Seabed Mining Regulators Question US Licenses Amid Regulatory Tension

What is Seabed Mining and Why is it Controversial?

Seabed mining involves extracting valuable minerals from the ocean floor, particularly targeting polymetallic nodules—avocado-sized rocks that have formed over millions of years on the deep-sea bed. These nodules contain critical battery metals like cobalt, nickel, and copper, which are essential for electric vehicle production and renewable energy technologies.

The controversy surrounding seabed mining stems from the profound environmental implications. These nodules aren't merely mineral deposits; they're the foundation of unique deep-sea ecosystems that have evolved over millennia. Scientists have discovered that these habitats host specialized species found nowhere else on Earth, many of which remain undocumented.

"The international community is taking action to show that rogue actors will face consequences," explains Louisa Casson, Greenpeace Deep Sea Mining Campaigner, highlighting the environmental community's concerns about irreversible habitat destruction.

Unlike terrestrial mining, seabed extraction affects ecosystems that are largely unstudied, with unknown biodiversity value and carbon sequestration potential. The nodules themselves take millions of years to form—growing at just millimeters per million years—making them effectively non-renewable on human timescales.

The regulatory challenges are equally complex, as nations and companies race to establish frameworks that balance resource extraction with ecosystem protection. This tension between economic opportunity and environmental stewardship forms the core of the seabed mining controversy.

How Does the International Seabed Authority Regulate Deep-Sea Mining?

The ISA's Role and Jurisdiction

The International Seabed Authority (ISA), established under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), holds exclusive jurisdiction over mineral resources in international waters—areas beyond national jurisdiction often called "the Area." With 169 member nations plus the European Union, the ISA operates on the principle that seabed resources represent the "common heritage of mankind."

This UN-affiliated organization is tasked with developing comprehensive regulations for deep-sea mining while ensuring environmental protection. The ISA grants exploration contracts to qualified entities but has yet to approve any commercial exploitation due to incomplete regulatory frameworks.

French Ambassador to the ISA, Olivier Guyonvarch, has described the regulatory challenges facing the organization as "more than an elephant. It's a blue whale in the room," highlighting the enormous complexity of establishing consensus among diverse stakeholders.

Current Regulatory Framework Status

After more than a decade of negotiations, the ISA's comprehensive mining code remains unfinished as of July 2025. Key sticking points include:

• Royalty distribution systems for mining profits
• Environmental impact assessment requirements
• Monitoring and compliance mechanisms
• Protection measures for vulnerable marine ecosystems
• Liability provisions for environmental damage

The ISA Council, the organization's policymaking body, continues to meet regularly but faces significant disagreements between pro-mining nations seeking economic benefits and countries advocating for stronger environmental safeguards. These unresolved tensions have created a regulatory vacuum that some nations, notably the United States, have attempted to fill with unilateral frameworks.

The ISA's authority includes the power to investigate potential contract violations, with the Secretary-General authorized to gather information from companies suspected of operating outside the established international system—a power recently invoked in response to US licensing efforts.

What's Happening with US Seabed Mining Licenses?

Trump's Executive Order and Its Implications

In early 2025, President Trump signed an executive order designed to expedite licensing for deep-sea mining operations. Trump's mining permits order directed federal agencies to process applications under a little-used 1980 federal law, effectively creating a parallel regulatory path outside the ISA framework.

This unilateral approach represents a significant challenge to the established international system of seabed governance. By authorizing American companies (or their subsidiaries) to mine the international seabed under US jurisdiction, the executive order effectively bypasses the decades of multilateral negotiation conducted through the ISA.

The move aligns with broader strategic mineral security initiatives but has raised serious questions about compliance with international law, particularly the provisions of UNCLOS that prohibit unilateral appropriation of seabed resources in international waters.

The Metals Company's License Application

Canadian-registered The Metals Company (TMC) moved quickly to leverage the US executive order, with its American subsidiary submitting a license application in April 2025—just days after the order was signed. This application aims to secure rights to extract polymetallic nodules from the Pacific Ocean floor under US authorization.

