Implementation Plan for the NOMEC Strategy in 2021 pursuant to a 2019 presidential memorandum.¹¹⁶ Among the NOMEC Strategy's goals are to completely map the U.S. seafloor and to "explore and characterize priority areas," such as areas with potential for critical minerals.¹¹⁷ In 2024, the NOMEC Council updated the NOMEC Implementation Plan to include the U.S. extended continental shelf, over which the United States claims jurisdiction (i.e., areas of the seabed beyond the 200 nmi limit of the EEZ).¹¹⁸

Evaluation of Outer Continental Shelf Areas with Potential for Critical Minerals

On February 3, 2025, Secretary of the Interior Doug Burgum issued DOI Secretarial Order 3418, which aims to "improve energy and critical minerals identification," among other goals, and directs DOI officials to "prioritize efforts to accelerate the ongoing, detailed geologic mapping of the United States, with a focus on locating previously unknown deposits of critical minerals."¹¹⁹ BOEM has funded several offshore critical mineral assessment projects on the OCS.¹²⁰ BOEM stated in its FY2026 budget justification that it will conduct critical mineral resource assessment and environmental characterization work in the Atlantic, Alaska, Pacific, and Gulf of America regions as part of the NOCMI.¹²¹

In the Atlantic, BOEM and USGS have previously stated that they have plans to investigate critical mineral resources north of Puerto Rico within U.S. jurisdiction.¹²² Previous seafloor mapping and sediment core data indicate the presence of polymetallic nodules in the region north of the Puerto Rico Trench.¹²³ BOEM also has participated in federally funded studies to investigate a nodule field located on the Blake Plateau off the state of Georgia (Figure 1).¹²⁴ However, federal studies of the Blake Plateau nodule field have focused on ecosystem recovery post-seabed disturbance, not the potential for critical minerals within the nodule field.¹²⁵ In the 1970s, a private company conducted an experimental seabed mining pilot project on the Blake Plateau to test the nodule collecting capability of its mining machinery.¹²⁶ In 1982, USGS visited the pilot project's site to mark the area for future studies.¹²⁷ BOEM, NOAA, and USGS have returned to this site several times over the past five years to study the potential long-term environmental impacts of seabed mining.¹²⁸

Offshore of Alaska, BOEM scientists have worked to understand the location and quantities of critical minerals on Alaska's OCS for potential future development.¹²⁹ BOEM, NOAA, and USGS have an ongoing study through FY2027 to investigate the western Aleutian Islands for hydrothermal deposits with potential for critical minerals.¹³⁰ Between June 15 and July 2, 2025, these three agencies explored hydrothermal vents and seamounts around the Aleutian Islands and gathered data on offshore critical minerals and deep-sea ecosystems.¹³¹

In the Pacific, BOEM's critical mineral resource assessment and environmental characterization work has included sites located in the Escanaba Trough, offshore of California (Figure 1), and offshore areas around Hawaii and the U.S. Pacific Island territories.¹³² BOEM, NOAA, and USGS first explored seafloor massive sulfide deposits in the Escanaba Trough in the early 1980s,¹³³ and they continued to research this area offshore of Northern California during a 2022 expedition.¹³⁴ In FY2022, BOEM, NOAA, and USGS used seafloor mapping technologies to investigate polymetallic nodule potential offshore of Hawaii.¹³⁵ BOEM also has co-funded studies to explore U.S. Pacific Island territorial areas for offshore resources, including American Samoa, Guam and the CNMI, and Palmyra Atoll and Kingman Reef (see Figure 1).¹³⁶ In 2025, BOEM, NOAA, and USGS partnered with the Ocean Exploration Corporative Institution, based at the University of Rhode Island's Graduate School of Oceanography, for a three-week expedition to deploy an Orpheus Ocean autonomous underwater vehicle to explore U.S. waters around Guam and the CNMI.¹³⁷ The expedition identified polymetallic nodules in the Mariana Trench.¹³⁸ In addition, NOAA announced that in February 2026, an agency contractor would begin mapping and characterizing more than 30,000 square nmi of the American Samoa OCS to support "sustainable deep sea mining practices and allows partners to better understand their marine environments."¹³⁹

In the Gulf of America, BOEM previously had stated that it would "kick-start a multi-year study to examine the critical mineral potential of submerged salt brine pools that will extend into 2025 and beyond."¹⁴⁰ The agency has listed mapping brine pools in the Gulf of America among its current activities on its webpage.¹⁴¹

