[EXCLUSIVE] The Metals Company’s plans to extract minerals from the seabed and challenge the international order

The Metals Company has applied for three licenses from the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), as Climática has learned. Two licenses are for exploration and one is for commercial exploitation. If approved, the latter would be the first of its kind in the world. The company filed the applications under a 1980 law that remains in force, taking advantage of the fact that the United States has not signed the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS). Critically, the permits requested cover seabed areas that are not under U.S. jurisdiction.

The applications include a one-time license fee of $100,000, a fraction of the billions in profits that The Metals Company expects to earn. Furthermore, they ignore scientific warnings about potential ecological impacts. According to experts consulted by Climática, the plans fail to establish any effective mechanism for monitoring short-, medium-, or long-term damage, measures that are essential for operations of this type.

The company announced in April that it would submit a formal request to NOAA to accelerate its operations. However, this shortcut actually means a delay in the mining company’s timeline.

For more than a decade, The Metals Company developed several underwater mining exploration projects under the International Seabed Authority (ISA), using contracts sponsored by Nauru and Tonga in the Clarion-Clipperton zone (CCZ), an area in the Eastern and Central Pacific. Starting in 2021, pressure mounted on the ISA to adopt a code allowing commercial exploitation of seabed resources. However, this has not yet been achieved due to a lack of consensus within the Authority and growing international opposition, with more than 40 countries opposing the process. Facing the absence of a clear operational framework, The Metals Company decided to pursue an alternative route earlier this year.

The goal: mining the seabed by 2035

Climática has learned that the company seeks to establish a new roadmap for extracting minerals from the ocean floor until at least 2065. It is leveraging the Deep Seabed Hard Mineral Resources Act, a 1980 law that authorizes NOAA to regulate underwater mining in areas outside national jurisdiction.

The company has applied for permission to explore more than 78,000 square kilometers in the Clarion-Clipperton Zone. This covers areas where The Metals Company has already carried out exploration work in recent years under a ISA permit.

Additionally, it has also requested authorization to commercially exploit approximately 25,000 square kilometers (around 9,600 square miles) of that area. However, as Climática has learned, The Metals Company does not plan to begin commercial mining operations until at least 2035. This represents a significant delay in the mining company’s initial plans to start in 2025 with an ISA permit. The commercial license application submitted to NOAA would extend until the resources are depleted, that is, about 20 years, or until 2055.

The area contains an estimated 363 million tons of polymetallic nodules, small accumulations of metals abundant in the deep ocean. According to estimates included in The Metals Company’s previous studies in the area, these nodules could contain around 80 million tons of manganese, more than 3.5 million tons of nickel, nearly 3 million tons of copper, and around 300,000 tons of cobalt. The company expects to extract 1.5 million tons of nodules in the early years, scaling up to a stable annual production of 10.5 million tons

The applications also outline parallel exploration work to be carried out in several undeveloped areas, covering a total area of almost 122,000 square kilometers (around 47,000 square miles). In these cases, the company expects testing to be less exhaustive citing anticipated operational experience, and to serve as a basis for obtaining a new commercial license beyond 2055.

These areas are under the jurisdiction of the ISA. Therefore, if NOAA grants exploitation licenses, it would challenge multilateral agreements signed by 169 countries declaring that the natural resources in these areas are the common heritage of humankind  to be governed by the ISA. Sandor Mulsow, professor of marine geology at Chile’s Universidad Austral and former director of the ISA’s Office of Environmental Management and Mineral Resources, highlights this conflict. 

“Legally speaking, there are no impediments now. The United States has not ratified the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea and is not a member of the ISA. And there is no country that will prevent them from doing so. It is the same colonialist abuse as always,” Mulsow adds.

NOAA has a maximum of two years to evaluate the applications. However, given the strategic impetus that the Trump administration intends to give to underwater mining (outlined in the Unleashing America’s Offshore Critical Minerals and Resources executive order), the review will likely conclude sooner. Climática attempted to contact NOAA for details but the agency declined to provide information, citing confidentiality. Similarly, we attempted to contact The Metals Company on six occasions to verify this information and learn the company’s perspective, but received no response.

Can a country and a company bypass the international order?

If granted, an authorization could set a precedent conflicting with future ISA decisions. It would imply that a non-signatory to UNCLOS could, under its own domestic regulations, authorize the extraction of resources outside its territory, opening the door for other states to do the same. However experts consulted by Climática suggest this is not a guaranteed outcome, and that unilateral actions raise more questions than answers.

“The fact that the ISA and member states have responded firmly to the threat of a possible unilateral seabed mining operation shows that the spirit of multilateralism remains intact and strong,” says Pradeep Singh, Senior Project Manager at the Blue Ocean Foundation and expert in ocean governance. “Early attempts to mine the seabed are likely to fail, especially if social opposition persists and most governments and markets do not accept minerals obtained in violation of international law.”

Market access raises significant questions. If commercial operations ultimately proceed, The Metals Company may lack a market for its minerals. “The Convention on the Law of the Sea stipulates that signatory states cannot allow any of their nationals, companies, or entities to engage in seabed mining activities outside the framework established by the Convention,” explains Emma Wilson, Policy Officer at the Deep Seabed Conservation Coalition. Therefore, The Metals Company could find itself in a bind, with access to the US market, but not to the rest of the world.