TMC's strategy is particularly noteworthy because the company already holds two exploration contracts through the ISA—one of which requires renewal in 2026. By pursuing a US license while maintaining ISA contracts, the company has positioned itself at the center of the regulatory conflict between national and international frameworks.

The company's application represents the first major test case for the competing regulatory frameworks, with significant implications for how deep-sea mining governance will evolve globally. Industry observers note that TMC's approach reflects growing frustration with what mining companies describe as "protracted delay" in finalizing ISA regulations.

How Are International Regulators Responding to US Unilateral Actions?

ISA Council's Recent Actions

In a significant development during its July 2025 meeting, the ISA Council requested its secretary-general to obtain information from ISA-licensed companies potentially violating their contracts by pursuing licenses outside the international framework. While not explicitly naming TMC, the resolution contained what Bloomberg News described as an "oblique reference" to companies seeking US licenses.

This formal request marks the first concrete step by the international body to address the regulatory conflict created by the US executive order. The resolution cites the UN treaty that explicitly prohibits unilateral mining in international waters, positioning the ISA to potentially take enforcement action against companies that attempt to operate under both systems simultaneously.

The ISA's move signals a determined effort to maintain its authority over seabed resources in international waters, despite challenges from non-member states like the United States, which has never ratified UNCLOS but has historically respected many of its provisions.

Potential Consequences for Mining Companies

For companies like TMC, the competing regulatory frameworks create a precarious business position. Pursuing a US license while holding ISA contracts could potentially constitute a contract violation under international law, with several significant consequences:

• Termination of existing ISA exploration contracts
• Loss of future mining opportunities in international waters
• Reputational damage affecting investor confidence
• Legal challenges in ISA member states where the company operates
• Uncertain recognition of extracted resources in international markets

TMC faces particular vulnerability with one of its ISA contracts requiring renewal in 2026. The company must navigate the complex diplomatic standoff while maintaining investor confidence in its ability to eventually commercialize nodule extraction. This regulatory uncertainty creates significant business risk despite any US authorization they might receive.

What Are the Global Positions on Deep-Sea Mining?

Pro-Mining Nations vs. Moratorium Advocates

The international community remains sharply divided on deep-sea mining regulation, with two distinct camps emerging:

Pro-Mining Nations:

• China, Russia, Japan, and Korea advocate for expedited regulation adoption
• These countries emphasize critical mineral security for clean energy transitions
• They argue that delays in regulation effectively constitute a de facto moratorium
• Many have state-sponsored entities already holding ISA exploration contracts

Moratorium Advocates:

• 37 countries support pausing commercial extraction until environmental impacts are better understood
• This coalition includes several European nations, Pacific Island states, and others
• They cite the precautionary principle and unknown ecosystem impacts as justification
• Many support continued scientific research before commercial extraction begins

This division reflects broader geopolitical tensions around resource security, environmental protection, and the application of the precautionary principle to emerging industries with uncertain impacts.

Environmental Concerns and Scientific Understanding

Environmental organizations have taken strong positions against premature mining authorization. Greenpeace has characterized companies pursuing unilateral mining as "rogue actors," emphasizing the potential for permanent damage to deep-sea ecosystems.

The scientific community continues to document the ecological importance of nodule habitats, which host unique biological communities including:

• Filter-feeding organisms that grow on nodule surfaces
• Specialized deep-sea species that have evolved to live in these environments
• Microbial communities with potential biotechnology applications
• Slow-growing, long-lived species particularly vulnerable to disturbance

A key scientific concern is the limited baseline data on these ecosystems—researchers estimate that up to 80% of species in some deep-sea environments remain undiscovered, making impact assessment particularly challenging. Recovery rates for disturbed areas are projected to be extremely slow, potentially taking centuries or millennia for ecosystem restoration after mining.

What Resources Are Being Targeted in Deep-Sea Mining?

