Funding the UN: U.S., China, and EU Countries Fund About Two-Thirds, but U.S. is Withholding and China Owes Too: Russia and China Lead Disruptions of Human Rights Funding

  As the title of this post points out, the U.S., China, and the EU countries make up about two-thirds of UN funding in a normal year. The Trump administration has held back payments, seeking to apply leverage for UN reforms. I agree that many of those reforms are needed. The administration has pulled the U.S. out of several UN agencies. The UN’s extraordinary and irrational bias against Israel, which I wrote about here, remains a problem and is one of the main reasons for the U.S. withholding funds.

     Lottie Tellyn of GZero explains the recent Trump administration moves for UN funding

“On August 4, the Trump administration notified Congress of its intent to pay the United Nations $725 million – less than a fifth of the roughly $4 billion the UN says the United States owes in unpaid membership dues. It will also pay $125 million towards UN peacekeeping operations in Haiti and the Democratic Republic of Congo, although it was asked to contribute $1.5 billion to peacekeeping in 2025.”

    Secretary General António Guterres called the UN’s financial predicament an “imminent financial collapse” due to unpaid fees. It has cut its budget by 9% this year and continues to downsize its workforce. Tellyn writes:

“…the shortfall has left the UN struggling to fund human rights projects in 87 countries including Ukraine, Sudan, Gaza, Haiti, and the Democratic Republic of the Congo – last year, they observed over 1,300 trials, supported 67,000 torture victims, and helped release 4,000 people from arbitrary detention.”

     The U.S. accounts for 22% of the UN budget, and China accounts for 20%. The U.S. owes around $3-4 billion in unpaid dues, and China currently owes $455 million. Raphaël Viana David, a program manager at the International Service for Human Rights who researches UN funding, says that the U.S. and China are withholding funding to protest the UN not working in their favor. His research also found that China and Russia are blocking or cutting funding to UN investigations into human rights abuses, which they see as infringing on state sovereignty. The UN decides what each country must pay based on their economies. Factors including GDP per capita and debt burden are also considered. The U.S. has also stated that it wants to cut China’s influence in the UN. UN Committee for Contributions member Brett Schaefer noted:

“Budgets and contributions are often voted on by countries with little “financial skin in the game,” Schaefer said, explaining that “the obligations or the implications financially for those decisions are not necessarily distributed.”

     Tellyn explains the UN’s Article 19 provision that can strip the votes of those who don’t pay for two years:

“What can the UN do? The UN’s only real lever is Article 19 of its charter, which strips a member state of its vote if it owes more than two years’ unpaid fees to the regular UN budget, which excludes voluntary contributions to other UN agencies, such as UNICEF or the WHO.”

     The EU countries collectively fund 22.3% of the budget so as a bloc they are the biggest funders.

“What is the future of an organization where 42% of the budget is in the hands of only two countries, and those two countries are clearly seeking to wield influence?” Viana David asked. “Are we still, at [the] UN, one country, one vote, or is influence commensurate to your ability to pay?”

     As a result of the U.S. withholding general funding, and especially Russia and China specifically withholding funding from human rights investigations, the human rights arm of the UN remains underfunded. According to the International Service for Human Rights (ISHR):

“…the UN’s human rights pillar – the least funded of its three core pillars – faces severe cuts, with real-term reductions of up to 27% in 2025, and a tangible impact on human rights investigations and protection for individuals and communities on the ground.”

     ISHR notes in their report that China and Russia often work together at the UN to defund human rights:

“China and Russia’s proposals to cut resources for OHCHR or for HRC resolutions during 5C negotiations on the PPB or the HRC revised estimates demonstrate a targeted and nefarious effort to thwart human rights investigations and mechanisms that can play a powerful role in seeking to hold perpetrators of human rights violations accountable.”

     The table below from the report summarizes attempted blockage of human rights funding. Note that one attempt involves joint actions from the following countries: Belarus, China, Cuba, North Korea, Eritrea, Iran, Nicaragua, Russia, Syria, Venezuela, and Zimbabwe. With the possible addition of Myanmar, that is a list of the worst human rights abusers in the world, although Syria is no longer in the same category since Assad left. The graphics below that show more opposition to human rights issues led by Russia and China. While the U.S. and Israel have had specific rejections to human rights issues raised at the UN, it is Russia and China who have done the most work to oppose those human rights implementations.

