This episode is a joint release with journalist Elyse Hauser who publishes a deep sea related newsletter at Notes from the Deep.

Elyse prepared a number of the recent headlines that are worth noting in DSM news and was kind enough to come on and discuss them. Elyse’s commentary and links to the articles below.

Also, check out Elyse’s Deep Sea Mining Glossary for a summary on many of the terms and actors in the DSM space

Timestamps

(00:00) - Introduction to Deep Sea Mining News Roundup

(02:26) - US Involvement in Deep Sea Mining

(07:58) - The Metals Company and DSHMRA

(11:01) - Impossible Metals and BOEM Permits

(14:57) - Trump's Executive Order on Deep Sea Mining

(24:58) - US Congressional Hearing on Deep Sea Mining

(30:56) - Life after Loke

(33:55) - Kiribati's Shift in Partnerships

(38:16) - Moratoriums

(42:59) - Science Roundup

(48:25) - Worst headline award

Theme music: Tamarack by Jesse Matas

United States Turns Toward Deep Sea Minerals

* Two companies, TMC and Impossible Metals, are applying for DSM through US regulations. Meanwhile, a new US Executive Order calls for fast-tracking US DSM permitting.

* A news issue I’m seeing often: many articles state that both TMC and Impossible Metals are applying for NOAA permits, or that NOAA can permit US DSM in both national and international waters.

* In fact, NOAA is in charge only of the US international permits.

* BOEM is in charge of permits in US waters.

* The Executive Order clearly directs the Secretary of the Interior (BOEM is part of the DOI) to expedite “reviewing and approving permits” in US waters.

* This mistake appears in the New York Times, which states that the Executive Order directs NOAA to expedite mining permits “in both international and US territorial waters.” Same mistake in the AP: “Trump’s order Thursday directed the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration to fast-track permits for companies to mine the ocean floor in both US and international waters.”

* This mistake was repeated in smaller outlets, too. It seems some journalists either didn’t read the complete Executive Order, or read it and didn’t understand it. I haven’t noticed any corrections issued yet.

* Another common mistake: articles only stating the US wants metals for electric vehicles and the energy transition.

* While that demand certainly exists, the Trump administration is focused less on energy transition stuff, more on “national security” (competing with China, etc) and military uses. Many DSM news pieces leave this entirely out.

* Another issue: claims that DSM permitting is completely against the intended purpose of US agencies.

* BOEM’s stated mission is all about resource development.

* NOAA has leaned more toward basic science, but it is part of the Department of Commerce and does have a resource focus too.

* Next, there was the US Congressional Subcommittee hearing on DSM, which had TMC and Impossible Metals present.

* The man running the hearing, Congressman Paul Gosar, kept things feeling pretty wild, with many lengthy, convoluted tangents. (See one example at timestamp 1:42:25.)

* In contrast, the DSM folks and witnesses were fairly calm and straightforward, even as they tried to make sense of Gosar’s hard-to-follow style.

* Also, everyone (Impossible Metals, TMC, even Gosar) brought a nodule!

* A forward-looking point: possible legal issues for US/TMC/Impossible Metals. GeoExpro suggested that global markets/governments could reject TMC’s metals as “illegally sourced,” if TMC bypasses the ISA.

* William Yancey Brown in an Atlantic Council blog notes that DSHMRA (NOAA) and OCSLA (BOEM) both have standards against environmental harm, which the DSM proposals might currently be unable to meet.

* Andrew Thaler at Southern Fried Science (great DSM news source) brought up the Jones Act (part of the US Merchant Marine Act), which stipulates “that ships moving goods between US ports be ‘built, owned, and operated by US citizens.’” It could be an issue for TMC, as DSHMRA will require them to bring minerals to US ports, but they’re not using US ships/crews.

* Thaler also notes that with major cuts to federal staff, the US isn’t really in a position to expedite DSM, as the Executive Order calls for. (Quote: “the Federal Government lacks the human capacity to expedite anything.”)

* Next steps for Impossible Metals, per BOEM’s announcement: the “multi-step evaluation process” will include a public input step.

* Next steps for TMC: NOAA’s permitting process will also have a public comment phase. US followers may want to contribute to one or both. We’ll share those links as they become available.

Norway DSM:

* Loke went bankrupt but didn’t get much press. Questions arise as to what will happen to their exploration licenses in the CCZ.

* Greenpeace made a bid for Loke’s CCZ licenses, in a stunt that also didn’t get much press.

* Is Loke gone or will it arise again under a new banner? Perhaps not out of the game considering that “other bidders included Loke’s founders and the UK-based offshore technology company TechnipFMC, which has invested in Loke,” according to The Financial Times.

China/Kiribati DSM:

* Kiribati is considering a DSM partnership with China, following the end of its deal with TMC. This might be similar to the recent China-Cook Islands partnership, allowing the island nation to use Chinese tech/support as it explores DSM. Could all this lead to a China/US DSM face-off in the Pacific?

* Minmetals, a Chinese DSM company, just got the green light from ISA for DSM tests in the Pacific. The plan is to trial collector vehicles, so it’ll be interesting to see what the designs are (I’m guessing a crawler similar to TMC’s, but not sure). Tests are likely happening later this year.

Portugal and New Caledonia moratoriums:

* No DSM in Portuguese waters until 2050. A really good place for a moratorium, as there are really unique deep sea ecosystems, and minerals, around the Azores.

* New Caledonia, a French Pacific territory, instituted a 50-year moratorium (until 2075) on exploring/mining minerals in its EEZ.

Study 44 years after test mining:

* A study by the UK’s National Oceanography Centre and Natural History Museum and others, 44 years after a mining test, showed some biological recovery. The impacts/vehicle tracks were still clear, and the abundance/diversity of animals was still lower than before test, but some animals were recolonizing.

* Interesting that many headlines focused on impacts and not recovery.

* This study (and really, a lot things about DSM) feels kind of like a Rorschach test. Many people look at it and see what they want to see. What the study actually says is pretty neutral.

Seafloor imaging study:

* Study finds that 99.999 percent of the deep seabed hasn’t been visually imaged by humans.

* The study authors, and some press, note that this leaves knowledge gaps that could be issues for DSM. However, DSM interest is also responsible for some of the imaging done to date.

And the very worst headline:

* From Sustainability Times: “‘Deep Sea Mining Madness’: The Next Unstoppable Gold Rush Boom to Devastate Our Ocean’s Hidden Treasures and Unleash Unimaginable Wealth” – the article really wasn’t bad, but this headline sounds completely unhinged. Is AI to blame??

This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit tradingoff.substack.com