Critical Minerals Environmental Assessment Framework

BOEM has asserted that information about baseline conditions of offshore environments with potential for critical minerals is "sparse."¹⁴² BOEM, in collaboration with the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (NASEM), has been developing environmental baseline information acquisition and assessment standards for critical mineral-related activities on the OCS.¹⁴³ Such baseline data could facilitate BOEM's evaluation of future requests for lease sales (see further discussion below under "Mineral Leasing on the U.S. Outer Continental Shelf"). Specific research questions to be addressed by BOEM and NASEM include the following:

• What is the baseline environment associated with deep sea critical mineral resources?
• What are the potential impacts associated with deep sea critical mineral prospecting and operations activities?
• What are potential mitigations that can be applied to deep sea critical mineral prospecting and operations activities?¹⁴⁴

BOEM and NASEM have stated they will engage with affiliated academic partners to develop environmental recommendations and solicit information from stakeholders related to environmental assessment of offshore critical mineral activities.¹⁴⁵

Issues for Congress

As the United States works to strengthen its domestic critical mineral supply chain, Congress may consider BOEM's role in evaluating areas of the OCS and leasing submerged lands for critical minerals, as well as the potential roles of other federal agencies. In particular, Congress could evaluate whether BOEM's efforts to implement E.O. 14285 align with congressional priorities. Among its directives, E.O. 14285 directed the Secretary of the Interior to "establish an expedited process for reviewing and approving permits for prospecting and granting leases for exploration, development, and production of seabed mineral resources" within the OCS. Some Members have introduced legislation in the 119^th Congress that would codify E.O. 14285 (e.g., H.R. 3803) or would mandate that certain federal departments and agencies act on aspects of the executive order (e.g., H.R. 4018, S. 2860). The sections below examine five potential issues for Congress:

• 1. State and territorial input in BOEM's critical mineral leasing process
• 2. BOEM's leasing regulations for marine minerals
• 3. Onshore processing of marine minerals
• 4. Potential interpretations by U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) of certain U.S. statutes for vessels engaging in seabed mining activities on the OCS
• 5. Potential marine environmental impacts of seabed mining

Role of States and Territories in BOEM Leasing

BOEM's marine mineral leasing regulations provide opportunities for states and territories to give input on leasing decisions.¹⁴⁶ For example, state and territorial governments, along with other interested parties, may respond to an RFI regarding potential leasing for a given area, and BOEM may form joint task forces to coordinate and consult with states and territories prior to offering a lease sale.¹⁴⁷ When BOEM decides to hold a lease sale, the proposed leasing notice must be submitted to adjacent state or territorial governors, and the Secretary of the Interior must consider and respond to any written comments submitted by a governor within 60 days of the notice's publication.¹⁴⁸ After a lease is awarded, BOEM must provide opportunities for adjacent states or territories to comment on the lessee's delineation, testing, and mining plans and must respond to any comments.¹⁴⁹ Separately, coastal states and territories also can review certain federal agency actions in offshore areas under the Coastal Zone Management Act (16 U.S.C. §§1451-1466).¹⁵⁰

Some industry stakeholders have expressed that the multiple public consultation periods in BOEM's regulations could contribute to delays in critical mineral development and have sought a more streamlined process with regard to consultations with states and territories and public input.¹⁵¹ Some of BOEM's regulatory steps involving state and territorial consultation are discretionary—BOEM or the Secretary of the Interior "may" engage in these steps, but they are not required to do so under the regulations. In its press release of June 25, 2025, DOI announced that it would opt not to take some of these discretionary steps, particularly those at the early stages of deciding whether to hold a lease sale (issuing an RFI and setting up a joint task force), in order to speed up the leasing process.¹⁵² DOI estimated that these changes could save "anywhere from two months to more than a year" during the lease planning stages.¹⁵³

Notwithstanding the DOI announcement, BOEM did issue RFIs for the lease sales under consideration for American Samoa, the CNMI, and Alaska; and BOEM extended the comment periods for some RFIs in response to requests.¹⁵⁴ BOEM further stated its intent to publish an RFI for the potential mineral lease sale it is considering offshore of Virginia.¹⁵⁵ In response to DOI's June announcement of an expedited process for review of critical mineral activities on the OCS, Representative Moylan (Guam-00) reportedly stated that "accelerated timelines can unintentionally—or intentionally—sideline communities that already face structural barriers to participation."¹⁵⁶ He proposed "formalized consultation protocols that require territorial consent, not just comment periods" for federal projects that may impact U.S. territorial islands, including their waters and communities.¹⁵⁷ Congress could consider whether to weigh in on state and territorial input in the critical mineral leasing process through oversight or legislation, or it could continue the current framework in which BOEM's existing statutory and regulatory authorities govern consultation with states and territories.¹⁵⁸