    

 

References:

 

The UN’s “major donor syndrome”. Lottie Tellyn. GZero. August 27, 2026. The UN’s “major donor syndrome” - GZERO Media

Report: How States try to defund human rights at the UN. International Service for Human Rights. Report: How States try to defund human rights at the UN | ISHR

BUDGET BATTLES AT THE UN: HOW STATES TRY TO DEFUND HUMAN RIGHTS. International Service for Human Rights. October 2025. 20251020-O-ISHR-BudgetBattlesAtTheUN-Report-A4-EN-web.pdf

A Chemical Adsorption Heat Pump Integrated with a Novel Electrochemical Compressor Enables Waste Heat Recovery of Lower-Temperature Heat for Cooling

     Researchers from the Korea Institute of Machinery and Materials (KIMM) seem to have broken a barrier for the temperature at which heat can be used for cooling in heat pump systems. This is important because it ultimately means that more cooling can be generated with the same amount of heat compared to before. Excess low-temperature waste heat from data centers, for instance, is often discarded since it cannot be used for cooling, that is, until now. Low-temperature waste heat below around 40°C (104°F) is not hot enough to use for cooling (that seems a bit counterintuitive, but it is due to heat exchange).

     According to Tech Times:

“The Korea Institute of Machinery and Materials (KIMM) unveiled a chemical adsorption heat pump integrated with a novel electrochemical compressor — a combination the institute says has no commercial equivalent. A 10 kW prototype, manufactured by Samjung Tech Co., is undergoing demonstration testing as of this announcement.”

     They explain the 40°C (104°F) thermodynamic barrier for conventional adsorption cooling systems below:

“The challenge is thermodynamic. Adsorption cooling systems — a well-established technology for using waste heat to drive refrigeration instead of electricity — have a practical floor. Conventional adsorption cooling systems require a heat source above 70°C (158°F) to function. Below that temperature, the solid adsorbent material in the system cannot be regenerated effectively: it cannot release the refrigerant it has captured, so the cooling cycle stalls.”

     The system is a combination of two technologies working together. KIMM developed the adsorption heat pump part, the module that extracts energy from low-temperature exhaust and converts it into cooling. Chung-Ang University developed the electrochemical compressor that drives the system's pressure cycle.

     During operation, a solid chemical adsorbent is cycled through two phases: adsorption and desorption. This part is similar to any other adsorption cooling system, except that heat at a lower temperature can be utilized.

“…during adsorption, the material captures refrigerant vapor from the evaporator, creating a low-pressure zone that pulls the refrigerant to evaporate and generate cold; during desorption, the same material is heated by the waste heat source to release the captured refrigerant at elevated pressure, which then condenses and returns to the evaporator. In conventional systems, that desorption phase demands high-temperature driving heat — the adsorbent simply will not release its captured refrigerant at 40°C (104°F) with standard sorbent-refrigerant pairs. KIMM redesigned the adsorption bed to achieve stable desorption at that lower temperature, though the specific sorbent material used in the prototype has not been publicly disclosed.”

“The result: the new system successfully demonstrated cooling operation using waste heat at 40°C (104°F), approximately 30°C (54°F) below the threshold at which conventional adsorption cooling systems can function.”

     Conventional adsorption cooling systems require a heat source above 70°C (158°F)

     The other part of the system is the compressor, and this deviates even further from conventional technology. The novel design utilizes an electrical potential across an ion-exchange membrane to move refrigerant molecules without any mechanical action. It is based on an electrochemical approach pioneered in the 1980s by GE. In conventional refrigeration systems, the compressor's actions are mechanical, involving a piston, scroll, or rotary element that compresses refrigerant gas, generating noise, vibration, heat, and wear that requires lubricating oil and scheduled maintenance.

