Mining Law 2026

1 Relevant Authorities and Legislation

1.1 What regulates mining law?

The U.S. legal system consists of many levels of codified and uncodified federal, State, and local laws. The government's regulatory authority at each level may originate from constitutions, statutes, administrative regulations or ordinances, and judicial common law (including case law from courts). The U.S. Constitution and federal laws are the supreme law of the land, generally pre-empting conflicting State and local laws. In many legal areas, the different authorities have concurrent jurisdiction, requiring regulated entities to comply with multiple levels of regulation. Mining on federal lands, for example, is generally subject to multiple layers of concurrent federal, State, and local statutes and administrative regulations.

1.2 Which Government body/ies administer the mining industry?

Federal and State governments have developed comprehensive regulatory schemes for mining. Although the United States is a common law jurisdiction, U.S. mining law often resembles mining law in civil law countries because the regulatory schemes are set out in detailed codifications. See, e.g., 43 C.F.R. §§ 3000.0-5-3936.40 (the U.S. Department of the Interior Bureau of Land Management (the "BLM") minerals management regulations). However, these mining law codifications are subject to precedential interpretation by courts pursuant to common law principles (and, in some situations, by quasijudicial administrative bodies). Similar to where the government's regulatory authority originates, U.S. mining law may originate from federal, State, and local laws, including constitutions, statutes, administrative regulations or ordinances, and judicial and administrative body common law. Determining which level of government has jurisdiction over mining activities largely depends on surface and mineral ownership. If mining in the United States occurs on federal land, the federal government usually owns both the surface and mineral estates. On this land, federal law primarily governs mineral ownership, operations, and environmental compliance, with State and local governments having concurrent or independent authority over certain aspects of land mining projects (e.g., permitting, water rights and access authorisations). The BLM manages disposition of minerals on federal land, and the surface-managing agency, in this case the U.S. Forest Service (the "USFS"), governs the surface effects of mining.

If the resource occurs on private land, estate ownership is a ma tter of State contract and real property law, although operations and environmental compliance are still regulated by applicable federal and State laws. U.S. property law permits the surface estate and mineral estate to be held by different owners (a "split estate"). Estate ownership on State-owned land is regulated by State law, and operations and environmental compliance are regulated by applicable federal and State laws. Although, some States permit local zoning ordinances to regulate mining. Land use of private land is a matter of State law.

1.3 Describe any other sources of law affecting the mining industry.

The General Mining Law of 1872 (the "GML"), 30 U.S.C. §§ 21-54, 611-615, as amended, remains the principal law governing locatable minerals on federal lands. The GML affords U.S. citizens the opportunity to explore for, discover and purchase certain valuable mineral deposits on federal lands open for mineral entry, and to locate mill sites for mining-related activities. Locatable minerals include non-metallic minerals (lithium, fluorspar, mica, certain limestones and gypsum, tantalum, heavy minerals in placer form, and gemstones) and metallic minerals (including gold, silver, lead, copper, zinc, and nickel). Locating these mineral deposits entitles the locator to certain possessory interests including:

1. unpatented mining claims, which provide the locator with an exclusive possessory interest in surface and subsurface lands and the right to develop the minerals; and
2. patented mining claims, which pass the full fee title from the federal government to the locator, effectively converting the property to private land – although a mining patent moratorium has been in place since 1994, and no new patents are being issued.

Other minerals on federal lands are "leasable" and are governed under separate statutes and regulations. The Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (the "FLPMA") (43 U.S.C. §§ 1701-1787) governs federal land use, including access to, and exercise of, GML rights on lands administered by the BLM and the USFS. The FLPMA recognises "the Nation's need for domestic sources of minerals" (43 U.S.C. § 1701(a)(12)), and provides that the FLPMA will not impair GML rights, including, but not limited to, the rights of ingress and egress (43 U.S.C. § 1732(b)). The BLM and USFS have promulgated the extensive FLPMA mining regulations (see, e.g., 36 C.F.R. §§ 228.1-228.116, 43 C.F.R. §§ 3000.0-5-3936.40). The National Environmental Policy Act ("NEPA") (42 U.S.C. §§ 4321-4370m-12) requires federal agencies to prepare an environmental impact statement ("EIS") for all major federal actions significantly affecting the quality of the human environment. In the first quarter of 2025, NEPA underwent its most substantive transformation in nearly 50 years as the implementation of NEPA regulations were addressed by Executive Orders from President Trump (aspects of which are discussed at question 9.1 specifically addressing these changes). Mining operations on federal lands or with a federal nexus will generally involve an EIS, or a less intensive environmental assessment ("EA"), examining their potential environmental impact. In the past, due to the significant consultation and public comment requirements of preparing an EIS, which generally resulted in a lengthy process involving many years, project proponents often choose to initiate their projects without using federal land or implicating federal approvals where possible. The required timelines for both the EA and EIS process have dramatically decreased with the implementation of changes made by these Executive Orders as described more below. The NEPA process traditionally also involved the consideration of other substantive environmental statutes.

