The Metals Company’s (TMC) shift to pursuing deep-sea mining permits in international waters under a 1980 U.S. law could lead to significant legal obstacles, according to Coalter Lathrop, principal and founder of Sovereign Geographic and a fellow at the Payne Institute for Public Policy at the Colorado School of Mines.
His open editorial, published on the website of Iceberg Research, a financial analysis firm known for its activist approach and short-selling reports targeting companies it deems overvalued or flawed, marks the firm’s third* critical piece on TMC.
geo365.no: Crushing report on TMC’s deep-sea mining plans
Lathrop critiques TMC’s pivot from seeking exploitation licenses through the International Seabed Authority (ISA), under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), to applying for permits from the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) under the Deep Seabed Hard Mineral Resources Act (DSHMRA) of 1980.
The Canadian company opted for this U.S.-based approach after years of frustration with delays at the ISA, which has yet to finalize its mining code for international seabed mining.
Lathrop argues that TMC’s new strategy is legally risky because a DSHMRA permit only protects against other U.S. companies, offering no international recognition. This lack of global legitimacy has stalled Lockheed Martin, the only prior NOAA licensee, from mining for four decades.
Although the U.S. is not a party to UNCLOS, Lathrop contends that authorizing TMC’s mining could violate customary international law. While the current U.S. administration may overlook this, a future administration might align with ISA standards, potentially halting TMC’s plans after 2028.
TMC’s reliance on foreign partners, such as Allseas (Netherlands/Switzerland), Pacific Metals (Japan), and Korea Zinc (South Korea), all based in UNCLOS-signatory countries, adds further risk. These nations are obligated to enforce UNCLOS rules, which require ISA approval for seabed mining. Partners could face legal actions for participating in TMC’s U.S.-backed operations.
Even if TMC begins mining and processing its ore, selling its metals could prove challenging. Lathrop points to UNCLOS provisions that prohibit selling seabed minerals without ISA approval, potentially barring TMC from markets in 169 UNCLOS countries.
This could render TMC’s metals largely unsellable outside the U.S. and a few non-UNCLOS countries, such as Venezuela and North Korea, severely limiting its commercial prospects.
While the company hasn’t officially responded to any of Iceberg Research’ reports thus far, CEO Gerard Barron posted on X, stating, “Iceberg Research is aptly named–many of their self-serving short calls end up underwater, and I predict Arnaud Vagner’s [Iceberg Research director] TMC short trade is headed for pain.” Barron also described the initial report as «full of FUD» (fear, uncertainty, and doubt), a term for spreading negative or misleading information to influence perception.
The CEO is not the only one to disagree with Iceberg Research and Coalter Lathrop.
TMC recently gained a vote of confidence from metals refiner Korea Zinc, through a 85 million USD strategic investment. Furthermore, TMC’s stock price has soared in 2025, suggesting market confidence in the company’s future.
*The day after Lathrop’s op-ed, Iceberg Research published its fourth critical piece on TMC: $TMC Korea Zinc will join a long series of blue-chip investors that have been burned by Nautilus