Jan 6, 2025
Department of the Interior
Agency/Docket Number: No. BOEM-2025-0351
Document Citation: 90 FR 58052
Document Number: 2025-2833
Re: BOEM Request for Information and Interest — Commercial Leasing for Outer
Continental Shelf Minerals Offshore the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands
(RFI)
Precis
The following comments address the above-referenced notice to assess its conformity with
the policies established by Executive Order 14285 as augmented by the directives set out in
E.O.s 14215 and 14154. These Orders, together, seek to ensure that all agency actions are
consistent with Administration Policy and grounded in currently applicable law. Our conclusion
is that, as it currently stands, the proposed competitive leasing system described in the notice
these comments address is antithetical to the objectives of E.O.14285 and violative of the
principles set out in Orders 14215 and 14154. Similarly, NOAA’s proposal for “streamlining” of
its regulations for licensing and permitting of mining operations beyond the limits of national
jurisdiction, though well focused and intended, falls far short of the President’s objectives.
Intensive efforts to achieve the President’s objectives are clearly warranted, AI systems can
play a major beneficial role in keeping agencies committed to efficient achievement of
Presidential and Congressional objectives
Background
On April 24,2025, the White House published Executive Order 14285 –laying out a well
thought out policy framework to “accelerate the responsible development of seabed
resources….” Although the United States has long been the leader in development of
technologies for exploration and mining of the deep seabed and U.S. companies have
registered and proposed development of major claims, progress has been impeded by prior
administrations’ acquiescence in global efforts to declare the seabed “common heritage” and
subject its development to strictures predicated on that philosophy. The Executive Order
rejects the “common heritage “principle, recognizes the investments that U.S. companies
have made, determines that development is in the national interest and opens the door for
reinvigoration of a U.S. generated Deep Seabed Mining industry. It directs cognizant U.S.
agencies to do all within their power to “advance United States leadership in seabed mineral
development”.
Agency Implementation
Although the cognizant agencies, primarily Interior and NOAA, may be making a good faith
effort to implement the Order, it appears that entrenched bureaucratic imperatives, habits and
systems are slowing progress towards achievement of the Order’s objectives and limiting the
Agencies’ ability to efficiently achieve the goals the Administration has set for them.
On July 7, 2025, NOAA published, in Regulations.gov, a notice of proposed rulemaking
responding to the Executive Order by proposing modest revisions to its rules –allowing combined
applications for exploration licenses and mining permits and making other minor updates(1)
Over 23,000 comments, most of which expressed opposition to Deep Seabed mining in
general, were received. The agency is working through these comments to finalize the
proposed revisions, and, on October 28, 2025, NOAA sent to the White House a draft of the
rules it proposes to publish pursuant to the July 7 notice (2). In the interim, pursuant to its existing
regulations, the Agency is processing applications for exploration and commercial recovery
in areas beyond the limits of national jurisdiction of the United States. The issuance of these
authorizations will also be processed through Regulations.gov –with similar potential for
thousands of comments and resultant delays (3).
Interior’s efforts to implement the E.O. have been more ambitious but less successful. On
June 25th the Agency announced “new policy steps to speed up the search and development
of critical minerals” and promised “decisive moves to secure America’s leadership in critical
minerals … by cutting red tape and streamlining the approval process to ensure the responsible
development of critical minerals.” Unfortunately, this promising start was soon to be derailed
by BOEM’s effort to apply the competitive leasing model developed over decades of
experience with offshore oil and gas–to the process for registering offshore mining claims.
Competitive Leasing is inappropriate for hard mineral mining claims. Any attempt to manage
development based on that model will substantially impede the U.S.’ development of seabed
resources and be directly contrary to the objectives of the President’s Order.
Hard mineral mining has never been susceptible to development through competitive leasing.
That approach is feasible for oil and gas exploration and development because there is
existing information about potential reserves. Companies can make good estimates of a
parcel’s value, and this drives competitive bids in the oil and gas context. With hard mineral
resources, and particularly those which are offshore, both the geology and the prospects for
recovery are more complex, making it harder to assess value upfront. Explorers must select the
areas to be explored and bear the cost of exploration. Where exploration results in discovery,
the location and boundaries must remain secret until development rights are established
through simple registration or filing. BOEM’s current RFI approach would put on prospective
miners the burden of supplying information to characterize and assess the resource but then
use that information to support a competitive auction of development rights. That is obviously an
uneconomic proposition which will be unlikely to generate interest.
Further, the programmatic environmental review which is a critical element of BOEM’s oil and gas
leasing program, is incapable of addressing the wide variations in both target minerals and
recovery technologies which characterize offshore hard mineral mining. Environmental review will
necessarily involve case by case consideration and will take place much later in the development
process. In short, extreme challenges will face any effort to develop offshore hard mineral
mining through a competitive leasing approach.