Preferential Rights to Lease Critical Mineral Prospecting Areas

BOEM's critical mineral leasing regulations require that a developer obtain a permit to explore (prospect) in any unleased areas, but this permit does not convey the preferential right to lease the prospecting area (see "Mineral Leasing on the U.S. Outer Continental Shelf," above).¹⁵⁹ In this respect, BOEM's regulatory framework differs from that of the International Seabed Authority (ISA) for seabed mining activities in waters beyond national jurisdiction, in that the ISA gives "preference and priority" to prospectors (holders of "exploration" contracts) when awarding seabed mining ("exploitation") contracts.¹⁶⁰ Also, on January 21, 2026, NOAA issued a final rule revising regulations for seabed mining in areas beyond national jurisdiction.¹⁶¹ The final rule established a consolidated license and permit process whereby eligible applicants can apply for and obtain, at the same time, both an exploration license and a commercial recovery permit. Under the consolidated process,

The Administrator may issue the exploration license and commercial recovery permit at the same time, thereby confirming the priority of right required that would otherwise be established through the licensing process and the ability of the permit holder to proceed to commercial recovery.... That priority of right continues through the commercial recovery permit. The length of the terms for an exploration license (10 years) and commercial recovery permit (20 years) does not change nor does the ability to extend these terms as described in the regulations and the [Deep Seabed Hard Mineral Resources] Act. Once the Administrator issues the license and permit under the consolidated process, the applicant may immediately proceed to commercial recovery of hard mineral resources, if it wishes, but in any event must begin to diligently pursue its commercial recovery plan.

BOEM has previously suggested that some mining companies could be dissuaded from engaging in prospecting by the current regulatory structure, in which a company could conduct assessments and environmental studies as part of a prospecting permit but then lose its bid to lease the prospecting area.¹⁶² Congress could consider whether to direct BOEM to give prospecting companies preferential rights to lease the prospecting area, similar to the ISA procedure and to NOAA's revisions to its regulations for seabed mining activities in areas beyond national jurisdiction. Such a change in BOEM's regulations for critical mineral leasing could encourage U.S. mining companies to seek prospecting permits, thereby contributing to federal data on the location of OCS critical minerals and increasing the chances that the mining companies would subsequently obtain a lease and produce critical minerals.¹⁶³ However, since prospecting permits may be awarded noncompetitively under current regulations,¹⁶⁴ granting a prospecting entity preferential right to a lease could be seen by some to favor certain companies over others. Such a change also could reduce revenues that the federal government would receive from a competitive lease auction.

Onshore Processing of Marine Minerals

Once seabed resources are extracted, the material would need to be transported to an onshore facility to be processed for certain minerals. A potentially relevant consideration for Congress is that the United States currently "lacks domestic processing and manufacturing capabilities for some critical minerals."¹⁶⁵ Because commercial-scale seabed mining for critical minerals has yet to occur on the OCS (or in international waters), there are no existing facilities for processing and refining seabed materials.¹⁶⁶ Some experts contend that certain international facilities, including those located in Indonesia, South Korea, Japan, and Colombia, could be modified to process seabed materials.¹⁶⁷ However, some of these facilities may be associated with terrestrial mines and may not have the capacity to process seabed minerals.¹⁶⁸ One facility in Japan has evaluated polymetallic nodules for processing and refining purposes.¹⁶⁹ Until the United States has domestic processing and refining capabilities, some U.S. seabed mining companies have proposed that seabed minerals they harvest could be processed in "friendly nations."¹⁷⁰

