Underwater natural resources—from oil and gas beneath the ocean floor to rich deposits of critical minerals in the deep sea—are fast becoming a strategic frontier for the United States. As global demand for minerals like cobalt, nickel, and rare earth elements are expected to more than double by 2030, attention has turned to the vast wealth hidden in our oceans. These undersea materials are essential for modern economies: they power high-tech manufacturing, underpin energy systems, and are critical for advanced defense technologies. What lies beneath the waves could fuel American economic strength, support energy independence, and secure resilient supply chains for decades to come.
Competition over seabed resources is heating up on the world stage. Nations are racing to map and mine the ocean floor, viewing it as a new arena for strategic advantage—especially in the context of great power rivalry. The United States faces a familiar challenger: China has invested heavily in undersea exploration and claims more seabed mining contracts in the Clarion-Clipperton Zone, a resource-rich area of the Pacific, than any other nation.
Table of Contents
- Underwater Natural Resources and U.S. Strategic Interests
- Critical Seabed Minerals
- Key Global Hotspots for Undersea Mining
- Strategic Competition on the Seabed
- Governance: International Rules and U.S. Policy
- Strategic Outcomes and the Road Ahead
Underwater Natural Resources and U.S. Strategic Interests
The term underwater natural resources encompasses a broad range of assets found beneath oceans: from traditional energy resources like offshore oil and gas to mineral treasures scattered on the deep ocean floor. For the United States, these resources touch on core strategic interests. They fuel economic growth, enhance national security, and bolster the country’s position in an era of global competition.
Energy Independence
Offshore petroleum has long been a pillar of U.S. energy security. The U.S. has tapped large oil and natural gas reserves in places like the Gulf of America, helping turn America into a net exporter of oil. Harnessing these underwater energy resources has reinforced America’s status as an energy superpower and reduced reliance on foreign oil.
“Energy independence is a cornerstone of U.S. economic strength, national security, and global stability” – Department of the Interior
By continuing to expand safe offshore drilling and production, the U.S. ensures affordable energy for consumers and maintains its global energy leadership.
Critical Minerals and Supply Chains
Beyond oil and gas, the deep seabed holds vast quantities of critical minerals vital for 21st-century industries. High-tech sectors—from semiconductor electronics to electric vehicle batteries and advanced defense systems—depend on elements like cobalt, nickel, manganese, and rare earths. Unfortunately, the U.S. currently sources many of these from abroad, leaving supply chains vulnerable to geopolitical disruptions.
“Our national and economic security are now acutely threatened by our reliance upon hostile foreign powers’ mineral production.” – 20 March 2025 Executive Order
Ensuring a secure, predictable supply of critical minerals is therefore a strategic priority. Underwater deposits offer a tantalizing opportunity: if American companies can extract minerals from the ocean floor, it could reduce dependence on external suppliers and strengthen domestic production of everything from batteries to missile guidance systems. Seabed minerals represent a new avenue to fortify resilient supply chains, fostering economic prosperity and ensuring national security.
Economic Strength and Jobs
Developing underwater natural resources promises broad economic benefits. It can spur innovation in marine technology, create high-skilled jobs in engineering and manufacturing, and generate revenue from new industries.
The United States was once a global leader in minerals production on land; a push into seabed resource development could help restore American leadership in mining. By investing in domestic resource capabilities on land and undersea, America can continue to out-compete rivals, ensure manufacturing competitiveness, and keep strategic industries on American soil.
Underwater natural resources intersect with many U.S. strategic objectives. They can fuel economic growth, secure energy independence, and safeguard key supply chains—all while positioning the United States to lead in a domain that is growing in importance. These benefits, however, hinge on access to and development of the right resources, notably the critical minerals found beneath the ocean.
Critical Seabed Minerals
Some of the most valuable underwater natural resources are the minerals hidden in deep-ocean sediments and rocks. Among these, cobalt, nickel, and rare earth elements stand out as especially important for U.S. national security and high-tech manufacturing.
Cobalt
Cobalt is essential for high-performance batteries in electric vehicles and military hardware and superalloys used in jet engines. Today, much of the world’s cobalt comes from the Democratic Republic of Congo and is refined in China, raising concerns about supply chain stability. Undersea, cobalt is abundant in polymetallic nodules—potato-sized rocks on the seabed—and in cobalt-rich crusts on undersea mountain ranges.