Polymetallic Nodules: Composition and Value

Polymetallic nodules represent one of the most promising targets for seabed mining due to their relatively accessible position on the ocean floor and valuable mineral content. Understanding polymetallic nodules benefits is crucial for assessing their economic potential. These nodules typically contain:

These concentrations often exceed those found in terrestrial mines, particularly for cobalt and nickel—critical components in lithium-ion batteries. The nodules form through extremely slow geological processes over millions of years, as dissolved metals in seawater gradually precipitate around a core object like a shark tooth or rock fragment.

The Pacific Ocean's Clarion-Clipperton Zone (CCZ), stretching between Hawaii and Mexico, contains the world's largest known concentration of these nodules, with billions covering approximately 1.7 million square miles of seabed. TMC's exploration areas target this region specifically.

Strategic Importance for Critical Minerals Supply

The push for seabed mining is largely driven by critical mineral security concerns, particularly as demand for battery metals surges with the global critical minerals energy transition. Several factors make these resources strategically significant:

• Supply Chain Diversification: Reduces dependence on geopolitically sensitive terrestrial mining regions
• Environmental Comparison: Potentially lower carbon footprint than some land-based mines
• Reduced Social Impacts: No displacement of communities or land use conflicts
• High Resource Concentration: Large amounts of multiple critical minerals in single deposits

However, these potential advantages must be weighed against the environmental risks to deep-sea ecosystems. The strategic calculation varies by country, with nations lacking domestic supplies of critical minerals generally more supportive of developing seabed resources.

"The transition to clean energy cannot come at the expense of ocean health. We need these metals, but we must find sustainable ways to source them." — Consensus statement from marine scientists at the 2024 Deep Ocean Stewardship Initiative conference

What's Next for Seabed Mining Regulation?

Timeline for ISA Regulation Completion

According to regulatory experts monitoring the ISA's progress, the comprehensive mining code remains at least a year away from completion as of July 2025. The July 2025 Council meeting concluded without resolving several contentious issues, including:

1. Royalty Distribution: How mining profits will be shared among nations
2. Environmental Performance Standards: Specific thresholds and metrics for ecological impact
3. Monitoring Requirements: Technical specifications for environmental monitoring
4. Enforcement Mechanisms: Procedures for addressing non-compliance
5. Damage Liability: Financial responsibility for environmental harm

The most challenging aspect remains balancing commercial viability with environmental protection—setting royalty rates high enough to benefit humanity collectively while keeping projects economically viable, and establishing environmental standards strict enough to protect ecosystems without making mining impossible.

ISA representatives have indicated that working groups will continue developing draft provisions through 2025, with potential adoption of final regulations no earlier than mid-2026—a timeline that frustrates both mining proponents who seek faster progress and environmental advocates who argue the process is being rushed.

Potential for International Conflict

The parallel regulatory systems created by US unilateral action and the ISA's international framework set up several potential jurisdictional conflicts:

• Legal Recognition: Will minerals extracted under US licenses be recognized in international markets?
• Maritime Enforcement: How will competing claims be handled in international waters?
• Diplomatic Fallout: Potential sanctions or trade measures against companies operating outside the ISA framework
• Precedent Setting: Could other nations follow the US approach, further undermining the ISA?

These conflicts extend beyond the mining sector to touch on fundamental questions about global governance of shared resources. The outcome will establish important precedents for other emerging industries in international spaces, including genetic resource utilization and potential future space mining operations.

How Might This Impact the Future of Critical Minerals Supply?

Economic and Strategic Implications

The resolution of these regulatory conflicts will significantly impact future critical mineral supply chains, with several potential outcomes:

• Delayed Commercialization: Continued regulatory uncertainty could postpone commercial extraction by years
• Bifurcated Market: Different regulatory standards could create two classes of seabed minerals with different market access
• Investment Hesitation: Capital may flow to more certain resource development projects
• Technology Development Pause: Innovation in extraction technologies may slow without clear path to deployment
• Alternative Sourcing Push: Increased investment in recycling and terrestrial mining alternatives

For battery manufacturers and clean technology companies, these uncertainties complicate long-term planning. Some manufacturers have already begun developing battery chemistries that reduce dependence on the most supply-constrained metals, while others have secured long-term supply agreements with terrestrial miners.