Some Members have introduced legislation in the 119^th Congress that would direct the Secretary of Energy to establish a pilot program to support the processing of not fewer than three different types of critical materials, which could include seabed deposits with critical minerals (S. 596).¹⁷¹ Attempts to establish processing facilities in the United States have "encountered challenges such as lengthy permitting timelines, competition for feedstock, lack of price competitiveness against global competitors, and low investor interest due to market volatility," according to some experts.¹⁷² A processing facility for seabed minerals in the United States would likely have to be constructed in a state with a deepwater port.¹⁷³ Some stakeholders have speculated whether deepwater ports located in California, Oregon, and Washington would be "receptive to storage and processing of seabed nodules," because each of these states has a ban on seabed mining within their respective state waters, as previously discussed.¹⁷⁴ Texas also has been considered for a potential site for processing critical minerals from polymetallic nodules,¹⁷⁵ a proposal that some Members of Congress have supported.¹⁷⁶ In July 2025, Impossible Metals and ReElement Technologies Corporation, a subsidiary of American Resources Corporation, signed a memorandum of understanding that describes how ReElement would use its refining capabilities to deliver copper, cobalt, nickel, manganese, and REEs from polymetallic nodules.¹⁷⁷ ReElement has facilities in Indiana.¹⁷⁸ Use of a processing facility not located in a coastal state could incur additional costs and logistical constraints.¹⁷⁹

During an April 2025 hearing of the House Committee on Natural Resources' Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations, the CEO for Impossible Metals stated that if the United States builds stockpiles of polymetallic nodules "in strategic locations in the [United States] where there is the infrastructure and the power, it will encourage industry to invest in building" domestic processing and refining facilities.¹⁸⁰ Impossible Metals' CEO reiterated this point in a 2026 hearing of the House Committee on Natural Resources' Subcommittee on Energy and Mineral Resources.¹⁸¹ Other stakeholders have countered that nodules should not be mined until there is sufficient refining capacity.¹⁸²

Jones Act and Dredge Act Applicability to Critical Mineral Leasing¹⁸³

The Jones Act (Section 27 of the Merchant Marine Act of 1920; P.L. 66-261) requires that waterborne transportation between "U.S. points" be conducted only by vessels built in the United States and owned and crewed by U.S. citizens.¹⁸⁴ The same requirement applies to dredging vessels under the Dredge Act of 1906 (P.L. 59-185). The Jones Act is applicable to U.S. states and Puerto Rico, but not to the U.S. Virgin Islands or U.S. territories and possessions in the Pacific Ocean. CBP has determined that the Dredge Act is applicable to U.S. territories.¹⁸⁵

One or both of these laws could potentially apply to various aspects of critical mineral development on the OCS, including mining activities and transportation of mined seabed material from the OCS to the U.S. mainland for processing.¹⁸⁶ Based on CBP's prior interpretations for vessels supporting offshore oil, gas, and wind development, the agency could find the Jones Act applicable to vessels transporting minerals from an offshore mining site to a U.S. onshore point, as well as to vessels transporting supplies to an offshore site. In a 1988 ruling, CBP found that a vessel engaging in offshore phosphorus mining off the coast of North Carolina would be considered a dredge and therefore would be required to be U.S. built, owned, and crewed.¹⁸⁷ Similarly, CBP determined that pipe-laying vessels that dig a trench in the seafloor to lay pipe also are dredging vessels and thus must comply with the Dredge Act.¹⁸⁸ However, CBP determined that cable-laying vessels are not dredge vessels because they construct only a temporary slot in the sea floor.¹⁸⁹

CBP's working definition of dredging is "the use of a vessel equipped with excavating machinery in digging up or otherwise removing submarine material"; however, in one ruling, the agency noted an alternative definition from the International Maritime Dictionary that defines dredging as a "vessel or floating structure equipped with excavating machinery, employed in deepening channels and harbors, and removing submarine obstructions such as shoals and bars."¹⁹⁰ This alternative definition could exclude mining vessels, as their purpose is not to deepen channels or harbors.

Based on these prior determinations, it is not clear whether CBP would consider modern seabed mining vessels to be dredging vessels or if its interpretation would depend on the method or technology used for mining. For instance, in the oil and gas sector, drill ships are not required to comply with these acts, nor are offshore oil and gas platforms.

The domestic build requirement can substantially impact the cost and availability of vessels. U.S. offshore vessel operators typically request a letter ruling from CBP concerning whether their proposed activity would require a Jones Act- or Dredge Act-compliant vessel. However, these letter rulings do not establish legal precedent and the agency has, in the past, proposed changing its interpretation. Thus, in addition to the cost and availability of U.S.-built vessels, uncertainty as to the regulatory landscape for vessels engaging in U.S. offshore mining could be an issue for Congress. Congress could consider whether to amend the Jones Act or Dredge Act to clarify whether vessels engaging in U.S. offshore mining and related transportation are subject to or exempt from these acts. The requirement for domestic-built seabed mining vessels might be moot if companies send seabed resources recovered from the OCS to foreign countries for processing due to a lack of U.S. processing capability, as discussed above.