Nickel
A critical component in stainless steel and battery cathodes, nickel is in high demand for both industrial and energy applications. Deep-ocean nodules in the Pacific are rich in nickel as well as cobalt and copper. Estimates suggest that a single swath of the Pacific Ocean known as the Clarion Clipperton Zone contains more nickel, cobalt, and manganese than all known terrestrial reserves combined. This illustrates the sheer scale of opportunity—the seabed could hold world-class reserves of nickel crucial for steelmaking, electric cars, and defense equipment.
Rare Earth Elements (REEs)
A group of 17 elements used in powerful magnets, electronics, lasers, and other advanced technologies. Rare earths are critical for precision-guided munitions, fighter aircraft systems, and the miniaturized components in smartphones and satellites. The U.S. relies heavily on imports; China produces around 60% of global rare earths, creating a strategic vulnerability.
Underwater resources offer a potentially game-changing supply: Japanese researchers discovered deep-sea mud near Minamitorishima Island that is extraordinarily rich in rare earths. The mud in just a 2,500-square-kilometer zone could supply the world’s needs of four rare earth elements for hundreds of years. If such deposits can be extracted economically, they could bolster allied self-sufficiency and diminish China’s monopoly in this resource category.
Importance of Underwater Natural Resources
These minerals underscore why the deep ocean is often called a treasure trove of critical materials. Polymetallic nodules on abyssal plains contain high concentrations of manganese, nickel, cobalt, and copper. In other areas, sulfide deposits around hydrothermal vents hold copper, zinc, gold, and silver. And as noted, certain sediment layers hold rare earth elements in potentially vast quantities.
From a policy perspective, the importance of these seabed minerals is clear. They feed directly into industries that the U.S. considers vital: energy technologies, electric vehicles, aerospace, telecommunications, and defense manufacturing. For example, cobalt and nickel from the ocean floor could go into next-generation batteries for energy storage and military electrification, while undersea rare earths could supply domestic production of the magnets used in F-35 jets and in wind turbine generators, reducing reliance on foreign suppliers. Ensuring access to these materials is therefore not just an economic matter but a national security imperative.
It’s worth noting that while undersea mining is still experimental, supporters argue it could be less disruptive than traditional mining on land. They point out that on land, mining often involves clearing forests or conflict zones, such as Indonesian rainforests for nickel, whereas the deep seabed is a remote, sparsely inhabited environment. Industry proponents claim collecting nodules is akin to vacuuming rocks off the ocean floor—a process they argue might have a smaller environmental footprint than tearing up terrestrial landscapes.
Key Global Hotspots for Undersea Mining
Certain regions of the world’s oceans have emerged as hotspots for undersea mining due to their especially rich concentrations of minerals. U.S. policymakers are paying close attention to these areas, which include international waters as well as regions within the exclusive economic zones (EEZs) of the United States and its allies.
Clarion-Clipperton Zone (Central Pacific)
One of the most prominent treasure fields for underwater minerals is the Clarion-Clipperton Zone (CCZ)—a vast stretch of the central Pacific Ocean floor between Hawaii and Mexico. Spanning roughly 1.7 million square miles, approximately half the size of the contiguous United States, the CCZ is carpeted with trillions of polymetallic nodules rich in manganese, nickel, cobalt, and rare earth elements. This area is often described as a potential motherlode of critical minerals. Studies indicate the CCZ may hold more deposits of metals like nickel and cobalt than all known land-based reserves worldwide.
The CCZ’s resource promise has drawn interest from numerous countries and companies. Over the past decade, the International Seabed Authority (ISA), the UN-affiliated body that administers seabed resources in international waters, has issued exploration contracts for various zones within the CCZ. Major economies and consortiums including those from China, Russia, Japan, and Korea, as well as companies via sponsoring states like the UK and small Pacific nations have staked claims to explore different tracts. China, in particular, has been active, with five ISA exploration contracts—more than any other country—several of which cover prime areas of the CCZ. By contrast, the United States, not being party to the Law of the Sea treaty (UNCLOS), does not hold ISA contracts directly.