     In the system designed by KIMM, an ammonia-hydrogen working fluid is chemically reacted to produce ammonium ions (NH₄⁺) by DC current at the anode. The ions are then conducted through a perfluorosulfonic acid (PFSA) membrane. This is the same basic membrane architecture used in hydrogen fuel cells. The ions move from the low-pressure side to the high-pressure side. At the cathode, the ions are reduced back to ammonia gas at elevated pressure. The effect is basic mechanical compression where refrigerant gas moves from low to high pressure, except that it is accomplished entirely electrochemically, with no moving parts, lubrication, or frequent maintenance required.

     Electrochemical heat pumps have some clear advantages over conventional heat pumps, if the technical challenges can be overcome. According to a paper by DOE scientists:

“Electrochemical heat pumps (EHPs) offer a promising alternative to vapor compression systems by enabling direct electrochemical-to-thermal energy conversion, often with environmentally benign working fluids that exhibit low or zero global warming potential (GWP).”

     There are different kinds of electrochemical heat pump prototypes, including direct and indirect ones with different working fluid system types and closed-loop and open-loop versions. New innovations with different materials and components are being explored. Tech Times noted that the paper concludes that electrochemical heat pumps:

“…can achieve 10% to 30% higher energy efficiency than conventional vapor compression systems, with cooling coefficients of performance ranging from 3.5 to 14.3 under standard conditions. The same review identified the field's main barriers: membrane degradation over time, electrode fouling, and capital costs that remain higher than mechanical alternatives. It also noted a documented lack of prolonged closed-loop system testing — a gap that applies to the KIMM prototype as well.”

     One challenge for scale-up of the KIMM model is that the membrane area of the compressor requires larger membranes, which they are working on for a scaled-up version.

     KIMM emphasizes its world-leading adsorption-bed performance. According to KIMM’s announcement:

“The research team also redesigned the adsorption bed, the core component of the heat pump, achieving a specific cooling power (SCP) of 346.5 W/kg. This is more than twice the performance of comparable international technologies…”

     The electrochemical compressor is also noiseless and does not produce vibrations, unlike mechanical compressors, which makes it potentially usable in places like hospitals, schools, and residential areas.

     The 10kW prototype still needs third-party validation, especially to confirm KIMM’s SCP estimate.

     Tech Times:

“Commercial silica gel-water adsorption chillers typically achieve SCP figures in the range of 100 to 170 W/kg; advanced composite adsorbent systems in academic research have reported up to approximately 200 W/kg. KIMM's claimed 346.5 W/kg, if confirmed by independent testing, would represent roughly two to three times the performance of current commercial systems. That independent confirmation has not yet occurred — the figure is taken from KIMM's own press release, and third-party laboratory validation will be needed before the claim can be treated as an established benchmark. The team has produced 74 SCI papers and holds 29 registered patents through the project, indicating substantial prior research output from which the prototype emerges.”

     Greater energy efficiency means that more of the system can be powered by low-temperature waste heat and less by grid electricity, reducing energy costs going forward.

     Germany's Energy Efficiency Act requires new data centers to recover 10% of waste heat in 2026, to rise to 15% in 2027 and 20% in 2028.

     KIMM is currently still testing the prototype, and plans are in the works for a field demonstration as the next step toward commercialization.

     Tech Times emphasized three main challenges to commercialization: 1) scale-up validation – they point out that the heat exchanger design must be “re-engineered for higher mass flow rates; and the adsorption bed's thermal cycling behavior under continuous commercial operation has not been demonstrated.” 2) independent performance verification – this refers mainly to validating the SCP claim. 3) ammonia safety engineering – while ammonia has no global warming potential, it does have safety risks. It is toxic at high concentrations and flammable in air, and it could be dangerous in enclosed data center environments. Leak detection systems, ventilation design, and safety protocols will be required, which may add a bit to system costs.  

