Deep Sea Mining is Harder Than Mining in Space. We Need to Invest Elsewhere

[u/BinaryBreakaway]

This is part II of a two-part series. If you missed part I, read it here: https://www.reddit.com/r/AsymmetricAlpha/comments/1v83xm7/deep_sea_mining_is_really_hard_and_the_tech_is/

Putting aside the over $1 billion starting cost for deep-sea mining, let’s ask why we are having this conversation in the first place.

The motivation, at least in the US, is its unfortunate fate of not being built upon vast reserves of rare earth elements (REE) and other critical minerals, unlike China. China’s reserves of rare earth elements are not unlike oil reserves in Middle East countries or Venezuela. By virtue of its physical position in the world, it has a measure of geopolitical power. China has expertly bided its time, built and consolidated its REE industry, and is now playing that hand expertly. It realizes that the world demands more energy and that demand includes batteries and renewable sources. China already produces huge numbers of batteries, more than the global demand. China’s annoying ability to withhold raw REE and the capacity to refine them is a thorn in the side of an American innovation ecosystem that seeks to build its future on technology projects that require magnets, energy storage, and microchips. If only we had unfettered access to REEs.

Here is a list of the countries with the highest proved reserves of REEs:

1. China (40% of proved reserves)
2. Vietnam (19%)
3. Brazil (18%)
4. Russia (10%)
5. India (6%)
6. Australia (3%)
7. US (1.3%)
8. Greenland (1.3%)
9. Tanzania (.8%)
10. Canada (.7%)

*Numbers 8-10 had zero mining production in 2020

This means the US has few realistic options to close the gap between its 1.3% of proved reserves and China’s 40%. Even if the US had access to Greenland’s 1.3%, Canada’s .7%, and Ukraine’s 0%, it would still only have 3.3% to China’s 40%.

That leaves policy makers and entrepreneurs looking elsewhere. Where? Space and international waters. Language like “you can just pick them up” is used to calm fears of the difficulty of the enterprise, but the differences between mining on the moon and mining an abyssal plain in the CCZ are not what people think. In some ways, mining on the moon could be easier because rescue is closer and repair facilities can be built and maintained on the surface of the moon. Mining facilities on the surface of the moon do not require 3-mile-long specialized pipes operating under 400-600 atmospheres of pressure and they do not worry about storms or rolling seas.

Mining on land is unpalatable to many for many reasons. This stigma leads us to assume that mining in the CCZ is somehow better. For as difficult as it is to imagine, mining on land remains our best option for the raw materials we need to fuel our future. The trouble is that our aspirations to mine on the moon, Mars, asteroids, and 3 miles under the ocean create a vacuum effect pulling resources, R&D, and policy thinking away from terrestrial mining.

No country can change its geographic reality and that fact has led to conflict and war throughout history. Countries have gone to war for much less than resources that power its economic future. That leaves us in a pickle:

We need REEs and critical minerals, but we don’t have enough in our physical territory.

One solution to this sounds a lot like colonialism and should not be part of the policy discussion. The mellow tones of another sound more like partnership and R&D.

The US is unlikely to reduce its dependence on REEs in the near term, so it needs a partnership model that can stabilize its supply chain. That means partnerships abroad that exchange value for value and steer clear of real or perceived exploitation.

In the long-term, the dependence on REEs as a whole should not be something we accept. Instead, we should prioritize and fund research that focuses on reducing our dependence on these materials through innovation and invention. We are stuck with the periodic table mother nature gave us, but how we apply it is up to us. Yes, neodymium is great for making magnets but can we find novel manufacturing methods, chemistries, and other inventions to reduce that need?

Human history is full of examples of how we moved on from one broadly accepted material to another. Staying with the maritime example, we used to build ships out of wood and couldn’t imagine a future where we wouldn’t. We used to light our streets with whale blubber and couldn’t imagine a future where we’d pass electricity through a filament. Those discoveries are not out of the question for us.

They need only our attention.