The Secretary has authority to authorize mining on a case-by-case basis when he finds it to be
in the national interest. We understand that this approach has been used in responding to
unsolicited proposals for sand and gravel mining for beach restoration at various locations beyond
the limits of national jurisdiction and that the Department is currently negotiating pursuant to
an unsolicited proposal for mining of phosphorites off the coast of Virginia. Particularly since
President Trump has already determined that offshore mining for hard minerals on the U.S.
OCS is in the national interest, this case by case approach would seem to be a superior way,
and perhaps the only way, to effectively implement the President’s Seabed Mining order.
Summary and Conclusions
Mining Specific Issues: The following comments address the issues directly associated with
the Agencies implementation of the Executive Orders and the efficacy of the current
proposals in achieving E.O. objectives
1. The process which the cognizant agencies are using to obtain and assess public
comments on their proposals to implement E.O. 1425 is impossibly slow and totally
ineffectual in providing meaningful input to the agencies adopting the regulation and
informing the policy officials overseeing those efforts.
2. As a result, NOAA’s proposal, as it currently stands, is far less promising than it might
be as a means of promoting the Order’s objectives.
3. As it currently stands, BOEM’s proposal is likely to impose a practical moratorium on
hard mineral mining on the OCS of the U.S. and its territories—a result directly contrary
to the E.O.’s objectives.
4. As a further result, whatever development regime is eventually established is likely to
be too slow, ineffective and inefficient to challenge the International Seabed Authority
or further the objectives of the Executive Order. It would be totally embarrassing to find
that the U.S. suffers from the slowness that has long characterized the International
Seabed Authority.
Broader Policy Issues –The Agencies’ rulemaking approach both sabotages Administration
objectives and creates unacceptable delays– While we are hopeful that decision makers will
see these comments and resolve the specific mining-related issues which they point out, it
seems much more important to resolve problems with the rulemaking process which these
proceedings so graphically illustrate
Since the NOAA proposal has received over 23, 000 comments and the Northern Mariani
RFI 70,000, it seems obvious that AI analytics must play a major role in the Agencies’ decision-
making in these proceedings. The public needs to know when and how this will work and it
needs to be assured that the technology is being used in a proper and transparent manner and
that decisions made are properly informed. While the technology to accomplish this seems to
be in place and there is adequate legal authority for NOAA and BOEM to use that technology,
it is not clear that they are at this point using that authority or that their discussions with OMB
and the White House are informed by analytics.
Our informal analysis of comments received in the NOAA proceeding, using commercially
available systems, makes clear that the critical issues of security of tenure, rights to develop under
existing licenses and protection of rights to explore and mine have all been responsibly raised
in the NOAA docket. While we assume that NOAA is conducting a similar analysis, has
developed tentative responses and shared those responses with OMB and the White House, we
do not know that to be the case. If it is not, we are concerned that the ultimate decision
makers may be inadequately informed about the issues they are addressing and that the
Administration’s objectives may not be achieved.
Similarly, in the BOEM proceeding, we know that the issues of unsuitability of the competitive
leasing approach has been raised repeatedly, responsibly and persuasively, but we do not
know if responses have been developed or are being shared. Again, there needs to be
assurance that the deciders are properly informed.
What we can tell from our experience and our analysis of these two proceedings is that AI
can make and must make major contributions to our rulemaking process and our government
in general if we are to keep up with the pace of modern innovation and resolve the “slowness”
problem that seems to be pushing the world towards autocratic solutions. AI analytics of
specific data sets such as public comments on proposed can be magnitudes faster and better
informed than traditional analysis. They can engage the public and make it understand that it is
being heard. Most importantly, AI can let the Congress and the Executive know whether their
policies are being expeditiously and properly carried out. We need to encourage its effective
and transparent use in these two proceedings, but also beyond.
2025 Law and Policy, LLC
J. Gordon Arbuckle
2550 M Street NW
Washington, DC 20037
gordona123@earthlink.net
2025lawandpolicy.com*
*2025 Law and Policy is a for profit affiliate of the Blueprint 2025 Initiative—established by Norman Anderson in
the early days of Trump 1 with the objective, by 2025, of bringing the U.S. back to its rightful position as the nation
with the best, most innovative infrastructure. The undersigned, a co-founder of Blueprint 2025, was also lead
counsel to the OMCO consortium in its efforts to secure enactment of DSMRA, to secure exploration licenses
thereunder and to settle competing claims in the Clarion-Clipperton zones.
(1) We are aware that the comment period for these regulations has passed but there is no indication that the review
pursuant to E.O.s 14154 and 14215 has been completed. These comments are submitted in order to inform that review.
(2) Since NOAA has reviewed and posted only a small portion of the comments which have been submitted, it is unlikely
that suggested changes to make the system more viable have been taken into account. An effective system for timely
review and analysis of submitted comments would likely show that a good deal more can be done to fully implement
the directives in the E.O.
(3) Again, a method for timely review and analysis of comments submitted would mitigate this potential for delay and, at
the same time, better inform the Agency’s decisions.
Recent Comments