  

References:

 

Korean researchers crack waste heat cooling barrier with noiseless compressor. Roger Satterfield. Tech Times. August 5, 2026.  Korean researchers crack waste heat cooling barrier with noiseless compressor

Waste Heat Becomes Cooling Energy… KIMM Develops Next-Generation Heat Pump System: Demonstrates a heating and cooling system powered by low-temperature waste heat as low as 40°C. National Research Council of Science and Technology. Newswise. August 5, 2026. Waste Heat Becomes Cooling Energy… KIMM Develops Next-Generation Heat Pump System | Newswise  

A Critical Review of Electrochemical Heat Pump Technologies: Status, Challenges, and Perspectives. Mingjie Zhua, Elias N. Pergantisa,b, Junyoung Kimc, Chaoran Daia, Nelson Jamesd, Jinwoo Ohe, Aravind Babyf, Joaquín Rodríguez-Lópezf, Eckhard A. Grolla, James E. Brauna, and Davide Ziviania. U.S. Department of Energy. November 2025. A Critical Review of Electrochemical Heat Pump Technologies: Status, Challenges, and Perspectives

 

NuScale Fabricates Boron Pellets, a Component of Its Emergency Core Cooling System for its Small Modular Reactors (SMRs)

     Nuclear energy firm NuScale just succeeded in fabricating boron pellets for its emergency core cooling system (ECCS) to be used with its small modular reactors (SMRs). This is an important milestone along the company’s road to commercialization of its SMR technology. NuScale worked with advanced nuclear materials manufacturer MillenniTEK to develop the ECCS. The component provides an added layer of safety in case of reactor overheating. The ECCS system is designed to respond automatically. If activated:

“…the boron-oxide material dissolves into the reactor coolant, helping control the reactor’s core reactivity and keep it within safe limits.”

     According to Interesting Engineering:

“NuScale says the manufacturing milestone also helps establish the supply chain and production capabilities needed to build components for its planned reactor deployments. The company is developing its technology for applications ranging from electricity generation to data centers and industrial heat.”

     Boron is able to absorb neutrons and can reduce the number of neutrons available to sustain the reaction, resulting in cooling the overheating reactor.

“This first-of-a-kind fabrication milestone demonstrates MillenniTEK’s ability to support the advanced manufacturing needs of next-generation nuclear technologies,” said Steve Getley, MillenniTEK President.

“For NuScale, the work is also about demonstrating that specialized reactor components can be manufactured at the quality and consistency required for commercial nuclear projects.”

“NuScale’s technology is built on a commitment to safety, simplicity, and deployability, and this milestone reflects the continued progress we are making to prepare our technology and supply chain for commercial deployment in the near-term,” said John Hopkins, NuScale President and Chief Executive Officer.

     NuScale’s pressurized water reactor design is the only SMR design that has received design certification from the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Along with electricity generation for the power grid, the reactors could power data centers, district heating, desalination, and hydrogen production.

     The successful fabrication overcomes one of the new technology’s challenges: manufacturing needed components.

“The company {MillenniTEK} manufactures technical ceramic components by converting powdered materials into solid parts and also develops prototype components for SMR, microreactor, and space reactor applications.”

“The first boron-oxide pellets therefore represent more than a single component entering production. They are part of NuScale’s effort to establish repeatable manufacturing processes and a supply chain capable of supporting its reactors as it moves toward commercial customers.”

References:

 

First-of-a-kind boron-based component adds a safety layer to 77 MW small reactor. Neetika Walter. Interesting Engineering. September 1, 2026. First-of-a-kind boron-based component adds a safety layer to 77 MW small reactor

 

U.S. Uranium Production Triples but is Still Less Than Half of 2014 Levels: Demand Expected to Rise

     The EIA reported last week that U.S. uranium production has rebounded, tripling in 2025 to about 2.1 million pounds vs. about 0.7 million pounds in 2024. This is still far below the 2014 peak of nearly 5 million pounds.

     Uranium is produced as triuranium octoxide (U3O8) concentrate, also known as “yellowcake” due to its color. 

     It is the main component of nuclear fuel. Uranium ore is mined, then goes through a milling process to produce yellowcake. The yellowcake is then converted into uranium hexafluoride, UF6. After this it is made into pellets that are assembled into fuel rods for reactors.

