Japan Today
tech

Japan plans 'world first' deep-sea mineral extraction

32 Comments

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

© 2025 AFP

©2025 GPlusMedia Inc.

32 Comments
Login to comment

TV news lately said Japan did get some mineral extractions from the ocean floor. They found there are 200-300 year 17 kind rare earth minerals down there.

6 ( +7 / -1 )

Note to Japan: if you do find them, don't make any agreements with the USA related to sharing them or suchlike, unless you want to get shafted.

3 ( +8 / -5 )

China's rare earth embargo will have an impact on the global economy, but if Japan starts supplying them, the United States and other countries will benefit.

It should be moved forward quickly in order to reduce China's diplomatic cards.

2 ( +6 / -4 )

There is no way to remove those nodules without doing permanent irreversible damage to sea life. Sea floor mining should not be permitted anywhere in the world. This is going to destroy our oceans for all time.

https://www.iucn.nl/en/story/the-impact-of-deep-sea-mining-on-biodiversity-climate-and-human-cultures/

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0308597X2400071X

8 ( +14 / -6 )

Mining of sea beds will cause great environmental damage.

11 ( +14 / -3 )

China's rare earth embargo will have an impact on the global economy, but if Japan starts supplying them, the United States and other countries will benefit.

It should be moved forward quickly in order to reduce China's diplomatic cards.

So-called rare earth metals are abundant all over the world. China gained an effective monopoly on them by heavily subsidizing their domestic rare earth industry, driving prices down so low it drove global competition out of business. That does not mean the minerals exist nowhere but China. They are abundant in the deserts of the southwestern US and elsewhere in the world but these deposits have not been mined because China's subsidies of their domestic industry make all the other deposits too expensive to bother mining.

It is far better to mine on land than dig up the sea floor and do permanent irreversible damage to our oceans. The US is rich in rare earth metals. It just needs to mine them.

8 ( +12 / -4 )

There are soft rare earth mineral sediments on seabed. They pump them up from 5500m depth seabed. They don't drill seabed or don't use dynamites. It seems no damages to oceans.

-3 ( +2 / -5 )

The United States is the third largest country in the world in rare earth reserves, holding 13% of the world's total. Moreover, it has world-class refining and processing technology, and the Mountain Pass mine in particular is known as the largest rare earth mine in North America.

The reason America does not mine rare earths domestically is likely due to the still significant costs, natural environment, and, in some cases, the impact on the human body during mining.

Pumping rare earths contained in the sediment on the seabed to the surface does not put much strain on the environment.

If it were a serious problem, it would already be an issue at oil mining sites.

0 ( +3 / -3 )

In China there are rare earth minerals (in rocks) in mountains, so they always drill mountains to extract the minerals. but under seawater there are very soft rare earth mineral sediments lying on seabed.

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

OMG.

As if humans haven't screwed up this poor planet enough.

0 ( +7 / -7 )

According to what I'm learning here the environmental damage caused by undersea mining sounds devastating indeed. However, this "game" between The US and China is proving one thing to the world. Neither can be trusted. Japan has no other option. Go for it and wishing Japan success in its mission. Hopefully in the process of mining undersea perhaps Japan will try to find a way to at least minimize the damage to the best of its ability. Shame on our "GREAT" dear leader in the White House and China's also "great" leader for bringing other countries to take such extreme measures. The US is showing the world its ugliest of sides while China is showing what we always knew.

5 ( +6 / -1 )

On top of the "environmental damage" and the damage to ecosystems we have barely studied, if you google it- underwater nodules are producing a not insignificant amount of oxygen that's released into the ocean. And it forms over a very long time. So it's easy to destroy the whole system completely, and you don't need an oceanography degree to know that water without enough oxygen in it is pretty much toxic to every living creature on the planet. If you ever kept goldfish and forgot to change the tank of water and they all died, this is why.

6 ( +7 / -1 )

The US is rich in rare earth metals. It just needs to mine them.

And then to refine them. The US at one point was a player in this field, and plans are afoot to return at least some production to provide a source in the event supplies dry up through a China embargo or conflict against China.

In conjunction with some European desire to get involved, Australia mining and preparing to refine, China's monopoly wont be challenged but a diverse supply chain for about 20% or more will become available outside of China. This will be enough for defense industries to continue production to wage war at a minimum, should it be required.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Why are they waiting until January NEXT YEAR??

Why not start right away? Strike the iron while it's still hot!

0 ( +4 / -4 )

Go for it Nippon!!

-4 ( +2 / -6 )

Be prepared Japan. January is a long way off before the "test cruise" starts.

Watch out now for those intrusive Chinese ships coming in to do their own research, then claiming the seas as their own and finally installing Chinese structures in the area.

2 ( +4 / -2 )

Well done everyone. Let's destroy the environment more so than we already have. The seafood we crave the most will be effected and then we'll all stand there with our fingers up our noses wondering what happened. These are corporate crimes. They don't give a hoot about what happens as long as their bank balances keep going up.

-3 ( +3 / -6 )

Deep-sea mining has become a geopolitical flashpoint, with anxiety growing over a push by US President Donald Trump to fast-track the practice in international waters.

not just about "freedom of navigation"

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

Each tonne is expected to contain around two kilograms of rare earth minerals, which are often used to make magnets that are essential in modern electronics.

No idea how much they get mining on land but this sounds a lot

-3 ( +0 / -3 )

Anyway they should be careful maybe China is just waiting for them to open this box

0 ( +1 / -1 )

These nodules are only a few million years old, while the Earth is over 4 billion years old. Surely there are places on land where these nodules, formed in the ocean, can be found? Mining on land has its challenges, but we having been doing it for thousands of years. Mining at 5,000 meters depth would seem to be exponentially more difficult.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

Environmental campaigners warn that deep-sea mining threatens marine ecosystems and will disrupt the sea floor.

