In February 2022, the Cook Islands Government awarded three exploration licences for deep seabed mining. Initially valid for five years, these licences were intended to facilitate rigorous scientific inquiry. Now, four years into that period, it is plainly obvious to any objective observer that our understanding of the deep-sea environment remains woefully inadequate. To make a truly informed, multi-generational decision on whether to proceed with large-scale extraction, significantly more data is required.
In what appears to be a calculated move, possibly intended to project a sense of “due diligence” during an election year, the government has announced the opportunity of an extension of these exploration licences for another five years, stretching the timeline to 2032. However, this announcement has resulted in a misconception among the public: the belief that commercial mining is legally barred from occurring until 2032. This is not the case.
There is no legal requirement in the Seabed Minerals Act 2019 for a company to wait until its exploration period expires before applying for a mining licence. If an entity such as Moana Minerals or CIC Ocean Research believes it has satisfied the necessary criteria—including the submission of a finalised and approved Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA)—they are entitled to apply for a commercial mining licence at any moment. While the Seabed Minerals Authority (SBMA) clarifies that approval is not automatic and requires rigorous vetting, the legal pathway remains wide open..
There is a disconnect between the narrative the government provides to the public and the promises companies provide to their investors. While the government uses the 2032 extension to reassure the iti tangata that they are “taking it slow,” the corporate sector is operating on a much more aggressive schedule. In July 2025, Hans Smit, the CEO of Moana Minerals, explicitly stated that he wants to be mining before 2030. If the government’s extension to 2032 was truly about a “science-first” delay, why are the companies they are responsible for regulating aiming for extraction years earlier?
This discrepancy becomes even more alarming when examining the recent “United States Framework for Securing of Supply in the Mining and Processing of Critical Minerals and Rare Earths.” While our leaders maintain that no decision to mine has been made, the text of this international agreement suggests otherwise. According to the Framework, the participants intend to:
- support the supply of raw and processed critical minerals
- accelerate development of diversified, liquid, fair markets, and
- develop resilient and secure supply chains through joint mining and extraction.
Most tellingly, the Framework notes that within six months of its signing, participants may consider financing for projects “expected to generate end product.” This is not the language of a cautious government still weighing the pros and cons of an industry. It is the language of a commercial partner preparing for production. If the decision were truly six or seven years away, the “Working Group” established under this Framework would focus primarily on the ecological impacts on sensitive ecosystems. Instead, its mandate includes “facilitating early-stage engagement between investors and operators.” Additionally, we are told that this working group will consist only of government stakeholders from the US and Cook Islands.
With the passing of the Minerals Harvesting Regulations in 2024, the legal infrastructure for extraction is already complete. For a government that insists no decision has been reached, they have been remarkably industrious in ensuring that no legislative hurdle remains. The path is cleared, the regulations are signed, and the international alliances are forged. Nothing, it seems, stands in the way of the green light—except the voice of the iti tangata.