The CCZ is thus a focal point of international competition for minerals. It’s also a testing ground for new technologies. In 2022, a Canadian-registered company with U.S. backing, The Metals Company, carried out a pilot nodule-harvesting test in the CCZ, using a prototype collector vehicle to vacuum nodules and pipe them to a surface vessel. The trial was deemed successful, demonstrating the basic feasibility of deep-sea mining operations. Now, The Metals Company asserts it is ready to launch the world’s first commercial deep-sea mine in this region—potentially as soon as regulations allow. This bold stance is partly a challenge to the ISA, which is still finalizing its mining code that would govern such extraction.
For the U.S., the Clarion-Clipperton Zone represents both an opportunity and a strategic dilemma. On one hand, it could be a game-changing source of critical minerals that bolsters U.S. supply chains and those of allies. On the other, the U.S. must navigate an international regime where it has limited direct influence. The strategic outcome at stake: if the U.S. and like-minded partners can shape the development of CCZ resources through technology, investment, and diplomatic influence, they can secure a share of this wealth and prevent it from being monopolized by strategic competitors. Conversely, if others seize the initiative, the U.S. risks falling behind in access to a critical resource frontier.
Arctic Seabeds
The Arctic region is another emerging hotspot for underwater natural resources, though of a somewhat different character. The Arctic Ocean and its adjacent seas hold not only significant oil and gas reserves but also mineral deposits on and beneath the seabed. As technology improves, previously inaccessible Arctic seafloor areas are opening up for exploration—raising both economic prospects and geopolitical tensions.
In terms of energy resources, the Arctic is believed to contain a large share of the world’s untapped hydrocarbons. Estimates suggest that the Arctic could hold approximately 22% of the world’s undiscovered and recoverable fossil fuel resources—much of it in the exclusive economic zones of Arctic coastal states. For the United States, Alaska’s outer continental shelf forms part of this potential.
Beyond oil and gas, there is growing interest in Arctic seabed minerals. One notable example is Norway’s recent move to explore minerals in its Arctic waters. In January 2024, the Norwegian Parliament voted to open approximately 280,000 square kilometers of its northern seabed—an area between Svalbard and Jan Mayen Island—for mineral exploration. However, Norway later paused these plans. These delays and struggles have created turmoil for the market, with at least one deep sea mining company declaring bankruptcy. These mining efforts would have provided mineral resources critical for national defense to a key NATO ally.
The Arctic’s geopolitical profile means any underwater resource activity there has strategic implications. The region is a locus of great power interest: Russia has the largest Arctic coastline and has staked assertive claims, including planting a flag on the seabed at the North Pole in 2007, and China has declared itself a “near-Arctic state” with an eye on Arctic shipping lanes and resources. Meanwhile, the United States, Canada, Norway, and Greenland are coordinating through forums like the Arctic Council on economic and environmental issues.
For U.S. policymakers, maintaining a strong presence and partnerships in the Arctic is crucial to counterbalance Russian and Chinese ambitions. Supporting allied initiatives can ensure friendly nations lead in Arctic seabed resource development. Additionally, the U.S. can leverage its technology and know-how, such as in offshore drilling technology for cold environments, to benefit Arctic projects.
U.S. and Allied Exclusive Economic Zones
While international waters like the CCZ draw headlines, a significant portion of underwater resources lies within national jurisdictions—specifically, the EEZs of the U.S. and its allies. Every coastal nation has sovereign rights over resources in its EEZ, up to 200 nautical miles from shore. For the United States and close partners, these zones present an opportunity to develop undersea resources on home turf or friendly territory, where strategic control is more straightforward.
U.S. EEZ
The United States possesses one of the largest EEZs in the world, spanning over 11 million square kilometers when including areas off the Atlantic, Pacific, Gulf of America, and Arctic coasts, to include around Hawaii, Alaska, and U.S. Pacific island territories. Within this vast area, there are known deposits of valuable minerals.
Parts of the U.S. Pacific EEZ around Johnston Atoll and the Hawaiian Islands are believed to have cobalt-rich ferromanganese crusts on undersea mountain ranges. These crusts can contain high grades of cobalt, nickel, and rare metals. The U.S. government and research institutions have conducted surveys of such areas to assess their potential.
