#43 What DSHMRA Actually Requires Before Anyone Mines the Seabed; Brandon Tuck Explains US Deep Sea Mining Rules

DSHMRA has been sitting on the shelf for forty years and most people in the deep sea mining space still haven't read it. Brandon Tuck has; and his read is that the framework is significantly more protective than the international discourse gives it credit for. The no-significant-environmental-impacts standard isn't a policy aspiration; it's a statutory prohibition that is more onerous than NEPA requires. NOAA can't blindly issue a permit and move on. They have to make an affirmative finding, backed by a draft EIS, a final EIS, public hearings, and responses to comments. The overall process and substantive standards are more than most US domestic permitting programs require. The "wild west" framing isn't just wrong, Brandon argues. It's the opposite of what the statute actually demands.

What most people in the room at Bergen or at any ISA meeting probably don't know: DSHMRA was written with a revenue-sharing trust fund built in, designed to transfer royalties to an international body once the US entered a Law of the Sea treaty. It never got funded. It expired. But the architecture is still there in the statute, and Trump's 2025 executive order quietly directs agencies to study reviving an international benefit-sharing mechanism. Brandon also maps out what the first commercial recovery permit will actually trigger legally — not just a DSHMRA challenge, but simultaneous exposure across ESA consultations, Marine Mammal Protection Act actions, port permits, and onshore processing approvals. Every link in the supply chain is a litigation target, and the groups that come after it may not even care about the project itself.

Follow Brandon

LinkedIn— https://www.linkedin.com/in/brandontuck/

Follow Vinson & Elkins

• Vinson & Elkins Website (velaw.com)

• V&E Environmental Law Series (blog/articles)

• V&E Article: ‘One International Step Back, and a National Step Forward’ (ISA + NOAA update — co-authored by Brandon Tuck)

Chapters

00:00 — Introduction

01:32 — Is DSHMRA Actually a Blank Check? Brandon’s Main Argument

09:02 — What Makes a Good Permitting Program (And What NOAA Is Missing)

15:11 — DSHMRA’s Environmental Standard: Stricter Than NEPA

19:21 — Common Heritage, the Trust Fund Nobody Knew About & the Trump EO

22:29 — What a DSHMRA Permit Actually Gives You (And Doesn’t)

29:34 — The Consolidated Application Update: Efficiency or Shortcut?

40:21 — What Happens After a Permit Is Issued: TCRs, Monitoring & Enforcement

48:22 — Litigation Strategy: The Four Risks Every First Mover Faces

54:01 — The Waterfront Risk: It’s Not Just the Permit They’ll Attack

59:43 — Rule of Law vs. Popular Vote: How Brandon Navigates Controversy

01:08:02 — When to Fight, When to Collaborate

01:11:21 — Why Some Groups Don’t Actually Care About Your Project

01:17:02 — Recommended Reading & Where to Find Brandon

Resources Mentioned

• DSHMRA — Full Statute Text (30 U.S.C. Chapter 26) via Cornell LII

• DSHMRA Congressional Findings & Policy — Section 1401 (the ‘very first section’ Brandon recommends reading)

• Executive Order 14285 — ‘Unleashing America’s Offshore Critical Minerals and Resources’ (April 24, 2025) — White House

• National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) — Full Text via EPA

Additional Resourcs

• NOAA Deep Seabed Mining Page — Application Instructions, Final Rule (Jan 21, 2026)

• NOAA Final Rule: Revisions to Regulations for Exploration License and Commercial Recovery Permit Applications (Federal Register, Jan 2026)

• DSHMRA — Wikipedia Overview

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