Investment Considerations for Mining Companies

Companies pursuing seabed mining face substantial regulatory uncertainty, creating a complex risk landscape for investors. Key considerations include:

• Regulatory Compliance Costs: Operating under multiple frameworks increases administrative burden
• Legal Risk: Potential for contract termination or legal challenges in multiple jurisdictions
• Timeline Extension: Commercial production timelines likely to extend beyond current projections
• First-Mover Disadvantage: Early entrants bear the cost of regulatory development
• Jurisdictional Arbitrage Opportunities: Companies with multiple subsidiaries may leverage different regulatory approaches

For investors in companies like TMC, these uncertainties translate to both increased risk and potential opportunity. Resolution of the regulatory conflicts could unlock significant value, while continued uncertainty or adverse rulings could substantially impact business models.

FAQ: Seabed Mining Regulation and Licensing

What is the 1980 federal law the US plans to use for seabed mining licenses?

The US intends to issue seabed mining licenses under the Deep Seabed Hard Mineral Resources Act of 1980, a law passed during a period when UNCLOS negotiations were ongoing but not complete. This legislation created a domestic framework for licensing US entities to conduct mining in international waters, though it has rarely been utilized due to the subsequent development of the ISA system.

The law includes provisions for environmental protection, but these were developed before modern understanding of deep-sea ecosystems. The Trump administration's executive order directed federal agencies to update implementation guidance for this long-dormant legislation.

How many countries support a moratorium on deep-sea mining?

Currently, 37 countries advocate for a moratorium on deep-sea mining until environmental impacts are better understood and appropriate protections can be established. This coalition has grown steadily since 2019, when only a handful of nations supported precautionary delays.

The moratorium supporters include a diverse group of nations from various regions and development levels, united by concerns about potential ecological damage. Their position does not necessarily oppose mining permanently, but rather argues for additional scientific research before commercial extraction begins.

What happens if a company violates its ISA contract?

Companies violating ISA contracts face several potential consequences:

• Contract Termination: The ISA can revoke exploration or exploitation rights
• Sponsoring State Liability: Nations sponsoring the contractor may face diplomatic pressure
• Financial Penalties: Possible fines or loss of posted performance bonds
• Future Exclusion: Difficulty obtaining new contracts or renewals
• Reputational Damage: Negative impacts on investor confidence and stakeholder relations

The ISA's enforcement mechanisms remain somewhat untested, as no commercial extraction has yet occurred. However, the July 2025 Council action requesting information from potentially non-compliant contractors demonstrates the organization's willingness to invoke its authority.

When might commercial deep-sea mining begin?

Commercial deep-sea mining timelines remain uncertain, with several factors influencing potential start dates:

• Regulatory Completion: ISA mining code completion (estimated mid-2026 at earliest)
• Equipment Development: Final testing of collection systems and riser technology
• Legal Challenges: Potential litigation over competing regulatory frameworks
• Investment Climate: Securing necessary capital amid regulatory uncertainty
• Market Conditions: Metal prices supporting commercial viability

Under the most optimistic scenarios, limited commercial extraction might begin by 2027-2028, though many industry analysts consider 2030 a more realistic target for meaningful production volumes. Companies operating under US licenses might attempt earlier operations, but would face significant challenges in international recognition of their activities.

Future Outlook for Seabed Mining Governance

Potential for Regulatory Harmonization

The development of parallel regulatory systems creates pressure for eventual harmonization between national and international frameworks. Several potential paths toward resolution exist:

• US Engagement: Future administrations could seek accommodation with the ISA system
• Bilateral Agreements: Recognition arrangements between ISA and non-member states
• Hybrid Approaches: Companies maintaining compliance with both systems simultaneously

Ready to Stay Ahead of Major ASX Mineral Discoveries?

Don't miss out on actionable investment opportunities as they emerge—Discovery Alert's proprietary Discovery IQ model instantly notifies you of significant ASX mineral discoveries, helping you make informed decisions before the broader market. Explore why major mineral discoveries can lead to substantial returns by visiting our dedicated discoveries page.