Likewise, the U.S. EEZ in the Atlantic has hydrothermal vent zones that yield mineral-rich sulfides. Although the U.S. has not yet moved to commercially exploit these seabed minerals, they represent a strategic reserve that could be tapped in the future. Developing them would occur under U.S. law and oversight, offering a degree of regulatory predictability and security of tenure that international projects might lack. Additionally, the offshore oil and gas within the U.S. EEZ—particularly in the Gulf of America and off Alaska—continue to be linchpins of domestic energy production, contributing to job creation and regional economies as well as national energy stability.
Allies and Partners
U.S. allies and partners also control significant undersea resource zones. A few other noteworthy examples include:
- Japan: In addition to the rare earth mud near Minamitorishima Island, Japan is exploring other seabed mining prospects within its waters, such as hydrothermal vents in the Okinawa Trough which contain gold and zinc. Japan’s motivation is clear—as a high-tech manufacturer heavily reliant on imported minerals, it sees domestic undersea resources as a way to ensure economic security and reduce dependence on China for critical inputs.
- Pacific Island Nations: Several small Pacific states have surprisingly large EEZs. The Cook Islands, for instance, controls an area of the South Pacific with abundant manganese nodules. The Cook Islands government has partnered with international companies, including some involving investors from China, to survey these nodules, which are rich in cobalt and nickel. For the U.S., the Cook Islands represents a friendly jurisdiction where Western companies might operate, though the involvement of Chinese firms there also shows Beijing’s interest even in allied-adjacent waters.
- Australia: Australia’s vast maritime zones contain hydrocarbons and some known mineral occurrences. While Australia has ample onshore mineral resources, it keeps a close watch on undersea potential and has conducted research on seabed minerals within its territory.
- Canada: As an Arctic nation, Canada has an extensive offshore area in the Arctic and Atlantic. Canadian companies and researchers have been involved in exploring the seafloor for massive sulfide deposits and studying nodules in the Pacific.
In leveraging these allied EEZ resources, the U.S. benefits from a resource alliance network. Minerals or energy sourced in allied territories contribute to the collective resource security of the free-market democracies, reducing collective dependence on adversarial sources. A practical example is how Japan’s undersea rare earth efforts could eventually provide alternative supplies for U.S. defense contractors or electronics firms, insulating them from Chinese economic warfare and export restrictions. Similarly, any cobalt and nickel produced in places like the Cook Islands or Norway could be bought by U.S. companies or through strategic stockpiles, diversifying supply away from non-allied producers.
Strategic Competition on the Seabed
The race for underwater natural resources is not happening in a vacuum—it is unfolding in the context of broader strategic competition, chiefly between the United States and rival powers such as China. Much like the 20th-century race for oil shaped global politics, the 21st-century quest for seabed minerals is becoming a contest of technological and economic leadership. Whoever leads in accessing and governing these resources could gain a significant strategic edge.
China
China recognized early the importance of deep-sea resources and has invested heavily in this arena. As noted, China holds five of the 31 international exploration contracts for seabed mining—the most of any nation. Chinese companies and research institutions, often state-backed, have built advanced deep-diving submersibles and mining prototypes, and Beijing has established seabed research centers to develop extraction technology.
Strategically, China’s push serves multiple aims: securing long-term sources of critical minerals for its industrial needs, reducing its own import dependencies, and positioning Chinese entities to set the terms of an emerging industry. In international forums, China has been an assertive voice in the ISA rule-making, seeking regulations favorable to its interests. Additionally, China’s interest in regions like the Pacific and Indian Oceans reflects a desire to be a global leader in undersea mining, much as it is in rare earth mining on land.
China’s dominance in mineral markets also is a central driver of its undersea ambitions, particularly in the South China Sea and across the broader Pacific. As resource demands surge, Beijing is accelerating its search for new sources to reinforce its near-monopoly. In the South China Sea, the convergence of strategic ambition and resource hunger is driving increasingly aggressive behavior—from the militarization of artificial islands to routine harassment of neighboring vessels—aimed at cementing control over resource-rich seabeds.
Beijing’s domestic mining operations have long been associated with widespread environmental destruction. China has similarly shown a disregard for global norms, such as Beijing’s distant water fishing fleet that damages fragile ecosystems through illegal, unreported, and unregulated (IUU) fishing. The government has shown little appetite for reform, suggesting that China is unlikely to approach deep-sea mineral extraction with any greater regard for the environment or welfare of neighboring nations.