     As the graphs below, made from EIA data, show, drilling footage and number of holes drill for both exploratory and development drilling is up. Exploratory drilling seeks new sources of uranium, while development drilling seeks better assessment of known sources.

     As the graph below shows, the U.S. purchases most of its uranium needed for nuclear reactors from Canada, Kazakhstan, and Australia, with domestic production coming in a distant fourth.

     Oil Price US summarized the EIA data and data on global stocks and forecasts and noted that:

“Uranium of U.S. origin accounted for 7% of deliveries, while Canada, Kazakhstan and Australia supplied a combined 75%.”

“Six facilities produced uranium during the second quarter of 2026: four in Wyoming, one in Texas and one in Utah. Five additional in-situ recovery plants were on standby at the end of last year, while seven proposed plants had combined planned capacity of 10.5 million pounds.”

“Overall, U.S. utilities expect to require as much as 360 million pounds of uranium through 2035. Existing contracts provided for maximum deliveries of 174 million pounds, leaving 186 million pounds of anticipated requirements without contracts. Utilities already owned 118 million pounds in commercial inventories at the end of 2025, which is enough volume for three years of reactor loading at the 2025 rate. The inventories allow utilities to defer part of their contracting.”

“Global reactor requirements also exceeded primary mine production last year, with inventories and other secondary supplies covering the difference. Mines produced about 60,000 tonnes, compared with reactor requirements of approximately 70,000 tonnes. The World Nuclear Association estimates that annual requirements would approach 200,000 tonnes by 2040 under its upper nuclear-growth scenario. But that’s only if reactors are completed on schedule.”

     The article also explains why uranium stock prices are what they are. Its more expensive on the spot market but the vast majority is purchased at lower rates through long-term contracts.

“Most uranium does not sell at the current spot price. Long-term contracts accounted for 87% of the uranium delivered to U.S. operators in 2025, at an average price of $55.91 per pound, while spot purchases averaged $76.01.”

“Producers receive prices set by agreements that may have been signed years earlier and can include fixed prices, market adjustments, floors and ceilings. Because of that, higher spot prices only reach earnings gradually.”

     To summarize the issue: Despite tripling its production this year, the U.S. still only produces 7% of its uranium domestically. Fortunately, it gets much of the rest from friendly countries. Reactor demand is set to rise considerably in the coming decade, so uranium production will likely rise as well.

 

 

 

References:

 

U.S. uranium production more than tripled in 2025 and was the highest since 2017. EIA. August 28, 2026. U.S. uranium production more than tripled in 2025 and was the highest since 2017 - U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)

Why uranium stocks are falling as US production triples. Charles Kennedy. September 2, 2026. Why uranium stocks are falling as US production triples

Domestic Uranium Production Report – Annual. EIA. Domestic Uranium Production Report - Annual - U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)

Yellowcake. Energy Education. Yellowcake - Energy Education

Marine Minerals: Types, Exploration, Development, Projects, Reserves, Mining Logistics, and Environmental Concerns

   

     The Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM), part of the U.S. Department of the Interior, assesses and manages marine minerals offshore the U.S. The U.S. Geological Survey and other marine minerals initiatives and research groups assess global marine mineral resources. The U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s (NOAA) Ocean Exploration program has mapped 3.5 million square kilometers of seafloor and has collected thousands of samples from the seafloor. Marine minerals are often referred to as seabed minerals or offshore critical minerals.

 

Types of Marine Minerals and Where They Are Found

     Deep-sea marine minerals are of three basic types:

1)        Seabed massive sulfides (SMS), also called polymetallic sulfides – these contain copper, iron, zinc, silver, and gold. These deposits are found at or near tectonic plate boundaries, including along the mid-ocean ridges and active volcanic arcs. They are also associated with hydrothermal vents, known as “black smokers.” They are found in the deep ocean under 2000 to 3000 meters of water. These ores will have some waste and tailings.

2)        Cobalt-rich crusts, also called ferromanganese crusts, or just crusts, are formed as minerals precipitate from seawater. These deposits contain iron, manganese, nickel, cobalt, copper, and rare earth elements. They form as coatings on bare rock, typically on topographic highs on the seafloor. They appear on the tops and sides of seamounts (mountains under the sea), usually in water depths of 1500-2500 meters. Crusts have very little waste and tailings.