The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (the "SEC") regulates mineral resources and reserves reporting by entities subject to SEC filing and reporting requirements, aiming to provide investors with "a more comprehensive understanding of the registrant's mining properties". The SEC's reporting classification system is based on the SEC's 1992 "Industry Guide 7", which provides for a declaration only of proven and probable reserves. On October 31, 2018, the SEC adopted new rules for its reporting classification system that were effective January 1, 2021, which can be found under Regulation S-K Subpart 1300. The newer rules require additional disclosures for mining companies, including exploration results, mineral resources, and mineral reserves bringing the SEC disclosure requirements more in line with the disclosure standards of Canada's National Instrument 43-101 and the Committee for Mineral Reserves International Reporting Standards. These rules require registrants with material mining operations to disclose information in their public filings regarding their mineral resources, in addition to their mineral reserves.

In September 2023, the Federal Permitting Improvement Steering Council (also known as the Permitting Council), which administers Title 41 of the FAST Act Program (Fixing America's Surface Transportation Act) ("FAST-41"), proposed to revise the scope of what constitutes a mining infrastructure project for eligibility under the FAST-41 permitting system to focus on those involving critical mineral projects and the critical minerals supply chain. The FAST-41 program was designed to streamline qualifying infrastructure projects' federal permitting review and processes by providing public transparency into the permitting process and coordination across federal agencies to reduce unnecessary delays. FAST-41 projects have, in certain instances prior to the changes imposed by the Trump Administration, resulted in the final permitting status being reached 18 months faster, which was significantly faster that those not in the program. Updates to the FAST-41 program are discussed in more detail in question 2.2 below.

In March 2024, the SEC adopted new climate disclosure rules that would require registrants to provide climate related disclosures in their annual reports and registration statements, beginning with annual reports for the year ending December 31, 2025. Applicable companies would have to provide details of its Scope 1 greenhouse gas ("GHG") emissions (direct emissions that are owned or controlled by a company) and Scope 2 GHG emissions (indirect emissions a company causes that come from purchased energy), but were allowed some delay for disclosure. At the time of the adoption, disclosure of Scope 3 GHG emissions (indirect emissions resulting from assets not controlled or owned by a company but are indirectly affected in the company's value chain) was not required. The SEC voted in March 2025, one year after its adoption of these new climate disclosure rules, to stop defending these rules, and so, at this point, these climate disclosure rules are currently not being enforced.

In June 2024, the District of Columbia Court of Appeals, in Earthworks v. U.S. Department of the Interior, settled a long dispute starting in 1999 with a BLM regulation that limited mill sites for mining claims. Mill sites are important for storing waste rock and tailings disposal. Under the GML, multiple mill sites can be located per claim so long as no mill site exceeds five acres. Originally, the BLM proposed that only one mill site could be claimed for each mining claim; however, in 2003, in connection with its Final Rule, the BLM ruled that mill sites may be "reasonably necessary" for "efficient...milling or mining operations". The 2024 ruling from the District of Columbia Court of Appeals upheld the BLM's Final Rule from 2003, stating that a mining claim can have more than one mill site as long as the mill site is "reasonably necessary to be used" for mining operations.

On May 27, 2025, the Supreme Court rejected an appeal by the Apache Stronghold to block a land transfer of the Tonto National Forest land, also known as the Oak Flats to Resolution Copper. The Oak Flats land is required for the Resolution Copper Mining Project in Arizona and the Apache group argues that the land is a sacred religious site necessary for ceremonies and other cultural practices. The Apache Stronghold filed suit in 2021 and has continued to argue, among other things, that allowing the transfer of this land will result in violation of its religious rights and practices under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. After the Supreme Court's rejection, on June 20, 2025, the USFS provided the final EIS and draft Record of Decision for the project, starting the 60-day clock for which the land transfer has to occur. On August 15, 2025, a district judge denied another request by the Apache Stronghold to block the transfer, which was set to occur on August 20, 2025. One day before this land transfer was set to occur, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals granted a temporary pause to the land transfer related to the USFS required environmental review.

