Companies join a deep-sea mining rush after Trump executive order, as
regulators fast-track permits
[May 23, 2026] By
HELEN WIEFFERING
WASHINGTON (AP) — In the year since President Donald Trump signed an
executive order promising to create a deep-sea mining industry from
scratch, businesses have raised millions of dollars from investors,
stock prices have soared and federal regulators have raced to fast-track
a permitting process.
At least nine companies are in talks with the government for access to
seabed minerals, according to an Associated Press review. Sections of
the seafloor from American Samoa to Alaska could be auctioned for
offshore mining this summer and through the fall.
All the action suggests the U.S. may soon give the green light for
companies to commercially mine the seabed — something that’s never been
done in international waters.
But a close look at some of the companies involved reveals uncertain
track records and histories spattered with legal disputes, while major
questions about how the minerals would be processed and refined remain
unanswered. Watchers of the nascent industry are skeptical the promised
riches will ever materialize.
“It just feels right to people thinking that there is a cornucopia of
metals on the bottom of the seafloor that are just there to be plucked
up like seashells on the seashore,” said Victor Vescovo, a private
equity investor and deep-sea explorer who has chosen not to back any
deep-sea mining companies.
“If there’s more scrutiny on their actual financial models,” he added,
“you would go, ‘Wait a second, this is much more uncertain.’”
Tapping the global seabed
Trump’s executive order in April last year marked a sudden embrace of an
industry long dormant in the U.S. The president hailed seafloor minerals
as vital to America’s future prosperity and its trade independence from
China. He directed U.S. agencies to expedite permitting.
The most widely prized ores are fist-shaped rocks known as polymetallic
nodules, formed over millions of years from the remains of sunken shark
teeth and shells. They contain high grades of manganese, copper, nickel
and cobalt, and much smaller amounts of rare earth elements.
Other parts of the seafloor have drawn prospectors, too: the
mineral-rich crusts atop volcanic seamounts, and the rocky mounds
flecked with gold and silver near hydrothermal vents. Nearer to shore,
companies have proposed dredging ocean sands for titanium, zirconium and
phosphorites. But for many companies, seafloor nodules hold the most
allure.
Trillions of nodules lie on the international seabed between Mexico and
Hawaii, scientists say. For more than a decade, delegates from dozens of
countries have convened at the headquarters of the International Seabed
Authority in Jamaica with the difficult task of creating globally agreed
upon mining rules for those areas, which belong to no single country.
The agency has so far granted exploration rights to nearly two dozen
contractors, but has not allowed any to mine commercially. Under its
mandate, the minerals are designated for the shared benefit of “all
humankind.”
Trump’s order suggests the U.S. will decide for itself when to mine the
global seabed, reversing the decision of previous administrations to
honor the seabed authority’s rules.
In a statement, a White House spokesperson said “all presidential
actions are legally sound.”
Fast-tracking the process
Geologists have known about polymetallic nodules for more than a
century, but it wasn’t until the 1960s that companies started building
technology to haul them to the surface.
At the time, the laws of the sea were still in the making, with ongoing
talks at the United Nations over how countries would use and protect the
oceans beyond their borders. When it came to seabed mining, the U.S. was
at odds with much of the world over how the resources and technology
should be shared.
In 1980, with global talks still in progress, Congress passed the Deep
Seabed Hard Mineral Resources Act and created a process for U.S.
companies to mine the deep sea. The U.S. issued four exploration
licenses in 1984.
Yet in the decades that followed, low metals prices and the brewing
uncertainty around international rules pushed several of those companies
to forfeit their licenses or dissolve. Today, more than 150 countries
agree that deep-sea mining should be mutually governed by the seabed
authority. Lockheed Martin holds the only two exploration licenses still
active in the U.S.
Two U.S. agencies will enforce rules: the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration, which oversees minerals beyond U.S. borders,
and the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, a division of the Department
of the Interior that regulates offshore oil, gas, wind and minerals in
U.S. waters.
NOAA has never approved a commercial project for seabed mining; nor has
BOEM, beyond a short-lived mining effort in California waters more than
60 years ago. But their leaders, appointed by Trump, are pushing for
that to change.
In June, Interior Secretary Doug Burgum announced a mandate for BOEM to
“speed up” the development of critical minerals offshore, and outlined
steps to streamline the regulatory process. The agency soon announced it
was evaluating seabed mining in the waters of Alaska, Virginia, American
Samoa and the Northern Mariana Islands. It plans to hold the first lease
sale as early as August, according to a budget proposal, and in the
coming months will restructure under the new name of the Marine Minerals
Administration.
