Jan. 12 came and went quietly.

That was the final day for the public to weigh in on a federal proposal that could shape the future of deep-sea mining near the Marianas. There was no announcement, no public meeting, no next deadline — just the closing of a comment window, and the beginning of a phase that now unfolds largely out of public view.

For Guam, that matters.

Because from this point forward, decisions about whether deep-sea mining near the Marianas moves ahead will be made inside federal agencies, on flexible timelines, shaped as much by momentum as by public input. History shows that once those internal processes advance, it becomes far harder for island communities to change their direction.

This is the moment when silence begins to carry weight.

For people who live on islands, the ocean is never abstract.

It is how we move, how we eat, how we remember, and how we understand our place in the world. For Guam, the ocean has always been both a source of life and a site of outside decision-making — often strategic, often distant, and rarely reversible.

That history is part of why a recent federal proposal involving deep-sea mining near the Marianas has raised alarms across Guam and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands. Not because mining is about to start tomorrow — it isn’t — but because this is the stage where the rules are quietly written.

And once they are written, island communities are usually left reacting.

Deep-sea ecologist Dr. Lisa Levin, whose work has shaped global understanding of long-term ocean disturbance, cautions that “the deep sea is not one ecosystem, but a mosaic” — a network of distinct habitats that respond very differently to disruption. In regions like Guam and Micronesia, she notes, those ecosystems are still poorly known.

In situations like this, Levin says, uncertainty typically argues for a precautionary approach.

That framing matters here, because uncertainty is not a footnote in the deep-sea mining debate near the Marianas. It is the central issue.

The U.S. Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM) has issued a Request for Information and Interest, or RFI, seeking input from industry, scientists, governments, and the public about the potential for deep‑sea mineral mining in federal waters near the CNMI and the Marianas region.

An RFI is not a permit. It does not authorize mining. What it does do is signal federal interest — and begin building the administrative record that could later justify leasing and extraction.

For Guam, the most important detail is this: the waters being discussed are geographically close, ecologically connected, and politically beyond the island’s direct control. Decisions made at this stage would happen in federal space, but any long‑term consequences would not stop neatly at these jurisdictional lines.

Globally, deep‑sea mining discussions often focus on flat abyssal plains thousands of miles from land, particularly in the Clarion‑Clipperton Zone of the central Pacific. The Marianas are different.

The region is defined by seamounts, volcanic systems, and trench‑adjacent environments — some of the deepest and least‑studied ecosystems on Earth. These areas are known for:

When those structures are removed, they are not easily replaced. In many cases, they are not replaced at all.

This matters because deep‑sea mining here would not resemble dredging sand or gravel. It would involve cutting or scraping mineralized surfaces that took millions of years to form, in ecosystems that may take centuries — if ever — to recover.

Supporters of deep‑sea mining often argue that impacts can be managed with enough data and careful regulation. The problem is that the data still doesn’t exist in the places where mining is being considered.

Here is what scientists say with confidence:

And here is what scientists cannot yet answer — especially for the Marianas:

In other words, the uncertainty is not minor. It is foundational.

And in systems where harm may be irreversible, uncertainty cuts against experimentation, not in favor of it.

Experiments designed to simulate deep-sea mining suggest that even 30 to 40 years after disturbance, some aspects of the seafloor ecosystem have not recovered, including microbial function. According to Levin, that means mining impacts are not just long-lasting, but intergenerational — decisions made now may shape ecosystems far beyond a single human lifetime.

No.

Despite years of exploration and testing, there are currently no commercial, industrial‑scale deep‑sea mining operations operating anywhere in the world. What we know about impacts comes from experiments, pilot tests, and historical disturbances — not from ongoing mining.

That means places like the Marianas would not be learning from proven success. They would be part of the first real test.

For island communities that have repeatedly been told to accept risk for broader strategic goals, that distinction matters.

Guam and CNMI leaders have not opposed this proposal because it is immediate. They have opposed it because it is premature.

Concerns raised by local officials and community groups include:

At stake is not just environmental protection, but governance — who gets to decide what risks are acceptable, and for whom.

By the time permits are proposed or leases are issued, the conversation changes. Options narrow. Assumptions harden. Communities are asked to respond to decisions already in motion.

The RFI stage is earlier than that. It is quieter. And because of that, it is easier to overlook.

For Guam, that silence would be costly.

Guam has lived through enough externally driven “necessary” decisions to know how long their consequences last.

The deep sea feels distant because it is out of sight. But distance has never protected islands from the ripple effects of federal policy.