2 Recent Political Developments

2.1 Are there any recent political developments affecting the mining industry?

The Trump Administration has been focused on spurring U.S. mining and critical mineral production and facilitating the processing of critical minerals in the United States, in efforts to reduce reliance on foreign critical mineral and processing capabilities. To further its goals, the Trump Administration has released a number of Executive Orders focused on the U.S. critical minerals sector and launched a Section 232 national security investigation into copper imports, which resulted in a 50% tariff on imports of copper. The first order released on January 20, 2025, titled "Unleashing American Energy", encouraged energy exploration and production, focused on making the United States a global energy leader in rare earth mineral production, and suspended many of the scheduled disbursements under the Inflation Reduction Act enacted in August 2022 (the "IRA") by the Biden Administration to aid green energy measures, such as government-provided tax credits, grants and loan programmes. In March, President Trump released the Executive Order titled "Immediate Measures to Increase American Mineral Production", which mandated several agencies involved in the permitting of mineral production to provide within 10 days of such order a list of all mineral production projects currently in the permitting phase, proposed addressing the treatment of waste rock and tailings under the GMA, required a listing from the Secretary of the Interior for new federal lands for mineral projects, and also required the U.S. International Development Finance Corporation and EximImport Bank of the United States ("EXIM") to develop proposals and programmes for the financing of domestic mineral production. This March Executive Order also very notably defined copper, uranium, potash, and gold as "minerals", all minerals that had been previously excluded from the 2022 Critical Minerals List. On July 4, 2025, President Trump also signed into law the One Big Beautiful Bill Act (the "OBBBA"), which phased out several of the IRA tax credits, grants and loan programmes. The OBBBA generally targeted reducing tax credits and funding programmes for solar and wind projects, but did also phase out some of the tax credits for certain critical mineral projects.

Finally, the proposed Mining Regulatory Clarity Act, under consideration by the U.S. Congress, but not yet enacted, is intended to "fix" the barriers generated by the Rosemont litigation (the assumption by the USFS of valid mining claims for the land planned for tailings and waste rock) by setting forth a process that would allow mine operations to use, occupy, and conduct "ancillary" operations on public land regardless of whether a mineral deposit has been discovered on the land. In the past Congress, the bill was approved by the House of Representatives, but not the Senate. It has been reintroduced in the current 119th Congress.

2.2 Are there any specific steps the mining industry is taking in light of these developments?

Pursuant to the Executive Orders mentioned under question 2.1, the Trump Administration has continued this trend of optimising the permitting review process through these Executive Orders, by mandating that federal agencies identify priority projects that can be immediately approved or for which permits can be immediately issued, and further to take all necessary or appropriate actions within the agency's authority to expedite and issue the relevant permits or approvals. The recent Executive Orders further directed agencies to select mineral production projects for the "Permitting Dashboard" established under Section 41003 of FAST-41, which required a 15-day turnaround from the Permitting Council to publish any projects selected as "transparency projects", by establishing schedules for expedited review. Prior to this mandate by the Trump Administration, there was only one mining project to receive FAST-41 coverage, the South 32 Hermosa Project (a zinc and manganese mining and processing operation). There are now more than 30 total mining projects that are involved in the FAST-41 program. Eight of these FAST-41 projects are considered "Covered Projects" and as such will be provided the benefit of a coordinated permitting timetable with active management by the Permitting Council; the remaining are considered "Transparency Projects" that are posted on the FAST-41 Dashboard in the interest of transparency for public visibility.

In response to the recent Executive Orders, under its Make More in America Initiative, so far in 2025, EXIM has now approved multiple financings for critical mineral projects in the United States, including a zinc project in New York, an antimony and gold project in Idaho, and a gold project in Nevada, and it is expected that this list of approved projects will continue to grow.

Further, as mentioned above, NEPA has substantially changed this past year, and with the amount of domestic and foreign investments into the U.S. critical minerals market, it remains to be seen how these NEPA changes will expedite the permitting process and ultimate timelines for these many U.S. mining projects, ultimately encouraging more investment domestically or internationally.