3)        Polymetallic nodules, also called manganese nodules or just nodules, are found on the seafloor's abyssal plains. Their occurrence is more widespread. They contain manganese, iron, copper, nickel, cobalt, lead, and zinc, and lesser concentrations of molybdenum, lithium, titanium, niobium, and other minerals. They are typically found in water depths of 3500-6500 meters. They occur in distal parts of the ocean where there is no terrigenous sediment being deposited. They vary in size from micro-nodules to about 20 cm, the common size being two to eight centimeters. Nodules have very little waste and tailings.

     The BOEM’s Marine Minerals Program (MMP) leases sand, gravel, and/or shell resources from federal waters within the outer continental shelf. Some of these are other types of marine resources that occur nearer to shore than the marine minerals listed above. Dredged sand and gravel are used for beach replenishment and to address coastal erosion.  

 

     Global marine mineral occurrences are shown below.

Types of Nearshore Marine Mineral Resources

1)        Heavy mineral sands. These include sedimentary placer deposits of heavy minerals that occur within sand, silt, and clay, such as ilmenite, magnetite, rutile, monazite, and zircon. They typically occur in waters less than 200 meters deep.

2)        Phosphorites. These are derived from calcium-phosphate-rich rock composed of invertebrate shells, vertebrate bones, and at upwellings near continental shelves and margins. They include deposits of carbonate-fluorapatite and rare earth minerals. 

 

The Immature but Growing Marine Minerals Market

     In 2025, about twelve publicly traded companies are working in marine minerals, and the estimated global market value was about $18 billion.

     A market forecast suggests the market size will increase to $36.7 billion by 2036.

Marine Minerals Equipment and Infrastructure

     Company GSR has built a nodule-collecting vehicle called Patania II. The vehicle is on tracks like a bulldozer. It can operate 4500 m below the sea surface and has robotic technology and monitoring systems. It communicates directly with the surface via a 5km cable known as the umbilical. According to GSR:

“Patania II is equipped with four vacuum cleaner style collectors that use a jet water pump system to raise the nodules slightly off the seabed before sucking them into the collector tank. Here they are cleaned to separate them from sediment, which is returned to the seafloor. In the future, nodules will be brought up a riser pipe to the surface vessel where they will be transferred to another vessel and transported to land for processing.”

     Marine minerals collection for assessments and resource estimates involves the use of autonomous underwater vehicles (AUVs).

     In April 2026, American Ocean Minerals deployed its deep-sea mining research vessel the Anuanua Moana. It is focusing on U.S. regulated waters.

     There are operational challenges, including high costs, gaps in mapping, environmental mitigation, and the usual maritime logistics.

Marine Minerals Education, Training, Professional Societies, and Conferences

     The International Seabed Authority (ISA) has teamed up with China to develop a joint training center. The goal is to strengthen international scientific collaboration in support of the ISA Marine Scientific Research Action Plan and the United Nations Decade of Ocean Science for Sustainable Development. The U.S. is not a member of the ISA since it has not ratified the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), under which the ISA sits. Thus, the U.S. is not an ISA member and is not bound by its processes.

     The International Marine Minerals Society (IMMS) holds an annual meeting known as the Underwater Minerals Conference (UMC).

     Company Deep Sea Minerals Corp. participated in the 2026 Offshore Technology Conference, which is mostly a conference for offshore oil & gas exploration. They acknowledge that as marine mineral exploration proceeds, they will require the services of the offshore service industry. The U.S. Department of the Interior also participated in the conference, rolling out their plans for marine minerals lease sales on the exhibit floor.

 

Mapping, Resource Assessment Projects, and Licensing/Permitting

     Marine minerals continue to be mapped, and resource estimates continue to be refined. The USGS and NOAA have an ongoing American Samoa Abyssal Mapping project. As of mid-2026:

“Leg one preceded this effort and collected ship-based acoustic data. Leg two collected autonomous underwater vehicle (AUV) data and began before, continued contemporaneously, and finished subsequently to leg three.”