NOAA, too, is working quickly to approve permits. Until this year, the
agency required companies to have an exploration license before they
could pursue commercial operations; in January, it said companies could
apply for both activities at once. NOAA has requested funds to expand
its permitting staff and set a target of processing 16 applications next
fiscal year.
Treasure hunters of the deep
So far, the companies answering the call of Trump’s executive order
include a firm that once made its money hunting for sunken treasure, and
a South Carolina-based startup that sprung from an effort to find Amelia
Earhart’s long-lost plane.
And it includes The Metals Company, long seen as the front-runner in the
industry. If the U.S. grants a permit, the firm says it is ready to
commercially mine the seafloor before the end of next year. It is one of
few companies to have tested equipment in deep-water conditions —
hauling up 3,000 metric tons of nodules in a 2022 trial.
The company has close ties to the Trump administration. CEO Gerard
Barron says he was in the White House on the day Trump signed the
executive order, and since then, he’s been invited to speak at three
congressional hearings on deep-sea mining. The Metals Company has
received financial advice from Cantor Fitzgerald, the investment group
Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick led for decades until Trump appointed
him to federal office. Lutnick is now in charge of NOAA and could be
influential in the final decision on permits.
In a January congressional hearing, U.S. Rep. Ed Case, a Hawaii
Democrat, accused The Metals Company of being “in bed” with NOAA and
having advance knowledge of the agency’s plans, citing the close timing
of certain events. The Metals Company submitted its seabed mining
applications within a week of the executive order last year, and
resubmitted them under the streamlined regulations one day after NOAA
finalized the new rules.
At the hearing, Barron denied the accusation, saying it’s the company’s
job to respond to and anticipate government action. “We had lobbied
hard” against some of the regulatory inefficiencies, he added.
Since 2024, records show the company spent nearly $800,000 on lobbying
for seabed mining issues, including permitting. Its stock price hit
record highs across the last year.
A spokesperson for The Metals Company said in a statement the firm had
no unfair advantages, and is well-poised to address the strategic
priorities of the U.S. after 15 years of preparation and testing.
Barron got his start in deep-sea mining as an investor of a company,
Nautilus Minerals, which won a license from Papua New Guinea for the
world’s first commercial seabed mining effort in 2011. But Nautilus
folded before mining began, leaving the government, which had a 15%
stake in the project, with more than $100 million in debt.
Tampa, Fla.-based Odyssey Marine Exploration has also signaled interest
in offshore mining. Odyssey formed in the 1990s with a mission to
discover sunken treasure and sell the artifacts for profit. The company
claims to have found more shipwrecks than any other organization in the
world.
But Odyssey ran into trouble in 2007, when it discovered an underwater
shipwreck littered with silver and gold coins that Odyssey brought to
the U.S. Later, the government of Spain said the wreck matched
descriptions of a Spanish naval ship sunk by the British in 1804.
Warships are immune to the claims of salvagers. Odyssey argued the
remains couldn’t reliably be identified, but after years of bitter court
battles, relinquished the treasure.
Amid the legal fight, the company pivoted to pursuing seafloor minerals.
There, too, Odyssey ran into controversy. The company’s subsidiary was
awarded mining permits in Mexico’s Gulf of Ulloa for a project that
would have dredged 7 million tons of mineral sands per year, operating
24 hours per day, according to Odyssey’s proposal, with a goal of
extracting phosphate for fertilizer.
But the Mexican government withdrew its support during its environmental
review out of concern the mining would disturb marine habitats and
threaten loggerhead turtles. Officials later argued Odyssey didn’t have
enough mining experience.
The company sought damages from the government of Mexico, winning $37
million in 2024 in arbitration, more than 10 years after it received the
first mining permit.
In December, BOEM announced that Odyssey had requested the agency begin
the regulatory process to consider mining off the coast of Virginia. As
in Mexico, the company is hoping to dredge coastal sands.
In a statement, an Odyssey spokesperson said the company carefully
selected the area to avoid sensitive marine habitats and shipping
traffic, and that dredging is an established tool for construction
projects and can be done safely.
This spring, the company said it will merge with and adopt the name of
American Ocean Minerals Corporation, which incorporated last year and
has applied for NOAA’s permission to explore for seafloor nodules.
Worry about environmental and economic harm
Out in the U.S. territories of the Pacific Ocean, another fight is
brewing over potential mining. The startup Impossible Metals has set its
sights on seafloor nodules in U.S. waters near American Samoa and the
Northern Mariana Islands, despite growing outcry from local residents
and leaders.
[to top of second column] |
In this photo provided by NOAA, a Parapagurus sp. crab with a coral
on its back walks across a field of ferromanganese nodules on the
seafloor of Gosnold Seamount, explored during Dive 16 of the 2021
North Atlantic Stepping Stones expedition. (NOAA via AP)
 American Samoa has banned deep-sea
mining in local waters, while a similar push is underway in the
Northern Marianas. Nearby Guam has banned deep-sea mining, too.
Republican House representatives from all three territories worry
their constituents will bear the environmental and economic harms.
But the final decision is in the hands of the federal government,
which controls U.S. waters beyond 3 miles from shore.
Impossible Metals boasts of being the most environmentally friendly
deep-sea mining company. Most mining machines are built to drive
along the seafloor, endangering the sea sponges, nematodes and
brittle stars that live among nodules. Impossible Metals is building
a fleet of robots that it says will float above the seabed and
collect only rocks that don’t contain marine life. The company has
offered island territories 1% of future profits.
Critics question whether the technology will work, and if there will
in fact be any profits to share.
Impossible Metals didn’t respond to the AP’s questions or requests
for comment. The company has said previously that it’s engaging with
local communities and is committed to building something lasting.
Still other companies are lining up for U.S. permission. American
Metal Resources and SeaX, both formed last year, applied for
exploration licenses that are under NOAA review.
Deep Sea Minerals Corp., founded in 2022, is publicly traded in
Canada and announced its application to explore for nodules in
March. The company recently issued a press release saying its
advertisements may have “overstated” the certainty of its future
growth. It does not yet have deep-sea mining rights or any
specialized marine technology, it said.
There are some early signs of discord: American Metal Resources and
The Metals Company have both sued each other, alleging the misuse of
confidential information.
No guarantee of profit
Deep-sea ecologists and ocean advocates have fought against seabed
mining for years on the grounds that the deep ocean remains vastly
under-studied, and that mining could extinguish its fragile life.
But a number of analysts and investors also question its economic
merit.
Of the four metals contained in polymetallic nodules, copper is the
surest bet to see sustained demand given the booming need for
electrical wiring.
But mineral forecasts, said mining consultant Lyle Trytten, “often
get a lot of attention when they’re very high, and then things
change.”
Five years ago, The Metals Company built its marketing on the
surging demand for metals to build electric vehicle batteries.
Forecasters projected global shortages and prices soared.
In the years since, battery design has evolved and no longer depends
as much on cobalt and nickel, leaving seabed mining companies with a
more subdued outlook on profits. Even highly-sought copper is
already being replaced in some industry sectors with aluminum.
Ian Lange, a professor of mineral economics at the Colorado School
of Mines, said deep-sea mining advocates seem to overlook the more
affordable and widely available sources of minerals on land. He
questioned whether demand is strong enough: Copper mines in Michigan
and Wyoming are fully permitted but inactive; a cobalt mine is idled
in Idaho.
“I personally am skeptical that what’s holding people back (from
deep-sea mining) is nonmarket things like permitting,” he said.
The Securities and Exchange Commission requires publicly listed
mining companies to assess the economic viability of their projects
in a document known as a pre-feasibility study.
The Metals Company did so last year, and forecast that it would
break even in its eighth year of commercial seabed mining – the same
year that it forecast the mineral reserves to be “all mined.”
“No one goes into a project saying, ‘In the best-case scenario,
we’ll break even,’” said mining consultant Steven Emerman. “Anyone
at my level would know to come to the conclusion that now is the
time to abandon the project.”
Unless the project expands, said Simon Jowitt, Nevada’s state
geologist and director of the Nevada Bureau of Mines and Geology,
“there’s not going to be any profit in the project.”
The Metals Company says it expects to find billions of dollars’
worth of seabed minerals after the project breaks even. But it has
yet to prove those additional resources are economical to mine.
Forecasting this way is unusual, Jowitt said.
Other experts, including Trytten and Emerman, said the company’s
forecast is overly optimistic, projecting high metals prices and low
costs. Trytten reviewed the forecasts at the request of an
environmental group, the National Ocean Protection Coalition, and
Emerman at the request of opponents to deep-sea mining, including
Greenpeace. Both said their analysis was independent.