3 Mechanics of Acquisition of Rights

3.1 What rights are required to conduct reconnaissance?

The GML affords U.S. citizens the opportunity to explore for, discover and purchase certain valuable mineral deposits on federal lands open for mineral entry. The process for developing locatable mineral rights on federal lands under the GML involves:

1. discovery of a "valuable mineral deposit", which under federal law means that a prudent person would be justified in developing the deposit with a reasonable prospect of developing a successful mine, and that the claims can be mined and marketed at a profit;
2. locating mining claims by posting notice and marking claim boundaries;
3. recording mining claims by filing a location certificate with the proper BLM State office within 90 days of the location date and recording pursuant to county requirements;
4. maintaining the claim through assessment work or paying an annual maintenance fee; and
5. additional requirements for mineral patents (as mentioned above, there is a moratorium on patents).

Reconnaissance on federal lands with leasable minerals generally requires the issuance of an exploration permit or lease. Although the GML and the Mineral Lands Leasing Act of 1920 (30 U.S.C. §§ 181-287), as amended, require mine claimants, permittees and lessees to be U.S. citizens, a "citizen" can include a U.S.-incorporated entity that is wholly owned by non-U.S. entities or corporations. There generally are no restrictions on foreign acquisition of these types of U.S. mining rights through parent-subsidiary corporate structures.

3.2 What rights are required to conduct exploration?

Depending on the stage and extent of exploration work and the amount of ground that is disturbed, additional permits and licences required to conduct mining activities may include:

1. a mine plan of operations;
2. a reclamation plan and permits;
3. air quality permits;
4. water pollution permits (pollutant discharge elimination system discharge permit, storm water pollution prevention plan, spill prevention control and a countermeasure plan);
5. dam safety permits;
6. artificial pond permits;
7. hazardous waste materials storage and transfer permits;
8. well drilling permits;
9. road use and access authorisations, right-of-way authorisations; and
10. water rights.

3.3 What rights are required to conduct mining?

See the response to questions 2.1 and 2.2.

3.4 Are different procedures applicable to different minerals and on different types of land?

The GML governs locatable minerals, which include nonmetallic minerals (fluorspar, mica, certain limestones and gypsum, tantalum, heavy minerals in placer form, and gemstones) and metallic minerals (including gold, silver, lead, copper, zinc, and nickel). The Mineral Lands Leasing Act establishes a prospecting permit and leasing system for all deposits of coal, phosphate, sodium, potassium, oil, gas, oil shale, and gilsonite on lands owned by the United States, including National Forests. In addition, sulphur deposits found on public lands in Louisiana and New Mexico are leasable, as are geothermal steam and associated geothermal resources, uranium, and hard rock mineral resources. These same deposits found in some acquired federal lands, including acquired forest lands, are leasable under a similar statute. The Materials Disposal Act of 1947 (30 U.S.C. §§ 601-615), as amended, provides for the disposal of common minerals found on federal lands, including, but not limited to, cinders, clay, gravel, pumice, sand or stone, or other materials used for agriculture, animal husbandry, building, abrasion, construction, landscaping and similar uses. These minerals may be sold through competitive bids, non-competitive bids in certain circumstances or through free use by government entities and non-profit entities. Minerals on State-owned land are made available under the individual State's statutory and regulatory scheme.

3.5 Are different procedures applicable to natural oil and gas?

The Mineral Lands Leasing Act provides U.S. citizens the opportunity to obtain a prospecting permit or lease for coal, gas, gilsonite, oil, oil shale, phosphate, potassium, and sodium deposits on federal lands. The process for obtaining a permit or lease involves filing an application with the federal agency office with jurisdiction over the affected land. Depending on the type of permit or lease applied for, applicants may be required to:

1. pay rental payments;
2. file an exploration plan;
3. pay royalty payments based on production; or
4. furnish a bond covering closure and reclamation costs.

These permits and leases are often subject to conditions and stipulations directed at protecting resource values.

4 Foreign Ownership and Indigenous Ownership Requirements and Restrictions

4.1 What types of entity can own reconnaissance, exploration and mining rights?

Only U.S. citizens or U.S. companies can hold locatable and leasable minerals on federal lands, but foreign companies may form U.S. subsidiaries to secure such rights. States do not generally restrict the ownership of mineral leases based on the type of entity.

4.2 Can the entity owning the rights be a foreign entity or owned (directly or indirectly) by a foreign entity and are there special rules for foreign applicants?

