The Two-Year Rule is Up – What’s Next for TMC?

The Metals Company (TMC) has never shied away from making bold declarations about its deep-sea mining ambitions. However, its self-imposed non-binding deadline to apply for a mining contract in international waters on June 27, 2025 reeks of desperation. With no actual regulations in place, growing international opposition, and a track record of missing deadlines, TMC is scrambling to create a false sense of momentum – banking on hype, not reality, to keep its mining fantasy alive.

The Two-Year Rule: A Move That Backfired?

At the heart of this reckless push is a controversial legal loophole known as the “two-year rule.” In June 2021, TMC’s sponsoring state, Nauru, triggered this rule at the International Seabed Authority (ISA), potentially forcing the ISA to finalise regulations for deep sea mining within two years. But when the June 2023 deadline expired without a completed regulatory framework, it left TMC with nothing but a technicality – one that it is now trying to exploit.

TMC has now set June 27, 2025, as its so-called “submission date” for a mining application. The goal? Create a sense of inevitability. By setting a deadline, TMC hopes to corner the ISA into discussing its application, all as it admits to placate the growing nerves among its investors. It’s a textbook case of corporate brinkmanship. But in reality, this tactic is likely to backfire.

Mounting Opposition: A Legal and Political Minefield

TMC’s plan has been met with strong resistance from ISA member states, many of whom have made it clear that mining cannot begin without finalised regulations. The company is bulldozing into a legal grey area, knowing full well that there is no clear process for approving an application when the rulebook is unfinished. This creates multiple challenges:

• Can the ISA even approve an application without complete regulations? The rules for assessing mining proposals will likely remain unfinished by 27 June, leaving it unclear how TMC can proceed without working regulations.
• There are potential legal grounds for countries to object to TMC being granted a licence. Many nations have already voiced concerns about rushing into deep-sea mining, and some have committed to moratoriums or precautionary pauses.

Far from forcing the ISA’s hand, TMC’s two-year rule stunt has only galvanised opposition. Since 2021, more countries have joined calls for a deep-sea mining moratorium, making it even harder for TMC to gain approval. The company hoped to strong-arm regulators into compliance – instead, it has possibly turned them against the entire industry.

A History of Broken Promises

If history tells us anything, it’s that TMC’s deadlines are made to be broken. CEO Gerard Barron has spent years selling the illusion that mining is just around the corner—only for reality to repeatedly prove him wrong.

As DeepGreen, the company insisted mining would begin by 2023. In 2021, that promise shifted to 2024-2025, and has been adjusting forward ever since.

For over a decade, TMC has been running on hype, not results. The reality is that international negotiations move slowly, and deep-sea mining remains one of the most contentious environmental issues today. 

No matter how much TMC pushes, trying to rush governments into action to save their own financial backside is unlikely to succeed.

What Happens Next?

With its June 27, 2025 date set, TMC hopes to create the illusion of inevitability. But in truth, it faces a long road filled with legal, political, and financial hurdles.

• ISA meetings in March and July will be critical in determining whether member states will even entertain TMC’s application.
• If resistance remains strong, TMC may be forced to push back its timeline yet again, just as it has done in the past.
• Alternatively, if the ISA refuses to approve an application without regulations, TMC could find itself tangled in yet another legal battle.

The deep-sea mining industry remains in regulatory limbo, and despite TMC’s best efforts to manufacture urgency, its June 2025 submission date is anything but a done deal. The company has spent years selling a future that never arrives – why should this time be any different?