That's ridiculous, compared to the available seawater covered surface, those few attempts and mini scratches are insignificant. The problems which cause massive usage of resources, energy and massive environmental damage are before and after that mining, like building ships and necessary machinery, transport of people to the ports and per ship into the mining area and back, then together with the minerals, and of course all the processes afterwards like chemical extraction, mass production of goods and such.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Each tonne is expected to contain around two kilograms of rare earth minerals, which are often used to make magnets that are essential in modern electronic

Each tonne!

This is indeed difficult. The Chinese have been working hard for years. Let's catch up!

1 ( +3 / -2 )

Using UNCLOS arbitration logic Minami Torishima is a rock or reef, not an island, and thus does not grant sovereignty rights.

Hands off. Let the fishies swim freely.

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

Even if Minamitorishima is a reef, territorial rights arise under international law. Don't you know?

And China has accepted it as long as it is the same as before.

It is completely different from "artificial islands" on which runways can be built, such as the Spratly Islands, which China claims alone.

To explain in detail, Okinotorishima is in danger of being submerged, so concrete seawall construction is being carried out to prevent erosion, but according to Tokyo Metropolitan Government documents, its area is only 9.44 square meters.

In the first place, constructing a runway that could become a military base on an artificial structure that is not internationally recognized as Chinese territory and building a concrete seawall on Okinotorishima, which is Japanese territory, are completely different in terms of both scale and meaning. Do you understand?

China should immediately return the Spratly Islands to the Philippines in accordance with the ruling of international law. That is what it means to abide by international rules.

4 ( +4 / -0 )

Take a look at Chinese controlled Taiping Island in the South China Sea, the UNCLOS arbitration ruling and get back to us.

Nobody complains about Minamitorishima because it holds zero value way out there in the middle of the ocean surrounded by deep waters and many swimming fishies.

-5 ( +0 / -5 )

Environmental campaigners warn that deep-sea mining threatens marine ecosystems and will disrupt the sea floor.

That's ridiculous, compared to the available seawater covered surface, those few attempts and mini scratches are insignificant. 

It is not ridiculous. A test of sea bed mining off Peru has demonstrated how disrupted the entire ecosystem was and the lack of recovery decades after the experiment was ended.

"Nodule mining is expected to cause immediate effects on the seabed surface and habitat in the path of collector vehicles, including mechanical disturbance, hard substratum habitat removal and sediment compaction. It will generate sediment plumes in the water column that can redeposit beyond mined areas2 causing biogeochemical alterations of the sediment and increased water turbidity at scales that could have significant impacts on ecosystems3,16. Recent estimates suggest plume redeposition could expand the visible seabed footprint several kilometres beyond the extent of test mining operations17,18. Over the multi-decadal life of a single operation, impacts from direct disturbance and plumes could extend over hundreds of square kilometres19 and cumulative impacts of many operations could be greater. However, biological effects of these physio-chemical alterations remain poorly understood, particularly over long timescales. Evaluation of the potential resilience of abyssal ecosystems to cumulative effects is largely constrained by the scarcity of full-scale experimental tests, and little is generally known about long-term recovery or succession patterns in abyssal ecosystems4. In this study, we define ‘recovery’ as a return to the original state of the ecosystem stated in terms of the parameter assessed, which includes a range of physical and biological characteristics, such as substratum composition and biological abundance. It does not indicate a full return of the ecosystem and its diversity to predisturbance conditions, which does not always occur in any environment20 and may be impossible with nodule removal"

"The most comprehensive recovery studies in the abyssal Pacific have been conducted outside the CCZ. This previous work has focused on the disturbance and recolonization experiment (DISCOL) in the Peru Basin, an area considerably less oligotrophic than the CCZ21 and at present not of commercial interest for mining. These studies showed persistent ecological impacts for some parameters 26 years after disturbance"

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-025-08921-3

1 ( +2 / -1 )

I see this as immoral. This creates huge wounds in deep ocean life. We depend on the health of the oceans.

All for money, the worst reason to do anything.

0 ( +4 / -4 )

I see this as immoral. This creates huge wounds in deep ocean life. We depend on the health of the oceans.

All for money, the worst reason to do anything.

I gave you an up vote. You can see that many hear don't want to hear any reason to be reticent about ocean floor mining. For them it is pedal to the metal baby and to hades with the consequences.

1 ( +3 / -2 )

Good luck and Gods speed.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

"Using UNCLOS arbitration logic Minami Torishima is a rock or reef, not an island, and thus does not grant sovereignty rights."

" island of Minami Torishima in the Pacific -- the easternmost point of Japan, also used as a military base."

MILITARY BASE.

"https://forumias.com/blog/minami-torishima-island/

Check first; mouth off later, please!

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Using UNCLOS arbitration logic Minami Torishima is a rock or reef, not an island, and thus does not grant sovereignty rights.

Might want to read the definitions in UNCLOS again. A "Rock" under UNCLOS is an object that is above the water even at extreme high tide but has no vegetation. A Rock has territorial sovereignty on that part above the water but has no territorial sea or EEZ. An Island is above the highest high tide and has vegetation on it. Minami Torishima, aka Marcus Island is well vegetated and thus qualifies as an island under UNCLOS with it's associated territorial sea and EEZ.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Login to leave a comment

Facebook users

Use your Facebook account to login or register with JapanToday. By doing so, you will also receive an email inviting you to receive our news alerts.

Facebook Connect

Login with your JapanToday account

User registration

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites