The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (“NOAA”) is “accelerating” its efforts to revive deep-sea mining, regulated in the United States under the once-dormant Deep Seabed Hard Mineral Resources Act (“DSHMRA”). We have previously discussed the recent developments and implications of NOAA’s actions.
On December 23, 2025, the federal government announced its receipt of applications from The Metals Company USA, LLC (“TMC”) to conduct exploration activities in international waters. On January 21, 2026 NOAA published a final rule consolidating the license and permitting process, which we discussed. On January 27–28, 2026, NOAA convened virtual public hearings to receive comments on applications submitted by TMC. This article examines the major categories of public comment presented during the hearings and participants’ perspectives on the NOAA application review process.
General Opposition to Deep-Sea Mining and Calls for a Moratorium
The dominant message of most commenters was strong opposition to deep-sea mining, with many explicitly calling for adherence to the existing international moratorium. Commenters emphasized their views that the science around deep-sea ecosystems remains incomplete and that proceeding in the absence of consensus poses what they describe as unacceptable environmental risks. Based on the limited present understanding of the deep sea, many commenters argued that it is impossible for NOAA to conclude that exploration (or recovery) activities would have no significant impacts on the environment, which is a threshold requirement before NOAA can approve a project under the statute.
Environmental Protection and Ocean Health
Related to the general opposition to deep-sea mining were marine environmental concerns, which was the most frequent theme of comments. Speakers argued that deep-sea mining would cause irreversible damage on ocean ecosystems, including the destruction of habitats that at least one commenter claimed took “millions of years to form.” One commenter made specific reference to emerging scientific research on “dark oxygen” production on the seabed, underscoring how deep-sea processes are not fully understood and highlighting how mining could disrupt fundamental biochemical cycles. Many commenters were also concerned about toxic discharges and sediment plumes generated by nodule collection, and the short and long-term impact that these plumes could have on marine life far beyond the mining site.
Still other commenters supported deep-sea mining in the name of environmental protection, arguing that deep-sea mining is environmentally preferable to terrestrial mining. They claimed that land-based mining enabling serious environmental and human rights abuses justified opening a new extractive frontier in the oceans. Some commenters also argued that deep-sea mining would improve scientific understanding of the deep sea because the prospect of commercial recovery would incentivize additional studies of the deep-sea ecosystem.
The Ocean as a Common Heritage vs. Private Profit
Another recurring theme was concern that deep-sea mining under DSHMRA represents the privatization of a global commons. Speakers emphasized that the oceans are recognized as the common heritage of humankind. Commenters claimed that allowing U.S. companies to extract minerals for commercial gain under a unilateral U.S. regime is incompatible with this principle.
Commenters also raised concerns about the impacts of exploration and mining activities on areas of importance to indigenous communities. They argued that many Pacific Islander communities place cultural and historic importance on areas of the deep sea, and that activity in these areas would adversely affect those values. One request was that NOAA engage with these communities before acting on any applications. This is unsurprising on two fronts. First, the United States has a framework for consulting with stakeholders over potential impacts to cultural resources that commenters want to maximize, even to its outer geographic bounds. Second, these concerns echo discussions the International Seabed Authority (“ISA”) has had with Pacific Islander communities as it develops its exploitation regulations, particularly around the need to identify and protect both tangible and intangible cultural heritage.
Domestic Benefits and Foreign Reliance
Commenters raised competing concerns related to the international implications of a U.S. commercial mining industry. Many commenters highlighted the benefits such an industry would create by helping to secure reliable access to critical minerals for defense and advanced technologies from domestic sources. Commenters noted this would help reduce reliance on economic competitors and provide benefits for national security. Some proponents argued that processing all polymetallic nodules within the United States would create domestic jobs, strengthen industrial capacity, and reduce dependence on foreign-controlled supply chains, all while spurring research and innovation at home.
Others raised concerns about whether exploration and recovery would perpetuate reliance on other countries. Some commenters noted that TMC relies heavily on foreign companies for technology, operations, and expertise, many of which are based in States that are parties to United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (“UNCLOS”) and therefore bound by the ISA’s regime. This raised questions about how TMC and any other U.S. applicant for a license could avoid compliance with international rules in practice, notwithstanding a choice to pursue U.S. approval under DSHMRA. Other commenters questioned whether the United States has the processing capacity to make use of these minerals, raising concerns that any minerals recovered by TMC would need to be processed abroad or, if imported into the United States, would be subject to tariffs, duties and other costs.
Legal Risk, ISA Areas Overlap, and UNCLOS Compliance
Some commenters raised the issues of legal uncertainty and international legitimacy and warned that any licenses issued under DSHMRA would likely be viewed as illegal by parties to UNCLOS. Several commenters raised concerns about security of tenure. One speaker emphasized that there is nothing preventing the ISA from terminating TMC’s exploration contracts (which partially overlap with areas covered by its applications to NOAA) and reissuing those same areas to another contractor. This risk is not unique to TMC: any company operating under DSHMRA faces uncertainty because the ISA could grant an exploration contract that overlaps with areas licensed by NOAA. Such scenarios would risk leaving U.S.-backed operations exposed to diplomatic disputes, legal challenges, and stranded assets, or could prompt NOAA to modify or revise an issued license or permit in order to avoid or resolve international conflict. Commenters cited this legal fragility as evidence that proceeding outside the ISA framework would, in their view, heighten rather than reduce, geopolitical and commercial risk for both the United States and its permittees.
Financial and Technical Readiness
Some commenters questioned the technical and financial viability of a deep-sea commercial mining industry. Commenters claimed that despite advances over the past several decades, much of the technology remains untested or speculative, which they suggest undermines the prospects of industry being profitable. Many argued that NOAA should require applicants to provide an enforceable financial assurance mechanism to ensure that applicants have the resources to carry out exploration activities and remedy potential damages, which other statutes and programs require, such as the financial assurances required for offshore development on the Outer Continental Shelf.
Criticisms of NOAA’s Review Process
Several commenters objected to how NOAA reviews applications, both programmatically and with respect to TMC’s applications. This included objections to NOAA using the comment period for the individual exploration applications as a basis for considering TMC’s consolidated application. They argued that the consolidated application demanded a separate, clearly defined public review process and that the existing comment period was insufficient to allow them to assess the consolidated application’s cumulative impacts, legal risks, and operational details.
Further, some criticised NOAA for not making all relevant materials available during the statutory 60-day public comment period, raising concerns as to whether these omissions violated NOAA’s obligations under DSHMRA. Speakers noted that only the final amended applications had been released, while underlying materials, including earlier versions of the application and supporting documentation (including correspondence between NOAA and TMC) remained unavailable. Some commenters paid particular attention to correspondence between NOAA and TMC, with speakers noting that they needed access to those communications to understand how TMC’s applications evolved and how substantive issues were addressed outside public view.
We will continue to monitor developments affecting deep seabed mining.
