According to the LA Times and other reporting, the Dept. of Commerce (NOAA) 92-page draft review of California’s federally approved (1978) Coastal Management Program finds:
A “pattern of jurisdictional and regulatory overreach.”
“Unjustified hostility and political bias against offshore drilling opportunities, oil and gas projects broadly, and SpaceX’s launch activities.”
Among the corrective actions specified:
Meeting with SpaceX to discuss concerns about political bias and productive next steps.
Discussions with Sable Offshore Corp. regarding regulatory burden/overreach related to restarting offshore operations off the Santa Barbara coast.
Issuance of an official statement (by January, per reports) pledging that California will not categorically oppose initiatives related to certain industries (e.g., oil and gas) or activities (e.g., offshore drilling).
Future federal funding for the state’s coastal management program is described as suspended “unless and until the identified deficiencies are satisfactorily addressed.” State agencies were given a response deadline (initially around mid-November 2026; extension requested).
Legal, political, and administrative fireworks are sure to follow!
Presumably, existing Gulf State reefing programs and private initiatives for repurposing offshore platforms will be integrated into the new Federal program. Where State reefing legislation is unworkable (California), liability issues will have to be resolved. John Smith has made a proposal in that regard.
Full text of Section 6:
Sec. 6. Fast-Tracking Artificial Reefs and Habitat Creation. (a) Within 60 days of the date of this order, the Secretary of the Interior, acting through the Marine Minerals Administration, shall establish a Federal Outer Continental Shelf Reef-in-Place Program (Program) to facilitate the conversion of decommissioned offshore oil and gas and other-use structures, with the exception of infrastructure associated with offshore wind energy facilities, into permanent artificial reefs through reef-in-place, topple-in-place, or other approved reefing methods, where consistent with applicable law.
(b) The Program shall be available to qualifying offshore structures and leaseholders that satisfy all applicable statutory, regulatory, environmental, navigational, and safety requirements. The Secretary of the Interior shall establish criteria and standards for the program that ensure protection of navigation and national security interests.
(c) In establishing the Program, the Secretary of the Interior shall coordinate with the Secretary of Commerce, the Secretary of War, the Commandant of the United States Coast Guard, and the heads of other appropriate agencies to streamline interagency review and permitting to the maximum extent permitted by law, reduce unnecessary administrative delays, and promote timely decisions for qualifying reef projects.
(d) Within 120 days of the date of this order, the Secretary, acting through the NOAA Administrator, in coordination with the Secretary of the Interior, shall review and, as appropriate and consistent with applicable law, revise policies and procedures governing SUPs and other applicable authorizations for the placement and management of artificial reefs within National Marine Sanctuaries and Marine National Monuments. Such revisions shall seek to establish transparent and efficient permitting pathways, identify areas suitable for artificial reef development and other national interest uses, and enhance fisheries, recreational fishing, diving, and other compatible public uses.
3/5: final spill volume update: 750 bbls; volume reaffirmed on 3/17 and 2/26
reported cause: material failure in a section of the cargo transfer hose during a crude oil transfer between the offshore facility tanker
estimate of oil recovered: 655–664 bbls(>87%!)
Comments:
According to a Unified Command interview, the spill volume estimate was based on visual observations and estimates of the volume of oil recovered. Neither are reliable indicators of the volume actually spilled.
Was the volume transferred being metered at the vessel and LOOP, such that meter differentials could indicate the actual spill volume?
The spill was first observed at night. What procedures were in place for monitoring the transfer operation for potential leaks?
LOOP first reported a spill estimate of <100 bbls, subsequently increased to 300 bbls, and then 750 bbls.
The oil recovery estimate of 655-664 bbls is highly suspect unless the spill was much larger than reported. Recoveries >50% are unlikely for open water spills. (Typically <20% is recovered.)
How were the oil recovery estimates determined? Is data available on the total fluid recovered and water content?
NOAA reports that the spill response and repair were postponed due to hazardous offshore conditions. This makes the spill and recovery numbers even more suspect.
Ed Tennyson, a leading authority on oil spill response capabilities and a former colleague, was skeptical of oil recovery claims. When on-scene, he would ask to see the recovered oil and data on how the volumes were determined.
Hopefully, the investigation report will be timely and comprehensive.
“The objective of this rule is to provide the option for a consolidated application streamlining the process for qualified applicants.”
Reflecting on advances in environmental science, seafloor mapping, and offshore mineral-collection technologies, the revised rule allows qualified companies that gather the necessary site information to proceed to the collection phase. Deepsea mining is now more closely aligned with offshore oil and gas in that companies acquiring licenses are able to proceed to production after regulatory approvals.
