In this episode of Redefining Energy Tech Michael Barnard sat down with Lyle Trytten, who many in the industry know as the nickel nerd. He has spent decades working in mining and mineral processing and has become a trusted voice for organizations like Natural Resources Canada and the International Energy Agency. Our conversation turned to the techno-economic realities of seabed mining, a topic made timely by American executive orders on resource leasing and the ongoing debates around the Clarion Clipperton Zone in the Pacific.

Lyle laid out the three categories of undersea mineralization that matter: manganese-rich crusts closer to shore, sulfide deposits around black smokers, and the polymetallic nodules that dominate the abyssal plains. It is those nodules that attract the most attention, given their mix of manganese, nickel, copper, cobalt and iron. The percentages matter here. Manganese makes up 20 to 30% of nodules, feeding a steel market of about 20 million tons annually. Copper mirrors manganese in demand at similar volumes. Nickel sits above copper in value, with nodules carrying over 1% grades. Cobalt is the prize, worth two and a half times nickel and largely controlled today by the Democratic Republic of Congo with annual output of 250,000 to 300,000 tons. Compared to terrestrial deposits, those grades are very competitive, often better than what current copper and nickel mines deliver onshore.

Of course, the challenge is not what lies within the nodules but where they are. Four kilometers down is a different game than an open pit in Chile. Lyle framed it with a simple multiplier: one times for onshore, ten times for offshore, a hundred times underwater, and a thousand times when you hit the seabed. The Clarion Clipperton Zone lies thousands of kilometers from shore, making costs and logistics daunting. Even compared to offshore oil, with rigs like Deepwater Horizon working at 1.5 kilometers depth, this is an order of magnitude harder. That reality explains why seabed mining remains more a promise than a practice.

We also dug into the credibility problem the sector faces. The history of mining is littered with scams, from Bre-X to pump-and-dump juniors, which is why Canada now requires transparent disclosures under NI 43-101. Without strict governance and independent validation, seabed mining risks repeating those mistakes. The resource base is not the issue. Just as with oil, the minerals are there. The question is whether reserves—economically viable, technically accessible deposits—will come online in time to meet surging demand, especially for copper, which looks tight in the next 15 years.

Substitutability plays a role too. Aluminum can stand in for copper in transmission lines. Stainless steel has shifted chemistries in response to nickel price spikes. Battery makers tweak their chemistries—NMC ratios change with market conditions, and lithium iron phosphate has taken half the electric vehicle market without using nickel, manganese, or cobalt at all. Recycling will matter increasingly, but with service lives of decades for stainless and 20 years for batteries, secondary supply will not relieve near-term shortages. Companies like Redwood Materials and Moment Energy are building the bridge to a circular system, but the lag time is real.

The conversation left me with a clear takeaway. Seabed mining is not an easy fix. The minerals are there in attractive grades, but the depth, cost, and governance challenges are immense. At the same time, demand for copper, nickel, and cobalt will keep rising, and prices will eventually force new sources to market. The industry has opportunities in recycling, substitution, and responsible development, but the old habits of hype and over-promising will have to be broken if it is to have a role in the critical minerals future.