This would trigger other conflicts for the Canadian mining company. For example, the company providing The Metals Company’s ship is Allseas, a Swiss firm. “If Switzerland respects its legal obligations under the Convention on the Law of the Sea, at some point it will have to tell Allseas that it cannot continue its business relationship with The Metals Company”, emphasizes Wilson. A similar conflict could arise with Japan, also a signatory to the Convention, which hosts the company that will initially process the polymetallic nodules.

Legal and geopolitical risks were also highlighted in a report prepared by Caitlin Keating-Bitonti of the Congressional Research Service for the U.S. Congress, published last July. The report points out that the ISA holds jurisdiction over the exploitation area. It warns that unilaterally authorizing mineral extraction before international regulations are established could spark significant future legal conflicts.

The report also questions the consequences of abandoning global order for unilateral action by the most powerful nations, warning it could set “a dangerous precedent that could destabilize the entire system of global ocean governance.”

The ISA has also expressed concern about the possible NOAA authorization. It acknowledges that, as an entity, it lacks decision-making power over actions outside UNCLOS (to which the U.S is not a party). However, ISA member states can agree on legal and political actions to ensure that international regulations are upheld.

“The position of the majority of ISA member states during recent meetings, showing clear support for the ISA and the need to respect global ocean governance, indicates that there will be a clear response to unilateral actions,” sources at the organization explain. “And these response actions may result in political, diplomatic, reputational, or investment risks for mining operations.” 

A project with billion-dollar benefits

The Metals Company’s three applications fully align with the discourse and policy framework of Donald Trump’s administration. Presenting the project as essential for the security of U.S. industry and jobs, the company emphasizes that over 60% of its capital is U.S.-owned, as are most of its executives (which legitimizes it as a U.S. citizen, a key condition for applying for licenses under U.S. regulations), and it has committed to registering its main operating vessel under the U.S. flag. It even refers to the Gulf of Mexico as the Gulf of America.

However, The Metals Company will not be deploying a fully U.S.-based industry. The company acknowledges that during an initial period (of at least five years), the extracted polymetallic nodules must be processed in Japan, where it has an agreement with Pacific Metals, a metallurgical company. While plans include studying the development of a plant in the Americas, it will likely be established in Mexico.

Climática has verified that The Metals Company is applying for the three licenses under U.S. regulations in exchange for a one-time payment of $100,000 each. This amount pales in comparison to the estimated profits of the company: approximately $3.5 billion in annual revenue, generating around $2 billion in profits. Over 20 years, this totals more than $40 billion in pre-tax profits in exchange for $300,000 in licenses. Furthermore,those fees would be paid to the United States for resources located in international waters.

“In the long term, the ocean and its vital functions will continue to suffer unprecedented degradation, and humanity as a whole will pay the consequences,” warns Pradeep Singh. The major question is whether, as the United States moves forward unilaterally, the ISA can develop adequate regulations to reliably address the risks of large-scale underwater mining. 

“The current framework is weak. And I would say that US legislation on this issue is even weaker. Furthermore, we not only have to talk about the laws, but also about how we are going to enforce them. We are talking about an activity on the high seas that is going to be very difficult to control, an activity that has never been done before and whose consequences we do not know,” says Emma Wilson. 

What about environmental impacts?

In its NOAA applications, The Metals Company includes environmental impact data collected during its exploration and mining test performed within the ISA framework. Climática notes that this data comes from more than a hundred studies involving 20 scientific institutions. However, most environmental risks remain unresolved, largely due to the lack of knowledge about ocean floor ecosystems.

“Sedimentation at depth operates at a different pace. If you remove a 10-centimeter layer of sediment, you are eliminating 10,000 years of history in one fell swoop. If you remove 30, then 30,000 years. This means that you are exposing all living beings that use that environment to a substrate that has nothing to do, chemically or geologically, with what they are used to,» explains Sandor Mulsow. Furthermore, as scientific evidence collected by the Deep Sea Conservation Coalition and reports by JPI Oceans point out, we know very little about the deep seabed, and the true impacts of large-scale mining remain unknown.

What we do know does not inspire optimism. Disturbing sediments at these depths would alter an ecosystem that operates at a very different pace than the surface, which could cause species extinction. Additionally, polymetallic nodules are a habitat in themselves. Columns of suspended sediments could significantly impact marine biodiversity, from the depths to the surface, altering the underwater environment’s composition and nutrient concentration. The potential impacts of noise and light pollution are also unknown, as are the consequences on long-term carbon storage.

Finally, it is also unclear how mining impacts will be monitored if operations begin. The Metals Company proposes an internal monitoring system or one carried out by a team hired by the company itself, raising doubts about its independence. While the proposal allows for NOAA personnel to accompany missions, it is also unclear to what extent the ocean administration (under budgetary constraints following last year’s cuts), let alone the ISA, has the resources to effectively control mining activity.

For now, as confirmed by Climática, The Metals Company seems willing to bet everything on unilateralism after its plans with the ISA failed to materialize. However, most of the environmental, legal, and geopolitical uncertainties surrounding underwater mining remain, regardless of the U.S. administration final verdict.