By Sandra King-Young
(Part 3 of 4)

Supporters of deep-sea mining present it as an economic opportunity for American Samoa. They promise jobs, government revenues, and a new industry built around the extraction of polymetallic nodules from our Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ).

The federal government has its own reasons for supporting access to critical minerals. Successive administrations have viewed these minerals as strategically important to reducing America’s dependence on foreign suppliers, particularly China. President Trump has made no secret of his desire for the United States to compete more aggressively with China in securing critical mineral resources.

Mining companies have their reasons as well: profit. But the question for American Samoa is much simpler: What do we actually gain?

For the government, the appeal is obvious. American Samoa needs new sources of revenue. Delayed tax refunds, unpaid vendors, aging infrastructure, and growing dependence on federal funding all point to a difficult fiscal reality. With federal budget reductions already affecting programs nationwide, finding sustainable revenue sources has become increasingly important.

For most families, however, the question is not government revenue. It is jobs.

What Kind of Jobs?

Supporters of deep-sea mining frequently promise employment opportunities, but there has been little public discussion about what those jobs would actually look like.

Deep-sea mining is a highly technical industry that relies on marine engineers, geologists, robotics specialists, remotely operated vehicle technicians, environmental scientists, and other highly skilled professionals. Many of these positions require specialized education, certifications, and years of experience.

Does American Samoa currently have a workforce prepared to fill those roles?

If not, will mining companies invest in training local residents, or will they recruit workers from outside the territory?

That distinction matters. A project can create jobs without creating meaningful employment opportunities for local families.

Supporters may point to secondary employment in transportation, logistics, maintenance, warehousing, security, and support services. Those jobs could provide some economic benefit, but the public deserves realistic projections—not promises—about how many jobs would actually be created, how many would be permanent, and how many would go to local residents.

Our experience with the fishing industry offers an important lesson. For decades, the canneries provided jobs and tax revenue that helped sustain our economy. Today, many processing positions must be filled by imported labor because local workers often seek different opportunities. Deep-sea mining raises similar questions. Even if jobs are created, are they jobs our workforce is prepared for or want—or jobs that will ultimately go elsewhere?

There is also little reason to believe that mineral processing or manufacturing (jobs) would occur in American Samoa. Such operations require land, extensive infrastructure, energy resources, and industrial capacity that we currently do not possess. If the minerals are simply loaded onto ships and processed elsewhere, much of the economic value leaves with them.

The Infrastructure Question

Deep-sea mining is not just about what happens on the ocean floor. It is also about what happens onshore.
Any large-scale mining operation would likely require improvements to port facilities, support operations, storage areas, industrial infrastructure, and accommodations for larger vessels. Those changes could have significant consequences for communities located near the harbor.

For residents of Fagatogo and neighboring villages, this is not a hypothetical concern. Fagatogo has spent more than a century giving up family lands and coastline for government development and public infrastructure. Most recently, the government’s Project 2030 proposal has generated concern because of its potential impact on the village’s fautasi boathouse and waterfront.

Deep-sea mining could create additional pressure for harbor expansion and industrial development. Before any decisions are made, the people of American Samoa deserve to know what those changes might look like and who will bear their impacts.

Will harbor expansion affect village life, cultural resources, public access, or small businesses? Will the benefits justify the costs?

Where Will the Money Go?

Mining advocates point to the enormous value of the minerals located within our EEZ. Yet the value of a resource and the benefits received by a community are not the same thing.

Before American Samoa embraces deep-sea mining, several questions deserve answers. How much revenue will actually remain in the territory? What percentage of the profits will stay in American Samoa? Who will control those revenues? How will they be invested for future generations? Who pays for the environmental disasters should something go wrong? Who will hold the American Samoa Government and the mining companies accountable for a fair community benefits agreement that will take care of our people’s needs and protect our future?

Around the world, resource-rich regions have learned that profits often flow to those who finance, own, and operate extraction projects, while local communities receive only a fraction of the wealth generated.

Without clear answers, promises of prosperity should be viewed cautiously.

A One-Time Resource

Unlike fisheries, polymetallic nodules are not renewable. They formed over millions of years and, once removed, are gone forever. The recent NOAA mapping mission showed evidence of an extensive presence of nodules in our EEZ. They exist and are plentiful.

They are still a non-renewable resource and that reality changes the economic equation.

If deep-sea mining is being promoted as the next economic driver for American Samoa, what happens when the nodules are gone?

The mining companies will leave. The resource will be exhausted. And the territory may once again find itself searching for another source of economic growth unless a community benefits agreement is well-written and strongly in favor of American Samoa’s interests.

Deep-sea mining is not a permanent economic engine. It is the extraction of a finite resource that can only be sold once. The question is whether the benefits will justify the sacrifice.

Who Bears the Risk?
If the promised jobs fail to materialize, who bears the consequences? If the profits leave the territory, who bears the loss? If fisheries are affected or environmental damage occurs, who pays?

The answer is not the mining companies. It is not investors. It is not Washington. It is the people of American Samoa.

That is why the burden should not be on us to prove why deep-sea mining is a bad idea. The burden should be on those seeking access to our EEZ to prove that the jobs are meaningful, the benefits are real, the risks are manageable, and the wealth generated will remain here long after the mining is over.

Until those questions are answered, the economic case for deep-sea mining remains unproven.Before we give away a resource that can never be replaced, we should demand far more than promises.

In Part 4, I will examine what the proposed leases actually mean, what authority exists to challenge them, and what options remain available to American Samoa moving forward.