US Streamlines Permitting Process
A deep sea mining accelerant

Today, the US government announced a groundbreaking new rule: deep sea mining companies can now apply for exploration and extraction permits at the same time. This is an update from the status quo, which has required an exploration process, involving research and testing, before an extraction permit can be considered.
The new rule was proposed last summer, with a comment period for the public to respond to the possibility. Now, it’s official.
It could bring commercial deep sea mining to reality more quickly. As of yet, no company in the world has been allowed to commercially extract from the deep seabed. Only exploration licenses have been granted. The US is aiming to change that, with streamlined permitting as part of the effort.
“Deep seabed mining is key to unlocking a domestic source of critical minerals for the United States,” said NOAA administrator Neil Jacobs in the agency’s announcement. “This consolidation modernizes the law and supports the America First agenda by enabling US companies to access these resources more quickly, strengthening our nation’s economic resilience and advancing the discovery and use of critical seafloor minerals.”
The new rule applies to US-led mining in international waters, overseen by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). It’s not yet clear whether similar streamlining will happen for mining in US waters.
Two companies have NOAA deep sea mining applications currently under consideration. The Metals Company (TMC) submitted three applications, for two exploration licenses and one extraction permit. Deep Sea Rare Minerals (DSRM) submitted one application, for an exploration license only.
The new rule doesn’t apply to earlier applications. However, TMC has already announced that it will resubmit under the streamlined process.

Combining exploration and extraction into a single permitting process is controversial, though. In theory, an exploration license is a yellow traffic light. It allows companies to proceed with caution, by researching the deep sea environment and testing how mining might impact it. Only if they show that mining can be done without serious environmental harm would they get a green light. But now, extraction permits can be granted before the exploration has finished.
(That said, I doubt anyone will be applying for extraction permits with zero exploration done. Some exploring is necessary to know if a site even has minerals worth extracting.)
According to NOAA, companies can now “capitalize on work completed by previous explorers or significant technological advances and lessen the need for further exploration.” However, deep sea mining is still an emerging industry, and the deep sea is still an understudied environment. There are valid concerns that doing less exploration will mean cutting corners, rather than taking the time necessary for responsible decision-making.
In the public comment period last year, many deep sea scientists critiqued the proposed permit consolidation for this reason. NOAA, however, did not listen.
NOAA’s response to the many critical comments it received on the new rule was lengthy, but often felt rather dismissive, at least to me. According to the agency, “there is a critical need for the US to obtain critical minerals from the deep seabed” which overrides concerns. (Personally, I think governments, like individuals, sometimes conflate “need” with “want”.)
But of course, companies can still take the cautious route of completing exploration before trying for an extraction permit, if they choose.

Very insightful post. I also want to reiterate your point that when governments grant bundled explore + extract licenses, they accelerate supply on paper, but at an economic cost. This approach removes the option value of waiting and locks in extraction rights before the true social and environmental costs are properly documented.
The result I believe is a shift in risk: mining firms face less uncertainty and so can invest more in this space, while the public and nature bear risk if impacts turn out to be larger than expected.
In mining reshoring debates, this trade-off is often understated but central.
Ugh! What happened to NOAA?!