     They also continue to map around the world.

     There are companies working on getting licenses and permits to explore.

“In March 2025, Canadian mining company The Metals Company announced that, through a U.S. subsidiary (The Metals Company USA LLC), it had begun the process of applying for licenses and permits under the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's mining code, known as the Deep Seabed Hard Mineral Resources Act of 1980.”

     Since the U.S. is not an ISA member, it can circumvent the ISA permitting process and likely fast-track some mining developments.

     Some countries have supported moratoriums on marine mineral mining pending further environmental investigations. In the past, Germany, Canada, France, and other EU countries have supported moratoriums. Portugal passed a law banning the practice in its waters for 25 years.

     Company Odyssey Marine Exploration Inc. announced in November 2025 that it had submitted an Unsolicited Request for Lease Sale of Marine Mineral Exploration and Development Rights to the U.S. Department of the Interior’s (DOI) Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM). According to Seeking Alpha:

“The proposed lease area, located within the U.S. outer continental shelf (OCS) off the Mid-Atlantic coast, is highly prospective for heavy mineral sands rich in titanium, zirconium, rare earth elements (REEs), and phosphate.”

     The Metals Co (TMC) reported in May that its federal approval process was going well.

“U.S. regulators have found its consolidated application for deep seabed mineral exploration and commercial recovery to be fully compliant with federal requirements, marking a key step toward potential approval.”

“The company said it expects the regulatory process, including environmental review, to conclude by the end of first-quarter 2027.”

     As noted, American Ocean Minerals deployed its ship, the Anuanua Moana. According to Canadian Mining Journal:

“American Ocean Minerals is building a portfolio across the Cook Islands’ exclusive economic zone and US-regulated international waters, including the Clarion-Clipperton Zone and the Penrhyn Basin, with interests in two licensed exploration projects in the Pacific.”

     The U.S. has negotiated agreements for its offshore mineral acreage.

 

Environmental Considerations

     Oceans can be environmentally sensitive as many kinds of ecosystems and biological communities are present. Potential environmental impacts include species losses, disruption to ecosystems, and release of contaminants into ocean waters. The generation of sediment plumes and ocean noise are also potential impacts. According to the World Economic Forum:

“Sediments from mineral extraction and processing could clog and harm organisms’ respiratory, olfactory and feeding organs and tissues, and affect their behaviour, reproduction and survival. Suspended sediments made from mineralized seabed materials could release dissolved metals into ocean waters. Noise from extractive machinery could place physiological stress on biota, disrupt their behaviour and lead to effects such as geographic migration and changes in community composition.”

     They also emphasize that assessment of the potential environmental impacts of marine minerals mining is ongoing.

“The potential environmental effects of deep sea mineral exploitation are some of the most important considerations within a decision-making system for mineral stewardship. They are also the focus of a significant amount of current research. To assess the pace at which humankind’s knowledge of the environmental aspects of deepsea mineral exploitation will grow, the Ocean Science Expert Panel was consulted on the time required for scientific consensus to be reached in key knowledge areas.”

“Significant knowledge, participation and consensus gaps impede sound decision-making for deep-sea mineral stewardship – their closure should be accelerated.”

     Companies are in the process of collecting ecological baseline data in order to inform future operations. American Ocean Mineral Company (AOMC) is one company doing just that. According to Canadian Mining Journal:

“AOMC said environmental monitoring remains a key component of the company’s approach and said it has spent more than three years collecting baseline ecological data to support future mining license applications, including environmental impact assessments and feasibility studies.” 

