A flurry of American applications is reshaping a remote stretch of the Pacific Ocean floor. A ([1])Mongabay investigation by Elizabeth Claire Alberts and Andrés Alegría found that the Clarion-Clipperton Zone, an expanse of deep sea overseen by the International Seabed Authority, has drawn a sharp rise in applications filed with the United States for mineral exploration and exploitation. The applications go to Washington, not to the UN-affiliated body that normally handles seabed mining in international waters.
A rival process on the ocean floor
The International Seabed Authority, which is linked to the United Nations, is responsible for granting mining permits in international waters. The United States is not a party to the treaty behind that system. Washington signed the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea but never ratified it, so it has no vote in the authority and cannot obtain an ISA contract for seabed work.
Even so, American regulators are receiving and reviewing applications from companies seeking rights in the same deep-sea zone. The filings rely on U.S. law rather than the convention that created the ISA. Alberts put the U.S. position in plain terms, saying the US doesn’t really see that they’re bypassing the authority of the ISA.
How large the overlap could become
The scale of the claims is what has drawn attention. According to Mongabay’s analysis, reported by another outlet, the area of seabed sections in the Clarion-Clipperton Zone claimed by US companies, together with Lockheed Martin’s existing licensed areas, could reach 962,634 sq km. That figure would apply only if the regulator approves every application without changes. Those are claim applications, not approved licenses, and no mining has begun.
The overlap with international contracts is also significant. In the Clarion-Clipperton Zone, the ISA has concluded 17 contracts covering 1.23 million sq km. If US applications and Lockheed Martin’s active licenses are compared only with the authority’s contract areas, their total reaches nearly 80%.
Some of the companies involved have ties to other countries. Through sponsorships with Nauru and Tonga (both UNCLOS parties), NORI and TOML each hold one ISA exploration contract in the CCZ. Those Pacific island states sit at the center of a dispute that now involves Washington as well.
The legal questions still open
The legal footing for the American approach remains contested. NOAA refers to the US Deep Seabed Hard Mineral Resources Act of 1980, which the agency uses to review such applications. At the same time, the legal basis for unilaterally authorizing mining in international waters is disputed by the International Seabed Authority, the European Commission, and some legal experts.
The ISA has not settled how it will respond. Alberts noted that the authority is seeking outside legal advice on areas it oversees that now face American claims. She added that they also are not a member of the International Seabed Authority, which leaves the dispute without a clear referee.
What to watch next
Several questions will shape how the dispute develops:
- Whether NOAA approves the pending applications and in what form
- How the ISA responds to overlapping areas under its own contracts
- Whether any party takes the matter to court, a question Alberts said remains unclear
- How coastal Pacific nations with ISA sponsorship ties weigh in
For now, the Clarion-Clipperton Zone is less a mining site than a contest over who has the authority to say yes. Its outcome could influence how deep-sea resources are governed for decades, and it may determine whether international rules hold when a major power chooses its own path.
