SeafloorElements
IMPACT
Environment

The lowest practicable impact — and the data to prove it.

We hold ourselves to the Best Available Technology standard, monitor in real time, and put the evidence on the table.

Standard

Best Available Technology

The collection system is engineered to constitute BAT for minimizing seabed disturbance, plume, noise and light — a hard design requirement and a condition of permit approval.

Monitoring

Real-time & adaptive

Onboard and in-water sensors track turbidity, currents, noise and habitat continuously. Collection adjusts or stops when monitored parameters cross agreed thresholds.

Transparency

Open data to the regulator

Monitoring data feeds the Environmental Impact Statement and the regulator's record. We treat transparency as a licence to operate, not a risk.

Nodules vs. land mining

Why the seabed can be the lower-impact source.

Independent life-cycle studies comparing nodule-derived metals with land-based mining of the same metals point in one direction. The figures below reflect published third-party assessments for the nodule resource class — shown for context, to be validated against our own programme data.

Per unit of metal producedNodules vs. land mining
CO₂-equivalent emissionsup to ~70–75% lower
Stored carbon at risk~94% lower
Solid processing wastenear-zero — no tailings dams
Land use / deforestationno forest cleared, no overburden
Megafauna at risk~90%+ lower (low abyssal biomass)
Child / forced labour exposureeliminated — no artisanal supply

Sources: ISO-compliant life-cycle assessments of nodule-derived metals and the Paulikas et al. (2020) "Where should metals for the green transition come from?" study, among public industry materials. Comparative figures vary by metal, method and assumptions.

The honest comparison. The alternative to responsible seabed collection is not "leave it in the ground" — it is expanded land mining of the very same metals, with costs that are already documented: tropical deforestation for nickel laterite, and artisanal cobalt mining linked to hazardous conditions and child labour. Any decision has to weigh the cost of inaction as well as the cost of action.

The hard questions

We don't dodge them.

Deep-sea collection is scrutinised — rightly. Here is how we think about the most common concerns.

Isn't the deep sea a pristine, fragile ecosystem we shouldn't touch?
The abyssal plain supports life, and any responsible operator must protect it. But it is also among the lowest-biomass environments on Earth — orders of magnitude less life per square metre than a rainforest cleared for land-based nickel. The honest comparison is not "seabed vs. nothing," but "seabed vs. the land mining it would displace." We commit to a baseline study, real-time monitoring, and stopping when thresholds are crossed.
What about the sediment plume the collector stirs up?
Plume is the central engineering concern, and it drives the collector design. The pickup head is engineered to minimise sediment ingestion, and separated sediment is discharged low and slow, close to the seabed, so it settles quickly rather than dispersing. Published plume studies of integrated collection tests found the large majority of disturbed sediment resettled within metres of the seafloor. Our system is designed to the Best Available Technology standard specifically to keep the plume small and local.
Does collection make noise and light that harms deep-sea life?
Yes, any operation introduces noise and light into a dark, quiet environment, so both are treated as regulated design limits — not externalities. The vehicle's radiated noise and lighting are bounded by design, monitored in operation, and reported to the regulator as part of the environmental record.
Can the seabed recover?
Recovery is slow at these depths and is an active area of science — which is exactly why monitoring and restraint matter. We collect from defined lanes, leave the surrounding field intact, and contribute our monitoring data to the shared scientific record so recovery can be measured honestly over time.
Why not just recycle metals instead?
Recycling is essential and will grow — but there is not yet enough metal in circulation to recycle our way to energy-transition and defense demand. New primary supply is needed in the interim. The real choice is where that primary metal comes from: high-impact land mining, or lower-impact deep-ocean collection. We believe both recycling and responsible collection have a role.
Shouldn't we ban deep-sea collection until we know more?
The precautionary principle cuts both ways. A moratorium does not pause demand for nickel, cobalt, copper and manganese — it shifts that demand onto land-based mining, whose costs are already well documented: tropical deforestation for nickel laterite, and artisanal cobalt mining linked to hazardous conditions and child labour by organisations including Amnesty International and the International Labour Organization. The responsible question is not "seabed or nothing," but which source carries the lower total human and environmental cost — and how to collect with the best available technology, full monitoring, and the discipline to stop when the data says so.
Is this even legal in the United States?
Yes. Collection in the high seas is governed by the U.S. Deep Seabed Hard Mineral Resources Act (DSHMRA), administered by NOAA, with a full Environmental Impact Statement and public comment as part of the process. Executive Order 14285 (2025) directed an expedited permitting path, and the first consolidated application has been deemed fully compliant. More on the policy landscape →