U.S. mining laws generally do not restrict or limit foreign investment. Although the GML and Mineral Lands Leasing Act require mine claimants, permittees and lessees to be U.S. citizens, a "citizen" can include a U.S.-incorporated entity that is wholly owned by non-U.S. entities or corporations. There are generally no restrictions on foreign acquisition of these types of U.S. mining rights through parent-subsidiary corporate structures. The Mineral Lands Leasing Act, Mineral Leasing Act for Acquired Lands, and Reorganization Plan No. 3 require that the holder of a mineral lease or prospecting permit must be a citizen of the United States (30 U.S.C. § 181, 352, 43 C.F.R. § 3502.10(a)). Corporations organised under the laws of the United States or any State or territory of the United States may qualify to hold leases or prospecting permits. While foreign persons are permitted to be shareholders, the citizenship of the shareholders is significant. The country of citizenship of each shareholder must be a country that does not deny similar or like privileges to U.S. citizens (30 U.S.C. § 181 (such countries are referred to as "non-reciprocal countries")). Disclosure of foreign ownership is not required unless it meets the 10% threshold (43 C.F.R. § 3502.30(b)). Therefore, even foreign stockholders from nonreciprocal countries may own less than 10%. Foreign investments are subject to U.S. national security laws. The Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States, for example, is an inter-agency committee chaired by the Secretary of the Treasury that has authority to review foreign investments to protect national security and make recommendations to the President to block the same (50 U.S.C. § 4565). The President may exercise this authority if they find that the foreign interest might take action impairing national security and other provisions of the law do not provide them with appropriate authority to act to protect national security (50 U.S.C. § 4565(d)(4)). Foreign employees are governed by general U.S. immigration laws, and are required to obtain a work visa or other authorisation. A limited number of visas are available for skilled workers, professionals and non-skilled workers, but these workers must be performing work for which qualified U.S. workers are not available (8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(3)(C)).

4.3 Are there any change of control restrictions applicable?

The GML does not contain change of control restrictions.

4.4 Are there requirements for ownership by indigenous persons or entities?

The GML does not contain requirements for ownership by indigenous persons or entities. See the response to question 9.1.

4.5 Does the State have free carry rights or options to acquire shareholdings?

There are no carry rights or shareholding options under federal law, although production royalties are usually required on leasable minerals that are governed by the Mineral Leasing Act. In connection with President Trump's passing of the OBBBA, the royalty rate for coal was reduced from 12.5% to 7%. Many States charge royalties on mineral operations on State-owned lands, and charge taxes that function like royalties on other lands, such as severance taxes, mine licence taxes or resource excise taxes. These functional royalties can vary depending on land ownership and the minerals extracted.

5 Processing, Refining, Beneficiation and Export

5.1 Are there special regulatory provisions relating to processing, refining and further beneficiation of mined minerals?

There are no specific provisions relating to processing, refining or beneficiating mined minerals in U.S. law, except for general environmental laws and laws governing permitting requirements.

5.2 Are there restrictions on the export of minerals and levies payable in respect thereof?

There are currently no specific restrictions on the sale or export of extracted or processed minerals, unless deemed a national security risk by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security or State Department, but the Trump Administration has, as a result of its recent 232 investigation on the effects of copper imports, ordered a 50% tariff in place on the import of copper and derivative products. The Trump Administration has also, as a result of the investigation, authorised the Secretary of Commerce under the Defence Production Act to require, commencing in 2027, 25% of high-quality copper scrap produced in the United States to be sold in the United States and 25% of copper input materials produced in the United States to be sold in the United States, with such amounts to rise incrementally to 40% by 2029.

6 Transfer and Encumbrance

6.1 Are there restrictions on the transfer of rights to conduct reconnaissance, exploration and mining?

No, except that the transferee must be qualified to hold the interest. See the response to question 4.2.

6.2 Are the rights to conduct reconnaissance, exploration and mining capable of being mortgaged or otherwise secured to raise finance?

Yes, locatable and leasable minerals on federal lands can be mortgaged or otherwise used as security, subject to the underlying mineral ownership rights of the government. Leasehold rights in State- and privately owned minerals can also be used as security, subject to any restrictions in the lease. See the response to question 17.1.