The preamble nicely summarizes the opposition to the rule for environmental and jurisdictional reasons:
“General opposition to deep seabed mining was expressed for a variety of stated reasons, including, but not limited to the following assertions: effects on the environment; effects on seabed habitat and to marine species including undiscovered species especially in the Clarion-Clipperton Fracture Zone; harm to cultural resources and Pacific Islander livelihoods and beliefs; inadequate scientific research and information; inadequate resource protection measures and regulations; uncertainties regarding environmental impacts and a nascent industry; significant technical challenges to deep seabed mining; opposition to deep seabed mining from many U.S. states, countries, and global companies; that deep seabed mining is contrary to international agreements and efforts; the need for moratoria; that deep seabed minerals are not needed to meet U.S. demand for critical minerals and domestic sources and recycling of such minerals should be used instead; the U.S. needs to focus on building domestic refineries; using renewable and alternative resources rather than deep-sea minerals; and jeopardizing vital carbon sinks.”
“Commenters stated that acting unilaterally on deep seabed mining undermines the ISA (International Seabed Authority) process, international norms, global stability, and the rule of law, and that it could result in harm to protected areas, such as Areas of Particular Environmental Interest designated by the ISA.”
NOAA is touting marine aquaculture and has published Programmatic Environmental Impact Statements for Aquaculture Opportunity Areas (AOAs) in the Gulf of America and offshore Southern California. This is a positive step.
While the focus of these EIS documents is on distinct AOAs separated from oil and gas facilities, NOAA might also have discussed the potential for synergy with existing platforms. The reef effect of platforms can be sustained and new fishery ventures supported by converting older platforms to aquaculture facilities (Rigs-to-Roe/Redfish/Rockfish) rather than decommissioning them.
According to a paper published in 2014 by marine ecologist Dr. Jeremy Claisse of Cal Poly Pomona, the oil and gas platforms off the coast of California are the most productive marine habitats per unit area in the world. “Even the least productive platform was more productive than Chesapeake Bay or a coral reef in Moorea,” said Dr. Love. (Milt Love, UCSB biologist)
On August 11, 2025, TMC USA received notice of full compliance from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) on its exploration applications, and reconfirmation that TMC USA has priority right over both exploration areas
Both applications entered the certification stage in late July, which we expect to be approximately 100 days
In light of recent U.S. regulatory developments, TMC expects to commence commercial production from the NORI-D Area in the fourth quarter of 2027 if we receive a commercial permit before scaling to an average annual production rate of 10.8 million tonnes of wet nodules per annum (Mtpa) at steady state (2031 through 2043) production, with an expected 18-year life of mine (LOM);
Meanwhile, after missing deadlines in 2020 and 2023, the International Seabed Authority (ISA) again failed to deliver a Mining Code as communicated in their 2023 roadmap during the second part of their 30th session in July 2025. No new roadmap or new target date for adopting the final Mining Code has been agreed. The next ISA meeting is scheduled for March 2026. (Hence the importance of direct permitting through the US/NOAA.)
The attached petition from Save the East Coast Inc. et al requests that NOAA revoke the Empire Wind Letter of Authorization using the emergency authority delineated at 50 C.F.R. § 216.106(f).
This is a strong filing, but revocation would be difficult given the extensive development activity to date and the Administration’s decision in May to allow the project to go forward.
Remotely operated vehicle traverses over an extensive field of ferromanganese nodules that form the bulk of the hard seafloor substrate. Credit: NOAA.
The proposed rule is attached. Important points:
How can the US issue mining licenses in international waters (controversial)?
“The International Seabed Authority (ISA) regulates deep seabed mining in areas beyond national jurisdiction for countries that are parties to the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS). The United States is a non-party to UNCLOS. Under U.S. law, NOAA may issue licenses and permits to U.S. citizens in areas beyond national jurisdiction under the Deep Seabed Hard Mineral Resources Act (DSHMRA).“
Main objective of the proposed rule (paraphrased):
The deepsea mining industry has gained experience from site specific exploration activities. As a result, later entrants may be able to capitalize on the information gained by previous explorers and lessen the need for further exploration of previously explored areas. In such cases there may be a need for a consolidated licensing process in which permit applicants could meet exploration license requirements to establish priority of right, and permit requirements, simultaneously.
Comment: The proposed rule seems reasonable in that qualified companies that gather the necessary site information would have the right (after NOAA review and approval) to collect the minerals. This would align deepsea mining more closely with offshore oil and gas in that companies acquiring licenses would be able to proceed to production after regulatory approvals.