The real question raised by deep‑sea mining near the Marianas is not whether minerals are valuable. It is whether uncertainty — scientific, ecological, and political — is an acceptable price for a place that cannot easily recover once it is changed.

That is a question worth asking now, before the tracks are already on the seafloor.

Q: What exactly is deep-sea mining?
A: Deep-sea mining refers to the extraction of minerals from the ocean floor at depths of thousands of meters. Globally, interest focuses on three main resource types: polymetallic nodules on abyssal plains, cobalt-rich crusts on seamounts, and massive sulfide deposits around hydrothermal vents. Near the Marianas, scientists expect interest to center on seamount crusts and volcanic systems, not shallow seabed materials.

Q: Is deep-sea mining happening right now near Guam?
A: No. There are no commercial, industrial-scale deep-sea mining operations anywhere in the world today, including near Guam. What is happening now is a federal information-gathering process that could shape whether mining is allowed in the future.

Q: If there’s no mining yet, how do scientists know it causes harm?
A: Most evidence comes from experimental disturbance tests and historical trials designed to mimic mining. In multiple cases, areas disturbed decades ago still show visible damage, altered habitats, and incomplete biological recovery 26 to 44 years later. These tests are the best real-world data scientists have.

Q: How long does the deep sea take to recover?
A: Scientists do not have a definitive answer. Evidence suggests recovery is extremely slow, often measured in decades and potentially centuries. In some habitats, especially those built on hard substrates like seamount crusts, full recovery may never occur on human timescales.

Q: Why are sediment plumes such a concern?
A: Mining disturbs fine sediments, creating underwater plumes that can spread beyond the mining site. These plumes can smother organisms, clog feeding structures, disrupt microbes, and affect food webs. How far plumes travel depends on currents and depth — factors that are not well understood in trench-adjacent regions like the Marianas.

Q: Aren’t land-based mines worse for the environment?
A: Land-based mining has serious and well-documented impacts. Deep-sea mining is sometimes framed as an alternative, but scientists caution that lack of visibility does not equal lower risk. The deep ocean recovers far more slowly, and its ecosystems are much less understood.

Q: What makes the Marianas region different from other proposed mining areas?
A: The Marianas are defined by extreme depth, active geology, and high levels of endemism. Many species found there exist nowhere else. These ecosystems are among the least studied on Earth, which increases uncertainty and risk.

Q: What don’t scientists know yet?
A: Key gaps include baseline biodiversity data, species connectivity, plume behavior at scale, cumulative impacts over time, and effects on food webs and carbon cycling. These gaps are especially pronounced in the Marianas.

Q: Why are Guam and CNMI leaders calling for caution now?
A: Because early federal processes shape future outcomes. Once leases or permits are issued, options narrow. Leaders are asking for more time, more science, and meaningful local participation before decisions become irreversible.

Q: What’s the core scientific takeaway?
A: Deep-sea mining causes long-lasting disturbance, and the uncertainty around its impacts — especially near the Marianas — is still very high. In systems that may not recover within human lifetimes, that uncertainty matters.

These sources underpin the scientific consensus referenced in this column: that deep‑sea ecosystems recover slowly, that disturbance effects can persist for decades, and that major knowledge gaps remain — particularly in regions like the Marianas.

With the public comment period closed on January 12, 2026, the BOEM process now moves out of the public eye and into internal federal review. Importantly, there is no fixed timeline for what happens next.

BOEM will first review:

At this stage, BOEM decides whether there is sufficient interest to justify moving forward. The agency can also decide to pause, narrow, or abandon the effort.

If BOEM chooses to continue, it may formally identify specific offshore areas for potential leasing. This step:

This is typically the point where concerns raised earlier — or not raised — begin to matter.

Before any lease sale, BOEM would be required to conduct environmental analysis under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). This could include:

However, the scope of that analysis is often shaped by assumptions formed earlier in the process.

Only after these steps could BOEM consider offering mineral leases. A lease would:

Actual extraction would require additional permits, approvals, and environmental review.

At every stage, BOEM retains discretion to:

This is why early engagement — even at the RFI stage — carries long-term weight.

Most experts aren't limited by their expertise. They're slowed by scattered tools that don't connect. Starter platforms, point solutions, and mismatched workflows create chaos, cap revenue, and dilute credibility.

Kajabi is the operating system for human expertise. Identity, strategy, products, marketing, payments, and client transformation all working together in one place.

No more guessing. No more fragmentation. No more ceiling on your growth.

Clarity replaces confusion. Simplicity replaces complexity. Growth becomes intentional.

You move faster because everything connects. Built to scale, not stall.

If your expertise is real, your system should be too.

Start Your Free Trial