7 Dealing in Rights by Means of Transferring Subdivisions, Ceding Undivided Shares and Mining of Mixed Minerals

7.1 Are rights to conduct reconnaissance, exploration and mining capable of being subdivided?

Under the GML, reconnaissance activities that do not cause surface disturbance can generally be conducted on any lands open for mining, and exploration and mining can occur after locating an unpatented mining claim. Unpatented mining claims provide the locator with exclusive possessory surface and mineral interests. Ownership of State-land minerals is controlled by State law and varies by State. State laws generally are similar to federal laws in that the title remains with the State until the minerals are severed pursuant to statutory procedures. However, land ownership in the United States can be severed into surface and subsurface estates, creating a split estate where the surface and mineral rights can be held by different parties. The ability to sever the unified estate depends on land ownership. Federal land mineral interests are regulated by federal laws and titles cannot be generally transferred to private citizens until the minerals have been severed. Under the GML, locatable mineral claims may be patented, transferring the title to the locator; however, as mentioned earlier, there has been a patent moratorium in place since 1994. Severance of private land estates is governed by State law, and, generally, private citizens are free to split their surface and mineral estates. Once the mineral estate is severed and enters the private market, the title to the minerals can be bought, sold, leased or rented as a matter of contract and real property law, subject to reservations in the severance document and applicable laws. The federal government, particularly in the western U.S., may have reserved the mineral estate to itself when it transferred ownership of the surface lands to private citizens or State governments, which could affect the surface owners' ability to alienate the minerals. In some areas, it is common to have different minerals leased to different parties.

7.2 Are rights to conduct reconnaissance, exploration and mining capable of being held in undivided shares?

Yes, such rights may be held in undivided shares, and this is a common practice.

7.3 Is the holder of rights to explore for or mine a primary mineral entitled to explore for or mine secondary minerals?

Generally, the holder of a mining claim or lease for a primary mineral is entitled to extract from a claim/lease those "associated minerals", or secondary minerals, which may be economically recovered along with the primary mineral(s). Particular leasable minerals and minerals on State- or privately owned land are made available depending on the terms of the lease.

7.4 Is the holder of a right to conduct reconnaissance, exploration and mining entitled also to exercise rights over residue deposits on the land concerned?

Generally, the holder of a mining claim or lease may exercise rights over residue deposits on the land concerned. However, certain residue deposits may be subject to ownership by another party and may not be contemplated by a mining lease.

7.5 Are there any special rules relating to offshore exploration and mining?

Yes. There are special federal and State rules relating to offshore exploration and mining, depending on whether exploration and mining are taking place in State-owned or federal waters. Generally, the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act, 43 U.S.C. § 1331, et seq., provides the U.S. Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (the "BOEM") and related agencies with the authority to manage minerals on the U.S. outer continental shelf. Minerals may be offered for lease by the BOEM in accordance with federal regulations at 30 C.F.R. Parts 580–582.

In July 2024, the International Seabed Authority, an intergovernmental body based out of Kingston, Jamaica, which includes 168 Member States and the European Union (established out of the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea), met to negotiate a new Mining Code that will regulate deep-sea mining, but such code has not yet been fully negotiated.

On April 24, 2025, the Trump Administration released an Executive Order titled "Unleashing America's Offshore Critical Minerals Resources" with the goal of accelerating responsible development of seabed mineral resources, and it also mandated the Secretary of Commerce with the National Oceanic Atmospheric Association to expedite the process for reviewing and issuing seabed mineral exploration licence and permits in U.S. and international waters. The House Committee had a hearing shortly thereafter in which it announced that the BOEM's failure to lease areas within the Exclusive Economic Zones poses a heavy burden on seabed mining. On June 25, 2025, the Department of the Interior announced its new policy to bolster the U.S. offshore mining industry, which includes, among other things, instruction to the BOEM to streamline environmental reviews and extend prospecting permits from three- to five-year duration, and the consolidation of exploration, testing and mining plans into a single review by the BOEM.

To view the full article, click here.

Originally published by ICLG.

Visit us at mayerbrown.com

Mayer Brown is a global services provider comprising associated legal practices that are separate entities, including Mayer Brown LLP (Illinois, USA), Mayer Brown International LLP (England & Wales), Mayer Brown (a Hong Kong partnership) and Tauil & Chequer Advogados (a Brazilian law partnership) and non-legal service providers, which provide consultancy services (collectively, the "Mayer Brown Practices"). The Mayer Brown Practices are established in various jurisdictions and may be a legal person or a partnership. PK Wong & Nair LLC ("PKWN") is the constituent Singapore law practice of our licensed joint law venture in Singapore, Mayer Brown PK Wong & Nair Pte. Ltd. Details of the individual Mayer Brown Practices and PKWN can be found in the Legal Notices section of our website. "Mayer Brown" and the Mayer Brown logo are the trademarks of Mayer Brown.

© Copyright 2025. The Mayer Brown Practices. All rights reserved.

This Mayer Brown article provides information and comments on legal issues and developments of interest. The foregoing is not a comprehensive treatment of the subject matter covered and is not intended to provide legal advice. Readers should seek specific legal advice before taking any action with respect to the matters discussed herein.