Potential Marine Environmental Impacts of Seabed Mining¹⁹¹

Congress may weigh potential environmental impacts of mining on the OCS and consider whether certain federal agencies should mitigate such impacts. BOEM contends that "there is a need to identify areas that have high economic potential but low ecological value, making them potentially suitable for consideration for future leasing and development of critical minerals on the OCS."¹⁹² BOEM, in collaboration with NASEM, has been developing environmental baseline information acquisition and assessment standards for critical mineral-related activities on the OCS (see "Critical Minerals Environmental Assessment Framework"). In addition, since 2019, BOEM, NOAA, and USGS have collaborated to study the long-term environmental impacts and ecosystem recovery of an area of the Blake Plateau disturbed during a 1970s seabed mining pilot project.¹⁹³ Congress may consider whether to support additional work by federal agencies to continue research on the Blake Plateau or other areas of the OCS that may elucidate the potential environmental impacts of seabed mining and provide environmental baseline information. Some stakeholders may oppose federal funding to study the impacts of seabed mining, characterized by some as an "unproven industry,"¹⁹⁴ especially in light of the rate at which energy technologies using critical minerals are evolving. Some critical minerals, including those found in seabed deposits, may be of less interest in the future, should technologies (e.g., electric vehicle batteries) no longer require them.¹⁹⁵

Some Members of Congress seek to address this issue in legislation. Some contend that "there is currently insufficient scientific information on the deep sea and related marine ecosystems to fully and accurately assess the risks and impacts of deep seabed mining activities" and have introduced H.R. 664 in the 119^th Congress to prohibit BOEM from conducting any hard mineral leasing activities on the OCS.¹⁹⁶ Other bills in the 119^th Congress would prohibit BOEM from issuing or extending a lease or any other authorization for exploration, development, or production related to marine minerals, as well as oil and gas activities, in specific areas on the Atlantic OCS (e.g., H.R. 2881, S. 1486) and Arctic OCS (e.g., H.R. 2848, S. 1445).

Congress may evaluate whether there is sufficient understanding of the effects of seabed mining on marine life. The potential effects of seabed mining on the marine environment are not completely understood, according to some scientists.¹⁹⁷ This is in part because commercial-scale seabed mining in areas beyond national jurisdiction under the ISA framework has yet to occur and only a few countries have allowed or tested seabed mining within their waters (see textbox above, "Countries Pursuing Seabed Mineral Resources on Their Continental Shelves"). Some stakeholders express concern that seabed mining activities may

• cause deep-sea habitat disturbance and marine biodiversity loss;
• disturb and disperse seafloor sediments, reducing water quality and clarity for benthic (i.e., living on or within the seafloor) organisms;
• create sediment plumes along the seabed where mining activities are taking place and in the water column where processed seabed material is discharged back into the ocean;
• crush, smother, or disperse benthic organisms;
• harm or affect the behaviors of marine mammals and some large fish; and
• alter natural marine process such as deep-sea carbon storage.¹⁹⁸

Efforts to prohibit seabed mining activities on the OCS align with other proposals (e.g., H.R. 663 in the 119^th Congress) for a precautionary pause or moratorium on deep-seabed mining in international waters until there is sufficient scientific information and knowledge of the deep sea.¹⁹⁹

Proponents of seabed mining that is "properly managed with appropriate governance safeguards" assert that sourcing minerals from seabed deposits has the potential to create less pollution (e.g., tailings, waste), fewer impacts on freshwater sources, and fewer social impacts (e.g., human fatalities, injuries, health effects) compared with traditional land-based, open-pit, and underground mining.²⁰⁰ For example, Impossible Metals contends that its collection technology is "environmentally conscious" because its autonomous underwater vehicle hovers above the seabed to minimize sediment disturbance and uses artificial intelligence for "selective harvesting" of polymetallic nodules to avoid detected life.²⁰¹ Instances of traditional land-based, open-pit, and underground mining have been associated with drinking water contamination, air pollution, and alteration of landscapes, among other impacts.²⁰² Some stakeholders have argued that seabed mining should not be considered a substitute for land-based mining because "as new deposits are discovered they are exploited in addition to land-based deposits, not instead of them."²⁰³

Footnotes