U.S. and Allies
The United States has come to view this competition with growing seriousness. American officials increasingly describe critical minerals access as a facet of great power competition—analogous to competition in 5G technology or semiconductor manufacturing. The U.S. has strengths it can leverage: world-class oceanographic institutions, experience with offshore industries, and alliances with other technologically advanced nations.
However, as a non-party to UNCLOS, it cannot directly sponsor ISA contracts, potentially ceding influence to those who can. To counter this, recent U.S. strategy has taken a two-pronged approach: diplomatic engagement and unilateral preparedness. Diplomatically, U.S. delegations attend ISA meetings as observers and coordinate with allies to promote high standards and transparency in seabed governance.
At the same time, Washington is making clear that it will not be left behind. In fact, the current administration has signaled it is prepared to bypass international roadblocks if necessary to ensure access for U.S. companies. The White House has weighed an executive order to fast-track deep-sea mining by allowing U.S. firms to seek licenses through domestic agencies like NOAA. This would invoke the authority of the long-standing U.S. Deep Seabed Hard Mineral Resources Act, a law from 1980 that permits the Commerce Department to license seabed mining for U.S. companies.
For U.S. policymakers, framing this as a strategic competition helps galvanize support for action. It highlights that leadership in seabed resources will influence who controls the supply of materials fundamental to advanced industries in the mid-21st century. The outcome of this competition could affect strategic balances: if China were to monopolize deep-ocean minerals the way OPEC did oil in the 1970s, it could wield significant leverage over the U.S. and its allies. Conversely, if the U.S. and partners ensure a diverse, secure supply of undersea resources, they can undercut such leverage and support a free and open international economic order.
Importantly, strategic competition in this domain also carries a soft power dimension: leadership in crafting fair rules can bolster a country’s global standing. Many smaller nations are watching to see whether great powers will exploit the commons ruthlessly or manage them responsibly. The U.S. has an interest in demonstrating principled leadership—showing that it can both pursue its interests and champion high standards through marine research and transparency.
Governance: International Rules and U.S. Policy
Managing underwater natural resources involves a complex governance landscape—a mix of international law, national regulations, and evolving norms. Two key pillars in this space are the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) and the International Seabed Authority (ISA) it established for areas beyond national jurisdiction. At the same time, countries like the U.S. have their own laws and strategic positions that influence how governance plays out.
UNCLOS and the ISA
UNCLOS, often called the constitution of the oceans, defines nations’ rights and responsibilities in using ocean resources. It designates the seabed outside any national EEZ as the the common heritage of mankind to be managed by all countries collectively. The ISA, headquartered in Kingston, Jamaica, is the organization UNCLOS created to regulate mining in this area.
For years now, the ISA Council has been negotiating a Mining Code—a detailed set of rules for commercial deep-sea mining, covering everything from environmental protections to revenue sharing. Progress has been slow; negotiators have struggled to reach consensus on issues like acceptable levels of seafloor disturbance and how to ensure benefits are shared. As of early 2025, the ISA had not yet finalized its mining regulations, meaning no actual mining permits for international waters have been issued. This regulatory uncertainty has been a bottleneck holding back companies eager to mine the CCZ and other areas.
The United States
The United States famously has not ratified UNCLOS, despite being largely compliant with most of its provisions as customary international law. This non-party status means the U.S. is not a member of the ISA and has no vote on the Council. However, the U.S. does participate as an observer and has considerable influence informally through American scientists, legal experts, and allies. Historically, even as a non-party, the U.S. has observed ISA decisions and refrained from undercutting them to respect international law.
In light of this, the U.S. government has been preparing alternative pathways. The Deep Seabed Hard Mineral Resources Act (DSHMRA) gives the Commerce Department authority to issue licenses for deep-sea mining to U.S. firms, even in international areas, through NOAA. Until now, this law was dormant—largely because the U.S. preferred to wait for the ISA process.
But that may be changing. With the Administration’s March 2025 drafting of an executive order to jump-start deep-sea mining by using the U.S. licensing process, the U.S. may effectively side-step the ISA. The draft order reportedly indicates the U.S. will exercise its rights to extract critical minerals on the ocean’s floor and let miners proceed under NOAA oversight.