The Metals Company said it had completed mining plans and seafloor
surveys for the first eight years of the project, and that the costs
of surveying, sampling and analyzing additional seafloor minerals
were best incurred once the project was underway. The company is
confident those resources will be minable, a spokesperson said.
It would take at least three land-based mines to produce the four
minerals that exist in seafloor nodules, the company said, and this
variety makes the project resilient to economic headwinds or
changing demand for metals.
Deep-sea mining companies will also face challenges around where to
process the nodules. Despite Trump’s focus on trade independence,
the U.S. currently has no major processing facilities for nickel,
manganese or cobalt.
Building these facilities on U.S. soil will take time and money – a
lot of it. “That is going to take some engineering and some
capital,” said James Deckelman, head of Deep Sea Minerals Corp. “But
there’s just so much support from the U.S. government right now, so
much momentum.” Indeed, the White House told AP it’s a priority to
expand domestic refining capacity.
Records show The Metals Company began lobbying around “financing for
domestic processing of minerals” early this year.
In the near term, companies will have to rely on existing supply
chains abroad. The Metals Company has thus far explored processing
in Japan, South Korea and Indonesia.
But reliance on foreign partners could raise a host of legal issues
for companies. Most other countries involved in deep-sea mining are
bound by their commitments to the International Seabed Authority.
Their governments, companies or citizens could be sued for helping
the U.S. tap the global seabed, said Coalter Lathrop, a legal expert
on the law of the sea.
It could be financially devastating to The Metals Company if foreign
companies cut ties. The firm relies heavily on the Swiss company
Allseas, which owns the deep-sea mining ship and designed the
deep-sea “collector vehicles” that would gather nodules from the
seafloor. In a statement, Allseas said it was committed to following
all national and international laws, and would deploy its technology
“only once we are confident that all relevant regulatory conditions
are satisfied.”
In a congressional hearing, Impossible Metals suggested the U.S.
government could smooth over some of these hurdles by purchasing
nodules for the National Defense Stockpile — a store of metals held
in reserve for supply chain emergencies.
Stockpiling the nodules would offer deep-sea mining companies “a
guaranteed buyer” in the government, said Oliver Gunasekara, the
then-CEO of Impossible Metals, in his January testimony. Not only
would it spur industry investment, he suggested, but the government
could profit in the future as metals prices rise.
Trytten, the mining consultant, disagrees. “If you can’t process it,
it doesn’t do you any good sitting there in a warehouse.”
A spokesperson for the Defense Logistics Agency, which runs the
national stockpile, said there was currently no plan to acquire
seafloor nodules.
Elizabeth Klein, BOEM’s director under the final two years of Joe
Biden’s presidency, denied a 2024 request from Impossible Metals to
consider a mining lease near American Samoa. She told the AP she was
concerned about local opposition and the suitability of current
regulations to a novel industry.
“You want to make sure that the operators are financially capable …
(that) they actually have the skills and the resources that would be
required,” Klein said. “The current regs don’t speak to much of that
at all.”
A spokesperson for BOEM said in a statement that companies
demonstrate their financial capability in the bidding process for a
mining lease, along with a required deposit. Current regulations
require BOEM to ensure the project is carried out safely and
responsibly, the spokesperson said.
Tony Romeo, founder of Deep Sea Rare Minerals, which changed its
name to Eco Minerals this week, isn’t discouraged by the naysayers.
Every new source of energy or metal requires some trial and error
before it becomes profitable, he told AP.
His South Carolina company got its start in deep-sea operations by
pursuing a personal obsession of his – scanning the seafloor for
Earhart’s plane. Now, the company is awaiting updates from NOAA on
its application to explore for nodules and is considering bidding on
mining leases near Alaska and the Northern Mariana Islands.
“There’s going to be some flops. There’s going be some failures.
Some businesses aren’t going to make it, but somebody will,” Romeo
said. He hopes his company will be producing offshore minerals by
2028.
By then, Trump’s second term will be in its final year. Company
executives are pushing hard for assurances that their projects won’t
be canceled by a future president who’s not as eager to mine the
sea.
At an industry conference in January, top officials at NOAA and BOEM
deflected when asked about what kind of certainty they can promise.
No one has a crystal ball, they said – but for now, they’re “open
for business.”
All contents © copyright 2026 Associated Press. All rights reserved
 |
