Concern, opposition mount as feds seek mining interest for 35.5M acres of Marianas seafloor

HAGATNA, 15 DECEMBER 2025 (GUAM PACIFIC DAILY NEWS)—Concerns about impacts on fish, contamination, destruction of historic undersea artifacts, errors, cancelled studies and a lack of consent prompted a slew of concerned comments and a protest as the U.S government seeks interest in deep sea mining of a 35.5 million-acre area offshore of the Mariana Islands.

Protesters in front of the ITC building intersection in Tamuning on Thursday hoisted signs that read “Resist Deep Sea Mining” and “Protect Our Ocean” along with the flags of both Guam and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands.

As of Friday, there was no word on whether the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management would grant more time for the public to comment on a request for information and interest in commercial leasing of an area about 100-plus miles to the east of Guam and Rota.

A 30-day comment period for the request for information and interest was scheduled to close Friday, 12 December.

Though governors and congressional delegates of Guam and the CNMI have asked for another 120 days to gather information and respond, there was no word as of Friday about any extension.

As of Friday, the Federal Register noted some 315 comments were received from residents, scientists, and members of the CNMI government.

“This is a serious moment,” said Monaeka Flores, of activist group Prutehi Guahan, which organized the Thursday protest.

“This comment period basically triggers the process for potentially starting to lease parts of the Marianas for deep sea research … eventually for deep sea mining,” Flores said.

Flores said the group has seen decent turnout in a series of workshops helping people submit feedback and oppose the Trump administration “fast tracking” the “exploitation” of the islands for resources.

More government outreach and town halls were needed to make the public aware of potential issues, Flores said.

Ocean currents would eventually carry over minerals and sediment plumes from deep sea mining east of the Marianas, said Brent Tibbatts, with the Guam Department of Agriculture’s Division of Aquatic and Wildlife Resources.

Tibbatts was one of several who spoke at the Tamuning Senior Citizen Centre at a community meeting Prutehi Guahan hosted after the Thursday protest.

“One of the big problems here is that most of Guam’s reef fish are not born on Guam,” he said. “They are born in islands to the east of us, and then drift here on currents and then settle on the reefs of Guam.”

Dozens of species of reef fish, like parrotfish and goatfish, would have difficulty surviving if they had to drift through clouds of sediment to Guam, Tibbatts said.

Joni Kerr, associate professor of environmental biology at the Guam Community College and Prutehi Guahan board member, said contamination could affect plankton in the area, and the fish and other species that eat them.

“If that area that’s going to be mined is only 128 nautical miles away from Saipan, and the humpback whales can be seen from shore on Saipan, I mean, I just can’t see that they would escape being affected,” Kerr said.

John Leon Guerrero, 77, of Dededo, said he found it concerning that environmental hazards were being balanced against potential economic gain from deep sea mining.

“If you’ve got something that’s going to damage your environment, what’s the benefit?” Leon Guerrero said. “Why do you talk about benefits? If you have a benefit, then it’s OK to damage the environment?”

One notable comment posted on the Federal Register states that two months before the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, BOEM, put out the request for information on mining near the Marianas, it cancelled a study that would have answered many of the questions posed.

Jennifer McKinnon, director of East Carolina University’s Programme in Maritime Studies, said ECU was actively involved in a “Maritime Heritage of the U.S Pacific Islands” study before BOEM cancelled it in September.

“What BOEM is now proposing through this (request for information) is premature, disingenuous, scientifically irresponsible, and fiscally reckless,” McKinnon stated.

McKinnon said the area, east of the Mariana Trench, almost certainly contained Indigenous canoe voyaging routes, shipwrecks and aircraft dating back to World War II and the colonial era, ancestral seafloor sites, and wrecks with human remains.

Archeological, biological and cultural data for the CNMI was still extremely limited, she wrote. Mining would bury significant sites under sediment, and proceeding without basic data was “scientifically and ethically indefensible,” she wrote.

McKinnon stated BOEM should halt progress and restart the study.

Mike Gawel, former manager of natural and cultural resources for the National Park Service in Guam and the Mariana Islands, also wrote that the federal government should restart the process.

Gawel stated that there were “critical mistakes and omissions” in the request for information.

It leaves out information from the 2025 research vets Nautilus’ exploration of the area and “says the area is west of the [Mariana] Trench” but outlines an area east of the trench in maps.

All 20 members of the CNMI House of Representatives wrote BOEM indicating that they could not conclude that leasing 35.5 million acres of the seabed would be a benefit to the Commonwealth.

“We cannot assume that a seabed mineral regime framed as serving U.S ‘national interest’ or ‘energy emergency’ needs will automatically benefit our islands,” representatives wrote.

There was no clear guarantee in federal law that the CNMI would get a fair share of any economic benefit from mining, like bonus bids, rentals or royalties, they stated.

Meanwhile, environmental, cultural and socioeconomic risks and harms would be borne locally by the CNMI community and future generations, representatives stated.

The existing consultation did not provide the CNMI with a clear, legally recognised authority or veto over any lease decision that would significantly affect the territory, they wrote.

“The CNMI’s concerns are not hypothetical,” representatives wrote, citing numerous examples globally and in the Pacific of areas that received no benefit from “powerful states” using them for strategic or economic reasons.

Those examples included strip mining on Nauru, uranium mining on Navajo islands in the U.S., and copper and gold mining in Papua New Guinea, which left communities dealing with environmental, health and social consequences.

Representatives stated they could not conclude there would be a net benefit for the CNMI without “meaningful reforms that guarantee territorial consent, equitable revenue sharing, strong environmental and cultural protections, and tangible local benefits.”….PACNEWS