The Metals Company has already formally requested such U.S. permits, frustrated with what it calls ISA foot-dragging. Should the U.S. grant a license in an ISA-designated area, it could be seen as a bold assertion of American freedom of action.
The U.S. is thus balancing two tracks: pushing the ISA to complete a robust, fair mining code, and signaling willingness to go it alone to ensure American interests are protected. This approach carries some risk—it could cause diplomatic friction with countries that favor a slower, precautionary approach. On the other hand, it might prod the ISA into action, breaking the stalemate by making it clear that the status quo could lead to a fragmented system where nations start acting outside the ISA.
Even within the ISA council, a split is evident: a group of states including small Pacific nations like Nauru, which triggered a rule forcing ISA to hasten its decisions, are impatient to start mining, while others want to pause.
Other Governance Mechanisms
Aside from the ISA, governance of underwater resources also involves regional and bilateral agreements. For example, within EEZs, it’s national laws that rule. The U.S. has rigorous processes for offshore oil and gas leasing. Similarly, any future seabed mining in U.S. waters would require compliance with statutes like the Ocean Dumping Act and National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA).
For allied cooperation, there are dialogues such as the Quad (U.S., Japan, India, Australia) and other forums where coordinating critical mineral strategies—potentially including seabed minerals—is discussed. NATO has also started to examine the security implications of seabed infrastructure and resources, given concerns that adversaries could target undersea cables or attempt to control mineral-rich zones.
Strategic Outcomes and the Road Ahead
Underwater natural resources present the United States with both a remarkable opportunity and a complex strategic challenge. The way U.S. policymakers navigate this domain in the coming years will have far-reaching implications. As we have seen, beneath the oceans lie materials that can fuel economic growth, sustain energy independence, and supply the critical minerals needed for advanced industries and national defense. In a world where global power can hinge on control of high-tech supply chains, these undersea riches are essentially strategic assets.
The Administration’s messaging has consistently highlighted themes of American strength, self-reliance, and competitive edge—all of which resonate in the context of underwater resources. If the U.S. can effectively develop these resources, the strategic outcomes are likely to include:
- Enhanced Economic Security: A domestic and allied supply of critical minerals would insulate the U.S. economy from supply shocks and foreign leverage. Manufacturers could count on stable inputs for everything from smartphones to fighter jets, supporting industries and jobs at home. In addition, continued robust offshore oil and gas production keeps energy prices stable and contributes to trade balance, reinforcing overall economic strength.
- Strengthened Supply Chains: By incorporating seabed minerals into the supply chain, the U.S. and its partners can build more resilient networks for crucial technologies. This means less vulnerability to single points of failure or political coercion—breaking China’s stranglehold of rare earth minerals. Secure supply chains, in turn, bolster U.S. technological leadership and military readiness.
- Geopolitical Leverage: Leadership in undersea resource extraction and the associated technologies would position Washington to support allies with alternatives to competitors’ resources, undercut attempts by rivals to use resources as a political weapon, and offer a positive vision of shared development. In the grand chessboard of U.S.-China competition, not ceding the deep sea domain is important to maintain a balance of power.
- Continued Energy Dominance: On the energy front, maximizing offshore oil and gas while diversifying with new minerals ensures the U.S. remains an energy-independent nation that can weather global disruptions. This dominance in energy translates into strategic flexibility in foreign policy, making the U.S. and its allies less beholden to unstable oil-producing regions.
Underwater natural resources are a new frontier where economics, national security, and geopolitics converge. The United States stands at a juncture where it can either step forward and lead in this frontier or risk falling behind as others chart the course. By leading, Washington can unlock the full potential of resources beneath the waves for the benefit of American prosperity and security. As this narrative unfolds, policymakers must remain focused on strategic outcomes: maintaining U.S. economic primacy, securing the raw materials of the future, and outmaneuvering great power rivals. With prudent policy and strong partnerships, the U.S. can ensure that the deep ocean contributes to a future of American strength and stability, rather than becoming a battleground for resource conflicts. The seas have long protected and enriched the United States; now, their depths may hold the keys to sustaining American leadership in the decades ahead.