 

References:

 

Types of Marine Minerals. GCE Ocean Technology. Types of Marine Minerals | GCE Ocean Technology

Marine Minerals: Overseeing the Responsible Use and Development of Marine Minerals on the OCS. Preserving and Restoring the Nation’s Coast. U.S. Dept. of Interior. Bureau of Ocean Energy Management. Marine Minerals | Bureau of Ocean Energy Management

Types of Relevant Marine Mineral Deposits. U.S. Dept. of Interior. Bureau of Ocean Energy Management. Types of Relevant Marine Mineral Deposits | Bureau of Ocean Energy Management

Publicly Traded Deep Sea Mining Companies: 2025 Guide. Farmonaut. Publicly Traded Deep Sea Mining Companies: A Comprehensive Guide

Marine Mineral Market: Global Industry Analysis and Opportunity Assessment, 2036 (Report Description/Abstract/Sample). Marine Mineral Market Size, Share & Forecast to 2036 | FMI

The Global Landscape of Mineral Resources: Abundance, Utilization, and Future Prospect. Andrew Smith. Medium. September 20, 2024. The Global Landscape of Mineral Resources: Abundance, Utilization, and Future Prospect. | by Andrew Smith | Medium

Harnessing Ocean Minerals: Exploring the deep to source the metals we need for the future we want. Global Sea Mineral Resources (GSR). (Website). Home - GSR

Introduction to Marine Mineral Resources. What are Marine Mineral Resources? GEOMAR Research. Introduction

Global Seabed Mineral Resources. U.S. Geological Survey. (Dashboard). Global Seabed Mineral Resources | U.S. Geological Survey

International Marine Minerals Society (IMMS). (Website). HOME | Intl Marine Minerals

Marine Mining. Donald W. Lovejoy. EBSCO. 2024. Marine Mining | Mining and Mineral Resources | Research Starters | EBSCO Research

NOAA Ocean Exploration: Advancing Understanding of Marine Critical Minerals. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). Office of Ocean Exploration and Research. NOAA Ocean Exploration: Advancing Understanding of Marine Critical Minerals - NOAA Ocean Exploration

Ocean Mining Intel. (Website). Latest - Ocean Mining Intel

USGS Publishes Samoa Basin Expedition Report Detailing Deep-Sea Mineral and Sediment Box Coring Results. Lauren Ernst. Science. 18 June 2026. USGS Publishes Samoa Basin Expedition Report Detailing Deep-Sea Mineral And Sediment Box Coring Results - Ocean Mining Intel

Deep-sea mining: What you need to know. World Economic Forum. September 12, 2025. What are the pros and cons of deep-sea mining? | World Economic Forum

Decision-Making on Deep-Sea Mineral Stewardship: A Supply Chain Perspective. WHITE PAPER. APRIL 2022. WEF_Decision_Making_on_Deep_Sea_Mineral_Stewardship_2022.pdf

What We Know About Deep-Sea Mining — and What We Don’t: Some countries and companies hope to mine the ocean's floor for valuable critical minerals. But this may pose serious risks for marine life and the planet. Oliver Ashford, Jonathan Baines, Melissa Barbanell and Ke Wang. World Resources Institute. July 23, 2025. What We Know About Deep-Sea Mining and What We Don’t | World Resources Institute

Odyssey Marine Exploration Files U.S. Offshore Critical Minerals Lease Sale Request to Advance America’s Resource Security. (Great Lakes Dredge & Dock Corporation (GLDD), OMEX). Seeking Alpha. November 7, 2025. Odyssey Marine Exploration Files U.S. Offshore Critical Minerals Lease Sale Request to Advance America’s Resource Security (2025-11-07) | Seeking Alpha

Deep Sea Minerals Corp. Participates in the 2026 OTC Conference in Houston, Texas. Press Release. Globe Newswire. Business Insider. May 11, 2026. DEEP SEA MINERALS CORP. PARTICIPATES IN THE 2026 OTC CONFERENCE IN HOUSTON, TEXAS | Markets Insider

TMC Seabed Mining Application Meets US Federal Requirements. Marine Link. May 1, 2026. TMC Seabed Mining Application Meets US Federal

American Ocean Minerals deploys deep-sea mining research vessel. The company is building a portfolio across the Cook Islands’ exclusive economic zone and US-regulated international waters, including the Clarion-Clipperton Zone and the Penrhyn Basin. Staff Writer, Canadian Mining Journal.  April 30, 2026. American Ocean Minerals deploys deep-sea mining research vessel  - Canadian Mining Journal

Odyssey Marine Exploration. (Website). Odyssey Marine Exploration